3 ms·
> It's not 'a lot of evidence' either way. It presents 22 verifiable and relevant references. It unequivocally presents information which makes a 'wet-market'
by DoingIsLearning 6y ago
> It's not 'a lot of evidence' either way.
It presents 22 verifiable and relevant references. It unequivocally presents information which makes a 'wet-market' theory stand on a weak foundation.
I keep asking the same question to these accounts that question the validity of this 'lab accident' theory:
Can you provide verifiable evidence for the widely accepted 'wet-market' theory?
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoYou appear unable to read to the end, in which I copy/paste a conclusion of the researchers you cite. > Can you provide verifiable evidence for the widely accepted 'wet-market' theory? Can you provide evidence that it's not. Onus is on you as you claim otherwise. And I've already quoted a conclusion which you seem to be struggling with. There is not enough evidence to conclude anything yet. There may never be.
- randallsquared 6y ago> Onus is on you as you claim otherwise. Both the wet-market and accidental-release claims need evidence; they don't exclude all other possibilities.
- DoingIsLearning 6y agoIt's gaslighting from a throwaway account, at some point we just have to accept that no platform is immune to this and we carry on.