There is public support among scientists around the world Full research feasibility The coronaviruses may have originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which caused a global epidemic that has killed more than 3.7 million people worldwide.
The idea of launching a lab was largely left out of the discussion of the scientific community in the early days, when the first cases of COVID-19, a virus caused by the virus, were confirmed in China in December 2019.
In the following months, observers say, his ideas were suddenly connected with the coronation of former United States President Donald Trump against China and the description of the epidemic, much to the dismay of scientists.
“The question of whether the accident in the lab was the first to be resolved politically,” J Stephen Morrison, director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Study, told Al Jazeera.
“While Trump was using the issue as part of a campaign against China and anti-Asia, people did not want to associate with it. And they kept away from it.”
The huge increase in public support for the full study of this theory comes as a result of an international study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in Wuhan, insulted and a number of Western powers and scientists known to be sadly incompetent and dependent on what was described by Chinese officials.
A February report said it “appeared to be” the virus that came out through a zoonotic virus, or a human-infected animal by the end of the theory by accident came out of the lab was “very difficult”. China has repeatedly denied that the lab was responsible for the spread of the virus.
Medical experts and scientists in the relevant fields agree that the virus may have come out of the lab in Wuhan, and to support a comprehensive, transparent, different diagnosis as different as they might think.
Many argue that the notion of an explosion that began through animal migration is still possible. Some say that there is no direct evidence that some events are more possible than others. Also, viral infections prevent people from having a lab.
However, recent changes in attitudes also include U.S. infectious disease specialist Anthony Fauci, who last year mainly has been fired the idea, to say that science “strongly suggests” that the virus evolved naturally.
Recently, he said he “did not believe” the virus would not have come out of a lab in Wuhan and assisted in another investigation.
Last week, usually public comment In a statement to US law firms investigating, President Joe Biden said the agencies had “agreed on what might happen” – a zoonotic and accidental evacuation of the Wuhan lab.
“While both sides are (zoonotic) based on the past (zoonotic) and one relies heavily on lab (leak) – each with little or no confidence – most people do not believe there is enough information to try to make one successful than the other,” he said. says the document, which specifically mentions aspects of intelligence that have not been published publicly.
On May 30, the Sunday Times reported that intelligence officials in the United Kingdom had changed their minds about a sudden exit from the Wuhan lab, saying it was “possible”.
‘All of this is still possible’
Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemology biology at Rutgers University, said little has changed according to scientific evidence since the first virus was released in January 2020.
He also said that “there is no reason to base any hope on the consequences of a natural disaster (animal to human) and the idea of a laboratory-risk”.
“In particular, all the scientific knowledge of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and the transmission of COVID-19 is similar to that of natural or laboratory accidents,” he said in an email to Al Jazeera. “This was already announced in January 2020, and has been on display ever since January 2020.”
Ebright, who was one of 21 scientists from other countries who researched how Wuhan’s “Wisconsinary” research should look open letter in March, he said the onset of coronavirus “could be answered only by legal research, not scientific speculation”.
Meanwhile, a number of scientists say they still believe that it is unlikely that the virus was transmitted to humans before it did. Robert Garry, a microbiologist at Tulane University who was involved in the March 2020 study who said it was possible the virus originated in nature, told National Public Radio (NPR) in late May that he believed the evidence was consistent with the findings. .
“I strongly believe that this is the virus that causes the disease,” he told a news agency.
On May 14, 18 top experts investigated the epidemic wrote a letter in the journal Science requesting further investigation, states that “accidental discharge from the lab and zoonotic spillover are all still possible” preliminary events.
The analysts criticized the study provided by the WHO, saying that the two myths were not given “correctly” by stating that only four of the 313 pages of the report describe the potential for laboratory risk.
Around the evidence
Some have cited strong evidence that is consistent with that statement.
In the case of zoonotic, virologists have already noted that the wildlife market in Wuhan, where several exotic animals were sold nearby, could be a good place for zoonotic spillover, which has led to the outbreak of coronavirus in the past, including coronaviruses that caused the first SARS outbreak. MERS. Finding species that transmit viruses can take years.
Meanwhile, Shi Zhengli, a well-known scientist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, wrote in Science magazine last July that it was impossible for the virus to emerge from his lab, saying his team “had never been linked to or studied the virus” and all had tested positive for antibodies. coronavirus.
In support of the lab’s sudden theory, observers have said he pointed A comprehensive study of the gastrointestinal virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention (WHCDC), recognizing that the former was known to be infected with the coronavirus that has led to the current outbreak; arguing that there were legitimate questions about safety measures in the lab; and realize Chinese authorities have distorted knowledge all this time.
Other law enforcement officials as well he says he was skeptical of a so-called “job benefit” study conducted in China, which could include increasing the spread of the virus to study how it changes.
On May 23, The Wall Street Journal reported that three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology became seriously ill with the COVID-19 symptoms that required hospitalization in November 2019. Suspects found that the disease had developed during the flu season.
On Thursday, Fauci called on China to release the researchers’ medical records.
However, Li Lier, US director general of the Eurasia Group, a political activist, said a major change in acceptance of the idea of lab losses has been a change in US policy, saying Trump’s infidelity has become a problem for scientists and fed “in the blind and in the dark. bias from media porters “.
“Including social networking sites, which ban several accounts from talking about this on Twitter and on Facebook or people who have been accused of lying,” he told Al Jazeera. “I think the real failure of scientists and journalists and others is failing to imitate this because they did not like the minister.”
Last week, a Facebook spokesman said the company “no longer removes claims that COVID-19 was man-made from our applications”. The hypothesis was made “by research that occurs at the beginning of COVID-19 and in collaboration with health experts”, says the spokesman.
However, Leiber said the change in attitude should not be seen as a confirmation of Trump’s superiors.
“It’s a complete failure by Trump’s White House,” he said. “If he had a credible record, if he could trust anyone, he could have revealed that this is a legitimate record last year.”
For Biden, the idea of issuing a petition for further investigation is a domestic matter – to avoid appearing “weak in China” and removing Republican opposition to the 2022-year DRM election, says Mathew Burrows, head of the Atlantic Council of Foresight, Methods, and Dangerous.
Meanwhile, the release of the term at the World Health Assembly also informs Beijing – and the WHO -, he said.
“The US is also a player in the WHO,” Burrows added. “That’s why I think he wants to harden the WHO so that it doesn’t bend too much in China.”