CONSPIRASPHERE

When is a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy theory? When the Wuhan lab leak origin theory of Covid-19 is suddenly rehabilitated by the mainstream media, says NOEL ROONEY.

WUHAN FLIP

If Alice were here she might observe that looking glasses and rabbit holes are curiously amenable to two-way traffifific. The apparently settled question of how the Covid-19 strain of coronavirus originated has of late provoked a game of rabbit-hole whack-a-mole of global proportions; or perhaps it’s a game of pass the parcel, with the parcel labelled ‘conspiracy theory’.

At the beginning of 2020, three theories of origin were proposed: that it was a zoonotic virus that had jumped from bats (possibly stopping off for a rest on pangolins) to humans; that the virus had somehow infected a ‘wet food’ market in Wuhan and spread from there; and finally, that it had leaked (or been intentionally spread) from a laboratory where viruses were tested as potential bio-weapons; a laboratory that, embarrassingly enough, received a fair amount of funding from the US.

From the off, the majority of commentators and media outlets treated the first two theories as plausible, and the third as a conspiracy theory. This attitude hardened when Donald Trump, a person known to enjoy a conspiracy theory, threw his lot in with the lab leak option. If the Donald said it, opined the world’s liberal media, and politicians of every shade except red pill right, then it couldn’t be true, could it?

A series of investigations by the WHO, assorted scientists and, apparently, various intelligence agencies, concluded that the bats were the culprits, and that the idea of a leak from the Wuhan lab was indeed a conspiracy theory. (Incidentally, the market theory bit the dust, very quietly, some time in mid2020.) So that was that; the bats had won and the bat-sh*t crazies had lost.

Fast forward. The Wall Street Journal reports that three technicians from the Wuhan lab were hospitalised in November with “flu-like” symptoms. The WSJ also reports that intelligence agencies are now assessing “significant circumstantial evidence” that the outbreak could have been caused by a leak from the lab. Some of you may be thinking that “significant circumstantial evidence” sounds like the kind of thing that conspiracy theories are built on. You aren’t alone.

This sudden offifificial pivot exposed some interesting anomalies in the new fashion for fact-checking, and the Conspirasphere jumped on them with ‘told you so’ glee. Facebook has reversed its policy of taking down posts naming the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) as a possible source (accidental or otherwise) for the virus; and Politifact, one of the biggest US fact-checking agencies, has retracted its labelling of the theory as ‘Pants on fire!’ (Yes, that really is how the serious business of factchecking operates.)

So now we find ourselves in a situation where the people who were labelled conspiracy theorists throughout 2020 can justifiably claim that they had the truth of it all along; and that the people who were claiming the evidential high ground for a year are the real conspiracy theorists. They can point to some decidedly ticklish snippets of “significant circumstantial evidence”: Dr Anthony Fauci approved funding for the WIV to conduct research into “gain of function” – ie, turning viruses into weapons; Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance, also funded research at Wuhan, and then sat on the commission investigating the origin of the outbreak, a situation some commentators have suggested might conceivably imply a conflict of interests, if not a conspiracy.

And of course, if the lab leak theory is back on the table, what of the assertion (reported as scientific fact in the media) that coronavirus has a known natural source? This was described as “96% certain”; but that missing four per cent is a gap wide enough to drive a couple of conspiracies through, side by side. Scott Gottlieb, head of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) recently suggested publicly that, to date, no definitive proof of animal origin has yet been found. He was quoted in several outlets as saying, “We found no evidence of this virus in an animal anywhere.” Gottlieb may not represent the scientific consensus, but he certainly set the cat amongst the conspiracist pigeons.

More worryingly, why are the US and China, publicly understood as enemies, collaborating on what appears to be bio-warfare in a lab at the epicentre of the virus outbreak? And why, in that case, is the US now pursuing the lab leak theory? These are legitimate questions, but to date only the ‘conspiracy theorists’ seem to be asking them. The concept of goodies and baddies seems to be suffering a severe case of zoonosis.

So what does this mean for the public perception of ‘truth versus conspiracy theory’? The social media giants have suffered a deeply embarrassing reversal at the very least; their paternalistic attempt to shield us from the harms of conspiracy theory now looks just a little like censorship. Likewise the mainstream news media, who are now earnestly reporting on a story they have spent the last year deriding; what does this step change do to their claims to be arbiters of facts?

Conspiracy theory, having crept gradually into the mainstream, first as an object of ridicule, then as a paper tiger, can now arguably claim to represent a genuine source of truth; a source available to everyone, and not just the tin-foil hat brigade. And the well-worn tactic of calling a dissenting view a conspiracy theory may just have fallen down a rabbit hole of its own making. If conspiracy theory is an infection plaguing the body politic, it is proving every bit as versatile as the virus. And those people who yearn for a world where information is a synonym for facts, and the baddies all wear the same colour hats, may be in for interesting times.

If the Donald said it, then it couldn’t be true, could it?

SOURCES: https:// sputniknews.com/ world/202105241082985749evidence-growing-that-novelcorinavirus-originated-in-wuhanlab-former-fda-chief-claims/www. livescience.com/covid-19-didnot-start-at-wuhan-wet-market. html; www.counterpunch.org/2021/05/26/what-the-newacceptability-of-the-lab-leak-origintells-us-about-media-outlets/; www.informationliberation.com/?id=62247; https:// science.sciencemag.org/ content/372/6543/694.1; www.theguardian.com/ technology/2021/may/27/ facebook-lifts-ban-on-postsclaiming-covid-19-was-man-made