Corona pandemic-no proof of the origin of Sars-Cov-2

Since the beginning of Corona pandemic in early 2020, the question has been discussed how the virus in China skyrocketed to humans. Technical evidence, however, quickly took a back seat: the US government of Donald Trump put the People’s Republic to the pillory and spoke of the “Chinese Virus”. At the same time, conspiracy theories made the round that Sars-Cov-2 had been artificially bred and deliberately released. The latter was of course nonsense, but some scientists over the goal when they claimed in March 2020 in an explanation that the experts come “with an overwhelming majority to the conclusion that this Coronavirus originated in the animal world”. The question became a political creed. This also explains the excitement about media reports this week that the German BND in 2020 had collected evidence of the laboratory thesis.

As is well known, the Chinese city of Wuhan is considered the starting point for Sars-Cov-2. The first major outbreak was available in a wild animal market. At the same time, research was carried out at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – details were never published. In terms of content, the BND points to three documents: Chinese authorities have tried to mislead the experts. In addition, security level two (out of four) is said to have been worked in the institute, and the attempts there would have needed level three. And there is indications of bioinformatics: According to the data -based analysis, the speed of change has not decreased, as was expected in the “adjustment phase” after the overthletes to humans. So was the virus not optimized in a natural way?

“The original jump of Sars-Cov-2 remains unknown.”

Lancet-Covid-19 Commission

All three points have been broadly discussed in the professional world for years. As early as 2017, some non-Chinese experts were expressed in the journal “Nature” on the system in Wuhan. However, due to Stufe-4 research in part of the institute, which is potentially also suitable for military purposes. Therefore, foreign intelligence agencies like the BND are interested. However, lax standards are not proof that a virus has actually escaped.

What makes the thesis of the laboratory accident plausible are characteristics of the virus: the receptor binding domain in the spike protein and the furin clapping point were unusually well adapted to humans at the beginning. Sars-Cov-2 was therefore able to dock on human cells and reach them. This could speak for a non -natural origin, especially since no intermediate host has so far been found: Coronaviruses are created in bats that infect other animals. Only then does mutations occur that make it possible to overcome people. There could have been information from the market in Wuhan, which either did not take or were not published. To draw the conclusion from this, the authorities wanted to cover up a laboratory accident is wrong: Zooonosis would have been just as embarrassing for China in view of the catastrophic conditions on fur -animal farms that are suspected here. And wildlife markets should actually be closed after the SARS-1 pandemic 2002/3. Beijing blameed for frozen products from Europe that were sold on the market – a fairytale history that was directed in the inside.

What speaks especially for zoonose: Sars-1 had demonstrably jumped into humans on animal markets of sneak cats. The fact that the intermediate host has not been found does not mean that it does not exist. Some virologists assume that Sars-Cov-2 has been circulating at least since November 2019. So time for the mutations mentioned would have been. The evolutionary biologist Matthias Glaubrecht writes in his book “The Revenge of the Pangolin”: “Coronaviruses have long been part of the natural virosphere.” Due to the large bat reservoir and “ability to make mutations”, the unusual Wuhan event is anything but unlikely. And in the history of mankind, zoonoses, but never triggered laboratory events. However, these information is also not evidence.

Nd.Diewoche – Our weekly newsletter

With our weekly newsletter . We’re Doing Look at the most important topics of the week and read them Highlights our Saturday edition on Friday. Get the free subscription here.

It remains: Both theses can explain a possible origin of the virus relatively plausibly, and none has so far been refuted. The longer the pandemic is, the milder and more objective the controversy in the professional world. As early as 2022, the interdisciplinary “Covid 19 Commission” of the specialist sheet “The Lancet” wrote: “The immediate origin of Sars-Cov-2 remains unknown. The commission members represented different views of the relative probability of the two explanations. «This still applies today.