Don't Let Up on the Pursuit of China

Don't Let Up on the Pursuit of China
2021/4/30
The monthly magazines' WiLL and Hanada, now on sale, are filled with genuine articles and editorials. And yet, the price is only 950 yen (including consumption tax).
A friend of mine who is an avid reader is fond of saying that "nothing is as cheap as a book," and both magazines demonstrate this.
Every Japanese citizen should go to the nearest bookstore right now to subscribe.
The genuine editorials and articles in both journals are a must-read for the Japanese and people worldwide.
I have made them known to the world's people as much as possible.
Japan is a country where the turntable of civilization is turning and where, along with the United States, it must lead the world for another 170 years.
It is only natural that the world's best papers are being published day and night in Japan.
Until July 2010, when this column appeared, it had not disseminated these papers to the world at all.
It is what has made today's world unstable and extremely dangerous.
In this chapter, I would like to introduce an article by Hideki Kakeya, Associate Professor of Systems Information Systems at the University of Tsukuba, which appears in WiLL.
He is a real scholar who is entirely unknown to people who do not subscribe to the above monthly magazine or who subscribe to Asahi Shimbun and watch only T.V. news programs.
It is no exaggeration to say that they and the rest of the world like them have never read a genuine paper like his.

Don't Let Up on the Pursuit of China
by Hideki Kakeya.
Scientists who remain silent on contradictory Chinese claims are corrupt in their sense of ethics.
Weak evidence
On March 30, the WHO's international research team released its report, which conducted a field survey on the origin of the new coronavirus (SARS-COV-2).
The report lists four possible origins.

1. Direct infection from animals in nature to humans.

2. Infection from animals in nature to humans via intermediate hosts.

3. Infection via frozen food.

4. Infection via frozen food 4) Infection via accidental leakage from laboratories
   The WHO report concludes that (2) is the most likely, followed by (1) (3) in that order, and that (4) is extremely unlikely.
   However, in the 120-page report, there is only about one analysis page on the possibility of (1).
   The scientific evidence for the low likelihood of (4) is also feeble.
   Specifically, there is no record that the Wuhan Institute of Vessels held a sample of a new coronavirus or a new coronavirus if recombined before October 2019, and the research institute has BSL (Biosafety Level). )
   The reason is that the facility has a high level of security measures of 3 or 4, and there are no reports of infection to the institute's staff.
   There are strong counter-arguments to all of these points.
   First, the Wuhan Institute for Virus Research database, which used to be accessible from the outside, has been blocked and is now unviewable.
   Since it is hidden, it is only natural that it cannot find the records.
   However, no evidence exists that the WHO team searched for the hidden records.
   Secondly, it is also a lie that the BSL3 or BSL34 laboratories are safe.
   U.S. diplomatic sources who visited the Wuhan virus laboratory reported sloppy management.
   There have been several incidents of leaks of dangerous microorganisms from other high BSL facilities in the past.
   The theory that there are no leaks because the BSL is high lacks validity.
   Finally, regarding the infection of the Wuhan laboratory staff, the U.S. State Department has taken the opposite view.
   In January 2021, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in the fall of 2019, "There is good reason to believe that researchers at the institute have had symptoms very similar to those of the new coronavirus infection and other seasonal illnesses." It has said.
   (However, the U.S. has not released any concrete evidence. Since neither the U.S. nor China has disclosed any evidence, it becomes a political question of which side to believe and cannot be evaluated from a scientific perspective).
   The WHO investigation report denies a leak from the laboratory on flimsy grounds.
   On the other hand, although there is no convincing evidence regarding the possibility of different theories, the chance is higher than the leakage from the laboratory.
   In the first place, the Chinese government suddenly invented the theory of infection by frozen food to blame other countries.
   After the new coronavirus caused a global pandemic, it is not surprising that infected workers introduced the virus in foreign factories.
   However, if the initial origin were frozen food, many infected people would have been found first in the countries where the factories are located. it exported
   Furthermore, it is unlikely that it exported frozen foods only to Wuhan, which is inconsistent because the first large-scale infection occurred only in Wuhan.
   In the case of infection from natural animals, the habitat of bats, which are hosts of viruses similar to the new coronavirus, is a cave in Yunnan province, 1,700 kilometers away from Wuhan.
   There is no reason to explain why it first made the outbreak only in the distant Wuhan.
   Past cases of SARS and MERS, similar to the new coronavirus, found the source animals within a few months of the start of the epidemic.
   Nearly one and a half years have passed since the infection was discovered, and the fact that no source of infection has been found by examining more than 80,000 animal specimens must be considered abnormal compared to past cases.
   Complete Cozy Relationship
   There is also a problem with the composition of the WHO's international survey team.
   The U.S. team member was Peter Dajak, a virologist who worked in Wuhan.
   He is a virologist who has conducted joint research with Shi Zhengli and others at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
   He has an apparent conflict of interest in investigating the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
   Until now, the Wuhan Institute of Virology has conducted many joint research projects with U.S. virologists.
   They have been able to conduct dangerous research banned in the U.S.
   This study, called "function acquisition research," modifies the genes of existing viruses to make them more susceptible to human infection and increase their virulence.
   Naturally, it can apply this technology to the development of biological weapons.
   The genes of the new coronaviruses have some unnatural characteristics, such as a particular tendency to bind to the ACE2 receptor in humans.
   Many studies have been conducted to realize these characteristics by artificially modifying the virus's genes, and the results have been published in many academic papers.
   The Wuhan Institute of Virology is one of the research institutions that have published such papers.
   From the standpoint of a virologist researching the acquisition of functions, including Dajack's, it would be easy to understand.
   If the virus leaks from the laboratory, it will not be possible to continue research using the Chinese laboratory as before.
   They would not be able to obtain a research budget and would not be able to write papers.
   In other words, it would put them in a difficult position as a researcher.
   Under such circumstances, they cannot be expected to conduct an impartial investigation at all.
   There have been several reports about Dajack that have made me question his fairness as a scientist.
   In February 2020, scientists, including Dajack, issued a statement in the journal The Lancet condemning the "conspiracy theory" that a new coronavirus had leaked from the lab.
   However, according to an online article in the Daily Caller on January 18, 2021, Dajak's spokesperson reportedly told the Wall Street Journal that he stated to protect Chinese researchers.
   Although it is a complete adhesion, WHO, which dispatches researchers who have an adhesion relationship with Chinese researchers as research team members, is naturally questioned for its fairness.
   Is the leak a "conspiracy theory"?
   During Trump's presidency, the new coronavirus theory was leaked from a laboratory and was treated as a "conspiracy theory" by the major media.
   There is a strong possibility that this was a calculation by the major liberal media that Trump would gain an advantage in the presidential election if public opinion became entrenched in treating China as an enemy.
   However, since then, some have conducted an objective analysis of the origin of the new coronavirus without being overwhelmed by China.
   Arena Chan, a young biologist who is a postdoctoral fellow at MIT and Harvard, does not rule out the possibility of a laboratory leak due to many historical virus leaks from the laboratory.
   She continued to seek fair investigations on Twitter repeatedly.
   When Trump lost the election, the tone of the media quickly changed.
   The liberal media also began to mention the virus leak from the lab.
   In response, researchers became even more active in their pursuit.
   In January 2021, Dr. Steve Quay published a 193-page paper in the U.S. arguing that the new coronavirus was most likely a laboratory leak.
   In February, Professor Roland Wiesendanger of the University of Hamburg, Germany, published a 102-page paper arguing for the same possibility of a laboratory leak.
   In addition, prominent figures such as the American mathematical biologist Bret Weinstein and the British science journalist Matt Wrigley also began giving media interviews arguing for a high probability of a leak from the laboratory.
   Zero Japanese Life Scientists
   On March 4, 26 researchers submitted an open letter of inquiry to the investigation team sent by the WHO to Wuhan, demanding a fair investigation.
   Of the 26, most are life scientists, but there are also researchers from science, engineering, and social sciences.
   Among the researchers who signed the letter are Arena Chan, Dr. Kwei, Professor Wiesendanger, listed on the right, and Professor Richard Ebright. He has long pointed out the dangers of gain-of-function research.
   The open letter of inquiry was published on the official website of the New York Times and reported in the Wall Street Journal and other major media outlets.
   Jamie Metzl, one of the leading figures in this group of researchers, was interviewed on "60 Minutes," the signature documentary program of CBS, one of the three major U.S. networks.
   Incidentally, he has worked under the Clinton administration and is not on the Republican side.
   Robert Redfield, who served as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the Trump administration, said in a CNN interview broadcast on March 26 that the new coronavirus originated from a laboratory in Wuhan. The outbreak began around September 2019.
   As you know, CNN is a media outlet supporting the Democratic Party.
   The harsh voice against China has become a bipartisan movement in the United States.
   I joined the group of researchers who signed the petition and participated in several online conferences to exchange views.
   I discovered that Japan's presence in the world is much more significant than expected.
   They knew the names of Japanese newspapers in detail and were very welcoming to the new participants from Japan.
   They were very interested in increasing the publicity of this activity in Japan.
   Independent Investigation from WHO
   Fourteen countries have issued a joint statement critical of the report of the WHO investigation team released on March 30.
   Many countries have officially acknowledged that China's claim about the origin of the new coronavirus is wrong.
   A group of researchers issued an open letter of inquiry on March 4 in response to the WHO report and another one on April 7.
   It was also published on the official website of the New York Times and reported by Reuters and other major media.
   Another Japanese researcher (information engineering) and I from Japan signed this open letter of inquiry.
   As a result, the news article used the phrase "open letter of inquiry by researchers from Europe, the United States, Australia, and Japan.
   While I am proud to have contributed to promoting Japan's presence here, I am very disappointed that there was no single signature from a life scientist from Japan.
   In our open letter of inquiry in April, we pointed out the unfairness of the report by the WHO's investigative team. Also, we made some suggestions on how to proceed with the investigation in the future.
   The first is to review the referral clause between WHO and China, which gives China veto power and makes it impossible for independent experts to conduct research in China.
   It is proposed that this review is essential.
   The second is to resolve the WHO General Assembly in May 2021, calling for a complete investigation into the origin of the new coronavirus and new regulations on dangerous gain-of-function research.
   Third, suppose the two proposals mentioned above still need to be realized.
   In that case, it should pursue a transparent investigation of the origin of novel coronaviruses in cooperation with other countries independent of the WHO.
   The open letter also points out several inconsistencies contained in the materials submitted by the Chinese side in the WHO report as a supplement.
   For example, as mentioned earlier, the Wuhan Institute of Virology has closed down its database, which had previously been accessible and referenced by outside researchers.
   China argues that this is to protect it from hackers' attacks triggered by the new coronavirus pandemic.
   However, the database was not closed until September 2019.
   There is a glaring contradiction in the Chinese claim.
   The Chinese claim that none of the Wuhan Institute of Virology employees had antibodies to the new coronavirus is highly questionable.
   When examining the staff of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, it is highly doubtful that the Chinese side claims that none of them had antibodies to the new coronavirus.
   Corrupt ethics
   Some people argue that China is destroying evidence and that it will be difficult to prove a leak from the laboratory even if an investigation is conducted in the future.
   However, it is possible to examine the immunity (immunoglobulins and T cells) of all the Wuhan Institute for Virus Research employees.
   If the infection history of all the staff members with the virus is known, we could identify the leakage route.
   It cannot destroy this evidence without killing the staff.
   It is possible for the scientific community alone, independent of politics, to bar academic conferences and journal researchers from Chinese research institutions that do not respond to this investigation.
   As we can recall from the Cold War, it is abnormal for a dictatorship to have free access to academic activities in the free world.
   A country where the concealment of information is justified is not an appropriate place for academia.
   No true scientist would disagree with this.
   It is expected that the Chinese government will use the word "discrimination" to play the victim in the shutdown of scholars belonging to Chinese research institutions.
   We could counter it by accepting refugees (asylum) of researchers from China.
   It is not a problem that scientists can realize, but it requires the power of politics.
   Some infectious disease experts are concerned that it will become more concealed if China's responsibility is vigorously pursued.
   However, such reasoning does not justify covering up the cause of 3 million deaths at all.
   If China hardens its stance and intensifies its cover-up, it should block all people from China from coming in and out.
   That way, it can prevent the following infectious disease originating in China.
   Aum Shinrikyo was able to carry out the sarin gas attack because we did not pursue them for the Matsumoto sarin gas attack.
   If China is not pursuing the origin of the new coronavirus, the following incident could be more dangerous.
   We should learn from the lessons of history.
   Some people say that investigating the origin of the new coronavirus will not help us because it will not erase the damage of the pandemic.
   However, by unraveling the truth about the origin and accurately understanding the risk factors, we can take measures to prevent the next pandemic, whether the virus originated in the wild or the laboratory.
   The first thing to do is establish an international inspection system for laboratories that handle dangerous microorganisms.
   If such laboratories are located in densely populated areas, they should move them to depopulated areas or remote islands as soon as possible.
   Nuclear power is subject to the IAEA inspection system, and facilities are in remote areas.
   It should take the same safety measures as the life science field.
   However, the ethics of today's scientists are so corrupt that such a discussion is not possible at all.