Ron Chusid 
Scientific American: Intelligence reports supporting the lab-leak theory for COVID are not based in science.
"An intelligence estimate, particularly one developed in only 90 days, is simply not enough to determine how a virus leaped into humans. Science requires more. So far, the scientific evidence leans toward an accidental transfer from animals to humans, probably at the Wuhan animal market."
#Covid #LabLeak
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-leak-intelligence-reports-arent-scientific-conclusions/
Lab-Leak Intelligence Reports Aren’t Scientific Conclusions

Intelligence reports supporting the lab-leak theory for COVID are not based in science

Scientific American
Mar 5, 2023 at 2:39amWeb
Show threadLHamiltonMar 5, 2023
@rchusid I've never really understood why people were so keen to prove Covid was the result of a lab accident rather than coming from the local markets. Labs do have accidental leaks and the markets were dangerous for viral spread. Does it matter which started things? Personally I've always wondered whether the disease came from the folk gathering bat dung from caves for the lab. It would be so easy to have a slip-up there.
Show threadIsaac Erbele, MDMar 5, 2023
@lhamilton1515 @rchusid Someone else to blame for their own failures
Show threadTofu GolemMar 5, 2023

@rchusid
1. The Energy Dept said they had low confidence in this conclusion.
2. 9 gov't groups have made assessments. 2 say lab leak, 5 say natural, 2 say inconclusive.
3. Even if lab leak is found to be the conclusive origin, that still doesn't prove that stupid “Chinese bioweapon” conspiracy theory.

The more you learn about that Chinese bioweapon conspiracy theory, the dumber it gets. Conservatives literally can't tell the difference between a wargames & reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-A_OPWa5VI

Unravelling China's "sinister plan" to "unleash coronavirus"

YouTube
Show threadRon Chusid Mar 5, 2023
@tofugolem Most of them don't realize that serious lab leak theories generally mean accidental leak. They also don't realize how much liklier zoonotic spread is
Show threadTofu GolemMar 5, 2023

@rchusid
It's part of a pattern.

First, they have a brain block in which everything is either 100% true or 0% true. They cannot grasp that science is producing multiple conclusions right now.

So every time there's a report pointing at one or the other origin, they treat it as 100% true and totally forget that they said the other thing the last time.

Show threadTofu GolemMar 5, 2023

@rchusid
Article on natural origin: “Ah ha! This proves that it was Chinese people eating bats, therefore our anti-Asian racism is justified!”

Article on lab leak: “Ah ha! This proves that it was a Chinese bioweapon! This proves that Fauci did this to us and that our anti-Asian racism is justified!”

Show threadDustin D. WindMar 5, 2023

@rchusid "What is the cost of lies?

It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all. What can we do then? What else is left, but to abandon even the hope of truth and content ourselves instead with stories?

In these stories it doesn't matter who the heroes are. All we want to know is 'Who is to blame?'."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PwJLA5M958

Chernobyl | The Cost of Lies

YouTube
Show threadAllessandraMar 5, 2023
@rchusid Why were labs creating viruses in the first place?
Show threadAriaflameMar 5, 2023
@LoveWins @rchusid In general labs study viruses, not create them.
Show threadGrassroots JoeMar 5, 2023

@rchusid
So basically the intelligence community has no idea.

Try writing that down and handing it to the president...