3 ms·
If we continue with your analogy, then you're going to not believe it, but a squirrel came in through the kitchen window and took a cookie. It sounds unlikely,
by myWindoonn 5y ago
If we continue with your analogy, then you're going to not believe it, but a squirrel came in through the kitchen window and took a cookie. It sounds unlikely, but consider:
* A raccoon took a cookie a few weeks ago, and of course you remember when the cat got onto the counter and took a cookie last year (remember SARS and MERS?)
* We have footage from the home-security camera showing the squirrel entering the window from the outside and running off with the cookie (genetics comfirms natural evolutionary rate, disconfirms gene edits to SARS-COV-2)
* There's a family of squirrels living in the tree whose branches come up to the window (SARS is prevalent in bats and key features of its virulence and provoked immune response come from known SARS viruses in bats and pangolins)
You could be right, but you need non-circumstantial evidence in order to counter our molecular genetic studies.
Edit: Downvoted in under a minute! Use your words, or forever be known as an anonymous coward.
- forcry 5y agoBasically, the point and the whole point I am making is the issue being how Faucci uses appeals to authority, instead of answering or explaining how it is NOT gain of function. I am quite surprised that he gets away with it in a public hearing.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]