[stevemadere]

At first when I started reading this it seemed rather compelling but the further I went along the more I could see they were making use of innuendo and psychological manipulation techniques.

If their thesis is supportable, they don't need to do that.

I'll pay attention when somebody writes a dispassionate article without all the propaganda.

[akhmatova]

The biggest giveaway for me was that the piece was just too damned long. If there was some kind of point to make, you think they'd get to it within the first few paragraphs. But scrolling down page after page ... it just doesn't seem to be making any kind of a point.

It's as if The Intercept seems intent on jettisoning credibility with each "bombshell" story.

[yucky]

Out of curiosity, what is the supporting evidence for the alternate "zoonotic transmission" theory? As far as I know there isn't any.

We know for a fact the virus was present in the Wuhan lab.

We know for a fact it hasn't been identified in bats in the wild.

Is there a different theory as to the origins?

[wrp]

> ...what is the supporting evidence for the alternate "zoonotic transmission" theory?

This is a reasonable question and should be answered rather than downvoted. A study released a few months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30487145) found that two strains of SARS-CoV-2 emerged at the Wuhan market in November-December 2019, Lineage A and Lineage B. From the submitted article, "it’s extremely improbable that two distinct lineages of SARS-CoV-2 could have been derived from a laboratory and then coincidentally ended up at the market."

[boxed]

It existed in the lab because it was the lab that collected samples from the wild bats. So by definition you are incorrect.

[scotty79]

Well... Only the fact that every human virus ever came to us through zoonotic transmission.

So it having unnatural origin is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.