In particular, the RaTG13 theory that apparently forms the basis of Ridley and Chan's book, Viral, seems dead and buried to me because... a) no serious virologist believes that RaTG13 was the progenitor virus (although some lab leakers seem to hint at it while never fully committing), and b) we now know that there are viruses in Laos that are closer to SARS-CoV2 and which even have the receptor binding domain.
The timing of that book was unfortunate. It was published 16 November 2021. Worobey's paper "Dissecting the early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan" was published in the 18 November 2021 issue of
Science. The viruses in Laos had been discovered in September, which was apparently too late for the authors to revise their claim “That the closest relative of SARS-CoV-2, RaTG13, came to Wuhan via scientists shifts the burden of proof.” If we accept their belief that "the closest relative of SARS-CoV-2" determines the burden of proof, then the Laotian viruses shift that burden back onto the authors, whose book is unable to support that weight.
Some of the book's arguments for a lab leak amount to criticism of sources that have argued against a lab leak. Much of that criticism simply observes that some sources have enough at stake for us to discount the idea that their opinions are dispassionate. We've seen a bit of that criticism in this thread as well:
...more and more political pressure to pretend the lab wasn't the source.
There's more political pressure than ever on all these guys to quit saying it was a lab leak.
Collins has always maintained the lab leak was most likely. Fauci has denied it but one cannot help but consider his conflict of interest given the emails that surfaced, along with the EcoHealth Alliance grant proposal both implicating the NIH of indeed funding the GoF research at the WIV.
From there Daszak, and I assume Shi as well, were interested in finding (or creating) a coronavirus they could then use to make a generalized vaccine to be ready for the next SARS CoV spillover event. It's all in the Ecohealth Alliance and Daszak's paperwork. Topped off with Daszak's podcast interview at the Nipah Virus convention just before the pandemic emerged where he said outright that was his goal and that coronaviruses were easy to manipulate in the lab....
Here's an off the cuff speculative hypothesis explaining the Chinese genome data purge in Sept 2019: Shi with or without Daszak were disturbed to discover they had created a dangerous SARS CoV while the work was being done in a level 2 biosecurity lab. They were not trying to do this and did not expect it to happen.
Whoops! Quick, destroy the virus (or maybe freeze and save it; you never know if you'll need it) and cover up the genetic segment data that was open access online to many other researchers. It could have been as benign a motive as to not want other researchers to copy the data.
Confirmation bias and related biases are not unheard of, so it is worth noting when someone may not be an entirely disinterested observer.
It is therefore worth noting that Matt Ridley, the science writer who co-authored
Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19, has a history of discounting natural origins:
Matt Ridley said:
The "natural transfer" theory simply does not deserve the confidence placed in it by most scientists. The burden of proof has been shifted.
Ridley wrote that in 2000, offering support for Edward Hooper's argument that HIV originated in a lab. In November 2021, Ridley said exactly the same thing about SARC-CoV-2.
Inasmuch as some have decried the possible influence of politics, politicians, and financial interests on discussions of this thread's topic, it should also be noted that Matt Ridley is a member of the House of Lords,
has a financial interest in coal mining, and touts the benefits of anthropogenic global warming.
Alina Chan, Ridley's co-author, was a postdoc at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts when
she became interested in the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 had entered the world at large through a lab leak.
MIT Technology Review said:
A friend told Chan the paper should “put to bed” all conspiracy theories. But when she read it, she could already see a problem. In debunking the possibility that the virus was the product of extensive genetic engineering, they’d ruled out other, simpler scenarios. For instance, a normal virus collected from bats in the wild, if brought to Wuhan, could have somehow slipped out.
(
I myself consider that possibility to be more likely than a lab leak, even as my uneducated opinion continues to regard a lab leak origin as possible but less likely.)
MIT Technology Review said:
“I think my goal has been achieved,” says Chan. “I just wanted people to investigate, take it seriously. My job is done, and I want to go back to a normal life.”
....She told me that after the book is published, she plans to change her name and try to quietly continue her scientific career.
I wish her luck.
. A “likely explanation” was an origin in what looks like a SARS-like virus infected worker in a low security lab. Includes a close to conspiracy theory opinion that the lab leak explanation was shut down for political reasons.
