I fully support the audits. I hope they come out for the good guys.
My problem with a lot of the earlier theories is that they were seriously flawed on their face, which made me more dubious of the rest of them. viz. if you are leading with theory A, and I can personally punch a dozen holes in it, then why would I give the benefit of the doubt to your secondary and tertiary theories. In a sense, it is falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.
But like I have said, and like you have mentioned, I am more than open to hard evidence of fraud. Not open to arguments along the lines of "if they didn't do X, why don't they want to talk about it?"
And, if you look at any post I made about the lab leak, I believe it would have read something like, "high probability that it came from a lab, low probability it was an engineered weapon." I stand by that.
