Muh Muh Muh My Corona (virus)

The World Health Organization? Unfortunately, I don't think you're kidding.

I get that this has devolved into a "Everything is Trump's fault" thread, even things Trump had zero to do with. But you are ignoring what actually happened.

China let the World Health Organization in. ... precious months after they needed to be in there to have any chance at discovering the virus' origins. The World Health Organization was feckless in dealing with the Chinese. When their visit happened, they were led around by their noses. The visit was highly monitored by the Chinese who controlled everything they saw and withheld nearly all pertinent information. It was part of an effort by the Chinese government to stymie every domestic and international effort to trace the origin of the virus from the very beginning. They closed labs, forced foreign scientists out and barred Chinese researchers from talking or leaving the country. WHO got a total of 3 hours in the lab in Wuhan, and everything about their visit was chaparoned and controlled. It was very predictable and should have ended with a nothingburger.

Unfortunately, the World Health Organization cowtowed to the Chinese (because every UN run organization either ends with a corrupt outcome or bad actors from around the world making sure something Kafkaesque comes out of it) and its commission wrote an absolute farce of a report that provided a bunch of conclusions thad had the imprimatur of the World Health Organization behind it, including dismissing a possible lab leak as "highly unlikely," without them having done anything to investigate a possible lab leak and them providing no evidence backing anything in their report -- zoonatic jump OR lab leak.

The World Health Organization not only didn't (and still hasn't) provided any answers, it's been dangerous because it has spread misinformation and was willing to act as the propaganda arm of the Chinese government.

Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is so disputed

A team of WHO-appointed scientists flew to Wuhan in early 2021 on a mission to investigate the source of the pandemic. After spending 12 days there, which included a visit to the laboratory, the team concluded the lab-leak theory was "extremely unlikely".

Dr Peter Daszak: "Our focus needs to shift to those supply chains to the (Huanan Seafood) Market"

But many have since questioned their findings.

A prominent group of scientists criticised the WHO report for not taking the lab-leak theory seriously enough - it was dismissed in a few pages of a several-hundred-page report.

"We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data," the scientists wrote in Science Magazine.

They're not the only experts who called for the laboratory leak to be looked at more closely.

Even the WHO's own director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, called for a new investigation, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study."

And Dr Fauci said in 2021 he was "not convinced" the virus originated naturally. That was a shift from a year earlier, when he thought it most likely Covid had spread from animals to humans.

As an aside, that is Peter Daszak, who was behind that letter in the Lancet and has made it an evangelical mission to shout down any questions about the lab, as opposed to a natural origin for the virus.

This is the Science Magazine article that story references:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj0016

In May 2020, the World Health Assembly requested that the World Health Organization (WHO) director-general work closely with partners to determine the origins of SARS-CoV-2 (2). In November, the Terms of Reference for a China–WHO joint study were released (3). The information, data, and samples for the study's first phase were collected and summarized by the Chinese half of the team; the rest of the team built on this analysis. Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the team assessed a zoonotic spillover from an intermediate host as “likely to very likely,” and a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely” [(4), p. 9]. Furthermore, the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident (4). Notably, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus commented that the report's consideration of evidence supporting a laboratory accident was insufficient and offered to provide additional resources to fully evaluate the possibility (5).