3 ms·

Have you maybe considered that your link is basically claiming a massive conspiracy? That's it's virtually the same stuff that Alex Jones and Infowars are pushi

Have you maybe considered that your link is basically claiming a massive conspiracy? That's it's virtually the same stuff that Alex Jones and Infowars are pushing? > We are an anonymous group of researchers. We are not affiliated with any company, nation state, or organization. We are not receiving funding from any sources, public or private. So I'm going to straight up say that this site is politically motivated without a doubt. Here's some actual researchers from the West writing an open letter to the Lancet willing to put their actual names to their research saying it's natural in origin. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... I can find you similar sites with psuedoscientific analyses of 5G research papers too. Should I share them here?

DoingIsLearning 6y ago
I don't dismiss the possibility that I might be used as a propanganda pawn. However, I don't see how your claims refute mine. Scientists have published quite a lot of material by now on how at a _molecular_ level it seems like a 'natural' virus, as in not a engineered/designed virus, I fully accept the body of science on this. My argument is not that it is artificial but that it is a virus under study either for cataloguing purposes or used in a "gain-of-function" experiment, and that this virus _accidentally_ escaped the lab facilities where it should have been contained in. I would be interesting in discussing the circunstancial inconsistencies with the _seafood_ market zoonotic theory, for example: 1) The likely genetic source of SARS cov1 and cov2 is a species of bat in Yunnan province, thousands of miles away, two provinces away from Hubei (Wuhan). Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/ 2) The outbreak allegedly started in December in Hubei province when the local bat population (which does not carry this SARS virus?) would be hibernating (?) 3) Only 66% of the initial 41 COVID patients had exposure to Huanan _seafood_ market. Ref: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... 4) A seafood market where you would have to have non-hibernating bats from Yunnan thousands of miles away from Wuhan(?) 5) The seafood market is 13Km away from Wuhan Institute of Virology where Yunnan bats were studied. And 1.4km away from Wuhan's Centre for Disease Prevention & Control (?) If I put my critical thinking hat on, this does not contradicting a "natural" source. However, it shows a very weak case for us to defend a multi-zoonotic event with a final jump occuring at seafood market, a stone throw away from a BSL lab.

DoingIsLearning 6y ago

I don't dismiss the possibility that I might be used as a propanganda pawn. However, I don't see how your claims refute mine. Scientists have published quite a lot of material by now on how at a _molecular_ level it seems like a 'natural' virus, as in not a engineered/designed virus, I fully accept the body of science on this. My argument is not that it is artificial but that it is a virus under study either for cataloguing purposes or used in a "gain-of-function" experiment, and that this virus _accidentally_ escaped the lab facilities where it should have been contained in. I would be interesting in discussing the circunstancial inconsistencies with the _seafood_ market zoonotic theory, for example: 1) The likely genetic source of SARS cov1 and cov2 is a species of bat in Yunnan province, thousands of miles away, two provinces away from Hubei (Wuhan). Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/ 2) The outbreak allegedly started in December in Hubei province when the local bat population (which does not carry this SARS virus?) would be hibernating (?) 3) Only 66% of the initial 41 COVID patients had exposure to Huanan _seafood_ market. Ref: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... 4) A seafood market where you would have to have non-hibernating bats from Yunnan thousands of miles away from Wuhan(?) 5) The seafood market is 13Km away from Wuhan Institute of Virology where Yunnan bats were studied. And 1.4km away from Wuhan's Centre for Disease Prevention & Control (?) If I put my critical thinking hat on, this does not contradicting a "natural" source. However, it shows a very weak case for us to defend a multi-zoonotic event with a final jump occuring at seafood market, a stone throw away from a BSL lab.