“I stepped up on the platform, the man gave me the news. He said, ‘You must be joking son, where did you get those shoes?’”

— Steely Dan

A person better than me would just let it go. A person better than me would forget about the noted non-scientists and self-appointed internet experts who asked me, “When did you forget everything that you knew about science?” when I questioned the narrative. A person adverse to “told you so” would just move on. I’m not that guy.

On the other hand, a person who’s had it with the shoddy, PC-groupthink that currently passes for journalism, or thinks that the majority of people opining about science in the news or on the internet wouldn’t recognize the scientific method if it bit them in their bum, or thinks that media “fact-checkers” are almost worthless anymore, wouldn’t do any of the above. Instead, he’d blithely point out the errors made by all of the above and then proceed to rub their noses in it.

I am that guy.

This week the mainstream media, fact-checkers and several large social media platforms were finally forced to admit that the coronavirus at the center of the COVID-19 pandemic could have originated in a laboratory, as opposed to zoonotic origination. Perhaps now, after a year, I and everyone else who attempted to discuss this on social media will have the “misinformation” tag removed from our posts.

I understand the allure of the zoonotic theory of coronavirus origination. It’s been well-documented in past epidemics where the disease vectors were well-studied and are now well-understood. Coronavirus originates in bats and in its native form cannot be transmitted directly to humans. An intermediate species is needed for that. In the case of the coronavirus, pangolins (anteaters) were the principal suspect. It’s not a bad theory at all.

There’s only one thing wrong with the zoonotic theory. There’s not, other than a familiar pattern, a scintilla of evidence that suggests that it’s true in this particular case. That means that there exists the same amount of evidence, i.e., very little, for the zoonotic theory as there is for about anything else — and that’s precisely the point that many tried to make from the beginning.

But that’s not the way the media, many self-appointed experts and a few real experts (most of whom should have known better) saw it. The only correct way of thinking about this, according to them, was zoonotic origination. If you subscribed to the theory of lab origination, even if you assumed that it was an accidental release (as opposed to some sort of bio-weapon), you were labeled a conspiracy theorist and a kook.

Forget about the fact that the infamous “Lancet” letter, signed by 18 public health experts, condemning the theory of laboratory origination, was not only wrong, but was rife with conflicts of interest. A few of these researchers had grants and contracts with the lab, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in question. This is information that is easily obtained by anyone — and especially someone who works for, say, the New York Times or CNN.

Unless you’re too busy condemning and attempting to marginalize anyone who questions your reporting to check your sources.

Forget about the mountain of circumstantial evidence that points to an accidental release from WIV, bolstered by some good reporting from the Wall Street Journal establishing what are, at the very least, an amazing series of coincidences. All of this along a timeline that strongly suggests more than coincidence.

Forget about all of the above because most of the media and social media told you to.

Like almost everything these days, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has become tribal — with nearly every tribe being dead wrong about some important element of this ordeal.

I suspect — no, strike that — I know that the principal reason that the lab theory of coronavirus origination was so widely disregarded was that it was championed by President Donald Trump and many of his minions, notably Sen. Tom Cotton. Yep, the same Sen. Cotton who had a column yanked from the New York Times because it hurt the feelings of some staffers. Maybe that’s the reason that they couldn’t do a better job of checking sources for coronavirus stories over at the NYT — they were too bum-hurt.

The way I see it, that makes the score Tom Cotton — 2, NYT — 0. Let that sink in.

It gets better. A few months ago, the World Health Organization, an organization rife with conflicts of interest of its own, attempted to peddle a clown shoe investigative report that cleared the WIV of any responsibility in COVID-19. This report was so bad that it was questioned even by leaders in the WHO itself. The principal source for the report? Chinese authorities. I kid you not.

I don’t know whether the coronavirus at the center of the COVID-19 pandemic came from the WIN or was zoonotic. Neither does anyone else right now — except, perhaps, the Chinese. What I do know is that sans any evidence, one theory is not particularly any better than the other. Either could be right or wrong.

You don’t need to even be any kind of expert to comprehend that either. Which is why it’s so curious that most of the major media, social media, fact-checkers and the chattering classes couldn’t figure it out.

Or, perhaps, wouldn’t.

Associated Press and Idaho Press Club award-winning columnist Martin Hackworth of Pocatello is a physicist, writer, consultant and retired Idaho State University faculty member who now spends his time with family, riding mountain bikes and motorcycles and playing guitars. His video blog, “Howlin’ at the Moon in ii-V-I,” may be found at facebook.com/HowlinattheMoonin251 and on YouTube at bit.ly/2SN745k.