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.
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.
A YouTube video and an opinion piece lol. How about a Nature article?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03982-2
News investigation & report quoting correspondence between biosafety experts/researchers & their letters to journals?
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.
Nature is the most highly regarded scientific publication in the world. I can’t help you with your paywall issues.
It’s a news article in their news section, not a scientific study, Nature’s domain of prestige/authority. In the hierarchy of evidence, this ranks at the bottom as background information.
The previous comment stands: it’s an isolated claim lacking independent, impartial corroboration.
Are you really so lazy that you can’t even use Google?
Alright, I’ll go to a PNAS article (opinion piece written so you can actually understand it) but with plenty of scientific references in the bibliography to satisfy your scientific curiosity lol.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2214427119
Well done: that’s the way you defend a thesis. Sources & supported reason. Not whatever nonsense you were doing.
I upvoted your comment, too.