Embed Notice
HTML Code
Corresponding Notice
- Embed this notice> they were calling people speculating about it conspiracy theorists.
...they were usually conspiracy theorists. People who were suspecting some kind of ecohealth-WIV-CIA-whatever conspiracy *were* positing a conspiracy theory. And it turns out they were very likely wrong [the more groups involved the more wrong they were].
> I also don't understand how one day you can admit to constantly flipflopping and then conclude there's no evidence.
on early drafts of a report we should expect flip flopping. We could even expect it years after the fact.
> wouldn't you say after that "we don't think it's a lab leak" rather than "there's no evidence of a lab leak"
There wasn't good evidence either way for a long time.
> what was making them flip flop?
they weren't sure
> it's misleading to say there was no evidence as well because there was a mutation that was identical to an artificial mutation.
Yes, that was weak evidence, though even that one i think was taken at a great risk of texas sharpshooting.
> there are a lot of reasons even though other coronavirus have had similar mutations that this was unusual so saying "nothing" just sounds wrong.
the whole thing was certainly unusual, and china made things worse by not being transparent about it which to this day leads to some confusion