Experimental browser for the Atmosphere
Loading post...
{ "uri": "at://did:plc:ybfl5ma2nc2drpdehm7f6i2r/app.bsky.feed.like/3lox5znhg3k2s", "cid": "bafyreihk7d7vv7t64n2z2ilqsmq7qndtz3mxtmg64qklo7ie2cxlx7ygli", "value": { "$type": "app.bsky.feed.like", "subject": { "cid": "bafyreidf3s5dbsigukva6bdzo3hhb7c34j7rwr36ydw5uykm6dd5znrvpy", "uri": "at://did:plc:j76trmiofvaxxpvx2vnb2vwf/app.bsky.feed.post/3lox5kucj7k27" }, "createdAt": "2025-05-12T04:46:19.071Z" } }
No. Statements like this imply that both theories of the pandemic’s origin are equally plausible. The reality is that one has evidence and scientific consensus behind it and the other is wildly implausible. The wildlife trade represents a far bigger risk of a future pandemic.
May 12, 2025, 4:38 AM