How conspiracy theories about Covid's origins are hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic
The report concluded that although we don't know conclusively where the virus that caused the pandemic came from: a zoonotic origin with spillover from animals to humans is currently considered the best supported hypothesis. Sago did not find scientific evidence to support 'a deliberate manipulation of the virus in a laboratory and subsequent biosafety breach'.
This follows a series of reports and research papers since the early days of the pandemic that have reached similar conclusions: Covid most likely emerged from an infected animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan, and was not the result of a lab leak.
But conspiracy theories about Covid's origins persist. And this is hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic.
Attacks on our research
As experts in the emergence of viruses, we published a peer-reviewed paper in Nature Medicine in 2020 on the origins of Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid.
Like Sago, we evaluated several hypotheses for how a novel coronavirus could have emerged in Wuhan in late 2019. We concluded the virus very likely emerged through a natural spillover from animals – a 'zoonosis' – caused by unregulated wildlife trade in China.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
Since then, our paper has become a focal point of conspiracy theories and political attacks.
The idea Sars-CoV-2 might have originated in a laboratory is not, in itself, a conspiracy theory. Like many scientists, we considered that possibility seriously. And we still do, although evidence hasn't emerged to support it.
But the public discourse around the origin of the pandemic has increasingly been shaped by political agendas and conspiratorial narratives. Some of this has targeted our work and vilified experts who have studied this question in a data-driven manner.
A common conspiracy theory claims senior officials pressured us to promote the 'preferred' hypothesis of a natural origin, while silencing the possibility of a lab leak. Some conspiracy theories even propose we were rewarded with grant funding in exchange.
These narratives are false. They ignore, dismiss or misrepresent the extensive body of evidence on the origin of the pandemic. Instead, they rely on selective quoting from private discussions and a distorted portrayal of the scientific process and the motivations of scientists.
So what does the evidence tell us?
In the five years since our Nature Medicine paper, a substantial body of new evidence has emerged that has deepened our understanding of how Sars-CoV-2 most likely emerged through a natural spillover.
In early 2020, the case for a zoonotic origin was already compelling. Much-discussed features of the virus are found in related coronaviruses and carry signatures of natural evolution. The genome of Sars-CoV-2 showed no signs of laboratory manipulation.
The multi-billion-dollar wildlife trade and fur farming industry in China regularly moves high-risk animals, frequently infected with viruses, into dense urban centres. It's believed that Sars-CoV-1, the virus responsible for the Sars outbreak, emerged this way in 2002 in China's Guangdong province.
Similarly, detailed analyses of epidemiological data show the earliest known Covid cases clustered around the Huanan live-animal market in Wuhan, in the Hubei province, in December 2019.
Multiple independent data sources – including early hospitalisations, excess pneumonia deaths, antibody studies and infections among healthcare workers – indicate Covid first spread in the district where the market is located.
In a 2022 study, we and other experts showed that environmental samples positive for Sars-CoV-2 clustered in the section of the market where wildlife was sold.
In a 2024 follow-up study, we demonstrated those same samples contained genetic material from susceptible animals – including raccoon dogs and civets – on cages, carts, and other surfaces used to hold and transport them.
This doesn't prove infected animals were the source. But it's precisely what we would expect if the market was where the virus first spilled over. And it's contrary to what would be expected from a lab leak.
These and all other independent lines of evidence point to the Huanan market as the early epicentre of the Covid pandemic.
Hindering preparedness for the next pandemic
Speculation and conspiracy theories around the origin of Covid have undermined trust in science. The false balance between lab leak and zoonotic origin theories assigned by some commentators has added fuel to the conspiracy fire.
This anti-science agenda, stemming in part from Covid origin conspiracy theories, is being used to help justify deep cuts to funding for biomedical research, public health and global aid. These areas are essential for pandemic preparedness.
In the US this has meant major cuts to the US Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, the closure of the US Agency for International Development, and withdrawal from WHO.
Undermining trust in science and public health institutions also hinders the development and uptake of life-saving vaccines and other medical interventions. This leaves us more vulnerable to future pandemics.
The amplification of conspiracy theories about the origin of Covid has promoted a dangerously flawed understanding of pandemic risk. The idea that a researcher discovered or engineered a pandemic virus, accidentally infected themselves, and unknowingly sparked a global outbreak (in exactly the type of setting where natural spillovers are known to occur) defies logic. It also detracts from the significant risk posed by the wildlife trade.
In contrast, the evidence-based conclusion that the Covid pandemic most likely began with a virus jumping from animals to humans highlights the very real risk we increasingly face. This is how pandemics start, and it will happen again. But we're dismantling our ability to stop it or prepare for it. THE CONVERSATION
Edward Holmes is an NHMRC leadership fellow and professor of virology at University of Sydney. Andrew Rambaut is professor of molecular evolution at University of Edinburgh. Kristian Andersen is professor and director of infectious disease genomics at The Scripps Research Institute. Robert Garry is professor of microbiology and immunology at Tulane University.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Avoiding ultraprocessed foods might double weight loss
Participants reported feeling like they had better control of food cravings on the minimally processed diet. New research suggests that people can lose more weight by avoiding ultraprocessed foods, even those that are typically considered healthy. The study, published on Aug 5 in the journal Nature Medicine, is the largest and longest clinical trial yet to examine the effects of ultraprocessed foods on weight. Participants lost twice as much weight when they followed diets made up of minimally processed foods, like pasta, chicken, fruits and vegetables, as they did when they followed diets with ultraprocessed foods that met nutrition standards, such as ready-to-heat frozen meals, breakfast cereals, protein bars and shakes. Federal officials have been sounding the alarm about ultraprocessed foods, which account for about 70 per cent of the food supply in the United States. Mr Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, said that ultraprocessed foods were 'poisoning' Americans, and called them a primary culprit of high rates of obesity and chronic diseases. Although numerous studies have linked ultraprocessed foods to obesity, most have been observational, meaning they can't prove that the foods directly cause weight gain. Two previous trials found that adults consumed about 500 to 800 more calories per day when their diets were made up of ultraprocessed foods than when they were made up of minimally processed foods. But those studies were small and short; the larger of the two, conducted at the National Institutes of Health, included 20 participants who followed each diet for just two weeks. Critics have argued that the results might have been different if the trials were longer, or if they included healthier ultraprocessed foods. The new study, though still small, was designed to address some of those concerns, said Dr Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at University College London, and the lead author of the study. Losing weight and body fat Dr Dicken and his colleagues recruited 55 participants, most of whom were women, ranging in age from their early 20s to their mid-60s, he said. All had body mass indexes in the overweight or obesity ranges, and before the study, about two-thirds of their calories came from ultraprocessed foods – more than the average for adults in Britain. The researchers designed two diets and provided the meals. Both diets met Britain's nutrition guidelines, with limited sugars, saturated fats and sodium, but one was composed mostly of minimally processed foods, like overnight oats, plain yogurt and scratch-made spaghetti Bolognese; the other was mostly made up of ultraprocessed foods considered healthy, like whole grain breakfast cereals, plant-based milk, flavoured yogurt and frozen lasagna. Half the participants followed the minimally processed diet for two months, after which they returned to their normal diets for one month. Then they followed the ultraprocessed diet for two months. The other half followed the diets in the opposite order. All could eat as much or as little as they liked. This kind of 'crossover' study design is strong because it can show how each diet affected each participant, rather than averaging the responses across a group, said Dr Brenda Davy, a professor of nutrition at Virginia Tech, who was not involved in the study. Most of the participants lost weight on both diets. But on average, they lost more weight during the two months on the minimally processed diet – about 2kg compared with just 1kg on the ultraprocessed diet. Dr Dicken and his colleagues estimated that if the weight loss had continued over one year, even as it naturally slows with time, it could have added up to 9 per cent to 13 per cent of body weight on the minimally processed diet, compared with just 4 per cent to 5 per cent on the ultraprocessed diet. The participants also lost more than twice as much body fat on the minimally processed diet than they did on the ultraprocessed diet. Fewer calories per bite, and fewer food cravings It was somewhat surprising – and encouraging – that people lost weight on the ultraprocessed diet, said Dr Kevin Hall, a nutrition scientist and a co-author of the study. This was likely because the study's ultraprocessed diet was more nutritious than the typical diets of the participants, he said. But participants still lost more weight on the minimally processed diet – a finding that aligns with those of previous studies. That may be because minimally processed foods tend to have fewer calories per bite, said Dr Filippa Juul, a nutritional epidemiologist at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University who was not involved in the study. And those foods generally have a harder texture that requires more chewing, so people may eat more slowly and consume fewer calories before feeling full, she said. The participants also reported feeling like they had better control of food cravings on the minimally processed diet. That's surprising, Dr Dicken said, because 'when people lose weight, they tend to want to eat more.' Better craving control may help them keep the weight off longer, he added. Dr Juul speculated that perhaps following a diet of mostly minimally processed foods may 'reset cravings' and reduce 'food noise,' helping people eat only when they are hungry. A growing body of evidence The study was relatively short, Dr Walter C. Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who was not involved in the study, wrote in an email. 'We need about a year, at minimum, for serious weight loss studies because early changes often reverse or don't continue,' he added. The researchers could not measure exactly what and when people ate, or how much they consumed, and the participants reported eating some foods besides those provided. And most of the participants were women; men or children may have responded differently, Prof Davy said. Still, the study suggests that even if a person follows a healthy diet, there is an added benefit to choosing minimally processed foods over ultraprocessed ones, Dr Juul said. Evidence consistently suggests that diets high in ultraprocessed foods can make it harder for people to stay at a healthy weight, she added. Avoiding ultraprocessed foods can be a challenge, though, since they are so ubiquitous and tend to be cheaper than minimally processed foods, Dr Juul said. She advises choosing foods with recognisable ingredients. Food manufacturers could help by making more minimally processed products that are convenient, affordable and appealing, she added. 'It's a shift in food culture that's needed.' You don't have to cut out ultraprocessed foods entirely, Dr Davy said. But try to cook at home as much as you can, focusing on fresh fruits and vegetables, lean proteins and whole grains – 'those things that we know are good for us,' she said. THE NEW YORK TIMES
Straits Times
a day ago
- Straits Times
Hong Kong sees first chikungunya case from China outbreak
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox The imported case is the city's first chikungunya infection since 2019. Hong Kong reported its first case of chikungunya in six years, heightening concerns about the potential for local transmission of the mosquito-borne virus that can cause debilitating joint pain lasting for years. The patient is a 12-year-old boy who developed fever, rash and joint pain after traveling to Foshan in Guangdong Province in July, according to the city's public health agency. Hong Kong's health authorities believe the boy was infected there, and is now being treated in a mosquito-free environment with his household under medical surveillance. The imported case is the city's first chikungunya infection since 2019. Foshan, a city just 90 minutes away by high-speed train, has seen over 6,500 people affected in the past few weeks. The outbreak has prompted another Chinese city to set up curbs reminiscent of the stringent approach from the pandemic era. Fuzhou city in Fujian province started requiring travelers from Foshan to undergo a 14-day at-home quarantine. Macao, which in July reported an imported case involving a person who had travelled to Foshan, recorded a locally transmitted case on Aug 1 – stoking concerns of regional transmission. Hong Kong's Food and Environmental Hygiene Department undertook targeted mosquito control operations at the patient's residence, including fogging, removing stagnant water and distributing publicity leaflets to boost awareness. Although the virus doesn't spread from people to people, the disease can still spread if the infected person is bitten by mosquitoes, and if they in turn bite more people. Hong Kong's strict response to Covid-19 are still fresh in people's minds. The city shut itself to the world for three years since the pandemic began in 2020, adopting stringent pandemic rules including travel restrictions, a mask mandate and quarantine camps. Hundreds of thousands of people – including travelers and infected residents – were sent to isolate in government-run centres such as Penny's Bay, where they had to endure spartan living conditions and attempts to escape could result in jail time. Bloomberg
Straits Times
3 days ago
- Straits Times
Pfizer and BioNTech lose UK court appeal over Covid-19 jab
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Moderna has accused Pfizer and BioNTech of violating its intellectual property rights with regard to mRNA technology. LONDON - US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and German firm BioNTech lost on Aug 1 a court appeal in the latest step of a multi-million pound battle against US rival Moderna over the Covid-19 vaccine. The Appeals Court in London upheld an earlier UK court decision in the long-running battle between the global pharma firms. It found that one of the European patents held by Moderna was invalid, but that a second one had been broken by Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech. 'The judge made no error of law or principle' in the ruling handed down in July 2024, the Appeal Court judges wrote Friday, dismissing the appeal brought by the two companies. Pfizer quickly said it will appeal the Aug 1 ruling to Britain's Supreme Court. 'Today's UK Court of Appeal's decision does not change our unwavering stance that this patent is invalid,' Pfizer said in a statement. 'This decision has no immediate impact on Pfizer and BioNTech.' Pfizer and BioNTech had argued that both the patents cited by Moderna were invalid, and neither had been infringed. The Aug 1 decision could have wide implications for other cases involving the huge pharma companies in the United States, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland. Moderna said in a statement it was pleased with the Aug 1 ruling and would 'continue to pursue and enforce its patent rights globally to protect its innovative mRNA technology'. A UK court was told in 2024 the firms had spent £19 million (S$32 million) fighting their legal battles. In 2020, Pfizer and BioNTech's vaccine became the first ever mRNA vaccine approved for widespread use, and was swiftly deployed to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. Scientists believe mRNA vaccines, which provoke an immune response by delivering genetic molecules containing the code for key parts of a pathogen into human cells, could be a game-changer against many diseases. Traditional vaccines contain some form of the dead or inactivated target virus. Since the virus need not be grown in the lab, mRNA vaccines can in theory be developed at scale more quickly than traditional vaccines. In March, a German court in Duesseldorf also found Pfizer and BioNTech had violated a Moderna patent filed between 2010 to 2016 to make their vaccines. It ordered they must provide estimates of how much they had profited from breaking the patent as well as provide 'appropriate compensation'. AFP
