zlacker

I haven't followed every scientist in that list so I have no idea how much any one of them might or might not have actively and aggressively smeared people. If that's the case, then obviously, that's awful. But they're still allowed to change their mind, and OP's comment seemed to take primary issue with the mind-changing. (That could be me mis-interpreting though.)

Edit: I've definitely seen people on Twitter and people in the media be overzealous when denying the lab-leak theory; but that's not the same as the scientists themselves doing it (which again, I don't know about either way).

>>someth+(OP)
I am specifically referring to the Lancet letter that is the subject of the article (full text: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...).

Relevant excerpts:

> The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.

> Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus. We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture.

>>someth+(OP)
> OP's comment seemed to take primary issue with the mind-changing. I think the OP was more accurate than you (or even they) thought.

Scientists confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence (i.e. "we don't have evidence of lab leaks, so anyone claiming it's a lab leak is definitely wrong") -> joke of a scientist

Scientists making a statement not from scientific evidence but due to political expediency (see sibling post, i.e. "conspiracy theories are making China unhappy and they might not share data with us") -> political actors

>>hnfong+EP1
I was exactly as accurate as I thought :D and as you point out the meanings thanks for making it clearer.