Initially he joined the crowd of “conspiracy theories” that sprung up with her appearance coronavirus pandemic. However the discussion of the scenario that argues that the coronavirus “escaped” from a Chinese laboratory and then spread around the world has rekindled in the last 24 hours. The newspaper Wall Street Journal revealed that the script in question refers to secret investigation of the US Department of Energywhich was disclosed to the White House and senior US officials.
The American newspaper emphasizes that the conclusion of the Energy Department investigation is serious, as the agency has significant scientific expertise and oversees a network of US national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research. Four other US agencies, as well as a National Intelligence Panel, still believe covid-19 was caused by natural transmission, while two other agencies have yet to reach a conclusion, the Wall Street Journal reported.
“We should finally find out what led to this pandemic so we can prevent something similar in the future”he had emphasized in 2021 Dr. David Relmana Stanford University microbiologist specializing in infectious diseases, as he recalls CNN, underlining that his statements reflected concerns about the origin of the coronavirus. This is also the reason why this particular issue continues to seriously concern the international scientific community and beyond.
Confusion and political confrontation
Did it come from a lab? Was it zoonotic? Something else; After the uproar over the US Energy Department report, adding to the confusion, two Energy Department sources who spoke on condition of anonymity to CNN reporters Jeremy Herb and Natasha Bertrand clarified that the assessment in this report is “low confidence”.
As noted in the related publication, intelligence agencies can make low, medium, or high confidence assessments. A “low confidence” rating means that the information obtained was not reliable enough or is too fragmented to make a more definitive analytical judgment, or that there is not enough information available to draw a more reliable conclusion.
He also intervened in the public debate FBI Director Christopher Wray, “fueling” the theory of the leak of the coronavirus from a laboratory in the city of Wuhan, China. “The FBI has been assessing for some time that the pandemic was most likely caused by an incident in a laboratory”, he told Fox News. In the same interview, Ray also accused China of trying to obstruct the US investigation into the origins of the pandemic. Beijing, for its part, categorically denies these claims and refers to the report of the World Health Organization, which states that the pandemic originated from the natural transmission of the coronavirus and was not due to a leak from a laboratory.
THE Jake SullivanUS national security adviser, speaking on his “State of the Union” show CNNadmitted that the intelligence community is divided on the issue, while noting that President Joe Biden is seeking definitive answers to the question of the origin of the virus.
It is recalled that the former president of the USA, Donald Trump, had readily adopted the claim of a leak from a Chinese lab, launching an attack on Beijing and opening the box for a host of anti-Chinese and racist conspiracy theories. In fact, he had also instructed the State Department to conduct an investigation into China’s “biological weapons”. However, this research was terminated when he took over the government Joe Biden.
CNN highlights how by July 2021, senior Biden administration officials overseeing a source intelligence review had changed their stance and considered the lab leak theory to be at least as credible as the possibility that the virus had occurred naturally. Now, after the release of the Energy Department’s related report, Republicans are stepping up their pressure for further research into the theory in question, while accusing the Biden administration of downplaying its chances.
Disagreements in the scientific community as well
H Dr Philippa Lenzos, of King’s College London, noted, according to Guardian, that the question of the origin of the coronavirus remains open. “It could well have resulted from a natural spill, but it could equally have been the result of research-related activity, such as leaking from a laboratory or escaping from a fieldwork incident,” he said, adding: “There is no evidence of neither case, just case history and circumstantial evidence.”
Mrs. Lentzos mentioned that for herself “lab leakage” is a real possibility, however, she pointed out in her turn that the evaluation is of “low confidence” and does not seem to have “convinced” any other authority that had a different position.
From his side the spokesperson of the World Health Organization, Tarik Jasarevic, stated that the WHO has not received any information about this particular assessment. “We will continue to review all available scientific evidence that helps us advance knowledge about the origin of Sars-CoV-2, and we call on China and the scientific community to undertake the necessary studies in this direction. Until we have more evidence, all cases remain on the table“, he emphasized.
However other experts categorically reject the scenarios of the coronavirus “leaking” from a laboratory in China. “It is not correct to label this issue as scientifically controversial,” said the professor Angie Rasmussen, University of Saskatchewan, Canada. “Two previous studies – one of which I was involved in – demonstrated, using multiple lines of evidence, that the pandemic emerged in the human population twice within about two weeks in the Wuhan market in conjunction with the animal trade,” he said.
“Any data suggesting a leak from a lab should be consistent with this evidence. So far all the different hypotheses challenging our findings have not gone through formal evaluation. Given that the findings of the latest US Department of Energy report are described as “weak” or “low confidence” it will be surprising if this research can pass the credibility bar that has been set.“, he adds.
THE Professor David Robertson of the University of Glasgow, according to the Guardian, expressed serious concerns about what he said were “vague rumours” contributing to misinformation around the issue. “It is important to point out that we have a lot of evidence for the natural origin of Sars – CoV – 2that is, not just one study but a lot of evidence that has been steadily accumulating since 2020,” he stressed.
THE Don Yan Jin, professor of virology at the University of Hong Kong, agrees. “For me and other scientists who know the facts well, the possibility of laboratory leakage is extremely low. The scenario in question is more of a fantasy scenario and is as ridiculous as the claim that the coronavirus came from a US lab leak“, points out.
However, the Philippa Lentzos adds that further study of the data is needed. “I don’t buy into the US Department of Energy’s report of a lab leak, but I do think we should continue the studies with an open mind and continue to push for an international investigation, although I think such a possibility at this stage is extremely unlikely.” small”.
Why is it so hard to say with certainty the “source”?
As the Guardian notes, a key problem that adds to the confusion surrounding the issue is how it is always a difficult undertaking to trace the origin of a virus, the host through which the virus passed as it adapted to infect humans, and it gets harder and harder over time. In some cases, as with Ebola, the original natural source has never been identified. And more than 40 years have passed since the first cases of Ebola, CNN reminds.
There is also precedent for both laboratory accidents involving the release of biohazardous organisms and outbreaks of coronavirus – and other diseases – that have animal origins. The presence of the biological laboratory in the same city as the life market, which is at the center of research, is recognized by many as a mysterious coincidence. The situation, adds the Guardian, became even more difficult because of her intense politicization of the pandemic.
Also, according to Dr. Philippa Lentzos, a key issue that strengthened the scenarios was the lack of transparency. “The ‘investigation’ or rather the ‘joint WHO-China mission’ agreed between the two sides was not an investigation of experts investigating both scenarios. It was created to investigate purely physical diffusion,” he told the Guardian, arguing that Beijing had a big influence on many factors, such as what the mission could see, what data it would have access to, who it could communicate with. “There was, and continues to be, a lack of cooperation from Beijing,” he said.
Source: News Beast
With 6 years of experience, I bring to the table captivating and informative writing in the world news category. My expertise covers a range of industries, including tourism, technology, forex and stocks. From brief social media posts to in-depth articles, I am dedicated to creating compelling content for various platforms.
