The editors of the Washington Post are urging the World Health Organization to begin another investigation into the origins of COVID-19:
Another hypothesis, that the pandemic was ignited by some kind of laboratory leak or accident, is denied by China. However, a senior researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Shi Zhengli, was working on “gain of function†experiments, which involve modifying viral genomes to give them new properties, including the ability to infect lung cells of laboratory mice that had been genetically modified to respond as human respiratory cells would. She was working with bat coronaviruses that were genetically very similar to the one that caused the pandemic. Could a worker have gotten infected or inadvertent leakage have touched off the outbreak in Wuhan?
The joint WHO-China team said in its Feb. 9 news conference in Wuhan that the laboratory hypothesis was “extremely unlikely†and would not be further studied; later, Dr. Tedros said that nothing was off the table. As the 26 scientists point out in their letter, the team lacked the training and forensic skills required to investigate this possibility. They were under strong pressure from China to steer clear of the subject altogether.
What’s needed is an independent, multidisciplinary and unfettered investigation into the origins of the outbreak, both the zoonotic and laboratory hypotheses. China’s obduracy is not going away. The WHO, a membership organization, lacks the powers to pry open closed doors in China, and there is not another good alternative. However, Dr. Tedros could appoint a new team of highly qualified international experts, including forensic specialists, to investigate the laboratory-leak hypothesis, and forcefully insist that China not stand in its way. If he openly challenged China on this matter, he would have the support of a world wanting to know how this nightmare began and how to prevent another.
What I have been hearing lately are somewhat desperate attempts at finding an explanation, any explanation, which does not situate the origins of COVID-19 within China. Frozen food imported from Europe. Zoonotic transmission from Thailand. No explanation has been offered on how the first cases reported in China managed to contract the disease from frozen food or from Thailand while other people more conveniently situated for the virus managed to avoid it.
As Conan Doyle wrote “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”. Perhaps they’re disinterested in the truth.
Shi Zhengli, was working on “gain of function†experiments, which involve modifying viral genomes to give them new properties, including the ability to infect lung cells of laboratory mice that had been genetically modified to respond as human respiratory cells would.
To what end that?
To ease human suffering?
“To what end that?”
So you could experiment upon mice rather than people. Even in China that is still cheaper.
“If he openly challenged China on this matter, he would have the support of a world wanting to know how this nightmare began and how to prevent another.”
No, he would just risk losing funding from China or risk losing access. The US has demonstrated that our funding is not reliable. No country is going to cede sovereignty to WHO unless they desperately need the support of WHO. China does not.
Steve
Here is an amazing fact.
The biggest funding for Ms. Shi’s “gain of function” research was… the NIH.
This actually leads to something actionable. Assume the two most plausible theories are zoonotic transmission, or a lab accident.
Based on COVID-19; the risk of “gain-of-function” research far outweighs the possible benefits. The risk is the research led to a lab leak that led to the pandemic. There was no benefit to the research as it did not warn/ameliorate the pandemic.
Given the US government is the biggest funding source for this research around the world; Congress must look at this — it is not something that should be left to virologists.
Further, they should seriously look at how to coordinate a ban on gain of function research around the world.
Would read this before automatically doing away with GOF. Dont have strong feelings about it but if used so that you can study a virus in other animals besides humans I could see value in that.
https://mbio.asm.org/content/5/4/e01730-14
Steve
My retort is there was an active debate on the value and risks of gain of function experiments; but now we have data.
We derived nothing of value from the gain of function experiments Ms Shi did in fighting the pandemic. But we have a plausible case that it caused the pandemic it was supposed to help fight.
What would have to change so we actually derive something of value?
So you have definite evidence that Covid came from that lab? Care to share? We have gained value form other gain of function experiments from what I understand. Go ahead and have the debate bbut lets have some real facts first.
Steve