Changes

Finally, why did the media do a U-turn on the lab leak issue? Supposedly, it was because of the ''Wall Street Journal's'' reported that three lab workers fell sick in November 2019 of a SARS-like virus, several weeks before the first on-the-record covid case. That's certainly a good reason to suspect a lab leak. But it's been reported before. IMO, they must have known that Fauci's emails were about to be declassified. I wonder which judge did this. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:17, June 4, 2021 (EDT)

Finally, why did the media do a U-turn on the lab leak issue? Supposedly, it was because of the ''Wall Street Journal's'' reported that three lab workers fell sick in November 2019 of a SARS-like virus, several weeks before the first on-the-record covid case. That's certainly a good reason to suspect a lab leak. But it's been reported before. IMO, they must have known that Fauci's emails were about to be declassified. I wonder which judge did this. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:17, June 4, 2021 (EDT)

:Here is yet another deep dive on the origin of covid that's definitely worth reading. This one is in ''Vanity Fair'': "[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins]." Insiders knew that Wuhan was one of only three labs in the world that did genetic manipulation of coronaviruses. The other two are in Galveston and Chapel Hill. So "lab leak" was an explanation that popped into the minds of a lot of people right at the beginning of the outbreak. It was certainly the initial reaction of Wuhan virus researcher Shi Zhengli. Daszak organized [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext a letter published in ''The Lancet'' on Feb. 19, 2020] to "strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." Anyone who mentioned lab leaks was a conspiracy theorist. This is the language of intimidation, not science. The medical community fell into line and stopped thinking naughty thoughts for the next year.

:Here is yet another deep dive on the origin of covid that's definitely worth reading. This one is in ''Vanity Fair'': "[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins]." Insiders knew that Wuhan was one of only three labs in the world that did genetic manipulation of coronaviruses. The other two are in Galveston and Chapel Hill. So "lab leak" was an explanation that popped into the minds of a lot of people right at the beginning of the outbreak.{{cquote|Dr. Richard Ebright, board of governors professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, said that from the very first reports of a novel bat-related coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, it took him “a nanosecond or a picosecond” to consider a link to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.}}

:Wuhan researcher Shi Zhengli also thought lab leak. She immediately headed back to her lab to check her virus samples.

:Daszak decided he had to put a stop to that kind of thinking. He organized [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext a letter published in ''The Lancet'' on Feb. 19, 2020] to "strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." Anyone who mentioned lab leaks was a conspiracy theorist. This is the language of intimidation, not science. The medical community fell into line and stopped thinking naughty thoughts for the next year.

:In the early days of the epidemic, the Wuhan lab's BSL-4 rating was widely touted. This was highly misleading. The part of the lab where Shi's experiments took place was rated as BSL-3, and substandard BSL-3 at that. A well-maintained dentist's office in the U.S. could qualify for a BSL-3 rating. Perhaps the BSL-4 section of the lab was reserved for military research.

:In the early days of the epidemic, the Wuhan lab's BSL-4 rating was widely touted. This was highly misleading. The part of the lab where Shi's experiments took place was rated as BSL-3, and substandard BSL-3 at that. A well-maintained dentist's office in the U.S. could qualify for a BSL-3 rating. Perhaps the BSL-4 section of the lab was reserved for military research.

:The Obama administration banned gain-of-function research in October 2014. It proved to be a fateful decision. Ralph Baric and other gain-of-function researchers began working with Shi so they could continue their research, even though the Wuhan lab could scarcely be considered a secure facility at that time. Fauci lifted the ban in December 2017, in the closing days of Obama administration.[https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:50, June 4, 2021 (EDT)

:The Obama administration banned gain-of-function research in October 2014. It proved to be a fateful decision. Ralph Baric and other gain-of-function researchers began working with Shi so they could continue their research, even though the Wuhan lab could scarcely be considered a secure facility at that time. Fauci lifted the ban in December 2017, in the closing days of Obama administration.[https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:50, June 4, 2021 (EDT)