I think it's worthwhile making the distinction between the "bioweapon invented in a lab" conspiracy theory justly mocked here and elsewhere, versus the all-too-plausible "leak from a lab doing respectable work without tight enough controls".

Jim, my point was not about whatever strange websites might have written about "bioweapon" (I am not familiar with them) but about what you said: "reputable sources", with endings like .gov or .edu, implying that they can be trusted (btw: Before Corona I thought likewise).

My point was that those for you reputable sources in the first years were very quick and definite to deny that this option is "all-too-plausible", au contraire constantly repeating that it's extremely unlikely, this way creating a mainstream narrative and pushing that "all-too-plausible" option into the conspiracy theorist corner - - - and with it the few reputable Virologists daring to saying otherwise.

That then you were NOT able to read on the NCBI/NHI website what they only admit nowadays, that this option is "all-too-plausible" - - - and also not from any of the "reputable" media sources. There was a politically wished for narrative, and that dominated everything, so much so that the most reputable Institutions caved in to political pressure and suppressed facts against their own better knowledge, see "RKI files".