Here is an article that scores full points in the Olympics of casuistry.

Main point: 'This is a very important revelation, but it does not change anything because the Authorities tell you so'.…

While the authors did some good work checking the authenticity of the DEFUSE documents, they seem to have a few blind spots.

".. nor does it come close to changing the consensus view that the pandemic started from a natural source.:

Which consensus?

- The one of the majority of the press which has been strangely blind to any finding and has happily reprinted the manufactured consensus of Daszak & co?

- The one of the very scientists, spearheaded by Daszak, who perfectly knew about DEFUSE but kept quiet?

'Scientific consensus' has never been such an hollowed word.

>>There is no valid consensus without data.<<
How difficult is it to understand that?

When the very scientists pushing a fake consensus hide data, you should be writing a better article, @danengber and @adamfederman.

And you should not pretend to wonder why DRASTIC was the recipient of that leak, and not some MSM like you.

Some people simply trust the scientific, engineering and OSINT expertise of DRASTIC.
Good for them.
That is exactly what is needed here - hard work, not casuistry.

I particularly like the "and they remind us that things didn’t need to be this way".

Yes, sure. Start by dropping the attitude and the fake consensus, then roll up your sleeves, and things will be better indeed.