I never said that it was created for nefarious purposes. That was you projecting or creating a straw man to attack.

What part of "people pushing for that theory wanted to have a conspiration instead" was missed? I don't care what you think it happened, I just don't want to hear more conspiration. I'm tired of that. We are humans, therefore, we are stupidly imperfect creatures. There isn't anything to learn about the event, other than humans gonna human.

	▲	tbrownaw 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> There isn't anything to learn about the event, other than humans gonna human. US money wasn't supposed to be used to fund that kind of research. So people violated policy and evaded detection until the leak happened. How? Who? Would different audit controls have helped? The was a cover-up after the fact. Again, how did it work and who was involved? What could have made it less effective? The lab accident itself is the least interesting part, it's all the bureaucratic stuff that really matters. For boring generic bureaucratic-effectiveness reasons, not any "someone tried to do a bioweapon" silliness.
	▲	db48x 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Except that a lot of what was banned were _not_ conspiracy theories. The truth is that the NIH _did_ fund gain of function research and that research _was_ conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Those are the facts that the government worked so hard to suppress our knowledge of. And they were able to use Google’s policies of suppressing “misinformation” to do it for several years.