zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. tim333+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-10-28 20:03:00
I wouldn't say it's proven one way or the other but you can cite evidence on both sides, like in favour of a zoonotic origin, the previous SARS outbreak and other viruses have been zoonotic, there were cases near the wet market. In favour of lab, it's a bit of a coincidence that a novel form or SARS popped up near the number one lab in the world researching such stuff, and in a way that could be easily explained by research proposed by Ralph Baric, the no 1 researcher of such stuff who proposed such research in collaboration with the Wuhan lab.

My guess is that although a grant application for Baric's research was turned down, the Wuhan lab went ahead and did it anyway and had a screw up.

Evidence doesn't have to mean proven beyond all doubt.

replies(1): >>orwin+kt4
2. orwin+kt4[view] [source] 2025-10-30 01:48:53
>>tim333+(OP)
What I meant that we only have circumstantial evidence, not hard evidence, so any explanation will be about beliefs, not about facts.
[go to top]