*Part 1*

>The now famous “earliest” COVID-19 case, a 41-year-old male accountant, who lived 30 km south of Huanan Market and had no connection to it—illness onset reported as 8 December—may have become ill with COVID-19 considerably later. When interviewed, he reported that his COVID-19 symptoms started with a fever on 16 December. This is corroborated by hospital records and a scientific paper that reports his COVID-19 onset date as 16 December and date of hospitalization as 22 December. This suggests that he may have been infected through community transmission after the virus had begun spreading from Huanan Market. He believed that he may have been infected in a hospital or on the subway during his commute; he had also traveled north of Huanan Market shortly before his symptoms began. If his symptoms indeed began on 16 December, then it postdated multiple cases in workers at **Huanan Market, making a female seafood vendor there the earliest known case, with illness onset 10 December.** Notably, she reported knowledge of several possible COVID-19 cases in clinics and hospitals that were near Huanan Market from 11 December, and Huanan Market patients were hospitalized at Union Hospital as early as 10 December. \[[Source](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454)\]

It remains of the greatest mysteries in virology, despite the clustering of early cases at the now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China. This seemed like a smoking gun—after all, the 2002 SARS-CoV-1 outbreak in China was confidently tied to masked palm civets being sold at Xinyuan Market in Guangdong Province, shortly after the outbreak began. And yet, more than six years after the onset of the pandemic, the World Health Organization's (WHO) judgement on the origin of the pandemic remains:

>Despite vast amounts of research conducted on this virus, the definitive route through which it entered the human population remains unknown. \[[Source](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/epp/sago/independent-assessment-of-the-origins-of-sars-cov-2-by-sago.pdf?sfvrsn=b0f90ad4_6&download=true)\]

# The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, examined

On September 19, 2024, [a scientific paper was published in the journal *Cell*](https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)00901-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867424009012%3Fshowall%3Dtrue), identifying a specific stall on the western side of the market with a stunning 30% SARS-CoV-2 test positivity rate, on samples collected from surfaces at the stall, including samples from animal carts/cages and a hair/feather removal machine. Critically, the western side of the Huanan Market is where the earliest COVID-19 cases in humans were clustered, and a whopping 30% of surface samples from this stall tested positive despite the fact that all samples from most stalls tested negative.

What animals were sold at this stall? Citing genetic evidence from the swab samples, the *Cell* paper lists dogs, raccoon dogs, rabbits, Amur hedgehogs, Malayan porcupines, hoary bamboo rats, Himalayan marmots, Reeves’s muntjac deers, and **masked palm civets**. Sound familiar?

However, the paper makes it clear that it is far from a certainty that COVID-19 actually originated at this stall. Only a few stalls were swabbed for SARS-CoV-2 before the market was shut down, and a sample from a freezer at a second stall also tested positive. Samples were also taken from an offsite warehouse which supplied the second stall with animals, and a few of these swabs tested positive as well. Genetic tests on these swabs indicate that the stall sold Amur hedgehogs and Chinese hares. However—and before we get further—it should noted that it is possible that all of these samples tested positive because humans infected with SARS-CoV-2 were shedding the virus at the market and warehouse, not because the wildlife being sold was infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Which stall was more likely to have been the origin of COVID-19? The evidence points to the first stall. 17 drains at Huanan Market were swabbed for SARS-CoV-2, and of those, only three came back positive—including the drain directly in front of the first stall. The other two drains which tested positive were not directly in front of this stall, but were downstream of it and received runoff. Drains associated with the second stall did not return any positive tests.

# Which animal did COVID-19 originate from?

The *Cell* paper identifies a problem—the closest known viral relative of SARS-CoV-2 is a bat coronavirus known as RaTG13 (96.2% sequence similarity), but no bat DNA was found in any of the samples from the Huanan Market. This indicates that there must have been an intermediate host before SARS-CoV-2 made the leap to humans. Masked palm civets might seem to be the obvious culprit, but remarkably, and despite their known susceptibility to SARS-CoV-1, the susceptibility of masked palm civets to SARS-CoV-2 is unknown. Only one other species has been found to carry a coronavirus with >90% similarity to SARS-CoV-2—the pangolin—but no pangolin DNA was found in samples from the Huanan Market. The animal was not sold there. Note that SARS-CoV-2 is only 79.6% similar to SARS-CoV-1. [Source](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7392364/)

Complicating this issue further is the very strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 jumped from animals to humans multiple times in 2019. Scientific papers divide the early strains of SARS-CoV-2 in humans into lineage A and lineage B, with lineage A being more closely-related to bat coronaviruses. Bizarrely, lineage A did not appear in Wuhan, China until a week after Lineage B did, even though the closer sequence similarity of lineage A to bat coronaviruses implies that it should have appeared first. Indeed, [a landmark study published in the journal *Science*](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337) shows that the most recent common ancestor of lineages A and B evolved in wildlife, not in humans, and that lineage B jumped to humans first, followed shortly thereafter by lineage A. This adds a wrinkle to the problem: it is possible that **multiple** species were responsible for the origin of COVID-19, and the *Science* paper also notes that it is likely that there were more than two separate introductions to humans. There may have been as many as 23 animal-to-human introductions in 2019, though this number is highly speculative.

# "...the COVID-19 virus was the result of a lab leak."

>The Department of Energy (DOE) has concluded that the COVID-19 virus was the result of a lab leak. According to the *Wall Street Journal*, experts in your Department have recently memorialized this conclusion in a classified report.

>DOE’s about-face comes at a critical time. The scientific journal *Nature* recently reported that the World Health Organization abandoned the second phase of its investigation into the origins of COVID-19 because the Chinese government failed to cooperate. If the United States government has new reason to believe that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak, we must immediately pressure China to be transparent about its role in the origins of the pandemic—and hold China accountable. After everything Americans have gone through, they are entitled to answers about how COVID-19 emerged \[[Source](https://www.hawley.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/files/2023-02/2023-02-28-Hawley-Letter-to-Granholm.pdf)\]

To be continued in Part 2. Thank you for reading.

What is the origin of COVID-19?