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.