In 2001 the US defence department changed and put it's entire research budget through Tony Fauci's NIH. Since then it's been doing secretive bio defence work.
When covid broke out the scientists got together to write a paper about it and privately thought they couldn't see how it happened naturally and it was "so frigging likely it came from the lab" (Andersen). But they they met with Fauci, put out the Proximal Origins paper in Nature saying it was natural, after which Andersen got an $8m grant from Fauci.
There was also a letter in the Lancet saying "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin".
Qualified virologist of the kind you mention are almost entirely funded from government or similar sources and letters like that pretty much say that if you say if came from the lab you are a conspiracy theorist and lose your grant and job.
Science is supposed to be about the truth about nature found through experiment, not via politics. The whole thing is totally corrupted and Proximal Origins a fraud.
And, absent actual hard physical evidence, not the slightest amount of which exists, you should be labeled a conspiracy theorist, because that is exactly what you are.
Further if your job is in direct virology / epidemiology and you’re such a theorist — which, again, pretty much does not exist, hence precisely why the actually qualified write letters trying to counter the not-actually qualified — then you absolutely should lose your grant and your job. Science is about discovering the consensus on what the truth is… the truth is SARS-CoV-2 had animal origins in the wet market where all the original cases arose, full stop.
But please, go on believing your conspiracy theory.
Science is about discovering consensus? Wtf is this garbage.
I'm an avid China watcher, and the propaganda there started almost immediately, even before Wuhan was locked down. There were already stories being bandied about accusing the US Army of spreading a bioweapon in Wuhan etc etc.
I disagree about science being "discovering the consensus". It's like that Nazi book they brought out 100 scientists against Einstein. In my prefered definition of science Einstein was right and they were wrong even if the consensus there was that 'jewish science' was bad.
Not sure about "conspiracy theory" - if there's a real conspiracy and the theory is correct does it still count?
As to evidence of what actually happened, you can't get any more qualified virologist than Baric and it came out in his testimony to congress in January that he was the source of the idea to insert a furin cleavage site at the S1 S2 junction in sars like coronaviruses and was interested in the cleavage site in feline coronaviruses some of which are amino acid identical with the one in covid. (testimony 4720 on approx). There are something like 1000 natural viruses like covid and none in nature has been found with a furin cleavage site.
Assuming covid was natural and came from the market isn't it a remarkable coincidence that Baric proposed a virus with that exact never before seen modification to be done at the lab down the road? I mean of course it's natural but what are the odds of that? Man's a genius.
