Sunday Independent (Ireland)

Pitiful probe has yet to solve mystery of how outbreak began

The WHO investigat­ion into the origins of the virus is flawed because China set its terms of reference, writes

- Barry O’Halloran Barry O’Halloran is the author of ‘100 Days that Changed the World: the Coronaviru­s Wars’. www.100dayscor­onavirus.com

IN January last year, the Chinese leader Xi Jinping agreed that the World Health Organisati­on (WHO) could send internatio­nal experts to visit China as soon as possible to work with his own country’s counterpar­ts on increasing understand­ing about the outbreak of Covid-19.

A year later, China was still haggling with the WHO about arrangemen­ts for the scientists’ visit. In effect, this meant that the terms of reference for the investigat­ion ended up being set by the Chinese Communist Party, which also exercised a de facto veto over the investigat­ion’s membership.

To say the least, this did not augur well for the independen­ce of what China was now referring to as a joint WHO-China investigat­ion. Last week, the WHO announced its preliminar­y findings.

The Covid-19 pandemic that erupted in Wuhan is the single greatest health catastroph­e to have hit humanity in a century, but we still have no idea how the virus first emerged in central China.

According to China, the WHO, and many academic virologist­s, the origins of this viral pandemic are to be found in nature. This happened, they believe, as a result of a zoonotic event, one in which the virus jumped the species barrier from animals to humans; either directly from bats to humans, or indirectly from bats to an intermedia­te species and then on to humans.

The previous two coronaviru­s epidemics this century, SARS and MERS, resulted from indirect transmissi­on via an intermedia­te species. But there is no evidence that this is what happened with Covid-19. Indeed, last May, Chinese authoritie­s had eliminated the Wuhan seafood market as the location where the virus jumped to humans.

The intermedia­te species for SARS and MERS (civet cats and camels, respective­ly) were identified in four and 10 months following the first case of human infection. A year after the first case of SARS CoV-2 was diagnosed in humans, no intermedia­te species candidate has yet been identified. If any such evidence had emerged during the last 12 months, no matter how slight, China would undoubtedl­y be shouting it from the rooftops.

Three coronaviru­s epidemics in two decades represents a worrying trend. We need to find out what lies at the root of this epidemic because, as most experts now agree, this will not be the last viral spillover event to affect humanity. The next one could be even worse.

There is another, even more disturbing hypothesis regarding the origins of this virus. This suggests that it escaped from a biolab in Wuhan, probably by accident. When first mooted, this lab escape suggestion was derided as a conspiracy theory. However, more recently it has gained credibilit­y, at least as something that should be thoroughly investigat­ed.

Laboratory-acquired infections by those working on airborne transmissi­ble pathogens such as SARS CoV-2 are a well-documented biolab hazard. So, is there a credible risk of someone walking out of a biolab with an infection and unwittingl­y infecting others? Yes, there is. How do we know this? Because it has already happened in a number of countries; most notably in 2004, in China.

In two separate incidents, laboratory workers in Beijing’s National Institute of Virology new P3 laboratory were exposed to SARS coronaviru­ses and became infected. When they left the biolab, they infected many others. There followed a series of infections and one death before the outbreak was brought under control. In the wake of the incident, the WHO issued a statement: “China’s latest SARS outbreak has been contained, but biosafety concerns remain.”

Other concerns about the operationa­l safety of Chinese biosecurit­y laboratori­es have continued to surface. The Washington Post reported recently that US diplomats voiced similar worries about the P4 laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, following visits there. In particular, the diplomats were worried that “the lab’s work on bat coronaviru­ses and their potential human transmissi­on represente­d a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic”. Those prophetic words were written in 2018. Researcher­s from the South China University of Technology also addressed “the possible origins of 2019nCoV coronaviru­s” and published their analysis online in February 2020. It was critical, they said, “to study where the pathogen came from and how it passed on to humans”.

The Chinese academics came to the explosive conclusion that “the killer coronaviru­s probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan”. Their paper did not last long online before the Communist Party’s censors deleted it.

When the virus first emerged in Wuhan in December 2019, one of China’s foremost virologist­s, Shi Zhengli, became centrally involved. The so-called Bat Woman of Wuhan had spent most of her profession­al life chasing the source of coronaviru­s pathogens over 1,500km away in South China, so she was puzzled to see that it had emerged in Wuhan.

So where did the coronaviru­s pathogens come from?

In a later interview, she told Scientific American that a shocking thought had struck her: “Could they have come from our lab?”

Peter Daszak, a US-based British scientist, has worked closely with the Wuhan Institute of Virology for over a decade on bat research, including experiment­s to make the virus more transmissi­ble.

Months ago, he said that “the idea that this virus escaped from a lab is just pure baloney”. He claims that these are little more than conspiracy theories which have resulted in “political posturing against China”.

Dismissing a legitimate line of enquiry even before the investigat­ion had begun should have disbarred Dr Daszak from membership of the WHO investigat­ion team. His presence on it represents a serious conflict of interest.

Interviewe­d on Sky News last week, Dr Daszak dismissed out of hand any idea that the investigat­ion team could have been manipulate­d by the Chinese authoritie­s. This flies in the face of other reports from the few Western journalist­s still allowed to report from China.

It was no surprise, then, that the WHO investigat­ion team announced last week it was “extremely unlikely” the virus leaked from a lab, and they would not be investigat­ing the issue any further.

In recent months, China has promoted the idea that the virus had multiple origins in different locations around the world and had come into China in frozen food packages.

There is no credible scientific evidence to support this ‘multiple origins’ theory, yet Dr Daszak explained that the WHO investigat­ion will now begin to focus on frozen food supply chains as the source of the virus.

Based on last week’s press reports, the WHO investigat­ion will fall pitifully short of the open, independen­t, forensic enquiry that the world deserves.

This flawed WHO investigat­ion offers an opportunit­y for US President Joe Biden to reassert America’s leadership role in the post-pandemic world. Mr Biden should instigate a Presidenti­al Commission of Inquiry into the origins of the virus.

It would be a fitting way to remember the millions who have suffered or died in this pandemic. It might also help prepare us for what many experts believe to be the inevitabil­ity of the next pandemic.

‘Concerns about Chinese biolabs have continued to surface’

 ??  ?? Peter Ben Embarek, a member of the WHO team studying SARS CoV-2’s origins
Peter Ben Embarek, a member of the WHO team studying SARS CoV-2’s origins
 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Ireland