This has nothing to do with the corona virus strains we are currently dealing with, and more importantly, there has never been any credible research proving that Covid was made in a lab. The only paper that got any traction suggested it was non-manipulation based gain of function research, but that was disproved only a few weeks after the paper's release as well. I know we all want to know where it came from, but the odds against us ever having actual evidence of it being from a lab are virtually zero. And no, rejected research proposals do not constitute proof of anything.
> Two, their proposal was for genetic manipulation of an existing virus, which research on the existing corona virus shows was not the case.
I think that’s invalidated if your first point is valid right? Since the proposal wasn’t accepted.
Doesn’t mean they didn’t go on to do it anyway (possibly in slightly different form), someone was clearly thinking about it.
No. There's evidence that COVID-19 was not created by direct genetic manipulation.
If they did it, it's not COVID-19.
There’s also evidence it cannot possibly (or well, with such a low chance it may as well be) have occured naturally.
What am I supposed to believe here? Even the people on my side of the fence, even the people that research this stuff themselves all seem to have an agenda and when research turns up one thing, I can practically guarantee that other research turns up the opposite.
There’s too much damn smoke in this whole thing for there to be no fire.
Now, I remember reading about it most likely not being a result of direct genetic manipulation, and it sounded sound to me.
Do you have any sources for your assertion that there is evidence it cannot have occurred naturally?
As far as I read such viruses have a natural tendency to sometimes jump species, as was likely the case with SARS-CoV and MERS.