You read that article?
it’s scientifically quite convincing.
Not everything is a conspiracy and the facts laid out make sense.
“Could have”
it’s scientifically quite convincing.
No, it’s not.
I read it. And i am the one that has been talking about chapel hill here for months
Get back to us when the Communist China opens up
Wuhan for a investigation of the source of the chinese virus .
The chinese are now denying it began there .
Do you believe that too from the CCP ?
Maybe this was nature..but chapel hill clearly shows it also might not be because scientists did it in a live mouse.. Live science story is junk
It is convincing. But, what could have happened is that they "found" it locally, and were playing playing with it when it got away from them. It just has some great qualities that are desirable in a bio-weapon. And, it's definitely from Wuhan's neighborhood.
But, my rant is just another "could have."
I don’t find it convincing at all. You have scientists using speculative assumptions as a basis for their ultimate conclusion.
Find me the intermediary host. This is ridiculous, Trillions lost, and we cant find the intermediary host. Where the heck is Waldo? Find me Waldo, dead or alive, which has this virus or its immediate or proximate predecessor. If 1.5 billion Chinese can’t find Waldo, then one has to wonder about Waldo’s existence. I mean, seriously, it is not like China actually looked for the dang, bat, rat, scaled ant eater, or whatever. I wonder why?
The article merely argues against the virus being bioengineered. It doesn’t say anything against the theory that the virus is natural and was isolated and weaponized in a lab.