Wikipedia lists the Covid lab hypothesis origin under misinformation, but afaik it's a very plausible theory? This is the first time I've run into a big and confident wikipedia thing that seems wrong.
Conversation
Replying to
Metaculus currently gives 15% probability to the Hubei lab theory being true
3
17
Replying to
I'm not sure if that's true, but regardless 15% seems high enough chance that it shouldn't be classed confidently as misinformation
5
43
Show replies
Replying to
Wikipedia tends to reflect the official positions of academics and journalists. It is wrong when those are wrong.
There are also some articles that are political battlegrounds. Say nearly a decade ago the George W. Bush wiki article.
3
4
42
Show replies
Replying to
Captured agencies institutions and businesses pressure sources of free information to convert themselves into propaganda outlets.
Replying to
It’s not plausible. It’s incredibly unlikely. It’s not zero chance, but neither is the hypothesis that it came from an alien meteor. Unless there’s serious evidence it just doesn’t hold up. No one would design a virus like this because because 2020 no one knew viruses worked in
2
4
Replying to
Such a way. It could be possible that it was a natural virus they studied that got out. But why is that any more likely than just a repeat of what happened with SARS or with 1918 flu or 1890 coronavirus ?
1
5
Replying to
That hypothesis really shallowly researched by Wikipedia. No mention of gain of function research on bats, the Newsweek article, SARS having accidentally escaped twice from the lab previously, China deleting the labs research history etc...
10