The French Academy of Medicine leans toward the theory that the COVID-19 virus originated in a laboratory, according to a new report published this past Wednesday in which the theory of natural origin does not appear convincing.
The hypothesis of natural transmission is particularly supported by the detection in the Wuhan market of genetic samples suggesting that certain animals, raccoon dogs—small carnivores also known by their Japanese name, tanuki—may have served as intermediaries between bats and humans.
Supporters of the laboratory hypothesis, especially popular among US intelligence agencies, point out that SARS-CoV-2 presents unique elements, absent in other coronaviruses existing in nature, that could increase its transmissibility.
These points—and others—are recalled by the Academy in its text, which in reality only summarizes the debate within the international community. But its report leans more toward the laboratory leak theory in several respects. This hypothesis is, according to the institution, “supported by a set of facts and arguments.”
Not natural
The Academy does not use these terms for the natural hypothesis, simply emphasizing that there are no elements that allow a definitive conclusion in its favor.
This imbalance also appears in the Academy’s recommendations, which emphasize the need to better control laboratory research rather than the emergence of dangerous pathogens in animals.
“We may never know the origin of the pandemic,” the Academy admits. But in a press conference this Wednesday, virologist Christine Rouzioux, professor emeritus of virology at Necker Hospital, considered that “there are certainly more arguments” for the laboratory hypothesis. However, this should not be interpreted as a definitive “position,” she explained.
Strong opposition
The Academy’s report has generated strong opposition among other French scientists who support natural origins, such as researcher Florence Débarre, who supervised the study on raccoon dogs.
“This report is scientifically deficient,” said this researcher from the National Research Center. “It’s a text close to “conspiracy-fueled bar-counter rhetoric” and “unworthy of the institution that publishes it,” she criticized.
– Advertisement –
Source link
TCRN STAFF
