Read on Twitter
Lab leakers are like “if you carefully read between the lines of this Chinese report it seems Wuhan lab employees may have handled live bats with only THIN rubber gloves”
Meanwhile ten miles away there’s a market where thousands of live animals are directly handled every day
Meanwhile ten miles away there’s a market where thousands of live animals are directly handled every day
There’s an asymmetry here where elaborate scenarios that maintain the theoretical possibility of a leak are treated as evidence FOR a lab leak, while the absence of absolutely irrefutable proof of a wet market crossover is treated as evidence AGAINST a zoonotic origin
What it comes from, of course, is that lab leakers are not really invested in understanding the origins of COVID. They’re invested in promoting (or at least defending the theoretical plausibility of) a narrative that they find deeply politically appealing
Lab leak theory an argument rooted in faith, not unlike zealots who go to lengths to show, e.g., that Noah’s ark is physically plausible. Doing so would hardly prove the ark’s existence, but it protects their ability to believe in its existence, which is the true end goal
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
