More suspicion of Covid-19 virus leaking from the laboratory

New research from the University of New South Wales, Australia concludes that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in a laboratory, once again raising controversy about the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Entering the fifth year of the world facing Covid-19, up to now, the widely accepted hypothesis in the scientific community is that the virus causing the pandemic spread naturally from animal origin.

Studies have shown that SARS-CoV-2 has DNA that is 96% similar to coronaviruses found in bats, according to Newsweek.

On the other hand, there are hypotheses related to the virus possibly leaking from the laboratory.

Laboratory leak theory

Scientist bans blood samples infected with Covid-19 at a laboratory in Wuhan, China. (Photo: Newsweek).

In 2020, the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, this was a hypothesis supported by a portion of scientists. However, a collective statement published in the Lancet magazine in February 2020 from 27 scientists condemned 'conspiracy theories implying Covid-19 does not have a natural origin'.

This topic was discussed again recently when a new study from the University of New South Wales, Australia proposed hypotheses about the non-natural origin of SARS-CoV-2.

In a study published in the journal Risk Analysis on March 15, Chandini Raina MacIntyre, the study author, and his colleagues analyzed existing data on the origin of the virus using 11 criteria and scoring algorithms. risk score, to determine which hypothesis is more likely to occur: Natural or unnatural origin.

Evaluation criteria include: Biological risks, characteristics of the virus strain, geographical distribution, rate of spread and mode of transmission.

With this method, the research team concluded that Covid-19 most likely came from the laboratory.

'The natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still possible, but there is no basis to deny the hypothesis of an unnatural origin. In fact, no host or vector has been identified as a source of transmission from animals to humans,' Ms. MacIntyre said.

Controversial conclusion

Ms. MacIntyre's group's research also encountered objections. In the study, the authors strengthen their case by mentioning the 'furin cleavage site' , which is believed to be a unique characteristic of SARS-CoV-2, making it easier for the virus to enter human cells, and has not been detected in similar virus strains.

However, James Wood, co-chair of the Cambridge Interdisciplinary Research Center for Infectious Diseases, UK, said that there have been cases where furin cleavage sites have been reported instead of being unique to SARS-CoV-2.

Mr. Wood said that the above study used unproven methods and the documents contained basic errors.

'This is a misleading, poor quality study with no basis for the conclusions ,' he said.

In the scoring criteria, the authors also brought up the case of a lack of samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 from animals at the Huanan seafood market, Wuhan, even though this was the outbreak point in the early stages of the pandemic.

From there, the team assumed that the virus-positive samples originated from human infections.

Alice Hughes, an associate professor of biological sciences at the University of Hong Kong, argues no live animal samples were collected until the pandemic broke out and it is likely that many animals were culled, so Very few live animals were sampled.

Ms. MacIntyre acknowledged the subjective points of the study, saying that two independent researchers used algorithms to score the possibility of the virus's origin. However, this calculation is not agreed by many people.

'This can hardly be considered research, it is mainly subjective opinions rather than science. It ignores virtually all available evidence. The approach of subjective scoring on 11 criteria has almost no meaning about the origin of Covid-19. Another group of people could also come up with different results ,' said David Robertson, professor of virology at the University of Glasgow, UK.

Mr. Robertson said speculative and subjective studies could be counterproductive, creating misleading information that raises doubts about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2.

The Wall Street Journal in March 2023 detailed a confidential report from the US Department of Energy, suggesting that the virus may have originated from a laboratory leak in Wuhan.

However, this ministry assesses the above information to have 'low reliability' , while the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) considers this information to have 'medium reliability' .