8 ms·

Hi Scott, This is Alina Chan, one of the authors of the book. Thank you very much for your thorough review of our book :) On the Laos connection, I made a th

Hi Scott, This is Alina Chan, one of the authors of the book. Thank you very much for your thorough review of our book :) On the Laos connection, I made a thread on Twitter to lay out the latest findings about virus samples being sent directly from Laos to Wuhan over several years: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1476231824267485190?s=20 https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1476231824267485190?s=20 I hope this is a good update on that point. Happy new year!

simonebrunozzi 5y ago
> This is Alina Chan, one of the authors of the book. Hey Alina! Welcome to HN! I hope you will stick around and spend some time here with us. This is hands down the best online community I've ever seen in my life.
dnautics 5y ago
Thanks for the book, alina. As a former molecular biologist (who worked on non-pathogenic enzyme gain-of-function projects) when the details of the virus came out I looked at it and immediately thought, "huh, that's exactly what I would have done", caveat I wasn't a virologist, of course, but I felt like I was being gaslit for being told that there was "no way" it could have been a lab leak. I know that I am not the only molecular biologist who felt this way. In no small part due to your work I think it's being taken more seriously, and maybe this is selfish in the context of the crazy situation going on worldwide but I feel 'less crazy'.
- ajross 5y ago
  > I felt like I was being gaslit for being told that there was "no way" it could have been a lab leak Can I say, as someone also looking at this somewhat dispassionately, how upsetting it is that the discourse on this issue has shifted from "It was a lab leak!" (to which strong replies absolutely were "There's no evidence"), to "It might have been a lab leak", now to "People were unfairly treated on the internet for saying it was a lab leak". I mean, it's been two years now, and there's still no evidence beyond the kind of circumstantial stuff detailed by Chan and Ridley (I have the book but haven't read it yet, though I've seen most of Chan's public posts on the subject so I'm pretty sure I know the arc of what's in it). And it seems like everyone has basically conceded that. But instead of just admitting we'll never know with certainty (and that natural evolution remains the most probable origin), everyone wants to talk about meta stuff instead?
  - mc32 5y ago
    It’s important to have a meta conversation because the media and social media were actively hindering discussion (censoring) that examined the lab leak hypothesis. One can’t have an honest investigation if one major avenue is shut down.
    - ajross 5y ago
      But... we're literally discussing a book written on the subject. It wasn't censored. Neither were discussions here on this site, where lab leak arguments were very popular. Are you really sure you aren't confusing controversy (the fact that an opinion can be a minority one with which most experts disagree) with suppression?
      - mc32 5y ago
        Yes, two years after the fact. It’s like saying, after Snowden released his trove of documents, what government secret data collection? look, here’s what Snowden showed us, it’s not secret! We need open discussion at all times not only after we “get permission”. When we had the ricin incident in the 2000s people openly discussed the possibility of a lab insider being the source any it wasn’t censored by the media.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - kspacewalk2 5y ago
        Just because suppression wasn't successful doesn't mean it wasn't attempted. And the attempt itself, by leading Western scientists who attempted to forestall any discussion and gaslight dissenters with accusations of anti-Chinese bigotry and scientific ignorance, is to me an even bigger story than covid's actual origins.
        lern_too_spel 5y ago
        The government continued to investigate the lab leak hypothesis from the very beginning. The fact that some scientists tried to paint it as anti-Chinese bigotry (and some of the accusations clearly were) did not stop this. There's very little there there.
ricksunny 5y ago
Indeed, thank you for producing Viral.
photochemsyn 5y ago
I'm looking forward to reading your book. As a former microbiologist / biochemist with a fair amount of knowledge about what is possible in terms of gain-of-function research, and with a fair amount of experience reading technical research papers and a long-standing interest in both environmental and infectious microbiology and virology, the discussion of origins of the virus in the literature really seemed shady during the first six months of the pandemic. In particular, the early flood of 'data' about potential links to pangolins and a supposed bat-pangolin cross-breeding event, which was discredited pretty quickly, indicated that someone was trying to muddy the waters. Past natural outbreaks involving these kinds of cross-species jumps (MERS and camels for example) had a a long-term natural history, they didn't just appear wholly formed out of the blue, and the natural reservoirs were quickly identified[1, 2] [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/middle-east-respiratory-syndrome-coronavirus-(mers-cov) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/middle-east... [2] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/8/14-0596_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/8/14-0596_article The failure to identify any such natural source of the virus within six months despite intensive searches really put the Wuhan lab leak theory back on the front burner, and the fact that the Lancet and Nature op-eds proclaiming a 'natural source' were organized by those linked to providing U.S. funding to the Wuhan lab was another huge red flag. When it became clear that the funds sent to Wuhan were intended to continue a branch of research (gain-of-function with respiratory viral pathogens) that the U.S. government had severely restricted in 2014[3], well... [3] https://www.science.org/content/article/us-halts-funding-new-risky-virus-studies-calls-voluntary-moratorium https://www.science.org/content/article/us-halts-funding-new... Clearly both some elements of the US government's academic funding wing and of the Chinese government have a deeply vested interest in not allowing an open and independent inquiry into the actual source of the pandemic. This only encourages future similar outbreaks - as it really seems that there may be literally hundreds of wild-type animal viruses that can be turned into human pathogens by selective modification of their cell-surface-protein binding capabilities via techniques such as CRISPR etc. International bans on this kind of research (including an inspection regime as with nuclear non-proliferation treaties) really make sense.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  "The failure to identify any such natural source of the virus within six months despite intensive searches really put the Wuhan lab leak theory back on the front burner" We have had to look for the reservoir animal for Ebola for decades before having a viable candidate. On that scale six months is a very short time.

simonebrunozzi 5y ago

> This is Alina Chan, one of the authors of the book. Hey Alina! Welcome to HN! I hope you will stick around and spend some time here with us. This is hands down the best online community I've ever seen in my life.

dnautics 5y ago

Thanks for the book, alina. As a former molecular biologist (who worked on non-pathogenic enzyme gain-of-function projects) when the details of the virus came out I looked at it and immediately thought, "huh, that's exactly what I would have done", caveat I wasn't a virologist, of course, but I felt like I was being gaslit for being told that there was "no way" it could have been a lab leak. I know that I am not the only molecular biologist who felt this way. In no small part due to your work I think it's being taken more seriously, and maybe this is selfish in the context of the crazy situation going on worldwide but I feel 'less crazy'.

ajross 5y ago
> I felt like I was being gaslit for being told that there was "no way" it could have been a lab leak Can I say, as someone also looking at this somewhat dispassionately, how upsetting it is that the discourse on this issue has shifted from "It was a lab leak!" (to which strong replies absolutely were "There's no evidence"), to "It might have been a lab leak", now to "People were unfairly treated on the internet for saying it was a lab leak". I mean, it's been two years now, and there's still no evidence beyond the kind of circumstantial stuff detailed by Chan and Ridley (I have the book but haven't read it yet, though I've seen most of Chan's public posts on the subject so I'm pretty sure I know the arc of what's in it). And it seems like everyone has basically conceded that. But instead of just admitting we'll never know with certainty (and that natural evolution remains the most probable origin), everyone wants to talk about meta stuff instead?
- mc32 5y ago
  It’s important to have a meta conversation because the media and social media were actively hindering discussion (censoring) that examined the lab leak hypothesis. One can’t have an honest investigation if one major avenue is shut down.
  - ajross 5y ago
    But... we're literally discussing a book written on the subject. It wasn't censored. Neither were discussions here on this site, where lab leak arguments were very popular. Are you really sure you aren't confusing controversy (the fact that an opinion can be a minority one with which most experts disagree) with suppression?
    - mc32 5y ago
      Yes, two years after the fact. It’s like saying, after Snowden released his trove of documents, what government secret data collection? look, here’s what Snowden showed us, it’s not secret! We need open discussion at all times not only after we “get permission”. When we had the ricin incident in the 2000s people openly discussed the possibility of a lab insider being the source any it wasn’t censored by the media.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - kspacewalk2 5y ago
      Just because suppression wasn't successful doesn't mean it wasn't attempted. And the attempt itself, by leading Western scientists who attempted to forestall any discussion and gaslight dissenters with accusations of anti-Chinese bigotry and scientific ignorance, is to me an even bigger story than covid's actual origins.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        The government continued to investigate the lab leak hypothesis from the very beginning. The fact that some scientists tried to paint it as anti-Chinese bigotry (and some of the accusations clearly were) did not stop this. There's very little there there.

ricksunny 5y ago

Indeed, thank you for producing Viral.

photochemsyn 5y ago

I'm looking forward to reading your book. As a former microbiologist / biochemist with a fair amount of knowledge about what is possible in terms of gain-of-function research, and with a fair amount of experience reading technical research papers and a long-standing interest in both environmental and infectious microbiology and virology, the discussion of origins of the virus in the literature really seemed shady during the first six months of the pandemic. In particular, the early flood of 'data' about potential links to pangolins and a supposed bat-pangolin cross-breeding event, which was discredited pretty quickly, indicated that someone was trying to muddy the waters. Past natural outbreaks involving these kinds of cross-species jumps (MERS and camels for example) had a a long-term natural history, they didn't just appear wholly formed out of the blue, and the natural reservoirs were quickly identified[1, 2] [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/middle-east-respiratory-syndrome-coronavirus-(mers-cov) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/middle-east... [2] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/8/14-0596_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/8/14-0596_article The failure to identify any such natural source of the virus within six months despite intensive searches really put the Wuhan lab leak theory back on the front burner, and the fact that the Lancet and Nature op-eds proclaiming a 'natural source' were organized by those linked to providing U.S. funding to the Wuhan lab was another huge red flag. When it became clear that the funds sent to Wuhan were intended to continue a branch of research (gain-of-function with respiratory viral pathogens) that the U.S. government had severely restricted in 2014[3], well... [3] https://www.science.org/content/article/us-halts-funding-new-risky-virus-studies-calls-voluntary-moratorium https://www.science.org/content/article/us-halts-funding-new... Clearly both some elements of the US government's academic funding wing and of the Chinese government have a deeply vested interest in not allowing an open and independent inquiry into the actual source of the pandemic. This only encourages future similar outbreaks - as it really seems that there may be literally hundreds of wild-type animal viruses that can be turned into human pathogens by selective modification of their cell-surface-protein binding capabilities via techniques such as CRISPR etc. International bans on this kind of research (including an inspection regime as with nuclear non-proliferation treaties) really make sense.

jacquesm 5y ago
"The failure to identify any such natural source of the virus within six months despite intensive searches really put the Wuhan lab leak theory back on the front burner" We have had to look for the reservoir animal for Ebola for decades before having a viable candidate. On that scale six months is a very short time.