WHO Investigation Into COVID-19 Origin Is Blatantly Corrupt

When an investigation is led by people with monetary {and professional} stakes in the end result, what occurs? Nothing. And that’s the place we’re at with the World Health Organization’s investigative crew1 tasked with attending to the backside of SARS-CoV-2’s origin.

The WHO’s investigative fee contains Peter Daszak, Ph.D.,2 the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit group that has an in depth working relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), having outsourced a number of gain-of-function analysis initiatives to it. When SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in Wuhan, China, the EcoHealth Alliance was really funding the WIV to gather and research novel bat coronaviruses.

Not solely has Daszak gone on public document dismissing the potential of the pandemic being the results of a lab leak,3 calling the notion “crackpot,” “preposterous” and “pure baloney,”4 he was additionally the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific assertion, printed in The Lancet and signed by 26 further scientists, condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”5,6

This manufactured “scientific consensus” was then relied on by the media to “debunk” theories and proof exhibiting the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory.

WHO’s Investigative Team Dismisses Lab Origin Theory

Considering Daszak’s private involvement with gain-of-function research generally, and analysis efforts at WIV particularly, he has lots of motivation to verify the blame for the COVID-19 pandemic will not be laid at the toes of researchers equivalent to himself, particularly these at WIV.

So, it was no shock in anyway when the WHO, February 9, 2021, introduced its investigators had concluded the WIV and two different biosafety stage 4 laboratories in Wuhan had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak, and that the lab-escape concept would not be a part of the crew’s investigation.7,8,9

Interestingly, Alina Chan, a molecular biologist on the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, factors out that SARS-related work has additionally been performed in BSL2 and BSL3 labs, which have been excluded from the investigation.10 The crew additionally was not geared up or designed to conduct a forensic examination of laboratory practices.11 Rather, they relied on information obtained instantly from the Chinese crew.

According to the WHO crew chief, Danish meals security and zoonosis scientist Ben Embarek, the officers at WIV “are the best ones to dismiss the claims and provide answers” concerning the potential for a lab leak. However, that line of reasoning hardly passes the odor check.

As famous by GM Watch, it “defies common sense: Suspects in an investigation should clearly not be treated as ‘the best ones’ to dismiss any possible charges against them.”12 Embarek additional insisted that lab accidents are “extremely rare,” therefore it’s “very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place.”13 Yet that is one other fully unconvincing argument.

According to the Cambridge Working Group in 2014, “biosafety incidents involving regulated pathogens have been occurring on average over twice a week” within the U.S. alone,14,15 and a Beijing virology lab by chance launched the unique SARS virus on no lower than 4 separate events.16 Three of these 4 cases led to outbreaks.17

Experts Condemn Conflicted WHO Inquiry

Many specialists are now condemning the WHO’s inquiry as a sham and a political stunt to exonerate the Chinese authorities.18 And, on the entrance of this sham investigation is Daszak himself, who was hand chosen by Chinese authorities to be on the WHO’s investigative crew within the first place. As reported by GM Watch:19

“The lengths that China is going to in an effort to management the WHO’s narrative was highlighted in John Sudworth’s report20 on the press convention for the BBC. It confirmed Chinese officers stopping him from interviewing a WHO crew member after the press convention.

Nobody tried to stop him interviewing Peter Daszak, nevertheless. In truth, Daszak has given so many media interviews throughout the WHO crew’s time in China that he has, within the phrases of 1 commentator, established himself as ‘the public voice of the WHO team.’”

Unherd additionally reported on the controversial WHO investigation:21

“The specialists have been adamant: there isn’t any want for additional inquiries into this idea since it’s ‘extremely unlikely’ to be the reason for this world disaster. It was no shock to listen to such claims from Liang Wannian, the Chinese professor on the rostrum.

He is, in spite of everything, head of the Covid-19 panel at their National Health Commission who led Beijing’s response to the disaster. He has defended his authorities’s ‘decisive’ method, regardless of the silencing of medical doctors making an attempt to warn their fellow residents, the denials of human transmission, the deletions of key information and the reluctance to share genetic sequencing22

Yet how shameful to see the WHO … diminish itself once more by kowtowing to China’s dictatorial regime in such craven fashion. Beijing fiercely resisted this mission for months, even imposing sanctions on Australia after it referred to as for such an inquiry.

It gave consent after appreciable haggling in return for the proper to vet the crew of scientists. Lo and behold, these picked included … Daszak, who has labored with Wuhan scientists for years on their controversial experiments and led efforts to dismiss claims of any lab leak as ‘baseless.’ Now abruptly it is a ‘WHO-China Joint Study’ — and it appears the chosen specialists see their process as promoting China’s story to the planet.”

Indeed, China seems to be purposely hiding a lot of the scientific information the world wants if we’re ever to unravel the place SARS-CoV-2 got here from, which makes the WHO’s catering to China all of the extra suspicious.

As reported by OpIndia23 and others,24 a essential database in China that holds the genetic sequences of greater than 22,000 samples, together with greater than 100 unpublished sequences of bat coronaviruses and all bat coronavirus gain-of-function analysis information from the WIV, was introduced offline in September 2019. The WIV-affiliated database created by the National Virus Resource Center was additionally made inaccessible to the skin world.

According to OpIndia, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has acknowledged there’s “reason to believe” WIV researchers grew to become ailing within the fall of 2019 which, if true, would coincide with the takedown of those essential databases.25 Below, I’ll additionally evaluation further proof suggesting WIV employees could have gotten ailing as early as August 2017.

WHO Sticks to Natural Origin Theory

According to the WHO crew and its Chinese counterparts, one concept nonetheless within the working is that SARS-CoV-2 piggybacked its means into the Wuhan market in shipments of frozen meals from different areas of China, the place coronavirus-carrying bats are identified to reside, and even different nations.26,27 Australian beef was apparently provided up as one potential abroad supply.28

In an interview with CNN, Daszak referred to discovering SARS-CoV-2 on frozen animal meals as “a striking piece of evidence,” because the animal meats in query, together with ferret badgers, have been recognized as potential intermediate hosts.29

And that brings us to a different promoted concept, which is that the virus mutated and jumped species naturally, going from bats to an middleman host equivalent to pangolin, cat or mink, earlier than mutating right into a virus able to infecting a human host.

A 3rd concept is that an contaminated particular person introduced the virus into the Wuhan market, though no particulars on who which may have been, or the place they could have contracted the an infection within the first place have been offered.

WHO has now declared its China investigation accomplished, and is contemplating increasing its scope to look into different nations because the potential supply of the virus. Not surprisingly, Chinese state media are reporting that Wuhan has been “cleared of guilt” and is not a suspected origin of the pandemic. The Chinese Foreign Ministry can be calling for an investigation into American-based laboratories.30

New Evidence of Lab Origin Emerges

Meanwhile, simply two weeks earlier than the WHO formally dismissed the lab leak concept and took it off the desk for future inquiries, a new research31 by Dr. Steven Quay — a extremely revered and one of many most-cited scientists in the world32 — was printed, claiming to point out “past an affordable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 will not be a pure zoonosis however as an alternative is laboratory derived.”

In the brief video above, Quay summarizes the findings of his Bayesian evaluation. His 193-page paper goes into the total particulars and could be downloaded from zenodo.org33 for those that wish to dive into the nitty gritty of this statistical evaluation.

Bayesian evaluation,34 or Bayesian inference, is a statistical device used to reply questions on unknown parameters through the use of chance distributions for observable information. As reported by PR Newswire:35

“Beginning with a chance of 98.2% that it was a zoonotic soar from nature with solely a 1.2% chance it was a laboratory escape, 26 completely different, impartial details and proof have been examined systematically. The closing conclusion is that it’s a 99.8% chance SARS-CoV-2 got here from a laboratory and solely a 0.2% chance it got here from nature.

‘Like many others, I am concerned about what appear to be significant conflicts of interest between members of the WHO team and scientists and doctors in China and how much this will impede an unbiased examination of the origin of SARS-CoV-2,’ mentioned Dr. Quay.

‘By taking solely publicly accessible, scientific proof about SARS-CoV-2 and utilizing extremely conservative estimates in my evaluation, I nonetheless conclude that it’s past an affordable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a laboratory.

The further proof of what seems to be adenovirus vaccine genetic sequences in specimens from 5 sufferers from December 2019 and sequenced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology requires a proof. You would see this type of information in a vaccine problem trial, for instance. Hopefully the WHO crew can get solutions to these questions.’”

Well, we now know that the WHO crew bought no such solutions, and have moved on to much less fertile fields of inquiry. Ironically, Quay primarily based the beginning chances used for his evaluation on the work of Daszak himself, amongst others.

Suspicious Activity at WIV in Fall of 2019

At the identical time, extra proof of “suspicious activity” on the WIV simply earlier than the official announcement of the COVID-19 outbreak has additionally emerged. As talked about, there are suspicions that WIV laboratory employees could have gotten sick as early as August 2019. According to a January 24, 2021, report by Australian Sky News,36 a January 16, 2021, truth sheet launched by the U.S. State Department states:

“The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.”

The truth sheet additional accuses the Chinese Communist Party of “systematically” stopping “a transparent and thorough investigation of the origin of the pandemic, instead choosing to devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation,” whereas stressing that the U.S. authorities nonetheless doesn’t know the place, when or how SARS-CoV-2 initially contaminated people.

They do not rule out a lab accident, nevertheless. The truth sheet additionally famous that China has a organic weapons program, and that the WIV has collaborated with the Chinese navy on “secret projects.”

Scientific Hubris Is a Serious Threat to Us All

December 18, 2020, Colin David Butler,37 Ph.D., of the Australian National University, printed an editorial38 within the Journal of Human Security through which he evaluations the historical past of pandemics from antiquity by COVID-19, together with proof supporting the pure origin and lab escape theories respectively. As famous by Butler:

“If the first theory is correct then it is a powerful warning, from nature, that our species is running a great risk. If the second theory is proven then it should be considered an equally powerful, indeed frightening, signal that we are in danger, from hubris as much as from ignorance.”

Indeed, scientific hubris might be on the coronary heart of our present downside. Why are sure scientists so reluctant to confess there’s proof of human interference? Why do they attempt to shut down dialogue? Could it’s as a result of they’re making an attempt to make sure the continuation of gain-of-function analysis, regardless of the dangers?

We’re typically informed that this type of analysis is “necessary” in an effort to keep forward of the pure evolution of viruses, and that the dangers related to such analysis are minimal resulting from stringent security protocols.

Yet the proof exhibits a really completely different image. For the previous decade, pink flags have repeatedly been raised throughout the scientific neighborhood as biosecurity breaches in excessive containment organic labs within the U.S. and round the world have occurred with stunning frequency.39,40,41,42,43

As not too long ago as 2019, the BSL 4 lab in Fort Detrick was quickly shut down after a number of protocol violations have been famous.44 Asia Times45 lists a number of different examples of security breaches at BSL3 and BSL4 labs, as does a May 28, 2015, article in USA Today,46 an April 11, 2014, article in Slate journal47 and a November 16, 2020, article in Medium.48

Is Gain-of-Function Research Justifiable?

Clearly, attending to the underside of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is essential if we’re to stop an identical pandemic from erupting sooner or later. If gain-of-function analysis was actually concerned, we have to know, in order that steps can both be taken to stop one other leak (which isn’t probably potential) or to dismantle and ban such analysis altogether for the frequent good.

As lengthy as we’re creating the chance, the profit shall be secondary. Any scientific or medical positive factors produced from this type of analysis pales compared to the unimaginable dangers concerned if weaponized pathogens are launched, and it doesn’t matter if it’s by chance or on objective. This sentiment has been echoed by others in a wide range of scientific publications.49,50,51,52

Considering the potential for a massively deadly pandemic, I imagine it’s protected to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a really actual and severe existential menace to humanity.

Historical details inform us unintentional exposures and releases have already occurred, and we solely have our fortunate stars to thank that none have became pandemics taking the lives of tens of hundreds of thousands, as was predicted at first of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Seeing how scientists have already discovered a technique to mutate SARS-CoV-2 such that it evades human antibodies, as detailed in “Lab Just Made a More Dangerous COVID Virus,” having a frank, open dialogue concerning the scientific deserves of this type of work is extra pertinent than ever earlier than, and we shouldn’t permit the WHO’s dismissal of the lab origin concept dissuade us from such dialogue.


Source Link –

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

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

three × 5 =

Back to top button