In this question, a mod deliberately deletes only certain comments (which presumably he thinks took a side), claiming "Please don't introduce new conspiracy theories in the comments. If you want to question a specific claim, try Skeptics.SE. Locking comments for now; when the lock comes off please use these comments only to suggest improvement to the question."
My comment is one of them. How is my comment:
"Neither of natural origin/lab-made should be called a conspiracy theory. They are called competing hypotheses when neither has been solidly-proven. This commits the same mistakes as when church people branding Darwin's theory of evolution as conspiracy when their Creationism had not been proven."
not an attempt to improve the question/remind the OP to reduce bias (from attracting just pre-opinionated story, reaffirming his prior beliefs)? The OP's only has biased personal story with unsourced claims such as:
there is a consensus that the most probable source of the first infection was in an animal market in China.
since that animal market was actually composed of a plethora of animals belonging to various species (mixed with humans), a virus had a bigger chance of evolve a mutation that might infect an individual from another specie (a thing that is way less unlikely in the wild since many of those animals do not sit close to each others or next to humans)
Not saying all comments deleted are unjustified, but I would like to hear your rationale for deleting my above comment.
I will probably get a lot of hate, but just pointing how ridiculous this is for one person has an opinion and then he has the power to selectively delete whatever doesn't suit his interests. Some comments have absolutely no elements of personal attacks/violation of conduct.