4 ms·

Science 2004: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8587412_Infectious_diseases_Mounting_lab_accidents_raise_SARS_fears https://www.researchgate.net/publicat

Science 2004: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8587412_Infectious_diseases_Mounting_lab_accidents_raise_SARS_fears https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8587412_Infectious_... "For the third time in less than a year, an outbreak of SARS seems to have originated from a failure in laboratory containment. This latest incident, revealed in China late last week, is the most serious." 2019 Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity: Inaugural editorial: Towards evidence-based biosafety and biosecurity https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331229899_Inaugural_editorial_Towards_evidence-based_biosafety_and_biosecurity https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331229899_Inaugural... "In 2004, a case of laboratory-acquired SARS infection was reported, and a number of containment failures occurred in high-security laboratories in Singapore, Taiwan, and mainland China. The 2004 SARS outbreak in North China resulted from a series of flaws in the biosafety protocol at a national institute in Beijing, resulting in infection of four laboratory workers. This has been the most serious biosafety event to date."

simonh 6y ago
Oh I think it's entirely plausible this was an inadvertent escapee from a research facility, either of a naturally occurring virus under study or a bio-weapon. Neither possibility can be entirely discounted and I'd like to see a thorough investigation into the origins of the virus. That doesn't mean this paper is any use whatsoever. It's evidence is sketch, pasted together from snippets of other articles. There is no new research here at all, and it comes from sponsors with a long and well established track record of peddling disinformation. So sure, please do keep an open mind, but that goes both ways on theories like this.
- jkhdigital 6y ago
  Sketchy evidence? Tell me more. I look forward to your thoroughly-cited refutation of the paper’s main claims.
  - simonh 6y ago
    I described some of my criticisms in another post, basically they cherry picked only the evidence they wanted to from the papers they sourced their ideas from. This is not research. There is nothing new or original in this paper, it's just taking things from elsewhere, stripping off the context and stitching it together into their own narrative. There's nothing original or substantive there to refute.
    - jkhdigital 6y ago
      Since this paper is making what amounts to a forensic argument, there will inevitably be some "cherry picking" of evidence since much of the available evidence is not relevant and will necessarily be omitted. Just because the authors did not present new data from original experiments does not mean this doesn't count as "research"; synthesizing knowledge from across prior research is an important and effective tool for advancing any field. If you want to refute the claims of the paper by arguing that they cherry-picked evidence, you need to provide specific evidence that was omitted from the paper and show how it contradicts their claims. Your other comments on this thread provide only the slightest hint of an argument and do not constitute anything resembling a true refutation. I completely understand if you don't have the time or energy to compose a more thorough argument--after all, this is basically a flame war on an anonymous Internet forum. But if you find another source which presents a properly composed refutation of these claims, I'd appreciate it if you post a link here. I'll also be on the lookout for such arguments and post anything I find.
      - simonh 6y ago
        They took the protein sequences as evidence the virus didn't come directly from bats and concluded that therefore it must have been engineered. However the paper that did the research on that also showed that the virus is well adapted to mammals other than bats and humans, so it's very likely it cam to us from another mammal species other than bats. This blows a big hole in their bat -> engineering -> humans thesis and so they completely omitted any mention of it even though they must have read it and known all about it. I'm not refuting the claim that it might have been engineered. I'm still open minded on that question. I'm refuting their claim that the evidence demonstrates that it was engineered. The evidence does not demonstrate what they claim it does. That's what I'm refuting.
drran 6y ago
Dozens of such incidents also happened in USA, Soviet Union/RF, etc., including recent incident with Ebola. It's not unique to China.

simonh 6y ago

Oh I think it's entirely plausible this was an inadvertent escapee from a research facility, either of a naturally occurring virus under study or a bio-weapon. Neither possibility can be entirely discounted and I'd like to see a thorough investigation into the origins of the virus. That doesn't mean this paper is any use whatsoever. It's evidence is sketch, pasted together from snippets of other articles. There is no new research here at all, and it comes from sponsors with a long and well established track record of peddling disinformation. So sure, please do keep an open mind, but that goes both ways on theories like this.

jkhdigital 6y ago
Sketchy evidence? Tell me more. I look forward to your thoroughly-cited refutation of the paper’s main claims.
- simonh 6y ago
  I described some of my criticisms in another post, basically they cherry picked only the evidence they wanted to from the papers they sourced their ideas from. This is not research. There is nothing new or original in this paper, it's just taking things from elsewhere, stripping off the context and stitching it together into their own narrative. There's nothing original or substantive there to refute.
  - jkhdigital 6y ago
    Since this paper is making what amounts to a forensic argument, there will inevitably be some "cherry picking" of evidence since much of the available evidence is not relevant and will necessarily be omitted. Just because the authors did not present new data from original experiments does not mean this doesn't count as "research"; synthesizing knowledge from across prior research is an important and effective tool for advancing any field. If you want to refute the claims of the paper by arguing that they cherry-picked evidence, you need to provide specific evidence that was omitted from the paper and show how it contradicts their claims. Your other comments on this thread provide only the slightest hint of an argument and do not constitute anything resembling a true refutation. I completely understand if you don't have the time or energy to compose a more thorough argument--after all, this is basically a flame war on an anonymous Internet forum. But if you find another source which presents a properly composed refutation of these claims, I'd appreciate it if you post a link here. I'll also be on the lookout for such arguments and post anything I find.
    - simonh 6y ago
      They took the protein sequences as evidence the virus didn't come directly from bats and concluded that therefore it must have been engineered. However the paper that did the research on that also showed that the virus is well adapted to mammals other than bats and humans, so it's very likely it cam to us from another mammal species other than bats. This blows a big hole in their bat -> engineering -> humans thesis and so they completely omitted any mention of it even though they must have read it and known all about it. I'm not refuting the claim that it might have been engineered. I'm still open minded on that question. I'm refuting their claim that the evidence demonstrates that it was engineered. The evidence does not demonstrate what they claim it does. That's what I'm refuting.

drran 6y ago

Dozens of such incidents also happened in USA, Soviet Union/RF, etc., including recent incident with Ebola. It's not unique to China.