> In two possible directions. You'd still need additional evidence demonstrating it was lab --> nature, not nature --> lab. Yes. > Right, and virologists say

> In two possible directions. You'd still need additional evidence demonstrating it was lab --> nature, not nature --> lab. Yes. > Right, and virologists say citing 89% similarity is bogus, as that's actually substantial difference in genomes. The same virologists that were quick to say 96% similarity to the alleged previously discovered bat coronavirus named RaTG13 is significant? Is 89 to 96% such a big leap, or are they trying to have it both ways?