Chat message

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

1. 2021-05-28 07:38 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Just pure insanity all around. And the main issue here is the false equivalence - there's this sense that unless wehave 100% proof, we can't know one way or the other. Simply not true - given current evidence, we can give a very strong statement about how this happened - unless somebody brings credible data about a lab leak, we already know what happened and just need to figure out the exact details.
2. 2021-05-28 07:44 Robert F. Garry open
   Yes it's a binary [but an incredibly skewed one] - it's either lab leak [all versions by the way involve conspiracies now- because even if you accept Relman's "they had it and didn't know hybrid scenario" then they still have to be lying about the serology] *or* natural. Disprove one and it has to be the other.
3. 2021-05-28 07:53 Robert F. Garry open
   Serious question - now that _Science_ stuck their collective head in the sand do I send anything back to the Bloomshitters. I was thinking about a "cordial," - It does not look like Science has any interest in hosting any type ofserious discussion about COVID-19 origins. There will be other opportunities. Meanwhile, please take another lookat the data in the WHO document. There is actually a lot of evidence here including important genetic data regarding the cases at the markets. Or, just let it "lie."
4. 2021-05-28 08:19 Robert F. Garry open
   @Eddie Holmes thinking more about you brilliant idea - they definitely need to test those environmental samples and identify the animals associated withe the SC2 PCR positives at the marketS. Veterinary genetics forensics isdefinitely a thing. https://vgl.ucdavis.edu/forensics
5. 2021-05-28 08:20 Robert F. Garry
   BTW - doing TwiV at 1pm...

Full conversation →