I agree.
Since you're still new here you may not be acquainted with @asp3's methods. He is open minded, rigorously looks at evidence, and provides links from credible sources to explain and support what he's learned.
It may be offensive, to some, I'll grant you that.
Yep... did a little more digging and found more.
Data published by the Wuhan Wuchang District Health Bureau state that the highest concentration of infections in the early phase of the outbreak occurred in the residential areas along Huanghelou and Ziyang streets, both located within the four miles between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Biological Preparations Institute.
Based on the available SCIENTIFIC evidence, the COVID-19 virus was the product of “gain of function” research, not a natural transmission from an animal host to humans.
There are only 2 reasons for conducting "gain of function" research, (A) to understand the structural features and actions of a virus in order to create a vaccine in anticipation of a potential disease outbreak or (B) to create a biological weapon. Or both. Kind of makes you wonder.
As is often the case, reality usually goes far beyond perception and whatever propaganda is being pushed by the media and/or political organizations. Near the top of the list of suspects not to be trusted is the UN and its various divisions.Yep... did a little more digging and found more.
Data published by the Wuhan Wuchang District Health Bureau state that the highest concentration of infections in the early phase of the outbreak occurred in the residential areas along Huanghelou and Ziyang streets, both located within the four miles between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Biological Preparations Institute.
Based on the available SCIENTIFIC evidence, the COVID-19 virus was the product of “gain of function” research, not a natural transmission from an animal host to humans.
There are only 2 reasons for conducting "gain of function" research, (A) to understand the structural features and actions of a virus in order to create a vaccine in anticipation of a potential disease outbreak or (B) to create a biological weapon. Or both. Kind of makes you wonder.
Do what you want, but I would recommend you not suggest Scientific American or Science News (along with the WHO) as being reputable sources. SA once was but has become more a populat science rag with political overtones , having recently endorsed a presidential candidate. Sorry, but credibile scientific sources don't engage in political propaganda or promote things like race theory/baiting. Look to medical sources for things on COVID and virology (e.g., NEJM) . Also, it is important to realize that magazines today have had to change to stay in business, which often means becoming more populist/political.
Several quick thoughts: First, most of the information coming out of China is tightly controlled by the CCP. If you had ever been inside a communist dictatorship country, then you would know that you only get to see and interview who and what they want. Get too far afield and they send you packing or worse. Second, foreign press and news sources cannot get too far afield of the part line if they want to stay. Third, the real news from such places comes through channels that cannot, for all the obvious reasons, be readily identified. Welcome to the real world.
