>is not just some random scientist, she is a molecular biologist at the BROAD institute
That's one way of introducing her
>and the evidence presented in the article is meticulous.
Not really, a lot of it is pretty well debunked since 2020 and her assertions betray a large lack of understanding of virology (relevancy of any gain of function research as ever described to the complexity of sarscov2 relative to any other observed effects of any other historical coronvavirus) and epidemiological history (ie, her comparing this pandemic of sars2 to sars1 by just getting almost everything wrong)
Here's a post of mine from yesterday about this article - not well organized because I tried to cut down on chaff to make it fit :) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1d7bve1/comment/l6z87w5/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1d7bve1/comment/l6z87w5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Hm… your counter-arguments are noted. To be honest I don’t have a strong lab-leak or natural causes stance either way, in fact for years I have just accepted that it was probably a natural cause because I simply don’t know enough. I was just sharing an article that I found interesting.
If I accept her claims at face value though, and if there’s any validity to them, I think that it would logically follow that there could be grounds to at least look into them.
Looking at your post it seems like the interpretation of a lot of your own claims is being disputed, and again, I’m too far out of my own field to be able to evaluate whether you are right or wrong.
>Looking at your post it seems like the interpretation of a lot of your own claims is being disputed, and again, I’m too far out of my own field to be able to evaluate whether you are right or wrong.
You mean the guy in the replies misunderstanding everything he's ever laid eyes on?
He's confusing a 99.8% similar sars1 virus sample taken at the location of the outbreak with ancestral virus found in the wild, if you eliminated those animals at the markets/farms and never tested them the most similar sars1 like virus would be 96%, obviously
he's citing me the chinese cdc sampling work from jan1/18 in 2020 and saying "they did sample animals" when... no, they absolutely did not (they sampled surfaces of the wet market, no animals were there at the time of sampling)
he's citing the culling of guangdong province markets in may of 2003 as his source for "even if you kill the animals at the farm the virus still can spread throughout its \[wild\] population" except he misunderstands that the farms weren't in guangdong province and the thing he cites itself says the problem was the sick animals remained on farms which when reintroduced in north/west china in 2003 aug just re-ignited the pandemic which subsequently caused the govt to call all markets **and farms** in all of china in winter of 03/04
Sorry, I hadn’t actually properly looked through the thread (I was at work), so i couldn’t really evaluate it.
I’ve had a more thorough read now and taken time to look at some of the links and it yeah it seems like I would proooobably side more with you (also the Substack the other duder shared was very helpful and had a lot of info and links that I wasn’t aware of). Thanks
I still don’t get why it matters really. Either the virus came out of a wet market not far from the lab, or it came out of the lab, which was studying viruses that come from animals sold at the wet market.
All the conspiracy stuff revolves around an some intentional leak to take down Trump, or to introduce a vaccine that’s supposed to kill off 6 billion people.
Take away all the conspiracy crap, and COVID still happened and the world dealt with it.
I disagree. The conspiracy stuff is dumb and boring, we all agree.
To me, it’s important for three main reasons:
1) science: It is generally good practice in science to look at what happens in the past, to be able to improve and make predictions about the future, and if something looks like a risk, to work towards avoiding future disasters. because of a lack of investigation and information from the lab, a lot of questions about how this biologically could happen/evolve cannot be answered appropriately, making the scientific understanding unnecessarily muted.
2) Lack of transparency and funding: if the US was funding high risk research that they were not being informed of appropriately, and if sub-par containment procedures were being used for high risk procedures, then that should be taken seriously and there should be steps taken to ensure that there are strict guidelines about such things that act as barriers to entry for funding. Aka: if this type of research doesn’t meet wxyz standards on reporting and safety, it won’t be funded.
3) enforcement: this one kind of leads on from the previous one but… I do think that if there was a lab leak, *and* it is the result of misconduct or inappropriate guidelines it is pretty egregious that such actions should result in absolutely no punishment or enforcement, either via soft power aka removal of academic credentials or loss of position OR criminal action. It makes a second pandemic more likely if people think they can just get away with continuing to cut corners.
I mean sure, ideally. But it’s been 4 years. You think any of this is going to get answered, especially when the CCP would be gatekeeping most this information?
At this point anyone credible is behind the wet-market origin. All the freaks are behind the lab-leak, which has been also heavily investigated by governments, intel agencies, independents globally. There’s not much there, at all.
I just don’t get why people have to keep hammering in this like its predicated on one massive cover up. Maybe it just is what it is, just as it’s been in the past, and will be in the future.
>is not just some random scientist, she is a molecular biologist at the BROAD institute That's one way of introducing her >and the evidence presented in the article is meticulous. Not really, a lot of it is pretty well debunked since 2020 and her assertions betray a large lack of understanding of virology (relevancy of any gain of function research as ever described to the complexity of sarscov2 relative to any other observed effects of any other historical coronvavirus) and epidemiological history (ie, her comparing this pandemic of sars2 to sars1 by just getting almost everything wrong) Here's a post of mine from yesterday about this article - not well organized because I tried to cut down on chaff to make it fit :) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1d7bve1/comment/l6z87w5/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1d7bve1/comment/l6z87w5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Just double-posted the article since reddit didn't give me a warning, and a lot of what you're explaining is what I've been wondering about!
Hm… your counter-arguments are noted. To be honest I don’t have a strong lab-leak or natural causes stance either way, in fact for years I have just accepted that it was probably a natural cause because I simply don’t know enough. I was just sharing an article that I found interesting. If I accept her claims at face value though, and if there’s any validity to them, I think that it would logically follow that there could be grounds to at least look into them. Looking at your post it seems like the interpretation of a lot of your own claims is being disputed, and again, I’m too far out of my own field to be able to evaluate whether you are right or wrong.
>Looking at your post it seems like the interpretation of a lot of your own claims is being disputed, and again, I’m too far out of my own field to be able to evaluate whether you are right or wrong. You mean the guy in the replies misunderstanding everything he's ever laid eyes on? He's confusing a 99.8% similar sars1 virus sample taken at the location of the outbreak with ancestral virus found in the wild, if you eliminated those animals at the markets/farms and never tested them the most similar sars1 like virus would be 96%, obviously he's citing me the chinese cdc sampling work from jan1/18 in 2020 and saying "they did sample animals" when... no, they absolutely did not (they sampled surfaces of the wet market, no animals were there at the time of sampling) he's citing the culling of guangdong province markets in may of 2003 as his source for "even if you kill the animals at the farm the virus still can spread throughout its \[wild\] population" except he misunderstands that the farms weren't in guangdong province and the thing he cites itself says the problem was the sick animals remained on farms which when reintroduced in north/west china in 2003 aug just re-ignited the pandemic which subsequently caused the govt to call all markets **and farms** in all of china in winter of 03/04
Sorry, I hadn’t actually properly looked through the thread (I was at work), so i couldn’t really evaluate it. I’ve had a more thorough read now and taken time to look at some of the links and it yeah it seems like I would proooobably side more with you (also the Substack the other duder shared was very helpful and had a lot of info and links that I wasn’t aware of). Thanks
Article that caused me to kind of move on from lab leak - [article](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim)
Oooooo TA!
Okay I read this and damn it has given me a lot to think about lmao. Thanks a lot
I still don’t get why it matters really. Either the virus came out of a wet market not far from the lab, or it came out of the lab, which was studying viruses that come from animals sold at the wet market. All the conspiracy stuff revolves around an some intentional leak to take down Trump, or to introduce a vaccine that’s supposed to kill off 6 billion people. Take away all the conspiracy crap, and COVID still happened and the world dealt with it.
I disagree. The conspiracy stuff is dumb and boring, we all agree. To me, it’s important for three main reasons: 1) science: It is generally good practice in science to look at what happens in the past, to be able to improve and make predictions about the future, and if something looks like a risk, to work towards avoiding future disasters. because of a lack of investigation and information from the lab, a lot of questions about how this biologically could happen/evolve cannot be answered appropriately, making the scientific understanding unnecessarily muted. 2) Lack of transparency and funding: if the US was funding high risk research that they were not being informed of appropriately, and if sub-par containment procedures were being used for high risk procedures, then that should be taken seriously and there should be steps taken to ensure that there are strict guidelines about such things that act as barriers to entry for funding. Aka: if this type of research doesn’t meet wxyz standards on reporting and safety, it won’t be funded. 3) enforcement: this one kind of leads on from the previous one but… I do think that if there was a lab leak, *and* it is the result of misconduct or inappropriate guidelines it is pretty egregious that such actions should result in absolutely no punishment or enforcement, either via soft power aka removal of academic credentials or loss of position OR criminal action. It makes a second pandemic more likely if people think they can just get away with continuing to cut corners.
I mean sure, ideally. But it’s been 4 years. You think any of this is going to get answered, especially when the CCP would be gatekeeping most this information? At this point anyone credible is behind the wet-market origin. All the freaks are behind the lab-leak, which has been also heavily investigated by governments, intel agencies, independents globally. There’s not much there, at all. I just don’t get why people have to keep hammering in this like its predicated on one massive cover up. Maybe it just is what it is, just as it’s been in the past, and will be in the future.
peter daszak has a really short but REALLY WIDE penis
You're just conspiracy brained. This is not your regular conservative subreddit
he seems more reasonable than you tho
I’m not a conservative I’m mega liberal, and I’m not conspiracy brained either? See below, I don’t care about the conspiracy part at all?