![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/Riot-season-still-have-Covid-decorations-up-still-300x241.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The China version of the CDC has gone over the samples and data from researchers on which the claim that so-called ‘raccoon dogs’ were the source of Covid-19, and say that conclusion is not supported.<\/p>\n
But on Wednesday, the Chinese scientists released their study in the journal Nature and said there was no way of knowing if the raccoon dogs were infected. They also cautioned that the origins of Covid-19 could not be determined from their samples.<\/p>\n
Writing in the journal, the authors, which include George Gao, the former head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (DCD), said: \u201cThese environmental samples cannot prove that the animals were infected.<\/p>\n
\u201cFurthermore, even if the animals were infected, our study does not rule out that human-to-animal transmission occurred, considering the sampling time was after the human infection within the market as reported retrospectively.<\/p>\n
\u201cThus, the possibility of potential introduction of the virus to the market through infected humans, or cold chain products, cannot be ruled out yet.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mapping of where the earliest traces of Covid were found and where the raccoon dogs were kept also shows very little overlap.<\/p>\n
Viscount Ridley, author of the book Viral: The Search For The Origin of Covid-19, said that maps of the collection areas showed there was little overlap between viral DNA and raccoon dog DNA.<\/p>\n
\u201cNot only were no raccoon dogs found to be infected, they were mostly in the wrong part of the market,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe scientists who investigated the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan in 2020 have concluded that the pandemic probably did not begin there.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo believe it did, you have to assume that they missed or covered up some infected animals.\u201d<\/p>\n
The earlier study, led by Kristian Andersen, Edward Holmes, and Michael Worobey, which had not been submitted for peer-review, was dismissed as “risibly thin” and misleading by some scientists.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n