6 ms·

FYI, a couple of things to keep in mind: 1. This is a letter to the editor, and is not peer-reviewed[1] 2. This author does not have what some would consider

FYI, a couple of things to keep in mind: 1. This is a letter to the editor, and is not peer-reviewed[1] 2. This author does not have what some would consider a sterling history of submitted papers[2] [1] - Difference between Letters and Letters to the Editor: https://pubs.acs.org/page/amclct/about.html https://pubs.acs.org/page/amclct/about.html [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Fernandez&oldid=1024897239#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Fernandez&o...

ed25519FUUU 5y ago
I appreciate your skepticism. Unfortunately “skepticism” is basically the only credence given to the lab leak theory for the last year. Was the public intentionally mislead via the MSM? Personally I’m ready to entertain the theory because I no longer trust the institutional word.
- MPSimmons 5y ago
  I am not a biologist and am not qualified to comment on the content whatsoever. I was just doing background research on the article I was reading and the author of the paper, and wanted to bring to light what I found.
  - ed25519FUUU 5y ago
    That's a shame. Dams are extremely useful even if ecologicaly damaging. They provide clean and carbon free power generation and freshwater for farms and irrigation that would otherwise run out to the sea. Hopefully we can invest in more research to reduce and remove the ecological burden of dams.
late2part 5y ago
Nonetheless: 1. Fauci runs funding for gain of function research 2. Attributing COVID-19 to gain of function research hurts future gain of function research 3. Cui bono Some context: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/
- middleclick 5y ago
  > Fauci runs funding for gain of function research Fauci has denied multiple times that they funded gain of function research. Please cite your sources.
  - potiuper 5y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by NIH grants R01AI089728; (to F.L.) and R01AI110700 (to R.S.B. and F.L.). "To evaluate the potential genetic changes required for HKU4 to infect human cells, we reengineered HKU4 spike, aiming to build its capacity to mediate viral entry into human cells." Fauci has been director of NIAID since 1984, which is excessive.
    - middleclick 5y ago
      Fauci has categorically denied on record that they don't fund gain of function research. I am not qualified enough to comment if the re-engineering mentioned here is the same. I trust Fauci to not lie in a public hearing and to know what he is saying.
      - late2part 5y ago
        Like when he said we shouldn’t use masks? https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN26T2TR https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...
        randcraw 5y ago
        Being wrong is not at issue, especially when the source reverses their position as better info arises. What's at issue is malevolent intent — knowingly spreading falsehoods. I'm aware of no credible basis for believing the latter about Fauci.
  - alien_ 5y ago
Turing_Machine 5y ago
> This is a letter to the editor, and is not peer-reviewed True enough. On the other hand, they did publish it, which I'm positive they don't do with letters they believe are pure crackpottery, or otherwise without merit (of which I'm sure they get their share).
- bioinformatics 5y ago
  >On the other hand, they did publish it, which I'm positive they don't do with letters they believe are pure crackpottery You probably never read anything published on Nature and Science.
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    You probably don't know what you're talking about.
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      Right. He directly violates the HN rules, and I get modded down. He posted a dismissive snark about my (substantive) comment, and I replied in kind. Edit: For the record, I've read plenty of papers in both Nature and Science, so his claim that I haven't is objectively incorrect. My response stands: he doesn't know what he's talking about.
  - skwb 5y ago
    FWIW I have seen lots of trash in Nature and Science.
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      You haven't seen outright conspiracy theories, though.
greenwich26 5y ago
According to Google Scholar, he has dozens of papers, 10000 citations, and an h-index of 37. What do you have? And if you follow through, at least a couple of the four retractions mentioned on Wikipedia appear to be nothing but some acknowledgment/funding related trivia.
- tptacek 5y ago
  It doesn't matter what a commenter on HN has. A rare ironic case where the original comment isn't ad-hominem, but the dinging rebuttal is.
  - parineum 5y ago
    > This author does not have what some would consider a sterling history of submitted papers This is ad hominem. The link provided only supports the accusation with previous accusations.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      No, it’s not. In a discussion about the credibility of an academic researcher, their track record is entirely relevant. The same isn’t true of an HN comment.
      - deugo 5y ago
        Slight of hand. We were not discussing the credibility of an academic researcher, we were to discuss the contents and logical merit of their submission. Both were ad-hominem. The first one also suffers from a pompous bias: What does it even matter if the submission is not peer-reviewed? It could have been posted on a blog! It is dropping little seeds of doubt, to weaken and attack something you don't want to attack directly: "A warning to everyone that the linked website does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines for being a credible source." Expect better. If you demand peer-review, then review the contents as a peer! You have the opportunity to get what you want, instead of needlessly attacking a fellow scientist' credibility.
thu2111 5y ago
It seems that the most common response to arguments in favour of a lab leak is always to attack the messenger. First "It's Trump so don't listen to him", then "Nicholas Wade is a racist so don't read him" and now "Ariel Fernandez is only writing a letter and someone anonymously complained about one of his papers once but they were never told what the complaint was actually about and the generic expressions of concerns never went anywhere". That's weak sauce. I think most of us don't care who he is, only whether what they say is true. The claims in this article aren't actually new anyway, it was all covered in Wade's article already. So if it's wrong, let's hear why. That would certainly be interesting.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  DDGing his name and institute gets me here: http://www.arielfernandez.net/daruma-institute2.html http://www.arielfernandez.net/daruma-institute2.html Yeah, I can't tell if the biology paper is credible or not, but I smell crap when reading that institute's program. I think whether Covid is lab-engineered or natural doesn't affect me that drastically, the reality has been what this last year and more has been. My interest in the virus' origin is mainly in the popcorn-worthy political drama. But after reading that institute blurb I'll just set aside the popcorn because this work doesn't seem to be the smoking gun that will set off popcorn-worthy political consequences. Unless someone else who I judge more credible endorses that letter to the editor...
- tzs 5y ago
  > First "It's Trump so don't listen to him". People also didn't listen to him about wind turbines causing cancer. Or about vaccines causing autism. Or about global warming being a hoax by the Chinese to harm US manufacturing. Or about injecting disinfectants to fight COVID. There was not (and still isn't) any indication that he had any more evidence to back up his COVID origin claims than he had for any of those other claims. All you can safely conclude is that Trump saw a YouTube video or a website or TV commentator that claimed that, and uncritically accepted it.
  - the-dude 5y ago
    Could you post the source for the injection claim? It seems to me you uncritically accepted some YT video, website or TV commentator.
bigpumpkin 5y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong. RaTG13's genome was published in 2020 after the pandemic started by Shi and the Wuhan Institute of technology. Doesn't seem likely they'll voluntarily publish a paper on a virus they used as the backbone to manufacture SARS-CoV-2... Even if it was a lab leak, it's unlikely RaTG13 was the progenitor.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  We don't know if there ever was a wild RaTG13. If WIV is under suspicion, anything WIV said about RaTG13 is equally suspect. If it is faked, one might be surprised they did not fake it in a way less likely to encourage suspicion. Nobody seriously suspects WIV engineered the SARS-CoV2 to deliberately cause a pandemic, but negligently letting it escape is itself obviously worth covering up. Whether that happened or not, it is their misfortune that it doesn't look more like a natural chimera. I have assumed early insistence that it was natural was considered necessary to get any possibility of cooperation from the Chinese gov't. Now that they have become uncooperative, there is no more reason to maintain the fiction.
- nomoreplease 5y ago
  > Shi and the Wuhan Institute of technology. Doesn't seem likely they'll voluntarily Shi and WIT are not related to WIV, are they? This could be independent and without explicit consent of WIV?
  - potiuper 5y ago
    Shi directs the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Zhengli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Zhengli The original article, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation comments, and "urban" food security arguments, which rate near the necessity of cannibalism, distract from continuing to ban the most likely sources of zoonotic diseases and wildlife smuggling that are the wet markets.

ed25519FUUU 5y ago

I appreciate your skepticism. Unfortunately “skepticism” is basically the only credence given to the lab leak theory for the last year. Was the public intentionally mislead via the MSM? Personally I’m ready to entertain the theory because I no longer trust the institutional word.

MPSimmons 5y ago
I am not a biologist and am not qualified to comment on the content whatsoever. I was just doing background research on the article I was reading and the author of the paper, and wanted to bring to light what I found.
- ed25519FUUU 5y ago
  That's a shame. Dams are extremely useful even if ecologicaly damaging. They provide clean and carbon free power generation and freshwater for farms and irrigation that would otherwise run out to the sea. Hopefully we can invest in more research to reduce and remove the ecological burden of dams.

late2part 5y ago

Nonetheless: 1. Fauci runs funding for gain of function research 2. Attributing COVID-19 to gain of function research hurts future gain of function research 3. Cui bono Some context: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/

middleclick 5y ago
> Fauci runs funding for gain of function research Fauci has denied multiple times that they funded gain of function research. Please cite your sources.
- potiuper 5y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by NIH grants R01AI089728; (to F.L.) and R01AI110700 (to R.S.B. and F.L.). "To evaluate the potential genetic changes required for HKU4 to infect human cells, we reengineered HKU4 spike, aiming to build its capacity to mediate viral entry into human cells." Fauci has been director of NIAID since 1984, which is excessive.
  - middleclick 5y ago
    Fauci has categorically denied on record that they don't fund gain of function research. I am not qualified enough to comment if the re-engineering mentioned here is the same. I trust Fauci to not lie in a public hearing and to know what he is saying.
    - late2part 5y ago
      Like when he said we shouldn’t use masks? https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN26T2TR https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...
      - randcraw 5y ago
        Being wrong is not at issue, especially when the source reverses their position as better info arises. What's at issue is malevolent intent — knowingly spreading falsehoods. I'm aware of no credible basis for believing the latter about Fauci.
- alien_ 5y ago

Turing_Machine 5y ago

> This is a letter to the editor, and is not peer-reviewed True enough. On the other hand, they did publish it, which I'm positive they don't do with letters they believe are pure crackpottery, or otherwise without merit (of which I'm sure they get their share).

bioinformatics 5y ago
>On the other hand, they did publish it, which I'm positive they don't do with letters they believe are pure crackpottery You probably never read anything published on Nature and Science.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  You probably don't know what you're talking about.
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    Right. He directly violates the HN rules, and I get modded down. He posted a dismissive snark about my (substantive) comment, and I replied in kind. Edit: For the record, I've read plenty of papers in both Nature and Science, so his claim that I haven't is objectively incorrect. My response stands: he doesn't know what he's talking about.
- skwb 5y ago
  FWIW I have seen lots of trash in Nature and Science.
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    You haven't seen outright conspiracy theories, though.

greenwich26 5y ago

According to Google Scholar, he has dozens of papers, 10000 citations, and an h-index of 37. What do you have? And if you follow through, at least a couple of the four retractions mentioned on Wikipedia appear to be nothing but some acknowledgment/funding related trivia.

tptacek 5y ago
It doesn't matter what a commenter on HN has. A rare ironic case where the original comment isn't ad-hominem, but the dinging rebuttal is.
- parineum 5y ago
  > This author does not have what some would consider a sterling history of submitted papers This is ad hominem. The link provided only supports the accusation with previous accusations.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    No, it’s not. In a discussion about the credibility of an academic researcher, their track record is entirely relevant. The same isn’t true of an HN comment.
    - deugo 5y ago
      Slight of hand. We were not discussing the credibility of an academic researcher, we were to discuss the contents and logical merit of their submission. Both were ad-hominem. The first one also suffers from a pompous bias: What does it even matter if the submission is not peer-reviewed? It could have been posted on a blog! It is dropping little seeds of doubt, to weaken and attack something you don't want to attack directly: "A warning to everyone that the linked website does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines for being a credible source." Expect better. If you demand peer-review, then review the contents as a peer! You have the opportunity to get what you want, instead of needlessly attacking a fellow scientist' credibility.

thu2111 5y ago

It seems that the most common response to arguments in favour of a lab leak is always to attack the messenger. First "It's Trump so don't listen to him", then "Nicholas Wade is a racist so don't read him" and now "Ariel Fernandez is only writing a letter and someone anonymously complained about one of his papers once but they were never told what the complaint was actually about and the generic expressions of concerns never went anywhere". That's weak sauce. I think most of us don't care who he is, only whether what they say is true. The claims in this article aren't actually new anyway, it was all covered in Wade's article already. So if it's wrong, let's hear why. That would certainly be interesting.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
DDGing his name and institute gets me here: http://www.arielfernandez.net/daruma-institute2.html http://www.arielfernandez.net/daruma-institute2.html Yeah, I can't tell if the biology paper is credible or not, but I smell crap when reading that institute's program. I think whether Covid is lab-engineered or natural doesn't affect me that drastically, the reality has been what this last year and more has been. My interest in the virus' origin is mainly in the popcorn-worthy political drama. But after reading that institute blurb I'll just set aside the popcorn because this work doesn't seem to be the smoking gun that will set off popcorn-worthy political consequences. Unless someone else who I judge more credible endorses that letter to the editor...
tzs 5y ago
> First "It's Trump so don't listen to him". People also didn't listen to him about wind turbines causing cancer. Or about vaccines causing autism. Or about global warming being a hoax by the Chinese to harm US manufacturing. Or about injecting disinfectants to fight COVID. There was not (and still isn't) any indication that he had any more evidence to back up his COVID origin claims than he had for any of those other claims. All you can safely conclude is that Trump saw a YouTube video or a website or TV commentator that claimed that, and uncritically accepted it.
- the-dude 5y ago
  Could you post the source for the injection claim? It seems to me you uncritically accepted some YT video, website or TV commentator.

bigpumpkin 5y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong. RaTG13's genome was published in 2020 after the pandemic started by Shi and the Wuhan Institute of technology. Doesn't seem likely they'll voluntarily publish a paper on a virus they used as the backbone to manufacture SARS-CoV-2... Even if it was a lab leak, it's unlikely RaTG13 was the progenitor.

ncmncm 5y ago
We don't know if there ever was a wild RaTG13. If WIV is under suspicion, anything WIV said about RaTG13 is equally suspect. If it is faked, one might be surprised they did not fake it in a way less likely to encourage suspicion. Nobody seriously suspects WIV engineered the SARS-CoV2 to deliberately cause a pandemic, but negligently letting it escape is itself obviously worth covering up. Whether that happened or not, it is their misfortune that it doesn't look more like a natural chimera. I have assumed early insistence that it was natural was considered necessary to get any possibility of cooperation from the Chinese gov't. Now that they have become uncooperative, there is no more reason to maintain the fiction.
nomoreplease 5y ago
> Shi and the Wuhan Institute of technology. Doesn't seem likely they'll voluntarily Shi and WIT are not related to WIV, are they? This could be independent and without explicit consent of WIV?
- potiuper 5y ago
  Shi directs the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Zhengli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Zhengli The original article, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation comments, and "urban" food security arguments, which rate near the necessity of cannibalism, distract from continuing to ban the most likely sources of zoonotic diseases and wildlife smuggling that are the wet markets.