The latest effort to bolster the COVID-19 natural origin theory comes from Bloomberg, which published a glowing interview of Danielle Anderson – an Australian virologist who worked shoulder-to-shoulder with top scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who she then ran cover for – repeatedly insisting that COVID-19 couldn't have possibly escaped from the lab.

In a nutshell, Anderson now admits that COVID-19 could have escaped from the lab, but maintains that the WIV followed appropriate protocols, and she didn't see any sick workers (despite leaving in November, weeks before the reported illnesses) – a key piece of evidence revealed by the Wall Street Journal.

That said, she continues to insist that the pandemic had a natural origin – as opposed to escaping from the bat coronavirus lab she worked in, known for genetically manipulating bat coronaviruses to better infect humans, located in the town where the human-infecting bat coronavirus broke out.

Yet, now that the lab-leak hypothesis has been mainstreamed and dozens of signatories of an anti lab-leak screed in The Lancet have distanced themselves from the document written by (also conflicted) Wuhan collaborator Peter Daszak, Anderson's change in tone to allow for the possibility she repeatedly 'debunked' is hilarious.

"I'm not naive enough to say I absolutely write this off," she now says, while maintaining that there's 'no evidence' to support the most logical possibility – as opposed to the natural origin hypothesis which has absolutely zero evidence to support it.

Anderson did concede that it would be theoretically possible for a scientist in the lab to be working on a gain of function technique to unknowingly infect themselves and to then unintentionally infect others in the community. But there's no evidence that occurred and Anderson rated its likelihood as exceedingly slim." -Bloomberg