I suggest you start working on your comprehension and discussion skills first and worry about my obsessions later
You seem obsessed with right or wrong, black or white.
That there are elements in common doesn't validate either.
That leaves you with at least a few theories who were/are credible .....
You are contradicting yourself
You go from an absolute conclusion to a vast majority.
Conspiracy theorists claimed the virus came from a lab in Wuhan. some claimed released accidentally, some claimed it was a bio weapon, others claimed it was natural but released on purpose ...etc etc examples of this are in the articles posted in the reply to Robinph
With the FBI and ministry of energy in the US stating it was likely it came from the Lab in Wuhan, some of the CT cohort was right. Don't loose any sleep over it, You cannot be right all the time
What the FBI said falls a long way short of most conspiracies.
But it didn't reach the same conclusions as conspiracy theorists.
As the vast majority of conspiracy theorists weren't suggesting that the virus was accidentally released.
Again, you are trying to rewrite what was being claimed because you are editing out what conspiracy theorists actually did.
False seems definitive.
Where did I claim it was impossible ?
..
Sorry your statement regarding the FBI is false
It states “the FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan.”
Why are you misrepresenting what was actually said ?
The FBI reached the same conclusion as some conspiracy theorists... Isnt that the kind of source you guys are always looking for regarding a CT ?
You cannot have it both ways by asking for credible conspiracy theories and then moaning like a petulant child when presented by some potential credible sources
I'll take that as no. You won't post a definitive list of theories either.
I told you why. It's because you ignore any replies or questions you find too difficult to address and that made it clear it wasn't worth answering your question.
I also did define it knowing full well you would not be engaging in discussion in good faith and would continue to avoid questions and points.
And shock, you are again ignoring that.
The articles you post say it unlikely not impossible like you subsequently claim.
Me saying that, doesn't mean I believe either.
Actually it was during the whole thing that I did stumble on a credible conspiracy theory. But it's one that conspiracy theorists never once picked up on because it wasn't very exciting.
There was a lot of talk about "gain of function" testing. But in the conspiracy world this was more what was used to create the virus for the purpose of depopulation or vaccines. At the time US officials, Fauci included was stating that the US was not funding such research.
It's entirely possible that they were funding such research either knowingly or unknowingly, and the denial of it was made in ignorance or in full knowledge. It's plausible that there was some covering up, spin or reluctance to investigate to avoid this being exposed.
But since this doesn't result in sexy, world ending theories, it's not very interesting to theorists.
Why are people so reluctant to define what they mean by lab leak theory when they are discussing lab leak theory?
You post a comprehensive list of "all" lab theories then. Including the ones you've not heard off.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/what-happens-coronavirus-wuhan-lab-leak-thesis-true
Until a few weeks ago, allegations that the virus may have originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology rather than in nature were widely dismissed as an unfounded conspiracy theory.
“It’s a skip in logic to say it’s a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,” Narang said.
No distinctions are made
Another article combining both theories
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/23/841729646/virus-researchers-cast-doubt-on-theory-of-coronavirus-lab-accident
But after corresponding with 10 leading scientists who collect samples of viruses from animals in the wild, study virus genomes and understand how lab accidents can happen, NPR found that an accidental release would have required a remarkable series of coincidences and deviations from well-established experimental protocols.
"All of the evidence points to this not being a laboratory accident," says Jonna Mazet, a professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Davis and director of a global project to watch for emerging viruses called PREDICT."
Above was among other publications, used to ridicule the theory It came from a lab.
FALSE. About as likely as the Salisbury novichok attack of last year emanating from our own high security laboratory at Porton Down which is not more than a stone's throw from the historic city. In short it’s total nonsense, up there with wacko theories about 9/11, the Holocaust and the death of JFK. The coronavirus is just another zoonotic infection - a virus that jumped from animals to humans. The Spanish flu, HIV and Ebola are others.
Another fine example
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/05/the-non-paranoid-persons-guide-to-viruses-escaping-from-labs/
"Ebright’s focus on lab escapes has made him something of a pariah, especially among experts who don’t like to rile the public."
There are Many .. many more examples of how the thories got bundled up in single articles
You won’t define what the lab leak theory is. I am not trying to shut down the discussion.
To claim that one cannot define what the lab leak theory is because we don’t know the source of the virus is disingenuous. If we knew the source of the virus there wouldn’t be competing theories as to the source of the virus.
It's very strange that they aren't part of a conspiracy. Why aren't they? Why did they suddenly change sides? Are they not part of other conspiracies now?
No answers will be forthcoming because the conspiracy theory is not credible.
Nope, it is you that is attempting to rewrite your position to have been "it was an accident". That has never been the position by those pushing conspiracy theories.
If you want a credible conspiracy theory then something like "they tried to cover up a mistake they made" would have been a good start, but until the last week that isn't what any conspiracy theorists have been claiming. Now they are changing their positions to try and make out they were saying something credible from the start.
And I told you, I'd answer if you promised that you would stop dodging mine. It's clear that you aren't able to do that as you want to dodge questions when they become too difficult for you.
But still here is your answer:
The lab leak theory is the notion that the virus leaked from a lab.
Now, since you haven't answered my questions and have been doing everything to avoid answering them, you are admitting you can't answer them as per your previous post.
You accept and agree that conspiracy theorists where claiming a great many things beyond the idea of a lab leak. You also agree that those theories are all obviously false and should be dismissed as conspiracy theories.
If this isn't what you accept or agree to, then by all means, answer my questions. If you can't answer them, then don't.
Why do you spend so much time of stuff you don't want to answer questions about?
I don't need to define something to discuss it.
You're looking for a finite definition of something so you can shut down discussion.
But a finite definition isn't possible because we don't know the source of this virus. Scientists do not agree it can't have come from a lab only its very unlikely. But they can't find any evidence of the other scenerio's that it occurred in nature either.
Deary me, what are the FBI going to do with all their sudden credibility in the conspiracy community..
Your phrasing is off. Peddling conspiracy theories is something Alex Jones does. He makes them up as part of a grift.
The FBI, whose job it is to investigate actual collusion and conspiracy, now believe it was accidentally leaked from a lab, something which has never been ruled out.
There was, and still is, significant evidence it originated in a wet market in Wuhan. So no consensus on either.
Of course I can phrase all that a different way and say "pick one, simple".
Won’t define it but recognises it exists but won’t define what “it” is. Extraordinary!
If you can’t answer don’t. It seems extraordinary that you would expend so much time discussing something you won’t define.
I don't define it. I recognize it exists. There's is no evidence of a non lab source either. The Chinese prevented any conclusive investigation.
Cool. And if I answer, will you address my previous questions?
If not, then you demonstrate why I shouldn't bother.
What do you believe the lab leak theory to be?
It is pretty fundamental to a discussion about the lab leak theory.
Lol sure. I've answered all of your previous questions while you do nothing but ignore mine.
You accuse me of misrepresenting and gaslighting while doing that.
If I explain what I believe it to be, will you then answer my questions? Or will you continue to ignore them?
If you plan on ignoring any questions that you find too difficult, why should I bother answering yours?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
