magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
I think the new reports were that the lab studied the natural pathogen and one of their lab workers accidentally got infected.anyway, on the lab vs nature debate:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
(that's a pretty technical read)
"Their conclusion was that the virus behind COVID-19 did not originate from “laboratory manipulation.” Not only is the way that the actual virus attaches quite different from the way that might be expected of a human-designed pathogen, it also has none of the fingerprints that would almost certainly remain after manipulation with any known laboratory tool. Instead, researchers concluded that the virus was generated either entirely inside an animal host before making the leap to humans, or that it made the leap to humans first, then evolved to become more effective at human-to-human transmission. The conclusion was that they don’t know. The only thing they could definitely show was that it was not generated in a lab."
I'm still not sure it makes any difference, one way or the other. That Wuhan lab is kind of similar to the CDC in intent and purpose. If Chinese epidemiologists and doctors were incompetent and let a virus escape is one possibility. The wet market seems to be the other possibility. I'm inclined to say the wet market is a more condemn-able source because it's such a large sin of ignorance and callousness. The Chinese government knows those markets should be shut down and they've known that for years
The head scratching was the idea the virus started in the Wuhan Wetmarkets, yet that market didn’t sell the bats in question. Could be the reason why they opened that wet market back up just recently. Could show signs that China knew that market wasn’t the cause.


