I am not clear (and we may not know?) exactly what then transpired, but the NIH's compliance department either demanded the report be filed, or EcoHealth voluntarily filed it after The Intercept reported it missing, or something.
I guess it depends on your definition of "conspiracy theory". These days I take it to me "far-fetched hypothesis very unlikely to be true", since that is how people use it. The "government-funded gain of function leaked into the wild" hypothesis was never that, IMO.
-
-
It was always the most likely hypothesis given the evidence we had, from about March 2020 at least. Other conclusions required much more far-fetched explanations. But people don't really care how far-fetched the explanations are, as long as it's what they want to hear.
-
Hypothesis, yes, but a full conspiracy theory (to me) also involves prematurely treating it as the accepted explanation. But what disconcerts me more is all the baggage/confirmation bias that then gets piled on by uncritical thinkers because there was no gov't transparency.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.