Comment by perihelions | Hacker News Reader

Comment by perihelions | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>"Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”."

>"He added: “I think the only people with sufficient information or access to samples to address it would be the teams working in Wuhan.”"

This pair of quotes has a completely different meaning from the original quote it sliced up:

>"I am also agnostic on this – I do not have any experience of laboratory virology and don’t know what is likely or not in that context. From a (natural) evolutionary point of view the only thing here that strikes me as unusual is the furin cleavage site. It strongly suggests to me that we are missing something important in the origin of the virus. My inclination would be that it is a missing host species in which this feature arose because it was selected for in that host. We can see this insertion has resulted in an extremely fit virus in humans – we can also deduce that it is not optimal for transmission in bat species."

>"... [this ellipsis (...) is from the house.gov transcription] The biggest hinderance at the moment (for this and more generally) is the lack of data and information. There have been no genome sequences from Wuhan for cases more recent than the 6 beginning of January and reports, but no information, about virus from non-human animals in Wuhan. If the evolutionary origins of the epidemic were to be discussed, I think the only people with sufficient information or access to samples to address it would be the teams working in Wuhan."

https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2... (pp. 8-9)

To emphasize the very last part: Rambaut is talking about genome sequences from human patients in Wuhan -- not laboratory data from the suspect WIV. But the Telegraph quote implies the opposite.

(Also, obviously I'm not picking any "side" here: dishonesty in the Telegraph doesn't vindicate dishonesty in NIH leadership, and vice-versa).

The article shouldn’t have quote this person in the first place - there are plenty of serious investigations into the lab leak theory from reputable virologists. I recommend Alina Chan’s new book: Viral.

This clarification also masquerades as a clarification of something important. This person quoted by the tabloid is irrelevant here. In fact this article does more damage to the credibility of lab theory than otherwise and your clarification just shows.

Frustrating both the article and your clarification of basically a meaningless source.

There is a vast amount of information regarding lab leak theory and potential origin spanning back 20 years even though China has shut any investigation with gag orders and complete lack of transparency. Too much to unpack.

My concern is this: People will read your clarification of the quote as if it’s something important to clarify. Source itself is garbage.

Facts are facts. The fact is in 2019 there were 39,397 wet markets in China. How many virology labs were there in China handling Corona-viruses? TWO. One of which was TWO BLOCKS from where the wet market from where the original Covid-19 virus which started the pandemic has been traced to.

One might be forgiven for being curious as to the likelihood of the virus emerging from this particular wet market as opposed to all others.

> One of which was TWO BLOCKS from where the wet market from where the original Covid-19 virus which started the pandemic has been traced to

TWO BLOCKS? Or a 40min drive? This is why the lab leak theory feels conspiracy-adjacent. Too much exaggeration.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/cpsprodpb/D961/production/...

> The institute is a 40-minute drive from the Huanan wet market where the first cluster of infections emerged in Wuhan.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57268111.amp

There’s plenty of valid scientific inquiry to be had regarding the theory once you get past the misinformation. But the political showmanship and the attraction of conspiracy theorists doesn’t help.

This is a common problem with conspiracies when they actually happened. You still get "conspiracy theorists" showing up with theories contrary to evidence or fabrications or misrememberings of details.

Which then discredits their own position -- even if the conspiracy actually happened -- because it didn't happen the way they claim it did.

There is a conspiracy theory that this method is used by conspirators to effect a coverup by discrediting skeptics of the official narrative.

>There is a conspiracy theory that this method is used by conspirators to effect a coverup by discrediting skeptics of the official narrative.

This is actual public disinformation practice, not a "conspiracy theory".

Moon landing conspiracy theories are full of discredited nonsense. It is a conspiracy theory to claim that the source of the discredited nonsense is the people who faked the moon landing, because the moon landing wasn't faked so there were no such conspirators to do that.

Distinguishing this from the other thing is the issue. They do it because it works.

Ah, now I get it.

I thought you were talking about cases when “conspiracy theorists” are actually right, but their positions get poisoned by attributing some ridiculous stuff to them, and/or by artificial influx of similar “conspiracy theories” that are easy to disprove, so that the original theory is dismissed by association. For example, in Russia they love to flood the information space with bullshit theories a lot to “dilute” the truth and to disorient the public so that you can’t distinguish between truth and conspiracy theories anymore.

There are multiple labs in Wuhan. Wuhan institute of virology is the main on people like to talk about but there was indeed another lab a block or two away from the wet market. I don't know if both were doing virology experiments.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Center_For_Disease_Con...

It’s a Level 2 facility, not studying bats or coronavirus.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/head-of-who-team-investigating-...

> “They also reported no storage nor laboratory activities on CoVs [coronaviruses] or other bat viruses preceding the outbreak.”

> The lab is classified BSL-2, a safety level at which air ventilation controls aren’t particularly strict, as they are in more secure labs. At that level, lab workers are usually dealing with pathogens that either cause mild disease in humans or which don’t typically spread through small particles that linger in the air. Researchers at that level don’t necessarily wear masks.

> The Wuhan CDC lab tested all of its staff for Covid-19 antibodies, it told the WHO in February. All staff tested negative, except one who tested positive, it said. That person was infected “due to family cluster transmission,” the WHO-led team’s report’s annex says.

> But Dr. Ben Embarek is the first to so explicitly question the team’s conclusion, published in a joint report with Chinese counterparts, that a lab accident was an “extremely unlikely” hypothesis.

> That wording was only reached after a 48 hour period of intense negotiations with Chinese counterparts said Dr. Ben Embarek, who said he would have preferred to designate an accident inside a lab as merely “unlikely.”

> The lab hadn’t published any work with bats since 2013, he said.

> “As far as we understand, they work mostly with parasites, not as much with viruses, so they have worked on parasites from bats.”

Yet, after fighting to label the lab leak theory “unlikely”, he throws a bone to the conspiracy theorists:

> “It’s also possible that someone is trying to hide something,” he added. “Who knows?”

> It’s a Level 2 facility, not studying bats or coronavirus.

It is indeed a level 2 facility, and it was being used to perform the bat coronavirus research outsourced to the WIV [1]:

The NIH decided the risk was worth it. In a potentially fateful decision, it funded work similar to Baric’s at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which soon used its own reverse-genetics technology to make numerous coronavirus chimeras.

Unnoticed by most, however, was a key difference that significantly shifted the risk calculation. The Chinese work was carried out at biosafety level 2 (BSL-2), a much lower tier than Baric’s BSL-3+.

[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-...

This article talks about WIV (est. 2018), which is across the city from the market, not 2 blocks away and about 2016 research that was also not located near the wet market in 2016. The Level 2 lab only moved near the wet market in 2019, at which point the Level 4 lab was the one conducting the research.

Also from the article:

> The genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 does not resemble that of any virus the WIV was known to be culturing in its lab, such as WIV1, and Baric says he still believes a natural spillover is the most likely cause.

The timelines and genetic profiles don’t match up for a level 2 lab leak 2 blocks from the wet market.

> This article talks about WIV (est. 2018), which is across the city from the market, not 2 blocks away

It moved just before the outbreak [1]:

The lab, where Chinese scientists research mild human diseases with bats, was moved near the seafood market where the first COVID-19 cases were found just days before the outbreak, WHO investigators said.

Classified with a “Biosafety Level of 2,” the lab also has ventilation controls that aren’t as strict as other more secure facilities, according to the report.

I find it surprising how little attention this tidbit got; a move of lab equipment and animals probably involved external personnel not used to bio-safety procedures. Perfect opportunity for a virus to escape.

> The genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 does not resemble that of any virus the WIV was known to be culturing in its lab

The key words here being "was known", since the WIV notoriously took its database offline and even requested the deletion of sequences stored on US servers [2][3].

[1] https://nypost.com/2021/08/13/who-scientist-eyes-on-wuhan-la...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/u-s-confi...

[3] https://www.science.org/content/article/claim-chinese-team-h...

In 2016, some of the scientists including Shi and the EcoHealth director, Peter Daszak, used the NIH funding to conduct experiments in Wuhan on live coronaviruses in a biosafety level 2 lab, according to published details of the work from [0]

They did do coronavirus experiments in level 2 facility.

[0] https://archive.is/KwZKn?

[edit] replaced link as FT makes it difficult to refer to them.

The research in question happened in 2016 and was called “W1V1”.

Regarding the 2016 work:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-...

> Since bat viruses like WIV1 haven’t been confirmed to cause disease in human beings, her biosafety committee recommended BSL-2 for engineering them and testing them and BSL-3 for any animal experiments.

> In response to questions about the decision to do the research in BSL-2 conditions, Peter Daszak forwarded a statement from EcoHealth Alliance stating that the organization “must follow the local laws of the countries in which we work” and that the NIH had determined the research was “not gain-of-function.”

> The genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 does not resemble that of any virus the WIV was known to be culturing in its lab, such as WIV1, and Baric says he still believes a natural spillover is the most likely cause.

This theory is more than a few steps away from being a smoking gun.

The point is, they did work with coronaviruses in level 2 lab, and similar works might or might not have concluded by end 2019. (If not by these particular researchers)

Of course, but it bears repeating that it’s a theory lacking evidence at this point.

The idea of COVID leaking from a Level 2 lab 2 blocks from the Wuhan wet market is solely circumstantial.

Did you paste what you intended to paste: "Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles."?

Additionally the closest cave containing any viruses resembling SARS-Cov-2 are 1500 km away from Wuhan.

And when journalists tried to access those caves, the road was suddenly closed.

Indeed... And in creative manners. Here is the report from the visit: https://twitter.com/thejohnsudworth/status/13972233747457065...

Someone really really didn't want anyone near those mines.

Apparently he ran afoul of the Chinese government in 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/03/bbc-crew-attac...

Fair to also entertain the possibility that they were tracking him because of his previous reporting on land reform in remote villages, when he travelled into remote areas again 4 years later. He had to sign a forced confession the first time and if they caught him interviewing disgruntled villagers again, I’m sure they were ready to ratchet up the punishment.

The 2021 Twitter story sounds very similar to the 2017 one: being followed and physically blocked by people.

> As they walked towards her house, a group of men blocked their way, pushed Sudworth and smashed and snatched the crew’s cameras.

> “As soon as we arrived in Yang Linghua’s village it was clear they were expecting us,” Sudworth wrote in his account, referring to the woman the BBC wanted to interview.

Could be the mines, or could be the Chinese government harassing a Western journalist they already had an issue with.

The closest cave containing any viruses resembling SARS-CoV-1 are about the same distance away from Guangzhou where the outbreak was in 2003.

This line of reasoning forget a very important information: research labs are not built at random. This lab studying coronavirusses was built there precisely because this is a place where new coronavirusses have appeared in the past.

Will add a source later when not on mobile.

Couldn't find the source I was looking for, which was I believe from a french scientist (likely from the French CIRI that co-founded the Wuhan lab studying coronavirusses). So I will have to softer my above assertion that the lab was build "precisely" in Wuhan because it was a place where coronavirusses have appeared in the past, into the less convincing: this lab was build in China because that's were coronavirusses responsible for SARS have come from.

Still not completely random. And yes labs and wild animal markets tend to met in high population density area, so that's another non-random factor I presume.

This coincidence is indeed troubling, but before jumping to conclusions it's good to remember why there is such consensus against lab leak theory, by (re)reading the original report on the origin of SARS-Cov2 (https://zenodo.org/record/5075888) and the short history of SARS past outbreaks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS#Outbreak_in_South_China - which interestingly lists several past lab leaks).

I don't find any of the competing theory very obvious to be honest. What is very obvious though, and was made even more obvious to me when I was looking for that source, is the amount of political manipulation around this topic. The epidemic of manipulation of opinion is a greater concern that the epidemic of that virus if you ask me.

Can we refrain from posting articles about science from political newspapers, maybe?

Not because Wuhan is a large, central city?

That's not how probability works. You'd need to wait for thousands of years and several pandemics to know if they are more or less likely to emerge next to a virology lab. And then you'd need to control for the fact that virology labs are better at detecting dangerous viruses than average humans. Like how the first confirmed cases in the US were in Davis --- because there's a specialist unit at UC Davis that was already treating cruise ship patients.

That is actually how probability works when you are assessing the probability of uncertain propositions [1]. The prevalence of wet markets vs. virology labs should not be the only input but it is definitely relevant to our assessment of probabilities.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

Oh, I never get to share this. Relevant SMBC comic; https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-09-08

IDK, seemed like it was pretty important to clarify that a quote was used very deceptively!

Seems important to point out that Chan's co-author is a climate-change sceptic that is a hereditary peer in the British House of Lords after chairing the bank Northern Rock - famous for failing spectacularly in 2007. Very credible!

I think there is some sort of a misunderstanding.

I am saying that the source of a person who is not a virologist, has never worked in a lab environment and the general credibility of a tabloid (Telegraph.co.uk) does not give a good impression of the lab leak theory. I am trying to steering people away from the article.

And in so doing you advocate that people read a book written by a British Hereditary Lord climate change denier and a Molecular biologist? I don't think there is a misunderstanding.

Regarding Alian Chan, she and her co-author appeared on the Hidden Forces podcast a few months back and it's a pretty good listen to anyone unable to squeeze a book into their busy lives.

https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/lab-leak-hypothesis-alina-c...

dishonesty in the Telegraph in this case might be caused by scientific illiteracy, that is to say they might honestly have thought that their selective quotations were a reflecting the message of the longer quote.

Or maybe I'm being too lenient in attributing to incompetence and not malice here.

Also notice the last bit in the article:

The University of Edinburgh recently turned down an Freedom of Information request from The Telegraph asking to see Prof Rambaut’s replies, claiming “disclosure would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health and safety of individuals”.

James Comer, the Republican congressman who secured the unredacted emails, said it showed that experts like Dr Fauci had taken the Wuhan lab leak theory “much more seriously” than they had let on.

Sir Jeremy has been approached for comment but had not replied at the time of publication.

Basically journalists and politicians scour thousands of emails to find a selected quote that fit their sensationalist agenda, and then ask the persons involved for a comment. When they then explain how the quote is out of context, doesn't say what journalist thinks it says, or that new information is out. Then they get harrassed and bullied by a (mostly) online mob.

In other papers, perhaps, but the Telegraph famously hired (now PM) Boris Johnson who cut his teeth making up stories about the “evils” of the EU. I’m going to struggle to trust such an outlet.

It may have been credible once, but now it is just Pravda for conservatives. Nothing of value is left.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com