Coronavirus: Lab Leak Part 9 -- Wuhan Lab Scientist Argues Against Lab Leak

I've looked at various arguments for the Lab Leak Hypothesis so I figure it is important to visit the other side of the argument. Bloomberg (Jun 27) has an article where they talk to a Dr. Danielle Anderson who worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology up until November 2019. The fact that she worked there until November 2019 is important for context, because we know that both CNN and the Wall Street Journal reported that "several researchers" fell ill in November 2019.

A rising star in the virology community, Anderson, 42, says her work on Ebola in Wuhan was the realization of a life-long career goal.

I think that is also important context. It doesn't appear that she was involved with coronavirus research, but instead was focused on Ebola research -- though it seems like it is implied that she worked with bats.

Back to the fact that CNN and the Wall Street Journal stated that researchers fell ill in November 2019, it is important to see what Dr. Anderson has to say about topic.

Anderson said no one she knew at the Wuhan institute was ill toward the end of 2019. Moreover, there is a procedure for reporting symptoms that correspond with the pathogens handled in high-risk containment labs.

Of course, what isn't addressed in the article is: when did she leave in November and was that before or after the researchers becoming ill? All the article states is that she was there in November, but that could be anywhere from November 1st to November 30th. Also, she admits that she didn't know everyone who worked there. And did she really know anyone who worked on coronavirus research? She doesn't say.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology is large enough that Anderson said she didn’t know what everyone was working on at the end of 2019.

Anderson did concede that it would be theoretically possible for a scientist in the lab to be working on a gain of function technique to unknowingly infect themselves and to then unintentionally infect others in the community. But there’s no evidence that occurred and Anderson rated its likelihood as exceedingly slim.

Getting authorization to create a virus in this way typically requires many layers of approval, and there are scientific best practices that put strict limits on this kind of work.

Ah, but we know that the Chinese military was also using the lab for research. Did they need to deal with all those layers of approval?

Should she be considered an honest broker? On one hand, she has insight that others do not have. On the other hand, she has a bias as she worked at this facility. And then there's a big issue that for some reason the Bloomberg article refuses to address. New York Post (Apr 17) reported that Dr. Anderson was one of the experts that Facebook went to in order to fact check the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis:

And who did this fact checker rely on for their opinion? As reporter Sharyl Attkisson notes, one expert consulted had a clear conflict of interest: She has regularly worked with Wuhan’s researchers, and even done her own experiments there. Danielle E. Anderson, assistant professor, Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, personally attested to the lab’s “strict control and containment measures.”

Wouldn't that be some important context to add to this article -- which by the way if you read in full the article is very lengthy so there was obviously space for that added context.