condition that we wouldn t recommend specific studies on that hypotheses, we would just leave it there. he we would ust leave it there. he basicall we would just leave it there. he basically suggested that yes, there was pressure, and that is why it was characterised in that way and if it hadn t been written and is extremely unlikely, or there is no further investigation needed, then it can appear on that report at all. igrate appear on that report at all. we made it appear on that report at all. 2 made it clear that the laboratory hypotheses is not off the table but just out of the different ways this pandemic could have started, yeah, thatis pandemic could have started, yeah, that is on the bottom of our list. do you think the chinese scientist at pressure put on them from that perspective? perspective? that is quite likely because as perspective? that is quite likely because as you perspective? that is quite likely because as you say, perspective? that is quite likely becaus
there s no infections in humans in 10,000 blood samples that were taken. again, we were expecting 400. that is also one in a million probability. the three things, the animal, the virus and the human all point to a laboratory accident. i think the additional piece that i want to be sure to emphasize here, i have gotten inside the wuhan institute of virology in patient specimens in december of 2019. what i found there, the lab was contaminated with viral research ahead of sars research. so this is not if you didn t like the pandemic that was 1% lethal, this thing they re working on in december 2019 has an 80% lethality. it needs to be stopped. so you you know, we know from the investigation that david asher was part of that he said there was a military