[jeegsy]

> This literally happens every goddamn time. Natural explanation is simpler.

NO it doesn't. Just because some theories LATER turned out to be wrong does not mean that we automatically dismissing this or that theory. It really doesn't matter if the "lab leak theory" is later on definitively discredited. To me thats not the point. The point is whether or not there was any justification for not only ignoring but actively removing it from discourse urgently as was done at a time when no one knew anything for certain.

[whydoyoucare]

Agreed - dismissing the lab-leak theory early on without conclusive evidence either way was certainly suspicious.

Any scientist worth his/her salt shouldn't dismiss any theory outright without having hard data to back it up.

[mbauman]

There are two things going on here:

- There's strong evidence that it's not bioengineered; scientists used very strong and convincing language here.

- There was initially hope of finding the zoonotic reservoir; scientists used couched language here to subtly detangle a natural virus vs. a natural virus that had adapted to passage in cell culture in a lab, and had priors assuming a zoonotic source would be found.

Guess which language journalists glommed onto.

[baja_blast]

Virologists have a bias against the lab leak theory because if true it would threaten their careers. If it's natural on the other hand they get a boost in funding.

It makes sense they are so against the idea, no one wants to be associated with/partially responsible for the death of 4 million + people worldwide, nor do they want to have their careers ruined.