The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins

[GreenGoo]

So I recently watched a biologist debunk the right's 80% desist rate of those who identify as trans before 13 years old.

It was long, it was complicated, and a lot of it had to be dumbed down so the lay person could follow. In the end I was convinced that the actual number is something between 2-5%, depending on how you interpret certain responses.

So the right is claiming a study that touts 80-85% trans desisting. The actual number is less than 5%.

The bottom line is that science is hard. Newspaper people aren't scientists, and shockingly, may have their own agendas.

Can we trust what we read in the media? Sure, up to a point. But be skeptical.

AB is more than welcome to his opinion on this. Despite being proven wrong over and over again. But *this* time, he's got the smoking gun.

Just let it go AB. It's going to take a preponderance of evidence to make me even begin to entertain this possibility at this point. Others may be more easily convinced, I guess.

Good luck.

[El Guapo]

Whether the pandemic originated as a lab leak does have significant non-xenophobic policy implications. Like presumably it would matter to how we approach the regulation of disease research labs.

You'll note the article was talking about the average American. If the average american is interested in regulatory policy re: disease research labs, then yes, it would be good for them to pay attention. I feel like those particular americans are already paying attention though.

If something close to proof or a strong consensus emerged around a lab leak, I expect that it would cause a sea change in terms of political pressure to 'do something' to address that. The views of the "average American" are as always going to be mostly derived from the political sources they follow, I imagine.

Regardless, I was addressing the question of whether this issue matters, as opposed to whether the article is persuasive or not.

[GreenGoo]

Regardless, I was addressing the question of whether this issue matters, as opposed to whether the article is persuasive or not.

Great. The context of the discussion was framed by the article posted, which was denigrating Americans in general for not caring enough about the source.

However, you are completely correct, in terms of pedantry.

[El Guapo]

Regardless, I was addressing the question of whether this issue matters, as opposed to whether the article is persuasive or not.

Great. The context of the discussion was framed by the article posted, which was denigrating Americans in general for not caring enough about the source.

However, you are completely correct, in terms of pedantry.

People were talking about whether the issue mattered. I guess it's pedantic to argue yes?

[GreenGoo]

People were talking about whether the issue mattered. I guess it's pedantic to argue yes?

Good. We are in agreement finally.

My point is that Vic didn't comment from a vacuum, and there is context that shapes and colours Vic's response. And mine, that followed.

If we are talking about personal computers and I say "this new chip is the biggest ever" and you say "well mainframes have much larger chips", is that useful or relevant or just pedantic?

I've tried to illustrate my point. If you don't see it, that's fine. Let's move along.

Edit: And I think we're both missing the important point, which is that it was engineered to negatively impact America's GDP. America should definitely cut trade ties with China over that. That'll fix the GDP problem.

[Anonymous Bosch]

The bottom line is that science is hard.

Granted, but I would argue neither the former science editor of the New York Times nor the former editor of Popular Mechanics lack understanding of the underlying complexities that surround this issue, and they're certainly not kooks (beyond the notion of having dared to express dissident and non-dogmatic opinion on this issue back when doing so was far more controversial). The evaluations they provide regarding the latest documents released via FOIA request are perfectly coherent and understandable for a lay person because of their editorial backgrounds and expertise, if you simply take the time to read them as opposed to dashing off to Wikipedia to seek ad hom rationalizations for doing this instead:

Newspaper people aren't scientists, and shockingly, may have their own agendas.

Indeed, we all have our own biases or agendas, and shockingly, as Wade aptly observed, scientists and virologists in particular may also have had their own agendas and reasons to lie about the extent of their profession’s responsibility for a catastrophic pandemic.

Can we trust what we read in the media? Sure, up to a point. But be skeptical.

I would almost invariably agree with your encouragement for a healthy dose of scepticism towards any and all media (and not just those with whom you disagree or oppose).

[GreenGoo]

I don't find your sources compelling, and it's a lot of work refuting them, even though a cursory glance reveals significant red flags each and every time. For. Years. Now.

I don't know what wiki has to do with that. Is it a good article? I wouldn't know.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll have actual evidence instead of supposition and circumstantial "evidence". Until that day, keep on keeping on.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I don't find your sources compelling, and it's a lot of work refuting them, even though a cursory glance reveals significant red flags each and every time.

Can you be more specific? Having read the reports from Geraghty, the former editor of Popular Mechanics, and former science editor of the New York Times, if you have a different interpretation of how the roadmap revealed in the DEFUSE documents relates to the pandemic, what would you say that is? I'm not looking to "win" a debate with you here, I just think this is an issue worthy of further discussion for the reasons Geraghty observed:

Stories don’t get any bigger than the origin of a virus that caused a global pandemic, effectively shut down the world for a year, and changed the lives of every human being on the planet. We’re still dealing with the learning loss; we’re still living with the consequences of missed cancer diagnoses; we’re dealing with an explosion of skepticism about the value of all kinds of vaccines — thanks a lot, mandate advocates; and we’re dealing with an estimated financial cost of $14 trillion. (For perspective, all U.S. federal government spending in fiscal year 2023 was $6.1 trillion.)

[GreenGoo]

Well that second paragraph is just "these are some of the consequences of the pandemic" which we already knew and doesn't address anything about the origin, but then he takes a shitty shot at mandate supporters, and when I followed through on that link, it was a half assed study about how mandates have consequences, some of them unforeseen. Well, duh. But he doesn't frame it like that, he frames it as mandators were wrong to insist on a mandate, and this is one of the reasons. Thanks a lot, mandate advocates!

At which point I realize it's not a legitimate article with an objective opinion, it's a piece from a dude with an axe to grind, and an audience of people who badly want something to be true, no matter how few people and how little evidence indicates it's true.

After nearly 3 years, that's all the effort I'm willing to put into this. And quite frankly, you're lucky you got that out of me. I can only entertain your viewpoint and sources for so long before I realize that even a cursory glance is a waste of my time.

But sure, I'm willfully ignorant. Fine.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Well that second paragraph is just "these are some of the consequences of the pandemic" which we already knew and doesn't address anything about the origin, but then he takes a shitty shot at mandate supporters, and when I followed through on that link, it was a half assed study about how mandates have consequences, some of them unforeseen. Well, duh. But he doesn't frame it like that, he frames it as mandators were wrong to insist on a mandate, and this is one of the reasons. Thanks a lot, mandate advocates!

At which point I realize it's not a legitimate article with an objective opinion, it's a piece from a dude with an axe to grind, and an audience of people who badly want something to be true, no matter how few people and how little evidence indicates it's true.

Okay, Geraghty aside, what were the significant red flags that struck you about the assessments from the former science editor of the New York Times and former editor of Popular Mechanics, and did you come away with a different interpretation of how the roadmap revealed in the DEFUSE documents relates to the pandemic?

But sure, I'm willfully ignorant. Fine.

That is not what I am not saying at all, and I wouldn't be responding if I had no interest in conversing with you. I understand your disagreement with Geraghty's digs at mandate advocates, but there's no denying the crucial importance of what he was referring to in that paragraph, in terms of a story with such profound significance as this. This is a forum for dialogue, so I'm merely attempting to engage in polite and civil discussion of the relevant new documents that describe the DEFUSE project proposal and how this likely relates to the global pandemic.

[GreenGoo]

Well that second paragraph is just "these are some of the consequences of the pandemic" which we already knew and doesn't address anything about the origin, but then he takes a shitty shot at mandate supporters, and when I followed through on that link, it was a half assed study about how mandates have consequences, some of them unforeseen. Well, duh. But he doesn't frame it like that, he frames it as mandators were wrong to insist on a mandate, and this is one of the reasons. Thanks a lot, mandate advocates!

At which point I realize it's not a legitimate article with an objective opinion, it's a piece from a dude with an axe to grind, and an audience of people who badly want something to be true, no matter how few people and how little evidence indicates it's true.

Okay, Geraghty aside, what were the significant red flags that struck you about the assessments from the former science editor of the New York Times and former editor of Popular Mechanics, and did you come away with a different interpretation of how the roadmap revealed in the DEFUSE documents relates to the pandemic?

But sure, I'm willfully ignorant. Fine.

That is not what I am not saying at all, and I wouldn't be responding if I had no interest in conversing with you. I understand your disagreement with Geraghty's digs at mandate advocates, but there's no denying the crucial importance of what he was referring to in that paragraph, in terms of a story as profoundly significant as this. This is a forum for dialogue, so I'm merely attempting to engage in polite and civil discussion of the relevant new documents that describe the DEFUSE project proposal and how this likely relates to the global pandemic.

There's no "aside". I'm not rifling through your sources one at a time, I can barely bring myself to glance at them at this point. I gave the material an eyeball, followed a link to find out it was being misrepresented by the article writer, then I stopped. If there's super important information in there that we all need to be aware of, it'll reach me from another source, one that doesn't tell me how to feel about the information.

We are absolutely inundated with misinformation today. It's a firehose of non-stop propaganda, from both sides. If they cause me to have doubts about the veracity of parts of their article, I'm throwing the whole thing out. Full stop. I just don't have the cycles to fully vet every single piece of information I come across. And that's with me doing way, way more vetting than the average person. Honest mistakes are different, but influence is what is being peddled, not information.

If you weren't implying I was willfully ignorant, why did you post a meme about being willfully ignorant? Or do you think that meme has a different meaning?

In any case, you have your work cut out for you. You've used up a lot of good will in this thread, and I have very little left to engage your sources. They haven't been trustworthy sources in the past, why would I expect them to be trustworthy *this* time? Despite this, I did glance through them briefly.

I guess the bottom line is that I don't trust you on this subject, and your sources are continually suspect. It's not that you are untrustworthy, you are incredibly knowledgeable and helpful in other forums here on OO. I respect that. On this subject you are fixated on the outcome rather than the facts, and it shows. Has shown, for almost 3 years.

That's pretty much it AB. I'm sorry, but I don't trust you on this topic and it's practically a miracle that I read anything you sourced or links from those sources.

There may come a day when the world knows the answer to this question (virus origin) and many of us might owe you an apology, but even then, betting on a low probability event that turns out to be true is not being right, it's being lucky.

So if the virus started in a lab in China, and a preponderance of evidence supports that assertion eventually, the information will reach me from a different source. On that day I will formally apologize here on the forum and admit that you've been right all along. But that information is not going to come from you and not your sources. I do apologize for being blunt, but I do think being honest here will save us some time.

There are others here that I don't trust on certain subjects, so it's not like I've singled you out, even if it feels like that in this particular case.

[The Meal]

This is a forum for dialogue

[waitingtoconnect]

I think that Occums razor applies in this case.

SARS type viruses including Covid of varying degrees of lethality have come out of China multiple times.

Given this why wouldn’t the local lab be studying viruses like this. Logically you would.

On the other side people don’t believe nature can create things that kill us and thus put such incidents on the gods or our own hands. Even in modern times hiv was a curse from god for homosexuality and Covid is lab made.

[Anonymous Bosch]

This is a forum for dialogue

That's cute and all, but you're equating some posts you made about which way a big green arrow was pointing on your iPhone -- that I responded to with humour, in the Random randomness thread -- with discussion of the origin of a virus that has proven to be among the worst disasters in human history and certainly the deadliest pandemic in U.S. history.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I think that Occums razor applies in this case.

SARS type viruses including Covid of varying degrees of lethality have come out of China multiple times.

Given this why wouldn’t the local lab be studying viruses like this. Logically you would.

Occam's razor applies to the natural-origin theory too though, which as Geraghty wryly observed back in 2022, requires belief in a series of coincidences that seem so unlikely it becomes effectively impossible:

In the autumn of 2019, there were three institutions in the entire world that were doing gain-of-function research on novel coronaviruses found in bats. One was in Galveston, Texas, one was in Chapel Hill, N.C., and the third was in Wuhan, China.

In theory, the pandemic could have started with some random Chinese person who didn’t have any connection to the bat coronavirus research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology or the Wuhan CDC. This person would have a spectacularly unlucky run-in with a bat or other animal, and that random Chinese person caught the exceptionally rare naturally occurring animal virus that infects, sickens, and spreads among human beings like wildfire. This same hyper-contagious bat virus would have the exceptionally unusual trait of being extremely difficult to find in bats.

This extraordinarily unlucky person would then travel to the metaphorical doorstep of one of the three labs in the world doing gain-of-function research on novel coronaviruses found in bats and start infecting other people in the city of Wuhan. Under the natural-origin theory, the Wuhan laboratories just happen to be mind-bogglingly unlucky that events played out in a way that so closely mimics the consequences of a lab accident.

Or, as Jon Stewart amusingly put it back in the day, "We have a chocolate leak in Pennsylvania! I wonder where it came from…?"

[RunningMn9]

There are others here that I don't trust on certain subjects, so it's not like I've singled you out, even if it feels like that in this particular case.

I knew it!

That said, I’m shocked that anyone here still had the patience to read or click on any of that. You guys are way more patient than I am.

[Victoria Raverna]

I think the problem is the misunderstanding of probability. Just because the odd is very low doesn't mean it is effectively impossible.

Also it is not about the odd of some random Chinese person getting the virus. It might be very small odd for a single Chinese person but Wuhan has over 11 millions people live in it. China has around 1.4 bIllion people live in it.

Just like the odd of a single person in US to win a lottery jackpot is very low but because there are a lot of people who buy them, it is not that rare for people to win.

There are probably plenty of people getting rare virus from animals yearly but we probably don't know because it doesn't result in a pandemic.

The only coincidence was that the virus started at Wuhan.

[GreenGoo]

There are others here that I don't trust on certain subjects, so it's not like I've singled you out, even if it feels like that in this particular case.

I knew it!

That said, I’m shocked that anyone here still had the patience to read or click on any of that. You guys are way more patient than I am.

Hah. Do you mean patience to read or click my posts, or the Lab Origin posts? Just for clarity. My feelings aren't hurt either way.

[RunningMn9]

This lab origin horseshit that AB has been fervently trying to peddle for years, despite being wrong every time.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I guess the bottom line is that I don't trust you on this subject, and your sources are continually suspect. It's not that you are untrustworthy, you are incredibly knowledgeable and helpful in other forums here on OO. I respect that. On this subject you are fixated on the outcome rather than the facts, and it shows.

Dude, I'm trying earnestly to engage in discussion of specific facts that were revealed in the latest documents released via FOIA request by USRTK.org. You needn't necessarily agree with the opinions of the sources I've linked. But I've emphasized the fact that these reports were written by the likes of a former editor of Popular Mechanics and former science editor of the New York Times specifically because you observed that "science is hard," and they present their assessments in a manner that is perfectly coherent and understandable for a lay person by way of their particular editorial backgrounds and expertise.

You and RM9 can pretend that my take on this topic is still somehow 'wrong' or 'extreme'. But considering the Director of the FBI has long since conveyed that “the FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan,” and in the realm of public opinion, polling from Quinnipiac University shows that 64% of Americans believed the pandemic started from a lab leak, compared to 22% who believed it had a natural origin? My point of view on this subject currently aligns well within the mainstream.

[GreenGoo]

It is (most likely) wrong and it is in the minority. Still. 3 years later. However, it's not extreme.

It is possible it originated in a lab, but the odds are against it because the evidence is against it.

You might be trying to have a dialogue in good faith, but I am not interested. Because you taught me over 3 years that being interested in engaging you on this subject is unproductive. You get that right? You can only cry wolf so many times before people disengage, many disengage permanently. I have not, and that's why we are even exchanging posts. However, it might be better for both of us if I did.

Good luck with your little project though. I'm sure this is the year the explosive coverup will be exposed.

[GreenGoo]

But considering the Director of the FBI has long since conveyed that “the FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan,”

See, this is what I'm talking about. You link a reputable source spouting medium (not high, medium) confidence in a lab origin, and fail to mention that very same article counters with FIVE (5) other reputable sources that have low confidence in a lab origin.

5 to 1. And it's the fucking FBI. Disease vectors in foreign countries aren't exactly in their wheelhouse. But sure, the fbi are right and the 5 other intelligence agencies are all wrong. Because it's what you want to hear. This is perfect example of cherry picking to support a narrative. I'm not interested.

[RunningMn9]

See, this is what I'm talking about. You link a reputable source spouting medium (not high, medium) confidence in a lab origin, and fail to mention that very same article counters with FIVE (5) other reputable sources that have low confidence in a lab origin.

5 to 1. And it's the fucking FBI. Disease vectors in foreign countries aren't exactly in their wheelhouse. But sure, the fbi are right and the 5 other intelligence agencies are all wrong. Because it's what you want to hear. This is perfect example of cherry picking to support a narrative. I'm not interested.

This is why I permanently disengaged with this nonsense. The poster in question isn't interested in the truth or being correct. They are committed to an outcome, and will accept anything that confirms that outcome while rejecting everything that contradicts that outcome. Does the FBI have any experience in determining the origin of a disease outbreak? No, of course not. That's not what the FBI does. They might as well ask Nate Silver what he thinks, with all of his lack of knowledge, experience, and expertise. Oh wait, they did that too. Because he said what they wanted to hear.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Does the FBI have any experience in determining the origin of a disease outbreak? No, of course not. That's not what the FBI does.

Quoting from the article I linked above:

Wray said in the interview that the FBI has a team of experts who focus specifically on the risk of biological threats that come into the “wrong hands,” including by a “hostile nation state.”

The FBI is a credible and respected domestic intelligence agency with decades of expertise and experience in investigating and analyzing potential threats to national security, and the director's statements are likely based on gathering and analyzing evidence through a rigorous investigative process. The FBI employs experts in various fields, including biology, chemistry, and medicine, who are plenty capable of analyzing scientific data and assessing the origins of this virus. Despite its domestic focus, the FBI also works closely with other government agencies and international partners to gather information and assess risks, increasing the likelihood that their conclusion is well-informed on this particular subject. It has access to classified intelligence that isn't available to the public, that may include communications intercepts, satellite imagery, and human intelligence, all of which could provide insights into the activities at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Suffice to say, intelligence-gathering is a crucial and extremely relevant factor for this topic since the origins of the pandemic remain limited by disclosures from Chinese authorities. As the FBI director put it: “I will just make the observation that the Chinese government, it seems to me, has been doing its best to try to thwart and obfuscate the work here.”

Also, re: the 2021 report regarding the National Intelligence Council and four other unidentified agencies:

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a 2021 report that revealed the National Intelligence Council, along with four other unidentified agencies, assessed with low confidence that the initial Covid-19 infection “was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus.”

Intelligence agencies can make assessments with either low, medium or high confidence. A low confidence assessment generally means that the information obtained is not reliable enough or is too fragmented to make a more definitive analytic judgment or that there is not enough information available to draw a more robust conclusion.

So in terms of being "committed to an outcome," how and why should a three-year old report from the National Intelligence Council (and four additional unidentified agencies) making an assessment with low confidence take precedence over the director of the FBI stating publicly on the record in 2023 that “the FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan”? Perhaps, subsequent to the low confidence assessment from the NIC and FOUR OTHER HUGELY SIGNIFICANT unidentified agencies , the FBI has since developed additional and/or more corroborative sources of classified intelligence, evidence, and information. Enough to make their assessment with high confidence? Obviously not, or at least not yet. But the FBI director's acknowledgement is undeniable grist for the mill, and a likely significant factor as to why two-thirds of Americans think the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic was more likely caused by a laboratory leak.

[GreenGoo]

They are unnamed in the article YOU posted pushing lab origin! To be honest I'm slightly shocked they mentioned even one agency by name. Presumably to be "fair" and "balanced". 1 agency for, 1 agency against. It's an equally likely origin! Maybe more likely, according to this article you're reading! It's the journalistic equivalent of mumbling an answer to a question you don't like, hoping no one will notice.

I know you want to debate the nuances of the theory, but no one else does for reasons explained ad nauseam.

[Zarathud]

The FBI is primarily does domestic investigation. Its international operations are limited and they do not have the same expertise or resources intelligence agencies have. If it was an investigation of misconduct by the CDC, not China, their conclusions and confidence would have more weight.

Why do you think the FBI is better than the CIA or spy agencies in investigating a Chinese coverup (as you claim)?

[RunningMn9]

The FBI is primarily does domestic investigation. Its international operations are limited and they do not have the same expertise or resources intelligence agencies have. If it was an investigation of misconduct by the CDC, not China, their conclusions and confidence would have more weight.

Why do you think the FBI is better than the CIA or spy agencies in investigating a Chinese coverup (as you claim)?

And none of this actually has anything to do with the origin of a novel virus, which is a scientific investigation, and not an intelligence investigation. As an example, I wouldn't put the FBI in charge of figuring out why the Challenger exploded. Investigating the cause of a catastrophic failure of a spacecraft is not something they have any experience with. That they were politically forced to have an opinion doesn't give their opinion any more weight.

[Zarathud]

Exactly, and that’s the second step — why not believe the scientific research? Which could turn IF real evidence come up.

It’s human nature to want to blame others or to avoid responsibility for tragedy…but that’s emotion, not logic.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Why do you think the FBI is better than the CIA or spy agencies in investigating a Chinese coverup (as you claim)?

Because there's reason to suspect that members of the CIA's team tasked with pandemic analysis were bribed to shift their position about where the virus originated:

CIA Gave Financial Rewards To Six Analysts Who Covered Up Lab Leak Investigation, Whistleblower Alleges

The CIA gave six analysts financial rewards for changing their position on the lab leak coronavirus origin theory.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) gave six analysts financial rewards for changing their position on the lab leak coronavirus origin theory, according to whistleblower testimony released by House investigators.

The House Oversight Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic wrote letters Tuesday to CIA Director William Burns and former CIA Chief Operating Officer Andrew Makridis outlining whistleblower testimony accusing the CIA of giving monetary incentives to six agents on its Covid Discovery Team to change their position on the lab leak hypothesis. According to the lawmakers, the whistleblower is a “multi-decade, senior-level, current Agency officer.”

“According to the whistleblower, the Agency assigned seven officers to a COVID Discovery Team (Team). The Team consisted of multi-disciplinary and experienced officers with significant scientific expertise. According to the whistleblower, at the end of its review, six of the seven members of the Team believed the intelligence and science were sufficient to make a low confidence assessment that COVID-19 originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China,” the letter to Burns reads.

“The whistleblower further contends that to come to the eventual public determination of uncertainty, the other six members were given a significant monetary incentive to change their position,” the letter adds.

House investigators are requesting Burns turn over all documents and communications related to the Covid Team and the origins of the coronavirus, including its correspondence with relevant federal agencies and the team’s pay history. Burns has until Sept. 26, 2023 to respond to the subcommittee’s request. Likewise, the subcommittee is asking Makridis to participate in a transcribed interview on Sept. 26 because of the “central role” he played in forming the Covid Team.

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic published a report in July accusing former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci of orchestrating a campaign to discredit the lab leak theory at the beginning of the covid pandemic. Assessments from the FBI and Department of Energy have concluded covid most likely originated from a lab in Wuhan, China where coronaviruses were being researched.

[Zaxxon]

The Daily Caller, bastion of unbiased and trustworthy reporting.

[Anonymous Bosch]

The Daily Caller, bastion of unbiased and trustworthy reporting.

Lighten up, Francis; I merely linked the first source that showed up when searching for the story. Here's the same story as reported by newsweek.com and science.org if it makes any difference to you. But they each appear to report much the same thing. And realistically, there's nothing I can do to alter the fact that we live in a world of increasingly siloed and segrated news coverage.

[TheMix]

AB, as a disinterested observer, I'm really struggling to see what your intent is here. It seems abundantly clear that no one is interested in engaging. There are no "fence sitters" that are being swayed by your arguments. So, seriously, what is your goal? If it was just to present potentially new findings, fine. But the fervor of your defense belies such an intent.

It seems that you are intent on alienating everyone. Agressively.

I just don't get it.

[Anonymous Bosch]

AB, as a disinterested observer, I'm really struggling to see what your intent is here. It seems abundantly clear that no one is interested in engaging. There are no "fence sitters" that are being swayed by your arguments. So, seriously, what is your goal? If it was just to present potentially new findings, fine. But the fervor of your defense belies such an intent.

It seems that you are intent on alienating everyone. Agressively.

I just don't get it.

I firmly believe this a topic worthy of deliberation, that ought not be swept under the rug and dismissed merely because a perceived majority on this particular forum deems it heretical. Because few tales are as monumental as the genesis of a virus that sparked a worldwide pandemic, brought global activity to a standstill, and irreversibly transformed the existence of every person on Earth. So I'll continue to share potentially new findings, especially if and when they shed more light and transparency upon an inherently murky subject area. And rest assured, if or when the bat or other animal is discovered where this exceptionally rare but naturally occurring animal virus is discovered? I shall stand corrected, and adjust my opinion on the origins of this virus accordingly. But for the time being, my opinion aligns with the two-thirds of Americans who think the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic was more likely caused by a laboratory leak, and am not afraid to say so in the least.

[TheMix]

So I'll continue to share potentially new findings, especially if and when they shed more light and transparency upon an inherently murky subject area.

That would be fine. If that was what you were doing. But it's not.

Sadly, this is how I expected you to respond. So let me be blunt... your behavior in this thread has affected my opinion of you. It has made me less willing to engage with you in any other thread. That you are unwilling to recognize that saddens me. I hope that some day you can free yourself from the huge chip that seems to rest on your shoulder.

I tried. I'm done.

[Anonymous Bosch]

So I'll continue to share potentially new findings, especially if and when they shed more light and transparency upon an inherently murky subject area.

That would be fine. If that was what you were doing. But it's not.

You're entitled your opinion, but that is precisely what I tried to do with regard to the newly released documents via USRTK's FOIA request, that disclose how prominent U.S. virologists planned to evade oversight as to what kind of gain-of-function experiments were being conducted on coronaviruses found in bats at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I linked to three different sources reporting and opining on the subject, and when LordMortis observed that he did not see the actual documents, I also responded with the direct link to read them.

[RunningMn9]

That would be fine. If that was what you were doing. But it's not.

Right, if this was some quest for Truth, you would think that at least once he would have posted new findings from a credible source. Just once. And if it was just about new findings, why does he never post any of the new findings that debunk the lab leak theory?

He started out with a belief in the lab leak theory, for reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence. And since then, he’s done nothing but post every regurgitated form of the lab leak logical argument (which never matches up with the actual evidence).

[Holman]

The Daily Caller, bastion of unbiased and trustworthy reporting.

Lighten up, Francis; I merely linked the first source that showed up when searching for the story. Here's the same story as reported by newsweek.com and science.org if it makes any difference to you. But they each appear to report much the same thing. And realistically, there's nothing I can do to alter the fact that we live in a world of increasingly siloed and segrated news coverage.

Surely you know that Newsweek is no longer the trusted source that it used to be.

And your linked science.org article is merely a short presentation of the existence of the claim, not a defense of its merits.

[waitingtoconnect]

I think that Occums razor applies in this case.

SARS type viruses including Covid of varying degrees of lethality have come out of China multiple times.

Given this why wouldn’t the local lab be studying viruses like this. Logically you would.

Occam's razor applies to the natural-origin theory too though, which as Geraghty wryly observed back in 2022, requires belief in a series of coincidences that seem so unlikely it becomes effectively impossible:

Wuhan is a major hub for transport of goods and domestic and international travel.

Just like hiv didn’t arise where it was first detected likely this virus arose somewhere in rural China and a sick person came into the city and started spreading it.

This series of coincidences that is so implausible as to be impossible as you put it is how every viral and bacterial disease through history has risen, evolved and spread.

Based on this this is logically the most likely possibility. Given chinas lack of cooperation it’s unlikely the true source will be found.

The lab leak is a possibility - but far more likely is a natural development and spread just like every other diseases that afflicts us today.

Most large Chinese cities have laboratories that study coronaviruses, and virus outbreaks typically begin in rural areas, but are first noticed in large cities. If a coronavirus outbreak occurs in China, there is a high likelihood it will occur near a large city, and therefore near a laboratory studying coronaviruses.

[Anonymous Bosch]

The Daily Caller, bastion of unbiased and trustworthy reporting.

Lighten up, Francis; I merely linked the first source that showed up when searching for the story. Here's the same story as reported by newsweek.com and science.org if it makes any difference to you. But they each appear to report much the same thing. And realistically, there's nothing I can do to alter the fact that we live in a world of increasingly siloed and segrated news coverage.

Surely you know that Newsweek is no longer the trusted source that it used to be.

As I said, I am powerless to change the reality of our world's increasingly isolated and divided news reporting, and I certainly said nothing to imply that Newsweek was necessarily a "bastion of unbiased and trustworthy reporting," as Zaxxon would put it.

And your linked science.org article is merely a short presentation of the existence of the claim, not a defense of its merits.

Which was precisely the point I was making, i.e. simply that allegations have surfaced that the CIA's personnel assigned to pandemic investigation may've been bribed to alter their position about where the virus originated. I vaguely recalled the story, so I linked and quoted the first source that showed up when searching for it because there's only so much time I can afford to allocate to this (and the two others after Zaxxon bemoaned my quotation of the Daily Caller story).

[Zaxxon]

Appreciate the repeated call-outs, but I’m flabbergasted that you continue not to see what we all keep pointing out to you. I’m once again out.