Saturday, July 25th 2026
Scientists who played a key role in disproving the theory that Covid-19 may have originated in a laboratory have admitted in private conversations that this possibility “cannot be ruled out”, according to recently published messages, as reported by The Telegraph.
In March 2020, a group of influential virologists published a study in the journal Nature Medicine arguing that the pandemic was most likely caused by natural transmission. of the virus from animals to humans.
The article, known as “The Proximal Origins of Covid”, concluded that “we do not believe that any scenario involving a laboratory is plausible”, strongly influencing debate on this theory globally.
However, messages secured and released by US Senator Rand Paul show that, behind the scenes, scientists expressed concern that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had carried out experiments with coronaviruses under insufficient biosafety conditions.
The virus appeared only about 13 kilometers from the WIV laboratories and appeared to be already adapted to infect humans.
Three months after the publication of the study, one of the authors, Professor Kristian Andersen from the Scripps Institute in California, wrote on the Slack platform:
“At the end of the day, we do not have strong evidence in either direction and, especially considering some of the recent evidence, we can’t rule out the possibility that someone put it in there. That doesn’t mean that someone did, but we can’t rule it out. Our study was very firm in saying ‘no way,’ but at this stage I have less confidence in that statement.” finger only at WIV. However, Andersen privately admitted that this was not true.
“This is not true. This was done exclusively at WIV,” he wrote, adding that he believed both natural and laboratory origins were “equally possible.”
He also warned that the study claimed that manipulating viruses was difficult and that the virus could not have arisen through evolution experiments in cells, but he said both of these arguments had been proven wrong. incorrect.
Andersen estimated the possibility of a leak from the lab to be around 30 percent, while his co-author, Professor Eddie Holmes of the University of Sydney, estimated it at between 10 and 20 percent.
Viscount Ridley, author of the book “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19,” said: “These messages confirm that the authors of ‘Proximal Origins’ continued to believe that a leak from the lab was possible. Then why didn’t they correct or retract the study that misled the world?”
The messages also show that the authors were aware that Dr. Shi Zhengli, the lead scientist on bat viruses at WIV, was herself concerned that Covid-19 might have been caused by a laboratory accident.
In September 2021, Dr. Zhengli had applied for a grant to insert a furin cleavage site (FCS) into bat coronaviruses – the very element that made Covid-19 highly infectious to humans.
Although the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) rejected the grant as too risky, messages on Slack indicate that some scientists feared the work could have continued. anyway.
Professor Andrew Rambaut of the University of Edinburgh wrote: “It’s not incredible that someone has gone ahead and tried some of these experiments. We just have to convince ourselves again that it’s a coincidence.”
Professor Holmes added that it was “surprising” that a bat-derived coronavirus with a furin cleavage site appeared in the same city where a laboratory was proposing such experiments with bat coronaviruses. at night.
WIV planned this research in collaboration with the organization “EcoHealth Alliance”, founded by the British zoologist Peter Daszak and the American virologist Dr. Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina.
Rambaut wrote to co-authors that they would have to discuss what he called the “Baric/Daszak disaster” and devise a strategy “to avoid contacting these people.”
He also warned colleagues to “stay away from email” or “select certain emails carefully” in case there were requests for access to documents under freedom of information laws.
Although virologists publicly stated that most scientists supported the natural origin theory of the pandemic, in private conversations they acknowledged that this was not true.
Andersen said he was “quite surprised” to learn that “most scientists I talk to believe there is a possible connection to the laboratory.”
Professor Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, who has called for an investigation. of the lab leak theory, stated: “The claim, repeated thousands of times by journalists, that the majority of scientists supported the natural origin of Covid and opposed the laboratory origin, has always been a lie. And almost always a deliberate lie”. those “idiots,” “ignorant,” “crazy,” and “stupid,” as well as using insulting nicknames for some experts.
Senator Rand Paul said: “Behind closed doors, the scientists who wrote the ‘Proximal Origin’ study privately questioned their conclusions. Publicly, however, they shamed, attacked, and censured those who raised legitimate questions—all in the name of damage control. We deserve accountability for every effort that intended to keep the public in the dark”.
The Telegraph newspaper has contacted the scientists for comment, but they have not yet responded.
Source: prizrenpost
