It was something about the "deleted database". But then he started talking about variants of your mom and vaccines to prevent your mom, and I gave up somewhere shortly after.

Should I ever need medical care in Kansas, I think I'll just drive to another state.

I'm unclear as to what Marshall is trying to say here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA-l...

"similar to how if you could trace your DNA from your mom and her ancestors it could have been used to predict future variants and develop vaccines"

I see Daszak as a victim, if he needs armed security because of theories that blame him for the pandemic.

I don't see Jane as a victim for receiving criticism. At best, her op-ed was a clumsy attempt to discuss sociology. At worst, it provided confirmation for conspiracy theorists of Daszak's guilt

We live in a time where few people trust journalists. To regain that trust, they should be as transparent as possible about their beliefs and their motives.

It would help for journalists to not have a defensive reaction to feedback and criticism, but to instead build relationships with readers.

I'm sorry that you felt that she and others were making accusations, but I think it's acceptable for readers to wonder both about the content of an article and why that article was written.

Several people have written op-eds supporting the lab leak theory, followed them with books supporting the lab leak theory, and acted like a victim when they received some pushback.

I think Angie was only expressing some sociological curiosity as to whether you were following the same playbook.

So you're saying it should be legal to cause 20 million deaths with a lab accident and then lie about what happened, for five years?

I'm sure the families of the 20 million people that died from Covid would be reassured to know that no harm was intended.

You seem to think that it's bullying for someone to speculate about your motives for writing the Guardian op-ed, but that it's harmless and innocent to speculate as to whether scientists are guilty of covering up the most deadly accident in history.

Could you explain that discrepancy?

If you think that Covid is a lab leak from WIV, you are accusing Shi Zhengli and other Chinese scientists of mass murder on a scale rarely seen in history.

If you think Peter Daszak is aware of said lab leak, or of covering it up, then you are also accusing him of that crime.

Seems possible that... he's just not very good at keeping track of the details. Same as a lot of journalists.

And lab leak supporters have, of course, done a really good job of muddying the waters in this debate.

He starts saying the most covid positive samples were found in the bathroom and mahjong room.

At 40:30, he's talking about how the market is just a really likely place for a superspreading event (because of... cold surfaces). He talks about intermediate genomes and proCov2 and stuff like that.

Or, at 19:30 he explains how the lab leak hypothesis is popular because it lets us blame somebody.

But then when he tries to talk about the evidence, he gets all the details wrong, like at 15:55 he says the first market cases are "several months" after the pandemic started.

Wallace-Wells was on a podcast recently. Some of what he said was actually quite reasonable, like from 29:05 to 31:00 he's admitting that science communication isn't the problem (i.e. like Zeynep thinks), the bigger issue is bad faith actors attacking scientists:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VpQ...