3 ms·

I've seen so many posts about or at least implicitly accepting the lab leak hypothesis in a very short time now, that it almost seems like some sort of concerte

I've seen so many posts about or at least implicitly accepting the lab leak hypothesis in a very short time now, that it almost seems like some sort of concerted campaign to me. Would be interesting to know if there is an upvoting block doing this. Did I miss any new evidence coming out? Everything I saw so far seemed rather circumstantial.

ProjectArcturis 5y ago
This is a pretty good summary of the lab leak hypothesis: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-... Evaluate it on its own merits. Personally I think it's incredibly compelling, but there are certainly many smart people who disagree.
codyb 5y ago
I don’t really have an opinion one way or the other to offer on your concerted campaign comment or the origins of the covid 19 virus but my understanding is basically this… People postulated Trump politicized Others kept researching and found important facts There was internal fighting and dissension throughout various entities about whether or not to pursue these inquiries Certain initial assessments may have been tainted by the biases of their authors And we’re in the stage now where the inconsistencies, biases, and details are all coming out in this steady trickle and things are snowballing a bit.
Invictus0 5y ago
There's a good writeup here: https://project-evidence.github.io/ https://project-evidence.github.io/
- raphlinus 5y ago
  The latest commit to that anonymously authored repo is over a year ago. I am a bit tired of these "we are an anonymous group pushing the truth" efforts; in the case of HCQ they are unmitigated bullshit. The best sourced argument for lab leak is the Drastic project[1]. This is basically the work that's been getting the media attention for the last few weeks. A good source for arguments holding the lab leak unlikely (there is of course no evidence strong enough to rule it out entirely) is episodes 760 and 762 of the podcast This Week in Virology[2]. Skeptics of authority would say that this is the community of virologists covering their own back. Others who basically believe in science [ETA: meaning basically trust scientists; this is a pretty complex concept to unpack] will find passionate and knowledgeable experts explaining why they find the lab leak hypothesis unlikely. [1]: https://drasticresearch.org/ https://drasticresearch.org/ [2]: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/
  - newrotik 5y ago
    Another compact source of information that is well referenced and is being kept up to date is here: https://jamiemetzl.com/origins-of-sars-cov-2/ https://jamiemetzl.com/origins-of-sars-cov-2/
    - raphlinus 5y ago
      I grant you that this is well researched. However, readers should bear in mind that this resource is first and foremost a persuasive effort in favor of the lab leak hypothesis.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
I suspect there are many people who consider it likely, felt silenced, and are now feeling vindicated. While I obviously don't have hard evidence, the constant coverups make me consider the lab leak theory rather likely. The WHO inquiry seemed to conclude that they have no clue, but they were very adamant that it definitely wasn't a lab leak, with no supporting evidence. The whole thing reeked like an attempt to appease China to possibly get some more access.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  If you have no evidence, "no clue" is the correct conclusion.
  - failwhaleshark 5y ago
    Yep, and it doesn't matter now. Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
    - jimbokun 5y ago
      It matters a lot for determining what kind of controls we need to place on virology research going forward.
      - failwhaleshark 5y ago
        Nope, not one bit. All pathogen research and engineering should be treated as a proliferation issue similar to nuclear weapons with international oversight. It's actually much, much worse because of independent biohacking and not needing rare enriched materials, which isn't a valid reason (chicken-little excuse) to not regulate it strongly globally.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    No, if we have some evidence, it can inform outcomes and we can act. This isn't a Judicial Trial, it's an investigation and pragmatic response. If we're 85% sure it came from the lab, that's materially actionable. But there's a 100% that China is obfuscating the situation on purpose and at very minimum they must be removed from the WHO. It's unthinkable that they could be a part of an organization and act directly against it at the same time. They'll do as they please (in this and other things), without consequence, because there are simply not cost to their actions. The issue is not Science, it's China. Given the existential consequences of COVID, the response to their intransigence should be existential, far beyond being removed from the WHO.
refulgentis 5y ago
To your point, it was widely understood last year it could have been a lab leak but almost certainly not a bioweapon, and a lot of people a year later are turning the science of this into another culture war battle based on the idea that last year it was _censored_ that it could have been a lab leak. I'm increasingly worried about a phenomena I see more and more often: a cohort 'rediscovering' an old topic and it being played as news. ex. Bitfinex/Tether was a scandal _years and years_ ago, and a lot of people rediscovered it and think its new because the legal proceedings from that initial outburst years ago finally wrapped up.
Lazare 5y ago
The theories seem to be: 1) Zoonotic 2) We have no idea, 3) Lab leak 4) Purposefully created and released bioweapon. What seems to have happened is that there's a large group that have always backed theory 2, but theories 2, 3, and 4 were lumped together, and then all effectively suppressed, meaning all you saw being discussed was theory 1, despite the fact that it was always a minority view. What happened fairly recently is that, for various reasons, theories 2 and 3 is no longer being effectively treated as synonymous with theory 4, and thus it's now "safe" to discuss theory 2 and 3. And now the large group of people who always backed theory 2 are seemingly everywhere. (I'd caution against interpreting people supporting what I've labelled theory 2 as "implicitly accepting the lab leak hypothesis". As the linked article states, "...the only conclusion here is that of doubt. There is no direct evidence that COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.")
- bob33212 5y ago
  Part of the confusion is that lab leak theory includes a zoonotic component. The virus started as a bat virus and then was modified in the lab. When Trump says "china made this virus" people assume he is saying it was made from scratch or made maliciously. Both of which are unlikely and Trump has a history of saying thing that are total bullshit like "my investigators in Hawaii are going to find proof of Obama's birth"
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    Trump's non-stop intentional effort to say outrageous and nonsensical things in order to inflame passions (for his own personal profit) and try to hide his own ignorance and lack of work ethic, make it important to have an honest public conversation. This can't be understated. It went so far that half a million US Americans died due a botched response that included people refusing to take basic safety precautions (and supported by their political leaders) just to "to own the libs"
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    It's a shame half a million Americans died to bring us a lesson most people learn in kindergarten.
sundarurfriend 5y ago
There's an interesting analysis here: https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COVID-19-SARS-CoV-2 https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COV... that concludes with 80+% probability in favour of the lab leak theory. It's still based on indicative evidence rather than definitive court-of-law evidence, but it's a good systematic attempt and makes me personally believe that the lab leak theory is more likely than not.

ProjectArcturis 5y ago

This is a pretty good summary of the lab leak hypothesis: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-... Evaluate it on its own merits. Personally I think it's incredibly compelling, but there are certainly many smart people who disagree.

codyb 5y ago

I don’t really have an opinion one way or the other to offer on your concerted campaign comment or the origins of the covid 19 virus but my understanding is basically this… People postulated Trump politicized Others kept researching and found important facts There was internal fighting and dissension throughout various entities about whether or not to pursue these inquiries Certain initial assessments may have been tainted by the biases of their authors And we’re in the stage now where the inconsistencies, biases, and details are all coming out in this steady trickle and things are snowballing a bit.

Invictus0 5y ago

There's a good writeup here: https://project-evidence.github.io/ https://project-evidence.github.io/

raphlinus 5y ago
The latest commit to that anonymously authored repo is over a year ago. I am a bit tired of these "we are an anonymous group pushing the truth" efforts; in the case of HCQ they are unmitigated bullshit. The best sourced argument for lab leak is the Drastic project[1]. This is basically the work that's been getting the media attention for the last few weeks. A good source for arguments holding the lab leak unlikely (there is of course no evidence strong enough to rule it out entirely) is episodes 760 and 762 of the podcast This Week in Virology[2]. Skeptics of authority would say that this is the community of virologists covering their own back. Others who basically believe in science [ETA: meaning basically trust scientists; this is a pretty complex concept to unpack] will find passionate and knowledgeable experts explaining why they find the lab leak hypothesis unlikely. [1]: https://drasticresearch.org/ https://drasticresearch.org/ [2]: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/
- newrotik 5y ago
  Another compact source of information that is well referenced and is being kept up to date is here: https://jamiemetzl.com/origins-of-sars-cov-2/ https://jamiemetzl.com/origins-of-sars-cov-2/
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    I grant you that this is well researched. However, readers should bear in mind that this resource is first and foremost a persuasive effort in favor of the lab leak hypothesis.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

I suspect there are many people who consider it likely, felt silenced, and are now feeling vindicated. While I obviously don't have hard evidence, the constant coverups make me consider the lab leak theory rather likely. The WHO inquiry seemed to conclude that they have no clue, but they were very adamant that it definitely wasn't a lab leak, with no supporting evidence. The whole thing reeked like an attempt to appease China to possibly get some more access.

alisonkisk 5y ago
If you have no evidence, "no clue" is the correct conclusion.
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  Yep, and it doesn't matter now. Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
  - jimbokun 5y ago
    It matters a lot for determining what kind of controls we need to place on virology research going forward.
    - failwhaleshark 5y ago
      Nope, not one bit. All pathogen research and engineering should be treated as a proliferation issue similar to nuclear weapons with international oversight. It's actually much, much worse because of independent biohacking and not needing rare enriched materials, which isn't a valid reason (chicken-little excuse) to not regulate it strongly globally.
- jollybean 5y ago
  No, if we have some evidence, it can inform outcomes and we can act. This isn't a Judicial Trial, it's an investigation and pragmatic response. If we're 85% sure it came from the lab, that's materially actionable. But there's a 100% that China is obfuscating the situation on purpose and at very minimum they must be removed from the WHO. It's unthinkable that they could be a part of an organization and act directly against it at the same time. They'll do as they please (in this and other things), without consequence, because there are simply not cost to their actions. The issue is not Science, it's China. Given the existential consequences of COVID, the response to their intransigence should be existential, far beyond being removed from the WHO.

refulgentis 5y ago

To your point, it was widely understood last year it could have been a lab leak but almost certainly not a bioweapon, and a lot of people a year later are turning the science of this into another culture war battle based on the idea that last year it was _censored_ that it could have been a lab leak. I'm increasingly worried about a phenomena I see more and more often: a cohort 'rediscovering' an old topic and it being played as news. ex. Bitfinex/Tether was a scandal _years and years_ ago, and a lot of people rediscovered it and think its new because the legal proceedings from that initial outburst years ago finally wrapped up.

Lazare 5y ago

The theories seem to be: 1) Zoonotic 2) We have no idea, 3) Lab leak 4) Purposefully created and released bioweapon. What seems to have happened is that there's a large group that have always backed theory 2, but theories 2, 3, and 4 were lumped together, and then all effectively suppressed, meaning all you saw being discussed was theory 1, despite the fact that it was always a minority view. What happened fairly recently is that, for various reasons, theories 2 and 3 is no longer being effectively treated as synonymous with theory 4, and thus it's now "safe" to discuss theory 2 and 3. And now the large group of people who always backed theory 2 are seemingly everywhere. (I'd caution against interpreting people supporting what I've labelled theory 2 as "implicitly accepting the lab leak hypothesis". As the linked article states, "...the only conclusion here is that of doubt. There is no direct evidence that COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.")

bob33212 5y ago
Part of the confusion is that lab leak theory includes a zoonotic component. The virus started as a bat virus and then was modified in the lab. When Trump says "china made this virus" people assume he is saying it was made from scratch or made maliciously. Both of which are unlikely and Trump has a history of saying thing that are total bullshit like "my investigators in Hawaii are going to find proof of Obama's birth"
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  Trump's non-stop intentional effort to say outrageous and nonsensical things in order to inflame passions (for his own personal profit) and try to hide his own ignorance and lack of work ethic, make it important to have an honest public conversation. This can't be understated. It went so far that half a million US Americans died due a botched response that included people refusing to take basic safety precautions (and supported by their political leaders) just to "to own the libs"
- smoldesu 5y ago
  It's a shame half a million Americans died to bring us a lesson most people learn in kindergarten.

sundarurfriend 5y ago

There's an interesting analysis here: https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COVID-19-SARS-CoV-2 https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COV... that concludes with 80+% probability in favour of the lab leak theory. It's still based on indicative evidence rather than definitive court-of-law evidence, but it's a good systematic attempt and makes me personally believe that the lab leak theory is more likely than not.