3 takeaways from the recently released EcoHealth grant proposals & reports:
1. By March 2018, they had a roadmap for detecting & inserting novel rare (furin) cleavage sites into novel low risk SARS-like viruses.
2. By 2019, chimeric human pathogen MERS-CoV research was ongoing.
3. Several groups of people were aware of either one or both of the points above and decided not to say anything about it for close to 2 years since SARS2 emerged in Wuhan.
2 urgent things need to be done now:
1. All EcoHealth+collaborator communications, docs, data related to SARS-like viruses must be made public/investigated by a credible team
2. A new moratorium & overhaul of framework+oversight structure on pandemic potential pathogen research
Let’s not get bogged down by the back and forth confusion between EcoHealth and NIH on reporting compliance, making us forget what needs to actually get done.
Where would we be today without all the outsiders, independent analysts and internet sleuths who, month after month, showed that the EcoHealth/Daszak was spreading misinformation about bat coronavirus research in Wuhan? wsj.com/articles/coron…
Were any scientific leaders holding EcoHealth/Daszak accountable?
Many scientists and science journalists in the public eye continued to cast the lab origin hypothesis as a conspiracy theory and take EcoHealth/Daszak’s word without question for most of 2020+2021.
The chimeric SARS-like viruses also did not look enhanced in cells, but when in humanized 🐁 revealed 10,000x higher viral loads & enhanced severity of disease.
EcoHealth showed results that the chimeric MERS virus looked similar to MERS in cells, but what about in humanized 🐁?
Some have interpreted this tweet to mean I didn’t think a genetically engineered #OriginOfCovid was possible last year. I did think it was possible & interesting, but not worth pursuing as a top priority.
Now I believe it has to be treated as a top priority for inquiry.
With literally 2020 hindsight, we now know inserting novel cleavage sites into novel SARS-like viruses is a terrible terrible idea. But back in 2018, scientists might not have grasped the risks.
Even if you don't think that @WHO or SAGO will be effective at finding the #OriginOfCovid it is in all of our interests that SAGO at least be set up to be balanced, representative of diverse expertise, and free of conflicts of interest. researchgate.net/publication/35…
@WHO In our letter, we note that there are far too few nominees with backgrounds in biosafety,biosecurity, or forensics (we counted only 2 out of 26) - skills that are critical for realizing SAGO’s mission.
This will fundamentally harm SAGO’s credibility, and the credibility of the WHO by extension. To function optimally, SAGO will require a team able to fairly and credibly examine all pandemic origin hypotheses, both now and in the future.
If SARS2 came from a lab, genetic engineering is very much on the table.
This wasn’t my view 1 year ago. However, in light of grant proposals and reports released in the past 2 months, we know novel SARS-like viruses were being synthesized and engineered at unprecedented scale.
What is going to help inform us on this question “was SARS2 genetically engineered?” is getting full access to all of the communications and documents US-based scientists, editors, and funders had relating to any novel SARSrCoV work.
Not machine learning.
State-of-the-art coronavirus genome engineering has been seamless for several years. You don’t need to be nefarious to make your synthetic genomes seamless.
We can’t use the genome sequence alone to infer whether genetic engineering has occurred.