No, this is not accurate. The most reasonable and founded version of the conspiracy theory is that it was an accidental leak as a result of gain-a-function research (which produced a modified version of the virus to study it to preemptively develop ways of dealing with the possible novel mutation).

This is a theory that implicates both Americans and the Chinese, both scientists and politicians. The accidental leak itself wouldn't even be a conspiracy. That would be using media to make sure that the very possibility of such a theory being pursued is prevented, to protect the image of involved persons and institutions and related research funding.

It is also entirely inaccurate and misleading to say that we do know what happened *for certain*. So much so, that it is hard to accept that somebody could be this misleading without being aware that they are misleading the readers. Communicating science in this manipulative manner is what's damaging public trust in science.

The issue is not that this conspiracy theory is so compelling or comforting, it's that the natural explanation isn't sufficiently supported by evidence. Yes, mutations can occur naturally, but then you should be able to find exactly where the natural mutation occurred. Like it happened fairly quickly with the prior coronavirus epidemics.

As somebody who studied journalism and political science at a university, I have to say, I'm really disappointed with this article.