Where did the new crown finally come from?



[ad_1]

Because the origin of the pandemic is so controversial

A veil of mystery covers the origin of the crown, with the United States and other allies declaring that China was unclear on the origin of the virus.

The american president Donald trump with his statements he favors the idea of ​​the virus to “Escaped” from a laboratory in Wuhan, despite the fact that the country’s intelligence services categorically refuse to confirm it. The scientific community says there is no evidence for this claim.

And this amid reports, as The Guardian reports, that the White House pressure information services accept the accusation, recalling pressure from the Bush administration to “erase” the information before the Iraq war.

What is wrong with the Chinese version?

It is important to highlight that the official origin history does not coincide with the epidemiological data on the spread, especially the incidence of early cases. without a clear connection to the Wuhan seafood market, from where Beijing says the epidemic has started. If these people were not infected in the market or through contacts that were infected there, how are these cases explained?

Wuhan workshops

Two laboratories in Wuhan studying coronary night owls have been highlighted. The Wuhan Institute of Biology (WIV) is a level 4 biosecurity center, the highest in bioconductivity, and the level 2 Wuhan Disease Control Center located near the seafood market. They had both collected samples of a bat’s crown.
Many theories have been heard.

The first, and the “wildest” one, is that WIV scientists participated in experiments with a night crown, which included so-called genetic mating and the virus afterward. escaped and infected people. A second version is that some relaxation in security measures workers and procedures, perhaps collecting or disposing of animal samples, resulting in the release of the virus.

Is there any sign that the virus has been created?

The scientific consensus on the rejection of the possibility that the virus is “Done” It is almost unanimous. In a letter to Nature in March, a scientific team in California led by professor of microbiology Christian Andersen said that “the genetic data shows, without a doubt, that it did not come from any element of a previously used virus,” in other words. , known parts of an assembled part.

Much more likely, they said, was that the virus appeared naturally and grew stronger through natural selection. “We propose two scenarios that can reasonably explain the origin of Sars-CoV-2: natural selection in a host animal before zoonotic (animal-to-human) transport and natural selection in humans after zoonotic transport.”

Peter Ben Embarek, a World Health Organization expert in the transmission of animal diseases from person to person, and other experts explained to the Guardian that if there were any manipulation of the virus, one would expect to see data on gene sequences and distortion. of the family tree data. of mutations, the so-called “network” effect.

In a statement to the Guardian, James Le Duc, head of the Galveston National Laboratory in the United States, the largest active bio-storage unit on an academic campus in the United States, essentially ruled out the possibility.

“There is compelling evidence that the new virus was not the result of voluntary genetic engineering and that it almost certainly originated in nature, given its close resemblance to other known bat-related coronaviruses,” he said.

The possibility of accidental sample leakage.

The accidental release of a sample was put on the table, although the “Evidence” offered are at best excellent “Blurred”.

The Washington Post reported concerns in 2018 about the security and management inability of US embassy officials. USA To visit the WIV multiple times, although the newspaper also acknowledged that there was no convincing evidence that the laboratory was the source of the epidemic.

Le Duc, however, gives him one different image of WIV.

“I visited the new BSL4 laboratory in Wuhan before it started operating in 2017. It is comparable in quality and safety measures to anyone in operation in the United States or Europe.”

He also described meetings with Shi Zhengli, a Chinese virologist at WIV, who led the search for the bat virus and discovered The relationship between bats and the Sars virus It spread across the world in 2003, describing him as “fully committed, very open and transparent to his work, and eager to cooperate.”

Maureen Miller, an epidemiologist who worked with Shi on a US-funded viral research program, has the same evaluation as Le Duc. He said he believed the laboratory escape theory to be “absolute conspiracy theory” and referred to Shi as “brilliant”.

Problem with schedule and spreadsheet

While experts speaking to The Guardian made it clear that understanding of the virus’s origin remains unclear, they added that the current state of knowledge of the initial spread also created problems for laboratory escape theory.

When Peter Forster, a geneticist at Cambridge, compared the virus genome sequences collected at the start of the outbreak in China, and later worldwide, he identified three dominant strains.

At the beginning of the outbreak, two strains appear to have been circulating at approximately the same time, strain A and strain B, with variant C developing later than strain B.

Surprisingly, however, the version with the closest genetic resemblance to the coronary bat was not the most common in the original appearance in Wuhan, central China, but was associated with a scattering of the earliest cases in the southern province of Guangdong.

Between December 24, 2019 and January 17, 2020, Forster explains: Only three of the 23 cases in Wuhan were type A., while the rest were type B. However, in patients from Guangdong province, five out of nine had type A.

“Despite the very small numbers,” said Forster, “the incidence of early genesis through January 17 does not show Wuhan as a source of origin in other parts of China, for example, five out of nine patients in Guangdong / Shenzhen had type A “.

In other words, it is still not certain that Wuhan was where the virus first appeared.

Because we are still talking about workshops in Wuhan

The pandemic has exacerbated existing geopolitical differences, causing a misinformation war in the United States, China, Russia, and elsewhere.
Journalists and scientists have been targeted by people with an evident interest in promoting occasional data related to the origin of the virus, perhaps as part of this campaign, and to distract public opinion from the fact that few governments have reacted adequately.

What does that mean now?



[ad_2]