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
35714 readers
869 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
The longer it takes to find the zoonotic link the higher the probability of lab origin.
The longer it takes to find the lab origin link the higher the probability of zoonotic origin. /s
The problem with conspiracy theories is they're non-falsifiable. That something is possible is not evidence that it is probable, that something is probable is not evidence that it happened.
Maybe a lab had something go wrong. Maybe that was because they were careless. Maybe that's because Trump withdrew funding and oversight from the programs that helped labs like this. That should all be investigated. There's a difference between asking for a due diligence after action report and assigning blame because "it had to be someone's fault."
Conspiracy theories are falsifiable! It just means a theory that somebody kept or tried to keep something a secret. I wish the phrase "conspiracy theory" wasn't universally conflated with "crackpot conspiracy theory" like flat earthers or q-anon. Covid lab leak is not a crackpot theory. People just think it is because we call it a conspiracy theory.
I think we're long past trying to be prescriptive about the phrase "conspiracy theory".
There are real conspiracies, but conspiracy theories tend to start from a place of "X must have been at fault" and work backwards from there. Which leads to endless loops of whataboutisms and excuses to try and excuse the existence of the theory at all costs instead of being interested in what actually happened.
It sounds like you're suggesting "lab leak implies China is to blame" should be seen as evidence against it being a lab leak? Or that any theory which implies blame must be suspect. This just sounds like an excuse to disregard any evidence that it's a lab leak, since surely anyone who is arguing that it's a lab-leak must be motivated to do so.
The converse is also true though -- surely you must see that there is similarly motivation to argue in reverse. Why don't we just set aside assuming that we're all arguing in bad faith.
It's possible there was a lab leak, and relevant labs should be investigated for the same reason we investigate all plane crashes, it either leads to finding gaps in processes or confirms whether or not a systemic issue was a factor. The probability has decreased as COVID has been further researched and shows more markers of a 'natural' development, but it's generally beneficial to have a comprehensive audit when processes are in question.
That's not what these people are arguing. They're arguing that it's China's fault and not Trump's. That's it. For that to be the case it 'must' be a lab leak, and so they're retroactively finding justification for how that is possible. That they're running parallel to a reasonable line of logic for a portion of their argument does not validate their argument.
Yeah I mean I agree. Actually in the top-level comment of this thread, I said the website was BS. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me.
As you are responding to one of my posts I should clarify my position.
Zoonotic or lab origin, the outbreak still occurred in China. Fault is only important to reduce further occurrences. Better wet market policies and tighter lab rules can be implemented simultaneously, worldwide without any blame being assigned.
The appalling US response to covid is fully Trumps fault.
The change in the .gov address is designed to compliment the tariffs and anger China.
The reason to highlight the possible lab origin was because original investigations and papers erroneously claimed that a lab origin was not plausible and any discussion about lab origins was censored as being a conspiracy theory.
That censorship is still occurring.
Disagree. Some conspiracies can be proven with evidence. E.g. Watergate.
The virus had to come from somewhere. Finding a zoonotic trail of evidence (or at least a partial one) adds weight to a natural origin. There is lots of opportunity for new evidence to naturally come to light.
On the lab leak side evidence has already been destroyed by the Chinese government. New evidence is unlikely to surface naturally.
So lack of evidence on the zoonotic side gradually moves the balance of probability towards a lab leak.
The general public is unlikely reach certainty about either scenario. I bet the Chinese government has a certain answer.
COVID pandemic started in Wuhan market animals after all, suggests latest study The finding comes from a reanalysis of genomic data.
We already have plenty of evidence to conclude zoonotic origin. Bat RNA. Positive cultures in the wet market. Covid genome.
The closest sample [BatCoV RaTG13] is a 96.1% match and was collected 7 years and 1000km away from the wuhan outbreak.
Positive cultures were found in the wet market, but the origin is not confirmed to be zoonotic. Neither bats nor pangolins were being sold at the market. The virus could have arrived there on the shoe of a lab worker.
And it could have been sprayed by flying saucers. How is that any less probable?
You’re using the words without understanding virology or epidemiology or basic probabilities. We have evidence of prior outbreaks like SARS from the wild and positive cultures in the wet market are major pieces of evidence to back up the origin.
Because only a trail of infected animals arriving at the market would imply a zoonotic origin.
No, because we cannot determine if those virus cultures arrived to the market on an animal, on the shoe of a lab worker or even by ufo.
The data does not help determine the origin. It only documents the spread.
Not at all. You think animals naturally migrated on their own from the forest to the market and would leave a trail? Someone picked one up and brought it in a cage. It only takes one.
I love how everyone online is an armchair zoonotic expert. Your ideas are inexperienced.
Possibly, but there is no evidence that this happened. No animals in captivatity or in the wild outside of the wuhan market have been found with early strains of sars-cov-2.
This is why a lab leak remains as a possible origin.
Expertise is not required to understand what NO EVIDENCE means.
We have plenty of evidence already, such as the positive cultures and the genomic ancestry, you just don’t like what it points to.
Genomic ancestry begins at the marketplace.
The team noted that there was no way to establish that the animals were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Even if they were infected, they could have caught the infection from a person who brought the virus to the market
Stop trying to invent evidence.
Stop trying to pretend you can critically analyze whether any of these claims are valid or not. You’re selectively quoting experts who tell you what you want to hear and ignoring the more popular consensus that says you’re wrong.
So rather than respond to the quoted sources, you decide to ad hominem. That's not the way to win anonymous arguments.
If I am selectively quoting, then please extend or add more sources.
You claim to have evidence of natural zoonotic origin, ruling out possibility of a lab leak, that has popular consensus so it shouldn't be hard to link to.
Yeah, thought not.