the crux of the argument rests on an epistemological claim, that since there is no conclusive proof for either theory, the one with fewer unlikely steps in the chain of reasoning is more likely to be correct; indeed, this is difficult to argue w/, withholding motivated reasoning

while I haven't personally reviewed his supporting evidence, which he does provide, if it is to be taken at face value, the argument is quite strong; there seem to be fewer leaps of faith required to believe the natural emergence hypothesis, if we are to start from a blank slate

two of the most convincing arguments presented, imo, are such: 1, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was receiving funding to carry out the precise research requisite to develop a virus very similar to SARS-CoV-2 (aka SARS2); funding from the US federal govt, no less

and 2, that the specific aspect of SARS2 which makes it much more infectious in humans was exceedingly unlikely to emerge naturally, as it is a feature which a. no other coronaviruses share, and b. could not have been produced thru natural selection in the requisite timeframe

there are many more details I could go into here, but instead I'll encourage you to read the article yourself & form your own opinion, perhaps even review the supporting evidence if you possess the capability and inclination. personally, I found it compelling enough to consider.

from a more abstract perspective, there's also pretty important questions to consider regarding the sociopolitical conditions which make this hypothesis anathema; it doesn't bode well for the health of public discourse that such a well-supported position is branded conspiratorial

I'm personally more concerned w/ cultivating an environment in which honest intellectual discussion of uncomfortable topics is not only tolerated, but encouraged; while I certainly am interested in the outcome of this specific debate, its more of a case study in epistemics for me

to believe the lab-escape hypothesis******

ffs this mistake totally negates the point