The response to "conspiracy theories" is: show us your proof. Otherwise we will wait to give it any credibility. If time and data prove out your claims, then we will give it the proper attention it has earned. (ie, science > social media)
In the case of covid there seemed to be universal belief in the media that covid originated in animals. There was no proof of this claim.
It’s one thing to just simply pick a claim and believe in it. It’s quite another to attack people who are providing an alternative claim.
The same thing rings true with regard to what is a “correct” thing to say. “China Virus” is apparently repugnant. However, naming the country of origin for variants is not. South African Variant is fine.
As for origins of COVID, I personally believe there is a good chance it came from bats, but also a good chance that it came from a lab experiment that had accidentally escaped. The theory that it was deliberately developed as a bio weapon or that it was released on purpose does not seem to hold water as there are no clear plausible beneficiaries of that action.
You can replace "main stream media" with any other group as well. (for example, the group that think masks and vaccines are part of a "plandemic" to undermine our economy and track everyone via 5g towers controlled by lizard people, while giving credence to medications recommended by politicians rather than medical professionals)
This centralized system of information dissemination has tremendous flaws.
Further more, the media needs to maintain that standard themselves:
- No more anonymous, un-interrogatable sources;
- No accusations of bad motive (e.g. racism) without proof - such as those implied of the conspiracy theorists.
The claim that the virus might have originated in the lab? No.
No, the response was to ridicule people making those arguments and to censor them.
Like Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post telling Ted Cruz last May:
"I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves."
Or like "Twitter bans Chinese virologist claiming that coronavirus was made in a lab".
As usual, best summed up by the Babylon Bee:
"World-renowned fact-checking website Snopes has unveiled a brand new fact check rating called "False For Now." This will allow them to provide a rating for claims that are just conspiracy theories uttered by deranged far-right people until they later turn out to be true".
Point stands though. Lacking the ability to argue the case, the press often derive authority from the ability to slander, censor and humiliate.
Heck, US has a mature president now even acknowledging there are two major competing hypotheses. Seeing leaders embracing uncertainty is rare, so it seems humanity is going through a learning phase right now, having to face up to uncertainty and fear.
There are examples of these in these comments, so if you doubt that these things are true (and cannot find examples in this thread) then please narrow it down to one - this isn't a wikipedia articles, theres as much burden on you to disprove something you disagree with, and you haven't yet stated you disagree with anything.
So there's nothing further to discuss.
There’s always been more evidence to support the lab leak theory for those paying attention.
"researchers had assembled an archive of cave-bat-borne coronaviruses"
Researchers were studying viruses that had an animal origin. The lab leak would be from not following proper safety protocols.
Mistaking one for the other is highly probable.
I have no doubt there's good evidence pointing to the lab leak origin, but virtually everything I've been exposed to over the last year are typically rumors or graphics shared on social media. Hearing something a lot doesn't give it additional credibility.