8 ms·

If anyone wants to go down the "lab leak" rabbit hole, check out Charles Rixey's Substack [1]. He's assembled a massive database of articles and a complete time

by Jerry2 5y ago

If anyone wants to go down the "lab leak" rabbit hole, check out Charles Rixey's Substack [1]. He's assembled a massive database of articles and a complete timeline of events [2] that lead to COVID-19 pandemic. He's one of the members of DRASTIC which is a loose group of researchers looking into the "lab leak" hypothesis. [3][4][5] Even Moderna's CEO Stephane Bancel does not discount it and say's "it's possible" after researchers found a genetic sequence in SARS-CoV-2 virus which was patented by Moderna three years prior to pandemic. [6] [1] https://prometheusshrugged.substack.com/ https://prometheusshrugged.substack.com/ [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353547700_SARS-CoV-2_Origins_Research_Reference_Project_-_20220115 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353547700_SARS-CoV-... [3] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRASTIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRASTIC [5] https://drasticscience.com/ https://drasticscience.com/ [6] https://youtu.be/YcgE-5a1Ztc?t=436 https://youtu.be/YcgE-5a1Ztc?t=436

doopy1 5y ago
What's their verdict on the probability that it's a lab leak?
wh313 5y ago
I find it suspicious that very few of these "researchers" seem to even have any expertise in virology. Furthermore, very few of them seem to even have a PhD in their respective fields, nor any significant institutional affiliations. Two of them at least have research profiles, but their fields of expertise are in microbiology and nitrogen fixation, which have very little to do with virology or pathology. Their primary mode of publication also seems to be ArXiV and ResearchGate, which doesn't go through peer review, so there is no good way to verify their findings. Calling these people researchers would be equivalent to calling your average software developer a physicist. [1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=LLlFfdUAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=LLlFfdUAAAAJ... [2] https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=YWuJkRsAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=YWuJkRsAAAAJ...
- rajin444 5y ago
  > Furthermore, very few of them seem to even have a PhD in their respective fields, nor any significant institutional affiliations. I see this as a sign that they're more trustworthy. This is a poor situation to be in and not really something we can productively argue about. Trust should be the most important priority for any scientist (or any person really, but that's another issue).
  - wh313 5y ago
    You seem to be making a really broad claim with a hidden assumption. When you claim that "Trust should be the most important priority for any scientist," whose trust should be prioritized?
    - rajin444 5y ago
      The truth should be prioritized. That's a very simple statement with a ton of complexities behind it and no good solution, I think.
      - wh313 5y ago
        Those complexities seem to be central to how you view graduate degree holders as less trustworthy. From what I understand, you're stating that these institutions are not trustworthy for some reason, which seems to be that they are trying to hide something that is true. Could you elaborate on that?
        rajin444 5y ago
        More or less comes down to trust in institutions and whether or not you think trust should be earned not given. I've seen (personally and in the news) way too many occurrences of trust being abused by institutions. My default is the more political an issue is, the more likely I am to have 0 trust. I've got a much higher relative trust in underwater basketweaving PHD's than virologist PHD's commenting on the lab leak.
- 5y ago
candiddevmike 5y ago
Your first source writes in a way to trigger an emotional response (anger) in people so they look past the lack of real evidence being presented.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Common tactic and many fall for it. I'm instinctively put on guard at any hint of emotional leading, especially with anger.
tootie 5y ago
No one has declared it impossible even now. They are saying there is now a very strong preponderance of evidence favors natural origin, while no new evidence of lab leak has appeared.
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
> researchers found a genetic sequence in SARS-CoV-2 virus which was patented by Moderna three years prior to pandemic Tangential questions: - Does the natural presence of a patented genetic sequence nullify the patent? - If not, can a company that doesn't hold or pay for the patent 'copy' the naturally occurring genetic sequence and not be liable for patent infringement? - Whether or not it occurred naturally, does the fact that it's "out there" in such a large way, not nullify the patent so much, but nullify the chances of being liable for patent infringement?
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Genetics patents very much do exist based on genes found in living organisms. The patents protect the usage of gene sequences in particular ways, usually in genetic engineering ways. You can’t patent a gene from a cow and say nobody can breed cows any more, of course that’s silly.
  - couchand 5y ago
    Some would argue that allowing a patent on a naturally-occurring gene is the silly part there.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      This is the basis of nearly all of genetic technology
      - colechristensen 5y ago
        The problem is how trivial most of the things are to create. Take a cell line (e. coli, a yeast, some animal cell line), combine together the target gene, a few boilerplate add-ons specific to the host cell, and send it off to get manufactured. A first prototype can be engineered in an afternoon. Then somebody patents it, the same thing from every species they can think of, and nobody gets to do that same thing for decades. The process being so low effort and obvious these days is the core of the problem with patentability. "I put X gene into Y, and it worked" can be done for so many X and Y and anybody with, say, a graduate degree in the appropriate field can do it quite quickly.

by Jerry2 5y ago

doopy1 5y ago

What's their verdict on the probability that it's a lab leak?

wh313 5y ago

I find it suspicious that very few of these "researchers" seem to even have any expertise in virology. Furthermore, very few of them seem to even have a PhD in their respective fields, nor any significant institutional affiliations. Two of them at least have research profiles, but their fields of expertise are in microbiology and nitrogen fixation, which have very little to do with virology or pathology. Their primary mode of publication also seems to be ArXiV and ResearchGate, which doesn't go through peer review, so there is no good way to verify their findings. Calling these people researchers would be equivalent to calling your average software developer a physicist. [1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=LLlFfdUAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=LLlFfdUAAAAJ... [2] https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=YWuJkRsAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=YWuJkRsAAAAJ...

rajin444 5y ago
> Furthermore, very few of them seem to even have a PhD in their respective fields, nor any significant institutional affiliations. I see this as a sign that they're more trustworthy. This is a poor situation to be in and not really something we can productively argue about. Trust should be the most important priority for any scientist (or any person really, but that's another issue).
- wh313 5y ago
  You seem to be making a really broad claim with a hidden assumption. When you claim that "Trust should be the most important priority for any scientist," whose trust should be prioritized?
  - rajin444 5y ago
    The truth should be prioritized. That's a very simple statement with a ton of complexities behind it and no good solution, I think.
    - wh313 5y ago
      Those complexities seem to be central to how you view graduate degree holders as less trustworthy. From what I understand, you're stating that these institutions are not trustworthy for some reason, which seems to be that they are trying to hide something that is true. Could you elaborate on that?
      - rajin444 5y ago
        More or less comes down to trust in institutions and whether or not you think trust should be earned not given. I've seen (personally and in the news) way too many occurrences of trust being abused by institutions. My default is the more political an issue is, the more likely I am to have 0 trust. I've got a much higher relative trust in underwater basketweaving PHD's than virologist PHD's commenting on the lab leak.
5y ago

candiddevmike 5y ago

Your first source writes in a way to trigger an emotional response (anger) in people so they look past the lack of real evidence being presented.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Common tactic and many fall for it. I'm instinctively put on guard at any hint of emotional leading, especially with anger.

tootie 5y ago

No one has declared it impossible even now. They are saying there is now a very strong preponderance of evidence favors natural origin, while no new evidence of lab leak has appeared.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

> researchers found a genetic sequence in SARS-CoV-2 virus which was patented by Moderna three years prior to pandemic Tangential questions: - Does the natural presence of a patented genetic sequence nullify the patent? - If not, can a company that doesn't hold or pay for the patent 'copy' the naturally occurring genetic sequence and not be liable for patent infringement? - Whether or not it occurred naturally, does the fact that it's "out there" in such a large way, not nullify the patent so much, but nullify the chances of being liable for patent infringement?

colechristensen 5y ago
Genetics patents very much do exist based on genes found in living organisms. The patents protect the usage of gene sequences in particular ways, usually in genetic engineering ways. You can’t patent a gene from a cow and say nobody can breed cows any more, of course that’s silly.
- couchand 5y ago
  Some would argue that allowing a patent on a naturally-occurring gene is the silly part there.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    This is the basis of nearly all of genetic technology
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      The problem is how trivial most of the things are to create. Take a cell line (e. coli, a yeast, some animal cell line), combine together the target gene, a few boilerplate add-ons specific to the host cell, and send it off to get manufactured. A first prototype can be engineered in an afternoon. Then somebody patents it, the same thing from every species they can think of, and nobody gets to do that same thing for decades. The process being so low effort and obvious these days is the core of the problem with patentability. "I put X gene into Y, and it worked" can be done for so many X and Y and anybody with, say, a graduate degree in the appropriate field can do it quite quickly.