One more Scientist Who Publicly Dismissed Lab Leak Gave This Credence in Private E-mail

When it comes to the lab leak theory of Covid origins, there’ s a lot of  inconsistency  between what scientists have got announced in public and what they’ ve revealed in personal. First, there was Professor Kristian Andersen, an American virologist. Writing to Anthony Fauci on 1st February 2020, he or she said of the virus that “ some of the features (potentially) look […]#@@#@!!

When it comes to the lab leak theory of Covid origins, there’s a lot of  inconsistency   between what scientists possess announced in public and what they already have revealed in private.

First, there was clearly Professor Kristian Andersen, a north american virologist. Writing to Anthony Fauci on 1st Feb 2020, he said of the virus that “ a few of the features (potentially) look engineered”, adding that he and several co-workers “ all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory”.

Mere weeks later, Andersen co-authored a  paper   stating, “ we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible”.

Next, there is Professor Jeremy Farrar, mind of the UK’s Wellcome Believe in. He wrote in his book  Spike that he initially  believed   there was a 50% chance the virus had leaked out from a lab, and that some other scientists to whom he’d spoke had put the portion even higher.

Yet Farrar signed the particular infamous  Lancet   letter, which referred to claims that “ COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” since “ conspiracy theories”.

A new freedom info request, made by the group  U. S. Right to Know , has  revealed   that  another writer of the Lancet letter provided credence to the lab leak in a private email. Teacher Charles Calisher, an American epidemiologist, said he did not observe how “ anyone could definitively state that the virus could not probably have come from that lab”.

Interestingly, Calisher’s email was sent one month  after   the Lancet letter’s distribution, which means he either changed his mind or had not been expressing his true beliefs when he co-signed the particular letter.

According to a Mar 2021  article   in the  MIT Technology Review,   Calisher said the particular “ conspiracy-theory phrase” had been “ over the top”. However , the article doesn’t make clear regardless of whether Calisher believed this at the time he co-signed the notice, or whether he eventually came to believe it.

In any case, calling the lab leak a “ conspiracy theory” is a pretty strong statement. So if Calisher  did modify his mind about it, can have let the public know – for example , by removing his name from the letter, or even clarifying his position in certain other public forum.

What’s more, in September of 2021, Calisher  told   The Telegraph   that “ the letter never intended to suggest that Covid might not have a natural origin, instead that there was insufficient data. ” But this doesn’t seem sensible.

If the letter’s purposes was merely to suggest “ there was inadequate data”, it wouldn’t used the phrase “ conspiracy theory”, or else it would have got dismissed  both   the natural origin  and   the lab leak because “ conspiracy theories”. For instance , it might have said, ‘ We stand together in order to strongly condemn unfounded speculation about the origin of COVID-19′.

There’s a lot about the official narrative to the lab leak that doesn’t mount up. The public has a right to know why so many scientists made blatantly unscientific claims that will contradict their private correspondence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *