Thread by @vid_colin

There were several NIAID grants awarded to @PeterDaszak's EcoHealth Alliance between 2014 & 2019, where research for 'Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence' was conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

reporter.nih.gov/search/4aNjEBy…

Project number 'R01AI110964' includes the following experiments conducted on Coronaviruses (see image).

reporter.nih.gov/search/dZ-OQ5-…

What this means is that they set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells.

The Wuhan Institute for Virology (WIV) is known for it's creation of 'novel chimeric viruses', as described in the linked scientific article:

'The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

Here's Peter Daszak discussing just how easy coronaviruses are to manipulate in the lab.

Incidentally, this discussion took place right before the start of the outbreak in 2019.

Peter Daszak was also responsible for the Lancet letter in Feb '20, refuting the 'conspiracy theory' that the virus could have been manipulated in a lab, while knowing full well that such experiments were being conducted in Wuhan.

thelancet.com/journals/lance…

Yet with all @PeterDaszak's conflicts of interest, he was chosen by China to aid in the WHO's "Origins of SARS-COV-2" study, which came to the conclusion that a lab leak was 'unlikely', even though they were denied access to crucial information.

who.int/publications/i…

Although a statement by @DrTedros seemed to go against the findings:

https://twitter.com/vid_colin/status/1377952114329055232

A team of 26 scientists also wrote the following call for action:

"Call for a Full and Unrestricted
International Forensic Investigation into the
Origins of COVID-19"

int.nyt.com/data/documentt…

Surely the key to proving/disproving the lab leak theory lies with the WIV.

It's unclear exactly what information was garnered from the labs, since the 'Origins of COVID' WHO report contains very little info regarding the lab leak theory, dismissing it largely on the grounds....

...of a paper written by Kristian Andersen:

"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2"
nature.com/articles/s4159…

Although the WHO report cites this paper, stating the bio-engineered theory has been 'ruled out', that is clearly not the case, as we can see here:

https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1391507281708077057

So it appears that @WHO didn't obtain any information which may have proved useful.

No raw data, no lab notes, no details on the specific experiments being carried out.

According to Daszak, they "talked to people and asked critical questions".

bbc.com/news/world-asi…

We could also ascertain the exact experiments that were being performed at WIV from NIAID/NIH (through their funding), yet these too are refusing to release details.

A lawsuit from the Center for Food Safety is attempting to rectify this:

centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases…

Maybe the spike protein of the virus was not manipulated in the lab? Others have theorised that the virus could have been accidently released in it's 'natural' form, especially since the WHO report notes the following happened in Dec 2019:

The following article hypothesises that samples taken from Mojiang Miners back in '13 could have mutated via a 'passaging' technique

The genome sequences of 2 samples taken, BtCoV/4991 and RaTG13, were 98.7% and 96.2% identical to SARS-COV-2 respectively

counterpunch.org/2020/07/17/a-p…

So, the 'Origins of SARS-CoV-2' WHO report did not find anything to back up either 'zoonotic transmission' theory.

All theories therefore remain possible.

But the simplest and most viable theory is surely the 'lab leak'.

#OccramsRazor

As @DrTedros stipulated, we need a fully independent team to investigate this.

The lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and deflecting by those involved in the investigation have only muddied the waters.

Please read this article by Nicholas Wade:
nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covi…