Published 06:20 IST, June 3rd 2021
The frightening COVID origin charge against China's Shi Zhengli, Wuhan's Bat Virologist
It was on Dec 30, 2019, that Wuhan Institute of Virology's Principal Investigator & Coronavirus expert Shi Zhengli received her first call about SARS-CoV-2
Advertisement
It was at 7 pm on December 30, 2019, that Shi Zhengli, Director of Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases at Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), says she received her first intimation about what would later turn out to be SARS-CoV-2, better known around world now as virus behind COVID-19. institute’s Director h allegedly called her to tell her that samples h come in from a hospital of patients who were suffering from an atypical pneumonia thought to be from a coronavirus. She was told to drop everything she was doing, return to WIV, and begin studying it. She returned to Wuhan, over 800 km away, by train. What h happened in 16 years before that and what transpired in 1 year and 5 months after, may hold key to answering perhaps biggest prevailing question in history of humanity - What is precise origin of COVID-19 pandemic?
Until about March-April 2021, it appeared at face-value that world and scientific community were satisfied that most likely scenario was that SARS-CoV-2 h come to infect humans naturally due to close interaction between animals and humans. idea was essentially that a coronavirus from a bat h ‘jumped’ to anor species and n infected a human host. Anor ory, that virus may have been ‘lab-me’ at Wuhan Institute of Virology, was almost ruled out of consideration. Why is this? Was it not true that Shi Zhengli and her team h collected over 19,000 bat-related samples over 16 years since SARS outbreak? It’s a matter that Zhengli also thought about. Perhaps not that it was ‘lab-me’, but definitely that it could have been one of viruses that was being studied re and may have escaped. However, she later went on to give herself a clean chit. But reasons for this are debatable, as are or aspects.
Advertisement
Over next several months, outbreak played out on world stage. Within 2 weeks of having been tasked with studying virus, her team h alrey sequenced & cultured it, and published and shared genome sequence with WHO. Shortly after that, but long before outbreak revealed its true ‘pandemic’ form and h only killed 80 people, Zhengli and team published an article[1] on Nature identifying bat as being most likely reservoir source of this new pneumonia outbreak. In this Feb 2020 paper (dates are important) y cited that new virus’s sequences share 79.6% sequence identity to SARS virus and are over 96% identical to a (specific) bat coronavirus. ditionally, y conclusively claimed fairly early on in piece that outbreak began from a local seafood market - something Shi has publicly gone back on while maintaining that traces of virus were found on door handles and such.
In light of what you are about to re, both se last two pieces of information - specific bat coronavirus that is 96% similar and alleged food market origin - are start of a series of mentions, citations, statements, articles, interviews, claims and assorted on-record items from Shi Zhengli that come toger to tell a very murky tale. That is what we will look at here - a compendium and critical analysis of what has been said by one of most prolific and seasoned bat coronavirus collectors in world - who just happened to work for 16 years to stop anor SARS coronavirus outbreak only to see biggest conceivable such pandemic break out right at her doorstep.
Advertisement
Whilst examining se statements in context of narrative at time, we will also ask questions relating to her decision-making, and reason why certain things in published materials are written way y are. But before we can commence with a forensic study of Shi Zhengli’s statements, a hyposis must be presented about virus she mentioned is 96% similar[1] to SARS-CoV-2 - virus that is named RaTG13 - as every mention of this virus from Zhengli may be key.
RaTG13 Bat Coronavirus & fatal mystery respiratory pneumonia that killed 3 miners
In April 2012, 6 miners h allegedly fallen sick with a mystery pneumonia and respiratory disease that resulted in deaths of three of m. y h been working to rid an abandoned copper mining cave of bat faeces (guano). In later months of that year, Shi Zhengli and her team received four sero-samples from three patients who h survived and one who h died. She n tested samples against Ebola, Nipah and SARS and found m to be negative. Between n and 2015, Zhengli and her team collected 1322 samples from those caves, finding 293 diverse coronaviruses[2]. Eight of se were beta-coronaviruses, and one of se eight was RaTG13, which h been described in a 2016 study[3] under name RaBtCoV/4991. This virus was different (divergent) from SARS virus and ‘could be considered a new strain of this virus lineage.’ SARS & MERS h also been caused by beta-coronaviruses.
Advertisement
Two years later, in 2018, RaTG13 was sequenced more completely[2], and two more years later, when it was compared with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, two were found to share a 96.2% similarity[1]. However, in a November 2020 dendum[2] to earlier mentioned Feb 2020 paper on COVID-19’s probable origin, Zhengli reported that she h tested samples of miners (all way back from 2012) for SARS-CoV-2, and found m to be negative. I.e. miners hn’t been infected with COVID-19, she concluded months after COVID-19 lab-leak ory h begun doing rounds. Rar, it is claimed in at least some published items and news articles that miners h likely caught a fungal infection from bat droppings, and weren’t suffering effects of RaTG13 or any or coronavirus, though Shi claimed y would have h y remained in mine for a longer period. y h perished of a fungal pneumonia at a place where established reservoir carriers of SARS pneumonia dwelled in bulk.
To cut a long and complex story short - a mystery respiratory pneumonia that infected 6 people in 2012 and killed 3 of m led to finding RaTG13 virus that is now thought to be closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2. However, as per Zhengli, RaTG13 did not cause fatal infections of miners. In fact, according to what WIV virologist told WHO’s probe team in Feb 2021[4], “re’s a low likelihood of RaTG13 being precursor of SARS-CoV-2.” But is that really case?
Advertisement
RaTG13 Backbone + Pangolin Coronavirus Spike Protein[7] = ?
In subsequent paras, we shall explore more about similarities between two, and also, pertinently, how 3.8% difference between m pertains to a cleavage site activated by a host-cell enzyme furin and part of spike protein (called RBD) that decides binding with a host cell and les to an infection. Interestingly, a March 2020 paper[5] (by Andersen group) that is one of two key papers that dispelled notion of a ‘lab-me virus’ a bit too early refers to ‘natural selection’ (evolution) at least once in context of RaTG13, stating that some pangolin coronaviruses are similar to SARS-CoV-2 in terms of RBD and concludes this to be clear evidence of natural selection - meaning that paper appears assured that infectability of SARS-CoV-2 may actually have come from Pangolins. similarities (and differences) between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 come up repeatedly in published materials and in at least a few cases, speak about ‘gain of function’ research, given that RaTG13 cannot on its own infect humans.
Was Wuhan Institute of Virology conducting 'Gain of function' Coronavirus research? Yes, and with rising scope.
Very controversial and also illegal on various fronts, gain-of-function research describes medical research where a pathogen or disease is mutated in a manner so as to increase/widen its infectability. It is conducted in hope of getting a he start on any potential virus outbreak. In October 2014[8] US government h instituted a funding pause on gain-of-function research to do with SARS, MERS and influenza viruses. This pause was lifted in December 2017[9]. Shi Zhengli has been known to have conducted ‘gain of function’ research, and has stated since COVID-19 pandemic broke out that she has never failed to report any gain of function research.[6] (meaning that she has reported it all.)
Coming back to RaTG13, in this context, a May 2021 article[10] by Ariel Fernandez remarked on un-likelihood of RaTG13 and a pangolin coronavirus infecting same cell in same organism and also says that RaTG13 has a low affinity for pangolins, playing down chances of a chimera like SARS-CoV-2 emerging from this combination zoonotically (jumping from an animal to anor on its own). n, in very next paragraph study states that Shi Zhengli’s group at Wuhan lab has been conducting gain-of-function recombinations since 2007 where objective has been to assess ‘spillover effects’ wherein coronavirus jumps from one species to anor. In Shi’s case, latter species was humans, with a series of ‘bat-(to)-man’ spike proteins me.
Anor paper[11], published in November 2020 by Rossana Segreto and Yuri Deigin, mentions how in 2015, Shi Zhengli and her frequent gain-of-function collaborator Ralph Baric published ‘ most famous gain-of-function virology paper’[12], again to do with spike proteins ( parts that determine what species virus can infect). Here, y created a chimeric coronavirus with spike protein from bat coronavirus SHC0140-CoV and a mouse-apted SARS backbone, giving mouse-apted virus capability to infect humans. An article[13] in Nature h opposed this experiment shortly after it was published, and intriguingly, 2015 is same year when Australian[14] claimed Chinese military h allegedly discussed turning SARS coronavirus into a bioweapon. n, in what must have been an annus mirabilis, Shi Zhengli in 2016 reported[15] isolating and characterising novel bat coronavirus closest yet to SARS virus - related directly to her presumed mission for last 12 years. virus was named SL-CoV WIV16 (for SARS-Like Coronavirus Wuhan Institute of Virology 2016) and was concluded to be ‘ closest ancestor to date’ of SARS (called SARS-CoV). ir similarity, a deafening silence-inducing 96%.
With a big breakthrough to ir credit, in 2017[16], Shi Zhengli group at WIV proceeded to create perhaps largest reported number of novel chimeric viruses - 8 - from bat SARS-like viruses. Two of 8 strains were found to possess ability to bind to human ACE2 receptor - just like SARS-CoV-2. Essentially, here is proof not only that Shi Zhengli group was performing gain-of-function research, but also that it h opened floodgates after three tumultuous years at zenith of coronavirus research, succeeding in creating chimeric viruses that could bind with human cells.
...
'Big Bang' of COVID-19's Origin: When Shi Zhengli's account breaks down
It was at 7 pm on December 30, 2019, that Shi Zhengli, Principal Investigator at Wuhan Institute of Virology, received a call from her institute’s director informing her of samples that h come in of patients who were suffering an atypical pneumonia. cause h alrey been established to be a novel coronavirus (novel meaning previously unknown) by Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention, as per an interview[17] she gave to Scientific American in Feb 2020, published on March 11. In anor interview
In interview with Scientific American, Shi Zhengli h revealed that she and her team h alrey started discussing testing patients’ samples while she was on train back to Wuhan. At this point, she h a specific urgency in doing so. A novel coronavirus infection coming to light in Wuhan was an unlikely phenomenon. Bats, a known reservoir of coronavirus, were less likely to be found in urban areas like Wuhan and more likely in areas like Yunnan in tropical south of China where Shi Zhengli and or researchers camped every year for bat sampling. She h put 2 and 2 toger and surmised that re was cause for concern that virus could have come from her Wuhan lab.
However, she would later go on to ‘brea a sigh of relief’, in her own words. question, however, is when? As per Feb 2019 interview to Scientific American, this happened days later, described as follows:
“Shi instructed her group to repeat tests and, at same time, sent samples to anor facility to sequence full viral genomes. Meanwhile, she frantically went through her own lab’s records from past few years to check for any mishandling of experimental materials, especially during disposal. Shi bread a sigh of relief when results came back: none of sequences matched those of viruses her team h sampled from bat caves. “That really took a lo off my mind,” she says. “I h not slept a wink for days.””
On one hand, Shi Zhengli says she hn’t slept for days before finding out that virus wasn’t one of specimens from her lab. On or hand, as per her interview to CGTN in August 2020, months after WIV h been accused globally of potentially having caused outbreak, she recounted having h her moment of relief on Dec 31 itself! Shi describes:
“With a scientific and responsible attitude, I checked our lab research on bat coronaviruses first. n, at noon on Dec 31 we got partial genetic sequence of virus. After comparing sequence of this virus with published and unpublished virus sequences in our lab, we concluded that this was a novel Coronavirus. That was when I confirmed this was a newly discovered virus and h nothing to do with a lab leak or anything else.”
This is corroborated in a written email interview[6] she h with Science Magazine in ir July 2020 issue, where she describes:
“We received first batch of samples from seven patients on December 30 2019. Using pan-coronavirus RT-PCR and quantitative RT-PCR, which can detect all SARS-related coronaviruses, we found samples from five patients were positive. On December 31, when analyzing sequencing result of RT-PCR product, we identified that it was a novel SARSrelated coronavirus. We n confirmed result via different methods and performed full-length genome sequencing as well as virus isolation. We released genome sequence to global public on January 12 via WHO.”
Did Shi Zhengli’s recollections change between Feb 2020 and July/August? Whichever way one looks at it, within hours or days, Shi Zhengli h alrey self-established that virus h nothing to do with Wuhan Institute of Virology, or her work. She also gives herself a clean-chit to CGTN in following way:
“Anor piece of evidence I can give you is that our lab has been doing research for 15 years and all our work has been published. We also have a library of our own genetic sequences and we have experimental records of all our work related to virus which is accessible for people to check. So when we didn’t find such a virus in all our experimental activity, we can say it did not originate in our lab.”
But this needn’t be entirely true. Wuhan Institute of Virology’s main database of samples and viral sequences is said to have gone offline in September 2019 (and n presumably come online again at some later point) but in May 2020 it was said to once again no longer be accessible. This becomes particularly problematic for a number of reasons, one example of which is flip-flop over sequencing of RaTG13.
RaTG13 returns at critical times twice; Shi Zhengli Tests Miners Who Died In 2012 For COVID-19
Shi Zhengli told Science Magazine that RaTG13 was first detected by her team in Tongguan town of Yunnan province in 2013 after which its partial sequence was obtained. But despite lengths she h gone to finding this beta-coronavirus, since it h a low similarity with SARS, she says she did not pay close attention to it. (Or to miners, who were alleged have died of fungus pneumonia - apparently case closed). However, in 2018 she returned to RaTG13, to sequence it completely, citing new technology. At this point, remaining samples from 5 years earlier ran out.
Now pay careful attention, here’s where it gets interesting again -
In November 2020[2], Shi Zhengli published an dendum in Nature to her Feb 2020 paper where she h first identified SARS-CoV-2 virus and how it h turned out to be 96.2% similar to RaTG13. dendum was only about RaTG13 and makes two key points:
- Shi Zhengli’s WIV lab still h samples of miners who h died in 2012! se samples were re-tested, this time for SARS-CoV-2. y were, however, found to be negative.
- Zhengli (who h by this point been asked questions enough times to know importance of dates) stated that sequences of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 h only been compared in ‘2020’ and been found to be 96.2% similar. So what, if anything, h she been feeling relieved about on December 31, 2019, when she h purportedly determined that novel coronavirus was unlike anything she’d h in her lab till that point? How could she stand by her moment of relief if she hn’t even tested SARS-CoV-2 against RaTG13, its closest known relative?
COVID-19's Origin: 'Wet Market' ory Biggest Damp Squib Of All time?
Much like what’s said about Big Bang in oretical physics, clearly, a number of assertions me by Shi Zhengli and Wuhan Institute of Virology begin to break down closer one gets to T=0. re are more, many more, most important of which is ‘What exactly is T=0 for COVID-19?’ According to Zhengli’s first paper on topic (Feb 2020[1]) epidemic actually started on December 12. It is not stated why this is case, but in next paragraph it does state just as casually that it began at local seafood market. She was asked about this notorious ‘Wet market’ ory in Science Magazine interview; here are question and answer:
Q: An early cluster at Huanan seafood market in Wuhan led many to think that an animal re somehow infected humans. How has your thinking about seafood market’s role evolved as it became clear that many of earliest cases are not linked to it?
A: As you pointed out, some early patients do not have a history of Huanan seafood market exposure. We detected SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids in environmental samples from sources such as rolling door handles, ground and sewage in that market, but we did not detect any SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids in frozen animal samples. Huanan seafood market may just be a crowded location where a cluster of early novel coronavirus patients were found.
Why n h she been in such a hurry to state so conclusively in Feb 2020 that outbreak h begun at wet market? Was idea simply to name a place in city where a transmission animal ( one that h caught virus from bats, like Civet cats in case of SARS) could be found? H truth really been that virus h actually ‘escaped’ (by infecting someone) from Wuhan Institute of Virology? answer to this, as per Shi Zhengli, is nothing short of startling:
“To date, re is "zero infection" of all staff and students in our institute,” Zhengli claimed to Science Magazine in ir July 2020 interview, claiming that y h recently conducted a serosurvey of all ir staff and found m all to be negative for COVID-19 antibodies, meaning none of m h been infected ever! Consider this claim against Wall Street Journal’s (really Australian’s[14]) report that three researchers from Wuhan Institute of Virology who h been working with coronaviruses h became so ill in November 2019 that y’d needed hospital care, with symptoms allegedly consistent with both COVID-19 and influenza.
International Chimeras who show 'Bat-Woman' Shi Zhengli
And n re are all-too-enthusiastic opponents of ‘lab-leak’ ory, who never quite leave it at just one thing, but appear to resurface over and over, much like chimeras mselves. Number 1 on this list is Peter Daszak, chief of something called ‘EcoHealth Alliance’, which used to receive funding from US ( NIAID run by Dr Anthony Fauci) till COVID-19 pandemic. With this funding, Daszak has been a long-time collaborator of Zhengli and an active proponent of need to conduct gain-of-function research. Daszak, apart from seemingly lurking around corners in proximity to Zhengli, is also found in three places:
In a quite shocking and unscientific letter published in Lancet[19 - below] in Feb 2020 where he, representing a bunch of or public health scientists, claims to:
“Stand toger to strongly condemn conspiracy ories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and y overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.”
In various interviews of Shi Zhengli, including highly suspect one by Scientific American, where he is revealed to be on a virus-hunting spree with scientists in 30 countries and vocates hunting down or pathogens to “prevent similar incidents from happening again” - a noble endeavour surely, though perhaps a little presumptive given that COVID-19 h itself barely got out of blocks by that time. Where was Daszak, for instance, when SARS-CoV-2 needed to be stopped from reaching or shores?
Thirdly: Unbelievably, despite having expressed such strong opinion about origins of SARS-CoV-2, that too via a statement that’s more politics than science, Daszak found himself travelling to China again in 2021 as a part of WHO’s probe team to find origin of COVID-19!
Anor person of interest is Kristian G Andersen, who in March 2020 published a much-cited article[5] in Nature called “ proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” that concludes that “we do not believe that any of laboratory-based scenario is plausible”. This comes full circle in Shi Zhengli’s Science Magazine article where she cites paper to dispel link between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2, even though part she cites is nothing she hn’t alrey cited in her own very first study. This particular paper, by Andersen group, meets its match in an equal and opposite paper[11] titled ' genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin' by Rosanna Segreto and Yuri Deigin.
WHO's Team Finally Reaches Wuhan Institute of Virology... Eventually
Lastly in this set of arguments, we come to Shi Zhengli’s most recent activities. On Feb 3, 2021, a team constituted by World Health Organisation (WHO) to probe origin of COVID-19 visited Wuhan Institute of Virology[4]. In days before that, after completing 14-day quarantine y h been forced to complete upon ir much-delayed arrival in China, experts h visited hospitals where first COVID-19 patients h been brought (starting December 27, 2019 apparently) and, incredibly, also Huanan Seafood market as well as anor even bigger food market!
n, finally, months after just about everyone h dismissed wet market ory (meaning re simply wasn’t a plausible natural emergence ory by this time) WHO team reached Wuhan Institute of Virology, where y were spoken to by Shi Zhengli. As per WHO report, Zhengli told team, among or things, about RaTG13’s similarity with SARS-CoV-2 and low likelihood that former was latter’s precursor, and also informed m of gain of function research she h conducted since 2015 and h been conducting a set of experiments starting 2018 that it did not finish due to COVID-19 outbreak.
Wuhan Institute of Virology’s director answered question about alleged cases of WIV staff going to hospital in November 2019, and claimed that a retro-study h been conducted from 1001 samples at hospital (but not from staff at WIV) and no evidence of COVID-19 infection h been found.
With regards to de miners, Zhengli revealed to panel that her team h visited bat cave 7 times over 3 years to collect samples of novel viruses but y didn’t find anything like SARS virus, and since pandemic, visits to cave h found no viruses like SARS-CoV-2. Essentially, RaTG13 wasn’t to be found re anymore.
It ded: “Some reports identified one former laboratory worker as “missing”. This person according WIV staff was an alumnus who gruated in 2015 and was now working in a different province and did not accept to talk with media. person h been contacted and tested and ascertained to be healthy.”
On missing database, it ded: “ rumour about missing data was discussed. This related to an Excel spresheet that h been on website for 10 years as part of a national databank of samples. It h been used for internal analyses and metata. It h been planned to make this an interactive system with visualized data to fit in with national system. y received attacks from hackers – more than 3000 cyber-attacks, so was kept offline.”
Finally, in a corner of 313-page report, WHO panel gives its arguments for and against lab leak ory of COVID-19’s origin.
Arguments in favour:
Although rare, laboratory accidents do happen, and different laboratories around world are working with bat CoVs. When working in particular with virus cultures, but also with animal inoculations or clinical samples, humans could become infected in laboratories with limited biosafety, poor laboratory management practice, or following negligence. closest known CoV RaTG13 strain (96.2%) to SARS-CoV-2 detected in bat anal swabs have been sequenced at Wuhan Institute of Virology. Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near Huanan market. Such moves can be disruptive for operations of any laboratory.
Arguments against:
closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2 from bats and pangolin are evolutionarily distant from SARSCoV-2. re has been speculation regarding presence of human ACE2 receptor binding and a furin-cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2, but both have been found in animal viruses as well, and elements of furin-cleavage site are present in RmYN02 and new Thailand bat SARSr-CoV. re is no record of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 in any laboratory before December 2019, or genomes that in combination could provide a SARS-CoV-2 genome. Regarding accidental culture, prior to December 2019, re is no evidence of circulation of SARS-CoV-2 among people globally and surveillance programme in place was limited regarding number of samples processed and refore risk of accidental culturing SARS-CoV-2 in laboratory is extremely low. three laboratories in Wuhan working with eir CoVs diagnostics and/or CoVs isolation and vaccine development all h high quality biosafety level (BSL3 or 4) facilities that were well-managed, with a staff health monitoring programme with no reporting of COVID-19 compatible respiratory illness during weeks/months prior to December 2019, and no serological evidence of infection in workers through SARS-CoV-2-specific serology-screening. Wuhan CDC lab which moved on 2nd December 2019 reported no disruptions or incidents caused by move. y also reported no storage nor laboratory activities on CoVs or or bat viruses preceding outbreak.
Assessment of likelihood:
In view of above, a laboratory origin of pandemic was considered to be extremely unlikely.
(...Unsurprising, seeing watered-down 'arguments for'.)
Final Secret of COVID-19: 'WHO' will go and find out?
At time that fairly dumbfounding WHO report was published (Science Magazine did a far better job in its email interview with Shi Zhengli) re was much less clamour for a serious probe into COVID-19’s origin. At time of publishing of this article, however, situation has changed markedly, with a growing list of countries and scientists demanding a fair and open probe and US managing to get a rise out of China on an almost daily basis. What is also relevant is that re are, and have always been, a lot of questions raised within China as well. Inch by inch, shroud around Wuhan appears to be lifting, revealing a fortress-like Wuhan Institute of Virology from whose gates Republic has reported. Do answers still lie within, buried deep in its catacombs? One thing is for sure: If y do, Shi Zhengli knows.
References and citations
[1] A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin
[2] dendum: A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin
[3] Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft
[4] WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part
[5] proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2
[6] Wuhan coronavirus hunter Shi Zhengli speaks out
[7] Isolation and Characterization of 2019-nCoV-like Coronavirus from Malayan Pangolins
[8] Gain of Function Research
[9] US government lifts ban on risky pathogen research
[10] Molecular Biology Clues Portray SARS-CoV-2 as a Gain-of-Function Laboratory Manipulation of Bat CoV RaTG13
[11] genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin
[12] A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence
[13] Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research
[14] Intelligence on sick staff at Wuhan fuels lab leak debate
[15] Isolation and Characterization of a Novel Bat Coronavirus Closely Related to Direct Progenitor of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus
[16] Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into origin of SARS coronavirus
[17] How China’s ‘Bat Woman’ Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to New Coronavirus
[19] Statement in support of scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19 [https://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext]
06:20 IST, June 3rd 2021