How do you know the Washington Post is lying?
It prints something.
Neither of the experts quoted debunked anything. They simply said, and quite rightly, that there isn’t enough evidence to draw such a conclusion. All this article shows is that the WaPo doesn’t know how science works.
It can’t possibly be Debunked until Snopes says so.
“Debunked” is the new “The Science is Settled”
Now that the elites at WaPo feel the duty to float this cover story to protect their elite brethren, I now know it must be true now that this was weapons research based.
Jeff Besos’ money and power comes from Amazon. Amazon sells how much Chinese merchandise? The Chinese government or its officials control how much Chinese business? Do you think the Bezos-owned Washington Post is going to accurately report anything the Chinese government doesn’t want reported?
You do? I have a bridge in New York City you would just love.
and it “EXPERTS” so go back to sleep and send Xi a note telling him to lift the quarantine of 55 million people, keep the stock markets open, open the roads, fly those planes all over the world and, by all means, have the People’s Liberation Army troops turn in their L4 hazmat suits and return to their barracks.
If this had been weaponized, the mortality rates would be much higher than these appear to be.
People would contract it and die. We’d be seeing mortality rates closer to 90% than under 3%.
We have five people in the U. S. who have come down with it. So far we’ve had one fatality. (unless something has changed with regard to their situation) That fatality was early on, and I believe the person was very ill upon returning to the U. S.
I believe the portion of folks outside China who have the disease and are still living, pretty much puts to rest the idea this was some sort of biological weapon release.
Anything is possible, but I don’t give this theory much credence at this point.
“Experts debunk fringe”
Wow, a triple-whammy, in just 3 consecutive words. To get all Latin about it, argumentum ad verecundiam, petitio principii, and argumentum ad hominem. My BS meter is pegged.
“Based on the virus genome and properties there is no indication whatsoever that it was an engineered virus,” said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University.
He then said: “There’s also no validity to rumors that within 4-12 hours after death, victims of the virus rise from the grave with an insatiable lust for human brains. No indication of that at all.”
If it was a bioweapon the death rate would be much higher than the current +/- 3%
It isn’t a fringe theory when a new, highly lethal flu strain breaks out in the city containing a biowarfare lab.
Another liberal fake news organization, WaPo, is telling us again that a story is already debunked, like Hunter Biden in Ukraine. This only tells me that it now probably true.
How could the story be debunked. Has there been an investigations? If so, then why has no one heard of it or viewed the results. Sounds like WaPo got a big pay day from China, which is how fake news works.
Did the CIA have anything to do with this theory?
Asking for a FRiend.
5.56mm
"“Based on the virus genome and properties there is no indication whatsoever that it was an engineered virus,” said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University."
So you know the lab at North Carolina?
It's been discussed before.
Four or five YEARS ago!
Here:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502
Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate
The creation of a chimeric SARS-like virus has scientists discussing the risks of gain-of-function research.
This is an article about the North Carolina lab which WAS bioengineering Coronaviruses (4 or 5 years ago!) doing research on "addition of function"...
And lookee who's in that article from four or five years ago, talking about it...
Yep.
Baric’s study on the SHC014-chimeric coronavirus began before the moratorium was announced, and the NIH allowed it to proceed during a review process, which eventually led to the conclusion that the work did not fall under the new restrictions, Baric told Nature. But some researchers, like Wain-Hobson, disagree with that decision.
The debate comes down to how informative the results are. “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University, told Nature.
The know-it-all skeptic from Rutgers, now called upon today to debunk.
...AND the horse he rode in on.
......with a rusty, red-hot railroad spike.
I don’t believe in coincidences.
2 Labs at the place where this all started.....HHHMMMMM.