Alina Chan Profile picture
Jan 13, 2021 40 tweets 13 min read Read on X
I've been getting many questions about pre-Wuhan covid cases detected around the world. In particular, 2 studies: Barcelona (March 2019) and Italy (Sep 2019); as well as the widely disseminated USA (Dec 2019) study.

I think best to make a single thread discussing all of these.
This is the Barcelona wastewater study that claims that they detected SARS2 genomes "in sewage long before the declaration of COVID-19 cases among the population"
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Important for readers to understand that if you can detect a pathogen in wastewater at a city level, the outbreak has to be quite obvious. It's not like 1 in 100,000 people has covid and you see it in the wastewater.
The study looked at March 2019 wastewater from Barcelona - why? Because it was originally supposed to be their negative control.

Negative control, meaning that it was not expected to have had any SARS2 virus in it.
The study also checked for multiple targets - in other words checking for the presence of several parts of the SARS2 genomes in each wastewater sample.

If you only see 1 or 2 targets, it's not as confident of a result as if all or most of the targets show positive results.
For negative controls, they analyzed "archival WWTP samples from January 2018 to December 2019 (Figure 2). All samples came out to be negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes with the exception of March 12, 2019, in which both IP2 and IP4 target assays were positive."
If you look at their actual data, the "positives" for March 2019 shown in Fig 2B and C are close to Ct 40, and the other 3 (out of 5) targets were negative. Image
When you see this kind of anomaly, one thing to do is to immediately amplify that target, check the size of the product, and/or send it for sequencing. All of this can happen within 2 days or less depending on resources. But the authors did not do it.
The manuscript was posted in June 2020. If I had found such an astounding result, I would've done the test immediately and gotten myself a @ScienceMagazine paper if it could be confirmed that SARS2 (precursor) was circulating in Barcelona at such a detectable level in March '19.
Furthermore, Barcelona is one of the most touristed cities in the world. If COVID was so widespread in March 2019 that it could be detected in the wastewater of the city, it would've exploded worldwide. We would see such a diversity of SARS2 virus genomes. Image
On to the Italy Sep 2019 study. I did a very gif-filled thread back when it was first released because I didn't think people would take this that seriously.

I was wrong.

Dr. Shi from the WIV even cited it in her most recent @ScienceMagazine article.

Although this article technically passed peer review. I'd like to impress on readers that the editorial team of the journal are from the same institute as the (first and senior) authors of the paper.

I point this out for journals of any impact factor. journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11… Image
The authors used an in-house test that had not been peer-reviewed at the time to claim that 14% of cancer patients in Italy in September 2019 tested positive for COVID.

There was no control for common cold (coronavirus) antibodies or actually any antibodies for that matter.
I want readers to understand what this study is claiming.

Somehow, 14% of ASYMPTOMATIC people who just went for lung cancer screening - according to this study - turned out to have antibodies for COVID-19 in September 2019. Dropping down to only 3% in Jan 2020... Image
We're literally looking at America post-Christmas in January 2021. If 14% of asymptomatic Americans had COVID antibodies in September 2020, best believe there would not only be 3% asymptomatic Americans in Jan 2021 with COVID antibodies.

Those are coronavirus sprinkles.
On to the USA study Dec 2019.
Note that this is still post-Wuhan. We really have no idea when COVID-19 first broke out in Wuhan. Best guess is sometime Oct-Nov 2019.
academic.oup.com/cid/advance-ar…
This was also cited in the recent WIV @ScienceMagazine perspective alongside the Tumori article:

"SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were found in human serum samples taken outside of China before the COVID-19 outbreak was detected (14, 15)"
science.sciencemag.org/content/371/65…
The issues with this study were best explained by @trvrb
tldr the study's positive rate was very close to the predicted false positive rate. Meaning that it was likely that this study had likely just picked up false positives (not real covid cases).
Does this analysis mean that 0 Americans had covid in December 2019? No.

But certainly 2% of Americans in those West Coast cities DID NOT have COVID by Dec 2019.

Please imagine if that were true. This pandemic would've exploded much earlier.
As far as we can tell, only ~124 people in Wuhan (population 11 million) - ~0.001% - were confirmed COVID cases by December 2019 and the city had to be locked down in late January.
Even with the lockdown, those 100s of Nov/Dec cases in Wuhan had unfortunately resulted in a pandemic.

If 2% of people in West Coast USA cities had covid in Dec 2019, I don't even know what the pandemic would look like right now.
In Wuhan, a study looking at 640 throat swabs from patients who actually had influenza-like illness (not asymptomatic!), only found positive results starting in Jan 2020.
If you propose that SARS-CoV-2 originated far OUTSIDE of China, I'd like you to please consider that the closest relatives of this virus have been found in Yunnan (Southern China).

If your hypothesis is Barcelona, Milan, or Washington - how did it get there in the first place?
If your hypothesis is that somehow SARS2 virus got into Wuhan on frozen food from outside of China - what's the story here?

No covid cases have been determined to come from frozen (imported) food.
Even at the very first market in Wuhan associated with the covid outbreak, none of hundreds of animal samples tested positive for the virus. wsj.com/articles/china… Image
If we take their word, no animals in Wuhan city or even the province of Hubei have been found to be the source of the virus.
sciencemag.org/sites/default/…

Also from the Chinese CDC director: bloomberg.com/news/features/… ImageImage
An analogy would be proposing that there's been a WILD panda population in California all this time that we weren't aware of.
I'm getting questions about singular cases detected outside China in late 2019. I'll try to provide analysis of these too but these reports are tough to match up to what has been observed wrt the rest of the pandemic. Will explain why...
This reports a suspect Nov '19 case: "a 4-year-old boy who lived in the surrounding area of Milan and had no reported travel history"
Evidence: sequencing and "amplification of a 470-bp fragment of the gene encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike" from throat swab.
wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27…
The short spike sequence was identical to the reference SARS2 sequence from a Dec patient in Wuhan.

Problematically, the Milan sample was too degraded and prevented "sequencing of longer genomic regions that could have been helpful in determining the origin of the strain."
In this situation, it's difficult to understand how a child in Milan got SARS2 (a virus whose closest relatives frm South China) without travel history, why it didn't lead to a detectable outbreak in his town if it was already very similar/identical to the virus seen in Wuhan...
... and how, if there was some early, very sparse transmission of SARS2 in the outskirts of Milan, that this would have led to the first detected outbreak being not in Milan or anywhere else in Italy or Europe, but in Wuhan, China, half a world away.
The same questions apply to this other study suggesting another Nov '19 covid case in Milan, but this time a 25-year-old woman and the evidence: only a skin sample, checked for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigens.

They could not detect the virus via RT-PCR.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bj…
Looking at their actual figure, I'm not convinced that this is a real positive. Sorry, Gianotti et al.

So I really advise people not to use this study to say that there were sparse covid cases in Milan in November 2019.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.11… Image
Lastly, this study claims late Dec '19 covid case in France. I think there's a bit more of a possibility that this could be true because covid outbreak was already detected in Wuhan, likely starting back in Nov '19 or maybe earlier. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
This one has some possibility because despite no recent travel to China, "One of his children presented with ILI (influenza-like illness) prior to the onset of his symptoms."

But again, the only evidence was a single amplicon target (yellow line, Ct ~31). Not sequence verified. Image
If anyone (scientist, journalist, or friend) cites these papers to say that SARS2 was circulating outside of China before it broke out in Wuhan, please free feel to share this thread with them.
Here's another (different kind of) panda gif as a reward.
Thanks @HL3133 for shedding light on the late Dec French case. I was also asked to try @threadreaderapp unroll this... let’s give it a go.
Adding one more study to the list. No negative controls.

Peer review should be public.

link.springer.com/article/10.100…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alina Chan

Alina Chan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Ayjchan

Apr 10
Regarding the possibility that Covid may have spread at the Oct 2019 Wuhan military games, my main question is why noone across multiple countries had the presence of mind to collect & store samples from patients till tests were available.

There should be changes going forward.
According to Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness: "Service members were not tested... as testing was not available at this early stage of the pandemic."
freebeacon.com/wp-content/upl…
"athletes noticed that something was amiss in the city of Wuhan.. described it as a “ghost town.”"

"athletes from several countries.. claimed publicly they had contracted what they believed to be covid.. based on their symptoms and how their illnesses spread to their loved ones"
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Read 13 tweets
Mar 13
I encourage experts who have insisted on a natural origin of Covid-19 to gracefully change their public stance instead of doubling down on the threadbare evidence for the wet market hypothesis.

You could acknowledge that you initially trusted your colleagues in China/US to tell the truth. But time and time again over the past 5 years, it has been shown that they withheld critical evidence from you and the public:
1⃣The 2018 Defuse proposal
2⃣Low biosafety standards for experiments where live viruses are produced and used in human cell infection studies
3⃣Risky pathogen experiments and surprising gain of function
4⃣Missing pathogen sample database, viruses discovered after 2015 largely not shared with US collaborators
5⃣Closest virus relative that we know of was collected from a mine where people died from suspected SARS-like virus infection

The studies published last month where Wuhan scientists experimented with potentially dangerous pathogens at low biosafety opened your eyes to the level of reckless ambition in their research.

Given these betrayals, it is fully within reason to retract your trust and re-evaluate all the available evidence. Those of you who have access to intelligence could say that the non-public evidence has cast a new light on the public evidence and strengthens the case for a lab origin of Covid-19.

This is better than continuing to argue that you somehow know all the viruses in the Wuhan lab's collection and somehow know they didn't follow through on their 2018 plans to put furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses and study these at low biosafety exactly like they said they would.
For those experts who haven't even looked at the Defuse proposal and its drafts, the Wuhan-US scientists clearly said they were interested in furin cleavage sites at the spike S1/S2 junction, and would insert these into novel SARS-like viruses in the lab (not closely related to the 2003 SARS virus as that would be dangerous). They would test the ability of these SARS-like viruses with inserted cleavage sites to infect human cells and cause pathogenesis in vivo.

The Wuhan lab was regularly synthesizing novel coronavirus genomes without leaving any sign of lab manipulation. They used a protocol with trypsin-supplemented media to retain cleavage sites in the viruses. They did much of the work, including infection experiments in human cells, at BSL-2. Their US collaborator Ralph Baric has repeatedly criticized them for doing the work at low biosafety.

h/t @emilyakopp for FOIA'ing the Defuse proposal drafts.Image
Image
Some virologists may argue that the furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 doesn't look canonical. You should read the citation in the Defuse draft for the computational model used to predict furin cleavage sites. The paper says it doesn't rely on the canonical motif and instead looks at a 20-residue sequence to make its predictions. The PRRAR motif exists in a feline coronavirus, MERS has a PRXXR S1/S2 furin cleavage site, and the RRXR motif is a functional furin cleavage site in numerous other proteins.
Read 13 tweets
Mar 12
According to Zeit Online, German Chancellery consulted with US Director of National Intelligence in 2023, who said there was nothing to the lab leak hypothesis.

They doubted "Eierköpfe" (egghead) scientists in intelligence knew better than leading virologists around the world.
In the US, something similar was happening where scientists in intelligence agencies also assessed a likely lab origin of Covid but were sidelined.

"The dominant view within the intelligence community was clear when... the director of national intelligence, and a couple of her senior analysts, briefed Biden... concluded with “low confidence” that Covid-19 had emerged when the virus leapt from an animal to a human."
wsj.com/politics/natio…
In both cases, government leaders favored the opinions of leading virologists over the scientists working in intelligence. Even though some of the leading virologists were public advocates and funders of "gain-of-function" research of concern with pathogens.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 12
German intelligence now assesses a 80-95% likelihood of a lab origin of Covid-19. Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Mar 9
I am not 100% convinced Covid came from a lab. I still think there is a small chance the virus emerged in Wuhan without the help of research activities. However, this would mean:

1⃣ The Wuhan-US scientists' entire framework about the spillover risks of SARS-like viruses, building on research and data collected over more than a decade, was incorrect.

2⃣ A highly transmissible, super stealthy virus well adapted for causing uncontrollable outbreaks in multiple animal species left zero trace of its origin in the wildlife or fur farms of China/SE Asia after emerging in only Wuhan out of 1000s of other populous cities.

3⃣ Out of all possible viruses to cause a pandemic and all times for a pandemic to occur, it was an unprecedented SARS-like virus with a novel furin cleavage site, matching the description of a 2018 US-Wuhan research proposal, emerging in Wuhan where scientists worked with such viruses at low biosafety, less than 2 years after said proposal was drafted.

It's not impossible that leading experts were completely mistaken about the exceedingly low odds of such viruses emerging in Wuhan.

It's not impossible that, in 2019, nature churned out a virus matching the scientists' 2018 research plans and that virus emerged in only Wuhan of all places.

But you'd have to be very motivated to believe Covid-19 emerged naturally.
We are unlikely to reach 100% certainty unless a whistleblower appears or the Chinese authorities one day assess that it is in their interest to share the truth.

I am still hopeful that this will happen one day. I believe in human courage.
Before that day, there are several routes of investigation that remain to be explored by the US gov.

Conducting a rigorous, credible investigation of Covid origins can unearth more key evidence while also informing the implementation of new measures to prevent lab pandemics.
Read 5 tweets
Mar 8
Top journals have the power to set global biosafety standards.

It's a problem that they do not see this as their moral responsibility. By publishing & celebrating risky research done at questionable biosafety, they incentivize the 'work fast break things' model of research.
I've given up on journals taking the initiative to be responsible members of the scientific community.

It is up to the U.S. government to tell them to behave responsibly or do business elsewhere.
I would love to be corrected if any top journal can show us that fostering a culture of accountability, scientific integrity, and 'do no harm' is one of their measurable goals as an organization & a strict criteria for decision-making regarding what research/groups to publish.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(