zlacker

If the evidence is that overwhelming, then why are so few researchers saying so? I can understand things being extremely skewed at the political and policy level - that's expected - and I can understand the media being skewed because I'm familiar with that on other issues. But if your argument is right then this is also basically a total collapse of the scientific community. That's harder to swallow. From your comment I assume that you're either a biologist or trained as such, so I'd like to hear how you explain that.

>>guesst+(OP)
You're a bit too trustful towards the flawless functioning of the scientific community. Scientists are humans and are prone the same group think errors like everyone else. Historical examples are plenty, e.g. Darwin was ridiculed by his peers about his theory of evolution, or the more recent erratic theory that coronary diseases are purely caused by eating too much fat and not by sugar.

In this case, as the article mentions, there was a conflict of interest as well that might well have motivated some leading scientists in the field to campaign against the theory that the Wuhan lab was the source of the outbreak.

>>guesst+(OP)
Anyone versed well enough to call this man made likely has a lot of skin in the game and doesn't want to risk being ostracized and cast out. It would probably be a career limiting move.