7 ms·

> A Norwegian virologist has made claims about the non-natural origins of the new coronavirus. These claims were, reportedly, in an earlier draft of the paper,

> A Norwegian virologist has made claims about the non-natural origins of the new coronavirus. These claims were, reportedly, in an earlier draft of the paper, and Dr Sørensen has since repeated them to Norwegian press. > The final version of the research paper, which has undergone peer review and been accepted for publication in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery, doesn’t actually make any claims about whether the virus was natural or man-made in its current form. > The scientific community widely agrees that the virus was not artificially engineered. https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-claims/ https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-cla...

kirse 6y ago
The scientific community widely agrees One has to wonder how a "Fact Check" site can make an assertion like this without any provided list of references. What exactly does "widely agree" even mean? Was there some sort of statistical polling they did to establish that? Exactly what percentage of the scientific community constitutes "widely" anyways? In fact, this website appears to enjoy using the word "widely" within articles to make all sorts of broadly generic assertions without any numerical/statistical basis. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Afullfact.org%20widely https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Afullfact.org%20... Obviously this has nothing to do with conclusion of the paper, but this "many scientists agree" lingo that shows up in various places (Wiki articles, fact-check sites, news, etc) can really be used to push a narrative without any sort of rigor. Personally I look forward to the day where I get to meet the "they" in "you know, they say..."
- cooliosis 6y ago
  Putting "all scientists agree" in quotes when that isn't in the source material is highly misleading. Edit: op edited their post
  - theknocker 6y ago
    Thank you for helping OP articulate their extremely good point.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jiofih 6y ago
The paper is six pages long. > In this paper we argue that the likelihood of this being the result of natural processes is very small. > We have deduced the internal logic of published research which resulted in the exact functionalities of SARS-CoV-2, including the convergence of agreement from difference classes of source, the timings of the stages of the research and the development of documented capabilities by named institutions and individuals It’s the latest revision from July 1, by now the text is probably trying to be as “gentle” as possible.
jkhdigital 6y ago
“ doesn’t actually make any claims about whether the virus was natural or man-made in its current form.” Huh? The paper claims that the preponderance of evidence supports a theory that the virus is the product of a sequence of laboratory manipulations. I suppose this could hinge upon one’s definition of “man-made” but creating a chimera is man-made in my opinion.
- i_cannot_hack 6y ago
  They are referring to the final, peer reviewed version of the paper, as opposed to the draft.
roenxi 6y ago
> The scientific community widely agrees that the virus was not artificially engineered. Artificially engineered isn't really the question; the questions are 'is this a lab escape?' and 'if this is a lab escape, did the virus work so well on mammals pre-experiment?'. The scientists have a massive incentive not to believe that the virus is a lab escape until the evidence is overwhelming. This is a global disaster, if it was a lab escape there will be dire consequences for the funding and regulation of level 4 biosecurity centres and potentially global trade & travel for countries that have them.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  Everyone has a massive incentive to look for actual, concrete evidence for a lab escape before they draw any such conclusions. Leaving aside the uncomfortable geopolitical angle (US policy is to respond to deliberate biowarfare with nuclear weaponry), extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    1) This clearly wasn't biowarfare. The coronavirus is so useless when viewed as a bioweapon that there is no way it is even vaguely possible that it was developed as one. The idea is laughable. The Chinese military would have to be beyond stupid to go into a bioweapons program and develop a virus that mainly only targets old people, usually doesn't cause symptoms, spreads like wildfire and is therefore a huge risk to countries with large, densely packed populations. If it was a lab escape it would probably have been just part of studying SARS-like viruses for public health reasons. 2) And there is nothing extraordinary about claiming "Standards in practice were lower than the standards on paper". That is a pretty mild claim. Lab escapes of viruses are a thing.
    - hobofan 6y ago
      > The coronavirus is so useless when viewed as a bioweapon Considering the how it's playing out in the US, it looks like a great bioweapon for an civilian attack. A big chunk of the population is old enough to be at risk of death. Another non-negligable portion of young people develops long-term disabilities (which is even more crippling to the economy than short-term deaths). And as a nice side-effect of how bad job security is, millions are now unemployed. If you were to construct a civilian bioweapon you want to target against the US, it almost looks like you would have new playbook now. I very much agree though, that it's extremely unlikely that it was developed and planned in that way.

kirse 6y ago

The scientific community widely agrees One has to wonder how a "Fact Check" site can make an assertion like this without any provided list of references. What exactly does "widely agree" even mean? Was there some sort of statistical polling they did to establish that? Exactly what percentage of the scientific community constitutes "widely" anyways? In fact, this website appears to enjoy using the word "widely" within articles to make all sorts of broadly generic assertions without any numerical/statistical basis. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Afullfact.org%20widely https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Afullfact.org%20... Obviously this has nothing to do with conclusion of the paper, but this "many scientists agree" lingo that shows up in various places (Wiki articles, fact-check sites, news, etc) can really be used to push a narrative without any sort of rigor. Personally I look forward to the day where I get to meet the "they" in "you know, they say..."

cooliosis 6y ago
Putting "all scientists agree" in quotes when that isn't in the source material is highly misleading. Edit: op edited their post
- theknocker 6y ago
  Thank you for helping OP articulate their extremely good point.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jiofih 6y ago

The paper is six pages long. > In this paper we argue that the likelihood of this being the result of natural processes is very small. > We have deduced the internal logic of published research which resulted in the exact functionalities of SARS-CoV-2, including the convergence of agreement from difference classes of source, the timings of the stages of the research and the development of documented capabilities by named institutions and individuals It’s the latest revision from July 1, by now the text is probably trying to be as “gentle” as possible.

jkhdigital 6y ago

“ doesn’t actually make any claims about whether the virus was natural or man-made in its current form.” Huh? The paper claims that the preponderance of evidence supports a theory that the virus is the product of a sequence of laboratory manipulations. I suppose this could hinge upon one’s definition of “man-made” but creating a chimera is man-made in my opinion.

i_cannot_hack 6y ago
They are referring to the final, peer reviewed version of the paper, as opposed to the draft.

roenxi 6y ago

> The scientific community widely agrees that the virus was not artificially engineered. Artificially engineered isn't really the question; the questions are 'is this a lab escape?' and 'if this is a lab escape, did the virus work so well on mammals pre-experiment?'. The scientists have a massive incentive not to believe that the virus is a lab escape until the evidence is overwhelming. This is a global disaster, if it was a lab escape there will be dire consequences for the funding and regulation of level 4 biosecurity centres and potentially global trade & travel for countries that have them.

matthewdgreen 6y ago
Everyone has a massive incentive to look for actual, concrete evidence for a lab escape before they draw any such conclusions. Leaving aside the uncomfortable geopolitical angle (US policy is to respond to deliberate biowarfare with nuclear weaponry), extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- roenxi 6y ago
  1) This clearly wasn't biowarfare. The coronavirus is so useless when viewed as a bioweapon that there is no way it is even vaguely possible that it was developed as one. The idea is laughable. The Chinese military would have to be beyond stupid to go into a bioweapons program and develop a virus that mainly only targets old people, usually doesn't cause symptoms, spreads like wildfire and is therefore a huge risk to countries with large, densely packed populations. If it was a lab escape it would probably have been just part of studying SARS-like viruses for public health reasons. 2) And there is nothing extraordinary about claiming "Standards in practice were lower than the standards on paper". That is a pretty mild claim. Lab escapes of viruses are a thing.
  - hobofan 6y ago
    > The coronavirus is so useless when viewed as a bioweapon Considering the how it's playing out in the US, it looks like a great bioweapon for an civilian attack. A big chunk of the population is old enough to be at risk of death. Another non-negligable portion of young people develops long-term disabilities (which is even more crippling to the economy than short-term deaths). And as a nice side-effect of how bad job security is, millions are now unemployed. If you were to construct a civilian bioweapon you want to target against the US, it almost looks like you would have new playbook now. I very much agree though, that it's extremely unlikely that it was developed and planned in that way.