WHO: COVID ‘lab leak’ theory deserves further investigation
World Health Organization scientists want to dig deeper into the Wuhan lab leak theory.
Published on 12.6.2022
The World Health Organization, which has spent almost the entire time since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic playing defense for China, has a group of scientists within its ranks who are finally ready to examine the theory of the lab leak as a real possibility.
Due to a large amount of missing data from China, the WHO says it has not yet been able to conclude the origin of the virus.
Excerpt from the New York Post: In its first preliminary report on Thursday, the Scientific Advisory Group on the Origin of New Pathogens stressed that it had no conclusive results on the origins of the worst global pandemic in a century.
“There are key elements that are not yet available for a full understanding of how the COVID-19 pandemic began,” the experts said in their report, stressing that further studies are needed “to fill in the gaps.” several gaps in our knowledge,” according to Agence France-Presse.
Of course, like the UN, they still believe in a zoological origin – probably in bats – for the virus. However, they now acknowledge that they have no idea how the virus was introduced or how it jumped from animals to humans in the first place. They nevertheless underline the need to deepen the theory of escape in the laboratory.
“It remains important to consider all reasonable scientific data available, whether published or from other official sources, to assess the possibility of the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population through ‘a laboratory incident,’ the report said.
Unsurprisingly, however, team members from China, Russia and Brazil are opposed to considering this possibility.
Of course, given the WHO’s track record of submission to China and the latter’s lack of transparency, it is unlikely that it will ever come any closer to admitting the merits of the theory of laboratory. However, they moved from the position that a lab leak was “highly unlikely” to the position that it “requires further investigation”. That alone says a lot.