One scientist has been at the forefront of questioning the origins of COVID-19, but her work has been largely ignored by the media and scientific community.
While the rest of the scientific community has conveniently forgotten that their role is to question and explore without having a foregone conclusion in mind, one scientist has been at the forefront of questioning the origins of COVID-19, but her work has been largely ignored by the media and scientific community. The SARS-CoV-2 virus, according to Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of MIT and a postdoctoral scholar at Harvard, was likely developed and originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, she told the UK Parliament Science and Technology Select Committee this week.
Chan began her scientific journey by asking questions, but she soon moved on to make more direct allegations, owing to the scientific community's absolute and complete refusal to give the lab leak possibility equal attention. Chan, who has co-authored a book the Origins of COVID-19 (available on Amazon here), now lives in fear for her life, believing that if her well-evidenced theory proves correct, she could become a target of those who have the most to lose, such as the Chinese Government.
The Covid lab leak hypothesis is now the most likely origin of the pandemic, MPs were told today.
Dr Alina Chan, a specialist in cell engineering at Harvard and MIT, said the idea that the virus may have been genetically engineered is ‘reasonable’.
She highlighted a number of coincidences in the Covid timeline and said the state-sponsored Chinese cover-up of the early stages of the pandemic added to suspicion.
Speaking to the Science and Technology Select Committee, Dr Chan said: ‘I think the lab origin is more likely than not.
‘Right now it’s not safe for people who know about the origin of the pandemic to come forward.
‘But we live in an era where there is so much information being stored that it will eventually come out.
‘We have heard from many top virologists that a genetically engineered origin is reasonable and that includes virologists who made modifications to the first Sars [sic] virus.’
Dr. Ralph Baric, an experienced virologist at the University of North Carolina who is known as "The Godfather of Gain-of-Function," is presumably the person Chan is referring to. Baric, Chan, and seventeen other scientific experts signed a letter in May, demanding an investigation into the origins of COVID-19 after only 4 pages out of the 313-page WHO report considered the potential of a lab-leak theory. At least two of Baric's experiments, categorized as gain-of-function and ordered to continue by the NIH and NIAID despite an Obama Administration-mandated stop in that sort of research, were undertaken in collaboration with Dr. Shi Zhengli and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
And just this month, another signer of that letter, Dr. Michael Worobey of the University of Arizona's evolutionary biology department, published a report on the origins of COVID-19, reversing his previous position of giving equal weight to both the lab leak theory and the natural zoonotic spillover event theory.
Chan said that the virus's ability to create the pandemic was due to a unique trait, and that WIV was working on a "pipeline for injecting" this characteristic:
‘We know this virus (Covid) has a unique feature, called the furin cleavage site, and without this feature there is no way this would be causing this pandemic.
‘A proposals was leaked showing that EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology were developing a pipeline for inserting novel furin cleavage sites. So, you find these scientists who said in early 2018 ‘I’m going to put horns on horses’ and at the end of 2019 a unicorn turns up in Wuhan city.’
According to the Daily Mail, after the May 2021 Science article was posted urging a further look at the lab leak theory, another study made even more explosive claims:
[A] study by British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr Birger Sørensen claimed it had ‘prima facie evidence of retro-engineering in China’ for a year.
The study included accusations of ‘deliberate destruction, concealment or contamination of data’ at Chinese labs.
The Biden administration, at least in July, thought the lab leak origin scenario was at least as probable as a zoonotic transmission, but couldn't reach to a determination because the Chinese government refused to produce the relevant paperwork.
The time has come, as Lord Ridley stated in the hearing where Chan spoke, for a serious, full, and complete inquiry without the participation of anyone connected to the lab. If this virus originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the failure to correctly identify it and address the safety issues of the other viruses researched and maintained at the facility might result in another catastrophic breakout tomorrow, and another the next day, and so on. The irony of a government organization supporting research to avoid the next global epidemic, then accidently causing one, and then being trusted to manage not just the inquiry of the virus's origins but also its reaction should not be overlooked. The question now is, what are we going to do about it now that we've realized the truth?