A team of international experts from the World health Organization is due to visit China this month to investigate the source of COVID-19. Tracing the source of COVID-19 is extremely important, and finding the source is very important for preventing future pandemics. However, before this expert delegation even took the floor, the possibility that novel Coronavirus may be the result of a laboratory leak had been revived by a number of scientists, a question that had been overlooked or even denied by some leading scientists.
Who in the block 2019novel coronavirus may stem from a lab accident discussion
The outbreak broke out in Wuhan at the end of 2019. Due to official delay and concealment, the outbreak was out of control after exposure. After the closure of Wuhan on January 23, 2020, the question whether the novel Coronavirus was caused by a lab accident first popped up on the Internet in China. At that time, the biggest suspect was the P4 Virus Laboratory of Wuhan Institute of Viruses, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Doubt a basis in yunnan and P4 laboratory Shi Zhengli group of an abandoned mine bats, a large number of sampling, however, something that a group of the world’s top virus experts on February 19, in the famous medical journal the lancet, issued a statement, “strongly condemning about will be coronavirus does not come from the nature of conspiracy theory”, ruled out will be coronavirus toxic spill may have originated from laboratory. Since then, discussions about whether the virus originated in laboratory accidents have been off limits. But as an international team of experts heads to China to investigate, scientists are once again raising questions about whether the Wuhan virus may have originated in a laboratory.
Le Monde and The Weekly Magazine Le Monde have published lengthy reports on the origins of the new coronet, and some experts have questioned the Lancet’s claims. Etienne Decroly, a virus specialist at the National Centre for Social Sciences in France, said he was surprised by the announcement because it seemed to be telling the scientific community what questions to ask and what not to ask, which was completely contrary to the scientific spirit. Jacques Van Helden also pointed out that in science, any hypothesis should be rebuttable, which does not mean it is wrong. The hypothesis that cannot be refuted is dogma. There can be no dogmas in science.
Clarification of this question cannot rule out the existence of another possibility, which is directly related to the tracing problem of novel Coronavirus and thus directly related to this international investigation. In addition to the possibility that the source of the coronavirus may be related to animals, a second hypothesis is that the source of the virus is related to laboratory accidents, the journal Opinion quoted experts as saying. Experts suggest that a simple forensic investigation in a laboratory not far from the market where the virus was first discovered should be possible as soon as possible, perhaps avoiding years of research on another lead.
France ‘views’ magazine special cited rutgers university biological safety expert Richard Mr Fulbright (Richard Ebright), he thought: “reliable forensic investigation including visit wuhan virus research institute, centers for disease control and prevention in wuhan and the centers for disease control and prevention archives, samples, staff and buildings”. “It should include inspections of paper and electronic records, inspections of refrigerators and freezers, interviews with personnel, including construction, maintenance, cleaning, waste reprocessing, laboratory and administrative staff, as well as serological samples of these individuals and environmental samples in buildings.” But experts suspect that all this is not on the agenda for the WHO investigation.
How did the Lancet’s guiding statement come out
After re-raising the question of not ruling out the lab accident, the lengthy report in Le Monde and Opinion magazine raised another, related, and extremely important question. That is the question posed by the principal author of the Lancet statement. According to experts interviewed by Le Monde, the main author of the Lancet statement had interests in China and signed it by putting his name in fourth place to avoid suspicion of being the first author. Now it turns out that the first author of the statement was the same expert with interests in China.
Le monde reported, “the lancet” that statement of the first author, namely according to the rules of science is seen as a first draft of the writer is a microbiologist at the university of Colorado, honorary professor Charles Calisher, but, according to the ngo “America’s right to know” (USRTK) on the basis of the information management of E-mail that statement was the real writers is the first author health Alliance (EcoHealth Alliance) President, Peter. Peter Daszak, but his name comes after a list of authors. Charles Calisher also proved to Le Monde that Daschak wrote the first draft and hosted it until its final publication. “The list of authors is drawn according to their surnames, and the first author is Peter, not me!” But the declaration drafted and signed deliberately to avoid being identified from any organization or individual, only shows that it is “a statement from the top scientists”, there is also a important information, four out of 27 affiliates from ecological health alliance, but they are interested in this information as strictly confidential and all claims that there is no conflict of interest problems.
For Richard Mr Fulbright, clues buried laboratory efforts began in March 17, the day in the science journal Nature, one of the group of supplement – “natural Medicine” (Nature Medicine) published an article on the “Sars – CoV – 2 proximal origin”, this paper then is considered to be proved that the virus could not from wuhan lab activities the authority of the paper. But this paper, and a joint statement published in the Lancet on February 17th, are not actually peer-reviewed scientific papers based on new scientific data, but rather “forums” for “opinion only”.
Who international team of experts on issues of interest to China
The problem is that Mr Dasak, the actual lead author of the Lancet’s guiding statement and president of the Eco Alliance, is one of ten experts who have travelled to China to trace the origins of the corona-a conflict of interest, le Monde notes. Dasak is not only the president of the Ecological Alliance, he also has a close relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Viruses, with which he has published more than two dozen papers in the last 15 years, and has funded the Wuhan Institute of Viruses’ bat coronavirus research. In addition, his eco-alliance was funded by USAID, which enabled him to experiment in foreign countries, especially with the Novel Coronavirus collaboration of Wuhan Virus. Despite dasak’s undeniable affinity with the Wuhan virus, he did not respond to Le Monde’s questions. Now he is part of a team of international experts heading to China to investigate the source of the coronavirus, a situation that has angered many scientists.
What’s more, Daschak’s relationship with the Institute is not always publicly stated. The 27 authors, including Daschak, who published the lancet statement on Feb. 19, all said they had no interest in the Wuhan Institute. Abbright was particularly shocked by Dasak’s appearance on the list of investigators heading to China, simply because he was a long-time partner in the Virology and disease research group at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The expert said Dasak had a conflict of interest with the Wuhan Virus Research Institute, so he was not qualified to investigate. “Dasak has a contract with the Wuhan Virus Research Institute and received $200 million from USAID and $7 million from the NATIONAL Institutes of Health. He was a collaborator in the Wuhan Virus Research Institute project that was supposed to be under investigation. He should be investigated himself!”
Recent Comments