And saying weasel stuff like " the virus was a product of natural evolution... no evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered,...SARS-CoV-2 originated through natural processes... no evidence to suggest that it was created in a lab..."...
In no way disproves or denies that the virus may well have been collected from the wild, then grown, studied and eventually escaped from a lab.
So while there may be no evidence it came from a Chinese lab (which is how China wants to keep it,
The summary literally includes the point that their is known information that doesn't fit with conspiracy theory that it was lab developed. The fact you completely ignore that while blindly stating the obvious on here, and have some infantile obsession with going against the widely agreed principles of virus naming because you want to point fingers like a kindergartener, doesn't prove you're a poor source of information, but it is evidence that suggest it's likely. When faced with sufficient evidence of a s
There's a massive difference between saying it was developed in a lab, and saying someone got infected while studying it in a lab. We have pretty solid evidence the first is almost impossible, but little or no evidence to rule out the second.
When investigating an outbreak like this, you don't say "I refuse to investigate a theory if there is no evidence to support it." Rather, you investigate any and all theories you possibly can, and attempt to find evidence which supports or rules them out. There's no evidence ruling out a natural strain escaping the lab and the Chinese government has gone to great lengths to prevent any close examination of that theory. It's not a wild, nigh-impossible theory, so it (along with other theories) ought to be entertained until we can get to the truth.
There's a massive difference between saying it was developed in a lab, and saying someone got infected while studying it in a lab. We have pretty solid evidence the first is almost impossible, but little or no evidence to rule out the second.
And this is what bothers me about the summary above, and any and all repetition of such.
One person states an opinion that either claim may be true, but most likely the second one.
Then there are quotes after quotes from people strongly refuting the first claim, with the implication that it somehow invalidates both.
because if somebody was studying it in a lab and got infected it was already out in the wild, and we know that humans are interacting with wild animals *way* too often in China (due to deforestation & the wet markets conducting a heavy trade in wild animals in order to keep rural economies growing at desired rates).
In fact what you're suggesting in *insanely* unlikely. Even the clumsiest lab tech would have taken precautions that would make it virtually impossible to spread to them. We know the viru
'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2, Insightful)
No evidence at all, says Xi, vigorously brushing his hands together while standing on a particularly lumpy rug.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Pushing a counter-narrative doesn't change the reality!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In no way disproves or denies that the virus may well have been collected from the wild, then grown, studied and eventually escaped from a lab.
So while there may be no evidence it came from a Chinese lab (which is how China wants to keep it,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:5, Insightful)
When investigating an outbreak like this, you don't say "I refuse to investigate a theory if there is no evidence to support it." Rather, you investigate any and all theories you possibly can, and attempt to find evidence which supports or rules them out. There's no evidence ruling out a natural strain escaping the lab and the Chinese government has gone to great lengths to prevent any close examination of that theory. It's not a wild, nigh-impossible theory, so it (along with other theories) ought to be entertained until we can get to the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a massive difference between saying it was developed in a lab, and saying someone got infected while studying it in a lab. We have pretty solid evidence the first is almost impossible, but little or no evidence to rule out the second.
And this is what bothers me about the summary above, and any and all repetition of such.
One person states an opinion that either claim may be true, but most likely the second one.
Then there are quotes after quotes from people strongly refuting the first claim, with the implication that it somehow invalidates both.
There really isn't any difference (Score:2)
In fact what you're suggesting in *insanely* unlikely. Even the clumsiest lab tech would have taken precautions that would make it virtually impossible to spread to them. We know the viru
Re: (Score:1)
We have pretty solid evidence the first is almost impossible
Where?
but little or no evidence to rule out the second.
We can't rule out either. The fact that people want to rule out one with no real investigation is also a concern.