Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion: Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Wuhan has been working with bats and coronavirus for many years - DNA manipulations, cloning....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bump this

    Comment


    • Source: https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/0...b-leak-theory/

      Why did scientists suppress the lab-leak theory?
      In private, they said it was plausible. In public, they called it a conspiracy theory.
      Matt Ridley
      12th January 2022

      In August 2007 there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth virus on a farm in Surrey. It was a few miles from the world’s leading reference laboratory for identifying outbreaks of foot and mouth. Nobody thought this was a coincidence and sure enough a leaking pipe at the laboratory was soon found to be the source: a drainage contractor had worked at the lab and then at the farm.

      In December 2019 there was an outbreak in China of a novel bat-borne SARS-like coronavirus a few miles from the world’s leading laboratory for collecting, studying and manipulating novel bat-borne SARS-like coronaviruses. We were assured by leading scientists in China, the US and the UK that this really was a coincidence, even when the nine closest relatives of the new virus turned up in the freezer of the laboratory in question, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

      Now we know what those leading scientists really thought. Emails exchanged between them after a conference call on 1 February 2020, and only now forced into the public domain by Republicans in the US Congress, show that they not only thought the virus might have leaked from a lab, but they also went much further in private. They thought the genome sequence of the new virus showed a strong likelihood of having been deliberately manipulated or accidentally mutated in the lab. Yet later they drafted an article for a scientific journal arguing that the suggestion not just of a manipulated virus, but even of an accidental spill, could be confidently dismissed and was a crackpot conspiracy theory...

      Comment


      • ...
        Appendix I

        These emails were originally produced redacted via the Freedom of Information Act and
        subsequently to Committee Republicans. At the request of Committee Republicans and pursuant
        to the Seven Member Rule, the Department of Health and Human Services made unredacted
        versions available for an in camera review but not available to the public. Committee staff, to the
        best of their ability, hand transcribed the contents of the emails and excerpts of those
        transcriptions are reproduced below. Unless otherwise noted, emphasis is added.
        ...
        Notes from Participants on February 1, 2020 Conference Call

        1. Email from Dr. Jeremy Farrar to Drs. Francis Collins, Anthony Fauci, and
        Lawrence Tabak

        ...
        From Mike Farzan (discoverer of SARS receptor):

        1. The RBD didn’t look ‘engineered’ to him – as in, no human would
        have selected the individual mutations and cloned them into the
        RBD (I think we all agree)

        2. Tissue culture passage can often lead to gain of basic sites –
        including furin cleavage sites (this is stuff they have seen with
        human coronaviruses)

        3. He is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time explain that as
        an event outside the lab (though, there are possible ways in nature,
        but highly unlikely)

        4. Instead of directed engineering, changes in the RBD and acquisition
        of the furin site would be highly compatible with the idea of
        continued passage of virus in tissue culture

        5. Acquisition of the furin site would likely destabilize the virus but
        would make it disseminate to new tissues.

        So, given above, a likely explanation could be something as simple
        as passage SARS-live CoVs in tissue culture on human cell lines
        (under BSL-2) for an extended period of time, accidently creating a
        virus that would be primed for rapid transmission between humans
        via gain of furin site (from tissue culture) and adaption to human
        ACE2 receptor via repeated passage.

        …So, I think it becomes a question of how do you put all this
        together, whether you believe in this series of coincidences, what
        you know of the lab in Wuhan, how much could be in nature –
        accidental release or natural event? I am 70:30 or 60:40.

        From Bob [Garry]:

        Before I left the office for the ball, I aligned nCoV with the 96% bat
        CoV sequenced at WIV. Except for the RBD the S proteins are
        essentially identical at the amino acid level – well all but the perfect
        insertion of 12 nucleotides that adds the furin site. S2 is over its
        whole length essentially identical. I really can’t think of a plausible
        natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar
        to it to nCoV where you insert exactly 4 amino acids 12 nucleotide
        that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function
        – that and you don’t change any other amino acid in S2? I just can’t
        figure out how this gets accomplished in nature. Do the alignment
        of the spikes at the amino acid level – its stunning. Of course, in the
        lab it would be easy to generate the perfect 12 base insert that you
        wanted. Another scenario is that the progenitor of nCoV was a bat
        virus with the perfect furin cleavage site generated over
        evolutionary times. In this scenario RaTG13 the WIV virus was
        generated by a perfect deletion of 12 nucleotides while essentially
        not changing any other S2 amino acid. Even more implausible IMO.

        That is the big if.

        You were doing gain of function research you would NOT use an
        existing close of SARS or MERSv. These viruses are already human
        pathogens. What you would do is close a bat virus th[at] had not yet
        emerged. Maybe then pass it in human cells for a while to lock in
        the RBS, then you reclone and put in the mutations you are
        interested – one of the first a polybasic cleavage site.

        2. Email from Dr. Francis Collins to Drs. Jeremy Farrar, Anthony Fauci, and
        Lawrence Tabak


        … Though the arguments from Ron Fouchier and Christian Drosten
        are presented with more forcefulness than necessary, I am coming
        around to the view that a natural origin is more likely. But I share
        your view that a swift convening of experts in a confidence inspiring
        framework (WHO seems really the only option) is needed, or the
        voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential
        harm to science and international harmony

        3. Email from Dr. Andrew Rambaut to Drs. Jeremy Farrar, Anthony Fauci, Patrick
        Vallance, Christian Drosten, Marion Koopmans, Edward Holmes, Kristian
        Andersen, Paul Schreier, Mike Ferguson, Francis Collins, and Josie Golding


        Thanks for inviting me on the call yesterday. I am also agnostic on
        this – I do not have any experience of laboratory virology and don’t
        know what is likely or not in that context. From a (natural)
        evolutionary point of view the only thing here that strikes me as
        unusual is the furin cleavage site. It strongly suggests to me that we
        are missing something important in the origin of the virus. My
        inclination would be that it is a missing host species in which this
        feature arose because it was selected for in that host. We can see this
        insertion has resulted in an extremely fit virus in humans – we can
        also deduce that it is not optimal for transmission in bat species.

        … The biggest hinderance at the moment (for this and more
        generally) is the lack of data and information. There have been no
        genome sequences from Wuhan for cases more recent than the
        beginning of January and reports, but no information, about virus
        from non-human animals in Wuhan. If the evolutionary origins of
        the epidemic were to be discussed, I think the only people with
        sufficient information or access to samples to address it would be
        the teams working in Wuhan.

        4. Email from Dr. Ron Fouchier

        … Given the evidence presented and the discussions around it, I
        would conclude that a follow-up discussion on the possible origin of
        2019-nCoV would be of much interest. However, I doubt if it needs
        to be done on very short term, given the importance of other
        activities of the scientific community, WHO and other stakeholders
        at present. It is my opinion that a non-natural origin of 2019-nCoV
        is highly unlikely at present. Any conspiracy theory can be
        approached with factual information.

        … An accusation that nCoV-2019 might have been engineered and
        released into the environment by humans (accidental or intentional)
        would need to be supported by strong data, beyond a reasonable
        doubt. It is good that this possibility was discussed in detail with a
        team of experts. However, further debate about such accusations
        would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties
        and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China
        in particular.

        .Reaction to First Draft of Nature Medicine “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”

        1. Email from Dr. Anthony Fauci to Drs. Jeremy Farrar and Francis Collins

        …Serial passage in ACE2-transgenic mice

        2. Email from Dr. Jeremy Farrar to Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins

        …[Eddie Holmes] 60-40 lab. I am 50-50…

        3. Email from Dr. Francis Collins to Drs. Jeremy Farrar and Anthony Fauci

        …[Eddie Holmes] arguing against engineering but repeated passage
        is still an option…

        Government Official Attempts to Stifle the Lab Leak Hypothesis

        1. Email from Dr. Francis Collins to Drs. Anthony Fauci, Lawrence Tabak, Cliff Lane,
        and Mr. John Burklow


        Wondering if there is something NIH can do to help put down this
        very destructive conspiracy, with what seems to be growing
        momentum:



        I hoped the Nature Medicine article on the genomic sequence of
        SARS-CoV-2 would settle this. But probably didn’t get much
        visibility.

        Anything more we can do? Ask the National Academy to weigh in?

        Francis

        2. Email from Dr. Anthony Fauci to Dr. Francis Collins

        I would not do anything about this right now. It is a shiny object that
        will go away in times.


        Full text:
        "Safety and security don't just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear."
        -Nelson Mandela

        Comment


        • bump this

          Comment



          • Was Peter Daszak Working For The Central Intelligence Agency?

            An EcoHealth Alliance whistleblower steps forward. ....

            ...According to investigative research done by independent-journalist Sam Husseini and The Intercept, much of the money awarded to EcoHealth Alliance did not focus on health or ecology, but rather on biowarfare, bioterrorism, and other dangerous uses of deadly pathogens.

            EcoHealth Alliance received the majority of its funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a State Department subsidiary that serves as a frequent cover for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Their second largest source of funding was from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which is a branch of the Department of Defense (DOD) which states it is tasked to “counter and deter weapons of mass destruction and improvised threat networks.”
            ...

            Dr. Andrew Huff received his Ph.D. in Environmental Health specializing in emerging diseases before becoming an Associate Vice President at EcoHealth Alliance, where he developed novel methods of bio-surveillance, data analytics, and visualization for disease detection.

            On January 12, 2022, Dr. Andrew Huff issued a public statement (on Twitter) in which he claimed, Peter Daszak, the President of EcoHealth Alliance, told him that he was working for the CIA.

            Dr. Andrew Huff’s full statement below:... (See article - E)

            ....

            Every step of the way, Fauci, Collins, and Daszak have done everything in their power to obfuscate, mislead, and misinform the world about the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 originating at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

            If Dr. Andrew Huff is telling the truth, Fauci, Collins, and Daszak are not covering up the lab origin only for themselves, but also for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Government...
            _____________________________________________

            Ask Congress to Investigate COVID Origins and Government Response to Pandemic.

            i love myself. the quietest. simplest. most powerful. revolution ever. ---- nayyirah waheed

            "...there’s an obvious contest that’s happening between different sectors of the colonial ruling class in this country. And they would, if they could, lump us into their beef, their struggle." ---- Omali Yeshitela, African People’s Socialist Party

            (My posts are not intended as advice or professional assessments of any kind.)
            Never forget Excalibur.

            Comment


            • bump this

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Emily View Post
                https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/was-p...orking-for-the
                Was Peter Daszak Working For The Central Intelligence Agency?

                An EcoHealth Alliance whistleblower steps forward. ....

                ...According to investigative research done by independent-journalist Sam Husseini and The Intercept, much of the money awarded to EcoHealth Alliance did not focus on health or ecology, but rather on biowarfare, bioterrorism, and other dangerous uses of deadly pathogens.

                EcoHealth Alliance received the majority of its funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a State Department subsidiary that serves as a frequent cover for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Their second largest source of funding was from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which is a branch of the Department of Defense (DOD) which states it is tasked to “counter and deter weapons of mass destruction and improvised threat networks.”
                ...

                Dr. Andrew Huff received his Ph.D. in Environmental Health specializing in emerging diseases before becoming an Associate Vice President at EcoHealth Alliance, where he developed novel methods of bio-surveillance, data analytics, and visualization for disease detection.

                On January 12, 2022, Dr. Andrew Huff issued a public statement (on Twitter) in which he claimed, Peter Daszak, the President of EcoHealth Alliance, told him that he was working for the CIA.

                Dr. Andrew Huff’s full statement below:... (See article - E)

                ....

                Every step of the way, Fauci, Collins, and Daszak have done everything in their power to obfuscate, mislead, and misinform the world about the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 originating at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

                If Dr. Andrew Huff is telling the truth, Fauci, Collins, and Daszak are not covering up the lab origin only for themselves, but also for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Government...
                Screen shot just-in-case....

                Interesting claim......



                Click image for larger version  Name:	hufftwitter.png Views:	1 Size:	81.1 KB ID:	936290

                Comment


                • Translation Google

                  Two years after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, where is the investigation into the origins of Sars-CoV-2?

                  Article written by
                  Louis San
                  France Televisions
                  Posted on 01/25/2022 06:59
                  Update on 01/25/2022 12:37

                  By the very admission of WHO investigators, the investigations are "at a standstill". Two hypotheses remain on the table: transmission from animals to humans or escape from a laboratory. But there is no clue to decide.

                  Pangolin? Bat ? Lab crash? Two years after the first cases of Covid-19 in France, announced by the authorities on January 24, 2020, the origin of the pandemic remains an enigma. Inspectors from the World Health Organization (WHO) traveled to the Chinese city of Wuhan, the cradle of the epidemic, in January 2021 to carry out investigations. But they could not formally establish how Sars-CoV-2 had emerged, as they set out in their report at the end of March . The investigation is "at a standstill" , finally recognized these experts, in August. A remark made as US intelligence services presented their own report on the origins of the virus. These investigations have also not made it possible to come to a conclusion with certainty on the conditions of appearance of the virus.

                  Since then, knowledge has changed little. "Overall, two main hypotheses remain on the table" , summarizes with franceinfo the virologist Etienne Decroly, research director at the CNRS in the Architecture and function of macromolecules laboratory. The first is that of a natural zoonosis, that is to say an infectious disease which pre-existed in animals and which was transmitted to humans, crossing the species barrier. The second hypothesis links the appearance of Sars-CoV-2 to experiments carried out in the laboratory. Considered by some to be a conspiracy thesis in 2020, the scenario consolidated the following year , until it became plausible and serious.

                  "Today, we have no element that allows us to lean in favor of one hypothesis or another. We are in the dark."
                  Etienne Decroly, virologist, specialist in emerging viruses to franceinfo

                  The bat, reservoir of the virus?

                  The first scenario, that of transmission from animals to humans, was considered "the most favorable hypothesis because the history of the interaction between humans and animals is made up of zoonoses" , underlines Etienne Decroly, who has been interested in the origins of the pandemic from its very beginnings. It is in this context that the trail of the pangolin was put forward by Chinese scientists, before being definitively dismissed . The reason: a correspondence which is only partial between the genetic code of Sars-CoV-2 and that of a coronavirus taken from this animal.

                  On the other hand, the hypothesis of transmission of the virus from bats to humans, whether or not via an intermediate animal, remains under consideration. "A virus 96% identical to Sars-CoV-2 has been identified in bats captured in China. The bat is therefore very likely the reservoir of the virus" , argued the Pasteur Institute, at the end of February 2020 . The hypothesis was then reinforced with the discovery, in Laos, of viruses “in bats, very close to the first strains of Sars-CoV-2 which could be isolated”, the closest discovered so far and capable of infecting human cells, explains to franceinfo Marc Eloit, head of the Pathogen Discovery laboratory at the Institut Pasteur in Paris. At the end of 2020 and beginning of 2021, he led a mission in northern Laos in limestone caves where millions of bats live. This type of relief and this fauna are common to neighboring areas, such as northern Burma, northern Vietnam and Yunnan, a province in southern China.

                  A 'significant difference' between Sars-CoV-2 and bat viruses discovered (so far)

                  However, three elements stand in the way of the complete validation of this thesis. First, the city of Wuhan is located some 2,500 km northeast of Yunnan, and bats do not live in this city of 11 million inhabitants or in its surroundings, underlines Etienne Decroly. Moreover, no host animal, which would have acted as an intermediary between bats and humans, has been identified. Nothing conclusive was discovered during the investigations carried out on the Wuhan animal market, still considered a potential starting point for the pandemic.

                  Finally, the viruses discovered by Marc Eloit and his team nevertheless present an "important difference" with Sars-Cov-2: their genome lacks an element called "furin cleavage site", which makes it possible to increase the entry efficiency of Sars-CoV-2 into human lung cells and its pathogenicity. This "site" is fundamental since it makes the virus dangerous for humans. “It could have been acquired by Sars-CoV-2 during multiple passages in human cells” , remarks Marc Eloit. But that means "either successive passages without symptoms in humans, until this furin site is acquired, or passages in cell cultures in the laboratory", he says. The initially silent circulation of the virus in humans, because initially without or with few symptoms, is "theoretically possible" , explains the virologist. Not to mention that the caves in which the bats live are frequented by humans: inhabitants of these regions go there to collect guano or sometimes consume these animals, and tourists visit these sites.

                  A laboratory accident not excluded

                  The zoonosis hypothesis is therefore considered "possible" by the WHO and remains favored by the scientific community. But "we have no scientific facts today that demonstrate the mechanisms of this zoonosis" , concludes Etienne Decroly. The idea of ​​laboratory manipulations mentioned by the virologist Marc Eloit leads directly to the other major hypothesis: that of the accident. Wuhan indeed has sensitive laboratories: a P4 laboratory – for “class 4 pathogen” – of very high security, where viruses such as Ebola are studied, and two P3 laboratories, where coronaviruses are studied.

                  Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli, deputy director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is nicknamed "Batwoman" because of her great knowledge of bat coronaviruses. In 2005, she co-directed the research, published in particular in Nature (in English) , which made it possible to discover that the SARS virus originated from a bat coronavirus. In 2014, she also participated in work, published in Nature Medicine (in English), involving the manipulation of SARS and bat coronaviruses, in order to study their risk of transmissibility to humans. Wuhan scientists had "the intention to conduct animal experiments to see if these viruses were able to cross the species barrier , abounds Etienne Decroly. Several works have been published to present the chimeric viruses developed to study these processes."

                  "One of the laboratories in Wuhan has been handling coronaviruses for a very long time. It is the world reference in this field."
                  Marc Eloit, Head of the Pathogen Discovery Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur, Paris to franceinfo

                  A possible accident cannot therefore be ruled out. Some viruses described in recent years by Chinese scientists have been harvested in Yunnan, according to the virologist from the Institut Pasteur. However, "when we go to sample in caves, there is a risk of human contamination if drastic conditions of individual protection are not put in place" , he says. “When these samples are introduced into the laboratory to extract the material to sequence the virus, or to amplify it in cell culture, there are associated risks if the safety rules are not strictly respected”, explains the specialist. In 2004, the virus responsible for the SARS epidemic had also escaped from the Beijing Institute of Virology, classified P3, as franceinfo recalled in March 2021 .

                  Despite well-established protocols, "there can always be a leaky pipe, a poorly maintained filter" , illustrates to franceinfo engineer Rodolphe de Maistre, who participated in the DRASTIC project, a multidisciplinary group of experts conducting research independent on the origins of the Covid-19 epidemic. He points out that work was underway in Wuhan in 2019 near sensitive sites. According to him, “the risk of [laboratory] accident was high”, with a laboratory in operation handling pathogenic viruses, next to a site under construction and, very close, a factory manufacturing vaccines.

                  "Laboratory accidents happen, it's quite common. I've seen them and I've made mistakes myself" , noted, moreover, in July 2021 during a press conference, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director of the WHO, referring to his career as an immunologist in a laboratory.

                  Lack of transparency from Beijing

                  But China has always refuted the hypothesis of the laboratory accident, denouncing a simple "rumor" . "She does not want to be held responsible for a pandemic" , remarks to franceinfo Antoine Bondaz, researcher at Sciences Po and the Foundation for Strategic Research, and specialist in China. This is why the country condemned the "arrogance" and the "lack of respect" of the WHO which had requested, during the summer of 2021, the continuation of the investigations on its soil. Beijing immediately rejected the claims of the UN agency, deeming the first investigation sufficient.

                  However, the WHO has pointed to a lack of transparency from the Chinese authorities regarding these investigations. Dane Peter Ben Embarek, who led the delegation of international experts to Wuhan, recounted the tensions felt during the visit. "Until 48 hours before the end of the mission, we still did not agree to mention the 'thesis of the laboratory' in the report" , he said in a documentary broadcast by Danish public television. TV2 ( in Danish) . “Following these exchanges, the WHO delegation finally obtained permission to visit two laboratories where research on bats is carried out ,” he explained.

                  "We were able to talk and ask the questions we wanted to ask, but we didn't have the opportunity to consult any documentation."
                  Peter Ben Embarek, head of the delegation of international experts in Wuhan in a Danish public television documentary

                  This gap in the investigation is regrettable, according to the WHO. "In order to be able to examine the laboratory hypothesis, it is important to have access to all the raw data ," said the UN health agency. China brandished medical secrecy for the first patients concerned, in order to dismiss the request. Nor did it conduct, despite requests, a large serological survey in Wuhan covering the pre-pandemic period. Marc Eloit explains that this "basic approach" with "simple and available tools", analysis of sera stored in biobanks, would have made it possible to date the start of circulation of Sars-CoV-2 in relation to the first clinical detections and to identify a possible circulation within the megalopolis before the first known signals.

                  The situation is "paradoxical" , judge Antoine Bondaz, between, on the one hand, China which constantly boasts of its great capacities and, on the other, "the total impasse" which it orchestrates on the origin of the virus and the initial routes of contamination.

                  "China could come out stronger, appear as the one that has shed all the light. But it has a political and not a scientific management of the investigation into the appearance of Sars-CoV-2."
                  Antoine Bondaz, researcher at the Foundation for Strategic Research to franceinfo

                  Will we ever know the truth about the appearance of Sars-CoV-2? Marc Eloit notes that it is not excluded to find, during future samples from bats, viral strains having a "furin cleavage site" . This would endorse the hypothesis of a zoonosis of natural origin. While the new commission of experts formed by the WHO is currently unable to negotiate a new mandate for investigation, Etienne Decroly is rather optimistic. He hopes that the truth will come out one day, perhaps through new tools that are still unknown to us.

                  "Safety and security don't just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear."
                  -Nelson Mandela

                  Comment


                  • bump this

                    Comment


                    • Allowing a Comprehensive International Investigation of
                      Pandemic Origins would be a True Expression of Olympic Values


                      February 4, 2022

                      The Olympic Charter states that “The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service
                      of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful
                      society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.”

                      Unfortunately, as athletes from across the globe gather together today for the start of
                      the 2022 Beijing Olympic Winter Games, this noble aspiration is being undermined
                      through the ongoing efforts of the host government to prevent a comprehensive
                      international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed
                      millions of people and harmed billions across the globe.

                      Understanding how this terrible crisis began is essential to preventing future pandemics
                      and building a safer future for all.

                      The ongoing efforts by China’s government to block any meaningful investigation into
                      pandemic origins – which has included destroying biological samples, hiding records,
                      imprisoning courageous Chinese citizen journalists, and enforcing a series of gag
                      orders preventing Chinese scientists from saying or writing anything about pandemic
                      origins without prior government approval – have been an affront to the international
                      scientific community and to people everywhere.

                      Due primarily to the Chinese government’s intransigence and the aggressive pressure it
                      has placed on foreign governments and international institutions, no comprehensive
                      international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic has yet been
                      initiated.

                      Nearly a year ago, at a press conference on February 9, 2021, the leader of the
                      international mission to Wuhan organized by the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr
                      Peter Ben Embarek, announced that the international study team had concluded that a
                      pandemic “natural origin” was likely but that a lab incident origin was “extremely
                      unlikely” and should not be investigated. Dr. Embarek later admitted, however, that he
                      actually thought that at least one manifestation of a lab accident was “likely,” that he had
                      been under pressure from Chinese hosts not to raise the lab incident origin hypothesis,
                      and that he had bent his expressed views to accommodate the sensitivities of the
                      international group’s Chinese hosts.

                      Although the WHO has more recently established a new body - the Scientific Advisory
                      Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) - to advise the WHO Secretariat on
                      technical and scientific considerations regarding emerging and re-emerging pathogens
                      and to investigate the origins of novel pathogens including SARS-CoV-2, it appears this
                      body does not have unfettered access to relevant raw data and sampling sites in China
                      and has not been allowed to perform audits of Wuhan´s laboratories where various bat
                      coronaviruses were being collected, stored, and manipulated before the outbreak
                      began.

                      With no established plan in place for a comprehensive and unrestricted international
                      investigation into COVID-19 origins, everyone on earth and future generations remain at
                      heightened and unnecessary risk of future pandemics.

                      Calling for a comprehensive investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic at
                      this moment, when athletes from across the globe are coming together to promote
                      openness and mutual trust, is a true representation of the ideals underlying the Olympic
                      movement.

                      As a community of scientists and experts from around the world deeply committed to
                      uncovering the origins of this pandemic as a cornerstone of preventing future ones, we
                      therefore:

                      ● Call on all nations of the world, and all people, to unite in demanding a
                      comprehensive and unrestricted investigation into COVID-19 origins in China
                      and, as appropriate, beyond;
                      ● Call on the Chinese government to affirm its support for a comprehensive
                      international investigation into pandemic origins with full access to all relevant
                      records, samples, retrospective contact tracing data, and personnel in China;
                      ● Call on the United States, the European Union, and other national and
                      international bodies to establish broad-based COVID-19 commissions to explore
                      pandemic origins and propose avenues to make sure such a pandemic never
                      happens again;
                      ● Call on all nations to require scientists in their countries who have previously
                      collaborated with Chinese laboratories researching coronaviruses to share all the
                      relevant data and communications;
                      ● Call on the Chinese government to allow access to information critical for
                      properly assessing all plausible origins, by:
                      ○ sharing the missing virus sequence and sample databases managed by
                      the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which have been removed from the
                      internet since September 2019, despite forming the most exhaustive
                      research resource on recently identified bat coronaviruses;
                      ○ sharing records of all coronavirus sampling trips involving staff or
                      researchers in Wuhan for the years 2018 and 2019;
                      ○ sharing the full list, with sampling dates, of the medical samples taken
                      from the miners who developed Covid-19-like symptoms working in
                      Mojiang, Yunnan in 2012, as well as a list of the institutions that received
                      these samples;
                      ○ allowing international researchers to visit and sample at the Mojiang mine,
                      Yunnan and at the Shitou caves, which were described in the 2018
                      DEFUSE grant application submitted to DARPA by the EcoHealth Alliance;
                      ○ sharing laboratory books and research records from the relevant labs in
                      Wuhan, in particular, but not limited to, the WIV at its Xiaohongshan
                      (BSL-2/3) and its Zhengdian (BSL-2/3/4) sites, Wuhan University
                      (ABSL-3), Wuhan CDC BSL-2, and the Wuhan Institute of Biological
                      Products, as well as all of the biosafety records since 2016 submitted
                      annually by these institutions to the Chinese authorities.
                      ● Call on the World Health Organization to establish and promote a secure
                      whistleblower provision making it easier and safer for scientists and experts in
                      China and across the globe to share information regarding pandemic origins;
                      ● Call on the international community to recognize the exemplary Chinese medical
                      professionals and the many ordinary Chinese citizens who took great personal
                      risks in documenting the early outbreak in Wuhan and alerting the world and who
                      too often got severely punished for doing so.
                      Realizing these critically important next steps would help build a safer future for all and
                      be the ultimate expression of the true Olympic values.

                      Signatories:
                      - Colin D Butler, Honorary Professor, Australian National University, Canberra,
                      Australia (ORCID 0000-0002-2942-5294)
                      - Henri Cap, PhD, Zoologist, Toulouse, France
                      - Jean-Michel Claverie, Virologist, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, Aix-Marseille
                      University, France (ORCID 0000-0003-1424-0315)
                      - Virginie Courtier, Evolutionary geneticist, Research Director, Institut Jacques
                      Monod, CNRS, Paris, France (ORCID 0000-0002-9297-9230) (Co-Organizer)
                      - Gilles Demaneuf, Engineer and Data Scientist, Auckland, New Zealand (ORCID
                      0000-0001-7277-9533) (Co-Organizer)
                      - François Graner, biophysicist, Research Director, CNRS and Université de Paris,
                      France (ORCID 0000-0002-4766-3579)
                      - Mai (Mike) He, Pathologist, Associate Professor, Washington University in St. Louis
                      School of Medicine, MO, USA
                      - Makoto Itoh, Professor, Engineering Systems, University of Tsukuba, Japan
                      - Hideki Kakeya, Information Scientist, Associate Professor, University of Tsukuba,
                      Japan
                      - Richard Kock, Professor, Wildlife Health and Emerging Diseases, Royal Veterinary
                      College, London, UK.
                      - Jonathan Latham, PhD, Exec. Director, The Bioscience Resource Project, USA
                      - Milton Leitenberg, Senior Research Fellow, University of Maryland, USA
                      - Steven E Massey, Computational Biologist, Professor, University of Puerto Rico,
                      Rio Piedras, San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA
                      - Jamie Metzl, Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council, USA (Co-Organizer)
                      - Steven Quay, Formerly of Dept. Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine,
                      USA (ORCID 000-002-0363-7651)
                      - Monali Rahalkar, Scientist (Microbiologist), Agharkar Research Institute, Pune,
                      India (ORCID 0000-0003-0945-4378)
                      - Bahulikar Rahul, Scientist (Plant genetics and taxonomy expert), BAIF
                      Development Research Foundation, Pune, India (ORCID 0000-0002-0442-4607)
                      - Charles Rixey, MA, formerly CBRN Chief, United States Marine Corps; Analyst,
                      DRASTIC, Dallas TX, USA
                      - Günter Theißen, Geneticist, Professor, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena,
                      Germany
                      - Roland Wiesendanger, Nanoscientist, Professor, University of Hamburg, Germany
                      - Allison Wilson, PhD, Science Director, The Bioscience Resource Project, Ithaca,
                      NY, USA.




                      Chinese language version:
                      "Safety and security don't just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear."
                      -Nelson Mandela

                      Comment


                      • Source: https://inference-review.com/article...r-out-of-china

                        Medicine / Critical Essay
                        Vol. 6, NO. 4 / February 2022
                        Thunder Out of China
                        Yuri Deigin

                        On August 27, 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a summary of the US Intelligence Community’s assessment on the origins of COVID-19.1 Four of the agencies involved and the National Intelligence Council assessed “with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus.”...

                        Comment


                        • bump this

                          Comment



                          • Press Release
                            Published: Feb 3, 2022

                            Comer, Scalise, Jordan Call on Scientists Who Privately Supported Lab Leak Theory to Provide Answers Under Oath
                            ...
                            On February 1, 2020, several scientists took part in a teleconference with Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci. Before, during, and after the call, some scientists expressed grave concerns that COVID-19 may have leaked out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and that COVID-19 may have been partially engineered. Yet 48 hours later, several of the scientists were involved in the drafting and subsequent publication of a correspondence in Nature Medicine entitled, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” that dismissed the lab leak theory. Newly released communications suggest Dr. Collins hoped the correspondence would silence debate on the origins of the virus.

                            “Alarmingly, it appears that the decision to suppress the lab-leak hypothesis was rooted in political calculations rather than scientific principles. NIH documents show that scientists on the February 1, 2020, teleconference pushed the natural evolution theory because they believed the lab-leak hypothesis could cause China too much scrutiny,” continued the Republican lawmakers. “Transparency is a bedrock of scientific credibility. Continuing to shield the truth equates to hiding information that may inform future pandemic responses, advise the United States’ current national security posture, and restore confidence in our public health experts.”

                            In letters to seven scientists, the Republican lawmakers call for all documents and communications related to the February 1, 2020 conference call, the drafting and publication of “The Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2,” and the origins of COVID-19. They also call on the scientists to appear for a transcribed interview under oath.

                            The letters can be found here:https://republicans-oversight.house....rs-under-oath/
                            "Safety and security don't just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear."
                            -Nelson Mandela

                            Comment


                            • Translation Google

                              Coronavirus Origin of the corona virus: Drosten defends himself against allegations of deception

                              One mutation is enough

                              Feb 8, 2022 at 5:04 p.mReading time: 3 mins

                              The virologist Christian Drosten defends himself against allegations of deception about the origin of the pandemic. In an interview with the SZ, Drosten explains why he doesn't believe that Sars-CoV-2 came from the laboratory - and how the question could finally be answered.

                              By Hanno Charisius

                              Since the beginning of the pandemic, there has been a debate about where the new virus called Sars-CoV-2 came from. The virologist Christian Drosten from the Charité in Berlin considers it very likely that this is a natural phenomenon and that traces of its origin in wild animals or breeding farms could still be found, said Drosten in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung . He did not want to rule out the possibility that the disease originated in a laboratory, "but it is currently only a possibility".

                              The debate about the origin of the new corona virus was fueled last week by two interviews given by the Hamburg physicist Roland Wiesendanger to the magazine Cicero and the Swiss daily newspaper NZZ. In it, the researcher spreads his speculation that Sars-CoV-2 came from a laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan. He accused leading international virologists like Drosten, who assume the virus originated in the animal kingdom, to be deliberately misleading and covering up.

                              Wiesendanger refers to a switching conference of international experts that took place in early February 2020, which the US presidential adviser Anthony Fauci had suggested. He wanted to discuss the hypothesis of a non-natural origin of Sars-CoV-2 in detail with a group of international experts. According to Wiesendanger, as part of this panel of experts, Drosten is said to have helped to disguise the supposed laboratory origin. There is no evidence for this claim.

                              Does the furin cleavage site show that the virus has been deliberately manipulated?

                              In an interview with the SZ, Drosten resolutely countered Wiesendanger's allegations. "You can see in all of my public statements that I've always been open to both possibilities. I just always said that's why I think a natural origin of the virus from the animal kingdom is more likely for verifiable reasons." In the switching conference in question with international experts in February 2020, no pressure was exerted and no possibility was excluded. "In the end, we came to the conclusion that we could say neither 'yes' nor 'no' to the laboratory hypothesis."

                              From the point of view of the proponents of the laboratory hypothesis, one molecular feature of Sars-CoV-2 speaks in particular for a man-made origin in the laboratory. The so-called furin cleavage site, which enables the pathogen to infect cells in the respiratory tract, is not actually found in this form in the group of corona viruses that also includes Sars-CoV-2 - but certainly in other corona viruses. According to Wiesendanger, this suggests that the cleavage site was installed.

                              Drosten does not consider this conclusion to be justified. "The diversity of these viruses has not yet been well researched, which is why the furin cleavage site is conspicuous, but no evidence of a non-natural origin," says Christian Drosten. Last year, samples from bats were examined in his laboratory. In doing so, his team came across two specimens of Sars-related viruses in which only one mutation would be necessary, "and then these viruses would also have a furin cleavage site similar to that of Sars-CoV-2," says Drosten. "If only such small changes in the genome are necessary, you can definitely expect something like this to happen in nature."

                              Drosten also does not see the fact that experiments were carried out in a high-security laboratory in Wuhan to give viruses new properties as evidence of an unnatural origin of Sars-CoV-2. "Things were definitely done in Wuhan that could be described as dangerous. But the Sars-CoV-2 virus could not have come out of it." In the laboratory in Wuhan, bat viruses had new properties built into them, but not those that could be considered the predecessors of Sars-CoV-2.

                              Drosten misses studies on civet cats or raccoon dogs

                              Drosten would have liked more transparency from those responsible on site, but also from the US research institutions cooperating with the institute in Wuhan. "Right from the start, when these public allegations came, you should have communicated aggressively and proactively what was being done there in the laboratory," says the Charité virologist.

                              Drosten is convinced that two years after the start of the pandemic, something can still be found out about the origin of the pandemic. Like many other experts, he also suspects that Sars-CoV-2 originally originated in bats and finally jumped to humans via an intermediate host. Drosten misses usable studies on corona viruses in animals in China, which could be considered as intermediate hosts, such as civets or raccoon dogs. "They are known to be bred and sold in many parts of China, primarily by the fur industry. I would actually have expected that everything would be taken apart with full enthusiasm to find the origin. But there is surprisingly little data on this, which I find striking". In any case, the origin will not be found out from the USA or Germany. "It needs the will of China."

                              Der Virologe Christian Drosten erklärt, warum er nicht glaubt, dass Sars-CoV-2 aus dem Labor stammt - und wie man das endlich klären könnte.
                              "Safety and security don't just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear."
                              -Nelson Mandela

                              Comment


                              • bump this

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X