Knowledgeable scientists agree that the COVID-19 pandemic began when the virus SARS-CoV-2 infected citizens of Wuhan who were visiting the wet market in the late Fall of 2019. The virus probably came from infected live animals that were on sale in the market. There is very little dispute within the (knowledgeable) scientific community, the vast majority of scientists support a natural origin.
There is no evidence supporting the alternative conspiracy theory of a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virolgy labs. Nevertheless, the Trump administration is promoting the lab leak conspiracy theory on the Wihte House website [LAB LEAK].
Even more shocking is the fact that they are using this site to attack the Biden administration and Anthony Fauci.
“The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated naturally....
Public health officials often mislead the American people through conflicting messaging, knee-jerk reactions, and a lack of transparency. Most egregiously, the federal government demonized alternative treatments and disfavored narratives, such as the lab leak theory, in a shameful effort to coerce and control the American people’s health decisions.
When those efforts failed, the Biden Administration resorted to “outright censorship—coercing and colluding with the world’s largest social media companies to censor all COVID-19-related dissent.”
Just in case this site is taken down, here are the five reasons why the Trump administration supports a lab leak conspiracy theory instead of the scientific consensus. I'm pretty sure all Sandwalk readers know what's wrong with these reasons.
- The virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature.
- Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events.
- Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research (gene altering and organism supercharging) at inadequate biosafety levels.
- Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with COVID-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market.
- By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced. But it hasn’t.
This is very disturbing.
3 comments :
No one seems to talk about the fact at the Wuhan wet market and the Wuhan lab are 20 km apart
Doesn't seem disturbing to me at all .. your whole counter argument is "maybe" "probably" . Doesn't seem convincing to me either that it's a slam dunk case for a natural origin .. I think it can go both ways .
The evidence seems to say that it cannot "go both ways," as each WH claim is either demonstrably false or very misleading:
#1 - the furin cleavage site has been identified in related bat coronaviruses, and Covid-19's closest relative - RaTG13 - has a 96% genetic similarity, and natural selection (not genetic engineering) best explains its divergence.
#2 - phylogenetic studies indicate SARS-CoV-2 likely diverged from bat coronaviruses decades ago, leaving PLENTY of room for multiple zoonotic introductions over time.
#3 - while WIV studied chimeric coronaviruses (e.g., combining bat and mouse-adapted viruses in 2015), this work was peer-reviewed and conducted under BSL-3 and BSL-4 biosafety standards. Most experts reject labeling it as "gain-of-function" research. BTW, no one in the White House is remotely close to being described as an expert in the field.
#4 - a 2023 U.S. intelligence report noted unspecified illnesses among WIV staff in late 2019 but did not link them to COVID-19. Furthermore, Ben Hu, a WIV scientist denied falling ill before the pandemic’s recognized onset in December 2019. No evidence connects these illnesses to SARS-CoV-2.
#5 - genomic studies show "SARS-CoV-2 lacks signatures of lab manipulation (e.g., evenly distributed mutations, no artificial gene inserts)." While the intermediate host remains unidentified, this is common in zoonotic outbreaks (e.g., Ebola, SARS-1). Over 90% of virologists/epidemiologists support a natural zoonotic origin.
The evidence seems pretty one-sided to me.
Post a Comment