153
Covid․gov now points to a ‘lab leak’ conspiracy website
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
153 points (98.1% liked)
News
35754 readers
799 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We ought to be vigilant about leaping to conclusions or letting biases creep in, and I can't control others doing that.
Contrary to these things happening to an insane degree, it's not clear the laboratories in question took adequate precautions.
Concerns about biosafety standards first caught my notice with this report stating that the laboratory may have been working with coronavirus at inappropriate biosafety levels as low as 2 (eg, unblocked respiratory paths of infection). Questioning the source (even though it seems coherent), I noticed other corroborating reports with references. If the reports are true, then these laboratories in the Wuhan Institute worked with infectious coronaviruses at inappropriate biosafety levels lower than their US counterparts.
Okay you’ve refused to acknowledge or read my more important points so it appears you don’t want a conversation with perseverations on your agenda. Good luck.
I don't know what logically led you to that conclusion. Maybe you ought to self-reflect & work on your own biases/not jump to conclusions?
I'm linking to supporting references, and you're not, so 🤷.
A YouTube video and an opinion piece lol. How about a Nature article?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03982-2
News investigation & report quoting correspondence between biosafety experts/researchers & their letters to journals?
Paywalled & also in the news section?
It's possible despite lax biosafety, they didn't leak the virus & didn't have it. Based on what little I can read of the article: the word of a person at the center of the matter may be true; however, that's considerable weight for their word to carry that leaves doubt over impartiality & independence. Findings of an independent monitor/investigation would be more convincing.
Nature is the most highly regarded scientific publication in the world. I can't help you with your paywall issues.
It's a news article in their news section, not a scientific study, Nature's domain of prestige/authority. In the hierarchy of evidence, this ranks at the bottom as background information.
The previous comment stands: it's an isolated claim lacking independent, impartial corroboration.
Are you really so lazy that you can't even use Google?
Alright, I'll go to a PNAS article (opinion piece written so you can actually understand it) but with plenty of scientific references in the bibliography to satisfy your scientific curiosity lol.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2214427119
Well done: that's the way you defend a thesis. Sources & supported reason. Not whatever nonsense you were doing.
I upvoted your comment, too.
This nature article has the title
Wuhan lab samples hold no close relatives to virus behind COVID
But you previously claimed
Which is it?
Both. "All sequence data, wild type virus, and previous research history" refers to the disease causing virus and wild type relatives. The Wuhan research viruses are unrelated to SARS-CoV-2.
WIV viruses were 96% related, and their samples were the closest on record anywhere in the world.
Good lord you’re dense. What does this even mean and what relevance is it? The nature article and your articles say this wasn’t created in a lab yet you insist on keeping the tinfoil hat on. Lololol