The hypothesis of a laboratory accident as the possible origin of the Covid-19 pandemic is neither the majority nor the most likely, but it is no longer a conspiracy theory: in a letter published in the journal Science on May 13, some 20 senior scientists called for examining this possibility in the same way as “zoonotic “natural overflow” to examine this possibility in the same way. In a coincidence of timing, the letter was published a few hours before three academic papers (a PhD thesis and two master’s theses) conducted by the Wuhan Institute of Virus Research (WIV) in recent years were revealed on Twitter (Twitter). The author of the tweet was the account of an anonymous scientist accustomed to making sensational disclosures.
The Le Monde article analyzes some of the suspicions in the three papers. The three papers were written in Chinese, defended in 2014, 2017 and 2019, and although the papers have never been made public so far, they contain important information. According to experts consulted by Le Monde, the three papers question certain data that the international scientific community takes for granted regarding the number and nature of coronaviruses kept at the Wuhan Institute of Virus Research, the experiments performed on them, and even the integrity of the viral genetic sequences published in recent months by the Wuhan research institute.
Virginie Courtier, a researcher at the French Jacques Monod Institute (CNRS), noted, “We know that the researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virus do not disclose all the data they have. But this time the problem goes further: several of their previous statements seem to contradict these papers.”
RaTG13 or Ra4991?
One of the major findings of this work involves the virus named RaTG13, the closest known coronavirus to the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) – but at the same time too far away to be its closest ancestor.
The complete genetic sequence of this virus – with 96.2% homology to SARS-CoV-2 – was published in Nature on Feb. 3, 2020, by researchers at the Institute of Armed Forces Toxicology. But a few weeks later, an Italian microbiologist reported at a virology forum that a small part of the RaTG13 genome had already been published by researchers in Wuhan in 2016. Moreover, at that time, the virus in question was not called RaTG13 but Ra4991. In a July 2020 interview with Science, virologist and director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) Emerging Infectious Diseases Research Center, Zhengli Shi, had confirmed that it was the same virus, only renamed RaTG13 in 2020.
However, Etienne Decroly, a virologist at the French Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), pointed out that the data in the paper suggest that the RaTG13 sequence published in 2020 is not strictly identical to the Ra4991 sequence, contrary to the WIV’s claims. “In the paper defended in 2019, different regions of the genomes of several bat coronaviruses, including Ra4991, were compared with the corresponding regions of the human severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-1),” the researcher explained, adding that the paper’s analysis showed that the main differences were located the part of the genome that corresponds to the spike, the protein that allows the virus to enter its host cell. The researchers explain, “This represents a 1 to 1.5 percent variation in this segment of the genome, which is significant and corresponds to 10 to 15 variants in a domain that plays a key role in the infectivity of the virus.”
Why is there such a difference between sequences that are supposed to be identical? The management of the VuVu Institute did not respond to requests from Le Monde.
Raw data “insufficient to reconstruct the genome”
The Le Monde article notes that the integrity of this cousin sequence, which is closest to SARS-CoV-2, is all the more important because it has been at the heart of many questions since its publication. But Virginie Courtier, director researcher at the French Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), explains, “Researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology say they no longer have the corresponding biological samples, so it is no longer possible to reproduce the sequencing effort. In addition, the scientific community has long asked researchers at the WUV to explain how they obtained the complete sequence of RaTG13, since the original data published by the institute were not sufficient to reconstruct this genome.”
The authors go on to note that if RaTG13 is so important to the scientific community, it is also because of where it was collected in 2013: an abandoned mine site in Mojiang, Yunnan province. At the mine, which is frequented by a bat colony, six workers contracted a lung disease in the spring of 2012 with symptoms similar to SARS or Covid-19n three of the six died. Were they infected with bat coronavirus? How many other SARS-like coronaviruses have been found in the famous Mojiang mine? Is one of these viruses even closer to SARS-CoV-2 than the famous RaTG13?
In November 2020, under external pressure, researchers from the WVII published an article in Nature that, in addition to RaTG13, they had collected eight other SARS-like coronaviruses from the Mojiang mine, but these viruses remain unpublished to date. The three papers show that at least one other coronavirus is being kept at the WVU, but its presence has not been disclosed.
But that’s not all. In a clarification requested by Nature, WVII researchers assured that they received and analyzed 13 blood samples from four workers who fell ill at the Mojiang mine in 2012, but could not detect any signs of coronavirus infection – the version currently supported by WVII (and also used in the WHO-China joint report released in late March employed in the report) is that the men may have been infected with a fungal pathogen. But again, the leaked papers suggest otherwise. According to the 2014 one of the three papers, VuTox received not 13 but 30 samples, and all were analyzed.
Of the three papers, the 2017 PhD paper was the top of the line; it utilized chimeric virus construction techniques, a “copy-and-paste” approach, according to the report. One of the goals of the Chinese researchers was to test the infectivity of different coronaviruses on several types of human or animal cells, depending on the spores grafted onto the same viral backbone.
To estimate the potential threat to humans from the SARS-like bat coronavirus, we selected 12 S (i.e., spike-encoding) genes from different coronavirus strains and inserted them into the genomic framework of WIV1, another coronavirus,” the authors of the paper write. “We succeeded in obtaining four of them, naming them strains Rs4231, Rs4874, Rs7327 and RsSHC014, respectively.”
However, French researcher Etienne Decroly said, “The study, published in 2017 in the journal PLoS Pathogens, detailed this work but did not present them in full.”
Putting pressure on the Chinese government
Le Monde noted that the disclosure of the three papers should increase pressure on the Chinese authorities, and Etienne Decroly said, “It’s time for the VuVu Institute to open its database to the entire scientific community.”
In a letter published May 13 in the journal Science, nearly 20 U.S. researchers made the same plea. Microbiologist David Relman of Stanford University, virologist Jesse Bloom of the University of Washington and their 16 co-authors demanded, “Public health agencies and research laboratories must open their archives to the public. Investigators must be able to document the authenticity and sources of the data used to conduct analyses and draw conclusions.”
Microbiologist Ralph Baric (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) was listed among the signatories as drawing attention. Because not only is Dr. Baric one of the world’s foremost experts on coronaviruses and species barrier crossing mechanisms, but he has also previously worked closely with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in particular. 2015 saw a sensational study published jointly with Wuhan researchers in Nature Medicine: the authors of this research article successfully constructed a highly pathogenic chimeric virus for humans based on a bat coronavirus. chimeric virus that is highly pathogenic to humans.
The work sparked controversy and was reported in the journal Nature, where it was described as “risky”.
The article quotes Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Boulder Institute, a research institute affiliated with MIT and Harvard University, as saying, “Ralph Barich has done this type of research himself, and he recognizes that this could have come from the laboratory, and that such a hypothesis needs to be investigated. We can’t find another scientist with more direct expertise unless we can get Zhengli Shi herself to sign the letter.” In fact, a growing number of prominent individuals are advocating for such an investigation, says Alina Chan: “The purpose of the letter is to provide scientific support to those who are in a position to initiate an international investigation. They will be able to refer to it, saying that some of the top scientists in the relevant fields agree that a rigorous investigation of the laboratory accident hypothesis is needed.”
The article concludes that, to everyone’s surprise, the director general of the World Health Organization (WHO), Desai Tan, also said in late March that such an investigation was necessary. He mentioned the possibility that the work of a joint mission of Chinese and international experts, co-chaired by the WHO, had failed to examine thoroughly. Hours after the WHO director general’s statement, 14 governments, including the United States, raised the same criticism.
The joint China-WHO study on the traceability of the new coronavirus was officially released in Geneva on March 30. The report concludes that it is “highly unlikely” that the new coronavirus was introduced to humans through laboratory transmission and “more likely to very likely” that it was introduced to humans through an intermediate host. However, no intermediate hosts have been identified to date.
The joint China-WHO study on the tracing of the new coronavirus was officially released in Geneva on March 30. The report concluded that it is “highly unlikely” that the new coronavirus was introduced to humans through laboratory transmission, and “more likely to very likely” that it was introduced to humans through an intermediate host. However, no intermediate hosts have been found so far.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported, citing previously unpublished U.S. intelligence reports, that three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virus Research of the Chinese Academy of Sciences had sought medical attention in November 2019, one or two months before China announced the 2019 coronavirus disease. China’s official media Global Times again reiterated that none of the Wuhan Institute of Virus had been infected.
U.S. President Joe Biden on Wednesday ordered intelligence agencies to determine the origin of the new coronavirus and limited 90 days to produce a report on it. Biden said U.S. intelligence agencies have mixed views on the source of the virus, including the possibility of a leak from a Chinese laboratory.
Recent Comments