There are two theses about the outbreak of the corona pandemic: the virus jumped from animals to humans and the virus came from the laboratory intentionally or accidentally. Natural zoonosis seems like a much more comfortable scenario than a laboratory accident. But is that necessarily the truth?
In autumn 2019, an epidemic broke out in the Chinese metropolis of Wuhan in Hubei province, which soon became widely known as Covid-19 and which developed into a terrible pandemic. Millions of people fell victim to it and more will follow. A new corona virus was only identified as the culprit using the latest molecular biology at the highest possible speed and shortly afterwards named Sars-CoV-2. How this virus came about is still unknown.
However, a number of strong indications suggest that research institutes in the city of Wuhan, which have collected coronaviruses en masse in remote areas from bats, genetically modified them in some cases and intensively examined them, have something to do with it. In view of the looming human suffering, one might have expected that all relevant actors in politics, health care and science would move heaven and earth to investigate the suspicion that was as plausible as it was terrible and to check this “laboratory thesis”.
It turned out quite differently: instead of calling loud and clear for a possible laboratory accident to be rigorously investigated according to all the rules of science and for creating the organizational prerequisites for this, leading corona researchers quickly agreed that the Covid 19 pandemic was only one natural zoonosis, in which a naturally occurring virus spreads to humans without intentional human intervention. They could not present clear evidence of this, and still cannot to this day. Nevertheless, they launched articles in renowned scientific journals such as “The Lancet” and “Nature Reviews Medicine” that gave the impression that the emergence of Sars-CoV-2 through natural zoonosis was a proven fact.
Worse, they have labeled the claim that Covid-19 has no natural origin as a “conspiracy theory” and “strongly condemned” it for allegedly creating nothing “other than the fear, rumor and prejudice that undermines our global cooperation in the fight.” against this virus”.
But the opposite is the case. Since the beginning of the pandemic, many scientists around the world who do not belong to the small, narrow circle of corona researchers, including many virologists and molecular biologists, but also security researchers and physicists, have set about clarifying the origin of Sars-CoV-2. Hardly anything has hindered her work as much as her discrediting as a “conspiracy theorist”.
With their reputation, the supporters of the natural zoonosis hypothesis quickly succeeded in convincing large parts of the public of their views. Even the leading science magazines such as “Nature” and “Science”, German leading media and public media institutions were largely taken in by them, instead of doing investigative research and critically investigating.
At first they failed to appreciate the unsound scientific basis on which the presumptuous distinction between science and conspiracy theory was made, and the enormous conflicts of interest many of those who made the distinction had. In addition to the fact that they had received a lot of money for their research in the past, they had to worry about their future work opportunities and the reputation of their entire field of work, virology.
After all, many of them actually started with the aim of saving the world from pandemics. Because at least some of the genetic engineering experiments with corona viruses have been carried out under the aspect of safety research. They should be used to determine the “pandemic potential” of natural viruses, i.e. it should be determined how much initially harmless viruses have to change in order to become dangerous for humans.
If their activity had triggered the Covid-19 pandemic, they would be like firefighters who negligently caused a fire that they should have prevented. An entire scientific “business model” would be ruined. Apart from that, those involved could potentially face massive personal and legal consequences. So a natural zoonosis appears to be a much more comfortable scenario than a laboratory accident. But is that necessarily the truth?
The Covid-19 pandemic has caused much human suffering and it is far from over. That makes me sad. But it’s a second plague that appalls me – the pandemic of scientific and media arrogance and ignorance in which a fairly small group of highly specialized experts have lulled nearly the entire world into the causes of a phenomenon and made open scientific discussion difficult.
In the agreement of these experts, which is not based on reliable data, that Covid-19 is a natural zoonosis, I see it more as a kind of conspiracy, which they then accused of the doubters of the natural zoonosis hypothesis in perfidious projection. However, these critics and doubters are far too large, heterogeneous and uncoordinated a bunch to really conspire with – most didn’t even know each other in the early months of the pandemic. And what should have been their motive? The motives of the corona researchers, on the other hand, are more than obvious.
Don’t get me wrong: I’d rather have a natural zoonosis than a laboratory accident. I am a molecular biologist myself and I sincerely hope that it was not scientists who took a deadly virus from nature, or possibly even constructed it in the first place, let it escape and then covered up this event. But wishful thinking has no place here. In order to reduce the likelihood of the next pandemic, it would be helpful to know what really happened, rather than how it could have been best, apart from the fundamental value of historical truth.
Fortunately, it is no longer taboo among many scientists to regard a laboratory accident for what it is: a plausible scientific hypothesis that should be tested.
This is also thanks to the commitment of many critical researchers who, as supposed conspiracy theorists, have researched and researched for years. They wrote open letters and published articles in modest journals or uploaded them to preprint servers because no reputable journal wanted to print them. In the meantime, however, the ice seems to have been broken. Even leading journals such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA have articles calling for independent and unbiased investigation into the origin of Sars-CoV-2 and the recent preliminary report from the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens” (SAGO) of the World Health Organization (WHO) does not rule out a laboratory accident and recommends checking the laboratory thesis as well as others.
Even if it is not yet clear how Sars-CoV-2 really came about – I am sure of something else: During the pandemic, the community of corona researchers set a damn good example of damn bad science, because it was driven by prejudice and interests. Because science means systematic doubt and the consistent testing of the resulting hypotheses, not the active and rapid dissemination of pleasing and comfortable opinions. Unfortunately, consequences far beyond virology are to be feared. Because there are enough problems in this world, from climate change and species extinction to armed conflicts and famine, for the solution of which scientific expertise is urgently needed. But the frequent demand “Listen to science” is unlikely to be followed by anyone when its leading representatives behave like influencers.
Disclaimer: ntv.de editor Kai Stoppel supported the creation of the book “The Virus: In Search of the Origin of Covid-19”. However, he was not involved in the creation of the op-ed.
