The danger in insisting on the 'natural spillover' idea with no solid evidence is that it could lead to initiatives that limit our capacity to make dangerous virus research safer and get ahead of lab escapes. The amount of risky pathogen research is rapidly expanding globally.
I understand that a lot of scientists have an unshakeable faith in the leak-proofiness of BSL4s (still not accident-proof; SARS1 escaped once from a BSL4 lab in 2003).
But the live virus SARSrCoV work at WIV was performed at BSL2!
There are cell culture hoods and good ventilation in BSL2 TC rooms. But just ask any scientist who works at BSL2 how frequently they hear about someone else touching door handles with their gloves on or cleaning up spills in the centrifuges. Or how often they get contamination.
BSL2 is not an appropriate biosafety level for working with infectious SARS-related coronaviruses. Especially the ones you've already determined can replicate in human cells and use the human ACE2 receptor.
h/t @Akselfrids for writing an article pointing out the WIV paper and thesis stating that their live virus SARSrCoV work was performed at BSL2.
English version of the @Minervanett article: "The PhD dissertation, however, clearly states that the proliferation and cell infection experiments of live viruses (including recombinant viruses) were performed in a BSL2 (Biosafety level 2) laboratory." minervanett.no/china-drastic-…
@Minervanett Some are asking for better regulation of pathogen research regardless of Covid origins. I'm with you, but it seems like it's not moving the leaders who have the authority and power to push for those regulations. Their strategy is MORE pathogen research.
So... in other words, more of the same research (any new regulation?) that didn't help to prevent or find a cure or vaccine to this pandemic, but might have even potentially caused it.
Will the funders actually have an excel spreadsheet tracking the pathogen samples this time?
This situation...
Virologists say that virologists are unlikely to have caused the pandemic.
Virologists say that more virology (and more funding for virologists) is needed to prevent a future pandemic.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is happening next Wednesday: @DavidRelman will be speaking to the Investigations and Oversight subcommittee of the House Science Committee on "Principles for Outbreak Investigation: COVID-19 and Future Infectious Diseases". science.house.gov/hearings/princ…
I wish more experts were invited to give a balanced and clear-minded assessment of the existing evidence surrounding the #OriginsOfCovid
I think @DavidRelman is one of the best scientists to speak on this topic - finding the source of a pandemic that could’ve arisen naturally or involved research activity. pnas.org/content/117/47…
I'm getting requests for comment on the new preprint review on #OriginsOfCovid
This new review is slightly better than the Proximal Origin correspondence (and has a more impressive authorship list) but sticks to the same key points as Proximal Origin.
The first author did not disclose his 2014-present Guest Professor position in the Chinese CDC. This was also not disclosed in Proximal Origin. So my understanding is that this appointment was and still is not considered a competing interest. api.profiles.sydney.edu.au/AcademicProfil…
The preprint ultimately urges a comprehensive investigation of the zoonotic origin of the virus, ideally through collaborative studies. 💯agreed.
But I disagree that "there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2."
“Even the headline on The Lancet article — Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans — seems designed to gaslight their critics, given their previous stance.”
By @ianbirrell unherd.com/thepost/why-wo…
@ianbirrell 1st Lancet letter:
"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin"
2nd Lancet letter:
"intent of our original Correspondence was to express our working view that SARS-CoV-2 most likely originated in nature"
@ianbirrell 1st L:
"Scientists.. overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.. supported by a letter from the presidents of the US NASEM"
2nd L:
"We believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence.. is that the virus evolved in nature"
@DisInfoChron@thackerpd@ianbirrell It is somehow ok for an expert to first fail to declare their conflicts of interest, consider taking their name off a letter they wrote, and then one year later say they have reasonably perceived competing interests but are acting in a "private capacity".
The Lancet letter 2.0 is up. This time with a declaration of interests almost as long as the letter itself.
It's more nuanced than v1.0 but still makes the mistake of not understanding that a lab leak usually involves a virus collected from nature. thelancet.com/journals/lance…
Some again forgot to state their EcoHealth Alliance affiliation. So I would like to summarize their interests:
If it turns out Covid-19 is from a lab, several signatories affiliated with EcoHealth/PREDICT or collaborators of WIV could lose funding and/or public reputation.
For their peer-reviewed evidence for a natural origin, the letter points to 3 peer-reviewed articles all describing bat coronaviruses and 1 describing pangolins.
But actually none of them provide evidence of how SARS2 would've naturally emerged in Wuhan.
Is there evidence that definitively supports SARS2 spilling over from animal to human at a market?
There is none. Existing evidence is consistent with a person bringing SARS2 into Huanan Seafood Market, resulting in a cluster of cases.
Yet, a 2-market hypothesis has emerged...
At least one virologist has repeatedly suggested that SARS2 spilled over not only once but twice in Wuhan city at different markets.
Why? Because at least one of the earliest SARS2 lineages was not observed among Huanan cases.
There are 2 major problems with this hypothesis.
1. The 2 early lineages (the one found in Huanan cases, and the other not found in Huanan cases) only differ by 2 letters out of 29.9K letters. It's much more likely SARS2 was introduced 1 time into humans.