>made no claim that those two links were definitive proof They implied their confidence through the rhetorical use of "What are the chances?". That was not a g

>made no claim that those two links were definitive proof They implied their confidence through the rhetorical use of "What are the chances?". That was not a genuine question. > circumstantial evidence can still be provably true Circumstantial evidence MUST be true to be usable. The circumstantial evidence provided in the articles was: - There was a denied research grant that was going to look into modifying the furin site of coronaviruses. It was denied though, and as far as we know, never done. - The furin site was complex, but could've evolved naturally. - Some scientists think it could have been of lab origin. - Some scientists think it could have been zoonotic origin. All of this is true, but it doesn't mean a lab leak is "probable" or "more than likely". >Every study I see leaning towards a lab leak origin So even the studies that lean towards the theory qualify that the evidence is not definitive. We're back where we started. Definitive or Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: No Probable or More Likely Than Not: No A strong possibility: Yes There is not a consensus on the origin of COVID-19 at this time.