Wuhan virus's key "near-parent virus" is again in doubt: Barrick's reconstruction of RaTG13 is blocked, the new coronary trace evidence chain is redirected to Stonehenge

The ongoing U.S. investigation into the origin of the new coronavirus is re-touching a key name that once profoundly influenced global traceability but has never been fully independently verified – RaTG13.

On July 25, Luther’s news agency cited the latest disclosure reports that the renowned coronavirus scientist Ralph Barrick of the University of North Carolina had attempted to rebuild his full-length genome in accordance with the series of RaTG13 that had already been published, but initially failed. The report also said that Barrick’s laboratory later ordered compound sub-clones and eventually obtained a infectious virus, but its biological performance has “significantly decreased”, and the relevant paper has not yet been officially submitted to the publication. The U.S. House of Representatives Supervisory Committee has previously disclosed the full testimony of Barrick’s acceptance of the New Coronavirus Special Panel investigation on January 22, 2024, confirming that

Because RaTG13 is not a common bat virus unrelated to the Wuhan epidemic, it is precisely the Wuhan Institute of Science’s Wuhan virus research team that promptly unveiled an important virus sequence after the outbreak and has long been used to explain the SARS-CoV-2 bat affinity. Barrick is also not a peripheral scientist with no connection to the Wuhan Virus Institute, and he has been conducting SARS-like bat coronavirus restructuring research with the Wuhan team many years before the outbreak.

Thus, the question that emerged during Barrick’s reconstruction of RaTG13 did not really need to be asked by saying “RaTG13 is fake” but rather by a more fundamental and deadly question: what exactly was the complete sequence of RaTG13 released by the Wuhan Virus Institute, based on the original samples, sequencing data and experimental records?

RaTG13 is not an ordinary bat virus, but a new corona "near relative" launched by the Wuhan virus.

On February 3, 2020, the team published a paper in Nature stating that they had discovered a bitch coronavirus RdRp fragment previously detected from a Yunnan chickpeas sample that was highly similar to the 2019 new coronavirus that just broke out at the time, so that a full-length sequencing of the relevant RNA samples was carried out. The resulting RaTG13 genome was 96.2% consistent with the SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequence. Since then, RaTG13 has rapidly become one of the most frequently appearing reference viruses worldwide when discussing SARS-CoV-2 animal sources.

The similarity of 96.2% does not mean that RaTG13 is the immediate ancestor of SARS-CoV-2. Subsequent system developmental studies have found that there is still a considerable evolutionary distance between the two, and that there are also significant differences between RaTG13 in the critical receptor binding region and the flinoprotease cutting point that SARS-CoV-2 has. Therefore, the scientific significance of RaTG13 is mainly to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 has a closer affinity with certain bat SARS-related coronavirus, and cannot solely explain how SARS-CoV-2 has acquired the ability to highly adapt to human transmission.

For an epidemic that was first discovered in Wuhan and quickly spread globally, when a long-term laboratory in Wuhan that researched the coronavirus related to bat SARS suddenly produced an existing sequence highly similar to the new virus, the original source, sequencing process, experimental history and database records of this sequence should be one of the most priority evidence for trace investigation, rather than a paper alone to be considered complete verification.

From BtCoV/4991 to RaTG13: Wuhan Virus Institute later acknowledged that 2018 is close to completion

The RaTG13 timeline is remarkable. The Wuhan Virus Institute later acknowledged in the Nature Supplement that the so-called RaTG13 equivalent sample number was originally ID4991, and that the sample was taken from a butterfly from a mine in the town of Yunnan, Mumbai, long after

1. In 2016, the team published a study that only disclosed a portion of the sample’s RdRp sequence of 370 basal lengths and submitted it to the database with the relevant number of BtCoV/4991.

More notably, the Wuhan Virus Research Institute admitted in its November 2020 supplementary statement that they did not wait until the first time they obtained most of the RaTG13 genomes after the Wuhan outbreak. According to the team’s own explanation, in 2018, with the advancement of laboratory’s next-generation sequencing technology, they had obtained the “nearly complete” RaTG13 genomes, lacking only the 5th and 3rd ends; until 2020, they compared SARS-CoV-2 with lab-unpublished bat coronavirus sequences, and found that RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 had a 96.2% overall genomic consistency.

This supplementation is critical because it means that the Wuhan Virus Institute had complete genomic information about RaTG13 before the Wuhan epidemic in

1. This fact was not equally clearly translated in the paper originally published in February
2. The initial intuitive impression that the paper left to the average reader was that researchers had done a full-length sequencing from a previously preserved RNA sample after the discovery of the new coronavirus; until later supplementation, the outside world knew more clearly that most of the RaTG13 genomes had actually been obtained in 2018.

This does not alone prove that the Wuhan Virus Institute is fake, but forms a question of investigation that cannot be de-written: before the outbreak, did the laboratory possess a complete or complete sequence of SARS-related coronavirus that has not yet been disclosed? which have been conducted further experiments? which are just sequencing, which have been conducted synthesis, cultivation, reverse genetic or functional research?

Barrick and Stone have worked together to build SARS-like coronavirus.

Barrick was concerned this time, and there was also an extremely important background. He was not the first to come into contact with bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan Virus Institute.

In 2015, Nature Medicine published a collaborative study by Barick, Jill and others. The researchers used the SARS-CoV reverse genetic system to place an SHC014 coronavirus thyroid protein from the Chinese chickpeas into the SARS virus skeleton adapted by mice to build an embryonic coronavirus. Experiments showed that this embryonic virus could use the human ACE2 receptor and be replicated in human primary airway cells; the researchers then re-synthesized the complete SHC014 coronavirus according to sequence.

The list of authors of the paper also includes the University of North Carolina Barrick team and Wuhan Virus Research Institute researchers Jillian, Genghishi and others, Wuhan Virus Research Institute is also one of the research institutions clearly listed in the paper. This proves that many years before the new coronavirus outbreak, Barrick and Wuhan Virus Research Institute have carried out direct research cooperation around Chinese bat SARS coronavirus, reverse genetic technology, reorganization virus and cross-species infection capabilities.

When the U.S. House Special Panel on Coronavirus publicly summarized the survey in 2024, it also included the 2015 study in the Congressional Record. Brad Wenstrup, then-Chairman of the Committee, made a clear reference to Barrick and Stonehenge’s collaborative embedded coronavirus research in the final report review, while focusing on the pre-epidemic coronavirus experiment, biosecurity conditions and the U.S. funding chain as the focus of the investigation. The distinction here is that the U.S. Congressional Committee’s judgment on “laboratory leakage is most likely” is part of its investigation conclusions and not the entire scientific community has reached an agreement; but the Congress has formally incorporated these experiments into the investigation evidence chain, which itself has shown that the

It is also because Barrick has long mastered coronavirus reverse genesis and virus reconstruction techniques that his team reconstructed based on the open RaTG13 sequence but first encountered problems, which has special investigative value. For an ordinary laboratory, a single virus construction failure can have many technical reasons; for the long-term use of the sequence to build a complete coronavirus and had successfully synthesized the SHC014 virus, the same failure is at least worth seeing the complete experimental design, failure causes and subsequent modification records.

Barrick's experiment can't directly prove "RaTG13 is fake", but has raised repeatability questions

According to material disclosed on July 25, Barrick said that they had attempted to rebuild the RaTG13 full-length genome based on the already published sequence, but failed to comply with the initial plan. Since then, the lab has actually ordered clones of compounds and obtained the infectious virus, but Barrick said the virus has been severely declined, and the paper describing the work has not yet been completed.

There must be a boundary of scientific evidence here. The failure of the reverse genetic system to establish is not the sole proof that the original virus sequence is artificially constructed. The length of the virus genome is enormous, and certain sequences are unstable on the bacterial carrier, and the strategy of building, the cell system, the startup sub-design, the cloning location and the experimental conditions can affect whether the virus can successfully recover. Therefore, writing “the first time it cannot be reconstructed” directly into “Barry has proven that RaTG13 does not exist at all” is still too far under the current public evidence.

However, the boundaries of this evidence cannot be reversed as a reason for the Wuhan Virus Institute to be exempt from scrutiny. The problem is that if such an important virus genome appears abnormal during the functional reconstruction of the world’s top coronavirus labs, the most reasonable scientific treatment should be to open the original samples, the original sequence readings, the sequence stacking process and the experimental versions at different times, so that the other labs can reproduce independently.

In particular, it is necessary to explain why the first public sequence construction was unsuccessful, and subsequent compound cloning was able to restore infectious viruses; whether there was a sequence adjustment, a change in cloning strategy or other technological optimization between the two experiments; what the so-called "serious decline" is specifically reflected in the replicating dynamics, cell chain or animal experiment indicators; and why these work has been on for years, and has not yet formed a formal paper that can accept peer review. These experiments are questions that science can answer, and should be answered by data rather than through political positions.

What really needs to be audited is the original chain of evidence that Wuhan virus has.

According to its own published supplementary material, the laboratory has repeatedly entered the Yunnan Meiji mine from 2012 to 2015, collecting a total of 1,322 bat samples and detecting a large number of coronaviruses, including nine SARS-related coronaviruses divided by a partial RdRp sequence; the RaTG13 corresponding ID4991 is one of them.

For true viral traceability, it is far from sufficient to simply disclose a consensus genome that has been finalised. What investigators really need to see is the initial sampling records, sample number changes history, RNA extraction records, original sequencing readings, sequencing dates and platform logs, sequencing parameters, laboratory freezing records and all relevant experimental records since

1. Only by matching these original data one by one with the eventually released RaTG13 sequence can the outside world determine whether the viral sequence truly and fully reflects the original biological sample.

RaTG13 is worth investigating not because 96.2% of the figure itself proves that SARS-CoV-2 comes from the lab, but because it proves that the Wuhan Virus Research Institute had information about a bat coronavirus group that was closely related to SARS-CoV-2 before the outbreak, and at least some of the critical complete sequence was not disclosed to the international community at the time.

The investigation must also further differentiate which viruses exist only in sequencing databases, which have real preserved biological samples, which have been cultivated, which have been established infectious clones, which are used for over-reorganization or embedded experiments. These questions relate to whether the laboratory accident hypothesis can be established, and also directly determine how much evidence can be supported by the two routes of natural spills and laboratory-related accidents.

From Laboratory Data to Political Responsibility: Why the Communist Party Can't End The Case By The Caliber Of "Natural Origin"

The reason why the new coronavirus origin has gone beyond ordinary academic debate is that the Wuhan Virus Research Institute is not a scientific research institution that operates completely independently from the Chinese party country system. After the outbreak, Beijing has formed a highly unified political and propaganda calendar on the issue of the origin of the virus, and can truly inspect the original database of Wuhan Laboratory activities, complete experimental records and unscreened internal data, but has always failed to accept global independent investigation like ordinary open scientific data.

In the final reporting phase, the U.S. House Epidemic Investigation Committee clearly listed the high-risk coronavirus research of the Wuhan Virus Institute, the lack of transparency of the Chinese government and the laboratory-related origin as the investigation priorities, and considered laboratory-related incidents to be the most likely pathway of origin. This judgment is still scientific and political controversy, but at least shows the level of official U.S. Congress investigation that Wuhan Lab can no longer be considered an object without scrutiny.

For Chinese readers, the RaTG13 controversy really reveals a fact that has long been covered by official narratives: prior to the Wuhan outbreak, the Wuhan Virus Research Institute has long collected coronavirus from all over China, especially Yunnan, has mastered an international network of collaborations that can conduct viral reversal genetics and restructuring research, and has completed an embedded SARS sampling coronavirus experiment with Barick's team. After the outbreak, the same laboratory has also disclosed RaTG13 with 96.2% overall genome consistency with SARS-CoV-2.

These facts do not automatically equate to “SARS-CoV-2 is the Wuhan Virus Institute made”, but they are enough to overthrow a more absurd claim that Wuhan Virus Institute has no special connection to the origin of the new corona investigation, and all the investigations against the laboratory are so-called “political blackmail”.

On the contrary, the Wuhan Virus Institute is one of the institutions that deserves the most thorough auditing of new corona trace investigations worldwide.

RaTG13 controversy cannot be settled, the new coronavirus trace is still unable to bypass Wuhan Virus Research Institute

The real value of Barrick’s latest exposure to the experiment is that it reopened the question of the repeatability of RaTG13. A reconstruction failure is not enough to declare RaTG13 to be an artificial counterfeit, nor is it enough to directly prove that the entire assessment of the OVA report on the artificial source of the virus has been experimentally validated; but it adds a very specific scientific fact that can continue to be investigated and re-validated: Why is it difficult to complete the virus recovery according to the public RaTG13 sequence, while subsequently obtained viruses show significant decline?

This question can ultimately only be answered by the original data of the Wuhan Virus Institute.

If RaTG13 is indeed a complete source of natural bat samples collected in 2013, then from sampling, RNA extraction, 2016 BtCoV/4991 partial RdRp sequence, to the near complete genomes in 2018, and then by 2020 to the packaging and publication of RaTG13, there should be a continuous data chain that can be verified by a third party.

If the Chinese government insists that the Wuhan Virus Research Institute has nothing to do with the origin of the epidemic, then it is never a press conference of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, nor is the official media repeating the "natural origin" many times, but the original experimental data. Opening the pre-epidemic virus database of Wuhan Virus, opening all the original sequencing data, experimental records and related unpublished virus research, allowing international experts without conflict of interest to enter the laboratory for independent evidence, these are the steps that can make the conclusion scientific credibility.

Over the past six years, there have been numerous political debates around the origin of the new coronavirus, but the virus will not be subject to any government propaganda discipline, nor will the genetic sequence change because of political statements. Whether the final evidence points to natural animal spills, research-related accidents, or other pathways, the pre-epidemic coronavirus samples, databases and experimental records held by Wuhan Virus Research Institute are central evidence.

Therefore, Barrick’s disclosure of the RaTG13 reconstruction issue should not be exaggerated as the final conviction that has already been completed, but should not be slightly overlooked. It once again pushed the investigation focus back to Wuhan, pushed back to the RaTG13 of the Stonehenge team, and pushed back to the Coronavirus data that had not been fully disclosed before the Wuhan Virus Institute’s outbreak.

Eventually, the world faces the question that Chinese authorities have not yet answered with the full original evidence: What did the Wuhan Virus Research Institute possess and do before the outbreak in 2019?

As long as the original evidence remains closed, the investigation into the origin of the new coronavirus is not really over.