The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins

[noxiousdog]

It ain't "conspiracy style nonsense" merely because you declare it so or happen to disagree with it, as a perfectly sane and coherent fellow like Jon Stewart clearly and humorously elucidates below:

That would be exactly what makes it a conspiracy theory and apparently Jon Stewart apparently isn't immune. He's not a scientist; let alone an epidemiologist or virologist.

How about I raise you a neurologist who specializes in skepticism and critical thinking?

Note it's discussed thoroughly in the first 10 minutes.. so you don't have to go hunting through the show.

While we may never have the concrete evidence you seemingly insist upon -- at least partly because the CCP by now will have likely gone to great lengths to eliminate any such concrete evidence and data -- that certainly does not imply circumstantial evidence from journalists like Sharri Markson and credible investigators like Jamie Metzl, who sits on the World Health Organization expert advisory committee on human genome editing and served on the National Security Council and State Department during the Clinton administration and under Senator Joe Biden, is utterly unworthy of consideration or an invalid topic of discussion.

It's not unworthy of discussion. It unworthy of treating it as anything other that speculation. To even call it circumstantial evidence is a stretch. At this point it's a couple of coincidences that it's worthy of discussion with followups.

I refer you back to what I quoted from Ross Douthat's NYT op-ed above, and echo Jamie Metzl's thoughts upon the subject below:

It is an affront to all of us that this no such investigation has been carried our or is currently planned. We owe everyone who has died from COVID-19, all the people who have lost their loved ones and livelihoods, and future generations a thorough, unbiased, and unrestricted investigation of how the tragedy began and has unfolded.

At least he admits he wants to blame the Chinese rather than accept it was an accident compounded by politics. What's your reason?

[malchior]

That YouTube video is pretty much this entire thread in a nutshell with the screaming implied as well. The irony here is *chef kiss*.

[Anonymous Bosch]

It ain't "conspiracy style nonsense" merely because you declare it so or happen to disagree with it, as a perfectly sane and coherent fellow like Jon Stewart clearly and humorously elucidates below:

That would be exactly what makes it a conspiracy theory and apparently Jon Stewart apparently isn't immune.

Given the current lack of concrete evidence supporting either the zoonotic or lab leak hypothesis as well as the increasing ledger of circumstantial evidence supporting the latter, I disagree and would not relegate Jon Stewart's or Jamie Metzl's thoughts and opinions on this issue to that of credulous conspiracy theorists. More importantly, I doubt the POTUS would've specifically ordered a U.S. intelligence inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 if the lab leak hypothesis were as completely preposterous as NASA faking the moon landings or the like, as you seem to imply.

He's not a scientist; let alone an epidemiologist or virologist.

So what? Who said he was? Shi Zhengli is virologist, but that hardly implies he's somehow beyond reproach, or that he and his fellow scientists were not as fallible as the experts working in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, as Jon Stewart aptly and amusingly observed.

How about I raise you a neurologist who specializes in skepticism and critical thinking?

Note it's discussed thoroughly in the first 10 minutes.. so you don't have to go hunting through the show.

I did listen to the first ten minutes of the podcast you linked, but it seems to conveniently ignore the valid points Metzl and other credible scientists have raised regarding serial passage gain-of-function research, which specifically mimics a natural zoonotic jump. So, I "call" your "raise of a neurologist" ( ) by quoting the peer-reviewed work of Dr. Karl Sirotkin, a retired professional scientist with dozens of peer-reviewed publications, 30 years of experience in genomic sequencing and analysis, an individual who taught molecular virology at the University of Tennessee and also worked within the Theoretical Biology Division of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, to further elucidate:

Unless the intermediate host necessary for completing a natural zoonotic jump is identified, the dual-use gain-of-function research practice of viral serial passage should be considered a viable route by which the novel coronavirus arose. The practice of serial passage mimics a natural zoonotic jump, and offers explanations for SARS-CoV-2's distinctive spike-protein region and its unexpectedly high affinity for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE2), as well as the notable polybasic furin cleavage site within it. Additional molecular clues raise further questions, all of which warrant full investigation into the novel coronavirus's origins and a re-examination of the risks and rewards of dual-use gain-of-function research.

The point being, conflating the lab leak hypothesis with a genetically engineered and modified virus is disingenuous, and misrepresents important aspects of this subject from credible individuals like Dr. Sirotkin or Jamie Metzl and others like him.

It's not unworthy of discussion. It unworthy of treating it as anything other that speculation. To even call it circumstantial evidence is a stretch. At this point it's a couple of coincidences that it's worthy of discussion with followups.

Take it up with the podcast you just linked, because they agreed the report of three researchers from China’s WIV becoming sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care was circumstantial evidence. And I see no reason to assume they'd necessarily feel differently about Australian journalist Sharri Markson's video report, showing the video directly from the WIV that specifically contradicts Peter Daszak's WHO investigation into the origin of the pandemic in Wuhan, when he previously tried to claim it was a conspiracy to suggest bats were held at the Wuhan institute.

I refer you back to what I quoted from Ross Douthat's NYT op-ed above, and echo Jamie Metzl's thoughts upon the subject below:

It is an affront to all of us that this no such investigation has been carried our or is currently planned. We owe everyone who has died from COVID-19, all the people who have lost their loved ones and livelihoods, and future generations a thorough, unbiased, and unrestricted investigation of how the tragedy began and has unfolded.

At least he admits he wants to blame the Chinese rather than accept it was an accident compounded by politics.

I see no such admission or implication in what is quoted here.

What's your reason?

In case it wasn't abundantly clear from my statement that I echo Metzl's thoughts on the subject and also directly quoted him, I'm inclined to agree with his assessment. In other words, while I currently suspect that a lab incident is the most likely origin of the pandemic, I totally acknowledge that's only a hypothesis, and that the pandemic certainly could stem from a zoonotic jump in the wild. And if/when the facts change -- even if they're merely circumstantial -- I'll change my mind accordingly.

[Smoove_B]

I'm absolutely astounded at the nation's interest in lab-safety protocols, all of sudden. That's still what we're focused on, right?

Regardless, the "Lab Leak" theory doesn't hold up:

Blaming humans for disease is as old as time itself. It’s inherently hard to trace outbreaks that take tangled paths from their origin point to where they’re first detected. Without firm answers, humankind loves to invent stories, from the Black Death of the 14th century to the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. In the absence of certainty, both sets of theories—natural or man-made—seem plausible: like Schrödinger’s cat, for virology.

When infectious diseases can be explained, however, nature is almost always the culprit. After SARS emerged, scientists suspected that the coronavirus had jumped from a bat to another mammal—probably the masked palm civet—but couldn’t explain how it had appeared on a farm in Foshan, in China’s Guangdong province.

...

The theories put forward by Baker, Wade, and others are enormously complicated, and they do latch on to elements of truth: Chinese infectious disease research is secretive and riskier than it ought to be. The Wuhan lab did find a coronavirus it called RaTG13. Workers in Mojiang did fall ill in 2012 with a mysterious pneumonia, prompting researchers at the Wuhan lab to more intensely study the viruses hidden in those caves, as they told foreign reporters.

Beyond those crumbs of truth, however, everything is just speculation.

It's a really long article, but a good one.

But maybe this gain-of-function research did not try to replicate the virus in a petri dish but, instead, used live animals to multiply and mutate the virus—using one sick animal to infect the next, and the next, and the next, until an evolved and efficient virus came out the other end.

Following the theory down this path gets increasingly fantastical. “How complicated can this get?” Goldstein said. It would be significantly more expensive, labor-intensive, and difficult to hide. The lab would need to run a veritable petting zoo of different animals to perfect this kind of zoonotic transmission. And it still doesn’t account for the decades of necessary evolution.

Prior to the outbreak in December 2019, nothing closely resembling the COVID-19 virus was reported in any lab. Since it has emerged, it has taken hundreds of millions of infections to net just a handful of serious mutations and variants.

“We’re not good enough, in virology, to make the perfect virus,” Goldstein said.

Nature, however, is.

In closing:

Yet even after more than a year of study, the odds that the lab leak theory is correct remain roughly the same as when it was reported on a year ago—it’s theoretically possible but far less likely than zoonotic origin.

The origin of this virus matters. Yes, if Beijing is culpable for the origin of the novel coronavirus it merits repercussions—and even if it is not, China still needs to be held accountable for its obfuscation.

If the caves of Yunnan and the surrounding ecosystem gave us two highly infectious coronaviruses in two decades, there is no telling when the next such coronavirus could emerge—or from where.

[noxiousdog]

Given the current lack of concrete evidence supporting either the zoonotic or lab leak hypothesis as well as the increasing ledger of circumstantial evidence supporting the latter, I disagree and would not relegate Jon Stewart's or Jamie Metzl's thoughts and opinions on this issue to that of credulous conspiracy theorists. More importantly, I doubt the POTUS would've specifically ordered a U.S. intelligence inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 if the lab leak hypothesis were as completely preposterous as NASA faking the moon landings or the like, as you seem to imply.

You (and John Stewart - "The have the same name. duh. obvious") are presenting this like a conspiracy theory. You dismiss all the evidence of one side while elevating yours to OMG IT'S THE TRUTH STATUS.

We know China (and therefore Wuhan) cover stuff up.
We know China has put pressure on the WHO (see: Traditional Chinese Medicine)
We know the Wuhan lab has access to and has performed specific research on bat-human virus transmission vectors.
We know that it's possible it got into human populations from that research.

Of course it should be investigated and ruled out. However, we shouldn't be treating it as anything other than possible until there's some real evidence.

and I'll quote myself again:

It's not unworthy of discussion. It unworthy of treating it as anything other that speculation. To even call it circumstantial evidence is a stretch. At this point it's a couple of coincidences that it's worthy of discussion with followups.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Given the current lack of concrete evidence supporting either the zoonotic or lab leak hypothesis as well as the increasing ledger of circumstantial evidence supporting the latter, I disagree and would not relegate Jon Stewart's or Jamie Metzl's thoughts and opinions on this issue to that of credulous conspiracy theorists. More importantly, I doubt the POTUS would've specifically ordered a U.S. intelligence inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 if the lab leak hypothesis were as completely preposterous as NASA faking the moon landings or the like, as you seem to imply.

You (and John Stewart - "The have the same name. duh. obvious") are presenting this like a conspiracy theory. You dismiss all the evidence of one side while elevating yours to OMG IT'S THE TRUTH STATUS.

I concluded my previous post with the following statement:

In other words, while I currently suspect that a lab incident is the most likely origin of the pandemic, I totally acknowledge that's only a hypothesis, and that the pandemic certainly could stem from a zoonotic jump in the wild. And if/when the facts change -- even if they're merely circumstantial -- I'll change my mind accordingly.

To reiterate, I totally acknowledge the pandemic certainly could stem from a zoonotic jump in the wild, so please be specific; how, exactly, does that equate to a "dismissal of all the evidence of one side"?

[stessier]

To reiterate, I totally acknowledge the pandemic certainly could stem from a zoonotic jump in the wild, so please be specific; how, exactly, does that equate to a "dismissal of all the evidence of one side"?

Why do you only post evidence from one side? I have yet to see you post any of the articles calling into question the lab leak theory. So it certainly seems like that is the only side you care about.

[Little Raven]

Why do you only post evidence from one side? I have yet to see you post any of the articles calling into question the lab leak theory. So it certainly seems like that is the only side you care about.

Both ND and Smoove only ever post speculation from one side, (nobody ever posts actual evidence, because we don't have any) but I hardly think that's reason enough to call their motives into question.

[Anonymous Bosch]

To reiterate, I totally acknowledge the pandemic certainly could stem from a zoonotic jump in the wild, so please be specific; how, exactly, does that equate to a "dismissal of all the evidence of one side"?

Why do you only post evidence from one side? I have yet to see you post any of the articles calling into question the lab leak theory. So it certainly seems like that is the only side you care about.

Smoove has done yeoman's work in terms of posting and providing articles supporting the zoonotic origin hypothesis he favours, and I have yet to see him post any articles calling into question the zoonotic origin hypothesis either; but so what? It's not incumbent upon him to do so, anymore than it is for me to do the opposite, or to equally divide posted news stories in this thread between one hypothesis and the other.

[Blackhawk]

It's been shown in what has been posted that the zoonotic origin is so much more likely to be the truth that not actively supporting a minor alternate possibility doesn't call motives into question at all. That doesn't mean that the people in charge of investigating shouldn't take the time to investigate to eliminate the possibility, but until there is something more to support it, I don't see why anyone should be expected to give equal weight to a fringe theory.

[malchior]

Why do you only post evidence from one side? I have yet to see you post any of the articles calling into question the lab leak theory. So it certainly seems like that is the only side you care about.

Both ND and Smoove only ever post speculation from one side, (nobody ever posts actual evidence, because we don't have any) but I hardly think that's reason enough to call their motives into question.

This is not accurate. It's not from "one side". There aren't two equal sides here. This is playing out just like the climate debate or any debate with wide scientific uncertainty. The sources that AB introduce come to their strong lab leak conclusions almost certainly via error or intentionally using the natural uncertainty to magnify the very unlikely into "more likely" or much more likely than the chances actually are. This is the mechanism we've seen from the right over and over across multiple debates.

Even if there is no 'motive' it usually involves some level of dishonesty or cognitive dissonance to maintain these positions in the face of actual evidence which is what I think ND was pointing out. I.E., the evidence hasn't changed but somehow the certainty that certain events transpired has gotten stronger despite the lack of information to push debate in that direction. Why? Most likely politics.

And in the end it leads to lay men arguing about things way over our heads. That was my point earlier in the thread. We all have limitations to our knowledge and expertise. So deferring to them, the vast majority of experts say its possible but not likely. A small number say more likely and many generally have ideological alignment that calls that position into question. Again to put a point on it a pattern that smells strongly of Barrington/Climate Change denial, etc.

[Little Raven]

It's been shown in what has been posted that the zoonotic origin is so much more likely to be the truth that not actively supporting a minor alternate possibility doesn't call motives into question at all.

No it hasn't, and no responsible person on either side is saying that. (even Smoove) Nobody knows how likely one hypothesis is over the other, because nobody knows how many sides the die they're rolling has. It's fine to believe one hypothesis to be more likely than the other, and its fun to speculate about, but it's absolutely not worth getting worked up over.

[malchior]

It's been shown in what has been posted that the zoonotic origin is so much more likely to be the truth that not actively supporting a minor alternate possibility doesn't call motives into question at all.

No it hasn't, and no responsible person on either side is saying that. (even Smoove) Nobody knows how likely one hypothesis is over the other, because nobody knows how many sides the die they're rolling has. It's fine to believe one hypothesis to be more likely than the other, and its fun to speculate about, but it's absolutely not worth getting worked up over.

No. Seriously no. The experts have a good idea. (Most) actual experts say less than a 1% chance of a lab leak. One of the guys who wrote an opinion piece in the WSJ without a background in the field pegged it at 98+%. That paper was linked in this thread and I actually bothered to lightly point out the errors in the paper behind that figure. The rigor from the 'lab leak' side is mostly not there though there are some major figures saying it. However, they can't really explain why with actual objective evidence. Which opens up questions to their 'methodology' for declaring their belief in a lab leak. In any case, sure it's fine to believe one hypothesis over the other because no one is keeping score, but one is way, way, way more likely than the other.

[Little Raven]

No. Seriously no. The experts have a good idea.

They can only work with what they have, and China is making sure they have very little. (On both sides.) At this point, I'm content to wait and see what the CIA boys say - assuming they ever decide to say anything.

What confuses me is the sheer heat of this discussion. Given that we're only a couple of steps removed from arguing about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin, the assumptions of bad faith seem unwarranted.

[malchior]

No. Seriously no. The experts have a good idea.

They can only work with what they have, and China is making sure they have very little. (On both sides.)

No. This isn't true. This isn't polarization at play. Go read what they have to say about why they say the lab leak chances are low. China isn't helping to be sure but that is also the x factor that is enabling this rampant speculation without facts.

At this point, I'm content to wait and see what the CIA boys say - assuming they ever decide to say anything.

Sure but even then they won't be believed. That's part of the problem. It doesn't matter what the truth is. Most of the 'lab leak' believers don't give a fuck about facts.

What confuses me is the sheer heat of this discussion. Given that we're only a couple of steps removed from arguing about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin, the assumptions of bad faith seem unwarranted.

Well I think it is because it illustrates the information bubble. Notice how most of us are agreeing that 'lab leak' possible but chances are low. In that most of us are listening to what a wide variety of experts say. And if they are all wrong well then they were wrong. But we don't have the expertise to really dig into it beyond that.

Then you have to consider that the people who seem to read information from the alternate universe are way more likely to believe the lab leak is more likely despite that overwhelming consensus. They'll say they are just challenging the groupthink or whatever bullshit they always roll out when there is a scintilla of scientific doubt. Aka "I'm just asking questions!" I suspect some of us are extremely over this bullshit dynamic. I know I am. There isn't a real grounded in facts disagreement here. Instead it is a lens into distortion field that politics *on the right* make us waste time on. It's infuriating.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Virologist & Former CDC Director Redfield talks about COVID origin, and his belief it came from the WIV:

[Isgrimnur]

And former astronauts talk about evidence of aliens being hidden from us.

[Little Raven]

Then you have to consider that the people who seem to read information from the alternate universe are way more likely to believe the lab leak is more likely despite that overwhelming consensus.

But AB isn't one of those people. He's not presenting crackpot evidence or sites that also claim the world is flat. And, perhaps more telling, he isn't calling out the motivations of those who disagree with him. That kind of rhetoric is only coming from one side.

[malchior]

Then you have to consider that the people who seem to read information from the alternate universe are way more likely to believe the lab leak is more likely despite that overwhelming consensus.

But AB isn't one of those people. He's not presenting crackpot evidence or sites that also claim the world is flat.

The WSJ opinion page is IMO not a quality source for information anymore. Especially so for virology information. The video right above this post from a known liar tied up in the worst of the Trump administration misinformation about COVID. It might not be deep conspirators but it is mostly junk information from sewage-tainted information sources.

And, perhaps more telling, he isn't calling out the motivations of those who disagree with him. That kind of rhetoric is only coming from one side.

So what? It's not like it is without reason. When asked direct questions AB often dissembles, says people are putting words in his mouth (then later says he quoted it for a reason), and is just being evasive enough that you often can't even figure out what his own opinion is. Which is probably the point and why some people end up wondering what the motivation at play are here.

Edit: I'll also point out that Isgrimnur's pithy posts have been *ON POINT*. I mean maybe you aren't seeing the pattern but it's painfully clear to some of us what is going on here.

[gbasden]

No. Seriously no. The experts have a good idea.

They can only work with what they have, and China is making sure they have very little. (On both sides.) At this point, I'm content to wait and see what the CIA boys say - assuming they ever decide to say anything.

What confuses me is the sheer heat of this discussion. Given that we're only a couple of steps removed from arguing about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin, the assumptions of bad faith seem unwarranted.

It doesn't seem to me like it matters terribly much either, save for a need to put pressure on China to be more transparent and tighten up lab safety regardless. I think most of the heat comes from seeing right wing crazies argue that if it was a lab leak that somehow Trump is vindicated, which makes little sense. Whether it was transmitted from a bat in the wild or was a result of a lab experiment, Trump desperately screwed up the response to COVID and has helped harden half the country into denying it's even a problem.

[Little Raven]

It doesn't seem to me like it matters terribly much either, save for a need to put pressure on China to be more transparent and tighten up lab safety regardless.

Well, Malchoir would have to apologize to Nate Silver. But that's probably about as impactful as it gets.

[malchior]

It doesn't seem to me like it matters terribly much either, save for a need to put pressure on China to be more transparent and tighten up lab safety regardless.

Well, Malchoir would have to apologize to Nate Silver. But that's probably about as impactful as it gets.

No way. Nate has been a complete disaster for public health the whole time - the lab leak stuff is small change.

[Zarathud]

Then you have to consider that the people who seem to read information from the alternate universe are way more likely to believe the lab leak is more likely despite that overwhelming consensus.

But AB isn't one of those people. He's not presenting crackpot evidence or sites that also claim the world is flat. And, perhaps more telling, he isn't calling out the motivations of those who disagree with him. That kind of rhetoric is only coming from one side.

The lab leak side relies on challenging the motives of China. The core of the argument for a Chinese coverup because they have suspicious motivations.

[Little Raven]

The lab leak side relies on challenging the motives of China. The core of the argument for a Chinese coverup because they have suspicious motivations.

I don't agree with that. A lack of trust in the Chinese government is certainly a factor in the lab leak scenario, but I wouldn't say it's the core. Lab leaks are not uncommon. They happen with disturbing regularity all over the world. There would be nothing surprising about one happening in China.

But besides that....the CCCP is not to be trusted. Chinese motivations can't possibly still be up for debate. One of the very, VERY few things that both Democrats and Republicans generally agree on is that China is not acting in good faith on virtually anything. Even those experts who believe most strongly in the zoological origin theory never cite "Trust the Chinese government" as a factor in their conclusions, and for darn good reason.

[Smoove_B]

Chinese motivations can't possibly still be up for debate. One of the very, VERY few things that both Democrats and Republicans generally agree on is that China is not acting in good faith on virtually anything. Even those experts who believe most strongly in the zoological origin theory never cite "Trust the Chinese government" as a factor in their conclusions, and for darn good reason.

And yet:

“We’re not good enough, in virology, to make the perfect virus,” Goldstein said.

Nature, however, is.

I welcome discussions on lab safety and lab protocols.

As I mentioned last week, the Chinese government should be vilified for any number of reasons - separate and distinct from COVID-19. There's been a concerted effort to pin the "China Virus" on them since Day 0, originating from Trump and his proxies. It continues to this day. The fact that the Chinese government's SOP is to lie and cover up, isn't helping them here. And as mentioned weeks ago, they've done it before with other diseases. More to hide their incompetence in handling them, not as a way to hide accidental release or clandestine lab work.

All possibilities should be investigated but anyone (anyone) trying to suggest that a "lab leak" hypothesis is in any way on the same level of likelihood as zoonotic origin is out of line. THAT is the core issue here - that we all collectively need to consider "both sides" of this situation, as if there's a 50/50 chance of either being correct.

[Little Raven]

“We’re not good enough, in virology, to make the perfect virus,” Goldstein said.

But nobody credible is saying China "made" the virus. The lab leak hypothesis is distinct from the bioweapon conspiracy theory, and only people arguing in bad faith attempt to conflate them.

All possibilities should be investigated but anyone (anyone) trying to suggest that a "lab leak" hypothesis is in any way on the same level of likelihood as zoonotic origin is out of line.

Oh, I totally agree. After all, Meister Eckhart demonstrated rather conclusively that only a thousand souls can sit on the point of a needle. To suggest more would be outlandish.

[malchior]

All possibilities should be investigated but anyone (anyone) trying to suggest that a "lab leak" hypothesis is in any way on the same level of likelihood as zoonotic origin is out of line.

Oh, I totally agree. After all, Meister Eckhart demonstrated rather conclusively that only a thousand souls can sit on the point of a needle. To suggest more would be outlandish.

I agree. Science must be perfect or else it has no value.

[Smoove_B]

But nobody credible is saying China "made" the virus. The lab leak hypothesis is distinct from the bioweapon conspiracy theory, and only people arguing in bad faith attempt to conflate them.

Well...kinda. Fringe wingnuts are yelling "bio-weapon" but the insidious are pushing the "gain of function" element as a backdoor way for China to have been working on weaponizing SARS-CoV-2 (somehow) and that as part of their poking and prodding (my terminology) they inadvertently released it to the world.

It's the same type of nonsense that the "intelligent design" lunatics tried (are still trying?) with pushing their agenda in teaching high school kids. They understand that they can't say "because Jesus" so they craft this insane argument hinged on "intelligent design" and leave out the last step to maintain plausible deniability. Oh, we're not saying Jesus designed a creature to have 10 fingers, but it sure seems strange that we all use base 10 for math and also have 10 fingers, hmmmm?

For the "gain of function" element, there's no acknowledgment that this is how disease and vaccine research gains significant information. Could it be used to weaponize a pathogen? Maybe. But it's not the primary or only use.

Overall it feeds into the demonizing of science and the anti-intellectualism that's been growing in America for the last 30+ years. It's disingenuous and designed to perpetrate an agenda.

[Little Raven]

For the "gain of function" element, there's no acknowledgment that this is how disease and vaccine research gains significant information.

But AB completely acknowledges that, as do all of the experts he's cited. None of his sources suggest that China was pursuing "gain of function" research for the purposes of weaponization - if only because COVID is a truly terrible bioweapon. (seriously, if you wanted to design a weapon, why on earth would you make one that primarily kills the old and sick?) Sure, there are wingnuts that are claiming all sorts of wacky things, and politicians eager to capitalize on disinformation, but nobody in this thread is defending any of that.

I mean, I get that you deal with this issue outside of this forum constantly, and probably have to deal with the irrational population on an entirely different scale than those of us that only follow this within the confines of R&P do. I can only imagine how frustrating that gets. But I don't think you're encountering that here.

[Smoove_B]

No, they're not saying "gain of function' = weaponizing. Like the "intelligent design" argument, they're teeing it up and letting the reader decide.

"Here's what you do with gain of function - you tweak and adjust the genetic code of a pathogen to make it more infectious. Or to increase how deadly it is."

"Also, China lies about things all the time. Can we really trust that they're manipulating DNA to help fight diseases? They told us they didn't have bats in a lab, and look here - bats in a lab."

I will repeat - we should absolutely be looking into this, but giving the "lab-leak" argument oxygen and allowing it to somehow be presented on equal footing as zoonotic origin is happening to push an agenda dissociated from COVID-19.

And at the end of the day, the only people that are ever going to know with a much higher degree of what China did (or continues to do) in their Wuhan lab are members of the intelligence community. That's why this whole thing is a stunt. Before March of 2020 no one - I mean no one - outside of public health or academia gave a single thought to emerging infectious diseases. Now? Everyone is an expert and they're convinced China is responsible. Nations and cultures have been blamed for infectious disease outbreaks for millennia. This is how it looks in the 21st century, apparently.

I mean, I get that you deal with this issue outside of this forum constantly, and probably have to deal with the irrational population on an entirely different scale than those of us that only follow this within the confines of R&P do. I can only imagine how frustrating that gets. But I don't think you're encountering that here.

No, I'm not. I don't post here out of anger (truly).

[El Guapo]

What frustrates me about all this is that there's almost no disagreement among non-crazy people about the substance of it - people should look into every viable theory of the virus's origin, which includes both zoonotic origin (the dominant theory) and lab leak theories. So everyone is just arguing about the optics, the politics, and the motives (overt and hidden) of people making the arguments. 99% of this seems like hot air.

Biden's order created some type of committee or commission or something to look into this, right? So we should just wait for them to finish working and release some type of report or something.

[Kasey Chang]

And of course, China would prefer US offer up explanations on why it still has Fort Detrick and other labs around the world instead of trying to blame China's Wuhan lab.

"What secrets are hidden in the suspicion-shrouded Fort Detrick and the over 200 US bio-labs all over the world?" Zhao said, adding that the US "owes an explanation to the world."
The Fort Detrick theory started to surface in Chinese state media reports last March, but it gained significant traction in China early this year, around the time the World Health Organization (WHO) visited Wuhan to examine the origins of the virus.

[noxiousdog]

Then you have to consider that the people who seem to read information from the alternate universe are way more likely to believe the lab leak is more likely despite that overwhelming consensus.

But AB isn't one of those people. He's not presenting crackpot evidence or sites that also claim the world is flat. And, perhaps more telling, he isn't calling out the motivations of those who disagree with him. That kind of rhetoric is only coming from one side.

Yes, yes he is. He's using John Stewart as an expert witness.

More importantly he is presenting something as "most likely" when there is no real evidence supporting it.

On one hand, we have millions of viruses that have been transmitted zoonotically.
On the other, we have four sick doctors during cold and flu season.

Maybe, just maybe there is some genetic drift that we can talk about, but that's not really supported at this time. And further note, if this is a real thing, then it had to be engineered; which of course there's anti-evidence for as there's no engineered genetic markers.

So spare me the AB persecution.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Then you have to consider that the people who seem to read information from the alternate universe are way more likely to believe the lab leak is more likely despite that overwhelming consensus.

But AB isn't one of those people. He's not presenting crackpot evidence or sites that also claim the world is flat. And, perhaps more telling, he isn't calling out the motivations of those who disagree with him. That kind of rhetoric is only coming from one side.

Yes, yes he is. He's using John Stewart as an expert witness.

More importantly he is presenting something as "most likely" when there is no real evidence supporting it.

No, this is your own misrepresentation of what I posted. I simply stated that Stewart provided a coherent and humorous clarification of the lab leak hypothesis, which you subsequently mischaracterized as if I were trying to suggest he was a scientist, epidemiologist, virologist, and expert witness.

To put it plainly, there's a conspicuous element of the law of parsimony at work here, which Jon Stewart humorously touched upon. In other words, when there's a fireworks explosion in a city with a poorly-constructed fireworks factory known for engaging in high-risk research into the most dangerously volatile fireworks possible, it only makes sense to focus upon thoroughly investigating and eliminating that factory as a blatantly obvious potential source for the explosion. Because, in the sense of Ockham’s razor "shaving away" extraneous material and assumptions, which is the simpler origin hypothesis:

• Basic human fallibility at the fireworks factory.

vs.

• As Jon Stewart amusingly puts it, "A pangolin kissed a turtle… and maybe a bat flew into the cloaca of a turkey… and then it sneezed into my chili… and now we all have coronavirus."

[Smoove_B]

which is the simpler origin hypothesis:

• Basic human fallibility at the fireworks factory.

vs.

• As Jon Stewart amusingly puts it, "A pangolin kissed a turtle… and maybe a bat flew into the cloaca of a turkey… and then it sneezed into my chili… and now we all have coronavirus."

It's been done before:

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

It's Hoyle's Fallacy, for those that don't know.

[stessier]

I would totally rely on a satirist for my science advice. Colbert kept trying to reign him in, but he was having none of it. And it was funny - as long as you don't take it for anything serious.

[Alefroth]

The lab and the virus have the same name (never mind that they don't). What more do we need?

[El Guapo]

I would totally rely on a satirist for my science advice. Colbert kept trying to reign him in, but he was having none of it. And it was funny - as long as you don't take it for anything serious.

Yeah to be clear I don't think Jon Stewart actually believes in the lab leak theory or was seriously advocating for it (you'll note his "don't you try to bring thinking and logic into this" aside to Colbert in the middle), but rather was just using the name for a (pretty funny) bit.

[Zaxxon]

I would totally rely on a satirist for my science advice. Colbert kept trying to reign him in, but he was having none of it. And it was funny - as long as you don't take it for anything serious.

Yeah to be clear I don't think Jon Stewart actually believes in the lab leak theory or was seriously advocating for it (you'll note his "don't you try to bring thinking and logic into this" aside to Colbert in the middle), but rather was just using the name for a (pretty funny) bit.

Yup. Anyone who took Stewart to be actually advocating the lab leak theory... wasn't paying close attention to the bit and/or isn't familiar Jon Stewart's style.

But really I just came in to do this.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Well, this could get mighty interesting…

Chinese spy Dong Jingwei ‘defects to the West while offering covid secrets’

A top Chinese spy has reportedly defected to the US and offered up intelligence about how the covid pandemic began.

Vice Minister of State Security Dong Jingwei is believed to have secretly flown from Hong Kong to the US on February 10, according to reports that have surfaced on Chinese media sites and Twitter.

He travelled alongside his daughter Dong Yang, outlet Spy Talk reported.

Rumours are swirling that Mr Jingwei has passed on important information about the Wuhan Institute of Virology, at the centre of the covid lab leak theory which had been dismissed as a “conspiracy” by many for the last year-and-a-half but is now being reignited.

If the rumours are true, Mr Jingwei would be the highest-level defector ever from the People’s Republic of China.

His evidence may have even sparked US President Joe Biden’s U-turn on the country’s covid probe. Mr Biden announced in late May a new review into the origins of covid, after having shut down a previous probe.

He has now called on the US intelligence community to “redouble” its investigation to find out whether covid jumped from an animal host to humans, or if it was accidentally released from the Wuhan research lab.

Mr Jingwei served as a prestigious counterintelligence head of China’s Ministry of State Security, otherwise known as the Guoanbu. His intelligence is reported to include early pathogenic studies of the virus, models of predicted covid spread and damage to the world, and financial records detailing which organisations and governments funded the research.

He may also have information about the names of Chinese spies working in the US, and how the Chinese government gained access to a CIA communications system.

Former Chinese foreign ministry official Dr Han Lianchao, who defected after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, wrote in a tweet this week that if true, Mr Jingwei’s defection “is really a big bomb”.