Live data from Hacker News

The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

minervanett.no

61–70 of 494 posts

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#61
post #7

Lets throw them a bone and say they're right, what do we do next? What actions do or can we take? Secure the labs? Shouldn't that be done regardless?

If you trust a former director of the US CDC,

"

When the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week unveiled a report documenting multiple safety breaches at its labs, its director for the first time suggested the country turn back the rapid-fire proliferation of such research units, which have tripled in little more than a decade to at least 1,500.

    “One of the things that we want to do is reduce the number of laboratories that work with dangerous agents to the absolute minimum necessary,” said CDC Director Dr Thomas Frieden. “Reduce the number of people who have access to those laboratories to the absolute minimum necessary. Reduce the number of dangerous pathogens we work with.”
" from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-anthrax-labs-analysis...

Or we could go further and impose a complete moratorium on gain of function research until such time as better technological and operational advances can be made to prevent potential leaks. These pathogens could be viewed with as much risk as nuclear proliferation is. But they are not.

We may or may not be seeing consequences today, I am not here to speculate.

What we know is that there were ongoing gain of function experiments with bat coronaviruses in Wuhan and elsewhere. What we also know is that there were leaks of SARS-1 from research labs in Beijing studying it. What we do not know is if Covid-19 was leaked from a lab.

When we convict someone of a crime we use innocent until proven guilty to make our decision. Absent evidence we therefore presume humans to be innocent of creating this virus. But that does not mean we shouldn't act under the presumption that this virus could possibly have been or future viruses may be leaked and rethink our positions on research safety.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#63

When Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier suggested that COVID-19 could be man-made, I started taking this view more seriously. Now seeing additional papers coming out supporting this, the case is getting stronger. I'm not a biologist but I do find it strange that COVID-19 is so infectious in humans. How can a virus which supposedly 'naturally evolved' in a totally unrelated animal species (bats) be so well adapted to sprea…

Nobel laureate James Watson insists black people are genetically stupider than white people and Watson made arguably the most significant scientific discovery of the 20th century along with Crick.

Even Nobel laureates are humans prone to mistakes.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a two way problem. The current state of public discourse on science in the U.S. is very skewed from scientific consensus. For example a YouGov poll found that 49% of Americans think that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab. This kind of skew between public perception and scientific consensus can create a siege mentality, because it's easy to find someone who has been convinced by some media subculture…

What are the “reams of evidence” that the virus did not come from a lab?

True, that was a poor argument on my part. I should say, lack of evidence that it did. Which weakens my argument, so thanks for pointing it out.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#65
post #5
post #2

That evidence looks weak IMO, but it's frustrating that the current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right."

It's because normal people are not equipped to deal with the cherrypicking and manipulative narrative that these kinds of "evidence" papers show. Take the 5G conspiracy for example, 100+ cell phone towers attacked, and workers setting up attacked as well. Lots of testable assertions made, none backed up with any kind of evidence.

[deleted]

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#66
post #2

That evidence looks weak IMO, but it's frustrating that the current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right."

> it's frustrating that the current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right."

That current culture of science has gradually driven me toward skepticism. Unless I see converging evidence from various independent sources, a claim is just a big "maybe". How many of the claims have been peer reviewed, or replicated (when everyone is busy publishing their own papers, or competing to make the news, or signing book deals)? How much of what is repeated by those with a platform just a gambit, riding on the reputation of those claiming it first? How much is just unchecked assumptions (e.g. that others will have certainly verified the claims)? As you start looking closer, the level of imposture and bullshit is just too high. Scientists are as human as anyone, with everything it implies.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#67
post #31

This seems to me to be a dangerous paper. It's effectively an opinion piece, pre-published, requiring a high degree of domain expertise to even read, with a clear conclusion in the title that you can see being used to deflect attention from the massive job the world has at hand (not that we shouldn't ask hard questions) Why am I qualified to comment? Well, I’m a medical doctor (which frankly means jack shit for the a…

I'd say that the "Proximal Origins" paper makes a very weak case especially given what we now know. The essential argument is that it's more likely that the RBD came from a lineage that includes the Pangolin-CoV than that it was designed by a human. That does seem reasonable. They suggest that the virus was the result of a recombination event. However, that recombination could have occurred artificially at the WIV. The WIV and Shi Zhengli specifically have recently published papers about performing precisely this type of work on SARS like coronaviruses.

Now the closest known viruses to SARS-CoV-2 are RaTG13 and Pangolin-CoV. Pangolin-CoV is a very close match in the spike protein, and RaTG13 is a very close match on the rest of the virus. RaTG13 and Pangolin-CoV were both discovered by WIV but their sequences sat unpublished until after the pandemic started. The grafting of the spike protein onto a "backbone" of another SARS like coronavirus is specifically something Shi Zhengli has been involved with and published with Ralph Baric in 2015.

Furthermore, the spike of SARS-CoV-2 is better adapted to humans than to any other species, and it's better adapted to humans than any other published coronavirus. This doesn't make sense unless the virus spent some time evolving in humans or in human cells. Interestingly, passaging SARS like coronaviruses in human airway cell cultures is also something that has been done in recent years. Ralph Baric's lab specifically has published work on this. The only real other possibility is that SARS-CoV-2 somehow spent many months circulating in human populations undetected while it adapted to human ACE2. There has been no evidence published that this occurred.

Finally, it is quite a coincidence that the lab where both Pangolin-CoV and RaTG13 were discovered is in the same city as where the outbreak started. Yes, both of those viruses were discovered in China, but Pangolin-CoV was discovered about 1000km from Wuhan, and RaTG13 was discovered about 1500km from Wuhan.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a two way problem. The current state of public discourse on science in the U.S. is very skewed from scientific consensus. For example a YouGov poll found that 49% of Americans think that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab. This kind of skew between public perception and scientific consensus can create a siege mentality, because it's easy to find someone who has been convinced by some media subculture…

What are the “reams of evidence” that the virus did not come from a lab?

[deleted]

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#69
post #2

That evidence looks weak IMO, but it's frustrating that the current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right."

How many times has a single scientist been chastised by the broader scientific community at first and then their original idea finally accepted as the truth? Sometimes ideas initially can seem crazy because they're unfamiliar I guess. I suppose in this case, I oppose this idea because it sounds kind of scary.

How many times has a single scientist been chastised by the broader scientific community at first and then their original idea finally rejected as false?

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#70
post #59
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Einstein's special relativity had lots of evidence backing it up in that existing (Galilean) relativity was completely at odds with electromagnetism. The speed of light is constant, Newton was wrong. In this situation there is no smoking gun to prove it was made in a lab.

The paper is presenting a handful of smoking guns all at once.

If you’re an expert in this field and can elaborate, I would love to read more. I’ve read the paper, but as a layman it’s difficult to discern why something is a “smoking gun” vs nature at work.
Post reply on HN