3 ms·

For all those criticizing the debate format as unsuitable for truth discovery, I would remind them that no form of information is immune from manipulation. Reca

For all those criticizing the debate format as unsuitable for truth discovery, I would remind them that no form of information is immune from manipulation. Recall the highly cited The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
This paper has held up very well in the last three years, despite what many here on HN appear to believe.
- IceHegel 3y ago
  I, uh, respectfully disagree. 1. There is still no direct Ancestor. Despite extensive sampling and analysis of wildlife, no direct ancestor or intermediate host of SARS-CoV-2 has been found. The closest virus to SARS-CoV-2 is RaTG13, found in bats, but the two viruses are still genetically distinct. 2. The furin cleavage site, which allows the virus to efficiently infect human cells, is not found in most close relatives of SARS-CoV-2. Some virologists mentioned this was a sign of lab manipulation as early as 2021. Natural origin needs to show a jump path. 3. Wuhan, where the first cases of COVID-19 were detected, is over 1,000 kilometers away from the region where the closest bat coronaviruses were found. The market where the first cluster of cases was identified did not sell bats.
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    > Despite extensive sampling and analysis of wildlife There has not been extensive sampling of wildlife, nor of farmed wild animals. It seems that China closed down wild animal farms across the country very quickly after it discovered the outbreak, and there are no published studies of these farms that I'm aware of. > The closest virus to SARS-CoV-2 is RaTG13 RaTG13 is no longer the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2. A closer virus, BANAL-52, has since been discovered by a French team in Laos. It turns out that if you start looking, you start finding wild viruses that are closer to SARS-CoV-2 than anything previously known. This in itself already disproves any lab-engineering scenario, unless you start invoking actual cloak-and-dagger conspiracies (e.g., between the French researchers who discovered BANAL-52 and the Wuhan Institute of Virology). > The furin cleavage site, which allows the virus to efficiently infect human cells, is not found in most close relatives of SARS-CoV-2. Furin cleavage sites are not rare in coronaviruses, and it's known that they can develop (e.g., through recombination with coronaviruses that have them). There's basically zero chance that the specific furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 could have been inserted by researchers, because it's caused by an out-of-frame insertion. > Wuhan, where the first cases of COVID-19 were detected, is over 1,000 kilometers away from the region where the closest bat coronaviruses were found. The market where the first cluster of cases was identified did not sell bats. Change the word "Wuhan" to "Guangzhou," and you've just perfectly described the origin of the original SARS outbreak in 2002. Guangzhou is also 1000 km from where the bats live, and the virus wasn't brought to Guangzhou by bats. It was brought there by the wild animal trade (in fact, the same sorts of animals were sold in the Wuhan market as in the Guangzhou markets). The Wuhan market outbreak is a carbon copy of the original SARS outbreak.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago

This paper has held up very well in the last three years, despite what many here on HN appear to believe.

IceHegel 3y ago
I, uh, respectfully disagree. 1. There is still no direct Ancestor. Despite extensive sampling and analysis of wildlife, no direct ancestor or intermediate host of SARS-CoV-2 has been found. The closest virus to SARS-CoV-2 is RaTG13, found in bats, but the two viruses are still genetically distinct. 2. The furin cleavage site, which allows the virus to efficiently infect human cells, is not found in most close relatives of SARS-CoV-2. Some virologists mentioned this was a sign of lab manipulation as early as 2021. Natural origin needs to show a jump path. 3. Wuhan, where the first cases of COVID-19 were detected, is over 1,000 kilometers away from the region where the closest bat coronaviruses were found. The market where the first cluster of cases was identified did not sell bats.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > Despite extensive sampling and analysis of wildlife There has not been extensive sampling of wildlife, nor of farmed wild animals. It seems that China closed down wild animal farms across the country very quickly after it discovered the outbreak, and there are no published studies of these farms that I'm aware of. > The closest virus to SARS-CoV-2 is RaTG13 RaTG13 is no longer the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2. A closer virus, BANAL-52, has since been discovered by a French team in Laos. It turns out that if you start looking, you start finding wild viruses that are closer to SARS-CoV-2 than anything previously known. This in itself already disproves any lab-engineering scenario, unless you start invoking actual cloak-and-dagger conspiracies (e.g., between the French researchers who discovered BANAL-52 and the Wuhan Institute of Virology). > The furin cleavage site, which allows the virus to efficiently infect human cells, is not found in most close relatives of SARS-CoV-2. Furin cleavage sites are not rare in coronaviruses, and it's known that they can develop (e.g., through recombination with coronaviruses that have them). There's basically zero chance that the specific furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 could have been inserted by researchers, because it's caused by an out-of-frame insertion. > Wuhan, where the first cases of COVID-19 were detected, is over 1,000 kilometers away from the region where the closest bat coronaviruses were found. The market where the first cluster of cases was identified did not sell bats. Change the word "Wuhan" to "Guangzhou," and you've just perfectly described the origin of the original SARS outbreak in 2002. Guangzhou is also 1000 km from where the bats live, and the virus wasn't brought to Guangzhou by bats. It was brought there by the wild animal trade (in fact, the same sorts of animals were sold in the Wuhan market as in the Guangzhou markets). The Wuhan market outbreak is a carbon copy of the original SARS outbreak.