After years of the media demonizing and attacking any scientists supporting the lab theory of COVID-19, agencies like the FBI have concluded that it is the most likely scenario. Even the Washington Post and other long antagonistic media outlets have come to admit that the theory is credible. None of that has apparently changed minds over at the Los Angeles Times, which helped lead the media mob against dissenting scientists. That includes the L.A. Times science columnist Michael Hiltzik, who is often cited as an example of the unrelenting and aggressive campaign to cancel those scientists who challenged the natural origins theory. Hiltzik and the L.A. Times just ran a column renewing attacks on those who support this theory, a column that continues to omit key countervailing information from the readers.
The L.A. Times appears to be the last dog in this fight. As discussed in my recent column, media outlets that ridiculed or ravaged scientists over the theory have acknowledged that it is indeed plausible.
For example, in 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory.
Likewise, the Washington Post denounced Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) when he raised the theory for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”
After Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus to jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”
Then, as more government reports indicated that the theory could be correct, the Post shrugged, and Kessler wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible.”
Most recently, newly-confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the CIA report, which details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus, though assigning a “low confidence” finding.
The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and other news outlets reported on the finding that the lab theory was the most likely. The BBC reported that “the CIA on Saturday offered a new assessment on the origin of the Covid outbreak, saying the coronavirus is ‘more likely’ to have leaked from a Chinese lab than to have come from animals. But the intelligence agency cautioned it had ‘low confidence’ in this determination.”
I noted in the column that the finding does not resolve the debate, which will continue. The point was that there can now be a debate. The CIA did not reject the lab theory over the natural origins theory despite the overwhelming message that was sent by the L.A. Times in treating the theory as racist or looney.
Hiltzik discusses my column while objecting that I added a link to the CIA definition of “low confidence” not long after the blog posting (Such additions are common on this blog and other blogs. I often note such changes, but there was no material change in the point of the column which focused on the free speech issue). The point is not that the recommendation was made with low confidence, but that the theory was found to be plausible.
Hiltzik criticizes my column and others for highlighting the most recent disclosure. However, he omits that this follows even stronger findings from agencies like the FBI and evidence (as discussed in my column) that government scientists found the theory credible.
He also omits any mention of the fact that he is widely cited as one of the most aggressive voices seeking to cancel scientists who voiced support for the theory. While arguing that scientific journals have not embraced the theory, he leaves out that he targeted schools that sought to allow academic discussions of the theory.
Hiltzik decried an event associated with Bhattacharya, writing that “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford University allowed dissenting scientists to speak at a scientific forum. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”
Instead, Hiltzik defends China in the column against claims that it was not forthcoming in the investigations into the virus:
“The Chinese government has been accused, mostly by the lab-leak camp, of suppressing evidence of the role of the Wuhan lab out of embarrassment or fear of international repercussions. But that’s highly misleading. The truth is that China is no happier about evidence that the pandemic originated in one of its wildlife markets.”
News organizations reported how China shut down contacts with scientists and closed off access to the lab, including refusing to give data to WHO.
Even NBC, which once piled on the attacks on dissenting scientists, has noted that China has steadfastly fought disclosures and only released information that was going to be made public.
As Hiltzik notes, even the World Health Organization (WHO) denounced China for its lack of transparency. WHO has long been accused of being dominated by China, particularly in its initial investigations into the virus.
The L.A. Times, however, is still downplaying such complaints and attributing them to fringe writers. Hiltzik portrays the criticism as mostly the ravings of “the lab-leak camp” and says the accusations are “misleading.”
He also does not discuss the findings of other federal and congressional reports.
He focuses instead on the lack of “peer-reviewed journals” supporting the theory. It is an ironic point from a writer who attacked Stanford for even allowing scientists to share their work in an academic setting.
Once again, however, none of these reports are dispositive either way. That is the point. The debate that figures like Hiltzik fought to prevent can finally occur.
However, the L.A. Times is still trying to chill that debate by portraying anyone supporting the theory as purveyors of “disinformation.” Hiltzik writes:
“The uncritical retailing of the CIA assessment underscores the perils of scientific misinformation and disinformation for public health. The Trump administration’s evidence-free focus on the Chinese laboratories ranks as anti-science propaganda.”
Even though agencies like the FBI are giving more credence to the lab theory, the L.A. Times is still portraying the position as dangerous disinformation.
It takes an element of rage to maintain this dwindling position. Many of the experts who were once ridiculed for questioning the efficacy of masks, the six-foot rule, natural immunities, and school closures have been supported in recent reports. There is growing support for the view, for example, that our closure of schools did not have a meaningful impact on the transmission rate of the virus. Yet, that was another debate that was snuffed out under the attacks over spreading disinformation. (Notably, Hiltzik also supported closing schools and has rejected claims that it was a mistake).
I value writers like Hiltzik for challenging scientists on issues like the lab theory. For those of us with little scientific knowledge, such debates among knowledgeable people are essential. Most of us are open to either theory. However, figures like Hiltzik actively sought to curtail that debate when it was most needed. He portrayed the very discussion of the theory as a public health danger and now continues to invoke the catch-all “disinformation” label to dismiss countervailing views.
It is a particularly ironic moment when L.A. Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong is promising to restore objectivity to the newspaper and even posting a “bias meter” for readers to be warned about slanted material.
The L.A. Times and Hiltzik are obviously and heavily invested in the rejection of the lab theory. However, when you are dismissing Chinese obstruction, the burden on the newspaper is becoming not just crushing but embarrassing. There is an alternative. The L.A. Times could admit that it was wrong in demonizing scientists and that both of these theories are plausible.
Most importantly, it could embrace the need for an open and civil debate on the question. As the leading newspaper in the state with the greatest concentration of academic and research facilities, the L.A. Times owes it to its readers to be honest and open with both sides of the origins debate.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
* Wuhan was the epicenter of covid19? Was the Wuhan research lab doing research on coronaviruses? That makes it more than plausible.
If the lab leak had been in Sweden or the UK or the USA would saying such still be racist, Apoorva Mandavilli? If the Congo had an outbreak of ebola would anyone suspect a lab leak? Perhaps it was a lab leak in Israel. What racist thing would people say, Mandavili? Let’s move away from what just isn’t in the mix.
Someone please clear up the logic.
Competency known as merit is required as stewards of research and the safety of people. Nations can and do collapse and the dept of HHS requires the best, President Trump. As California collapsed and has many research labs. Where are they governor? Check them lately? Small town in a rural warehouse, California, recently discovered with cast off labs, covid, HIV and mice everywhere.
Thanks
Still don’t believe is was a Lab virus. Said before, I got it before it was a National thing from my Dog, whom was fed cheap dry dog food.
which is mostly puffed-corn bits with coloring. Now they say the Chickens are getting a new round of Virus. which leads me to believe that the virus is dispersed through the processed Steel Cut Corn Chop used in Chicken Scratch and Dry Dog Food. The processed corn being the medium-source for the virus. I’m no scientist, but I do know a Cause & Effect when I see it happening before me and to me. The jump of Animals to Humans with the application of commercial and domestic products would increase the transmission efficiency greatly. Thank God it wasn’t Anthrax.
There’s some thing/some how in that supply-chain that’s making animals and people sick.
^^ CCP paid troll. Ignore. ^^
* look on the bag for location of manufacturer and not distributor. Not listed anymore now? I don’t want shrimp from those nations either.
Sorry about your dog.
Why were you feeding your dog cheap dry dog “food”?
Congress may want to know that constituent emails to members of Congress are being blocked. This is akin to treason if Executive Branch officials are blocking communication to a co-equal branch of government.
Maybe since the IGs got fired Trump officials feel lawless. Note to those officials betraying their oath of office: Trump has no authority over court cases suing disloyal federal officials.
^ reeks of desperation ^
I have no idea what you are talking about – neither do you. I doubt that the executive has much power over congressional email – but even if hey do, if there is a problem congress absolutely positively can control their own email.
What you claim is not happening and if it were it would not be treason – treason is defined in the constitution – specifically because our founders did NOT want claims of Treason being weaponized politically.
Unfortunately the failed to define sedition and insurrection in the constitution,.
And it is not possible to preclude weaponizing overly broad legal claims and appeals to emotion, when a significant portion fo the political class loses touch with moraltiy and the rule of law.
The IGs will be replaced. Nor will firing them prevent their replacements from following up on legitimate allegations of misconduct.
IG’s must be confirmed by congress – so no president can avoid scrutiny by firing IGs
Further even if you got rid of them all – congress and the courts still have oversight of the executive.
I have no idea what you mean by” court cases suing disloyal federal officials”. You can not be sued for disloyality. But you can be fired for it.
Nor are most people upset by Trump firing people – we want to see MORE firings. That is what we though we were getting in 2017.
Anyone who doesn’t know it was a lab leak 100 percent is a total and complete moron of unbelievable stupidity.
We seem to have lies as a way of life in DC.
It seems to me they compete on who can tell the biggest and most convincing and persuasive lies that even a retarded pack mouse wouldn’t buy on a bad day.
I guess the bigger lies they feel they must tell the more important and in the loop they deem themselves.
Many CCP worshipers and CCP-paid trolls trying to deny the obvious are posting their desperate lies today.
I love headlines…
“Republicans twice as likely to trust RFK Jr. than FDA, CDC on health advice, poll finds”
Wow, You would rather trust a guy that had his brain eaten by worms, the guy that ditched a dead bear in Central Park, than actual scientists that study science?
No wonder you voted for the dumbest person to ever sit in the Oval Office.
^ such entertainment, more crocodile tears from paid DNC troll.
Yo troll, public approval of your pathetic party is at an all time low, while public approval of Trump’s policies is soaring. Suck on that you dipstick! 😂
Now that’s something he knows how to do, suck pipe. Trump’s approval is 10% higher than before. 60% voters want troops at US border. Say goodnight and farewell!
After coming across Prof. Turley’s piece on the LA Times and
Michael Hiltzik’s latest COVID piece I want back and read in
the LA Times Hiltzik’s piece on Prof. Mark Skidmore’s research
on COVID vaccine related deaths published in April 11, 2023
and was simply appalled. Hiltzik clearly misrepresented in
his 2023 piece our VAERS system and what it was telling us
In 2021 the reports of COVID vaccine related deaths represented
51% of all vaccine related death reports in the then 33 years
existence of the system. In his piece Hiltizk misrepresented
the effectiveness of early COVID treatments that include HCQ
and Ivermectin. As Prof. Harvey Risch of Yale University has
pointed out the suppression of early treatment for COVID
that included HCQ was in all probability responsible for
the loss of 100 of thousands of deaths. And Denis Rancourt
and his group in Canada has subsequently concluded from
their extensive research that the number of COVID related
vaccine deaths world wide amount to near 17 million.
The Hiltziks and their ilk have done tremendous damage
in my judgement and there ought to be some appropriate
consequences for that. John Howard Wilhelm, Ann Arbor, MI
Michael Hiltzik and all those like him are bought and paid for by the China/CCP. You’d have to be a child not to understand that.
If I’m a child, then Trump followers are retards.
Chinese Virologist Who Claimed Covid Lab Made Releases Second Paper
A video from 2020. Fail.
“China Flu, 2019” was from 2019.
So no “fresh” real time evidence?
It’s all the evidence necessary. Do you ever have anything of substance to contribute? Everyone knew “China Flu, 2019” was from the Wuhan lab when the event happened. You are simply an apologist for the communists and that makes you a direct and mortal enemy of America.
Covid 19 Lab Leak Theory Confirmed in China
Alleged, genius, alleged. Not confirmed.
Alright!
Alleged Theory, Einstein!
Dat Mo Betta, Bro???
Hilarious. You didn’t even watch the video you posted. This is a year old and the interviewee says it’s unproven.
“China Flu, 2019” is SIX years old you ——- —–!
Try using your brain, what few brain cells is contains.
Someone really, really doesn’t like the definitive probative evidence of the leak, deliberate or accidental, from the lab in the Wuhan Institute of Virology presented by a scientist from the Wuhan lab.
OK, so we have some people who say that there is no “scientific evidence” supporting the lab leak origin. What would be considered to constitute such, “scientific evidence?”
“‘What would be considered to constitute such, ‘scientific evidence?'”
Questions like these from children are fun. Scientific evidence refers to data, observations, and results obtained through systematic, empirical, and reproducible methods.
“What would be considered to constitute such, ‘scientific evidence?'”
The YouTube evidence from scientists above.
More details, please. What
Consider this scenario. Wan Hung Lo, a scientist at the Wuhan Lab, says there was a leak of the COVID virus when a lab tech used the wrong procedures handling the work. He knows this, because he was the lab tech.
Is this scientific evidence?
Some of the people working in that lab died.
The fact that Chinese authorities confiscated all the lab notebooks, and all the viral inventory from WVI — that IS hard evidence — those are facts. This is only done to cover up the work that was going on there. In law enforcement, it’s called “consciousness of guilt”.
Of course, having the lab notebooks to examine, and the viral inventory that was being studied to analyze — that would be more informaive about what happened — but, more incriminating (so, not “better” for the CCP).
There exists a preponderance of evidence that it is more likely than not that “China Flu, 2019,” came from the lab in the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.
Democrats don’t like evidence, there’s never enough evidence. It’s always false or erroneous, just look at Biden’s laptop, the Biden banking statements, Monicas dress, Steeles dossier, the Libyan execution of a US ambassador, Jeez this could go on for hours.
America demands accountability!
Free Derek Chauvin!
From the Journal of Virology Vol. 98, No. 9
“The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence.”
There are two broad competing hypotheses for the origins of SARS-CoV-2: (i) the lab leak hypothesis, the most discussed version of which posits that the virus was modified, or even created, in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and, by some mechanism, escaped the laboratory; and (ii) the zoonosis hypothesis, wherein the virus emerged into the human population through a naturally occurring animal-to-human transmission. Viruses often spill over into humans, but these are typically dead-end events that rarely lead to sustained human-to-human transmission and rarely spark a pandemic. Wildlife coronaviruses have long been poised for emergence into humans (1). It is estimated that there are ~66,280 people infected with SARS-CoVs each year due to human-to-bat contact, most of which result in asymptomatic infections with limited or no human-to-human transmission (2). However, in the past 25 years, there have been at least 12 instances of zoonotic transfer of viruses into humans, including three coronaviruses, which resulted in epidemics or pandemics (3).
Dr. Fauci testified that, after examining the scientific data, most scientists have concluded that SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged in humans as a zoonosis. The evidence supports the scenario that two distinct ancestral lineages of SARS-CoV-2 jumped from animals into humans, and that the Huanan Seafood Market in Hubei Provence, China, where wild animals were routinely present and slaughtered, was the epicenter of the pandemic (4–9). Importantly, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he remains open to evidence supporting a lab leak if it were to become available. Indeed, all scientists must be open to this possibility. Factoring in new data that are sound and validated, even if a prevailing hypothesis were contradicted, is an essential aspect of scientific training. A critical guiding principle of science is that knowledge is continually revised and updated based on quality new evidence.
On the same day as Dr. Fauci’s testimony, the New York Times published a guest essay entitled “Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points.” It was authored by Dr. Alina Chan, a former postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute and a long-time proponent of the lab leak hypothesis. Dr. Chan presented the same points she has offered over the past four years, which have received significant attention in social media circles, by some politicians, and in the popular press. The arguments are based on conjecture, correlation, and anecdote. Dr. Chan’s New York Times opinion piece misrepresents and underplays the existing scientific data supporting a zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2.
There is currently no verified scientific evidence to support the lab leak hypothesis. Moreover, the assertions in the Chan article have been challenged by a growing body of scientific data supporting the zoonosis hypothesis (4, 5, 8, 10–12). Dr. Chan’s five key points are well refuted by the data, as discussed in publicly accessible platforms by Dr. Paul Offit, in the science-based podcast This Week in Virology (TWiV), and in the scientific literature (13, 14). Further, based on the scientific evidence and investigations described in a declassified report, the majority of the US Intelligence community concur with the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 being more likely. These reports do not identify high confidence evidence for a research-related incident, find no evidence that WIV possessed SARS-CoV-2 or a closely related virus before the end of December 2019, and conclude that it is unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered (6, 14, 15).
Many questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 remain unanswered and may never be fully resolved. We cannot currently disprove the lab leak hypothesis. Nevertheless, the lines of evidence needed to validate one hypothesis over another are not epistemically comparable (16). Validating the zoonotic origin is a scientific question that relies on history, epidemiology, and genomic analysis, that when taken together, support a natural spillover as the probable origin. This evidence is driven by scientific data that must be gathered and interpreted by experts. Much of the evidence that could have been obtained from animals at the Huanan Market was forever lost due to the clearance and cleansing of the market before any animals could be tested. Nonetheless, the available scientific evidence supports a zoonotic origin. Validating the lab leak hypothesis requires intelligence evidence that the WIV possessed or carried out work on a SARS-CoV-2 precursor virus prior to the pandemic. Neither the scientific community nor multiple western intelligence agencies have found such evidence.
Despite the absence of evidence for the escape of the virus from a lab, the lab leak hypothesis receives persistent attention in the media, often without acknowledgment of the more solid evidence supporting zoonotic emergence (17). This discourse has inappropriately led a large portion of the general public to believe that a pandemic virus arose from a Chinese lab. These unfounded assertions are dangerous. As discussed in detail below, they place unfounded blame and responsibility on individual scientists, which drives threats and attacks on virologists. It also stokes the flames of an anti-science, conspiracy-driven agenda, which targets science and scientists even beyond those investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The inevitable outcome is an undermining of the broader missions of science and public health and the misdirecting of resources and effort. The consequence is to leave the world more vulnerable to future pandemics, as well as current infectious disease threats (17).
The lab leak theory in all its forms casts unsupported blame on scientists, many of whom had warned of the potential threat of, and need for effective countermeasures to prevent, zoonotic transfer of viruses into humans. Scientists who studied coronaviruses or led the response to the pandemic have been accused of engineering SARS-CoV-2 or allowing it to escape from a lab due to inadequate biosafety. Some have been unfairly accused of being part of an international cover-up or accused of taking bribes from NIH. Yet more scientists have been attacked for using objectively gathered data to conclude that zoonosis is the most likely origin of the pandemic or for simply engaging in communication of the evidence with the media and the general public. The unsubstantiated claims of the lab leak theory have provoked harassment, intimidation, threats and violence towards scientists, which are often vile in the online space. An article in Science reported that, of 510 researchers who had published on SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, 38% acknowledged harassment ranging from personal insults to threats of violence, “doxing,” and personal contact (18). A second survey, which included 1,281 scientists in a wide range of fields, found that 51% experienced at least one form of harassment, sometimes repeatedly for years.
Intimidation and threats have significant and long-term consequences as scientists have withdrawn from social media platforms, rejected opportunities to speak in public, and taken increased safety measures to protect themselves and their families. Some have even diverted their work to less controversial and less timely topics. We now see a long-term risk of having fewer experts engaged in work that may help thwart future pandemics, and of fewer scientists willing to communicate the findings of sophisticated, fast-moving research topics that are important for global health. Research that could prepare us for future pandemics has been deferred, diverted, or abandoned (3). Most worrisome for future preparedness, the next generation of scientists has well-founded fears about entering fields related to emerging viruses and pandemic science (19–21).
The lab leak narrative fuels mistrust in science and public health infrastructures. Scientists and public health professionals stand between us and pandemic pathogens; these individuals are essential for anticipating, discovering, and mitigating future pandemic threats. Yet, scientists and public health professionals have been harmed and their institutions have been damaged by the skewed public and political opinions stirred by continued promotion of the lab leak hypothesis in the absence of evidence. Anti-science movements are not new. However, anti-science has become more virulent and widespread in the internet and social media age. Rejecting evidence derived from independent and controlled studies grounded in the scientific method, while embracing spectacular and unevidenced claims, leaves us in a dangerous position for confronting future threats (17). If these narratives are left unchecked, we become a society that dismisses and vilifies those with expertise and experience relevant to the challenges we face. We then base decisions affecting large populations worldwide on speculation or chosen beliefs that have no grounding in evidence-based science.
While biosafety standards are critically important for research, the anxiety evoked by the lab leak hypothesis has resulted in some proposals for policies that, if adopted, would unnecessarily restrict research required for developing vaccines and antivirals in the US (20, 22). The US has one of the strongest and safest infrastructures for research globally. The policies aimed at virology research in the US will not protect against work with viruses of known pandemic potential occurring at inadequate biosafety containment (below biosafety level 3) in other countries, which poses the risk of lab exposures. Moreover, a looming threat for future pandemics is the illegal wildlife trade coupled with wet markets abroad. The US State Department and the United Nations (UN) estimate that the wildlife trade is the third largest illegal trafficking activity behind drugs and weapons, generating up to $20 billion annually. Animals slaughtered and sold in wet markets are a clear threat for zoonotic virus transmission to humans. Globally, policymakers have done little to curtail or effectively regulate the illegal wildlife trade and wet market practices. As well as the clear risk of future spillover events, these economic practices also undermine health security, destabilize habitats and communities, and fuel the spread of infectious diseases more generally. Further, high density commercial farming of animals (e.g., chickens, pigs, cattle) in the US and abroad also poses a major pandemic threat, as evidenced by the avian H5N1 influenza virus that is now spreading through dairy cows and other mammals with some transmission to humans. These wider dynamics underpin why our societal understanding about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 matters. This knowledge informs focus and allocation of resources for research and preparedness efforts for the inevitable epidemics and pandemics to come. Outbreak preparedness is a topic that requires a coordinated, evidence-based, global effort (20), that relies on long-term global partnerships. Diverting attention, effort and resources in response to the unsupported lab leak hypothesis harms the mission of pandemic preparedness.
Science is humanity’s best insurance against threats from nature, but it is a fragile enterprise that must be nourished and protected (23). What is now happening to virology is a stark demonstration of what is happening to all of science. It will come to affect every aspect of science in a negative and possibly a dangerous way, as has already happened with climate science. It is the responsibility of scientists, research institutions, and scientific organizations to push back against the anti-virology attacks, because what we are seeing now may be the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Universities and research institutions need policies for protecting scientists from anti-science attacks and a legal liability framework for research conducted in accordance with institutional biosafety frameworks.
For the health of scientific inquiry, the attacks on scientists should be a priority for national science institutions and foundations. Major scientific organizations must unite in developing programs to counter anti-science movements. It is imperative that we carefully prioritize threats and direct resources that allow us to strive to counter the most high-risk threats for future pandemics. If we fail to do this, then the next pandemic, like COVID-19, will largely be the result of failed policies for countering known and unknown viral threats.
The above is a commentary not science. The authors are paid by NIH, mRNA vaccine makers, pharma and “other funding agencies”
T.D. is on the Board of Directors, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and is an Editor for the Annual Review of Virology. P.D. receives funding from Moderna. K.F. has substantial financial interest in Vir Biotechnology, Inc., and is cofounder of the company and is coinventor of patents licensed to Vir and receives compensation for consulting. The potential conflict of interest has been reviewed and managed by OHSU. S.G. has done legal consulting on the origins of the pandemic. A.L.G. reports central testing contracts from Pfizer, Novavx, Sanofi, Abbott, Hologic, Cephid, and Quidel and has research support from Gilead. A.M. is scientific founder of Thylacine Biotherapeutics. G.A.S. is President of Thyreos, Inc. Most authors receive funding from the National Institutes of Health and other funding agencies.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or of ASM.
https://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/jvi.01240-24
NB: one author, Angela Rasmussen, is so far left, that she has been trounced by scientists on both sides
I assume you take the same stance with environmental science bought and paid for by the oil industry?
There were 41 authors. If you look at the T.D. is listed 11th. KF is 13th. SG is 17th. Angela Rasmussen is listed 34th!
The top 2 authors are professors at University of Arizona will no such conflicts.
But nice try.
Genius, if the authors are so biased it should be easy to point out the fallacies in their arguments. Alas, you can’t. You’re a failure. All you can do is try to demean the reputations of the people making the arguments.
The Neanderthal Trump grunt: “Me no like science. Me not like what scientist say in personal life. Scientist needs to be perfect for me to like. Scientist not perfect. Therefore, scientist’s research me no like.”
Wackjobs Gonna Wack!
“Well, who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?”
– Chico Marx, 1933, “Duck Soup”
I admire Trump for his power over people, to essentially pull lies out of his ass and they believe him and then defend his lies. He suggested COVID was intentionally launched by China to damage the US economy… and immediately a moron cottage industry of that conspiracy theory is born. Trump says he had the US Military go into California to let water flow (an utter fabrication)… and his retards rush to defend his social media meme. That kind of power over people is remarkable.
What was the moron cottage industry that inspired you?
FWIW, the CIA report is NOT the only analysis of from whence cameth the virus, and decided upon the lab leak as the most likely:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/opinion/covid-lab-leak.html
There is no material evidence for the lab leak theory. Go to google scholar and look it up.
Jonathan: Your tiff with Michael Hiltzik has exposed one of your fundamental problems. You stand by the “lab-leak” theory of the origin of Covid-19 but when pressed you can’t back it up with any facts or other evidence. Even the CIA gives the your theory and that of many MAGA Republicans in Congress a “low confidence” rating.
As Hiltzik points out in his LA Times column “No scientifically valid evidence has ever been produced to support the theory that the Covid virus escaped from a Chinese laboratory.” That’s still true despite your claims and those of Sen.
Tom Cotton. You and he have a political agenda not a scientific one. It’s to demonize anything Chinese like DJT’s false claim that climate change is a “Chinese hoax”.
You say you want “an open and civil debate on the question”. Yet you attack Hiltzik by bizarrely claiming he is “heavily invested in the rejection of the lab theory” And the new owner of the Times is not restoring “objectivity” to the paper by publishing Hiltzik’s column. I’d say your own bias is clearly showing. On the “bias meter” I would put it up there at about 9 or 10!
Dennis – in Early 2020 Fauxi and his minions in their initial communications with each other observed that C19 looked alot like it was human engineered.
Absolutely you are full of Crap that there is no scientific evidence. There is FAR MORE “scientific” evidence than there is “scientific” evidence of natural origens.
At the same time – outside of the actual structure of the virus, its unstable nature and incredibly rapid mutation rate – all of which are SCIENTIFIC evidence of lab origens – the majority of evidence tends NOT to be scientific.
Pro natural origens people have desparately tried to find evidence of natural origens. Of C19 in the wet markets in late 2019, of imediate precursors to C19 in nature. The efforts to do this have been INCREDIBLY thorough. There have been RARE claims to have found early evidence of C19 in Wet markets, but after careful statistical and data source analysis these all have fallen apart – put simply there is NO evidence of the presence of C19 in wet markets in late 2019. If you provide a source that claims otherwise – and there are some, each of these has falen apart after scrutiny.
The next vector to prove natural origens is finding a precursor to C19 in Nature – the ONLY one that has been found so far is the Bat Coronavirus found over 1000 miles away that while inarguably a precursor to C19 is probably conservatively 2000 mutations away from C19.
NONE of the intermediates from the Bat Corona Virus to C19 have EVER been found in nature – despite probably the largest effort to find an intermediate ever conducted. Given the genetic distance between C19 and the Bat Corona Virus we should have found Hundreds of intermediate mutations in nature. I would further note – we have sought the natural origens of MYRIADS of viruses in the past and ALWAYS found them, usually within 2 weeks, sometimes taking as long as 2 months. But absolutely NEVER taking over 4 years.
Sometimes the absence of evidence is absolutely the evidence of absence.
The Bat Corona Virus did NOT mutate in one step to C19. It did NOT migrate 1000 miles and mutate 2000+ times without leaving a trace in nature.
That is NOT scientific evidence – it is the ABSENCE of scientific evidence.
You can rant that the CIA’s assessment was low confidence – there are multiple other assessments that rank the odds that C19 did not come from a lab at about 13B:1.
I am not aware of a choice other than Lab Leak or natural origens – aside from it came from a lab but was spread deliberately not leaked.
If you have a choice other than Lab Leak please provide it,
But as of today the choice appears to be binary. And the odds of Covid mutating from the RAT13G Bat corona Virus to Covid entirely naturally are very near zero – or we would have found not one but dozens of intermediaries.
As to Actual evidence of a lab leak – beyond Sherlock Holmes “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
There is evidence that some Covid like disease infected several WIV workers in the fall of 2019. Beyond the actual Lab Employees appearing to be the first infected the earliest cases of C19 in China are distributed along public transportation lines used by WIV lab employees – quite distant from the Lab. We separately KNOW that the WIV was actively engaged in GOF research on the RATG13 Bat Corona Virus.
While John Stewarts Rant is not especially scientific – it is absolutely logical.
When you find extraordinarily large amounts of chocolate in Hershey PA – it is reasonable presume it is coming from …. the Chocolate factory in Hershey PA, rather than farms in indiana.
CIA does give the conclusion a low confidence rating – it STILL picks the lab origen as far more likely than wet markets.
WE have Two choices – one with SOME evidence – a lab leak, and one with NO EVIDENCE – despite massive effoprts to find evidence.
Nor is CIA the only government agency that has come tot he conclusion that C19 most likely came from a lab,
FBI, DOD NIH, DOE among other All concluded – with higher confidence levels that CIA that C19 came from a lab.
John Say
You state that Covid’s “unstable nature and incredibly rapid mutation rate are scientific evidence of lab origins”.
As a virologist with expertise in respiratory viruses I am intrigued by this statement.
I am not aware of any published work to this effect.
Kindly provide a citation for this statement.
If you can’t, we can safely assume you are simply making this up.
Your claim that the high mutation rate of Covid is scientific proof of lab origin is completely and utterly absurd.
Covid does indeed have high mutation rate, but this is absolutely not “evidence of lab origins”.
Covid is a single stranded RNA virus and like the vast majority of SS RNA viruses it has an extremely high mutation rate. This is because the RNA dependent RNA polymerase that they use is to replicate is inherently error-prone. The polymerase functions to replicate the viral RNA inside the cell. The template for replication is the SS RNA viral genome. When the template is SS, the polymerase can have no error correcting mechanism, because it has nothing with which to compare the base sequence of the copy.
In higher organisms with double stranded DNA, the DNA dependent DNA polymerase has 2 strands to work with, but only copies one strand at a time. The polymerase unzips the DS DNA and copies the template strand in the 3’ to 5’ direction while simultaneously comparing the copy to the template strand. If the base sequences do not match, the polymerase has an exonuclease subunit that cleaves out the incorrect base and replaces it with the correct base. This greatly reduces the risk of mutation by many orders of magnitude, but unfortunately some mutations still slip through.
There is no such proof reading and correction possible for SS nucleic acids, because there is no complementary strand with which to compare the copy. The consequence is an extraordinarily high mutation rate. The vast majority of mutations are lethal for the virus and prevent further replication. However, every now and then a mutation will pop up that allows viral replication and if sufficiently different it may not be neutralized by antibodies to the progenitor strain.
Covid behaves very similarly to influenza, perhaps the most well studied SS RNA virus. Both viruses have a mutation rate of the order of 10^-5 to 10^-6 incorrect base substitutions per base per infection cycle.
The mutations rates are very similar. In both viruses the critical mutations occur in the spike proteins that the viruses use to enter a host cell. This high mutation rate is why we have to constantly monitor the virus. Every year a new influenza strain emerges as the dominant strain and a new vaccine has to be used.
Covid has behaved in a very similar way to influenza, but initially more viable mutations emerged because it was a novel virus, with a completely naïve human population. In the first couple of years more viable strains emerged because of the lack of prior exposure. Now, things have settled down and new viable mutations are less frequent and less virulent because there is some cross reactivity of antibodies generated against earlier strains. Covid now behaves very much like influenza, its cousin SS RNA virus.
The influenza capsid has 2 major subunits, the hemagglutin and neuraminidase subunits. The hemaggutinin has a conformation of a stretched spring. It binds to sialic residues in the host cell membrane then undergoes a conformational change that releases the spring and slams the virion onto the cell surface. This brings the neuraminidase subunit into close proximity to the cell membrane where it attacks the sialic acid residues and literally punches a hole in the cell membrane through which the virion enters.
The Covid spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor of the host cell, and undergoes a conformational change. This brings the viral envelope membrane into close proximity with the cell membrane, with which it fuses and allows the virion to enter the cell.
The claim that a high mutation rate is scientific proof of the lab origin of Covid is completely and utterly absurd. Its mutation rate and behavior is very similar to influenza.
You rant about political bias – but that is precisely where the problem is.
And that is what Turley and many others have pointed out.
While the EARLIEST assessments – as evidences in communications with Fauxi in early 2020 were that Covid was engineered,
Very quickly after any discussion of a human engineered source to C19 were systematically shutdown.
First Fauxi and others at NIH or affiliated with NIH all directly involved in violating Pres. Obama’s order to Cease funding GOF research rapidly shutdown any such discussions, and then the Govenrment and the media ACTIVELY engaged in censorship.
While it DOES matter where Covid came from – for MANY reasons.
It is a very important question.
It is not and should not be a political quesiton – yet it is ONLY the proponents of a lab leak that were cenosred.
It is only the rpoponents of a lab leaked that were ridiculed, It is only the lab leak claim that is portraryed as a political conspiracy theory.
As to Hiltzik claim that a wet market origen would be equally embarrassing to China – that is FALSE obviously.
A lab leak origen implicates the Chinese government – and as we subsequently learned the US governemnt too, and even Dr. Fauxi himself.
Biden’s pardon of Dr. Fauxi may well have been the pardon of the most significant mass murderer in history.
The lab Leak also quickly can shift beyond an accidental govenrment failure to a deliberate government action.
While I think that Chine DELIBERATELY engaged in conduct that was reckless with respect tot he rest of the world as Covid emerged.
China shut down all travel too and from Wuhan to China almost immediate after Covid was discovered.
But China allowed foreigners in Wuhan to return to their countries of origin. Covid spread From Wuhan to the rest of the world far faster than it did thru China. So much so that When China finally got hit with Huge C19 problems in late 2021 outside of Wuhan – these were all coming BACK into China from other countries.
The origens of Covid are of Tremendous importance.
The entire world would like to do whatever is possible to assure this never happens again.
What we need to do if Covid came from a Lab is radically different from what we need to do if it is natural.
There may be very little we can do about what Nature does to us.
We can not stop huricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
The Flu comes and goes every year – sometimes it is better and others is it worse and there is little we can do about it.
Some of us learned that the Covid vaccine was net negative for most people under 65.
a few learned that is also probably true of the flu vaccine.
But there are vaccines that work.
We did learn with Covid that when push comes to shove we can develop a vaccine in months – you should Thank Trump for that.
While he did not develop the vaccine, he also did not take NO for an answer – despite the claims of “the experts” – another error by Fauxi, that it would take atleast 18months.
But we should also learn from this. It is possible that Covid was one of many diseases that we just can not effectively vaccinate against.
It is also possible that we designed the vaccine wrong. That is something we should try to figure out – because even if there is never another lab leak, Nature will nail us with another Pandemic, until we figure out how to stop them.
It is also important that those of you on the left become honest about what Did NOT work, because until you can admit that so many things did NOT work, you can not begin to figure out how to do better.
Conversely if Covid can from a lab leak – that IS something we can do better.
We can also oopenly and honestly discuss things like Gain Of Function research. While there are excellent reasons that science should learn a great deal more about engineering DNA chances to improve human life, the arguments for experimenting with viruses to make them more deadly and more contagious do not hold up.
Regardless these and many other public discussions are things we MUST do ,
and to have them – we MUST be honest and we must KNOW to the best of our ability what we are trying to protect ourselves from.
I would further note the lefts idiotic Woke arguments regarding Covid do not hold up.
It is irrelevant whether the ANSWER might increase predjudices against some race or ethnicity.
We can not hide from the truth because it might not fit our politics or that it might be unpleasant, or even that a few people might do stupid things.
At this time it is highly unlikely we will ever no for certainty here covid came from.
But contra the CIA – the probability it came from a lab leak is very high.
And we should be having public discussions on how to avoid a possibly even more dangerous repeat.
We can not control nature.
We can control what happens in labs.
Interesting back story to this bogus severance package for federal employees from the Office of Personnel Management.
OPM is being run by an acting director, Scott Kupor, who is also the managing partner at Andreessen Horowitz, the big tech investment firm.
He hired two “senior advisors” who are the architects of the OPM severance plan.
One of the “senior” advisors is a 21 year old software engineer whose only other job was working for Peter Thiel at Palantir. Assuming this guy went to college, then at the most he has worked for 1 year.
The other “senior advisor” graduated from high school in 2024. At most he is 19 years old, more likely only 18. His resume lists work experience as camp counselor, bicycle mechanic, and a short internship this last summer at Elmo Muskrat’s company Neuralink.
I have grandchildren older than these “senior advisors”.
What a joke.
The tech bros have installed a bunch of flunkies at OPM to do their bidding.
As soon as the Chinese Gov’t (CCP) started obstructing inquiries into the possibility of a Lab Leak, which was nanoseconds after it started to spread, I knew it was a lab leak. Millions of others did too. Only those with an allegiance to the CCP questioned it.
That’s not how you know truth… “I knew when…” You know something is true when there’s evidence, especially when it can be corroborated with additional evidence.
PIcking a slow-witted journalist to showcase as today’s theme? When are you going to adopt Trump’s spirit, and start writing about people demonstrating excellence and merit? This backwards-looking focus is boring.