No one claimed he is a scientist, yet another straw man argument (lie) from you. He is an accomplished science writer though and has been for years. You don't have to be a scientist in order to understand the science and write about it clearly, coherently, and competently. This article is the most comprehensive to date that explains some real esoteric stuff on a layman's level, and establishes the process utilized by the WIV with corroborating quotes from the scientists involved. Perhaps that is why some/most of what he is saying appears "new" to the general public. The only thing missing is proof of the growing lab leak evidence and that is due to the Chinese hiding the lab documentation. Why do that when so many have died? Oh wait, I just answered my own question.jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 8:23 pmWashington Examiner headline on Friday (5/7) did say this was new, "More evidence that the Wuhan lab-leak theory is the correct one". They were clearly pushing this is new news, when all it is is a rehash of things known for months - when I read it, except not all the things known for months. The guy is not a scientist, he is a reporter. Perhaps he believes what he writes, perhaps he doesn't, I don't care. What I know is the right wing media organizations are pushing this as a big deal conclusive news. Not presenting any thing new. Just a rehash. It is not conclusive. Nothing has changed except right wingers (Trumpnistas) are falling for this "its new information" non-sense.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 5:53 pmYou've got nothing but the usual lies genius. Right wing media? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is right wing media? And Wade, a Brit, who for years wrote for Nature, Science, and the NYT? Yeah, right wing media alright. No one said this was new information (straw man BS on your part) but it is new that a well known science writer is speaking out. And, it is probably the most comprehensive piece written to date in favor of a lab leak hypothesis.jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 3:15 pmNot one fact in the Wade article is new. There are a number of facts, he ignores. All this is, is an attempt by right wing media to act as if there is something new, when nothing is. Look at your own agenda there Trump boy.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 12:58 pmFacts? The WHO report = politicized trash. What difference does "nothing has moved" matter? Truth is not bound by an agenda.jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 12:10 pm... except for the facts Wade et. al. ignore. Nothing has moved on this origin debate in the period since the WHO report.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:42 amYour rationalized opinionMDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:56 amInteresting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:08 am Another lab leak hypothesis convert?
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/
"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."
Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.
Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.
And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.
My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.
"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.
That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."
But you keep on lying genius and keep on politicizing a virus. The agenda is obviously yours. Trump is long gone except in your fevered brain. I want the truth to be known one way or another. I believe the lab leak hypothesis. Yes, that's my opinion.
Your MO/agenda is to try to discredit or label as right wing conspiracy every new voice in the scientific community, including this author, that affirms lab leak validity. For someone who is supposedly very educated, why are you so fearful of the lab leak hypothesis becoming generally endorsed and/or confirmed? I always believed that intelligent people seek truth above all else.
I stated at least a year ago now on here that I believed the lab leak hypothesis makes the most sense. I also stated that I believed that it was accidental and not intentional. I certainly still believe that.