So these morons don't understand how international commodity markets work, either?
Ah.... Yan Li-Meng.
en.wikipedia.org
Li-Meng Yan or
Yan Limeng (
simplified Chinese: 闫丽梦;
traditional Chinese: 閆麗夢) is a Chinese
virologist,
[3] known for her publications and interviews alleging that
SARS-CoV-2 was made in a Chinese government
laboratory.
Her publications have been widely dismissed as flawed by the scientific community.[4][5][6][7]
Yan stated that evidence of genetic engineering was censored in scientific journals, allegedly as part of a conspiracy to suppress information on the topic.
[9][19] However, other scientists disputed the validity of the papers, pointing to poor methods, undisclosed funding from politically-motivated sources, the use of pseudonyms for the papers' co-authors, and the papers having never been submitted to a journal for review.
[20][21][7][4] The papers were described by virologists as "non-scientific,"
[22] "junk science," and written to spread "political propaganda."
[21]
Given the far-reaching implications of the "Yan Report," RR:C19 sought out peer reviews from world-renowned experts in virology,
molecular biology,
structural biology,
computational biology, vaccine development, and medicine. Collectively, reviewers have debunked the authors' claims that: (1) bat coronaviruses ZC45 or ZXC21 were used as a background strain to engineer SARS-CoV-2, (2) the presence of restriction sites flanking the RBD suggest prior screening for a virus targeting the human
ACE2 receptor, and (3) the
furin-like cleavage site is unnatural and provides evidence of engineering. In all three cases, the reviewers provide counter-arguments based on peer-reviewed literature and long-established foundational knowledge that directly refute the claims put forth by Yan
et al. There was a general consensus that the study's claims were better explained by potential political motivations rather than scientific integrity. The peer reviewers arrived at these common opinions independently, further strengthening the credibility of the peer reviews.
[5]
Seriously, this is the best you got?