The origins of covid-19: An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2

The scientific community is now unconvinced of the natural path of covid19 (from nature to human) and, for the first time, signal that that a research path is a possibility. This shift brings to focus the danger of biological and chemical weapons that many states continue to engage in.

This scientific shift was amplified recently by a new report from the prestigious British scientific journal, The Lancet. Here is quote from the report bout this significant development:

 

A research-related origin is plausible. Two questions need to be addressed: virus evolution and introduction into the human population. Since July, 2020, several peer-reviewed scientific papers have discussed the likelihood of a research-related origin of the virus. Some unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence suggest that they may have resulted from genetic engineering,

15

,  

16

 an approach widely used in some virology labs.

17

 Alternatively, adaptation to humans might result from undirected laboratory selection during serial passage in cell cultures or laboratory animals,

5

,  

18

,  

19

 including humanised mice.

20

 Mice genetically modified to display the human receptor for entry of SARS-CoV-2 (ACE2) were used in research projects funded before the pandemic, to test the infectivity of different virus strains.

21

 Laboratory research also includes more targeted approaches such as gain-of-function experiments relying on chimeric viruses to test their potential to cross species barriers.

17

,  

22

A research-related contamination could result from contact with a natural virus during field collection, transportation from the field to a laboratory,

23

 characterisation of bats and bat viruses in a laboratory, or from a non-natural virus modified in a laboratory. There are well-documented cases of pathogen escapes from laboratories.

24

,  

25

,  

26

,  

27

 Field collection, field survey, and in-laboratory research on potential pandemic pathogens require high-safety protections and a strong and transparent safety culture. However, experiments on SARS-related coronaviruses are routinely performed at biosafety level 2,

22

,  

28

 which complies with the recommendations for viruses infecting non-human animals, but is inappropriate for experiments that might produce human-adapted viruses by effects of selection or oriented mutations.

Overwhelming evidence for either a zoonotic or research-related origin is lacking: the jury is still out. On the basis of the current scientific literature, complemented by our own analyses of coronavirus genomes and proteins,

5

,  

15

,  

16

,  

18

,  

29

,  

30

 we hold that there is currently no compelling evidence to choose between a natural origin (ie, a virus that has evolved and been transmitted to humans solely via contact with wild or farmed animals) and a research-related origin (which might have occurred at sampling sites, during transportation or within the laboratory, and might have involved natural, selected, or engineered viruses).

 Read more from the source... An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2

__________________________