Jamie Metzl: Lab Leak Theory | Lex Fridman Podcast #247

1. 0:00 – 1:27

   Introduction

   1. LFLex Fridman0:00

      The following is a conversation with Jamie Metzl, author specializing in topics of genetic engineering, biotechnology, and geopolitics. In the past two years, he has been outspoken about the need to investigate and keep an open mind about the origins of COVID-19. In particular, he has been keeping an extensive up-to-date collection of circumstantial evidence in support of what is colloquially known as lab leak hypothesis, that COVID-19 leaked in 2019 from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In part, I wanted to explore the idea in response to the thoughtful criticism to parts of the Francis Collins episode. I will have more and more difficult conversations like this with people from all walks of life and with all kinds of ideas. I promise to do my best to keep an open mind and yet to ask hard questions while together searching for the beautiful and the inspiring in the mind of the other person. It's a hard line to walk gracefully, especially for someone like me who's a bit of an awkward introvert with barely the grasp of the English language or any language except maybe Python and C++. But I hope you stick around, be patient and empathetic, and maybe learn something new together with me. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description and now here's my conversation with Jamie Metzl.

2. 1:27 – 1:00:01

   Lab leak

   1. LFLex Fridman1:27

      What is the probability, in your mind, that COVID-19 leaked from a lab? In your write-up, I believe you said 85%. I know it's just a percentage, we can't really be exact with these kinds of things, but it gives us a sense where your mind is, where your intuition is. So, as it stands today, what would you say is that probability?

   2. JMJamie Metzl1:47

      I would stand by what I've been saying since really the middle of last year. It's more likely and not, in my opinion, uh, that the pandemic stems from an accidental lab incident in Wuhan. Is it 90%? Is it 65%? I mean, that's kind of arbitrary. But when I stack up all of the available evidence, and all of it on both sides is circumstantial, it weighs very significantly toward a lab incident origin.

   3. LFLex Fridman2:14

      So, before we dive into the specifics, at a high level, what, uh, types of evidence, what intuition, what ideas are leading you to, uh, to have that kind of estimate? Is it possible to kind of condense... When- when you look at the wall of evidence before you, where's your source, the- the strongest source of your intuition for this?

   4. JMJamie Metzl2:36

      Yeah. And- and I would have to say it's just logic and deductive reasoning. So, before I make the case for why I think it's most likely a lab incident origin, let's just say why it could be, and still could be what we, uh, natural origin. All of this is, uh, natural origin in the se- in the sense that it's a- a bat virus backbone, horseshoe bat virus, uh, backbone. Um, yeah.

   5. LFLex Fridman2:57

      O- Okay, I'm gonna keep pausing you-

   6. JMJamie Metzl2:58

      Yeah.

   7. LFLex Fridman2:59

      ... to define stuff.

   8. JMJamie Metzl3:00

      Yeah.

   9. LFLex Fridman3:01

      So, maybe it's useful to say what do we mean by lab leak? What do we mean by natural origin? What do we mean by virus backbone?

   10. JMJamie Metzl3:07

       Okay. Great questions. Um, so viruses come from somewhere. Viruses have been around for 3.5 billion years and we, uh, they've been around for such a long time because they are adaptive and they're growing and they're always changing and they're morphing. And that's why viruses are, uh, I mean they've been very successful and we are, are victims. Sometimes we're beneficiaries. We have viral DNA has morphed into our- our genomes, but now, certainly in the case of COVID-19, we are victims, um, of the success of viruses. Um, and so when we talk about a backbone, so the SARS-CoV-2 virus, um, has a, uh, it has a history and these viruses don't come out of whole cloth. There are viruses that- that morph. And so we know, um, that, uh, at some period, uh, maybe 20 years ago or whatever, um, the- the- the, uh, virus that is SARS-CoV-2, um, existed in horseshoe bats. It was a horseshoe bat virus and it evolved somewhere. And there are some people who say, uh, there's no evidence of this, but it's a plausible theory based on how things have happened in the past, maybe that virus jumped, um, from the horseshoe bat through some intermediate species. So it's like let's say there's a bat and that it- it infects some other animal. Let's say it's a pig or a- a raccoon dog or a civet cat, they're all, pangolin, there are all sorts of animals that have been considered. And then that virus adapts into that new host and it changes and grows. And then according to the "natural origins hypothesis," it jumps from that animal into humans. And so what you could imagine, and some of the people who are making the case, all of the people actually who are making the case for a natural origin of the virus, what they're saying is it went from bat to some intermediate species, and then from that intermediate species most likely, there's some people who say it went directly bat to human, but through some intermediate species, and then humans interacted with that species and then it jumped from that, whatever it is, to- to humans. And that's a very plausible theory. It's just that there's no evidence for it.

   11. LFLex Fridman5:23

       And the nature of the interaction is do most people kind of suggest is that the like wet markets? So the interaction of the humans with the animal is in the form of it's either a live animal that's being sold to be eaten or a n- recently live animal but newly dead animal being sold to be-

   12. JMJamie Metzl5:42

       That's certainly one very possible, um, possibility, a possible possibility. I don't know if that's a word. Um, but the people who believe in the wet market origin, that's what they're saying. So they had one of these animals, um, they were cutting it up, let's say, in a market, and maybe some of the blood got into somebody who's maybe had a cut on their hand or maybe it was aerosolized and so somebody breathed it, and then that virus found this new host and that was the, uh, the human host. But you could also have that happen, uh, in, let's say, a farm. So it's happened in the past, um, that let's say that there are farms and- and because of human encroachment into wild spaces, um, we're pushing our- our farms and our animal farms further and further into what used to be the- the just natural habitats. And so what's happened in the past, for example, that there were bats roosting over pig pens and the bat droppings went into the pig pens. Um, the viruses in those droppings infected the pigs and then the pigs infected the- the humans. And- and that's why it's a plausible theory.... it's just that there's basically no evidence for it. If it was the case, uh, that SARS-CoV-2 comes from this type of interaction, um, as in most of the, at least recent, uh, past outbreaks, we'd see evidence of that. Viruses are messy. They're constantly undergoing Darwinian evolution and they're changing and it's not that they're just ready for primetime, ready to infect humans on day one. Normally, you can trace the viral evolution prior to the time when it infects humans. But for SARS-CoV-2, it just showed up on the scene ready to infect humans and there's no history that anybody has found so far of that kind of, uh, of viral evolution. With the first SARS, you could track it by the- the genome sequencing that it was experimenting and SARS-CoV-2 was very, very stable. Uh, meaning it had already adapted to humans by the time it interacted with us.

   13. LFLex Fridman7:49

       Like fully adapted, so with SARS, there's a rapid evolution when it, like, first kinda hooks onto a human.

   14. JMJamie Metzl7:58

       Yeah, well, 'cause it's trying. Like a- a virus, its goal is to survive-

   15. LFLex Fridman8:01

       It's a startup.

   16. JMJamie Metzl8:01

       ... and replicate. Yeah. (laughs) No, it's true, it's like, "Oh, we're gonna try this. Oh, that didn't work. We'll try..." Exactly like a- like-

   17. LFLex Fridman8:06

       A pivot.

   18. JMJamie Metzl8:07

       ... like a startup. And so we don't-

   19. LFLex Fridman8:09

       Oh, boy.

   20. JMJamie Metzl8:09

       ... we don't see that and so there are some people who say, "Well, all right. Well, one hypothesis is, all right, you have a totally isolated group of humans, maybe in- in southern China which is, you know, more than 1,000 miles away from, uh, from Wuhan. And maybe they're doing their animal farming, um, right next to these, uh, where these areas where there are these horseshoe bats and maybe in this totally isolated place that no one's ever heard of, they're not connected to any other place, one person gets infected. Um, and it doesn't spread to anybody else because they're so isolated. They're like... I- I don't know. I mean, I can't even imagine that this is- is the case. Then somebody gets in a car and drives all night, um, more than 1,000 miles through crappy roads to get to Wuhan. Doesn't stop for anything, doesn't infect anybody on the way, no one else in that person's village infects anyone, and then that person goes straight to the- the Huanan seafood market, according to this, in my mind, not very credible theory, and then unloads his stuff and everybody gets infected and they're only delivering those animals to the Huanan market, um, which doesn't even sell very many of these kinds of animals that are likely intermediate species, and not to anywhere else. So that's... I mean, it's a little bit of a- of a straw man.

   21. LFLex Fridman9:26

       Yeah.

   22. JMJamie Metzl9:26

       Um, but on top of that, the Chinese have sequenced more than 80,000 animal samples and there's no evidence of this type of- of- of viral evolution that we would otherwise expect.

   23. LFLex Fridman9:37

       Let's, uh, try to, at this moment, steel man the argument for the natural origin of the virus. So just to- to clarify. So Huanan is actually, despite what it might sound like to people, is a pretty big city.

   24. JMJamie Metzl9:53

       Mm-hmm.

   25. LFLex Fridman9:54

       There's a lot of people that live in it.

   26. JMJamie Metzl9:55

       11 million.

   27. LFLex Fridman9:56

       So not only is there the Wuhan Institute of Virology, there's other centers that do work on viruses.

   28. JMJamie Metzl10:03

       Yes.

   29. LFLex Fridman10:04

       But there's also a giant number of markets, and everything we're talking about here is pretty close together, so-

   30. JMJamie Metzl10:10

       Yep.
3. 1:00:01 – 1:09:32

   Gain-of-function research

   1. LFLex Fridman1:00:01

      first, as Nietzsche said, "Let us look into the abyss and the games we play with monsters that is, uh, colloquially called gain-of-function research." Let me ask the kind of political sounding question, which is how people usually phrase it. Did Anthony Fauci, uh, fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?

   2. JMJamie Metzl1:00:26

      So it depends. I mean, I, I've obviously been very closely monitoring this, I've spoken a lot about it, I've, I've written about it, and it depends on... I mean, not to quote Bill Clinton, but to quote Bill Clinton, it depends on what the definition of is is.

   3. LFLex Fridman1:00:41

      Yeah.

   4. JMJamie Metzl1:00:41

      And so, um, if you use a common sense definition of gain of function, and by gain of function, uh, there are lots of things like gene therapies that are gain of function, but what... here what we mean is gain of function for, uh, uh, pathogens able, potentially able to create, um, human, uh, pandemics. Um, but if you use the kind of common sense language, uh, well then he probably did. If you use the technical language from a 2017 NIH document, uh, and you read that language very narrowly, I think you can make a credible argument that he, that he did not. There's a question though, and, and, uh, Francis Collins talked about that in his, in his interview with you, but then there's a question that we know, uh, from now that we have the information of the reports submitted by EcoHealth Alliance, um, to the, uh, the NIH and, and some of which were late or not even, uh, delivered, that some of this research was done on MERS, Middle Eastern, uh, respiratory syndrome, um, virus. And if that was the case, um, there is a, I think, a colorable argument that that would, um, c- be considered gain-of-function research even by the narrow language of that 2017 document. But I, but I, I definitely think-... and I've said this repeatedly, that Rand Paul can be right and Tony Fauci can be right. And the question is, um, what, how are we defining gain of function? And that's why I've always said, the question in my mind isn't, was it or wasn't it gain of function, as if that's like a binary thing, if, if not, um, great, and if yes, guilty. The question is just, what work was being done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? What, um, role, if any, did US, uh, government funding play in supporting that, uh, that work? And what rights do we all have as, as, as, as human beings and as American citizens and taxpayers to get all of the relevant information about them?

   5. LFLex Fridman1:02:47

      So let's try to kinda dissect this. So who frustrates you more, Rand Paul or Anthony Fauci in this discussion, or the discussion itself? So for example, gain of function i- i- is a term that's kind of more used, uh, just to mean making, uh, playing with viruses in a lab to try to develop more dangerous viruses. Is this, uh, kind of research, um, a good idea? Is it also a good idea for us to talk about it in public in the political way that it's been talked about? Is it okay that, um, US may have funded gain of function research elsewhere? I mean, i- it's kind of assumed, uh, just like with Bill Clinton, there was very little discussion of, um, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but, you know, whether it's okay for a president, male or female, to have extramarital sex, okay? Or is it okay for a president to have, uh, extramarital sex with people on their, on his staff or her staff? It was more the discussion of lying, I think. It was, "Did you, did you lie about having sex or not?" And in this gain of function discussion, what frustrates me personally is there's not a deep philosophical discussion about whether we should be doing this kind of research and what kinds, like what are the ethical lines? Research on animals at all. Those are fascinating questions. Instead, it's a gotcha thing. Did you or did you not fund research on gain of function? And did you fund... It's almost like a bioweapon. Did you give money to China to develop this bioweapon that now attack the rest of the world?

   6. JMJamie Metzl1:04:49

      Yeah.

   7. LFLex Fridman1:04:49

      So, I mean, all, all, all those things are pretty frustrating, but i- is there, um... I think the thing you can untangle about Anthony Fauci and gain of function research in the United States and EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan Institute of Virology that's kind of, um, that's clarifying?

   8. JMJamie Metzl1:05:07

      Yeah.

   9. LFLex Fridman1:05:07

      What were the mistakes made?

   10. JMJamie Metzl1:05:08

       Sure. So on gain of function, there actually has been a lot of, uh, o- of debate. And I mentioned before in 2011, these first papers, uh, there was a big debate. Uh, Marc Lipsitch, who's formerly at Harvard, now with the, the, the US government, uh, working in the president's office, um, he led a thing called the Cambridge Group, uh, that was highly critical of, of this work, basically saying we're, we're, uh, we're creating monsters. They had the funding pause in 2014. Uh, they spent three years putting together a framework, uh, and then they, they lifted it in 2017. So we had a thoughtful conversation. Unfortunately, it didn't work, and I think that's where, where, uh, where we are now. So I absolutely think, um, that there are real issues with, uh, the relationship between the United States government and EcoHealth Alliance, and through that, EcoHealth Alliance with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And one issue is just essential transparency, because as I see it, it's most likely the case that we transferred a lot of our knowledge and plans and things to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And, and again, I'm sure that Shi Zhengli is not herself a monster. I'm, I'm sure of that, even though I've never met her. Um, but there are just a different set of pressures on people working in an authoritarian system than people who are working in other systems. That doesn't mean it's entirely, entirely different. And so I absolutely think that we shouldn't give $1, um, to an organization, and certainly a virology institute, where you don't have full access to, to their records, to their databases. We don't know what work is, is, is happening there. And, and I think that we need to have, um, that kind of full examination, and that's why... So I understand what, what Dr. Fauci is doing is saying, "Hey, what I hear..." Dr. Fauci said, "What I hear from you, Rand Paul, is you're accusing me of starting this pandemic and you're using gain of function as a proxy for that, and we have... In, when there are senate hearings, every senator gets five minutes, and the name of the game is to translate your five minutes into a clip that's going to run on the news." And so I get that there is that...

   11. LFLex Fridman1:07:23

       It's a dark, dark game.

   12. JMJamie Metzl1:07:24

       ... kind of gotcha. Um, but I also think that, uh, that Dr. Fauci and, uh, the NIA, the National Institute of, of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the NIH, should have been more transparent. Um, because I th- I, I think that i- i- in this day and age where there are a lot of people poking around in this whole story of COVID origins, uh, we would not be where we are if it wasn't for a relatively small number of people. And, and, and I'm, I'm part of, there are two, as... no, two groups. One is these internet sleuths known as Drastic, and a number of them are part of a group, um, that I'm part of called, it's, it's not our official name, but called the Paris Group. It's about two dozen experts, um, uh, around the world, but centered around some, some very, um, high level French academics. So we've all been digging, uh, and meeting with each other regularly since, uh, since last year.... and our governments across the board, certainly China but including the United States, haven't been as transparent as they, uh, as they, they need to be. So, there's definitely mistakes were made on all sides and that's why for me from day one, I've been calling for a comprehensive investigation into this issue that certainly obviously looks at China but we have to look at ourselves. We did not get this right.

   13. LFLex Fridman1:08:43

       So, do you... I'm just gonna put Rand Paul aside here.

   14. JMJamie Metzl1:08:49

       Yeah.

   15. LFLex Fridman1:08:50

       He, he politician playing political games. It's very frustrating but, uh, it is what it is on all sides. Anthony Fauci, you think should have been more transparent and, um, maybe more eloquent in, in expressing the, the complexity of all of this, the uncertainty in all of this.

   16. JMJamie Metzl1:09:12

       Yeah. And, and I get that it's really hard to do that because let's say you, you, you have one... You speak a paragraph and it's got four sentences and one of those sentences is the thing that's going to be turning to Twitter and-

   17. LFLex Fridman1:09:27

       All right, Jamie, let me push back.

   18. JMJamie Metzl1:09:28

       Yeah, yeah.

   19. LFLex Fridman1:09:28

       I get really... So, um, I'll try not to be emotional

4. 1:09:32 – 1:19:14

   Anthony Fauci

   1. LFLex Fridman1:09:32

      about this, but I've heard, uh, Anthony Fauci a couple of times now say that he represents science.

   2. JMJamie Metzl1:09:41

      Yeah.

   3. LFLex Fridman1:09:43

      I know what he means by that. He means in this political bickering, all that kind of stuff, that for a lot of people, he represents science. But words matter, and this isn't just clips. I mean, maybe I'm distinctly aware of that doing this podcast like, yeah, I talked for like hundreds of hours now, maybe over a thousand hours. But like, I'm still careful with the words.

   4. JMJamie Metzl1:10:10

      Yeah.

   5. LFLex Fridman1:10:11

      Like I- I'm trying not to be an asshole and I'm aware when I'm an asshole and I'll apologize for it. Uh, like if the words "I represent science" left my mouth, which they very well could, I would sure as hell be apologizing for it and not in a... Because I got in trouble. I would just feel bad about saying something like that. And even that little phrase, "I represent science." No, Dr. Fauci, you do not represent science. I love science. The, the, the millions of scientists that inspired me to get into it, to fall in love with the scientific method in the, um, exploration of ideas through the rigor of science, that Anthony Fauci does not represent. He's one, I believe, great scientist of millions. He does not represent anybody. Uh, he's just one scientist. And I think the greatness of a scientist is best exemplified in humility because the scientific method basically says, like you're, you're, you're like standing before the fog, the mystery of it all and like slowly chipping away at the mystery and the... It's, it's like, uh, it's embarrassing, it's, uh, humiliating how little you know. That's the experience.

   6. JMJamie Metzl1:11:29

      Mm-hmm.

   7. LFLex Fridman1:11:30

      So, the, the great scientists have to have humility to me, and especially in their communication, they have to have humility. And I mean, I don't know. A- and some of it is also words matter because (sighs) you have to... Like great leaders have to have the poetry of action. They have to be bold and inspire action across millions of people but you also have to, uh, through that poetry of words express the complexity of the uncertainty you're operating under. Be humble in the face of not being able to predict the future or understand the past or really know what's the right thing to do but we have to do something. And through that you have to be a great leader that inspires action and, uh, some of that is just words and he chose words poorly. I, I mean, I... So I- I'm all torn about this and then there's politicians that are taking those words and, um, magnifying them and playing games with them and of course that's a disincentive for the people who do... The s- the scientific leaders that step into the limelight to say any more words so they kind of become more conservative with the wor- the words they use. I mean, it just becomes a giant mess but I think the solution is to ignore all of that and to be transparent, to be honest, to be vulnerable and, uh, to, to express the full uncertainty-

   8. JMJamie Metzl1:13:01

      Mm-hmm.

   9. LFLex Fridman1:13:01

      ... of the, what you're operating under, to present all the possible actions and to be honest about the mistakes they made in the past. I mean, there's something... Even if you're not directly responsible for those mistakes, taking responsibility for them is, uh, is a way to win people over. Like I don't think leaders realize this often in, in, in the modern age, in the internet age. They can see through your bullshit and it's really inspiring when you take ownership. So to do the thought experiment like in public, do a thought experiment. If there was a lab leak, and then lay out all the funding, the EcoHealth Alliance, all the incredible science going on at the, uh, Wuhan Institute of Virology and the NIH. Lay out all the possible ethical problems. Lay out all the possible, um, mistakes that could have been made and say like, "This could have happened and if this happened, here's the best way to respond to it and to prevent it in the future," and just lay all that complexity out. I mean, I wish we would have, uh, seen that and I have hope that th- this conversation and conversations like it, your work, uh, and, uh, books on this topic will inspire young people today when they become in the Anthony Fauci's role.... to be much more transparent and much more humble and all, all of those kinds of things. That this is just a relic of the past when there's a person, no offense to me, in a suit that has to stand up and speak cl- w- with clarity and certainty. I mean, that's just a relic of the past is, uh, i- i- i is my hope. But...

   10. JMJamie Metzl1:14:40

       D- do you mind if I, uh-

   11. LFLex Fridman1:14:41

       Yeah, please.

   12. JMJamie Metzl1:14:41

       ... may, 'cause I, I agree with a, a great deal of, uh, of what you said and I, and I, it's, it's really unfortunate, uh, that our, certainly the Chinese government, as I said before, our government, um, wasn't as transparent as I feel they should've been, particularly in the early days of the pandemic and particularly with regard to the issue of pandemic origins. I mean, we know that, that Dr. Fauci was on calls with people like, um, Christian Andersen at Scripps and others in those early days raising questions, "Is this an engineered virus?" There were a lot of, uh, of questions. And it's kind of sad. I mean, as I mentioned before, I've, I've been, um, one, I mean, and certainly there were, were others but there weren't a lot of us, um, of the people who from the earliest days-

   13. LFLex Fridman1:15:29

       (laughs)

   14. JMJamie Metzl1:15:29

       ... of the pandemic were raising questions about, "Hey, not so fast, um, here." And I, and I, I launched my website on pandemic origins in April of last year, April 2020. It got a huge amount of attention and actually my friend Matt Pottinger, who is the Deputy National Security Advisor, when he was reaching out to people in the US government, uh, and in allied governments saying, "Hey, we should look into this," the, what he was sending them was my website. It wasn't some US government information. And so they-

   15. LFLex Fridman1:16:00

       And by the way, people should still go to the website.

   16. JMJamie Metzl1:16:02

       I hope so.

   17. LFLex Fridman1:16:02

       You keep, you keep getting, uh, keep updating it-

   18. JMJamie Metzl1:16:05

       Yep.

   19. LFLex Fridman1:16:05

       ... and it's, uh, it's an incredible resource.

   20. JMJamie Metzl1:16:07

       Well, thank you. Thank you. Jamiedmetzel.com. Um, i- i- and it's really unfortunate that our governments and international institutions for pretty much all of 2020 weren't doing their jobs of really probing this issue. People were hiding behind this kind of false, uh, consensus. And, and I'm critical of many people, even when I heard, uh, Francis Collins', uh, interview with you. I just felt, well, he wasn't as balanced on the issue of, of COVID origins. Certainly Dr. Fauci, um, could have in his conversation with Rand Paul, it wasn't even a conversation, but in some process in the aftermath, um, could have laid things out a bit better. He did say, and Francis Collins did say, that we don't know the origins and that was a shift, um, uh, and we need to have an, an investigation. So now, um, but having said all of that, I do kind of, one, I have tremendous respect for Dr. Fauci, for the work that he's done on HIV/AIDS. I mean, I have been, uh, vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine. Uh, Dr. Fauci was a big part of the story of getting us these vaccines that have saved millions and millions of, uh, of lives and so I- I don't think... I mean, there's a lot to this story. Um, and then the second thing is it's really hard to be a public health expert-

   21. LFLex Fridman1:17:28

       Yeah.

   22. JMJamie Metzl1:17:28

       ... because you have, your mission is public health. And so, and you have to, if you are leading with all of your uncertainty, um, it's a really hard way to do things. And so, like, even now, like if I go to CVS and I t- and I get a Tylenol, somebody has done a calculation of how many people, um, will die from taking Tylenol and they say, "Well, all right, w- we can live with that, uh, and that's why we have regulation." And so all of us are doing kind of summaries and then we have people in public health who are saying, "Well, all right, we've summed it all up and you should do X. You should get your kids, you know, vaccinated for measles. Um, you should not drive your car at 100 miles an hour. You, you should, y- don't drink lighter fluid." What- whatever these, these things are and we want them to kind of give us broad guidelines and yet now our information world is so fragmented that if you, i- if you're not being honest about something, th- something material, someone's going to find out and it's going to undermine your credibility. And so I agree with you that, that there's a greater requirement for transparency now. Maybe there always has been, but there's an even greater requirement, um, for it now because people want to trust that you're speaking honestly.

   23. LFLex Fridman1:18:53

       Yeah.

   24. JMJamie Metzl1:18:53

       And that you're saying, "Well, here's what I know and this is based on what I know. Here are the conclusions that I draw." But if it's just, and, and again, I, I don't, I don't think the words "I'm science" or what- whatever it was are, are the right words, but if it's just, you know, "Trust me because of who I am," I don't think that, that flies anywhere anymore.

5. 1:19:14 – 1:23:56

   Francis Collins

   1. LFLex Fridman1:19:14

      Can I just ask you about the Francis Collins interview that I did, if you got a chance to hear that part?

   2. JMJamie Metzl1:19:20

      Sure.

   3. LFLex Fridman1:19:20

      I think in the beginning we talk about the lab leak.

   4. JMJamie Metzl1:19:23

      Yeah.

   5. LFLex Fridman1:19:23

      Um, what are your thoughts about his response basically saying it's worthy of an investigation, but... I mean, I- I don't know how you would interpret it. I, I, see-

   6. JMJamie Metzl1:19:34

      Yeah.

   7. LFLex Fridman1:19:34

      ... it's funny 'cause I, I heard it in the moment as, it's great for the head of NIH to be open-minded on this.

   8. JMJamie Metzl1:19:46

      Yeah.

   9. LFLex Fridman1:19:47

      But then the internet and, uh, Mr. Joe Rogan-

   10. JMJamie Metzl1:19:51

       (laughs)

   11. LFLex Fridman1:19:51

       ... and a bunch of friends and colleagues told me that, yeah, well that's too late and too little.

   12. JMJamie Metzl1:19:58

       Yeah. So first let me say I've been on Joe's podcast twice and I love the guy, which doesn't mean that I agree with everything he does or says. (laughs) Um, and on this issue, uh, and I'm normally a, a pretty calm and measured guy and when you're just out running with your AirPods on and you start...... yelling into the wind in Central Park, nobody else knows why you're yelling. Uh, but what-

   13. LFLex Fridman1:20:27

       So then you had such a moment with the pod-

   14. JMJamie Metzl1:20:29

       I had a moment with Collins, and again, Francis Collins is someone I respect enormously. I mean, I live a big chunk of my life, um, living in, in, in the world of genetics and biotech, and my book, Hacking Darwin, is about the future of human genetic engineering and his work on the Human Genome Project, and so many other things have been fantastic and I'm a huge fan of the work of, uh, of NIH. And he was right to say that the Chinese government hasn't been forthcoming and we need to look into it. But then you asked him, "Well, how will we know?" and then his answer was, "We need to find the intermediate host." Remember I said before-

   15. LFLex Fridman1:21:07

       Yeah.

   16. JMJamie Metzl1:21:07

       ... and so, that made it clear that he thought, "Well, we should have an investigation, but it comes from nature and we just need to find that, whatever it is, that intermediate animal host in the wild, and that'll tell us the story."

   17. LFLex Fridman1:21:22

       So he already had the conclusion in mind, and they were just waiting for the evidence to support the conclusion.

   18. JMJamie Metzl1:21:28

       That was my feeling. I felt like he was-

   19. LFLex Fridman1:21:30

       And that was frustrating.

   20. JMJamie Metzl1:21:31

       ... open in general, but he was tilting, and I, again, I, you, my, your first question was, "Where do I fall?" He was, like, I'm 85, uh, percent or whatever it is, 80, 75, 90, whatever it is in the direction of a lab incident. It made it feel that he was 90/10 in the other direction, which is, still means that he's open-minded about the possibility. And that's why, in my view, every single person who talks about this issue, I think the right answer, in my view, is we don't know conclusively. Um, in my- and this is my personal view, the circumstantial evidence is strongly in favor of a lab incident origin, but that could immediately shift with additional information. We need transparency, um, but we should come together in absolutely condemning the outrageous cover-up carried out by the Chinese government, which to this day is preventing any meaningful investigation into pandemic origins. We have, if you use the, the Economist numbers, 15 million people who are dead, um, as a result of this pandemic, and I believe that the actions of the Chinese government, um, are, um, disgracing the memory of these 15 million dead. They're insulting the families and the billions of people around the world who have suffered from this totally avoidable, uh, pandemic. And whatever the origin, the fact the criminal cover-up carried out by the Chinese government, which continues to this day, but most intensely in, in the first months following the outbreak, that's the reason why we have, uh, so many, uh, so many dead. And, and certainly as I was saying before, I and a, and a small number of others have been carrying this flame since early last year, but it's kind of crazy, uh, that our governments haven't been, uh, demanding it. And we can talk about the World Health Organization, uh, process, which was deeply compromised in the beginning. Now it's become much, much, uh, better, but again, it was the pressure of outsiders who, that played such an important role in shifting our national and international institutions. And while that's better than nothing, it would have been far better if our governments and in- and international organizations had done the right

6. 1:23:56 – 1:53:53

   Joe Rogan, Brett Weinstein, and Sam Harris

   1. JMJamie Metzl1:23:56

      thing from the start.

   2. LFLex Fridman1:23:56

      If I could just, uh, make a couple of comments about, uh, Joe Rogan. So I've, there's a bunch of people in my life who have inspired me, who have taught me a lot, who, um, I even look up to.

   3. JMJamie Metzl1:24:14

      Mm-hmm.

   4. LFLex Fridman1:24:14

      The, many of them are alive, most of them are dead. I, I, I want to say that, uh, so Joe said a few critical words about the conversation with Francis Collins, most of it offline-

   5. JMJamie Metzl1:24:26

      (laughs)

   6. LFLex Fridman1:24:26

      ... with a, with a lot of great conversations about it, uh, some he said publicly, and, um... He was also critical to say that me asking hard questions in an interview is not my strong suit. And I, I really want to kind of respond to that, uh, which I did privately as well, but publicly to say that, uh, Joe's 100% right on that. But that doesn't mean that always has to be the case, and that is definitely something I want to work on 'cause most of the conversations I have, I want to see the, the beautiful ideas in people's minds. But there's some times where you have to ask the hard questions to bring out the, the beautiful ideas. And, um, it's hard to do. It's a skill, and, and Joe is very good at this. He says, the way he put it in, in his, uh, criticisms, and he does this in his conversations, which is, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop." It, there's a kind of sense like, "Did you just say what you said?"

   7. JMJamie Metzl1:25:38

      Mm-hmm.

   8. LFLex Fridman1:25:38

      "Let's, let's make sure we get to the bottom, we clarify what you mean." Uh, 'cause sometimes really big, negative, or difficult ideas can be said as a, as a, as a quick aside in a sentence, like it's nothing. Uh, but it could be everything and you want to make sure you catch that and you, you talk about it. And not to, not as a gotcha, not as a kind of way to destroy another human being, but to reveal something profound, and that's definitely something I want to work on. I also want to say...... that, uh, as you said, you disagree with Joe on quite a lot of things. So for a long time, Joe was somebody that I was just a fan of, I listened to. He's now a good friend and I would say, we disagree more than we agree, and, uh, I love doing that and, um, but at the, at the same time, I learn from that. So it, it's like dual, like nobody in this world can tell me what to think, but I think everybody has a lesson to teach me. I think that's a good way to approach it. Like, I, whenever somebody has words of criticism, I assume they're right and walk around with that idea.

   9. JMJamie Metzl1:27:04

      Mm-hmm.

   10. LFLex Fridman1:27:05

       To really sort of empathize with that idea because there's a lesson there and oftentimes, uh, my understanding of (sighs) of a topic becomes, um, is altered completely or it becomes much more nuanced or much more, uh, much richer for the, that kind of empathetic process. But definitely I do not allow anybody to tell me what to think, whether it's Joe Rogan or, uh, Fyodor Dostoevsky or Nietzsche or my parents or, um, the, the, like, the proverbial girlfriend which I don't actually have.

   11. JMJamie Metzl1:27:46

       (laughs)

   12. LFLex Fridman1:27:46

       Like, all the-

   13. JMJamie Metzl1:27:47

       But, but she's still busting my balls. (laughs)

   14. LFLex Fridman1:27:49

       Yeah, exactly. Exactly. In my imagination.

   15. JMJamie Metzl1:27:52

       (laughs)

   16. LFLex Fridman1:27:52

       I have a girlfriend in Canada-

   17. JMJamie Metzl1:27:54

       (laughs)

   18. LFLex Fridman1:27:54

       ... that I, yeah, that I-

   19. JMJamie Metzl1:27:56

       Victoria.

   20. LFLex Fridman1:27:56

       ... have imagining... Exactly.

   21. JMJamie Metzl1:27:58

       Yeah.

   22. LFLex Fridman1:27:58

       Uh, imagining conversations. I just don't want to mention that. But also, I, I, I don't know if you've gotten a chance to see this. I, I'd love to also mention this, um, Twitter feud between two other interesting people, which is, uh, Bret Weinstein and Sam Harris.

   23. JMJamie Metzl1:28:15

       Yeah.

   24. LFLex Fridman1:28:15

       Or Sam Harris and others in general. And, uh, it kind of breaks my heart that these two people I listen to that are very thoughtful about a bunch of issues. Let's, let's put COVID aside 'cause people are very emotional-

   25. JMJamie Metzl1:28:29

       Yeah.

   26. LFLex Fridman1:28:29

       ... about this topic. I mean, I think they're deeply thoughtful and intelligent, whether you agree with them or not, and I always learn something from their conversations and they are legitimately, or have been for a long time, friends. And it's a little bit heartbreaking to me to see that they basically don't talk in private anymore and there's occasional jabs on Twitter, and, um, I hope that changes. I hope that changes in general for COVID, that-

   27. JMJamie Metzl1:29:02

       Yeah.

   28. LFLex Fridman1:29:02

       ... COVID brought out the, the, I would say the most emotional sides of people, the worst in people, and, um, I think there hasn't been enough love and empathy and compassion. And to see two people from whom I've learned a lot, whether it's Eric Weinstein, Bret Weinstein, Sam Harris, you can criticize them as much as you want, their ideas as much as you want, but if, if you're not sufficiently open-minded to admit that you have a lot to learn from their conversations, um, I think you're not being honest. And so I, I do hope they have those conversations and, and I hope we can kind of... I think there's a lot of repairing to be done post-COVID-

Episode duration: 4:55:09