No sooner had the World Health Organisation (WHO) yesterday published its report into the origins of the Wuhan coronavirus, than the Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was making a public statement distancing the organisation from what observers are calling a “whitewash”.
The report, which had been conducted with heavy reliance on Chinese scientists and under pressure from Chinese authorities, concluded it was “extremely unlikely” that SARS-CoV-2 had escaped from a lab, claiming instead it was most likely the novel virus had passed from bats via an “intermediate animal host” before sparking an “explosive outbreak” in Wuhan in December 2019.
With a rare and welcome criticism of the Chinese Government, Dr Ghebreyesus said: “I expect future collaborative studies to include more timely and comprehensive data sharing” and insisted that “all hypotheses remain on the table”.
The United States, the UK and 12 other countries (Australia, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, South Korea and Slovenia) issued a joint statement echoing the Director General’s concerns: “It is equally essential that we voice our shared concerns that the international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples.”
The European Union, more meekly, said that it regretted the delays and the “limited availability of early samples and related data”.
Dr Peter Ben-Embarek, head of the WHO mission at the centre of the controversy, defended his report, saying the “zoonotic origins” of the pandemic had been the agreed remit of the investigation rather than a potential laboratory accident. A defence which rather begs the question as to why the investigation was disbarred by design from looking into one of the key possibilities.
Dr Ben-Embarek, for reasons best known to himself, felt moved to offer a rather feeble defence of the Chinese Government’s lack of cooperation.
Of course there are areas where we had difficulties in getting down to the raw data, and there are many good reasons for that. In China, like in many other countries, there are restrictions on privacy laws that forbid the sharing of data, including private details to outsiders in particular. Where we did not have full access to the overall data, this has been put as a recommendation for future studies. So the idea is that, because we didn’t have time or because certain authorisation needs to be given before we could get access to the data, all that could be done in the second phase of studies.
Science journalist Matt Ridley aptly called it a “pure whitewash” when he appeared yesterday morning on Julia Hartley-Brewer’s show on talkRADIO. He pointed out that although the report concludes it’s very likely that an animal carried the virus to Wuhan, this conclusion is at odds with the 20-30 pages in the report which note that 45,000 animals in China have been tested for the virus and none have been found with it.
A lab escape was once dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Back on February 19th 2020, 27 prominent scientists declared in the Lancet: “We stand together to condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” Another group of experts, on March 17th, proclaimed in Nature Medicine: “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
Now, though, it is very much regarded as a plausible hypothesis. Matt Ridley, who is writing a book on the subject, and Harvard medical geneticist Alina Chan explained why it is being taken seriously by experts in an eye-opening article in the Telegraph.
They write that, unlike SARS from 2003, SARS-CoV-2 was not found to mutate rapidly in early human cases, suggesting it was already well adapted to infecting human beings. Furthermore, in May 2020, the director of the Chinese CDC announced that none of the animal samples collected from the Wuhan wet market had tested positive for COVID-19.
Ridley and Chan write:
Yet there is little doubt that the pandemic began in Wuhan. All the early cases were in the city and the majority of the first recorded cases in other countries were among people who had travelled from Wuhan. Persistent attempts by the Chinese Government and scientists to play up possible origins in frozen-food imports and pre-Wuhan cases in Europe have been unpersuasive so far.
There is still no sign of an original animal source of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, or the rest of Hubei province. Horseshoe bats that live in the area have been extensively sampled for viruses for years without SARS-CoV-2-like viruses showing up. Therefore, the strongest connection between such viruses in Yunnan and the human outbreak in Wuhan is the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the fact that it had collected SARS-like viruses from the Mojiang mine.
But this is circumstantial, not direct evidence. Although SARS leaked from a Beijing laboratory twice in 2004, infecting 11 people, there have been no public reports of an accident at the WIV. Moreover, RaTG13 is not SARS-CoV-2: there are significant differences between the viruses. This is why full transparency about all the viruses held in the WIV would be helpful, including all of the SARS-like viruses collected in the Mojiang mine.
Unfortunately, the Institute’s database of more than 20,000 viruses was taken offline around the time of the outbreak for “security reasons”, and the WHO team were not given access to it. The WIV is the foremost laboratory for studying these kinds of viruses in the world, and had collected large numbers of coronaviruses from hundreds of miles away. With no sign of a source in the wet market or animals, the coincidence that the outbreak began in the vicinity of such an institute is too great to be easily dismissed.
The theory was given a boost in January 2021 when the US State Department released a statement saying it had “reason to believe that several researchers inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses”.
More worrying is the prospect that the virus might not just be an escaped sample of a naturally occurring bat coronavirus, but an engineered virus from gain-of-function research. This may explain, for example, why it was already well adapted to human-to-human transmission.
Ridley and Chan again:
We know from published work that Dr Shi and her colleagues were not only analysing the genomes of viruses, they were also manipulating them. This includes the creation of ‘chimera’ or hybrid viruses with genes taken from two different viruses. It also includes the testing of these viruses in ‘humanised’ mice, endowed with a certain human gene.
The practice of building chimera coronaviruses, sometimes leaving no trace of manipulation, is not new. Such experiments have been conducted in select laboratories such as the WIV for years, for the purpose of understanding how novel viruses could spill over into humans. The ultimate goal is to create a universal vaccine for all SARS-like viruses.
The scientists might find it unbearable if they instead caused a pandemic. But they did not find it unthinkable. In a 2015 article co-authored by Dr Shi these words appear: “Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue… The potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks must be weighed against the risk of creating more dangerous pathogens.”
SARS-CoV-2 is not so deadly as the bat virus that killed three of the six miners who caught it directly from the bats in 2012. The WIV held samples of nine bat viruses sourced from that Mojiang mine, one of which, RaTG13 was noted (though without making the link) by WIV researchers themselves to be very similar to SARS-CoV-2.
Could SARS-CoV-2 be an engineered version of those viruses, perhaps made less deadly but ready for human-to-human transmission? It’s one possibility, but without further access to samples and data, repeatedly denied by the Chinese authorities, scientists have no way to find out.
It’s very important we find out soon, though, so we can know exactly what we’re dealing with and what lessons we should learn.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Free speech and the woke mind virus cannot both co-habit Clown World because, as we’ve seen with many examples now, serious ructions do occur as a result, so one of them must die otherwise it’s just the never-ending battle. Consequently we keep hearing of more and more pathetic garbage and the messing about with our literature, as well as our language, such as this latest Woketard offering, which defies common sense and is basically censorship on steroids;
”Saying a patient has “blacked out” when they have fainted is racist, pharmacists have been warned.
Chemist workers have been banned from using the traditional phrase for briefly losing consciousness in case it causes offence.
Other words and phrases with “racial undertones” on a barred list drawn up by union bosses – in what horrified critics branded “virtue signalling” – include black sheep, black market and “blackmail”.
The – for want of a better phrase – “blacklist” was compiled by Nav Bhogal, a member of the Pharmacists’ Defence Association’s BAME (Black, Asian, and minority ethnic) network.
Titled “Addressing racial undertones in the language of pharmacy”, Mr Bhogal said that the words have become “embedded in our professional vocabulary”.
He claims the words and phrases also have “associations with race, power dynamics, and negativity” which “can be harmful”.
The article, published on the website of the Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA), is the latest in a series of controversial “woke” language guides.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1993540/pharmacy-guide-woke-nonsense
Nav Bhogal wants shipping back to his ancestral home.
#w#t.
It’s a Captain Obvious cameo, but it always amazes me why people who demonstrably hate white people and have no interest in respecting/tolerating our culture, insist on moving where the white folk live. Perplexing.
Just stay the feck away then!
It’d be like me moving to Dubai and making a formal complaint to the municipality about all the women walking around looking like mobile tents and how that offends my liberal Western female sensibilities, because ‘Women’s Rights’. You move to a place that has a completely different culture and you accept that culture and respect the contrasting laws and customs. It’s just the sheer arrogance of it. Of course, I don’t think many places, even those such as the UAE, which are a bit more relaxed and tolerant of Westerners and other religions, would suffer the “suicidal empathy” and outright treachery from its own leaders and citizens that we’re experiencing here in most of Europe.
You nailed it Mogs.
She did
Yes but it’s all being organised & constructed – this downfall of western civilisation – by our own European ilk who are using every trick in the book which includes these useful ( to them ) idiots, foreign or otherwise to help carry out their plans !!
I was hoping to dream of a white Christmas next year. I know it’s not going to happen. But I fear even hoping it may get me into trouble.
This case will show how politicised the High Court has become. I think we all suspect but just how far has it gone.
‘The DfE document informed Ms Phillipson that failure to intervene over the Act would mean the legislation automatically going live at the start of August…’
Extraordinary to reflect that civil servants advised a Minister to ‘intervene’ to stop legislation that had been passed by Parliament. Quite obviously, that is a power reserved to the House of Commons, and presumably the FSU argument will be based on that fact.
But I expect the Court to find that, because of the ECHR, Parliament was ulta vires in the first place, and had no power to pass the legislation.
We shouldn’t joke about such possibilities.
Surprisingly I don’t believe this story.
Are we really expected to accept that just after winning the election Phillipson decided to put a complete stop to legislation that was scheduled to go live within a couple of weeks? Bollox. And the Civil service seems to have had a remarkably well prepared response to her whingeing. I’m not buying it. So, Labour knew they had the election in the bag before it was run or Phillipson thought she’d wing it before she even had her feet under her desk.
This story has a distinct whiff of jackanory attached to it.
Everyone knew that Labour had the election in the bag before it was run. Weren’t you paying attention?
Bridget Phillipson Classroom Dictator
The “Hate Speech” Strawman….As ever, who gets to decide what is hate speech.
Who? Those running The State, its apparatchiks, cronies and useful idiots.
Is it the rôle of Civil Servants to brief Ministers on how to circumvent or evade legislation?
A guy called Julius Streicher was hanged at Nuremberg for incitement to genocide, ie, publishing an antisemitic German newspaper (Der Stürmer) which is all he was ever personally responsible for. So, why on earth do you keep claiming there was something like free speech? There ain’t and that Philipps tried to get Jewish organisations onboard just demonstrates that she understood how to get rid of supposedly free speech she really doesn’t like.
You want to censor and kill people who don’t obey. Guess what? She wants that as well. Same difference. Petty squabbles about who is or isn’t to be hanged for speaking freely don’t change the quality of the discussion.
BTW: Wasn’t there also an Irish-born American who got executed by the British state for speaking English?