9 ms·

I was a genetic engineer for two decades: - Clear signs of molecular manipulation in the sars-cov-2 sequence. There are none. Almost all of the alleged manip

I was a genetic engineer for two decades: - Clear signs of molecular manipulation in the sars-cov-2 sequence. There are none. Almost all of the alleged manipulations would have left unmistakeable, damning evidence in a recognizable vector. The only remotely interesting thing at all in the sequence is the furin site, but plenty of coronaviruses have those, and it just likely indicates selection/propagation in a secondary host species... exactly like the ones that caused SARS-1 and MERS. - Failing that, even a scrap of evidence that anyone was even culturing (not just sequencing) this new sub-clade. You're not going to catch a respiratory virus by accident from a sterile rna-stabilized swab or a database entry. Compared to the vast, unregulated wild-meat industry in China this is such an unlikely vector. - Any epidemiological connections to WIV? There aren't any, just the original fact that the outbreak happened in Wuhan (...across the river, in an animal market with known coronavirus hosts species.) All of the index cases are associated w. the market - not WIV. There were a number of western scientists interacting w. WIV researchers in Nov/Dec at the start of the outbreak and no independent reports of any sickness or anything out of the ordinary. There's no evidence for a lab-leak. Increasingly febrile accusations of conspiracy and speculative just-so stories aren't evidence. Someone like me would be easily, readily convinced by some hard facts... but none have been presented. As a biologist that's what I and many of my colleagues find frustrating about this... it just seems like people emotionally crave a human agency to blame. I used to think René Girard was silly... but maybe he was right about humanity and scapegoats.

tristor 5y ago
> Any epidemiological connections to WIV? There aren't any I am neither a geneticist nor an epidemiologist, however my understanding is that as further tracing of early cases has occurred that the earliest cases identified were employees of the WIV and predate the case cluster that started in the wet market. This was one of the strongest pieces of information that swayed me towards believing a lab leak was likely, and that it was most likely accidental rather than purposeful.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  That’s not true — again showing the problems with headlines like these.. (drive by viewers integrate the headline into their understanding even though the actual article is very light on information). Nearly every early case — before there could have been “pressure” to hide the origins was connected to the market: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454 This alone doesn’t disprove a lab leak of course, but it tilts the odds dramatically compared to the alternate scenario where WIV employees were among the first infected.
deviantbit 5y ago
If you were a genetics engineer, then I am an astronaut, not a computer scientist, studying computational epidemiology. Detecting bioengineering is near impossible for a virus. To make these claims is dangerous. The developer of the engineered organism doesn't leave their name on it.
nradov 5y ago
I don't necessarily agree with the lab leak hypothesis but your arguments have some flaws. Hypothetically a lab worker could have been infected by careless handling of a lab animal rather than a swab. As I'm sure you're aware, viruses can be passaged through transgenic animals as part of gain-of-function research. There is no reliable evidence that the bat or pangolin species suspected to be the source of zoonotic transmission were sold at the Wuhan Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. They are not usual foods in the local cuisine.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  All it would take is a bat taking a dump on a pigsty and then the unlucky pig that now happens to be infected being taken to the market. Which is the most likely backstory of several other bat-to-intermediary-to-human viral jumps. And if you're unlucky the intermediary species doesn't just carry the virus but serves as an amplifier. Hendra for instance.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Fecal-oral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is suspected to be possible, but I don't think it has ever been definitively established.
afpx 5y ago
This isn't just a random scapegoat. It just happens that the company (Ecohealth Alliance) proposed the gain-of-function research on the virus to DARPA, which was subsequently rejected as being too risky. NIH later funded similar research to the same company for its work in Wuhan during 2020. I'm far from a conspiracy theorist. But, what are the chances of this being coincidental? The "from the wild" theory doesn't have any evidence either but requires more assumptions. Occam's razor.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  Jesus Christ, son of Mary, please don't bring Occam's razor in yet another internet discussion that tramples all over it. There is no reason to assume a lab leak when every disease we know that affects humans is _not_ the result of a lab leak. A natural origin is the most likely explanation and we don't need any other explanation unless there is strong evidence that something different happened, which we absolutely don't. In fact the "lab leak theory" is exactly anti-science. In the most backwards fashion it starts not with an observation that must be explained with a hypothesis, but with a hypothesis -that the virus escaped from a lab- that is not supported by any observation. Its proponents then try to find evidence to justify their hypothesis. They don't find any, but they keep looking anyway because they are convinced it is true even in the complete absence of evidence. Then they accuse everyone else of hiding the evidence. "A-ha! That's why we can't prove this hypothesis we know is true! Because the evidence has been hidden from us!". This is the pattern of quackery, not science and not scientific hypothesis-making and verification.
  - afpx 5y ago
    Scientists must do a better job of explaining how natural origin is the likely explanation, then. Otherwise, a lot of smart and educated people are going to put the wrong dots together.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
ashwagary 5y ago
>There's no evidence for a lab-leak. I tend to agree and the "intentional CCP release" theory also seems flawed. If intentional, would China shoot itself in the foot by releasing a deadly virus in its OWN major cities and infect potentially millions/billions? There is a Chinatown in every major city in the world and it would be trivially easy to release in any one but they chose to attack their own city of Wuhan during the world military games "to own the West"? Seems silly. Or would the US and its allies release a virus it knowingly funded the creation of, a few miles from a primary lab in a country they constantly call their 'greatest adversary & threat'? One of these seems more likely than the other to an objective observer since this isn't the first time the US and its allies have engaged in chemical & bio-warfare against the Chinese population. The foreign aircraft carriers and war ships surrounding the Chinese coast are perhaps yet another clue...
rasz 5y ago
> Any epidemiological connections to WIV? There aren't any, just the original fact that the outbreak happened in Wuhan other than multiple published papers and NIH reluctantly admitting WIV did THOSE EXACT genetic modifications https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-risky-virus-research-in-wuhan https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-r...

tristor 5y ago

> Any epidemiological connections to WIV? There aren't any I am neither a geneticist nor an epidemiologist, however my understanding is that as further tracing of early cases has occurred that the earliest cases identified were employees of the WIV and predate the case cluster that started in the wet market. This was one of the strongest pieces of information that swayed me towards believing a lab leak was likely, and that it was most likely accidental rather than purposeful.

mikeyouse 5y ago
That’s not true — again showing the problems with headlines like these.. (drive by viewers integrate the headline into their understanding even though the actual article is very light on information). Nearly every early case — before there could have been “pressure” to hide the origins was connected to the market: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454 This alone doesn’t disprove a lab leak of course, but it tilts the odds dramatically compared to the alternate scenario where WIV employees were among the first infected.

deviantbit 5y ago

If you were a genetics engineer, then I am an astronaut, not a computer scientist, studying computational epidemiology. Detecting bioengineering is near impossible for a virus. To make these claims is dangerous. The developer of the engineered organism doesn't leave their name on it.

nradov 5y ago

I don't necessarily agree with the lab leak hypothesis but your arguments have some flaws. Hypothetically a lab worker could have been infected by careless handling of a lab animal rather than a swab. As I'm sure you're aware, viruses can be passaged through transgenic animals as part of gain-of-function research. There is no reliable evidence that the bat or pangolin species suspected to be the source of zoonotic transmission were sold at the Wuhan Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. They are not usual foods in the local cuisine.

jacquesm 5y ago
All it would take is a bat taking a dump on a pigsty and then the unlucky pig that now happens to be infected being taken to the market. Which is the most likely backstory of several other bat-to-intermediary-to-human viral jumps. And if you're unlucky the intermediary species doesn't just carry the virus but serves as an amplifier. Hendra for instance.
- nradov 5y ago
  Fecal-oral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is suspected to be possible, but I don't think it has ever been definitively established.

afpx 5y ago

This isn't just a random scapegoat. It just happens that the company (Ecohealth Alliance) proposed the gain-of-function research on the virus to DARPA, which was subsequently rejected as being too risky. NIH later funded similar research to the same company for its work in Wuhan during 2020. I'm far from a conspiracy theorist. But, what are the chances of this being coincidental? The "from the wild" theory doesn't have any evidence either but requires more assumptions. Occam's razor.

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
Jesus Christ, son of Mary, please don't bring Occam's razor in yet another internet discussion that tramples all over it. There is no reason to assume a lab leak when every disease we know that affects humans is _not_ the result of a lab leak. A natural origin is the most likely explanation and we don't need any other explanation unless there is strong evidence that something different happened, which we absolutely don't. In fact the "lab leak theory" is exactly anti-science. In the most backwards fashion it starts not with an observation that must be explained with a hypothesis, but with a hypothesis -that the virus escaped from a lab- that is not supported by any observation. Its proponents then try to find evidence to justify their hypothesis. They don't find any, but they keep looking anyway because they are convinced it is true even in the complete absence of evidence. Then they accuse everyone else of hiding the evidence. "A-ha! That's why we can't prove this hypothesis we know is true! Because the evidence has been hidden from us!". This is the pattern of quackery, not science and not scientific hypothesis-making and verification.
- afpx 5y ago
  Scientists must do a better job of explaining how natural origin is the likely explanation, then. Otherwise, a lot of smart and educated people are going to put the wrong dots together.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

ashwagary 5y ago

>There's no evidence for a lab-leak. I tend to agree and the "intentional CCP release" theory also seems flawed. If intentional, would China shoot itself in the foot by releasing a deadly virus in its OWN major cities and infect potentially millions/billions? There is a Chinatown in every major city in the world and it would be trivially easy to release in any one but they chose to attack their own city of Wuhan during the world military games "to own the West"? Seems silly. Or would the US and its allies release a virus it knowingly funded the creation of, a few miles from a primary lab in a country they constantly call their 'greatest adversary & threat'? One of these seems more likely than the other to an objective observer since this isn't the first time the US and its allies have engaged in chemical & bio-warfare against the Chinese population. The foreign aircraft carriers and war ships surrounding the Chinese coast are perhaps yet another clue...

rasz 5y ago

> Any epidemiological connections to WIV? There aren't any, just the original fact that the outbreak happened in Wuhan other than multiple published papers and NIH reluctantly admitting WIV did THOSE EXACT genetic modifications https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-risky-virus-research-in-wuhan https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-r...