[albinofrenchy]

> At this point, this is not a complete black box, “novel virus.”

Not sure why you insist on being pedantic on word choice here. It obviously isn't a novel virus at this point; but it was in 2019 -- or whenever WIV would have found it.

I'd also bet dollars to donuts you have no experience in virology apart from participating in online forums. Which I don't think is any kind of point against you; but it makes it weird when you come out swinging with "you don’t have the faintest bit of background in what you are talking about."

> I don’t mean to be too harsh on you, the media environment around all this has been so bizarre, how various waves of suppression have ebbed and flowed. But if you’ve known where to look, are an independent thinker, not one who just repeats what the large media bullhorns are trumpeting, and can connect dots for yourself, there’s been discussion, discourse, evidence gathering of the very likely source of this virus since the beginning.

I laughed out loud at this. If this is satire it was really well done.

[dang]

Please don't respond to a bad comment, or a provocation in a comment, by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only takes us deeper into hell. We're trying to avoid that here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[canoebuilder]

Quote marks can be easily misinterpreted, I was just using the phrase you used, my bad.

“Faintest bit of background” Meaning, your two competing hypotheses leave out pretty much everything that is known at this point, not an academic credential or such, just a basic reading on the known facts at this point.

“Natural origin” was the leading hypothesis from the start more than a year ago. At this point, there is no evidence for it, there is substantial evidence against it, and the pile of circumstantial evidence for the Wuhan lab being the source is a mile high.