Thread by @PhilippMarkolin

Let me show you something & explain:

Having lost the battle to sabotage scientific consensus formation for #zoonosis, LLs can only invoke 'research cartel' tropes & target individual scientists.

They hope people will not realize hundreds of scientists produced the evidence.
1/

The emergence of a scientific consensus is dependent on the body of scientific #evidence, and not on who has the loudest microphone.

There are dozens of papers with evidence directly related to the #origins question, and that evidence is created by hundreds of scientists from
2/

all over the world. Talking about a 'research cartel' or 'conspiracy' is a ridiculously stupid idea & should be laughed out of the room.

Unhappy to report that #lableak conspiracism is going down the exact same route as the tobacco industry

They invent conflicts of interest
3/

as a tactic to attack the important work of some scientists whose studies had a big impact, purposefully ignoring that what these scientists found is completely consistent with the whole body of evidence all the others created.

It is a publicity stunt to #gaslight the public.
4/

If the public only hears Daszak, Shi, Holmes, Anderson, or Worobey, it makes it seem like there is a small set of virologists pushing zoonosis, when actually the real problem for the #lableak hypothesis is the whole body of evidence created by several hundreds of scientists.
5/

The #lableak hypothesis is not scientifically dead because Anderson, Worobey, or somebody else says so, but because it is a hypothesis that can not explain the body of evidence accumulated by several hundreds of independent scientists. In fact, it is contradicted by much of it
6/

Unethical actors like @washburneAlex, @R_H_Ebright, @Ayjchan, @mattwridley, @jbkinney, or Jeffrey Sachs can attack scientists, but they cannot change the scientific consensus arising from the body of evidence.

And they know it, thats why they write Op-eds, not papers.
7/

It is our duty as the public to not be manipulated by unethical liars, grifters, and charlatans online when the scientific literature and body of evidence tell a very clear, unequivocal story

If somebody wants to change the scientific consensus, they need to do so with papers
8/

Nobody is prevented from publishing papers, and in fact, many of the scientists now attacked by the above shitheads were actually taking #lableak seriously and wanted to find evidence for it; but what they found ended up supporting zoonosis, nothing else.
9/

To see these independent scientists now being targeted individually because their science happened to contradict the powerplays of certain motivated actors is absolutely shameful, and as I said, a repeat of tobacco industry tactics.

The goal is to cause epistemic paralysis.
10/

When the public is being gaslit about a clear scientific consensus, critical cooperative action becomes impossible.

It is high past time that we address wildlife trade, wet markets (& lack of biosurveillance and biosecurity in factory farming etc), but we can't put pressure
11/

...on China to reign in these practices when we have liars gaslighting people with empty promises that shutting down 'GoF' is going to prevent pandemics, nor can we install oversight of wildlife practices there if cooperation is hindered by unfounded accusations and blame.

12/

Lastly, I don't blame people for believing #lableak when they were gaslit by online loudmouths. That's how I fell into the topic, but I let evidence change my mind

The body of evidence today is much clearer than at the start, so maybe go and check it out:
protagonistfuture.substack.com/p/natures-negl…