What are your thoughts on this information? Do you give it any credibility at all as far as circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory? If not, why not?
In earlier conversations, you had been asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory and felt natural spillover to be far more probable. All things being equal, natural spillover is the most likely origin given the nature and history of pandemics, and with this new evidence, that's even more true. While it doesn't conclusively prove natural spillover/rule out lab leak, it does add considerable weight to that theory.
As a side note, people favoring the lab leak theory have pointed to China's actions in suppressing and hiding evidence and data, but as Katherine Wu points out in her article, China's position has always been that the pandemic didn't even begin in China at all -- IOW, even the natural spillover from the Wuhan market theory is one China has been working to discredit from the beginning.
I wasn’t “asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory.” I was pointing out that what had been dismissed as misinformation and a conspiracy theory for political reasons, was a plausible theory all along.
As far as this new information, it’s interesting enough. I guess you get a run in your half of the inning, after there was a run scored in the lab leak half of the inning. But I personally lean toward this guy’s view:
“But David A. Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University who has said both origin scenarios are plausible, called the new data “very inconclusive” in an email. “Frankly, the breathlessness and alacrity with which stories like this one are promoted, in the face of very incomplete and confusing ‘data’, leaves me frustrated and concerned,” he said.”
it's misinformation when people throw out a "theory" with absolutely no evidence.
Even if it ultimately turns out to be true, it doesn't retroactively grant credibility to people who were pulling stuff out of their **** in order to deflect blame to another country for the poor response in the U.S. to the pandemic.
If you have such a high evidentiary bar, it’s mighty peculiar to me that you seem to fully accept the natural transmission theory / MSM narrative given the weak evidence for that.
There is and always has been circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory.
Now, one can argue that the circumstantial evidence for the natural transmission theory > the circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory. And that may well be true. But to me, embracing one theory and dismissing the other as “misinformation” is just evidence of close-mindedness and Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm writing. And at this point we have had this exchange so many times I'm not going to bother trying any more.
In earlier conversations, you had been asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory and felt natural spillover to be far more probable. All things being equal, natural spillover is the most likely origin given the nature and history of pandemics, and with this new evidence, that's even more true. While it doesn't conclusively prove natural spillover/rule out lab leak, it does add considerable weight to that theory.
As a side note, people favoring the lab leak theory have pointed to China's actions in suppressing and hiding evidence and data, but as Katherine Wu points out in her article, China's position has always been that the pandemic didn't even begin in China at all -- IOW, even the natural spillover from the Wuhan market theory is one China has been working to discredit from the beginning.
I wasn’t “asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory.” I was pointing out that what had been dismissed as misinformation and a conspiracy theory for political reasons, was a plausible theory all along.
As far as this new information, it’s interesting enough. I guess you get a run in your half of the inning, after there was a run scored in the lab leak half of the inning. But I personally lean toward this guy’s view:
“But David A. Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University who has said both origin scenarios are plausible, called the new data “very inconclusive” in an email. “Frankly, the breathlessness and alacrity with which stories like this one are promoted, in the face of very incomplete and confusing ‘data’, leaves me frustrated and concerned,” he said.”
it's misinformation when people throw out a "theory" with absolutely no evidence.
Even if it ultimately turns out to be true, it doesn't retroactively grant credibility to people who were pulling stuff out of their **** in order to deflect blame to another country for the poor response in the U.S. to the pandemic.
If you have such a high evidentiary bar, it’s mighty peculiar to me that you seem to fully accept the natural transmission theory / MSM narrative given the weak evidence for that.
There is and always has been circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory.
Now, one can argue that the circumstantial evidence for the natural transmission theory > the circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory. And that may well be true. But to me, embracing one theory and dismissing the other as “misinformation” is just evidence of close-mindedness and Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm writing. And at this point we have had this exchange so many times I'm not going to bother trying any more.
What are your thoughts on this information? Do you give it any credibility at all as far as circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory? If not, why not?
1. Tweets that consist of lists without sources provide limited information. A scan of the replies and a look into some of the sources raise questions in my mind about their reliability and/or relevance.
Examples, starting from the top: “WIV switches from civ-->military control” — Washburne later acknowledges this is unconfirmed.
“WIV hires contractor to replace HEPA filter” — So the lab had been having HEPA issues for months. “That would help a leaked virus spread!” say the coincidencers. I’d prefer the circumstantial evidence to work this way: “Do HEPA issues suggest that a virus leaked?” And I’d say no.
Whatever deeper dive you took, of course, may have swayed you otherwise. People will differ.
2. Really, that’s not a very long list of coincidences.
DaveSchmidt opines….”WIV hires contractor to replace HEPA filter” — So the lab had been having HEPA issues for months. “That would help a leaked virus spread!” say the coincidencers. I’d prefer the circumstatial evidence to work this way: “Do HEPA issues suggest that a virus leaked?” And I’d say no.”
Sometimes, it is what it is. Not following strict protocol for multiple reasons points to overall negligence. And I say yes.
In earlier conversations, you had been asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory and felt natural spillover to be far more probable. All things being equal, natural spillover is the most likely origin given the nature and history of pandemics, and with this new evidence, that's even more true. While it doesn't conclusively prove natural spillover/rule out lab leak, it does add considerable weight to that theory.
As a side note, people favoring the lab leak theory have pointed to China's actions in suppressing and hiding evidence and data, but as Katherine Wu points out in her article, China's position has always been that the pandemic didn't even begin in China at all -- IOW, even the natural spillover from the Wuhan market theory is one China has been working to discredit from the beginning.
I wasn’t “asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory.” I was pointing out that what had been dismissed as misinformation and a conspiracy theory for political reasons, was a plausible theory all along.
As far as this new information, it’s interesting enough. I guess you get a run in your half of the inning, after there was a run scored in the lab leak half of the inning. But I personally lean toward this guy’s view:
“But David A. Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University who has said both origin scenarios are plausible, called the new data “very inconclusive” in an email. “Frankly, the breathlessness and alacrity with which stories like this one are promoted, in the face of very incomplete and confusing ‘data’, leaves me frustrated and concerned,” he said.”
it's misinformation when people throw out a "theory" with absolutely no evidence.
Even if it ultimately turns out to be true, it doesn't retroactively grant credibility to people who were pulling stuff out of their **** in order to deflect blame to another country for the poor response in the U.S. to the pandemic.
If you have such a high evidentiary bar, it’s mighty peculiar to me that you seem to fully accept the natural transmission theory / MSM narrative given the weak evidence for that.
There is and always has been circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory.
Now, one can argue that the circumstantial evidence for the natural transmission theory > the circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory. And that may well be true. But to me, embracing one theory and dismissing the other as “misinformation” is just evidence of close-mindedness and Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm writing. And at this point we have had this exchange so many times I'm not going to bother trying any more.
np
I'll also add that you seem not to understand the logic that leads scientists to a default assumption of zoonotic origin of COVID-19 that have absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump.
Or maybe you do, and you're just being argumentative.
What are your thoughts on this information? Do you give it any credibility at all as far as circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory? If not, why not?
1. Tweets that consist of lists without sources provide limited information. A scan of the replies and a look into some of the sources raise questions in my mind about their reliability and/or relevance.
Examples, starting from the top: “WIV switches from civ-->military control” — Washburne later acknowledges this is unconfirmed.
“WIV hires contractor to replace HEPA filter” — So the lab had been having HEPA issues for months. “That would help a leaked virus spread!” say the coincidencers. I’d prefer the circumstantial evidence to work this way: “Do HEPA issues suggest that a virus leaked?” And I’d say no.
Whatever deeper dive you took, of course, may have swayed you otherwise. People will differ.
2. Really, that’s not a very long list of coincidences.
it's far from a case-closed thesis. I'm not presenting that as such, nor am I opining that COVID originated from a lab leak. I am presenting information that supports the lab leak theory as a plausible, ie reasonable theory. and it always has been.
this whole situation seems to always have been a binary,ie either natural transmission or a lab leak. One or the other. Agreed? So, poke holes in the lab leak circumstantial evidence all you wish, but the fact is the natural transmission theory is also based only on questionable circumstantial evidence.
So if you're gonna say the lab leak theory was misinformation, as was stated on this board as recently as last night, your argument for the other theory better be a strong one, based on direct evidence.
Is the natural transmission theory a strong one, based on direct evidence?
In earlier conversations, you had been asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory and felt natural spillover to be far more probable. All things being equal, natural spillover is the most likely origin given the nature and history of pandemics, and with this new evidence, that's even more true. While it doesn't conclusively prove natural spillover/rule out lab leak, it does add considerable weight to that theory.
As a side note, people favoring the lab leak theory have pointed to China's actions in suppressing and hiding evidence and data, but as Katherine Wu points out in her article, China's position has always been that the pandemic didn't even begin in China at all -- IOW, even the natural spillover from the Wuhan market theory is one China has been working to discredit from the beginning.
I wasn’t “asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory.” I was pointing out that what had been dismissed as misinformation and a conspiracy theory for political reasons, was a plausible theory all along.
As far as this new information, it’s interesting enough. I guess you get a run in your half of the inning, after there was a run scored in the lab leak half of the inning. But I personally lean toward this guy’s view:
“But David A. Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University who has said both origin scenarios are plausible, called the new data “very inconclusive” in an email. “Frankly, the breathlessness and alacrity with which stories like this one are promoted, in the face of very incomplete and confusing ‘data’, leaves me frustrated and concerned,” he said.”
it's misinformation when people throw out a "theory" with absolutely no evidence.
Even if it ultimately turns out to be true, it doesn't retroactively grant credibility to people who were pulling stuff out of their **** in order to deflect blame to another country for the poor response in the U.S. to the pandemic.
If you have such a high evidentiary bar, it’s mighty peculiar to me that you seem to fully accept the natural transmission theory / MSM narrative given the weak evidence for that.
There is and always has been circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory.
Now, one can argue that the circumstantial evidence for the natural transmission theory > the circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory. And that may well be true. But to me, embracing one theory and dismissing the other as “misinformation” is just evidence of close-mindedness and Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm writing. And at this point we have had this exchange so many times I'm not going to bother trying any more.
np
I'll also add that you seem not to understand the logic that leads scientists to a default assumption of zoonotic origin of COVID-19 that have absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump.
Or maybe you do, and you're just being argumentative.
To even believe that lab leak theory, is to believe that the coronavirus was being cultivated in a lab for use as a bio weapon by the Chinese, as the trump crowd keeps harping on. When in reality the virus is zoonotic by default. But some people are just gifted in the art of polemics.
To even believe that lab leak theory, is to believe that the coronavirus was being cultivated in a lab for use as a bio weapon by the Chinese, as the trump crowd keeps harping on. When in reality the virus is zoonotic by default. But some people are just gifted in the art of polemics.
It's certainly possible that the virus was natural in origin, being studied in the lab, and somehow got out.
But given what we know now about COVID-19 as an airborne virus, that we don't contract it through touching surfaces, and it doesn't transmit in well-ventilated areas, how is it supposed to have "leaked" out? I still don't know how a "lab leak" theory explains how the virus would have spread through the air and infected people. I guess someone working in a lab decided one day not to wear their PPP and infected themselves?
the "coincidences" don't explain the most basic thing -- how did the virus escape a lab and get into people's breathing passages?
What are your thoughts on this information? Do you give it any credibility at all as far as circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory? If not, why not?
DS's response is largely mine here. I'll also venture into trying to make a broader point. A simultaneous strength and weakness of humans is that we are very good and finding patterns. It's a strength that's allowed us to develop culture and technology, from figuring out how to control fire and shape stone into tools to building AI chatbots, but also the same thing that shows us faces in our toast and which make us vulnerable to con men and demagogues.
If you spend any time at all looking at large data sets, one thing you'll notice is that they are very "noisy." Coincidences, far from being rare, are super common, and its possible to tell nearly any story one wishes by choosing which coincidences to pick out and arrange into a neat little story. That's our impressive pattern-recognition skills at work, but being unhelpful or even actively harmful here.
So how do we go about separating signal from noise? Since the arrival of the internet era, this is increasingly not just a question for data scientists, but for all of us, now that we're bombarded with an ever-increasing flood of "data." What's true but irrelevant? What's not true at all but pure b.s.?
I find two things helpful. One, to try and determine relevancy, asking what, if anything, would change if a claim were true or not true. If nothing much changes, then the claim is just noise. For instance, the claim that "WIV switches from civ-->military control." Let's run some scenarios: - This claim is true, covid starts in the market, how does China behave? - This claim is false, covid starts in the market, how does China behave? - This claim is true, covid starts in the lab, how does China behave? - This claim is false, covid starts in the lab, how does China behave?
I can't see China behaving different in any of those four scenarios. So it doesn't seem relevant. Noise, we can ignore it.
Ok, after throwing out noise, then what? Look at actual fact claims, as opposed to opinions or coincidences of timing. IOW, things that can be falsifiable. For instance, claims about the Furin cleavage site on the virus. There's actual scientists publishing research around this that can be looked at. So that's something one can actually look into (spoiler, no legitimate research supports the idea that anything here suggests lab manipulation).
It's a bit fractal too. For instance, on the furin cleavage site, diving in there one will again be faced with a lot of noise one must first filter out before getting to actual fact claims one can evaluate.
There's a third, important point -- accepting uncertainty. After doing all that, it's still often the case that there's a lot one simply cannot, and will never, know. And I'd argue that this is the fundamental difference between scientific and conspiracy thinking. Conspiracies are a claim that, in fact, there is ultimately someone, somewhere, who not only knows, but is controlling things, and that with enough work you, the intrepid research, can uncover the schemes. It's a rejection of uncertainty. The world may be controlled by a shadowy conspiracy, but there's a certain comfort in knowing that at least someone is controlling it. And it has its appeal. If the pandemic started as a result of Chinese communists cooking up bioweapons, we have villains to rage against and actions we can take. But if the pandemic is the result of random mutations by something that isn't even really alive, that neither wants to help or hurt us because it simply doesn't care about us at all, that in fact can't even care about us at all -- what are we supposed to do with that? An indifferent universe can be far more terrifying than a hostile one. Better to talk to the face in our toast, right?
In earlier conversations, you had been asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory and felt natural spillover to be far more probable. All things being equal, natural spillover is the most likely origin given the nature and history of pandemics, and with this new evidence, that's even more true. While it doesn't conclusively prove natural spillover/rule out lab leak, it does add considerable weight to that theory.
As a side note, people favoring the lab leak theory have pointed to China's actions in suppressing and hiding evidence and data, but as Katherine Wu points out in her article, China's position has always been that the pandemic didn't even begin in China at all -- IOW, even the natural spillover from the Wuhan market theory is one China has been working to discredit from the beginning.
I wasn’t “asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory.” I was pointing out that what had been dismissed as misinformation and a conspiracy theory for political reasons, was a plausible theory all along.
As far as this new information, it’s interesting enough. I guess you get a run in your half of the inning, after there was a run scored in the lab leak half of the inning. But I personally lean toward this guy’s view:
“But David A. Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University who has said both origin scenarios are plausible, called the new data “very inconclusive” in an email. “Frankly, the breathlessness and alacrity with which stories like this one are promoted, in the face of very incomplete and confusing ‘data’, leaves me frustrated and concerned,” he said.”
it's misinformation when people throw out a "theory" with absolutely no evidence.
Even if it ultimately turns out to be true, it doesn't retroactively grant credibility to people who were pulling stuff out of their **** in order to deflect blame to another country for the poor response in the U.S. to the pandemic.
If you have such a high evidentiary bar, it’s mighty peculiar to me that you seem to fully accept the natural transmission theory / MSM narrative given the weak evidence for that.
There is and always has been circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory.
Now, one can argue that the circumstantial evidence for the natural transmission theory > the circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory. And that may well be true. But to me, embracing one theory and dismissing the other as “misinformation” is just evidence of close-mindedness and Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm writing. And at this point we have had this exchange so many times I'm not going to bother trying any more.
np
I'll also add that you seem not to understand the logic that leads scientists to a default assumption of zoonotic origin of COVID-19 that have absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump.
Or maybe you do, and you're just being argumentative.
a default assumption with no direct evidence is not sufficient to dismiss the only other theory as misinformation, in my opinion.
You're a smart, thoughtful person, who I believe would agree with that statement, in isolation. Yet you were quick to embrace a default assumption with no evidence, and dismiss the only other theory as misinformation.
The only explanation I can think of is that something crowded out your rationality. And that most likely something is political considerations.
To even believe that lab leak theory, is to believe that the coronavirus was being cultivated in a lab for use as a bio weapon by the Chinese, as the trump crowd keeps harping on. When in reality the virus is zoonotic by default. But some people are just gifted in the art of polemics.
It's certainly possible that the virus was natural in origin, being studied in the lab, and somehow got out.
But given what we know now about COVID-19 as an airborne virus, that we don't contract it through touching surfaces, and it doesn't transmit in well-ventilated areas, how is it supposed to have "leaked" out? I still don't know how a "lab leak" theory explains how the virus would have spread through the air and infected people. I guess someone working in a lab decided one day not to wear their PPP and infected themselves?
Have there been no instances over the past 3 years of people using PPE and still contracting COVID?
I’m reassured that we agree we’re under no compulsion or deadline to choose one binary cause over the other.
In this instance, you presented evidence and asked for thoughts. (Not mine specifically, but it’s an open forum.) I gave some. I see merits in the contention by others that early claims of a lab leak, based on the evidence at the time and intended to inflame, were misinformation, but I leave that argument to them and you.
For a longer reply, I also defer, in return, to PVW.
a default assumption with no direct evidence is not sufficient to dismiss the only other theory as misinformation, in my opinion.
You're a smart, thoughtful person, who I believe would agree with that statement, in isolation. Yet you were quick to embrace a default assumption with no evidence, and dismiss the only other theory as misinformation.
The only explanation I can think of is that something crowded out your rationality. And that most likely something is political considerations.
that's a misrepresentation of what I've been writing.
a default assumption with no direct evidence is not sufficient to dismiss the only other theory as misinformation, in my opinion.
You're a smart, thoughtful person, who I believe would agree with that statement, in isolation. Yet you were quick to embrace a default assumption with no evidence, and dismiss the only other theory as misinformation.
The only explanation I can think of is that something crowded out your rationality. And that most likely something is political considerations.
that's a misrepresentation of what I've been writing.
last night you said "it's misinformation when people throw out a "theory" with absolutely no evidence."
we were (and still are) discussing the lab leak theory. So it seemed pretty clear to me, that you were dismissing the lab leak theory as misinformation.
if you wish to clarify and/or walk back and/or tell me what I'm "not understanding", feel free. Or don't.
last night you said "it's misinformation when people throw out a "theory" with absolutely no evidence."
we were (and still are) discussing the lab leak theory. So it seemed pretty clear to me, that you were dismissing the lab leak theory as misinformation.
if you wish to clarify and/or walk back and/or tell me what I'm "not understanding", feel free. Or don't.
the scare quotes are doing the lifting in that sentence.
Question for you -- would you call the cartoons mtierney has posted in this thread serious people postulating a theory? Or misinformation?
Those are the kind of "theorists" I'm referring to.
And here I am trying to make you understand again.
Without checking zillow... Firstly, I pass that house pretty much every day walking my dog. Secondly, the last few years I've gone to a bunch of open houses in Golf Island and I haven't seen a house in that neighborhood sell for under $650 in a loooong time.
ETA the taxes though are always 20k+ a year these days.
last night you said "it's misinformation when people throw out a "theory" with absolutely no evidence."
we were (and still are) discussing the lab leak theory. So it seemed pretty clear to me, that you were dismissing the lab leak theory as misinformation.
if you wish to clarify and/or walk back and/or tell me what I'm "not understanding", feel free. Or don't.
the scare quotes are doing the lifting in that sentence.
Question for you -- would you call the cartoons mtierney has posted in this thread serious people postulating a theory? Or misinformation?
Those are the kind of "theorists" I'm referring to.
And here I am trying to make you understand again.
What's that definition of insanity again?
I think the cartoons are generally just to stir the pot and are not meant to be taken literally. They’re not representative of serious people postulating a theory, nor are they misinformation.
I don’t really get the connection you’re making, but w/e.
I think the cartoons are generally just to stir the pot and are not meant to be taken literally. They’re not representative of serious people postulating a theory, nor are they misinformation.
I don’t really get the connection you’re making, but w/e.
the cartoons are based on the assumption that a lab leak is the origin of COVID-19. They don't make sense otherwise.
And fwiw, you can find comments from me saying that a lab leak is certainly possible and should be investigated. So I haven't been dismissing serious discussion of it. I'm dismissing the people who are trying to lead others to believe a lab leak is supported by convincing evidence at this point.
I thought that had been pretty clear from the totality of my comments. But maybe you aren't reading most of them.
"Most U.S. intelligence agencies assess a spillover from an animal is most likely the origin of COVID-19, but recent news reports say the Energy Department now favors the lab-leak hypothesis."
"Most U.S. intelligence agencies assess a spillover from an animal is most likely the origin of COVID-19, but recent news reports say the Energy Department now favors the lab-leak hypothesis."
Yet several social media posts have presented the Energy Department news as a smoking gun for the lab-leak argument. It’s not.
That's what I'm taking about. It's pretty disingenuous for anyone to pretend there aren't a lot of people out there making bad faith arguments around a lab leak "theory," implying that it's a lot more than just a theory, and more of a smoking gun.
In 1986, the Federal Reserve (Fed) reinterpreted the Glass-Steagall Act and decided that 5% of a commercial bank’s revenue could be from investment banking activity. In 1996, that level was pushed up to 25%. The following year, the Fed ruled that commercial banks could engage in underwriting, the method by which corporations and governments raise capital in debt and equity markets.3 In 1994, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act was passed, amending the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, to allow interstate banking and branching.4
Later, in 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act, or Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, was passed under the watch of the Clinton administration and overturned the Glass-Steagall Act completely.5 In 2000, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act prohibited the Commodity Futures Trading Commissionfrom regulating credit default swaps and other over-the-counter (OTC)derivative contracts.6 In 2004, the SEC made changes that reduced the proportion of capital that investment banks have to hold in reserves.7
However, with the 2016 U.S. election bringing both a Republican president and Congress to power, then-President Donald Trump and his party set their sights on undoing Dodd-Frank. In May 2018, Trump signed a bill that exempted small and regional banks from Dodd-Frank’s most stringent regulations and loosened rules put in place to prevent the sudden collapse of big banks. The bill passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support after successful negotiations with Democrats.
Trump had said that he wanted to “do a big number” on Dodd-Frank, possibly even repealing it completely. However, former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), its co-sponsor, said of the new legislation, “This is not a ‘big number’ on the bill. It’s a small number.” Indeed, the legislation left major pieces of Dodd-Frank’s rules in place and failed to make any changes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was created by Dodd-Frank to police its rules.9
What Are the Effects of Deregulation?
The hoped-for effects of deregulation are to increase investment opportunities by eliminating restrictions for new businesses to enter markets and increase competition.
Increasing competition encourages innovation, and as companies enter markets and compete with each other, consumers can enjoy lower prices.
Lessening the need to use resources and capital to comply with regulations allows corporations to invest in research and development.
Without needing to comply with mandated restrictions, businesses will develop new products, set competitive prices, employ more labor, enter foreign countries, buy new assets, and interact with consumers without the need to obey regulations
What are your thoughts on this information? Do you give it any credibility at all as far as circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory? If not, why not?
that's seriously about the most stupid tweet I've ever read.
"Yikes!" on the taxes.
I’ll have a raccoon dog burger, medium…