3 ms·

No I mean more and more evidence: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/16/politics/biden-intel-review-covid-origins/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/16/po

• wwweston 5y ago
  If you read the links I've posted, you'll note at least two things about them: 1) They include observation from figures who started open to the idea that the lab leak hypothesis was plausible enough to explore, but have concluded that it's unlikely (and explain why) 2) They are more recent
  • drran 5y ago
    If you read links you've posted, you'll note that the BSL4 lab in Wuhan, China is ruled out only. Did they rule out «Vector» BSL4 lab in Novosibirsk, RF?
  • Giorgi 5y ago
    If you yourself read the links you posted, you'd know these two thins are just speculation 1) They do not explain way, Worobey just assumes that first patient was different person, with connection to wet market, while it is known that both WHO and China identified earlier patient without connection to the wet market. If you read long enough you will find that he is being criticized exactly for that assumptions without any proof. 2) Does not matter.
• knownjorbist 5y ago
  Why would you link older articles as though they're part of a trend, when the person you responded to had more recent information to share?
  • Giorgi 5y ago
    Because articles published recently are not "more recent information". It's just confirmation bias.