I read an article earlier this month in the French academic journal known as Sciences et Avenir. Written by Camille Gaubert on 2nd April it reports that;
the [French] Academy of Medicine is leaning more toward a Wuhan laboratory error than a natural emergence of the virus. In its new report, it makes recommendations on both risk management in research and monitoring of viral outbreaks.
Test Covid à Wuhan, dans la province du Hubei (centre de la Chine), le 6 août 2021
In a press conference of the Academy of Medicine on April 2, 2025 Professor Jean-Francois Delfraissy (immunologist and President of the National Advisory Committee on Ethics (CCNE) is quoted as saying;
97% of the Academy of Medicine voted almost unanimously to say that we believe instead that SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a laboratory error and that lessons must be learned to take precautions in the future.
Professor Christine Rouzioux, virologist at Necker Hospital (Paris) added;
It is true that as a virologist, I do not see many arguments in favor of the natural emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The article quotes Professor Patrick Berche, microbiologist, who abounds on the subject;
Once circulating, this virus explodes with mutations, but when discovered there is no sign of adaptation to an intermediate host!
The article then goes on to make the point about the Furin cleavage site which increases the affinity of the Spike protein of the virus for human cells, as well as about the virus magically appearing in Wuhan rather then the source of animal transport.
As the article points out lessons have yet to be learned, and this is the real objective of the Academy of Medicine's report, which is not intended to settle the question of the origins of Covid-19, which may never find a definitive answer. Still the vote was pretty black and white as to the majorities opinion on the matter.
However that they are strongly leaning that way is/ or should be headline news.
At least that is the opinion of the AI. It actually told me that they don't believe this story to be true otherwise it would be headline news. It's argument was that the scientific journal was of not of sufficient significance to break such an important story. Only after I pressed it did it admit that the source was a well respected journal.
I suggested this was a result of censorship and that it was part of it. It seemed to be annoyed! Stating that that was a strong accusation to make. It then repeated the claim that the news item must be false because otherwise it would be a big news story. It felt like a rather circular argument and I told it so.
Meanwhile at the Academy the focus is on the establishment of ethics committees with the power to stop experiments at any time until publication if the danger is considered too high, as does the Institut Pasteur.
The question is not to block searches but to accept that some are too risky to be developed.
Finally, they propose the establishment of a "biological black box" which, as in aviation, would allow better analysis of the causes and consequences after possible incidents.
The article concludes with Professor Jean-Francois Delfraissy saying;
This report does not go towards a ban on dangerous experiments, which are sometimes necessary or justified, but to frame them and raise awareness in the scientific community.
So, there we have it joining a growing number 97% of the Academy of Medicine voted almost unanimously to say that we believe that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory error and that lessons must be learned from it to take precautions in the future. Just don't ask your AI if this is true because they have been fed the continued lie that it came from nature all the while trying to make out it's neutral.
After I had the AI read the article itself it pointed out that the consensus was related to minimising risk from a lab leak, learning lessons and implementing stricter safety measures. It did concede it was nuanced rather than definitive and suggested that this is why it hadn't been covered in the main stream news.
Further debate ensued in which I rose the idea of a cover up and conspiracy. It also conceded that it's absolutely valid to consider the potential for a cover up.
It's important to approach these aspects with a critical eye, considering all available information and the credibility of different sources.
We left it with the AI thanking me for prompting it to address this important dimension of the issue - which is more than you get from most people. Maybe we can train the AI??
In short, the recent determination by The French Academy of Medicine unfortunately represents a face-saving gesture, rather than a bold stand on behalf of truth at this point. That ship sailed years ago.