So what? The science shows the virus arose in the Wuhan wet market, like the SARS virus before it.

Who’s gotta hide what?

Covid19 came from the wet market in Wuhan, all the REAL, scientific evidence points that way.

The origins of SARS-CoV-2

The proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2 are still not known.  We concur with the position of 18 leading scientists who wrote in Science magazine44 in May, 2021: “We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.” As a group of 16 scientists communicated in The Lancet45 in October, 2021: “Overwhelming evidence for either a zoonotic or research-related origin is lacking: the jury is still out.”
More than 2 years into the pandemic, the search for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains incomplete and inconclusive.

Independent experts consulted by the Lancet COVID-19 Commission shared the view that hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers are in play and need further investigation.

Furin cleavage sites are found naturally in almost every family of coronavirus,50,  51 although they have not been observed in other SARS-related coronaviruses (subgenus Sarbecoronavirus). Since 2006, following the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome, furin cleavage sites have also been the subject of laboratory manipulation, including their insertion into coronavirus spike proteins.52

Two main possible pathways of emergence have been identified.53 The first is that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a natural spillover event—that is, from a non-research-related zoonotic transmission The second is that the virus emerged from research-related activities, with three possible research-related pathways: the infection of a researcher in the field while collecting samples, the infection of a researcher in the laboratory while studying viruses collected in their natural habitat, and the infection of a researcher in the laboratory while studying viruses that have been genetically manipulated.

The second possible pathway is a research-related or laboratory-associated release of the pathogen. Such a pathway could have involved a researcher becoming infected in the field or in the laboratory with a natural virus, or becoming infected in the laboratory with a genetically manipulated virus. Advances in biotechnology in the past two decades have made it possible to create new and highly dangerous pathogens through genetic manipulation—for example, creating chimeric viruses by combining the genetic material of more than one viral pathogen, or mutant viruses through the deliberate insertion of a furin cleavage site. The bioengineering of SARS-CoV-like viruses for the study and testing of potential drugs and vaccines advanced substantially after the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in the 2000s.52,  64 Laboratory experiments included the creation of novel viruses (eg, so-called consensus viruses that average the genetic code across a set of natural viruses), the mutation of viruses (such as through the insertion of a furin cleavage site), the creation of chimeric viruses, and the serial passaging of viruses through cell cultures to test their transmissibility, virulence, immunogenicity, and host tropism. Research that can increase the transmissibility and virulence of pathogens is called gain-of-function research of concern, although which specific experiments should fall into this category is contested by scientists.As laboratory technologies have rapidly advanced, many scientists have warned of the increasing risks of undersupervised and under-regulated genetic manipulation of SARS-CoV-like viruses and other potential pandemic pathogens.65 There is currently no system for the global monitoring and regulation of gain-of-function research of concern.

As of the time of publication of this report, all three research-associated hypotheses are still plausible: infection in the field, infection with a natural virus in the laboratory, and infection with a manipulated virus in the laboratory. No independent, transparent, and science-based investigation has been carried out regarding the bioengineering of SARS-like viruses that was underway before the outbreak of COVID-19.

The laboratory notebooks, databases, email records, and samples of institutions involved in such research have not been made available to independent researchers. Independent researchers have not yet investigated the US laboratories engaged in the laboratory manipulation of SARS-CoV-like viruses, nor have they investigated the details of the laboratory research that had been underway in Wuhan.47

Moreover, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has resisted disclosing details of the research on SARS-CoV-related viruses that it had been supporting providing extensively redacted information only as required by Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.

Well, I guess someone wants to make money out of the pandemic.
Won’t succeed—virus came from the wet market.

Why should I?

The pandemic started in a wet market, like two pandemics before it. Why can’t you accept that? Your precious feelings? You being too thick to understand the scientific papers I quoted?

Just like the GSM means a mini ice age rubbish right? You have no idea about science, you are a cretin and can’t understand science papers, can you? Even if a GSM were happening it would not bring on an ice age.