The Case Is Building That Covid-19 Had a Lab Origin(independentsciencenews.org)
independentsciencenews.org
The Case Is Building That Covid-19 Had a Lab Origin
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/
30 comments
Why was this flagged/dead? It seemed pretty solid to me.
It’s because the media and polite company decided long ago that a lab release was a “conspiracy theory” and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Why this is the case is more mysterious. One plausible explanation from Bret Weinstein is that it makes the work of virologists look very dangerous; maybe even more dangerous then not studying viruses.
Why this is the case is more mysterious. One plausible explanation from Bret Weinstein is that it makes the work of virologists look very dangerous; maybe even more dangerous then not studying viruses.
Because the idea is so often advanced without evidence by known bad sources.
This article seems more level headed, and indeed acknowledges the problem.
Maybe its most frightening sentence is:
> US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently constructing a new and expanded national Bio and Agro-defense facility in Manhattan, Kansas. DHS has estimated that the 50-year risk (defined as having an economic impact of $9-50 billion) of a release from its lab at 70%.
That's .. not great odds.
This article seems more level headed, and indeed acknowledges the problem.
Maybe its most frightening sentence is:
> US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently constructing a new and expanded national Bio and Agro-defense facility in Manhattan, Kansas. DHS has estimated that the 50-year risk (defined as having an economic impact of $9-50 billion) of a release from its lab at 70%.
That's .. not great odds.
I’m not sure, but the source website seems to be quite biased: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/bioscience-reso...
The best part about the article is so many references.
What proportion of the recent ones have seen peer review? I saw a lot of *xivs
These 5 from 2020 all seem to be peer reviewed. I'm no expert though.
> (Zhou et al., 2020; Wrapp et al., 2020; Wan et al., 2020; Walls et al., 2020; Letko et al., 2020).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2507
https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00127-20
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.19.956581
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0688-y
> (Zhou et al., 2020; Wrapp et al., 2020; Wan et al., 2020; Walls et al., 2020; Letko et al., 2020).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2507
https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00127-20
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.19.956581
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0688-y
Does peer review still hold significant stature? It’s been discussed many times here how limited it is. I’m sad about it
It references a bunch of papers that are irrelevant to its central point in an attempt to appear scientific.
"the 41 earliest cases, including the first, had no connection to the animal market"
Were they connected to the lab?
About those "41 earliest cases":
"By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients were identified as laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection in Wuhan." - from the source cited by the article. Those are not "the first who had it", they were identified hospitalised cases. It is guesswork how many people were infected at the time, but assuming ~ 10^3 in Wuhan at January 2nd 2020 seems likely.
Remember: France had cases in December, as did Italy:
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/french-hospita...
- https://smartwatermagazine.com/news/smart-water-magazine/stu...
"By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients were identified as laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection in Wuhan." - from the source cited by the article. Those are not "the first who had it", they were identified hospitalised cases. It is guesswork how many people were infected at the time, but assuming ~ 10^3 in Wuhan at January 2nd 2020 seems likely.
Remember: France had cases in December, as did Italy:
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/french-hospita...
- https://smartwatermagazine.com/news/smart-water-magazine/stu...
Anybody who's well-read on corona estimates it's 50/50 lab or natural. The fact that 2 corona labs are located in Wuhan is awfully suspicious.
But what is not discussed in detail is the following.
Western articles focus on the market as being a "wet market", but that's possibly the wrong emphasis.
There's 2 reasons to focus on just the "market" word:
1) As a major market, it's a high traffic area. SARS-1 is said to have come from a high-traffic market in 2002.
2) Apparently Wuhan residents don't eat bats, so those were unlikely to be in the market. That means the transmission is much more indirect than thought, and the source is even more likely to be the labs.
The terrifying thing is that one scientific summary paper discusses Gain of Function (GOF) research at those labs, which have poor isolation, and that the CCP wiped those labs. GOF is modifying corona to either attack more animals, or be more virulent. And here we are.
But what is not discussed in detail is the following.
Western articles focus on the market as being a "wet market", but that's possibly the wrong emphasis.
There's 2 reasons to focus on just the "market" word:
1) As a major market, it's a high traffic area. SARS-1 is said to have come from a high-traffic market in 2002.
2) Apparently Wuhan residents don't eat bats, so those were unlikely to be in the market. That means the transmission is much more indirect than thought, and the source is even more likely to be the labs.
The terrifying thing is that one scientific summary paper discusses Gain of Function (GOF) research at those labs, which have poor isolation, and that the CCP wiped those labs. GOF is modifying corona to either attack more animals, or be more virulent. And here we are.
On two: pretty much all more then two sentences long explanations of virus origin I have seen months ago involved another animal in between.
So no, another animal in between does not show explanation is more indirect then thought. It just shows something that was talked about openly in like January or February.
So no, another animal in between does not show explanation is more indirect then thought. It just shows something that was talked about openly in like January or February.
redis_mlc(2)
> Anybody who's well-read on corona
Every single halfways respected virologist I've heard comment on this has said the lab leak theory is complete bonkers.
Millions of people come into contact with animals infected with coronaviruses every year. There are large populations of bats in the countryside that live in close proximity to humans and livestock, which act as permanent reservoirs for these viruses. In the countryside in China, there are places where 3% of the population (!) have been found to be seropositive for novel coronaviruses.
So while you worry about a few highly trained lab technicians wearing full protective suits and following decontamination procedures, there are millions of normal people wearing no protection coming into contact with these viruses every year.
> those labs, which have poor isolation
The Wuhan Institute of Virology is widely viewed as a world-class laboratory - one of a few elite labs that implement the highest safety protocols. The lab was designed in partnership with France's top BSL-4 lab, and its staff is trained at the premiere US BSL-4 lab, in Galveston.
Every single halfways respected virologist I've heard comment on this has said the lab leak theory is complete bonkers.
Millions of people come into contact with animals infected with coronaviruses every year. There are large populations of bats in the countryside that live in close proximity to humans and livestock, which act as permanent reservoirs for these viruses. In the countryside in China, there are places where 3% of the population (!) have been found to be seropositive for novel coronaviruses.
So while you worry about a few highly trained lab technicians wearing full protective suits and following decontamination procedures, there are millions of normal people wearing no protection coming into contact with these viruses every year.
> those labs, which have poor isolation
The Wuhan Institute of Virology is widely viewed as a world-class laboratory - one of a few elite labs that implement the highest safety protocols. The lab was designed in partnership with France's top BSL-4 lab, and its staff is trained at the premiere US BSL-4 lab, in Galveston.
But jumping species is rare, how would this have happened naturally all of a sudden?
It's not actually rare, as evidenced by the number of people in rural China who are seropositive for novel coronaviruses. This is the third new coronavirus that has caused a major outbreak in the last 18 years. Many more coronaviruses have likely jumped into humans, and have either petered out quickly or spread unnoticed (i.e., they cause nothing more than a cold).
Anyone who reads this, be aware, it's total nonsense. It's ridiculous fear mongering, "omg, if it's not from eating bats, it must be from a lab!!!".
Both labs are corona labs. China's leading corona researchers work there full-time. The US paid those labs to upgrade their security because they were afraid of what they saw when visiting.
Those are all facts. Where is the fear-mongering?
Just because you don't know anything doesn't mean I don't.
Those are all facts. Where is the fear-mongering?
Just because you don't know anything doesn't mean I don't.
> Apparently Wuhan residents don't eat bats, so those
How can you write this without suspicion? Did they interview all 11 million residents and all visitors and confirm? Why are bats sold if no one buys them?
How can you write this without suspicion? Did they interview all 11 million residents and all visitors and confirm? Why are bats sold if no one buys them?
Are bats even sold there though?
my understand was that bats were hibernating at the time and it was highly unlikely for someone to have gone to the cave and brought them all the way to Wuhan.