[nitrogen]

You can even do this with things that are true, to discredit them. Then, when someone independently comes to the same true conclusion, their friends can robotically shut them down with "you are just repeating side X's talking points!"

[fallingknife]

Or it's been "debunked," like the lab leak theory (until it was rebunked a couple months ago).

[kube-system]

I think that is also a case of multiple different claims muddying the water, partly fueled by conjecture on social media.

There were (and still are) multiple “lab leak” theories that are in widespread circulation, ranging from “it is possible that there was accidental infection at a research facility” all the way to “it is a bioweapon”

The scientific community has always discounted the latter.

Also, science is evidence based, and so many scientists are (rightly) hesitant to make conclusions (and to support others conjecture) unless they have some sort of evidence to support it. China knows this, and knows they can avoid bad publicity altogether by limiting the evidence that is released. Scientists are not in a position to make political accusations in the absence of other information. “We don’t have any evidence to support that theory” is perfectly reasonable scientific statement, regardless of the political realities.

[peytn]

That’s a just-so narrative. Scientists can’t make political overtures and require evidence to draw conclusions, yet simultaneously are able to discount the weapons program hypothesis? It’s one or the other.

Anyway, one of the problems with media consolidation is that people don’t hear competing narratives, so whatever narrative a small group of people decide on is what ends up feeling true to people.

[kube-system]

I think if you looked at the specific questions that top US scientists were asked, the questions may have been political at times, but the responses have always been scientific and based on evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, although some have misinterpreted their responses to mean that. Science is a nuanced thing. Politics is a steamroller to nuance.

[MattGaiser]

> yet simultaneously are able to discount the weapons program hypothesis? It’s one or the other.

You can discount it from the lack of evidence. I can be considered again once some evidence is available.

[jakeogh]

Another tactic is just keep implying there is a lack of evidence, with vague appeal to authority independent of anything.