7 ms·

I don't believe this to be true. I consider the likelyhood that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the cause of this to be much higher than that the seafood ma

by dtx1 4y ago

I don't believe this to be true. I consider the likelyhood that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the cause of this to be much higher than that the seafood market in wuhan was the cause and there's no reason to trust any media or NGO to be truthful in that regard.

CWuestefeld 4y ago
The two are not mutually exclusive. For example, some "theories" say that a WIV employee took animals that had been used in experiments, and sold them at the market. I'm not suggesting this is actually what happened, just that there's plenty of room for involvement from both of these entities (or, perhaps, neither).
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  MMmmm, medical monkey meat.
- dtx1 4y ago
  I would categorize such a situation as a lab leak, too. Either way, we will never be able to confirm the truth.
- CaptWillard 4y ago
  A very good point, which is sadly absent from most of the public discussion. Having said that, a case could be made that this (lab leak via market) is a distinction without a difference.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  It's transparently obvious that the Market was first place where it began to spread in humans - so "neither" isn't an option. The Market was unequivocally involved.
  - drak0n1c 4y ago
    The reason for the doubt is that it wasn't transparent nor obvious. The Chinese government retroactively censored the institute's publications, Fall 2019 job postings, staff listings, and internal discussion of new symptoms amongst certain researchers [1]. There is a possibility that there were a few earlier cases than the market ones which were covered up to conceal negligence at the institute. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQFCcSI0pU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQFCcSI0pU
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      It's just so silly -- we can do genomic analysis to figure out the lineage of every confirmed sample. "There's the possibility" is weasel wording that obscures the fact that there's literally no evidence for earlier cases.
      - Innominate 4y ago
        The lack of evidence is from people and information being disappeared by a totalitarian regime. That itself is evidence.
    - layer8 4y ago
      It’s perfectly possible that the Chinese government isn’t entirely sure about the origin either, and is censoring just in case.
- onetimepasswd 4y ago
  I think a more likely lab leak via market theory is that an employee was exposed and then exposed others at the market. As I remember the market is between the lab and some public transit destinations. It would make sense to go through the market on the way home from work.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    > As I remember the market is between the lab and some public transit destinations. It would make sense to go through the market on the way home from work. You don't remember correctly. The WIV is ~15km from the market and there are multiple other markets nearer the WIV if employees were regularly 'shopping.
    - ChemSpider 4y ago
      There is a second "small WIV" just around the corner from this market.
      - mikeyouse 4y ago
        So when people were insisting the WIV was the source for all this time due to the type of work they were doing there, they really meant that the CCDC was the source even though the CCDC was doing entirely different (and lower level work)? You get why that's not very convincing and reeks of "god of the gaps" style arguments, right?
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  You find it more believable that it somehow made sense to sell animals infected with viruses for human consumption than someone made a mistake and got infected with a virus they were doing experiments on?
  - rmetzler 4y ago
    The Wuhan lab used to catch wild bats and take virus samples from them. It’s not too far fetched someone sold the same bats to the market or was infected and infected other people / living animals there.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
      I still don't see why you think researches would resort to selling bats to a wet market to make a little extra money. They'd be fired for sure if caught. They also would make almost no extra money... The going rate for bats isn't much...
      - rmetzler 4y ago
        There are more persons in a lab than only high qualified researchers. Cleaners for example. And one bat might not be much, but if your job is to dispose 20 or 50 of them and you can just go a few hundred meters and sell them to a vendor for a few bucks? I don't say that is what actually happened there, I just think that this would be one possibility.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Actually yes. If someone is trading hundreds of live animals for meat on a weekly basis, and the animals aren't obviously seriously ill, why would you expect them to use any standard more rigorous than 'looks fine to me'? Consider how things like hoof & mouth disease have ripped through agricultural herds in western countries, where there are much higher regulatory standards for food production. Diseases can spread fast before the symptoms become obvious.
albatross13 4y ago
- reedjosh 4y ago
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    Vaccines are drugs that trigger immune system response. Always have been. If you're referring to the CDC changing its layperson definition on https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm, its old definition was wrong and didn't include flu vaccines, among many others.
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      I like how in their minds, changing the copy on a website is "changing the definition of a vaccine" and some deep dark conspiracy theory as if it's some binding legal framework and not a public comms platform.
      - tootallgavin 4y ago
        Slightly off topic. But what do you think of the "definition of recession"[1] debacle that is currently going on? Do you think this is similar to "changing the definition of a vaccine" that you mentioned? [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+recession&source=lnms&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+recession&sour...
        mikeyouse 4y ago
        I haven't followed it closely - but it does seem pretty similar. It's not like anything is 'triggered' when a recession is declared. And it's not like the economy is meaningfully better if you had quarterly growth of [-1%, -0.1%] vs. [-1.2%, 0.1%] -- even though by the two quarters rule, the first would be a recession and the second wouldn't. It looks like NBER's definition of how they declare recessions has remained consistent, so I'd defer to them: https://web.archive.org/web/20210103093754/https://www.nber.org/research/business-cycle-dating https://web.archive.org/web/20210103093754/https://www.nber....
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
orwin 4y ago
Two things can be true. The virus might have originated from a Virology lab and the contamination epicenter can be on a wet market.
- dtx1 4y ago
  I would consider that a lab leak and to focus on the epicenter without looking at the obvious leak from the lab next door is just propaganda to make people not look to close. Because anyone that says "covid-19 originated from the wetmarket in wuhan" implies that it was not a lab leak.
president 4y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted for your opinion. I think it's quite clear all we have are theories at this point and if anyone knows, it would be the Chinese government.
systemvoltage 4y ago
Especially of importance is the market hypothesis was initially propelled by Peter Daszak with huge conflicts of interest as analyzed in excrutiating detail and sourced in Alina's Viral [2] book. I recommend this book, worth reading it as it strong arms every other hypothesis of COVID-19 origin and shows how unlikely it is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Daszak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Daszak [2] https://www.harpercollins.com/products/viral-matt-ridleyalina-chan?variant=40127936987170 https://www.harpercollins.com/products/viral-matt-ridleyalin...

by dtx1 4y ago

CWuestefeld 4y ago

The two are not mutually exclusive. For example, some "theories" say that a WIV employee took animals that had been used in experiments, and sold them at the market. I'm not suggesting this is actually what happened, just that there's plenty of room for involvement from both of these entities (or, perhaps, neither).

MichaelCollins 4y ago
MMmmm, medical monkey meat.
dtx1 4y ago
I would categorize such a situation as a lab leak, too. Either way, we will never be able to confirm the truth.
CaptWillard 4y ago
A very good point, which is sadly absent from most of the public discussion. Having said that, a case could be made that this (lab leak via market) is a distinction without a difference.
mikeyouse 4y ago
It's transparently obvious that the Market was first place where it began to spread in humans - so "neither" isn't an option. The Market was unequivocally involved.
- drak0n1c 4y ago
  The reason for the doubt is that it wasn't transparent nor obvious. The Chinese government retroactively censored the institute's publications, Fall 2019 job postings, staff listings, and internal discussion of new symptoms amongst certain researchers [1]. There is a possibility that there were a few earlier cases than the market ones which were covered up to conceal negligence at the institute. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQFCcSI0pU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQFCcSI0pU
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    It's just so silly -- we can do genomic analysis to figure out the lineage of every confirmed sample. "There's the possibility" is weasel wording that obscures the fact that there's literally no evidence for earlier cases.
    - Innominate 4y ago
      The lack of evidence is from people and information being disappeared by a totalitarian regime. That itself is evidence.
  - layer8 4y ago
    It’s perfectly possible that the Chinese government isn’t entirely sure about the origin either, and is censoring just in case.
onetimepasswd 4y ago
I think a more likely lab leak via market theory is that an employee was exposed and then exposed others at the market. As I remember the market is between the lab and some public transit destinations. It would make sense to go through the market on the way home from work.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  > As I remember the market is between the lab and some public transit destinations. It would make sense to go through the market on the way home from work. You don't remember correctly. The WIV is ~15km from the market and there are multiple other markets nearer the WIV if employees were regularly 'shopping.
  - ChemSpider 4y ago
    There is a second "small WIV" just around the corner from this market.
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      So when people were insisting the WIV was the source for all this time due to the type of work they were doing there, they really meant that the CCDC was the source even though the CCDC was doing entirely different (and lower level work)? You get why that's not very convincing and reeks of "god of the gaps" style arguments, right?
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
You find it more believable that it somehow made sense to sell animals infected with viruses for human consumption than someone made a mistake and got infected with a virus they were doing experiments on?
- rmetzler 4y ago
  The Wuhan lab used to catch wild bats and take virus samples from them. It’s not too far fetched someone sold the same bats to the market or was infected and infected other people / living animals there.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    I still don't see why you think researches would resort to selling bats to a wet market to make a little extra money. They'd be fired for sure if caught. They also would make almost no extra money... The going rate for bats isn't much...
    - rmetzler 4y ago
      There are more persons in a lab than only high qualified researchers. Cleaners for example. And one bat might not be much, but if your job is to dispose 20 or 50 of them and you can just go a few hundred meters and sell them to a vendor for a few bucks? I don't say that is what actually happened there, I just think that this would be one possibility.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Actually yes. If someone is trading hundreds of live animals for meat on a weekly basis, and the animals aren't obviously seriously ill, why would you expect them to use any standard more rigorous than 'looks fine to me'? Consider how things like hoof & mouth disease have ripped through agricultural herds in western countries, where there are much higher regulatory standards for food production. Diseases can spread fast before the symptoms become obvious.

albatross13 4y ago

reedjosh 4y ago
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  Vaccines are drugs that trigger immune system response. Always have been. If you're referring to the CDC changing its layperson definition on https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm, its old definition was wrong and didn't include flu vaccines, among many others.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    I like how in their minds, changing the copy on a website is "changing the definition of a vaccine" and some deep dark conspiracy theory as if it's some binding legal framework and not a public comms platform.
    - tootallgavin 4y ago
      Slightly off topic. But what do you think of the "definition of recession"[1] debacle that is currently going on? Do you think this is similar to "changing the definition of a vaccine" that you mentioned? [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+recession&source=lnms&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+recession&sour...
      - mikeyouse 4y ago
        I haven't followed it closely - but it does seem pretty similar. It's not like anything is 'triggered' when a recession is declared. And it's not like the economy is meaningfully better if you had quarterly growth of [-1%, -0.1%] vs. [-1.2%, 0.1%] -- even though by the two quarters rule, the first would be a recession and the second wouldn't. It looks like NBER's definition of how they declare recessions has remained consistent, so I'd defer to them: https://web.archive.org/web/20210103093754/https://www.nber.org/research/business-cycle-dating https://web.archive.org/web/20210103093754/https://www.nber....

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

orwin 4y ago

Two things can be true. The virus might have originated from a Virology lab and the contamination epicenter can be on a wet market.

dtx1 4y ago
I would consider that a lab leak and to focus on the epicenter without looking at the obvious leak from the lab next door is just propaganda to make people not look to close. Because anyone that says "covid-19 originated from the wetmarket in wuhan" implies that it was not a lab leak.

president 4y ago

Not sure why you're being downvoted for your opinion. I think it's quite clear all we have are theories at this point and if anyone knows, it would be the Chinese government.

systemvoltage 4y ago

Especially of importance is the market hypothesis was initially propelled by Peter Daszak with huge conflicts of interest as analyzed in excrutiating detail and sourced in Alina's Viral [2] book. I recommend this book, worth reading it as it strong arms every other hypothesis of COVID-19 origin and shows how unlikely it is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Daszak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Daszak [2] https://www.harpercollins.com/products/viral-matt-ridleyalina-chan?variant=40127936987170 https://www.harpercollins.com/products/viral-matt-ridleyalin...