That's a lot of contrarian verbiage to not actually disagree with the only debatable point.

It is always necessary to add more evidence onto the pile. You don't need to be convinced, I don't need to be convinced, but the world still does.

The problem here is that the liberals champion their shitty evidence, and their NPCs fall into line lock step to parrot "teh science" and "teh consensus". We need prominent voices of science to stand up and refute these political talking points.

Let's start back at point 1: Anyone persuadable by scientific evidence already knows what's what. Anyone else has their marching orders, and automatically puts evidence like this into the "heterodox" bin. The amount, the veracity, the diligence, the rigor, and the truth of such evidence is irrelevant. You can put on your Velma glasses and talk viral biochemistry and strain history all you like, and your opposition can blow a great big raspberry in your face, and they will be considered the stronger argument under the current political and media environment.

From the beginning, many "prominent voices of science" did in fact stand up to the incredibly stupid null hypothesis of "I dunno, I guess just wild bats then! And, uh, someone ate them!" What happened is they became not "prominent" anymore. Doctors who used to head foundations, won prizes in their fields, and had buildings named after them, are now considered no better than bus stop hobos selling pencils. Their prior credibility doesn't matter anymore--they toed the line, they stood silent, or they were destroyed, and it will take decades and several thought revolutions to exonerate them and turn them into smart people again.

It's all part of the same fucking mess. There's this great big ugly thing that has its tentacles everywhere, and it stomps out the small fires of opposition. It never doesn't do this. Anything resembling a rational approach to "covid" is part of this. I'm pretty sure you know this too, and we're just grumping at each other at this point.