That’s just wild. The one silver lining to T2 is that I’m not shocked by anything anymore. It’s still outrageous, but the surprise is gone.

  • rusticus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Okay you’ve refused to acknowledge or read my more important points so it appears you don’t want a conversation with perseverations on your agenda. Good luck.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I don’t know what logically led you to that conclusion. Maybe you ought to self-reflect & work on your own biases/not jump to conclusions?

      I’m linking to supporting references, and you’re not, so 🤷.

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          This nature article has the title

          Wuhan lab samples hold no close relatives to virus behind COVID

          But you previously claimed

          All sequence data, wild type virus, and previous research history clearly show this virus existed in nature

          Which is it?

          • rusticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Both. “All sequence data, wild type virus, and previous research history” refers to the disease causing virus and wild type relatives. The Wuhan research viruses are unrelated to SARS-CoV-2.

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          A YouTube video and an opinion piece lol.

          News investigation & report quoting correspondence between biosafety experts/researchers & their letters to journals?

          a Nature article

          Paywalled & also in the news section?

          It’s possible despite lax biosafety, they didn’t leak the virus & didn’t have it. Based on what little I can read of the article: the word of a person at the center of the matter may be true; however, that’s considerable weight for their word to carry that leaves doubt over impartiality & independence. Findings of an independent monitor/investigation would be more convincing.

          • rusticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Nature is the most highly regarded scientific publication in the world. I can’t help you with your paywall issues.