4 ms·

> Did you really post this in good faith? Come on. I'm not sure how to respond. I want people to look at posts like this one[1], that actually reference solidl

> Did you really post this in good faith? Come on. I'm not sure how to respond. I want people to look at posts like this one[1], that actually reference solidly researched studies like those done by Bloom Labs, instead of the manipulated and cherry-picked data used by Worobey and others who support the wet-market scenario (at least in public). There are a lot of crackpots out there, and I try to ignore their anti-vax nonsense. But just because it's convenient for them to align themselves with what they seem to think is some sort of anti-China hypothesis, it's no reason for me to discount the clear and growing evidence that a lab accident infected workers, and spread from there, wherever it might have been in the world. [1] https://nitter.net/ydeigin/status/1695588327540347329 https://nitter.net/ydeigin/status/1695588327540347329

llm_nerd 3y ago
The current state of the debate is that there are credible, lauded experts arguing both positions. If it was a straw-vote among the most respected figures in the field, it it would still lean towards a zoonic origin, I suspect. But almost all of them believe the data is incomplete. I questioned the faith of the post because your post implies pretty clearly that there is all of the evidence on one side, and all of the charlatans, liars and fake data is on the other. That seems...unlikely. But you see it because you chose a position and everything then fits that position. Eh.
- baja_blast 3y ago
  >lauded experts Almost all of the researchers throwing ad hominems at scientists who support a lab origin are NOT that lauded. Most had very low H-index scores prior to the pandemic. Especially Angela Rasmussen from the University of Saskatchewan.