First design
Site Theme
The U. S. Department of Energy The U. S. government has updated its unsure stance on the origin of the coronavirus pandemic, and now says with “little confidence” that it likely arose as a result of a lab accident, according to an intelligence secret. document first reported through the Wall Street Journal on Sunday.
The update revives a bitter partisan debate over the elusive beginnings of SARS-CoV-2’s global devastation, a debate fueled in large part by inadequate evidence on both sides.
However, the Department of Energy, which runs the national laboratories, is in the minority. Of the 8 elements of the intelligence network that have tested data on the origin of SARS-CoV-2, only two are lately inclined to the so-called “laboratory”. “Fugue hypothesis”. The other is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which concluded with “moderate confidence” in 2021 that the pandemic was triggered through a lab leak, according to the WSJ. We do not know what evidence this assessment is based on.
In contrast, 4 other intelligence agencies and the National Intelligence Council assessed with “low confidence” that the pandemic was most likely triggered through human exposure to inflamed animals, most likely through animals that served as intermediate hosts among a reservoir of herbs for the virus (such as bats) before jumping on humans.
The remaining two intelligence agencies concluded that there was not enough knowledge to merge hypotheses of laboratory leakage or overflowing transmission.
All the intelligence that SARS-CoV-2 did not evolve as a biological weapon and that Chinese officials were unaware of the virus before it emerged in Wuhan in late 2019.
Many virologists and epidemiologists say that herbal overflow transmission appears to be the most likely source, pointing to epidemiological and genetic knowledge indicating this scenario, which has been the case with many other human outbreaks of animal-based viruses, adding those caused by other coronaviruses. In particular, two studies published last summer in the journal Science indicated that two SARS-CoV-2 viral lines spread to humans in two independent events, at most likely days or weeks apart, and at most in the first instances. Wholesale seafood market in Wuhan, especially in a market segment with a concentration of virus-positive environmental and wildlife samples. Taken together, knowledge and analysis recommend, but cannot conclusively conclude, that the market contained a past animal or organization of unidentified animals harboring SARS-CoV-2, which has an extended source of infection for market visitors. And the virus started from there.
However, proponents of the lab leak hypothesis argue that the market was not the cause of the spillover, but acted as a stage for mass-market events. They also point to a 2021 intelligence report suggesting that 3 researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology became ill and sought hospital care in November 2019, as well as ambiguous U. S. State Department cables. UU. de 2018 they were discussing biosafety issues in a Wuhan virology lab.
There is no evidence that a SARS-CoV-2 progenitor virus existed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
It’s unclear what influenced the Department of Energy’s stance toward speculation of a lab leak 3 years after the pandemic, as new streams of evidence have largely dried up. The WSJ and The New York Times reported that the agency’s position had been updated. due to new data extracted from its network of national laboratories, some of which are engaged in biological research. But officials did not disclose what intelligence is. A CNN source noted that the Energy Department’s new classified report on the factor was “similar” to data from a House Republican Intelligence Committee report released last year.
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan refused to verify or deny the Energy Department’s updated position on the origins of the coronavirus. In a CNN State of the Union interview Sunday, Sullivan pointed out the lack of consensus.
“There are a variety of perspectives on the intelligence network,” he said. “Some elements of the intelligence network have reached conclusions on the one hand, others on the other. Several of them said they simply didn’t have enough data to be Claro. Sullivan noted that Biden’s management has lobbied to uncover the truth about the case.
“But at the moment, there is nothing definitive that has emerged from the intelligence network on this issue,” he said.
Join the Ars Orbital Transmission email to get weekly updates to your inbox.