The WHO expert panel recently concluded its trip to trace the source of the Chinese Communist Party virus in Wuhan, China. In line with outside predictions, the trace did not reveal anything special, while several panel members with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party authorities were caught in a storm of public opinion.
The 14 members of the WHO expert panel spent 27 days from January to February in Wuhan and other places on the mainland to investigate the traceability of the CCP virus. WHO Director-General Tan Desai said on Feb. 12 that the team’s preliminary report on the Wuhan visit would be released this week at the earliest, adding that it was not ruling out any hypothesis and was open to all kinds of inferences.
A noteworthy phenomenon is that the panel members, who almost always chose to remain silent while in Wuhan, have recently begun to speak out about the investigation. This means that they are under strict monitoring in China, with many concerns and pressure.
The Voice of America previously reported that the WHO expert team’s trip was conducted under the tight control of the Chinese Communist authorities, and that the team was not free to talk to the media or local residents. All those who can talk to the experts are designated by the authorities, and not only that, the authorities also specify the content of the conversation, including “what can be said, what cannot be said, what to say and how to say it, etc.”.
Dominic Dwyer, an Australian infectious disease expert on the WHO panel, recently told the Wall Street Journal, Reuters and other media that the panel had wanted raw, unanalyzed data on early COVID-19 infections, which he called “standard practice. But he said the panel received only “summaries” of the analysis. He also disclosed that the Chinese Communist Party refused to provide raw and personal data on all 174 initial cases, as well as on patients who presented with respiratory and other illnesses before the first case.
Before the panel left the mainland, there were allegedly heated arguments with Beijing, but neither side was able to reach an agreement. However, WHO experts were able to obtain relevant data when they investigated in other member states. Dominique said the Chinese side believed that providing only some of the data would be enough to answer questions, but he felt it would be of rather limited help in analyzing the origin of the outbreak.
A growing number of media and observers are discussing the purpose of the WHO expert group’s trip to Wuhan, with many foreign media outlets not optimistic about the investigative trip before it even left. Beijing’s initial postponement of the investigation and its refusal to grant visas to the panel members were seen as insincere.
On February 14, Sky News Australia anchor Sharri Markson said in a program, “We need an independent investigator with an open mind to find answers. Not scientists who are considered okay by the Chinese Communist authorities.”
Sharri Markson argued that the WHO panel’s conclusions may not be impartial because at least three members of the panel have “unclear” ties to official Communist Party agencies, which she also reasonably doubts.
The three experts involved include Peter Ben Embarek, a WHO Food safety and animal disease expert; Peter Daszak, a pathogen consultant and president of the U.S. nonprofit Ecological health Alliance; and Marion Koopmans, a Dutch virologist.
Sharri Markson cited as evidence that Peter Ben Embarek accepted the Spirit of Science Award from the Chinese Society for Food Science and Technology and the International Union of Food Science and Technology in 2017; Peter Daszak stated on his personal social media accounts in 2018 that he had a long-standing collaboration with Shi Zhengli, a researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of the Chinese Communist Academy of Sciences, on bat research Marion Koopmans is a scientific advisor to the Guangdong Provincial CDC and her biography can still be found on the official website.
The anchorwoman said public trust in the report is undermined when some investigators have ties to the countries under investigation.
According to Sharri Markson, “The Wuhan Virus Institute has so far not opened its workbook either, and details of the first 70 patients infected have refused to be disclosed, and there is currently zero information about patient zero. …… The fact is that COVID-19 could have been transmitted either by bats naturally to humans or through intermediate hosts, but it could also have been leaked through a laboratory …… so we need independent investigators with an open mind to find answers, not scientists who are deemed unproblematic by the Communist authorities.”
Marion Koopmans countered Sharri Markson’s claim with a tweet calling it a “conspiracy theory,” citing that she is not only a scientific advisor to the Guangdong CDC, but also works for the European and U.S. governments.
Questions like the Australian anchor’s about the results of the WHO panel’s investigation are likely to grow in the coming months, and the panel will need to prove they are conducting an impartial and difficult investigation.
Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease expert at Georgetown University, told the New York Times, “The strategic narrative on the continent right now is, ‘This is the continental part of the investigation, we’re done with it, let’s turn the page. ‘”
Lucy said the experts need to make a breakthrough to prove their credibility. “If the team doesn’t come up with something substantial, there’s also a risk that people will say it’s all just a show.”
Panelists Fund Wuhan Virus Institute Research and Collaborate on Paper
Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, was one of the 10 experts who traveled to the continent to conduct the investigation into the origin of the virus. The French newspaper Le Monde notes that Peter Daszak is not only the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, but he also has a close working relationship with the Wuhan Virus Institute, which brings up the issue of interest.
In the last 15 years, Peter Daszak has published more than 20 papers in collaboration with the institute and has funded research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virus. In addition, his Ecological Health Consortium receives funding from USAID, which has allowed him to conduct experiments in foreign countries, particularly with the Wuhan Institute of Virus on Chinese communist viruses. Despite his undeniably close ties to the Wuhan Institute, Peter Daszak did not respond to questions from Le Monde.
Last February, after the Wuhan Virus Institute was questioned about the virus leak, several of the world’s leading virologists quickly issued a statement in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet endorsing the mainland’s Batwoman, saying they “firmly condemn the conspiracy theory that the new coronavirus did not come from nature ” and ruled out the possibility that the virus originated from a laboratory leak. Since then, the discussion of whether the virus originated from a laboratory accident has been off-limits. daluPeter Daszak was the first contributor to this statement. The French newspaper Le Monde and the magazine Opinion said that the first author of the statement signed his name in fourth place to avoid suspicion of having interests linked to the mainland.
Richard Ebright, a biosafety expert at Rutgers University, argues that Peter Daszak has a conflict of interest with the Wuhan Institute of Virus Research, and therefore he is not qualified to investigate. He noted, “Peter Daszak has a contract with the Wuhan Institute for Virus Research and has received $200 million from USAID and $7 million from the NIH. He was a collaborator in the Wuhan Virus Institute project that should have been investigated. He should have been investigated himself.”
Recent Comments