It's such a weird standard to hold. Why does "there is no evidence" have to be perfectly true? It's a falsifiable claim that anyone is free to disprove, so do y

It's such a weird standard to hold. Why does "there is no evidence" have to be perfectly true? It's a falsifiable claim that anyone is free to disprove, so do your own meta analysis and present the counterclaim. Science has to try to be objective and thorough and that gives it credibility. Compare that to the unfalsifiable claims of conspiracists like "China engineered the virus but covered it up so well we have no evidence". And then the same people accepting suggestions of a much weaker claim that it escaped from a lab, as proof that what they said all along has been proven correct. "No evidence" is a perfectly acceptable scientific claim, as open to refutation as any other.