By Thomas Gaulkin, March 26, 2021
Former CDC director Robert Redfield spoke with CNN's Sanjay Gupta for an "autopsy" of the pandemic airing March 27. (CNN)
As Robert Redfield awoke Friday morning, he found himself transformed in his TV into a gigantic target of viral scorn.
The former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lifted many expert eyebrows from their microscopes, telling CNN’s Sanjay Gupta he believes the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 originated in a lab in China. In clips CNN aired from an upcoming special this Sunday (which Gupta dubbed an “autopsy” of the pandemic), Redfield dismissed the possibility that the virus could have evolved sufficiently on its own to have “somehow jumped” quickly from bats to humans.
“I just don’t think this makes biological sense,” Redfield told Gupta, arguing it’s easier to conclude that the virus gained greater efficiency at infecting humans inside a lab.
Many infectious disease experts have expressed confidence that COVID-19 is a zoonotic disease that was in fact transmitted from animals to humans, and insist there is a lack of evidence of a lab origin, accidental or otherwise. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical adviser, told reporters Friday that Redfield’s comments were just “an opinion.”
Although Redfield acknowledged that other scientists had different analyses and science would eventually determine the origin of COVID-19, some of those other scientists came down more harshly on the former CDC director. Angela Rasmussen, a self-described “excessively direct virologist” affiliated with Georgetown’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, mocked Redfield for apparently coining the term “zoonot,” a relatively innocuous misuse of the adjective “zoonotic” to describe diseases that transmit from animals to humans:
Jason Kindrachuk, an emerging virus specialist at the University of Manitoba, went even further with ad hominem attacks on Redfield’s argument against a bat-to-human theory:
There may be more conventionally scientific reasons to doubt Redfield’s reasoning. Some studies indicate that the novel coronavirus actually did evolve quickly on its own, outside of any lab, and that the virus’s infectiousness in humans is not particularly remarkable:
But some biologists and biosecurity experts have also argued that dismissal of the lab leak theory is premature, and that investigations led by the World Health Organization have not adequately addressed it. (Even Rasmussen has acknowledged that a lab leak was possible.) The danger of studying potentially pandemic pathogens in labs is not a new concern.
Early during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Bulletin published an op-ed by then-Federation of American Scientists president Ali Nouri with the headline, “Let evidence, not talk radio, determine whether the outbreak started in a lab.” Between Redfield’s revelations on CNN and the backlash from his peers on social media, turning down the radio may not be enough.
The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent, nonprofit media organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important. In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.
View Comments
Here are three things that are not relevant to understanding the likelihood that SARS-CoV-2 accidentally escaped from one of the Wuhan labs:
—Not relevant: The Chinese authorities saying that there is no record of the virus in any lab in China prior to the pandemic. The Chinese authorities also denied the fact that they placed a million Uyghur people in detention camps. Their denials about the virus are irrelevant in the absence of independent confirmation.
—Not relevant: Virologists saying it is highly improbable that a virus could accidentally leak from a lab and cause a pandemic. Virologists are experts about viruses — but they are not experts about biosecurity / biosafety risk assessment.
—Not relevant: Virologists saying that the virus could not have been engineered. It’s an interesting debate whether SARS-CoV-2 is natural or not, but a virologist saying that the virus was not engineered does not disprove that a natural virus was being stored in a lab. That can only be determined through a forensic investigation.
Coronavirus pandemics really don’t happen all that often. There were only four known endemic coronaviruses before the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Just four. SARS-CoV-2 will be the fifth. Historically, coronavirus pandemics have been rare events.
So what are the chances of a coronavirus pandemic emerging out of Wuhan through natural zoonosis? Specifically Wuhan. Specifically a coronavirus. Once in a thousand years? Once in 10,000 years?
Versus the chances of a coronavirus pandemic emerging from a lab storing and researching coronaviruses. A 1-in-100-million-year event? Or a 1-in-500-year event? Minuscule risk? Or significant risk? I’m inclined to believe the risk is significant based on this Bulletin article from February 2019: https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/human-error-in-high-biocontainment-labs-a-likely-pandemic-threat/
People will believe what they want to believe as Griffith`s response is a prime example of - politics (nationalism) has become intimately linked with the emergence of the pandemic and many are busy promoting an anti-Chinese line (if nothing else it acts as a good distraction from the lackadaisical, at best, way governments responded to the Covid-19 virus once it was declared a pandemic by WHO in March 2020).
What I believe, Stephen Parsons, is that there is a reasonable possibility that the pandemic was caused by a lab-leak. I also believe that there is a reasonable possibility that the pandemic was caused by natural zoonosis.
The evidence for both hypotheses is circumstantial. In the absence of direct evidence, both hypotheses should be investigated. A coronavirus pandemic from a lab-leak and a coronavirus pandemic from natural zoonosis are both very low probability events. But one of them happened. So both should be investigated.
Now, maybe you think a pandemic caused by a lab-leak is the kind of thing that would only happen once in 100 million years. In which case, you will almost certainly conclude that the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic is natural zoonosis.
However, I think the risk of a lab-leak leading to a pandemic is much higher than once in 100 million years — perhaps it’s more like a 1-in-500-year event. Why do I think this? Because biosecurity experts repeatedly warned that human error in a biosafety lab might cause a pandemic — and these labs have been proliferating around the world. If the risk of one lab causing a pandemic is as high as once in 500 years then the risk of human error in one of 25 labs causing a pandemic could be more like once in 20 years. And if the risk is indeed that high, then we are in a serious trouble.
Some interesting counters to your observations…
We have identified over 400 coronaviruses in bats, basically bats and coronaviruses coexist.
Sars1 jumped from bats to civets to humans in 2002/3
Mers jumped from bats to camels to humans in 2012
The current Sars2 pandemic most likely jumped from bats to pangolins to humans in 2020. Yes, a coronavirus found in bats closely resembles Sars2…..
Plus of course the various outbreaks of H1N1….Spanish Flu in 1918, Bird Flu in 1996, Swine Flu in 2009. Not coronaviruses, but same kind of problem.
Scientists have been warning of a likely pandemic since at least 2002.
Just with those above, we’ve had 5 incidents in a little over 20 years. Fortunately, Sars2 is the least lethal at around 1%. We are lucky Sars1 (15%) or Mers (30%) never made it to pandemic status.
So, a potential pandemic every 4 or so years.
Could Sars2 have come from a lab? Of course.
What is more likely, the virus escaping from the millions of wild bats that are increasingly being disturbed as we encroach on their habitats….or it escaping from a high security lab designed to contain the viruses they are working on.
You put forward a good argument for the pandemic being caused by a natural spillover. For millennia, pandemics have been caused by viruses moving from animal hosts to human beings. The current pandemic is consistent with what has happened throughout human history. I agree there’s a reasonable possibility that the pandemic was caused by natural zoonosis.
But I also believe that there’s a reasonable possibility that the pandemic was caused by a lab leak. What I can’t put aside is that long before the pandemic, biosecurity experts warned that human error in biosafety labs might cause pandemics (The Bulletin reported on the risk). And in Wuhan there were labs storing and researching coronaviruses.
As I wrote in my reply above to Stephen Parsons, what we’re comparing are two incredibly low probability events. The first event is a coronavirus pandemic emerging naturally out of Wuhan (specifically Wuhan); the second is a coronavirus pandemic resulting from an accidental lab-leak in Wuhan. Both events are so rare that they might happen only once every few hundred years — or once every few thousand years.
Of course, if a person believes that it is virtually impossible for a pandemic to be caused by a lab-leak then I can appreciate that natural zoonosis is the only feasible explanation to them.
But I believe the risk of lab-leaks causing pandemics is significant, and so in the absence of direct evidence proving a natural origin of COVID-19, the Wuhan labs should be properly investigated.
I'll remain confused why The Bulletin insists on trying to fencesit on this despite the overwhelming consensus being "Uh, no guys, it didn't come from a lab." because it refers to itself as being concerned with credibility and scientific awareness and yet continues to ignore all of the evidence that the politically charged "Chinese lab """"theory""""" is... well... nonsense?
At least when CNN does it it makes sense, it's for money.
There is massive U.S. resistance to considering an accident in the Chinese lab because it would raise questions about the safety and siting of U.S. level 4 biolabs. We have had accidents in our laboratories. If an air-borne virus that is infectious before people become sick leaks out, it will create a global pandemic before the local officials know of an accident. The combination of a large mega-city, mass transit and a global air transport network makes it impossible to stop such pandemics. If that was shown to have happen, it would shut down all Biolevel 4 facilities in the U.S. because they are all located in urban areas--including one in Boston. It would force movement of those facilities to more remote locations for safety--such as Hanford and Oak Ridge.
The Russians were smart. They put their most dangerous bio facilities in remote locations. The U.S. put them in urban areas for the convenience of the scientific community. Bottom line, we need a serious look at biolevel 4 facility siting by a panel where the majority are not members of the biological research community where self interest has determined siting. .
Whether or not we ever discover Patient Zero for SARS-CoV-2, the interpretation of origin matters a lot from a public health policy and prevention perspective. If it arose in a laboratory, effectively human-made, then the risk of zoonotic transfer is downplayed, as such pandemics only arise from "bad actors." If it was zoonotic, then there's nothing to say yet another virus will pop out with comparable effects. Origins can be zoonotic whether or not people believe SARS-CoV-2 arose in a lab or not. But the public does not think that way, and, in a representative democracy, is loathe to spend monies on preventing something which can be assigned to "bad Chinese".
We do need to monitor zoonotic reservoirs and scientists have been saying that for 20 years or more. But there's relatively little funding to do that.
Also, blaming origins on particular countries and cultures, whether SARS-CoV-2 itself, or variants like P.1 on "Brazilians", even though these are inaccurate whether on origins or primary source of transmission, just feeds xenophobia and encourages race-baiting. These are not only egregiously immoral, but they are not helpful at all in controlling pandemics or disease.
Facts:
1) The Wuhan Institute of Virology is a BSL-4 facility working on bats and very close to the Wuhan Market.
2) Chinese authorities repeatedly delayed: a) initial reports of a novel virus, b) sharing the genome sequence, c) admitting independent virology experts, etc., all the while stockpiling PPE.
3) Reports from workers at the WIV indicate a pattern of accidents and poor security before the outbreak, while pictures from after WHO was allowed in show all brand-new equipment and very tight security.
4) The Chinese government is infamous for systematic denial, obfuscation, misdirection, revisionism and outright lies (backed by propaganda).
We may never uncover the true origins of SARS-CoV-2, but we certainly can NOT rule out the possibility that it escaped from WIV. Anyone who says otherwise is either hopelessly naive or willfully ignorant.