Origin of the Coronavirus

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by #-3

Aside from the intellectual curiosity, what value can be assigned to knowing if the was lab leaked overall?

I don't think the knowledge would have any tangible effect on the world. There are people who have far better experience and information in the area them me, who will write the history books. The seen to be leaning that this was not lab leaked right now, so I lean that way. If they change they're minds I will listen to the new and old explanations and will probably follow them to their new conclusion

knowing where it came from is key to preventing the same thing from happening again, so is a basic step in the discovery of any new pandemic virus

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by opendoor

So on the one hand it's one of the most contagious multi-species viruses ever in existence. But at the same time you think it transmitted undetected in humans long enough to go to and from a bunch of animal reservoirs, remained transmitting in the animal populations long enough to develop the different lineages (without infecting basically any humans), and then jumped back into humans where it took off quickly. That doesn't seem very plausible given the growth rates we've seen in immunologically naive human populations.

https://www.science.org/content/arti...ading-globally
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf8003

The fact that it's been in human populations for some time is more of a known, than a hypothesis.

But, no, that's not required in what I'm saying. That's just a small subset of possibilities. Absolutely it could have gone directly from the lab to animals and stayed there for some time. But the fact that they were doing experiments on immunocompromised mice with human lungs blurs much. As in...what do we mean by human reservoir when the experiment is on human lung tissue in mice, for instance.

Originally Posted by opendoor

So on the one hand it's one of the most contagious multi-
And it's also at odds with basically every lab leak hypothesis I've seen. The primary foundation of most of the lab leak hypotheses is that there is zero evidence (or even plausibility) that SARS-CoV-2 spread in humans undetected for a period of time. Their whole argument is that it came out of nowhere via a lab leak, which is why it went from nothing to a pandemic in a few weeks. That doesn't really fit with the idea that it spread around in humans and animals around Wuhan long enough to generate the genetic diversity that existed.

That's basically the only legitimate and plausible theory of the lab leak. The theory is that a worker (or workers) at the lab unknowingly became infected with a coronavirus they were working on and/or that animals in the lab had been infected with. Some posit that it was a virus that an animal came into the lab infected with (the same idea as the bat virus that killed those miners in 2012), while others suggest that it was the result of gain of function research. Either way, the worker(s) would have then spread it outside the lab and it took off quickly from there.

I will admit I have not thoroughly researched lab leak theories, but:

Whether it leaked from the lab or not, most of the theories will be factually wrong. This is just how theories go.


I'm just sort of reading what you're writing as evidence to discount theories that are human-only theories. I could have discounted them without any of the evidence above, coronaviruses have always been cross-species.

But I need to point out that disproving human-only theories (which are ludicrous to begin with) doesn't, as far as I can see, paint the Wuhan lab as innocent in any way. It just finds fault in any human-only theories pointing to it.

In otherwords discovering, quite obviously, that animal transmission is likely involved ( as it always is with coronaviruses) doesn't change the fact that the Wuhan lab was working on said animals, modifying both them and coronaviruses, where any means of accidental transmission (human, animal, combo) was entirely possible.




I'll put it one more way, and point out that I am the furthest thing from a Trump supporter: We can of course expect that a lot of bad science went into pointing the finger at the lab, for politically motivated reasons.

Bad science as it may be, politically motivated as it is, none of this changes that the lab was there and lab accidents do happen.

[chubeyr1]

Was it a lab leak in China that caused covid?

Some say this is a conspiracy theory. It really is not. The Chinese government deliberately releasing this virus on the world is.

Could they have done it intentionally? Sure! USA did radiation tests on their own citizens before. Even a free democratic country used their citizens as guinea pigs.

Unlikely that was the case but history says you cannot rule it out. You would like to but you cannot.

The KISS rule and Occams Razor look for the easiest answer.

A lab in Wuhan was experimenting with Covid and all of a sudden Wuhan is locked down from a Covid outbreak. Lab leak is likely.

For me that is very plausible. Does not make it true, but plausible.

If Covid crossed over from multiple species should there not have been millions of animals dying from the disease? You would think that would raise a huge red flag. I don’t know biology. Yet understand one species might not get effected by something while another falls deathly ill.

The virus came from a bat or a pangolin? Yet there is zero proof it did.

I am not wearing a tinfoil hat right now.

So many things are plausible.

Just wish the Chinese government would be more open. I mean if it was a lab leak they are to blame. Yet if it is wet markets they are still to blame.

They did not learn from Sars and continued to do the same thing?

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by #-3

Aside from the intellectual curiosity, what value can be assigned to knowing if the was lab leaked overall?

I don't think the knowledge would have any tangible effect on the world. There are people who have far better experience and information in the area them me, who will write the history books. The seen to be leaning that this was not lab leaked right now, so I lean that way. If they change they're minds I will listen to the new and old explanations and will probably follow them to their new conclusion

This is the problem, many just want to know to prevent things like this happening but there would be no way anyone would own up to anything like this for fear of retribution in so many ways. Ultimately we will never know the exact cause or learn from this mistake due to fear.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

If Covid crossed over from multiple species should there not have been millions of animals dying from the disease?

Why? Lots of pathogens have very little noticeable effect on one species, yet can be lethal for another.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

This is the problem, many just want to know to prevent things like this happening but there would be no way anyone would own up to anything like this for fear of retribution in so many ways. Ultimately we will never know the exact cause or learn from this mistake due to fear.

"We have nothing to gain from this knowledge" is, to be fair, a totally ridiculous and short-sighted statement, a mindset used by dictatorships to suppress their populations.

It should not even be necessary to explain the countless ways that humanity is better off knowing the truth than a lie, especially about this. It should be obvious.

With regards to not knowing, I personally think we will find out. It usually takes about 5 years after a pandemic to pinpoint the origin. It will just take some time. The virus has a genetic imprint on it which is very hard to cover up. Now it's true that if anyone can cover it up it's China, but, they are fighting an uphill battle because every day science and analysis gets better.


Here's the truth of it,
https://nypost.com/2021/06/06/damnin...neered-in-lab/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7744920/


The Coronavirus has splices in it that have never been seen before in Coronavirus. They are the same splices that a lab would make to modify a virus.

It is only a matter of time before these splices are understood to a level where it is clear how they were done and what purpose each splices serves. Conversely we have a lot of information about what the Wuhan lab was working on, and try as they might they can't erase what is already known.

Anyway whatever happened, I personally believe we will eventually reach a likelihood understandiung of >90%.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

Here's the truth of it,
https://nypost.com/2021/06/06/damnin...neered-in-lab/

A medical doctor and a physicist (whose expertise is on climate change) writing an opinion column in a newspaper. Hardly the most compelling evidence.

And virologists have roundly debunked their argument. 3-5% of SARS, MERS, SARS-CoV2, etc. is made up of CGG codons, so a CGG-CGG pair doesn't mean a whole lot. Mutations and weighted preferences for different codons are merely a matter of probability, not 100% certainty. Further, CGG-CGG pairs are no easier to insert than any other, so that doesn't mean anything really.

And finally, SARS-CoV-2 is so divergent from basically any other coronavirus that has ever been sequenced, it's exceedingly unlikely that it could have been created through genetic engineering. The difference between it and its closest known relatives is far too large of a gap to bridge with gain of function research. People get taken in by things like "96% similar", but that's decades of evolution.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7744920/

Their conclusion is that a laboratory origin cannot be 100% ruled out. Which is what basically any credible scientist still says.

But again, they're focused on what was then the closest known relative (RaTG13) as a basis for SARS-CoV-2, when that's not really possible at this point in time. And since that paper was published, there have been closer relatives to SARS-CoV-2 found in nature, including two different samples of bat coronaviruses from Laos. One showed an almost identical receptor-binding domain to SARS-CoV-2 while another is a single amino acid insertion away from generating a furin cleavage site. Both the RBD and the FCS were once talked about as "smoking guns" showing it had likely been engineered because of their affinity for infecting human cells, but newer evidence has now shown that they can easily occur naturally in coronaviruses that are closely related to SARS-CoV-2.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by opendoor

A medical doctor and a physicist (whose expertise is on climate change) writing an opinion column in a newspaper. Hardly the most compelling evidence.

And virologists have roundly debunked their argument. 3-5% of SARS, MERS, SARS-CoV2, etc. is made up of CGG codons, so a CGG-CGG pair doesn't mean a whole lot. Mutations and weighted preferences for different codons are merely a matter of probability, not 100% certainty. Further, CGG-CGG pairs are no easier to insert than any other, so that doesn't mean anything really.

And finally, SARS-CoV-2 is so divergent from basically any other coronavirus that has ever been sequenced, it's exceedingly unlikely that it could have been created through genetic engineering. The difference between it and its closest known relatives is far too large of a gap to bridge with gain of function research. People get taken in by things like "96% similar", but that's decades of evolution.

Their conclusion is that a laboratory origin cannot be 100% ruled out. Which is what basically any credible scientist still says.

But again, they're focused on what was then the closest known relative (RaTG13) as a basis for SARS-CoV-2, when that's not really possible at this point in time. And since that paper was published, there have been closer relatives to SARS-CoV-2 found in nature, including two different samples of bat coronaviruses from Laos. One showed an almost identical receptor-binding domain to SARS-CoV-2 while another is a single amino acid insertion away from generating a furin cleavage site. Both the RBD and the FCS were once talked about as "smoking guns" showing it had likely been engineered because of their affinity for infecting human cells, but newer evidence has now shown that they can easily occur naturally in coronaviruses that are closely related to SARS-CoV-2.

Can't argue with the above, seems I have some catching up to do in the area. And a lot of bad science in the media.

Still not willing to rule out the lab though. Seems there is no smoking gun at the dna level at this time though

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Why? Lots of pathogens have very little noticeable effect on one species, yet can be lethal for another.

Gotta love shower thought reasonings used as proof of a concept that obviously isn’t the persons expertise.

[opendoor]

Now that's not to say it couldn't have been engineered. There are certainly some possibilities (an unknown coronavirus being used as the basis for SARS-CoV-2 would probably be the most likely), but I don't think the evidence points that way at all. There's no reason to think it couldn't have occurred naturally, and genetic engineering is often very unpredictable (i.e. you don't necessarily know you're going to improve a virus' fitness with the changes you make), so the fact that it's so adept at infecting humans doesn't really point to it being engineered. If one were to make a coronavirus to infect humans for experiments, you would likely graft on a part of a known virus that you know is capable of doing that, which would almost surely be evident based on the genetic sequence.

So if it was from a lab leak, an accidental release of a natural virus that might occur when collecting samples, interacting with an infected animal, or attempting to isolate the virus would probably be the most plausible scenarios. But again, the different lineages that are seen in early infections makes the notion of a single escape somewhat less likely.

Ultimately, until there's a clearer source in nature, a lab leak can't be ruled out. But on a balance of probabilities, I don't think it's anywhere near the strongest possibility.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Now that's not to say it couldn't have been engineered. There are certainly some possibilities (an unknown coronavirus being used as the basis for SARS-CoV-2 would probably be the most likely), but I don't think the evidence points that way at all. There's no reason to think it couldn't have occurred naturally, and genetic engineering is often very unpredictable (i.e. you don't necessarily know you're going to improve a virus' fitness with the changes you make), so the fact that it's so adept at infecting humans doesn't really point to it being engineered. If one were to make a coronavirus to infect humans for experiments, you would likely graft on a part of a known virus that you know is capable of doing that, which would almost surely be evident based on the genetic sequence.

So if it was from a lab leak, an accidental release of a natural virus that might occur when collecting samples, interacting with an infected animal, or attempting to isolate the virus would probably be the most plausible scenarios. But again, the different lineages that are seen in early infections makes the notion of a single escape somewhat less likely.

Ultimately, until there's a clearer source in nature, a lab leak can't be ruled out. But on a balance of probabilities, I don't think it's anywhere near the strongest possibility.

Fair enough,

For me I'd be looking for an accidental leak of something more than the engineering side. The things humans do by accident are truly amazing.

I don't see any serious motive for an intentional engineering of covid19. But the things they were working on, like mice with modified human lung tissue, imho it's extremely hard to rule out even if there is no smoking gun at the dna level. It even could have naturally mutated in the lab because of the very strange environment set up there.

But alas when I was in University splicing was a pretty new thing so to some extent I just have to go with what I read online which usually isn't very great.

[Knut]

My personal theory is that the producers of Tiger King manufactured COVID. Think about it Sheeple. The Lockdowns coincided with the release of Tiger King. Who would have watched it otherwise.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Knut

My personal theory is that the producers of Tiger King manufactured COVID. Think about it Sheeple. The Lockdowns coincided with the release of Tiger King. Who would have watched it otherwise.

Possibly in collaboration with whoever owns Zoom...

[jjgallow]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-bioterrorism/


China be like "ha, covid19? trust us when we do a release, you'll know it"

[GGG]

Dr Quay who is quoted here released a “paper” without a peer review process suggesting 99.8% certainty that Covid was a lab leak. Not the most robust source even if Covid were to be a lab leak.

[jjgallow]

https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/medi...-19_102722.pdf

"Based on the analysis of the publicly available information, it appears reasonable to conclude that the COVID-19 pandemic was, more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident. New
information, made publicly available and independently verifiable, could change this assessment. However, the hypothesis of a natural zoonotic origin no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt, or the presumption of accuracy. The following are critical outstanding questions that would need to be addressed to be able to
more definitively conclude the origins of SARS-CoV-2:
 What is the intermediate host species for SARS-CoV-2? Where did it first infect humans?
 Where is SARS-CoV-2’s viral reservoir?
 How did SARS-CoV-2 acquire its unique genetic features, such as its furin cleavage site?
Advocates of a zoonotic origin theory must provide clear and convincing evidence that a natural
zoonotic spillover is the source of the pandemic, as was demonstrated for the 2002-2004 SARS outbreak.
In other words, there needs to be verifiable evidence that a natural zoonotic spillover actually occurred, not simply that such a spillover could have occurred."


https://www.science.org/content/arti...gence-agencies

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/w...94b8b45b3.html

https://www.opindia.com/2023/01/us-g...les-were-axed/


Hard for me to tell which of these are legit sources and which aren't. Too much politics in it too. But doesn't look like the lab theory is going anywhere anytime soon.

[Fuzz]

It took until 2017(15 years) to find the probable source of SARS, so the lack of them finding it isn't telling of much.

After a detective hunt across China, researchers chasing the origin of the deadly SARS virus have finally found their smoking gun. In a remote cave in Yunnan province, virologists have identified a single population of horseshoe bats that harbours virus strains with all the genetic building blocks of the one that jumped to humans in 2002, killing almost 800 people around the world.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07766-9

[GGG]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/medi...-19_102722.pdf

"Based on the analysis of the publicly available information, it appears reasonable to conclude that the COVID-19 pandemic was, more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident. New
information, made publicly available and independently verifiable, could change this assessment. However, the hypothesis of a natural zoonotic origin no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt, or the presumption of accuracy. The following are critical outstanding questions that would need to be addressed to be able to
more definitively conclude the origins of SARS-CoV-2:
 What is the intermediate host species for SARS-CoV-2? Where did it first infect humans?
 Where is SARS-CoV-2’s viral reservoir?
 How did SARS-CoV-2 acquire its unique genetic features, such as its furin cleavage site?
Advocates of a zoonotic origin theory must provide clear and convincing evidence that a natural
zoonotic spillover is the source of the pandemic, as was demonstrated for the 2002-2004 SARS outbreak.
In other words, there needs to be verifiable evidence that a natural zoonotic spillover actually occurred, not simply that such a spillover could have occurred."


https://www.science.org/content/arti...gence-agencies

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/w...94b8b45b3.html

https://www.opindia.com/2023/01/us-g...les-were-axed/


Hard for me to tell which of these are legit sources and which aren't. Too much politics in it too. But doesn't look like the lab theory is going anywhere anytime soon.

I think you can discount the republican document as entirely politically motivated and likely intentionally misleading.

I haven’t read the thing throughout or entirely but when you skim through it it’s an essay trying to argue for lab leak over zoonotic. An example is there is a section within the report called

Problems with the zoonotic hypothesis and missing evidence of zoonotic spillover. In the following section on lab leak their aren’t corresponding sections called problems with the lab leak theory or missing evidence of the lab leak theory. So this isn’t a dispassionate evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Now that doesn’t lend credence or lack thereof to the lab leak hypothesis but one should likely not bother to read that report and instead just read the referenced publications to understand the context of the excerpts.

[Firebot]

* posted in wrong thread

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think you can discount the republican document as entirely politically motivated and likely intentionally misleading.

I haven’t read the thing throughout or entirely but when you skim through it it’s an essay trying to argue for lab leak over zoonotic. An example is there is a section within the report called

Problems with the zoonotic hypothesis and missing evidence of zoonotic spillover. In the following section on lab leak their aren’t corresponding sections called problems with the lab leak theory or missing evidence of the lab leak theory. So this isn’t a dispassionate evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Now that doesn’t lend credence or lack thereof to the lab leak hypothesis but one should likely not bother to read that report and instead just read the referenced publications to understand the context of the excerpts.

I would absolutely agree with you that the paper is clearly partisan and may be almost propaganda in sections.

However, the democrats aren't exactly dismissing the Wuhan theory either.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladit...h=7f3208202aaa


"Republicans can't be trusted" I think is a valid statement particularly after Trump.

"Therefore we should trust democrats and/or the Chinese government". is something I struggle with however.

So I think you really have to dig into a lot of quite partisan material and sift for the actual info. Which I do believe will eventually come out but very slowly. I don't claim to know where it came from, but at this time I don't think the lab can be ignored.