10 ms·

Hi, I have a PhD in virology focused on emerging viruses, and a few months back I wrote a very lengthy and involved piece full of sources. And in there, I desc

Hi, I have a PhD in virology focused on emerging viruses, and a few months back I wrote a very lengthy and involved piece full of sources. And in there, I describe exactly how wrong your point 1 is. And how misguided your point 3 is. The post also won a "best of r/science 2020" award! You can find it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did...

rPlayer6554 6y ago
I'm sorry man, but wouldn't you be able to just reply directly if you feel inclined to disagree with the parent. I'm not saying HN is entitled to your opinion but it feels a little lazy and disrespectful to the parent to say "you're wrong" then drop a link off site to a massive general summary of the situation in order to respond to a few specific points. Especially since point 3 has a source from a decently reputable news site with reputable sources.
- jeduehr 6y ago
  Hi, I actually ended up responding below to point 3 in particular but I also respond to it in my original post. Very few, if any of these arguments are novel. The reason you will find extremely few people with actual credentials in the science we're discussing in these discussions is that working scientists don't have the time or will to get into these debates with people who wouldn't have the faintest idea how to actually conduct the research they're criticizing. That post I linked took like dozens and dozens of man hours to write, workshop, source, and edit. And I wrote it so I could link it in situations like this, and not repeat myself dozens or hundreds of times. Personally, I'm studying for the biggest exam of my professional life at the moment, and I'm procrastinating here because I find these discussions so horrifying. This entire thread could be a valuable case study in the Dunning Krueger effect. Not saying it's not worth talking about, but rather that the amount of time and effort it takes to refute bullshit is several magnitudes more than the amount of effort it takes to create it. In my case, that's 10+ years studying viruses so people on the internet with no credentials can tell me I'm wrong.
  - chimprich 6y ago
    Thanks for posting this - really interesting and valuable in my view. > The reason you will find extremely few people with actual credentials in the science we're discussing in these discussions is that working scientists don't have the time or will to get into these debates with people who wouldn't have the faintest idea how to actually conduct the research they're criticizing. We have such a big problem with public perception of science. I think many people are willing to be educated, but internet forums tend to degenerate into arguments between people who think they know a lot more than they do (even in (especially?) places like HN). Controversial idea: I think in the future we should pay researchers to spend x% of their time just interacting with people on internet forums answering questions and correcting misperceptions. The amount of disinformation out there is staggering.
    - jeduehr 6y ago
      Oh yeah I think that's a great idea. NSF has been toying with this kind of thing for a while, and they've put mandatory public-facing time in some of their grants. There just aren't all that many good venues for it. But I think the principle is fabulous, and we should fund more places for it to happen. The National Science Policy Network has a good Q&A site where credentialed scientists answer public questions about their subject area. I forget the URL but a google search should turn it up in a few pages. There's a similar one called the Science Creative Exchange where scientists sign up to talk to writers in hollywood and work through scripts and make the science in fiction more accurate wherever possible. I love both of these and have spent lots of time on them in my (ever dwindling) free time. But I'm also the guy who's commenting on a HN post when I should be studying for the biggest exam in my career (USMLE Step 1), so I'm not the best example.
  - phyalow 6y ago
    Firstly it is "Dunning-Kruger". Secondly you are engaging in an argument from "authority" without evidence which is often fallacious and always disingenuous.
    - jeduehr 6y ago
- maxerickson 6y ago
  This idea that everything always needs to be litigated from first principles is stupid. They pointed out what they thought was salient about their write up, if you don't want to read it don't, if you do and think they are wrong, you can write about why.
mistermann 6y ago
In what way is point 3 misguided?
- jeduehr 6y ago
  Everyone is citing the evidence of the SARS-CoV-1 leak as reason to believe that viruses escape labs. But you know what's interesting about that? We know about the CoV-1 leak because /the chinese scientists told us about it./ They owned up to it and told the world and the biosafety community (the people with degrees in these things) helped china become more standard and respectable and safe. And now 15 years later, with zero evidence, we're accusing them of covering up the same thing. Scientists are not their government, and China's government is not a huge fan of it's scientists. Just look at the great leap forward. And how they're treating Shi Zhengli now that she is arguing the virus came from a zoonotic event in the provinces. China's party line no longer agrees, and she's been silenced. Why would she lie for her government when they don't even agree?
  - mistermann 6y ago
    What you wrote here is not wrong, but point number 3 stated: > 3. Lab leaks happen more often than most people realize[1] As I see it, there are two variables involved: - how frequently lab leaks happen (total number of historic leaks - known + unknown) - people's realization / awareness of how often they happen > And now 15 years later, with zero evidence, we're accusing them of covering up the same thing. Regardless of whether there is evidence or not (have they been perfectly transparent and enthusiastically encouraging of inspections?), a leak did happen, or it did not happen...and then on top of it, there is the problem of whether we have knowledge of it or not. > Why would she lie for her government when they don't even agree? Like many other things in life, it is not known.
    - jeduehr 6y ago
      Re: inspections, Shi Zhengli has been yes. Her government, not so much. I am definitely not a fan of the Chinese government. But the scientists I've met at conferences and the papers I've reviewed from their labs have been of a very high quality. Not saying such people could not commit atrocities or coverups like this. But I do find it personally less likely. That isn't the evidence I rely on most in my personal assessment, though. The epidemiology and molecular clock data points to a zoonotic origin outside of Wuhan. Check out here to see what I mean: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpcfs2 https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpcfs2 Which makes the lab leak a whole lot less interesting of an idea since its' circumstantial evidence isn't actually the circumstance anymore.
AlarmALlama 6y ago
Hi. Do you still stand by your point 3.1.1, specifically your mutation rate of 2 changes/month, given that newer variants are believed to have arisen from intense mutational events in a small number of immunodeficient people?
- jeduehr 6y ago
  Hi, yes I do. Because those mutation events in a small number of people still require a longer time to become "stable" in the overall population of viruses. Generally speaking, the more virus "generations" you have, the more likely you are to generate a successful variant. But then it takes time for that variant to achieve dynamic equilibrium in the greater population of viruses. For it to take over. And the initial SARS-CoV-2 had so little diversity for so long, that we can say it likely had been stable before passing into humans, or there would have been more initial diversity in it compared to its closest viral relatives. It is a picture overall consistent with a random crossover event. Not ruling out a lab leak (because that's quite difficult if not impossible to do). The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But we have just as much evidence to say the virus came from aliens who planted it in humans as we do to say it came from a human lab that has no trace of the virus anywhere in it.
itssssotrue 6y ago
The fact that you state that your article won a "best of r/science 2020" award is a bit like stating you came in first at the special olympics.
- jeduehr 6y ago
  I would rather you criticize the facts of my argument than the platform it's raised on. I was under the impression HN has a certain sense of propriety in its "comment guidelines." Or do you want to stoop as low as the forums you criticize? Thanks
  - axiosgunnar 6y ago
    You can't expect him to restrict his criticism to the content of your arguments and not your person if you claim your argument must be true because you have a PhD and no time to retype your essay for us lowlifes.
    - jeduehr 6y ago
      I didn't say my argument must be true because I have a PhD. I said you should trust that I'm not talking out of my ass because I have a PhD. I'd much rather you read my arguments and criticize my content. The fact is, criticisms in these things come from all angles. I was simply preempting one type of criticism in saying I have a PhD so I have thought about this and studied it a lot. And then directly responding to another (that reddit is full of crap) by saying the content is what's important anyway. I'm not saying I'm right because I have a PhD. In the post I drectly say "I'd much rather you read the arguments anyway"
      - axiosgunnar 6y ago
        I would like to criticise your content but you haven't posted any. You have simply claimed the posters claims #1 and #3 were false "because you said so". Anyways I applaud and respect you for working your way up to the PhD and I am sure you are trying your best to spread the truth, but it would be more effective if you rehashed the main parts of that essay for all the readers here to see if you want to clear up whatever errors the poster has put out into the world.
loveistheanswer 6y ago
Which part of #1 is false? 1.1 Gain of function research primarily uses samples collected from nature 1.2 and seeks to stimulate their evolution in as natural a way as possible to learn how viruses evolve in nature. 1.3 If such viruses were to escape the lab, they would appear "natural"
- jeduehr 6y ago
  1.3. you cannot take any virus known in nature (like Ratg-13 for example) and "cook" it for long enough or in any specific way to make it look like SARS-CoV-2. You can't do it in the time we've been able to handle viruses like this or modify them in the ways we can. You'd have needed to start a few decades ago, have tools that we've only just invented, and a huge number of willing test subjects. I cover this in extreme detail in the post I linked under Q2 and Q3. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpbt6o https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpbt6o https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpc7c8 https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpc7c8 One of the most compelling pieces of evidence is the synonymous/nonsynonomous ratio of the genome and it's mosaic mutations. That's not something you can just cook up over night, it takes many millions of viral generations which require A) diverse hosts (like you find in a natural ecosystem), B) many millions of hosts, like you find in nature, and C) decades of time. The chinese virology labs don't have the resources, time, or space to do something like that. And maybe it would be kind of possible today with CRISPR and many thousands of oligonucleotides printed off of a desktop printer, but that technology hasn't existed for more than a few years. The timelines just don't add up.
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    Thank you for the detailed response. As a layperson, these specifics are over my head. Assuming everything you say is true, that still would not rule out a lab leak of a virus collected from nature, would it? >You can't do it in the time we've been able to handle viruses like this or modify them in the ways we can. You'd have needed to start a few decades ago, have tools that we've only just invented, and a huge number of willing test subjects. Does this imply that covid19 has been circulating among humans for a very long time?
greggman3 6y ago
Thank you for all that info and for taking the time to write it. Don't know why people can't be bother to just follow the link and instead expect you to repeat it all here.
- jeduehr 6y ago
  Part of me thinks it's because that's an easier argument to make than actually addressing any of the substance. Easier to just assume I won't respond and then they'll look more "right."
- abraae 6y ago
  Perhaps it's due to conditioning on stack overflow, where posting links on their own always swiftly invokes rebukes from the moderators (because linkrot).
  - jeduehr 6y ago
    But these are permalinks? This is like linking to a github. It doesn't just "disappear." Unless Reddit goes under, which is just as likely as StackOverflow or HN going under. At this point, with their market cap and increased moderation, probably less likely than the two I listed.
d0100 6y ago
> The post also won a "best of r/science 2020" award! It was probably awarded by /u/mvea
- jeduehr 6y ago
  Hi, it's actually voted on by users.

rPlayer6554 6y ago

I'm sorry man, but wouldn't you be able to just reply directly if you feel inclined to disagree with the parent. I'm not saying HN is entitled to your opinion but it feels a little lazy and disrespectful to the parent to say "you're wrong" then drop a link off site to a massive general summary of the situation in order to respond to a few specific points. Especially since point 3 has a source from a decently reputable news site with reputable sources.

jeduehr 6y ago
Hi, I actually ended up responding below to point 3 in particular but I also respond to it in my original post. Very few, if any of these arguments are novel. The reason you will find extremely few people with actual credentials in the science we're discussing in these discussions is that working scientists don't have the time or will to get into these debates with people who wouldn't have the faintest idea how to actually conduct the research they're criticizing. That post I linked took like dozens and dozens of man hours to write, workshop, source, and edit. And I wrote it so I could link it in situations like this, and not repeat myself dozens or hundreds of times. Personally, I'm studying for the biggest exam of my professional life at the moment, and I'm procrastinating here because I find these discussions so horrifying. This entire thread could be a valuable case study in the Dunning Krueger effect. Not saying it's not worth talking about, but rather that the amount of time and effort it takes to refute bullshit is several magnitudes more than the amount of effort it takes to create it. In my case, that's 10+ years studying viruses so people on the internet with no credentials can tell me I'm wrong.
- chimprich 6y ago
  Thanks for posting this - really interesting and valuable in my view. > The reason you will find extremely few people with actual credentials in the science we're discussing in these discussions is that working scientists don't have the time or will to get into these debates with people who wouldn't have the faintest idea how to actually conduct the research they're criticizing. We have such a big problem with public perception of science. I think many people are willing to be educated, but internet forums tend to degenerate into arguments between people who think they know a lot more than they do (even in (especially?) places like HN). Controversial idea: I think in the future we should pay researchers to spend x% of their time just interacting with people on internet forums answering questions and correcting misperceptions. The amount of disinformation out there is staggering.
  - jeduehr 6y ago
    Oh yeah I think that's a great idea. NSF has been toying with this kind of thing for a while, and they've put mandatory public-facing time in some of their grants. There just aren't all that many good venues for it. But I think the principle is fabulous, and we should fund more places for it to happen. The National Science Policy Network has a good Q&A site where credentialed scientists answer public questions about their subject area. I forget the URL but a google search should turn it up in a few pages. There's a similar one called the Science Creative Exchange where scientists sign up to talk to writers in hollywood and work through scripts and make the science in fiction more accurate wherever possible. I love both of these and have spent lots of time on them in my (ever dwindling) free time. But I'm also the guy who's commenting on a HN post when I should be studying for the biggest exam in my career (USMLE Step 1), so I'm not the best example.
- phyalow 6y ago
  Firstly it is "Dunning-Kruger". Secondly you are engaging in an argument from "authority" without evidence which is often fallacious and always disingenuous.
  - jeduehr 6y ago
maxerickson 6y ago
This idea that everything always needs to be litigated from first principles is stupid. They pointed out what they thought was salient about their write up, if you don't want to read it don't, if you do and think they are wrong, you can write about why.

mistermann 6y ago

In what way is point 3 misguided?

jeduehr 6y ago
Everyone is citing the evidence of the SARS-CoV-1 leak as reason to believe that viruses escape labs. But you know what's interesting about that? We know about the CoV-1 leak because /the chinese scientists told us about it./ They owned up to it and told the world and the biosafety community (the people with degrees in these things) helped china become more standard and respectable and safe. And now 15 years later, with zero evidence, we're accusing them of covering up the same thing. Scientists are not their government, and China's government is not a huge fan of it's scientists. Just look at the great leap forward. And how they're treating Shi Zhengli now that she is arguing the virus came from a zoonotic event in the provinces. China's party line no longer agrees, and she's been silenced. Why would she lie for her government when they don't even agree?
- mistermann 6y ago
  What you wrote here is not wrong, but point number 3 stated: > 3. Lab leaks happen more often than most people realize[1] As I see it, there are two variables involved: - how frequently lab leaks happen (total number of historic leaks - known + unknown) - people's realization / awareness of how often they happen > And now 15 years later, with zero evidence, we're accusing them of covering up the same thing. Regardless of whether there is evidence or not (have they been perfectly transparent and enthusiastically encouraging of inspections?), a leak did happen, or it did not happen...and then on top of it, there is the problem of whether we have knowledge of it or not. > Why would she lie for her government when they don't even agree? Like many other things in life, it is not known.
  - jeduehr 6y ago
    Re: inspections, Shi Zhengli has been yes. Her government, not so much. I am definitely not a fan of the Chinese government. But the scientists I've met at conferences and the papers I've reviewed from their labs have been of a very high quality. Not saying such people could not commit atrocities or coverups like this. But I do find it personally less likely. That isn't the evidence I rely on most in my personal assessment, though. The epidemiology and molecular clock data points to a zoonotic origin outside of Wuhan. Check out here to see what I mean: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpcfs2 https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpcfs2 Which makes the lab leak a whole lot less interesting of an idea since its' circumstantial evidence isn't actually the circumstance anymore.

AlarmALlama 6y ago

Hi. Do you still stand by your point 3.1.1, specifically your mutation rate of 2 changes/month, given that newer variants are believed to have arisen from intense mutational events in a small number of immunodeficient people?

jeduehr 6y ago
Hi, yes I do. Because those mutation events in a small number of people still require a longer time to become "stable" in the overall population of viruses. Generally speaking, the more virus "generations" you have, the more likely you are to generate a successful variant. But then it takes time for that variant to achieve dynamic equilibrium in the greater population of viruses. For it to take over. And the initial SARS-CoV-2 had so little diversity for so long, that we can say it likely had been stable before passing into humans, or there would have been more initial diversity in it compared to its closest viral relatives. It is a picture overall consistent with a random crossover event. Not ruling out a lab leak (because that's quite difficult if not impossible to do). The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But we have just as much evidence to say the virus came from aliens who planted it in humans as we do to say it came from a human lab that has no trace of the virus anywhere in it.

itssssotrue 6y ago

The fact that you state that your article won a "best of r/science 2020" award is a bit like stating you came in first at the special olympics.

jeduehr 6y ago
I would rather you criticize the facts of my argument than the platform it's raised on. I was under the impression HN has a certain sense of propriety in its "comment guidelines." Or do you want to stoop as low as the forums you criticize? Thanks
- axiosgunnar 6y ago
  You can't expect him to restrict his criticism to the content of your arguments and not your person if you claim your argument must be true because you have a PhD and no time to retype your essay for us lowlifes.
  - jeduehr 6y ago
    I didn't say my argument must be true because I have a PhD. I said you should trust that I'm not talking out of my ass because I have a PhD. I'd much rather you read my arguments and criticize my content. The fact is, criticisms in these things come from all angles. I was simply preempting one type of criticism in saying I have a PhD so I have thought about this and studied it a lot. And then directly responding to another (that reddit is full of crap) by saying the content is what's important anyway. I'm not saying I'm right because I have a PhD. In the post I drectly say "I'd much rather you read the arguments anyway"
    - axiosgunnar 6y ago
      I would like to criticise your content but you haven't posted any. You have simply claimed the posters claims #1 and #3 were false "because you said so". Anyways I applaud and respect you for working your way up to the PhD and I am sure you are trying your best to spread the truth, but it would be more effective if you rehashed the main parts of that essay for all the readers here to see if you want to clear up whatever errors the poster has put out into the world.

loveistheanswer 6y ago

Which part of #1 is false? 1.1 Gain of function research primarily uses samples collected from nature 1.2 and seeks to stimulate their evolution in as natural a way as possible to learn how viruses evolve in nature. 1.3 If such viruses were to escape the lab, they would appear "natural"

jeduehr 6y ago
1.3. you cannot take any virus known in nature (like Ratg-13 for example) and "cook" it for long enough or in any specific way to make it look like SARS-CoV-2. You can't do it in the time we've been able to handle viruses like this or modify them in the ways we can. You'd have needed to start a few decades ago, have tools that we've only just invented, and a huge number of willing test subjects. I cover this in extreme detail in the post I linked under Q2 and Q3. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpbt6o https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpbt6o https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpc7c8 https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpc7c8 One of the most compelling pieces of evidence is the synonymous/nonsynonomous ratio of the genome and it's mosaic mutations. That's not something you can just cook up over night, it takes many millions of viral generations which require A) diverse hosts (like you find in a natural ecosystem), B) many millions of hosts, like you find in nature, and C) decades of time. The chinese virology labs don't have the resources, time, or space to do something like that. And maybe it would be kind of possible today with CRISPR and many thousands of oligonucleotides printed off of a desktop printer, but that technology hasn't existed for more than a few years. The timelines just don't add up.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  Thank you for the detailed response. As a layperson, these specifics are over my head. Assuming everything you say is true, that still would not rule out a lab leak of a virus collected from nature, would it? >You can't do it in the time we've been able to handle viruses like this or modify them in the ways we can. You'd have needed to start a few decades ago, have tools that we've only just invented, and a huge number of willing test subjects. Does this imply that covid19 has been circulating among humans for a very long time?

greggman3 6y ago

Thank you for all that info and for taking the time to write it. Don't know why people can't be bother to just follow the link and instead expect you to repeat it all here.

jeduehr 6y ago
Part of me thinks it's because that's an easier argument to make than actually addressing any of the substance. Easier to just assume I won't respond and then they'll look more "right."
abraae 6y ago
Perhaps it's due to conditioning on stack overflow, where posting links on their own always swiftly invokes rebukes from the moderators (because linkrot).
- jeduehr 6y ago
  But these are permalinks? This is like linking to a github. It doesn't just "disappear." Unless Reddit goes under, which is just as likely as StackOverflow or HN going under. At this point, with their market cap and increased moderation, probably less likely than the two I listed.

d0100 6y ago

> The post also won a "best of r/science 2020" award! It was probably awarded by /u/mvea

jeduehr 6y ago
Hi, it's actually voted on by users.