so the natural hypothesis requires an intermediate host to make sense, but we don't know what the intermediate host is and have no leads. if only the natural hypothesis is pursued, we will probably never actually know what happened.
Do we have an established pattern of pinpointing the precise origin of every other disease that spread through natural transmission, or are you just pulling an unreasonable standard of evidence out of your ass and claiming that the absence of this evidence is the evidence of absence?
so the natural hypothesis requires an intermediate host to make sense, but we don't know what the intermediate host is and have no leads. if only the natural hypothesis is pursued, we will probably never actually know what happened.
is that correct?
deleted by creator
"we'll never know. definitely don't look at this lab at ground zero that was making coronaviruses more infectious"
You see why I find this hard to believe?
deleted by creator
Do we have an established pattern of pinpointing the precise origin of every other disease that spread through natural transmission, or are you just pulling an unreasonable standard of evidence out of your ass and claiming that the absence of this evidence is the evidence of absence?
Yes, it's an entire field of research called epidemiology. If the lab theory is correct we know which specific cave in Yunnan it came from.
deleted by creator