@quisp65
RN at Sharp (San Diego): Cared for likely early COVID case (onset late Dec 2019). Previously healthy 30s pt—ICU, unusual clotting, highly contagious, nearly died. No travel. Hospital reported unknown viral pneumonia early Jan.
We need to follow the evidence, not politics from a field that continuously falsifies bio-accident evidence. The field struggles with this issue. Here’s a virologist’s take on key lab-leak evidence—without tunnel vision on engineering.
Ralph Baric has stated the Wuhan market has a timing problem and I think this is something every knowledgable expert knows.
The market is a diversion on both sides of the pond.
The only thing natural spillover has got is what looks more like a diversion. Scientists wouldn't speculate like they did. Also covid doesn't leave clear origin trails like that. Too much data hints Wuhan was well seeded in December. It was already global in Dec.
It’s odd that a historic‑level virus appeared out of nowhere already endowed with such historic capabilities. A lab could produce that kind of hidden, contained evolution; nature is less likely to do so.
We need to follow the evidence, not politics from a field that continuously falsifies bio-accident evidence. The field struggles with this issue. Here’s a virologist’s take on key lab-leak evidence—without tunnel vision on engineering.
Because a lab leak can produce everything nature can and the lab might have done minimal work with a natural virus IF they find the animal host.
Alignment with their research can't be taken away.
This issue is a 2 part problem.
1. Biosafety
2. A field's biased assessment over it's accidents
What the "experts think" has never been so irrelevant. The field has demonstrated a complete lack of objectivity on the issue. It even has trouble talking about it.
What matters is the evidence and covid aligns unnaturally close to their research.
bsky.app/profile/quis...
It’s odd that a historic-level virus popped out of nowhere already with the ability of historic proportions. A lab could produce that hidden, contained evolution. Nature is less likely to do so.
Their work would also create this situation which is unusual. So the odd things about this pandemic line up with a bio-accident.
A lab leak scenario can mimic everything a natural spillover can produce, so the field just demonstrates it lacks objectivity on the issue with it's position.
We need a natural reservoir and then we need lab transparency. Only then can we MAYBE say a bio-accident is less likely.
I think you mean "natural spillover" and we need an animal host and a path to wuhan to demonstrate that. Minus an animal host all the field has is propaganda.
Covid aligns unnaturally close to their work. Here's a virologist's explanation that doesn't get tunnel vision on engineering.
What's almost entirely accepted is global Dec spread. Pre-Dec not so much. I was witness to Dec spread myself as were many healthcare workers. However the logic of this admission tells us that Wuhan was well seeded in December yet why the focus on the market?
gh.bmj.com/content/7/3/...
He also doesn't touch on the weakness of the market data which SOME unscientifically focus on and how it checks off every box as a diversion.
Before any extensive research their government focused their search on cases tied to the market and AFTER Dec 1st. Scientists wouldn't do that.
He doesn't touch on this unusual phenomena, which could get produced by a lab doing this kind of research.
Because without that... we are left with a virus that uniquely aligns with their research. Here's a virologist that goes over SOME of the evidence that doesn't get tunnel vision on engineering.
The only way to strengthen a natural spillover over a bio-accident.... is the strength of a yet to be found natural path to Wuhan AND transparency from the lab.
There is a basic logic that's always missed in this nonsense. The only thing that can demonstrate a natural spillover is an animal host and a path to Wuhan and we are missing that.
If they find a natural reservoir, their favored hypothesis only becomes on equal footing to an accident.
Politicallly the field doesn't want this to be an accident. However the evidence tells a different story. They continue to push one direction like they have since the beginning.
The market cases are too late in the timeline to be relevant and the virus aligns with unique research they were doing
I probably F'd that last part up. That's the problem when an accident is taboo with the field.
He doesn’t address the adaptation evidence together with the historically unprecedented speed at which this virus spread. A lab conducting this type of research would produce the very phenomena we observed.
If they ever find an animal host and can demonstrate a clear path to Wuhan, that's when natural spillover becomes an equal competing hypothesis to a bio-accident.
Here's a virologist's take on the evidence that doesn't get tunnel vision on engineering.
😂 Bias is palpable.
Its the usual bias trying to do it's best to BS away an accident. The field improperly falsified a lab leak in the beginning and they still are.
The evidence certainly does not lean toward a natural spillover when you don't have a natural reservoir and covid uniquely matches their research.
But then again.... everytime I try to read that article... it just goes on & on without saying anything and I get bored. I knew it was about increased safety discussion which is speculative and thus not definitive and that's all a person needs to know.
If Wuhan had a bio-accident, it would have had increased safety discussion. This was noted by US intel. Maybe the piece dramatized some of it like all news does. Who cares. You are missing the forest for the trees.
The WHO ignored DEFUSE and implied it wasn't relevant. BTW: This scientist has been ordered by his employer to stop talking about origins. He has been silenced. What's often glossed over is that the proposal shows research interest and doesn't need to be a blueprint to be relevant.
I think most of the public knows the field is broken with it's bias on origins and can't assess orgins objectively. I just wish journalists would publish this belief too.
If WHO highlights the double spillover paper but ignores the several published papers that counter it, that demonstrates bias.
bsky.app/profile/quis...
Here's a virologist's take that I like because he doesn't immediately focus on engineering. How could the WHO lessen the likelihood of a natural virus escaping the lab?
"most of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 has a zoonotic origin"
This is the summary of natural spillover evidence. "Small minority" might be arguable.
bsky.app/profile/quis...