Slack / Private Message Drop — page 780

SARS-CoV-2 was passaged on human cells or experimental animals (such a humanized mice) in gain-of-function type experiments to adapt for human replication (Relman, 2020, Segreto and Deigin, 2020; Sirotkin and Sirotkin, 2020). The direct role of the Chinese military in conducting classified research on sarbecoviruses at the WIV has also been proposed (United States, 2021). In Lab Leak scenarios diversification of SARS-CoV-2 to its two separate early lineages A and B would have had to occur in the laboratory setting. Lab Leak scenarios must also account for the fact that the majority of early cases were associated with different wildlife markets in Wuhan. ``` ``` [2021-05-11 15:48:07] [Robert Garry] *Discussion* Lab Leak scenarios are inconsistent with several established facts regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The majority of early cases were linked to different markets that sold wildlife or wildlife products in Wuhan. All theories of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 must account for the linkage to different market engaged in wildlife trade. Theories on SARS-CoV-2 must also account for the fact that two distinct lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were distributed at different Wuhan wildlife markets. Scenarios where an infected laboratory worker, an escaped lab animal or faulty waste disposal spread not one but two lineages of SARS-CoV-2 specifically to different wildlife markets are difficult to rationalize. The original SARS-CoV outbreaks in 2002-2004 were linked to the wildlife trade (Guan et al., 2003). In contrast to Lab Leak theories, linkage of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 to wildlife or the wildlife trade provides several plausible scenarios for the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 at different wildlife markets. It fully accounts for the fact that the majority of early Wuhan COVID-19 cases were linked to different wildlife markets in a straightforward manner. It also provides simple explanations for the fact that two different lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were linked to markets. In one possible scenario divergence of SARS-CoV-2 to lineages A and B occurred prior to the transport of infected animals to Wuhan and the infected animals were subsequently distributed to different wildlife markets. Proponents of the Lab Leak theory will point out that none of the animals sold at the Huanan Market tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (WHO, 2021). Although mentioned in the WHO Report, but not discussed in detail, several independent sources indicate that wildlife species susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, including civets and raccoon dogs, were sold at the Huanan market (Stout, 2020; Yee, 2020; Zhang and Holmes, 2020). Similar species were likely to have been available to purchase at other wildlife markets in Wuhan. Certain species of animals may have been removed after the appearance of the first COVID-19 cases and the linkage of COVID-19 cases to the market, but prior to the closure of the Market on January 1, 2020. It should also be noted that environmental samples that did test positive were associated with the portion of the market where wildlife or wildlife products were sold. A temporal analysis of the early human cases at the Huanan market confirms the pattern of spread from the areas of the market where wildlife products were sold to other parts of the market. (WHO, 2021). A hybrid of natural and Lab Leak scenarios suggests that SARS-CoV-2 is a natural virus that infected a scientist while doing field work or other personnel after being brought back to a laboratory where it was stored or propagated and then released unknowingly (Relman, 2020; Baker, 2020). Compared to the millions of worldwide encounters of humans with wildlife, including the trapping of bats for food, the number of exposures of scientists doing field work is miniscule. Thus, this hybrid scenario is of very low probability. It also fails to explain how two lineages of SARS-CoV-2 came to be distributed at the different wildlife markets. Conclusions New data compiled by the WHO team regarding the presence of distinct lineages of SARS-CoV-2 in different Wuhan wildlife markets are inconsistent with a laboratory-based origin of SARS-CoV-2. [2021-05-11 16:02:37] [Eddie Holmes] You're on fire Bob! I'll take a look when I get a chance. [2021-05-11 17:07:24] [Eddie Holmes] Just got this from Dominic - spot-on "I like the comment on balance related to the number of pages - perhaps if there were 40 rather than 4/313 pages then all would be OK. The authors miss many points - the WHO was not an 'investigation', but a study of origins; that even if a lab leak it is still an animal source; an external forensic examination of a lab would never be acceptable in China/Russia/US/UK etc; the lab hypothesis is not excluded in the report, just ranked lower than the others. I don't know him, but surprised Ralph Baric signed it given his