Good article but author is wrong about "Cotton attributed this to malice". That's not what his statement said. He simply stated that there is a level 4 super la

Good article but author is wrong about "Cotton attributed this to malice". That's not what his statement said. He simply stated that there is a level 4 super lab in Wuhan which works with similar viruses. That alone is not malice. The virus could have leaked from the lab by accident because of poor practices - that's not malice. Malice would be if it was intentionally leaked. The intention is what scientists and intelligence is supposed to do. One could also say that China banning on national flights and closing off areas while allowing international flights and not providing correct info/warnings to other countries is what real malice is. > But Cotton did one thing that those other sources didn’t do — he speculated a little. At the end of that clip he says “we still don’t know where coronavirus originated. Could have been a market, a farm, a food processing company. I would note that Wuhan has China’s only biosafety level-four super laboratory that works with the world’s most deadly pathogens to include, yes, coronavirus.” > Where Cotton differed from the consensus is that he attributed this to malice, which is not what the scientific articles said (but also isn’t a scientific question) and was not the NYT’s preferred interpretation of events.