It was engineered. They have admitted that. Coronavirus was manipulated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology to become more infectious. The contention is around the term “gain of function.” Fauci changed the definition some years ago to skirt the funding bans imposed by Obama. His new definition requires intent to make a virus more communicable or virulent for humans. Since the WIV didn’t intend to make it more communicable or virulent for humans, Fauci maintains it is not “gain of function” research.
I don’t see why this is so hard for some people to accept. Chinese laboratory standards are among the worst in the world. Article after article after article details their abysmal safety standards. Why on Earth should we believe that this specific lab were somehow better? Of course it wasn’t. Of course some unqualified technician made a mistake. This was always the concern about gain of function research, which was why Obama banned it.
It’s not an admission that Covid-19 was engineered. It’s an admission that the lab at the epicentre of the outbreak was engineering corona viruses to make them more dangerous.
We absolutely can study viruses without gain of function research. It just takes longer.
No. You cannot reliably study what a virus is capable of without it. All you can do is hope it mutates in a certain way.
If you’re arguing that intelligence agencies are unreliable,
I’m not, I’m arguing that they disagree and the ones who say it is a lab leak say so with low confidence.
why are you linking to a report from an intelligence agency?
I’m not, I’m linking to a New York Times article (hence nytimes.com) about how they disagree and the ones who say it is a lab leak say so with low confidence.
This is something you would have known if you had read the article.
It was engineered. They have admitted that. Coronavirus was manipulated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology to become more infectious. The contention is around the term “gain of function.” Fauci changed the definition some years ago to skirt the funding bans imposed by Obama. His new definition requires intent to make a virus more communicable or virulent for humans. Since the WIV didn’t intend to make it more communicable or virulent for humans, Fauci maintains it is not “gain of function” research.
I don’t see why this is so hard for some people to accept. Chinese laboratory standards are among the worst in the world. Article after article after article details their abysmal safety standards. Why on Earth should we believe that this specific lab were somehow better? Of course it wasn’t. Of course some unqualified technician made a mistake. This was always the concern about gain of function research, which was why Obama banned it.
That is not an admission that COVID was engineered. The overwhelming scientific evidence is that it had a natural origin.
https://www.science.org/content/article/evidence-suggests-pandemic-came-nature-not-lab-panel-says
It’s not an admission that Covid-19 was engineered. It’s an admission that the lab at the epicentre of the outbreak was engineering corona viruses to make them more dangerous.
Without data, which China has destroyed, any research such as the paper you cite is working blind. I’m sure natural origin does seem the likely theory given the precedent they cite. But our intelligence agencies are privy to more than guesses.
You cannot study viruses without gain-of-function research.
As for intelligence agencies, you’re incorrect in your assumption- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/23/us/politics/covid-lab-leak-wuhan-report.html
We absolutely can study viruses without gain of function research. It just takes longer.
If you’re arguing that intelligence agencies are unreliable, why are you linking to a report from an intelligence agency?
No. You cannot reliably study what a virus is capable of without it. All you can do is hope it mutates in a certain way.
I’m not, I’m arguing that they disagree and the ones who say it is a lab leak say so with low confidence.
I’m not, I’m linking to a New York Times article (hence nytimes.com) about how they disagree and the ones who say it is a lab leak say so with low confidence.
This is something you would have known if you had read the article.
If you want people to take you seriously, link to something other than notorious shitrag National Review. Everything after mentioning them is suspect.
They cite the letter. You don’t have to trust the source. Read the evidence for yourself.