3 ms·
The “circumstantial evidence” is only novel if the event in question is novel, which the emergence of a new strain of a virus is not. It is certain that a new
by snowwrestler 3y ago
The “circumstantial evidence” is only novel if the event in question is novel, which the emergence of a new strain of a virus is not.
It is certain that a new strain of some virus is emerging right now next to a lab that works with viruses, because that is a thing that happens continuously in nature, and labs exist within nature. It’s also likely that such a new strain will not cause human illness, as most viruses do not.
SARS-COV-2 only looks novel to humans because it made a lot of humans sick. There were tons of allegations that HIV was created in a lab too. This says more about our self-regard than about the virus itself.
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoThis would all be more compelling if the WIV were not explicitly experimenting with creating viruses like SARS-COV-2! If HIV had emerged proximal to a lab experimenting with creating viruses like HIV then that lab origin theory would be much more credible!
- snowwrestler 3y agoSaying “viruses like SARS-COV-2” only makes sense for broad applications of the word “like.” As other comments have pointed out, while that lab was working with coronaviruses, none of the strains were genetically close to SARS-COV-2. Coronavirus is a broad category of viruses.
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoBetacoronaviruses with SARS-like attributes and natural reservoirs in bats is supposed to be a “broad application of the word ‘like’”? Bit of a stretch, no?
- stormfather 3y agoAccording to who? The lab?
- JPLeRouzic 3y ago> "There were tons of allegations that HIV was created in a lab too." Scientists' best guess is that the precursor of the most common "M" virus jumped from the Cameroon chimps to humans sometime before 1931. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/virus/origins.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/virus/origins....