I would believe Steve Bannon before the DailyBeast.
Regardless of WHO is behind the study, the argument is SCIENTIFIC and should stay that way.
Here is the counter argument:
Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, told The Daily Beast of the study that Basically, it’s all circumstantial and some of it is entirely fictional.
The paper leads with a claim that the coronavirus’ genes are “suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories” in China—an assertion Rasmussen says shouldn’t be surprising because “they are related SARS-like coronaviruses.”
The study’s authors made a similar claim about a portion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—which viruses use to breach and infect cells—and wrote that it’s similar to the original SARS virus in a “suspicious manner” and suggests genetic manipulation. “SARS-CoV also used ACE2 as a cellular receptor, as do other SARS-like bat coronaviruses,” Rasmussen says. “It is not suspicious and is in fact expected that the receptor binding domains that bind the same protein would be similar.”
Rasmussen also said that the paper misrepresented basic facts about another part of coronavirus spike proteins known as furin cleavage sites. The authors claim that SARS-CoV-2’s cleavage site is “unique” and unseen elsewhere in nature. But according to Rasmussen, “Furin cleavage sites occur naturally in many other beta-CoVs, including MERS-CoV and other SARS-like bat coronaviruses.”
THOSE COUNTER ARGUMENTS ARE SCIENTIFIC AND NEED TO BE REFUTED — SCIENTIFICALLY.
What a troubling, absolutely Bullsh*t article. 1)They never said how the “Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law Foundation” were responsible for this study. So, they just threw it in, and tried to connect dots that were not there. I want to know who sponsors “The Daily Beast” reporters. 2) why are her facts not worth investigating? The left dismisses them as ‘conspiracy theory backed by criminal Bannon’ without even checking to see if there is a shred of truth in them. Is it worthy of being checked out, or not? If no, why not?
All existing scientific literature, from the same community that brought us man made global warming, i.e., climate change, is calling this suspicion bogus?
Sure, I'll gladly fall in step with the scientific "consensus." /s