US Intelligence Concludes: China Didn't Weaponize COVID-19, Didn't Have Foreknowledge

The head of America's Intelligence Community reports that the U.S. intelligence community "was able to reach broad agreement" on several key issues about the origins of COVID-19. "We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon," they announced today. In addition, the U.S. intelligence community report includes a second new assessment: that China's officials "did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged." Beyond that, they note that most of the intelligence community's agencies also specifically assess that SARS-CoV-2 "probably was not genetically engineered" (albeit with "low confidence"). Of the 19 member agencies in the U.S. intelligence community, just two believed that there just wasn't enough evidence to actually issue an assessment of either possibility, the report adds. The [U.S.] intelligence community judges they will be unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of COVID-19 unless new information allows them to determine the specific pathway for initial natural contact with an animal or to determine that a laboratory in Wuhan was handling SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor virus before COVID-19 emerged. The intelligence community — and the global scientific community — lacks clinical samples or a complete understanding of epidemiological data from the earliest COVID-19 cases. If we obtain information on the earliest cases that identified a location of interest or occupational exposure, it may alter our evaluation of hypotheses. China's cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19. Beijing, however, continues to hinder the global investigation, resist sharing information, and blame other countries, including the United States. These actions reflect, in part, China's government's own uncertainty about where an investigation could lead as well as its frustration the international community is using the issue to exert political pressure on China. In assessing whether a lab incident or a "natural" exposure to an infected animal caused the outbreak, they cited assessments from eight different U.S. intelligence community elements. Half of them agreed with the National Intelligence Council assessment (with low confidence) "that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus — a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China's officials' lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors." Three of the remaining four "remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely." One element did assess "with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology... Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps." The 18-page assessment includes an appendix addressing details of specific theories, but ultimately concludes that "Our growing understanding of the similarities of SARS-CoV-2 to other coronaviruses in nature and the ability of betacoronaviruses — the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs — to naturally recombine suggests SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered." It even notes that the much-discussed furin cleavage sites "have been identified in naturally occurring coronaviruses in the same genetic location [as in SARS-CoV-2]. This suggests that SARS-CoV-2 or a progenitor virus could have acquired its furin cleavage sites through natural recombination with another virus."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

from Slashdot https://ift.tt/3bm6a8K

Share on FacebookPlus on Google+

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER