3 ms·

> we concluded that the formations of a part of Omicron isolates BA.1, BA.1.1, and BA.2 were not the products of genome evolution as is commonly observed in nat

by ftxbro 3y ago

> we concluded that the formations of a part of Omicron isolates BA.1, BA.1.1, and BA.2 were not the products of genome evolution as is commonly observed in nature, such as the accumulation of mutations and homologous recombinations. Furthermore, the study of 35 recombinant isolates of Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2, confirmed that Omicron variants were already present in 2020. The analysis we have shown here is that the Omicron variants are formed by an entirely new mechanism that cannot be explained by previous biology > This paper aims to point out that SARS-CoV-2 has undergone unthinkable mutations under conventional coronavirus mutation mechanisms, and we hope that the possibility of artificial theory should be included in the discussion seriously as to the formation of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Oh it's another lab leak theory. The Lancet (the most prestigious medical journal) already debunked these conspiracy theories [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)

salawat 3y ago
The Lancet, was also found to have massive conflicts of interests in that regard. Thou dost not research hard enough.
- ftxbro 3y ago
  > Thou dost not research hard enough. is this how we say 'Do your own research, people!' on hacker news
  - EdwardDiego 3y ago
    Arise from your slumber, ovine citizens!
SomeRndName11 3y ago
Lab leak has never been "debunked". It is still a very much a possible route of the introduction of Wu-1 into the general population.
- ftxbro 3y ago
  they have debunked the debunkers??
  - SomeRndName11 3y ago
    Yes. They took them out of the bunker. They were sitting there together with Mr. Putin.
nradov 3y ago
The lab leak hypothesis has in no way been "debunked". It remains a possibility as per official US government statement. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declass... The Lancet lost much of their credibility by allowing Peter Daszak to spread misinformation on their platform. They have a long way to go to remain trust in the scientific community. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/under-fire-lancet-admits-conflict-interest-lab-leak-letter https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/under-fire-lancet-...
- ftxbro 3y ago
  From that official US government statement: 'SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered' That goes against the premise of the science paper, which is saying that the epidemic started with a bunch of covid viruses that had a biologically implausible enrichment of non-synonymous mutations (and were therefore genetically engineered probably with CRISPR).
  - lockhouse 3y ago
    It can be both not genetically engineered and a lab leak at the same time. We study dangerous pathogens in labs all the time. All it takes is a laboratory accident for it to escape containment. “Two years before the novel coronavirus pandemic upended the world, U.S. Embassy officials visited a Chinese research facility in the city of Wuhan several times and sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab, which was conducting risky studies on coronaviruses from bats.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep...
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      This is a motte and bailey. The article is about genetic engineering, not accidental leaks, so the specific lab leak theory in this context would be one where not only the virus, but it's subsequent mutations, were engineered and leaked. The probability of it being genetically engineered first for the leak and then for the subsequent mutations is incredibly unlikely and a soft, qualitative model of synonymous mutations is not up to the standard. Especially since the model takes first sequencing as direct evidence for location of origin (it isn't) and it doesn't take into account the mishmash of explosive spread, reinfection, superinfection, and chronic infection that isn't, to my knowledge, present for any other known virus - a strong quantitative model would be necessary at minimum.
reducesuffering 3y ago
Did you even read the wiki you linked, ftxbro? "According to The Wall Street Journal, three signatories' said that upon further reflection, they thought a laboratory accident was plausible enough to merit consideration. Bernard Roizman is reported to have said "I'm convinced that what happened is that the virus was brought to a lab, they started to work with it…and some sloppy individual brought it out".[19] In June 2021, ABC News reported Calisher had "completely changed his position", saying he believes that "there is too much coincidence" to ignore the lab-leak theory and that "it is more likely that it came out of that lab."[20] In an email to Undark Magazine, Stanley Perlman wrote that versions of the lab leak idea differed in whether they posited the virus was engineered in a lab before leaking, explaining that the Lancet letter focused more on engineering.[21] In an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung in February 2022, Christian Drosten said that had the experiments being done at the laboratory in Wuhan been disclosed by those involved, he would have "at least asked questions" before signing the letter."
- ftxbro 3y ago
  OK but if it were a real lab leak then it would be in the news, like not only on fox news with laura ingraham. Also it was signed by twenty thousand people I'm not surprised that three of them started questioning their certainty when they are grilled by journalists.
  - TechBro8615 3y ago
    I've been wondering for a while whether ftxbro is a satire account... this comment has me leaning toward "yes." Well played either way...
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    > it would be in the news No, left or right, this is not the merit of truth. Fox News, MSNBC, and anything in between. If you haven't heard the litany of problems with natural origin, you're in the exact same bubble as fox news but on the opposite side, you're pretty much making fun of yourself. Is the US government DNI, under a Democrat Administration, "only on fox news?" https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declass... "the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident. Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors. One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses. Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely. Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps."

by ftxbro 3y ago

salawat 3y ago

The Lancet, was also found to have massive conflicts of interests in that regard. Thou dost not research hard enough.

ftxbro 3y ago
> Thou dost not research hard enough. is this how we say 'Do your own research, people!' on hacker news
- EdwardDiego 3y ago
  Arise from your slumber, ovine citizens!

SomeRndName11 3y ago

Lab leak has never been "debunked". It is still a very much a possible route of the introduction of Wu-1 into the general population.

ftxbro 3y ago
they have debunked the debunkers??
- SomeRndName11 3y ago
  Yes. They took them out of the bunker. They were sitting there together with Mr. Putin.

nradov 3y ago

The lab leak hypothesis has in no way been "debunked". It remains a possibility as per official US government statement. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declass... The Lancet lost much of their credibility by allowing Peter Daszak to spread misinformation on their platform. They have a long way to go to remain trust in the scientific community. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/under-fire-lancet-admits-conflict-interest-lab-leak-letter https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/under-fire-lancet-...

ftxbro 3y ago
From that official US government statement: 'SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered' That goes against the premise of the science paper, which is saying that the epidemic started with a bunch of covid viruses that had a biologically implausible enrichment of non-synonymous mutations (and were therefore genetically engineered probably with CRISPR).
- lockhouse 3y ago
  It can be both not genetically engineered and a lab leak at the same time. We study dangerous pathogens in labs all the time. All it takes is a laboratory accident for it to escape containment. “Two years before the novel coronavirus pandemic upended the world, U.S. Embassy officials visited a Chinese research facility in the city of Wuhan several times and sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab, which was conducting risky studies on coronaviruses from bats.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep...
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    This is a motte and bailey. The article is about genetic engineering, not accidental leaks, so the specific lab leak theory in this context would be one where not only the virus, but it's subsequent mutations, were engineered and leaked. The probability of it being genetically engineered first for the leak and then for the subsequent mutations is incredibly unlikely and a soft, qualitative model of synonymous mutations is not up to the standard. Especially since the model takes first sequencing as direct evidence for location of origin (it isn't) and it doesn't take into account the mishmash of explosive spread, reinfection, superinfection, and chronic infection that isn't, to my knowledge, present for any other known virus - a strong quantitative model would be necessary at minimum.

reducesuffering 3y ago

Did you even read the wiki you linked, ftxbro? "According to The Wall Street Journal, three signatories' said that upon further reflection, they thought a laboratory accident was plausible enough to merit consideration. Bernard Roizman is reported to have said "I'm convinced that what happened is that the virus was brought to a lab, they started to work with it…and some sloppy individual brought it out".[19] In June 2021, ABC News reported Calisher had "completely changed his position", saying he believes that "there is too much coincidence" to ignore the lab-leak theory and that "it is more likely that it came out of that lab."[20] In an email to Undark Magazine, Stanley Perlman wrote that versions of the lab leak idea differed in whether they posited the virus was engineered in a lab before leaking, explaining that the Lancet letter focused more on engineering.[21] In an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung in February 2022, Christian Drosten said that had the experiments being done at the laboratory in Wuhan been disclosed by those involved, he would have "at least asked questions" before signing the letter."

ftxbro 3y ago
OK but if it were a real lab leak then it would be in the news, like not only on fox news with laura ingraham. Also it was signed by twenty thousand people I'm not surprised that three of them started questioning their certainty when they are grilled by journalists.
- TechBro8615 3y ago
  I've been wondering for a while whether ftxbro is a satire account... this comment has me leaning toward "yes." Well played either way...
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  > it would be in the news No, left or right, this is not the merit of truth. Fox News, MSNBC, and anything in between. If you haven't heard the litany of problems with natural origin, you're in the exact same bubble as fox news but on the opposite side, you're pretty much making fun of yourself. Is the US government DNI, under a Democrat Administration, "only on fox news?" https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declass... "the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident. Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors. One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses. Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely. Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps."