Translation Google
Employed in a laboratory in Wuhan may be infected with bats as the first, says Danish WHO chief
Aug 12 2021, 06:02
by Peter Møller
Despite the WHO's conclusion that laboratory emissions were "extremely unlikely", the chief investigator now says that patient zero may well be a laboratory employee.
The first outbreak of coronavirus in China in the fall of 2019 may well have been started by an employee at one of the city's laboratories who has been infected by a bat during fieldwork or at one of the laboratories in Wuhan.
An employee who was infected in the field by taking samples falls under one of the probable hypotheses
Peter Embarek, Head of WHO Mission to Wuhan in January 2021
This is the assessment of Peter Embarek, who was the leader of the team of experts that the World Health Organization (WHO) sent to China in the spring of 2021 to investigate the origin of the disease.
In fact, he now tells TV 2 that it belongs to one of the probable theories that a person associated with a laboratory was the first infected.
...
From "extremely unlikely" to "likely"
The WHO experts otherwise published a report after the trip to China, in which the theory that the corona infection began with a discharge from a laboratory in Wuhan was described as "extremely unlikely".
In turn, according to experts, it was "likely" that the pandemic began when a bat infected a human.
And now Peter Embarek says that the infection may well have happened by collecting - or working with - bats in connection with the research that took place in Wuhan.
That is, an infected laboratory worker is a likely scenario despite the wording of the report.
- An employee who was infected in the field by taking samples falls under one of the probable hypotheses. This is where the virus jumps directly from a bat to a human. In that case, it would then be a laboratory worker instead of a random villager or other person who has regular contact with bats. So it is actually in the probable category, says Peter Embarek to TV 2.
He stresses that WHO experts found no direct evidence that the coronavirus outbreak is related to the research on bats conducted in Wuhan's laboratories.
I ask the management: "How old is the laboratory?" And then they say, "Well, it's from December 2019"
Peter Embarek, Head of WHO Mission to Wuhan in January 2021
But the experts found several things that, according to Peter Embarek, should be investigated further.
A difficult cooperation with China
The bats are central in the investigation of where the disease comes from, as the closest known relative to the virus, which is to blame for the pandemic, lives in bats of the species horseshoes.
None of that type of horseshoe bat lives outdoors in the Wuhan area, and the only people who are known to have been close to horseshoe bats are employees of the city's laboratories.
Yet it was difficult for the WHO expert team to discuss the laboratory theory with the Chinese at all.
- Until 48 hours before we finished the whole mission, we still had no agreement that we would talk about the laboratory part of the report, so it was until the very end that it was discussed whether it should be included or not, says Peter Embarek.
However, the experts managed to visit two laboratories in Wuhan.
Both laboratories work - or have worked - with bats, and here the Chinese authorities made sure to gather a group of employees who could answer questions.
- We did not get to look at laboratory books or documents directly from the laboratory. We got a presentation, and then we talked about and asked the questions we wanted to ask, but we did not get to look at any documentation at all, says Peter Embarek.
The second laboratory in Wuhan
Although the top-secure laboratory at Wuhan's Institute of Virology has received the most attention, according to the head of WHO's experts, there is also reason to look at the other, which is run by the Chinese health authorities (CDC).
- Their last publication about working with bats was from 2013, but that does not mean that they have not worked with bats since. As far as we understand, they work mostly with parasites, and not so much with viruses, so they have worked with parasites from bats, says Peter Embarek.
During the visit, he made a startling consideration.
- I ask the management: "How old is this laboratory?" And then they say: "Well, it's from December 2019. There we moved to these new laboratories on December 2, 2019", says Peter Embarek.
CDC's new premises are located just 500 meters from the market that was the epicenter of the pandemic in the first weeks of December 2019.
- It is interesting that the laboratory moved on 2 December 2019. This is the period when it all started, and you know that when you move a laboratory, it is disruptive to everything, says Peter Embarek.
He adds that there is a need to gather more knowledge about what has gone on if one wants to become wiser about what role the CDC's laboratory may have played.
- You also have to move the virus collection, the sample collection and other collections from one place to another. This whole procedure is always a disruptive element in a laboratory's daily workflow, so at some point it will also be interesting to look at that period and this laboratory, says Peter Embarek.
The four options
He says that the WHO's visit to Wuhan was of a scientific nature and not a real investigation.
Therefore, most of it depended on the goodwill of the Chinese.
At first, they did not want anything to do with the laboratory
Peter Embarek, Head of WHO Mission to Wuhan in January 2021
When the final report was to be written, there was also intensive negotiation with the Chinese about what might stand.
- In the beginning, they did not want anything about the laboratory with, because it was impossible, and therefore one should not waste time on it. We insisted that we take it with us, because it was part of the whole problem of where the virus came from, says Peter Embarek
He boiled down the possible scenarios for how the pandemic began, down to four pieces.
Either a bat had infected a human directly.
Or a human being had been infected by a product that was infected with bat virus.
Or a bat had infected another animal that had infected a human.
Or it had begun in one of Wuhan's laboratories.
"Extremely unlikely" was a compromise
The possibility that a laboratory was involved was very difficult to get through with Peter Embarek's Chinese negotiating partner.
- I said: "Listen now. We must have this with us, otherwise we have no report. It will not be approved or accepted as a sensible, credible report", and he could see that, but he told me also that for them it is difficult to accept that discussion about a laboratory, says Peter Embarek.
Eventually, however, it succeeded if the laboratory theory was categorized as "extremely unlikely."
Peter Embarek himself tended that the theory was "unlikely", but compromised.
- There were other things I wanted in place before we finished. So it was a conscious choice, he says.
He himself has thought about why the laboratory theory met so much resistance.
- It's probably because it means that there is a human error behind such an incident, and they are not very happy to admit it. There is partly the traditional Asian feeling that you should not lose face, and then the whole system also focuses a lot on the fact that you are infallible and that everything must be perfect. It could also be that someone wants to hide something. Who knows? says Peter Embarek.
The important details
When the expert group's report was published, all four possible scenarios were included, but even though the laboratory theory was described as "extremely unlikely", Peter Embarek now says that one should not look so narrowly at the expert group's definitions.
- You have to be careful not to divide and separate those four hypotheses completely from each other, because they are very closely linked, and you may have some scenarios where you go from one hypothesis to another, he says and comes with an example.
- The laboratory discharge hypothesis actually covers several scenarios. One of them is that an employee in the laboratory gets infected out in the field while he or she collects samples in a bat cave. Although it is part of laboratory emissions, it is also part of the first hypothesis we have, ie direct transmission from bats to humans, and we have considered that hypothesis as a probable hypothesis, says Peter Embarek.
A completely different type of study
According to Peter Embarek, if the theory that coronavirus might have escaped from a laboratory or got into Wuhan from a laboratory worker were to be investigated, it would require a completely different level of cooperation from the Chinese side.
- Then it is no longer scientific studies, then it is more like some audits , where you make an almost police-like investigation and go in and check everything that is in such a laboratory, he says.
- One should check safety books, laboratory books, research plans and bio collections. You go through it all and interview all the employees separately. So it is a completely different type of work than scientific research, says Peter Embarek.
One of the researchers who supports a further study of the conditions in China is the Danish evolutionary biologist and professor at UC Berkeley in California Rasmus Nielsen.
- I have been out before and argued relatively hard that it was not a laboratory leak. It was not very likely, says Rasmus Nielsen to TV 2.
However, he is no longer quite so dismissive.
In early June, for example, he wrote on Twitter that he would like to know if there was actually a leak.
He wants clarity because the Chinese authorities have suddenly begun to exercise strict control over research into the origin of the disease in China.
- When I still think we should investigate the hypothesis of a laboratory leak, it is for several different reasons. One of them is the way the Chinese government has behaved. They have tried to suppress all research in this area. We do not know if it is because they just want to try to control the story, or if it is because they have something to hide, he says.
So far, the Chinese authorities have only addressed the laboratory theory in one place, namely in the WHO report.
And while the Chinese are extremely dismissive, chief negotiator Peter Embarek believes it was a victory at all to get them to talk about it.
- There are only four pages in the report about it, but it is four very special pages. Four golden pages I would say we have here. It's the only place where people talk about it from the Chinese side, he says.
Following the WHO's visit to Wuhan, China has only addressed the possibility of a laboratory spill in dismissive terms.
On July 16, 2021, the WHO came up with a plan for further studies in China.
Here, the organization proposes, among other things, to conduct audits , which are in-depth police investigations of relevant laboratories in Wuhan.
But China's deputy health minister, Zeng Yixin, flatly rejected a new visit.
- When I first saw the WHO's second phase in the investigation into the origin of the coronavirus, I was, to be honest, very surprised, said Zeng Yixin.
- In the plan, the hypothesis that China has violated the laboratory procedures and caused a laboratory leak is prioritized as one of the things to be investigated. In that regard, I think the plan overrides common sense and is contrary to science, the board's representative said.
...
https://nyheder.tv2.dk/udland/2021-...re-smittet-af-flagermus-som-den-foerste-siger
