4 ms·

The New Yorker had an article in the discussion and interviewed two scientists, Stanford microbiologist David Relman and UNC virologist Ralph Baric, who signed

The New Yorker had an article in the discussion and interviewed two scientists, Stanford microbiologist David Relman and UNC virologist Ralph Baric, who signed the letter to WHO which was published in Science magazine. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/the-sudden-rise-of-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/the-sudden-... The two scientists seemed to think that although a lab leak origin is possible the natural origin story is more likely.

JPKab 5y ago
Again, there is no identifiable difference between a virus harvested from guano in a cave that later leaks from a lab sample and the same virus if transmitted to a human. Nobody is saying this virus was engineered in this thread. It appears to me to be a deliberate psychological trick of lumping people who claim the virus leaked from a lab (by far the most probable cause) with people who say the virus was an engineered bioweapon (insane, nonsensical crazy talk). The entire virology community is dependent on government funding, and they have massive conflicts of interest. I work with academics all day every day, and far too many gradually turn into mealy-mouthed bureaucrats, doing and saying whatever it takes to chase their next juicy grant, abusing and exploiting graduate students all along the way.
- stvswn 5y ago
  Wait, you're still overgeneralizing. There's the chance that it was a naturally occurring virus that wasd being stored in a lab (like RaTG13, it's closest known cousin). Then, there's the chance that it was manipulated in lab experiments by well-meaning scientists hoping to learn more about coronavirus transmission to humans (which I think is most likely, considering the behavior of the WIV, but far from certain). Finally, there's the chance that it was deliberately leaked as a bioweapon (doesn't make sense to me). I totally agree that there are massive conflicts of interest, including the implication of being blacklisted from Chinese data sources for one's career and the chance that there simply won't be any funding in the future if the public believes that the research field itself is to blame.
stvswn 5y ago
I know it won't be a popular opinion here, but I am not sure I trust the judgment of scientists with conflicts of interest. It would be human nature for those who were involved in lobbying for gain-of-function research to continue are now unwilling to entertain the idea that something as devastating as COVID was a result of such research. If that is true, it means that they were disasterously wrong in their earlier stance and it means that there will be no appetite to continue funding their field of expertise. I'm tired of being told not to believe what's clearly in front of me -- a coordinated campaign in China to cover up any inquiry in to the origins of the virus accompanied by very suspicious behavior in China in the months before they were supposed to have been aware of the outbreak. Whether COVID-19 itself is exactly a product of research at the WIV funded by EcoHealth Alliance and the NIAID, I don't know, but I can read those grant requests myself and see that they clearly refer to manipulating coronaviruses so that they better infect humanized mice cells. This is a study that Fauci insists is not gain of function research, but I'm unclear as to the distinction. I suspect that they played with language in these requests so as to be able to avoid triggering the legally-required review. Fauci, and others, are potentially aware that the pandemic could have stemmed from research that they themselves fast-tracked around the legally mandated review process, making them partially culpable in millions of deaths worldwide -- it would be incredibly difficult in that situation to start looking critically at the possibility that it's true. We should be very careful about trusting experts with a lot at stake in the answer to the question.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  I know it won't be a popular opinion here, but I am not sure I trust the judgment of mathematicians with conflicts of interest. It would be human nature for those who were involved in lobbying for 1+1=2 to continue are now unwilling to entertain the idea that something as devastating as 42 was a result of such a calculation.

JPKab 5y ago

Again, there is no identifiable difference between a virus harvested from guano in a cave that later leaks from a lab sample and the same virus if transmitted to a human. Nobody is saying this virus was engineered in this thread. It appears to me to be a deliberate psychological trick of lumping people who claim the virus leaked from a lab (by far the most probable cause) with people who say the virus was an engineered bioweapon (insane, nonsensical crazy talk). The entire virology community is dependent on government funding, and they have massive conflicts of interest. I work with academics all day every day, and far too many gradually turn into mealy-mouthed bureaucrats, doing and saying whatever it takes to chase their next juicy grant, abusing and exploiting graduate students all along the way.

stvswn 5y ago
Wait, you're still overgeneralizing. There's the chance that it was a naturally occurring virus that wasd being stored in a lab (like RaTG13, it's closest known cousin). Then, there's the chance that it was manipulated in lab experiments by well-meaning scientists hoping to learn more about coronavirus transmission to humans (which I think is most likely, considering the behavior of the WIV, but far from certain). Finally, there's the chance that it was deliberately leaked as a bioweapon (doesn't make sense to me). I totally agree that there are massive conflicts of interest, including the implication of being blacklisted from Chinese data sources for one's career and the chance that there simply won't be any funding in the future if the public believes that the research field itself is to blame.

stvswn 5y ago

I know it won't be a popular opinion here, but I am not sure I trust the judgment of scientists with conflicts of interest. It would be human nature for those who were involved in lobbying for gain-of-function research to continue are now unwilling to entertain the idea that something as devastating as COVID was a result of such research. If that is true, it means that they were disasterously wrong in their earlier stance and it means that there will be no appetite to continue funding their field of expertise. I'm tired of being told not to believe what's clearly in front of me -- a coordinated campaign in China to cover up any inquiry in to the origins of the virus accompanied by very suspicious behavior in China in the months before they were supposed to have been aware of the outbreak. Whether COVID-19 itself is exactly a product of research at the WIV funded by EcoHealth Alliance and the NIAID, I don't know, but I can read those grant requests myself and see that they clearly refer to manipulating coronaviruses so that they better infect humanized mice cells. This is a study that Fauci insists is not gain of function research, but I'm unclear as to the distinction. I suspect that they played with language in these requests so as to be able to avoid triggering the legally-required review. Fauci, and others, are potentially aware that the pandemic could have stemmed from research that they themselves fast-tracked around the legally mandated review process, making them partially culpable in millions of deaths worldwide -- it would be incredibly difficult in that situation to start looking critically at the possibility that it's true. We should be very careful about trusting experts with a lot at stake in the answer to the question.

shapefrog 5y ago
I know it won't be a popular opinion here, but I am not sure I trust the judgment of mathematicians with conflicts of interest. It would be human nature for those who were involved in lobbying for 1+1=2 to continue are now unwilling to entertain the idea that something as devastating as 42 was a result of such a calculation.