Covid-19 likely to be man made

mcsean2163 · 16-01-2021 10:22am

King Mob wrote: »

Not really. And you have now changed your story again.
You claimed that there was scientific debate on the matter, now you're saying you can't produce any scientific studies for the side you believe.

So you have no evidence other than "a lab was nearby."

But this is untrue. I've provided you several peer reviewed studies.
Rather than address then r=or acknowledge them, you've lied about them, claimed they were fraudulent and that they weren't peer reviewed.

Ok. Show that is the case and show how this invalidates the conclusions in the papers I provided.

You keep claiming this, but you can't seem to substantiate it at all.

More misdirection, question dodging and dishonesty. If it wasn't sad it'd be hilarious. In fact it's exhausting. You've been peddling your wet market theory for weeks without providing evidence.

It's like talking to a flat earther. With no expertise in the field, you cling to your unsubstantiated claims religiously.

Fwiw, your claims are regarded internationally as racist.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/05/08/why-its-wrong-and-racist-blame-covid-19-chinese-wet-markets

Americans have long branded Chinese people as carriers of disease. For example, in 1854, the New York Tribune wrote that Chinese people were "uncivilized, unclean, filthy beyond all conception."

And if there’s a reason why it’s widely believed that the novel coronavirus emerged in a Chinese “wet market” in Wuhan, it’s because many of the earliest reports treated this origin theory as fact.

As Donjoe said, let's see what the WHO investigation reveals.

King Mob · 16-01-2021 10:45am

mcsean2163 wrote: »

More misdirection, question dodging and dishonesty. If it wasn't sad it'd be hilarious. In fact it's exhausting.

What questions are you referring to?

mcsean2163 wrote: »

You've been peddling your bat theory for weeks without providing evidence.

But I have provided evidence. I posted several peer reviewed scientific studies that conclude the virus was not artifically created.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

It's like talking to a flat earther, with no expertise in the field,

I never claimed to have any expertise.
Could you tell us what your expertise is?

mcsean2163 wrote: »

you cling to your unsubstantiated claims religiously.
.

Again, substantiated with several peer reviewed papers.

You guys however have claimed:
The virus could be man made.
The studies I have posted were manipulated by the Chinese government.
The studies I provided were not actually peer reviewed.
That the scientists who don't believe the virus was man made are either incompetent or intimidated.
The Chinese government is preventing studies that show the virus is man made from being published.
Among many other things.

All of which have not been substantiated at all.

Fwiw, your claims are regarded internationally as racist.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/05/08/why-its-wrong-and-racist-blame-covid-19-chinese-wet-markets

Americans have long branded Chinese people as carriers of disease. For example, in 1854, the New York Tribune wrote that Chinese people were "uncivilized, unclean, filthy beyond all conception."

And if there’s a reason why it’s widely believed that the novel coronavirus emerged in a Chinese “wet market” in Wuhan, it’s because many of the earliest reports treated this origin theory as fact.

Where have I made this claim?

What a bizarre and desperate argument...

mcsean2163 · 16-01-2021 11:18am

King Mob wrote: »

What questions are you referring to?

But I have provided evidence. I posted several peer reviewed scientific studies that conclude the virus was not artifically created.

I never claimed to have any expertise.
Could you tell us what your expertise is?

Again, substantiated with several peer reviewed papers.

You guys however have claimed:
The virus could be man made.
The studies I have posted were manipulated by the Chinese government.
The studies I provided were not actually peer reviewed.
That the scientists who don't believe the virus was man made are either incompetent or intimidated.
The Chinese government is preventing studies that show the virus is man made from being published.
Among many other things.

All of which have not been substantiated at all.

Where have I made this claim?

What a bizarre and desperate argument...

A question is not a claim. You guys? I'm not in a group or representing anyone other than myself.

Again dishonesty and misdirection. All your "evidence" is speculative, I challenge you to show me one paper that proves the wet market origin.

Wet markets in Wuhan are fully open again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-wuhan-mood/a-year-on-markets-bustling-in-chinese-city-where-covid-19-emerged-idUSKBN28I0KM

Surely if the origin was a wet market, China would be less keen to open so soon?

Perhaps it was a wet market as you claim although the evidence is mounting to the contrary but as Donjoe says, let's wait for the WHO investigation to complete.

As it stands, it appears you are peddling unsubstantiated racist views. I work with a Chinese national and regard him as a good m friend. Ireland would be a better place with more people like him in it.

I understand the need for borders in a globalised unequal world but I have no regard with this racist misdepiction of Chinese eating habits. If the same people were to film the abattoirs and fish factories in the West, they might realize that killing animals is a messy business, full stop.

King Mob · 16-01-2021 11:46am

mcsean2163 wrote: »

A question is not a claim.

I don't understand what you're referring to.
What questions have I dodged?

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Again dishonesty and misdirection. All your "evidence" is speculative, I challenge you to show me one paper that proves the wet market origin.

No, the evidence I have shown is not "speculative". they are peer reviewed scientific papers.
They conclude that the virus has an zoonotic origin.

You are now shifting the goal posts to "wet market origin" which is not something I or the studies say.
You are doing this in a very desperate and very strange attempt to dodge points and somehow accuse me of being racist.

And all of this is besides the fact that you guys still have not provided any evidence that the virus was artificially created.

mcsean2163 · 16-01-2021 12:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

I don't understand what you're referring to.
What questions have I dodged?

No, the evidence I have shown is not "speculative". they are peer reviewed scientific papers.
They conclude that the virus has an zoonotic origin.

You are now shifting the goal posts to "wet market origin" which is not something I or the studies say.
You are doing this in a very desperate and very strange attempt to dodge points and somehow accuse me of being racist.

And all of this is besides the fact that you guys still have not provided any evidence that the virus was artificially created.

Look, when this was put in conspiracy theories I should have left. Again, I am not affiliated with a group as you seem to think. I admit that u was impressed by Dr Meng's courage and from the thread was hoping to find if there are any merit to her claims.

You have provided papers that consistently point to studies that state zoonotic being the most likely development route if the virus. The paper are scientific and non religious and they openly state probabilities and likelihoods. You have attacked all discussion around the topic except for one.

Here is a very direct question to you. What is the origin of covid19?

King Mob · 16-01-2021 12:21pm

mcsean2163 wrote: »

You have provided papers that consistently point to studies that state zoonotic being the most likely development route if the virus. The paper are scientific and non religious and they openly state probabilities and likelihoods. You have attacked all discussion around the topic except for one.

In what way is "please provide evidence" attacking all discussion?

You accused me of being racist.
So your complaint here is completely and utterly hollow.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Here is a very direct question to you. What is the origin of covid19?

It's most likely a natural zoonotic origin as that's what seems to have the support of peer reviewed science, where as the idea that the virus was artificially created has no evidence beyond "it was close to a lab".

Now since I've answered your question directly and clear, please extend the courtesy:
What peer reviewed scientific papers or other evidence supports the idea of artificial origins?

mcsean2163 · 16-01-2021 2:37pm

King Mob wrote: »

In what way is "please provide evidence" attacking all discussion?

You accused me of being racist.
So your complaint here is completely and utterly hollow.

It's most likely a natural zoonotic origin as that's what seems to have the support of peer reviewed science, where as the idea that the virus was artificially created has no evidence beyond "it was close to a lab".

Now since I've answered your question directly and clear, please extend the courtesy:
What peer reviewed scientific papers or other evidence supports the idea of artificial origins?

You finally admit that your claims are theories.

Professor of epidemiology in Oxford sunetra Gupta has said that it is very difficult to get views orthogonal to the orthodoxy published. She has been in favour of targeted shielding of vulnerable but journals will not publish her research let alone allow it go through the peer review process and maybe this is for the best. Maybe it's best to be on the same page during the Pandemic, it can be irrational/ illogical to some but maybe overall it's for the best. I've passed on the work of world renowned Australian professor of virology that journals are refusing to review let alone publish.

Maybe it's best to let the dust settle

I have nothing for you. This is a discussion forum to discuss things.

I know nothing but am interested to find out more, you have your theories.

Your approach is combative, abbrasive and rude. You bait and dismiss and attack the character of posters.

I can only assume you have been too long in conspiracy theories as you seem to think you are an authority at exposing people, in my case someone just interested in a topic.

I've learned nothing here on Dr Meng and her research and whether there is merit in it or not and it feels that the topic is not a discussion but something for ace conspiracy theorist king mob to squash.

In fact in doing so, you have become a conspiracy theorist espousing a belief as fact when it is not.

King Mob · 16-01-2021 2:46pm

mcsean2163 wrote: »

You finally admit that your claims are theories.

I've not changed my position during this thread and I've not said anything that could be taken as something else.

You seem to think that you've tricked me into some sort of admission...
I think you had been operating under the false notion that my position was one of 100% certainty.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I have nothing for you. This is a discussion forum to discuss things.

Ok. So there are no scientific papers to support the artificial origin idea.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Your approach is combative, abbrasive and rude. You bait and dismiss and attack the character of posters.

I can only assume...

Again, your complaints here are very hollow given the lengths you went to to accuse me of being a racist and how you're going on a bit of a rant about me among the many other accusations made against me and the dishonest tactics employed on this thread which you are ignoring.

All I asked was to see some evidence to support the idea that the virus is man made.
You agree there is none.

mcsean2163 · 16-01-2021 3:22pm

King Mob wrote: »

I've not changed my position during this thread and I've not said anything that could be taken as something else.

You seem to think that you've tricked me into some sort of admission...
I think you had been operating under the false notion that my position was one of 100% certainty.

Ok. So there are no scientific papers to support the artificial origin idea.

Again, your complaints here are very hollow given the lengths you went to to accuse me of being a racist and how you're going on a bit of a rant about me among the many other accusations made against me and the dishonest tactics employed on this thread which you are ignoring.

All I asked was to see some evidence to support the idea that the virus is man made.
You agree there is none.

All I asked was to see some evidence to support the idea that the virus is man made.
You agree there is none.

Everything you were given you dismissed out of hand and demanded irrefutable proof. You put forward your theories and demanded they should be accepted as the were supported by the majority.

You are a black hole swallowing up time and effort so that you can chalk off an imaginary victory in your head. This is meant to be a discussion forum.

For your own health, it might be better if you found a sexual partner or something.

I repeat, this is meant to be a discussion forum.

Here's a challenge for you. Discuss the work of Professor Petrovsky https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341369358_In_silico_comparison_of_spike_protein-ACE2_binding_affinities_across_species_significance_for_the_possible_origin_of_the_SARS-CoV-2_virus

Some possible headings.

1. Why was the work of a respected professor not reviewed by any journal worldwide?

2. Is there merit in the work of his team of scientists of which he is the senior author?

3. If not, why not? If yes, why?

King Mob · 16-01-2021 3:32pm

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Everything you were given you dismissed out of hand and demanded irrefutable proof. You put forward your theories and demanded they should be accepted as the were supported by the majority.

But the only thing that have been given so far have been "there was a lab nearby" and "this guy who believes in homoepathy and DNA radio waves said so".

And now, as you claim that I'm dismissing stuff, you are mischaracterising the peer reviewed studies as "theories" and "only being accepted cause they support the majority".

This is hypocritical. Doubly so with your continued personal comments.

And now, of course, we're seeing more deflection from previous points.

I've no interest in going into some new random tangent when you guys have no interest in the papers I provided when requested.

splashuum · 16-01-2021 9:11pm

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13760322/pompeo-claims-us-evidence-covid-wuhan-lab-leak/

Major bombshell evidence now suggest COVID almost certainly escaped from the Wuhan lab.

But please do tell me how it came from the wet market and couldn’t have came from anywhere else..

Ted_YNWA · 16-01-2021 9:12pm

Mod

Can everyone relax and stop with the personal jabs and insults. The last few posts here are crossing the line.

Benefit of the doubt is being given that they were just posted in the heat of the debate & no intent meant behind them.

But this benefit ends now.

splashuum · 16-01-2021 9:17pm

What’s with these people staring everything has been “debunked” when infact absolutely nothing has been debunked?

Here’s some new info from the US gov website.
You’d have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that this came from anywhere but the Wuhan lab

“The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. This raises questions about the credibility of WIV senior researcher Shi Zhengli’s public claim that there was “zero infection” among the WIV’s staff and students of SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses.
Accidental infections in labs have caused several previous virus outbreaks in China and elsewhere, including a 2004 SARS outbreak in Beijing that infected nine people, killing one.
The CCP has prevented independent journalists, investigators, and global health authorities from interviewing researchers at the WIV, including those who were ill in the fall of 2019. Any credible inquiry into the origin of the virus must include interviews with these researchers and a full accounting of their previously unreported illness.
2. Research at the WIV:

Starting in at least 2016 – and with no indication of a stop prior to the COVID-19 outbreak – WIV researchers conducted experiments involving RaTG13, the bat coronavirus identified by the WIV in January 2020 as its closest sample to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% similar). The WIV became a focal point for international coronavirus research after the 2003 SARS outbreak and has since studied animals including mice, bats, and pangolins.
The WIV has a published record of conducting “gain-of-function” research to engineer chimeric viruses. But the WIV has not been transparent or consistent about its record of studying viruses most similar to the COVID-19 virus, including “RaTG13,” which it sampled from a cave in Yunnan Province in 2013 after several miners died of SARS-like illness.
WHO investigators must have access to the records of the WIV’s work on bat and other coronaviruses before the COVID-19 outbreak. As part of a thorough inquiry, they must have a full accounting of why the WIV altered and then removed online records of its work with RaTG13 and other viruses.
3. Secret military activity at the WIV:

Secrecy and non-disclosure are standard practice for Beijing. For many years the United States has publicly raised concerns about China’s past biological weapons work, which Beijing has neither documented nor demonstrably eliminated, despite its clear obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.
Despite the WIV presenting itself as a civilian institution, the United States has determined that the WIV has collaborated on publications and secret projects with China’s military. The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017”

Dohnjoe · 16-01-2021 9:32pm

splashuum wrote: »

Here’s some new info from the US gov website.
You’d have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that this came from anywhere but the Wuhan lab

“The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. This raises questions about the credibility of WIV senior researcher Shi Zhengli’s public claim that there was “zero infection” among the WIV’s staff and students of SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses.
Accidental infections in labs have caused several previous virus outbreaks in China and elsewhere, including a 2004 SARS outbreak in Beijing that infected nine people, killing one.
The CCP has prevented independent journalists, investigators, and global health authorities from interviewing researchers at the WIV, including those who were ill in the fall of 2019. Any credible inquiry into the origin of the virus must include interviews with these researchers and a full accounting of their previously unreported illness.
2. Research at the WIV:

Starting in at least 2016 – and with no indication of a stop prior to the COVID-19 outbreak – WIV researchers conducted experiments involving RaTG13, the bat coronavirus identified by the WIV in January 2020 as its closest sample to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% similar). The WIV became a focal point for international coronavirus research after the 2003 SARS outbreak and has since studied animals including mice, bats, and pangolins.
The WIV has a published record of conducting “gain-of-function” research to engineer chimeric viruses. But the WIV has not been transparent or consistent about its record of studying viruses most similar to the COVID-19 virus, including “RaTG13,” which it sampled from a cave in Yunnan Province in 2013 after several miners died of SARS-like illness.
WHO investigators must have access to the records of the WIV’s work on bat and other coronaviruses before the COVID-19 outbreak. As part of a thorough inquiry, they must have a full accounting of why the WIV altered and then removed online records of its work with RaTG13 and other viruses.
3. Secret military activity at the WIV:

Secrecy and non-disclosure are standard practice for Beijing. For many years the United States has publicly raised concerns about China’s past biological weapons work, which Beijing has neither documented nor demonstrably eliminated, despite its clear obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.
Despite the WIV presenting itself as a civilian institution, the United States has determined that the WIV has collaborated on publications and secret projects with China’s military. The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017”

This is indirectly from Pompeo in the Trump admin who hasn't exactly shown himself a reliable source, e.g. promising a "smooth transition" to a second Trump administration after it was clear they had lost the election. Would take it with a heavy dose of salt for now.

SafeSurfer · 16-01-2021 10:21pm

Interesting article here re bias about the zoonotic hypothesis.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/if-covid-19-did-start-with-a-lab-leak-would-we-ever-know/amp

Tenger · 16-01-2021 11:07pm

splashuum wrote: »

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13760322/pompeo-claims-us-evidence-covid-wuhan-lab-leak/

Major bombshell evidence now suggest COVID almost certainly escaped from the Wuhan lab.

But please do tell me how it came from the wet market and couldn’t have came from anywhere else..

The wet market was/is the initial known origin. No credible virologist suggested it was the actual origin.
EG. The source of SARS was eventually traced back to a particular bat filled cave in China.

But please tell me more on how The Sun and Mike Pompeo are reliable sources.

SafeSurfer · 16-01-2021 11:32pm

Tenger wrote: »

The wet market was/is the initial known origin. No credible virologist suggested it was the actual origin.
EG. The source of SARS was eventually traced back to a particular bat filled cave in China.

But please tell me more on how The Sun and Mike Pompeo are reliable sources.

But the Chinese Communist Party are objective arbiters of truth.

Tenger · 17-01-2021 1:17am

SafeSurfer wrote: »

But the Chinese Communist Party are objective arbiters of truth.

At no point in my post did I infer that the Chinese Govt were "objective arbiters of truth" . Having a cynical view of Mike Pompeo and the Sun doesn't mean I must hold the opposite view of the Chinese Govt.

But go ahead with using whataboutery as a debate tactic.

(I have family living in Hong Kong so have a somewhat biased view towards the Chinese)

NaFirinne · 18-01-2021 5:58am

The complete lack of any credible investigation being done into the Chinese Lab and also there complete lack of cooperation in doing so or revealing anything, I think it's actually more of a conspiracy theory to say this didn't come from the wuhan lab accidently or otherwise.
China is far from innocent in this.

mcsean2163 · 18-01-2021 3:19pm

King Mob wrote: »

But the only thing that have been given so far have been "there was a lab nearby" and "this guy who believes in homoepathy and DNA radio waves said so".

And now, as you claim that I'm dismissing stuff, you are mischaracterising the peer reviewed studies as "theories" and "only being accepted cause they support the majority".

This is hypocritical. Doubly so with your continued personal comments.

And now, of course, we're seeing more deflection from previous points.

I've no interest in going into some new random tangent when you guys have no interest in the papers I provided when requested.

Your first statement is wrong. I sent you the GitHub repository which links to about 100 articles and gives a sequence of events etc I then pointed you to a world renowned virologist who has a preprint but no journals would publish and highlighted how this too had also happened to Oxford academic Sunetra Gupta etc.

If there is an article you want me to review send it on, let me know what questions you have on it and I'll give my input if I have time.

mcsean2163 · 18-01-2021 3:29pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Interesting article here re bias about the zoonotic hypothesis.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/if-covid-19-did-start-with-a-lab-leak-would-we-ever-know/amp

That pretty much sums of my viewpoint. Great find safesurfer.

Fears of conspiracy theorizing should not scare us away from asking uncomfortable questions. They should do the opposite, and motivate us to ensure that our investigations into the origins of this pandemic are as open, independent, and trustworthy as possible.

King Mob · 18-01-2021 3:34pm

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Your first statement is wrong. I sent you the GitHub repository which links to about 100 articles and gives a sequence of events etc

Ok. On that list from github, which articles have been peer reviewed and published in reputable journals and directly state that the virus was altered or man made?
Cause as far as I can tell, it's none.

A lot of it just seems to be the same argument as "there was a lab in Wuhan", just more granular.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I then pointed you to a world renowned virologist who has a preprint but no journals would publish and highlighted how this too had also happened to Oxford academic Sunetra Gupta etc.

And again, this smacks of an argument from authority, and it's more conspiracy on conspiracy nonsense.

Perhaps the reason they aren't being published is because they aren't very good papers.
Being "world renowned" doesn't prevent someone from making crap claims.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

If there is an article you want me to review send it on, let me know what questions you have on it and I'll give my input if I have time.

This one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/

Do you disagree with it's conclusion?
If so, why?

SafeSurfer · 18-01-2021 5:20pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. On that list from github, which articles have been peer reviewed and published in reputable journals and directly state that the virus was altered or man made?
Cause as far as I can tell, it's none.

A lot of it just seems to be the same argument as "there was a lab in Wuhan", just more granular.

And again, this smacks of an argument from authority, and it's more conspiracy on conspiracy nonsense.

Perhaps the reason they aren't being published is because they aren't very good papers.
Being "world renowned" doesn't prevent someone from making crap claims.

This one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/

Do you disagree with it's conclusion?
If so, why?

The conclusion is that more scientific data could swing their conclusions one way or another.

More scientific data will not come from the WHO investigation.

It amounts to one corrupt, discredited organisation the WHO, investigating another corrupt organisation, the Chinese Communist Party.

RobAMerc · 18-01-2021 5:28pm

the word admit means "confess to be true or to be the case"

The title of this thread suggests Trump and CIA boss were involved in the making of the Covid-19 virus and now have decided to confess their part - this is wholly untrue.

They may proclaim to know the truth (which they dont) - but that is not a confession or admittance of wrongdoing.

Dohnjoe · 18-01-2021 5:30pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The conclusion is that more scientific data could swing their conclusions one way or another.

More scientific data will not come from the WHO investigation.

It amounts to one corrupt, discredited organisation the WHO, investigating another corrupt organisation, the Chinese Communist Party.

Wouldn't describe the WHO as a systematically "corrupt" organisation. Will wait to see what the team comes up with.

King Mob · 18-01-2021 5:35pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The conclusion is that more scientific data could swing their conclusions one way or another.

That's not their conclusion though.
Their conclusion is:

Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.

Do you agree with their statement here?
Do you believe their conclusion here is valid?

SafeSurfer · 18-01-2021 5:41pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. On that list from github, which articles have been peer reviewed and published in reputable journals and directly state that the virus was altered or man made?
Cause as far as I can tell, it's none.

A lot of it just seems to be the same argument as "there was a lab in Wuhan", just more granular.

And again, this smacks of an argument from authority, and it's more conspiracy on conspiracy nonsense.

Perhaps the reason they aren't being published is because they aren't very good papers.
Being "world renowned" doesn't prevent someone from making crap claims.

This one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/

Do you disagree with it's conclusion?
If so, why?

You conveniently left out the next sentence in your quote

“we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.

More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another.”

SafeSurfer · 18-01-2021 5:44pm

I believe their conclusion that more scientific data could prove the lab leak hypothesis.

I don’t have any confidence in a biased team, approved by China to provide scientific data that will in any way reflect badly on China.

King Mob · 18-01-2021 5:47pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You conveniently left out the next sentence in your quote

“we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.

More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another.”

You've dodged the question I asked.

Their conclusion is that they believe the laboratory-based scenario is implausible.
Do you agree that this conclusion is a valid one?
Do you agree with this conclusion?

Please just give a straight answer to this question. There really isn't a need for all of this dancing and dodging.

SafeSurfer · 18-01-2021 5:52pm

King Mob wrote: »

You've dodged the question I asked.

Their conclusion is that they believe the laboratory-based scenario is implausible.
Do you agree that this conclusion is a valid one?
Do you agree with this conclusion?

Please just give a straight answer to this question. There really isn't a need for all of this dancing and dodging.

They basically say in their conclusion that more data could favour the lab leak hypothesis.

My point all along if you remember is the China are controlling the information. They are controlling the narrative. The wet market narrative has been discredited and they are now moving on to the foreign origin narrative.
What they won’t allow is an investigation of the data into the lab leak hypothesis.

They could easily disprove this hypothesis by allowing an independent investigation of the lab in Wuhan.

Covid-19 likely to be man made

Comments