I recall when a moderator here likened my view that Covid was the result of a lab leak to the belief that the moon landing was faked.
Sorry Vance but I couldn’t read the article without “subscribing” and that I refuse to do. (I get enough bogus “newsletters” as it is)
I am guessing that, like Aids, Covid was the product of human interference?
Conspiracy theory or not, it would not surprise me if it was.
Richard
I did not realize it would be behind a paywall.
The article describes how scientists misled the media and the public intentionally about the origin of Covid.
1 Like
The lab leak theory is still unfounded and unevidenced. The evidence I have seen still points to the wet market as the source.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03026-9
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00426-3
As @glipsnort mentioned elsewhere, the NYT opinion page is not a reliable source for epidemiology.
7 Likes
Many US intelligence agencies officially disagree.
Then they should present the evidence they are basing their conclusions on so the scientific community can judge it for themselves. Otherwise, all we have is their opinion. Science works from data, not opinion. Nullius in verba.
4 Likes
So do intelligence agencies. And they have access to more facts.
We don’t know that with respect to the origins of COVID. Data that isn’t made public is the same as data that doesn’t exist.
3 Likes
Sometimes. Sometimes they tell their bosses what they want to hear. They also have a pretty spectacular record of getting quite important things very wrong.
8 Likes
The author is a sociologist, not a scientist.
4 Likes
I don’t have a way past the NYT paywall, but judging by the excerpts I have seen it is a tempest in a teapot. It seems to be focused on some quote mines and innuendos, but no actual direct scientific evidence. It’s along the lines of the usual conspiracy theories, such as “it had to be a lab leak because they say mean things about people who support the lab leak theory”. The opinion piece accuses the Wuhan lab of having lax safety precautions, but that is again a matter of opinion. Having worked in a lab studying and growing viruses, it is almost guaranteed that you can find “lax” safety precautions in almost every BSL-2 lab. It should also be obvious that lax safety standards are not evidence for a lab leak.
4 Likes
Not.the.Bee had some interesting background on the NYT’s earlier positions.
Their earlier position was part of the suppression of information.
1 Like
“the almost certainty that the virus was made in a lab” This is at best very poor wording. The virus was certainly not MADE in a lab. It is a normal virus, and it is not useful. A very poor quality publication early on in the pandemic claimed to have evidence of artificial origin, but the analyses in question did not actually show anything unusual about COVID.
Whether the virus was brought into the lab and escaped from there, or whether it was brought into the market and escaped from there, is quite difficult to tell, especially with political authorities on both sides of the Pacific inclined to resort to propaganda.
4 Likes
Oh we have stirred up a hornet’s nest.
Even down to defining “made”.
Of course, we can’t possibly suggest that a scientist made such a catastrophic mistake. That would be an insult to the whole field of endeavour.
Perhaps we should move on to the subtle ways Scientists influenced Politicians during the pandemic and the resultant panic that ensued.
Richard
1 Like
When people play the persecution card it usually means they have no evidence.
If there is evidence for a lab leak I will be happy to trumpet it to the world. I feel no need nor inclination to protect any scientist if there was an actual lab leak. All that the scientific community asks for is evidence in support of the accusation.
What are you trying to say here?
2 Likes
What makes the current opinion piece the position of the NY Times? Unless it’s the editorial board writing, they generally offer a range of opinions.
3 Likes
I don’t recall saying that I thought that. Can you provide evidence that I did?
But, look at the evidence and history. The NYT was shamefully supportive of the claims that a lab leak was a lie.
Now they are not so naive.
Your statement “Not.the.Bee had some interesting background on the NYT’s earlier positions” implies a contrast with the NY Times’ current position, which could only mean the position you presented in your OP.
Good for the NY Times. While I wouldn’t call claims of a lab leak origin a lie, I would say that they are generally deceptive and almost certainly wrong.
3 Likes
You should not visualize your inference as my implication.
It is strange that you are so defensive on the issue of the virus origin. It is as if you feel a need to defend scientists you don’t know. Some aren’t perfect, and the threat of persecution by the Chinese Communist Party for any embarrassment can be a powerful incentive for hiding facts and destroying evidence.
Perhaps if you started by trying to imagine that there could have been a lab leak, the compulsion will not be so strong.