zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. triple+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-03-22 22:39:21
In roughest form, Andersen is saying "SARS-CoV-2 doesn't closely resemble any existing known virus, so it wasn't produced by genetic manipulation of existing known viruses".

I think that's true, but it ignores the possibility that the WIV was working with new viruses with unpublished genomes. The WIV routinely organized expeditions to remote bat caves to collect samples. There's naturally some delay between sampling, sequencing, and publishing, no conspiracy required. For example, RaTG13, the closest known animal virus to SARS-CoV-2, was collected by the WIV in 2013 but published only after the start of the pandemic.

The WIV had a private database of viral genomes; but they took it offline in September 2019, they say due to hacking attempts. They haven't brought it back up, and the WHO has declined to ask for a copy.

SARS-CoV-2 certainly could be a naturally-evolved virus first transmitted from an animal to a non-scientist human. It could also be a naturally-evolved virus collected and accidentally released by the WIV, or a recombinant of multiple such viruses, or the descendant of such a virus after serial passaging. Nothing in Andersen's argument distinguishes any of these possibilities.

But don't trust me; check out Marc Lipsitch's Twitter feed today, or David Relman's article:

> Some have argued that a deliberate engineering scenario is unlikely because one would not have had the insight a priori to design the current pandemic virus (3). This argument fails to acknowledge the possibility that two or more as yet undisclosed ancestors (i.e., more proximal ancestors than RaTG13 and RmYN02) had already been discovered and were being studied in a laboratory—for example, one with the SARS-CoV-2 backbone and spike protein receptor-binding domain, and the other with the SARS-CoV-2 polybasic furin cleavage site. It would have been a logical next step to wonder about the properties of a recombinant virus and then create it in the laboratory.

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246

This isn't a conspiracy theory, and it's not even a fringe viewpoint anymore. It's just a reasonable step in investigating the yet-unknown origin of what could be the worst industrial accident in human history.

replies(3): >>tbenst+w3 >>s5300+xg >>Siempr+Xv
2. tbenst+w3[view] [source] 2021-03-22 22:56:46
>>triple+(OP)
Thank you for this thoughtful post! I learned something and would like to revise my opinion. Also came across this excellent article that covers some of the scientific discussion: https://undark.org/2021/03/17/lab-leak-science-lost-in-polit....

I now think the lab leak hypothesis is worth considering, and regret labeling as a conspiracy theory, although I maintain the characterization that the lab leak hypothesis is frequently found alongside other conspiracy theories.

I also would maintain that the current consensus is that SARS-COV-2 came from natural spillover, and the leak hypothesis is a minority opinion, but one held by credible scientists with well-thought arguments and therefore worth considering. I wish the original article would cite this work.

replies(1): >>triple+T8
◧◩
3. triple+T8[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-22 23:27:08
>>tbenst+w3
Thanks, and I appreciate the openness to new information, far too rare. I also suspect that most people who believe that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a lab accident believe so based on wildly faulty reasoning; but there's unfortunately a real case too.
4. s5300+xg[view] [source] 2021-03-23 00:23:05
>>triple+(OP)
Not to go too off topic - but out of curiosity, wouldn't you consider something like the four pests campaign to be a much worse industrial accident in human history? Or is that stretching the definition of industrial a bit much.
replies(1): >>triple+WE
5. Siempr+Xv[view] [source] 2021-03-23 02:29:06
>>triple+(OP)
Well, we do have statements from the WIV that none of their samples closely match the earliest SARS-CoV-2, but we can just assume they are just outright lying, right?

So, except for the fact that you must believe WIV did all these experiments in total secrecy (so that nobody outside heard of it while visiting, etc) and now won't admit to having done them, it's not a conspiracy theory.

replies(1): >>triple+vE
◧◩
6. triple+vE[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 03:42:43
>>Siempr+Xv
I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they're lying, but neither is it reasonable to assume that they're telling the truth. When a lot is at stake, we don't usually take people at their word--financial statements are audited, nuclear facilities are visited by international inspectors, and so on. I don't see why this should be different, but the Chinese government has continuously obstructed any such attempt.

And again, RaTG13, the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, was sampled by the WIV in 2013 and published only post-pandemic. So it's unquestionable that they had at least one unpublished virus similar to SARS-CoV-2 in their collection; the only question is how many others.

It's likely that the only people who know the answer are under the physical control of the Chinese government. Even if they're sometimes briefly abroad, they likely have loved ones behind. So it doesn't take any voluntary conspiracy to keep them quiet, just a direction from a government that has amply demonstrated e.g. in Xinjiang its willingness and ability to punish anyone who discloses its secrets.

As I mentioned earlier, a proximal animal host would greatly increase my confidence that SARS-CoV-2 originated from natural zoonosis. Is there any evidence short of a direct admission from the WIV that would decrease yours?

Finally, Marc Lipsitch and David Relman are Harvard epidemiology and Stanford microbiology profs respectively. I'd rather people engaged seriously with the evidence than just relied on credentials; but are you saying they're conspiracy theorists too?

replies(1): >>Siempr+7a1
◧◩
7. triple+WE[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 03:48:11
>>s5300+xg
Fair example. It feels different since the implementation was wrapped in more politics, since they deliberately intended a big ecological change (just a good one rather than a bad one). The root there was indeed a scientific mistake, though.
◧◩◪
8. Siempr+7a1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 09:26:00
>>triple+vE
Any evidence they have been misleading in their responses to direct questions about their samples would be a start.

And you are making a claim about them lying, this comes unavoidably from saying that the VIW is the origin of SARS-CoV-2 as the VIW themselves are publicly claiming they have nothing closer than RaTG13.

replies(1): >>triple+Kq2
◧◩◪◨
9. triple+Kq2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 17:31:30
>>Siempr+7a1
It seems simply inconceivable to you that the WIV would lie? Theranos managed to build a $10B company with 800 employees based entirely on a scientific fraud, and they kept it up for ten years with only David Boies to threaten whistleblowers. If the WIV is lying, then it's probably a smaller group of people, for a shorter time, with far nastier tools to keep them in line.

I noted above that the WIV had a database of viral genomes. Public access to that database was removed in September 2019. They say this was due to repeated hacking attempts. They've taken no steps to restore access, or to make the database available in another format (e.g., a dump on a flash drive) that would clearly present zero information security risk. Do you believe their explanation?

And for emphasis, I don't think it's certain that they're lying (about RaTG13 being the closest known relative, at least; I can't see how anyone with the slightest domain knowledge would believe the "hacking" claim), just as I don't think it's certain that a company is lying about their financials when I want to see audited results. The point is that I don't know, and it's normal for people making an important claim to actively want transparency, to build confidence so people don't have to trust them. The WIV's behavior here is the opposite of that.

[go to top]