On: Our Long Bets and Predictions about 02020

[DoingIsLearning]

> It's not 'a lot of evidence' either way.

It presents 22 verifiable and relevant references. It unequivocally presents information which makes a 'wet-market' theory stand on a weak foundation.

I keep asking the same question to these accounts that question the validity of this 'lab accident' theory:

Can you provide verifiable evidence for the widely accepted 'wet-market' theory?

[throwaway_pdp09 → DoingIsLearning]

You appear unable to read to the end, in which I copy/paste a conclusion of the researchers you cite.

> Can you provide verifiable evidence for the widely accepted 'wet-market' theory?

Can you provide evidence that it's not. Onus is on you as you claim otherwise. And I've already quoted a conclusion which you seem to be struggling with.

There is not enough evidence to conclude anything yet. There may never be.

[randallsquared → throwaway_pdp09]

> Onus is on you as you claim otherwise.

Both the wet-market and accidental-release claims need evidence; they don't exclude all other possibilities.

[DoingIsLearning → randallsquared]

It's gaslighting from a throwaway account, at some point we just have to accept that no platform is immune to this and we carry on.