3 ms·
The title (for the HN Post) is both (1) different from the original and (2) insinuates that the "Lab leak origin" theory for Covid SARS should have some credenc
by akhmatova 5y ago
The title (for the HN Post) is both (1) different from the original and (2) insinuates that the "Lab leak origin" theory for Covid SARS should have some credence, based on what happened in the Beijing lab.
Simply put: the situations are different, and what is being insinuated does not follow from what's given in the article.
- _aavaa_ 5y ago> insinuates that the "Lab leak origin" theory for Covid SARS should have some credence, based on what happened in the Beijing lab. From the article, what happened in the lab: "Antoine Danchin, an epidemiologist with the Hong Kong University-Pasteur Research Center, who studied the SARS epidemic in Hong Kong, told us the latest incidents were probably the result of lab accidents." I haven't looked further to see if this has panned out to be true or true, if they were able to prove that the outbreaks were from the lab. But I don't see how it shouldn't add credence. Those were other SARS virus' at another virology labs which is believed to have leaked from that lab on two occasions. Why is it unbelievable that it may have happened again?