Skip to content

New study of COVID origins adds nothing to the raccoon dog hypothesis

Published on 19 Comments on New study of COVID origins adds nothing to the raccoon dog hypothesis

The Chinese team that collected samples from the Huanan Seafood Market three years ago has finally published its report, and an advanced draft has been posted on the Nature website. Let the games begin:

Test accepted! First, here's the relevant discussion in the paper:

Another report [the international study reported a few weeks ago] hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 spilled over from animals to humans at least twice in November or December 2019, and the raccoon dog was hypothesized to be the intermediate host animal. The evidence provided in this study is not sufficient to support such a hypothesis. Our study confirmed the existence of raccoon dogs, and other hypothesized/potential SARS-CoV-2 susceptible animals, at the market, prior to its closure. However, these environmental samples cannot prove that the animals were infected.

And here's a table showing which animals the Chinese team tested:

There were no raccoon dogs tested because, as we already knew, there were no raccoon dogs left at the market by the time the testing started.

In other words, this report is literally neutral on the question raised in the international study that pinpointed raccoon dogs as the likely intermediary for a zoonotic spillover of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Both reports agree that no samples were collected directly from raccoon dogs because the Huanan market didn't have any raccoon dogs still there when the swabs were taken. However, the international study reported that there were lots of samples which contained both SARS-CoV-2 DNA and raccoon dog DNA. The Chinese study didn't address this at all. So when you say the Chinese study concluded there was "no evidence" for the raccoon dog hypothesis, that's literally true. It's just as true to say it didn't confirm that the virus arrived from Mars.

The raccoon dog hypothesis may or may not be true. The international study laid out its argument and it's now up to experts to hash it out. Today's Chinese study adds nothing to that debate one way or the other.

19 thoughts on “New study of COVID origins adds nothing to the raccoon dog hypothesis”

  2. George Salt

    The Wuhan lab leak hypothesis has become this century's JFK assassination. The conspiracy theories will never die.

  3. wahoofive

    Doesn't say they tested any bats either, although there is an "other" category. Has the bat hypothesis been ruled out?

    1. golack

      It ultimately came from a bat, but the theory is that it infected another animal which then infected humans with a virus that can then spread amongst humans, aka. the covid we know.

    2. D_Ohrk_E1

      Horseshoe bats are in hibernation in winter, making them harder to catch. Accordingly, you would not expect them to be found in wet markets in the December-February period.

    3. D_Ohrk_E1

      Also, in a 2021 paper, they did not observe bats being sold at Wuhan's markets during their observation period between May 2017 and Nov 2019.

      This is the paper, BTW, which was the photographic evidence showing that raccoon dogs were present in Wuhan's Huanan wet market, for which Worobey claimed last month they'd provided new concrete proof that raccoon dogs were concurrently present with SARS-CoV-2.

  5. GrumpyPDXDad

    Ah, the old stumbling block "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Thus begins fallacies and conspiracies.

  8. Wichitawstraw

    There seems to be three possibilities here. The first is an intentional biological weapon developed by the Chinese that either leaked from the lab or was intentionally deployed. The second is a naturally occurring virus or gain of function virus that leaked from the lab. The third is natural transfer from animal to human at the Wuhan wet market. When conservatives talk about the lab leak they are mostly talking about a bio-weapon not a mistake from a virus they were studying. It feels like there has been a line drawn where the Chinese government bears more responsibility for a death toll that will soon surpass 7 million deaths if it was a lab leak. Unless it was an intentional deployment, which is by far the least likely scenario, the Chinese government is most at fault if it came from the wet markets. We need to study viruses and mistakes happen, but after SARS 1 everyone knew that the wet markets selling wild animals for consumption could and then eventually did release a worldwide pandemic. The Chinese government did nothing to stop the wet markets between the two outbreaks, something that given the will would have been easy for their authoritarian government to accomplish. They dodged a bullet with SARS 1 and then did nothing in order to protect traditional conservative practices. That arrogance led to 7 million deaths and counting, and I don't see any substantive discussion about holding them accountable in any way.

    1. Toofbew

      Thanks for the good summary. Quite a few non MAGA types think there may be merit in considering whether there was an unintentional lab leak. This has not been disproven, but many lefties/progressives seem to think it has been and term this possibility "a conspiracy theory." See earlier comment above. Nicholas Wade, long-time science reporter for the NY Times believes there is considerable evidence pointing to a lab leak. Science writer Matt Ridley and Alina Chan explain in their book "Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19" why this is a possibility. These are not conspiracy theorists. Dr. Chan is a postdoctoral researcher with a background in medical genetics, synthetic biology, and vector engineering who has worked at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.

      People who shut down discussion of this important issue with shouts of "conspiracy theory!" do not help forward the search for truth. The Chinese government aka Xi Jinping attempted to cover up the pandemic in its early stages and destroyed evidence. Doctors in Chinese hospitals were warned not to attribute deaths to Covid-19. We may never know what actually happened. Xi also has promoted traditional Chinese medicine, which encourages the mass trade in exotic animals and animal parts.

      1. Jasper_in_Boston

        This has not been disproven, but many lefties/progressives seem to think it has been and term this possibility "a conspiracy theory."

        Straw man alert.

        Define "many." Nearly all the liberals I know of are quite accurately saying: A) a lab leak cannot be ruled out and, B) zoonotic spillover remains by far the most plausible explanation.

        The racoon dog evidence, of course, reinforces "B."

      2. nasruddin

        Well, ok. Look around for interviews/podcasts with Worobey & Holmes for a different take.
        Ridley & Chan make me nervous. They are clearly engineered virus release "theorists", but they phrase their arguments as motte-and-bailey constructions (bailey = signs of engineered virus, motte=could be a lab accidental release or animal trade accident or who knows what). Some of their arguments are good & some are preposterous but the thing is, there's precious little evidence for anything on any side at the moment. But they could be right. But consult the other side.

  11. D_Ohrk_E1

    In other words, this report is literally neutral on the question raised in the international study that pinpointed raccoon dogs as the likely intermediary for a zoonotic spillover of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

    It is not neutral.

    Worobey specifically cited an environmental sample where just SARS-CoV-2 and raccoon bits were found, as supporting proof of raccoon dogs involved in the spillover.

    This (finally out of preprint) paper, however, notably edited in recent weeks, specifically addressed this, stating explicitly that there is no way to tie the two.

    This paper directly disputes Worobey's team.

    Your turn.

  13. pjcamp1905

    Also, apparently, they detected DNA from pandas and grey seals, which are nowhere near that market. So the data is, shall we say, questionable.

Comments are closed.