There is nothing that separates the lab hypothesis from the 'consensus' hypothesis other than the latter is approved by the powers that be. They are both possibilities based on speculation and some circumstantial evidence but nothing hard and direct.
So given that we know it didn't originate in the wet market, and we know that it could have originated in the lab, and we know that the lab had a poor safety record, in fact the best-supported theory to date is that the virus escaped from the lab.
If you've got a better-supported theory, by all means, provide some evidence to back it up, like those of us who believe that it could have come from the lab have done. Not that it did, because we still lack a "smoking gun" that will prove such — only that it is a reasonable theory, and further, the best-supported theory.
The fact that the lab had a poor safety record (assuming that is true) is not evidence that that is where this virus came from. It just doesn't help rule it out.
Felson's Law:
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from
many is research.
'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2, Insightful)
No evidence at all, says Xi, vigorously brushing his hands together while standing on a particularly lumpy rug.
Re: (Score:-1)
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:3)
Other than that being bullshit, what you say is utter crap.
The distinction is complexity. Always start with the simplest, all others have to prove why that is too simple and theirs are better.
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:3)
We already know your theory is bullshit [businessinsider.com], or at minimum, that China itself says that the wet market is not the source.
We also know that the wuhan lab was studying coronaviruses and had poor safety protocols [politico.com].
So given that we know it didn't originate in the wet market, and we know that it could have originated in the lab, and we know that the lab had a poor safety record, in fact the best-supported theory to date is that the virus escaped from the lab.
If you've got a better-supported theory, by all means, provide some evidence to back it up, like those of us who believe that it could have come from the lab have done. Not that it did, because we still lack a "smoking gun" that will prove such — only that it is a reasonable theory, and further, the best-supported theory.
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2)
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2)
The fact that the lab had a poor safety record (assuming that is true) is not evidence that that is where this virus came from. It just doesn't help rule it out.