- cross-posted to:
- bbc@rss.ponder.cat
- cross-posted to:
- bbc@rss.ponder.cat
A team of scientists say it is “beyond reasonable doubt” the Covid pandemic started with infected animals sold at a market, rather than a laboratory leak.
They were analysing hundreds of samples collected from Wuhan, China, in January 2020.
The results identify a shortlist of animals – including racoon dogs, civets and bamboo rats – as potential sources of the pandemic.
Despite even highlighting one market stall as a hotspot of both animals and coronavirus, the study cannot provide definitive proof.
The samples were collected by Chinese officials in the early stages of Covid and are one of the most scientifically valuable sources of information on the origins of the pandemic.
…
Their analysis was published last year and the raw data made available to other scientists. Now a team in the US and France says they have performed even more advanced genetic analyses to peer deeper into Covid’s early days.
I suppose its mere coincidence that patient zero was a scientist that was experimenting with covid and its potential to transmit to humans. Pure coincidence.
In their Nazi lab on the dark side of the moon
Yes, that’s exactly what happened. Except it didn’t and science isn’t based on your feelings on an unsubstantiated anecdote and even IF it were real, real scientists with real brains are gonna figure this out. Not you.
Three researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) sought hospital care in November 2019
“Sought hospital care” = DEFINITELY COVID!
There is NO OTHER POSSIBLE INFECTION THEY COULD HAVE HAD!
The only virus that infects humans, especially humans who study viruses is COVID!
FACT!
(This is some weak-ass shit. Especially since the article you pasted even says COVID likely didn’t come for a lab. You didn’t even read it.)
It’s clever how they mislead people into thinking that. The scientists actually say.
It is “beyond reasonable doubt” the Covid pandemic started with infected animals sold at a market
Which doesn’t necessarily imply a zoonotic origin.
You didn’t understand it. The paper and data they are working from states
“our study does not rule out human-to-animal transmission, as the sampling was carried out after the human infection within the market. Thus, the possibility of potential introduction of the virus to the market through infected humans, or cold-chain products, cannot yet be ruled out.”
Yes. As I said, no amount of evidence matters to conspiracy mongers. It’s always, “you can’t prove it didn’t happen!”
Note, this evidence doesn’t rule out the preliminary scenario of a scientist from the bioLab visiting the wet market and infecting/contaminating some of the animal’s there.