Kerby Anderson

When do too many coincidences add up to something more than a coincidence? If your neighbor wins the state lottery, there is nothing too remarkable about that. After all, someone would probably win. If he won it again, you might start to think that was a remarkable coincidence. But if he won it a third time, you can be assured that the lottery commission would investigate the matter and not chalk it up to an incredible coincidence. Let’s take that logic to the revelation over a year ago when we heard that the virus began in Wuhan, China. We were asked to believe that it did not come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but probably came from the wet market or from some animal in the wild. What a remarkable coincidence that the virus arose from the same city that we now know was engaged in “gain of function” research. Why do we know that? The National Institute of Health issued a letter two weeks ago that discussed experiments done by EcoHealth Alliance at the Wuhan Institute that were testing if spike proteins in bat coronaviruses could bind “to the human ACE2 receptor on a mouse model.” But that was only one of several coincidences that you have to accept in order to believe the virus did not come from the Wuhan Institute. Jim Geraghty asks a good question: “How many coincidences does the natural spillover theory require?” He lists nearly three pages of coincidences you would have to believe. An expedition to caves in China collected bat viruses without protective gear. No naturally occurring virus identical to the COVID virus has been found in any bat or other animal. Scientists cannot find any evidence of natural spillover. You don’t need the deductive reasoning of a Sherlock Holmes to see that all these coincidences point to the obvious origin of the virus.