This is so true and rarely said in breathless reporting on lab leak claims. Some letter in Science or The Lancet doesn’t shut down people who thought they might get a Nobel Prize. technologyreview.com/2021/06/25/102… 
In my experience, no one wishes Bigfoot or aliens existed more than skeptics do. That’s what gets them so upset about sloppy claims. The issue with the “lab leak” isn’t that science suppresses the inquiry, it’s that the inquiry isn’t turning up actual evidence.
As @antonioregalado writes, the evidence and methods that Chan’s approach rests on are exactly the sort that make a skeptic’s BS detector tingle. Arguments based on what we don’t know, and requiring elaborate conspiracies, just sound like nonsense.
Crits-Cristoph (quoted above), nails it here, also. Despite her being an experienced scientist at a prestigious lab, Chan’s analyses, and to a greater extent her lab leak hangers-on, often mistake routine aspects of science for dark conspiracies.
That’s a huge red flag. If your account of how science works isn’t right, and your argument is that science wasn’t allowed to work normally in *this* case, it’s not so credible.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
