comment: >
  
  Gramps? Boi at your age I was already a great grandfather.
context: To /u/david-song, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
  In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
  
  Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
  Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
  Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
  Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
  
  Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track.  Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do. >
  
  I don't think I can or should change your mind to "It was 100% a wild virus that crossed over by random chance in Whuan" because I don't believe that to a high degree of certainty.  Rather, I think you should join me in Bayesian ambiguity.    
  So here's my pitch:
  It is possible that there was a lab leak.  There's a lab there, and humans are not perfectly competent.  It's not an unreasonable theory to entertain.    
  But pandemics, over human history, occur with a high degree of regularity.  They happen constantly.  Flu jumps back and forth from humans to other critters annually.  This has been the state of things for all of human history— and even before history began.  Meanwhile, virology centers are about a century old.  Virology labs are completely unnecessary to a virus making the animal/human jump, this is an known and indisputable fact, I'm sure you'll agree.  
  So if you have this perfectly good, been-happening-forever method of a pandemic generation, why suppose a more complicated route?  Entities Should Not Be Multiplied Unnecessarily, as Occam said.  
  It may seem sus that the virus was first detected in Wuhan, and that they were studying coronavirii there,  And I'll grant, that's potential evidence of a leak. But it's not strong evidence.  Consider: the first cases of AIDS were detected in New York, but they weren't the first cases to exist.  The first cases were in Africa, but the spread was undetected until it reached a dense population in a rich region with lots of healthcare where doctors could spot the outbreak as something unusual {they famously thought it was a "rare cancer" at first}.  The same could very well be true in Wuhan: it's a major population and trading center with 4 million more people than NYC has today, and is comparatively wealthy to rural China— the virus could have flown, sailed, or drove in from anywhere.  And while it might seem sus that WVI was studying rona, remember that the SARS outbreak in China in 2002 was also a coronavirus.  After that scare, of COURSE they were gonna study the virus at WVI.  The 2002 outbreak also servers as a reminder that novel coronoavirii are endemic to China, another fact that should also stack your priors in favor of "natural event" 
  So I'm not saying this is a slam dunk.  But for an event like this a reasonable evidence-based person should have their priors heavily stacked in favor of "natural event" {because of how frequent they are}, and only differ from that for an overwhelmingly good reason.  And I just don't think we're there.  So, while the lab leak not an unreasonable hypothesis, it's not one you should endorse as true— but merely as possible. >
  
  
  Consider: the first cases of AIDS were detected in New York, but they weren't the first cases to exist.  The first cases were in Africa, but the spread was undetected until it reached a dense population in a rich region with lots of healthcare where doctors could spot the outbreak as something unusual {they famously thought it was a "rare cancer" at first}.
  
  I like this. It's given me a new way of thinking about it, so Δ
  That said, the timeline is: intelligence reports about researchers being ill, then the WIV databases deleted in a hack, then about two months pass before it's officially reported, then the heavy handed response, suppression of anger towards "bat lady" by the Chinese people, the lies printed in The Lancet, censorship by US technology firms, labs worldwide scared of saying anything and becoming an enemy of China. And the background info and documents. They are all add up to a body of evidence that makes a lab leak far more likely in my mind. >
  
  
  intelligence reports about researchers being ill
  
  Do you have a source for this, or something I can google to bring up the right thing?  My googlefu is weak today, and I can't pull up a source for that claim.  
  Also, thanks for my first delta!  How often does the deltabot patrol? Since you're at delta14: is there anything I need to do to get the flair? >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/_jericho (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  
  I don't like this conclusion at all but from the evidence I've seen, a lab leak is the most likely cause of COVID-19.
  
  Realistically, you've got a series of coincidences compounded with a lack of hard information.
  We don't know exactly where COVID came from.
  A lab leak is a potential origin, one for which precedent exists, but there's nowhere close to enough evidence for us (here meaning the western medical establishment) to say conclusively one way or another.
  It's minimum at least as likely that COVID came from the vast wet market in Wuhan. 
  
  The second biggest clue is the Chinese government's heavy handed response to it at the start
  
  That's not really a clue, though.
  That's the Chinese government's response to just about everything.
  
  The next, the fact that no intermediate species was found after 3 years even though it's "scientific consensus" that it was transmitted from a bat to another species before jumping to humans
  
  There are plenty of diseases we've been studying for much, much longer than Covid-19 that we don't have a clear understanding of exactly how they jumped from a zoonotic host to humans.
  
  Can anyone change my view
  
  Doubtful to be honest, as fundamentally we'll probably never have an exact answer as to the origin of COVID-19.
  A virus emerged in a totalitarian state with reflexive and largely effective control of information flow and with several possible/probable points of origin.
  The hard pill to swallow is that well likely never know with 100% certainty the exact origins of COVID, for reasons ranging from the nature of the virus, to the length of time from its origin, and the fact that the CCP has exactly zero motivation to allow independent investigators in, no matter what the origin was. >
  
  Fair, but I still think it's most likely it emerged from a lab. Given the evidence we have, the information suppression and so on. I think it's utterly disgusting that the people who covered it up and lied about that will get away with it. Even if it did emerge naturally, the information control and propaganda is unforgivable.
  And it's extremely dangerous to not have a public conversation about it, we need tight regulations around research into biological hazards. >
  
  
  Even if it did emerge naturally, the information control and propaganda is unforgivable.
  
  Information control and propaganda from who? China? China has done multitudes of "unforgivable" things so not even sure what this is other than just grandstanding about "China bad".
  
  we need tight regulations around research into biological hazards.
  
  We do have tight regulations around this kind of biological research. It's why there are only a couple of labs in the entire world that have the proper security and clearance to do things like this... Again not really sure what your point is here. >
  
  My point is that BSL2 is not enough for biohazards like man-made plagues. The people who made it knew this, because BSL4 existed because of dangerous pathogens. But it's inconvenient, so they took a risk that killed 4 million people. Their masters covered it up, and played politics so it looked like anyone questioning the lies were ignorant conspiritards. They're scum, and shouldn't be defended. >
  
  Your point is conspiracy though. You literally think it's a man-made pathogen when there is zero evidence to back this up at all. >
  
  Is the only evidence to get you to believe in the lab leak would be a full confessional? 
  I'm just curios if you have evidence to back your belief, or just need 100% proof of the contrary to change your view? 
  I'm looking to see if there is a starting point to get you to seriously consider a lab leak. Because if you need China to take full responsibility to change your view, then this is a waste of keystrokes and I'll go away. >
  
  It would take actual scientists saying that COVID-19 is the same virus that the lab was working on, or had stock of. But, what we have is scientists saying the opposite of that, in, COVID-19 does not match any of the records or known viruses that were being worked on or kept track of. I don't give a shit about China, they have absolutely nothing to do with the whole thing. >
  
  No, you don't need China. There were Western scientists working in the labs and with the various viruses who said themselves that the COVID-19 sequencing does not match the stuff that was being worked on in the labs. Not a single thing I have said relies on China information. >
  
  Firstly, the idea that the Chinese government controlling messages that aren't favorable to the Chinese government being evidence of a conspiracy is to misunderstand everything about Chinese information control.  It's not evidence in either direction - China will filter/censor/stop any message that is not favorable whether it is true or false.  We know nothing other than that the Chinese government thinks that the story would be bad for them, we know nothing of whether they think it's true.  If a meme were to emerge that said "Chinese food sucks because the government wants to keep joy limited" that too would be censored, even though I just made it up.  So...i'd wholesale reject whatever portion of your "feeling" comes from a communication coverup because it doesn't tell us anything.  The "why would you deny it if it's not true" is bullshit usually in the west, but it's especially bullshit when information control is thorough.
  Using "we don't know" as a determinant of some speculation makes no sense (in regards to intermediate species).  If the prevailing theory was that it escaped wuhan we'd have a much, much, much larger set of "we don't knows" yet those don't seem to raise you being suspect of the story you choose to believe!  It makes it feel like the salaciousness of the theory is the reason you believe, not any evidence to support your belief.  Skepticism of the prevailing theory should provide no evidence of the theory you're believing so ....why do you believe what you believe? >
  
  
  Skepticism of the prevailing theory should provide no evidence of the theory you're believing so ....why do you believe what you believe?
  
  Because I read some pretty convincing evidence that was suppressed pretty heavily during the pandemic, and more has come to light since. >
  
  Like the parent says, censorship can be done for reputation management reasons, censoring anything unfavorable, regardless of whether it's true or not, because it's not about truth but about managing reputation. >
  
  Yeah that's fair I guess, China does ban a lot of stuff to save face. I'll look into this, and award a !delta for the moment as it's a shift in view >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/dale_glass (78∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  
  2000 miles away from the bats, in the 3rd closest city.
  
  Where exactly do you think these bats are located such that they are both 2000 miles away from Wuhan and Wuhan is the third-closest city to the bats? This seems impossible on its face. >
  
  In a mine shaft in mojang >
  
  And where, exactly, do you think that is? At what approximate latitude and longitude?
  If somebody told you this, they may have been trolling you. >
  
  And your position is that Mojiang is 2000 miles away from Wuhan? And that Wuhan is the third-closest city to Mojiang? (Also note that the word "Mojiang" does not seem to appear in the article you linked.) >
  
  The most recent location of what? Bats? If so, what species of bat specifically are you talking about? >
  
  The most recent evidence points to horseshoe bats >
  
  Wuhan seems to be in the range of horseshoe bats (i.e. the bats live there), so it's not clear why you're saying they're only found 350km away. >
  
  Yeah I've conceded this point, the rest still stands though. But I'm not averse to dishing out a Δ / !delta as it has shifted my view >
  
  OP might be interested in this podcast.
  If you have a preferred podcast player, it's called 'the end of the world with Josh Clark', and the episode is called 'biotechnology'. It's pre-covid from 2018 and really delves into the subject, warning about biotech lab leaks, but beyond that episode the whole series is amazing. >
  
  Totalitarian regimes cover things up regardless of whether said regimes are actually responsible for them or whether said things are actually damaging to said regime's political legitimacy; for instance, there's a reason the Chinese Internet bans mentions of Winnie the Pooh. Make sure not to ascribe malice when it might be stupidity.
  Obviously, there's no way to tell for certain. Therefore, in the absence of hard facts, I say the odds are that COVID is perfectly natural and that the CCP refuses to admit the emperor has no clothes, rather than COVID being a lab leak and the CCP somehow (a) trying and (b) mostly succeeding in covering it up. Totalitarians in general and the CCP in particular aren't as competent as most people think they are. >
  
  Fauci's been in a public health career since the 80s. That lends me to believe that, although ultimately well-intentioned, he knew he was too divisive and had made too many mistakes to be in such a high-level position, which is why he stepped down. Everything I've observed about Trump indicates he wouldn't've come to a similar realization, especially considering that he's caused a lot more harm and shown essentially no self-restraint or self-admonishment in doing so.
  Also, Trump's been in politics — actually involved in politics, not random, one-off presidential campaigns — for 4 years. Fauci's been involved in public health, which has no partisan aspect, for 4 decades. Trump intentionally told (and continues to tell) lies. Fauci screwed up a few times in a career longer than most of Reddit's userbase has been alive. I'm willing to give Fauci the benefit of the doubt, but not Trump.
  Moreover, Fauci works for the US, not the CCP, Russia, or some tinpot dictatorship which means that any misinformation on his part is probably a personal failure rather than a malicious, government-backed lie, and he's not beholden to WHO, meaning he has no obligation to cover for communist dictatorships in order to stay funded. Trump, on the other hand, will say whatever he thinks he needs to say in order to stay popular.
  Ultimately, I'd trust scientists over politicians, even when those scientists mess up. They're not gods, they're just a shit-ton more honest than any politician. And, even for a politician, Trump sucks. >
  
  
  Fauci's been involved in public health, which has no partisan aspect, for 4   
  decades. 
  
  Can you explain what you mean by "no partisan aspect?" A lot of academics and physicians working in public health agree that universal healthcare, free at point of service, would massively improve the state of public health in America. The science isn't really up for debate in that regard. Is that a partisan position? Why or why not? >
  
  Whether or not single-payer is a good idea is what politicians argue over; AFAIK, there's not really much division over that among actual doctors and scientists. >
  
  Right, but is that partisan or not? >
  
  Not. The doctors and scientists look at the facts and have determined that a public healthcare system would be beneficial to public health. The politicians who argue about its merit are partisan, the academics who support it are not. Some things are factually beneficial or harmful. The fact that politicians turn this objective truths into debatable talking points doesn’t make supporting one side inherently partisan. >
  
  
  The second biggest clue is the Chinese government's heavy handed response to it at the start, and their dishonesty throughout.
  
  China's response was heavy handed because they have the broad authority to lock down the populace.
  
  Appointing a military general to run WIV,
  
  I assume a general runs many things in China that would otherwise be run by civilians in the US or Europe. It wouldn't be that out-of-place. 
  
  Calling it COVID-19 rather than the city where it was found is another strong hint. 
  
  A strong hint of what, exactly? The WHO named it, not China, though there were accusations it was named COVID-19 instead of "Wuhan Virus" to appease China. If you believe the WHO is in on the conspiracy, why would China refuse to work with them?
  
  the cover up
  
  What cover up?
  
  Trump flapping his mouth etc.
  
  What is this? >
  
  
  What cover up?
  
  The open letter published in The Lancet, penned by Peter Daszak of the  ecohealth alliance who had a grant for doing coronavirus research in WIV, lied and declared no competing interests, and the letter was used as evidence to mark all videos and articles that talked about the lab leak hypothesis as "fake news", effectively banning them from social media.
  
  
  Trump flapping his mouth etc.
  
  What is this?
  
  Trump, who was commander in chief of the US military at the time, said it was made in Wuhan and was torn a new asshole and called racist for saying it. His response was to make sarcastic remarks about injecting bleach, if you remember that. He's an egoistic gobshite and had access to US intelligence at the highest level. >
  
  
  Peter Daszak
  
  That's not a cover up. At most, it's a case of a guy who lied or misstated his connections. There's no real cover up here.
  Daszak was interviewed by the Intercept:
  
  You said, “One of the reasons why this has become so divisive is because of the Lancet thing.” You could say that about many things. It’s because we didn’t release the DARPA proposal. It’s because we didn’t release our emails. It’s because, early on, we said very strongly that this came from nature, and that this lab leak stuff is preposterous. The real reason this has become so divisive is because it’s being used politically. That’s it.
  
  This is the key to understanding most of these conspiracy theories: You see what you want to see because it's convenient for your political worldview. China bad, Covid originated in China, therefore China caused Covid.
  
  Trump, who was commander in chief of the US military at the time, said it was made in Wuhan and was torn a new asshole and called racist for saying it. 
  
  Not because he said it was made in Wuhan, but because of his insistence of using "Wuhan virus" and "China virus" and "kung flu" instead of its official name. >
  
  
  This is the key to understanding most of these conspiracy theories: You see what you want to see because it's convenient for your political worldview. China bad, Covid originated in China, therefore China caused Covid.
  
  You might be partially right here. I dislike all large states that are engaged in propaganda and information control, which includes China, the US, Russia, most other governments and lying politicians. The fact that the best piece of science journalism I've read in 20 years was censored by the very people it exposed pisses me off a lot.
  Daszak did cover it up, his open letter was deception and was used to censor and to chill scientific research, and China's might was used to stop virologists worldwide from speaking up too.
  
  Not because he said it was made in Wuhan, but because of his insistence of using "Wuhan virus" and "China virus" and "kung flu" instead of its official name.
  
  Fair enough. I've just read up on that and it seems the WHO guidelines were from 2015, not later. This restores some of my faith so you can have a Δ for that shift of perspective. >
  
  
  4 million people are dead and we're doing nothing to stop it from happening again
  
  I think that more important than your core CMV is to note that Covid's death toll isn't a result of it being lab-made or not. There was plenty that could have been done and wasn't. >
  
  If it wasn't lab made then we could have done more to reduce deaths. But if it was, then that's 4 million deaths caused by that lab. So it clearly does matter. >
  
  How do you figure that? We knew the steps to take, or at least developed them over time, and many countries either chose not to take them or were unable to because of social and economic factors. 
  That doesn't change whether the virus was natural or lab-grown. >
  
  Tons of people died while we developed them. If it was made in a lab then their deaths were needless. So yeah it matters. >
  
  To be clear, I don’t know one way or the other. It could very well be a lab virus. But what I want to note is that there is no actual evidence of it being a lab virus, and there IS evidence of it being natural. 
  First, your statement about a bat coronavirus appearing in the same city as the biggest bar coronavirus research facility is misleading. First, Covid may have (likely?) originated from a bat, but it did not go from bat to human. There was at least one intermediary. So the proximity to bats is irrelevant. You mention that there has been no intermediary found, but there also has not been a direct bat connection found. How is one evidence, but the other not? There is no guarantee of finding the intermediary, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Regardless, the bat coronavirus this one resembles cannot transmit to humans. 
  However, whether it was directly from a bat, or whether there was also a distance to the intermediary, there is also a lot of travel between the regions where these animals live and the facility that researches them. Wuhan being a destination for people traveling from areas with high infection risks would also explain why the outbreak started there. You don’t need a leak conspiracy to explain that. 
  Regarding China’s response, they responded exactly how they respond to everything. They obfuscate, deflect, and obstruct. They would do this regardless of the cause, simply because they want to control information and keep the country from looking bad. Having countries like the US come in and poking around would make them look weak and secondary, and shutting down communication is how they maintain their image. Lab leak or natural virus, China would respond this way. It it’s not evidence of anything either way. 
  I’m not sure what you are getting at with your claim about calling it Covid 19 rather than the city in which it was found. When it was named Covid 19, there was no confirmation of the origin. It got that name because it fits a naming convention. That was a populist right wing narrative in the US, led by Donald Trump, that tried to change the name to the “China virus” and the like. This was to distract from the US’s poor initial response, and to trigger innate bigotry by blaming China instead of responding to a global health crisis. 
  So my attempt to change your view is to note that the things you are using to build that view are largely based on misrepresentations that serve only a political goal. Many of the stories you are hearing are not based in any actual fact, but rather just narratives created to sell articles and drive votes to one party. 
  If you want to know the truth of it, or at least the best we can know, look only at real scientific research. Especially research out of the EU and Africa, which are beholden neither to Chinese or US political considerations that lead to misinformation. 
  What you find when you look in the right places is that there is no evidence of a lab leak, but it can’t be ruled out. The virus has markers of being naturally created, and lacks markers of human intervention. The virus appears to have an intermediary animal, and the fact that we can’t find it is some level of evidence that it didn’t happen in a lab (where they know exactly what was done to the sample). 
  One should not start from the idea of the lab leak, and then seek out evidence that proves it. One should go where the evidence leads, and so far, none of it points to the lab. 
  But more importantly, the origin of the virus is far less important of a topic than is the global response to it. For me, I care far more about how the US failed to properly deal with the pandemic than I do about how it got started. Because there will be another pandemic, and it can start in any number of ways. We need to know how to deal with it, rather than telling stories about how the last one got started. >
  
  Bat to human transmission is unlikely, which is a strong indicator of an intermediate animal. As are the genetic differences between the bat coronavirus and Covid 19. The fact that we haven’t found a definite intermediary is not meaningful. It is not guaranteed we will find it, nor have we always found them in prior pandemics. 
  Although “gain of function” has a specific definition in virology, the term has been expanded as it relates to this virus, mostly for political concerns. But, if I stipulate the new definition and accept that there was research that fits it, that doesn’t change the fact that NONE of that research has been shown to have any relation to how the virus made it to humans. The entire story is based on the idea that, if we change the definition of gain of function, and then apply it to this lab, we can then believe SINCE some other gain of function research took place there, then the type of gain of function research needed to create this virus MUST have been done there too. It’s a lot of assumptions, without any evidence. 
  As for your examples of OTHER viruses, engineered or otherwise, they do not provide evidence related to Covid 19. They create a narrative where you can say “see, here is this other example that I can craft, that means it is totally possible that the crafted Covid narrative is true”. It’s misrepresentative circumstantial evidence, and lacking any real evidence to go along with it, it isn’t meaningful. 
  It isn’t that we are debating whether this story COULD be true. It’s that we are talking about whether it IS true, and lacking any and all hard evidence to support it leaves us with nothing but a story. One that is predominantly disputed by the scientists who are actually studying the data and looking at the evidence. >
  
  Did you read the proposal? 
  
  We will sequence thei spike protein, reverse engineer them to conduct binding assays, and inset them into bat SARS CoV
  (WIV, SHCO14) backbones (these use bat-SARS-CoV backbones, not SARS-CoV, and are exempt from dual-use and gain of function concerns) infect humanized mice and assess capacity to cause SARS like disease.
  
  Am I reading that right? They planned to make a SARS like disease for humanised mice from bat-SARS-CoV instead of SARS-CoV because the latter is crossing a legal line while the former is exploiting a loophole? 
  Is that what you mean by the technical "gain of function" definition? That it only applies to human origin viruses, not ones engineered from other species? Because if so that seems crazy to me.
  I searched the proposal and found no explicit assessment of lab leak risk during the experiments, only threat to public health during distribution of the final virus. Is that not an obvious risk? 
  Also:
  
  Dr. Shi, Wuhan Institute of Virology, will conduct viral testing on all collected samples, binding assays and some humanized mouse work.
  
  So there was a clear plan to do this exact sort of work, in Wuhan, right? I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they did either this work or very similar work for the Chinese government, whether it was by the ecohealth alliance or a Chinese only team. The grant that they got has similar terminology but goes into less detail. >
  
  
  Unfortunately this is a bad time for your question because reddit broke the 3rd party search tools again
  
  Was wondering about that. I have a little github-hosted web page I use to look for my old comments and those of others and it hasn't been working of late. >
  
  I'm curious if you have any actual evidence to back this up and not just conjecture? because from what i understood, virologist have sequenced the virus multiple times, and for the past 3 years and the consensus is that it is a naturally mutated virus
  Just one of many from leading biologists with a link to the paper >
  
  That's a long way of saying no... If you are making claims of a lab leak, there needs to be evidence to back this up. Otherwise, it is pure speculation and again goes against the consensus among those who do this for a living, the worlds leading virologists, biologists, etc... 
  What would they have to gain by saying it zoological when it is from a lab? >
  
  I just showed that the official position is pure speculation dressed up as scientific evidence, and I have posted a few articles in this thread that have lots of actual evidence.
  The New Yorker reported that EcoHealth Alliance put a proposal in to DARPA to create chimeric coronaviruses. They took $40m USD in funding from DARPA
  Their most senior leader got a grant from the US government to do similar research. The proposal is right there for you to read on a US gov website.
  He lied about conflicts of interest in an article posted in The Lancet, that was used to censor lab leak allegations as fake news.
  The person doing the research admitted to doing coronavirus research in BSL2 conditions. Experts say that this is unsafe.
  US intelligence knows that 3 researchers fell ill before the virus went pandemic. The Chinese government took WIV's databases offline right afterwards.
  I mean, it's not idle speculation. >
  
  
  official position is pure speculation dressed up as scientific evidence,
  
  You are contending here, perhaps unintentionally, that epidemiology is essentially pure speculation. Is that your argument? >
  
  I'm saying that there's been no genetic evidence of ancestors of the virus in the wild. That would be convincing evidence, but all we have is speculation. >
  
  Nor that it came from a lab, because the strains are too dissimilar to what was tested in lab. 
  You're thinking it's not a so it must be b. >
  
  
  Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like
  
  You are a conspiracy theorist.
  
  The single most convincing piece of evidence is that this bat coronavirus emerged right next to the city that contains the world leading center for bat coronavirus research.
  
  Why do you think the Lab is there?
  The answer is that Virology labs tend to specialize in nearby viruses. WIV specializes in Coronaviruses, because a lot of Coronaviruses come out of China. You have influenza labs in Asia, Hemorrhagic fever labs in Africa, Dengue-fever labs in Latin America.
  Simply put, if a virus emerges from an area known to produce that type of virus in the past, it would actually be, statistically speaking, stranger for there not to be a virology lab nearby with that as par of their specialty.
  
  The second biggest clue is the Chinese government's heavy handed response to it at the start, and their dishonesty throughout. Disinfecting the streets, blocking all mention of the word in Chinese owned online games, removing the databases of WIV from the internet claiming a hack, refusing to cooperate with the WHO. Appointing a military general to run WIV, and of course producing the first vaccine. Calling it COVID-19 rather than the city where it was found is another strong hint. IMO it's likely that they knew about it in September 2019.
  
  The Chinese government is authoritarian. They've done shit like this in the past with other viral outbreaks. Hell, they've been doing shit like this recently with Covid, even though it makes very little sense for them to do so.
  
  The next, the fact that no intermediate species was found after 3 years even though it's "scientific consensus" that it was transmitted from a bat to another species before jumping to humans. The only earlier versions that have been found were bat samples collected by coronavirus researchers from WIV in 2013.
  
  This isn't actually all that shocking. We have plenty of recent (but much less severe) examples where we could not find the intermediate transmission vector. Sometimes it is really hard to pin down, and it is my understanding that the nature of coronavirus' structure makes it harder than most.
  
  Because it I find it really upsetting that people are outraged about the behaviour of celebrities and other trivial things while their family members were actually killed through neglect by virology researchers.
  
  While people do screw up, I'd actually like you to actually stop and think about this for a second.
  We're in 2022. Scientists have been studying this in a lab for the better part of two years, with absolutely no scientific consensus (though a substantial scientific lean toward it being natural) as to origin.
  So one of two things happened:
  
  It walked out on some researcher's shoe, no one can prove it and ultimately it doesn't much matter one way or the other.
  The chinese government knew it originated from their lab.
  
  The latter seems, frankly speaking, unrealistic. They'd have no better way of proving that than we do now unless it was intentional, and given that it first infected their own population, that seems unlikey.
  On top of all that? Who really cares? No, really. Some 1 in a million accident at a lab? Or some 1 in a million bat interaction? Does either of these make what happened better? >
  
  
  On top of all that? Who really cares? No, really. Some 1 in a million accident at a lab? Or some 1 in a million bat interaction? Does either of these make what happened better?
  
  You're joking right? If it leaked from a lab because they were doing research into viruses without taking proper precautions, and 4 million people died, and it was covered up, then that doesn't matter? Seriously? 
  Those people don't deserve justice, you're okay with being lied to, and you don't want any assurances that this will never happen again?
  Just carry on, do it again it's cool, right? >
  
  
  You're joking right? If it leaked from a lab because they were doing research into viruses without taking proper precautions, and 4 million people died, and it was covered up, then that doesn't matter? Seriously?
  
  We're talking about an accident, right? Because no one credible has alleged that the WIV was lax or deficient.
  We don't punish people for accidents, last I checked. Negligence, sure. But think of the chain of events that needs to go on here for what you're suggesting to be true:
  
  They need to be working on viral strains of coronavirus (their job)
  They need to accidentally cause gain of function to allow it to infect humans, or they need to intentionally have done this something you have not proven and seems unlikely.
  It needs to accidentally leak.
  It needs to infect others.
  It needs to spread beyond any reasonable containment.
  
  At this point, you're talking an incredibly unlikely set of circumstances. One that is probably less likely than the disease just jumping species.
  What punishment do I inflict for that, who do I inflict it on? What justice does it serve? 
  Nothing about the Chinese response to Covid-19 helped its spread, their authoritarian measures sucked for their people, but they didn't make it jump ship to America and Europe.
  So who am I punishing exactly? The Chinese government for cracking down on their populence to try and stop the disease (and the public embarrassment that came with it) from spreading? Some researcher who made a human error? What possible justice could you possibly glean here?
  
  Just carry on, do it again it's cool, right?
  
  Do you really think that is the end result of this? You think every biolab in the world didn't get turned into a muppet with how far various governmental institutions were up their ass to make sure this didn't happen again?
  Even if you're right, WIV and every lab like it absolutely got a dressing down years ago at this point, what more could you possibly want? >
  
  
  Nicholas Wade alleged that they were doing this research in bio-safety level 2 conditions.
  
  And Nicolas Wade is a fraud and a hack, your point? To be specific, here is the full quote from Dr. Shi, with context. Science asked:
  
  "Given that coronavirus research in most places is done in BSL-2 or BSL-3 labs — and indeed, you WIV didn’t even have an operational BSL-4 until recently — why would you do any coronavirus experiments under BSL-4 conditions? …"
  
  She responded:
  
  "… The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories.
  After the BSL-4 laboratory in our institute has been put into operation, in accordance with the management regulations of BSL-4 laboratory, we have trained the scientific researchers in the BSL-4 laboratory using the low- pathogenic coronaviruses as model viruses, which aims to prepare for conducting the experimental activities of highly pathogenic microorganisms.
  After the COVID-19 outbreak, our country has stipulated that the cultivation and the animal infection experiments of SARS-CoV-2 should be carried out in BSL-3 laboratory or above. Since the BSL-3 laboratories in our institute do not have the hardware conditions to conduct experiments on non- human primates, and in order to carry out the mentioned research, our institute had applied to the governmental authorities and obtained the qualification to conduct experiments on SARS-CoV-2 for Wuhan P4 laboratory, in which the rhesus monkey animal model, etc. have been carried out.
  The experimental activities are supervised by our institute’s biosafety committee and complied with the biosafety regulations.…"
  
  So to be clear, most research on coronaviruses is done in BSL-2 Labs, as indicated by the questioner. Research at Wuhan was done at BSL-2 or BSL-3 labs. That is, they conducted their research at or above the accepted standard.
  Wade knows this, he read the actual article. He just lied to you (by omission) in assuming correctly that you did not.
  
  A dressing down? If I drink drive and kill someone I'll go to prison for manslaughter. They killed 4 million people.
  
  Again, no one has made any sort of credible allegation of negligence. We don't punish people for accidents. It is antithetical to punish someone for something outside of their control unless you prove that they did something wrong.
  You have not done so. You've just made allegations. And given that your allegations are based on the word of a fraud and a liar, you might want to consider how strong those allegations actually are. >
  
  
  And Nicolas Wade is a fraud and a hack
  
  Really? 
  
  So to be clear, most research on coronaviruses is done in BSL-2 Labs, as indicated by the questioner. Research at Wuhan was done at BSL-2 or BSL-3 labs. That is, they conducted their research at or above the accepted standard.
  
  Lol so she said they'll be doing it under BSL3+ after covid-19? A bit fucking late for that don't you think?
  
  Wade knows this, he read the actual article. He just lied to you (by omission) in assuming correctly that you did not.
  
  He didn't say that they weren't following their own safety guidelines, he alleged that those guidelines weren't good enough. I think the result speaks for itself.
  If I decide that "five and drive, but no more" and run a bunch of people over after having 4 drinks, then I still killed those people due to drink driving.
  
  You have not done so. You've just made allegations. And given that your allegations are based on the word of a fraud and a liar, you might want to consider how strong those allegations actually are.
  
  Please show me some evidence of his fraud or lies. Keep in mind that there's been a lot of money spent discrediting and slinging mud at the guy. So find something from before 2021 if you can, I bet you can't >
  
  
  Please show me some evidence of his fraud or lies.
  
  Why bother, when you just deliberately ignored the evidence that Wade lied about what Dr Shi said in the interview? >
  
  So in other words you're just slinging mud or repeating untrue claims made by others. You claimed that it wasn't negligence because they were following the letter of the law, while other people were warning that that wasn't enough? They did human pathogen research in safety conditions made for animal pathogen research, and 4 million people died because of it, but because it wasn't named as a specific threat it wasn't negligent? How could it be named as a specific threat if they were creating a new threat? >
  
  
  So in other words you're just slinging mud or repeating untrue claims made by others.
  
  That is rich coming from the person who is trying to double-down on defending someone who has deliberately misrepresented what was said in that Science interview.
  
  You claimed that it wasn't negligence because they were following the letter of the law, while other people were warning that that wasn't enough
  
  I never claimed anything, but why are you ignoring all the people who warned that wet markets in China should be shut down as they could result in the next pandemic - just like they did in the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s?
  Why do you ignore that 27 (66%) of the 41 in the earliest batch of COVID patients had a history of direct exposure to the Huanan seafood market (leading to the market being quickly shut down)?
  That is way more evidence of the wet market being the source than the coincidence of there being a lab in the same city. >
  
  
  The second biggest clue is the Chinese government's heavy handed response to it at the start, and their dishonesty throughout.
  
  Wait so are you arguing the Chinese government maliciously released it?
  Or 
  That some worker at a lab didn't wash their hands well enough or something before going home that caused the spread?
  Because if it's the second case the government might not even know. If patient zero didn't work at the lab then it would take a pretty big leap to assume that someone nearby got sick from the lab and not from a bat or some other vector >
  
  The alternative to your theory is that this developed in the wild.
  The facts that support this theory are:
  
  
  Humans have, over the centuries had things develop where our natural defences are not good enough. In the past these must have been naturally developed, as we did not have the science to develop them. 
  So this type of thing can 100% happen naturally 
  
  
  We have had labs handling dangerous things for over 70 years now. And this would be the first time that something escaped ( as evidenced by the fact that we have not, in the last 70 years, had something that kills 4 million people. 
  
  
  A lack of evidence can not be proof that something did or did not happen. Just because the natural development can not be traced, does not decrease that chances this developed naturally.
  So on balance, the most likely explanation is that this developed naturally.
  1. That has happened before.
  2. If labs were good at making dangerous things and bad at keeping them in, we would have had other out breaks. >
  
  
  If labs were good at making dangerous things and bad at keeping them in, we would have had other out breaks.
  
  Yeah you should look into this one because that's not true. Viruses have escaped from labs multiple times. The H1N1 flu pandemic was caused by a lab leak, and foot and mouth escaped from a UK lab and caused tons of cattle to be destroyed. Experts suspect it happens a couple of times a year, it's why we have biosafety level regulations - they're written in part by the blood of the 300,000 people killed by H1N1 >
  
  
  The single most convincing piece of evidence is that this bat 
  coronavirus emerged right next to the city that contains the world 
  leading center for bat coronavirus research. 2000 miles away from the 
  bats, in the 3rd closest city.
  
  You told only half the story here (and that part of the story is false as well, as Wuhan is well within reach of the bats that are currently the main suspects for covid). The other half of the story makes this piece of evidence even less convincing:
  
  The city has a known huge wet market
  The wet market was known to be problematic before the outbreak >
  
  Okay but what about all the others, like WIV's databases being taken offline after intelligence reports of infected researchers before the outbreak, the receipts for gain of function research funded by the US, the leaked DARPA proposal, the cover up via scientific journals and US tech companies, virologists saying off the record that they'll lose their livelihood if they say anything because they need to cooperate with China, the 100% match that was catalogued by WIV years earlier, and admissions that they did coronavirus research in unsafe conditions? >
  
  
  The single most convincing piece of evidence is that this bat coronavirus emerged right next to the city that contains the world leading center for bat coronavirus research.
  
  No such thing as "bat coronavirus."
  
  2000 miles away from the bats, in the 3rd closest city.
  
  If the lab was researching "bat coronavirus" then it wouldn't make sense that it was 2000 miles away from "the bats."
  3rd closest city to what? An intelligent argument?
  
  The second biggest clue is the Chinese government's heavy handed response to it at the start, and their dishonesty throughout.
  
  Yes, because what totalitarian governments are known for is their light handed responses, definitely suspicious.
  
  The next, the fact that no intermediate species was found after 3 years even though it's "scientific consensus" that it was transmitted from a bat to another species before jumping to humans.
  
  There often isn't an intermediate species, this isn't proof of anything.
  
  the cover up, Trump flapping his mouth etc
  
  Cover up of what? We all know about COVID...
  If Trump flapping his mouth is proof of a conspiracy then I guess birds aren't real. >
  
  Your evidence comes from entities you're not even sure is credible 100% of the time. >
  
  Everyone's does. I mean, it's all just words on a screen or a bunch of pixels at the end of the day, you can't believe anything 100% >
  
  Yeah so did I CYV? >
  
  No, I'm in my 40s so I was around before everyone had the internet. I'm from a time when truth wasn't absolute, everyone was full of shit and you didn't believe anything really unless you had really strong evidence. I think there's really strong evidence here >
  
  Listen here kiddo, I'm in my 80s and my great grandfather told me that "you shouldn't take everything you read online seriously".
  His great grandfather told him, then told me, "if a country's people could justify slavery by dehumanizing humans, then maybe the only person you can really trust is yo daddy".
  So idk of what your saying is really strong evidence >
  
  Well, uh, okay then. Thanks gramps. Maybe look at the articles I've linked in the thread and come to your own conclusions