[bradleyjg]

I remember articles and quotes firmly rejecting the lab leak hypothesis and darkly implying that those championing the theory had a hidden agenda.

The considerations were:

— there were random attacks on Asians

- public health officials and scientists were worried about an anti science backlash

- virologists were really worried about a backlash against virology

— relations with China had not yet deteriorated to their current levels and government leaders didn’t want to antagonize them

So there was a semi-coordinated effort by government officials and the scientific establishment to put the lab leak theory beyond the pale. The middlebrow media either wittingly or unwittingly went along for the ride. Their readership ate it up.

[hotpotamus]

There were and are problematic elements of the lab leak people as well - I still see people (on this site) who claim that some or all aspects of the virus were synthetically created at the behest of Anthony Fauci. You may say I'm nutpicking, but I truly have a hard time determining what the lab leak theory is sometimes.

But my sense was that the agenda behind the lab leak family of theories was to lay blame at some human or humans for the events of the pandemic, which to me seems like a fairly futile endeavor. One of my questions for these people has always been this: say their darkest theories are correct; what am I supposed to do about that? It seems that the best course of action was to wear masks, socially isolate as much as possible, and get vaccinated and keep getting vaccinations as new strains appear.

[bradleyjg]

It’s one thing for nutjobs to push a bad theory for some whacky reason and another thing entirely for establishment figures to shade the truth in order to push a (positive!) agenda. We have so many nutjobs, in part, because of generations of establishment figures being dishonest for the greater good.

Lab leak was always a better theory. There were what hundreds? thousands? of wet markets across China and two bsl-4 labs. Given that the virus arose in a city with a wet market and a bsl-4 lab, the prior should be that it had to do with the lab and not the wet market. That could be overcome with evidence, of course, but it is not some out there idea.

What are you supposed to do about it? Maybe nothing. But if you are an establishment figure, certainly don’t lie about it and further destroy our society’s trust in experts.

[LorenPechtel]

Except for the little detail that this virus has been observed to make natural zoonotic jumps at least twice--and has infected other humans (probably *many* other humans) without appreciable onward transmission. It's an entirely reasonable thing for it to have happened once again. We simply don't need to involve the lab, so why blame it other than to bash China?

[hotpotamus]

Do you think all these establishment figures all had perfect knowledge of the origin of this novel virus and all chose a coordinated lie, or does it seem possible that this was all the process (which I'll note is ongoing and may never be complete) of figuring it out, which is indeed messy and happens over time and in public?

[bradleyjg]

I called it semi-coordinated and shading the truth above. I think they privately and in small groups decided to shade the truth or keep silent while their colleagues were doing so. All for “the greater good.”

Specifically, the talking point put out to the media that lab leak is highly unlikely is wrong and was unreasonable based on what they knew at the time.

I think that shading of the truth was arrogant and pernicious.

[freejazz]

Great point - let's just get people rabid over what we don't know for sure, that doesn't likely have repercussions that are at least as negative at all.

[bradleyjg]

There’s a short term benefit of not riling up people and a long term cost of destroying the public’s faith in institutions.

[hotpotamus]

When did this talking point that the lab leak is highly unlikely go out to the media, and from whom?

[FormulatedEdits]

Peter Daszak’s letter to the Lancet (prestigious British medical journal) on this matter is a very interesting rabbithole. Sadly it seems that most of the top of my search engine is filled with less substantial writing on this matter than I recall finding.

From the memory of this conspiracy-minded non-scientist:

- The signers declared no conflict of interest, but their lives would be made substantially more complicated and less lucrative by any increase in/scrutiny of biohazard control. One signer worked at or with the lab in question.

- The letter dismissed (VERY early and without any evidence to speak of) out of hand the possibility of a lab leak.

- The letter was picked up by the media and influenced public discussion and scientists’ opinions significantly.

According to the search I just did, Peter Daszak has recently been booted from investigations of this matter by the US government. He stands to gain and lose enormously depending on the future of virology research. This includes (iirc) the ‘ban’ on gain of function research, and the current loophole that taking an animal virus and changing it to be infectious to humans does not count as gain of function. There is much more to this story but that’s all I can remember with confidence.

Additionally, I would like to note that I’ve seen some solid-looking science tracing the outbreak to the wet market, but nobody seems to ever mention that lab workers have been (iirc) caught selling lab animals to wet markets in China in the past.

(Note again: I am not a scientist and I am conspiratorially-minded)

[giardini]

hotpotamus says >"You may say I'm nutpicking, but I truly have a hard time determining what the lab leak theory is sometimes. "<

Whose nuts are you picking? And, for God's sake, why?!

[coding123]

You know how you're driving and a person behind you gets in a turning lane but then continues to go straight anyway and then honks at YOU for getting in their way. And because you are the nice guy but knows they fucked up you don't raise a stink and honk back but you're still fucking mad as hell?