But... we're literally discussing a book written on the subject. It wasn't censored. Neither were discussions here on this site, where lab leak arguments were very popular.
Are you really sure you aren't confusing controversy (the fact that an opinion can be a minority one with which most experts disagree) with suppression?
Just because suppression wasn't successful doesn't mean it wasn't attempted. And the attempt itself, by leading Western scientists who attempted to forestall any discussion and gaslight dissenters with accusations of anti-Chinese bigotry and scientific ignorance, is to me an even bigger story than covid's actual origins.
The government continued to investigate the lab leak hypothesis from the very beginning. The fact that some scientists tried to paint it as anti-Chinese bigotry (and some of the accusations clearly were) did not stop this. There's very little there there.
Social media actively censored such discussion and Google also manipulated autocomplete, etc. The WHO and CDC dismissed the theory at the time. The CCP actively scrubbed data which would affect the effectiveness of any subsequent investigation.
2. Facebook ham-fistedly censored conspiracy theory posts that the virus was man-made and later realized that they were also censoring actual lab leak discussion and fixed their policy.
3. Google turned off autocomplete because most of the autocompletions were crazy conspiracy theories. People could still search for whatever they wanted.
None of this stopped actual investigation of the lab leak hypothesis, which you claim could not have happened due to Facebook's actions.
I mean, the reality also is that there were in fact serious attempts to unleash bigotry instead of focusing on response. That is reality of what happened too. Huge reason why people painted it as anti-Chinese bigotry is that such a thing played a huge role in Trump response. Renaming Covid-19 to Chinese virus while downplaying need for tests and such was exactly that.
There was no suppression, quite tyje opposite: the lab leak hypothesis has been pusjed again and again, often with 'convenient' timing.
Now for scientists there is no point discussing this without any concrete element. Sure, a lab leak or even an artificial origin of the virus are potential hypotheses but then people need to find evidence, and the more far-fetched the hypothesis the stronger the evidence needed before keeping mentioning it (or writing books...)
Currently I don't think there are any material element so the reasonable and scientific thing to do is to work on finding the origin of the virus and only then to discuss facts.
Lancet CORRESPONDENCE| VOLUME 398, ISSUE 10309, P1402-1404, OCTOBER 16, 2021
The authors associated any alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”. The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists.
Edit: to add context: the authors of that letter didn’t disclose their conflicts of interest and mischaracterized the cited genomic research which hadn’t and still hasn’t found a wild match.
Daszak’s story began falling apart last November when the non-profit group US Right to Know published emails gathered through a freedom of information request that showed he had orchestrated the Lancet statement without disclosing that he was funding Shi Zhengli through grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Daszak’s credibility took a further hit this June when Sachs published an essay that called for an independent investigation of the pandemic’s origin and charged that both China and the NIH should be transparent about virus research, including “gain-of-function” studies that make viruses more transmissible and virulent.
"not a natural origin" is not simply a lab leak, it's claiming that the virus is artificial and engineered.
I don't believe that there are any elements to support this claim at the present time. To keep bringing this claim up to 'discuss' it is therefore not scientific and might be considered FUD or conspiracy theory indeed.
Open research and science does not mean giving all claims equally. As said, the more extraordinary the claim the more solid the evidence. A claim backed by nothing has no place in publications. This is not "suppression". In fact, what you've quoted shows the opposite: the claim is pushed by dubious means.
It’s like saying, after Snowden released his trove of documents, what government secret data collection? look, here’s what Snowden showed us, it’s not secret!
We need open discussion at all times not only after we “get permission”.
When we had the ricin incident in the 2000s people openly discussed the possibility of a lab insider being the source any it wasn’t censored by the media.
When the establishment media and big tech puts forth extreme concerted effort in using whatever underhanded techniques it can to attempt to slander and undermine you and your ideas, calling you every name in the book, associating you with "undesirable" groups of people, putting "debunked" labels next to the things you say, de-platforms, cancels, the whole nine yards... and its followers lap up that behavior, and engage in it themselves on discussion websites and social media, and even in real life, but you can still technically talk about it on the far corners of the web or if you're in a group of people you're sure think like you think, sorry but that is absolutely 100% still a form of censorship.
The lab leak theory was never treated by the establishment as "a minority opinion with which most experts disagree", it was ridiculed and attacked, thereby effectively changing much of the public psyche against it. The damage was done. The government doesn't have to force a website to delete a post mentioning the lab leak theory in order for something to be considered censorship. Otherwise you're playing the semantics game - and losing at it.
Are you really sure you aren't confusing controversy (the fact that an opinion can be a minority one with which most experts disagree) with suppression?