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

[Anonymous Bosch]

I'll just leave this here.

the sheer number of people credulously sharing that batshit insane Sachs interview is really starting to piss me off quite a lot.

Right, because attacking and dismissing the interview as "batshit insane" instead of addressing the arguments made simply advocating for an independent inquiry into the virus’s origins is the soundest form of reasoning.

[Kraken]

I hope we can all agree that squirrels are jerks.

[Isgrimnur]

The one that lived in my apartment attic certainly was.

[Smoove_B]

Right, because attacking and dismissing the interview as "batshit insane" instead of addressing the arguments made simply advocating for an independent inquiry into the virus’s origins is the soundest form of reasoning.

I legitimately don't have a horse (bat?) in this race, but when the community of researchers - people that have lots of degrees and decades studying zoonotic illness - come out and say this guy is a crackpot with an agenda, I listen.

[noxiousdog]

AB, why should we care what an economist says when it's REALLY clear that the vast majority of virologists disagree with him?

It's akin to caring what a psychologist thinks about astrophysics.

[noxiousdog]

Also note, he was a chairman of said commission, not THE chairman. One of 26.

[malchior]

This is why disinformation works. One 'crackpot' (read agent) gets signal boosted at a level equivalent or superior to the experts. And let's be clear this has all the markings of a disinformation campaign.

[Anonymous Bosch]

AB, why should we care what an economist says when it's REALLY clear that the vast majority of virologists disagree with him?

Because open independent inquiry vs. uncritical conformity to a perceived majority view is a vital aspect of cogent science, and as an author with an M.D. from Harvard Medical School famously put it:

[Unagi]

Ok, but.

Is there a point in time that Michael Crichton will agree that the round Earth orbits the Sun because of the theory of gravity? Or should we all reach for our wallets?

Great scientist don’t merely break from consensus, they provide overwhelming evidence that the consensus is clearly wrong.

[raydude]

AB, why should we care what an economist says when it's REALLY clear that the vast majority of virologists disagree with him?

Because open independent inquiry vs. uncritical conformity to a perceived majority view is a vital aspect of cogent science, and as an author with an M.D. from Harvard Medical School famously put it:

The great scientists who broke with consensus are almost always from the same field. Newton, Einstein, - physicists who made breakthroughs in physics. Young - degrees in medicine and natural philosophy (physics) who made a breakthrough in physics. Show me an economist who made a breakthrough in physics and I'll concede the point.

[Smoove_B]

The great scientists who broke with consensus are almost always from the same field. Newton, Einstein, - physicists who made breakthroughs in physics. Young - degrees in medicine and natural philosophy (physics) who made a breakthrough in physics. Show me an economist who made a breakthrough in physics and I'll concede the point.

He could be using his big brain to come up with an analysis of people suffering Long Covid and how it's impacting the economy and instead he's decided that he's an expert on zoonotic origin. We're in a weird place.

[Max Peck]

For something dreamed up by the right-wing Trumposphere to distract everyone from Trump's handling of the early pandemic and provide a scapegoat, this lab-leak conspiracy theory certainly has legs. I guess if the inquiries to date don't give you the answer you want, you just keep demanding more inquiries until you eventually get one that you can cherry-pick.

[LordMortis]

Ok, but.

Is there a point in time that Michael Crichton will agree that the round Earth orbits the Sun because of the theory of gravity? Or should we all reach for our wallets?

Great scientist don’t merely break from consensus, they provide overwhelming evidence that the consensus is clearly wrong.

Yeah, that's my first thought. A quote about critical thinking without critical thinking is... Paradoxical?... Is that the word I'm looking for? It ends up being a sort of Rand Paul/federalist playbook refuge that I instantly and instinctively turn off now. "X have done Y. Y's are X." doesn't sit well with me. Scientific consensus is a thing but it is not immutable. Otherwise is would be scientific Truth with the capital T. Rand Paul and his ilk have played in that mud so much I can't listen any more.

[malchior]

For something dreamed up by the right-wing Trumposphere to distract everyone from Trump's handling of the early pandemic and provide a scapegoat, this lab-leak conspiracy theory certainly has legs.

Also to harp on this a little it shows you how rich the terrain is for disinformation. The Chinese saw MAGAts talking about gain-of-function and cooked up a conspiracy theory. Then they spun it out to the world and here it comes back around the globe to muddy the debate where it started. It'll probably work here in the United State because disinformation has no sink here. It didn't work in Europe where one MEP quipped that they didn't mind having Sachs around because it was a direct line to the thinking of the Chinese government.

[noxiousdog]

AB, why should we care what an economist says when it's REALLY clear that the vast majority of virologists disagree with him?

Because open independent inquiry vs. uncritical conformity to a perceived majority view is a vital aspect of cogent science, and as an author with an M.D. from Harvard Medical School famously put it:

Of course there is open inquiry.

That's why there are multiple peer reviewed studies.

Open inquiry doesn't mean coming to a conclusion I like. It means continuing to investigate. Dude is plenty welcome to attempt to publish his studies.

[malchior]

Of course there is open inquiry.

That's why there are multiple peer reviewed studies.

Open inquiry doesn't mean coming to a conclusion I like. It means continuing to investigate. Dude is plenty welcome to attempt to publish his studies.

Indeed. Unfortunately he has no background on the issue so he wouldn't be able to get one published most likely. Barring that option he is instead apparently trying to use his influence to try to broaden the inquiry away from certain conclusions and otherwise muddy the waters.

[Alefroth]

Because open independent inquiry vs. uncritical conformity

Independent of what?

[Jaymann]

Because open independent inquiry vs. uncritical conformity

Independent of what?

Independent of peer pressure from the Steelworker's Union.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Because open independent inquiry vs. uncritical conformity

Independent of what?

A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus

Since the identification of theSARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China, in January 2020 (1), the origin of the virus has been a topic of intense scientific debate and public speculation. The two main hypotheses are that the virus emerged from human exposure to an infected animal [“zoonosis” (2)] or that it emerged in a research-related incident (3). The investigation into the origin of the virus has been made difficult by the lack of key evidence from the earliest days of the outbreak—there’s no doubt that greater transparency on the part of Chinese authorities would be enormously helpful. Nevertheless, we argue here that there is much important information that can be gleaned from US-based research institutions, information not yet made available for independent, transparent, and scientific scrutiny.

The data available within the United States would explicitly include, but are not limited to, viral sequences gathered and held as part of the PREDICT project and other funded programs, as well as sequencing data and laboratory notebooks from US laboratories. We call on US government scientific agencies, most notably the NIH, to support a full, independent, and transparent investigation of the origins of SARS-CoV-2. This should take place, for example, within a tightly focused science-based bipartisan Congressional inquiry with full investigative powers, which would be able to ask important questions—but avoid misguided witch-hunts governed more by politics than by science.

Essential US Investigations
The US intelligence community (IC) was tasked, in 2021 by President Joe Biden (4), with investigating the origin of the virus. In their summary public statement, the IC writes that “all agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident” (4). The IC further writes that “China’s cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019].” Of course, such cooperation is highly warranted and should be pursued by the US Government and the US scientific community. Yet, as outlined below, much could be learned by investigating US-supported and US-based work that was underway in collaboration with Wuhan-based institutions, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), China. It is still not clear whether the IC investigated these US-supported and US-based activities. If it did, it has yet to make any of its findings available to the US scientific community for independent and transparent analysis and assessment. If, on the other hand, the IC did not investigate these US-supported and US-based activities, then it has fallen far short of conducting a comprehensive investigation.

This lack of an independent and transparent US-based scientific investigation has had four highly adverse consequences. First, public trust in the ability of US scientific institutions to govern the activities of US science in a responsible manner has been shaken. Second, the investigation of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has become politicized within the US Congress (5); as a result, the inception of an independent and transparent investigation has been obstructed and delayed. Third, US researchers with deep knowledge of the possibilities of a laboratory-associated incident have not been enabled to share their expertise effectively. Fourth, the failure of NIH, one of the main funders of the US–China collaborative work, to facilitate the investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 (4) has fostered distrust regarding US biodefense research activities.

Much of the work on SARS-like CoVs performed in Wuhan was part of an active and highly collaborative US–China scientific research program funded by the US Government (NIH, Defense Threat Reduction Agency [DTRA], and US Agency for International Development [USAID]), coordinated by researchers at EcoHealth Alliance (EHA), but involving researchers at several other US institutions. For this reason, it is important that US institutions be transparent about any knowledge of the detailed activities that were underway in Wuhan and in the United States. The evidence may also suggest that research institutions in other countries were involved, and those too should be asked to submit relevant information (e.g., with respect to unpublished sequences).

Participating US institutions include the EHA, the University of North Carolina (UNC), the University of California at Davis (UCD), the NIH, and the USAID. Under a series of NIH grants and USAID contracts, EHA coordinated the collection of SARS-like bat CoVs from the field in southwest China and southeast Asia, the sequencing of these viruses, the archiving of these sequences (involving UCD), and the analysis and manipulation of these viruses (notably at UNC). A broad spectrum of coronavirus research work was done not only in Wuhan (including groups at Wuhan University and the Wuhan CDC, as well as WIV) but also in the United States. The exact details of the fieldwork and laboratory work of the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership, and the engagement of other institutions in the United States and China, has not been disclosed for independent analysis. The precise nature of the experiments that were conducted, including the full array of viruses collected from the field and the subsequent sequencing and manipulation of those viruses, remains unknown.

EHA, UNC, NIH, USAID, and other research partners have failed to disclose their activities to the US scientific community and the US public, instead declaring that they were not involved in any experiments that could have resulted in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. The NIH has specifically stated (6) that there is a significant evolutionary distance between the published viral sequences and that of SARS-CoV-2 and that the pandemic virus could not have resulted from the work sponsored by NIH. Of course, this statement is only as good as the limited data on which it is based, and verification of this claim is dependent on gaining access to any other unpublished viral sequences that are deposited in relevant US and Chinese databases (7,8). On May 11, 2022, Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak testified before Congress that several such sequences in a US database were removed from public view, and that this was done at the request of both Chinese and US investigators.
Blanket denials from the NIH are no longer good enough. Although the NIH and USAID have strenuously resisted full disclosure of the details of the EHA-WIV-UNC work program, several documents leaked to the public or released through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) have raised concerns. These research proposals make clear that the EHA-WIV-UNC collaboration was involved in the collection of a large number of so-far undocumented SARS-like viruses and was engaged in their manipulation within biological safety level (BSL)-2 and BSL-3 laboratory facilities, raising concerns that an airborne virus might have infected a laboratory worker (9). A variety of scenarios have been discussed by others, including an infection that involved a natural virus collected from the field or perhaps an engineered virus manipulated in one of the laboratories (3).

…

Seeking Transparency
To date, the federal government, including the NIH, has not done enough to promote public trust and transparency in the science surrounding SARS-CoV-2. A steady trickle of disquieting information has cast a darkening cloud over the agency. The NIH could say more about the possible role of its grantees in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, yet the agency has failed to reveal to the public the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a research-associated event, even though several researchers raised that concern on February 1, 2020, in a phone conversation that was documented by email (5). Those emails were released to the public only through FOIA, and they suggest that the NIH leadership took an early and active role in promoting the “zoonotic hypothesis” and the rejection of the laboratory-associated hypothesis (5). The NIH has resisted the release of important evidence, such as the grant proposals and project reports of EHA, and has continued to redact materials released under FOIA, including a remarkable 290-page redaction in a recent FOIA release.

Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. We do not assert that laboratory manipulation was involved in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, although it is apparent that it could have been. However, we do assert that there has been no independent and transparent scientific scrutiny to date of the full scope of the US-based evidence.

The relevant US-based evidence would include the following information: laboratory notebooks, virus databases, electronic media (emails, other communications), biological samples, viral sequences gathered and held as part of the PREDICT project (7) and other funded programs, and interviews of the EHA-led research team by independent researchers, together with a full record of US agency involvement in funding the research on SARS-like viruses, especially with regard to projects in collaboration with Wuhan-based institutions. We suggest that a bipartisan inquiry should also follow up on the tentative conclusion of the IC (4) that the initial outbreak in Wuhan may have occurred no later than November 2019 and that therefore the virus was circulating before the cluster of known clinical cases in December. The IC did not reveal the evidence for this statement, nor when parts of the US Government or US-based researchers first became aware of a potential new outbreak. Any available information and knowledge of the earliest days of the outbreak, including viral sequences (8), could shed considerable light on the origins question.

We continue to recognize the tremendous value of US–China cooperation in ongoing efforts to uncover the proximal origins of the pandemic. Much vital information still resides in China, in the laboratories, hospital samples, and early epidemiological information not yet available to the scientific community. Yet a US-based investigation need not wait—there is much to learn from the US institutions that were extensively involved in research that may have contributed to, or documented the emergence of, the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Only an independent and transparent investigation, perhaps as a bipartisan Congressional inquiry, will reveal the information that is needed to enable a thorough scientific process of scrutiny and evaluation.

[noxiousdog]

Try typing "independent inquiries into the source of SARS-COV-2" into Google.

[Alefroth]

So none of the investigations done have been independent enough? Who would be independent enough to satisfy you?

[gilraen]

So to prove your point you just quote more of the "opinion" of the same dude that was spouting "batshit insane" claims in the interview? Got it.

Also...

TL;DR.

[stessier]

This is like hearing "4 out of 5 dentists recommend..." and thinking "that 5 guy has a point..."

[malchior]

This is like hearing "4 out of 5 dentists recommend..." and thinking "that 5 guy has a point..."

More like 4 out of 5 dentists recommend...but I really like what the plumber says about the fluoride's effect on my precious bodily fluids.

[Anonymous Bosch]

So none of the investigations done have been independent enough? Who would be independent enough to satisfy you?

Speaking as a layman, the proposal from Professors Harrison and Sachs seems like a reasonable starting point towards promoting, and preferably restoring, public trust and transparency in the science surrounding SARS-CoV-2. If you disagree? Oh well. You have a right to your opinion, as I have a right to mine. So, let's agree to differ and leave it at that.

[Isgrimnur]

Ok, but.

Is there a point in time that Michael Crichton will agree that the round Earth orbits the Sun because of the theory of gravity? Or should we all reach for our wallets?

Seeing as he’s been dead for 13 years, probably not wise to look to him for additional knowledge.

[Unagi]

Ok, but.

Is there a point in time that Michael Crichton will agree that the round Earth orbits the Sun because of the theory of gravity? Or should we all reach for our wallets?

Seeing as he’s been dead for 13 years, probably not wise to look to him for additional knowledge.

Yeah, I knew he was dead. I was speaking more to his philosophy on scientific consensus. Point is that I am sure MC was able to admit the earth was round, that the model of the solar system was accurate, and that the theory of gravity isn't just some scam.

[Isgrimnur]

I figured.

[noxiousdog]

Also note that Michael Crichton was a climate change denier.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Also note that Michael Crichton was a climate change denier.

And probably also a puppy-kicking, nun-puncher, too.

[noxiousdog]

Also note that Michael Crichton was a climate change denier.

And probably also a puppy-kicking, nun-puncher, too.

You're being ridiculous.

You're the one who used a non-expert whining about being in the fringe to defend a non-expert whining about being on the fringe.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Also note that Michael Crichton was a climate change denier.

And probably also a puppy-kicking, nun-puncher, too.

You're being ridiculous.

You're the one who used a non-expert whining about being in the fringe to defend a non-expert whining about being on the fringe.

Yes, I am. Because I find this style of self-serious captious nit-picking risible.

[noxiousdog]

Also note that Michael Crichton was a climate change denier.

And probably also a puppy-kicking, nun-puncher, too.

You're being ridiculous.

You're the one who used a non-expert whining about being in the fringe to defend a non-expert whining about being on the fringe.

Yes, I am. Because I find this style of self-serious captious nit-picking risible.

Um, this is the opposite of appeal to authority.

An appeal to authority is what you did. Dr. Sachs and Dr. Crichton. ZOMG they have doctorates! They must know what they are talking about!!!

While the virologists and climatologists as a whole think their ideas are crackpot on said subjects.

[Blackhawk]

There is absolutely no reason to discount the opinion of a non-expert. Non-experts often have a perspective that experts lack (which is why multi-disciplinary education can be so valuable.) Not only that, but experts can climb onto bandwagons, too. Yes, non-experts often have valuable insights. That doesn't mean that the simple fact that a non-expert disagrees makes his point valid. And in this case, the position wasn't ignored. It was examined and found to be false. This isn't scientists with their fingers in their ears upon being questioned, this is scientists looking at the possibility and finding it highly unlikely, while an alternate possibility is highly likely.

And not once, but many times.

The whole thing is irrational and intellectually dishonest. It's conspiracy theories hiding behind false logic and appeals to emotion ("The establishment is telling you what to think, man!") Not only that, it's the end result of blatant manipulation for political gain. It's past time for it to go away.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Also note that Michael Crichton was a climate change denier.

And probably also a puppy-kicking, nun-puncher, too.

You're being ridiculous.

You're the one who used a non-expert whining about being in the fringe to defend a non-expert whining about being on the fringe.

Yes, I am. Because I find this style of self-serious captious nit-picking risible.

Um, this is the opposite of appeal to authority.

An appeal to authority is what you did. Dr. Sachs and Dr. Crichton. ZOMG they have doctorates! They must know what they are talking about!!!

While the virologists and climatologists as a whole think their ideas are crackpot on said subjects.

Quoting a legitimate authority is not a fallacy. Sachs did serve as Chair of the Lancet's COVID-19 Commission, which implies a measure of expertise on the relevant subject matter whether or not he is a virologist or conforms to their perceived majority view. And Crichton's point remains valid regardless of whether he was a "non-expert" virologist, his views on climatology, or an inbred son of a silly person, because one’s authority status ultimately has no impact on the actual truth of a claim. But this sort of pedantic pettiness invariably ends up going nowhere and I have neither the time, inclination, nor the crayons to elucidate this any further.

[hitbyambulance]

and I have neither the time, inclination, nor the crayons to elucidate this any further.

speaking as an outside observer on this thread from the beginning - the whole tenor seems to be you having your own feeling of 'what REALLY went down' and attempting to find anything at all to support your particular feeling - and pushed, prodded and promoted to the point that i wonder what agenda underlies it, and why..

[RunningMn9]

I'll just leave this here.

the sheer number of people credulously sharing that batshit insane Sachs interview is really starting to piss me off quite a lot.

But it says what he wants to believe?

[Blackhawk]

Quoting a legitimate authority is not a fallacy.

Absolutely! You should absolutely question legitimate authority. But when you're shown to be wrong, you don't really have a leg to stand on to continue to do so. That's what I don't get about this. It isn't that the experts refused to consider the possibility. They did, and they looked at the evidence, and it all pointed somewhere else. So they moved on.

At that point, I'm not sure what the point of the argument is. If not on evidence, are we supposed to accept it on faith?

[Anonymous Bosch]

speaking as an outside observer on this thread from the beginning - the whole tenor seems to be you having your own feeling of 'what REALLY went down' and attempting to find anything at all to support your particular feeling - and pushed, prodded and promoted to the point that i wonder what agenda underlies it, and why..

My 'agenda' has not changed since I started this thread: it struck me as a topic worthy of discussion, that ought not be summarily swept under the rug and dismissed as crackpottery simply because a perceived majority of one group or another deems it heretical. We may never possess completely irrefutable evidence for either the zoonotic or lab leak hypotheses. So I freely acknowledge that the lab leak hypothesis remains only that, and also that the pandemic certainly could have stemmed from a zoonotic jump in the wild, which is why I support Professors Harrison and Sachs "batshit insane" notion of further independent inquiry into the virus’s origins. If expressing that opinion diverges from most in this forum? Oh well.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[TheMix]

and I have neither the time, inclination, nor the crayons to elucidate this any further.

speaking as an outside observer on this thread from the beginning - the whole tenor seems to be you having your own feeling of 'what REALLY went down' and attempting to find anything at all to support your particular feeling - and pushed, prodded and promoted to the point that i wonder what agenda underlies it, and why..

Agree completely.