[Pulgasari]

Originally Posted by imperiouskitten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nah, I've told you from the beginning this is from a lab. HIV-1 spike protein. This is a question of scaled odds: is it more likely that a lab did something which we know labs can do, or that some bat virus exchanged genome EXTREMELY conveniently with a virus bats don't even carry / vanishingly rarely face exposure to?

The natural (gene exchange) explanation has plausibility, but the real scale of its odds are beyond our capacity to calculate. I personally think it's quadrillions of times less likely than the lab-made origin story. It's an extremely unlikely coincidence to find a natural-born animal virus which depends on human immunodeficiency virus proteins to function -- and find it blocks from a major virology lab.

I think people, particularly those who are informed but yet strongly disagree with me, positioned adamantly against the lab theory are being ideological about the meaning of the word "skepticism". Application of Occam's Razor includes a look at odds, and since in this case the odds are obfuscated and highly questionable I would strongly question the judgment of anyone who is not at least ambivalent about the origin of this virus.

And I sincerely hope someone here actually reads my posts because I have been saying this for a year and it is yet another data point indicating that my insights are real. So far as I can tell I am the only individual on this board or the New York Times for that matter fielding unique insights generated by an educated mind and not ripped from the popular culture or its popular (((counterculture))), but nobody bothers reading me. go figger

Nice post but bats are a known viral reservoir.