Reply #150: Going with ANY explanation is premature. We need more evidence.

[Jim Pivonka]

You are making too many inferences based on too little data. Of course it may be a case of bad record keeping. And it may not be.

We don't operate on "may be". When there is no evidence we don't walk away, we look for evidence.

No one has suggested "New World Order" nonsense in insisting that all of the circumstances around maladministration at USAMRIID be completely investigated. The raising of "useful as a weapon" is a red herring too - there is no reason to think that the fact that a bio agent has to be targetable or useful as a weapon to be originated through human agency. Individual experts are just as capable of doing this as individuals as as the agents of institutions - Anthrax, I presume, demonstrated that conclusively.

(Maybe you think that Anthrax was created by the Army or the New World Order, because it was targetable, and 2009 H1N1 was not because it is less targetable?)

We've seen some strange virulence characteristics for this virus. We do not understand them. We will not be in a position to evaluate the "targetability" of this virus until we do understand them, if we do then.

We should not be "going with" any explanation. We should be considering all possible explanation and devising research protocols which can exclude as many of them as possible. If we do a really good job of that, then we will still, in all likelyhood, have a handful of plausible explanations which we do not have sufficient data to exclude, after it is all said and done.