Dai Jin said that he also believed at first that there was a general scientific consensus that the virus behind COVID-19 was naturally produced through human contact with infected animals in Wuhan, China, “because this is usually the way the virus breaks out.”

However, he said that after studying the theory of competition in depth, “it is clear that this is not a crazy hypothesis, nor is it a crazy conspiracy theory.”

What needs to be clear is that the so-called Wuhan laboratory leak theory has not reappeared because any important evidence has been found to prove it. What has changed is the appeal of scientists in the field, Biden Administration, And others to conduct appropriate investigations-because even the head of the World Health Organization said that this has not happened yet.

Deakin said: “I also have to remind everyone and myself that no matter which way, we are still inconclusive.”

‘Seriously investigate’

The laboratory leak theory hypothesizes that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who do work with the coronavirus, may be studying or even modifying such viruses to better understand them, and that laboratory accidents may allow the virus to escape.

It floated shortly after the pandemic, and was championed by then-U.S. President Donald Trump and other Republicans, but was rejected by many as a conspiracy theory.

However, since there is no clear evidence of natural origin and no “animal spills” obtained by scientists from animal hosts, this idea has not disappeared.

Dr. Peter Hotz, Dean of the Baylor National School of Tropical Medicine, said: “As time goes by, China does not allow any substantive investigation of its origin, and people will naturally start to wonder why.”

“So, whenever a new piece of evidence appears, it seems strange… People are increasingly inclined to come to a conclusion that it is either of human origin or laboratory.”

Although Hotez still believes that natural origin is the most likely, he said that the evidence at hand cannot completely eliminate laboratory accidents or more human involvement.

“But the only way to solve this problem is to conduct a serious investigation.”

United States, Wednesday President Biden Order a U.S. intelligence officer To “double” efforts to investigate the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, including any possibility that the clue may lead to the emergence of Chinese laboratories.

In addition, there are many articles, including two papers published by former science writers of the New York Times Donald G McNeil Jr. with Nicholas Wade, Put forward the laboratory leakage theory.Glenn Kessler, Fact Checker for The Washington Post Make a timetable Under the heading: How Wuhan’s laboratory leak theory on the origin of the pandemic suddenly became credible.

Simultaneously, “Wall Street Journal” report This week, three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology sought hospital treatment in November 2019, a month after China reported its first COVID-19 case.

But maybe the biggest The catalyst for another observation of the origin of this virus earlier this month, One published in scienceThe agreement signed by 18 scientists called for “appropriate investigations” of the origin of COVID-19 and criticized the World Health Organization’s report issued by researchers in March.

WHO report: laboratory incident “very unlikely”

That report is Later criticized by the United States and Canada And because other governments lack access to investigators, they have determined that the coronavirus is “very likely” to have a zoonotic source, while laboratory incidents are “very unlikely.”

The scientist wrote in the letter: “These two theories have not been considered in balance.” “Only four pages of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes talk about the possibility of laboratory accidents.”

“We must take the assumptions about natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we get enough data.”

Akiko Iwasaki, professor of immunobiology at Yale University School of Medicine, said she has no opinion on the origin of the virus, but she believes the WHO has reached a conclusion. The investigation is problematic.

She said: “Although there is little evidence of any of these possibilities, the report basically says that the laboratory is extremely unlikely. Other possibilities are possible.”

“As a result, as a scientist, if you don’t have any data to draw conclusions about the possibility of these scenarios in this way, you will feel a little embarrassed.”

Let me be clear, as far as the World Health Organization is concerned, all assumptions are on the table.-WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus)

Dr. David Fisman, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto’s Dalarana School of Public Health and the only Canadian scientist who signed the letter, believes that the WHO’s inadequate investigation is a change in attitudes towards laboratory leak theory. A milestone for the company.

“[It] He said: “The source of the virus was reported in 300 pages. The report cannot draw any conclusions unless the conclusion is very clear that it did not come from the laboratory-the lady protested too much.”

Even when the report was released, the Director-General of the World Health Organization Dr. Tedros Adnorm Gebreyesus also Express concern Regarding the survey, the evaluation is not “extensive” enough, “more data and research are needed to draw more reliable conclusions”.

“Let me be clear, as far as the World Health Organization is concerned, all assumptions are on the table.”

Watch | Biden calls for investigation into the origin of COVID-19:

US President Joe Biden (Joe Biden) ordered a reinvestigation of the source of the COVID-19 virus. 2:00

What else has changed

Both Iwasaki and Viessman believe that a more open discussion of the laboratory leak theory as a viable explanation can be traced back to Trump’s departure from the White House.

They say that for some people, any claims about Trump are tarnished by Trump’s peddling of unproven theories that have incited the flames of xenophobia against China.

Iwasaki said: “It is difficult for scientists to truly discuss this issue in an open and rational way.”

Viessmann said: “You don’t want to be considered as contributing to a toxic narrative that misleads information or harms people.” “So I think it keeps people quiet.”