• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Discussion: Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Wuhan has been working with bats and coronavirus for many years - DNA manipulations, cloning.... - Ja

Supposedly AP has an advance copy...


AP Exclusive: WHO report says animals likely source of COVID


By KEN MORITSUGU and JAMEY KEATEN33 minutes ago

BEIJING (AP) ? A joint WHO-China study on the origins of COVID-19 says that transmission of the virus from bats to humans through another animal is the most likely scenario and that a lab leak is ?extremely unlikely,? according to a draft copy obtained by The Associated Press.

The findings offer little new insight into how the virus began to spread around the globe and many questions remain unanswered, though that was as expected. But the report did provide more detail on the reasoning behind the researchers? conclusions. The team proposed further research in every area except the lab leak hypothesis.

The report?s release has been repeatedly delayed, raising questions about whether the Chinese side was trying to skew the conclusions to prevent blame for the pandemic falling on China. A World Health Organization official said late last week that he expected it would be ready for release ?in the next few days.?

more...

https://apnews.com/article/animals-c...46a763b7286a7f
 
si les ?tats am?ricains et chinois s'engagent sur les r?gles de fonctionnement de leurs laboratoires , ce sera un bonheur de d?guster les suites .

Mais si c'est pour faire que la Chine aille faire en Iran, ou en Cor?e du Nord , ce qu'elle ne veut plus faire chez elle , on n'aura pas avanc? .

Donc tout est dans la r?daction et du texte et des annexes ...
 
Exclusive: WHO Covid-19 origins report says lab leak 'extremely unlikely'

29 March 2021 ? 10:20am

Leaked report says virus most probably jumped from bats into farmed animals, before spreading to humans
ByPaul Nuki, GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY EDITOR andSarah Newey, GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY CORRESPONDENT

... The Telegraph has obtained a copy of the report, which has been repeatedly delayed but was sent to all member states on a confidential basis on Sunday evening.

The 123-page document presents detailed studies of morbidity, case reports, pharmacy records, food samples and genetic sequencing from in and around Wuhan in late 2019, ?to better understand how the virus might have been introduced and started?.

?In none of these studies was there evidence of an impact of the causative agent of Covid-19 on morbidity in the months before the [Wuhan] outbreak of Covid-19,? it says.

The authors, a team of 34 Chinese and international scientists, add that it remains ?possible? the virus entered Wuhan through frozen food, imported from another area of China or even from overseas - although there is scant evidence to support this in the report or its annexes.

?While there is some evidence for possible reintroduction of Sars-CoV-2 through handling of imported contaminated frozen products in China since the initial pandemic wave, this would be extraordinary in 2019 where the virus was not widely circulating,? the report says.
...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-...gins-report-says-lab-leak-extremely-unlikely/
 
Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

16-24 February 2020

... Zoonotic origins

COVID-19 is a zoonotic virus. From phylogenetics analyses undertaken with available full genome sequences, bats appear to be the reservoir of COVID-19 virus, but the intermediate host(s) has not yet been identified. However, three important areas of work are already underway in China to inform our understanding of the zoonotic origin of this outbreak. These include early investigations of cases with symptom onset in Wuhan throughout December 2019, environmental sampling from the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market and other area markets, and the collection of detailed records on the source and type of wildlife species sold at the Huanan market and the destination of those animals after the market was closed.

Routes of transmission

COVID-19 is transmitted via droplets and fomites during close unprotected contact between an infector and infectee. Airborne spread has not been reported for COVID-19 and it is not believed to be a major driver of transmission based on available evidence; however, it can be envisaged if certain aerosol-generating procedures are conducted in health care facilities. Fecal shedding has been demonstrated from some patients, and viable virus has been identified in a limited number of case reports. However, the fecal-oral route does not appear to be a driver of COVID-19 transmission; its role and significance for COVID-19 remains to be determined. Viral shedding is discussed in the Technical Findings (Annex C).
...

screenshot-2020-11-05-at-12-35-16.tmb-479v.png
Download (285.6 kB)


Select the Download @
https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/who-convened-global-study-of-the-origins-of-sars-cov-2
 
Wildlife trade most likely pathway for coronavirus to arrive in Wuhan, WHO expert says

Updated 0901 GMT (1701 HKT) March 29, 2021
By Sandi Sidhu and Nectar Gan, CNN

Hong Kong (CNN)The wildlife trade in China is the most likelypathway through which Covid-19 was able to spread from the original animal source, possibly bats, to humans, according to one of the authors of a long-awaited World Health Organization report on the origin of the virus.

The report, expected to be released on Tuesday after repeated delays, will include "multiple hundred pages, with lots of data, lots of new facts and information," said Peter Daszak, a member of the WHO team of international experts who visited the Chinese city of Wuhan, where the virus first emerged, earlier this year.
But the report's main conclusions -- about the possible ways in which the novel coronavirus could have emerged in Wuhan -- will remain unchanged from when the WHO wrapped up their trip in February, he said. ...

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/29/asia/who-wuhan-report-preview-intl-hnk/index.html
 
Expected. Nothing changed from February visit. I am anxiously awaiting the identification of the intermediary animal. I am guessing China will eventually announce the missing link that is identified in an adjacent country. There will be a paper with experts from both countries participating and some sequences deposited in GISAID. The assigned country will take the blame - but who can blame nature for evolution? So no lawsuits, no assets frozen or seized, no world court.
 
TRANSCRIPTS Transcript Providers

CNN SPECIAL REPORTS

CNN Special Report, COVID WAR: The Pandemic Doctors Speak Out. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired March 28, 2021 - 21:00 ET
...
FAUCI: It is an extraordinary virus. When you're in infectious diseases for your entire professional life, you kind of live in a metaphor. And the metaphor is that viruses particularly have a mind. They're smart, they're evil, or they're benign.

But a virus that has adapted itself, almost insidiously adapted itself perfectly to a human, not only my going to infect you, but I'm going to make sure that many of you don't have symptoms, and I'm going to use them to spread as much as I possibly can. And if I kill the vulnerables, I'm not going to eliminate the population. So, always have a lot of people that I can still infect. Now, that sounds crazy, but that's the metaphor that when you deal with infectious diseases, you say, damn this virus, it's such a bad, evil virus.
...
GUPTA: To understand any disease, but especially one that is novel, one that scientists had never seen before, it is critical to go back to its origin and answer the most basic of questions, where was it first discovered, and how?

REDFIELD: An official word from the Chinese CDC was not transmissible, human to human. I had multiple discussions with my counterpart in China, George Gao, that I wanted to have our CDC office in Beijing, you know, deployed to help right there and I want to augment that by 20 or 30 people and get into Wuhan and try to answer a few questions. Is this human-human transmissible, yes or no? Is this transmissible only in symptomatic or is it asymptomatic are transmissible?

And I told him, I was concerned of human-human transmissible. And I said to George, you know, George, you don't really believe that mother and father and daughter all got the event from an animal at the same time, do you? So he said, Bob, there's just no evidence of human-human transmission.
...
I would say, it was probably by the fifth of January, fourth or fifth of January, you know, I'd really told him he had to go out in the community and look for people that have unspecified pulmonary illness that didn't go to the C margin. And he did that. And that evening, he told me, they obviously found a lot of cases. And that evening, he was quite distraught, because he came to the conclusion that the cat was out of the bag, you know.

GUPTA: When he called you and was so upset, crying, distraught on the phone, that was a warning, wasn't it? He was now officially worried.

REDFIELD: Because you remember the early mortality in China, it was somewhere between 5 percent and 10 percent. I probably be crying too.

GUPTA: How much did you, did you trust the information coming out of China initially?

FAUCI: I always had skepticism about it because of what we went through with SARS. You know, people forget, but in SARS the Chinese is saying, oh, it's flu, it's flu in. And then the next thing you know that SARS was all over the world, in Canada and Australia, all over the place. So, they are not very transparent in the past. It wasn't out right lying, they just didn't give you all the information.

GUPTA: How big a difference would it have been if our own investigators had been on the ground in China?

FAUCI: I think it would have been a significant difference.

REDFIELD: I think we could have learned very quickly that we're dealing with a different beast than the one that everyone had sold us. They sold us this is like SARS. This is like flu. While SARS and flu, you can go after symptomatic case finding because they cause symptomatic disease. Unfortunately, this virus, probably a majority of its transmission is in the non-symptomatic stage.
...
FAUCI: All the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks.
...
FAUCI: I think if we had sent our people into Wuhan and able to talk to the Chinese scientists in a conversation that might have lasted an hour, you could have gotten so much information. Right from the get go, they would have told us don't believe what you're reading, this is spread asymptomatically, it spreads highly efficiently and it's killing people.

GUPTA: Do you know why now in retrospect you didn't get in?

REDFIELD: Well, I think the China CDC, my friend George Gao, I don't think he was in the know either.

GUPTA: What do you -- what do you mean?

REDFIELD: George really wanted to work, bring in all the power of CDC to work with his CDC to get this done, but he wasn't able.
...

GUPTA: And a year later, do you have an idea what that reason is?

REDFIELD: I mean, who do you believe, Sanjay, that a year after this pathogen started we're now having a critical analysis of where it came from by scientists. That just seems a little, a little delay. All right? I mean it seems to me that some of the information is people are not being transparent about it.
...
GUPTA: It is becoming increasingly clear that this virus was spreading much earlier than we were alerted.

REDFIELD: As soon as George understood it, we understood it. But what I'm telling you is, I think Wuhan understood it back in the fall.
...

REDFIELD: If I was to guess, this virus started transmitting somewhere in September, October in Wuhan.
...
You know. I am of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathogen and Wuhan was from a laboratory, you know, escaped. Other people don't believe that, that's fine. Science will eventually figure it out. It's not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in a laboratory to infect a laboratory worker.
...
REDFIELD: That's not implying any intentionality. You know, it's my opinion. Right? But I am a virologist, I have spent my life in virology. I do not believe this somehow came from a bat to a human. And at that moment in time, the virus that came to the human became one of the most infectious viruses that we know in humanity, for human to human transmission.

Normally, when a pathogen goes from zoonotic to human, it takes a while for it to figure out how to become more and more efficient in human-human transmission. I just don't think this makes biological sense.

GUPTA: So in the lab, do you think that that process of becoming more efficient was happening? Is that what you're suggesting? REDFIELD: Yes. Let's just say I have coronavirus that I'm working on, most of us in the lab, we're trying to grow virus, we try to help make it grow better and better and better and better and better and better so we can do experiments and figure out about it. That's the way I put it together.
...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2103/28/csr.02.html
 
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian's Regular Press Conference on March 29, 2021

...

Bloomberg: My question is about the upcoming WHO report. Top Biden administration officials on Sunday expressed concern about the WHO report, which is examining the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and said the Chinese side should be more transparent. Speaking to the CNN, Secretary of State Blinken said the US had real concerns about the methodology and the process of the report, including that the Chinese government "helped to write it". What's the foreign ministry's comment on Mr. Blinken's statement on the WHO report?

Zhao Lijian: We never accept the groundless accusations and wanton denigration on the epidemic issue by the U.S. side.

As we have said many times, China was the first to report the epidemic to the World Health Organization, the first to release key information such as the gene sequence of the novel coronavirus, and the first to release the diagnosis, treatment and prevention and control plans. The first suspicious case was reported to local authorities in Wuhan on December 27, 2019. On January 3, 2020, the Chinese side began to inform the US about the epidemic and its prevention and control measures on a regular basis. Since then, the Chinese side has kept the US informed and the two sides have maintained close communication. The U.S. side is well aware of this.

As to origin-tracing studies, the China-WHO joint mission visited nine institutions or sites during their trip for joint research, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They had exchanges with medical staff, researchers, recovered patients, families of deceased medical staff, ordinary people, etc. These arrangements were all made at the request of the joint mission. The Chinese side also presented item by item raw data of particular concern. The WHO and international experts gave positive comments on the joint research, stressing a level of openness they hadn't anticipated. The drafting of the origin-tracing report has been carried out between experts from both China and WHO, and conclusions have been reached through repeated research in a science-based way.

I cannot help but ask, when will the US be as open and transparent as China on the epidemic and origin-tracing issues? When will the WHO experts be invited to the United States for a visit on origin-tracing? When will Fort Detrick be opened for international experts to visit, investigate or study? Is the U.S. side making constant barrage of accusations in order to exert pressure on the members of the joint mission? Could the U.S. side please ask the experts the Chinese government "helped to write" which part of the report? How can anyone call the Chinese government's facilitation of origin-tracing research behind-the-scene manipulation?

...

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1865136.shtml
 
Also expected response. Fyi: No lab inspection - anywhere - that is held one year after the event, is going to yield any results other than manipulations. A complete waste of time.
 
Mike Pompeo
@mikepompeo

The WHO report is a sham continuation of the CCP-WHO disinformation campaign. It?s why I recommended we leave WHO. Dr. Tedros collaborated with Xi to hide human to human transmission at a CRITICAL juncture. WIV remains the most likely source of the virus ? and WHO is complicit.

7:13 AM ? Mar 30, 2021?Twitter for iPhone
 
WHO Director-General's remarks at the Member State Briefing on the report of the international team studying the origins of SARS-CoV-2

30 March 2021
OPENING REMARKS


Honourable Ministers, Excellencies, dear colleagues and friends,

At the World Health Assembly last year, Member States requested that I, as Director-General, carry out a vital and specific task.

In resolution 73.1, you asked me, I quote, ?to work closely with the World Organisation for Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and countries, as part of the One Health approach, to identify the zoonotic source of the virus and the route of introduction to the human population, including the possible role of intermediate hosts, including through efforts such as scientific and collaborative field missions, which will enable targeted interventions and a research agenda to reduce the risk of similar events occurring.?

As you know, an international scientific and collaborative field mission travelled to China in January of this year, and worked with scientists there for four weeks.

The team has now completed its initial studies, and the report was made available to both the WHO Secretariat and Member States over the weekend.

The team of scientists came from around the world: Australia, China, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Qatar, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Viet Nam.

I offer my gratitude to this group of experts from all over the world, who worked tirelessly on this report, under intense pressure. And I would like to thank them for their dedication and commitment.

Now, I would like to invite the co-leads of the international team, Dr Peter Ben Embarek and Professor Liang Wannian, to present their key findings.

Dr Ben Embarek and Professor Liang, thank you so much once again for your collaboration and hard work.

You have the floor.

===

Dr Peter Ben Embarek and Prof Liang Wannian present their findings.

===
CLOSING REMARKS


Thank you, Dr Peter Ben Embarek, Professor Liang and the whole team for sharing your report and presenting your findings.

I welcome your report, which advances our understanding in important ways.

It also raises further questions that will need to be addressed by further studies, as the team itself notes in the report.

As Member States have heard, the report presents a comprehensive review of available data, suggesting that there was unrecognized transmission in December 2019, and possibly earlier.

The team reports that the first detected case had symptom onset on the 8th of December 2019. But to understand the earliest cases, scientists would benefit from full access to data including biological samples from at least September 2019.

In my discussions with the team, they expressed the difficulties they encountered in accessing raw data. I expect future collaborative studies to include more timely and comprehensive data sharing.

I welcome the recommendations for further studies to understand the earliest human cases and clusters, to trace the animals sold at markets in and around Wuhan, and to better understand the range of potential animal hosts and intermediaries.

The role of animal markets is still unclear.

The team has confirmed that there was widespread contamination with SARS-CoV-2 in the Huanan market in Wuhan, but could not determine the source of this contamination.

Again, I welcome the recommendations for further research, including a full analysis of the trade in animals and products in markets across Wuhan, particularly those linked to early human cases.

I concur with the team?s conclusion that farmers, suppliers and their contacts will need to be interviewed.

The team also addressed the possibility that the virus was introduced to humans through the food chain.

Further study will be important to identify what role farmed wild animals may have played in introducing the virus to markets in Wuhan and beyond.

The team also visited several laboratories in Wuhan and considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident.

However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions.

Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy.

We will keep you informed as plans progress, and as always, we very much welcome your input.

Let me say clearly that as far as WHO is concerned all hypotheses remain on the table.

This report is a very important beginning, but it is not the end. We have not yet found the source of the virus, and we must continue to follow the science and leave no stone unturned as we do.

Finding the origin of a virus takes time and we owe it to the world to find the source so we can collectively take steps to reduce the risk of this happening again. No single research trip can provide all the answers.

It is clear that we need more research across a range of areas, which will entail further field visits.

Before I conclude I want to express my thanks to the experts from around the world and China who participated in the report, and look forward to continuing this important work.

Excellencies, as always, we are grateful for your continuing engagement, and we look forward to your questions and comments.

I thank you.

https://www.who.int/director-genera...ional-team-studying-the-origins-of-sars-cov-2
 
Joint Statement on the WHO-Convened COVID-19 Origins Study

MEDIA NOTE

OFFICE OF THE SPOKESPERSON

MARCH 30, 2021

Share
The text of the following statement was released by the Governments of the United States of America, Australia, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom.

Begin Text:

The Governments of Australia, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America remain steadfast in our commitment to working with the World Health Organization (WHO), international experts who have a vital mission, and the global community to understand the origins of this pandemic in order to improve our collective global health security and response. Together, we support a transparent and independent analysis and evaluation, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this regard, we join in expressing shared concerns regarding the recent WHO-convened study in China, while at the same time reinforcing the importance of working together toward the development and use of a swift, effective, transparent, science-based, and independent process for international evaluations of such outbreaks of unknown origin in the future.

The mission of the WHO is critical to advancing global health and health security, and we fully support its experts and staff and recognize their tireless work to bring an end to the COVID-19 pandemic, including understanding how the pandemic started and spread. With such an important mandate, it is equally essential that we voice our shared concerns that the international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples. Scientific missions like these should be able to do their work under conditions that produce independent and objective recommendations and findings. We share these concerns not only for the benefit of learning all we can about the origins of this pandemic, but also to lay a pathway to a timely, transparent, evidence-based process for the next phase of this study as well as for the next health crises.

We note the findings and recommendations, including the need for further studies of animals to find the means of introduction into humans, and urge momentum for expert-driven phase 2 studies. Going forward, there must now be a renewed commitment by WHO and all Member States to access, transparency, and timeliness. In a serious outbreak of an unknown pathogen with pandemic potential, a rapid, independent, expert-led, and unimpeded evaluation of the origins is critical to better prepare our people, our public health institutions, our industries, and our governments to respond successfully to such an outbreak and prevent future pandemics. It is critical for independent experts to have full access to all pertinent human, animal, and environmental data, research, and personnel involved in the early stages of the outbreak relevant to determining how this pandemic emerged. With all data in hand, the international community may independently assess COVID-19 origins, learn valuable lessons from this pandemic, and prevent future devastating consequences from outbreaks of disease.

We underscore the need for a robust, comprehensive, and expert-led mechanism for expeditiously investigating outbreaks of unknown origin that is conducted with full and open collaboration among all stakeholders and in accordance with the principles of transparency, respect for privacy, and scientific and research integrity. We will work collaboratively and with the WHO to strengthen capacity, improve global health security, and inspire public confidence and trust in the world?s ability to detect, prepare for, and respond to future outbreaks.

End Text.

https://www.state.gov/joint-statement-on-the-who-convened-covid-19-origins-study/
 
posted with permission

h/t Jason Gale

(my bolding)



WHO Chief Faults Covid Report for Dismissing Lab Leak Theory (2)
2021-03-30 17:45:15.841 GMT


By Thomas Mulier and Corinne Gretler
(Bloomberg) -- The World Health Organization?s chief said a
mission to study the origins of the coronavirus in China was too
quick to dismiss the theory of a lab leak,
with the U.S. and
other governments joining in criticism of the investigation.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the
probe didn?t adequately analyze the possibility of a lab
accident before deciding it?s most likely the pathogen spread
from bats to humans via another animal.
In a briefing to member
countries Tuesday, he said he is ready to deploy additional
missions involving specialist experts.
?Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is
the least likely hypothesis, this requires further
investigation,? Tedros said in a statement. The WHO chief has
consistently said all lines of inquiry are open, but Tuesday?s
comments mark the first time he?s speculated about the
possibility of an accidental escape.
Afterward, a group of more than a dozen nations issued a
joint statement saying the mission?s report ?lacked access to
complete, original data and samples,?
and called for more
transparency and timeliness in response to future outbreaks.
?We support a transparent and independent analysis and
evaluation, free from interference and undue influence,? of
Covid?s origins, the statement said. ?We join in expressing
shared concerns regarding the recent WHO-convened study in
China.?


Four-Week Trip

The mission?s origin report confirmed what researchers said
in mid-February at the conclusion of their four-week mission to
Wuhan, the central Chinese city where the first Covid cases
emerged at the end of 2019, and in subsequent interviews.
Tedros had been criticized by Donald Trump?s administration
for being too deferential to China in the early days of the
pandemic. Trump even began the process for the U.S. to exit the
WHO, which President Joe Biden reversed on his first day in
office.Tedros said he would expect future studies to involve
quicker and better data-sharing in some of his most pointed
comments directed against China.
The country has pushed back firmly against any suggestions
of a leak from a high-security virus lab in Wuhan, a theory
advanced by Robert Redfield, who led the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention during the first year of the
pandemic.

?No Stone?

?To understand the earliest cases, scientists would benefit
from full access to data, including biological samples from at
least September 2019,? Tedros said. ?We have not yet found the
source of the virus, and we must continue to follow the science
and leave no stone unturned.?

The mission was organized jointly by the WHO and China.
Peter Ben Embarek, co-leader of the trip,
said at a press
conference that the lab hypothesis wasn?t the main focus of the
investigation and so didn?t receive the same depth of attention
and work as other theories. The team didn?t do a full
investigation of the labs, he said.
Suspicion of a possible leak in Wuhan was ?logical
speculation by everyone? at the onset of the pandemic, but the
team couldn?t find any firm proof or evidence of it, Ben Embarek
said.
?It?s not impossible that that would have happened,? he
said. ?This is a dynamic process. Nothing is cast in stone.?

Outside China

Ben Embarek said his team would also be interested in
studying whether the origin of the virus might lie beyond
China?s borders, and that they were ?following the evidence.?

(China gov media suggested there will be evidence "found" in an adjacent country. link link s.s.)


?Of course there was political pressure from all sides,?
Ben Embarek said. ?But we had no problem working in an open
environment. We were never pressured to remove critical elements
from the report.?
The statement critical of the mission was released by the
governments of the U.S., Australia, Canada, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, the
Republic of Korea, Slovenia, and the U.K.

To contact the reporters on this story:
Thomas Mulier in Geneva at tmulier@bloomberg.net;
Corinne Gretler in Zurich at cgretler1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Eric Pfanner at epfanner1@bloomberg.net
Anne Pollak
 
Given the political pressure from the West there will have to be a follow-up on the lab leak hypothesis and I welcome it. The report, when it is published, is going to say bat to animal intermediary first, bat to human second and lab leak third but will not have any definitive answer. I still think it will be bat to human and no intermediary host will be found but we are all guessing based on slim data. There may never be a firm conclusion and I do not expect a firmish conclusion for 3 or more years and only then if there is a significant investment in sampling the bat, pre 2020 human cases and potential intermediary host reservoir.
 
Home > Press and Media Service > Spokesperson's Remarks > Regular Press Conference

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying's Regular Press Conference on March 31, 2021

...
Bloomberg: I have two questions. First, WHO's Director General has said the virus probe didn't adequately analyze the possibility of a lab accident before deciding that it's most likely the pathogen spread from bats to humans via another animal. In a briefing to member countries yesterday he said he is ready to deploy additional missions involving specialist experts. Does the foreign ministry have a comment on this?
...
Hua Chunying: On your first question, the Chinese side has mad clear its position on the origin-tracing study report released by WHO. China has taken note of the report released by WHO. We commend the Chinese and international experts who have taken part in this joint study for their commitment to science, tireless industry and professionalism.

China has always been a supporter for global scientific research on the source of the virus and its transmission routes. We co-sponsored the WHA resolution on COVID-19 and support WHO-led cooperation on zoonotic source research among member states. Despite the daunting task of domestic prevention and control, China twice invited WHO experts in for study of origins. The Chinese side offered necessary facilitation for the team's work, fully demonstrating its openness, transparency and responsible attitude.

Study of origins is a matter of science, which should be jointly conducted by scientists all over the world. To politicize this issue will only severely hinder global cooperation in study of origins, jeopardize anti-pandemic cooperation, and cost more lives. It would run counter to the international community's aspiration for solidarity against the virus.

Study of origins is also a global mission that should be conducted in multiple countries and localities. We believe the joint WHO-China study will effectively stimulate global cooperation in origin-tracing.

As to your remarks that Director-General Tedros said the possibility of lab leak cannot be completely ruled out and they need further study, I want to say that in the China-WHO COVID-19 origin-tracing joint study, experts of the joint mission made field trips to institutions including the Hubei Provincial Center for Disease Control, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and visited biosafety laboratories and had in-depth and candid exchanges with experts there. Through these field trips and in-depth visits, members of the mission unanimously agreed that the allegation of lab leaking is highly unlikely, and this is an important scientific conclusion made clear in the joint study report released this time.

I want to stress that China is conducting joint scientific research on origin-tracing with the WHO at the request of the latter. All parties should respect science and the opinion and conclusion of scientists. The WHO, in particular, should set a good example in this regard.

As for the question of further research, I think you may also note that in the video press conference of the WHO mission, the experts said that there has always been speculation about lab leak, but after earnest study in China, no suspicious signs have been found. They took a detailed look at the management of the laboratory, its working practices and recent virus research, and concluded that a "lab leak" was "extremely unlikely". They added that work could be done with laboratories around the world if there is further evidence that the hypothesis needs to be reassessed.

As I said yesterday, there is always a question mark over lab leak. The expert team had an in-depth study in Wuhan, and we also know there are many reports of early outbreaks various many places around the world. In addition to Fort Detrick, certain country has more than 200 biological bases around the world. So I think, if necessary, scientists should be allowed to work in a scientific spirit with relevant laboratories around the world. We hope that other relevant countries will cooperate closely with WHO experts in a scientific, open, transparent and responsible manner, as China has done. We believe this serves the interest of the world. Because everyone wants answers so that we can better respond to similar public health crises in the future.
...

Kyodo News Agency: A follow-up on the WHO report. Yesterday 14 countries including the US released a statement expressing their concern and raising questions over the report of the WHO-China joint study. Do you have a comment?

Hua Chunying: We repeated many times that the study of origins is a scientific matter that should be conducted jointly by scientists all over the globe and should not be politicized. This is a consensus of the overwhelming majority of countries in the world. The US assembled a handful of countries and released this so-called statement, openly questioning and negating the joint report of the joint WHO-China study. This is solid evidence of their disregard for science and political manipulation of study of origins. The US has been working on this, even before the report came out, but with little support. It is deeply immoral to politicize study of origins in this way. Such unpopular move will only hamper global cooperation in tracing the origins, jeopardize international anti-pandemic cooperation, and cost more lives. It runs counter to the international community's aspiration for solidarity against the virus. This is crystal clear to the overwhelming majority of countries in the world. Such attempts will not succeed. Relevant countries should ask themselves: how did you do in the fight against COVID-19 and what have you done for global anti-epidemic cooperation?

AFP: I have a follow-up question on the comments by the WHO chief, who called yesterday for another investigation into the Wuhan Institute of Virology. So will China open a new WHO investigation into the Wuhan Institute of Virology?

Hua Chunying: I think your quote may not be accurate. According to the reports on the press briefing of the joint mission, the expert group said that there has been suspicion of a lab leak but with earnest research, the experts found no suspicious signs. The experts had candid and in-depth discussion with relevant personnel on the Chinese side and they learned in detail the management practice, working protocols and recent virology research of relevant labs. They think it is extremely unlikely that the virus is leaked from the lab. If there is further evidence that require necessary re-assessment of this hypothesis, they will carry out the work on relevant laboratories across the world.

That is why I said the expert panel believes that it is extremely unlikely that the virus escaped from the lab in Wuhan and this possibility is basically ruled out. But given that origin-tracing is a complex issue and that conclusions should be reached by scientists on the basis of facts, the experts said that if there is further evidence that requires necessary re-assessment of this hypothesis, they will carry out the work on relevant laboratories across the world. Therefore, we hope relevant countries can cooperate with WHO expert mission in an open, transparent and responsible manner like China did.

You may have noticed that the experts also said that the virus may have been spread in places other than China early on. This is one more reason that a global perspective is needed to carry out the origin-tracing work in multiple countries and sites. The report also proposes multiple tasks to be conducted worldwide. We hope the US and relevant countries can work with WHO in a science-based way like China did.

The Paper: The WHO said that the team "expressed the difficulties they encountered in accessing raw data. I expect future collaborative studies to include more timely and comprehensive data sharing". I wonder if China has any response?

Hua Chunying: After China and WHO agreed on the Terms of Reference (TOR) in July last year, China organized a large number of institutions and manpower to carry out data collection, collation, and analysis in accordance with the suggestions of the foreign experts. In the process of the joint mission, the Chinese and foreign experts also carried out a joint analysis of the data. To prepare for the scientific exchange and cooperation, the Chinese authorities gathered relevant institutions and several hundred scientists to collect, collate data and conduct initial analysis. The Chinese side also presented item by item raw data of particular concern. The international experts have also said on many open occasions that they had full and candid discussions with the Chinese side with regard to data issues. As the medical files contain a large amount of information which is personal privacy, relevant data are not allowed by law to be copied or taken abroad, which is common practice in many countries. The international experts said they completely understand. At yesterday's press conference, they reiterated this point. Going forward, China stands ready to continue working with international experts to jointly study and analyze the data.

China Daily: Some Western countries have accused the Chinese government of interfering in the WHO team's work, leading to a lack of independence, professionalism and transparency of the mission. Do you have a response?

Hua Chunying: The 17 international experts who came to China were all selected by the WHO. Most are from Western countries including the US, the UK, France and Australia. China didn't raise any objection to the makeup of the team. As a matter of fact, the Chinese government did a lot of administrative, technical and logistic support work for this joint study of origins, offered the team every convenience, and arranged a rich itinerary with many site visits. The experts on the mission made their own decisions independently as to where they would like to visit, who they would like to talk to and what they would like to talk about as the field work proceeded. The report is also drafted by the mission independently. It is just absurd to allege any sort of interference. Several international experts have said on multiple occasions that they visited all the places they wanted to go and met with all the people they wanted to see, speaking highly of China's openness and transparency.

Those outsiders who never took part in the joint study are now accusing the team of being interfered. This is highly frivolous and irresponsible. They want to muddy the waters by making up and spreading rumors to achieve their hidden political purposes. We can all see this very clearly.

Besides the origin-tracing issue, some in the West also have preconceptions with presumption of guilt on other issues, including on Xinjiang. As long as what they see does not conform to their imagination or conjecture, they will label it as results of intervention, the lack of independence and transparency. Facts have proved that every time they make such statements, they will be slapped in the face again and again by the facts. I hope that the relevant people can still show some respect for facts and give up such a bad practice or attempt of political manipulation.
...

Wall Street Journal: Another follow-up question on Dr. Tedros' remarks on the need for further investigation into the possibility of a laboratory incident being behind the leak of the virus. Are you saying that China will not allow any further investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology or other Chinese laboratories? Or are you saying that it will only allow that if there is also investigation of the laboratories in other countries, including in the United States. Second question, do you have any response to the European Union's statement on the Wuhan mission which also expressed regrets over delays and the lack of access and called for an independent and transparent investigation. And thirdly, do you have any information on when the phase two studies of this global study will begin. Is China already working on some parts of that. If so, which parts?

Hua Chunying: In fact, I almost covered all three questions you asked in my previous replies. On your first question, I need to correct you on that this is not an investigation, it's a scientific joint study on COVID-19 origin-tracing. China's attitude has always been open, transparent, candid and responsible. As I just mentioned, the joint mission already visited various biosafety laboratories including the WIV. Through in-depth, candid scientific research and field visits, they basically ruled out the hypothesis of lab leak, deeming it as extremely unlikely. This conclusion is drawn after in-depth scientific study and joint research in Wuhan, and is also a definite and important conclusion in the joint report. As to whether this possibility exists or not, as I said just now, the experts have made it clear that if there is further evidence to warrant a reassessment, related work can also be carried out in relevant laboratories around the world.

As you all know, they've looked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and done some research. So when will the US biological base at Fort Detrick, with a big question mark over it, allow international experts in for a visit? It seems that the US media have avoided covering this issue since the outbreak of the epidemic. In June 2019, there were reports in the US media about this, but later on we could hardly see any. Why is that?Haven't you American media always had a good tradition of getting to the bottom of things, following the facts, and doing in-depth investigative reports? Why do the media, which are so good at this kind of investigative reporting, now remain silent?

As far as China is concerned, our attitude is consistent. We have always been open, frank and aboveboard, and have welcomed the expert group to visit Wuhan. We also invited US media to visit and interview the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If necessary, we also hope that the US side can show such a candid and cooperative gesture as China did.

On your second question, like I said just now, the international experts who came to China this time were selected by the WHO, and most of them came from the US, the UK, France, Australia and other Western countries. China has not raised any objection to the composition of the team. How could anyone say we intervene in this? As I said just now, some Western countries are really used to preconceived ideas. Whenever they fail to achieve their goals and see conclusions that are not what they want, they will make accusations of lack of independence, openness and transparency. But what is the truth? How are they doing on their own?

As for your third question, I have just answered it. The joint mission has pointed out that the origin-tracing work should take a global perspective. The relevant work going forward will not be limited to a certain field, but needs to be carried out in multiple countries. The joint report also proposed a number of future origin-tracing tasks worldwide.

I think the origin-tracing is a bit like solving a criminal case, and there are a lot of confusing clues. It is necessary to eliminate all kinds of superficial issues and find out the essence from all kinds of signs. We can neither wrong a good man nor spare a bad man. All the clues that are worth investigating should be closely grasped. Some Western countries are now trying to interfere with the work of scientists. Such political interference is highly irresponsible and frivolous.

We still maintain that this work should be left to scientists, without any political interference or bias in attempt to disrupt the normal work of scientists. This is a responsible attitude we should assume, towards the whole mankind. Let scientists figure out what the problem really is so we can deal with it more effectively in the future.

Follow-up: Just to clarify my third question, I was talking about the phase two studies that are recommended in the report from the joint WHO China mission. This is the report that has been endorsed also by the Chinese side. It calls for several further steps, including closer analysis of potential earlier cases from before December 2019. Dr. Tedros again in his meeting with member states yesterday, said that it was necessary to get full access to data, including biological samples from at least September 2019. My question is, when do those phase two studies begin or if they have already begun? What work is already being done?

Hua Chunying: As I said just now, this is a matter for scientists, and I don't have the right to decide when or whether to do it. I would also like to remind you that the head of the WHO joint mission Peter Ben Embarek also mentioned in the video press conference that the virus could have been present outside of China in the early stage. Studies published in other countries also suggest the possibility of earlier transmission and more efforts should be made to study these papers. Therefore, the joint mission pointed out that the origin-tracing work should be based on a global perspective, and not be limited to a single region. It needs to be carried out in multiple places in various countries. As for when to start, we should leave this task to international experts and WHO. Don't be too hasty and don't try to intervene. That's the right attitude.
...
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1865988.shtml
 
Back
Top Bottom