International Two Peer-Reviewed Studies: Covid Originated in Wuhan Huanan Market

[The Audience]

It most certainly does. Because History shows us that we usually find the culprit. But weirdly, this time we can not.

Couple that with China even discounting the Wet Market theory and the fact a bio weapons lab just happened to be performing experiments with the virus that happened to have an outbreak....

Sometimes you need to just use common sense and not be a lapdog for the CCP

I dont think that is the case -we dont know the original host for a number of viruses, although we have a fair idea. In this instance, it is not a critical aspect of the understanding because as i said, animals that have been shown to be suitable intermediate hosts were being sold there; add to the fact that this paper is suggesting two animal spillovers means it could have been more than one animal species. As long as the pathway into humans can be shown via any one of those animals, the precise one isnt crucial.

 

[AWilder]

The articles I've read use the word "likely" to state the Market was the source.

Isn't it possible that someone from the Lab or a delivery person who was at the lab spread the virus in the market or to someone who went to the market?

Remaining agnostic on the origin but as previously leaning more towards the lab leak, because of how non transparent and obstructionist the Chinese gov. has been.

i agree. It's hard to trust anything from China when they refuse to let anyone outside investigate and their covid statistics are comical.

 

[MadNIghtKing]

Here’s an idea the UN should force China to close both the labs and wet markets(cutting up and eating every dang ole animal that was on Noah’s Ark including dogs). They won’t even have to fabricate fake WMDs because unlike Iraq, China is actually responsible for killing millions with a bio weapon.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Here’s an idea the UN should force China to close both the labs and wet markets(cutting up and eating every dang ole animal that was on Noah’s Ark including dogs). They won’t even have to fabricate fake WMDs because unlike Iraq, China is actually responsible for killing millions with a bio weapon.

-the UN
-FORCE

choose one.

 

[Dalarna3]

Lab tech probably sold A bat that he thought died of natural causes to the market that had COVID.

 

[Gunny]

Copying this from a Reddit thread on the topic. I also did a little background digging on the UK virologist quoted and he's been entirely invested in opposing any suggestion of a lab leak since day one. I'm sorry but there's just no intellectually honest way you could have felt certain about that, demonstrating zero doubts for two and a half years now as this guy has.


I don't think this article does a great job at summarizing this new research, specifically with respect to the caveats within each publication. Here are two glaring issues as far as I can tell:

1. The study about the Wuhan market doesn't really demonstrate anything other than the market was certainly a super-spreader event. Given that they "lack direct evidence of an intermediate animal infected with a SARS-CoV-2 progenitor virus either at the Huanan market or at a location connected to its supply chain," you can't conclude anything other than this market being the first major recorded human to human infection event. It doesn't provide evidence this was the site of spillover and we know for the ancestral and alpha strains, super-spreading events can often mask attempts at epidemiological contact tracing for single-transmission events.
2. The other study is molecularly interesting but relies on modelling based on really limited sample data from early 2020. Specifically they "simulated epidemics across a range of plausible epidemiological dynamics, our models represent a timeframe prior to the ascertainment of COVID-19 cases and sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 genomes and thus prior to when these models could be empirically validated." What this means is that its possible that sampling bias from those who fell really ill means that they're missing key intermediates, which would make the likelihood of a single MRCA far higher than under their current modelling. Perhaps the most glaring thing about this study is that their models rely on the assumption that both strains had equal doubling times. Which, we know mutations have a significant effect on doubling rates (hello, Omicron). It's possible that early competitive advantages from A' or B' lineages are why A and B lineages are so seemingly divergent, despite having similar estimates for when spillover would have occurred.

I think really this will not be sorted until (as BOTH papers remark) there is evidence for an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 in an intermediate animal. The fact that every recorded SARS-CoV-2 genome is wildly divergent from CoV reservoirs in the bat populations, despite no genomic evidence trail between these reservoirs and the A/B MRCA should leave us open the possibility that divergence occurred in the WIV labs.

 

[scoopj]

Pretty certain China even rescinded the wet market theory themselves well over a year ago. I personally find the idea that it WASN’T from the lab much more dubious. Either way, nobody is changing their mind at this point. That won’t happen until the lab leak theory is proven.

This guy is fecking brilliant.