that's a really dumb thing to say and you know it.
all the scientific data so far refutes the lab leak hypothesis.
Please elaborate. Be specific.
.
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
that's a really dumb thing to say and you know it.
all the scientific data so far refutes the lab leak hypothesis.
Yes, I’m sure all of you guys and the media would’ve refuted it with exactly the same amount of vigor and passion had the orange man not endorsed this theorythat's a really dumb thing to say and you know it.
all the scientific data so far refutes the lab leak hypothesis.
Yes, I’m sure all of you guys and the media would’ve refuted it with exactly the same amount of vigor and passion had the orange man not endorsed this theory
You're dodging.you're making no sense.
don't go to politicians for your scientific information.
you're making no sense.
don't go to politicians for your scientific information.
either way I would follow the preponderance of scientific evidence and not what politicians say.You're dodging.
Yes or No- would you, Skully, and the media gone to such lengths and with such passion to disprove the lab leak theory if it not weren't for the orange man's endorsement of it? Simple question.
Still can't answer the question Thanks for proving my first post right.either way I would follow the preponderance of scientific evidence and not what politicians say.
I thought there were more than a few mammals with ACE2 receptors.Only humans have cellular ACE-2 receptors. COVID-19 specifically gains access through these receptors. No other known virus does this. There would be no reason for a random animal-based virus to have evolved-up this ability without training on a specific host which it could exploit, i.e. homo sapiens. COVID-19 only emerged in humans in late 2019.
Would have helped if the Chinese government had cooperated with the investigations. The fact that they were actively attempting to silence/stop independent analysis is more than a little suspicious.
I start to wonder if we should even be making fun of squidley. Aren't certain people not ok to mock and/or tease?I thought there were more than a few mammals with ACE2 receptors.
Edit:
Didn't take long to find:
View attachment 135466
Edit 2:
This (click for link that shows zoomable image) that shows more mammals with same receptors...though humans still high on the list:View attachment 135467
I start to wonder if we should even be making fun of squidley. Aren't certain people not ok to mock and/or tease?
I thought there were more than a few mammals with ACE2 receptors.
Edit:
Didn't take long to find:
View attachment 135466
Edit 2:
This (click for link that shows zoomable image) that shows more mammals with same receptors...though humans still high on the list:View attachment 135467
Why anyone would post a picture of text instead of posting the text is .....odd. The paper you posted says basically what the abstract text following your highlighted text says, that none of the animals shown in your post have ACE2 receptors matched with the COVID-19 spike protein. And all of the animals in your vaunted table have ACE-2 receptors with DNA which is not compatible with COVID-19 spike proteins. They all differ by the listed alleles.
Animals are capable of catching SARS-2 and SARS-1, but not as readily as humans catch SARS-2 because of its human-tailored spike proteins.
.
Isn't this statement at odd with this part of the paper?
That's pretty much irrelevant when it comes to the possible weaponization of a zoonotic virus.some of the people on erBB should try reading some time.
View attachment 135471
way to miss the point, fatso.That's pretty much irrelevant when it comes to the possible weaponization of a zoonotic virus.
Your first claim:Now you're saying that one part of your paper conflicts with another part of your paper. Yes, an animal virus's RNA COULD mutate into a human-attacking form. So what? This virus came, as you and your communist buddies claim, without a human host to perform trial-and-error mutations on.
.