Critical Examination of the Arguments for a Lab Origin of SARS-CoV-2
Thoughts on the Feasibility of the Lab Leak Hypothesis
As the topic of lab leak continues to come up, here are my thoughts:
Lack of Evidence for the Spread of Artificially Created Viruses
Is there any solid evidence that lab created viruses, particularly those produced through Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, can spread naturally? So far, no scientifically controlled animal experiments have convincingly demonstrated this.
Questionable Significance of DARPA Research Proposals
The research proposals attributed to DARPA could have been deliberately placed and do not necessarily have a direct connection to SARS-CoV-2. These proposals provide no conclusive evidence regarding the origin of the virus and can just as easily be viewed as speculative conjecture.
Genetic Evidence is Not Sufficiently Robust
Insufficient Sequence Validation:
The virus and its sequence have never been fully validated. Neither the CDC, RKI, nor China CDC have sequenced the virus in true isolation (i.e., without other genetic material). Notably, the genome’s terminal sequences were never conclusively verified. The clinical relevance of the sequence is unknown.
Furin Cleavage Site:
The furin cleavage site, often cited as evidence of manipulation, can also be found in human genetic material. Its short length further limits its reliability as evidence.
HIV Insertion Hypothesis:
The theory that SARS-CoV-2 contains so-called HIV inserts has been debunked. These sequences are too short, may be coincidental, are incomplete, and are not supported by further studies. The original paper making this claim was retracted.
Questioning the Novelty of SARS-CoV-2
The claim that the virus is novel is difficult to prove, as previous research did not use the same methods. Neither the primers nor the test volume used previously were designed to detect it.
There is evidence that antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reacted years before the official outbreak, and there may be SARS-CoV-2 sequences from as early as March 2019. These observations cast doubt on the assertion that SARS-CoV-2 is genuinely novel.
Causality Remains Unproven
Causality cannot be scientifically established based on a single patient from whom the virus was sequenced. Estimates suggest that 60–80% of suspected causes of lung diseases generally remain unknown. How, then, can causality be proven solely based on the sequence from one patient?
Additionally, the PCR test used as evidence is based on this sequence and was applied to sick individuals, with its results being treated as proof of causality. However, it is often overlooked that the test is not clinically validated, meaning its ability to predict the clinical etiology has not been established.
→ Under these circumstances, no reliable causality can be inferred.
Conclusion
While a lab leak remains unproven and may never be definitively confirmed, a far more pressing issue is the need for critical scrutiny of virology as a discipline and its methodologies. It is important to consider that findings based on sequencing and PCR may, in some cases, reflect methodological artifacts rather than biological reality.
Note
I want to clarify that I have no conflicts of interest. I have no relationship, contact, or financial connection with the individuals associated with the lab leak theory or any government agencies. These are solely my personal, well-informed thoughts, and any suggestions to the contrary are unfounded.
More Resources
Here’s a poster with an English and German Version of this article.
Sources
Yes, I always thought the crucial fact in favour of a lab leak was the proximity of the outbreak to the Wuhan Institute of Virology - and the implausibility of the coincidence that it would emerge on the doorstep of the world center for engineering coronaviruses, rather than in the caves of yunnan where the bats etc actually are.
But then I realized there is another thing unique to WIV. It is also one of only labs in the world that can *detect new viruses* - and when I say new, I mean newly identified, not newly emerged. You can't just scan a sample for any viruses it contains - unless you have WIV capabilities you have to know what to look for, so anything you find can't be new.
So it seems to me covid had been circulating for a while, but then there was a cluster of patients in wuhan. Anywhere else they would have been ignored but on the doorstep of a lab doing coronavirus engineering, you can imagine that this would be one of the few places where samples would be taken to actually look for new viruses - and where you could actually find them.
To me this significantly increases the likelihood that covid was already circulating widely at the end of 2019. Its not particularly bad of a virus, and no deaths were noticed. Then WIV looked for new coronaviruses in some patients on its doorstep, possibly because they were worried about lab leaks. They found covid, and the rest is history.
It follows that essentially ALL the excess deaths were caused by the panicked response - neglect of old people in homes written off to die (or helped with midazolam), patients put on ventilators as a means of infection control, and also the sheer panic induced by government propaganda.
And none were caused by the virus.
Quick note: Lab Origin and Lab Leak are NOT the same thing.
"Leak" is a mechanistic proposition. See table and see also footnote 3 for Jay B's definition of Lab Leak https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/do-the-origins-of-sars-cov-2-matter
"Lab Origin" is not a mechanistic assertion - only source.
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/thinking-about-lab-leak