More Scientists Urge Broad Inquiry into Coronavirus Origins(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
More Scientists Urge Broad Inquiry into Coronavirus Origins
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/science/virus-origins-lab-leak-scientists.html
355 comments
There are 2 concrete distinct ideas, but many are conflating both of the ideas. It results in it being very hard to have a conversation because it's unclear which idea people are talking about.
Idea 1: SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab
Idea 2: SARS-CoV-2 was in/around/related to WIV and escaped
Idea 1 was widely debunked by American scientists.
Idea 2 is an idea that there is a considerable body of circumstantial evidence supporting and is certainly the most likely origin in my estimation.
> why these weird rumors about Gain of Function research that no one seemingly looks into etc.
You can read one such yourself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2258702/
Our own American scientists said this process would likely result in biomarkers that were not found in the circulating virus (my layman, not expert, understanding).
Idea 1: SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab
Idea 2: SARS-CoV-2 was in/around/related to WIV and escaped
Idea 1 was widely debunked by American scientists.
Idea 2 is an idea that there is a considerable body of circumstantial evidence supporting and is certainly the most likely origin in my estimation.
> why these weird rumors about Gain of Function research that no one seemingly looks into etc.
You can read one such yourself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2258702/
we investigated the receptor usage of the SL-CoV S by
combining a human immunodeficiency virus-based pseudovirus
system with cell lines expressing the ACE2 molecules
of human, civet, or horseshoe bat.
Our own American scientists said this process would likely result in biomarkers that were not found in the circulating virus (my layman, not expert, understanding).
There is a 3rd option. I'm going to repost a comment I made a few days ago regarding the labs in Wuhan:
The "Wuhan Institute of Virology" is named in a couple of news articles and scientific publications. However what is rarely discussed is that the Wuhan CDC (武汉市疾病预防控制中心), which also has a virus lab and was also researching coronaviruses is in walking distance from that wet market! I took a screenshot of it, in the top right is the Huanan Seafood Market, in the bottom the CDC, which includes a virus lab: https://i.imgur.com/smODVQe.png
Unfortunately you won't find it on Google Maps but anyone who is able to read Chinese can check this themselves. All the early cases were centered around this area, including the hospital that treated the first cases. It's absurd that this is almost never talked about anywhere. On the CDC website they had an open position looking for a researcher to study, among others, exactly the kind of bat CoV that's been identified as most closely related to SARS-CoV-2. This has since been deleted but it could still be accessed during the early days of the outbreak.
The "Wuhan Institute of Virology" is named in a couple of news articles and scientific publications. However what is rarely discussed is that the Wuhan CDC (武汉市疾病预防控制中心), which also has a virus lab and was also researching coronaviruses is in walking distance from that wet market! I took a screenshot of it, in the top right is the Huanan Seafood Market, in the bottom the CDC, which includes a virus lab: https://i.imgur.com/smODVQe.png
Unfortunately you won't find it on Google Maps but anyone who is able to read Chinese can check this themselves. All the early cases were centered around this area, including the hospital that treated the first cases. It's absurd that this is almost never talked about anywhere. On the CDC website they had an open position looking for a researcher to study, among others, exactly the kind of bat CoV that's been identified as most closely related to SARS-CoV-2. This has since been deleted but it could still be accessed during the early days of the outbreak.
> It's absurd that this is almost never talked about anywhere
FYI, this really doesn't match my experience. I got curious and Googled about the lab's location myself about a year ago, not long after the outbreak, and found the hypothesis tantalizing, even in the absence of hard evidence.
I've seen ongoing discussion about this since then on various blogs and on Twitter.
As a more meta-comment, we're all in tiny, personalized information silos nowadays based on the sites and communities we frequent. Even a pseudo-public forum like Twitter is not really public - you only see the slice that you follow.
IMO 'nobody is talking about it' is more about how you've curated your own info-stream, rather than about the world at large.
FYI, this really doesn't match my experience. I got curious and Googled about the lab's location myself about a year ago, not long after the outbreak, and found the hypothesis tantalizing, even in the absence of hard evidence.
I've seen ongoing discussion about this since then on various blogs and on Twitter.
As a more meta-comment, we're all in tiny, personalized information silos nowadays based on the sites and communities we frequent. Even a pseudo-public forum like Twitter is not really public - you only see the slice that you follow.
IMO 'nobody is talking about it' is more about how you've curated your own info-stream, rather than about the world at large.
To add one more data point, for the past year I’ve been following this story passively — reading articles I’ve come across but never searching actively — and this is the first I’ve heard of the coincident location of the Wuhan CDC.
Replying to you and @smallnamespace, not only are we in extremely small silos, you can realize how small the silo is by
1) taking sporadic notes, but not full urls
2) attempting to follow your same trail again
I often find I can't even, with knowledge of what I read/saw find the same sources again, using the same tools and sites without basically taking detailed notes. The idea that information is public and can be connected in the same way is preposterous, but only via experience.
If you have an insight, or a linkage between facts and events, please document it in a way that is shareable and findable. I too saw the ad for the virologist post-doc position in the Wuhan lab. I think lab escape of either a wild virus or a slightly modified one is likely. It doesn't mean that it is nefarious.
I think a full text and graphical log of the research process would be highly productive.
1) taking sporadic notes, but not full urls
2) attempting to follow your same trail again
I often find I can't even, with knowledge of what I read/saw find the same sources again, using the same tools and sites without basically taking detailed notes. The idea that information is public and can be connected in the same way is preposterous, but only via experience.
If you have an insight, or a linkage between facts and events, please document it in a way that is shareable and findable. I too saw the ad for the virologist post-doc position in the Wuhan lab. I think lab escape of either a wild virus or a slightly modified one is likely. It doesn't mean that it is nefarious.
I think a full text and graphical log of the research process would be highly productive.
That's important advice. The thought of documenting anything didn't even cross my mind in the early days of the pandemic. It was all so blatantly suspicious that I had no doubt large news outlets would report on it any day, and then there would be international pressure for a proper investigation. But that day never came. Instead they started spreading the bat-eating story after Chinese state media claimed the virus originated in the market, without evidence. People don't even eat bat in Wuhan. And when that got questioned they switched to pangolins. To this day no such link was found. And the Wuhan CDC lab was never investigated.
There's so much distraction, hysteria and extremely questionable science reporting. Without having in depth knowledge about Mainland China, I'm not sure if I'd not fallen for some of the misinformation as well. So yes, it's extremely important people document what they see and understand, and share it with other in a way that makes it easily accessible. When many journalists do a bad job at fact checking and questioning their sources, we have to be better than that, else we just contribute to the noise.
There's so much distraction, hysteria and extremely questionable science reporting. Without having in depth knowledge about Mainland China, I'm not sure if I'd not fallen for some of the misinformation as well. So yes, it's extremely important people document what they see and understand, and share it with other in a way that makes it easily accessible. When many journalists do a bad job at fact checking and questioning their sources, we have to be better than that, else we just contribute to the noise.
@sitkack
Check out Hunchly - https://www.hunch.ly/
"Hunchly automatically collects, documents, and annotates every web page you visit."
Check out Hunchly - https://www.hunch.ly/
"Hunchly automatically collects, documents, and annotates every web page you visit."
> However what is rarely discussed [...] It's absurd that this is almost never talked about anywhere.
Not all that rarely IME, and certainly not "almost never". It's popped up every now and then for over a year now; here on HN among other places. (OTOH, maybe that was you I saw. :-)
Not all that rarely IME, and certainly not "almost never". It's popped up every now and then for over a year now; here on HN among other places. (OTOH, maybe that was you I saw. :-)
[deleted]
If anyone is interested in the Job posting story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQFCcSI0pU&t=122s
Webarchive links are in the comments.
Webarchive links are in the comments.
What do you mean by "engineered in a lab?" No one believes that anyone just typed a sequence into their computer and created it from whole cloth.
On the other hand, the WIV has recently published papers about creating new coronaviruses by combining a gene from one virus with the rest of another virus, as well as other types of modifications to existing coronaviruses. They have active grants to continue with this type of research. They also have acknowledged performing this work in BSL-2 labs, which would not be secure enough to contain SARS-CoV-2 if it were to have been the result of one of these experiments.
On the other hand, the WIV has recently published papers about creating new coronaviruses by combining a gene from one virus with the rest of another virus, as well as other types of modifications to existing coronaviruses. They have active grants to continue with this type of research. They also have acknowledged performing this work in BSL-2 labs, which would not be secure enough to contain SARS-CoV-2 if it were to have been the result of one of these experiments.
Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is a BSL-4 lab, but US diplomats were concerned by the untrained staff operating the lab (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep...). Even with the best of facilities and staff, containment can be hard. For example, back in 2014 86 lab workers at the CDC were possibly infected with anthrax (https://time.com/2902415/cdc-anthrax-atlanta/) because protocols were not followed.
WIV has a BSL-4 lab, but not all the work there was done in it.
> Before 2020, the rules followed by virologists in China and elsewhere required that experiments with the SARS1 and MERS viruses be conducted in BSL3 conditions. But all other bat coronaviruses could be studied in BSL2, the next level down. BSL2 requires taking fairly minimal safety precautions, such as wearing lab coats and gloves, not sucking up liquids in a pipette, and putting up biohazard warning signs. Yet a gain-of-function experiment conducted in BSL2 might produce an agent more infectious than either SARS1 or MERS. And if it did, then lab workers would stand a high chance of infection, especially if unvaccinated. Much of Shi [Zheng-li, head researcher at WIV]’s work on gain-of-function in coronaviruses was performed at the BSL2 safety level, as is stated in her publications and other documents. She has said in an interview with Science magazine that “[t]he coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories.”
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
> Before 2020, the rules followed by virologists in China and elsewhere required that experiments with the SARS1 and MERS viruses be conducted in BSL3 conditions. But all other bat coronaviruses could be studied in BSL2, the next level down. BSL2 requires taking fairly minimal safety precautions, such as wearing lab coats and gloves, not sucking up liquids in a pipette, and putting up biohazard warning signs. Yet a gain-of-function experiment conducted in BSL2 might produce an agent more infectious than either SARS1 or MERS. And if it did, then lab workers would stand a high chance of infection, especially if unvaccinated. Much of Shi [Zheng-li, head researcher at WIV]’s work on gain-of-function in coronaviruses was performed at the BSL2 safety level, as is stated in her publications and other documents. She has said in an interview with Science magazine that “[t]he coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories.”
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
WIV contains a BSL-4 lab, which is fairly new. WIV itself has been around for 65 years. It contains many labs, at various levels of security. It's a huge hassle to conduct work in the BSL-4, and researchers generally would only work in the BSL-4 if they were working with pathogens that required it.
WIV has acknowledged that at least some of their bat coronavirus research was conducted in their BSL-2 labs which have a far, far lower level of security.
WIV has acknowledged that at least some of their bat coronavirus research was conducted in their BSL-2 labs which have a far, far lower level of security.
For context, BSL-2 is usually locked doors, cabinets of filtered air, and easily-cleanable surfaces. PPE is usually a lab coat, gloves, and goggles.
There is a BSL-2 lab in the Walking distance from the seafood market. See trompetenaccoun's comment above.
Idea 1 was widely debunked by American scientists
I don't personally doubt it's a conspiracy theory but would you clarify exactly where "American scientists" debunked this - is it in the link you provided, it's not clear, it appears to only deal with claim 2?
I don't personally doubt it's a conspiracy theory but would you clarify exactly where "American scientists" debunked this - is it in the link you provided, it's not clear, it appears to only deal with claim 2?
For evidence about debunking, you can check out Twitter threads from Trevor Bedford (bio: https://bedford.io/team/trevor-bedford/) that are linked from https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1339266367522918400
In this discussion and the older threads he links in there, Bedford basically rules out an 'engineered' virus, does not rule out a lab leak, but leans towards zoonosis (pathogen jumping from animal to human).
-
Here are Thread reader links for the older threads he references:
Were parts of HIV inserted into SARS-CoV-2? https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1223666856923291648.html
What do the number of amino acid and nucleotide changes tell us? https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1224207086013149184.html
Which data point are consistent with zoonosis or lab escape? https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1230634136102064128.html
In this discussion and the older threads he links in there, Bedford basically rules out an 'engineered' virus, does not rule out a lab leak, but leans towards zoonosis (pathogen jumping from animal to human).
-
Here are Thread reader links for the older threads he references:
Were parts of HIV inserted into SARS-CoV-2? https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1223666856923291648.html
What do the number of amino acid and nucleotide changes tell us? https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1224207086013149184.html
Which data point are consistent with zoonosis or lab escape? https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1230634136102064128.html
Trevor Bedford is one scientist at the Hutch. He is certainly qualified to have an opinion, but his opinion is not the conclusive determination on the matter. Other scientists whom I respect have different opinions:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1
The other links you provide are rebuttals of particular arguments, but in no way settle the entire question. Knowing that bits of HIV weren't inserted into SARS-CoV2, for example, tells you nothing about whether this virus may have emerged from natural selection experiments in the lab. There are good arguments on both sides, but Twitter, in particular, seems stuck on the pronouncements of early 2020, when nobody knew much of anything about the virus and a certain prominent politician was speculating wildly, thus setting up a left/right polarization over what should be a factual debate.
We need to stop this hostile form of "scientific debate" where one person's opinion is held up as "the science", while all other voices are dismissed as fringe.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1
The other links you provide are rebuttals of particular arguments, but in no way settle the entire question. Knowing that bits of HIV weren't inserted into SARS-CoV2, for example, tells you nothing about whether this virus may have emerged from natural selection experiments in the lab. There are good arguments on both sides, but Twitter, in particular, seems stuck on the pronouncements of early 2020, when nobody knew much of anything about the virus and a certain prominent politician was speculating wildly, thus setting up a left/right polarization over what should be a factual debate.
We need to stop this hostile form of "scientific debate" where one person's opinion is held up as "the science", while all other voices are dismissed as fringe.
I find the word "debunk" has been frequently used by one political side to label any idea they disagree with.
This is a very strange word. When I read history of science books, this word was almost never used. Change of scientific consensus is not uncommon in the history of science. Scientists disagree with each other, debate with each other, but they don't claim they debunk each other.
I don't believe people use this word in good faith. It seems to be politically loaded power grab.
This is a very strange word. When I read history of science books, this word was almost never used. Change of scientific consensus is not uncommon in the history of science. Scientists disagree with each other, debate with each other, but they don't claim they debunk each other.
I don't believe people use this word in good faith. It seems to be politically loaded power grab.
Misinformation is another word that has become extremely popular in the last year or two.
I don't think very many people think very deeply about the meaning of words, and how subtle changes in the ones that are chosen can influence the collective consciousness. A lot of people even seem to strongly dislike the topic being mentioned.
I don't think very many people think very deeply about the meaning of words, and how subtle changes in the ones that are chosen can influence the collective consciousness. A lot of people even seem to strongly dislike the topic being mentioned.
I think that practitioners of Postmodernism have spent a lot of time thinking about the meanings of words that they can cause people to perceive, and that they have had a very successful track record of using this to shift cultural parameters and achieve their political objectives.
They'd probably prefer that you didn't notice they were doing this.
They'd probably prefer that you didn't notice they were doing this.
Politicians and journalists are probably a bit choked that others are stealing their bit!
Define "engineered".
If it was bred in a lab via humanized mice engineered with human ACE 2 receptors, would you consider that? What about forms of "no seeum" splicing?
If it was bred in a lab via humanized mice engineered with human ACE 2 receptors, would you consider that? What about forms of "no seeum" splicing?
Also, Dr. Shi was trained by Ralph S. Baric of the University of North Carolina in building “chimera” viruses — taking, for example, the spike protein from a new virus and splicing it to the backbone of a known one like SARS. He invented “no-see-um” techniques that left no trace of the splice.
From
https://donaldgmcneiljr1954.medium.com/how-i-learned-to-stop...
From
https://donaldgmcneiljr1954.medium.com/how-i-learned-to-stop...
> Bedford basically rules out an 'engineered' virus, does not rule out a lab leak, but leans towards zoonosis (pathogen jumping from animal to human).
Where are all these animals in the wild (since the lab theory has been "debunked") with SARS-CoV-2?
I'd imagine we'd have found tons of them by now, right?
Where are all these animals in the wild (since the lab theory has been "debunked") with SARS-CoV-2?
I'd imagine we'd have found tons of them by now, right?
> "Our own American scientists said this process would likely result in biomarkers that were not found in the circulating virus"
There is debate about that. Interesting article here:
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
(It also suggests that one of the loudest early detractors of the "escaped from lab" theory, the main author of the Feb 19, 2020 Lancet letter, had an undeclared conflict of interest because he is president of an organisation which funded Coronavirus research at WIV)
There is debate about that. Interesting article here:
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
(It also suggests that one of the loudest early detractors of the "escaped from lab" theory, the main author of the Feb 19, 2020 Lancet letter, had an undeclared conflict of interest because he is president of an organisation which funded Coronavirus research at WIV)
Idea 1 wasn't debunked:
https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-th...
It's a long read but a worthy one. Exploring all the options better than the NYT article.
The lack of biomarkers is not proof either way.
https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-th...
It's a long read but a worthy one. Exploring all the options better than the NYT article.
The lack of biomarkers is not proof either way.
No, idea 1 has not been debunked.
I'm no virologist but of all the places on earth we are supposed to believe that, by cheer coincidence, the outbreak happened in that one city that happens to do research and have patents on lab-modified bat viruses and that it doesn't have anything to do with that lab.
I mean: you seriously cannot make that up.
I mean: you seriously cannot make that up.
That fact alone is what makes this even more absurd to me. I know about probability math, - the fact the these virologists seemingly just discard that factor is twilight-zone territory to me.
What does the phrase "I know about probability math" mean in this context? It sounds like you're implying that you have a probablistic model for this scenario, if so I would be very interested to see it.
To be fair, the reason the lab is in that place is precisely because it's close to a place where zoonoses has occurred multiple times. Kind of like how we don't blame lighthouses for shipwrecks.
That being said, from what I've read it appears that a lab escape is a very real possibility. Though I doubt that we'll ever find out
That being said, from what I've read it appears that a lab escape is a very real possibility. Though I doubt that we'll ever find out
There doesn't appear to be any relation between the labs founding and zoonoses in the local region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
Your point about the lab is great, it's just very hard to dismiss the idea that a lab error was at fault.
But i too think it all too likely that we won't be any wiser about the origins.
Though it would be great if a timeline could be established, i don't remember seeing a good explanation on Covid in Italy being discovered in 2019.
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-italy-tim...
But i too think it all too likely that we won't be any wiser about the origins.
Though it would be great if a timeline could be established, i don't remember seeing a good explanation on Covid in Italy being discovered in 2019.
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-italy-tim...
I believe that Italy origin story was not credible. Snopes goes with Wuhan as the origin.
"Wuhan is ~1000km away from SARS spillover zones. Its human population was even used as a negative (no SARS) control group."
Via @Ayjchan on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1394327680456220672?s=20
Via @Ayjchan on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1394327680456220672?s=20
This is maybe 12 hours drive, depending on roads and traffic. 1000km is not a huge distance of migration to a major city.
[deleted]
I've heard this a number of times now, but is it actually true?
I find that argument hard to corroborate and there are other parsimonious explanations, like WIV was located in Wuhan because Wuhan is a major world city with high quality institutions of higher education.
I find that argument hard to corroborate and there are other parsimonious explanations, like WIV was located in Wuhan because Wuhan is a major world city with high quality institutions of higher education.
It’s a pretty flimsy lie that incidentally tries to paint Wuhan as an unsophisticated backwater. It smacks of uninformed spin.
Nope, it's been debunked. The bats do not come from Wuhan at all.
If zoonoses was used to pick a lab location, it should be somewhere in the Guangdong Province.
[deleted]
Of course certain virologists would be eager to dismiss lab leak hypothesis. Just think about the implication of this hypothesis turns out to be true. Virologists have very strong conflict of interests. If these people have any integrity they'd refrain from commenting.
What's particularly significant and hasn't much been commented on yet is that Ralph Baric, the leading American collaborator of the bat coronavirus research at Wuhan, has signed the letter. He also (according to the OP) declined to comment further. That seems more like integrity.
Lab leak does not necessarily imply the virus was engineered. Indeed there is reasonable evidence for the former and little, but not none, for the later.
There is evidence that some parts of the virus were engineered. See, for example, the Furin cleavage site.
for anyone interested in more information about this commonly parroted "smoking gun" (Furin cleavage site):
https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1391507230848032772
https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1391507230848032772
Could you post links to this evidence?
I can only find sources saying that the Furin cleavage site doesn’t rule out engineering, or sources saying the Furin cleave site could be naturally occurring. Sounds like we don’t know yet.
I can only find sources saying that the Furin cleavage site doesn’t rule out engineering, or sources saying the Furin cleave site could be naturally occurring. Sounds like we don’t know yet.
As I recall this article by Nicholas Wade goes into why the Furin cleavage site is a strong signal of potential active engineering in the GoF vein.
https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-th...
As addition of a Furin cleavage site is an old hat acknowledged technique for increasing human infectivity of a virus. The issue with a zoonotic origin though, is that the odds of a mutation is incredibly small, and a recombination at that site would require the sequence to exist in another coronavirus, which has not been discovered to date.
It is also known WIV researchers had recieved instruction from another virologist on "no-see-um" editing techniques that would not leave traces of the mechanism used to splice in an edit.
So not proof, but the network of coincidence is as hard to ignore as a spinal tap amp duct taped to your head, cranked to 11, playing the 1812 Overture.
https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-th...
As addition of a Furin cleavage site is an old hat acknowledged technique for increasing human infectivity of a virus. The issue with a zoonotic origin though, is that the odds of a mutation is incredibly small, and a recombination at that site would require the sequence to exist in another coronavirus, which has not been discovered to date.
It is also known WIV researchers had recieved instruction from another virologist on "no-see-um" editing techniques that would not leave traces of the mechanism used to splice in an edit.
So not proof, but the network of coincidence is as hard to ignore as a spinal tap amp duct taped to your head, cranked to 11, playing the 1812 Overture.
for anyone interested in more information about this commonly parroted "smoking gun" (Furin cleavage site):
https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1391507230848032772
https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1391507230848032772
Here’s some evidence that it is naturally occurring from a virologist.
https://twitter.com/wanderer_jasnah/status/13942477140246609...
https://twitter.com/wanderer_jasnah/status/13942477140246609...
I read it in Nicholas Wade's article: https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-th... (long read).
Some more reading: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210217/The-origin-of-SAR...
All these lines of evidence and reasoning show that the acquisition of the polybasic furin cleavage site by SARS-CoV-2 is a “missing link” in our understanding of its evolutionary history, that can only be addressed through the discovery of new viruses.”
Some more reading: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210217/The-origin-of-SAR...
All these lines of evidence and reasoning show that the acquisition of the polybasic furin cleavage site by SARS-CoV-2 is a “missing link” in our understanding of its evolutionary history, that can only be addressed through the discovery of new viruses.”
>>I know the issue is politicized
This is becoming more and more common, Pure Science is almost never practiced anymore. The Hard sciences like Immunology, virology, general medicine used to be some what insulated from politics however in the last few years all sciences are no longer data driven.
You form a conclusion then find the facts that fit your narrative, and if your narrative is not the "correct" one you better not release your facts...
This is becoming more and more common, Pure Science is almost never practiced anymore. The Hard sciences like Immunology, virology, general medicine used to be some what insulated from politics however in the last few years all sciences are no longer data driven.
You form a conclusion then find the facts that fit your narrative, and if your narrative is not the "correct" one you better not release your facts...
Is it? Since the beginning the science has been in conflict with politics (or the Church, or the Kings/Emperors before democracy). Notable political/social opposition to the sciences are well documented. Couple of examples: doctors washing their hands was a controversial issue [2] and how being able to eat "higher-class" food killed thousands of Japanese, who rejected eating other food even when it was known it was killing them [3].
[1] https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2020/09/18/what...
[2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/handwashi...
[3] https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/rice-disease-mystery-e...
[1] https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2020/09/18/what...
[2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/handwashi...
[3] https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/rice-disease-mystery-e...
I think neither is exactly true. Like any endeavour that requires patronage, scientists have to sing for their supper. The combinations of scientists and patrons vary across time and space with some being more amenable to pure science and others breeding corruption. Like everything it is much more complex upon closer inspection.
The cases I've shared were not about patronage (maybe Galileo, unsure), but about third parties categorically denying the science it based on their social/political thinking.
Don't forget about Galileo.
I didn't forget about Galileo, it's literally my first link and it's the same link that @jimmygrapes shared later :)
Sorry about that!
Here is a well written article about the topic, which outlines some details that I am currently investigating for confirmation, and helps make Galileo's story a little more nuanced than the elementary school version: https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2020/09/18/what...
Being in Japan, 3 was fascinating. I feel like Japans strong cultural belief in their own superiority and love of hierarchy make it especially susceptible to these type of issues.
If you’re interested, here is a more recent example of “politics vs science” and politics losing badly: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/Abe-declares-e...
Here’s a fun quote from the article:
"We have managed to bring the outbreak under control within just one and a half months. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the Japan model,"
Meanwhile at the time of writing Japan is experiencing a surge in coronavirus cases and Abe has resigned.
If you’re interested, here is a more recent example of “politics vs science” and politics losing badly: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/Abe-declares-e...
Here’s a fun quote from the article:
"We have managed to bring the outbreak under control within just one and a half months. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the Japan model,"
Meanwhile at the time of writing Japan is experiencing a surge in coronavirus cases and Abe has resigned.
I also happen to live in Japan, that's prob why I knew this example well and I'm well aware/critic of the covid situation and the Olympics being pushed forward.
Abe resignation seems to be based on being sick though, there was some, well extreme people measuring how long it took him to walk a fixed distance over time and when he started to slow down significatively, they predicted he was sick. He resigned few days later, officially because of an illness:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/japans-abe-goes-to-hospital-for...
Abe resignation seems to be based on being sick though, there was some, well extreme people measuring how long it took him to walk a fixed distance over time and when he started to slow down significatively, they predicted he was sick. He resigned few days later, officially because of an illness:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/japans-abe-goes-to-hospital-for...
I highly doubt that AtlasObscura article, it sounds like a classical urban myth. In East Asia there are tens if not hundreds of millions of people who've eaten nothing but white rice as the staple in their diet their whole life, and it's not caused any issues as far as I'm aware. Of course if you eat just rice and nothing else, that might be unhealthy. But that's not an issue with white rice.
[deleted]
It might simply be a kind of survivor bias.
The sorts of science that the public finds most interesting are those with a human backstory and politics is the best kind of story.
The sorts of science that the public finds most interesting are those with a human backstory and politics is the best kind of story.
If you want to see this in full force, go try to find out from medical organizations whether there are irreversible health effects for gender transition therapies in adolescents.
APA (and WHO, and...) will say no. But you'll see curious notes about recommendations to monitor bone density, and curious usages of auxiliary drugs whose purpose is to combat osteoporosis. Turns out, the therapies are well known to permanently and negatively affect bone density and long term effects-- while assumed to include osteoporosis and more frequent fractures-- are simply unknown.
But the science and statistics cannot be allowed to trump the politics, so you will see no mention of this in complete contravention of traditional Hippocratic responsibilities and medical ethics.
APA (and WHO, and...) will say no. But you'll see curious notes about recommendations to monitor bone density, and curious usages of auxiliary drugs whose purpose is to combat osteoporosis. Turns out, the therapies are well known to permanently and negatively affect bone density and long term effects-- while assumed to include osteoporosis and more frequent fractures-- are simply unknown.
But the science and statistics cannot be allowed to trump the politics, so you will see no mention of this in complete contravention of traditional Hippocratic responsibilities and medical ethics.
> What i find weird is the extreme and very unscientific agression among certain virologist
Would be interesting to dig further into who is funding their research.
Would be interesting to dig further into who is funding their research.
That sounds like the worst of the Internet in action. You disagree with someone's off-handed remark on social media, so you want to remove their funding source?
I guess that's pretty popular, but I have to say I don't care for it.
Many people are still in the bargaining stage of COVID response -- if we find that some person made this virus and released it into the wild, we just send them to prison and the problem goes away. That's a very human reaction to the problem, but unfortunately it doesn't actually work. We have to clean up this colossal mess regardless of whether it was man-made or not, and we have to reckon with the millions that died and will never come back.
Finding someone to blame is just a distraction, and I imagine that many people want to move past that distraction and eradicate the disease. The learning can come later when we're collectively more calm.
I doubt that anyone was funded to create SARS-CoV-2 and then try to suppress discussion about it on Twitter. I think the "unfollow me if you think it's man-made" is just a short-circuit to avoid flamewars and distraction. It probably isn't a belief against doing a blameless postmortem so that we can handle things like this better in the future.
I guess that's pretty popular, but I have to say I don't care for it.
Many people are still in the bargaining stage of COVID response -- if we find that some person made this virus and released it into the wild, we just send them to prison and the problem goes away. That's a very human reaction to the problem, but unfortunately it doesn't actually work. We have to clean up this colossal mess regardless of whether it was man-made or not, and we have to reckon with the millions that died and will never come back.
Finding someone to blame is just a distraction, and I imagine that many people want to move past that distraction and eradicate the disease. The learning can come later when we're collectively more calm.
I doubt that anyone was funded to create SARS-CoV-2 and then try to suppress discussion about it on Twitter. I think the "unfollow me if you think it's man-made" is just a short-circuit to avoid flamewars and distraction. It probably isn't a belief against doing a blameless postmortem so that we can handle things like this better in the future.
> You disagree with someone's off-handed remark on social media, so you want to remove their funding source?
No, what I was getting at is that they might have a financial incentive to discredit the lab escape theory. For instance, some of this researcher's funding or his institution's funding might be from CCP-backed entities.
> We have to clean up this colossal mess regardless of whether it was man-made or not, and we have to reckon with the millions that died and will never come back. Finding someone to blame is just a distraction, and I imagine that many people want to move past that distraction and eradicate the disease. The learning can come later when we're collectively more calm.
This, trying to push the idea that fighting the virus or investigating the outbreak theory are mutually exclusive, is also a rhetoric I would expect to be pushed from the party responsible for the outbreak.
Truth is, why obstruct investigation efforts and try to hide the facts if the origin of the virus is natural?
No, what I was getting at is that they might have a financial incentive to discredit the lab escape theory. For instance, some of this researcher's funding or his institution's funding might be from CCP-backed entities.
> We have to clean up this colossal mess regardless of whether it was man-made or not, and we have to reckon with the millions that died and will never come back. Finding someone to blame is just a distraction, and I imagine that many people want to move past that distraction and eradicate the disease. The learning can come later when we're collectively more calm.
This, trying to push the idea that fighting the virus or investigating the outbreak theory are mutually exclusive, is also a rhetoric I would expect to be pushed from the party responsible for the outbreak.
Truth is, why obstruct investigation efforts and try to hide the facts if the origin of the virus is natural?
> That sounds like the worst of the Internet in action. You disagree with someone's off-handed remark on social media, so you want to remove their funding source?
It's not about removing, it's about finding who they are speaking out for.
It's not about removing, it's about finding who they are speaking out for.
But you all are so quick to assume that people have a financial agenda rather than their own thoughts. Like maybe people just think things and say them, and it's not all some propaganda campaign.
Most scientific research is not self funded. Why assume outside sponsoring has no influence. You dont see TV news bad mouthing pharma companies as TV channels rely on pharma ads...
Career scientists not motivated by money assumes there is something that would dissuade them from not being so. Is there anything that motivates a scientist to avoid tailoring a response beyond personal moral codes? We do have a replication crisis mind you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Overall
The problem is you're bringing it in too early.
Discrediting your opposites is primarily a feature of rhetoric, not discourse.
If your goal is to have an earnest discussion, to go over the various sorts of evidence and the varied hypotheses, you need to address those first.
Some American scientists have claimed the virus does not look engineered. Why? What is their evidence for the claim? If you are asserting the virus is or at least could be engineered, can you account for the evidence supporting their assertion? Can you point to evidence that supports your hypothesis and not theirs? How do they respond to this evidence?
It may be -- in an earnest discussion -- that one side is not engaging, for one reason or another. Maybe they don't want to admit they are wrong, maybe they are getting paid not to. At that point, after you have yourself examined their claims, after you have examined whether you are just being stubborn yourself, it is quite reasonable to disregard them, maybe even in the future.
Bringing it in too early, before engaging with their claims, trying to find reasons not to examine their evidence, makes it seem like you are just interested in winning the rhetorical argument.
Discrediting your opposites is primarily a feature of rhetoric, not discourse.
If your goal is to have an earnest discussion, to go over the various sorts of evidence and the varied hypotheses, you need to address those first.
Some American scientists have claimed the virus does not look engineered. Why? What is their evidence for the claim? If you are asserting the virus is or at least could be engineered, can you account for the evidence supporting their assertion? Can you point to evidence that supports your hypothesis and not theirs? How do they respond to this evidence?
It may be -- in an earnest discussion -- that one side is not engaging, for one reason or another. Maybe they don't want to admit they are wrong, maybe they are getting paid not to. At that point, after you have yourself examined their claims, after you have examined whether you are just being stubborn yourself, it is quite reasonable to disregard them, maybe even in the future.
Bringing it in too early, before engaging with their claims, trying to find reasons not to examine their evidence, makes it seem like you are just interested in winning the rhetorical argument.
You completely misinterpreted the statement. It was rather obvious to me that the person you were replying to was curious if there was any conflicts of interest that would cause someone to ignore a conclusion.
Finding someone to blame as you say is not really the key issue. If you want to prevent this from happening again you might just possibly want to know where this virus came from.
4 months after SARS 1 we knew the intermediate host was a civet. 9 months after MERS, we knew the intermediate host was a camel. As of now not a single intermediate zoonotic host has been identified.
At this point the probability threshold has shifted towards a lab leak. We can acknowledge this fact or we can collectively acknowledge that maybe just maybe a research center with a quarter of a billion dollars in funding from the United States government for evolving Corona viruses from bats to infect humanized mice might have had something to do with the virus that broke out in the exact same city.
I mean it really is absurd how quickly people dismiss this rather obvious fact.
Figuring out where this virus came from is extremely relevant considering that the gain of function research that in all likelihood created it is going to be increased in funding as a result of the pandemic. If the public knew that the virus was almost certainly not a naturally transmitted one from a wild animal host, they probably wouldn't be on board with funding more of the research that created it.
Finding someone to blame as you say is not really the key issue. If you want to prevent this from happening again you might just possibly want to know where this virus came from.
4 months after SARS 1 we knew the intermediate host was a civet. 9 months after MERS, we knew the intermediate host was a camel. As of now not a single intermediate zoonotic host has been identified.
At this point the probability threshold has shifted towards a lab leak. We can acknowledge this fact or we can collectively acknowledge that maybe just maybe a research center with a quarter of a billion dollars in funding from the United States government for evolving Corona viruses from bats to infect humanized mice might have had something to do with the virus that broke out in the exact same city.
I mean it really is absurd how quickly people dismiss this rather obvious fact.
Figuring out where this virus came from is extremely relevant considering that the gain of function research that in all likelihood created it is going to be increased in funding as a result of the pandemic. If the public knew that the virus was almost certainly not a naturally transmitted one from a wild animal host, they probably wouldn't be on board with funding more of the research that created it.
> What i find weird is the extreme and very unscientific agression among certain virologist: "If you think SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab, please unfollow me. "
Take a similar situation, imagine you were a structural engineer a decade ago and you tweeted "If you think 9/11 was an inside job because jet fuel can't melt steel beams, please unfollow me" or an astronaut tweeting "if you think we didn't land on the moon, please unfollow me" - whether the particular issue they've mentioned is true or false doesn't actually matter. They're trying to avoid the confrontationalists/conspiracy theorists following them/replying to their tweets. They're pretty much tweeting "don't @ me"
Take a similar situation, imagine you were a structural engineer a decade ago and you tweeted "If you think 9/11 was an inside job because jet fuel can't melt steel beams, please unfollow me" or an astronaut tweeting "if you think we didn't land on the moon, please unfollow me" - whether the particular issue they've mentioned is true or false doesn't actually matter. They're trying to avoid the confrontationalists/conspiracy theorists following them/replying to their tweets. They're pretty much tweeting "don't @ me"
> an astronaut tweeting "if you think we didn't land on the moon, please unfollow me"
That's a pretty bad analogy. It's not like a lab leak is an extremely unlikely possibility at all.
You should rather check who is funding the people who are making certain statements like that. Follow the money trail.
That's a pretty bad analogy. It's not like a lab leak is an extremely unlikely possibility at all.
You should rather check who is funding the people who are making certain statements like that. Follow the money trail.
The analogy isn't really working, but the core is valid nonetheless: when an idea has few valid examiners and thousands of nutjob followers and they all want to talk to you, perhaps the latter even more than the former, then you'll eventually accept the risk of perhaps missing out on one of the few gems rather than suffering through the endless repetitions of all the others.
> It's not like a lab leak is an extremely unlikely possibility at all.
The tweet was talking about the virus being engineered in a lab, not the possibility it escaped from a lab. Their opinion on the possibility of lab leak seems [1] quite reasonable to me - they believe it's possible but unlikely, and link to more info.
> You should rather check who is funding the people who are making certain statements like that.
Sure - do you have more info on his sources of grants etc?
[1] https://twitter.com/macroliter/status/1391777097434152963
The tweet was talking about the virus being engineered in a lab, not the possibility it escaped from a lab. Their opinion on the possibility of lab leak seems [1] quite reasonable to me - they believe it's possible but unlikely, and link to more info.
> You should rather check who is funding the people who are making certain statements like that.
Sure - do you have more info on his sources of grants etc?
[1] https://twitter.com/macroliter/status/1391777097434152963
What’s the difference between gain of function research and engineering? My understanding is that gain of function research accelerates the natural selection process to intentionally produce i.e. engineer desired mutations, like the capability of infecting human cells. Seems like a distinction without a difference.
Recently there was an article about software engineering where the (apparently non-technical) author defined colloquial phrases such as "to engineer an outcome" as to jerry-rig and generally do the opposite of any scientifically-principled process. I think the onus should be on the researchers to use clearer technical jargon or else it creates this kind of false dichotomy where a very narrow claim is used to imply much more. Frankly I think exploiting vagueness of words like that is sometimes intended, especially in titles/headlines. The careful technical interpretation is for CYA, while the broad colloquial interpretation is for social/political points and agendas.
> What i find weird is the extreme and very unscientific agression among certain virologist: "If you think SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab, please unfollow me. "
There were a lot of them on twitter, and frankly, they disqualified themselves from the adult table. They've chosen politics over science.
There were a lot of them on twitter, and frankly, they disqualified themselves from the adult table. They've chosen politics over science.
Isn’t that tweet pretty clearly aimed at people who were already concluding that it was engineered in a lab? That’s a lot different than saying we should investigate the origins of the virus.
If a scientist is telling people to unfollow them because those people believe it's a possibility that they don't want ruled out without evidence; that is the very definition of being a child. In fact, maybe they shouldn't have credentials at that point.
If someone is telling people who already only believe that conclusion then that makes sense.
It's important to ask people that do this stuff to be very specific about their motivations in the moment, document them, and hold them accountable at a later date when the dust settles.
If someone is telling people who already only believe that conclusion then that makes sense.
It's important to ask people that do this stuff to be very specific about their motivations in the moment, document them, and hold them accountable at a later date when the dust settles.
The statement is very explicitly not aimed at people who believe it’s a possibility.
The childishness of telling people to unfollow you on Twitter is undeniable, but isn’t really related, and is just what you get when you’re reading Twitter.
The childishness of telling people to unfollow you on Twitter is undeniable, but isn’t really related, and is just what you get when you’re reading Twitter.
To wit, @BlockedVirology on Twitter documents virologists' blocking of people making rational, non-trolling inquiry into lab leak.
Social media is designed around social proof and validation. Plenty of otherwise rational people crave the support and affirmation of endorsing “correct” thinking while also attacking the “incorrect” thinking.
I always wondered why people used the phrase "dunk on" when referring to Twitter. Then I witnessed the purely and obviously performative nature of the bulk of these kinds of user's statements.
Even ones who claim to be activists will ignore any good faith questions, because every second they spend engaging in meaningful dialogue doesn't allow them to sit there and attack others for points from their followers.
Even ones who claim to be activists will ignore any good faith questions, because every second they spend engaging in meaningful dialogue doesn't allow them to sit there and attack others for points from their followers.
I am always surprised how the virologist community have sacrificed their integrity.
From the article titled "Scientists: 'Exactly zero' evidence COVID-19 came from a lab"[1]:
> But that was before he learned more about COVID-19 and related coronaviruses, which have features already seen in nature. "There are lots of data and lots of evidence, as well as previous examples of this coming from nature," he said. "We have exactly zero evidence or data of this having any connection to a lab."
[1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/05/scientis...
From the article titled "Scientists: 'Exactly zero' evidence COVID-19 came from a lab"[1]:
> But that was before he learned more about COVID-19 and related coronaviruses, which have features already seen in nature. "There are lots of data and lots of evidence, as well as previous examples of this coming from nature," he said. "We have exactly zero evidence or data of this having any connection to a lab."
[1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/05/scientis...
Don't you need to get access to the lab first tho?
Surely epistemology and logic must be part of scientific curriculum, no? Maybe some scientists don't take it seriously.
I don't think that people are doubting the virologists' epistemic ability; it's the fact that their reasoning seems to be motivated by a desire to deflect blame away from the NIAID/CCP/virology field which is the problem.
Is that (motivated reasoning) not a textbook failure of epistemic ability though?
I mean, I suppose from a pragmatic standpoint (the world as it is) it's starting to get into the realm of enlightenment, but if friggin' scientists can't think clearly, then perhaps their new found "five star", god-tier status in society should be knocked down to four or four and a half stars.
I mean, I suppose from a pragmatic standpoint (the world as it is) it's starting to get into the realm of enlightenment, but if friggin' scientists can't think clearly, then perhaps their new found "five star", god-tier status in society should be knocked down to four or four and a half stars.
I was being way too generous; wilful blindness would be closer, and it's combination of people
- making a conscious decision not to think the unthinkable ("work in my scientific sub-discipline has caused a disaster")
- attempting to avoid particular repercussions for their field, such as a world-wide ban on gain-of-function research (plenty of scientists would want to avoid what they might see as a disproportionate knee-jerk reaction from lay members of the general public which hindered work in a field that they believed to have great promise for the future, and they might believe that this decision should be in the hands of experts).
- trying to prevent the loss of sources of funding for virological research and the resulting impact on their career
and finally, and most importantly
- being moved by a misplaced sense of humanitarian responsibility to try to prevent the escalation of geopolitical tensions between superpowers ("virologists the world over have a vital role to play at this present moment in standing shoulder to shoulder in heading off the looming threat of war").
If I were cynical, I'd think that recent changes to reporting on the subject were as much a result of changes to the occupancy of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as they were to evidence that has come to light over the last few months.
- making a conscious decision not to think the unthinkable ("work in my scientific sub-discipline has caused a disaster")
- attempting to avoid particular repercussions for their field, such as a world-wide ban on gain-of-function research (plenty of scientists would want to avoid what they might see as a disproportionate knee-jerk reaction from lay members of the general public which hindered work in a field that they believed to have great promise for the future, and they might believe that this decision should be in the hands of experts).
- trying to prevent the loss of sources of funding for virological research and the resulting impact on their career
and finally, and most importantly
- being moved by a misplaced sense of humanitarian responsibility to try to prevent the escalation of geopolitical tensions between superpowers ("virologists the world over have a vital role to play at this present moment in standing shoulder to shoulder in heading off the looming threat of war").
If I were cynical, I'd think that recent changes to reporting on the subject were as much a result of changes to the occupancy of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as they were to evidence that has come to light over the last few months.
To me, much of this is a subset of causes of epistemic failures (plus dishonesty, selfishness) - I have witnessed first hand many people who consider themselves to be better at thinking because they are a scientist, or are scientific thinkers, or believe in The Science. To me, this is like a form of intellectual cancer in our society.
> being moved by a misplaced sense of humanitarian responsibility to try to prevent the escalation of geopolitical tensions between superpowers ("virologists the world over have a vital role to play at this present moment in standing shoulder to shoulder in heading off the looming threat of war").
> If I were cynical, I'd think that recent changes to reporting on the subject were as much a result of changes to the occupancy of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as they were to evidence that has come to light over the last few months.
I actually consider these to be fairly valid motivations. True, it violates strict epistemology, but if it is done with full knowledge at least it is understandable. However, I haven't encountered many examples of people who acknowledge that they are lying for the greater good - rather, it seems much more common that people are lying to themselves and others, motivated by a fear of Trump (or whatever the boogeyman du jour is). If lying is done with awareness, I seem to consider it less dangerous (which is perhaps a dumb way to think...."it depends" I imagine).
> being moved by a misplaced sense of humanitarian responsibility to try to prevent the escalation of geopolitical tensions between superpowers ("virologists the world over have a vital role to play at this present moment in standing shoulder to shoulder in heading off the looming threat of war").
> If I were cynical, I'd think that recent changes to reporting on the subject were as much a result of changes to the occupancy of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as they were to evidence that has come to light over the last few months.
I actually consider these to be fairly valid motivations. True, it violates strict epistemology, but if it is done with full knowledge at least it is understandable. However, I haven't encountered many examples of people who acknowledge that they are lying for the greater good - rather, it seems much more common that people are lying to themselves and others, motivated by a fear of Trump (or whatever the boogeyman du jour is). If lying is done with awareness, I seem to consider it less dangerous (which is perhaps a dumb way to think...."it depends" I imagine).
> It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York
The controversy around Peter Daszak goes deeper. First off, he was the only American on the WHO team that visited Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) earlier this year. Per the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-china-hunt-covid-origins-11...) the WHO rejected three different nominees from the Trump administration and instead chose Daszak. That seems suspicious to me, because Daszak's prior work with WIV means there is a clear conflict of interest, and it puts the WHO's judgment into doubt since it would seem like a convenient pick for the CCP, given how tightly they managed the WHO's visit and subsequent report.
Furthermore, Daszak's name appears as an author on a WIV paper that concerns coronavirus research (https://jvi.asm.org/content/jvi/90/6/3253.full.pdf), and the text within suggests WIV was actively performing gain of function research with SARS-like (SL) viruses:
> "We recently isolated a bat SL-CoV strain (WIV1) and constructed an infectious clone of another strain (SHC014); significantly, these strains are closely related to SARS-CoV and capable of using the same cellular receptor (angiotensin-convert-ing enzyme 2 [ACE2]) as SARS-CoV"
Note that EcoHealth's grant was omitted from the oversight process concerning research involving dangerous pathogens (https://news.yahoo.com/hhs-board-never-approved-wuhan-155055...). Per this article, Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard H. Ebright said that NIH and NIAID "systematically thwarted — indeed systematically nullified — the HHS P3CO Framework by declining to flag and forward proposals for review."
-
While all of this could just be strange coincidence, incorrect speculation, or reasonably explained with more information, it has all the markers of something that deserves scrutiny and transparency. I feel like everyone who was and still is quick to shut down the lab leak possibility is acting against the spirit of open inquiry and thwarting the best understanding that we could have from this entire saga.
The controversy around Peter Daszak goes deeper. First off, he was the only American on the WHO team that visited Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) earlier this year. Per the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-china-hunt-covid-origins-11...) the WHO rejected three different nominees from the Trump administration and instead chose Daszak. That seems suspicious to me, because Daszak's prior work with WIV means there is a clear conflict of interest, and it puts the WHO's judgment into doubt since it would seem like a convenient pick for the CCP, given how tightly they managed the WHO's visit and subsequent report.
Furthermore, Daszak's name appears as an author on a WIV paper that concerns coronavirus research (https://jvi.asm.org/content/jvi/90/6/3253.full.pdf), and the text within suggests WIV was actively performing gain of function research with SARS-like (SL) viruses:
> "We recently isolated a bat SL-CoV strain (WIV1) and constructed an infectious clone of another strain (SHC014); significantly, these strains are closely related to SARS-CoV and capable of using the same cellular receptor (angiotensin-convert-ing enzyme 2 [ACE2]) as SARS-CoV"
Note that EcoHealth's grant was omitted from the oversight process concerning research involving dangerous pathogens (https://news.yahoo.com/hhs-board-never-approved-wuhan-155055...). Per this article, Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard H. Ebright said that NIH and NIAID "systematically thwarted — indeed systematically nullified — the HHS P3CO Framework by declining to flag and forward proposals for review."
-
While all of this could just be strange coincidence, incorrect speculation, or reasonably explained with more information, it has all the markers of something that deserves scrutiny and transparency. I feel like everyone who was and still is quick to shut down the lab leak possibility is acting against the spirit of open inquiry and thwarting the best understanding that we could have from this entire saga.
This article does a thorough examination of the origination, covers your points on Daszak well.
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
The author of that article makes some claims that you should give some critical thought to:
Some are pretty obviously wrong:
- they say the virus hasn't mutated to become more suitable or transmissible in humans
- they imply the first cases of COVID-19 were hospitalizations and imply that asymptomatic spread of the disease is not possible
Then also the article claims that science hasn't tracked gene mutations of the virus that took place in bats. I think that has indeed happened.
The logic of the people they blame us contradictory too. They say the base DNA could have been concealed by making a novel base but then they say by that this was a researcher doing public, documented research, which suggests they would indeed use standard practices and the signatures would be there.
Some are pretty obviously wrong:
- they say the virus hasn't mutated to become more suitable or transmissible in humans
- they imply the first cases of COVID-19 were hospitalizations and imply that asymptomatic spread of the disease is not possible
Then also the article claims that science hasn't tracked gene mutations of the virus that took place in bats. I think that has indeed happened.
The logic of the people they blame us contradictory too. They say the base DNA could have been concealed by making a novel base but then they say by that this was a researcher doing public, documented research, which suggests they would indeed use standard practices and the signatures would be there.
You seriously miss read a lot of what was said in that article to post those claims. Re read slower and pay mind to the nuances.
Could you be more specific perhaps? Maybe you could take the time and explain to me the motives of using a novel base to hide the weapons research while also publishing said research because it's public and funded by grant money. Something about universities hiring evil secret agents doesn't seem plausible to me.
If you want people to take seriesly the idea of COVID-19 coming from a lab then be scientific about it and offer up some ways to make it falsifiable. Otherwise it's simply not scientific, and almost everyone here pushing that theory is ignoring the evidence against it or modifying the conspiracy to fit the facts that contradict it. It's not constructive right now.
The hypothesis that COVID-19 came from an animal, namely a bat, in Wuhan China is independently suggested by multiple areas of science (genetics and epidemiology). It's also in line with similar outbreaks that happened in the past. The science of this is about as "unsettled" as the the theory of evolution vs creationism.
The hypothesis that COVID-19 came from an animal, namely a bat, in Wuhan China is independently suggested by multiple areas of science (genetics and epidemiology). It's also in line with similar outbreaks that happened in the past. The science of this is about as "unsettled" as the the theory of evolution vs creationism.
I politely recommend you do more research into the subject. It won't change your conclusions, but the state of affairs is very much not settled.
Also, here's your falsifiability: when it can be shown that the virus is zoonotic in origin, the other theories of its origin are falsified.
I do not believe that the virus was engineered in a lab at this point, but turning this into tribe warfare will not help anything. Saying that the opinion you disagree with is unscientific and comparing it to creationism just shows you aren't looking to have an actual conversation.
Also, here's your falsifiability: when it can be shown that the virus is zoonotic in origin, the other theories of its origin are falsified.
I do not believe that the virus was engineered in a lab at this point, but turning this into tribe warfare will not help anything. Saying that the opinion you disagree with is unscientific and comparing it to creationism just shows you aren't looking to have an actual conversation.
Falsifiability would be something like: we know what the genetics of lab-made viruses look like; they have certain base pair signatures; therefore if this virus were made in a lab it would have those signatures.
A real scientist with close knowledge of the virus and the lab offered this.
A real scientist with close knowledge of the virus and the lab offered this.
The initial probability of "novel new virus" is not "it was made in a lab / escape a lab".
Every time another "expert" or an academic says that it's not worth investigating, because it is too political, I treat it as a litmus test if the person is full of shit and should not be allowed near public policy decision. Even if they are an expert in the field, does not mean they are "street smart".
Everything can be and is politicized. Even local news about a petty theft or changes to a small park ends up being very political in the media or some local discussion board (looking at Nextdoor). If it crosses the border, it becomes international politics.
There are existing cases when coronaviruses leaked from the labs before and it is a known concern: [1], [2] The debate on the risking of such research has been going on for years [3] and in 2014 the US even paused funding selected gain-of-function research [4]. It happened before more than once, denying that it could have happened again in 2019, because there are no evidence, is simply lazy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Why it matters? Because only in 2016 China adopted national guidelines for treatment of lab animals [5].
Knowing what happens critically important to make sure it does not happen again. Any system, that wants to adapt needs to analyze and find root cause of the mistake. Take rules and regulations in Aviation, all decisions about safety are driven by experience and past mistakes. If something is a pilot's mistake, then either there is a safeguard added, protocol or training altered, or everything above; but it's not customary to downplay or avoid highlighting human error. It is a common-sense approach used in any area, from aviation to military to sea navigation, etc. Either actors learn or the system learns by eliminating actors. Only in case of virus research, humanity is an actor that either needs to learn or ...
And I don't understand, why it is so important not o blame Chinese government? Do we not want to blame the Soviet government for the handling and the fallout of Chernobyl? Or those, who made risky decisions while operation the plant? If it is leaked from the lab, amend must be made to the facility, protocols, guidelines. Nevertheless, if it turns out that it is someone's gross negligence, the person or group of people should be reprimanded.
The US industrial farming can be a culprit of another "pig" or "chicken" flu or something more deadly. I would not be surprised, if some industrial farm with a string of sanitary and animal rights violations breeds a new virus. In this case, I want them to be reprimanded; if a state has loose regulations to prevent it, I want that state to be reprimanded by the federal government. And I would expect the US to take financial loss and pressure from the international community as an incentive to learn from mistake.
[1] SARS escaped Beijing lab twice (2004) https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-...
[2] https://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_09_24/en/
[3] Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research (2015) https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debat...
[4] http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/gain-of-function.pdf
[5] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/china-finally-settin...
Everything can be and is politicized. Even local news about a petty theft or changes to a small park ends up being very political in the media or some local discussion board (looking at Nextdoor). If it crosses the border, it becomes international politics.
There are existing cases when coronaviruses leaked from the labs before and it is a known concern: [1], [2] The debate on the risking of such research has been going on for years [3] and in 2014 the US even paused funding selected gain-of-function research [4]. It happened before more than once, denying that it could have happened again in 2019, because there are no evidence, is simply lazy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Why it matters? Because only in 2016 China adopted national guidelines for treatment of lab animals [5].
Knowing what happens critically important to make sure it does not happen again. Any system, that wants to adapt needs to analyze and find root cause of the mistake. Take rules and regulations in Aviation, all decisions about safety are driven by experience and past mistakes. If something is a pilot's mistake, then either there is a safeguard added, protocol or training altered, or everything above; but it's not customary to downplay or avoid highlighting human error. It is a common-sense approach used in any area, from aviation to military to sea navigation, etc. Either actors learn or the system learns by eliminating actors. Only in case of virus research, humanity is an actor that either needs to learn or ...
And I don't understand, why it is so important not o blame Chinese government? Do we not want to blame the Soviet government for the handling and the fallout of Chernobyl? Or those, who made risky decisions while operation the plant? If it is leaked from the lab, amend must be made to the facility, protocols, guidelines. Nevertheless, if it turns out that it is someone's gross negligence, the person or group of people should be reprimanded.
The US industrial farming can be a culprit of another "pig" or "chicken" flu or something more deadly. I would not be surprised, if some industrial farm with a string of sanitary and animal rights violations breeds a new virus. In this case, I want them to be reprimanded; if a state has loose regulations to prevent it, I want that state to be reprimanded by the federal government. And I would expect the US to take financial loss and pressure from the international community as an incentive to learn from mistake.
[1] SARS escaped Beijing lab twice (2004) https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-...
[2] https://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_09_24/en/
[3] Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research (2015) https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debat...
[4] http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/gain-of-function.pdf
[5] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/china-finally-settin...
> "If you think SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab, please unfollow me. "
You'd believe scientists should know better that it's not about "China is guilty, they should pay for their crime" at all but "Let' us understand the origins so that we might prepare and protect ourselves better for another pandemic outbreak."
You'd believe scientists should know better that it's not about "China is guilty, they should pay for their crime" at all but "Let' us understand the origins so that we might prepare and protect ourselves better for another pandemic outbreak."
The trouble here is that a lot of institutions and public persons have more or less staked their credibility on dismissing the lab origin hypothesis. They had their reasons - if anything, over the last years their standing and the value of expert opinion was under constant pressure (notice I'm talking about a reason, not a justification).
But this makes any admission of an error and, by extension, any useful reflection on it very, very improbable. I think if the lab origin is true and at some point becomes common knowledge, it will be treated like the Iraq war. The people responsible for botching the response and the message will fail up and treat the pandemic as if it were a tsunami, rather then human error.
But this makes any admission of an error and, by extension, any useful reflection on it very, very improbable. I think if the lab origin is true and at some point becomes common knowledge, it will be treated like the Iraq war. The people responsible for botching the response and the message will fail up and treat the pandemic as if it were a tsunami, rather then human error.
[deleted]
Lab manufacturing is one thing and has been widely debunked, lab leak is another. I don't think the lab leak has been dismissed as much.
They’ve been repeatedly conflated, either purposefully or carelessly. Almost no one was actually pursuing the engineered bioweapon angle but anyone who even suggested that it may have leaked from a lab that studies bat coronaviruses was treated like a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut. It’s pretty dismal that no one is going to be accountable for their behaviour through this whole mess, nothing will be learned and we’ll probably be worse off the next time something like this happens.
The behaviorist interpretation of belief is that beliefs expressed will be based on whatever is the most socially acceptable, and that that internal beliefs are formed to be consistent with outward expression of belief.
Nobody will be able to look at this rationally until nobody cares either way. That’s what makes history interesting. It always changes.
Nobody will be able to look at this rationally until nobody cares either way. That’s what makes history interesting. It always changes.
I think prohibition is a good illustration of why that interpretation is inaccurate. When one group’s beliefs become dominant in society it doesn’t result in everyone’s opinions changing. People will pay lip service to the commonly held belief but will act otherwise behind closed doors. The people that carry the internalized belief are often entirely oblivious to how much of a lie it actually is since they never get invited to the speak easy.
How is this even going to work? PRC will never allow access to the actual data if it was a lab escape/origin. The sort of propoganda happening on Twitter shows that even discussion is going to be difficult.
Even if the west simply refuses to 100% accept the natural origin story it will have geopolitical consequences.
If experts can make a decent argument that the lab escape is the most likely scenario, then the PRC can choose to let us have access to the data, or look 100% guilty and be treated accordingly.
No, all the choices have already been made.
The data have already been destroyed. The Wuhan lab where this research was taking place also had a leadership change, and is now run by someone in the military. That happened in March or April of 2020, IIRC.
Chinese researchers and journalists disappeared in that time frame (their work was deleted from online archives, their names removed from public employment listings... etc.).
I have family in China, and we watched all this happen. These are the things that happened in public. The Western press was too busy with "oh my gosh, we should probably stop flights now" to take serious notice. Then the whole thing became politicized (in the U.S., at least) and if you made statements like "this started in Wuhan, in the lab there, not in the animal market next to it," you were called racist, even though race had nothing to do with it.
We can ask until the cows come hom. The evidence is gone, disposed of by a series of decisions made more than a year ago.
The data have already been destroyed. The Wuhan lab where this research was taking place also had a leadership change, and is now run by someone in the military. That happened in March or April of 2020, IIRC.
Chinese researchers and journalists disappeared in that time frame (their work was deleted from online archives, their names removed from public employment listings... etc.).
I have family in China, and we watched all this happen. These are the things that happened in public. The Western press was too busy with "oh my gosh, we should probably stop flights now" to take serious notice. Then the whole thing became politicized (in the U.S., at least) and if you made statements like "this started in Wuhan, in the lab there, not in the animal market next to it," you were called racist, even though race had nothing to do with it.
We can ask until the cows come hom. The evidence is gone, disposed of by a series of decisions made more than a year ago.
> if you made statements like "this started in Wuhan, in the lab there, not in the animal market next to it," you were called racist, even though race had nothing to do with it.
Honestly I always felt like "a scientist working with dangerous pathogens had an accident" is way less racist than "someone ate a weird animal from a wet market"... And yet the backlash was stronger for the lab leak scenario, almost as if the opinions were influenced by someone.
Honestly I always felt like "a scientist working with dangerous pathogens had an accident" is way less racist than "someone ate a weird animal from a wet market"... And yet the backlash was stronger for the lab leak scenario, almost as if the opinions were influenced by someone.
We went pretty quickly from "it started somewhere in China" to beating elderly asian people to death in the streets. I think the backlash was more against the justifications people use to be awful.
Who is “we”? The line of thinking that starts with COVID19 and ends with violence against grandmothers seems so preposterous that it should be tested objectively to see if it exists. There are reports of huge increases in hate crimes during a year full of brazen violence and media-fueled racial tensions. This is most easily explained by a trend in classification rather than victimization. That is, law enforcement is now documenting something that has been going on for a long time. This is certainly true of the national crime victimization survey, which listed Asians for the first time in the 2018 report, released at the end of 2019. I do expect to see increases in Asian victimization in the 2020 report, but the motivations are most likely under the banner of social justice. Nobody was looting and burning down cities in protest of the coronavirus.
>The line of thinking that starts with COVID19 and ends with violence against grandmothers seems so preposterous that it should be tested objectively to see if it exists.
Okay
>There are reports of huge increases in hate crimes during a year full of brazen violence and media-fueled racial tensions.
You don't think #ChineseVirus had anything to do with those racial tensions?
>This is most easily explained by a trend in classification rather than victimization. That is, law enforcement is now documenting something that has been going on for a long time. This is certainly true of the national crime victimization survey, which listed Asians for the first time in the 2018 report, released at the end of 2019.
Here's the report from 2010: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv10.txt
It lists Asians.
>I do expect to see increases in Asian victimization in the 2020 report, but the motivations are most likely under the banner of social justice.
What?
Specifically, what the fuck?
>Nobody was looting and burning down cities in protest of the coronavirus.
No, but they're torching Chinese restaurants because they are Chinese. Here's one example among many:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/officials-look-into-chi...
Okay
>There are reports of huge increases in hate crimes during a year full of brazen violence and media-fueled racial tensions.
You don't think #ChineseVirus had anything to do with those racial tensions?
>This is most easily explained by a trend in classification rather than victimization. That is, law enforcement is now documenting something that has been going on for a long time. This is certainly true of the national crime victimization survey, which listed Asians for the first time in the 2018 report, released at the end of 2019.
Here's the report from 2010: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv10.txt
It lists Asians.
>I do expect to see increases in Asian victimization in the 2020 report, but the motivations are most likely under the banner of social justice.
What?
Specifically, what the fuck?
>Nobody was looting and burning down cities in protest of the coronavirus.
No, but they're torching Chinese restaurants because they are Chinese. Here's one example among many:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/officials-look-into-chi...
tomp(1)
To be fair the lab escape scenario looks a lot like a conspiracy theory. One should remember that around that time the "flat earth" theory was still going on (IIRC), and there are similar lab escape theories about AIDS.
It doesn't at all look "like a conspiracy theory". Many past lab leaks have been documented (edit: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1394327678136852488), there had been widespread debate among virologists for years about whether the risk of a lab leak was too high to fund such research, the Obama administration banned it for a while for that reason, the State Department had expressed concerns about lax safety at the Wuhan lab, and so on. It's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. If anything "looks like a conspiracy theory" it's the way that the topic was so harshly suppressed for the last year. I don't think that was a conspiracy either, though, I think it was just political polarization. Hopefully the winds are shifting now to reduce that, on this particular issue.
> It doesn't at all look "like a conspiracy theory"
Maybe for someone well informed like you. But I assure you it does look like a conspiracy theory for "the mere mortal". This is precisely what I was trying to explain. Please don't shoot the messenger.
Maybe for someone well informed like you. But I assure you it does look like a conspiracy theory for "the mere mortal". This is precisely what I was trying to explain. Please don't shoot the messenger.
The "conspiracy" part of the theory isn't the leak itself but that hundreds or thousands of people are involved in covering it up and the effort is being lead by an über-competent cabal of unnamed government officials. That is what makes this theory different from historical lab accidents and makes it seem pretty crackpot.
That's a strawman, though. Pretty similar to when someone is talking about government overreach with regards to restrictions or the effectiveness/negative effects of lockdowns or PCR tests as ways to deal with a pandemic and people call them "covid deniers" as if they were denying the existence of the virus.
There have always been conspiracy theories but I think it's more relevant to note how quickly this theory was co-opted by anti-asian racism and converted into a version where that lab escape was interpreted to be an intention action to cause a world wide pandemic.
I really sympathize with both sides here - I think it's quite possible a lab accident was involved with the virus escaping into the world... but the benefit we'd get from knowing that would mostly involve labs being a lot more careful with PPE and I think we've seen PPE usage tick way up and the dangerous involved with disease handling get a lot larger of a spotlight. And, I also think that beating up or harassing Asian-Americans is wrong and if we need to tell a big societal level lie to people to get them to stop then I'm okay with that.
I really sympathize with both sides here - I think it's quite possible a lab accident was involved with the virus escaping into the world... but the benefit we'd get from knowing that would mostly involve labs being a lot more careful with PPE and I think we've seen PPE usage tick way up and the dangerous involved with disease handling get a lot larger of a spotlight. And, I also think that beating up or harassing Asian-Americans is wrong and if we need to tell a big societal level lie to people to get them to stop then I'm okay with that.
Seriously? We should lie and deceive on a global scale in order to prevent a tiny number of people from being assholes when you know very well that they’re just going to find another reason to be hateful. Lying to everyone isn’t going to prevent hate, I really don’t understand this reasoning. Any time I’ve come across people who express hateful opinions about other groups of people it’s always due to the fact that a) they don’t have any close interactions with people of that group and b) their own social group is similarly isolated and ignorant. Lying to people in situations like that will never change their opinions, the only thing that will is direct face to face communication where trust can be built with them and their peers.
[deleted]
No, a lab escape scenario is an accident theory. The Chinese military sending infectious people to our country on purpose sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Dropping 'flat earth' every time someone questions something off the official narrative is such a weak cop out.
I don't think a lot of people dismissed the "lab theory" per se. The people who were coopting the theory were also the folks who called in intentional/by design. We had evidence for neither and yet suddenly it had become an excuse to yell epithets at random people on the street.
No. The response was overwhelmingly political and censorious and it has everything to do with the extremist culture around politics where if Trump said "A" it must be "not A" and viceversa.
You're justifying that censorship saying that the "wrongthink people" were close to this so that's why it was mostly shunned.
It's disingenuous. This whole year and counting (specially in places with slow vaccine rollouts) has been full of instances where certain challenges to the official local government doctrine where combated heavily with not much argument other than personal attacks and requests for faith in the "one true narrative".
You're justifying that censorship saying that the "wrongthink people" were close to this so that's why it was mostly shunned.
It's disingenuous. This whole year and counting (specially in places with slow vaccine rollouts) has been full of instances where certain challenges to the official local government doctrine where combated heavily with not much argument other than personal attacks and requests for faith in the "one true narrative".
> No, all the choices have already been made. The data have already been destroyed
You don't know that. You'd need an investigation to conclude that. Using it as an excuse not to investigate seems like assuming the conclusion.
Even if some data have been destroyed, it doesn't follow that every last piece of data everywhere has. Who knows what might turn out to be significant? There may well be relevant data in many countries, too, since the research was international.
You don't know that. You'd need an investigation to conclude that. Using it as an excuse not to investigate seems like assuming the conclusion.
Even if some data have been destroyed, it doesn't follow that every last piece of data everywhere has. Who knows what might turn out to be significant? There may well be relevant data in many countries, too, since the research was international.
There are still the American scientists and foundations that were involved in offshoring this research to China.
Project EVIDENCE has records-ish of some of those deletions.
https://project-evidence.github.io/
https://project-evidence.github.io/
That's a great page.
I'm always looking for fact based news (they say evidence based). Having it as a git repository that people can clone and push to is a great way of doing it.
Thanks.
So guilty unless proven innocent?
if they are indeed innocent isn’t fair and unbiased investigation in their best interest?
No because there's no such thing as a fair and unbiased investigation.
Politics will be inexorably intertwined in such an investigation.
Politics will be inexorably intertwined in such an investigation.
Yes, by Chinese citizens. Not by foreigners.
For anybody who has power, absolutely. I am beyond tired of police, countries and politicians getting away with horrible crimes.
For ordinary citizens, of course not.
For ordinary citizens, of course not.
You don't believe data can be manufactured/erased to tell a story if someone is willing to? There is enough time as well to generate a new trail of breadcrumbs.
I don't think we will get the true answer or an answer that is going to satisfy everyone, just a lot of geopolitical posturing.
I don't think we will get the true answer or an answer that is going to satisfy everyone, just a lot of geopolitical posturing.
As we learned in the last election cycle, the Truth is a matter of populism.
If Wuhan lab leak were 'truth' - without hard evidence and a bold international campaign to forcefully make people aware ... then China would be able to hide behind a cloud of whataboutery and changing the subject.
Unless there is some kind of genetic linkage etc..
I also feel that some US authorities wouldn't want the truth to be fully known lest there be unpredictable repercussions and 'worries about Anti Asian Hate Crime' and those kinds of things, preferring to handle it 'behind closed doors'.
It would be great if we could arrive at some kind of objective truth, not holding my breath.
If Wuhan lab leak were 'truth' - without hard evidence and a bold international campaign to forcefully make people aware ... then China would be able to hide behind a cloud of whataboutery and changing the subject.
Unless there is some kind of genetic linkage etc..
I also feel that some US authorities wouldn't want the truth to be fully known lest there be unpredictable repercussions and 'worries about Anti Asian Hate Crime' and those kinds of things, preferring to handle it 'behind closed doors'.
It would be great if we could arrive at some kind of objective truth, not holding my breath.
[deleted]
Shekhar Gupta (One of India's foremost journalists and media people) did a great 30 minute analysis of this article covering who the cast members are and how this ties back into various stories from the last year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlO8sKRynBY
So far, the lab origin story sounds the most plausible and has the least holes in it. Now innocent until proven guilty is a thing, but is not like the PRC would ever agree to a fair trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlO8sKRynBY
So far, the lab origin story sounds the most plausible and has the least holes in it. Now innocent until proven guilty is a thing, but is not like the PRC would ever agree to a fair trial.
There was an article posted recently on HN with no discussion that outlined the evidence for the various theories, and had pretty solid evidence for the leak theory (assuming they didn't omit evidence for the other theories):
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
There was a large discussion about that article:
The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432 - May 2021 (536 comments)
The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432 - May 2021 (536 comments)
Since there isn’t any evidence for either scenario I don’t think it’s at all accurate to say one possible origin is “the most plausible”. A lack of evidence for one does not give credence to the other and vice versa.
If I can't find my phone and I either left it somewhere in the house or on the Uber I took home last night, the longer I search my house and don't find it, the more likely it is that I left it on the Uber.
There is plenty of evidence. CCP cleaning house at Wuhan Institute and purging online references is one item to question.
You think they wouldn't clean house if the virus had naturally hopped to humans but the WIV was still being publicly blamed? I think they responded to the accusation, not to the reality on the ground.
That's not to say that I think it didn't come from the WIV, just that they'd act the same way regardless of where the first transmission occurred.
That's not to say that I think it didn't come from the WIV, just that they'd act the same way regardless of where the first transmission occurred.
I never really considered this point. Just assumed cover-up equals culpability. Thanks.
Not really. The CCP is paranoid enough to do that either way.
By observation of the night sky would you believe Copernicus or Ptolemy? Would you need to have evidence of the solar system's origins or is the decreased computation required for Copernicus enough to indicate it to be a superior explanation?
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/books/Syntaxis/Almagest/node4....
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/books/Syntaxis/Almagest/node4....
How is this the lab origin story more plausible than the original hypothesis that sars-cov2 originated from the wet-markets? Both are places where human and exotic animals closely interact, where sars-cov2 could have jumped. Why do you think the odds of the virus jumping are higher in one place than another?
I’m not in a position to say one way or the other, but the articles detail a number of suggestive evidence that in my mind makes the wild animal spread less likely. But as has been pointed out, it is NOT definitive one way or the other.
splithalf(1)
I don't know anything about virology, but I do know about wet markets. Every working class neighborhood in every city in China has at least one wet market. I would guess that hundreds of millions of people in China shop at wet markets every day. Even if you filter out all the wet markets that do not sell exotic animals like bats and pangolins, it still seems suspicious that this outbreak appears to have been centered around one of the few wet markets in China that happens to be situated in the vicinity of a major virus lab.
Not to mention the dozens of expert virologists that agree the virus characteristics do not seem to be natural.
I have to wonder though if the wet market was a CCP smoke screen... why wasn’t it further from their lab doing exactly this type of viral work? IDK, maybe that was the point to cause suspicion? I’m not crafty enough to know my ability to write world deceiving half-truths.
I have to wonder though if the wet market was a CCP smoke screen... why wasn’t it further from their lab doing exactly this type of viral work? IDK, maybe that was the point to cause suspicion? I’m not crafty enough to know my ability to write world deceiving half-truths.
This article does a decent job of answering your question. The subject is too dense to answer in evan a long reply. https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
The video addresses it.
1. We have strong suspicion that the virus was going around in early December, away from the Wuhan wet market.
2. If the source was natural and zootonic, we would have expected to find the intermediate animal by now. For Sars1 and Mers, we found that animal within 4 months and 9 months respectively. It's been 18 months since Covid19, and we have no clue what that animal despite better science and astronomically more investment.
1. We have strong suspicion that the virus was going around in early December, away from the Wuhan wet market.
2. If the source was natural and zootonic, we would have expected to find the intermediate animal by now. For Sars1 and Mers, we found that animal within 4 months and 9 months respectively. It's been 18 months since Covid19, and we have no clue what that animal despite better science and astronomically more investment.
> if the source was natural and zootonic, we would have expected to find the intermediate animal by now.
Only if you assume it's both widespread and endemic in the intermediate animal population.
If it's spreading at low levels through that population for some reason (like being a less social animal) then it's trying to find a needle in a haystack, and that's on top of the needle/haystack of identifying the correct animal and population.
If it's not endemic we may never find it, perhaps the intermediate population were well on their way to herd immunity before the virus jumped to humans leaving little to no trace.
There are some other possibilities too, like it could have been transmitting undetected among relatively isolated humans (like small farming villages) for some time before an infected farmer visited a market. This would significantly broaden the scope of when and where the infected animal population was.
That we haven't found the source yet is incredibly weak evidence.
Only if you assume it's both widespread and endemic in the intermediate animal population.
If it's spreading at low levels through that population for some reason (like being a less social animal) then it's trying to find a needle in a haystack, and that's on top of the needle/haystack of identifying the correct animal and population.
If it's not endemic we may never find it, perhaps the intermediate population were well on their way to herd immunity before the virus jumped to humans leaving little to no trace.
There are some other possibilities too, like it could have been transmitting undetected among relatively isolated humans (like small farming villages) for some time before an infected farmer visited a market. This would significantly broaden the scope of when and where the infected animal population was.
That we haven't found the source yet is incredibly weak evidence.
> the lab origin story sounds the most plausible and has the least holes in it
You seem to ignore the fact that there's exactly zero evidence either pro or contra. The fame of the "media person" is the kind of argument you typically see invoked in Facebook and Youtube comments.
You seem to ignore the fact that there's exactly zero evidence either pro or contra. The fame of the "media person" is the kind of argument you typically see invoked in Facebook and Youtube comments.
It's not going to be possible to prove lab origin w/o Chinese cooperation.
However, lab origin should not be totally dismissed, so we can have a discussion about safety of gain-of-function research now, rather than waiting for some verifiable event to happen in the future.
However, lab origin should not be totally dismissed, so we can have a discussion about safety of gain-of-function research now, rather than waiting for some verifiable event to happen in the future.
Why are people acting like China is doing anything in isolation?
The Wuhan Lab was funded through the american Ecohealth alliance, and a dozen american scientists probably know just as much as the Chinese do.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432
The Wuhan Lab was funded through the american Ecohealth alliance, and a dozen american scientists probably know just as much as the Chinese do.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432
According to this fact-check only small amount, 600k USD, was distributed to the Ecohealth Alliance/Wuhan: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/04/fac...
I don't know who is acting like that, but that's the kind of thing that becomes very interesting if you believe COVID leaked from a lab and not appeared suddenly at a wet market.
I know this sounds odd, but at this point I don't think it matters, as far as what we need to do next, and more pressure on this point may just make that harder.
1) Regardless of whether or not this virus came from a lab, could such a thing plausibly happen in the future? Unquestionably yes.
2) Do we have international bodies to do inspection of the safety standards of any lab doing this kind of work? Ones that have the authority to require changes, or even shut down a lab, if those safety standards are not met? Unquestionably no, we have no such international body.
3) Could we make one? Yes, if China and Russia and the USA all agree to make one, it could be made binding on the rest of the world.
So, let's get on with that. I fear that the discussion of the origin of covid-19, while it has certainly been useful in showing what the potential future problems are, may get in the way of setting up something to prevent it happening (again?) in the future.
1) Regardless of whether or not this virus came from a lab, could such a thing plausibly happen in the future? Unquestionably yes.
2) Do we have international bodies to do inspection of the safety standards of any lab doing this kind of work? Ones that have the authority to require changes, or even shut down a lab, if those safety standards are not met? Unquestionably no, we have no such international body.
3) Could we make one? Yes, if China and Russia and the USA all agree to make one, it could be made binding on the rest of the world.
So, let's get on with that. I fear that the discussion of the origin of covid-19, while it has certainly been useful in showing what the potential future problems are, may get in the way of setting up something to prevent it happening (again?) in the future.
>I know this sounds odd, but at this point I don't think it matters
I know the quote "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" and all, but if we deem it important to get to the bottom of individual deaths, accidental or not, than it is important to get to the bottom of millions of deaths.
I know the quote "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" and all, but if we deem it important to get to the bottom of individual deaths, accidental or not, than it is important to get to the bottom of millions of deaths.
As it takes longer and longer to find any evidence in nature a lab leaking is becoming the most likely source.
Hasn’t the exact same amount of time elapsed without finding any evidence of a lab leak?
Nature leaves a trail, so if you don’t find a trail then it becomes increasingly implausible that COVID resulted from a natural process. There are currently several intermediate steps that have not been uncovered anywhere, and which would have to have happened in order for this to be a natural process.
This just sounds like the “lack of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy” epistemology so often resorted to by conspiracy theorists. The problem with the epistemology is that it applies equally well to all conceivable conspiracies.
This may be true in general, but in this case we're trying to figure out if something is man-made or occurred naturally. No one is saying it couldn't have happened naturally, but natural evolution happens differently (and more slowly and messily) than human creation. In prior cases (SARS and MERS), plenty of evidence of natural evolution was found very quickly. Here it has been conspicuously absent. What conclusion would you draw from that?
> but in this case we're trying to figure out if something is man-made or occurred naturally.
False dichotomy. The main lab-leak theory is that a natural virus being studied escaped from a lab, not a man-made one.
False dichotomy. The main lab-leak theory is that a natural virus being studied escaped from a lab, not a man-made one.
You only need a handful of people working on this to have knowledge of it. The PRC is really good at locking up people to keep them quiet.
I'm not sure I follow the logic. If China is so good at keeping people quiet, how do you know? Sounds to me that for us to know they have to be less than good at it?
I'm sorry but I really cannot see how everyone knowing (since we on HN knows it must be widespread) is China being good at keeping people quiet. Instead of downvoting how about explaining the logic?
Nope - no investigation for _that_ theory allowed by Beijing.
That may be but we have hardly started looking yet. We haven't even found a source of SARS from 2002 yet..
>"... no direct progenitor of SARS-CoV was found in bat populations despite 15 years of searching..."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7097006/#!po=11...
Edit: Added source.
>"... no direct progenitor of SARS-CoV was found in bat populations despite 15 years of searching..."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7097006/#!po=11...
Edit: Added source.
Wrong. A likely Sars1 origin was found within months. For Sars2 Chinese researches sampled 40000 animals (according to WHO report) and found nothing.
Sars1: Prof. Zheng-Li Shi from Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Shu-Yi Zhang from the Institute of Zoology, and some researchers from Australia also tracked the source of SARS virus to bats, and their findings were published in Science in September 2005
Sars1: Prof. Zheng-Li Shi from Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Shu-Yi Zhang from the Institute of Zoology, and some researchers from Australia also tracked the source of SARS virus to bats, and their findings were published in Science in September 2005
[deleted]
Finding a virus in an animal isn't that same as finding the source. A source has not been found. Only later and intermediate hosts (as in 2005):
>"As no direct progenitor of SARS-CoV was found in bat populations despite 15 years of searching and as RNA recombination is frequent within coronaviruses, it is highly likely that SARS-CoV newly emerged through recombination of bat SARSr-CoVs in this or other yet-to-be-identified bat caves"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7097006/#!po=11...
>"No direct progenitor of SARS-CoV was found in bat populations, but WIV16 was found in a cave in Yunnan province, China between 2013 and 2016, and has a 96% genetically similar virus strain."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...
>"As no direct progenitor of SARS-CoV was found in bat populations despite 15 years of searching and as RNA recombination is frequent within coronaviruses, it is highly likely that SARS-CoV newly emerged through recombination of bat SARSr-CoVs in this or other yet-to-be-identified bat caves"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7097006/#!po=11...
>"No direct progenitor of SARS-CoV was found in bat populations, but WIV16 was found in a cave in Yunnan province, China between 2013 and 2016, and has a 96% genetically similar virus strain."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...
That is an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. The inability to find something has no bearing on whether it exists or not and thus has no bearing on the probability of an inverted outcome.
Dark matter/energy also frequently fall into this sort of argument. There is no evidence that they do exist, which does not suggest the absence of their existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Dark matter/energy also frequently fall into this sort of argument. There is no evidence that they do exist, which does not suggest the absence of their existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Not sure what your point is. The source for SARS and MERS were found within months. We're over a year into this with no clue. Based on the current circumstances' inconsistencies with historical circumstances, this appears to be something different.
His point still stands. Lack of evidence for one thing shouldn't be confused as evidence for something else. A man is home alone during a murder, and there is no evidence for this, did he commit the murder?
How do you know he was home?
No, but when the second hypothesis is the one that CCP has banned any investigation and news of, is not cooperating on the investigation and when there had been claims about the WIV safety and the WIV has openly stated that they were researching bat-borne SARS-like coronaviruses, then the lack of evidence for any other cause makes this one seem all the more likely. That's a lot of coincidences.
If CCP are covering it up, then of course there will be a lack of direct evidence. The above doesn't prove it conclusively, but it does make it rather suspicious. Why would CCP be hampering the investigations if they have nothing to hide? It was over a year before they let the WHO have a look. Plenty of time to get rid of any actual evidence.
If CCP are covering it up, then of course there will be a lack of direct evidence. The above doesn't prove it conclusively, but it does make it rather suspicious. Why would CCP be hampering the investigations if they have nothing to hide? It was over a year before they let the WHO have a look. Plenty of time to get rid of any actual evidence.
Using a conspiracy theory to qualify a clear example of a logical fallacy is pretty weak.
Are you saying that the CCP did, in fact, let people talk about it? That they didn't cover it up for months before admitting that there was a pandemic, after it had already spread around the world? That they did, in fact, let the WHO investigate last year rather than a year later? That the WIV didn't research bat-borne SARS-like coronaviruses?
There's also the reports about the leaked state department cables from 2018: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep... But I couldn't actually figure out where to find them, so you can discount that one as "not enough evidence to verify".
Those things aren't conspiracy theories. Yes, its not enough evidence to prove it either, but damn does it make them look shady.
There's also the reports about the leaked state department cables from 2018: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep... But I couldn't actually figure out where to find them, so you can discount that one as "not enough evidence to verify".
Those things aren't conspiracy theories. Yes, its not enough evidence to prove it either, but damn does it make them look shady.
I am not providing any opinion as to the origins of the virus. You seem to believe otherwise due to poor objectivity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
No, I'm saying that CCP's behaviour is suspect and the fact that WIV did, in fact, openly research the exact type of virus that caused the outbreak and that the first reports were from Wuhan is a pretty crazy coincidence. Couple those two things together and occam's razor would suggest this needs more attention.
Suppose DNA was left at the scene and strong circumstantial evidence points to the man as the culprit, yet he refuses to let them compare his DNA to exonerate himself.
Source for finding SARS source within months?
This is contrary but I'm open to debate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747529/
This is contrary but I'm open to debate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747529/
Wikipedia [1] seems to include sources:
> In late May 2003, studies were conducted using samples of wild animals sold as food in the local market in Guangdong, China. The results found that the SARS coronavirus could be isolated from masked palm civets (Paguma sp.), even if the animals did not show clinical signs of the virus. The preliminary conclusion was the SARS virus crossed the xenographic barrier from Asian palm civets to humans, and more than 10,000 masked palm civets were killed in Guangdong Province. The virus was also later found in raccoon dogs (Nyctereuteus sp.), ferret badgers (Melogale spp.), and domestic cats. In 2005, two studies identified a number of SARS-like coronaviruses in Chinese bats.[60][61]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...
> In late May 2003, studies were conducted using samples of wild animals sold as food in the local market in Guangdong, China. The results found that the SARS coronavirus could be isolated from masked palm civets (Paguma sp.), even if the animals did not show clinical signs of the virus. The preliminary conclusion was the SARS virus crossed the xenographic barrier from Asian palm civets to humans, and more than 10,000 masked palm civets were killed in Guangdong Province. The virus was also later found in raccoon dogs (Nyctereuteus sp.), ferret badgers (Melogale spp.), and domestic cats. In 2005, two studies identified a number of SARS-like coronaviruses in Chinese bats.[60][61]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...
In 2003, it was hypothesized that civets were the source. However, this was not conclusively proved until 2017.
Infected animals were found in the market where the outbreak began 4 months after it started. We have nothing comparable a year and a half after COVID.
Thanks. Pretty legit sources from 2005.
It stops being a fallacy and starts to become a valid consideration when the search for the thing not found has been thorough enough that it would have been very likely to be found if it had been there.
Suppose that I remember leaving $5000 in plain sight on a table. My initial priors are a 90% chance that it is there, a 9% chance that I put it somewhere else by accident, and a 1% that my friend Bob took it. I conduct a search that would have found it with 100% odds if it was on the table, 95% odds if I had put it somewhere else by accident, and a 0% chance if Bob took it. Add in the evidence of the search and all of a sudden the new odds are 0% chance that it is where I thought it was, about a 31% chance that I put it somewhere else, and a 69% chance that Bob took it.
This is the first major disease to jump to humans in the last 20 years that we haven't quickly tracked down the path to us. We're good at it. The fact that we didn't succeed this time when more effort was put into the search is something that should give us pause.
Suppose that I remember leaving $5000 in plain sight on a table. My initial priors are a 90% chance that it is there, a 9% chance that I put it somewhere else by accident, and a 1% that my friend Bob took it. I conduct a search that would have found it with 100% odds if it was on the table, 95% odds if I had put it somewhere else by accident, and a 0% chance if Bob took it. Add in the evidence of the search and all of a sudden the new odds are 0% chance that it is where I thought it was, about a 31% chance that I put it somewhere else, and a 69% chance that Bob took it.
This is the first major disease to jump to humans in the last 20 years that we haven't quickly tracked down the path to us. We're good at it. The fact that we didn't succeed this time when more effort was put into the search is something that should give us pause.
Logic does not cease to be fallacious merely because somebody works hard and becomes frustrated.
Many of the logical fallacies are logical fallacies from an Aristotelian perspective of statements that are either True or False, and nothing in between. "True" is a high bar.
Many of them dissolve when treated correctly with something like a Bayesian analysis. [1] This is one of them. Absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence, contrary to the frequent assertions otherwise. It just isn't proof. The strength of the evidence is proportional to the amount of the possibility space searched and the quality of that search.
It is not fallacious to observe that our normally-successful efforts to find a natural cause failing raises the probabilities of the remaining explanations, and that of those possibilities, "lab origin" has a lot of the remaining probability. It doesn't mean that natural origin is disproved, nor did it mean any of the other possibilities are certain, but it is valid to adjust ones probability estimates.
(I've also learned from experience a lot of people will read this as being critical of the Aristotelian perspective or something. I am not. It is a valid logic. There are other valid logics. Many of them are more practically useful than rigid True and False, but Aristotelian logic, like Newtonian physics, is still a very important one to understand as it serves as an important limiting case for many other more complicated logics.)
[1]: This is not a position statement on Bayesian vs. frequentist.
Many of them dissolve when treated correctly with something like a Bayesian analysis. [1] This is one of them. Absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence, contrary to the frequent assertions otherwise. It just isn't proof. The strength of the evidence is proportional to the amount of the possibility space searched and the quality of that search.
It is not fallacious to observe that our normally-successful efforts to find a natural cause failing raises the probabilities of the remaining explanations, and that of those possibilities, "lab origin" has a lot of the remaining probability. It doesn't mean that natural origin is disproved, nor did it mean any of the other possibilities are certain, but it is valid to adjust ones probability estimates.
(I've also learned from experience a lot of people will read this as being critical of the Aristotelian perspective or something. I am not. It is a valid logic. There are other valid logics. Many of them are more practically useful than rigid True and False, but Aristotelian logic, like Newtonian physics, is still a very important one to understand as it serves as an important limiting case for many other more complicated logics.)
[1]: This is not a position statement on Bayesian vs. frequentist.
The problem with your reasoning is that you are falsely equating absence of evidence into a qualifier for an opinion or conclusion, which it isn't. The absence of evidence only means that such evidence is missing and is in no way suggestive of anything else. All conclusions drawn from an absence of evidence are otherwise unqualified assumptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_assumption
This was the exact reasoning people bet the farm on the housing market prior to late 2008. There was no evidence the housing market ever depreciated, so with that absence of evidence the housing market must therefore not ever depreciate. Contrary to that reasoning the housing market crashed and I got my house as a foreclosure at a heavily depreciated value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_assumption
This was the exact reasoning people bet the farm on the housing market prior to late 2008. There was no evidence the housing market ever depreciated, so with that absence of evidence the housing market must therefore not ever depreciate. Contrary to that reasoning the housing market crashed and I got my house as a foreclosure at a heavily depreciated value.
> The inability to find something has no bearing on whether it exists or not
Bigfoot has entered the chat.
> Dark matter/energy...There is no evidence that they do exist,
Except there is plenty of evidence for dark matter. It's stuff that has observable mass and is found in countless galaxy rotation curve studies, gravitational lensing, etc.
Bigfoot has entered the chat.
> Dark matter/energy...There is no evidence that they do exist,
Except there is plenty of evidence for dark matter. It's stuff that has observable mass and is found in countless galaxy rotation curve studies, gravitational lensing, etc.
Dark matter has never been observed or detected.
Related (long) article in case you missed it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432
If scientists believe a leak like this is plausible, then I don't think we need to wait for proof to push for international treaties against doing this kind of research that can have these disastrous accidental consequences. Developing super-viruses should not be allowed by the international community, including in the USA. It is too dangerous.
It’s unfortunate that the reaction to the outbreak has been to sue China (and even see first world countries talking about getting reparations), creating even more pressure for China to cover up any details of a potential lab leak. It’s imperative that the world puts an end to dangerous gain of function research, particularly given how little such research has actually contributed to our understanding of virology and epidemiology, while potentially resulting in a pandemic that killed several million people.
China has been the only country to grow their economy during Covid. Given the likelihood of the cause being preventable, I’m not sure how bad I feel for China nor do I think they would have been any more forthcoming if no one had pressured them for answers. The latter part just doesn’t seem how the CCP works.
While we agree gain for function is bad. Do you think China will stop it now? Sort of a new arms race.
ETA: Does no one else remember those videos out of China with people foaming at the mouth, convulsing, and literally lying dead in the street? Does anyone seriously think that was some weird organic for-fun deception? I have no proof that was a state run for-western media campaign.... buuuuttt...
While we agree gain for function is bad. Do you think China will stop it now? Sort of a new arms race.
ETA: Does no one else remember those videos out of China with people foaming at the mouth, convulsing, and literally lying dead in the street? Does anyone seriously think that was some weird organic for-fun deception? I have no proof that was a state run for-western media campaign.... buuuuttt...
What's interesting to me on a meta level is that this appears to be a very hotly contested topic in the United States. Meanwhile it's not even making news over here in Germany, outside of "Americans are discussing odd things" kind of reporting. I believe it's generally accepted that it's most likely an animal origin.
That's just a data point, but it goes to show how political the debate is.
That's just a data point, but it goes to show how political the debate is.
there is footage of Fauci in a public congressional questioning where he first denies a financial tie to that lab and then admits it reluctantly.
can somebody shed light on what's going on there?
can somebody shed light on what's going on there?
As i understood it Fauci denied funding gain of function research in the lab but readily admitted funding other research since this area is a hotspot for new viruses. Rand Paul tried to mix the gain of fuction research in the US with that done in wuhan which made it confusing.
What does it matter, beyond natural curiosity, whether it was released from a lab or not? It is of no real consequence because:
(1) if it *was* released from a lab, its highly suspect that it was intentional due to it infecting China's own citizens; if it was some kind of "attack" you would think they would plant it somewhere else.
(2) this is somewhat of the price we (as a society) pay for experimentation on diseases and viruses. It suffers from it-could-happen-here-ism where COVID or a COVID-like disease could be released by any other country and we'd still be in the exact same situation.
So, in my mind, the only definitive issue is whether it was released maliciously or by accident. If it was malicious, that's a completely different, crimes against humanity, type problem. If it was not, then I don't think it matters really how COVID happened.
(1) if it *was* released from a lab, its highly suspect that it was intentional due to it infecting China's own citizens; if it was some kind of "attack" you would think they would plant it somewhere else.
(2) this is somewhat of the price we (as a society) pay for experimentation on diseases and viruses. It suffers from it-could-happen-here-ism where COVID or a COVID-like disease could be released by any other country and we'd still be in the exact same situation.
So, in my mind, the only definitive issue is whether it was released maliciously or by accident. If it was malicious, that's a completely different, crimes against humanity, type problem. If it was not, then I don't think it matters really how COVID happened.
If it was by accident, then it calls into question the quality controls over labs. It isn't "equally likely to happen anywhere" if the quality and safety standards vary by location. Operating a lab with poor safety standards is not "bad luck".
The problem is: what is anyone going to do about it? China will never admit it, even if it is true (I have no position one way or the other).
Other countries could insist on oversight of China’s labs, and if they aren’t given that they could put economic screws to them.
> China will never admit it, even if it is true.
China has ways to stop this class of research internally. It's very likely to happen. That's the entire point.
China does not need to admit, discuss, have referendums, or partake in any other self-harming activities.
China has ways to stop this class of research internally. It's very likely to happen. That's the entire point.
China does not need to admit, discuss, have referendums, or partake in any other self-harming activities.
It's quite surprising that so far I've never read your first point, not once, in any article. Another point is that if some other actor was planning to release this virus in China, they'd definitely do it in Wuhan.
In the end, this discussion doesn't even matter. The fact is that we, the non-specialists with no access to hard evidence, will probably never know what happened, and in fact it does not matter at all.
The origin of the virus is completely irrelevant to its consequences and the potential for accidental or purposeful releases of new viruses, engineered or not, is still there regardless. We're lucky(?) we got ample warning of what biological threats can do, and we got it with a low mortality and morbidity virus.
After all, trying to infer the origin of the virus by it's mutations and features is a bit like trying to infer if a computer virus is made in Russian by the inclusion of Cyrillic variable names or something, anyone can put them in there, so it's basically not even evidence.
In the end, this discussion doesn't even matter. The fact is that we, the non-specialists with no access to hard evidence, will probably never know what happened, and in fact it does not matter at all.
The origin of the virus is completely irrelevant to its consequences and the potential for accidental or purposeful releases of new viruses, engineered or not, is still there regardless. We're lucky(?) we got ample warning of what biological threats can do, and we got it with a low mortality and morbidity virus.
After all, trying to infer the origin of the virus by it's mutations and features is a bit like trying to infer if a computer virus is made in Russian by the inclusion of Cyrillic variable names or something, anyone can put them in there, so it's basically not even evidence.
Because it calls into question the whole value proposition of gain-of-function research. If this was released from a virology lab, it calls into question whether we should be funding this kind of research at all. Further, the unwillingness of many virologists to even consider non-wild origins brings a lot of ethical questions to the forefront: these folks used their authority and bully pulpit to influence public opinion, and it’s important to determine the implicit and explicit conflicts of interests that are influencing their decision making.
It matters because I don't want this to happen again in 2025, and neither does anyone else. If COVID-19 was released from a BSL-2 lab, or even if it would have been studied in one under current biosafety practices, then perhaps such research should be conducted in BSL-3 facilities or above. Above all else we need to avoid shutting down the entire globe for another two years.
For those interested in understanding more detailed discussions there is an article by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
Perhaps the most interesting point is the discussion of the furin cleavage site.
Perhaps the most interesting point is the discussion of the furin cleavage site.
Suppose for a moment this was not a lab leak. What kind of evidence would be sufficient to be convincing? Or are we looking for investigation after investigation until the end of time?
What this letter fails to establish is a success criterion. Nobody is going to invest in a "proper investigation", much less one tinged with politics, without even knowing something will come out of it.
What this letter fails to establish is a success criterion. Nobody is going to invest in a "proper investigation", much less one tinged with politics, without even knowing something will come out of it.
The way the virus could have got from the source (where the animal host is) to Wuhan is interesting. How could it not be lab transmission?
We've learn't a lot more about viral transmission in places like Australia with very low COVID incidences and very strong contact tracing when an infected person does go out into the community. It's very clear now that many people are extremely poor at spreading the virus - out in the community for 2 weeks with one of the infectious variants - in restaurants, pubs etc. - and only manage to infect 1 person, who is a close contact. Others are super spreaders, that infect many many people (but these people seem much rarer).
I can easily see how it could get 1000km away from the source. A person who had the virus with no symptoms could simply have traveled to Wuhan. Didn't infect anyone on the way. Infected a close contact once there. Gets to a super spreader, then off it goes.
I get the feeling that the lab leak hypothesis ignores the unevenness of transmission that is now evident.
We've learn't a lot more about viral transmission in places like Australia with very low COVID incidences and very strong contact tracing when an infected person does go out into the community. It's very clear now that many people are extremely poor at spreading the virus - out in the community for 2 weeks with one of the infectious variants - in restaurants, pubs etc. - and only manage to infect 1 person, who is a close contact. Others are super spreaders, that infect many many people (but these people seem much rarer).
I can easily see how it could get 1000km away from the source. A person who had the virus with no symptoms could simply have traveled to Wuhan. Didn't infect anyone on the way. Infected a close contact once there. Gets to a super spreader, then off it goes.
I get the feeling that the lab leak hypothesis ignores the unevenness of transmission that is now evident.
Gain of function research is not engineering, they are often conflated for some reason. Gain of function is essentially artificial selection with bells and whistles.
Such manipulation would leak some information into the virus. Already it seems like the virus has great difficulty spreading outdoors while great success spreading indoors.
It may be a coincidence but evolution does encode environmental assumptions into the genes of an organism under selective pressure.
It may turn out that the virus makes certain assumptions about its environment and if those assumptions are not compatible with open spaces in nature - where animals live, but relies on closed environments (certain humidity range, absent air currents, lack of any resistance to sunlight spectra) depending on how many of these assumptions are present a natural explanation for the virus may be all but ruled out.
Such manipulation would leak some information into the virus. Already it seems like the virus has great difficulty spreading outdoors while great success spreading indoors.
It may be a coincidence but evolution does encode environmental assumptions into the genes of an organism under selective pressure.
It may turn out that the virus makes certain assumptions about its environment and if those assumptions are not compatible with open spaces in nature - where animals live, but relies on closed environments (certain humidity range, absent air currents, lack of any resistance to sunlight spectra) depending on how many of these assumptions are present a natural explanation for the virus may be all but ruled out.
Humans are susceptible to being damaged by sunlight but it doesn't imply we evolved indoors in a lab.
Humans evolved melanin to resist UV while also needing UV for vitamin D synthesis. Your point is what exactly?
Building an artificial selection machine / process sounds like a form of engineering, no? It’s fairly systematic.
It almost sounds to me like a semantics argument arguing whether injection molding is manufacturing or applied physics.
A chimera followed by gain of function would be engineering as well.
It almost sounds to me like a semantics argument arguing whether injection molding is manufacturing or applied physics.
A chimera followed by gain of function would be engineering as well.
I’d like to understand why the entire media and government were so intent on ridicule of any such inquiry. (Perhaps even more so why the usual virtue signaling crowd on social media was parroting this, but that’s a different phenomenon). The best explanation I can see is that they didn’t want to spark ‘racism’ against Asians. If so, it really shows that they think of us like violent apes. Strangely the narrative is strongest in academia and scientific literature, suggesting that intellectuals are simply the most trainable form of ape, mostly useful for their influence upon the hebetudinous. At some point, if we are all idiot followers in such lockstep, there must be some kind of idiot leader that sets the agenda for us to delude ourselves with.
Everyone should read Frank Herbert’s White Plague.
The transmission vector can be anything.
The transmission vector can be anything.
What does a sci-fi author or book have to do anthing with actual investigation of a real-life pandemic?
No answer will be given, of course, but perhaps it can open one's mind to new avenues of thought that may help lead to an/the answer.
In short, enlarging the hypothesis space.
The vulnerable can also be anyone or a subset. I suspect it's inevitable for someone to design a custom virus.
Some scientists in China have been questioning things too. Here is a list of them:
https://twitter.com/brendancarrfcc/status/124844281241420186...
Spoiler: They are all “mysteriously” missing or at least have disappeared from their normal lives.
https://twitter.com/brendancarrfcc/status/124844281241420186...
Spoiler: They are all “mysteriously” missing or at least have disappeared from their normal lives.
"Some scientist" = couple doctors "whistle blowers" without virology background, couple blogger journalists, and couple activists who got on Beijing's shit list for wrongthink politics. Aka exactly zero scientists with credible subject matter knowledge. Whistle blowers were initially "correctly" punished for spreading rumors that literal SARs came back, later their images rehabilitated as "heros" for domestic politics. The other four were put in shitlist for suggesting PRC covid19 response would be China's Chernobyl, and were in hindsight spectacularly wrong. None of them ever endorsed position on lab leak.
Nevertheless, these are people who apparently have been disappeared by the Chinese government.
That's not something to be brushed off lightly.
Not only because of the effects on them personally and (best case scenario) their careers.
But also because of the chilling impact on scientific and public discourse.
That's not something to be brushed off lightly.
Not only because of the effects on them personally and (best case scenario) their careers.
But also because of the chilling impact on scientific and public discourse.
[deleted]
It has all the traits of a perfect bio weapon. China is the only country that seems to be totally unaffected by it.
Far from helping out its neighbours it has tried to expand its territory. Any offer of help is more of an extortion.
Even in countries with otherwise porous borders, the virus seems to obey political boundaries.
I have no doubt that it is a controlled bioweapon.
Far from helping out its neighbours it has tried to expand its territory. Any offer of help is more of an extortion.
Even in countries with otherwise porous borders, the virus seems to obey political boundaries.
I have no doubt that it is a controlled bioweapon.
I just can't fathom how anyone thought it was a good idea to keep changing viruses in a lab with the sole purpose of making them capable of infecting humans. This kind of research needs to be banned. And people who allowed it to happen (in the US and in China) need to be held accountable.
What's the point? Regardless if it leaked from the lab or not we have to prepare for the future the same way.
I tend to sympathize with this attitude, and while it is absolutely true that the world needs to be better prepared for pandemics regardless of origin, I don't think it's correct that the origin of the disease doesn't matter.
Just from a scientific perspective, we should know where covid-19 came from. If it hopped from bats to people in a wet market, that tells us something about the likelihood of this type of virus spreading from contact with wild animals. If it was accidentally released from a lab, that tells us something different.
In a healthy geopolitical environment, an impartial investigative team that's able to pinpoint the source of the original transmission could make this information public so that everyone can learn how to avoid this happening again. If the pandemic happened because policy enforcement at the virus lab in Wuhan was weak, this is worth knowing. Not to to lay blame and point fingers, but to help labs worldwide identify potential weak points in their own procedures.
The danger is that if evidence points to an accidental lab release, some Western politicians will seize on the opportunity to shame China just for the sake of national chauvinism. This will accomplish nothing positive. The Chinese Communist Party is very thin skinned and essentially amoral so they'll have no compunctions about covering up any evidence of a lab leak in order to save face. All of this political stuff risks getting in the way of helping the scientific community understand where covid-19 came from so we'll have a better understanding of how to reduce the chances of this happening again.
Just from a scientific perspective, we should know where covid-19 came from. If it hopped from bats to people in a wet market, that tells us something about the likelihood of this type of virus spreading from contact with wild animals. If it was accidentally released from a lab, that tells us something different.
In a healthy geopolitical environment, an impartial investigative team that's able to pinpoint the source of the original transmission could make this information public so that everyone can learn how to avoid this happening again. If the pandemic happened because policy enforcement at the virus lab in Wuhan was weak, this is worth knowing. Not to to lay blame and point fingers, but to help labs worldwide identify potential weak points in their own procedures.
The danger is that if evidence points to an accidental lab release, some Western politicians will seize on the opportunity to shame China just for the sake of national chauvinism. This will accomplish nothing positive. The Chinese Communist Party is very thin skinned and essentially amoral so they'll have no compunctions about covering up any evidence of a lab leak in order to save face. All of this political stuff risks getting in the way of helping the scientific community understand where covid-19 came from so we'll have a better understanding of how to reduce the chances of this happening again.
Thin skinned or not if it was a lab leak they’re liable for millions of deaths and trillions in economic devastation world wide. I would say that reason enough to get to the bottom of the origin question.
The question is whether the type of research that might have lead to this result should be shut down to prevent similar accidents in the future.
If COVID-19 was, in fact, a lab release then that's a strong argument for shutting the research down.
If COVID-19 was, in fact, a lab release then that's a strong argument for shutting the research down.
And maybe liability on the offending party?
There's no possibility to get that kind of money paid back if a party was found responsible. At this point it must be trillions.
Liable in the hundreds of billions? Too big to fail.
Liable in the trillions? Too big to speak about.
Liable in the trillions? Too big to speak about.
JohnWhigham(1)
Even if it was a lab release, it's still a natural virus and could have happened without the lab release. Without previous studies of related viruses, it would have taken multiple years to produce a vaccine.
> Even if it was a lab release, it's still a natural virus and could have happened without the lab release.
This is disputed.
This is disputed.
>Even if it was a lab release, it's still a natural virus and could have happened without the lab release.
That is not the assertion being made by the scientists pushing for the investigation. The assertion is that this is a chimeric virus that very much does NOT show up in nature and its lab-made qualities are precisely why it became a global pandemic.
Or would you take it as pure coincidence that the first truly global pandemic in however many decades you'd like just happened to be lab made?
That is not the assertion being made by the scientists pushing for the investigation. The assertion is that this is a chimeric virus that very much does NOT show up in nature and its lab-made qualities are precisely why it became a global pandemic.
Or would you take it as pure coincidence that the first truly global pandemic in however many decades you'd like just happened to be lab made?
It still doesn't change anything, this type of research is getting too easy/too cheap to say that policy can save us from it. Somewhere someone will be doing it knowing the goal is to invoke genocide like final solution.
Was the Spanish flu also manufactured? Clearly there is such a thing as natural pandemics.
OP: "This virus was natural therefore any investigations into its artificiality are moot."
Me: "This virus has unique qualities that made it especially contagious, so its artificiality is not moot."
You: "Other viruses in the past were also bad."
Me, now: Yes, other viruses in the past were also bad. If you meant that to relate to the previous comments I think you left out the important bits.
It's like if we were discussing whether we should investigate if someone caused a deadly landslide. Why would you argue that we shouldn't look into it simply because landslides also happen naturally? If there are empty crates of TNT on the top of the hill, shouldn't we look into it?
Me: "This virus has unique qualities that made it especially contagious, so its artificiality is not moot."
You: "Other viruses in the past were also bad."
Me, now: Yes, other viruses in the past were also bad. If you meant that to relate to the previous comments I think you left out the important bits.
It's like if we were discussing whether we should investigate if someone caused a deadly landslide. Why would you argue that we shouldn't look into it simply because landslides also happen naturally? If there are empty crates of TNT on the top of the hill, shouldn't we look into it?
I wasn't arguing not to investigate. I don't think there's a good reason to say with certainty that it shouldn't be looked into.
What happened is that (I think) I misinterpreted this statement:
> Or would you take it as pure coincidence that the first truly global pandemic in however many decades you'd like just happened to be lab made?
Upon re-reading, it seems you're saying that if this virus turned out to be lab-made, this fact might have something to do with it becoming a global pandemic (through an increased probability of spreading worldwide).
Whereas you're not saying that the fact that this became a global pandemic indicates that it is lab-made, which is how I misinterpreted it initially.
What happened is that (I think) I misinterpreted this statement:
> Or would you take it as pure coincidence that the first truly global pandemic in however many decades you'd like just happened to be lab made?
Upon re-reading, it seems you're saying that if this virus turned out to be lab-made, this fact might have something to do with it becoming a global pandemic (through an increased probability of spreading worldwide).
Whereas you're not saying that the fact that this became a global pandemic indicates that it is lab-made, which is how I misinterpreted it initially.
Thank you, upvoted. I appreciate your politeness.
Not exactly. "gain of function" [0] research, if I understand correctly, tries to understand how to make a virus more virulent. Or make it affect hosts it wouldn't normally affect.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_of_function_research
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_of_function_research
Depends on what you view as natural. They have been doing "Gain of Function" research which is designed to enhance viruses.
https://www.newsweek.com/controversial-wuhan-lab-experiments...
https://www.newsweek.com/controversial-wuhan-lab-experiments...
By that logic there shouldn't be any murder trials. Eventually everyone will die.
It is sickening that millions of people died, more will die, hundreds of millions of people have been pushed below poverty line, almost every single person's life on the planet is affected in some way and some people think it's unnecessary to investigate.
It is sickening that millions of people died, more will die, hundreds of millions of people have been pushed below poverty line, almost every single person's life on the planet is affected in some way and some people think it's unnecessary to investigate.
mirekrusin(1)
If this virus indeed came from a lab, then:
a.) It was covered up,
b.) The people responsible hid crucial information which could have helped contain the spread in the early days and find treatments,
c.) The people assuring us that lab creation was an impossible "conspiracy theory" at the very least have egg on their face, and at worst have no credibility or were engaged in a campaign of mis/disinformation.
And that's without getting into questions of whether the "leak" story is being used to cover for "intentional release."
a.) It was covered up,
b.) The people responsible hid crucial information which could have helped contain the spread in the early days and find treatments,
c.) The people assuring us that lab creation was an impossible "conspiracy theory" at the very least have egg on their face, and at worst have no credibility or were engaged in a campaign of mis/disinformation.
And that's without getting into questions of whether the "leak" story is being used to cover for "intentional release."
Ok, those are 3 very different points, so:
> It was covered up
This is not actionable.
> The people responsible hid crucial information which could have helped contain the spread in the early days and find treatments
You imply in punishing those people? In the case it was a leak, the people interested in punishing them don't have that power, the people with that power were the same suppressing the information, so no, that won't happen.
> The people assuring us that lab creation was an impossible "conspiracy theory" at the very least have egg on their face, and at worst have no credibility or were engaged in a campaign of mis/disinformation
You should already remove any credibility from anybody claiming it was impossible, as well as from anybody claiming any other kind of certainty. What actually happened won't change that.
What we should do is take a good new look at the containment procedures of those labs, reevaluate them, verify if they are followed and fix what is not. We should also press uncooperative countries, like China, to open those up for inspection. Again, whether this one virus came from a lab leak or not is not relevant, we know that best practices are still leaky, and we have seen how problematic a leak would be.
All this politics game of "did | did not" is very counterproductive.
> It was covered up
This is not actionable.
> The people responsible hid crucial information which could have helped contain the spread in the early days and find treatments
You imply in punishing those people? In the case it was a leak, the people interested in punishing them don't have that power, the people with that power were the same suppressing the information, so no, that won't happen.
> The people assuring us that lab creation was an impossible "conspiracy theory" at the very least have egg on their face, and at worst have no credibility or were engaged in a campaign of mis/disinformation
You should already remove any credibility from anybody claiming it was impossible, as well as from anybody claiming any other kind of certainty. What actually happened won't change that.
What we should do is take a good new look at the containment procedures of those labs, reevaluate them, verify if they are followed and fix what is not. We should also press uncooperative countries, like China, to open those up for inspection. Again, whether this one virus came from a lab leak or not is not relevant, we know that best practices are still leaky, and we have seen how problematic a leak would be.
All this politics game of "did | did not" is very counterproductive.
> What we should do is take a good new look at the containment procedures of those labs, reevaluate them, verify if they are followed and fix what is not.
Who should do that, exactly? The same people you seem to think we should not to attempt to investigate or hold accountable in any way?
> We should also press uncooperative countries, like China, to open those up for inspection.
If China was demanding to have a bunch of their inspectors let into Fort Detrick to poke around, we wouldn't be any more welcoming than they have been. It's silly to allow imperial powers to engage in bioweapons research and then expect them to show each other all their cards.
Who should do that, exactly? The same people you seem to think we should not to attempt to investigate or hold accountable in any way?
> We should also press uncooperative countries, like China, to open those up for inspection.
If China was demanding to have a bunch of their inspectors let into Fort Detrick to poke around, we wouldn't be any more welcoming than they have been. It's silly to allow imperial powers to engage in bioweapons research and then expect them to show each other all their cards.
Why are you assuming this is bioweapons research? There is more to virus research than bioweapons.
It is much easier to get China to complain with "we developed those standards for virus research, and would like you to comply too, like any other serious country" than "we believe you made an incredibly large fuck-up and want your help to prove it".
It is much easier to get China to complain with "we developed those standards for virus research, and would like you to comply too, like any other serious country" than "we believe you made an incredibly large fuck-up and want your help to prove it".
If the lab leak is real, then we should absolutely use this as a reason to stop Gain of Function research or at least establish institutions that ensure the safety of such research, preferably across international borders. The point being that you want to avoid something like this ever happening again.
I've asked myself the same, and can only think of two reasons why they focus on if it came from a lab.
(1) people like dramatic scandalous stories, in general. (2) knowing such might drive some prevention of whatever mistake lead to such from recurring.
(1) people like dramatic scandalous stories, in general. (2) knowing such might drive some prevention of whatever mistake lead to such from recurring.
It is certain that some series of events led to the pandemic.
There exists a class of people who, without necessarily being driven by other motivations, generally try to find out what is really going on. We call such people scientists.
No need to focus on motivation. Curiosity should be enough.
There exists a class of people who, without necessarily being driven by other motivations, generally try to find out what is really going on. We call such people scientists.
No need to focus on motivation. Curiosity should be enough.
well said: i'm one of the class you mentioned!
I see a lot of these appeals for ignorance in these conversations. There's so many obvious reasons why we'd want to learn to truth, such as learning how to prevent it from happening again and to determine if gain of function research is too risky.
The only reason I see why we should want to remain ignorant is it will possibly embarrass China.
The only reason I see why we should want to remain ignorant is it will possibly embarrass China.
tomjen3(1)
I see this argument pop up quite frequently on HN with good amount of upvotes. I am guessing this type of arguments are motivated by and upvoted because of poltical and ideological ulterior motives.
I think there's also something more insidious at play. In western countries lot of people have become rich by exporting manufacturing to China. If somehow it is found that COVID was a lab-leak, there'd be a huge amount of backlash against China. It will harm the business, who are doing their manufacturing in China. There's a lot of money involved if lab-leak hypothesis turned out true.
I think there's also something more insidious at play. In western countries lot of people have become rich by exporting manufacturing to China. If somehow it is found that COVID was a lab-leak, there'd be a huge amount of backlash against China. It will harm the business, who are doing their manufacturing in China. There's a lot of money involved if lab-leak hypothesis turned out true.
[deleted]
If I have a virus, how do I tell if its natural or man made? Unless someone has gone out of their way to add an indicator won't all viruses just be the same?
It's not like you can leave finger prints or a "made in China" sticker on a virus right?
It's not like you can leave finger prints or a "made in China" sticker on a virus right?
If you look at a cow knowing nothing about it or its history how do you know it was subject to artificial selection? The excessive production of milk or negative consequences that happen to it should it not be milked are some pretty big clues.
The information the process of evolution imparts on the genes/features of an organism differs based on whether it was natural or artificial.
The information the process of evolution imparts on the genes/features of an organism differs based on whether it was natural or artificial.
That makes sense. But that seems to indicate covid 19 was entirely natural does it:
* highly transmissible
* not very deadly
* similar to know viruses in the proposed natural sources
A lot of people seem to really want covid to be an engineered thing. But I'm not seeing any evidence to support that. And I would highly support action against China so I am bias in favour of this theory...
* highly transmissible
* not very deadly
* similar to know viruses in the proposed natural sources
A lot of people seem to really want covid to be an engineered thing. But I'm not seeing any evidence to support that. And I would highly support action against China so I am bias in favour of this theory...
It depends on if by "man made" you mean "engineered" or "artificial selective pressure".
If it was full-on engineered, as in splicing RNA from different viruses together (or other such direct modifications), there would actually be fingerprints based around the method of splicing used.
Artificial selective pressure (introducing a virus to different hosts and selecting for desired random mutations) would look natural.
If it was full-on engineered, as in splicing RNA from different viruses together (or other such direct modifications), there would actually be fingerprints based around the method of splicing used.
Artificial selective pressure (introducing a virus to different hosts and selecting for desired random mutations) would look natural.
What fingerprints does RNA splicing leave? I thought CRISPR was pretty seamless, does it insert itself as well or something?
here is a collection of news articles and headlines since early 2020 that reference the 'lab leak' theory in some way.
https://news.coffee/wuhan_lab_snippets
https://news.coffee/wuhan_lab_snippets
What exactly is that site? Is it an automatic indexer of news articles? Or someone's personal curated list of articles? If automated, I am really curious how it manages to crawl and capture some of the news articles that are behind a paywall.
This answers the Fermi paradox.
The sheer amount of the word "seems" and "plausible" here ought to tell you what is being discussed: what's being discussed is not primary evidence, it's interpretation of the meaning and impact, in the mind of the discussing parties
If you want to go all "judicial" on this, "on the balance of probabilities" in the context of an ongoing political and trade dispute between the parties, feels to me like an attempt to appeal to pseudo rational claims, more than an actual, dispassionate declaration of likelihood.
The article says "keep an open mind" which strongly suggests the "evidence" is equivocal. If you're not a virologist or scientist who works in the primary field, and I am not one either, you're at BEST attempting to interpret science at second or third hand. Science often uses words differently to colloquial speech. The word "must" for instance, has no normative force always. This "must" be because blah blah blah is not saying "causative" unless it actually says so. If it doesn't say WHY it MUST mean something, it's opinion. If it says MUST because of the balance of probabilities it's actually MAY in any case.
If you want to go all "judicial" on this, "on the balance of probabilities" in the context of an ongoing political and trade dispute between the parties, feels to me like an attempt to appeal to pseudo rational claims, more than an actual, dispassionate declaration of likelihood.
The article says "keep an open mind" which strongly suggests the "evidence" is equivocal. If you're not a virologist or scientist who works in the primary field, and I am not one either, you're at BEST attempting to interpret science at second or third hand. Science often uses words differently to colloquial speech. The word "must" for instance, has no normative force always. This "must" be because blah blah blah is not saying "causative" unless it actually says so. If it doesn't say WHY it MUST mean something, it's opinion. If it says MUST because of the balance of probabilities it's actually MAY in any case.
[deleted]
The origin of COVID-19 is going to be one of the biggest news stories in 2021-22 IMO. China's global reputation is going to take a hit. I don't think they did this intentionally. I think everyone had the best of intentions and either they found something deep in a bat cave or there was a lab mishap. I've gone down the rabbit hole on this issue. Here are some interesting links https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=R01AI110964&hl=en&as_sd... is the papers done by a NIH grant to Eco Health Alliance. This shows they were looking for new variants of Coronavirus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7089274/pdf/114... This shows they were artificially synthesizing Coronaviruses and incubating them in monkey cells. Dr. Peter Daszak seems to be in the center of a lot of this and IMO had a conflict of interest being on the WHO COVID-19 origins report.
Please don't copy-paste comments. It strictly lowers the signal/noise ratio, and it contradicts the principle that HN threads are supposed to be conversations. People don't repeat long pre-written statements in conversation.
If you want to refer to something you said in a previous context, that's fine and is what links are for.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
If you want to refer to something you said in a previous context, that's fine and is what links are for.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
> China's global reputation is going to take a hit.
If having openly racist culture and running concentration camps has done nothing to their reputation, I don't think anything will.
> I don't think they did this intentionally.
Regardless if this was intentional or not, they should take responsibility. Imagine if Russia dropped a nuclear bomb on Europe by mistake. This is the same calibre of "oops my bad.". It's not a secret that these viruses were researched as a potential bio-weapon. In that sense whether it was intentional or not, it has done immense damage to worldwide economy, which is exactly the goal of such bio-weapon.
If having openly racist culture and running concentration camps has done nothing to their reputation, I don't think anything will.
> I don't think they did this intentionally.
Regardless if this was intentional or not, they should take responsibility. Imagine if Russia dropped a nuclear bomb on Europe by mistake. This is the same calibre of "oops my bad.". It's not a secret that these viruses were researched as a potential bio-weapon. In that sense whether it was intentional or not, it has done immense damage to worldwide economy, which is exactly the goal of such bio-weapon.
> and running concentration camps has done nothing to their reputation
I think most people just don't know about the Uyghur camps.
I think most people just don't know about the Uyghur camps.
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Nationalistic flamewar is particularly not welcome here.
If we're to have a thoughtful, substantive conversation about a topic as sensitive as the OP, not jumping straight into the flames of hell is...rather a precondition.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If we're to have a thoughtful, substantive conversation about a topic as sensitive as the OP, not jumping straight into the flames of hell is...rather a precondition.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What's the point? After reading all the evidence, people such as myself firmly believe that it came from the Wuhan lab. Nothing the inquiry will come up with convince me otherwise. It's pretty obvious once you read all of the unbiased articles that show that months earlier, the same research facilities and scientists were touting their research in gain-of-function in bat coronaviruses. I mean come on!
Bureacracies like WHO will NEVER EVER say that it came from a Chinese lab. The "inquiry" will say that it's unlikely and try to bury the issue, and then it will just keep popping its head out in news articles that get ultimately ignored.
Bureacracies like WHO will NEVER EVER say that it came from a Chinese lab. The "inquiry" will say that it's unlikely and try to bury the issue, and then it will just keep popping its head out in news articles that get ultimately ignored.
You haven't read enough evidence to know the cause no matter how much you follow the case as we have hardly started collecting evidence. It's still in early preliminary stages.
To find a source we need a host. We haven't even found a host from SARS yet even though that happened back in 2002. All we have is a very closely related one (96% match?) and that was found in 2020. It takes a lot of work by scientists living among wild animals for years in often very remote locations. Stating it was from a lab after so little time has past and so little work has been done is at a minimum jumping to conclusions.
To find a source we need a host. We haven't even found a host from SARS yet even though that happened back in 2002. All we have is a very closely related one (96% match?) and that was found in 2020. It takes a lot of work by scientists living among wild animals for years in often very remote locations. Stating it was from a lab after so little time has past and so little work has been done is at a minimum jumping to conclusions.
> Bureacracies like WHO will NEVER EVER say that it came from a Chinese lab.
Why do you care if you will NEVER EVER believe it didn't?
Why do you care if you will NEVER EVER believe it didn't?
Claiming that COVID came from a lab is pretty close to non-falsifiable, i.e. impossible to prove. I assume that if it was an accidental or intentional release of a bioweapon, all evidence would have long since been wiped clean. Making the claim that the CCP secretly created COVID is backed by zero evidence, and assuming they're even vaguely competent, all evidence to prove it would have been long since destroyed. This is a very unproductive path of inquiry,
There was an article posted to HN recently that went into detail on the evidence contained within the virus itself, that it has features not consistent with natural processes. However, it wasn't secretly created, it was created (in part) with grants from the US, which are public.
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
> Claiming that COVID came from a lab is pretty close to non-falsifiable, i.e. impossible to prove.
I don't think this is true. A hypothesis can be unfalsifiable without being unprovable. (Think of a "needle in a haystack" existence hypothesis: it's unfalsifiable, at least practically speaking, but it can be proven simply by finding the needle.)
I don't think this is true. A hypothesis can be unfalsifiable without being unprovable. (Think of a "needle in a haystack" existence hypothesis: it's unfalsifiable, at least practically speaking, but it can be proven simply by finding the needle.)
It's also possible that it was an accidental lab leak. But yes, its going to be next to impossible to prove.
I'm convinced that it's a lab leak. I'm also convinced the slow reveal is a psyop and I don't disagree with it's objectives.
The sudden revelation that China screwed up and lied to the world is too shocking for the vast majority of people. The global public's response would not be optimal.
The slow reveal gives societies around the world time to adjust to the new reality.
If we were all thrown into that reality overnight it would get messy.
The sudden revelation that China screwed up and lied to the world is too shocking for the vast majority of people. The global public's response would not be optimal.
The slow reveal gives societies around the world time to adjust to the new reality.
If we were all thrown into that reality overnight it would get messy.
[deleted]
I don't disagree but you should probably say CCP instead of such a broad stroke with the word China.
What if China's vaccine was a biological weapon? Would you be OK with the slow reveal for that? Allowing governments to get away with things has consequences.
Speaking of governments... does the US funding of gain of function research change nothing in the discussion of vaccines?
The US RNA vaccines were funded by BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) for 10+ years, the tech is not open-source, and only a few politically connected companies are allowed to manufacture them. Any criticism of these very new, never tried before vaccines are censored online. Censorship is so bad it's reaching great firewall of China levels on social media.
So we have a PsyOps campaign looking to move the US towards required vaccination, a government that funded the research that allowed a virus like this to exist, and we're still yelling "trust the science" at anyone who questions authority?
Speaking of governments... does the US funding of gain of function research change nothing in the discussion of vaccines?
The US RNA vaccines were funded by BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) for 10+ years, the tech is not open-source, and only a few politically connected companies are allowed to manufacture them. Any criticism of these very new, never tried before vaccines are censored online. Censorship is so bad it's reaching great firewall of China levels on social media.
So we have a PsyOps campaign looking to move the US towards required vaccination, a government that funded the research that allowed a virus like this to exist, and we're still yelling "trust the science" at anyone who questions authority?
Hard hitting journalism from the New York Times...after Pfizer has made their money.
Part of me thinks that we should almost not waste the time to find out. Spend the effort on preparing for the next one, by improving air filtration etc.
Politics is too deeply entrenched, it will be an impossibility to uncover the truth.
Politics is too deeply entrenched, it will be an impossibility to uncover the truth.
That viewpoint basically amounts to head in the sand. There is a plausible pathway to determine the origin. The lab could be openly investigated and the natural environment could be combed for an ancestor. If this was an unintentional release, it would vastly change the public perception and oversight protocols around pathogen research. Think what Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima did to nuclear energy.
If we don't get open cooperation from China, it's also extremely useful information and helps all other nations recalibrate their levels of trust and ties.
Because if a future lab release happens, it could be so, so much worse. If it seems impossible, disease was a contributing factor in 31 species' extinctions that we know of, and those diseases were of natural origin.[1] The Plague of Justinian, also of natural origin, is estimated to have killed up to half the world's population at the time. After the last year, can we really afford to take these risks lightly anymore?
[1] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
If we don't get open cooperation from China, it's also extremely useful information and helps all other nations recalibrate their levels of trust and ties.
Because if a future lab release happens, it could be so, so much worse. If it seems impossible, disease was a contributing factor in 31 species' extinctions that we know of, and those diseases were of natural origin.[1] The Plague of Justinian, also of natural origin, is estimated to have killed up to half the world's population at the time. After the last year, can we really afford to take these risks lightly anymore?
[1] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
This is actually a good point. I think you changed my mind :)
Thanks for the thoughtful post
Thanks for the thoughtful post
I think that may be a first for me in 25 years on the internet. Thanks for being so open minded!
How do we know the next one will involve air filtration at all? Perhaps it will thrive on surfaces for long periods and will react negatively to air. How should we prepare for this or any other etiology that might be significantly different than this one? If we're constantly preparing for the last pandemic, and the next one is surprisingly different, wouldn't that be bad as well, as those resources could have been used better in the intervening time?
But, also, wouldn't it be better to determine the cause of this one so we know not to do whatever it was that caused this? For example, try to discourage exotic meats that might be host to the virus and/or eliminate or strictly control gain of function research, depending on the actual cause (or some other cause that isn't actually either of these)?
But, also, wouldn't it be better to determine the cause of this one so we know not to do whatever it was that caused this? For example, try to discourage exotic meats that might be host to the virus and/or eliminate or strictly control gain of function research, depending on the actual cause (or some other cause that isn't actually either of these)?
If a containment breach of a relatively harmless virus can lead to worldwide catastrophic consequences, you may want to know what procedures were breached and what institutional incentives are required to make sure the risks are constrained.
In software terms, if you have a bug that breaks the production and the response is messy and slow, you absolutely need to spend time and effort to change your response process. But you also need to know how this type of a bug became possible in the first place.
In software terms, if you have a bug that breaks the production and the response is messy and slow, you absolutely need to spend time and effort to change your response process. But you also need to know how this type of a bug became possible in the first place.
The current plan is to 6x the funding for gain-of-function research, from $200 million to $1.2 billion, in the name of pandemic prevention. That's one serious reason for wanting to investigate whether gain-of-function research may have caused the current one.
The risks of such research have been in open debate for years, and the Obama administration even banned it for a while. It's not a far-fetched possibility, and it's a shame that the discussion about it became such a political casualty for the first year or so. The fact that heads are cooling a little now is clearly the precondition for scientists to be able to start writing letters like the OP.
The risks of such research have been in open debate for years, and the Obama administration even banned it for a while. It's not a far-fetched possibility, and it's a shame that the discussion about it became such a political casualty for the first year or so. The fact that heads are cooling a little now is clearly the precondition for scientists to be able to start writing letters like the OP.
> The current plan is to 6x the funding for gain-of-function research, from $200 million to $1.2 billion, in the name of pandemic prevention.
Do you have a source for this? Because if true this would be extremely frightening, even if Covid is natural the research is just too risky. GoF research should be banned, I mean it's entire justification for conducting this research in the first place is that it "helps predict new emergent diseases and develop vaccines" but it failed to predict this pandemic and did nothing towards vaccine development.
Do you have a source for this? Because if true this would be extremely frightening, even if Covid is natural the research is just too risky. GoF research should be banned, I mean it's entire justification for conducting this research in the first place is that it "helps predict new emergent diseases and develop vaccines" but it failed to predict this pandemic and did nothing towards vaccine development.
> even if Covid is natural the research is just too risky. GoF research should be banned
This was actually the reason we stopped the research in the US in 2014: Risky with no clear benefit. It was restarted in 2017 after investigations and new guidelines for the research to hopefully improve safety measures.
This was actually the reason we stopped the research in the US in 2014: Risky with no clear benefit. It was restarted in 2017 after investigations and new guidelines for the research to hopefully improve safety measures.
"Also, current plans are to expand worldwide collaboration on risky virus research sixfold, through the $1.2 billion Global Virome Project. Shouldn’t we figure out if this research sparked the pandemic before drastically expanding it?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/cong...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/cong...
That's a pretty weak reference because it's part of an opinion piece with no references.
However there's an article in Nature which makes it clearer that the 1.2B figure is just an amount requested by those who suggested the project. A far cry from "current plans" to fund that amount.
However there's an article in Nature which makes it clearer that the 1.2B figure is just an amount requested by those who suggested the project. A far cry from "current plans" to fund that amount.
What is sad is that these ideas were dismissed as crackpotish or racist until now.
908B64B197(2)
Was the idea that we should inquire about the virus’ origin dismissed as such, or just the idea that there is already strong evidence of any particular origin story?
[deleted]
Most of what I recalling at the time doesn't match that description. It was more disparaged as pointless speculation mostly being used to fuel political finger pointing when people had far more important things to figure out.
Sampling bias acknowledged.
Sampling bias acknowledged.
It reminds of how hostile people became when you merely questioned the effectiveness or need of the lockdowns last year.
I think many academics and scientists are so emotionally invested in the side they took they will defend it no matter of the evidence.
I think many academics and scientists are so emotionally invested in the side they took they will defend it no matter of the evidence.
Preparation for the next event _requires_ understanding the origin of this one to the greatest extent possible.
I think it's very wrong to shy away from inquiry of the truth out of fear of politics.
I think it's very wrong to shy away from inquiry of the truth out of fear of politics.
I'm sympathetic to this view, but the flip side of it is we don't do much about currently identified pandemic vector risks such as swine CAFO operations; why would we expect new information (if any) affect our behavior any more than that?
If it's expensive to mitigate and hard to quantify, it's always going to be an uphill battle.
If it's expensive to mitigate and hard to quantify, it's always going to be an uphill battle.
Besides, forgoing any investigation is a political statement and indeed the preferred outcome by one major political player.
Yes. By that logic, why start punishing people for vehicular manslaughter? Just spend the effort on educating perpretrators so that they don't kill someone next time.
Why is it an either/or? It seems like it would be possible to improve air filtration and have an inquiry.
Sort of agree. But if it was from a lab, that might make people and governments more careful in the future
Also, what do you mean by "improving air filtration"?
Also, what do you mean by "improving air filtration"?
We need to make the penalty for this so insanely high that nobody, absolutely nobody ever even thinks of doing research that might lead to this ever again.
No this needs more investigation. Even if the Chinese side might be hard to crack, the American angle needs to be fully evaluated. Which American scientists were at least aware if not complicit (including Fauci) in this entire misguided attempt at proactively finding the next virus? Did they actively try to suppress their involvement once everything hit the fan?
Any actual scientist (and not an "expert") know how long these things take. It took from 2002 to 2020 (edit: or was it 2018? I can't remember) to find a closely related SARS host (as in "not a match but close enough to point to a likely cause"). I find it very telling that we get lots of articles stating lots of stuff but not really any real scientific research papers on the source. I'm also not seeing any of these scientists volunteer to live for years in remote locations taking anal swaps of animals to actually find the cause. I believe what we are seeing are the science equivalent to armchair generals.
What do you make of the claim in this article [1], which says that intermediate host species were found within 4 months of SARS1 outbreak, and within 9 months of MERS outbreak? Admittedly I can't find the underlying source for his claims.
[1] https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-th...
[1] https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-th...
I haven't read it but an intermediate host is a link between humans and the original host. The intermediate host was quickly found. I linked this elsewhere in the thread:
>"As no direct progenitor of SARS-CoV was found in bat populations despite 15 years of searching and as RNA recombination is frequent within coronaviruses, it is highly likely that SARS-CoV newly emerged through recombination of bat SARSr-CoVs in this or other yet-to-be-identified bat caves."
They also write...
>"After the causative agent of SARS was identified, SARS-CoV and/or anti-SARS-CoV antibodies were found in masked palm civets (Paguma larvata) and animal handlers in a market place. However, later, wide-reaching investigations of farmed and wild-caught civets revealed that the SARS-CoV strains found in market civets were transmitted to them by other animals."
Sorry if I made a mess of this as I'm on my phone and commented on more than on post too quickly really..
Edit: Woops, forgot the source. I knew it would be a mess..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7097006/#!po=11...
>"As no direct progenitor of SARS-CoV was found in bat populations despite 15 years of searching and as RNA recombination is frequent within coronaviruses, it is highly likely that SARS-CoV newly emerged through recombination of bat SARSr-CoVs in this or other yet-to-be-identified bat caves."
They also write...
>"After the causative agent of SARS was identified, SARS-CoV and/or anti-SARS-CoV antibodies were found in masked palm civets (Paguma larvata) and animal handlers in a market place. However, later, wide-reaching investigations of farmed and wild-caught civets revealed that the SARS-CoV strains found in market civets were transmitted to them by other animals."
Sorry if I made a mess of this as I'm on my phone and commented on more than on post too quickly really..
Edit: Woops, forgot the source. I knew it would be a mess..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7097006/#!po=11...
I think the lab origin is almost for sure. WIV released the RaTg13 sequence which is the closest to the covid virus. They had got samples from the patients who was infected by RaTg13 back in 2013. But they have never released the sequence, which could be a direct proof, or at least can bridge some gap.
Then you have other academics in the comments saying nothing is certain yet, and other prominents labs like Gupta Labs at Cambridge and Bloom Lab from Seattle saying there could be multiple explanations.
I know the issue is politicised and that's wrong as Ecohealth alliance from the US sponsored this research so there is no "single country at fault" - no need to avoid topics.
It's not "chinas fault" it's more like, what on earth was the US based Ecohealth alliance doing with this research, why so many previous lab leaks with little attention, what is the history if the Wuhan lab, whats the actual facts about Gain of Function research etc. All topics that the press is not looking into for some reason.
On Ecohealth alliance:
“ It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.””
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432