A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Just throwing this out: One way to break a summary down is: 1. evidence for natural origin 2. evidence against lab origin or some variation of this.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/did-the-coronavirus-come-directly-from-animal[...]cientists-join-call-for-answers/ar-BB1gJ2IO?ocid=BingNewsSearch "But Bloom said there is simply not enough evidence yet to draw such aconclusion. He sees three possible origin stories for SARS-CoV-2. First - and here he agrees with Gostin - itoriginated in bats and jumped directly to humans or into another animal and then into humans. Bloom said he can't rule out two other possibilities: that someone in a lab in Wuhan, China, was studying the virus, collected from a bat or another animal, and accidentally released it, infecting people; or that it was an intentionalrelease by a researcher working with the virus."Regardless of which occurred," Bloom said, "it would be really scientifically beneficial, and I think also beneficial for our ability to understand and prevent future pandemics, to really understand the initial events." Really kind oftroubling IMO. Either of Bloom's two possibilities are accusations of cover-up and conspiracy.
-
Seriously - what freaking scientific data [hell even other data] does JB think is going to get to inform his two other possibilities? Also - I would like to know who that researcher was that did "intentional release." Mo******ker knows more about viral pathogenesis than anyone on the planet!
-
@USLACKBOT This message was deleted.
-
2021-05-14 07:52
Robert F. Garry
https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/not-acceptable-wuhan-scientist-hits[...]d19-origin-claims/news-story/5f9c6e80eeb1806c670841a45ea33fbc pretty good report
-
@USLACKBOT ABSOLUTELY - it's not science! Bloom is accusing WIV of bioterrorism.
-
I would be interested what Jesse would say if you just posted the list of scientists working at WIV and ask which ofthese people he thought might have deliberately leaked the virus. Or are they all equally plausible
-
I'm pretty sure he'd say "equally plausible", because he does seem to have a very hard time weighing evidence andutilizing probabilities at the moment. It's _exactly_ the same line of thinking that led to half the country believing the election was stolen - because nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty.
-
It's the exact same debate - Bloomshitters saying "I'm just asking questions here" and "we just want to know the truth - don't you want to know the truth"? And then words by folks like us will be twisted to make it seem like _we_don't actually want to know the truth, but rather want to push an agenda.