Translated material
Why could the covid pandemic still have a laboratory origin? Russian epidemiologist comments on the results of the US Congress investigation
A familiar episode of the fight against COVID-19 in Shanghai, 2022
Cai Yang/XinHua/Global Look Press
The coronavirus pandemic has left a heavy mark on the lives of all humanity. It turned out that we were not ready for such challenges. Although it was not a surprise to epidemiology experts, they knew and even prepared for them that large epidemics affecting millions of people would occur in the 21st century, but, nevertheless, the coronavirus pandemic took everyone by surprise. Many decisions were made in the wake of panic.
Influenced by the catastrophic forecasts of the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the governments of most countries adopted a line of severe restrictions and coercion. The rapid introduction of new medical technologies and drugs has had not only positive, but also negative effects. It turned out that the global scientific community, international public and scientific organizations are under strong political influence. And perhaps the saddest thing is that during the pandemic, maintaining critical thinking, independence and freedom of scientific inquiry has proven very difficult.
But even after the end of the pandemic, almost no work is being done to correct the mistakes. Most scientific articles are devoted to successes; there is almost no mention of mistakes or critical reflection on recent experience in dealing with a global catastrophe. Meanwhile, systematizing such experience, drawing lessons and building a strategy to respond to future global threats that will inevitably exist are vital for everyone, including specialized specialists, national governments, society and business.
Unfortunately, the restoration of normal scientific debate never fully occurred. Until now, the media and social networks adhere to the restrictions introduced in the spring of 2020: both scientific publications and even everyday discussions are subject to censorship and self-censorship.
But on December 2, 2024, the US Congress presented the report of its Special Subcommittee under entitled “Review of the Post-COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward.” This lengthy (557 pages) final report concludes a two-year investigation by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic (SSCP), which was established in February 2023 to comprehensively examine the causes, course and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, which, according to its official press release , release , "will serve as a roadmap for Congress, the Executive Branch, and the private sector to prepare for and respond to future pandemics."
The authors of the report concluded that the emergence of COVID-19 as a result of a leak from a laboratory in Wuhan (China) is not a conspiracy theory, but a very likely event.
They found that EcoHealth Alliance and its leader Peter Daszak, under a grant from the US National Institutes of Health, carried out experiments on modifying viruses in the Wuhan laboratory, while violating both safety protocols and funding conditions, and that former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo abused official position and hid the true number of deaths in nursing homes
As the report's authors noted, a fundamental flaw in vaccination campaigns is that vaccinations do not provide permanent immunity, and their administration does not take into account the patient's natural immunity. They also noted the failure of the policy of lockdowns, mask regime, social distancing and isolation, which have many questions, both from a scientific and organizational point of view.
The most important takeaway from the report is that the next pandemic is inevitable, we need to prepare for it in advance and have all the tools to prepare for it.
The report's authors also stated that:
— instead of political and economic motives, civil servants are obliged to be guided by the interests of citizens and make scientifically based decisions;
- scientific communication must be clear and understandable, supported by experimental evidence and come from trusted persons such as front-line health workers;
— US health care officials have a responsibility to restore the trust of citizens; Americans want to be educated, not indoctrinated.
In Russia, the conclusions of the report of the Special Subcommittee of the US Congress were reacted coolly. At the official level, he was simply not noticed. The media focused on the fact that “the US Congress blamed China for the spread of coronavirus.” The scientific community is mainly trying to refute the thesis about the artificial origin of the virus, considering it a manifestation of conspiracy thinking, and accusing the report’s authors of political bias (this, however, is quite justified). And only a few understand that the true value of this report is not in how it resolves the issue of the origin of the virus, but in the fact that it broke through the information blockade, strict censorship, which, with the support of the scientific community and the media, was carried out by the governments of most countries. The US Congress has published what has become considered unacceptable over several years of the pandemic; it returns people to normality, to the importance of thinking, doubting and working on mistakes.
We decided to talk about this report and the experience of the pandemic with a well-known Russian epidemiologist, who requested anonymity.
— In the Russian media and Russian-language social networks, the report of the Special Subcommittee of the US Congress was met with hostility. Everyone was paying attention to just one aspect of this report: what it said about a lab leak in Wuhan as the likely cause of the coronavirus pandemic. And this caused indignation among the majority of Russian scientists. The analysis of candidate of biological sciences Alexander Panchin, who, as it seems to his fans, left no stone unturned regarding the report’s arguments, was widely circulated on social networks . Your opinion differs from this analysis. You wrote that the report's conclusions are credible. Why?
— I think, if we talk about the biological part of the problem of the origin of the virus, then here we have to agree with the passionate educator Panchin - he wrote good texts and recorded a normal video. That is, he laid out everything related to biology quite well and correctly, but his conclusion is not entirely correct. Panchin manages to prove that this virus could be natural, I emphasize: it could be. But by definition Panchin cannot prove that he was natural; it is impossible to prove.
— Not enough data?
- Not just data, but in principle it is impossible to prove natural origin, because we do not see, we cannot prove what nature does, we can only reject what man does. But we can reject what a person does only through investigative actions, not scientific considerations, not scientific articles. It is a fact that this may be a natural virus, but at the same time it may be artificially modified. Therefore, if you look at the report of the US Congress commission, then only the first, in my opinion, three theses concern the origin of the virus. With these three theses, American congressmen are asserting what they really cannot assert. But then there are those theses that are related not to the origin of the virus, but to the problems of American life, the American administration, and American politics. And here this document is absolutely correct.
The fact is that the Chinese refused to cooperate with the World Health Organization and did not allow an investigation. President Biden has instructed US intelligence agencies to collect information and write a report to him. But they couldn't find anything. And the Americans came to the natural conclusion from this that the activities of the Chinese are under great suspicion. And then they turn to what they should turn to - their own lives.
And it turns out that the American government financed work to increase the virulence of the virus, and this work was carried out, firstly, quite secretly, and secondly, specific advisers to the American president hid this research.
Taken together, this does not create a criminal offense, but this is clearly what they call misdeed, that is, incorrect, bad actions, a misdemeanor.
“ It still seems important to me to find out how the pandemic occurred and what its causes were. After all, it is possible to establish whether there really was a leak from a laboratory or whether it was a virus of natural origin?
“I think that this will most likely never be clarified, because none of the participants in this process will be able to leave China, or, even if they leave China, they will remain silent on pain of death.
— So the problem is that China has a totalitarian system?
Subscribe to read in full
Subscribe to Redefine.Media to read Republic
Subscribe [You can pay with a Russian or foreign card. The subscription is renewed automatically. You can unsubscribe at any time.]
Where does the subscribers' money go?