Bayesian Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Origin Steven C. Quay, MD, PhD 29 January 2021
@2021. Steven C. Quay, MD, PhD Page
1
of
193
Wuhan Institute of Virology analysis of bronchial lavage specimens from ICU patients at Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital in December 2019 contain both SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus vaccine sequences, consistent with a vaccine challenge trial
Bayesian Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Origin Steven C. Quay, MD, PhD 29 January 2021
@2021. Steven C. Quay, MD, PhD Page
2
of
193
Dedication.
This work is dedicated to the men, women, and children who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 over the last year. It is my hope that this work becomes part of the body of evidence to help inform the public about gain-of-function pathogen research and that a renewed debate can be had about the benefits and risks of this research in the context of world health.
Acknowledgements.
Despite having collaborated over many decades on numerous scientific projects, research during 2020 into COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, and therapeutic approaches has been a unique experience. With lockdowns and international travel bans, all collaborative work has been virtual. With an apparent bias surrounding investigation into the origin of SARS-CoV-2, ad hoc groups of Citizen-Scientists, often anonymous, have worked together via email, videoconference, micro-blogging, and social messaging networks to advance our understanding of this horrific pandemic. I want to thank a Twitter group called #DRASTIC for many useful discussions that found their way into this document. Dr. Martin Lee, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Statistics at UCLA provided statistical support throughout this work. H. Lawrence Remmel provided input on the adenovirus vaccine as a dual target vaccine. I want to thank D.A. for originally suggesting performing a Bayesian analysis on the work I had done on SARS-CoV-2 and for his facilitation of the review of this work by a diverse group of scientists and policy makers. In all cases, however, this is my own work product.
Bayesian Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Origin Steven C. Quay, MD, PhD 29 January 2021
@2021. Steven C. Quay, MD, PhD Page
3
of
193
A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived
Wuhan Institute of Virology analysis of lavage specimens from ICU patients at Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital in December 2019 contain both SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus vaccine sequences consistent with a vaccine challenge trial
Executive Summary.
The one-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic records 2.1 million deaths, over 100 million confirmed cases,
and trillions of dollars of economic damage. Although there is universal agreement that a coronavirus identified as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV-2 (abbreviated CoV-2 henceforth) causes the disease COVID-19, there is no understanding or consensus on the origin of the disease. The Chinese government, WHO, media, and many academic virologists have stated with strong conviction that the coronavirus came from nature, either directly from bats or indirectly from bats through another species. Transmission of a virus from animals to humans is called a zoonosis. A small but growing number of scientists have considered another hypothesis: that an ancestral bat coronavirus was collected in the wild, genetically manipulated in a laboratory to make it more infectious, training it to infect human cells, and ultimately released, probably by accident, in Wuhan, China. For most of 2020 this hypothesis was considered a crackpot idea, but in the last few weeks, more media attention has been given to the possibility that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, located near the Wuhan city center and with a population of over 11 million inhabitants, may have been the source of the field specimen collection effort, laboratory genetic manipulation, and subsequent leak. On January 15, 2021, the U.S. Department of State issued a statement requesting the WHO investigation of the origin of COVID-19 include specific assertions related to a laboratory origin of the pandemic.
Given the strong sentiment in the scientific community in favor of a zoonosis and the massive effort undertaken by China to find the natural animal source, one can assume that any evidence in favor of a natural origin, no matter how trivial, would become widely disseminated and known. This provides a potential evidence bias within the scientific community in favor of a natural origin which isn’t quantifiable but should be kept in mind. This becomes especially important background when evidence that could support a laboratory origin has been directly provided by leading Chinese scientists themselves, like Dr. Zhengli Shi, head of coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and
Gao Fu (George Fu Gao), Director of Chinese CDC; by the Chinese government, as well as by powerful and vocal, pro-natural origin scientists, like Dr. Peter Daszak, of the NYC-based NGO, EcoHealth Alliance.
1
2