SARS-COV-2 comes from nature, not a lab

[FireDragon76]

Here's an article from Science News about genetic evidence that the SARS-Cov-2 virus comes from nature, and not engineered in a lab:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not-human-made-lab-genetic-analysis-nature

It's a year old but it seems to me this issue should have been put to rest a long time ago. If SARS were made in a lab, it would have genetic sequences taken from other viruses.

An article from Foreign Policy discusses how the Lab-Leak hypothesis is driven more by politics and human psychology rather than actual evidence:

The Lab Leak Theory Doesn’t Hold Up

 

[whatbogsends]

Here's an article from Science News about genetic evidence that the SARS-Cov-2 virus comes from nature, and not engineered in a lab:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not-human-made-lab-genetic-analysis-nature

It's a year old but it seems to me this issue should have been put to rest a long time ago. If SARS were made in a lab, it would have genetic sequences taken from other viruses.

An article from Foreign Policy discusses how the Lab-Leak hypothesis is driven more by politics and human psychology rather than actual evidence:

The Lab Leak Theory Doesn’t Hold Up

It's absolutely dated.

The lab-leak hypothesis was not driven by politics, it was labeled "conspiracy theory" due to politics and was taken off the table.

It would have been put to rest a long time ago if there were actually any evidence that it came from an animal. Both theories are mostly conjecture, because the evidence that would tell us is lacking. Moreover, data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been intentionally obscured, so it's not like we even have access to the full breadth of data.

“If anyone is going to come out strongly on one hypothesis or another, the scientific method says that there should be evidence to back it. I worry when some people are very willing to be firm about one origin or the other but fail to either have the evidence or the expertise to back it up,” McNutt said.
...
There is more noise than signal here. The lab-leak hypotheses lack direct evidence. Chinese scientists deny they had SARS-CoV-2 or its immediate ancestor in-house. The leak conjectures are fashioned around unknowns, missing information, inconsistent statements by scientists and a lack of transparency among Chinese officials. Suspicion and speculation fill holes in the narrative.

But scientists who support a natural origin have yawning gaps in their own story. They have not identified the intermediate animal host carrying SARS-CoV-2.
...
But the Wuhan Institute of Virology remains something of a black box. Critics say the WHO investigators who delivered a report on the virus origin did only a cursory investigation of the institute. They also note that the WHO investigators included Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, an organization that directed a grant from Fauci’s institute to the Wuhan lab. Daszak also signed the 2020 Lancet letter denouncing conspiracy theories about a lab origin.

Even the director general of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, distanced himself from the WHO report’s dismissal of the lab theory and called for a more thorough investigation.

That was followed by calls from scientists to probe more deeply into lab-leak scenarios. The letter to the journal Science, in particular, helped put the imprimatur of mainstream science on an idea previously marginalized as a conspiracy theory.
...
Stanford University microbiologist David A. Relman, one of the organizers of the letter to Science, said the political climate last year made many scientists hesitant to express openness to the lab-leak idea. They did not want to align themselves with a theory closely associated with Trump and his allies, who referred to the coronavirus as “the China virus.”
...
“On both sides, there’s really a lack of information. That’s why we have such extensive discussions and, in some cases, vituperative discussions,” Perlman said. “There’s really no data. It’s really just opinions.”

Scientists battle over the ultimate origin story: Where did the coronavirus come from? - The Washington Post

 

[Oompa Loompa]

It's a year old but it seems to me this issue should have been put to rest a long time ago.

This is the biggest problem with this thread. Do you not understand how much has happened in the last year? News networks like CNN and MSNBC can't even deny the evidence anymore.

 

[Arcangl86]

This is the biggest problem with this thread. Do you not understand how much has happened in the last year? News networks like CNN and MSNBC can't even deny the evidence anymore.

Such as?

 

[durangodawood]

.....They did not want to align themselves with a theory closely associated with Trump and his allies, who referred to the coronavirus as “the China virus.”.....

Just one aspect of Trumps abysmal handling of the entire situation. Of course its possible that the virus originated in a Chinese lab. But did he have to express it in the most irresponsible way possible?

The atmosphere Trump set up made scientists worry they'd contribute to a climate of anti Asian hate & violence. It didnt have to be that way.

 

[whatbogsends]

Just one aspect of Trumps abysmal handling of the entire situation. Of course its possible that the virus originated in a Chinese lab. But did he have to express it in the most irresponsible way possible?

The atmosphere Trump set up made scientists worry they'd contribute to a climate of anti Asian hate & violence. It didnt have to be that way.

And the presentation of news and information doesn't have to be a knee jerk opposite reaction to anything that Trump says.

Trump's language was absolutely irresponsible.

However, it doesn't change the fact that independently, there was a dishonest "scientific" letter published in the Lancet in March 2020 that made false claims dismissing lab leak and stifled actual discussion just as much as Trump's language.

That Lancet letter is cited by scientists as creating the atmosphere stifling discussion possibly even more than Trump's recklessness.

GROSS: So in February of last year, The Lancet, which is a very respected British medical journal, published a statement signed by 27 scientists rejecting the lab-leak theory. What was this statement, and what was its impact?

EBAN: So the statement was essentially saying the people who are raising the question of a lab leak are trafficking in conspiracy theories. And it said, we support, you know, our Chinese colleagues, these researchers and scientists who have been candid and transparent. And then these scientists said, you know, we have no competing interests, no conflict of interest here. That was a very powerful statement in the scientific world. To basically put scientists on notice, you bring up the lab-leak theory, and you are doing the work of conspiracy theorists. It really had a chilling effect.

You know, the question that I became interested in - what was its impact on credible people who saw reason to doubt? You know, they had questions that they wanted to ask and felt that they couldn't. So as one of the characters I write about, Gilles Demaneuf, said, it was like it was nailed on the church door. It became the orthodoxy of how to discuss COVID origins.

GROSS: But you found that there was a possible conflict of interest in the originator of this letter. Tell us about that.

EBAN: It's rather complicated. But as it turns out, the person who organized that letter, named Peter Daszak, who is president of an organization called EcoHealth Alliance, had taken government grant money and given it in sub-grants, parts of it, to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and had collaborated quite closely with Shi Zhengli.

GROSS: Who's the head of the lab that was doing the virus research.

EBAN: That's right, the lead coronavirus researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A number of the signatories on that letter were either on EcoHealth Alliance payroll or had gotten funding from EcoHealth Alliance. But really what sort of framed this as an issue was that a Freedom of Information group got emails from Peter Daszak which basically said, we're going to try to put out this statement without linking back to us so it looks like, you know, there's a kind of unanimity and our fingerprints won't be on it, which will give it sort of more authority and power.

So the problem is there was not disclosure of his role. There was not disclosure of his conflicts. And there was a claim that there were no conflicts at all. So in retrospect, that statement, which had such a chilling effect on the scientific community, looks orchestrated and much more questionable than it did at that time.

Did COVID-19 Leak From A Lab? A Reporter Investigates — And Finds Roadblocks : NPR

 

[FireDragon76]

And the presentation of news and information doesn't have to be a knee jerk opposite reaction to anything that Trump says.

Trump's language was absolutely irresponsible.

However, it doesn't change the fact that independently, there was a dishonest "scientific" letter published in the Lancet in March 2020 that made false claims dismissing lab leak and stifled actual discussion just as much as Trump's language.

That Lancet letter is cited by scientists as creating the atmosphere stifling discussion possibly even more than Trump's recklessness.

GROSS: So in February of last year, The Lancet, which is a very respected British medical journal, published a statement signed by 27 scientists rejecting the lab-leak theory. What was this statement, and what was its impact?

EBAN: So the statement was essentially saying the people who are raising the question of a lab leak are trafficking in conspiracy theories. And it said, we support, you know, our Chinese colleagues, these researchers and scientists who have been candid and transparent. And then these scientists said, you know, we have no competing interests, no conflict of interest here. That was a very powerful statement in the scientific world. To basically put scientists on notice, you bring up the lab-leak theory, and you are doing the work of conspiracy theorists. It really had a chilling effect.

You know, the question that I became interested in - what was its impact on credible people who saw reason to doubt? You know, they had questions that they wanted to ask and felt that they couldn't. So as one of the characters I write about, Gilles Demaneuf, said, it was like it was nailed on the church door. It became the orthodoxy of how to discuss COVID origins.

GROSS: But you found that there was a possible conflict of interest in the originator of this letter. Tell us about that.

EBAN: It's rather complicated. But as it turns out, the person who organized that letter, named Peter Daszak, who is president of an organization called EcoHealth Alliance, had taken government grant money and given it in sub-grants, parts of it, to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and had collaborated quite closely with Shi Zhengli.

GROSS: Who's the head of the lab that was doing the virus research.

EBAN: That's right, the lead coronavirus researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A number of the signatories on that letter were either on EcoHealth Alliance payroll or had gotten funding from EcoHealth Alliance. But really what sort of framed this as an issue was that a Freedom of Information group got emails from Peter Daszak which basically said, we're going to try to put out this statement without linking back to us so it looks like, you know, there's a kind of unanimity and our fingerprints won't be on it, which will give it sort of more authority and power.

So the problem is there was not disclosure of his role. There was not disclosure of his conflicts. And there was a claim that there were no conflicts at all. So in retrospect, that statement, which had such a chilling effect on the scientific community, looks orchestrated and much more questionable than it did at that time.

Did COVID-19 Leak From A Lab? A Reporter Investigates — And Finds Roadblocks : NPR

None of that demonstrates how SARS-Cov-2 came from a lab.

 

[durangodawood]

And the presentation of news and information doesn't have to be a knee jerk opposite reaction to anything that Trump says.

Trump's language was absolutely irresponsible.

However, it doesn't change the fact that independently, there was a dishonest "scientific" letter published in the Lancet in March 2020 that made false claims dismissing lab leak and stifled actual discussion just as much as Trump's language.

That Lancet letter is cited by scientists as creating the atmosphere stifling discussion possibly even more than Trump's recklessness.

GROSS: So in February of last year, The Lancet, which is a very respected British medical journal, published a statement signed by 27 scientists rejecting the lab-leak theory. What was this statement, and what was its impact?

EBAN: So the statement was essentially saying the people who are raising the question of a lab leak are trafficking in conspiracy theories. And it said, we support, you know, our Chinese colleagues, these researchers and scientists who have been candid and transparent. And then these scientists said, you know, we have no competing interests, no conflict of interest here. That was a very powerful statement in the scientific world. To basically put scientists on notice, you bring up the lab-leak theory, and you are doing the work of conspiracy theorists. It really had a chilling effect.

You know, the question that I became interested in - what was its impact on credible people who saw reason to doubt? You know, they had questions that they wanted to ask and felt that they couldn't. So as one of the characters I write about, Gilles Demaneuf, said, it was like it was nailed on the church door. It became the orthodoxy of how to discuss COVID origins.

GROSS: But you found that there was a possible conflict of interest in the originator of this letter. Tell us about that.

EBAN: It's rather complicated. But as it turns out, the person who organized that letter, named Peter Daszak, who is president of an organization called EcoHealth Alliance, had taken government grant money and given it in sub-grants, parts of it, to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and had collaborated quite closely with Shi Zhengli.

GROSS: Who's the head of the lab that was doing the virus research.

EBAN: That's right, the lead coronavirus researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A number of the signatories on that letter were either on EcoHealth Alliance payroll or had gotten funding from EcoHealth Alliance. But really what sort of framed this as an issue was that a Freedom of Information group got emails from Peter Daszak which basically said, we're going to try to put out this statement without linking back to us so it looks like, you know, there's a kind of unanimity and our fingerprints won't be on it, which will give it sort of more authority and power.

So the problem is there was not disclosure of his role. There was not disclosure of his conflicts. And there was a claim that there were no conflicts at all. So in retrospect, that statement, which had such a chilling effect on the scientific community, looks orchestrated and much more questionable than it did at that time.

Did COVID-19 Leak From A Lab? A Reporter Investigates — And Finds Roadblocks : NPR

Yes I listened to that interview and it was quite compelling. I do agree that the knee jerk dismissal of the lab leak theory was totally unjustified.

 

[whatbogsends]

None of that demonstrates how SARS-Cov-2 came from a lab.

Firstly, that particular post you quoted doesn't even address that topic specifically, it was talking about what was behind the stifling of debate, which Durangowood attributed to Trump in his previous post. He is correct, that Trump's reckless bluster negatively impacted discussion, but my rebuttal was talking about other factors that stifled debate, possibly even more than Trump.

Moreover, my actual response to the OP wasn't "demonstrating that it came from a lab", it was demonstrating that the bulk of your OP was demonstrably false, specifically, that we don't know if it came from a lab or natural origin, and those pretending to know, such as yourself, are pushing opinion as fact.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Such as?

Duno...perhaps all the evidence that has come out and the fact that it is now no longer politically convenient to ignore the evidence (now that Trump is out of office). Even John Stewart made a hilarious rant about it coming from the lab. I think the vast majority of people suspected the lab but were afraid to say anything out of fear of being affiliated with Trump or increasing his chances of being reelected.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Just one aspect of Trumps abysmal handling of the entire situation. Of course its possible that the virus originated in a Chinese lab. But did he have to express it in the most irresponsible way possible?

The atmosphere Trump set up made scientists worry they'd contribute to a climate of anti Asian hate & violence. It didnt have to be that way.

Of course now you say it is possible. A year ago you'd get banned from social media for even bringing it up.

 

[Whyayeman]

But scientists who support a natural origin have yawning gaps in their own story. They have not identified the intermediate animal host carrying SARS-CoV-2.

No need. Pangolins are routinely handled by Chinese; they eat them and use parts for medicine.

Live pangolins are on sale in markets across China.

 

[durangodawood]

Of course now you say it is possible. A year ago you'd get banned from social media for even bringing it up.

Do you know that rejected lab leak theory a year ago?

I dont even know that for sure without digging up my posting history. If you do the work, please let me know the outcome!

 

[whatbogsends]

Yes I listened to that interview and it was quite compelling. I do agree that the knee jerk dismissal of the lab leak theory was totally unjustified.

I've looked at this subject extensively, and my primary takeaways is that there's no compelling evidence either proving or disproving either theory, although my personal assessment is that there seems to be more evidence for lab leak (that's an opinion, not a fact).

Reasons to believe natural origin:
- Precedence (other pandemics started from natural origin)

Reasons to believe lab leak:
- sick scientists hospitalized in Nov 2019 with Covid-like symptoms.
- lack of transparency by China/Wuhan Institute of Virology - their virus database was intentionally take offline after the pandemic occurred and prior to any investigation
- infectiousness of COVID. Other pandemics stemming from natural spillover had much lower rates of transmission
- closest match to date is a bat which resides over 900 miles away from Wuhan that had previously been studied at the WIV.

Again, nothing conclusive, but it's why i believe lab leak is more likely.

Feel free to add to this list or challenge any of my items.

 

[durangodawood]

....Feel free to add to this list or challenge any of my items.

-precedent of previous USA lab leaks from high security facilities.

 

[FireDragon76]

No need. Pangolins are routinely handled by Chinese; they eat them and use parts for medicine.

Live pangolins are on sale in markets across China.

And pangolins have been found to have coronaviruses very similar to SARS-Cov-2.

 

[FireDragon76]

Firstly, that particular post you quoted doesn't even address that topic specifically, it was talking about what was behind the stifling of debate, which Durangowood attributed to Trump in his previous post. He is correct, that Trump's reckless bluster negatively impacted discussion, but my rebuttal was talking about other factors that stifled debate, possibly even more than Trump.

Moreover, my actual response to the OP wasn't "demonstrating that it came from a lab", it was demonstrating that the bulk of your OP was demonstrably false, specifically, that we don't know if it came from a lab or natural origin, and those pretending to know, such as yourself, are pushing opinion as fact.

The principle of parsimony suggests a natural origin. The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claim, that it was made in a lab. We've had plenty of SARS-like outbreaks that are directly traceable to animal contact in various forms (like MERS).

 

[Arcangl86]

And there is a difference between thinking it might have leaked from a lab and that it was modified in a lab. The evidence suggest that the first is possible, but not the second.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's absolutely dated.

The lab-leak hypothesis was not driven by politics, it was labeled "conspiracy theory" due to politics and was taken off the table.

Sure it was. The resurgence of the lab leak hypothesis is a result of information gathered after it was originally popularized in right-wing media. IOW, the people pushing it at the beginning didn't know that it was true; they were guessing. But pushing that theory allowed them to deflect blame from Trump's inept handling and point the finger at their favorite boogeyman, China.

Now, it may be the case that the "conspiracy theory" label was also driven, at least to some degree, by politics (and/or self-serving material interests). If it turns out that the lab leak hypothesis is correct, then it would be more accurate to describe its initial proponents as akin to "stopped clocks" that are right twice a day rather than honest brokers of truth.

 

[FireDragon76]

I've looked at this subject extensively, and my primary takeaways is that there's no compelling evidence either proving or disproving either theory, although my personal assessment is that there seems to be more evidence for lab leak (that's an opinion, not a fact).

You inspired me to look into the matter further, and I think this is reasonable, although I myself lean towards a natural origin, I don't think a lab leak can be completely dismissed. The issue is the lack of evidence.

Getting China to cooperate with an independent investigation will be difficult at this point, due to China's increasing defensiveness. And that's probably the only way we could get real answers on the issue.