3 ms·

> “Ever since I put out my [May 2020] preprint [research paper] saying that an accidental lab origin was possible, I was criticized as a conspiracy theorist,” s

by rdtsc 3y ago

> “Ever since I put out my [May 2020] preprint [research paper] saying that an accidental lab origin was possible, I was criticized as a conspiracy theorist,” said Chan. “If this info had been made public in May of 2020, I doubt that many in the scientific community and the media would have spent the last three years raving about a raccoon dog or pangolin in a wet market.” That was so bizarre and strange. Both the shadiness of Chinese government and the complete confidence of many US scientists that the origin was definitely not related to the lab. Anyone who suspected anything was just a conspiracy theorist. I can understand skepticism one way or another, and a desire to learn. I thought, well these scientists who spend years researching and conducting lengthy studies, somehow immediately new with 100% confidence it definitely had nothing to do with the bio-lab. It's like someone waving their hands in front of a building with smoke coming out and saying "nothing to see here, look the other way, please".

heyoni 3y ago
No one was hand waving anything. There were studies looking at several attributes of the virus’s genome that concluded (not definitively, nothing ever is) that the virus was probably naturally occurring. Some looked at base pair distributions (some GC to AT ratios are required for stability), others looked for sites where enzymes could splice and whether they were commonly found in this species while others looked for any obviously transplanted. Of all the studies I’m aware of, which isn’t all of them, there is no smoking gun. This isn’t a burning building and that analogy is incorrect. No weird GFP producing genes or any common genetic markers commonly found in lab made species were found anywhere. This isn’t to say it wasn’t a lab leak or that there aren’t opposing theories as to whether such and such base pair distribution is considered normal…but the evidence just isn’t there.

by rdtsc 3y ago

heyoni 3y ago

No one was hand waving anything. There were studies looking at several attributes of the virus’s genome that concluded (not definitively, nothing ever is) that the virus was probably naturally occurring. Some looked at base pair distributions (some GC to AT ratios are required for stability), others looked for sites where enzymes could splice and whether they were commonly found in this species while others looked for any obviously transplanted. Of all the studies I’m aware of, which isn’t all of them, there is no smoking gun. This isn’t a burning building and that analogy is incorrect. No weird GFP producing genes or any common genetic markers commonly found in lab made species were found anywhere. This isn’t to say it wasn’t a lab leak or that there aren’t opposing theories as to whether such and such base pair distribution is considered normal…but the evidence just isn’t there.