If that's true, it needs to be addressed. If it's true, then Peter Daszak, surely would have evidence that would exonerate him, along with corroborating witnesses. Instead, he hides and deflects. Unfortunately, it's become a right vs left issue, so he has an entire political establishment deflecting for him on his behalf.
It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion.
>If it's true, then Peter Daszak, surely would have evidence that would exonerate him, along with corroborating witnesses
Disagree, since you can't really prove a negative. I'm not sure what evidence could "exonerate" him in a way that would remove everyone's suspicion.
Besides, I listened to the podcast "This Week in Virology" A lot during covid, and they talked about Daszak multiple times, especially since some of the hosts have professional connections with him. Prof. Racaniello, the main host, has even interviewed him, pre-pandemic. Unfortunately, all of their discussion around the lab leak hypothesis would just get disregarded by people since it didn't fit the conspiracy narrative, and they just got written off as "anti-Trump" as a result. Literally, one of their march 2020 episodes where they'd usually answer listener questions, as they'd been doing for nearly a decade, was just them being baffled by suddenly getting hate mail accusing them of being "political" and "anti-Trump". That's also when I realized personally that we were screwed but I digress.
>It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion.
Totally agreed, and I get it. This is why learning about cognitive biases and structured critical thinking was so eye-opening to me and why I think we should be teaching these things in school as early as possible.
>It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion.
Which is why the presumption of innocence is central to most modern judicial systems and is widely recognized as a human right. Why should we throw out that principal in this specific instance?
Basically, its entirely possible that Daszak is covering up a lab leak. Its also entirely possible he's an arrogant asshole who got scared of the implication that there was a lab leak.
It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion.