What really raises the most suspicion of the lab leak theory in my mind was how the Chinese government acted towards the rest of the scientific community...well before it was a theory at all. Not allowing foreign scientists in, destroying evidence, arresting journalists, etc. That just screams cover-up, even if there was none (in terms of a lab leak.)<p>Then Western scientists that rely on grants with Chinese ties, etc trying to cover the asses publicly, while privately saying it's possible...really doesn't inspire a lot of public confidence imo. There is a pretty big monetary incentive from the very people that we'd want to figure this out to say it didn't happen, even if it did.
If this comment thread is the way the self proclaimed smartest forum on the web deals with articles like this then we're doomed.<p>This article contributes zero actual evidence, is littered with out of context quotes (including of all places the title), doesn't appear to understand the science or the probabilities involved and finally is clearly written with an agenda.<p>It shouldn't have been posted to HN in the first place, it just serves to divide, not to find fact. If there is an article that deals with the actual evidence available in a neutral manner it would be nice to read, but opinion-masquerading-as-fact is not.
> But a leading scientist told Sir Jeremy that “further debate would do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular”. Dr Collins, the former director of the US National Institutes of Health, warned it could damage “international harmony”.<p>COVID-19: the time where Scientists pretended to be politicians and politicians pretended to be Scientists.<p>Also if their intention was to not hurt China, we now see one of the largest decentralisation efforts away from Chinese manufacturing we have seen in quite some time. Any future outsourced research to China will be under extreme scrutiny.<p>> Later emails showed that by February 4, Sir Jeremy had revised his estimate of a laboratory leak to 50:50, while Professor Eddie Holmes, of the University of Sydney, gave a 60:40 estimate in favour of an accidental release.<p>When you consider how the CCP and all staff involved have behaved, the odds appear higher. You have a major opportunity to show openness and lack of wrongdoing - and yet choose to act closed and actively prevent investigations.<p>> An email from Dr Ron Fouchier to Sir Jeremy said: “Further debate about such accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.”<p>Unnecessary harm? If it was as a result of a lab leak, it would be completely necessary harm. For all we know, COVID-X is just around the corner. Bare in mind many labs around the world have been processing COVID samples and performing experiments on it in order to figure out how it may mutate.
It’s hard to believe how bad this is. Not the lab leak theory itself, but the fact that scientists <i>found it plausible that a scientific mistake released an epidemic which killed 20m people</i> – and decided they should cover this up because “talking about it might harm science“. This is truly scandalous, and I don’t see how those people can remain in their post.
I feel like it was impossible to really deal with this debate responsibly, what with the current state of society and social media where everyone has figured out how to weaponize false information, before we as a society have figured out how to really deal with it.<p>Even now it seems like everyone wants to elide the massive differences between "accidental lab leak" and "deliberate lab leak". Even now the common phrase is "lab leak" which can be taken either way. But if you ask anyone on twitter or facebook what "lab leak" means, but especially at the beginning of the pandemic, they would have immediately jumped to a deliberate bioterror attack scenario and there would have been no way to stop it. And we already had a surge of asian hate with what we dealt with.
I have mixed feelings about this, and I certainly think it’s not as clear cut as HN is converging on, although I share the same instincts.<p>On the one hand, yes, science should be completely open and unhindered by geopolitics.<p>But recall that Trump was in the White House at the time.<p>We are a community of generally highly educated nerds with a strong understanding of science and engineering. We understand that all labs will have leaks, we often have first hand experience of the difficulty of making any system truly secure. We’re also probably not interested in making big political gains from this - rather our discussion might be “omg that’s terrible what went wrong and how do we prevent it from happening again.”<p>But Trump, his party, and many many people in the West would care only for the political capital they could make from it, with potentially catastrophic results that would make COVID look relatively minor.<p>At a time when a global pandemic requires international cooperation and focus, these decisions are very very difficult and we shouldn’t be too hasty to judge.
><i>"Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”."</i><p>><i>"He added: “I think the only people with sufficient information or access to samples to address it would be the teams working in Wuhan.”"</i><p>This pair of quotes has a completely different meaning from the original quote it sliced up:<p>><i>"I am also agnostic on this – I do not have any experience of laboratory virology and don’t know what is likely or not in that context. From a (natural) evolutionary point of view the only thing here that strikes me as unusual is the furin cleavage site. It strongly suggests to me that we are missing something important in the origin of the virus. My inclination would be that it is a missing host species in which this feature arose because it was selected for in that host. We can see this insertion has resulted in an extremely fit virus in humans – we can also deduce that it is not optimal for transmission in bat species."</i><p>><i>"...</i> [this ellipsis (...) is from the house.gov transcription] <i>The biggest hinderance at the moment (for this and more generally) is the lack of data and information. There have been no genome sequences from Wuhan for cases more recent than the 6 beginning of January and reports, but no information, about virus from non-human animals in Wuhan. If the evolutionary origins of the epidemic were to be discussed, I think the only people with sufficient information or access to samples to address it would be the teams working in Wuhan."</i><p><a href="https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Letter-Re.-Feb-1-Emails-011122.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2...</a> (pp. 8-9)<p>To emphasize the very last part: Rambaut is talking about <i>genome sequences from human patients in Wuhan</i> -- not laboratory data from the suspect WIV. But the <i>Telegraph</i> quote implies the opposite.<p>(Also, obviously I'm not picking any "side" here: dishonesty in the <i>Telegraph</i> doesn't vindicate dishonesty in NIH leadership, and vice-versa).
Might be a good time to remember the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect:<p><pre><code> “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray [Gell-Mann]'s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”</code></pre>
I think the clearest article on topic is from Zeynep Tufekci <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.h...</a> who says , repeatedly what we do not know and what is disturbing.
Did anyone else enjoy the irony of a group of scientists engaging in a conspiracy (of silence) in order to stop conspiracy theorists dominating a conversation about a probable (in their own eyes!) conspiracy?<p>You couldn't make it up.
[But a leading scientist told Sir Jeremy that “further debate would do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular”. Dr Collins, the former director of the US National Institutes of Health, warned it could damage “international harmony”.]<p>The entire foundation of science is based upon empirical observation and asking hypothetical questions. It is discouraging that scientists can make statements like this and get away with it.
I don't know to what extent the China Daily News, apparently a Chinese communist propaganda outlet[0], can be considered a reliable source in 2004, but back in the day the folks in Bejing seemed to be a bit peeved about their lab minions with regards to the first SARS epidemic.<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040703130948/https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/02/content_344755.htm" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20040703130948/https://www.chinad...</a><p>And it weren't just the Chinese with a rather sloppy lab security, it seems.<p><a href="https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/CDS_CSR_ARO_2004_2.pdf?ua=1" rel="nofollow">https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/CDS_CSR_ARO_2...</a><p>Better times back then.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Daily" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Daily</a>
Stumbled upon this thread on a related post here on hn and had to come to the conclusion that apparently news outlets are currently picking up some out of context details that seem to have long be debunked:<p><a href="https://virological.org/t/tackling-rumors-of-a-suspicious-origin-of-ncov2019/384" rel="nofollow">https://virological.org/t/tackling-rumors-of-a-suspicious-or...</a><p>Does anybody have further reading on this subject?
Some believe that Omicron (yes, the mutation) may be a leak from a lab that was doing research on the original version of Covid.<p><a href="https://bprice.substack.com/p/lab-leak-20" rel="nofollow">https://bprice.substack.com/p/lab-leak-20</a><p>It's an interesting read. Author puts forward a few arguments for why this may be the case (more research needed, of course, but pretty compelling in my view).
You know this effect, when you've been reading the news for years, and finally your favorite source has a story about something you studied or worked on, and you realize how low quality or outright wrong it is? The spell is broken and you realize how little they know about anything they write.<p>Once government officials and scientists gaslight us about what they think they should, how does one know they wouldn't for anything at all they decide to?<p>These people have done a huge disservice to society - and the harm in increase of conspiracy theorists is likely helped by their contribution in hiding this information.
Some additional perspectives:<p>Snopes is highly skeptical: <a href="https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/07/16/lab-leak-evidence/" rel="nofollow">https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/07/16/lab-leak-evidence/</a><p>An r/science essay from a PhD in virology is highly skeptical: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did...</a><p>While Root Claim estimates an 83% chance of a lab leak: <a href="https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COVID-19-SARS-CoV-2" rel="nofollow">https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COV...</a>
So much data drops and narrative shifts taking place re:covid data. Allegedly those [1] project defuse documents submitted to darpa we're legit. How they gonna wiggle out of that if so? Brace for house of cards collapse.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.projectveritas.com/news/military-documents-about-gain-of-function-contradict-fauci-testimony-under/" rel="nofollow">https://www.projectveritas.com/news/military-documents-about...</a>
An interesting tidbit.<p>The image of Wuhan on the map in the article shows WIV down the road across the river from the wet market.<p>Something that gets zero screen time is the Chinese CDC is literary across the road from the wet market. They have since moved / unlisted that address.<p>This does not mean a lab leak, but its a weird thing to be left out of the conversion.
I wonder if having additional two years worth of data changed their mind.<p>We see how easily this virus mutates. Recent research indicates that Omicron evolved for some time in mice without breaking out back into human population.<p>Natural origin is way more playsible than ww thought in February of 2020.
This article is kind of self defeating - based on the article the scientists expressed uncertainty over the origins of covid, but the title is "Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab" which seems to prove their point exactly?<p>I don't know if this is common knowledge but there's an equal and opposite theory in China that covid came from the us. I just did a search for "covid us" on Baidu and this is the third result <a href="https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/114737709" rel="nofollow">https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/114737709</a><p>along with suggested search queries "Is the new crown virus caused by the United States?" "Is the new crown pneumonia a virus released by the United States?"<p>(crown = omicron, I'm pretty sure)<p>I think there is a real possibility that covid is a lab leak, but it's impossible to find the truth when everyone is eager to point the finger at (other ethnic group)
In America, the president placed tariffs and sanctions on China. The opposing political party then tried to remove him from office twice.<p>There was an erroneous political hit job made by the losing candidate, spreading misinformation about the president's ties to Russia.<p>Then a virus appears, just blocks from a Research Institute that researches the very type of virus that is now in the wild.<p>Our leaders initially told us masks were not necessary, and that closing the borders would be bad for combating the virus.<p>Police in Australia are beating people in parks for not wearing masks with clubs. Our leaders fired the very people we need to operate our supply chain for not being vaccinated.<p>Call it conspiracy, but you don't read novels like this.<p>“Tis strange,-but true; for truth is always strange; Stranger than fiction: if it could be told, How much would novels gain by the exchange! How differently the world would men behold!” -Lord Byron
And we have research now that hypothesizes that Omicron incubated in mice and then jumped back to humans.<p>If that hypothesis is true, then we have a <i>fine</i> example of something running in the background in a reservoir and then <i>Hey, Presto!</i> suddenly appearing to be mutated specifically for humans.<p>If that's true, then all manner of "weird" things suddenly become both plausible and probable without any human intervention at all.<p>As for "lab leak"--at this point all we can do is shrug. China will <i>NEVER</i> allow that to be investigated if there is even the <i>slightest</i> possibility of being true. Period. Full stop.<p>Barring a whistleblower with hard evidence, we'll never know.
Certainly could hurt. Saying anything related to China at that moment could sound like conspiracy theory, xenophobia or racism, certainly bringing in question the reputation and professionalism of these scientists.<p>Now... "Scientists believed..." Considering the realm of professional scientists, beliefs have no value and should be guarded unless sufficient evidence arises. They behaved well by not announcing it.<p>Their behavior maybe questionable if it has had any negative impact on the awareness of the problem. But that is another matter and not something one should omit if the problem, initially, turned out the be clearly serious. AFAIK, that was not the case.
This continues the trend of most* "conspiracy theories" proving to be true 6-12 months after they are dismissed by the mainstream.<p>Excepting completely ridiculous ones, but even those sound more and more plausible with every confirmation.
I find it important to note that "believed" suggests that their beliefs were based on as-of-yet insubstantial data to prove this was the case. Not that this really stopped this hypothesis from being explored in the public (even people like Trump jumped on it).<p>The way social media works today, I find it reasonable not to share all of your beliefs without gathering enough proof to either prove or disprove something.<p>I completely believe in open debate, but that's not what modern media provides: it usually goes for the most sensationalist angle it can get. And it leads to overarching reactions from the public when none is needed.
Jon Stewart's take is brilliant: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8&t=170s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8&t=170s</a><p>> "The name of the disease is printed on the lab's business cards!!"<p>But the reason the Left in the US couldn't even consider Wuhan as the source, is because the Right (well, Trump himself) wanted to say that because it was "<i>Chi</i>na's fault", that his Administration bore no responsibility for dealing with it.
People often forget what entity coined and pushed the term conspiracy theory.They only see the word in mass-media attached to individuals or groups and take it for granted.<p>Even if theories said by 'legitimate'(/actual) conspiracy groups are false, that doesn't mean we're so quick to dismiss a discussion about it.Often the discussion itself is more important about the truth discussed, and in some cases people quickly change their minds when presented facts.Same goes in reverse: you cannot call someone a conspiracy-nut when you cannot disprove his claims and more over his claims gradually become accepted by society.<p>This is why the general public has issues with such persons or such big claims: they are not capable(or willing) of thinking some people are capable of such malice, and they're willing to dismiss even a discussion because: 1.it's uncomfortable; 2.the truth is hard to reach; both unreasonable arguments to shutdown a discussion, let alone charge someone (which in US this apparently has re-surfaced).
A society becoming so intolerable of listening to such people is the first symptom of societal collapse.You can call this a conspiracy, or just check a history book. The difference is that we can somewhat verify information more quickly now, as long as people keep their innate filter on and stop consuming garbage.
What happened was the best case scenario. China has highly plausible deniability <i>and</i> was the first and possibly hardest hit victim of the whole pandemic. Further, there is virtually no way China has benefited from the pandemic in a way that would make a premeditated leak plausible. If this thing was China’s fault, it seems most likely that it was accidental.<p>Imagine if this thing had leaked out of Iran, Israel, or Russia with hardish proof. We’d potentially be looking at world war right now.
I have read this (<a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins" rel="nofollow">https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-...</a>) about the origins of Covid and one phrase that called my attention was:<p>"Dr. Richard Ebright, board of governors professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, said that from the very first reports of a novel bat-related coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, it took him “a nanosecond or a picosecond” to consider a link to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Only two other labs in the world, in Galveston, Texas, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, were doing similar research. “It’s not a dozen cities,” he said. “It’s three places.”"
PaulGraham hypothesized this way earlier in a tweet. But the important realization to me was that not all riches are the same. Not all rich people have access to the most important information. Certainly being rich in tech sector is powerful.
The people in charge of the investigation should be totally independent from these scientists.<p>That would otherwise be an obvious conflict of interest.<p>Hopefully they will be as independent as the credit rating agencies are from the financial institutions they evaluate...
So what makes it so difficult to prove that a virus is not naturally occurring? Because that would be the starting point to all this and without proof this would continue to be theory without any actually basis and point.
My only two thoughts on this:<p>Think of the consequences of finding slam-dunk evidence that a government was aware of, led to, and covered up the creation of a world-impacting virus. Either intentionally, or unintentionally.<p>Think of the consequences of suggesting so without slam-dunk data.<p>I figure that's the calculus that went through leaders minds. I just didn't like it when early on, people suggested reasonable if improbable (given the lack of high quality data) hypotheses, and major journals published opinions/letters saying "if you think this, you are a conspiracy theorist". talk about framing a debate!
The connectedness of the earth's inhabitants including microscopic beings is in full effect and spotlighted by Covid. Regardless of where the Covid strain originated, we can't deny how closely linked every being on earth is. I ruminate on this known and cliche fact, but I struggle to pin point why. I know we are all connected and its obvious we share one planet. I know we all share distant relatives and descended from simpler earth-life eons ago. But living through the connectedness of Covid is both frightening and enlightening.
Is there a way, outside full transparency from China in some "perestroika" type situation which seems highly unlikely, we will ever really know for sure?
These article is full of “this one scientist did something” and extrapolate it to “all western scientists are bad and holding out information” without considering those same scientists didn't think it was plausible. You can't take one scientist's belief and extrapolate to all scientists. The person who wrote this article is just trying to do this for shock value.
The New Yorker article gives a much more detailed look at the evidence for both natural origins and lab leak.<p>“ The Mysterious Case of the COVID-19 Lab-Leak Theory”<p><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/the-mysterious-case-of-the-covid-19-lab-leak-theory" rel="nofollow">https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/the-mysterious-ca...</a>
The science community played ball because government pays their checks. The problem they were trying to avoid is unemployment. You can't hold it against them for protecting their fundamental interests. They were acting so as to protect science only to the extent that people would no longer be able to receive funding for being honest with the public.
Related interesting info, well worth a read:<p><a href="https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/" rel="nofollow">https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...</a>
Dear HNers, please consult the post history of OPs account. It is a newish account which has been used daily to post controversial ideological and political flame baits, mostly related to COVID conspiracies, pandemic denialism and low-key misinformation.
The scientist in question believes there is a 50% chance of it being a lab leak, according to the article text (down a bit from their initial estimate). The scientists didn't believe focusing on a debate over this possibility was worthwhile, knowing many would focus on this possibility instead of discussing actual action. Just as predicted, Trump, Fox, and the UK equivalent, the Telegraph, duly focus on the possibility of a lab leak and consistently argue against action. They say over and over again it will soon be over, it won't really do much harm, etc. Trump, Fox and the Telegraph are consistently proved wrong over and over again. Hacker news libertarian crypto idiots lap it up, and literally use the word "sheeple" to discuss everyone who's not part of their bizarre cult.
It’s interesting to think about this from a Bayesian perspective. What is the posterior probability we expect the virus to have originated from a Wuhan lab, given the outbreak happened in Wuhan?
You can't disprove the existence of unicorns. But that doesn't mean they exist or we should discuss the matter or make decisions based on them being real.
Trust the science and experts, huh? What a joke.<p>A genocidal totalitarian regime that harvests organs from non-violent political prisoners may be responsible for the worst accident in human history and the people we count on for the unbiased truth are covering it up.<p>I wonder what they'd do for more funding.<p>Being called anti-science is starting to look like a compliment.<p>And their's more:<p>>Chan said there had been trepidation among some scientists about publicly discussing the lab leak hypothesis for fear that their words could be misconstrued or used to support racist rhetoric about how the coronavirus emerged.<p><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/lab-leak-theory-science-scientists-rcna1191" rel="nofollow">https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/lab-leak-theory...</a>
So, did it leak from a Chinese lab? If so, why isn't China being held economically and ethically liable? Why do they continue stonewalling any investigation and suffer zero consequences?
The headline should be: "Everyone asking if this could have been created in a lab was ignored or ridiculed in 2020 by the same scientists who now look like complete buffoons"
> “further debate would do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular”.<p>You know what else causes unnecessary harm to science, public trust and health policy? Repeated and condescending lies and gas-lighting from those in charge.
Probably when Trump started to brag about it, saying that "he knew" it came from China, he was leaking some CIA information that he couldn't talk about it. Unfortunately it transformed the issue in a political issue and therefore people couldn't talk freely about it without the risk to be canceled.
So for anyone reading this and seeing other comments about gain of function. The first thing you should realize is that the people here commenting about gain of function have no idea what they are talking about. They are completely clueless about micro biology and have never read any of the published papers that were labeled gain of function. For someone naive you would get the impression from the news that the research was a slam dunk obvious case of gain of function. But if you know some biology and actually looked at the papers then you know this really fuzzy and ambiguous and really does depend on how you define "gain of function".
I’m curious if anyone has investigated the recent leaks from Project Veritas (<a href="https://www.projectveritas.com/news/military-documents-about-gain-of-function-contradict-fauci-testimony-under/" rel="nofollow">https://www.projectveritas.com/news/military-documents-about...</a>). It suggests once again, that the NIH/NIAID grant to EcoHealth Alliance was in support of gain of function research at WIV involving SARS-like viruses. As a reminder, EcoHealth Alliance’s president, Peter Daszak, is a listed author on various WIV papers that explicitly describe gain of function research, and was suspiciously chosen by the WHO as the only US representative in the WHO’s visit to WIV in early 2021.<p>From this new leak of documents, DARPA’s rejection of the NIH proposal (<a href="https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxclc9/5OjsrkkXHfuHps6Lek1MO0/5e7a0d86d5d67e8d153555400d9dcd17/defuse-project-rejection-by-darpa.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxclc9/5OjsrkkXHfuHps6Lek...</a>) specifically calls out that the proposed NIH research seems to be Gain of Function but the proposal doesn’t admit it (DARPA is effectively accusing the NIH of falsely describing their research). This is exactly what Professor Ebright previously accused NIH and NIAID of, which is systematically avoiding the frameworks meant to prevent dangerous GoF research (<a href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/03/26/how-anthony-fauci-systematically-thwarted-the-pause-in-us-gain-of-function-research-an-interview-with-dr-richard-h-ebright/" rel="nofollow">https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/03/26/how-anthony-fauci-sy...</a>). And it is also what Senator Rand Paul, among others, accused Dr Fauci of in past senate hearings.