zlacker

[parent] [thread] 20 comments
1. boring+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-03-22 20:48:00
I subscribe to this theory. I didn't subscribe to it originally because it seemed to dystopian. However on reading the recent politico article (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin...) really changed my opinion about it. To be clear I think it would have been an accident at a Chinese government lab that was underfunded and overworked. Seems to me like the likeliest candidate. I don't think the current US administration wants to point the finger at the Chinese government since it will cause a lot public anger. That and the Chinese government most certainly covered all their tracks by now.
replies(3): >>esja+n9 >>pmille+da >>Diogen+1t1
2. esja+n9[view] [source] 2021-03-22 21:25:39
>>boring+(OP)
I'd also assign a small but non-zero probability to the US not wanting to point the finger because they prefer the scenario where the general population comes to believe that the lab accident was responsible, but no hard evidence is ever produced.

Why? Because it seems like US institutions and people (right up to Fauci) were involved in this research and may not want the domestic blowback.

Conveniently the CCP don't want a paper trail either.

I'd be pretty sure the various scenarios have already been gamed out in both countries.

Edit: Not sure why this is being downvoted, but just in case it’s a reflex because I mentioned Fauci: yes, he was head of NIAID, and yes, the NIH did fund this type of research at the WIV. The grants are public information.

replies(1): >>boring+MK1
3. pmille+da[view] [source] 2021-03-22 21:29:23
>>boring+(OP)
What about that article convinced you? All I saw was some concern about safety protocols 2 years before the outbreak, some content free insinuations, and a whole lot of "we don't have any evidence."

It's not a crazy theory by any means, but, if it happened, then there's evidence. So, where is the evidence? Literally, where is there any actual evidence it happened?

replies(3): >>koheri+uc >>2-tpg+0i >>boring+FL1
◧◩
4. koheri+uc[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-22 21:38:59
>>pmille+da
> if it happened, then there's evidence

Really? Why would there be evidence TODAY? Those bats have likely been destroyed, and all records of sequences taken from them have likely long since been shredded and burned.

There's not that much evidence involved here.

replies(1): >>pmille+je
◧◩◪
5. pmille+je[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-22 21:45:55
>>koheri+uc
Then, why wasn't evidence uncovered earlier? Surely the theory had just as much plausibility a year ago as today.

Are you asking me to believe a theory for which all the evidence was either not uncovered or destroyed? Why is that more plausible than origin from outside the lab?

replies(1): >>koheri+3a2
◧◩
6. 2-tpg+0i[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-22 22:02:20
>>pmille+da
If you put two columns: zoonotic transfer, lab leak. And you list circumstantial evidence for both. Your zoonotic transfer column will be terribly empty in comparison. There is no patient 0, and the wet market was not the source, and we still do not have a zoonotic chain established. All those facts could be added to the lab leak hypothesis instead. For the most prominent clue of a biological attack is Single cause of a certain disease caused by an uncommon agent, with lack of an epidemiological explanation.. If you look at the history: SARS-1 naturally arose once in China. SARS-1 escaped a lab twice in the few years after. Chinese spies infiltrated Western gain-of-function virus-and-cancer-research labs, then smuggled back vials to China in a sock in their check-in luggage.

Domain expert scientists on the lab leak hypothesis: https://thebulletin.org/2020/06/did-the-sars-cov-2-virus-ari...

The evidence is with the intelligence agencies of Western nations. Trump and Pompeo (Pompeo was sanctioned by China hours after new President took office) did not make up their "China Virus" as some racist dog whistle. They were informed.

The WHO, when pressured by the UK for China not sharing information, nor allowing access to a team for investigation, said: Now is not the time to point fingers. We need China cooperation for now. The UK replied that it then has to assume the worst possible and prepare for a pandemic. It did.

Actual tangible evidence is rare, but it is pretty damning that: China blocks Australian-led world-wide investigation into the origins of COVID -- re-sentencing Australian prisoners to death penalty and messing with trade relations to hurt Australia's economy. They'd do that for a natural zoonotic-base virus that was out of their control? Phone location records show containment procedures around Wuhan lab around October 2019. Former military analysts in Israel pose the lab leak hypothesis as plausible, betting their reputation on it.

It is not too fair to ask actual tangible evidence, if evidence could mean a hot war or severely strained relations during a pandemic where people need to work together. And what is your tangible evidence for the popular zoonotic hypothesis? Just some experts saying that zoonotic base is most likely when interviewed for a popular news outlet? The most likely hypothesis should be the easiest to find actual support for. Why not?

I think a lot of criticism on the drastic measures to contain a relatively low CFR virus would be dispelled if the general public knew what the decision-makers then knew: a strange novel virus which seems extremely adapted to infect humans, and shows more similarities to the lab viruses worked with in biowarfare, than with captured and documented cave bats. Similar to the "airborne COVID" -- first publicized by the head of the WHO -- we seem to be managing the factual information flow to avoid panic, geopolitics, and xenophobia. It is right now not important that the general public knows it is dealing with an engineered virus or lab leak. Or at least... other things are more important right now.

replies(1): >>pmille+Vk
◧◩◪
7. pmille+Vk[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-22 22:15:19
>>2-tpg+0i
So, you're saying I should just believe it escaped from a lab because reasons? And you're asking me to believe the administration of a president who lied publicly 30,000 times over 4 years and who may soon be facing criminal charges? Sorry, but that's just not good enough. Actual evidence in the zoonotic origin column greatly surpasses that in the lab leak column. I'll go with what I can see, thanks.

Example: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55998157

replies(1): >>2-tpg+xx
◧◩◪◨
8. 2-tpg+xx[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-22 23:23:35
>>pmille+Vk
Believe whatever you want. If you believe the zoonotic origin, ok sure, but your circumstantial evidence for that is weaker than the circumstantial evidence for a lab leak.

Yes. You are supposed to believe the administration of a president when they claim: The virus came from China. Whether deliberate or accidental, it likely originated in a laboratory. If you don't, I reckon you have bigger problems than a pandemic. If you can't trust your government on such critical matters, if you really believe the US government would stand for the secretary of State spreading lies, then you should probably flee to China and ask asylum there.

> Sorry, but that's just not good enough.

But experts saying: "Virus is likely zoonotic, but we have no idea" is good enough? Again, demanding others to proof that a teacup is orbiting Venus is reasonable. But not when you can't even show the existence of teacups or Venus yourself.

> Actual evidence in the zoonotic origin column greatly surpasses that in the lab leak column.

There is no actual evidence. Actual evidence of zoonotic origin would establish the transmission chain and identify patient 0. There is none. You have "Bats can be the original carrier". So your hypothesis could be true. It is circumstantial. Any actual evidence would instantly kill one of the hypothesis. So you share some responsibility there.

For an example of how to turn the BBC article into circumstantial evidence for a lab leak, is to study the franticness that went on with sequencing and publishing. Wuhan lab published the sequencing of bats captured in 2017 in 2020. It was complete PR management campaign, with scientists blaming "Mother Nature" not their research, information black-outs, and sharing of "secret" sequences years after the fact in support of zoonotic chain, while blocking any outside investigation into the origin which would support/not support the zoonotic origin.

replies(2): >>2-tpg+Dz >>2-tpg+4G
◧◩◪◨⬒
9. 2-tpg+Dz[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-22 23:35:59
>>2-tpg+xx
For myself, the biggest circumstantial evidence I've seen is the manipulation of discourse on social media by state-sponsored trolls and bots. Whenever the downvote bots, US #metoo, charges of racism, and astroturfing begins, there is usually a big thing they are trying to hide. Even when discarding lots of evidence tainted by politics, this one remains. What would be the motive?
◧◩◪◨⬒
10. 2-tpg+4G[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 00:26:15
>>2-tpg+xx
Another thing of note. A large percentage of the opposition to the lab leak hypothesis seems to stem from anti-Trump sentiment. In January 2020 the media first mentioned and entertained the lab leak hypothesis (interviewing military intelligence analysts) and seemed to treat it in a factual manner. Intelligence community knew that COVID was a thing before December (and China knew), even when China was saying the first case came in January. Then China deployed 1000s of online trolls and their diplomats would start spouting "no-you!" conspiracy theories, such as "US military brought COVID to Wuhan during Military World Games". In response, Trump started referring to COVID as the "China virus", and told reporters he thought the lab leak was likely, just not sure about accident or deliberate. Then with the anti-Trump sentiment this messaging was attacked for its crude irresponsible generalization (there are many Chinese origin people in US, just wanting a good life, without being spat on for importing the "China Virus") and interpreted purely as a political play by Trump to get the racist vote and being strong against China. So any mention of the "China Virus", and soon after, the lab leak hypothesis, became an indirect vote for far-right Conservatives or the basis of a racist conspiracy theory. Full circle when popular news started listing "COVID is leaked bioweapon research" as a conspiracy on par with Bill Gates being the Anti-Christ.

Very similar things happened with hydrochloroquine. HCQ was known effective for SARS-1, and prelim research showed it also was effective for SARS-2 (less grave symptoms developed) in the middle of February. Just did not help when the patient was already severely sick, so was not a cure, as touted by trigger-happy Trump months later. But then all of HCQ was discredited as being useless snake oil, and responsible for killing Americans when they drank aquarium cleaner. It was a political hit job on science, to punish Trump playing lose and politics. None the wiser or the healthier.

Finally. When the virus was not yet a pandemic (but clearly on the way there), the right prepper movement started talking about masks, self-treatment in case of hospital crisis, and food and vitamins (vitamin D and selenium were chosen for their effects against other viruses) to keep immune system healthy. Meanwhile in the US, progressive politicians held mask-less photo opportunities at China Town restaurants to signal their support and that fear is unreasonable. Democrat politicians, former presidents, and public health officials were stating to not buy N95 masks for these were not effective and wearing them would signal you were ill. Then Trump went muh-freedom-america on masks, and the progressive-left opposition to not mask wearing grew overnight.

On all these flip-flops, the US held conflicting positions, and any science was an afterthought. I classify your objection to the official US position on lab leak as lies as part of this politics game. It makes you think of your entire government as a single "bad" figure, blatantly lying or skipping over their intelligence agencies and geopolitics experts, because their irrational hatred for China feels deserving of a big lie. Trump and Pompeo fabricating the lab leak hypothesis seems like a bigger story than the Trump-Ukraine scandal. If you have any actual evidence for that (or strong circumstantial evidence beyond Trump playing loose with facts) then it is your duty to inform the American public of that radical conspiracy.

11. Diogen+1t1[view] [source] 2021-03-23 08:22:25
>>boring+(OP)
The Politico article is extremely dishonest. Josh Rogin has been claiming for a year now that US diplomats raised red flags about the WIV's safety. He wrote an article to this effect a year ago, based on diplomatic cables he had seen. Then the Washington Post obtained the full cables, and it turned out that Rogin had seriously mischaracterized them. They do not claim that the WIV has unsafe practices - only that its newest lab is still (2 years before officially opening) training personnel and can't yet run at full capacity. It asks the US government to continue its training program for WIV scientists. Yet Rogin continues to misrepresent the cables.
replies(2): >>boring+TL1 >>boring+ki2
◧◩
12. boring+MK1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 10:59:57
>>esja+n9
Please supply links on the research grants.
replies(1): >>esja+JW1
◧◩
13. boring+FL1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 11:07:05
>>pmille+da
So the Chinese government 100% scrubbed down any data and silenced anyone working there. They stonewalled the WHO and world at large during the beginning of the out break, likely to cover their tracks.

What changed for me is how much circumstantial evidences exists and probably a stronger signal: there hasn’t been another plausible starting point. When something smells this fishy there’s likely a reason. It’s starting to feel like, Occam’s razor - ie that a lab leak is the simplest explanation.

◧◩
14. boring+TL1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 11:09:08
>>Diogen+1t1
Source please, that will impact how much credence I give the article.
◧◩◪
15. esja+JW1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 12:33:18
>>boring+MK1
Sure.

Part 1, from 2014-2019, for 3.7M:

https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/8674931

Part 2, from 2019 until it was cancelled in April 2020:

https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9819304

Both led by Peter Daszak who is now also the lead WHO investigator. The same person who decided the WHO didn’t need to see the deleted virus databases, and the same person who co-ordinated the Lancet statement which minimised the lab leak theory early on (and let to it being considered a conspiracy theory).

Here he is on This Week In Virology, describing this sort of work. It’s worth watching the whole thing, but gets most interesting from minute 27 onward:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYDL_RK--w

For example he confirms it’s easy to modify these viruses in the lab, and mentions collaborating with Ralph Baric at UNC. Baric invented Remdesivir (with Gilead) - the “cure” that turned out not to work very well. His lab was doing gain of function experiments before the ban. Shi Zhengli (“bat woman” from Wuhan) worked very closely with Baric and Daszak.

replies(2): >>esja+uX1 >>boring+Yh2
◧◩◪◨
16. esja+uX1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 12:39:03
>>esja+JW1
Another overview here (there are plenty of these):

https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan...

◧◩◪◨
17. koheri+3a2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 14:02:26
>>pmille+je
I mean, isn't that obvious? The Chinese did not allow anyone to investigate WIV because they don't want to be blamed.

I agree that conclusions should not be drawn without evidence - but by the same token, you cannot rule this out as a possibility because no effort was put into investigating it.

◧◩◪◨
18. boring+Yh2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 14:38:15
>>esja+JW1
Seems like there continues to be more to this story. Still doesn't change my opinion that that is likely the source of the outbreak. I will adjust my priors as more information becomes available. It does complicate things quite a bit - would be great to know how much funding the US portion is vs the Chinese.
replies(1): >>esja+2D2
◧◩
19. boring+ki2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 14:40:03
>>Diogen+1t1
Also - i did do a check on Josh Rogin and it does seem he has done some underhanded reporting practices in the past. Not saying that discredits him completely but does muddy his work. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

That said - it doesn't yet change my priors about the likely source of outbreak which seems most plausibly at WIV.

◧◩◪◨⬒
20. esja+2D2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 16:27:34
>>boring+Yh2
I agree the Wuhan lab leak remains the most likely explanation. I think these additional details support that theory, as they verify that this activity was indeed taking place in Wuhan, while also helping explain the unusual behaviour of all the people who should be investigating but seem instead to be constantly deflecting.
replies(1): >>boring+vE2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
21. boring+vE2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 16:35:26
>>esja+2D2
Agree seems like we have the incentives lined up and the least plausible scenario without new information. Likely will never get to the bottom of this.
[go to top]