“This statement, as written, is true. The only scientists with authority are those whose statements are backed, not just by their reputation, but also by data.”
There is a lack of data on the early pandemic, thus there should not be a firmly drawn conclusion or consensus. Thus: “Investigate the origins of COVID-19” https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj0016
Illustrates the lack of consensus.
Not a conclusion of a natural origin, not a conclusion of a non-natural origin, but simply a lack of conclusion for lack of data.
“Since that time, no data at all have emerged to link the COVID pandemic to any known virus at any virology laboratory, period.”
No data has emerged to link the COVID-19 pandemic to any known animal virus in any infected animal, period.
Data has emerged that a specific virology lab was interested in adding a specific feature to novel coronaviruses, and that feature is also a unique feature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (the FCS).
“In this it should be noted that intelligence services have extraordinary means of collecting data from digital devices covertly, analyzing surveillance records that are incredibly detailed, and evaluating chatter also by covert means. They have uncovered nothing of value, or surely we would have heard of it.”
Then it should be noted that all relevant intelligence agencies but one in the USA only produced “low confidence” assessments, the only one that produced a “moderate confidence” assessment was also the one that did conclude that there was a lab leak.
“Holmes et al. (1) have recently laid out a thorough evidentiary case for a natural origin of COVID, including most especially detailed epidemiological data that excludes the WIV as an epicenter of the Wuhan outbreak.”
There are many many issues with that paper, including objectively false statements such as that the testing “specifically did not include […] animals known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2”