IF IT WASN'T FOR NO EVIDENCE THEY'D HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL::

The authors of the WSJ article argue that Sars-CoV-2 originated in a lab based on the presence of a "CGG-CGG" sequence. They claim this is a "readily available and convenient" codon pair that scientists prefer to use to produce the amino acid arginine. But to anyone with an understanding of the techniques required for genetic modification, this double-CGG is usually no more difficult or easy to produce than any other pair of codons that encode arginines.

The authors claim that the CGG codon appears less frequently than the other five possible codons in betacoronaviruses (the family of coronaviruses to which Sars-CoV-2 belongs). If we look at related coronaviruses, the CGG codon encodes about 5% of all arginines in Sars-CoV compared with about 3% of all arginines in Sars-CoV-2. Though CGG is less common than other codons, the authors' argument fails to provide a reason that the double-CGG sequence could not exist naturally.

The authors argue that recombination (when viruses that infect the same host share genetic material) was the most likely way in which Sars-CoV-2 was able to obtain the double-CGG sequence. They note that the double-CGG codon pair is not found in other members of this "class" of coronavirus, so natural recombination could not possibly generate a double-CGG. However, viruses do not just depend on preassembled segments of genetic material to evolve and expand their host range.

The authors also claim that mutation (random copying errors) is unlikely to generate the double-CGG sequence. But viruses evolve at a rapid rate, so much so that the accumulation of mutations is a common inconvenience of virological studies. Recombination is one way in which viruses evolve, but the authors' dismissal of mutation as a source of viral change is an inaccurate description of reality.

The final claim that the first sequenced Sars-CoV-2 virus was ideally suited to the human host neglects evidence of viral circulation in local animal populations, animal-to-animal transmission, and the rapid evolution that is driving the increasing transmissibility of the newer variants. If the virus was ideally adapted to humans, why is so much further evolution evident?

Disappointingly, many other media articles appear to have accepted and repeated the claims from the WSJ piece. The origin of Sars-CoV-2 may remain unresolved, but there is no evidence presented in the WSJ piece that scientifically supports the concept of a lab leak of a genetically engineered virus.

Danielle Anderson was working in what has become the world's most notorious laboratory just weeks before the first known cases of Covid-19 emerged in central China. Yet, the Australian virologist still wonders what she missed.

An expert in bat-borne viruses, Anderson is the only foreign scientist to have undertaken research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology's BSL-4 lab, the first in mainland China equipped to handle the planet's deadliest pathogens. Her most recent stint ended in November 2019, giving Anderson an insider's perspective on a place that's become a flashpoint in the search for what caused the worst pandemic in a century.

The emergence of the coronavirus in the same city where institute scientists, clad head-to-toe in protective gear, study that exact family of viruses has stoked speculation that it might have leaked from the lab, possibly via an infected staffer or a contaminated object. China's lack of transparency since the earliest days of the outbreak fueled those suspicions, which have been seized on by the U.S. That's turned the quest to uncover the origins of the virus, critical for preventing future pandemics, into a geopolitical minefield.

The work of the lab and the director of its emerging infectious diseases section--Shi Zhengli, a long-time colleague of Anderson's dubbed 'Batwoman' for her work hunting viruses in caves--is now shrouded in controversy. The U.S. has questioned the lab's safety and alleged its scientists were engaged in contentious gain of function research that manipulated viruses in a manner that could have made them more dangerous.

It's a stark contrast to the place Anderson described in an interview with Bloomberg News, the first in which she's shared details about working at the lab.

Half-truths and distorted information have obscured an accurate accounting of the lab's functions and activities, which were more routine than how they've been portrayed in the media, she said.

"It's not that it was boring, but it was a regular lab that worked in the same way as any other high-containment lab," Anderson said. "What people are saying is just not how it is."

Tweet   @brothersjudd