[downshun]

Evidence is of two types: circumstantial or direct. This thing only has the first, and doesn't try looking for evidence of the contrary.

At least they acknowledge this inconclusiveness at the end.

[DoingIsLearning]

I would argue the same exercise could be made against the 'wet market theory', no?

What direct evidence do we have for the 'wet market' theory that is currently most widely accepted?

Looking from a distance, it appears that the volume of circunstancial evidence for this 'laboratory accident/negligence' theory is far larger.

[krageon]

Circumstantial evidence is what you use to support a theory you really want to be true but cannot prove. Direct evidence is what you use when you want to actually figure out what happened.

[DoingIsLearning]

> What direct evidence do we have for the 'wet market' theory that is currently most widely accepted?

[jacquesm]

A couple of million years of Zoonotic events should count as pretty good evidence that that is how these things happen.

[DoingIsLearning]

True, but then for that to be consistent, the epicenter around patient zero should have been next to a habitat where a large pool of this virus exist. However the closest matched virus seems to be carried by a species of bat that doesn't exist anywhere near the region of Wuhan. But coincidentally, if we trust the facts brought forward by this repo, was a species that was studied in these virology labs.