There was good evidence of this from the start. It was just intentionally suppressed and attempts were made to discredit it, just with no evidence (mostly by lies that made no sense, but I guess if you don't know anything at all about viruses and biology they could make some sense).
For example, they said they concluded it's natural from looking at the genetic code. That there were no markers to show it's artificial. Except that even as far back as at least 10 years ago, the technology has existed to print a virus from scratch from a digital data file leaving no trace. I think they assumed most people were too out of the loop to realize what is and has been possible in this field for many years.
All the other so-called evidence they showed was just smoke and mirrors and outright lies. Most of the people doing the discrediting were people with links to that lab (that would lose lots of money if it's funding was rightfully cut). Conflict of interest much?
There was good evidence of this from the start. It was just intentionally suppressed and attempts were made to discredit it, just with no evidence (mostly by lies that made no sense, but I guess if you don't know anything at all about viruses and biology they could make some sense).
For example, they said they concluded it's natural from looking at the genetic code. That there were no markers to show it's artificial. Except that even as far back as at least 10 years ago, the technology has existed to print a virus from scratch from a digital data file leaving no trace. I think they assumed most people were too out of the loop to realize what is and has been possible in this field for many years.
All the other so-called evidence they showed was just smoke and mirrors and outright lies. Most of the people doing the discrediting were people with links to that lab (that would lose lots of money if it's funding was rightfully cut). Conflict of interest much?