The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins

[ImLawBoy]

But, in terms of pointing the finger at wrongdoers, who really gives a shit if it accidentally was leaked from a lab in Wuhan or developed in some bats or pangolins?

I think for the average Joe (or Kurth or ImLawBoy) this is probably the case. There are at least two groups who care deeply about the issue, though. First is the scientists. They obviously would be greatly benefited in their research if they knew the definitive origins. Second, more ominously, is those with an agenda to push. This expands the world of people who care greatly, because there are people with agendas on all sides of the matter, including good faith agendas. There are people who genuinely believe that they need to pump up the lab leak origin so that it doesn't get dismissed without proper investigation. There are people who genuinely believe that they need to downplay the lab leak origin so that it doesn't unfairly stir up international tensions or domestic racial issues. The bad faith agendas are more dangerous, of course, and often the good faith agendas are assumed by those on the "other side" to be bad faith agendas.

[Alefroth]

I don't see why the truth of it even matters to Trumpists. Those who want to absolve him aren't going to be paying attention to any evidence anyway.

[malchior]

I don't see why the truth of it even matters to Trumpists. Those who want to absolve him aren't going to be paying attention to any evidence anyway.

Valid point. It might be to get Trump leaners or just inject noise into the political scene. In any case, these guys are expert propagandists. It's probably best to assume there is a reason when so much garbage information is being produced.

[Anonymous Bosch]

But, in terms of pointing the finger at wrongdoers, who really gives a shit if it accidentally was leaked from a lab in Wuhan or developed in some bats or pangolins?

Ross Douthat's op-ed for the NYT aptly addresses this:

Why the Lab Leak Theory Matters

First, to the extent that the United States is engaged in a conflict of propaganda and soft power with the regime in Beijing, there’s a pretty big difference between a world where the Chinese regime can say, We weren’t responsible for Covid but we crushed the virus and the West did not, because we’re strong and they’re decadent, and a world where this was basically their Chernobyl except their incompetence and cover-up sickened not just one of their own cities but also the entire globe.

The latter scenario would also open a debate about how the United States should try to enforce international scientific research safeguards, or how we should operate in a world where they can’t be reasonably enforced. Perhaps that debate would ultimately tilt away from China hawks, as David Frum argues in The Atlantic, because the lesson of a lab leak would be that we actually need “more binding of China to the international order, more cross-border health and safety standards, more American scientists in Chinese labs, and concomitantly, more Chinese scientists in American labs.” Or perhaps instead you would have an attempted scientific and academic embargo, an end to the kind of funding that flowed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology from the U.S.A.I.D., an attempt to manage risk with harder borders, stricter travel restrictions, de-globalization.

Either way, this debate would also affect science policy at home, opening arguments the likes of which we haven’t seen since the era of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island about the risks of scientific hubris and cutting-edge research. This is especially true if there’s any chance that the Covid-19 virus was engineered, in so-called gain of function research, to be more transmissible and lethal — a possibility raised by, among others, a former science writer for this newspaper, Nicholas Wade. But even if it wasn’t, the mere existence of that research, heretofore a subject of obscure intra-scientific controversy, would become a matter of intense public attention and scrutiny.

That scrutiny might not lead to wise decisions, just as the panic over nuclear power arguably led both energy policy and environmentalism astray. To return to the bet with which we started, the regulation of science has to exist in a balance between Martin Rees and Steven Pinker, between healthy pessimism about human blundering and healthy ambition about what human ingenuity can do. If the pandemic blossomed from a reckless blunder, any reckoning could easily go awry, with a crusade for safety pushing us deeper into technological stagnation.

But if we find out that a single laboratory and a few scientists are responsible for one of the greatest human catastrophes in generations, it’s no use to wish the reckoning away.

[El Guapo]

That is a pretty good summary by Douthat about the ways in which it could matter. Though the odds that it could be "proven" sufficient to trigger those effects seems pretty low.

[malchior]

That is a pretty good summary by Douthat about the ways in which it could matter. Though the odds that it could be "proven" sufficient to trigger those effects seems pretty low.

Right. Odds seem low. Very low considering the posturing. I also think it'd be folly to believe this sort of serious type of analysis is behind much of what we are seeing from the people behind the noise being generated in the right-wing bubble verse.

[El Guapo]

That is a pretty good summary by Douthat about the ways in which it could matter. Though the odds that it could be "proven" sufficient to trigger those effects seems pretty low.

Right. Odds seem low. Very low considering the posturing. I also think it'd be folly to believe this sort of serious type of analysis is behind much of what we are seeing from the people behind the noise being generated in the right-wing bubble verse.

Well, right. Almost by definition nothing coming out of the right-wing bubble verse should be taken seriously (or at least, taken at face value).

[Kurth]

That is a pretty good summary by Douthat about the ways in which it could matter. Though the odds that it could be "proven" sufficient to trigger those effects seems pretty low.

Right. Odds seem low. Very low considering the posturing. I also think it'd be folly to believe this sort of serious type of analysis is behind much of what we are seeing from the people behind the noise being generated in the right-wing bubble verse.

Well, right. Almost by definition nothing coming out of the right-wing bubble verse should be taken seriously (or at least, taken at face value).

You mean you agree that “the day will never come when Tom Cotton has a point.”?

[El Guapo]

That is a pretty good summary by Douthat about the ways in which it could matter. Though the odds that it could be "proven" sufficient to trigger those effects seems pretty low.

Right. Odds seem low. Very low considering the posturing. I also think it'd be folly to believe this sort of serious type of analysis is behind much of what we are seeing from the people behind the noise being generated in the right-wing bubble verse.

Well, right. Almost by definition nothing coming out of the right-wing bubble verse should be taken seriously (or at least, taken at face value).

You mean you agree that “the day will never come when Tom Cotton has a point.”?

Well, Tom Cotton is related to but not the same thing as the right-wing bubble verse. And I doubt that he never has a point. But I wouldn't take anything seriously just because it came from Tom Cotton.

[Smoove_B]

If you'd like to read more on the bigger picture elements of the lab leak, follow the thread:

[Anonymous Bosch]

U.S. Report Found It Plausible Covid-19 Leaked From Wuhan Lab

WASHINGTON—A report on the origins of Covid-19 by a U.S. government national laboratory concluded that the hypothesis claiming the virus leaked from a Chinese lab in Wuhan is plausible and deserves further investigation, according to people familiar with the classified document.

The study was prepared in May 2020 by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and was drawn on by the State Department when it conducted an inquiry into the pandemic’s origins during the final months of the Trump administration.

It is attracting fresh interest in Congress now that President Biden has ordered that U.S. intelligence agencies report to him within weeks on how the virus emerged. Mr. Biden said that U.S. intelligence has focused on two scenarios—whether the coronavirus came from human contact with an infected animal or from a laboratory accident.

People familiar with the study said that it was prepared by Lawrence Livermore’s “Z Division,” which is its intelligence arm. Lawrence Livermore has considerable expertise on biological issues. Its assessment drew on genomic analysis of the SARS-COV-2 virus, which causes Covid-19, they said.

Scientists analyze the genetic makeup of viruses to try to determine how they evolved and spread in the population. Proponents on both sides of the debate over the origins of Covid-19 have cited such analysis to try to make their case.

A spokeswoman for Lawrence Livermore declined to comment on the report, which remains secret.

The assessment is said to have been among the first U.S. government efforts to seriously explore the hypothesis that the virus leaked from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology along with the dominant hypothesis that the virus spread naturally from animals to humans. Although some prominent scientists have called for a fuller probe of the lab hypothesis in recent months, many scientists still insist a natural spillover remains the most likely explanation.

China’s government has repeatedly denied that the virus escaped from a Chinese laboratory and said it is cooperating fully with international efforts to find the pandemic’s origins. Many scientists and officials from other countries dispute that Beijing has provided sufficient access and transparency in the investigation. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has also denied that the virus leaked from its facilities and said that none of its staff have tested positive for Covid-19.

One person who read the document, which is dated May 27, 2020, said it made a strong case for further inquiry into the possibility the virus seeped out of the lab.

The study also had a major influence on the State Department’s probe into Covid-19’s origins. State Department officials received the study in late October 2020 and asked for more information, according to a timeline by the agency’s arms control and verification bureau, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The study was important because it came from a respected national laboratory and differed from the dominant view in spring 2020 that the virus almost certainly was first transmitted to humans via an infected animal, a former official involved in the State Department inquiry said.

The State Department’s findings, which were vetted by U.S. intelligence agencies, were made public in a Jan. 15 fact sheet that listed a series of circumstantial reasons why the Covid-19 outbreak might have originated as a result of a lab accident. They include the assertion that “the U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019” with symptoms that were consistent with Covid-19 or a seasonal flu.

[gilraen]

Even if it did leak from a lab - what does it matter now? What difference does it make? It's not like they knew how to treat it. It's not like they'll be more careful in the future (maybe only if the Chinese government pressures them, and even then unlikely).

[El Guapo]

Even if it did leak from a lab - what does it matter now? What difference does it make? It's not like they knew how to treat it. It's not like they'll be more careful in the future (maybe only if the Chinese government pressures them, and even then unlikely).

Well, the Douthat column linked to earlier here made a pretty good case / summary of the enormous impacts that would likely come from it being proven that the virus leaked from a lab. It would be a gigantic blow to the Chinese government's soft power (basically being seen as responsible for the COVID outbreak), would put a lot of lab research / protocols front and center as a policy issue, and a number of other things. Though that would all require it to be essentially "proven" that it leaked from a lab, which seems unlikely to happen if it that was the virus's origin.

[El Guapo]

U.S. Report Found It Plausible Covid-19 Leaked From Wuhan Lab

Isn't it essentially undisputed at this point that it's "plausible" that the virus leaked from a lab? Though there's large dispute as to the probability that that was the virus's origin.

[Smoove_B]

Yes, but it's in a giant headline, so that means it's important.

Incidentally, this pre-print is making the rounds this morning in the science community. It's a journal article on how 4 viruses related to SARS-CoV-2 were identified in bats in the China between 5/19 and 11/2020, along with a number of other coronaviruses.

[stessier]

Yes, but it's in a giant headline, so that means it's important.

Incidentally, this pre-print is making the rounds this morning in the science community. It's a journal article on how 4 viruses related to SARS-CoV-2 were identified in bats in the China between 5/19 and 11/2020, along with a number of other coronaviruses.

But where were they identified??? It was in a lab, wasn't it???

[malchior]

Yes, but it's in a giant headline, so that means it's important.

Incidentally, this pre-print is making the rounds this morning in the science community. It's a journal article on how 4 viruses related to SARS-CoV-2 were identified in bats in the China between 5/19 and 11/2020, along with a number of other coronaviruses.

Clearly a cover paper ordered by the Chinese government.

[noxiousdog]

Let's note that it was a 2020 report as "plausible" and nothing further has come forward to enhance the hypothesis.

[Alefroth]

Let's note that it was a 2020 report as "plausible" and nothing further has come forward to enhance the hypothesis.

FTFY

[Defiant]

It took me a second to realize how you fixed it.

[Alefroth]

[Anonymous Bosch]

Well, pardon me for the affront of using the exact same font sizes and formatting I've routinely used elsewhere and everywhere on OO while posting/quoting news stories, quelle horreur!

[Alefroth]

I was hoping you'd get a kick out of it.

[Smoove_B]

I'm always amazed when an observation like this is made about something that's been sitting out in the open this whole time.

Thursday morning thought-- where did the phrase "lab leak" come from? I don't think I have heard it often used to describe laboratory accidents before...for example, it wasn't mentioned in this piece about the SARS exposure in 2003. Or the Texas A&M brucellosis lab accident in 2007...Or the 1977 smallpox accident that killed Janet Parker. Even in the foot and mouth incident in Pirbright, which was actually caused by a leak, that terminology didn't really take hold.

[El Guapo]

I don't totally get the significance of the origin of the phrase "lab leak" - what's the point?

[Smoove_B]

The best summary I've seen:

What I take away from this little exercise is that the word choice ("lab leak" instead of "lab escape") suggests which groups of people propagating this idea -- journalists and pundits much more so than virologists or epidemiologists.

It reinforces who is controlling and shaping the narrative on this - the media or the scientists.

[El Guapo]

I guess I don't disagree, but I don't find the point all that illuminating. Obviously there's been a lot of discussion on this lately. The point that he also refers to that headlines may well use "lab leak" to save space seems like another very plausible explanation for why lab leak is being used. Plus at a certain point if a term hits some minimum common use it winds up getting used because it's a term that people are commonly familiar with. And the point that pundits and commentators are talking about this a lot seems like...we already knew that?

At this point I'm not sure whether I'm more amused or flummoxed by the fact that we're now talking about the origin of the term for the origin of the virus...

[Holman]

I guess I don't disagree, but I don't find the point all that illuminating. Obviously there's been a lot of discussion on this lately. The point that he also refers to that headlines may well use "lab leak" to save space seems like another very plausible explanation for why lab leak is being used. Plus at a certain point if a term hits some minimum common use it winds up getting used because it's a term that people are commonly familiar with. And the point that pundits and commentators are talking about this a lot seems like...we already knew that?

At this point I'm not sure whether I'm more amused or flummoxed by the fact that we're now talking about the origin of the term for the origin of the virus...

Agree. Plus a search in Nexis is limited only to journalism, right?

I feel pretty sure that "lab leak" (both as a phrase and a concept) has roots that run back through science fiction and thrillers for fifty or sixty years.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Wuhan live bat video contradicts WHO investigation

The Wuhan Institute of Virology kept live bats in cages, new footage from inside the facility has revealed, disproving denials from World Health Organisation investigators who claimed the suggestion was a “conspiracy”.

An official Chinese Academy of Sciences video to mark the launch of the new biosafety level 4 laboratory in May 2017 speaks about security precautions in place if “an accident” occurs and reveals there had been “intense clashes” with the French government during the construction of the laboratory.

The video shows bats held in a cage at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, along with a scientist feeding a worm to a bat.

The 10-minute video – titled “The construction and research team of Wuhan P4 laboratory of Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences” – also features interviews with the lab’s leading scientists.

The WHO report investigating the origin of the pandemic failed to mention that any bats had been kept at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and only its annex referred to animals being housed there.

“The animal room in the P4 facility can handle a variety of species, including primate work with SARS-CoV-2,” it states.

US government officials investigating the origin of Covid-19 had questioned how a naturally occurring virus from bats in the Yunnan Province in southwestern China could have started a pandemic in Wuhan – a 20-hour drive away – without leaving any clusters or outbreaks along the way.

This revelation is crucial because it raises the possibility a lab employee may have become infected from a diseased bat housed in cages at the Wuhan institute.

Samples could also have been subject to genetic manipulation and other gain-of-function research which aims to increase the transmissibility and virility of viruses, ostensibly in order to predict which may be able to infect humans and cause a pandemic.

World leaders had called for the closure of Chinese wet markets where it had been believed bats were butchered and sold.

Bats were not sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market but were kept at the level 2 and 3 laboratories at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

A member of the WHO team investigating the origin of the pandemic in Wuhan, zoologist Peter Daszak, said it was a conspiracy to suggest bats were held at the Wuhan institute.

In one tweet in December, Dr Daszak said: “No BATS were sent to Wuhan lab for genetic analysis of viruses collected in the field. That’s not how this science works. We collect bat samples, send them to the lab. “We RELEASE bats where we catch them.”

In another tweet, he wrote: “This is a widely circulated conspiracy theory. This piece describes work I’m the lead on and labs I’ve collaborated with for 15 years. They DO NOT have live or dead bats in them.

“There is no evidence anywhere that this happened. It’s an error I hope will be corrected.”

This month, Dr Daszak appeared to retract his earlier denials and admitted the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have housed bats.

He also admitted the WHO team had not asked them about it.

“We didn’t ask them if they had bats. I wouldn’t be surprised if, like many other virology labs, they were trying to set up a bat colony. I know it’s happening in labs here and in other countries,” he wrote on Twitter on June 1. “You’re right, labs in US & around world are trying to keep bats to test viral immune responses etc.

“None are successfully doing this at scale like lab mice & animals are always screened virus-free before expts, (sic) so even if WIV were trying this, it’s prob irrelevant for origins.”

The Chinese Academy of Sciences video shows bats in cages at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a researcher feeding a worm to a bat. It was discovered by researchers investigating the origin of the pandemic who call themselves DRASTIC.

The group’s digital archivist, “Jesse”, found the video while the group’s co-ordinator, who goes by a pseudonym of “Billy Bostickson” for safety reasons, has long complained about evidence bats were housed in the Wuhan laboratories.

Kevin Carrico, a senior lecturer in Chinese studies at Monash University, translated the video for The Australian.

It states there were difficulties behind-the-scenes during the construction phase of the level 4 laboratory. The lab was initially meant to be a joint undertaking between the French and Chinese governments.

“Our collaboration with France on this project went through more than a decade of intense clashes resulting from our different cultural backgrounds and understandings,” the video says. After it was built, the French scientists and officials were evicted from the laboratory, sparking concerns among French intelligence about the type of biological research China planned to undertake there.

In the video, Wuhan Biosafety Level 4 laboratory director Yuan Zhiming discusses the technical support in the central control room in case there are “any accidents”. “Staff in our central control room remain in constant contact with staff in our laboratory,” he said.

“Providing necessary technical support for their experiments as well as for any accidents.”

The video also shows a bat hanging off a researcher’s hat while the narrator speaks about the work of the lab’s director of emerging infectious diseases, Shi Zhengli. “Over more than a decade, Shi Zhengli’s research team has collected more than 15,000 bat samples in China and many countries of Africa, searching for the origins of SARS, as well as isolating and characterising many new viruses,” the narrator says.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology has now collected 19,000 bat samples, with coronaviruses detected in 2481 samples.

The SARS-like coronaviruses had only been found in Yunnan, according to information Shi Zhengli gave the WHO.

Dr Daszak has not responded to requests for comment.

[noxiousdog]

ZOMG. bats! My zoo has some. Covid probably came from the zoo!

[Holman]

Marjorie Taylor Greene has declared that Covid *must* be an engineered bioweapon because God wouldn't create a disease that harms people. This was in a statement where she also rejects the theory of evolution.

So many questions. Has she read her own Bible (where God almost routinely sends plagues against various nations)? Does she think a creator God is somehow off the hook for the multitude of diseases that are integral parts of creation? Does she understand what the word "disease" means?

[El Guapo]

Marjorie Taylor Greene has declared that Covid *must* be an engineered bioweapon because God wouldn't create a disease that harms people. This was in a statement where she also rejects the theory of evolution.

So many questions. Has she read her own Bible (where God almost routinely sends plagues against various nations)? Does she think a creator God is somehow off the hook for the multitude of diseases that are integral parts of creation? Does she understand what the word "disease" means?

Also, wouldn't God also be responsible for allowing people to engineer the bioweapon?

[Anonymous Bosch]

ZOMG. bats! My zoo has some. Covid probably came from the zoo!

Perhaps so, but unlike the Wuhan Institute of Virology, one would hope your local zoo would not be housing them with a specific goal of harvesting bat viruses and subsequently using serial passage gain‐of‐function research along with humanized mice to perhaps make them more infectious to humans. More importantly -- and unlike Daszak's WHO investigation into the origin of the pandemic in Wuhan -- your zoo likely would not deny the relevant detail that they do routinely house live bats.

[hepcat]

ZOMG. bats! My zoo has some. Covid probably came from the zoo!

Perhaps so, but unlike the Wuhan Institute of Virology, one would hope your local zoo would not be housing them with a specific goal of harvesting bat viruses and subsequently using serial passage gain‐of‐function research to perhaps make them more infectious to humans.

I do think it should be mentioned in this context that GoF research is a vital part of vaccine research. Part of the problem with some on the right when it comes to finding the truth about the origin of the virus is that they will inevitably link such an event to the development of bio weapons. Greene is already on that bandwagon, as noted earlier.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I do think it should be mentioned in this context that GoF research is a vital part of vaccine research.

It's also worth mentioning that gain-of-function research has long been a controversial subject of intense debate among responsible scientists, specifically because performing such GOF experiments can be exceptionally dangerous, for the reasons this NIH Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis aptly observes:

Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics. The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures. Despite these important potential benefits, GOF research (GOFR) can pose risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. In 2014 the administration of US President Barack Obama called for a "pause" on funding (and relevant research with existing US Government funding) of GOF experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses in particular.

Part of the problem with some on the right when it comes to finding the truth about the origin of the virus is that they will inevitably link such an event to the development of bio weapons. Greene is already on that bandwagon, as noted earlier.

So what? Wingnuts say all kinds of crazy shit, but I've done nothing of the sort in this thread, so please refrain from trying to put her words into my mouth.

[hepcat]

I think you’re being overly sensitive as I didn’t say you were. Considering the tone of some of the discussions here, I can understand that though.

I simply added some additional info on GoF research, then explained why it’s an important reminder. It’s an essential part of vaccine research and I think that’s worth mentioning too. Otherwise GoF research can be made to sound sinister.

[noxiousdog]

AB, you're presenting all this in some kind of conspiracy style nonsense.

We know China (and therefore Wuhan) cover stuff up.
We know China has put pressure on the WHO (see: Traditional Chinese Medicine)
We know the Wuhan lab has access to and has performed specific research on bat-human virus transmission vectors.
We know that it's possible it got into human populations from that research.

We also know there have been millions of other viruses that have gotten into human populations and therefore is millions of times more likely to be a natural cause absent of any lab created genetic markers which do not exist in any variant of COVID-19.

So without concrete evidence it's speculation. The question you keep avoiding is what is the point in speculating without evidence? What is your motivation? What do you hope to accomplish?

[Anonymous Bosch]

I simply added some additional info on GoF research, then explained why it’s an important reminder. It’s an essential part of vaccine research and I think that’s worth mentioning too. Otherwise GoF research can be made to sound sinister.

The POTUS did not call for a halt to funding of GOF research in 2014 which specifically involved SARS viruses (among others) because he considered it "an essential part of vaccine research," so this seems a wee bit exaggerated.

[hepcat]

I will grant you that "essential" might be an overstatement. But it is unquestionably used in such work.

My point is that it's not meant to weaponize viruses. But I think folks like Greene and the other Trump talking heads (none of which I am trying to associate you with) conveniently skip over that fact. GoF has become the Critical Race Theory of epidemiology for them.

[Anonymous Bosch]

AB, you're presenting all this in some kind of conspiracy style nonsense.

It ain't "conspiracy style nonsense" merely because you declare it so or happen to disagree with it, as a perfectly sane and coherent fellow like Jon Stewart clearly and humorously elucidates below:

So without concrete evidence it's speculation.

While we may never have the concrete evidence you seemingly insist upon -- at least partly because the CCP by now will have likely gone to great lengths to eliminate any such concrete evidence and data -- that certainly does not imply circumstantial evidence from journalists like Sharri Markson and credible investigators like Jamie Metzl, who sits on the World Health Organization expert advisory committee on human genome editing and served on the National Security Council and State Department during the Clinton administration and under Senator Joe Biden, is utterly unworthy of consideration or an invalid topic of discussion.

The question you keep avoiding is what is the point in speculating without evidence?

I refer you back to what I quoted from Ross Douthat's NYT op-ed above, and echo Jamie Metzl's thoughts upon the subject below:

Let me be clear. While I do believe that a lab incident is the most likely origin of the pandemic, this is only a hypothesis. That this pandemic might stem from a zoonotic jump in the wild is also a hypothesis, even though very little evidence supporting that hypothesis has so far emerged. When comparing the evidence for each possibility, the case for a lab incident origin seems significantly stronger to me. Additional evidence could always change that. That’s why my essential argument is that we need a full and unrestricted international scientific and forensic investigation into all COVID-19 origin hypotheses with full access to all relevant records, samples, and key personnel. It is an affront to all of us that this no such investigation has been carried our or is currently planned. We owe everyone who has died from COVID-19, all the people who have lost their loved ones and livelihoods, and future generations a thorough, unbiased, and unrestricted investigation of how the tragedy began and has unfolded.

A small, determined, and now growing community of people around the world are also making this claim and I’ve been very pleased to see that in early 2021 the lab leak hypothesis has moved from being considered a conspiracy theory to being recognized for what it has always been — a very real possibility. As you may know, I was a co-organizer and the lead drafter of three expert open letters on COVID-19 origins that were featured extensively in major media across the globe. These open letters were released on March 4, April 7, and April 30, 2021.

Given how much the conversation changed over the course of 2021 as a result of all of our work, it’s important to remember how the dominant narrative for all of 2020 and early 2021 was that that pandemic stemmed from a zoonotic jump from animals to humans in the wild. Although this remains one possible hypothesis, the other highly possible hypothesis — that the pandemic stemmed from an accidental lab incident — was aggressively and unfairly undermined by the Chinese government, as we might expect, but also by leading Western scientists, scientific journals like The Lancet and Nature, and mainstream western media, as we might not. My The Hill and The Times editorials say more about this. Despite this progress, major questions remain.

The point being, I simply believe this to be a topic worthy of discussion, and that such discussion ought not be swept under the rug and summarily dismissed as conspiratorial nonsense simply because we don't yet possess completely irrefutable evidence for either the zoonotic or lab leak hypotheses.