The history of lab leaks(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
The history of lab leaks
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-27/covid-19-and-lab-leak-history-smallpox-h1n1-sars
82 comments
Nothing really changed, it's just that the evidence keeps mounting on one side and hard to explain facts keep coming up for the other. There's a coherent theory of how and why this could be a lab leak (published research leaving a trail in this direction, BSL-2 safety precautions, etc.) and a lot of holes in the fully zoonotic explanations.
The virus appears to have already been adapted to human hosts, which is hard to explain... unless via humanized mice. The intermediate animal reservoirs have not been located, so there's a decent sized evolutionary jump in the record, the furin cleavage site with the strange codons, etc.
Meanwhile objections from the other side, like the lack of markers from CRISPR, can be explained by seamless techniques, gain of function research in humanized mice, etc.
Mind you, I never bought the 'bioweapon' conspiracy nonsense, there's just no realistic motive for that. But it was pointed out early on that there were good reasons to study a virus just like this one and scientists have been putting the pieces together into a coherent theory that points towards lab escape.
The virus appears to have already been adapted to human hosts, which is hard to explain... unless via humanized mice. The intermediate animal reservoirs have not been located, so there's a decent sized evolutionary jump in the record, the furin cleavage site with the strange codons, etc.
Meanwhile objections from the other side, like the lack of markers from CRISPR, can be explained by seamless techniques, gain of function research in humanized mice, etc.
Mind you, I never bought the 'bioweapon' conspiracy nonsense, there's just no realistic motive for that. But it was pointed out early on that there were good reasons to study a virus just like this one and scientists have been putting the pieces together into a coherent theory that points towards lab escape.
It doesn’t explain why we have cases far from Wuhan before having cases there. The disease seems to have been imported there by a traveler who died later (that’s the contract tracing part, because the Barcelona sewer is even more puzzling)
I don’t think the provenance or chronology of those cases outside Wuhan is especially robust.
> a lot of holes in the fully zoonotic explanations.
This part just isn't true. We have a close relative on the same continent. That's almost as good as you ever get. There is nothing difficult to explain about a conventional evolution here, nothing at all.
This part just isn't true. We have a close relative on the same continent. That's almost as good as you ever get. There is nothing difficult to explain about a conventional evolution here, nothing at all.
There's also a related theory where one of the bat researchers got sick from a bat virus and brought it back to Wuhan. Most of this rests on the relative probabilities of events.
The "same continent" is 1,000 miles away and far away from the allegedly intermediate pangolins. With it being this widespread, it's weird that we can't find the animal reservoir and it's significantly diverged ... and adapted to humans ... from the bat coronavirus relative.
Sure, there's no good reason to stop considering the zoonotic explanation. If we suddenly find the missing links in the evolutionary record and whatnot, then things will change and people will consider that evidence more likely.
But right now, the balance of the evidence is tipping away from that. It could tip back, but that'll require new evidence for a zoonotic explanation and there just hasn't been any that I've seen recently, just the same old things we've already accounted for.
The "same continent" is 1,000 miles away and far away from the allegedly intermediate pangolins. With it being this widespread, it's weird that we can't find the animal reservoir and it's significantly diverged ... and adapted to humans ... from the bat coronavirus relative.
Sure, there's no good reason to stop considering the zoonotic explanation. If we suddenly find the missing links in the evolutionary record and whatnot, then things will change and people will consider that evidence more likely.
But right now, the balance of the evidence is tipping away from that. It could tip back, but that'll require new evidence for a zoonotic explanation and there just hasn't been any that I've seen recently, just the same old things we've already accounted for.
Given that china needs a smaller population and Japan and the EU need to maintain a dwindling one, the motivations are there. But china somehow seems to have kept cases insanely low, so that doesn't really hold. People have suggested the Chinese death toll is actually much higher but I've read no real evidence of that. Is it also possible living close enough to the zoonotic origin some level of immunity to similar viruses became common there?
China doesn't need a smaller population, it's actively trying to increase birth rates after 35 years of the One Child Policy caused a demographic catastrophe. The population projects are for a declining to below 1 billion people (potentially as low as 700 million by 2100)
The evidence of deaths in Wuhan being 10 times officially reported numbers (of 4,000) is very strong, based on analysis of crematoriums. The same is actually true of India too (which fared much worse than China).
The evidence of deaths in Wuhan being 10 times officially reported numbers (of 4,000) is very strong, based on analysis of crematoriums. The same is actually true of India too (which fared much worse than China).
> People have suggested the Chinese death toll is actually much higher but I've read no real evidence of that
Even if the chinese death toll was 10x or 100x reported (40k or 400k) it would be a tiny drop in the bucket of chinese population and I find it hard to believe that the death toll could be inflated 1000x or 10000x or more to any number which has any meaningful impact on the chinese population without that information leaking.
I'm sure the official figures are fabrications, but, I don't think they are THAT wrong.
Even if the chinese death toll was 10x or 100x reported (40k or 400k) it would be a tiny drop in the bucket of chinese population and I find it hard to believe that the death toll could be inflated 1000x or 10000x or more to any number which has any meaningful impact on the chinese population without that information leaking.
I'm sure the official figures are fabrications, but, I don't think they are THAT wrong.
The answer is simple. People have allowed themselves to become so divided that it is hard to find common ground. This had the effect of polarizing all discussion and information. We can't agree on anything or begin any kind of healing when we all believe our rivals are wrong about absolutely everything and our immediate reaction is denial. That is what happened here. We never had the chance to talk because we denied ourselves the opportunity through self-censorship, cheering on anger mobs, and begging our social nannys to protect us from the discourse.
Perhaps in general, but in this specific case, when the confusion arose, this was not yet a partisan issue.
What happened us that the initially nuanced criticism of some lab leak speculation had its nuance erased by increasingly sensational headlines and tweets. As this occured, lab leak speculation was repeatedly and increasingly conflated with theories that it was man made. See recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27307175
What happened us that the initially nuanced criticism of some lab leak speculation had its nuance erased by increasingly sensational headlines and tweets. As this occured, lab leak speculation was repeatedly and increasingly conflated with theories that it was man made. See recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27307175
It doesn't answer the question though. The question becomes “how did we as humans become so insensitive to rhetorically sound discourse that we allowed ourselves to devolve into such a rut of confusion and disarray?”
I don't think confusion of facts due to poor transmission of information is particularly new. The factors that cause it shift with time but I think the clean transmission of information is the exception rather than the rule.
Except that it wasn’t rhetorically sound. When it was initially argued that it was a lab produced virus, there zero evidence and was purely used for political posturing. As such, the argument was rejected by many.
I don’t run out and do significant new research every time somebody drags out something that I saw no reason to believe in the past - I would never get anything done if I did! “The boy who cried wolf” is a bit allegorical here.
The other part of this is that the lab leak hypothesis has been used as a gateway by people peddling anti-Asian rhetoric, including that this was a bioweapon or evil plot to cripple America. As such, I tend to tune out of such discussions pretty fast. It’s like if somebody mentions judaism and bankers in the same sentence - I can normally just assume whatever comes next will be nonsense. There’s so much bullshit on the internet that paying attention to all of it would be crippling, and unfortunately the lab leak idea managed to become associated with that sort of vitriol early on.
That said, even today I reject any definitive affirmative on the lab leak hypothesis. There’s nothing even vaguely approaching hard evidence, and the less dramatic explanation still seems to have very good scientific support. If/when somebody pulls out better evidence I’ll reconsider.
I don’t run out and do significant new research every time somebody drags out something that I saw no reason to believe in the past - I would never get anything done if I did! “The boy who cried wolf” is a bit allegorical here.
The other part of this is that the lab leak hypothesis has been used as a gateway by people peddling anti-Asian rhetoric, including that this was a bioweapon or evil plot to cripple America. As such, I tend to tune out of such discussions pretty fast. It’s like if somebody mentions judaism and bankers in the same sentence - I can normally just assume whatever comes next will be nonsense. There’s so much bullshit on the internet that paying attention to all of it would be crippling, and unfortunately the lab leak idea managed to become associated with that sort of vitriol early on.
That said, even today I reject any definitive affirmative on the lab leak hypothesis. There’s nothing even vaguely approaching hard evidence, and the less dramatic explanation still seems to have very good scientific support. If/when somebody pulls out better evidence I’ll reconsider.
> When it was initially argued that it was a lab produced virus, there zero evidence and was purely used for political posturing. As such, the argument was rejected by many.
This isn't how it actually happened. I've linked a good analysis of what did happen elsewhere in this thread.
> the less dramatic explanation still seems to have very good scientific support
Which explanation is that? AFAIK, We don't currently have any clear explanation of how the pandemic started. If it was a zoonotic origin we are still missing the details of how that happened.
This isn't how it actually happened. I've linked a good analysis of what did happen elsewhere in this thread.
> the less dramatic explanation still seems to have very good scientific support
Which explanation is that? AFAIK, We don't currently have any clear explanation of how the pandemic started. If it was a zoonotic origin we are still missing the details of how that happened.
Zero evidence? The proximity of the Wuhan lab to the initial outbreak is certainly circumstantial evidence at a minimum. China’s delay in reporting the outbreak and the nature of the disease is also suspicious and supports the idea of a lab-leak coverup.
This evidence is far more convincing than a hypothetical idea that the disease spontaneously evolved from some animal some other place.
This evidence is far more convincing than a hypothetical idea that the disease spontaneously evolved from some animal some other place.
> China’s delay in reporting the outbreak and the nature of the disease is also suspicious and supports the idea of a lab-leak coverup.
China historically always cover up and delay any bad news. Even most of the random accidents are delayed for reporting, until the officials can come up with a complete and meaningful reports.
China historically always cover up and delay any bad news. Even most of the random accidents are delayed for reporting, until the officials can come up with a complete and meaningful reports.
> People have allowed themselves to become so divided
This is, well, bullshit. No, what happened is that one side of the divide decided to demand that something be discussed without evidence, and the other side... waited for evidence before discussing it. And now we can have the discussion, because we have some evidence to discuss.
That's the system working, right? How would you prefer this have gone? People decide to discuss groundless conspiracies before anyone comes up with evidence to support them, just... out of politeness?
This is, well, bullshit. No, what happened is that one side of the divide decided to demand that something be discussed without evidence, and the other side... waited for evidence before discussing it. And now we can have the discussion, because we have some evidence to discuss.
That's the system working, right? How would you prefer this have gone? People decide to discuss groundless conspiracies before anyone comes up with evidence to support them, just... out of politeness?
No, what happened is one side tried to have a discussion about an idea without evidence and the other shut it down until the idea was theirs. I prefer a system where one can discuss an idea (right or wrong) without the "system" shutting it down. That's bullshit.
> No, what happened is one side tried to have a discussion about an idea without evidence and the other shut it down
Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments presented without evidence? Isn't that what "argument" means?
Explain how you aren't just asking for license to be wrong without challenge here? I mean, when people (the WSJ, notably not the conspiracists) came out with real evidence, we listened!
I'll fully admit, my priors were wrong. This isn't a total dingbat idea, it might have happened. But I think that now, based on better data. I didn't think that then, and nor should you have.
Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments presented without evidence? Isn't that what "argument" means?
Explain how you aren't just asking for license to be wrong without challenge here? I mean, when people (the WSJ, notably not the conspiracists) came out with real evidence, we listened!
I'll fully admit, my priors were wrong. This isn't a total dingbat idea, it might have happened. But I think that now, based on better data. I didn't think that then, and nor should you have.
To be challenged, you have to have discussion. What happened was the silencing of an unapproved idea. There was no intellectual process.
What I see are two masses screaming regurgitated talking points at each other and refusing to actually engage in any kind of meaningful way. It is distopian and disturbing.
I do not personally have any thought or idea about which covid origin theory is true. For me this isn't about the lab, but instead the thought police.
I do not personally have any thought or idea about which covid origin theory is true. For me this isn't about the lab, but instead the thought police.
I think the suggestion is, when there is not great evidence either way we should not support or shutdown ideas within the realm of probability - let's be honest and simply say "we don't know".
Just an outside observers here, both zoonotic and lab leak lack proper evidence under your standard. Yet, zoonotic is what's been "okay" to discuss.
> Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments presented without evidence?
So we should also have shut down people saying it was not a lab leak ?
So we should also have shut down people saying it was not a lab leak ?
I don't know what system you are referring to, but I am not aware of a system that requires evidence to exist before research begins. There was an observation that a lab researching a similar virus was in the vicinity of the outbreak; that is a strong enough observation to raise the question and trigger the desire to discuss and research the idea. Some folks just wanted to yell down or shame others for having the thought.
The new evidence is hardly novel. The lab leak theory was always a possibility especially since there was no conclusive evidence otherwise. The other theory, that it came from an animal, was never proven either.
What we did know from the beginning was that there is a lab in Wuhan playing Umbrella Corp with the coronavirus.
What we did know from the beginning was that there is a lab in Wuhan playing Umbrella Corp with the coronavirus.
Here’s the best explanation I’ve found: “How I learned to stop worrying and love the lab leak theory.” https://donaldgmcneiljr1954.medium.com/how-i-learned-to-stop...
Edit: part of the issue is “what is a lab leak?” It’s not a bio weapon, or a failed vaccine. The respectable “lab leak theory” is that the virus was identified in the wild, brought into a lab, but safety procedures were not followed.
So it’s not a “Chinese created virus” theory. It’s a “someone wasn’t following proper procedures” theory.
Edit: part of the issue is “what is a lab leak?” It’s not a bio weapon, or a failed vaccine. The respectable “lab leak theory” is that the virus was identified in the wild, brought into a lab, but safety procedures were not followed.
So it’s not a “Chinese created virus” theory. It’s a “someone wasn’t following proper procedures” theory.
I think a lot of the "anti-lab-leak" theory people were anti-lab-leak because they were really anti "china engineered a genetically targeted virus which only targets non-chinese in order to attack the rest of the world so the lizard people can take over".
The idea of a lab leak causing a global pandemic which basically paralyzed the world for a year is conspiracy theory level crazy nightmare fuel. It doesn't mean it's not true. It doesn't mean it's on the same level as lizard-people.
The idea of a lab leak causing a global pandemic which basically paralyzed the world for a year is conspiracy theory level crazy nightmare fuel. It doesn't mean it's not true. It doesn't mean it's on the same level as lizard-people.
I mean accidents happen.
The Chinese government has recently adopted a science policy that based quantity over quality.
Think the genetically engineered babies. Illegally genetically engineering babies is about as far out there as it gets.
But it happeneded.
The Chinese government has recently adopted a science policy that based quantity over quality.
Think the genetically engineered babies. Illegally genetically engineering babies is about as far out there as it gets.
But it happeneded.
> The Chinese government has recently adopted a science policy that based quantity over quality.
I have no idea what is the reference here. Quantity and quality were emphasized constantly in any nation-wide policy making. I was growing up in China for 24 years, I never sensed any emphasis on quantity over quality.
To give an recent example, China has created so-called "future technology institute" for cutting edge fundamental researches [0]. That's aiming the most advanced technology research.
> Think the genetically engineered babies. Illegally genetically engineering babies is about as far out there as it gets.
The scientist, Jiankui He, who claimed that he had created the first human genetically edited babies [1] was widely criticized in mainland China [2] (in Chinese, Baidu's copycat of Wikipedia).
Mr. He was later sentenced to 3 years prison, and 3M RMB fine. His collaborators were sentenced to prison time as well [3].
Mr. He was a rogue scientist at best.
Your statement are connecting a statement of China values quantity over quality and gene editing human baby, I don't see the connection here, even if the the first statement was true (which itself were not).
[0] http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2021-05/26/c_1127495262.ht... [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/18/239297/the-scien... [2] https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%B4%BA%E5%BB%BA%E5%A5%8E/297... [3] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-12/30/c_138666754.htm
I have no idea what is the reference here. Quantity and quality were emphasized constantly in any nation-wide policy making. I was growing up in China for 24 years, I never sensed any emphasis on quantity over quality.
To give an recent example, China has created so-called "future technology institute" for cutting edge fundamental researches [0]. That's aiming the most advanced technology research.
> Think the genetically engineered babies. Illegally genetically engineering babies is about as far out there as it gets.
The scientist, Jiankui He, who claimed that he had created the first human genetically edited babies [1] was widely criticized in mainland China [2] (in Chinese, Baidu's copycat of Wikipedia).
Mr. He was later sentenced to 3 years prison, and 3M RMB fine. His collaborators were sentenced to prison time as well [3].
Mr. He was a rogue scientist at best.
Your statement are connecting a statement of China values quantity over quality and gene editing human baby, I don't see the connection here, even if the the first statement was true (which itself were not).
[0] http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2021-05/26/c_1127495262.ht... [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/18/239297/the-scien... [2] https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%B4%BA%E5%BB%BA%E5%A5%8E/297... [3] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-12/30/c_138666754.htm
Firstly, they were doing gain-of-function research, ergo it's absolutely "Chinese created".
Secondly, the lab in question was recklessly negligent. The videos of scientists holding bats with plastic gloves, stories that some scientists were bitten by bats and more.
Reckless negligence slips into responsibility area for me. Like if someone gets behind the wheel with a 0.15 blood alcohol concentration, which is what the Chinese lab did after multiple safety scares from 2017-2020.
Additionally, Dr Fauci personally approved funding to the negligent laboratory and then lied in Congress when questioned about gain-of-function research, covering up his personal involvement.
There's criminal negligence here, it's not a chance mishap. Not to mention the cover up.
Secondly, the lab in question was recklessly negligent. The videos of scientists holding bats with plastic gloves, stories that some scientists were bitten by bats and more.
Reckless negligence slips into responsibility area for me. Like if someone gets behind the wheel with a 0.15 blood alcohol concentration, which is what the Chinese lab did after multiple safety scares from 2017-2020.
Additionally, Dr Fauci personally approved funding to the negligent laboratory and then lied in Congress when questioned about gain-of-function research, covering up his personal involvement.
There's criminal negligence here, it's not a chance mishap. Not to mention the cover up.
By "Chinese created", most people likely refer to the subtext of a bioweapon.
That's your definition, it doesn't meet the definition of the words nor my definition.
By performing gain-of-function research, this particular virus would not have existed by itself. Ergo, the Chinese lab created the virus.
Making any modification to the virus' function means you are the subsequent creator of it. Nature has nothing to do with it once you've got it in a lab and start messing around with it.
"Chinese created" does not mean "Chinese weaponised". There's no evidence nor suggestion that this was deliberate or even that the gain-of-function research was for nefarious purposes. To suggest otherwise is to strawman.
By performing gain-of-function research, this particular virus would not have existed by itself. Ergo, the Chinese lab created the virus.
Making any modification to the virus' function means you are the subsequent creator of it. Nature has nothing to do with it once you've got it in a lab and start messing around with it.
"Chinese created" does not mean "Chinese weaponised". There's no evidence nor suggestion that this was deliberate or even that the gain-of-function research was for nefarious purposes. To suggest otherwise is to strawman.
I'm aware and I agree with you, I'm just saying that in the eyes of the general public that's the notion going around.
Political situation has changed. Archenemy is not the orange man anymore, but the China. So, "fact checking" in liberal media (including facebook) got an update and now even more objective and incorruptible than ever.
> So what actually changed? How did it go from a conspiracy theory to something that’s plausible and open to discussion?
The answer is obvious. Do you really need an answer?
Ditto with Facebook suddenly changing face...
The answer is obvious. Do you really need an answer?
Ditto with Facebook suddenly changing face...
I think I know what you’re getting at, but why now, five months into the new administration?
It’s because the evidence is overwhelming and political establishment has realized it will be impossible to suppress the information. Will we “cancel” an eminent virologist and former President of Caltech because he explains transparently to people the smoking gun with the FCS and CGG condons. This isn’t even “just” a lab leak of a naturally occurring dangerous virus, it’s a lab leak of a synthetic gain of function virus. Previously since it was Trump’s people saying it, ok that was easy to discredit and claim racist china hate at all that. What are they going to do though now? round up all the world’s scientists and try to silence them. The’ve throw in the towel, that’s what’s changed, the corruption and intimidation only worked so far, only so many scientists able to influence and try to manipulate the narrative with. Some of those have even turned on the CCP boot lickers, realizing the game is up. It’s too damn obvious. This is now damage control mode. Also they needed to wait for the worst of it to be over, that way less political fallout. Imagine they actually admitted this all officially last year, before the peak waves.
> the evidence is overwhelming
AFAIK all the evidences were still the roughly the same as what was known in Trump administration.
Are there significant new discoveries?
AFAIK all the evidences were still the roughly the same as what was known in Trump administration.
Are there significant new discoveries?
Yes many more. Including details of the death of the wife of a researcher in December 2019 from Covid. The other is deeper investigation of the FCS and how it might have arisen, very difficulty in nature, especially with zero trace of intermediate host so far.
> Including details of the death of the wife of a researcher in December 2019 from Covid
Could you please provide a link to the report?
> deeper investigation of the FCS and how it might have arisen, very difficulty in nature, especially with zero trace of intermediate host so far.
Ditto
Could you please provide a link to the report?
> deeper investigation of the FCS and how it might have arisen, very difficulty in nature, especially with zero trace of intermediate host so far.
Ditto
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
Unfortunately it’s not being reported on mainstream sources yet, but the wife of a researcher was an even earlier patient and she died, clearly from covid. According to information I’ve seen, she was perhaps patient 4-6.
Extensive paper on FCS will be published soon.
https://imgur.com/a/bBAuXv6
> Sørensen said the amino acids all have a positive charge, which cause the virus to tightly cling to the negatively charged parts of human cells like a magnet, and so become more infectious.
> But because, like magnets, the positively charged amino acids repel each other, it is rare to find even three in a row in naturally occurring organisms, while four in a row is 'extremely unlikely,' the scientist said.
> 'The laws of physics mean that you cannot have four positively charged amino acids in a row. The only way you can get this is if you artificially manufacture it,' Dalgleish told DailyMail.com.
> Their new paper says these features of SARS-Cov-2 are 'unique fingerprints' which are 'indicative of purposive manipulation', and that 'the likelihood of it being the result of natural processes is very small.'
'A natural virus pandemic would be expected to mutate gradually and become more infectious but less pathogenic which is what many expected with the COVID-19 pandemic but which does not appear to have happened,' the scientists wrote.
Unfortunately it’s not being reported on mainstream sources yet, but the wife of a researcher was an even earlier patient and she died, clearly from covid. According to information I’ve seen, she was perhaps patient 4-6.
Extensive paper on FCS will be published soon.
https://imgur.com/a/bBAuXv6
> Sørensen said the amino acids all have a positive charge, which cause the virus to tightly cling to the negatively charged parts of human cells like a magnet, and so become more infectious.
> But because, like magnets, the positively charged amino acids repel each other, it is rare to find even three in a row in naturally occurring organisms, while four in a row is 'extremely unlikely,' the scientist said.
> 'The laws of physics mean that you cannot have four positively charged amino acids in a row. The only way you can get this is if you artificially manufacture it,' Dalgleish told DailyMail.com.
> Their new paper says these features of SARS-Cov-2 are 'unique fingerprints' which are 'indicative of purposive manipulation', and that 'the likelihood of it being the result of natural processes is very small.'
'A natural virus pandemic would be expected to mutate gradually and become more infectious but less pathogenic which is what many expected with the COVID-19 pandemic but which does not appear to have happened,' the scientists wrote.
For [1], Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before COVID-19 outbreak disclosed:
The reports states: """ Three researchers from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) sought hospital care in November 2019, a month before China reported the first cases of COVID-19, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, citing a U.S. intelligence report. """
> sought hospital care
No mentioning of the symptom.
> a month before China reported the first cases of COVID-19
I think without mentioning the symptom, we can find probably quite a few patients "seeking hospital care" in a 10km radius of Wuhan Institute of Virology, see how crowded the place was [2] (google map).
> citing a U.S. intelligence report
Where was the report?
Remember which report give the chain of evidences of Iraq's WMD claim? See [3]. Regarding the report "Congress eventually concluded that the Bush administration had "overstated" its dire warnings about the Iraqi threat."
I cannot take this Reuters' report seriously without seeing the report.
Let's be honest, the implied charge in the report is beyond the the impact of WWII probably (in total economic impact at least).
> The newspaper said the previously undisclosed report - which provides fresh details on the number of researchers affected, the timing of their illnesses, and their hospital visits - may add weight to calls for a broader investigation into whether the COVID-19 virus could have escaped from the laboratory.
It seems the Reuters' report admit that the original report from US intelligence group do not have symptoms information.
> https://imgur.com/a/bBAuXv6
For the proposed paper, I have no knowledge to verify its strength.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... [2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wuhan+Institute+of+Virolog... [3] https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kve3z/the-cia-just-declassi...
The reports states: """ Three researchers from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) sought hospital care in November 2019, a month before China reported the first cases of COVID-19, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, citing a U.S. intelligence report. """
> sought hospital care
No mentioning of the symptom.
> a month before China reported the first cases of COVID-19
I think without mentioning the symptom, we can find probably quite a few patients "seeking hospital care" in a 10km radius of Wuhan Institute of Virology, see how crowded the place was [2] (google map).
> citing a U.S. intelligence report
Where was the report?
Remember which report give the chain of evidences of Iraq's WMD claim? See [3]. Regarding the report "Congress eventually concluded that the Bush administration had "overstated" its dire warnings about the Iraqi threat."
I cannot take this Reuters' report seriously without seeing the report.
Let's be honest, the implied charge in the report is beyond the the impact of WWII probably (in total economic impact at least).
> The newspaper said the previously undisclosed report - which provides fresh details on the number of researchers affected, the timing of their illnesses, and their hospital visits - may add weight to calls for a broader investigation into whether the COVID-19 virus could have escaped from the laboratory.
It seems the Reuters' report admit that the original report from US intelligence group do not have symptoms information.
> https://imgur.com/a/bBAuXv6
For the proposed paper, I have no knowledge to verify its strength.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... [2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wuhan+Institute+of+Virolog... [3] https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kve3z/the-cia-just-declassi...
It was always a plausible theory. Why would time change that, especially once it's brought up again with new evidence.
Maybe so they can claim they've had time to review the information on their own, and determined it's not a conspiracy. If they'd done it sooner they would have been lumped in with Trump supporters, and you can see see people in the comments here saying that they assume that everything he says is racist/lying, so they didn't want internet mobs to claim they're racist too.
The Nicholson Baker piece published several months ago made a compelling but not watertight case to me, a non-expert.
The tide of the press turns on the persistence of people with hard to dismiss factual evidence.
What happened was... Donald Trump might have been right for the wrong reason (jingoism as opposed to evidence). It's literally a case of "a broken clock is right twice a day." -- but nobody can discuss it rationally because people have lost the ability to do disambiguate information.
My understanding is the NIH was sponsoring GOF research at the Wuhan lab precisely because it was considered to be too dangerous to be done domestically-- and guess what-- it was. And now those folks who funded that very research were in charge of the sham "investigation" to look into it.
And before you ask-- I am as progressive as they come.
My understanding is the NIH was sponsoring GOF research at the Wuhan lab precisely because it was considered to be too dangerous to be done domestically-- and guess what-- it was. And now those folks who funded that very research were in charge of the sham "investigation" to look into it.
And before you ask-- I am as progressive as they come.
An election, IMO.
Trump Derangement Sydrome, where one's judgment is clouded by hatred of Donald Trump.
I mean, look at what Biden administration are beefing up the confrontation with China. And things are calming down. The intention to confront is enough for this.
I am no expert, but I think one major reason was Trump. He was a supporter of the lab leak theory. Like many others, I was quick to dismiss anything Trump said, and I am not even American. Everything Trump said sounds like a conspiracy.
I also finds China's strong denying and uncooperativeness of finding out the virus origin is strange. People would not blame any country if the outbreak came from a natural origin, their reaction makes me think something is going on there.
I also finds China's strong denying and uncooperativeness of finding out the virus origin is strange. People would not blame any country if the outbreak came from a natural origin, their reaction makes me think something is going on there.
Last year, it was officials under the Trump administration and Republican legislators pushing this idea.
This year, it's former Trump administration officials leaking intel to the Wall Street Journal anonymously and it caught fire.
This year, it's former Trump administration officials leaking intel to the Wall Street Journal anonymously and it caught fire.
This article recently posted to HN examines the whole process:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27307175
TL;DR lots of conflation of "lab leak" with "man made".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27307175
TL;DR lots of conflation of "lab leak" with "man made".
> TL;DR lots of conflation of "lab leak" with "man made".
Mixed with media sensationalism and political tribalism...
Actually, the most interesting part of the linked article (IMO) was the suggestion that it actually doesn't matter whether or not it was a lab leak, because nothing will change one way or the other. I would hope that's wrong.
Mixed with media sensationalism and political tribalism...
Actually, the most interesting part of the linked article (IMO) was the suggestion that it actually doesn't matter whether or not it was a lab leak, because nothing will change one way or the other. I would hope that's wrong.
> So what actually changed?
The Journal article that sourced actual intelligence sources pointing to an outbreak among lab researchers at exactly the right time to plausibly explain the pandemic is most of it.
Evidence (actual evidence, not the circumstantial nonsense being peddled about by partisans) convinces people. Isn't that what you want to happen?
But clearly it's NOT what you want to happen. You want everyone to come back grovelling admitting how you were clearly right about everything the whole time. But... you weren't. Evidence was poor then, and if not good now at least plausibly acceptable.
You need to be thanking those Journal reporters, who saved you from your own paranoia.
The Journal article that sourced actual intelligence sources pointing to an outbreak among lab researchers at exactly the right time to plausibly explain the pandemic is most of it.
Evidence (actual evidence, not the circumstantial nonsense being peddled about by partisans) convinces people. Isn't that what you want to happen?
But clearly it's NOT what you want to happen. You want everyone to come back grovelling admitting how you were clearly right about everything the whole time. But... you weren't. Evidence was poor then, and if not good now at least plausibly acceptable.
You need to be thanking those Journal reporters, who saved you from your own paranoia.
What? There was real evidence weeks after. And then the Chinese journalist trying to share it was detained. There was even a github repo linking together all the different leads. And you didn't listen because it wasn't socially acceptable to enter that realm of possibilities because it felt dirty.
> the Chinese journalist trying to share it was detained. There was even a github repo linking together all the different leads
OK, no. That's not the evidence people are talking about, even now. That's the garbage that fed the conspiracy theory. Find me a reputable source who's flipped on the garbage. What you're finding is people changing their priors based on good evidence, not deciding to believe garbage.
OK, no. That's not the evidence people are talking about, even now. That's the garbage that fed the conspiracy theory. Find me a reputable source who's flipped on the garbage. What you're finding is people changing their priors based on good evidence, not deciding to believe garbage.
I don't claim to know all the details. Can you explain how a whistleblower being detained is “garbage evidence” or which of the events was garbage? I’d like to understand where you’re coming from.
Where is the report of this?
That’s the problem, almost all media that didn't immediately denounce the events was “canceled”. I can’t even find the original thread on HN about Chinese virologists whistleblowers (there have been multiple) being detained before things got political. Maybe someone else can. There is an almost fair report of the events surrounding specifically Dr Yan on CNN but you really have to read the whole piece because the attempt at an exploration of Yan’s claims that isn't obviously politically motivated is buried at the end.
Summary: whistleblower tries to flee China, is detained in Hong Kong, Bannon and Guo money help her out. She hastily publishes her “research” (evidence) without any peer review because of the urgency. The entire left media sphere jumps on her because of the Bannon link. Her Twitter is banned and FB and other “fact check” orgs brand her claims as indisputably false solely on political grounds. One such fact check has since been revoked.
She has just as much standing as anybody claiming natural origin of the virus but was de-platformed because she said the wrong thing which associated her with the wrong people.
NOW: other people are actually doing the research themselves and it appears that the only real explanation for how the virus evolved the features it has is via a gain of function process that would only ever really be used if you were trying to develop a bioweapon.
HN lefties are in denial and claim that we have “new evidence” when exactly zero facts have changed. Other people are just taking a more serious look at the data.. The media looks like fools. Twitter and FB yet again censored truth in pursuit of a narrative. It’s a huge mess.
At this point the best thing to do might just be to follow Yan’s twitter account. Her motives check out: why would somebody make an otherwise career-ending move (if they’re wrong) by coming forward with claims that covid was lab leaked if you weren’t absolutely sure of yourself? Of course that doesn't make her right, by virtue, but history seems to be taking care of that.
Summary: whistleblower tries to flee China, is detained in Hong Kong, Bannon and Guo money help her out. She hastily publishes her “research” (evidence) without any peer review because of the urgency. The entire left media sphere jumps on her because of the Bannon link. Her Twitter is banned and FB and other “fact check” orgs brand her claims as indisputably false solely on political grounds. One such fact check has since been revoked.
She has just as much standing as anybody claiming natural origin of the virus but was de-platformed because she said the wrong thing which associated her with the wrong people.
NOW: other people are actually doing the research themselves and it appears that the only real explanation for how the virus evolved the features it has is via a gain of function process that would only ever really be used if you were trying to develop a bioweapon.
HN lefties are in denial and claim that we have “new evidence” when exactly zero facts have changed. Other people are just taking a more serious look at the data.. The media looks like fools. Twitter and FB yet again censored truth in pursuit of a narrative. It’s a huge mess.
At this point the best thing to do might just be to follow Yan’s twitter account. Her motives check out: why would somebody make an otherwise career-ending move (if they’re wrong) by coming forward with claims that covid was lab leaked if you weren’t absolutely sure of yourself? Of course that doesn't make her right, by virtue, but history seems to be taking care of that.
Are you referring to Limeng Yan? [1]
She was not a virologist. She is a Post-Doctoral Researcher Field in Medicine: """She earned a PhD in ophthalmology from Southern Medical University in Guangzhou,[2][3] and sources differ on whether beforehand she received an MD degree[2] or a master's degree in ophthalmology[3] from Xiangya Medical College of Central South University in China.[13] She was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Hong Kong.[14] """
She was not detained anywhere. Think about it, if she was detained, Trump and the gang will make it known to everyone 24 * 7. Her mother probably was harassed by netizens, that's very likely. And see how sloppy the media report can be in [2], she was not a virologist, but was labeled so by NewsWeek. I used to read NewsWeek everyday in my university's library when I was studying for GRE and applying for US PhD program. The quality was better then.
> She has just as much standing as anybody claiming natural origin of the virus but was de-platformed because she said the wrong thing which associated her with the wrong people.
She has as much standing as any non-expert... That's all I can conclude from [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Meng_Yan [2] https://www.newsweek.com/chinese-virologist-mon-arrested-chi...
She was not a virologist. She is a Post-Doctoral Researcher Field in Medicine: """She earned a PhD in ophthalmology from Southern Medical University in Guangzhou,[2][3] and sources differ on whether beforehand she received an MD degree[2] or a master's degree in ophthalmology[3] from Xiangya Medical College of Central South University in China.[13] She was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Hong Kong.[14] """
She was not detained anywhere. Think about it, if she was detained, Trump and the gang will make it known to everyone 24 * 7. Her mother probably was harassed by netizens, that's very likely. And see how sloppy the media report can be in [2], she was not a virologist, but was labeled so by NewsWeek. I used to read NewsWeek everyday in my university's library when I was studying for GRE and applying for US PhD program. The quality was better then.
> She has just as much standing as anybody claiming natural origin of the virus but was de-platformed because she said the wrong thing which associated her with the wrong people.
She has as much standing as any non-expert... That's all I can conclude from [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Meng_Yan [2] https://www.newsweek.com/chinese-virologist-mon-arrested-chi...
Last year, claims weren't based on evidence. Even if they turn out to be right, doesn't mean they were "right" at the time.
Saying there’s no evidence as a rationale to ban discussion of investigating the simplest of explanations was purely political.
I never understood the supposed racism angle either. Why is it racist to suggest a Chinese lab studying corona viruses leaked it out, whether accidentally or deliberately, but it was perfectly fine to say it appeared by itself in an unregulated Chinese wet market?
I never understood the supposed racism angle either. Why is it racist to suggest a Chinese lab studying corona viruses leaked it out, whether accidentally or deliberately, but it was perfectly fine to say it appeared by itself in an unregulated Chinese wet market?
Sure, but I still don't know if this answers the question. A year ago, we didn't have hard evidence that the virus had a zoonotic origin either (and we still don't). And yet, news media and social media companies actively suppressed those who even wanted to discuss the very real possibility that the virus came from a lab, branding them as conspiracy theorists and peddlers of misinformation.
That's simply not true. The genetic evidence was there the entire time.
Let's just admit that nobody looks at it seriously because anyone who even hinted at it would be labeled a racist.
It's labeled as racist because Trump said it first.
Now that trump is gone, we can go back to a normal situation where we discuss any theory without being called racist.
It's labeled as racist because Trump said it first.
Now that trump is gone, we can go back to a normal situation where we discuss any theory without being called racist.
This doesn't make sense to me. Why would humoring the idea that it came from a lab be "racist"? Did anyone with a real platform and influence ever make that claim? What would make the idea that it came from a Chinese lab more racist than the idea that it was spread because Chinese people have strange and unsafe wet markets where they trade and eat strange and gross (to us Westerners) animals?
It doesn't make sense, but yes, it was a thing people did say and continue to say. Apoorva Mandavilli, a science and health reporter for the NYT just yesterday (May 26) tweeted "Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here." That's a recent example I know off the top of my head.
It doesn't make sense to me either but I anecdotally encountered people who think any suggestion, idea, theory, that implicates a non-white “race” of people, even if in a neutral non-accusatory way, is inherently and problematically racist.
> Why would humoring the idea that it came from a lab be "racist"?
Because Trump said it. And trump doesn't exactly have great credit when it comes to not being racist against Chinese people.
So, we label this theory as conspiracist and racist.
I don't think i have further explanation.
Because Trump said it. And trump doesn't exactly have great credit when it comes to not being racist against Chinese people.
So, we label this theory as conspiracist and racist.
I don't think i have further explanation.
I think you're right.
I believe (with no way to prove it) if Trump had, with his trademark tone and delivery, blamed China's Wuhan Seafood Market and thrown in a few choice insults about China, that theory would have been the one Big Media shut down and filtered out. Instead it was the lab leak theory.
I believe (with no way to prove it) if Trump had, with his trademark tone and delivery, blamed China's Wuhan Seafood Market and thrown in a few choice insults about China, that theory would have been the one Big Media shut down and filtered out. Instead it was the lab leak theory.
Just like the public knows in general how many nuclear bombs we have in America, we should have the right to know every disease we are purposely keeping alive somewhere in a lab.
Don't have to say where but we should know so we can question why outside of their closed loop of "logic".
Don't have to say where but we should know so we can question why outside of their closed loop of "logic".
Not a bad idea, but definitely would be difficult to enforce. I think to enforce it, we'd need an international body of regulators and international agreements to abide by them - and we'd have to get countries to agree to it. What would be the benefit to a country like China to join?
I assume that just about every virus or bacteria known to be dangerous is being studied in a lab somewhere. How else do you research treatments, cures, or vaccines?
[deleted]
So what actually changed? How did it go from a conspiracy theory to something that’s plausible and open to discussion?