Connect with us

Science

Fresh look at earliest COVID cases points to live-animal market as most likely source

Published

on

Fresh look at earliest COVID cases points to live-animal market as most likely source

Conspiracy theorists want little greater than suspicion, some cherry-picked details and vibrant imaginations to spin tales concerning the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. However for the scientists working to determine the details, the trail to the reality is rather more plodding.

Their search will take them via a trove of medical information whose quotidian particulars will probably be essential guideposts to the time and circumstances of the coronavirus’ start as a human pathogen. Sufferers’ recall of their whereabouts and contacts will matter too.

However even when the Chinese language authorities had been keen to open all its affected person information to worldwide investigators — it at present will not be — symptom studies and sufferers’ recollections may be fallible and complicated. Researchers must verify each truth as they ferret out the story, piece by piece.

College of Arizona evolutionary biologist Michael Worobey provides a down fee on such sleuthing on this week’s version of the journal Science. Drawn from medical journal articles, the work of World Well being Group investigators, media studies and on-line accounts, Worobey’s reconstruction leaves many questions unanswered. But it surely supplies a street map for additional investigation.

Advertisement

Worobey has performed an influential position. He was considered one of 18 scientists whose objections to a WHO report on the coronavirus’ origins reignited investigation into the likelihood that it might need leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Their letter was printed in Science after the WHO declared it “more likely to very probably” that the virus jumped to people from animals, and “extraordinarily unlikely” that it escaped from the federal government lab. Noting that the 2 theories “weren’t given balanced consideration,” the group referred to as for “a correct investigation” to resolve the problem.

Worobey stated on the time that “each” explanations “stay on the desk for me.” However his new work leans closely to the “animal spillover” rationalization.

Advertisement

Worobey’s effort is assembly with combined evaluations.

“I don’t assume this advances in a serious approach our collective understanding of what actually occurred,” stated Dr. David Relman, the Stanford microbiologist who organized the Science letter. Since Worobey’s new narrative is constructed primarily of “third- and fourth-hand data,” it’s fragmentary, inconsistent and probably unreliable, Relman stated.

However Scripps Establishment microbiologist Kristian Andersen, who has lengthy argued that an animal spillover was extra probably than a lab leak, lauded Worobey’s analysis for “uncovering a number of new key insights.”

The collective proof “clearly factors to the Huanan Market as a really probably supply of the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic,” Andersen stated.

Worobey’s account calls into query the date and placement of the earliest reported case of the mysterious sort of pneumonia that was later acknowledged as COVID-19. His analysis suggests it was not — as has been extensively reported — a 41-year-old accountant with no connection to the Huanan Market, however a seafood vendor who labored there. (A Chinese language investigative reporter would uncover that the accountant’s Dec. 8 fever was as a consequence of an an infection after dental surgical procedure to take away retained child tooth. The accountant would go on to develop one other fever eight days later that was an indication of COVID-19.)

Advertisement

A full 11 days earlier than Chinese language authorities centered their consideration on the Huanan Market because the widespread hyperlink within the mysterious infections, medical doctors at two Wuhan hospitals had already recognized 14 instances of the unexplained pneumonia. Eight of these sufferers had frolicked on the market, the place reside raccoon canines, a species recognized to hold SARS-like coronaviruses, had been offered.

The importance of such minute particulars wouldn’t be evident to informal followers of the origin debate. However they matter enormously.

These arguing that China has coated up an unintentional lab leak or the intentional launch of an engineered pathogen have seized upon this discovering within the WHO report: Solely 33% of 168 sufferers who developed the unexplained pneumonia early within the outbreak had a direct hyperlink to the Huanan Market. They add that even that quantity is probably going inflated by medical doctors who went on the lookout for hyperlinks to the market after Chinese language authorities designated the positioning because the probably supply.

They’ve additionally made a lot of the now-disputed report that the earliest recognized affected person (the 41-year-old accountant) lived practically 20 miles south of the Huanan Market and had by no means been there, but he confirmed up sick in a hospital near the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Marc Suchard, a UCLA researcher who makes use of genetic sequences to check the unfold of illness, stated Worobey’s reconstruction makes clear that “most early instances happen close to the market, figuring out it as an early epicenter.” Suchard stated he expects to work with Worobey on the following section of this analysis.

Advertisement

China insists the SARS-CoV-2 virus arose from a spillover occasion. Authorities there stated they responded promptly to studies of an unexplained sickness in Wuhan, shortly tracing it to the Huanan Market and activating a nationwide warning system.

They dismiss the likelihood that the virus escaped from the Wuhan virology lab. However they’ve been unwilling to share their information with WHO investigators. And since the federal government has coated up missteps in previous disasters, skepticism of its claims has been widespread.

Worobey didn’t acknowledge the politically charged debate over the virus’ origins. However he made clear his reconstruction of occasions factors strongly towards a spillover rationalization.

For example, by his accounting, 10 of the 19 earliest instances recognized — 53% — had a hyperlink to the market. That quantity couldn’t have been inflated by medical doctors’ following the federal government’s lead, he stated, as a result of they had been all recognized earlier than authorities made any announcement.

“There was a real preponderance of early COVID-19 instances related to Huanan Market,” Worobey wrote.

Advertisement

He additionally wrote that, given what’s now recognized concerning the SARS-CoV-2 virus, it needs to be no shock that lots of the early sufferers had no connection to the Huanan Market. The virus is well unfold by individuals with few or no signs. It takes shut to 2 weeks for an an infection to progress to extreme sickness, and not more than 7% of these contaminated find yourself hospitalized.

Which means by the point individuals started to land in Wuhan’s hospitals, the virus had in all probability been circulating regionally for weeks — and a minimum of 93% of contaminated individuals had been out and about, capable of unfold it in a metropolis of 11 million.

Amongst sufferers with no direct hyperlink to the market, most lived shut by. That “is notable and supplies compelling proof that neighborhood transmission began on the market,” Worobey wrote.

These details additionally recommend that the pandemic’s “affected person zero” will probably by no means be discovered.

Someday in late November or early December, that individual might need been consuming lunch subsequent to contaminated raccoon canines of their cages on the Huanan Market. She or he might need been one of many practically 50% of people that don’t really feel very sick however are nonetheless fairly efficient at passing SARS-CoV-2 on.

Advertisement

The animal that incubated the virus is even much less more likely to be discovered. Chinese language researchers informed WHO investigators they took samples from 188 animals from 18 species on the market, and all examined unfavorable. And for the reason that market was closed and disinfected on Jan. 1, 2020, there’s no solution to look additional.

So researchers should preserve amassing epidemiological information and sorting via the telling particulars to create the fullest image potential of the virus’ start.

Genetic sequencing information also can assist, Worobey stated. Because the virus strikes from individual to individual, its genetic signature modifications simply sufficient to disclose the order by which infections occurred. When epidemiologists and geneticists pool their information, they’re higher capable of create a household tree of infections.

As they cross-check genetic signatures with sufferers’ accounts of their contacts and whereabouts, they can time-stamp some infections and discern the spatial patterns of the virus’s earliest transmissions. That ought to get them nearer to the basis of the household tree — perhaps not affected person zero, however shut.

“Conclusive proof of a Huanan Market origin from contaminated wildlife could nonetheless be obtainable,” Worobey wrote. “Stopping future pandemics is dependent upon this effort.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

FDA sets limits for lead in many baby foods as California disclosure law takes effect

Published

on

FDA sets limits for lead in many baby foods as California disclosure law takes effect

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week set maximum levels for lead in baby foods such as jarred fruits and vegetables, yogurts and dry cereal, part of an effort to cut young kids’ exposure to the toxic metal that causes developmental and neurological problems.

The agency issued final guidance that it estimated could reduce lead exposure from processed baby foods by about 20% to 30%. The limits are voluntary, not mandatory, for food manufacturers, but they allow the FDA to take enforcement action if foods exceed the levels.

It’s part of the FDA’s ongoing effort to “reduce dietary exposure to contaminants, including lead, in foods to as low as possible over time, while maintaining access to nutritious foods,” the agency said in a statement.

Consumer advocates, who have long sought limits on lead in children’s foods, welcomed the guidance first proposed two years ago, but said it didn’t go far enough.

“FDA’s actions today are a step forward and will help protect children,” said Thomas Galligan, a scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “However, the agency took too long to act and ignored important public input that could have strengthened these standards.”

Advertisement

The new limits on lead for children younger than 2 don’t cover grain-based snacks such as puffs and teething biscuits, which some research has shown contain higher levels of lead. And they don’t limit other metals such as cadmium that have been detected in baby foods.

The FDA’s announcement comes just one week after a new California law took effect that requires baby food makers selling products in California to provide a QR code on their packaging to take consumers to monthly test results for the presence in their product of four heavy metals: lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium.

The change, required under a law passed by the California Legislature in 2023, will affect consumers nationwide. Because companies are unlikely to create separate packaging for the California market, QR codes are likely to appear on products sold across the country, and consumers everywhere will be able to view the heavy metal concentrations.

Although companies are required to start printing new packaging and publishing test results of products manufactured beginning in January, it may take time for the products to hit grocery shelves.

The law was inspired by a 2021 congressional investigation that found dangerously high levels of heavy metals in packaged foods marketed for babies and toddlers. Baby foods and their ingredients had up to 91 times the arsenic level, up to 177 times the lead level, up to 69 times the cadmium level, and up to five times the mercury level that the U.S. allows to be present in bottled or drinking water, the investigation found.

Advertisement

There’s no safe level of lead exposure for children, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The metal causes “well-documented health effects,” including brain and nervous system damage and slowed growth and development. However, lead occurs naturally in some foods and comes from pollutants in air, water and soil, which can make it impossible to eliminate entirely.

The FDA guidance sets a lead limit of 10 parts per billion for fruits, most vegetables, grain and meat mixtures, yogurts, custards and puddings and single-ingredient meats. It sets a limit of 20 parts per billion for single-ingredient root vegetables and for dry infant cereals. The guidance covers packaged processed foods sold in jars, pouches, tubs or boxes.

Jaclyn Bowen, executive director of the Clean Label Project, an organization that certifies baby foods as having low levels of toxic substances, said consumers can use the new FDA guidance in tandem with the new California law: The FDA, she said, has provided parents a “hard and fast number” to consider a benchmark when looking at the new monthly test results.

But Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports, called the FDA limits “virtually meaningless because they’re based more on industry feasibility and not on what would best protect public health.” A product with a lead level of 10 parts per billion is “still too high for baby food. What we’ve heard from a lot of these manufacturers is they are testing well below that number.”

The new FDA guidance comes more than a year after lead-tainted pouches of apple cinnamon puree sickened more than 560 children in the U.S. between October 2023 and April 2024, according to the CDC.

Advertisement

The levels of lead detected in those products were more than 2,000 times higher than the FDA’s maximum. Officials stressed that the agency doesn’t need guidance to take action on foods that violate the law.

Aleccia writes for the Associated Press. Gold reports for The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

Continue Reading

Science

NASA punts Mars Sample Return decision to the next administration

Published

on

NASA punts Mars Sample Return decision to the next administration

Anyone hoping for a clear path forward this year for NASA’s imperiled Mars Sample Return mission will have to wait a little longer.

The agency has settled on two potential strategies for the first effort to bring rock and soil from another planet back to Earth for study, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said Tuesday: It can either leverage existing technology into a simpler, cheaper craft or turn to a commercial partner for a new design.

But the final decision on the mission’s structure — or whether it should proceed at all — “is going to be a function of the new administration,” Nelson said. President-elect Donald Trump will take office Jan. 20.

“I don’t think we want the only [Mars] sample return coming back on a Chinese spacecraft,” Nelson said, referencing a rival mission that Beijing has in the works. “I think that the [Trump] administration will certainly conclude that they want to proceed. So what we wanted to do was to give them the best possible options so that they can go from there.”

Advertisement

The call also contained words of encouragement for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, which leads the embattled mission’s engineering efforts.

“To put it really bluntly, JPL is our Mars center in NASA science,” said Nicky Fox, associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate. “They are the people who landed us on Mars, together with our industry partners. So they will be moving forward, regardless of which path, with a key role in the Mars Sample Return.”

In April, after an independent review found “near zero probability” of Mars Sample Return making its proposed 2028 launch date, NASA put out a request for alternative proposals to all of its centers and the private sector. JPL was forced to compete for what had been its own project.

The independent review board determined that the original design would probably cost up to $11 billion and not return samples to Earth until at least 2040.

“That was just simply unacceptable,” said Nelson, who paused the mission in late 2023 to review its chances of success.

Advertisement

Ensuing cuts to the mission’s budget forced a series of layoffs at JPL, which let go of 855 employees and 100 on-site contractors in 2024.

The NASA-led option that Nelson suggested Tuesday includes several elements from the JPL proposal, according to a person who reviewed the documents. This leaner, simpler alternative will cost between $6.6 billion and $7.7 billion, and will return the samples by 2039, he said. A commercial alternative would probably cost $5.8 billion to $7.1 billion.

Nelson, a former Democratic U.S. senator from Florida, will step down as head of the space agency when Trump takes office. Trump has nominated as his successor Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire who performed the first private space walk, who must be confirmed by the Senate.

NASA has not had any conversations with Trump’s transition team about Mars Sample Return, Nelson said. How the new administration will prioritize the project is not yet clear.

“It’s very uncertain how the new administration will go forward,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy for the Planetary Society, a Pasadena nonprofit that promotes space research. “Cancellation is obviously still on the table. … It’s hard to game this out.”

Advertisement

Planetary scientists have identified Mars Sample Return as their field’s highest priority in the last three decadal surveys, reports that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine prepare every 10 years in order to advise NASA.

Successfully completing the mission is “key for the nation’s leadership in space science,” said Bethany L. Ehlmann, a planetary scientist at Caltech in Pasadena. “I hope the incoming administrator moves forward decisively to select a plan and execute. There are extraordinary engineers at JPL and NASA industry partners eager and able to get to work to make it happen.”

Continue Reading

Science

Panama Canal’s Expansion Opened Routes for Fish to Relocate

Published

on

Panama Canal’s Expansion Opened Routes for Fish to Relocate

Night fell as the two scientists got to work, unfurling long nets off the end of their boat. The jungle struck up its evening symphony: the sweet chittering of insects, the distant bellowing of monkeys, the occasional screech of a kite. Crocodiles lounged in the shallows, their eyes glinting when headlamps were shined their way.

Across the water, cargo ships made dark shapes as they slid between the seas.

The Panama Canal has for more than a century connected far-flung peoples and economies, making it an essential artery for global trade — and, in recent weeks, a target of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s expansionist designs.

But of late the canal has been linking something else, too: the immense ecosystems of the Atlantic and the Pacific.

The two oceans have been separated for some three million years, ever since the isthmus of Panama rose out of the water and split them. The canal cut a path through the continent, yet for decades only a handful of marine fish species managed to migrate through the waterway and the freshwater reservoir, Lake Gatún, that feeds its locks.

Advertisement

Then, in 2016, Panama expanded the canal to allow supersize ships, and all that started to change.

In less than a decade, fish from both oceans — snooks, jacks, snappers and more — have almost entirely displaced the freshwater species that were in the canal system before, scientists with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama have found. Fishermen around Lake Gatún who rely on those species, chiefly peacock bass and tilapia, say their catches are growing scarce.

Researchers now worry that more fish could start making their way through from one ocean to the other. And no potential invader causes more concern than the venomous, candy-striped lionfish. They are known to inhabit Panama’s Caribbean coast, but not the eastern Pacific. If they made it there through the canal, they could ravage the defenseless local fish, just as they’ve done in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.

Already, marine species are more than occasional visitors in Lake Gatún, said Phillip Sanchez, a fisheries ecologist with the Smithsonian. They’re “becoming the dominant community,” he said. They’re “pushing everything else out.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending