>Lab leak is the most likely origin and most ppl (capable of
>thinking not puking talking points) who follow this closely
>have thought this for a long time. Are you saying you
>disagree?

I don't know if it came from nature or from a lab -- but I do know it's not "settled" in any way, especially when this report was issued with "low confidence." I don't know the exact levels of confidence that are available, but "low" seems, un, low. (FBI said it had "moderate confidence" in the lab leak theory.)

So two U.S. intelligence agencies said "Likely from lab" but no prof. 4 say "Likely from nature" but no definitive proof. And several other agencies say "We don't know - there's not enough proof."

So I guess not many people are as "capable of thinking not puking talking points" that you fancy yourself to be.

I mean *the day after* the pandemic started a lot of people said "It was a lab leak, in Wuhan, with a bar" like it was a game of Clue with no proof.

>"probably bad". Do you mean false? What do you mean?
Like "bad" work. Like "bad" job.

Could it come out of a lab? Maybe.

But doesn't seem settled to me - unless you automatically "know" that anyone who disagrees isn't "(capable of
>thinking not puking talking points)."

It's weird that thinking people (who aren't talking point pukers) are proclaiming a low confidence report making hsi matter settled.

>Could it come out of a lab?
Maybe.

(Also the report is classified, so we don't even know what it actually says.)

Edit: Link to an article:https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/lab-leak-theory-doe-wsj-fauci-covid-origins.html