“The Covid ‘lab leak’ theory isn’t just a rightwing conspiracy – pretending that’s the case is bad for science”, writes Jane Qiu in the Guardian.
That’s right. In the Guardian. My surprise at the location of the article was equalled by my surprise at the location of its writer: “Jane Qiu is an award-winning independent science writer in Beijing.” I didn’t know there were independent science writers in Beijing, but I guess there must be for an article on this particular topic written by someone describing themselves as such to appear. Anyway, she writes:
Some scientists assert evidence supporting natural-origins hypotheses with excessive confidence and show little tolerance for dissenting views. They have appeared eager to shut down the debate, repeatedly and since early 2020. For instance, when their work was published in the journal Science in 2022, they proclaimed the case closed and lab-leak theories dead. Even researchers leaning towards natural origins theories, such as the virus ecologist Vincent Munster of Rocky Mountains Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana, told me they lamented that some of their colleagues defend their theories “like a religion”.
No one embodies the crisis of trust in science more than Peter Daszak, the former president of EcoHealth Alliance. A series of missteps on his part has helped to fuel public distrust. In early 2020, for instance, he organised a statement by dozens of prominent scientists in the Lancet, which strongly condemned “conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin”, without disclosing his nearly two-decade collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a conflict of interest.
Similarly, he denies that his own collaboration with the Wuhan lab involved gain-of-function research, even though Shi Zhengli – the Chinese scientist who led the bat-borne coronavirus studies – has openly acknowledged that the lab’s work produced at least one genetically modified virus more virulent than its parental strain. (That work is not directly relevant to the origins of Covid-19.)
The documentary [Christian Frei’s Blame: Bats, Politics and a Planet Out of Balance, short title Blame] claims that attacks on EcoHealth Alliance and the spread of lab-leak conspiracy theories have fuelled distrust in science. In reality, it’s the other way round: public distrust in science, fuelled by the unresolved H5N1 gain-of-function controversy and by lack of transparency and humility from scientists such as Daszak, has driven scepticism and increased support for lab-leak theories.
This is not news to anyone who has read Matt Ridley and Alina Chan’s book Viral. Or to anyone who does not entirely get their news from the Guardian, the BBC and the New York Times, come to think of it. Still, better five years late than never. Why now, I wonder? Did someone at the Scott Trust take Katharine Viner to one side and gently suggest that it would be nice if the customary Guardian delay between “this is an absurd far right conspiracy theory” and “it’s the fault of the far right for talking about it before we did and using up all the available words” was not too far out of line with the nearly four years it took to admit Hunter Biden’s laptop was real and Joe Biden was senile? Or is something big about to break?
“X is a conspiracy theory.
X is outgroup propaganda.
X is technically correct, but it’s wrong in spirit.
X is true, but why are you so obsessed with it?
X is good, actually.
Opposing X makes you a bad ingrouper.
The fact that we were ever against X is a conspiracy theory.”
– Nebula of City, Twitter.
I think we found the best possible comment to warrant a reminder that Twitter changed its name to X.
Yes, I know you’re using ‘X’ as a variable name.
It is a shame it was Vincent Munster rather than Hermann Munster…
What is astonishing is that you get a novel virus with an epicentre near a bio-weapons lab and it was verboten to even consider that as the source.
I slogged my way through most of this article trying hard not to throw up in my mouth.
This seems to me to encapsulate her thesis. And it is one that we hear all the time from the left. “It is not a policy or procedure problem, it is a messaging problem.” It is not that we are doing stuff wrong, it is that the general public is too stupid to understand what we are doing. Oh wait, that is rude. It is that we are not doing a good enough job explaining to the plebeians why we are the cognoscenti and they are the drooling morons.
It seems to never cross their mind that it is the scientific process itself that is broken. Not, by any means the actual traditional scientific process, but the process that science uses today to obtain its results, that is far more based on what results will get them grant money than it is on some single minded search for the truth.
What always seems to be missing from these articles is a statement along the lines of “you were right and we were wrong, we offer you a groveling apology for the horrendous way we tried to destroy you, destroy your careers, destroy your reputations when you spoke up honestly and we instead shouted your down, insulted you and we ourselves sought out the thing that would keep us funded.” And perhaps the most important thing of all — when a scientist is so wrong and behaves in such an outrageous manner why is HIS reputation not destroyed? If you are SO wrong why would you ever get a job again? Maybe cleaning test tubes, but if you say “I am science, you don’t need to think, you just need to believe me” and it turns out your wrong? How do you have the audacity, the chutzpah the effrontery to show your face in public ever again?
But they do. It is the same people, over and over and over again. In Scotland they have an expression for that: brass neck. If fits these people perfectly.
“Some scientists assert evidence supporting natural-origins hypotheses with excessive confidence and show little tolerance for dissenting views. They have appeared eager to shut down the debate, repeatedly and since early 2020.”
F*ck you and the horse you rode in on. The Guardian was right at the forefront of this, enthusiastically cheering on the censorship and cancellation of anyone deviating from the authorised line. Some humility and self-reflection would be in order here.
Because they are not doing science. Let me play Devil’s Advocate. If “The science is settled” as quothe The Goreacle then why does “climate science” continue to receive funding? The science is done, right? So, what is the funding for?
These are just lobbyists with PhDs.
I’m going with Natalie’s modified limited hangout theory.
I note that the journalism was supported by a Pulitzer grant. Can someone explain the technical difference between journalism supported by a grant, and an infomercial ?
I’ll note in passing the obvious logic point.
natural origin => not man made
lab leak => {made in nature or man made}
Opening the door to lab leak, also opens the door to man made.
Only the Chinese have a motive to deny a lab leak of a nature made virus. The constellation of Western poo-pooers of the possiblity of a lab leak betrays a fear of man madeness.
And the consequent horror :
THE END OF GRANTS
It was never a “theory” – the international establishment knew, knew from the start, the virus came from the Wuhan research institute – whether it was a “leak” or a deliberate release is another matter, but they knew where the virus came from.
The question is why the lying? Why the pretense that the virus came from some animal in a wet market – when they all knew it came from the lab?
It appears that the international establishment were both trying to protect the People’s Republic of China (it would be “racist” or whatever, to blame the PRC) and protect Western establishment figures such as American Tony Fauci, and British Peter Daszak (of the Eco Health Alliance, the name says it all, and the World Health Organisation).
O.K. the international establishment (such as the Guardian) are despicable – they can be expected to lie to protect their own, but why the additional lies?
The lie that there were no generally effective Early Treatments for Covid – when they knew very well that there were.
That campaign of lies, to pretend that there were no generally effective Early Treatments cost a vast number of lives – so why did they do it?
Why did they lie about Early Treatments – and engage in a vicious campaign against medical doctors and medical scientists who told the truth?
Then there were the “vaccine” lies – the vast campaign of lies about the injections being “safe and effective” – when they were not very effective, and were certainly NOT safe.
Again why did the establishment engage in this campaign of lies – and vicious persecution of anyone, doctors, medical scientists, anyone, who told the truth?
If we had a real Covid inquiry it would be trying to find out the answers to the above questions – but for that we would (if the inquiry is to be led by a judge and conducted by lawyers) have to try and find non despicable judge and lawyers, and this is rather difficult.
As it is we are being given a sop.
“O.K. we will admit that the virus came from the lab, but we will pretend we did not always know that – and we will carry on lying about the lack of effective Early Treatments and how the injections are safe-and-effective”.
Well a pox on that position.
We look back and see that there was a distributed and international Ministry of Truth in action over COVID. Diverse ‘fact checkers’, institutional lies, social media pressure, Government mis-information and distraction, Big Pharma, all selling the Big Lie. The Guardian was an eager part of this.
And now the Ministry of Truth is slowly and quietly recanting. The Guardian is part of this too.
“And now the Ministry of Truth is slowly and quietly recanting. The Guardian is part of this too.”
Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia
Discovered Joys – no, they are throwing us a sop.
“O.K. we will, sort-of, admit that the virus came from the lab, but we will pretend we did not always know that – and we will carry on lying about lack of effective Early Treatments and how the Covid “vaccines” [which were not vaccines] are safe-and-effective”.
That position is no good – it is not a matter of “they are not making the point you want them to make Paul – they are making a different point”, they are liars, who are, quite deliberately, avoiding-the-point.
As for “leak” – what we know is the virus came from the lab, enhanced by research part-funded (indirectly) from Western sources as well as the PRC.
There was an international games in Wuhan at about this time – and the international airport remained open even after the games, indeed it remained open even after the virus was all over the place in Wuhan. It should also be noted that Tony Fauci and others strongly opposed, and delayed, closing the borders of the United States.
The same people who pushed “lockdowns” (demanding that President Trump allow them at State level – most States imposed the insane lockdowns, although not all did) – in order to maximize damage to the United States and other Western nations (they knew that lockdowns would NOT “save lives” – so “saving lives” was NOT their motivation for demanding lockdowns) at first demanded that travel to China be kept open – specifically to Wuhan.
What we do NOT know is if there was a “leak” – or whether the release was deliberate (some people allege “plandemic” but we do NOT know that), which would fit in with dress rehearsals at conferences about how to censor dissent in a pandemic, how to “swamp” the truth with establishment lies.
We know that Tony Fauci and others committed terrible crimes – as President Biden, or whoever controlled the autopen, gave them blanket pardons for their crimes – that blanket pardon would not have been needed had Tony Fauci and the others been innocent.
In theory Peter Daszak could be prosecuted in the British courts – but given the state of the British “justice” system, the Crown Prosecution Service and so on, there is little hope of that.
For example, a Private Prosecution would be voided (discontinued) by an intervention of the British government, and even if it went ahead would be thrown out by British judges.
In the United States there is the hope that you might, just might, get a conservative judge – no such hope exists in the United Kingdom.
The judges at least appear to be a hive-mind here – they do not even know they are political, as they have never in their lives encountered a “right wing” opinion (other than from someone in the dock – who they are about to send to prison).
Paul,
IIUC, any sovereign jurisdiction except the US Federal Government could prosecute Fauci for the deaths that happened within the jurisdiction, including any US state. Due to the pardon, the prosecution can’t be removed to Federal court.
Daszak has slightly less protection.
And, interestingly, (IIRC), some state prosecutors can argue, directly to the jury, that F’s acceptance of the pardon can be taken as a legal admission of guilt to those pardoned charges. That’s what the current state of the caselaw says.
So these could be serious cases.