in ,

The Case Is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin

What are the chances, after all, that the epicentre of the COVID-19 outbreak should occur within literal walking distance of the leading research and collection centre in the world for SARS-like bat coronaviruses? This article explains the specific lab accident scenarios and describes how the kind of research conducted at the WIV makes a lab accident a strong possibility.

If the public has learned a lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic it is that science does not generate certainty. Do homemade face masks work? What is the death rate of COVID-19? How accurate are the tests? How many people have no symptoms? And so on. Practically the lone undisputed assertion made so far is that all the nearest known genetic relatives of its cause, the Sars-CoV-2 virus, are found in horseshoe bats (Zhou et al., 2020). Therefore, the likely viral reservoir was a bat.

However, most of these ancestor-like bat coronaviruses cannot infect humans (Ge et al., 2013). In consequence, from its beginning, a key question hanging over the pandemic has been: How did a bat RNA virus evolve into a human pathogen that is both virulent and deadly?

The answer almost universally seized upon is that there was an intermediate species. Some animal, perhaps a snake, perhaps a palm civet, perhaps a pangolin, served as a temporary host. This bridging animal would probably have had an ACE2 cellular receptor (the molecule which allows cellular entry of the virus) intermediate in protein sequence (or at least structure) between the bat and the human one (Wan et al., 2020).

In the press and in the scientific literature, scenarios by which this natural zoonotic transfer might have occurred have been endlessly mulled. Most were fuelled by early findings that many of the earliest COVID-19 cases seem to have occurred in and around Wuhan’s Huanan live animal market. [The latest data are that 14 of the 41 earliest cases, including the first, had no connection to the animal market (Huang et al. 2020)].

Since the two previous coronavirus near-pandemics of SARS (2002-3) and MERS (2012) both probably came from bats and both are thought (but not proven) to have transitioned to humans via intermediate animals (civets and dromedaries respectively), a natural zoonotic pathway is a reasonable first assumption (Andersen et al., 2020).

The idea, as it applied to the original (2002) SARS outbreak, is that the original bat virus infected a civet. The virus then evolved briefly in this animal species, but not enough to cause a civet pandemic, and then was picked up by a human before it died out in civets. In this first human (patient zero) the virus survived, perhaps only barely, but was passed on, marking the first case of human to human transmission. As it was successively passed on in its first few human hosts the virus rapidly evolved, adapting to better infect its new hosts. After a few such tentative transmissions the pandemic proper began.

Perhaps this scenario is approximately how the current COVID-19 pandemic began.

But one other troubling possibility must be dispensed with. It follows from the fact that the epicentre city, Wuhan (pop. 11 million), happens to be the global epicentre of bat coronavirus research (e.g. Hu et al., 2017).

Prompted by this proximity, various researchers and news mediaprominently the Washington Post, and with much more data Newsweek, have drawn up a prima facie case that a laboratory origin is a strong possibility (Zhan et al., 2020Piplani et al., 2020). That is, one of the two labs in Wuhan that has worked on coronaviruses accidentally let a natural virus escape; or, the lab was genetically engineering (or otherwise manipulating) a Sars-CoV-2-like virus which then escaped.

Unfortunately, in the US at least, the question of the pandemic’s origin has become a political football; either an opportunity for Sinophobia or a partisan “blame game“.

But the potential of a catastrophic lab release is not a game and systemic problems of competence and opacity are certainly not limited to China (Lipsitch, 2018). The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently constructing a new and expanded national Bio and Agro-defense facility in Manhattan, Kansas. DHS has estimated that the 50-year risk (defined as having an economic impact of $9-50 billion) of a release from its lab at 70%.

A subsequent committee report (NAP, 2012) continued:

the committee was instructed to judge the adequacy and validity of the uSSRA [updated Site-Specific Risk Assessment]. The committee has identified serious concerns about (1) the misapplication of methods used to assess risk, (2) the failure to make clear whether and how the evidence used to support risk assessment assumptions had been thoroughly reviewed and adequately evaluated, (3) the limited breadth of literature cited and the misinterpretation of some of the significant supporting literature, (4) the failure to explain the criteria used to select assumptions when supporting literature is conflicting, (5) the failure to consider important risk pathways, and (6) the inadequate treatment of uncertainty. Those deficiencies are not equally problematic, but they occur with sufficient frequency to raise doubts about the adequacy and validity of the risk results presented. In most instances (e.g., operational activities at the NBAF), the identified problems lead to an underestimation of risk; in other instances (e.g., catastrophic natural hazards), the risks may be overestimated. As a result, the committee concludes that the uSSRA is technically inadequate in critical respects and is an insufficient basis on which to judge the risks associated with the proposed NBAF in Manhattan, Kansas.

China, meanwhile, having opened its first in Wuhan in 2018, is planning to roll out a national network of BSL-4 labs (Yuan, 2019). Like many other countries, it is investing significantly in disease surveillance and collection of viruses from wild animal populations and in high-risk recombinant virus research with Potential Pandemic Pathogens (PPPs).

On May 4th, nations and global philanthropies, meeting in Brussels, committed $7.4 billion to future pandemic preparedness. But the question hanging over all such investments is this: the remit of the Wuhan lab at the centre of the accidental release claims is pandemic preparedness. If the COVID-19 pandemic began there then we need to radically rethink current ideas for pandemic preparation globally. Many researchers already believe we should, for the sake of both safety and effectiveness (Lipsitch and Galvani, 2014Weiss et al., 2015Lipsitch, 2018). The worst possible outcome would be for those donated billions to accelerate the arrival of the next pandemic.

2.1 7 votes
Article Rating
Help us grow. Support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.

What do you think?

-8 points
Upvote Downvote
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stj
Stj
June 21, 2020

Yes just like the case that is building for flying pigs. More US nonsense.

SteveK9
SteveK9
Reply to  Stj
June 21, 2020

Hardly nonsense. Researchers at Wuhan together with UNC have published papers on experimental manipulation of coronaviruses that seem VERY similar to SARS-Cov-2. There have even been public comments by these researchers on whether this type of work is justified, given the risks … this is before the pandemic.

Clarity
Clarity
Reply to  SteveK9
June 21, 2020

From the article: “This article explains the specific lab accident scenarios and describes how the kind of research conducted at the WIV makes a lab accident a strong possibility.”
 
Scenarios and a strong possibility is the point where I stop reading. Give me something of substance, like proof, and I will continue reading.

Terry R
Terry R
Reply to  SteveK9
June 22, 2020

The Wuhan lab was created only in 2018. The original SARS infection originating from virus in bats transferred to an intermediary (civets) occurred in 2002, a full 15 years before the Covid-19 outbreak. Even the author of this piece was forced to admit “Perhaps this scenario is approximately how the current COVID-19 pandemic began.”   His one argument against it is simply the lab proximity to current infection. Whilst he notes that “the latest data are that 14 of the 41 earliest cases, including the first, had no connection to the animal market”, he is silent on the fact that some earlier… Read more »

SteveK9
SteveK9
June 21, 2020

I suppose defenders of this research can explain why the risk/benefit is in favor of continuing. But, it’s hard for me to see how ‘increase of function’ manipulation can possibly justify the horrific consequences of accidental releases. I would be in favor of banning this type of research, everywhere. I would think China would be on board with that, given what has happened.

Clarity
Clarity
June 21, 2020

From the article: “This article explains the specific lab accident scenarios and describes how the kind of research conducted at the WIV makes a lab accident a strong possibility.”
 
Scenarios and a strong possibility is the point where I stop reading. Because: Nothing of substance. No proof. That equals more pure speculation.

Ugh...
Ugh...
Reply to  Clarity
June 21, 2020

Highly Likely, Probable, Unnamed source, High Confidence, all points to a steaming pile of crap. Those that keep repeating the same articles have an agenda. Interesting the Duran keeps the anti China postings. Why not follow actual news with individuals predating the accused “release” date. The whole theme is drenched in politics. Just as the protests. WTF is BLM in Europe for? It is just power. The purveyors of this nonsense are cancer to society.

Clarity
Clarity
Reply to  Ugh...
June 21, 2020

It is not the creators of The Duran who is posting these questionable pieces of content. Some people here have access to post themselves, no editor. Called freedom of speech. Forgetting that responsibility and freedom go hand in hand. My guess is that people like JayTe are financial contributors who get a kick of having bought themselves unsupervised access to this site. Doesn’t say much for quality content though.

Ugh...
Ugh...
Reply to  Clarity
June 22, 2020

Please don’t patronize about freedom of speech. This crap is labeled under news. News is supposed to be in search of facts. This is a gossip, agenda, piece of propaganda. As for Duran, main authors also take similar lines as this article. That said, sure Freedom! I’m no advocate of Google who erases people like airbrushing someone out of a painting. I happen to agree with you about content and also stop reading. We live in strange times, Clarity… Thank you for your response

paul
paul
Reply to  Ugh...
June 21, 2020

The Wuhan Lab was financed by the US government. Some of its personnel were US citizens. So IF this was the source of the virus, then people need to ask both governments some searching questions.

jim
jim
June 23, 2020

The China bashing goes on as the world led by the US seeks to destroy their economy. The fact is the virus was planned and intentionally released in China and not by them. “NO Football This Season” https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/no-football-this-season/ “There is clearly a deliberate move to keep the world shut down and to force everyone to be tracked and vaccinated. Someone really needs to expose Anthony Fauci for there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that besides being beholding to Bill Gates, he funded the very research to create this type of virus and when scientists complained, he sent it off… Read more »

Sadiq Khan: Mandatory Masks Will Be the ‘New Normal’ for at Least Another Year – 21st Century Wire

Permanent Insurrections ONLY Benefits 0.00001% Plutocracy – The 21st Century