I know I am not going to be able to fully grasp the implications of this report. So if any of you know someone who can parse this and assess how likely this actually is, because it looks bad from what I can tell.
I would be really grateful of any help at all. I have one person looking at it, but they said “I will look, but you really need someone with more up to date knowledge.” -they have a biochem MSc.
National Geographic posted a rebuttal to the Yan report. Although it was more about social conditioning and light on technical rebuttals.
John Hopkins published a peer review of the Yan report, and debunked some aspects of it, and cast doubt on the report
Now we have the Yan report 2. Yan strikes back?
With a title that should grab headlines… Maybe a little clickbaity though.
I can follow along, but any help in deciphering it would be great. I find the argument using syn / non syn mutations persuasive, but I am just taking their word for it, i have no frame of understanding beyond this document itself.
If corona was a bio weapon you would see ambulances and bodies on the street, not police men giving fines for not wearing a mask and arresting people. Sadly, almost everybody’s brainwashed; and in Poland where I live they made masks mandatory on the street from today, so I’m trying to see if there are any sane countries left in the world to move to.
This is about as off topic as politics I guess. Anyway i have a friend thats been following this tho, we listened to some interviews from a law professor at UIUC, Francis Boyle. He’s an expert in bioweapons research and worked for decades in international policies around banning some classes of lab experiments due to their potential risks. He makes the case that it has characteristics consistent with lab experiments rather.
What if your goal isn’t to kill people? It can still be a bioweapo by achieving other aims, economic and/or political. This is my favorite article on the origins. It came out right after the lock downs started.