Good that you edited your post. I watched and they're simply saying the same things that Chris Martenson said in his video which you posted awhile back trying to "prove" the same thing. As I said back then, it'll never be possible to "prove" the virus couldn't have come from a lab (nearly impossible to prove a "negative"), but the papers/arguments I've read have convinced me (and more importantly, the vast majority of virology/evolutionary biology experts) that it's extraordinarily unlikely. We've already seen how wrong Martenson was on HCQ and he and these guys are just as wrong on the origin of the novel coronavirus.
I also think it's really dumb to have cut off collaboration with Chinese scientists. Even if one is suspicious of them, I'd rather keep working with them on the probability that they're being honest and I'd also want to keep working with them if I didn't trust them (keep your friends close and your enemies closer). I think the kind of global scientific cooperation we're seeing for the most part now is fantastic and will help get us out of this mess soon and will be needed to try to do a lot more surveillance of future pandemic threats, especially from China.
Below are a couple of posts on this from back then, which go into great detail on several of the elements Martenson and now these guys highlight. The one thing I'll give these guys credit for is not overdoing it, like Martenson did, as they both were careful to not say they "know" SARS-CoV-2 was either lab generated or brought to the lab from the wild and accidentally released.
One other thing: these "Dark Intellectual Web" guys love getting people riled up with nutty conspiracy theories, but none of them ever publishes anything. The reason they don't is they know they'd be torn to shreds by the real experts, so they prefer to sit back and post their theories and influence the intellectually susceptible, who will never question them.
With regard to new information, see the link below, with a long article/interview about/with Shi Zhengli, the Chinese researcher known as the "batwoman" who many have pointed to as a possible culprit for any lab shenanigans. She said the following:
- They first received actual SARS-CoV-2 samples in late December from patients
- They've never worked with any viruses that are that close genetically to CV2 - even the RaTG13 bat coronavirus (the closest) only shares 96.2% of its genetic material witih CV2, which is actually pretty far off from a match (humans and chimps share 98%) - she and others have said that their differences suggest these two viruses diverged evolutionarily 20-70 years ago. They spent much of their time investigating variants of SARS, since that was what they were most worried about.
- She also explained the naming issue with RaTG13 and its original name, 4991 - they're identical with the former being a better identifier of sample collection time and location.
- She also doubts the Wuhan wet market is the origin of CV2, thinking that's just where many of the cases started, but that it likely started somewhere else and was brought to Wuhan.
- Her answers to Science were reviewed by Chinese authorities (as they likely would be in any other country's govt. lab), but the experts Science spoke with feel the answers were logical and helpful. Doesn't mean everyone will believe her though.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...st-center-covid-19-origin-theories-speaks-out
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...entions-and-more.191275/page-112#post-4558420
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...entions-and-more.191275/page-110#post-4556128