[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.

[freejazz]

I don't really think it destroys the public's faith in institutions, I think the people that are deadset on attacking institutions are destroying the public's faith in institutions by making badfaith arguments such as what we are discussing here

[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)