This doesn't address any of the points I put forward, especially the one about bioweapon potency. Millions in funding, 'gain of function', level 4 bioweapon lab and all that baloney, and the best they can come up with is a bad flu? How does it make any sense to deliberately release something with the equivalent potency of a bad flu and then have to go to the lengths described above to enforce a narrative that makes it seem more deadly than it is? Why not just release an actual deadly biological agent in that case and let it do the work for you?I think it was real and just has the severity of a bad flu.
Additionally, the global incidence of influenza trended right down to zero during 2020-2022, seemingly replaced by covid. This in itself is complete bollocks. Do you honestly think a respiratory condition like influenza would just magically evaporate and get entirely replaced by virtually identical respiratory condition? Not a chance. Then you have the incongruency of masks, social distancing, etc, apparently making a difference for covid but then never having made a difference for influenza too.
Do you honestly think it was real, or are you subscribed to a particular conspiratorial narrative that is preventing you from acknowledging all the pieces of available information? That is rhetorical.
The same god damn thing happened with the 9/11 truth movement and 'nano thermate'. Absolutely no proof that stuff even exists, or how it would be used logistically to accomplished a demolition scenario, and yet everyone subscribed to it because they were not prepared to think of other explanations for why there should be red hot molten material in the basement levels of the WTC complex for weeks on end with continual water spraying. Up pops Steven Jones i.e. take your pick of covid related lab-leak hypothesis 'heroes', whom immediately gets traction and guides the entire movement into a particular confined narrative.
Can you see the parallel? It's misdirection.
None of these heroes will even confront the possibility that this thing never even existed. Why. Why would you take a potential possibility off the table, if you are concerned with the truth? You are therefore defining truth in advance by deliberately excluding a valid possibility, which is not being sincere to seeking the truth - you can't know what the truth is in advance.
Any time people gain immediate social traction and simultaneously deny certain possibilities you can be sure you're in the presence of a disinformation campaign. Once again we're back to the "TV versus reality" situation, only this time you're investing your trust in alternative sources and not the main institutional ones.