WHO done it?

By Ross Clark. March 31. 2021

Should we believe the World Health Organisation report into the origins of the Sars-CoV-2 virus which, as expected, dismissed the possibility of a laboratory accident and promoted the theory that the virus was imported from overseas via frozen foods? The first thing to note is that the report does not claim to be independent – it is billed as the ‘Joint WHO-China study’. It deserves to be read as such: as the product of an undemocratic government that has every incentive to deflect responsibility for a pandemic which has, to date, registered 2.7 million deaths globally.

The report puts forward four hypotheses: that the disease was the result of direct zoonotic transmission from an animal, most likely a bat; that it arrived via an intermediate animal host; that it arrived via frozen seafood imported from abroad; that it occurred as a result of a laboratory accident. The second of these hypotheses is considered the most likely. The third is deemed to be ‘possible’ while the last is dismissed as ‘extremely unlikely’. Independent readers might well come to a different conclusion about the relative likeliness of the latter two.

The study’s reasoning behind labelling the frozen food hypothesis as ‘possible’ is as follows. It states: ‘The supply chains to Huanan market included cold-chain products and animal products from 20 countries, including those where samples have been reported as positive for Sars-CoV-2 before the end of 2019 and those where close relatives of Sars-CoV-2 are found.’ It prefers this explanation to the possibility that the virus arrived at the market via domestically-produced live food on this basis: ‘There is evidence that some domesticated wildlife the products of which were sold in the market are susceptible to Sars-CoV, but none of the animal products sampled in the market tested positive in this study. In the early phase of pandemic, due to lack of awareness of the potential role of cold chain in virus introduction and transmission, the cold-chain products were not tested.’

It further goes on to support its cases by stating: ‘Since the near-eliminationof Sars-CoV-2 in China, the country has experienced some outbreaks related to imported frozen products in 2020’, and then throwing in the hint: ‘There is some literature suggesting Sars-CoV-2 may have been circulating earlier as indicated by sewage testing in Spain and Italy.’

In other words, we tested animal products for the virus (some time after the first humans became infected) and found none. We didn’t test frozen foods, therefore frozen foods are more likely to be the cause. Moreover, there is faint evidence that the disease may have been in circulation in Europe before it was officially in circulation in China. Therefore, why not look to Europe for its origins? This rather flies in the face of the evidence. While there is some evidence of the virus being in circulation outside China in 2019, as this Cambridge University study explains, Americans who were found to be carrying an early strain of the virus had a history of residence in Wuhan. Moreover, the first serious cases of Covid-19 turned up in Wuhan. It was several weeks before cases of Covid-19 were picked up in the West.

The WHO-China study further argues that a laboratory accident is implausible because biosecurity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is so tight. The report does, however, contain an interesting nugget: ‘The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2 December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market. Such moves can be disruptive for the operations of any laboratory.’ In other words, a laboratory that was known to be working with Sars-type viruses, and to have isolated very similar viruses, happened to move one of its laboratories to a building close to a market where, a few weeks later, a disease caused by a novel Sars virus broke out.

You can make your own mind up, and of course we have no proof either way on this theory or on any of the other theories, but does the theory of a laboratory accident really deserve to be dismissed so lightly?

6 comments

  • The venal liars at WHO have gone full chicom. Their directors all need locking up, their property and cash assets seized and a separate investigation into WHO collusion with the CCP needs to be expedited urgently.

    Liked by 5 people

  • stanleyankiewicz

    Excerpts from the CBS News ;
    Jamie Metzl — former NSC official in the Clinton administration and member of a WHO advisory committee on genetic engineering — is one of more than two dozen experts, including virologists, who signed an open letter earlier this month calling for a new international inquiry with a return to China. The letter says the WHO team did not have the independence or access “to carry out a full and unrestricted investigation” specifically into a possible accidental leak from a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the city where the first outbreak occurred.
    Jamie Metzl: I wouldn’t really call what’s happened now an investigation. It’s essentially a highly-chaperoned, highly-curated study tour.
    Lesley Stahl: Study tour?
    Jamie Metzl: Study tour. Everybody around the world is imagining this is some kind of full investigation. It’s not. This group of experts only saw what the Chinese government wanted them to see.
    Lesley Stahl: I had seen that the World Health Organization team only spent 3 hours at the lab.
    Jamie Metzl: While they were there they didn’t demand access to the records and samples and key personnel.
    That’s because of the ground rules China set with the WHO, which has never had the authority to make demands or enforce international protocols.
    Jamie Metzl: It was agreed first that China would have veto power over– over who even got to be on the mission. Secondly–
    Lesley Stahl: And WHO agreed to that.
    Jamie Metzl: WHO agreed to that. On top of that, the WHO agreed that in most instances China would do the primary investigation. And then just share its findings–
    Lesley Stahl: No.
    Jamie Metzl: –with these international experts. So these international experts weren’t allowed to do their own primary investigation.
    Lesley Stahl: Wait. You’re saying that China did the investigation and showed the results to the committee and that was it?
    Jamie Metzl: Pretty much that–
    Lesley Stahl: Whoa.
    Jamie Metzl: –was it. Not entirely. But pretty much that was it. Imagine if we have asked the Soviet Union to do a co-investigation of Chernobyl. It doesn’t really make sense.
    China had ruled out a lab accident long before the WHO team arrived at the airport in Wuhan on January 14 and were greeted by people in full PPE gear.
    The team included some of the world’s leading experts on how viruses are transmitted from animals to humans. But even though there have been accidental lab leaks of viruses in China in the past that have infected people and killed at least one, no one on the team was trained in how to formally investigate a lab leak.
    They were there for a four-week mission, but two of those weeks were spent holed up at this hotel in quarantine. Once out, they had some tense exchanges with their counterparts, a team of chinese experts, over their refusal to provide raw data.

    Liked by 5 people

  • onlyfactsplease

    WHO and bat virus land can save their effort. I, for one and many, many others I know, believe that this virus came from bat virus land, hence the new nick for China. The only question remaining is if it originated from one of those disgusting live animal markets or their degenerate labs. Bat virus land and WHO are trash. They both have less than zero credibility.

    “…14 countries, including the United States, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia and Israel said in a statement that they “fully” supported the WHO’s efforts to bring an end to the pandemic, including understanding how it “started and spread.
    “But they added it was “essential that we voice our shared concerns that the international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples”.
    “Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia and the United Kingdom also co-signed statement.”

    This is nothing but diplomatic criticism of this report … another way of calling it bogus. Even the WHO Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, also demanded further research to reach “more robust conclusions”.

    “China’s foreign ministry hit back at the perceived criticism from the WHO chief, saying that Beijing had fully demonstrated “its openness, transparency and responsible attitude”.”

    This is communist speak, saying that they gave all the info that they deemed safe enough to draw conclusive evidence away from bat virus land.

    Liked by 5 people

  • The origin on the WuFlu is well known. The original virus came from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill where it was used in “gain of function” studies. Such studies were outlawed in the US during the unlamented Obama maladminstration, so Fauci had UNC package everything up, along with the funding, and send it to the Wuhan Biowar lab.

    The virus was engineered to be like it is and it escaped the lab, by accident or intention. Nothing that comes out of WHO, China, or a DimoKKKRat adminstration, can be trusted.

    Liked by 1 person

  • This WHO organisation needs investigating fully, into why they refused to release important information about this bat virus, from Taiwan. They had information long before the virus became a pandemic, and while the Chinks were still in denial about the severity of the virus.

    Liked by 5 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.