Has the lab leak been proven false? That’s the impression you’d get reading yesterday’s BBC article, which deals with two new studies on Covid origins.
The article quotes one scientist as saying, “We’re now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market.” And it quotes another as saying the new studies would “correct the false record that the virus came from a lab”.
On Twitter, a third scientist claimed the studies provide “conclusive evidence that SARS-CoV-2 emerged via at least 2 zoonotic spillovers”. She went on to say that it’s now “100% clear the pandemic originated at Huanan market”, dismissing what she called “speculative bullshit about a lab leak”.
What exactly do the new studies show? The first analyses the spatial distribution of early cases, and finds that they were “geographically centred” on the Huanan Seafood Market. The second analyses the genomic diversity of early samples, and concludes the data are “best explained by at least two separate zoonotic transmissions”.
So is that case closed then? Not so fast.
According to critics, these papers don’t tell us anything we didn’t already know, which is that there was a superspreader event at the Huanan Seafood Market in December of 2019. And just because many of the early cases were detected there, doesn’t mean that is where the virus originated.
As a matter of fact, the studies were published as preprints back in February, and since then their language has been watered-down considerably (notwithstanding the quotations above, which were not taken from the papers themselves).
For example, the preprint version of the first study claimed that it found “dispositive evidence for the emergence of SARS-Cov-2 via the live wildlife trade”. Yet the latest version admits there is “insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure”.
In my recent interview with Matt Ridley (co-author of Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19) I asked him about the preprint versions of the studies, which had previously been covered by the New York Times. Here’s what he said about the first:
It shows significant errors of data handling (having extracted location information from a low-resolution analogue plan with errors in it) and having ignored blatant problems with “ascertainment bias”. That is to say, the reason that many early cases were connected to the market was partly because the diagnostic criteria for covid in the early days included whether the person had been to the market: a circular argument.
And he added the following:
A preprint from the head of Beijing’s Centers for Disease Control came to the opposite conclusion: that the market was a place where the outbreak was amplified, but not where it started. Since then a new peer reviewed paper has just been published by Virginie Courtier and Francisco Ribera, which also comes to this conclusion: the pattern of positive samples in the market (from counter-tops, sewage etc) does not suggest any one stall was central to the outbreak and all samples but one are of a single strain of the virus.
Ridley’s co-author, Alina Chan, has written a short article with her own comments on the new studies. And unsurprisingly, she’s not convinced. Chan notes that even after peer review, the first study “fails to acknowledge that early Covid-19 cases had been identified with ascertainment bias”.
In short, both the lab leak and natural spillover theories are still in play. And personally, I’d sceptical of any scientist who dismissed a perfectly reasonable theory as “speculative bullshit” – it suggests she’s not treating the data dispassionately.
Stop Press: Former CDC Director at the time of COVID-19’s emergence Robert Redfield has rejected Anthony Fauci’s claims that it’s more likely COVID-19 originated naturally. He told Fox News he still suspects COVID-19 emerged “from the laboratory” and “had to be educated in the laboratory to gain the efficient human-to-human transmission capability that it has.” According to Redfield, “There’s very little evidence, if you really want to be critical” to support the natural spillover theory.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Regarding the Times article about Apple above ( which I haven’t read as I have no time for paywalls ), I had no idea what a horrible and unethical company they were until I read this fine substack from A Midwestern Doctor, which covers many things as well as the current protests in China;
“The current protests we are facing are a result of this system being used excessively. Things in China have now reached the point that many Chinese citizens are willing to risk relocation to a concentration camp (which is not a pretty subject to discuss) to protest what is happening (similarly many Iranians have recently been imprisoned or worse for protesting against the government). China’s government is predictably responding to this instability with even more heavy-handed tactics and initiating a downhill spiral of unsuccessful propaganda (which will be revisited later). As stated before, I believe this cycle is ultimately being initiated by China’s economic instability.
China’s present situation should make the absolute futility of our preferred method for managing COVID-19 apparent. Even with an elaborate system that tracks every (vaccinated) citizen, imposes draconian lockdowns at will, and tests on an almost daily basis, nothing can be done to contain the spread of COVID-19 and when the system is dialed up as high as it possibly can go, the existing government will break before the spread is stopped.”
https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/the-current-protests-in-china-are
“China’s present situation should make the absolute futility of our preferred method for managing COVID-19 apparent”
And that’s the problem. The doctor believes in convid when the reality is that the C1984 is basically a rebranded ‘flu which was introduced in order to get Agenda 2030 up and running. Which is why I have little time for endless talking about C1984.
With ref the recent royal racism crisis; I read what was apparently a fairly complete account of the dialogue, and Lady Hussy was in my opinion racist and/or extraordinarily dumb/demented because she appeared to repeatedly refuse to accept that the local community project representative in front of her was a British citizen, a British resident, and insisted on knowing where their “people” came from. It sounded as if Lady Hussy simply couldn’t conceive of such an obviously black person being British, a British citizen and resident, and was impatiently condescending/contemptuous in her efforts to “get at the truth” of where this person “really” came from … or was being provocative/deliberately obtuse/offensive. There was definitely something wrong. I do understand why her reactions caused offence, even distress.
The person she was speaking to was very clearly not ethnically British and had apparently changed her name from a British one to Ngozi Fulani, so it was perfectly reasonable to ask about her origins.
Not after she had already answered that question and said she was from England.
PS. I also thought that it was a mountain out of a molehill when I first read about it, but reading the account of the full exchange I understood why it was upsetting.
…. people, on both the giving and receiving ends of such reactions, used to laugh about this sort of thing, laugh it off, dismiss it as just business as usual; it was normal, etc ….
.. but it can’t be very pleasant, especially in a situation where you believe that you can’t answer back, can’t say what you think about the reaction, etc.
I agree with Fulani that Lady Hussey shouldn’t have lost her post over it though. *That* is where the lack of proportion lies.
I think the big problem is that the setting/context didn’t allow or encourage Fulani to speak up, to call Lady Hussey out about it at the time. She didn’t seem to think that she could say what she thought to Lady Hussey, the occasion and the place ( and Lady Hussey’s title too ?) silenced her.
I remember a black colleague recounting the time there was National Front march along her street when she was a young girl. ‘What are they shouting?’ she asked her father. ‘Go back home’ said her father. ‘But I am home’ she replied.
It was interesting to hear what Nigel Farage said about it all, on his out-and-about programme last night, between 19:00 & 20:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDWB3_45yPg The gist of it being that Hussy was the ‘victim’, as it were. He was probably right by saying that this wouldn’t make the press anywhere else!
2 thoughts come to mind:
1 If she really were “racist”, she wouldn’t even have spoken to her in the first place.
2 Being from Liverpool, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been asked if I have Irish ancestry – is this any different?
Yes, what she said was thick-eared, heavy-handed and inappropriate but to say it was “racist” is, to my mind, stretching the definition.
This post suggests the trigger for the questions might have been the mismatch between the accent (West Indian) and the name (African): https://www.unz.com/isteve/ngozi-fulani-is-actually-marlene-headley/
“Switzerland, facing an unprecedented power shortage, contemplates a partial ban on the use of electric vehicles”
It’s ironic that Switzerland imports a lot from Germany & France these days. It’s long been using hydro electric generation, and of course the difficulties outside the border encouraged it’s development, along with electric traction on the railways.
They could turn CERN off, that would save a bit of electric (1.2 terrawatts in 2012, probably a lot more now).
Today’s onshore wind farm story: https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2022/12/onshore-wind-farm-ban-could-have-added-800m-to-household-bills/
Remember the original SARS virus? Neither do I, other than some vague memory of it causing panic then it seemed to disappear.
Why did that one vanish but this new one seems to be hanging around? What was different this time around?
https://off-guardian.org/2022/12/01/the-real-reason-behind-chinas-zero-covid-policy/
The brilliant Kit Knightly at Off-G providing a superb explanation of China’s role in the Scamdemic.
Truly insightful piece – thanks for posting…
This is the effect of suppressing and censoring information:
Before, we could assume most information was closer to false and pick out what we deemed to be closer to true for further debate. This worked well because those amplifying closer to false information were lost in the sea of all the other assumed closer to false information.
Now, we are to assume most information to be closer to true (because it’s been filtered) and pick out what we deem to be closer to false and remove it. Those amplifying closer to false information now have more status because most information that we see has to be assumed to be closer to true until it is verified and/or removed.
The more information is removed the more we must assume the information we see is closer to true, even if it isn’t.
Posted in error.
Another cause of death unknown:-
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/orange-is-the-new-black-actor-brad-william-henke-dies-aged-56-3359683
It was possible he was injected given he had worked on a NBCUniversal production: Law and Order: Special Victims Unit
https://screenrant.com/law-order-svu-warren-leight-unvaccinated-actors-response/
https://off-guardian.org/2022/12/01/the-real-reason-behind-chinas-zero-covid-policy/
CONCLUSION
To sum up, China’s “zero covid” approach forms a vital piece of the overall pandemic narrative, working in conjunction with Western governments as a deliberately stark contrast:
-It promotes the idea that vaccines work and helped prevent further lockdowns here.
-It shines a flattering light on Western governments, who appear less draconian by comparison.
-It serves as an argument for the effectiveness of lockdowns and other authoritarian measures.
Perhaps most importantly, the supposed difference works to corral and control public debate.
Traditionally leftwing critics of Western capitalism are forced to defend vaccines and lockdowns by their ideological loyalty to China.
Conversely, right-wingers have China’s “socialist” practices to point their fingers at, whilst praising Western capitalist pharmaceutical innovation for saving us from the need for tighter lockdowns.
Each side is controlled by their ideology, not realising their loyalties are being used to position them inside the permissible spectrum of opinion.
I posted a link to this excellent Kit Knightly article this morning.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/12/doug-casey/global-government-vs-the-people/
I’ll go so far as to say that Central Bank Digital Currencies and digital “health passports” are the most dangerous threats to the freedom and independence of the average human being in modern history—perhaps in world history. They will control where you can go, what you can do, and what you can own. They’re both very big deals, and they’ll be daily facts of life before 2023 is over. It’s very disturbing that we don’t hear either of them discussed anywhere. They should be taken with the utmost seriousness and stopped.