organisation for animal health. the inclusion of peter daszak in the team stirred controversy. daszak is the head of ecohealth alliance, a nonprofit that studies spillover events, and has been a longtime collaborator of over 15 years with shi zhengli, wuhan institute of virology's director of the center for emerging infectious diseases. while daszak is highly knowledgeable about chinese laboratories and the emergence of diseases in the area, his close connection with the wiv was seen by some as a conflict of interest in the who's study. when a bbc news journalist asked about his relationship with the wiv, daszak said, "we file our papers, it's all there for everyone to see." the team was denied access to raw data, including the list of early patients, swabs, and blood samples. it was allowed only a few hours of supervised access to the wuhan institute of virology. findings in february 2021, after conducting part of their study, the who stated that the likely origin of covid-19 was a zoonotic event from a virus circulating in bats, likely through another animal carrier, and that the time of transmission to humans was likely towards the end of 2019. the chinese and the international experts who jointly carried out the who-convened study consider it "extremely unlikely" that covid-19 leaked from a lab. no evidence of a lab leak from the wuhan institute of virology was found by the who team, with team leader peter ben embarek stating that it was "very unlikely" due to the safety protocols in place. during a 60 minutes interview with lesley stahl, peter daszak, another member of the who team, described the investigation process to be a series of questions and answers between the who team and the wuhan lab staff. stahl made the comment that the team was "just taking their word for it", to which daszak replied, "well, what else can we do? there's a limit to what you can do and we went right up to that limit. we asked them tough questions. they weren't vetted in advance. and the answers they gave, we found to be believable—correct and convincing." the investigation also stated that transfer from animals to humans was unlikely to have occurred at the huanan seafood market, since infections without a known epidemiological link were confirmed before the outbreak around the market. in an announcement that surprised some foreign experts, the joint investigation concluded that early transmission via the cold chain of frozen products was "possible." in march 2021, the who published a written report with the results of the study. the joint team stated that there are four scenarios for introduction: direct zoonotic transmission to humans (spillover), assessed as "possible to likely" introduction through an intermediate host followed by a spillover, assessed as "likely to very likely" introduction through the (cold) food chain, assessed as "possible" introduction through a laboratory incident, assessed as "extremely unlikely" the report mentions that direct zoonotic transmission to humans has a precedent, as most current human coronaviruses originated in animals. zoonotic transmission is also supported by the fact that ratg13 binds to hace2, although the fit is not optimal. the investigative team noted the requirement for further studies, noting that these would "potentially increase knowledge and understanding globally.": 9 reactions who director-general tedros adhanom, who was not directly involved with the investigation, said he was ready to dispatch additional missions involving specialist experts and that further research was required. he said in a statement, "some explanations may be more probable than others, but for now all possibilities remain on the table." he also said, "we have not yet found the source of the virus, and we must continue to follow the science and leave no stone unturned as we do." tedros called on china to provide "more timely and comprehensive data sharing" as part of future investigations. news outlets noted that, though it was unrealistic to expect quick and huge results from the report, it "offered few clear-cut conclusions regarding the start of the pandemic", "failed to audit the chinese official position at some parts of the report", and was "biased according to critics". other scientists praised how the report details the pathways that can shed light on the origin, if explored later. after the publication of the report, politicians, talk show hosts, journalists, and some scientists advanced unsupported claims that sars-cov-2 may have come from the wiv. in the united states, calls to investigate a laboratory leak reached "fever pitch", fueling aggressive rhetoric resulting in antipathy towards people of asian ancestry, and the bullying of scientists. the european union, united states, and 13 other countries criticised the who-convened study, calling for transparency from china and access to the raw data and original samples. chinese officials described these criticisms as an attempt to politicise the study. scientists involved in the who report, including liang wannian, john watson, and peter daszak, objected to the criticism, and said that the report was an example of the collaboration and dialogue required to successfully continue investigations into the matter. in a letter published in science, a number of scientists, including ralph baric, argued that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis had not been sufficiently investigated and remained possible, calling for greater clarity and additional data. their letter was criticized by some virologists and public health experts, who said that a "hostile" and "divisive" focus on the wiv was unsupported by evidence, and would cause chinese scientists and authorities to share less, rather than more data. phase 2