5 ms·

There is no evidence it is from lab, while it likely originated from bats, pangolins have very similar virus extant in the wild. The burden of proof is heavily

by ivalm 6y ago

There is no evidence it is from lab, while it likely originated from bats, pangolins have very similar virus extant in the wild. The burden of proof is heavily on showing that it was released from the lab, Pinker wins by default.

betwixthewires 6y ago
The US state department has said that they have intelligence that tells them that it originated in a lab, but do not believe the release was deliberate. Now, I take that with a grain of salt, state agencies are known to sometimes say what they need to to further their agenda. But it is worth noting. I've seen a few interviews and articles by evolutionary microbiologists who have examined some of the genetic and behavioral traits and found several that indicate that it evolved under selective pressures of being in a controlled environment like a lab. I don't have links to them, but I'm sure they can be found with an internet search, once you wade through the mountains of bullshit that you're sure to pull up when you do. Two behavioral traits I noted were the significantly lower number of cases that are thought to have been spread outdoors and the propensity of the virus to move across different tissues, a trait that is deliberately selected for in lab testing of viruses because it enables ease of testing in different scenarios. So there is evidence is came from a lab, but so far no proof that the public is privy too.
- ivalm 6y ago
  No, just fake news [0]. At any rate, there are pretty good actual genetic studies, honestly what you would expect from a natural virus [1, 2] [0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/coronavirus-origins-misinformation-yan-report-fact-check-cvd/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/coronavir... [1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.24.391763v1.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.24.391763v1.... [2] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9241 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9241
  - Closi 6y ago
    I can see the articles, but personally can’t help but be a little suspicious. The coronavirus pandemic, which started from a coronavirus in bats swapping species, started in the same city that happened to be actively researching the ability of coronaviruses from bats to swap species. This doesn’t mean it was “non-natural genetically”, but I don’t see how we can eliminate it happening in the lab as a possibility, particularly considering if it was true there would be a large incentive to perform a cover up. I mean personally I believe it starting in the lab is the more obvious answer applying Occam’s Razor.
    - betwixthewires 6y ago
      I agree with you, but I don't see Occam's Razor applying here. There really is no more likely point of origin with just a cursory look at the situation. There's a bio testing lab at the point of origin, but there are also numerous examples of viruses jumping species. Looking at the behavior of the virus and the arguments of some evolutionary geneticists (and I'm not well versed in genetics so I'm trusting their credentials here) changes things a bit of course.
      - Closi 6y ago
        My logic for Occam's Razor is that if you see someone dead on the floor it's most likely they died of a heart attack. If you see someone dead on the floor and they are next to an open bottle of poison, they most likely died of a heart attack. Now maybe statistically it's more likely that someone just happened to have a heart attack next to an open bottle of poison, but Occam's Razor isn't to select the most likely answer, it's to select the simplest answer. The simpler answer is that he ingested poison, rather than he had a heart attack near a bottle of open poison. If a pandemic involving a bat-virus swapping species starts in a city then it was probably just a virus jumping species. If that city happens to be doing active research on how much bat-viruses can swap species, then I think Occam's Razor can apply. Obviously there is no objective truth to Occam's Razor, and what I think is the simplest explanation may differ from what you think is the simplest explanation.
- DarthGhandi 6y ago
  > So there is evidence is came from a lab No there isn't, none whatever. The state department released internal cables saying the lab in Wuhan was poorly staffed, that was from years ago. What else have they claimed besides that? You've really done a number on the meaning of the word here. Literally no evidence.
gojomo 6y ago
There is plenty of suggestive evidence the pandemic arose from a lab escape. Novel natural bat SARS-like coronaviruses have been found in caves hundred of miles from Wuhan... but are brought to Wuhan for study. Here – https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1197631383470034951 https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1197631383470034951 – an expert on the topic & scientific collaborator with a Wuhan lab describes research he was proud of in November 2019: > we’ve made great progress with bat SARS-related CoVs, ID’ing >50 novel strains, sequencing spike protein genes, ID’ing ones that bind to human cells, using recombinant viruses/humanized mice to see SARS-like signs, and showing some don’t respond to MAbs, vaccines... Lab accidents leading to investigator infection & escape are distressingly common. So why should "wet market vendor" or "wildlife trader" or "farmer" be a more presumptive index-case than "researcher modifying bat coronaviruses searching for those that are most dangerous in humanized animal models"?
- ivalm 6y ago
  See sister reply, it’s all basically FUD.
  - gojomo 6y ago
    Sister reply only seems to address the Yan report & malicious/military engineering - nothing about more generic lab escape. In particular, your NatGeo link's description of constant natural discoveries, and continuing searches for natural origins, is totally consistent with the most trivial & non-malicious lab escape scenario: (1) lab interested in this topic collects hundreds of novel natural strains that wouldn't normally cross from bats to human; (2) lab accident infects researcher; (3) researcher infects community. Isn't Peter Daszak, author of the tweet I quoted, a domain expert? We now know, from the pandemic, that a bat-related SARS-CoV2 virus that's highly transmissible in humans actually exists, somehow. There are human-staffed error-prone labs that specifically search for those kinds of viruses in bulk – for example, sending people deep into rarely-visited bat caves, collecting strains, then replicating (& remixing!) those strains to test them against human (and 'humanized') tissue for pathogenecity & treatment-resistance. Given those plain facts, what makes you think some other bat-human (pangolin-human?, something-else-human?) contact should be presumed a more likely route into humans than something involving a lab researcher? Until there's more evidence, why aren't they all live hypotheses?
tristanj 6y ago
The pangolin intermediate host theory, which has been heavily promoted by Chinese state media, has been invalidated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405773/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405773/ https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200708/Research-sheds-doubt-on-the-Pangolin-link-to-SARS-CoV-2.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200708/Research-sheds-do...
himinlomax 6y ago
While I agree it's unlikely it came from the lab, as the dreadful, disgusting wet markets have been known to be a risk for those pandemics for a long time and are more likely source, you can't just dismiss it out of hand. We certainly can't trust the communist dictatorship to clear up the issue with their aversion for openness and fondness for censorship.
jl2718 6y ago
I disagree. It’s easy to prove natural origin through a phylogenic tree, and that information is impossible to protect from the public. So now tell me what publicly-available evidence would guarantee to exist to prove lab origin.
- rozab 6y ago
  Well we know it had some natural origin, nobody is claiming the virus is synthetic. The question is whether it was inadvertently spread to humans through the actions of scientists, rather than pure serendipity. We also know that the Wuhan lab was studying samples of novel coronavirii found in wild bats. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/chinese-lab-conducted-extensive-research-on-deadly-bat-viruses-but-there-is-no-evidence-of-accidental-release/2020/04/30/3e5d12a0-8b0d-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/chinese-lab...
BlueTemplar 6y ago
So far, the scientists say that the "escaped from lab" scenario cannot be dismissed : https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-is-being-seriously-questioned https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-is-be...

by ivalm 6y ago

betwixthewires 6y ago

The US state department has said that they have intelligence that tells them that it originated in a lab, but do not believe the release was deliberate. Now, I take that with a grain of salt, state agencies are known to sometimes say what they need to to further their agenda. But it is worth noting. I've seen a few interviews and articles by evolutionary microbiologists who have examined some of the genetic and behavioral traits and found several that indicate that it evolved under selective pressures of being in a controlled environment like a lab. I don't have links to them, but I'm sure they can be found with an internet search, once you wade through the mountains of bullshit that you're sure to pull up when you do. Two behavioral traits I noted were the significantly lower number of cases that are thought to have been spread outdoors and the propensity of the virus to move across different tissues, a trait that is deliberately selected for in lab testing of viruses because it enables ease of testing in different scenarios. So there is evidence is came from a lab, but so far no proof that the public is privy too.

ivalm 6y ago
No, just fake news [0]. At any rate, there are pretty good actual genetic studies, honestly what you would expect from a natural virus [1, 2] [0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/coronavirus-origins-misinformation-yan-report-fact-check-cvd/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/coronavir... [1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.24.391763v1.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.24.391763v1.... [2] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9241 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9241
- Closi 6y ago
  I can see the articles, but personally can’t help but be a little suspicious. The coronavirus pandemic, which started from a coronavirus in bats swapping species, started in the same city that happened to be actively researching the ability of coronaviruses from bats to swap species. This doesn’t mean it was “non-natural genetically”, but I don’t see how we can eliminate it happening in the lab as a possibility, particularly considering if it was true there would be a large incentive to perform a cover up. I mean personally I believe it starting in the lab is the more obvious answer applying Occam’s Razor.
  - betwixthewires 6y ago
    I agree with you, but I don't see Occam's Razor applying here. There really is no more likely point of origin with just a cursory look at the situation. There's a bio testing lab at the point of origin, but there are also numerous examples of viruses jumping species. Looking at the behavior of the virus and the arguments of some evolutionary geneticists (and I'm not well versed in genetics so I'm trusting their credentials here) changes things a bit of course.
    - Closi 6y ago
      My logic for Occam's Razor is that if you see someone dead on the floor it's most likely they died of a heart attack. If you see someone dead on the floor and they are next to an open bottle of poison, they most likely died of a heart attack. Now maybe statistically it's more likely that someone just happened to have a heart attack next to an open bottle of poison, but Occam's Razor isn't to select the most likely answer, it's to select the simplest answer. The simpler answer is that he ingested poison, rather than he had a heart attack near a bottle of open poison. If a pandemic involving a bat-virus swapping species starts in a city then it was probably just a virus jumping species. If that city happens to be doing active research on how much bat-viruses can swap species, then I think Occam's Razor can apply. Obviously there is no objective truth to Occam's Razor, and what I think is the simplest explanation may differ from what you think is the simplest explanation.
DarthGhandi 6y ago
> So there is evidence is came from a lab No there isn't, none whatever. The state department released internal cables saying the lab in Wuhan was poorly staffed, that was from years ago. What else have they claimed besides that? You've really done a number on the meaning of the word here. Literally no evidence.

gojomo 6y ago

There is plenty of suggestive evidence the pandemic arose from a lab escape. Novel natural bat SARS-like coronaviruses have been found in caves hundred of miles from Wuhan... but are brought to Wuhan for study. Here – https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1197631383470034951 https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1197631383470034951 – an expert on the topic & scientific collaborator with a Wuhan lab describes research he was proud of in November 2019: > we’ve made great progress with bat SARS-related CoVs, ID’ing >50 novel strains, sequencing spike protein genes, ID’ing ones that bind to human cells, using recombinant viruses/humanized mice to see SARS-like signs, and showing some don’t respond to MAbs, vaccines... Lab accidents leading to investigator infection & escape are distressingly common. So why should "wet market vendor" or "wildlife trader" or "farmer" be a more presumptive index-case than "researcher modifying bat coronaviruses searching for those that are most dangerous in humanized animal models"?

ivalm 6y ago
See sister reply, it’s all basically FUD.
- gojomo 6y ago
  Sister reply only seems to address the Yan report & malicious/military engineering - nothing about more generic lab escape. In particular, your NatGeo link's description of constant natural discoveries, and continuing searches for natural origins, is totally consistent with the most trivial & non-malicious lab escape scenario: (1) lab interested in this topic collects hundreds of novel natural strains that wouldn't normally cross from bats to human; (2) lab accident infects researcher; (3) researcher infects community. Isn't Peter Daszak, author of the tweet I quoted, a domain expert? We now know, from the pandemic, that a bat-related SARS-CoV2 virus that's highly transmissible in humans actually exists, somehow. There are human-staffed error-prone labs that specifically search for those kinds of viruses in bulk – for example, sending people deep into rarely-visited bat caves, collecting strains, then replicating (& remixing!) those strains to test them against human (and 'humanized') tissue for pathogenecity & treatment-resistance. Given those plain facts, what makes you think some other bat-human (pangolin-human?, something-else-human?) contact should be presumed a more likely route into humans than something involving a lab researcher? Until there's more evidence, why aren't they all live hypotheses?

tristanj 6y ago

The pangolin intermediate host theory, which has been heavily promoted by Chinese state media, has been invalidated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405773/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405773/ https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200708/Research-sheds-doubt-on-the-Pangolin-link-to-SARS-CoV-2.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200708/Research-sheds-do...

himinlomax 6y ago

While I agree it's unlikely it came from the lab, as the dreadful, disgusting wet markets have been known to be a risk for those pandemics for a long time and are more likely source, you can't just dismiss it out of hand. We certainly can't trust the communist dictatorship to clear up the issue with their aversion for openness and fondness for censorship.

jl2718 6y ago

I disagree. It’s easy to prove natural origin through a phylogenic tree, and that information is impossible to protect from the public. So now tell me what publicly-available evidence would guarantee to exist to prove lab origin.

rozab 6y ago
Well we know it had some natural origin, nobody is claiming the virus is synthetic. The question is whether it was inadvertently spread to humans through the actions of scientists, rather than pure serendipity. We also know that the Wuhan lab was studying samples of novel coronavirii found in wild bats. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/chinese-lab-conducted-extensive-research-on-deadly-bat-viruses-but-there-is-no-evidence-of-accidental-release/2020/04/30/3e5d12a0-8b0d-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/chinese-lab...

BlueTemplar 6y ago

So far, the scientists say that the "escaped from lab" scenario cannot be dismissed : https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-is-being-seriously-questioned https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-is-be...