Four federal agencies consider lab-leak hypothesis for COVID origin, one ranks it "low confidence" spurring WSJ headline

[Tiangou]

The WSJ is a yellow-press rag.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origi...k-807b7b0a


Opportunistic scumbags:
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-r...wuhan-lab/


Per CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/26/politics/...index.html

Intelligence agencies can make assessments with either low, medium or high confidence. A low confidence assessment generally means that the information obtained is not reliable enough or is too fragmented to make a more definitive analytic judgment or that there is not enough information available to draw a more robust conclusion.

Looks like they've identified the unreliable materials the unreliable assessment was unreliably based upon:

One of the sources said that the new assessment from the Department of Energy is similar to information from a House Republican Intelligence Committee report released last year on the origins of the virus.


Response from an actual virologist:
https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmuss...1628843010

No progenitor virus = no reverse genetics or isolation
No reverse genetics or isolation = no virus in cultureDespite 3 years of a global search for this evidence, it has not materialized, while evidence supporting zoonosis associated with Huanan has continued to stack up.

At some point, an absence of evidence might just be evidence of absence.

As I said before, I am willing to reconsider my hypothesis if presented with verifiable, affirmative evidence of a progenitor virus at WIV.

...I'll keep an open mind when and if we ever get more information about what has caused the DOE to change their assessment (as well as toward other emerging evidence about the origin of SARS-CoV-2).

But for now, I see no evidence that suggests the current scientific evidence base is incorrect. And that evidence base continues to suggest the pandemic originated via zoonotic spillover at the Huanan market, in association with the live animal trade.
No virus in culture = no infectious virus at all

[pdq]

...and why is the Dept of Energy theorizing over Covid? And who leaks a "low confidence" assessment?

I find this fishy.

[GGD]

pdq wrote:
...and why is the Dept of Energy theorizing over Covid? And who leaks a "low confidence" assessment?

I find this fishy.

And how the WSJ equates "low confidence" with "Most Likely"

WSJ News Exclusive | Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says

[SteveG]

GAS STOVES!

[mattkime]

Here's the NYTimes headline -

Lab Leak Most Likely Caused Pandemic, Energy Dept. Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/po...ZiyRfjNWiU&smid=url-share

[GGD]

mattkime wrote:
Here's the NYTimes headline -

Lab Leak Most Likely Caused Pandemic, Energy Dept. Says

And yet they don't have a single on the record statement from the Energy Dept.

Some officials briefed on the intelligence said that it was relatively weak and that the Energy Department’s conclusion was made with “low confidence,” suggesting its level of certainty was not high.

Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, declined to confirm the intelligence.

[Acer]

I have low confidence it was aliens from Alpha Centuari.

[Ca Bob]

Thanks for explaining this. I saw a headline (on Yahoo or somewhere) and it didn't make a lot of sense. The biological evidence, including all the DNA sequence data, have gone against the lab leak hypothesis from early on.

[Sam3]

I'm so confused....
In the CNN article the first sentence reads:
The US Department of Energy has assessed that the Covid-19 pandemic most likely came from a laboratory leak in China, according to a newly updated classified intelligence report.

But the second sentence is as follows:
Two sources said that the Department of Energy assessed in the intelligence report that it had “low confidence” the Covid-19 virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan.

Since when does "low confidence" = "most likely"? Is this Newspeak?

I always thought 'low confidence' is almost the opposite of 'most likely'.

:eek2:

[RgrF]

Sam3 wrote:
Since when does "low confidence" = "most likely"? Is this Newspeak?

In this case it seems more like Newsclickbait.