zlacker

Look, dude, leading experts have looked at this claim and said there is nearly zero chance this has was a lab leak:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/23/8417296...

I mean, yeah, five out of 6 cited experts have ties to EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn has funding ties to one of the two virology labs in Wuhan, but that's, like, just a coincidence. If it wasn't, I'm sure NPR would mention it.

And then Peter Daszak himself went to Wuhan with WHO team to investigate and didn't find anything conclusive. Peter fucking Daszak. You're not going to tell me that someone who was interviewed and cited on this subject by NPR, CNN, CBS, Slate, Democracy Now, Washing Post and The Guardian could be full of shit, right?

/s

>>collle+(OP)
The WHO and Peter Daszak also said they weren’t given enough access to develop any deliberate conclusions.

>>collle+(OP)
I have no strong opinions on this matter, but I'm having difficulty understanding the sarcasm here. Can someone translate for me? Is the un-sarcastic version of parent's argument that most of the claims against this being a leak were put forth by a single organization, EcoHealth Alliance, which has an agenda for convincing people that this is not a leak?

>>xdavid+H3
I'm with you, the parent's sarcasm is really malformed. They're claiming that EcoHealth has conflicts of interests that led them to disavow the WIV lab theory.

>>xdavid+H3
> EcoHealth Alliance, which has an agenda for convincing people that this is not a leak?

Exactly that. The first paper which discredited the lab leak theory published in The Lancet early last year by a number of scientists was later found out to have been organized behind the scenes by EcoHealth, which also asked for it's name not to appear on the paper.

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/ecohealth-allian...

>>AzzieE+j3
A proper investigation would not include Peter Daszak at all, due to his immense conflicts of interest on this topic, and his behaviour since the outbreak occurred.

>>collle+(OP)
You're also forgetting that these people are scientists. Scientists only look at the facts and are completely unbiased - they aren't like normal humans, who might be worried about their entire livelihoods being cancelled (or worse) if the world realises their research is too dangerous to exist. And scientists who work for political organisations are the most unbiased of all. /s

>>Invict+W5
Are you saying EcoHealth/Daszak do not have material conflicts of interest in this matter? On what basis?

>>esja+d8
It doesn't seem to me like parent is disputing the factual accuracy of the argument, but rather saying that the sarcasm was not well constructed (possibly because of the multiple negatives, which require a certain amount of gymnastics to understand), and is thus not as effective as it could be.

>>collle+(OP)
"Look, dude," RNA mutates due to many environmental factors. It's why living organisms typically now use DNA and only short-term usage of RNA for copying purposes, certainly not as the primary data store.

RNA mutations mimicking proteins are precisely how a non-living entity can, like a bike-thief trying combinations randomly, unlock the lipid or protein sheaths on animal cells and gain direct access to the inputs of a genetic reproduction machine inside the cell.

So, aside from the fact that these folks only have some circumstantial evidence and woo to suggest a lab hypothesis, (not EVEN a theory, not EVEN a hypothesis, nay, mere speculation with a vested political axe to grind, hello) and that fact that all factual evidence of how all previous cross-species virus hops occurred point to this being a relatively common occurence (1918 avian-porcine-human connection occurred in Kansas by the way, not "Spanish")

umm sure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_hydrolysis

>>esja+A6
The whole thing is a bureaucratic cya masterpiece. We deny the wuhan lab leak but, just in case, we also deny we had any means to actually investigate it

>>AzzieE+fV1
It certainly looks that way.