I followed you on Twitter until my small account was permanently suspended for reasons never explained. You've done great work. The machinations of the zoonosis-only virologists/funding agencies/PR agents on Twitter were both shocking and alarming to me, as I used to believe the foremost principle among scientists was integrity. Scientists are people like everyone else and can have conflicts of interest, like everyone else. This cannot be overstated, and is the reason such high-risk research as GoFRoC - if society deems worth doing at all - must not be left to the regulations and oversight of the very same bodies that fund it. Instead, an independent body must take on this role, along the lines of the IAEA for nuclear technology.
Just as a side note Alex, you would make a wonderful teacher. For you are able to take complex concepts & explain them in ways that everyone can understand which then creates an atmosphere of wanting to learn more. I also believe that your ability to make science easier to digest for the lay person is why some of the people who struggle to simplify their logic may attack you, they are threatened by you as it widens science audience.
You are such a relief from all the superheated rhetoric. I really appreciate how your sanity shines through this piece.
You clearly articulate what it takes to not participate in bad faith science: "I pledge to listen for good ideas no matter where they come from and do my best to update my thinking in light of new evidence."
Nailed it in heading & sub heading. Examined Question & crucially TESTED.
We all learned this is primarily school & although a simple concept it’s fundamental to solving problems & then proving that you found the right solution.
I just fail to comprehend how science has lost it’s way, especially with Covid. It’s like living in a alternative universe where people no longer function in reality, that shows us there is more going on than we would like to accept. Mind games, manipulation & Government sanctioned propaganda is the only explanation at this point. I would never had believed it if I hadn’t lived through it. Alex you are a rare breed that is purely looking for the answers rather than trying to obscure them. Thank you for keeping it ethical because it was getting rather grim on that front.
Impressive Alex and thank you for liking my previous message. Science it's a process and I think many people do not understand this. I also think that Covid came from the lab, thank you for your work on this
"4) Gao et al. tested animals in the wet market and not one animal tested positive"
In the LA Times (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-08/covid-lab-leak-energy-department-fbi) Worobey states: "But not a single relevant live animal was tested there before the market was closed". Do you know if that's true? Or stated by Gao etc to be true? It does not make sense to me that they would close the wet market without testing any animals then for sale - even if they didn't test them earlier. In the same article (and twitter thread) Worobey claim that numerous labs in China could have been the source - but as far as I know only Wuhan was doing gain of function on coronaviruses, and (in late 2019) only Wuhan had a BSL 4 lab.
Thanks for that reply. I also have little regard for Worobey's paper (we managed an e-letter in Science in response - the best we could do https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715) .. but I'm especially interested in finding holes in Worobey's LA Times article .. if we can prove deception (or gross error) here it strengthens the case for other forms of deception/gross error by him. And thus the two points he made which seemed to me worth checking were (a) no animal testing at all at Wuhan seafood wet market; (b) numerous other labs in China could have been the source. I think W is likely correct that some virus from Mojiang mine was taken to Beijing (see https://www.science.org/content/article/new-killer-virus-china) but I think it's very unfair of him to therefore claim Beijing is as likely as Wuhan as a lab source. Such a claim dismisses the BSL4 lab in Wuhan (even if they did some things at BSL2 - the lab and staff were much more ambitious in Wuhan) .. but supporters of Worobey won't find my argument here convincing.
But what about the no animal testing claim? That's very different to a no animal was found positive claim. If they were swabbing surfaces at the wetmarket then why not swab animals. I think I read frozen carcasses at the market were tested - but I'm not certain about the timing of those tests. I'll try to check. I asked on twitter - just as I asked here - but so far no one has given a good reply, so I'm still in doubt.
Since this "easy" path (ie to find out) is failing I guess I'll have to search my own records.
"When the outbreak surfaced, Wuhan health officials believed the jump occurred at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market because many of the first known COVID-19 patients had links to it. Shi’s lab tested samples from the market and found RNA fragments from the virus in “door handles, the ground and sewage,” she wrote—but not in “frozen animal samples.”
CB: It's vague but these tests were probably before the market closed - indeed this is probably the source of Worobey's data.
However there is zero mention of tests from living animals here, and I now recall wondering about that at the time. ie why no mention?
**
Researchers from WIV and Huazhong Agricultural University didn’t find the virus in samples from farmed animals and livestock taken around Wuhan and in other places in Hubei province, she wrote. Shi added that many years of surveillance in Hubei have never turned up bat coronaviruses close to SARS-CoV-2, which leads her to believe the jump from animals to humans happened elsewhere.
Shi Zhengli’s team takes samples from bats trapped in the wild. The team never found SARS-CoV-2, the pandemic virus, in bats, Shi says.
**
CB: Gao's testimony would be better.
I find it unbelievable Shi's team would not have tested live animals when she admits testing frozen animals from the market. But there is no proof either way in this extract to support Worobey's claim. What is his evidence? I will raise this with the "Paris group" (of which I am a member) and see if anyone has more insight.
I'm especially interested in finding holes in it .. if we can identify deception (or gross error) here it strengthens the case for other forms of deception/gross error by him. There are two points he made which I think are worth checking; these are:
(a) his claim that zero testing of live animals occurred at the seafood market in Wuhan before it was closed.
Worobey states: "No such surveillance of live animal markets occurred in Wuhan prior to the pandemic” and "But not a single relevant live animal was tested there before the market was closed.”
(b) numerous other labs in China could have been the source.
Of relevance: "What is the chance that a big Chinese city like Wuhan would have a lab doing the kind of research that has come under suspicion? The answer is, the vast majority of the biggest cities in China have labs involved in such research. If COVID had emerged in, say, Beijing, there would be no fewer than four such labs facing suspicion.”
**
In response to the first assertion does anyone here know - for sure? I don’t.
"When the outbreak surfaced, Wuhan health officials believed the jump occurred at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market because many of the first known COVID-19 patients had links to it. Shi’s lab tested samples from the market and found RNA fragments from the virus in “door handles, the ground and sewage,” she wrote—but not in “frozen animal samples.”
My comment: this is imprecise but these tests were probably undertaken before the market closed - indeed (am I correct?) Shi’s team’s testing of environmental samples is probably the source of Worobey's data for their Science (2022) paper.
Note, Shi does not mention tests from living animals here (I recall wondering about that at the time) - but, nor does she say something to the effect that living animals were not tested. Regrettably, if Cohen asked her about this, he does not mention it.
Personally I find it unbelievable that Shi's team would not have tested live animals when she admits testing frozen animals from the market. Comments?
However, I don’t see proof either way in this extract.
So, where is Worobey's evidence? Is he reading “absence of evidence” to be “evidence of absence”? Or does he know something else? Or has he been told something else?
Of course, Shi could be lying, or being evasive (then and now) .. a statement by her in support of Worobey (if given now) would be of little value, but strengthened if there is historic evidence for it.
What about George Gao and his team - would they have done any live animal testing, ie at the market, before it closed?
**
As for the second dubious assertion by Worobey. I think it is plausible henipavirus virus from Mojiang was taken to Beijing (see https://www.science.org/content/article/new-killer-virus-china) and maybe coronavirus was identified too (but never reported) but I think it's very misleading of Worobey to imply therefore Beijing (etc) is equally as likely as Wuhan to be a lab source. Such a claim dismisses the fact that (at least in 2019 - still the case today?) WIV was China’s only BSL4 lab (even if they did some things at BSL2); the lab and staff there were likely much more ambitious than elsewhere in China - would any other lab in China have done GOF work on coronaviruses in 2019?)
(Just here) I could be wrong in some of what I've written here - eg I only re-read some of Shi's Q and A with Cohen. I'll also mention I found Worobey's assertion that it would take a city to sustain an outbreak dubious - I think this depends on the assumptions. For something with such advanced "stealth" characteristics (https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2049-9957-1-5) as SARS-Co-V-2 (ie asymptomatic and respiratory transmission) a village might be enough. I tweeted to Worobey about this (also my other questions) - no response. Early days of course, but in my esperience people like him never respond to people like me; no matter what avenue I use.
Would living animals normally be left in the market overnight? Genuine question. Do the traders have an honour system (ie so none get stolen or exchanged?) Would the animals need feeding and water if left at the market - would carting them home every night be a hassle?
If they were alive on Jan 1 why would Gao et al not have said? But (in another response) I passed on a comment from someone to the effect that "it's unthinkable the CCDC would have tested the market on their volition". If that's true (and it sounds plausible) would Gao et al be free to write the truth as they found it? And, even though I know Redfield (who I greatly admire) likes Gao, I think the answer to that is no. Maybe much of what Gao et al wrote is accurate, but I'm afraid, I no longer have confidence in them - no more than I have confidence in most of the claims by western scientists and in the so-called top journals. This is really dreadful for science - at least when it comes to this issue. [My "home base" in science - for 30 years - is limits to growth and health, climate change and health, population growth and development ... in those field there is much debate and it can be very hard to publish a dissenting view .. but I cannot recall blatant suppression and bias, as I perceive in this field of virology and gain of function.
We argued in that essay that the cover up of doubt is mainly in the West (as few if any top Chinese scientists have ever admitted to doubt) .. but Farrar (eg) went from describing Wuhan as the "wild west" (ie of virology) to co-signing Calisher et al (which characterised those who questioned the natural origin story as "conspiracists") within a few weeks. In other words, he concealed from the public his own doubt.
I did get some feedback from some members of the Paris group; it was contradictory. There was an unopposed view that Gao et al ("Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in the environment and animal samples of the Huanan Seafood Market") https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1370392/v1 posted Feb 2022 is the best source for information and data - ie Gao's CCDC team collected the data at the market (ie nothing to do with WIV). Gao et al is also cited by Worobey et al (2022) (ref 24) eg "585 environmental samples were initially taken from various surfaces in the Huanan market on 1 and 12 January 2020 by the CCDC (24)."
Gao et al (still not published, as far as I know) states:
"For animal samples, depending on the type of animal and whether it was alive or frozen, pharyngeal, anal, body surface and body cavity swabs or tissue samples were collected for nucleic acid testing (NAT). Generally, for alive animal and frozen full bodies, three samples, including pharyngeal, anal, and body surface swabs were collected for each animal individuals. And for animal bodies after “bai tiao” disposing (remaining parts of poultry or livestock after removal of hair and viscera), the body cavity swabs were collected."
You will note the words "whether it was alive".
However, Gao et al also state these samples were taken in "early 2020" while the market was closed "early morning" on January 1, 2020. These samples include from 4 species of stray animals (presumably alive when the swabbed); the rest presumably frozen (eg crocodiles) (p16 of the preprint lists 457 animal samples from 188 individual animals; it doesn't specifically indicate which animals were frozen but it does indicate which were strays).
6 bamboo rats (one of three species found with SARS antibodies in the original SARS outbreak) were tested; all were negative. Zero tests for raccoon dogs or palm civets (the other antibody-positive species for SARS).
Yet - Worobey et al (2022) state: "Despite limited testing of live wildlife sold at the market". That seems to contradict his recent claim?? Or maybe it's just a casual sentence that should have been cut?
What a missed opportunity - if, in fact, the Chinese CDC did zero testing of animals for sale before the market was closed. I find that very hard to believe - I wonder if Redfield (who I believe is or was quite close to Gao) would know?
I don't have time just now to read Gao et al more closely but I did search for some key words that I thought might lead to text explaining why the market would be closed with zero animal testing before then. EG Do they recognise what a lost opportunity that would be? But I couldn't find anything.
Were I to be a reviewer or editor for this paper (in real life roles I have often performed) I would ask for a clear discussion of their reasons for not testing beforehand.
Yuri Deigin may have some insight.
But I think - and of course this is speculation - given the enormous obfuscation by Chinese scientists (due to the heavy hand of their government) a plausible hypothesis is that indeed samples from living animals - and surfaces - were taken before the market was closed.
That is a big claim by me, I know. It would mean many people in Wuhan know that Gao et al are not telling the full story in this preprint.
Gao et al state: "Staff from China CDC entered the market about 30 times before the market’s final clean-up on 2 March 2020, with some stray animals sampled outside the market until March 30th." That's a lot of activity. The implication is that they never once went there before the market was closed (supporting Worobey's recent claim).
Yet, some authority made a decision to close the market early on New Year’s day 2020. When was that decision made? Why?
Worobey (most recently) and for that matter Gao et al seem to be claiming that this enormous decision was taken on the basis of zero swabs taken in December 2019 (or earlier). The more I think about that the more unlikely it seems to be.
I think that what's not said (or written) is often more important than what is said (or written). (Another example is the non-disclosure by the EcoHealth Alliance of their rejected grant application to DARPA - that was only identified by a whistle blower. If EHA had nothing to hide they should have been forthcoming.)
I will go back to the Paris group with this new idea, and also tweet about it. In summary:
Gao et al painstakingly describe what they tested at the market after it was closed. They do not seem to even mention their failure to test before the market was closed. Nor do they seem to state why the market was closed. Worobey now says, emphatically, no live animals were tested before market closure. My guess is he's interpreted Gao's absence of evidence as evidence of absence - despite his own multi-authored paper in Science mentioning "limited testing of live wildlife sold at the market".
Last comment: Worobey et al's conclusions seem based on data even further removed from the origin of the pandemic, ie samples collected in January 2020. I hadn't comprehended that before. Certainly it’s not “dispositive”.
Compelling reasoning - weird they would close the wet market on cases alone, although if we truly put on our Chinese-innocence hats then one can imagine hearing of a cluster of cases in a market and then shutting down the market first, asking questions about spillover later.
For me, the biggest unanswered but perhaps answerable question is: why was there a spike of “SARS” usage on WeChat December 1? This precedes the wet market outbreak, and coincides with an earlier case with no ties to the market - why, in the middle of flu season, would “SARS” spike on Chinese social media on the same date South Korean news reported to have found a confirmed case?
If we can get more info on these earlier cases, the wet market goes out the window. If it’s shown that there was some knowledge of SARS transmission in China prior to HSM, then Worobey is out.
I agree, on balance, China would release information re a farmed or wild source of the pandemic, if they had found one .. even though this would result in some loss of face (but far less than if the pandemic arose via the WIV). I don't entirely agree with you that "no-one would blame China if an infected civet or whatever caused this outbreak as happened with SARS1" .. I think the Chinese leadership is hypersensitive; probably more in 2019 - and now - than in 2002/03; I think they took steps to try to prevent a recurrence of SARS (ie in early 2000s); I think those safeguards faltered and I think they would be embarrassed if the epidemiology for covid-19 proves to be similar to SARS-1. I think similar motivations underlie their attempt to shift blame to imported frozen foods, or maybe to the military games.
But they have far more to lose if WIV turnd out to be the source.
What is the probablilty that Gao etc would find no such animal, even if they looked hard (were it to exist?) Until recently I took at face value claims that they did look hard .. after more engagement with Gao et al, however, I have started to wonder .. Their search may have been influenced in some way by authorities who were more meddlesome/directive than when the corresponding investigators searched for SARS in 2003; ie their search strategy may have had less chance of success.
I strongly agree with you that Worobey et al have not proven a market origin.
FWIW I have barely looked at the companion paper (Pekar et al) .. phylodynamics and phylogenetics (etc) is not a strength. However, I do know that it is largely Worobey's work on the phylogenetics of HIV that has been used to undermine the hypothesis (most strongly developed by Edward Hooper) that HIV first emerged via polio vaccines in what is now the Dem Rep Congo. I wonder if "molecular clocks" run all at the same speed - and what other assumptions are involved?
Pekar et al seem to be suggesting that not only did one very unusual event occur at the market, but two. Using Ockham's razor that seems unlikely to me.
Anyway I appreciate this public dialogue and hope it continues. But, in the short run, I have to get back to my "day job".
Excellent -- thank you for your time, hard work and intelligence!
I followed you on Twitter until my small account was permanently suspended for reasons never explained. You've done great work. The machinations of the zoonosis-only virologists/funding agencies/PR agents on Twitter were both shocking and alarming to me, as I used to believe the foremost principle among scientists was integrity. Scientists are people like everyone else and can have conflicts of interest, like everyone else. This cannot be overstated, and is the reason such high-risk research as GoFRoC - if society deems worth doing at all - must not be left to the regulations and oversight of the very same bodies that fund it. Instead, an independent body must take on this role, along the lines of the IAEA for nuclear technology.
On October 16, 2022, with no prior notification or subsequent explanation.
Brilliantly written. Your patience, humility, and curiosity are a beacon of light in the darkness of pseudoscience.
Just as a side note Alex, you would make a wonderful teacher. For you are able to take complex concepts & explain them in ways that everyone can understand which then creates an atmosphere of wanting to learn more. I also believe that your ability to make science easier to digest for the lay person is why some of the people who struggle to simplify their logic may attack you, they are threatened by you as it widens science audience.
Full respect to you. You exemplify how science should see itself: dispassionate, considerate, rigorous, and ever-curious. Thank you. 🙏🏽
Wow, really well written piece that should make sense to everyone. Thank you!
You are such a relief from all the superheated rhetoric. I really appreciate how your sanity shines through this piece.
You clearly articulate what it takes to not participate in bad faith science: "I pledge to listen for good ideas no matter where they come from and do my best to update my thinking in light of new evidence."
I’m sharing this with as many as I can, including those who still believe the liars.
Nailed it in heading & sub heading. Examined Question & crucially TESTED.
We all learned this is primarily school & although a simple concept it’s fundamental to solving problems & then proving that you found the right solution.
I just fail to comprehend how science has lost it’s way, especially with Covid. It’s like living in a alternative universe where people no longer function in reality, that shows us there is more going on than we would like to accept. Mind games, manipulation & Government sanctioned propaganda is the only explanation at this point. I would never had believed it if I hadn’t lived through it. Alex you are a rare breed that is purely looking for the answers rather than trying to obscure them. Thank you for keeping it ethical because it was getting rather grim on that front.
Extraordinary insights.
Impressive Alex and thank you for liking my previous message. Science it's a process and I think many people do not understand this. I also think that Covid came from the lab, thank you for your work on this
"4) Gao et al. tested animals in the wet market and not one animal tested positive"
In the LA Times (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-08/covid-lab-leak-energy-department-fbi) Worobey states: "But not a single relevant live animal was tested there before the market was closed". Do you know if that's true? Or stated by Gao etc to be true? It does not make sense to me that they would close the wet market without testing any animals then for sale - even if they didn't test them earlier. In the same article (and twitter thread) Worobey claim that numerous labs in China could have been the source - but as far as I know only Wuhan was doing gain of function on coronaviruses, and (in late 2019) only Wuhan had a BSL 4 lab.
Thanks for that reply. I also have little regard for Worobey's paper (we managed an e-letter in Science in response - the best we could do https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715) .. but I'm especially interested in finding holes in Worobey's LA Times article .. if we can prove deception (or gross error) here it strengthens the case for other forms of deception/gross error by him. And thus the two points he made which seemed to me worth checking were (a) no animal testing at all at Wuhan seafood wet market; (b) numerous other labs in China could have been the source. I think W is likely correct that some virus from Mojiang mine was taken to Beijing (see https://www.science.org/content/article/new-killer-virus-china) but I think it's very unfair of him to therefore claim Beijing is as likely as Wuhan as a lab source. Such a claim dismisses the BSL4 lab in Wuhan (even if they did some things at BSL2 - the lab and staff were much more ambitious in Wuhan) .. but supporters of Worobey won't find my argument here convincing.
But what about the no animal testing claim? That's very different to a no animal was found positive claim. If they were swabbing surfaces at the wetmarket then why not swab animals. I think I read frozen carcasses at the market were tested - but I'm not certain about the timing of those tests. I'll try to check. I asked on twitter - just as I asked here - but so far no one has given a good reply, so I'm still in doubt.
Since this "easy" path (ie to find out) is failing I guess I'll have to search my own records.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/trump-owes-us-apology-chinese-scientist-center-covid-19-origin-theories-speaks-out https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q%26A.pdf
see comments:
"When the outbreak surfaced, Wuhan health officials believed the jump occurred at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market because many of the first known COVID-19 patients had links to it. Shi’s lab tested samples from the market and found RNA fragments from the virus in “door handles, the ground and sewage,” she wrote—but not in “frozen animal samples.”
CB: It's vague but these tests were probably before the market closed - indeed this is probably the source of Worobey's data.
However there is zero mention of tests from living animals here, and I now recall wondering about that at the time. ie why no mention?
**
Researchers from WIV and Huazhong Agricultural University didn’t find the virus in samples from farmed animals and livestock taken around Wuhan and in other places in Hubei province, she wrote. Shi added that many years of surveillance in Hubei have never turned up bat coronaviruses close to SARS-CoV-2, which leads her to believe the jump from animals to humans happened elsewhere.
Shi Zhengli’s team takes samples from bats trapped in the wild. The team never found SARS-CoV-2, the pandemic virus, in bats, Shi says.
**
CB: Gao's testimony would be better.
I find it unbelievable Shi's team would not have tested live animals when she admits testing frozen animals from the market. But there is no proof either way in this extract to support Worobey's claim. What is his evidence? I will raise this with the "Paris group" (of which I am a member) and see if anyone has more insight.
OK - have written; here is my letter - same points as above, just with a bit more care (ie by me):
Some of you may have read Michael Worobey’s recent essay ("Opinion: I called for more research on the COVID ‘lab leak theory.’ Here’s what I found out") in the LA Times etc (eg https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-called-more-research-covid-213112536.html).
I'm especially interested in finding holes in it .. if we can identify deception (or gross error) here it strengthens the case for other forms of deception/gross error by him. There are two points he made which I think are worth checking; these are:
(a) his claim that zero testing of live animals occurred at the seafood market in Wuhan before it was closed.
Worobey states: "No such surveillance of live animal markets occurred in Wuhan prior to the pandemic” and "But not a single relevant live animal was tested there before the market was closed.”
(b) numerous other labs in China could have been the source.
Of relevance: "What is the chance that a big Chinese city like Wuhan would have a lab doing the kind of research that has come under suspicion? The answer is, the vast majority of the biggest cities in China have labs involved in such research. If COVID had emerged in, say, Beijing, there would be no fewer than four such labs facing suspicion.”
**
In response to the first assertion does anyone here know - for sure? I don’t.
In: Cohen, J. (2020) Trump ‘owes us an apology.’ Chinese scientist at the center of COVID-19 origin theories speaks out. Science, 369, 487-488. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/trump-owes-us-apology-chinese-scientist-center-covid-19-origin-theories-speaks-out; https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q%26A.pdf
Cohen writes:
"When the outbreak surfaced, Wuhan health officials believed the jump occurred at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market because many of the first known COVID-19 patients had links to it. Shi’s lab tested samples from the market and found RNA fragments from the virus in “door handles, the ground and sewage,” she wrote—but not in “frozen animal samples.”
My comment: this is imprecise but these tests were probably undertaken before the market closed - indeed (am I correct?) Shi’s team’s testing of environmental samples is probably the source of Worobey's data for their Science (2022) paper.
Note, Shi does not mention tests from living animals here (I recall wondering about that at the time) - but, nor does she say something to the effect that living animals were not tested. Regrettably, if Cohen asked her about this, he does not mention it.
Personally I find it unbelievable that Shi's team would not have tested live animals when she admits testing frozen animals from the market. Comments?
However, I don’t see proof either way in this extract.
So, where is Worobey's evidence? Is he reading “absence of evidence” to be “evidence of absence”? Or does he know something else? Or has he been told something else?
Of course, Shi could be lying, or being evasive (then and now) .. a statement by her in support of Worobey (if given now) would be of little value, but strengthened if there is historic evidence for it.
What about George Gao and his team - would they have done any live animal testing, ie at the market, before it closed?
**
As for the second dubious assertion by Worobey. I think it is plausible henipavirus virus from Mojiang was taken to Beijing (see https://www.science.org/content/article/new-killer-virus-china) and maybe coronavirus was identified too (but never reported) but I think it's very misleading of Worobey to imply therefore Beijing (etc) is equally as likely as Wuhan to be a lab source. Such a claim dismisses the fact that (at least in 2019 - still the case today?) WIV was China’s only BSL4 lab (even if they did some things at BSL2); the lab and staff there were likely much more ambitious than elsewhere in China - would any other lab in China have done GOF work on coronaviruses in 2019?)
I appreciate your collective knowledge and response - the thinking that stimulated this email to you is in the comments at "Science is not to be trusted” by Alex Washburne: https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/science-is-not-to-be-trusted/comment/13491172
**
(Just here) I could be wrong in some of what I've written here - eg I only re-read some of Shi's Q and A with Cohen. I'll also mention I found Worobey's assertion that it would take a city to sustain an outbreak dubious - I think this depends on the assumptions. For something with such advanced "stealth" characteristics (https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2049-9957-1-5) as SARS-Co-V-2 (ie asymptomatic and respiratory transmission) a village might be enough. I tweeted to Worobey about this (also my other questions) - no response. Early days of course, but in my esperience people like him never respond to people like me; no matter what avenue I use.
Someone has drawn my attention to a primate lab in Kunming, in operation since 2005. http://english.kiz.cas.cn/about/an/201406/t20140624_123151.html
Do they do gain of function work on bat-borne viruses?
Would living animals normally be left in the market overnight? Genuine question. Do the traders have an honour system (ie so none get stolen or exchanged?) Would the animals need feeding and water if left at the market - would carting them home every night be a hassle?
If they were alive on Jan 1 why would Gao et al not have said? But (in another response) I passed on a comment from someone to the effect that "it's unthinkable the CCDC would have tested the market on their volition". If that's true (and it sounds plausible) would Gao et al be free to write the truth as they found it? And, even though I know Redfield (who I greatly admire) likes Gao, I think the answer to that is no. Maybe much of what Gao et al wrote is accurate, but I'm afraid, I no longer have confidence in them - no more than I have confidence in most of the claims by western scientists and in the so-called top journals. This is really dreadful for science - at least when it comes to this issue. [My "home base" in science - for 30 years - is limits to growth and health, climate change and health, population growth and development ... in those field there is much debate and it can be very hard to publish a dissenting view .. but I cannot recall blatant suppression and bias, as I perceive in this field of virology and gain of function.
As Prof Randolph and I wrote: "There has been a suppression of the truth, secrecy and cover-ups on an Orwellian scale over the origin of Covid-19 in China" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687597/There-suppression-truth-secrecy-cover-ups-origin-Covid-19-China.html
We argued in that essay that the cover up of doubt is mainly in the West (as few if any top Chinese scientists have ever admitted to doubt) .. but Farrar (eg) went from describing Wuhan as the "wild west" (ie of virology) to co-signing Calisher et al (which characterised those who questioned the natural origin story as "conspiracists") within a few weeks. In other words, he concealed from the public his own doubt.
I did get some feedback from some members of the Paris group; it was contradictory. There was an unopposed view that Gao et al ("Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in the environment and animal samples of the Huanan Seafood Market") https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1370392/v1 posted Feb 2022 is the best source for information and data - ie Gao's CCDC team collected the data at the market (ie nothing to do with WIV). Gao et al is also cited by Worobey et al (2022) (ref 24) eg "585 environmental samples were initially taken from various surfaces in the Huanan market on 1 and 12 January 2020 by the CCDC (24)."
Gao et al (still not published, as far as I know) states:
"For animal samples, depending on the type of animal and whether it was alive or frozen, pharyngeal, anal, body surface and body cavity swabs or tissue samples were collected for nucleic acid testing (NAT). Generally, for alive animal and frozen full bodies, three samples, including pharyngeal, anal, and body surface swabs were collected for each animal individuals. And for animal bodies after “bai tiao” disposing (remaining parts of poultry or livestock after removal of hair and viscera), the body cavity swabs were collected."
You will note the words "whether it was alive".
However, Gao et al also state these samples were taken in "early 2020" while the market was closed "early morning" on January 1, 2020. These samples include from 4 species of stray animals (presumably alive when the swabbed); the rest presumably frozen (eg crocodiles) (p16 of the preprint lists 457 animal samples from 188 individual animals; it doesn't specifically indicate which animals were frozen but it does indicate which were strays).
6 bamboo rats (one of three species found with SARS antibodies in the original SARS outbreak) were tested; all were negative. Zero tests for raccoon dogs or palm civets (the other antibody-positive species for SARS).
Yet - Worobey et al (2022) state: "Despite limited testing of live wildlife sold at the market". That seems to contradict his recent claim?? Or maybe it's just a casual sentence that should have been cut?
What a missed opportunity - if, in fact, the Chinese CDC did zero testing of animals for sale before the market was closed. I find that very hard to believe - I wonder if Redfield (who I believe is or was quite close to Gao) would know?
I don't have time just now to read Gao et al more closely but I did search for some key words that I thought might lead to text explaining why the market would be closed with zero animal testing before then. EG Do they recognise what a lost opportunity that would be? But I couldn't find anything.
Were I to be a reviewer or editor for this paper (in real life roles I have often performed) I would ask for a clear discussion of their reasons for not testing beforehand.
Yuri Deigin may have some insight.
But I think - and of course this is speculation - given the enormous obfuscation by Chinese scientists (due to the heavy hand of their government) a plausible hypothesis is that indeed samples from living animals - and surfaces - were taken before the market was closed.
That is a big claim by me, I know. It would mean many people in Wuhan know that Gao et al are not telling the full story in this preprint.
Gao et al state: "Staff from China CDC entered the market about 30 times before the market’s final clean-up on 2 March 2020, with some stray animals sampled outside the market until March 30th." That's a lot of activity. The implication is that they never once went there before the market was closed (supporting Worobey's recent claim).
Yet, some authority made a decision to close the market early on New Year’s day 2020. When was that decision made? Why?
Worobey (most recently) and for that matter Gao et al seem to be claiming that this enormous decision was taken on the basis of zero swabs taken in December 2019 (or earlier). The more I think about that the more unlikely it seems to be.
I think that what's not said (or written) is often more important than what is said (or written). (Another example is the non-disclosure by the EcoHealth Alliance of their rejected grant application to DARPA - that was only identified by a whistle blower. If EHA had nothing to hide they should have been forthcoming.)
I will go back to the Paris group with this new idea, and also tweet about it. In summary:
Gao et al painstakingly describe what they tested at the market after it was closed. They do not seem to even mention their failure to test before the market was closed. Nor do they seem to state why the market was closed. Worobey now says, emphatically, no live animals were tested before market closure. My guess is he's interpreted Gao's absence of evidence as evidence of absence - despite his own multi-authored paper in Science mentioning "limited testing of live wildlife sold at the market".
Last comment: Worobey et al's conclusions seem based on data even further removed from the origin of the pandemic, ie samples collected in January 2020. I hadn't comprehended that before. Certainly it’s not “dispositive”.
Compelling reasoning - weird they would close the wet market on cases alone, although if we truly put on our Chinese-innocence hats then one can imagine hearing of a cluster of cases in a market and then shutting down the market first, asking questions about spillover later.
For me, the biggest unanswered but perhaps answerable question is: why was there a spike of “SARS” usage on WeChat December 1? This precedes the wet market outbreak, and coincides with an earlier case with no ties to the market - why, in the middle of flu season, would “SARS” spike on Chinese social media on the same date South Korean news reported to have found a confirmed case?
If we can get more info on these earlier cases, the wet market goes out the window. If it’s shown that there was some knowledge of SARS transmission in China prior to HSM, then Worobey is out.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-08/covid-lab-leak-energy-department-fbi (elsewhere too, without paywall). "Opinion: I called for more research on the COVID ‘lab leak theory.’ Here’s what I found out".
Brilliant - thank you for your hard work and calm intelligence. Great reading.
I agree, on balance, China would release information re a farmed or wild source of the pandemic, if they had found one .. even though this would result in some loss of face (but far less than if the pandemic arose via the WIV). I don't entirely agree with you that "no-one would blame China if an infected civet or whatever caused this outbreak as happened with SARS1" .. I think the Chinese leadership is hypersensitive; probably more in 2019 - and now - than in 2002/03; I think they took steps to try to prevent a recurrence of SARS (ie in early 2000s); I think those safeguards faltered and I think they would be embarrassed if the epidemiology for covid-19 proves to be similar to SARS-1. I think similar motivations underlie their attempt to shift blame to imported frozen foods, or maybe to the military games.
But they have far more to lose if WIV turnd out to be the source.
What is the probablilty that Gao etc would find no such animal, even if they looked hard (were it to exist?) Until recently I took at face value claims that they did look hard .. after more engagement with Gao et al, however, I have started to wonder .. Their search may have been influenced in some way by authorities who were more meddlesome/directive than when the corresponding investigators searched for SARS in 2003; ie their search strategy may have had less chance of success.
I strongly agree with you that Worobey et al have not proven a market origin.
FWIW I have barely looked at the companion paper (Pekar et al) .. phylodynamics and phylogenetics (etc) is not a strength. However, I do know that it is largely Worobey's work on the phylogenetics of HIV that has been used to undermine the hypothesis (most strongly developed by Edward Hooper) that HIV first emerged via polio vaccines in what is now the Dem Rep Congo. I wonder if "molecular clocks" run all at the same speed - and what other assumptions are involved?
Pekar et al seem to be suggesting that not only did one very unusual event occur at the market, but two. Using Ockham's razor that seems unlikely to me.
Anyway I appreciate this public dialogue and hope it continues. But, in the short run, I have to get back to my "day job".
Excellent point
Thank you.