As I have been writing about the Wuhan lab leak theory and NIH/NIAID funding of gain-of-function research over the last few weeks, I’ve become extremely familiar with the players involved in this type of research and with the Wuhan Institute of Virology specifically. Most of them are scientists who are deeply regarded by many to be the smartest people on the face of the planet. Many of those names, however, were relatively unknown until Sen. Rand Paul began pushing for an additional look at whether or not this virus was accidentally released from the WIV.
Many of those people are publicly defending China and outright rejecting any possibility that this pandemic could have been the result of a lab leak, defending Dr. Shi Zhengli.
For instance, Dr. Ralph Baric, who up until a few weeks ago had stayed out of questioning the source of the virus, joined over a dozen other viral experts in the world in a letter calling for additional investigation into the accidental Wuhan Lab Release theory. The group cited the lack of transparency by both China and the WHO, and the inability to reproduce analyses due to China’s refusal to produce source data:
Notably, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus commented that the report’s consideration of evidence supporting a laboratory accident was insufficient and offered to provide additional resources to fully evaluate the possibility.
We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight, and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of conflicts of interest. Public health agencies and research laboratories alike need to open their records to the public. Investigators should document the veracity and provenance of data from which analyses are conducted and conclusions drawn, so that analyses are reproducible by independent experts.
There are still other scientists who claim there is no way this virus came from the lab, including Dr. Peter Daszek, the President of EcoHealth Alliance, who has not only performed studies at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in conjunction with Dr. Shi Zhengli but has been the funnel by which NIH (US Taxpayer) funds have been given to the WIV for these potentially dangerous GoF experiments.
Also coming to the defense of the WIV and Dr. Shi is Dr. Jonna A. Mazet, an American Epidemiologist and global director of PREDICT, which, as we have previously covered, is the organization that has teamed up with EcoHealth Alliance to fund GoF research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In fact, Mazet’s defense almost solely relies on the testimony of Dr. Shi. Dr. Shi has been adamant that the virus did not originate at her lab.
But there’s one question the MSM (and as a result, almost everyone else) has avoided with Dr. Shi’s denial:
What choice does Dr. Shi have, but to deny a lab leak?
Certainly, the potential exists that this was a zoonotic (natural mutation) event. It can be reliably scientifically proven that the original SARS outbreak was a zoonotic event; however, the definitive nature of this reporting was not 100% confirmed until 2017, 14 years after the original outbreak. Meanwhile, Chinese officials allegedly had the SARS-CoV-2 source figured out in a matter of weeks. To believe their claim, however, is to assume that the virus came from a cave 900 miles from the outbreak point in Wuhan, infecting not a single soul between the two points.
Yet, when we talk about Dr. Shi’s vehement assertions that the virus didn’t come from her lab, we are relying upon a literal employee of the Chinese Government. While everyone may be able to vouch for the intent behind Dr. Shi’s statements, none of these people would ever be able to argue that Dr. Shi’s testimony could be honest if the virus did originate at the lab. In 2020, Dr. Shi, who is fluent in many languages including Mandarin, English, and French, conducted an interview with Nature magazine, in which she was questioned about the potential origin of SARS-CoV-2. The interview was conducted via email, with a set of written questions being answered in written form in return. Of course, questioning whether or not Dr. Shi needed to have her answers approved by CCP officials is “racist” or “xenophobic.”
That’s the point, though. While we concede that Dr. Shi may be honest about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, we also need to be honest about the fact that Shi may also be under the thumb of Chinese government officials who have every motivation in the world to cover up that potential and that Dr. Shi’s life literally hangs in the balance of her cooperation with Chinese government officials. If the virus came from her lab, she could never say so, and even if she ever attempted to, she would be forcefully silenced, jailed, or even worse, killed for doing so.
Instead of questioning the motives of those pointing out the irregularities between China’s reporting of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak (and the subsequent lack of transparency), the media should be questioning how Dr. Shi could ever tell the world that the virus came from her lab. If they were honest with themselves, they would know deep down, that she couldn’t.