> He says the lab leak theory is being used to create distrust in scientific institutions more broadly.
Can you really trust or distrust so called "scientific institutions"? There is no clear answer to this. There are many people who are doing really good work in these institutions and at the same time we know there are so many fraudulent research and research that have a clear conflict of interest.
There are really dangerous viruses out there in nature and on the other hand the so called "gain of function" research is creating their own set of dangerous viruses. How safe are these research labs? Can these be 100% safe?
> The researchers were able to pinpoint exactly which species were present in hotspots where the virus spread.
>The analysis doesn't prove the animals in those areas were infected. However, the proximity of COVID-19 samples to where their DNA was located means it's a strong likelihood they were carriers, according to the study.
Have they actually found these species carrying Covid-19? Otherwise, this evidence seems very, very weak to me. Perhaps someone can explain the implications and logic of this.
To me the important thing is they traced two separate infections. That makes it very hard to be a lab leak other than possibly by someone selling off animals brought in for research.
> "If you don't believe the lab leak theory, you're the enemy," he said. "It really is viewed as a truism, that it has been definitively established that the lab leak is the source and if you believe otherwise you're just simply wrong."
(He is saying this in the voice of someone he disagrees with... 'this is what they think.') What an insane load of horseshit. It was hammered over and over again that the lab leak theory was racist and bad, and it was "definitively established" many times over that the lab leak theory was simply too racist and bad to possibly be true.
Further, statements like this...
> He says the lab leak theory is being used to create distrust in scientific institutions more broadly.
are pure narcissism. The lab leak theory is there because it's an obvious one, and people (on 'both sides') prefer to believe the truth is on their side. Distrust of scientific institutions is a secondary consequence. The primary fight is over who is 'correct' or what the 'truth' is. But Caulfield prefers to insist that the entire reason someone would promote the lab leak theory is because they just heckin hate him and people like him so much, rather than it's simply the conclusion they find most obvious.
how do you even draw conclusions about something that happened years ago halfway around the world?
i get why it's a possibility, but is there really any evidence besides "it's obvious"?
because if not, it's better to just have no conclusion than going with your gut obvious one here. it's not like it's actionable - it's okay to not have any conclusion at all.
But I think you hit the nail on the point that “it is actionable”.
You argue any such conclusion is not actionable. But it is, and to make example, one can imagine that senators will be more circumspect in sponsoring labs to do this kind of work. If no one held the opinion, they wouldn’t care a hoot.
Is it a certainty? For sure it’s not. But having opinions is worthwhile.
> He says the lab leak theory is being used to create distrust in scientific institutions more broadly.
Can you really trust or distrust so called "scientific institutions"? There is no clear answer to this. There are many people who are doing really good work in these institutions and at the same time we know there are so many fraudulent research and research that have a clear conflict of interest.
There are really dangerous viruses out there in nature and on the other hand the so called "gain of function" research is creating their own set of dangerous viruses. How safe are these research labs? Can these be 100% safe?
> The researchers were able to pinpoint exactly which species were present in hotspots where the virus spread.
>The analysis doesn't prove the animals in those areas were infected. However, the proximity of COVID-19 samples to where their DNA was located means it's a strong likelihood they were carriers, according to the study.
Have they actually found these species carrying Covid-19? Otherwise, this evidence seems very, very weak to me. Perhaps someone can explain the implications and logic of this.
To me the important thing is they traced two separate infections. That makes it very hard to be a lab leak other than possibly by someone selling off animals brought in for research.
[dead]
Right.
> "If you don't believe the lab leak theory, you're the enemy," he said. "It really is viewed as a truism, that it has been definitively established that the lab leak is the source and if you believe otherwise you're just simply wrong."
(He is saying this in the voice of someone he disagrees with... 'this is what they think.') What an insane load of horseshit. It was hammered over and over again that the lab leak theory was racist and bad, and it was "definitively established" many times over that the lab leak theory was simply too racist and bad to possibly be true.
Further, statements like this...
> He says the lab leak theory is being used to create distrust in scientific institutions more broadly.
are pure narcissism. The lab leak theory is there because it's an obvious one, and people (on 'both sides') prefer to believe the truth is on their side. Distrust of scientific institutions is a secondary consequence. The primary fight is over who is 'correct' or what the 'truth' is. But Caulfield prefers to insist that the entire reason someone would promote the lab leak theory is because they just heckin hate him and people like him so much, rather than it's simply the conclusion they find most obvious.
"obvious"
how do you even draw conclusions about something that happened years ago halfway around the world?
i get why it's a possibility, but is there really any evidence besides "it's obvious"?
because if not, it's better to just have no conclusion than going with your gut obvious one here. it's not like it's actionable - it's okay to not have any conclusion at all.
But I think you hit the nail on the point that “it is actionable”.
You argue any such conclusion is not actionable. But it is, and to make example, one can imagine that senators will be more circumspect in sponsoring labs to do this kind of work. If no one held the opinion, they wouldn’t care a hoot.
Is it a certainty? For sure it’s not. But having opinions is worthwhile.