Sowing Distrust in Science Versus Discovering the Truth

German intelligence favors the lab leak theory

I’m interested in the spread of scientific information, particularly related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Does it zig-zag or proceed linearly? Which stories are perpetuated? Which ones are shot down? What arguments are used to shoot them down? Are the facts conveyed objectively and impartially? Consider the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19.

In May 2021 I did a deep dive into what was known about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. At the time, I was active on Facebook and so I posted my conclusions on that site. I thought it was highly likely, p = 0.95, that the virus originated in the lab in Wuhan. I gave the natural origin hypothesis a small, non-zero probability of p = 0.05. I posted this on Facebook and soon discovered that my post had been blocked by the company with an explanatory note saying:

• “Your post goes against our Community Standards on misinformation about COVID-19.”

• “No one else can see your post.”

• “We encourage free expression, but don’t allow false information that has been repeatedly debunked.”

This was news to me. Who debunked it? When? How?

My post was rejected as “misinformation” and yet the statement from Facebook was the real misinformation (probably from the Biden administration). No scientist had at that time, or has since, convincingly proven either the zoonotic origin hypothesis or the laboratory leak hypothesis. No one can currently show that the probability of either theory is 100% or 0%. Uncertainty remains.

I successfully reposted my original findings and the way I was blocked by Facebook by posting an image of my text and the Facebook notice. Facebook didn’t have the technology to unpack my image and see that it violated its Community Standards.

What we have discovered since 2021, from internal communications, was that many of the proponents of the zoonotic origin hypothesis privately suspected the lab origin story at the same time they were publicly defending the zoonotic one! The strongest critics of the lab leak story were the Chinese Communist Party and the American scientists and government officials who were involved in the very research that could have led to the lab leak of SARS-CoV-2. Their objectivity was colored by blatant self-interest.

We’ve also learned that U.S. government employees were pressured to go along with the zoonotic story. Gradually, U.S. government agencies have been lining up behind the lab leak story.

Recently, the German Federal Intelligence Service suggested that the virus was genetically modified in a Chinese laboratory. It estimated there was an 80-90% chance that the coronavirus accidentally leaked from a Chinese lab.

Fast forward to today. A new article by Barbara Zenz on Medscape oddly entitled “SARS-CoV-2 Origin: Lab Leak Hypothesis Gains Momentum,” takes another swipe at the lab leak proponents. The article contains some of the usual warnings we’ve heard from others that the lab leak hypothesis weakened science and promoted political interests:

• “While it is crucial to investigate the causes and to identify errors in the communication and implementation of these measures [lockdowns, mask mandates, and school closures], the spread of unfounded assumptions about the origin of the pandemic-triggering virus is not helpful.”

• “This hypothesis can be politically leveraged to deepen the existing divide between a science-oriented audience and a science-skeptical or hostile public.”

• “The possibility that SARS-CoV-2 could have originated in a laboratory continues to provoke sometimes heated and partially media-driven disputes. This type of discourse ultimately harms all involved researchers but does not yield any insights into the origin of SARS-CoV-2.”

• “It unsettles, destroys trust in the integrity of scientific institutions and researchers, and weakens decision-makers and communicators in future crisis situations.”

In other words, the discovery and dissemination of information and the debate over competing theories is pushed by bad, anti-science people who are out to harm science. When, in fact, information discovery and debate are exactly what science is!

The article is riddled with odd contradictions. Zenz claims that no samples were taken from animals at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan:

• “However, according to Chinese health authorities, samples from living animals present at the market were not taken at the time of the outbreak. Very quickly, citing infection control, the entire animal stock was culled, cages and market stalls were disinfected, and the market was closed.

And then she claims that the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention did take samples:

• “What is certain, however, is that viral sequences of SARS-CoV-2 have been detected in all four wild animal markets in Wuhan. The sequences come from cage swabs taken at the beginning of the pandemic by employees of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.”

Which is it?

Zenz goes on to say that potentially dangerous work has been conducted in laboratories under inadequate safety conditions. But then she dismisses this information because it “does not yield any insights into the origin of SARS-CoV-2.” That would be similar to saying that murders are common in Chicago, but that fact is irrelevant to discovering the true cause of death of a particular young man found bleeding on a sidewalk.

The article concluded, “According to current knowledge, a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still much more likely than a laboratory origin. Even after 5 years, there is not a single solid piece of evidence for a laboratory origin. Presenting the lab leak hypothesis as more or less established is therefore driven more by political interests than by a desire to clarify the origin of the virus.”

Then she gets to her main point: “…claims that are not supported by facts causes significant harm: It unsettles, destroys trust in the integrity of scientific institutions and researchers, and weakens decision-makers and communicators in future crisis situations.”

So, we aren’t supposed to follow the evidence and assign probabilities to possible events because that will destroy trust in scientific institutions? Instead, we are supposed to circle the wagons to protect the scientific institutions that…may have helped cause the pandemic?

To learn more, I went to Google to see what it had on SARS-CoV-2 vis-à-vis the German Federal Intelligence Service. Here are a few excerpts from Google’s supposedly objective and impartial AI Overview:

1. “The scientific community, as a whole, leans towards a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2, with the consensus being that the virus likely originated in bats and spread to humans through an intermediate animal host.”

2. “In summary: The BND [German intelligence agency] reportedly considered a lab leak a likely scenario, based on their investigation, but did not explicitly conclude or suggest that SARS-CoV-2 was a genetically modified virus. The scientific community's prevailing view is that the virus has a natural origin.”

Really?

The German agency concluded that there was an 80-90% chance that the coronavirus accidentally leaked from a Chinese lab. Does a probability of 80-90% merely qualify as “likely”? I would say that’s “highly likely” or “very likely.”

Google mentions a consensus. How can Google say there’s a consensus when so many people think it was a lab leak?

According to NZZ.ch, “The German government has detailed intelligence indicating with some probability that the SARS-CoV-2 virus may have been artificially engineered by modifying an existing virus, and could have emerged from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

How does this agree with the statement that BND “did not explicitly conclude or suggest that SARS-CoV-2 was a genetically modified virus”? It did explicitly suggest that very idea.

Google AI Overview seems to be giving significant weight to this one poorly researched Medscape article. What about the many other articles and books with different perspectives and conclusions? Is this how of scientific information spreads?

How can Zenz say: “Even after 5 years, there is not a single solid piece of evidence for a laboratory origin”? Has she done any research? Maybe she should read my Substack posts here and here. She’s in good company because Google AI Overview obviously hasn’t.

Here is my summary of her article in one sentence: The politicized lab leak theory is used to sow distrust in science and institutions. Here’s my one-sentence response: Far from threatening it, debating competing theories strengthens science and helps us uncover the truth.

The spread of scientific information and hypotheses is a messy business, and we are watching that messy business unfold in real time. It’s not pretty. But it’s necessary.