Not at all. The article is saying, with a 'shortfall' of evidence, he thinks we should consider both possible sources, man made and from the wild. That is perf

Not at all. The article is saying, with a 'shortfall' of evidence, he thinks we should consider both possible sources, man made and from the wild. That is perfectly reasonable to me. We don't have enough information and it's pretty bad a lot of professional public spokespeople are saying we are sure. That's the narrative. But, why does public opinion even factor in this argument? Like many people here I have closely followed a lot of the information published. I certainly feel I am much more informed about this than my friends. But, my opinion on the source does not count for shit if professional scientists say they don't know. This guy is a professional.