“Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens)
The virus lab leak theory is unsubstantiated. Idle speculation is not a hypothesis. Any flight of fancy, including that the virus was hidden in a cake smuggled into Wuhan, could be possible, but no real scientist would either propose or entertain it, since it’s irrelevant to scientific endeavour. It is not enough to simply state that “Scientists don’t have enough evidence about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 to rule out the lab-leak hypothesis, or to prove the alternative — that the virus has a natural origin.” (Nature, Maxmen and Mallapaty, 2021). [1] No-one expects science to rule out anything, but proposing and promoting a particular theory, without evidence, is not a scientific act. It is political.
As a result of the kind of propaganda illustrated below [2], scientists have had to refute the theory while acknowledging it is possible (as scientists always do). They also have to expend a lot of scientific energy to refute these ambit claims. (The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review, Holmes, Goldstein, Rasmussen, Robertson, Crits-Christoph, Wertheim, Anthony, Barclay, Boni, Maciej, Doherty, Farrar, Geoghegan, Jiang, Leibowitz, Neil, Skern, Weiss, Worobey, Andersen, Garry, Rambaut, 2021) [3]. Scientists ‘on the ground’ dismiss the theory (Anderson, 2021) [4].
The deconstruction below addresses an example of how fear can be generated by taking something unremarkable and turning it into something sinister.
Canadian politician, Erin O’Toole, created a video to progress the ‘lab’ theory. It promotes fear over rational concern. This deconstruction shows how each of the points made are exaggerated and explains the language mechanisms used to evoke fear.
- Opinion from Nature
- Original video from O’Toole
- The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical Review
- Scientist ‘on the ground’ dismisses theory
“Let’s go back to July 2019. Two scientists with ties to the Chinese military [1] were escorted out of the Winnipeg virus laboratory. This is a level 4 laboratory that Canada uses to research some of the world’s most deadly pathogens and viruses. How did two scientists get approval to work at this secret facility ? [2] How did they get approval to bring students from China [3] with even more direct contact with Chinese military to come help them with the research?”
1. In China, connections to the military for researchers is unremarkable, since the military conducts a lot of research, especially into possible biological weapons that might be used against China. However, this is included for rhetorical effect – one must conclude that the research that was being conducted is for military purposes – guilt by association, even though it was not. In contrast to “ties to the Chinese military” (inflammatory), the Canadian facility is “used to research” (benign). Imagine how this might have sounded if the term “manufactured potential bioweapons” had been used for the Canadian facility (no less true). So, we already have the ‘baddies’ and the ‘goodies’. The final rhetorical questions answers itself.
2. The kind of collaboration between scientists and institutions is completely unremarkable. Scientists don’t recognise borders in research. Science is science, wherever it occurs.
3. Bringing students and interns is also unremarkable. It happens all the time around the world. If you are a PhD candidate, you go to the place where the research in your topic is being done. Regular Canadians do it all the time. But, maybe every Chinese student is a potential spy. Reds under the bed?
This is a story about some of the world’s most dangerous pathogens. This is a story about espionage [4] and this is a story about the Trudeau government being totally disconnected about the risks in modern security environment [5].
Let’s talk about that.
CBC News has learned that months before being escorted out of Canada’s highest security microbiology lab federal, scientists Xiangguo Qiu sent 30 vials of 15 different strains of Ebola and Henipavirus to Wuhan China. [6]”
4. Before we have an opportunity to hear the evidence, the connection between high risk, spying and poor security is being made. Propaganda attempts to set the mind before giving evidence. This is standard persuasive practice. However, if you want truth, this is not helpful.
5. How can a breach of security be construed as having any relationship to China. If the scientists breached security protocols, then their nationality or connections are irrelevant. Their crime is a breach of security, not espionage.
6. Sending vials, at the moment, is the only way to pass on a pathogen in a controlled way for study elsewhere. Although DNA mapping and communication is highly developed, scientists still need the organism to do the breeding and testing.
We know that in 2018 they started bringing students interns [7] with deep connections to the Chinese military from China to do work on this virus research.”
7. Nothing to see unless you are inventing a conspiracy. Interns move about the globe. Chinese virology study is also conducted by military institutions. So what? If this is a story about pathogens, then there is no need to create fear by making unsubstantiated links to the military by showing Chinese military.
In 2019 they sent dangerous virus samples to a laboratory in China virus laboratory. We know from public records like patent documents that the work being done by these scientists specifically was on ‘gain of function’ for viruses. [8] That’s where they’re actually trying to improve the efficacy of a virus, it’s transmissibility and in some cases, in bioweapons research, it’s deadliness. [9]”
8. Nothing to see unless you are inventing a conspiracy. ‘Gain of function’ is what many labs do. It’s how we stay ahead of viruses. It’s not without risks.
9. The failure, to properly explain the role and definition of ‘gain of function’ but use ‘bioweapons’ is a technique to make something relatively routine seem sinister. If it is a ‘virus laboratory’, regardless of where it is, it has the potential to manufacture bioweapons. The proper discussion of the risks is considered irrelevant.
Now who authorised transfers of dangerous deadly viruses? Who authorised this high level of cooperation and collaboration with the Chinese military? Trudeau was advised that this type of partnership because of the risk of bioweapons research should not be taking place. The Trudeau government ignored those. [10]”
10. So, if this is a local issue, what relevance is China to this discussion?
Now we have the global inquiry onto the origins of the worst pandemic in modern history. [11]
[Insert stupid joke] [12]
Now we know the two aren’t related with the viruses we sent. [13] But we were collaborating with a laboratory that is now being looked at by the Biden administration. [14] At a time where we have to Michaels in prison [15] we see the genocide being committed against the Uighur Muslim population [16] we see the situation in Hong Kong [17].
11. To intensify the misdirection, go to red herrings. The inquiry was a witch hunt that unearthed nothing of interest, was politically driven. In any case, it has provided nothing that could be used as evidence for the ‘lab leak theory’. So, what is its relevance?
12. A comedian’s illogical joke is relevant how?
13. In full knowledge that the preceding story of the scientists has no bearing on the lab leak theory, the decision was made to include it anyway. An open admission of the propaganda intent of the video.
14. So, the only rationale is actually following the lead of the US.
15. Re-introducing the scientists that, only 2 sentences before, are acknowledged as irrelevant.
16. A contested claim is introduced as some kind of ‘moral premise’ for attacking China. In that case, why not build a case against China on that basis, rather than inventing a lab leak theory?
17. And another irrelevance.