5 ms·
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
by Clewza313 5y 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 5y 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 5y agoI'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 5y agoYes. 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 5y agoThere is nothing to turn upside down. The burden of proof is equal for both theories.
- throwaway4good 5y agoThe null hypothesis is "we don't know".
- exegete 5y agoThe 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.
- throwaway4good 5y agoExactly. There is an investegative group from the WHO interviewing the Wuhan lab people and looking at various form of documentation. The lab leak proponents claim that they are all lying and all the documents are fraudulent. The lab leak proponents have the burden of proof and IMHO kinda should shut up until they can carry that burden.
- neonological 5y agoDid you read the article. The investigative group is compromised. The doctors who were part of the group have strong connections and even experiments running in the same lab.
- zby 5y agoHas anyone compiled stats on lab escapes?
- novaRom 5y agoWould be nice to have it on Wikipedia. Here is one 2014's article: https://nationalpost.com/news/a-brief-terrifying-history-of-viruses-escaping-from-labs-70s-chinese-pandemic-was-a-lab-mistake https://nationalpost.com/news/a-brief-terrifying-history-of-...
- reuben_scratton 5y agoLab escapes are not that rare, SARS-1 is known to have escaped 6 times. It also doesn't matter how safe and secure the WIV's BSL-4 lab is, since coronavirus research was done at BSL-2 and BSL-3.
- makomk 5y 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. If I remember correctly, wasn't there no evidence in scientific papers etc that the virus RaTG13, which is the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2, actually existed until after the Covid pandemic started and they suddenly published information about it?
- travisp 5y agoThis isn't hard for to check. Yes, basically all research on RaTG13 did appear after the Covid pandemic, as you would naturally expect given that scientists were interested in it given the similarity. Nobody was interested in the RaTG13 previously. However, the evidence is pretty clear that this was found and published earlier. It was originally described as "BtCoV/4991" and it was described and published as far as I can find as far back as 2016. (The name was changed to RaTG13 to describe that it was collected in 2013 in Tongguan). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/983856042 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/983856042 <-- partial RaTG13 sequence in 2016
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]