Super tendentious framing in this tweet, implying that the other 17 intelligence agencies lean the other way. The body of this person's article clarifies that two agencies support the other hypothesis; and the remaining 15 are presumably ambivalent.
https://twitter.com/larsonchristina/status/1402720162965491712
Another example of extremely tendentious framing in a Nature "explainer". You'd never guess from the wording of this statement that out of a half dozen major pandemics since modern laboratories have existed, one (1977 flu) is already known to be iatrogenic. 
We need more honesty in our explainers, even if it comes at the price of muddying the picture being explained. Pandemic journalism has not served us well.
The thing not being well communicated is that zoonotic transfer is very common, lab accidents are *also* common, and that combining the two (filling lots of new labs to the rafters with every weird wild virus we can find) might end up promoting the outcomes we most want to avoid
Relying too much on the specialists whose funding, professional identity, and ability to sleep at night all hinge on the answer to the lab safety question being "no problem" is just poor journalism.
Looks like the original tweet I was grumbling about got replaced with a fairer description of the article.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
