The speculation about lab-based emergence remains thin and at odds with the science.
This skepticism Milley seems like the right take.
But there's clearly another contingent in the administration that's leaking strategically to make the lab the story.
This skepticism Milley seems like the right take.
But there's clearly another contingent in the administration that's leaking strategically to make the lab the story.
The cable leaked to @joshrogin has gotten a lot of attention today; but the report leaves out the ample relevant context that contradicts the lab-spillover narrative.
That pretty clearly suits the motives of the official(s) who leaked the cable - as evidenced by this (very misleading) quote claiming there's "almost nothing" to support a natural emergence scenario. The fact that the piece repeats it anonymously and unchallenged is remarkable. 
The strong implication in the piece, as @RadioFreeTom outlines, is that if the lab had safety issues, and the Wuhan market perhaps wasn't the site of the earlier infections, then the lab is the likely source. There are many holes there.
For a start, the article focuses on bat research, but ignores that the virus didn't emerge straight from bats - it took a detour via pangolins before jumping to humans.
The word "pangolin" does not appear in the article. The word "bat" appears 13 times.
The word "pangolin" does not appear in the article. The word "bat" appears 13 times.
It also ignores the substantial research evidence on the virus' origins, well summarized here, which *literally says* that based on genomic analysis "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."
It also ignores the perspectives of scientists who have worked with the lab in question and don't find the lab-emergence speculation credible.
Interestingly (and unusually for the Post) the article doesn't publish the full document. So we don't know what other context is included beyond the quotes cited in the piece.
It does note, however, that the cable's request for more support to lab safety was not approved.
It does note, however, that the cable's request for more support to lab safety was not approved.
Additionally - it sure sounds like this cable is related to USAID's PREDICT program, which was working with the lab in question until the administration allowed it to expire last year. Would be useful to see the full cable to know for sure.
But it if is a PREDICT-related cable, that would mean that a USG-funded program was working in the lab in question, didn't receive the help it was seeking, and was then shuttered just prior to the virus emerging. Awkward. Useful to see the full cable to know for sure...
So look - there's no silver bullet proof of how the virus emerged. But the fact that Wuhan labs had lax safety practices during a visit 2 years ago doesn't prove much, especially when the weight of the research evidence points to natural emergence.
It is really unfortunate that Chinese authorities aren't being more transparent. But the the obvious agenda stoking this speculation on the US side also contributes to the stonewalling.
At the end of the day we're left with Occam's razor: what's the simplest explanation that fits the known facts? At this stage, given what we know, that largely points to natural emergence.
And given how motivated the White House is to pin this all on China, and given that they're actively looking for any basis to do so...the fact that they best they can point to is a 2yo SBU cable is pretty revealing in its own right. If they had something stronger, they'd leak it.
Bottom line - if you're going to report on this spin from the administration, do so in context. Cross check what they tell you. Talk to some virologists and epidemiologists. Report the full picture.
