It's obviously true. When dozens of virologists wrote a letter in the Lancet stating flatly that no lab leak was possible and anyone who claimed otherwise was a

It's obviously true. When dozens of virologists wrote a letter in the Lancet stating flatly that no lab leak was possible and anyone who claimed otherwise was a conspiracy theorist who should be silenced, how many virologists stood up and said no, that's not true, lab leaks happen frequently and this should be investigated? I think the answer is none. None stood up and said that. Yet we know from records releases that even some of the virologists signing the letter already knew they were lying. They were saying things like the viral RNA is "inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory" and then just days later saying in the letter that they strongly condemned any suggestion that it came from a lab. They had done things like apply for grants in previous years justifying their research by the possibility that a virus would escape from a lab into the wild and start a pandemic. And they knew that SARS-1 had escaped from labs in China and Taiwan multiple times. Then they insisted anyone saying those things should be banned from every communications forum possible. Virology is a dead field walking. They've had their primary activity banned in the past and it's well past time they get banned again, permanently this time. Not one of the people in that field stood up for what was right, because they were afraid they'd lose funding. As for "that's like climatology" yeah, maybe? It's obviously possible for entire scientific fields to be corrupted by the desire for funding and to protect their own careers. But in climatology there are at least some insiders who stand up and say that the most extreme claims aren't true. Retirees usually, for sure, but the field still does better at challenging its own claims than virology.