„Sometimes these things happen fortuitously, sometimes it‘s the result of convergent evolution “ …
‚It‘s a quirky observation but I wouldn‘t call it a smoking gun because it‘s too small.
He added: ‚It doesn‘t get us any further with the debate about whether Covid was engineered.‘
(25.08.2021)
“The current situation is that all of the hypotheses regarding to the origins of the virus are still on the table,” Michael Ryan, the head of the WHO’s health emergencies programme, in response to a question about the laboratory leak theory. “Some are more likely than others based on the current analysis, but all of those hypotheses require further elucidation and further inquiry and we will go and look where all of those leads take the WHO.”
The report falls short of concluding whether the coronavirus jumped from animal to human, or might have accidentally escaped from a lab in China
Rund drei Monate lang hatten US-Geheimdienste im Auftrag von US-Präsident Joe Biden zum Ursprung des Coronavirus recherchiert. Jetzt liegt ihr Bericht vor – doch zu einem eindeutigen Ergebnis sind sie nicht gekommen. Ob das Virus aus einem Labor stamme oder von einem Tier auf den Menschen übergesprungen sei, sei offen, hieß es. Beides seien „plausible Hypothesen“.
Der Fall zeigt, wie hoch politisiert die Suche nach dem Ursprung des Corona-Virus gerade auf chinesischer Seite ist. Für die USA und die Weltgesundheitsorganisation ist die Laborthese nicht vom Tisch. Solange diese These aber weiter im Spiel ist, blockt China weitere Untersuchungen ab – und sucht Unterstützung notfalls auch bei Phantom-Forschern.
Auch bei dem in der kommenden Woche in Brüssel anstehenden EU-USA-Gipfel wird eine entsprechende Erklärung dieses Inhalts erwartet. Im Entwurf der Erklärung heißt es, eine „transparente, faktengestützte und von Experten geleitete“ Untersuchung unter Leitung der WHO sei notwendig. Diese müsse „frei von Beeinflussungen“ stattfinden.
(03.06.2021)
Of particular interest: From 2014-19, the National Institutes of Health sent $3.4 million to the WIV through the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance. “I just wanted to say a personal thankyou on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin,” EcoHealth Alliance chief Peter Daszak gushed to Dr. Fauci in a partly redacted April 2020 email.
(May 18, 2021)
Juicing up super viruses is not new. Scientists in the U.S. have long known how to mutate animal viruses to infect humans. For years, Dr. Ralph Baric, a virologist in the U.S., has been collaborating with Dr. Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Virology Institute, sharing his discoveries about how to create super viruses. This gain-of-function research has been funded by the NIH. … Dr. Fauci, do you still support funding of the NIH funding of the lab in Wuhan?”
— Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), remarks at a Senate hearing, May 11
“Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not never and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
— Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in response.
Nun aber ist auch in der Presse und dem Rundfunk ein starker Stimmungsumschwung wahrnehmbar. Wodurch wurde der ausgelöst?
Es gab zunächst einmal einen großen Stimmungsumschwung in den USA, das war das Wesentliche. Ich war selbst in viele Gespräche mit amerikanischen Kollegen involviert. In den USA einen Stimmungsumschwung zu erreichen, war sehr wichtig, gerade wegen der besonderen Situation dort. Wir wissen, dass eine Unterabteilung der National Institutes of Health (NIH), die von [dem medizinischen Chefberater des Weißen Hauses; S.F.] Anthony Fauci geleitet wird, mehrere hochriskante Gain-of-function-Forschungsprojekte mit Coronaviren [Experimente, die darauf abzielen, die Übertragbarkeit und/oder Virulenz von Krankheitserregern zu erhöhen; S.F.] in Wuhan jahrelang gefördert hat.
Scientists at the the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, near Berkeley, analyzed the genetic makeup of the virus to try to understand how it evolved.
They passed their May 27, 2020 findings on to the State Department in October. The five-month delay was not explained.
On January 15 the State Department published a fact sheet about COVID-19, which said that ‚circumstantial‘ evidence suggested a lab leak theory was possible.
The secret document the California lab produced was not known about until Monday, when The Wall Street Journal reported on its existence.
British intelligence services are now reportedly reassessing their position on the theory that COVID-19 leaked from a lab in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.
A Sunday report from the Sunday Times of London quotes British spies who initially dismissed the lab leak theory, but now say it is „feasible.“
– An explosive new study claims researchers found ‚unique fingerprints‚ in COVID-19 samples that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory
– DailyMail.com exclusively obtained the new 22-page paper authored by British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen set to be published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery
– The study showed there‘s evidence to suggest Chinese scientists created the virus while working on a Gain of Function project in a Wuhan lab
– Gain of Function research, which was temporarily outlawed in the US, involves altering naturally-occurring viruses to make them more infectious in order to study their potential effects on humans
According to the paper, Chinese scientists took a natural coronavirus ‚backbone‘ found in Chinese cave bats and spliced onto it a new ‚spike‘, turning it into the deadly and highly transmissible COVID-19
– The researchers, who concluded that COVID-19 ‚has no credible natural ancestor‚, also believe scientists reverse-engineered versions of the virus to cover up their tracks.
‚We think that there have been retro-engineered viruses created,‘ Dalgleish told DailyMail.com. ‚They‘ve changed the virus, then tried to make out it was in a sequence years ago.‘
Gut drei Monate später gibt es immer mehr ernstzunehmende Diskussionsbeiträge, die Wiesendanger rehabilitieren. Seine meist als Verschwörungstheorie gebrandmarkte These wird nun zunehmend aus der Schmuddelecke der Verschwörungstheorien befreit. Das Coronavirus könnte theoretisch das Ergebnis eines Laborunfalls sein, schreiben etwa 18 Top-Wissenschaftler im renommierten Fachmagazin „Science.“
Sie fordern, diese Möglichkeit eingehender zu untersuchen.
(14.05.2021)
Finally, in this time of unfortunate anti-Asian sentiment in some countries, we note that at the beginning of the pandemic, it was Chinese doctors, scientists, journalists, and citizens who shared with the world crucial information about the spread of the virus—often at great personal cost (8, 9). We should show the same determination in promoting a dispassionate science-based discourse on this difficult but important issue.
Far from dismissing the lab-leak theory, however, President Biden has told his spies to see if the previous administration’s officials, whose work some of his own skeptical aides have called tendentious and overreaching, may have been right to question the lab and conduct a thorough investigation. The White House recently was told that a large amount of information remained to be examined that could shed light on the question, according to a senior administration official who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Woher kommt das Coronavirus? Hartnäckig halten sich Mutmaßungen über einen Laborunfall. Der US-Präsident fordert von seinen Geheimdiensten Aufklärung.
An update in 2018 said that the scientific teams – who published many of their findings in international journals – had found four new pathogens and ten new bacteria while ‚more than 1,640 new viruses were discovered using metagenomics technology‘. Such research is based on extraction of genetic material from samples such as those collected by Prof Shi from bat faeces and blood in the cave networks of southern China.
Such extensive sampling led to Prof Shi‘s rapid revelation last year of RaTG13, the closest known relative to the new strain of coronavirus that causes Covid.
It was stored at the Wuhan lab, the biggest repository of bat coronaviruses in Asia.
Die Möglichkeit einer absichtlichen Freisetzung von SARS-CoV-2 wurde nicht untersucht.
Zusammenfassend kann festgehalten werden, dass es sehr viele Indizien gibt, die einen Laborunfall im „Wuhan Institute of Virology“ als die mit Abstand wahrscheinlichste Ursache für die Corona-Pandemie erscheinen lassen. In diesem Fall würde es sich nicht um eine „Naturkatastrophe“ handeln, sondern um eine von Menschen selbst herbeigeführte Tragödie. Es besteht eine sehr große Gefahr darin, die Frage nach der Ursache für die gegenwärtige Pandemie „als geklärt“ zu deklarieren, wie etwa in dem Statement [III.4] einiger Virologen. Für politische Entscheidungsträger macht es unbestreitbar einen Unterschied, ob sie Wildtiermärkte oder Hochrisikoforschung mit gentechnisch manipulierten Viren weltweit verbieten sollen. Diese Frage muss verstärkt in den Vordergrund rücken, ansonsten könnten Corona- und andere Virenarten noch ein viel größeres Gefahrenpotential entwickeln, nicht nur in der Gegenwart, sondern auch in der Zukunft.
(…)
Auffallend bei der gegenwärtigen Pandemie im Vergleich zu früheren Ausbrüchen von Coronavirus-bedingten Erkrankungen ist:
1) Wir haben es in der gegenwärtigen Pandemie mit einem Erreger zu tun, der mit einer bislang nicht bekannten Effizienz menschliche Zellen angreift.
2) Dabei werden nicht nur die (oberen) Atemwege, sondern auch innere Organe angegriffen und in ihrer Funktion teilweise schwer geschädigt.
Man muss sich daher notwendigerweise die Frage stellen, wie eine solche nahezu perfekte Adaption von Coronaviren an menschliche Zellrezeptoren zustande kommen konnte, um zukünftige Pandemie-Gefahrenpotentiale identifizieren zu können.
Der Professor scheint seit Langem kursierende Vermutungen wissenschaftlich zu bestätigen. Doch nicht das Ergebnis steht nun im Mittelpunkt, stattdessen löste die Pressemitteilung eine Debatte über die Qualität seiner Arbeit aus. So distanzierten sich Studierende der Universität Hamburg und der Studierendenausschuss von der Veröffentlichung. Sie entspreche nicht den wissenschaftlichen Standards, die von einer Universität erwartet würden.
(13.02.2021)
Aus chinesischer Sicht war es gut gelaufen: Bei der Abschlusspressekonferenz der WHO-Mission vergangene Woche in Wuhan gab es keine Kritik an China. Allerdings auch keine wirklich dramatisch neuen Erkenntnisse über den Ursprung der Pandemie. Jetzt aber kommen aus dem Kreis der WHO-Experten Forderungen nach Zugang zu mehr chinesischen Daten, um die Spur der Pandemie weiter zurückverfolgen zu können.
Die Forschung müsse sich aber darauf konzentrieren, wie das Virus in Tieren zirkuliert, bevor Menschen infiziert werden, sagte der Experte. Ein Virus, das eine Pandemie auslösen kann, müsse bereits an den menschlichen Kontakt angepasst sein, sagte Liang.
Chan and her colleague Dr Shing Hei Zhan scrutinised the evolutions of SARS-CoV-1 (the cause of the 2003 SARS epidemic) and SARS-CoV-2 (the cause of the current pandemic) in the early months of their respective outbreaks and found that while the former mutated rapidly in early human cases, as the virus adapted to its new host, the latter did not. This implies that the virus causing Covid-19 was already well adapted to infecting human beings, a point that was also suggested by the World Health Organization in its global study on the origins of Covid-19, published in November.
There are three possible explanations for this. The first is that the virus had circulated, undetected, in people for months. The second is that the virus was already highly adept at human-to-human transmission, even while it was still in bats or other animals. The third is that it had become adapted in human cells, or humanised animals, in a laboratory.
(02.11.2020)
The finding adds credence to the theory the mutation, which accounts for 85 per cent of global cases, is more contagious than the original strain.
D614G is by far the most common strain of coronavirus affecting humans worldwide and first appeared in February in Europe.
The world needs an inquiry that considers not just natural origins but the possibility that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, escaped from a laboratory. The WHO team, however, plans to build on reports by Chinese scientists rather than mount an independent investigation. Given that Chinese authorities have been slow to release information, penalized scientists and doctors who shared clinical and genomic details of the novel coronavirus, and have since demonstrated a keen interest in controlling the narrative of how the virus emerged, this is not a promising foundation for WHO’s investigation.
They will undergo a two-week quarantine as well as a throat swab test and an antibody test for COVID-19, according to CGTN, the English-language channel of state broadcaster CCTV. They are to start working with Chinese experts via video conference while in quarantine.
The team includes virus and other experts from the United States, Australia, Germany, Japan, Britain, Russia, the Netherlands, Qatar and Vietnam.
But in a sign of Beijing’s continuing efforts to control the investigation, the team of scientists and W.H.O. employees almost immediately ran into obstacles. Two scientists were unable to enter China at the last minute and remained in Singapore because they tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, the W.H.O. said in a Twitter post. The Chinese authorities required the remaining 13 experts to undergo two weeks of quarantine in Wuhan, where the virus first emerged in late 2019.
A new study, involving the University of Cambridge and led by the Pirbright Institute, has identified key genetic changes in SARS-CoV-2—the virus that causes COVID-19—that may be responsible for the jump from bats to humans, and established which animals have cellular receptors that allow the virus to enter their cells most effectively.
The genetic adaptions identified were similar to those made by SARS-CoV—which caused the 2002-2003 SARS epidemic—when it adapted from bats to infect humans.
„After consultation between the two sides, the WHO international experts team on the traceability of the novel coronavirus will visit China on January 14 to conduct joint scientific cooperation with Chinese scientists,“ according to a statement published on the NHC website on Monday.
The commission did not provide further details on the scientists‘ itinerary.
Die Delegation soll nun am 14. Jänner eintreffen, teilte die Nationale Gesundheitsbehörde in Peking mit, ohne weitere Einzelheiten zu nennen.
The WHO has been attempting to send in the team of global experts from a number of countries for some months. It has been talking with Chinese officials since July. Scientists have long said it is essential to find out how the virus jumped species into humans.
Das genaue Datum und die Details der Mission hat die WHO bis zuletzt geheim gehalten. Das zehnköpfige internationale Team sollte Anfang Jänner nach China aufbrechen und sich dort für fünf bis sechs Wochen aufhalten. Die Mission gilt als politisch äußerst heikel. Die Regierungen mehrerer Länder werfen den chinesischen Behörden Vertuschungsversuche am Anfang der Pandemie vor.
(22.12.2020)
Laut Alina Chan, Molekularbiologin am Broad Institute of Harvard und am MIT, kann man die Evolution von SARS-CoV-2 nicht mit der These eines zoonotischen Ursprungs in Einklang bringen, denn das Virus war bereits vollständig für die Mensch-zu-Mensch-Übertragung angepasst, als es zum ersten Mal auftrat.
Die renommierte medizinische Fachzeitschrift „Nature“ erlaubte anscheinend einigen Autoren, ihre Daten heimlich zu ändern, ohne auf diese Korrekturen in den Artikeln hinzuweisen.
Chans Untersuchungen zeigen, dass die Autoren ihre Proben umbenannt, falsch zugeordnet und ein Genomprofil generiert haben, das mit keiner ihrer Proben übereinstimmt. In anderen Papers fehlen Daten.
Das Coronavirus RaTG13, zu 96 Prozent mit SARS-CoV-2 identisch und somit der engste Verwandte, ist in Wirklichkeit btCoV-4991. Dieses Genom wurde schon 2013 in Proben nachgewiesen und 2016 veröffentlicht.
(today)
Daszak was a frequent traveller to Wuhan and the bat colonies of Yunnan with WIV scientists on projects funded by EcoHealth with US grants — until the Trump administration abruptly severed support, citing bio-security concerns.
The British scientist has forcefully dismissed the scenario of a laboratory leak as “baloney” and a “conspiracy theory”, and praised the work of his Chinese counterparts, notably Shi Zhengli, the “bat woman” of Wuhan, who traced the origins of the earlier Sars coronavirus outbreak to a colony of horseshoe bats in Yunnan.
(2 January 2021 | Updated: 12:06 GMT, 3 January 2021)
Now there is growing clamour from experts around the world that no stone should be left unturned during this inquiry – and that it must include one key element of a hunt which has all the hallmarks of a thriller novel.
This centres on a cave filled with bats, a clutch of mysterious deaths, some brilliant scientists carrying out futuristic experiments in a secretive laboratory – and a cover-up of epic proportions that, if proven, would have huge consequences for the Chinese Communist Party and the global practice of science.
(11.09.2020)
– According to Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, SARS-CoV-2 did not evolve in a manner you’d expect, had it jumped from an animal to a human. It sprang into action fully evolved for human transmission
– It appears Nature, a top medical journal, has allowed authors to secretly alter data sets in their papers without publishing notices of correction
– Chan’s investigation reveals authors have renamed samples, failed to attribute them properly, and produced a genomic profile that doesn’t match the samples in their paper. Others are missing data
– RaTG13 — the coronavirus that most resembles SARS-CoV-2, being 96% identical — is actually btCoV-4991, a virus found in samples collected in 2013 and published in 2016
– If SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19 and the subsequent response to it, came from a lab, then we need to reassess the future of gain-of-function research that allows for the weaponization of viruses
(25 Oct 20)
Since the outbreak in late 2019, events have been unfolding at such a fast pace that it is difficult to keep track of what happened and in what order.
I use visualizations of the timeline to follow key events relating to the search for the animal host of SARS2. (2/30)
Even today, I still hear people saying that SARS-CoV-2 came from pangolins and a Seafood market in Wuhan. I hope this analysis will help to clear things up. It will refresh us on significant early pandemic events and major publications discussing the origins of the virus (3/30).
(October 12, 2020)
– Researchers say there’s evidence within the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that suggests the virus is a product of genetic manipulation.
– Exiled Chinese scientist Li-Meng Yan says SARS-CoV-2 is an “unrestricted bioweapon” and there’s been “large-scale, organised scientific fraud”.
– Six miners in Yunnan, who were removing bat faeces from a cave, suffered a severe pneumonia-like illness in 2012 and three of them died. They had a high fever, dry cough, sore limbs, and headaches – all symptoms associated with Covid-19.
– A database containing information about the sequencing of samples collected from the Yunnan mine by researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been taken offline.
– There are said to be sequences of HIV-1 in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
American and Chinese scientists have collaborated for decades on gain-of-function research.
– There have been numerous ‘leaks’ of viruses from laboratories, including during the SARS outbreak in 2003–2004.
(July 6th, 2020)
Ebright believes an even more controversial theory should not be ruled out. “It also, of course, is a distinct possibility that work done in the laboratory on RaTG13 may have resulted in artificial in-laboratory adaptation that erased those three to five decades of evolutionary distance.”
It is a view Hibberd does not believe is possible. “Sars-Cov-2 and RaTG13 are not the same virus and I don’t think you can easily manipulate one into the other. It seems exceptionally difficult.”
Ebright alleges, however, that the type of work required to create COVID-19 from RaTG13 was “identical” to work the laboratory had done in the past. “The very same techniques, the very same experimental strategies using RaTG13 as the starting point, would yield a virus essentially identical to Sars-Cov-2.”
(Jul 07, 2020)
In early February 2019, Dr. Shi’s team suddenly tossed a brand new genome online and published a paper, citing that hCoV-2019 must come from (horseshoe) Bats because it is so similar to this other sample obtained from Bats in July 2013.
*If an existing genome was already in the system and the new data was uploaded we would expect to see reference notes and that the previous listing had been removed or updated.
*The scientists were forcing an argument that this newly published genome (RaTG13) came from a Bat and is the closest relative to hCoV-2019, therefore our pandemic virus more than likely came from a bat.
At the time of this publication, there is quite literally zero record or publication referencing this sudden new virus that they designated as Bat SL-CoV RaTG13 (Ra being Rhinolophus affinis, 13 being sampling year). How could this new virus have been just ABSENT from the scientific community for SEVEN YEARS?!
In fact, there are (comparatively) barely any Rhinolophus Affinis Samples in our databases. Meaning there is a small pool or Bat viruses from this specific species. The team simply renamed the sample and maybe forgot that 4991 was already in GenBank?! Because 4991 is actually RaTG13, yet this super important publication which was read by all of the top scientists in the world makes zero mention of this important fact.
(May 02, 2020)
Abstract: In a side-by-side comparison of evolutionary dynamics between the 2019/2020 SARS-CoV-2 and the 2003 SARS-CoV, we were surprised to find that SARS-CoV-2 resembles SARS-CoV in the late phase of the 2003 epidemic after SARS-CoV had developed several advantageous adaptations for human transmission. Our observations suggest that by the time SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV. However, no precursors or branches of evolution stemming from a less human-adapted SARS-CoV-2-like virus have been detected. The sudden appearance of a highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 presents a major cause for concern that should motivate stronger international efforts to identify the source and prevent near future re-emergence.