The U.S. Department of Energy has updated its previously undecided position on the origin of the pandemic coronavirus, saying it was most likely caused by a laboratory accident, according to a classified intelligence document first reported by The Wall Street Journal. High and “Low Confidence” states. Sunday.
The change reignites a bitter, often partisan debate over the elusive beginning of SARS-CoV-2’s global devastation. This argument is largely fueled by insufficient evidence on both sides.
Still, the Department of Energy, which runs national laboratories, is in the minority. Of his eight elements of the intelligence community that have considered information about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, only two of them currently lean towards the so-called “Laborique” hypothesis. Another, according to the WSJ, is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which concluded with “medium confidence” in 2021 that the pandemic was caused by a lab leak. It is unknown whether
In contrast, four other intelligence agencies and the National Intelligence Council have identified the virus’ natural hosts (e.g., bats) before making the leap to humans.
The two remaining intelligence agencies concluded that there was not enough data to formulate either a laboratory leak or a contagion hypothesis.
All intelligence agencies agree that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed as a bioweapon and that Chinese authorities did not foresee the virus prior to its appearance in Wuhan in late 2019.
limited data
Many virologists and epidemiologists believe that natural spillover infection is most likely, and have focused on epidemiological and genetic data pointing to this scenario. Two studies published in 2014 showed that two virus lineages of SARS-CoV-2 spread to humans in two independent events. Wuhan’s seafood wholesale market, especially the section of the market where wildlife and virus-positive environmental samples are concentrated. Taken together, the data and analysis suggest that the market included animals or groups of animals harboring SARS-CoV-2 that have not been identified so far, although this may be due to market participants It has been a long-term source of infection. And the virus has taken off from there.
But staunch proponents of the Laboleek hypothesis argue that the market served as the setting for a super-spreader event rather than the origin of the spillover. A 2021 intelligence report suggesting that a patient was hospitalized with some illness in November 2019, and a vague U.S. State Department telegram discussing biosafety issues at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2018. often pointed out.
There remains no confirmed evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 precursor virus was present in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
“Not a definitive answer”
It’s unclear how the Department of Energy’s stance on the lab leak hypothesis has changed, three years after the pandemic began, and the stream of new evidence has largely dried up. The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported that the agency’s position was updated with new information pulled from the national lab network. Some of it involves biological research. A CNN source noted that the Energy Department’s new classified report on the matter is “similar” to information from a House Republican Intelligence Committee report released last year.
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan declined to confirm or deny the Energy Department’s latest view on the origins of the coronavirus, in an interview on CNN Sunday. union statusSullivan highlighted the lack of consensus.
“Intelligence agencies have different views,” he said. “Some elements of the intelligence community have reached a conclusion on one side and some on the other. rice field.
“But at the moment there is no definitive answer given by intelligence agencies on this issue,” he said.
