> Nor have the labs been entirely forthcoming about what viruses they do know about. The Wuhan Institute of Virology possesses gene information about similar viruses that it has not released publicly. Other information disappeared from view when the institute took a database offline in late 2019, just before the outbreak started.
That's... one hell of a coincidence (in timing). It continues:
> One problem with the lab leak theory is that it presumes the Chinese are lying or hiding facts, a position incompatible with a joint scientific effort. This may have been why the WHO team, for instance, never asked to see the offline database.
There are a number of problems here:
1. "... lying or hiding facts". My suspicion is that it's most likely no one knows but, more importantly, no one wants to find out. Think about it: what's the upside of turning over those particular rocks?
This sort of thing happens all the time. Here's an example from the Columbia shuttle disaster [1]:
> Several people within NASA pushed to get pictures of the breached wing in orbit. The Department of Defense was reportedly prepared to use its orbital spy cameras to get a closer look. However, NASA officials in charge declined the offer, according to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) and "Comm Check," a 2008 book by space journalists Michael Cabbage and William Harwood, about the disaster. The landing proceeded without further inspection.
A certain breed of manager will just not want certain questions asked.
2. As for a "joint scientific effort", that means something different in the West vs China. In China, everything from companies to sports to "scientific efforts" is an extension of the state. There simply is no independence to the same degree we'd expect.
3. The WHO team not asking to see the offline database is... mind-blowing. There are a lot of problems with the WHO's response to the coronavirus. In the early days of the pandemic, the WHO went out of their way to accept and spread China's versions of events with little scrutiny [2]. It's one reason this article uses the term "patsy".
Again, I'm not claiming the lab theory is accurate or even likely but... due diligence would mean you try to independently verify anything that's told to you no? I imagine it was a political deal for the WHO to not, for example, examine the offline database but... really?
The other problematic part of this is how long it took for this investigation to start. It's also interesting (although not necessarily damning) about how China came down hard on Australia for asking for an inquiry [3]. Like.. that's just not a good look.
But again it's not necessarily guilt. I imagine China just doesn't want to set the precedent that it's accountable to any outside authority and will punish anyone for trying to make that happen. Still... that doesn't help your case if you're trying to disprove the theory that one of your labs was responsible for the leak.
[1]: https://www.space.com/19436-columbia-disaster.html
[2]: https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline
[3]: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/29/trade-war-with-china-austral...