2021: A disappointment, or expected?

Many things most people wished for at the end of 2020 hasn’t panned out in 2021.  But in hindsight such an outcome could have been predicted, or maybe the expectations had been too much to begin with?

A major letdown is that COVID-19 is still going on, killing more people in 2021 than in 2020.  By Nov 2020 vaccines were coming out, and COVID-19 was no longer new, so the hope was high in Dec 2020 for going back to normal in 2021.  Yet 2021 finds new variants emerging, re-infections after prior infections and vaccinations possible, and many countries letting it go, so to speak.  The whole world still lacks a coordinated response, allowing variants spreading like wild fires.  Maybe the virus will stop at Omicron?  Maybe everybody will need vaccine boosters once every 6 months?  Or bet on the new, targeted COVID-19 drugs?  At this time there is no clear endpoint in sight, and 2022 looks more like 2021 than 2018. 

The other is that Biden has been no better than Trump delivering the most important results.  Obviously no COVID-19 improvement, despite the fact that Biden does try harder than Trump.  Much of it can be blamed on the state and local levels, but maybe Trump was also partially right when he said of his response: nothing more can be done.   This is indeed a systemic failure.  Ditto the hostility towards China, Russia, Iran, and others, not a single deviation from Trump.  Not the Iran nuclear accord Trump pulled out, not Cuba, not nothing.  This shows at the Deep State level, the two party system is one and the same: no more blaming the Deep State for undermining Trump, because all was simply partisan bickering. 

Biden has picked up the China moral combat from Trump: nothing Trump did Biden hasn’t continued or worsened.  Which is a bipartisan effort that has nothing to do with historical consensus, facts, or what China does, but with what the US elites think.  Recent US accusations against China are demonstrably, factually false and/or apply more aptly to the US than China.   For example the COVID-19 lab leak theory orgy in May, which ended with a whimper in the Fall.  But don’t worry: it will come back to life, like Lord Voldemort, in 2022.  The fabled Chinese coverup is not far behind to explain everything the US fails: many or most people in the West believe it, like articles in www.marketwatch.com automatically adding sentences such as “it is wildly held that China vastly understates its statistics” whenever reporting worldwide COVID-19 cases.  But the authors never explain: who holds the belief?  If many people also believe China’s numbers, will they say this as well: “it is wildly held that China doesn’t understate its statistics”?  Are we going to have a global vote on that?  How vast is "vastly"?  And on what basis do they make the claim, and what numbers do they think or like the Chinese statistics to be?  Then, they never mention that US researchers, including the CDC, have indeed reported the likely true US statistics: well over 100 million infections and 1 million deaths, vs the confirmed 50 million cases, and 800k deaths.  Of course, there is the other Xinjiang and else nonsense. 

In the US or the West in general, different groups of people have different opinions of China.  The most “pro-China” group is the scientific community (natural sciences), whose profession values truth and reasoning the most, but their numbers are minuscule.  The business class is 50/50.  Some businesses are anti-China, but most are not, yet even they stay silent for fear of attacks.  The political class is strongly anti-China, so is the media.  There is a misconception that if FOX and NBC say the same thing, it must be true.  This is BS when it comes to China, because international reporting from the media, whoever owns it doesn’t matter, all gets the cues from the governments.  That is why BBC, CNN, etc repeat the party-line Xinjiang narratives with minimal facts, while ignoring mountains of evidence to the contrary.  Even if one discounts automatically everything China says, how about the youtube videos Westerners made while actually visiting Xinjiang in 2020/2021: is there anything remotely reflecting genocides or forced labor?   Hell no.  Yet BBC, CNN, NYT, etc completely ignore those youtube contents, other than painting those Westerners as paid by the Chinese government. 

Here is an extreme analogy or joke.  Question: Is the Sun hot?  The Sun government says it is, but since the Western media on Earth can’t go to the Sun, we say that the Sun is not hot or its hotness can’t be independently verified.  This is despite scientific measurements indicating, and visitors being there all saying it is hot.  But because we the media are not there (or didn’t find a cool place there so we don’t report it), we will never say it is hot.  Hence the public belief that the Sun is not hot.  This comparison-example is not far-fetched: COVID-19 situations in China vs the US is like the Sun and Earth, but many Westerners believe they are comparable, and no CNN or FOX reporters dare to say on TV in no uncertain terms that China numbers are indeed that much better than the US.   

It is funny that polls show both the US government and media have a very low approval rating %, the media in the 20s.  Yet as far the public is concerned, they all trust the propaganda about China.  All the elites do is to poison the well.  A regular guy doesn’t know or care much about China, but if every story from the media says China is bad, then even if he despises very much the government and media, he will “know” China must be bad.  No evidence or nuance is needed regarding the next lie, and the next, just parroting on, from the government, media, and public.

It is fitting to compare COVID-19 and WCEV (May 1, 2020 blog).  WCEV is more dangerous than COVID-19 in terms of its potential impacts, i.e., WWIII, and has infected more people than COVID-19.  The No 1 WCEV symptom is neo-racism, in both the Left and Right in the West, who can’t accept, therefore believe, China can do anything good or better than the US: identifying with a mafia is more important than with truth.  A COVID-19 infection has a survival rate over 99%.  You may be sick for a week, and once you recover, you will be immune for at least several months.   There are also effective, free vaccines.  But WCEV is like HIV: once you are infected, it is damn hard to get rid of, most carriers for life.  To cure the disease you must do a lot of research, but there is so much mis- and dis-information already, what do you trust?  Living in China for months to years will likely cure you of WCEV, but the most critical is that you have to realize the real problem lies at the system level: the western political elites, media, etc.  Glenn Greenwald is right to note don't trust the establishment.  He just doesn't follow his own preaching consistently and is easily duped, many times already, like believing Iraq WMDs and wishing Trump would pardon whoever.  He thinks the conservatives, like the right-wing populism, are going to save the day.  Good luck with that!  Who are these people?  Are they anti-war, or anti this war but for that war?  Does what they do match what they say?  Experience will tell you that most if not all is partisan posturing.  At the end of the day, once they are in power, they will be as belligerent as the neocons or liberals and do none of those “good” things Greenwald think they will.  This is just the climate the West is operating in and what WCEV makes you.

With the basic biology and sociology of the pandemic and political environments intact, no wonder in the most consequential ways 2021 is the same old 2020.  But at least we live to see another year. Will we be able to say the same next year?

Glenn Greenwald, an unhinged lab origin theory advocate

Glenn Greenwald has written one of the most twisted COVID-19 lab origin theory articles of late (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/to-deny-the-lab-leak-covid-theory).  His writing reflects an utter lack of knowledge of science and COVID-19 (and infectious diseases in general).  Greenwald is a lawyer by trade, but science is a whole different animal from law.

Greenwald’s main arguments are: 1) Peter Daszak, of the natural origin opinion, has a conflict of interest, so he can’t be trusted; 2) the media and Big Tech censured the talk of lab origin for the Trump factor and/or Daszak in 2020, but the tide turned because of new evidence or Biden in 2021; 3) the recent articles in Science about the Wuhan Huanan market (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454), Peter Daszak (https://www.science.org/content/article/we-ve-done-nothing-wrong-ecohealth-leader-fights-charges-his-research-helped-spark-covid-19), and the related NYT and WP articles whitewashed COVID-19 lab origin, and 4) some scientists thought COIVD-19 originated from WIV before joining the natural origin camp to curry favor with Fauci for money from the NIH.

Let’s debunk 2) first, which requires no scientific background.  For a man who has railed against the deep state, NSA/CIA/FBI, etc, and the media, it is astounding that Greenwald would buy into the lab origin theory, as he can no longer hide behind the free speech curtain and claim he just asks questions previously nobody was allowed to ask.  Note that zero evidence Greenwald’s article provides that says lab origin, as nobody can produce anything truly.  For example, Greenwald wrote the media and Big Tech changed their stand “after The Wall Street Journal reported days earlier that U.S. intelligence sources claim that “three researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care.” ”  Since Greenwald has always professed suspicion about US intelligence, did he verify its claim?  What are the names of the three researchers?  What were they sick of, how long did they stay at the hospital, and what were the treatments?  Does Greenwald realize that November is the flu season, so is it odd for someone to get a cold during that time?  Do you know Chinese visiting hospitals is nothing unusual and 99% stay for only a couple of hours?  Perhaps Greenwald should also add right there the latest US intelligence conclusion that “three researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care”, EVEN IF true, is no indication of COVID-19 at WIV.  

What is more, did the media really censure the lab origin theory in 2020, or does it depend on the definition of “media”?   US officials, exemplified by Trump, Pompeo, and Cotton, consistently claimed lab origin and received headline coverage.  FOX, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and other platforms with huge audience had tirelessly advocated lab origin, inviting guests such as Yan Limeng and like-minded individuals in the summer.  Greenwald cares to say how many natural origin guests received an invitation and good hearing at those shows, or even at CNN or MSNBC?  Yan’s views are so ludicrous that even the lab origin scientists have shunned her completely, so is there any wonder that the Big Tech acted?  If there was reduced discussion about COVID-19 origin in later 2020, that was because of more urgent matters: the 2^nd and 3^rd COVID-19 waves in the US, the election, and the fights afterwards.  Then if there is an about-face in 2021, the reversal Greenwald likes, that is only for political reasons, not for any emerging data.  The scientific consensus has been that COVID-19 was natural, since Jan 2020.  A few scientists wavering or dissenting doesn’t mean there is no consensus, just like some biologists opposing the theory of evolution.  The only thing that changes is the political consensus, media consensus, if there was even one in 2020.  NYT might react coolly in 2020 due to Trump, but now that China is public enemy No 1 according to Biden (and Trump), should Greenwald be hyper the lab theory being resurrected in 2021?  Lastly, don’t think for a second that the West had done nothing to probe lab origin in 2020, but picked up the work only in 2021.  You can bet all your mortgages that they have done all they can since Jan 2020, yet with little to show for; otherwise, there would have been front-page “smoking guns” all over.  Hence all the current lab origin arguments, including Greenwald’s, target the natural origin crowd (Daszak, Fauci, and most scientists) personally and exclusively, without putting forwarding any evidence supporting their own theory.   

Now turn to the more knowledge-oriented topics.  1) Daszak has been the most vilified Western scientist, but the attacks against him have never been on his scientific credentials or arguments.  Instead, because he has worked with WIV, he can’t be trusted, period.  In the Science profile (https://www.science.org/content/article/we-ve-done-nothing-wrong-ecohealth-leader-fights-charges-his-research-helped-spark-covid-19) he answered his critics, but Greenwald won’t take no for an answer, unless, of course, if Daszak admitted that WIV did it.  For the COI claim against Daszak in his Feb 2020 Lancet letter, Daszak explained that it was not a research paper, and the scientific community knows full well that he has worked with WIV and published papers together over many years.  Further conveniently ignored by the lab crowd are the letter’s judgments based on the human history and experience with infectious diseases, which stand till this day.  For the COI claim against Daszak at the WHO team visiting China in early 2021, again conveniently brushed aside is that Daszak is only one of the many international members of the team, and that having someone with personal contacts and knowledge in China should have been an asset, not a burden, unless, of course, you don’t like what he says. 

For additional proof, Greenwald used the Intercept uncovering CoV work by Daszak and WIV.  So what?  If the Intercept changes every title to “Documents find no evidence Daszak/WIV made COVID-19”, it still describes all their reports exactly!  The lab origin crowd and Intercept are obsessed with GOF, but it is a red herring, as if GOF of any CoVs known prior to 2019 could produce SARS-CoV-2.  It can’t: can you GOF a monkey to a human?  This is precisely why people such as Daszak, who knows CoVs and the work conducted at WIV, are so much more believable than the lab origin crowd, even the ones with a biology background, like Alina Chan, Jesse Bloom, and Richard Ebright, who have little if any experimental experience with modern virology research. 

To cover up the lasting failure of the lab origin theory, recently there has been a stealth shift in the description of lab origin by the MSM, which now says that the natural origin theory means that COVID-19 started completely in the wild, while the lab theory means that COVID-19 passed through WIV.  That includes that maybe WIV collected samples from the wild, and then someone at WIV either got infected in the field or at WIV.  If this is the case (no evidence either), isn’t it still completely natural, zoonotic, and supporting the natural origin theory?  So this sleight-of-hand maneuver can’t be allowed to stand; and besides, why still harping on GOF?  

Regarding 3), the contention outside Daszak is about the Science article on the Wuhan Huanan market (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454).  It must be noted that it is not a research paper, but Michael Worobey’s opinion based on his analysis of early COVID-19 cases.  His main point is that the earliest patient was from the market, so COVID-19 started at the market, not WIV a distance away.  There are holes in his findings (nothing about disease origin is simple), but the critiques are beyond the scope of this blog, except to say that whether Worobey is right or wrong, his method and conclusion were at least evidence-based, which is more than the lab origin theorists can attest to in all their existence. 

For 4), Greenwald is essentially accusing certain scientists in the natural origin camp of scientific misconduct, because if you thought COVID-19 was man-made, and Fauci said no, you would say no just to get research grants from Fauci later.  This is mind-boggling absurdity at so many levels.  Changing one’s hypothesis based on new evidence is the bedrock of scientific research. If you suspect man-made, but there is no sign of human engineering in the virus, along with many other data, are you allowed to change your opinions?  The natural origin theory has gathered increasing support since Jan 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017).  The lab origin theory?  Nil (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017).  An HIV signature, furin sites, unique protein sequence, etc?  No, nothing there.  RaTG-13 was the precursor?  Nonsense.  Lab origin is a conspiracy theory further because so much of it depends on the belief that China is hiding something.  But what is hidden?   WIV was shut down due to a leak in 2019 (https://www.thedailybeast.com/pentagon-contractors-report-on-wuhan-lab-origins-of-coronavirus-is-bogus)?   COVID-19 surged in Wuhan in the fall 2019 based on satellite images (https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/42669767/Satellite_Images_Baidu_COVID19_manuscript_DASH.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y)?  Three people at WIV sick in Nov 2019?  Jesse Bloom recovering “lost” virus sequences, showing China is hiding what (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/06/claim-chinese-team-hid-early-sars-cov-2-sequences-stymie-origin-hunt-sparks-furor)?  The list of misfired “smoking guns” is long.  Greenwald wants Daszak and China to be saints: how can the MSM continue to interview Daszak for all his COI?  But it serves Greenwald much better if he first checks himself and his lab origin fellows for their countless debacles since Jan 2020: they have cried “smoking guns” so many times there are figuratively fires in their bedrooms.

Curiously, Greenwald has been hypercritical towards Fauci throughout COVID-19.  In fact, he was much more vocal against Fauci than Trump in 2020 as if Fauci was more responsible for the mess than Trump.  Maybe Greenwald favors the lab theory just to stick it to Fauci?  Fauci is far from perfect, especially if he ventures outside of science, but any arguments with him should be based on facts, good judgment, and sound reasoning.  Some debates in the medical community are valid and due to genuine differences in reading the evidence and educated guesses/predictions, but almost all of the right-wing rants are not, neither are Greenwald’s.  For example, Fauci was revisionist about why not recommending masks in Feb and March, 2020.  But consider this: no Western medical authority, including WHO, was in favor of masks at the time, the US public had no tradition of wearing masks, few in the US were dying to wear masks at the time, and Fauci’s advice in Feb 2020 unlikely prevented anybody wanting to wear a mask from doing so.  Thus, why the extreme hostility against Fauci?  Turn to another doctor in the US, s/he would have told you the same thing! 

Greenwald has no idea how research funds are rewarded: he thinks Fauci plays a deciding role in handing out money.  In fact, Fauci won't even see most of the grants his agency funds, certainly not at any significant detail at all.   Any grant proposals involving potentially dangerous materials and using mammals, the host institutions must first approve the work and submissions.  Then the independent panels at NIH will review the proposals, next the NIH program directors will decide the funding based on NIH budgets.  Fauci just signs his name: why would he overrule reviewers' opinions?  So if Greenwald has a problem with NIH grants about CoVs or dogs, he should take it up with the researchers, their host universities, NIH review panels, program directors, before writing his 1000^th tweets on Fauci.  But why ends there?  The buck stops at the Congress and Trump who gave the money to NIH!

After the orgy in the summer with the COVID-19 lab origin theory, the noise has died down considerably, not because China is no longer public enemy No 1, but because there is really nothing the US can dig up, despite its best efforts for the past 23 months.  Greenwald’s article represents a desperate attempt to keep the dying body of that theory warm.  But Greenwald can rest well, because the true target is never COVID-19 but China.   The lab origin theory boils down to two “supports”.  The first is that COVID-19 was first reported in Wuhan, which houses WIV.  Greenwald going to any court with this “evidence” would be laughed out of it.  The second is that China is evil: whatever they say, even without countering evidence, is not to be trusted.  With this mentality, why trust the COVID-19 sequences China including WIV produced, which formed the basis of all the current vaccines and PCR tests?  And why trust what China said about COVID-19 testing, symptoms, patient care, mask use, etc, which formed the basis of worldwide response to COVID-19?  And why trust any measures China has taken to fight COVID-19?  Many people in the West believe China has COVID-19 as bad as the US, if not worse, including Jake Tapper at CNN at least by the end of 2020.  These people can be so ignorant and so confident at the same time.  Wonder why?  And see the consequences?   

Greenwald doesn't have a science background.  In politics Greenwald bashes only Trump detractors while ostentatiously leaving Trump bashing to others, but in science you must weight all sides of the evidence.  Greenwald doesn’t understand scientist talks, either.  A biologist in the natural origin camp can still say we should study all possibilities, but it doesn't mean he sees the lab theory supported by any data.  Most biologists accept evolution, but who says you can’t study God?  There are a few scientists in the lab origin camp just like some in the anti-evolution camp.  Maybe they have Greenwald’s ears because of his disdain for Fauci and NYT: Greenwald has neither the science background nor the critical knowledge necessary to judge, but he automatically distrusted NYT and Fauci.  But it is funny that most of them claim to be agnostic: I am not really saying lab origin, I just want to know for sure.  Right there you know they know their case is nonexistent!   

Yet no scientific training is no excuse, especially if Greenwald has learned his lessons and followed his own advice.  Proving the lab origin theory, or keeping it alive, is in the national interest of the US as conventionally understood since day 1 of COVID-19.  If Greenwald were what he claims he is critical about supposed evidence or intelligence from the US or the media, he would be immune to Iraq WMD, COVID-19 or other anti-China nonsense.   But he had been duped before, and he is still being fooled right now, only he remains full of hot air himself, as he did in the Iraq WMD days and supported the war.  Greenwald never misses an opportunity to show off his start in media/politics in criticizing Bush/Cheney's civil right abuses, yet he rarely if ever mentions the elephant in the room: the Iraq War.  Where were you when it happened?

As usual, misleading and terrible Intercept reporting on COVID-19 and CoV

Lately the Intercept has been the media source most actively reporting on COVID-19 origin.  In a sense there are fewer problems with the factual contents in its articles than many people' claims and what the Intercept explained, argued, or implied in the articles.

Here is an analogy first.  To explain how the world works, both evolution and God provide capable answers.  While evolution is an area of active research, no biologists test the presence of God. 

Hence the bewilderment that too many people fail to see the parallel in the COVID-19 natural origin vs lab made/leak theories, for the lab theory is as faith-based, evidence-free as the God theory.

Intercept recently published several reports on EcoHealth Alliance (EA) grant proposals and progress reports, the latest about MERS-CoV (https://theintercept.com/2021/10/21/virus-mers-wuhan-experiments/).  When Intercept asked for the documents, COVID-19 origin must have been the ultimate target.  These reports cite both proponents of the natural origin and lab theories and concede no proof of lab origin, but the bias of the Intercept is clear: the quotes of lab theory supporters are usually longer, more complete and extensive, supplemented by strong words from the Intercept authors.  While the reports show CoV research, in terms of COVID-19 origin, they are red herring: as if set up to prove someone makes a bomb, all they show is he has a firecracker (maybe not even that).  Besides the many blogs (e.g., 7/23/21 blog) and articles that refute the lab theory (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017), below are additional criticisms specifically against the Intercept articles from the science angle.  

The articles focus on GOF studies.  GOF and the other side of the same coin, LOF, are neither uncommon nor secretive.  In fact, it would be hard pressed to find a modern biochemistry, molecular biology, or genetics lab that has never done GOF/LOF.  So the defining and relevant question must be: Did EA/WIV produce COVID-19 by GOF?  Intercept admits finding no evidence.  

If the grants reveal nothing about COVID-19, is there anything peculiar about EA work itself on SARS-related CoV or MERS-CoV?  Here lies another fatal flaw by the Intercept: the lack of scientific perspective or control.  In the 21^st century, prior to COVID-19, HIV had killed more people than SARS and MERS, so had Ebola, so had flus, including various bird flus, so had many other infectious diseases.  If you apply the same logic and energy to look around the world at the published, unpublished, and proposed research on those viruses and bacteria, you will find many more similar, “dangerous”, “risky” lines of work.  Intercept implies EA is unusual, which in fact is not.  What a garden-variety idea of making specific mutations in the S protein!  Had COVID-19 had not happened, you would have never noticed EA.  Remember: CoVs are far from the most dangerous pathogens in the world. 

Regarding research on SARS-related CoVs or MERS-CoV, aside from academic freedom, there are legitimate scientific purposes, instead of the wrong impression or fear instilled into laypeople by Intercept’s alarming titles and writings.  Take MERS as an example: MERS has a high fatality rate, but it doesn’t transmit easily among humans.  Research, involving GOF and LOF, could reveal the reasons behind these MERS properties, allow us to predict the pathogenic potentials of new CoVs, and develop vaccines/drugs to prevent/treat diseases.  Critically, with what EA did, there was no mistaken or hiding where the final CoVs came from.  In other words, EA can’t possibly make SARS-CoV-2 in the same way without anybody knowing how it is made.

The lab origin theory proposes WIV made or leak COVID-19, whose distinction is truly disingenuous.   As for the lab leak angle, whatever “risky” CoVs Intercept thinks EA/WIV made, there is no indication they infect humans (most CoVs don’t), and we have seen no SARS or MERS escaping.  Intercept’s focus on GOF obviously implies lab made, but even Intercept admits no evidence.  The closest EA worked on, SARS-related CoVs, are 80% identical genetically to SARS-CoV-2.  To make an extreme comparison, mice and humans are about 80% identical: think we can GOF a mouse into a person?   The Intercept could change all the titles to “Documents didn’t find EA/WIV made COVID-19”, and it still fits all the facts in those reports exactly. 

Therefore, all GOF was nothing special and had nothing to do with SARS-CoV-2 anyway.  But Intercept has to make a connection to COVID-19, so it depends entirely on the words and belief of certain scientists that support the lab theory.  Unfortunately, few if any of them have had any bench experience (recent or ever) working on animal viruses, which means they has little if any idea about the actual virus research, its scopes and limits, which is reflected and verified by their assertions.  Alina Chan has a poor grasp on COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, and evolution (doi: 10.1101/2020.05.01.073262, rebuttal in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017).    Jesse Bloom backtracked furiously from his best work towards the lab theory (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/06/claim-chinese-team-hid-early-sars-cov-2-sequences-stymie-origin-hunt-sparks-furor).  Richard Ebright tweets nonsense blasting the lack of evidence for natural origin (not true), yet is perfectly at peace with the fact-free lab theory. 

Coming full circle with evolution vs God.  While evidence for evolution is overwhelming, there will always be gaps in our knowledge.  But these gaps don’t refute evolution any more than support God.  On the COVID-19 natural origin theory, it is backed by thousands of years’ human history and experience with pathogens, current analyses and understanding of COVID-19 and its virus, and accumulating knowledge of natural CoVs.  All the lab theory has is Wuhan has CoV researchers, such that it is believed they made the virus as much as God made the world.  

PS: The US intel just released a more detailed assessment of the COVID-19 origin question (https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-intelligence-community-divided-on-whether-covid-19-originated-naturally-or-due-to-lab-leak-201433169.html).  To anyone familiar with COVID-19 history, it is actually a tremendous climb-down from the previous hype and accusations against China.  Still, it maintains that both the natural and lab theories are plausible.  Well sure: to explain how the world works, both evolution and God are plausible.  For the God theory, nobody has seen a monkey evolving into a human, there is a very famous book expounding God, and billions of people believe, at least nominally, in God.  Thus we should view both evolution and God the same.  And if we don’t know exactly how COVID-19 started, both natural and lab origins are equal, just to make the mass confused and keep an advantage over China.

   

 

Men’s tennis final at the US Open

In a surprise to many, Daniil Medvedev easily beat Novak Djokovic 3:0 in the final.  Djokovic really had no chance in the match, as Medvedev even out-Novak Novak: served better, moved better, defended better, and, crucially, out-rallied Novak at the baseline.  Djokovic won at the net, but that was simply due to the fact he realized he couldn’t win elsewhere.  It didn’t make much difference anyway since Djokovic is never a serve and volley guy, and his first serve percentage was not high enough, and his second serves were not fast enough.   

Why was that?  The apparent reason is that Djokovic ran out of gas at the end.  He’d played too many give-one-take-three-set matches at the US Open, and it has been a long and historic year for him.  Sort of like Leylah Fernandez in the Women’s final.  This actually begs a deeper question: if he was only 25, could he have done it?  To dig it deeper, it goes back to the GOAT question: since he or Fed/Nadal obviously never did, and Djokovic almost achieved it only when Fed/Nadal are too old and almost out of the picture, then even if Djokovic did it, how significant is it?

At the moment Fed/Nadal/Djokovic all have unique credentials to be called the GOAT, or GOATs.  In a sense, here lies a debate between a big GOAT or a small GOAT circle, or a big HOF vs small HOF.  The small GOAT mindset is that it is better to leave GOAT designation blank than risking a new GOAT discussion coming up every 10 years. A GOAT must have staying power.

In my Aug 20, 2011 blog there are two objective criteria: overall achievements, and head-to-head records.  Fed/Nadal/Djokovic are all tied up in GS totals now, although Djokovic most likely will end up with the most.  Djokovic also has a winning record against the other two, but the advantage is minimal and reflects more on their age differences than anything else.  In essence, the big 3 are very similar.  Djokovic benefits from being the youngest, with Murray, who was supposed to seriously challenge Djokovic, which he indeed did in 2016, getting hurt after 2017 and faded away.   

The Aug 20, 2011 blog also indicated additional factors, although it is safe to emphasize one for the small GOAT mindset: a real GOAT must be obviously better than everybody else in the GOAT discussion.  Because otherwise we will find new GOAT nonstop.  Like Pete Sampras: everybody marveled at his 14 GS in 2002, but in 10 years that record was blown away by Federer, then it was quickly clear that Nadal and Djokovic would handily surpass it as well. 

Right now, and it is predicted that the big 3 won’t blow away each other eventually.  So if one prefers a small and stringent GOAT circle, it is safe to call them all GOATs, but not anyone as THE GOAT.  Because in 10 years’ time there may come a genius like Federer, but no equivalent of Nadal, then he would easily win 30 GS.  GOAT means all-time, perhaps as we foresee to our best ability at the time, but not by the time we talk about it. 

Women’s tennis at the US Open

It has been a dramatic women’s tennis event throughout at the 2021 US Open.  Even though it was only two sets, the final between Emma Raducanu and Leylah Fernandez was entertaining and lasted ~ 100 min, with plenty of high-quality shots from both players.  Fernandez probably felt tired at the end due to her previous 4 straight 3-setters: too many first-serves into the net, and her forehand didn’t produce wide-angled shots as before.  Amazingly, Raducanu was the one who had played 3 more matches, but she didn’t even lose a single set for the whole tournament.  There was a suspicion that Fernandez might have an edge entering the final because she had been beating opponents with a conventional style like Raducanu, while Fernandez is unique and left-handed.  But at the end her stamina likely fell short, and Raducanu is indeed different.  Raducanu looks and plays like Li Na, hitting strong, flat forehand and backhand groundstrokes.  Like Fernandez, Raducanu plays close to the baselines, so Fernandez couldn’t gain more reaction time like before.  And Raducanu was consistent enough to make fewer errors. 

So what can one make of the future of the two?  Raducanu plays like Li Na, but she is clearly more composed, consistent, and much smarter, which bodes well for her future.  Fernandez plays like a lefty Hingis.  In these days when power is everything, this is not a winning formula. 

On the other hand, predicting female athletes somehow has been a losing cause.  See May 23, Aug 12, and Aug 17, 2012 blogs’ high praise and hope for Li Xuerui, who suffered a knee injury in 2016, came back ~ one year later, and retired a further ~ one year later.  But she had been a disappointment even before 2016.  In her case, the blame was her coaching, probably on Chen Jin.  Li was playing an attacking style in 2012 and looked invincible.  Then after her London win, she morphed into a clearing/rallying player.  But she was never a high-stamina person and couldn’t play that style over three long sets.  By 2015 she was no longer any different from other players.  What a big waste of talent.

Another case is Naomi Osaka (Feb 21, 2021 blog), although her story is not over yet.  She has the potential to be an all-time great, but everything is now up in the air.  In her loss to Fernandez at the Open, she seemed not wanting to move, or play at all.  This is mental.  If she can’t think straight, then no chance more achievements.  Maybe her coaching is to blame, so is herself. 

A litmus test for biologists

Like “where were you when 9-11 happened”, all biologists must now have formed an opinion on the question of whether the COVID-19 virus is of natural origin or lab made/leaked, presumably by WIV.  Nobody can hide any longer under the 50-50 cover or fake ignorance, because everybody’s scientific reputation, knowledge, and judgments must be on the line regarding the most scientifically and socially explosive issue since Jan 2020.  Were it not for politicization of the issue, it shouldn’t be something even lay people are talking about, but as now, even if scientists never say never, there can be no grey zone: it is high time that either you believe in one theory, or you believe in the other. 

Behind the natural origin theory are supports from the unequivocal, long human history and results of new, unbiased virus analyses. Behind the other, well, nothing, other than the fact that WIV is at the same city where COVID-19 was first discovered, with some scientists working on bat CoVs.  The lab made/leak theory is essentially one and the same, because for lab leak to occur, WIV must first have the virus.  Then how did the WIV get it?  One is of course WIV invented it, hence lab made.  The other is WIV collected it from the wild, before it escaped from WIV.  If so, Fauci put it well: “But that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about [and] why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument.” (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/anthony-fauci-no-scientific-evidence-the-coronavirus-was-made-in-a-chinese-lab-cvd).  Mind you, no evidence WIV ever had it prior to Dec 30, 2019.  WIV reportedly has 10k bat samples collected from the wide, but it doesn’t mean WIV has or is growing 10k different CoVs.  Based on published work, many samples don’t have viruses, many samples have the same CoV (e.g., see https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.21.445091v1).  Moreover, recovering CoVs from bat samples are notoriously hard, because CoVs are likely inactivated during storage/transport or present in too low a level.  So the actual number of CoVs at WIV is much, much smaller than 10k, and many or most have remained at freezers undisturbed anyway.  What is more, even Ralph Baric, who signed the Science letter (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1), admitted that no matter how many CoVs WIV has collected, natural CoVs outnumber them by many orders of magnitude.  The same conclusion by Peter Daszak: how matter how many times WIV collected CoVs, they are negligible compared to the natural, human infection events.  In fact, WIV would go to the countryside to collect samples only after told by the locals that bats were there.  So whatever CoVs WIV caught, if infecting WIV workers, must have infected the locals without WIV protective gears many times prior.  In essence, the lab leak theory, in its most benign form, still has zero evidence, is a non-issue and an exceedingly long shot simply based on real life numbers, even before considering WIV safety practices.  Consequently, we must view that lab leak is just a backdoor lab made.

In short, the lab theory has no evidence, despite the most intense scrutiny in scientific history, for the past 19 months.  Below lists some of the debunked “evidence” and, more importantly, why it can’t possibly be made by WIV.

1. Evidence that wasn’t

Not for the lack of trying, lab made “evidence” popped up immediately in Jan 2020.  A funny thing is, throughout scientific research, whenever a piece of evidence is disputed, it is rarely completely discredited right away.  Not in the case of lab made theory though: corpses of such “evidence” have piled up mile-high quickly.  For example, the virus is man made because of an HIV signature, furin sites, etc.  Or WIV was shut down due to a leak in 2019 (https://www.thedailybeast.com/pentagon-contractors-report-on-wuhan-lab-origins-of-coronavirus-is-bogus).   Or COVID-19 cases surged in the fall 2019 based on satellite images around Wuhan hospitals (6/10/2020 blog, https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/42669767/Satellite_Images_Baidu_COVID19_manuscript_DASH.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y).  Three WIV researchers got sick in Nov 2019?  What are their names?  What were they sick for?  Remember the Niger yellow cake in 2003?  Aluminum tubes?  Mobile labs?  The latest was from Jesse Bloom, who also signed the Science letter and then claimed to have recovered “lost” virus sequences, showing China is hiding whatever (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v1).  Never mind the sequences were not from the earliest patients, the Small paper associated with the data amply explained and discussed their implications.  After widespread pushback (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/06/claim-chinese-team-hid-early-sars-cov-2-sequences-stymie-origin-hunt-sparks-furor), Jesse Bloom had to backpedal and downplay the importance of his “discovery”.  It turned out that the raw data was originally deposited to NCBI, but when the linked paper, after being revised and accepted, lost the reference to NCBI, the authors asked NCBI to remove the data.  And now the raw data have been re-deposited elsewhere (https://live.baidu.com/m/media/pclive/pchome/live.html?room_id=4621124099&source=search).  Curious what Bloom will say now and do with this work, and whether the media reports hyping his work (some even crying “smoking gun”) will update the information?  Fat chance.

Typically, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  But in any research endeavor, if you have a hypothesis and have tried many different ways to test it, and you come up empty every time-what is more, however you test it, you get the results refuting your hypothesis-you’ve got to question your hypothesis seriously.  A beautiful theory slain by ugly facts, nothing unusual about that.  But what is uglier is clinging to a theory disputed by all the facts while supported by none, which is exactly what the lab theory adherents do.  How can they do this, even when all their hard-earned “evidence” had blown up in their faces?  The fig leaf, of course, is China not being transparent!  But what does it even mean?  As an example, in early 2020, China was also accused of being not transparent, e.g., hiding the case and death numbers, right?  Now, over one year later, can everybody testify China’s numbers or undercounting being any different from those from other countries?  If anything, China’s official fatality number is closer to the truth (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n415) than most countries’ (http://www.healthdata.org/special-analysis/estimation-excess-mortality-due-covid-19-and-scalars-reported-covid-19-deaths). But has the West admitted that China had indeed been as good as others in reporting COVID-19 cases and deaths?  Hell no!

In all truthfulness, it is not China being not transparent, it is that some people simply won’t take no for an answer, and don’t believe a word out of China.  More transparency?  WIV is a research institute not unlike other universities and institutes around the world.  WIV works openly with international collaborators.  WIV publishes in scientific journals for all to see.  You can’t be more transparent than that.  Anyone can pool WIV’s papers over the years to see if there is any hint, even remotely, on COVID-19 virus work prior to 2020.  Answer: absolutely nil.  There is no probable cause for any “investigation”-indeed, no cause at all, 19 months later.  Think WIV opening up everything will shut up the diehard?  One can easily imagine that if they still don’t get the answer they want, they will question whether WIV has hid something, or cooked the book, or maybe another place at Wuhan or even China made the virus.  This is a bottomless pit.  Besides, has such “transparency” been demanded for or achieved by anybody else in the world?  How did it work up for Iraq in 2002?

2. Why WIV couldn’t have possibly made the virus (also 5/27/21 and 6/5/21 blogs)

RNA sequence analyses have shown that the virus has no sign of human manipulation.  Humans can’t possibly design viruses with a desired feature from scratch as simply as typing computer codes, so the only way to make a virus that passes bioinformatics detection, in theory, is to propagate a precursor CoV, without or with prior random mutagenesis, in Vero cells, or mice, or ACE2 transgenic mice, while selecting for a certain property.  There are so many obstacles in this GOF that the chance of success is dismally slim, with unknown and never certain outcomes.  (A variation is to recombine CoVs in cells or mice, but its complexity will shoot up exponentially.)  How many cells will be needed?  How many mice?  How long for the propagation and selection?  How and what to select for?  What is the end point?  Are results in cells in vitro or in mice even applicable in humans, a major deal breaker?  Any scientists who have an iota of idea what this experiment entails know how impractical the task is.  Oh, one more thing: what might the precursor CoV be?  Shi Zhengli at WIV has said before 2020 they had grown only 3 CoVs, all closely related to SARS, 80% identical to COVID-19 virus (scim.ag/ShiZhengli). Starting from SARS would have been nuts, because there is no scientific question to speak of, SARS is so far off to COVID-19 and more deadly already.  The WSJ and DRASTIC favorite (6/5/2021 blog), RaTG13 virus, is 96.2% identical, but it doesn’t bind human ACE2 well, meaning it is only weakly infectious if at all (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.21.445091v1), so it would have been tough to establish infection to begin with.  And, did I mention Shi never even had the virus (scim.ag/ShiZhengli)?  Thus, this supposed GOF has no head: don’t have/know the starting CoV, no tail: no idea how the final CoV will act on humans, and a body that may or may not work.  No success, even a tiny and remote one, of such GOF, has ever been reported for CoV.  Why would WIV, by all means a normal research institute, want to do that? 

Suppose WIV did embark on such experiments, a lot of people must be involved and know about it.  Grant agencies, staff and reviewers, grant abstracts searchable, because it would need tons of money.  NIH’s $600K is peanut.  You can’t do it alone in your basement.  It will take a long time (years), using a large lab space and resources.  It will involve a lot of researchers.  WIV is a close-knit community, only several hundred workers, along with many domestic and foreign collaborators.  WIV-associated people travel and reside around the world.  There may be 1000 people over the years that would have an idea, even if grapevine, of what was going on.  Yet, after the loudest clamor and maybe $10 million reward (proposed by David Asher, an anonymous DOS source for the VF article https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins) for 19 months, exactly zero person has come out of WIV.  On the contrary, whoever has spoken, Chinese or non-Chinese, in China or outside, all denied GOF or any knowledge, or anything unusual at WIV (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid-come-from-a-lab-scientist-at-wuhan-institute-speaks-out).  Generally a negative is less telling, but in this case, it speaks volume.  Either no GOF, or a conspiracy theory on par of 9-11 being an inside job.    

3. Why bothers?

What did WIV want to achieve anyway?  Showing CoVs can evolve?  Already knew that.  CoVs can be deadly?  Knew that too, with SARS and MERS.   What is left, and what the lab theory people really want to lead to, is that COVID-19 is a Chinese bioweapon.   But if the Chinese are evil and crazy enough to do it, COVID-19 is truly an odd product.  It kills no more than 0.5% of the infected, with most of the dead the elderly.  Shouldn’t a bioweapon aim at young people, with a much higher kill rate?  Bird flu is much “better” than CoV in this regard: flu viruses mutate and recombine faster, and some already have high mortality rates for the broad population.  Here lies a paradox for the lab theory: the Chinese must be the best scientists, making the most difficult GOF ever by far to work, yet at the same time the worst scientists, choosing/making a wimpy virus instead of an easier and much more deadly bird flu.  Which is it?

4.  All biologists’ professional honor at stake

Most officials, media, public in the West subscribe to the lab theory.  Media reported that two US intel agencies leaned towards the natural origin, while one the lab theory.  But didn’t all 18 believed in Iraq WMD in 2002?  A slam dunk, right? 

To be fair, a vast majority of scientists have consistently sided with natural origin.  A small dissenting voice, preferably amplified by the media, comes from scientists with little bench experience with modern viruses/molecular biology/mammalian screening, and those who did their last experiments 20 years ago or earlier.  Jesse Bloom seems to equate making a new virus to playing computers.  He sounds agonistic once in a while, yet the hype in the media about his “discovery” must have come largely from him.  Alina Chan, an MIT postdoc, is also now computation-oriented.  She is among most vocal lab made theory proponents, yet all her claims, along with DRASTIC’s, including her newest tweets of Bloom’s “discovery”, have invariably fizzled.  How many times can one be wrong before not being taken seriously?  Well, in the US, as many as possible.  

Richard Ebright, a Rutgers professor, is squarely in the lab made camp early on, even though he, like Bloom, occasionally tries to appear 50-50.  He knows bacterial RNAP X-rays, but does he know mammalian systems and virus-host interactions?  Luc Montagnier, a Nobel prize winner for discovering HIV, has waded deep into wackiness in this century, if not before.  He thought the COVID-19 virus was made towards an HIV vaccine.  Considering every possible way to make HIV vaccines has been tried and failed for the past 40 years, while there are now good treatments, one has to really wonder WTF would everybody want to make an HIV vaccine out of a CoV?  Has any CoV ever been used in a vaccine?  What are the advantages of CoV over other, existing vectors?  Then there is David Baltimore, another Nobel prize winner for discovering reverse transcription.  His claim of “smoking gun” gave much credence to Nicholas Wade’s piece, which was as widely distributed as mistake-laden (https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/).   Baltimore later regretted his words and tried to backtrack by saying he just wanted more research, but the damage has been done.  Besides, more research is indeed needed to test early human sera and more animal samples around the world, but not wasted on something that runs counter to established knowledge and common sense.

Some of these people, like Baltimore, should have known better.  But they have now ventured into conspiracy theories.  What they are doing comes with no cost to them, since it is simply opening their mouth, while ignoring all "evidence" debunked and existing research.  On the other hand, refuting their claims or satisfying their demands is energy draining, impractical, and never ending, for they will simply move on to invent new questions.  They claim they simply want to know, to ask questions.  But they are not interested in getting answers they dislike, no matter how irrational, farcical, and fantasy their favorite answers are.

There is no middle ground, no 50-50.   All biologists, particularly the lab made/leak people, with your professional life on the line, must answer these simple and fundamental questions: how do you think WIV got the virus?  How do you think WIV made the virus?  What evidence is there WIV had or made the virus?  If you even waver a second in answering those questions, then you must realize the lab theory is toast.  Don’t hide behind the China-not-transparent crap.  Many more scientists arrive at the opposite conclusion even though China is no more or less transparent to them.   

Everybody must stake his/her professional honor and credential on this litmus test.