If Books Could Kill - Bonus: The Lab Leak Goes Mainstream

Episode Date: June 5, 2025

By popular demand we are releasing last month's Patreon bonus episode on the main feed! We chart the transformation of the lab leak from an unfounded theory promoted by right-wing cranks to an unfounded theory promoted by liberal journalists.Where to find us: Peter's newsletterPeter's other podcast, 5-4Mike's other podcast, Maintenance PhaseThanks to Mindseye for our theme song!

That's you and everyone else in journalism. What? Little DM buddies. Do you have DM buddy with other journalists? No. What? Really? They don't talk to me, I don't talk to them. It's called respect. You're not in group chats with Mark Andreessen? I thought we were all in group chats with Mark Andreessen.

I don't even read journalism because that would color my opinion. I just experience events. Zing us, Peter. Or are we giving up on the zinger again? Let's give up. What do you know about years two through five of the lab leak? I'm gonna be strategically looking for ways to bring back my joke about kissing the cats in the Wuhan market.

I was gonna give you shit about that. That since I listened to the episode again, and you didn't, I was gonna say, whatever joke you make on this episode, I'm just gonna silently go, you said that last time. It's actually what you said last time. I would not be surprised if my brain reproduces jokes thinking that they're original, you know in in in Spain

They call it la bleak Because it is that one's good You're not laughing because of how good it is That's what I'm getting. That's a signal that I'm getting. It's actually so good It is funny that we're like two and a half years later. It's like I still think we could pin this on the Chinese if we try. Let's go with that. Fuck it. So we are once again returning to the lab leak theory.

This episode is based on two excuses. One of them is that the White House just launched their lab leak website, which used to be like COVID-19.gov and COVID-19tests.gov are now pointing to a deranged website that has a like 90s action movie photo of Donald Trump and like lab leak. It's china.evil is the website. So that just happened. And then also we just did,

well, we haven't actually recorded it yet, but we're about to record an episode on In COVID's Wake, which is the, we got everything about COVID wrong book, which was featured on the daily and PBS NewsHour and all these other kind of respectable places, but like two inches underneath the surface. It's like super reactionary and deranged. And they have a whole chapter about the lab leak that would have taken his way off track for that actual episode. So this is like a little bonus where we're going specifically dive into their claims and for me

It's important to talk about like the ways that the lab leak theory has kind of evolved over the last couple years So to speak so we're gonna talk about their chapter and then also kind of where the lab leak is Should we summarize the last episode? I was just gonna ask you to do this again to describe like the lab leak as you understand it And then what are the pieces of evidence for the lab leak as you understand them? Okay? I'm not gonna remember the scientific details because I did not prepare for this episode by listening to our last one Which I would describe as the minimum amount of diligence An hour of work to prepare for this but in in my defense, I've been very sleepy.

So here I think is the basic lab leak thesis. The origin point for COVID-19 as we know it is in and around Wuhan, China. Also in Wuhan, China is a lab that studies coronaviruses. Pretty weird. Pretty weird. As soon as that came out, a lot of people thought, hmm, wouldn't it make sense that they were studying a virus, a virus escaped containment. And I think that the location of the lab has always been the starting point.

It's always been the best single piece of evidence. And it's often described as Occam's razor. Like the Occam's razor explanation is, you have an outbreak of a coronavirus in this obscure city in China, and in the same obscure city, you also have a lab studying coronaviruses and doing like kind of sketchy work

where they're manipulating coronaviruses. So like you put those two things together and like the obvious Bayesian explanation is that like obviously it came from the lab. That is like how the argument usually goes. Yeah. This is just a tiny little city in China of 15 million people. Now my memory of these basic counter arguments are this. One, you're getting the causation wrong if you think of it as, oh my God, what a crazy coincidence. The reason the lab is in Wuhan is because that is the site

of a lot of coronaviruses, so they study them there. That's actually not quite true. I actually hear this a lot online, that that's why the lab them there. That's actually not quite true. I actually hear this a lot online, that that's why the lab was there. OK. They say this is the only BSL-4 high-security lab in China, but that's kind of irrelevant to the coronavirus work, because none of the coronavirus work

was being done at that level of security. That's what they did with Ebola. So it's a BSL-2, like a moderate, kind of medium security virus lab. And every big city in China has medium-security virus labs. That's not like a weird thing. Many cities in America have medium-security virus labs. Okay. That's fair enough. And I've already learned something that you forgot to tell

me in the first episode. You're blaming me. I do. And then you have a sort of assortment of other arguments that make it less and less plausible that there's a lab leak. One is that the initial cases cluster around the wet market on the other side of town. Very far away. It's 10 kilometers away. It's like a 30 minute drive. They're not adjacent to each other. Yes. And then the other, and I remember this only really vaguely,

so I'll have you, I'll say something stupid and then you can fill in the blanks. That's our whole show. Essentially, if you look at the work that they were doing, there are like various conspiracy theories that they were basically like really close to a coronavirus that's functionally identical to COVID-19.

But in reality if you look at the viruses that they were working on, it does not make sense that COVID-19 could have come out of the lab. Yes, I think the most important thing to realize is that we're now five years down the line. This theory has been around for five years and we still are missing extremely important building blocks. So we still have zero early cases. To this day, there's never been a confirmed case of a lab worker getting COVID in like the early months of the pandemic at all. So that isn't there. We don't have clustering, right? This is a very infectious virus. If a lab worker got it, theoretically, other lab workers

would get it, the neighborhood around the lab, the place where people live, we would see some sort of clustering. We don't see that. We see clustering around the market. We also see clustering within the market. We know that live animals were being sold in the southwest corner of the market. That is where the early coronavirus cases are clustered. And we have a virus swabs that find COVID in in like the drains like on doorknobs in the cages of the animals Covet is all fucking over the place at the market still to this day No sign that co vid was at the lab at all, right? It is true that they had something called our a TG 13, which is a virus that is 96% identical to co vid However, 96% identical in biological terms is not close at all. It's like how bananas share 98% of our DNA or something like that.

Yeah, exactly. I was thinking like, I am much more than 96% identical to Michael Phelps, but like he can swim much faster than me, right? Like the fast swimming is not something that like sort of happens by accident, right? And we also know from genomic sequences that RATG-13 could not become COVID.

It's not like the grandfather of COVID, it's like a distant cousin. So there's no evidence whatsoever that they had COVID. So to leak something, you have to have it. And in five years, there's no evidence that they had anything that either was COVID or could become COVID. There's no evidence of this whatsoever. And it's easy to say like, well, maybe they had anything that either was COVID or could become COVID. There's no evidence

of this whatsoever. And it's easy to say, like, well, maybe they had a bunch of viruses that, like, they didn't tell us about, like, other lockers that hadn't been looked at. But there's actually a paper from 2018, from before the COVID pandemic, that went through and cataloged every single virus that they had. This is actually like a project that had taken place. This paper was never published, but this was a lab that had international researchers working there. This was a lab that published in like science and nature. This was very much a part of like the international virological community. In five years, we've had no whistleblowers come forward and say, hey, I did a six month project in Wuhan and I was really concerned about their safety protocols.

We've had no emails, any internal document of any kind indicating a safety event or a secret program. This lab has been subjected to unprecedented scrutiny over the last five years. And it's just turned up nothing. And of course, all of this can be chalked up to the efficiency and secrecy of the dastardly Chinese. Exactly. And like this is then, the lack of evidence is often cast as evidence. So kind of famously, people within the lab, when the coronavirus first started spreading at the market or wherever in Wuhan in January, people in the

lab were like, oh shit, is this us? Like they had the same thought as everybody else. They're like, fuck, there's like a coronavirus spreading, we do coronavirus work. They then tested everyone in the lab for antibodies, right? As soon as those tests were available in March of 2020, they're like, every single worker should take one of these things.

If you have antibodies, that's a really big problem. That means it might have come from our lab. Everybody tests negative. So according to the people who work in this lab, nobody there tested positive for antibodies. However, the conspiracy theorists are now like, isn't that a little suspicious? Nobody had antibodies in 2020. And it's like, okay, so the lack of evidence is now evidence, right? If they had found antibodies, you'd be saying, ah, that proves it comes from the lab. When they don't find antibodies, you're also saying that proves it comes from the lab. When they don't find antibodies, you're also saying that proves it comes from the lab.

Right, right. Do you remember, Peter, in our previous lab leak episode, we said there was one good piece of evidence. All the other pieces of evidence are very circumstantial. It's like, the lab is in Wuhan, and lab leaks have happened before, but there was one piece of actual direct evidence that I characterize as the best available piece of evidence.

Do you remember this? I don't. So basically, we have a report report originally in the Wall Street Journal that three workers at the lab Got sick in November of 2019. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah sure Yeah, I've heard this come up repeatedly from the lab leak truthers Yes, this appears to just be an internal report of a few sick people in a lab in November, like in the fall? Yes. In a year with an infamously bad flu season. Right. Yes. People had symptoms that could be COVID or could be the flu. That's basically the strongest possible version of it.

Right. This best evidence for the lab leak has actually become significantly weaker since we recorded that episode because in June of 2023, Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger publish a report naming the three scientists who got sick. They present this as like a smoking gun, right? We have the names. This is of course based on anonymous government sources. Chinese government? American government. It's fairly weak anyway, but what's so interesting is by naming these specific people who got sick in fall of 2019, they actually ended up weakening their case because Science, the magazine, contacts these

researchers and two of them say, like, I didn't get sick at all. So originally we thought, like, oh, they got sick in November of 2019, but like, whatever, it could be anything. These people are saying we didn't get sick at all. And one of them, very importantly, one of the people who is named as being like the genesis of this, doesn't even work in the lab. This is a person who does like computer modeling. And she's like, well, that doesn't even make sense.

Like I couldn't have caught it from a live virus because I don't work on live viruses. Like I talked to another person who's done collaborations with them and he was like, I don't know if she's ever actually been to the lab, like the part where they're doing the virus manipulation. So that's like the best piece of evidence is now even weaker than it was, and it was never particularly strong. The really important thing that I want to talk about in this episode is that if you actually follow like the lab leak people, like people that are really bought into this, they're shedding credibility the way that people shed coronaviruses.

But at the same time, we've had this weird recasting of the lab leak from people on the left, including people I genuinely really respect. Say their names. We'll get there, we'll get there, we'll get there. People on the left, like us, really fucked up in dismissing the lab leak. Yeah. This is from Naomi Klein's book, Doppelganger, which we talked about on this show, but we didn't get a chance to get to this part. Like most of us, I don't know where the COVID-19 virus originated, but I do realize in retrospect that I was too quick to

take the official story that it came from a wet market where wild animals were sold at face value. If I'm honest, I accepted it because it served my own motivated reasoning and reinforced my worldview. The pandemic was a little less frightening to me if it was yet another example of humans overstressing nature and getting bitten in the ass for it." Then as time went on, the lab leak theory became a key talking point from people like Naomi Wolf and Steve Bannon where it was mixed with baseless claims about bioweapons along with plenty of anti-Asian racism. Those seemed to be further reason not to take another look at the facts. Even though more and more facts and documents were piling up that supported

a serious consideration of the lab leak hypothesis, most liberals and leftists didn't bother looking for months because we didn't want to be like them in the same way that I didn't want to be like her. In an odd way, their over-the-top conspiracies fed our credulity. Their question everything led to many of us not questioning enough. So this is becoming a very standard narrative. We were reacting to the fact that conspiracy theorists believe this by not believing it without investigating the evidence. We were basically writing them off because they were kooky, but we wrote off the entire theory, right? Rather than saying, okay, the bioweapon stuff is a little silly, but this could have been an accidental lab leak.

This is something worth looking into. And so in May of 2021, we had this huge explosion of articles being like, the media really fucked this up. Iglesias writes a piece called the media's lab leak fiasco. It was a fiasco the way that we treated this as a conspiracy theory when it actually deserved a lot more consideration. Maybe that explains the fact that now the lab leak is like the American public's leading hypothesis. There's a poll from March 2023 that's around 65% of Americans believe that it's true. It's 35% of Democrats, which is not the majority of Democrats, but still pretty strong.

This is what's so frustrating about some of this discourse where people are like, we really messed up when we didn't consider this enough. And it's sort of like, well, if the public believes it at a 65% clip, that's about as close to consensus as you're gonna get in modern America on something that has a sort of political valence. Then, like, what exactly is the journalistic concern? It sounds to me like if what you believe is that the lab leak is a likely hypothesis, then you did fine.

Journalists didn't fuck up. People believe it. So what else do you want? I just don't quite get it. I don't want to come for Naomi Klein. Like I said, I really like her. I like that book. But I think this narrative does not hold up to the facts, right? If you look at the actual timeline of when the lab leak theory emerged and the way that it was treated in the early months, people treat it as a conspiracy theory in the early months of the way that it was treated in the early months people treated as a conspiracy Theory in the early months of the pandemic because it was being pushed by conspiracy theorists, right? It was Tom Cotton on Fox News saying that the market Origin had been debunked which was completely not true. It was also coming from the fucking zero hedge blog, which is like a infamous

Conspiracy peddler so people saying, oh, this is a conspiracy theory because conspiracy theorists were saying it. Right, and also, by the way, it was, even if we believed that subsequent evidence showed that lab leak was the most likely explanation, in early 2020, that evidence didn't exist. No, none. This is always so hard for people to process,

but like, if you guess something correctly and insist before knowing that it's true, that's not actually evidence that you're reasoning correctly. This is a fucked up comparison, but I always think about the episode that me and Sarah did about the Duke-LaCrosse rape case, where that did turn out to be a false accusation but there were a ton of people who basically the minute they heard a rape allegation

they're like she's lying and then it eventually turned out she was lying and they're like I was vindicated but it's like you just think all women are lying about being raped at all times. Like once again I was correct of the 25 women I've accused of making sexual assault claims the third has been proven correctly It's not you don't get to do this I think this this sort of again on the surface feels like an important thing to do of like yes There is group think on the left And I also think after something is proven to be true like once we found out that Lance Armstrong was fucking using steroids,

it's like worth going back and being like, wait a minute, on what basis were people saying that they were lying? Like, what can we learn from the trajectory of this piece of information? And like, did we wait too long before accepting it? I think those kinds of mechanics are like actually really important. But the problem with the lab leak is that we're missing the part where it's true. And I don't even really know what they're talking about half the time because in the circles that I ran in, which I admit are not a particularly representative cross-section of American society. It's like the 37th international. When I was discussing this stuff with friends in 2020, the widespread belief was like, with friends in 2020, the widespread belief was like, yeah, maybe, maybe it came out of the lab. The idea that there was like this aggressive dismissal.

I'm sure that in some circles you could find it, but I just didn't see it. So for the rest of the episode, we're gonna talk about the chapter of In COVID's Wake that talks about the lab leak theory itself and all of the group think that led to the theory being dismissed. I guess I should say we haven't actually recorded the episode yet, but In COVID's Wake is a book by Stephen Macedo and Francis Lee, who are both researchers at

Princeton, basically saying that liberal group think is why we did all of these, quote unquote, ineffective policies during the COVID pandemic, things like lockdowns and mask mandates. The entire premise of the book is false. They're just totally wrong on the data. They have long sections that are about like debate was suppressed and then all of the debate is just like people who were lying or totally wrong and people on the internet basically pointing that out. Like the book is just a reactionary tract.

Hell yeah. We will get into it in great detail in like a main feed episode. But for now, here is the first paragraph of their sort of substantive discussion of the lab leak. It is widely accepted that the COVID coronavirus arose in or around Wuhan in the Hubei province of the People's Republic of China.

Wuhan is home to both a live animal and seafood market, which is common in Chinese cities, and something quite uncommon, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, an elite research institute that specializes in coronavirus research. So not a great sign that the first paragraph of their substantive discussion of the lab leak begins with a screaming lie. One thing that I don't think has been communicated to the American public is that live animal markets are not common in China. In the city of Wuhan, which is around 11 million, 15 million, it's hard to measure the size of cities, but a very large city, there's only four markets that were selling live animals.

China had the SARS outbreak in 2003 that was from live animals. They have attempted to crack down on the wildlife trade because they know that it's a ticking time bomb for coronaviruses. It is also very profitable and the local authorities often look the other way, but that's a relatively narrow phenomenon. So if we're going to talk about Occam's razor for the start of a pandemic, in a city of 11 million people, we have early cases of a virus clustered around one of only four places where animals and humans are interacting in close quarters. That's pretty strong, Occam's razor, for

zoonotic spillover. Unless someone at the lab likes after work to go pet the animals. You're doing it to go pet the animals. You're doing it. You're doing it. Get there. Get there, Peter. You finish up your work at the lab. You forget to wash your hands because you're really excited to go check out the wet market.

You drive across town, breakneck speed. You run over there and you find your favorite bat and you just roll around together for a couple of hours and then you go home to your wife. And you put your lips over its snout and you breathe in. You breathe in its mucus and then you spit in its mouth and it's just normal friendship with a bat sort of stuff. So one of the scientists I talked to for this, Eddie Holmes, has actually been to the market. He went there in 2019 and took photos of cages showing that live animals were being sold at the market. he went there in 2019, and took photos of cages showing that live animals were being sold at the market.

One thing he mentioned was that, again, because people don't know much about Chinese cities, what you often hear is that, oh, this could just be a super spreader event, not necessarily the origin of the virus. And again, sure, it could be. However, one thing he mentioned is that the seafood market was not particularly crowded. This wasn't like some sort of like Times Square, Olive Garden packed situation. If we were going to have somebody from the lab spread it in Wuhan, there's extraordinarily crowded train stations, shopping malls. There's so many other places that are extremely plausible as super spreader events at the beginning of this pandemic.

And, you know, the kind of core argument for the lab leak has really always been, like, isn't it a weird coincidence that this coronavirus emerges in the same city as a coronavirus lab? Sure, and it is a genuinely weird coincidence. I am happy to grant that. However, for the lab leak theory to work, you have to believe that somebody from the lab got the virus and then happened to go to one of only four places in Wuhan where

they were selling, like, raccoon dogs. That's also a huge coincidence. Sorry, uh... What? Raccoon dogs? Is that one animal or is that raccoon, comma, dogs? No, you don't know about raccoon dogs? What's a raccoon dogs is that one animal or is that raccoon comma dogs no right you don't know about raccoon dogs what's a raccoon dog bro okay Google go on Google right now and Google raccoon dog a raccoon dog is

exactly what it sounds like it's like a little dog that looks like a raccoon they're so cute oh my god what the fuck is this I know they're so cute this is a dog I don't know exactly what they are you know I'm going to the Wuhan market myself a raccoon dog. It's kind of fucked up that the reason they sell live animals at these markets is for either pets or meat. Another thing I didn't even mention yet is in March of 2023, just after we released our lab leak episode, we get a study that finds in the market, they took a bunch of swabs from the market where they found COVID, those same swabs also found the DNA of raccoon dogs. So that doesn't prove that like

zoonotic spillover is real, like you don't want to overdo it. But it does at least show that in the place where COVID was circulating, they were selling raccoon dogs, which we know are a vector for coronaviruses. We know they can catch it, we know they can spread it. They were also selling civets, although there was less of that genetic material. And civets are also extremely cute, and a vector for coronaviruses. I didn't hear a lot of that because I've just been looking at the Wikipedia for raccoon dogs. Aren't they cute? Wow. Really cute. Why are they in Europe and also East Asia?

And also, why are they not in my home right now? Because they're hella cute and I want like seven of them. Yeah, I would like to go grab one and then if it's nice, I'll keep it. And if it's not, I will eat it. Or just put your mouth over its snout and milk it. And then we'll find the new disease. They then continue, Peter. I'm gonna send you the next couple of paragraphs. You're looking at the dogs aren't you?

What? No. Look at civets though. Civets are hella cute too. How do I spell that? C-I-V-E-T. Ah, look at his little fur. Whoa, look at this guy. Oh, the little babies. Mind showing me little babies.

Oh, they get weird looking. Oh, yeah. Some of them are a little weird. But the babies are cute. Gain of function research, such as that conducted at the Wuhan Institute, has long been controversial. As the National Institutes of Health website explains, gain of function research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to increase the transmissibility and or virulence of pathogens.

Although research into dangerous pathogens may lead to advances in the control of natural outbreaks, the research itself is also clearly adjacent to bio warfare. This is also something that has happened among the lab leak movement in the last two years. They're just openly promoting the bio weapon theory, which originally they were like, well, obviously that's fake. Like the thing that like the conspiracy theorists were saying in March of 2020, that's not real. That is a conspiracy theory. But the accidental lab leak, that's not a conspiracy theory and you shouldn't have treated it as one.

But they're now spouting the actual fucking conspiracy theory. This is just like lazy faux journalism, like the research itself is clearly adjacent to bio warfare. I mean, you could very abstractly make the argument that any virology research is adjacent to bio warfare. Yeah, completely. What does that even mean? It's also this chicken shit reactionary centers thing

where they're like, well, I didn't say it was a bio weapon program. I just said it was adjacent. Because you fucking can't. Yeah. Because you can't, but you kind of want to. So here is the next couple of paragraphs which we're gonna dig into in a bit more detail.

Eminent scientists had warned for years of the dangers of gain of function research of the sort conducted at Wuhan Institute where biosecurity levels were inadequate. Numerous lab leaks of dangerous pathogens have been documented or strongly suspected over the years. A 1995 epidemic of equine encephalitis, multiple cases of SARS in Beijing in 2004, a 2007 outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom, an anthrax escape that killed 60 in Russia, and a 2019 lab leak of Brucella that infected more than 10,000 people in China. This is something that I really want to address because this is another piece of quote unquote

evidence that is often cited for the lab leak, that lab leaks have happened before. I see what they're going for here, but I don't quite get it as like support for a theory because it's like, what's my evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered? Well people have been murdered before. Yeah, yeah. I should use a different example because I do believe Jeffrey Epstein was murdered. I was just trying to think of a different metaphor. You know what I'm saying. Well I was thinking, I mean some of this Occam's razor stuff, what frustrates me about it, is like

if you're a detective and you find a woman who's been murdered, the Occam's razor explanation is that her boyfriend or her husband did it. Like 99am's razor explanation is that her boyfriend or her husband did it yeah Yeah, 99 times out of 100. It's her boyfriend or her husband, but then if you go and investigate the husband, right? Okay, where were you last night? And he's like, oh I was at a party where like hundreds of people saw me you can't then just say well Occam's razor is that you killed her right? No, no, no, no, no, you need evidence I almost think you're underselling it like the reason that you think when you find a woman who's been murdered Oh, let's go check out the significant other is because a very very large percentage of the time

Right, that's who it is, right? So the question isn't have there been lab leaks before It's like when we find a new virus. How often is it a lab leak? Yeah, it's like sometimes it's like as strong as you can get but then also it's so much worse than that because There's no reason anybody would sort of notice this but in this paragraph where they're listing all these dangerous pathogens that have leaked from labs All of these are existing viruses, right? These are viruses that are human that can infect human hosts We have never had a leak of a novel virus. Oh, interesting. The closest thing that we have is there was an outbreak

of the Marburg virus in 1967, where there were monkeys that were infected with this virus in the lab, and lab workers got it from live monkeys. Like, they were breathing in, like, it's basically zoonotic spillover, but it happens to have taken place in a lab. That's kind of as close as we get. This thing where you're taking an existing virus

from an animal, you're swapping in and out parts, you're testing how it affects mice or trying to grow it in a petri dish, this has never leaked from a lab. So could it have happened? Maybe. But the fact that there have been lab leaks of existing viruses is actually very different from a lab creating COVID and then having it leak. Those are very distinct scenarios. This requires the lab tech on roller skates

with a tray of vials. That's what they are imagining here. The other thing in this quote that I really wanna zoom in on is, it says, gain of function research of the sort conducted at Wuhan Institute where biosecurity levels were inadequate. So this is yet another

argument for the lab leak that like we know they had safety problems. There have been concerns about safety for years. So there's essentially three pieces of evidence for this. One of them was, remember we talked about the ProPublica article about there was this guy who said that he could translate Chinese better than Chinese people, like an American guy. And he's like, they did a safety training in November of 2019. And the reason they did the safety training was because there had been a biosecurity incident. That's really weak and this guy has no credibility and that's just really weird. So we're kind of putting that piece of evidence beside because it's so weak. The other argument for this is that the lab was doing work at BSL2

rather than BSL3, so at a lower security level. It's out of four levels. BSL4 is the highest. BSL1 is essentially no security precautions. BSL2 is kind of, I've heard it described as like dental hygienist level precautions. So the argument is that this lab was doing this work at BSL2 when they should have been doing it at BSL3. There's a really good episode of This Week in Virology where it's actual virologists talking about this and they say that like work on measles is done at BSL2 and work on rabies which is 100% fatal to humans is often done at BSL2. And so people at the lab were doing work at BSL2.

It appears some people in the field do this kind of work at BSL3. Other people do it at BSL2. There's really no evidence that this is like a rogue lab that was acting totally out of step with existing practices. And there's like an actual debate about like what level of safety you should do this kind of work at. Can I bring my pet raccoon dog to the lab? At level two, it's allowed. So the thing I really want to dive into is in this paragraph where they're talking about the poor biosafety standards at the lab, In COVID's Wake has a citation to a Washington Post article from April of 2020. This article is called State Department Cables Warned of Safety Issues at Wuhan Lab Studying

Bat Coronaviruses. It's by Josh Rogan. And I'm'm gonna send you the first couple of paragraphs. Two years before the novel coronavirus pandemic upended the world, US embassy officials visited a Chinese research facility in the city of Wuhan several times

and sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab, which was conducting risky studies on coronaviruses from bats. But the US officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables categorized as sensitive but unclassified back to Washington. The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help. The first cable, which I obtained, also warns that

the lab's work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic." So basically this is like people from the US State Department visited this lab and they were so concerned that they're like, holy shit, we're going to send a dispatch back to Washington being like, we really need to be worried about this. They alerted Washington. Yes, exactly. So there's two cables in question. The author of this piece, Josh Rogan, is given access to the first cable and he says like, okay, there's very worrying stuff in there. He doesn't get access to the second cable,

but he does talk to an unnamed government source that has read it and describes the contents to him. So here's the description of the second cable. Sources familiar with the cable said they were meant to sound an alarm about the grave safety concerns at the WIV lab, especially regarding its work with bat coronaviruses. The embassy officials were calling for more U.S. attention to this lab and more support for it to help it fix its problems. Fix its problems? The cable was a warning shot, one U.S. official said. They were begging people to pay attention

to what was going on. This paints a very clear and worrying picture of the lab. I've always found this very convincing and what I was ready to say is that bad safety practices in general do not mean that this virus leaked from this lab on this specific date. This is actually, I mean, it's a very roundabout, or assuming this is correct, which I imagine you're about to tell me it's not really, but this would be, if true,

like a very, very circumstantial piece of evidence. It's not decisive, right? What I didn't know until I was researching this episode is that we now have these cables. The Washington Post sued the Trump administration to get access have these cables. The Washington Post sued the Trump administration to get access to these cables and we can now read them. There are two cables, one on January 19th of 2018, one on April 19th of 2018, and you are going to read the first couple paragraphs of them.

In addition to accreditation, the lab must also receive permission from the National Health and Family Planning Commission to initiate research on specific highly contagious pathogens. To date the Institute has obtained permission for research on three viruses Ebola virus, Nipah virus, and Xinjiang hemorrhagic fever virus. Despite this permission however the Chinese government has not allowed the Institute to import Ebola viruses for study in the BSL-4 lab. Therefore scientists are frustrated and have pointed out that they won't be able to conduct a research project with Ebola viruses at the new BSL-4 lab despite the permission.

Nothing, no safety concerns at this point. It's more like they should get access to Ebola, right? That's something you wouldn't say if you were gravely concerned. Give them the Ebola. Give everybody the Ebola. Yeah, you guys got that Ebola? So and then here is the only mention of safety in the entire document. During interactions with scientists at the Wuhan Laboratory, they noted that the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory. So, they need staff. Without the staff, they won't be able to operate safely.

So, I mean, I think you could characterize this as a safety concern, right? They're saying there's a lack of safety-related infrastructure. Yeah, that feels like a fair characterization. Although, I should say, the summary of this cable says, Scientists hope the lab will contribute to the development of new antiviral drugs and vaccines, but its current productivity is limited by a shortage of the highly trained technicians and investigators required to safely operate a BSL-4 laboratory and a lack of clarity in Chinese government policies and guidelines.

So it does seem like it's less a concern about the lab operating unsafely, but rather that it can't operate at all, right? Because they can't get the viruses they need and they don't have the staff they need. So that's essentially the only mention of safety. The document then goes on to say like the they're working with like the University of Texas and trying to get more collaborators and like the US government should help this lab and like should push the government to adequately staff this lab. That's basically the point of the cable. It then goes on to praise the lab. So here's the next couple paragraphs. Despite limitations, WIV researchers produce SARS discoveries. The ability of WIV scientists to undertake productive research despite limitations on the use of the new BSL-4 facility is demonstrated

by a recent publication on the origins of SARS. There's then a fairly long description of a study that they published in 2017, basically cataloging all of these viruses they found in this bat cave. They found that many of them do appear to have this ACE2 receptor binding domain, which indicates they could leap over to humans. And then here's the conclusion of the paragraph. From a public health perspective,

this makes the continued surveillance of SARS-like coronaviruses in bats and study of human-animal interface critical to future emerging coronavirus outbreak prediction and prevention." So to return to the excerpt we read earlier, Josh Rogan's article says, the first cable warns that the labs work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic. That is the opposite of what this section of the cable says. The cable actually says that their work could prevent

a new SARS-like pandemic. This paragraph is talking about the viruses that they are finding in bat caves could spill over to humans and cause a pandemic. At no point is it saying that the lab's work represents a risk of a new pandemic. The overall purpose of the cable is to try to rally support and capacity for this lab.

That is not something you do when you have grave safety concerns. No, it seems like they are basically saying, yeah, this is like critical work. Several people there said that they're understaffed. That's it, right? I mean, the overarching purpose of the cable doesn't appear to be safety related.

There's a brief comment that you could fairly characterize as safety related. So Josh Rogan in this Washington Post article got access to this first cable. He read this and he said, OK, the contents concern safety, right? This is about their work on SARS-Coronaviruses. But then the second, he didn't get access to the second cable.

And this anonymous source within the government says, well, the second cable, it's really, you know, they're talking about grave safety concerns, right? The point of these cables was to sound an alarm. So this is the only mention of the word safety in the second cable. China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, a global leader in virus research, is a key partner for the United States in protecting global health security. Its role as operator of the just-launched biosafety level 4 lab, the first such lab in China, opens up even more opportunities for expert

exchange, especially in light of the lab's shortage of trained staff. This is the only place the word safety appears. They launched a biosafety level 4 lab. It's just an adjective about the lab. There's literally no concern about safety expressed in this cable. And in the first cable, there is only the most tangentially safety-related concern expressed. The original article expressed this as the US State Department was so concerned about safety that they went down there, they investigated, and they sent grave alarms back to Washington. That is a fucking lie. In reality, they sent a cable saying functionally that we should be sending Americans over there, which would be a ludicrous thing to say if you really thought that the safety was egregiously bad.

Basically, Josh Rogan got worked by his sources. Which will never happen to us. Because we're not in DMs with any journalists. We're not talking to anybody. Because I don't talk to journalists. I found this in other areas too, where it's like conspiracy theorists are so worried about like a conspiracy to cover up the lab leak, whatever. There was a literal conspiracy to promote the lab leak to whatever. There was a literal conspiracy to promote the lab leak to journalists from within the Trump administration.

So Donald Trump, as early as May 2020, was openly promoting the lab leak theory. Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State at the time, is like super in on lab leak. All he fucking does is tweet about lab leak now, and as early as April of 2020, he was saying we really need to hammer the Chinese on this because it's their fault And all of this information about like the sick researchers the cables all of this stuff is coming from Donald Trump's

State Department and journalists are just fucking falling for it hook line and sinker and basically publishing Exactly what they want you to publish right right these are anonymous sources who are telling you oh Yeah, the cables are really bad man. If you look at the second cable. Oh my god They wouldn't even show me the second cable. It was so bad That's how fucking bad it was and you're publishing this and just getting fucking Worked by these people who are like pretty on record as not liking China, right? Are we just supposed to ignore this like this is what's so fucking weird to me about this like we didn't take the lab leak seriously enough We're all just gonna pretend that the US government at that time was just like sticking up for scientific integrity

They just like wanted to know how the virus originated. Are you fucking kidding me? I think it's very interesting that the way that the mea culpa About lab leak shit has developed among journalists is like Journalism as a whole got this wrong like we didn't take it seriously enough But Josh Rogan publishing this specific bit of information that turns out to be untrue is something that actually should warrant Correction. Yes, and some some self-legalization, right? Yes. You actually had someone dangling some bullshit in front of you and you leapt at it, right?

There's also, Peter, this gets even worse. So, in January of this year, we get a book by Don McNeil, who is a New York Times health reporter who's now a big lab leak guy and he has a chapter on the lab leak and it's really bad. But sort of in passing, he mentions, oh oh hey I wrote an article for the New York Times saying that like the lab leak wasn't very plausible and the New York Times killed it and instead they published an article that was promoting the lab leak so here's his description of this.

Inside the Times we had a fierce debate Washington based national security reporters had sources insisting it was a lab leak but their sources were anonymous, offered zero evidence other than take our word for it, and to me seemed clearly part of the Trump administration's campaign to blame China instead of admitting its own failures. My sources, by contrast, were respected scientists, spoke on the record, and laid out their arguments in exhaustive detail. They seemed more credible.

And then he talks about this, eventually article coming out. At some point, probably in early April, my Washington colleagues drafted an article quoting their anonymous sources. They were shown my draft, they reduced my detailed arguments to two short, some scientists disagree, paragraphs. So again, we have a conspiracy within the Trump administration to tell journalists that it was a lab leak and journalists fucking falling for it. Right. They killed an article about the scientific basis showing the lab leak was not plausible. They fucking killed

that and they ran a, oh anonymous sources say it's a lab leak article. What fucking group think are we meant to be dissecting at this point? Well this is the thing is that the mainstream media, the Times especially, in their minds journalism is this very rigid thing. Like officials say, right? Like that's a good source, right? Any judgment about what their agenda might be, that would be implicit editorializing. So you can't do that. They're just a respected government official, it's a respected position. We're going to print what they say and then a scientist disagree They get the little caveat and that's that and the fact that they lie constantly and the fact that they clearly just like have it

In for China those two things are not necessary context, right? And to take those into consideration would again be a form of editorializing one of the key characteristics of conspiracy theories So they don't have internal coherence They're typically just like bundles of discrepancies. And oftentimes people kind of toggle back and forth between different explanations. And I've noticed this with the lab leak that the same person will cite evidence that it was gain-of-function research, they'll cite evidence that it was a bio weapon, and they'll cite evidence that it was like a virus from like bat poo that accidentally leaked.

In like the same conversation, they'll kind of go back and forth, right? This is a big component, important component of conspiracy theories. Their ability to explain their own theories is much less important than their desire to demonstrate that there is a grand lie. Exactly. And I think what really clicked in my brain when I was looking into this was just there's a really good article in the MIT Technology Review that just describes, like, in factual terms what the lab was doing. And once you start to sort of play out, like, how a lab leak would work, there is no scenario that works.

So the first thing the lab was doing was just cataloging viruses. So this is the famous thing where they went to these mines in 2012 and 2013. They got a bunch of swabs. They found bats. They got swabs of their saliva. They did swabs of their butt. They collected a bunch of bat poo. And then they bring it back to the lab and then they sort of just like store all of this stuff. And then they start cataloging it because they're like, okay, what kinds of viruses do these bats have? And this is where they find this RETG-13 virus that is like 96% identical to COVID, this is in this kind of database. The thing to know about this kind of work is that these viruses can't really leak. So I was talking to Alex Kritzkristof, who wrote the paper about the raccoon dogs, and he said that when they store and catalog these viruses, they store them in a solution,

like a little test tube full of juice, breaks them apart into like their constituent parts. Because what they're trying to do is get the genomic sequence, like the actual DNA. And so to do that, you break apart the virus and you isolate the DNA and then you put it in a little machine and the machine reads it as like GTACGC blah, blah, blah, blah, right? But once the virus is in this little solution, you can't catch it. It's not meaningfully airborne. He said you'd have to maybe drink this solution and maybe you'd get sick, like one in a million fucking chance. But also these are bat viruses. That's why maybe someone thought they were safe to drink. Just one by one, just doing shots. We're understaffed. No one's bringing me water.

I'm just going to drink the virus liquid. Oftentimes there's not enough like virus in these tubes to like you need large viral counts to catch a virus and you need live virus. When we've had lab leaks before, these are typically labs that are growing large quantities of for example SARS, like you grow huge cultures of these viruses to then you know use them to develop a vaccine, use them for whatever you're doing. These were not live viruses. These were years old samples of like bat poo, bat saliva, etc. Is it possible somebody got infected from one of these?

Alex is a scientist, so of course he says, yes, it is possible that this could happen, right? You're transferring it from one test tube to the other. There's maybe like a 10 second period Potentially where it's airborne like you can come up with sort of theoretical scenarios for this But a case of this has never been documented. What if you brought your pet raccoon dog? And fed it the test tube you're you're doing work you turn around. Uh-oh Sparky has gotten into the test tubes And you're like well, this is

Bad news for me. I know how I can get out of this I'm gonna go sell them at the wet market damn it I was gonna debunk the lab leak, but now I believe in it is that lab leak Is it? Nautic I don't know. It's It's a merger that I think will make everyone happy. So again, if you try to actually spell out these scenarios, the one where somebody catches a virus from these random sequences

doesn't really work mechanically. So then you have the gain of function work. So the other thing that the virus lab was doing was they were creating chimeric viruses, which are like they're kind of mixing and matching different elements of viruses to see whether or not they infect cells, right? So the other thing to know about this

is that like to take a sort of a dead virus, like these samples in bat poo, and then turn them into a live virus, this is called isolating them, to turn them into a live virus that you can then culture and grow and see, do various other forms of research is really fucking hard. So of all of the hundreds of samples that they had from this cave, they only managed to isolate three of the samples.

So once you isolate the samples, that is where you then do get into territory where, like, somebody could catch an isolated virus. This is how people caught SARS in labs, etc., right? So now we're in the territory where, like, okay, this could have caused a lab leak, right? So now we're in the territory where like, okay, this could have caused a lab leak, right? The thing to know about this work is that what they were doing when they were going through all of these samples is they were looking for viruses that were close to SARS-1 because they were trying to solve SARS-1.

They were trying to respond to the previous pandemic. So when they found RATG-13, which was relatively close to what we now know of as COVID, they were like, ah, that's weird. And they put it back in the fridge because there's no reason before 2020, you would find anything interesting about COVID. You'd be like, oh, that's a weird virus. So even if they had found COVID, there's no reason why they would think it was particularly interesting. And so you throw, you take the sample with COVID, you throw it into the trash can, trash guy takes it out.

Gives it to his raccoon dog. Local raccoon dog gets into it. Yeah, from what I know about raccoon dogs, Senator O'Malley, they'll eat anything. So basically, they were doing various experiments on these viruses that they had isolated. Some of them were bat viruses, they were also doing work on human viruses. This is, we can get into details about this kind of stuff, it's actually kind of interesting. But also, they were interested in SARS-1. If one of these viruses had leaked, it would be something very similar to SARS-1. It would not be a leak of COVID. There's a finite number of scenarios by which there could have been a lab leak.

And both of the scenarios from the Wuhan have been a lab leak, and both of the scenarios from the Wuhan lab do not make sense, right? Either it was like random samples of bat poo which basically can't get out, or it was gain of function research which was on SARS-1. SARS-1 and SARS-2 are actually very dissimilar. They're only about 75% similar. Much less than you and Michael Phelps. So the only scenario you're left with is that they were doing some completely secret plan.

Right. They went into fat caves, they found COVID, somehow they identified COVID as like, ooh, this could be something, right? Either they found it and were able to isolate it and then were able to catch it, right? Or they found something that was relatively similar to COVID and they manipulated it, they added a spike protein, whatever, and then that gain of function worked leaked. But this is what I think you told me in the first episode that stuck with me, which is in order for this to have happened, it likely would have had to be a secret. Yes. But why would they be keeping it a secret before any leak occurred?

Yes. Right? It doesn't make sense. It's also not accidental. There is no reason to keep something like this secret if you're a legitimate academic. If you are proposing this theory, the only scenario for the lab leak that works, you're essentially saying China set out to create a bio weapon. Which they unleashed upon themselves. Right. And also, in all of the years of this premeditated, massive project, I mean, the virologist that I talked to said,

this would be a years-long thing. No one ever talks about it. There's no documents about it. Yeah. No one ever says, oh, hey, I'm doing this project in Wuhan. I can't really talk about it. There's nothing. And also, the other thing that the scientist mentioned to me

was that the idea, if you were trying to bioengineer a virus, you would take something existing and you'd make like one tweak to it. Like that's, it's very difficult to manipulate viruses and do this kind of gain of function work. You wouldn't just get a random virus from a cave and be like, let's start fucking with it. Right. Like that doesn't make any sense. Researchers want to publish things. Researchers want to advance in their careers. If you were doing this accidentally, like, I'm just gonna manipulate a random virus, that makes no fucking sense.

COVID wouldn't have stuck out to you, even if you had found it in the cave, there's no fucking evidence that they found it in the cave. If you were making a bio weapon, you wouldn't use a random virus that you found in a cave. You'd take something that we already knew caused harm and make small tweaks to it. So the whole theory makes no sense.

I don't understand like the implication is like yeah this was a lab with subpar safety but also within this lab with like lack safety standards they are conducting an incredibly secretive bio warfare initiative and no information about it has ever leaked. No, nothing verifiable has ever gotten out. Oh, the other thing I'd love, we talked about RETG 13 earlier, this 96% similar virus.

The only reason we know about this is because the Wuhan lab in February of 2020 published it. When the virus was spreading around, COVID was spreading around, they said, hey, we've got a lot of bat viruses. Here's what we have in case this helps with anything. So like the conspiracy goes so deep, there's this massive coverup,

they're doing all this manipulation and also voluntarily, they said, hey guys, we've got this virus, it's pretty close to COVID. Again, it just feels like there's only one version of the lab leak that ends up making sense and it's like the vast dark conspiracy. That just can't be a valid reason to believe that it happened.

The idea that perhaps there is an incredibly well covered up conspiracy on behalf of the Chinese government. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. I really think this is a journalism story. I mean, to the extent that there's journalistic failures here, I think that there's so much commentary and so little reporting, right? I read dozens of articles about the lab leak. It was literally only this one article from the MIT technology review that just described what the lab was doing and talked to people in the lab.

Just a clear description. That's when it really clicked in my brain because I also thought, yeah, maybe there's something got dropped or some airborne stuff. It's only once you understand the actual logistics of the lab, what they were trying to do, what they were actually doing,

it's like, oh, wait a minute, this doesn't make sense. And it's the fact that I don't know how a fucking virus lab works that made me think it was much more plausible than it was. But we don't have very many journalists who know this stuff or are interested, right? We have all this commentary, but we don't have journalists that are like, hey, I'm just going to talk to some virologists about how these labs work day to day. And the minute you get to the basic facts, it's so implausible, like absurdly implausible.

Right, or maybe a simpler way to think of it is just like, there's no particular reason to believe that this happened, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think that we're basically at a point where the only real evidence is circumstantial shit, right? There are various very tangible and specific reasons to believe that this did not happen, or that it was very unlikely, and yet we have a journalistic apparatus all talking about how we think this happened now, and not only that, but we need to reflect on why we didn't

think it happened five years ago, and 65% of the American public believes it happened. I mean, just a catastrophic fuckup of journalism, and they think they fucked it up in the other direction. What you often find from lab-lake people is this retreat to like, well, it could have happened. It could have happened. And like, as a responsible person, especially if you're an actual scientist, you have to

admit, yeah, it could have happened. But the problem with that is there's essentially an infinite number of scenarios that could have happened, right? So the Chinese theory, of course, is that it is a lab leak, but it's a lab leak from the US. Well, that also could have happened. There's no evidence whatsoever that it leaked from Fort Detrick. We don't really have raccoon dogs.

So my theory goes away. My unfalsifiable and also unassailable theory. But like I could say that like oh it was a P. Diddy flew to Wuhan and spread it to distract from the allegations against him. That also could have happened. You can name any scenario. I can't rule that out. There's no proof that P. Diddy didn't do it. I do think it was suspicious that Diddy had his last freak off in the Wuhan wet market. Okay, Peter, that was like the lab kind of stuff on the merits. Are you ready to talk about the cover-up? Let's talk about the cover-up.

We have to talk about the cover-up. So we now are going to turn to the creation of a paper called The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2. This is the description from in COVID's wake. The record is clear that the NIH and the NIAID funded gain of function research that was performed in part at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had known biosecurity deficiencies. After the COVID pandemic began, scientists with complex and mixed motives engaged in an extensive and unacknowledged effort to deflect attention from the Chinese lab to the city's wet market and thereby shape public perceptions of COVID's origins." Scientists with complex and mixed motives.

I was just about to circle back to that. Complex and mixed motives, like even in your telling of the conspiracy, your retrospective telling of the conspiracy, you can't explain why they did this because you're making it up. And then this is a more detailed description. This is from an op-ed by Zainab Tufekci in the New York Times op-ed section in March. A March 2020 paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent scientists declared that no, quote, laboratory-based scenario for the

pandemic virus was plausible. But we later learned through congressional subpoenas of their slack conversations that while the scientists publicly said the scenario was implausible, privately many of its authors considered the scenario to be not just plausible but likely. One of the authors of that paper, evolutionary biologist Christian Anderson, wrote in these slack messages quote, the lab escape version of this is so friggin likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.

So scientists wrote a paper saying this wasn't a lab leak, but in their private slack communications, they are caught in 4K saying this was a lab leak. I remember the slack leaks when they happened. Big deal for the lab leak folks. This proximal origins subplot is central to the lab leakers now. So if you read the House subcommittee report on COVID origins, which is 600 pages long,

the number one finding of the report is SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, likely emerged because of a laboratory or research-related accident. That's four pages long. That's finding one. We know it's a lab leak. Finding two, the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 was prompted by Dr. Anthony Fauci to disprove the lab leak theory. And then they spend 51 pages on the creation of this report. My God. This screams to me, we have no scientists on our side, because they realize that the more prominent scientists

side against them, so what they have to do is create a story where secretly they agree with us. Secretly they know we're right, but they're covering it up. So one thing you really notice if you read anti-vax literature is if you're like, oh, okay, so you say that vaccines cause autism, why do you think that? And they'll be like, in 1991,

a whistleblower report was suppressed. And you're like, da-da-da-da-da-da-da. Sorry. Tell me the primary evidence for your central claim, right? Every conspiracy theory eventually becomes the Cimmerillian. It's like a bunch of fucking footnotes. It's a bunch of weird subplots. In COVID's wake, the chapter they have in the lab leak

is 30 pages long. 15 of those pages are dedicated to a description of how the proximal origins paper came about. Another 10 pages are dedicated to how Fauci suppressed debate about the lab leak. Only five pages of a 30 page chapter are dedicated to actual evidence for debate about the lab leak. Only five pages of a 30 page chapter are dedicated to actual evidence for and against the lab leak.

And it's the last five pages. It's also a way of fighting off laypeople. It's like they have 100 disparate, isolated pieces of evidence, and they can just throw them at you in any order at any time and put you in a position where you're like explaining context which always looks like losing a debate whether it actually is or not.

To describe the sort of more complete timeline of what actually happened with putting together this paper, we need to rewind to January 29th of 2020 where there is a biologist named Christian Anderson. He is looking at the reports coming out of Wuhan. There's this coronavirus spreading around. We get the genome and he sees two things that worry him in the genome. The first thing is a furrowing cleavage site, which is very rare in bat coronaviruses and is something that labs are able to engineer. And then the second thing he sees is a receptor binding domain, which is typically characteristic of a virus that is like very well adapted to humans. So he sees these two things in the genome of COVID. And he basically is like,

oh shit, this, this could be engineered. So he emails Eddie Holmes, who's another virologist. And he says, all these emails, of course, have beenyad, he says, Eddie, can we talk? I need to be pulled off a ledge. And then Eddie Holmes looks at the genome and says, fuck, this is bad. So they then reach out to Jeremy Farrar, who at the time is at the Welcome Trust, but will eventually be at the WHO. He then loops in Anthony Fauci. Fauci says, cover it up. He has a raccoon dog in his lap that he's like lightly stroking. He's stroking it like like like a fucking doctor evil in his cat. So they then sort of have some calls back and forth and then Fauci sends Peter the smoking gun email. My raccoon dog must eat.

email. My raccoon dog must eat. This is in COVID's wake. This full screen grab is shown in the Senate report. Jeremy, I just got off the phone with Christian Anderson and he related to me his concern about the furan site mutation in the spike protein of the currently circulating 2019 NV, COVID-19. Yeah, they don't have a name for it yet. I told him that as soon as possible, he and Eddie Holm should get a group of evolutionary biologists together to examine carefully the data to determine if his concerns are validated. He should do this very quickly, and if everyone agrees with his concern, they should report it to the appropriate authorities.

I would imagine that in the USA, this would be the FBI, and in the UK, it would be the MI5. It would be important to quickly get confirmation of the cause of his concern by experts in the field of coronaviruses and evolutionary biology. In the meantime, I will alert my US government official colleagues of my conversation with you

and Christian and determine what further investigation they recommend. Let us stay in touch. Best regards, Tony. So Tony, caught red-handed. Right away, they're cutting out evolutionary psychologists. Evolutionary psychologists is like, yes, men have been making coronaviruses to impress women for many years.

So what do you make of this? I mean, it seems extremely obvious what's happening here. If you just look at this in a vacuum, which I'll try to do, a couple of these guys look at COVID-19, they see a couple of initial indications that it could be lab created they escalate it Fauci says get some scientists on this we will alert the authorities if the need be so like this is those boring fucking email I've ever seen in my life it's like yeah you guys should look into it and like if it's a big deal we should really talk to

government agencies about it I actually think what's impressive about this email is how clear it is and what's happening Yes, very obvious that he's they're just like let's look into it this and potentially alert authorities because yeah isn't his job as sort of like a point of Contact between like the scientific communities and the government apparatus. He's the head of a government agency Of course, he's gonna bring the fucking government into it, right? So, of course, he's like like let's get the science down and then we'll talk and the government apparatus. He's the head of a government agency, of course he's gonna bring the fucking government into it. Right, so of course he's like, let's get the science down and then we'll talk to the government. Also, I don't know how it is in corporate world, but in human rights world, when I did international development, it's like every fucking email is like this.

You're like, oh, let's loop in like Jeff over at this agency, like let's make sure to tell this person. Yeah, yeah. Like that's what bosses do essentially, is like bring people together and like, say like, let's get all our ducks in a row diplomatically with who needs to know about this. Thus begins like the most boring series of slack chats I've ever fucking read. That's a high bar. So there's four scientists that then join these slack chats which have then been now released. It's a hundred and forty pages PDF of like their fucking slack chats. I will read them all to you. Now, release, it's 140 pages PDF of their fucking Slack chats. I will read them all to you.

Oh my god. Luckily, there's a lot of graphics and stuff they're sharing, so it's relatively quick to get through. But what's weird about this as a smoking gun is they actually prove the opposite of what the lab leakers think they prove because the New York Times article quotes Christian Anderson as saying, a lab leak is so freegin likely that we need to look into this Yeah, so these are scientists who are like, okay, this might be a lab leak. Let's investigate the possibility so that that was the first thing I thought when you sent the

Quote from the book that sort of is like they publish this thing saying it's not a lab leak But here's a quote from him saying that it was my first thought was well, when was that? No, was that from way earlier? Yeah, because that's Substantially different. Yeah, I think the most damning thing in the slacks was when they published the chart where the x-axis is lies were telling the public and the y-axis is conspiracies were doing and The line is just going up into the right It is really striking in in the slack chats this quote where Christian Anderson says it's so freaking likely is February

2nd, and the paper does not come out until March 17th. So there's a six week period in between him saying this is really likely and then gathering data. Boo. And then eventually saying this is not likely. That's not what science is. Science is about taking your first impression and then running with that forever. It's also so weird that Christian Anderson has become almost as big as Fauci, like a

huge target of these deranged lab leakers. But in the documents, he's the most pro-lab leak person. At one point he says, the main issue is that accidental escape is in fact highly likely. It's not some fringe theory. I absolutely agree that we can't prove one way or another, but we'll never be able to. However, that doesn't mean by default the data is currently much more suggestive of natural origin. So this guy should be the friend of the lab leakers.

This is actually evidence people within the scientific establishment took this very seriously. Right. That's the real takeaway when I see this email is like that they were not being dismissive of this theory but were in fact looking into it, taking it seriously. Yes. The fact that something was once the leading theory and then eventually faded does not mean any conspiracy it's just like normal science shit this is also such a sign of like where the lab leak people have gone because like this is this is really like DVD extra stuff yeah right you're like looking into slack chats of people who wrote a paper and you're like they initially believed something and then

eventually their paper didn't agree with them it's like the only way to see this as a scandal is basically to lie about what the behind the scenes emails contain. If there was like a top down cover up, you'd see some trickling into the slack. Yeah, completely. There would have to be some indication that that's what was happening. So much of the stuff is just like very boldly taken out of context. So here is another excerpt from in COVID's wake. Anderson described the group's work in an email on February 8th to Christian Drautzen at the German Center for Infection Research this way.

Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory, but we are at a crossroad where the scientific evidence isn't conclusive enough to say that we have high confidence in any of the three main theories considered." And then, unquote, this is then the interpretation by the Incovitz-Wake authors. Inconclusive scientific evidence, one way or the other, had to be manipulated using an inapt legal standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to prevent, quote, the shit show. That's a reference to they said this would be a shit show politically if this turned out to be a lab leak. That's just like kind of a statement of fact, like, they said this would be a shit show politically if this turned out to be a lab leak.

That's just like kind of a statement of fact. Like yeah, this would be a really big deal. Therefore, we need to like get all our ducks in a row. Right. So like I guess they're just nitpicking the way that he's phrasing this, right? Yeah, they don't like to disprove. We're trying to disprove it. It's like, ah, that's not real science, which is true. But yeah, that's not true though. You formulate a hypothesis and then you aim to disprove it. This is like how scientists talk about their work. I guess that's right. I guess that's right. But I guess that you could frame it in a more neutral way

theoretically, where the end goal is not to disprove the lab leak theory. The end goal is to find out what happened. But yeah, he's speaking more narrowly about the immediate work where you work to disprove something and that's how you rule something out and how this sort of science works. It would be a genuine scandal if we found these scientists saying like, this is true but we shouldn't publish it because it will be not politically expedient, right? Of course. Or if they sent something to

Fauci where they're like, oh we found this and Fauci's like no No, no Say the opposite if there was any indication that you know, it would be all over the Senate report It would be everywhere if they could find that the only thing they have is you use the word disprove to another like Virologist right you could argue maybe maybe don't use a word like that But like are we really nitpicking about the fucking use of one word? Maybe don't use a word like that if you think that your fucking emails are gonna get subpoenaed by Congress by like bad-faith actors who

will twist this shit in any way right and so you have to like speak like a politician even though you're a scientist it's just embarrassing got like 10 more examples of this Peter but like there's no there's other there's people make a lot of hay about the fact that Christian Anderson in one of his emails he said like, this is to one of the editors of Nature, the paper is eventually rejected by Nature. And when he sort of re, I believe this is when he resubmits it to Nature Medicine, he says like, a bunch of evolutionary biologists prompted by Fauci looked into this, da da da.

And people are like, oh, you were prompted by Fauci? Oh, so Fauci was the puppet master. Fauci prompted a bunch of scientists to create and it's like believable. Again. Have you had a job? This is how people talk you ever had a job Maybe he was kind of name dropping the name Fauci to be like this is something with like a little bit of institutional imprimatur Who fucking cares? Yeah, the term prompted does not mean like forced for the record when there's an elaborate top-down conspiracy to hide what would be career destroying fraud a literal conspiracy you probably Wouldn't just talk about the conspiracy like that, right?

I like there would be a cover story like there would be something else, but then what's amazing So for this I talked to both Christian Anderson and Eddie Holmes, two of the people who were in the Slack chats. This is extremely useful just to get like the kind of basic human parameters of this. Both of them are completely fucking baffled by this whole thing. It's so weird to be like poor Christian Anderson is a hauled in front of Congress like numerous times. He's spent like 10s of thousands of dollars on his own money on like legal defense. He's getting death threats. These people are at the center of essentially like

a right-wing conspiracy and have been completely abandoned by the entire left, right? The fact that we have like New York Times columns saying that like we were misled about the origins of the pandemic and all this stuff, no one is sticking up for these guys. And it's like a very obvious witch hunt, right? The Republicans wanted to link Fauci to the lab leak. They wanted to link Fauci to fucking anything they could blame him for. And if you talk to Christian Anderson, what he says is like, at first, he was like, yeah, this receptor binding domain, this fur and cleavage site, they both look really suspicious to me. He then looks into it. They find a similar receptor binding domain in the wild in pangolins.

So he's like, oh, OK, so it can occur in the wild. And then they look into the fur and cleavage site of COVID, and they're like, this is a really shit fur and cleavage site. It just sort of sucks. The letters are not lined up. It's not very efficient. And it doesn't fit the genome of the kind of fur and cleavage site that they do when they're doing gain of function research, which

just indicates evolution. This just looks like the messy process of evolution. And the other big thing is they look into the genome of COVID and they don't find any backbone of any existing virus. So it's not SARS-1, it's not anything that's ever been seen in a virus lab before. And if you were going to design something in a lab, you would use a backbone and you would make a sort of a series of, you know, three, four, whatever, discrete changes. They find no evidence of this whatsoever. Then they eventually publish this.

They publish it first kind of as a preprint in February 20th, then they publish like a better, more finalized version March 17th. The thing that I cannot get over, 51 pages of the fucking Senate report are dedicated to this paper, right? Nothing in this paper has been disproven. It's not like, oh, they put out this paper, a hastily, shoddily constructed paper. Fauci's like, just print lies to suppress debate. They published an article that was true.

So what exactly is the scandal here? I think when you're talking about the lab leak itself, I try to retain some humility, because I don't know what you're talking about. Like, I don't... Just make raccoon dog jokes, Peter, it's fine. The information that you are providing me is like a huge percentage of the information I have.

You know what I mean? And so I try to retain that part of my brain that's sort of like, you could very well be wrong about this, right? You could very well be wrong about this. This is not your field of expertise. But then you see this stuff, and it makes me feel more confident in the science stuff that I don't know about inherently, because surely if their scientific evidence was clear, all of these books would be about all the various talented scientists who have

spectacular reasons for believing that the lab leak happened, rather than this absolutely god-awful baby-brained conspiracy bullshit. Okay, so we're going to end by you and I going over the Trump administration lab leak website. Here's this. We're going to go to whitehouse.gov slash lab leak website. Here's this, we're gonna go to whitehouse.gov slash lab leak or whatever. Dude, I wish that we could adequately explain what this, what the fucking banner looks like.

It's lab leak in like, in like fucking word art. And it like pops onto the screen, it's like a little flash animation. In the middle of it is just Donald Trump walking towards the camera. Looking stern, I know. And then in the corner it says the true origins of COVID-19, but it says the true origins of,

and then COVID-19 for some reason is in like a scripted font. Like a wedding invitation. Like we COVID-19 invite you. This is definitely, it's such a graphic design is my passion situation. Like some fucking one of those Doge interns was like, I'll do it. Also, okay, read the first paragraph here. This is the number one message on like lab leak.gov. Oh my God. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 publication, which was used repeatedly by public health

officials in the media to discredit the lab leak theory was prompted by dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated naturally the first thing they mentioned is this fucking paper and this is what this is again such a classic indicator of a conspiracy theory it's so fucking the first thing is not evidence for a lab leak. Yeah. It's conspiratorial rambling about a cover-up. About suppressing debate.

The other thing that Eddie Holmes mentioned to me was that it's so fucking bizarre to be accused of suppressing debate when like the paper is debate. Like we said, we don't think it's a lab leak. That's a picking a position in a debate. Yeah, publish your own bitch. Yeah, if I say the minimum wage should be higher, that's debate. That's not me suppressing debate.

Right. But I could then publish a piece saying that in private correspondence, you have consistently told me that you think the minimum wage should be low. You would fucking do that if I published anything like that. Tell the truth? Yes. This was a paper published in Nature that. Tell the truth, yes. This was a paper published in Nature Medicine. If somebody wanted to publish a response or a fucking op-ed or something, they could have published it.

There's no suppression. What about the numbers after that on the Lab Leak website? It says, the virus possesses a biological characteristic that all italics is not found in nature. I know, I love that the first thing is just a bald-faced lie. I love it. It's just so fucking perfect. Like, there's never been a furry cleavage site found in nature. Except for all the times it was found in nature.

This just reads like conspiratorial rambling. It's really bleak. There's just like a little paragraph for gain-of-function research. There's a little paragraph that says, NIH failures. There's a little paragraph that says NIH failures. There's a part that says the social distancing, the six feet apart social distancing recommendation would shut down schools and small businesses across the country was arbitrary and not based on science. Dude, Trump was in office.

It's crazy how much that gets memory hold such that even when like we're talking about it It has to be brought up repeatedly because it is just not incongruent with like the Public's understanding of it and also like this story that Republicans tell about this There's also we didn't even have time to get into it, but there's also this eco health obstruction There was a proposal for the Wuhan lab and a guy in North Carolina to do some gain-of-function work. This was not funded. This didn't happen.

But it's like, this is now seen as evidence that they were doing gain-of-function work. But we already know they were doing gain-of-function work in the lab. That's not secret. They were publishing it. And this eco-health proposal wasn't funded, and the only gain-of-function research was going to take place in North Carolina

So even if it had been funded it would be irrelevant and also it was on the SARS one backbone So if it had leaked it would be in fucking North Carolina and it would be SARS one that leaked But like again, it's just like the document wasn't public and they like were able to find it in some archive of some random You know somewhere online that like people didn't want to get to it and anything that is secret wasn't public and they like were able to find it in some archive of some random, you know Somewhere online that like people didn't want to get to it and anything that is secret people tell themselves is like important You're like, oh the the defuse proposal wasn't made public. It's like why would a fucking failed Funding proposal be public. I've worked on a million funding proposals that didn't go anywhere and they're just on my hard drive at my human rights institution. It's not like a cover-up, it's just like, this isn't that fucking interesting. And also, even if it had been funded, it wouldn't mean anything for COVID.

God, what a bunch of absolute fucking dipshits. So I just want to end by talking about two sort of common talking points about the lab leak. And I think a lot of people haven't really followed this all that closely. And honestly, if you're someone who's kind of picked up by osmosis the lab leak theory you see it around you're like yeah there's probably some good evidence for that I don't really like begrudge anybody that I think this is really a media failure one thing you find a lot when you talk to like kind of normal people about this is that like people will say like well neither theory is proven yeah right we

haven't proved the market we haven't been to lab that's true in the abstract but that also implies that there's like a 50-50 chance. There is no evidence for a lab leak. There's evidence against it. There's tons of evidence for zoonosis. There's better evidence for zoonosis than for a lot of origins of viruses. Ebola, HIV, both very murky, how they actually originated. The other thing that you hear a lot about the lab leak thing is like, it doesn't, what

does it matter? I even said a version of this on our previous lab leak episode, which I now regret saying. And like, you can say on one hand, it doesn't matter for like America's pandemic response, which is true, right? Even if this was a Chinese bio weapon, if this was a random thing that happened, either way, like America's response was garbage. So on some level, fine, it doesn't matter. But also like, this is, I think, a really core part of the right-wing assault on science. Trump signed an executive order right after he came into office banning gain-of-function research. Oh my god.

It's not that I really give that much of a shit about gain-of-function research, but like, the people pushing the lab leak theory have a specific set of policies that they want to pass, right? And if we give in to the lab leakers and if we sort of allow this to gain purchase, they're going to pass policies that are going to make it harder to develop vaccines and treatments, and they're going to ignore the wildlife trade, which is a fucking huge problem and probably will start the next pandemic because it started the last three.

This matters as far as the actual outcomes and policies that people are pushing for. You know, you can't have this sort of like anti-science, conspiracy-minded movement let loose without negative repercussions. Even if you think they're right about Lab League, their solutions to these problems will be anti-scientific yeah anti-intellectual Nonsense. Yeah, these people are fucking lying in the first bullet point of their fucking congressional report, right? There's a weird thing. We're like in this rush to condemn group think it's like we're now engaging in a kind of group think

Yeah, I don't know why this has caught the imagination of lefties All I'll say is that in like 2023 there was a media panic about organized retail crime and then I put out a bonus episode Debunking it and the panic faded away. Yeah, whereas you put out an episode about the lab leak Fuck you Fuck you. Fuck you. And it got worse. People want to argue with you so much

that they started believing in the lab leak conspiracy.