科学家发现武汉病毒所提交给WHO的体检记录有严重的问题

Main Findings:

1. The tests did not cover all relevant institutions Some key institutions that are attested to have worked on bat coronaviruses (BatCoV) at BSL2 or BSL3 are not mentioned at all in the statements. 

2. The tests performed in one of the institutions mentioned are irrelevant The tests done at the Jianghan CDC cannot establish if some laboratory staff got infected in late 2019, as these tests were performed in June 2010 and were PCR tests which can only detect a positive infection within a few weeks of the first symptoms. In any case the Jianghan CDC itself is most likely irrelevant anyway as not being known for any BatCoV research. The mention of the Jianghan CDC in the Annex D5 of the China-WHO joint-team report can thus only create confusion. 

3. The tests did not cover all relevant people For a proper detection of possible research-related infections in 2019 that could have sparked the pandemic, the correct approach would have been to test (1) all field sampling staff, (2) all staff, students and temporary workers at institutions handling coronaviruses, (3) a sample of people living in proximity (especially downwind) from all these institutions. 

4. A proper testing at the WIV would have returned positive cases Given the prevalence of COVID-19 in Wuhan during the first half of 2020, with near absolute certainty some of the WIV 590 staff and students would have tested positive (igG+) in March 2020, following an infection with SARS-CoV-2. Hence the statement that nobody at the WIV tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 is either (a) misleading as being based on an unreliably small fraction of the entire WIV population that should be tested, or (b) it is simply untrue. The situation is made worse when considering the four labs mentioned by Peter Embarek. 

5. Clarification of the test populations and results is urgently required The WIV and other Wuhan labs of interest should either (a) clarify that they only did limited testings and detail exactly who was tested and when, or (b) provide case histories of the employees/students that necessarily did test positive if they tested large enough populations.