How do you think the Chinese government would treat such a whistleblower?
I feel like we should be talking more about the frozen food theory. I’ve read about it from a couple places, but it’s a bit mystifying to me.
1 Like
So far as I understand it, the theory is that you can freeze food and then thaw it at a later date and it’s still edible. Even palatable, allegedly.
That is a pretty factual statement of actual knowledge itt.
It’s all wild ass speculation at this point.
No one disagrees that labs that handle dangerous viruses should be held to a high standard. No one is saying not to investigate. This is more a bullshit debate on how “likely” with the uninformed or poorly informed on the actual specifics. We bring various biases
-bias towards natural origin based on history of diseases
-bias toward Chinese cover ups
-bias toward sloppy lab practices
As far as lab location it’s an area known for zoonotic disease origin. Its where the host samples are.
1 Like
The bats that have the closest known relative of the virus live 1000 miles away!
Dude idk if you are aware of this but China is such a small country it only has one timezone. Chess and mate.
3 Likes
getting pretty sick of all this conspiracy theorizing itt
You’re starting to catch on!
The thing is even if Xi came out tomorrow and was like lol we released that shit on purpose suckers! Hope you enjoyed your year inside. What exactly could/would anybody do about it?
I know it seems like there couldn’t be any more ‘think’ pieces written about the awful threat of CHINA. But there definitely could.
2 Likes
And the bats are brought alive to be purchased for consumption in Wuhan?
I don’t think that’s true. What’s your evidence?
None. That’s my point. The wet market theory. I personally think it was a drunken night of bestiality American businessmen.
3 Likes
You made the specific claim that they were transporting live bats from 1000 miles away to be eaten in Wuhan. It’s ludicrous.
1 Like
And if it was true that bats were brought from so far afield, China would have been testing the animal traders. With SARS, 20-40% of the animal traders had antibodies to SARS.
Sera from humans working in the market were tested for antibody to SZ16 virus by neutralization and indirect immunofluorescence assays. Although 8 out of 20 (40 percent) of the wild-animal traders and 3 of 15 (20 percent) of those who slaughter these animals had evidence of antibody, only 1 (5 percent) of 20 vegetable traders was seropositive. None of these workers reported SARS-like symptoms in the past 6 months. In comparison, none of 60 control sera from patients admitted to a Guangdong hospital for nonrespiratory diseases was seropositive (see Table 3-3).
I get that, but she’s also saying labs should be “curtailed” rather than “maybe we should use this to inform more refined practices” while implying that the research itself is of little or zero value
Yeah like one of the uncomfortable things around the subject is the lack of actual positive evidence out of China. A good faith effort to determine how COVID arose would involve sharing a lot more data than they have so far. The first guy ever detected with the disease is described as like “a 55 year old man from Hubei” or something, like that’s all we know.
But of course, there are many reasons they might not be willing to make a good faith effort to figure out how COVID arose, many of them not involving a lab accident or anything like that.
Asking what value the research has is obviously important. She’s saying that it’s inherently dangerous research and should therefore clear a high bar to be conducted, and measures should be taken to minimize any danger if it is found to be important enough to proceed. Seems like a sensible approach to me.
And how are we positive that the bats are from 1000 miles away