[simulate-me]

This article covers a lot of the circumstantial evidence supporting a lab leak: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-no...

There basically is no evidence of a natural origin. No ancestors strains have been found and it's very likely the virus was spreading before the wet market. The evidence for a lab leak is circumstantial, however.

[Maursault]

Uh, thanks for the link, but better if you'd just spell it out so it can be examined and responded to here. I'm not going to respond to a link.

> There basically is no evidence of a natural origin.

Except, I suppose, for the mountains of historical evidence that every virus ever had natural origins in people in close proximity to animals, exactly like the Wuhan Fish Market, where all of the first infections were found in proximity and not across the river near the Wuhan lab, and that in the last 80 years there have been a dozens and dozens of serious lab leaks of virulent and contagious agents that have never even led to an outbreak, let alone a global pandemic.

So circumstantial evidence just isn't going to cut any mustard here. There was talk of a smoking gun... I suppose it was just talk, because it appears the actual smoking gun is the Wuhan Fish Market.

[simulate-me]

> Uh, thanks for the link, but better if you'd just spell it out so it can be examined and responded to here. I'm not going to respond to a link.

If you don't want to spend even a basic amount of time to learn about a topic, then you're not worth debating with. Vanity Fair is a reputable source that spent a large amount of time researching the role of EcoHealth Alliance in the possible engineering of the virus at WIV. What possible discourse could we have if you only want to make hand-waving arguments rather than debate specific facts?