WHO wordplay on COVID origins
"On reading," by Simon Wain-Hobson, is a weekly discussion of scientific papers and news articles around gain of function research in virology.
Since January 2024, Dr. Wain-Hobson has written weekly essays for Biosafety Now discussing risky research in virology. You can read his entire series here.
A recent opinion piece in Nature on the origins of the COVID-19 virus was authored by 23 of the 27 members of the World Health Organization’s Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens or SAGO committee. As the WHO had previously published a 78 page report back in June 2025, you wonder what information was left out requiring a 5 page piece in Nature.
…with the politicization and speculation around the origin of the pandemic showing no signs of abating, 23 of us mark the close of SAGO’s first chapter by clarifying our position on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the science behind it in a more accessible way. Yet this has been going on since the spring of 2020. Nothing has changed since their report came out.
Whatever, up front they write we determined that most of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 has a zoonotic origin, meaning that it came from an animal. But until requests for additional information are met or more data become available, there can be no certainty about when, where and how SARS-CoV-2 entered the human population. Think about that a second. By the second paragraph they deliver an early conclusion which they immediately suspend for lack of information. The corollary is that the peer-reviewed scientific evidence is inadequate, their early conclusion premature. Thanks for pointing this out.
We used published scientific studies relevant to all the areas we were investigating, which is fine except that they buy into Two distinct genetic lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were identified in samples from early cases associated with the Huanan market… These genomes differ by two mutations. One was derived from the other according to a peer reviewed paper from a Chinese group: All of them may have evolved from one common ancestor, probably lineage A0 or an unidentified close relative, and jumped into human via a single zoonotic event.
Readers, please understand that a master’s level knowledge of RNA viruses is enough to appreciate that the two genetic lineages cannot be distinct. Reading this in a top journal in 2026 is a red flag. This shouldn’t happen and makes you wonder just how much they understood or whether there were other agendas.
Under the heading SARS-CoV-2 originated from an accidental lab-related event we read that Much of the information needed to assess this hypothesis has not been made available to the WHO or SAGO. Knowing that much information is missing, knowing that the Chinese government has not provided the necessary information that we have requested since the launch of SAGO in November 2021 to investigate a potential biosafety breach… the authors go on to note that Most of the scientific reviews we assessed support the zoonotic-origins hypothesis and find no conclusive evidence for a lab leak.
Let’s do a thought experiment. Take the mechanism by which the vast diversity of human antibody genes is created. Three enzymes are critical. Now take out two of them, TdT and AID. Scientists would be fretting trying to understand their findings and doing more experiments. There might be moments when some might conclude that most of the scientific reviews we assessed support the genetic rearrangement of antibody genes catalyzed by the enzyme RAG. Unlike the antibody example, SAGO members know data is lacking, as we all do. Accordingly, premature conclusions like most of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 has a zoonotic origin stack the deck. They’re either afraid to say they don’t know or they have an agenda.
Yet despite not knowing, how is it that the natural zoonosis hypothesis has the overwhelming support of virologists the world over? Let’s keep going for we’re not finished.
They are highly dismissive of the few reports they have seen from the intelligence communities. Most of the published government-agency and intelligence reports that we assessed… assign levels of confidence, such as ‘low’ or ‘moderate’, to the lab-leak or zoonotic-origins hypotheses. But such reports deliver different conclusions, seemingly on the basis of political rather than scientific arguments.
In short, published intelligence reports, which focus mainly on biosafety and biosecurity policies and practices at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, are speculative. None provides concrete evidence of a breach. That won’t make you any friends. They’ve been asking for more reports unsuccessfully. It is possible they’ve not seen the juicy ones, yet they have no qualms about accusing actors of political bias. Intelligence reports are famously provided on a need-to-know basis. Until more are declassified nobody can draw an opinion.
Their dismissive tone is all the sadder in that they pushed the erroneous sentence that Two distinct genetic lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were identified in samples from early cases associated with the Huanan market which is 100% wrong.
Six paragraphs are devoted to the DEFUSE research proposal which outlined the genesis of manipulated bat coronavirus viruses by the Wuhan Institute of Virology with some input from US collaborators. For the record, the WIV had been performing dangerous GOF research prior to the COVID pandemic. While the DEFUSE project didn’t say they’d splice a furin cleavage site into a bat coronavirus Spike gene, earlier drafts did. As is known the DEFUSE project was turned down by the US agency DARPA.
They say that even if the proposal had been funded, it is scientifically implausible for SARS-CoV-2 to have been derived from the genome elements in the chimeric vaccine backbone or proposed spike protein. Perfectly correct. However, it is rare for scientists to give up on a pet project. Usually what happens is the proposal is repackaged and submitted to another agency. They could have included a new bat coronavirus backbone of their own hat they had just come up with, one that would emancipate them from US hegemony and/or oversight. And here the lack of cooperation from China, which the SAGO members bemoan, means we cannot rule this out.
Their most pernicious argument is We also stress that formal scientific evaluation of findings requires peer-reviewed publication. Peer review means prior examination by anywhere from two to five scientists, known as referees, who know the subject. Generally, they give unbiased assessment. Some are sloppy and provide a few lines, yes! Others can be wonderfully detailed and helpful. These days, the journal invariably asks the referee for an opinion, for example, is the manuscript suitable for this journal? Everything is possible going down to squeezing out a competitor.
In short, peer review has objective and subjective components. Referees’ comments are usually anonymous. It works by and large but it is not a perfect system. Rogue papers get published, even in the big journals.
It doesn’t work well when something goes wrong or if there is a whiff of blame. The idea that civilian virologists were revving up virus making the equivalent of novel biological weapons was nipped in the bud by the December 2011 Op Ed in the Washington Post entitled A flu risk worth taking. (Chilled virology). Its authors were Drs. Fauci, Nabel and Collins at the top of the NIH. It shut down any discussion to the contrary for which virologists would be so crazy as to bite the hand that feeds them?
Something similar happened when the paper describing the resurrection of the Spanish flu virus was published (1918 and all that).
So, when rumors surfaced in the spring of 2020 that the SARS2 coronavirus was Made in China, pre-emptive strikes were launched in the top science journals Nature Medicine and The Lancet. Although both were rife with conflicts of interest and double talk, they shut down discussion. For a while.
Peer-review breaks down when something goes wrong. It is the classic group reflex even though everyone on the planet was impacted. So, when SAGO members insist on peer reviewed scientific publications it’s mission impossible.
If peer-reviewed publications are what count, why are you bothering us with a critique of speculative intelligence reports that use political rather than scientific arguments? Next…
Repeated requests have been made to the Chinese government by the WHO to release the health records of research-lab staff, biosafety and biosecurity protocols, and audits or independent inspections conducted to verify the safety procedures of labs in Wuhan… In our view, the government has not provided the necessary information that we have requested since the launch of SAGO in November 2021 to investigate a potential biosafety breach.
Everybody would like to see such material. If made available, the science writers for Nature, Science, The New York Times and everybody else would have a field day. There would be innumerable quotes from virologists, while podcasters would work overtime. Would the commentaries be devoid of speculation or political bias? No, although some would.
Yet to follow these ex-SAGO members only a peer-reviewed publications matter. And this means involvement of journals and their editors that have been pushing the natural hypothesis well beyond what the data says. It would involve some virologists who have shown themselves to be biased, to support cancel culture and censorship.
Reasoned arguments are worth having wherever they come from. Scientists the world over can integrate data, assess whether it is internally consistent and identify any gaps. It’s what they’re trained to do. If a scientist says something outside of a peer-reviewed publication, it does not invalidate their words. It is the confrontation of ideas, data and analyses that allows the field to advance.
Finally, one hugely important point about peer-review. What two referees recommend to Nature or Science about a paper doesn’t validate the work. It’s merely the beginning of quality control. Real peer review starts after it’s published.
There maybe someone in a lab in Japan, Brazil or Switzerland who spots something the referees missed. This happens more frequently than many readers might suspect. It is through this trial-and-error process that science becomes so strong.
This is why preventive strikes, like the Op Ed in the Washington Post supporting dangerous GOF research on viruses, like the Proximal origins paper in Nature medicine, SAGO limiting their brief to peer-reviewed papers and calls for censorship are so damaging for science. There is no better way to lose the public’s trust than to fix the deck.
When virologists batten down of the hatches with articles in journals, scientific or otherwise, which have the blessing of the editors and top scientific administrators, dissenting voices go elsewhere. Today that means newspapers, Substack, podcasts and social media. And just like the scientific literature, you need to sift through the evidence, separating the wheat from the chaff.
Judging by the attitude of virologists who were arguing that SARS-CoV-2 arose from a spillover back in the spring of 2020, when there was no data around at the time, plus the steady stream of lax peer reviewed papers – not only are these papers sloppy, peer-review must have been at the same level in order for them to be published in top journals – in favor of a natural origin, the response will probably be no different to the situation today.
At the time of the Watergate scandal some wit came up with, ‘You can Nixon some of the people all the time, you can Nixon all the people some of the time, but you can’t Nixon all the people all the time’. For something as big as COVID it wasn’t possible for virologists, administrators and journal editors to COVID all the people all the time.
Conclusions
• Cut the nonsense about peer-review. Some of us have more than enough scientific baggage to amply review this sort of material and express themselves in scientific journals or elsewhere.
• There has been too much nonsense on COVID origins in peer-reviewed papers.
• There have been some remarkably good analyses of the data outside of peer-reviewed scientific journals. As a former referee for many scientific journals, On reading could recommend a number.
• SAGO simply served up some sugo.
Aside 1
Under outstanding questions we learn that No animal testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 has ever been reported in China. Yet it is unlikely that none was infected given the number of susceptible species that were in markets in the Wuhan region during the pandemic — and given that hundreds of infections were reported in species, such as ferrets, tigers, domestic cats and white-tailed deer, in the rest of the world from 2020 to 2023 (see go.nature.com/3nvqhrj).
Couldn’t have said it better, thanks. Indeed, SARS-CoV-2 infected mink and cycled back to humans. All this indicates that not finding a single positive animal in China is a highly unusual observation. It’s so singular it should be put on hold.
Aside 2
Keeping up with developments in artificial intelligence, the BBC reported that the US artificial intelligence (AI) firm Anthropic is looking to hire a chemical weapons and high-yield explosives expert to try to prevent “catastrophic misuse” of its software.
A similar position has been advertised by ChatGPT developer OpenAI. On its careers website, it lists a job vacancy for a researcher in “biological and chemical risks;”
Nobody is surprised.
I’d like to know any thoughts on the work by Michael Worobey at the University of AZ and his paper identifying the Hunan Market as the origin of the SARS COVID 2 jump to humans.
"By the second paragraph they deliver an early conclusion which they immediately suspend for lack of information. The corollary is that the peer-reviewed scientific evidence is inadequate, their early conclusion premature. Thanks for pointing this out." Sorry, but this line is irrefutable proof that the author is an utterly dishonorable lying piece of human filth. There is absolutely no point in reading further after this blatant lie.