…don’t worry if it gets confusing, the LA Times will explain it in terms that even a fool can understand….

https://www.latimes.com/busine...conspiracy-theorists

quote:

First, let’s examine what the intelligence report says, and its context. Contrary to Pompeo’s assertion, the report states outright that it does not “address the merits of the two most likely pandemic origins hypotheses.”

The “zoonosis” hypothesis accepted by most virologists and epidemiologists is that the virus reached humans via wildlife, almost certainly through a wildlife market in the huge metropolis of Wuhan, where animals likely to be intermediate carriers of the virus were on sale. Scientists have found molecular and epidemiological evidence linking the outbreak to that market starting in December 2019.

The second hypothesis is that the outbreak can be traced to the Wuhan Institute. This is based on pure conjecture that the lab was working either on the virus itself or a close progenitor that somehow escaped into the wild.

The intelligence report says that both hypotheses “remain plausible.” But anyone with the slightest capability for critical thinking will see from the text that it comes down against the lab-leak hypothesis.

Factual statements regarding the article’s reporting on the report:

The article stated that the report “stated outright that it does not “address the merits of the two most likely pandemic origins hypotheses.”

The article stated that the report “says that both hypotheses “remain plausible””

The article continually mocks lab link proponents as “heavily breathing” conspiracy nuts.



So my question: none of us knows where Covid began. None of us. With that in mind, why are the “natural origin” believers so insistent that we should discount the WIV leak theory and believe that it sprung up naturally in a wet market? Why aren’t they saying “let’s sit back and allow science to do it’s job before jumping to conclusions”???

Here is the report: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI...OVID-19-20230623.pdf

Anyone who reads the report and comes away with the same impression as the LA Times article presents needs to have their head checked.

The bulk of the biochemical and biological science actually skews toward the lab-leak theory. The circumstantial epidemiological evidence also skews that direction.

Politics is the main force in favor of a natural origin zoonosis.

zoonosis should have been easy enough to prove.. show a SINGLE diseased animal, from the area, and some might have believed it..

more likely? there was an accident in the lab .. a couple days later a sick person (or people) went o the wet market an it spread --

Fauci was financing Wuhan!

The very first cases of the 'rona were traced back to Wuhan laboratory employees.