Continuing this saga, new news purportedly supporting the natural origin hypothesis:
www.cnn.com
I am actually very happy to see a lot of media sources, especially major outlets, take this report with a far more balanced approach considering many of their track records.
It’s important to note this research (as far as I can tell) has not been peer reviewed. The data supporting the findings has not been made available by the American researchers and the raw data has been since removed from China’s databases. As raw data came out of China, it deserves significant scrutiny given the circumstances- but even circumstances aside China has historically had a chronic and significant issue with research fraud. That’s not to say the West doesn’t have its own scandals, at least a few during COVID in our top journals, but China is a very different situation. (Case in point: for what, the first couple years of the pandemic China claimed under 4500 COVID deaths which we all know is simply not true any way you cut it. Now I think they say 8x,000, but it as assumed they have at least 1m using a similar scale, likely many more.)
This research of course is not conclusive, far from it at the moment given the lack of vetting, but could be very important if deemed credible. It certainly warrants review and further digging. If based legitimate data. What is evident is China apparently had been apparently withholding this data for years. That should be no surprise given many of their other actions in the aftermath.
And that is what is perhaps most concerning to me. Why hide the underlying data for years, then release at what seems to be an awfully coincidental temporally speaking given the escalating attention allowed to the lab leak hypothesis. That said, it legitimate coincidences can occur.
Perhaps not so surprisingly, some of the sources who have celebrated vindication by the DoE and FBI reports appear to be ignoring this all together. The news cycle is still early, but it would be very unfortunate for them to forgo demonstrating the objectivity they claimed to have back in the days where the lab leak hypothesis was snubbed despite very limited evidence to the alternative.
Scientists parse another clue to possible origins of Covid-19 as WHO says all possibilities 'remain on the table' | CNN
A new analysis of genetic material collected from January to March 2020 at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China, has uncovered animal DNA in samples already known to be positive for SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes Covid-19.
www.cnn.com
I am actually very happy to see a lot of media sources, especially major outlets, take this report with a far more balanced approach considering many of their track records.
It’s important to note this research (as far as I can tell) has not been peer reviewed. The data supporting the findings has not been made available by the American researchers and the raw data has been since removed from China’s databases. As raw data came out of China, it deserves significant scrutiny given the circumstances- but even circumstances aside China has historically had a chronic and significant issue with research fraud. That’s not to say the West doesn’t have its own scandals, at least a few during COVID in our top journals, but China is a very different situation. (Case in point: for what, the first couple years of the pandemic China claimed under 4500 COVID deaths which we all know is simply not true any way you cut it. Now I think they say 8x,000, but it as assumed they have at least 1m using a similar scale, likely many more.)
This research of course is not conclusive, far from it at the moment given the lack of vetting, but could be very important if deemed credible. It certainly warrants review and further digging. If based legitimate data. What is evident is China apparently had been apparently withholding this data for years. That should be no surprise given many of their other actions in the aftermath.
And that is what is perhaps most concerning to me. Why hide the underlying data for years, then release at what seems to be an awfully coincidental temporally speaking given the escalating attention allowed to the lab leak hypothesis. That said, it legitimate coincidences can occur.
Perhaps not so surprisingly, some of the sources who have celebrated vindication by the DoE and FBI reports appear to be ignoring this all together. The news cycle is still early, but it would be very unfortunate for them to forgo demonstrating the objectivity they claimed to have back in the days where the lab leak hypothesis was snubbed despite very limited evidence to the alternative.
