There's plenty more only a google search away. Our tech for working with viruses is pretty primitive stuff all things considered. It leaves clear markers anyone with a bit of knowledge in the field can see.
Meanwhile we've been warned for 30 years by epidemiologists that destroying bat habitats and cramming wild animals together in wet markets was going to cause a global pandemic.
So what's more likely, China developed biotech that's 50-100 years ahead of the rest of the world and instead of making money off it kept it secret so they could do something, something, something dark side or the thing every expert in the field of viruses has been warning us about for 3 decades finally happened?
You are arguing against a straw man. The claim is NOT that the virus was engineered.
The claim is that a naturally occurring virus was being studied at a lab with sloppy procedures and this naturally occurring virus escaped the lab. The CDC had warned about sloppy procedures at this lab before the COVID outbreak.
"The claim is that a naturally occurring virus was being studied at a lab"
Assuming that's true, it's not controversial that the lab was studying a virus they'd found 'in the wild', the same 'naturally occurring' virus that was eventually detected at the Wuhan market.
"The claim is that a naturally occurring virus was being studied at a lab"
Assuming that's true, it's not controversial that the lab was studying a virus they'd found 'in the wild', the same 'naturally occurring' virus that was eventually detected at the Wuhan market.
It becomes an issue when the lab is identified, prior to the outbreak, as having poor safety procedures and containment is at risk. Plus the lab being in close physical proximity to ground zero makes it even more of an issue.
"The claim is that a naturally occurring virus was being studied at a lab"
Assuming that's true, it's not controversial that the lab was studying a virus they'd found 'in the wild', the same 'naturally occurring' virus that was eventually detected at the Wuhan market.
It becomes an issue when the lab is identified, prior to the outbreak, as having poor safety procedures and containment is at risk. Plus the lab being in close physical proximity to ground zero makes it even more of an issue.
All of this is true. There is a claim being done all-too-often that COVID was engineered by the Chinese, or worse, as I've heard, engineered by *us* with the Chinese or Soros for biggest social experiment ever. I've heard people saying that kind of stupid shit in real life. It's really stupid out there.
All of this is true. There is a claim being done all-too-often that COVID was engineered by the Chinese, or worse, as I've heard, engineered by *us* with the Chinese or Soros for biggest social experiment ever. I've heard people saying that kind of stupid shit in real life. It's really stupid out there.
We would know if it was genetically engineered. The debate is if it is the result of gain of function research. Doesn't mean it was intentional (the hypothesis says nothing about that). However, the COVID-19 story is basically a conspiracy theory starter kit. It had all the elements of an entertaining conspiracy theory right from the start. Billionaires, foreign governments covering things up, an invisible threat, mass economic damage, world-wide governmental agencies (WHO), etc. It would be hard to d
How would you tell if it was genetically engineered or not? What's the difference between a nucleotide that came into position through natural mutation or through genetic engineering? Would it have "MADE IN [country]" stamped on it?
How would you tell if it was genetically engineered or not? What's the difference between a nucleotide that came into position through natural mutation or through genetic engineering? Would it have "MADE IN [country]" stamped on it?
One can never know for sure, yet the rate of naturally occurring mutations happen within "natural" sequences at specific rates over time. A laboratory would have to detect "foreign" sequences to conclude, or rather suggest with a degree of error, that the mutation was engineered and not naturally occurring.
The scientific consensus (as well as the consensus of national and foreign intelligence services) is that there is no evidence (detection of "foreign" mutations) of engineering. That coupled with the cu
The issue is not that the lab what doing research, but what kind of research it was doing. They were using gain of function research, where they put selective pressures on virus, not found in nature, and then observe mutation. To simplify - they were forcing COVID virus to adapt to human tissues and THEN due to negligence allowed this evolved virus to escape.
I worded my reply poorly. I meant it's plausible the lab was simply studying, prior to the market event, the new virus they'd found circulating in the population.
"It becomes an issue when the lab is identified, prior to the outbreak, as having poor safety procedures"
I remember reading about the safety issues and that they'd since got the help of American infectious disease experts to fix them, but as I recall all that happened much earlier than the Wuhan market event
I remember reading about the safety issues and that they'd since got the help of American infectious disease experts to fix them, but as I recall all that happened much earlier than the Wuhan market event
"These researchers, the American officials learned, had found a population of bats from caves in Yunnan province that gave them insight into how SARS coronaviruses originated and spread. The researchers boasted that they may have found the cave where the original SARS coronavirus originated. But all the U.S. diplomats cared about was that these scientists had discovered three new viruses that had a unique characteristic: they contained a "spike protein” t
but COVID-19 finds it *very* hard to transmit by touch, which is how it would have gotten out of a lab (they'd have been dickering with it in petri dishes).
Even the most elementary lab precautions would have worked against COVID, let alone what we see in even the most poorly run labs, let alone a level 4 biohazard lab like this one.
It is infinitely more likely that the virus transmitted during the thousands (millions?) of unnecessary interactions with wild animals humans have due to deforestation an
Even the most elementary lab precautions would have worked against COVID, let alone what we see in even the most poorly run labs, let alone a level 4 biohazard lab like this one.
It is a Level 4 Biohazard Lab where the staff told visiting American Diplomats their lab was unsafe and they needed help.
It is infinitely more likely that the virus transmitted during the thousands (millions?) of unnecessary interactions with wild animals humans have due to deforestation and the wet markets.
Yes, never mind the unsafe lab near the wet market, a lab that works with concentrations of the virus higher than that found in nature.
but COVID-19 finds it *very* hard to transmit by touch, which is how it would have gotten out of a lab (they'd have been dickering with it in petri dishes).
Even the most elementary lab precautions would have worked against COVID, let alone what we see in even the most poorly run labs, let alone a level 4 biohazard lab like this one.
It is infinitely more likely that the virus transmitted during the thousands (millions?) of unnecessary interactions with wild animals humans have due to deforestation and the wet markets.
"These researchers, the American officials learned, had found a population of bats from caves in Yunnan province that gave them insight into how SARS coronaviruses originated and spread. The researchers boasted that they may have found the cave where the original SARS coronavirus originated. But all the U.S. diplomats cared about was that these scientists had discovered three new viruses that had a unique characteristic: they contained a "spike protein” that was particularly good at grabbing on to a s
Assuming that's true, it's not controversial that the lab was studying a virus they'd found 'in the wild', the same 'naturally occurring' virus that was eventually detected at the Wuhan market.
Where was the "naturally occurring" virus found?in the labs figurative backyard, or hundreds of kilometers away and brought to Wuhan to study?If that is the case, then how did the virus make the trip from remote China to Wuhan wet market? Do people really capture live bats and drive them hundreds of kilometers to sell in a wet market?
There's really quite a lot here to argue against your implied coincidence theory - as in it's just a coincidence that the virus was found in a wet market in the shadow of one o
"Do people really capture live bats and drive them hundreds of kilometers to sell in a wet market?"
Yes. The virus can also travel large distances in infected humans. It could also have been moving in the local population for a while, that's actually very plausible.
since it was a level 4 bio hazard lab and the virus almost never passes by touch. No matter how bad their procedures were it's insane to think that was how the virus got out vs the massive amount of human interaction between wild animals going on in China thanks to deforestation & the wet markets.
But it's most definitely *not* a straw man because there is always an under current that the virus was engineered. Redfield said it himself:
"Most of us in a lab, when trying to grow a virus, we try to help
since it was a level 4 bio hazard lab and the virus almost never passes by touch. No matter how bad their procedures were it's insane to think that was how the virus got out...
"Its research on bat viruses had already drawn the attention of U.S. diplomats and officials at the Beijing Embassy in late 2017, prompting them to alert Washington that the lab’s own scientists had reported “a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory...
These researchers, the American officials learned, had found a population of bats from caves in Yunnan province that gave them insight into how SARS corona
put some line breaks in your post. You can do it on/. with the "BR" HTML tag.
As I've already mentioned it doesn't matter how safe or unsafe this particular lab was. The Coronavirus we're fighting does not transmit well by touch. Literally hand washing and not touching your face is all you need to do to avoid getting it. And even then it has a hard time transmitting that way.
So literally the most basic precautions you'd see in a doctor's office are enough to stop it from getting out of a lab setting
As I've already mentioned it doesn't matter how safe or unsafe this particular lab was.
LOL!
The Coronavirus we're fighting does not transmit well by touch. Literally hand washing and not touching your face is all you need to do to avoid getting it. And even then it has a hard time transmitting that way. So literally the most basic precautions you'd see in a doctor's office are enough to stop it from getting out of a lab setting. Short of them putting it in spray bottles and having water fights it wasn't going to get out of a lab that way.
And yet Chinese staff at the lab told US Diplomats their lab was unsafe and they needed help.
Why is it so important to you that this comes from a lab? I've got my reasons, what are *yours*?
Its difficult to fix a thing if you do not accurately understand how it is broken.
Sure, but irrelevant: none of the evidence points to a release from the lab and all the evidence point to a release from the wet market. How do you reconcile that?
The researchers saying their lab, very near to the wet market, is unsafe is not evidence?
"These researchers, the American officials learned, had found a population of bats from caves in Yunnan province that gave them insight into how SARS coronaviruses originated and spread. The researchers boasted that they may have found the cave where the original SARS coronavirus originated. But all the U.S. diplomats cared about was that these scientists had discovered three new viruses that had a unique characteris
No. I donâ(TM)t see that as evidence that the virus originated at the lab. I donâ(TM)t think you understand what the word âoeevidenceâ means.
The gap in understanding is yours. Circumstantial evidence such as the above warrants a proper investigation. We literally have staff at the Wuhan lab telling American diplomats that their lab is unsafe and they need help.
no, i understand just fine. you fail to provide any link between the two.
Sorry, but no you do not. The staff admitted the lab unsafe. They spoke of 3 very dangerous strains being worked on. They are near the wet market. All this circumstantial evidence makes a proper investigation paramount. Yet the government prevented such an investigation. This is the same government that jailed a doctor for warning other doctors in the region. All of these circumstances lead to attempts to dismiss the lab with "there is no evidence" being purely propaganda in nature. The situation is "no evi
again with the conspiracy theories. you have no proof, just a couple of coincidences. did you hear the earth is flat, too?
The geometry of the earth has had a proper investigation, unlike the initial transmission of covid. Letting the Chinese Communist Party control the investigation, directly or through their proxies, is pretty much like having a church of the Middle Ages investigate heliocentric.
Thank you for the analogy, the CCP investigation being about as fair as the Pope's investigation will be an easily understood analogy.
The researchers saying their lab, very near to the wet market, is unsafe is not evidence?
No it is not. Because: they fixed it 3 or 4 years ago. I mean: told us they fixed it. So?
And you might want to check what the word "evidence" actually means.
Because according to your logic in that "unsafe lab" they bread HIV, Ebola, Yellow Fever: because the usage of the word "unsafe" is obviously in your eyes "evidence" for that.
There is no evidence they fixed it, the only evidence is that they said their lab was unsafe and they needed help. Matter of fact they moved building in close proximity to the outbreak.
And now that the WHO report is out the its from animals hypothesis is not being accepted.
"
WHO's 'not credible' coronavirus report angers scientists and politicians alike
WASHINGTON — A new report from the World Health Organization that seeks to uncover the origins of the coronavirus pandemic has been met with str
If the position was that the virus ESCAPED instead of being RELEASED,would you consider that a possibility? Or are insisting that the presence of the SARS research lab in the very same city where the virus magically appeared is nothing more than a mildly interesting coincidence?
Your argument seems to be that two sets of guys from wuhan,one set from the lab, the other set from the wet market both went into the same cave and extracted infected bats and brought them back to Wuhan independently? While theoretic
I'm ok with this reality (which just needed to be spelled out.) I was referring to people who push a "reality" narrative that the virus was chinaman-made ("just bc there's no proof it was man-made it doesn't mean there is no proof yada yada yada.")
"Now here's something you're really going to like!"
-- Rocket J. Squirrel
'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:'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:5, Insightful)
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Pushing a counter-narrative doesn't change the reality!
What reality? What is the proof of that reality? Hitchen's Razor people.
You can start with these: (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 [nature.com]
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/coronavirus-origins-misinformation-yan-report-fact-check-cvd [nationalgeographic.com]
There's plenty more only a google search away. Our tech for working with viruses is pretty primitive stuff all things considered. It leaves clear markers anyone with a bit of knowledge in the field can see.
Meanwhile we've been warned for 30 years by epidemiologists that destroying bat habitats and cramming wild animals together in wet markets was going to cause a global pandemic.
So what's more likely, China developed biotech that's 50-100 years ahead of the rest of the world and instead of making money off it kept it secret so they could do something, something, something dark side or the thing every expert in the field of viruses has been warning us about for 3 decades finally happened?
You are arguing against a straw man (Score:2, Informative)
The claim is that a naturally occurring virus was being studied at a lab with sloppy procedures and this naturally occurring virus escaped the lab. The CDC had warned about sloppy procedures at this lab before the COVID outbreak.
Re: (Score:1)
"The claim is that a naturally occurring virus was being studied at a lab"
Assuming that's true, it's not controversial that the lab was studying a virus they'd found 'in the wild', the same 'naturally occurring' virus that was eventually detected at the Wuhan market.
Re: (Score:2)
"The claim is that a naturally occurring virus was being studied at a lab"
Assuming that's true, it's not controversial that the lab was studying a virus they'd found 'in the wild', the same 'naturally occurring' virus that was eventually detected at the Wuhan market.
It becomes an issue when the lab is identified, prior to the outbreak, as having poor safety procedures and containment is at risk. Plus the lab being in close physical proximity to ground zero makes it even more of an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
"The claim is that a naturally occurring virus was being studied at a lab"
Assuming that's true, it's not controversial that the lab was studying a virus they'd found 'in the wild', the same 'naturally occurring' virus that was eventually detected at the Wuhan market.
It becomes an issue when the lab is identified, prior to the outbreak, as having poor safety procedures and containment is at risk. Plus the lab being in close physical proximity to ground zero makes it even more of an issue.
All of this is true. There is a claim being done all-too-often that COVID was engineered by the Chinese, or worse, as I've heard, engineered by *us* with the Chinese or Soros for biggest social experiment ever. I've heard people saying that kind of stupid shit in real life. It's really stupid out there.
Re: (Score:2)
All of this is true. There is a claim being done all-too-often that COVID was engineered by the Chinese, or worse, as I've heard, engineered by *us* with the Chinese or Soros for biggest social experiment ever. I've heard people saying that kind of stupid shit in real life. It's really stupid out there.
We would know if it was genetically engineered. The debate is if it is the result of gain of function research. Doesn't mean it was intentional (the hypothesis says nothing about that). However, the COVID-19 story is basically a conspiracy theory starter kit. It had all the elements of an entertaining conspiracy theory right from the start. Billionaires, foreign governments covering things up, an invisible threat, mass economic damage, world-wide governmental agencies (WHO), etc. It would be hard to d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How would you tell if it was genetically engineered or not? What's the difference between a nucleotide that came into position through natural mutation or through genetic engineering? Would it have "MADE IN [country]" stamped on it?
One can never know for sure, yet the rate of naturally occurring mutations happen within "natural" sequences at specific rates over time. A laboratory would have to detect "foreign" sequences to conclude, or rather suggest with a degree of error, that the mutation was engineered and not naturally occurring.
The scientific consensus (as well as the consensus of national and foreign intelligence services) is that there is no evidence (detection of "foreign" mutations) of engineering. That coupled with the cu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"It becomes an issue ..."
I worded my reply poorly. I meant it's plausible the lab was simply studying, prior to the market event, the new virus they'd found circulating in the population.
"It becomes an issue when the lab is identified, prior to the outbreak, as having poor safety procedures"
I remember reading about the safety issues and that they'd since got the help of American infectious disease experts to fix them, but as I recall all that happened much earlier than the Wuhan market event
Re: (Score:2)
I worded my reply poorly.
Been there, done that ... on a daily basis. :-)
I remember reading about the safety issues and that they'd since got the help of American infectious disease experts to fix them, but as I recall all that happened much earlier than the Wuhan market event
"These researchers, the American officials learned, had found a population of bats from caves in Yunnan province that gave them insight into how SARS coronaviruses originated and spread. The researchers boasted that they may have found the cave where the original SARS coronavirus originated. But all the U.S. diplomats cared about was that these scientists had discovered three new viruses that had a unique characteristic: they contained a "spike protein” t
I've pointed this out several times (Score:2)
Even the most elementary lab precautions would have worked against COVID, let alone what we see in even the most poorly run labs, let alone a level 4 biohazard lab like this one.
It is infinitely more likely that the virus transmitted during the thousands (millions?) of unnecessary interactions with wild animals humans have due to deforestation an
Re: (Score:3)
Even the most elementary lab precautions would have worked against COVID, let alone what we see in even the most poorly run labs, let alone a level 4 biohazard lab like this one.
It is a Level 4 Biohazard Lab where the staff told visiting American Diplomats their lab was unsafe and they needed help.
It is infinitely more likely that the virus transmitted during the thousands (millions?) of unnecessary interactions with wild animals humans have due to deforestation and the wet markets.
Yes, never mind the unsafe lab near the wet market, a lab that works with concentrations of the virus higher than that found in nature.
Re: (Score:2)
but COVID-19 finds it *very* hard to transmit by touch, which is how it would have gotten out of a lab (they'd have been dickering with it in petri dishes). Even the most elementary lab precautions would have worked against COVID, let alone what we see in even the most poorly run labs, let alone a level 4 biohazard lab like this one. It is infinitely more likely that the virus transmitted during the thousands (millions?) of unnecessary interactions with wild animals humans have due to deforestation and the wet markets.
"These researchers, the American officials learned, had found a population of bats from caves in Yunnan province that gave them insight into how SARS coronaviruses originated and spread. The researchers boasted that they may have found the cave where the original SARS coronavirus originated. But all the U.S. diplomats cared about was that these scientists had discovered three new viruses that had a unique characteristic: they contained a "spike protein” that was particularly good at grabbing on to a s
Re: You are arguing against a straw man (Score:2)
Assuming that's true, it's not controversial that the lab was studying a virus they'd found 'in the wild', the same 'naturally occurring' virus that was eventually detected at the Wuhan market.
Where was the "naturally occurring" virus found?in the labs figurative backyard, or hundreds of kilometers away and brought to Wuhan to study?If that is the case, then how did the virus make the trip from remote China to Wuhan wet market? Do people really capture live bats and drive them hundreds of kilometers to sell in a wet market?
There's really quite a lot here to argue against your implied coincidence theory - as in it's just a coincidence that the virus was found in a wet market in the shadow of one o
Re: (Score:2)
"Do people really capture live bats and drive them hundreds of kilometers to sell in a wet market?"
Yes. The virus can also travel large distances in infected humans. It could also have been moving in the local population for a while, that's actually very plausible.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirk... [www.cbc.ca]
That one's even easier (Score:1)
But it's most definitely *not* a straw man because there is always an under current that the virus was engineered. Redfield said it himself:
Chinese researchers told US Diplomats lab unsafe (Score:2, Informative)
since it was a level 4 bio hazard lab and the virus almost never passes by touch. No matter how bad their procedures were it's insane to think that was how the virus got out ...
"Its research on bat viruses had already drawn the attention of U.S. diplomats and officials at the Beijing Embassy in late 2017, prompting them to alert Washington that the lab’s own scientists had reported “a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory ...
These researchers, the American officials learned, had found a population of bats from caves in Yunnan province that gave them insight into how SARS corona
For the love of God (Score:1)
As I've already mentioned it doesn't matter how safe or unsafe this particular lab was. The Coronavirus we're fighting does not transmit well by touch. Literally hand washing and not touching your face is all you need to do to avoid getting it. And even then it has a hard time transmitting that way.
So literally the most basic precautions you'd see in a doctor's office are enough to stop it from getting out of a lab setting
Re: (Score:2)
As I've already mentioned it doesn't matter how safe or unsafe this particular lab was.
LOL!
The Coronavirus we're fighting does not transmit well by touch. Literally hand washing and not touching your face is all you need to do to avoid getting it. And even then it has a hard time transmitting that way. So literally the most basic precautions you'd see in a doctor's office are enough to stop it from getting out of a lab setting. Short of them putting it in spray bottles and having water fights it wasn't going to get out of a lab that way.
And yet Chinese staff at the lab told US Diplomats their lab was unsafe and they needed help.
Why is it so important to you that this comes from a lab? I've got my reasons, what are *yours*?
Its difficult to fix a thing if you do not accurately understand how it is broken.
Re: You are arguing against a straw man (Score:1)
Sure, but irrelevant: none of the evidence points to a release from the lab and all the evidence point to a release from the wet market.
How do you reconcile that?
Researchers said their lab was unsafe (Score:2)
Sure, but irrelevant: none of the evidence points to a release from the lab and all the evidence point to a release from the wet market. How do you reconcile that?
The researchers saying their lab, very near to the wet market, is unsafe is not evidence?
"These researchers, the American officials learned, had found a population of bats from caves in Yunnan province that gave them insight into how SARS coronaviruses originated and spread. The researchers boasted that they may have found the cave where the original SARS coronavirus originated. But all the U.S. diplomats cared about was that these scientists had discovered three new viruses that had a unique characteris
Re: Researchers said their lab was unsafe (Score:1)
No. I donâ(TM)t see that as evidence that the virus originated at the lab. I donâ(TM)t think you understand what the word âoeevidenceâ means.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I donâ(TM)t see that as evidence that the virus originated at the lab. I donâ(TM)t think you understand what the word âoeevidenceâ means.
The gap in understanding is yours. Circumstantial evidence such as the above warrants a proper investigation. We literally have staff at the Wuhan lab telling American diplomats that their lab is unsafe and they need help.
Re: (Score:1)
no, i understand just fine. you fail to provide any link between the two.
Re: (Score:3)
no, i understand just fine. you fail to provide any link between the two.
Sorry, but no you do not. The staff admitted the lab unsafe. They spoke of 3 very dangerous strains being worked on. They are near the wet market. All this circumstantial evidence makes a proper investigation paramount. Yet the government prevented such an investigation. This is the same government that jailed a doctor for warning other doctors in the region. All of these circumstances lead to attempts to dismiss the lab with "there is no evidence" being purely propaganda in nature. The situation is "no evi
Re: (Score:2)
again with the conspiracy theories. you have no proof, just a couple of coincidences.
did you hear the earth is flat, too?
Re: (Score:2)
again with the conspiracy theories. you have no proof, just a couple of coincidences. did you hear the earth is flat, too?
The geometry of the earth has had a proper investigation, unlike the initial transmission of covid. Letting the Chinese Communist Party control the investigation, directly or through their proxies, is pretty much like having a church of the Middle Ages investigate heliocentric.
Thank you for the analogy, the CCP investigation being about as fair as the Pope's investigation will be an easily understood analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
The researchers saying their lab, very near to the wet market, is unsafe is not evidence?
No it is not. Because: they fixed it 3 or 4 years ago. I mean: told us they fixed it. So?
And you might want to check what the word "evidence" actually means.
Because according to your logic in that "unsafe lab" they bread HIV, Ebola, Yellow Fever: because the usage of the word "unsafe" is obviously in your eyes "evidence" for that.
Re: (Score:2)
they fixed it 3 or 4 years ago
Funny, their scientists were telling our diplomats they were unsafe and needed US support 2 years before the outbreak.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, now it is 2 yours later, so in total it is 4 ... simple math :P
Re: (Score:2)
And now that the WHO report is out the its from animals hypothesis is not being accepted.
" WHO's 'not credible' coronavirus report angers scientists and politicians alike
WASHINGTON — A new report from the World Health Organization that seeks to uncover the origins of the coronavirus pandemic has been met with str
Re: You are arguing against a straw man (Score:2)
If the position was that the virus ESCAPED instead of being RELEASED,would you consider that a possibility? Or are insisting that the presence of the SARS research lab in the very same city where the virus magically appeared is nothing more than a mildly interesting coincidence?
Your argument seems to be that two sets of guys from wuhan,one set from the lab, the other set from the wet market both went into the same cave and extracted infected bats and brought them back to Wuhan independently? While theoretic
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not-human-made-lab-genetic-analysis-nature [sciencenews.org] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 [nature.com] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/coronavirus-origins-misinformation-yan-report-fact-check-cvd [nationalgeographic.com] There's plenty more only a google search away. Our tech for working with viruses is pretty primitive stuff all things considered. It leaves clear markers anyone with a bit of knowledge in the field can see. Meanwhile we've been warned for 30 years by epidemiologists that destroying bat habitats and cramming wild animals together in wet markets was going to cause a global pandemic. So what's more likely, China developed biotech that's 50-100 years ahead of the rest of the world and instead of making money off it kept it secret so they could do something, something, something dark side or the thing every expert in the field of viruses has been warning us about for 3 decades finally happened?
I'm ok with this reality (which just needed to be spelled out.) I was referring to people who push a "reality" narrative that the virus was chinaman-made ("just bc there's no proof it was man-made it doesn't mean there is no proof yada yada yada.")