DannyTS
TUG Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 5,753
- Reaction score
- 3,076
- Points
- 348
I don't know why I am being quoted by Danny here. I said nothing about the Lancet magazine nor is there anything in the articles that I quoted about the Lancet.
As far as what is found in Lancet, I think it should be noted that Lancet itself has not taken a position on the origin. What is being referenced are three letters that they published. In other words, there is a difference of opinion among the readers of Lancet.
I did reference a story I saw on Yahoo that leaned toward the natural origin theory in that I thought that readers of this thread should be aware of both sides of the arguments. That story was breaking news. Nature (a very well respected science journal) has now published a story on that study (link) but notes that the study has not been peer reviewed. Their account of the study is worth reading.
In closing, I still maintain that the jury is out and I am not totally convinced by any of the articles that I have seen proclaiming that the virus was created in the Wuhan lab nor articles that claim that the virus had a natural origin. Actually, I would add a third alternative. The origin is in bats, but guano from those bats, along with the guano from many other bats, was brought to the Wuhan lab for study, but given the poor safety measures of the lab, the virus escaped from there. In other words, not purposely created, but the Wuhan lab is responsible for its escape.
Sorry for being cryptic in my comment, I quoted you because it actually presents both sides of the argument which is exactly your position.