Love the science hate the publisher, and the slant on the story. The leap-over-the-wall link is <a href="https://archive.md/FKIAD" rel="nofollow">https://archive.md/FKIAD</a><p>I believe scientists are nothing like as confident as this press agency is. Sherry Markson (news ltd) has been running hot on this story, written a book, has major investment as a journalist in the story arc. I wonder how much she contributed to this one. (not on the byline)<p>The abstract in the origin paper: <i>This risk assessment cannot prove the origin of SARS-CoV-2 but shows that the possibility of a laboratory origin cannot be easily dismissed.</i><p>the tool of choice, the mGFT is a modified risk assessment process. It was designed for this, but it comes down to what I think can be cast as subjective judgement calls.<p>Raina MacIntyre <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raina_MacIntyre" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raina_MacIntyre</a> is a well respected epidemiologist and specialist in the field of infectious diseases. I hesitate to criticise her angle on this, but I don't see the unanimity in the virology community around this position. I stress that her work during COVID was vital for managing Australia-wide community risk, and I value her work immensely because I live in Oz, and it helped keep us safe for 2 years.