Science Counterpunch

Philipp Markolin, Sam Gregson

Welcome to Science Counterpunch, a short, punchy brand for a YouTube‑first podcast that combines hard evidence, frontline scientist testimony, and rapid rebuttal clips to expose anti‑science influencers and actors while centering science and experts who’ve been targeted. www.protagonist-science.com

  1. 5D AGO

    Science under Siege /w Peter Hotez and Michael Mann

    What do vaccines and climate science have in common? The same political actors, media ecosystems, and financial interests have worked to discredit both. In this inaugural episode of Science Counterpunch, Dr. Peter Hotez and Dr. Michael Mann go head-to-head with the modern anti-science machine—petrostates, plutocrats, propagandists, performative media, wellness grifters, and the platforms amplifying them. We break down the tactics: gaslighting, false balance, “freedom” rhetoric, debate traps, and the weaponization of uncertainty. More importantly, we ask what it costs when societies can no longer agree on basic facts. This is frontline testimony from scientists who’ve taken the hits—and refused to stay quiet. If you care about science, public discourse, or the future of evidence-based policymaking, this is one to listen to. Science Counterpunch is a punchy YouTube-first podcast that exists to defend the Enlightenment in an age of information warfare. We expose merchants of doubt, amplify experts under attack, and arm you with the tools to spot anti-science rhetoric before it spreads. Evidence matters. Reason isn’t optional. Let’s counterpunch. Push back on disinformation and help amplify the voices of scientists under attack - share this episode. Find the full playlist of Science Counterpunch here. Follow, like and subscribe to Sam´s YouTube channel to watch the video recording and not miss any upcoming episode. Any thoughts and feedback? Let us know in the comments! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.protagonist-science.com

    1h 10m
  2. Chapter 12 - Science under Siege in the Information Age

    10/03/2025

    Chapter 12 - Science under Siege in the Information Age

    Note: This is a freely accessible serialized version of Lab Leak Fever. Audio voiceover was AI generated for accessibility. Find an overview of all chapters here or consult the book website for further information. “Murderer! Murderer! Smug murderer!” The threatening calls from an unknown conspiracy theorist followed Peter Daszak down the seemingly endless hallway of the US Capitol building. Some of his detractors were trying to get him rattled—any reaction, really—holding their phones to his face so they could blast it out to their followers. Also there: Emily Kopp, working for the anti-biotechnology activist group USRTK. She was chastising Peter for causing trillions in damages to the US, following behind him with a professional camera team recording her monologue. This would potentially be good footage for her next attack piece or possibly a movie. After countless books, op-eds, podcasts, and YouTube videos, the lab leak conspiracy genre was lacking a big-screen cinematic experience; rumors about its production had been circulating for months now. Peter knew it would get bad the moment US Republicans took control of the House in 2022. They had been campaigning as the party of accountability and oversight. A false promise. In reality, they wanted to direct the emotional energy of voters for political gain, whitewashing President Trump’s pandemic failings by using scientists as scapegoats. They also wanted to use the spectacle of public witch trials as campaign events—the offline version of the omnipresent pile-ons from social media. The agitated online mobs had called feverishly for a party that would exert revenge for the trauma of the pandemic, and Republicans were keen to ensure that it was the scientists and their democratic opponents at the other end of that particular pitchfork. Many pseudo-events had led up to this moment for Peter, from the White Coat Waste Project, using Matt Gaetz and Marco Rubio to cascade awareness of his WIV grant towards an irascible Trump, resulting in its unlawful cancellation on live television. The USRTK playbook included decontextualizing Peter’s emails to give ammunition to conspiracy theorists, while the relentless media onslaught about gain-of-function research stoked a moral panic. Then, the “leak” of DRASTIC’s re-interpreted DEFUSE proposal, the supposed blueprint for creating the pandemic virus. Katherine Eban’s hit pieces cast him and Shi Zhengli as the main villains. All of these were an avalanche of events, in addition to his supposed arrangement with Anthony Fauci as the “kingmaker” of grant funding and the many virologists in cahoots circling the wagon. Simultaneously, virus hunting had been demonized as well. Myths about the supposed dangers of discovering viruses were powered by biosafety activists, catastrophizing influencers, and sponsored in considerable part by the cryptocurrency fraudster and effective altruism fanatic Sam Bankman-Fried, who donated millions to various media outlets to write scary existential risk stories about virology. EcoHealth Alliance’s mission was recast as creating the conditions for biological warfare, treated by some commentators as the equivalent of nuclear testing. The utility of virus discovery for research and pandemic prevention was ridiculed. Even Republican senators missed no opportunity to blast Peter regularly in the Daily Mail and New York Post for uploading something as innocuous as a short video of a bat eating a banana. Each time he made the news, allegations against him would be recycled and refreshed in people’s memories. No matter what Peter Daszak did or did not do, no matter if he spoke up or withdrew, the drumbeat continued. The media landscape about him was a bizarre mixture of directed fan fiction and choose-your-own-adventure stories, with multiple co-created narratives about Peter, his role, and his supposed fault mixing, converging, and spinning into ever-new reasons to hate him. His supposed villainy was entertainment at this point, and the third act of his story arc was already prewritten. “Get your popcorn ready, folks,” the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic (HSSCP) led by Republican Representative Brad Wenstrup tweeted in June 2023. They all had big plans for the lab origin myth. In early 2023, they were laying out a path for the public shaming of scientists, first and foremost Peter Daszak, his colleague David Morens at the NIAID, and including Dr. Anthony Fauci. The HSSCP and the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (HCOA) were the main tools for those ambitions. On November 14, 2023, behind closed doors, they pestered Peter with questions for over nine hours. “It is clear that they take it as a fact that we did reckless gain-of-function research,” Peter told me at the time, despite the NIH disagreeing. They also constantly hammered him about his role in the WHO mission and the supposed NIH-sponsored gain-of-function experiment The Intercept had homed in on. And, of course, the DEFUSE proposal, or more accurately, the distorted media version of it. His lawyers had advised him to not argue and contest the many false interpretations of technical details; he would come off as adversarial, and the politicians would blame their scientific ignorance and confusion on him. Rather, he should keep it simple and reiterate that this experiment was not gain-of-function based on the NIH definition and that the DEFUSE proposal was never funded, nor was the work ever conducted. He tried to stick to the advice, but he could not prevent himself from clarifying why certain technical allegations were just false and nonsensical. After the arduous interview, he left uncertain of what would happen next. Then, radio silence. Sometime in March 2024, Peter naively thought that he might not be called in for a public hearing. The vibe had seemingly moved on; the HSSCP was focusing their efforts on giving anti-vaxxers a platform, chastising school closures, lockdown measures, and issuing a subpoena to former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo “to answer for these deadly policy failures.” The usual political clown shows in a heated election year. The rewriting efforts of Trump-era policy failures had apparently shifted towards blaming the Democrats. Perhaps the lab leak narrative was just not that interesting or useful anymore after four years? Some virologists expressed the same feeling; the story was an old and tired trope at this point. They would be wrong. Shortly after Trump defeated Nikki Haley in the primary campaign, thereby securing the presidential nomination of the Republican Party again, the winds shifted quickly. His enablers in Congress focused on getting him elected, mobilizing voters anew. With Trump’s chances of winning the White House against an aging Joe Biden looking increasingly promising, they needed to create momentum for the next Republican policy agenda—an agenda that became known as Project 2025. Briefly, Project 2025 is the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing think tanks. The 922-page conservative policy magnum opus and “mandate for leadership” set out to radically transform the US. It aims to remove a lot of checks and balances necessary for a democratic society, bestowing the executive with unilateral power to implement their agenda and replacing tens of thousands of apolitical bureaucratic positions with pre-screened MAGA loyalists, including in the Department of Justice and scientific institutions such as the NIH, FDA, or CDC. Public health measures and climate action would be virtually impossible under the new regime. It would strip influence and independence from scientific bodies such as the CDC and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and bring them under tight political control. Similar plans have been laid out to remove FDA drug approvals for reproductive health care. Project 2025 is an all-out political assault on US science and institutions. Scientific American quoted Rachel Cleetus, policy director of the Climate and Energy program at the nonpartisan Union of Concerned Scientists, about the Project 2025 agenda: “The independence of science is being attacked across the board in this document.” Such a radical anti-science policy agenda needs many motivated rationalizations to convince ordinary conservative Americans (who remain overall supportive of science) of its appropriateness. The HSSCP and other congressional committees were ideally positioned to create the right pseudo-events for that purpose. Any epic drama starts with a great villain, and the lab leak myth had just the right story ingredients to give politicians what they needed. The HSSCP announced Daszak’s public hearing on social media on April 4, 2024: 🚨BREAKING🚨 EcoHealth Alliance President Dr. Peter Daszak will testify at a public hearing on May 1, 2024. Dr. Daszak must answer questions about COVID-19 origins, dangerous gain-of-function research, and his relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. They claimed that “Dr. Daszak and his colleagues at the Wuhan Institute of Virology used taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research” and that “mounting evidence continues to show that COVID likely originated from a Wuhan lab.” They urged Peter to come to clarify his statements, insinuating he had “directly contradict[ed] previously uncovered evidence about his relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology & his oversight of gain-of-function research.” Throughout April, the HSCCP would ramp up their attacks along the same line. Familiarity. Repetition. What they were missing was novelty. So, what’s the twist this time? The online absurdity reached a tragic peak when scientifically illiterate House representatives started to impose their ignorant interpretation of the DEFUSE proposal upon Peter’s supposed intention, alleging nothing less but a th

    1h 24m
  3. Chapter 11 - The Marketplace of Motivated Rationalizations

    09/26/2025

    Chapter 11 - The Marketplace of Motivated Rationalizations

    Note: This is a freely accessible serialized version of Lab Leak Fever. Audio voiceover was AI generated for accessibility. Find an overview of all chapters here or consult the book website for further information. On March 4, 2023, while doing unrelated research, Dr. Florence Débarre randomly came across a new set of FASTQ files (a text file of nucleotide base sequences) on the GISAID database. Curious, she started investigating. Less than two weeks later, another viral information cascade would ignite the lab leak media universe ablaze again. This time, instead of the usual manufactured pseudo-events and trope-laden stories, a highly relevant scientific discovery supercharged its velocity and exploded in virality. A panic set in within the lab leak community; they were losing control over their viral narrative. Like Stuart Neil, Alex Crits-Christoph, Michael Worobey, and many others, Dr. Florence Débarre, a French theoretician in evolutionary biology, had started out being very open to lab-leak ideas, lauding the efforts and engaging regularly with DRASTIC, Alina Chan, Jesse Bloom, and other lab leak proponents for much of 2021 after the theory went mainstream. She wrote that it is “actually good scientific practice to explore different hypotheses” in response to criticism of Bloom et al.’s Science letter, the one that caused so much grief between Mike Worobey and Kristian Andersen. Florence, an extremely careful and meticulous researcher, had the habit of following up on certain lab leak ideas with investigative rigor. For example, she clarified with a web activity monitoring website that Shi Zhengli’s database of viral sequences “was not suspiciously taken down in September” to hide any sequences. It turns out the database first came online in April of the same year and never worked very well, dropping offline sporadically for months. It remained somewhat accessible until Feb. 2020, when hacking attempts finally stopped WIV researchers from putting it back online for fear of manipulation. Just as Shi Zhengli explained and Jane Qiu reported. Over the years, Florence has single-handedly cleared up about two dozen such falsehoods that the lab leak conspiracy myth cottage industry had made into the lore if my cursory counting is correct. She calls these fact-checks “niche threads” on Twitter, but they dismantled, debunked, and destroyed many lab leak talking points, like death by a thousand cuts. “The lab leak hypothesis survives in part because of poor fact-checking in the media,” she tweeted to explain why she followed up on all these circumstantial niche talking points. However, Florence did not have it out just for lab leakers; the zoonati would face the same type of scrutiny. Peter Daszak, for example, told me that Florence wrote to him countless times to fact-check statements he made in the past, asking whether he had supportive evidence and similar. He wasn’t alone; when Florence wants to get to the bottom of something, she becomes very tenacious and will not stop until she separates fact from fiction. For that, she has earned the respect of fellow debunkers and scientists and, unsurprisingly, has become another arch-villain to the lab leak community. This is because lab leak ideas and talking points tended to fall apart under her scrutiny, while points raised in favor of zoonotic spillover tended to hold up. Reality, on average, is easier to substantiate than made-up fiction. For her independent efforts, the female researcher has been not only severely harassed, smeared, and discredited like the rest of the zoonati she is now lumped in with but also encountered despicable misogynistic insults, stalking, and threats of violence. A high price for somebody who is an extremely private person by nature and avoids the spotlight. When Florence realized in early March 2023 that the new GSAID files she found were metagenomic data from environmental samples of the Huanan seafood market, which Chinese authors from Dr. George Gao’s CDC team had uploaded, she reached out to the Huanan market paper authors around Mike Worobey and Kristian Andersen. They, in turn, immediately started frantically downloading the data, which was about 500GB. “I was pretty convinced that we will probably never see these data,” Dr. Alex Crits-Christoph stated, describing his take on these hectic days and the drama that would follow. “But I have been thinking for over a year what we could do with it if they were ever published,” he laughed about how quickly he reacted. He was the fastest to look at the data. On the same day Florence had reached out, Alex downloaded the metagenomics sequencing data and pretty much worked through the night, looking first at the samples taken from the one corner of the western market where the wildlife stalls had been identified. “I found a full mitochondrial genome of a raccoon dog.” He remembered his excitement over the discovery. “And later that night, I remember bamboo rat and civet popped out as well.” Just as Mike Worobey and his market coauthors had predicted, wild mammals had been at the market, leaving their genetic footprint behind. So, what animals were possibly at the market in late 2019? “The first approach was the mapping to a few possible hosts, quick to see what is in there,” Alex recounted. They wanted to satisfy their curiosity. The next day, Prof. Eddie Holmes contacted a Chinese scientist, one of the few who tried to keep information channels open. To protect the scientist’s identity, let’s call the person Chen. Chen, whom Eddie described as someone “I trust completely” had previously told him that these metagenomics data had been messy, and they sequenced it multiple times. While not being part of the Chinese CDC, Chen had some insights into the sequencing data created for George Gao’s team. Eddie, opening his emails for me, explained how his first intuition was to talk to Chen and tell him that they saw the data uploaded on GISAID. Chen responded very quickly: Dear Eddie, Yes, George [Gao] has asked his colleagues to upload these data. In fact, some of these samples have been sequenced twice or even multiple times. [They] have uploaded all these data, including both SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative samples from the market. You can ask a group member to analyze them independently. I am happy to help if you have any questions. Best wishes, [Chen] That reply had been encouraging to Eddie; Chinese scientists were finally able to share some crucial market data from the preprint they published in 2022. A bit later, Eddie excitedly shared in another email to Chen that they had already found raccoon dog DNA in the environmental samples: As I’m sure you know, [the] most striking observation - which is of huge importance - is the high abundance of raccoon dog DNA/RNA. [...] So, we can now place susceptible animals exactly at the scene at the right time. He received no response from Chen after that. None of them did. Alex Crits-Christoph, Mike Worobey, and Kristian Andersen would all write to George Gao and his coauthors about the data, wanting to talk to them and open a collaboration. But radio silence. Unease set in with the international scientists. Suddenly, “and this was on like day three,” Alex described breathlessly, “the data disappeared from GISAID.” The Chinese authors, or somebody on their behalf, must have asked GISAID to pull it. “That really was pretty spooky, I think. We don’t know exactly what the heck was going through everybody’s mind.” Everybody tried again desperately to contact George Gao, William Liu, and others who had collected the data. They offered to work together on the analysis. However, the Chinese researchers were no longer willing—or able—to reply. Eddie, Kristian, and Mike thought something had to be done to get the data back online. They contacted WHO, which promptly engaged in a quiet meeting with the Chinese CDC about their meta-transcriptomics data. On 12 March 2023, some of us met with WHO and some members of SAGO (the WHO-convened Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens) to discuss our observations. On 14 March 2023, the WHO convened a meeting with SAGO where some of us and representatives from CCDC presented our respective results. [...] This meeting constituted one of several efforts to establish a collaborative relationship with our colleagues at CCDC to share data and findings as rapidly as possible. We acknowledge that these circumstances are unusual. A summary by the authors would be made later. Meanwhile, led by Dr. Florence Débarre, all coauthors were busy analyzing the data and compiling a report for WHO. In another blow, they were all locked out of the GISAID database, which accused them of having breached the terms of use. A scary development. It was right around this time when journalists learned about the existence of these data and the upcoming report. Alex Crits-Christoph assumed that a member of SAGO leaked the information to journalists, but details remain murky. The press, in turn, started circling the scientists, smelling a scoop. Some asked for comments directly. The cat was out of the bag; many other press requests followed, and some of the scientists felt they had to give some statements. When the science writer Katherine Wu from The Atlantic reached out to Alex soon after, he tried to keep his statements general but explained candidly the rough outline of what happened. What they downloaded, what they analyzed, and that a raccoon dog was one of the species they found. He told Katherine Wu that she would be able to see more details in the report they are preparing, which was expected to come out soon. Katherine replied that she was going to publish her story before the report came out. “Oh my God,” Alex recalled. “The rest of the conversation was me telling her that this is a horrible idea.” But according to Alex, the reporter

    1h 13m
  4. Chapter 10 - The information cascades that haunt us

    09/19/2025

    Chapter 10 - The information cascades that haunt us

    Note: This is a freely accessible serialized version of Lab Leak Fever. Audio voiceover was AI generated for accessibility. Find an overview of all chapters here or consult the book website for further information. “I was always the ‘zoonati’ they could talk to.” Professor Stuart Neil, a virologist from King’s College London, chuckled about his perceived diplomatic role for DRASTIC and some other lab leak proponents. “I intrinsically thought this was an interesting story,” he said, remembering how he became intrigued by various ideas of how SARS-CoV-2 could have come about via a research-related accident ever since the Mojiang miner story blew up in the summer of 2020. Scientists are not averse to discussing controversial ideas; quite the opposite, many are attracted by them. Stuart came across some of the online figures who promoted it, and he thought there “were some people of good faith in this grouping.” He still believes they “were at some point,” but now laments that ultimately, even polite discussion and good faith engagements were made impossible by the emergent group dynamics of increasingly radical believers. “Gradually, that all got poisoned.” Open inquiry and exchange are as important in science as in a democratic society. When my sci-comm colleague Sam and I first interviewed him in November 2021, Stuart had advised us to “avoid people that think they have all the answers.” He was curious about new developments and cautious about drawing hard conclusions. In many ways, his attitude was a good sounding board for some of the more creative lab leak proponents to test their ever-new speculations, at least in the early years. Stuart’s open attitude in this controversy is representative of the free-for-all, evidence-driven approach characteristic of most scientists. He does not care who makes the argument as long as they bring the evidence to back it up. This was always the power and promise of the internet: to prevent group thinking and empower unusual voices to be heard where traditionally they would not get the chance. Stuart enjoyed entertaining alternative scenarios and engaging in good-faith speculations. He might have often been a bit rough on others and undiplomatic when it comes to nonsense, but he would acknowledge if they had made a solid point. Of course, like the rest of us, he migrated between amusement, bewilderment, and eye-rolling about the quality of popular discussion on the topic. However, as the scientific evidence continued to stack up against any type of research-related accident and uncertainty about what wild theories could still be entertained in good faith shrank, the fronts hardened beyond repair. Building bridges to reach lab leak believers became impossible. Eventually, even scientists who had previously established good rapport ended up being considered enemies by the lab leak camp. Soon enough, he found his safety threatened, his private communications FOIA’d, and even his kindergarten-age kids were stalked and doxxed. All for the simple sin of following the evidence. I reached out to Stuart because I felt it was time to tackle the most misunderstood and polarizing element in the whole origin controversy: the infamous furin cleavage site (FCS). What is known, what is still unknown, and what we can learn from it. The FCS is a short amino acid motif in the spike protein that is recognized by furin-like proteases, which are cutting enzymes. It is a dramatic functional element for those various factions captured by the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was somehow created in a lab. It is alleged to be the pandemic’s secret sauce. A trigger that was artificially inserted to turn an ordinary bat virus into the pandemic blight pathogen we have today. Indeed, the FCS is critical in SARS-CoV-2; it increases virality and is required for efficient human-to-human transmission. Yet, it’s almost a mythological force in popular discourse that is entirely based on two misconceptions. First, there is the common misunderstanding that the alleged introduction of a single genetic element has the power to create a pandemic pathogen. Second, and perhaps more importantly, there is deliberate deception about how likely it is that nature or human engineering came up with the nucleotides insertion that led to the FCS we observe in SARS-CoV-2. We are going to have to get a bit technical to address both points. But it will be incredibly worth it to understand, so bear with us. As a molecular virologist, Prof. Stuart Neil was well-positioned to talk intelligently about the nuances of this topic; his research lab focuses on host-encoded antiviral mechanisms, and he has investigated the role of the FCS in that context. Viruses need to constantly adapt to beat immune systems since immune systems tend to evolve to beat back viruses. Stuart’s lab studied how “this evolutionary arms race plays out in the context of HIV1 envelope proteins, so the spike equivalent,” and he elaborated on where he traditionally came from before SARS-CoV-2 entered the scene. The vast majority of enveloped viruses need membrane fusion with a host cell to enter it, which can happen directly at the outside cell wall or after being ingested in a big bubble, also known as endocytosis. Either way, the viral proteins responsible for entering host cells need some help from the host environment. “In general, a lot of them are activated by having a protease cleavage site midway,” meaning our own protein scissors do the deed for the virus. The virology professor used both hands to illustrate how a cleavage site usually liberates a hydrophobic (water-insoluble) part of SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein. This part “burrows itself into the nearest target cell membrane.” Imagine a harpoon ready to fire as soon as the gun ports are opened. In fact, talking about a single spike protein is a bit imprecise because, on the virus surface, three spike proteins are always intertwined, forming a type of trillium flower with three such spring-loaded harpoons that are ready to shoot once liberated by a protease cut. The activating cuts by a human protease prime the viral proteins to launch their invasion into a new cell. But where does this activation happen? For many viruses, the most important part of that cutting activity often happens after the virus is already attached to the host receptor, which would be the human transmembrane protein known as ACE2 for SARS-CoV-2. Once the SARS-CoV-2 virion is bound to ACE2 on the outside of a new cell, a human protease called TMPRSS2, a molecular cutter also embedded in the host cell membrane, activates the bound viral spike proteins via multiple cuts. Then the membrane fusion starts. That’s one way. However, there is another option. For some viruses, such as HIV1 or H5N1 influenza, activating cleavage of their invader proteins can happen even before they leave the production factory, so to speak. Their most critical cutting steps predominantly occur still inside a currently infected host cell, where the next fleet of virions is assembled to start a new invasion. In this “pre-cleaved” scenario, the viral battleships come out, guns blazing and ready to attack. Stuart explained how that could be quite consequential for cell invasion: Not only is the virus going out into the space and then getting activated and breathed out, it’s [also] being able to come out very rapidly and infect the next-door cell, or come out the back end of the cell, and that sort of... makes it go bang straight through that epithelial way. Unfortunately for us, Stuart acknowledged, coronaviruses “live in this happy medium, where they can deal with both [activation scenarios], and that was always a worry.” Coronaviruses can get both pre-cleaved in the factory or cleaved directly at a new host cell’s door. Even worse, Stuart said, “They can be very promiscuous about what protease they allow to do that.” This is where the FCS comes into play. Furin is a protease that sits inside a cellular compartment called the Golgi apparatus, basically the very last station of protein production where assembled proteins get various modifications, such as sugar shields (glycosylation). Having an FCS motif would allow SARS-CoV-2 to get pre-cleaved in the host cell, right on the way out. Why that works so well for SARS-CoV2 is not completely understood and was largely unpredictable beforehand. Virology is complex. However, what we have since learned is that pre-cleavage of spike proteins by furin does two very specific things to SARS-CoV-2. First, it opens up the structure of the trimeric spike protein, which makes it a lot less stable in its 3D configuration but allows for better epitope binding to its host receptor, ACE2. Second, it primes the TMPRSS2 cutting work, making this specific route of viral cell entry through direct membrane fusion faster and favored over alternative entry routes. This matters because it is not only the availability of host cell receptors that define what tissues in our body are most susceptible to a specific virus but also the concentration of activating proteases in the cellular environment. Higher ACE2 and TMPRSS2 co-expression are found in respiratory tissues. These tissues would find themselves especially vulnerable to spike proteins that were pre-cleaved by furin proteases. Think of the whole thing as an efficiency hack. Pre-cleavage favors TMPRSS2-expressing respiratory cells and enhances virion entry via the direct membrane fusion route, ripping open the host cell membranes to deposit the viral cargo inside. The increased fusogenicity at the outer cell membrane has the additional benefit of dodging some intracellular antiviral defense mechanisms that would come into play via endosomal entry, such as virions being chewed up, sliced apart, or boiled in acid inside the endosome. This efficiency hack overwhelmingly favors respiratory tropism and circumvents some of our inna

    1h 33m
  5. Chapter 9 - Secular gurus, sages and shamans of the modern hill tribes

    09/12/2025

    Chapter 9 - Secular gurus, sages and shamans of the modern hill tribes

    Note: This is a freely accessible serialized version of Lab Leak Fever. Audio voiceover was AI generated for accessibility. Find an overview of all chapters here or consult the book website for further information. “Disgusting,” he said, ripping me out of my thoughts. He showed me a meme where Zhengli’s head had been photoshopped onto a bat, her face distorted with an open mouth to reveal vampire's teeth, and the whole frame colored in blood red. I shuddered involuntarily. The dehumanization was not subtle. “I really hate what they did with her ears here; it makes her look evil,” Peter Daszak continued with another meme. The haunted British-born zoologist and I sat on a couch in a remote house near Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand, towards the end of 2022. He had pulled up his laptop to show me some of the circulating memes about the “Batwoman” and himself. Indeed, in that cartoonish pop-art picture, the warm Chinese researcher looked like a supervillain, with pointy ears covered by tape, holding bats and releasing a poison virus into the world. Both Peter and Zhengli have found themselves in the middle of a global media firestorm for over two years now; their decades-long work on coronaviruses has become a vital focus of global attention. Speculations and conspiracy myths about their lives and personas had become a cultural phenomenon, and online memes about them were widespread. These visual statements were sometimes artful, sometimes funny, often tasteless, and always closer to propaganda than reality. Peter had saved hundreds of them on his laptop. He pulled up one of the earlier ones, showing him sitting in a chair with Chinese President Xi Jinping in his lap, who was dressed like a stripper and wearing a tinfoil hat. “You can´t help but laugh at some of these, even when you were the one being made a fool of.” Amongst the countless unflattering, libelous, and grotesque depictions, what seemed to bother him the most were the ones fat-shaming him. “That is just tasteless.” He got annoyed. His face had gotten some color back, at least; he had been pale the previous two days. I was still getting to know the zoologist on that trip to Thailand, trying to understand who he was. Until the middle of 2022, Peter Daszak was just a random name for me that I would not have been able to put a face to. I came into the origin discourse in the summer of 2021 after Nicholas Wade’s article rubbed me the wrong way. My science-communication colleague Sam Gregson, a former CERN particle physicist from the UK, wanted to do a podcast about the lab leak hypothesis that we both believed credible and underexplored at the time, as our media ecosystem had told us. We invited DRASTIC member and conspiratorial blogger Yuri Deigin, who already had some internet fame on the topic, to have a friendly chat about the scientific evidence for a lab leak. In parallel, I was writing an article for my blog, trying to make sense of the arguments brought forward in the Nicholas Wade piece, and ending up learning much more about the topic. My writing process includes a lot of reading, and after getting some overview articles on the topic, I usually look into the scientific literature to see what the underlying data for these claims are. I guess this is where my concerns began. I could not find any evidence in the scientific literature that would substantiate any aspect of the various arguments I had read on the supposed “engineered” nature of SARS-CoV-2. On the contrary, many of the oddities that Nicholas Wade or Yuri raised were, in fact, perfectly explainable by available knowledge and scientific papers on the topic. On top of that, I had been working in experimental labs for over 10 years. From CRISPR to Gateway cloning to Gibson assembly, I had hands-on experience with all of these different genetic engineering techniques, partly to construct viral vectors that we used as a delivery method for genetic cargo. So, while not a virologist, I certainly understood the genetic engineering arguments brought forward by lab leak proponents were just plainly naive to outright false. As a science communicator, I thought, “Why not clear up some of these popular misconceptions?” After a few weeks of researching and writing, my blog article was titled “Explained: The hard evidence why SARS-CoV-2 was not engineered,” specifically addressing the RBD and the furin cleavage site, that unusual llama in the supposed flock of viral sheep. That article came out a day before our scheduled podcast with Yuri Deigin, which put me in a position to push back against some of the naive assertions our guest brought forward. Maybe it was this combination of events, or some vocal messages on Twitter being more assertive about SARS-CoV-2 not being engineered, that somehow put me in the crosshairs of the often-faceless lab leak community on Twitter. By this point, I had written dozens of science communication blogs for over five years, but not once had I gotten a hateful comment for it. Now my timeline was overflowing with insults, from the idea that I was a gullible loser, a “sheeple for the official narrative,” all the way to being a shill for EcoHealth Alliance, big pharma, or even China. Certainly not a pleasant experience. I guess instinctively, people deal in different ways when having their honesty and character questioned in public. Some might ignore or disengage; others might feel the desire to correct the public record. I learned about myself that I tended to fall into the latter camp, getting more vocal about what I believed to be the reality of the situation. So, I argued more, wrote more, and investigated the topic more. Sam and I soon interviewed King’s College professor Stuart Neil, a virologist and actual expert who seemed to have some healthy and nuanced takes on the origin controversy—what was known and what was uncertain. Thinking Sam and I might clarify the misunderstandings with more evidence, other in-depth expert conversations would follow. Angela Rasmussen, Kristian Andersen, Michael Worobey, Alice Hughes, Eddie Holmes, and others. With every new piece of content we put out, the scientific picture became clearer, yet the animosity against us only increased. Soon, I noticed—with a mixture of fascination, curiosity, and horror—how we were not alone. There was a pattern. Anytime a new voice would speak up publicly in favor of a natural origin explanation or just for evidence-based assessment of the science, a dedicated group of lab leak influencers and activists would get involved, trying to shut them down or convert them to their cause. If they failed to do so, the lab leak community leaders would start to maliciously quote-tweet—a Twitter-specific way of highlighting someone else’s tweet—with a misleading, discrediting, or ridiculing comment. These quote-tweets, often marked with specific hashtags such as #lableak or #originsofcovid, served as a beacon for their followers to join in the “conversation” with the new voice. They would reinforce the disparaging comment by adding their own insult, thus amplifying it again, over and over. Often, these behaviors would result in so-called “dogpiles” or ”pile-ons”, an argument or attack by a large group of people against one person. Being on the receiving end of such a pile-on can be a disorienting experience because, all of a sudden, a bunch of random people want to fight you like an enemy based solely on an out-of-context tweet or a flippant comment, as well as the less-than-charitable interpretation from the lab leak influencer who highlighted it. Most friends and ordinary people of the target would miss these pile-ons because these did not play out in the feed of the scientists they might follow but in the feed and community of the quote-tweeter, i.e., the lab leak influencer. Only the scientists targeted saw the full spectrum of abuse, while most of the public, not sharing this particular niche ecosystem, would be none the wiser to what had occurred. Scientists and journalists, especially those with only a few hundred followers, would be mostly helpless against the malicious narratives created about them in the lab leak community. They had nobody to speak up or defend their character because nobody even saw what was happening to them. They had no course of action because speaking up for themselves just created more activity, more harassment, and more abuse in the opposing community. Many contemporary scientists went through this “treatment” a few times before deciding it wasn’t worth the hassle, leaving the social media platform entirely. Eddie Holmes and Kristian Andersen deleted their accounts. Others became very selective and self-censored, not speaking out publicly about this toxic topic anymore. The exodus of reasonable voices on the topic, in turn, ceded even more discourse space to the activists. On top of that, the shrinking rational voices remaining in the conversation just became bigger targets for activist communities that seemed to relish in the act of verbally abusing their “enemies” together on a daily basis. A little community ritual, often unprompted by any specific action or offense. Every single day, they just looked for somebody to fight and hate for hours on end. Because of these asymmetric bullying dynamics, even a relatively small science blogger—too stubborn or maybe even too truculent to be silenced by these mob tactics—would suddenly gain a much larger role in the minds of conspiracy theorists. I’ve lost count of the number of pile-ons my words have caused over the years. Peter Daszak pulled up the next meme, this time showing both him and me together, arranged in a weird, convoluted homage to “The Godfather” movie. It portrayed Dr. Anthony Fauci as the “godfather of gain-of-function research,” Shi Zhengli as the “cook,” and some prominent scientists like Peter Daszak, Kristian Andersen, Ange

    1h 29m
  6. Chapter 8 - Outbreak: Contained

    09/05/2025

    Chapter 8 - Outbreak: Contained

    Note: This is a freely accessible serialized version of Lab Leak Fever. Audio voiceover was AI generated for accessibility. Find an overview of all chapters here or consult the book website for further information. Independent and interdisciplinary science is important. When evolutionary virologist Michael Worobey, a professor at the University of Arizona, got involved in the search for the origins of COVID-19, he had no idea what he got himself into. With a “soft spot for wild theories,” at least according to a former colleague, and a track record of tackling hotly debated theories around dangerous viruses, the renowned scientist is a force to be reckoned with. NPR even called him the Sherlock Holmes of origin investigations for his work on identifying the origin of HIV by hunting for chimpanzee samples in Kisangani, Eastern Congo. A dangerous trip where Mike developed a life-threatening infection after he injured himself and where his mentor, Bill Hamilton, contracted malaria. Only one of them survived. Yet it was critically important work. Mike’s field sampling and phylogenetic analysis, together with that of Prof. Beatrice Hahn, was instrumental in debunking the widely propagated notion that HIV came about from a contaminated polio vaccine trial in the 1950s. They discovered that HIV had its origin decades earlier, before the turn of the 20th century, and was spawned by at least four separate human-chimpanzee contacts that seeded the outbreak near Kinshasa (called Leopoldville in colonial times) and would spread for decades before it was recognized scientifically in the 80s by making people sick in Los Angeles in the US. Based on Worobey’s data, they reasoned that somewhere around 1910, HIV-1 emerged in humans during a period of rapid urbanization and demographic change (Leopoldville was the largest city in the region at that time) and thus was a “likely destination for a newly emerging infection.” In a 2022 podcast conversation with Kristian Andersen, the YouTube science communicator Sam Gregson, and myself, Mike recalled how he had been frustrated by the inconclusiveness of the WHO mission report. The WHO mission opened more questions about the origins that it answered, or at least that had been his impression given the media environment. “I never had a moment where I thought the furin cleavage site needed a non-natural explanation… As an evolutionary biologist, evolution can certainly deal with that pretty aptly,” he explained where he came from. “What was a bit of a curveball to me is that quote here: ‘Market authorities have confirmed that no illegal trade in wildlife had been found’” he elaborated on a different occasion, explaining why he grew hesitant about the market hypothesis. At the time, he was unaware of the struggles the WHO mission had in getting their Chinese counterparts to admit to wildlife being sold at the market. “I have been amongst the most open scientists to this idea that at least some form [of] a lab incident, maybe even with a virus that has not been characterized by the lab, could have infected someone,” Mike Worobey admitted. “So, I sort of initiated this fateful letter in Science magazine.” Mike reached out to virologist Jesse Bloom, a well-known lab leak proponent on the origin question, to organize the letter titled “Investigate the origins of COVID-19” to the journal Science (published in May 2021). They, along with 16 other authors, such as Alina Chan, Ralph Baric, and David Relman were arguing for giving the lab leak theory a “proper” investigation that should be objective, transparent, data-driven, and “subject to independent oversight.” The letter to Science made a lot of waves internationally and contributed to the vibe shift that legitimized the lab leak theory, ultimately prompting the Biden administration to start their 90-day intelligence investigation. Despite giving the impulse, Mike was not involved in drafting the wording of this letter, which came out way more accusatory of China, specifically Shi Zhengli, than he was comfortable with and retrospectively regretted. “That letter then took on a life of its own,” he recalled. All he wanted was to give the origin investigation another look. “I was pretty naive about how that letter would land,” he said with chagrin. “I should not have been and regret the tone.” Politics aside, Mike was a man of his word and no-nonsense scientific rigor. Evidence mattered to him, not political implications. The lab leak community was energized by believing scientists of such a caliber were now on “their side.” Mike was celebrated as a hero. However, soon enough, his work would become a target of their ire, and he would be cast as the greatest traitor to their cause. Like any good scientist worth their salt, Mike set out to poke holes into the natural origin hypothesis, starting by trying to falsify the outbreak association with the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan. Wuhan is a huge place, one-and-a-half times the size of the five boroughs of New York City. “It has a whole lot of places where you might notice the first cluster of a respiratory infection,” he said. “Think about all the places where it could have emerged if it did not start at the Huanan market. We have to think about what are the chances it would pop up there?” That would be a remarkable coincidence indeed. If one were to make the case for a lab leak, that wildlife market and the early patients associated with it had to be explained somehow. Was the market maybe just an amplifier event? Did the Chinese authorities just look there preferentially but not in other places in Wuhan? How did the doctors decide which patients to test for COVID-19? If market affiliation was a criterion for testing patients, then maybe the patient association with it would be a mere mirage, something called ascertainment bias. These are all scenarios that could potentially explain why the case epidemiology looked like the virus came from the market when, in fact, it might have come from somewhere else entirely. After all, in the wake of SARS, China had set up an early warning and reporting system for detecting unknown viral diseases, which kicked in on January 3rd. This system might have led to an undue focus on the Huanan market. “There is, however, a way to step back to a period before any such bias could have crept in, by considering what happened in the hospitals that first pieced together that a new viral outbreak was underway,” Mike would state in his paper titled “Dissecting the early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan,” published in Science in late 2021. “I was focused, largely by myself in my basement, for month after month after month at what is going on in Wuhan spatially,” Mike explained how he spent his summer of 2021. Not only did he analyze the WHO mission report and all the scientific papers in Western and Chinese journals, he was also “reading news reports [and] digging of the web archive [for] some of these reports that had gone out by Chinese public health officials before the national authorities even knew the pandemic.” In the quiet of his isolation, following up on every single patient’s history and how, when, and where they were diagnosed, he reconstructed what happened. On December 27, Dr. Zhang Jixian, a clinician and respiratory specialist at the Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine (HPHICWM) near the Huanan market, noticed characteristic lesions in CT scans of the lungs of two pneumonia patients that reminded her of something she had seen almost two decades ago. The patients were a couple brought in by their son, who looked “ostensibly healthy.” Nevertheless, she asked him to also do a CT scan, and sure enough, his lungs were full of lesions as well. Lesions she had seen before—with SARS. “At that point, she figured it was probably related to SARS and that it was transmissible to humans because it had infected all three members of the family,” Mike explained. She also realized that patients could be potentially asymptomatic, running around and spewing the virus all over the place. From that point forward, she paid attention, and while the initial three patients did not have an association with the Hunan market, the next four patients who came to her hospital with the same symptoms all worked at the market. “At that point, on December 29th, she and the administration of her hospital got in touch with municipal and provincial health authorities.” The hospital administrators called other hospitals that were not close to the Huanan market for pneumonia of unknown etiology patients; it turned out that most of their patients were also linked with the market. The Hubei Provincial Hospital “identified both the outbreak and the Huanan Market connection and passed on these fully formed discoveries to district, municipal, and provincial public health officials by 29 December,” he concluded. They were not the only ones. Mike would write in his paper: A notably similar situation unfolded at Wuhan Central Hospital. On 18 December, Ai Fen, director of the emergency department, encountered her first unexplained pneumonia patient, a 65-year-old man who had become ill on either 13 or 15 December. Unbeknownst to Ai at the time, the patient was a delivery man at Huanan Market. [...] By 28 December, Wuhan Central Hospital had identified seven cases, of which four turned out to be linked to Huanan Market. Notably, these seven cases, like those at HPHICWM, were ascertained before epidemiologic investigations concerning Huanan Market commenced on 29 December. These findings are important because they highlight how the unknown pneumonia cases before the 29th of December were independently picked up by various hospitals. The market link became known only after, thus dispelling any notion of “ascertainment bias” being responsible for the diagnosis or discovery o

    1h 15m
  7. Chapter 7 - Nature´s neglected gain-of-function laboratory

    08/29/2025

    Chapter 7 - Nature´s neglected gain-of-function laboratory

    Note: This is a freely accessible serialized version of Lab Leak Fever. Audio voiceover was AI generated for accessibility. Find an overview of all chapters here or consult the book website for further information. A river of black drew a line through the darkening sky. Above the silver and gold ornaments on the pagoda’s crimson roofs at Wat Khao Chong Pran, the river flow turned southeast towards the fields. Rationally, I knew that the cave housed around two and a half million horseshoe bats, but observing a seemingly never-ending flood of hectic creatures fly out for more than forty-five minutes, I realized that I never truly appreciated just how many bats share the world with us. How little did we know about them? Physiologically, bats are extraordinary; they can speed up their metabolism 16 times, creating immense heat that would denature our proteins and fry our cells. A bat’s heart can beat up to 1,000 beats per minute, but it can also slow down to 6 beats per minute during torpor, a type of short-term hibernation. During a nighttime flight, its body temperature can rise to 42°C (107.6°F). Some species tend to live up to 40 years in vast, dense, and diverse colonies, which makes them uniquely suited as hosts to almost all viral families that befall mammals. However, bats do not appear to get visibly sick, and scientists cannot tell their age past adolescence. They have unique immune systems, which we do not yet understand, that do not overreact to viral infections. There are around 1,500 described bat species that have emerged from their last common ancestor over 60 million years ago. Because they are the only flying mammals, we conceptualize them all together under the umbrella term “bats,” as we do with “fish” in the sea. But based on genetic diversity, that simplification is rarely adequate. It feels like the equivalent of lumping giraffes and cows together with dolphins and whales, all of which diverged from a shared common Artiodactyla—even-toed ungulate—ancestor about fifty million years ago. It’s hard to justify thinking of them as the same, so why do we do it for bats? It is not an exaggeration to claim that bats come in almost all sizes, shapes, and forms, from the thumb-sized Craseonycteris thonglongyai—also known as the bumblebee bat, weighing just 1.5 grams and holding the title of smallest mammal on earth—to various majestic flying foxes with wing spans of over 6 feet, close to two meters. Some fruit bats look almost like dog puppies you’d want to cuddle and take home, while others might appear as if they’ve escaped from a horror movie production. The black river of horseshoe bats over my head would probably come closer to the latter for most people. We humans tend to be afraid of what we do not understand. These horseshoe bats are smaller insectivores (insect-eating bats) who get their name from the weird horseshoe-shaped disfigurement where their nose should be. Intuitively, we humans find them rather ugly—I was no exception, at least at first. I think this is partly because we assume their faces are weirdly deformed, like a fully cleft palate, rather than what they truly are: optimized. Horseshoe bats belong to a group of bats that echolocate—send out and receive sonar waves—primarily through their nostrils. Other bats rely primarily on their mouths. These varied shapes and forms in the middle of their faces, however, have intricate functionality for shaping their calls, impacting not only orientation but also their feeding and social lives, too. Given their enormous diversity, maybe it is not a surprise that bats exist in almost all variations of social structures, from eremites who don’t want to bother with others to ones who live in small family groups, villages, or even multicultural megacities. Some like to mingle with other bat species, while others are territorial and of the “get off my lawn” persuasion, with threatening grunts, fletching teeth, and all. These horseshoe bats flying overhead were not only mixing and mingling cosmopolitans; they are also the species we know today to most prominently carry SARS-related coronaviruses, close viral cousins of both SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 that have caused havoc in our human world. Does this imply that an ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 came from bats, too? Most scientists believe so. Yet ordinary bat viruses usually do not infect humans or transmit well between humans, and they are certainly unable to cause a pandemic. Something seems to be missing from our understanding, and I believe the intricate social lives of bats might hold the first valuable clue. But to get there, we have to understand some rather technical details of what makes SARS-CoV-2 so extraordinary in the first place. Since its emergence, it has been a confusing virus for a lot of reasons. First, a novel virus is very infectious to humans and spreads effectively between them via the respiratory route. Second, it does not cause severe disease in every patient, is sometimes asymptomatic, and is subsequently hard to track. Third, side-by-side comparisons to known SARS-related viruses seem to show that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a chimera. It has some parts with very high genetic similarity to other bat coronaviruses and other parts with low genetic similarity. On top of that, the virus has smaller but important genetic oddities, such as a novel human ACE2-receptor binding domain (RBD) and what looks like an insertion of a polybasic cleavage motif in its spike protein gene. In humans, this polybasic motif gets recognized by a protein-cutting enzyme named furin; that’s why it is better known today as the “furin cleavage site,” or FCS for short. Especially the chimeric genome, the occurrence of an FCS, and the seemingly “human-adapted RBD” gave researchers a hard time wrapping their heads around the novel virus in early 2020. Almost nobody had seen this combination of oddities before, albeit Eddie reminded me later that HKU1, a betacoronavirus from animals, also had an FCS and spread quickly among human. But SARS-CoV-2 was odd enough that even experienced virologists such as Kristian Andersen, Robert Garry, and Eddie Holmes would be driven to sound the alarm of suspicion in the murky weeks of early 2020. So, what chance did mere citizens have to make sense of the genetic intricacies of this confusing virus or assess what they mean by its origin? Especially when there is so much misleading information about them. “It’s like a cow with deer’s head, rabbit’s ear, and monkey hands,” the bioweapon influencer Scarlett had dramatically announced these confusing features of the virus to Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson and his millions of listeners. A very false abstraction, sure, but with a kernel of truth. SARS-CoV-2 was a genetic chimera, as best scientists could tell. Its genome was made up of separate parts, like a mosaic. As the pandemic went into full swing, multiple man-made theories of varied quality were advanced on how SARS-CoV-2—and its odd genome—possibly came to be. From bioweapon development to gain-of-function research, construction from Shi Zhengli’s RaTG13 bat virus or de-novo genetic engineering to the alleged introduction of HIV sequences, from serial passage through human cells or “humanized” mice to arcane vaccine experiments, many asserted that some type of human manipulation was necessary to explain how this dangerous patchwork virus of high and low sequence similarities to other coronaviruses came about. The virus simply looked stitched together. Some of these early Frankenstein virus narratives still resonate today in public discourse and the halls of Congress. What unholy forces shaped SARS-CoV-2 into the pandemic pathogen that plagued the world? Was reckless gain-of-function research on its bat cousins indeed the culprit, or are Nicholson Baker’s “flask monsters” a mirage conjured up by fretful imagination? As the geopolitical stalemate provoked by elites ground the international search for the origin of the pandemic to a halt, investigative journalists in the US pursued a more human-centered agenda. Believing they were on the trail of something monstrous—a potential gain-of-function virus cover-up at the highest levels—they put “Big Virology” and its government funders under the microscope. Especially the NIH, the NIAID, and its head, Dr. Anthony Fauci, as well as Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, and their collaboration with WIV—all long marked as targets by conspiracy theorists and anti-science activists—would find their every word questioned, their emails, communications, documents, and records FOIA’d, leaked, demanded by Congress, or otherwise requested. Leading the charge among them was The Intercept, a news organization covering national security, government secrets, politics, and international affairs founded by journalists that NSA (US National Security Agency) whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked his documents to. Distrustful of the government, The Intercept released documents of a 2014 research grant named “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence” in early September 2021, claiming it provided evidence that the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance had funded dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan in the past. It was a dramatic allegation, given that Dr. Anthony Fauci had just had a heated exchange with Senator Rand Paul in Congress, who accused the head of NIAID of “financing gain-of-function research” in Wuhan. The Intercept reported that during this multi-year project, Peter Daszak and Shi Zhengli had worked to: Examine the risk of future coronavirus (CoV) emergence from wildlife using in-depth field investigations across the human-wildlife interface in China, molecular characterization of novel CoVs and host receptor binding domain genes, mathematical models of transmission and evolution, and in vitro and in vivo laboratory studies of host range. The

    1h 14m
  8. Chapter 6 - The vibe shift

    08/22/2025

    Chapter 6 - The vibe shift

    Note: This is a freely accessible serialized version of Lab Leak Fever. Audio voiceover was AI generated for accessibility. Find an overview of all chapters here or consult the book website for further information. Heavy breaths followed a claustrophobic chase around the hotel room. Peter Daszak was doing his workout run from the showers through the bedroom to the antechamber and back, again and again and again. The Chinese hosts in Wuhan had placed him in quarantine for two weeks, and the pressure, isolation, and restrictions were difficult to deal with at times. He was an outdoor person. Twice daily, a team in full hazmat gear would knock on his door to take his temperature. “It really makes you feel dirty. Contagious,” he remembered thinking. He was not the only one. Marion Koopmans was two rooms away. “It was amazing; they were so strict. I really thought, ‘Okay, this is how plague victims must have felt.’ You really felt like contaminated waste, almost.” She showed me photos she’d taken at the time. “It’s dystopia; they have made a plastic corridor for us.” Plastic sheeting completely covered the hallway from top to bottom. They were sampled as per instructions: 5-second swabs and not a millisecond less. Everyone was suited up except them. Warning signs and restriction bands were everywhere. China had been COVID-free for months. She just hoped she would not get a fever from anything else because it was not clear what would happen if she did. And yet, they, along with eight other international experts, were finally there, where it all happened. “We had been asked before to be quiet about where we would go before,” she laughed, “then we landed in China and had an escort everywhere and a charade of media following us.” Peter Daszak and Marion Koopmans were two obvious scientists to reach out to when the WHO was assembling a mission to Wuhan in January 2021. Peter, the British zoologist, and head of the non-profit EcoHealth Alliance, had worked for decades on understanding viral spillover from bats, identified the origin of SARS with Shi Zhengli from WIV, and worked together with various emergent disease collaborators all over the world. He would be on the WHO’s animal and environment working group, trying to make sense of what happened at the Huanan market. I did not particularly want to serve. It irritated me. My big grant was canceled by Trump, and we went through months and months of misery. And I thought, “Why the hell should I help WHO? Doing the work that we should be doing for them?” That just seemed cruel, and then I am asked to volunteer for them? On the phone, he told Peter Karim Ben Embarek, who had assembled the mission, that he didn’t want to do it. On top of that, his participation would invite terrible political attacks on the WHO. Embarek just replied, “What’s new?” The WHO has been under attack on a daily basis; he naively believed it wouldn’t matter. Then, the WHO mission chief reiterated the enormous significance this work would have for the world. After some back and forth, Peter said that he would be available to the group, but he did not want to do fieldwork. “Ben said okay, but he did not take this as an answer; he kind of treated me like I was on the team.” Peter shrugged at how he ended up on the mission. The WHO team knew what they were doing and why they wanted him. “They wanted access to Chinese scientists, not just [because of] the lab issue, but because George Gao and the Wuhan Institute of Virology were investigating the outbreak… so the WHO needed somebody close to them.” Reports suggested that Beijing had indicated he would be a good person to have on the team. As best I can tell from Embarek’s comments, the suggestion came from Shi Zhengli herself. “It’s obvious if you got a researcher who you’ve been working with for 20 years who has not ripped you off, who had been honest with them,” Peter explained the likely rationale. It is worth retelling how Peter came to be on the WHO team because many conspiracy theorists claim that he inserted himself purposefully to aid in a possible cover-up. His email records with Ben Embarek tell a much different story: one of hesitation and duty. Until October, he still did not want to go to Wuhan. It was only on our first call when I saw the list that I had to begin to consider it. Fabian Leendertz was there, and a bunch of other people I had heard about. It was a very impressive team. Marion Koopmans was there too, and she is fantastic. After that first video call, he decided to commit to the mission. In the end, you just get carried over by the feeling of duty. This is what a scientist is supposed to do. If the outbreak of a global pandemic happens to be from a virus family you have been working on for years in the place you have been working, probably from the animals you have been working with, of course you should be sitting on that committee, trying to do everything you can. The Dutch virologist Marion Koopmans, who was scanning me with a gazing look behind sharp spectacles and white, spiky hair as she listened in on our conversation, agreed with that sentiment. She has investigated countless outbreaks in her career. She had started with noroviruses, hepatitis A virus, bird flu, and arboviruses. During the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, she was responsible for the deployment of mobile laboratories in Liberia and Sierra Leone. One would be hard-pressed to find anyone more knowledgeable and experienced to study novel outbreaks. She was very quick and to the point. “Every virus, and with it every outbreak, is different,” she explained. However, “with every spillover, you have a couple of key questions.” Hospital records, patient samples, and molecular and sampling data tend to be spread out over multiple locations, times, and people. Her job was to make sense of it. For her, the WHO reaching out and wanting her on the team was “the honor of a lifetime.” She did not hesitate to say yes. “I was leading the molecular epidemiology interaction. That collaboration actually was nice." She lauded her team and the Chinese collaborators. They basically had to figure out, from all the available data, which person, which genomic sequence, and what time. Putting that puzzle into place was challenging. The team made recommendations for analysis, and the Chinese side actually had scientists performing the work in real-time. “I think this group was maybe the least political because what you could do with genomics was not clear yet,” she laughed wholeheartedly. Indeed, the early epidemiologically linked sequences her team helped to establish and verify would hold incredibly important clues to the virus’s origin. She was not a fan of the simple narrative that took hold that the Chinese were not sharing data with them. “Yes, there can be more transparency, but look at all that was shared.” She continued, “It was remarkable. There were no agreements in place. If somebody came to us and said, ‘Give us all your hospital and patient data,’ there is no way this would work.” Yet, as she says, the Chinese scientists tried hard to make much of it work. That does not mean everything went smoothly, either. The WHO mission had two delegations: one of international scientists and one of Chinese scientists. The latter was constantly monitored and assisted by members of State Security, Foreign Affairs, and translators. “It was clear it is going to be this China-style process—you have these meetings where there is the director’s director, the director, the subdirector, and blah-blah—and everybody has to say something, and only then can you get to business.” Marion rolled her eyes. Working day and night analyzing data and being on group calls and meetings while in quarantine had been a strain, but their schedule afterward would not be much easier. The first two days out of quarantine, January 29th and 30th, they visited the Xinhua Hospital to interview doctors and staff and learn about patients. There was the obligatory political visit to the “Anti-Epidemic Exhibition Hall,” a memorial to the “heroic” actions of Chinese authorities in defeating the virus in Wuhan. Like in my interview with George Gao from the Chinese CDC, their Chinese hosts felt it was incredibly important to stress to foreigners how well they handled the outbreak. Peter Daszak showed me some footage he shot with his phone, and it was every bit as red communist propaganda as one might imagine. Life-size statues of doctors in various poses, heroic background music, and testimonies running on screens about the greatness of the leaders winning the war against the virus. Not exactly subtle. However, he still found it to be “really moving.” That was the point. The Chinese authorities wanted to convince the WHO mission, as well as the world, of a different perspective on the outbreak. Not of failure, blame, and death, but of heroic strife, folk bravery, and overcoming the odds. China had been COVID-free for many months, while the US and other countries were suffocated by the virus. Doesn’t that show Chinese superiority? Any hubris that they might have signaled fell short of reality when the WHO team arrived at the next stop. On January 31, 2021, more than a year after the outbreak emerged from there, the WHO mission finally visited the Huanan seafood market. “You walk into a dark hall; it is smelly. It still had white patches of disinfectant powder. It was eerie, like ground zero.” Marion Koopmans lent me her eyes for this visit. She found it really impressive to be there. “There were these assumptions that, oh, this was a very modern market… This idea went out the window fast,” she elaborated. “This was a wet market like any other I have ever been to,” Peter Daszak concurred. It had a mix of seafood, vegetables, restaurants, and live animals, all “stacked on top of each ot

    1h 30m

About

Welcome to Science Counterpunch, a short, punchy brand for a YouTube‑first podcast that combines hard evidence, frontline scientist testimony, and rapid rebuttal clips to expose anti‑science influencers and actors while centering science and experts who’ve been targeted. www.protagonist-science.com