22 ms·

The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

274 points by apsec112 5y ago

LatteLazy 5y ago
It really doesn't make a difference if covid came from a lab or not, or even whether it was released on purpose or not. No one will stand up to China whether they did this on purpose or by gross negligence. So no one will stand up to China. So nothing will change...
- aaomidi 5y ago
  Better yet, it doesn't matter because supposedly we're spending billions of DoD to actually have plans to defend against a bio weapon attack. Where is the RoI on that? We failed miserably.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Like the majority of DOD spending, all promise and no delivery. We're still building aircraft carriers while hackers cut off the utilities...
- GordonS 5y ago
  Could China have handled this better? Hell yes. The thing is though, I seriously doubt the end result would have been any different if the virus has first come about in any other country. Imagine that the virus has first been discovered in Atlanta (first US city that came to mind) - would officials really be brave enough to have a hard, immediate lockdown, with all the economic hardships that would entail, and with all the problems of getting a doubting populace on onboard? (keeping in mind that Trump's initial reaction was to denounce the very notion of a serious virus as a "hoax")
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    > would officials really be brave enough to have a hard, immediate lockdown To ask the question is to know the answer. Just imagine a public health official trying to convince the mayor or governor to quarantine a city of millions of people, based on a small number of pneumonia cases.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    I wasn't really referring to their reaction to covid, rather their creation of covid. Leaving aside the Lab origin theories, Covid 19 never would have happened if China had hygienic food supply-chains and banned wet markets. That's where other zoonotic diseases have come from in recent years from China (SARS is the biggest example). They closed the markets, new viruses stopped happening and everything was fine. Then they opened the markets again and we got covid 19. China is like a drink driver who already hit someone and refused to stop drunk driving and hit another person. Right now no one wants to make them stop driving. So I guess we'll just keep getting pandemics? Covid 19 is really just SARS 2.0. That's what really gets me here (sorry, I'm ranting now). China knew this would happen. Everyone did. And they did it anyway. And now everyone is pretending like it was bad luck or something!? This is literally why every other major, industrial country has food hygiene laws and minimal "Bush meat". Thanks for listening to me shout into the wind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr... Edit: I wonder if one of the reasons china is so unwilling to engage is to encourage people to think it was a bio-weapon accident (we'll never stop that happening) rather than just "the CCP is too weak and lazy to say no to old people who want bat soup". Conspiracy within the conspiracy! But I'm an idiot so probably not...
- deelowe 5y ago
  The article is specifically discussing concerns with us funding of this sort of research. That is something that can change.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  If it makes no difference, why obstruct investigations and attempt to conceal data? [0] [1] Why not simply collaborate and cooperate with the authorities in finding the truth? After all, they are 100% convinced the origin of the virus is natural... [0] https://www.newsweek.com/china-calls-us-investigation-covid-lab-leak-theory-ridiculous-conspiracy-theory-1598978 https://www.newsweek.com/china-calls-us-investigation-covid-... [1] https://nypost.com/2021/06/04/chinese-virologist-says-fauci-emails-verify-her-lab-leak-claims/ https://nypost.com/2021/06/04/chinese-virologist-says-fauci-...
908B64B197 5y ago
To think that a few months ago, sharing this article would have gotten someone banned from Facebook for sharing "conspiracy theories".
- secondcoming 5y ago
  Indeed. The whole thing needs to be looked at. Someone somewhere decided that the topic was taboo and needed to be purged from the internet, and then someone somewhere decided that it was ok that the tpoic gets to see the light of day. It's all quite sinister.
  - throwaway6734 5y ago
    Don't use Facebook
    - bumbada 5y ago
      We should develop open source decentralized alternatives to it that are easy to use.
      - kwthrows 5y ago
        It won't change anything. This isn't to do with facebook per-se, you'd just get "unlinked" from whatever arbitrators or aggreggators of a decentralized alternative exist, and still be labeled a social outcast and a conspiracy theorist. It's not a technology problem, rather it's one of imbeciles. It also exists on HN. There is a bevvy of topics we are not allowed to discuss here because dang will point to some arbitrary guidelines saying how "that's not allowed here" and ban you. It's the same shit everywhere. Basically, the moment you step outside of the given narrative and what is and isn't allowed to be questioned, you should have zero (or less than zero, actually) expectation of having a platform where you can voice your concerns, and heaven forbid that your online persona be linked with your personal details, because if it is, you are in so much deep shit it's not even worth it for most people to utter certain words.
runawaybottle 5y ago
People will hate this source, but this is the most info I’ve seen revealed about the actual conditions in the Wuhan lab(s): https://www.the-sun.com/news/3174242/wuhan-labs-leak-covid-chaotic-crowded/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/3174242/wuhan-labs-leak-covid-c...
- aplummer 5y ago
  That's because the source regularly deliberately misinforms. So it's impossible to know if literally any of the claims here are completely made up. For example: _In December 2019, The Sun's political editor, Tom Newton Dunn, wrote an article for the paper titled "Hijacked Labour", alleging that "Jeremy Corbyn is at the centre of an extraordinary network of hard-left extremists pieced together by former British intelligence officers", a network ranging from Novara Media contributor Ash Sarkar to French philosopher Michel Foucault, who has been dead since 1984, that is alleged to be pulling Corbyn's strings.[204] It was later found that the ultimate sources for this claim included the antisemitic, far-right websites The Millennium Report and Aryan Unity._ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(United_Kingdom)#Far-right_conspiracy_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(United_Kingdom)#Far-r...
  - nytyellow 5y ago
    Look up NYTimes and yellow cake. Oh wait that doesn't fit your narrative. Oh well. I'm sure you have some explanation for why one is better then the other and it's a totally valid non partisan, non bias, totally fair minded reason. hN is just full of highly propagandized group thinkers.
    - raphlinus 5y ago
      I'm not understanding the case you're making. The most notable action by the NYT on yellowcake (the main citation in the Wikipedia article) was publishing the op-ed by Joe Wilson indicating that the evidence that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake was forged. To me, that story has considerable resonance with the lab leak theory, in both cases certain factions within US intelligence trying to push the theory hard, and releasing "evidence" through indirect sources that cannot readily be verified. In the lab leak case, a major part of that role was played by the Wall Street Journal, which published the account of 3 Wuhan lab workers hospitalized in November 2019[1]. The part of Joe Wilson basically being played by Christopher Ashley Ford, in a letter cited elsewhere in this thread. [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-wuhan-lab-fuels-debate-on-covid-19-origin-11621796228 https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-w...
LinuxBender 5y ago
Youtube is still censoring this topic. Two well known scientists testified before congress on GoF testing and the Corona Virus characteristics. That was pulled down within a few hours. I save all these videos but no idea what to do with them. [Edit] I found a copy of the coverage posted by Forbes [1] and as a matter of correction it is the GOP House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Select Coronavirus Crisis hearing [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeW5sI-R1Qg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeW5sI-R1Qg
- briefcomment 5y ago
  This is hilarious and ridiculous. How can they justify censoring testimony in Congress?
  - LinuxBender 5y ago
    Supposedly it is not in alignment with the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) [1] or so people say. No idea if that is the real reason. [Edit] In this case I am thinking maybe Forbes had exclusive coverage and the other videos were pulled down for not having the rights to coverage. Just guessing because their upload is 3 days old. [1] - https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative...
  - echelon 5y ago
    Well, they recently did this too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27646686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27646686 I don't know if it's following their policies to the legal letter or if there's something else going on, but it's clearly bad in both of these cases.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kevingadd 5y ago
    It depends on what you believe the purpose of YouTube is. Just because it's congressional testimony that doesn't mean it's actually credible or vetted information. We have elected officials in the US regularly spouting absolute nonsense, so it's not implausible that the same people would also bring witnesses in to spout the same absolute nonsense, whether it's vaccines causing autism or something else.
ralph84 5y ago
This is progress. Maybe soon we can finally admit that "gain of function" is the politically correct way to say "bioweapon".
- echelon 5y ago
  This wasn't a biological weapon. Gain of function research was being carried out for the benefit of society (or resume padding). However, it wasn't subject to oversight (to put it mildly) and was being handled by a lab ill-equipped to do so safely. China has massive zoonotic reservoirs. The US researchers that led the world in Coronavirus study wanted to do gain of function, but couldn't do it domestically and didn't have access to the wild novel coronaviruses. Money and notes changed hands, and the Wuhan lab went about gain of function research. The lab was sloppy, the modified virus leaked, and the rest is history. There are probably only a handful of people ultimately responsible for this. The individuals from the US writing the proposals and pushing for it despite lack of safety, and those in China that knew the risks but went ahead. (The coverup and slow responses are also to blame for the spread.) Millions of deaths out of lack of oversight and desire for personal prestige. That's the story.
  - runawaybottle 5y ago
    The lab was sloppy, the modified virus leaked, and the rest is history. That is the most likely explanation, and it is unfortunate you are getting so heavily downvoted. There are probably only a handful of people ultimately responsible for this. Again, how much do lab assistants make? I know it’s not a lot in America, and even less in China. I wonder who the person was cleaning bat poop, feeding them, etc. Some underpaid lab assistant, on their 1000th time ferrying bats in and out of cages, cleaning shit, slacked on a particular day. Your 1000th time flipping that Wendy’s burger, and it drops to the floor, and you wipe it off and say ‘fuck it’ and put it on the bun. Simple as that. No mega conspiracy.
    - tedk-42 5y ago
      So then everything this scientist [1] says about the lab is a total lie? `There were strict protocols and requirements aimed at containing the pathogens being studied, Anderson said, and researchers underwent 45 hours of training to be certified to work independently in the lab.` Your Wendy's burger example is extremely naive as it compares two very different work environments. I highly doubt you could simply walk in and get a job at the lab as you can at a fast food outlet. Fact is none of us were in the lab and China haven't done a very good job being open and honest about their research there. But I really don't think propagating this simplistic idea that it was a lab leak is fair on anyone. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid-come-from-a-lab-scientist-at-wuhan-institute-speaks-out https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid...
dang 5y ago
All: please don't post generic comments [1], and definitely not generic flamebait comments [2], in threads like this. Those are repetitive, tedious, and therefore off topic (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Edit: we don't want to just repeat the same argument over and over, because there's no curiosity in that [5], and because it usually turns nasty [6]. The value of an article (and thread) on a major ongoing topic, such as this one, is in the specifics of what the article discusses—in other words, the diff relative to previous articles and threads [3]. If there aren't any new specifics, then the article itself would count as off topic [4], but in this case there do seem to be. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=diffs%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [4] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [5] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [6] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=mind%20amuse%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.is/sffuO https://archive.is/sffuO
ngcc_hk 5y ago
Not to miss the 2nd part of the video. Chinese threat is not about china. But the censorship of deliberation. May be the lab theory is wrong. But not allow to talk and discuss about it … that is how learn from the current 7 million social experiment of transforming a liberal society here in Hong Kong to one sanctioned. Good luck USA. It is so ingrained in USA can you save yourselves. Good luck humanity. It is not just about a lab leak. It is the deliberation and freedom of expression that is more than important. Good luck. Humanity has lost. It might come back. After losing hundred years perhaps. But why we do not wake up and start to rebuild a better open environment … so we can be safe later.
Leary 5y ago
"The Last And Only Foreign Scientist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out" [1] [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid-come-from-a-lab-scientist-at-wuhan-institute-speaks-out https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- y04nn 5y ago
  But she was working in the BSL-4 lab, and if I understand correctly WIV and SHC014 (coronaviruses) were studied in BSL-2 and BSL3 labs, when a close to BSL-4 lab was needed.
  - emmelaich 5y ago
    There is no mention of BSL-4 in the article, which really jumped out at me. And their earlier research was done in BSL-2!
- lugged 5y ago
  Does anyone have a link that doesn't explode my phone on opening?
- toomim 5y ago
  She was at the BSL4 lab. This is different than the BSL2 lab that was speculated to have leaked covid.
  - pas 5y ago
    Aren't they included in each other like a matrioshka doll?
    - tim333 5y ago
      Doubt it. I'm curious where the BSL-2 actually was.
tynpeddler 5y ago
This article has a number of issues that jump out to me from just a cursory read. The author admits that the NIH has a specific definition of "gain of function research" and then seems to go forward with the article using their own definition, without calling out that they're doing this. Why are they using their own definition instead of the NIH's? The Chinese research this author cites claims that there are large reservoirs of virus's in bat populations that are currently able to cross into the human population with minimal, if any, mutation required. This makes a natural crossover event more likely compared to the lab-leak hypothesis. This point seems to escape the author entirely. Next, this whole paragraph is a mess: > The revelation that the WIV was working with SARS-like viruses in subpar safety conditions has led some people to reassess the chance that SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged from some type of laboratory incident. “That’s screwed up,” the Columbia University virologist Ian Lipkin, who coauthored the seminal paper arguing that covid must have had a natural origin, told the journalist Donald McNeil Jr. “It shouldn’t have happened. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.” There are multiple topics that are being jumbled up. The surrounding context has been heavily discussing genetic engineering research. Ian Lipkin's paper discussed a virus with natural origins. The linked article is discussing the possibility of a lab-leak. These are all different topics and no attempt is being made here to distinguish and collate them. The linked article doesn't make it clear on whether Lipkin changed his view on the virus being of natural origin or of possibly being leaked from a lab or even something else. In fact, this whole article can't seem to distinguish between the hypothesis of an engineered virus escaping a lab, and a naturally occurring virus escaping the lab. The article ends by belatedly admitting that Baric believes that a natural spillover is still the most likely explanation but devotes zero space to explaining why. Instead, the author sees fit to spend the rest of the article explaining why Baric thinks WIV should be investigated further. To many of these lab leak articles are structured distressingly like a Q-drop: "Look at all these facts that I'm going to recite in a spooky tone of voice but not bother to synthesize into a coherent hypothesis. Isn't it spooky?" It's not clear to me if it's because the author is writing high-brow clickbait, is unable to recognize these flaws, or is deliberately trying to sling conspiracies. The lab leak hypothesis should be investigated, but not like this.
- CyanBird 5y ago
rossdavidh 5y ago
Much of the article reminds me of the description of how NASA ended up launching a shuttle in temperatures far below what they originally would have allowed. You walk just past the line, nothing bad happens, so you move the line a bit. You walk just past that line, nothing bad happens...and this repeats until, inevitably, eventually, something bad happens. Regardless of whether or not this pandemic came from this lab, the industry incentives described in the article can only eventually result in one. We have a mechanism for dealing with this sort of problem, and it involves outside audits. The "bad thing" involves being slapped down by an outside authority that has teeth behind its recommendations. In order to have authority in places like China, it would also need to have authority in places like the USA, which means a bunch of American (and European) scientists would see their own work get more difficult, as well. This has to make it more difficult for them to decide to think objectively about the possibility that this pandemic came from a lab.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  It's easy enough to apply outside audits to something like Space Shuttle development, where the goals are not secret and it's pretty well understood what you are trying to accomplish and what your capabilities are. It's a very different situation when it comes to bioweapons research -- how do you let outside auditors into Fort Detrick without running the risk of giving some game away?
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Neither we nor China are supposed to be doing bioweapons research in part because all examples thus far are impossible to target and destroy women, children, and civilians indescriminately far too slowly to prevent retaliation with swifter means of dealing death. If anyone is researching this I support their change of address to prison.
  - rossdavidh 5y ago
    While it is certainly true that outside auditors (with enforcement authority) would never be allowed into a bioweapons lab of either China or the USA, it also doesn't really seem to be the case that the virology lab in Wuhan was a bioweapons lab. Most labs doing this kind of research are not bioweapons labs. Moreover, due to the national security implications, bioweapons labs tend at least to have good security about letting stuff out, if for the wrong reasons. If we had outside auditing of all non-bioweapons labs doing this kind of research, it would still greatly reduce the collective risk, if only because that would be most of the labs.
lamontcg 5y ago
The problem with this whole article is that we know of no suitable backbone virus to use, and we know of no suitable spike-protein sequence to form a chimera which results in SARS-CoV-2. The experiments done on the SARS-CoV-1 or WIV1 backbone don't remotely get you close to SARS-CoV-2 and you're dealing with centuries of evolutionary difference there. The RaTG13 virus backbone is also several decades of evolution away from SARS-CoV-2. Learning how to replicate a virus in the lab is also not simple so they're not going to be doing this with every virus they find. We know they managed to do it with SARS-CoV-1 and WIV-1, but they'd need a reason to undertake it with any other virus. So you have to assume that WIV has a virus which they found which is similar to RaTG13 which they have never published, and for some reason they jumped straight to making that virus replicate in the lab and creating chimeras, and they also had a previously and still unpublished spike protein which was similar to the Pangolin spike which they used. Then for some reason they didn't do this in petri dishes, but used animals and/or somehow managed to aerosolize enough of it that researchers at WIV got sick from it. This is with a virus that we now know doesn't stick to surfaces very well at all, so the actual accident remains unexplained (they had a party and someone chopped up some chimera and railed it like a line of coke? that'd do it). While you're pondering all that keep in mind that the person who "broke" the story in the WSJ about the sick workers at the Wuhan lab was Michael R. Gordon. He's also notable for having co-authored with Judith Miller in 2002 the NYT story on Hussein's nuclear program and WMDs that arguably helped propel us into the Iraq War. It is also worthwhile to read Shi Zhengli's rebuttal to the lab leak theory: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/world/asia/china-covid-wuhan-lab-leak.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/world/asia/china-covid-wu... If you'd like some actual science on the zoontic investigation: "Evidence for SARS-CoV-2 related coronaviruses circulating in bats and pangolins in Southeast Asia" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21240-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21240-1 "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus" https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/j... "Identification of novel bat coronaviruses sheds light on the evolutionary origins of SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses" https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00709-1.pdf https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00709-1.pdf
- 5y ago
humaniania 5y ago
TIL - "Founded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1899, MIT Technology Review is a world-renowned, independent media company whose insight, analysis, reviews, interviews and live events explain the newest technologies and their commercial, social and political impacts."
Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
I know it's bad thinking on my part, but strong "Cui Bono?" vibes from this article's publication, central claim, and timing. (ie shortly after the scientific community suddenly revoked it's embargo on the idea that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was studying bat coronaviruses, might have had something to do with the sudden appearance of a bat coronavirus in Wuhan that still has no evidence of a natural origin).
snowwrestler 5y ago
There’s going to be a ton of comments on the lab security aspects, but there are two other big takeaways from this article: 1) Researchers easily found multiple naturally occurring coronaviruses that seemed likely to be able to jump into humans. In fact that is why they were so eager to conduct that lab research: the natural threat seemed imminent. 2) The sequence of COVID-19 does not yet resemble any of the sequences associated with the lab research that was being conducted.
- imiric 5y ago
  > 2) The sequence of COVID-19 does not yet resemble any of the sequences associated with the lab research that was being conducted. This doesn't discount the possibility of a lab leak if you take into account that some sequences appear to have been deleted[1]. We shouldn't make assumptions based on lack of evidence if that evidence was tampered with. And given China's history of deliberately concealing facts to save face, this raises far more questions than it answers. We need a serious and trustworthy investigation into what happened that puts politics aside. Alas my hopes for that happening are slim to none. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/science/coronavirus-sequences.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/science/coronavirus-seque...
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    > some sequences appear to have been deleted That is a completely unrelated issue. The sequences you're talking about are sequences from patients (obtained in February 2020, I believe). They are not bat coronavirus sequences, which is what the poster above you is referring to. The Wuhan Institute of Virology publishes the sequences it discovers. RaTG13, the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, was published in 2016, for example. Even if we're talking about the patient data, even though the authors withdrew their raw data from a database, they still published the most important information in a paper: the genetic sequences.
    - imiric 5y ago
      I'm not familiar with genetics, so speaking as a layperson here, but if there was manipulation of patient data why should we consider WIV publications to be truthful and exhaustive? If the patient data had links to unpublished bat sequences the lab was working on, it would certainly be motivation to get rid of both. Unfortunately any claims pointing in the direction of a zoonotic transfer or lab leak is speculation at this point until serious research is done. And even then the extent of data manipulation might be so deep that drawing any conclusions might be impossible. It's an absolute disgrace that science has become so entrenched with politics that more than a year later we're still not clear on the origins of a world disrupting pandemic. > they still published the most important information in a paper Could you link to this please?
xony 5y ago
this man made virus accidentally escaped from lab, or deliberately pushed out to create mass m...
arisAlexis 5y ago
This is the best written article up to now in my opinion. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori...
- 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
  An AMP link? You've been on here long enough to know better :^)
sgt101 5y ago
An actual witness to what was happening at the Wuhan lab : https://archive.is/IFDZY https://archive.is/IFDZY
erostrate 5y ago
An interesting aspect of the evolution of the lab leak theory is the unhealthy relation of mainstream media to scientific research. When the Andersen paper came out conflating the lab leak theory with the crazy bioweapon theory and lumping both as conspiracy theories, all mainstream medias jumped on this and used it for several month to quash discussion of the lab leak theory. The most vocal were the "science correspondents" and "decoders". I suspect this is because it's the kind of people that are sufficiently interested in science to have a healthy respect for it, but not sufficiently involved in science to have the healthy skepticism towards published papers. People that do publish and review scientific papers are well aware that published papers are just additional evidence for a theory, not a golden source of truth, but that seems largely lost on mainstream media. Especially when they can use it as anti-Trump material. For anyone interested in a balanced scientific view on the lab leak theory, Alina Chan on twitter is amazing.
- raphlinus 5y ago
  I second your recommendation of Alina Chan, as she has the scientific credentials, is careful with the science, and as you say is balanced in that she doesn't dismiss the natural origins hypothesis either. If people want to be informed about multiple perspectives of this debate, she is a must-follow. That said, let me temper that with some skepticism. First, having got a book deal[1] she is now in the position of directly financially benefiting from media promotion, which in my opinion puts her in a slightly different category than a purely objective scientist. Second, while she is careful that her words are always defensible and rooted in science, my interpretation of her (prolific) memes is that hell yeah, she thinks it's a lab leak. I want to emphasize that this is my interpretation; at worst, she can be accused of communicating ambiguously enough to create this interpretation in a cross-section of her audience. And a large fraction of her replies are people who are, shall we say, less scientifically careful. Third, she has truncated quotes from her detractors in a way that changes their meaning, and I find this not entirely good faith. Here's the thread[2] that has that quote and Dr. Rasmussen's response. Perhaps this is an honest difference in interpretation, and Dr. Rasmussen is being too thin-skinned about it. In any case, my goal here is to present evidence which I think might be relevant, and encourage people to look at it and decide for themselves. As I say, while for the reasons I cited above, I certainly wouldn't consider everything Dr. Chan says to be gospel and accept it uncritically, I absolutely agree that hers is a voice that should be heard. Much to her credit, she has been consistently calling for a real investigation for a long time, well before it was newly fashionable. [1]: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1402374919481180167 https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1402374919481180167 [2]: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1410653757617152005 https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1410653757617152005
rdedev 5y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.html?searchResultPosition=9 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.h... This is a pretty well reasoned take kn the lab leak hypothesis. We might not know for certain if covid came from the lab in Wuhan but there are enough lapses that took place in that lab that a future pandemic can start from that place
- akvadrako 5y ago
  This is the most important point in this discussion. If we find out for certain this virus came from a lab leak or not, it wouldn't much change the probability it could have. I'd estimate most people can agree the probability of a lab leak of a dangerous virus in any given decade is between 1-20%. Is this acceptable or can we greatly reduce it with policy?
  - tim333 5y ago
    I think the prior record of leaks of any dangerous virus has been more like 80%. But that's mostly existing viruses and not setting off pandemics.
jpeloquin 5y ago
The quest to come up with a narrative for why Covid happened reminds me of the reporting when Katrina hit New Orleans. The city's vulnerability was known beforehand [0] but the inevitable disaster was greeted with shock, confusion, and a search for peripheral explanations. In the case of the pandemic, our vulnerability to zoonotic viruses and other diseases was also well-known; e.g. [1] was published in 1995. But again the reporting, as it seems to me anyway, focuses on the particular circumstances of the disaster rather than our fundamental vulnerability. There is a plentiful supply of unknown microorganisms to fuel the next global health crisis, and we need to expect and prepare for it so that next time we can prevail without great struggle. [0] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/predicting-katrina/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/predicting-katrina/ [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46722.The_Coming_Plague https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46722.The_Coming_Plague
- Closi 5y ago
  I think part of the quest is about deciding if gain-of-function research is safe and should be allowed in the future. If it happens to be the root cause, no doubt there will be a huge change in how it is carried out, if not outright banned. If it is proven to not be the cause, it will be easier to argue that it can be safe.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    To be honest, I never really bought into the lab escape theory. Still really don't, with all the investigations going on I am willing to consider it as an alternative. Thing is, I have yet to see a timeline, starting with the earliest cases elsewhere, and a summary of the genetic research into COVID-19. Without having the time, and knowledge, to deep dive into the studies I jave to rely on news reports. And those, IMHO, are more about creating clicks than really informing people. Curious to see what comes of that so. Not that it would change a lot in term of fighting the pandemic, we have working vaccines by now. The narrative will change a lot, so. And with all the mask clusterfuck still going on, I don't think the narrative will be good.
    - 5y ago
opiopi 5y ago
For anyone interested in what these labs look like, the podcast "TWiV" (This Week in Virology) did a video where they visit Boston's BSL-4. Software engineers might appreciate the simplicity with which redundant failsafes are attained - each Biosafety Level being contained by a less safe abstraction. Thus a BSL-4 lab is essentially 4 labs built inside themselves, like a Matryoshka doll for pathogens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqAjkjGq8Ug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqAjkjGq8Ug
- gnicholas 5y ago
  Very interesting. Apparently the BSL-4 lab is engineered to ensure that that it resonates at a different frequency than the larger structure, for additional safety in case of an earthquake. https://youtu.be/tqAjkjGq8Ug?t=612 https://youtu.be/tqAjkjGq8Ug?t=612
- ChemSpider 5y ago
  BSL4 or not is not really important anymore, as Dr. Shi did her experiments in a BSL2 lab. From the article: "Unnoticed by most, however, was a key difference that significantly shifted the risk calculation. The Chinese work was carried out at biosafety level 2 (BSL-2), a much lower tier than Baric’s BSL-3+." BSL2 is not much more than "wear a lab coat". https://consteril.com/biosafety-levels-difference/ https://consteril.com/biosafety-levels-difference/ So the nicest BSL4 lab does not help if you do not use it.
  - jpeloquin 5y ago
    BSL-2 is a lot more than "wear a lab coat". If it was just that, there'd be no BSL-1. BSL-2 usually also means doing work in a biosafety cabinet and sterilizing disposals, although the controls employed vary depending on the hazards specific to the actual work being done. If you're interested, Yale lays it out in 200 pages of detail: https://ehs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/biosafety-manual.pdf https://ehs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/biosafety-man...
    - tim333 5y ago
Ericson2314 5y ago
All I know is I want better lab safety and more gain-of-function research!
dehrmann 5y ago
I really hope biologists had much bigger debates about virus modification than the tech community has about ethical AI. It's great that we talk about ethical AI, but the fact that a mistake can't cause a pandemic also puts it in perspective.
- swiftcoder 5y ago
  Arguably, Skynet might count as a pandemic.
strogonoff 5y ago
Considering how academia has acted so far in regard to the SARS-CoV-2 origin question—most ardently anti-lab-leak scientists ridiculing alternative viewpoints, then turning out to work or have friends working for an organization pulling millions of USD in grant money on related research—it is difficult for me to take its publications on the topic at face value anymore. For a take published outside of academia, there’s been a thought-provoking write-up featured here not long ago[0]. It touches upon the funding aspect that this article focuses on, as well as the contrived web of misinformation around the issue, WIV virus sample mislabeling, the apparent PLA’s involvement in US-funded research, and a lot more. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27388587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27388587
edumucelli 5y ago
This part of the article citing Anthony Fauci's 2012 comment [1] is impressive to me: “Consider this hypothetical scenario,” Fauci wrote. “An important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/
tim333 5y ago
This is starting to look quite plausible as the origin of the pandemic, including stuff like: >Let’s face it: there are going to be unknown viruses in guano, or oral swabs, which are oftentimes pooled. And if you’re attempting to culture a virus, you’re going to have novel strains being dropped onto culture cells,” So it could have come from the lab without them even knowing. The way to check would probably be to get inspectors to the caves where the guano came from, which annoyingly I doubt the Chinese will ever allow.

274 points by apsec112 5y ago

It really doesn't make a difference if covid came from a lab or not, or even whether it was released on purpose or not. No one will stand up to China whether they did this on purpose or by gross negligence. So no one will stand up to China. So nothing will change...

aaomidi 5y ago
Better yet, it doesn't matter because supposedly we're spending billions of DoD to actually have plans to defend against a bio weapon attack. Where is the RoI on that? We failed miserably.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Like the majority of DOD spending, all promise and no delivery. We're still building aircraft carriers while hackers cut off the utilities...
GordonS 5y ago
Could China have handled this better? Hell yes. The thing is though, I seriously doubt the end result would have been any different if the virus has first come about in any other country. Imagine that the virus has first been discovered in Atlanta (first US city that came to mind) - would officials really be brave enough to have a hard, immediate lockdown, with all the economic hardships that would entail, and with all the problems of getting a doubting populace on onboard? (keeping in mind that Trump's initial reaction was to denounce the very notion of a serious virus as a "hoax")
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  > would officials really be brave enough to have a hard, immediate lockdown To ask the question is to know the answer. Just imagine a public health official trying to convince the mayor or governor to quarantine a city of millions of people, based on a small number of pneumonia cases.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  I wasn't really referring to their reaction to covid, rather their creation of covid. Leaving aside the Lab origin theories, Covid 19 never would have happened if China had hygienic food supply-chains and banned wet markets. That's where other zoonotic diseases have come from in recent years from China (SARS is the biggest example). They closed the markets, new viruses stopped happening and everything was fine. Then they opened the markets again and we got covid 19. China is like a drink driver who already hit someone and refused to stop drunk driving and hit another person. Right now no one wants to make them stop driving. So I guess we'll just keep getting pandemics? Covid 19 is really just SARS 2.0. That's what really gets me here (sorry, I'm ranting now). China knew this would happen. Everyone did. And they did it anyway. And now everyone is pretending like it was bad luck or something!? This is literally why every other major, industrial country has food hygiene laws and minimal "Bush meat". Thanks for listening to me shout into the wind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr... Edit: I wonder if one of the reasons china is so unwilling to engage is to encourage people to think it was a bio-weapon accident (we'll never stop that happening) rather than just "the CCP is too weak and lazy to say no to old people who want bat soup". Conspiracy within the conspiracy! But I'm an idiot so probably not...
deelowe 5y ago
The article is specifically discussing concerns with us funding of this sort of research. That is something that can change.
908B64B197 5y ago
If it makes no difference, why obstruct investigations and attempt to conceal data? [0] [1] Why not simply collaborate and cooperate with the authorities in finding the truth? After all, they are 100% convinced the origin of the virus is natural... [0] https://www.newsweek.com/china-calls-us-investigation-covid-lab-leak-theory-ridiculous-conspiracy-theory-1598978 https://www.newsweek.com/china-calls-us-investigation-covid-... [1] https://nypost.com/2021/06/04/chinese-virologist-says-fauci-emails-verify-her-lab-leak-claims/ https://nypost.com/2021/06/04/chinese-virologist-says-fauci-...

908B64B197 5y ago

To think that a few months ago, sharing this article would have gotten someone banned from Facebook for sharing "conspiracy theories".

secondcoming 5y ago
Indeed. The whole thing needs to be looked at. Someone somewhere decided that the topic was taboo and needed to be purged from the internet, and then someone somewhere decided that it was ok that the tpoic gets to see the light of day. It's all quite sinister.
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  Don't use Facebook
  - bumbada 5y ago
    We should develop open source decentralized alternatives to it that are easy to use.
    - kwthrows 5y ago
      It won't change anything. This isn't to do with facebook per-se, you'd just get "unlinked" from whatever arbitrators or aggreggators of a decentralized alternative exist, and still be labeled a social outcast and a conspiracy theorist. It's not a technology problem, rather it's one of imbeciles. It also exists on HN. There is a bevvy of topics we are not allowed to discuss here because dang will point to some arbitrary guidelines saying how "that's not allowed here" and ban you. It's the same shit everywhere. Basically, the moment you step outside of the given narrative and what is and isn't allowed to be questioned, you should have zero (or less than zero, actually) expectation of having a platform where you can voice your concerns, and heaven forbid that your online persona be linked with your personal details, because if it is, you are in so much deep shit it's not even worth it for most people to utter certain words.

runawaybottle 5y ago

People will hate this source, but this is the most info I’ve seen revealed about the actual conditions in the Wuhan lab(s): https://www.the-sun.com/news/3174242/wuhan-labs-leak-covid-chaotic-crowded/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/3174242/wuhan-labs-leak-covid-c...

aplummer 5y ago
That's because the source regularly deliberately misinforms. So it's impossible to know if literally any of the claims here are completely made up. For example: _In December 2019, The Sun's political editor, Tom Newton Dunn, wrote an article for the paper titled "Hijacked Labour", alleging that "Jeremy Corbyn is at the centre of an extraordinary network of hard-left extremists pieced together by former British intelligence officers", a network ranging from Novara Media contributor Ash Sarkar to French philosopher Michel Foucault, who has been dead since 1984, that is alleged to be pulling Corbyn's strings.[204] It was later found that the ultimate sources for this claim included the antisemitic, far-right websites The Millennium Report and Aryan Unity._ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(United_Kingdom)#Far-right_conspiracy_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(United_Kingdom)#Far-r...
- nytyellow 5y ago
  Look up NYTimes and yellow cake. Oh wait that doesn't fit your narrative. Oh well. I'm sure you have some explanation for why one is better then the other and it's a totally valid non partisan, non bias, totally fair minded reason. hN is just full of highly propagandized group thinkers.
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    I'm not understanding the case you're making. The most notable action by the NYT on yellowcake (the main citation in the Wikipedia article) was publishing the op-ed by Joe Wilson indicating that the evidence that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake was forged. To me, that story has considerable resonance with the lab leak theory, in both cases certain factions within US intelligence trying to push the theory hard, and releasing "evidence" through indirect sources that cannot readily be verified. In the lab leak case, a major part of that role was played by the Wall Street Journal, which published the account of 3 Wuhan lab workers hospitalized in November 2019[1]. The part of Joe Wilson basically being played by Christopher Ashley Ford, in a letter cited elsewhere in this thread. [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-wuhan-lab-fuels-debate-on-covid-19-origin-11621796228 https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-w...

LinuxBender 5y ago

Youtube is still censoring this topic. Two well known scientists testified before congress on GoF testing and the Corona Virus characteristics. That was pulled down within a few hours. I save all these videos but no idea what to do with them. [Edit] I found a copy of the coverage posted by Forbes [1] and as a matter of correction it is the GOP House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Select Coronavirus Crisis hearing [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeW5sI-R1Qg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeW5sI-R1Qg

briefcomment 5y ago
This is hilarious and ridiculous. How can they justify censoring testimony in Congress?
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  Supposedly it is not in alignment with the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) [1] or so people say. No idea if that is the real reason. [Edit] In this case I am thinking maybe Forbes had exclusive coverage and the other videos were pulled down for not having the rights to coverage. Just guessing because their upload is 3 days old. [1] - https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative...
- echelon 5y ago
  Well, they recently did this too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27646686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27646686 I don't know if it's following their policies to the legal letter or if there's something else going on, but it's clearly bad in both of these cases.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kevingadd 5y ago
  It depends on what you believe the purpose of YouTube is. Just because it's congressional testimony that doesn't mean it's actually credible or vetted information. We have elected officials in the US regularly spouting absolute nonsense, so it's not implausible that the same people would also bring witnesses in to spout the same absolute nonsense, whether it's vaccines causing autism or something else.

ralph84 5y ago

This is progress. Maybe soon we can finally admit that "gain of function" is the politically correct way to say "bioweapon".

echelon 5y ago
This wasn't a biological weapon. Gain of function research was being carried out for the benefit of society (or resume padding). However, it wasn't subject to oversight (to put it mildly) and was being handled by a lab ill-equipped to do so safely. China has massive zoonotic reservoirs. The US researchers that led the world in Coronavirus study wanted to do gain of function, but couldn't do it domestically and didn't have access to the wild novel coronaviruses. Money and notes changed hands, and the Wuhan lab went about gain of function research. The lab was sloppy, the modified virus leaked, and the rest is history. There are probably only a handful of people ultimately responsible for this. The individuals from the US writing the proposals and pushing for it despite lack of safety, and those in China that knew the risks but went ahead. (The coverup and slow responses are also to blame for the spread.) Millions of deaths out of lack of oversight and desire for personal prestige. That's the story.
- runawaybottle 5y ago
  The lab was sloppy, the modified virus leaked, and the rest is history. That is the most likely explanation, and it is unfortunate you are getting so heavily downvoted. There are probably only a handful of people ultimately responsible for this. Again, how much do lab assistants make? I know it’s not a lot in America, and even less in China. I wonder who the person was cleaning bat poop, feeding them, etc. Some underpaid lab assistant, on their 1000th time ferrying bats in and out of cages, cleaning shit, slacked on a particular day. Your 1000th time flipping that Wendy’s burger, and it drops to the floor, and you wipe it off and say ‘fuck it’ and put it on the bun. Simple as that. No mega conspiracy.
  - tedk-42 5y ago
    So then everything this scientist [1] says about the lab is a total lie? `There were strict protocols and requirements aimed at containing the pathogens being studied, Anderson said, and researchers underwent 45 hours of training to be certified to work independently in the lab.` Your Wendy's burger example is extremely naive as it compares two very different work environments. I highly doubt you could simply walk in and get a job at the lab as you can at a fast food outlet. Fact is none of us were in the lab and China haven't done a very good job being open and honest about their research there. But I really don't think propagating this simplistic idea that it was a lab leak is fair on anyone. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid-come-from-a-lab-scientist-at-wuhan-institute-speaks-out https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid...

dang 5y ago

All: please don't post generic comments [1], and definitely not generic flamebait comments [2], in threads like this. Those are repetitive, tedious, and therefore off topic (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Edit: we don't want to just repeat the same argument over and over, because there's no curiosity in that [5], and because it usually turns nasty [6]. The value of an article (and thread) on a major ongoing topic, such as this one, is in the specifics of what the article discusses—in other words, the diff relative to previous articles and threads [3]. If there aren't any new specifics, then the article itself would count as off topic [4], but in this case there do seem to be. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=diffs%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [4] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [5] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [6] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=mind%20amuse%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.is/sffuO https://archive.is/sffuO

ngcc_hk 5y ago

Not to miss the 2nd part of the video. Chinese threat is not about china. But the censorship of deliberation. May be the lab theory is wrong. But not allow to talk and discuss about it … that is how learn from the current 7 million social experiment of transforming a liberal society here in Hong Kong to one sanctioned. Good luck USA. It is so ingrained in USA can you save yourselves. Good luck humanity. It is not just about a lab leak. It is the deliberation and freedom of expression that is more than important. Good luck. Humanity has lost. It might come back. After losing hundred years perhaps. But why we do not wake up and start to rebuild a better open environment … so we can be safe later.

Leary 5y ago

"The Last And Only Foreign Scientist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out" [1] [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid-come-from-a-lab-scientist-at-wuhan-institute-speaks-out https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
y04nn 5y ago
But she was working in the BSL-4 lab, and if I understand correctly WIV and SHC014 (coronaviruses) were studied in BSL-2 and BSL3 labs, when a close to BSL-4 lab was needed.
- emmelaich 5y ago
  There is no mention of BSL-4 in the article, which really jumped out at me. And their earlier research was done in BSL-2!
lugged 5y ago
Does anyone have a link that doesn't explode my phone on opening?
toomim 5y ago
She was at the BSL4 lab. This is different than the BSL2 lab that was speculated to have leaked covid.
- pas 5y ago
  Aren't they included in each other like a matrioshka doll?
  - tim333 5y ago
    Doubt it. I'm curious where the BSL-2 actually was.

tynpeddler 5y ago

This article has a number of issues that jump out to me from just a cursory read. The author admits that the NIH has a specific definition of "gain of function research" and then seems to go forward with the article using their own definition, without calling out that they're doing this. Why are they using their own definition instead of the NIH's? The Chinese research this author cites claims that there are large reservoirs of virus's in bat populations that are currently able to cross into the human population with minimal, if any, mutation required. This makes a natural crossover event more likely compared to the lab-leak hypothesis. This point seems to escape the author entirely. Next, this whole paragraph is a mess: > The revelation that the WIV was working with SARS-like viruses in subpar safety conditions has led some people to reassess the chance that SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged from some type of laboratory incident. “That’s screwed up,” the Columbia University virologist Ian Lipkin, who coauthored the seminal paper arguing that covid must have had a natural origin, told the journalist Donald McNeil Jr. “It shouldn’t have happened. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.” There are multiple topics that are being jumbled up. The surrounding context has been heavily discussing genetic engineering research. Ian Lipkin's paper discussed a virus with natural origins. The linked article is discussing the possibility of a lab-leak. These are all different topics and no attempt is being made here to distinguish and collate them. The linked article doesn't make it clear on whether Lipkin changed his view on the virus being of natural origin or of possibly being leaked from a lab or even something else. In fact, this whole article can't seem to distinguish between the hypothesis of an engineered virus escaping a lab, and a naturally occurring virus escaping the lab. The article ends by belatedly admitting that Baric believes that a natural spillover is still the most likely explanation but devotes zero space to explaining why. Instead, the author sees fit to spend the rest of the article explaining why Baric thinks WIV should be investigated further. To many of these lab leak articles are structured distressingly like a Q-drop: "Look at all these facts that I'm going to recite in a spooky tone of voice but not bother to synthesize into a coherent hypothesis. Isn't it spooky?" It's not clear to me if it's because the author is writing high-brow clickbait, is unable to recognize these flaws, or is deliberately trying to sling conspiracies. The lab leak hypothesis should be investigated, but not like this.

CyanBird 5y ago

rossdavidh 5y ago

Much of the article reminds me of the description of how NASA ended up launching a shuttle in temperatures far below what they originally would have allowed. You walk just past the line, nothing bad happens, so you move the line a bit. You walk just past that line, nothing bad happens...and this repeats until, inevitably, eventually, something bad happens. Regardless of whether or not this pandemic came from this lab, the industry incentives described in the article can only eventually result in one. We have a mechanism for dealing with this sort of problem, and it involves outside audits. The "bad thing" involves being slapped down by an outside authority that has teeth behind its recommendations. In order to have authority in places like China, it would also need to have authority in places like the USA, which means a bunch of American (and European) scientists would see their own work get more difficult, as well. This has to make it more difficult for them to decide to think objectively about the possibility that this pandemic came from a lab.

AndrewBissell 5y ago
It's easy enough to apply outside audits to something like Space Shuttle development, where the goals are not secret and it's pretty well understood what you are trying to accomplish and what your capabilities are. It's a very different situation when it comes to bioweapons research -- how do you let outside auditors into Fort Detrick without running the risk of giving some game away?
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Neither we nor China are supposed to be doing bioweapons research in part because all examples thus far are impossible to target and destroy women, children, and civilians indescriminately far too slowly to prevent retaliation with swifter means of dealing death. If anyone is researching this I support their change of address to prison.
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  While it is certainly true that outside auditors (with enforcement authority) would never be allowed into a bioweapons lab of either China or the USA, it also doesn't really seem to be the case that the virology lab in Wuhan was a bioweapons lab. Most labs doing this kind of research are not bioweapons labs. Moreover, due to the national security implications, bioweapons labs tend at least to have good security about letting stuff out, if for the wrong reasons. If we had outside auditing of all non-bioweapons labs doing this kind of research, it would still greatly reduce the collective risk, if only because that would be most of the labs.

lamontcg 5y ago

The problem with this whole article is that we know of no suitable backbone virus to use, and we know of no suitable spike-protein sequence to form a chimera which results in SARS-CoV-2. The experiments done on the SARS-CoV-1 or WIV1 backbone don't remotely get you close to SARS-CoV-2 and you're dealing with centuries of evolutionary difference there. The RaTG13 virus backbone is also several decades of evolution away from SARS-CoV-2. Learning how to replicate a virus in the lab is also not simple so they're not going to be doing this with every virus they find. We know they managed to do it with SARS-CoV-1 and WIV-1, but they'd need a reason to undertake it with any other virus. So you have to assume that WIV has a virus which they found which is similar to RaTG13 which they have never published, and for some reason they jumped straight to making that virus replicate in the lab and creating chimeras, and they also had a previously and still unpublished spike protein which was similar to the Pangolin spike which they used. Then for some reason they didn't do this in petri dishes, but used animals and/or somehow managed to aerosolize enough of it that researchers at WIV got sick from it. This is with a virus that we now know doesn't stick to surfaces very well at all, so the actual accident remains unexplained (they had a party and someone chopped up some chimera and railed it like a line of coke? that'd do it). While you're pondering all that keep in mind that the person who "broke" the story in the WSJ about the sick workers at the Wuhan lab was Michael R. Gordon. He's also notable for having co-authored with Judith Miller in 2002 the NYT story on Hussein's nuclear program and WMDs that arguably helped propel us into the Iraq War. It is also worthwhile to read Shi Zhengli's rebuttal to the lab leak theory: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/world/asia/china-covid-wuhan-lab-leak.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/world/asia/china-covid-wu... If you'd like some actual science on the zoontic investigation: "Evidence for SARS-CoV-2 related coronaviruses circulating in bats and pangolins in Southeast Asia" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21240-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21240-1 "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus" https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/j... "Identification of novel bat coronaviruses sheds light on the evolutionary origins of SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses" https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00709-1.pdf https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00709-1.pdf

5y ago

humaniania 5y ago

TIL - "Founded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1899, MIT Technology Review is a world-renowned, independent media company whose insight, analysis, reviews, interviews and live events explain the newest technologies and their commercial, social and political impacts."

Wolfenstein98k 5y ago

I know it's bad thinking on my part, but strong "Cui Bono?" vibes from this article's publication, central claim, and timing. (ie shortly after the scientific community suddenly revoked it's embargo on the idea that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was studying bat coronaviruses, might have had something to do with the sudden appearance of a bat coronavirus in Wuhan that still has no evidence of a natural origin).

snowwrestler 5y ago

There’s going to be a ton of comments on the lab security aspects, but there are two other big takeaways from this article: 1) Researchers easily found multiple naturally occurring coronaviruses that seemed likely to be able to jump into humans. In fact that is why they were so eager to conduct that lab research: the natural threat seemed imminent. 2) The sequence of COVID-19 does not yet resemble any of the sequences associated with the lab research that was being conducted.

imiric 5y ago
> 2) The sequence of COVID-19 does not yet resemble any of the sequences associated with the lab research that was being conducted. This doesn't discount the possibility of a lab leak if you take into account that some sequences appear to have been deleted[1]. We shouldn't make assumptions based on lack of evidence if that evidence was tampered with. And given China's history of deliberately concealing facts to save face, this raises far more questions than it answers. We need a serious and trustworthy investigation into what happened that puts politics aside. Alas my hopes for that happening are slim to none. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/science/coronavirus-sequences.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/science/coronavirus-seque...
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  > some sequences appear to have been deleted That is a completely unrelated issue. The sequences you're talking about are sequences from patients (obtained in February 2020, I believe). They are not bat coronavirus sequences, which is what the poster above you is referring to. The Wuhan Institute of Virology publishes the sequences it discovers. RaTG13, the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, was published in 2016, for example. Even if we're talking about the patient data, even though the authors withdrew their raw data from a database, they still published the most important information in a paper: the genetic sequences.
  - imiric 5y ago
    I'm not familiar with genetics, so speaking as a layperson here, but if there was manipulation of patient data why should we consider WIV publications to be truthful and exhaustive? If the patient data had links to unpublished bat sequences the lab was working on, it would certainly be motivation to get rid of both. Unfortunately any claims pointing in the direction of a zoonotic transfer or lab leak is speculation at this point until serious research is done. And even then the extent of data manipulation might be so deep that drawing any conclusions might be impossible. It's an absolute disgrace that science has become so entrenched with politics that more than a year later we're still not clear on the origins of a world disrupting pandemic. > they still published the most important information in a paper Could you link to this please?

xony 5y ago

this man made virus accidentally escaped from lab, or deliberately pushed out to create mass m...

arisAlexis 5y ago

This is the best written article up to now in my opinion. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori...

0xdeadb00f 5y ago
An AMP link? You've been on here long enough to know better :^)

sgt101 5y ago

An actual witness to what was happening at the Wuhan lab : https://archive.is/IFDZY https://archive.is/IFDZY

erostrate 5y ago

An interesting aspect of the evolution of the lab leak theory is the unhealthy relation of mainstream media to scientific research. When the Andersen paper came out conflating the lab leak theory with the crazy bioweapon theory and lumping both as conspiracy theories, all mainstream medias jumped on this and used it for several month to quash discussion of the lab leak theory. The most vocal were the "science correspondents" and "decoders". I suspect this is because it's the kind of people that are sufficiently interested in science to have a healthy respect for it, but not sufficiently involved in science to have the healthy skepticism towards published papers. People that do publish and review scientific papers are well aware that published papers are just additional evidence for a theory, not a golden source of truth, but that seems largely lost on mainstream media. Especially when they can use it as anti-Trump material. For anyone interested in a balanced scientific view on the lab leak theory, Alina Chan on twitter is amazing.

raphlinus 5y ago
I second your recommendation of Alina Chan, as she has the scientific credentials, is careful with the science, and as you say is balanced in that she doesn't dismiss the natural origins hypothesis either. If people want to be informed about multiple perspectives of this debate, she is a must-follow. That said, let me temper that with some skepticism. First, having got a book deal[1] she is now in the position of directly financially benefiting from media promotion, which in my opinion puts her in a slightly different category than a purely objective scientist. Second, while she is careful that her words are always defensible and rooted in science, my interpretation of her (prolific) memes is that hell yeah, she thinks it's a lab leak. I want to emphasize that this is my interpretation; at worst, she can be accused of communicating ambiguously enough to create this interpretation in a cross-section of her audience. And a large fraction of her replies are people who are, shall we say, less scientifically careful. Third, she has truncated quotes from her detractors in a way that changes their meaning, and I find this not entirely good faith. Here's the thread[2] that has that quote and Dr. Rasmussen's response. Perhaps this is an honest difference in interpretation, and Dr. Rasmussen is being too thin-skinned about it. In any case, my goal here is to present evidence which I think might be relevant, and encourage people to look at it and decide for themselves. As I say, while for the reasons I cited above, I certainly wouldn't consider everything Dr. Chan says to be gospel and accept it uncritically, I absolutely agree that hers is a voice that should be heard. Much to her credit, she has been consistently calling for a real investigation for a long time, well before it was newly fashionable. [1]: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1402374919481180167 https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1402374919481180167 [2]: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1410653757617152005 https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1410653757617152005

rdedev 5y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.html?searchResultPosition=9 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.h... This is a pretty well reasoned take kn the lab leak hypothesis. We might not know for certain if covid came from the lab in Wuhan but there are enough lapses that took place in that lab that a future pandemic can start from that place

akvadrako 5y ago
This is the most important point in this discussion. If we find out for certain this virus came from a lab leak or not, it wouldn't much change the probability it could have. I'd estimate most people can agree the probability of a lab leak of a dangerous virus in any given decade is between 1-20%. Is this acceptable or can we greatly reduce it with policy?
- tim333 5y ago
  I think the prior record of leaks of any dangerous virus has been more like 80%. But that's mostly existing viruses and not setting off pandemics.

jpeloquin 5y ago

The quest to come up with a narrative for why Covid happened reminds me of the reporting when Katrina hit New Orleans. The city's vulnerability was known beforehand [0] but the inevitable disaster was greeted with shock, confusion, and a search for peripheral explanations. In the case of the pandemic, our vulnerability to zoonotic viruses and other diseases was also well-known; e.g. [1] was published in 1995. But again the reporting, as it seems to me anyway, focuses on the particular circumstances of the disaster rather than our fundamental vulnerability. There is a plentiful supply of unknown microorganisms to fuel the next global health crisis, and we need to expect and prepare for it so that next time we can prevail without great struggle. [0] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/predicting-katrina/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/predicting-katrina/ [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46722.The_Coming_Plague https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46722.The_Coming_Plague

Closi 5y ago
I think part of the quest is about deciding if gain-of-function research is safe and should be allowed in the future. If it happens to be the root cause, no doubt there will be a huge change in how it is carried out, if not outright banned. If it is proven to not be the cause, it will be easier to argue that it can be safe.
- hef19898 5y ago
  To be honest, I never really bought into the lab escape theory. Still really don't, with all the investigations going on I am willing to consider it as an alternative. Thing is, I have yet to see a timeline, starting with the earliest cases elsewhere, and a summary of the genetic research into COVID-19. Without having the time, and knowledge, to deep dive into the studies I jave to rely on news reports. And those, IMHO, are more about creating clicks than really informing people. Curious to see what comes of that so. Not that it would change a lot in term of fighting the pandemic, we have working vaccines by now. The narrative will change a lot, so. And with all the mask clusterfuck still going on, I don't think the narrative will be good.
  - 5y ago

opiopi 5y ago

For anyone interested in what these labs look like, the podcast "TWiV" (This Week in Virology) did a video where they visit Boston's BSL-4. Software engineers might appreciate the simplicity with which redundant failsafes are attained - each Biosafety Level being contained by a less safe abstraction. Thus a BSL-4 lab is essentially 4 labs built inside themselves, like a Matryoshka doll for pathogens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqAjkjGq8Ug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqAjkjGq8Ug

gnicholas 5y ago
Very interesting. Apparently the BSL-4 lab is engineered to ensure that that it resonates at a different frequency than the larger structure, for additional safety in case of an earthquake. https://youtu.be/tqAjkjGq8Ug?t=612 https://youtu.be/tqAjkjGq8Ug?t=612
ChemSpider 5y ago
BSL4 or not is not really important anymore, as Dr. Shi did her experiments in a BSL2 lab. From the article: "Unnoticed by most, however, was a key difference that significantly shifted the risk calculation. The Chinese work was carried out at biosafety level 2 (BSL-2), a much lower tier than Baric’s BSL-3+." BSL2 is not much more than "wear a lab coat". https://consteril.com/biosafety-levels-difference/ https://consteril.com/biosafety-levels-difference/ So the nicest BSL4 lab does not help if you do not use it.
- jpeloquin 5y ago
  BSL-2 is a lot more than "wear a lab coat". If it was just that, there'd be no BSL-1. BSL-2 usually also means doing work in a biosafety cabinet and sterilizing disposals, although the controls employed vary depending on the hazards specific to the actual work being done. If you're interested, Yale lays it out in 200 pages of detail: https://ehs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/biosafety-manual.pdf https://ehs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/biosafety-man...
  - tim333 5y ago

Ericson2314 5y ago

All I know is I want better lab safety and more gain-of-function research!

dehrmann 5y ago

I really hope biologists had much bigger debates about virus modification than the tech community has about ethical AI. It's great that we talk about ethical AI, but the fact that a mistake can't cause a pandemic also puts it in perspective.

swiftcoder 5y ago
Arguably, Skynet might count as a pandemic.

strogonoff 5y ago

Considering how academia has acted so far in regard to the SARS-CoV-2 origin question—most ardently anti-lab-leak scientists ridiculing alternative viewpoints, then turning out to work or have friends working for an organization pulling millions of USD in grant money on related research—it is difficult for me to take its publications on the topic at face value anymore. For a take published outside of academia, there’s been a thought-provoking write-up featured here not long ago[0]. It touches upon the funding aspect that this article focuses on, as well as the contrived web of misinformation around the issue, WIV virus sample mislabeling, the apparent PLA’s involvement in US-funded research, and a lot more. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27388587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27388587

edumucelli 5y ago

This part of the article citing Anthony Fauci's 2012 comment [1] is impressive to me: “Consider this hypothetical scenario,” Fauci wrote. “An important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/

tim333 5y ago

This is starting to look quite plausible as the origin of the pandemic, including stuff like: >Let’s face it: there are going to be unknown viruses in guano, or oral swabs, which are oftentimes pooled. And if you’re attempting to culture a virus, you’re going to have novel strains being dropped onto culture cells,” So it could have come from the lab without them even knowing. The way to check would probably be to get inspectors to the caves where the guano came from, which annoyingly I doubt the Chinese will ever allow.