Covid origins: update

I chanced to glance at my toothpaste tube the other day, and noticed written there the words “Made in China.” That was a Colgate origins update for me, you might say. I then scrambled to find something that was not made in China: my M100 mouse, my Sony wireless speaker, both bore the fated words. But at least the Bamix kitchen wand I was about to use to froth some soy milk had something else written on it: Made in Switzerland. So not everything was made in China. Although by way of a slap in the chops, a nearby box of lateral flow tests was (see featured image).

With “Made in China” echoing in my mind, my thoughts turned to Covid. In a way, I thought, it didn’t matter whether Covid escaped from a laboratory or arose because of squalid conditions in a wet market: it still bore the same stamp. Made in China. Intent to inflict harm does not accompany either origin scenario, but recklessness certainly does. There is though a third possibility, which would absolve China of recklessness too: that guano collectors picked up Covid in a cave and brought it to Wuhan as unwitting carriers.

[Aside: we in the UK need not gloat about our record of animal husbandry, given what happened re: BSE. Prions are intrinsically rather frightening. From wiki:

In 2015, researchers at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston found that plants can be a vector for prions. When researchers fed hamsters grass that grew on ground where a deer that died with chronic wasting disease (CWD) was buried, the hamsters became ill with CWD, suggesting that prions can bind to plants, which then take them up into the leaf and stem structure, where they can be eaten by herbivores, thus completing the cycle. It is thus possible that there is a progressively accumulating number of prions in the environment.

This story seems unlikely to me. Still, unlikely stories make for great fantasy apocalypses.]

Anyway, it seemed like a good time to update myself on the state of evidence regarding Covid origins theories. If you remember the evidence I listed as compiled in the article by Nicholas Wade, [who by the way now has a book out on Covid’s origins he’d like you to buy] you will know that the odds seemed to be heavily stacked in favour of a lab escape, but that the natural origins theory could not be discounted. What have developments been since?


Senate Committee hearings:

Senator Rand Paul, KY: Dr Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan?

Dr Anthony Fauci: Senator Paul, I have never lied before the congress and I do not retract that statement.

… a debate about what constitutes gain of function …

Dr Anthony Fauci: Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly, and I would like to say that officially. You do not know what you are talking about…


Top of the pops for August has to be the US intelligence services analysis. This first landed on the gawping Joe Biden’s desk, and he read it thoroughly, comprehended it well, and then authorised an unclassified summary to be released to the public on the 27th. Of eight (count ’em) intelligence community “elements”, four thought the outbreak began via natural exposure to an infected animal, one thought it escaped from the laboratory, and three could not make a determination either way. The “consensus” was that the coronavirus was not a bioweapon & that the authorities were blindsided by its appearance.

The IC judges they will be unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of COVID-19 unless new information allows them to determine the specific pathway for initial natural contact with an animal or to determine that a laboratory in Wuhan was handling SARSCoV-2 or a close progenitor virus before COVID-19 emerged.

Interesting that they should make such a sweeping statement when it seems obvious even to an informed bystander that there is plenty of information lurking in the viral genome. We have come a long way in the 100 years since the New Synthesis. To make an obvious point: an outbreak commencing from a single locus has an entirely different genetic construction than an outbreak arising from a population of virus adapting to a new host. So also does the unfolding future of a virus’s genetics vary depending on whether it was acquired from an animal in the wild or an animal in a lab, even if both alternatives represent a single species-jump event. How so? A hapless bat-guano collector would acquire a virus that is better adapted to living in a bat than a human, which must perforce undergo rapid selection to improve its fit to people. A virus that had been cycled through e.g. humanised mice would already be well adapted to infecting people, and would change less substantially. Plenty of scope there, one might think, to discriminate between the alternative origins theories. [The infectivity of Covid at its appearance is a measure of its adaptation to humans, and an inverse measure of the likelihood of a natural origin.]


After suing the NIH for failing to release requested information under FOI laws, The Intercept finally got the goods in September:

Documents obtained by The Intercept contain new evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the nearby Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment, along with their collaborator, the U.S.-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, have engaged in what the U.S. government defines as “gain-of-function research of concern,” intentionally making viruses more pathogenic or transmissible in order to study them, despite stipulations from a U.S. funding agency that the money not be used for that purpose.

The experiments involved making a Frankenvirus and infecting Frankenmice, which suffered more from an infection by the new virus than the original.

Not to worry, these Frankenviruses don’t remotely resemble Covid, so these cackling mad labcoats could not have started the pandemic that way. I also refer the reader back to the exchange between Paul and Fauci above.


Another piece of evidence emerged a fortnight later in the form of another grant proposal by our friends the EcoHealth Alliance unearthed by the team of, ahem, oddballs, calling themselves DRASTIC, which apparently stands for “A bunch of people on the internet searching for clues.” The grant proposal was rejected by DARPA, but so apparently was Victor Frankenstein’s. According to The Intercept again:

…the proposal describes the process of looking for novel furin cleavage sites in bat coronaviruses the scientists had sampled and inserting them into the spikes of SARS-related viruses in the laboratory.

The Intercept quotes Alina Chan, who has an upcoming book about Covid she’d love you to buy:

“Let’s look at the big picture: A novel SARS coronavirus emerges in Wuhan with a novel cleavage site in it. We now have evidence that, in early 2018, they had pitched inserting novel cleavage sites into novel SARS-related viruses in their lab,” said Chan. “This definitely tips the scales for me. And I think it should do that for many other scientists too.”

Yes, it’s that darned furin cleavage site again. Covid isn’t supposed to have it, but it does. It might have evolved naturally, but that seems like a long shot. Now we know that our giggling splicer friends wanted DARPA to pay them to insert one, but DARPA said no. We don’t know whether an alternative funding stream was tapped for this vital and risk-free experiment.


Also in September came a strike in favour of the natural origins theory. Bat coronaviruses were found in Laos that had a 95% match to Covid:

To make the discovery, Marc Eloit, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and his colleagues in France and Laos, took saliva, faeces and urine samples from 645 bats in caves in northern Laos. In three horseshoe (Rhinolophus) bat species, they found viruses that are each more than 95% identical to SARS-CoV-2, which they named BANAL-52, BANAL-103 and BANAL-236.

Why they had to give them such portentous names is a mystery.

Researchers say that parts of [the three BANAL viruses’] genetic code bolster claims that the virus behind COVID-19 has a natural origin.

However, 95% similar is not that similar. Not similar enough that these BANAL strains might have given rise to Covid directly. In fact:

…the Laos viruses don’t contain the so-called furin cleavage site on the spike protein that further aids the entry of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses into human cells.

Right, so it’s got this key piece missing that no other coronavirus has, this piece that our humanised mice jugglers wanted to insert into a coronavirus, and that makes it perfectly obvious that it has a natural origin.


Covid-19: Lancet investigation into origin of pandemic shuts down over bias risk

The work of a task force commissioned by the Lancet into the origins of covid-19 has folded after concerns about the conflicts of interest of one its members and his ties through a non-profit organisation to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Task force chair Jeffrey Sachs, economics professor at Columbia University in New York, told the Wall Street Journal that he had shut down the scientist led investigation into how the covid-19 pandemic started because of concerns about its links to the EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit organisation run by task force member Peter Daszak.


Daszak is a name we remember, as the orchestrator of an early letter to the Lancet referring to the lab-leak hypothesis as a “conspiracy theory.” The authors of that letter declared that they had no conflicts of interest. It subsequently emerged that Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance had been funding the WIV for research that might in hindsight be considered reckless:

But Daszak’s story began falling apart last November when the non-profit group US Right to Know published emails gathered through a freedom of information request that showed he had orchestrated the Lancet statement without disclosing that he was funding Shi Zhengli [Bat Lady] through grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Daszak’s EcoHealth was also mentioned above in connection with Frankenvirus grant proposals.


On 5th October, the WSJ carried an opinion piece titled: “Science Closes In on Covid’s Origins” by Richard Muller and Steven Quay. The authors were in no doubt that the “natural origins” theory is kaput. Top on their list of reasons is the lack of evidence of a host shift. As already mentioned, a bat coronavirus is, naturally, adapted to infect bats. If it infects a human, it is likely to do so in a suboptimal way, to the extent that said human is unlikely to pass on the virus to another human:

Within months of the SARS-1 and MERS outbreaks, scientists found animals that had hosted the viruses before they made the jump to humans. More than 80% of the animals in affected markets were infected with a coronavirus.

Naturally if the animal reservoir for Covid had been found, it would have been trumpeted from the ramparts, and people would have poked conspiracy theorists in the chest saying, “See! We told you so, you losers.” That it was so easy to find such a reservoir in the previous two analogous coronavirus outbreaks, but rather difficult/impossible this time is an obvious strike against the natural origins theory.

This, together with the presence of the anomalous furin cleavage site, means that,

…the odds enormously favor a lab leak, far more significantly than the 99% confidence usually required for a revolutionary scientific discovery.

Muller is an emeritus professor at UC Berkeley (and I presume the same Muller as in Berkeley Earth), and Quay, by some uncanny confluence of events, has a book out on Covid’s origins he’d like you to buy.


Also on 5th October, an article in the Telegraph discussed the grant proposal rejected by DARPA, as well as the new Laotian BANAL strains:

So far the closest naturally occurring virus to Sars-CoV-2 is a strain called Banal-52, which was reported from Laos last month and shares 96.8 per cent of the genome. Yet scientists expect a direct ancestor to be around a 99.98 per cent match – and none has been found so far.

The Telegraph quotes “a WHO collaborator, who has asked not to be named for fear of reprisals.” Perhaps “collaborator” is a poor term. “Reprisals” is certainly an ominous one. But the anonymous expert explained the grant proposal in terms that anyone could understand: the plan was to harvest multiple virus strains, sequence them, create an “average”, build the RNA sequence for that average form, then use living cells as teeny-weeny factories to manufacture the actual virus that the RNA coded for.

The plans are in addition to other proposals made in the Darpa documents, including inserting a section into existing viruses to make them more infectious to humans and inoculating wild bats with aerosolised engineered spike proteins from viruses.

The idea seems to have been to try to create an aerosolised vaccine: you synthesise the spike proteins and hose them around the place, then see if your victims, er, experimental subjects, develop immunity to the actual virus. Seems like a rational approach to me.


Finally, I wanted to mention a story in the Mail:

What are they hiding? At the start of Covid many scientists believed it likely leaked from Wuhan lab – until a conference call with Patrick Vallance changed their minds. We asked for his emails about the call. This is what we got . . .

’nuff said. We obviously need those armchair warriors at DRASTIC to get in on the game to find out more.

Like this:

Like Loading…


via Climate Scepticism

October 9, 2021 at 10:58AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s