COVID-19 animal origin scientists now point toward raccoon dogs as lab leak hypothesis grows

A group of scientists who have long pushed the theory that COVID-19 may have emerged from a Wuhan, China, wet market has now pushed fresh claims involving raccoon dogs that have not been peer-reviewed — after the Wuhan lab leak possibility gained credence in recent weeks.

Thursday will see both the Atlantic The New York Times Published stories claiming that raccoons sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, Wuhan may have been an intermediary for COVID-19.

FAUCI PROMPTED EFFORT TO CAST DOUBT ABOUT WUHAN LAB LOAK IN EARLY 2020 EMAILS

Scientists did not publish or peer-review their findings, but instead described them to the media.

However, the raccoon-dog theory has only been confirmed after more robust intelligence assessments over the past weeks. These assessments point to Wuhan’s Wuhan lab as the source for the outbreak that led to a pandemic.

According to the new article, scientists Kristian Andersen and Eddie Holmes, Michael Worobey (Angela Rasmussen), Stephen Goldstein, Stephen Worobey, and Florence Debarre were cited as having been involved in the analysis or discovery of the alleged Chinese data.

The New York Times Holmes, Andersen and Worobey “started mining the new genetic data last week” Rasmussen, Goldstein are also available. “worked on the new analysis.”

Chinese government scientists had published their own study in February 2022 on this issue. New York Times Thursday’s news reported that Debarre had discovered new data from the Chinese Center for Disease Control (GISAID) last week. The data were then allegedly removed by international scientists who began asking questions.

Richard Ebright is the Waksman Institute of Microbiology lab director at Rutgers University. He told the Washington Examiner Friday, the raccoon dogs claim “adds little to the discussion” Because “the data do not indicate that a raccoon dog was infected with SARS-Cov-2, much less that a raccoon dog was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and then transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to a human.”

Ebright said that “the claim should not be taken at face value” Partly because of the data in the article “not been made available for analysis.”

Five of the scientists — Andersen, Holmes, Rasmussen, Worobey, and Goldstein — were authors of a controversial study whose preprint was also shared with and written about by the New York Times Debarre was thanked for his contribution in the acknowledgments to the study, February 2022.

Preprint February 2022 claimed that their analyses “provide dispositive evidence for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 via the live wildlife trade and identify the Huanan market as the unambiguous epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.” Also, the preprint claimed that there was “incontrovertible evidence” Of a “clear conduit” natural emergence in the wet markets. However, none of these claims were included in the final version of the paper. Science In July 2022, after a peer-review.

According to the five scientists, “we thank” Debarre “for comments and assistance” When the peer-reviewed version of the book was published last summer.

Ebright claimed that “their track record of past false claims on the subject warrants extreme caution about their new claims on the subject, especially claims for which the data are not presented.”

The New York Times Article, titled “New Data Links Pandemic’s Origins to Raccoon Dogs at Wuhan Market,” Benjamin Mueller, a coronavirus reporter, wrote the article. The article acknowledged that the data were incorrect. “does not prove that a raccoon dog itself was infected” That and more “someone infected with the virus could have spread the virus to a raccoon dog.”

Mueller is also the author of the February 2022 article. “New Research Points to Wuhan Market as Pandemic Origin.”

Christopher Wray, FBI Director Confirmed Last month, the bureau revealed that it had long believed COVID-19 was originated in a Chinese government laboratory. The Energy Department believes in “low confidence” That The Wuhan lab was the first to develop the coronavirus.

In 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence published an assessment stating that the FBI was the only U.S. intelligence agency. Assessed with “moderate confidence” COVID-19 Most likely, it was the Wuhan lab. While four U.S. intelligence agencies and the National Intelligence Council believed in just, “low confidence” COVID-19 was most likely of natural origin.

Andersen, a Scripps Research Professor, has previously written to Nature In February 2020, he and others were featured in a magazine. “prompted” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the then-director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and others, who were unable to discredit the laboratory leak theory.

The most cited article Publiziert In Nature In March 2020, it was suggested that SARS-CoV-2 had developed suspicious binding receptors. “natural selection” It is not a laboratory leak. There is some doubt that COVID-19 may have originated in a Wuhan lab.. Andersen was also a co-author of the Nature Article written by Holmes, a British virus researcher.

Emails that were previously published include Notes from a conference call on February 1, 2020 At least 11 scientists, Holmes and Andersen included, had theorized about the virus’s origin. Many lean towards the laboratory leak. Emails show that Dr. Francis Collins was the former director of the National Institutes of Health. Worked To Close This is the conclusion.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Maria Van Kerkhove (technical lead for COVID-19 at the World Health Organization) stated Friday that the raccoon dogs claim was unfortunately. “doesn’t give us the answer of how the pandemic began, but it does give us more clues.”

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, “These data could have — and should have — been shared three years ago.”