There are people who understand the difference between a conspiracy and a cover-up.
And there are people who are grasping at straws.
There's a big difference between calling something a conspiracy vs a cover-up.
Cover-ups happen regularly and often follow accidental mistakes.
Conspiracies have a different, nefarious meaning to many people. And a conspiracy theory has become synonymous with a crackpot theory.
This difference is so basic but some people need it to be explained to them again and again.
If you called the lab leak hypothesis a conspiracy theory in 2020 (or even 2021), please find your courage and stop telling people you meant that a lab accident would require some form of cover-up afterwards to hide evidence.
It would be refreshing to find scientists who can tell us, "At first, so many of my peers said a lab origin of SARS2 was a conspiracy theory that I bought into it. But as more information emerged over the past year, I realized that it was a plausible hypothesis to investigate."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"For 20 years, taxpayer-funded research programs have sought to identify or create pandemic-causing viruses, all with surprisingly little transparency."
@washingtonpost@kesvelt@MIT@TheSeeker268 "To discover many dangerous viruses, or learn to enhance weaker ones, is to share the blueprints for an arsenal of plagues. Good people advocate for such research.. [but] misuse could be worse than if any of those pathogens spilled over naturally."
@washingtonpost@kesvelt@MIT@TheSeeker268 "Instead, health and security agencies should work together, ideally with considerably more than the $65 billion requested by the White House, to build adequate defenses against future pandemics."
It's not right that information directly relevant to the #OriginsOfCovid - much of it from sources outside of China - are only being revealed close to 2 years post-outbreak.
These documents only made public in September 2021 make any scientific reviews (some would say critical reviews) or science journalism pieces prior to last month out-of-date and uninformed.
If anyone is writing a new #OriginsOfCovid journalistic piece or a critical review/op-ed for publication at a scientific journal, you must include the new findings from the #Defuse DARPA proposal leaked by Drastic and the NIH EcoHealth progress reports FOIA'ed by @theintercept
I don’t think that scientific decisions are currently being guided by the strong possibility that this type of virus hunting and manipulation research might have led to the covid-19 pandemic.
If you find that many scientists are unmoved by the finding that more PCR machines were purchased in Wuhan in 2019, that’s because PCR is too general to point to anything in particular.
It’s like finding that someone bought more batteries one year. It doesn’t tell us anything.
Furthermore the purchases were made by multiple different institutions over a time period of May to late 2019. Not in parallel, but in different months.
It doesn’t make sense to me how this would be the response to an emerging outbreak beginning in May 2019.
It would be a completely different matter if Wuhan purchases of PCR reagents and primers specific to coronavirus had increased at an unprecedented rate in 2019 prior to December.
If the aim is to rebuild public trust in the functionality and integrity of the scientific community, particularly in its ability to keep its own members honest, we need to make scientific discourse more open and accessible to the public.
What doesn't build trust is scientists deciding what info to withhold in case the public cannot handle it.
What doesn't build trust is scientists silencing or even being abusive to each other.
What doesn't build trust is scientists making assertions when evidence is lacking.