Also, to correct Stephen, Wuhan is not a place where SARS2-like viruses are known to circulate in bats or spillover into people.
The Wuhan institute of virology existed prior to 2003 SARS. A lab there pivoted to SARS research after the 2003 epidemic, and spent close to 2 decades ferrying 10,000s of potential SARS samples (animal and human) from more than 1000 miles away up into the Wuhan lab.
Prior to covid-19, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other Wuhan labs had collectively sampled 1000s of bats in Hubei province where Wuhan is located. They never saw any SARS2-related virus or even any SARS-related virus that could use the hACE2 entry receptor.
But wildlife trade in China is immense. That’s why we need to dig deeper into exactly what animals were sold in Wuhan in 2019. The existing info is deeply incomplete. The China-WHO team was told that the seafood market had no live mammals. A recent paper said there were 2017-19.
At the very least we now have stronger evidence that no bats or pangolins were being sold in Wuhan 2017-2019, from a scientist who had been diligently checking in even with vendors of illegally trafficked animals.
The pangolin hypothesis is essentially dead.
Late last year @AP reported that one of the top scientists in the SARS field - in fact, the scientist who had suggested and then gone on to discover SARS-like viruses in bats - said the search for these coronaviruses in pangolins did not appear “scientifically driven.”
See thread above, Wuhan is not a place where SARS viruses are spilling over from nature. The institute was not built there to study local SARS viruses. It imported these viruses from South China.
At first people thought the virus had come from the Huanan seafood market but evidence has been building over time showing that the virus had been circulating prior to being introduced into the market.
Zero animal samples from the market or tested suppliers were positive.
Minor correction on WIV database:
"数据库涵盖课题组长期积累的样本和病毒病原数据,以及国外权威机构公开发布的相关数据,共计22257条"
Samples & viral pathogen data accumulated by the group for a long time, as well as data by foreign institutions, total 22257.
It’s actually ridiculously easy for SARS-related viruses to leak from labs. Especially if you’re working with live viruses at low BSL2 biosafety levels like the WIV was. SARS classic even leaked from a BSL4 one time.
Even top virologists who initially took the must-be-natural stance have changed their minds after hearing that these SARS-like viruses were being experimented with at BSL2.
Imagine working with SARS2, an airborne virus, and your only protection is gloves.
And believe it or not, lots of scientists have the habit of blowing out their gloves so they can reuse it later.
I saw someone (not at my workplace) re-inflate their gloves recently for reuse and I was like why even bother having gloves… your mouth has now touched whatever might’ve spattered on your hands or wrists.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I want to impress that there is a lot to lose for scientists (esp virologists) to say they think Covid-19 could’ve emerged in connection to research activities.
All at once you’re dealing with your colleagues, institute, reviewers of papers & grants, & the Chinese government.
You’re literally acting against your self interest in every way possible except the interest of not having a future pandemic caused by a research-related accident.
I’ve spoken very highly of sleuths and data analysts who’ve worked on tracing the #OriginsOfCovid
But I also need to emphasize that the consequences for scientists are much worse. You could become a pariah overnight, accused of fanning the flames of conspiracy and AAPI hate.
Because so many experts are deleting their tweets now, people have had no choice but to look at archived pages to see what they said just over a year ago:
Calisher, CSU virologist & lone signatory to completely change his position, told @ABC he now believes "there is too much coincidence" to ignore the lab-leak theory & "it is more likely that it came out of that lab."
H/t @TheSeeker268 abcnews.go.com/US/nature-base…
For more context, Calisher was the unfortunate first author of @TheLancet letter which ordered its signatories alphabetically.
Peter Daszak with ties to the WIV was the drafter of the letter who even considered taking his name off said letter.
If, in Jan 2020, we had known all of these key points, I suspect it would've been clear that a lab leak was plausible:
1. WIV worked with at least 9 closest relatives to SARS2 known at the time, collected from Yunnan mine where people suffered viral severe respiratory disease.
2. WIV did their SARSrCoV live virus work at BSL2, and the animal infection experiments at BSL3.
3. WIV kept bats in the lab and did virus infection experiments with them.
I’m starting a 24h poll to check the public understanding of gain-of-function research.
What will follow is a series of experiment scenarios. Participants are invited to pick: Yes, No, I don’t know.
Please don’t Google to find answers. Answer based on your understanding.
First one should be easy.
Is this gain-of-function?
Serially (consecutively, repeatedly) passaging a virus through cells or animals (infecting these with the virus) to intentionally derive a more infectious or lethal virus.
Second one:
Is this gain-of-function?
Serially passaging a novel virus from nature in cells to find a version that can be grown and studied in the laboratory.