5 ms·

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

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.
        watwut 5y ago
        I mean, the reality also is that there were in fact serious attempts to unleash bigotry instead of focusing on response. That is reality of what happened too. Huge reason why people painted it as anti-Chinese bigotry is that such a thing played a huge role in Trump response. Renaming Covid-19 to Chinese virus while downplaying need for tests and such was exactly that.
  - beefield 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. The problem is that to my understanding the lab-leak discussion was (and still somewhat is) dominated by raving mad conspiracy lunatics[1] or instances trying to inflict racism. I fully admit that someone should seriously research that hypothesis (I fully assume there are some serious folks doing just that), but it is also difficult to blame media trying to keep the raving mad in check, even if some sensible arguments are thrown with the bathwater. (Besides, I am not sure if public discussion has anything substantial to add before there is some conclusion on the matter) [1] As this is somewhat heated discussion, I think I need to emphasize that I definitely do not imply that all who doubt lab-leak are raving mad. If you think I do, please breathe and read again.
    - freewilly1040 5y ago
      If a theory has been labeled as raving mad racism, only those that are comfortable with the cost of that being labelled thus will speak up. I don’t see where the media deserves a pass.
      - craftinator 5y ago
        You have failed to comprehend the parent comment. Please read again.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      In a free society the job of the media is to report the facts, not to "keep the raving mad in check".
- ethanbond 5y ago
  The really odd part of the meta conversation is that the “pro lab leak” folks are complaining they were stripped of nuance, but claim they were told it’s impossible or it’s crazy to think it could’ve been a lab leak. That might have been their subjective experience of people apparently not taking them seriously, but I have never actually seen this position held by an authority. What are we supposed to do, send military-escorted scientists into Wuhan to swab every inch? And what if that came up inconclusive, as it certainly would? The “anti lab leak” position has always been 1) we don’t know, 2) it’s not the most important question right now, and 3) we probably will never know. The people complaining about lack of nuance are proving their own inability/unwillingness to grapple with nuance.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    > The “anti lab leak” position has always That is absolutely not true. Don't you dare try to rewrite history. The anti-lab-leak position has included claims like "it's racist to say that china lab leaked the virus". At best, the "official" anti lab leak position has been framed by the lancet article. Go read that and tell us if that position is as neutral as you claim.
    - ethanbond 5y ago
      Yeah this is another view I see commonly expressed and have found no evidence ever coming from an authority. The Lancet letter (effectively an op-ed), for example, mentions race exactly zero times. It does somewhat recklessly affiliate these theories with conspiracy theories, but it’s worth remembering that they were responding to actual conspiracy theories like the virus being a bioweapon purposely released. This is an actual theory of conspiracy for which there continues to be no evidence. Scientists were getting death threats on this basis. And again, the Lancet letter itself points to the then-current body of evidence, which people can contribute to or refute via their own publications (this is how science works).
      - spfzero 5y ago
        They weren't responding to any body of evidence. There was zero at that time, on either side. They were trying to get out in front and head off what they thought was something reasonable people would include in their consideration of origins. They had no evidence either way but knew that they had a lot to lose, and fired everything they had.
- xwolfi 5y ago
  You're right. It's highly suspicious, but it's just that and the problem is that the lab leak theory has many ramifications that are net negative for everyone: was it intentional, was it preventable, was it modified to test bioweapons, was it financed by France (yes, in France, we're not so hot about discussing our own little responsibility in building that lab). I think if it was a clear-cut case of manipulation screwup, and that some people in China know today for sure that it was, we'll know eventually when we care less. If nobody, even close to the lab in China, knows for sure, then we probably won't investigate more just in case we'd discover with horror we killed all these people.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    Btw I don't think the French should feel so bad, by my understanding they did the right thing, or as best as they could: once they reviewed the construction of the building they refused to sign off on the bsl certification and no french researchers were sent to the institute (or maybe it was just one). I suppose they could have raised a bit more of a stink about it, but it was a different era, one when diplomacy with china was still a net win-win for everyone.

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.
      - watwut 5y ago
        I mean, the reality also is that there were in fact serious attempts to unleash bigotry instead of focusing on response. That is reality of what happened too. Huge reason why people painted it as anti-Chinese bigotry is that such a thing played a huge role in Trump response. Renaming Covid-19 to Chinese virus while downplaying need for tests and such was exactly that.
- beefield 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. The problem is that to my understanding the lab-leak discussion was (and still somewhat is) dominated by raving mad conspiracy lunatics[1] or instances trying to inflict racism. I fully admit that someone should seriously research that hypothesis (I fully assume there are some serious folks doing just that), but it is also difficult to blame media trying to keep the raving mad in check, even if some sensible arguments are thrown with the bathwater. (Besides, I am not sure if public discussion has anything substantial to add before there is some conclusion on the matter) [1] As this is somewhat heated discussion, I think I need to emphasize that I definitely do not imply that all who doubt lab-leak are raving mad. If you think I do, please breathe and read again.
  - freewilly1040 5y ago
    If a theory has been labeled as raving mad racism, only those that are comfortable with the cost of that being labelled thus will speak up. I don’t see where the media deserves a pass.
    - craftinator 5y ago
      You have failed to comprehend the parent comment. Please read again.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    In a free society the job of the media is to report the facts, not to "keep the raving mad in check".
ethanbond 5y ago
The really odd part of the meta conversation is that the “pro lab leak” folks are complaining they were stripped of nuance, but claim they were told it’s impossible or it’s crazy to think it could’ve been a lab leak. That might have been their subjective experience of people apparently not taking them seriously, but I have never actually seen this position held by an authority. What are we supposed to do, send military-escorted scientists into Wuhan to swab every inch? And what if that came up inconclusive, as it certainly would? The “anti lab leak” position has always been 1) we don’t know, 2) it’s not the most important question right now, and 3) we probably will never know. The people complaining about lack of nuance are proving their own inability/unwillingness to grapple with nuance.
- dnautics 5y ago
  > The “anti lab leak” position has always That is absolutely not true. Don't you dare try to rewrite history. The anti-lab-leak position has included claims like "it's racist to say that china lab leaked the virus". At best, the "official" anti lab leak position has been framed by the lancet article. Go read that and tell us if that position is as neutral as you claim.
  - ethanbond 5y ago
    Yeah this is another view I see commonly expressed and have found no evidence ever coming from an authority. The Lancet letter (effectively an op-ed), for example, mentions race exactly zero times. It does somewhat recklessly affiliate these theories with conspiracy theories, but it’s worth remembering that they were responding to actual conspiracy theories like the virus being a bioweapon purposely released. This is an actual theory of conspiracy for which there continues to be no evidence. Scientists were getting death threats on this basis. And again, the Lancet letter itself points to the then-current body of evidence, which people can contribute to or refute via their own publications (this is how science works).
    - spfzero 5y ago
      They weren't responding to any body of evidence. There was zero at that time, on either side. They were trying to get out in front and head off what they thought was something reasonable people would include in their consideration of origins. They had no evidence either way but knew that they had a lot to lose, and fired everything they had.
xwolfi 5y ago
You're right. It's highly suspicious, but it's just that and the problem is that the lab leak theory has many ramifications that are net negative for everyone: was it intentional, was it preventable, was it modified to test bioweapons, was it financed by France (yes, in France, we're not so hot about discussing our own little responsibility in building that lab). I think if it was a clear-cut case of manipulation screwup, and that some people in China know today for sure that it was, we'll know eventually when we care less. If nobody, even close to the lab in China, knows for sure, then we probably won't investigate more just in case we'd discover with horror we killed all these people.
- dnautics 5y ago
  Btw I don't think the French should feel so bad, by my understanding they did the right thing, or as best as they could: once they reviewed the construction of the building they refused to sign off on the bsl certification and no french researchers were sent to the institute (or maybe it was just one). I suppose they could have raised a bit more of a stink about it, but it was a different era, one when diplomacy with china was still a net win-win for everyone.