Scientists refute claims they were bribed, influenced to deny ‘lab leak’ theory

14 points by we_never_see_it 1 year ago | 9 comments
  • pjc50 1 year ago
    The lab leak theory is weird to me. Absent some remarkable discovery and a few defectors, even if it had happened, we're unlikely to find conclusive proof now. The virus has been studied enough to know that there are no "biomarkers". And if it was true .. then so what? What follows from that belief?

    It's also politically linked to an odd set of other beliefs - covid denial/minimization and anti-lockdown/anti-maskers. Are we supposed to believe "COVID was a Chinese bioweapon and therefore we should have done nothing about it"?

    • ben_w 1 year ago
      > What follows from that belief?

      I think what follows is "we need more resilient anti-leak protocols in the laboratories".

      The alternative origin hypothesis gives us "we need to change how wet markets work".

      I'd say "improve both" — but not with the expectation of placating anyone who fell into any of the conspiracy theories, nor anyone who just wants an excuse to blame China.

      • baja_blast 1 year ago
        The "biomarkers" bit is disinformation, for a decade we have had technology to allow for seamless edits to viral backbones that leave no trace behind. The only way anyone can tell the difference between a natural and modified virus is if they know the backbone. But there is a reason the scientists who wrote proximal origin paper were so focused on the furin cleavage site and their suspicions it was engineered and that is because these types of things are common practice.

        Here is the patent for the “No See'm” approach https://patents.google.com/patent/US7618802B2/en?q=(seamless...

      • RugnirViking 1 year ago
        It's seems like an extraordinarily bad idea to report on something like this. It's like reporting on a not guilty verdict, the effect is the opposite of what justice wants
        • mrangle 1 year ago
          That's the same as saying that it's a bad idea to report on any public denial of wrongdoing.

          If there is no reporting of claims of innocence, than the accusation tends to stand as their guilt in the public mind. At that point, we have a system of trial by media and politics.

          Society politicized healthcare, science, and academia decades ago. It has to live with those consequences, which will include suspicion of lies, lies, public accusations, and their necessary public refutation.

          In a future system, maybe society will arrive at a means to keep accusations private. Though, it has long moved in and even celebrated the opposite direction.

          One means of denying hysteria to false accusations would be to allow reasonable public discussion of both sides of any issue. In this case, the lab leak theory in general. In the case at hand the side denying the accusations, broadly speaking, prohibited that possibility.

          • woooooo 1 year ago
            The headline wording here is a conscious choice, it's extremely leading.
            • mrangle 1 year ago
              It seems clear to me.
          • rsynnott 1 year ago
            I'm not sure about this; the practical effect if you adopted this rule would be that if someone was to search for this, they'd find a bunch of conspiracy theorists claiming that scientists had been bribed (plenty of media has no concerns about amplifying conspiracy theorist stuff), with no refutation.

            Like, in an ideal world, these sorts of grand conspiracy theories which kind of rely on all the scientists in the world being in on it wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone, and could be left alone. But that's not the world we live in, and it's appropriate to give the people they accuse of stuff the right of response.

            • woooooo 1 year ago
              I think it was LBJ who said "I'll call the guy a pig fucker just to make him deny it".