Category: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Source: The Conversation – France – By Florence Débarre, Directrice de recherche CNRS, chercheuse en biologie évolutive, Sorbonne Université

In a January 24 interview with the far-right-wing outlet Breitbart News, newly appointed CIA director John Ratcliffe stated that assessing intelligence on a potential Wuhan lab leak was a top priority. The following day, The New York Times reported that the agency had shifted from an undecided stance to favoring a possible Chinese lab leak, albeit with a “low confidence” rating–the lowest on a three-tier scale (low, medium, high)–indicating the evidence remains inconclusive.

The CIA has thus joined the ranks of the FBI and the Department of Energy (DOE), which has scientific jurisdiction, in supporting the possibility of a laboratory-related incident.

Findings from a 2023 reportshow that, among the U.S. agencies that have investigated the pandemic’s origins, one remains undecided, while four others, along with the National Intelligence Council, support the natural origin hypothesis.

What does ‘laboratory origin’ really mean?

According to The New York Times, the CIA’s revised assessment is based not on new evidence, but on a reinterpretation of existing data. However, the reasoning behind its reassessment, along with the supporting data, has not been made public, making it impossible to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the agency’s conclusions.

Adding to the complexity, “laboratory origin” is an umbrella term encompassing multiple, sometimes contradictory, scenarios. Confirming CNN’s 2023 report on the Department of Energy’s revised stance, The New York Times notes that while the DOE identifies the Wuhan Center for Disease Control (WCDC) as the outbreak’s likely source, the FBI attributes it to a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). As of now, the CIA has not disclosed which scenario it deems most plausible.

Though WCDC is not an actual research laboratory, some of its employees were participating in wildlife sampling campaigns at the time of the outbreak. In late 2019, WCDC moved to a location close to the Huanan Market. A theory implicating the WCDC confirms evidence that the earliest detected cases are epidemiologically and geographically linked to the market, suggesting the virus emerged naturally.

In contrast, the WIV is a research institute operating across two campuses–one located 12 kilometers from the market and the other, which houses the P4 laboratory, 27 kilometers away. Scenarios implicating the WIV generally posit that “gain-of-function” coronavirus experiments–intended to enhance a virus’s transmissibility or virulence–were conducted under unsafe biosecurity conditions. The WIV is a biosafety level 2 facility, two levels below the high-security P4 standard.

The interactive map above highlights Wuhan laboratories–the two WIV campuses in purple and the WCDC in yellow–and the Wuhan Huanan market in red. Click the symbol in the top left corner to view the legend. Since the WCDC is located near the market, please zoom in to see it.

The Covid-19 virus originated from a single source. If it did escape from a Chinese laboratory, it could not have simultaneously leaked from two separate labs conducting different types of research.

The lab leak scenario, supported by mutually incompatible hypotheses, doesn’t hold up–even before considering theories that the virus was engineered in a U.S. lab and then sent to Wuhan.

Beyond determining the virus’s origin, it is equally important to identify the exact nature of the virus–further complicating the lab-accident hypothesis. Was it a natural occurring virus contracted during a sampling campaign? A laboratory-cultivated virus transferred to cells or animals? Or even a directly genetically modified virus?

Again, SARS-CoV-2 cannot be both a natural virus and the result of lab experiments. Arguments built on conflicting premises do little to strengthen the case for a research-related incident.

No evidence of a laboratory-related incident

The lab-incident hypothesis would carry much more weight if definitive proof emerged that, by late December 2019, a Wuhan laboratory possessed a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2–meaning a virus identical or nearly identical to SARS-CoV-2.

In the case of the 2007 foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in southern England, for example, virus sequencing quickly led investigators to nearby high-security laboratories conducting research on a similar virus. The inquiry ultimately traced the outbreak to faulty effluent pipes at the facilities.

To date, no virus has been identified that could be used in a laboratory as a direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. If the virus did emerge from a research-related incident, two possibilities remain: it was either an uncharacterized natural virus, unknown even to researchers, or it was a previously characterized virus that had not been disclosed–either because it was recently identified or part of a classified program–and is still being kept under wraps by scientists in Wuhan.

Especially if SARS-CoV-2 were the result of genetic engineering. A lab-modified virus would mean its genetic sequence was known before the pandemic and accessible to researchers. However, by 2021, the U.S. intelligence community had determined that researchers at the WIV had no prior knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 before the outbreak. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, concrete data has yet to emerge supporting the hypothesis of laboratory modification.

Theories about a potential lab outbreak have also fueled speculation about external involvement, both within China and abroad. A U.S. Senate committee report put forward an all-Chinese scenario, citing the suspicious 2020 death of a Beijing-based researcher working on a new vaccine.

Other theories center on the NGO EcoHealth Alliance, which collaborated with WIV to collect and study natural coronavirus strains before its funding was abruptly cut off at Donald Trump’s request in Spring 2020. The organization’s president has since been banned from federal funding for five years, facing criticism over oversight issues, including delayed reporting of an experiment on a chimeric coronavirus and failure to provide WIV’s laboratory notebooks.

Among the most high-profile figures implicated in U.S.-based complicity theories is Anthony Fauci, the former White House Covid advisor and head of the agency that funded the EcoHealth Alliance/WIV collaboration. But allegations against Fauci go far beyond simply approving research grants. One narrative claims he deliberately suppressed discussions about the pandemic’s point of origin, pressuring researchers to alter their conclusions in exchange for funding. No evidence has surfaced to support this claim.

Anticipating potential retribution from his successor and the Republican Party, Former President Joe Biden preemptively granted Fauci a presidential pardon. However, newly elected President Donald Trump has since revoked Fauci’s personal security detail, and Republican Senator Rand Paul has vowed to continue efforts to prosecute him.

The natural-origin theory faces hurdles as well

Since these competing lab leak theories have emerged from a lack of conclusive evidence anything is possible. However, available data suggest the virus may have originated naturally from animals sold at the Huanan Market.

Multiple sources, including research from Chinese institutions, support this hypothesis: two early SARS-CoV-2 strains were detected at the market, with the earliest cases reported in homes within the vicinity, even for patients without direct epidemiological links to it, and findings from the Chinese Center for Disease Control (CCDC) indicate that raccoon dogs and masked palm civets–species implicated in earlier SARS outbreaks–were present in the market’s southwest corner, where traces of SARS-CoV-2 were frequently detected.

However, by the time the China CDC team arrived at the Huanan Market–just hours after its closure for sample collection–raccoon dogs and civets were no longer present. As a result, no direct traces of infection were detected, and the definitive evidence some are hoping for may never be uncovered.

But even if such proof were to emerge, it’s unlikely to settle the debate. Additional confirmation would be needed to show that the contamination originated in the animals rather than being a secondary infection transmitted by humans. Moreover, skeptics could argue that the animals themselves came from a laboratory. In other words, the controversy is far from over.

For now, with the new Trump administration focused on finding a culprit, the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic will remain in the spotlight. Senator Rand Paul, now chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC), has made the issue his favorite hobbyhorse.

While declassifying additional information from the U.S. intelligence community could help clarify competing conclusions, there are concerns that the administration’s efforts may unfairly target researchers, potentially resulting in more innocent victims.

Florence Débarre received funding in 2022 from the MODCOV19 platform of the National Institute for Mathematical Sciences and their Interactions (Insmi, CNRS) to model the initial dynamics of an epidemic.

– ref. The ‘lab-leak origin’ of Covid-19. Fact or fiction? – https://theconversation.com/the-lab-leak-origin-of-covid-19-fact-or-fiction-250462