By Lambert Strether of Corrente.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The question of Covid\u2019s origin has generated a vast literature and a polemic[1] even vaster, neither of which I can pretend to have mastered[2],[3]. Nevertheless, with the change in administrations, the Origin Question has exploded into the news again, and I think I can at least make a small contribution, limited in scope and questioning the conventional wisdom, summarized in the title. On January 24, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA )director John Ratcliffe] gave an interview to Brietbart (bless their hearts<\/a>) that included the following passage<\/a>:<\/p>\n [RADCLIFFE:] One of the things that I\u2019ve talked about a lot is addressing the threat from China on a number of fronts, and that goes back to why a million Americans died and why the Central Intelligence Agency has been sitting on the sidelines for five years in not making an assessment about the origins of COVID. That\u2019s a day-one thing for me. I\u2019ve been on record as you know in saying I think our intelligence, our science, and our common sense all really dictates that the origins of COVID was a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But the CIA has not made that assessment or at least not made that assessment publicly. So I\u2019m going to focus on that and look at the intelligence and make sure that the public is aware that the agency is going to get off the sidelines.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n On the following day, the CIA released \u201ca new analysis that began under the Biden administration.\u201d From the New York Times, \u201cC.I.A. Now Favors Lab Leak Theory to Explain Covid\u2019s Origins<\/a>\u201c:<\/p>\n [T]he agency issued a new assessment[4] this week, with analysts saying they now favor the lab theory.<\/p>\n There is no new intelligence behind the agency\u2019s shift, officials said. Rather it is based on the same evidence it has been chewing over for months.<\/p>\n Officials said the agency was not bending its views to a new boss, and that the new assessment had been in the works for some time.<\/p>\n The agency made its new assessment with \u201clow confidence,\u201d which means the intelligence behind it is fragmentary and incomplete.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That is, there is no casus belli<\/em>. More:<\/p>\n Senior intelligence officials in the Biden administration defend their process and methodology. They have said that no intelligence was suppressed and insist that politics did not play into their analysis.<\/p>\n These officials say that there are powerful logical arguments for both the lab leak and the natural causes theories, but that there simply is no decisive piece of intelligence on either side of the issue.<\/p>\n To boost the natural origins theory, intelligence officers would like to find the animal that passed it to a human or find a bat carrying what was the likely ancestor of the coronavirus that causes Covid.<\/p>\n Similarly, to seal the lab leak, the intelligence community would like to find evidence that one of the labs in Wuhan was working on a progenitor virus that directly led to the epidemic.<\/p>\n Neither piece of evidence has been found.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n At this point, I had expected to transition into quoting directly from the new assessment. Unfortunately, in their coverage of the story, neither The Times<\/a>, nor AP<\/a>, Axios<\/a>, Breitbart<\/a>, CNBC<\/a>, CNN<\/a>, Daily Caller<\/a>, Financial Times<\/a>, FOX<\/a>, NBC<\/a>, Politico<\/a>, nor the Wall Street Journal<\/a> include a link to the new assessment, or even quote directly from it. Nor do they at any point link to a complete copy of the CIA\u2019s (emailed) statement on the matter. Nor is there anything relevant in the press release or reports sections of the CIA<\/a>, Intelligence.gov<\/a>, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence<\/a>. So while all the stories defer to Ratcliffe\u2019s claim that the new assessment has been \u201creleased,\u201d it is not entirely clear to whom, if anyone, the release has been made. Perhaps matters will clarify on Monday.<\/p>\n What I expected to find, in the new assessment, was no mention<\/em> of early Covid cases in Italy, with the focus entirely on Wuhan. That was the case in the previous 2021<\/a> and 2023<\/a> assessments. In this post, I hope to at least persuade you that the potential cases of Covid in Italy, pre-Wuhan, aggregated, merit at least a dismissive footnote in the CIA\u2019s assessments. After all, if SARS-CoV-2 was out in the world prior to, or contemporaneously with, its initial small scale November 2019<\/a> appearance in Wuhan, or the first major in December 2019, that might well call its origin at the Wuhan Institute of Virology into question. The absence of such a footnote is therefore curious, and in the context of an assessment of such political and strategic import, downright odd. I will simply post the studies I have found from 2020 through 2022. There are rather a lot of them for a completely unfounded hypothesis; in fact, I would so far as to say that for the Italian medical establishment, the consensus view was that the existence of early Italian cases was worth pursuing. Finally, 2022, I will present a meta-study that aggregates many more early cases, including its conclusions.<\/p>\n Now to the studies.<\/p>\n The Studies<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019ve organized studies claiming early Covid in Italy chronologically by publication date. The method used to detect Covid appears in square brackets before the study title. (I haven\u2019t included some studies whose test methods were inferior to Nested-PCR.)<\/p>\n 2020<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n [Nested-PCR, RT-PCR] \u201cSARS-CoV-2 has been circulating in northern Italy since December 2019: Evidence from environmental monitoring<\/a>\u201d Science of the Total Environment (August 15, 2020):<\/p>\n The first autochthonous Italian case of COVID-19 was documented on February 21, 2020. We investigated the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Italy earlier than that date, by analysing 40 composite influent wastewater samples collected \u2013 in the framework of other wastewater-based epidemiology projects \u2013 between and February 2020 from five wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in three cities and regions in northern Italy (Milan\/Lombardy, Turin\/Piedmont and Bologna\/Emilia Romagna). Twenty-four additional samples collected in the same WWTPs between September 2018 and June 2019 (i.e. long before the onset of the epidemic) were included as \u2018blank\u2019 samples\u2026 A total of 15 positive samples were confirmed by [nested RT-PCR and real-rime RT-PCR]. The earliest dates back to 18 December 2019 in Milan and Turin and 29 January 2020 in Bologna\u2026. Our results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 was already circulating in northern Italy at the end of 2019. Moreover, it was circulating in different geographic regions simultaneously, which changes our previous understanding of the geographical circulation of the virus in Italy. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n [In-house ELISA, virus neutralisation assay] \u201cUnexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the prepandemic period in Italy<\/a>\u201d Tumori (November 11, 2020).<\/p>\n We investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD)\u2013specific antibodies in blood samples of 959 asymptomatic individuals enrolled in a prospective lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 to track the date of onset, frequency, and temporal and geographic variations across the Italian regions. SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific antibodies were detected in 111 of 959 (11.6%) individuals, starting from <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And:<\/p>\n [T]he onset of the epidemic [is] likely to have preceded the identification of the first case, probably in the last part of 2019. Since November\u2013December 2019, many general practitioners began reporting the appearance of severe respiratory symptoms in elderly and frail people with atypical bilateral bronchitis, which was attributed, in the absence of news about the new virus, to aggressive forms of seasonal influenza. One investigation on SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in healthy blood donors has been performed in one of the two initial lockdown areas in northern Italy. In a group of 300 stored plasma samples, 5 samples collected between the 12th and 17th of February exhibited evidence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 NAbs. Moreover, a phylogenetic analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genomes isolated from 3 Lombardy patients involved in the first COVID-19 outbreak suggests that the common origin of the strains dates back several weeks before the first cases of COVID-19 pneumonia reported in China. Based on these findings, a prior unnoticed circulation of the virus among the Italian population could be hypothesized.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n (This article was covered in Reuters<\/a> (and News Medical Life Sciences<\/a>, and the Week. Concerns were raised about it in Retraction Watch<\/a>, apparently because it was fast-tracked, but nothing came of them.)<\/p>\n 2021<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n [Nested-PCR, Sanger sequencing] \u201cEvidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in an Oropharyngeal Swab Specimen, Milan, Italy, Early December 2019<\/a>\u201d Emerging Infectious Diseases (February 2021):<\/p>\n We describe the earliest evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a patient in Italy, \u22483 months before Italy\u2019s first reported COVID-19 case. These findings, in agreement with other evidence of early COVID-19 spread in Europe, advance the beginning of the outbreak to . However, earlier strains also might have been occasionally imported to Italy and other countries in Europe during this period, manifesting with sporadic cases or small self-limiting clusters\u2026. This finding is of epidemiologic importance because it expands our knowledge on timing and mapping of the SARS-CoV-2 transmission pathways. Long-term, unrecognized spread of SARS-CoV-2 in northern Italy would help explain, at least in part, the devastating impact and rapid course of the first wave of COVID-19 in Lombardy.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n [Immunohistochemistry, insitu hybridisation] \u201cCOVID\u201019\u2010related dermatosis in November 2019: could this case be Italy\u2019s patient zero?<\/a>\u201d British Journal of Dermatology (May 1, 2021).<\/p>\n In , a 25\u2010year\u2010old woman presented with urticarial plaque\u2010like dermatosis on the arms (Figure 1a)\u2026. In July 2020, we realized that the histopathological features of the biopsy matched the minichilblain pattern described in our previously published paper on COVID\u201019\u2010related dermatoses (Figure 1b, c).2 Hence, we decided to study this biopsy again\u2026. An Italian paper demonstrated SARS\u2010CoV\u20102 gene sequences with PCR analysis in northern Italy in wastewater samples in December 2019.6 A more recent paper reported the presence of SARS\u2010CoV\u20102 receptor\u2010binding domain\u2010specific antibodies in blood samples of 111 asymptomatic Italian individuals enrolled in a prospective lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020.7 Along the same lines, Amendola et al. reported the presence of SARS\u2010CoV\u20102 RNA in an oropharyngeal swab specimen of a child from Milan with dermatosis suspected to be measles in early December 2019. All these facts lead us to believe that our patient could represent the earliest case in the literature of detection of the virus on tissue samples. Can we then call this case the dermatological Italian patient zero?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n [ELISA, microneutralisation assay] \u201cTimeline of SARS-CoV-2 Spread in Italy: Results from an Independent Serological Retesting<\/a>\u201d [Viruses<\/a>] (December 30, 2021):<\/p>\n Given the importance of this evidence, an independent evaluation was recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to test a subset of samples selected on the level of positivity in ELISA assays (positive, low positive, negative) detected in our previous study of prepandemic samples collected in Italy. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were blindly retested by two independent centers in 29 blood samples collected in the prepandemic period in Italy, 29 samples collected one year before and 11 COVID-19 control samples. The methodologies used included IgG-RBD\/IgM-RBD ELISA assays, a qualitative micro-neutralization CPE-based assay, a multiplex IgG protein array, an ELISA IgM kit (Wantai), and a plaque-reduction neutralization test. The results suggest the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in some samples collected in the prepandemic period, with the oldest samples found to be positive for IgM by both laboratories collected on (Lombardy), 11 November 2019 (Lombardy) and 5 February 2020 (Lazio).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n (This is a follow-up to the Tumori study.)<\/p>\n 2022<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n [ELISA, RT-PCR] \u201cEvidence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies and RNA on Autopsy Cases in the Pre-Pandemic Period in Milan (Italy)<\/a>\u201d Frontiers in Microbiology (June 14, 2022):<\/p>\n To date, no studies aimed at searching for evidence of the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in the pre-pandemic period have been conducted on autopsy cases. We wanted, therefore, to address this specific topic by analyzing blood samples collected from cadavers subjected to autopsy at the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Milan\u2026.. [O]ur data indicated that the first SARS-CoV-2 positive case dated December 2019, while the detection of positivity only to IgM test by rapid LFIA in , being within the lower limit of the specificity rate of the test, possibly represents nonspecific signal or cross-reaction with antibodies against other coronaviruses.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n [Nested-PCR, Sanger sequencing, commercial ELISA, neutralisation assay] \u201cMolecular evidence for SARS-CoV-2 in samples collected from patients with morbilliform eruptions since late 2019 in Lombardy, northern Italy<\/a>\u201d Environmental Research (December 2022):<\/p>\n As a reference laboratory for measles and rubella surveillance in Lombardy, we evaluated the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and measles-like syndromes, providing preliminary evidence for undetected early circulation of SARS-CoV-2. Overall, 435 samples from 156 cases were investigated\u2026. The earliest sample with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was from d.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And from News-Medical Life Sciences, \u201cItalian study finds SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples collected before December 2019<\/a>\u201c:<\/p>\n \u201cDespite the lack of a definitive timeline on when SARS-CoV-2 initially emerged, previous evolutionary studies indicate that the virus likely circulated in China for several months before the first outbreak was recorded in Wuhan, China. Soon after, an increasing number of cases were reported in several European and North American countries by mid-January 2020\u2026. The SARS-CoV-2 strain that circulated in Lombardy, as well as much of Europe soon after its initial detection in Italy, differed from the Wuhan-Hu-1 strain, which was the reference genome originally identified in China. In fact, some of the different mutations present within this strain included A23403G (Spike D614G), C14408T (RdRp P323L), and C3037T (synonymous). This strain, which has since been named B.1 in Pangolin and 20A in NextStrain, is often referred to as the DG1111 haplotype and comprises an \u03b1\u03b2 mutational signature.<\/p>\n Several studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in many nations prior to its official detection.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Finally, let me quote from this review of the literature in the British Medical Journal, \u201cWaiting for the truth: is reluctance in accepting an early origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 delaying our understanding of viral emergence<\/a>?\u201d (December 2022). From the Summary:<\/p>\n A growing body of studies provides evidence for the global circulation of SARS-CoV-2 prior to December 2019, contradicting the currently hypothesised timeline of the original viral emergence in Hubei province of China around November 2019; however, any suggestion of an earlier SARS-CoV-2 circulation is met with scepticism.<\/p>\n \u2022 Several studies performed independently by different groups retrospectively demonstrated the presence of antibodies and viral RNA in clinical samples and showed SARS-CoV-2 community circulation by detecting viral RNA in wastewater at times inconsistent with November 2019 emergence.<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Despite some limitations, combining the knowledge acquired from these studies is sufficient to warrant further larger-scale investigations to determine the veracity of this hypothesis.<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0 If proven true, an earlier than currently believed worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2 will provide essential clues for understanding the genesis of this pandemic and offer invaluable lessons from our successes and failures with crucial implications for future pandemic preparedness and global health.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n (I did my own digging for sources, but they overlap with Table 1.) Sadly, no larger-scale studies were ever made \u2014 in fact, the studies stop entirely, rather as if a switch was thrown \u2014 but that doesn\u2019t mean they wouldn\u2019t have been worth making:<\/p>\n Despite the increasing documentation available in support of its early circulation, current scientific literature discussing the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is almost exclusively focused on the November\/December 2019 hypothesis, completely ignoring this growing body of contradictory evidence. In fact, the possibility of early circulation is only seldom mentioned or discussed in such papers. Furthermore, as this alternative hypothesis clearly contradicts the timeline that is today held as the most likely, when these studies are cited, it is done dismissively, minimising the results obtained by numerous independent research groups. This attitude, pervasive among high-ranking journals, clearly demonstrates scepticism and has the consequence of avoiding a more critical interpretation of scientific data and of discouraging a constructive scientific debate that should consider all available facts when advancing a hypothesis and re-evaluate assumptions in light of new evidence. Additionally, this bias often results in rejection of manuscripts in support of an early SARSCoV-2 circulation, reinforcing the \u2018echo chamber\u2019 effect. Science is a quest for ultimate truth, which shall not be discouraged by such mindset.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Sounds like droplet dogma all over again. And concluding:<\/p>\n Despite the technical limitations of available early origin studies, even a remote possibility that positive tests indicate an early SARS-CoV-2 circulation should be considered sufficient to warrant the scaling up of research to more samples from more regions and through a wider timespan. Time is running out: valuable samples that may contain the key to the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 origin might already have been destroyed as their regulatory storage time requirements lapse. Many more will meet the same fate in the coming months and years. What is there to lose in accepting this hypothesis as tenable and exploring it urgently before the chances of finding the answers to explain how this pandemic emerged are gone forever?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n What was there to lose? Plenty, as with all paradigm shifts.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n Jon Stewart framed the origin question hilariously in 2021:<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey Pennsylvania. What do you think happened? Maybe ask the chocolate factory\u201d https:\/\/t.co\/dRihMZZV2O<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 MAD & CRAB \ud83e\udd80\ud83c\udded\ud83c\uddf7\ud83c\uddf5\ud83c\uddf8 (@bigmadcrab) January 26, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center> <\/p>\n Turn it around. What do you think happened when there\u2019s an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey Pennsylvania, and also<\/em> \u2014 before? \u2014 in Italy\u2019s Chocolate City, Turin?<\/em>. Investigate further, I would say.<\/p>\n Further investigation, however, seems unlikely. Both sides of the controversy are now dug in to an origin story centered on Wuhan, whether at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, or the Wuhan Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Science, it would seem, has no further role to play. <\/p>\n NOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n [1] For example, this exchange on X following the quasi-release of the CIA\u2019s new assessment isn\u2019t only overheated:<\/p>\n https:\/\/t.co\/34CPrMKSgP<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) January 25, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center> <\/p>\n I translated the Taz interview <\/a>with Drosten<\/a> cited by Metzl:<\/p>\n taz: In any case, they believed in a natural origin.<\/p>\n Drosten: I still think that\u2019s likely, and almost all scientists who are working on the topic also assume that. But assuming doesn\u2019t mean knowing.<\/p>\n taz: If you now say that this virus may have come from the laboratory after all, that will cause an uproar.<\/p>\n Drosten: I wouldn\u2019t postulate that directly. But it\u2019s not the same if we don\u2019t have proof of a natural origin in 2020 as if we still don\u2019t have that proof in 2025.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n (Further down, Drosten gives a really good explanation of how the furin cleavage site works). I guess I can see what Ebright and Metzl are saying in Drosten\u2019s actual words if I squint really, really<\/em> hard\u2026 <\/p>\n [2] Personally, I take the strong form though not generally sympathized-with view that tweets like this:<\/p>\n If the FCS was inserted by a zoonotic mechanism, why is it flanked by BsaXI? pic.twitter.com\/VkLoAvbbTm<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Tony VanDongen (@tony_vandongen) January 24, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center> <\/p>\n are logically equivalent to saying: \u201cLook at this watch; gears so round and intermeshed can only have been created by God (the Watchmaker analogy<\/a>, beloved of Creationists). When searching for causes, at least in the US, I think we give far too much weight to malevolent human actors, and far too little to impersonal systems, evolution, sheer accident, etc.<\/p>\n [3] Hilariously, China\u2019s discourse is a mirror image of our own; see Bioethical Inquiry, \u201cIn the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency<\/a>\u201c:<\/p>\n Immediately after the epidemic (initially called \u201cWuhan pneumonia\u201d) became public knowledge in late January, an unsettling theory started to circulate in China. Posts with certain variations\u2014but containing exactly the same information and similar wording\u2014spread like wildfire, particularly on Chinese social media WeChat. They tied the origins of the virus to the first China-hosted international military multi-sport event which involved the participation of nearly ten thousand athletes from over one hundred countries.<\/p>\n The original message is a masterpiece of conspiracy theory rhetoric. It is worthwhile citing it in full (in English translation):<\/p>\n Compatriots: In this time of the Wuhan pneumonia epidemic, please do not forget the Seventh World Military Games in Wuhan three months ago. Of course, some international athletes came from Africa, where infectious diseases frequently break out. Some athletes came from the United States, which has long attempted to carry out biological warfare against China. When [the authorities] investigated the source of the virus responsible for the 2003 SARS epidemic, many clues pointed to the United States and its biological warfare conspiracy against China.<\/p>\n So, doesn\u2019t this coronavirus pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan have something to do with the USA? This outbreak coincides with respect to the timeline, coincides with respect to the place, and coincides with respect to the gathering of people. And it also coincides in a major way with the China\u2013US trade war, which is still raging fiercely. Shouldn\u2019t we put all these coincidences together to analyse, synthesize, theorize, and verify so as to reach a clear conclusion? While carrying out its trade war with China, the U.S. government took advantage of the Seventh World Military Games, where many American athletes had numerous personal interactions with Chinese, hiding the novel coronavirus in their equipment with the aim of infecting the people of Wuhan. As the virus has an incubation period of two or three months, outbreaks on a massive scale would occur around the Spring Festival Holiday when vast numbers of people return home for the Chinese New Year.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n See also \u201cGOP report says October 2019 Wuhan military games were \u2018one of the earliest super spreader events<\/a>,\u201d Washington Examiner.<\/p>\n [4] There are other early claims (France, England<\/a>; Singapore<\/a>; Barcelona, Spain<\/a>; the Congo<\/a>; the United States<\/a>). I\u2019m focusing only on Italy because the aggregate number is so large.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Print](\"https:\/\/cdn.printfriendly.com\/buttons\/print-button-gray.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n