Biorealism's comments

The thing with Wuhan Institute of Virology is they were particularly studying the spillover risk of SARS-related coronaviruses. The nearest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 are found in Yunnan and Laos. One clear link with Wuhan is the fact Wuhan Institute of Virology sampled both locations.

You can't read much into the early case data that David Relman described as "hopelessly impoverished". There were likely much earlier cases based on excess mortality data (a key reason WHO haven't accepted market origin). Also, there is a clear sampling bias in the cases in the article cited above. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.00313-23

Yes, the whole virus hunting grift that Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance and PREDICT tout has been exposed as ineffective. Now they are doubling down with further funding and blanket denials that it could have come from a lab accident. They never mention the nearest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 are found in Yunnan and Laos. And that happens to be where WIV sampled.

Nonsense. The Times is one of the main UK publications along with the Guardian and The Telegraph.

It took over a decade to confirm the Sverdlovsk anthrax outbreak was the result of an outbreak. In that case intelligence did suspect an accidental cause although scientists argued contaminated meat was the cause. Information can be tightly controlled under authoritarian regimes. Recall those who even reported the outbreak in the community faced recriminations.

What is known is the nearest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 are found in Yunnan and Laos. Both areas WIV sampled and they refuse to share their records with WHO or the NIH.

They have witheld records from the NIH which funded some of their SARS-related coronaviruses spillover research. They eventually terminated their subaward last year as a result. WHO has also been asking for lab data. Given the nearest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 are found in Yunnan and Laos where the WIV sampled it seems fairly clear what happened here.

https://thebulletin.org/2022/08/nih-to-terminate-ecohealth-a...

Yes, the article suggests they had a closer precursor. The nearest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 are found in Yunnan and Laos. They are both areas WIV sampled in studying the spillover risk of SARS-related coronaviruses. They haven't shared their records with WHO or the NIH.

The nearest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 are found in Yunnan and Laos. Both areas WIV sampled prior to the pandemic and they haven't shared their records with WHO or the NIH.

It's not just a coronavirus, it's a sarbecovirus with a furin cleavage site never seen before in sarbecoviruses. The nearest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 are found in Yunnan and Laos. The only link with Wuhan is WIV's sampling in both locations.

In 2018, WIV was part of a proposal with EcoHealth Alliance and UNC to add furin cleavage sites into novel SARS-related bat coronaviruses. DARPA declined to fund it. This investigation suggests the work went ahead. Something Nick Patterson suggested often occurs even when funding is declined. WIV had both NIAID and CAS grants to study spillover risk of SARS-related coronaviruses. They were also doing classified work with the PLA from 2017.

The NIH terminated the Wuhan Institute of Virology's subaward for continued refusal to share records last year. WHO is still pleading with the PRC to share data on both the animal trade and Wuhan labs.

https://thebulletin.org/2022/08/nih-to-terminate-ecohealth-a...

That was written before Jesse Bloom reanalyzed the data and found a negative correlation with raccoon dogs.

https://news.yahoo.com/raccoon-dogs-did-not-start-covid-19-n...

The nearest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 are found in Yunnan and Laos. The only known link to Wuhan is the Wuhan Institute of Virology sampled both areas.

They refuse to share their records with WHO or the NIH. That's a crucial caveat when saying there is no evidence they held a precursor. We don't know as they have refused to share their database.

The Times article is interesting as it suggests the work in DEFUSE to add furin cleavage sites went ahead and they passaged the virus in humanized mice. This would explain the furin site not seen in other sarbecoviruses and why humans topped the list for binding affinity from the outset.

Note the cases near the market are based on what David Relman described as "hopelessly impoverished" early case data. There was also sampling bias in retrospectively counting cases as market link was often required. WHO hasn't accepted market origin in part as there were likely much earlier cases than those in December linked to the market where no animals tested positive.