A panel of scientists debated fiercely Tuesday whether COVID-19 originated in a laboratory accident or spread naturally from animals to humans, with one expert saying there was “zero” evidence for a natural origin of the pandemic that has killed millions of people around the world.
Rutgers University molecular biologist Dr. Richard Ebright, said in an opening statement before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that “overwhelming evidence points to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, entering humans through research events.”
Ebright, who participated in disputing the so-called “laboratory leak theory” by Dr. Stephen Quay, a former professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine, added that “no – zero – secure evidence points to the natural origin of COVID.”
“The probability that this actually comes from nature based on these features is one in a million,” Quay said.
COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan, China, more than 800 miles from “the closest bat that harbors the direct SARS-CoV-2 virus that could be a progenitor,” he said.
The now-blocked Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) conducted US-funded research on SARS-like bat viruses between 2014 and 2021.
During that research period, WIV conducted “the world’s largest research program on bat SARS virus” and had “the largest collection of bat SARS virus in the world,” Ebright added.
In addition, the Rutgers prof said, the Wuhan lab had conducted experiments with the SARS virus that had “high pandemic potential” in the four years before COVID-19 – and just a year earlier, had conducted research with a genetically modified SARS virus “that matches in detail features of SARS-CoV-2.
The research was funded by a more than $4 million National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant to the since-suspended Manhattan public health nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, with about half a million dollars flowing directly to WIV.
EcoHealth lost its status as a recipient of a federal grant due to the possibility of violating biosafety standards with the WIV project, entitled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” and could not immediately report the experiment, which resulted in a modified virus 10,000 times more infectious.
EcoHealth, led by Dr. Peter Daszak, denied that the experiment was gain-of-function research – despite testimony from NIH deputy director Dr. Lawrence Tabak last month stated that there is.
Quay said in his introduction that scientists “depending on NIH or NIAID funding may feel pressured to conform to orthodoxy,” such as denying that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a research laboratory.
This prompted one of the panel’s other witnesses, Dr. Robert Garry, who has received NIH funding and written controversial scientific papers – was asked by the Director of the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr. Anthony Fauci – in early 2020 to refute the lab leak theory.
Ebright in his opening speech noted that the paper, “Proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” published in March 2020 was an “opinion piece,” not supported by available evidence, and contradicted by “personal communications” of the author released last year by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
“The four authors of the paper,” he said, “in private communications clearly indicated that they knew the conclusions they expressed in the article were invalid.”
Scientists have twice called for the paper to be retracted, Ebright added, suggesting that the authors committed “scientific misconduct” and were potentially fraudulent.
Both Garry, professor and associate dean at Tulane University School of Medicine, and Gregory Koblentz, associate professor and director of the Biodefense Graduate Program at George Mason University, disputed the theory during the Senate hearing.
“I believe the available evidence indicates that the spill occurred naturally at a seafood market in Wuhan, China,” Garry testified, without immediately explaining the evidence that led him to that conclusion.
In a follow-up question, the Tulane professor admitted that “we don’t know” whether WIV has the virus, and “we don’t have any evidence from the Chinese” that points either way.
“I am first and foremost a scientist, and I will adhere to the scientific method, so I will continue to evaluate the evidence and re-evaluate the validity of scientific hypotheses about origins since I have spoken to you,” Garry told the panel members. , adding later that he still stands by his 2020 paper disputing the lab leak.
“Natural spillovers have multiple markets,” Quay said at another point, referring to facts related to the previous SARS virus that spread in China from 2002.
Koblentz noted that the US intelligence community remains “divided” about the origin of COVID-19, but the theory that it was “deliberately developed as a biological weapon has been rejected by all US intelligence agencies.”
A rare bipartisan congressional investigation into the origins of COVID was led by the committee’s chairman, Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and ranking member, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is also a physician.
“The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the worst public health crises our country has ever faced,” Peters said in an opening statement. “We lost more than 1 million Americans to this virus. … Today’s hearing is intended to examine the scientific evidence related to this virus.
“Given the possibility that the Chinese government will not disclose all information about the early COVID-19 outbreak, we must use the available scientific information to prepare for potential future pandemics,” Peters said.
Paul in his opening speech highlighted the “personal skepticism” of many opponents of the lab leak – which skeptics of the natural origins of the “conspiracy theory.”
“The shutdown goes beyond public statements, federal agencies and key officials are being held back and they continue to withhold important information from Congress and the public,” Paul said, thanking Peters for joining him to lead the committee hearing.
“HHS and NIH have not produced the documents related to the functional research that the chairman and I requested more than a year ago,” he added, “and they are still refusing.”
