Prominent scientists call for more investigation into origins of coronavirus
By: Rachael Rettner (livescience. com)
The only thing we know with any certainty about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is that investigations into origin have not been objective, data-driven, or transparent. There have been too many political axes to grind. And the politics are not going away.
As with most controversies involving science, the public is left to believe whatever they want to believe. We're never going to understand the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus because political interests won't allow it.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
More than a dozen researchers have published a letter in a top scientific journal calling for further investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
In the letter, published Thursday (May 13) in the journal Science, the authors say that two theories — that the virus was accidentally released from a lab or that it spilled over naturally from animals — "both remain viable."
"Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks," they wrote.
The authors, who include 18 prominent scientists, are not the first in the scientific community to call for more investigation into the new coronavirus's origins. But many previous statements on the issue have clearly favored one theory over the other, while the authors of the new letter tried to remain neutral, arguing that current evidence is not strong enough to favor either theory, according to The New York Times.
"Most of the discussion you hear about SARS-CoV-2 origins at this point is coming from, I think, the relatively small number of people who feel very certain about their views," Jesse Bloom, lead author of the letter and associate professor at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who studies virus evolution, told the Times. "Anybody who's making statements with a high level of certainty about this is just outstripping what's possible to do with the available evidence."
Other authors of the letter include Dr. David Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University; Ralph Baric, a professor of epidemiology and microbiology at the University of North Carolina who has spent decades studying coronaviruses; and Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who uses mathematical modeling to study infectious disease transmission.
The origins of SARS-CoV-2 have been hotly debated since the pandemic began, and some experts have said we may never know exactly where the virus came from, Live Science previously reported.
In March 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) released the results of a months-long investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, conducted in partnership with Chinese scientists. The report concluded that a spillover from wildlife through an intermediate host was the "likely to very likely pathway" for the original transmission into humans, while introduction through a lab accident was "extremely unlikely."
However, many countries soon criticized the report for a lack of transparency and incomplete data, according to CNN. The U.S. and 13 other governments have since released a statement expressing concern about the WHO findings.
The new letter notes that in the WHO report, "the two theories were not given balanced consideration" and that "there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident."
"A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of conflicts of interest," the authors of the Science letter said.
Some experts not involved with the letter said they support the need for further investigation on the virus's origins, but they disagreed that the two hypotheses currently have equal evidence supporting them.
"There is more evidence (both genomic and historical precedent) that this was the result of zoonotic emergence rather than a laboratory accident," Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at University of Saskatchewan's Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization in Canada, told the Times.
Originally published on Live Science.
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
Science says, "believe whatever you want to believe." The scientific experts have gone political to protect their interests.
That is not science. Not even close. That is a something out of a child's fantasy story. Where do you get this crap?
Then don't lie to the public about scientific experts presenting the science. That's not what the scientific experts are doing. The scientific experts are lobbying for their point of view according to their interests and that's a political activity.
Scientific experts tell us what science says. But if those scientific experts tell us what to do because science says, then those scientific experts have gone political.
You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over.
You complain about scientists in political position and deem them to be 'science'. Fauci, for example, is a liaison between science and politics. He is not 'science'. He is a scientist (by trade) operating in an official capacity which necessarily factors in dimensions such as legal, political and societal.
Science is a discipline and a body of knowledge. This discipline is executed worldwide by millions of professional scientists who are driven to discover more truth about our reality. You discredit them and their work by labeling the actions of political liaisons, political operatives, politicians, etc. as 'science'.
I am convinced you do this on purpose. I just cannot imagine to what good end. Seems malicious to me.
Then call them politicians or officials Nerm. Don't label political operatives as 'science'. You are changing the definition of the word 'science' and it seems entirely pointless to do so.
... and to what end?
Good question!
I believe he is a strong supporter of Donald Trump?
"A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of conflicts of interest," the authors of the Science letter said.
Why would you have a problem with the above? Don't you want the truth to come out?
They have never found an intermediate host.
Why do you presume I have a problem with the above?
Looks like you did not read what I wrote.
That's foolish. Real scientific experts are apolitical.
What interests?
Lobbying a governmental body to adopt a particular policy, course of action, or conclusion is a political activity.
Lobbying is not science. Buy a vowel.
Lobbying????????????
What the huh?
That's correct, lobbying is not science. And scientific experts who are lobbying are not acting as scientists and are not representing science.
Glad you understand that, now just go to the next step and don't call them 'science'. Instead of misusing the words scientist and science use the accurate words politician and politics.
And when you find operatives serving as liaisons between science and society / government then these operatives are not 'science'. They are interpreting science constrained by the dimensions of their positions. That is, they are communicating science + politics + societal behavior + practical limitations + ... Calling this 'science' is redefining the word and discrediting science in the process.
WTF?
Don't you realize that since Trump lost the Election-- those lobbies who control him no longer have any power?
Or you one of those folks that still believe Trump won the last Election and is still President?
(Stranger things have happened...!)
[Deleted]
That sounds like something you just made up...???
If not-- do you have a link?
(From a reliable source only, of course)
Saying that observations or defendable estimates show that the risk of infection is 10 times higher in bars and restaurants would be scientific advice.
Saying that bars and restaurants must be closed to control spread of the virus because the risk is higher advocates for a particular political action; that's political lobbying that excludes other possible actions to mitigate spread of the virus.
Trying to explain what Trump has to do with anything would require too much lobbying to defend. Lobbyists attempt to divert attention away from the important topics with dumbass inconsistencies, contradictions, and irrelevancies. That's what Anthony Fauci has been doing.
We’re never going to know. Politics won this fight a long time ago and the right brains have been washed. Now any scientist that calls for more investigation or transparency is dismissed as a crackpot.
And this hurts our chances against the next pandemic because without fully knowing how this one started we are late for the next one. And everybody knows there will be another pandemic. We may not see it ourselves but it will happen.
Good point!
They should stop wasting their time investing Covid-19 to learn more about it (especially the "variants") and rather do more useful thingsd.
Like..investigating whether or not THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN!
(With which I'm sure you'd agree!!
)!
The fact is at this point there is no unaltered evidence to investigate, any real evidence that doesn't support the "It came from Wildlife" theory has been destroyed by China. We'll never be able to prove 100% that it came from a lab but I tend to believe when a country acts like it has something to hide it does it for a reason.
China lied and covered up the origins, the WHO is corrupt and follows China lead so we may well never know what happened.
Some Americans were sure eager to help China as well " If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what’s out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated" Dr. Fauci...
But the circumstantial evidence that this came from a lab leak is very compelling.
China lied and covered up the origins, the WHO is corrupt and follows China lead so we may well never know what happened.
Some Americans were sure eager to help China as well "
i am Shocked...Shocked I tell you!
CHINA, CHINA,CHINA!
Trump's efforts are starting to pay off!!!!
Yes, the virus came from CHINA....probably escaped from the Wuhan virology lab.
Seems reasonable to me, but then I'm not a scientist, but she's a Canadian, and obviously very smart, so I'll bet on her hypothesis, rather than that of the Trump worshippers.
Wildlife farming is also a man-made artificial environment that fits with zoonotic emergence that scientists have conveniently ignored.
How is it possible to differentiate zoonotic emergence between wildlife in the wild, in a farm setting, or in a laboratory setting? The same wild animals would still be the source of the virus in all three settings. The coronaviruses would be mutating by the same mechanism in all three settings. The difference between the three settings is the degree of contact between the wild animals and humans.
A virus making the jump from wildlife to humans requires contact between the animals and humans. A virus that emerges in animals won't pose a danger to humans until there is contact between the animals and humans. What is involved in identifying the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is finding where wildlife and humans were in contact with each other.
Here you go, guys, grasp at some of these.....
T
Doubts about natural emergence. Natural emergence was the media’s preferred theory until around February 2021 and the visit by a World Health Organization (WHO) commission to China. The commission’s composition and access were heavily controlled by the Chinese authorities. Its members, who included the ubiquitous Daszak, kept asserting before, during, and after their visit that lab escape was extremely unlikely. But this was not quite the propaganda victory the Chinese authorities may have been hoping for. What became clear was that the Chinese had no evidence to offer the commission in support of the natural emergence theory.
This was surprising because both the SARS1 and MERS viruses had left copious traces in the environment. The intermediary host species of SARS1 was identified within four months of the epidemic’s outbreak, and the host of MERS within nine months. Yet some 15 months after the SARS2 pandemic began, and after a presumably intensive search, Chinese researchers had failed to find either the original bat population, or the intermediate species to which SARS2 might have jumped, or any serological evidence that any Chinese population, including that of Wuhan, had ever been exposed to the virus prior to December 2019. Natural emergence remained a conjecture which, however plausible to begin with, had gained not a shred of supporting evidence in over a year.
Until the Chinese government is ready to be open and honest (never gonna happen) any further investigation will lead nowhere but the same conclusions we have already drawn, it either came from a natural source or a lab but we can’t say which for sure.
Itd be nice to know the truth, but do t wait around for it.