Even one of the top figures in the Chinese health system now suggests that the virus originated from a leak. Former head of public health George Geo believes it cannot be ruled out. China sees itself benefiting from greater elasticity in the explanatory model as this gives greater political leeway.
The possibility that the coronavirus leaked from a laboratory cannot be ruled out, says China’s former public health chief.
You can always suspect anything. It is science. Don’t rule anything out, says virologist and immunologist George Gao in an interview with BBC Radio 4.
Gao led China’s Public Health Institute until last year, he is now vice president of China’s National Foundation for Natural Sciences. He played a central role in China’s handling of the pandemic and the hunt for the virus’ origins.
The system “reveals” that investigations were carried out at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It seems forgivable. Of course they found nothing.
Gao also suggests in the interview that the Chinese authorities may have taken the theory of a laboratory leak more seriously than they have expressed officially. According to the former head of public health, Wuhan’s Institute of Virology must have carried out some form of formal investigation.
The government organised something, he says.
The laboratory was double-checked by experts in the area, he says further, at the same time emphasising that the Norwegian Institute of Public Health was not involved in the investigation.
According to Gao, he has “heard” that nothing suspicious was found.
I think their conclusion was that they follow all protocols. They haven’t found any mistakes, he says.
In reality, it was full blown panic as early as October 2019. The CIA could tell something was up.
But NTB is more faithful to the Communist Party’s explanation than the party itself:
Many experts believe that the most likely possibility is that the virus was found naturally in animals, probably bats and that the pandemic arose after it was spread to humans at a market in Wuhan.
The revealing words are “many” and “most likely”. A correct wording would be: – Fewer and fewer people consider it too likely…
But NTB defends the Communist Party’s version that even the American Congress no longer believes.
Is NTB afraid that they will have an explanation problem?