Leading British and US scientists believed it probable that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus had accidentally leaked from a laboratory in China, but feared that testing this hypothesis would harm the country’s science, according to their e-mails in the Daily Telegraph.
Coronavirus attacks US soldiers. The surge in infections
South Korean Minister of Defense Suh Wook called on Monday for directing “full attention” to maintain defense capabilities in the rapid increase …
Jeremy Farrar, a British scientist infectious diseases and director of the Wellcome Trust Foundation, wrote in an email on 2 February 2020. It “Plausible explanation” of origin is a coronavirus that quickly evolved from a virus similar to SARS within the human tissue in the laboratory with a low level of security. He wrote further that such evolution could “accidentally create a virus prepared to quickly move between people.”
This email addressees were the chief advisor to the US President. Dr. Anthony Fauci medical and then director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Francis Collins.
In emails Farrar wrote that other scientists also believe that the virus could evolve naturally. One of them was prof. Mike Farzan from Scripps Research, an expert who discovered how the original SARS virus binds to human cells.
Scientists were particularly concerned about a part of the coronavirus called the furin cleavage site, part of the spike protein that helps the virus enter cells and makes it so infectious to humans.
“(Farzan) is concerned about the furin (fission) site and has difficulty explaining this as an out-of-lab event, although there are possible ways in nature but very unlikely. I think you should think about how to combine it all do you believe in this series of coincidences, what you know about the lab in Wuhan, how much can be in nature – accidental release or natural event? I estimate it at 70:30 or 60:40 “- Farrar wrote, summarizing the concerns Farzana-mail.
The avalanche of infections in Germany; the number of new cases increased by 50 percent.
Berlin Institute Robert Koch (RKI) reported on Tuesday that in the last day in Germany registered 45 690 new infections …
Subsequent messages showed that February 4 Farrar revised assessment of the likelihood of leakage laboratory to 50:50, while prof. Eddie Holmes of the University of Sydney estimated the possibility of accidental virus release at 60%.
E-mails show that the other scientists were not convinced that the SARS-CoV-2 was made in a natural way. “I just can not imagine how it would have to go in nature” – rated Bob Garry of the University of Texas.
Prof. Andrew Rambaut of the University of Edinburgh wrote that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual.” “I think that only those with sufficient information or access to the samples, which could take care of it, would be teams working in Wuhan” – added.
The e-mails were sent in response to a teleconference between 12 scientists, including the UK government’s chief science advisor, Patrick Vallance, on February 1, 2020. As reported by the Daily Telegraph, they show that already February 2, scientists have tried to close the debate on the theory of leakage laboratory.
WHO: The number of coronavirus infections in the world increased by 55%
The number of coronavirus infections in the world last week increased by 55%. compared to the previous week; deaths from COVID-19 …
Dr. Ron Fouchier wrote to Farrar: “Further debate on such accusations unnecessarily odciągnęłaby top scientists from their current duties and he caused unnecessary harm science in general and science in China in particular. ”
Dr. Collins, the then director of the NIH, replied to Farrar, “I share your view that experts need to be summoned quickly in a trust-building format or else conspiracy theories will quickly become dominant, potentially doing great harm to science and international consensus.”
He noted the “Daily Telegraph”, institutions that have these emails, repeatedly rejected calls for the publication of their content. University of Edinburgh rejected recently sent by this newspaper on the basis of the right to freedom of information request for insight into the response of prof. Rambaut, arguing that “Disclosure of (their) could endanger the physical or mental health and safety of persons.”