3 ms·
(Apologies to the thread..) Its not credible: two viral lineages emerged from the market ~1 week apart before the world knew what covid was; they differ by 2 n
by biophysboy 10mo ago
(Apologies to the thread..)
Its not credible: two viral lineages emerged from the market ~1 week apart before the world knew what covid was; they differ by 2 nucleotides; mutation rates are 1e-6 per base per passage; doubling time is about half a week. A group of sick animals better explains the phylogenetics w/ these constraints. Everything points against lab leak: location, timing, and genetics.
- dismalaf 10mo agoYou should google the definition of credible since it seems you don't know it... (Hint, it doesn't mean 100% true) It really boils down to: do you trust a brutal communist dictatorship that has been attacking the West asymmetrically and wants to invade its neighbours to be honest? Multiple Western governments believe it was a lab leak and coincidentally I'm sure, relations with China have been quite bad since.
- biophysboy 10mo agoMy evidence is genetic material; your evidence is state intelligence
- dismalaf 10mo agoYour evidence is a Chinese claim of genetic material. They've certainly never covered anything up before...
- biophysboy 10mo agoAny conclusion about a pathogen origin requires phylogenetic evidence. Everything else is secondary. You could write a trillion intelligence memos in the absence of genetic evidence and get no closer to the answer. If you want to deny sequence data that predate worldwide recognition and controversy related to COVID-19, OK. But the origin question can never be answered with this denial.