For Massimo Galli “it is difficult to think of being able to attribute the large distribution of the” coronavirus “in animals, in particular in bats, to a laboratory and to hypothesize that it is the central cause of the passage of species. I find it really hard to think that this is something that escaped from a laboratory and that you can ever try this concept. Among other things, it is an unknown virus that has no signs of genetic engineering inside “, explained the director of Infectious Diseases of the Sacco Hospital, during the hearing in the Social Affairs Committee of the Chamber, examining the Formentini parliamentary inquiry proposal, on the Institution of an ad hoc Commission “on the causes of the outbreak of the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic and on the adequacy of the measures adopted by the States and the WHO to prevent its spread throughout the world”.
“We have a 99% percentage that the spread of the virus is a natural event”, said Galli, agreeing, on the greater reliability of the natural virus hypothesis, with the audited colleagues, Fausto Baldanti, head of the molecular virology laboratory of the Foundation Irccs Policlinico San Matteo in Pavia, Massimo Ciccozzi, professor of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics at the Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome and Giuseppe Ippolito, scientific director of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases ‘Lazzaro Spallanzani’ in Rome.
“This story of the laboratory virus does not have the slightest basis from a scientific point of view to be carried forward,” added Galli. “This is a virus that came from nature, which had a very high probability of arriving. I do not see why the case. of the Sars of 2003 should remain an isolated fact since some conditions of risk remain, in which the relationship between crowding of people and the relationship between animals and humans has not substantially changed in China “, explained Galli, underlining that the problem is precisely that it is a matter of a natural virus, which creates more fear.
Finally, according to Galli, “if we have to talk about a Commission of Inquiry on how things went in our country at the beginning of the Covid affair, I think we need to understand how we responded. Also to do much better in the future and take advantage of the funds to make a better health. As for putting ourselves in the clash, which is political rather than scientific “, on the origin of the virus,” I have no basis to say whether it is worth doing what intelligence and others are already doing . And that probably has very different meanings than the rigor of a scientific determination on what, where and how it happened. If the animal that acted as intermediary came up it would remove our doubts. But I think it was more of an animal, as in Sars “, he concludes.