Last week, the New York Times published a very lengthy op-ed by lab-leak hypothesis advocate Alina Chan. If you want rebuttals of the lab leak hypothesis, I’ll point you to this (more details here) and this.

It’s clear this piece was not offered in good faith by either Chan or the NY Times. The NYT is continuing their ‘outreach’ project to conservatives, while also gaining hate-read traffic. This appears to be that insufferable twat* Sulzberger’s business model. Same as it ever was.

Regarding Chan, one thing that immediately illustrated the bad faith was the table constrasting MERS, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2. In the table, she claims that nearly identical viruses to MERS and SARS-CoV-1 have been found in wild animals. This is disingenuous. SARS-CoV-1 was found in wild animals–sixteen years after SARS-CoV-1 had first been identified. She knows this. Yet she conveniently forget the caveat. This is not someone you can trust and is no different in kind from creationists who use the exact same strategies.

Anyway, like I said, this is a pretty good takedown (more details here), and this is a good discussion of the evidence for a market spread.

*These assholes give themselves ridiculous nicknames. I think this inbred iteration is “Pinch”, but maybe it’s “Derp”? Who knows and who cares?