you said you were not finding it so i'm posting a link to the study i found quite compelling
A Proposed Origin for SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19
Pandemic
https://www.independentsciencenews....gin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/
by Jonathan Latham, PhD and Allison Wilson, PhD
Gaius; I'm not sure what is going on with you. Here is your reply to me earlier where I had told you I was reading that article and you indicated there was a new study which I should look at. Your words in bold.
This is exemplary of my concern that you are perhaps reading too quickly. If I have made a blunder myself please do tell me.
The result of you telling me there was a new study was me searching this wretched thread for the non-existent study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Microbeman View Post
even Microbeman? Do you think it may be time to tone down the ego so you can view things objectively?
did you not just post that you agreed with the leak hypothesis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Microbeman View Post
Gaius; I have not paid any attention to this thread until now and I have yet to read through everything. I began reading the article you linked by Wilson and Latham and got interrupted by work. In the interim, I'm guessing the gist is to support that the virus escaped from the lab.
This is something I suspected from the onset and I do understand there was research collaboration with a lab in North Carolina which was discontinued over a year before the outbreak. I don't know if that is mentioned in the article. I'll try to read through it and the thread, given time.
btw you should read the new study a few pages back, it takes all the facts we know into account in making the theory.
Now regarding the Wilson/Latham article which I read through. First be aware that this is not a study. It is an article bordering on being a review.
I did find the article very interesting and logically presented. Some of the language was unscientific; eg. switching from 'theory' to 'hypothesis'; lungs vs lower respiratory, etc.
I have read other articles which support their hypothesis of the virus infecting a lab technician which over all makes more logical sense [to me] than an infection through the 'wet' market. I have yet to hear something sensible to support this idea.
I have downloaded the full thesis regarding infection of the miners but have not read it so I have no opinion regarding the passaging through co-hosting or co-infection resultant in rapid adaptation of the virus to human infection. It is a kinda logical hypothesis.
I'm not sure how correct the authors are in the assertion that the virus has not evolved. I have read of quite discernible mutations in the virus; eg. what came to the west coast vs. the east coast of the USA. However I am no virologist and do not comprehend all the definitions of viral mutations.
Beyond the scope of the article, I think it unlikely this was intended as a weapon. If it was, the handling of it would have been more secure and release would have been targeted.
The blame game is a little ridiculous at this point, especially considering the US, through a lab in NC [I believe] was engaged in collaborative research with the Wuhan lab.
The better concern may be; should we be creating such inroads for viruses by deliberately passaging them into human cells and humanized mice?