3 ms·
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, is the problem. Animal to human transmission is a thing that exists and is known. Much less extraordinary,
by Loughla 6y ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, is the problem.
Animal to human transmission is a thing that exists and is known. Much less extraordinary, much more mundane, but much more plausible.
Until there is extraordinary proof of your claim, and not just 'I feel it' type of arguments, I will steadfastly believe it started from a bat, as originally claimed.
If you have proof of your claim, and I have missed it, please provide it. I would appreciate it.
- illiilliiililil 6y agoYou speak on the virus as if you have expertise, or have studied the subject. Yet I suspect you, and so many posters here, are mere podcast listeners. The arrogance is almost a virus in spirit.
- Loughla 6y agoNo, I don't speak as if I have expertise. I speak as someone who has been alive to experience various diseases that started from animals. I'm not being arrogant, and I don't understand your attitude. You are making an absolutely extraordinary claim. This absolutely requires extraordinary proof. Again, I would be really excited to read about any proof you have of your claims. Please link to something, I would appreciate it.
- illiilliiililil 6y agoI've never even claimed it came from a lab. I'm commenting on YOUR arrogance and YOUR vehement dismissal that it didn't. You, despite never having studied viruses, are parroting publications and podcasts by your assertion that the lab leak hypothesis is "extraordinary" in the first place. The articles are just beginning to consider a lab leak, the podcasts are just beginning to pop up seriously considering it, the former CDC director has just expressed that he thinks it was a lab leak, and WHO now considers it still on the table. Careful, you may be embarrassed down the road.