4 ms·

Excellent display of Sealioning [1] there as I literally shared a link with many articles (from the same publication) that make a strong case for the lab leak o

• Maursault 4y ago
  I asked for evidence once. That is not sealioning. But I do appreciate you taking the time to at least list the talking points of the lab leak hypothesis. And now I see how this is a lot of circumstantial evidence, as reported earlier. But the problem is, even taking all these observations together and accepting them as evidence at face value, they can not explain the lack of or minority of or low density of infections surrounding the Wuhan Institute of Virology, nor can they explain the preponderance of and high density of infections tightly surrounding the Wuhan Fish Market. Perhaps someone got infected at the lab, put on a hazmat suit, went shopping at the fish market, and removed their helmet there? Occam's Razor obliterates this idea as too complicated when a far simpler explanation is, like an elephant in the room, sitting in plain site, which is that SARS-CoV-2, like every other known virus ever, initially infected people in close proximity to animals in unsanitary conditions, neatly explaining the dense bloom of initial infections surrounding that market. It's just my strong opinion, but I am flabbergasted that lab leak hypothesizers are so stubborn to ignore the way things have always happened, and there being such a good fit sitting right there at the market. They'd rather construct an unlikely scenario, a scenario that has never occurred before in 100 years of microbiology labs, of a thousand things going wrong to explain how the virus leaked from a modern and high tech virology lab.
  • junofan 4y ago
    Think I responded to you other comment, but the lab’s actually next door to the market, which is consistent with your reasoning. See page 119 of the WHO report: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/final-joint-report_origins-studies-6-april-201.pdf?sfvrsn=4f5e5196_1&download=true#page119 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/final-j...
    • Maursault 4y ago
      > The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market. SARS-CoV-2 had already been circulating for months before Dec. 2019 in Wuhan near the wet market. And therein lies the rub, that this is not remotely compelling evidence a lab leak could have caused COVID-19. In fact, it is impossible, because, again, the virus had already been circulating right there for at least a few months prior to this. But nice try.
  • TrispusAttucks 4y ago
    They're not talking points. They're just as circumstantial at the wet market. Your hazmat comment makes no sense. Spreading happens at high density areas. Origin is not the same as spreading. I totally agree with your final sentiment if I ignored all the new revelations. In light of those revelations, that I am not sure you have investigated, it becomes increasingly hard maintain wet market as primary source.
    • Maursault 4y ago
      The wet market stands out as the most likely culprit, because conditions existed there that are identical to what conditions we would expect a pandemic to arise from, because every other pandemic ever was caused in the same way in the same conditions, all of them, not just some, every single pandemic known was caused by conditions precisely, exactly like those found at the wet market. And, again, there have been dozens of lab leaks where contagions escaped labs, and as of yet, none have caused any pandemic, not even outbreaks. So first of all, you need to prove it is even possible a lab leak could cause a pandemic. Because you are assuming that, and it certainly is not clear that is the case. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary... because it has never ever happened. Not ever, not even once in 100 years.