Your recommended article proves Tucker’s point. Everyone keeps answering a question that few are asking and responding to claims that few are making.
Your recommenced article claims the virus wasn’t made in a lab and occurred naturally. Tucker and the video do not claim that.
Your article does not address which species of bat it came from nor if it could have spread from a natural host in a lab that studies bat hosted viruses which is the claim in the video.
Link to study used: https://t.co/F3M9ODKQeh?amp=1
You really should read the paper. It doesn't prove anything.
The title is: The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus
I recommend this article:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not-human-made-lab-genetic-analysis-nature
It doesn't settle the issue, but it eliminates a lot of the possibilities.
According to the OP's headline, Tucker proved it was made in a lab using a paper he cited.
I simply pointed out that it did not. If you have a problem with the OP's claim, take it up with him.
Your recommended article proves Tucker’s point. Everyone keeps answering a question that few are asking and responding to claims that few are making.
Your recommenced article claims the virus wasn’t made in a lab and occurred naturally. Tucker and the video do not claim that.
Your article does not address which species of bat it came from nor if it could have spread from a natural host in a lab that studies bat hosted viruses which is the claim in the video.
I didn't watch the video.
I was referring to the OP's headline, and was addressing that -- particularly the claim that the paper proved it was made in a lab.
If you have a problem with the OP's headline, take it up with him.
Fair enough on the misleading headline by the OP.