That’s just wild. The one silver lining to T2 is that I’m not shocked by anything anymore. It’s still outrageous, but the surprise is gone.
That’s just wild. The one silver lining to T2 is that I’m not shocked by anything anymore. It’s still outrageous, but the surprise is gone.
Okay you’ve refused to acknowledge or read my more important points so it appears you don’t want a conversation with perseverations on your agenda. Good luck.
I don’t know what logically led you to that conclusion. Maybe you ought to self-reflect & work on your own biases/not jump to conclusions?
I’m linking to supporting references, and you’re not, so 🤷.
A YouTube video and an opinion piece lol. How about a Nature article?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03982-2
This nature article has the title
Wuhan lab samples hold no close relatives to virus behind COVID
But you previously claimed
Which is it?
Both. “All sequence data, wild type virus, and previous research history” refers to the disease causing virus and wild type relatives. The Wuhan research viruses are unrelated to SARS-CoV-2.
WIV viruses were 96% related, and their samples were the closest on record anywhere in the world.
Good lord you’re dense. What does this even mean and what relevance is it? The nature article and your articles say this wasn’t created in a lab yet you insist on keeping the tinfoil hat on. Lololol
News investigation & report quoting correspondence between biosafety experts/researchers & their letters to journals?
Paywalled & also in the news section?
It’s possible despite lax biosafety, they didn’t leak the virus & didn’t have it. Based on what little I can read of the article: the word of a person at the center of the matter may be true; however, that’s considerable weight for their word to carry that leaves doubt over impartiality & independence. Findings of an independent monitor/investigation would be more convincing.
Nature is the most highly regarded scientific publication in the world. I can’t help you with your paywall issues.
It’s a news article in their news section, not a scientific study, Nature’s domain of prestige/authority. In the hierarchy of evidence, this ranks at the bottom as background information.
The previous comment stands: it’s an isolated claim lacking independent, impartial corroboration.
Are you really so lazy that you can’t even use Google?
Alright, I’ll go to a PNAS article (opinion piece written so you can actually understand it) but with plenty of scientific references in the bibliography to satisfy your scientific curiosity lol.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2214427119