I'm quite familiar with my own industry and could easily fact-check claims of this specificity or follow-up with people who would know. If I could not do this, I would not be making appeals to authority in public.
> Sure I could ask around and probably figure that out. But I also don't want to, because I'm not interested in fueling your conspiracy theory when I have no idea what relevance that would have to the likelihood of a lab leak.
Conspiracy theory? This is a claim by the US Government. And you're clearly interested in "debunking" it given the amount you have written on the topic and your holding proactive AMAs. So - yeah - this leaves anyone reading your comments wondering (1) why you are rebutting strawmen arguments, (2) why you don't appear familiar with the facts [i.e. pushed the wet market hypothesis long after we knew it wasn't the origin], and (3) why you still aren't addressing basic, specific and addressable claims from sources with assumed credibility who take a different position.
> Science doesn't work the way you want it to work
The sad thing is that it does. You figure out what the most viable hypotheses are and then evaluate the evidence. Update your priors based on what you find and repeat the process. That's how you end up being able to make statements about Occam's Razor. Quite different from building strawmen, knocking them down and calling anyone who asks questions you a conspiracy theorist.