Mostly joking but if the shoe fits... As one example, one of the authors of the famous 'Viral' book pointing to a Lab Leak is a coal baron GW denier who chaired a bank that failed due to subprime loans and who previously claimed that HIV was a man-made virus derived from failed polio vaccination experiments[1]. How much credence should we give someone like that? How many hours of time should be spent debunking every new theory he promotes rather than just casting him aside and looking for non-morons to engage with?

Or how should one engage with this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33522713

It's just a smattering of grievances and debunked conspiracy theories. How would virologists begin to respond to that?

I mean I said it above, and I'll just copy/paste it here;

> Admitting that Covid19 was very likely a spillover of a natural virus doesn't mean that you trust China, that you think their labs are run well or are incapable of accidents, that they've been transparent or helpful with the investigations, or that the possibility of new evidence pointing to a lab origin is foreclosed -- just that the actual physical evidence we have today about this virus and this pandemic overwhelmingly points to a natural origin.

There are well-intentioned scientists testing theories that could point to a lab origin of Covid, it would be extremely interesting and important if they find something to indicate that's the case. Unfortunately to the casual observer of the actual state of science here, they'd be led to believe that there's consensus about a lab leak or at least a strong likelihood backed by evidence when that's not remotely true.

[1] - https://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/River/Prospect...