Literally none of this is correct. The article headline is also false. The scientists are all saying that the lab leak is a possibility. About the most “suspic

Literally none of this is correct. The article headline is also false. The scientists are all saying that the lab leak is a possibility. About the most “suspicious” thing being said is that if it is a lab leak they will need irrefutable evidence, but they simultaneously claim that it’s entirely explainable by natural causes as well. One scientist is unsure about the natural explanation because of the distance of the believed origin of the virus. Of course, later information has completely explained this, but even then a scientist responds by saying that it’s absolutely possible by natural causes as well. Pretty much the most controversial thing here is that some scientists might have been personally slightly leaning towards a lab leak theory but had absolutely no evidence for it. Just that the “coincidences” seemed quite too many. In Feb/Mar 2020 when we had very little information (for example, at this point, scientists outside China didn’t even know that asymptomatic spread was possible with COVID-19, which in itself changes the equation completely). I would challenge someone to actually copy a controversial quote from what the scientists actually said. Unfortunately this article is doing a massive disservice by presenting exploratory thoughts as some sort of cover up.