Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Covid-19 likely to be man made
Comments
-
Deleted User wrote: »To develop vaccines against viruses that don't exist yet..
That's the acceptable stated goal of gain of function..
Bio weapons is the unmentionable secondary goal..
It's a dual use technology..
I've posted a video of fauci saying this to Congress in 2012 somewhere in this thread..
According to you, is this virus man-made, yes or no?0 -
Sorry, but that's still not an answer to my question.
Why not?
Sorry, I don't have a better answer. I'm going to wait until the US government issues it's report or makes an announcement and judge it then. If for example they say we concluded the virus had a natural origin and did not leak from the Wuhan lab and give no evidence then I would not find that convincing. If they for example were to provide evidence from medical, genomic and/or statistical studies that the virus could not have been engineered or leak from the lab I would be convinced.
As for discounting bioweapon theories etc., on this question I only concern myself with what is known, and not what is imagined. I'm not aware of any bioweapon research on coronaviruses, and if this were a bioweapon it's not a very good one. The technology certainly exists to build it from scratch, but there's no evidence anyone is doing such work.0 -
But honestly, I think this is a bit of cop out. The investigation is either genuine or it isn't.geospatial wrote: »Sorry, I don't have a better answer. I'm going to wait until the US government issues it's report or makes an announcement and judge it then. If for example they say we concluded the virus had a natural origin and did not leak from the Wuhan lab and give no evidence then I would not find that convincing. If they for example were to provide evidence from medical, genomic and/or statistical studies that the virus could not have been engineered or leak from the lab I would be convinced.
It would be a bit dishonest to claim that it's 100% honest if it concludes one way and then that it's 100% dishonest if it concludes the other.
And since it wouldn't make sense for them to announce this investigation if they were involved in a cover up, in my opinion the investigation is legitimate.
If you believe the investigation is or might be illegitimate, why would they announce the investigation?
So you would agree that such ideas, or the idea that the virus was released on purpose to cause a pandemic are all conspiracy theories?geospatial wrote: »As for discounting bioweapon theories etc., on this question I only concern myself with what is known, and not what is imagined. I'm not aware of any bioweapon research on coronaviruses, and if this were a bioweapon it's not a very good one. The technology certainly exists to build it from scratch, but there's no evidence anyone is doing such work.0 -
geospatial wrote: »Sorry, I don't have a better answer. I'm going to wait until the US government issues it's report or makes an announcement and judge it then. If for example they say we concluded the virus had a natural origin and did not leak from the Wuhan lab and give no evidence then I would not find that convincing. If they for example were to provide evidence from medical, genomic and/or statistical studies that the virus could not have been engineered or leak from the lab I would be convinced.
As for discounting bioweapon theories etc., on this question I only concern myself with what is known, and not what is imagined. I'm not aware of any bioweapon research on coronaviruses, and if this were a bioweapon it's not a very good one. The technology certainly exists to build it from scratch, but there's no evidence anyone is doing such work.
Your answer is perfect, you don't need to provide an explanation to why such experiments are being conducted.
Unfortunately accidents happen. I'm pretty sure China didnt mean to create a pandemic.0 -
double post0
-
Advertisement
-
It would be a bit dishonest to claim that it's 100% honest if it concludes one way and then that it's 100% dishonest if it concludes the other.
Has someone said that? I welcome the investigation, it should have started in February 2020. One of the reasons it didn't start then appears to be those advising the US government were adamantly stating publicly it was not a lab leak and not engineered, which in retrospect looks a premature conclusion.
My biggest concern is the damage being done to the scientific community, as there are serious questions being asked and so far no credible answers. Saying we do not do or fund gain of function research is not helping as it sounds like you are trying to hide something. There is ample research published and scientists on record describing such research, denying it goes on is what's dishonest and stupid imo.
Do you agree denying gain of function research on SARS viruses is going on (in the US, China, and other countries) and funded by the US government is dishonest? Does it raise any concerns for you?
Is the US government capable of a cover up or lying? Of course they are, as are the Chinese govt, and probably all governments worldwide. The lab origin hypothesis could be cleared up very quickly if China would allow an actual credible WHO investigation at the WIV, looking at lab notebooks and unpublished research, with someone other than Peter Daszak who is on record as saying we didn't ask to see their data and don't need to look at their data. A remarkable statement when you think about it.
Yes, I would agree speculation about bioweapons etc. are conspiracy theories.0 -
I've asked the same question many times, but no one seems all that interested in giving a straight answer to it. Yourself included.geospatial wrote: »Has someone said that? I welcome the investigation,
Do you believe the current US investigation is legitimate?
If you don't, or believe that it might not be, why do you believe they announced they were doing it?
If their goal was to cover it up, why add fuel to the fire?
You have not answered this question directly.
Is there a reason for this?
You're kind of asking 3 or 4 different things in that question that are confounding several issues.geospatial wrote: »Do you agree denying gain of function research on SARS viruses is going on (in the US, China, and other countries) and funded by the US government is dishonest? Does it raise any concerns for you?
Do I believe that gain of function research is going on? Yes.
Do I believe that it was going on at Wuhan? Dunno, it's possible.
Do I believe that the US was funding this research in general? Dunno.
Do I believe that the US was funding this specific research specifically in Wuhan? Dunno. This is what Fauci was specifically denying, and if it's shown that he was lying about that, then it's dishonest and bad.
However there's also several other scenarios that could be at play here. For example, it could be that the US funds were going into Wuhan, but then those funds were unknown to the US were being used for gain of function research. This would be very embarrassing for the US and would be something they would like to cover up. This is of course just one idea with several levels of knowledge and culpability.
And all of it is completely separate from the issue of the origin of the virus.
All of these points could still be entirely true even if the virus is 100% natural.
Great, so then you also agree that dismissing them as conspiracy theories and not taking them seriously is completely fair?geospatial wrote: »Yes, I would agree speculation about bioweapons etc. are conspiracy theories.0 -
geospatial wrote: »Yes, I would agree speculation about bioweapons etc. are conspiracy theories.
So this thread basically, which is about Covid-19 being deliberately created by man (the Chinese)0 -
geospatial wrote: »Has someone said that? I welcome the investigation, it should have started in February 2020. One of the reasons it didn't start then appears to be those advising the US government were adamantly stating publicly it was not a lab leak and not engineered, which in retrospect looks a premature conclusion.
My biggest concern is the damage being done to the scientific community, as there are serious questions being asked and so far no credible answers. Saying we do not do or fund gain of function research is not helping as it sounds like you are trying to hide something. There is ample research published and scientists on record describing such research, denying it goes on is what's dishonest and stupid imo.
Do you agree denying gain of function research on SARS viruses is going on (in the US, China, and other countries) and funded by the US government is dishonest? Does it raise any concerns for you?
Is the US government capable of a cover up or lying? Of course they are, as are the Chinese govt, and probably all governments worldwide. The lab origin hypothesis could be cleared up very quickly if China would allow an actual credible WHO investigation at the WIV, looking at lab notebooks and unpublished research, with someone other than Peter Daszak who is on record as saying we didn't ask to see their data and don't need to look at their data. A remarkable statement when you think about it.
Yes, I would agree speculation about bioweapons etc. are conspiracy theories.
a) The US government at the time veered from denying it existed to dismissing it entirely at the behest of their commander in chief.
b) It's completely disingenuous to only accept the outcome of the current investigation if it goes the way you want it to, you either trust the investigation and rely on it's conclusions or you don't, the conclusions reached shouldn't impact on your judgement of the credibility of the investigation.
There is no damage being done to the scientific community, there is evidence being studied and conclusions from that evidence. All evidence so far points to a zoonotic origin, zero evidence so far points to a man made origin as admitted by one of the posters positing a man-made origin story. If there was any single shred of evidence for a gain of function origin it would have been presented by now. Such evidence would be apparent and easy to verify, it would also be impossible to cover up given the amount of eyes on the virus by the scientific community.0 -
a) The US government at the time veered from denying it existed to dismissing it entirely at the behest of their commander in chief.
The reporting on this suggests there were individuals within the US government pushing for an investigation of a lab leak as early as Feb 2020, but there was a lot of push back and it was never pursued. What appears to have driven the current investigation are (i) the information being uncovered about the 3 sick researchers from the WIH, and (ii) the statement from 18 prominent scientists, including Ralph Baric, calling for a transparent objective investigation.
Who has said or suggested the upcoming report from the US government should only be accepted if the outcome "goes the way you want it to"?0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins
So it seems there was just a cover up..
Complete with actual death threats..0 -
Deleted User wrote: »https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins
So it seems there was just a cover up..
Complete with actual death threats..
You're back, to ask my earlier question, according to you, Covid-19 is man-made?0 -
-
-
There is no damage being done to the scientific community, there is evidence being studied and conclusions from that evidence. All evidence so far points to a zoonotic origin, zero evidence so far points to a man made origin as admitted by one of the posters positing a man-made origin story. If there was any single shred of evidence for a gain of function origin it would have been presented by now. Such evidence would be apparent and easy to verify, it would also be impossible to cover up given the amount of eyes on the virus by the scientific community.
There is no damage to the scientific community? Scientists have been receiving death threats, would you regard that as damaging? Gain of function research is very much in the spotlight, with groups of scientists taking very strong positions on both sides. What's your opinion of gain of function research that most certainly could have led to a virus like SARS-2, and most certainly could have leaked from a lab as there have been numerous leaks of dangerous pathogens from labs.
Can you summarize the scientific evidence that the SARS-CoV 2 virus is zootonic in nature and rules out it being the result of signal passaging experiments or genetic engineering experiments in a lab. The evidence is that the virus is a chimera and has unique features not seen in other bat coronaviruses, it could have come from a natural source via recombination or been created in a lab. A virus as the result of lab serial passaging would look no different genomically to a zootonic virus and it is doubtful if one genetically engineered would look different.
As I said my personal belief is the evidence favors a natural source, but both should be investigated.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Do you believe it was naturally occurring?..
Of course. Few scientists openly believe it was man-made, the notion is a conspiracy theory with little support.0 -
That would require all scientist worldwide to be signed up to the same idea of keeping the secret and not wanting to risk giving their international colleagues a bad name.
Not only that. If there was a lab origin, and Fauci had deliberately lied about it, it would be a golden opportunity for scientists in a country that is an enemy of both the US and China - like, say, Russia - to publish a scientific, peer reviewed study that proves the lab origin.
Double points for embarrassing both the US and China.
It would not only mean giving a bad name to scientists, but also a clear political advantage.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 23675
Very similar to the easiest way to "prove" that the moon landings were not faked is that Russia never claimed them to be faked. If there was something in the conspiracy then there are plenty of capable other countries who'd be delighted to present the case for it to discredit their enemies.Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »Not only that. If there was a lab origin, and Fauci had deliberately lied about it, it would be a golden opportunity for scientists in a country that is an enemy of both the US and China - like, say, Russia - to publish a scientific, peer reviewed study that proves the lab origin.
Double points for embarrassing both the US and China.
It would not only mean giving a bad name to scientists, but also a clear political advantage.0 -
I've asked the same question many times, but no one seems all that interested in giving a straight answer to it. Yourself included.
Do you believe the current US investigation is legitimate?
If you don't, or believe that it might not be, why do you believe they announced they were doing it?
If their goal was to cover it up, why add fuel to the fire?
You have not answered this question directly.
Is there a reason for this?
I'm a bit confused as I believe I have answered your question, but here goes again.
Of course I believe it's legitimate, I've said it should have been started in February 2020. As I've also previously answered I believe it was finally started recently because of the intelligence on 3 lab researchers being sick and hospitalized in late 2019, and the statement to Science magazine by 18 very credible scientists calling for a full and transparent investigation. Perhaps more intelligence we don't know about.
If there was a cover up, it was early on in 2020 during the prior administration, which wouldn't surprise me if true. I see no reason to think the current administration would conduct a cover up, so I look forward to seeing the results of their investigation.0 -
If the US investigation lends any weight to the lab-leak theory it will be lauded by conspiracy theorists, then quickly turned on for "hiding the real truth" of something "more extreme"
If the conclusion is that the zoonotic link is more likely it will be attacked by conspiracy theorists
Predictable, but calling it now0 -
Advertisement
-
You're kind of asking 3 or 4 different things in that question that are confounding several issues.
Do I believe that gain of function research is going on? Yes.
Do I believe that it was going on at Wuhan? Dunno, it's possible.
Do I believe that the US was funding this research in general? Dunno.
Do I believe that the US was funding this specific research specifically in Wuhan? Dunno. This is what Fauci was specifically denying, and if it's shown that he was lying about that, then it's dishonest and bad.
However there's also several other scenarios that could be at play here. For example, it could be that the US funds were going into Wuhan, but then those funds were unknown to the US were being used for gain of function research. This would be very embarrassing for the US and would be something they would like to cover up. This is of course just one idea with several levels of knowledge and culpability.
And all of it is completely separate from the issue of the origin of the virus.
All of these points could still be entirely true even if the virus is 100% natural.
Fauci was quite specific, he said the NIH are not funding any gain of function in Wuhan and furthermore that gain of function research was not going on at Ralph Baric's lab in UNC who collaborated with the Wuhan lab, although he clarified that by stating if it is GOF it's per the guidelines. I think the latter statement is the key to understanding this murky topic, what he is really saying is that the specific research at UNC and Wuhan does not come under the NIH definition of GOF, or an exemption was granted.
I think any reasonable person would conclude Fauci is being disingenuous if they research the history of GOF, the moratorium placed on GOF by the US government in 2014, and the published research from both UNC and WIV. Inserting spike proteins from one coronavirus into another coronavirus backbone and testing it in mice to see if it can infect them and cause disease (it did) is clearly GOF, and clearly comes under the area of research the US govt were worried about in 2014.
I could be wrong and open to correction but it appears to me that UNC GOF research on SARS coronaviruses ended after the moratorium (they state in the 2015 paper the work was done prior to the moratorium), but continued in Wuhan up to 2019. The evidence seems to support it, including Peter Daszak talking about the research and how important it was, and the specific grants describing the work to be funded.0 -
I'm a bit confused now.geospatial wrote: »I'm a bit confused as I believe I have answered your question, but here goes again.
Of course I believe it's legitimate, I've said it should have been started in February 2020. As I've also previously answered I believe it was finally started recently because of the intelligence on 3 lab researchers being sick and hospitalized in late 2019, and the statement to Science magazine by 18 very credible scientists calling for a full and transparent investigation. Perhaps more intelligence we don't know about.
If there was a cover up, it was early on in 2020 during the prior administration, which wouldn't surprise me if true. I see no reason to think the current administration would conduct a cover up, so I look forward to seeing the results of their investigation.
Why, if you believe the investigation is legitimate and there's no conspiracy to cover up anything, would the investigation not provide adequate evidence for their conclusion?
If there's no cover up, and the investigation is legitimate, then surely if it concludes that there's no evidence of a lab leak or that a lab leak isn't possible, there'd be no reason to doubt that conclusion.
Yup, this would be quite the scandal if true.I think any reasonable person would conclude Fauci is being disingenuous if they research the history of GOF, the moratorium placed on GOF by the US government in 2014, and the published research from both UNC and WIV. Inserting spike proteins from one coronavirus into another coronavirus backbone and testing it in mice to see if it can infect them and cause disease (it did) is clearly GOF, and clearly comes under the area of research the US govt were worried about in 2014.
But most conspiracy theorists aren't interested in such things as it isn't very exciting for them.
Hence all the theories about the virus being man made or released on purpose etc etc.0 -
I'm a bit confused now.
Why, if you believe the investigation is legitimate and there's no conspiracy to cover up anything, would the investigation not provide adequate evidence for their conclusion?
If there's no cover up, and the investigation is legitimate, then surely if it concludes that there's no evidence of a lab leak or that a lab leak isn't possible, there'd be no reason to doubt that conclusion.
As I have now said at least five times, my expectation is for a report with adequate evidence, I would be very disappointed if it were not. My worry is that there won't be enough evidence to reach a conclusion, which would be a terrible outcome. I'm truly sorry for your confusion, but I honestly don't know how to help you further on this specific question. How about let's wait for the report and we can discuss it then.
My hope is that clear evidence is found for both natural origin and against a lab leak, the alternative is a bit scary. The reality unfortunately is that more and more Americans are now convinced of a lab leak, and not just Republicans. This is the latest polling from YouGovAmerica. 58% of Americans believe it was a lab leak, up from 49% a year ago. Unsurprising that 77% of Republicans believe that, but a bit surprising that 65% of Independents also believe it and 43% of Democrats. Most shocking is that 42% believe it was actually made in a lab, and only 13% believe it came from a natural source in the wild.
Those are shocking statistics. Now there's obviously a minority who will never believe anything from their government, but a 3:1 ratio of those who think it's man made versus natural?
Why do you think so many Americans believe in a lab leak? Why do more believe it now versus last year?
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/06/02/most-americans-now-believe-coronavirus-originated-0 -
Well the confusion comes from your response to my initial question.geospatial wrote: »As I have now said at least five times, my expectation is for a report with adequate evidence, I would be very disappointed if it were not. My worry is that there won't be enough evidence to reach a conclusion, which would be a terrible outcome. I'm truly sorry for your confusion, but I honestly don't know how to help you further on this specific question. How about let's wait for the report and we can discuss it then.
I asked if you'd accept the conclusion if they said there was no evidence for a lab leak or that the lab leak wasn't true.
Rather than a straight answer you went down a tangent about the possibility of them not providing adequate evidence for these conclusions, which implies that they weren't making those conclusions fairly.
You are now saying that you don't believe they are going to do this.
So again, if the report concludes that there is no evidence for a lab leak or that a lab leak is not possible, will you accept this conclusion? Yes or no?
If they don't have enough evidence to reach these conclusions, then they wouldn't be making those conclusions I'm asking you about.
If they are making that conclusion it's because they have good reason to. And as you said, there's no cover up.
So why all the hedging and evasiveness?
I think a lot of Americans believe this because a lot of news, and alt news are confusing the ideas of a lab leak, a man made virus and other conspiracies.geospatial wrote: »The reality unfortunately is that more and more Americans are now convinced of a lab leak, and not just Republicans. This is the latest polling from YouGovAmerica. 58% of Americans believe it was a lab leak, up from 49% a year ago.
Why do you think so many Americans believe in a lab leak? Why do more believe it now versus last year?
They might be convinced, but this conclusion isn't being made from the evidence as there is no evidence to support a lab leak.
Americans believe a lot of stuff.
A large chunk believe that the election was rigged.
A sizable portion believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
I'm not sure what the relevance is.0 -
Based on what I’ve read, it’s highly unlikely it’s man made as the hallmarks of that would be very easily detected in the virus genome and it has been extensively analysed by loads of scientists and is public knowledge.
The lab leak theory never seemed implausible to me. It’s very possible someone was doing research on bat coronaviruses, very likely with good intentions, as there was very serious concern about SARS & MERS type epidemics and there were attempts to identify risks and develop potential vaccines etc
Accidents can happen.0 -
Well the confusion comes from your response to my initial question.
I asked if you'd accept the conclusion if they said there was no evidence for a lab leak or that the lab leak wasn't true.
Rather than a straight answer you went down a tangent about the possibility of them not providing adequate evidence for these conclusions, which implies that they weren't making those conclusions fairly.
You are now saying that you don't believe they are going to do this.
So again, if the report concludes that there is no evidence for a lab leak or that a lab leak is not possible, will you accept this conclusion? Yes or no?
There was no tangent. I would accept any result as long as it is comes with credible evidence. I would question a report that states an outcome with no or limited evidence. What evidence would I find compelling? The location data on the first few hundred cases in Wuhan in December, were they in the district around the wet market or in the district where the WIV is located. The data from the WIV showing the inventory of bat coronaviruses they had at that location, and any studies done on them. We know they collected thousands of samples, only research on a small number of viruses have been published.
Now we both agree that the CCP do not want to release this data, but I happen to believe the US government has the ability and leverage to demand it. It is unacceptable after over 3 million deaths that the CCP refuse to share the details of the work that was being done in the WIV and have kept it hidden since Nov 2019.
Do you believe the recent WHO investigation was credible? I don't, it was essentially what the CCP wanted reported. Do you think it was credible to go to Wuhan and not ask for lab data? Do you think it was credible to go to Wuhan having already excluded the possibility of a lab leak?
If the report backed up with credible evidence concludes there is no evidence for a lab leak or a lab leak is not possible, then yes I will absolutely accept it. It is my hope actually.0 -
But you keep adding this caveat after saying that you don't believe that the investigate would not back up their conclusion.geospatial wrote: »There was no tangent. I would accept any result as long as it is comes with credible evidence. I would question a report that states an outcome with no or limited evidence.
If they conclude that there's no evidence or that the lab leak is false, then they're obviously will be giving their evidence for this.
So why do you believe that they might not supply adequate evidence? You've already said that the investigation isn't part of a cover up and is legitimiate and serious. What other reason would cause them to make a false conclusion without proper evidence?
I do believe the WHO investigation was credible. I haven't seen any solid reason to believe otherwise.geospatial wrote: »Do you believe the recent WHO investigation was credible? I don't, it was essentially what the CCP wanted reported. Do you think it was credible to go to Wuhan and not ask for lab data? Do you think it was credible to go to Wuhan having already excluded the possibility of a lab leak?0 -
FuzzyThinking wrote: »Based on what I’ve read, it’s highly unlikely it’s man made as the hallmarks of that would be very easily detected in the virus genome and it has been extensively analysed by loads of scientists and is public knowledge.
There are many credible scientists who had and still have serious doubts about natural origin.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/18/1021030/coronavirus-leak-wuhan-lab-scientists-conspiracy/0 -
I do believe the WHO investigation was credible. I haven't seen any solid reason to believe otherwise.
How could it be credible when they didn't investigate the possibility of a lab leak? Do you think it's credible to go to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and not ask to see their data? If your goal is to eliminate the possibility the SARS-2 virus was in their inventory or the possibility it may have evolved in their lab during research experiments?
Do you think it's credible that the only senior member of the team from the US was Peter Daszak, the individual who was funding WIV research and had campaigned to fellow research virologists in early Feb 2020 to dismiss any possibility of a lab leak and label anyone who questioned his opinion a conspiracy theorist?
Do you believe Peter Daszak had any conflict of interest in writing his letter in early February 2020, or any conflict of interest in the WHO and Lancet investigations?
It doesn't sound like you are that interested in actually investigating the origins of Covid, if you believe the WHO investigation was credible. Why is the US undertaking a new investigation if the WHO investigation was credible? For the same reason 18 prominent scientists wrote recently in support of an open transparent investigation. It's long overdue.0 -
Advertisement
-
Again, you seem to have missed my question:
Could you answer it now please?If they conclude that there's no evidence or that the lab leak is false, then they're obviously will be giving their evidence for this.
So why do you believe that they might not supply adequate evidence? You've already said that the investigation isn't part of a cover up and is legitimiate and serious. What other reason would cause them to make a false conclusion without proper evidence?
But they did investigate the possibility of a lab leak.geospatial wrote: »How could it be credible when they didn't investigate the possibility of a lab leak? Do you think it's credible to go to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and not ask to see their data? If your goal is to eliminate the possibility the SARS-2 virus was in their inventory or the possibility it may have evolved in their lab during research experiments?
They specifically addressed it in the conclusion.
Why are you claiming that they didn't?
I think what you are doing is a misrepresentation here.geospatial wrote: »Do you think it's credible that the only senior member of the team from the US was Peter Daszak, the individual who was funding WIV research and had campaigned to fellow research virologists in early Feb 2020 to dismiss any possibility of a lab leak and label anyone who questioned his opinion a conspiracy theorist?
Why do you believe he was doing this?
Also, since you believe he was involved in this cover up, why didn't his investigation completely rule out the idea of a lab leak?
Nope.geospatial wrote: »Do you believe Peter Daszak had any conflict of interest in writing his letter in early February 2020, or any conflict of interest in the WHO and Lancet investigations?
lol, why wouldn't I be?geospatial wrote: »It doesn't sound like you are that interested in actually investigating the origins of Covid, if you believe the WHO investigation was credible.
I don't know the specific reasons why they are launching a new investigation.geospatial wrote: »Why is the US undertaking a new investigation if the WHO investigation was credible? For the same reason 18 prominent scientists wrote recently in support of an open transparent investigation. It's long overdue.
Perhaps they are working on new information that was not known or available at the time of the WHO investigation?
Has the US said directly that the WHO investigation was fraudulent or not credible? Has the US said the conclusions were false?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement