The World Health Organization (WHO) called for an audit of a research institute in Wuhan, China, on Friday. This was due to the failure to ensure transparency and information sharing from the Chinese administration in the first phase as part of the second phase of the investigation into the origin of COVID-19. ..
An important priority for advancing towards a deeper investigation of the origin of COVID-19 is “Relevant laboratories and research institutes operating in the area of the first human cases identified in December 2019. Includes “Audit”. During a closed room meeting.
According to Tedros, the second phase of the study will also require a survey of certain residential areas in Wuhan and the wildlife and animal markets in central cities, including the South China Seafood Market.
Tedros said he would focus on “a study that prioritizes areas where the SARS CoV-2 epidemic is shown earliest.”
The day before, the chief engineer said it was “premature” to rule out the possibility that COVID-19 emerged from the Wuhan Institute without sufficient evidence, and was announced in March, which specified the Institute’s Leak Theory Hypothesis. Looking back at the controversial WHO report. As “very unlikely”.
In recent months, the theory that the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus is the result of a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) has been widely accepted as likely after being largely criticized by legacy media. , Commentators are calling it “Uncovered conspiracy,” despite the fact that many scientists and officials have provided evidence in support of the hypothesis. The confusion was exacerbated by comments from Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who agreed with the CCP’s assessment of the origin of the virus.
On May 26, U.S. President Joe Biden said the institute is considering a variety of theories, including the possibility of a laboratory accident, and will prepare a report on the origin of the virus within 90 days. I ordered the intelligence agency.
WHO also corrected some “unintended mistakes” in a joint report with China on the origin of the virus on Thursday, “revealing that the first family cluster was not linked to the South China seafood market.” Stated. Washington post First reported.
China remains a member of WHO.
The agency’s report, produced in the opinion of Chinese scientists who would have worked under Beijing’s restrictions, expressed concern about the impact of the communist regime on the investigation, with U.S. government officials and some scientists. Was asked by. Critics said China denied scientists access to raw data from early-stage patients.
The first report adhered to Beijing’s favorable position on the origin of the virus. Beijing has pushed the hypothesis of a natural zoonotic disease, in which the virus is transmitted from an animal host to humans, as the most likely source. The Chinese administration has repeatedly cited WHO’s assessment that lab leaks are “very unlikely” as a reason to push virus probes in other countries.
“Lose precious time”
Tedros said on Friday that WHO hopes that China will “support this next stage of the scientific process by sharing all relevant data in the spirit of transparency.”
He also announced the creation of a new permanent International Scientific Advisory Group (SAGO) on the origin of new pathogens that “play an important role in the next stage” of CCP viral origin probes, and the origin of new pathogens in the future. .. .. “
Tedros said WHO will openly solicit “highly qualified professionals” to apply to SAGO. He said various researchers would be nominated by member states.
“Members of this new advisory group are selected based on their technical expertise, taking into account geographical representation and gender equality.
“The world needs a more stable and predictable framework for studying the origins of new pathogens that may be epidemic or pandemic,” Tedros added.
The announcement faces concerns from some scientists questioning whether SAGO can replace the existing mission appointed by WHO to investigate the origin of the virus.
“I’m worried about the delay, but of course it’s a bit strange,” said Marion Koopmans, a virologist and veterinarian at Erasmus University who is a member of an existing mission. ScienceMag.. “We are losing precious time.”
Gerald Kush, deputy director of the National Institute for Emerging Infectious Diseases at Boston University, said he was “suspicious” about the creation of a new group.
“I have dismissed the first task force and am now very skeptical about allowing individuals and governments to nominate themselves. This leads to a partisan and selective process and is the best composition. I can’t connect, “Keusch said. ScienceMag..
WHO did not immediately respond to the request for comment by the Epoch Times.