From TPM Reader NB …

I wanted to comment with a slightly different perspective on your recent discussion of the “lab leak” theory of the origins of COVID: The FBI is terrible at molecular bioscience.

The evidence emerging from the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News has the quality of liberal fever dreams. What’s the worst you can possibly imagine about Fox? What’s the most cartoonish caricature, the worst it could possibly be? Well, in these emails and texts you basically have that. Only it’s real. It’s not anyone believing the worst and giving no benefit of the doubt. This is what Fox is.

At a conference today in New Delhi, Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, even now the smiley face of the Russian state, was discussing the Ukraine war as the “the war which we’re trying to stop, and which was launched against us using the Ukrainian people.” The comment was met with a round of guffaws and laughter from the audience. Even in the global south it’s not playing well. See it after the jump.

I did a piece yesterday in The Dispatch trying to frame and contextualize the six TPM Reader emails I posted (see below) with different perspectives on the origins of COVID and the so-called “Lab Leak Theory.” I was struck again by the basic fact: It is all but impossible to discuss the issue as a question of scientific investigation as opposed to a contest amongst — or between? with? — all the stresses and beliefs and collective wounds of the COVID pandemic era. Perhaps, put differently, the public conversation has almost no relation to the actual scientific inquiry. That meta discussion is itself fascinating in a way but only if you can step way, way back from it and see it as an artifact of a society in turmoil. I at least am unable to do that. We’re simply too close, too in the midst of that turmoil. The purveyors of lies and aggrieved special pleading are still too up in arms and demanding. TPM Reader JS captured something at the heart of the matter when he told us that lab leak discourse “is some kind of shibboleth for people who want to feel vindicated that something they didn’t agree with from someone official about COVID, whether it was masks or the vaccine — they want [to] have this sort of liquid position of not actually believing it but thinking that countervailing opinions aren’t being given enough oxygen.”

From TPM Reader CR …

You got good advice from readers in your Lab Leak posts #1 – #3. The last one, not so much.

I do think it could be significant that the lab leak nonsense is surfacing in the same week as rather hawkish Congressional hearings and some weapon-rattling by usual suspects, but in a different way than correspondent #4. Namely, that the hawkish faction wants to stir things up, and Lab Leak is one of their tools. Is it possible that Chris Wray is just a little bit hawkish? Hm?

From TPM Reader AS …

I am a neurobiologist PhD, not a virologist, but I may be able to provide some perspective on what is spilling into your inbox.

I don’t know COVIDs ultimate origins and neither do the people writing in to tell you that various studies “proved” this came from the wildlife market.  First, it is entirely possible that a lab leak occurred at WIV but COVID began circulating more widely in humans through the market.  If so, it would not be that big of a coincidence – there is a reason tightly packed commercial spaces are considered hotspots for the spread of pathogens and there is no requirement that a disease spread widely at the point of spillover. 

From TPM Reader SB …

What do you think of the timing of the lab leak hypothesis coming up again very publicly when the US is putting pressure on the Chinese government to not supply lethal support to Russia?  Also a couple of weeks after the balloon nonsense.

I was 50/50 on the Covid source, but Ray coming out and saying what he did moves the needle considerably for me toward the lab leak hypothesis.

From TPM Reader JS …

I have been sort of paying attention to this from the beginning. I think it’s important to separate the legitimate scientific question of how Covid emerged from the discourse of the “lab leak hypothesis.” I believe that the latter is some kind of shibboleth for people who want to feel vindicated that something they didn’t agree with from someone official about Covid, whether it was masks or the vaccine—they want have this sort of liquid position of not actually believing it but thinking that countervailing opinions aren’t being given enough oxygen. Maybe they were even ok with the vaccine but are worried that the decisions were too political? It’s weird.

From TPM Reader SM …

I’m a physician and clinical researcher. Viruses are not my specific area, but I have some interest in them and their origins.

I am a bit surprised to see you — and others in the mainstream press — talk about how we “still don’t know” the origins of COVID. While it may be true that we do not strictly know with 100% certainty, the burden of scientific evidence clearly points to a natural species-jumping event at the Wuhan market rather than a lab leak. This study here was published in one of the most world’s most elite journals, and is a sophisticated and thoughtful exploration of the issue. The first author, Michael Worobey, is the guy who did the major work to uncover the origins and early spread patterns of HIV. So he is The Man when it comes to this stuff. And his analysis clearly points to the market.

From TPM Reader KR …

The two studies, published last year in Science, are highly technical but Dr. Steve Novella  breaks down at Science Based Medicine.  Taken together they are a “body blow”, he says, to the lab leak hypothesis.

The first study used genetic analysis of the virus in the earliest cases to trace their origin and spread. You can use genetic analysis to trace spread as the virus mutates rapidly, splitting off into branching subtypes identifiable by genetic markers. This analysis finds that there were very likely two distinct spillover events, not just one, although they happened close together in space and time – in Wuhan in late November and early December 2019. The authors conclude: