I read the paper, and the evidence is very circumstantial. The fact that they argued the method of creating the rooted phylogenetic tree was not the right method, offered their preferred alternative, claimed it would likely give the result they wanted, but didn’t actually perform the analysis doesn’t come off well to me. They also seem to believe the COVID-19 pandemic started in a lab, and that the same (as they say) “experts” were involved really suggests they are conspiracy theorists who don’t trust the experts and believe in coordinated coverups of multiple lab leak events by this group of people. Believing in multiple conspiracy theories that are widely rejected in respected publications definitely doesn’t lead them to sound very credible.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Is the Biden administration lead by conspiracy theorists as well?

Again, inclusive and circumstantial, but pretty far removed from crackpot conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats.

Direct quote from that NYT article I linked:

In addition to the Energy Department, the F.B.I. has also concluded, with moderate confidence, that the virus first emerged accidentally from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a Chinese lab that worked on coronaviruses.

[–] explore_broaden@midwest.social 0 points 3 months ago

Other direct quote:

Some officials briefed on the intelligence said that it was relatively weak and that the Energy Department’s conclusion was made with “low confidence”

An article from a well-respected journal: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(24)00206-4/fulltext.

It really seems like the evidence points towards natural origins. And the article you linked doesn’t actually have the evidence, it only waves toward the existence of classified intelligence.