What’s as interesting as whether or not this narrative is true (unlikely but possible) is considering who desperately wants it to be true and why. — Baden

:100:

So based on the available evidence at this point we have no evidence of either case (lab released or natural spreading) being true but we have a) discounted the wet market theory (at least not the Wuhan market), b) discounted articles that excluded the lab release scenario and c) proved China had withheld information.

When a and b weren't known yet I gave the lab theory only a 1% probability but that certainly has gone up in the meantime.

Upon the basis of what information would you consider it unlikely, rather than likely? Note: I think it neither likely nor unlikely, on account of what I consider to be not enough information.

According the the writers at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in 2012, it was quite likely.

Simple mathematical analysis gives real reason for concern about the handling of these dangerous viruses. Consider the probability for escape from a single lab in a single year to be 0.003 (i.e., 0.3 percent), an estimate that is conservative in light of a variety of government risk assessments for biolabs and actual experience at laboratories studying dangerous pathogens. Calculating from this probability, it would take 536 years for there to be an 80 percent chance of at least one escape from a single lab. But with 42 labs carrying out live PPP research, this basic 0.3 percent probability translates to an 80 percent likelihood of escape from at least one of the 42 labs every 12.8 years, a time interval smaller than those that have separated influenza pandemics in the 20th century. This level of risk is clearly unacceptable.

https://thebulletin.org/2012/08/the-unacceptable-risks-of-a-man-made-pandemic/

The misinformation and censorship regarding the lab theory is quite the scandal. Facebook went so far as to ban any discussion of the theory on its platform, ironically to protect the public from misinformation. And these measures were all based on poor science. One has to wonder what sort of information and evidence has been lost during that time. — NOS4A2

Yes, there was (is) this narrative going on that to utter the Lab-leak hypothesis, you were racist pizzagate-level conspiracist Trump-supporter and only now thanks to "new" information is this is a respectful hypothesis. This is a way for some parts of the media to start looking at the possibility (and forget how they wrote about it in the past). That the hypothesis has always been plausible, just like and others remarks, is denied. Just as talking about the possibility didn't make you a Trump supporter in the first place.

The unfortunate issue is that this isn't going away. Misinformation and disinformation are far too easy to use in this time of age and they are very effective. In fact, a clever actor can quite discreetly gain his objectives without being noticed. My concern is that the whole discourse will simply be smudged over to such level that any person, especially medical professional or academic, won't touch it with a ten foot pole. In order to make an issue simply undebatable, you will have to create the so-called "alternative-facts" and an alternative universe where the opposing narratives simply don't meet. That confuses people. Deny everything and make counteraccusations. That's the way the Chinese likely will respond, because it's an effective response.

Sounds about right where we are for me too.

1. WHO reports have suggested that the first Covid-19 infections may have occurred in November 2019

"The virus could have been introduced into the human population from an animal source in the market or an infected human could have introduced the virus to the market and the virus may have then been amplified in the market environment. Subsequent investigations into the first human cases have determined that they had onset of symptoms around 1 December 2019. However, these cases had no direct link to the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market and they may therefore have been infected in November through contact with earlier undetected cases (incubation time between date of exposure and date of symptom onset can be up to 14 days). Additional studies are ongoing to as whether unrecognized infections in humans may have happened as early as mid-November 2019. "

Origins of SARS CoV-2 WHO

2. Researchers at the Wuhan lab were hospitalized in November.

Three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China became sick with a flu-like illness and sought hospital care in November 2019, according to a U.S. intelligence report obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin – WSJ

3. Scientists are saying that a lab escape "would be no surprise".

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists says: “For the lab escape scenario, a Wuhan origin for the virus is a no-brainer. Wuhan is home to China’s leading center of coronavirus research where, as noted above, researchers were genetically engineering bat coronaviruses to attack human cells. They were doing so under the minimal safety conditions of a BSL2 lab. If a virus with the unexpected infectiousness of SARS2 had been generated there, its escape would be no surprise”.

The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan? - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

4. In the past few decades, dangerous viruses have escaped from labs around the world, including China, every few years which obviously isn't "extremely rare" as suggested by some.

5. China has been engaged in a massive disinformation campaign including the spread of conspiracy theories and the arrest of doctors, scientists, lawyers, journalists and others.

If we put all the facts together, how likely or unlikely is the lab escape?

As the Dutch virologist who visited Wuhan as part of the WHO mission stated, "this is not a matter for scientists to review but for intelligence communities".

It's their job to decide whether there are actual clues that the lab escape theory can be true. And if there are clues then they should hold a formal inspection at the lab. If those clues aren't there, then they need to stop bringing it up.

We see that it's US intelligence that mostly fuels the "lab escape" hypothesis, China denies and meanwhile nobody gets to see the US intelligence. There won't be any progress on the matter like this.

There won't be any progress on the matter like this. — Benkei

I doubt there will be any progress. We'll never know. That's unfortunate because if it was a lab leak, it would be an opportunity to review protocols for all labs (like the ones that have small pox).

There won't be any progress on the matter like this. — Benkei

Well, if you consider everything that any intelligence service says to be total propaganda.

I think the real debate ought to be on the safety of the gain of function research, which was earlier prohibited. Then the ban was ended, and now a permanent ban is pushed forward. This research has really been put on and off quite many times.

Let's remember what happened in 2017 with the ending of the gain of function research ban, which specifically was about corona-virus research:

The US moratorium on gain-of-function experiments has been rescinded, but scientists are split over the benefits—and risks—of such studies. Talha Burki reports.
On Dec 19, 2017, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that they would resume funding gain-of-function experiments involving influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. A moratorium had been in place since October, 2014. At the time, the NIH had stated that the moratorium “will be effective until a robust and broad deliberative process is completed that results in the adoption of a new US Government gain-of-function research policy”. This process has now concluded. It was spearheaded by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) and led to the development of a new framework for assessing funding decisions for research involving pathogens with enhanced pandemic potential. The release of the framework by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), of which NIH is part, signalled the end of the funding pause.

The situation has its roots in 2011, when the NSABB suppressed two studies involving H5N1 viruses that had been modified to allow airborne transmission from ferret to ferret. They worried that malign actors could replicate the work to deliberately cause an outbreak in human beings. After much debate, the studies were published in full in 2012. HHS subsequently issued guidelines for funding decisions on experiments likely to result in highly pathogenic H5N1 viruses transmissible from mammal to mammal via respiratory droplets. The guidelines were later expanded to include H7N9 viruses.

In 2014, several breaches of protocol at US government laboratories brought matters to a head. The news that dozens of workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) might have been exposed to anthrax, that vials of smallpox virus had been left lying around in an NIH storeroom, and that the CDC had unwittingly sent out samples of ordinary influenza virus contaminated with H5N1, shook faith in the country's biosafety procedures. Over 200 scientists signed the Cambridge Working Group declaration arguing for a cessation of experiments creating potential pandemic pathogens “until there has been a quantitative, objective and credible assessment of the risks, potential benefits, and opportunities for risk mitigation, as well as comparison against safer experimental approaches”.

The debate is focused on a subset of gain-of-function studies that manipulate deadly viruses to increase their transmissibility or virulence. “This is what happens to viruses in the wild”, explains Carrie Wolinetz, head of the NIH Office of Science Policy. “Gain-of-function experiments allow us to understand how pandemic viruses evolve, so that we can make predictions, develop countermeasures, and do disease surveillance”. Although none of the widely publicised mishaps of 2014 involved such work, the NIH decided to suspend funding for gain-of-function studies involving influenza, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV.

(See The Lancet (February 2018), Ban on gain-of-function studies ends)

And what is now happening?

(27th May 2021) The US Senate has passed an amendment by Republican Senator Rand Paul to permanently ban the National Institutes of Health and any other federal agency from funding gain-of-function research in China.

“We don’t know whether the pandemic started in a lab in Wuhan or evolved naturally,” Senator Paul said in a statement.

“While many still deny funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan … the passage of my amendment ensures that this never happens in the future.”

The amendment defined gain-of-function research as “any research project that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals”.

The Senate chamber cheered after the amendment was passed.

:up:

@frank
Thank you again for your staying present through this pandemic. You and your fellow Super Heroes did a phenomenal job against the worst our world had to throw at us this time.
Rest dear friend and know that we are working together to make sure we are better prepared for the "NEXT" because we know there will be another.
Thank you and seeing you make it out the other side is a blessing to me. :flower:

thanks. compliments make me choke, though. :grimace: can't handle it

I think the real debate ought to be on the safety of the gain of function research, — ssu

Gain of function research seems to now be the central argument. Even leftist papers like the Guardian are now beginning to concede (1) that they may be some truth in it and (2) that this time it isn't coming from the Trump camp.

Obviously, if it turns out to be true, this will have serious political and social implications, one of which will be that people will be even less inclined to trust politicians - or the media.

1. Lab leaks happen all the time.

2. In China the last six known outbreaks of SARS-1 have been out of labs, including the last known outbreak, which was a pretty extensive outbreak that China initially wouldn't disclose that it came out of the lab.

3. There is evidence that the lab in question, which studies bat coronaviruses, may have been conducting what is called “gain of function” research,

4. There seem to have been astonishing conflicts of interest among the people assigned to get to the bottom of it all

5. The news media, insisted that the lab-leak hypothesis was false false false, and woe unto anyone who dared disagree.

6. The social media monopolies actually censored posts about the lab-leak hypothesis.

7. A new study claims that researchers have found ‘unique fingerprints’ in Covid-19 samples that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory.

8. Dalgleish and Sorensen wrote in their paper that they had prima facie evidence of retro-engineering in China for a year, but were ignored by academics and major journals,

etc.

If the Wuhan lab-leak hypothesis is true, expect a political earthquake - Guardian

Covid-19 created in Wuhan lab, has no ‘credible natural ancestor’, says new study

Transcript: Scott Gottlieb on "Face the Nation," May 30, 2021 - CBS News

thanks. compliments make me choke, though. — frank

Allow me to reiterate Tiff's words of appreciation. :hearts:

It doesn't make me choke if it's bullshit.

Upon the basis of what information would you consider it unlikely, rather than likely? — Janus

What I've read concerning the genetic make-up of the disease. I could look it up but tbh, I'm not so interested in debating this aspect of it in the absence of further evidence because a) We have, as yet, no reliable or scientific way of apportioning probability here b) it doesn't particularly matter to me, and c) it's not as if I would put anything past the Chinese government.

Foiled again.

7. A new study claims that researchers have found ‘unique fingerprints’ in Covid-19 samples that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory. — Apollodorus

Interesting. The "prima facie" is a disclaimer on their evidence though and after the study that said it couldn't have been engineered I'm going to say, let's wait and see.

Interesting. The "prima facie" is a disclaimer on their evidence though and after the study that said it couldn't have been engineered I'm going to say, let's wait and see. — Benkei

Yes. Different scientists seem to interpret the same data differently. But it's interesting to see the shift in the way the issue is being reported. It isn't "conspiracy theory" anymore but "maybe there is some truth to it after all". Quite possibly, they know more than we do. Or maybe not.

Upon the basis of what information would you consider it unlikely, rather than likely? — Janus


What I've read concerning the genetic make-up of the disease. I could look it up but tbh, I'm not so interested in debating this aspect of it in the absence of further evidence because a) We have, as yet, no reliable or scientific way of apportioning probability here — Baden

Fair enough, but there seems to be an inconsistency between thinking it unlikely and stating that "we have, as yet, no reliable or scientific way of apportioning probability here".

Why? Haven’t you ever thought something unlikely without recourse to scientific method?

Why? Haven’t you ever thought something unlikely without recourse to scientific method? — Baden

Sure, based on an intuition or personal feeling, but not usually about things I consider there to be no reliable evidence or that I know every little about. This seems like a stronger assertion

What’s as interesting as whether or not this narrative is true (unlikely but possible) is considering who desperately wants it to be true and why. — Baden

and judging from that it seemed. at least to me, that you thought there was good evidence that justified thinking it was unlikely. And we're talking here more properly about empirical evidence, not strictly scientific evidence.

Interesting, thanks.

The origin of SARS-CoV-2, revisited
David Gorski
Science-Based Medicine
May 2021

Bit long, but, anyway ...

I highly doubt there will be evidence to sufficiently prove that the virus came from a lab. The Chinese government has a vested interest in not letting the truth come to light and control of all the documentary evidence.

Even if it was the result of a lab leak, and China was aware of it and said nothing, I don't see long term changes. At the end of the day, people are still going to pick the cheaper plastic item at the store, and that means the supply chains of the world will still be hopelessly dependant on China.

If the much greater threat of global warming couldn't mobilize support for shorter supply chains, I doubt this would.

Also, that Guardian article... WTF happened over the past decade? Weren't Right wingers supposed to be tough guys, celebrating strength. You know, 300, "this is Sparta!" The incredible victim complex they've all put on is totally off brand. I feel like I'm reading the work of hysteronic Chomsky addled teen activists half the time.

Forget right or wrong, long or good odds, just asking what are the different scenarios people have come up with so far:

1. Negligent animal to human;
2. Negligent weapon research lab to human;
3. Negligent health research lab to human;
4. Intentional weapon research lab to human;
5. Intentional false flag operation;
6. Other?

I can understand why people might be concerned about an intentional release, but other than a change in animal-market or virus lab protocols to prevent this from happening again, why would anyone care? Is this all about finger-pointing? I have not followed this and really don't know what the scoop is. I just see a lot of people discussing it. That's cool, I guess, as long as it doesn't take any wind out of the health care response.

Nice to have an opposing view to the lab-leak hypothesis, but have to say that article is truly difficult to read. Yes, and oncologist editor of a site owned by the New England Skeptical Society can indeed know the subject well enough to comment, but there's a lot of quotes of the plain media articles and twitter comments and more of the social media style of commenting (with Godzilla facepalms) that makes it a long difficult read.

Perhaps this tells in short the opinion of the author David Gorski:

If, as I have, you’ve been paying attention to these things for a number of years, you know that, whenever there is a major outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic of infectious disease, one conspiracy theory always—and I do mean always—arises.

And that's the problem. Indeed there has been a conspiracy. The one where China wasn't open and truthful about the epidemic at the first place. And isn't now and won't be truthful in the future. And that was the first conspiracy which likely even Gorski won't deny.

Just to create a viable picture of the events is difficult...thanks to Chinese officials. An article explains this:

Seasoned journalists in China often say “Cover China as if you were covering Snapchat”—in other words, screenshot everything, under the assumption that any given story could be deleted soon. For the past two and half months, I’ve been trying to screenshot every news article, social media post, and blog post that seems relevant to the coronavirus. In total, I’ve collected nearly 100 censored online posts: 40 published by major news organizations, and close to 60 by ordinary social media users like Yue. In total, the number of Weibo posts censored and WeChat accounts suspended would be virtually uncountable. (Despite numerous attempts, Weibo and WeChat could not be reached for comment.)

Taken together, these deleted posts offer a submerged account of the early days of a global pandemic, and they indicate the contours of what Beijing didn’t want Chinese people to hear or see. Two main kinds of content were targeted for deletion by censors: Journalistic investigations of how the epidemic first started and was kept under wraps in late 2019 and live accounts of the mayhem and suffering inside Wuhan in the early days of the city’s lockdown, as its medical system buckled under the world’s first hammerstrike of patients.

See Inside the Early Days of China’s Coronavirus Cover-Up

Then there was the way doctors were dealt:

- Physicians were told by hospital heads not to share any information at the beginning of the outbreak.
- Doctors were not allowed first to wear isolation gowns because that might stoke fears.
- Provincial health commission began actively suppressing scientists’ knowledge about the virus as early as January 1.
- By January, according to Caixin (who wrote an article, "Tracing the Gene Sequencing of the Novel Coronavirus: When was the Alarm Sounded?"), a gene sequencing laboratory in Guangzhou had discovered that the novel virus in Wuhan shared a high degree of similarity with the virus that caused the SARS outbreak in 2003; but, according to an anonymous source, Hubei’s health commission promptly demanded that the lab suspend all testing and destroy all samples.

And of then the typical Chinese censorship of anything that could look bad. And journalists etc. have been arrested for covering the pandemic. The usual Chinese stuff.

In all, it's highly doubtful that we can create clear picture of events now. Hope that historians later can do that.

Add to the fact that creating the timeline how a disease broke out would be difficult even without the all above.

For a different view, you might enjoy reading this:

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2021/06/07/viewpoint-why-the-wuhan-lab-escape-theory-explaining-the-origin-of-the-global-pandemic-isnt-going-away-anytime-soon/

As so many Republicans talk about the lab theory, the unfortunate will happen and this topic will irredeemably be made a US political partisanship issue. People will take sides here only because the Republican have taken one side. The self-centeredness of the America is sickening. But then, American media dominates the World. Joe Rogan interviewing Krystal Ball and Sagaar Enjeti yesterday:

I don't think that's the case about it being partisan. Many apolitical and Democrat friends and family of mine believe the lab theory. They no longer have Trump to point to them which ideas to oppose.

Watch this recent exchange between Jon Stewart and Colbert. Colbert is still wedded to partisanship and anti-Trumpism and must keep up that charade, but Jon Stewart isn't chained to the myths of the last half-decade and is able to give a fresh voice to the lab-theory. Anyone who still opposes the lab theory at this point is just digging their feet in the ground and head in the sand.