'Why is the Lab Leak Theory Still Getting Attention?'
Expert™ Jörn Klein opines totally tone-deaf and without recognition that he still pushed the vaxx in Oct. 2024 that proponents of the lab leak hypothesis are 'unscientific'
Another day, more nonsense—this time, we’ll revisit the Covid shenangans once more, courtesy of Expert™ and Epidemiologist™ Jörn Klein whom we’ve met before wearing what looks like his speedo in an empty lecture hall to avoid catching Covid. Or whatever. Perhaps he likes the taste and smell of his speedo.
Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine.
Why is the Lab Leak Theory Still Getting Attention?
It is a worrying development when the distinction between professional judgement, personal conviction and political agenda becomes blurred.
By Jörn Klein, via Khrono.no, 20 June 2025 [source; archived]
Five years after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is still a great deal of public and scientific interest in the question of where SARS-CoV-2 really came from. When, where, and how the virus first infected people—and whether the pandemic could have been prevented—are questions that go beyond infection control and virology [i.e., beyond the competence of the author, Jörn Klein, who is a professor of ‘microbiology, epidemiology, and infectious disease control’ (faculty profile): that irony is, of course, lost on him].
The questions are also about trust in authorities and science, and about the need to understand how the crisis arose [would that still qualify as cognitive dissonance or are we talking about bipolar disorders?].
Many people want a thorough and science-based review of the causes of the pandemic [yep, I do]. However, this process is complicated when speculation and assumptions are presented as established facts [like, you know, vaccine efficacy™ or the protective efforts™ of modRNA poison/death juices, which Jörn Klein pushed on young and healthy people as recently as autumn 2024]
Recent reports—such as previous assessments by German intelligence (Bundesnachrichtendienst, or BND) suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 may have been genetically modified in a Chinese laboratory—have generated new media attention without any empirical data being presented for scientific assessment [that would be quite a thing: have a peer review for intel shit? I mean, imagine how the Iraq aggression—or the Gaza shitshow, for that matter—would have been considered: I’d like to volunteer for that kind of side-hustle, fellers].
Suggesting genetic manipulation without data available for independent analysis moves us away from science and into speculation [well, I suppose the good professor is unaware of, say, this piece in the MIT Tech Review from 2021, which considers how ‘China emulated US techniques to construct novel coronaviruses in unsafe conditions’—here’s how that works™ in the minds of academics: if they don’t read it, they can’t know it, hence there’s no evidence for contrary or other claims (my position is: absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence)]. Scientific facts require open, verifiable observations, and solid evidence—something that is lacking in claims based on confidential intelligence reports [fair enough, but the same should be true for asserting, say, what Jörn Klein stated on 5 Oct. 2024: ‘everyone should consider whether there is a need for a booster dose.’ (for the record: I did, and I concluded there’s no need for a booster; not medical advice) I note that the original Norwegian term used is ‘meiner’, which translates into ‘opine’, i.e., it’s a point of view, not a scientific fact (if such a thing can exist)].
Nevertheless, such reports are gaining significant traction, giving renewed support to those who have long championed the laboratory leak hypothesis.
This reinforces a worrying trend where the line between professional judgement, personal belief, and political agenda is being blurred [no such things can, of course, occur in the eternally spotless minds of the likes of prof. Klein]
Suggesting genetic manipulation without available data for independent analysis moves us away from science and into speculation [for a thought experiment, substitute ‘vaccine efficacy’ for ‘genetic manipulation’—there: I fixed this for you].
A recent article in Khrono shows how questions about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 continue to spark public debate—also in Norway. It mentions Professor Kristian Andersen, known for early research supporting a zoonotic explanation for the pandemic, and his possible transfer to a Norwegian university [if you’re interested in this one, I’ll translate it: there are many experts™ here in Norway who would love to have prof. Andersen join the faculty at UiO].
The reactions to this have highlighted how research-based assessments can still be met with suspicion and strong normative interpretations, especially when they challenge existing narratives. It also emphasises the need to uphold scientific principles such as transparency, verifiability, and a clear distinction between empirical evidence and political guidelines [again, projection is thy name].
Another illustrative example is the story of Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan. In 2020, she was brought to the US and supported by political actors—including former Trump advisor Steve Bannon—to publicly promote an undocumented laboratory origin claim. Such politically staged ‘research’ helped give the lab-leak narrative media coverage, despite its total lack of scientific credibility [that link leads to the NYT, which is, of course, the paragon of virtue in terms of journalistic standards (archived link)].
In an article in Forskerforum, Professor Tor Hernes has highlighted how the credibility of research is weakened when the distinction between what we know, believe and think is not maintained—a point that is particularly relevant in this debate. Scientific methodology requires empirical data and verifiability. Beliefs and opinions can be important driving forces in hypothesis formation, but must be kept separate from what we can actually document [once again: here’s what public health officialdom said about boosters last October:
Taking another booster is contrary to the recommendations of health authorities.
And here’s what prof. Klein told state broadcaster NRK in response:
The Institute of Public Health’s recommendations are not the final answer to who should receive the booster vaccine. Young and healthy people should also consider taking the coronavirus vaccine.
I rest my case on the duplicity and, yes, spinelessness of Prof. Klein]
When this distinction is broken down, particularly by professionals or by people with a scientific background who have abandoned their professional principles, the role of research as a reliable source of knowledge is undermined—and the public’s understanding of complex issues is weakened [imagine prof. Klein’s chutzpah, though, for he clearly must either think he’s done everything 112% right—or have some bipolar or other mental disorder that provides him from understanding what he says].
To preserve the integrity of research, we must:
Clearly distinguish between what we know (documented knowledge), believe (assumptions without adequate evidence) and thought (personal opinions),
Communicate uncertainty and limitations openly,
Avoid simplifying scientific questions to fit ideological narratives.
The debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still dominated by two explanatory models. The first is the zoonotic hypothesis, that is, the virus originated naturally in bats and spread to humans via an intermediate host. This explanation is still supported by the majority of the international scientific community.
The second hypothesis is that the virus originated in a laboratory—either as a result of genetic manipulation and an accident, or by a hitherto unknown virus variant infecting researchers during fieldwork or laboratory work, thus spreading further in society.
Data to support the hypothesis of a zoonotic origin would be, for example, identifying viruses in an animal that may have been an intermediate host - or finding a coronavirus in bats with very high genetic similarity to SARS-CoV-2.
Similarly, the lab-leak hypothesis would be supported by scientific data showing that the virus was present in a laboratory before the outbreak, or by documentation of infection among lab employees [or, say, the papers co-authored by Ralph Baric, e.g., this one from 2012, and Shi Zhengli, e.g., this one from 2019 (via Pubmed)].
None of the hypotheses have been sufficiently documented so far, but the available evidence still weighs heavily in favour of zoonotic infection [no need to provide any evidence, but, hey, it’s o.k., the Science™ has spoken].
Several early studies—including analyses led by evolutionary biologist Michael Worobey—pointed to the Huanan wet market in Wuhan as a possible starting point for the pandemic. Live wild animals were being sold there, and such wet markets are known to act as arenas for zoonotic virus transmission [once again, correlation is presented as causation; jus’ sayin’].
In fact, the first SARS outbreak in 2003 was traced back to such a market in China, where the SARS-CoV-1 coronavirus spread from animals to humans [as a thought experiment, let’s consider the fact that, say, the US gov’t lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 19641—and let’s not trouble ourselves with the fact™ that no such lying by the US gov’t has occurred since2, right? Right..
Although no live animal samples were collected during the outbreak [that should qualify as ‘absence of evidence’ in terms of data supporting (sic) the wet market emergence hypothesis], viral sequences have been detected in environmental samples from the market—including in cages used for raccoon dogs, a species known to carry SARS-CoV-2. Recently published analyses (2023) of this raw data—conducted by a team led by virologist Angela Rasmussen—also found genetic traces of raccoon dogs in several virus-positive samples. This strengthens the link between the sale of wild animals and the origin of the virus [ahem: nope, it doesn’t: the above-linked piece, entitled, ‘Genetic tracing of market wildlife and viruses at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic’, appeared on 19 Sept. 2024 (it was coauthored, among others, by Kristian Anderson and Michael Worobey—it’s a small world, eh?) and includes the following line:
We analyze the data from the market generated and shared by Liu et al.25
I have now read both that 2023 paper and looked at Liu et al., ‘Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan Seafood Market’, which appeared in Nature in July 2024, and its abstract opens in the following way:
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019, emerged in December 2019. Its origins remain uncertain.
You be the judge about the claims advanced by prof. Klein (I already formed my opinion)]
The samples were originally collected by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control (CCDC) in January 2020 and were first made available in 2023 via the GISAID database [remember, unlike the US gov’t, the Chinese gov’t would, of course, never-ever (pinky promise) lie]. An international team of leading virologists (Worobey et al.) analysed the new [sic] material and found that two genetic virus lines—called A and B—circulated simultaneously during the initial phase of the pandemic.
This points to at least two independent transmissions from animals to humans, both associated with the Huanan market. Such findings—published in recognised journals such as Science—are considered among the strongest indications we have of a zoonotic origin for COVID-19 [see prof. Klein’s sleight-of-hand? He omits the ‘origins remain uncertain’ part and misdirects the readers’ attention towards the gatekeepers (‘published in recognised journals’) to create the illusion of scientific evidence—while, I think, the discursive obfuscation (‘indication’, orig. koblingen, as opposed to, say, ‘data-derived evidence’) gives away this spiel: if prof. Klein knew for sure, he would say so; stating such vague terms affords him future plausible deniability].
In addition, data from previous market research shows that at least 38 different animal species, many of which are protected, were sold at markets in Wuhan until the end of 2019. Although neither bats nor pangolins were found among these, many of the species were known carriers of coronavirus [once more, this is speculation deriving from correlation].
Proponents of the lab leak hypothesis have argued that the geographic concentration of early cases at Huanan market may be due to a super-spreader—perhaps a laboratory employee who unknowingly brought the virus there. However, this does not explain the presence of two virus lineages [wouldn’t that indicate, possibly, two or more different origins?], nor are there reports of similar clusters of infection near the Wuhan Institute of Virology or in the lab workers’ neighbourhoods.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that this particular market would be the scene of a random super spreader event: Wuhan has many other far more congested hubs—several of them closer to the WIV—where such a spread could have occurred instead.
Recent analyses [this is, once more, that above-discussed ‘recent research’ based on data by Liu et al.] confirm that the southwestern part of Huanan market, where live animals were sold, was a hotspot for virus concentration. Genetic traces in samples from the area point to possible intermediate hosts, as DNA from these animals was found together with the virus [let me cite from the paper:
This analysis provides the genetic basis for a shortlist of potential intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV-2 to prioritize for serological and viral sampling.
Translation from the academese: here’s where we should look further, but we can’t say for certain as of now].
At the same time, epidemiological research shows that natural spillover events occur far more often than previously thought, while true superspreader events are relatively rare.
The debate has also focussed on laboratory practices and so-called ‘gain-of-function’ research. Many media reports refer to such studies in alarmist terms, often without emphasising that these methods have been crucial to the development of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines, for example [perhaps we should re-consider vaccines, then? To expect such a sentiment from a vaccine developer, however, appears highly unlikely].
However, the scientific community is not uncritical [feeling a bit…unwell here, prof. Klein?]. For example, criticism has been levelled at Shi Zhengli’s research group at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, after they published a study on a new beta coronavirus from bats in Brazil in 2025. The study showed that the virus could bind to ACE2 receptors, but was criticised for being conducted under Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) instead of BSL-3. Key experts such as Ian Lipkin and Ralph Baric believed this posed an unnecessary risk [that’s the equivalent of a pot calling the kettle black].
At the same time, it is important to emphasise that the use of BSL-2 in itself is not proof of irresponsible practice or leakage—BSL-2 is routinely used to cultivate several potentially dangerous viruses [once more, correlation is inferred to suggest causative connections: what a shitshow]. However, it is widely recognised that there needs to be an ongoing, expert-led discussion about the safety levels required for different experiments [ah, dear proles, don’t meddle in things only experts™ can discuss].
Such assessments should be made by experts in the field, not by politicians or lawyers. At the same time, it is emphasised that monitoring of such viruses is necessary to reduce the risk of future pandemics.
There is still no scientific evidence to support a lab leak origin for SARS-CoV-2. Portraying this hypothesis as plausible without new evidence is often politically motivated rather than scientifically justified [that link leads to a recent book by Norwegian science communicator Sigrid Bratlie who came around and now endorses the lab leak; she’s been a media darling, which suggests a kind of diversion, or psy-op].
The uncritical spread of speculative information does great harm: it undermines trust in research, hampers the dissemination of knowledge, and research-based decision-making, and shifts attention away from the real risk factors for future pandemics—such as the destruction of nature and illegal animal trade.
As Professor Tor Hernes accurately warns: ‘When scientists and professionals themselves do not clarify the difference between knowledge, belief, and opinion, science can be undermined from within.’
In the face of complex questions such as the origin of the virus, we must therefore insist on intellectual honesty, clarity about uncertainty, and resistance to allowing scientific analysis to be reduced to political rhetoric [of, say, pushing modRNA poison/death juices in October 2024].
As the American historian John M. Barry aptly put it back in 2020: ‘When you mix science with politics, you get politics.’
If science is to continue to be a reliable source in society, we need to stick to what it actually is: a systematic path to knowledge, not a tool for battling opinions.
Bottom Lines
After this long, winding, and, above all, very disingenuous stream of consciousness, I have only one thing to say: shame on you, Jörn Klein.
You’ve been so wrong about the modRNA poison/death juices, it’s mind-boggling that you have the audacity to take the high road and drone on.
Here’s a bunch of receipts:
This is all so expectable and sad and stupid.
Shame on you, experts™ like Jörn Klein; if anyone still believes people like him, there’s nothing anyone can do for them.
What a shitshow.
This isn’t an opinion—but comes straight from the spook-infested repository of common knowledge, Wikipedia, whose Gulf of Tonkin incident entry reads:
In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former United States Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara, admitted that there was no attack on 4 August.[10] In 1995, McNamara met with former North Vietnamese Army[11] General Võ Nguyên Giáp to ask what happened on 4 August 1964. "Absolutely nothing", Giáp replied.[12] Giáp confirmed that the attack had been imaginary.[13] In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on 2 August, but that the incident of 4 August was based on bad naval intelligence and misrepresentations of North Vietnamese communications.[5] The official US government claim is that it was based mostly on erroneously interpreted communications intercepts.[14][15]
Same source (Wikipedia) on ‘Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations Security Council’, which occurred on 5 Feb. 2003, and I shall quote:
My second purpose today is ... to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction ... Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort ... to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction ... every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
Under the sub-header ‘further developments’, there is this gem:
In a 2005 interview, Powell stated that he did not lie because he did not know the information was false.[14]
‘There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn’t be relied upon, and they didn’t speak up. That devastated me.’
Here’s the final nail in this coffin, courtesy of George W. Bush:
'Why is the Lab Leak Theory Still Getting Attention?'
Because the whole world is run by augmented idiots and criminals and do whatever is necessary to protect the gargantuan virus lie. It's all about money, money, money and power, power, power. How could they demand their 500 (!) injections per life with toxic, deadly waste to transform everyone into a walking hard drive (Sabrina Wallace's term), although there is no virus at all?
Why does the the zoonotic spillover hypothesis still get attention?
WHO is still insisting, so:
https://open.substack.com/pub/merylnass/p/who-does-it-again-sars-2-came-from?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2ic4zu