Intelligent Design Medicine Philosophy Science

Lab leak theory vindicated in upper echelons

Spread the love

At New York Post:

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Energy Department has concluded that the COVID pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak.

The conclusion is reportedly based on a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and key members of Congress. Many will be exploring why the scientific evidence of a lab leak was so slow to emerge from intelligence agencies.

However, for my part, the most alarming aspect was the censorship, not the science.

There will continue to be a debate over the origins of COVID-19, but now there will be a debate.

For years, the media and government allied to treat anyone raising a lab theory as one of three possibilities: conspiracy theorist or racists or racist conspiracy theorists. – Jonathan Turley (February 26, 2023)

Turley has the receipts. The COVID crazies have singlehandedly done more damage to “the science” and “trust the science!” than anyone who actually hated science could possibly do.

You may also wish to read: Convoy: We’re not your lab rats any more

4 Replies to “Lab leak theory vindicated in upper echelons

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    So the next time we are faced with a public health emergency we should be turning to the Energy Department as the most qualified to manage the crisis, not any of the health agencies?

    And this conclusion is “reportedly” based on an unpublished intelligence report. Does this mean that instead of the Energy Department we should be relying on the CIA to manage public health emergencies?

    Turley is a respected legal scholar but, as far as I know, has no credentials in public health or epidemiology so I assume he is being quoted as part of the ongoing campaign to undermine the credibility of any science that does not conform to the religious presuppositions of contributors here.

    For a different perspective, which some contributors here like to pretend do not exist, you could look here

    Two new studies published last month strongly support a natural zoonotic origin for COVID-19 centered at the wet market in Wuhan, China. Naturally, lab leak proponents soberly considered this new evidence and thought about changing their minds. Just kidding! They doubled down on the conspiracy mongering, because of course they did.


    Every since the coronavirus now known as SARS-CoV-2 was first identified as the cause of an outbreak of a mysterious severe viral pneumonia in Wuhan, China two and a half years ago, a disease that later spread to the rest of the world as the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been intense curiosity about the origins of the virus. The most plausible hypothesis was that, like many diseases before, SARS-CoV-2 had a zoonotic origin; i.e., it developed the ability to “jump” from an animal reservoir to humans. Far less plausible, albeit not impossible, was the hypothesis that the novel coronavirus was created in a laboratory and then escaped, either through incompetence or malfeasance, a hypothesis that became more colloquially known as the “lab leak” hypothesis. Last week, two papers were finally published that, under normal circumstances, would be, if not the final nails in the coffin of the lab leak hypothesis, getting very close, were published in Science, one examining the molecular epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 and the other demonstrating that the wet market in Wuhan was indeed an early epicenter of the pandemic. Let’s just say that, contrary to the assertions of some optimists, these studies haven’t made much of an impact on conspiracy theorists, other than to provide them with targets to try to discredit.

  2. 2
    Belfast says:

    Seversky, resident CDC and Fauci spruiker, jumped in too soon with his banality. The WSJ actually wrote, “ The Energy Department joins the FBI in saying the virus likely spread via a mishap at a Chinese laboratory. Four other agencies, along with a national intelligence panel, still judge that it was likely the result of a natural transmission, and two are undecided..”
    If only he had read the extract on page 1, he could have blathered on about cherry-picking, avoided his ridiculous “So” about the Energy department, then pontificated about something he read somewhere how science progresses with new data all the time, or something.
    But we all have these neglected opportunities to deplore.

  3. 3
    vividbleau says:

    “So the next time we are faced with a public health emergency we should be turning to the Energy Department as the most qualified to manage the crisis, not any of the health agencies?”

    Way to deflect but what else is new. As to the intelligence supposedly coming from the energy department

    “The conclusion was the result of newly discovered intelligence “and is significant because the agency has considerable scientific expertise and oversees a network of U.S. national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research,” the report added”


  4. 4
    News says:

    Some of us suspected that the lab leak was the real story because it opens so many cans of worms that *all sides* were likely looking to conceal.

    1. Yes, the CCP was untruthful. But so? We all take that for granted here. Most of the time, we try to reconstruct what happened without relying on their word.

    2. So why was anyone prepared to believe the CCP this time? Well, ya see… it turned out that they didn’t, exactly. But lots of countries have their fingers in this exploding pie…

    3. And now what? This is a very dangerous technology but – unlike what happened after Hiroshima – there is no “Club” that controls it (Nuclear Club? = you can be a bad guy and still belong but you can’t be freaking insane and still belong. We’ll bomb you out. No really, we will… )

    Maybe world leaders now realize the need for a discussion about containment. Is that too much to hope? Maybe… But at least real world discussions are becoming possible.

Leave a Reply