Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

minervanett.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 494 posts

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

#361

Post by murgindrag »

curiosity42 wrote: post #348
sudosysgen wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but is the theory is that one experiment, in the context of a gain analysis, was made in order to see how the virus might evolve to be much less severe? Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? I don't doubt that an accidental release is feasible, though very very unlikely, but why would an experiment make a less severe virus in the first place?

If I were to make a great bio weapon that would do the maximum damage, I will have these attributes: 1. Spread it easily; 2. Don't kill the ones who spread it most easily (the young); 3. Be lethal enough to overwhelm the system. And so I have the Covid-19. Of course it is all post-fact analysis. but it also answers your question of why would an experiment make a less sever virus in the first place - to address the bi…

And if I were to make a bioweapon, I would think about long-term impact.

(1) Millions disabled is far worse than millions dead.

(2) Attacks can come in multiple pieces. The first virus might do damage to make people especially vulnerable to the second virus. If I can protect my population against the first one /or/ the second, my people are safe.

My opinion is it's just a matter of time before we see bioweapons, and we should be ready. If not before COVID19, then now. Our vulnerability is very obvious.

We should treat this as an emergency prep drill, and make sure businesses can operate remotely, kids can learn remotely, we have PPE, and the infrastructure is in place for essential work. That also wouldn't collapse the economy.

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

#362

Post by DanBC »

matwood wrote: post #360
thinker912345 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am not qualified to evaluate the evidence in this case; I just don't have the biology background. A "background check" does not change this fact, nor does your point actually negate the comment you are responding too. No one here is arguing that you must listen and believe everything that someone has written in a paper, but things must be proven and disproven. "Background checking" in any form is not science. It…

A background check does help though. If a paper written by or on an anti-vaxx site for example, I have some idea what I’m dealing with right away. It makes me less likely to be charitable on any questionable claims. Also, swamping people with already settled arguments that they have to continue to prove or disprove is a disinformation tactic. A background check helps avoid giving those situations any air.

How do you make sure this doesn't lull you into a false sense of trust?

Here's a discussion about a paper by respected scientists working in a respected organisation. The paper is probably bad science. https://twitter.com/DiseaseEcology/status/128386841036377702...

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

#363

Post by mytailorisrich »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #345
tasogare wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah sure the racist hypothesis of Chinese people eating bats is far more likely than a virus escape from a Wuhan lab with known protocol defects that worked on coronaviruses. /s

Are you saying bats weren't sold/used as food in Wuhan? What's racist about suggesting someone eats bats? Mammalian flesh is a common food source across human cultures. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_as_food

Bats are not really eaten as food in China. Maybe eaten as part of traditional medicines or rarely in specific rural areas but that's about it.

The videos of people eating bats that surfaced following the beginning of Covid-19 were from Indonesia.

The way this misinformation has spread is indeed based on racism (Chinese are 'barbarians' who have 'barbarian' eating habits and they should change them and eat like 'normal' people).

Now, (fruit) bats eaten as food in West Africa is a major vector of the spread of Ebola.

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

#364

Post by wsc981 »

A while ago (18 June) former biology professor Bret Weinstein said the same in a Joe Rogan podcast [0], that there are several indications that seem to point out the virus is engineered.

One of the most interesting point he brings up, at least from my perspective, was the following:

- Bats are outdoor animals

- As such a corona virus that mainly targets bats should have little trouble spreading outside

- However if a virus has been studied in a lab, so perhaps the virus has mutated to spread more easily indoors and "forgot" how to spread outdoors

- Hence this could be the reason why at the moment this corona virus seems to have trouble spreading outside

- The virus originated very closely to a lab that is known to study virusus

But Bret also brings up other points.

Also, what I found very interesting about this podcast and related to the development of vaccines, is his statement on lab mice and the possibility that laboratoria currently use mice that might have been (perhaps unknowingly) conditioned to produce desirable results in tests [1].

---

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRCzZp1J0v0&t=6770s

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRCzZp1J0v0&t=9597s

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

#365

Post by matwood »

dionian wrote: post #164
lovehashbrowns wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biology, and the universe in general, aren't always intuitive. I'm also completely flabbergasted that you take 1 person's opinion, despite it being the opposite of the opinions of a general educated scientific community, and you take that one person's opinion more seriously. And apparently you are not a historian, either, because we've had viruses spread in humans in the past. I don't see how this being a naturally-m…

is there evidence that it's not?

Would you also like me to prove to you that didn’t make the human eye?

Nature in general creates amazing things on its own. Viruses are constantly mutating in animals, people are closer to these animals, and travel is ubiquitous. There’s a reason that many smart people have been warning and preparing for this to happen. No matter how unlikely, lotteries are won.

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

#366

Post by JohnStrangeII »

neilwilson wrote: post #214
maest wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Or rather, I don't think this is about doing science. In many aspects of our lives we rely on the advice of experts. Personally, as I am not a trained biologist, I am unable to reliably decide if the arguments here are right or wrong. I also believe the vast majoriy of people are in a similar position. As a result, the only options are to look at: 1. The scientific consensus. 2. The legitimacy of the peop…

Who says an expert is an expert? Catholic priests are all experts in catholicism. They write papers about Catholicism, all peer reviewed by other experts in catholicism. Most agree the Pope is infallible. Groupthink is still Groupthink and belief is still belief. Hence why we have debacles like the lipid hypothesis.

It is very easy to find out whether someone is an expert, as long as you really want to and don't just fool around. For example, an expert on viral diseases will have a long track record of publications in highly acclaimed journals for the past 30 years or longer.

For the purpose of validation or expert testimony, there is no need to consider everyone who has a PhD and got tenure an expert. It is reasonable to set the bar very high.

The expert on catholicism example is a needless distraction. Of course, there are such experts on catholicism, and they can tell you best what catholic doctrine says. Their opinions about virology are obviously irrelevant, though.

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

#367

Post by Aeolun »

sudosysgen wrote: post #269
holler wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A virus being engineered to be an order of magnitude less virulent seems unlikely to say the least. From what I gathered it’s not suggesting specific genetic traits were engineered, but rather that they were experimenting and one of those experiments could have accidentally been released(?).

Yes, but is the theory is that one experiment, in the context of a gain analysis, was made in order to see how the virus might evolve to be much less severe? Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? I don't doubt that an accidental release is feasible, though very very unlikely, but why would an experiment make a less severe virus in the first place?

Just looking at it from an effect perspective, it’s clear that the much more virulent variant was much easier to keep under control.

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

#368

Post by SomeoneFromCA »

sudosysgen wrote: post #288
poof131 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this actually the case? This paper [1] seems to indicate that there are multiple types of gain-of-function research, not just an increase in virulence. In fact, the paper specifically discusses “transmissibility”, which would seem to support the argument of the paper under discussion: “In short, SARS-CoV-2 is possessed of dual action capability. In this paper we argue that the likelihood of this being the result o…

Sure. The issue is that there would have to be gain-of-function research to reduce virulence and (maybe, it's not entirely clear) to increase transmissivity. There is no evidence for that AFAIK, and I don't understand why a lab would do a gain of function experiment and reduce function instead.

Reduce virulence compared to what? SARS-1? But they are not talking about SARS-1, they actually were talking about some other random bat viruses, which have zero virulence in humans.

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

#369

Post by fastasucan »

maest wrote: post #11

This is a really big claim, so some background checking: The paper was published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics[0] (this accepted version is materially different from the original link posted here). Only thing I could find about Birger Sorensen's was his Linkedin page [1a] and the Immunor page where he's listed as the Chairman [1b]. Angus Dagleish looks legit, although it's notable that he did stand for Parlia…

Might find more if you search for Birger Sørensen. He is kind of legit from previous work however he is viewed as a fringe character in Norway with this, and "no-one" supports this.

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

#370

Post by SomeoneFromCA »

sudosysgen wrote: post #245
mleonhard wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the article, the authors say that, in 2015, US researchers created a chimeric virus from a bat coronavirus to infect mice lung cells. They tested the virus on human lung cells and predicted that it would be very dangerous to humans. They stopped doing research on it because it would break the US rules against making human viruses more powerful. They were working with virus researchers from Wuhan. The authors conje…

The issue is that SARS-CoV-2 is much, much less powerful. So that doesn't really follow.

Compared to what? Not much is known how powerful that chimeric virus was compared to CoV-2. Could please elaborate where did you get that notion from&
Post reply on HN