On May 14 this year, 18 top scientists from the United States, Canada and Europe jointly sent a letter to “Science” magazine, calling for more research and investigation on the theory of “laboratory leakage”.
The open letter stated that the new crown pneumonia epidemic may still be the result of “accidental laboratory leaks.” “Before we have enough data, we must take seriously the assumptions about natural origin and laboratory leaks.”
At that time, this statement was refuted by many scientists. They have pointed out that, in fact, there has been a lot of evidence that the new coronavirus is a virus of natural origin. Professor David Robertson of the Virus Research Center at the University of Glasgow in the UK directly scolded, “Don’t link the new coronavirus with the Wuhan Institute of Virology anymore.”
Unexpectedly, not long after the publication of this much-criticized open letter, the scientists who had signed the co-signed began to “slap their own faces” one after another–
“I may be naive. I didn’t expect this letter to be used to promote the’lab leak’ conspiracy theory,” said Pamela Bjorkman, a professor of biology at the California Institute of Technology who signed the open letter, regretting it.
Pamela Bjorkman.California Institute of Technology official website picture
It is reported that Bjorkman has been engaged in research on how the immune system responds to virus invasion for a long time, and will focus on research related to the new coronavirus after the outbreak of the new crown pneumonia. Recently, she deliberately clarified her intentions publicly.
Relevant clarification letter. “Virus of the Week” Picture
Bjorkman said in the clarification letter that the reason why she signed the open letter was because she originally thought that the open letter could help raise more funds for finding the host of the new crown virus, but she never expected such a result.
“I should have been more proactive-either I didn’t sign this letter at all, or asked for more wording changes to show my position.” She reflected. The issue of the traceability of the new crown virus was politicized, which made her “feel regretful.”
Bjorkman is not the only scientist who “suddenly turned back” and expressed regret for signing the aforementioned joint letter.
According to US media reports, the well-known American evolutionary biologist and director of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona, Michael Vorobbie, who signed the joint letter previously, said in an interview that a recently published analysis of early infections and Other relevant data indicate that the new coronavirus “is highly likely to spread to humans from other species.”
The well-known American evolutionary biologist Michael Worobbie.University of Arizona official website picture
Vorobby explained that his previous signature on the joint letter of “Science” was a “very risky act”. His original intention was to give researchers some “cover” and continue to explore every possible reasonable explanation. ——No matter how the new crown pneumonia epidemic started, no matter how impossible or unpopular the conclusion is.
“I always think that the possibility of laboratory leaks is unlikely.” Vorobby admitted frankly that on July 23, he also posted multiple tweets on his Twitter to clarify the issue.
Vorobby sent clarification tweets.Screenshot from Twitter
Earlier, Vorobbie said in an interview that from the debate about whether masks and vaccines are useful to the investigation of the virus’s origin, the new crown epidemic has been completely politicized, and this current situation makes him feel frustrated.
Soon after the May joint letter was published, the Biden administration announced that it would restart the investigation of the “laboratory leak theory,” which cast a shadow over the prospect of unconstrained scientific cooperation between China and the United States.
Obviously someone was directing this joint signature behind the scenes, using scientific experiment funds to attract scientists to the joint signature. They unknowingly participated in a political action.
.
