Two new studies provide more evidence that the coronavirus pandemic originated in a Wuhan, China market where live animals were sold – further bolstering the theory that the virus emerged in the wild rather than escaping from a Chinese lab.
So “conclusively” that one of the scientists in question denies that he was even sick at all in the alleged timeframe, let alone sick with Covid:
I fucking hate that Matt Taibbi fell so far.
Also, one of these new studies shows the early outbreak clustered around the Wuhan wet market, not the Virology Institute, which directly contradicts Taibbi & co’s assertion that “patient zero” was part of the lab.
@a-man-from-earth Did you read the article? The evidence cited there seems more compelling to me than the suspicious-but-circumstantial evidence that supports a lab leak; cases statistically clustered around the part of the wet market that sold the suspect animals, and genetic similarity to a bat strain of covid.
Still, it’s possible, I just no longer believe it’s probable. This quote from the article sums it up:
“Have we disproven the lab leak theory? No, we have not,” Andersen said. “But I think what’s really important here is there are possible scenarios and there are plausible scenarios and it’s really important to understand that possible does not mean equally likely.” …
“Both of these two studies really provide compelling evidence for the natural origin hypothesis,” said Aliota, who wasn’t involved in either study. Since sampling an animal that was at the market is impossible, “this is maybe as close to a smoking gun as you could get.”
Ah yes, those well known scientists with absolutely no agenda.
Come the fuck on, this is ridiculous.
he really said nah, didnt elaborate and hit us with Matt Taibbi
e: y’all mad but now I’m the only one to archive it, for the record, he linked to this saying that it’s conclusively proven to be a lab leak, specifically saying “Nah,” to OP’s link without elaborating how one was more valid than the other or anything
Have you read the recent studies that this article mentions? Did you even read this article?
Or have you made up your mind based on a single statement made by 3 dudes without peer review, and no amount of peer-reviewed scientific facts and evidence will tell you otherwise?
Yup. That’s just how people can be. If presented with statements they consider plausible regardless of accuracy and fits a narrative they would rather believe, it is nearly impossible to change someones mind with fact. Cognitive dissonance is powerful tool that can be exploited by wanting groups to believe the “other side” must be some great evil fighting against them to make their lives worse. When marinated in that for your entire life it becomes easy to believe just about anything.
Why could it not have been both? A lab leak that spread at the market. Sure, this says initial cases were near the market, but it still doesn’t say conclusively what the origin was.
highest density of cases was both extremely near to and very centered on this market
If these findings are true it would require the lab leak to have spread to the market and not really anywhere else, which is a fair bit less likely than originating from the market.
It’s possible, but when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras.