Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Max Rottersman's avatar

Peter Miller challenged Rootclaim on this and unbelievably "won". Of course, that doesn't mean he was/is right that Covid spread naturally from a wet-market, only that his evidence that it did was stronger than the lab-leak theory. https://www.youtube.com/@tgof137

And that evidence is SUPER COMPLEX!!! I boil his argument down to this. The same conditions that allowed for a spread of SARS-1 in 2002 were in place in 2019 for SARS-3. (Despite the Chinese government saying they fixed the problems). If we already know the working mechanism for a SARS outbreak and that mechanism is back in action then (Occom's razor) why do we need a lab-leak explanation?

It's like a friend who drives drunk but the second time he crashes we says it wasn't the alcohol, it was someone who hypnotized him before he went out ;)

The problem with the lab-leak theory is that even if you TRIED to spread a virus it's extraordinarily difficult. It seems to me, that's something that isn't discussed often. So if trying to do it is near impossible, then why would a leak be more effective?

The question I am waiting for an answer to is how much did the vaccine do in weakening our death rate and how much did the virus' natural attenuation do? So I believe, politically, focusing people on the lab leak questions takes us away from considering the mother of all frauds that--I say MIGHT HAVE BEEN--the mRNA pharma boondoggle.

Also, what are the side effects? So much I don't know.

Expand full comment
Henrik Nordborg's avatar

I totally agree. Unfortunately, the consequences of eroding trust in science are severe, because we are in a situation today where we need a lot of science to get out of the mess we are in. However, I believe the systematic destruction of trust in science started much earlier. Just think about the tobacco industry, the response to "Limits to Growth", and oil money funding climate skepticism.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts