Comment by ngaiorn

>We have the Slack chat logs where virologists themselves say things like "it's so friggin likely it came from the lab", even after they published a paper claiming it was absolutely of natural origin.

They said those things before publishing their paper.

You can read the messages here:

https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Proximal_Origin...

From what I can see, they start off by saying that the lab leak seems likely, and then re-evaluate in light of new evidence (see page 65, page 67 "again, it doesn't rule out lab infection/release, however, there is now no longer any ‘mysteries’ to explain"). This is just science being done. You can see them discover new evidence and update their beliefs. You can read how they revise their paper over time.

You can also see that they criticize other researchers for publicly decrying the lab leak theory absent sufficient evidence (page 23).

Here is the statement from the paper that you claim is a lie:

"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."

I think that statement is measured and supported by the available evidence. They state that they can't rule out a lab origin but that it does not seem likely. If you don't buy the conclusion, the evidence to support that conclusion is all accurately laid out in the paper. You are free to draw your own conclusions.