CIA is now the method of the traveling lab to explain the origin of covid

The CIA has said for years that there is not enough information to conclude whether the Covid pandemic originated from a wet market in Wuhan, China, or from an accidental leak in a laboratory there.

But the agency released a new assessment this week, which analysts say now favors the Lab’s theory.

This transfer is based on “the body of the existing report,” although a different attitude remains possible, an agency spokesman said. about reliable information.

Some U.S. officials say the controversy is not trivial: The Chinese government has failed to limit its market share or manage its reputation. But others argue that it is an important intelligence and scientific question.

John Ratcliffe, director of information at the CIA, has long favored the Lab hypothesis. He said it is a big piece of thought that needs to be understood and has implications for US-China relations.

The announcement of the transfer came shortly after Mr. Ratcliffe news that he no longer wanted the agency “on the sidelines” of the debate about the beginning of the Covid Pandemic. Mr Ratcliffe has long said he believes the virus most likely originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Officials say the agency has not budged on a new manager, and a new assessment has been in the works for some time.

In the last week of the Biden administration, Jake Sullivan, the adviser to the National, ordered a new mandated review of the origin of the pandemic. As part of this review, the former director of services, William J. Burns, said that he needed to take a position at the beginning of their beginning.

Other senior US officials said that Mr Ratcliffe’s decision to announce and release the new analysis.

There is no new intelligence behind the agency move. But it is based on the same evidence that they have been rebelling for months.

The analysis is based on a close-up view of the situation at Wuhan Security Labs before the outbreak, according to people familiar with the work. the agency.

Since the outbreak of the disease, questions have surrounded whether the two laboratories in Wuhan strictly followed the protocols.

The agency made the new assessment with “low confidence,” meaning the intelligence behind it is fragmented and incomplete.

Even in the absence of hard intelligence, the lab hypothesis gained ground within the spy agencies. But some analysts question the wisdom of moving from one location to another without new information.

The official previously said that he is not against the new testing of the beginning of the beginning of the Covid by the Trump administration. President Biden ordered a new intelligence review early in his administration after White House officials found evidence still lacking.

mr. Ratcliffe raised questions about the policies of the intelligence services. Mr. Ratcliffe, who served as director of national intelligence in the first Trump administration, argued on Fox News in 2023 that the CIA did not want to accept the Lab Leak to avoid geopolitical issues. for the Biden administration.

“The real problem is that the agency only estimates that the virus that killed more than a million Americans killed a laboratory where the Chinese military works – has an impact on the geopolitical geopolitaly I don’t want to face head-to-head,” he said in the piece, which was written with Sims Cliff, a senior assistant. CCP refers to the Chinese Communist Party.

Mr Ratcliffe said on Thursday, when he was sworn in, that looking at the start of Covid was a “day 1” priority.

He said, “But the CIA didn’t make that assessment or at least not make that assessment publicly. So I’m going to focus on that and look at the intelligence and make sure the public knows we’re going to push the curb.” the people.”

Senior Biden officials in the Biden Administration defend their processes and procedures. They say they have no intelligence or expertise and insist that they have not played with political analysis.

These officials say that there is a strong logical argument for the laboratory or the natural, the natural theory, but what is rare is that there is no laziness on both sides of the issue.

To promote the natural theory, scientists want to see the animal that carried it out to humans or found a bat that could be the ancestor of the coronavirus that causes the coronavirus that causes covid.

Likewise, to seal the Lab, the intelligence community wants to see evidence that one of the labs in Wuhan worked on the progenitor virus that led directly to the epidemic.

Even fragmentary evidence is missing.

But Mr. Ratcliffe has promised a more powerful Cia, and it is possible to order more actions to access the labs in Wuhan or the Chinese government in search of information.

It will not be an easy secret to steal. The senior ranks of the Chinese government do not know and do not want to know, US officials said. So if there is intelligence, it can be hidden in a place that is difficult for it.

Secret service officials interviewed in recent weeks said it was possible to have such evidence in a laboratory in China, at least in theory. But, they say, it is still possible that the answer to the question surrounding the origin of the virus will come from the scientific break, not a statement about intelligence.

Under the Biden administration, the task force has weighed in on the theory that the virus came from the market. Officials admit it’s not even that safe.

Five agencies, including the National Intervance Council and the conservation intelligence agency, confirmed that the spread of nature may have caused the park. But they said they just don’t trust his estimate.

Until then, two agencies, the FBI and the Energy Department, thought that there was a Lab Lab was more likely. But the theory is different. The FBI believes the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The energy department placed its bets on another lab, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control.

Officials did not say whether they believe one lab or the other is the actual source of the infection.