WHO expert group fails to find a definitive answer for how COVID-19 began
An expert group charged by the World Health Organization to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic started released its final report Friday, reaching an unsatisfying conclusion: Scientists still aren't sure how the worst health emergency in a century began.
At a press briefing on Friday, Marietjie Venter, the group's chair, said that most scientific data supports the hypothesis that the new coronavirus jumped to humans from animals.
That was also the conclusion drawn by the first WHO expert group that investigated the pandemic's origins in 2021, when scientists concluded the virus likely spread from bats to humans, via another intermediary animal. At the time, WHO said a lab leak was 'extremely unlikely.'
Venter said that after more than three years of work, WHO's expert group was unable to get the necessary data to evaluate whether or not COVID-19 was the result of a lab accident, despite repeated requests for hundreds of genetic sequences and more detailed biosecurity information that were made to the Chinese government.
'Therefore, this hypothesis could not be investigated or excluded,' she said. 'It was deemed to be very speculative, based on political opinions and not backed up by science.' She said that the 27-member group did not reach a consensus; one member resigned earlier this week and three others asked for their names to be removed from the report.
Five years ago, we predicted how COVID-19 would change our world. Here's what we got right – and wrong
Venter said there was no evidence to prove that COVID-19 had been manipulated in a lab, nor was there any indication that the virus had been spreading before December 2019 anywhere outside of China.
'Until more scientific data becomes available, the origins of how SARS-CoV-2 entered human populations will remain inconclusive,' Venter said, referring to the scientific name for the COVID-19 virus.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said it was a 'moral imperative' to determine how COVID began, noting that the virus killed at least 20 million people, wiped at least US$10 trillion from the global economy and upended the lives of billions.
Last year, the AP found that the Chinese government froze meaningful domestic and international efforts to trace the virus' origins in the first weeks of the outbreak in 2020 and that WHO itself may have missed early opportunities to investigate how COVID-19 began.
U.S. President Donald Trump has long blamed the emergence of the coronavirus on a laboratory accident in China, while a U.S. intelligence analysis found there was insufficient evidence to prove the theory.
Chinese officials have repeatedly dismissed the idea that the pandemic could have started in a lab, saying that the search for its origins should be conducted in other countries.
Last September, researchers zeroed in on a short list of animals they think might have spread COVID-19 to humans, including racoon dogs, civet cats and bamboo rats.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
3 hours ago
- CBC
What charging for COVID-19 vaccines means for Albertans going forward
When the province announced that most Albertans will have to pay for COVID-19 vaccines themselves going forward, the phones at Mohamed Elfishawi's two Edmonton pharmacies started ringing. "People are scared," Elfishawi said during an interview at his south Edmonton location, describing the calls he's had from clients – especially seniors. Earlier this month, the province announced it would only cover vaccines for particular high-risk groups: people living in care homes and group settings, those receiving home care, people on social programs such as AISH, and immunocompromised individuals. Everyone else will have to pay an estimated $110 if they want the vaccine. Accessing the shot will also be more limited: in the near future, pharmacists like Elfishawi will no longer be allowed to administer them, they will only be available at health clinics. Alberta's new path makes it an outlier in Canada, prompting questions about why the province has diverged from national recommendations on vaccines, what the timeline is for rolling out the new distribution system and whether or not the vaccine can be added to group health benefit plans. Will group benefits offer coverage? The United Nurses of Alberta (UNA) is already in talks with employers, seeking to get COVID immunization coverage added to group health benefits. "But even if they do, what that means is that it will fall onto the insurance companies, which will mean increased premiums both for employees and employers," said Heather Smith, UNA's president. UNA is also looking into benefits covering the cost for its staff. If it can't get sorted out in time for the fall rollout of vaccines, Smith said they plan to offer reimbursement for employees who pay to get immunized. Jason Schilling, president of the Alberta Teachers' Association, said they are exploring options through insurance, but he has also written to ministers asking them to reverse the decision. "We have policy around this that teachers should get vaccinations provided to them because they're working in congregated settings with students," Schilling said. "We know we have overcrowded classrooms." Alberta Union of Public Employees vice-president Bonnie Gostola calls the plan to charge for the shots a "slap in the face" to members working in roles like hospital porters, housekeeping, and other service roles. "Workers that barely make above minimum wage — $110 is one day pay for those members – it's excessive, especially when they are also responsible for looking after other people," she said. Gostola said AUPE has been telling workers this is an occupational health and safety issue, and that it believes the employer needs to take on the responsibility of covering the cost of vaccines. Some employers are suggesting other avenues for staff. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority said in a statement that its workers will be able to use their employee health care spending account to pay for the shot. A complex change For people who do have health benefits, getting COVID vaccines added to group benefit coverage won't be simple. Alberta Blue Cross – a non-profit insurance provider that runs government coverage programs as well as private plans – has been getting inquiries from both employers and plan members about covering the vaccines. "We are waiting for more information on the COVID vaccines — including the cost and specific details on the way Albertans will access and be charged for the COVID vaccine — before we can make a decision regarding private plan coverage," said Blue Cross spokesperson Sharmin Nault Hislop in a statement. "The change is complex and there are a lot of factors at play." Hislop explained that it's not a simple internal decision as private plans have many different designs, some including vaccine coverage and some that don't. The organization also has an internal drug review process that needs to be done to determine if and how it can add COVID-19 vaccines to its roster of covered medications. U.S. comparison There is variability in the types of health care and medications publicly covered province-to-province. For example, shingles vaccines are free for older adults in some jurisdictions but not others. But changing access to COVID-19 shots, which were freely available across the country for so long, creates a compelling case study, said Jamie Daw, an assistant professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. "I think it's not something that anyone expected access would be taken away," Daw said. "I think that's sort of part of this broader conversation about sort of privatization in the Canadian health-care system more generally, and how we should grapple with it and what policies and regulations might be needed in cases like this." Daw said that in the United States, about 90 per cent of Americans can still get COVID vaccines for free — covered by private insurance, and Medicare and Medicaid programs. Unlike Canada where following the isn't required, the U.S. has federal regulations requiring that certain vaccines be fully covered by public and private coverage. Diverging from NACI's recommendations The province said in the 2023-2024 respiratory virus season, 135 million worth of doses went to waste. For the upcoming season, Alberta has ordered 500,000 doses – some of which will be given for free to the identified high-risk groups, and the rest available for purchase to help Alberta recoup the coast. Most Albertans will soon pay about $110 for a COVID shot 1 day ago Duration 2:43 With Alberta soon to end free COVID-19 vaccines for most residents, there's growing concern about cost, coverage and access — especially for vulnerable seniors. When provincial funding ends, most Albertans will have to pay an estimated $110 per dose. A statement from Minister of Primary and Preventive Health Services Adriana LaGrange's office this week said the decision still offers protection to vulnerable Albertans, and takes low uptake of the vaccine by the general population into account. And while Lagrange's office said the province was informed by NACI's recommendations on vaccines, it decided not to offer free vaccines to a number of high risk, priority groups that NACI identifies because of "Alberta's specific needs," such as uptake trends. Those high-risk groups not being offered free vaccines include all people over 65, pregnant people, Indigenous people, members of racialized and other equity-denied communities, and health-care workers and other care providers in community settings. The exclusion of people over 65 is particularly concerning to Dr. Lynora Saxinger, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Alberta. She said it's a major deviation from NACI's recommendations, which do take cost to provinces into consideration. "It doesn't really endorse using the vaccine very strongly from a public health perspective if they're not covering it," Saxinger said.
CBC
14 hours ago
- CBC
U.S. vaccine panel rejects flu shots with a specific preservative, despite safety data
The Trump administration's new vaccine advisers on Thursday endorsed this fall's flu vaccinations for just about every American — but only if they use certain shots free of a preservative that has been safely used in vaccines for decades. What is normally a routine step in preparing for the upcoming flu season drew intense scrutiny after U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. abruptly fired the influential 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)and handpicked replacements that include several vaccine skeptics. The seven-member panel bucked another norm Thursday as it discussed the safety of a preservative used in less than five per cent of U.S. flu vaccinations: It deliberated based only on a presentation from an anti-vaccine group's former leader — without allowing the usual public airing of scientific data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The preservative, thimerosal, has been used for decades in certain vaccines that come in multi-dose vials, to prevent contamination as each dose is withdrawn. Its controversy stems from containing a small amount of a particular type of mercury. However, the CDC's own data shows it is safe, and on Friday the World Health Organization stated in a press briefing that there was no evidence of risk. "Thimerosal has been reviewed multiple times by multiple agencies, including WHO, and it's clear from the evidence that there is no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal," Dr. Katherine O'Brien from WHO told reporters in reaction to the U.S. panel decision. Thimerosal contains a minute amount of ethyl mercury, which breaks down quickly in the body and is swiftly removed, unlike methyl mercury, the type of mercury found in the environment which can build up in the body and cause harm. In Canada, a handful of multi-dose influenza vaccines approved for use by Health Canada contain thimerosal, but the vast majority of routine childhood vaccines do not. Single-dose flu shots unaffected Study after study has found no evidence that thimerosal causes autism, a myth long pushed by anti-vaccine groups, or poses any safety risks. Yet since 2001, all vaccines routinely used for U.S. children age 6 years or younger have already come in thimerosal-free formulas. The advisory panel voted to back the usual U.S. recommendation that nearly everyone age six months and older get an annual flu vaccination, but then voted 5-1 with one abstention that these had to be thimerosal-free formulations. This would include single-dose shots that already are the most common type of flu vaccination, and would rule out the subset of flu vaccine dispensed in multi-dose vials. "There is still no demonstrable evidence of harm," one panelist, Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, a psychiatrist formerly with the National Institutes of Health, said in acknowledging the committee wasn't following its usual practice of acting on evidence. But he argued that "we have to respect the fear of mercury" that he said might dissuade some people from getting vaccinated. Panel blocked CDC's analysis Lyn Redwood, formerly of the Kennedy-founded anti-vaccine group Children's Health Defense, gave the presentation on thimerosal in front of the panel, arguing that it was a neurotoxin. The version of Redwood's presentation posted to the CDC's website earlier this week initially included a reference to a study that does not exist. The report she gave to the committee was significantly shorter, removing a reference to that study and another slide saying she did not have any conflicts of interest. "With the vote on thimerosal this afternoon, the new committee has turned the ACIP process into a farce," said former CDC vaccine adviser Dr. Fiona Havers, who resigned last week over Kennedy's changes to vaccine policy. Medical groups decried the panel's lack of transparency in blocking a CDC analysis of thimerosal that concluded there was no link between the preservative and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism. The data had been posted on the committee's website Tuesday, but was later removed — because, according to ACIP member Dr. Robert Malone, the report hadn't been authorized by Kennedy's office. Panel members said they had read it. The ACIP helps the CDC determine who should be vaccinated against a long list of diseases, and when, and its recommendations have a big impact on availability and insurance coverage of vaccines in the U.S. Normally the CDC's director would decide whether to accept ACIP's recommendation, but the Senate has not yet confirmed nominee Susan Monarez. Administration officials said Kennedy would make that decision. While Thursday's debate involved only a small fraction of flu vaccines, some public health experts contend the discussion unnecessarily raised doubt about vaccine safety. Already, fewer than half of Americans get their yearly flu vaccinations, and mistrust in vaccines overall is growing. "Selective use of data and omission of established science undermines public trust and fuels misinformation," said Dr. Sean O'Leary of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). He said of the new panelists, "Nothing about their recent actions have been science-based or transparent." WATCH: Misinformation one of the factors behind decline in childhood vaccination globally: Decline in childhood vaccination fuelled by global conflicts, misinformation: Lancet 3 days ago Duration 2:01 A new study published in the Lancet medical journal suggests childhood vaccinations have stagnated or declined since 2010. The authors say geopolitical instability is fuelling the drop in some countries, but misinformation is largely driving the decline in high-income countries. The pediatrics group announced Wednesday that it would no longer be participating in the ACIP meetings, with president Sue Kressly saying in a video statement that "with the committee dismissals, it is no longer a credible process." The AAP will continue publishing its own vaccination recommendations. The flu votes marked the final step of a two-day meeting that alarmed pediatricians and other doctors' groups, who pointed to new panelists' lack of expertise in how to properly track vaccine safety — and a shift in focus which appears to boost anti-vaccine messaging. Of special concern was the announcement by panel chairman Martin Kulldorff to reevaluate the "cumulative effect" of the children's vaccine schedule — the list of immunizations given at different times throughout childhood. That reflects the scientifically debunked notion that children today get too many vaccinations for their immune systems.
Globe and Mail
14 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
WHO expert group fails to find a definitive answer for how COVID-19 began
An expert group charged by the World Health Organization to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic started released its final report Friday, reaching an unsatisfying conclusion: Scientists still aren't sure how the worst health emergency in a century began. At a press briefing on Friday, Marietjie Venter, the group's chair, said that most scientific data supports the hypothesis that the new coronavirus jumped to humans from animals. That was also the conclusion drawn by the first WHO expert group that investigated the pandemic's origins in 2021, when scientists concluded the virus likely spread from bats to humans, via another intermediary animal. At the time, WHO said a lab leak was 'extremely unlikely.' Venter said that after more than three years of work, WHO's expert group was unable to get the necessary data to evaluate whether or not COVID-19 was the result of a lab accident, despite repeated requests for hundreds of genetic sequences and more detailed biosecurity information that were made to the Chinese government. 'Therefore, this hypothesis could not be investigated or excluded,' she said. 'It was deemed to be very speculative, based on political opinions and not backed up by science.' She said that the 27-member group did not reach a consensus; one member resigned earlier this week and three others asked for their names to be removed from the report. Five years ago, we predicted how COVID-19 would change our world. Here's what we got right – and wrong Venter said there was no evidence to prove that COVID-19 had been manipulated in a lab, nor was there any indication that the virus had been spreading before December 2019 anywhere outside of China. 'Until more scientific data becomes available, the origins of how SARS-CoV-2 entered human populations will remain inconclusive,' Venter said, referring to the scientific name for the COVID-19 virus. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said it was a 'moral imperative' to determine how COVID began, noting that the virus killed at least 20 million people, wiped at least US$10 trillion from the global economy and upended the lives of billions. Last year, the AP found that the Chinese government froze meaningful domestic and international efforts to trace the virus' origins in the first weeks of the outbreak in 2020 and that WHO itself may have missed early opportunities to investigate how COVID-19 began. U.S. President Donald Trump has long blamed the emergence of the coronavirus on a laboratory accident in China, while a U.S. intelligence analysis found there was insufficient evidence to prove the theory. Chinese officials have repeatedly dismissed the idea that the pandemic could have started in a lab, saying that the search for its origins should be conducted in other countries. Last September, researchers zeroed in on a short list of animals they think might have spread COVID-19 to humans, including racoon dogs, civet cats and bamboo rats.
