It is well established that bats were kept at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and that Dr Shi Zhengli's lab worked with live bats. This was covered in @zeynep@nytimes piece in 2021.
@zeynep@nytimes From an archived interview:
"The research team caught a few bats from the wild to be used as experimental animals.. During the Spring Festival this year, the students all went home on vacation, and Teacher Shi silently undertook the task of raising bats." archive.is/DmL4g
The surprising thing to me is that this work with live bats had already been ongoing in 2009. A whole decade before Covid-19.
Note: Based on the recent positions of experts leaning toward natural #OriginOfCovid, if a bat infected a lab personnel in the lab with Covid-19 it would not be a lab leak but a zoonosis.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 2018, the Wuhan Institute of Virology also said that they were generating primary or immortalized cells from bats for use in their lab experiments. nature.com/articles/s4158…
One thing that any respectable #OriginOfCovid investigation or commission must do is to build a consensus on the known and suspected earliest cases in China and overseas. We cannot move forward until we have this clarified.
This requires a systematic analysis of the news coverage and scientific articles describing early cases in China and elsewhere, as well as interviews of foreign doctors and others who were visiting Wuhan in late 2019.
It's impossible to reach a high confidence assessment on #OriginOfCovid with a window as wide as the first human infection happening any time between September and mid-November 2019.
This is what the Chinese CDC manuscript said about their environmental samples. "No animals were concluded."
This doesn't mean they didn't find animal genetic material. It would be shocking for a wet market to not have animal genetic material.
I stand by the point that you cannot use abundance of animal/human genetic material in environmental samples to infer host. In the case of the market, it is clear that the one species traversing the entire market was human. All sequences of the virus were of the human outbreak.
By the time the Chinese CDC went to sample the market in January 2020, the outbreak was widespread in the city and the virus had already left the bounds of Wuhan.
The virus had certainly spread throughout the market: "All the four sewerage wells in the market tested positive."
Never thought I'd see experts and journalists insisting that a lab-acquired infection is not a lab leak but a zoonosis.
At this point, how can anyone in the public understand what these experts actually mean when they say an outbreak started from zoonotic spillover?
If evidence turns up that a precursor of the pandemic virus was being worked with in a Wuhan lab - without evidence of genetic engineering - are these experts going to say "See, we were right. It was a zoonotic spillover!"
If scientists get infected in the lab and it spreads out into their city, are they going to tell their biosafety officer, "There wasn't a lab leak. Zoonosis happened."
Desperation is inferring the existence of an infected animal at the market from the presence of animal genetic material at the market, which had been plastered with virus across its >9 NFL field-sized retail space.
The presence of animal genetic material sampled from surfaces at the Wuhan market in Jan 2020 doesn't tell us:
1. If there were live animals in Nov/Dec 2019.
2. How many there were, if present.
3. If the animals were infected with the virus.
Considering that it is a surface and not an animal that is being sampled, contaminating genetic material cannot be used to determine the host that shed the virus.
There is nothing in the sequencing data that says the virus came from a human or a raccoon dog.
Another serious case of the Proximal Origin authors not carefully reading the methods section of the Chinese CDC's paper whose data they used in their #OriginOfCovid analysis.