Only on Mondays through the 2024 election. For the remainder of the week, the show will be run by the correspondents (likely to include Jordan Klepper, Desi Lydic, Ronny Chieng, Michael Kosta, and...
Only on Mondays through the 2024 election. For the remainder of the week, the show will be run by the correspondents (likely to include Jordan Klepper, Desi Lydic, Ronny Chieng, Michael Kosta, and Dulcé Sloan).
I’ve honestly been loving the different-host-every-week format, and I honestly love the idea of bringing back Jon Stewart to host the show on a more regular basis but otherwise keeping the weekly...
I’ve honestly been loving the different-host-every-week format, and I honestly love the idea of bringing back Jon Stewart to host the show on a more regular basis but otherwise keeping the weekly mix up even more.
I miss Stewart, but wonder if any of the original writing staff is returning as well. He didn't carry the original show alone, and even the opening monologue will hit different if there's a new...
I miss Stewart, but wonder if any of the original writing staff is returning as well. He didn't carry the original show alone, and even the opening monologue will hit different if there's a new team behind it. I enjoyed what I saw from his Apple show though, so he's definitely still got it.
It'll be interesting to see how he covers a Biden-Trump race -- his focus the last few years has been on issues outside the partisan political spotlight, and one of his biggest weaknesses was his instinct for both-sides, can't-we-all-just-get-along rhetoric amidst the rise of the Tea Party and Trumpism. He never hesitated to tear into Bush-era bullshit, with a chaser of bemused sarcasm for feckless Dems. But the threat posed by Republicans now is fundamentally different. I hope his take hews closer to Colbert/Meyers-style recognition of MAGA fascism rather than the South Park/Maher approach of focusing on Trump's dumb foibles and acting like "SJW cancel culture gone woke" is an equally bad threat.
Considering Jon Stewart has embraced the lab leak theory behind COVID, I would be hesitant to buy into him this time around. EDIT: I should add, I don't believe Jon to be suddenly right-wing or...
EDIT: I should add, I don't believe Jon to be suddenly right-wing or anything of the sort. Rather, I think our view of his views should be tempered, knowing that he wallows in the same mud as everyone else.
There’s two variants of the lab leak theory: Release from WIV of an engineered virus, either deliberately (as a biological weapon) or accidentally. This is the more conspiratorial one that is...
There’s two variants of the lab leak theory:
Release from WIV of an engineered virus, either deliberately (as a biological weapon) or accidentally. This is the more conspiratorial one that is outside of the realm of discussion.
Accidental release of a wild type virus. This is within the realm of possibility. There have been instances like this before. Various U.S. intelligence agencies have done assessments on the probability, either with low or medium confidence of a leak happening.
One thing to keep in mind is that while the scientific process is generally open, public, and transparent, intelligence work is not; indeed, some of the most highly classified information is intelligence sources and methods. The agencies may have information about sloppy work practices at WIV (that, if disclosed, would lead back to a source in China), or have techniques that allow them to better detect viruses within plant effluent or air emissions. On top of that, China isn’t exactly being transparent, so we will likely never have a definitive answer on the origins of COVID-19, only being able to say with high confidence that is was/wasn’t from a wild-origin case.
Is that also the case in China? Sloppy work practices in China is definitely a tale as old as time, so despite having no horses in this race at all, I wouldn't discount any of these possibilities...
One thing to keep in mind is that while the scientific process is generally open, public, and transparent
Is that also the case in China?
Sloppy work practices in China is definitely a tale as old as time, so despite having no horses in this race at all, I wouldn't discount any of these possibilities nor really judge Stewart for holding his opinion. It does seem weird that he made it a point to talk about it like that when he of course ultimately has no idea. "Theories" are fine but this does approach conspiracy theory territory - however I will also add that I think some people are a little bit naive if they think world powers/superpowers/regional powers don't research biological/chemical things like this, and also that biological/chemical warfare is a thing of the past. So in a country with quite a few safety issues historically, I don't think it's a reach to say that an accident could have caused COVID to be released from a lab and/or caged bats or whatever.
Also, there may be treaties etc. but just look at Syria as an example re: this type of warfare. Tear gas has also been used in Ukraine however that is in the milder end of the scale when it comes to such weapons.
I believe there’s marginally less transparency/openness, but still orders of magnitude more than compared to intelligence work. While the existence of a covert BW program wouldn’t surprise me, I...
I believe there’s marginally less transparency/openness, but still orders of magnitude more than compared to intelligence work.
While the existence of a covert BW program wouldn’t surprise me, I suspect China wouldn’t co-locate it with their civilian research, especially in a facility that works with foreigners.
Deliberate leak of an engineered virus is far outside the realm of possibility, simply because it would imply that China released a biological weapon onto themselves. This is leaving aside the...
Deliberate leak of an engineered virus is far outside the realm of possibility, simply because it would imply that China released a biological weapon onto themselves. This is leaving aside the widely-accepted fact that viruses make terrible weapons because there's no way to make them discriminate between you and your target.
Accidental leak of an engineered virus is more plausible, but still seems unlikely. The general consensus seems to be that the Wuhan Institute of Virology did not conduct the kind of research that would have been necessary for that to happen.
Just to put my cards on the table, that's my take too. It's well-documented that there was gain-of-function research with coronaviruses taking place at the Wuhan Institute of Virology though:...
Accidental leak of an engineered virus is more plausible, but still seems unlikely.
Just to put my cards on the table, that's my take too.
It's well-documented that there was gain-of-function research with coronaviruses taking place at the Wuhan Institute of Virology though:
Scientists working under a 2014 NIH grant to the EcoHealth Alliance to study bat coronaviruses combined the genetic material from a “parent” coronavirus known as WIV1 with other viruses. They twice submitted summaries of their work that showed that, when in the lungs of genetically engineered mice, three altered bat coronaviruses at times reproduced far more quickly than the original virus on which they were based. The altered viruses were also somewhat more pathogenic, with one causing the mice to lose significant weight. The researchers reported, “These results demonstrate varying pathogenicity of SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins in humanized mice.”
Rule it out completely, no - that's not something we can do. The preponderance of the evidence supports a natural origin,. There's no publicly-available evidence to support a lab leak, either....
Rule it out completely, no - that's not something we can do.
The preponderance of the evidence supports a natural origin,. There's no publicly-available evidence to support a lab leak, either. While you can't rule a leak out, there's nothing really credible - again, available to us, right now - supporting the lab leak. Based on the available information, a natural origin is the only really credible explanation.
For what it's worth, an engineered virus doesn't mean it was developed as a weapon. It's more likely that they had tweaked it to make it more useful for developing vaccines in case a wild virus...
For what it's worth, an engineered virus doesn't mean it was developed as a weapon. It's more likely that they had tweaked it to make it more useful for developing vaccines in case a wild virus jumped on its own again (this isn't the first coronavirus pandemic -- the full name is SARS-COV2 because it's closely related to the virus that caused SARS). That kind of research is dangerous if safety protocols aren't followed, but has a legitimate purpose behind it.
Which means there's really three theories, and two of them tend to get conflated.
Also for what it's worth, that doesn't really change the fact that to-date, as it pertains to the public, there is no verifiable evidence for a lab leak of any particular kind. That may change in...
Also for what it's worth, that doesn't really change the fact that to-date, as it pertains to the public, there is no verifiable evidence for a lab leak of any particular kind.
That may change in the coming months/years/decades, but without evidence to support a lab leak (of any kind), the most credible cause continues to be natural origin.
Like /u/FluffyKittens said, that's not entirely true. There's no direct evidence that it leaked from the lab, but there's evidence corona viruses were being studied there, and evidence that this...
Like /u/FluffyKittens said, that's not entirely true. There's no direct evidence that it leaked from the lab, but there's evidence corona viruses were being studied there, and evidence that this kind of research was being done on them.
If anything it makes more sense than the wet market explanation, which has a similar lack of proof.
No, we don't. And I don't think you really do either, otherwise you'd have to say there's no evidence of any origin for the virus. The wet market theory doesn't exactly have hard evidence, either....
No, we don't. And I don't think you really do either, otherwise you'd have to say there's no evidence of any origin for the virus. The wet market theory doesn't exactly have hard evidence, either. It's all circumstantial.
Circumstantial, perhaps - but it's evidence that can be supported, argued, debated, and examined. That cannot be said of the lab leak, which does not have even circumstantial evidence - at least,...
Circumstantial, perhaps - but it's evidence that can be supported, argued, debated, and examined.
That cannot be said of the lab leak, which does not have even circumstantial evidence - at least, nothing the intelligence agencies are giving up.
So, until such time as evidence is made available for the lab leak hypothesis, I'll continue to follow the evidence, circumstantial as it has be.
Huh? There's a ton of circumstantial evidence. The only thing we're really missing is a record of a virus they were studying escaping containment at the right time. And I say at the right time...
Huh? There's a ton of circumstantial evidence. The only thing we're really missing is a record of a virus they were studying escaping containment at the right time. And I say at the right time because there were previous documented cases where failure to properly use PPE directly exposed workers to bat coronaviruses. They were studying this exact family of viruses, and were known to have lacking safety measures due to a lack of adequately trained personnel. The natural reservoir of the virus is also hundreds of miles away, which makes it unlikely that bushmeat from that area would have ended up in a market in Wuhan. But bats from that area were present and being studied at the WIV.
And that's just the surface level stuff that doesn't take any real research to find out. There's some details about the US NIH having funded that lab, and about virology techniques that are banned for safety reasons in the US not being bannned in china, that are also suggestive and would give a motive for officials from both the US and China to downplay the lab leak possibility, but which I've never had the time or inclination to really dig into because I'm just not that invested in it. We know it came from Wuhan, we know there's two broadly plausible theories, and there's no reason to be as dismissive of the lab leak theory as you're being.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2305081 I'll continue to follow what scientists are saying, and as it stands it's still pointing to natural origin. If it shifts towards a lab leak, then...
I'll continue to follow what scientists are saying, and as it stands it's still pointing to natural origin. If it shifts towards a lab leak, then I'll have a different perspective and will gladly change my opinion.
Please don't confuse "following majority of scientific opinion" with "being dismissive".
You're not following the majority of scientific opinion when you say there's no evidence for the lab leak theory. Or even reading your own articles. They currently believe the wet market theory is...
You're not following the majority of scientific opinion when you say there's no evidence for the lab leak theory. Or even reading your own articles. They currently believe the wet market theory is more likely. That doesn't mean they believe the alternative is unlikely, let alone that there's no reason to suspect it.
Call it less likely if you'd prefer. It's still not the prevailing scientific opinion. I'm not sure you're reading my responses though, as I continue to say that if and when the lab leak is proven...
Call it less likely if you'd prefer. It's still not the prevailing scientific opinion.
I'm not sure you're reading my responses though, as I continue to say that if and when the lab leak is proven to be a more likely cause, I will change my opinion.
Dude, you were saying there was no evidence whatsoever earlier. You even claimed there wasn't even any circumstantial evidence at one point. If this is really about science for you, you need to...
Dude, you were saying there was no evidence whatsoever earlier. You even claimed there wasn't even any circumstantial evidence at one point. If this is really about science for you, you need to study up on how science works, because what you're doing here is an appeal to authority, not an understanding of what the science actually is on this or what the consensus means.
The scientists have never doubted that the lab leak was possible, and it's really not settled which is more likely. Which was the actual cause will likely never be settled because one way or another, the evidence has almost certainly been destroyed -- actually especially if the wet market was the cause, because we know for a fact that the Chinese government cleaned the place out and sterilized the surfaces as soon as they traced the virus back to that general area. Which is why the overall consensus is pretty weak, as is the evidence in either direction. The heavy backlash against voicing the possibility of the lab leak was coming from politicians, not scientists, who were trying to head off racial tensions that Trump stoked by doing things like calling it the "China virus" and went way overboard with it. An admirable goal, but with an execution that actually did more damage to trust in and understanding of science than good to much of anything.
Y'know what, fine - you got me. I over-stated my position a few times. You can go back to my very first reply in this chain and see that I've been saying that the lab leak is possible, but without...
Y'know what, fine - you got me. I over-stated my position a few times. You can go back to my very first reply in this chain and see that I've been saying that the lab leak is possible, but without physical evidence. There is more physical evidence (even if not much more) to support a natural origin, relating to the particular genome of the virus - but it's not a smoking gun or anything.
I may have said there was no circumstantial evidence, in large part because I was/am emphasizing the "evidence" part of the statement. Yes, the lab is in Wuhan, in a place where they were studying coronaviruses. That is circumstantial, but it is not evidence - in my opinion. The presence of a lab in an area does not immediately mean that it supports a lab leak, but it IS circumstantially-related by virtue of existing.
If you want to rope in appeals to authority, please note that some feel that they can be valid, when the authority is credible. In this case, I believe that the natural origin is most likely correct, because so too does the scientific majority. I like to believe that scientists know what they are doing, and while scientists do not always over-state their arguments like I do, the majority of them do believe that the natural origin is most likely.
If scientific consensus shifts, then so too shall my view. You can call that an appeal to authority if you want.
But hey, if you want me to say it, I'll say it - I've overstated my position (several times).
I'll reiterate it again here - the lab leak hypothesis is possible. I agree! We agree.
I'll also restate it again - the preponderance of the available evidence, as flimsy and circumstantial as it may be, tends to point to a natural origin. As such, I believe - along with a majority of scientists across the globe - that the natural origin is most likely correct.
You can feel free to go back through our long response chain here and pick apart my language to your heart's content.
My only addition at this point, is that Jon Stewart's invocation of the lab leak hypothesis in 2021 came at a time of rising anti-Asian racism and violence, and did nothing to actually advance the dialogue on that front. He did not provide any evidence for a lab leak, and he used natural origin as the butt of his jokes. One could argue that by invoking the lab leak when and how he did, he only did harm for the argument and provided the conspiratorial supporters of the lab leak hypothesis with more ammunition - he was "one of them" now.
Which is why I said in the first place that we should hold him and his views in a more grounded manner now.
That’s my specific point of contention. Lab leak is plausibly credible IMO. There’s a preponderance only in the weak sense of “more likely than not”. There is some evidence in support of the lab...
Based on the available information, a natural origin is the only really credible explanation.
That’s my specific point of contention. Lab leak is plausibly credible IMO. There’s a preponderance only in the weak sense of “more likely than not”.
There is some evidence in support of the lab leak, but it’s weak and not definitive. Most pointedly, the WIV researched genetically-modified coronaviruses engineered for pathogenicity in human models. There’s also been contentious results from restriction site analysis, which is summarized quite nicely by this review:
If something is more likely, I tend to put more emphasis on it. There might not be a smoking gun for either origin, but right now, there is more evidence supporting nature than lab leak. Until...
If something is more likely, I tend to put more emphasis on it.
There might not be a smoking gun for either origin, but right now, there is more evidence supporting nature than lab leak. Until proven otherwise, I'll go with the scientific majority.
Sure, but how are you getting from “the scientific majority thinks zoonotic origin is more likely than lab leak” to “the scientific majority thinks lab leak is not a credible explanation”?
Sure, but how are you getting from “the scientific majority thinks zoonotic origin is more likely than lab leak” to “the scientific majority thinks lab leak is not a credible explanation”?
I may be misusing the word credible. Right now, there is zero to limited evidence to support a lab leak. They only two sources that have stated that they have evidence for it, have not shared it -...
I may be misusing the word credible.
Right now, there is zero to limited evidence to support a lab leak. They only two sources that have stated that they have evidence for it, have not shared it - and those sources are intelligence agency related.
All other sources available support natural origin. Basically all scientific documentation available to us supports a natural origin.
Without any evidence to support it, I do not view the lab leak hypothesis as credible. If information becomes available to support it, then it may become credible in my mind.
(I’m trusting the bio folks more on this one, as it gets outside my areas of expertise.) The current evidence seems to indicate no signs of genetic engineering in the line that would’ve leaked....
(I’m trusting the bio folks more on this one, as it gets outside my areas of expertise.) The current evidence seems to indicate no signs of genetic engineering in the line that would’ve leaked. They did do GoF research there, but that is a separate issue.
The only things I understand are probably his height and weight, and “let’s fucking go Mets” Please help me decode this?
Stewart added on X, formerly known as Twitter: “Friends. After much reflection I have decided to enter the transfer portal for my last year of eligibility. Excited for the future! 5’7” ish 165 14.8 second 40 #Blessed #NILBABY #TDSnation #LFGM”
The only things I understand are probably his height and weight, and “let’s fucking go Mets”
It’s a wisecrack about college football. Between college football seasons, players can enter a transfer portal to move between schools, usually in the hopes of finding a better situation or...
It’s a wisecrack about college football. Between college football seasons, players can enter a transfer portal to move between schools, usually in the hopes of finding a better situation or increasing their playing time. Stewart posted his measurables (height, weight, 40 yard dash time) as if to advertise himself to other schools, imitating actual college football players who post similar transfer tweets during the offseason.
Note that 14.8 seconds ain't great, like 3x slower than a decent athlete. Also "NILBABY" is a reference to the new "name, image, and likeness" rules that allow college athletes to profit from...
Note that 14.8 seconds ain't great, like 3x slower than a decent athlete. Also "NILBABY" is a reference to the new "name, image, and likeness" rules that allow college athletes to profit from endorsement deals, and "TDSnation" a nod to fans of the show.
This feels kind of stunty, getting the old host back in the show's darkest hour. Especially if we pivot into the "Orange Man Bad" punchline era of late night comedy, I don't think this will end up...
This feels kind of stunty, getting the old host back in the show's darkest hour. Especially if we pivot into the "Orange Man Bad" punchline era of late night comedy, I don't think this will end up as well as everyone thinks it will.
Only on Mondays through the 2024 election. For the remainder of the week, the show will be run by the correspondents (likely to include Jordan Klepper, Desi Lydic, Ronny Chieng, Michael Kosta, and Dulcé Sloan).
I’ve honestly been loving the different-host-every-week format, and I honestly love the idea of bringing back Jon Stewart to host the show on a more regular basis but otherwise keeping the weekly mix up even more.
I miss Stewart, but wonder if any of the original writing staff is returning as well. He didn't carry the original show alone, and even the opening monologue will hit different if there's a new team behind it. I enjoyed what I saw from his Apple show though, so he's definitely still got it.
It'll be interesting to see how he covers a Biden-Trump race -- his focus the last few years has been on issues outside the partisan political spotlight, and one of his biggest weaknesses was his instinct for both-sides, can't-we-all-just-get-along rhetoric amidst the rise of the Tea Party and Trumpism. He never hesitated to tear into Bush-era bullshit, with a chaser of bemused sarcasm for feckless Dems. But the threat posed by Republicans now is fundamentally different. I hope his take hews closer to Colbert/Meyers-style recognition of MAGA fascism rather than the South Park/Maher approach of focusing on Trump's dumb foibles and acting like "SJW cancel culture gone woke" is an equally bad threat.
Considering Jon Stewart has embraced the lab leak theory behind COVID, I would be hesitant to buy into him this time around.
EDIT: I should add, I don't believe Jon to be suddenly right-wing or anything of the sort. Rather, I think our view of his views should be tempered, knowing that he wallows in the same mud as everyone else.
I thought the jury was still out on the lab leak theory? Is there some conclusive evidence against against it?
There’s two variants of the lab leak theory:
One thing to keep in mind is that while the scientific process is generally open, public, and transparent, intelligence work is not; indeed, some of the most highly classified information is intelligence sources and methods. The agencies may have information about sloppy work practices at WIV (that, if disclosed, would lead back to a source in China), or have techniques that allow them to better detect viruses within plant effluent or air emissions. On top of that, China isn’t exactly being transparent, so we will likely never have a definitive answer on the origins of COVID-19, only being able to say with high confidence that is was/wasn’t from a wild-origin case.
Is that also the case in China?
Sloppy work practices in China is definitely a tale as old as time, so despite having no horses in this race at all, I wouldn't discount any of these possibilities nor really judge Stewart for holding his opinion. It does seem weird that he made it a point to talk about it like that when he of course ultimately has no idea. "Theories" are fine but this does approach conspiracy theory territory - however I will also add that I think some people are a little bit naive if they think world powers/superpowers/regional powers don't research biological/chemical things like this, and also that biological/chemical warfare is a thing of the past. So in a country with quite a few safety issues historically, I don't think it's a reach to say that an accident could have caused COVID to be released from a lab and/or caged bats or whatever.
Also, there may be treaties etc. but just look at Syria as an example re: this type of warfare. Tear gas has also been used in Ukraine however that is in the milder end of the scale when it comes to such weapons.
Why do you think the engineered-virus variant is outside the realm of possibility?
Deliberate leak of an engineered virus is far outside the realm of possibility, simply because it would imply that China released a biological weapon onto themselves. This is leaving aside the widely-accepted fact that viruses make terrible weapons because there's no way to make them discriminate between you and your target.
Accidental leak of an engineered virus is more plausible, but still seems unlikely. The general consensus seems to be that the Wuhan Institute of Virology did not conduct the kind of research that would have been necessary for that to happen.
Just to put my cards on the table, that's my take too.
It's well-documented that there was gain-of-function research with coronaviruses taking place at the Wuhan Institute of Virology though:
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/
While there's no smoking-gun evidence that it was a lab leak, I don't think it's fair to rule it out completely either.
Rule it out completely, no - that's not something we can do.
The preponderance of the evidence supports a natural origin,. There's no publicly-available evidence to support a lab leak, either. While you can't rule a leak out, there's nothing really credible - again, available to us, right now - supporting the lab leak. Based on the available information, a natural origin is the only really credible explanation.
EDIT: made that paragraph a little more readable.
For what it's worth, an engineered virus doesn't mean it was developed as a weapon. It's more likely that they had tweaked it to make it more useful for developing vaccines in case a wild virus jumped on its own again (this isn't the first coronavirus pandemic -- the full name is SARS-COV2 because it's closely related to the virus that caused SARS). That kind of research is dangerous if safety protocols aren't followed, but has a legitimate purpose behind it.
Which means there's really three theories, and two of them tend to get conflated.
Also for what it's worth, that doesn't really change the fact that to-date, as it pertains to the public, there is no verifiable evidence for a lab leak of any particular kind.
That may change in the coming months/years/decades, but without evidence to support a lab leak (of any kind), the most credible cause continues to be natural origin.
Like /u/FluffyKittens said, that's not entirely true. There's no direct evidence that it leaked from the lab, but there's evidence corona viruses were being studied there, and evidence that this kind of research was being done on them.
If anything it makes more sense than the wet market explanation, which has a similar lack of proof.
So we agree then; there's no evidence of a lab leak.
No, we don't. And I don't think you really do either, otherwise you'd have to say there's no evidence of any origin for the virus. The wet market theory doesn't exactly have hard evidence, either. It's all circumstantial.
Circumstantial, perhaps - but it's evidence that can be supported, argued, debated, and examined.
That cannot be said of the lab leak, which does not have even circumstantial evidence - at least, nothing the intelligence agencies are giving up.
So, until such time as evidence is made available for the lab leak hypothesis, I'll continue to follow the evidence, circumstantial as it has be.
Huh? There's a ton of circumstantial evidence. The only thing we're really missing is a record of a virus they were studying escaping containment at the right time. And I say at the right time because there were previous documented cases where failure to properly use PPE directly exposed workers to bat coronaviruses. They were studying this exact family of viruses, and were known to have lacking safety measures due to a lack of adequately trained personnel. The natural reservoir of the virus is also hundreds of miles away, which makes it unlikely that bushmeat from that area would have ended up in a market in Wuhan. But bats from that area were present and being studied at the WIV.
And that's just the surface level stuff that doesn't take any real research to find out. There's some details about the US NIH having funded that lab, and about virology techniques that are banned for safety reasons in the US not being bannned in china, that are also suggestive and would give a motive for officials from both the US and China to downplay the lab leak possibility, but which I've never had the time or inclination to really dig into because I'm just not that invested in it. We know it came from Wuhan, we know there's two broadly plausible theories, and there's no reason to be as dismissive of the lab leak theory as you're being.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2305081
I'll continue to follow what scientists are saying, and as it stands it's still pointing to natural origin. If it shifts towards a lab leak, then I'll have a different perspective and will gladly change my opinion.
Please don't confuse "following majority of scientific opinion" with "being dismissive".
You're not following the majority of scientific opinion when you say there's no evidence for the lab leak theory. Or even reading your own articles. They currently believe the wet market theory is more likely. That doesn't mean they believe the alternative is unlikely, let alone that there's no reason to suspect it.
Call it less likely if you'd prefer. It's still not the prevailing scientific opinion.
I'm not sure you're reading my responses though, as I continue to say that if and when the lab leak is proven to be a more likely cause, I will change my opinion.
Dude, you were saying there was no evidence whatsoever earlier. You even claimed there wasn't even any circumstantial evidence at one point. If this is really about science for you, you need to study up on how science works, because what you're doing here is an appeal to authority, not an understanding of what the science actually is on this or what the consensus means.
The scientists have never doubted that the lab leak was possible, and it's really not settled which is more likely. Which was the actual cause will likely never be settled because one way or another, the evidence has almost certainly been destroyed -- actually especially if the wet market was the cause, because we know for a fact that the Chinese government cleaned the place out and sterilized the surfaces as soon as they traced the virus back to that general area. Which is why the overall consensus is pretty weak, as is the evidence in either direction. The heavy backlash against voicing the possibility of the lab leak was coming from politicians, not scientists, who were trying to head off racial tensions that Trump stoked by doing things like calling it the "China virus" and went way overboard with it. An admirable goal, but with an execution that actually did more damage to trust in and understanding of science than good to much of anything.
Y'know what, fine - you got me. I over-stated my position a few times. You can go back to my very first reply in this chain and see that I've been saying that the lab leak is possible, but without physical evidence. There is more physical evidence (even if not much more) to support a natural origin, relating to the particular genome of the virus - but it's not a smoking gun or anything.
I may have said there was no circumstantial evidence, in large part because I was/am emphasizing the "evidence" part of the statement. Yes, the lab is in Wuhan, in a place where they were studying coronaviruses. That is circumstantial, but it is not evidence - in my opinion. The presence of a lab in an area does not immediately mean that it supports a lab leak, but it IS circumstantially-related by virtue of existing.
If you want to rope in appeals to authority, please note that some feel that they can be valid, when the authority is credible. In this case, I believe that the natural origin is most likely correct, because so too does the scientific majority. I like to believe that scientists know what they are doing, and while scientists do not always over-state their arguments like I do, the majority of them do believe that the natural origin is most likely.
If scientific consensus shifts, then so too shall my view. You can call that an appeal to authority if you want.
But hey, if you want me to say it, I'll say it - I've overstated my position (several times).
I'll reiterate it again here - the lab leak hypothesis is possible. I agree! We agree.
I'll also restate it again - the preponderance of the available evidence, as flimsy and circumstantial as it may be, tends to point to a natural origin. As such, I believe - along with a majority of scientists across the globe - that the natural origin is most likely correct.
You can feel free to go back through our long response chain here and pick apart my language to your heart's content.
My only addition at this point, is that Jon Stewart's invocation of the lab leak hypothesis in 2021 came at a time of rising anti-Asian racism and violence, and did nothing to actually advance the dialogue on that front. He did not provide any evidence for a lab leak, and he used natural origin as the butt of his jokes. One could argue that by invoking the lab leak when and how he did, he only did harm for the argument and provided the conspiratorial supporters of the lab leak hypothesis with more ammunition - he was "one of them" now.
Which is why I said in the first place that we should hold him and his views in a more grounded manner now.
(we can pretend to be on-topic, right?)
That’s my specific point of contention. Lab leak is plausibly credible IMO. There’s a preponderance only in the weak sense of “more likely than not”.
There is some evidence in support of the lab leak, but it’s weak and not definitive. Most pointedly, the WIV researched genetically-modified coronaviruses engineered for pathogenicity in human models. There’s also been contentious results from restriction site analysis, which is summarized quite nicely by this review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9420317/
(Peep the Deigin-Segreto vs. Tyshkovskiy-Panchin section.)
If something is more likely, I tend to put more emphasis on it.
There might not be a smoking gun for either origin, but right now, there is more evidence supporting nature than lab leak. Until proven otherwise, I'll go with the scientific majority.
https://www.science.org/content/article/evidence-suggests-pandemic-came-nature-not-lab-panel-says
Sure, but how are you getting from “the scientific majority thinks zoonotic origin is more likely than lab leak” to “the scientific majority thinks lab leak is not a credible explanation”?
I may be misusing the word credible.
Right now, there is zero to limited evidence to support a lab leak. They only two sources that have stated that they have evidence for it, have not shared it - and those sources are intelligence agency related.
All other sources available support natural origin. Basically all scientific documentation available to us supports a natural origin.
Without any evidence to support it, I do not view the lab leak hypothesis as credible. If information becomes available to support it, then it may become credible in my mind.
(I’m trusting the bio folks more on this one, as it gets outside my areas of expertise.) The current evidence seems to indicate no signs of genetic engineering in the line that would’ve leaked. They did do GoF research there, but that is a separate issue.
Good deal. I don't think Trevor Noah ever quite cut the mustard.
The only things I understand are probably his height and weight, and “let’s fucking go Mets”
Please help me decode this?
It’s a wisecrack about college football. Between college football seasons, players can enter a transfer portal to move between schools, usually in the hopes of finding a better situation or increasing their playing time. Stewart posted his measurables (height, weight, 40 yard dash time) as if to advertise himself to other schools, imitating actual college football players who post similar transfer tweets during the offseason.
Note that 14.8 seconds ain't great, like 3x slower than a decent athlete. Also "NILBABY" is a reference to the new "name, image, and likeness" rules that allow college athletes to profit from endorsement deals, and "TDSnation" a nod to fans of the show.
Holy shit. I know it's just Mondays and it will never be the same but this is fantastic news!
This feels kind of stunty, getting the old host back in the show's darkest hour. Especially if we pivot into the "Orange Man Bad" punchline era of late night comedy, I don't think this will end up as well as everyone thinks it will.