To throw Hungary out of the EU, you need the vote of all EU members, including Hungary.

It's a question of ideology

1. There is a link between a rise in pandemic events and global warming. "Proving" it was a lab accident can be used as an argument that global warming had nothing to do with it (and of course, doesn't exist at all)

2. Blame: blaming a specific country could mean one could try to hold them liable for damages or at least set them in a bad diplomatic position. Plus when it's "man-made", it's easy to associate it with disliked people, like Fauci in the US pretending it was their personal fault. Holding individuals or institutions accountable/blaming them can also be a way to cope with loss.

3. Shifting the narrative: after millions had died, the narrative that COVID wasn't dangerous couldn't be used any longer. By claiming OT was lab-grown, there was a new story, a new scandal that would overshadow the fact that a lot of politicians, including the POTUS did not act and people can pretend they either never underestimated it or they did so because "a natural virus wouldn't be that bad". These narratives don't necessarily have to be for the public but for some just for their own conscience.

4. Theodicée: might be a bit abstract, but especially conservative americans are in the majority protestantic Christians believing in providence, i.e. that god makes all things natural come to pass. Meaning that a global pandemic would be gods will, meaning that the millions of americans who died would have been according to gods plan, maybe even as a punishment Not unlike the Great Plague in Europe was seen. A lab-grown virus produced by non-christians would be something god had no hand in, and it being "man made", would be a way out of the cognitive dissonance of god being good yet allowing bad things to happen to his devout followers.

Tl, dr: mostly it matters to blame others or explain how it could happen, also, of course as a political talking point.

There is, in both cases. We have already identified some of the biological factors that make certain athletes excel: a mutation that makes the body more resistant to lactate acidosis for example, or a certain bone/tendon structure specifically optimized for running and so on. We also know that there a threshold when additional muscle doesn't add to more efficacy anymore due to problems in blood circulation and so on. Drugs and surgery can only change some biological parameters, physical aids Like shoe forms have a limit of optimization as well. But people dominating their fields usually do so due to biological advantage. In modern high professionalized sports, there's little "fairness" involved.

No, in translation: we put CBD on specific prostate cancer cells in a Petri dish and it had certain effects on cancer proliferative effects which could give some hints about a possible anticarcinogenic effect of CBD which needs to be researched further. This doesn't say about wether or not it will do so in a living organism.

They are an very important part of the process of development of treatments and for the understanding of how certain cells or substance-cell interactions work. However what an in vitro study does not and will never do is to give proof of something working in a living organism. And a lot of comments here seem to assume this study proves the efficacy of CBD in the treatment of cancer which is plain wrong. Asking yourself "is this an in vitro or an in vivo study?" will make you less likely to come to a wrong conclusion about the significance of this particular study.

Don't you have to pay taxes or are they already deducted from your salary?

Ist this just AA or does it include their subsidiaries as well?
A lot of companies rent space, tools or vehicles from their own subsidiaries to artificially reduce net profit and save taxes.

Also, is there no marketing in the budget or is it included in the "other" section?

I'm pretty sure if we don't change our system drastically until it's viable, it's gonna be the same as with nuclear: Public funding for research, lots of government projects, private corporations then build power plants which are largely government funded, the energy gets heavily subsidized in the market and then people are told it's the cheapest form of energy and everyone talks about how the private sector is so much more efficient because the government would not have been able to turn a profit.

I think when the budget for marketing is almost twice the budget for R&D, something is kinda wrong...

Are you really surprised you can pay up to an unlimited amount of money for fitness stuff in SoCal?