4 ms·
Without jumping into conspiracy bandwagon, I still can't see how "originated from bats" is better then "bioweapon" if neither has concrete evidence or proof.
by wetpaws 7y ago
Without jumping into conspiracy bandwagon, I still can't see how "originated from bats" is better then "bioweapon" if neither has concrete evidence or proof.
- fhars 7y agoOne has plausibility and some evidence from DNA sequencing and mutation rates on its side, the other hasn‘t.
- wetpaws 7y ago>the other hasn‘t Just because some people don't believe that is likely, that does not mean it is not _plausable_ Is it plausible that there could be a biological lab in Wuhan? Yes, in fact, there is one. Is it plausible that some countries do research on biological weapon? Yes, in fact there are multiple cases of such occasions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Biological_Warfare_Laboratories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Biological_... Is it plausible that biological lab can leak bioweapon? Yes, in fact this happened before, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak
- pbourke 7y agoThere is ample proof of a connection to bats, including a 96% similarity of SARS-CoV-2 to a sampled bat coronavirus in Hubei province. Numerous papers, with ample evidence in that direction. Just not enough to speak definitively and categorically. There is --zero-- evidence of a bioweapon. So it's better in the sense that it's reflective of reality, which also happens to not inflame international relations at a crucial time.