On 1 April 2020, I wrote an article called “patient zero”, the first patient to start the pandemic. American newspapers had confirmed Wei Guixian, a 57 year old lady selling shrimps as patient zero. The Chinese had not confirmed her name. Wei Guixian has not been mentioned since.
In January-February this year, a professional joint
WHO-China study was conducted. An international team nominated by WHO visited
China, and along with the Chinese scientists published a detailed 120 page
report in April 2021.
Several journalists and scientists have since
questioned WHO on the data and other contents of the report. WHO today
confirmed the report included “unintended errors”. WHO will try to fix them by
removing the discrepancies.
*****
The map in the WHO-China report shows the first case (patient
zero) living on the western side of the Yangtze River. As a matter of fact, he
lives on the eastern side of the river. The reports in Wuhan confirm this.
Tarik Jasarevic, a WHO spokesman, said which side of
the river the patient lived on is not relevant to the debate about natural or
lab-leak origin of the virus. The patient’s wrong address is not important, he
wrote, because anyway “the current first known patient is most probably not the
first case”.
*****
In December 2019, a Chinese accountant fell ill. He
didn’t go to Wuhan’s Huanan seafood market. He shopped at the sleek RT-Mart
near his house on the eastern side of Yangtze. He had not left Wuhan for weeks
before his illness. He had never visited a bat cave in his life. In the WHO
report, the trail ends with this man, codenamed SO1, China’s first confirmed
case. He was not a shrimp seller, bat hunter, or lab scientist. He was an
accountant (surname Chen) who shopped at a very large supermarket. Mr Chen,
So1, was the most scrutinized patient. He spoke to the WHO delegation during
the visit.
*****
Each patient has a unique sample sequence ID. It is a
long stream of digits that make no sense to anyone except the scientists.
Enigmatically, the ID of the first case in the WHO
report doesn’t belong to the 41-year old Mr Chen, but to a 61-year old market
worker. The 61 year old man had fallen ill on 20 December 2019, and within days
died of septic shock. The Chinese databases clearly mention those facts.
WHO confirmed the first case was the 41 year old, and
not the 61 year old man. WHO spokesman Jasarevic called it an editing error.
The other mystery is the date of the first case. The
WHO report says he fell ill on 8 December. The Chinese databases say the date
was 16 December. Jasarevic said the WHO will look into why the Chinese database
varies from the WHO report.
*****
Jasarevic said sequence IDs will be corrected for
other patients in the report as well. SO5 was a 61 year old man who died, and
S11 was a 52-year old woman, he clarified. (The report has wrong genome
sequences attributed to both). “All sequences will undergo thorough revision”,
said the WHO spokesman. The numbers could have gone wrong during the continued
process of submission and publishing, he added.
There is no clarity on who is responsible for the
typos, the unintended errors and attributing wrong IDs to patients. The WHO?
The Chinese? Or the team together? I wonder if the WHO-China team had any
access to translators or interpreters.
China’s National Health Commission and the Wuhan CDC
did not respond to newspapers’ request for comment.
The Chinese embassy in Washington in a statement said
that the origin study must follow science and can only be a joint scientific
study. Any action that politicizes origin-tracing poisons the atmosphere of
scientific research, hampers global co-operation in this regard, and undermines
global efforts to fight the virus.
*****
President Biden has asked his intelligence services to
investigate the lab-leak theory. He may want to add to the investigation the
task of finding the real Patient Zero.
Ravi