Does the coronavirus come from a Chinese laboratory? Fact checking

Does the coronavirus come from the laboratory? These 4 points should make you skeptical

A Chinese researcher in exile claims in a new study that the coronavirus came from the laboratory. While the scientists criticize the study, they promoted others before it was published.

Where does the coronavirus come from? Is it of natural origin? Or does it come from a Chinese laboratory? While most of the scientific community reject the laboratory theory, Chinese scientist Li-Meng Yan is pushing the laboratory theory forward.

Li-Meng published a non-peer-reviewed study on Monday on the online storage service Zenodo, which is used primarily for scientific data sets. In it he writes that by analyzing the virus he was able to identify certain structures that would prove human manipulation of the virus.

The study received a lot of media attention, especially in the United States, but also in Switzerland. However, early in the campaign, there are right-wing American networks, as The Daily Beast’s research shows.

Who is Li-Meng Yan?

Li-Meng is a Chinese scientist who fled Hong Kong to the United States this year. She worked as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Hong Kong (HKU) on infectious diseases.

In his numerous media appearances over the past few days, he claims that he found evidence of the laboratory’s origin months ago. The results were ignored by his university and erased from his computer.

Li-Meng received a secret order from an HKU professor in December 2019. You should investigate a new coronavirus. However, the HKU and the appointed professor contradicted this representation, the South China Morning Post reported in July. Li-Meng did not do any research on the coronavirus between December and January.

What’s in the studio?

Honestly? This question is very difficult to answer without prior biological and chemical knowledge. Scientific language is difficult for laymen to understand.

The conclusion is clear: the coronavirus comes from the laboratory. Li-Meng’s argument is based on the genome comparison between SARS-CoV-2 and “bat viruses” like ZC45 and / or ZXC21. The main difference: “bat viruses” lack certain proteins that allow them to penetrate human cells, the so-called spike proteins. The similarity is “suspicious” and would indicate genetic manipulation.

The similarity between the viruses suggests that the missing protein was added manually to the “bat viruses”, with ZC45 and / or ZXC21 as the “template” or “backbone”.

What are other scientists saying?

Most experts, researchers, and governments around the world consider the natural history of the virus to be the most likely origin. Scientific studies support this theory. Consequently, the criticism of Li-Meng’s article was also great. Several scientists criticized the study on Twitter as unscientific and incomplete.

Immunologist Kristian Andersen, who specializes in communicable diseases and genomics, writes, for example, that it just can’t be true because SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45 are too different.

Furthermore, the document ignores all the latest findings on the coronavirus and bats. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the prestigious Columbia University in New York, writes: ‘Do I think your analysis has sufficiently substantiated the claims? NOT resounding “.

Compared to “The Daily Beast”, Rasmussen is even clearer: “Basically, it’s just circumstantial evidence and some of it is fictitious.” Li-Meng would also misrepresent basic facts about the virus.

Alina Chan, a postdoctoral fellow at MIT and Harvard, agrees with Andersen’s two main criticisms. Li-Meng’s article ignores recent posts on the subject. And the claim that SARS-CoV-2 is based on “bat viruses” has “destroyed” the credibility of Li-Meng’s report.

Kristian andersen reported on Twitter:

Li-Meng also claims that established scientific journals deliberately suppress dissenting opinions, but does not describe how concretely this should work. For example, it does not explain how all leading medical journals independently censor certain opinions on a controversial topic.

There is also a strange bibliography. In addition to scientific posts, this also includes posts on little-known blogs and news portals like “nerdhaspower.weebly.com” or “gmwatch.org.”

Who is behind the Li-Meng study?

Now it gets interesting: There are clear connections between Li-Meng, Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui, and influential right-wing American populists like former Trump adviser Steve Bannon.

Li-Meng and his three co-authors are all members of the “Rule of Law Society” organization. This New York-based company is owned by Guo Wengui, who fled to the United States after allegations of corruption. He runs various news portals that critically address the Chinese dictatorship and often spread false information. The political orientation is clearly assigned to the right in the United States.

Guo’s pages have mainly reported on Li-Meng’s newspaper in recent days. Example here in the screenshot below about “Voice of Guo”, which is operated in cooperation with Steve Bannon.

The cover image on Twitter shows Guo praying together with Bannon at a church. Guo himself appears repeatedly on Bannon’s podcasts.

By the way: who still remembers when Bannon was arrested on a yacht? Why was he accused of fraud? Who did the yacht belong to?

You guessed it, it belongs to Guo Wengui.

Li-Meng also appeared on Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, and that was in July. Also at the beginning: Chinese journalist Lude Fangtan, influential among opponents of the regime. He showed a photo on his own YouTube feed showing him alongside Steve Bannon, Li-Meng Yan and Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney. That was on September 10, just before Li-Meng’s article was published.

And then on September 13, the day before its release, Li-Meng appeared on Giuliani’s podcast. Subject: «Dr. Li-Meng Yan is here to discuss the origins of the coronavirus and the Wuhan lab at the center of the action. “

By the way: Li-Meng opened a Twitter account in September. Soon after, Twitter deleted it again. Nothing is known about the other three co-authors of Li-Meng’s study.

What do we learn from it?

Only scientists can judge what Li-Meng’s study actually shows. So far, the reactions have been critical to highly critical. But Li-Meng’s theories were driven mainly by American right-wing populist sides, along with influential opponents of the Chinese government.