Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus arise from a bat coronavirus research program in a Chinese laboratory? Very possibly.
By: Milton Leitenberg (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)
Plausible but unproven possibilities doesn't make a "conspiracy theory". If that were true, then the entire episode of Russian collusion during the last election was a conspiracy theory.
The assessment in the article is rather long so only an excerpt has been provided. Click on the seed link to read the full assessment.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On May 15, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published a short commentary titled, "Let evidence, not talk radio, determine whether the outbreak started in a lab," by Ali Nouri, a biologist and president of the Federation of American Scientists. "The outbreak" referred to the pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 now circling the globe. It is a thin commentary, and it is puzzling why the Bulletin thought it desirable to publish it at all. Only two weeks earlier the journal had published a reasoned and competent appraisal by Kings College London biosecurity expert Filippa Lentzos titled, "Natural spillover or research lab leak? Why a credible investigation is needed to determine the origin of the coronavirus pandemic."
The Nouri article very correctly pilloried the statements by President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, presidential legal advisor Rudy Giuliani, and radio personality Rush Limbaugh. These are as notorious a gang of four fabricators as will ever likely be recorded in American history. They were ably assisted by Fox News, which the Nouri critique also mentions. Nouri ended his commentary with these lines: "Our leaders ought to … take steps to prevent the next pandemic, instead of diverting our attention to unsupported sensationalist theories spread by cable TV and talk radio."
Perhaps the most damaging blows to efforts to obtain a certain answer as to the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 "outbreak" have been the pronouncements by Trump, Pompeo, and their echo chambers. But they and their remarks are not the measure by which the question of the possibility that a laboratory escape began the pandemic should be examined. Trump's diversionary ranting comes from a president who did nothing for two months in the face of an oncoming lethal pandemic, actively denied and denigrated intelligence warnings of the imminent danger, and said that SARS-CoV-2 would "just go away … like a miracle" and that "within a couple of days is going to be down close to zero." All this has been widely and thoroughly chronicled.1
But long before Trump, Pompeo and Co. sought a Chinese scapegoat for the president's gross and willful incompetence, researchers understood that the possibility of laboratory escape of the pathogen was a plausible, if unproven, possibility. It is most definitely not "a conspiracy theory."
The circumstantial evidence for a lab escape. By way of introduction, there are two virology institutes in Wuhan to consider, not one: The Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention (WHCDC) and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Both have conducted large projects on novel bat viruses and maintained large research collections of novel bat viruses, and at least the WIV possessed the virus that is the most closely related known virus in the world to the outbreak virus, bat virus RaTG13. This virus was isolated in 2013 and had its genome published on January 23, 2020. Seven more years of bat coronavirus collection followed the 2013 RaTG13 isolation.
One component of the novel-bat-virus project at the Wuhan Institute of Virology involved infection of laboratory animals with bat viruses. Therefore, the possibility of a lab accident includes scenarios with direct transmission of a bat virus to a lab worker, scenarios with transmission of a bat virus to a laboratory animal and then to a lab worker, and scenarios involving improper disposal of laboratory animals or laboratory waste.
Documentary evidence indicates that the novel-bat-virus projects at Wuhan CDC and the Wuhan Institute of Virology used personal protective equipment and biosafety standards that would pose high risk of accidental infection of a lab worker upon contact with a virus having the transmission properties of the outbreak virus.
In assessing the possibility of a lab accident, one must take into consideration each of the following eight elements of circumstantial evidence:
Tags
Who is online
108 visitors
The assessment does present a plausible case for a laboratory in Wuhan being the original source for the pandemic. The assessment is supported by citation of sources, too.
At most this can only prove SARs not MERS, and it was MERS that had a mortality rate of over 35%.
Footnote: We helped the Chinese build the Wuhan lab, so if anyone should know if it is possible for an accidental release of a disease, it should be our government.
Also, all these labs were supposed to be closed down, per UN, but they now call bioweapon labs "research labs". Here is the list of countries that have them:
Yes, several countries operate bioweapons programs. But SARS-CoV-2 is not a practical bioweapon for the simple fact that the virus cannot be controlled. A pathogen capable of pandemic is not attractive for use as a bioweapon.
Let's have a conspiracy theory contest. The one that is the farthest from reality will be the winner (as long as it blames China). Here's my theory:
At this moment I'm hearing from down below a drum band announcing the opening of a new store in the mall adjoining my apartment building. The sound of the drums MUTATES the cicadas in the trees and causes them to be the source of the original virus. Some Chinese people roast and eat cicadas (I was once offered one to taste but passed on it) and then the virus develops within the eater and is passed on from person to person. It had nothing to do with bats, and it never actually originated in Wuhan, but in Taiwan, which is why the WHO paid no attention to the early reports from Taipei, since it didn't come from Taiwan's head office - Beijing.
Hurry up to see if you can beat my theory - because there's a new one every day, especially if it can point to being caused by China.
I see you continue to deny reality when it comes to the origin and spread of the Wuhan virus.
It's sad that you feel the need to support and defend the evil and corrupt government of your adopted country.
Obviously you're lacking in the sense of humour that enables you to identify what is obviously sarcasm as a reply to what is OBVIOUSLY yet another conspiracy theory. WAKE UP!!! I NEVER denied the virus started in China, I NEVER denied, and in fact posted here more than once that it angered me that the Chinese government silenced the whistleblower doctors, I NEVER denied, and in fact posted here more than once that it angered me that the Chinese government delayed providing information quickly enough that would have helped to curtail the spread. STOP FUCKING ACCUSING ME - ALTHOUGH I KNOW IT TAKES A BRAIN TO REALIZE THAT FOLLOWING THE O'DONNELL PLAYBOOK FOR REPUBLICANS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT ASSHOLE TRUMP HAS EVEN A CHANCE TO GET REELECTED, SO KEEP IT UP, BUT AT LEAST TELL THE TRUTH.
(Sorry for the shouting, but sometimes it takes a lot more effort to get through to some people.)
The assessment is not a conspiracy theory. The assessment is an accumulation of credible evidence that can be verified. Of course, much of that evidence is circumstantial. But there is also direct evidence included in the assessment from witnesses.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus first appeared in Hubei Province. China is the source of the pandemic. The assessment does not attempt to suggest that the government of China deliberately caused the pandemic. The assessment does include information that suggests governmental negligence may have been a significant contributing factor for the pandemic.
The important questions aren't just about what the Chinese government did. What the Chinese government didn't do is also important.
Whether or not the "assessment" is a compilation of concepts or not, there are as many theories that differ - so it is still no more than conjecture, but it does serve O'Donnell's playbook for Republicans to promote Trump's reelection. What the Chinese government did or didn't do is no more important than what Trump did and didn't do when it comes to the ASTRONOMICAL number of infections and deaths in America..
From the Article (emphasis mine):
I thought there was a pangolin involved in all this, also? No mention of that in the article.
There is no denying the fact that the very first cases were found in Wuhan city area. The lab(s) were close to the markets.
So...it's logical to assume that the labs and the Covid-19 outbreak are connected, since the labs were studying these very types of virus.
It's likely some poor innocent pangolin got caught up in this cluster fuck also.
Toronto is within the Buffalo snow belt, so it's logical to assume that the two cities are connected.
Chinese Doctor Disappears after Blowing the Whistle on Coronavirus Threat
What did he actually know and when did he know it ?
"Honest"
Enquiring minds want TO KNOW ! 
Enquiring minds don't read nationalreview.
You should want to read....EVERYTHING !
It's a REAL "Enquiring" mind thing to want to do, if your mind Truly wants to know....as much as possible !
Reading "ONE" book, doesn't make one "Smart".
Enquiring minds don't read or watch CNN, MSNBS, NYT, WaPo, et al.
.
The assessment addresses safety issues. Can the Chinese government and Chinese research institutes safely conduct bioresearch on human pathogens capable of pandemic? The assessment addresses questions about future scientific cooperation and research funding.
The assessment presented in the article concerns the ability of Chinese researchers to perform high risk research safely and securely. The assessment is not about the SARS-CoV-2 virus, itself.
Other reporting has indicated that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a hybrid of coronaviruses found in bats and coronaviruses found in pangolins. Hybridization would require coronaviruses from two species being brought together in a single host. The bats and pangolins do not share a common territory so it seems unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the wild.
I am going to assume that the author of the article uses a conclusion paragraph to sum up his findings, which is the paragraph that I posted. That is what the paper says, not me.
Also, According to the title:
The express purpose of the paper is to investigate the question, not to asses safety issues. Safety issues relative to the safe handling of biohazards is addressed, but as a function of evidence, not as the primary purpose of the paper.
Here is a map of the Pangolin range taken from wikipedia. It is from 2011, so I don't think that it has any skin in the game... Wuhan is located in the orange area of the map... I don't know what species or the range of the bats, but would it not make sense to have the bats located near the site of research. It does mention in the article about gathering the bats....
The safety and security issues are the core of the paper. The paper scrutinizes the potential for accidental release of the virus from a laboratory into the general population. The likelihood of an accidental release of the virus as cause of the outbreak depends upon lapses in safety and security measures employed by the laboratories.
The possibility of a a laboratory being the source of the outbreak depends entirely upon safety and security measures. Less stringent safety and security protocols and lapses in following protocols increases the probability of an accidental release of a pathogen into the general population.
The paper provides verifiable evidence that the laboratories in Hubei Province were engaged in the types of research that could have created the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The paper also provides evidence that the laboratories conducting the research followed less stringent safety and security protocols and the laboratories experienced lapses in following protocols.
The evidence does not definitively show that a research laboratory was the source of the outbreak. But the evidence does show that a research laboratory is as likely a source of the outbreak as other sources. The evidence does not allow dismissing a research laboratory being the source of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.
SARS-CoV-2 being a hybrid of coronaviruses from two species requires a host that has been infected by both viruses. To become a human pathogen, either a human host was infected by both viruses (meaning the human was in close contact with both bats and pangolins) or a non-human host infected with both viruses was in direct contact with humans.
Wet markets and research laboratories appear to be the most likely activities that satisfy the requirements of bringing humans into close contact with conronaviruses found in bats and pangolins. The assessment provides evidence that research laboratories cannot be dismissed as the origin of the outbreak that resulted in the pandemic.
Maybe the ones studying in America didn't steal enough secrets.
"Possible" is not conclusive, nor in fact is "probable" - it is mere conjecture based upon amassing facts that could OR COULD NOT be evidence upon which to base a DEFINITE conclusion.
It's possible that I could live another ten years, but IMO it's not probable.
I never equated possible or probable with conclusive. That is why my initial post was the summary paragraph.
Here.
Then why bother? Just to create and disseminate suspicion?
This is a news discussion sight, isn't it?
Yes, this is a news discussion site, but in this case the seed is not news, it is opinion.
Buzz, how people think is news. The arguments that people use to back up their propositions is newsworthy, isn't it? Please, if you have an argument with anything that I have posted, give the argument. We can then discuss our points of view on the matter. That is, hopefully, how we all grow.
Now with regard to the article, I don't personally think that the virus came out of a lab. You can take that, and if you can get $5 more, you may be able to buy yourself a coffee drink. I went to the site of the article, looked around a bit, and I found no obvious evidence that it was skewed politically or sociologically, so I read the article and commented on the same.
I agree with your opinion that the virus did not come out of a lab, and I also don't believe it was created in a lab, but happened naturally. Many WANT to create as many reasons to blame China as they possibly can, but as I've said again and again, there already are enough reasons to blame China.
Perhaps not. The assessment indicates a need for more information to understand how the pandemic started. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak began in China but did not stay in China. The outbreak in Wuhan became a global pandemic. The Chinese government cannot hide the global pandemic and prevarication won't give the rest of the world the answers that are needed.
Since the Chinese government has been reticent to provide information then espionage becomes of more importance. Keep in mind that if the needed information cannot be acquired then the alternatives become increasingly provocative. If there isn't confidence that the Chinese government can follow appropriate security and safety measures then isolating China from the rest of the world becomes a more viable alternative.
LOL. You mean create a new "Great Wall" to keep the Chinese people in, instead of keeping others out? Maybe you should finish the one isolating America from Mexico first.
I wonder what they were studying and why.
Somehow the genie got out of the bottle
Don't expect the Chinese government to admit anything truthful on it...
Of course not. Just take every fucking statement made by the Chinese government and assume that the opposite is true.
I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours.