5 ms·

What will make this information dangerous is if people misconstrue “lab leak” to mean “human designed”. The report specifically says it was not from a bioweapon

by ttul 4y ago

What will make this information dangerous is if people misconstrue “lab leak” to mean “human designed”. The report specifically says it was not from a bioweapons program. I’m sure they took pains to verify that because the implications of THAT conclusion would be explosive.

ethanbond 4y ago
You’re already seeing that exact type of confusion strewn about this comment section. Some people interpreting “lab leak” to mean deliberately designed, others to mean deliberately released, others to mean an accident involving a natural research virus. So yeah this whole conversation will continue to go nowhere because in reality it is full of conspiracy theorists who make the conversation impossible to have.
- cld8483 4y ago
  The research out of this lab didn't help develop the vaccine, so what were they doing in the first place? Weapons research, it's as simple as that. As soon as the virus started circulating through the public, that was their chance to shine! They could have released everything they knew and jump-started vaccine development.. but they didn't. They covered it up, because fighting bugs was never their interest in the first place. Why should anybody believe otherwise? Principle of charity? Please.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Even if I were to accept the (ridiculous) premise, it's still wrong. Wuhan Institute of Virology did actively contribute to the development of the Vero vaccine by Sinopharm. Regarding the premise, there's no reason to believe that a lab working on coronaviruses (quite common) that did not happen to contribute directly to a successful vaccine development effort (profoundly uncommon) was necessarily working on a bioweapon. FWIW, there are ~59 operational BSL-4 labs in the world, and only a BSL-3 is necessary to work on potentially airborne diseases like coronaviruses. According to this study[1] of published research papers, there are probably about 150 BSL-3 labs in the United States alone. Are those all bioweapon programs because they didn't contribute to the vax development programs? [1]: https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/mapping-biosafety-level-3-laboratories-by-publications/ https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/mapping-biosafety-le...
groot2581 4y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
- emj 4y ago
  The discussion during the pandemic only lead to the "human designed" blame game, so the similarities are striking. It is a view that everyone can share, regardless of political affiliations, a perfect way to get a mob going. It is interesting to discuss how the views on this has changed though.
  - groot2581 4y ago
    The human designed blame game is different from the “bio weapons” blame game mentioned in the parent. I get people are discussing human designed but that’s different from bioweapon.
    - emj 4y ago
      I am not very good at bio, so I equate the three to some part. The lab leak story is really bad in itself on a political level, I do not know how we can have a sane discussion about it.
fidgewidge 4y ago
No, that's not the most dangerous interpretation. The most dangerous interpretation of "lab leak" is the one backed by the most evidence - that they were artificially enhancing viruses so they could develop vaccines against them. The Pfizer guy who got caught on camera by Project Veritas said they were considering doing the same thing. Selling people vaccines for viruses the scientists created specifically to create vaccines for, is about the worst conflict of interest you can imagine and one with global implications, not just for US/China relations.
- ttul 4y ago
  Gain-of-function research serves a legitimate purpose, but if this lean stemmed from GoF work, that is not apparent from the SARA CoV-2 genome. See my link elsewhere in the comments to a TWiV podcast episode that discusses the lab leak hypothesis, and the analysis of the genome sequence suggesting it is not the result of human engineering work.
  - xiphias2 4y ago
    ,, Gain-of-function research serves a legitimate purpose'' While this is true, at this point we have evidence that even the highest level security lab can have lab leak with devastating results. The main problem is not that, but that people can't really talk about it publicly, as the rules should be stricter (for example an international body should be checking the procedures of other countries...the problem is not with the rules, but not enough verification of keeping the rules).
  - fidgewidge 4y ago
    Lots of very well informed people disagree with you; you'd also have to consider all the other evidence beyond the genome.

by ttul 4y ago

ethanbond 4y ago

You’re already seeing that exact type of confusion strewn about this comment section. Some people interpreting “lab leak” to mean deliberately designed, others to mean deliberately released, others to mean an accident involving a natural research virus. So yeah this whole conversation will continue to go nowhere because in reality it is full of conspiracy theorists who make the conversation impossible to have.

cld8483 4y ago
The research out of this lab didn't help develop the vaccine, so what were they doing in the first place? Weapons research, it's as simple as that. As soon as the virus started circulating through the public, that was their chance to shine! They could have released everything they knew and jump-started vaccine development.. but they didn't. They covered it up, because fighting bugs was never their interest in the first place. Why should anybody believe otherwise? Principle of charity? Please.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Even if I were to accept the (ridiculous) premise, it's still wrong. Wuhan Institute of Virology did actively contribute to the development of the Vero vaccine by Sinopharm. Regarding the premise, there's no reason to believe that a lab working on coronaviruses (quite common) that did not happen to contribute directly to a successful vaccine development effort (profoundly uncommon) was necessarily working on a bioweapon. FWIW, there are ~59 operational BSL-4 labs in the world, and only a BSL-3 is necessary to work on potentially airborne diseases like coronaviruses. According to this study[1] of published research papers, there are probably about 150 BSL-3 labs in the United States alone. Are those all bioweapon programs because they didn't contribute to the vax development programs? [1]: https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/mapping-biosafety-level-3-laboratories-by-publications/ https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/mapping-biosafety-le...

groot2581 4y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

emj 4y ago
The discussion during the pandemic only lead to the "human designed" blame game, so the similarities are striking. It is a view that everyone can share, regardless of political affiliations, a perfect way to get a mob going. It is interesting to discuss how the views on this has changed though.
- groot2581 4y ago
  The human designed blame game is different from the “bio weapons” blame game mentioned in the parent. I get people are discussing human designed but that’s different from bioweapon.
  - emj 4y ago
    I am not very good at bio, so I equate the three to some part. The lab leak story is really bad in itself on a political level, I do not know how we can have a sane discussion about it.

fidgewidge 4y ago

No, that's not the most dangerous interpretation. The most dangerous interpretation of "lab leak" is the one backed by the most evidence - that they were artificially enhancing viruses so they could develop vaccines against them. The Pfizer guy who got caught on camera by Project Veritas said they were considering doing the same thing. Selling people vaccines for viruses the scientists created specifically to create vaccines for, is about the worst conflict of interest you can imagine and one with global implications, not just for US/China relations.

ttul 4y ago
Gain-of-function research serves a legitimate purpose, but if this lean stemmed from GoF work, that is not apparent from the SARA CoV-2 genome. See my link elsewhere in the comments to a TWiV podcast episode that discusses the lab leak hypothesis, and the analysis of the genome sequence suggesting it is not the result of human engineering work.
- xiphias2 4y ago
  ,, Gain-of-function research serves a legitimate purpose'' While this is true, at this point we have evidence that even the highest level security lab can have lab leak with devastating results. The main problem is not that, but that people can't really talk about it publicly, as the rules should be stricter (for example an international body should be checking the procedures of other countries...the problem is not with the rules, but not enough verification of keeping the rules).
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  Lots of very well informed people disagree with you; you'd also have to consider all the other evidence beyond the genome.