Scientists released a pair of studies on Saturday that once again reprise the assertion that the COVID-19 pandemic began in a Wuhan market, not a lab.
The basis of the hypothesis is that the coronavirus was “very likely” present in live mammals that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market sold in late 2019.
In essence, researchers say that the samples they took from the Huanan market tested positive for two evolutionary branches of the virus, known as lineages A and B. Both lineages circulated in the earlier casts of COVID-19 in China.
The report supposedly debunks earlier findings that linked only lineage B to this specific Huanan market. Here is why this difference is important: lineage B evolved after lineage A. Therefore, if the market was only connected to lineage B, it would suggest that the virus arrived at the market after spreading around Wuhan.
This finding instead proposes the idea that on two separate occasions, people working or shopping at the market became infected with the virus. The experts from whom the New York Times sought comment are giddy about that possibility.
“When you look at all of the evidence together, it’s an extraordinarily clear picture that the pandemic started at the Huanan market,” Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona who co-authored both studies, told the Times.
An extraordinarily clear picture, huh? While the studies are compelling — and I encourage everyone to read them — the research does not disprove the lab leak theory, as the Times says.
First of all, the studies have not been peer-reviewed.
Secondly, Researchers could also not identify which animal at the market spread the virus to humans. Why is that?
Next, the studies include notable gaps in logic. If the lab theory is wrong, then that means a novel bat coronavirus just so happened to originate about 400 yards from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which studies bat coronaviruses. If so, then that’s quite an unfortunate coincidence.
Moreover, three researchers who worked at the WIV fell ill with COVID-like symptoms in late 2019 as they helped conduct “gain-of-function” research. Gain-of-function research, at the center of the lab leak theory, involves supercharging viruses to increase their lethality. Leaked emails now show that Dr. Fauci and other scientists discussed this specific research and COVID’s “unusual features” in early 2020, raising suspicions of a cover-up
And though this evidence is circumstantial, two doctors argued last year in the Wall Street Journal that the science points to a lab origin as well. Scientists found a CGG-CGG combination in CoV-2, but have never found that combination naturally in other SARS-related diseases. This suggests COVID’s origin was manmade.
“Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?” Dr. Steven Quay, founder of Atossa Therapeutics, argued in the WSJ.
So why has the New York Times so quickly declared Saturday’s finding to be true? Well, the Times is motivated to dismiss the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s involvement in COVID-19 to absolve its own role in what could be a worldwide cover-up.
In August, the Spectator uncovered that a top editor at the New York Times instructed staffers not to investigate the origins of COVID-19, that they were to push only a zoonotic origin. You can read more about that here — it’s media corruption at its finest.
After you read that, then follow the money. This past summer, Tucker Carlson found that the New York Times has long accepted money from the Chinese government. Carlson reports that the totalitarian regime had been paying the New York Times, once America’s paper of record, more than $100,000 a month to print propaganda and that the Times stopped doing so only after the Washington Free Beacon revealed its shady agreement with the CCP.
So if we are to believe that the coronavirus originated naturally, we need more evidence than just the reported statements of compromised journalists and scientists, the same people who have been wrong from the start.
The Times wants us to believe Dr. Thea Fischer, an epidemiologist at the University of Copenhagen, who says the wet market theory is again “very convincing.”
Hmm. This new, or old, theory from the Times sounds more convenient than convincing.