The Potential Lab Origin of COVID-19

[Ludicus]

The practice of artificially accelerating the evolution of viruses is very widespread and lots of funding/careers depend on it...the reason so many scientists dismissed it was mainly self-serving

It's a established fact that some Americans think corruption is everywhere-particularly when it comes to the Chinese rival- but you aren't American, Abdul.
(in a way they are right. The biggest conspiracy theory of this century was the one that led to the invasion of Iraq)

Leading biologists publish review of SARS-CoV-2 origin

The 21 eminent scientists from universities and research institutes around the world warn that a focus on a highly improbable lab origin is distracting from the most urgent scientific tasks to “comprehensively investigate the zoonotic origin through collaborative and carefully coordinated studies”.The authors warn that without a focus on this line of enquiry, the world will be “vulnerable to future pandemics” arising from new viruses.

-------

The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review | Zenodo - pre-print -July 7, 2021

Could SARS-CoV-2 have escaped from a laboratory?

There are precedents for laboratory incidents leading to isolated infections and transient transmission chains, including SARS-CoV²². Aside from the 1977 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic that likely originated from a large-scale vaccine challenge trial²³, there are no documented examples of human epidemics or pandemics resulting from research activity.
No previous epidemic has been caused by the escape of a novel virus and there is no data to suggest that the WIV—or any other laboratory—were working on SARS-CoV-2, or any virus close enough to be the progenitor, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Viral genomic sequencing without cell culture, which was routinely performed at the WIV, represents a negligible risk as viruses are inactivated during RNA extraction²⁸ and no case of laboratory escape has been documented following the sequencing of viral samples.
Epidemiological modeling suggests that the number of hypothetical cases needed to result in multiple hospitalized COVID-19 patients prior to December 2019 is incompatible with observed clinical, genomic, and epidemiological data²⁰.
Gain-of-function research would be expected to utilize an established SARSr-CoV genomic backbone, or at a minimum a virus previously identified via sequencing. However, past experimental research using recombinant coronaviruses at the WIV has used a genetic backbone (WIV1) unrelated to SARS-CoV-232 and SARS-CoV-2 carries no evidence of genetic markers one might expect from laboratory experiments⁴⁰.

There is no rational experimental reason why a new genetic system would be developed using an unknown and unpublished virus, with no evidence nor mention of a SARS-CoV-2-like virus in any prior publication or study from the WIV32^41,42, no evidence that the WIV sequenced a virus that is closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13, and no reason to hide research on a SARS-CoV-2-like virus prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Under any laboratory escape scenario SARS-CoV-2 would have to have been present in a laboratory prior to the pandemic, yet no evidence exists to support such a notion and no sequence has been identified that could have served as a precursor.

A specific laboratory escape scenario involves accidental infection in the course of serial passage of a SARSr-CoV in common laboratory animals such as mice. However, early SARS-CoV-2 isolates were unable to infect wild-type mice⁴³. While murine models are useful for studying infection in vivo and testing vaccines, they often result in mild or atypical disease^44–48. These findings are inconsistent with a virus selected for increased pathogenicity and transmissibility through serial passage through rodents.

Although SARS-CoV-2 has since been engineered⁴⁹ and adapted by serial passage^50–52, specific mutations in the spike protein, including N501Y, are necessary for such adaptation in mice^51,52. Notably, N501Y has arisen convergently in multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in the human population, presumably being selected to increase ACE2 binding affinity^53–56. If SARS-CoV-2 resulted from attempts to adapt a SARSr-CoV for study in animal models, it would likely have acquired mutations like N501Y for efficient replication in that model, yet there is no evidence to suggest such mutations existed early in the pandemic. Both the low pathogenicity in commonly used laboratory animals and the absence of genomic markers associated with rodent adaptation indicate that SARS- CoV-2 is highly unlikely to have been acquired by laboratory workers in the course of viral pathogenesis or gain-of-function experiments.

Evidence from genomic structure and ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2

Considerable attention has been devoted to claims that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered or adapted in cell culture or “humanized” animal models to promote human transmission⁵⁷. Yet, since its emergence, SARS-CoV-2 has experienced repeated sweeps of mutations that have increased viral fitness^58,59. The first clear adaptive mutation, the D614G substitution in the spike protein, occurred early in the pandemic^60,61. Recurring mutations in the receptor binding domain of the spike protein, including N501Y, K417N/T, L452R, and E484K/Q—constituent mutations of the variants of concern—similarly enhance viral infectivity^54,55,62 and ACE2 binding^53,63, refuting claims that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was optimized for binding to human ACE2 upon its emergence⁵⁶.

Further, some pangolin-derived coronaviruses have receptor binding domains that are near-identical to SARS-CoV-2 at the amino acid level^40,64 and bind to human ACE2 even more strongly than SARS-CoV-2, showing that there is capacity for further human adaptation⁶⁵. SARS-CoV-2 is also notable for being a host generalist virus⁶⁶, capable of efficient transmission in multiple mammalian species, including mink, tigers, cats, gorillas, dogs, raccoon dogs, ferrets, and large outbreaks have been documented in mink with spill-back to humans⁶⁷ and to other animals⁶⁸. Combined, these findings show that no specific human “pre” adaptation was required for the emergence or early spread of SARS-CoV-2, and the claim that the virus was already highly adapted to the human host⁵⁷, or somehow optimized for binding to human ACE2, is without validity.The genesis of the polybasic (furin) cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 has been subject to recurrent speculation.

Although the furin cleavage site is absent from the closest known relatives of SARS-CoV-2⁴⁰, this is unsurprising as the lineage leading to this virus is poorly sampled and the closest bat viruses have divergent spike proteins due to recombination^15,16,18. Furin cleavage sites are commonplace in other coronavirus spike proteins, including some feline alphacoronaviruses, MERS-CoV, most but not all strains of mouse hepatitis virus, as well as in endemic human betacoronaviruses such as HCoV-OC⁴³ and HCoV-HKU169–⁷¹. A near identical nucleotide sequence is found in the spike gene of the bat coronavirus HKU9-1⁷², and both SARS-CoV-2 and HKU9-1 contain short palindromic sequences immediately upstream of this sequence that are indicative of natural recombination break-points via template switching⁷².

Hence, simple evolutionary mechanisms can readily explain the evolution of an out-of -frame insertion of a furin cleavage site in SARS_CoV-2 (Fig-2)

The SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site (containing the amino acid motif RRAR) does not match its canonical form (R-X-R/K-R), is suboptimal compared to those of HCoV-HKU1 and HCoV-OC⁴³, lacks either a P1 or P2 arginine (depending on the alignment), and was caused by an out-of-frame insertion (Fig. 2).
The RRAR and RRSR S1/S2 cleavage sites in feline coronaviruses (FCoV) and cell-culture adapted HCoV-OC43, respectively, are not cleaved by furin⁶⁹. There is no logical reason why an engineered virus would utilize such a poor furin cleavage site, which would entail such an unusual and needlessly complex feat of genetic engineering. The only previous studies of artificial insertion of a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 boundary in the SARS-CoV spike protein utilized an optimal ‘RRSRR’ sequence in pseudotype systems^73,74.

Further, there is no evidence of prior research at the WIV involving the artificial insertion of complete furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses.
The recurring P681H/R substitution in the proline (P) residue preceding the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site improves cleavage of the spike protein and is another signature of ongoing human adaptation of the virus⁷⁵. The SARS-CoV-2 furin site is also lost under standard cell culture conditions^34,76, as is true of HCoV-OC4373. The presence of two CGG codons for arginines in the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site is similarly not indicative of genetic engineering⁷⁷.

Although the CGG codon is rare in coronaviruses, it is observed in SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2 and other human coronaviruses at comparable frequencies⁷⁷. Further, if low-fitness codons had been artificially inserted intothe virus genome they would have been quickly selected against during SARS-CoV-2 evolution, yet both CGG codons are more than 99.8% conserved among the >1,800,000 near-complete SARS-CoV-2 genomes sequenced to date, indicative of strong functional constraints (supplementary information, Table S1).

Conclusions
As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. The documented epidemiological history of the virus is comparable to previous animal market-associated outbreaks of coronaviruses with a simple route for human exposure. The contact tracing of SARS-CoV-2 to markets in Wuhan exhibits striking similarities to the early spread of SARS-CoV to markets in Guangdong, where humans infected early in the epidemic lived near or worked in animal markets. Zoonotic spillover by definition selects for viruses able to infect humans. The laboratory escapes documented to date have almost exclusively involved viruses brought into laboratories specifically because of their known human infectivity.

There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, in contrast to the clear epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan, nor evidence that the WIV possessed or worked on a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 prior to the pandemic. The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses. Wuhan is the largest city in central China with multiple animal markets and is a major hub for travel and commerce, well connected to other areas both within China and internationally. The link to Wuhan therefore more likely reflects the fact that pathogens often require heavily populated areas to become established²⁰

We contend that there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2. While the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely relative to the numerous and repeated human-animal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife trade.

Failure to comprehensively investigate the zoonotic origin through collaborative and carefully coordinated studies would leave the world vulnerable to future pandemics arising from the same human activities that have repeatedly put us on a collision course with novel viruses.

[sumskilz]

The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review | Zenodo - pre-print -July 7, 2021

According to evidence from Fauci's emails, several authors of this paper (including the lead author) disagree with the paper's conclusions. In fact, stating from the beginning that they "all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory" while publicly referring to any suggestion agreeing with their own private opinions as a "conspiracy theory". They've all been really quiet lately, some even deleting their previously very active social media accounts shortly after the Fauci emails were made public. They must have been really busy working on that paper.

To be fair, the only conspiracy proven beyond a reasonable doubt was the coordinated efforts by these scientists who authored the paper to lie to the public about their own beliefs. The details of the scientific arguments are more than I have time to address these days, but here is a response for anyone who is interested.

Also recent and relevant: Senior Biden officials finding that Covid lab leak theory as credible as natural origins explanation

[Lord Thesaurian]

NEWLY RELEASED DOCUMENTS provide details of U.S.-funded research on several types of coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. The Intercept has obtained more than 900 pages of documents detailing the work of EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based health organization that used federal money to fund bat coronavirus research at the Chinese laboratory. The trove of documents includes two previously unpublished grant proposals that were funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as well as project updates relating to EcoHealth Alliance’s research, which has been scrutinized amid increased interest in the origins of the pandemic.

One of the grants, titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” outlines an ambitious effort led by EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak to screen thousands of bat samples for novel coronaviruses. The research also involved screening people who work with live animals. The documents contain several critical details about the research in Wuhan, including the fact that key experimental work with humanized mice was conducted at a biosafety level 3 lab at Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment — and not at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as was previously assumed. The documents raise additional questions about the theory that the pandemic may have begun in a lab accident, an idea that Daszak has aggressively dismissed.

Biden blamed China for failing to release critical data, but the U.S. government has also been slow to release information. The Intercept initially requested the proposals in September 2020.

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/06/...t-chinese-lab/

This does shed some light on why the left lent its institutional dominance to Beijing’s efforts to discredit and dismiss the lab leak theory as a far right fabrication, but I still doubt we’ll ever know the half of it at this point.

[sumskilz]

Richard Ebright's comments on the newly released documents:

The materials show that the 2014 and 2019 NIH grants to EcoHealth with subcontracts to WIV funded gain-of-function research as defined in federal policies in effect in 2014-2017 and potential pandemic pathogen enhancement as defined in federal policies in effect in 2017-present.

The materials confirm the grants supported the construction--in Wuhan--of novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses that combined a spike gene from one coronavirus with genetic information from another coronavirus, and confirmed the resulting viruses could infect human cells.

The materials reveal that the resulting novel, laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses also could infect mice engineered to display human receptors on cells ("humanized mice").

The materials further reveal for the first time that one of the resulting novel, laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses--one not been previously disclosed publicly--was more pathogenic to humanized mice than the starting virus from which it was constructed...

...and thus not only was reasonably anticipated to exhibit enhanced pathogenicity, but, indeed, was *demonstrated* to exhibit enhanced pathogenicity.

The materials further reveal that the the grants also supported the construction--in Wuhan--of novel chimeric MERS-related coronaviruses that combined spike genes from one MERS-related coronavirus with genetic information from another MERS-related coronavirus.

The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful.

In summary, these experiments which could have been the source of SARS-CoV-2 were (at least partially) funded by the NIH during the moratorium on US government funding of gain-of-function research, which means Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci lied. Though, for some reason, I doubt Fauci will be held responsible.

[Cyclops]

Richard Ebright's comments on the newly released documents:

In summary, these experiments which could have been the source of SARS-CoV-2 were (at least partially) funded by the NIH during the moratorium on US government funding of gain-of-function research, which means Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci lied. Though, for some reason, I doubt Fauci will be held responsible.

Very sad the medical establishment is compromised in this way, to lie about a very serious plague in order to deflect criticism of your pet project is unacceptable. If Fauci has brought his financial interests into his work he should be gaoled.

[swabian]

@Sumskilz: There was no lab origin. It comes from animal-human interaction in Chinese wet markets. Why are you still talking about it? -_-

[sumskilz]

@Sumskilz: There was no lab origin. It comes from animal-human interaction in Chinese wet markets. Why are you still talking about it? -_-

I'm assuming you're not serious, but it's worth mentioning that not even Daszak is promoting that hypothesis these days, which has largely fallen out of favor since mid 2020:

"I haven't seen anything that makes me feel, as a researcher who studies zoonotic disease, that this market is a likely option," said Colin Carlson, a professor at Georgetown University who studies the spread of such zoonotic viruses, which transmit between animals and humans...

A number of early cases of the outbreak in Wuhan were tied to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Later, researchers took environmental samples that suggested the virus had landed on surfaces in the market. But in the period since, tissue samples from the market's animals have revealed no trace of the virus. For the virus to jump from animals to humans, the animals have to actually be carrying it.

"None of the animals tested positive. So since January, this has not actually been particularly conclusive. But this has developed into a narrative," he said.

Plus, neither bats nor Pangolins were kept or sold at the market and the earliest reported case had no connection to the market. Although, all these conclusions rely on data collected by or with Chinese scientists under the supervision of the Chinese government, who may likewise not want the market implicated. Nevertheless, the conclusions are widely accepted, presumably because the relevant studies showed their work, unlike the questionable genetic studies coming out of the WIV.

The reported hospitalizations of three researchers from the WIV occurred a month earlier than what may have been a superspreader event at the Huanan market.

[swabian]

Friend, what do you mean, saying I'm not serious? It's the standard, mainstream news information and it is also very plausible.

[sumskilz]

Friend, what do you mean, saying I'm not serious? It's the standard, mainstream news information and it is also very plausible.

The Huanan market was thoroughly investigated and zero evidence was found to support the hypothesis that it was the source of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. The fact the none of the animals there were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or any closely related virus pretty much falsifies the hypothesis.

That the source was some sort of as yet unidentified zoonotic transfer event remains plausible of course. Under normal circumstances natural zoonotic transfer would be the default hypothesis for everyone knowledgeable about the topic. However, there is no evidence yet to support natural zoonotic transfer except that this is something that happens from time to time. The case of SARS-CoV-2 is different from previous well-studied natural zoonotic transfers in a number of ways, and emails have been made public that indicate that most of those virologists campaigning hard for public acceptance of the natural origin hypothesis don’t actually believe it themselves.

There is no direct evidence for a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) but there is considerable circumstantial evidence to support it, including the following:

The only place a close relative of SARS-CoV-2 has ever been found in nature is a cave in Yunnan (1500 kilometers away from Wuhan) where six miners contracted a severe SARS-like infection in 2012 which killed three of them. The WIV collected coronavirus samples from the cave in 2013, but after the pandemic began the WIV attempted to hide most of this information. They have not allowed outside scientists to examine any of these samples and claim that the samples no longer exist. There is a record of a Chinese scientist from the WIV contacting American colleagues shortly after the beginning of the pandemic complaining that the Chinese government was forcing them to destroy all their samples. Independent investigators have been prevented by the Chinese government from examining the cave in Yunnan.

SARS-CoV-2 is a chimeric virus with a spike protein insert of unknown origin. A chimeric virus is a virus constructed of strands of RNA from multiple different viruses. This can occur in nature when two different coronaviruses infect the exact same cell of an individual person or animal. Nevertheless, it is well documented that the WIV was creating chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses, inserting spike proteins from other coronaviruses into them, and then guiding these SARS-related chimeric coronaviruses to evolve to be more pathogenic to humans by passaging them through "humanized" mice. After the pandemic began, the WIV, the foreign scientists involved, and the US agencies that partially funded these experiments all tried to cover up the fact that they occurred and lied to the public about them. It’s also notable that three researchers from the WIV were hospitalized a month before the major outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan.

Unlike previous cases of coronavirus zoonotic transfer, SARS-CoV-2 was already highly adapted to infecting humans when it first appeared. This is evolutionarily implausible to have occurred suddenly, and therefore means that either SARS-CoV-2 was the result of passaging in a lab or it had circulated in the population for a long time without anyone noticing. I personally find the latter less likely of the two possibilities in light of all the circumstantial evidence supporting the former.

Whether or not SARS-CoV-2 was the result of a lab leak, the efforts to suppress inquiry and the dishonesty on the part of scientists and government agencies remains something to be concerned about.

[swabian]

Alright, alright. Thank you.

So in consequence, you think there should be some sort of international, concerted effort to tell the Chinese that they need to watch their virologic detachments.

Maybe they need to be rigorously spied upon then, so the rest of the world has the ability to prepare for whatever they're cooking up in their laboratories.

[Cyclops]

There's a lot of different competing agendas in the health-o-sphere, profit, goodwill, empire building and ignorance as a political motivator are some of the big ones here. The US still provides some of the best high level expertise on pandemic through the CDC (and I imagine other agencies), but they also have predatory HMOs .

Fauci has been in his post through several administrations (Google says he's been advising Presidents as far back as Reagan) so he's been an apolitical figure up until 2020. I think he's become a focus because he gave advice that conflicted with the Orange Idiot and the red hate machine turned on him reflexively: just as reflexively the blue hate machine idolised him.

I guess you don't survive in a semi-political appointment for decades (even in a motherhood role like health) without working the system and the system in the US has some dirty parts. In fact you can't really get anywhere without eating some kind of **** sandwich, even people who give you the impression they might actually be human. Pence had to work with Trump. Obama had to have a Clinton in his cabinet. It seems Fauci is involved in some lines of scientific enquiry that he (or someone he owes) doesn't want looked at too hard.

Politically its meh, the US system has a lot worse things going on. Medically it looks like a disgrace.

[Heathen Hammer]

Turns out that scientists that dismissed to Wuhan lab theory have links to Chinese government researchers.
It does more and more look like Chinese government is playing with toys that could kill half the planet, potentially, and their neoliberal Manchurian pawns among Western politicians and media are falling over each other trying to cover up for their owner.

[sumskilz]

Here's an hour long discussion/debate about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 sponsored by AAAS and the journal Science: ‘Lab-leak’ and natural origin proponents face off—civilly—in forum on pandemic origins

[Ludicus]

There is a huge irony here. The American right has been saying for the last two years that China is to blame for causing the pandemic, and now they blame their own country.

[Cope]

I don't think anyone of note has stated that GOF research done with US funding was the cause of the pandemic.

[sumskilz]

As mentioned in the other thread, DARPA declined to fund this grant proposal:

On September 20, a group of internet sleuths calling themselves DRASTIC (short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) released a leaked $14 million grant proposal that EcoHealth Alliance had submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

It proposed partnering with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and constructing SARS-related bat coronaviruses into which they would insert “human-specific cleavage sites” as a way to “evaluate growth potential” of the pathogens. Perhaps not surprisingly, DARPA rejected the proposal, assessing that it failed to fully address the risks of gain-of-function research.

The leaked grant proposal struck a number of scientists and researchers as significant for one reason. One distinctive segment of SARS-CoV-2’s genetic code is a furin cleavage site that makes the virus more infectious by allowing it to efficiently enter human cells. That is just the feature that EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology had proposed to engineer in the 2018 grant proposal. “If I applied for funding to paint Central Park purple and was denied, but then a year later we woke up to find Central Park painted purple, I’d be a prime suspect,” said Jamie Metzl, a former executive vice president of the Asia Society, who sits on the World Health Organization’s advisory committee on human genome editing and has been calling for a transparent investigation into COVID-19’s origins.

They certainly could have carried out these or similar experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology without DARPA funding. What is without question though, is that Peter Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance failed to mention any of this since the pandemic began. Possibly because Daszak was too busy on his media tour talking about how it was a wild conspiracy theory to suggest any such experiments could have taken place.

[Ludicus]

I don't think anyone of note has stated that GOF research done with US funding was the cause of the pandemic.

Rand Paul. According to Rand Paul,Fauci emails reveal he has "Moral Culpability" for pandemic."There’s culpability in that he’s a big supporter of the funding."At the very least, there is moral culpability" Rand said, claiming that Wuhan scientists gave Fauci credit for the development of the virus.

[Cope]

Rand Paul. According to Rand Paul,Fauci emails reveal he has "Moral Culpability" for pandemic."There’s culpability in that he’s a big supporter of the funding."At the very least, there is moral culpability" Rand said, claiming that Wuhan scientists gave Fauci credit for the development of the virus.

Paul stated that he wasn't accusing the NIH of funding the specific GOF research which allegedly caused the pandemic. Obviously the NIH/Fauci will be morally culpable if it is proven that they were funding the same sort of dangerous research at the Wuhan Institute which allegedly caused the pandemic.

[Cyclops]

Rand Paul. According to Rand Paul,Fauci emails reveal he has "Moral Culpability" for pandemic."There’s culpability in that he’s a big supporter of the funding."At the very least, there is moral culpability" Rand said, claiming that Wuhan scientists gave Fauci credit for the development of the virus.

Rand Paul sounds like a populist **** stirrer. Screw him.

The US medical system is deeply compromised by political and capitalist infiltration. It would surprising if Fauci didn't have to lie or mislead people just to survive in that wretched environment. He survived numerous presidents so I'd say he's a fair dancer, but even the best put a foot wrong.

[conon394]

As mentioned in the other thread, DARPA declined to fund this grant proposal:

They certainly could have carried out these or similar experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology without DARPA funding. What is without question though, is that Peter Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance failed to mention any of this since the pandemic began. Possibly because Daszak was too busy on his media tour talking about how it was a wild conspiracy theory to suggest any such experiments could have taken place.

It was never clear why Daszak was allowed to be part the poorly run WHO investigation that China stonewalled. He should have recused himself. Even if is absolutely right and he never participated in the kind of GoF that could have caused the outbreak the appearance/optics look bad.

----------------

@Cope

Wow I wish republicans would take the glee they get out attacking Science funding into oversight of the Pentagon