A honest question from an outsider (to American politics): isn’t it now convenient for the current political establishment to go with the the lab leak hypothesis and so the change should not be taken into account when updating priors?
It’s highly inconvenient for the establishment because it means that the establishment was wrong to censor the lab leak theory.
It’s also highly inconvenient for all those inside of the establishment who want to to gain of function research or cover up past gain of function research.
Matt Taibbi’s reporting suggests that it was inconvenient enough that a three-letter agency decided to overrule their analysts.
A honest question from an outsider (to American politics): isn’t it now convenient for the current political establishment to go with the the lab leak hypothesis and so the change should not be taken into account when updating priors?
It’s highly inconvenient for the establishment because it means that the establishment was wrong to censor the lab leak theory.
It’s also highly inconvenient for all those inside of the establishment who want to to gain of function research or cover up past gain of function research.
Matt Taibbi’s reporting suggests that it was inconvenient enough that a three-letter agency decided to overrule their analysts.
Thanks for the clarification. I was more thinking about the attitude towards China.