even the Lancet has posted studies that were fake. some site calling its self a fact checker is way less authoritative then the 2 scientists who wrote that study. its always the same, believ the msm or you are presenting fake science. based on the words of some msm. its the same circular confirmation bias they used to start the war against Iraq. bush admin leaked fake info about Sadam having wmd, then the NYT wrote and article based on the leak, then the Bush admin used the article as confirmation for the public. they went back and forth a few times and hey presto war was on the horizon based on a pack of lies. but of course this time its totally different, lol. in the end HH said 1 true thing, it doesn't make any difference right now. still seems rather silly to dismiss the possibility of the leak theory without presenting a better study explaining why this was all just a 100% natural coincidence. i wonder what White Beard thinks of that study, or Microbman, or Sam. all people who say they read studies and understand them all the time. so read it and let us know your personal opinion, not some political hack partisan fact checking business's opinion.
Okay then, my personal opinion is that the study you posted above carries the same amount of weight as the "scientific" studies posted by trichrider in the north pole thread. You know, those long, detailed studies written by the fossil fuel industry that look all scientific and claim to prove that climate change isn't happening. Circular confirmation bias can be employed in any direction. As the person proffering the theory it's up to you to provide legitimate, verifiable evidence. If you can't then don't get offended if someone calls you out.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...tists-exactly-zero-evidence-covid-19-came-lab