3 ms·

You are indeed misunderstanding the point. Smallpox is also naturally originating virus. That doesn't prohibit it from leaking from a lab.

tbenst 6y ago
The author is irresponsibility propagating a conspiracy theory and elevating its status in the public’s mind. I’m a bioscientist. It’s frustrating to respond with evidence and in good faith, and be downvoted by those who simply disagree. But sadly it appears that the loudest voice prevails over reason. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00599-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00599-7
- whiddershins 6y ago
  I, like many others, would truly like to be pointed to resources that can help me understand what would lead bio scientists to this conclusion. Make no mistake, I am super well aware that I lack all the grounding to understand the explanation. But can you point me in the right direction? The context surrounding what you are saying must be learnable. At least to some level.
  - tbenst 6y ago
    Your request is admirable! Here’s how I go about gathering info: Google “covid 19 origin evidence”, look for academic publications or scientific journalism that is well-cited & from reputable sources, eg [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01205-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01205-5 [2] https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-05-09/was-the-coronavirus-made-in-a-wuhan-lab-heres-what-the-genetic-evidence-shows https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-05-09/was-the-cor... [3] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/05/scientists-exactly-zero-evidence-covid-19-came-lab https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/05/scientis... [4] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/coronavirus-origins-misinformation-yan-report-fact-check-cvd https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/coronavir... We really need to do better with scientific communication. As scientists we are evaluated too much on our communication with other scientists (ie paper publishing), while communication with the public is not weighed much for career advancement. I wish this structural problem would be discussed more so it can be addressed. But not all of this is on the scientists. The public must do better. We can’t just blindly trust what a senator says on Fox News for political expedience, or “trust our gut”.
    - drocer88 6y ago
      There are other results, too. For instance ... https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.26478 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.26478 "However, the SARS‐CoV‐2 host tropism/adaptation pattern has significant discrepancies compared with other CoVs, raising questions concerning the proximal origin of SARS‐CoV‐2. The flat and nonsunken surface of the sialic acid‐binding domain of SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein (S protein) conflicts with the general adaptation and survival pattern observed for all other CoV" . https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-esca... : “There are indeed many unexplained features of this virus that are hard if not impossible to explain based on a completely natural origin.” Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, wrote that he’d been concerned for some years about the Wuhan laboratory and about the work being done there to create “chimeric” (i.e., hybrid) SARS-related bat coronaviruses “with enhanced human infectivity.” Ebright said, “In this context, the news of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan *screamed* lab release.” I couldn't find anything on Fox News.
- SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
  Could you explain why evidence that the virus evolved naturally contradicts the lab-leak theory? I'm all ears and waiting to hear the reasoning. As others have pointed out, lab-leak does not imply artificially developed. > I’m a bioscientist. And I'm a Bayesian analyst. Surely your position is that it is a coincidence that: - the virus appeared to originate in Wuhan - genome sequences from patients were 96% or 89% identical to the Bat CoV ZC45 coronavirus originally found in Rhinolophus affinis - The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which are more than 900 kilometers away Wuhan - According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market - Wuhan is home to two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus - Within ~280 meters from the market, there was the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention (WHCDC). WHCDC hosted animals in laboratories for research purposes. In one of their studies, 155 bats including Rhinolophus affinis were captured in Hubei province, and other 450 bats were captured in Zhejiang province - one of the researchers described that he was once by attacked by bats and the blood of a bat shot on his skin. In another accident, bats peed on him. He was once thrilled for capturing a bat carrying a live tick Not conclusive by any means, but I have yet to hear reasoning by which we should exclude the lab-leak theory, besides that the virus evolved naturally, which does not contradict the lab-leak theory whatsoever. Also, from your article: > As a team of researchers from the WHO This WHO? [0][1] Doesn't instill much confidence in me, to be sure. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM [1] https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/who-chief-urges-countries-not-close-borders-foreigners-china https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/...
  - tbenst 6y ago
    No, it is not a coincidence. There are a lot of bats in Wuhan. There are a lot of bats carrying coronaviruses. Coronaviruses have triggered past epidemics. Ergo, there’s an institute for virology in Wuhan. Listen starting at 6:30 in the podcast I posted from Nature. There is indeed strong correlation but no causal relationship established.
    - SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  Empirically, HN collectively gets things like this right much more often than not. It’s been right about the coming pandemic as early as beginning of Feb, it’s been right about masks when it was dismissed by CDC, and lab leak hypothesis has been dismissed as crank the whole time while building more and more of an implausible case that it wasn’t lab-leaked. HN has been coming around to that too. Of course, nothing is conclusive yet but you’re actually furthering the damages caused by misinformation by grouping this into it. If lab leak comes to fruition, there’s just going to be further outrage against traditional authority sources of info that gets things wrong, railing against people like you who called their correct hypothesis misinformation.
  - the_cat_kittles 6y ago
    ive been here for a decade... its my opinion that HN very much does NOT get things like this right more often than not. its very hard to even guage what the hn opinion is to begin with
    - reducesuffering 6y ago
      > "its very hard to even guage what the hn opinion is to begin with" Not sure how to square this with the fact you're saying HN collectively gets it wrong. Either you can't even determine what it is they're getting wrong or you're exceptionally good at gauging what the HN opinion is. Because of your quote, I'll assume you're not accurately gauging what HN's majority opinion is on issues, because it's "very hard." I spend a lot of time here and don't think it's difficult at all. While there's a lot of debate and disagreement, most issues have fairly clear >2/3 majorities. Classically liberal, anti-trumpism, climate change urgently needs addressing, anti-BigTech, static typing, Rust/Go > Java/C#, anti-CCP, anti-surveillance, pro-encryption / pro-privacy, pro-fasting, pro-lifting, decriminalize drug use, pro-rationalist, crypto mostly snake oil, more Twitter use/discussion than IG/Snap/TikTok though it's less popular, etc.
      - Leary 6y ago
        HN also said China couldn't contain Covid through lockdowns, how did that turn out?
- rpsw 6y ago
  What is your opinion the open letter, as mentioned in the article: https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/COVID%20OPEN%20LETTER%20FINAL%20030421%20(1).pdf https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/COVID%20OPEN%20... Would you say the signatories are being irresponsible or are not qualified to suggest the lab-leak theory is worth investigating?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- TurkishPoptart 6y ago
  Can you explain why you are calling a plausible theory a "conspiracy theory" when it is something that indeed has happened in world history more than once?
- pwang 6y ago
  You keep reposting this Nature article but it is vacuous. There are many "guilt by association to Trump", "false equivalency to outrageous conspiracy theories", etc. and other non-good-faith argumentation that the author relies upon. This does not give confidence in her motives. There are a few much more substantive sites with analysis into the genetics and circumstances around the virus, which emerged since the April 2020 which your Nature article cites as its primary source. Here's a direct debunk of that article: https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/03/19/china-owns-nature-magazines-ass-debunking-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2-claiming-covid-19-wasnt-from-a-lab/ https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/03/19/china-owns-natur... That author has written a more extensive article with much more information around the lab itself: https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/01/31/logistical-and-technical-analysis-of-the-origins-of-the-wuhan-coronavirus-2019-ncov/amp https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/01/31/logistical-and-t... And here is an analysis of RaTG13, the closest relative of SARS-CoV-2, as a "smoking gun": https://spark.adobe.com/page/7BVPjWfEJgQYB/ https://spark.adobe.com/page/7BVPjWfEJgQYB/

tbenst 6y ago

The author is irresponsibility propagating a conspiracy theory and elevating its status in the public’s mind. I’m a bioscientist. It’s frustrating to respond with evidence and in good faith, and be downvoted by those who simply disagree. But sadly it appears that the loudest voice prevails over reason. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00599-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00599-7

whiddershins 6y ago
I, like many others, would truly like to be pointed to resources that can help me understand what would lead bio scientists to this conclusion. Make no mistake, I am super well aware that I lack all the grounding to understand the explanation. But can you point me in the right direction? The context surrounding what you are saying must be learnable. At least to some level.
- tbenst 6y ago
  Your request is admirable! Here’s how I go about gathering info: Google “covid 19 origin evidence”, look for academic publications or scientific journalism that is well-cited & from reputable sources, eg [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01205-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01205-5 [2] https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-05-09/was-the-coronavirus-made-in-a-wuhan-lab-heres-what-the-genetic-evidence-shows https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-05-09/was-the-cor... [3] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/05/scientists-exactly-zero-evidence-covid-19-came-lab https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/05/scientis... [4] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/coronavirus-origins-misinformation-yan-report-fact-check-cvd https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/coronavir... We really need to do better with scientific communication. As scientists we are evaluated too much on our communication with other scientists (ie paper publishing), while communication with the public is not weighed much for career advancement. I wish this structural problem would be discussed more so it can be addressed. But not all of this is on the scientists. The public must do better. We can’t just blindly trust what a senator says on Fox News for political expedience, or “trust our gut”.
  - drocer88 6y ago
    There are other results, too. For instance ... https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.26478 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.26478 "However, the SARS‐CoV‐2 host tropism/adaptation pattern has significant discrepancies compared with other CoVs, raising questions concerning the proximal origin of SARS‐CoV‐2. The flat and nonsunken surface of the sialic acid‐binding domain of SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein (S protein) conflicts with the general adaptation and survival pattern observed for all other CoV" . https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-esca... : “There are indeed many unexplained features of this virus that are hard if not impossible to explain based on a completely natural origin.” Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, wrote that he’d been concerned for some years about the Wuhan laboratory and about the work being done there to create “chimeric” (i.e., hybrid) SARS-related bat coronaviruses “with enhanced human infectivity.” Ebright said, “In this context, the news of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan *screamed* lab release.” I couldn't find anything on Fox News.
SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
Could you explain why evidence that the virus evolved naturally contradicts the lab-leak theory? I'm all ears and waiting to hear the reasoning. As others have pointed out, lab-leak does not imply artificially developed. > I’m a bioscientist. And I'm a Bayesian analyst. Surely your position is that it is a coincidence that: - the virus appeared to originate in Wuhan - genome sequences from patients were 96% or 89% identical to the Bat CoV ZC45 coronavirus originally found in Rhinolophus affinis - The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which are more than 900 kilometers away Wuhan - According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market - Wuhan is home to two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus - Within ~280 meters from the market, there was the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention (WHCDC). WHCDC hosted animals in laboratories for research purposes. In one of their studies, 155 bats including Rhinolophus affinis were captured in Hubei province, and other 450 bats were captured in Zhejiang province - one of the researchers described that he was once by attacked by bats and the blood of a bat shot on his skin. In another accident, bats peed on him. He was once thrilled for capturing a bat carrying a live tick Not conclusive by any means, but I have yet to hear reasoning by which we should exclude the lab-leak theory, besides that the virus evolved naturally, which does not contradict the lab-leak theory whatsoever. Also, from your article: > As a team of researchers from the WHO This WHO? [0][1] Doesn't instill much confidence in me, to be sure. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM [1] https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/who-chief-urges-countries-not-close-borders-foreigners-china https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/...
- tbenst 6y ago
  No, it is not a coincidence. There are a lot of bats in Wuhan. There are a lot of bats carrying coronaviruses. Coronaviruses have triggered past epidemics. Ergo, there’s an institute for virology in Wuhan. Listen starting at 6:30 in the podcast I posted from Nature. There is indeed strong correlation but no causal relationship established.
  - SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
reducesuffering 6y ago
Empirically, HN collectively gets things like this right much more often than not. It’s been right about the coming pandemic as early as beginning of Feb, it’s been right about masks when it was dismissed by CDC, and lab leak hypothesis has been dismissed as crank the whole time while building more and more of an implausible case that it wasn’t lab-leaked. HN has been coming around to that too. Of course, nothing is conclusive yet but you’re actually furthering the damages caused by misinformation by grouping this into it. If lab leak comes to fruition, there’s just going to be further outrage against traditional authority sources of info that gets things wrong, railing against people like you who called their correct hypothesis misinformation.
- the_cat_kittles 6y ago
  ive been here for a decade... its my opinion that HN very much does NOT get things like this right more often than not. its very hard to even guage what the hn opinion is to begin with
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    > "its very hard to even guage what the hn opinion is to begin with" Not sure how to square this with the fact you're saying HN collectively gets it wrong. Either you can't even determine what it is they're getting wrong or you're exceptionally good at gauging what the HN opinion is. Because of your quote, I'll assume you're not accurately gauging what HN's majority opinion is on issues, because it's "very hard." I spend a lot of time here and don't think it's difficult at all. While there's a lot of debate and disagreement, most issues have fairly clear >2/3 majorities. Classically liberal, anti-trumpism, climate change urgently needs addressing, anti-BigTech, static typing, Rust/Go > Java/C#, anti-CCP, anti-surveillance, pro-encryption / pro-privacy, pro-fasting, pro-lifting, decriminalize drug use, pro-rationalist, crypto mostly snake oil, more Twitter use/discussion than IG/Snap/TikTok though it's less popular, etc.
    - Leary 6y ago
      HN also said China couldn't contain Covid through lockdowns, how did that turn out?
rpsw 6y ago
What is your opinion the open letter, as mentioned in the article: https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/COVID%20OPEN%20LETTER%20FINAL%20030421%20(1).pdf https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/COVID%20OPEN%20... Would you say the signatories are being irresponsible or are not qualified to suggest the lab-leak theory is worth investigating?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TurkishPoptart 6y ago
Can you explain why you are calling a plausible theory a "conspiracy theory" when it is something that indeed has happened in world history more than once?
pwang 6y ago
You keep reposting this Nature article but it is vacuous. There are many "guilt by association to Trump", "false equivalency to outrageous conspiracy theories", etc. and other non-good-faith argumentation that the author relies upon. This does not give confidence in her motives. There are a few much more substantive sites with analysis into the genetics and circumstances around the virus, which emerged since the April 2020 which your Nature article cites as its primary source. Here's a direct debunk of that article: https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/03/19/china-owns-nature-magazines-ass-debunking-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2-claiming-covid-19-wasnt-from-a-lab/ https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/03/19/china-owns-natur... That author has written a more extensive article with much more information around the lab itself: https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/01/31/logistical-and-technical-analysis-of-the-origins-of-the-wuhan-coronavirus-2019-ncov/amp https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/01/31/logistical-and-t... And here is an analysis of RaTG13, the closest relative of SARS-CoV-2, as a "smoking gun": https://spark.adobe.com/page/7BVPjWfEJgQYB/ https://spark.adobe.com/page/7BVPjWfEJgQYB/