>The claim that they have links to the Chinese government is extraordinary enough that evidence is required. I agree. I just think this is a language debate. "

>The claim that they have links to the Chinese government is extraordinary enough that evidence is required. I agree. I just think this is a language debate. "Assuming [X] is false" is just different from "not assuming [X]" / "not assuming [X] is true" / "not believing [X]". It's fine to not believe it without evidence (I wouldn't, either), but to assume it's false is to make a positive statement rather than a rejection of another positive statement.