>"low confidence,” suggesting its level of certainty was not high you're analyzing this like it's the press sensationalizing. This is an establishment walking

>"low confidence,” suggesting its level of certainty was not high you're analyzing this like it's the press sensationalizing. This is an establishment walking back what they've said in the past, and allowing a pov that this same press and govt literally censored. We shouldn't expect they're going to scream "we were completely wrong because we were biased". They're now admitting that there is no evidence at all for the hypothesis they've been treating as gospel, and admitting the evidence better fits lab leak (a view we know from Fauci's emails was floated early on and suppressed). That's saying a lot. We'll still have to wait for "not natural in origin", but that's coming too. And correct me if I'm wrong, but have the people here on HN who are poo-pooing this also taken stands in the past that allowing this would be a climbdown from? Because I remember when it wasn't allowed to discuss lableak here on HN either. Yes, let me quote Zola, "J'accuse!"