Killing the Wuhan lab leak theory

(Nicholas Wade, City Journal, 23 January 2022)On 31 January 2020 a group of four virologists wrote to Dr Anthony Fauci after the genomic sequence for Covid had been published stating that, in their view, the genome was "inconsistent with evolutionary theory" and therefore likely originated in a laboratory. In response Fauci organized an urgent teleconference for the following day, and three days later the group reversed their finding. What happened in the interval?

The author is a science journalist who has worked for Nature, Science and served as science editor for the New York Times. In May 2021 he wrote a highly influential ten thousand word article that appeared in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists arguing, against the scientific consensus at the time, that the virus may well have resulted from a lab leak (interestingly, the Bulletin article is being tagged as "suspicious by my anti-virus software).

In this new article he draws on recently released emails that, in his view, support the view that the scientist's reversal was due to pressure from very powerful figures in the science bureaucracy, especially Fauci and the head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Dr Frances Collins. The new emails, according to Wade, indicate the likelihood of political motivations for the suppression of the leak hypothesis.

An earlier release of emails confirmed the remarkable reversal by the group of four scientists three days after the teleconference. This was followed by a letter by a group of scientists to the Lancet orchestrated by Dr Peter Daszak, who was instrumental in securing US funding for gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute.

It is hard for the non-specialist to make sense of the technical aspects of this debate. However I am struck by the remarkable coincidence of a novel but naturally occurring bat virus popping up a few hundred meters from a laboratory containing the world's largest collection of bat viruses, together with the failure after more than two years to come up with a single animal host for the virus.

Excerpts   Read the article   Discuss the article   View in graph

From almost the moment the Covid-19 pandemic broke out in the city of Wuhan, the medical-research establishment in Washington and London insisted that the virus had emerged naturally. Only conspiracy theorists, they said, would give credence to the idea that the virus had escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Now a string of unearthed emails—the most recent being a batch viewed by the House Oversight and Reform Committee and referred to in its January 11, 2022 letter—is making it seem increasingly likely that there was, in fact, a conspiracy, its aim being to suppress the notion that the virus had emerged from research funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), headed by Anthony Fauci. The latest emails don’t prove such a conspiracy, but they make it more plausible, for two reasons: because the expert virologists therein present such a strong case for thinking that the virus had lab-made features and because of the wholly political reaction to this bombshell on the part of Francis Collins, then-director of the National Institutes of Health.

The story begins with a January 31, 2020, email to Fauci from a group of four virologists led by Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute. The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 had been published three weeks before, giving virologists their first look at the virus’s structure and possible origin.Andersen reported to Fauci that “after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” Eddie is Edward C. Holmes of the University of Sydney; Bob is Robert F. Garry of Tulane University; Mike is Michael Farzan at Scripps Research. In their unanimous view, the virus didn’t come from nature and may instead have escaped from a lab.

We knew this much already from emails obtained in June 2021 by a Freedom of Information Act request, as well as from the fact that a teleconference took place the following day (February 1, 2020) to discuss the virologists’ conclusion. But something remarkable happened at the conference, because within three days Andersen was singing a different tune. In a February 4, 2020 email, he derided ideas about a lab leak as “crackpot theories” that “relate to this virus being somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case.”

RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Readings
Killing the Wuhan lab leak theory
Why Putin is beholden to Stalin's legacy
Russia's surprising military blunders in Ukraine
Why John Mearsheimer blames the U.S. for the crisis in Ukraine
A lesson in energy masochism
NATO members mount huge resupply operation
Regathering of the Russian lands
Vladimir Putin's clash of civilizations
Germany, in historic reversal, abandons pro-Putin Russia policy
The Russian spy boss humiliated by Putin
War propaganda becoming more militaristic, authoritarian and reckless
What's on Putin's mind?
NATO enlargement and Russia: Die-hard myths and real dilemmas
Can Russia actually control Ukraine?
China's Ukraine crisis
Do race academics matter?
How China captured Hollywood
Putin's spiritual destiny
Introducing Race Marxism
The West is sleepwalking into war in Ukraine
Are we closer to Bradbury's dystopia than Orwell's or Huxley's?
Stunning new evidence re Trump spying allegations
Would permanently excluding Ukraine from NATO have satisfied Russia?
How Russia hooked Europe on its oil and gas
Why "anti-racism" should be resisted
Free speech in the UK?
Taking the low road: China's influence in Aust states and territories
The neoliberal war on dissent in the West
Fusion power is coming
The Silencing: a special report on China and the Uyghurs
Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez an insider now?
A life that doesn't matter
America's asymmetric civil war
Anomalies in the Chinese Covid data
Australia's surprising Covid excess death count
Biden's budget priorities and the China threat
Big help with a little badmouth
Cancelled New York Times journalist's anti-woke manifesto
China: Friend or Foe? Oxford Union debate
China's sway over Australian universities
Covid and Big Pharma: The debate about cheap generic drugs
CRT in schools— Virginia puts NSW to shame
Data scientist fired from Reuters for questioning BLM
Does the CCP control Extinction Rebellion?
Facebook versus the BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong
Gallant little Lithuania
How Britain became Putin's playground
How feminism ate itself
How our universities became sheep factories
How to deal with the "seditionists"
If you hate the culture wars, blame liberals
Imperial College London cancels Thomas Huxley
Intel's groveling China apology
Johns Hopkins analysis disputes the effectiveness of lockdowns
Meritocracy's cost
New study says lockdowns don't work. Fact or fiction?
Proposed new terrorism law would exclude jihadists
Reuters: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was co-ordinated
Should race matter when choosing Supreme Court justices?
The CCP and the problem of "elite capture"
The dispensable Mrs Merkel
The end of progressive America?
The failure of "Latinx"
The foolishness of "ugly freedoms"
The Ghost of Jim Crow
The green threat to effective climate policy
The histrionics and melodrama around 1/6
The Law of Group Polarization
The liberal fantasy of the Capitol coup
The Marxist who antagonizes liberals and the Left
Victims of the unvaccinated
Welcome to the end of democracy
What if democracy and climate mitigation are incompatible?
What the Right gets wrong about Ukraine...
White supremacy: The identarian Left's Theory of Everything
Why did scientists suppress the lab-leak theory?
Why is the Right so unattractive?
Yes, there is a counter revolution
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip