Podcast Summary: "If Books Could Kill"
Episode: Bonus: The Lab Leak Goes Mainstream
Hosts: Michael Hobbes & Peter Shamshiri
Release Date: June 5, 2025

Introduction to the Lab Leak Theory

In this bonus episode of "If Books Could Kill," hosts Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri delve deep into the controversial and widely debated theory surrounding the origins of COVID-19. The discussion centers on the lab leak hypothesis, which posits that the virus may have unintentionally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), located in the same city where the pandemic first emerged.

Evolution of the Lab Leak Hypothesis

The conversation begins with Peter challenging Brett (Michael Hobbes) about the nature of their interactions within journalism circles, setting the stage for a candid exploration of the lab leak theory's trajectory over the past few years.

[03:03] Peter: "The origin point for COVID 19 as we know it is in and around Wuhan, China... I just experience events."

Brett emphasizes that the lab leak theory has persisted for over two and a half years, continually resurfacing despite mounting skepticism.

[06:14] Brett: "We're now five years down the line. This theory has been around for five years, and we still are missing extremely important building blocks."

State Department Cables and WIV Safety Concerns

A significant portion of the episode critiques the narrative presented in Stephen Sido and Francis Lee's book, "In Covid's Wake," which argues that liberal groupthink hindered effective pandemic responses and suppressed discussions about the lab leak theory. Hobbes and Shamshiri dissect claims made in the book, particularly focusing on alleged State Department cables warning about safety issues at the WIV.

[30:48] Peter: "Two years before the novel coronavirus pandemic upended the world, US Embassy officials visited a Chinese research facility in the city of Wuhan... They alerted Washington."

However, the hosts argue that the actual content of these cables, as obtained and reviewed from credible sources, does not substantiate claims of grave safety concerns but rather highlights operational limitations and staffing shortages.

[37:18] Brett: "Josh Rogan, in this Washington Post article, got access to this first cable. He read this and he said, okay, the contents concern safety... That is a fucking lie."

Media's Role and Failures

The duo critically examines how mainstream media, including prominent outlets like The New York Times and publications by figures like Josh Rogan, have handled the dissemination of information regarding the lab leak theory. They highlight instances where initial reports lacked substantive evidence and were later contradicted by the individuals involved.

[41:17] Peter: "A March 2020 paper in the journal Nature Medicine... it was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID 19 originated naturally."

Brett points out that despite initial scientific discussions suggesting the plausibility of a lab leak, subsequent research has weakened this stance, yet media narratives have often remained unfazed.

The Proximal Origins Paper and Scientific Debate

A focal point of the episode is the analysis of the "Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" paper published in Nature Medicine. Originally presented as evidence against the lab leak theory, private communications revealed through Slack chats suggest that some authors privately considered a lab leak plausible.

[55:45] Peter: "The proximal origin of SARS CoV2 publication... was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID 19 originated naturally."

The hosts argue that these revelations undermine the credibility of the paper's public assertions and highlight a potential conflict of interest influenced by political agendas.

Analysis of Slack Communications of Scientists

Hobbes and Shamshiri delve into the leaked Slack communications of scientists like Christian Andersen and Eddie Holmes. These messages reveal initial concerns about the virus's genomic structure and subsequent efforts to investigate the lab leak theory seriously. However, the final published papers do not reflect these initial suspicions, leading to accusations of suppression and manipulation of scientific discourse.

[63:28] Brett: "So, like, there's nothing... There's other. There's... People make a lot of hay about the lab leak."

The hosts critique how these internal communications were misrepresented by media and political figures to reinforce the lab leak narrative without substantial evidence.

Critique of Lab Leak Logic and Evidence

The episode provides a thorough breakdown of the technical and logical flaws within the lab leak theory. Brett and Peter explain that the scenarios proposed for how COVID-19 could have leaked from the lab are highly improbable and lack concrete evidence. They compare the situation to unfounded conspiracy theories, emphasizing the absence of direct evidence linking the virus to lab activities.

[47:08] Brett: "So, what's weird about this as a smoking gun is they actually prove the opposite of what the lab leakers think they prove."

The hosts highlight that while lab leaks of existing viruses have occurred, there has been no documented case of a novel virus like SARS-CoV-2 leaking from a lab, making the lab leak theory less plausible.

Policies and Implications of Belief in Lab Leak

Hobbes and Shamshiri discuss the policy implications stemming from widespread belief in the lab leak theory. They argue that promoting this narrative can lead to misguided policies that may impede scientific research, such as gain-of-function studies, and overlook more pressing issues like the wildlife trade, which poses significant zoonotic risks.

[79:12] Brett: "Trump signed an executive order right after he came into office banning gain of function research."

The hosts caution against allowing conspiracy-driven policies to shape public health strategies, emphasizing the need for evidence-based approaches.

Conclusion and Reflections on Journalism

Wrapping up the episode, Hobbes and Shamshiri reflect on the role of journalism in shaping public perception of scientific theories. They criticize the media for its handling of the lab leak narrative, arguing that a lack of nuanced reporting and overreliance on politically motivated sources have fueled unfounded conspiracies.

[73:28] Peter: "The information that you are providing me is like a huge percentage of the information I have. You know what I mean?"

Brett underscores the importance of responsible journalism that prioritizes factual accuracy over sensationalism, especially when dealing with complex scientific topics.

Notable Quotes:

• Peter: "Little DM buddies. Do you not DM buddy with other journalists?"
  [00:00 - 00:05]

• Brett: "We're now five years down the line. This theory has been around for five years, and we still are missing extremely important building blocks."
  [06:14]

• Brett: "Josh Rogan, in this Washington Post article, got access to this first cable. He read this and he said, okay, the contents concern safety... That is a fucking lie."
  [37:18]

• Brett: "Scientists with complex and mixed motives engaged in an extensive and unacknowledged effort to deflect attention from the Chinese laboratory to the city's wet market."
  [56:11]

• Brett: "The minute you get to the basic fact, it's like so implausible, like absurdly implausible."
  [53:44]

Final Thoughts

This episode serves as a critical examination of the lab leak theory, challenging listeners to question the evidence and motivations behind prevailing narratives. Hobbes and Shamshiri advocate for a more discerning and evidence-based approach to understanding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the pitfalls of groupthink and sensationalism in journalism.