Speculate all you want, just don't make definitive claims using non-definitive evidence.

Even if you had literal witnesses it wouldn't be 'definitive' evidence, I'm not sure why you're using this argument as if you can't make claims about things you didn't directly observe.

Well I don't even think there's enough evidence here to win a civil trial where the bar is lower than criminal. Don't act like you have the answer while citing sources that literally say your claim might not be what happened. Y'all just want to jump to a conclusion.

You realise you don't have to agree with everything in a source you cite, right?

Why would I ignore the parts of a cited source they don't agree with or that's counter to the claim being made? You don't think that's important?

Ok…but why is that so important to you? I guess I am trying to understand the motivation behind people who are insisting on splitting hairs to downplay or denigrate the circumstantial evidence that points toward a lab leak.

I mean I can understand if there was an accidental lab leak of an engineered virus that killed millions was created in a Chinese lab with American tax dollars why those involved might want that information suppressed and to go away but why is it important to Klinky to take up that cause?

Regardless of the domain, questions of strength of evidence and strength of conclusions that can be drawn are of general interest to many.

That’s the thing, I am certainly interested if governments are engineering a possible plague and accidentally this plague leaked out and killed many. That has a widespread obvious general interest to the public. What I don’t understand is why laypeople with no connection to the possible groups and government supposedly involved would be motivated to take up the cause against the speculation. What motivates them? I don’t see the general interest value to cause them to choose that side of the debate.

I literally said speculate all you want. Just don't expect your speculation to be magically accepted as truth when that's not what the evidence supports.

Have you spoken about your concerns with your congresspersons & asked them to support bans on risky gain-of-function research? That'd be something tangible you could do than just speculating on top of speculation.

Why deflect here? What is your motivation to discount and argue against using circumstantial evidence to draw a conclusion possibility when neither side of the debate has the definitive evidence that you seek?

Does it somehow bother your politics in some way? Are you just being a contrarian for contrary sake? Your desire for evidential purity in a situation where you are most likely not involved is really strange. I am just interested in why that is. What is motivating you here? Please articulate it.

> discount and argue against using circumstantial evidence

Didn't discount or argue against using circumstantial evidence, nor did I argue against speculating. I am stating the evidence only supports the possibility, it does not prove it happened. Please stop making up false arguments.

>neither side of the debate has the definitive evidence

Agreed.

The original comment you replied made no claim that those two links were definitive proof of a lab leak, only that they were known to be factual. They may be circumstantial but circumstantial evidence can still be provably true. You made the leap to assume that original commenter meant it as definitive proof of a lab leak in your comment.

I read the comment to mean thatit was offered as a strong circumstantial evidence because it was indisputably true due to the public records that support it.

Every study I see leaning towards a lab leak origin conclusion tend to be pretty specific to use words like “likely” or “probable” because of the lack of definitive evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be powerful, especially when the other side does not have a set of similar or better circumstantial evidence in their favor.

>made no claim that those two links were definitive proof

They implied their confidence through the rhetorical use of "What are the chances?". That was not a genuine question.

> circumstantial evidence can still be provably true

Circumstantial evidence MUST be true to be usable.

The circumstantial evidence provided in the articles was:

- There was a denied research grant that was going to look into modifying the furin site of SARs viruses. It was denied though, and as far as we know, never done.

- The furin site was complex, but could've evolved naturally.

- Some scientists think it could have been of lab origin.

- Some scientists think it could have been zoonotic origin.

All of this is true, but it doesn't mean a lab leak is "probable" or "more than likely".

>Every study I see leaning towards a lab leak origin

So even the studies that lean towards the theory qualify that the evidence is not definitive. We're back where we started.

Definitive or Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: No

Probable or More Likely Than Not: No

A strong possibility: Yes

There is not a consensus on the origin of COVID-19 at this time.

> Have you spoken about your concerns with your congresspersons & asked them to support bans on risky gain-of-function research? That'd be something tangible you could do than just speculating on top of speculation.

US law already bans US funding of gain-of-function research.

Is this true? I saw NIH lifted a moratorium in 2017. There's currently an unpassed bill to stop Fed funding of gain-of-function research. It does not seem banned either completely or from federal funding.

Why is that not important to you? I am not "splitting hairs" or "denigrating" anything. I am reading the sources cited and not jumping to a conclusion. The evidence here probably isn't even enough to win a civil trial.