Origin of the Coronavirus

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think there are some subtitles to the specific discussion I'm not prepare dot understand, or argue, which is why I was deferring to sources to explain it. Since we don't have specialists here(that I know of) you are probably best to pose to the question to the guy who wrote the Medium article. As is, I'm prepared to accept his explanation and that of Andersen's over Wards, for obvious reasons.

Are there other experts(not journalists) repeating what Ward is suggesting that could provide better insight? I'm sorry but I just have trouble accepting a journalist in such a complicated subject, without backing of experts, and when it appears he made numerous mistakes.

Fair enough, there's a lot of complicated stuff there. I'm not going to pretend like I'm a virology expert or that I knew what an ACE-2 receptor before last week.

I'm noticing a disturbing trend in science and science journalism though, where someone takes a kernel of truth that only someone extremely technical in that field would know, strecthes the conclusion you can make off that kernel in an illogical way, and then claims their conclusion is based off of science and experts when only one specific part is. It's basically science conclusion laundering.

For example, this author takes the kernel of truth that the virus' spike protein is not *exactly 100%* ideal for ACE-2 receptor. That's the conclusion of the world renowned virologist both he and Wade have quoted. Something only a handful of people in the entire world are qualified to say, and something neither I nor wade nor this author are quarreling with. That's accepting science, but it's also as far as science takes us in this debate before the strains in logic start getting exacted. The author's argument after this is that IF this was human engineered then the spike protein would therefore have been 100% ideal. That is the point where I, as a layperson, can interject and say wait, hold on a minute, that seems like a big assumption to make. There's no reason for that to be a truism at all, especially if the whole point of the research was the search for the threshold point at which this virus could theoretically attain spillover from bats to humans. And saying that because it was not 100% ideal means this could not have been engineered is complete faulty logic. So that's how this author starts with something scientific and technical, but has a flawed conclusion that is not scientific or really, proof of anything.

[Fuzz]

Gong back to Andersen's original article, I think everything from "Finding peculiar features" explains it better. I''d be interested to see Andersen himself come out and counter the Ward article.

[Fuzz]

I think in reality, the virus is natural. Then it either spread through the market as we have been told, or it was under study in secrecy at this lab where it was accidentally released(or was spreading at the same time it was being studied). I do have strong doubts it was man made.

[curves2000]

Regardless of what people's thoughts on the matter is, what has become extremely evident is that there has been a significant change in tone on this from the US side of the ledger.

I am not sure if this is an offensive move or a defensive move, perhaps a lot of the questions that have been asked in recent weeks about the US involvement in a potential "lab theory release" has or is digging up some valuable intel on the matter.

This was something that was completely dismissed by a huge portion of people in power at the time and just today the White House releases a statement indicating US intelligence agencies will look into the matter.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...s-of-covid-19/

Whatever the case ends up being, people in the know around the globe know more than your average CP user and Joe Blow, naturally that is the case. These type of things generally have a habit of letting out a smell after a while that becomes unavoidable.

The seismic shift in messaging can not be ignored and will only gather more steam. I am not saying anything one way or another but I do expect China to respond to this in a meaningful fashion.

How this play's out will be fascinating and clearly more information will come out regardless of what people may or may not know happened.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think in reality, the virus is natural. Then it either spread through the market as we have been told, or it was under study in secrecy at this lab where it was accidentally released(or was spreading at the same time it was being studied). I do have strong doubts it was man made.

While I do fully believe if it was released from a lab it would have been entirely accidental, the problem is a US lab has already experimented with coronaviruses and engineered new versions of viruses, there has been recent precedent. The US did it, and there's little expectation to believe that China would be any different.

This was linked at one point in this thread (but completely dismissed at the time), it's a scientific article from 2015, that has since been redacted to to preemptively stop people from using it for the basis of the lab theory.

https://www.nature.com/news/engineer...search-1.18787

The argument is essentially a rerun of the debate over whether to allow lab research that increases the virulence, ease of spread or host range of dangerous pathogens — what is known as ‘gain-of-function’ research. In October 2014, the US government imposed a moratorium on federal funding of such research on the viruses that cause SARS, influenza and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome, a deadly disease caused by a virus that sporadically jumps from camels to people).

https://www.nature.com/news/us-suspe...search-1.16192

The US government surprised many researchers on 17 October when it announced that it will temporarily stop funding new research that makes certain viruses more deadly or transmissible. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is also asking researchers who conduct such ‘gain-of-function’ experiments on influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) to stop their work until a risk assessment is completed — leaving many unsure of how to proceed.

The US put a stop to this type of research as it was too dangerous, but China may not have been playing with the same rules and may not have disclosed this research method.

Wuhan's lab was specifically studying SARS and coronaviruses around this time. If they used the controversial gain of function method for research, they very likely may have created covid-19 and escaped accidentally.

https://www.nature.com/news/inside-t...hogens-1.21487

Some scientists outside China worry about pathogens escaping, and the addition of a biological dimension to geopolitical tensions between China and other nations. But Chinese microbiologists are celebrating their entrance to the elite cadre empowered to wrestle with the world’s greatest biological threats.

Future plans include studying the pathogen that causes SARS, which also doesn’t require a BSL-4 lab, before moving on to Ebola and the West African Lassa virus, which do. Some one million Chinese people work in Africa; the country needs to be ready for any eventuality, says Yuan. “Viruses don’t know borders.”

We also have to remember that this pandemic was never voluntarily disclosed by the Chinese state government at first, they were forced to after social media leaks of a SARS like pneumonia. This is when the whole wet market angle came in which was totally plausible, it's how SARS likely came from after all, but Chinese authority prevented any foreign researchers from having access to it until they thoroughly cleaned it.

The first article I found citing the wet market angle was this one, a day after the government publicly acknowledged a pneumonia outbreak at the time (Dec 31).

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/2020...e35581e30.html

Let's also remember, the official stance by the Chinese government of learning of a 'problem' was December 27. Anything attributed to cases prior to that date that should be known by the government, shows they have been covering up the data. The lab sickness certainly point to that, and so do cases in multiple countries dating from October or November 2019.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/76243133.cms

According to the whitepaper, after the COVID-19 was identified by a hospital in Wuhan on December 27, the local government called experts to look into the cases through an analysis of the patients' condition and clinical outcome, the findings of epidemiological investigations, and preliminary laboratory testing results.

http://en.nhc.gov.cn/2020-06/08/c_80724.htm

The last thing they would ever admit is fault, even if totally accidental.

Imagine if this pandemic occured with an accidental release of a gain-of-function version of ebola which was next on the research list?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Regardless of what people's thoughts on the matter is, what has become extremely evident is that there has been a significant change in tone on this from the US side of the ledger.

I am not sure if this is an offensive move or a defensive move, perhaps a lot of the questions that have been asked in recent weeks about the US involvement in a potential "lab theory release" has or is digging up some valuable intel on the matter.

This was something that was completely dismissed by a huge portion of people in power at the time and just today the White House releases a statement indicating US intelligence agencies will look into the matter.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...s-of-covid-19/

Whatever the case ends up being, people in the know around the globe know more than your average CP user and Joe Blow, naturally that is the case. These type of things generally have a habit of letting out a smell after a while that becomes unavoidable.

The seismic shift in messaging can not be ignored and will only gather more steam. I am not saying anything one way or another but I do expect China to respond to this in a meaningful fashion.

How this play's out will be fascinating and clearly more information will come out regardless of what people may or may not know happened.

I read that White House statement and can only thank God that Joe Biden is president.

[CASe333]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Gong back to Andersen's original article, I think everything from "Finding peculiar features" explains it better. I''d be interested to see Andersen himself come out and counter the Ward article.

“Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,”

The problem with the Andersen paper is it started with the above black and white statement in the abstract.

Yet in their conclusions they state:

"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here."

"However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."

I'm not a virologist or biologist but logically they shoot themselves in the foot with their body of evidence and conclusions. That doesn't mean they are wrong but they don't actually provide any real evidence to support their hypothesis which they present as a theory.

[Fuzz]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01383-3


Mostly a high level summary of this discussion. Worth a quick read.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Imagine if this pandemic occured with an accidental release of a gain-of-function version of ebola which was next on the research list?

Exactly. How terrifying is this. Look at all the damage wrought by some obscure coronavirus they pulled from bats. While deadly and dangerous to a decent chunk of the population, most cases are like mine where if I hadn't lost smell for a few days I would have never thought I was sick. You won't be getting that with gain of function Ebola, you won't have statistically no danger to children with gain of function Ebola. That's why it's so critical to get as close to a conclusive answer on this as possible, because this is a world wide problem that needs to be addressed ASAP. There was already great hesitation and ethical concerns about this research before, and now we can see that this is no longer a theoretical drawback, it's a real concern and the world is exceedingly likely that this was overall a pretty mild pathogen. This is now the biggest story of the 21st century so far and we can't afford to sweep it under the rug for any reason.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Exactly. How terrifying is this. Look at all the damage wrought by some obscure coronavirus they pulled from bats. While deadly and dangerous to a decent chunk of the population, most cases are like mine where if I hadn't lost smell for a few days I would have never thought I was sick. You won't be getting that with gain of function Ebola, you won't have statistically no danger to children with gain of function Ebola. That's why it's so critical to get as close to a conclusive answer on this as possible, because this is a world wide problem that needs to be addressed ASAP. There was already great hesitation and ethical concerns about this research before, and now we can see that this is no longer a theoretical drawback, it's a real concern and the world is exceedingly likely that this was overall a pretty mild pathogen. This is now the biggest story of the 21st century so far and we can't afford to sweep it under the rug for any reason.

You can be terrified by anything you imagine, that doesn't make it any more real.

This is the problem with a lot of this stuff. Take gain-of-function research, this was the posed theory:

"China may not have been playing with the same rules and may not have disclosed this research method"

It's a hypothetical. Here's your response:

"That's why it's so critical to get as close to a conclusive answer on this as possible, because this is a world wide problem that needs to be addressed ASAP. There was already great hesitation and ethical concerns about this research before, and now we can see that this is no longer a theoretical drawback, it's a real concern and the world is exceedingly likely that this was overall a pretty mild pathogen."

In one response, we've gone from "maybe this could have happened, maybe" to "now we know this is a real concern."

I think it's crucial to get to the bottom of the origin as conclusively as possible. But what I'm seeing is a lot of guessing, a lot of near-conspiracy theory level reasoning, and a lot of jumping to conclusions.

The likelihood that this virus was naturally occurring is overwhelmingly high. Depending which scientists (not journalists) directly involved and experienced in labs like this you follow, the chances of it being lab-created are extremely low, and the chances of it being a lab leak are even slightly lower than that. Yet armchair scientists who spend an hour on google seem to have some wildly different theories because yes, I get it, you read something here or there and are connecting eight different dots that fit the narrative most compelling in your mind.

The best thing one can do is let people do the work. You're not going to solve it.

One of the many bad things that has occurred over the last year is the rise in scientific commentary by decidedly unqualified people. This line of reasoning is no different than people who are afraid of vaccines or believe the earth is flat. The circumstantial facts that drive this are little different than the WMD threat, which the US went to war over, and we know how that turned out. The theory may have a higher degree of plausibility than these other things, but until you know, you don't. And unless you're actually qualified to find out, you're mostly playing a fool's game devoid of fact-based reasoning and fully reliant on inference and leaping.

And ask yourself this question, honestly: would you accept no conclusion, or a conclusion that suggests the first theory is the most likely, and to be taken as correct in absence of hard evidence to the contrary? Because if you wouldn't, then you're not being reasonable. And if you would, your language around this doesn't reflect that kind of openness.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You can be terrified by anything you imagine, that doesn't make it any more real.

This is the problem with a lot of this stuff. Take gain-of-function research, this was the posed theory:

"China may not have been playing with the same rules and may not have disclosed this research method"

It's a hypothetical. Here's your response:

"That's why it's so critical to get as close to a conclusive answer on this as possible, because this is a world wide problem that needs to be addressed ASAP. There was already great hesitation and ethical concerns about this research before, and now we can see that this is no longer a theoretical drawback, it's a real concern and the world is exceedingly likely that this was overall a pretty mild pathogen."

In one response, we've gone from "maybe this could have happened, maybe" to "now we know this is a real concern."

I think it's crucial to get to the bottom of the origin as conclusively as possible. But what I'm seeing is a lot of guessing, a lot of near-conspiracy theory level reasoning, and a lot of jumping to conclusions.

The likelihood that this virus was naturally occurring is overwhelmingly high. Depending which scientists (not journalists) directly involved and experienced in labs like this you follow, the chances of it being lab-created are extremely low, and the chances of it being a lab leak are even slightly lower than that. Yet armchair scientists who spend an hour on google seem to have some wildly different theories because yes, I get it, you read something here or there and are connecting eight different dots that fit the narrative most compelling in your mind.

The best thing one can do is let people do the work. You're not going to solve it.

One of the many bad things that has occurred over the last year is the rise in scientific commentary by decidedly unqualified people. This line of reasoning is no different than people who are afraid of vaccines or believe the earth is flat. The circumstantial facts that drive this are little different than the WMD threat, which the US went to war over, and we know how that turned out. The theory may have a higher degree of plausibility than these other things, but until you know, you don't. And unless you're actually qualified to find out, you're mostly playing a fool's game devoid of fact-based reasoning and fully reliant on inference and leaping.

And ask yourself this question, honestly: would you accept no conclusion, or a conclusion that suggests the first theory is the most likely, and to be taken as correct in absence of hard evidence to the contrary? Because if you wouldn't, then you're not being reasonable. And if you would, your language around this doesn't reflect that kind of openness.

I'm open to the possibility that it was a natural origin. I'll just use strong language talking about the lab leak because right now, in my mind, the balance of evidence is weighing heavily in favor of the lab leak and it's not particularly close. But it's certainly not 100%. And I wouldn't call anyone who believes in a natural origin an idiot, or a science denier, or a conspiracy theorist, or state that there's categorically no chance it could be natural in origin like we saw play out in the other direction basically up until now.

The best thing one can do is let people do the work. You're not going to solve it.

Did I say I was gonna solve it? No. I'm calling for people to do the work. That's literally my argument.

One of the many bad things that has occurred over the last year is the rise in scientific commentary by decidedly unqualified people. This line of reasoning is no different than people who are afraid of vaccines or believe the earth is flat. The circumstantial facts that drive this are little different than the WMD threat, which the US went to war over, and we know how that turned out. The theory may have a higher degree of plausibility than these other things, but until you know, you don't. And unless you're actually qualified to find out, you're mostly playing a fool's game devoid of fact-based reasoning and fully reliant on inference and leaping.

I'd say a worse outcome that has happened this year is the complete politicization of real science by people who would rather make lazy appeal to authority arguments with the bonus of castigating those they disagree with. This thread is a perfect example of that, just look at the first few pages. Everyone who said there was 100% no chance this was possibleclaimed they were following the science and listening to experts, when actually they were just listening to a handpicked few that corroborated what they wanted the truth to be based on illogical reasoning that I've pointed out already. You would have to be a technical molecular biologist to say that the spike protein doesn't bind with 100% affinity, but you don't have to be a molecular biologist to say that that is not proof positive of a natural emergence. Everyone who claimed they were "following the science" by saying you'd have to be an idiot to think this was a lab leak are the ones looking stupid today. Because they weren't following science, they were politicizing it. A trademark of a truly intelligent person is the ability to ask smart penetrating questions about a subject they don't have expertise in, and if those answers don't make sense or don't follow logically they have the right to be skeptical and it's up to the experts to answer good questions fully. Can people ask dumb questions, take illogical stances, and have an ignorant view of science no matter what? Yeah, of course. But that doesn't mean you can throw out the ability to question things all together. This would be like me saying, "oh no one's allowed to question the Government of Alberta's stance on pipelines or energy cuz Sonya Savage has a masters degree in environmental law. Where's your masters degree? Then shut up". Is that a reasonable standard to you? You'd cave and say oh i guess you're right I cant have a reasoned opinion on any of this, guess the government knows best? I doubt it, there's always reasonable intelligent questions any lay person can ask about any field. It's disingenuous lazy way of making arguments and I'm done with it.

I don't think I'm guessing, or jumping to conclusions, or not using fact base reasoning like you accuse me of doing. If so I challenge you to point out where I have instead of just lobbing that out there. I'd also ask you what you think the strongest evidence of natural emergence is, because right now all you have is a seafood market were some but not all of the early cases are. That's it, unless you have something better? Or do we both need to get PHD's in virology before we're allowed to debate stuff like this.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I'm open to the possibility that it was a natural origin. I'll just use strong language talking about the lab leak because right now, in my mind, the balance of evidence is weighing heavily in favor of the lab leak and it's not particularly close. But it's certainly not 100%. And I wouldn't call anyone who believes in a natural origin an idiot, or a science denier, or a conspiracy theorist, or state that there's categorically no chance it could be natural in origin like we saw play out in the other direction basically up until now.

Did I say I was gonna solve it? No. I'm calling for people to do the work. That's literally my argument.

I'd say a worse outcome that has happened this year is the complete politicization of real science by people who would rather make lazy appeal to authority arguments with the bonus of castigating those they disagree with. This thread is a perfect example of that, just look at the first few pages. Everyone who said there was 100% no chance this was possibleclaimed they were following the science and listening to experts, when actually they were just listening to a handpicked few that corroborated what they wanted the truth to be based on illogical reasoning that I've pointed out already. You would have to be a technical molecular biologist to say that the spike protein doesn't bind with 100% affinity, but you don't have to be a molecular biologist to say that that is not proof positive of a natural emergence. Everyone who claimed they were "following the science" by saying you'd have to be an idiot to think this was a lab leak are the ones looking stupid today. Because they weren't following science, they were politicizing it. A trademark of a truly intelligent person is the ability to ask smart penetrating questions about a subject they don't have expertise in, and if those answers don't make sense or don't follow logically they have the right to be skeptical and it's up to the experts to answer good questions fully. Can people ask dumb questions, take illogical stances, and have an ignorant view of science no matter what? Yeah, of course. But that doesn't mean you can throw out the ability to question things all together. This would be like me saying, "oh no one's allowed to question the Government of Alberta's stance on pipelines or energy cuz Sonya Savage has a masters degree in environmental law. Where's your masters degree? Then shut up". Is that a reasonable standard to you? You'd cave and say oh i guess you're right I cant have a reasoned opinion on any of this, guess the government knows best? I doubt it, there's always reasonable intelligent questions any lay person can ask about any field. It's disingenuous lazy way of making arguments and I'm done with it.

I don't think I'm guessing, or jumping to conclusions, or not using fact base reasoning like you accuse me of doing. If so I challenge you to point out where I have instead of just lobbing that out there. I'd also ask you what you think the strongest evidence of natural emergence is, because right now all you have is a seafood market were some but not all of the early cases are. That's it, unless you have something better? Or do we both need to get PHD's in virology before we're allowed to debate stuff like this.

I find your position rather baffling, because the balance of evidence and expert opinions is that it is a natural source. I've asked what expert is putting forth the idea that it is created, and no one replied with one. We have the journalist, who isn't an expert..and we now have some investigations. But at this point, as has been since ealry last year, the prevailing theory and knowledge all do not support the lab theory. Yet you seem to think that is the most likely scenario. So again, what experts are proposing this and what evidence are they presenting?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Exactly. How terrifying is this. Look at all the damage wrought by some obscure coronavirus they pulled from bats. While deadly and dangerous to a decent chunk of the population, most cases are like mine where if I hadn't lost smell for a few days I would have never thought I was sick. You won't be getting that with gain of function Ebola, you won't have statistically no danger to children with gain of function Ebola. That's why it's so critical to get as close to a conclusive answer on this as possible, because this is a world wide problem that needs to be addressed ASAP. There was already great hesitation and ethical concerns about this research before, and now we can see that this is no longer a theoretical drawback, it's a real concern and the world is exceedingly likely that this was overall a pretty mild pathogen. This is now the biggest story of the 21st century so far and we can't afford to sweep it under the rug for any reason.

Just a point of interest, but increasing the gain of function (e.g. Transmissibility) of Ebola would require subduing, diminishing, or delaying it's more horrifying symptoms to increase the likelihood of transmission via hosts feeling well enough to move around + not dying so quickly. It would no doubt still be horrendously awful, but probably not as awful as you are imagining. Much like how SARS and MERS are undoubtedly more dangerous on their own and in individual cases, but much less severe globally.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I'm open to the possibility that it was a natural origin. I'll just use strong language talking about the lab leak because right now, in my mind, the balance of evidence is weighing heavily in favor of the lab leak and it's not particularly close. But it's certainly not 100%. And I wouldn't call anyone who believes in a natural origin an idiot, or a science denier, or a conspiracy theorist, or state that there's categorically no chance it could be natural in origin like we saw play out in the other direction basically up until now.



Did I say I was gonna solve it? No. I'm calling for people to do the work. That's literally my argument.



I'd say a worse outcome that has happened this year is the complete politicization of real science by people who would rather make lazy appeal to authority arguments with the bonus of castigating those they disagree with. This thread is a perfect example of that, just look at the first few pages. Everyone who said there was 100% no chance this was possibleclaimed they were following the science and listening to experts, when actually they were just listening to a handpicked few that corroborated what they wanted the truth to be based on illogical reasoning that I've pointed out already. You would have to be a technical molecular biologist to say that the spike protein doesn't bind with 100% affinity, but you don't have to be a molecular biologist to say that that is not proof positive of a natural emergence. Everyone who claimed they were "following the science" by saying you'd have to be an idiot to think this was a lab leak are the ones looking stupid today. Because they weren't following science, they were politicizing it. A trademark of a truly intelligent person is the ability to ask smart penetrating questions about a subject they don't have expertise in, and if those answers don't make sense or don't follow logically they have the right to be skeptical and it's up to the experts to answer good questions fully. Can people ask dumb questions, take illogical stances, and have an ignorant view of science no matter what? Yeah, of course. But that doesn't mean you can throw out the ability to question things all together. This would be like me saying, "oh no one's allowed to question the Government of Alberta's stance on pipelines or energy cuz Sonya Savage has a masters degree in environmental law. Where's your masters degree? Then shut up". Is that a reasonable standard to you? You'd cave and say oh i guess you're right I cant have a reasoned opinion on any of this, guess the government knows best? I doubt it, there's always reasonable intelligent questions any lay person can ask about any field. It's disingenuous lazy way of making arguments and I'm done with it.

I don't think I'm guessing, or jumping to conclusions, or not using fact base reasoning like you accuse me of doing. If so I challenge you to point out where I have instead of just lobbing that out there. I'd also ask you what you think the strongest evidence of natural emergence is, because right now all you have is a seafood market were some but not all of the early cases are. That's it, unless you have something better? Or do we both need to get PHD's in virology before we're allowed to debate stuff like this.

The funny thing about this is I'm not saying you can't ask questions, I'm saying you shouldn't jump to conclusions, especially ones based on very little circumstantial evidence. Which is what you're doing... repeatedly:

"right now, in my mind, the balance of evidence is weighing heavily in favor of the lab leak and it's not particularly close"

"There was already great hesitation and ethical concerns about this research before, and now we can see that this is no longer a theoretical drawback, it's a real concern"

"the conclusion I'm forced to reach is that a very significant discovery for all the global ramifications involved (that this was a man-made, lab leak virus) would not have been made simply because the bulk of the news media was too interested in "debunking" this to dunk on politicians they don't like"

"There's actually plenty of evidence now that this was a lab leak"

Not only do these conclusions or statements range from ill-informed to flat out wrong, but they are absolutely impacted by the narrative you have in your head. And when you say things like this:

"the complete politicization of real science by people who would rather make lazy appeal to authority arguments with the bonus of castigating those they disagree with"

"If a small selection of real journalists hadn't kept pushing"

"I'm noticing a disturbing trend in science and science journalism though, where someone takes a kernel of truth that only someone extremely technical in that field would know, strecthes the conclusion you can make off that kernel in an illogical way, and then claims their conclusion is based off of science and experts when only one specific part is."

...it's kind of ironic. You're railing against exactly what you're doing, not living up to what you claimed was the "trademark" of a truly intelligent person... at all... and dabbling in conspiratorial reasoning. You're the embodiment of everything you're claiming to be against, but you're doing it for the narrative you've already decided is true, so that makes it... better?

What do you want me to call it if not conspiratorial? What would make you feel better about it?

Intelligent people ask questions. Ask away. What intelligent people don't do, is make conclusions based on circumstantial evidence that they've overimagined the importance of because it fits a narrative.

I'm fine with a conclusion that this is man made, a lab leak, or naturally occurring. Whatever the actual evidence is, when enough of it is collected and a determination is made, is fine with me. I'll ask again, more specifically. With everything you claim to know to be true and the mountain of evidence that you claim there is, would you accept if they came out in a week or a month or whatever and said "we looked at the evidence and we think it was naturally occurring, no further investigation warranted."

You've already made your determination, and you don't know anything by any relevant standard. As someone who knows about as much as you, that seems incredibly silly.

Again, to be very specific, I'm not throwing any labels around because you're asking questions or considering a possibility, I'm throwing them around because of the reasoning you're using, and the types of conclusions you're making. This is not the mark of an intelligent person, if that's something you care to define.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I find your position rather baffling, because the balance of evidence and expert opinions is that it is a natural source. I've asked what expert is putting forth the idea that it is created, and no one replied with one. We have the journalist, who isn't an expert..and we now have some investigations. But at this point, as has been since ealry last year, the prevailing theory and knowledge all do not support the lab theory. Yet you seem to think that is the most likely scenario. So again, what experts are proposing this and what evidence are they presenting?

You are correct, that the most likely explanation is a pure natural source. However, science isn't a popularity contest. Scientific truths aren't decided by a vote.

There are many scientists stating that the virus may have been altered in a lab. The WHO's current stance is that more studies need to be conducted before any conclusions can be made:

“As far as WHO is concerned, all hypotheses remain on the table. This report is a very important beginning, but it is not the end. We have not yet found the source of the virus, and we must continue to follow the science and leave no stone unturned as we do,” said Dr Tedros. “Finding the origin of a virus takes time and we owe it to the world to find the source so we can collectively take steps to reduce the risk of this happening again. No single research trip can provide all the answers.”

https://www.who.int/news/item/30-03-...es-remain-open

DiracSpike's argument is almost exactly in line with the WHO's current stance on the subject.

There's also multiple scientists complaining that the theory of a lab leak was suppressed for political reasons:

https://www.technologyreview.com/202...ts-conspiracy/

David Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford University, says a lab leak was never the subject of a “fair and dispassionate discussion of the facts as we know them.” Instead, tempers soon began to flare as those calling for a closer look at possible lab origins were dismissed as conspiracy theorists spouting misinformation. Election-year politics and growing Sinophobic sentiments only added to the tensions. Attacks on Asian-Americans had been escalating since the pandemic began, and with then-president Trump fuming about a “Chinese virus,” many scientists and reporters became “cautious about saying anything that might justify the rhetoric of his administration,” says Jamie Metzl, a senior fellow at the Washington, DC–based Atlantic Council, an international affairs think tank.

It could have been career suicide for scientists to voice suspicions about a possible lab leak, says Metzl, especially when there was already a long history of viral disease outbreaks spilling over from nature.

What we do know is that Covid-19 is very transmissible among humans, and the likely reason is that the spike proteins bind far more strongly to human receptors than receptors in other animals. It's likely, until we have more evidence to prove otherwise, that this is a random occurrence. However, if you were going to design a virus to infect humans more efficiently, altering the spike protein is exactly what you would do.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

...it's kind of ironic. You're railing against exactly what you're doing, not living up to what you claimed was the "trademark" of a truly intelligent person... at all... and dabbling in conspiratorial reasoning. You're the embodiment of everything you're claiming to be against, but you're doing it for the narrative you've already decided is true, so that makes it... better?

What do you want me to call it if not conspiratorial? What would make you feel better about it?

"Dabbling in conspiratorial reasoning?" Seriously? I mean you can make up that label and toss it out there, doesn't make it true. At least there was somewhat of an excuse for people using this line last year that doesn't make them look completely ridiculous today, less so for you now though.

Intelligent people ask questions. Ask away. What intelligent people don't do, is make conclusions based on circumstantial evidence that they've overimagined the importance of because it fits a narrative.

I'm fine with a conclusion that this is man made, a lab leak, or naturally occurring. Whatever the actual evidence is, when enough of it is collected and a determination is made, is fine with me. I'll ask again, more specifically. With everything you claim to know to be true and the mountain of evidence that you claim there is, would you accept if they came out in a week or a month or whatever and said "we looked at the evidence and we think it was naturally occurring, no further investigation warranted."

You've already made your determination, and you don't know anything by any relevant standard. As someone who knows about as much as you, that seems incredibly silly.

Again, to be very specific, I'm not throwing any labels around because you're asking questions or considering a possibility, I'm throwing them around because of the reasoning you're using, and the types of conclusions you're making. This is not the mark of an intelligent person, if that's something you care to define.

For another time, I'm not saying this was CONCLUSIVELY a lab leak. Ok? I've made posts in here talking about what it would mean in that case, given the interesting questions and long range ramifications involved. If that bugs you, just keep this disclaimer in your head so I don't have to type it out in fine print at the end of every post. I believe things should get investigated, and there's enough evidence at this point to have a serious international conversation about this research. Hopefully I won't have to tell you this for an additional time.

Now with the lawyer talk out of the way can we start having a discussion about merits and evidence of this? To answer your question yeah, if scientists came out tomorrow and said they had found the links between a bat virus in southern china and human virus in central china then I would drop this as a possibility instantly. They have that evidence for MERS, they have it for SARS, they don't have it for this. Is it possible that it hasn't been found yet? Sure. It might also not exist though. It's a tough hill to climb for natural proponents to put this virus in Wuhan, much less so for lab leak proponents. All we have is circumstantial evidence on either side, but nearly all of it favors a lab leak. I'm sorry you think that's conspiratorial but it's the truth right now, unless you wanna weigh in on this debate in a substantive way? I seriously don't get your points here besides trying to take potshots at me. You claim to be agnostic and waiting for all the evidence to come in and whatever scientists tell you is what you'll believe, but then you also accuse me of making faulty reasoning and bad conclusions without any substantiating points behind that. Either you're agnostic or you're not dude, if you wanna weigh in on the debate like Fuzz and others that's cool but if you're gonna pull this routine of pretending nothing's for certain beyond me being wrong and a hypocrite then I guess we're done here. It's boring.

[DeluxeMoustache]

I found this article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to get in to a good amount of depth and to be good at outlining the cases for and against lab release.

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-...-box-at-wuhan/

The virus that caused the pandemic is known officially as SARS-CoV-2, but can be called SARS2 for short. As many people know, there are two main theories about its origin. One is that it jumped naturally from wildlife to people. The other is that the virus was under study in a lab, from which it escaped. It matters a great deal which is the case if we hope to prevent a second such occurrence.

I’ll describe the two theories, explain why each is plausible, and then ask which provides the better explanation of the available facts. It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction. And having inferred that direction, I’m going to delineate some of the strands in this tangled skein of disaster.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I found this article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to get in to a good amount of depth and to be good at outlining the cases for and against lab rehearse.

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-...-box-at-wuhan/

That’s a very good article for build the case for lab release.

It’s tough to tell though whether the arguments made against natural are good arguments or just arguments against strawman. As much as he declared neutrality the article is designed to convince people that on balance lab release is more likely. An article with similar integrity but with the opposite position would be an interesting read.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ I agree that an equally detailed case for natural emergence would be of interest.

Comments on the source are below. I consider the Bulletin to be a good source based on science not partisanship

I can offer that Daszak wrote an op ed for the Guardian, but he obviously has a conflict of interest.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...false-pandemic

For anyone who hasn’t read the article, there are many links to publications of prior relevant research of the parties involved to support the plausibility.

The concluding remarks do summarize why the available evidence appears to provide a more logical path towards lab release.

Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence.

It’s documented that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were doing gain-of-function experiments designed to make coronaviruses infect human cells and humanized mice. This is exactly the kind of experiment from which a SARS2-like virus could have emerged. The researchers were not vaccinated against the viruses under study, and they were working in the minimal safety conditions of a BSL2 laboratory. So escape of a virus would not be at all surprising. In all of China, the pandemic broke out on the doorstep of the Wuhan institute. The virus was already well adapted to humans, as expected for a virus grown in humanized mice. It possessed an unusual enhancement, a furin cleavage site, which is not possessed by any other known SARS-related beta-coronavirus, and this site included a double arginine codon also unknown among beta-coronaviruses. What more evidence could you want, aside from the presently unobtainable lab records documenting SARS2’s creation?

Proponents of natural emergence have a rather harder story to tell. The plausibility of their case rests on a single surmise, the expected parallel between the emergence of SARS2 and that of SARS1 and MERS. But none of the evidence expected in support of such a parallel history has yet emerged. No one has found the bat population that was the source of SARS2, if indeed it ever infected bats. No intermediate host has presented itself, despite an intensive search by Chinese authorities that included the testing of 80,000 animals. There is no evidence of the virus making multiple independent jumps from its intermediate host to people, as both the SARS1 and MERS viruses did. There is no evidence from hospital surveillance records of the epidemic gathering strength in the population as the virus evolved. There is no explanation of why a natural epidemic should break out in Wuhan and nowhere else. There is no good explanation of how the virus acquired its furin cleavage site, which no other SARS-related beta-coronavirus possesses, nor why the site is composed of human-preferred codons. The natural emergence theory battles a bristling array of implausibilities.

The records of the Wuhan Institute of Virology certainly hold much relevant information. But Chinese authorities seem unlikely to release them given the substantial chance that they incriminate the regime in the creation of the pandemic. Absent the efforts of some courageous Chinese whistle-blower, we may already have at hand just about all of the relevant information we are likely to get for a while.

I assume a lot of people are familiar with The Bulletin for Atomic Scientists, but if not, here is some info. They have been around over 75 years and Albert Einstein was a founding co-chair of the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors

Our Mission
The Bulletin equips the public, policymakers, and scientists with the information needed to reduce man-made threats
to our existence.

About Us
At our core, the Bulletin is a media organization, publishing a free-access website and a bimonthly magazine. But we are much more. The Bulletin’s website, iconic Doomsday Clock, and regular events help advance actionable ideas at a time when technology is outpacing our ability to control it. The Bulletin focuses on three main areas: nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies. What connects these topics is a driving belief that because humans created them, we can control them

The Bulletin is an independent, nonprofit 501 (c) (3) organization. We gather a diverse array of the most informed and influential voices tracking man-made threats and bring their innovative thinking to a global audience. We apply intellectual rigor to the conversation and do not shrink from alarming truths.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Firebot

While I do fully believe if it was released from a lab it would have been entirely accidental, the problem is a US lab has already experimented with coronaviruses and engineered new versions of viruses, there has been recent precedent. The US did it, and there's little expectation to believe that China would be any different.

This was linked at one point in this thread (but completely dismissed at the time), it's a scientific article from 2015, that has since been redacted to to preemptively stop people from using it for the basis of the lab theory.

https://www.nature.com/news/engineer...search-1.18787

There's no reason to believe this is what happened. Most virologists are saying that gain of function research would never have used the changes seen in this particular one. There's millions of different Coronaviruses in Nature, why settle on one the models would suggested won't work in humans? These mutations happen literally all the time in nature and there's nothing but innuendo that something was changed in a lab when these changes occur naturally. That's a big reach

https://www.nature.com/news/us-suspe...search-1.16192



The US put a stop to this type of research as it was too dangerous, but China may not have been playing with the same rules and may not have disclosed this research method.

Wuhan's lab was specifically studying SARS and coronaviruses around this time. If they used the controversial gain of function method for research, they very likely may have created covid-19 and escaped accidentally.

https://www.nature.com/news/inside-t...hogens-1.21487

Well yes, they were specifically studying Coronaviruses because it was a great spot to do so due to SARS originating from the wild nearby. In fact, the Wuhan Lab was built because of SARS so they could test the nearby wildlife and monitor coronaviruses that were changing nearby. Again, the lab was built there because it was the best place to study coronaviruses nearby.

We also have to remember that this pandemic was never voluntarily disclosed by the Chinese state government at first, they were forced to after social media leaks of a SARS like pneumonia. This is when the whole wet market angle came in which was totally plausible, it's how SARS likely came from after all, but Chinese authority prevented any foreign researchers from having access to it until they thoroughly cleaned it.

The first article I found citing the wet market angle was this one, a day after the government publicly acknowledged a pneumonia outbreak at the time (Dec 31).

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/2020...e35581e30.html

Let's also remember, the official stance by the Chinese government of learning of a 'problem' was December 27. Anything attributed to cases prior to that date that should be known by the government, shows they have been covering up the data. The lab sickness certainly point to that, and so do cases in multiple countries dating from October or November 2019.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/76243133.cms



http://en.nhc.gov.cn/2020-06/08/c_80724.htm

The last thing they would ever admit is fault, even if totally accidental.

If they knew it was a lab leak, they would've known the progenitor and would've pointed to it immediately. This is very silly speculation. Because a nation routinely lies does not mean that imaginary things are then true when they say no.

Imagine if this pandemic occured with an accidental release of a gain-of-function version of ebola which was next on the research list?

Why?


This whole lab leak theory goes like this:

There's zero evidence to suggest it , but we feel they're shady and they're denying it, so I believe it to be true.


Meanwhile, thousands of viruses become human pathogens naturally (literally every single one ever!) but we're going to believe that in this specific case they found a pathogen that affects humans but somehow no one had been infected yet, then they bring it to a lab to test it but oh noes it escapes, and we should believe that because they're shady. I don't get it.

The actual people who did the actual investigation say they saw no reason to believe anything other than natural origin which happens all the time (like all the last pandemics that have happened).

Natural origin is by a million times the most likely, but I'm supposed to believe it either occurred naturally but by a miracle the scientists found it before it had jumped to a human or other animal but then they got careless, or that a virologist that knows an awful lot things not a single virologist elsewhere knows and made it but oh noes it escaped. Could any of that be possible? Sure, but then why not speculate more? Maybe the Russians made it but didn't want the blame? Or maybe the US did it? There's an equal amount of evidence there...