3 ms·

> The bottom line is that the evidence we have at this time points to nature as the most probable origin Keep in mind that circumstantial evidence is also evid

> The bottom line is that the evidence we have at this time points to nature as the most probable origin Keep in mind that circumstantial evidence is also evidence: such as the earliest cases happening in a single-digit mile radius from one of the worlds few labs studying gain-of-function in coronaviruses, while bats are hibernating, a thousand miles from the nearest bat colony, and the extraordinary response and threats re calls for investigation from officials. To me, that far outweighs the idea that some - NOT ALL - researchers have agreed that if there was editing done it was very smooth.

mikem170 5y ago
I'm not sure about your statement saying the earliest cases were near the wuhan lab. Do you have a source for that? I've seen the opposite, that there is genetic evidence that the virus originated 600 miles south of Wuhan, where there are bats: > Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types. [0]. The above would imply that the markets in Wuhan were a super-spreader site for covid-19, but not the origin. Coronaviruses in bats and jumping from bats to humans is incredibly common, with 3% of people they randomly tested in bat cave areas with bat coronavirus antibodies [1], which this source extrapolated to mean that 1-7 million people a year are infected by various bat viruses. I agree with you that genetic evidence is the strongest evidence we have at this point. > To me, that far outweighs the idea that some - NOT ALL - researchers have agreed that if there was editing done it was very smooth Would be interesting if some lab tried to duplicate some of this theorized tricky editing, to prove it could be done. [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-13/scientist-suggests-coronavirus-originated-outside-of-wuhan https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-... [1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus-china https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus...

mikem170 5y ago

I'm not sure about your statement saying the earliest cases were near the wuhan lab. Do you have a source for that? I've seen the opposite, that there is genetic evidence that the virus originated 600 miles south of Wuhan, where there are bats: > Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types. [0]. The above would imply that the markets in Wuhan were a super-spreader site for covid-19, but not the origin. Coronaviruses in bats and jumping from bats to humans is incredibly common, with 3% of people they randomly tested in bat cave areas with bat coronavirus antibodies [1], which this source extrapolated to mean that 1-7 million people a year are infected by various bat viruses. I agree with you that genetic evidence is the strongest evidence we have at this point. > To me, that far outweighs the idea that some - NOT ALL - researchers have agreed that if there was editing done it was very smooth Would be interesting if some lab tried to duplicate some of this theorized tricky editing, to prove it could be done. [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-13/scientist-suggests-coronavirus-originated-outside-of-wuhan https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-... [1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus-china https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus...