First of all, there is no ‘smoking gun’ revelation in this book. I was startled to realise by the end (at the 65% mark of the Kindle version) that everything relayed by Alina Chan and Matt Ridley is common knowledge, especially if you have been following all of the debates, exposures and revelations on Twitter. I must say that what this book does do very well is collate the wide swathe of this information, scattered as it has been over two years now, and present it in a highly readable, lucid and quite damning account.
What has been established is that six miners fell mysteriously ill in 2012 after removing bat guano in Mojiang. They succumbed to RaTG13, the sarbecovirus sample taken from the copper mine in 2013. This sample was sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which subsequently discovered eight other sarbecoviruses at the mine, representing a previously unknown virus family.
The full genome of RaTG13 was sequenced by 2018. SARS-CoV-2, or Covid-19, was first detected in Wuhan in late 2019, with Lancet reporting that the first coronavirus case was clinically diagnosed on 1 December 2019.
The first SARS-CoV-2 genome was obtained on 27 December 2019, with whistle-blowers at Wuhan Central Hospital sounding the alarm about human-to-human transmission on 30 December 2019. This resulted in a Chinese crackdown on 1 January 2020, with whistle-blower Dr. Li Wenliang (who subsequently died from Covid-19) being interrogated by Chinese police and forced to sign a ‘confession to wrongdoing’.
At this point, all patient samples were ordered destroyed by the Chinese, while Sinopharm was given the go-ahead to start to develop a vaccine. Dr. Zhang Yongzhen uploaded the SARS-CoV-2 genome to the international GenBank database on 7 January 2020. This was initially embargoed until July, can you believe it, but following Dr. Zhang’s 7 January Nature paper, the genome was posted online.
Meanwhile, on 13 January 2020 we had the first Covid-19 case outside of China, a traveller from Wuhan to Thailand. On 14 January 2020, the WHO announced that China had found “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission”. This was, indeed, confirmed by the Chinese government itself on 20 January 2020, with Wuhan going into lockdown on 23 January 2020.
It is quite chilling to read the following passage:
As people around the world watched the drastic measures being taken in Wuhan and other cities in Hubei – emergency hospitals erected at unimaginable speed, cases forcibly isolated in special centres, fifty-six million people locked into their homes for more than two months under harsh restrictions and enforcement – they experienced a mix of envy and horror at the unchallenged power of a totalitarian state to contain a virus outbreak. Few of us realised what was in store for the world.
Despite this now indisputable chain of events, China went to extraordinary measures to conceal the case of the six miners and the very existence of RaTG13. If this was indeed sequenced as early as 2018 – some even suggest 2017 – it could have given the world a heads-up well before Covid-19 became a global pandemic.
What’s more, little to nothing is known of the eight other sarbecoviruses discovered at Mojiang. What is also not known is what transpired between the samples being submitted to the WIV and the eventual outbreak of Covid-19. China has gone to extraordinary measures to restrict access to the mine, with the WHO recently given a highly-sanitised tour of the WIV to reassure an increasingly nervous world that it was not an engineered bioweapon nor the result of an accidental lab leak.
Complicating the picture is the ‘gain of function’ research that the US embarked upon, in conjunction with the WIV, which even received funding from the US itself in this regard. Here the authors, quite rightfully, state that “More voices are calling for a systematic and transparent review of the crucial information that exists outside of China”. This is a veiled reference to the EcoHealth Alliance, which has “closely collaborated with the WIV on the surveillance of bat viruses for many years …”
So can we figure out exactly what happened? Clearly much of China’s obfuscation has been the kneejerk reaction of a totalitarian state unused to the demands of scientific transparency and the swift action needed in the face of such a global crisis. “The reader may want to know what the authors of this book think happened. Of course, we do not know for sure.” This is quickly followed by: “However, we now think it very possible that the pandemic did result from the work of scientists either when collecting samples in the field or when working with those samples in a laboratory.”
Fair enough. The authors do provide a chilling account of accidents and mishaps in BSL 4-level labs, so such a scenario is entirely plausible. But I think it is a step too far to declare that “… the current circumstances and the sparse evidence available demand that natural and laboratory-based origins are both treated as likely.” Prior to this statement, there is the below passage in the book:
One concern, expressed by Alina in a tweet after the press conference, was that the handling of the investigation showed the world that a country could get a free pass if a virus escaped from one its laboratories so long as it took care to give outsiders access to records and data, but simply asserted that all was well.
This statement really jumped out at me, because here the authors clearly take sides in the debate. Their stance is hinted at subtly throughout the book, before it becomes as overtly polemical as the above quote. Much earlier on: “We think – as Alina said on Twitter in May 2020 – ‘there is zero evidence that confirms that the SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 PRRA(R) FCS arose naturally or artificially, but neither scenario can be ruled out.”
The book concludes with two speculative chapters outlining a defence case for and against the lab-leak hypothesis. This seems to give the authors licence to go full conspiracy theory, with such alarming statements as: “… there is no direct evidence of a natural origin of the Covid-19 pandemic.” Plus: “… there has been no explanation of how it came to be so adept at spreading among humans.”
One would think that after setting up the entire book as a mea culpa case for the lab-leak theory, the authors would stick to their guns, but the final chapter contains this back-tracking gem: “But why should the burden of proof be with those who posit a laboratory leak? True, there has been no major pandemic caused by a laboratory leak, so it would be a first.”
More alarming and insidious, however, is the statement below:
Long articles by journalists Nathan Robinson in Current Affiars and Donald McNeil Jr in Medium both made the argument that the political left had been too quick to dismiss the possibility of a laboratory leak. ‘I have often warned that liberals and leftists should be careful not to assume conservatives are always wrong about facts’ …
I was curious as to whether or not my reaction to this book was reflected in other reviews. This from The Washington Post:
One of the things a good professional scientist does is take his or her cherished hypothesis and try to break it every which way, by conducting experiments or hunting for data that does not agree with it. This is a way to avoid confirmation bias, the natural human tendency to hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest. A key property of scientific theories is that they can be proved wrong. Unfortunately, it is hard to imagine such evidence that would convince strong partisans of either laboratory or natural origins. And too much of “Viral” is made up of confirmation bias. Nobody should mistake this book for an evenhanded scientific document.