zlacker

[return to "Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed"]
1. tbenst+Zu1[view] [source] 2021-03-22 20:11:36
>>ruarai+(OP)
This article is written by a journalist who is clearly knowledgeable about safety practices and mistakes in US labs, but does not consider the extensive knowledge we have about the sequence of SARS-COV2. The preponderance of evidence supports a natural origin of the virus.

This is no way exonerates the Wuhan government from possible culpability—indeed government officials did deliberately suppress information—but this investigative opinion doesn’t pass scientific muster. Misinformation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

◧◩
2. garmai+rv1[view] [source] 2021-03-22 20:12:53
>>tbenst+Zu1
I think you are confusing “lab leak” with “lab manufactured.”
◧◩◪
3. tbenst+Qw1[view] [source] 2021-03-22 20:19:19
>>garmai+rv1
On the contrary. A leak implies that something was contained. Notwithstanding the complete lack of evidence for a leak—and one could waste a lifetime trying to disprove claims that have no evidence-if of natural origin, the virus was already infecting animals and/or people.
◧◩◪◨
4. garmai+jA1[view] [source] 2021-03-22 20:34:12
>>tbenst+Qw1
The lab had samples of a disease that is remarkably close to COVID-19: https://nypost.com/2020/08/15/covid-19-first-appeared-in-chi...
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Diogen+S53[view] [source] 2021-03-23 08:14:19
>>garmai+jA1
No, they didn't. The ancestors of RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 diverged decades ago. RaTG13 is not the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. garmai+4m3[view] [source] 2021-03-23 10:40:37
>>Diogen+S53
You have no way of knowing that it diverged decades ago. That's a guess based on the number of mutations. But as we've seen with COVID-19, these viruses have more of a punctuated equilibrium behavior around mutations. "Decades" worth of mutations can happen in a single immune-compromised host in a matter of weeks. (And fwiw I'd love a source for that "decades" claim. The strains are much more closely related than that.)

RaTG13 is the closest virus found in the wild to SARS-CoV-2. Samples of it were shipped to the Wuhan lab, which does so-called "gain of function research"--AKA experimenting with artificially sped up mutation rates. Not very long thereafter, SARS-CoV-2 shows up in the surrounding metropolitan area with a very, very similar genome. They're the nearest siblings on the phylogenetic tree.

It's only politics which keep people from calling this the smoking gun it really is.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Diogen+mC3[view] [source] 2021-03-23 12:48:39
>>garmai+4m3
It's much more than just a "guess." Calling it a "guess" is trivializing quite well established evolutionary biology.

> "Decades" worth of mutations can happen in a single immune-compromised host in a matter of weeks.

SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating for a year now. The number of mutations it has undergone is a tiny fraction of the number of mutations separating RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2.

> fwiw I'd love a source for that "decades" claim.

A paper in Nature Microbiology estimates the most recent common ancestor of RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 to be in the 1960s. The latest possible time of divergence is 2000.[1]

> RaTG13 is the closest virus found in the wild to SARS-CoV-2. Samples of it were shipped to the Wuhan lab, which does so-called "gain of function research"--AKA experimenting with artificially sped up mutation rates.

First of all, gain-of-function does not mean "artificially sped-up mutation rates." It normally refers to specific, targeted changes to the genome, done in order to test a particular hypothesis. What you're describing is a type of experiment never done before: passaging a virus thousands of times in order to generate a massively different virus. This would be an massively time- and labor-intensive experiment, with no apparent motivation.

Second of all, RaTG13 has never been isolated. It exists as fragments of RNA in a fecal swab. Its genome has been reconstructed from sequences of RNA samples, but actually extracting a replicating virus from a fecal swab is a major undertaking. To date, the WIV has only isolated three SARS-related coronaviruses, all of them much closer to the original SARS than to SARS-CoV-2. Before 2020, nobody cared much about viruses that are 20% different from the original SARS. If you read papers from the WIV before 2020, they're all about viruses like WIV-1, which is closely related to the original SARS.

1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0771-4

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. garmai+5k4[view] [source] 2021-03-23 16:44:19
>>Diogen+mC3
> Second of all, RaTG13 has never been isolated. It exists as fragments of RNA in a fecal swab. Its genome has been reconstructed from sequences of RNA samples, but actually extracting a replicating virus from a fecal swab is a major undertaking.

The lab in question was sent tissue samples extracted from the miners who died of RaTG13. These presumably would have live virus on them.

[go to top]