The joint international and Chinese mission organized by the World Health Organization on the origins of Covid released its report last week, suggesting that more study is needed for almost every topic it covers. What kind of study and who is going to do it is the question.
The report suggests that a number of research lines be followed, focusing on the probable origin of the coronavirus in bats. It was concluded that the most likely route to humans was through an intermediate animal, perhaps on a game farm. Among the future efforts could be blood bank surveys to look for cases that could appear before December 2019 and the detection of possible animal sources of the virus in game farms, the team suggested.
Critics of the report have further investigated the possibility that a laboratory incident in Wuhan could have led to the first human infection. A loosely organized group of scientists and others who were virtually meeting to discuss the possibility of a laboratory leak released an open letter this week outlining several ways to thoroughly investigate. It called for further action, arguing that “critical reports and biological samples that may provide essential insights into pandemic origins remain inaccessible.”
Much of the letter reflects an earlier release of the same group outlining what the failures of the WHO mission saw. This second letter is more specific in the kind of future investigations it suggests.
The group is looking for a new investigation that will include experts on biosafety and biosafety, one that could involve the WHO or a separate multinational effort to set up another process to start the pandemic and its origins in the pandemic. To explore China.
Jamie Metzl, a writer, senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, an international think tank and signatory to the scientist’s letter, said the renewed calls for a more in-depth investigation examine the need for greater monitoring and restrictions on what viruses can be studied. . in laboratories around the world.
“It’s not about pulling China together,” he said. Metzl said.
Mr. Metzl’s group was among those disappointed with the report released last week, as it ignored the possibility of a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which called it highly unlikely.
The head of the WHO, dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, later said that the mission’s consideration of a possible laboratory leak was not ‘extensive enough’.
He continued: ‘Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, it is necessary to investigate further, possibly with additional missions involving specialists, which I am ready to use. ‘
From the beginning, the task of the mission was never to investigate safety or procedures in the Wuhan laboratory, where much research has been done in recent years on coronavirus from bats, or at any other laboratories in China.
What the member states of the WHO granted was a collaborative scientific effort by a group of international experts and their Chinese counterparts to study the origins of the pandemic.
The team of international scientists had no power or mandate to act independently of their Chinese colleagues. As prescribed by the member states, every word in the report had to be approved by the Chinese as well as the international group. They had 28 days in China, two of which were quarantined in a hotel.
The result, which includes an extensive review of existing scientific literature, is evidence of the swamps in favor of the general understanding of the origin of the virus, namely that a bat coronavirus probably transmits it to another animal and then to humans. transferred. This is what happened to the earlier coronavirus epidemics of SARS and MERS.
Similar viruses have been found in bats and pangolins, although they are not close enough to infect humans themselves. The suspicion of a laboratory leak is based on the idea that laboratories in China collect and study these viruses and that the Chinese scientists are lying about the research they are doing or are not aware of what is going on in their institutions.
Shi Zhengli, director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and other internationally renowned Chinese scientists said that SARS-CoV-2 was not present in any Chinese laboratory. According to them, no virus is enough to make a leap to humans.
Some experts who have not signed a single open letter criticizing the WHO think that a different kind of inquiry is needed.
Dr. Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease expert at Georgetown University, said that based on the genetics of the virus and the many established precedents of disease spread from animals to humans, he thinks the virus originated in the wild. But he also said he thinks it may have been present in a laboratory in Wuhan and could have escaped starting the pandemic, perhaps because someone was accidentally infected.
He said that, on the issue of viral origin, ‘I really am not convinced that it came from a laboratory, but there has not been enough research.’
He said he believed the report was a ‘grand slam home run’ for China. What China wants is to create reasonable doubt that the virus originated in China. And according to him, the report suggests that it is possible that the virus originated in other countries in Southeast Asia and perhaps even in Europe.
Jesse Bloom, an evolutionary biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who did not sign a critical letter, said he saw no evidence in the report to support a dismissal of the possible role of a laboratory .
“I think the natural origin of the pandemic is quite plausible,” said Dr. Bloom said, but added that he met with dr. Tedros agrees that the assessment of a laboratory accident is not comprehensive enough and that it needs to be further investigated.
Apart from the laboratory, the report mentions several promising directions for future study, including tracing the path of animal products or animals that could have transported the virus to markets in Wuhan.
Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance, which has been crippled by laboratory lexical theorists for its previous work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, said the findings so far point to wildlife farms as the most likely areas for animal spread to humans. . There are many such farms in China and Southeast Asia, and the animals on it, such as raccoon dogs and rivets, have contact with bats and humans. Thousands of tests of animals and animal samples from China, including seafood and other markets, did not provide evidence of the presence of SARS-CoV-2, according to the WHO report.
The report also mentions that both mink and cats are easily susceptible to infection, presumably from humans, and that they are potential reservoirs of the virus. Cats have not been shown to transmit the virus to humans, but are mink. China has a thriving mining industry, but has not reported any infections on mink farms to the WHO
Dr. Lucey said he referred to the lack of information about China’s mink farms as “The Silence of the Mink.”
In terms of human studies, the report suggests that blood tests in blood bank donations done from September to December 2019 can be very helpful. The first recorded outbreak took place in December 2019 in the Huanan market in Wuhan.
Marion Koopmans, a Dutch virologist at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, said the WTO mission had asked the Wuhan blood bank system to donate blood from that period. It has been agreed upon, she said, and now the Chinese are seeking permission to test the blood for antibodies against the virus that could help determine exactly when the virus first appeared in humans. Expanding such studies could also help with location.
Dr. Koopmans said she hoped blood donation studies could be extended to other provinces and regions outside China. “My perfect study design is that you include regions in Italy and France where there was an indication of the virus before December,” she said.
She said standardized tests should be done for all regions involved. This in turn may indicate isolated pockets of early appearance of the virus. Game testing in such areas can be productive.
Dr. Koopmans defends the mission of the WHO team and says that it is always meant to be a scientific study with Chinese colleagues. If an investigation is the goal, she said, “you have to do an inspection or something, but it’s not a scientific study.”
The critics agree on that. One of the most eloquent parts of the WHO critics is about the composition of a team investigating Chinese laboratories. If the ground rules for a second mission are rewritten, the letter reads, the WHO “must ensure that a wider range of skills is included in the international team of experts, including biosafety and biosafety experts, biodata analysts and experienced forensic investigators.”
Near the very end of the report, in discussing what needs to be done to learn more about the likelihood of a laboratory incident, the report recommends: ‘Regular administrative and internal review of high-level biosafety laboratories worldwide. Follow-up of new evidence provided around possible laboratory leaks. ”
Mr. Metzl said he could no longer agree, saying such investigations should include U.S. laboratories in the future. But, he said, the pandemic is extremely urgent and he wants to start with China immediately. Yet he and the other signatories of the two letters are very concerned about virus research around the world.
While many virologists and pathologists want to collect and study viruses as a way to learn more and be more prepared for outbreaks, Mr. Metzl said he and others want more restrictions on virus studies.
“It makes absolute sense to put in place a global regulatory system that oversees aggressive work with dangerous or deadly pathogens everywhere,” he said.