A US researcher who worked with a Wuhan lab gives 4 reasons why a coronavirus leak would be unlikely

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Matthew Pottinger, Trump's deputy national security adviser, asked intelligence agencies in January to look into the idea of a Wuhan lab leak, The New York Times reported. But CIA officers didn't find any evidence.

There's a reason for that, according to Jonna Mazet, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Davis, who has worked with and trained WIV researchers in the past.

"I know that we worked together to develop very stringent safety protocol, and it's highly unlikely this was a lab accident," she told Business Insider. Here are four reasons why.

Reason 1: The lab's samples don't match the new coronavirus

-more-

https://news.yahoo.com/us-researcher-worked-wuhan-virology-121100299.html

[Roland99]

1. Reading more and more that intelligence community thinking it was an accidental release

Still under investigation and that’s likely why Twitler stated he knew it was from the lab but couldn’t say why

*IF* that’s the case, it goes to the criminal negligence of this admin.

‪Don’t forget! In July 2019, @realDonaldTrump‬ removed the CDC team that worked with the Chinese at that Wuhan lab. They likely would’ve been able to help contain or inform after #COVID19 started spreading.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-cdc-exclusiv-idUSKBN21910S

[smirkymonkey]

2. Kicked and bookmarked!

[JCMach1]

3. Clears throat: Ebola Reston

Spillover here in the good old USA nearly led to an Ebola outbreak in the nation's Capitol. Only the luck of it being completely a monkey Ebola saved us.

[Igel]

4. I don't see 4 reasons.

I see two claims and perhaps 2 reasons, perhaps 3 claims and 1 reason.

The first claim is their database doesn't have a record. To which the reply isto ask if records can be deleted. And if they did have evidence that a state lab was responsible for this, would have they have motivation to delete that record? Or might they be following orders to deny any state culpability?

Yes, it's sort of ad hominem, but it's not a fallacy: It's a question as to whether somebody is motivated enough to lie, not saying that because of who they are they must lie. Now, if you screw up in the US, it could get bad. If you screw up in the CCP-controlled PRC, I can't imagine what would happen--would the party close ranks to protect you or simply make you not be?

The second is more of the same. They couldn't make a mistake or not follow because they have procedures that keep them from making mistakes and that tell them to follow the procedures. It doesn't help that the witness denies witnessing. I even like the idea that they made mistakes in the past, therefore they're clearly not capable of making any more. People can fix mistakes, but making a mistake 2-3 years ago is clearly not evidence of not making a mistake last year.

Again, you can have the most stringent safety protocol on Earth, but if there's a mistake and it's not followed, you get shit. (Need an example? Here's one. The US CDC-developed PCR COVID test that was developed in January had three steps. The last step was validation, comparing it against a sample known to lack COVID RNA. The protocols in place--stringent, of course--ensured that that last null sample was completely uncontaminated. However, because the protocols were violated, that sample was contaminated and therefore the test was crap. They finally said the first two steps were sufficient and just dropped the third step, at least for a while. Notice: Stringent protocol =/= protocol followed.)


It's still more likely that the virus hopped from animal to host in the market.

But the four reason is also implicitly a claim--one that's is true, but only as an if-then statement. Yes, if you wear protective equipment you're much less likely to get infected than if you don't. That leaves open the question of mistakes, because some of the mistakes documented in the past were precisely *not* wearing the appropriate equipment. Which means we can recast this possibly being the equivalent of "If you're supposed to wear equipment and don't, you're less likely to be infected than if you're not supposed to wear protection and don't." Which is clearly the logical equivalent of a toilet bowl seconds after somebody had a bad case of diarrhea.