I believe that the virus did leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And yes, it very much matters. The pandemic has shown a disturbing lack of critical thinking and just plain common sense in our populace.
People were frightened, and more than willing to cede all authority to the scientists who were going to save us. And the wet market theory was easily sold; it conformed to what has happened in previous viral outbreaks, and wet markets are disgusting to American sensibilities. It wasn't difficult for Dr Fauci and his colleagues to convince people that it was purely coincidental that the lab was located in the epicenter. I think it was understandable that people bought this at first.
But as it became clear that there was no evidence to support the wet market origin, institutions dictated that only the pronouncements of their preferred "experts" mattered. Other evidence and contrary expert opinion were deemed "dangerous". As you so eloquently point out, common sense dictated that the obvious should have been investigated.
Have people simply abandoned evidence, logic, and common sense in favor of perceived "safety"? I think many have done exactly that, if they ever had any critical thinking skills to begin with. But I also think many more fear the power of the authoritarian social media if they dare to step out of line and think for themselves.
The pandemic has been horrific. What it has revealed about authoritarianism in our institutions and media is even more frightening. And most frightening of all, it has shown that people will not only accept it, but actively promote the idea that questioning official pronouncements is "dangerous misinformation".
I haven’t read much on the origins debate; it didn’t matter much to me at first. Not that it *doesn’t* matter, just that I didn’t have the personal bandwidth to pay attention. So I never really knew why lab leak was considered a conspiracy theory (though I knew it had been called one). Sounds like a lot of ass-covering behavior going on. Thanks for this post.
After reading comments below, a question comes to mind. Why is the default assumption that the virus occurred naturally, and that the lab leak origin is the idea that needs to be proven conclusively?
I am not a scientist, but I really don't see why the natural origin theory should be accepted when the only evidence for it is an appeal to "experts". Yet it seems the demand for "evidence" is pointed in only one direction. Why is that?
Dec 27, 2021·edited Jan 1, 2022Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
This is probably the clearest and most cogent case for the origin of this pandemic being in the lab in question that I've read so far. So, props for that. If all contained herein is true and accurate, and I have no reason to question that, then that handy razor blade, which I believe is an appropriate tool to use in this case, pretty much cuts right to the heart of the matter. But I'm not sure that I agree that "understanding the origin of the pandemic, and applying pressure to world leaders to act accordingly, is the most important thing any of us could be doing. The most important thing." But then I guess that depends on what "act accordingly" means.
Is this important? Absolutely. Very important. A future event such as this certainly has the potential to be even worse. But it's at least possible we haven't seen the worst of this particular event yet, and when the fire department rolls up to a house to extinguish a blaze, at that point that particular task is the priority, figuring out the origin of the flames a bit less so. A simplistic analogy, but the flames are still burning rather hot on this at the moment, so perhaps putting pressure on world leaders to acknowledge that particular fact and to act more in unison to knock this thing down to a level where it may be more easily brought under control should be the higher priority.
Of course, considering all of the forces aligned against the prospect of either of these scenarios being carried out successfully any time soon, my opinion here is in all likelihood a moot point.
Jan 5, 2022·edited Jan 6, 2022Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
Very interesting write up. I agree with your take that the principle of parsimony should be used to find the most likely explanation and it should be investigated without regard to political considerations.
Of course, what you conclude to be the most parsimonous explanation depends on the set of facts you present. After reading your article and being quite convinced of your points, I listened to a popular German podcast about the pandemic. There is one episode from June (so not aware of omicron yet) that does (in my humble opinion) a good job of countering some of your arguments for the lab leak hypothesis.
What I found most convincing:
1. Drosten claims it is normal for viruses to aquire furin cleavage sites naturally (the highly pathogenic avian influenza did this)
2. insertion of a furin cleavage site (FCS) need not be via random point mutations (which are unlikely) but there are two mechanisms: First, replication enzymes in Viruses can "malfunction" to double up the arginine encoding CGG in the RNA (leading to the codon for the rare arginine doublet CGGCGG at the FCS). Second, the FCS is found in many animal cell proteins. When replicating viruses in a cell in large numbers rare mistakes happen regularly and pieces of genes from animal proteines can end up in the viral RNA (inserting the animal-typical CGG codon).
3. To perform the experiment of inserting a furin cleavage site in a bat coronavirus, you would need a reverse genetics system for this specific bat coronavirus that you modified to include the FCS. It takes years to develop such a system (at least it did in 2019). If you do want to perform this kind of GOF-research, why not insert the FCS into a Virus for which an existing reverse genetics system exists, like SARS-1?
4. Even if you grant point 3 and say that some especially ambitious Wuhan scientist created such a system based on a novel bat coronavirus and modified it to include a FCS. Why didn't they publish anything about that in all these years developing such a system?
It is a very long interview and he goes on in length about his discontent with the US reporting on the lab leak hypothesis. It appears to me he is a bit regretful about signing the open letter of solidarity with the Wuhan scientists by Peter Daszak and he certainly criticizes his role in the WHO investigation. It is clear, however that he finds the arguments for the lab leak hypothesis entirely unconvincing at this point in time. He goes on outlining a possible bat-civet-vector.
Are you Matt Ridley? I ask only because my neural network compared your comments and Matt Ridley's tweets & replies and it suggest with some confidence that you are indeed Matt Ridley. Add to that, it's super weird that you don't follow Matt Ridley on twitter, given how much you love "Viral" and that you mention Alina Chan in the comments a lot but never Matt. Anyway, no big deal, this is just how my brain works.
I don't quite understand what means "thousand of miles away". Wuhan is less than 600 miles north of shoreline. Do you mean bats are supposed to hibernate in winter when epidemic started?
I believe that the virus did leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And yes, it very much matters. The pandemic has shown a disturbing lack of critical thinking and just plain common sense in our populace.
People were frightened, and more than willing to cede all authority to the scientists who were going to save us. And the wet market theory was easily sold; it conformed to what has happened in previous viral outbreaks, and wet markets are disgusting to American sensibilities. It wasn't difficult for Dr Fauci and his colleagues to convince people that it was purely coincidental that the lab was located in the epicenter. I think it was understandable that people bought this at first.
But as it became clear that there was no evidence to support the wet market origin, institutions dictated that only the pronouncements of their preferred "experts" mattered. Other evidence and contrary expert opinion were deemed "dangerous". As you so eloquently point out, common sense dictated that the obvious should have been investigated.
Have people simply abandoned evidence, logic, and common sense in favor of perceived "safety"? I think many have done exactly that, if they ever had any critical thinking skills to begin with. But I also think many more fear the power of the authoritarian social media if they dare to step out of line and think for themselves.
The pandemic has been horrific. What it has revealed about authoritarianism in our institutions and media is even more frightening. And most frightening of all, it has shown that people will not only accept it, but actively promote the idea that questioning official pronouncements is "dangerous misinformation".
So yes, in my opinion it matters very much.
I haven’t read much on the origins debate; it didn’t matter much to me at first. Not that it *doesn’t* matter, just that I didn’t have the personal bandwidth to pay attention. So I never really knew why lab leak was considered a conspiracy theory (though I knew it had been called one). Sounds like a lot of ass-covering behavior going on. Thanks for this post.
After reading comments below, a question comes to mind. Why is the default assumption that the virus occurred naturally, and that the lab leak origin is the idea that needs to be proven conclusively?
I am not a scientist, but I really don't see why the natural origin theory should be accepted when the only evidence for it is an appeal to "experts". Yet it seems the demand for "evidence" is pointed in only one direction. Why is that?
Now that a majority of the US population believes the Lab Leak origin, perhaps the bigger question right now is What Can We Do About It?
This is probably the clearest and most cogent case for the origin of this pandemic being in the lab in question that I've read so far. So, props for that. If all contained herein is true and accurate, and I have no reason to question that, then that handy razor blade, which I believe is an appropriate tool to use in this case, pretty much cuts right to the heart of the matter. But I'm not sure that I agree that "understanding the origin of the pandemic, and applying pressure to world leaders to act accordingly, is the most important thing any of us could be doing. The most important thing." But then I guess that depends on what "act accordingly" means.
Is this important? Absolutely. Very important. A future event such as this certainly has the potential to be even worse. But it's at least possible we haven't seen the worst of this particular event yet, and when the fire department rolls up to a house to extinguish a blaze, at that point that particular task is the priority, figuring out the origin of the flames a bit less so. A simplistic analogy, but the flames are still burning rather hot on this at the moment, so perhaps putting pressure on world leaders to acknowledge that particular fact and to act more in unison to knock this thing down to a level where it may be more easily brought under control should be the higher priority.
Of course, considering all of the forces aligned against the prospect of either of these scenarios being carried out successfully any time soon, my opinion here is in all likelihood a moot point.
Yes, leaked. I hope not but I wonder if it was leaked on purpose.
Very interesting write up. I agree with your take that the principle of parsimony should be used to find the most likely explanation and it should be investigated without regard to political considerations.
Of course, what you conclude to be the most parsimonous explanation depends on the set of facts you present. After reading your article and being quite convinced of your points, I listened to a popular German podcast about the pandemic. There is one episode from June (so not aware of omicron yet) that does (in my humble opinion) a good job of countering some of your arguments for the lab leak hypothesis.
What I found most convincing:
1. Drosten claims it is normal for viruses to aquire furin cleavage sites naturally (the highly pathogenic avian influenza did this)
2. insertion of a furin cleavage site (FCS) need not be via random point mutations (which are unlikely) but there are two mechanisms: First, replication enzymes in Viruses can "malfunction" to double up the arginine encoding CGG in the RNA (leading to the codon for the rare arginine doublet CGGCGG at the FCS). Second, the FCS is found in many animal cell proteins. When replicating viruses in a cell in large numbers rare mistakes happen regularly and pieces of genes from animal proteines can end up in the viral RNA (inserting the animal-typical CGG codon).
3. To perform the experiment of inserting a furin cleavage site in a bat coronavirus, you would need a reverse genetics system for this specific bat coronavirus that you modified to include the FCS. It takes years to develop such a system (at least it did in 2019). If you do want to perform this kind of GOF-research, why not insert the FCS into a Virus for which an existing reverse genetics system exists, like SARS-1?
4. Even if you grant point 3 and say that some especially ambitious Wuhan scientist created such a system based on a novel bat coronavirus and modified it to include a FCS. Why didn't they publish anything about that in all these years developing such a system?
It is a very long interview and he goes on in length about his discontent with the US reporting on the lab leak hypothesis. It appears to me he is a bit regretful about signing the open letter of solidarity with the Wuhan scientists by Peter Daszak and he certainly criticizes his role in the WHO investigation. It is clear, however that he finds the arguments for the lab leak hypothesis entirely unconvincing at this point in time. He goes on outlining a possible bat-civet-vector.
google translation of the source:
https://www-ndr-de.translate.goog/nachrichten/info/92-Coronavirus-Update-Woher-stammt-das-Virus,podcastcoronavirus322.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US#Forschung
Are you Matt Ridley? I ask only because my neural network compared your comments and Matt Ridley's tweets & replies and it suggest with some confidence that you are indeed Matt Ridley. Add to that, it's super weird that you don't follow Matt Ridley on twitter, given how much you love "Viral" and that you mention Alina Chan in the comments a lot but never Matt. Anyway, no big deal, this is just how my brain works.
"'SARS-2 arose naturally' doesn’t hold up to scrutiny"
"Doesn't hold up to scrutiny" is awfully vauge. What is your Bayesian probability that SARS-2 arose naturally? Mine is currently 50%.
I don't quite understand what means "thousand of miles away". Wuhan is less than 600 miles north of shoreline. Do you mean bats are supposed to hibernate in winter when epidemic started?