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.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Cool. Thanks for posting. I'll do a good dive into it later to form an opinion.

[–] explore_broaden@midwest.social 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] explore_broaden@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] explore_broaden@midwest.social -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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:

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.

[–] explore_broaden@midwest.social 0 points 3 months ago

Other direct quote:

Some officials briefed on the intelligence said that it was relatively weak and that the Energy Department’s conclusion was made with “low confidence”

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.