_That_ report, which _was_ filed after the article you cited, is the one where they admit that they ended up doing gain of function research, although they claim it was accidental. Which, it definitely wasn't by any sane read, but, let's just give them the benefit of the doubt :)
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @j_KN0X
So the reason why someone might not mention the NIH grant prior to the missing report being filed is because the public was not yet in possession of any documents where EcoHealth admitted to performing GOF. Does that make sense?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @j_KN0X
I know this is confusing. This is, of course, why I get very angry with people who dismiss COVID origins things as a "conspiracy theory", because guess what folks, even just the evidence we already have is an intricate enough conspiracy that it's not a theory, it's just fact :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @j_KN0X
The question at this point, as far as I'm concerned, is more like "how big is this conspiracy, and in what way did it affect the pandemic", because we are still getting major documents released every week, and each one if more shocking than the next.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @j_KN0X
At this point we have know way of knowing how many people and institutions were involved, and we don't know to what extent they are implicated, whether it was a "harmless coverup" of some things that didn't cause the pandemic, or whether it's a blatant coverup that did, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @j_KN0X
The only thing we know for sure is that if you read mainstream press about this subject you are completely ignorant of the alarming facts we already know for certain, which is unfortunate, but those are the times in which we now live :(
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
I agree this got complicated, and I believe it went from conspiracy theory to evidence-based coverup. But maybe we have different definitions of mainstream media? Because I see it being discussed, and I would bet Krampus's left knuckle the coverage will only increase. :-)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @j_KN0X
I suppose the place I would disagree was that it was ever a conspiracy theory. My initial read of the evidence in the first few months was that it was probably a lab insertion of a cleavage site, and all evidence was and has remained consistent with that the entire time.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
I agree the basic idea was plausible, but by conspiracy I mean "direct, documented evidence of government funding of virus gain of function to explicitly infect humans, that then leaked into the wild." With the caveat that all the nonsensical conspiratorial baggage is included.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @j_KN0X
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @j_KN0X @cmuratori
I suppose it's moot at this point, but I just wish there was more transparency at the beginning so that conspiracies _on top of the legitimate hypothesis_ don't have a chance to make it beyond the bottom of the bargain bin.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.