According to a new report, SARS-CoV-2 is the most likely source of COVID-19 virus infection. However, it was not possible to determine the origin of the information that went into the report. When I say you’ve got to read until the end, you’ve got to read until the end. You should see this one to understand the dire state of COVID-19 origins investigation.
Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist and Head of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department of the University of Arizona is Dr. Worobey. Worobey proved to be a trustworthy and reliable voice in discussions about the COVID-19 pandemic. In this discussion, Worobey stated that the lack of sufficient information was limiting the ability to identify the source of SARS CoV-2.
All that changed on November 18, 2018.Th, when Worobey published his “findings” of an “investigation” into the origins in COVID-19. These finding suggest the virus may have originated on the wet markets, an assertion long held by lab-leaks opponents. There is no evidence that a host animal has been identified or that it was transmitted to intermediate species. This new report contains many flaws and leaps in logic and evidence to support certain conclusions. The author discusses two patients in detail as he identifies COVID-19 cases early on.
“Crucially, however, the now famous “earliest” COVID-19 case (1), a 41-year-old male accountant, who lived 30 km south of Huanan Market and had no connection to it—illness onset reported as 8 December—appears to have become ill with COVID-19 considerably later (12). Interviewed, he stated that his COVID-19 symptoms began with a fever 16/12/12; 8/12 was due to a problem in the dental system resulting from baby teeth being retained well into adulthood.12). Hospital records, as well as a scientific paper, confirm this. It reports that his COVID-19 onset was on 16 December. His hospitalization occurred on 22 December.13). He was likely infected via community transmission, after the virus began spreading from Huanan. He thought he was infected at a hospital, possibly during a dental emergency or while commuting on the subway. However, he also had traveled to Huanan Market just before the symptoms started.12). He developed symptoms after several cases of illness in Huanan market workers. His first case was a female fish vendor at Huanan.12). Notably, she said that she had information about COVID-19-related cases at clinics and hospitals near Huanan Market beginning 11 December. Huanan Market patients were also admitted to Union Hospital starting 10 December.” (emphasis added)
While the information contained in this part of the report seems to make sense, there appears to be a bit of revisionist history regarding this man’s original diagnosis. It has been accepted up until this point, that this man’s original symptoms date back to December 8th when they were first diagnosed. In Worobey’s explanation, he includes reports that suggest that these initial symptoms were related to a different issue, more specifically, a dental problem. Worobey neglects to mention that the man was an alleged victim of the 15th century, was admitted at Wuhan’s hospital prior, traveled via public transportation, and engaged in many other social interactions. To accept Worobey’s explanation, we would have to assume that the wet market was the Only way he could have been infected, which we know it wasn’t. Additionally, this wet market vendor whom he has identified as “patient zero,” clearly identified other patients around Wuhan that had been hospitalized before she became infected. How does Worobey genuinely make the “patient zero” claim, knowing these statements of the supposed “patient zero?” But let’s just assume for argument’s sake that Worobey’s conclusion is questionable because of the information he used. Worobey, how did you get that information? It was not previously available.
What is the answer? Chinese State-Controlled Media. The link he uses as the source for the accountant’s testimony sends us to “The Paper,” a Chinese language site with a video discussing information on the infections from the market. Worobey ought to have been able to see the comments and question its veracity immediately. Several of the comments suggest that the source of the virus was Trump and that Trump is a “paper tiger.” The video itself doesn’t suggest that the virus even started in China, simply that it was spreading at the Wet Market. It sounds like the virus could have come from overseas, judging by the way the video plays. Many comments agree that this virus is likely to have originated in the United States.
Another source of Worobey’s origins “investigation?” The WHO report. That WHO report only briefed on the possibility of a laboratory leak. That WHO report contained information only provided by China, without any independent investigation. Peter Daszak funded some of the Gain-of Function research carried out at Wuhan Institute of Virology. This WHO report was also partially written. The WHO also rejected that WHO report as being unreliable. This is why the WHO decided not to publish that WHO report and instead conducted a completely new investigation. Worobey knew this before he published the article, but Worobey still used it as an example to prove his points. Nowhere in the study does he even acknowledge the WHO’s concerns with the veracity of the report, nor the acknowledged conflicts of interests for the data contained therein, including those of Peter Daszak.
But If you need another reason to distrust this report, I’ve got a few more to get to, including yet another tie to our old friend Mr. Daszak. When Worobey published his “investigation” in November, numerous MSM organizations picked up on the story, running this with headlines suggesting that this is the definitive start to this virus, even though the study doesn’t say the things they suggest it does. “Fresh look at earliest COVID cases points to live-animal market as most likely source,” says the LA Times. What is the freshest look? The entire data from this study are over one year old. It comes directly from those who have the greatest risk of a laboratory leak. It is a repetition of Chinese propaganda. “First Known COVID Case Was Vendor at Wuhan Market, Scientist Says,” reads the New York Times. No. That’s not what the report says. She pointed out COVID cases in numerous Wuhan clinics, indicating that there may be more patients than she is aware of. Is it possible that patient zero is aware of previous hospitalized patients. This would not be sufficient to warrant further investigation. Worobey calls the patient “zero” and continues on.
Even the source of the vast majority of COVID lies, Peter Daszak, couldn’t sit this one out, acting as a source on the New York Times article.
“But Peter Daszak, a disease ecologist at EcoHealth Alliance who was part of the W.H.O. team, said that he was convinced by Dr. Worobey’s analysis that they had been wrong.
“That December the eighth date was a mistake,” Dr. Daszak said.
TheW.H.O. He said that he never had to ask the accountant when his symptoms started. Doctors from Hubei Xinhua Hospital gave them the Dec. 8 date. They had previously treated some other patients, but not Mr. Chen. “So the mistake lies there,” Dr. Daszak said.
W.H.O. According to Dr. Daszak, this interview proved futile for the W.H.O. The accountant said that he enjoys jogging and surfing the web, but he doesn’t like to travel. “He was as vanilla as you could get,” Dr. Daszak said.
Had the team identified the seafood vendor as the first known case, Dr. Daszak said, it would have more aggressively pursued questions like what stall she worked in and where her products came from.”
The point is that Worobey’s analysis never contradicted or corrected the WHO, only that it provided clarity. Although the WHO had identified the vendor in the market, her case was older than that of the accountant. The WHO team had contact with that vendor as well but did not ask additional questions as they felt she wasn’t patient zero. But even then, by this study’s admission, there are likely previous cases that they have not yet identified.
There’s even evidence to suggest that this virus may have been circulating in Wuhan as far back as September or October. Worobey asserts that in Wuhan, December 2019, there were at least two lineages. Worobey claims these two lineages are from separate zoonotic events that took place in two markets at the same moment, which is an incredible leap. That’s right. He argues that there were two natural zoonotic incidents in Wuhan which spread two variations of the virus. Is there a more straightforward explanation? An earlier outbreak means that the virus can mutate faster and take more time to spread from infected people. An earlier outbreak is likely to lead right back into the lab. Actually, the Wuhan Wet Market has no connection to any cases that occurred before the super-spreader in December. If this vendor isn’t patient zero, the wet market theory dies right there.
Worobey and the MSM consider it to have been peer-reviewed. In some ways that could be true. This is due to the fact that the same peer authors also wrote papers that suggested that the virus originated from the market and so were not impartial in their evaluations of the paper. One of the papers suggesting a natural origin lists several of Worobey’s reviewers as authors alongside numerous authors of the Lancet Letter, which rejected the lab-leak theory before anything was even known about this virus. Another of Worobey’s reviewers is Kristian Andersen, who was the author of an email sent to Anthony Fauci, questioning the potential that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was genetically engineered. Curiously, despite Fauci’s emails containing almost exclusively email responses, Fauci tells Andersen that they will talk on a call. What could Fauci have possibly needed to tell Andersen that couldn’t have been emailed?
What’s the point? Yes, Worobey’s conclusions could be correct, but that would require an enormous amount of luck and coincidence, neither of which is scientific in the slightest. Worobey’s information is presented as though it were all possible in each case, thus excluding other potentially equally probable possibilities. If this market vendor isn’t the first case, which it appears it is not, then the wet market theory ends. No other cases have been found to have come from the market. It is possible that other origins could have been present, even though the possibility of the market being the source point was negated. This paper simply repeats information from other sources, but is organized differently. Imagine reorganizing the deck chairs of the Titanic. While the appearance may differ, it does not alter the fact that the ship will sink.
Worobey was not available to answer my questions. I tried to reach him to inquire further about the study but he didn’t respond. This is almost one week and a quarter after my attempt to contact him. While it really shouldn’t matter though, I think everyone should also be aware of who funds Dr. Worobey’s research.
That Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That same one also funded viral research at Wuhan Institute of Virology.
About Post Author
