Lab-Origin Denialists Are… Denying Lab Origin… Over, and Over, and Over, and Over…

They’re still at it. Welcome to Proximal Origins 3.0

They’re still at it.

Despite five years of escalating evidence, FOIA disclosures, high-profile reversals, and basic failures to meet the burden of proof, the architects of the natural-origin narrative have once again mounted the stage to insist—with renewed fervor—that SARS-CoV-2 could not possibly have emerged from a lab.

The latest entry in this long-running performance comes courtesy of The Conversation, where Edward Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Kristian Andersen, and Robert Garry—key authors of the discredited 2020 Proximal Origin paper—repeat their thesis under the headline: “How conspiracy theories about COVID’s origins are hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic.”

In truth, what is hampering preparedness is not skepticism, but institutionalized denialism, bolstered by conflicts of interest, selective data interpretation, and now, increasingly, the fallacy of argumentum ad repetere: the notion that repeating the same disinformation endlessly will somehow make it true.

Argumentum ad Repetere: Repetition Is Not Refutation

The core rhetorical engine of this latest article is repetition, not evidence. The authors assert, once again, that:

• The virus “most likely” emerged via zoonotic spillover.

• The Huanan Seafood Market was the epicenter.

• The genome shows no signs of engineering.

• Lab-origin theories are conspiratorial and dangerous.

This litany of claims has been recited verbatim since early 2020. What’s missing is new data, falsification of the lab-origin hypothesis, or acknowledgement of profound contradictions in their own timeline and communications.

This is textbook argumentum ad repetere: repeating a contested assertion so often, with such coordinated confidence, that the repetition itself is offered as proof. In logic, it’s a fallacy. In propaganda, it’s a method.

A Flimsy House of Assertions, Not Evidence

The authors claim their conclusions are built on “a substantial body of new evidence” found in the WHO’s latest “final” “independent” assessment from June 2025. But that evidence, when examined with crystal clarity, reveals its hollowness:

• Environmental Swabs at the Market: Viral RNA and animal DNA were not found in the same sample. There is no direct evidence of an infected animal host. The data are circumstantial, temporally disconnected, and post-outbreak.

• Geographic Clustering: The earliest known cases were geographically near the Huanan Market—but also near the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a BSL-4 lab conducting high-risk research on SARS-like coronaviruses. This observation is not diagnostic of origin, only of amplification. The wipes testing positive in the market were nearest the restrooms, not any particular stall.

• No Intermediate Host Identified: Despite five years and aggressive sampling, not one animal has been found with a virus closely matching SARS-CoV-2.

The authors ignore these failures. Instead, they invoke consistency of narrative as a stand-in for scientific rigor.

Selective Memory and FOIA Fallout

One of the more grotesque misrepresentations is their treatment of dissent. They write:

“A common conspiracy theory claims senior officials pressured us to promote the ‘preferred’ hypothesis … and we were rewarded with grant funding.”

But this is not a fringe theory—it is a matter of record. FOIA-released emails show:

• Andersen stating on Jan 31, 2020, that SARS-CoV-2 had features that “look engineered.”

• Fauci organizing a call on Feb 1, after which every participant reversed position publicly within days.

• The resulting Proximal Origin paper was co-drafted with NIH, Wellcome Trust, and EcoHealth actors—all implicated in funding or defending gain-of-function work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

To label scrutiny of this timeline “conspiratorial” is to engage in strategic amnesia—or worse, to knowingly propagate false exculpation.

Conflict of Interest: The Rot at the Root

The authors disclose financial ties as if doing so neutralizes the influence those ties exert. It doesn’t.

• Holmes: Consultancy fees from Pfizer and Moderna.

• Andersen: NIH, CDC, Gates Foundation, and advisory board seat at Invivyd, a biotech firm.

• Garry: Founder of Zalgen Labs, a company financially incentivized by zoonosis framing.

• Rambaut: Funded by Gates Foundation, major patron of EcoHealth and vaccine initiatives.

These are not trivial. They are direct conflicts that bias interpretation and undermine claims of objectivity. Yet the article makes no effort to firewall conclusions from these entanglements.

The Real Threat to Preparedness

The central thesis—that conspiracy theories are harming pandemic preparedness—is an inversion of reality.

What’s actually harming preparedness is the refusal to investigate laboratory origin scenarios with the same rigor and funding afforded to wildlife trade hypotheses.

• Biosafety reforms have been stalled for fear of political embarrassment.

• International treaty negotiations are being shaped without acknowledging the risk of dual-use research.

• Lab-origin scenario modeling has been actively suppressed in grantmaking circles.

The denialists say they’re defending science. In truth, they are defending their reputations, funding pipelines, and prior policy decisions.

Conclusion: The Refrain of Denial

Holmes, Rambaut, Andersen, and Garry are not producing new science. They are producing a rehearsed defense of the old narrative, cloaked in the language of consensus. Their insistence on zoonotic inevitability, despite gaps in evidence and deep entanglements, is no longer an exercise in epistemology—it is a demonstration of institutional inertia.

Their article is not just wrong—it is dangerous in its circularity.

• It offers no falsifiability.

• It dismisses documented evidence of coordination.

• It misrepresents dissent as misinformation.

• It relies on argumentum ad repetere: repetition as truth.

History will not look kindly on the architects of denial who, rather than course-correct in the face of contradictory evidence, doubled down—over, and over, and over, and over.

We see the repetition.
We reject the ritual.
And we will not stop asking the questions they fear.

What the June WHO Report Really Said – and What It Merely Suggested
(Via The SAGO Independent Assessment of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2, June 2025)

The World Health Organization’s Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) published its updated independent assessment of SARS-CoV-2’s origins on June 27, 2025. While much of the media coverage distilled its conclusions to a familiar refrain—"zoonosis most likely"—the actual content of the report is far more restrained, conditional, and methodologically circumspect. To parse its meaning correctly, we must distinguish between what the WHO report definitively said, and what it merely suggested through interpretive language, modeling, or conditional framing.

What the WHO Report Really Said (i.e., Direct Claims Based on Evidence or Admission of Limits)

1. The Origins Remain Inconclusive

“The origins of SARS-CoV-2 and how it entered the human population will remain inconclusive.” (p. 12)

Despite five years of global investigation, SAGO explicitly acknowledges that it is unable to conclude where, when, or how the virus first infected humans. There is no identification of an intermediate host, no directly infected animal, and no viral precursor close enough genetically to serve as a source.

2. No Evidence of Lab Origin – But No Access to Rule It Out

“It is not possible for SAGO to assess whether the first human infection(s) may have resulted due to a research-related event or breach in laboratory biosafety. It can therefore not be ruled out, nor can it be proven until more information is provided.” (p. 11–12)

This is categorical: SAGO received none of the documentation requested from Chinese authorities, including:

• Lab notebooks from coronavirus experiments,

• Health records of Wuhan lab personnel,

• Internal biosafety/biosecurity protocols,

• Inventory of viruses held at WIV or CDC Wuhan,

• Access to animals or records from upstream wildlife farms.

In effect, the WHO acknowledges it cannot perform a meaningful lab-origin investigation without this cooperation.

3. No Animal Has Been Identified as the Source

“Currently, evidence needed to confirm this [zoonotic] hypothesis is lacking…” (p. 11)

Despite testing over 32,000 animals across 18 Chinese provinces, zero samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Environmental samples from the Huanan Seafood Market (HSM) were virus-positive and co-located with animal DNA, but the swabs did not contain viral RNA and animal DNA in the same sample, and all were collected after market closure. This is insufficient to establish animal-to-human transmission.

4. Most Evidence Remains Indirect, Circumstantial, or Unverifiable

“SAGO did not have access to original raw data from any source in preparing this report.” (p. 9)

All conclusions are based on publicly available data, including:

• Peer-reviewed literature,

• Some preprints,

• Government summary reports (often without source data),

• Voluntary briefings by Chinese and international scientists.

This admission undermines any definitive claims and places the entire body of the report in a category of contingent review, not forensic investigation.

What the WHO Report Merely Suggested

(Interpretive framing, conjecture, or hypothesis support without evidentiary resolution)

1. Zoonosis Is the “Best Supported” Hypothesis

“Most available and accessible published scientific evidence supports hypothesis #1: zoonotic transmission from animals...” (p. 10)

This is not a finding. It is a weighted opinion based on the current public literature—much of it authored or influenced by individuals with documented conflicts of interest. Crucially, the report does not cite any evidence directly confirming a spillover. The phrase “best supported” refers to comparative plausibility within a constrained and incomplete dataset—not empirical confirmation.

2. Two Founding Lineages Suggest Multiple Spillovers

The report cites analyses (e.g., Pekar et al., 2022, 2025) proposing that the existence of Lineage A and Lineage B supports two zoonotic introductions. But this interpretation:

• Assumes natural evolution without examining lab passage possibilities,

• Ignores the possibility of serial passage in controlled conditions producing divergence,

• Recombination with other coronaviruses post-outbreak in humans, and

• Relies on modeling, not physical tracing of transmission chains.

Hence, the multiple-lineage argument is suggestive, not probative.

3. Environmental Contamination at HSM May Reflect Animal Infection

“These findings suggest that some animals, particularly raccoon dogs… were present at the market before its closure… though it cannot be concluded that the virus was introduced via these animals.” (p. 27)

This is a subtle rhetorical move: SAGO implies a zoonotic link while simultaneously admitting the evidence is circumstantial. There was no virus isolated from an animal, no infection demonstrated, and the DNA findings come from degraded environmental surfaces.

4. No Evidence of Deliberate Manipulation – But Based on Inference

SAGO claims the genome structure of SARS-CoV-2 is consistent with natural evolution. But this is an inference—not a determination based on review of primary lab records:

“No scientific evidence supports this [manipulation] hypothesis over evidence that these mutations and recombination events also occur in coronaviruses in nature.” (p. 10)

This is not equivalent to proof of natural origin—it is an assertion of non-differentiation in genome structure under high uncertainty. It lacks methodological access to lab source material that would be required to support or reject the reverse-genetics hypothesis conclusively.

What Is Conspicuously Missing

The SAGO report does not address the following:

• The Proximal Origin communications and the shaping of public messaging under NIH/NIAID coordination.

• The Furin cleavage site, its known lab insertion use, and its absence in close relatives.

• Data suppression by Chinese authorities from early 2020 after I first reported evidence of lab origin.

• NIH, USAID, or EcoHealth communications related to WIV collaboration or sample sharing.

• Potential serial passage experiments conducted at WIV in transgenic mice or other models, despite records suggesting such work.

These omissions are not accidental—they are beyond the scope of the report as allowed by access. But their exclusion renders any strong conclusion on origin categorically premature.

Conclusion: No Absolution, No Resolution

The 2025 SAGO report is a tempered restatement of the impasse reached years earlier. Its most honest section is its conclusion:

“The work to understand the origins of SARS-CoV-2 remains unfinished.” (p. 12)

This admission should be the headline—not the media-friendly spin about “best supported hypotheses.” There is no exoneration, no closure, and no progress in terms of new determinative evidence. The lab-origin hypothesis is not ruled out, and the zoonotic theory remains unconfirmed.

• What it really said: We don’t know.

• What it merely suggested: We’d still prefer to believe it was nature, not negligence.

And these distinctions matter.