2 ms·

> "Two lineages" in rapid-succession is weird - but no better explained by two zoonoses (that left no hints in any animal population) than two lab-leaks. I mea

> "Two lineages" in rapid-succession is weird - but no better explained by two zoonoses (that left no hints in any animal population) than two lab-leaks. I mean, everyone can stop reading here... This is patently false. Multiple Spillover is a readily reproducible phenomenon that perfectly explains the dual lineages. Again, spell out specifically the route how two distinct lineages would be present at the market under the lab leak scenario. > It might slant things slightly against it - but when no other animals, anywhere from Laos to Wuhan, have revealed any of these supposed intermediate forms – that somehow zoonosed twice, only after reaching Wuhan You literally only need one animal shedding virus - it's how literally every other pandemic started. The market was shut down weeks after it was clear that a pandemic was underway and only after that did the authorities start looking for infected animals. Absence of evidence here isn't remotely a substitution for evidence of the absence. > with a dangerous new viral feature Wuhan researchers had proposed splicing into bat viruses?!? – the slant remains very much in the other direction. This part is just false and belies your lack of understanding of the science and the direction of causality. The reason scientists proposed studying the FCS is because it was identified a decade+ ago as both dangerous for zoonosis and readily possible with natural mutation. All of these virologists studying coronaviruses weren't doing it out of the blue, but because everyone knew that it was the single greatest zoonotic risk we faced.

gojomo 4y ago
A lab worker who was careless (if not depressed/malicious) could just as easily carry out two variants as one. One animal shedded... two variants of virus? How did the animal get it, when no other nearby wild or market animals in the (lackluster) investigation around Wuhan, or since elsewhere, have shown candidate SARS-CoV2/precursor viruses? They proposed adding the FCS to existing viruses where FCS hadn't been seen before – and yes, the motivation was because that was considered a potential natural risk. But that doesn't mean it was a natural inevitability. Isn't the proximity of the proposal, "add FCS to a bat coronavirus to see how much worse it makes it", to the appearance of SARS-CoV2 at least a little suspicious? They & others have published lots of work that specifically made existing viruses more transmissable, or more severe – often in labs with a history of leaks. This can be done via evolutionary pressures – serial passage forced-evolution – or via explicit engineering of new chimeric viruses. Coronavirus crossover was theorized to be a major risk, after SARS/MERS. That didn't mean that actually outracing nature to make the hypothesized worse viruses in accelerated lab processes was a good risk-reducing idea!
- SiempreViernes 4y ago
  > One animal shedded... two variants of virus Maybe, but more likely two different ones out of the many millions of poorly documented animals in the East Asia animal trade. Certainly more plausible than a single lab engineering two very distinct linages for no good reason. > That didn't mean that actually outracing nature to make the hypothesized worse viruses in accelerated lab processes was a good risk-reducing idea! Presumably you can link to the papers published about how they did just such work, or evidence it in some other authoritative way since you make the assertion so boldly?
  - gojomo 4y ago
    How would two different non-bat animals shed two different (but closely-related) bat viruses, in a market with no bats, and far away from the bat caves where related viruses are documented? And further, manage this with no evidence of any other animals infected with related viruses in that region, nor along the trade routes any such animals/viruses must have followed? Those were the two luckiest bat-viruses ever! On the other hand, the research lab across town had collected hundreds of such bat viruses from far away - suspiciously never fully catalogued. EcoHealth belatedly reported in late 2021 to the NIH, its funder that it had already, prior to May 2019: • created a new, chimeric SHC014-WIV1 virus that was more virulent in human tissue than the (relatively benign) natural WIV1 virus • took a natural virus that was already highly deadly, MERS, & added new binding sites You can read an overview from The Intercept at <https://theintercept.com/2021/10/21/virus-mers-wuhan-experiments/ https://theintercept.com/2021/10/21/virus-mers-wuhan-experim...>, or a (partially-redacted) suspiciously-late EcoHealth report to the NIH at <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21089573-priority-grants-for-foia-request-55058-first-look-institute-2_redacted https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21089573-priority-gr...> which describes these experiments. Note also that per The Intercept, an EcoHealth spokesman had previously denied any such MERS gain-of-function experimentation had occurred - claiming instead it was only "suggested as an alternative and was not undertaken". So: EcoHealth lied. What if someone's secret budget, or pre-grant investigational work, had helped WIV do exactly the FCS addition they'd already asked for funding to do? That'd be a sufficient, and straightforward, way to get a SARS-CoV2-like virus from less-human-adapted viruses in nature. And while this route isn't proven – perhaps because those involved have been suspiciously uncooperative – this hypothetical origin has more supporting evidence than "luckiest bat viruses ever snuck to Wuhan from a thousand miles away, zoonosed in Wuhan twice in rapid succession, leaving no sick animals or people anywhere else, despite a giant search".

gojomo 4y ago

A lab worker who was careless (if not depressed/malicious) could just as easily carry out two variants as one. One animal shedded... two variants of virus? How did the animal get it, when no other nearby wild or market animals in the (lackluster) investigation around Wuhan, or since elsewhere, have shown candidate SARS-CoV2/precursor viruses? They proposed adding the FCS to existing viruses where FCS hadn't been seen before – and yes, the motivation was because that was considered a potential natural risk. But that doesn't mean it was a natural inevitability. Isn't the proximity of the proposal, "add FCS to a bat coronavirus to see how much worse it makes it", to the appearance of SARS-CoV2 at least a little suspicious? They & others have published lots of work that specifically made existing viruses more transmissable, or more severe – often in labs with a history of leaks. This can be done via evolutionary pressures – serial passage forced-evolution – or via explicit engineering of new chimeric viruses. Coronavirus crossover was theorized to be a major risk, after SARS/MERS. That didn't mean that actually outracing nature to make the hypothesized worse viruses in accelerated lab processes was a good risk-reducing idea!

SiempreViernes 4y ago
> One animal shedded... two variants of virus Maybe, but more likely two different ones out of the many millions of poorly documented animals in the East Asia animal trade. Certainly more plausible than a single lab engineering two very distinct linages for no good reason. > That didn't mean that actually outracing nature to make the hypothesized worse viruses in accelerated lab processes was a good risk-reducing idea! Presumably you can link to the papers published about how they did just such work, or evidence it in some other authoritative way since you make the assertion so boldly?
- gojomo 4y ago
  How would two different non-bat animals shed two different (but closely-related) bat viruses, in a market with no bats, and far away from the bat caves where related viruses are documented? And further, manage this with no evidence of any other animals infected with related viruses in that region, nor along the trade routes any such animals/viruses must have followed? Those were the two luckiest bat-viruses ever! On the other hand, the research lab across town had collected hundreds of such bat viruses from far away - suspiciously never fully catalogued. EcoHealth belatedly reported in late 2021 to the NIH, its funder that it had already, prior to May 2019: • created a new, chimeric SHC014-WIV1 virus that was more virulent in human tissue than the (relatively benign) natural WIV1 virus • took a natural virus that was already highly deadly, MERS, & added new binding sites You can read an overview from The Intercept at <https://theintercept.com/2021/10/21/virus-mers-wuhan-experiments/ https://theintercept.com/2021/10/21/virus-mers-wuhan-experim...>, or a (partially-redacted) suspiciously-late EcoHealth report to the NIH at <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21089573-priority-grants-for-foia-request-55058-first-look-institute-2_redacted https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21089573-priority-gr...> which describes these experiments. Note also that per The Intercept, an EcoHealth spokesman had previously denied any such MERS gain-of-function experimentation had occurred - claiming instead it was only "suggested as an alternative and was not undertaken". So: EcoHealth lied. What if someone's secret budget, or pre-grant investigational work, had helped WIV do exactly the FCS addition they'd already asked for funding to do? That'd be a sufficient, and straightforward, way to get a SARS-CoV2-like virus from less-human-adapted viruses in nature. And while this route isn't proven – perhaps because those involved have been suspiciously uncooperative – this hypothetical origin has more supporting evidence than "luckiest bat viruses ever snuck to Wuhan from a thousand miles away, zoonosed in Wuhan twice in rapid succession, leaving no sick animals or people anywhere else, despite a giant search".