That was literally your point. You dismiss Scally because he disagreed with the ECDC.
The only logical upshot of that is you believe the ECDC are infallible.
Scally is a member of sage. LOL, you must think sage are infallible?
Was it? Quote it then. You wouldnât be misrepresenting what I said in bad faith, again, would you?
Heâs a member of Independent SAGE. Which is a different thing entirely to SAGE.
LOL.
Failed attempts at semantics when youâre caught out. Lolz.
Antigen tests are the new âTrapattoni must pick Andy Reid for Irelandâ.
I would have said that in early 2020 as well, but the overwhelming evidence now is it came from a lab in Wuhan. We will never know the truth as the CCP have buried all the evidence including the people who tried to raise the alarm in Jan 2020.
1 Like
That whole HK thing fairly blew over for them as well didnât it. Never waste a crisis. You couldnât be up to them lads.
1 Like
It isnât. It would likely seem that way if you consume the junk you do though. I mean you say âthe overwhelming evidenceâ and then literally admit there is no evidence. If you canât see the problem with that I canât help you.
1 Like
There is plenty evidence, all of it is circumstantial. The direct evidence, like medical records, lab records, etc. we will likely never get access to.
You are out of your depth here, not that that has even stopped you in the past.
1 Like
Iâm sure the CCP had good reason to kill those people raising the alarm in 2020
Sure you couldnât be letting out the fact that you were starting a global pandemic.
Were I interested, the only thing you could teach me is baseless arrogance.
You have plenty of that already, which is why you never engage in a discussion. A useful idiot basically.
Its now âsemanticsâ to point out that you continually misrepesent what I said or attribute things to me that I didnât say while failing to respond to any of the reasonable point put to you?
Youâve regressed alarmingly at doing the arguments kid.
I donât think I made any Covid predictions especially none as horribly inaccurate as âdone with Covidâ.
As regards determining the origin of the virus, yes, Iâm absolutely out of my depth. And so are you. And so is every poster on this forum. The difference is you think you arenât. But you very much are.
What Iâm not out of my depth on is looking around to see what the people who are not out of their depth, who are actual experts, are saying.
Unfortunately youâre also out your depth when it comes to doing this.
The rush to find a conspiracy around the COVID-19 pandemicâs origins is driven by narrative, not evidence.
By Justin Ling
JUNE 15, 2021, 1:34 PM
Behind every pandemic is a tale of its murky origin.
When HIV/AIDS emerged in the 1980s, it was alleged, with a little Soviet help, that the virus had been developed in an American lab. Between Washingtonâs inaction on the epidemic and its sordid past of shady experiments, proponents said the theory couldnât be dismissed out of hand.
After many early cases of tick-borne Lyme disease were first identified around Long Island Sound, it was deemed too much of a coincidence that the U.S. militaryâs Plum Island animal research lab sat on an island in the sound itself.
When SARS emerged in 2003, so did fears of the severe acute respiratory syndromeâs unnatural origin. âItâs a very unusual outbreak,â bioweapons expert Ken Alibek told the New York Times at the time. âItâs hard to say whether itâs deliberate or natural.â One Russian scientist posited that âthe propagation of the atypical pneumonia may well be caused by a leak of a combat virus grown in Asian bacteriological weapons labs.â
And in recent years, efforts to eradicate Ebola have been hobbled by attacks on health care workers motivated, at least in part, by a belief that the virus is man-made.
Blaming humans for disease is as old as time itself.
Blaming humans for disease is as old as time itself. Itâs inherently hard to trace outbreaks that take tangled paths from their origin point to where theyâre first detected. Without firm answers, humankind loves to invent stories, from the Black Death of the 14th century to the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. In the absence of certainty, both sets of theoriesânatural or man-madeâseem plausible: like SchrĂśdingerâs cat, for virology.
When infectious diseases can be explained, however, nature is almost always the culprit. After SARS emerged, scientists suspected that the coronavirus had jumped from a bat to another mammalâprobably the masked palm civetâbut couldnât explain how it had appeared on a farm in Foshan, in Chinaâs Guangdong province.
More than a decade after the outbreak, researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology discovered something interesting: Villagers who lived near bat-ridden caves in Yunnan province, around 900 miles from where the first outbreaks were recorded, had high levels of SARS antibodies, despite having never been infected. While it is next to impossible to figure out exactly how SARS traveled that distance, scientists are now fairly sure the journey began in that cave before passing to a mammal that ultimately infected a person.
Bats likely played a crucial role in incubating Ebola as well. A very similar strain of HIV to the ones seen in humans was discovered in chimpanzees in 1999, although itâs still unclear when exactly it jumped to humans. Itâs still uncertain where Ebola or Lyme disease truly came fromâand we may never know. But what we do know is that they almost certainly did not come from a U.S. government lab.
But, of course, sometimes governments do experiment on unwitting civilians. Sometimes viruses do escape from labs.
Yet although lab spillovers do happen, the vast majority are rapidly contained. Instances of serious outbreaks caused by malice or incompetence are vanishingly rare. One of the only known examples dates back to 1977, when a previously eliminated strain of H1N1 reemerged, likely as the result of a Soviet live vaccine program gone awry.
Given that history, it was no surprise that theories around COVID-19âs supposed lab origins emerged. But this time around, itâs not just idle speculation. Itâs being taken as a serious possibility by some of the highest levels of the U.S. governmentâand by media keen for a new narrative.
When COVID-19 was first detected in December 2019, the Chinese government responded in its usual fashion: with repression and secrecy. Weeks of cover-up suddenly switched to countrywide containment. The ham-fisted attempt at secrecy raised the question: What else were they hiding?
It didnât take long for online sleuths to hold up a compelling piece of evidence: The Wuhan Institute of Virology, the same one that had helped identify the likely origin of SARS, was just about 9 miles from the first reported outbreak.
In January 2020, the theory began on the fringes, with allegations of a secretive bioweapons program. Within weeks, the theory had broken loose on a network of shady and disreputable websites armed with little more than questions and supposition. The mainstream mediaâs silence, they said, was evidence of their complicity. They latched on to crumbs of evidence emerging in the early bedlam of the global pandemic, like a paper, later withdrawn, suggesting HIV genes had been inserted in the virus.
Then, the theory found a powerful constituent. Fox News reported in April 2020 of âincreasing confidenceâ in the U.S. intelligence community around the idea that the virus came from the Wuhan labâmaybe not as a biological weapon, but as the result of an accidental leak. Then-President Donald Trump, in response to the news network, coyly endorsed the theory.
By that May, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was promising âconclusiveâ evidence to back up the hypothesis.
That conclusive evidence didnât materialize: Instead, there were dodgy dossiers and yet more sources talking up an âagreementâ among âmost ofâ Americaâs 17 intelligence agencies around the lab leak theory. (The Times would later report that then-Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Pottinger had endorsed the lab leak theory early on and had been pressing intelligence agencies to back him up.)
The possibility of a routine lab accident became caught up in the theories about bioweapons and germ warfare.
But while the theory was reported, many media outlets also dismissed it as conspiracy mongering. The possibility of a routine lab accident became caught up in the theories about bioweapons and germ warfare. Scientists were keen to focus debate on how to deal with the pandemic, not a geopolitical fracas.
Some circumstantial evidence emerged to support the theory, such as State Department cables reporting security issues at the Wuhan lab from 2018âalthough the full cable was less dramatic than the headlines about it. Big claims by the proponents didnât pan out, however. Not one other country from the Five Eyes intelligence community backed up the claim that certainty was mountingâAustralia even contradicted it outright, as did other parts of the U.S. intelligence community.
But as the Trump administration was collapsing, its former members saw pushing the theory as a path to future credibility.
In late December 2020, Pottinger popped up again in the British press, after telling Conservative members of Parliament that âthere is a growing body of evidence that the lab is likely the most credible source of the virus.â One Tory MP reported Pottinger had said a Chinese whistleblower was providing the U.S. government with evidence for the theory.
A âfact sheetâ from Pompeoâs State Department from around that time was simultaneously more ambiguous than Pompeo had been, acknowledging that it was indeterminate whether the virusâs origins were natural or accidental, and more conclusive, reporting that âseveral researchers inside the [Wuhan Institute of Virology] became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.â
Then came the speculation.
This January, the novelist Nicholson Baker took to New York magazine to proffer his conclusion: âSARS-2 was not designed as a biological weapon. But it was, I think, designed.â
Baker offered an incredibly detailed, but speculative, theory. It goes like this: In 2012, workers in a copper mine in Mojiang, in Yunnan province, contracted a then-unknown illness from bat droppings. Samples of the virusâparticularly one novel virus they named RaTG13âwere transported back to Wuhan, where it was experimented on, including alterations to its spike proteins. And then, Baker wrote, the virus may have just âgot out.â
In May, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists joined the fray, with a piece from Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times correspondent with a dubious line in racial theories, running with Bakerâs hypothesis.
He noted, correctly, that many of the coronavirusesâlike those that cause COVID-19 and SARSâoriginate in the caves of Yunnan province. If it were natural, he contended, why would the outbreak occur nearly 1,000 miles away? âThe batsâ range is 50 kilometers, so itâs unlikely that any made it to Wuhan,â he wrote.
On the biology of the virus itself, he wrote that the furin cleavage siteâa tiny enzyme on the virus that makes the coronavirus as ruthlessly effective at infecting humansâis a clue as to the virusâs lab origins. Baker noted that there are two ways in which this cleavage site could be attached to the virus naturally: by mutation of the virus itself or by fusing with another coronavirus through a process called recombination.
The theories put forward do latch on to elements of truth: Chinese infectious disease research is secretive and riskier than it ought to be.
Wade, even after quoting a virologist who insisted that ârecombination is naturally very, very frequent in these viruses,â concluded that both explanations are unlikely. Instead, Wade wrote: âThat leaves a gain-of-function experiment.â
âGain-of-functionâ is a phrase that has gotten plenty of airtime in recent weeks. The process, generally speaking, involves forcing a virus to evolve and mutate in a lab, mimicking but intensifying the conditions it may face in the real world, largely in order to understand how such mutation takes place in the wild. The practice is risky, but not forbidden: The United States also conducts these sorts of experiments.
The theories put forward by Baker, Wade, and others are enormously complicated, and they do latch on to elements of truth: Chinese infectious disease research is secretive and riskier than it ought to be. The Wuhan lab did find a coronavirus it called RaTG13. Workers in Mojiang did fall ill in 2012 with a mysterious pneumonia, prompting researchers at the Wuhan lab to more intensely study the viruses hidden in those caves, as they told foreign reporters.
Beyond those crumbs of truth, however, everything is just speculation.
The floodgates opened on the theory. The Wall Street Journal recycled the report about the ill Wuhan lab workers. New York magazine condemned the dismissal and smears from the âliberal mediaâ of the theoryâs boosters. Sen. Tom Cotton, an early supporter of the theory that the virus came from a lab and may have military origins, has taken a victory lap over his apparent vindication. Sen. Rand Paul dragged the gain-of-function theory into hearings on COVID-19, alleging that the United States helped fund those experiments. The skepticism and debunking, pundit Matthew Yglesias wrote, has amounted to the âmediaâs lab leak fiasco.â
On May 26, President Joe Biden ordered his advisors to âredoubleâ their efforts to find information about the origin of the virus. At the G-7 summit, a joint statement called for further investigation, while Biden said the virus could have been âan experiment gone awry.â
From the outside looking in, it seems the balance of probabilities has shifted. Where once, in early 2020, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence pointed toward COVID-19 being of natural origin, now the lab leak theory is gaining steam.
But itâs a mirage. Despite proclamations to the contrary, there has been scant new, hard evidence pointing to the lab leak theory. What we have are the same conclusions drawn from Chinaâs malign incompetence, the same pieces of circumstantial evidence, and a speculative theory.
None of this means a lab leak is impossible. But the âgrowing evidenceâ simply isnât there.
âI donât think that weâve learned anything new in the last few months,â said Stephen Goldstein, who studies evolutionary virology at the University of Utah.
âWeâre completely in want of evidence.â
To date, there are fewâperhaps just a coupleâpeer-reviewed papers seriously entertaining the lab leak idea. Meanwhile, there have been numerous credible studies pointing to COVID-19âs natural origins. An exhaustive study published in Nature Medicine in March 2020 found âSARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.â One of the paperâs authors, Kristian G. Andersen, said in a statement that the conclusions in the paper âhave only since been further strengthened by additional evidence, of which there is a great deal.â
One of the most effective parts of the lab leak theory is not the quality of evidence but the quantity. Bits and pieces are fired out at a rapid pace, some of them even contradicting each other, before they can be adequately discussed or broken down.
â What does it mean that three people, out of a large research staff, were sick with flu-like symptoms in flu season?â
Take the report of the sick lab workers: âWhat does it mean that three people, out of a large research staff, were sick with flu-like symptoms in flu season?â Goldstein said. Snappy headlines highlighting that the workers âsought hospital careâ fall apart when the context is considered; in China, primary care is largely delivered through hospitals, and sick notes are compulsory for time off. Visiting a hospital in Wuhan was the equivalent of a trip to the doctorâs office in the United States.
Cheryl Rofer spent 35 years as a chemist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and specializes in arms control. She spent years handling plutonium in tightly controlled and highly secretive lab environments. âIf these people became ill while working on a weapons program, or gain-of-function research, or anything like thatâthey would not go to a hospital,â she said.
Even the damning coincidence of the labâs proximity to the outbreak is weak. Itâs not certain that Wuhan was the origin of the virus, rather than simply where it happened to first be detected. As with SARS, the virus may have originated hundreds of miles away and gone unnoticed amid Chinaâs underdeveloped rural medical system even when it jumped to humans. How SARS spread in 2003 makes a mockery of Wadeâs claim that the distance involved is implausible.
Recently, the Daily Mail and New York Post trumpeted an âexplosiveâ new study that supposedly offered firm proof that the COVID-19 virus was man-made. One of the paperâs authors told the Mail that four positively charged amino acids in the virusâs genetic makeup were the key evidence: âThe laws of physics mean that you cannot have four positively charged amino acids in a row. The only way you can get this is if you artificially manufacture it,â the author told the British paper.
â It has gotten utterly crazy. Even intelligent people are just losing it.â
Scientists wasted no time shredding the idea. One, calling it âunbelievable bullshit,â pointed out that a third of the proteins in the human body carry that characteristic. As another noted, âeven man-made things must obey the laws of physics.â
âIt has gotten utterly crazy,â Rofer said. âEven intelligent people are just losing it.â
Claims about the intelligence communityâs conclusions must be viewed with a careful and cynical eye as well. U.S. intelligence contains a huge range of agenciesâsome with much better hit rates than others, and none of them geared toward answering complicated scientific questions. An exhaustive Vanity Fair feature, digging into the intelligence communityâs inquiriesâor lack thereofâprovides much fanfare to the same meager pieces of evidence offered by Baker and Wade. The story provides the backstory to Pompeoâs brash claims of âenormousâ evidence for the lab leak. The story reveals that a team inside the State Departmentâs Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance had doggedly pursued the theory as recently as this January. The feature alleges that Christopher Ford, then the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, was âso hostile to their probe that they viewed him as a blinkered functionary bent on whitewashing Chinaâs malfeasance.â
In a lengthy rebuttal, Ford notes that he actually supported the lab leak theoryâhis main crime, it seems, was insisting that the conclusion that COVID-19 was a lab leak be put to independent experts. When those independent experts got a look at the State Departmentâs analysis, he wrote in an email at the time, they found it rested on a single statistical analysis prepared by one scientist âa pathologist, rather than a virologist, epidemiologist, or infectious disease modelerâ without expertise in that type of modeling. The âstatistical case seems notably weak,â Ford wrote.
CNN reported similar problems: âThe way they did their work was suspicious as hell,â one source told the network, adding that âit smelled like they were just fishing to justify predetermined conclusions and cut out experts who could critique their âscience.ââ
Rofer knows all too well that bad lab security can lead to accidents. She tells the story of 6,000 sheep who died as a result of a secretive U.S. military chemical weapons test in Utah in 1968. Even âLos Alamos has had a couple of plutonium incidents,â Rofer said. And, of course, the world has seen cases of anthrax and SARS due to lab leaks.
The difference is that these are all already-known viruses and compounds. The H1N1 outbreak in 1977 appears to have come as a result of a live vaccine trialâin an attempt to inoculate soldiers, the Soviets appear to have accidentally infected them.
At its most benign, the lab leak theory holds that China discovered a completely new and dangerous coronavirus, didnât tell anybody, and didnât sequence it or develop a vaccine, then let it get out without noticing or while failing to contain it.
Keeping this work secret is easier said than done. Researchers at the Wuhan lab frequently cooperated with American and Canadian counterparts on coronavirus researchâwe know about the security flaws specifically because American officials toured the facilities. The Wuhan Institute of Virology publishes findings from its coronavirus research frequently, as part of Chinaâs goal to become a scientific superpower. We know as much as we do about coronaviruses because of the Wuhan labâs research into the caves in Yunnan.
The real clues about COVID-19âs origin arenât geopolitical but scientific.
The real clues about COVID-19âs origin arenât geopolitical but scientific.
The lab leak theory says the furin cleavage site, a tiny enzyme dangling from the virus, is key to understanding the novel coronavirusâs origin.
Goldstein agrees. But, he said, that cleavage site actually points toward the virusâs natural origin.
âYou cannot, in a normal cell culture, maintain the furin cleavage site,â he told me . When the COVID-19 virus is replicated in a cell culture in a lab, he said, the furin cleavage tends to delete itself. A peer-reviewed paper, published in late April in Nature , noted that habit and identified seven other papers that found a similar deletion.
So if researchers were using traditional methods and their preferred cell lines to try to force the virus to replicate, mutate, and change, the furin cleavage site would likely disappear.
The gain-of-function proponents say this furin site is too well adapted for humans to be an accident. But Goldstein said the opposite is true. The cleavage site is imperfect, so odd, that it could have only been a freak of nature. âNo virologist would use that cleavage site,â he said.
It is possible to replicate the virus in a lab while preserving the cleavage site, Goldstein added, but it would ârequire doing things differently than everyone does them.â And, crucially, it would require them choosing cell cultures that replicate the virus more slowly.
So the researchers would have had to make a series of inefficient and strange decisions to preserve a tiny, novel, odd enzyme. Indeed, the researchers at Imperial College London behind the April Nature article found that the addition of four amino acids in the virusâs spike protein âoccurred during its emergence from an animal reservoir and created a suboptimal furin [cleavage site].â Another study published in January in Stem Cell Research demonstrated how these furin sites naturally evolve in many coronaviruses.
And what about RaTG13, the virus that Wade and Baker argue is so similar to COVID-19 that it would only need some tuneups? In a statement from April 2020, Edward Holmesâan evolutionary biologist and virologist at the University of Sydneyânoted that âthe level of genome sequence divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is equivalent to an average of 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change.â
âHence, SARS-CoV-2 was not derived from RaTG13,â Holmes said. Backing up what numerous other researchers have found, Holmes added that âthe abundance, diversity and evolution of coronaviruses in wildlife strongly suggests that this virus is of natural origin.â
âCramming 50 years of evolution into eight is impossible,â Goldstein said. âForcing 1,000 nucleotide changesâjust, no.â
But maybe this gain-of-function research did not try to replicate the virus in a petri dish but, instead, used live animals to multiply and mutate the virusâusing one sick animal to infect the next, and the next, and the next, until an evolved and efficient virus came out the other end.
Following the theory down this path gets increasingly fantastical. âHow complicated can this get?â Goldstein said. It would be significantly more expensive, labor-intensive, and difficult to hide. The lab would need to run a veritable petting zoo of different animals to perfect this kind of zoonotic transmission. And it still doesnât account for the decades of necessary evolution.
Prior to the outbreak in December 2019, nothing closely resembling the COVID-19 virus was reported in any lab. Since it has emerged, it has taken hundreds of millions of infections to net just a handful of serious mutations and variants.
âWeâre not good enough, in virology, to make the perfect virus,â Goldstein said.
Nature, however, is.
Our best available theory is that COVID-19 likely originated in bats, quite likely from the same caves that begot SARS, and jumped through two other animals before reaching humans. Those three hosts led to a âcomplex pattern of evolutionary recombination.â Researchers have found close relatives to COVID-19 in pangolins and raccoon dogs, making them prime suspects in the so-called spillover event. While the Wuhan seafood marketâs role in the pandemic is still unclearâwhether it was truly the origin or just the first major outbreakânew research suggests it may be key to proving the natural origin theory. Despite insistence from Beijing that no live animals were kept at the market, a new paper in Scientific Reports reveals photographic evidence that raccoon dogs were kept at the wet market. âAlmost all animals were sold alive, caged, stacked and in poor condition,â the researchers found.
This theory would mean COVID-19 jumped between three different animals and traveled about 1,000 miles.
Compare that with SARS: The virus went through two animals and traveled about 900 miles before leading to outbreaks in humans.
For the lab leak theory to work, the Wuhan lab would need to have either found a completely novel and hyperinfectious virus in the wild and kept it in a lab without telling anyone, or engineered that virus in a way that would stun scientists at more advanced American labs by truncating decades of evolution into just a few years.
Then, there would need to have been a catastrophic breach of safety protocol that infected one or more staffers from the labâbut also, the accident would need to have gone unnoticed, so that they simply walked out of the building when their shift was done.
âIt sounds simpler than the alternative, but when you get into it, itâs much more complicated,â Goldstein said.
Peter Ben Embarek is a World Health Organization food security expert, tapped by the internationalist organization to fly to Wuhan and investigate the origins of the virus.
âThe idea is to get the studies that are needed to get a better idea of the origin of the virus,â Ben Embarek told me in January. He and his team were headed to China agnostic about what, exactly, had caused the pandemic. âThe approach is precisely not to follow all kinds of hypotheses,â he said. The science confirms the COVID-19 virus is a ânatural virus,â not a bioweapon. But he acknowledged that âaccidents happenâ and they could not, then, discount the idea it had escaped from a lab.
I asked him about the lab leak theory. âThis âgrowing body of evidenceââwe havenât seen it,â Ben Embarek said.
In a Feb. 9 press conference, after several weeks on the ground, Ben Embarek and his colleagues announced that they had seen enough to conclude that the lab leak theory was âextremely unlikely.â
âThere had been no publication, no reports of this virus, of another virus extremely linked or closely linked to this, being worked with in any other laboratory in the world,â Ben Embarek noted then.
The scientific conclusions of the WHO study seem compelling. But of course the organizationâs conclusion only served as proof, for many, that the opposite is true, given the organizationâs considerable support from Beijing. WHO staff themselves have said the Chinese government stymied the investigation. Beijing tried to manage what researchers and journalists did, and didnât, see. It punished Australia after Canberra called for an independent investigation into the coronavirusâs origins.
But Chinaâs secrecy and tendency toward cover-up arenât proof of any particular conspiracy. That paranoia is Beijingâs default.
Chinese officials always scramble to avoid blame after disasters, natural or otherwise. After the Sichuan earthquake of 2008, for instance, protesting parents whose children died in the quake were arrested, and reporters who attempted to look into construction scandals were detained and censored. It happened, as well, around the Tianjin explosion of 2015 and the Wenzhou train crash of 2011. And it happens around smaller, unnoticed tragedies on a daily basis. Individual officials are eager to avoid being scapegoatedâand the central government seeks to present a simple, propagandized image of competence and compassion.
China tried to cover up SARS, downplaying case counts and even forbidding WHO researchers from visiting the site of the initial outbreak. As one Chinese politics expert told the Times in 2003, SARS âbecame a serious political problem for the government as well as a medical one.â
History repeated itself in 2020 as authorities suppressed those trying to raise the alarm about a possible âsecond SARSâ outbreak, such as late doctor Li Wenliang.
When it comes to the Chinese Communist Party, cover-up is business as usual.
Over the past year, Iâve spoken with a slew of researchers, scientists, and public health experts: Their takes on the origins of COVID-19 generally fall into two camps. Most say that the virus is very likely natural and that theories around the Wuhan Institute of Virology are a possible explanation, but theyâre unlikely. The other group, a minority, says both theories are more or less equally valid and that the lab leak theory is in desperate need of more study.
Itâs hard to fault either camp.
But not all research is created equal.
Both Baker and Wade, for example, cite the husband-and-wife duo behind the Bioscience Resource Project, which published a paper last summer promoting the Mojiang miner theory. The project, however, largely focuses on crop science and has pushed junk science and misinformation about genetically modified organisms. Since the start of the pandemic, the group has pivoted toward taking on what they call âthe pandemic virus industrial complex.â
One oft-cited editorial was written by a number of researchers who do not specialize in virology. The team of experts cited in the Vanity Fair article are mostly anonymous. Another prominent webpage compiling evidence for this argument, which Baker and Wade relied on heavily, is entirely anonymously produced.
And, of course, itâs hard to divorce many Republicansâ clear preference for the lab leak theory from their default position that China is a threat to global security.
Were some people, myself included, too glibly dismissive of the lab leak theory early on? Can a theory be right even when itâs pushed by bad actors for political ends and crank theorists? Sure. But that doesnât mean the possibility wasnât being actively explored. It was. There was not a conspiracy to silence research or speculation about the Wuhan lab.
Yet even after more than a year of study, the odds that the lab leak theory is correct remain roughly the same as when it was reported on a year agoâitâs theoretically possible but far less likely than zoonotic origin.
The origin of this virus matters. Yes, if Beijing is culpable for the origin of the novel coronavirus it merits repercussionsâand even if it is not, China still needs to be held accountable for its obfuscation.
If the caves of Yunnan and the surrounding ecosystem gave us two highly infectious coronaviruses in two decades, there is no telling when the next such coronavirus could emergeâor from where.
If the COVID-19 virus, as previous viruses have done, hopped between various animals, perfecting its ability to infect humans along the way, itâs another indicator of how humanityâs intrusions into wilderness are unearthing new pathogens at a worryingly fast rate. That requires a substantial rethink of how we settle the Earth and how we manage wild nature.
That, of course, is a more unsettling prospect than simply blaming Beijing.
Discovering, with absolute certainty, the exact origin of COVID-19 may be impossible. But it is crucial that we let science, not hype or anxiety, determine the possible scenarios.
As Rofer told me: âWe all feel a loss of control. And a way to understand this is to understand the origin.â
I didnât misrepresent you at all. You dismissed Scally based on nothing other than him disagreeing with the ECDC. Thatâs literally exactly what you did. You dismiss him because you donât like him, in other words. Thatâs what those who want ârealityâ to fit with what they want to happen, rather than actual reality, do.
I dismissed him because he rejected a study based on evidence out of hand on the basis of no evidence. He doesnât really have much credibility if thatâs how he carries on.
Ah yeah, he has no credibility at all. That loudmouth gobshite from the Irish Times is who we should listen to.