Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

Here's what I'll admit, its shady as hell for a group of scientists (some with especially confounding conflicts) to come out and dismiss something as so unlikely as to be impossible when it was obviously still a plausible explanation. That was not a scientific position to take, but a political one. Lab leaks are not new or especially rare. There is a now public paper trail indicating they were trying to build the damn thing! You have to admit that it's not a good way to kick off a discussion of the subject in earnest. Imagine after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if the scientists working on the Manhattan Project came out claiming that natural instances of fission accounted for all known instances of fission in the wild. It's a purely fallacious argument coming from the highest authority on the subject and that doesn't have you worried? But the tone of OPs question is worth worrying about?

> Isn't this just the definition of the word extreme?

Absolutely not. From the dictionary:

    extreme
      Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest.
      Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense.
      Being far beyond the norm: synonym: excessive

That’s, obviously, nonsense/hyperbole. I would suggest looking at the communication in Germany for a good example of science communication.

The majority of any population (not just USA) are ignorant about most topics. Masses are not intelligent. This is particularly true of a range of topics, from economics and financial domains to anything in the sciences and engineering. The masses are also really bad at being intelligent about anything that requires a long term view or planning.

Given that, it is probably fair to say that the intelligent people are likely not where the majority opinion lies. Not always, of course, there are no absolutes. Being outside the majority generally requires applying critical thinking and sometimes a lot of work to truly understand something. My mother used to vote based on who she liked. I mean, quite literally, not much different from a beauty contest. If she liked the person --for whatever reason-- she voted for them. I loved my mom, but her voting was ignorant and likely damaging to society. I hypothesize, based on conversations, that most people vote this way (or straight-up party affiliation, which is equally stupid).

As an example I use the work I had to undertake in order to understand something seemingly simple: The reality vs. the fantasy of photovoltaic solar energy. I was 100% on the fantasy camp when I built my 13 kW array. It didn't take long for me to, as an engineer, start asking questions based on what I was seeing. The full understanding took an honest evaluation based on actually having skin in the game, experience, math and more. It probably took me a couple of years to go from being a solar energy cult member to being a solar energy realist. I venture to guess that 99.9% of people will never take that journey.

If understanding that the masses are wrong makes one "extreme", so be it. These days we find all kinds of ways to denigrate and stomp on people who don't push accepted narratives. The masses don't realize that politicians create divisive narratives with the sole purpose of capturing votes and retaining or growing power. They do not --regardless of party-- work for us. They work for themselves. They work to stay in power. That is, in CS terminology, their fitness function --what drives their evolution and actions. Their power is evidence of just how stupid populations have been over the years.

On a much darker side, this statement out of government --any government-- is scary in ways history has shown us time and time again. Genocides have been perpetrated because the masses --ignorant and stupid as they are-- are easily manipulated to fall in line with the politics of the those in power. The Armenian, Jewish and Darfour genocides are just a few examples of this. Mobs are not intelligent. We should actually embrace those who do not agree with the majority, not expunge them.

I could say there's no point in arguing with you for the exact same reasons. I see you really don't want to understand my argument and would rather blithely dismiss strawmen. That's your prerogative. For anyone else who reads this, I'll continue clarifying why I think you're argument is naive and, frankly, simplistic. You seem not to have a clear understanding of American politics. Maybe you don't live here or, if you do you don't pay much attention to deep politics. That's forgivable. Most people don't have the time, heart, or stomach for it. I assume you're talking about the former President pushing the claim? That is hardly the most powerful position in America. Do you think Joe Biden is the most powerful person in America? LoL. Read Glennon's book National Security and Double Government, or Sheldon Wolin's Democracy Incorporated for a primer.

You clearly don't grok ruling class ideology and discourse policing. Please don't mislead other people with these tired arguments about conspiracy theories. Although, there is plenty of evidence of actual conspiracy at the top of the FDA and NIH if you want to nitpick. You might also want to investigate the modus operandi and principle funding structures of the WTO and WHO. But you would probably argue there were no conspiracies in Imperial Britain because they're just not possible. Your lack of historical knowledge blinds you to possibility.

But I'm not even talking about technical "conspiracy" so called. I'm talking about ideological control structures for the ruling class and those within it. Your statements are a prime example of someone who cannot see outside your ideology. You don't even know that you don't know. That's the essential feature of ideological compliance. There absolutely are conspiracies to suppress information, that's called censorship. Wait, don't tell me. You're a fan of that, too. But only to suppress disinformation and protect the feebleminded masses from their own stupidity, right? But not you! You've got enough grey matter to handle it and come to the "right" conclusions. We all know the "right" opinions and we all want to be on the "right side of history", don't we? That's right. We don't need to be told that certain ideas are junk disinformation while other, approved ideas, are justified true belief. There's a good lad, off you go.

Btw, the lab leak hypothesis was originally making a splash in the blogosphere in January 2020 before the narrative could get ahead of it. Then the political arms of the government science institutions and the pathetically complicit media leaped to the rescue by savaging the people who would dare suggest such a thing. Google "lab leak Wuhan" with a date filter if you want to relive those heady days. It's especially funny that you would make such a claim since that's exactly the sort of thing members in good standing of the establishment are expected to believe. There's really no point in arguing with someone who's mind has been broken by propaganda. I'm sorry for your loss.