I’d like to know any thoughts on the work by Michael Worobey at the University of AZ and his paper identifying the Hunan Market as the origin of the SARS COVID 2 jump to humans.
His approach is totally inadequate. Dual Use research of concern means both good and prosperous AND biological warfare and onerous uses need to be considered seriously and appropriately. Worobey does neither well.
Thank you for your comment. I asked, because I have attended the Univ of AZ and have studied Evolutionary Biology in the past and first became familiar with Worobey during the COVID lockdowns and his paper was one of the early articles that seemed to be used to try and stifle any inquiry or simple questioning about the virus origin.
"By the second paragraph they deliver an early conclusion which they immediately suspend for lack of information. The corollary is that the peer-reviewed scientific evidence is inadequate, their early conclusion premature. Thanks for pointing this out." Sorry, but this line is irrefutable proof that the author is an utterly dishonorable lying piece of human filth. There is absolutely no point in reading further after this blatant lie.
Refreshingly honest take on the grotesque "peer review" crutch that virologists and allies have relied on to gaslight the public. Considering the scale of the pandemic, the slightest suspicion of a lab leak should have led to criminal investigations in various countries. Instead, we got 'we investigated ourselves and found that we are innocent' from "experts". Bankers, industrialists, etc wouldn't have been able to get away with something like that!
I’d like to know any thoughts on the work by Michael Worobey at the University of AZ and his paper identifying the Hunan Market as the origin of the SARS COVID 2 jump to humans.
His approach is totally inadequate. Dual Use research of concern means both good and prosperous AND biological warfare and onerous uses need to be considered seriously and appropriately. Worobey does neither well.
Thank you for your comment. I asked, because I have attended the Univ of AZ and have studied Evolutionary Biology in the past and first became familiar with Worobey during the COVID lockdowns and his paper was one of the early articles that seemed to be used to try and stifle any inquiry or simple questioning about the virus origin.
"By the second paragraph they deliver an early conclusion which they immediately suspend for lack of information. The corollary is that the peer-reviewed scientific evidence is inadequate, their early conclusion premature. Thanks for pointing this out." Sorry, but this line is irrefutable proof that the author is an utterly dishonorable lying piece of human filth. There is absolutely no point in reading further after this blatant lie.
Refreshingly honest take on the grotesque "peer review" crutch that virologists and allies have relied on to gaslight the public. Considering the scale of the pandemic, the slightest suspicion of a lab leak should have led to criminal investigations in various countries. Instead, we got 'we investigated ourselves and found that we are innocent' from "experts". Bankers, industrialists, etc wouldn't have been able to get away with something like that!
SAGO writes also (negatively) on Haslam/Sachs scenario that was presented by the authors in the WHO/SAGO report.
What is your analysis about that scenario in terms of likelihood, and strengths and weaknesses?