Well, I prefer to think that my point is intentionally correct, and I can't help it if the OP blog post I'm responding to has some epistemic issues which twist

Well, I prefer to think that my point is intentionally correct, and I can't help it if the OP blog post I'm responding to has some epistemic issues which twist the whole discussion ;) Anyway, I think the onus is on whoever is making claims, not whoever the claimant is trying to convince. iiuc, there is additional evidence available that the virus came from a lab; but if we're focusing purely on the zoonotic spillover theory, isn't the current strongest position something like this: "claims that sars-cov-2 is purely zoonotic in origin are not consistent with the current evidence and modelling" ? Such wording avoids the tortured epistemology of "no evidence = evidence".