> they’ve clearly given you proof that the virus is artificial No, they haven't. The evidence is circumstantial. You can choose to believe what you want to b

> they’ve clearly given you proof that the virus is artificial No, they haven't. The evidence is circumstantial. You can choose to believe what you want to believe; but the fact is that they have not proved anything. That's the problem with the paper. Actually read the darn thing. I'm 100% sympathetic to what they're saying here and I do hear their arguments, but this paper doesn't prove it. > Personally I think... You know the quote. "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." If it comes down to "well, I think that's high confidence" and someone else is just like "well i don't" as a personal opinion ("...But I’m hardly impartial..."), then, don't you think, maybe they haven't really done a great job here?