WHO chief Tedros: No dispositive evidence yet on COVID’s origin
Posted on April 8, 2022 by Emily Kopp
...
In an interview in Washington on Thursday, Tedros was asked about recent preprint publications claiming “dispositive” evidence that COVID-19 originated from animals sold at a wet market. Tedros replied that all hypotheses are still in play.
“All options are open. We have not found any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to drop any of the hypotheses that we have,” he said. “All of the hypotheses are still in [WHO’s investigation].”
...
“We continue to push. Of course we should know the origins. One, for the science. If we know the origin, we can prevent the next [pandemic]. So it’s a must,” Tedros said. “Second, morally, we owe it to the millions who have died and the hundreds of millions whose lives have been affected.”
“So we will not stop pushing,” he continued.
...
-
Originally posted by Pathfinder View Post
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
I’d like to provide additional context to
@KatherineEban
’s article (https://vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-nonprofit-at-the-center-of-the-lab-leak-controversy…), which reports on meeting w NIH prior to posting of my pre-print on Wuhan #SARSCoV2 sequences deleted from NIH’s SRA. Meeting also in recent FOIAs: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-03/nih-foia-request-56712_redacted.pdf… (1/n)
vanityfair.com
“This Shouldn’t Happen”: Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controv...
Chasing scientific renown, grant dollars, and approval from Dr. Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak transformed the environmental nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance into a government-funded sponsor of risky,...
2:29 PM · Mar 31, 2022
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
Replying to
@jbloom_lab
For reference, final version of my paper is at https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/12/5211/6353034… Paper makes no specific claims about virus’s origins, but provides evidence data from China may be incomplete & so suggests caution in using it to make strong claims about virus’s early spread (2/n)
academic.oup.com
Recovery of Deleted Deep Sequencing Data Sheds More Light on the Early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic
Abstract. The origin and early spread of SARS-CoV-2 remains shrouded in mystery. Here, I identify a data set containing SARS-CoV-2 sequences from early in the W
5
14
82
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
Article by
@KatherineEban
includes summary I wrote of meeting w NIH leadership about pre-print (https://downloads.vanityfair.com/ecohealth-alliance/notes-on-meeting.pdf…). Since this is now public, I want clarify a few aspects. I assembled summary ~6 months after meeting, when I began to get inquiries (3/n)
1
9
56
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
But I documented aspect that has generated the most questions about ~1 wk after meeting in written reply to first inquiry (from Science reporter
@sciencecohen
) about whether Dr. Fauci & Dr. Collins asked me not to publish preprint (4/n).
1
7
42
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
As my summary explains, meeting w NIH occurred Sunday, June-20-2021. This was after I submitted pre-print to
@biorxivpreprint
, but before it posted publicly. I initiated contact w NIH by e-mailing copy of pre-print to Collins, Fauci & NCBI director Steve Sherry (5/n)
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
I felt it was appropriate to send advance copy to NIH because deleted #SARSCoV2 data from China is controversial topic, & I thought advance discussion might sort out circumstances of deletion and initiate investigation of other possible deletions. (6/n)
2
7
56
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
In response, Francis Collins scheduled a Sunday Zoom meeting w NIH leadership, and 4 outside scientists, two invited by NIH and two suggested by me. Several of those outside scientists are quoted in
@KatherineEban
’s article. (7/n)
1
7
51
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
The meeting became contentious. One NIH-invited outside scientist explicitly suggested that I withdraw or revise pre-print. He said he could implement this via his capacity as
@biorxivpreprint
screener if I just sent him e-mail giving thumbs up to do so (8/n)
2
25
80
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
However, to be clear, contrary to account someone provided to
@sciencecohen
, I do *not* recall Fauci or Collins requesting withdrawal of pre-print. In fact, near end of meeting, both stated for record they wanted to emphasize they had *not* asked me to do this. (9/n)
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
In any case, I did *not* revise pre-print after meeting & initial version that posted to
@biorxivpreprint
is same version I sent NIH. Of course scientific feedback is important, and my original goal in sharing pre-print was to solicit such feedback (10/n)
1
8
53
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
However, as scientist I’m often asked to attest to statements like “the funder had no role in study design, interpretation of data, preparation of manuscript, or decision to publish.” (11/n)
1
7
45
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
It’s unusual to have contentious weekend meetings about not-yet-posted preprints involving NIH, NIAID & NCBI directors. Given how meeting unfolded, if I revised/withdrew, would have created question if funder exerted influence, even if request from outside scientist (12/n)
1
15
71
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
For further transparency, when pre-print posted I made public a GitHub repo with time-stamped versions of all revisions of paper & analysis code, thereby documenting entire study from initiation to publication: https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1407445645502259201… (13/n)
Quote Tweet
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
· Jun 22, 2021
Finally, my analysis is on GitHub at https://github.com/jbloom/SARS-CoV-2_PRJNA612766… where you can access all code, data, & paper drafts. All updates are via time-stamped commits. This ensures transparency/reproducibility of this study are not in doubt, regardless of your views on interpretation. (25/n)
Show this thread
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
After initial pre-print posted I solicited critiques from another scientist,
@stgoldst
, who posted his comments publicly. I responded w revisions, documented here https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1409945528612184065… (14/n)
Quote Tweet
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
· Jun 29, 2021
I have posted an updated version of my pre-print describing #SARSCoV2 sequences from the early Wuhan epidemic that were deleted from the Sequence Read Archive. This revision should clarify some key questions people asked about the original version: https://biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...18.449051v2… (1/n)
Show this thread
1
6
42
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
I believe above steps made study public along with Stephen's reasonable scientific critiques while ensuring that meeting with NIH leadership does not raise questions about outside influence on its content (15/n)
1
5
50
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
Also useful to review developments over ~9 months since I wrote paper. A month after pre-print posted, State Council Information Office of China provided their account of deletion. It’s here https://youtu.be/UA2P8hlurlQ?t=4606… at 1:16:45 (where video starts) (16/n)
youtube.com
Live: News briefing on origin-tracing of COVID-19
China's State Council Information Office holds a news conference on origin-tracing of #COVID19. Xu Nanping, vice minister of Science and Technology, Zeng Yix...
1
8
38
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
Briefly, vice-minister of China National Health Commission, Dr. Zeng Yixin, said my paper “fabricated a conspiracy theory” that created a negative image & “such actions violate science’s spirit and law; such a conspiracy has been criticized by experts in other countries” (17/n)
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
Dr. Zeng Yixin also said earliest collection time for deleted sequences was Jan-30-2020 & so they were “not early-stage samples.” In contrast, Chinese authors originally said samples were from “early in the epidemic.” I lack data to reconcile these differing descriptions (18/n)
1
8
45
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
Further, Dr. Zeng Yixin said sequences were uploaded to NIH’s SRA at request of journal Small, but journal then accidentally deleted data availability statement during copy-editing, and this copy-editing error led authors to think they should delete their data too. (19/n)
2
7
36
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
The journal Small subsequently posted correction corroborating this account: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smll.202104078…. Small is Wiley journal based in Germany, & its editor-in-chief is Wiley’s vice-president & director for China (http://wileyeditorsymposium.com/speakers/jose-oliveira/…) (20/n)
wileyeditorsymposium.com
José Oliveira - Wiley Editor Symposium
José Oliveira studied chemistry at the University of the Witwatersrand (Johannesburg, South Africa). He obtained his PhD in 2000 in organic synthesis. He worked for a year as a post-doctoral resear...
1
7
39
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
However, some facts associated w deletion are inconsistent w State Council of China’s account. First, sequences uploaded to SRA on March 16 but paper not received by Small until April 3, so unclear how data could have initially been uploaded at journal’s request (21/n)
1
6
57
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
Second, actual e-mail request (below) for deletion from SRA mentions a variety of reasons, none of which are related to the journal deleting the data availability statement during copy editing. (22/n)
2
7
53
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
Finally, e-mails show Wuhan University deleted *two* projects, only one of which (SUB7147304=PRJNA612766) was published in journal Small & described in my paper. Initial email focused on deleting another previously unknown project (SUB7554642=PRJNA637497). (23/n)
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
For long time no info for this other deleted project was available, but it recently became available via NCBI: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/?term=PRJNA637497… This project categorized Wuhan #SARSCoV2 into two lineages that predominated early in outbreak (24/n)
1
6
46
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
Analyses of these two lineages is a component of phylogenetic studies of early #SARSCoV2 in Wuhan. Unfortunately, Wuhan University initiated request to delete their project related to these two lineages <24 hrs after creating it & only limited data ever uploaded. (25/n)
1
8
46
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
I contacted Dr. Tiangang Liu of Wuhan University to ask if samples available for full sequencing. He replied that they “carefully autoclave the nucleotide samples after we done the experiments”—a procedure that unfortunately destroys samples & precludes further analysis (26/n)
1
7
44
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
In my mind, above facts reinforce a conclusion of my paper: we need to worry about data completeness as much as phylogenetic methodology. No analysis method can be confidently correct if Chinese govt isn’t allowing sharing of complete data (27/n)
1
29
111
Bloom Lab
@jbloom_lab
·
19h
Indeed, last 9 months have provided more reasons for wariness about data completeness. The earliest case now acknowledged by Chinese govt had symptom onset of Dec-8 (or maybe later, there is some question: https://twitter.com/MichaelWorobey/status/1461829914634571779…) (28/n)
Quote Tweet
Michael Worobey
@MichaelWorobey
· Nov 19, 2021
First, I have learned that @franciscodeasis had earlier concluded that Mr. Chen, the so-called "Dec 8" patient, actually became ill on Dec 16: https://twitter.com/franciscodeasis/...38764990469…
Show this thread
Leave a comment:
-
INVESTIGATION
“This Shouldn’t Happen”: Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy
Chasing scientific renown, grant dollars, and approval from Dr. Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak transformed the environmental nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance into a government-funded sponsor of risky, cutting-edge virus research in both the U.S. and Wuhan, China. Drawing on more than 100,000 leaked documents, a V.F. investigation shows how an organization dedicated to preventing the next pandemic found itself suspected of helping start one.
BY KATHERINE EBAN
MARCH 31, 2022
...
Leave a comment:
-
Peter Daszak Answers Critics and Defends Coronavirus Research: https://theintercept.com/2022/03/11/...zak-interview/
Leave a comment:
-
The origins of SARS-CoV-2: still to be determined
By Laura H. Kahn | March 10, 2022
...
COVID-19. In contrast to SARS and MERS, there is no direct evidence for a natural spillover of COVID-19. Neither the virus nor antibodies to the virus have been identified in animals sampled in Wuhan in 2019 or early 2020. In an article currently undergoing peer review, Gao et al. found that zero out of 457 samples taken from 18 species of animals sampled in Wuhan in early 2020 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. In addition, no correlation has been observed between human occupational exposures to animals and higher rates of infection or seropositivity to the virus.
By early 2020, Chinese physicians had conducted many serological surveys of thousands of people to assess prevalence rates of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, but none included data on occupation. Had occupations been included, these might have revealed whether animal workers in the Huanan market had higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies than in the general population, thereby supporting the natural spillover hypothesis.
Two recent papers, Worobey et al. and Pekar et al., present geospacial analysis of animal stalls in the Huanan market and viral phylogenetic analysis but do not provide convincing evidence of natural spillover. The data and analyses discussed by Worobey are equally consistent with both hypotheses: (1) that SARS-CoV-2 first entered humans at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, and (2) that SARS-CoV-2 first entered humans at another location and was subsequently brought to the market and then amplified in the market by humans. The authors’ assertion that the data and analyses support only the natural spillover hypothesis is false.
Gao et al. reached a conclusion opposite to the claims of Worobey et al. and Peckar et al. Gao et al. reported that there were no positive animal samples at the Huanan market. They further reported that there was no correlation between the locations of the animal sellers in the market or the locations with the highest densities of humans and the locations of the positive environmental samples in the market. Based on these findings, Gao et al suggested that the market “acted as an amplifier,” with infections being brought into the market by humans infected elsewhere.
The hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory-related spillover—for example, from a laboratory-acquired infection—remains a viable possibility. Laboratory accidents, including laboratory-acquired infections, occur frequently. In the most recent year for which data are available, the CDC/USDA Select Agent Program received 205 select agent theft/loss/release reports, which equates to an average of four select-agent incidents per week. Of the 205 select-agent theft/loss/release reports, fully 196 were reports of releases and 177 were “determined to represent potential occupational exposure to laboratory workers.”
In determining the origin of SARS-CoV-2, what is needed, at a minimum, is: (1) data from serological sampling in 2019 and early 2020 that includes information on occupation and location and that encompasses both Wuhan animal market employees and Wuhan laboratory research employees, and (2) information—including samples, sequences, records, and results—on the research on SARS-related coronaviruses conducted by Wuhan researchers and their collaborators in 2015-2019.
Science is the objective pursuit of truth. Preventing future COVID-19 pandemics requires finding the truth. Premature, false declarations of “dispositive evidence” or “proof” does not generate public trust in science and does not protect public health.
...
Leave a comment:
-
MJ Allen
@MJnanostretch
·
Mar 4
Everybody on Twitter thinks theyve important things to say, I've a small footprint of ~400 followers but this might be the most important Tweet I’ve made since joining in Aug21. What's happening to Science's reputation is appalling& as an institution will take decades to recover.
...
I love science& my work in it. Served on my share of review panels (50?)& reviewed 100s of grant proposals& manuscripts. Never have I seen anything like this before. Disturbing times w extraordinary occurrences never allowed previously that I can recall in my 30 yr career.
...
Even if highly impactful, attracting so much media coverage as we're seeing re: explosive non-peer reviewed research doesn’t happen by accident, the authors have been provided an unheard-of gateway by someone or something much more influential than they are.
...
The hyperbolic language used in the non-peer reviewed preprints splashed across MSM media pulls all stops to dispose of (send) lab leak into an early unmarked grave- unscientific& unethical. Perhaps worst, sets a horrible new precedent re: scientific scholarship &mentorship.
...
Chain of custody of the evidence is also at issue. Misbehavior and poor judgement are somewhere in the mix, when hyperbolic conclusions not based on raw data generated by these scientists nor in their possession or control screams across headlines on the New York Times and NPR.
...
Science's mission is never racing to submit non peer reviewed research across the largest media networks in order to influence public opinion via misleading language that doesn’t pass standards of peer review. A flagrant abuse by the project leaders who should know better.Leave a comment:
-
That's a brilliant observation, Sharon. When I saw the articles Shiloh posted, I felt like I'd been sent back in time to when the pandemic first started.
I recently read in a British financial paper that Biden had a vision of forming a partnership to co-manage the world with China. We are always the last to know. Bad idea, IMO, for any two superpowers to team up like that. I like diversity. -
Looks like legacy media is changing course again - now returning to the promotion of the Wuhan market emergence theory from two papers issued on Saturday 26, 2022. Interesting coincidence since the world wants China's help in stopping the Russian military invasion of Ukraine that started February 21, 2022. link
I was not aware that domestic cats and dogs were wild forest animals. SARS-CoV-2 was fully adapted to cats and dogs and humans at the same time in early 2020. How is this? Jumping species takes time. A long time. This would completely rule out any one sudden human emergence event. If the researchers are correct on the emergence time frame of Nov/Dec 2019 then they can not be correct on the natural evolution theory. Only a direct intervention can short nature.
Hong Kong - Gov: Detection of low level of COVID-19 virus in pet dog - FEBRUARY 27, 2020
Vet Rec. Pet dog confirmed to have coronavirus - March 2020
HK: Another dog tests positive for Covid-19 - March 2020
Pet dog further tests positive for antibodies for COVID-19 virus - March 2020
HK: Pet cat tests positive for COVID-19 virus - March 2020
New studies again target Wuhan market, not lab, for COVID-19 origin
Last Updated: Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:49 a.m. ETFirst Published: Feb. 26, 2022 at 5:52 p.m. ET
By
Rachel Koning Beals
Scientists released two extensive studies on Saturday that again point to a market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the coronavirus pandemic, the New York Times reported.
The two reports, totaling about 150 pages, have not yet been published in a scientific journal.
snip
The new research suggests that the virus was spread to people working or shopping at the market. And the researchers said they found no support for an alternate hypothesis that the coronavirus emerged from a lab in Wuhan.
more..
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ne...?mod=home-pageLeave a comment:
-
It is possible that dogs were in the lab. It was revealing that immediately humans were able to infect other species (their pet cats and dogs) as shown in the early cases in Hong Kong in 2020.
Leave a comment: