[travisp]

Maybe. But this is according to a paraphrase of unverified (possibly not even American) intelligence. Both the document's authority and origin are disputed, and the WSJ can't even say which department or agency wrote this. This does not seem like any sort of official US intelligence report.

A reasonable look at this particular claim and the history of similar types of claims: https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/13965771532323799...

[inciampati]

One thing is fantastically hard to ignore. The SARS2 phylogeny is rooted by a most recent common ancestor in October or November. This is as clear as day and no evidence has ever surfaced to nudge the estimate nor to indicate the virus was present previous to those dates, nor that there were existing proto-SARS2 strains. These would continue to circulate and something would have been found had they existed. (n.b. There _has_ been some now discredited science arguing it was in Europe before those dates.) The correspondence between the virus phylogeny, this report, as well as previous indications of a shutdown in the WIV in early to mid October 2019, is just an awful lot to say maybe to. So, what's the explanation on the other side of your "maybe"?

[travisp]

You're asking me to comment on the entire theory, I think. I'm only commenting on the value of an unseen intelligence report of unknown source. None of what you've said increases the validity of this report.

Everyone commenting on this post is acting immediately as if this report is 100% true, but the reality is that we know very little about the report.

[avs733]

it's like we all forget that this unverified report could just as plausibly be an act of propaganda as (if) China buried these people getting sick.

Government sources shouldn't be trusted without documentary evidence because they have clear alternative motivations.

[throwawaysea]

Couldn’t all these same points from that Twitter thread be leveled against the New York Times when they wrote about Trump’s tax returns and financials? It seems to be like an inconsistent bar is being used in terms of transparency and access to the primary source. I’m not saying it’s wrong to be skeptical - in fact I think it’s appropriate - it’s just an interesting observation on how ready we are (or aren’t) to accept allegations based on the story. Ultimately what the lab leak hypothesis deserves is a trustworthy transparent and independent investigation into WIV, but we may be too late in demanding that now, 1.5 years later.