zlacker

Your article is a little out of date. The general consensus of spy agencies is that it was definitely leaked from the lab. Created in a lab? Maybe.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7vypq31z7o.amp

>>AuryGl+(OP)
The article you linked says that BND thought the lab leak was likely in 2020. You're the one with out of date information.

>>Hasnep+H9
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5o

>>jpfrom+TQ
> The review offered on Saturday is based on "low confidence" which means the intelligence supporting it is deficient, inconclusive or contradictory. There is no consensus on the cause of the Covid pandemic.

The article literally says there is no consensus.

>>Hasnep+H9
Yes, and their report was buried. It didn't say that they changed their minds.

From further in the article: "But the once controversial theory has been gaining ground among some intelligence agencies - and the BND is the latest to entertain the theory. In January, the US CIA said the coronavirus was "more likely" to have leaked from a lab than to have come from animals."

Clearly world leaders were afraid of anti-Chinese sentiment, didn't want to be seen "siding" with Trump, or just didn't want to piss China off.

>>jpfrom+TQ
1. That's the CIA

2. The lab leak hypothesis is geopolitically convenient for the US

3. They explicitly state "low confidence" in their affirmation of this hypothesis

>>Hasnep+hX
I was merely addressing your accusation of "out-of date information", I'm not the original commenter.

>>pxc+Yi1
1. Nobody suggested we exclude inconvenient intelligence organisations.

2. Irrelevent because:

3. Low confidence, but probable merely implies plausibility, at least a somewhat higher likelihood than a wild previously unencountered zoonotic.

Based on all publicly available information it does seem more likely, the CIA will be better informed than the public, if they (and others) concur then I don't see why we need to dismiss it.