78
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 13 Aug 2025
78 points (67.1% liked)
Asklemmy
49939 readers
498 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
The authority being highlighted wasn't Jeffrey Sachs on his own, but The Lancet.
Fair enough. Though he was named directly and is still just an economist.
Besides I've read the paper now. All it says is there there is still the possibility of the virus having been released due to a research related incident.
That's a far cry from "CIA bioweapon" like the OOP believes.
Well he's a famous guy and knows a lot of important people, directly worked with the CIA and USA government before. And Davel wasn't saying "The Lancet published this conspiracy" but that the guy that the Lancet - who is very trustworthy - trusts and says is qualified to weigh in, is independently pushing it. So Jeremy was borrowing his authority from having been associated with The Lancet, and he has some authority already from his celebrity-status and previous work, not necessarily from his hard skills (economics).
Okay. I believe that. I haven't read the article and don't want to weigh in. I haven't investigated the claim, anything I add can only be nonsense. I wasn't pushing a Fort Detrick bioweapon conspiracy, I just wanted to clarify Davel's comment because I didn't feel your objection to it was fair, or if it was just a question with no position then I answered the question. Feel free to discuss the article with Davel since you have both read the article.
Fair.
I also only read the article after your first comment to be completely honest.