Coronavirus: "Origins of the pandemic: why should we refrain from overwhelming China? "

Discussion in 'Politics and Debate' started by Flower, Feb 21, 2021.

  1. Flower

    Flower Newbie

    Jan 5, 2021
    Likes Received:
    An article published on the blog "Left hemisphere" reports the result of several scientific studies carried out in the West, and which question the thesis according to which the COVID-19 virus would originate in China. Indeed, the strain present in Wuhan is not the oldest strain, nor is it the same as that which affected Europe and the United States. In addition, if the thesis of a laboratory accident which led to a leak of the virus is put forward, it turns out that a very serious incident affected a research laboratory on viruses of the American army. This military installation was virtually shut down last August due to a major security breach before resuming work not long ago. Here are excerpts from this article, with captions from Testimonials.

    The consensus was that the Covid-19 pandemic had started in China, in the market of a large industrial megalopolis called Wuhan. Until three scientific studies question this hypothesis.

    As the tests become generalized across the world, more and more data is available for so-called “phylogenetic” analyzes, which make it possible to reconstruct the temporal evolution of Covid-19 within human populations by analyzing mutations that gradually appear in its genome. In a way, this involves reconstructing the genealogical tree of the virus a posteriori, on the basis that each new mutation constitutes a new clearly identifiable “branch”.
    However, these new analyzes suggest that the scenario is probably not as simple as it seemed at first glance, and that it is premature to shift the moral burden of the epidemic on the shoulders of China. (…)
    While the consensus lasted for almost three months, it is now under attack by several phylogenetic studies which suggest that the viral strain that has spread to Wuhan is not the original source of the virus, or that it represents only one possible source among others.

    No contact with Wuhan market for oldest branch of virus
    The first study casting doubt on the origin of the pandemic comes from a report published by the “Bulletin of the World Health Organization” on February 24 by researchers at IBM, in the United States. He warns of the existence of three branches, the oldest of which includes a set of patients:
    ● who have had no contact with the Wuhan market.
    ● who travel a lot
    ● who are of various nationalities
    ● who have been infected with a variant that spreads more slowly than others
    On March 5, another Chinese-American study published on Medrxiv reached a similar conclusion. In this one, three strains are identified and - again - the strain closest to BatCov-RatG13 is not the strain found in Wuhan, but a strain initially detected in Japan, USA, Australia and elsewhere. other Chinese provinces far from Wuhan.

    Virus strains different from Wuhan in Europe and the United States
    Last April 8, finally, English and German researchers published the phylogenetic analysis of 160 genomes of the virus in the American journal PNAS. Collected all over the planet, these genomes are very similar to each other, but there are all the same variations that make it possible to distinguish three main strains, A, B and C.
    Since the vast majority of cases initially identified in Wuhan belong to group B, the variants of group B should therefore be the closest to the BatCov-RatG13 strain (if the first human-animal contagion really took place in this city). However, it is not the case. In fact, the variants closest to the bat virus are those of group A identified in southern China (near Hong Kong), Japan and the United States. Finally, group C is the one that hit Europe the hardest, and it seems to have emerged only in a third time, following a change that occurred within group B. (...)
    Asked by the Chinese television channel CGTN, Peter Forster of the University of Cambridge and first author of the study is categorical: despite appearances, it is too early to say that the pandemic was born in Wuhan in China. (…) Now, if Wuhan is not the initial focus, where should patient zero be looked for? (…)

    US Army virus lab accident last year
    Although the hypothesis remains improbable, it is therefore not excluded that Covid-19 has left a research laboratory, following a human error or a material dysfunction. And if that were the case, patient zero could just as easily be Chinese, French or American.
    In this regard, it is obviously the Wuhan Institute of Virology - recently equipped with a P4 laboratory thanks to the support of France - which was the object of the first suspicions. Persevering in his strategy of stigmatizing China, Trump has even just suggested in a press conference that his administration is currently exploring this avenue, which conspirators are particularly fond of.
    However, in view of recent events, the Chinese ambassador in France is not necessarily wrong, no offense to his detractors: it would rather be on the side of the United States that it would be advisable to turn if we considers the hypothesis of a lab release. In fact, in August 2019, a major security breach led to the abrupt closure of many sensitive activities at Fort Detrick, a hotspot for the US military's research into biodefense. The sterilization process for the waste produced by this research center working on the most dangerous viruses in the world would indeed have malfunctioned following a flood dating from 2018, which implies that a virus leak may have occurred. Sign of the seriousness of the event, the partial recovery only took place on December 7, 2019, just before the start of the pandemic. And the center only became fully functional again this month. In other words, the P4 label is not synonymous with infallibility, and the latest example comes from the United States.

Share This Page