6 ms·

This really doesn't really feel like it tells the whole story. A central claim in the article quotes Rand Paul's exchange with Anthony Fauci, but read this quot

This really doesn't really feel like it tells the whole story. A central claim in the article quotes Rand Paul's exchange with Anthony Fauci, but read this quote from The Intercept: 'That video was edited by Paul’s staff so that it ends before Fauci responded to the senator’s harangue by saying, "I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating, senator, because if you look at the viruses that were used in the experiments... it is molecularly impossible... to result in SARS-CoV-2."' https://theintercept.com/2021/07/27/covid-anthony-fauci-rand-paul-research/ https://theintercept.com/2021/07/27/covid-anthony-fauci-rand...

JPLeRouzic 5y ago
> "it is molecularly impossible... to result in SARS-CoV-2." That's sound ominous, but I am curious, how could it be "molecularly" impossible? My understanding is that as there are several other Sarbecovirus (including SARS-COV-1), what could in principle ("molecularly") forbid one of them to mutate to SARS-COV-2? Yet I am not a scientist. Thanks!
- conistonwater 5y ago
  There was an episode the TWiV podcast a few months ago where they discussed the biology-based evidence for why SARS-COV-2 wasn't made in a lab. I think it was this one: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-762/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-762/ One nice thing about the podcast is that because they're scientists by personality they tend to focus far more on the biology of it, which I really appreciate. I listened to it at the time, but I don't remember what they said, to be perfectly honest.
  - inciampati 5y ago
    As a biologist (sorry for the appeal to authority, but it matches the tone of this thread), the evidence against a natural origin appears absolutely staggering. You have a viral clade that completely descends from a single introduction event inside a major city. The virus does not undergo a period of host adaptation, but instead infects many millions over nearly a year before phenotypic changes are observed. This is simply fantastic. I know of no case where a virus jumped species without a period of adaptation to the new host. The fact that the entire clade has a root in October 2019 (and we can see this even because the first viruses sequenced differed by only one or two mutations from their common ancestor) indicates that there was not slow community spread before the initiation of the pandemic period. There is no weaker progenitor virus. Considering as well the focus of research labs within the exact city where the pandemic arose makes any argument against the laboratory origin of the virus seem extremely weak. How does a serious and non-conflicted scientist explain all of these ultra-improbable coincidences?
    - arbitrage 5y ago
      > sorry for the appeal to authority You don't need to apologize for your knowledge and experience. We are not engaged in a roman-style rhetoric class where the mandate is to build all arguments upon a set of rules we never agreed to. The wikipedia list of common logical fallacies is not a guideline to rational discourse in the 21st century.
      - ddxxdd 5y ago
        As far as I'm concerned, apologizing for the appeal to authority signalled that he was open to being criticized and challenged by layman, rather than choosing to belittle those who disagree with him without having his knowledge and experience. In short, he demonstrated that he wasn't an "elitist".
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      An appeal to authority is only inherently invalid insofar as the authority claimed is irrelevant authority or used to paper over weaknesses in the actual argument. Forums not entirely overrun with imaginary internet doctors and cranks can probably start with the polite presumption that you are actually a biologist and proceed with reasonable discussion from there without further ado.
    - orwin 5y ago
      I agree with you for the begining, but this part: > The fact that the entire clade has a root in October 2019 (and we can see this even because the first viruses sequenced differed by only one or two mutations from their common ancestor) indicates that there was not slow community spread before the initiation of the pandemic period. There is no weaker progenitor virus. is hard for me to understand. Rural China in not rural USA. At all. I've hiked for a month in the Appalachian, another one in the Sierras, and spent two month in rural China. Rural china is as i used to imagine rural Africa. Rural china have two particularities: young, probably younger than you imagine. You have villages with a median age of 15, with no middle-aged inhabitants. And enclaved. You have villages where you have to use a jeep (that the village do not own) to get to. Is it possible, in you opinion, to have an early SRAS-Cov2 infecting a village, festing on the people for weeks or even months, then a parent coming back for his yearly vacations, getting infected, then going back to work in Wuhan? I'm not a biologist, so i don't understand how viruses works, but i _know_ rural China (and rural europe, and rural USA.)
- m0llusk 5y ago
  The lab was working with chimeras instead of the virus in part because they were unable to consistently culture the virus. Neither nature nor humans make a viable viruses out of chimeras.
  - tim333 5y ago
    One of the chimeras (in the research the article is based on) reproduced up to 10,000x better than the virus it was based on and caused the mice to lose weight through illness. Sounds viable to me.
cryptica 5y ago
Rand Paul did not actually say that Fauci's gain of function research led to COVID19 but he didn't really need to. We cannot trust Fauci. Doesn't it seems like too much of a coincidence that: - Fauci has been director of NIH since 1984. [EDIT]. Director of NIAID (the branch of NIH which is in charge of infection diseases) - Fauci initially denied NIH funding coronavirus gain of function research in Wuhan labs. - It was discovered that NIH did in fact fund coronavirus gain of function research in Wuhan labs. - Of all the cities in the world, Wuhan happens to be where COVID19 originated. - Fauci was put in charge of the COVID19 response in the US (why not someone from the CDC? The CDC is the agency responsible for disease control and prevention, not the NIH... Why did Fauci end up getting this role when it's clearly outside of his normal duties and clearly a conflict of interest?) Put together, it seems extremely far-fetched that these facts are merely coincidental. They paint a very clear narrative with means and motives; doesn't leave much to the imagination.
- nkozyra 5y ago
  > Rand Paul did not actually say that Fauci's gain of function research led to COVID19 but he didn't really need to. This is true. He strongly implied it did. Fauci continued to deny the funding went to GoF research even in that heated exchange, so he wasn't changing his position. Paul said it did, Fauci said it didn't. What Fauci didn't say was that GoF research wasn't happening there. It undoubtedly was. I'm assuming the coincidence with 1984 is ... the book?
  - cryptica 5y ago
    >> I'm assuming the coincidence with 1984 is ... the book? Haha, nice catch; I didn't even see that one. I only mentioned that date to point out that he's been a director for several decades so the NIH didn't fund this research under a different director; it was Fauci himself in charge. I think the date 1984 is much more likely to be a coincidence; I just don't see how that date fits into the motive. I don't think people like Fauci and his friends care much about symbolism; aside from symbols and numbers displayed in their personal bank accounts and on their trading platforms. The nail in the coffin for me is the clear motive that Fauci had in being appointed to handle the COVID19 response in the US. Combined with the fact that the US government actually funded this research and that Fauci then lied about it and later tried to fudge definitions in an effort to gaslight everyone into thinking that he did not lie when he clearly did... Rand Paul's arguments were delivered with almost Mathematical precision. Not to mention Fauci's earlier lies about masks not providing any protection against COVID19. There's a point when you just have to draw the line, enough lies, this guy is a liar and a manipulator. How many more times does he have to be caught red-handed for us to accept this?
ddxxdd 5y ago
Whether or not NIH funding created SARS-CoV-2 is immaterial to Rand Paul's central point, which was that the NIH illegally funded gain-of-function research.
- frereubu 5y ago
  Whatever the truth of the matter is, what I was getting at was the tone of the article, which seems happy with innuendo and partisan talking points. I have an open mind on whether or not it was a lab leak, but not being an epidemiologist I'm left with trying to gauge the tone as a proxy for whether to trust the author, and this article doesn't pass the smell test for me.
- tim333 5y ago
  Though it's possible Fauci may not have known.

JPLeRouzic 5y ago

> "it is molecularly impossible... to result in SARS-CoV-2." That's sound ominous, but I am curious, how could it be "molecularly" impossible? My understanding is that as there are several other Sarbecovirus (including SARS-COV-1), what could in principle ("molecularly") forbid one of them to mutate to SARS-COV-2? Yet I am not a scientist. Thanks!

conistonwater 5y ago
There was an episode the TWiV podcast a few months ago where they discussed the biology-based evidence for why SARS-COV-2 wasn't made in a lab. I think it was this one: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-762/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-762/ One nice thing about the podcast is that because they're scientists by personality they tend to focus far more on the biology of it, which I really appreciate. I listened to it at the time, but I don't remember what they said, to be perfectly honest.
- inciampati 5y ago
  As a biologist (sorry for the appeal to authority, but it matches the tone of this thread), the evidence against a natural origin appears absolutely staggering. You have a viral clade that completely descends from a single introduction event inside a major city. The virus does not undergo a period of host adaptation, but instead infects many millions over nearly a year before phenotypic changes are observed. This is simply fantastic. I know of no case where a virus jumped species without a period of adaptation to the new host. The fact that the entire clade has a root in October 2019 (and we can see this even because the first viruses sequenced differed by only one or two mutations from their common ancestor) indicates that there was not slow community spread before the initiation of the pandemic period. There is no weaker progenitor virus. Considering as well the focus of research labs within the exact city where the pandemic arose makes any argument against the laboratory origin of the virus seem extremely weak. How does a serious and non-conflicted scientist explain all of these ultra-improbable coincidences?
  - arbitrage 5y ago
    > sorry for the appeal to authority You don't need to apologize for your knowledge and experience. We are not engaged in a roman-style rhetoric class where the mandate is to build all arguments upon a set of rules we never agreed to. The wikipedia list of common logical fallacies is not a guideline to rational discourse in the 21st century.
    - ddxxdd 5y ago
      As far as I'm concerned, apologizing for the appeal to authority signalled that he was open to being criticized and challenged by layman, rather than choosing to belittle those who disagree with him without having his knowledge and experience. In short, he demonstrated that he wasn't an "elitist".
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    An appeal to authority is only inherently invalid insofar as the authority claimed is irrelevant authority or used to paper over weaknesses in the actual argument. Forums not entirely overrun with imaginary internet doctors and cranks can probably start with the polite presumption that you are actually a biologist and proceed with reasonable discussion from there without further ado.
  - orwin 5y ago
    I agree with you for the begining, but this part: > The fact that the entire clade has a root in October 2019 (and we can see this even because the first viruses sequenced differed by only one or two mutations from their common ancestor) indicates that there was not slow community spread before the initiation of the pandemic period. There is no weaker progenitor virus. is hard for me to understand. Rural China in not rural USA. At all. I've hiked for a month in the Appalachian, another one in the Sierras, and spent two month in rural China. Rural china is as i used to imagine rural Africa. Rural china have two particularities: young, probably younger than you imagine. You have villages with a median age of 15, with no middle-aged inhabitants. And enclaved. You have villages where you have to use a jeep (that the village do not own) to get to. Is it possible, in you opinion, to have an early SRAS-Cov2 infecting a village, festing on the people for weeks or even months, then a parent coming back for his yearly vacations, getting infected, then going back to work in Wuhan? I'm not a biologist, so i don't understand how viruses works, but i _know_ rural China (and rural europe, and rural USA.)
m0llusk 5y ago
The lab was working with chimeras instead of the virus in part because they were unable to consistently culture the virus. Neither nature nor humans make a viable viruses out of chimeras.
- tim333 5y ago
  One of the chimeras (in the research the article is based on) reproduced up to 10,000x better than the virus it was based on and caused the mice to lose weight through illness. Sounds viable to me.

cryptica 5y ago

Rand Paul did not actually say that Fauci's gain of function research led to COVID19 but he didn't really need to. We cannot trust Fauci. Doesn't it seems like too much of a coincidence that: - Fauci has been director of NIH since 1984. [EDIT]. Director of NIAID (the branch of NIH which is in charge of infection diseases) - Fauci initially denied NIH funding coronavirus gain of function research in Wuhan labs. - It was discovered that NIH did in fact fund coronavirus gain of function research in Wuhan labs. - Of all the cities in the world, Wuhan happens to be where COVID19 originated. - Fauci was put in charge of the COVID19 response in the US (why not someone from the CDC? The CDC is the agency responsible for disease control and prevention, not the NIH... Why did Fauci end up getting this role when it's clearly outside of his normal duties and clearly a conflict of interest?) Put together, it seems extremely far-fetched that these facts are merely coincidental. They paint a very clear narrative with means and motives; doesn't leave much to the imagination.

nkozyra 5y ago
> Rand Paul did not actually say that Fauci's gain of function research led to COVID19 but he didn't really need to. This is true. He strongly implied it did. Fauci continued to deny the funding went to GoF research even in that heated exchange, so he wasn't changing his position. Paul said it did, Fauci said it didn't. What Fauci didn't say was that GoF research wasn't happening there. It undoubtedly was. I'm assuming the coincidence with 1984 is ... the book?
- cryptica 5y ago
  >> I'm assuming the coincidence with 1984 is ... the book? Haha, nice catch; I didn't even see that one. I only mentioned that date to point out that he's been a director for several decades so the NIH didn't fund this research under a different director; it was Fauci himself in charge. I think the date 1984 is much more likely to be a coincidence; I just don't see how that date fits into the motive. I don't think people like Fauci and his friends care much about symbolism; aside from symbols and numbers displayed in their personal bank accounts and on their trading platforms. The nail in the coffin for me is the clear motive that Fauci had in being appointed to handle the COVID19 response in the US. Combined with the fact that the US government actually funded this research and that Fauci then lied about it and later tried to fudge definitions in an effort to gaslight everyone into thinking that he did not lie when he clearly did... Rand Paul's arguments were delivered with almost Mathematical precision. Not to mention Fauci's earlier lies about masks not providing any protection against COVID19. There's a point when you just have to draw the line, enough lies, this guy is a liar and a manipulator. How many more times does he have to be caught red-handed for us to accept this?

ddxxdd 5y ago

Whether or not NIH funding created SARS-CoV-2 is immaterial to Rand Paul's central point, which was that the NIH illegally funded gain-of-function research.

frereubu 5y ago
Whatever the truth of the matter is, what I was getting at was the tone of the article, which seems happy with innuendo and partisan talking points. I have an open mind on whether or not it was a lab leak, but not being an epidemiologist I'm left with trying to gauge the tone as a proxy for whether to trust the author, and this article doesn't pass the smell test for me.
tim333 5y ago
Though it's possible Fauci may not have known.