The most logical explanation is that it comes from a laboratory
minervanett.no
minervanett.no
Rather than just flagging it, could we have the discussion about why it is extremely unlikely to be true? The alternative is that those who believe the virus was created in a lab never get to see the the counter arguments, and probably consider the flagging as confirmation that they are correct.
Alternatively, could we use this space as the discussion for why the article is inappropriate? While it's arguable that the origin of a virus off-topic for a tech site, I feel certain the issue is not the topic but the conclusion. What's the argument that this conclusion is too dangerous even discuss?
There's not enough information in there for a fact-based discussion. Since this topic is unfortunately a politically loaded one, that basically guarantees the discussion is going to turn to shit.
If somebody were to post an article presenting clear arguments based on data, I wouldn't flag.
I haven't independently verified anything, but the article claims that rather than just being "some guy", the interviewee is a prominent Norwegian scientist who is respected for his work on HIV and is currently working on a vaccine for COVID-19. If this is true, I feel he is above any reasonable bar for having a right to an opinion.
> There's not enough information in there for a fact-based discussion.
Compared to some earlier articles, I was pleased to see that this one included quite a bit of detail --- it even has a pullout trying to explain the relevance of spike proteins! And while it would be nice if there was a published scientific article, the authors of this news article directly address that: "Minerva has read a draft of the article, and has after an overall assessment decided that the findings and arguments do deserve public debate, and that this discussion cannot depend entirely on the publication process of scientific journals."
Still, I do appreciate your response, and hope others can join in on discussing whether flagging is appropriate.
This uses a rigorous bioinformatic analysis to demonstrate that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has dramatically stronger binding affinity for human ACE2 than any other known version of the protein.
This is the case for the version of the protein observed at the very beginning of the outbreak. The virus evolves slowly, so this implies a very long period of transmission in human cells, which is compatible with a zoonotic transfer much earlier than expected (possibly many years) or gain of function experiments in cell cultures.
As a biologist, I find this to be sufficient factual information to motivate a discussion about the possible origins of the virus.
As a biologist, I therefore think this does not mean much at all. ;) At least not without a more quantitative treatment of the claim that "this implies a very long period of transmission in human cells".
Thanks for posting this though!
This presents a reasonable alternative hypothesis, by someone with some qualifications that bolster their claims.
Reasonable people can consider both without feeling like they have to pick either as certainty.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/06/07/controver...
But why would it be deleted? I guess because it has already been on here? Maybe multiple times? But wouldn't people just link to previous discussion(s)?
Edit: Just did the search again, for "laboratory", and this flagged submission showed up. Not sure why the original one didn't show up for me.
> “In a sense it is natural. But the natural processes have most likely been accelerated in a laboratory,” he explains. “It’s also possible for a virus to attain these properties in nature, but it’s not likely. If the mutations had happened in nature, we would have most likely seen that the virus had attracted other properties through mutations, not just properties that help the virus to attach itself to human cells.”