[marktwain]

Yes, there is new information. But the information came from elsewhere. The format seems designed to "get ahead of the curve" to protect the Chinese government.

Then again, maybe the person writing the article used it to get out information which would otherwise not be widely known.

The whole thrust of the article is the bait and switch, the idea that because the virus is naturally derived, it did not escape from the Wuhan lab.

Such an elementary use of a faulty premise is not accidental.

[RummyChick]

Damn..i like your last sentence

It is exactly why i am wondering about a scientist posting here that claims the chapel hill study was a MERS study.

Why lie

I could understand if it was a non scientist..but not one who is a scientist.or Dr..or of that general field..who has specifically posted about the study before and knows it well

I feel like it is some kind of twisted up propaganda defense as it relates to this having jumped from a lab. That poster has long said it couldnt..and
Propagates on whatever the current story is..like the pangolin theory..

That poster is so defensive i wondered if related to dr.Baric