5 ms·

> That SARS-COV-2 was cooked up in a lab This is a straw man argument. No one is seriously claiming that this is a "cooked up" (artificially created) virus. It

> That SARS-COV-2 was cooked up in a lab This is a straw man argument. No one is seriously claiming that this is a "cooked up" (artificially created) virus. It could be a natural virus that escaped the lab.

jeduehr 6y ago
Hi, I actually wrote a direct response to this idea in my original post. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vRbACWf90iBC35xNOwlI5bWcUq0nNzLc/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vRbACWf90iBC35xNOwlI5bWcUq0... (Footnote 1) Also, you can literally look around on this exact post and find people who believe that this virus was cooked up in a lab. There were also a lot of people on my original post who believed that. As is often the case: never underestimate the intellectual overconfidence of people with little knowledge of the subject matter. To draw a very clear distinction in the sand, I never said we can be 100% certain that this virus didn't originate in a lab. It's just really really unlikely. And there isn't any real evidence to support it. /Maybe/ some circumstantial evidence in the geographic proximity. But even that is probably irrelevant if the current epidemiological evidence is to be believed, which shows that the virus likely jumped into humans outside of Wuhan entirely. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of/fqpcfs2/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did... In order of likelihood, based on all available evidence and expert consensus: zoonotic release >>> accidental lab release of a wildly collected virus >>>>>>> accidental lab release of a "cooked up" virus > intentional lab release of a "cooked up virus"
- ricksunny 6y ago
  By the way, welcome to HN commments, as I note your account is five hours old. And here is fresh evidence that labs in Wuhan have worked on unpublished coronaviruses: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.01533 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.01533 The above findings are replicable by any bioinformatician operating on published sources. This preprint was reviewed by one of the authors of the Human Genome Project’s landmark 2001 paper having served as an HGP sequencing team leader at the Whitehead Institute: https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/1379399005763960835?s=21 https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/137939900576396083... The findings critically undermine Western zoonotic scientists’ (Daszak of the WHO-convened study particularly) claim that they knew what viruses WIV researchers were working on.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dang 6y ago
    > By the way, welcome to HN commments, as I note your account is five hours old. In this context, that does not read like a genuine welcome but rather as a sinister insinuation. That is seriously against the site guidelines. Please read and stick to them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. We want HN to be a place that's open to newcomers, not a smug and insular backwater. Internet users (including HN users, unfortunately) are vastly too likely to assume sinister manipulation and bad faith in others. By leading with a swipe like that, you not only break the site guidelines, you discredit the rest of your own comment. That's a pity. Please stick to substantive points in the future, and follow the rule of assuming good faith even when you feel like the other person isn't necessarily in good faith. The primary reason for the rule is that you (i.e. all of us) owe it to the community, not just to the other person per se.
    - ricksunny 6y ago
      Thanks, and I upvoted this mod comment. In my defense, I'll voice that the offending line contributes to the conversation, as it asserts the interlocutor has an axe to grind by setting up an account for just this article and commenting extensively on it. Of course however I'm sure many HN users ordinarily and appropriately register on the basis of one such stirring subject or another. Anyway I would edit out the offending line if I had the ability to.
- trevelyan 6y ago
  James, I read your post on Reddit back in the day. It was evasive and frankly condescending because you basically argue against something no-one familiar with the science is claiming: that COV is a chimeric virus that is the product of copy-and-paste genetic manipulation rather than directed evolution or gain-of-function research that has resulted in phylogenetic drift against something that was found in the wild -- most likely RaTG13. And why should anyone take your writing seriously when you don't even talk about "gain of function" research or the various other techniques that have been used in the past decade to aerosolize viruses like H5N1? If you know about them and are deliberately omitting all mention and analysis you are just being dishonest. If you don't then you clearly aren't an expert. There are also lots of on-topic scientific claims you could address that would let people evaluate your competence and also provide illumination -- what do statistical models say about how long it would take for RaTG13 to evolve into COV19 in the wild? What about in a lab? How likely or unlikely it is to find virii so far away from known ancestors? What are the chances of finding them once we start looking in the wild -- should we have expected to find a closer ancestor by now? And what about the claims made by the State Department about WIV, its closure in September (related: who in the West should be able to confirm/deny if this is the case)? I'd also personally be interested to hear how long it takes to develop research mice with ACE2 receptors since their existence by mid-2020 surely suggests a targeted research agenda that preceded the outbreak? Could scientists in Beijing really have done that in 2 months or whatever? If you want to be taken seriously, you need to frame the top two or three most credible lab-escape scenarios that work with what is actually public knowledge. Then address the evidence for and against. Setting up strawmen argument, knocking them down and then virtue-signalling on racism isn't useful or on-topic.
  - jeduehr 6y ago
    Hi I actually discussed the GOF several times in my post and subsequent comments. You can find them here: -http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid-19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of_virology_a_discussion_abo/fqrf5h7?context=3 http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid-19_did... -http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid-19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of_virology_a_discussion_abo/fqqn9oz?context=3 http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid-19_did... I also address the statistical models you describe, here: -https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of/fqpc7c8/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did... I go into detail about petri dish vs lab animals vs accelerated evolution and how implausible it is. Re: sampling viruses in the wild this isn't necessarily my area of expertise, I'm a lab guy. But I do know a lil bit about it, re: ebola in bats mostly. Only that it actually takes much longer than you think, and it has to do with our sampling methods. RNA is really really really short lived outside the host, and our sampling methods aren't that good at finding it inside animal secretions, they're optimized for humans and humans want to be sampled. you don't need to squeeze a human to get them to pee in a cup, or spit in one, or hold still to swab them like you do bats. So sampling is much more difficult. And since it's out in the field, the RNA decays more quickly too. Some advances have been made in this but it still is quite difficult. To give you an idea, here is a paper all about the vastly MASSIVE amount of estimated undiscovered viruses out there (figure 3 in particular): https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22975 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22975 I address the state department stuff also: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of/fqpccr1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did... Re: research mice, the mouse germination time from IVF to F1 (the first useful generation of mice) is about 12-16 weeks. Not that long on the global timescale, but really long in science. You can see a source for this here: http://ko.cwru.edu/info/breeding_strategies_manual.pdf http://ko.cwru.edu/info/breeding_strategies_manual.pdf And that's from Case Western in Ohio, not a Chinese source. It really is that fast. I'm sorry I'm not framing my arguments in precisely the way you want them, I framed them how I received the arguments out there having discussions in the real world with real skeptics. I then constructed the post to respond to those arguments I had been asked about. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. Take it or leave it.
- ricksunny 6y ago
  (reposting sans downmodded comment) Here is fresh evidence (< 1 wk ago) that labs in Wuhan have worked on unpublished coronaviruses: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.01533 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.01533 The above findings are replicable by any bioinformatician operating on published sources. This preprint was reviewed by one of the authors of the Human Genome Project’s landmark 2001 paper having served as an HGP sequencing team leader at the Whitehead Institute: https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/1379399005763960835?s=21 https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/137939900576396083... The findings critically undermine Western zoonotic scientists’ (Daszak of the WHO-convened study particularly) claim that they knew what viruses WIV researchers were working on.

jeduehr 6y ago

Hi, I actually wrote a direct response to this idea in my original post. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vRbACWf90iBC35xNOwlI5bWcUq0nNzLc/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vRbACWf90iBC35xNOwlI5bWcUq0... (Footnote 1) Also, you can literally look around on this exact post and find people who believe that this virus was cooked up in a lab. There were also a lot of people on my original post who believed that. As is often the case: never underestimate the intellectual overconfidence of people with little knowledge of the subject matter. To draw a very clear distinction in the sand, I never said we can be 100% certain that this virus didn't originate in a lab. It's just really really unlikely. And there isn't any real evidence to support it. /Maybe/ some circumstantial evidence in the geographic proximity. But even that is probably irrelevant if the current epidemiological evidence is to be believed, which shows that the virus likely jumped into humans outside of Wuhan entirely. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of/fqpcfs2/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did... In order of likelihood, based on all available evidence and expert consensus: zoonotic release >>> accidental lab release of a wildly collected virus >>>>>>> accidental lab release of a "cooked up" virus > intentional lab release of a "cooked up virus"

ricksunny 6y ago
By the way, welcome to HN commments, as I note your account is five hours old. And here is fresh evidence that labs in Wuhan have worked on unpublished coronaviruses: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.01533 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.01533 The above findings are replicable by any bioinformatician operating on published sources. This preprint was reviewed by one of the authors of the Human Genome Project’s landmark 2001 paper having served as an HGP sequencing team leader at the Whitehead Institute: https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/1379399005763960835?s=21 https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/137939900576396083... The findings critically undermine Western zoonotic scientists’ (Daszak of the WHO-convened study particularly) claim that they knew what viruses WIV researchers were working on.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 6y ago
  > By the way, welcome to HN commments, as I note your account is five hours old. In this context, that does not read like a genuine welcome but rather as a sinister insinuation. That is seriously against the site guidelines. Please read and stick to them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. We want HN to be a place that's open to newcomers, not a smug and insular backwater. Internet users (including HN users, unfortunately) are vastly too likely to assume sinister manipulation and bad faith in others. By leading with a swipe like that, you not only break the site guidelines, you discredit the rest of your own comment. That's a pity. Please stick to substantive points in the future, and follow the rule of assuming good faith even when you feel like the other person isn't necessarily in good faith. The primary reason for the rule is that you (i.e. all of us) owe it to the community, not just to the other person per se.
  - ricksunny 6y ago
    Thanks, and I upvoted this mod comment. In my defense, I'll voice that the offending line contributes to the conversation, as it asserts the interlocutor has an axe to grind by setting up an account for just this article and commenting extensively on it. Of course however I'm sure many HN users ordinarily and appropriately register on the basis of one such stirring subject or another. Anyway I would edit out the offending line if I had the ability to.
trevelyan 6y ago
James, I read your post on Reddit back in the day. It was evasive and frankly condescending because you basically argue against something no-one familiar with the science is claiming: that COV is a chimeric virus that is the product of copy-and-paste genetic manipulation rather than directed evolution or gain-of-function research that has resulted in phylogenetic drift against something that was found in the wild -- most likely RaTG13. And why should anyone take your writing seriously when you don't even talk about "gain of function" research or the various other techniques that have been used in the past decade to aerosolize viruses like H5N1? If you know about them and are deliberately omitting all mention and analysis you are just being dishonest. If you don't then you clearly aren't an expert. There are also lots of on-topic scientific claims you could address that would let people evaluate your competence and also provide illumination -- what do statistical models say about how long it would take for RaTG13 to evolve into COV19 in the wild? What about in a lab? How likely or unlikely it is to find virii so far away from known ancestors? What are the chances of finding them once we start looking in the wild -- should we have expected to find a closer ancestor by now? And what about the claims made by the State Department about WIV, its closure in September (related: who in the West should be able to confirm/deny if this is the case)? I'd also personally be interested to hear how long it takes to develop research mice with ACE2 receptors since their existence by mid-2020 surely suggests a targeted research agenda that preceded the outbreak? Could scientists in Beijing really have done that in 2 months or whatever? If you want to be taken seriously, you need to frame the top two or three most credible lab-escape scenarios that work with what is actually public knowledge. Then address the evidence for and against. Setting up strawmen argument, knocking them down and then virtue-signalling on racism isn't useful or on-topic.
- jeduehr 6y ago
  Hi I actually discussed the GOF several times in my post and subsequent comments. You can find them here: -http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid-19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of_virology_a_discussion_abo/fqrf5h7?context=3 http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid-19_did... -http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid-19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of_virology_a_discussion_abo/fqqn9oz?context=3 http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid-19_did... I also address the statistical models you describe, here: -https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of/fqpc7c8/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did... I go into detail about petri dish vs lab animals vs accelerated evolution and how implausible it is. Re: sampling viruses in the wild this isn't necessarily my area of expertise, I'm a lab guy. But I do know a lil bit about it, re: ebola in bats mostly. Only that it actually takes much longer than you think, and it has to do with our sampling methods. RNA is really really really short lived outside the host, and our sampling methods aren't that good at finding it inside animal secretions, they're optimized for humans and humans want to be sampled. you don't need to squeeze a human to get them to pee in a cup, or spit in one, or hold still to swab them like you do bats. So sampling is much more difficult. And since it's out in the field, the RNA decays more quickly too. Some advances have been made in this but it still is quite difficult. To give you an idea, here is a paper all about the vastly MASSIVE amount of estimated undiscovered viruses out there (figure 3 in particular): https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22975 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22975 I address the state department stuff also: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of/fqpccr1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did... Re: research mice, the mouse germination time from IVF to F1 (the first useful generation of mice) is about 12-16 weeks. Not that long on the global timescale, but really long in science. You can see a source for this here: http://ko.cwru.edu/info/breeding_strategies_manual.pdf http://ko.cwru.edu/info/breeding_strategies_manual.pdf And that's from Case Western in Ohio, not a Chinese source. It really is that fast. I'm sorry I'm not framing my arguments in precisely the way you want them, I framed them how I received the arguments out there having discussions in the real world with real skeptics. I then constructed the post to respond to those arguments I had been asked about. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. Take it or leave it.
ricksunny 6y ago
(reposting sans downmodded comment) Here is fresh evidence (< 1 wk ago) that labs in Wuhan have worked on unpublished coronaviruses: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.01533 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.01533 The above findings are replicable by any bioinformatician operating on published sources. This preprint was reviewed by one of the authors of the Human Genome Project’s landmark 2001 paper having served as an HGP sequencing team leader at the Whitehead Institute: https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/1379399005763960835?s=21 https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/137939900576396083... The findings critically undermine Western zoonotic scientists’ (Daszak of the WHO-convened study particularly) claim that they knew what viruses WIV researchers were working on.