Here is my current view of COVID-19 origins: A research-related origin appears more likely than not, but presently there is no overall consensus among the expert and intelligence communities, and much uncertainty and ignorance remain. However, uncertainty and ignorance can be reduced and I expect that it will be.
Of course, I’m not a virologist. But I do seem to have a functioning brain (though some might question that!). Last week Alex Washburne, who does happen to be a virologist, made a compelling case for the likelihood that COVID-19 resulted from a research-related incident. He writes (and in the below SARS CoV = Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease):
“In over 1,000 years of evolutionary time, we see no evidence of a furin cleavage site in any SARS CoV, except for the SARS-CoV that emerged in Wuhan 1.5 years after researchers proposed to insert a furin cleavage site in a SARS CoV in Wuhan.”
Washburne is invoking a version of Alina Chan’s “unicorn” analogy:
In this post I provide an update on what is new and what is coming in the debate over COVID-19 origins following up on last week’s House Oversight Committee hearing, which provided far more instructive than you might think if you only read the headlines. There is a lot to cover, let’s get to it.
