As long as we are discussing potential incentives, it seems reasonable to have a modicum of curiosity concerning the incentives for a biosecurity state.
Simply blaming one state actor over another appears as a set of false alternatives. A convenient distraction which inspires tribalism and identity.
CBDC, "verified digital identities" and a host of other dystopian solutions grow into rationalized necessities from the germ of the COVID crisis. We need not look very far to see many of the same actors involved have advocated for these dystopian innovations for years, if not decades. If some of those actors hosted a simulated coronavirus pandemic exercise in October of 2019, is it appropriate to dismiss it as a mere coincidence?
At a certain point you have to concede the probability of a duck being the source of the waddling and quacking.
Well, if we are going to play the game where covert research implicates overt funding that specifically hinges on the funds not being used on such covert research (gain-of-function studies), we will definitely be barking up the wrong tree.
That's a circular argument. You're using the assumption of foul play to characterize the response as a cover-up, and the putative existence of a cover-up as evidence of foul play. Be better.
I think it’s undeniable now that the US did fund reaserch in the WIV, why do I need further evidence for that when Fauci himself has admitted so?
The cover-up was Daszak and co. pre-emptively denouncing lab leak theories as an attack on science and branding them as crazy conspiracies.
The only remaining thing to determine is whether the funding went into gain-of-function research, which Fauci vehemently denies but given his track record of lying it’s only natural to be hesitant in believing him. I’m far from an expert but according to the BBC[1] there do exist experts who believe Fauci not admitting it is just relying on semantics.
