>>11573558actually there is no way of knowing. just because this guy is a crank does not validate the claim it is natural either. a synthetic virus can be made to appear natural. and if you look at the genome, the backbone is novel compare to other coronaviruses.
you can examine the claimes here:
from
>The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2would post link but this site thinks i'm spamming for some reason by posting it.
>As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted7,11.from public journals, shit that bioweapons labs would not publish to.
>Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19.>probablynice opinion, bro. just because that is how you would do it does not mean it is the only way.
>However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone20.meaning it could very well be made from playing around in a lab with snps.
now does this mean it isn't natural? no, but this paper is as faulty in logic as the schizo shit.
