3 ms·

OK but if it were a real lab leak then it would be in the news, like not only on fox news with laura ingraham. Also it was signed by twenty thousand people I'm

by ftxbro 3y ago

OK but if it were a real lab leak then it would be in the news, like not only on fox news with laura ingraham. Also it was signed by twenty thousand people I'm not surprised that three of them started questioning their certainty when they are grilled by journalists.

TechBro8615 3y ago
I've been wondering for a while whether ftxbro is a satire account... this comment has me leaning toward "yes." Well played either way...
reducesuffering 3y ago
> it would be in the news No, left or right, this is not the merit of truth. Fox News, MSNBC, and anything in between. If you haven't heard the litany of problems with natural origin, you're in the exact same bubble as fox news but on the opposite side, you're pretty much making fun of yourself. Is the US government DNI, under a Democrat Administration, "only on fox news?" https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declass... "the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident. Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors. One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses. Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely. Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps."

by ftxbro 3y ago

TechBro8615 3y ago

I've been wondering for a while whether ftxbro is a satire account... this comment has me leaning toward "yes." Well played either way...

reducesuffering 3y ago

> it would be in the news No, left or right, this is not the merit of truth. Fox News, MSNBC, and anything in between. If you haven't heard the litany of problems with natural origin, you're in the exact same bubble as fox news but on the opposite side, you're pretty much making fun of yourself. Is the US government DNI, under a Democrat Administration, "only on fox news?" https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declass... "the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident. Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors. One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses. Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely. Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps."