WHO director-general privately believes the COVID-19 lab-leak theory: Report



The leader of the World Health Organization reportedly believes that the COVID-19 lab-leak origins theory is the most likely explanation for how the pandemic started in 2019.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus recently confided to a senior European politician that a "catastrophic accident" at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, is the most likely explanation for the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan in late 2019, according to the Mail, a British newspaper.

Publicly, Tedros has said that "all hypotheses remain on the table" as the WHO continues to investigate the origins of the pandemic.

The Mail quoted an anonymous "government source" in its report on Tedros' private opinion.

Since 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has killed 18 million people all over the world. Lockdowns in developed countries that were meant to slow the spread of the virus caused widespread economic devastation that has ongoing effects on supply chains and inflation today.

There are two competing hypotheses of the origins of the coronavirus pandemic. The first is that the virus has natural origins — that it was carried by an animal host, most likely a bat, and evolved to be contagious among human beings. This is the view widely accepted by most scientists, and it was initially embraced by public health officials as the only legitimate origin theory for the virus.

The second hypothesis is that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a Chinese lab that studies coronaviruses, may have genetically manipulated one of their virus samples, creating SARS-CoV-2, and somehow that engineered virus leaked from the lab. This theory was maligned as a crackpot conspiracy theory by most public health officials.

But multiple investigations into the origins of the virus have failed to find clear evidence of an animal host that carried it before it leaped to humans. This lack of evidence to support the natural origins theory, along with public pressure from scientists who want the lab-leak theory thoroughly investigated, has led public health officials and the WHO to state that both theories remain plausible.

A scientific advisory group established by the WHO to investigate the pandemic origins released a preliminary report 10 days ago that said "further investigations" are needed to determine the true origins of COVID-19. While the WHO investigators did not find new evidence that supports the lab-leak theory, their work is "ongoing and not yet complete" and their report represents "work in progress."

In public statements, Tedros has said there is a moral responsibility to those who have suffered and died of COVID-19 to learn how the virus came to be. "All hypotheses must remain on the table until we have evidence that enables us to rule certain hypotheses in or out," he told WHO member states earlier this month.

International investigations into the origins of the virus have been complicated by China's unwillingness to be transparent. Stonewalling from Chinese Communist Party officials has prevented scientists from accessing data that's crucial to learning more about COVID-19. The Chinese have forcefully rejected accusations that the virus came from the Wuhan lab and have instead shifted blame to the U.S. and accused COVID-19 of leaking from U.S. military facilities.

New WHO report reverses prior findings on COVID-19 lab-leak theory



Preliminary findings from the World Health Organization's second investigative team examining the origins of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic leave open the possibility that the virus was leaked from a lab and say further investigation is needed.

In its first report, the WHO's Scientific advisory group for the origins of novel pathogens said that "further investigations" are necessary to determine whether the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. This group is the second investigative group put together by the U.N. health agency after the first advisory group was hampered by interference from the Chinese government and accusations that the investigation had been politicized.

The scientists and public health advisors who participated on the investigative team said that studies on humans, animals, and the environment in china are still needed to "follow up on several gaps in our knowledge."

"For example, the source of SARS-CoV-2 and its introduction into the market is unclear and it is yet to be determined where the initial spill over event(s) occurred," the report's executive summary states. "There is a need to examine environmental samples collected from specific stalls and drains at the market in January 2020 that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in areas known to have sold live animals."

Other studies to identify potential animal sources of the virus, human studies to determine how the virus initially spread, and further examinations of the unresolved questions about the role the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan and other Chinese laboratories played are also needed, the report said.

The investigators said no new evidence has emerged in support of the lab-leak theory but that they remain willing to examine scientific evidence in support of any COVID-19 origins hypothesis as it becomes available.

"The SAGO notes that there has not been any new data made available to evaluate the laboratory as a pathway of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population and recommends further investigations into this and all other possible pathways," the report notes. "The SAGO will remain open to any and all scientific evidence that becomes available in the future to allow for comprehensive testing of all reasonable hypotheses."

The advisory group emphasized that the investigators' work is "ongoing and not yet complete," and that these findings should be viewed as "work in progress."

The WHO's recognition that the lab-leak theory remains a viable hypothesis for the origins of COVID-19 stands in stark contrast to the organization's 2021 investigative report, which asserted it was "extremely unlikely" that the SARS-CoV-2 virus escaped from a lab. That report was widely criticized by virologists and public health experts for relying on the word of Chinese authorities, who had obfuscated and lied to the international community throughout the pandemic.

There were also conflict of interest questions surrounding a prominent member of the investigative team, EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak. EcoHealth Alliance had sub-awarded grants from the U.S. government for bat coronavirus research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the years leading up to the pandemic. Daszak was part of an influential group of scientists, including National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, who had attacked the lab-leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory without conclusive scientific evidence.

Harsh criticism of the first investigative team's efforts led WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to announce a new team of investigators last October.

After the report was released, China attacked the lab-leak theory, calling it a politically-motivated lie, according to the Associated Press.

“The lab leak theory is totally a lie concocted by anti-China forces for political purposes, which has nothing to do with science," Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said Friday. “We always supported and participated in science-based global virus tracing, but we firmly opposed any forms of political manipulation."

He repeated China's calls for an investigation into "highly suspicious laboratories such as Fort Detrick and the University of North Carolina," where Chinese officials claim the U.S. was developing viral bio-weapons.

The unsupported claims are part of China's efforts to take accusations directed towards the Wuhan lab and throw them back at the U.S. without engaging in a serious effort to determine the origins of COVID-19.

To date, no scientific evidence has emerged to conclusively rule out either the natural origins or lab-leak origins theory, though most scientists still believe more evidence points towards the virus transmitting to humans from an animal host. Investigations into the pandemic's origins remain obstructed by China's unwillingness to be transparent.

Lancet COVID-19 Commission disbands over ties to EcoHealth Alliance



An independent commission affiliated with the Lancet scientific journal formed last year to investigate the origins of COVID-19 has been disbanded over concerns about its link to EcoHealth Alliance, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance, was formerly the head of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission before recusing himself in June after failing to fully disclose his long-term relationship with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. EcoHealth Alliance has faced scrutiny from lawmakers, scientists, and investigators for providing the WIV with grant money from the National Institutes of Health to study bat coronaviruses in the months and years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Those who hypothesize that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in a laboratory question whether gain-of-function experiments conducted at the Wuhan lab played a role in the beginning of the pandemic. Given EcoHealth Alliance's support for such research, there was a clear conflict of interest in having Daszak lead an investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lancet COVID-19 Commission Chairman Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, an economics professor at Columbia University, said he disbanded the commission because "I just didn't want a task force that was so clearly involved with one of the main issues of this whole search for the origins, which was EcoHealth Alliance."

According to Sachs, the scientists involved with the commission's work will continue to study the origins of the virus for a report that will be published in mid-2022. Their work will be broadened to include "input from other experts on biosafety concerns including government oversight and transparency regarding risky laboratory research," the Journal reported.

Sachs explained that labs around the world have the technology to perform gain-of-function experiments — which genetically alter viruses to become more transmissible among mammals, and particularly among humans — but said international regulations and standards for this risky research is lagging behind the science.

"A lot is going on around the world that is not properly scrutinized or explained to the public," Sachs said.

There is no definitive explanation for the origins of COVID-19. There is evidence both for and against the theories that the virus has a natural origin, as well as the possibility of a research-related origin. Nevertheless, Daszak and five other members of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission denounced the lab-leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory and were vocal supporters of the natural origins theory as the only scientifically plausible beginning for COVID-19, though there was not sufficient scientific evidence to advance this claim.

World Health Organization-led investigations into COVID-19's origins have been stonewalled by China, and a U.S. intelligence report on the origins of the virus presented by President Joe Biden in August was inconclusive because of a lack of data from China.

The Journal reported that in the coming months a new national COVID-19 commission will be formed to investigate the origins of the virus, led by Philip Zelikow, a professor of history at the University of Virginia and the former executive director of the 9/11 Commission. The commission will reportedly form a task force "that will include experts in emerging disease epidemics and scientists with experience in and concerns about high-risk laboratory research."

Lancet finally publishes 'alternative view' raising COVID lab-leak theory, arguing no direct evidence for natural origins



Following the publication of two letters that asserted the lab-leak theory of the origins of COVID-19 lacked scientific evidence, the Lancet scientific journal has published an "alternative view" from 16 scientists who say there is no direct evidence in support of the natural origins theory and both hypotheses remain plausible.

In this new letter, an international team of health experts called for "objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2."

"As scientists, we need to evaluate all hypotheses on a rational basis, and to weigh their likelihood based on facts and evidence, devoid of speculation concerning possible political impacts," the authors wrote.

The authors directly challenged the assertions of two letters previously published by the Lancet in which multiple prominent public health scientists said there was no credible evidence supporting the lab-leak theory and that the most likely explanation for the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic was the virus leaping from an animal host to human beings.

The first Lancet letter, published in February 2020, was signed by 27 scientists and "strongly condemned conspiracy theories" that the coronavirus had originated in a Wuhan lab.

"The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists," the authors of the new letter wrote.

Indeed, last year social media companies took action to deplatform claims that COVID-19 did not have natural origins, asserting that such claims were "misinformation" that contradicted the "science." The justification for this censorship was based largely on the opinions of the scientists who signed the first Lancet letter.

Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know revealed that the February 2020 Lancet statement was organized by Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit group that received federal funding to research bat coronaviruses in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That research included gain-of-function experiments, which genetically manipulate viruses to make them more transmissible among mammals, and particularly among humans.

At the time, Daszak did not disclose his close association with the WIV or his potential conflict of interest.

In July 2021, the Lancet published a second letter from 24 of the authors of the first letter in which they doubled-down on their assertion that the lab-leak theory was not supported by scientific evidence.

"In fact, this argument could literally be reversed," the authors of the new letter wrote. "As will be shown below, there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible."

The new letter poked holes in the claims made by scientists who support the natural origins hypothesis and showed how the assumptions of scientists who dismissed the lab-leak hypothesis were erroneous.

"Based on these indirect and questionable arguments, the authors conclude in favour of a natural proximal origin," the authors wrote.

"Although considerable evidence supports the natural origins of other outbreaks (eg, Nipah, MERS, and the 2002–04 SARS outbreak) direct evidence for a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2 is missing," they said, pointing out that the search for an animal host that transmitted COVID-19 to humans has turned up nothing.

The authors went on to show how evidence suggests "a research-related origin is plausible."

"A research-related contamination could result from contact with a natural virus during field collection, transportation from the field to a laboratory, characterisation of bats and bat viruses in a laboratory, or from a non-natural virus modified in a laboratory," the letter stated.

The authors also noted there are "well-documented cases of pathogen escapes from laboratories."

In conclusion, the authors stated that both the natural origins and lab-leak hypotheses remain plausible, and that is why scientists must be free to debate both ideas without being labeled conspiracy theorists.

"An evidence-based, independent, and prejudice-free evaluation will require an international consultation of high-level experts with no conflicts of interest, from various disciplines and countries; the mandate will be to establish the different scenarios, and the associated hypotheses, and then to propose protocols, methods, and required data in order to elucidate the question of SARS-CoV-2's origin," the authors wrote.

"As shown above, research-related hypotheses are not misinformation and conjecture," they stated. "More importantly, science embraces alternative hypotheses, contradictory arguments, verification, refutability, and controversy. Departing from this principle risks establishing dogmas, abandoning the essence of science, and, even worse, paving the way for conspiracy theories. Instead, the scientific community should bring this debate to a place where it belongs: the columns of scientific journals."