7 ms·

For an alternative perspective on this - the official WHO report covers the lab hypothesis: https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus/origins-of-the-virus

For an alternative perspective on this - the official WHO report covers the lab hypothesis: https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus/origins-of-the-virus https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus/origins-of-the... Origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus And unlike the arrticle here, this report is based upon interviews with employees at the lab and various form of documentation provided by the lab. Including health records of the employees. For more from one of the WHO people: https://theconversation.com/i-was-the-australian-doctor-on-the-whos-covid-19-mission-to-china-heres-what-we-found-about-the-origins-of-the-coronavirus-155554 https://theconversation.com/i-was-the-australian-doctor-on-t... I was the Australian doctor on the WHO’s COVID-19 mission to China. Here’s what we found about the origins of the coronavirus

harry8 6y ago
Heavy on "we looked at and we found x." Light on reasoning on why the conclusions are drawn and from what evidence.
Clewza313 6y ago
So I've been pretty skeptical of the lab theory to date, but: > We visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is an impressive research facility, and looks to be run well, with due regard to staff health. We spoke to the scientists there. We heard that scientists’ blood samples, which are routinely taken and stored, were tested for signs they had been infected. No evidence of antibodies to the coronavirus was found. We looked at their biosecurity audits. No evidence. So this is what they were told, but did they actually test the samples, and confirm that they belonged to the right people and originated from the given date? Apparently no. > We looked at the closest virus to SARS-CoV-2 they were working on — the virus RaTG13 — which had been detected in caves in southern China where some miners had died seven years previously. But all the scientists had was a genetic sequence for this virus. They hadn’t managed to grow it in culture. This is probably the most convincing argument: if they actually had worked on viruses similar enough to plausible be modified into SARS-CoV-2, this would have left evidence in scientific papers etc. > While viruses certainly do escape from laboratories, this is rare. So, we concluded it was extremely unlikely this had happened in Wuhan. This is incredibly weak: "lab escapes are rare, so it's extremely unlikely" is not much of an argument.
- nxpnsv 6y ago
  > This is probably the most convincing argument: if they actually had worked on viruses similar enough to plausible be modified into SARS-CoV-2, this would have left evidence in scientific papers etc. Possibly also worth to consider that there are very high incentives to publishing in China, as far as I understand authors can often get rewarded for publications
- andreareina 6y ago
  I'm reading it as shorthand for, "The prior probability of a lab escape is low, and we didn't see much evidence for it in this particular case, therefore we conclude that this instance being a lab escape is low", which is a fine argument.
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    Yes. It seems that proponents of the lab leak theory wants to turn the burden of proof upside down: I am claiming conspiracy starting with Anthony Fauci and ending up in a Chinese lab. It is up to you to provide hard evidence on why it is not so. Sure you can do that as in freedom of thought and speech. But honestly; this is not really a constructive way to go about things.
    - kspacewalk2 6y ago
      There is nothing to turn upside down. The burden of proof is equal for both theories.
      - throwaway4good 6y ago
        The null hypothesis is "we don't know".
      - exegete 6y ago
        The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be in my opinion.
Gatsky 6y ago
This is an entirely unsatisfactory investigation. Given the colossal incentive to absolve themselves of any responsibility, what possible value is there in asking the Chinese scientists questions and looking at what they give you? What would any rational entity do in this situation of causing a global pandemic?
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  Admit it and say sorry? Or at least say "it is regrettable".
  - tryonenow 6y ago
    That's not how things work in authoritarian states with cultures that strongly prioritize face.
Thorentis 6y ago
Sorry but, interviewing staff at the lab to see if they are responsible? This is like putting a murderer who just pleaded not-guilty in the stand and asking them "did you do it?". What kind of answers were the WHO expecting to get?

harry8 6y ago

Heavy on "we looked at and we found x." Light on reasoning on why the conclusions are drawn and from what evidence.

Clewza313 6y ago

So I've been pretty skeptical of the lab theory to date, but: > We visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is an impressive research facility, and looks to be run well, with due regard to staff health. We spoke to the scientists there. We heard that scientists’ blood samples, which are routinely taken and stored, were tested for signs they had been infected. No evidence of antibodies to the coronavirus was found. We looked at their biosecurity audits. No evidence. So this is what they were told, but did they actually test the samples, and confirm that they belonged to the right people and originated from the given date? Apparently no. > We looked at the closest virus to SARS-CoV-2 they were working on — the virus RaTG13 — which had been detected in caves in southern China where some miners had died seven years previously. But all the scientists had was a genetic sequence for this virus. They hadn’t managed to grow it in culture. This is probably the most convincing argument: if they actually had worked on viruses similar enough to plausible be modified into SARS-CoV-2, this would have left evidence in scientific papers etc. > While viruses certainly do escape from laboratories, this is rare. So, we concluded it was extremely unlikely this had happened in Wuhan. This is incredibly weak: "lab escapes are rare, so it's extremely unlikely" is not much of an argument.

nxpnsv 6y ago
> This is probably the most convincing argument: if they actually had worked on viruses similar enough to plausible be modified into SARS-CoV-2, this would have left evidence in scientific papers etc. Possibly also worth to consider that there are very high incentives to publishing in China, as far as I understand authors can often get rewarded for publications
andreareina 6y ago
I'm reading it as shorthand for, "The prior probability of a lab escape is low, and we didn't see much evidence for it in this particular case, therefore we conclude that this instance being a lab escape is low", which is a fine argument.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Yes. It seems that proponents of the lab leak theory wants to turn the burden of proof upside down: I am claiming conspiracy starting with Anthony Fauci and ending up in a Chinese lab. It is up to you to provide hard evidence on why it is not so. Sure you can do that as in freedom of thought and speech. But honestly; this is not really a constructive way to go about things.
  - kspacewalk2 6y ago
    There is nothing to turn upside down. The burden of proof is equal for both theories.
    - throwaway4good 6y ago
      The null hypothesis is "we don't know".
    - exegete 6y ago
      The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be in my opinion.

Gatsky 6y ago

This is an entirely unsatisfactory investigation. Given the colossal incentive to absolve themselves of any responsibility, what possible value is there in asking the Chinese scientists questions and looking at what they give you? What would any rational entity do in this situation of causing a global pandemic?

SiempreViernes 6y ago
Admit it and say sorry? Or at least say "it is regrettable".
- tryonenow 6y ago
  That's not how things work in authoritarian states with cultures that strongly prioritize face.

Thorentis 6y ago

Sorry but, interviewing staff at the lab to see if they are responsible? This is like putting a murderer who just pleaded not-guilty in the stand and asking them "did you do it?". What kind of answers were the WHO expecting to get?