I have no idea how this lab will operate, but these types of labs are often used by government agencies whose own countries have prohibited certain types of extremely dangerous and risky research.
There’s actually a lot of good circumstantial evidence that the really big Ebola outbreak some years ago likely originated from a lab in neighboring country, that was being used by US government funded scientists, doing work that they were not legally allowed to do on US soil.
It’s late and I’m tired so I am not going to dig up the reporting on that, but there has been some great coverage on the topic in the few years that it’s worth reading up on.
Whether or not any of that has any relevance to this specific laboratory, or how they’ll operate, I have no idea. Just pointing out that whatever upside can be gained by this type of research, is also accompanied by serious risks.
I haven’t looked into it, just was curious and was wondering if you had anything else I can also look into later. Thanks for the original links though. I will look more into this later.
Those are both pretty through examples of indepth investigative reporting, by credentialed and experienced independent journalists and researchers. There’s plenty of threads to pull on once you start reading into it.
It’s also been covered by Ryan Grim, former DC Beauru Chief for The Intercept. I believe he has recorded interviews up with either researchers from those articles, or some other journalists specializing in covering scientific and medical fields, I forget which.
No, this is circumstantial evidence from people who not only believe that this ebola outbreak came from a lab, but also that COVID-19 came from a lab, both of which are widely regarded as conspiracy theories.
Circumstantial evidence, not conclusive either way, but clearly the Biden administration feels the evidence is weighted slightly more on the side you just called a conspiracy theory.
Which again, is all they allege for ebola, but unlike the co-author of that first paper I linked, I don’t have a PhD in virology, so what do I know.
I haven’t read into it yet, and am not set either way. (If anything I’d think it wasn’t true, knowing a little how the BSL4 labs run, and all the precautions in place). But I’m always down to look into credible sources. I’ll give these a skim later.
I read the paper, and the evidence is very circumstantial. The fact that they argued the method of creating the rooted phylogenetic tree was not the right method, offered their preferred alternative, claimed it would likely give the result they wanted, but didn’t actually perform the analysis doesn’t come off well to me. They also seem to believe the COVID-19 pandemic started in a lab, and that the same (as they say) “experts” were involved really suggests they are conspiracy theorists who don’t trust the experts and believe in coordinated coverups of multiple lab leak events by this group of people. Believing in multiple conspiracy theories that are widely rejected in respected publications definitely doesn’t lead them to sound very credible.
Again, inclusive and circumstantial, but pretty far removed from crackpot conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats.
Direct quote from that NYT article I linked:
In addition to the Energy Department, the F.B.I. has also concluded, with moderate confidence, that the virus first emerged accidentally from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a Chinese lab that worked on coronaviruses.
It really seems like the evidence points towards natural origins. And the article you linked doesn’t actually have the evidence, it only waves toward the existence of classified intelligence.
I have no idea how this lab will operate, but these types of labs are often used by government agencies whose own countries have prohibited certain types of extremely dangerous and risky research.
There’s actually a lot of good circumstantial evidence that the really big Ebola outbreak some years ago likely originated from a lab in neighboring country, that was being used by US government funded scientists, doing work that they were not legally allowed to do on US soil.
It’s late and I’m tired so I am not going to dig up the reporting on that, but there has been some great coverage on the topic in the few years that it’s worth reading up on.
Whether or not any of that has any relevance to this specific laboratory, or how they’ll operate, I have no idea. Just pointing out that whatever upside can be gained by this type of research, is also accompanied by serious risks.
I can’t find any evidence for this.
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/did-west-africas-ebola-outbreak-of-2014-have-a-lab-origin/
https://jacobin.com/2016/07/ebola-west-africa-sierra-leone-bah-zoonotic-health-corruption-imperialism/
Anything more concrete?
I’ve read the reporting, looked into the journalists and researchers behind it, and find them credible.
If you don’t, it doesn’t affect me any.
I haven’t looked into it, just was curious and was wondering if you had anything else I can also look into later. Thanks for the original links though. I will look more into this later.
Those are both pretty through examples of indepth investigative reporting, by credentialed and experienced independent journalists and researchers. There’s plenty of threads to pull on once you start reading into it.
It’s also been covered by Ryan Grim, former DC Beauru Chief for The Intercept. I believe he has recorded interviews up with either researchers from those articles, or some other journalists specializing in covering scientific and medical fields, I forget which.
Cool. Thanks for posting. I’ll do a good dive into it later to form an opinion.
No, this is circumstantial evidence from people who not only believe that this ebola outbreak came from a lab, but also that COVID-19 came from a lab, both of which are widely regarded as conspiracy theories.
They aren’t conspiracy theories, at least, not according to the US Government and Biden’s DoE:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html
Circumstantial evidence, not conclusive either way, but clearly the Biden administration feels the evidence is weighted slightly more on the side you just called a conspiracy theory.
Which again, is all they allege for ebola, but unlike the co-author of that first paper I linked, I don’t have a PhD in virology, so what do I know.
Someone else posted that link as well, see my response: https://midwest.social/comment/11853764.
Having a PhD doesn’t automatically make someone a reliable source, and the site it is published on isn’t exactly a respected journal.
I haven’t read into it yet, and am not set either way. (If anything I’d think it wasn’t true, knowing a little how the BSL4 labs run, and all the precautions in place). But I’m always down to look into credible sources. I’ll give these a skim later.
I read the paper, and the evidence is very circumstantial. The fact that they argued the method of creating the rooted phylogenetic tree was not the right method, offered their preferred alternative, claimed it would likely give the result they wanted, but didn’t actually perform the analysis doesn’t come off well to me. They also seem to believe the COVID-19 pandemic started in a lab, and that the same (as they say) “experts” were involved really suggests they are conspiracy theorists who don’t trust the experts and believe in coordinated coverups of multiple lab leak events by this group of people. Believing in multiple conspiracy theories that are widely rejected in respected publications definitely doesn’t lead them to sound very credible.
Is the Biden administration lead by conspiracy theorists as well?
Again, inclusive and circumstantial, but pretty far removed from crackpot conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats.
Direct quote from that NYT article I linked:
Other direct quote:
An article from a well-respected journal: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(24)00206-4/fulltext.
It really seems like the evidence points towards natural origins. And the article you linked doesn’t actually have the evidence, it only waves toward the existence of classified intelligence.