After more than a year and plenty of excuses, a team of World Health Organization (WHO) experts has finally entered the lab in Wuhan, China, which has been at the center of much speculation surrounding the origins of COVID-19.
Speculation about the virus’ origins call into question the official ‘wet market’ narrative, raising questions about the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the country’s only Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4). The lab is designed to examine the world’s most dangerous pathogens and is led by virologist Shi Zhengli, known as China’s “Batwoman,” for her extensive work on bat-borne coronaviruses.
WHO experts have had multiple opportunities to visit the Wuhan lab over the last year but chose not to. In July, we noted the WHO said it would not be visiting the lab despite having held samples of coronavirus. In August, the WHO failed to investigate the lab while it sat in Beijing for three weeks.
While WHO experts twiddled their thumbs for more than a year – any chance of finding a smoking gun into the origins of the virus is likely gone – that means CCP officials probably wiped the lab clean.
… and that is exactly what they did – as we reported last month, CCP officials deleted hundreds of pages of information spanning over 300 studies conducted by the lab.
More than a year later, the show must go on. WHO experts arrived at the lab on Wednesday to conduct their investigation for the world to see.
Peter Daszak, who is part of the WHO team and president of EcoHealth Alliance, was quoted by Financial Times as saying the team will be “asking all the questions that need to be asked” in the quest of finding the virus’ origin.
Comprised of epidemiologists, zoologists, virologist, and public health experts, the WHO team, visited the BSL-4 in Wuhan Wednesday to piece together the complex puzzle of how the first humans were infected.
“We’re looking forward to meeting with all the key people here and asking all the important questions that need to be asked,” Daszak told Japanese broadcaster TBS.
According to AP News, the WHO team visited the lab and spoke with officials for three hours. The team also visited the Huanan seafood market, which is the first place CCP controlled state media said the first known cluster of infections were found in late 2019.
It’s likely the WHO team had limited access to the BSL-4 — considering Beijing, since last summer, has pushed the narrative, completely unfounded, that the virus may have originated elsewhere.
Daszak, who CNN quoted, said he hoped his relationships with lab officials would get his team everything they need.
“We’ve already spoken with (Shi) Zhengli, and she’s open about these things. I’m hoping that we’ll have the same level of openness and transparency,” he said.
— Stephen McDonell (@StephenMcDonell) February 3, 2021
“We could have been here a year ago doing good work,” Daszak said, adding that “we’re getting good access … all the time, we’re digging in to find out more and more information about each possible pathway.”
Trump administration officials, especially those in the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, have suggested the virus may have been released due to a lab accident in Wuhan. Last month, it was reported former National Security Adviser Matthew Pottinger said there’s “a growing body of evidence that the lab is likely the most credible source of the virus.”
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has been quiet about criticizing China about the origins of the virus but has stated a “robust and clear” investigation is needed.
Antony Blinken, US secretary of state, told MSNBC that China is “falling far short of the mark” in granting access to the international community. “That lack of transparency, that lack of being forthcoming, is a profound problem, and it’s one that continues,” he said.
CCP has been given more than a year to truly cleanse all evidence of the virus’ origin and the WHO, considering their cozy relationship with Beijing, may be able to reshape the narrative that the virus wasn’t created in a lab but rather a natural phenomenon… or at a minimum, suggest ‘results are inconclusive.’