Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Gong back to Andersen's original article, I think everything from "Finding peculiar features" explains it better. I''d be interested to see Andersen himself come out and counter the Ward article.
|
“Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,”
The problem with the Andersen paper is it started with the above black and white statement in the abstract.
Yet in their conclusions they state:
"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here."
"However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."
I'm not a virologist or biologist but logically they shoot themselves in the foot with their body of evidence and conclusions. That doesn't mean they are wrong but they don't actually provide any real evidence to support their hypothesis which they present as a theory.