The Lancet COVID-19 Commission report, published Wednesday, has suggested the virus may have leaked from a laboratory in the United States and implies that U.S. Government agencies may be covering it up.
The Telegraph reports on this story – though its coverage is by the Global Health Security team, a Gates-funded initiative, and the line taken is one of trying to discredit the claims and those involved. Sarah Newey writes:
The Lancet is facing a backlash after a major COVID-19 Commission report suggested the disease may have leaked from a laboratory in the United States.
Published on Wednesday, the paper said it remains “feasible” that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from either a natural spillover or a laboratory incident, and called for the introduction of more safeguards to reduce the risk of either eventuality.
But the report, the result of two years of work, also suggested American researchers could be culpable. As well as mentioning facilities in Wuhan, it noted that “independent researchers have not yet investigated” U.S. labs, and said the National Institutes of Health has “resisted disclosing details” of its work.
The report comes as controversy swirls the commission chair, the economist Prof Jeffrey Sachs.
At a conference in Madrid earlier this year, he said he was “pretty convinced” that SARS-CoV-2 “came out of a U.S. lab of biotechnology, not out of nature” – a claim that has since been widely promoted by Chinese diplomats.
In August, Prof Sachs also appeared on a podcast hosted by Robert F Kennedy, Jr. – one of the world’s most prominent anti-vaccine commentators – to discuss his beliefs, just days after Instagram and Facebook suspended an account led by Mr. Kennedy for repeatedly sharing what the platforms said was Covid misinformation, especially around vaccines.
‘Shameful moment’
Experts said Prof Sachs actions have overshadowed much of the robust research and recommendations within the 58-page report, and criticised the Lancet for resisting calls to remove him.
“Sachs’ appearance on RFK Jr.’s podcast… undermines the seriousness of the Lancet Commission’s mission to the point of completely negating it,” said Prof Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization in Canada.
“This may be one of the Lancet’s most shameful moments regarding its role as a steward and leader in communicating crucial findings about science and medicine,” she said, adding that she was “pretty shocked at how flagrantly” the report ignores key evidence on Covid origins.
Prof David Robertson, of the University of Glasgow’s Centre for Virus Research, added: “It’s really disappointing to see such a potentially influential report contributing to further misinformation on such an important topic.”
“It’s true we’ve details to understand on the side of natural origins, for example the exact intermediate species involved, but that doesn’t mean there’s… any basis to the wild speculation that U.S. labs were involved,” he added.
When approached by the Telegraph, Prof Sachs stood by his previous comments, adding that he personally “oversaw this part of the work” on the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. Last summer he disbanded an initial task force led by Dr. Peter Daszak amid concerns it was too biased towards the natural origin hypothesis.
It was never re-formed, but Prof Sachs said commissioners had “consulted widely and met with a number of scientists”.
“Everybody has signed off on the final text. The question of a possible laboratory release mostly involves the question of U.S.-China joint work that was underway on SARS-like viruses,” he said.
But Prof Peter Hotez, a member of the Lancet Commission and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine in Texas, said there had been “diverse views” and that he had “pushed hard on removing” mention of U.S. labs in the report because it was “a distraction”.
He added that he had been “speechless” when Prof Sachs appeared on Mr Kennedy’s podcast.
Prof Hotez may well have pressed hard to remove any mention of U.S. lab involvement, but that may be because it is well-documented that he is exactly one of the U.S. researchers who has been heavily involved in gain-of-function research, and is presumably being about as transparent about what exactly he got up to as the rest of them.
Here is the relevant section from the Lancet Commission report, which I have included in full as it is unusually balanced and fair.
The origins of SARS-CoV-2
The proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2 are still not known. Identifying these origins would provide greater clarity into not only the causes of the current pandemic but also vulnerabilities to future outbreaks and strategies to prevent them. We concur with the position of 18 leading scientists who wrote in Science magazine in May, 2021: “We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.” As a group of 16 scientists communicated in the Lancet in October, 2021: “Overwhelming evidence for either a zoonotic or research-related origin is lacking: the jury is still out.” More than two years into the pandemic, the search for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains incomplete and inconclusive. Independent experts consulted by the Lancet COVID-19 Commission shared the view that hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers are in play and need further investigation.
Although the proximal origins are unknown, SARS-CoV-2 is thought to derive from a bat SARS-CoV-related coronavirus with a furin cleavage site that enhances the capacity of the virus to infect human cells. Furin cleavage sites are found naturally in almost every family of coronavirus, although they have not been observed in other SARS-related coronaviruses (subgenus Sarbecoronavirus). Since 2006, following the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome, furin cleavage sites have also been the subject of laboratory manipulation, including their insertion into coronavirus spike proteins. The presence of the furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 therefore does not by itself identify the proximal origin of the virus, whether natural or laboratory. Two main possible pathways of emergence have been identified. The first is that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a natural spillover event – that is, from a non-research-related zoonotic transmission of the virus from an animal to a human, and thereafter from human to human. The second is that the virus emerged from research-related activities, with three possible research-related pathways: the infection of a researcher in the field while collecting samples, the infection of a researcher in the laboratory while studying viruses collected in their natural habitat, and the infection of a researcher in the laboratory while studying viruses that have been genetically manipulated. Because both the pathways of natural transmission and of research-related transmission are feasible, preventing the emergence of future pandemic pathogens must include two distinct strategies: the prevention of natural (zoonotic) transmission and the prevention of research-related spillovers. Each of these strategies requires specific actions.
The first pathway of transmission risk is natural spillover. Most epidemics in history have involved the passage of a pathogen from an animal host to humans, followed by human-to-human transmission. For example, the proximal source of SARS-CoV, the virus that led to the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003-04, was likely to have been exotic animals in a live animal market in Guangdong, China – most probably palm civets (Paguma larvata) and perhaps raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides). The proximal reservoir of MERS-CoV, the virus that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome, is dromedary camels (Camelus dromedarius). In both cases, bats serve as the primary evolutionary source of the virus. Because both severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome result from natural spillovers of betacoronaviruses, the outbreaks of these diseases gave rise to concerns that future such spillovers would occur. SARS-CoV-2 might well be such an instance, especially given findings of SARS-CoV-2-like viruses in bats across east Asia. The dangers of zoonotic spillovers are increased by human encroachments into the habitats of animals that carry novel pathogens, such as through forest clearing, the handling of exotic animals in the illicit trade of wild species, in farms that raise domestic animals, and in food markets that sell and slaughter live animals.
The two subpathways for a natural spillover are direct bat-to-human transmission and transmission from bat to intermediate host to human. It is possible that the virus was passed directly from bats to humans because there are bat coronaviruses that can bind to human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and thereby infect humans without adaptation. Bats known to harbour these viruses are present across east Asia, including in central China. The other natural pathway is transmission from bats to an intermediate host mammal and then to a human. This pathway is plausible because many of the earliest known cases of COVID-19 in humans in Wuhan are associated with the Huanan Seafood Market, and this market sold animals such as raccoon dogs that are known to be susceptible to SARS-related coronaviruses. However, as no animals in the market tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, it is not known whether the COVID-19 cases associated with this market indicate the actual proximal origin of the virus or a secondary outbreak brought by humans to the marketplace. Because the first emergence of the virus could well have been in November 2019, or even earlier, the cases associated with the Huanan Seafood Market in mid-December 2019 could well indicate a human-to-human amplifier event rather than the original animal-to-human spillover. Despite the testing of more than 80,000 samples from a range of wild and farm animal species in China collected between 2015 and March, 2020, no cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been identified. Because betacoronaviruses related to SARS-CoV-2 are found across east Asia the search for a natural source of SARS-CoV-2 should continue with high focus and intensity, as the eventual discovery of a natural reservoir of the virus might occur only after years of searching, and quite possibly outside of China.
The second possible pathway is a research-related or laboratory-associated release of the pathogen. Such a pathway could have involved a researcher becoming infected in the field or in the laboratory with a natural virus, or becoming infected in the laboratory with a genetically manipulated virus. Advances in biotechnology in the past two decades have made it possible to create new and highly dangerous pathogens through genetic manipulation – for example, creating chimeric viruses by combining the genetic material of more than one viral pathogen, or mutant viruses through the deliberate insertion of a furin cleavage site. The bioengineering of SARS-CoV-like viruses for the study and testing of potential drugs and vaccines advanced substantially after the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in the 2000s. Laboratory experiments included the creation of novel viruses (e.g. so-called consensus viruses that average the genetic code across a set of natural viruses), the mutation of viruses (such as through the insertion of a furin cleavage site), the creation of chimeric viruses, and the serial passaging of viruses through cell cultures to test their transmissibility, virulence, immunogenicity, and host tropism. Research that can increase the transmissibility and virulence of pathogens is called gain-of-function research of concern, although which specific experiments should fall into this category is contested by scientists. As laboratory technologies have rapidly advanced, many scientists have warned of the increasing risks of undersupervised and under-regulated genetic manipulation of SARS-CoV-like viruses and other potential pandemic pathogens. There is currently no system for the global monitoring and regulation of gain-of-function research of concern.
As of the time of publication of this report, all three research-associated hypotheses are still plausible: infection in the field, infection with a natural virus in the laboratory, and infection with a manipulated virus in the laboratory. No independent, transparent, and science-based investigation has been carried out regarding the bioengineering of SARS-like viruses that was underway before the outbreak of COVID-19. The laboratory notebooks, databases, email records, and samples of institutions involved in such research have not been made available to independent researchers. Independent researchers have not yet investigated the U.S. laboratories engaged in the laboratory manipulation of SARS-CoV-like viruses, nor have they investigated the details of the laboratory research that had been underway in Wuhan. Moreover, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has resisted disclosing details of the research on SARS-CoV-related viruses that it had been supporting, providing extensively redacted information only as required by Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.
In brief, there are many potential proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2, but there is still a shortfall of independent, scientific, and collaborative work on the issue. The search for the origins of the virus requires unbiased, independent, transparent, and rigorous work by international teams in the fields of virology, epidemiology, bioinformatics, and other related fields, and supported by all governments.
Apart from this section on origins, though, the rest of the report is a Zero Covid fantasy which seeks to normalise suppression strategies and lambasts anyone who dared object to what it refers to, in Orwellian terms, as “basic public health measures”.
In line with the Chinese Government line, the report claims that the Western Pacific region successfully suppressed the virus while waiting for a vaccine by its timely and robust responses, despite there being no real evidence for that at all. No country in the region, regardless of its response, suffered a large wave until Omicron. The reasons for this are still not clear, but they are likely to be due to structural features of the region (such as genetics, prior immunity or the health of the population) rather than related to policy responses. The fact that the only large pre-Omicron outbreak in the region was among migrant workers in Singapore supports this suggestion. The report does, however, imply criticism of China for continuing suppression in the post-vaccination, Omicron era.
Europe and the Americas are criticised for failing to implement suppression strategies, this being regarded as the reason they had much larger and deadlier outbreaks – again, ignoring the wealth of evidence that policy responses had at best only small impacts on outcomes. “The high mortality rate of the region of the Americas reflects the failures of this region to take concrete measures to suppress the epidemic,” the authors write. Yet in the same paragraph they note that “evidence suggests that the case ascertainment rate (defined as the number of confirmed new infections relative to the number of actual new infections) was much less than 20% in the first half of 2020 – meaning that viral transmission increased rapidly during February and March 2020, with little awareness by authorities and the public until mid-to-late March.” These statements are contradictory of course: if transmission increased rapidly during February and March then the virus was already widespread so suppression would be futile. Indeed, elsewhere the report acknowledges that the virus had been circulating since at least November and likely earlier. The notion that East Asian countries successfully suppressed the arrival of a novel virus while Western countries failed to do so is clearly a myth based on a mistaken understanding of when the virus first emerged and spread.
Western nations adopted strict suppression measures in March 2020 no less than South East Asian countries, often more so. The report suggests these failed because “the focus was on flattening the curve rather than on ultimately suppressing the pandemic”, as though the motive made a difference to how well they worked. The report also claims the “relaxing of control measures led to another wave of infections in countries across Europe in September 2020”. But, again, the waves affected countries and regions regardless of what measures they implemented or how long and strict their lockdowns were. The U.K. implemented local restrictions throughout the summer and autumn of 2020 and no differences in outcomes could be observed. No, the real lesson from South East Asia is that the apparent early success of China’s lockdowns and South Korea’s contact tracing falsely convinced the West that these policies were the reasons for those countries’ small outbreaks, leaving Western governments perplexed as to why such policies did not work the same magic here.
The report introduction summarises 10 “failures of international cooperation”, the result of which was that “too many governments have failed to adhere to basic norms of institutional rationality and transparency, too many people – often influenced by misinformation – have disrespected and protested against basic public health precautions, and the world’s major powers have failed to collaborate to control the pandemic”.
Disrespected and protested against “basic public health precautions” like closing schools and businesses for months on end and incarcerating people in their homes by law? How dare they. Don’t they know their place?
The 10 “failures” listed include the “lack of coordination among countries regarding suppression strategies” and “costly delays in… implementing appropriate measures at national and global levels to slow the spread of the virus”, which assume suppression is effective and correct.
They also include the “failure to combat systematic disinformation”. The main section on “disinformation” is strongly worded, with its description of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as “dangerous or experimental treatments” seeming to indicate capture by pharmaceutical interests.
Some media outlets erroneously promoted dangerous or experimental treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, resulting in unnecessary visits to hospital emergency departments and shortages of such medications for people with legitimate needs
Despite including among the failures “costly delays in acknowledging the crucial airborne exposure pathway of SARS-CoV-2”, and being clear that the “WHO was slow to acknowledge the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and was therefore slow to emphasise the range of measures needed to limit indoor transmission”, it claims the “WHO is the leading international authority on health and should be supported by its member states and by other UN agencies to lead the global response to a health crisis”. It criticises “various political leaders” that they “publicly undermined WHO, disseminated campaigns against it and its advice, and even tried to halt its funding”. So which is it? The WHO was dangerously wrong, but dangerous people dangerously undermined it? The report can’t make up its mind.
Thus despite the section on Covid origins being unusually and refreshingly honest, the rest of the report is a depressing rehash of all the myths of the official narrative about lockdowns, suppression, repurposed treatment and “disinformation”. It indulges in the now routine demonisation of those who criticise and protest the shutting down of their lives over a virus that is no threat to them, and does so despite itself criticising the WHO and implying that authorities and researchers are covering up crucial information about Covid origins. It makes no sense, but then the pandemic response never has.
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.
Unfortunately, the real, real lesson from South East Asia was that people will allow untrustworthy and incompetent politicians, hack scientists and corrupted public bodies to run roughshod over fundamental rights, ignore well-established public health protocols, institute tyrannical systems, stab us with poison and bleed us financially dry, as long as you scare the bejezus out of them, with the more than willing assistance of so-called journalists and an ovine medical community.
Love the tone of the article, very feisty
In many places, the philosophy about “fundamental rights” is rather different. Years ago, just before Hong Kong transferred to China, I travelled with a friend of mine on an organised trip from there back to England overland, via Beijing and several other places. In Beijing, we had a “guide”, who was no doubt a member of the CCP, who showed us around all the places they wanted us to see. He was quite useful, up to a point, but there were a few titbits that revealed his attitude to others, especially the Japanese. He hated anything to do with Japan.
He didn’t quite manage to enforce his visitors list, though, as one of the days turned out to be a Chinese public holiday, with many places we were supposed to go to closed for the holiday, so we insisted on strolling round Tian an Men square. He was a bit nervous about that – after all, it was only 9 years since the troubles that were in the international press.
Surely your CCP guide was not being racist re the Japanese? I thought only white people could be racist?!!
To be fair to your guide almost all Asian people hate the Japanese. Something to do with the WWII?
Yes, James Clavell (a Changi Prison survivor) discusses the loathing of the Japanese in Asia in his book Noble House. I remember both sets of my Grandparents hated the Japanese. My maternal Grandfather was transferred to the Indian Navy part way through WWII. His original army unit, including his best friend, ended up in Singapore days before the Japanese invaded.
My Grandfather became a well-known newspaper journalist after the war and never heard from anyone in his old army group, so they must have died in combat or in Changi Prison. I think he chose not to find out.
I sat with him one time about 16 years ago, a couple of years before he died, and we went through a website connected to his old school. I read out the names of old boys who had died in the War. So many names. He visibly shrivelled. Something like half the boys his school class died.
My Grandfather was working in London at the start of WWII. He was living in a hostel and all the guys on his floor were going to the pub. He was a bit short on money, so he went and used the gym. There was an air raid, the pub was hit by a bomb and everyone on his floor was killed. He joined up the next day.
Our generation literally has no idea what these people went through. And ironically now, in en extended era of peace, we’ve ended up with tyranny.
Well, let us not forget that, according to our Beloved Leaders, all Asian men are responsible for child gang rape.
If I was Chinese or Japanese or a Philippino (add long list of other Asians), I’d be pretty pissed off about that.
But there are a lot of Pakistani adherents of the Religion of
Peace on the electoral rolls.
Our “Beloved Leaders” have obviously never travelled in Asia. Categorising everyone from the Indian sub-continent across to Indonesia as Asia is as stupid as calling all the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ‘British’! The child gang rapists that have been prosecuted do seem in the majority to be the adherents of the ‘Religion of Peace’ as you suggest. Just a nasty coincidence I’m sure?
It’s utterly baffling that the probability of a lab leak is even controversial. Prior to the outbreak, virologists and the scientific press were completely open about splicing the SARS virus with elements of the spike protein of others, with the explicit intent to increase potential for human infection. It’s covered in this Nature article from 2015:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18787?fbclid=IwAR0bHAF8ZRMAXR01p2Aw_whZSi9EIKd2LQHmWrUVs9WyKji4yxc6LaNnvWI
From the article:
“An experiment that created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus — one related to the virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) — has triggered renewed debate over whether engineering lab variants of viruses with possible pandemic potential is worth the risks.
In an article published in Nature Medicine1 on 9 November, scientists investigated a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China. The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and to mimic human disease. The chimaera infected human airway cells — proving that the surface protein of SHC014 has the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them. It also caused disease in mice, but did not kill them.”
“SHC014 is not the first that can do so. In 2013, researchers reported this ability for the first time in a different coronavirus isolated from the same bat population.”
“But other virologists question whether the information gleaned from the experiment justifies the potential risk. Although the extent of any risk is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that “grows remarkably well” in human cells. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” he says.”
“Studies testing hybrid viruses in human cell culture and animal models are limited in what they can say about the threat posed by a wild virus, Daszak agrees. But he argues that they can help indicate which pathogens should be prioritized for further research attention.”
“The latest work shows that the virus has already overcome critical barriers, such as being able to latch onto human receptors and efficiently infect human airway cells, he says. “I don’t think you can ignore that.” He plans to do further studies with the virus in non-human primates, which may yield data more relevant to humans.”
When this has been picked up on it has been handwaved away with the assertion that SHC014 bears far less relation to SARS CoV-2 than pangolin coronaviruses. Given that the Wuhan lab deleted their database shortly after the outbreak, what reason is there to believe that similar experiments weren’t being carried out using material from viruses other than SHC014? Given the enthusiasm for the research by the exact same people who later branded anyone questioning it as a ‘conspiracy theorist’, and their eagerness at the time to demonstrate the possibility of natural mutation through artificial splicing, why would they not have tried to replicate their results in other viruses? Daszak himself advocated for this.
Glenn: If you don’t recognize EVIL, you’re PART OF THE PROBLEM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqyqf0vGBIs
When did America stop recognizing what’s EVIL in our society? Because today, Glenn says, it seems that what was once evil is deemed good, and what was once good now is considered evil’ But it’s not too late to recognize the darkest ideas, philosophies, and actions overtaking American culture and to call them out. You don’t have to be a hero, Glenn says. But if you don’t stand up against evil, you’re becoming part of the problem… Glenn Beck
Yellow Boards By The Road …. for the love of humanity … Politicians are thick. They sow chaos and we the people suffer.
Tuesday 20th September 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A329 London Road & Oak Avenue
Near Oakingham Belle Pub
Wokingham RG40 1LH
Thursday 22nd September 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A30 London Rd &
A325 Portsmouth Road
Camberley GU15 3UZ
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
The authors of this “study” sound like they were taking orders straight from Beijing as well as Big Pharma.
The question is – how much influence will this terrible report have on policy going forward?
It seems rather obvious that power hungry technocrats who desire nothing more than to dictate what every must do are not giving up. They’ve made huge advances in the last 2+ years and they don’t just want to consolidate them but want to carry that momentum forward and establish structures and protocols to make it even easier for them in the future.
How are these dangerous dictators stopped?
I wouldn’t at all be surprised if Will Jones’s house isn’t raided by the FBI
I can’t understand why the Telegraph persists with their Gates-funded, sinisterly-named ‘Global Health Security Team’. The grant ended last February, unless they have taken another one. The timing of their taking the grant in the first place is suspicious, as the majority of Telegraph readers were against the Government on the COVID-19 restrictions. I still don’t feel free. As long as no one in government repudiates lockdowns and restrictions, there’s a Sword of Damocles hanging over us.
Neither do I feel free. I was shadow-banned from commenting on the DT because I posted links to Planet Lockdown interviews with Dr Mike Yeadon and Dr Wolfgang Wodarg. The DT didn’t explicitly tell me so, the moderators wouldn’t, but it can have been the only reason as I neither insulted anyone and nor offended against any -ism or -phobia.
Ditto for me after my Prof Meirsheimer links on his views on Ukraine issue were deemed unacceptable. Will never buy nor subscribe to the DT ever again. In fact I now don’t buy/subscribe to any of the MSM including the BBC.
conversation about zoonotic origin of ‘SARS-CoV2’ is a red herring. we have very strong evidence that this so-called ‘covid’ is a bioweapon. such evidence lies in the unprecedented weaponised destruction of human rights and wellbeing accompanying this so-called ‘pandemic’. there’s absolutely no evidence for the existence of this ‘covid’ virus. it exists only in silico. however, the spike protein does exist, and it’s the bioweapon. people who have been tricked into being injected with so-called ‘covid vaccines’ are now manufacturing the spike protein bioweapon within their own bodies. it appears that shedding of the spike protein is causing widespread and diverse spike protein illnesses, masquerading as ‘covid’. this deadly bioweapon pandemic is amplified by a pandemic of fraudulent covid testing and ‘covid vaccine’ (ie bioweapon) injury (‘anything but disease’). the so-called ‘covid’ illness cannot be diagnosed – there are no pathognomonic features, and the PCR test is usually upcycled to a point where the overwhelming majority of ‘positives’ are false. even a genuinely positive PCR test cannot ever tell us anything about the presence of infectious viral particles. Lancet editors had better look sharp. they have charted for themselves a course complicit with the greatest crime in history. unless they pull their medical scientific forensic fingers out, they are going to find themselves in the dock answering charges of aiding and abetting the coverup of what is far and away the most historically egregious Crime Against Humanity.
It MIGHT be a coincidence that the original virus in Wuhan was notably dangerous to old people (no longer economically active), the sick (ditto) and males (in a country with a huge gender imbalance).
So, was it a lab leak?