Rune Stava

@MJnanostretch Flo is solid. Good to hear you pushed back on that kind of behavior. I’m out.

@StavaRune Wrong I've an intellectually honest stance that matches Flo's, too bad you won't dare see it. Fact is I commended Flo highly for snagging 3yr delayed CCDC data (called her a hero) &condemned all the horrid attacks on her. Ive consistently call out unfair abuse wherever I see it.

"Débarre found surprises. The maps identify specific stalls as having live animals infected with SARS-CoV-2 and vendors with antibodies to the virus—data China has never shared." science.org/content/articl…

@MJnanostretch Science Insider reports on interesting observations and includes criticism. What’s the issue? You don’t come close to Débarre when it comes to intellectual honesty or following the evidence.

@StavaRune Titillating propaganda transcribed by a horribly biased crusader is now deserving of the attention of Science?

TWiV 1315: Jabs for bats 🦇 TWiV explains a study showing that the wildlife trade, including live-animal markets, is a major driver of animal-to-human pathogen transmission, and ecological vaccination, a strategy to prevent zoonotic spillover from bats. 📺 bit.ly/3OPxsM7

@MJnanostretch Debarre notes that this was a propaganda post, but it still contained information that wasn’t public at the time and was later confirmed, suggesting it may have come from an informed source.

@StavaRune Van Kerkhove..cautions that the provenance of the data is unclear. “The way in which the information is identified is highly suspect”.. Jesse Bloom.. says the WeChat post’s assertions are “absurd propaganda”& “deeply flawed.”.. “None of the details should be taken too seriously”

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki I’ll take that as no answer.

@StavaRune @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki I guess you're stuck on yourself and can't get off.

Our regular Norwegian man on the street Mr. @StavaRune trusts the authority of Kristian Andersen and his co-authors over all others on COVID origins. Anyone else he trusts? Peter Miller and DKup! How does he always end up trusting fools and charlatans?

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki You’re only applying that standard to zoonosis, not to a lab origin. And you think China will grant full, independent access to lab records?

@StavaRune @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Half the world was naively infected w a deadly novel pandemic virus and look at you complaining that I'd dare demand we solve origin w a reasonable certainty. You realize this is within reach today? Immediate independent onsite forensic origin audits w full access.

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Are you serious? You’re demanding courtroom-level certainty for zoonosis, while letting a lab origin pass without comparable evidence.

@StavaRune @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Hey Rune, show me where it says a non-research related origin is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes says avail evidence suggests a natural virus but also be careful we can't safely assume wasn't research &spout 96-100% certainty about a WP 2-jump Market spillover theory.

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki So should Summermatter see the conclusion section again as well?

@StavaRune @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Do you need to see the Conclusion section again??

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki If one hypothesis is supported by multiple lines of evidence and the other lacks verifiable evidence, calling that "agnostic" is misleading.

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Of course I’ve read it, and there’s no support for your "agnostic" claim there. I also shared Kathrin Summermatter’s summary of the key findings. Are you suggesting she doesn’t understand the report she helped produce?

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki No one is claiming to know everything. The question is still the same: you describe SAGO as "agnostic," while their own wording says the evidence suggests a zoonotic origin. How do you reconcile that?

@StavaRune @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Can u accept there are things you don't know? Well I don't think you know that it wasn't me who brought up 97-100% &fraud. Much BS been thrown in the face of many sincere credible scientists who see origin as critical but unsolved. U just being the latest obfuscating persuader.

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki The nuance is that SAGO is agnostic about a lab leak, not about zoonosis, which they say is supported by evidence. Why bring up 97–100% confidence and fraud? That hasn’t been part of this discussion. Those are arguments Libertarian_Virologist likes to throw around.

@StavaRune @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Published data suggest SC2's a natural virus. But u need to understand nuance here. We don't go around as scientists, all haughty &hyperdefensive, that a research-related leak can be safely ruled out &w 97-100% confidence in the Market theory. &If you don't agree you're a fraud.

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Does Kathrin Summermatter, who was a member of SAGO, better capture SAGO’s position? Her description doesn’t sound "agnostic" to me at all. uniaktuell.unibe.ch/2026/the_next_…

@StavaRune @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki I don't see your mind's successfully captured SAGO's agnostic position- that's too bad. That aside, while there's still room for debate here, Ive not seen compelling evidence that convinces me nature couldntve produced SC2 w/o human assistance.

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Not cherry picking. I’m clarifying your position. You said you agree the weight of evidence suggests a natural virus. That conclusion relies on studies that, e.g., Libertarian_Virologist here on the sidelines calls discredited and even fraudulent. Do you reject those claims?

@StavaRune @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Cherry picking but I don't object to the quote you selected only you're attempt to present it as the sole/main conclusion. I agree the weight of evidence suggests a natural virus but more importantly SAGO concludes all of the avail evidence still can't give us a clear answer.

Fact-checking Matt Ridley’s “Scientific Freedom Lecture” at NIH (Part III) pandemonium.hypotheses.org/1260 via @hypothesesorg

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki That’s not what they say. They explicitly say none of the available evidence suggests a lab leak, while the evidence to date SUGGESTS zoonotic spillover.

@StavaRune @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Just watch yourself &then ask why they insist the proximal origin incl the LLH were properly investigated. Why they insist there is more than enough reliable data to definitively solve the case. &That while auditing the labs w/b very helpful, access to do so just isn't possible.

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki You say your position is consistent with SAGO. So do you agree with their conclusion: "The weight of available evidence… suggests zoonotic spillover"?

@StavaRune @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Again I've been v. consistent in my argument. They tried to make me out to be a "creepy online rando &useful idiot w zero expertise". When my position is entirely consistent w the SAGO '25 report. I'm a 30 yr mainstream cell &molecular biologist w no conflicts, been open&honest.

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki False accusations? Let’s focus on SAGO. You said: "I’m in almost perfect sync with SAGO." Does that mean you agree that the PUBLISHED evidence suggests zoonosis?

@StavaRune @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Are you high? What's up w you folks? Even a credible 30yr biologist identifying w the origin question agnostically EXACTLY as a leading body like SAGO can't escape your false accusations. Why must I be in lockstep w handwaving persuasive rhetoric of Markolin, Rasmussen &Daszak?

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki So @MJnanostretch — do you have a timestamp for that claim, or was this just your interpretation?

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Where do they say that? A timestamp would help. If it’s the part I think, they’re saying even in the US you wouldn’t get full access, especially lab notebooks/raw data. That’s not the same as saying the investigation was "more than proper" or that the data is "plentiful."

@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki You’re not in sync with SAGO. Framing this as if the data can’t be assessed is rhetoric. SAGO assess the published evidence and say it leans toward zoonosis, while key data needed to assess a lab origin hasn’t been made available. You’ve got it backwards.

@StavaRune @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki Not correct. If you understand the SAGO report you understand me. Very easy to see that the assessment of the Market crowd requires persuasive language (rhetoric). The data is simply not there to support their lofty claims. &There's no good reason 4them 2b so spun out re the LLH.