Dwyer: (0:00) Well look uhm ..it's happened with SARS, it’s happened with MERS ... uhm … so therefore uhmm ... that’s always been the pattern.

Well, no, it hasn’t - we saw that the provenance of SARS is still unresolved so that’s the end of the pattern theory. But for interest’s sake, what about MERS - the other example of a lethal coronavirus that you bring up?

Firstly, the ‘evidence’ of MERS's origin comes from a study conducted by none other than Lipkin and Daszak that claims MERS traveled from bats to camels to people. That’s a worry straight-off-the-bat.

Lipkin (and his team) was the sole external investigator invited by the Ministry of Health in Saudi Arabia to assist in identifying reservoirs and vectors for transmission of the MERS coronavirus.

Daszak was also on that team. Here’s the ‘pattern’ emerging again - if you’re a murderous totalitarian regime wanting to bury the origin of a coronavirus, better call Lipkin and Daszak.

The fact that those two researchers were involved, is enough to dismiss their report, but let’s take a look anyway.

New York Times: In a paper published online by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a research team comprising veterinarians from EcoHealth Alliance, virologists from Columbia University and Saudi health officials said they had found a stretch of viral RNA in the feces of a bat that matched similar stretches of viral RNA found in humans infected with ..MERS.

Sounds ok on the surface.

New York Times: But the matching fragment was found in only one bat. And it was a tiny sample: from a genome composed of about 30,000 base pairs, building blocks of genetic material, the matching fragment was only 190 base pairs long.

Why was it a tiny sample? According to:

Lipkin/Daszak et al’s paper: The Oct 2012 shipment was inadvertently opened at customs in the United States and sat at room temperature for 48 hours before transfer to Columbia University. At arrival, all samples had thawed.

Whoops! That sounds not good.

Lipkin/Daszak paper: (T)he sensitivity for viral nucleic acid detection in samples collected in October 2012 was probably reduced because of failure in cold chain transport. We were unable to recover additional sequences beyond the 190-nt RdRp fragment.

None of which stopped them from proclaiming: We are confident in the fidelity of the finding.

I’m not confident. Neither was Stanley Perlman, a virologist at the University of Iowa (or several other virologists). In the NYT article he said he:

...would have been more convinced by a match of at least 400 of the base pairs that encode the virus’s surface spikes, which mutate frequently; the 190-pair match was for viral replication machinery, which mutates less.

Hmm, so, a shady trip to Saudia Arabia at the exclusive invitation of a totalitarian regime - where the samples thawed out and were rendered useless in terms of making a definitive conclusion. But you made one anyway.

So there we have it.

Dwyer’s conclusion that it was: Extremely unlikely the virus escaped from a lab (and that it) .. most likely arose in bats, and then spread to humans via an as-yet unidentified intermediary animal ...

because:

(0:10) we have many other viruses that have clearly gone from bats into animals into humans .. it happened with SARS, it happened with MERS ...

Is: demonstrably wrong.

Not only is it wrong, it’s inconceivable that Dwyer, a supposed expert in coronaviruses, didn't know it was wrong when he was repeatedly advancing it on all major media platforms.

On the flip-side, we can still draw conclusions from Dwyer’s deceitfulness:

You are using your power/privilege - to lie - on the world's biggest stage - about the origin of Covid? What would make you do that?