One problem with the lab leak theory is that it assumes that the Chinese are lying or hiding, a position inconsistent with a joint scientific effort. For example, the WHO team never asked to see the offline database. Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, who has collaborated with Uhan Lab for many years and funded some of its work, says there is no evidence behind the lab theory. “If you firmly believe [that] What we hear from our Chinese colleagues in the labs may not be true, we will never be able to blow it up, “he said of lab theory.” That’s the problem. In short, this theory is not a conspiracy theory. But people have argued that the Chinese side conspired to cover the evidence. “
For those who are at risk of a lab crash, including Atlantic Council technology and national security partner Jamie Metzl, the WHO team is not prepared to determine what kind of forensic investigation it deems necessary. “Everyone in the world is a partner,” he said. “It’s insane that a year later, there is no investigation into the source of the epidemic.” In February, Metzel published a Statement In it, he said he was “shocked” by the rapid rejection of lab hypothesis investigators and called for Dashak to be removed from the team. Several days later, WHU Director-General Tedros Adhanom Gherbias appeared to threaten the source team in a speech, where he said, “I want to make it clear that all hypotheses are open and need further study.”
The scene in which the WHO-China team said it was considered the most probable was the “mediation” theory, where a bat virus infected another wild animal that was then caught or fed for food. There is the strongest example of mediating theory. Not only in the case of SARS, but in 2012 researchers discovered Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), a deadly lung infection caused by another coronavirus and quickly detected it in dromedary camels.
The problem with this hypothesis is that Chinese researchers have not been able to find a “direct expatriate” of the virus in any of the animals they are looking at. Liang said 50,000 animal samples, including 1,100 bats, were tested in Hubei Province, China, where Wuhan is located. But no luck: the Melano virus has not yet been found.
The Chinese team seems to strongly support the idea of inter-animal life: the virus can reach Uhan through shipments of frozen food, including frozen wild animals. This “cold chain” hypothesis may be appealing because it means that the virus came thousands of miles away, even outside of China. “We think it’s a legitimate option,” said Marion Kopmans, a Dutch virologist who traveled with the group. He said China tested 1.5 million frozen samples and found the virus 30 times. “It’s no surprise that in the midst of the outbreak, when the Hon’ble People handle these products,” Kopmans said. “But the WHO research requested that the virus spread over the fish, freeze it and melt it and create a culture of the virus. So it is possible. You can’t blow it up. ”
The WHO-China team, in its final report, is expected to suggest further research. The subject matter of the report is important; It can determine which questions are asked and which are not.
There is likely to be a greater effort to identify the wildlife business, including the supply chain of frozen products. In addition to animal evidence, Ben Embarec added that China should make greater efforts to identify people infected with Kovid-19 early, but that it was probably incomplete or not tested. This can be done by hunting through blood bank samples, using more sensitive technology to detect antibodies. “We need to look for elements that can give insights into the early days of events,” Ben Embrack said. In addition, the report may call for the creation of a master database that includes all data collected so far.
In the end, we don’t want to know what happened in the search for the cause of the Covid-19 crash. We have something to blame – or someone else. And each conjecture points to an individual offender. To ecologists, the lesson of the epidemic comes to an earlier conclusion: human encroachment on wildlife should be stopped. “We understand that this type of investigation is not only indeed for human illness but also for an interface between humans and animals – it initiates a fairly comprehensive discussion of how we use the world,” said John Watson, British epidemiologist
Meanwhile, Chinese authorities are already taking action on the mediation theory by imposing liability on wildlife farmers and traders. Last February, According to NPR, China’s legislature begins taking steps to “uproot the harmful habit of eating wild animals”. They are under the direction of President Xi Jinping Already banned Large numbers of “terrestrial wildlife” have been hunted, traded and consumed, never fully implemented after the original SARS outbreak. According to A report of nature, The Chinese government has already shut down 12,000 businesses, deleted one million websites with information on wildlife trade, and banned the cultivation of bamboo rats and civets, among other species.
Then the opportunity Covid-19 was the result of a laboratory accident. If true, it would have the most devastating consequences, especially for those scientists who were responsible for finding the source of the virus. If the epidemic occurs as a result of ambitious, high-tech research on dangerous germs, it could mean that China’s rapid growth as a biotech powerhouse is a threat to the world. This means that this type of science should be strictly banned or even banned in China and elsewhere. More than any other conjecture, the government-sponsored technology program is an initial attempt to cover up the outbreak – leading to retaliation. “If it’s a man-made disaster, I think the world should take revenge,” said Miles Yu, an analyst at the Conservative Hudson Institute. “
According to some former virus chasers, what is actually in the WHO-China source report may be different from what we have heard so far. Schnoor said the Chinese probably already know a lot more from our ideas, so the team could have a role to play in finding ways to shed light on these issues. It’s a process he calls “part diplomacy and part epidemic.” He believes China’s investigation was probably very significant and that foreign visitors may have a stronger opinion than they still have.
As he mentioned, “What you say at the press conference may be different from what you said in the report after you left the country.”