3 ms·

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

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
- erostrate 5y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with your first point about the book deal. On your second point, she has stated repeatedly and explicitly that her position is that she doesn't know what the origin of the virus is, natural origin is not ruled out either, and that all she is asking for is that both theories are credibly investigated, for example here [1]. Of course she talks a lot more about the lab leak, but that's largely because she feels this side has not been discussed sufficiently, which was certainly true until 2/3 months ago. On your third point, you're right that she truncated the quote, but I think her interpretation is the one many readers would come to: "lab leak=conspiracy theory". The quote is dishonestly structured to start with, lumping together lab leak with 5G/Bill Gates silliness. It's the same mistake that the Andersen paper made lumping lab leak with bioweapon. I wouldn't count that as a win on either side. [1] https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1411049136762327043?s=21 https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1411049136762327043?s=21
  - _tik_ 5y ago
    I just read Alina Chan profile news on local news. It is mention that her background is in genetic therapy. How seriously I should take her statement on covid based on her background?
    - erostrate 5y ago
      I'd encourage you to read what she says before you decide. Her background should make you take her more seriously that if she was, say, a software engineer, but less seriously than if she was a virologist. But for me, her background is only one factor in my decision of how seriously I take her. A bigger factor is how serious, informed and reasonable what she says is.
    - raphlinus 5y ago
      I'd absolutely give her this one. This is the relevant line from LinkedIn: > Investigating the effects of human genetic variation on the efficacy of adeno-associated virus (AAV) variants in order to engineer gene therapy viral vectors targeting diverse patient populations. So this is professional work at a prestigious institute on (a) viruses, (b) engineering of viruses, and (c) deeper understanding of the dynamics of transmission of these viruses in humans. Further, adenovirus is one that can be engineered to be combined with pieces of SARS-CoV-2 to do interesting things in humans, as I can personally attest, having had the J&J vaccine. It's hard to imagine a set of credentials better suited to analyzing origins of Covid. There are a lot of grifters out there, "epistemological trespassers" if you will, but Dr. Chan's is a voice that deserves being listened to.

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

erostrate 5y ago
Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with your first point about the book deal. On your second point, she has stated repeatedly and explicitly that her position is that she doesn't know what the origin of the virus is, natural origin is not ruled out either, and that all she is asking for is that both theories are credibly investigated, for example here [1]. Of course she talks a lot more about the lab leak, but that's largely because she feels this side has not been discussed sufficiently, which was certainly true until 2/3 months ago. On your third point, you're right that she truncated the quote, but I think her interpretation is the one many readers would come to: "lab leak=conspiracy theory". The quote is dishonestly structured to start with, lumping together lab leak with 5G/Bill Gates silliness. It's the same mistake that the Andersen paper made lumping lab leak with bioweapon. I wouldn't count that as a win on either side. [1] https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1411049136762327043?s=21 https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1411049136762327043?s=21
- _tik_ 5y ago
  I just read Alina Chan profile news on local news. It is mention that her background is in genetic therapy. How seriously I should take her statement on covid based on her background?
  - erostrate 5y ago
    I'd encourage you to read what she says before you decide. Her background should make you take her more seriously that if she was, say, a software engineer, but less seriously than if she was a virologist. But for me, her background is only one factor in my decision of how seriously I take her. A bigger factor is how serious, informed and reasonable what she says is.
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    I'd absolutely give her this one. This is the relevant line from LinkedIn: > Investigating the effects of human genetic variation on the efficacy of adeno-associated virus (AAV) variants in order to engineer gene therapy viral vectors targeting diverse patient populations. So this is professional work at a prestigious institute on (a) viruses, (b) engineering of viruses, and (c) deeper understanding of the dynamics of transmission of these viruses in humans. Further, adenovirus is one that can be engineered to be combined with pieces of SARS-CoV-2 to do interesting things in humans, as I can personally attest, having had the J&J vaccine. It's hard to imagine a set of credentials better suited to analyzing origins of Covid. There are a lot of grifters out there, "epistemological trespassers" if you will, but Dr. Chan's is a voice that deserves being listened to.