The history of lab leaks
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
So what actually changed? How did it go from a conspiracy theory to something that’s plausible and open to discussion?
It's labeled as racist because Trump said it first.
Now that trump is gone, we can go back to a normal situation where we discuss any theory without being called racist.
Because Trump said it. And trump doesn't exactly have great credit when it comes to not being racist against Chinese people.
So, we label this theory as conspiracist and racist.
I don't think i have further explanation.
I believe (with no way to prove it) if Trump had, with his trademark tone and delivery, blamed China's Wuhan Seafood Market and thrown in a few choice insults about China, that theory would have been the one Big Media shut down and filtered out. Instead it was the lab leak theory.
I never understood the supposed racism angle either. Why is it racist to suggest a Chinese lab studying corona viruses leaked it out, whether accidentally or deliberately, but it was perfectly fine to say it appeared by itself in an unregulated Chinese wet market?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27307175
TL;DR lots of conflation of "lab leak" with "man made".
Mixed with media sensationalism and political tribalism...
Actually, the most interesting part of the linked article (IMO) was the suggestion that it actually doesn't matter whether or not it was a lab leak, because nothing will change one way or the other. I would hope that's wrong.
The answer is obvious. Do you really need an answer?
Ditto with Facebook suddenly changing face...
AFAIK all the evidences were still the roughly the same as what was known in Trump administration.
Are there significant new discoveries?
Could you please provide a link to the report?
> deeper investigation of the FCS and how it might have arisen, very difficulty in nature, especially with zero trace of intermediate host so far.
Ditto
Unfortunately it’s not being reported on mainstream sources yet, but the wife of a researcher was an even earlier patient and she died, clearly from covid. According to information I’ve seen, she was perhaps patient 4-6.
Extensive paper on FCS will be published soon.
> Sørensen said the amino acids all have a positive charge, which cause the virus to tightly cling to the negatively charged parts of human cells like a magnet, and so become more infectious.
> But because, like magnets, the positively charged amino acids repel each other, it is rare to find even three in a row in naturally occurring organisms, while four in a row is 'extremely unlikely,' the scientist said.
> 'The laws of physics mean that you cannot have four positively charged amino acids in a row. The only way you can get this is if you artificially manufacture it,' Dalgleish told DailyMail.com.
> Their new paper says these features of SARS-Cov-2 are 'unique fingerprints' which are 'indicative of purposive manipulation', and that 'the likelihood of it being the result of natural processes is very small.'
'A natural virus pandemic would be expected to mutate gradually and become more infectious but less pathogenic which is what many expected with the COVID-19 pandemic but which does not appear to have happened,' the scientists wrote.
The reports states: """ Three researchers from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) sought hospital care in November 2019, a month before China reported the first cases of COVID-19, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, citing a U.S. intelligence report. """
> sought hospital care
No mentioning of the symptom.
> a month before China reported the first cases of COVID-19
I think without mentioning the symptom, we can find probably quite a few patients "seeking hospital care" in a 10km radius of Wuhan Institute of Virology, see how crowded the place was [2] (google map).
> citing a U.S. intelligence report
Where was the report?
Remember which report give the chain of evidences of Iraq's WMD claim? See [3]. Regarding the report "Congress eventually concluded that the Bush administration had "overstated" its dire warnings about the Iraqi threat."
I cannot take this Reuters' report seriously without seeing the report.
Let's be honest, the implied charge in the report is beyond the the impact of WWII probably (in total economic impact at least).
> The newspaper said the previously undisclosed report - which provides fresh details on the number of researchers affected, the timing of their illnesses, and their hospital visits - may add weight to calls for a broader investigation into whether the COVID-19 virus could have escaped from the laboratory.
It seems the Reuters' report admit that the original report from US intelligence group do not have symptoms information.
For the proposed paper, I have no knowledge to verify its strength.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... [2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wuhan+Institute+of+Virolog... [3] https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kve3z/the-cia-just-declassi...
This year, it's former Trump administration officials leaking intel to the Wall Street Journal anonymously and it caught fire.
The virus appears to have already been adapted to human hosts, which is hard to explain... unless via humanized mice. The intermediate animal reservoirs have not been located, so there's a decent sized evolutionary jump in the record, the furin cleavage site with the strange codons, etc.
Meanwhile objections from the other side, like the lack of markers from CRISPR, can be explained by seamless techniques, gain of function research in humanized mice, etc.
Mind you, I never bought the 'bioweapon' conspiracy nonsense, there's just no realistic motive for that. But it was pointed out early on that there were good reasons to study a virus just like this one and scientists have been putting the pieces together into a coherent theory that points towards lab escape.
This part just isn't true. We have a close relative on the same continent. That's almost as good as you ever get. There is nothing difficult to explain about a conventional evolution here, nothing at all.
The "same continent" is 1,000 miles away and far away from the allegedly intermediate pangolins. With it being this widespread, it's weird that we can't find the animal reservoir and it's significantly diverged ... and adapted to humans ... from the bat coronavirus relative.
Sure, there's no good reason to stop considering the zoonotic explanation. If we suddenly find the missing links in the evolutionary record and whatnot, then things will change and people will consider that evidence more likely.
But right now, the balance of the evidence is tipping away from that. It could tip back, but that'll require new evidence for a zoonotic explanation and there just hasn't been any that I've seen recently, just the same old things we've already accounted for.
The evidence of deaths in Wuhan being 10 times officially reported numbers (of 4,000) is very strong, based on analysis of crematoriums. The same is actually true of India too (which fared much worse than China).
Even if the chinese death toll was 10x or 100x reported (40k or 400k) it would be a tiny drop in the bucket of chinese population and I find it hard to believe that the death toll could be inflated 1000x or 10000x or more to any number which has any meaningful impact on the chinese population without that information leaking.
I'm sure the official figures are fabrications, but, I don't think they are THAT wrong.
What happened us that the initially nuanced criticism of some lab leak speculation had its nuance erased by increasingly sensational headlines and tweets. As this occured, lab leak speculation was repeatedly and increasingly conflated with theories that it was man made. See recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27307175
I don’t run out and do significant new research every time somebody drags out something that I saw no reason to believe in the past - I would never get anything done if I did! “The boy who cried wolf” is a bit allegorical here.
The other part of this is that the lab leak hypothesis has been used as a gateway by people peddling anti-Asian rhetoric, including that this was a bioweapon or evil plot to cripple America. As such, I tend to tune out of such discussions pretty fast. It’s like if somebody mentions judaism and bankers in the same sentence - I can normally just assume whatever comes next will be nonsense. There’s so much bullshit on the internet that paying attention to all of it would be crippling, and unfortunately the lab leak idea managed to become associated with that sort of vitriol early on.
That said, even today I reject any definitive affirmative on the lab leak hypothesis. There’s nothing even vaguely approaching hard evidence, and the less dramatic explanation still seems to have very good scientific support. If/when somebody pulls out better evidence I’ll reconsider.
This isn't how it actually happened. I've linked a good analysis of what did happen elsewhere in this thread.
> the less dramatic explanation still seems to have very good scientific support
Which explanation is that? AFAIK, We don't currently have any clear explanation of how the pandemic started. If it was a zoonotic origin we are still missing the details of how that happened.
This evidence is far more convincing than a hypothetical idea that the disease spontaneously evolved from some animal some other place.
China historically always cover up and delay any bad news. Even most of the random accidents are delayed for reporting, until the officials can come up with a complete and meaningful reports.
This is, well, bullshit. No, what happened is that one side of the divide decided to demand that something be discussed without evidence, and the other side... waited for evidence before discussing it. And now we can have the discussion, because we have some evidence to discuss.
That's the system working, right? How would you prefer this have gone? People decide to discuss groundless conspiracies before anyone comes up with evidence to support them, just... out of politeness?
Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments presented without evidence? Isn't that what "argument" means?
Explain how you aren't just asking for license to be wrong without challenge here? I mean, when people (the WSJ, notably not the conspiracists) came out with real evidence, we listened!
I'll fully admit, my priors were wrong. This isn't a total dingbat idea, it might have happened. But I think that now, based on better data. I didn't think that then, and nor should you have.
I do not personally have any thought or idea about which covid origin theory is true. For me this isn't about the lab, but instead the thought police.
So we should also have shut down people saying it was not a lab leak ?
What we did know from the beginning was that there is a lab in Wuhan playing Umbrella Corp with the coronavirus.
Edit: part of the issue is “what is a lab leak?” It’s not a bio weapon, or a failed vaccine. The respectable “lab leak theory” is that the virus was identified in the wild, brought into a lab, but safety procedures were not followed.
So it’s not a “Chinese created virus” theory. It’s a “someone wasn’t following proper procedures” theory.
The idea of a lab leak causing a global pandemic which basically paralyzed the world for a year is conspiracy theory level crazy nightmare fuel. It doesn't mean it's not true. It doesn't mean it's on the same level as lizard-people.
The Chinese government has recently adopted a science policy that based quantity over quality.
Think the genetically engineered babies. Illegally genetically engineering babies is about as far out there as it gets.
But it happeneded.
I have no idea what is the reference here. Quantity and quality were emphasized constantly in any nation-wide policy making. I was growing up in China for 24 years, I never sensed any emphasis on quantity over quality.
To give an recent example, China has created so-called "future technology institute" for cutting edge fundamental researches [0]. That's aiming the most advanced technology research.
> Think the genetically engineered babies. Illegally genetically engineering babies is about as far out there as it gets.
The scientist, Jiankui He, who claimed that he had created the first human genetically edited babies [1] was widely criticized in mainland China [2] (in Chinese, Baidu's copycat of Wikipedia).
Mr. He was later sentenced to 3 years prison, and 3M RMB fine. His collaborators were sentenced to prison time as well [3].
Mr. He was a rogue scientist at best.
Your statement are connecting a statement of China values quantity over quality and gene editing human baby, I don't see the connection here, even if the the first statement was true (which itself were not).
[0] http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2021-05/26/c_1127495262.ht... [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/18/239297/the-scien... [2] https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%B4%BA%E5%BB%BA%E5%A5%8E/297... [3] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-12/30/c_138666754.htm
Secondly, the lab in question was recklessly negligent. The videos of scientists holding bats with plastic gloves, stories that some scientists were bitten by bats and more.
Reckless negligence slips into responsibility area for me. Like if someone gets behind the wheel with a 0.15 blood alcohol concentration, which is what the Chinese lab did after multiple safety scares from 2017-2020.
Additionally, Dr Fauci personally approved funding to the negligent laboratory and then lied in Congress when questioned about gain-of-function research, covering up his personal involvement.
There's criminal negligence here, it's not a chance mishap. Not to mention the cover up.
By performing gain-of-function research, this particular virus would not have existed by itself. Ergo, the Chinese lab created the virus.
Making any modification to the virus' function means you are the subsequent creator of it. Nature has nothing to do with it once you've got it in a lab and start messing around with it.
"Chinese created" does not mean "Chinese weaponised". There's no evidence nor suggestion that this was deliberate or even that the gain-of-function research was for nefarious purposes. To suggest otherwise is to strawman.
The Journal article that sourced actual intelligence sources pointing to an outbreak among lab researchers at exactly the right time to plausibly explain the pandemic is most of it.
Evidence (actual evidence, not the circumstantial nonsense being peddled about by partisans) convinces people. Isn't that what you want to happen?
But clearly it's NOT what you want to happen. You want everyone to come back grovelling admitting how you were clearly right about everything the whole time. But... you weren't. Evidence was poor then, and if not good now at least plausibly acceptable.
You need to be thanking those Journal reporters, who saved you from your own paranoia.
OK, no. That's not the evidence people are talking about, even now. That's the garbage that fed the conspiracy theory. Find me a reputable source who's flipped on the garbage. What you're finding is people changing their priors based on good evidence, not deciding to believe garbage.
Summary: whistleblower tries to flee China, is detained in Hong Kong, Bannon and Guo money help her out. She hastily publishes her “research” (evidence) without any peer review because of the urgency. The entire left media sphere jumps on her because of the Bannon link. Her Twitter is banned and FB and other “fact check” orgs brand her claims as indisputably false solely on political grounds. One such fact check has since been revoked.
She has just as much standing as anybody claiming natural origin of the virus but was de-platformed because she said the wrong thing which associated her with the wrong people.
NOW: other people are actually doing the research themselves and it appears that the only real explanation for how the virus evolved the features it has is via a gain of function process that would only ever really be used if you were trying to develop a bioweapon.
HN lefties are in denial and claim that we have “new evidence” when exactly zero facts have changed. Other people are just taking a more serious look at the data.. The media looks like fools. Twitter and FB yet again censored truth in pursuit of a narrative. It’s a huge mess.
At this point the best thing to do might just be to follow Yan’s twitter account. Her motives check out: why would somebody make an otherwise career-ending move (if they’re wrong) by coming forward with claims that covid was lab leaked if you weren’t absolutely sure of yourself? Of course that doesn't make her right, by virtue, but history seems to be taking care of that.
She was not a virologist. She is a Post-Doctoral Researcher Field in Medicine: """She earned a PhD in ophthalmology from Southern Medical University in Guangzhou,[2][3] and sources differ on whether beforehand she received an MD degree[2] or a master's degree in ophthalmology[3] from Xiangya Medical College of Central South University in China.[13] She was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Hong Kong.[14] """
She was not detained anywhere. Think about it, if she was detained, Trump and the gang will make it known to everyone 24 * 7. Her mother probably was harassed by netizens, that's very likely. And see how sloppy the media report can be in [2], she was not a virologist, but was labeled so by NewsWeek. I used to read NewsWeek everyday in my university's library when I was studying for GRE and applying for US PhD program. The quality was better then.
> She has just as much standing as anybody claiming natural origin of the virus but was de-platformed because she said the wrong thing which associated her with the wrong people.
She has as much standing as any non-expert... That's all I can conclude from [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Meng_Yan [2] https://www.newsweek.com/chinese-virologist-mon-arrested-chi...
I also finds China's strong denying and uncooperativeness of finding out the virus origin is strange. People would not blame any country if the outbreak came from a natural origin, their reaction makes me think something is going on there.
My understanding is the NIH was sponsoring GOF research at the Wuhan lab precisely because it was considered to be too dangerous to be done domestically-- and guess what-- it was. And now those folks who funded that very research were in charge of the sham "investigation" to look into it.
And before you ask-- I am as progressive as they come.
Don't have to say where but we should know so we can question why outside of their closed loop of "logic".