Category: Covid-19

BEIJING (AP) The hunt for the origins of COVID-19 has gone dark in China, the victim of political infighting after a series of stalled and thwarted attempts to find the source of the virus that killed millions and paralyzed the world for months.

The Chinese government froze meaningful domestic and international efforts to trace the virus from the first weeks of the outbreak, despite statements supporting open scientific inquiry, an Associated Press investigation found. That pattern continues to this day, with labs closed, collaborations shattered, foreign scientists forced out and Chinese researchers barred from leaving the country.

Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

kAm%96 :?G6DE:82E:@? 5C6H @? E9@FD2?5D @7 A286D @7 F?5:D4=@D65 6>2:=D 2?5 5@4F>6?ED 2?5 5@K6?D @7 :?E6CG:6HD E92E D9@H65 E96 7C66K6 3682? 72C 62C=:6C E92? AC6G:@FD=J F49 2D :?E6C?2E:@?2= 7:?86CA@:?E:?8]k^Am

kAmpD 62C=J 2D y2?] e[ a_a_[ 962=E9 @77:4:2=D 😕 q6:;:?8 4=@D65 E96 =23 @7 2 r9:?6D6 D4:6?E:DE H9@ D6BF6?465 E96 G:CFD 2?5 32CC65 C6D62C496CD 7C@> H@C<:?8 H:E9 9:>]k^Am

kAm$4:6?E:DED H2C? E96 H:==7F= 3=:?5?6DD @G6C 4@C@?2G:CFD @C:8:?D =62G6D E96 H@C=5 GF=?6C23=6 E@ 2?@E96C @FE3C62<[ A@E6?E:2==J F?56C>:?:?8 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^A2?56>:4D>2C:@5C289:CH2?524@C@?2G:CFDA2?56>:44@G:5`hA2?56>:4h3d53`fc`3heb_hcfbe77`6ae_e3cbaeQmA2?56>:4 EC62EJ E2=^2CE:4=6^H9@C64@C5:?8DC6G62=2?2=JD:DA2?56>:47`727ha253_7_a5f3_ag35ad`hh55acaQm(@C=5 w62=E9 ~C82?:K2E:@?k^2m D6E E@ 4F=>:?2E6 😕 |2J]k^Am

kAmpE E96 962CE @7 E96 BF6DE:@? 😀 H96E96C E96 G:CFD ;F>A65 7C@> 2? 2?:>2= @C 42>6 7C@> 2 =23@C2E@CJ 244:56?E] p k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^4@G:5`hF?:E65DE2E6D:?E6==:86?4649:?2ab54356_36debgddefbh3dec646hf_afQm&]$] :?E6==:86?46 2?2=JD:Dk^2m D2JD E96C6 😀 :?DF77:4:6?E 6G:56?46 E@ AC@G6 6:E96C E96@CJ[ 3FE E96 5632E6 92D 7FCE96C E2:?E65 C6=2E:@?D 36EH66? E96 &]$] 2?5 r9:?2]k^Am

kAm&?=:<6 :? E96 &]$][ E96C6 :D G:CEF2==J ?@ AF3=:4 5632E6 :? r9:?2 23@FE H96E96C E96 G:CFD 42>6 7C@> ?2EFC6 @C 7C@> 2 =23 =62<] x? 724E[ E96C6 :D =:EE=6 AF3=:4 5:D4FDD:@? 2E 2== 23@FE E96 D@FC46 @7 E96 5:D62D6[ 7:CDE 56E64E65 :? E96 46?EC2= 4:EJ @7 (F92?]k^Am

kAmrCF4:2= :?:E:2= 677@CED H6C6 92>A6C65 3J 3FC62F4C2ED 😕 (F92? ECJ:?8 E@ 2G@:5 3=2>6 H9@ >:D=65 E96 46?EC2= 8@G6C?>6?Ej E96 46?EC2= 8@G6C?>6?E[ H9:49 >FKK=65 r9:?6D6 D4:6?E:DED 2?5 DF3;64E65 G:D:E:?8 (w~ @77:4:2=D E@ DE286>2?2865 E@FCDj 2?5 E96 &]}] 962=E9 286?4J :ED6=7[ H9:49 >2J 92G6 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^4@G:5`hF?:E65DE2E6D:?E6==:86?4649:?2ab54356_36debgddefbh3dec646hf_afQm4@>AC@>:D65k^2m 62C=J @AA@CEF?:E:6D E@ 82E96C 4C:E:42= :?7@C>2E:@? 😕 9@A6D E92E 3J A=242E:?8 r9:?2[ D4:6?E:DED 4@F=5 82:? >@C6 2446DD[ 244@C5:?8 E@ :?E6C?2= >2E6C:2=D @3E2:?65 3J p!]k^Am

kAmx? 2 72I65 DE2E6>6?E[ r9:?2VD u@C6:8? |:?:DECJ 5676?565 r9:?2D 92?5=:?8 @7 C6D62C49 :?E@ E96 @C:8:?D[ D2J:?8 E96 4@F?ECJ 😀 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^49:?24@G:5@C:8:?D=23=62<34_2a652ghg4aaa`h6dfha`24f__5c64Qm@A6? 2?5 EC2?DA2C6?Ek^2m[ D92C65 52E2 2?5 C6D62C49[ 2?5 >256 E96 8C62E6DE 4@?EC:3FE:@? E@ 8=@32= @C:8:?D C6D62C49] %96 }2E:@?2= w62=E9 r@>>:DD:@?[ r9:?2VD E@A >65:42= 2FE9@C:EJ[ D2:5 E96 4@F?ECJ :?G6DE65 9F86 >2?A@H6C[ >2E6C:2= 2?5 7:?2?4:2= C6D@FC46D 2?5 92D ?@E DE@AA65 =@@<:?8 7@C E96 @C:8:?D @7 E96 4@C@?2G:CFD]k^Am

kAmxE 4@F=5 92G6 A=2J65 @FE 5:776C6?E=J[ 2D D9@H? 3J E96 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^_37d45``e4ad_cgb2gabadbb5c`654ehQm@FE3C62< @7 $p#$k^2m[ 2 86?6E:4 C6=2E:G6 @7 r~'xs`h[ ?62C=J a_ J62CD 28@] r9:?2 :?:E:2==J 9:5 :?764E:@?D E96?[ 3FE (w~ 4@>A=2:?65 DH:7E=J 2?5 AF3=:4=J] &=E:>2E6=J[ q6:;:?8 7:C65 @77:4:2=D 2?5 >256 C67@C>D] %96 &]}] 286?4J D@@? 7@F?5 $p#$ =:<6=J ;F>A65 E@ 9F>2?D 7C@> 4:G6E 42ED 😕 D@FE96C? r9:?2 2?5 :?E6C?2E:@?2= D4:6?E:DED =2E6C 4@==23@C2E65 H:E9 E96:C r9:?6D6 4@F?E6CA2CED E@ A:? 5@H? 32ED 2D $p#$ ?2EFC2= C6D6CG@:C]k^Am

kAmqFE 5:776C6?E =6256CD @7 3@E9 r9:?2 2?5 (w~[ r9:?2D BF6DE 7@C 4@?EC@= @7 :ED C6D62C496CD[ 2?5 8=@32= E6?D:@?D 92G6 2== =65 E@ D:=6?46 H96? :E 4@>6D E@ D62C49:?8 7@C r~'xs`hD @C:8:?D] v@G6C?>6?ED 😕 pD:2 2C6 AC6DDFC:?8 D4:6?E:DED ?@E E@ =@@< 7@C E96 G:CFD 7@C 762C :E 4@F=5 36 EC2465 :?D:56 E96:C 3@C56CD]k^Am

kAmtG6? H:E9@FE E9@D6 4@>A=:42E:@?D[ 6IA6CED D2J :56?E:7J:?8 9@H @FE3C626 G:CFD6D 368:? DAC625:?8]k^Am

kAmxED 5:DEFC3:?8 9@H BF:4<=J E96 D62C49 7@C E96 @C:8:?D @7 Wr~'xs`hX 6D42=2E65 :?E@ A@=:E:4D[ D2:5 |2C< (@@=9@FD6[ 2 &?:G6CD:EJ @7 t5:?3FC89 @FE3C62< 6IA6CE] }@H E9:D BF6DE:@? >2J ?6G6C 36 567:?:E:G6=J 2?DH6C65]k^Am

k9amr{~&s$ ~u $tr#tr*k^9am

kAm$64C64J 4=@F5D E96 368:??:?8 @7 E96 @FE3C62<] tG6? E96 52E6 H96? r9:?6D6 2FE9@C:E:6D 7:CDE DE2CE65 D62C49:?8 7@C E96 @C:8:?D :D F?4=62C]k^Am

kAm%96 7:CDE AF3=:4=J 2C<6E H96C6 >2?J 62C=J r~'xs`h 42D6D DFC72465]k^Am

kAmw@H6G6C[ (w~ @77:4:2=D 962C5 @7 2? 62C=:6C :?DA64E:@? @7 E96 >2C<6E @? s64] ad[ a_`h[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 2 C64@C5:?8 @7 2 4@?7:56?E:2= (w~ >66E:?8 AC@G:565 E@ p! 3J 2? 2EE6?566] $F49 2 AC@36 92D ?6G6C 366? >6?E:@?65 AF3=:4=J 3J 6:E96C r9:?6D6 2FE9@C:E:6D @C (w~]k^Am

kAmx? E96 C64@C5:?8[ (w~D E@A 2?:>2= G:CFD 6IA6CE[ !6E6C q6? t>32C6<[ >6?E:@?65 E96 62C=:6C 52E6[ 56D4C:3:?8 :E 2D 2? :?E6C6DE:?8 56E2:=] w6 E@=5 4@==628F6D E92E @77:4:2=D H6C6 =@@<:?8 2E H92E H2D @? D2=6 :? E96 >2C<6E[ H96E96C 2== E96 G6?5@CD 92G6 =:46?D6D W2?5X :7 E96C6 H2D 2?J :==682= WH:=5=:76X EC256 92AA6?:?8 :? E96 >2C<6E]k^Am

kAmp 4@==628F6 2D<65 q6? t>32C6<[ H9@ :D ?@ =@?86C H:E9 (w~[ :7 E92E D66>65 F?FDF2=] w6 C6DA@?565 E92E :E H2D ?@E C@FE:?6[ 2?5 E92E E96 r9:?6D6 >FDE 92G6 925 D@>6 C62D@? E@ :?G6DE:82E6 E96 >2C<6E] (6== ECJ E@ 7:8FC6 @FE H92E 92AA6?65 2?5 H9J E96J 5:5 E92E]k^Am

kAmq6? t>32C6< 564=:?65 E@ 4@>>6?E] p?@E96C (w~ DE2776C 2E E96 v6?6G2 >66E:?8 😕 =2E6 y2?F2CJ a_a_ 4@?7:C>65 q6? t>32C6>6?ED]k^Am

kAm%96 pDD@4:2E65 !C6DD 4@F=5 ?@E 4@?7:C> E96 D62C49 :?56A6?56?E=J] xE C6>2:?D 2 >JDE6CJ :7 :E E@@< A=246[ H92E :?DA64E@CD 5:D4@G6C65[ @C H96E96C E96J D2>A=65 =:G6 2?:>2=D E92E >:89E A@:?E E@ 9@H r~'xs`h 6>6C865]k^Am

kAmp s64] ad[ a_`h[ :?DA64E:@? H@F=5 92G6 4@>6 H96? (F92? 2FE9@C:E:6D H6C6 2H2C6 @7 E96 >JDE6C:@FD 5:D62D6] %96 52J 367@C6[ 2 =@42= 5@4E@C D6?E 2 D2>A=6 7C@> k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^HHH]?43:]?=>]?:9]8@G^A>4^2CE:4=6D^!|rf`cfafd^Qm2? :== >2C<6E G6?5@C E@ 86E D6BF6?465k^2m E92E EFC?65 @FE E@ 4@?E2:? r~'xs`h] r92EE6C 23@FE E96 F?@?:2 H2D DAC625:?8 😕 (F92?D >65:42= 4:C4=6D[ 244@C5:?8 E@ @?6 5@4E@C 2?5 2 C6=2E:G6 @7 2?@E96C H9@ 564=:?65 E@ 36 :56?E:7:65[ 762C:?8 C6A6C4FDD:@?D]k^Am

kAmp D4:6?E:DE 😕 r9:?2 H96? E96 @FE3C62< @44FCC65 D2:5 E96J 962C5 @7 2 s64] ad :?DA64E:@? 7C@> 4@==23@C2E:?8 G:C@=@8:DED 😕 E96 4@F?ECJ] %96J 564=:?65 E@ 36 ?2>65 @FE @7 762C @7 C6EC:3FE:@?]k^Am

kAm(w~ D2:5 😕 2? 6>2:= E92E :E H2D ?@E 2H2C6 @7 E96 s64] ad :?G6DE:82E:@?] xE 😀 ?@E :?4=F565 😕 E96 &]}] 962=E9 286?4JD @77:4:2= k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^HHH]H9@]:?E^6>6C86?4:6D^5:D62D6D^?@G6=4@C@?2G:CFDa_`h^:?E6C24E:G6E:>6=:?6Qmr~'xs`h E:>6=:?6k^2m]k^Am

kAm(96? 962=E9 @77:4:2=D 7C@> q6:;:?8 2CC:G65 😕 (F92? @? s64] b`[ E96J 564:565 E@ 5:D:?764E E96 >2C<6E 367@C6 4@==64E:?8 D2>A=6D[ 56DEC@J:?8 4C:E:42= :?7@C>2E:@? 23@FE E96 G:CFD] v2@ uF[ 9625 @7 E96 r9:?2 rsr[ >6?E:@?65 :E E@ 2? p>6C:42? 4@==23@C2E@C]k^Am

kAmw:D 4@>A=2:?E H96? x >6E 9:> H2D E92E 2== E96 2?:>2=D H6C6 8@?6[ D2:5 r@=F>3:2 &?:G6CD:EJ 6A:56>:@=@8:DE x2? {:A<:?]k^Am

kAm#@36CE v2CCJ[ H9@ DEF5:6D G:CFD6D 2E %F=2?6 &?:G6CD:EJ[ D2:5 2 s64] ad AC@36 H@F=5 36 9F86=J D:8?:7:42?E[ 8:G6? H92E 😀

kAmq6:?8 23=6 E@ DH23 :E 5:C64E=J 7C@> E96 2?:>2= :ED6=7 H@F=5 36 AC6EEJ 4@?G:?4:?8 2?5 ?@3@5J H@F=5 36 2C8F:?8 23@FE E96 @C:8:?D @7 r~'xs`h[ 96 D2:5]k^Am

kAmqFE A6C92AD =@42= @77:4:2=D D:>A=J 762C65 7@C E96:C ;@3D[ H:E9 >6>@C:6D @7 7:C:?8D 27E6C E96 a__b $p#$ @FE3C62< DE:== G:G:5[ D2:5 #2J *:A[ E96 7@F?5:?8 9625 @7 E96 &]$] r6?E6CD 7@C s:D62D6 r@?EC@= 2?5 !C6G6?E:@? @FEA@DE :? r9:?2]k^Am

kAm%96J H6C6 ECJ:?8 E@ D2G6 E96:C D<:?[ 9:56 E96 6G:56?46[ *:A D2:5]k^Am

kAm%96 (F92? 8@G6C?>6?E 5:5 ?@E C6DA@?5 E@ 2 72I65 C6BF6DE 7@C 4@>>6?E]k^Am

kAmp?@E96C 62C=J G:4E:> H2D +92?8 *@?8K96?[ E96 7:CDE D4:6?E:DE E@ AF3=:D9 2 D6BF6?46 @7 E96 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^`deddc`73`b3e2a7_4gf`6_626_a35f5QmG:CFDk^2m] p 52J 27E6C 96 HC@E6 2 >6>@ FC8:?8 962=E9 2FE9@C:E:6D E@ 24E:@?[ r9:?2D E@A 962=E9 @77:4:2= @C56C65 +92?8D =23 4=@D65]k^Am

kAm%96J FD65 E96:C @77:4:2= A@H6C 282:?DE >6 2?5 @FC 4@==628F6D[ +92?8 HC@E6 😕 2? 6>2:= AC@G:565 E@ p! 3J t5H2C5 w@=>6D[ 2? pFDEC2=:2? G:C@=@8:DE]k^Am

kAm~? y2?] a_[ a_a_[ 2 (w~ 56=682E:@? 2CC:G65 😕 (F92? 7@C 2 EH@52J >:DD:@?] r9:?2 5:5 ?@E 2AAC@G6 2 G:D:E E@ E96 >2C<6E[ 3FE E96J DE@AA65 3J 2 r9:?2 rsr =23 E@ 6I2>:?6 :?764E:@? AC6G6?E:@? 2?5 4@?EC@=AC@465FC6D[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 2? :?E6C?2= (w~ EC2G6= C6A@CE] (w~D E96?r9:?2 C6AC6D6?E2E:G6[ sC] v2F56? v2=62[ E@=5 4@==628F6D 😕 2 AC:G2E6 >66E:?8 E92E :?BF:C:6D 23@FE r~'xs`hD @C:8:?D H6?E F?2?DH6C65]k^Am

kAmqJ E96?[ k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^3hg`62fcc66a2ad7gh4d233_6g4`6ha7Qm>2?J r9:?6D6 H6C6 2?8CJ 2E E96:C 8@G6C?>6?Ek^2m] p>@?8 r9:?6D6 5@4E@CD 2?5 D4:6?E:DED[ E96 D6?D6 8C6H E92E k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^G:CFD@FE3C62<962=E92AE@A?6HD:?E6C?2E:@?2=?6HD49:?24=2>AD5@H?eg2h6`3h`56c774`ee245e_`a5ga4a7hQmq6:;:?8k^2m H2D 9F?E:?8 7@C D@>6@?6 E@ 3=2>6]k^Am

kAm%96C6 2C6 2 76H 425C6D H9@ 92G6 A6C7@C>65 A@@C=J[ !C6D:56?E ): y:?A:?8 D2:5 😕 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^H63]2C49:G6]@C8^H63^a_ab_a`d_h_`bd^9EEADi^^HHH]8@G]4?^I:?H6?^a_a__a^ac^4@?E6?E0dcgad_a]9E>QmF?FDF2==J 92CD9 4@>>6?ED 😕 u63CF2CJk^2m] $@>6 52C6 ?@E E2<6 C6DA@?D:3:=:EJ[ H2:E E:>:5=J 7@C @C56CD 7C@> 23@G6[ 2?5 5@?E >@G6 H:E9@FE 36:?8 AFD965]k^Am

kAm%96 8@G6C?>6?E @A6?65 :?G6DE:82E:@?D :?E@ E@A 962=E9 @77:4:2=D[ 244@C5:?8 E@ EH@ 7@C>6C 2?5 4FCC6?E r9:?2 rsr DE277 2?5 E9C66 @E96CD 72>:=:2C H:E9 E96 >2EE6C] w62=E9 @77:4:2=D H6C6 6?4@FC2865 E@ C6A@CE 4@==628F6D H9@ >:D92?5=65 E96 @FE3C62< E@ r@>>F?:DE !2CEJ 5:D4:A=:?2CJ 3@5:6D[ 244@C5:?8 E@ EH@ @7 E96 A6@A=6]k^Am

kAm$@>6 A6@A=6 3@E9 :?D:56 2?5 @FED:56 r9:?2 DA64F=2E65 23@FE 2 =23@C2E@CJ =62<] %9@D6 DFDA:4:@FD :?4=F565 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^HHH]J@FEF36]4@>^H2E49nGlJEvx<4r9f%gU2>AjEl`DQmC:89EH:?8 p>6C:42? A@=:E:4:2?Dk^2m[ 3FE 2=D@ C6D62C496CD 4=@D6 E@ (w~]k^Am

kAm%96 7@4FD EFC?65 E@ E96 (F92? x?DE:EFE6 @7 ':C@=@8J[ 2 9:89=6G6= =23 E92E 6IA6C:>6?E65 H:E9 D@>6 @7 E96 H@C=5D >@DE 52?86C@FD G:CFD6D]k^Am

kAmx? 62C=J u63CF2CJ a_a_[ D@>6 @7 E96 (6DED =625:?8 D4:6?E:DED[ 962565 3J sC] y6C6>J u2CC2C[ E96? 2E qC:E2:?D (6==4@>6 %CFDE[ 2?5 sC] p?E9@?J u2F4:[ E96? 5:C64E@C @7 E96 &]$] }2E:@?2= x?DE:EFE6D @7 w62=E9[ 32?565 E@86E96C E@ 2DD6DD E96 @C:8:?D @7 E96 G:CFD 😕 42==D[ 2 $=24< 492??6= 2?5 6>2:=D]k^Am

kAm%96J 5C27E65 2 A2A6C DF886DE:?8 2 ?2EFC2= 6G@=FE:@?[ 3FE 6G6? 2>@?8 E96>D6=G6D[ E96J 4@F=5 ?@E 28C66 @? E96 =:<6=:6DE D46?2C:@] $@>6 H6C6 2=2C>65 3J 762EFC6D E96J E9@F89E >:89E :?5:42E6 E:?<6C:?8]k^Am

kAm%96C6 92G6 W366?X DF886DE:@?D E92E E96 G:CFD 6D42A65 7C@> E96 (F92? =23[ w@=>6D[ E96 pFDEC2=:2? G:C@=@8:DE[ H9@ 36=:6G65 E96 G:CFD @C:8:?2E65 😕 ?2EFC6[ HC@E6 😕 2 u63] f[ a_a_[ 6>2:=] x 5@ 2 =@E @7 H@C< :? r9:?2[ 2?5 x 42? W2DDFC6X J@F E92E 2 =@E @7 A6@A=6 E96C6 36=:6G6 E96J 2C6 36:?8 =:65 E@]k^Am

kAmp>6C:42? D4:6?E:DED 4=@D6 E@ C6D62C496CD 2E E96 (F92? x?DE:EFE6 @7 ':C@=@8J H2C?65 4@F?E6CA2CED E96C6 E@ AC6A2C6]k^Am

kAmy2>6D s6{F4[ 9625 @7 2 %6I2D =23[ 6>2:=65 9:D (F92? 4@==628F6 @? u63] h[ a_a_[ D2J:?8 965 2=C625J 366? 2AAC@24965 3J &]$] @77:4:2=D] r=62C=J 255C6DD:?8 E9:D H:== 36 6DD6?E:2=[ H:E9 2?J <:?5 @7 5@4F>6?E2E:@? J@F >:89E 92G6[ 96 HC@E6]k^Am

kAm%96 r9:?6D6 8@G6C?>6?E H2D 4@?5F4E:?8 :ED @H? D64C6E :?G6DE:82E:@? :?E@ E96 (F92? x?DE:EFE6] v2@[ E96 9625 @7 E96 r9:?2 rsr[ 2?5 2?@E96C r9:?6D6 962=E9 6IA6CE C6G62=65 :ED 6I:DE6?46 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^65:E:@?]4??]4@>^a_a_^_d^`e^2D:2^K9@?8?2?D92?4@C@?2G:CFD:?E=9?<^:?56I]9E>=Qm:? :?E6CG:6HD >@?E9D 2?5 J62CD =2E6Ck^2m] q@E9 D2:5 E96 :?G6DE:82E:@? 7@F?5 ?@ 6G:56?46 @7 HC@?85@:?8[ H9:49 w@=>6D[ E96 pFDEC2=:2? G:C@=@8:DE[ 2=D@ 962C5 7C@> 2?@E96C 4@?E24E 😕 r9:?2] qFE v2@ D2:5 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^HHH]334]4@>^?6HD^H@C=52D:2edf_gfceQm6G6? 96 925?VE D66? 7FCE96C 56E2:=Dk^2m[ 2?5 D@>6 6IA6CED DFDA64E E96J >2J ?6G6C 36 C6=62D65]k^Am

kAm(w~ DE2CE65 ?68@E:2E:@?D H:E9 r9:?2 7@C 2 D64@?5 G:D:E H:E9 E96 G:CFD @C:8:?D 😕 >:?5[ 3FE :E H2D r9:?2D u@C6:8? |:?:DECJ E92E 564:565 E96 E6C>D]k^Am

kAm$4:6?E:DED H6C6 D:56=:?65 2?5 A@=:E:4:2?D E@@< 4@?EC@=] r9:?2 C67FD65 2 G:D2 7@C q6? t>32C6<[ E96? (w~D E@A 2?:>2= G:CFD 6IA6CE] %96 :E:?6C2CJ 5C@AA65 ?62C=J 2== :E6>D =:?<65 E@ 2? @C:8:?D D62C49[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 5C27E 286?52D 7@C E96 EC:A @3E2:?65 3J E96 p!] p?5 v2@[ E96 r9:?2 rsr 9625 H9@ :D 2=D@ 2 C6DA64E65 D4:6?E:DE E2D<65 H:E9 :?G6DE:82E:?8 E96 @C:8:?D[ H2D =67E @77 E96 D4965F=6]k^Am

kAmx?DE625[ {:2?8 (2??:2?[ 2 A@=:E:4:2? 😕 E96 r@>>F?:DE !2CEJ 9:6C2C49J[ E@@< 492C86 @7 E96 :?E6C?2E:@?2= 56=682E:@?] {:2?8 :D 2? 6A:56>:@=@8:DE 4=@D6 E@ E@A r9:?6D6 @77:4:2=D 2?5 r9:?2VD u@C6:8? |:?:DECJ k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^K6C@4@G:56I:E49:?2C6@A6?:?8:?G6DE:82E:@?_d6`37e5`c6b3ff256ae3f`h_hb24cb3QmH9@ 😀 H:56=J D66? 2D AFD9:?8 E96 A2CEJ =:?6[ ?@E D4:6?46324<65 A@=:4:6Dk^2m[ 244@C5:?8 E@ ?:?6 A6@A=6 72>:=:2C H:E9 E96 D:EF2E:@? H9@ 564=:?65 E@ 36 :56?E:7:65 E@ DA62< @? 2 D6?D:E:G6 DF3;64E]k^Am

kAm$:8?:7:42?E=J[ :E H2D {:2?8 H9@ @C56C65 E96 (F92? >2C<6E 5:D:?764E65 367@C6 D2>A=6D 4@F=5 36 4@==64E65[ 244@C5:?8 E@ k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^H63]2C49:G6]@C8^H63^a_aa_e`fabb`cd^9EEAi^^64@?@>J]42:;:?8]4@>]4?^a_a_``ad^cf`fdbg]D9E>=Qm2 r9:?6D6 >65:2 :?E6CG:6H H:E9 2 E@A r9:?2 rsr @77:4:2= E92E H2D =2E6C 56=6E65k^2m] w6 :?DE625 AC@>@E65 2? k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^A2?56>:4D36:;:?88=@32=EC2564@C@?2G:CFDA2?56>:449:?2agef`5ehade5gc__`2cf`gfe2e34c_ffQm:>A=2FD:3=6 E96@CJ E92E E96 G:CFD 42>6 7C@> 4@?E2>:?2E65 7C@K6? 7@@5k^2m :>A@CE65 :?E@ r9:?2] {:2?8 5:5 ?@E C6DA@?5 E@ 2? 6>2:=65 C6BF6DE 7@C 4@>>6?E]k^Am

kAm|@DE @7 E96 (w~ 56=682E:@? H2D ?@E 2==@H65 E@ 8@ E@ (F92?[ H9:49 H2D F?56C =@4<5@H?] %96 76H H9@ 5:5 =62C?65 =:EE=6] %96J 282:? 925 ?@ 2446DD E@ E96 (F92? x?DE:EFE6 @7 ':C@=@8J @C E96 H:=5=:76 >2C<6E 2?5 @3E2:?65 @?=J D42?E 56E2:=D 23@FE r9:?2 rsr 677@CED E@ EC246 E96 4@C@?2G:CFD E96C6]k^Am

kAm~? E96 EC2:?[ {:2?8 =@33:65 E96 G:D:E:?8 (w~ D4:6?E:DED E@ AC2:D6 r9:?2D 962=E9 C6DA@?D6 😕 E96:C AF3=:4 C6A@CE] sC] qCF46 pJ=H2C5[ 2 D6?:@C 25G:D6C E@ (w~ s:C64E@Cv6?6C2= %65C@D p592?@> v963C6J6DFD[ D2H :E 2D E96 36DE H2J E@ >66E r9:?2D ?665 7@C 2 DEC@?8 2DD6DD>6?E @7 :ED C6DA@?D6]k^Am

kAm%96 ?6H D64E:@? H2D D@ 7=2EE6C:?8 E92E 4@==628F6D 6>2:=65 pJ=H2C5 E@ DF886DE 96 5:2= :E 324< 2 3:E]k^Am

kAmxE 😀 C6>2C<23=6 9@H >F49 6[ C625 E96 7:?2= C6A@CE[ H9:49 H2D C6G:6H65 3J r9:?2D E@A 962=E9 @77:4:2= 367@C6 :E H6?E E@ %65C@D]k^Am

kAmpD 4C:E:4:D> @7 r9:?2 8C6H[ E96 r9:?6D6 8@G6C?>6?E 567=64E65 3=2>6] x?DE625 @7 7:C:?8 962=E9 @77:4:2=D[ E96J 564=2C65 E96:C G:CFD C6DA@?D6 2 DF446DD 2?5 4=@D65 :?G6DE:82E:@?D :?E@ E96 @77:4:2=D H:E9 76H ;@3 =@DD6D]k^Am

kAm%96C6 H6C6 ?@ C62= C67@C>D[ 3642FD6 5@:?8 C67@C>D >62?D 25>:EE:?8 72F=E[ D2:5 2 AF3=:4 962=E9 6IA6CE 😕 4@?E24E H:E9 r9:?6D6 962=E9 @77:4:2=D H9@ 2D<65 ?@E E@ 36 :56?E:7:65 3642FD6 @7 E96 D6?D:E:G:EJ @7 E96 >2EE6C]k^Am

kAmx? =2E6 u63CF2CJ a_a_[ E96 :?E6C?2E:@?2==J C6DA64E65 5@4E@C +9@?8 }2?D92? k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^H63]2C49:G6]@C8^H63^a_aa_d`_abaecf^9EEADi^^>]49:?2?6HD]4@>^H2A^56E2:=^KHDA^D9^a_a_^_aaf^h`_eb_a]D9E>=Qm2AA62C65 2E 2 ?6HD 4@?76C6?46k^2m 2?5 D2:5 E92E E96 6A:56>:4 7:CDE 2AA62C65 😕 r9:?2[ 3FE :E 5:5 ?@E ?646DD2C:=J @C:8:?2E6 😕 r9:?2]k^Am

kAms2JD =2E6C[ r9:?6D6 =6256C ): k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^F?:E65?2E:@?D4@C@?2G:CFDA2?56>:449:?2@?=J@?2A32EDac73254dg466b2c_342a557f2`c5ahddQm@C56C65 ?6H 4@?EC@=D @? G:CFD C6D62C49k^2m] p =62<65 5:C64E:G6 7C@> r9:?2D !F3=:4:EJ s6A2CE>6?E @C56C65 >65:2 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^49:?25:8:E2=E:>6D]?6E^a_a_^`a^>:?:ECF65:2CJ>2C49`_a_a_E:36E:?56A6?56?464@G:5C6?EC6=:67H9:DE=63=@H6C6A:56>:4EC2?D>:DD:@?2?5EC62E>6?ED^Qm?@E E@ C6A@CE @? E96 G:CFD @C:8:?D H:E9@FE A6C>:DD:@?k^2m[ 2?5 2 AF3=:4 (6r92E 244@F?E C6A@DE65 2? 6DD2J 4=2:>:?8 E96 &]$] >:=:E2CJ 4C62E65 r~'xs`h 2E 2 u@CE s6EC:4< =23 2?5 DAC625 :E E@ r9:?2 5FC:?8 2 a_`h 2E9=6E:4 4@>A6E:E:@? 😕 (F92?] s2JD =2E6C[ 2 r9:?6D6 u@C6:8? |:?:DECJ DA@<6DA6CD@? k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^EH:EE6C]4@>^K=;d`f^DE2EFD^`abg```ghggag_eegabnC670DC4lEHDC4TdtE7HQmC6A62E65 E96 244FD2E:@?k^2m]k^Am

kAm%96 72=D6 4=2:>D 6?C2865 &]$] !C6D:56?E s@?2=5 %CF>A[ H9@ 3682? AF3=:4=J 3=2>:?8 r9:?2 7@C E96 @FE3C62<[ k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^5@?2=5ECF>A2AE@A?6HD2D:24C:>6G:CFD@FE3C62<2f4abb7_3b3453fa4_e442eaf`32ef`bQm42==:?8 r~'xs`h E96 r9:?2 G:CFD 2?5 E96

kAmr9:?6D6 @77:4:2=D E@=5 (w~ E92E 3=@@5 E6DED @? =23 H@C<6CD 2E E96 (F92? x?DE:EFE6 @7 ':C@=@8J H6C6 ?682E:G6[ DF886DE:?8 E96J 925?E 366? AC6G:@FD=J :?764E65 H:E9 32E 4@C@?2G:CFD6D] qFE H96? (w~ AC6DD65 7@C 2? :?56A6?56?E 2F5:E[ r9:?6D6 @77:4:2=D 32=<65 2?5 56>2?565 (w~ :?G6DE:82E6 E96 &]$] 2?5 @E96C 4@F?EC:6D 2D H6==]k^Am

kAmqJ 3=2>:?8 E96 &]$][ q6:;:?8 5:G6CE65 3=2>6] k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^A2?56>:4D36:;:?8@?=J@?2A6A:56>:4D>65:2`aa3fb6`bc3fg_h`h44`g_g7b7e7`e6gQmxE H2D 67764E:G6 😕 r9:?2k^2m[ H96C6 >2?J r9:?6D6 H6C6 FAD6E 3J k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^86?6C2=?6HD5@>6DE:4?6HD5@>6DE:4?6HDc5adfbg23chdhf5_56`d`fbgb2h`_g5aQmC24:2==J 492C865 4C:E:4:D>k^2m] qFE @FED:56 r9:?2[ :E 7F6=65 DA64F=2E:@? @7 2 =23 =62< 4@G6CFA]k^Am

kAmqJ E96 E:>6 (w~ =65 2 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^H9@E62>2CC:G6DHF92?G:CFD@C:8:?D53b6h254372g_`5b6gafc4`hfe62d745QmE9:C5 G:D:E E@ (F92?k^2m 😕 y2?F2CJ a_a`[ 2 J62C :?E@ E96 A2?56>:4[ E96 2E>@DA96C6 H2D E@I:4]k^Am

kAm{:2?8[ E96 r9:?6D6 962=E9 @77:4:2= 😕 492C86 @7 E96 7:CDE EH@ (w~ G:D:ED[ 4@?E:?F65 E@ AC@>@E6 E96 BF6DE:@?23=6 E96@CJ E92E E96 G:CFD H2D D9:AA65 :?E@ r9:?2 @? 7C@K6? 7@@5] w6 DFAAC6DD65 :?7@C>2E:@? DF886DE:?8 :E 4@F=5 92G6 4@>6 7C@> 2?:>2=D 2E E96 (F92? >2C<6E[ @C82?:K:?8 >2C<6E H@C<6CD E@ E6== (w~ 6IA6CED ?@ =:G6 H:=5=:76 H2D D@=5 2?5 4FEE:?8 C646?E A9@E@D @7 H:=5=:76 2E E96 >2C<6E 7C@> E96 7:?2= C6A@CE] %96C6 H2D 962GJ A@=:E:42= D4CFE:?J[ H:E9 ?F>6C@FD r9:?6D6 @77:4:2=D H9@ H6C6?E D4:6?E:DED @C 962=E9 @77:46CD AC6D6?E 2E >66E:?8D]k^Am

kAms6DA:E6 2 =24< @7 5:C64E 2446DD[ E96 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^H9@C6A@CE2?:>2=DD@FC464@G:5`h4@C@?2G:CFDg2gbh4`fh4bb_4de72ce2feb3fage2f7Qm(w~ E62> 4@?4=F565k^2m E92E 2 =23 =62< H2D 6IEC6>6=J F?=:<6=J] $@ :E 42>6 2D 2? :?7FC:2E:?8 DFCAC:D6 E@ r9:?6D6 @77:4:2=D H96?[ >@?E9D =2E6C[ (w~ 49:67 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^;@63:56?H@C=5?6HD962=E9D4:6?464@C@?2G:CFDA2?56>:44_4dhc7h_e_7efe4_62cg4a5`4eh5264Qm%65C@Dk^2m D2:5 2== k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^4@G:5D4:6?46962=E9H@C=5@C82?:K2E:@?8@G6C?>6?E2?5A@=:E:4Dgeea4a34`fgc5b562bb7e`422e_gh24aQm@C:8:?D 9JA@E96D6Dk^2m[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 =23 =62< E96@CJ[ C6>2:?65 @? E96 E23=6]k^Am

kAmr9:?2 E@=5 (w~ 2?J 7FEFC6 >:DD:@?D E@ 7:?5 r~'xs`h @C:8:?D D9@F=5 36 6=D6H96C6[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 2 =6EE6C @3E2:?65 3J p!] $:?46 E96?[ 8=@32= 4@@A6C2E:@? @? E96 :DDF6 92D 8C@F?5 E@ 2 92=Ej 2? :?56A6?56?E 8C@FA 4@?G6?65 3J (w~ E@ :?G6DE:82E6 E96 @C:8:?D @7 r~'xs`h 😕 a_a` 92D 366? DEJ>:65 3J E96 =24< @7 4@@A6C2E:@? 7C@> r9:?2 2?5 @E96C :DDF6D]k^Am

kAmr9:?6D6 D4:6?E:DED 2C6 DE:== F?56C 962GJ AC6DDFC6[ 244@C5:?8 E@ `_ C6D62C496CD 2?5 962=E9@77:4:2=D] #6D62C496CD H9@ AF3=:D965 A2A6CD @? E96 4@C@?2G:CFD C2? :?E@ EC@F3=6 H:E9 r9:?6D6 2FE9@C:E:6D] ~E96CD H6C6 32CC65 7C@> EC2G6= 23C@25 7@C 4@?76C6?46D 2?5 (w~ >66E:?8D] v2@[ E96 r9:?2 rsr 5:C64E@C[ H2D :?G6DE:82E65 27E6C k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^4@C@?2G:CFDA2?56>:4962=E97hg5fbcfe2`2chca42ddag72d5777f_7Qm&]$] !C6D:56?E y@6 q:56? @C56C65 2 C6G:6Hk^2m @7 r~'xs`h 52E2[ 2?5 282:? 27E6C 8:G:?8 :?E6CG:6HD @? E96 G:CFD @C:8:?D]k^Am

kAm}6H 6G:56?46 😀 EC62E65 H:E9 DFDA:4:@?] x? |2C49 a_ab[ D4:6?E:DED 2??@F?465 E92E 86?6E:4 >2E6C:2= 4@==64E65 7C@> E96 >2C<6E D9@H65 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^4@G:5G:CFD@C:8:?D4@C@?2G:CFD=23=62:I65 H:E9 r~'xs`h 😕 62C=J a_a_[ 52E2 E92E (w~ D2:5 D9@F=5 92G6 366? AF3=:4=J D92C65 J62CD 367@C6] %96 7:?5:?8D H6C6 A@DE65[ E96? C6>@G65 3J r9:?6D6 C6D62C496CD H:E9 =:EE=6 6IA=2?2E:@?]k^Am

kAm%96 9625 @7 E96 r9:?2 rsr x?DE:EFE6 @7 ':C2= s:D62D6 H2D 7@C465 E@ C6E:C6 @G6C E96 C6=62D6 @7 E96 >2C<6E 52E2[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 2 7@C>6C r9:?2 rsr @77:4:2= H9@ 564=:?65 E@ 36 ?2>65 E@ DA62< @? 2 D6?D:E:G6 E@A:4]k^Am

kAmxE 92D E@ 5@ H:E9 E96 @C:8:?D[ D@ E96JC6 DE:== H@CC:65[ E96 7@C>6C @77:4:2= D2:5] x7 J@F ECJ 2?5 86E E@ E96 3@EE@> @7 :E[ H92E :7 :E EFC?D @FE E@ 36 7C@> r9:?2nk^Am

kAm~E96C D4:6?E:DED ?@E6 E92E 2?J 2?:>2= 7C@> H9:49 E96 G:CFD >2J 92G6 @C:8:?2==J ;F>A65 92D =@?8 D:?46 5:D2AA62C65]k^Am

kAm%96C6 H2D 2 492?46 7@C r9:?2 E@ 4@@A6C2E6 H:E9 (w~ 2?5 5@ D@>6 2?:>2= D2>A=:?8 DEF5:6D E92E >:89E 92G6 2?DH6C65 E96 BF6DE:@?[ D2:5 %F=2?6 &?:G6CD:EJD v2CCJ] %96 EC2:= E@ 7:?5 E96 D@FC46 92D ?@H 8@?6 4@=5]k^Am

k9C ^m

kAmr96?8 C6A@CE65 7C@> v6?6G2]k^Am

Continue reading here:

Toxic: How the search for the origins of COVID-19 turned politically poisonous - Chronicle-Tribune

BEIJING (AP) The hunt for the origins of COVID-19 has gone dark in China, the victim of political infighting after a series of stalled and thwarted attempts to find the source of the virus that killed millions and paralyzed the world for months.

The Chinese government froze meaningful domestic and international efforts to trace the virus from the first weeks of the outbreak, despite statements supporting open scientific inquiry, an Associated Press investigation found. That pattern continues to this day, with labs closed, collaborations shattered, foreign scientists forced out and Chinese researchers barred from leaving the country.

The investigation drew on thousands of pages of undisclosed emails and documents and dozens of interviews that showed the freeze began far earlier than previously known and involved political and scientific infighting in China as much as international finger-pointing.

As early as Jan. 6, 2020, health officials in Beijing closed the lab of a Chinese scientist who sequenced the virus and barred researchers from working with him.

Scientists warn the willful blindness over coronavirus origins leaves the world vulnerable to another outbreak, potentially undermining pandemic treaty talks coordinated by the World Health Organization set to culminate in May.

At the heart of the question is whether the virus jumped from an animal or came from a laboratory accident. A U.S. intelligence analysis says there is insufficient evidence to prove either theory, but the debate has further tainted relations between the U.S. and China.

Unlike in the U.S., there is virtually no public debate in China about whether the virus came from nature or from a lab leak. In fact, there is little public discussion at all about the source of the disease, first detected in the central city of Wuhan.

Crucial initial efforts were hampered by bureaucrats in Wuhan trying to avoid blame who misled the central government; the central government, which muzzled Chinese scientists and subjected visiting WHO officials to stage-managed tours; and the U.N. health agency itself, which may have compromised early opportunities to gather critical information in hopes that by placating China, scientists could gain more access, according to internal materials obtained by AP.

In a faxed statement, China's Foreign Ministry defended Chinas handling of research into the origins, saying the country is open and transparent, shared data and research, and made the greatest contribution to global origins research. The National Health Commission, China's top medical authority, said the country invested huge manpower, material and financial resources and has not stopped looking for the origins of the coronavirus.

It could have played out differently, as shown by the outbreak of SARS, a genetic relative of COVID-19, nearly 20 years ago. China initially hid infections then, but WHO complained swiftly and publicly. Ultimately, Beijing fired officials and made reforms. The U.N. agency soon found SARS likely jumped to humans from civet cats in southern China and international scientists later collaborated with their Chinese counterparts to pin down bats as SARS natural reservoir.

But different leaders of both China and WHO, Chinas quest for control of its researchers, and global tensions have all led to silence when it comes to searching for COVID-19s origins. Governments in Asia are pressuring scientists not to look for the virus for fear it could be traced inside their borders.

Even without those complications, experts say identifying how outbreaks begin is incredibly challenging and that its rare to know with certainty how some viruses begin spreading.

Its disturbing how quickly the search for the origins of (COVID-19) escalated into politics, said Mark Woolhouse, a University of Edinburgh outbreak expert. Now this question may never be definitively answered.

Secrecy clouds the beginning of the outbreak. Even the date when Chinese authorities first started searching for the origins is unclear.

The first publicly known search for the virus took place on Dec. 31, 2019, when Chinese Center for Disease Control scientists visited the Wuhan market where many early COVID-19 cases surfaced.

However, WHO officials heard of an earlier inspection of the market on Dec. 25, 2019, according to a recording of a confidential WHO meeting provided to AP by an attendee. Such a probe has never been mentioned publicly by either Chinese authorities or WHO.

In the recording, WHOs top animal virus expert, Peter Ben Embarek, mentioned the earlier date, describing it as an interesting detail. He told colleagues that officials were looking at what was on sale in the market, whether all the vendors have licenses (and) if there was any illegal (wildlife) trade happening in the market.

A colleague asked Ben Embarek, who is no longer with WHO, if that seemed unusual. He responded that it was not routine, and that the Chinese must have had some reason to investigate the market. Well try to figure out what happened and why they did that.

Ben Embarek declined to comment. Another WHO staffer at the Geneva meeting in late January 2020 confirmed Ben Embareks comments.

The Associated Press could not confirm the search independently. It remains a mystery if it took place, what inspectors discovered, or whether they sampled live animals that might point to how COVID-19 emerged.

A Dec. 25, 2019, inspection would have come when Wuhan authorities were aware of the mysterious disease. The day before, a local doctor sent a sample from an ill market vendor to get sequenced that turned out to contain COVID-19. Chatter about the unknown pneumonia was spreading in Wuhans medical circles, according to one doctor and a relative of another who declined to be identified, fearing repercussions.

A scientist in China when the outbreak occurred said they heard of a Dec. 25 inspection from collaborating virologists in the country. They declined to be named out of fear of retribution.

WHO said in an email that it was not aware of the Dec. 25 investigation. It is not included in the U.N. health agencys official COVID-19 timeline.

When health officials from Beijing arrived in Wuhan on Dec. 31, they decided to disinfect the market before collecting samples, destroying critical information about the virus. Gao Fu, head of the China CDC, mentioned it to an American collaborator.

His complaint when I met him was that all the animals were gone, said Columbia University epidemiologist Ian Lipkin.

Robert Garry, who studies viruses at Tulane University, said a Dec. 25 probe would be hugely significant, given what is known about the virus and its spread.

Being able to swab it directly from the animal itself would be pretty convincing and nobody would be arguing about the origins of COVID-19, he said.

But perhaps local officials simply feared for their jobs, with memories of firings after the 2003 SARS outbreak still vivid, said Ray Yip, the founding head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outpost in China.

They were trying to save their skin, hide the evidence, Yip said.

The Wuhan government did not respond to a faxed request for comment.

Another early victim was Zhang Yongzhen, the first scientist to publish a sequence of the virus. A day after he wrote a memo urging health authorities to action, Chinas top health official ordered Zhangs lab closed.

They used their official power against me and our colleagues, Zhang wrote in an email provided to AP by Edward Holmes, an Australian virologist.

On Jan. 20, 2020, a WHO delegation arrived in Wuhan for a two-day mission. China did not approve a visit to the market, but they stopped by a China CDC lab to examine infection prevention and controlprocedures, according to an internal WHO travel report. WHOs then-China representative, Dr. Gauden Galea, told colleagues in a private meeting that inquiries about COVID-19s origins went unanswered.

There are a few cadres who have performed poorly, President Xi Jinping said in unusually harsh comments in February. Some dare not take responsibility, wait timidly for orders from above, and dont move without being pushed.

The government opened investigations into top health officials, according to two former and current China CDC staff and three others familiar with the matter. Health officials were encouraged to report colleagues who mishandled the outbreak to Communist Party disciplinary bodies, according to two of the people.

Some people both inside and outside China speculated about a laboratory leak. Those suspicious included right-wing American politicians, but also researchers close to WHO.

The focus turned to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a high-level lab that experimented with some of the worlds most dangerous viruses.

In early February 2020, some of the Wests leading scientists, headed by Dr. Jeremy Farrar, then at Britains Wellcome Trust, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, then director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, banded together to assess the origins of the virus in calls, a Slack channel and emails.

They drafted a paper suggesting a natural evolution, but even among themselves, they could not agree on the likeliest scenario. Some were alarmed by features they thought might indicate tinkering.

There have (been) suggestions that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, Holmes, the Australian virologist, who believed the virus originated in nature, wrote in a Feb. 7, 2020, email. I do a lot of work in China, and I can (assure) you that a lot of people there believe they are being lied to.

American scientists close to researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology warned counterparts there to prepare.

James DeLuc, head of a Texas lab, emailed his Wuhan colleague on Feb. 9, 2020, saying hed already been approached by U.S. officials. Clearly addressing this will be essential, with any kind of documentation you might have, he wrote.

The Chinese government was conducting its own secret investigation into the Wuhan Institute. Gao, the head of the China CDC, and another Chinese health expert revealed its existence in interviews months and years later. Both said the investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing, which Holmes, the Australian virologist, also heard from another contact in China. But Gao said even he hadn't seen further details, and some experts suspect they may never be released.

WHO started negotiations with China for a second visit with the virus origins in mind, but it was Chinas Foreign Ministry that decided the terms.

Scientists were sidelined and politicians took control. China refused a visa for Ben Embarek, then WHOs top animal virus expert. The itinerary dropped nearly all items linked to an origins search, according to draft agendas for the trip obtained by the AP. And Gao, the China CDC head who is also a respected scientist tasked with investigating the origins, was left off the schedule.

Instead, Liang Wannian, a politician in the Communist Party hierarchy, took charge of the international delegation. Liang is an epidemiologist close to top Chinese officials and China's Foreign Ministry who is widely seen as pushing the party line, not science-backed policies, according to nine people familiar with the situation who declined to be identified to speak on a sensitive subject.

Most of the WHO delegation was not allowed to go to Wuhan, which was under lockdown. The few who did learned little. They again had no access to the Wuhan Institute of Virology or the wildlife market and obtained only scant details about China CDC efforts to trace the coronavirus there.

On the train, Liang lobbied the visiting WHO scientists to praise Chinas health response in their public report. Dr. Bruce Aylward, a senior adviser to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, saw it as the best way to meet Chinas need for a strong assessment of its response.

The new section was so flattering that colleagues emailed Aylward to suggest he dial it back a bit.

It is remarkable how much knowledge about a new virus has been gained in such a short time, read the final report, which was reviewed by Chinas top health official before it went to Tedros.

As criticism of China grew, the Chinese government deflected blame. Instead of firing health officials, they declared their virus response a success and closed investigations into the officials with few job losses.

There were no real reforms, because doing reforms means admitting fault, said a public health expert in contact with Chinese health officials who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

In late February 2020, the internationally respected doctor Zhong Nanshan appeared at a news conference and said that the epidemic first appeared in China, but it did not necessarily originate in China.

Chinese officials told WHO that blood tests on lab workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were negative, suggesting they hadnt been previously infected with bat coronaviruses. But when WHO pressed for an independent audit, Chinese officials balked and demanded WHO investigate the U.S. and other countries as well.

By the time WHO led a third visit to Wuhan in January 2021, a year into the pandemic, the atmosphere was toxic.

Liang, the Chinese health official in charge of the first two WHO visits, continued to promote the questionable theory that the virus was shipped into China on frozen food. He suppressed information suggesting it could have come from animals at the Wuhan market, organizing market workers to tell WHO experts no live wildlife was sold and cutting recent photos of wildlife at the market from the final report. There was heavy political scrutiny, with numerous Chinese officials who werent scientists or health officers present at meetings.

Despite a lack of direct access, the WHO team concluded that a lab leak was extremely unlikely. So it came as an infuriating surprise to Chinese officials when, months later, WHO chief Tedros said all origins hypotheses, including the lab leak theory, remained on the table.

China told WHO any future missions to find COVID-19 origins should be elsewhere, according to a letter obtained by AP. Since then, global cooperation on the issue has ground to a halt; an independent group convened by WHO to investigate the origins of COVID-19 in 2021 has been stymied by the lack of cooperation from China and other issues.

Chinese scientists are still under heavy pressure, according to 10 researchers and healthofficials. Researchers who published papers on the coronavirus ran into trouble with Chinese authorities. Others were barred from travel abroad for conferences and WHO meetings. Gao, the China CDC director, was investigated after U.S. President Joe Biden ordered a review of COVID-19 data, and again after giving interviews on the virus origins.

New evidence is treated with suspicion. In March 2023, scientists announced that genetic material collected from the market showed raccoon dog DNA mixed with COVID-19 in early 2020, data that WHO said should have been publicly shared years before. The findings were posted, then removed by Chinese researchers with little explanation.

The head of the China CDC Institute of Viral Disease was forced to retire over the release of the market data, according to a former China CDC official who declined to be named to speak on a sensitive topic.

It has to do with the origins, so theyre still worried, the former official said. If you try and get to the bottom of it, what if it turns out to be from China?

Other scientists note that any animal from which the virus may have originally jumped has long since disappeared.

There was a chance for China to cooperate with WHO and do some animal sampling studies that might have answered the question, said Tulane Universitys Garry. The trail to find the source has now gone cold.

Cheng reported from Geneva.

Original post:

Toxic: How the search for the origins of COVID-19 turned politically poisonous - Lewiston Morning Tribune

A 72-year-old from the Netherlands was infected with COVID-19 for 613 days, the longest period of infection ever recorded.

Dutch researchers have reported the case of an immunocompromised man, who was infected with the virus for so long, a new variant evolved inside his body.

The man sadly died of a blood disorder relapse while still infected with COVID-19, the researchers said.

READ MORE: Two charged months after alleged kidnapping plot

"The case is the longest-known COVID-19 infection to date", PhD candidate Magda Vergouwe said.

Several COVID-19 cases lasting hundreds of days have been previously recorded.

The patient was admitted to Amsterdam University Medical Center in February 2022 with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The man's immune system had become compromised after a stem cell transplant, which depleted the immune cells that usually fight COVID-19.

Vaccinations and treatments failed to prevent or cure his case of the virus.

Where healthy patients can clear the virus within days, immunocompromised people can develop persistent infections.

DNA sequencing of the virus showed it had become resistant to one form of treatment called sotrovimab.

The man died after "a relapse of his haematological condition", but had retained a high viral load for 613 days.

The man did not pass on the new, drug-resistant variant of COVID-19 to anyone else before he died.

The scientists said "the case highlights the potential for new COVID-19 variants to arise in immunocompromised patients with very long infections".

"We emphasise the importance of continuing genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 evolution in immunocompromised individuals with persistent infections given the potential public health threat of possibly introducing viral escape variants into the community," they said.

"The duration of SARS-CoV-2 infection in this described case is extreme, but prolonged infections in immunocompromised patients are much more common compared to the general community".

More here:

Netherlands man battled COVID-19 for longest case ever recorded - 9News

The number of pupils suspended from school has reached a record high as experts warn that bad behaviour has increased since lockdown school closures.

Data from the Department for Education (DfE) found that there were 263,904 suspensions in the spring term during the 2022/23 academic year, an increase from 201,090 during the period the year before.

In the same term, there were 3,039 permanent exclusions, an increase from 2,179.

Academics warned that the deeply concerning increase was a result of pupils losing the habitof going to school during the Covid-19 pandemic.

A spokesman for the DfE said: The most common reason for suspensions and permanent exclusions was persistent disruptive behaviour. This is in line with previous terms and years where this reason was the most commonly recorded.

Suspensions are typically higher in autumn term than in spring and summer, so spring 2022/23 is a change from that trend and the highest recorded number of termly suspensions.

The figures showed a 31 per cent increase in suspensions compared to the previous year, the highest outside of Covid restrictions.

The rise was particularly high among secondary children, with cases increasing from 174,522 to 232,635 - a 33 per cent jump and the equivalent of one in sixteen pupils.

Prof Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham, said: The huge increases in suspensions and exclusions from school for disruptive behaviour is deeply concerning.

It seems that far too many pupils lost the habit of regularly attending school during the pandemic and on being forced to return are taking it out on the teachers.

Being thrown out of school not only harms the learning and future prospects of the pupils themselves, but also the behaviour leading to these drastic steps lowers the quality of education of other pupils.

Disruptive pupil behaviour is the major reason given by teachers for quitting the profession. The Government must urgently address the decline in pupil behaviour.

It comes as Englands exam regulator, Ofqual, published figures showing that the number of contested GCSE and A-level results increased in the year when grading returned to pre-pandemic levels in England.

Figures show that 2,570 GCSE, AS and A-level grades were challenged in 2022/23, compared to 2,430 in 2021/22.

Of these grades, 710 were changed as part of an upheld appeal in 2022/23 - which is a 15.8 per cent rise on the previous year, when 610 grades were changed.

Overall, 6.3 million grades were issued for GCSEs, AS and A-levels in 2022/23.

Last summer, the proportion of GCSE and A-level entries awarded top grades fell from the previous year when efforts were made in England to return grading to pre-pandemic levels.

It came after the pandemic led to an increase in top grades in 2020 and 2021, with results based on teacher assessments instead of exams.

A DfE spokesman said: The Government is very clear it backs head teachers to use exclusions where required, so they can provide calm, safe, and supportive environments for children to learn in.

We are providing targeted support to schools to help improve behaviour, attendance and reduce the risk of exclusions with an investment of 10 million in our Behaviour Hubs programme, and our mental health teams who will reach at least 50 per cent of pupils by 2025.

We are continuing to deliver on our plan to give every child a world-class education and standards have risen sharply across the country, with 90 per cent of schools now rated good or outstanding by Ofsted, up from just 68 per cent in 2010.

Follow this link:

Number of pupils suspended from school reaches record high following Covid lockdown closures - The Telegraph

Early death and poor health from HIV/AIDS and diarrhea cut in half

View infographic

Skip to data tables

Rates of early death and poor health caused by HIV/AIDS and diarrhea have been cut in half since 2010, and the rate of disease burden caused by injuries has dropped by a quarter in the same time period, after accounting for differences in age and population size across countries, based on a new study published in The Lancet. The study measures the burden of disease in years lost to early death and poor health. The findings indicate that total rates of global disease burden dropped by 14.2% between 2010 and 2019. However, the researchers found that the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted these downward trends: rates of disease burden increased overall since 2019 by 4.1% in 2020 and by 7.2% in 2021. This is the first study to measure premature death and disability due to the COVID-19 pandemic globally and compare it to other diseases and injuries.

The study reveals how healthy life expectancy, which is the number of years a person can expect to live in good health, rose from 61.3 years in 2010 to 62.2 years in 2021. Pinpointing the factors driving these trends, the researchers point to rapid improvements within the three different categories of disease burden: communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases; non-communicable diseases; and injuries. Among communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases, the burden of disease declined for neonatal disorders (diseases and injuries that appear uniquely in the first month of life), lower respiratory infections, diarrhea, malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS between 2010 and 2021, ranging from reductions of 17.1% for neonatal disorders to 47.8% for HIV/AIDS. In the category of non-communicable diseases, disease burden from stroke dropped by 16.9%, while disease burden from ischemic heart disease fell by 12.0% during this period.

"The world made huge strides in expanding treatment for HIV/AIDS and combatting vaccine-preventable diseases and deaths among children under 5."

For injuries, the years of healthy life lost due to road injuries was slashed by nearly a quarter (22.9%), while disease burden from falls was reduced by 6.9%. Progress in reducing disease burden varied by countries Socio-demographic Index a measure of income, fertility, and education underscoring inequities. For example, the burden of disease due to stroke dropped by 9.6% from 2010 to 2021 in countries with the lowest Socio-demographic Index, but it declined faster by 24.9% among countries with higher Socio-demographic Index.

Our study illuminates both the worlds successes and failures, said Dr. Alize Ferrari, Affiliate Associate Professor at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, Honorary Associate Professor at the School of Public Health at the University of Queensland, and co-first author of the study. It demonstrates how the world made huge strides in expanding treatment for HIV/AIDS and combatting vaccine-preventable diseases and deaths among children under 5. At the same time, it shows how COVID-19 exacerbated inequities, causing the greatest disease burden in countries with the fewest resources, where health systems were strained and vaccines were difficult to secure. Governments should prioritize equitable pandemic preparedness planning and work to preserve the momentum that weve seen in improving childrens health.

With low back pain, the leading cause of poor health globally, we see that the existing treatments arent working well to address it.

The research presents updated estimates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021. The GBD 2021 study analyzes incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (years lived in less-than-ideal health), and disability-adjusted life years (lost years of healthy life) at global, regional, national, and subnational levels. It presents estimates of health and health loss in age-adjusted rates and total rates per 100,000 people. The study provides globally comparable measures of healthy life expectancy and is the first study to fully evaluate burden of disease amid the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 was the single leading cause of disease burden worldwide in 2021, accounting for 7.4% of total disease burden globally.

The study also examined how the COVID-19 pandemic affected males and females differently. The researchers found that males were more likely than females to die of COVID-19; the age-standardized disease burden rate for COVID-19 among males was nearly twice that of females. However, the secondary effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including long COVID and mental disorders, hit females hardest. For example, females were twice as likely as males to develop long COVID. Depression, which increased sharply during the pandemic, was most likely to affect females between ages 15 and 65. Looking at differences between age groups, COVID-19 caused the most disease burden in older adults. For COVID-19, adults 70 years and older had more than double the levels of disease burden compared to adults between the ages of 50 and 69.

The study highlights not only the diseases and injuries that cut life short and cause poor health, and how the burden of disease from different causes has changed over time, but also examines how these patterns differ across countries and regions. In essence, the authors write, the study provides a comprehensive toolkit to inform and enhance decision-making processes across various levels of governance and practice.

GBD 2021 shines a light on the different causes of disease burden, showing which ones have improved and which are stagnating or worsening. It also tallies the number of years that people are living healthy lives. Healthy life expectancy rose significantly in 59 countries and territories between 2010 and 2021, with the greatest improvements in countries ranking lowest on the Socio-demographic Index, jumping from 52.2 years in 2010 to 54.4 years in 2021. In contrast, healthy life expectancy showed minimal change among countries in the highest levels of the Socio-demographic Index, decreasing slightly from 68.9 years in 2010 to 68.5 years in 2021. The findings on healthy life expectancy demonstrate that even though people are living longer lives all over the world, they arent spending all those years in good health. The researchers found that the main causes of poor health were low back pain, depressive disorders, and headache disorders.

With low back pain, the leading cause of poor health globally, we see that the existing treatments arent working well to address it, said Dr. Damian Santomauro, Affiliate Assistant Professor of Health Metrics Sciences at IHME; Stream Lead at Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research; Adjunct Fellow at the School of Public Health at the University of Queensland; and co-first author of the study. We need better tools to manage this major cause of global disease burden.

In contrast, for depressive disorders, we know what can work: therapy, medication, or both in combination for an adequate period of time. However, most people in the world have little or no access to treatment, unfortunately, he said. Considering how depression increased dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic, its urgent to ensure that everyone with this disorder can get treatment.

Another way to understand what is making people ill is by looking at which diseases are growing fastest. GBD 2021 reveals that diabetes experienced the most rapid growth among the different causes of poor health, what the researchers call years lived with disability. Age-adjusted years lived with disability due to diabetes rose by 25.9% between 2010 and 2021. Poor health from diabetes increased in every country and territory that the researchers studied.

Diabetes is a major contributor to stroke and ischemic heart disease, which are among the top three causes of disease burden worldwide, said Dr. Theo Vos, Professor Emeritus at IHME and one of the studys senior authors. Without intervention, more than 1.3 billion people in the world will be living with diabetes by 2050. To counter the threat of diabetes, we must ensure that people in all countries can access preventive care and treatment, including to anti-obesity medications, which can lower a persons risk of developing diabetes.

For interview requests, journalists may contact [emailprotected].

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) is an independent research organization at the University of Washington (UW). Its mission is to deliver to the world timely, relevant, and scientifically valid evidence to improve health policy and practice. IHME carries out its mission through a range of projects within different research areas including the Global Burden of Diseases (GBD), Injuries, and Risk Factors; Future Health Scenarios; Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency; Resource Tracking; and Impact Evaluations.

IHME is committed to providing the evidence base necessary to help solve the worlds most important health problems. This requires creativity and innovation, which are cultivated by an inclusive, diverse, and equitable environment that respects and appreciates differences, embraces collaboration, and invites the voices of all IHME team members.

The Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) is the largest and most comprehensive effort to quantify health loss across places and over time. It draws on the work of more than 11,000 collaborators across more than 160 countries and territories. GBD 2021 the newly published most recent round of GBD results includes more than 607 billion estimates of 371 diseases and injuries and 88 risk factors in 204 countries and territories. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation coordinates the study.

Age-standardized rate per 100,000 (2010)

Lower respiratory infections

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Congenital birth defects

Cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases

Tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer

Age-related and other hearing loss

Other musculoskeletal disorders

Dietary iron deficiency

Alzheimers disease and other dementias

Age-standardized rate per 100,000 (2020)

Lower respiratory infections

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Congenital birth defects

Cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases

Tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer

Other musculoskeletal disorders

Age-related and other hearing loss

Alzheimers disease and other dementias

Dietary iron deficiency

Age-standardized rate per 100,000 (2021)

Lower respiratory infections

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Congenital birth defects

Cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases

Other musculoskeletal disorders

Tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer

Age-related and other hearing loss

Alzheimers disease and other dementias

Dietary iron deficiency

See the rest here:

Health improvements occurred worldwide since 2010 despite COVID-19 pandemic, but progress was uneven - Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation |

Study design

This was a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 seamlessly followed by a phase 3 study to evaluate the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of GEMCOVAC-OM as a booster in participants 18years of age and older. In this seamless study, phase 2 safety data till day 7 were analyzed and presented to an independent DSMB. The DSMB evaluated these data and provided their approval to initiate the phase 3 part of the study. The phase 3 study was conducted at 20 hospitals in 13 cities across India in compliance with the principles defined in the Declaration of Helsinki, International Conference for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice Guideline. The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee at each study site and Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, the central licensing authority in India. This clinical trial is registered with the Clinical Trial Registry India, CTRI/2022/10/046475. Details on the sites and Ethics Committees can be found in Supplementary Information.

An interim analysis was planned at day 29 of phase 3 where the immunogenicity and safety of the participants was assessed and presented to the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation for Emergency Use Authorization.

In phase 2, the safety and immunogenicity of GEMCOVAC-OM as a booster was compared with the prototype vaccine GEMCOVAC-19 designed against the spike protein of the D614G strain of SARS-CoV-2 (n=140). Participants were randomized to receive the vaccines in a 1:1 ratio.

The phase 3 study comprised a safety and an immunogenicity cohort. The safety cohort consisted of 3,140 participants of whom 3,000 were enrolled into the GEMCOVAC-OM arm and 140 were enrolled into the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 arm. Within the safety cohort, the immunogenicity cohort consisted of 420 participants of whom 280 were enrolled into the GEMCOVAC-OM arm and 140 were enrolled into the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 arm. Participants were healthy adults (male or female participants reported by self), 18years of age or older, who have received two doses of either BBV152 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 4months before the screening visit. Additionally, the participants should have had no known COVID-19 infection at least 3months before the screening visit. Key exclusion criteria included pregnant or lactating mothers, individuals with illnesses that in the opinion of the investigator may affect safety, and the immunocompromised. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are provided in the protocol (Supplementary Information). Participants were screened on the basis of medical history, vital signs and physical examination before enrollment. Eligible participants provided signed informed consent forms at enrollment. Participants were compensated at every visit for their time and cost of travel.

Participants who met the inclusion criteria and successfully completed all screening procedures were randomized in the study by using the interactive web response system (IWRS). Unique randomization codes were assigned to the participants and remained unchanged until the completion of the trial. The randomization codes were generated through Proc Plan using SAS version 9.4 or higher (SAS Institute) by an independent biostatistician. The final randomization list was filed securely by the independent biostatistician and accessible to authorized persons only. Participants were enrolled by investigators with the help of the IWRS.

In phase 3, consecutive 420 in the immunogenicity cohort were randomized in a 2:1 ratio into GEMCOVAC-OM and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 by stratified block randomization through the IWRS. A randomization code was assigned to each participant in sequence in the order of enrollment, and then the participants received the investigational products labeled with the same code. This was an open-label study, and no masking was performed.

GEMCOVAC-OM consists of an in vitro transcribed mRNA encoding for the spike protein of the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and cationic lipid nano-emulsion in a buffer containing 10% sucrose in 10mM sodium citrate, pH 6.5 (ref. 45). The complete antigenic sequence that was used has been published in the DDBJ database (accession no. LC769018). GEMCOVAC-OM, 10g in 0.1ml, was administered intradermally using a Tropis needle-free injection system (PharmaJet). More information on the vaccine, mRNA platform and development can be found in Supplementary Information.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (COVISHIELD), the comparator vaccine in phase 3, consisted of Corona Virus Vaccine (Recombinant) 51010 viral particles. This vaccine is based on recombinant, replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus vector encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, produced in genetically modified human embryonic kidney 293 cells. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was administered intramuscularly.

GEMCOVAC-19 consists of an in vitro transcribed mRNA encoding for the spike protein of the D614G variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and cationic lipid nano-emulsion in a buffer containing 10% sucrose in 10mM sodium citrate, pH 6.5. The complete antigenic sequence that was used has been published in the DDBJ database (accession no. LC776732.1). GEMCOVAC-19, 10g in 0.5ml, was administered intramuscularly.

The participants were screened on visit 1 (day 1), which included a validated reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RTPCR) for SARS-CoV-2. Regardless of the outcome of the RTPCR, the participants who fit the inclusion criteria were enrolled and the vaccine was administered on the same day. Those found to be RTPCR positive would be excluded from the immunogenicity analysis to avoid confounding. Importantly, during the trial, in India, a third dose of BBV152 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (precautionary dose) was approved for participants who had received primary doses of BBV152 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, respectively. However, individuals who had taken two doses of BBV152 as their primary vaccination were not eligible for a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Keeping in line with these vaccination guidelines, participants with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 as their primary vaccination were randomized to get ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or GEMCOVAC-OM, whereas participants with BBV152 as their primary vaccination received GEMCOVAC-OM only in the clinical trial.

Participants were provided an e-diary or a paper diary to record the solicited AEs till day 7 and unsolicited AEs as well as concomitant medication taken, if any, till the end of the study. A telephone call was placed to all the participants at day 7 to record any additional AEs, if any. Participants visited the study site for visit 2 (day 29+7), visit 3 (day 90+14) and visit 4 (day 180+14). Blood for assessing immunogenicity was drawn at visit 1 before vaccination (baseline), day 29 and day 90. Safety was assessed throughout the duration of the study.

In phase 2, the primary endpoints were to compare the safety and anti-spike IgG antibodies between the two vaccinated arms at day 29. Secondary endpoints included comparison of seroconversion as assessed by 2-fold rise in anti-spike IgG antibody titers from baseline, percentage neutralization by a surrogate neutralization (cPass) assay and cellular immune responses at day 29. Exploratory endpoints included comparison of anti-spike IgG antibodies, percentage neutralization by cPass assay and cellular immune responses at day 90.

In phase 3, the primary endpoint was the demonstration of noninferiority of neutralizing antibody GMT assessed by a plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50) assay in terms of LSGMR at day 29 and difference in seroconversion (2-fold rise in antibody titers at day 29 from baseline) between GEMCOVAC-OM and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Secondary endpoints included comparison of safety, LSGMR and seroconversion in terms of anti-spike IgG antibody titers, percentage neutralization by a surrogate virus neutralization assay (cPass assay, GenScript) and cell-mediated immunity assessment by intracellular cytokine expression at day 29. Exploratory endpoints included humoral and cellular immune response assessment at day 90.

Although the trial was open-label, laboratory analysis was conducted in a blinded manner. Measurements were taken from distinct samples. Information on the materials used is provided in detail in Supplementary Information.

Neutralizing antibody titers were assessed by the PRNT50 assay at the Interactive Research School for Health Affairs (IRSHA, Bharati Vidyapeeth, Deemed to be University, Pune) that was previously developed46 and then optimized for the BA.1 Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2-IND/0005/2022; B.1.1.529.1 lineage). In brief, Vero E6 cells were initially seeded at a density of 1105 cellsml1 in 24-well plates using Minimum Essential Medium (MEM) containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and antibiotics and allowed to incubate overnight at 37C with 5% CO2. Serum samples, initially diluted at 1:5 ratios, were subjected to heat inactivation for 30min at 56C. Subsequently, a fourfold serial dilution was executed, and these serum dilutions were mixed in equal proportions with the SARS-CoV-2 virus with a titer ranging from 600 to 1,000 plaque-forming units (pfu) per milliliter. The serumvirus mix was then incubated for 1h at 37C within a humidified incubator with 5% CO2. Following incubation, 100l of the resultant mixture was introduced into duplicate wells of the seeded 24-well plate and subjected to an additional 3-h incubation at 37C in a humidified incubator with 5% CO2. Then, 1ml of an overlay medium, constituting MEM, Aquacide-II, 2% FBS and antibiotics, was added to the Vero cell monolayer. Plates were then incubated for 6days at 37C within a humidified incubator with 5% CO2. At the end of this incubation period, the overlay medium was removed, and cells were fixed through the application of 3.7% formaldehyde. After washing with phosphate-buffered saline, cells were stained using 1% crystal violet. Plates were washed once more and air-dried. Viral plaques were counted using the C.T.L. ImmunoSpot platform. PRNT50 titers were determined using standard logistic regression model. Neutralization was also assessed using a semi-quantitative surrogate virus neutralization assay (cPass, GenScript)47 for the BA.1 variant.

Anti-IgG responses against the spike glycoprotein of B.1.1.529 Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 was assessed by an in-house developed indirect ELISA. In brief, 96-well ELISA plates (Nunc Maxisorp) coated with spike protein (full length from Sino Biologicals, 40589-V08H26) were washed thrice with phosphate-buffered saline-Tween (PBS-T). Plates were blocked with 3% nonfat dried milk. Diluted sera samples were added to the blocked plates and incubated at room temperature for 2h. Plates were then washed thrice with PBS-T and incubated at room temperature with detection antibody (1:5,000), anti-human IgG (Fc region specific from Sigma A0170) for 1h at room temperature. After secondary antibody incubation, plates were washed thrice with PBS-T before addition of TMB substrate. Color development was quenched with 3M HCl after 20min of incubation at room temperature. Plates were read at 450nm using a plate reader. The assay background was calculated from the 10s.d. added to the average of the readouts where there was no sample but diluent in the wells. For all samples, IgG titers were an interpolation of previously calculated assay background in 5 parameter logistic fit of sample dilution versus absorbance.

PBMCs were isolated using BD Vacutainer CPT with sodium citrate tubes following the manufacturers guidelines and subsequently cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen. For immune-phenotyping purposes, frozen PBMCs were thawed and allowed to rest in complete RPMI 1640 culture medium (CRPMI) supplemented with 10% FBS, 100Uml1 penicillin and 0.1mgml1 streptomycin (1 pen-strep) for 1822h. Gating strategies for both T cell and B cell experiments are given in Extended Data Fig. 3. In T cell response analysis, intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) was performed using 0.5 million PBMCs in 100l CRPMI medium per well in a V-bottom plate. These cells were stimulated with a 1gml1 epitope mapping 15-mer peptide pool derived from the Omicron B.1.1.529/BA.1 spike glycoprotein peptides, specifically the PepTivator SARS-CoV-2 Prot S B.1.1.529/BA.1 Mutation Pool. Stimulation was carried out in the presence of 1gml1 BD FastImmune (anti-CD28/49d antibody)48 for 6h, with the addition of 1l of Brefeldin-A during the final 4h of stimulation. After stimulation, PBMCs were washed and subjected to surface and ICS staining using antibodies targeting CD3 PE-Cy7 (BD 557851, clone SK7, 1:20), CD4 BV480 (BD 566104, clone SK3, 1:20), CD8 FITC (BD 555366, clone RPA-T8, 1:5), IFN PE (BD 559327, clone B27, 1:5), TNF APC (BD 551384, clone MAb11, 1:5), IL-2 BV421 (BD 562914, clone 5344.111, 1:20), IL-2 BV786 (BD 564113, clone MP4-25D2, 1:10), IL-13 BV711 (BD 564288, clone JES10-5A2, 1:10) and CD19 PerCP-Cy5.5 (BD 561295, clone HIB19, 1:20) markers. ICS was executed utilizing the BD cytofix/cytoperm kit following the manufacturers instructions. Antibody incubation was carried out for 30min at 4C. Phorbol myristate acetate (PMA)ionomycin was used as positive control. To assess the B cell population specific to the B.1.1.529 spike protein, PBMCs were initially labeled with biotinylated spike protein specific to Omicron B.1.1.529. Subsequently, surface staining was performed with common surface markers CD3 BV605 (BD 563219, clone SK7, 1:20), CD19 PerCP-Cy5.5 (BD 561295, clone HIB19, 1:20), CD20 APC-H7 (BD 560734, clone 2H7, 1:20). Following staining and washing steps, PBMCs were resuspended in fluorescence-activated cell sorting buffer, acquired using the FACSLyric system (BD Biosciences), and analyzed using FlowJo software version 10.8.1 (FlowJo LLC, BD Biosciences).

Solicited events data were captured up to 7days after booster vaccine administration through an electronic or paper diary. Local solicited events included pain, redness, swelling, warmth, pruritus and bruising. Systemic solicited events included fever, headache, myalgia, arthralgia, fatigue, malaise, nausea and chills. Unsolicited events were assessed throughout the duration of the study. AE terms were coded using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. These AEs were graded on the basis of the Division of AIDS criteria49. Myocarditis was considered as an AE of special interest; site investigators were asked to thoroughly evaluate participants with any symptoms of chest pain, breathlessness or palpitations.

No formal sample size calculations were performed for phase 2. Phase 3 consisted of a safety and an immunogenicity cohort. The safety cohort consisted of 3,140 participants of whom 3,000 were included in the GEMCOVAC-OM arm. The immunogenicity cohort was analyzed for two primary endpoints based on World Health Organization guidelines50, with individuals randomized to GEMCOVAC-OM and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in a 2:1 ratio. A sample size of 420 (280 in GEMCOVAC-OM and 140 in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) was found adequate for assessing noninferiority of neutralizing antibody titers if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the LSGMR (GMTGEMCOVAC-OM/GMTChAdOx1 nCoV-19) was >0.67 considering a standard deviation of 1.82, alpha error of 5%, power of 90% and dropout rate of 20%. A sample size of 381 (254 in GEMCOVAC-OM and 127 in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) was found adequate for assessing the noninferiority of seroconversion difference considering a margin of 10%, alpha error of 5%, power of 90% and dropout rate of 20%. The sample size of 420 (280 in GEMCOVAC-OM and 140 in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 arm) was considered in this study to provide adequate numbers for the statistical analysis of both the primary endpoints.

All immunogenicity analysis was performed in the full analysis set (intention to treat) population. The observed GMT and associated 95% CIs (ClopperPearson method) were calculated on the basis of log-transformed antibody titers. The rise in neutralizing antibody titers from baseline to day 29 was compared using a paired t-test. The LSGMR of neutralizing antibody titers in both the arms at day 29 from the PRNT50 (BA.1 strain of SARS-CoV-2) assay was calculated using ANCOVA with baseline titers as covariates. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the LSGMR was >0.67, GEMCOVAC-OM would be considered noninferior to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Seroconversion in terms of neutralizing antibody titers from PRNT50 assay was defined as a 2-fold rise in titers at day 29 from baseline. The difference in seroconversion was determined using the MeitinenNurminen method. If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for seroconversion difference was >10%, GEMCOVAC-OM would be considered noninferior to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19.

Similarly, for the secondary endpoint, LSGMR of anti-Spike IgG antibody titers from ELISA at day 29 was assessed using ANCOVA, with baseline titers as covariates. The 95% CI was calculated for percentage by using the ClopperPearson method. The difference in seroconversion at day 29 for anti-spike IgG antibodies from ELISA were calculated using the MeitinenNurminen method. The difference in the change in mean percentage neutralization from baseline to day 29, assessed by the cPass assay, was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline neutralization considered as a covariate. In cell-mediated immunity, change in expression from baseline to day 29 was assessed by either a two-sided paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test depending on normality of the data. Expression at day 29 was compared using a two-sided t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum base based on normality. The normality of the data was assessed using a ShapiroWilk test. This was also performed for subgroups based on their primary vaccination of either BBV152 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19.

Sex-disaggregated analysis was conducted for humoral and safety data from phase 3. For humoral immunogenicity, ANCOVA was used to compare the differences in neutralizing antibody and anti-spike IgG between men and women at days 29 and 90, using baseline titers as covariates. For safety, unadjusted OR was calculated along with the 95% CI.

Data were collected using Clinion (version 3.1). Statistical analysis for humoral immunogenicity was performed using Statistical software SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute). Figures were generated using GraphPad Prism (Version 9.5.1). The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (denoted as r) was computed for all pairs of parameters utilizing the corrplot package (version 0.92) within RStudio (version 2022.12.0.0). To complement the correlogram, two-tailed P values associated with Spearman rank correlations were calculated through the corr.mtest function and visualized using the corrplot function.

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Originally posted here:

An Omicron-specific, self-amplifying mRNA booster vaccine for COVID-19: a phase 2/3 randomized trial - Nature.com

FILE -{ }Top-line estimates of COVID-19 aid fraud are now at $1 trillion, according to LexisNexis Risk Management, making it the largest public fraud in history. (TND){p}{/p}

WASHINGTON (TND)

Top-line estimates of COVID-19 aid fraud are now at $1 trillion, according to LexisNexis Risk Management, making it the largest public fraud in history.

Top-line%20estimates%20of%20COVID-19%20aid%20fraud%20are%20now%20at%20$1%20trillion,%20according%20to%20LexisNexis%20Risk%20Management,%20making%20it%20the%20largest%20public%20fraud%20in%20history.%20(TND)

CEO of Open the Books Adam Andrezejewski joined The National Desks Jan Jeffcoat to discuss the issue.

Its been four years since the pandemic started and still the federal government hasn't given us a top-line estimate. Their estimate of the total fraud, he said. So that's left it to third-party organizations like LexisNexis to come up with an estimate.

Not much has been done to get it back and prosecute the criminals who stole the money.

Andrzejewski argues that the issue couldve been prevented by the use of facial recognition which the federal government is now working on.

There is a stunning $1 trillion and here's how they come to that. They took the admitted improper payments and the unemployment COVID aid program and the government admits to about $200 billion in that program. It's about $0.22 on every dollar. That was paid out, the government says was fraud and so on. $5 trillion of pandemic aid, Andrzejewski said. That's where LexisNexis gets to $1 trillion. It's such a big number.

Load more...

Read more:

Massive fraud exposed: $1 trillion of stolen pandemic relief funds - WKRC TV Cincinnati

Saturday, April 20, or 4/20, is known to many as a day for celebrating cannabis and its consumption. It is also the first 4/20 since recreational cannabis use was legalized in Minnesota, going into effect last August. With this in mind, we looked at recently published research into cannabis use in Minnesota.

According to a study from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health published this past January, pre-legalization cannabis use among Minnesotans is relatively on par with the national average. The study uses 2018-2019 data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the latest state-level data available, and found:

Among Minnesotans age 12 and older, roughly half reported using cannabis once in their life.

Only 10 percent reported recent use within the past 30 days, only slightly lower than the nationwide rate of 10.8 percent.

Minnesotans reported cannabis dependence rate is virtually identical to the national average, 1.8 percent compared to 1.7 percent.

4.4 percent of Minnesotans admit to driving under the influence of cannabis, virtually identical to the 4.5 percent who do so nationally.

It remains to be seen how these cannabis rates shift in Minnesota once we have data from after its legalization. But a reminder to remain vigilant with cannabis, especially around children.

As we have reported, over 50 children age 10 or younger, and another 100 in the 11-14 age range, ended up in U.S. emergency rooms every week, as of 2022, due to intentional and unintentional cannabis consumption.

MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that one-quarter of all U.S. adults have seasonal allergies. A quick perusal of AccuWeather forecasts show tree pollen in the high range everywhere from Fargo and Duluth to Worthington and Rochester.

Infectious respiratory diseases, however, continue to wane in Minnesota.

Hospital admissions due to influenza are finally dropping in Minnesota. After averaging nearly 250 hospital admissions per week since mid-December, the count fell to 212 in the week ending March 23 and then 163 for the final week of March.

Hospitalizations due to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19 leveled off a bit in the most recent week or two after steady declines ever since their recent peaks in late December.

The Minnesota Department of Health has not reported any new cases of measles in the state since the third case this year was reported back in February.

Nationally, however, the CDC is reporting 24 new cases of the highly infectious disease since just two weeks ago, bringing the yearly total to 121 and already tying 2024 with 2022 as the highest year of U.S. measles infection since 2019, when 1,274 cases were identified.

This months COVID-19 vaccination data update, released by the Minnesota Department of Health on Thursday, shows that only three percent of those most vulnerable to hospitalization due to COVID-19, those age 65 or older, are up to date on their COVID-19 vaccinations.

This is an increase of two percentage points from last month, when the vaccination data first reflected a new definition of up to date, factoring in the CDCs latest recommendation that older adults (and those with compromised immune systems) seek a second dose of the newest COVID-19 vaccine formula.

COVID-19 levels in Minnesota wastewater increased 15 percent statewide over the prior week, as of April 10, according to the latest data from the University of Minnesotas on-going Wastewater Surveillance Study.

Recent increases in statewide wastewater levels reverse the decline we had seen since mid-March, but the current level is still a 10 percent decrease from the statewide level recorded one month ago.

Over the last two weeks, the studys South Central and South West regions have seen the largest increases in wastewater levels.

As of April 3, the south central region had a weekly increase of 141 percent, and the south west region had a weekly increase of 86 percent. Those increases were followed by upticks of 59 and 60 percent, respectively.

Looking back four weeks, the north west region had an increase of 111 percent and COVID levels increased in the south west region by 103 percent. Both regions, however, have seen longer-term decreases.

While these recent increases in COVID-19 as measured in wastewater are still relatively minor, it is worthwhile to keep watching.

Dr. Eric Topol, founder and director of Scripps Research Triangle Institute, acknowledges in his most recent Substack article that newly arriving variants have some researchers forecasting an uptick in COVID-19 activity in coming months.

He does not think there is a high risk in the short term, but does conclude with the reminder, High-risk people should continue to take precautions, keeping up with boosters, and all forms of protection.

See the rest here:

Cannabis, sneezes and a welcome decline in respiratory diseases - MPR News

West Virginia will not face a clawback of $465 million in COVID-19 money from the federal government, alleviating concerns raised by state lawmakers during the legislative session in March

By

LEAH WILLINGHAM Associated Press

April 19, 2024, 6:43 PM ET

3 min read

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Gov. Jim Justice announced Friday that West Virginia will not face a clawback of $465 million in COVID-19 money from the U.S. Department of Education, alleviating concerns raised by state lawmakers during the final days of the legislative session in March.

The Republican governor said in a statement that federal officials approved the state's application for a waiver for the money, which was a portion of the more than a billion dollars in federal aid the state received to help support students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In order to receive the money, the state needed to keep funding education at the same or a higher level than before the pandemic. In other words, the federal money could supplement existing state investment in education but not replace it.

For federal spending packages passed in 2020 and 2021, that meant a dollar-for-dollar match. For 2022 and 2023, the federal government examined the percentage of each states total budget being spent on education.

Those regulations were waived for West Virginia in 2022. As lawmakers worked to finish the state budget in March at the close of the session, the state had not been approved for a waiver for 2023.

The question threw the states budget process into disarray and caused uncertainty in the days before the 60-day legislative session, with lawmakers saying they would pass a skinny budget and reconvene to address unfinished business in May, when the financial situation is clearer.

Justice said then that his office was negotiating with the federal government and that he expected a positive resolution, citing funds dedicated to school service and teacher pay raises each year since 2018 when school employees went on strike over conditions in schools.

On Friday, he praised the federal government's decision, and he said he was never concerned the waiver wouldnt be approved.

This announcement came as no surprise and was never a real issue, Justice said.

He also said the state has dedicated money to building projects and putting teaching aides in classrooms to improve math and reading skills. The state said it spent $8,464 per K-12 pupil in 2024, compared with $7,510 during Justices first year as governor in 2017, according to documents submitted to the federal government.

But because state spending increased overall from $4.9 billion in 2017 to $6.2 billion in 2023 the percentage marked for education decreased. The key metric eliciting pause from the federal government was an 8% decrease in the education piece of the budget pie from 51% in 2017 to 43% last year.

Justice said the state's investment in education speaks for itself: State leaders also approved $150 million for the state's School Building Authority in the state budget for the fiscal year starting in July.

Read the original here:

West Virginia will not face $465M COVID education funds clawback after feds OK waiver, governor says - ABC News

Mayor Scott says 'White-ran' arts orgs are overfunded, unveils COVID diversity grant

by JULIAN BARON | The National Desk

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott speaking to a crowd on Tuesday, April 16, 2024. (CharmTV)

BALTIMORE (TND)

Baltimore City Mayor Brandon Scott shared his disappointment Tuesday that too much public money has gone to arts organizations that "just happen to be White-ran."

The comment came during the announcement of a $3.6 million "Diversity in Arts" grant funded by COVID-19 relief dollars. Capital grant recipients include the The National Great Blacks In Wax Museum on North Avenue and the Reginald F. Lewis Museum.

The mayor went on the thank President Biden and Maryland's congressional delegation for helping ensure the availability of federal funding to promote his efforts.

Baltimore%20Mayor%20Brandon%20Scott%20speaking%20to%20a%20crowd%20on%20Tuesday,%20April%2016,%202024.%20(CharmTV)

Grant funding will also be provided to a list of 24 "project" recipients, including $200,000 for Baltimore Center Stage and $100,000 for Creative Nomads, which brings "African drumming" and "mindfulness" to its partners, according to its website.

Mayor Scott is engaged in a tense Democratic primary race against former Mayor Sheila Dixon. Recent polling shows Mayor Scott holds just a three-point lead on Dixon, who has criticized Scott on a myriad of issues, including his alleged shortcomings on public safety.

A spokesperson for Mayor Scott did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The National Desk and local affiliate FOX45 News on Friday.

Load more...

Read more from the original source:

Mayor Scott says 'White-ran' arts orgs are overfunded, unveils COVID diversity grant - Fox Baltimore