Also it is good to keep in mind the following [0] from Matt Ridley.

0- https://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/1565242836710309891

This is only evidence of Daszak/EcoHealth being unethical. I doubt he has access to a secret "smoking gun" conclusively proving lab leak vs zoonotic.

If there is a chance you are responsible, why not cover it up and muddy the waters, just in case?

Fauci was all over this. This is his program.

This explains the entire issue well

https://youtu.be/8cBNyyAGETU

I'm not saying I disagree with any of these, to be honest I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but there is some irony in posing an argument for good faith discussion by posting a list of questions you've already determined only have one true answer.

OP isn't asserting an answer to any of those questions, OP is asking for an answer at all. All of those associations and events are tied into the lab leak hypothesis. So, if you are going to make any hypothesis on the lab leak, those are events that need to be addressed. OP is asking that you look at all the evidence, or you are not arguing in good faith. I don't see how it's ironic.

The problem is that they're not evidence for a lab leak. They're evidence for Peter Daszak being a shady person who was scared of the thought of a lab leak being linked to him regardless of whether or not it's true, and handled it in the worst way possible.

If that's true, it needs to be addressed. If it's true, then Peter Daszak, surely would have evidence that would exonerate him, along with corroborating witnesses. Instead, he hides and deflects. Unfortunately, it's become a right vs left issue, so he has an entire political establishment deflecting for him on his behalf.

It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion.

>If it's true, then Peter Daszak, surely would have evidence that would exonerate him, along with corroborating witnesses

Disagree, since you can't really prove a negative. I'm not sure what evidence could "exonerate" him in a way that would remove everyone's suspicion.

Besides, I listened to the podcast "This Week in Virology" A lot during covid, and they talked about Daszak multiple times, especially since some of the hosts have professional connections with him. Prof. Racaniello, the main host, has even interviewed him, pre-pandemic. Unfortunately, all of their discussion around the lab leak hypothesis would just get disregarded by people since it didn't fit the conspiracy narrative, and they just got written off as "anti-Trump" as a result. Literally, one of their march 2020 episodes where they'd usually answer listener questions, as they'd been doing for nearly a decade, was just them being baffled by suddenly getting hate mail accusing them of being "political" and "anti-Trump". That's also when I realized personally that we were screwed but I digress.

>It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion.

Totally agreed, and I get it. This is why learning about cognitive biases and structured critical thinking was so eye-opening to me and why I think we should be teaching these things in school as early as possible.

>It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion.

Which is why the presumption of innocence is central to most modern judicial systems and is widely recognized as a human right. Why should we throw out that principal in this specific instance?

Also, Hanson's Razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

Basically, its entirely possible that Daszak is covering up a lab leak. Its also entirely possible he's an arrogant asshole who got scared of the implication that there was a lab leak.

Lets have the data and facts speak for what Peter Daszaks motivase are.

Your speculation of the poster’s positions on said questions is not in good faith either. Even if your assumptions were correct, they’re entirely irrelevant as the questions stand on their own.

these questions are basically copy pasta amongst the lab-leak crowd. that doesn't mean they aren't valid but I think it make sense to question the motivation in this instance.

What’s the best way to raise these facts - are you supposed to just list them out since writing them in the form of a question is misleading or something?

Just my personal opinion here, I think this is an acceptable rhetorical device normally, but specifically in covid discussions this is an off-putting approach. "Just asking questions" is a common strategy among covid deniers and anti-vax folks who are also often pro-lab leak hypothesis.

When I see a comment like the top most one in this thread, I can't tell if the author is actually coming to this discussion in good faith with a fact based approach or they are a nut job "just asking questions". Is the author meaning for the audience to infer actual confirmed facts or are they trying to imply guilt without any actual evidence? In this situation it is better to actually write out the facts with sources verifying them. Without that, the author risks being lumped in with the crazies.

Yes, asking questions is now enough to get you labeled a conspiracy nut job.

That toddler who continuously asks "why?" ten times in a row - conspiracy crank!!!

>That toddler who continuously asks "why?" ten times in a row - conspiracy crank!!!

Well if the toddler is asking questions about the lab leak hypothesis...

I explicitly said it is a generally acceptable approach that doesn't work on this specific topic because of the reasons listed.

Please give us a complete list of the topics about which we are no longer allowed to ask questions.

Where did I say you can't ask questions? I said asking questions is a bad rhetorical device to use on this topic. OP isn't an inquisitive mind looking for answers to those questions. They are trying to convince us of a particular viewpoint due to the implied answers to those questions.

Please give us a comprehensive list of topics for which asking questions is a bad rhetorical device. I'd like to understand the basis for your claim, and how you presume to know what's in OP's mind?

>Please give us a comprehensive list of topics for which asking questions is a bad rhetorical device.

There is no complete list. Topics exist on a spectrum and some are completely poisoned by conspiracy thinking. If some anonymous person on the internet asks "how many people really died during the Holocaust?" I am going to assume bad faith before I assume honest knowledge seeking. Covid deniers aren't that extreme, but they have certainly gotten to a point in which I view rhetorical questions with skepticism.

>I'd like to understand the basis for your claim, and how you presume to know what's in OP's mind?

I don't have to "presume to know what's in OP's mind" in terms of those questions. They told us. They said "If you don't admit these (now-obvious) facts". They are obviously using the questions rhetorically.

My underlying point is in fact that I can't read OP's mind in regard to their motivation. That is what makes this a bad rhetorical device. It is guilty of bad faith through association. If OP's intent is for a good faith discussion, they should have used a different rhetorical style to avoid that association.

And once again, this is not an argument about whether OP's original point was correct or not. That isn't what the comments I was replying to were discussing and it isn't what I said in any of my comments.

"Just asking questions" is also a common strategy among people who would like answers to their questions. I spent a long time in 2006 asking questions online about USA's actions in the Middle East, and what I found was that there was indeed an incredible amount of coverup and half-truths from both sides of the political aisle. Despite this, I was naturally called a "9/11 truther" or whatever insult could be applied to someone who wanted honesty from the world's most powerful government.

It's not in bad-faith or manipulative; there are people on this site who have a full and total belief that the Wuhan lab leak is entirely a conspiracy, so earnestly asking for clarification on how they came to that decision seems perfectly reasonable to me.

In 2003 if someone was "just asking questions" about climate change and its future effects, I don't doubt skeptics online would try to unfairly lump them in with conspiracy theorists claiming the world would be on fire by 2010. It seems to me that the best way to convince people that the lab leak is not a reality would just be to answer their earnest questions, rather than lumping them in with anti-vaxers.

>"Just asking questions" is also a common strategy among people who would like answers to their questions.

OP specifically said "If you don't admit these (now-obvious) facts". They aren't looking for answers. They believe the answers are obvious facts. They are using the questions as a rhetorical device. I pointed out this is a bad rhetorical device to use in this instance. It was not a dismissal of their underlying point. It was saying their argument about their underlying point was unconvincing.

It is considered a more genuine take, yes. When posed as a series of questions as such, it is meant in a sense to lead while initially posing as genuine curiosity. To level set, genuine and very general curiosity is maybe the most typical feature that holds this community together.

IMHO A more genuine approach would be to list the key points and why they are compelling to one of that persuasion. Or alternatively, to more directly take a position: "I find the lab leak hypothesis compelling, and TFA/primary objection's don't explain <fact 1> or <observation 2>" etc.

> are you supposed to just list them out since writing them in the form of a question is misleading or something?

Yes.

Yes!

Several years ago I dived into books and seminars on effective communication. If I had to reduce it down to a few sentences, they would be:

"Don't ask questions to express concerns. Learn how to express concerns directly in a non-threatening manner without asking questions. Ask questions only when genuinely trying to get information. Never ask leading questions. Don't ask questions to inform or educate."

The Socratic approach is rarely an effective one. Proponents of the Socratic approach almost always blame the other party when it doesn't work (and it typically doesn't work).

It applies to most forms of conversation, including code reviews.

> but I think it make sense to question the motivation in this instance.

By this logic it's equally valid to question the motivation of someone hand waving the questions away as "copy pasta" rather than just answering them. The Socratic method is a perfectly valid way to further an argument.

It's not their ultimate positions on the questions I'm referring to rather the order of what's question, fact, and required to be taken to be discussion in good faith.

That's not fair, these questions have existed in the public sphere for years now with no official explanation. This is one more "talk to the hand" played by the authorities. I suppose when authorities behave this way, they shouldn't expect themselves to have grassroots support.

The problem is that the way the questions are posed comes across as "what are they hiding?!?"

You have to admit that it's not a good way to kick off a discussion of the subject in earnest.

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?

Let's stipulate that everything you say is true. It still doesn't address the content of the comment you are responding to:

"it's not a good way to kick off a discussion of the subject in earnest. "

And as someone who has no opinion on the issue at all, and hasn't researched it, and can easily believe it is/isn't of lab origin, I can say that the top level OP comment was a very quick "I don't want to spend a minute of my time engaging with this guy."

Do I have a flaw when I behave that way? Perhaps. Does he/she have a flaw in writing comments in ways that turn most people off? Definitely.

Another comment addressing pure tone, while never addressing content, unbelievable! People conducting science need to behave ethically, those are reasonable probing ethical questions. If the initial discussion related to origins of a bad pandemic can be quelled by a handful of science bureaucrats with conflicted interests then I think an interested journalist would ask the grand-OPs questions. The fact we don't have answers is because either the journalists aren't asking the questions (except the intercept) or the questions aren't getting answered. The normal format of journalistic curiosity is getting short circuited and so all you get to see is dickheads asking quesitons to the void on the internet. Perhaps you entirely disagree because you don't think those questions need to be answered. But we are stuck on tone of grand-OPs argument because why? Are you interested in the questions, I kind of think not.

> Did someone come up with a good explanation of why Peter Daszak and various affiliates of EcoHealth alliance were involved in nearly all the media "coverage" (dismissals) of the lab leak hypothesis when it first popped up?

No idea.

> And why The Lancet published the initial letter dismissing lab leak, clearly coordinated by EcoHealth alliance?

No idea.

> And why Daszak also was on the WHO investigation team?

No idea.

> And why to this day no one apologized, let alone got fired for this?

No idea.

I am not better informed as a result of your comment.

Asking questions is not a proper way to educate or inform people. That I don't have answers to your questions doesn't lead to any conclusion, nor does it make me doubt anything.

As a general rule: If you want to know if X is true, look for "positive" evidence. Not absence of evidence. Asking questions almost always is merely saying "Hey, I don't have all the answers" - not "Hey, there's no good answer so the answer must be Y".