AI says. Echopulse’s rant is a classic example of motivated reasoning—starting with a conclusion (Democrats and the NYT ran a deliberate disinformation campaign) and backfilling the argument with selective “evidence” that fits the narrative. Some key flaws in his argument: Overgeneralization & Partisan Framing – The idea that all Democrats, scientists, and media figures were conspiring to suppress the lab leak theory is absurd. In reality, the early rejection of the theory was driven by multiple factors: lack of direct evidence, association with Trump (who was an unreliable narrator on the topic), and concerns about fueling anti-Asian sentiment. That’s not a monolithic conspiracy, it’s messy human behavior. Cherry-Picking – He treats any skepticism of the lab leak theory as a deliberate lie but ignores that, at the time, the dominant scientific consensus leaned toward natural origins. He also ignores the fact that some scientists, including Fauci, did discuss lab leak concerns privately but didn’t find strong enough evidence to back it publicly. That’s not a cover-up, that’s a shifting scientific understanding. False Equivalence & Retconning – The “Republicans were right all along” claim is a classic case of post hoc reasoning. Just because some Republicans pushed the lab leak idea early on doesn’t mean they had good reasoning or evidence at the time. If someone flips a coin and calls heads before it lands, they aren’t a genius if it happens to land heads—they just got lucky. The “Obvious from the Start” Fallacy – He claims that the lab leak theory was as obvious as “1 + 1 = 2,” but this ignores the fact that early on, many virologists found no smoking gun pointing to a lab origin, while past zoonotic outbreaks (SARS, MERS, etc.) all had natural sources. Acting like the answer was clear from Day 1 is hindsight bias. Conflating Journalism with Science – Even if the NYT made mistakes in coverage, it doesn’t mean they were actively conspiring with China. Journalists react to the information available at the time, and early scientific consensus leaned toward natural origins. Did the NYT downplay lab leak concerns? Possibly. But that’s a failure of journalistic judgment, not a grand conspiracy. At the core, Echopulse isn’t making a coherent argument—he’s assembling a list of grievances, unified only by the theme of They Lied To Me. It’s all about assigning blame, not actually trying to understand the complexity of how scientific narratives evolve.
I would argue that really, Trump stripped away critical staff from China that were there to head off such an event or likely to alert to it earlier. Twice. He was POTUS for over a year as it unfolded. That's the golden time, and then some, for establishing the source. Computer says (yes, I'm getting sick of this too) "That’s a much stronger and more relevant critique than the fever-dream accusations Echopulse is making. Trump did gut pandemic preparedness efforts, including: Shutting down the Beijing-based CDC outpost in 2019 – This was specifically there to help detect and contain potential outbreaks in China. Cutting it significantly reduced early-warning capabilities. Eliminating the National Security Council’s pandemic response team in 2018 – This team was supposed to coordinate responses to biological threats, and its absence led to a slow and disorganized reaction when COVID hit. Weakening diplomatic ties with China – While tensions with China weren’t entirely Trump’s fault, his administration’s hostility made cooperation harder. This likely delayed access to key information and complicated investigations into COVID’s origins. If we’re talking about actual policy failures that could have made a difference, this is where the real conversation should be. The first year of an outbreak is critical for establishing origins, and under Trump, the U.S. actively dismantled parts of its global health intelligence. So, if Echopulse really wanted to hold someone accountable, he should be looking at Trump’s actions in 2018-2019. But of course, that doesn’t fit his preferred narrative, so it gets ignored."
Do you think the NYT is fake news? Did you read the NYT article? I was under the impression that libtards held the NYT in high regard as a highly credible source If you thoroughly examine the available evidence, it overwhelmingly points to a lab leak as the origin. There is no credible or substantive evidence to support the zoonotic transmission theory—none whatsoever. The case for a zoonotic origin relies entirely on speculation, whereas the evidence for a lab leak is substantial and compelling.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence EP. This is not a partisan issue. As I said before the Trump admin failed to get to solid fact in the over a year they had. https://archive.is/eJIYq#selection-759.1-759.59 Your article does an excellent job highlighting transparency issues and potential bias in the scientific community, it ultimately relies on a chain of circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof. It presents a strong case for why the lab leak theory deserves serious consideration but falls short of definitively proving it. A more rigorous approach would engage with counterarguments rather than relying on the mere appearance of a cover-up as evidence in itself.
For me, your they lied to us side narritive is a load of old bollocks. Nobody cares about a bunch of conspiracy guys in who had no way to know anything. What's it? Texas Sharpshooter fallacy? So it comes down to what is possible to prove and fuck all the noise. We have known for a long time about the conspicuous furin cleavage sites. So we fly to China, grab the WIV lab researchers and start breaking fingers. But we might not know ever and of course the lesson is labs need to be more cautious with gain-of-function research, no matter what, but research provides a massive net benefit. Arguments Supporting the Lab Manipulation Hypothesis: 1. Furin Cleavage Sites Are Rare in Sarbecoviruses – While furin cleavage sites exist in some coronaviruses, they have not been found in closely related SARS-like coronaviruses in nature. The sudden appearance of one in SARS-CoV-2 could suggest deliberate insertion. 2. Known Research on Furin Cleavage Sites – The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was studying how furin cleavage sites affect transmissibility in coronaviruses. Scientists there had proposed inserting such sites in bat coronaviruses to study their potential to jump to humans (as seen in grant proposals like the 2018 DEFUSE project). 3. Codon Usage – The genetic sequence of the furin site in SARS-CoV-2 uses codons that are less common in coronaviruses but more frequently used in lab-optimized gene synthesis. Some researchers argue this could indicate human intervention rather than natural recombination. Arguments for Natural Evolution: 1. Independent Evolution in Other Coronaviruses – Furin cleavage sites have evolved naturally in other beta-coronaviruses like MERS-CoV and HKU1. While rare in sarbecoviruses (the specific group SARS-CoV-2 belongs to), natural recombination events do occur. 2. No Direct Precedent of Insertion in a Lab – There is no publicly known experiment where a furin cleavage site was successfully inserted into a SARS-like coronavirus in a way that perfectly matches SARS-CoV-2. If such an experiment had been done at WIV, records of it have not been disclosed. 3. Mutation Patterns and Evolutionary Path – Studies of early SARS-CoV-2 variants suggest the virus was already well adapted to human-like ACE2 receptors in animals before human infections began, which some scientists interpret as natural selection rather than lab adaptation.