The moral of the story is...He (DJT) who lies and lies and lies time and again has forfeited their ability to be believed... even IF he may have been right on this which is not certain and may never be certain...
having spent a career (U.S. Department of State) listening to the different agencies in the Intelligence Community (there are lots of them, some more qualified than others on any specific matter, but all staffed by individuals with some substantive knowledge and some with strong views - in strong cases "axes to grind") I think DOE's recent change is about people as much as it is about facts. I'd still go with Fauci, given what's public.
It would have been easier for you to write, "What I got Right about the coronavirus lab leak theory," because it would have been a much shorter article.
You definitely must be using "mea culpa" as a noun, because it sure in hell isn't being used as the verb which translates to "through my fault" as in an exclamation of apology or remorse. In other words "it was your fault."
Your past reporting on this subject for CNN would be more appropriately described by other English terms derived from the Latin "culpa." Such as: "Culpable" - meriting condemnation or blame especially as wrong or harmful, or "Culprit" - one guilty of a crime or a fault.
You certainly don't deserve the derivation "exculpate," to clear from alleged fault or guilt.
As the the lab leak theory was being debated in the spring of 2020, I didn’t think it mattered whether the virus occurred naturally or escaped from a lab. It was irrelevant in that moment. I was much more concerned with how to keep my family and friends safe than the origin of the virus.
Trump was lying and minimizing the danger because he cared about one thing and one thing only- the 2020 election. He believed he could lie the pandemic away and he did not care how many Americans died. I saw his obsession with the lab leak theory as just another way to deflect blame and create division. Another opportunity to inject poison into our national discourse, throwing around racist names like “kung flu” and “the China virus.”
Investigating the origin of the virus makes sense now. We should understand how this happened and make any changes necessary to better respond to future crises. But I still think the origin was irrelevant in the spring of 2020. It was all just noise in Trump’s desperate attempt to cling to power.
Chris! I normally love your thinking, your style of writing...but what's this???? Do you really (I mean, really really) believe that agreeing with the logic and medical expertise of Dr Fauci in 2020-2021 was too hasty on your part? Do you really (I mean really, really) think the Chinese lab leak theory might be plausible after all? Your column today disappoints me.
Thank YOU Chris for being the few who apologize when making a judgement error or when not completely correct on something, hell on anything these days. How refreshing! A journalist seeking the truth always and in ALL ways. This kind of humility is the right thing to do, it’s honest, and it’s cleansing to the soul. Appreciate you...
B. You do your work and examine your sources, and if they are good, you write about it and quote them.
C: You question every source no matter how credible as they might be wrong, and only print stories that get a lot of clicks as they are "Controversial".
To put it succinctly, here's a replay of a previous comment, gordon h. hensley 3 hr ago said "an 'error' honestly and intelligently detailed, stipulated; well done."
Now if only we could get the collected clinical technicians (Fauci etal) to admit the 'possibility' of a lab leak combo natural contagion.
On the other hand, possibly follow the money & then work back to who profits the most in these pandemics. Any links between storyline & huge profits is a perfect excuse to indentify/investigate the parties involved.
OR, chalk it up to luck/fate/karma - accidents happen & sometimes there's success, sometimes you fail miserably.......
The lesson is that we put too much faith in the epidemiologists during a pandemic? The media, the intelligence community, the scientific community… there’s only one person in this situation who isn’t basing their statements on the best available information. Everyone else gets a pass.
All the investigating agencies had, and still have, low confidence in the lab leak theory. Why is this even news?
Definition of low confidence...
"Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed." from Wiki.
So it means they cannot completely rule the possibility out, but have low confidence that it is a valid theory. That is what you say when you have no proof it is true but cannot prove it is false. Why re-release this info?
I think the Gov wants to prepare us for a change in our China relations from competitor to adversary. With the US and Europe distracted by the Ukraine war, Taiwan is in greater danger from Chinese aggression. A bloodless coup by China with Chinese sympathizers living in Taiwan leading it would be my guess. That would be safer than a military invasion.
You are of a dying breed --- a true journalist who admits that your previous reporting/analysis, based on the info available the time, was not on the money.
I truly appreciate your direct response to this current report and your acceptance that hypothesis by competent sources back in 2020 were not substantiated.
But the Trumpian brigade can't have it both ways. While the Insurrectionist-in-Chief claimed the outbreak was from a lab, he also claimed it was from a variety of offerings in the open Wuhan food markets.
Talk about hedging your bets!!!
Anyway, thanks Chris.
PS --- no need for going the extra mile for a "Mea Maxima Culpa" on this issue.
Really -- what is the difference between the disease coming from a lab in China or a Chinese fooderies marketplace?
Thank you for being honest with your thoughts, although, I disagree that you need to apologize. We all do the best we can with the information we know at the time. As theories and evidence gets known, or more facts come to light, our thoughts change on that particular subject. IF Trump were to be correct on this, still have my doubts, it was purely accidental. Trump is the boy who cried wolf and we have seen this over and over again. He lies like no tomorrow and is in it for himself. He wanted the narrative to be “X” so he said “Y”, not fact driven.
The moral of the story is...He (DJT) who lies and lies and lies time and again has forfeited their ability to be believed... even IF he may have been right on this which is not certain and may never be certain...
having spent a career (U.S. Department of State) listening to the different agencies in the Intelligence Community (there are lots of them, some more qualified than others on any specific matter, but all staffed by individuals with some substantive knowledge and some with strong views - in strong cases "axes to grind") I think DOE's recent change is about people as much as it is about facts. I'd still go with Fauci, given what's public.
Thank you so very much for taking responsibility for something you wrote in 2020. This seems to be a rarity in your profession. You have my respect.
1) If POTUS45 was right, it was most likely by accident.
2) I suspect that we will never know with any confidence the origins of COVID-19.
It would have been easier for you to write, "What I got Right about the coronavirus lab leak theory," because it would have been a much shorter article.
You definitely must be using "mea culpa" as a noun, because it sure in hell isn't being used as the verb which translates to "through my fault" as in an exclamation of apology or remorse. In other words "it was your fault."
Your past reporting on this subject for CNN would be more appropriately described by other English terms derived from the Latin "culpa." Such as: "Culpable" - meriting condemnation or blame especially as wrong or harmful, or "Culprit" - one guilty of a crime or a fault.
You certainly don't deserve the derivation "exculpate," to clear from alleged fault or guilt.
As the the lab leak theory was being debated in the spring of 2020, I didn’t think it mattered whether the virus occurred naturally or escaped from a lab. It was irrelevant in that moment. I was much more concerned with how to keep my family and friends safe than the origin of the virus.
Trump was lying and minimizing the danger because he cared about one thing and one thing only- the 2020 election. He believed he could lie the pandemic away and he did not care how many Americans died. I saw his obsession with the lab leak theory as just another way to deflect blame and create division. Another opportunity to inject poison into our national discourse, throwing around racist names like “kung flu” and “the China virus.”
Investigating the origin of the virus makes sense now. We should understand how this happened and make any changes necessary to better respond to future crises. But I still think the origin was irrelevant in the spring of 2020. It was all just noise in Trump’s desperate attempt to cling to power.
Chris! I normally love your thinking, your style of writing...but what's this???? Do you really (I mean, really really) believe that agreeing with the logic and medical expertise of Dr Fauci in 2020-2021 was too hasty on your part? Do you really (I mean really, really) think the Chinese lab leak theory might be plausible after all? Your column today disappoints me.
Thank YOU Chris for being the few who apologize when making a judgement error or when not completely correct on something, hell on anything these days. How refreshing! A journalist seeking the truth always and in ALL ways. This kind of humility is the right thing to do, it’s honest, and it’s cleansing to the soul. Appreciate you...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/27/how-seriously-should-we-take-the-us-does-covid-lab-leak-theory
Hi Chris, as far as the "Mea Maxima Culpa"...
A. You are psychic and always get it right.
B. You do your work and examine your sources, and if they are good, you write about it and quote them.
C: You question every source no matter how credible as they might be wrong, and only print stories that get a lot of clicks as they are "Controversial".
You get a "B" from me.
To put it succinctly, here's a replay of a previous comment, gordon h. hensley 3 hr ago said "an 'error' honestly and intelligently detailed, stipulated; well done."
Now if only we could get the collected clinical technicians (Fauci etal) to admit the 'possibility' of a lab leak combo natural contagion.
On the other hand, possibly follow the money & then work back to who profits the most in these pandemics. Any links between storyline & huge profits is a perfect excuse to indentify/investigate the parties involved.
OR, chalk it up to luck/fate/karma - accidents happen & sometimes there's success, sometimes you fail miserably.......
The lesson is that we put too much faith in the epidemiologists during a pandemic? The media, the intelligence community, the scientific community… there’s only one person in this situation who isn’t basing their statements on the best available information. Everyone else gets a pass.
All the investigating agencies had, and still have, low confidence in the lab leak theory. Why is this even news?
Definition of low confidence...
"Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed." from Wiki.
So it means they cannot completely rule the possibility out, but have low confidence that it is a valid theory. That is what you say when you have no proof it is true but cannot prove it is false. Why re-release this info?
I think the Gov wants to prepare us for a change in our China relations from competitor to adversary. With the US and Europe distracted by the Ukraine war, Taiwan is in greater danger from Chinese aggression. A bloodless coup by China with Chinese sympathizers living in Taiwan leading it would be my guess. That would be safer than a military invasion.
Christopher,
You are of a dying breed --- a true journalist who admits that your previous reporting/analysis, based on the info available the time, was not on the money.
I truly appreciate your direct response to this current report and your acceptance that hypothesis by competent sources back in 2020 were not substantiated.
But the Trumpian brigade can't have it both ways. While the Insurrectionist-in-Chief claimed the outbreak was from a lab, he also claimed it was from a variety of offerings in the open Wuhan food markets.
Talk about hedging your bets!!!
Anyway, thanks Chris.
PS --- no need for going the extra mile for a "Mea Maxima Culpa" on this issue.
Really -- what is the difference between the disease coming from a lab in China or a Chinese fooderies marketplace?
Are “naturally occurring” and “leaked from a lab” mutually exclusive? Is “leaked” the same as “manufactured”?
Thank you for being honest with your thoughts, although, I disagree that you need to apologize. We all do the best we can with the information we know at the time. As theories and evidence gets known, or more facts come to light, our thoughts change on that particular subject. IF Trump were to be correct on this, still have my doubts, it was purely accidental. Trump is the boy who cried wolf and we have seen this over and over again. He lies like no tomorrow and is in it for himself. He wanted the narrative to be “X” so he said “Y”, not fact driven.