Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Both sides next revision
covid-19_pandemic:timeline [2022/09/15 20:43]
pamela [September 2022]
covid-19_pandemic:timeline [2022/09/19 18:28] (current)
pamela [COVID-19 Pandemic 2022]
Line 1166: Line 1166:
 ==== COVID-19 Pandemic 2022 ==== ==== COVID-19 Pandemic 2022 ====
 Timeline of significant global and Australian data points for the third year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.((https://web.archive.org/web/20220626003212/https://totalityofevidence.com/pandemic-timeline/pandemic-2022/)) Timeline of significant global and Australian data points for the third year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.((https://web.archive.org/web/20220626003212/https://totalityofevidence.com/pandemic-timeline/pandemic-2022/))
 +
 +==== US Right To Know - USRTK Timeline: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 ====
 +{{ :covid-19_pandemic:usrtk_timeline_sars-cov-2_origin.png?400|}}
 +September 14, 2022 by Emily Kopp
 +
 +Introduction
 +
 +“The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” is one of the most influential scientific articles in history.
 +
 +In February 2020 — about a month before a pandemic had been declared — five top virologists huddled to examine aspects of a rapidly emerging coronavirus that seemed primed to infect human cells. (The furin cleavage site kept one virologist up all night.) A few days later, they concluded the virus had not been engineered. In March, their conclusions were published in Nature Medicine.
 +
 +“We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” the article read.
 +
 +The article assured much of the media, Washington and the broader infectious disease community that there was no need to scrutinize the labs at the pandemic’s epicenter in Wuhan, China. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is well known for research on SARS-like coronaviruses, including gain-of-function research. Though a “correspondence” and not a formal paper, the article has been cited in the press 2,127 times.
 +
 +It took 15 months and a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to reveal that each of the five authors had expressed private concerns about engineering or the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s store of novel coronaviruses.
 +
 +Also troubling: A confidential teleconference organized by Wellcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar had framed early drafts of the article. But several scientists on the call had undisclosed conflicts of interest.
 +
 +Two authors were later found to have collaborated with the Wuhan lab or its American partner, EcoHealth Alliance. The name of another virologist on the call but not publicly credited is synonymous with controversial viral engineering. 
 +
 +Also present on the call for “advice and leadership” but not publicly credited: director of the National Institutes of Health Francis Collins and director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci. NIAID had funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology — a fact Fauci had been alerted to by late January. 
 +
 +The scientists’ familiarity with the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s work on novel coronaviruses calls into question a central premise of the paper — that SARS-CoV-2 could not have been engineered because it appeared to be novel.
 +
 +Farrar said that “proximal origin” was motivated by the absence of an investigation by the WHO. However, emails show that Farrar simultaneously shepherded along the article and appealed to the WHO.
 +
 +This timeline compiles several sources in an effort to flesh out the backstory of the enormously influential article. The timeline is likely to grow as more information emerges. All times have been approximated to Eastern Time.
 +
 +The authors of the “proximal origin” article are Scripps Research virologist Kristian Andersen, University of Sydney virologist Edward Holmes, Tulane School of Medicine virologist Robert Garry, University of Edinburgh virologist Andrew Rambaut and Columbia University virologist Ian Lipkin.
 +
 +“Just a few of us – Eddie, Kristian, Tony and I – were now privy to sensitive information that, if proved to be true, might set off a whole series of events that would be far bigger than any of us. It felt as if a storm was gathering,” Farrar wrote of the period leading up the publication of “proximal origin.” ((https://usrtk.org/biohazards/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/))
  
Print/export