Interesting article primarily on how FBI scientists came up with their moderate confidence estimate that it was a lab leak. Here is a summation by the FBI's chief investigator.
"Bannan acknowledges that a natural spillover remains possible and should continue to be investigated. But he believes that the stark differences between how other coronaviruses emerged, the absence of any proven host animal, and what we know about the WIV’s research practices make a lab origin more likely. “The science speaks volumes,” he says."
As bird flu spreads, and Team Trump begins dismantling America’s public health apparatus, a former FBI scientist and investigator speaks out about the evidence that led the bureau to suspect that COVID-19 was sparked by an incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
www.vanityfair.com
What a strange piece. "The science speaks volumes," says the biologist. There's barely a shred of science in the article. Maybe the scientist told the journalist some actual science and the journalist just didn't include it for a number of possibly valid reasons. But what's in that article is a rehash of the same non-evidence we've seen before.
1. It's claimed that research was being done at low BSL levels. Fine. That should definitely change. But it's not evidence of a lab leak. One wonders if some of these folks want the lab leak theory to be true, on the assumption that it would spur China to take biosafety more seriously. To me, that's the best explanation for some of this nonsense.
2. It's claimed that three researchers got sick with Covid-like symptoms in the fall of 2019. Who cares? I mean, what is Covid-like symptoms? IOne of the problems with Covid was that it causes so many different symptoms, some of which are very common. Plus, fall of 2019 was before the virus spread. That's clear from the virology. Anyway, this is speculation and not science.
3. It's claimed that WIV was not entirely forthcoming. Fine. That's weak evidence that the virus came from the lab. It's not irrelevant, as secrecy is often evidence of consciousness of guilt, but it's not scientific and it's not strong enough to overcome direct evidence, like the virology studies from the market.
4. We haven't found the host animal. This, to me, is the most puzzling claim. You wouldn't expect to be able to find the animal for a virus that a) transmits asymptomatically, and b) is infectious for so many species. The virus spreads like wildfire among mink. There are a lot of mink farms in China. If there were some mink on a train with some other animals from Yunnan, and then the mink died -- how would you ever find that? And if the virus recombined on the trip or in the market, you'd never know it. For all we know, the host animal was sold at the market and somebody took it home and ate it.
The fact is that the virus clearly spread at the market. That's undisputed. So if it leaked from the lab, it would have had to get to the market 40 minutes away without contamination along the way. I mean, it's possible, but again, we are not in the realm of science.
SARS-CoV-1 did not spread asymptomatically. That would make it much easier to trace the source. So that analogy is basically useless garbage.
5. This is exactly the process I thought the FBI was using -- no science; reliance on humint sources and perceived motivations. That might be interesting except for the compelling virology evidence that points the other way. There was also no attempt to create a positive case for lab leak, other than noting coincidences. Again, any lab leak theory has to be able to explain how the virus got from WIV to the market. If it can't even offer a reasonable hypothesis, then it's not a respectable theory.