It was always a theory that had no evidence stronger than "but maybe this could have happened" and was rightly rejected by people who care more about evidence than spreading hatred.

The fact that there's a biolab doing gain-of-function research a few blocks away from ground zero is much stronger bayesian evidence than "but maybe it's true".

(And then the fact that ground zero is a wet market is strong evidence against. It's so weird that we have two plausible origins for this virus and they're almost right next to each other.)

"but maybe this could have happened"* is the exact evidence being input into your bayesian model. The fact that this particular thing could have happened is a bit surprising, so it does count as some evidence, but it's not strong enough to then go run around saying on the internet it definitely did happen. Especially in the context where, as you point out, there's also other evidence of the form "but maybe <this other thing> could have happened and that's also surprising".

Which to address a different subthread, is exactly what some people did (go around on the internet confidently stating it did happen). Which is why, I think, other people then labelled the people seriously discussing the theory as conspiracy theorists. Which is a step too far, it's only the people confidently asserting from weak evidence that it definitely did happen who should be labelled as conspiracy theorists. Which is all to say since when does the internet do any of this nuance at all well on any side.

* GP's phrasing, which is arguably different from your phrasing of "but maybe it's true"

JFC, finally someone that understands specific evidence changes probabilities.

It's unlikely we'll ever know the truth. If it's a cover up, then it's possible that someone will come forward in 30 years. For example, Luis Salas spilled the beans on Lyndon B Johnson's 1948 election fraud. But it's unlikely, because the PRC doesn't have a statute of limitations on STFU. If it's natural zoonosis, then maybe we'll manage to find and prove the origin.

> was rightly rejected by people who care more about evidence than spreading hatred.

The French CNRS, well know to be a right-wing US actor wanting to spread hate

https://lejournal.cnrs.fr/articles/la-question-de-lorigine-d...

Back then anyone who suggested the lab leak theory was immediately labeled a conspiracy theorist by main stream media.

The major reason for that is that many were doing this in language that was generally considered racist and/or mixed in some other weird stuff like how COVID lockdowns were like the Jewish persecution, rants about masking, or that type of stuff. I'm not saying everyone did that, but there was a huge overlap.

> there was a huge overlap.

There was a huge overlap because within a month it became completely taboo for anyone who cared about not being seen as an alt-right activist to say anything about it. Even freaking Jon Stewart got caught in the instant-cancellation blast [0].

A major problem with our world today is that anything that the alt right supports instantly becomes taboo for the rest of us. People are more concerned with distancing themselves from the alt right than they are with finding and supporting the truth—and that goes for just about anything, not just COVID.

[0] https://nypost.com/2023/02/28/jon-stewart-recalls-outrage-af...

Have you considered the possibility that you infer racism more often than people imply it?

Not just main stream media. Your average javascript programmer engaged in the same antics whenever policies regarding covid were questioned.

These censorship policies wouldn't be nearly as widespread if they weren't popular among the middle of the bellcurve "I can write javascript therefore I must be very smart" type people

Did a javascript programmer hurt you?

Many.

Yes and I’m saying that was bad.

Were they? Or were those who claimed it was the only possible answer, without the evidence to back that up?

That's not a good enough reason to censor.

99% of the time there isn't a good reason to censor things, that doesn't stop it from happening constantly though. Especially in China where censorship of anything with bad publicity for the country or government or people is the default stance.

Hopefully this helps people realize how meaningless it is to be labeled a conspiracy theorist.

I think the conspiracy theorist label is associated with common patterns (believing in a cover up in cases where there's no incentive / the cover up would be more expensive than the crime / the evidence would be impossible to cover up, etc) but in this case these patterns don't apply.

The lab leak theory was extremely plausible even assuming no secret conspiracy at all. Lab leaks do happen, that lab did do gain of function research, the State did shut down investigations, etc.

You might be surprised how many things labeled conspiracy theories have strong evidence, incentives, etc. but get scoffed at as kooky impossibilities nonetheless - like the lab leak theory.

Out how many conspiracy theories end up being right.

I think when it comes to conspiracy theories the two heuristics to use are:

1.) Do they have an incentive to conspire?

2.) Do they have the ability to conspire?

Where both are true I think conspiracies exist every where, often to such an extent it just gets labelled as corruption rather than conspiracy.

Well if the wanted to be taken more seriously, then maybe they shouldn't have been spouting so many other ridiculous implausible conspiracy theories, denying evolution and climate change, injecting disinfectant, and popping horse dewormer pills, then eventually denying the results of the election.

it's always easier to dismiss imaginary strawmen than real people.

Who's "they"? You just grabbed a bunch of different arguments you disagree with and then bunched them all together with the lab leak.

Btw, I wouldn't remind people of "horse dewormer" debacle I were you - you come off as anti-science.

It was never implausible, it has always been the most likely the most straightforward theory. A lab that worked on gain of function of coronaviruses.

All other theories sound as made up bs.

It only went the way it did because people were making "lab leak" synonymous with "genetically engineered."

I think you're confusing genetic engineering with the bioweapons research. The WIV did collect natural coronaviruses and genetically engineer them.