Chapter 8
Independent science is important. Michael Worobey is no stranger to hunting down the elusive origins of viruses, tracing the early history of HIV and AIDS in Kinshasa, Congo. He was unhappy about the uncertainty on the Covid-19 and the obfuscation from China. So he organized and co-signed an influential letter to the magazine Science asking for a deeper investigation, much to his friend Kristian Andersen’s consternation.
Ever since Kristian raised the initial alarm about a potential research-related origin, and later published its scientific refutation, he has been targeted and harassed. He had a foreboding that Michael’s letter word give more undue scientific credibility to rumors and conspiracy theories, mislead and confuse the public. There just is not one single piece of scientific evidence for a lab leak and he saw political grandstanding as counterproductive. Michael Worobey did not care about firing on conspiracy theories or political implications, he took it upon himself to find out the truth among sparse data. Andersen was not done with the origins topic either, looking deeper into the genomic history of the virus. Both scientists had a separate set of skills and knew that they could challenge each other critically if only they could overcome their ill will about the Bloom et al. Science letter and subsequent media frenzy that strained their personal relationship.
“To come together and do this work” despite the obstacles was something Mike was proud of. “Whereas in a lot of other cases, it would have been like a flame war and the end of a relationship, and then this scientific work that we did would never have happened.”
Once the two scientists teamed up, with a promise to scientifically challenge the market origin hypothesis any way they knew how they started recruiting from a wide array of talented scientists with varied expertise. Their goal was to systematically collect, analyze, discuss, model, and interpret all data that somehow stood in relation to the Huanan seafood market, as well as what epidemiology, phylogenetics, demography, geography, and statistics could tell them about the early outbreak. What does the totality of verified evidence tell us about what happened here?
References:
This lecture by Dr. Worobey is highly enjoyable and worth watching
Bay Area Skeptics. (2023, September 15). SkepTalk: Origins of the COVID-19 pandemic [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg0OlyCRhww (“It takes a city for it to become a pandemic” “Scientifically, we have much stronger evidence of the when, where and how this pandemic originated than for any pandemic in history” )
The 57-year-old seafood merchant at Wuhan’s Huanan market, who The Wall Street Journal has identified as a woman named Wei Guixian, first started to feel sick on December 10. (Note: Not patient zero, but one of the first known cases)
Covid 19 coronavirus: ‘Patient zero’ at Wuhan seafood market identified – ICSF. (n.d.). https://www.icsf.net/newss/covid-19-coronavirus-patient-zero-at-wuhan-seafood-market-identified/ “According to a statement from the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission on December 31, Wei was one of the first 27 patients diagnosed with Covid-19, and one of the 24 cases who had direct links to the Huanan Market. She has recovered since leaving hospital in early January, and said she believes she may have become infected via a toilet in the market that she shared with wild meat sellers. Vendors on either side of Wei also contracted Covid-19, as well as members of her family, including one of her daughters and her niece”
Kristian Andersen professional translations of early market reporting:
andersen-lab/SARS2_doc_article_translations: 0.1. (2022). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6291868
Kristian’s email to Mike about the Bloom et al. letter
“Thanks for the heads up - much appreciated. We are aware of the upcoming letter and I was amused to see that one of your co-signatories is a person who vehemently attacked me when I suggested we needed to take a potential lab leak seriously back in February, 2020 - the reason why the "Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats" that David and I sit on was established.
Since then, we have of course learned a lot and despite what is asserted in your letter, a significant amount of critical data have been uncovered, including in the recent WHO report (I provide a rather extensive summary here: https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1376954932004196352?s=20). Importantly, no evidence has been presented to support any connection to the lab - which remains a speculative theory that would necessarily involve a major cover up and complex web of lies perpetrated by the very scientists and public health authorities that you thank in the end of your letter. Unless there's direct evidence to support such a conspiracy, I think we have to be very careful that we don't unnecessarily add to ongoing anti-Asian racism and hate crimes. I am of course well aware that that is not the intent of your letter, however, it should be clear that it will fan the flames of xenophobia and conspiracy theories - with allegations of a lab leak having no scientific grounding in available evidence or data.
As somebody with significant experience working with international governments and public health authorities on multiple levels of outbreak response - whether that be in 'the field', on the bench, or in front of the computer - I think it is important that we strongly support further evidence-based studies into the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic. Making naive demands for investigations and data that are clearly outside the scope, mandate, or capabilities of the WHO - instead of putting our full support behind joint missions already in progress - will make it harder to uncover exactly how SARS-CoV-2 emerged. Such studies will require trust, coordination, and collaboration among international partners, including China. Despite what I am sure are your best intentions, I doubt your letter will help that process.”
Twitter thread of Kristian lauding the work of the WHO mission and highlighting many themes he was looking into after the WHO https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8zh65xsrgu8gt9ejjpf71/Mar-30-2021-WHO-Report.pdf?rlkey=lw2ev6t1mwvi7tc69s3j6xu7f&e=1&dl=0
The “compartmentalization” email from Kristian to Mike:
“Hey Mike,
Just a quick email to follow up on my response to your other email, I just wanted to make it clear that from my perspective this does not change our relationship - whether professionally or otherwise - and I hope the same is (or can be) true on your end. As academics we end up disagreeing on various things, which is totally fine - at least on my end, so I hope this won't interfere with our ongoing collaboration.
Happy to jump on a Zoom call to discuss this in more detail if you're up for it.
Cheers,
Kristian”
Babarlelephant Sleuth work (based on WHO mission) and website of the Huanan market stalls
http://babarlelephant.free-hoster.net/visiting-the-wuhan-seafood-market/
The CDC wrote on Jan 22 about how their investigation found that (illegal) wildlife trade at the Huanan market existed and that this was “highly suspected” to be related to the current epidemic.
Translated version: https://github.com/andersen-lab/SARS2_doc_article_translations/blob/v0.1/2020.01.22%20-%20China%20CDC%20Report%20(EN).pdf
Super spreader case in Korea
Osborne, S. (2020, June 24). ‘Super-spreader’ church at centre of South Korea’s coronavirus outbreak sued for £66m | The Independent. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/coronavirus-super-spreader-church-south-korea-daegu-shincheonji-jesus-a9582951.html
Jesse Bloom and the “deleted sequences” preprint and media fanfare that made him famous
Jesse D Bloom, Recovery of Deleted Deep Sequencing Data Sheds More Light on the Early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 38, Issue 12, December 2021, Pages 5211–5224, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab246
Zimmer., K. (2021, June 23) Scientist Finds Early Virus Sequences That Had Been Mysteriously Deleted. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/science/coronavirus-sequences.html
Callaway, E. (2021, June 25). Deleted coronavirus genome sequences trigger scientific intrigue. Scientific American.
Saavedra, R. (2022, June 28). NIH deleted coronavirus sequences at request of Chinese scientists; Congress probing
new lead: report.
Mike Worobey later had a fall-out with Jesse Bloom, writing an epic length debunk thread about how Jesse Bloom stole the valor of Chinese authors to elevate himself, while accusing them wrongly of misconduct
Michael Worobey [@MichaelWorobey]. (2022, June 8). X (Formerly Twitter). https://x.com/MichaelWorobey/status/1534322272088903680 Note: some highlights below
“@jbloom_lab's study's main impact has been its non-scientific narrative, which, ultimately, erodes trust in science. The Message: The Chinese engage in malfeasance to hide evidence of the origin of SC2. (Specifically which would disprove pandemic origin at Huanan market.)
The Approach: Dismiss/downplay/denigrate robust scientific findings from researchers that indicate there were not many cases prior to Dec 2019 and there is strong evidence the pandemic started at the Huanan market. Teach the controversy. ”
“I would challenge anyone to find a more libelous, *completely* unsubstantiated conclusion in a peer reviewed scientific original research publication”
Later, two researchers publish a paper correcting the record of Jesse Bloom’s “deleted sequences” allegations
Débarre, F., & Hensel, Z. (2024). A critical reexamination of recovered SARS-CoV-2 sequencing data. bioRxiv, 2024.2002.2015.580500. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.15.580500 “Bloom suggested that the data may have been removed in order to obfuscate the origin of SARS-CoV-2, and he questioned the generating authors’ statements that the samples had been collected on and after January 30, 2020. [...] Our reanalysis demonstrates that allegations of cover-up or of metadata manipulation were unwarranted.”
Jane Qiu on Market papers:
Qiu, J. (2022, July 27). Debate deepens over Wuhan wet market’s role in kickstarting the pandemic. Magazine. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/debate-deepens-over-wuhan-wet-markets-role-in-kickstarting-the-pandemic
Katherine Eban’s work and storytelling method:
NYT review of Katherine Eban’s book bottle of lies
Doobs, D. (2019, March 13) A New Book Argues That Generic Drugs Are Poisoning Us. The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/books/review/bottle-of-lies-katherine-eban.html
Katherine’s approach to investigative journalism and discarding of scientific evidence in favor of human testimony
CASW ScienceWriting. (2022, November 2). A critical reflection on media coverage of SARS-CoV-2’s origin [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjdgrTNw8xI (“When I go out to report, I am not looking for expert voices; I am looking for sources”)
Katherine Eban’s first lab leak story embellishing conspiracy theorists and creating villains
Eban, K. (2021, June 3). The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the fight to uncover COVID-19’s origins. Vanity Fair. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins
Katherine Eban’s viral Vanity Fair story that villainized Kristian Andersen and market paper co-authors
Eban, K. (2022, March 31). Inside the Virus-Hunting nonprofit at the center of the Lab-Leak controversy. Vanity Fair. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-nonprofit-at-the-center-of-the-lab-leak-controversy (Note: The article head image had a big vilified Anthony Fauci looking like a criminal mastermind in front of the WIV - this imagery is to increase virality of articles; best velocity-hacker fashion, see chapter 10)
Note 2: Just look at the “just asking question” technique here: “Why top scientists linked arms to tamp down public speculation about a lab leak—even when their emails, revealed via FOIA requests and congressional review, suggest they held similar concerns—remains unclear. Was it simply because their views shifted in favor of a natural origin? Could it have been to protect science from the ravings of conspiracy theorists? Or to protect against a revelation that could prove fatal to certain risky research that they deem indispensable? Or to protect vast streams of grant money from political interference or government regulation? The effort to close the debate in favor of the natural-origin hypothesis continues today. In February, The New York Times gave front-page treatment to a set of preprints—written by Michael Worobey at the University of Arizona, Kristian Andersen at Scripps Research Institute [...]”
Jim Jordan and other Republicans immediately jumping onto it, referencing the Vanity Fair article and Jesse Bloom to drag Kristian Andersen in front of Congress
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Letter-to-Dr-Andersen-Re.-1001.pdf “According to Vanity Fair, you then told Dr. Bloom that you could simply delete or revise the paper in a way that “would leave no record that this had been done.” Even Drs. Collins and Fauci were suspicious of your attempts to silence Dr. Bloom and reportedly stated their objections for the record. [...] This incident, if true, contradicts your February 17, 2022 letter and shows that you offered to “suppress” research about the origins of COVID-19 that did not fit your pre-determined narrative. [...] In fact, it appears you were involved in and actually attempted to orchestrate an effort to suppress Dr. Bloom’s paper and thereby scientific research regarding theories about the origins of COVID-19 particularly the likelihood of a lab leak. We invite you to correct the Committee record, in person, in a transcribed interview. Please confirm, as soon as possible, your attendance for an interview the week of May 2, 2022. The Select Subcommittee is empowered to investigate “any…issues related to the coronavirus crisis.”
Matt Ridley lying about the market papers, full science denial
Ridley, M. (2022, September 29). Has the lab leak theory really been disproved? The Spectator. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/has-the-lab-leak-theory-really-been-disproved-/