The reason you will find extremely few people with actual credentials in the science we're discussing in these discussions is that working scientists don't have the time or will to get into these debates with people who wouldn't have the faintest idea how to actually conduct the research they're criticizing.
That post I linked took like dozens and dozens of man hours to write, workshop, source, and edit.
And I wrote it so I could link it in situations like this, and not repeat myself dozens or hundreds of times.
Personally, I'm studying for the biggest exam of my professional life at the moment, and I'm procrastinating here because I find these discussions so horrifying.
This entire thread could be a valuable case study in the Dunning Krueger effect.
Not saying it's not worth talking about, but rather that the amount of time and effort it takes to refute bullshit is several magnitudes more than the amount of effort it takes to create it.
In my case, that's 10+ years studying viruses so people on the internet with no credentials can tell me I'm wrong.
She's a geneticst or biochemist. She just uses some viruses in her research sometimes, like basically all biochemists.
Calling her qualified in virus biosafety is like saying someone with a PhD in Visual Arts is qualified as an expert in ballpoint pens because they've used them to draw. Sure they know some things about using ballpoint pens and which ones they prefer, but would you trust them to tell you how to design one from scratch? Or how to fix pens?
Not as much as some guy with a PhD in engineering and design at Mont Blanc, get what I'm saying?
I have also responded to her criticisms substance elsewhere, but she makes some big leaps in judgment that show she hasn't ever worked in a BSL4 lab before. Or studied the nitty gritty of virus genetics in nature before.
You can always respond to those if you want.
Sorry if I come off as condescending but when you have this argument several dozen or hundred times, it gets really really repetitive.
And it's difficult to avoid sounding like a dick. It's not my intent, I promise.
Link?
Sorry. :(
I don't have the time or bandwidth to re-write it at the moment. But a lot of her arguments are similar to Dr. Degerin's and also Dr. Ebright over at Rutgers. They are a small minority, like the OP says.
I tend to rely on expert consensus when it makes mechanistic sense like this one does.
Nothing, no evidence we have, makes either possibility impossible. The lab leak just requires a lot more cloak and dagger and new assumptions. Occam's razer tells me to favor the hypothesis with the least new assumptions. Hence zoonotic release is more likely in my opinion. That's truly the crux of it, the rest of it is arguing over the number of angels on the head of a pin.
Good luck on your exam as well.
> The reason you will find extremely few people with actual credentials in the science we're discussing in these discussions is that working scientists don't have the time or will to get into these debates with people who wouldn't have the faintest idea how to actually conduct the research they're criticizing.
We have such a big problem with public perception of science. I think many people are willing to be educated, but internet forums tend to degenerate into arguments between people who think they know a lot more than they do (even in (especially?) places like HN).
Controversial idea: I think in the future we should pay researchers to spend x% of their time just interacting with people on internet forums answering questions and correcting misperceptions. The amount of disinformation out there is staggering.
The National Science Policy Network has a good Q&A site where credentialed scientists answer public questions about their subject area. I forget the URL but a google search should turn it up in a few pages.
There's a similar one called the Science Creative Exchange where scientists sign up to talk to writers in hollywood and work through scripts and make the science in fiction more accurate wherever possible.
I love both of these and have spent lots of time on them in my (ever dwindling) free time. But I'm also the guy who's commenting on a HN post when I should be studying for the biggest exam in my career (USMLE Step 1), so I'm not the best example.
The problem with having expertise is the ability to see how wrong, not-even-wrong, or sideways everyone else sounds when chatting about the subject.
The problem with a phd is making sure everyone knows how little you think of them.
And I linked to a literal mountain of evidence describing both my credentials on this topic and then an extremely detailed and heavily sourced set of arguments.
I'm not talking out of my ass, I'm sorry it sounds that way. After you have several hundred of these discussions and they keep popping up with zero new evidence, it tends to color your attitude.
Please accept my apologies
I have pursued most of what OP posted on reddit, I am not qualified to judge the finer points, but it doesn't mesh up with what I have seen presented by other independent expert sources or common sense. So I discounted it for that reason not the one you gave.
Because those mutation events in a small number of people still require a longer time to become "stable" in the overall population of viruses.
Generally speaking, the more virus "generations" you have, the more likely you are to generate a successful variant. But then it takes time for that variant to achieve dynamic equilibrium in the greater population of viruses. For it to take over.
And the initial SARS-CoV-2 had so little diversity for so long, that we can say it likely had been stable before passing into humans, or there would have been more initial diversity in it compared to its closest viral relatives.
It is a picture overall consistent with a random crossover event. Not ruling out a lab leak (because that's quite difficult if not impossible to do). The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But we have just as much evidence to say the virus came from aliens who planted it in humans as we do to say it came from a human lab that has no trace of the virus anywhere in it.
1.1 Gain of function research primarily uses samples collected from nature
1.2 and seeks to stimulate their evolution in as natural a way as possible to learn how viruses evolve in nature.
1.3 If such viruses were to escape the lab, they would appear "natural"
You can't do it in the time we've been able to handle viruses like this or modify them in the ways we can. You'd have needed to start a few decades ago, have tools that we've only just invented, and a huge number of willing test subjects.
I cover this in extreme detail in the post I linked under Q2 and Q3.
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpbt6o
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpc7c8
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence is the synonymous/nonsynonomous ratio of the genome and it's mosaic mutations.
That's not something you can just cook up over night, it takes many millions of viral generations which require A) diverse hosts (like you find in a natural ecosystem), B) many millions of hosts, like you find in nature, and C) decades of time.
The chinese virology labs don't have the resources, time, or space to do something like that. And maybe it would be kind of possible today with CRISPR and many thousands of oligonucleotides printed off of a desktop printer, but that technology hasn't existed for more than a few years. The timelines just don't add up.
Assuming everything you say is true, that still would not rule out a lab leak of a virus collected from nature, would it?
>You can't do it in the time we've been able to handle viruses like this or modify them in the ways we can. You'd have needed to start a few decades ago, have tools that we've only just invented, and a huge number of willing test subjects.
Does this imply that covid19 has been circulating among humans for a very long time?
But the epidemiological evidence points to covid-19 originating outside wuhan entirely, that's why I find that theory less likely, among other reasons. See here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpcfs2
Also if they had collected it in nature, it would have been in their freezers, or likely that people involved in that research would have been patient zero etc. See here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpcf33
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpce2z
Wuhan institute of virology also aren't the labs I'm worried about. They were built and designed by very reputable people in the virology community. Not saying you should trust them, but at least recognize that the people who are most qualified to distrust them think it's unlikely.
See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpccr1
>Does this imply covid-19 has been circulating in humans a long time?
No, it implies it was relatively stable passing amongst several species of bats (and other related mammals) before a single or a few crossover events into humans recently.
It's behaving exactly like we would expect a zoonotic transmission to behave. It's not very well adapted to bats, it's not very well adapted to humans. It's sort of "promiscuous" likely because it has infected several different species over several decades before arriving in humans.
[0]: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/maladie/coronavirus/corona...
[1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coro...
Anyone under the thumb of communist party minders is by definition not in a position to freely act as a very reputable person. They may very well have a reputation, but they are not free to fulfill it well.
They left that behind a long time ago in favor of "The US did it."
Is this the main stream opinion now? Can you provide a link?
Or is this just your personal opinion?
I actually provided several links filled with sources above.
here is the main one you're referencing again: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did...
Thanks
It's not super likely, because we don't have the epidemiological data (increased deaths from non-influenza pneumonia at a large scale) to support that, to my knowledge.
It's certainly possible. And it is true that our methods of detection of viruses are ill-equipped so you can assume we're almost always behind the curve a bit.
But there also isn't much more than anecdote to support this. Lots of people get influenza-based pneumonia in the winter. Could you consider the possibility that your recollection is now tainted? And that you are primed to notice those events more? It was also already a very bad flu season. See here:
-https://time.com/5758953/flu-season-2019-2020/
-https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/924728
Another kind of issue is that early reports of "SARS-2 positive serum!" were overblown, which colored a lot of news reports on this. They basically made the tests too "promiscuous" so they also detected antibodies against common cold coronaviruses. That was a big problem. If you're curious about how tests like this work, you can check out this other post I wrote on that! Antibody tests are actually my specialty!
https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/g1ty3g/are_immuni...
Who said the test subjects have to be willing? That's never stopped our government before.
The conspiracy becomes so immense it's absurd the many thousands of people who would have to keep quiet.
We don't know how many nukes Russia has, even though that's knowledge shared by thousands of people. There has only been a single point of information about Israel's nuclear weapons program, Mordechai Vanunu, and we still barely know anything. Heck, we don't even know if and when the Nintendo Switch 2 will be released, even though again thousands of people must be privy to that information.
I don't see what people find so unrealistic about conspiracy theories in general, especially when massive nationstates are involved.
This really indicates you have idea about China. The CCP can easily make millions and tens of millions not only quiet, but enthusiastically deny what happened to them.
China's low death count is exactly what you'd expect for a country that had a severe lockdown early on, and which has not had significant community transmission since.
Beginning in late January 2020, there was a strict lockdown throughout China. In Hubei, people were essentially told not to leave their homes, food was delivered door-to-door, local volunteers went around checking people's temperatures at home and sending sick people to hospital or quarantine, in order to prevent even family members from infecting one another. The virus was starved of hosts and driven to near extinction in the country.
When China opened up again, there were sporadic cases in some cities, which were finally dealt with through mass testing campaigns. In Wuhan, for example, the government tested nearly all residents (about 10 million people) over the course of a few days in June 2020.
There have been a few outbreaks since. China has very strict quarantine rules, but the virus somehow finds a way in every few months. Most recently, someone who was infected walked over the border from Myanmar, without being tested or sent into quarantine. When these outbreaks occur, the government tests nearly every person in the affected region (the newest twist is now that there are vaccines, the government is vaccinating every person in the affected border town - in previous outbreaks, they would have just done PCR tests on everyone). When you have the resources of a massive country to throw at a small, localized outbreak, you can actually contain it.
So the basic situation is that China had one major outbreak in Hubei province early on, but that the virus has been nearly completely absent from the country for more than a year now. China's death toll is exactly what you'd expect for an outbreak in one province that infected <5% of the population of that province before it was stamped out.
Military lab can do it. Virus can be cooked long enough in hosts with depressed immune system. Soviet Union did such experiments before.
That is such a straw man. I seriously doubt anyone, much less a signatory to the recent open letter (many with experience and knowledge far beyond yours) would have claimed they can take ANY virus and transform it to ANY OTHER virus. Your green handle just lost any respect I might have extended to it.
All new assumptions that make this theory less likely.
Easier to just assume I won't respond and then they'll look more "right."
At this point, with their market cap and increased moderation, probably less likely than the two I listed.
But you know what's interesting about that?
We know about the CoV-1 leak because /the chinese scientists told us about it./
They owned up to it and told the world and the biosafety community (the people with degrees in these things) helped china become more standard and respectable and safe.
And now 15 years later, with zero evidence, we're accusing them of covering up the same thing.
Scientists are not their government, and China's government is not a huge fan of it's scientists. Just look at the great leap forward. And how they're treating Shi Zhengli now that she is arguing the virus came from a zoonotic event in the provinces. China's party line no longer agrees, and she's been silenced.
Why would she lie for her government when they don't even agree?
>We know about the CoV-1 leak because /the chinese scientists told us about it./
Sometimes humans tell the truth, sometimes humans don't.
Pointing to one group of people who told the truth, and asserting that means another group must be telling the truth is just silly.
Especially considering the former example was in regards to a small accident relative to potentially the greatest accident in human history.
I know I would be strongly inclined to lie if I was responsible for the accidental death of millions of people.
If a human being was not inclined to lie about their responsibility for greatest accident in human history, why would humans ever lie about any mistake?
It was far from the worst accident in human history at that point, it looked like nothing and in America lots of people thought it would never affect us at all.
That's when it came up and when Zhengli had her lab searched and checked their freezers etc.
It's also important to think about the other BSL4 labs around the world they sent tons of samples to. If they were hiding SARS-CoV-2, why wouldn't it have slipped into any of these many thousands of inter-lab samples?
Releases aren't all that common but cross-contamination within and between secure sites actually is.
Why has no one found SARS-2 in any of the samples sent out of Wuhan to Australia, Singapore, Canada, or the US?
"with zero evidence"? The Chinese government told their labs destroy lab samples at the beginning of the pandemic. The Chinese government refuse to give raw data of early patients to the WHO investigation team. Not matter what the origin of the virus is, the "covering up" is strongly supported by evidence.
I know the news reports you're referring to, but they're a good example of sensationalist reporting on China.
Very early on, when several patients in Wuhan had pneumonia of unknown cause, doctors sent samples from the patients across the country for testing. When it turned out that they had a novel coronavirus, that triggered rules about dealing with dangerous pathogens. You can't just have something like SARS-CoV-2 sitting around in any diagnostic lab. Labs with lower standards of biosecurity were required to either transfer their samples to labs with better biosecurity or to destroy them.
These sorts of rules are not unique to China. The US has very similar rules. However, in the hands of the news media, this story has been misrepresented.
> The Chinese government refuse to give raw data of early patients to the WHO investigation team.
Good luck getting any government to allow you to take 75000 de-anonymized patient records out of the country.
> 3. Lab leaks happen more often than most people realize[1]
As I see it, there are two variables involved:
- how frequently lab leaks happen (total number of historic leaks - known + unknown)
- people's realization / awareness of how often they happen
> And now 15 years later, with zero evidence, we're accusing them of covering up the same thing.
Regardless of whether there is evidence or not (have they been perfectly transparent and enthusiastically encouraging of inspections?), a leak did happen, or it did not happen...and then on top of it, there is the problem of whether we have knowledge of it or not.
> Why would she lie for her government when they don't even agree?
Like many other things in life, it is not known.
Her government, not so much.
I am definitely not a fan of the Chinese government. But the scientists I've met at conferences and the papers I've reviewed from their labs have been of a very high quality.
Not saying such people could not commit atrocities or coverups like this. But I do find it personally less likely.
That isn't the evidence I rely on most in my personal assessment, though. The epidemiology and molecular clock data points to a zoonotic origin outside of Wuhan. Check out here to see what I mean: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/-/fqpcfs2
Which makes the lab leak a whole lot less interesting of an idea since its' circumstantial evidence isn't actually the circumstance anymore.
None of the bats they claim it came from were sold at the market. Meanwhile, they're tracking down every bat strain they can find and collecting them at the Wuhan lab.
Carelessness in handling would be the root cause whether the virus was manipulated or not. You provide zero evidence on the most important point.
Now, to the more conspiratorial point. UFO pyramid-shaped small drones hounded a US destroyer group for many hours. Any drone flyer would tell you that drones that shape are heavy and even stripped down ones don't fly for dozens of hours.
By the numbers, that requires a huge leap in material science and energy storage. This was not too far from a base that does classified research, so I doubt the cause was more than human.
The military really does keep a generation or two of technology to itself in every area it can. If they did make a breakthrough in quickly modifying viruses, would they publish it in a paper? No more so than the NSA would immediately publish their discovery of differential cryptanalysis. It became public in the late 80s. IBM kept it secret since the early 70s and the NSA knew about it long before that. That’s probably because the NSA employs the lion’s share of mathematicians in those areas (which also makes recruiting more top scientists easier).
Other countries do the same. If Chinese scientists discovered a faster and more natural looking method of manipulation, what incentive would they have to publish a paper? Their only incentive would be to hide it as much as possible and use it as a material advantage in the upcoming and growing conflict with the US.
I believe it was probably naturally discovered and leaked through carelessness, but assuming they couldn’t possibly have had a breakthrough when other countries obviously have in many other areas seems overly confident.
Generally speaking, I think the whole world would be better off if we aligned our perceptions of our knowledge more closely with its likely true quality: very often, we think we know things, but we are actually just estimating if not outright guessing, and then declaring it to be true. Unfortunately, very few people seem to be comfortable with this idea regardless of their political orientation or education level. But as I see it, it is simply applying the discipline and methodology of science to the real world, so it's kind of weird how unpopular it is with educated people who are otherwise enthusiastic promoters of Scientific Thinking.
Fear.
It was probably awarded by /u/mvea
it's actually voted on by users.
That whole place is as much as to do with science than your FB mum group. There's very little serous discussion going on.
I was under the impression HN has a certain sense of propriety in its "comment guidelines."
Or do you want to stoop as low as the forums you criticize?
Thanks
I'd much rather you read my arguments and criticize my content.
The fact is, criticisms in these things come from all angles. I was simply preempting one type of criticism in saying I have a PhD so I have thought about this and studied it a lot.
And then directly responding to another (that reddit is full of crap) by saying the content is what's important anyway.
I'm not saying I'm right because I have a PhD. In the post I drectly say "I'd much rather you read the arguments anyway"
Anyways I applaud and respect you for working your way up to the PhD and I am sure you are trying your best to spread the truth, but it would be more effective if you rehashed the main parts of that essay for all the readers here to see if you want to clear up whatever errors the poster has put out into the world.
If you make specific arguments I will do the same.
But that doesn't address the recombination event / recombinant virus, which is what the proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis seem to be arguing (spike protein from one virus combined with backbone from another virus)
The core argument is actually one of occam's razor. Is such a recombinant /technically/ possible? Yes.
How many new assumptions does it require? A lot. Lots of people who help cover it up, lots of people who get sick and say nothing, lots of samples destroyed. And then also the epidemiological and genetic evidence doesn't support it.
How many new assumptions do you need for the zoonosis theory? Very few. It consists almost entirely of phenomena we know occur in nature, via mechanisms already described and known to occur at a frequent enough time scale to make it not just plausible, but probable.
That's the core argument.
People like Michael Osterholm and Peter Daszak and Vincent Muenster and Ralph Baric and Shi Zhengli have been saying this was going to happen /for years/. It was a matter of "when" not "if" to us virologists. We absolutely saw the writing on the wall and saw specifically SARS-1 and MERS and knew that meant there were likely other coronaviruses that could emerge.
But funding was always so low, because the viruses weren't currently infecting anybody! So the sampling efforts were always very minimal and underfunded!
And now, because of the lab leak theory, that has actually gotten worse, not better!
https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/gb8yye/nihs_axing...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11779380/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29270793/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26654122/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30806904/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16940861/ (this one says wet markets, which probably are an issue, but not as big as initially thought, and probably not the origin of CoV-2)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26922715/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27726088/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26689940/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27426214/
And in there, I describe exactly how wrong your point 1 is. And how misguided your point 3 is.
The post also won a "best of r/science 2020" award!
You can find it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did...