After the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the results of its investigation into the origin of the virus in China, an adviser to the WHO, Jamie Metzl, criticized its lack of transparency stating that the investigators basically did nothing more than receive data and instructions from agents of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Metzl said, “Well, the investigation itself was very short. It was two weeks of quarantine and two weeks of meetings, but the actual investigation was done by Chinese authorities. And so, the W.H.O. investigators were basically receiving reports from the Chinese officials.”

Metzl was frustrated with the attitude of his colleagues in looking at all the existing theories about where the first contagion might have occurred.

“And as I see it, the big failure is that they outlined four possible ways that COVID could have begun. One was a direct bat to humans. Second, bat through an animal intermediate host. Third, through shipping or some kind of frozen food from somewhere else. And four, the accidental lab leak,” Metzl said.

Metzl then added, “For more than a year, I’ve been one of the leading advocates saying we have to look very, very seriously at option four. But rather than saying, alright, let’s look more deeply at all of those possibilities, the WHO investigators said we should look at the first three, but not at the accidental lab leak. And I’m just miffed that this has happened and I think it’s really terrible.”

WHO investigation in China is like asking the fox about missing chickens

On the same day the leader of the WHO team in China, Peter Embarek, announced the results of the investigation, without mentioning that all the data of the so-called investigation was provided by CCP authorities, stubborn to shake off responsibility for the pandemic.

“Our initial findings suggest that the introduction through an intermediary host species is the most likely pathway and one that will require more studies and more specific, targeted research,” Embarek stated.

Embarek dismissed the strongest theory that the virus escaped from a laboratory, “However, the findings suggest that the laboratory incidents hypothesis is extremely unlikely to explain the introduction of the virus to the human population.”

Reviewing the four hypotheses

Two theories mentioned by Metzl, that the virus jumped from a bat to a human or from a bat to a host and then to a human, were intentionally propagated by Chinese authorities in order to cover up its true origin.

The first fatal case of CCP Virus in the famous wet market was recorded on Jan. 11, 2020. It is from here that the CCP attempted to blame the spread from animals to humans, with or without an intermediary.

However, according to Dr. Li-Meng Yan who fled Hong Kong to blow the whistle on the Chinese Communist regime’s pandemic cover-up, she saw samples of the coronavirus in December 2019.

Yan said China’s Center for Infectious Diseases already knew the virus could be transmitted between humans by then and that the wet market theory was a CCP “smoke screen.”

The other theory, that the virus “came from abroad” in frozen products, was another more recent attempt by the CCP to try to blame countries that recorded large numbers of infections and deaths including the United States and Italy.

In fact, a senior Chinese diplomat recently called for a WHO investigation into the origin of the virus in the United States. 

According to Chinese authorities, the same Wuhan wet market was selling frozen products where the virus could survive for long periods. However, the wet market, as its name suggests, was not selling frozen products but freshly caught animals.

The Wuhan laboratory theory

Mike Pompeo, former secretary of state pointed to the Wuhan high-security lab as the most plausible theory of all, due to the Chinese history of virus accidents.

“Accidental infections in labs have caused several previous virus outbreaks in China and elsewhere, including a 2004 SARS outbreak in Beijing,” Pompeo said in a statement.

Some virologists are leaning toward the theory of an artificially modified virus in a laboratory because originally natural coronaviruses in bats do not have the ability to infect humans, as their protein spikes cannot penetrate human cells.

The other option is a possible natural “evolution” of the virus that could have given the coronavirus the ability to infect humans, however no evidence is available to support this hypothesis.