Sometimes, answers are more clear when questions are more clear.
“Why is the US waiting to secure a convincing case that produces useful diplomatic leverage instead of indulging public speculation by making an early call that wastes the opportunity?”
There’s a lot to lose by making a case that other nations can dismiss, and a lot to gain by having a case that they can’t. If there was a culpable lab leak, the game comes down to China making it easy for its partners to plausibly deny while others try to collect thorough enough evidence that they can’t. The tidbits that feed conspiracy circles might be 100% right and very convincing to individuals, but are too thin to put world leaders on the spot. For now.
It received special permission to continue despite a prohibition on gain-of-function research (Refer to the section: Biosafety and Security).[0]
Quoting:
Here we examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations1. Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system2, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.
And from the footnote describing author contributions:
[SHI Zhengli] provided SHC014 spike sequences and plasmids
As everyone knows by now, Shi is the director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[1]
It's pretty clear that Shi subsequently continued that gain-of-function work at Wuhan.
My question is, what is the correlation between the spike sequence Shi supplied for the 2015 paper and that of the early variants of SARS-CoV-2?
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Zhengli
There is also a 2013 paper, written by Peter Dazak and Shi Zhengli, "Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor".[2] Peter Daszak has been centrally involved in the US funding of the Wuhan Institute, in his capacity as president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York.[3]
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24172901/
[3] https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-th...
If it was a lab leak from Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), it was likely from a research program partially funded by USA.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-...
"a zoologist named Peter Daszak, who has repackaged U.S. government grants and allocated them to facilities conducting gain-of-function research—among them the WIV itself."
But yes, there's no indication that the US is trying to cover anything up. And China is secretive about all sorts of things, they're an authoritarian government.
Some of the leading voices in opposition to the lab leak hypothesis such as Peter Daszak had close academic connections (collaboration, grants etc.) with the BSL4 lab in Wuhan.
If your intention is to motivate Americans away from Chinese products, what better way to do it then to use a scary virus that seemed to emerge from China to that end.
I'm speculating of course but if you think about it, can you imagine him sitting patiently reading documents first thing in the morning? He would get bored so quickly he would end up on twitter to complain or gloat.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecuri...
The money for WIV risky reasearch mostly came from the USA.
-- famous politician, responding to a question on a different issue