The article is very well written, as was the last article on lab origin theory. Previous articles have already recognized that this mutation (technically 33 mut

The article is very well written, as was the last article on lab origin theory. Previous articles have already recognized that this mutation (technically 33 mutations) emerged from a strain prior to even the naming of the Alpha strain. That by itself had resulted in several theories, a few of which were mentioned: a lab leak, that this was mutating within a single population for over a year before spreading, that is was mutating within a single person, or that it traveled to another species where it spread rampantly and mutated then traveled back. This adds further data and it's great to see articles that use highly credible PHD sources like this, and the explains things in easy to understand ways. I feel it does move the probability closer to a lab origin but as the article states it is still only more likely in their opinion. Some articles or people have an odd level of conviction behind non-definitive data or an emotional attachment to the origin of the virus and I'm not seeing that in this article.