Replies

Attkisson might have a little more credibility if she had one "scientist" on the record claiming this, but she doesn't. Some Chinese researchers say the mutations could have happened in mice and jumped to humans, but that's as close as she gets.

Everyone else she quotes is anonymous, which seems odd if they're making a legit scientific claim.

She cites a John Hopkins virologist, Andrew Pekosz.

“There was a large number of mutations in this variant—many more than we would expect from the normal evolution of this virus,” said virologist Andrew Pekosz, Professor of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Importantly, many mutations occurred in the spike protein—the protein the virus uses to bind to and enter cells—which is the target of the vaccine.”

She then cites a scientific paper by authors Changshuo Wei, Ke-Jia Shan, Weiguang Wang, Shuya Zhang, and Qing Huan.

Those are at the Atkisson.com link.

She cites a John Hopkins virologist, Andrew Pekosz.

Who says nothing about the virus being created in a lab.

He says "There was a large number of mutations in this variant—many more than we would expect from the normal evolution of this virus", which everyone knows, and he likely thinks it's due to the scenario that has been posited since the beginning of Omicron:

"Perhaps someone immune-compromised was infected, and active replication of the virus was maintained for a very long time."

She then cites a scientific paper...

And that paper acknowledges the most popular hypothesis is the one mentioned above - that Omicron developed in an immuno-compromised person. They then go on to speculate about it having arisen in mice, and in fact speculate that mice have long been an alternate host for SARS CoV-2. Their thesis is the mutations happened in mice in the wild and they say absolutely nothing about lab development.

As I said, she couldn't find a single person to put up the lab theory who was willing to use their name.