Aren't you the same guy not reporting the "full context" of the Wuhan lab story that just came out? You know, the context where one agency said "based on our knowledge of how labs work, without actually visiting the Wuhan lab, we believe it's this," and how EVERY OTHER AGENCY read their report and said "No, that's incorrect," and how everyone is listing it as "low confidence." There's only three confidence levels for these types of reports: High, Medium, and Low.

High = Yep, the evidence is pretty clear and the conclusions are reasonable. We all agree on this. (Russia is planning to invade Ukraine, reports say, with high confidence levels, and that proved true)

Medium = There's some evidence, but also a lot of holes, and the evidence could be read other ways. Still, it seems pretty possible (Iraq war... which, as we now know, turned out to be FALSE, so even MEDIUM levels aren't necessarily truths)

Low = I mean, sure... it's plausible. Unlikely, you've not actually proven it, but it might have happened that way. You need to provide some actual, you know... evidence of what you're saying. Beyond just "trust us, we work in a lab environment, too, so we totally can guess." (This report)

If you're going to lean on the "we don't have the full context" of a video for which many people have SEEN the full context in all it's long winded, racist glory, you better make sure to provide full context for the stories you do cherry pick from.