If you read the article carefully, it leaves the two options open, refusing to conclude, with a preference towards a natural mutation. BTW the virus may have ju

If you read the article carefully, it leaves the two options open, refusing to conclude, with a preference towards a natural mutation. BTW the virus may have jumped from animals to humans inside the lab itself. What is BS is "mutations occur in the wild permanently, so that's the most likely hypothesis". In this particular case, that's unfounded and specifically what I am challenging.