Origin of Covid-19: “The probability of a laboratory accident in Wuhan is 70 to 75%” – LaDepeche.fr

Data specialist – data scientist – Gilles Demaneuf is part of DRASTIC, a multidisciplinary collective of experts which conducts independent research on the origins of the Covid-19 epidemic.

At the beginning of 2020, you begin your research on the origin of the pandemic. Why ?

I am an engineer, a graduate of the Ecole Centrale Paris and an essential part of our training consists in preventing industrial accidents and design faults, whether in the nuclear or automotive industry for example. My training also allows me to use the probabilistic tools that make it possible to assess these risks, or, at least, to supervise them. Regarding this Covid-19 pandemic, the first thing that struck me was therefore how the hypothesis of a research accident – either in a laboratory or during on-site sampling – was immediately swept aside. under the carpet. What gave rise to doubt in me was the press release of February 9, 2020, signed by 27 scientists, published by The Lancet, leading medical journal. He not only refuted the hypothesis of a research accident but in addition, he immediately assimilated the evocation of this possibility to disinformation and, worse, to conspiracy, presenting as a certainty the zoonosis, the contamination of animal origin.

And was it supported?

Not exactly. This assertion was not accompanied by any data: it was based on fallacies, apparently logical but biased reasoning, in fact, to jump directly to the conclusion. We were in the authoritative argument, not in the science that requires studying all hypotheses in a contradictory way. That put the chip in my ear. I spoke with André Goffinet, professor at the Institute of Neuroscience in Louvain (Belgium), for whom the leak was plausible. He directed me to DRASTIC. I made an inventory with Billy Bostinkson. Zoonosis? Accident ? What did we know? With DRASTIC, we discovered a lot of data that was in the public domain, in open source, but not relayed. My part being above all the analysis of data and risks, I started working with Rodolphe de Maistre, an engineer specializing in laboratories with good experience of China, to first try to draw up a real inventory. probabilistic in order to see if, indeed, the hypothesis of an accident was viable.

What conclusion do you arrive at?

Regarding Wuhan, the first thing to note is first that this megalopolis of 11 million inhabitants is also the world’s leading research center on coronaviruses. Concretely, the first bats are 40 km away, not carrying someone close to this coronavirus, while the first risk factor, in Wuhan, is the laboratories and the movements of researchers returning from a sampling trip. And that there are animal markets and modern transport connections in Wuhan doesn’t actually change the equation. In figures, we immediately arrive at a 50% probability of an accident without forcing. So this is very different from an average city in southern China where the first essential risk factor is probably zoonosis.

In the nuclear industry, we conduct a technical analysis of the plant and assess the risks based on potential events. What can we do for the Wuhan labs?

Shortly after this probabilistic study, I followed up with Rodolphe de Maistre and Billy Bostinkson on a detailed study of the technical reports and the maintenance of the main laboratories in Wuhan. We have noted examples of a certain “lightness” compared to European standards with regard to technical audits, safety validations, and, for example, problems of wastewater disposal. With the maintenance contracts of the WIV (Wuhan institute of virology), we have also seen that the Chinese had “reworked” the technology provided by France. It was also noticed that they are fully aware of having problems of coordination and supervision of the applicable rules and standards but that they also had problems of budget and of training of expert staff, which takes a lot of time. This is an observation that is unfortunately common for a good proportion of these new laboratories that they have built quickly and continue to build with enthusiasm.

In conclusion ?

All this remains compatible with other possibilities which cannot be ruled out either, but today our work shows that a research accident is quite simply the dominant scenario, in my opinion at 70-75%.

Why such a denial then?

In a totalitarian regime, the state and its leader must be infallible. The error cannot be accepted there: the questioning of the infallibility of power becomes for him an existential problem, he perceives it as a threat to his survival.