Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab, but feared debate could hurt
&gt;<i>&quot;Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”.&quot;</i><p>&gt;<i>&quot;He added: “I think the only people with sufficient information or access to samples to address it would be the teams working in Wuhan.”&quot;</i><p>This pair of quotes has a completely different meaning from the original quote it sliced up:<p>&gt;<i>&quot;I am also agnostic on this – I do not have any experience of laboratory virology and don’t know what is likely or not in that context. From a (natural) evolutionary point of view the only thing here that strikes me as unusual is the furin cleavage site. It strongly suggests to me that we are missing something important in the origin of the virus. My inclination would be that it is a missing host species in which this feature arose because it was selected for in that host. We can see this insertion has resulted in an extremely fit virus in humans – we can also deduce that it is not optimal for transmission in bat species.&quot;</i><p>&gt;<i>&quot;...</i> [this ellipsis (...) is from the house.gov transcription] <i>The biggest hinderance at the moment (for this and more generally) is the lack of data and information. There have been no genome sequences from Wuhan for cases more recent than the 6 beginning of January and reports, but no information, about virus from non-human animals in Wuhan. If the evolutionary origins of the epidemic were to be discussed, I think the only people with sufficient information or access to samples to address it would be the teams working in Wuhan.&quot;</i><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;republicans-oversight.house.gov&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2022&#x2F;01&#x2F;Letter-Re.-Feb-1-Emails-011122.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;republicans-oversight.house.gov&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2...</a> (pp. 8-9)<p>To emphasize the very last part: Rambaut is talking about <i>genome sequences from human patients in Wuhan</i> -- not laboratory data from the suspect WIV. But the <i>Telegraph</i> quote implies the opposite.<p>(Also, obviously I&#x27;m not picking any &quot;side&quot; here: dishonesty in the <i>Telegraph</i> doesn&#x27;t vindicate dishonesty in NIH leadership, and vice-versa).