The true origins of COVID-19: were we all misled?

Could this be the biggest scandal in history?

"This could be the biggest scandal of all time," states Norway's largest portal, VG. As the SARS-CoV-2 virus rapidly spread from Wuhan, China, in early 2020, the question of its origins became critical. The big question is how did it all start?

Former President Donald Trump labeled it the "Chinese virus," suggesting a lab origin, which led to the swift spread of the lab leak theory online. Yet, this theory was quickly dismissed.

In March 2020, top American scientists published in Nature stating that "COVID-19 was not created in a laboratory but is of natural origin." Similarly, in The Lancet, several scientists firmly rejected the lab leak theory, calling it a conspiracy.

Facebook soon began censoring content related to the theory, and major international media fact-checkers deemed it baseless.

Norway’s VG also dismissed the lab leak theory as a conspiracy.

Sigrid Bratlie stated that despite extensive research, no animal source of the virus has been identified. Instead, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, located just kilometers from the market, stored coronavirus strains and manipulated potentially more dangerous versions.

Sigrid Bratlie, a molecular biologist, initially shared the widespread belief in the virus's natural origin. But in early 2024, after encountering new information on X (former Twitter), she began to reconsider the lab leak theory, realizing it might not be as far-fetched as initially thought.

The COVID-19 origins mystery reaches the U.S. Congress

In 2024, the mystery surrounding COVID-19's origins reached the U.S. Congress. On winter evenings, Sigrid Bratlie found herself staying up late, closely following the hearings in the U.S. Congress.

"I spent six months diving into this. If I'm going to have an opinion, it needs to be well-supported by evidence."

She could hardly believe what she uncovered, feeling almost like a conspiracy theorist herself:

"I was constantly in shock and kept questioning, 'Can this really be true?' It all seemed too unbelievable. But as I delved deeper, I realized this might be the biggest scandal of all time."

Leaked internal communications shown to Congress have unveiled what might have occurred behind the scenes in 2020. The leading scientists who publicly asserted that the virus was of natural origin privately expressed doubts in their messages, indicating they believed it likely that COVID-19 originated in a Wuhan laboratory.

On February 1, 2020, one researcher admitted he couldn't stop thinking that a lab leak was "incredibly plausible." Several researchers privately expressed doubts about the virus's origins, suggesting it might have been artificially created.

That day, the researchers held a critical conference call involving high-ranking scientists responsible for funding. Although there’s no official record of the discussion, the next day, the scientists agreed to publicly support the natural origin theory, despite their private doubts. One scientist noted the unavoidable interference of politics in this decision. After publishing their conclusions in Nature, they continued to privately acknowledge that the lab leak possibility couldn't be ruled out.

Bratlie, delving into these revelations, noted the contradictions between the private beliefs of scientists and their public statements. She emphasized how serious it is when politics interferes with scientific truth.

"It’s now evident that US administration leaders influenced researchers to draw conclusions against their instincts," Bratlie states.

She elaborates, "This is very serious. The scientific community shaped a narrative that was echoed and amplified by the media."

In 2020, Bratlie initially dismissed the lab leak theory as mere conspiracy. However, by 2024, after deeper investigation, she noted, "As a molecular biologist, I see something peculiar about this virus. There's a distinct feature that no one can pinpoint its origin."

Peter Daszak, a key figure behind a Lancet petition dismissing the lab leak theory as a conspiracy, had close ties with the Wuhan laboratory. His research organization, EcoHealth Alliance, received U.S. government funding to conduct coronavirus research in Wuhan.

Sigrid Bratlie expressed concern, stating, "It’s clear that the United States’ reputation is significantly at risk if American taxpayers' money was used for research that might have contributed to the pandemic."

U.S. health authorities have now halted all funding to Daszak and his organization

U.S. health authorities believe the investigations carried out in Wuhan were irresponsible and that Daszak misled the authorities, though Daszak himself denies the accusations. Furthermore, it was revealed that David Morens, an advisor to Anthony Fauci, may have deleted documents and emails concerning the virus's origins and links to Daszak's organization.

Stig S. Frøland, professor emeritus at the University of Oslo, remarked, "This was such a calculated attempt at censorship that early in the pandemic, the idea of a lab leak was almost laughed off."

He noted, "It didn't take long for something to surface, but it was already known for some time. Yet, no one wanted to address it, even the Norwegian press, with few exceptions."

Frøland closely followed the hearings in the U.S. Congress too.

"There was an unprecedented campaign of deception to cover up the activities in Wuhan. Much of it was done in collaboration with prominent American scientists who had vested interests."

At the onset of the pandemic, Frøland cautioned against dismissing the lab leak theory.

"It’s shocking and indicative of the decline in the scientific community that so many researchers allowed themselves to be influenced and did not question the 'official' narrative of the virus's origin for such a long time."

In 2021, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (FHI) considered investigating the possibility of a lab leak but first sought to dismiss it.

FHI Director and Professor Preben Aavitsland stated to VG:

"It's disappointing that a small group of the world's leading virologists in early 2020 firmly declared that a lab leak was nearly impossible and then sought to control the public discourse on the matter."

"I decided to trust the world's leading scientists who outright rejected the lab leak theory. I no longer do that."

The professor added:

"And I regret that as a private individual, I sometimes dismissed the lab leak theory outright."

Beyond political maneuvering and secrecy, other aspects continue to baffle experts.

This summer, Sigrid Bratlie, a senior advisor at the Langsikt research center, published an overview of the lab leak theory, first discussed on the Abels Tårn radio show.

"It's most likely that COVID-19 escaped from a laboratory," Bratlie concluded.

According to Bratlie, the evidence points to a laboratory leak:

"There are numerous elements in this case that are best explained by a lab leak."

While several intriguing coincidences suggest a leak, they are not conclusive proof but rather questions, says Gunnveig Grødeland, professor at the Department of Immunology at the University of Oslo.

The U.S. State Department believes that three scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have contracted COVID-19 as early as November 2019. Investigators reported that they sought medical attention for symptoms similar to COVID-19. The lab's employees deny these claims and label them as absurd.

"The most pressing question is: Why did this virus emerge in a city known for conducting this type of virus research?"

Two studies suggest that the virus originated from a local food market, with many initial cases traced back to the area.

FHI's Aavitsland reviewed the study on the early infections in Wuhan, supposedly near the market, and remarked:

"The analysis is flawed. Why assume people get infected near where they live in a city of millions with an extensive metro system?"

However, immunologist Professor Anne Spurkland notes valid reasons to believe the virus came from this market.

Coronaviruses that have infected humans in recent decades have typically jumped from animals to humans. In other words, viruses of natural origin are the most common.

"Bats, in particular, are like a shopping mall for virus variants and potentially pose a significant threat to humans," Spurkland explains.

Long-distance transport of wild animals to the Wuhan market raises questions

Despite extensive studies on thousands of animals, the natural origin of the virus remains elusive.

"The most surprising thing is that we couldn't identify a single animal as the source of the infection," says Sigrid Bratlie.

Meanwhile, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, located just a few kilometers from the market, has stored coronaviruses for years, manipulating them into potentially more dangerous strains.

The lab claims it could not have been the pandemic's source, asserting that none of its employees were infected.

However, the U.S. State Department suggests that three Wuhan scientists may have contracted COVID-19 as early as November 2019. While these employees deny the claims, Bratlie comments:

"It wouldn’t be surprising if workers contracted the virus inside the lab."

Bratlie further explains that accidental contamination in the lab is not far-fetched, given the underestimated risks of the gain-of-function experiments conducted there. These experiments, intended to make viruses more infectious and dangerous to humans, were performed at lower safety levels to cut costs.

Espen Nakstad suggests lab leak and natural virus spread are equally plausible

Espen Nakstad, a spokesperson for Norway's Directorate of Health, believes that both a lab leak and the natural spread of the virus are equally likely: "We know accidents can happen in labs anywhere, so it wouldn’t be surprising if it occurred here."

In 2020, molecular biologist Sigrid Bratlie dismissed the lab leak theory as a conspiracy, but by 2024, she had reconsidered. After examining the virus's structure, she identified a mysterious genetic element, the furin cleavage site (FCS), which she described as a "button" that helps the virus penetrate human cells.

"Covid-19 is similar to many other viruses, but no other coronavirus has this 'button,'" Bratlie notes, adding that its insertion appears unusually clean. While some scientists believe the FCS could have evolved naturally, others, including the U.S. Department of Energy and the FBI, concluded it was likely manipulated in a lab.

Bratlie highlights that the pandemic's timing coincides with research plans at the Wuhan Institute, where EcoHealth Alliance proposed inserting FCS into the S protein gene of bat SARS coronavirus in 2018. Though the application was denied, she points out that the first COVID-19 cases in Wuhan emerged a year later, raising suspicions given the virus's unique characteristics matching those described in the research proposal.

WHO's limited access to the Wuhan lab leaves questions unanswered

When the World Health Organization (WHO) inspected the Wuhan Institute of Virology twice, opinions varied on the outcome. In 2021, the WHO initially deemed the lab-leak hypothesis "highly unlikely," but by 2023, Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus acknowledged that all origins were still under investigation, calling the situation a "geopolitical football."

Professor Gunnveig Grødeland criticized the lack of evidence provided to WHO researchers, suggesting they received minimal information from China. Despite the inspections, China has denied further access, claiming sufficient information was already provided.

Experts remain divided on the virus's origin. Grødeland hesitates to express her suspicions, emphasizing the need for countries to freely share information without fear of repercussions. Most scientists agree that while definitive conclusions cannot be drawn, the numerous coincidences surrounding the virus's emergence are peculiar.

Norway's FHI representative, Preben Aavitsland, sees merit in arguments on both sides but admits he is not equipped to judge. He has lost confidence in the experts he trusted in 2020, noting that the ongoing debate is essential. While much of the crucial information is in China, he hopes the truth will eventually be uncovered.

Professor Stig Frøland leans toward the lab-leak theory, stating that many are beginning to realize this theory isn't as far-fetched as once believed.

However, Professor Anne Spurkland argues that animal transmission remains a strong possibility, citing the challenges of fully exploring every potential source in nature.

Sigrid Bratlie continues to follow the US Congressional hearings and the emerging evidence. While she hasn't drawn definitive conclusions, she now leans heavily toward a lab leak theory, estimating its likelihood at around 80-90%. Despite her conviction, she acknowledges that conclusive evidence lies out of reach in a Wuhan freezer.

Bratlie emphasizes the importance of protecting the scientific system and addressing any abuses that have occurred. She advocates for a thorough, open, and independent investigation led by Norwegian authorities, stressing that understanding the true origins of COVID-19 is crucial for preventing future pandemics.