The Source of Covid 19 is NOT the Wuhan Virology Lab

 

Covid 19 virus CDC library

Since Covid 19 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified, the question has been asked, "Where did it begin?" With the exception of the sceptics, the general conclusion based on available information was a bat to human transfer at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China. Of course the Chinese managed to destroy/block/obfuscate as much evidence and information as possible, as is their usual approach to anything. 

This led to a great deal of speculation among Sinophobes that the virus was accidentally or deliberately leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the only lab in that city known to have an active research program on coronaviruses. They did research on bat viruses, including what is known as Gain of Function where viruses are deliberately made more infections to study spread and mitigation. Some of that research was apparently funded by USA and in some way involved Dr. Fauci, currently a favourite Republican villain. 

The source of Covid 19 is back in the news because The DoE reversed an earlier conclusion to say now that they believe the virus could have come from the laboratory, giving it the same "Low Confidence" that they had given their earlier conclusion. Of course the Republicans jumped all over this, ignoring the "Low Confidence" the same way they ignore 'a well regulated militia'.

I've been a sceptic myself because of one thing. The Wet Market Source people say that the DNA analysis of the virus indicates no connection to the lab, while the Lab Source people claim that a cleavage point in the virus is at exactly the same spot that a research proposal from the lab wanted to put one. Neither side gave any sources to back up their claims. I did question an article which touted research proposal and cleavage points only to have the messenger shot rather than the issue dealt with.

So I turned to my Blogger friend Cheryl Rofer who writes The Nuclear Diner. Cheryl is a 'retired' nuclear scientist who has been and done so many different things in her career. She knows all stuff scientific so I run all my favourite conspiracy theories past her because I trust her. This time I got the goods I was looking for. I sent her the following article from WaPo.  I suggest reading it for background information. Also because one of the authors is from Veterinary and Infectious Diseases Organization (VIDO) locate on the campus of the University of Saskatchewan. 

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/07/evidence-covid-origin-spillover

An earlier article argued that focusing on the lab leak rather than natural spillover from animals to humans was the wrong way to look at it.

Consider one implication you might draw from a lab leak: We need less science, especially of the sort that fiddles with dangerous viruses. And from a natural spillover: We need more science, especially of the sort that studies dangerous viruses lurking in wild animals.  

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/23/covid-origin-house-subcommittee-scientists

Cheryl came back with the following information: She referred me to an article she had just written for Scientific American explaining to difference between an intelligence agency report and a scientific report. www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-leak-intelligence-reports-arent-scientific-conclusions/. 

An intelligence assessment isn’t a scientific conclusion. They are different beasts. The summary itself observes that different agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications differently. The important factor for intelligence assessments is the veracity of sources, whereas scientific conclusions depend on data and the coherence of the argument the data support. However, data from a scientist who has proved unreliable in the past will weigh less heavily in scientific conclusions, and intelligence analysts will regard fanciful stories from an otherwise reliable informant skeptically. The scientific data are available to the public, unlike the reporting that underlies the intelligence assessments.

Then she referred me to a Twitter thread in which she explained that the research proposal touted by the Lab Leak people did in fact NOT say what the Lab Leak people claimed it said. Finally, an answer. I read the thread which begins here. I did not understand three quarters of it as it is a long way from cows to SARS-CoV-2 research proposals but I understood enough to know that the Lab Leak people were out to lunch in their interpretation. "I do not think that word means what you think it means," 

 twitter.com/CherylRofer/status/1633450047399669760. 

So now I am quite happy with my understanding of the source of Covid 19, given that because of Chinese recalcitrance we will never know the whole truth. And I do hope that the world is better prepared for the next one because as long as people and animals are in close contact with each other, viruses will mutate and jump species. 

Isn't it fun?