The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which sparked a global pandemic, has raised controversy over its origins since the beginning of its appearance. The latest conclusions presented by the peculiar Subcommittee of the home of Representatives on coronavirus pandemic indicate that the virus is most likely from a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan. Donald Trump already pointed out in May 2020 that he had “seen evidence” in support of this theory, though he had not revealed it.
Subcommittee Report: Key conclusions
Following a two-year study, the peculiar Subcommittee of the home of Representatives published a study counting 520 pages, in which the biological features of coronavirus and cases of illness among the employees of the Wuhan Institute of Virology were analysed in detail. The paper shows that:
- The biological features of SARS-CoV-2 propose its formation under laboratory conditions.
- Cases of illness among researchers from the Wuhan laboratory prior to the outbreak of the pandemic may indicate a virus leak from the laboratory.
- If there were indisputable evidence of the natural origin of the virus, they should have been found by now.
The study recalls that recognition of the animal origin of the virus is simply a hard process. For example, it took more than a decade to find the origin of SARS and the origin of Ebola remains unexplained.
WHO Criticism
The subcommittee accused the planet wellness Organization (WHO) of putting the political interests of the Communist organization of China over the mission to defend public health. The study shows that the WHO has allowed investigations into the origin of the virus to be controlled by the Chinese side, which has limited the anticipation of nonsubjective analysis.
History of the laboratory leak
Already in May 2020. Donald Trump claimed that he had “seen evidence” of the laboratory origin of the virus. At the time, his statements met with a wave of criticism. The president did not uncover the details, citing government secrecy. Among the supporters of this theory, however, were agencies specified as the FBI, which were to have evidence to support the hypothesis of a leak.
Tomasz Wróblewski, president of the Warsaw Enterprise Institute, noted that:
"Trump spoke about this at the end of his reign, but without referring to a secret report. Then the study was silenced, the evidence of FBI scholars who had the evidence was not delivered to the president.”
During president Joe Biden's reign, theories about the laboratory origin of the virus were frequently referred to as "conspiring". Publications specified as an article in a magazine The Lancet, promoted the hypothesis of the natural origin of the virus, claiming that the pandemic had begun at the Wuhan market. The WHO besides issued a study supporting this theory, rejecting another possibilities.
Scientific consensus or political pressure?
Critics point out that there have been pressures in the planet of discipline to support the explanation of the natural origin of the virus. Tomasz Wróblewski noted:
“As with climate, scholars either signed “consensus” or kept quiet so as not to break their careers.”
The importance of the study for the future
The publication of the peculiar Subcommittee study may change the communicative regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The paper not only underlines the importance of transparency in research, but besides calls for greater work for global organisations specified as the WHO. Explaining the origin of pandemics is crucial to preventing future wellness crises.
Summary
Although the explanation of the laboratory origin of the coronavirus was treated with a long distance, the latest peculiar Subcommittee study brought it back to the centre of attention. In the absence of conclusive evidence of the natural origin of the virus, the hypothesis of leakage from Wuhan laboratory gains credibility. Is the global community ready to face the truth? Only time will show the consequences of publishing this report.
Read more:
"Coronavirus produced in laboratory". COVID-19 pandemic study confirms Turmpa's thesis
