After the report published by the White House late last July about the origin of the virus causing the Corona pandemic in 2020, the controversy over the origin of the virus returned to the forefront, and this prompted those interested and skeptics to re-review the studies and research published in this regard, in an attempt to link the data and evaluate the validity of the hypotheses presented.
The White House report, in the context of its questioning of the hypothesis of the natural origin of the Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), was based on a set of arguments and evidence, including a scientific paper published on March 17, 2020 in the journal “Nature” entitled “The Proximal Origin of the Novel Coronavirus 2.”
In the paper, the researchers discussed several possible explanations for the origin of the virus, and concluded that its natural origin was likely, ruling out the hypothesis that it arose as a result of a leak from a virus laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan, a hypothesis that had sparked widespread controversy in the media at the time.
Fauci and the scientific paper: What is the relationship?
The White House report sparked widespread controversy over what was contained in it, and one of the most controversial points was its reliance on this scientific paper in criticizing Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was one of the most prominent officials responsible for managing the Covid-19 crisis in the United States, and has about 38 years of experience in dealing with epidemics.
The report accused Fauci of using the scientific paper to promote the hypothesis of the natural origin of the virus, and to reduce the possibility of it leaking from a laboratory. The accusations were not limited to his adopting the results of the paper, but also included allegations that he contributed to facilitating its publication and urged researchers to prepare it, based on correspondence and communications that were later revealed by the media.
On June 14, 2021, the New York Times published a report in which it revealed email correspondence between Fauci and virologist Christian Anderson, one of the five researchers involved in preparing the paper “The Proximal Origin of the Novel Coronavirus 2.”
The correspondence showed that Anderson, in a letter he sent to Fauci in late January 2020, expressed doubts about the origin of the virus, and at that time suggested that it might have been subjected to genetic manipulation due to characteristics that he described as unprecedented. However, less than two months later, he participated in publishing a paper that suggested the natural origin of the virus and ruled out the hypothesis of its genetic engineering.
What was the scientific paper based on the origin of the new Corona virus 2? Did later researchers support it or reject it? And why?
Nature’s evidence of the natural evolution of Corona
The five researchers based their scientific paper on two observations that they generated as a result of previous research that dealt with the SARS-CoV-1 coronavirus (responsible for severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, that spread in 2003) and compared it with the analyzes that were subjected to the emerging coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which is responsible for Covid-19:
- The researchers noted that five out of six amino acids in the receptor-binding region (RBD) within the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus were different compared to its counterpart SARS-CoV-1. Also, the virus’s connection to the human ACE2 receptor was not as strong or efficient as expected, although computer models had predicted other sequences that might achieve a stronger connection, which the researchers considered an indicator that supports the natural evolution of the virus.
- The new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has a unique structure at the cleavage site between the S1 and S2 subunits of the spike protein, which facilitates its entry into and integration into cells. The researchers believed that the emergence of this characteristic may be the result of natural selection, based on the presence of similar characteristics in some viruses, and on previous observations that showed the possibility of viruses acquiring these characteristics during their transmission between cells or experimental animals. The importance of this observation lies in the fact that none of the viruses belonging to the “Beta” family of coronaviruses (Betacoronaviruses) have this feature. However, scientists and researchers have indicated that the virus causing bird influenza – which belongs to the Orthomyxo family – possesses a site similar to the one that appeared in the new coronaviruses.
Based on these two observations, the researchers ruled out the hypothesis that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated as a result of an intentional laboratory leak. They considered that the difference in the structure of the binding region from the sequences that are expected to be selected when performing genetic modification, in addition to the fact that the virus does not match any known viral model, supports the hypothesis that it evolved naturally and not was engineered in a laboratory.
Therefore, Anderson and his colleagues suggested that the virus may have undergone a process of natural selection in an animal host before it was transmitted from animals to humans, or perhaps the process of natural selection of the virus occurred in humans after it was transmitted from animals.
Authors’ criticisms: doubts and accusations
After publishing their scientific paper, the researchers faced numerous charges on suspicion of writing and publishing for the purpose of ruling out the hypothesis of a laboratory leak of the virus and convincing the world that it arose naturally under the direct guidance of senior officials at the National Institutes of Health in the United States of America. Following this, both scientists Christian Anderson and Robert Gary (one of the co-authors in writing the scientific paper entitled “The Proximal Origin of the Novel Coronavirus 2”) were subjected to interrogation during a hearing that lasted for more than 3 hours before Congress at the invitation of the subcommittee responsible for monitoring the Covid pandemic, in July 11, 2023.
During their appearance before the interrogation committee, the two scientists explained that their conclusion regarding the origin of the virus was based on the scientific methodology and evidence available at the time, which suggested that it was transmitted to humans through an animal host, and not as a result of a laboratory leak. Anderson emphasized that this conclusion was inconclusive, and that it remains subject to review if new scientific evidence emerges.
Suspicion of financing behind Fauci’s cover-up
During the interrogation, members of the Republican Party intensified their questions to the two scientists, relying on documents obtained after reviewing thousands of pages related to the subject. The questions focused on the email correspondence between the researchers and Dr. Fauci, which the committee members considered an indication that he initially adopted a position different from what the scientific paper concluded, while he expressed at the time the possibility of genetic manipulation behind the origin of the Corona virus.
On the other hand, some members of the Republican Party focused during the interrogation on a conference held online on February 1, 2020 to discuss the origin of the virus, in which a number of specialized scientists from different parts of the world participated, including Anderson and Gary. The presence of Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins also caught the attention of the committee members, as Fauci was then the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), while Collins was the head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and both were among the most prominent officials responsible for managing health crises in the United States, including the Covid-19 pandemic.
The committee claimed that the presence of Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins was aimed at pressuring researchers and pushing them to publish the paper “The Proximal Origin of the Coronavirus.” But scientists Anderson and Gary denied these accusations, and explained that Fauci and Collins did not participate in the discussion, but rather their participation was limited to attending the meeting and listening to what the researchers proposed for the purpose of reviewing and gathering information.
Republicans’ accusations of Dr. Fauci of trying to cover up information regarding the origin of the coronavirus and promoting the natural origin hypothesis are based on a funding background linked to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which he headed. They point to a grant the institute provided to an American non-profit organization that had contracted with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to collect coronaviruses from bats and conduct laboratory research on them.
Accordingly, Republican Representative Ronnie Jackson believes that Fauci and other officials may have sought to support the hypothesis of the natural origin of the virus to remove suspicions that the funding supervised by the institute may be linked to research in Wuhan. These accusations remain controversial, and do not in themselves mean proof of Fauci’s involvement in causing the virus to appear or covering it up.
Jackson is a doctor, a former US Navy officer, and a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Texas. He served as the US President’s physician between 2016 and 2018, then in 2019 he was appointed President Donald Trump’s assistant and chief medical advisor.
Reject the accusations and confirm the scientific methodology
The hearing that Anderson and Gary underwent did not yield conclusive results, as the two scientists rejected the accusations against them, and explained that the difference of opinions during the first months of the pandemic was normal in light of presenting initial hypotheses that were later subject to research and analysis, which led to some conclusions changing as more evidence emerged. They stressed that this gradual approach to reaching results represents part of the scientific method, and they also stressed that Dr. Fauci or Dr. Collins did not interfere in writing or editing the scientific paper.
Scientific opinions about the origin of the virus
Since the scientific paper on the origin of the Corona virus closest to humans was published, reliable scientific and international platforms and others have been buzzing with research and studies revolving around the origin of the new Corona virus causing the Covid-19 pandemic. In September 2021, a review was published on the origin of the new Corona virus 2 in the journal Cell, in which a number of specialists and researchers participated, including Dr. Anderson and Dr. Gary. The review concluded in its conclusion that the Corona virus is of animal origin, but this does not definitely negate The possibility that it was a laboratory leak, confirming the weakness of this possibility.
Another study published by researchers in The Lancet in October 2021 indicated that there was no verified scientific evidence to support either of the two hypotheses, whether the virus was of natural origin or the result of a laboratory leak after it had been genetically manipulated. They denounced the rush to make definitive judgments about the origin of the virus before any solid scientific facts emerged, stressing the necessity of conducting an international scientific investigation in which scientists who are not governed by any potential political interests participate in order to find the closest origin of the virus before it is transmitted to humans, which is the only thing that might happen. Resolves the controversy.
Between politics and science, people of sound mind agree that the highest interest of humanity necessitates putting all hypotheses on the table and adopting a purely scientific methodology in tracing the origin of the virus away from any other interest that may affect the results. To avoid any similar future pandemics, until then the answers remain pending about the origin of the virus, as the currently available conclusions about the Coronavirus are nothing more than speculations and hypotheses that are sometimes exaggerated by political tensions and thrown into oblivion at other times.