Advanced researchers want to investigate the exact origin of covid-19

The letter, edited by Stanford University Microbiologist David Relman and Jesse Bloom of the University of Washington, focuses on a recent study of covid causes developed by the World Health Organization and China, which confirmed that bats may be transmitted to humans through on the middle meat and that the danger of the lab was “It is highly unlikely.”

This was not scientifically relevant, according to the authors of the letter, since then it is not known how the virus was first transmitted to humans and the potential for laboratory accidents was only briefly seen. Only 313 pages of the WHO’s initial report and its appendices are relevant to this topic.

Marc Lipsitch, a well-known Harvard University pathologist who is one of the signatories to the letter, said he did not mention the recent outbreak of the virus, but instead decided to upgrade the course of infectious diseases and vaccine testing — among other reasons in lab design it has been very difficult. “I didn’t get involved because I was too busy dealing with the effects of the epidemic instead of triggering it,” he says. “[But] When the WHO comes out with a report that lies about an important topic… it is worth mentioning. ”

Many of the signatories to the letter, including Lipsitch and Relman, have previously asked for a more in-depth look at “job-finding” studies, in which viruses are transformed by disease into contagious or dangerous. Viral testing was also underway at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, China’s leading center for the study of bat viruses. Some feel that covid-19 first appeared in the same city where the lab is located as clear evidence that a laboratory accident could be serious.

Lipsitch kale he says risk of the epidemic caused by accidentally caused by the highly protected biolab between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 10,000 per year, and has warned that the proliferation of thousands of such sites worldwide is a serious problem.

Although Chinese scientists have said that this has not happened in the past, the authors suggest that this could be based on independent research. “Appropriate research should be transparent, simple, data-driven, combined with a wide range of expertise, supervised by independent individuals, and appropriate management to minimize potential conflicts of interest,” he writes. “Government agencies and research institutes also need to be fully documented. Researchers should record the accuracy and validity of what is being investigated and evaluated. ”

Shi Zhengli, a senior epidemiologist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, said in an email that the suspicion of the letter was flawed and could jeopardize the country’s ability to respond to epidemics. “It’s illegal,” Shi said when called by the team to review his lab’s records. “Who can testify that there is none?”

“It is very sad to read this ‘Letter’ written by these 18 well-known scientists.” Shi wrote in his email. “These ideas have tarnished the reputation and interest of scientists who are dedicated to working with microbes that threaten humanity and ultimately weaken people’s ability to avoid the next epidemic.”

Negotiations around the lab to bring out the idea has already been very political. In the US, it has been widely received by Republican lawmakers and careful journalists, including Fox News recipient Tucker Carlson. The devastation has attracted the attention of scientists, some of whom do not want to express their concerns, says Relman.

“We were encouraged to say something because science is not achieving what it can be, which is experimental and solid and open to better understanding something,” he says. “For me, his goal was to create a better environment for other scientists to express themselves.”

“Obviously, this is an undeniable call for us to keep our eyes open for a number of potential ideas that we have little knowledge of,” says Megan Palmer, an environmental scientist at Stanford University who disagrees with the panel. “When politics get tough and at a high cost, a reminder from well-known experts may be necessary to force others to think it through.”