I think I didn't make my point > > IIUC isn't the lab leak hypothesis still one valid possibility? > Lab leak and intentional bioweapon, one whose patient zer

I think I didn't make my point > > IIUC isn't the lab leak hypothesis still one valid possibility? > Lab leak and intentional bioweapon, one whose patient zero was in China, are totally different. Any lab working on gain of function research is arguably by definition, working on bio weapons or bio weapon defense. I'm not saying I believe in the lab leak. I'm rather saying that it's not hard for me to believe that if you believe in a lab leak you believe the research that lab is doing is related to bioweapons, even if they weren't building a weapon. > > Couldn't this be confused with (a) planes pollute and (b) contrails are bad for the environment too? > No, becuase of the "part of a secret government program" part. The article didn't mention a "secret governmen program". It just said "condensation from planes supposedly being harmful ‘chemtrails’" stuff coming out of planes is harmful, full stop. So it's not hard to believe that seeing "condensation from planes supposedly being harmful ‘chemtrails’" is associated with / confused with, the actual harms.