The World Health Organization team that worked with Chinese officials on a 2021 investigation into the origins of COVID-19 backtracked on its plan to release an early summary prior to its full report, with the WHO’s leader saying both would be released simultaneously in mid-March.
Two dozen scientists wrote a letter calling for an independent investigation into how the coronavirus pandemic began in China, arguing the WHO-China joint inquiry in Wuhan in January and early February was flawed due to Chinese influence and a lack of transparency by China’s government. China has worked to thwart investigations into the origins of the virus, which turned into a pandemic that has killed 2.56 million worldwide.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told WHO member states on Thursday that, despite repeated hints beginning in early February that a summary of the findings would be released weeks ahead of the full report, both would be released at the same time.
“I know that many Member States are eager to see the report of the joint WHO-led study on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – and of course so am I. The team is working on its final report as well as an accompanying summary report, which we understand will be issued simultaneously in the week of the 15th of March,” Tedros said. “Rest assured that when the reports are ready, we will ask the expert team to share the reports with Member States ahead of their release, and to brief you on the findings.”
Peter Ben Embarek, head of the WHO group that investigated the origins, said during a video interview last week that “we didn’t do an audit of any of these labs, so we don’t really have hard facts or detailed data on the work done” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He is skeptical of the lab leak hypothesis, but it is “definitely not off the table.”
Embarek told the Wall Street Journal on Thursday that “a summary report does not have all the details, so since there is so much interest in this report, a summary only would not satisfy the curiosity of the readers.”
WHO TEAM LEADER ADMITS NO ‘HARD FACTS OR DETAILED DATA’ RECEIVED FROM WUHAN LAB
“We believe it essential that all hypotheses about the origins of the pandemic be thoroughly examined and full access to all necessary resources be provided without regard to political or other sensitivities,” the two dozen scientists, social scientists, and science commentators argued in their open letter, adding that “there is as yet no evidence demonstrating a fully natural origin of this virus. The zoonosis hypothesis, largely based on patterns of previous zoonosis events, is only one of a number of possible SARS-CoV-2 origins, alongside the research-related accident hypothesis.”
The scientists contended that “structural limitations built into this endeavor make it all but impossible” to uncover the coronavirus origins properly, noting that “half of the joint team convened under that process is made of Chinese citizens whose scientific independence may be limited” and that the investigation was limited by Chinese authorities.
The letter argued that “the joint team did not have the mandate, the independence, or the necessary accesses to carry out a full and unrestricted investigation into all the relevant SARS-CoV-2 origin hypotheses – whether natural spillover or laboratory/research-related incident.”
The Chinese government denies the coronavirus originated in the Wuhan lab and has cast doubt on the idea that it originated in China. It has pushed the hypothesis that the coronavirus might have been originally brought into the country on frozen foods, an allegation experts view with skepticism, and Chinese diplomats pushed baseless claims that it started with the U.S. military.
The letter argued the investigation should be led by “a truly independent team with no unresolved conflicts of interest and no full or partial control by any specific agenda or country.”
The scientists said possible hypotheses should include a “pure zoonosis event” with or without an intermediate host, infection at a sampling site, infection during transport of samples, lab-acquired infection, or lab escape through waste handling or escaped animals. The scientists called for “full or significant access to all sites, records, samples, and personnel of interest,” including Wuhan markets, Wuhan labs, hospital records from fall 2019, and sampling sites.
Matthew Pottinger, former President Donald Trump’s deputy national security adviser, said in February that “the ledger on the side of an explanation that says that this resulted from some kind of human error, it far outweighs the side of the scale that says this was some natural outbreak.”
In early February, Embarek said the possibility that the novel coronavirus might have escaped from the Wuhan lab didn’t merit further inquiry. Days later, Tedros reversed that by saying more study was needed.
While in Wuhan, Embarek announced four main hypotheses: direct transmission from animal to human, transmission through an intermediate species, transmission through frozen foods, and a “laboratory-related incident.” He said a jump from animal to another animal to humans was most likely and an accidental release was “extremely unlikely.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Secretary of State Antony Blinken told PBS this week that “China has not been fully and effectively transparent, either at the start of this crisis, when it mattered most, or even today, as investigations are going forward trying to get to the bottom of what happened.”
National security adviser Jake Sullivan cast doubt on the investigation in February, saying, “We have deep concerns about the way in which the early findings of the COVID-19 investigation were communicated and questions about the process used to reach them.”
Anthony Ruggiero, the former Trump National Security Council’s senior director for biodefense, wrote in Newsweek on Thursday that the Biden administration should “insist the WHO immediately remove Beijing from what is now a joint investigation into the pandemic’s origins” and “lead a public-private review of the WHO report to ensure its objectivity.”
