this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
40 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
23 readers
2 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That was the data we had at the time, yes. New data can mean new stances, and that's okay. But notice the order of operations there; new data, then new stance. Not the other way around.
They had data showing otherwise. They were silenced. I'll keep bringing this up, but the director of the CDC at the time said there was significant evidence to investigate the lab leak theory, but was forcibly sidelined. They seem to have gotten your model backwards. This wasn't the only time it happened, but people will keep crying "sources" since they know it's now difficult to find information that was removed from journal sites, etc.
Uh, sources? Specifically about the forced resignation.
Oh, that's the easiest one.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64891745
You didn't read that article, did you? It doesn't support your stance.
The CDC director wasn't forcibly sidelined because he suggested that COVID-19 could have come from a lab?
Not according to your link, no.
You've got to be kidding:
"Dr Redfield, who led the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when the outbreak began in 2020, was an early proponent of the lab leak theory.
He told the House select subcommittee, formed by the new Republican majority in the US House of Representatives, it was "not scientifically plausible" to him that the virus had natural origins.
He claimed he was "sidelined" at the beginning of the pandemic and excluded from meetings as his views were not in line with other major scientists like Dr Fauci, the de-facto face of the US pandemic response."
A claim is not evidence.
No it is not. Just read the damn link you provided. FFS
If you're going to speak to me that way I will not be responding. You've refused to read the story yourself, and cannot be swayed from your opinion. You argue in bad faith, and simply aren't following logic with your responses. I hope you have a good day.
I did read it that's why I know you haven't.
Have a good one friend. "It's easier to mislead someone than it is to show them they've been mislead." If you really believe the director of the CDC was a crackpot conspiracy theorist, then we have no further discussion.
There was no evidence to rule out it either, but they did it anyway.
My dude, what are you doing here?
There is no evidence to support your stance that this dude was sidelined because of his views. All you have is his claim that they sidelined him for his views.
This appears to be another conspiracy theory.
Focus, man.
He said it himself. There was a whole panel about it which you can watch for yourself where evidence was presented. Are you suggesting he was lying?
Someone has to be, since we have conflicting claims.
Please repeat your claim, just so we're clear.
I am not making a claim. How are you so confused?
If you're making no claim, then how are we disagreeing?
Edit: This suggests some sort of claim you are making:
"Someone has to be, since we have conflicting claims."
Please for the sake of my sanity go read the link you provided. It will clear up your befuddlement.