But this lab was creating novel batcovs and was testing new combinations of backbones & spike proteins for infectivity. It was also researching ratg13, the closest known relative of cov2. It also had safety warnings back in 2017. Nearest natural reservoir is thousands of km away
-
-
It's a prosecutor's fallacy.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Following evidence is a fallacy? If you have a theory, back it up. There is no direct evidence for natural zoonosis or lab leak, which is why both theories are viable. And there are many examples of natural zoonoses and lab leaks in the past (as Gottlieb points out)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This is why these arguments are tedious - you've posted a dozen or so points that aren't evidence of any kind, and then argued that it is now on us to prove that they AREN'T proof. Not really how this works
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I asked you to share evidence and you shared nothing... then I shared the circumstantial evidence in support of the lab leak theory, which you had no response to
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ofc I did. You've basically just presented the same tedious arguments that people have been replying to since Feb 2020, most of them just boringly off-topic
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Let's review. I asked you for evidence of natural zoonosis and you shared nothing. I shared w you circumstantial evidence of lab leak and you called it boring and tedious. Not sure if this is how you intended the discussion to go, but doesn't seem you are being genuine.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @M1tchRosenthal @GidMK and
You seem to have a problem w using arguments from early 2020, yet you did not share any new arguments/evidence for natural zoonosis
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because there aren't any. That's the point - we're just relitigating the same discussion we've had before because there's been essentially no new evidence either way since Feb 2020
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
If that's the case why are you so against the lab leak hypothesis? Both lab and natural have zero direct evidence. Both lab and natural's main arguments were first pointed out in early 2020
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Am I "so against" a lab leak or do I consider a natural spillover a more likely scenario that we need convincing evidence to discard?
-
-
They both have 0 direct evidence, they have both happened in the past, yet you have a default preference for one view despite several oddities such as lack of widespread serological footprints, posterior diversity, & unusually high fitness this early on (even by cov1 standards)..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Kinda comes back to the original point you didn't respond to - how many zoonotic spillovers in the last decade vs lab leaks?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.