In the third paragraph, the author writes that COVID was probably "cooked up in the kitchen of nature", and links to an article to support that assertion. But the linked-to article does not make that point. In the comments section of the article, a commenter pointed this out, and the author replied to that specific comment with an answer that did not address the issue but expressed the author's personal opinion on the matter, and has not updated the article to be more clear.
* However, one agency believes it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a laboratory that handled coronaviruses.
* But, according to four elements of the Intelligence Community and the National Intelligence Council, natural exposure to an animal with the virus was the most likely cause of the outbreak.
"""
is the exact opposite of "probably natural origin" (in an article headlined "US intelligence rules out biological weapon origin" even!) is such a tortured reading of the text it has snapped in two: the interpretation is a limp, bloody, stump being dragged along by wild horses of motivated reasoning, while the text just sits there and stares in disbelief at the hole where its actual message used to be.
> But the linked-to article says the exact opposite, that COVID was probably a lab leak.
No, it does not. The article lists the opinions and results of several different organizations, and some of them think a lab-leak is possible OR even likely. But most think it was natural. That article is just very awful and disconnected written. Probably generated by some AI?
