@quisp65.bsky.social
RN at Sharp (San Diego): Cared for likely early COVID case (onset late Dec 2019). Previously healthy 30s pt—ICU, unusual clotting, highly contagious, nearly died. No travel. Hospital reported unknown viral pneumonia early Jan.
At best, that puts us at two competing hypotheses with roughly equal footing, depending on how strong their evidence is.
November 13, 2025 at 12:30 PM
At best, that puts us at two competing hypotheses with roughly equal footing, depending on how strong their evidence is.
Even if they find the host animal with the precursor virus and map a natural path into Wuhan, we’re still left with a virus that mirrors their work and emerged exactly the way a WIV leak would appear.
November 13, 2025 at 12:30 PM
Even if they find the host animal with the precursor virus and map a natural path into Wuhan, we’re still left with a virus that mirrors their work and emerged exactly the way a WIV leak would appear.
Because COVID aligns too closely with their work, and the counter-narrative to a lab accident is mostly political spin. Deeply undesirable hypotheses generate that reaction.
Claiming the evidence favors a natural spillover when the host animal hasn’t been identified is ridiculous.
Claiming the evidence favors a natural spillover when the host animal hasn’t been identified is ridiculous.
November 13, 2025 at 11:09 AM
Because COVID aligns too closely with their work, and the counter-narrative to a lab accident is mostly political spin. Deeply undesirable hypotheses generate that reaction.
Claiming the evidence favors a natural spillover when the host animal hasn’t been identified is ridiculous.
Claiming the evidence favors a natural spillover when the host animal hasn’t been identified is ridiculous.
Many experts believe Wuhan had an accident. An uncomfortable hypothesis creates quiet supporters and loud dissenters, making it hard to gauge real opinion. There’s a good chance that, deep down, many experts align closely with the public on this.
November 12, 2025 at 11:49 AM
Many experts believe Wuhan had an accident. An uncomfortable hypothesis creates quiet supporters and loud dissenters, making it hard to gauge real opinion. There’s a good chance that, deep down, many experts align closely with the public on this.
Also the field isn’t equipped to handle coverups. China’s data is still taken at face value, despite clear signs Wuhan was well seeded in December and the HSM was likely a ruse.
November 12, 2025 at 11:35 AM
Also the field isn’t equipped to handle coverups. China’s data is still taken at face value, despite clear signs Wuhan was well seeded in December and the HSM was likely a ruse.
No field is an expert at ruling itself out of millions of deaths. They have trouble even discussing the issue — careers, funding, and reputations are on the line.
November 12, 2025 at 11:35 AM
No field is an expert at ruling itself out of millions of deaths. They have trouble even discussing the issue — careers, funding, and reputations are on the line.
Senator Cotton's comments were a paraphrase of coronavirus expert Dr. Ralph Baric, a scientist with direct research collaboration experience at the lab in question.
November 8, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Senator Cotton's comments were a paraphrase of coronavirus expert Dr. Ralph Baric, a scientist with direct research collaboration experience at the lab in question.
Blocked! LOL...like usual. It's comical how this minority position buries it's head in the sand. I wouldn't mind so much but this tribe has most of the press with it and keeps our society from progressing on the issue. Biosafety ranks up there with climate change in regards to risk.
November 3, 2025 at 2:24 PM
Blocked! LOL...like usual. It's comical how this minority position buries it's head in the sand. I wouldn't mind so much but this tribe has most of the press with it and keeps our society from progressing on the issue. Biosafety ranks up there with climate change in regards to risk.
Oh... and it just so happens the closest artifical reservoir to covid happens to be right in the city.
Epidemiology 101!
Epidemiology 101!
November 3, 2025 at 2:17 PM
Oh... and it just so happens the closest artifical reservoir to covid happens to be right in the city.
Epidemiology 101!
Epidemiology 101!
That attitude is like doing a ride along with private investigators and dismissing everything they do as a conspiracy. Yes... the other hypothesis involves a conspiracy and....????
Natural spillover needs a natural reservoir.
Natural spillover needs a natural reservoir.
November 3, 2025 at 2:15 PM
That attitude is like doing a ride along with private investigators and dismissing everything they do as a conspiracy. Yes... the other hypothesis involves a conspiracy and....????
Natural spillover needs a natural reservoir.
Natural spillover needs a natural reservoir.
Not even their faulty poll showed there is consensus. This is the only poll there is and it used snowball sampling which is prone to showing bias by following networked beliefs. You can't guage opinion of a politicized & taboo hypothesis with snowball sampling.
November 3, 2025 at 2:02 PM
Not even their faulty poll showed there is consensus. This is the only poll there is and it used snowball sampling which is prone to showing bias by following networked beliefs. You can't guage opinion of a politicized & taboo hypothesis with snowball sampling.
“Every data point” pardon, that was too strong
You can’t dismiss Wuhan being well-seeded using early sampling data and doubling times. That science relies on limited initial data and too many variables to be stable. There’s also a psychological bias within the field that favors the market narrative
You can’t dismiss Wuhan being well-seeded using early sampling data and doubling times. That science relies on limited initial data and too many variables to be stable. There’s also a psychological bias within the field that favors the market narrative
November 3, 2025 at 10:36 AM
“Every data point” pardon, that was too strong
You can’t dismiss Wuhan being well-seeded using early sampling data and doubling times. That science relies on limited initial data and too many variables to be stable. There’s also a psychological bias within the field that favors the market narrative
You can’t dismiss Wuhan being well-seeded using early sampling data and doubling times. That science relies on limited initial data and too many variables to be stable. There’s also a psychological bias within the field that favors the market narrative
An infection like COVID, with a low hospitalization rate and rapid spread, doesn’t leave clear origin trails. Their story is too good to be true and aligns with a diversion. Every data point from the early search fits an orchestrated diversion in a city that was already well-seeded.
November 3, 2025 at 10:24 AM
An infection like COVID, with a low hospitalization rate and rapid spread, doesn’t leave clear origin trails. Their story is too good to be true and aligns with a diversion. Every data point from the early search fits an orchestrated diversion in a city that was already well-seeded.
It was visually obvious that Wuhan’s healthcare system was overwhelmed at the outbreak’s onset. Unexplained pneumonia is common in hospitals, making diversion simple. Many healthcare workers, myself included, observed that it was already global by December.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371096/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371096/
SARS-CoV-2 was already spreading in France in late December 2019 - PubMed
The COVID-19 epidemic is believed to have started in late January 2020 in France. Here we report a case of a patient hospitalised in December 2019 in an intensive care unit in a hospital in the north of Paris for haemoptysis with no aetiological diagnosis. RT-PCR was performed retrospectively on the …
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
November 3, 2025 at 10:21 AM
It was visually obvious that Wuhan’s healthcare system was overwhelmed at the outbreak’s onset. Unexplained pneumonia is common in hospitals, making diversion simple. Many healthcare workers, myself included, observed that it was already global by December.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371096/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371096/
Tons of data hint that Wuhan was already well-seeded in December. It’s actually the norm to find an infection further along, and this paper discusses some of that evidence while noting there seems to be a psychological hang-up about investigating what’s normal.
gh.bmj.com/content/7/3/...
gh.bmj.com/content/7/3/...
Waiting for the truth: is reluctance in accepting an early origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 delaying our understanding of viral emergence?
Two years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, key questions about the emergence of its aetiological agent (SARS-CoV-2) remain a matter of considerable debate. Identifying when SARS-CoV-2 began s...
gh.bmj.com
November 3, 2025 at 10:13 AM
Tons of data hint that Wuhan was already well-seeded in December. It’s actually the norm to find an infection further along, and this paper discusses some of that evidence while noting there seems to be a psychological hang-up about investigating what’s normal.
gh.bmj.com/content/7/3/...
gh.bmj.com/content/7/3/...
The only things that decrease the probability of a lab leak are finding the natural reservoir and a path to Wuhan, along with the strength of that evidence and the WIV becoming transparent.
November 2, 2025 at 12:25 PM
The only things that decrease the probability of a lab leak are finding the natural reservoir and a path to Wuhan, along with the strength of that evidence and the WIV becoming transparent.
Even if they find a sarbecovirus with an FCS, it won’t be a logical end to the “artificially inserted FCS” theory, simply because they proposed doing it. I often see findings like this in nature overstated.
November 2, 2025 at 12:25 PM
Even if they find a sarbecovirus with an FCS, it won’t be a logical end to the “artificially inserted FCS” theory, simply because they proposed doing it. I often see findings like this in nature overstated.
If we steelman the hypothesis, that wasn't really the main issue. I believe there was some small discussion about the FCS evolving naturally in bats but it wasn't central to the debate.
November 2, 2025 at 11:50 AM
If we steelman the hypothesis, that wasn't really the main issue. I believe there was some small discussion about the FCS evolving naturally in bats but it wasn't central to the debate.
Many of them spin every little thing they find, rather than act like good scientists.
November 2, 2025 at 11:38 AM
Many of them spin every little thing they find, rather than act like good scientists.
This field isn’t set up to treat China’s data as suspect, and paired with their strong desire to rule out this undesirable hypothesis, they aren’t equipped to deal with origins in a thorough, objective manner.
November 2, 2025 at 11:15 AM
This field isn’t set up to treat China’s data as suspect, and paired with their strong desire to rule out this undesirable hypothesis, they aren’t equipped to deal with origins in a thorough, objective manner.
That’s how you know the field is FUBAR on this topic. A natural virus leaking from the lab should still be a leading possibility, yet it’s rarely mentioned. COVID wouldn’t be expected to leave easy origin trails
Interestingly, the scientists who still think like scientists haven’t r/o’d engineering
Interestingly, the scientists who still think like scientists haven’t r/o’d engineering
November 2, 2025 at 11:09 AM
That’s how you know the field is FUBAR on this topic. A natural virus leaking from the lab should still be a leading possibility, yet it’s rarely mentioned. COVID wouldn’t be expected to leave easy origin trails
Interestingly, the scientists who still think like scientists haven’t r/o’d engineering
Interestingly, the scientists who still think like scientists haven’t r/o’d engineering
JFC... your misinformation is keeping me busy.
October 31, 2025 at 10:15 PM
JFC... your misinformation is keeping me busy.
We have an undesirable hypothesis where it will always be hard to get the truth from the field.
bsky.app/profile/quis...
bsky.app/profile/quis...
Even then, the virus matching the WIV’s documented research keeps a bio-accident as a persistent, likely possibility. Its probability only falls based on how well a strong reservoir and natural pathway are demonstrated and whether the WIV becomes fully transparent.
October 31, 2025 at 3:28 PM
We have an undesirable hypothesis where it will always be hard to get the truth from the field.
bsky.app/profile/quis...
bsky.app/profile/quis...
That's mischaracterization of the argument.
October 31, 2025 at 3:26 PM
That's mischaracterization of the argument.
I believe when they’ve found what’s implied here, they’ll have a documented alternate hypothesis to artificial insertion. Though artificial insertion would still be a possibility. Over my head though.
October 30, 2025 at 3:14 PM
I believe when they’ve found what’s implied here, they’ll have a documented alternate hypothesis to artificial insertion. Though artificial insertion would still be a possibility. Over my head though.