Today we have a coordinated release globally of a study claiming to disprove the Covid 19 virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Viology (WIV). An example is the article from the UK so-called Independent ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ Covid pandemic originated at Wuhan market stall. Excerpts in italics.
US and French researchers traced coronavirus to one stall in
Wuhan, China after analysing genetic samples
It is beyond “reasonable doubt” that the Covid-19 pandemic originated in a Chinese animal market, a new scientific study has found.
Researchers from the United States and France discovered one stall in Wuhan, China, was a hotspot for coronavirus after analysing hundreds of genetic samples collected by Chinese authorities in 2020.
The analysis, published in Cell, compiled a list of animals including raccoon dogs, masked palm civets, hoary bamboo rats and Malayan porcupines, that were likely to have passed the virus to humans.
“It’s far beyond reasonable doubt that this is how it happened,” Professor Michael Worobey at the University of Arizona told the BBC, noting that other theories involve some “really quite fanciful absurd scenarios”.
Professor Kristian Andersen from Scripps Research in the US, added: “We find a very consistent story in terms of this pointing to the market as being the very likely origin of this particular pandemic.”
Color me skeptical. Both Worobey and Andersen were carrying Fauci’s water in 2020-21 when he was lying to congress about funding gain of function research at WIV. Cui Bono from this paper? China, who destroyed all the evidence in 2020, but now it supposedly appears in 2024. And Fauci, who enlisted these and other researchers to publish fake studies in various journals to cancel the lab-leak explanation for the covid pandemic.
For a desciption of the malfeasance perpetrated by these charlatans, see this expose by Vanity Fair in 2022 “This Shouldn’t Happen”: Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy.
For a level-headed reaction to this latest coverup, here is a comment to the published Worobey et al paper by Alexander Chervonsky Professor of Pathology The University of Chicago. In italics with my bolds.
Science Matters 
Two seemingly mutually excluding theories of SARS-CoV2 origin are now a matter of a heated debate.
On one hand, scientists siding with the lab-leak idea are bringing up a lot of reasonable but circumstantial evidence in favor it. There is no real way to prove the leak until an unbiased commission of researchers inspects the potential sites and lab records. That is unlikely to happen, and the problem may be never solved, unless another leak, next time a leak of critical information happens.
On the other hand, a seemingly large group of scientists supports the natural origin of the COVID19 pandemics. The key point here is that they also do not have a direct evidence of SARS-CoV2 being transmitted to humans through an intermediate host in a manner similar to what was found before for SARS and MERS viruses.
The debate becomes more and more heated, not at the least being motivated by non-scientific reasons. Major journals publish unbalanced editorials favoring ‘natural origin’ theory that so far has not produced the fatal blow to the opposite view. It is argued that it is hard to find a needle in the haystack (an animal that is an intermediate host for SARS-CoV2), but this is the real source of uncertainty.
For an unbiased critical mind, it is impossible to take sides in this debate simply because both previous lab leaks (including of SARS virus) and a natural transmission through intermediate hosts of human SARS and MERS coronaviruses have been documented. If one wants to convince that unbiased critical mind of the natural origin of human SARS-CoV2 – show us the money!
Find the intermediate host, find the virus, explain in molecular terms
how it got the furin cleavage site, or better continue working hard.
The article by Michael Worobey is an example of delivering arguments that can hardly make a dent in the leak theory for the following reasons:
Calm, however, is an unlikely outcome of this debate. My argument is that scientific thinking and integrity should come first. It is really tiring to read the numerous editorials and letters that are unilateral with no substance. I rest my case totally prepared to be convinced one way or another by solid direct evidence.