Different people were advocating for these different theories from the start. The thing that evolved was just the average credence for each theory. This also suggests Hiltzik did not read the book, as infection while doing fieldwork is only one of the possible vectors. Another major one is infection in the lab (which, as the authors explain, happened before at WIV with less-deadly coronaviruses).

Another instance of Hiltzik simply asserting his thesis, which he has come nowhere close to proving in his rhetoric-filled page-and-a-half review.

assertion of thesis. empty rhetoric.

The subtitle is The Search for the Origin of COVID-19, not The Search for the Origin of Viruses. It would be a pointless charade to observe virology experts at work in the lab, given that the authors have already summarized their findings in great detail with thorough citations -- none of which Hiltzik disputes.

By not acknowledging that the authors discussed at great length the history of such inquiries, Hiltzik leads the reader to believe that the authors excluded this pertitent background information.

Hiltzik is clearly suggesting that readers should feel cheated here. A wild goose chase is a complicated, hopeless pursuit. But the authors never promised they would solve the mystery of the origin of COVID-19. Their thesis, quite clearly from the start, is that an entire broad category of theories --zoonotic origin theories with no virology lab intermediary-- is highly implausible. That is what they argued. In comparison, when a defense lawyer proves their client is innocent of a murder, it is not logical or fair to expect them to go further and prove the guilt of the true murderer, and indeed no justice system in the world demands as much. That being said, the authors of Viral do go further; they argue that the virus or a near ancestor leaked from one of the two Wuhan Virology Institute locations in Wuhan. They also explained why the CCP's (undisputed) withholding of data blocks the investigating process from narrowing in on a detailed narrative of exactly how the leak happened.

These sentences betray the judge's ignorance of the well-documented, surprisingly-common counterintuitive (at least to men like he and I) behaviour of survivors of assault.

How can an expression have no precise meaning but be well understood?

This statement, and the quote from trial following it, demonstrates a probably-innocent but problematic bias of the judge: that a witness, while attempting to describe an event whose details she openly admits are not recorded clearly in her mind, will use language that consistently expresses her uncertainty. That could perhaps be expected of a judge, a lawyer, or a scientist. What is more likely here, is that S.D. is expressing her uncertainty by giving multiple versions of the minor, inconsequential details. That is not at all uncommon.

What should be taken from the quoted evidence is this:

S.D. claims to remember the following: Ghomeshi moved his hands from one part of her body (shoulders, arms) to around her neck, which caused her difficulty breathing, for some amount of time in the range of 2-10 seconds. At some point during that event, she believes she felt his teeth on her skin. At some point during the event, she believes he had his hand over her mouth. She is uncertain whether she resisted.

Incorrect: she is either watching him, or watching his show, or lying. The third case is not dismissible, and in fact might be the most likely case if L.R. is too traumatized to watch Mr. Ghomeshi's show but wishes to convey to Ghomeshi otherwise.

This statement is far outside the Judge's expertise, and its certainty betrays a worrisome bias. Even an expert in the psychology of memory could not make such a strong statement.

Fixed: This is not an email that I can imagine a person having simply forgotten about.

I will repeat the previous criticism:

This statement is far outside the Judge's expertise, and its certainty betrays a worrisome bias. Even an expert in the psychology of memory could not make such a strong statement.

Fixed: This is not an email that I can imagine a person having simply forgotten about.

Couldn't find the story anywhere. But see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal