| I've done a bit of reading from the experts. I read the main debunking article about this lab theory, and personally did not really understand why the authors were so confident their evidence eliminated the lab theory. - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 Their two claims are: 1) ace2 binding is much better than humans can engineer with computer simulations 2) virus does not come from any known backbones Regarding #1, I've found another article where the author was able to induce zoonosis from a feline coronavirus to a mouse by exposing the virus to mouse genetic material. So, the fact humans cannot directly engineer zoonosis very well does not preclude lab induced zoonosis. - https://www.nature.com/articles/news030331-4 In fact, this is a theory posited at the end of another debunking article, which doesn't actually debunk that particular theory. - https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-complicate... Regarding #2, as I mentioned before, it seems this line of reasoning is a non sequitur. A virus backbone used to create a bioweapon is exactly the sort of sequence you are not going to upload to NCBI. The fact the reasoning does not seem very solid in what is considered the official and definitive debunking of the conspiracy theory is itself odd. So, it is my reading of some respected virologists that in part motivates me down this rabbit hole. Anyways, I greatly appreciate your feedback. I'll keep learning more about virology, and hopefully get some clarity on the whole matter. |
I'm going to suggest to you that the reason you don't find the reasoning in the debunking to be solid is that you don't understand the field very well. I don't know what your specialty is, but imagine someone who has no experience in it. They might have a lot of weird conceptions about your specialty, they might have no idea how things work in your field, they might find a lot of things surprising. Things that you find obvious might seem dubious to a novice. The arguments made in the debunking are considered very strong by experts in the field. That's what matters.