Prove it.

>They steadily talked themselves into believing what they wanted to believe from the start, while ignoring all the facts that would point in the other direction.

They stated early on what reasons they had to believe it came from a lab and what evidence would disprove that, then got exactly the evidence that they previously said would disprove it. The unusual features of the virus are found in nature. The evidence that it was a lab leak is then reduced to "it was kind of near a lab", which is pretty wimpy.

>Of course they claimed it couldn't have been them, who wants to get the blame for COVID?

So why did the virologists in question called out their colleagues for unscientifically circling the wagons and, in their published work, explicitly decline to rule out the lab leak hypothesis?

You cannot point out any bad behavior in their publications or internal communications, so you resort to innuendo.

>it emerged right next to the only lab in the world doing experiments on coronaviruses

Lots of labs are doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. The "lion's share" is done in the United States. The Wuhan lab was unusually large, granted.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02873-2

https://icap.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/T...

I am not a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe this statement meets that bar.

They said those things before publishing their paper.

You can read the messages here:

https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Proximal_Origin...

From what I can see, they start off by saying that the lab leak seems likely, and then re-evaluate in light of new evidence (see page 65, page 67 "again, it doesn't rule out lab infection/release, however, there is now no longer any ‘mysteries’ to explain"). This is just science being done. You can see them discover new evidence and update their beliefs. You can read how they revise their paper over time.

You can also see that they criticize other researchers for publicly decrying the lab leak theory absent sufficient evidence (page 23).

Here is the statement from the paper that you claim is a lie:

"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."

I think that statement is measured and supported by the available evidence. They state that they can't rule out a lab origin but that it does not seem likely. If you don't buy the conclusion, the evidence to support that conclusion is all accurately laid out in the paper. You are free to draw your own conclusions.

So why are people citing 2020 reports from German intelligence agencies?

The expert consensus is that it was natural. It's not close. You are free to reject that consensus but should be aware that you are doing so.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...