Genetic Sequence of Coronavirus Submitted Two Weeks Before Chinese Announcement, Documents Reveal
Newly shared documents with U.S. lawmakers indicate that the genetic sequence of the coronavirus responsible for the ongoing pandemic was submitted to a database by a virologist from China two weeks before the Chinese government disclosed its findings. The submission was made on December 28, 2019, but was reportedly incomplete. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) requested a resubmission three days later, which they never received. The World Health Organization (WHO) eventually received the findings from China on January 11, 2020.
While the genetic sequence does not reveal the origins of the virus, it does raise questions about the Chinese government's knowledge of the pathogen. It is worth noting that the existence of the genetic sequence in Chinese possession prior to its release by China is not new information. However, it does highlight the significance of the timing and the potential delays it may have caused in efforts to develop effective detection tests, diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines.
Experts suggest that if the genetic sequence had been processed more quickly in the United States, it could have accelerated the development of these crucial tools by two weeks. This revelation emphasizes the need to improve the prioritization and automation of sequences in databases like the NCBI GenBank, where the virologist originally uploaded the data. At the time, the entry was treated as a routine research sequence, highlighting the importance of hindsight in recognizing the significance of such information.
Regarding any implications about intentional information withholding by the Chinese government, experts suggest otherwise. While the documents do not indicate deliberate suppression, it is theorized that individual scientists seeking recognition may have bypassed the usual processes and attempted to make the sequence available independently. This interpretation suggests that during a time of chaos, scientists recognized the importance of sharing the data and tried their best to disseminate it as widely as possible.
Additionally, it is crucial to note that the genetic sequence does not provide any insight into the origin of the virus, including whether it emerged naturally or resulted from lab engineering. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the virus is of natural origin, closely resembling coronaviruses found in bats. The prevailing theory is that the virus likely entered the market through the wildlife trade, a multi-billion dollar industry in China where live animals from various regions are sold for food.
In conclusion, these documents shed light on the timing of the genetic sequence submission prior to China's official announcement. While not surprising, this revelation underscores the potential impact of faster sharing and processing of crucial scientific data. It is essential to separate this information from speculations about the virus's origin, which scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports as a naturally occurring virus linked to wildlife trade.
