SARS conspiracy theory

The SARS conspiracy theory began to emerge during the [2][3][4] but measles and mumps are paramyxoviruses[5][6] that differ from coronavirus structurally and in the method of infection, making it implausible that a coronavirus was created from two paramyxoviruses.

The widespread reporting of claims by Kolesnokov and Filatov caused controversy in many Chinese internet discussion boards and chat rooms. Many Chinese believed that the SARS virus could be a biological weapon manufactured by the United States, who perceived China's rise as a potential threat to its dominance and superiority in the world.[7] The failure to find the source of the SARS virus further convinced these people and many more that SARS was artificially synthesised and spread by some individuals and even governments. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the SARS virus crossed over to humans from Asian Palm Civets ("civet cats"), a type of animal that is often killed and eaten in Guangdong, where SARS was first discovered.[8][9] However, civet cats are extensively used in food production without causing SARS in their handlers.

Supporters of the conspiracy theory suggest that SARS caused the most serious harm in mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, regions where most Chinese reside, while the United States, Europe and Japan were not much affected. However, the highest mortality from SARS outside of China occurred in Canada where 43 died.[10][11] Conspiracists further point out that SARS has an average mortality rate of around 10% around the world, but no one died in the United States from SARS, despite the fact that there were 8 confirmed cases out of 27 probable cases (10% of 8 people is less than 1 person).[10][12][13] Regarding reasons why SARS patients in the United States experienced a relatively mild illness, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has explained that anybody with fever and a respiratory symptom who had traveled to an affected area was included as a SARS patient in the U.S., even though many of these were found to have had other respiratory illnesses.[13][14]

In October 2003, Tong Zeng, a Chinese lawyer and a volunteer in a 1998 Chinese-American medical cooperation program, published a book that again speculated that SARS could be a biological weapon developed by the United States against China. In the book, Tong disclosed that in the 1990s, many American research groups collected thousands of blood and DNA samples and specimens of mainland Chinese (including 5,000 DNA samples from twins) through numerous joint research projects carried out in China. These samples were then sent back to the United States for further research, and could be used in developing biological weapons targeting Chinese. These samples came from 22 provinces in China, all of which were hit by SARS in 2003. Only provinces like Yunnan, Guizhou, Hainan, Tibet, and Xinjiang were left out, and all these provinces suffered less severely during the SARS outbreak. The author suspects that Japan is also involved, as many Japanese factories in Guangdong in the 1990s made it compulsory for all workers to have blood tests in the factory annually, rather than asking workers to go to local hospitals for blood tests and a proper physical examination. However, Tong Zeng admits that these are only speculations, and he does not have any concrete proof from the study of the virus's genetic sequence.[15]

The two scientists named above expressed the possibility that the SARS virus was man-made.[16] The SARS coronavirus has been fully gene sequenced and the genome has been made globally available.[2] There has been no evidence found of genetic engineering in the genome. The SARS coronavirus is novel, but this only implies it has mutated or was previously undiscovered, not that it is genetically engineered.

Coronaviruses similar to SARS have been found in bats in China, suggesting they may be their natural reservoir.[17]

References

  1. ^ "Sars biological weapon?". www.news24.com. 11 April 2003. Retrieved 2007-08-16. 
  2. ^ a b http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5624/1399.full
  3. ^ http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1153125/coronavirus-just-deadly-sars-says-doctor
  4. ^ http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/virol/coronaviruses.htm
  5. ^ http://www.stanford.edu/group/virus/paramyxo/2005/index.htm
  6. ^ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/
  7. ^ "Speculation SARS leaked from bio-weapon program". Melbourne: theage.com.au. May 1, 2003. Retrieved 2007-08-16. 
  8. ^ "WHO: More evidence of civet cat-SARs link". CNN. January 17, 2004. Archived from the original on December 1, 2004. Retrieved 2007-08-16. 
  9. ^ "China scientists say SARS-civet cat link proved". Reuters. 23 November 2006. Retrieved 2007-08-16. 
  10. ^ a b http://www.who.int/csr/sars/country/table2004_04_21/en/index.html
  11. ^ http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=35
  12. ^ http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=34
  13. ^ a b "Update: Outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome --- Worldwide, 2003". Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, U.S. Centers for Disease Control. April 4, 2003. Retrieved 2007-08-23. 
  14. ^ "Why SARS Death Rate Lower In United States". futurepundit.com. April 3, 2003. Retrieved 2007-08-23. 
  15. ^ Sheridan Prasso (16 February 2004). "Old Habits". The New Republic. Retrieved 2007-08-16.  (also see [1])
  16. ^ "SARS could be biological weapon: experts". ABC News. April 12, 2003. Retrieved 2007-08-23. 
  17. ^ "SARS-like coronavirus found in wild bats: scientists". The People's Daily. 11 September 2005. Retrieved 2007-08-16. 

External links

  • ParaPundit: Conspiracy theories in China
  • San Francisco Chroncle's report
  • SARS Crisis: Don't Rule Out Linkages To China's Biowarfare Article by Richard D. Fisher Jr. for The Jamestown Foundation.
  • People's Daily's report on Tong Zeng's book (simplified Chinese)
  • Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao reports the conspiracy theory and Hou's assertion
  • SARS Patient Zero - by Marco Lupis
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.