The real question is if any amount of investigation will convince those who already believe the virus leaked out of the Wuhan lab.
1 Like
What an illuminating claim.
Illustrates what I’ve been trying to say from the beginning on this.
You equate people who say, at this time in the investigation, that the possibility exists that the pandemic resulted from a lab leak. with nut bars that say the moon landing was faked.
I wonder how many people here take a similar stance. How many ‘likes’ are you going to get on that comment. I certainly hope none, but it would not surprise me. A like seems to be a relatively trivial endorsement. Seems like I’ve nothing more to add in conversation, with someone so willing to resort to slander.
Do you care to walk that back, even a bit?
What constitutes ‘everybody’? It seems your comment is directed at someone in particular who thinks otherwise.
I couldn’t agree more!
No. I am equating them with the nut bars who say that the possibility exists that the moon landing was faked and that this possibility should be seriously considered and investigated.
Does that help?
Not anybody in particular, I just haven’t run across anybody here or from what I’ve seen in reading news stories, etc. that says a lab leak was impossible. It seems like the corollary to your question about the difference between saying the virus did leak from a lab and that it may have leaked from a lab.
Do you respond the same regarding the ‘Two Michaels’? We have heard from the ‘officials’ after all.
But you’ve just read someone who equates these,
And I for one believe there is a similar sentiment just below the surface in the minds of a few others here.
Exactly.
When my daughter was 2 years old she fell out of the 2nd floor window of our house. She was unhurt, landing in a recently watered flower garden. I didn’t know about this until I arrived home and found a TV news crew on our lawn.
In the emergency dept, after she had been investigated and cleared to come home with us, a police detective spoke with us and said he had interviewed our neighbours and the tenant who rented a room in our house. On this basis he was satisfied this was an accident and no further investigation would be pending.
Now, I know from my own work in the children’s ER that when abuse or neglect is suspected, there is much more investigation. The Children’s Aid Society is informed. The child’s medical records are reviewed for any previous suspicious injuries. Etc. There is a lot more the police could have done to make absolutely certain that we had not tried to murder our child or were otherwise responsible for the accident.
Should they police have taken those actions? I don’t think so.
1 Like
Have representatives of an impartial non-governmental organization been allowed to interview the two Michael’s and other officials involved in the case, and concluded that the two Michaels have received proper due process and fair trials?
Not to my knowledge.
For those who don’t know what we’re talking about:
Wrong. I have not said a lab leak is impossible. Just that it is a possibility that has been adequately ruled out as highly unlikely and is not worth pursuing further unless further evidence arises.
You are right to point out that correction. I should have put the word possibility where you included it. My bad.
It does. To be clear, you are saying that people who say that the pandemic may have resulted from a lab leak are nut bars.
So I think I stand by my statement, not that I minded being wrong but I prefer to be right. 
2 Likes
Close enough. It would be more accurate to say I believe that those who think we should still be actively investigating whether a lab leak occurred are nut bars. Sorry if, by extension, that means I am calling you a nut bar. But you brought that term up first.
I will again repeat the question that I have asked several times in this discussion. If “we” need to investigate the lab leak further, then what investigation needs to be done? Specifically, what?
I can think of one example off the top of my head. There is a claim that some workers at WIV fell ill and were hospitalized with a COVID-19 like illness a few months before the outbreak of the pandemic. Fauci even called on the Chinese gov’t to release the medical records of these workers.
If such illnesses really occurred, then that is something that should be investigated further, I agree.
Here’s the problem: Officials at WIV as well as with the WHO have said they are not aware of any such cases and have asked that the US gov’t provide them with further information, such as the identity of these alleged cases, that would allow them to investigate further.
The US gov’t has not responded to these requests.
And then, in the sort of bizarro logic that characterizes a conspiracy theory, this gets spun into a situation where the Chinese are not being transparent because they are not releasing the records of these patients, of whose very existence the US has refused to provide any evidence.
What gives here, exactly?
1 Like
Did I say that you did? It seem that despite your assertion that,
You resort to semantics when it appears to help you.
I don’t think I claimed that you did say that the lab leak was impossible. You did say,
Will that be your response if it turns out that the pandemic did result from a lab leak?
This is where I am at,
I now see you didn’t. My apologies.
Guess not. And I’ll also have to apologize to the moon landing conspiracy theorists if it turns out the landings were faked.
The fact remains that, at this moment, there is no good evidence for either.
[quote=“Jordan, post:51, topic:13901”]
Does your standing by your statement depend on Faizal having said it was impossible? I don’t think he said this. But you need a pretty sharp knife to divide between “it was impossible” and
Please remember, we are referring to your comment,
In your desire to be conciliatory you say that ‘everybody acknowledges’ this while I hope noting,
Someone here has said that they are not interested in semantics. So much depends on our use of words. In the above quote for example, what is the purpose of the word ‘actively’? Is there a difference between ‘actively investigating’ and just ‘investigating’? I don’t see it.
So once more, you say that “everybody [here] acknowledges that a lab leak is possible” while some (at least) claim that, “those who think we should still be actively investigating whether a lab leak occurred are nut bars”
It is beyond my ability to make it plainer what I see as this inconsistency.
Probably not. Thanks for the editorial advice.
I also think that, while it is possible that NASA faked the moon landings, I don’t think there sufficient likelihood for this that would justify investigating the possibility.
I don’t really see anything inconsistent in that. Do you?
You make it sound as if people are putting bets on lab leak/no lab leak. That’s not the way this works.
There has already been one investigation which didn’t turn up evidence of a lab leak. The claims that have been put forward thus far for a lab leak have been debunked (e.g. furin cleavage site). As one scientist put it, the only evidence for a lab leak is the existence of the Wuhan lab. There simply isn’t any evidence for a lab leak even after an investigation. Therefore, we wouldn’t have to apologize to anyone if we say, right now, that we aren’t convinced that the virus leaked out of a lab. If new evidence is discovered then I could certainly change my mind, but I need to see the evidence.
3 Likes
And I would say that the correct response to both, is have at it. I will do everything in my power to make all evidence available. Whether it be moon landings, flat earth, the two Michaels, or anything to do with the lab leak.
It is very difficult to say there is ‘no evidence’ when I won’t allow you to see the evidence.
There’s a good article with quotes from the only foreign scientist working at the Wuhan lab.
She doesn’t think there was a leak. She also tested negative or SARS-CoV-2 antibodies prior to her vaccination.
Which actions are you referring to?
These,
or these,