You can always respond to those if you want.
Sorry if I come off as condescending but when you have this argument several dozen or hundred times, it gets really really repetitive.
And it's difficult to avoid sounding like a dick. It's not my intent, I promise.
Link?
Sorry. :(
I don't have the time or bandwidth to re-write it at the moment. But a lot of her arguments are similar to Dr. Degerin's and also Dr. Ebright over at Rutgers. They are a small minority, like the OP says.
I tend to rely on expert consensus when it makes mechanistic sense like this one does.
Nothing, no evidence we have, makes either possibility impossible. The lab leak just requires a lot more cloak and dagger and new assumptions. Occam's razer tells me to favor the hypothesis with the least new assumptions. Hence zoonotic release is more likely in my opinion. That's truly the crux of it, the rest of it is arguing over the number of angels on the head of a pin.
She's a geneticst or biochemist. She just uses some viruses in her research sometimes, like basically all biochemists.
Calling her qualified in virus biosafety is like saying someone with a PhD in Visual Arts is qualified as an expert in ballpoint pens because they've used them to draw. Sure they know some things about using ballpoint pens and which ones they prefer, but would you trust them to tell you how to design one from scratch? Or how to fix pens?
Not as much as some guy with a PhD in engineering and design at Mont Blanc, get what I'm saying?
I have also responded to her criticisms substance elsewhere, but she makes some big leaps in judgment that show she hasn't ever worked in a BSL4 lab before. Or studied the nitty gritty of virus genetics in nature before.