Corona laboratory accident - Were the conspiracy theorists right?
Over the past five years, it's been very easy to deny one's connection to reality. With the onset of the coronavirus crisis, a fear-driven social Darwinism spread, the concept that anyone who doesn't follow the narrative is out. Anyone who questioned coronavirus policy was labeled a conspiracy theorist, a Nazi, or even a swindler. Now, once again, it seems that those who were outcast back then weren't entirely wrong. What can we learn from this?
By Bent Erik Scholz
By Bent Erik Scholz
Unvaccinated people are said to lack solidarity and are a danger to society; children, like rats, are carriers of disease. The entire republic should point the finger at those who refuse vaccination. Only with a certain number of infected people, only with a certain R value, only with a certain incidence, only with a certain vaccination rate can freedom be considered again - as long as the requirements are met. This was the reality in Germany not so long ago. Many young people have lost a significant part of their growing up through mandated isolation - some would say: it was taken away from them. For older people, who were supposedly supposed to be particularly protected, the restrictions made it at least enormously difficult to spend time with their families. A highly personal decision, namely the decision about a health procedure, was declared a political issue, those affected were pressured to disclose it, and the partial granting of their basic rights was made dependent on it.
Today we have it in black and white: many of these measures were grossly excessive. Lockdowns don't last for months, school closures weren't significant in terms of the infection rate, and vaccination doesn't fully immunize - even those who have it can still catch and transmit the virus - ergo: measures like the 2G (vaccinated in Germany) were scientifically complete madness. The latter, in particular, was already obvious when this regulation was passed, because as early as 2021, the actual protective effect of vaccination was known (which was significantly lower than originally announced). But as time passed, it became increasingly clear: two successive federal governments have severely restricted the population's basic rights and left behind considerable trauma, division, and even economic uncertainty - and in many places, it was pointless.
On March 13, ZEIT published a story that seems to shed new light on much of what we experienced between 2020 and 2022. It reads: "The BND is convinced, after evaluating all the evidence, that the coronavirus probably originated in a Chinese laboratory." The intelligence service assesses the probability using a special system, the 'Probability Index,' a measure of the reliability of information. The BND classifies the laboratory theory as 'probable,' and is '80 to 95 percent certain.'
The BND, which reports to the Federal Chancellery, presented this assessment to then-Chancellor's Office Minister Helge Braun as early as 2020. "The Chancellery decides to do nothing," reports ZEIT. "Neither the WHO nor the responsible committee in the Bundestag are informed." The BND is sworn to silence." Olaf Scholz was also informed after taking office and encouraged the intelligence service to discuss the results of its investigation with Christian Drosten. This did not happen; here, too, the secret service's explosive information sank into the system and was not discussed even once in the expert council.
So what is groundbreaking about this report? That it represents an unexpected twist in the origin story of the coronavirus? Not really. Where a virus specifically comes from is no longer really important once it is rampant. The way this situation is being handled is explosive, because the laboratory theory has been expressed repeatedly during the pandemic. It did not only take place in ominous Telegram groups behind closed doors, in whispered speculation. It was part of the mainstream discourse: in June 2021, it had already found its way onto one of the biggest US late-night programs, Stephen Colbert's Late Show. In a guest appearance there, the Daily Show host Jon Stewart said the following three and a half years ago:
"Science has helped us on many levels to alleviate the suffering of this pandemic, which was most likely caused by science. [...] Oh my God, a novel respiratory coronavirus is spreading in Wuhan! What are we supposed to do? You know who we could ask? The Wuhan Novel Respiratory Coronavirus Laboratory."
WATCH THE VIDEO
Stewart's appearance was received in many media outlets at the time with infantile, almost hysterical language. Jon Stewart should "shut up," wrote a Washington Post columnist, while elsewhere the satirist was blasted as an "alt-right." In what is commonly called "science" - a problematic term, since it is rarely a mass of people who agree - the reaction was rather muted. Shortly after Steward's appearance, US pediatrician and vaccine researcher Dr. Peter Hotez told TMZ that they were certainly open to the idea of the lab leak, but that it was wrong to pretendThis is a fait accompli.
"Follow the science," was a frequent postulate during the coronavirus pandemic. But even the assertion that there is one science to follow is fundamentally destructive. The core idea of science is to distrust oneself--not even science follows science, one could counter. Every scientific finding is only correct as long as one cannot prove its falsity. Anything else would be ideology, as happened here, by choosing a handful of spokesmen whose medical, virological, or epidemiological expertise was considered indisputable and whose statements were unquestionably accepted as the status quo. In addition, the media, due to algorithmic logic, are exposed to the problem that ambivalence is difficult to translate into attention-grabbing headlines.
A completely distorted picture of scientific processes has been painted in this way, completely ignorant of the debate-based exchange between researchers, deliberately ignoring the fact that scientific knowledge is always a struggle for evidence that does not end with a preliminary result. At a time of great social uncertainty about what this virus would bring in the near future, the constant fear and upheavals in our lifestyles, a seeming scientific certainty was constructed, the impulse of which was merely divisive. One thing is certain: the vaccination works, and anyone claiming otherwise is a charlatan. One thing is certain: those who refuse to get vaccinated potentially endanger human lives. One thing is certain: freedom will only be possible again when enough people have been vaccinated.
So there is a God, appropriately dressed in white, and there is a devil who spreads disorder and filth. God's representatives on earth were a government that, under Chancellor Merkel, simply bypassed parliamentary procedures for the sake of time and ruled in a cheerful, papal manner. Under Olaf Scholz, Karl Lauterbach preached the contents of the Holy Scriptures and translated them for the common people, regularly leading to the problems that also existed in the Church before the printing press and the Reformation: a shift in the actual content, presumably in favor of its own interests. Narratives.
The problem with gods is: they can't be wrong. Under the pressure of the absolute, which always wins the battle for attention, it's difficult to express assumptions, because an error would not simply mean a mistake, but a loss of status--the angel would fall. And ZEIT aptly writes: "The risk of embarrassment is too great, for the BND, but also for the German government." They'd rather keep quiet to avoid making a mistake than risk doing the right thing. It's a hardship that's entirely their own creation.
During the coronavirus pandemic, there has been much talk about alleged threats to democracy, and it has often been suggested that people who doubted the "freedom from side effects" of the vaccine might as well claim the Earth is flat--both of which are merely a denial of scientific facts. But the recent findings on the laboratory theory, which was apparently already debated under Chancellor Merkel, demonstrate what is blatant: at most, we are dealing with anti-science politicians or media outlets.
Subtle bans on discussion through threats of social ostracism or even violence (such as the use of water cannons) have become a sad reality of debate culture in our time. With reference to alleged sensitivities, it is astonishing that the boundaries of what can be said without consequence are often set by powerful actors in public discourse. People from the media world, influencers, politicians, or journalists demonstrate their moral integrity by distancing themselves from what they portray as reprehensible--and thus shift power. their effectiveness as "trusted spokespeople" actually influence the discourse. Their assumed expertise (which sometimes simply consists in their media presence) makes an impression, and so people voluntarily follow their example.
That in such social dynamics, in which public spokespeople exercise a moral role model function, a competition among the outraged can even arise has been suggested not least by the philosopher Philipp Hübl in his books. Thus, the obedient listener reacts much more readily to "clear statements" about what is acceptable and what is not. The ambivalent, balancing, and rarely assertive sciences are in a bad position in this regard. Nor are the contradictions that must be tolerated in scientific thinking. For example, the report states that the BND obviously has reasonhad to assume that the virus originated in a laboratory, and yet, from a research perspective, there may be very valid evidence for a natural origin of the virus. Both are possible, and both were reality four years ago. We just didn't learn about it because those involved were worried about becoming victims of the mechanisms they themselves had helped to create.
So were the "conspiracy theorists" right? Those who, at the slightest contradiction, faced accusations of incompatibility with the narrative? Those who no longer made a distinction between doubting the effectiveness of a vaccination or denying the existence of a virus, or even calling the Holocaust a lie--the process of expelling them really happened astonishingly quickly during those years.
To say they were "right" would be an oversimplification in this regard. What is clear, however, is that even during the coronavirus period, there were certain theses, ideas, and questions that were branded as unacceptable and later turned out to be quite relevant. Perhaps it would have been good for us and helped us avoid mistakes if we had conducted social debates in a more scientific manner. So, instead of regularly writing articles with titles like "Sorry, Lateral Thinkers: Studies Contradict Laboratory Thesis" (August 6, 2022), as the Volksverpetzer does, one could have refrained from directly categorizing people who raise this question in a way that, in the mainstream, largely serves to delegitimize the arguments.
"Follow the science" during the pandemic would have meant the following: instead of "yes" and "no," "right" and "wrong," "reason" or "nonsense," also having the courage to say: "maybe," "also," and "could be." Science means the opposite of claiming the only correct truth; it means allowing and celebrating doubt. During the coronavirus pandemic, we allowed ourselves to be led into a verbal war in which every means was justified to ensure that our own position remained unchallenged: legal pressure, denunciation, social Exclusion, insults. On the one hand, this affected the ranks of the more hardcore corona opponents, some of whom are still demanding tribunals with gritted teeth today. However, it was also prevalent and far too often unchallenged the stance of many supposed experts, politicians, and media personalities, portrayed in great detail in the talk shows, panels, and news broadcasts of this republic.
The information now published about the BND investigations shows us that there can be several possible answers to complex problems. And they also show that these answers could have been expected of the population - after all, parts of the population came up with this idea on their own. In fact, the media shot down an argument that turned out to be completely legitimate and declared beyond debate.
The population deserves to be taken seriously - and they are taken seriously by trusting them to independently recognize which argument is the better one, without being fed the easily digestible parts of reality in small bites. And it would be good for us if Not to exclusively reject theses that shatter our own worldview and suspiciously assume that the speakers are promoting destructive ideas. Essentially, this means: we need to allow more curiosity and consideration, and thus more scientific thinking, in the discourse. We need to assume less and trust each other more. Scientists can admit their mistakes. Let's see if certain politicians can do the same.
March 24, 2025
*Bent-Erik Scholz works as a freelancer for RBB
Today we have it in black and white: many of these measures were grossly excessive. Lockdowns don't last for months, school closures weren't significant in terms of the infection rate, and vaccination doesn't fully immunize - even those who have it can still catch and transmit the virus - ergo: measures like the 2G (vaccinated in Germany) were scientifically complete madness. The latter, in particular, was already obvious when this regulation was passed, because as early as 2021, the actual protective effect of vaccination was known (which was significantly lower than originally announced). But as time passed, it became increasingly clear: two successive federal governments have severely restricted the population's basic rights and left behind considerable trauma, division, and even economic uncertainty - and in many places, it was pointless.
On March 13, ZEIT published a story that seems to shed new light on much of what we experienced between 2020 and 2022. It reads: "The BND is convinced, after evaluating all the evidence, that the coronavirus probably originated in a Chinese laboratory." The intelligence service assesses the probability using a special system, the 'Probability Index,' a measure of the reliability of information. The BND classifies the laboratory theory as 'probable,' and is '80 to 95 percent certain.'
The BND, which reports to the Federal Chancellery, presented this assessment to then-Chancellor's Office Minister Helge Braun as early as 2020. "The Chancellery decides to do nothing," reports ZEIT. "Neither the WHO nor the responsible committee in the Bundestag are informed." The BND is sworn to silence." Olaf Scholz was also informed after taking office and encouraged the intelligence service to discuss the results of its investigation with Christian Drosten. This did not happen; here, too, the secret service's explosive information sank into the system and was not discussed even once in the expert council.
So what is groundbreaking about this report? That it represents an unexpected twist in the origin story of the coronavirus? Not really. Where a virus specifically comes from is no longer really important once it is rampant. The way this situation is being handled is explosive, because the laboratory theory has been expressed repeatedly during the pandemic. It did not only take place in ominous Telegram groups behind closed doors, in whispered speculation. It was part of the mainstream discourse: in June 2021, it had already found its way onto one of the biggest US late-night programs, Stephen Colbert's Late Show. In a guest appearance there, the Daily Show host Jon Stewart said the following three and a half years ago:
"Science has helped us on many levels to alleviate the suffering of this pandemic, which was most likely caused by science. [...] Oh my God, a novel respiratory coronavirus is spreading in Wuhan! What are we supposed to do? You know who we could ask? The Wuhan Novel Respiratory Coronavirus Laboratory."
WATCH THE VIDEO
Stewart's appearance was received in many media outlets at the time with infantile, almost hysterical language. Jon Stewart should "shut up," wrote a Washington Post columnist, while elsewhere the satirist was blasted as an "alt-right." In what is commonly called "science" - a problematic term, since it is rarely a mass of people who agree - the reaction was rather muted. Shortly after Steward's appearance, US pediatrician and vaccine researcher Dr. Peter Hotez told TMZ that they were certainly open to the idea of the lab leak, but that it was wrong to pretendThis is a fait accompli.
"Follow the science," was a frequent postulate during the coronavirus pandemic. But even the assertion that there is one science to follow is fundamentally destructive. The core idea of science is to distrust oneself--not even science follows science, one could counter. Every scientific finding is only correct as long as one cannot prove its falsity. Anything else would be ideology, as happened here, by choosing a handful of spokesmen whose medical, virological, or epidemiological expertise was considered indisputable and whose statements were unquestionably accepted as the status quo. In addition, the media, due to algorithmic logic, are exposed to the problem that ambivalence is difficult to translate into attention-grabbing headlines.
A completely distorted picture of scientific processes has been painted in this way, completely ignorant of the debate-based exchange between researchers, deliberately ignoring the fact that scientific knowledge is always a struggle for evidence that does not end with a preliminary result. At a time of great social uncertainty about what this virus would bring in the near future, the constant fear and upheavals in our lifestyles, a seeming scientific certainty was constructed, the impulse of which was merely divisive. One thing is certain: the vaccination works, and anyone claiming otherwise is a charlatan. One thing is certain: those who refuse to get vaccinated potentially endanger human lives. One thing is certain: freedom will only be possible again when enough people have been vaccinated.
So there is a God, appropriately dressed in white, and there is a devil who spreads disorder and filth. God's representatives on earth were a government that, under Chancellor Merkel, simply bypassed parliamentary procedures for the sake of time and ruled in a cheerful, papal manner. Under Olaf Scholz, Karl Lauterbach preached the contents of the Holy Scriptures and translated them for the common people, regularly leading to the problems that also existed in the Church before the printing press and the Reformation: a shift in the actual content, presumably in favor of its own interests. Narratives.
The problem with gods is: they can't be wrong. Under the pressure of the absolute, which always wins the battle for attention, it's difficult to express assumptions, because an error would not simply mean a mistake, but a loss of status--the angel would fall. And ZEIT aptly writes: "The risk of embarrassment is too great, for the BND, but also for the German government." They'd rather keep quiet to avoid making a mistake than risk doing the right thing. It's a hardship that's entirely their own creation.
During the coronavirus pandemic, there has been much talk about alleged threats to democracy, and it has often been suggested that people who doubted the "freedom from side effects" of the vaccine might as well claim the Earth is flat--both of which are merely a denial of scientific facts. But the recent findings on the laboratory theory, which was apparently already debated under Chancellor Merkel, demonstrate what is blatant: at most, we are dealing with anti-science politicians or media outlets.
Subtle bans on discussion through threats of social ostracism or even violence (such as the use of water cannons) have become a sad reality of debate culture in our time. With reference to alleged sensitivities, it is astonishing that the boundaries of what can be said without consequence are often set by powerful actors in public discourse. People from the media world, influencers, politicians, or journalists demonstrate their moral integrity by distancing themselves from what they portray as reprehensible--and thus shift power. their effectiveness as "trusted spokespeople" actually influence the discourse. Their assumed expertise (which sometimes simply consists in their media presence) makes an impression, and so people voluntarily follow their example.
That in such social dynamics, in which public spokespeople exercise a moral role model function, a competition among the outraged can even arise has been suggested not least by the philosopher Philipp Hübl in his books. Thus, the obedient listener reacts much more readily to "clear statements" about what is acceptable and what is not. The ambivalent, balancing, and rarely assertive sciences are in a bad position in this regard. Nor are the contradictions that must be tolerated in scientific thinking. For example, the report states that the BND obviously has reasonhad to assume that the virus originated in a laboratory, and yet, from a research perspective, there may be very valid evidence for a natural origin of the virus. Both are possible, and both were reality four years ago. We just didn't learn about it because those involved were worried about becoming victims of the mechanisms they themselves had helped to create.
So were the "conspiracy theorists" right? Those who, at the slightest contradiction, faced accusations of incompatibility with the narrative? Those who no longer made a distinction between doubting the effectiveness of a vaccination or denying the existence of a virus, or even calling the Holocaust a lie--the process of expelling them really happened astonishingly quickly during those years.
To say they were "right" would be an oversimplification in this regard. What is clear, however, is that even during the coronavirus period, there were certain theses, ideas, and questions that were branded as unacceptable and later turned out to be quite relevant. Perhaps it would have been good for us and helped us avoid mistakes if we had conducted social debates in a more scientific manner. So, instead of regularly writing articles with titles like "Sorry, Lateral Thinkers: Studies Contradict Laboratory Thesis" (August 6, 2022), as the Volksverpetzer does, one could have refrained from directly categorizing people who raise this question in a way that, in the mainstream, largely serves to delegitimize the arguments.
"Follow the science" during the pandemic would have meant the following: instead of "yes" and "no," "right" and "wrong," "reason" or "nonsense," also having the courage to say: "maybe," "also," and "could be." Science means the opposite of claiming the only correct truth; it means allowing and celebrating doubt. During the coronavirus pandemic, we allowed ourselves to be led into a verbal war in which every means was justified to ensure that our own position remained unchallenged: legal pressure, denunciation, social Exclusion, insults. On the one hand, this affected the ranks of the more hardcore corona opponents, some of whom are still demanding tribunals with gritted teeth today. However, it was also prevalent and far too often unchallenged the stance of many supposed experts, politicians, and media personalities, portrayed in great detail in the talk shows, panels, and news broadcasts of this republic.
The information now published about the BND investigations shows us that there can be several possible answers to complex problems. And they also show that these answers could have been expected of the population - after all, parts of the population came up with this idea on their own. In fact, the media shot down an argument that turned out to be completely legitimate and declared beyond debate.
The population deserves to be taken seriously - and they are taken seriously by trusting them to independently recognize which argument is the better one, without being fed the easily digestible parts of reality in small bites. And it would be good for us if Not to exclusively reject theses that shatter our own worldview and suspiciously assume that the speakers are promoting destructive ideas. Essentially, this means: we need to allow more curiosity and consideration, and thus more scientific thinking, in the discourse. We need to assume less and trust each other more. Scientists can admit their mistakes. Let's see if certain politicians can do the same.
March 24, 2025
*Bent-Erik Scholz works as a freelancer for RBB
Write a comment