[Ed. – As Timothy Carney says, media personalities who ridiculed Cotton owe him an apology. “Entered from a lab” doesn’t mean “was engineered as a bioweapon in a lab” – and Cotton never said it did. Leaving us the question: why were the media so determined to dismiss the obvious possibility that COVID-19 was spread to the human population by someone working with infected bats in a lab?]
When Republican Sen. Tom Cotton speculated that the coronavirus outbreak might have come out of a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan, he was roundly pilloried, mocked, and chastised by politicians and journalists.
But it turns out that Cotton might have been correct, and the very expert the media used to attack Cotton as some kind of conspiracy theorist now admits as much.
David Ignatius of the Washington Post … writes: “What’s increasingly clear is that the initial ‘origin story’ — the virus was spread by people who ate contaminated animals at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan — is shaky.”
Ignatius quoted the very same microbiologist, Richard Ebright, whom his colleague Firozi used to attack Cotton as a spreader of debunked conspiracy theories. Ebright had told Firozi, “There’s absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered” — which, of course, wasn’t what Cotton was charging.
Ebright told Ignatius, “The first human infection … could have occurred as a laboratory accident, with, for example, an accidental infection of a laboratory worker.”