Tucker Carlson’s Depiction of 1/6

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I think initially it became a left/right issue because Trump said lab leak. So the media reflexively went the opposite way and didn't want to have to come around say "well he might have been correct". Not a valid reason, but then again I understand why.

But when Fauci said it was of natural origins and this is where is kind of gets into the weeds. Was Fauci being protected because he was the darling of the media and they didn't want to say anything to show he could have been wrong about something, giving the right something to pounce on.

Or was it more nefarious in that there is a possible link between the NIH's funding of gain of function research at the WIV and that would have looked really bad for Fauci. Again, media darling.

I also think there is a huge difference between a lab leak and the deliberate creation of a bioweapon.

I think initially there is an element of attempting to cater to those who need definitive answers when there are none, or at least not yet, and promoting action that should be the most helpful or least damaging. The source just became a third rail distraction and political football.

If there was an element of countering it just because Trump said it its because he tends to bring out the worst possible response from his supporters. 1/6 anyone? He doesn’t care about the truth. All he cares about is creating a blanket enemy people can target.

 

[Citysnaps]

All he cares about is creating a blanket enemy people can target.

So true. trump's a master in getting people stirred up and ready for conflict. And desantis has been an excellent student adopting the same strategy.

 

[Alli]

Personally, I don’t need a definitive answer to where it started. In the end, does it really matter? We know that some of the best discoveries have been accidental (penicillin, Velcro), so it stands to reason there are a lot of accidents that have been the opposite as far as their benefits to humanity. And we rarely hear about them.

 

[AG_PhamD]

Were the above reports editorial or news backed with facts? The times I've seen Fauci comment, including today, it has always been couched with possibilities/conjecture along not having enough information, and keeping an open mind. Which for me seems appropriate.

Regarding evidence and how it is used... Since the Chinese apparently are not cooperating in providing information about the source, and the US government hasn't weighed in (though I'm very confident they know exactly how the virus was created/released/propagated), I don't understand where this "evidence" could come from or be relied upon. Thus no evidence seems appropriate. Unless people want to make stuff up and call it evidence.

I'm not sure what MSM is, but are they in a position to have in their possession solid information/facts that can be relied upon and traced back to specific individuals in order to have crafted an accurate determination - assuming they have an appropriate (degreed) science/medical background to make such an accurate assessment? If so, where did this cache of reliable information/facts come from?

There is potentially evidence in the genome of the virus, which different people have different opinions on. You also have circumstantial evidence, much of which leads towards a lab leak especially when you ask why such actions were made, but there is also some circumstantial evidence for a natural origin.

I would not be surprised if the government knew what happened that they are keeping behind closed doors. I suspect China knows what happened but do not expect them to cooperate and thus I have little faith we will ever know exactly what happened.

I don’t think we need to play the game of willful ignorance about what the mainstream media is. Going back to my original point, the MSM can decide which voices in the scientific community they bolster and which ones they ignore. There were many legitimate scientists who believed the lab leak should be kept on the table but were ostracized and ignored and therefore not comfortable voicing their opinion. All of the MSM reporting pretty much revolves around Fauci snd Peter Daszak, two researchers out of many.

I know several prominent progressive outlets that have always kept the lab leak on the table who also now feel that has definitively been stated as the cause just because a government agency has said it’s their opinion. As you mentioned this hasn’t been conclusive but they don’t seem to care. On top of this you have researchers who always promoted the lab leak now righteously demanding apologies because they too feel they are now proven correct.

I think it is important to know the truth but I think for the average citizen they don’t really care beyond it being a political win on their side and adding it to their blanket belief to trust or not trust the government on anything or everything. So answering "Why does it matter?" is really a question for each individual and how much their reason is political similar to what thier stance is on climate change.

Agreed. If there is self-righteousness or apology seeking to be had it’s around the lab leak being an option that should have not been brushed aside. But those proclaiming self-righteousness attitudes due to the DoE and FBI reports are partaking in a very similar thing as the people that outright denied the possibility of lab leak in the first place.

It should also be said the truth in this matter extends to a greater overall truth in government and journalism. If we create and encourage narratives that cannot be legitimately challenged, (especially when there is little basis for the accepted master narrative), I don’t think that’s a world we want to live in. That means only accepting science that follows one’s political beliefs. Accepting whitewashed versions on history. Allowing the government or media to portray false realities. It may be COVID origin today but yesterday it was WMD’s and Iraq and who knows what it will be tomorrow.

 

[Herdfan]

I think it is important to know the truth but I think for the average citizen they don’t really care beyond it being a political win on their side and adding it to their blanket belief to trust or not trust the government on anything or everything. So answering "Why does it matter?" is really a question for each individual and how much their reason is political similar to what thier stance is on climate change.

Not the government, but the free press. Governments lie and do what is in their best interest. The free press is supposed to investigate and find the truth no matter what the government tells us. That is why it matters.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Not the government, but the free press. Governments lie and do what is in their best interest. The free press is supposed to investigate and find the truth no matter what the government tells us. That is why it matters.

The so called free press in the corporate mainstream media, and I'm including Fox in there, usually only supports one side with an agenda or rarely issues any pushback so that the guest will come back. Generally speaking point for point I think "both sides do it" is a false equivalency, but it shouldn't be done period. There are reasons that it is done that has nothing to do with the truth or full story. It's all about their target demographic and keeping advertising revenue.

But on this particular issue I really don't see a valid reason the average left viewer would care if it was a lab leak or not. It really wouldn't change how they feel about precautions. It's not like they would go "It came from a lab so I guess I'm not going to wear a mask or get a vaccine now." Honestly I think it's just another extension of protecting the ruling class. Let's just make everybody think it was the peasants eating roadkill.

 

[Citysnaps]

There is potentially evidence in the genome of the virus, which different people have different opinions on. You also have circumstantial evidence, much of which leads towards a lab leak especially when you ask why such actions were made, but there is also some circumstantial evidence for a natural origin.

I would not be surprised if the government knew what happened that they are keeping behind closed doors. I suspect China knows what happened but do not expect them to cooperate and thus I have little faith we will ever know exactly what happened.

I don’t think we need to play the game of willful ignorance about what the mainstream media is. Going back to my original point, the MSM can decide which voices in the scientific community they bolster and which ones they ignore. There were many legitimate scientists who believed the lab leak should be kept on the table but were ostracized and ignored and therefore not comfortable voicing their opinion. All of the MSM reporting pretty much revolves around Fauci snd Peter Daszak, two researchers out of many.

I'll continue to make my assessments based upon what I hear directly from respected scientists/virologists/epidemiologists (Fauci, Brilliant, etc) who have a demonstrated track record in the field. Similar to how I accepted Richard Feynman's analysis of the Challenger disaster years ago. If you or others want to rely on media editorials/conjecture/etc whether through filtered or direct sources to help with your own assessment/conclusions, that's fine.

If respected scientists/virologists/epidemiologists claim at a particular point in time the evidence with respect to the virus' source is inconclusive, I'll take their word for it.

 

[Herdfan]

If respected scientists/virologists/epidemiologists claim at a particular point in time the evidence with respect to the virus' source is inconclusive, I'll take their word for it.

But what happens when a certain segment of respected scientists is shouted down or ignored because their conclusions don't fit the current narrative? There is a good chance you won't ever hear them or read their conclusions, so when someone posts something contrary to what you have been told, that person is label a conspiracy theorist spouting RW MAGA talking points.

 

[Citysnaps]

But what happens when a certain segment of respected scientists is shouted down or ignored because their conclusions don't fit the current narrative? There is a good chance you won't ever hear them or read their conclusions, so when someone posts something contrary to what you have been told, that person is label a conspiracy theorist spouting RW MAGA talking points.

Who are these respected scientists/virologists/epidemiologists with demonstrated track records in their fields that are being shouted down, and what respected news sources are shouting them down?

And what conclusions with respect to the source of the virus are they putting forward, backed by evidence?

 

[Hrafn]

Yeah, so at the end, it's at least three fold: 1) Discredit Fauci because Repubs hate him now. 2) Continue fighting actual science or education at all costs. 3) Embarrass Biden if at all possible.

 

[Alli]

Who are these respected scientists/virologists/epidemiologists with demonstrated track records in their fields that are being shouted down, and what respected news sources are shouting them down?

And what conclusions with respect to the source of the virus are they putting forward, backed by evidence?

My questions exactly.

 

[Roller]

But what happens when a certain segment of respected scientists is shouted down or ignored because their conclusions don't fit the current narrative? There is a good chance you won't ever hear them or read their conclusions, so when someone posts something contrary to what you have been told, that person is label a conspiracy theorist spouting RW MAGA talking points.

I don't know how hard you've looked, but I can find many examples of scientists and other experts arguing the lab-leak theory over the past three years. Unfortunately, the evidence for a natural origin is largely circumstantial or inferential. Absent the ability to go back to 2019 and closely monitor events around the Wuhan market as they unfolded, I don't think that hypothesis will ever be proven to the satisfaction of those who favor the alternative. And, unless someone can definitively show that a lab breach occurred, whether or not it was recognized at the time, the same will be true of that perspective.

Regardless, there will be real value in coming as close as possible to learning what happened, but not for political reasons. In both explanations, it was humans who were at fault, which led to millions of deaths, not to mention the ravages of long COVID and whatever else occurs because of viral mutation and recombination. By coming up with actionable steps, perhaps we, globally, can prevent or at least mitigate the future pandemic that is almost certain to come our way.

 

[Citysnaps]

I don't think that hypothesis will ever be proven to the satisfaction of those who favor the alternative.

And on that subject, a predisposition favoring an outcome vs. keeping an open mind and letting evidence and facts (assuming they can be developed) drive the outcome is a problem.

Sadly, it seems many people are predisposed to wanting the source and propagation of the virus to be in lock-step with the views demanded by a professional political party, to support an agenda. Rather than letting qualified scientists/virologists/epidemiologists go about their work and investigations (though it indeed may turn out there's not enough information/data to support an iron clad conclusion).

Sen. Rand Paul and his past theatrics publicly having it out and trying to ridicule Dr. Fauci during Senate investigations comes to mind.

Paul, an ophthalmologist (eye doctor), at one time in the past attended medical school. But his qualifications are no match for the wealth of infectious disease experience Dr. Fauci brings to the table being the Director of NIAID for 48 years, serving under all US Presidents since Reagan, and being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his service by GWB when he was President.

Forced into a choice, and this is pretty squishy, I'm hoping the propagation of the virus was via animal-to-human. However, I'm certainly keeping an open mind and would want to know if the virus was cultured in a lab and released, and if so, under what circumstances, purposes and intentions (in any).

 

[Roller]

And on that subject, a predisposition favoring an outcome vs. keeping an open mind and letting evidence and facts (assuming they can be developed) drive the outcome is a problem.

Sadly, it seems many people are predisposed to wanting the source and propagation of the virus to be in lock-step with the views demanded by a professional political party, to support an agenda. Rather than letting qualified scientists/virologists/epidemiologists go about their work and investigations (though it indeed may turn out there's not enough information/data to support an iron clad conclusion).

Sen. Rand Paul and his past theatrics publicly having it out and trying to ridicule Dr. Fauci during Senate investigations comes to mind.

Paul, an ophthalmologist (eye doctor), at one time in the past attended medical school. But his qualifications are no match for the wealth of infectious disease experience Dr. Fauci brings to the table being the Director of NIAID for 48 years, serving under all US Presidents since Reagan, and being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his service by GWB when he was President.

Forced into a choice, and this is pretty squishy, I'm hoping the propagation of the virus was via animal-to-human. However, I'm certainly keeping an open mind and would want to know if the virus was cultured in a lab and released, and if so, under what circumstances, purposes and intentions (in any).

I couldn't watch the Paul-Fauci interactions without wanting to throw something at the screen. Fauci showed remarkable restraint in trying to be deferential to a senator, though he came close to saying what I was thinking on one occasion.

One of the problems with all this is the "what does the science show?" narrative, which implies that such investigations are definitive. In almost all disciplines, there is room for legitimate disagreement between bona fide experts regrading what a set of observations means. On the lab-leak side (which I don't discount), definitive evidence would be needed.

I don't know that I'd feel more comfortable with one hypothesis over the other, as both can occur at different times. For example, just because SARS-CoV-2 was released from a Chinese lab doesn't preclude animal to human transmission of other viruses.

 

[MEJHarrison]

Personally, I don’t need a definitive answer to where it started. In the end, does it really matter? We know that some of the best discoveries have been accidental (penicillin, Velcro), so it stands to reason there are a lot of accidents that have been the opposite as far as their benefits to humanity. And we rarely hear about them.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. While it would be nice to have a definitive answer, it's really not needed to satisfy my curiosity.

Or to put it a different way, I think it's important to find out the source so we can take measures to avoid something like that again if possible. But I think too many people want an answer so they know who to be mad at (or worse), and that seems pointless to me. Unless it was an intentional act, I think people should really just move on.

 

[Herdfan]

One of the problems with all this is the "what does the science show?" narrative, which implies that such investigations are definitive. In almost all disciplines, there is room for legitimate disagreement between bona fide experts regrading what a set of observations means. On the lab-leak side (which I don't discount), definitive evidence would be needed.

Are you willing to apply that same reasoning to Climate Change?

Because there are bona fide scientists on the other side of that as well.


Also, there is a difference between it being lab created and a lab leak. I would not put it past the CCP to have discovered it (ie natural occurence) and while keeping it quiet, taking it to the lab to study and it somehow was leaked from there.

 

[Herdfan]

So there has been some discussion over whether or not the media and or politicians tried to suppress the possible origins of COVID, specifically as to whether or not it came from a lab or mutated naturally.

And since some are doubting the media did this, here are some examples:

Quote from former member User.45

Today one thing came to my mind.

1. Many Republicans (including a person here) consider it a fact that COVID is a human-made global calamity. In reality, there is very little current supportive evidence, but plenty to point towards other, much more likely origins. Thus, the COVID lab-leak is actually a poorly substantiated hypothesis.

2. Many Republicans consider the idea of Climate Change being a human-made global calamity a poorly substantiated hypothesis. In reality we have half a century worth of supportive evidence and a multidisciplinary consensus among scientists. So even on the conservative spectrum of thought, Climate Change is as close to be a fact as it can get.


So why is that these guys really need extremely high level of evidence to believe the human cause of one global calamity, but settle with extremely low evidence of the other?

How can there not be a COVID-19 thread?

I glanced at the number for COVID deaths (average) for Feb 2. 2,658 for America, 10,466 for the world. America has over 25% of COVID deaths, and less than 5% of the world’s population (~330 million out of ~7.5 billion). What a disaster. While a bunch of far-right nuts scream that vaccine...

techboards.net

How can there not be a COVID-19 thread?

I glanced at the number for COVID deaths (average) for Feb 2. 2,658 for America, 10,466 for the world. America has over 25% of COVID deaths, and less than 5% of the world’s population (~330 million out of ~7.5 billion). What a disaster. While a bunch of far-right nuts scream that vaccine...

techboards.net

How can there not be a COVID-19 thread?

wrong thread

techboards.net

How can there not be a COVID-19 thread?

More cold water dumped on the “lab leak” hypothesis for COVID-19’s origin. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/origin-covid-19-us-scientist-patient-zero-wuhan-china-evidence-market/ This was from a scientist that had previously thought it might be a lab leak. Because he’s an actual scientist, he...

techboards.net

I understand circumstances change as more information becomes available. But it certainly seemed like a certain segment did not want this to be from a lab. Here are some news outlets:

Whoopi Goldberg admits ‘politics got in the way’ of COVID-19 lab leak theory

Lab Leak: A Scientific Debate Mired in Politics — and Unresolved

More than a year into the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, some scientists say the possibility of a lab leak never got a fair look.

undark.org

I think the first paragraph on this one is telling. But no, there wasn't any effort to suppress the lab leak theory......... Glad to know the gatekeepers of disinformation got this correct.

Facebook made a quiet but dramatic reversal last week: It no longer forbids users from touting the theory that COVID-19 came from a laboratory.

The Media's Lab Leak Debacle Shows Why Banning 'Misinformation' Is a Terrible Idea

How a debate about COVID-19's origins exposed a dangerous hubris

reason.com

Credibility crisis: CNN boss ordered staff not to chase down COVID lab leak theory as pandemic unfolded

 

[Citysnaps]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. While it would be nice to have a definitive answer, it's really not needed to satisfy my curiosity.

Or to put it a different way, I think it's important to find out the source so we can take measures to avoid something like that again if possible. But I think too many people want an answer so they know who to be mad at (or worse), and that seems pointless to me. Unless it was an intentional act, I think people should really just move on.

In general, I don't need to know. But for me...it would be nice to have an answer since it has caused the US and other countries so much pain and suffering with respect to both public health and the economy.

Still, I would definitely want to know if the virus was the result of Chinese bioweapon development that accidentally leaked from a lab. Especially if it was released intentionally (not as likely, IMO). I'm positive the US government knows the answer, but may be keeping that under wraps for various reasons.

 

[Hrafn]

In general, I don't need to know. But for me...it would be nice to have an answer since it has caused the US and other countries so much pain and suffering with respect to both public health and the economy.

Still, I would definitely want to know if the virus was the result of Chinese bioweapon development that accidentally leaked from a lab. Especially if it was released intentionally (not as likely, IMO). I'm positive the US government knows the answer, but may be keeping that under wraps for various reasons.

I would like to know if it was intentionally created, but don't think we'll get any real answers from the Chinese either way.

 

[Roller]

Are you willing to apply that same reasoning to Climate Change?

Because there are bona fide scientists on the other side of that as well.


Also, there is a difference between it being lab created and a lab leak. I would not put it past the CCP to have discovered it (ie natural occurence) and while keeping it quiet, taking it to the lab to study and it somehow was leaked from there.

As I've said, I believe there is value in knowing how the virus entered circulation, since both possibilities will have warnings for the future. (Whether they'll be heeded is much less certain, I'm afraid.)

Climate change is a different scenario. Sure, there are skeptics in the scientific community, as there are for practically every theory. But expert opinion tends to converge over time, as it has in this instance. Does it make sense to do nothing and wait until there is universal consensus on something that poses a threat to human existence worldwide, especially when so many mitigation strategies have other benefits? I don't want my children or grandchildren to live on a planet that is out of options, or where the only solutions are risky and/or expensive geo-engineering proposals that reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth.