They called it the idea of ​​a conspiracy. But Alina Chan sent a message explaining that the virus came from the lab.

The obvious problem with the theory of filling a lab, however, is that there is no real evidence of this. Chan has no real idea of ​​how the accident must have happened — whether a student fell ill in a bat cave, a mite, or a secret study of a mouse and a virus was transmitted. After reading Chan’s writings, I realized that most of his statements did not agree with any evidence; often, it affects his absence. They tend to say things that Chinese researchers have not done or said, important things that they did not immediately disclose, market meat that they have never found, or a storehouse that has never been found online. He means that there is a hidden-such, and a conspiracy to hide the truth.

Already modified

Last February, when advanced scientists met to study the genome of the virus, they completed publishing two letters. One, in Lancet. Someone was “Introduction”In a letter to Nature Medicine, by Kristian Andersen, a biochemist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. Andersen and his co-authors looked at the virus and argued over the natural causes — evidence-based that it was similar to other natural phenomena.

30,000 genome letters are still the most studied information about the virus. Coronaviruses often switch sides, something called remodeling. Andersen found that all parts of the virus had already been identified in specimens released from animals over the years. Evolution could make it, he believed. The Wuhan Institute developed bat viruses for scientific experiments, but the SARS-CoV-2 genome did not match the chassis viruses used in the experiments, and did not have any other well-known engineering indications.

According to Clarivate, an analytics company, Nature Medicine’s letter was the 55th most talked about article in 2020, with more than 1,300 articles published in the series. E-mail reports will show later that since January 2020, the letter has been about urgent, high-level messages and summonses from the authors of the letters, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; senior virologists; and director of the Wellcome Trust, the largest financial institution in the United Kingdom. In the past, the authors were concerned that the virus may appear dubious before they quickly meet with scientific research into environmental factors. Initially, one of their goals was to dispel rumors that the virus was viral or technologically advanced, but in the end he went further, writing: “We do not believe any of the activities in the laboratory are plausible.”

Working at their home in Massachusetts, Chan soon found a way to revive the theory of a lab accident by looking at SARS, a similar virus that started in 2002 but only caused about 8,000 infections. By Shing Zhan, a bioinformatics specialist at the University of British Columbia, Chan looked at the first human cases of covid and found that the new virus could not change as quickly as SARS did. He thought that, if he were an animal virus from the market, he thought, his body would show rapid changes to adapt to new people. He set the record straight that the virus was “predestined” to humans and provided an explanation for its causes. It may also have spread unnoticed elsewhere in China. Or, they think, it was growing a lab somewhere, perhaps multiplying in human cells or mutating mice into which human genes were implanted.

He wrote that the possibility that the virus could “transform human beings for use in laboratory learning, should be considered, regardless of its potential or impossible.”

On May 2, 2020, Chan wrote the first paper, in collaboration with Deverman and Zhan, on the bioRxiv page, an online site to quickly describe the results that have not been reviewed by other scientists. “Our data show that by the time SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it had already been adapted for human transmission,” he wrote. The Broad Institute’s liaison department also told Chan about examples of how to create a “tweetorial,” a series of fun, animated series of photos, which provide scientific debate for the general public. He wrote him first tweetorial the next day.

For journalists who are skeptical of China’s response to the virus, the thread – and those that followed – was a force to be reckoned with. Here was a real scientist at America’s largest genetic center explaining why the story could be so wrong. “Coronavirus is NOT the origin of an animal in the Wuhan market,” shouted the head of the Daily Mail, in what became Chan’s first public debate.

Although his report did well in the media, what the Daily Mail described as “Chan’s notorious paper” was not officially approved by the scientific journal. Chan says it’s because of the review because of the increased chances of starting a lab. Eisen of UC Davis, however, thinks Chan’s expectations for the covid-19 virus may not have been speculative. They don’t think we’ve researched enough explosives in detail to find out what’s unusual. And he says, covid-19 has continued to evolve and change.

“My friends said,” This is a conspiracy – don’t bother. I said, “No, I’ll do this like any other paper,” says Eisen, who had time to study the text. “I think it was fun what he was trying to do, but I’m not sure in the end, and I think what he was saying was wrong. I thank him for writing. Many of the people who insist on the doctrine of the beginning of the lab do not make their own statements, but give their testimony. I don’t agree with that, but that’s science. ”

Wrong or incorrect, yet the word Chan used – “pre-adapted” – sent a shocking twist to people like author Nicholson Baker. Baker, who contacted Chan for more information, said: “We had an illness that was very good, outside the gate, by chewing on public transportation. A few months later, in January this year, Baker wrote a lengthy report in New York Magazine stating that he believed the laboratory accident was a crime. He mentioned various sources, including Chan.

Pangolin Problem

Chan has never knocked a hole in the starting news. He later picked up four papers that were published as early as 2020, two of which were in Nature, describing viruses in mapolin — a dangerous animal that is covered sometimes eaten as a spice in China – similar to SARS-CoV-2. If researchers were able to identify all the causes of the plague, especially wild animals that had been illegally sold as food, they could polish the skin to prevent it from exploding, depending on how the coronaviruses change. The pangolin paper, which was printed in earnest in early 2020, was a good start. To the authors of “Proximal Origins,” the same viruses provided “powerful” and “disruptive” evidence that the natural world evolved.

Chan and Zhan realized that both papers described the same group of animals — though some did not agree with what was available. One was also mentioned which made it look like new. For Chan, it was not just gossip or scientific misconduct. They may believe that there could be a “connection” between the authors found on both of these papers, some of which had already been published. He created a # pangolinpaper post — reminiscent of the Panama Papers, documents that reveal maritime secrecy.

Alternatively, they think, researchers are now finding more and more evidence to show that the universe is swimming with similar viruses.

Chan began texting and writing emails to find out what he wanted to know better about what he did. Creating such information is often publicized, but it can be difficult to obtain. After what he called a few months of rock, Chan finally gave up and criticized them. “I want scientists + who have developed an in-depth research into the evidence of research into other SARS-2 viruses to stop and think a little,” he tweeted. “If your actions cover up SARS2 sources, then you are involved in a massacre of millions.”

Eddie Holmes, a well-known Australian virologist and co-author of one of the papers (also “Proximal Origins”), called the tweet “one of the worst things I read about in the beginning.” He felt guilty, but he wondered what the charges against him were, since then his paper had found exactly where to find the pangolin data. Holmes then published a critical time written by Chan of the publishing days and old connections between the writers. The chart’s intangible network of arrows and their connections closely resembled a fixed board of stickers with red threads and markers.