(Fighting New Coronary Pneumonia) International Scholars: Virus Traceability Should Not Become a Bargaining Chip in US Geopolitical Games

　　China News Agency, Beijing, July 5 (Zhang Chenyi, Jiang Wenqian) In response to the "laboratory leak theory" of the new crown virus that some US politicians are constantly hyping and aiming at China, more and more international scholars have recently carried out rational refutations.

They generally believe that the "laboratory leak theory" of the new crown virus is groundless, and the practice of politicizing the source of the virus must be stopped immediately.

　　"The natural origin of the new coronavirus is one million times more likely than a laboratory leak"

　　Earlier, US leaders asked US intelligence agencies to produce an investigation report within 90 days on topics such as the "laboratory leak theory."

The Wall Street Journal recently quoted a senior U.S. official as saying: "The president knows that after 90 days, he may not find a definitive answer."

　　The National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) introduced the views of David Robertson, head of viral genomics and bioinformatics at the University of Glasgow in the United Kingdom.

He directly pointed out that the "laboratory leak theory" is unfounded and "the only evidence" of the new coronavirus'laboratory leak theory' is that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is right there. Apart from that, there is no other conclusive evidence. evidence".

　　According to TASS news agency, Russian Health Minister Mikhail Murashko recently publicly stated that the claim that the new crown virus is man-made cannot be confirmed at present.

　　Christian Anderson, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in the United States, said in an interview with The New York Times that although it is possible for the new coronavirus to come from a laboratory and a natural scene, the possibilities are not the same: existing examples, Evidence such as data strongly supports the theory of natural origin, while the "laboratory leak theory" is still only a speculative hypothesis.

　　"I think the evidence we have now points to a scenario where the (new crown virus) spreads from animals to humans." Stephen Goldstein, a virologist at the University of Utah School of Medicine in the United States, said in an interview with NBC that those who support the new crown virus are The evidence of being "artificially transformed" is simply untenable.

Robert Gary, a virologist at Tulane University in the United States, also supports this view.

　　Some supporters of the "laboratory leak theory" believe that the genetic sequence of the new coronavirus has several characteristics that make it very easy to infect humans from the beginning.

In this regard, NBC quoted the viewpoint of Marchei Boni, an associate professor of biology at Pennsylvania State University, and pointed out that in 2009, the classic H1N1 swine flu virus caused a "human infection with swine flu" epidemic, and it spread rapidly around the world.

Although humans are susceptible to this virus, it cannot be said that the classic H1N1 swine flu virus is a product of bioengineering.

By analogy, due to the lack of more information, the possibility of the natural origin of the new coronavirus is a thousand times, or even one million times greater than that of a laboratory leak.

　　It is worth mentioning that, in a paper co-authored with David Robertson, Marchei Boni proposed that the ability of viruses to infect a variety of mammals is slowly evolving.

This means that the ancestors of the new coronavirus do not need to "actively" adapt to humans, because they have been "all-rounder viruses" long ago.

　　The new coronavirus has nothing to do with Wuhan Institute of Virology

　　As the only foreign scientist who has conducted research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Australian virologist Danielle Anderson said in an interview with Bloomberg recently that the new crown virus has nothing to do with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

　　She introduced that the BSL-4 laboratory of Wuhan Institute of Virology is far more formal than some media descriptions.

The laboratory has the highest level of biosafety: air, water and waste must be strictly filtered and disinfected before leaving the laboratory; individuals entering and leaving the laboratory must also be carefully planned chemical showers and personal showers; Wuhan Institute of Virology There are strict regulations and requirements for controlling pathogens in the research process.

　　Anderson said that theoretically, scientists in the laboratory may be inadvertently infected during the research process.

But on the issue of the new coronavirus, this possibility is very small, and there is no evidence that this has indeed happened.

Anderson said that none of the people she knew at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had become ill at the end of 2019.

　　Anderson emphasized that it is most likely that the new coronavirus originated in nature.

No virus is deliberately created and released to infect humans.

　　The Bloomberg article also pointed out that in the genome of the new coronavirus, there is no clear evidence that it has been edited by humans, and there is no evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology possesses the original strain of the new coronavirus in the epidemic.

Political observers said that the allegations concerning the "laboratory leak theory" of the new coronavirus have a specific strategic intent: to put pressure on China.

　　The politicization of virus traceability must stop immediately

　　The South China Morning Post published a review article titled "Western Political Virus Tracing Attacks on China, No One Wins" at the end of June this year, and pointed out that the tracing of the new crown virus must first respect the results of the joint investigation by the WHO and China.

As we all know, this survey result believes that the possibility of natural origin is the highest, and emphasizes that the new coronavirus is "extremely unlikely" to be transmitted through laboratories, and "more likely to very likely" to be introduced into humans via an intermediate host.

　　Second, double standards should not be encouraged.

Some Western public figures, including former US President Trump, referred to the new crown virus as the "Chinese virus" or "Wuhan virus."

According to this logic, should the H1N1 swine flu virus first discovered in the United States in early 2009 be renamed "American virus"?

During the 2009 "human infection with swine flu" epidemic, about 11% to 21% of the global population was infected. Should the world demand compensation from the United States?

　　A recent study by the National Institutes of Health of the United States indicated that cases of new coronary disease may have appeared in the United States in December 2019.

If a new investigation is really needed, the primary subject of investigation should be the United States.

　　Finally, the anti-epidemic work should focus on "cooperation."

Due to ideological and cultural differences, many Western countries have a great misunderstanding of China.

In fact, China and other countries can work together to fight the epidemic to increase mutual understanding.

Optimistically, it is never too late to join hands, especially when the whole world continues to suffer from the epidemic.

The politicization of the traceability of the new crown virus must stop immediately.

The epidemic is related to the survival of mankind and should not be a geopolitical game for major powers.

　　As Uganda’s "Daily Monitor" article pointed out, zoonotic diseases from nature are inevitable. We must establish a better global monitoring and early warning system, as well as an early response system when an epidemic occurs.

We need reliable communication to prevent the rapid spread of emerging zoonotic diseases on a global scale.

We must also establish relevant mechanisms to find various effective treatment methods, research and distribute vaccines in a fast, transparent, and credible manner.

(Finish)