Assertions that lab-leak hypotheses are supremely unlikely despite suppression of the scientific discussion by @BretWeinstein @HeatherEHeying needed to determine that,and saying attribution of blame only emboldens conspiracy theorists, are perjoratively anti-scientific
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Virus origins: we'll never know for sure. What I do know: is that ideas moving from censored to acceptability and back at the drop of a hat is terrible for public discourse
-
It's hardly "censored" though - been in the WaPo, Vanity fair, everywhere online. NYT too. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still a supremely unlikely hypothesis because it's reliant on evidence free corollaries..
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
What conspiracies have come true? With evidence please. Thanks.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Another article which tries to deflect the issue! The only reasoning seems to be - - My credentials are good - I am writing for The Guardian - I have published a book on conspiracy theories
So, believe whatever I throw at you! - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Managing to “debunk” the lab-leak hypothesis without even mentioning GoF or explaining it is quite a feat of logical elision, even for a Gruan comment writer. The “great man” bromides only hint at dry rot in yr intellectual Potemkin Village btw.
-
The core premise is a straw man: that any lab leak involves human engineering. This is patently false.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How likely is it that the first outbreak of disease occurred within 5km of the only lab in China that stores the closest known relative to SARS-Cov-2?
-
DRG is mustard when it comes to this stuff tbf.
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.