[DiogenesKynikos]

> No...it's an entirely plausible assertion that there's no evidence for.

Not technically impossible is not the same as plausible. It's technically possible that Hitler survived WWII and lived it his days in Argentina. It's not plausible.

> To turn this back on your demand for evidence...how do you know?

Because it's a BSL-4 lab built in collaboration with a top French lab. The researchers are trained at top national labs in the US, France and Australia. Top international virologists insist that the lab in Wuhan has an excellent safety record.

There are a whole number of things that make the theory utterly implausible:

1. The lab did not have SARS-CoV-2. They sequence and publish a segment of the genome of every coronavirus they identify. SARS-CoV-2 is not among the several hundred viruses they've identified and published in this manner. In order to get around this, as a conspiracy theorist, you'd have to assert that the lab, for some reason, decided in advance not to publish SARS-CoV-2. That's implausible element #1.

2. Even if the lab had discovered SARS-CoV-2, and then not published it for whatever unknown reason, they wouldn't have found it interesting. It's 20% divergent from SARS-CoV. Before this pandemic, researchers weren't particularly interested in viruses that are so different from SARS-CoV. There are viruses that are only a few percent different from SARS-CoV. Those are the types of viruses that are intensively studied, where you can start spinning theories about lab accidents. This is implausible element #2.

3. People outside labs are exposed to SARS-related viruses all the time. There are estimates that literally millions of people are exposed every year. If you compare that against a few highly trained researchers working under strict protocols, you begin to see the absurdity of blaming the researchers. We're talking about odds that are literally a million to one here. That's implausible element #3.

> But you don't fight back with equally poorly considered knee-jerk retorts.

You should learn something about the subject before you comment that the theory is plausible.

[kjs3]

So...if you get to create narrow definitions of words the way you want, define your opinion ("they would not have found it interesting") as fact and use ad homen attacks ("You should learn something about the subject..."), you get to be right.

You are undoubtedly a joy at parties.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> narrow definitions

Like distinguishing between "plausible" and "not technically impossible"? If "plausible" now refers to anything not ruled out by the laws of physics, with no reference to likelihood, then anyone can make wild, unfounded accusations and say they're "plausible."

> define your opinion ("they would not have found it interesting")

It's not my opinion. Look at the scientific literature on SARS-related coronaviruses from before 2020. What viruses did the Wuhan Institute of Virology publish on?

> ad homen attacks ("You should learn something about the subject...")

I'm annoyed by people who have no idea what they're talking about boosting this conspiracy theory. This is an important enough subject that before making these sorts of wild accusations, you should actually understand something about the field.

[kjs3]

I'm annoyed by people who don't actually read what is actually written. I never "boosted a conspiracy theory"; I was explaining why self righteous, ideological twits feed the conspiracy theory by playing into the reasons why people believe in them.

I'm annoyed by people who can't divorce their absolute, unshakable belief that their oh-so-exhaustively Googled faux-expertise from how actual humans are interpreting what is being said. Because, you spent so much time becoming an "expert", you can't possibly be wrong.

I'm annoyed and Google-experts who think anyone who says "maybe you're looking at this the wrong way" turn into Donald Trump and accuse them of not just being wrong, but of "wild accusations" and "boosting conspiracies" and the rest.

I understand this far better than you. You are the problem.