Peter Miller challenged Rootclaim on this and unbelievably "won". Of course, that doesn't mean he was/is right that Covid spread naturally from a wet-market, only that his evidence that it did was stronger than the lab-leak theory. https://www.youtube.com/@tgof137
And that evidence is SUPER COMPLEX!!! I boil his argument down to this. The same conditions that allowed for a spread of SARS-1 in 2002 were in place in 2019 for SARS-3. (Despite the Chinese government saying they fixed the problems). If we already know the working mechanism for a SARS outbreak and that mechanism is back in action then (Occom's razor) why do we need a lab-leak explanation?
It's like a friend who drives drunk but the second time he crashes we says it wasn't the alcohol, it was someone who hypnotized him before he went out ;)
The problem with the lab-leak theory is that even if you TRIED to spread a virus it's extraordinarily difficult. It seems to me, that's something that isn't discussed often. So if trying to do it is near impossible, then why would a leak be more effective?
The question I am waiting for an answer to is how much did the vaccine do in weakening our death rate and how much did the virus' natural attenuation do? So I believe, politically, focusing people on the lab leak questions takes us away from considering the mother of all frauds that--I say MIGHT HAVE BEEN--the mRNA pharma boondoggle.
Also, what are the side effects? So much I don't know.
You seem to mean that an artificial virus should have been more effective than a natural one. I don't think it is necessarily the case. The leak may not have been intentional, and they may not have known the effective lethality of the virus. Which turned out to be modest, but they were scared stiff anyway. In my opinion, the very concept of "bioweapons" is a big scam designed to siphon research money from the government but it is not producing effective weapons.
I don't believe we have any artificial viruses? We can only manipulate natural viruses and check to see what effects they produce. In the sense that we make the conditions for viruses to change, it's artificial, but the virus don't know that ;)
I wouldn't be surprised if the lab was trying to produce variants of SARS that were more lethal. But like all technologies, it's one thing to create it in a lab, it's quite another to manufacture it. And then even quite another for it to survive outside the lab. Anastassia also makes that point.
It's a subject Peter covers which are in the discussions. It's SUPER complex statistics. Scientists can read the DNA of the virus and compare it to previous variations. They can't predict how a virus will mutate, but they can identify places where it mutates in ways not expected.
Scientists also understand how the science is conducted, so they can identify meddling in the same way a musician can identify when a totally new tonal structure is added.
So in my drunk driver example. We might notice how the driver changes how he swerves, speeds up, slows down. That we could call natural evolution, so to speak. But if the drive exhibits a behavior where he's searching streets for someone to run over that's a change we know it's a big jump.
Again, none of that proves covid didn't come from a lab.
I don't know much about bioweapons so I'll defer to you on that one!
Also, for the record, before I read Peter I was in the 99% lab-leak camp!
Ah, well, Max, I think nobody knows much about bioweapons, perhaps not even those who work on them! What I can say is that I fully agree with what Anastassia says "Humans have not been able to create anything retaining functionality in the natural environment beyond one-two-three rounds of reproduction. Take domestic animals, for example, they are totally incompetitive. All that is because life's complexity is not taken into account in quantitative terms. This complexity prohibits creation of artificial living beings competitive beyond laboratory conditions." -- those poor bioengineered viruses would be easy prey for the human immune system, optimized over millions and millions of years of evolution.
Yep. Just had a nasty head cold. My wife and I got it at the same time. I wouldn't get out of bed until my immune system said "all finished". My wife tried to cut it short a couple of days and paid ;)
"The problem with the lab-leak theory is that even if you TRIED to spread a virus it's extraordinarily difficult. It seems to me, that's something that isn't discussed often. So if trying to do it is near impossible, then why would a leak be more effective?"
Exactly, that's the point that I was trying to make. Humans have not been able to create anything retaining functionality in the natural environment beyond one-two-three rounds of reproduction. Take domestic animals, for example, they are totally incompetitive.
All that is because life's complexity is not taken into account in quantitative terms. This complexity prohibits creation of artificial living beings competitive beyond laboratory conditions.
I totally agree. Unfortunately, the consequences of eroding trust in science are severe, because we are in a situation today where we need a lot of science to get out of the mess we are in. However, I believe the systematic destruction of trust in science started much earlier. Just think about the tobacco industry, the response to "Limits to Growth", and oil money funding climate skepticism.
That's an interesting topic, Ugo! My thoughts, for what they are worth, are that Covid is a manmade virus would be an enormously useful message for those seeking to justify funding of biological weapons. Even if the virus did not leak from the lab, they would rather say that it did. Moreover, governments as they knew that something was being cooked in those labs, feared that it could leak, so when the epidemic stroke, they were easy to convince that it was a leak. The takeaway message from it would be "how powerful modern biological weaponry industry is!"
RNA viruses lacking the reparation system evolve ten million times faster than the DNA world, so every ten years there is a new one, without any artificial manipulations.
A parallel that repeatedly comes to my mind is that some people are saying that this or that hurricane was engineered by some evil forces. But people working in the field know how limited our understanding is of what even drives these storms, let alone control or fabricate them.
I don't think so, Anastassia. If this thing was intentionally leaked as a weapon, it was a total flop. The takeaway message could be, "Look how useless the modern bioweapon industry is!"
The rate at which the Covid virus spread over the world would argue against anyone thinking that a bioweapon could be directed solely against the enemy.
While I agree with your assessment of the erosion of trust in science the statements by you and others expressing COVID virus origin doubts were incorrect at the time and are even more so now.
For the sake of those other than Prof. Bardi (who knows me), a short introduction may be in order. I am the author of more than 20 books on science, history and the environment, including, in 2020, Plagued: Surviving a Modern Pandemic (Groundswell Books).
Regarding the Wuhan Lab Leak, I would be speaking out of my hat to opine on a subject requiring some authority in virology and evolutionary microbiology, so I'll rely on the advice of those most highly regarded in those professions; those with enviable track records performing this sort of specific research.
Professor Edward Holmes, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and the Royal Society, has emphasized that coronaviruses frequently cross species barriers in natural settings. The diversity and evolutionary patterns of coronaviruses in wildlife populations strongly suggest that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through natural zoonotic transmission rather than laboratory manipulation. As Holmes states: “Coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2 are commonly found in wildlife species and frequently jump to new hosts. This is also the most likely explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2” [https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/04/16/COVID-19-statement-professor-edward-holmes-sars-cov-2-virus.html]
Multiple lines of evidence have identified the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market as the epicenter of early SARS-CoV-2 spread. Among the initial 41 hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by January 2, 2020, approximately two-thirds had been exposed to the market. This epidemiological clustering provides strong initial evidence for the market’s role in early human transmission.
Recent metagenomic sequencing analysis of samples collected from the market has significantly strengthened the natural origin hypothesis. Scientists identified genetic material from multiple animal species in the same areas where SARS-CoV-2 was detected in environmental samples. These animals include raccoon dogs, rabbits, and dogs—all species known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most notably, raccoon dogs have been shown to transmit the infection, making them particularly strong candidates for the intermediary host that passed the virus to humans. [Crits-Christoph, Alexander, et al. "Genetic tracing of market wildlife and viruses at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic." Cell 187.19 (2024): 5468-5482.]
Genetic analysis reveals that SARS-CoV-2 likely jumped from animals to humans multiple times at the Huanan market. Columbia Professor Vincent Racaniello and colleagues have discussed evidence showing that two distinct viral lineages were circulating at the market during the early outbreak. This pattern of multiple introductions is consistent with repeated spillover events from infected animals to humans, which aligns with the natural origin hypothesis rather than a single introduction event that would be expected from a laboratory leak. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz2qFJmpoug]
To do a critical assessment of the lab leak hypothesis one would have to trace coronavirus strains in the possession of the Wuhan or other labs and compare them to SARS-CoV-2. This is possible today because a global virus database.
A key argument against the lab leak hypothesis involves RaTG13, a bat coronavirus studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that is the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2. While proponents of the lab leak theory suggest RaTG13 could be the precursor to SARS-CoV-2, Professor Holmes highlights two critical problems with this assertion:
1. RaTG13 was collected from Yunnan province, not from the region where COVID-19 first appeared.
2. The genetic divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 represents approximately 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change.
As Holmes definitively states: “Hence, SARS-CoV-2 was not derived from RaTG13”. This substantial evolutionary distance makes it virtually impossible for RaTG13 to have been manipulated into SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting within any reasonable timeframe.
Dr. Paul Offit is a member of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. As someone who has developed vaccines from isolated viruses, through genetic manipulation in the laboratory, he describes the lab leak theory as “nonsense” based on scientific evidence and the sheer number of DNA modifications required.
One claim supporting the lab leak theory suggests that inadequate biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) conditions at the Wuhan Institute of Virology led to a virus escape. Dr. Offit addresses this directly, explaining that BSL-2 conditions are actually appropriate for handling SARS-CoV-2-like viruses. The implication that inadequate safety protocols led to a leak misunderstands the standard biosafety requirements for this type of research.
Another argument for the lab leak theory involves reports of Wuhan Institute workers falling ill in late 2019. Dr. Offit points out that workers getting sick during winter months is common due to seasonal respiratory viruses like influenza, parainfluenza, and human metapneumovirus. When these researchers were tested, there was no evidence they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2—a finding confirmed by U.S. intelligence investigations.
The consistency of opinion among these experts is noteworthy because it crosses political and national boundaries, suggesting scientific evidence rather than other considerations that might drive their conclusions. These virologists have repeatedly emphasized that the accumulating evidence supports a natural origin at the Huanan Seafood Market, with multiple spillover events from infected animals to humans. Multiple lines of evidence—including the presence of susceptible animal species at the market, the pattern of early cases clustered around the market, the identification of two distinct viral lineages suggesting multiple spillover events, and the substantial evolutionary distance between SARS-CoV-2 and laboratory viruses like RaTG13—all point toward zoonotic transmission as the most likely origin of the pandemic.
The sources cited by Prof. Bardi are the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, headed by Kash Patel, who has a fake Covid-19 vaccine “detox” supplement side hustle [https://newrepublic.com/post/189016/trump-fbi-pick-kash-patel-covid-views-supplement], and the U.S. Department of Energy, headed by MAGA blogger and Liberty Energy oil executive Chris Wright, a Trump campaign donor with a history of outright denying the climate crisis, who in 2022 sued the Department of Health and Human Services for all records concerning adverse reactions to the covid vaccines as part of a larger effort to discredit immunization. Prof. Bardi also cites the article of a few days ago by Zeynep Tufekci in the New York Times.
When evaluating counterarguments, it’s important to note that Paul Offit and other virologists have criticized articles such as Alina Chan’s New York Times op-ed titled “Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points.” Offit characterized this piece as containing misleading and incorrect assertions that were not properly vetted by expert reviewers. This highlights the importance of distinguishing between peer-reviewed scientific evidence and opinion pieces that may not undergo the same rigorous evaluation.
While no origin hypothesis can be proven with absolute certainty without recovering the direct animal source, the scientific consensus based on available evidence supports natural emergence. As our understanding of viral ecology and evolution continues to improve, such insights will be critical for preventing and responding to future pandemic threats.
The validity of the Lab Leak Theory is not a question that could ever be resolved by taking a public opinion poll or reading a guest editorial in The New York Times.
Ugo, you said that there isn't any definitive evidence of a lab leak and there might never be any, but I disagree. The original strain had the complement of a Moderna patent in the furin cleavage site:
This is certainly the result of passing the virus through humanized mice that used Moderna's patent. The odds of it occurring by chance are staggeringly large. Also, Peter Daszak of EcoHealth and Dr Shi of Wuhan are on the Project DEFUSE application to DARPA which was to add a furin cleavage site to a SARS covid virus.
To suggest that something identical to their pet project emerged from a zoonotic source in Wuhan with a gene sequence from a Moderna patent by coincidence strains credulity.
The US, Canada and China all shared these viruses and gain-of-function study information in a collaboration. In a way it doesn't matter where the first leak was, or where subsequent releases were covertly made, which they seem to have been, as the strains were not related enough genetically to have been caused by ongoing mutations. They had to be separate releases of fairly distant cousin strains.
I have been following this since December 2019, when I had a patient almost die in the hospital of what is now clearly COVID, starting as pneumonia, and going to multi-organ failure.
The only infectious agent found was "coronavirus", which was nothing in late November, early December 2019...
Peter Miller challenged Rootclaim on this and unbelievably "won". Of course, that doesn't mean he was/is right that Covid spread naturally from a wet-market, only that his evidence that it did was stronger than the lab-leak theory. https://www.youtube.com/@tgof137
And that evidence is SUPER COMPLEX!!! I boil his argument down to this. The same conditions that allowed for a spread of SARS-1 in 2002 were in place in 2019 for SARS-3. (Despite the Chinese government saying they fixed the problems). If we already know the working mechanism for a SARS outbreak and that mechanism is back in action then (Occom's razor) why do we need a lab-leak explanation?
It's like a friend who drives drunk but the second time he crashes we says it wasn't the alcohol, it was someone who hypnotized him before he went out ;)
The problem with the lab-leak theory is that even if you TRIED to spread a virus it's extraordinarily difficult. It seems to me, that's something that isn't discussed often. So if trying to do it is near impossible, then why would a leak be more effective?
The question I am waiting for an answer to is how much did the vaccine do in weakening our death rate and how much did the virus' natural attenuation do? So I believe, politically, focusing people on the lab leak questions takes us away from considering the mother of all frauds that--I say MIGHT HAVE BEEN--the mRNA pharma boondoggle.
Also, what are the side effects? So much I don't know.
You seem to mean that an artificial virus should have been more effective than a natural one. I don't think it is necessarily the case. The leak may not have been intentional, and they may not have known the effective lethality of the virus. Which turned out to be modest, but they were scared stiff anyway. In my opinion, the very concept of "bioweapons" is a big scam designed to siphon research money from the government but it is not producing effective weapons.
I don't believe we have any artificial viruses? We can only manipulate natural viruses and check to see what effects they produce. In the sense that we make the conditions for viruses to change, it's artificial, but the virus don't know that ;)
I wouldn't be surprised if the lab was trying to produce variants of SARS that were more lethal. But like all technologies, it's one thing to create it in a lab, it's quite another to manufacture it. And then even quite another for it to survive outside the lab. Anastassia also makes that point.
It's a subject Peter covers which are in the discussions. It's SUPER complex statistics. Scientists can read the DNA of the virus and compare it to previous variations. They can't predict how a virus will mutate, but they can identify places where it mutates in ways not expected.
Scientists also understand how the science is conducted, so they can identify meddling in the same way a musician can identify when a totally new tonal structure is added.
So in my drunk driver example. We might notice how the driver changes how he swerves, speeds up, slows down. That we could call natural evolution, so to speak. But if the drive exhibits a behavior where he's searching streets for someone to run over that's a change we know it's a big jump.
Again, none of that proves covid didn't come from a lab.
I don't know much about bioweapons so I'll defer to you on that one!
Also, for the record, before I read Peter I was in the 99% lab-leak camp!
Ah, well, Max, I think nobody knows much about bioweapons, perhaps not even those who work on them! What I can say is that I fully agree with what Anastassia says "Humans have not been able to create anything retaining functionality in the natural environment beyond one-two-three rounds of reproduction. Take domestic animals, for example, they are totally incompetitive. All that is because life's complexity is not taken into account in quantitative terms. This complexity prohibits creation of artificial living beings competitive beyond laboratory conditions." -- those poor bioengineered viruses would be easy prey for the human immune system, optimized over millions and millions of years of evolution.
Yep. Just had a nasty head cold. My wife and I got it at the same time. I wouldn't get out of bed until my immune system said "all finished". My wife tried to cut it short a couple of days and paid ;)
I have written about bioweapons, sort of. I wrote this in 2022: https://maxrottersman.medium.com/bio-tech-2020s-the-great-complacency-3db923040b73?source=friends_link&sk=8a683c9a038624a0c9cb85a7b068c7b0
"The problem with the lab-leak theory is that even if you TRIED to spread a virus it's extraordinarily difficult. It seems to me, that's something that isn't discussed often. So if trying to do it is near impossible, then why would a leak be more effective?"
Exactly, that's the point that I was trying to make. Humans have not been able to create anything retaining functionality in the natural environment beyond one-two-three rounds of reproduction. Take domestic animals, for example, they are totally incompetitive.
All that is because life's complexity is not taken into account in quantitative terms. This complexity prohibits creation of artificial living beings competitive beyond laboratory conditions.
Exactly my point, Anastassia. I discuss it more extensively in my "Exterminations" book
YES! One of my favorite aphorisms: "Man plans, God laughs!"
I totally agree. Unfortunately, the consequences of eroding trust in science are severe, because we are in a situation today where we need a lot of science to get out of the mess we are in. However, I believe the systematic destruction of trust in science started much earlier. Just think about the tobacco industry, the response to "Limits to Growth", and oil money funding climate skepticism.
Exactly. Scientists are very poor at PR.
That's an interesting topic, Ugo! My thoughts, for what they are worth, are that Covid is a manmade virus would be an enormously useful message for those seeking to justify funding of biological weapons. Even if the virus did not leak from the lab, they would rather say that it did. Moreover, governments as they knew that something was being cooked in those labs, feared that it could leak, so when the epidemic stroke, they were easy to convince that it was a leak. The takeaway message from it would be "how powerful modern biological weaponry industry is!"
RNA viruses lacking the reparation system evolve ten million times faster than the DNA world, so every ten years there is a new one, without any artificial manipulations.
A parallel that repeatedly comes to my mind is that some people are saying that this or that hurricane was engineered by some evil forces. But people working in the field know how limited our understanding is of what even drives these storms, let alone control or fabricate them.
I don't think so, Anastassia. If this thing was intentionally leaked as a weapon, it was a total flop. The takeaway message could be, "Look how useless the modern bioweapon industry is!"
The rate at which the Covid virus spread over the world would argue against anyone thinking that a bioweapon could be directed solely against the enemy.
While I agree with your assessment of the erosion of trust in science the statements by you and others expressing COVID virus origin doubts were incorrect at the time and are even more so now.
For the sake of those other than Prof. Bardi (who knows me), a short introduction may be in order. I am the author of more than 20 books on science, history and the environment, including, in 2020, Plagued: Surviving a Modern Pandemic (Groundswell Books).
Regarding the Wuhan Lab Leak, I would be speaking out of my hat to opine on a subject requiring some authority in virology and evolutionary microbiology, so I'll rely on the advice of those most highly regarded in those professions; those with enviable track records performing this sort of specific research.
Professor Edward Holmes, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and the Royal Society, has emphasized that coronaviruses frequently cross species barriers in natural settings. The diversity and evolutionary patterns of coronaviruses in wildlife populations strongly suggest that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through natural zoonotic transmission rather than laboratory manipulation. As Holmes states: “Coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2 are commonly found in wildlife species and frequently jump to new hosts. This is also the most likely explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2” [https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/04/16/COVID-19-statement-professor-edward-holmes-sars-cov-2-virus.html]
Multiple lines of evidence have identified the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market as the epicenter of early SARS-CoV-2 spread. Among the initial 41 hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by January 2, 2020, approximately two-thirds had been exposed to the market. This epidemiological clustering provides strong initial evidence for the market’s role in early human transmission.
Recent metagenomic sequencing analysis of samples collected from the market has significantly strengthened the natural origin hypothesis. Scientists identified genetic material from multiple animal species in the same areas where SARS-CoV-2 was detected in environmental samples. These animals include raccoon dogs, rabbits, and dogs—all species known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most notably, raccoon dogs have been shown to transmit the infection, making them particularly strong candidates for the intermediary host that passed the virus to humans. [Crits-Christoph, Alexander, et al. "Genetic tracing of market wildlife and viruses at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic." Cell 187.19 (2024): 5468-5482.]
Genetic analysis reveals that SARS-CoV-2 likely jumped from animals to humans multiple times at the Huanan market. Columbia Professor Vincent Racaniello and colleagues have discussed evidence showing that two distinct viral lineages were circulating at the market during the early outbreak. This pattern of multiple introductions is consistent with repeated spillover events from infected animals to humans, which aligns with the natural origin hypothesis rather than a single introduction event that would be expected from a laboratory leak. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz2qFJmpoug]
To do a critical assessment of the lab leak hypothesis one would have to trace coronavirus strains in the possession of the Wuhan or other labs and compare them to SARS-CoV-2. This is possible today because a global virus database.
A key argument against the lab leak hypothesis involves RaTG13, a bat coronavirus studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that is the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2. While proponents of the lab leak theory suggest RaTG13 could be the precursor to SARS-CoV-2, Professor Holmes highlights two critical problems with this assertion:
1. RaTG13 was collected from Yunnan province, not from the region where COVID-19 first appeared.
2. The genetic divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 represents approximately 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change.
As Holmes definitively states: “Hence, SARS-CoV-2 was not derived from RaTG13”. This substantial evolutionary distance makes it virtually impossible for RaTG13 to have been manipulated into SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting within any reasonable timeframe.
Dr. Paul Offit is a member of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. As someone who has developed vaccines from isolated viruses, through genetic manipulation in the laboratory, he describes the lab leak theory as “nonsense” based on scientific evidence and the sheer number of DNA modifications required.
One claim supporting the lab leak theory suggests that inadequate biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) conditions at the Wuhan Institute of Virology led to a virus escape. Dr. Offit addresses this directly, explaining that BSL-2 conditions are actually appropriate for handling SARS-CoV-2-like viruses. The implication that inadequate safety protocols led to a leak misunderstands the standard biosafety requirements for this type of research.
Another argument for the lab leak theory involves reports of Wuhan Institute workers falling ill in late 2019. Dr. Offit points out that workers getting sick during winter months is common due to seasonal respiratory viruses like influenza, parainfluenza, and human metapneumovirus. When these researchers were tested, there was no evidence they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2—a finding confirmed by U.S. intelligence investigations.
The consistency of opinion among these experts is noteworthy because it crosses political and national boundaries, suggesting scientific evidence rather than other considerations that might drive their conclusions. These virologists have repeatedly emphasized that the accumulating evidence supports a natural origin at the Huanan Seafood Market, with multiple spillover events from infected animals to humans. Multiple lines of evidence—including the presence of susceptible animal species at the market, the pattern of early cases clustered around the market, the identification of two distinct viral lineages suggesting multiple spillover events, and the substantial evolutionary distance between SARS-CoV-2 and laboratory viruses like RaTG13—all point toward zoonotic transmission as the most likely origin of the pandemic.
The sources cited by Prof. Bardi are the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, headed by Kash Patel, who has a fake Covid-19 vaccine “detox” supplement side hustle [https://newrepublic.com/post/189016/trump-fbi-pick-kash-patel-covid-views-supplement], and the U.S. Department of Energy, headed by MAGA blogger and Liberty Energy oil executive Chris Wright, a Trump campaign donor with a history of outright denying the climate crisis, who in 2022 sued the Department of Health and Human Services for all records concerning adverse reactions to the covid vaccines as part of a larger effort to discredit immunization. Prof. Bardi also cites the article of a few days ago by Zeynep Tufekci in the New York Times.
When evaluating counterarguments, it’s important to note that Paul Offit and other virologists have criticized articles such as Alina Chan’s New York Times op-ed titled “Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points.” Offit characterized this piece as containing misleading and incorrect assertions that were not properly vetted by expert reviewers. This highlights the importance of distinguishing between peer-reviewed scientific evidence and opinion pieces that may not undergo the same rigorous evaluation.
While no origin hypothesis can be proven with absolute certainty without recovering the direct animal source, the scientific consensus based on available evidence supports natural emergence. As our understanding of viral ecology and evolution continues to improve, such insights will be critical for preventing and responding to future pandemic threats.
The validity of the Lab Leak Theory is not a question that could ever be resolved by taking a public opinion poll or reading a guest editorial in The New York Times.
Is this a pointless search for a scapegoat? What are we learning here?
Nothing new. They lie to us. We knew that already
Ugo, you said that there isn't any definitive evidence of a lab leak and there might never be any, but I disagree. The original strain had the complement of a Moderna patent in the furin cleavage site:
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/how-did-modernas-patented-sequence
This is certainly the result of passing the virus through humanized mice that used Moderna's patent. The odds of it occurring by chance are staggeringly large. Also, Peter Daszak of EcoHealth and Dr Shi of Wuhan are on the Project DEFUSE application to DARPA which was to add a furin cleavage site to a SARS covid virus.
To suggest that something identical to their pet project emerged from a zoonotic source in Wuhan with a gene sequence from a Moderna patent by coincidence strains credulity.
I tend to agree. The question is whether it was intentional, or a mistake. I think it was most likely a mistake. Then, everything snowballed.
It’s not science that we should doubt, nor even scientists.
Science, like government, has been hijacked by pirates.
The US, Canada and China all shared these viruses and gain-of-function study information in a collaboration. In a way it doesn't matter where the first leak was, or where subsequent releases were covertly made, which they seem to have been, as the strains were not related enough genetically to have been caused by ongoing mutations. They had to be separate releases of fairly distant cousin strains.
I have been following this since December 2019, when I had a patient almost die in the hospital of what is now clearly COVID, starting as pneumonia, and going to multi-organ failure.
The only infectious agent found was "coronavirus", which was nothing in late November, early December 2019...
See this about strains circulating since early 2018: https://theethicalskeptic.com/2024/11/13/omicron-predated-sars-cov-2-wuhan-by-years/
Because war and disease are among the most profitable activities, a logical question would have
been "who were the investors of the Wuhan lab research?"
How US cash funded Wuhan lab dealing in deadly viruses
https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/how-us-cash-funded-wuhan-lab-dealing-in-deadly-viruses-rjddc6jbt
3 U.S. agencies funded Chinese virology research; Wuhan lab tied to bioterror agent
https://www.worldtribune.com/3-u-s-agencies-funded-chinese-virology-research-wuhan-lab-tied-to-bioterror-agent/
Why did USAID fund the Wuhan lab? Taxpayers financed the creation of deadly pathogens
https://unherd.com/2023/06/why-did-usaid-fund-the-wuhan-lab/
So who would be liable for the global damage wrought?
So the next logical question would be "who profited from covid-19?", leading to answers like
Meet The 40 New Billionaires Who Got Rich Fighting Covid-19
https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/04/06/meet-the-40-new-billionaires-who-got-rich-fighting-covid-19/
IOW for the present generation of humans, "just follow the money" provides all answers.