That’s because if the release was just accidental, sloppy handling of a natural virus, then who cares? Most of the people pushing the lab leak theory were conflating that nothingburger with the BSC theories on purpose.
It only matters in that getting the initial data matters in trying to piece together what happened. Also, if it was a lab leak in this way it might underscore tightening up safety procedures and potential funding in the future. The biggest thing would be to target where the animal came from in the lab, then check to actually ensure that wet markets weren’t procuring animals from that area going forward (of course, the CCP has stated they don’t have any wet markets in China, so…). It’s really about gathering the information to forensically go through what happened, how it happened, and why it happened, so knowing the initial variables is always important.
The real issue is we haven’t and probably won’t get this information, one way or the other at this stage, so there is going to be a pretty large blank spot in the early stages of this infection.
COVID19 did leak from a lab!
A scientist in Taiwan contracted COVID after being bitten by an infected mouse. I saw on Twitter (so it’s got’s to be true) that genetic testing had confirmed the scientist did in fact catch the virus from the mouse, and not just coincidentally from another source.
For the big lab leak hypothesis, this does demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of spreading through a common type of lab accident. Of course, this just demonstrates that is possible, which everybody was already willing to admit.
What it also shows that’s new (to me, at least), is that COVID19 can spread through an animal bite. Perfectly reasonable that somebody could have gotten bitten in a lab or in a market where live animals are being sold, or earlier in the live animal supply chain.
I was watching one of the YouTube channels I subscribe to and they were saying that Alina Chan, a Canadian molecular biologist was in an online meeting with British MPs discussing this topic. I won’t link to the video, as that annoys people, plus the source might be…almost certainly will be…criticized, as it’s a pro-Indian site. Basically, Alina Chan is asking for some of the early data that journals such as The Lancet might still have on file before they were gagged by the CCP, to try and see what some of the scientists in China were saying before they, themselves were gagged. She claims that in her opinion anyway, the most likely vector for the virus was a leak from a lab. I wasn’t able to find many actual articles on the subject (there is a shocker), but found this one:
London:
A Canadian molecular biologist on Wednesday told cross-party members of Parliament (MPs) on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee that a leak from a laboratory in Wuhan region of China is now the “more likely” origin of the COVID-19 global pandemic.
Dr Alina Chan, specialising in gene therapy and cell engineering and co-author of ‘Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19’, told the Parliament panel’s evidence session on scientific research that the pandemic was being caused by the unique feature of the coronavirus called “furin cleavage site”, which has been linked to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Asked by the panel about the probability of a lab leak as the origin of the pandemic, Chan said a “lab origin is more likely than natural origin at this point”.
“We all agree that there was a critical event at the Huanan Seafood Market, that was a superspreader event caused by humans. There is no evidence pointing to a natural animal origin of the virus at that market,” she noted.
Is your source greatgameindia.com?
It’s from her twitter that I found the Taiwan story. She appears to be a real scientist with real academic credentials, so my guess is that the criticisms I have of her are things she understands, but don’t come across well when filtered through the general media.
There is no evidence of a natural animal origin at that market because the animals were all destroyed and the market thoroughly cleaned before any testing could be done.
There is also no evidence of SARS-Cov-2 existing at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, possibly because any such evidence has been destroyed and covered up.
Any hypothesis about the virus coming from a lab leak, also has to explain why the first super spreader event was at the Huanan Seafood Market, and the majority of early cases were associated with the market. The response could be as simple as “oh yeah, Jan the clumsy lab tech always shops there,” but without evidence of that, it’s just conjecture.
I do agree with her, early data is absolutely necessary to solve the puzzle.
This is from a review of her book about the origins of the virus:
In reality, however, “Viral” is a laboratory-perfect example of how not to write about a scientific issue. The authors rely less on the scientists doing the painstaking work to unearth the virus’ origin than on self-described sleuths who broadcast their dubious claims, sometimes anonymously, on social media. In the end, Chan and Ridley spotlight all the shortcomings of the hypothesis they set out to defend.
From here:
No. If you want to know, the channel is WION. I subscribe to them as I have several friends in India and like to keep abrest of things from an Indian perspective. Often I don’t agree or like the way WION reports stories, but it does give a different perspective.
Ok, good to know. I don’t really know what a molecular biologist is, or if that makes her an expert on this stuff or just someone in a related field. I couldn’t find a lot of stories on this, so the one I linked to was basically one of 2 I found, and it seemed more for a general audience than for folks who actually understand this stuff on deeper levels. I am curious about that UK MP board…what was the purpose of that meeting? Was it just political dog and pony showmanship?
Yeah, that’s true enough, though I’ve heard that there were several other (possible) infections that didn’t have any association with the sea food market. Also, that market is really close to the institute, so there is probably a correlation between it and the people working at that lab, though obviously any clear links have been obscured at this point.
She seemed pretty adamant that The Lancet and other journals should provide any papers they are sitting on, even those that failed to be vetted, that might provide additional data on this. I have no idea how much data that would be, but she seemed to think it important.
They’re something like 10-20km apart (the lab has several campuses) and are on opposite sides of the Yangtze river. So they’re close in the sense of being in the same city, but it isn’t like the first super spreader event was at a restaurant 3 blocks from the lab.
Her published work before 2020 doesn’t strike me as making her an expert in viral evolution, but she certainly looks to have been studying RNA and other things in bacteria and yeast. If her field is merely related, then it is extremely close.
Yes, one of the papers I linked early determined some of the cases not linked to the market, were in fact linked to the market, and others were not actually COVID. Some were definitely COVID, with no known link to the market. I don’t think any early cases have been linked to the lab, which is a big problem for the lab leak hypothesis.
It is entirely possible that somebody from the lab had a mild or asymptomatic infection, then went to the busy market, and spread it all around. Being possible isn’t evidence that it happened.
There are 2 labs. I believe you are talking about the high-level lab, but there is another lab that was also working on bat coronavirus studies that is very close to the market.
Good to know, thanks.
I agree. 
Two studies came out supporting the Wuhan market and animal to human transmission.
Furthermore, of those cases epidemiologically linked to the market, the overwhelming majority were specifically linked to the western section of the Huanan market, where most of the live-mammal vendors were located."
When researchers tested surfaces at the market for the virus’ genetic material, there was one stall with the most positives, including in a cage where one researcher had previously seen mammals called raccoon dogs being kept.
The findings are “as close to having the virus in an animal as you can get,” Robert Garry, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Tulane Medical School, told CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/26/health/coronavirus-origins-studies/index.html
Here’s the original papers:
My understanding is that neither paper has been through proper peer review yet, so caution is warranted, but it’s an interesting update.
Have live wild mammal vendors been shut down in China, or are they an ongoing thing?
As long as people want to buy live wild mammals, someone will find a way to sell them somewhere. I assume there is still a market in live wild mammals for food in China.
Perhaps, but look at the authorship on both papers. This was a massive collaboration from top-notch institutions throughout the world.
One of the authors has posted a twitter thread explaining their findings.
If that’s still too long to read, then here is my very brief summation.
- Even cases with no known link to the Huanan Market are still geographically centered around the Huanan Market.
- The Huanan Market is the geographic epicenter of early cases.
- Genetic data suggests lineage B jumped in late November and started to spread, and A jumped a week or two after B.
- Positive environmental samples of SARS-CoV-2 were found in the Huanan Market on animal centered surfaces, such as cages.
- Cases in the market were nearer to stalls selling live mammals.
Here is a picture.
Interesting indeed, but the problem at the base of this is of course that the world is working with incomplete data. China has not been open on what actually happened in the early stages of the pandemic. Indeed, they have sought to restrict access to evidence, to people and to locations. They even did this openly with the WHO and their “investigation”. China allows access on China’s terms.
These papers may be rigourous and the authors may well be basing their conclusions on the best data available to them but until all the data is open to independent and full review then a full picture and a reasonbly certain conclusion is impossible.
I could be wrong of course. Were these papers based on information that is not controlled by China? That would make a material difference.
For some perspective:
While the secretiveness of Chinese authorities has made it difficult if not impossible to conclusively rule out a lab origin for SARS-CoV-2, we should remember that similar theories have spread during past infectious disease outbreaks.
“OUTBREAKS, as a genre, have long attracted conspiracy theorists, beginning in medieval times when the Jewish leaders of Toledo, Spain, were blamed for having spread the Black Plague. More recently, the AIDS epidemic was also said to have been caused by a government plot.”
“The Ebola virus, experts say, is classic conspiracy theory fodder: a silent killer that penetrates the body undetected and lies dormant for weeks. Its sources are obscure, its symptoms horrific.”
“Diseases in particular are suited to conspiracy because they are invisible and invisibly transmitted,” Professor Barkun said. “Our senses can’t tell us exactly how the danger spreads. The theory has an answer for what mystifies and frightens.”
“Many conspiracy theorists pride themselves on having inside information, but in the case of Ebola such alleged information, or misinformation — the government is in on it! — can erode the public trust when it’s needed most.”
That’s what is so destructive about harping on an unlikely origin of Covid-19 in the Wuhan lab - it’s been weaponized to feed distrust of governmental efforts to fight the pandemic and to encourage people to ignore commonsense precautions.*
*“It’s a fearsome deliberately created bioweapon” and “It’s nothing but a common cold hyped to take away our liberties” are messages that seem to be at odds, but maybe I just don’t understand the conspiracy mindset.
When the principal lab conducting research on this type of virus is located in close proximity to the first major outbreak, it’s quite ridiculous to dismiss consideration of this significant circumstantial evidence and a hypothesis that the lab might somehow be implicated as a “conspiracy theory”. The most plausible hypotheses that account for the proximity to the lab do not involve any conspiracy at all - simply the possibility that (say) some worker associated with the lab had become unknowingly infected while collected field samples and then returned home to Wuhan. It’s quite plausible that the Chinese authorities themselves don’t know exactly what happened.
The proximity to the lab may be an unlikely coincidence. But the cognitive fallacy is to ignore this significant circumstantial evidence, it is not a “conspiracy theory” to take it into account when considering hypotheses.