More and more, I find that lableak (which started with genuine scientific uncertainty) is not driven by genuine curiosity or scientific inquiry, but by the stre

More and more, I find that lableak (which started with genuine scientific uncertainty) is not driven by genuine curiosity or scientific inquiry, but by the strength of it's emotional narrative. Lableakers like Alina Chan started as maybe genuine, maybe opportunistic scientific dissidents who got boosted into the spotlight by conspiratorial-thinking prone rightwing networks. They build and got caught up in echo chambers that for years now created their own self-sealing reality. However, we know today that the scientific evidence turned out to be entirely one-sided for a natural spillover event and not a lableak, which is why the 'cover ups' have to get bigger and bigger, include independent scientists all over the world, and the establishment, and mainstream journalists etc. and the actual evidence is not much talked about anymore in lableak conspiracy land. Their problem lies entirely with the evidence already available, and no amount of evidence that is 'missing' can remedy that fact. We can happily grant a 100% leak rate from the WIV, and it would not move the needle on zoonotic origin any more. We can grant perfect cover-ups and secret viruses, and it would not suddenly make the available evidence square with a lableak scenario. That is the reality. And all lableak proponents have been doing is to distract from it.