3 ms·
No, that's not the most dangerous interpretation. The most dangerous interpretation of "lab leak" is the one backed by the most evidence - that they were artif
by fidgewidge 4y ago
No, that's not the most dangerous interpretation.
The most dangerous interpretation of "lab leak" is the one backed by the most evidence - that they were artificially enhancing viruses so they could develop vaccines against them. The Pfizer guy who got caught on camera by Project Veritas said they were considering doing the same thing.
Selling people vaccines for viruses the scientists created specifically to create vaccines for, is about the worst conflict of interest you can imagine and one with global implications, not just for US/China relations.
- ttul 4y agoGain-of-function research serves a legitimate purpose, but if this lean stemmed from GoF work, that is not apparent from the SARA CoV-2 genome. See my link elsewhere in the comments to a TWiV podcast episode that discusses the lab leak hypothesis, and the analysis of the genome sequence suggesting it is not the result of human engineering work.
- xiphias2 4y ago,, Gain-of-function research serves a legitimate purpose'' While this is true, at this point we have evidence that even the highest level security lab can have lab leak with devastating results. The main problem is not that, but that people can't really talk about it publicly, as the rules should be stricter (for example an international body should be checking the procedures of other countries...the problem is not with the rules, but not enough verification of keeping the rules).
- fidgewidge 4y agoLots of very well informed people disagree with you; you'd also have to consider all the other evidence beyond the genome.