On 14 January 2020, at a time when hospitals in Wuhan were seeing a flood of Covid cases, many of whom had never been near animals in a market and some of whom were in turn infecting healthcare workers, the WHO repeated the Chinese government’s nonsensical insistence that you could normally only catch Covid from an animal, not a person: “it is very clear right now that we have no sustained human-to-human transmission.
The Taiwanese government had by then urged WHO to rethink this dud advice, but the WHO does not even recognise Taiwan’s existence.
A few weeks later, while the Chinese government was punishing medical whistleblowers for telling the truth, Tedros said his admiration for China’s actions went “beyond words”, while praising “China’s commitment to transparency”.
"Sam Altman, the recently fired (and rehired) chief executive of Open AI, was asked what he thought of the risks of synthetic biology. ‘I would like to not have another synthetic pathogen cause a global pandemic.'"
"He is right. There is almost no debate about regulating high-risk virology, whereas the world is in a moral panic about artificial intelligence...In contrast to that still fairly remote risk, the threat the world faces from research on viruses is far more immediate."
"A bat sarbecovirus acutely tuned to infecting human beings but not bats that contains a unique genetic feature of a kind frequently inserted by scientists, caused an outbreak in the one city in the world where scientists were conducting intensive research on bat sarbecoviruses"
Here's what @K_G_Andersen, lead author of Proximal Origin, the paper that led me to mislead colleagues by telling them a lab leak could be ruled out, said while drafting the paper:
Andrew Rambaut: “that we are discussing it shows how plausible it is”;
Robert Garry: “It’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened”;
Edward Holmes: “no way selection could occur in the market”;
Here's what he said after submitting the paper:
“None of this helps refute a lab origin and the possibility must be considered as a serious scientific theory (which is what we do) and not dismissed out of hand as another 'conspiracy' theory.”
Thorough, detailed reporting by @Arbuthnott into the work of the Wuhan Institute of Virology - with one or two minor errors, eg picture of fruit bats, not horseshoe bats; and in places not enough credit to the work of others.
The most interesting new revelations are: (thread)
“They were working with the 9 different Covid variants,” one of the investigators said. They believe one virus at the WIV was an even closer match to Covid-19 than RaTG13. “We are confident they were working on a closer unpublished variant — possibly collected in Mojiang,”
“We were rock-solid confident that [illness of 3 researchers] was likely Covid-19 because they were working on advanced coronavirus research in the laboratory of Dr Shi. They’re trained biologists in their thirties and forties. 35yo scientists don’t get very sick with influenza.”
By swapping spike genes between bat viruses they sometimes increased the infectivity of the viruses 10,000-fold in mice with human genes.
Some of these experiments were done at inappropriately low biosafety levels. But again, none of the published experiments used a virus that could have directly caused Covid. Were there unpublished ones?