3 ms·
The media didn’t ask for proof of animal origin… in fact the media largely ran with animal origin with zero evidence to back that up. There’s always been more
by jtdev 5y ago
The media didn’t ask for proof of animal origin… in fact the media largely ran with animal origin with zero evidence to back that up.
There’s always been more evidence to support the lab leak theory for those paying attention.
- bdcravens 5y agoThe problem with "more evidence" is that much of it has been hearsay. Person A tells person B something. Person B repeats person A's claim to person C. Person A then talks to person C, and person C says it must be true because they've heard it from multiple sources. I have no doubt there's good evidence pointing to the lab leak origin, but virtually everything I've been exposed to over the last year are typically rumors or graphics shared on social media. Hearing something a lot doesn't give it additional credibility.
- bdcravens 5y agoAccording to the article, it's both: "researchers had assembled an archive of cave-bat-borne coronaviruses" Researchers were studying viruses that had an animal origin. The lab leak would be from not following proper safety protocols.
- jtdev 5y agoAh yes, the phrasing tricks have been a media favorite when discussing covid origins… conflating lab origin with natural origin through the almost certainty that the viral material used at the WIV originated in nature is pure intellectual dishonesty.
- bingbong70 5y agoWhat people don't realize is there is an overlap between 'originating from nature" and "originating from a foreign attack", both share a non-lab-leak origin but the latter is not even considered in the countries (US, UK, Japan, etc) with a history of using bio-weapons against citizens/civilians. Mistaking one for the other is highly probable.