"Even if it is not a priority, perhaps a simple forensic investigation should be carried out as soon as possible in the laboratory closest to the market where the virus was originally discovered, so that it may be possible to avoid years of research on another clue."
Richard Ebright, a microbiologist and biosafety expert at Rutgers University in the US, believes that “reliable forensic investigations should be requested to visit Wuhan Institute of Virology and Wuhan CDC. The archives, samples, staff and buildings of the center." @R_H_Ebright
"It should include inspections of paper and electronic records, inspections of refrigerators & freezers, interviews with personnel, including construction, maintenance, cleaning, waste disposal, lab and admin staff, and serological samples and environmental samples in buildings."
"But obviously all of these are not on the WHO agenda...The scientist has questioned the origin of the virus since the spring, and he was particularly shocked by the non-profit organization EcoHealth Alliance Chairman Peter Daszak on the list of investigation missions to China."
However, he pointed out: "The Lancet magazine appointed him as the head of the Covid-19 Origin Task Force, and the WHO included him in the investigation team. This fact shows that the work will not be regarded as a credible investigation, but as a rough whitewashing attempt."
For Richard Ebright, the effort to bury the laboratory clues began on March 17, the same day Nature Medicine published an article about the "Proximal Origin of Sars-CoV-2".
"This article was considered authoritative evidence that the virus may not originate from the activities of the Wuhan laboratory."
However, this article and a letter in The Lancet on February 17 are not actually peer-reviewed scientific articles based on new scientific data, but a "forum" that "represents opinions only."
"The information exchanged by the co-signers of these texts has recently been leaked and released by the US-Right to Know (USRTK), an investigative research team dedicated to improving public health transparency."
Thread: On @USAID PREDICT, Global Virome Project (GVP) and China Virome Project (CVP); some problematic issues with these projects, it's link to #originsofSARS2; and illuminating re: reason there's a lack of data transparency.
First, a disclaimer: this thread queries the evidence (quotes, statements, and snippets from media reports and official documents in public domain) and contains neither assumption nor accusation of intent.
Ok, so now a bit about PREDICT's journey: PREDICT was initiated in 2009, as part of USAID Emerging Pandemic Threats (EPT), to detect viruses with pandemic potential.
It was planned as a 5-year run. EPT-1 ended in 2014, and EPT-2 followed for another 5-year run.
EDITORIAL | As scientists around the world try to find the origin of the virus, which appeared in Wuhan at the end of 2019, the lack of cooperation from the Chinese authorities is obvious.
"Was this a laboratory accident? Could the current pandemic be linked to the contamination, in 2012, in Mojiang county, of half a dozen people, suffering from severe pneumonia with complications similar to those of Covid-19?"
"At this stage, no one is in a position to favor this or that track, for lack of being able to investigate under scientifically satisfactory conditions."
"The MRP pseudo-sequence supertree analysis firmly disputes bat coronavirus RaTG13 be the last common ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, which was implied by other phylogenetic tree analysis based on viral genome sequences."
"The actual validity of RaTG13 be the direct ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 is seriously questioned, although they share 96.5% identical genome sequence. Taking RaTG13 as the last common ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 would seriously mislead phylogenetic inference of SARS-CoV-2."
China may still be hiding the truth about the origins of Covid-19: One year on, urgent questions remain about how and why this pandemic erupted inews.co.uk/opinion/china-…
"there are fears the World Health Organisation is appeasing China, which desperately wants to blame other nations as the source, while the scientific establishment is closing ranks to protect some key figures."
"Many experts suspect this is a natural zoonotic virus that spilled over from animals... Some credible figures, however, point to circumstantial evidence swirling around a top-security laboratory in Wuhan...
Here's a good case-study on why calling something a 'conspiracy' without analysing the facts or even waiting for the facts to emerge, can be misleading at best and deceitful at worse
Dismissing lab origin as a 'conspiracy' is just an attempt not to respond to facts, or to exclude possible theories without a sufficient basis to do so.
So can we do away with this label until things get settled?
"It is the great riddle of our time: how, when and where did the coronavirus emerge? Even insiders at the World Health Organisation (WHO), which is tasked with finding the answers, are alarmed to discover that China will “call the shots” in providing them."
"The investigation is a collaboration between a WHO team of foreign experts — approved by Beijing from a list submitted by UN member states — and Chinese scientists.
However, there is still no timeline for the international team to enter China..."
"...and no guarantee whom they may interview, what records they will be able to see and whether they will be allowed to visit Wuhan... Instead, the WHO and Beijing have agreed that Chinese researchers will conduct the early stages of the investigation."