3 ms·

> Something that now all the experts are saying may actually be true Since this is blatantly false, I would ban this as misinformation if it happened in a plac

> Something that now all the experts are saying may actually be true Since this is blatantly false, I would ban this as misinformation if it happened in a place I moderated. I'm don't care if it's about China, I care about not enabling misinformation. If people want conspiracy theories, there are friendly forums they could visit, but they want them in serious forums too.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
WHO Chief, yesterday, admits ruling out the lab leak theory was premature. It's not blatantly false unless the WHO Chief is propping up conspiracy theories now. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016436749/who-chief-wuhan-lab-covid-19-origin-premature-tedros https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016436749/who-chief-wuhan-la...
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  I agree it's among the possibilities, but one should be honest about their likelihood. Right now the consensus is that natural occurrence is the most likely explanation, but there is not solid evidence to discard a lab leak. They don't have solid evidence to disprove a lab leak. Disproving is a lot harder that proving. I must concede that your statement wasn't blatantly false, but it uses weasel language to appear more truthful than it is.
  - Uberphallus 5y ago
    Again, it can be both, (and IMO chances are it's both). It could have been a sample from nature that leaked out of the lab. There are no signs that it might be man made. There are no signs that it might have evolved in GoF research. But the WIV had a sample of a close ancestor of this virus, it's not crazy that someone got the bug and jumped out in that very same city.
    - slices 5y ago
      evolutionary biologists Weinstein & Heyer argue that it has the fingerprints of GoF all over it
      - Uberphallus 5y ago
        I haven't read from them, but as a general thing, GoF research is very directional, so in practice the experiments will pressure a virus to gain a function, but the rest of the functions are usually impacted to a large extent due to the lack of evolutionary pressure. So you may do selection on virions that target better certain receptors in certain human cells to infect them, and that's useful to know of possible evolutions of a wild virus, but in parallel it might be losing environmental resistance (temperature range, UV light), or maybe damage the expression of some vital protein, or become too pathogenic and die along with the host. By all means, one could try to perform GoF in live humans to ensure there's no LoF, but that limits enourmously the speed of the research, plus it's usually forbidden to experiment in humans these days.
  - s3r3nity 5y ago
    >...but one should be honest about their likelihood. I agree, but I don't trust any central authority (especially the government!) to do that for me. Educating people & empowering them to make this call is a much more ethical, and fruitful, endeavor. To loosely paraphrase Mark Twain (I believe?): Just because a toddler can't use a sharp knife doesn't mean that I have to use a butter knife to cut my steak.
    - ASalazarMX 5y ago
      > To loosely paraphrase Mark Twain (I believe?): Just because a toddler can't use a sharp knife doesn't mean that I have to use a butter knife to cut my steak. That's a great quote, only we're the toddler. For all its political failings, the WHO is brutally more knowledgeable about the subject that us, and less biased than our local governments. They're asking China to open up so they can discard/prove a lab leak. If China refuses, the lab leak possibility remains on the table no matter its likelihood. Weaseling the phrasing, one can give the impression that the WHO turned around and now thinks the lab leak is the most likely source, while they still consider the natural origin most likely.
  - nradov 5y ago
    There is no such consensus.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

WHO Chief, yesterday, admits ruling out the lab leak theory was premature. It's not blatantly false unless the WHO Chief is propping up conspiracy theories now. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016436749/who-chief-wuhan-lab-covid-19-origin-premature-tedros https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016436749/who-chief-wuhan-la...

ASalazarMX 5y ago
I agree it's among the possibilities, but one should be honest about their likelihood. Right now the consensus is that natural occurrence is the most likely explanation, but there is not solid evidence to discard a lab leak. They don't have solid evidence to disprove a lab leak. Disproving is a lot harder that proving. I must concede that your statement wasn't blatantly false, but it uses weasel language to appear more truthful than it is.
- Uberphallus 5y ago
  Again, it can be both, (and IMO chances are it's both). It could have been a sample from nature that leaked out of the lab. There are no signs that it might be man made. There are no signs that it might have evolved in GoF research. But the WIV had a sample of a close ancestor of this virus, it's not crazy that someone got the bug and jumped out in that very same city.
  - slices 5y ago
    evolutionary biologists Weinstein & Heyer argue that it has the fingerprints of GoF all over it
    - Uberphallus 5y ago
      I haven't read from them, but as a general thing, GoF research is very directional, so in practice the experiments will pressure a virus to gain a function, but the rest of the functions are usually impacted to a large extent due to the lack of evolutionary pressure. So you may do selection on virions that target better certain receptors in certain human cells to infect them, and that's useful to know of possible evolutions of a wild virus, but in parallel it might be losing environmental resistance (temperature range, UV light), or maybe damage the expression of some vital protein, or become too pathogenic and die along with the host. By all means, one could try to perform GoF in live humans to ensure there's no LoF, but that limits enourmously the speed of the research, plus it's usually forbidden to experiment in humans these days.
- s3r3nity 5y ago
  >...but one should be honest about their likelihood. I agree, but I don't trust any central authority (especially the government!) to do that for me. Educating people & empowering them to make this call is a much more ethical, and fruitful, endeavor. To loosely paraphrase Mark Twain (I believe?): Just because a toddler can't use a sharp knife doesn't mean that I have to use a butter knife to cut my steak.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    > To loosely paraphrase Mark Twain (I believe?): Just because a toddler can't use a sharp knife doesn't mean that I have to use a butter knife to cut my steak. That's a great quote, only we're the toddler. For all its political failings, the WHO is brutally more knowledgeable about the subject that us, and less biased than our local governments. They're asking China to open up so they can discard/prove a lab leak. If China refuses, the lab leak possibility remains on the table no matter its likelihood. Weaseling the phrasing, one can give the impression that the WHO turned around and now thinks the lab leak is the most likely source, while they still consider the natural origin most likely.
- nradov 5y ago
  There is no such consensus.