[kcplate]

The original comment you replied made no claim that those two links were definitive proof of a lab leak, only that they were known to be factual. They may be circumstantial but circumstantial evidence can still be provably true. You made the leap to assume that original commenter meant it as definitive proof of a lab leak in your comment.

I read the comment to mean thatit was offered as a strong circumstantial evidence because it was indisputably true due to the public records that support it.

Every study I see leaning towards a lab leak origin conclusion tend to be pretty specific to use words like “likely” or “probable” because of the lack of definitive evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be powerful, especially when the other side does not have a set of similar or better circumstantial evidence in their favor.

[Klinky]

>made no claim that those two links were definitive proof

They implied their confidence through the rhetorical use of "What are the chances?". That was not a genuine question.

> circumstantial evidence can still be provably true

Circumstantial evidence MUST be true to be usable.

The circumstantial evidence provided in the articles was:

- There was a denied research grant that was going to look into modifying the furin site of coronaviruses. It was denied though, and as far as we know, never done.

- The furin site was complex, but could've evolved naturally.

- Some scientists think it could have been of lab origin.

- Some scientists think it could have been zoonotic origin.

All of this is true, but it doesn't mean a lab leak is "probable" or "more than likely".

>Every study I see leaning towards a lab leak origin

So even the studies that lean towards the theory qualify that the evidence is not definitive. We're back where we started.

Definitive or Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: No

Probable or More Likely Than Not: No

A strong possibility: Yes

There is not a consensus on the origin of COVID-19 at this time.