Wuhan Denialism

From Tablet:

“Media sources that claim to refute the lab source hypothesis often refer to the public comments of zoologist Peter Daszak, the flawed correspondence of Andersen et al., or the emotional Lancet letter in which some scientists basically expressed their support and compassion with their Chinese peers. While there are some virus hunters like Peter Daszak who assert zoonotic transfer and discount the possibility of a lab leak, there are also leading microbiologists like professor Richard Ebright who assert that a lab or lab-related accident is a possible cause of the outbreak.

Notably, virus ecologists like Peter Daszak and Jonna Mazet have an inherent conflict of interest as they are involved in similar bat and wildlife sampling activity—and, in Daszak and Mazet’s case, in research with the Wuhan labs. As an example of such activity, Daszak and collaborators sampled 12,333 bats for viruses in a big wildlife surveillance project. A lab-related accident in China involving similar research would likely affect the funding for their work as it would demonstrate the risks involved. As it happens, the NIH recently cut the funding to Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance after realizing the risks involved in that research.

Daszak’s relentless and heavily amplified public assertions that the outbreak must have originated due to a zoonotic jump, and his denial of the possibility of a lab accident involving a natural virus, even long before the SARS-CoV-2 genome was published, would appear to be motivated by the apparent conflict of interest that he has denied. Daszak’s denial of his conflict of interest raised concerns of many scientists and experts, with many explicitly describing that denial as a bold lie. Daszak has presented no direct evidence that the outbreak started as a result of a zoonotic jump outside of a laboratory. In case the outbreak is a result of a natural zoonotic jump, that would underscore the importance of Daszak’s risky wildlife sampling and “early outbreak warning” work and increase their research funding. It is important to consider conflicts of interest when assessing anyone’s claims.”

Genetic-Manipulation Origin For SARS-CoV-2?

Is considering a genetic-manipulation origin for SARS-CoV-2 a conspiracy theory that must be censored?

Here is a new research paper  that considers the lab-origin of the virus the most likely explanation and suggests that it is being censored by scientific journals. The paper includes this telling paragraph on funding:

“In recent years, the field of corona-virology had been focused on pan-coronavirus therapies and vaccines, as evident from research conducted in the past five years,as well as from media reports. Synthetically generating diverse panels of potential pre-emergent coronaviruses was declared as a goal of active grants for EcoHealth Alliance which funded some of such research at WIV.”
Unfortunately, various intelligence/ex-intelligence operatives, some of them China hawks, have ignored the multiple ties the WIV has to Western public health bodies, private foundations, and agencies, and have tried to shift the blame solely to the Chinese government/lab.
Thus, the ex-chief of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove has raised the possibility of demanding reparations from China.  But Dearlove’s support for the invasion of Iraq and his involvement in the Steele dossier (in the Russiagate hoax) diminish his credibility.
Very likely, some of these public statements are either limited hang-outs or red herrings.
The truth is Zhengli Shi the “Bat Woman” at WIV was not working in isolation. She was a French-trained scientist with research experience in the US; she was at the center of a web of scientific partnerships and networks extending to leading labs in France and the USA. Her research has ties to the entire scientific community and its funders, and to the climate-change-public-health nexus that drives projects like OneHealth and the EcoHealth Alliance.
If this network was not fully implicated in what happened, we would not be seeing the kind of coverage…and coverup…from the global media. This level of media subterfuge  suggests a transnational crime, originating from  the highest levels of money and power. At that level, it is not China, or America, or Russia.
It is the transnational power-elite, driven by the dangerously utopian environmental ideology with which they mask their lust for power.