[nameless912]

All I'm saying is when people say "this mutation is super rare therefore it MUST have been manmade!", I'm skeptical. Even the most stable DNA sequences have mutations occasionally, because mutations happen for a bunch of totally uncorrelated reasons. It could have been manmade, but it could have also been made by a stray cosmic ray. To say a particular sequence "proves" that the virus is manmade is...sketchy at best.

[dnautics]

Nobody is claiming proof. Don't move the goalposts.

[nameless912]

This article is....suggestive, to say the least. So I'm at least responding to the article.

[dekhn]

This article is worse than useless because it places a pseudoscientific veneer around something (to make it sound plausible) while still being almost certainly wrong.

[tata71]

Only gatekeepers would want to keep scientific evidence from commoners, instead of teaching them that said evidence isn't anywhere close to proof yet.

[dekhn]

every major university in the us contains physical copies of all the published articles (IE, people who wanted to learn more, but couldn't afford to subscribe to every journal), annd the rest are on arxiv. Nobody is gatekeeping the evidence.

The reality is that average people simply aren't qualified to deal with the subtlety and complexity of ambiguous data, and the adversaries of public health can just make a video that lies and convince millions of people with seductive, but wrong, ideas. It's extremely rare to have a society which is scientifically savvy enough to understand these sorts of things.

[jacquesm]

What evidence?