So just for the record you are not buying words from established infections disease experts?
"Words"? "Wurds" you say?
It's an argument (not words) and the argument is not good enough.
Did you read the articles? Did you understand them?
What do you personally consider to be irrefutable evidence to support their position?
-
Their argument is based on circumstantial possibility, NOT based on any solid evidence.
That is not enough to rule it out.
In particular the spike protein (and underlying computational base) arguments make a lot of assumptions about a probable development path.
Spell it out for me. I am waiting.