Recently the possibility of an artificial origin of Covid-19 has been gaining more mainstream acceptance. Although certainly still controversial, it is less often labeled a “conspiracy theory”. The public is becoming aware of the capabilities of genetic engineers, the research interests of scientists, and past biosecurity incidents. But only one scenario is presented as an alternative to a natural origin: an accidental release during research that was risky and performed under unsafe conditions. The discourse and proposed remedies are about bureaucratic oversight, restricting or banning certain types of experiment, strengthening biosafety, and not funding research overseas where there is less visibility and control.
But there is a third scenario: that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately engineered to be a bioweapon agent of terror. Terror implies it is for use against civilian populations - not on the battlefield, and part of its intended effect is psychological - to stoke public fear. This alternative scenario was rapidly suppressed early in the pandemic, and remains taboo. Proponents of the research accident scenario have worked to differentiate themselves from what has been attacked as a fringe view - a “conspiracy theory”.
Why is this? There really isn’t any scientific evidence to argue against a bioweapon, perhaps scientists aren’t the right people to ask. Some point to the fact that SARS-CoV-2 isn’t especially lethal. This view is based on the misperception that a bioweapon must be intended to defeat a military force on the battlefield, it is uninformed by an understanding of the doctrine of Unrestricted Warfare. Another view is that the PLA wouldn’t design a bioweapon that might harm their own population. Sadly, their history doesn’t support this presumption. Intelligence agencies and China watchers might be better placed to make such assessments - as well as the Chinese diaspora.
A more likely reason the likes of Chan and Ebright want to distance themselves from a bioweapon scenario is the perception that this is the position of right-wing hawks seeking war with China. Unsurprisingly, this framing is also promoted in CCP propaganda. A research accident is less confrontational, and other countries can share in the blame. In fact, it now appears that US science will be the most debilitated by restrictions and funding cuts, while Chinese bioweapon development will continue unabated. Even traditional hawks now support this action, so pervasive is the view that the danger is from accidents - not pathogens that have been deliberately engineered to cause harm.
Richard Ebright has been one of the most high-profile proponents of a “lab-leak” of Covid though he has been inconsistent on whether it was engineered or not.
Ebright has for many years argued that US investments in high biosecurity labs are unnecessary, or even counterproductive. He seems to believe terrorists are incapable of mastering techniques of genetic engineering, and that nation states wouldn’t resort to terrorism. This is another assessment that may have been better made by someone with a national security focus, rather than a microbiologist. Though - to be fair - those charged with biodefense also failed to identify it - when it happened.
Rather as the FBI focused on “lone wolf” US scientists as the terrorist in "the “Amerithrax” killings (which remain unsolved), Ebright sees the biggest threat as unhinged American colleagues.
Ebright regularly lobs accusations of mass murder at US scientists and the bureaucrats that oversee them but is more restrained when it comes to China. In the early phase of the pandemic, he even praised the WIV’s own BSL-4 lab.
Although he no longer repeats this claim, it illustrates that scientists often don’t have any understanding of issues of national security. If you read enough of this blog, you will come to understand that WIV is an agency of scientific disinformation and espionage. Its primary role is to obfuscate the origin of artificial pathogens.
The media seek comment from well-known outspoken individuals. Ebright, Chan et al superficially provide a contrasting opinion to natural origin zealots. But are they any wiser to the threat?
Why subscribe?
Subscribe to be alerted to future articles on the origin of SARS, SARS-COV-2, biowarfare, bioterrorism and geopolitics.
Occasional posts, no spam.
