Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@stevoland
Created October 14, 2021 17:51
Show Gist options
  • Save stevoland/39de1421bc64131f5667a65744b8ea96 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save stevoland/39de1421bc64131f5667a65744b8ea96 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
[email protected]: Public comments on SAGO members
My comments are related to the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and should be
read in the following context:
In regards to SAGO, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
writes[1] “a fully open and transparent scientific process is
essential” and that “laboratory hypotheses must be examined carefully,
with a focus on labs in the location where the first reports of human
infections emerged in Wuhan.”
You will be aware that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is a
world-renowned centre of SARS-related coronavirus research, often
subcontracting on grants made to EcoHealth Alliance. This or related
research could plausibly be the origin of the pandemic.
Dr Wacharapluesadee is a subcontractor on a million dollar grant made
to EcoHealth Alliance[2]. This is a disqualifying conflict of
interest.
Dr Yang is an employee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences[3] to which
the WIV belongs. This is a disqualifying conflict of interest.
Dr Koopmans is the head of a department which collaborates with
EcoHealth Alliance[4]. This is a disqualifying conflict of interest.
Furthermore, Dr Koopmans, Dr Dedkov, Dr Farag, Dr Fischer, Dr
Nguyen-Viet and Dr Watson were members of the joint WHO-China study.
Six months after that team reported their findings, the team leader is
recorded as saying[5] “In the beginning, [the Chinese counterpart]
didn’t want anything about the lab [in the report], because it was
impossible, so there was no need to waste time on that.” Rather than
report this factually, it seems a private bargain was struck at the
last minute. The lab hypothesis could be mentioned in the report “on
the condition we didn’t recommend any specific studies to further that
hypothesis.”
How can the public trust that this new process is to be open,
transparent and scientific if these members have previously shown such
poor judgement in this very regard?
I wish SAGO the best in living up to the fine words of Dr Tedros.
Sincerely,
[1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm7796
[2] https://theintercept.com/document/2021/09/08/understanding-risk-of-zoonotic-virus-emergence-in-emerging-infectious-disease-hotspots-of-southeast-asia/
[3] https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/public-notice-and-comment-on-proposed-new-scientific-advisory-group-for-the-origins-of-novel-pathogens-(sago)-members
[4] https://www.erasmusmc.nl/en/research/departments/viroscience
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/12/who-origins-embarek
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment