6 ms·

The Case Is Building That Covid-19 Had a Lab Origin

63 points by BruceEel 6y ago

vaibhavthevedi 6y ago
The best part about the article is so many references.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  What proportion of the recent ones have seen peer review? I saw a lot of *xivs
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    These 5 from 2020 all seem to be peer reviewed. I'm no expert though. > (Zhou et al., 2020; Wrapp et al., 2020; Wan et al., 2020; Walls et al., 2020; Letko et al., 2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2507 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2507 https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00127-20 https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00127-20 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.19.956581 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.19.956581 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0688-y https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0688-y
    - stepstop 6y ago
      Does peer review still hold significant stature? It’s been discussed many times here how limited it is. I’m sad about it
- learnstats2 6y ago
  It references a bunch of papers that are irrelevant to its central point in an attempt to appear scientific.
redis_mlc 6y ago
Anybody who's well-read on corona estimates it's 50/50 lab or natural. The fact that 2 corona labs are located in Wuhan is awfully suspicious. But what is not discussed in detail is the following. Western articles focus on the market as being a "wet market", but that's possibly the wrong emphasis. There's 2 reasons to focus on just the "market" word: 1) As a major market, it's a high traffic area. SARS-1 is said to have come from a high-traffic market in 2002. 2) Apparently Wuhan residents don't eat bats, so those were unlikely to be in the market. That means the transmission is much more indirect than thought, and the source is even more likely to be the labs. The terrifying thing is that one scientific summary paper discusses Gain of Function (GOF) research at those labs, which have poor isolation, and that the CCP wiped those labs. GOF is modifying corona to either attack more animals, or be more virulent. And here we are.
- watwut 6y ago
  On two: pretty much all more then two sentences long explanations of virus origin I have seen months ago involved another animal in between. So no, another animal in between does not show explanation is more indirect then thought. It just shows something that was talked about openly in like January or February.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    > On two: pretty much all more then two sentences long explanations of virus origin I have seen months ago involved another animal in between. There was an implication the animal crossover occurred in the wet market, and it probably didn't because "no bats there." That was not clear in Western media. So work on your reading comprehension, amigo.
    - watwut 6y ago
      It was clear to me and I consume exclusively western production. Your surprising revelation was not surprising to people who were interested in topic.
    - dang 6y ago
duaoebg 6y ago
Why was this flagged/dead? It seemed pretty solid to me.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Because the idea is so often advanced without evidence by known bad sources. This article seems more level headed, and indeed acknowledges the problem. Maybe its most frightening sentence is: > US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently constructing a new and expanded national Bio and Agro-defense facility in Manhattan, Kansas. DHS has estimated that the 50-year risk (defined as having an economic impact of $9-50 billion) of a release from its lab at 70%. That's .. not great odds.
- zeitg3ist 6y ago
  I’m not sure, but the source website seems to be quite biased: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/bioscience-resource-project-anti-gmo-activist-group-promotes-conspiracy-theories-on-independent-science-news-website/ https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/bioscience-reso...
- akvadrako 6y ago
  It’s because the media and polite company decided long ago that a lab release was a “conspiracy theory” and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Why this is the case is more mysterious. One plausible explanation from Bret Weinstein is that it makes the work of virologists look very dangerous; maybe even more dangerous then not studying viruses.
lucd 6y ago
"the 41 earliest cases, including the first, had no connection to the animal market" Were they connected to the lab?
- cjhopman 6y ago
  Well, they weren't. But conspiracy theories are rarely about what things are or what happened and more about incredulity about what things aren't.
  - cjhopman 6y ago
    Also, wtf is with your blatant misquote of even this biased article. It's 14 of the first 41 have no connection.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
  About those "41 earliest cases": "By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients were identified as laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection in Wuhan." - from the source cited by the article. Those are not "the first who had it", they were identified hospitalised cases. It is guesswork how many people were infected at the time, but assuming ~ 10^3 in Wuhan at January 2nd 2020 seems likely. Remember: France had cases in December, as did Italy: - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/french-hospital-discovers-covid-19-case-december-retested https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/french-hospita... - https://smartwatermagazine.com/news/smart-water-magazine/study-detects-coronavirus-northern-italys-wastewater-december https://smartwatermagazine.com/news/smart-water-magazine/stu...
sunw 6y ago
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/independent-science-news/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/independent-science-news/

63 points by BruceEel 6y ago

vaibhavthevedi 6y ago

The best part about the article is so many references.

mhh__ 6y ago
What proportion of the recent ones have seen peer review? I saw a lot of *xivs
- Thorrez 6y ago
  These 5 from 2020 all seem to be peer reviewed. I'm no expert though. > (Zhou et al., 2020; Wrapp et al., 2020; Wan et al., 2020; Walls et al., 2020; Letko et al., 2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2507 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2507 https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00127-20 https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00127-20 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.19.956581 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.19.956581 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0688-y https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0688-y
  - stepstop 6y ago
    Does peer review still hold significant stature? It’s been discussed many times here how limited it is. I’m sad about it
learnstats2 6y ago
It references a bunch of papers that are irrelevant to its central point in an attempt to appear scientific.

redis_mlc 6y ago

Anybody who's well-read on corona estimates it's 50/50 lab or natural. The fact that 2 corona labs are located in Wuhan is awfully suspicious. But what is not discussed in detail is the following. Western articles focus on the market as being a "wet market", but that's possibly the wrong emphasis. There's 2 reasons to focus on just the "market" word: 1) As a major market, it's a high traffic area. SARS-1 is said to have come from a high-traffic market in 2002. 2) Apparently Wuhan residents don't eat bats, so those were unlikely to be in the market. That means the transmission is much more indirect than thought, and the source is even more likely to be the labs. The terrifying thing is that one scientific summary paper discusses Gain of Function (GOF) research at those labs, which have poor isolation, and that the CCP wiped those labs. GOF is modifying corona to either attack more animals, or be more virulent. And here we are.

watwut 6y ago
On two: pretty much all more then two sentences long explanations of virus origin I have seen months ago involved another animal in between. So no, another animal in between does not show explanation is more indirect then thought. It just shows something that was talked about openly in like January or February.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > On two: pretty much all more then two sentences long explanations of virus origin I have seen months ago involved another animal in between. There was an implication the animal crossover occurred in the wet market, and it probably didn't because "no bats there." That was not clear in Western media. So work on your reading comprehension, amigo.
  - watwut 6y ago
    It was clear to me and I consume exclusively western production. Your surprising revelation was not surprising to people who were interested in topic.
  - dang 6y ago

duaoebg 6y ago

Why was this flagged/dead? It seemed pretty solid to me.

pjc50 6y ago
Because the idea is so often advanced without evidence by known bad sources. This article seems more level headed, and indeed acknowledges the problem. Maybe its most frightening sentence is: > US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently constructing a new and expanded national Bio and Agro-defense facility in Manhattan, Kansas. DHS has estimated that the 50-year risk (defined as having an economic impact of $9-50 billion) of a release from its lab at 70%. That's .. not great odds.
zeitg3ist 6y ago
I’m not sure, but the source website seems to be quite biased: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/bioscience-resource-project-anti-gmo-activist-group-promotes-conspiracy-theories-on-independent-science-news-website/ https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/bioscience-reso...
akvadrako 6y ago
It’s because the media and polite company decided long ago that a lab release was a “conspiracy theory” and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Why this is the case is more mysterious. One plausible explanation from Bret Weinstein is that it makes the work of virologists look very dangerous; maybe even more dangerous then not studying viruses.

lucd 6y ago

"the 41 earliest cases, including the first, had no connection to the animal market" Were they connected to the lab?

cjhopman 6y ago
Well, they weren't. But conspiracy theories are rarely about what things are or what happened and more about incredulity about what things aren't.
- cjhopman 6y ago
  Also, wtf is with your blatant misquote of even this biased article. It's 14 of the first 41 have no connection.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
About those "41 earliest cases": "By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients were identified as laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection in Wuhan." - from the source cited by the article. Those are not "the first who had it", they were identified hospitalised cases. It is guesswork how many people were infected at the time, but assuming ~ 10^3 in Wuhan at January 2nd 2020 seems likely. Remember: France had cases in December, as did Italy: - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/french-hospital-discovers-covid-19-case-december-retested https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/french-hospita... - https://smartwatermagazine.com/news/smart-water-magazine/study-detects-coronavirus-northern-italys-wastewater-december https://smartwatermagazine.com/news/smart-water-magazine/stu...

sunw 6y ago

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/independent-science-news/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/independent-science-news/