COVID The Evolution of the SARS-COV-2 virus

[Phil Core]

The investigation of the origins of the SARS – CoV-2 virus is one of the most tainted investigation in all of science. It is just coming out now how a part of the scientific community was coerced into endorsing or remaining silent on any alternative except that the virus had a Natural origin.

I question the acumen of anyone who puts any veracity in what the WIV or the WHO states about the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The latest WHO dog and pony excursion to the WIV was beyond the pale. Anyone associated with the 315 page report the organization put out should be ashamed. The investigating group was chaperoned and spoon fed the entire time.

I did find – A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence - https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985 to be very informative.

It contained not only evidence of suppression of investigation but also insight into gain of function procedures.

Things that should be noted.

1. The article was first published on 09 Nov 2015

2. Where the research was conducted and how it was funded – University of North Carolina //USAID-EPT-PREDICT funding from EcoHealth Alliance

3. It contains this suppressive statement

30 March 2020 Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel Coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.

“No evidence” and “scientists” (in the large) are strong statements.

Of great interest is the date of the publication of this paper – 09 Nov 2015. This shows that advanced research into CoV viruses had been going on for quite some time.

Current Origin research avoids giving time lines for occurrences. It is as if in late 2019/early 2020 something happened between bats and pangolins and we got the COVID-19 virus.

An emerging lab evolution of the COVID-19 virus is to start with research as indicated above. The next step is to enhance the positive charge of the surface of the spike protein that interfaces with the ACE2 receptors.

Note - In the search for an animal origin for the COVID-19 you want to focus on mammals that have ACE2 structures very similar to humans.

 

[pinball1970]

The investigation of the origins of the SARS – CoV-2 virus is one of the most tainted investigation in all of science. It is just coming out now how a part of the scientific community was coerced into endorsing or remaining silent on any alternative except that the virus had a Natural origin.

I question the acumen of anyone who puts any veracity in what the WIV or the WHO states about the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The latest WHO dog and pony excursion to the WIV was beyond the pale. Anyone associated with the 315 page report the organization put out should be ashamed. The investigating group was chaperoned and spoon fed the entire time.

I did find – A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence - https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985 to be very informative.

It contained not only evidence of suppression of investigation but also insight into gain of function procedures.

Things that should be noted.

1. The article was first published on 09 Nov 2015

2. Where the research was conducted and how it was funded – University of North Carolina //USAID-EPT-PREDICT funding from EcoHealth Alliance

3. It contains this suppressive statement

30 March 2020 Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel Coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.

“No evidence” and “scientists” (in the large) are strong statements.

Of great interest is the date of the publication of this paper – 09 Nov 2015. This shows that advanced research into CoV viruses had been going on for quite some time.

Current Origin research avoids giving time lines for occurrences. It is as if in late 2019/early 2020 something happened between bats and pangolins and we got the COVID-19 virus.

An emerging lab evolution of the COVID-19 virus is to start with research as indicated above. The next step is to enhance the positive charge of the surface of the spike protein that interfaces with the ACE2 receptors.

Note - In the search for an animal origin for the COVID-19 you want to focus on mammals that have ACE2 structures very similar to humans.

As an outsider looking in (non scientist) reading the thread can I ask what you think if the investigation had not yet taken place?
Occam razor approach?
Deliberate manufacturer and release?
Study and accidental release?
Natural occurred?

Given what is known about SARS 2002 and what is happening with COVID19 now. Ie the evolutionary pathway, speed of change and effects of those changes?
Alpha to Delta 60% increase in transmission rate for instance?

 

[Phil Core]

Thanks for your response.

I want to apologize. My postings have been rather scattered and hard to follow. Know this, just because you can’t follow something doesn’t mean it is you. More times than not it is the material that has not been constructed correctly.

My last post was all over the place.

The first part of the post relates to problems with information being released by WIH and WHO. The skinny – Very fishy. An interesting article - The Lab-Leak Theory: … - https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins

Few are still unaware of how pervasive the influence of the Chinese government is in scientific research. (I cast no aspersions on the Chinese people, it is the Chinese government.)

While the above is interesting it is not the real meat of the discuss.

You have hit on one of the main areas that needs to be investigated – time of evolution.

Nature – relatively long time to get from current samples to SARS-COV-2
Influenced in a lab – relatively shorter time.

For the Nature origin this is the argument.

Parts of the structures of the SARS-COV-2 virus appear in Nature. Therefore since similar structures appear in Nature the origin must be Nature. Further, these parts appear in different organisms, so somehow they had to combine. This somehow and the time it would take for this to happen are part of the reason that the Nature argument is not as strong.

It would take a very long time to go from what we have now in bats and pangolins to arrive at the SARS-COV-2 genome, via the process of random mutation and natural selection. I do not know how to calculate this but a minimum is 30 years. Over this period of time there should be more evidence of the evolution of the virus via random mutation and random mutation.

To account for this a “missing link” is stipulated. How it came about is unknown. When talking about this “missing link” it always seem that the sequence of events would be bat – pangolian – missing link – human. The implication is that the transformation was linear and rather rapid.

I suspect if this actually happened that there would be many alterations of these mutations, not just one, over an extended period of time. As of yet we have made no progress in discovering other organisms since the bat and Pangolin, none. Or other bats or Pangolins with more advanced genomes.

The next statement to counter this is that there a very large number of mammals that could be the missing link and that it is almost impossible to acquire and test all.

I have been able to narrow down the search somewhat to mammal, that comes in contact with humans, and the most important criterion is that this mammals ACE2 receptors has to be very similar to humans. This last constraint considerably reduces the need of testing mammals for every covirus they contain. You just have to test their ACE2 receptors.

The ACE2 constraint manifests due to the increased ability of the SARS - CoV- 2 spiked protein to bind to the ACE2 receptor due to the spiked proteins increased positive surface charge where it binds with the negatively charged surface of the human ACE2 receptor.I will leave the rest for another post.

However, once again you are to be commended for focusing on the time needed for change.

Nature – relatively long time Influenced in a lab – relatively shorter time.

 

[BillTre]

It would take a very long time to go from what we have now in bats and pangolins to arrive at the SARS-COV-2 genome, via the process of random mutation and natural selection. I do not know how to calculate this but a minimum is 30 years. Over this period of time there should be more evidence of the evolution of the virus via

What is all this based on?
You have no references for these kind of assertions as far as I can tell, but you make a lot of assertions.

Where specifically did this: "a minimum is 30 years" come from?
Also, if that in fact is the case, why could this process not have started 30 years ago? There is a lot of time and no obvious starting point.

You really sound like you have an idea you want to find support for, but don't know a lot about what you are talking about.

 

[Phil Core]

30 years is just a guesstimation.

Natural evolution via random mutation and natural selection will take much longer then a Nurtured evolution in a lab.

There are 2 points.

1. The Nature evolution of the SARS - CoV - 2 virus mentioned everywhere avoids addressing how long the process of change would take via random mutation and natural selection. They make it seem like it is rather rapid.

If you want to start with the bat or pangolin genome and via random mutation and natural selection yield the human SARS-Cov-2 virus and have it happen in a few years, I am certainly willing to entertain your idea.

2. If the process has been going on for a long time we should be able to find more virus sample that show the progression via random mutation and natural selection. To date we have been able to find none.

 

[atyy]

1. The Nature evolution of the SARS - CoV - 2 virus mentioned everywhere avoids addressing how long the process of change would take via random mutation and natural selection. They make it seem like it is rather rapid.

If you want to start with the bat or pangolin genome and via random mutation and natural selection yield the human SARS-Cov-2 virus and have it happen in a few years, I am certainly willing to entertain your idea.

There are hypotheses in which estimates are given. For example, Boni et al (2020) propose "Divergence dates between SARS-CoV-2 and the bat sarbecovirus reservoir were estimated as 1948 (95% highest posterior density (HPD): 1879–1999), 1969 (95% HPD: 1930–2000) and 1982 (95% HPD: 1948–2009), indicating that the lineage giving rise to SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating unnoticed in bats for decades."

Also, the combination of bat and pangolin is only one hypothesis. There are other hypotheses, one of which by Lystras (2021) suggests that the furin cleavage site can arise by recombination of sequences already been found in bat Sarbecoviruses.

2. If the process has been going on for a long time we should be able to find more virus sample that show the progression via random mutation and natural selection. To date we have been able to find none.

But that is the same for the lab leak hypothesis. The difference is that we know the diversity in nature is much more than in the lab (and anyway the closest lab samples such as RaTG13 are collected from nature, with no additional lab manipulation), while Shi Zhengli of the WIV has already tried to comprehensively examine her samples for SARS-CoV-2 or for viral sequences that could combine to form SARS-CoV-2, and https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q%26A.pdf (also stated in the WHO origins report as evidence for why the lab leak is unlikely). While it is hard to rule out an incomplete search in the lab, the degree to which a complete search can be attained in the lab is much higher than for the samples found in nature.

[Edited my description and referencing of Lystras (2021) just before @Phil Core replied below]

 

[Phil Core]

There are hypotheses in which estimates are given. For example, Boni et al (2020) propose "Divergence dates between SARS-CoV-2 and the bat sarbecovirus reservoir were estimated as 1948 (95% highest posterior density (HPD): 1879–1999), 1969 (95% HPD: 1930–2000) and 1982 (95% HPD: 1948–2009), indicating that the lineage giving rise to SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating unnoticed in bats for decades."

Also, the combination of bat and pangolin is only one hypothesis. There are other hypotheses, one of which by Lystras et al (2021) suggests that the sequence for the furin cleavage site has already been found in a bat Sarbecovirus.But that is the same for the lab leak hypothesis. The difference is that we know the diversity in nature is much more than in the lab (and anyway the closest lab samples such as RaTG13 are collected from nature, with no additional lab manipulation), while Shi Zhengli of the WIV has already tried to comprehensively examine her samples for SARS-CoV-2 or for viral sequences that could combine to form SARS-CoV-2, and https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q%26A.pdf (also stated in the WHO origins report as evidence for why the lab leak is unlikely). While it is hard to rule out an incomplete search in the lab, the degree to which a complete search can be attained in the lab is much higher than for the samples found in nature.

I appreciate your reply. Actually the prior comment by BillTre is right. I do not know a lot about what I am talking about but I have taken what I can and tried to arrange the information in a reasonable way.

With respect to the RaTG13 sample and the reporting by Shi Zhengli.

While your statement makes sense - "While it is hard to rule out an incomplete search in the lab, the degree to which it can be attained is certainly much higher than for the samples found in nature."

1. I can not put too much credence in anything coming from the WIV.
2. Another possibility is that while Shi Zhengli's lab was the level 4 lab at WIV, additional research was done else where. There are several level 3 and 2 labs at WIV.
3. I can even entertain that the nuturing research was done at a location other than WIV or several locationsI did not repost the details of how the SARS-CoV-2 virus might have evolved in a lab.

This is not the complete sequence, but a train of thoughts that bothers me the most is the claim by Anderson and others that the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to have been optimized for humans. My claim is that it is possible that the positive charge of the spike proteins surface was increased via nurturing of some sort, which makes the binding affinity between the spike and the human ACE2 receptor stronger.

Andersen notes – “SARS-CoV-2 appears to be optimized for binding to the human receptor ACE2”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9Virus Optimized for humans
Last updated on March 30, 2021, at 2:21 p.m. ET
The WHO Report On COVID-19's Origins Shows We May Never Know Where The Coronavirus Came From

For SARS-CoV-2 to get into human cells, the spike protein on its surface must latch onto a receptor on the cells called ACE2. After the first complete genetic sequence of the virus was posted online by Chinese scientists in January 2020, a team led by Nikolai Petrovsky, an immunologist who works on vaccine development at Flinders University near Adelaide in Australia, started running computer simulations of how well the Coronavirus spike protein could bind to ACE2 receptors from different species.

“When we got to the end of the project, what stumped us was that binding to human ACE2 was higher than forany species we tested,” Petrovsky told BuzzFeed News. “For us, that was very hard to explain based on a
natural origins theory.”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/who-covid-origins-china-report-lab-accident

This may have been done by increasing the positive charge of the spike protein's surface that interfaces with the human ACE receptors.

Cov vs Cov-2
Considerations around the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein with Particular Attention to COVID-19 Brain Infection

and Neurological Symptoms
Published online 2020 Jul 6
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7374936/

In addition, we found that the SARS-CoV-2 S protein is slightly more positively charged than that of SARS-CoV since it contains four more positively charged residues and five less negatively charged residues which may lead to an increased affinity to bind to negatively charged regions of other molecules through nonspecific and specific interactions. Analysis the S protein binding to the host ACE2 receptor showed a 30% higher binding energy for SARS-CoV-2 than for the SARS-CoV S protein.

Our findings reveal that the SARS-CoV-2 S protein is slightly more positively charged than that of SARS-CoV since it contains four more positively charged residues and five less negatively charged residues (Table 1). Even if the difference in charge between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV S proteins is rather small, this effect can be amplified by the high number of S proteins that are present on a virus particle. This difference in charge
between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV S proteins can have a significant impact in cell adhesion and crossing of the BBB28,29 which will be discussed more in detail later in this Article.

In particular, it has been reported that the increased positive electrostatic potential of the SARS-CoV-2 binding surface is mainly due to an essential mutation of the hydrophobic residue Val404, present in SARS-CoV, to the positively charged residue Lys417 in SARS-CoV-2.31,34 Amin et al. also identified a complementary negative electrostatic potential on the surface of the binding site of ACE2.33

Therefore, an increase of the number of the positive amino acids of the SAR-CoV-2 envelope might increase in a significant manner the adhesion properties of SAR-CoV-2

 

[Pythagorean]

It is true that one cannot rule out a lab origin. However, there is evidence against the lab origin as provided by the Andersen article and the Shi Zhengli https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q%26A.pdf. Recently there have been prominent arguments for the lab origin. Among these are an article by Nicholas Wade that attrbutes comments to David Baltimore, but as explained by Kristian Andersen, the comments are nonsense. There have been reports about staff of the Wuhan Institute having been hospitalized before the outbreak, and so may have been its source, but Shi Zhengli (of the Wuhan Institute) has said that sera testing has been done of all staff; it is a little unclear what and who was tested, but if it was an antibody test, it would mean that none of the staff tested had been infected by SARS-CoV-2, and so could not have been a source. Then there is speculation by Nick Paton Walsh on CNN that experiments on RaTG13 (a bat virus whose sequence is currently the closest to SARS-CoV-2) were the source of the leak, but that route would also be ruled by information provided by the Shi Zhengli that while they do have "isolated live" coronaviruses, RaTG13 was not among them (we know about the RaTG13 sequence from samples collected by and sequenced by the Wuhan Institute). So at this stage, unless Shi Zhengli was lying, even many exotic and improbable ways the virus may have leaked from the lab origin are excluded. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that Shi Zhengli had commented that she would welcome a visit to investigate the lab.

That tweet by Kristian Andersen is gone now. Any idea what happened? I found this article but I have no idea the credibility of the outlet: https://www.opindia.com/2021/06/scr...s-coronavirus-engineered-lab-leak-hypothesis/

 

[Pythagorean]

That tweet by Kristian Andersen is gone now. Any idea what happened? I found this article but I have no idea the credibility of the outlet: https://www.opindia.com/2021/06/scr...s-coronavirus-engineered-lab-leak-hypothesis/

looks like he gave an interview about it recently:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/science/covid-lab-leak-fauci-kristian-andersen.html

 

[atyy]

looks like he gave an interview about it recently:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/science/covid-lab-leak-fauci-kristian-andersen.html

Thanks. Here my sentiments are the same as Jeffrey Barrett's.

 

[atyy]

That tweet by Kristian Andersen is gone now. Any idea what happened? I found this article but I have no idea the credibility of the outlet: https://www.opindia.com/2021/06/scr...s-coronavirus-engineered-lab-leak-hypothesis/

Most of that article is not credible. There has not been a coverup, but as explained in posts #33 (that you quoted) and #40, as well as the Nature news item linked by @Ygggdrasil in post #44, the lab leak hypothesis has been examined, and present evidence https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q&A.pdf that it is unlikely. The evidence was summarized in the WHO report, which was open to following up if new evidence became available.

I don't remember exactly what was in the now-deleted Tweets, but the Nature article reports at least some of their content:

"A Medium article that speculates on a lab origin for SARS-CoV-2 quotes David Baltimore, a Nobel laureate and professor emeritus at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, as saying that viruses don’t usually have that particular code for arginine, but humans often do — a “smoking gun”, hinting that researchers might have tampered with SARS-CoV-2’s genome.

Andersen says that Baltimore was incorrect about that detail, however. In SARS-CoV-2, about 3% of the nucleotides encoding arginine are CGG, he says. And he points out that around 5% of those encoding arginine in the virus that caused the original SARS epidemic are CGG, too."

Edit: I see the NY Times interview with Andersen that you linked in post #56 gives the same information.

 

[atyy]

https://www.republik.ch/2021/06/05/herr-drosten-woher-kam-dieses-virus
Interview with Christian Drosten by Marie-José Kolly, Angela Richter und Daniel Ryser

Excerpts below are by Google Translate

"There are actually two laboratory theses. One would be malice that someone has intentionally constructed such a virus. The other would be the research accident, in which an experiment went wrong despite good intentions and curiosity. The malicious thing, to be honest: you have to talk to intelligence officers about it. I cannot judge that."

"Let me explain it with a picture: To check, for example, whether adjustments make the virus more contagious, I would take an existing system, incorporate the change and then compare it with the old system. If I want to know whether a new car radio improves the sound, I take an existing car and replace the radio there. Then I compare. I'm not building a completely new car for it. But that's exactly how it was with Sars-2: The whole car is different."

"This idea of a research accident is extremely unlikely for me because it would be far too cumbersome. The idea of malicious use by some secret service laboratory somewhere: If anything, something like that would probably not come from the Wuhan Virology Institute. This is a reputable academic institute."

 

[Phil Core]

If you mean The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 this link still works https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

In the beginning of this article you have -

"Our comparison of alpha- and betacoronaviruses identifies two notable genomic features of SARS-CoV-2: (i) on the basis of structural studies7,8,9 and biochemical experiments1,9,10, SARS-CoV-2 appears to be optimized for binding to the human receptor ACE2"

However this is counter by what I consider a somewhat puzzling statement

"While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal7 and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding7,11. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation."

Further clarity is given in (7) above

Recognition by the Novel Coronavirus from Wuhan: an Analysis Based on Decade-Long Structural Studies of SARS Coronavirus - https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.00127-20​

Here it was stated that theoretically an optimal binding configuration was discovered that differs from that found in SARS-CoV-2. However, the binding affinity found in SARS-CoV-2 is still superior to anything found in Nature.

Andersen seems to making the argument that if SARS-CoV-2 was manufactured/influenced in a lab that it would use the theoretically maximum form. From here he jumps to "Thus" and concludes with "strong evidence". I do not find his logic convincing. There could be many reasons why a lab/nurtured virus does not reach theoretical max form.

Andersens best statement is - "However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible." (The optimized RBD is actual found in SARS-CoV-2. SARS-Cov binding affinity is at least 30% weaker.)

This amounts to saying we find some of the parts needed for the virus scattered in different mammals therefore the SARS-CoV-2 virus did not originate in a lab.

Note - To date no new candidates for missing link have been found. (7) gives a clue to what one should look for in Nature.

"Different lines of research have shown that which host is susceptible to SARS-CoV infection is primarily determined by the affinity between the viral RBD and host ACE2 in the initial viral attachment step"

You should be looking for a mammal that has ACE2 receptors very close to humans. This should make hunting for it a bit easier.

 

[atyy]

Andersen seems to making the argument that if SARS-CoV-2 was manufactured/influenced in a lab that it would use the theoretically maximum form. From here he jumps to "Thus" and concludes with "strong evidence". I do not find his logic convincing. There could be many reasons why a lab/nurtured virus does not reach theoretical max form.

The most likely reason a lab-nurtured virus does not reach a theoretical optimum would be if it arose from selection in the lab. However, in the part of the paper you referenced, Andersen et al were considering lab-design of the virus. Andersen et al consider the case of selection in the lab separately towards the end of the paper in the section "Selection during passage". While they considered natural selection more likely, they explicitly acknowledged that selection during passage in the lab could not be ruled out without further evidence. Further evidence did come along in the form of reports by Shi https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q%26A.pdf of the WIV in July 2020 (with similar reports referenced in the WHO report) about her group's comprehensive search of viral sequences in the lab, and antibody testing of their staff for infection by SARS-CoV-2 or closely related viruses.

 

[Pythagorean]

Thanks atyy, that article was fishy, but I have been out of the loop and am just catching up now. Didnt even know who Fauci was, title wise.

Does lab leak theory include the case that they were holding the virus; not necissarily experimenting with it, but carried the infection out of the lab? E.g., no evolution occurred in the lab, it was just mishandled as a sample from nature?

 

[atyy]

Does lab leak theory include the case that they were holding the virus; not necissarily experimenting with it, but carried the infection out of the lab? E.g., no evolution occurred in the lab, it was just mishandled as a sample from nature?

Yes, it includes that case. This case is also unlikely for 2 reasons.

1) If it occurred, it would most likely result in staff of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) being infected. However, Shi Zhengli who heads the lab most associated with the study of coronaviruses, including collection of samples, reported that they had done antibody tests on their staff. These tests can detect past infections by SARS-CoV-2 or similar viruses. These tests were negative.

2) If it occurred, they would have to have a virus with the same or similar sequence to SARS-CoV-2. Shi Zhengli reported that they have gone through all their samples to search for such sequences. The closest they have found is RaTG13, which at 96% similarity is about 30 years or more in terms of natural evolution from SARS-CoV-2. Also, RaTG13 had never been cultured (it seems they've run out of RaTG13 after sequencing it quite fully). The do have viruses "live" in culture, but these have only about 80% similarity to SARS-CoV-2, which is too way too far away.

The above information can be found in her https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q%26A.pdf with Science in July 2020. Among the remaining possibilities are that the above tests and searches were incomplete (just because no tests are 100%), but if they were carried out and yielded the above answers, any lab leak, including accidental release due to mishandling is rendered very unlikely.

Another possibility is that the answers she has given are misleading. However, there are many details given in the interview that make me think these are reports of real data. Furthermore, the lab has openly published its results in excellent scientific papers over many years (eg. RaTG13 that they sequenced more fully recently had already been reported in their previous partial sequencing results) - quite the opposite of doing things in secret. Unless evidence is produced to the contrary, it doesn't make much sense to distrust the information in the interview, while trusting the information they've published and using both trust in the papers and distrust in the interview to cast suspicion on them.

 

[Phil Core]

I do not consider the WHO to be a reliable source of information on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Shi Zhengli would be under extreme pressure to report things favorable to the Chinese government and can not be considered to be a reliable source.

1. A series of gain of function experiments would be involved.
2. These experiments would take a long time
3. It would be hard to hide this in a lab
4. Shi Zhengli would know what type of work was being conducted in her lab
5. She should have know ex ante so why even bother to test

The reported lack of antibodies in June/July of a subset of workers is not sufficient proof of much.

An unconsidered option is that the experiments of interest were conducted in lab/s elsewhere from the known level 4 lab at WIH.

Another unconsidered option is that these experiments were constructed to make it look like the source was Nature. Hence you will not find straight cut and paste alterations.

If the origins of the virus is found to have been influenced in a lab then that research had been going on for some time and at least one if not more of the people involved are extremely skilled.

You can make a no lab case but then you need to make a Nature case. It has been a year and half and no progress has been made here.

I did not completely follow the sequence but you quoted information at one time that seemed to imply to get from what we have - 2 separate parts of the virus - to the SARS-CoV-2 virus would take a min of 30 years - via random mutation and natural selection. There should be a substantial sequence of viruses leading up to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. None have been found.

The best clue I have been able to find for searching in Nature for the origin is - You should be looking for a mammal that has ACE2 receptors very close to humans. This should make hunting for it a bit easier.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I do not consider the WHO to be a reliable source of information on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Shi Zhengli would be under extreme pressure to report things favorable to the Chinese government and can not be considered to be a reliable source.

Is there any source you consider reliable? For that matter, is there any evidence whatsoever that would convince you to change your mind?

 

[Phil Core]

Is there any source you consider reliable? For that matter, is there any evidence whatsoever that would convince you to change your mind?

If you want to claim that the recent investigation by the WHO in Wuhan and the 300+ page report are examples of scientific rigor, I concede.

If your case for the Natural/In The Wild Origin is as outline in (1) – (5), I find the logic flawless and not a subject for further inquiry.

Nature
1. Genome sequenced
2. Partial matches – bat – Pangolian
3. Somehow the viral content of these mammals mixed?
4. Or perhaps there was an intermediary?
5. Somehow jump made to human via unknown host

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think you answered my questions. Is there any source you consider reliable? For that matter, is there any evidence whatsoever that would convince you to change your mind?

 

[Phil Core]

I don't think you answered my questions. Is there any source you consider reliable? For that matter, is there any evidence whatsoever that would convince you to change your mind?

I suspect you think my mind is closed and I am a lab origin hell or high water. Not true.

For the Nature/In The Wild hypothesis to be more valid for me I would like to see more evidential samples of a chain of mutation In The Wild.

Trying to be objective I have even offered that the unknown host/s should be mammal/reside in China/have contact with humans/ and most importantly their ACE2 receptors should be very similar to humans.

Returning to your question of reliability. There are many good experiments. However, where they falter is in the interpretation of results. Red flags for me are when "strongly" or "extremely unlikely" are used.

 

[Phil Core]

Warning - This is not suggested for those lacking in curiosity.

How Peer Review is Use to Suppress

It is hard for me to explain the persist energy and constant vigor being dispatched in defense of the Natural/Wild Life Origin for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is almost as if it is a virus itself.

If you have not read this article you should read it and the comments -Beijing’s useful idiots - Science journals have encouraged and enforced a false Covid narrative https://unherd.com/2021/06/beijings-useful-idiots/

I thought the article well done. Do also read the comments. However, I might have missed something. I stand ready to debate this. Perhaps I am completely wrong.

​

​

​

 

[Tom.G]

I did not read the comments, but did finish the article. My overall impression is that it is written in the form and tone normally used in conspiracy theory articles... and without a single traceable reference to any of the purported facts that are presented.

The emotional tone is of a type that is rather effective for those that are not used to rigorous, step-by-step thinking that requires facts rather than opinion.

 

[atyy]

I did not read the comments, but did finish the article. My overall impression is that it is written in the form and tone normally used in conspiracy theory articles... and without a single traceable reference to any of the purported facts that are presented.

The emotional tone is of a type that is rather effective for those that are not used to rigorous, step-by-step thinking that requires facts rather than opinion.

Much of the difference is not so much the facts, but their interpretation. For example, they say "This masked a link to three miners who had died from a strange respiratory disease while clearing out bat droppings in a cave in south China, which was hundreds of miles from Wuhan but used by Shi and her colleagues to collect samples from bats. The Wuhan researchers even admitted they had eight more undisclosed Sars-like viruses from the mine.". While the passage quoted is based on facts, the suspicion it attempts to raise is not warranted, since Shi Zhengli's group had openly published several years before that they had been making sampling trips and collected samples that included sequences from Sars-like viruses. While there were a couple of details omitted that prevented one easily knowing which particular previously reported trips and partial samples were involved, almost everything that is made to seem like a "cover-up" was very openly published.

Here's a published paper from 2016 describing samples from a mine
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26920708/
"Sequenced partial RdRp fragments had 80%–99% nucleic acid sequence identity with well-characterized Alphacoronavirus species, including BtCoV HKU2, BtCoV HKU8, and BtCoV1,and unassigned species BtCoV HKU7 and BtCoV HKU10. Additionally, the surveillance identified two unclassified betacoronaviruses, one new strain of SARS-like coronavirus, and one potentially new betacoronavirus species"

Here is another published paper from 2017 describing many SARS-like coronaviruses from more caves
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29190287/
"The full-length genomes of 11 newly discovered SARSr-CoV strains, ... In addition, we report the first discovery of bat SARSr-CoVs highly similar to human SARS-CoV in ORF3b and in the split ORF8a and 8b."

While I don't immediately see the story about the miners in a scientific publication till April and November 2020, they had already published in 2018 a report of likely human infection (that did not result in a pandemic) by bat coronaviruses.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29500691/
Serological Evidence of Bat SARS-Related Coronavirus Infection in Humans, China

The technique is similar to that famously used by Zohner (and others before him) to make people want to ban dihydrogen monoxide.

The tragedy is that in fact they seem to have responsibly done serious and quite complete investigations into the possibility of a lab leak, and have reported the results quite openly. But some distrust the reported results without any evidence.

 

[Phil Core]

I did not read the comments, but did finish the article. My overall impression is that it is written in the form and tone normally used in conspiracy theory articles... and without a single traceable reference to any of the purported facts that are presented.

The emotional tone is of a type that is rather effective for those that are not used to rigorous, step-by-step thinking that requires facts rather than opinion.

The article – (Beijing’s useful idiots - Science journals have encouraged and enforced a false Covid narrative https://unherd.com/2021/06/beijings-useful-idiots/) could have been shorter and more succinct. It was written by a journalist. It does have a conspiratorial tone to it. However, the focus of the article – that there was a concerted effort by scientific publications to reject or impede any article that suggested that the Covid virus might have been influenced in some way – deserves consideration.

The intent being to make it seem that all of science supported the Nature only scenario.

“and without a single traceable reference to any of the purported facts that are presented.”

The article starts out with comments on the difficulty that Nikolai Petrovsky had in getting his paper published.

The paper by this distinguished scholar was finally published in Nature after being rejected everywhere for over a year. It is an excellent paper - In silico comparison of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-ACE2 binding affinities across species and implications for virus origin - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92388-5

Perhaps there were some errors in the paper that delayed its publication. However, Petrovsky has authored over 200 papers and would appreciate the difference between error and suppression.

I consider the paper by Petrovsky to be seminal.

The other examples in the article are not as strong but do support a continued effort by scientific publications to suppress any mention that the SCARS CoV -2 virus might have been influenced.

 

[Phil Core]

I did not read the comments, but did finish the article. My overall impression is that it is written in the form and tone normally used in conspiracy theory articles... and without a single traceable reference to any of the purported facts that are presented.

The emotional tone is of a type that is rather effective for those that are not used to rigorous, step-by-step thinking that requires facts rather than opinion.

I have researched everywhere and have not been able to find a step by step sequential time line of how the SCARS - CoV -2 virus emerged via random mutation and natural selection.

Nature only (The Science of Some How)

1. Genome sequenced
2. Parts partially matched - bat - Pangolian
3. Some how the viral content of these mammals mixed?
4. Intermediary?
5. Some how jump made to humans via unknown host.

I would certainly appreciate some step-by-step thinking

 

[BillTre]

I have researched everywhere and have not been able to find a step by step sequential time line of how the SCARS - CoV -2 virus emerged via random mutation and natural selection.

Have you tested your "analytical" method on other viruses that have infected humans from animals?

Have all other such cases been explained to a level sufficient to satisfy you?

Are all viral infections of humans from other species suspicious to you, or is it only those that could be attributed to China?

How long did it take previous cases of viruses infecting people from other species to be established in such detail that you are satisfied?

I have researched everywhere and have not been able to find a step by step sequential time line of how the SCARS - CoV -2 virus emerged via random mutation and natural selection.

Where is this "everywhere" you have researched?
These should be listed if you want your negative conclusions to be taken seriously.

You are very tolerant of the shortcomings of what you cite as evidence for your apparently already determined conclusions, but dismissive of other sources.
This really hurts you credibility.

 

[Jarvis323]

I have researched everywhere and have not been able to find a step by step sequential time line of how the SCARS - CoV -2 virus emerged via random mutation and natural selection.

Nature only (The Science of Some How)

1. Genome sequenced
2. Parts partially matched - bat - Pangolian
3. Some how the viral content of these mammals mixed?
4. Intermediary?
5. Some how jump made to humans via unknown host.

I would certainly appreciate some step-by-step thinking

Lipsitch is a pretty solid voice of reason on the topic in my opinion. For what it's worth, while he's spoken out pushing for deeper investigations into a possible lab origin, he also called the narrative that the virus couldn't have jumped and adapted to humans this quickly nonsense.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/05/27/amanpour-marc-lipsitch-covid-lab-leak-theory.cnn

 

[atyy]

Lipsitch is a pretty solid voice of reason on the topic in my opinion. For what it's worth, while he's spoken out pushing for deeper investigations into a possible lab origin, he also called the narrative that the virus couldn't have jumped and adapted to humans this quickly nonsense.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/05/27/amanpour-marc-lipsitch-covid-lab-leak-theory.cnn

I disagree. I think Lipsitch co-wrote an extremely poorly judged letter asking for deeper investigations into a lab origin. His letter wrongly and illogically criticized the WHO report that said a lab leak was very unlikely. His letter was illogical because it criticized the WHO report on the basis of the length of its arguments, rather than on their strength. The WHO report seriously considered the possibility of a lab leak, even though that was not its primary brief, and its assignment of a very low probability to a lab leak was correct and based on evidence. Note that the WHO report did not rule out a lab leak, and was open to revisiting it if more evidence came to light. The WHO report also outlined further investigations into the earliest cases and how zoonosis might have occurred (incidentally, some of these investigations would also point toward a lab leak if it had occurred).

Lipsitch's letter could have a basis only either in ignorance or unsubstantiated accusations that Shi Zhengli of the WIV was lying. Lipsitch's letter helped to feed conspiracy theories (and was in fact co-authored with conspiracy theorist Alina Chan, among others). It is not scientifically correct to pretend that the zoonotic and the lab leak theories are almost equally likely - although that may seem to be unbiased - it is biased in the face of evidence, and is tantamount to hyping the lab leak theory. The only way the lab leak theory can still be given almost equal weight as the zoonotic theory is to accuse Shi Zhengli of lying. We have her publication record consistent with open reporting of the lab's work over many years, and her statements on their investigations into the possibility of a lab leak are consistent with that record. Of course we cannot prove that she is not lying, but standard ethics requires evidence before making accusations. An accusatory attitude without evidence jeopardizes, rather than fosters, the international cooperation needed for further investigations the origins of the pandemic (such as outlined in the WHO report), and to build better responses to future outbreaks.

 

[Jarvis323]

I disagree. I think Lipsitch co-wrote an extremely poorly judged letter asking for deeper investigations into a lab origin. His letter wrongly and illogically criticized the WHO report that said a lab leak was very unlikely. His letter was illogical because it criticized the WHO report on the basis of the length of its arguments, rather than on their strength. The WHO report seriously considered the possibility of a lab leak, even though that was not its primary brief, and its assignment of a very low probability to a lab leak was correct and based on evidence. Note that the WHO report did not rule out a lab leak, and was open to revisiting it if more evidence came to light. The WHO report also outlined further investigations into the earliest cases and how zoonosis might have occurred (incidentally, some of these investigations would also point toward a lab leak if it had occurred).

Lipsitch's letter could have a basis only either in ignorance or unsubstantiated accusations that Shi Zhengli of the WIV was lying. Lipsitch's letter helped to feed conspiracy theories (and was in fact co-authored with conspiracy theorist Alina Chan, among others). It is not scientifically correct to pretend that the zoonotic and the lab leak theories are almost equally likely - although that may seem to be unbiased - it is biased in the face of evidence, and is tantamount to hyping the lab leak theory. The only way the lab leak theory can still be given almost equal weight as the zoonotic theory is to accuse Shi Zhengli of lying. We have her publication record consistent with open reporting of the lab's work over many years, and her statements on their investigations into the possibility of a lab leak are consistent with that record. Of course we cannot prove that she is not lying, but standard ethics requires evidence before making accusations. An accusatory attitude without evidence jeopardizes, rather than fosters, the international cooperation needed for further investigations the origins of the pandemic (such as outlined in the WHO report), and to build better responses to future outbreaks.

I disagree with your assessment. The letter asked for transparency, which there hasn't been. Lipsitch is a scientist, it isn't his job to judge whether someone is lying. It's his job to look at the data and evidence. WIV has kept the data and evidence secret. I agree that's unacceptable.

Scientific investigations can't be conduction based on unverified assertions alone.

 

[Jarvis323]

(and was in fact co-authored with conspiracy theorist Alina Chan, among others).

I'm just curious as well why Alina Chan is considered a conspiracy theorist?

We had a thread in GD the other day, where people are trying to define that term. Here you are weaponizing it, lumping her in with flat Earthers for example, to discredit her and the letter she coauthored. Can you justify discrediting Lipstich and the letter he coauthored based on logic alone?

 

[Astronuc]

Lipsitch's letter could have a basis only either in ignorance or unsubstantiated accusations that Shi Zhengli of the WIV was lying. Lipsitch's letter helped to feed conspiracy theories (and was in fact co-authored with conspiracy theorist Alina Chan, among others). It is not scientifically correct to pretend that the zoonotic and the lab leak theories are almost equally likely - although that may seem to be unbiased - it is biased in the face of evidence, and is tantamount to hyping the lab leak theory. The only way the lab leak theory can still be given almost equal weight as the zoonotic theory is to accuse Shi Zhengli of lying.

I don't see Lipsitch et al inferring that Zhengli or others at Wuhan Inst. of Virology are lying, and I don't see Alina Chan as being a conspiracy theorist, nor even entertaining a conspiracy regarding WIV and SARS-Cov-2. I do read a call for further investigation, rather than what appears to be a dismissal of the potential for release of SARS-Cov-2 from WIV, or some other association.

The letter states, "Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the team assessed a zoonotic spillover from an intermediate host as “likely to very likely,” and a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely” [(4), p. 9]. Furthermore, the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident (4). Notably, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus commented that the report's consideration of evidence supporting a laboratory accident was insufficient and offered to provide additional resources to fully evaluate the possibility (5)."

It appears that the authors of the letter are concerned that WHO determined "a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely”", in the absence of evidence. It would be more appropriate to say that it is indeterminate. The authors are not calling for an "equal weight" to the laboratory leak theory.

In theory, contact tracing would have indicated potential pathways from the earliest cases, but if some were asymptomatic, perhaps some pathways cannot be traced.

If all identified cases cannot be traced to the food market (and there could be missing links), where did the other cases originate ostensibly independently of the market.

The current position of the US government is "For more than a year, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has systematically prevented a transparent and thorough investigation of the COVID-19 pandemic’s origin, choosing instead to devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation."

https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.html

Furthermore, "The U.S. government does not know exactly where, when, or how the COVID-19 virus—known as SARS-CoV-2—was transmitted initially to humans. We have not determined whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

The virus could have emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals, spreading in a pattern consistent with a natural epidemic. Alternatively, a laboratory accident could resemble a natural outbreak if the initial exposure included only a few individuals and was compounded by asymptomatic infection. Scientists in China have researched animal-derived coronaviruses under conditions that increased the risk for accidental and potentially unwitting exposure."

It seems a more in depth investigation is needed.

On the other hand, Global Times publishes a refutation of a laboratory origin on May 24, 2021.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1224362.shtml

Researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences published a report that further refutes the highly hyped theory that the virus came from the laboratory. They identified a new SARS-CoV-2-related virus lineage from bats discovered in 2015 in Mojiang county, Southwest China's Yunnan Province.

 

[atyy]

I disagree with your assessment. The letter asked for transparency, which there hasn't been. Lipsitch is a scientist, it isn't his job to judge whether someone is lying. It's his job to look at the data and evidence. WIV has kept the data and evidence secret. I agree that's unacceptable.

It is not clear what you mean by WIV keeping data and evidence secret. We know about the lab's research because it has published its work for years, including steadily cataloging the viruses in its samples and publishing it. The WIV carried out investigations into the possibility of a lab leak, and reported those results in July 2020. There have been false reports in the mainstream media such as the Newsweek report mentioned in post #39. I discussed in post #40 why that report is not true.

I'm just curious as well why Alina Chan is considered a conspiracy theorist?

We had a thread in GD the other day, where people are trying to define that term. Here you are weaponizing it, lumping her in with flat Earthers for example, to discredit her and the letter she coauthored.

I don't think it is controversial that Alina Chan is a conspiracy theorist. This can be seen, for example, by the suspicions that Alina Chan raised based on the WIV's "failure to mention the miners who died in 2012 and the furin site on the virus genome". A cursory examination of her Tweets gives plenty of support that she is a conspiracy theorist (for example, her support of DRASTIC "Without the work done by the DRASTIC team, I don't really know where we would be today with the origins of covid-19."). Many of her statements are technically true, but it is wrong to say that those are any basis for suspicion. As I have said, these are misinformation tactics similar to those that make people want to ban dihydrogen monoxide.

Can you justify discrediting Lipstich and the letter he coauthored based on logic alone?

Yes, based on logic alone, his letter is illogical because it criticized the WHO report based on the length of evidence presented, rather than on the strength of evidence presented. It also ignored that the WHO report did not rule out further investigations into the lab leak if more evidence arose, Importantly, the WHO report outlined further studies into the earliest cases (ie. looking for cases earlier than the present official earliest cases), primarily on the basis of understanding zoonosis - but one should also note that such studies would point towards a lab leak if it had occurred.

It is good to work for transparency, but it was not correct to ask for it mainly on the basis of insufficient attention to the lab leak theory, and in a context implicitly supporting unfounded accusations of lying by the WIV scientists. If the intention was to increase transparency, it has only helped obtain the opposite situation (for example, endangering the further studies outlined in the WHO report, including studies that could shed light on both the zoonotic and the lab leak theories).

 

[Jarvis323]

It is good to work for transparency, but it was not correct to ask for it mainly on the basis of insufficient attention to the lab leak theory, and in a context implicitly supporting unfounded accusations of lying by the WIV scientists. If the intention was to increase transparency, it has only helped obtain the opposite situation (for example, endangering the further studies outlined in the WHO report, including studies that could shed light on both the zoonotic and the lab leak theories).

If not investigating a lab origin is a condition for allowing an investigation of a zoonotic origin, then something must be wrong.

 

[atyy]

It appears that the authors of the letter are concerned that WHO determined "a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely”", in the absence of evidence. It would be more appropriate to say that it is indeterminate. The authors are not calling for an "equal weight" to the laboratory leak theory.

But that was wrong. The WHO determined the lab leak as extremely unlikely based on evidence. That assessment could be wrong only if the WIV scientists had lied. While the authors may not have been calling for equal weight to be given to the lab leak theory, they were calling for more equal weight to the lab leak theory.

 

[Jarvis323]

I don't think it is controversial that Alina Chan is a conspiracy theorist. This can be seen, for example, by the suspicions that Alina Chan raised based on the WIV's "failure to mention the miners who died in 2012 and the furin site on the virus genome". A cursory examination of her Tweets gives plenty of support that she is a conspiracy theorist (for example, her support of DRASTIC "Without the work done by the DRASTIC team, I don't really know where we would be today with the origins of covid-19."). Many of her statements are technically true, but it is wrong to say that those are any basis for suspicion. As I have said, these are misinformation tactics similar to those that make people want to ban dihydrogen monoxide.

When you say that you think Alina Chan is a conspiracy theorist, are you implying something about her credibility? I'm not sure if in doing so you are arguing she is crazy, likely to be wrong, is untrustworthy, etc. Or are you admonishing conspiracy therorists (by your definitions) on the basis that they have harmful effects on society regardless of their technical merrits and credibility?

I don't see calling her a conspiracy theorist as an end of argument.

 

[atyy]

If not investigating a lab origin is a condition for allowing an investigation of a zoonotic origin, then something must be wrong.

It is not an absolute, rather the balance of weight still being placed on the lab leak despite evidence. International cooperation requires governments to work together. Unfounded accusations do not help that.

 

[atyy]

When you say that you think Alina Chan is a conspiracy theorist, are you implying something about her credibility? I'm not sure if in doing so you are arguing she is crazy, likely to be wrong, is untrustworthy, etc. Or are you admonishing conspiracy therorists (by your definitions) on the basis that they have harmful effects on society regardless of their technical merrits and credibility?

I don't see calling her a conspiracy theorist as an end of argument.

What I mean is that the present state of the evidence renders a lab leak very unlikely unless Shi Zhengli has lied. Some news reports make it seem that we only have circumstantial evidence against a lab leak. However, Shi Zhengli has reported active investigations into the possibility of a lab leak including negative serology tests and a quite thorough search of her samples that turned up no sequence close enough. She has published the full details of that closest sequence, and the fact that a part of this sequence had been published earlier (not hidden) are consistent with open publication of the lab's research over many years. So it is not only that we have no evidence for a lab leak. We have very strong evidence against a lab leak, unless her reports of the results of active investigations into the possibility of a lab leak are not true.

Alina Chan (and DRASTIC that she has praised) have supposedly uncovered evidence of secrecy or cover-up by Shi Zhengli and her colleagues. At this stage, with none of the people related to the lab coming forward with statements to the contrary, they would have to be in a conspiracy to hide information. So Chan's and DRASTIC's theories are literally conspiracy theories. None of the evidence put forth by Chan and DRASTIC support secrecy or cover-up by the WIV. Although there may be incidental details uncovered by DRASTIC not available in the international journals, all of their major conclusions can be obtained by examination of the WIV's published papers.

 

[Jarvis323]

On the issue of statements made by Shi and others, I don't put much weight on those statements because I know the immense pressure they would be under in terms of what they say. What they have said is along the lines of what is expected regardless of what happened. They don't exactly have the right to say whatever they want without reprocussions. Even if they are lying, it is understandable and we shouldn't blame them.

But further, I am not convinced that a lab leak could not have happened if they are telling the truth.

A serious transparent investigation is needed before we can even tell how relevant those statements are in the first place.

 

[Astronuc]

January 24, 2021 - a retrospective - A Guide to Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/a-guide-to-emerging-sars-cov-2-variants-68387

How an Outbreak Became a Pandemic: The defining moments of the COVID-19 pandemic – PDF, 6.8 MB

 

[atyy]

In post #79 I explained why I thought a letter co-signed by Lipsitch was illogical and poorly judged.

Here are interesting comments by Michael Worobey, another co-author, that the letter may have backfired.

"...“I always thought that the lab leak was a long shot, but I thought it was worth investigating. I did then, and I do now,” he said.
...
He knew he was sticking his neck out by signing onto the letter published in Science, but he hoped it would give researchers some cover to continue exploring every possible explanation — no matter how unlikely or unpopular — for how the pandemic began.

Shortly after the letter came out, though, the Biden administration announced a renewed push to investigate the lab-leak theory, angering the Chinese government and dimming the prospects for unfettered scientific cooperation between the two countries.

Worobey said he doesn’t regret signing it, but “it’s possible the letter actually backfired in that sense.”
“We may have lost an opportunity to engage with scientists (in China) who are now feeling defensive,” he said. ..."

Another co-author of that letter Pamela Bjorkman, has also stated that the effects of the letter were contrary to what she intended.

"I thought the letter would have the effect of prompting more funding for searching for natural viruses in animal reservoirs, which I personally have always assumed represent the origin of SARS-CoV-2 infections in humans. Perhaps naively, I did not anticipate that the letter would be used to promote the lab origin hypothesis. Looking back on the wording of the letter, however, I now think that I should have realized this would happen and should have been more proactive — either not signed the letter at all or else requested more wording changes to make my position clear."

 

[Phil Core]

What I mean is that the present state of the evidence renders a lab leak very unlikely unless Shi Zhengli has lied. Some news reports make it seem that we only have circumstantial evidence against a lab leak. However, Shi Zhengli has reported active investigations into the possibility of a lab leak including negative serology tests and a quite thorough search of her samples that turned up no sequence close enough. She has published the full details of that closest sequence, and the fact that a part of this sequence had been published earlier (not hidden) are consistent with open publication of the lab's research over many years. So it is not only that we have no evidence for a lab leak. We have very strong evidence against a lab leak, unless her reports of the results of active investigations into the possibility of a lab leak are not true.

Alina Chan (and DRASTIC that she has praised) have supposedly uncovered evidence of secrecy or cover-up by Shi Zhengli and her colleagues. At this stage, with none of the people related to the lab coming forward with statements to the contrary, they would have to be in a conspiracy to hide information. So Chan's and DRASTIC's theories are literally conspiracy theories. None of the evidence put forth by Chan and DRASTIC support secrecy or cover-up by the WIV. Although there may be incidental details uncovered by DRASTIC not available in the international journals, all of their major conclusions can be obtained by examination of the WIV's published papers.

"We have very strong evidence against a lab leak, unless her reports of the results of active investigations into the possibility of a lab leak are not true."

I do not find the evidence that strong. Your evidence seems to be that a few people were tested for exposure to Covid and that Shi published some data on some sequencing she had done.

No one has had complete access to the day to day records of what when on in the lab during 2019 - 2020. There is no day to day account of what was done each day in the lab and who was doing it.

1. What was being done in the lab on a day to day basis? Work log
2. Number of people involved? Personnel log
3. Inventory of supplies?
4. Lots of other day to day records that would support the individual reports of parts of the project.

An idea that you have never seemed to have considered is that perhaps additional research was done somewhere else rather than in Shi's level 4 WIV lab and she really did not know the full extend of the work. It is like working on a need to know, compartmentalized project.

I have some idea of how a virus could be influenced in a lab and I don't think that Shi has the necessary skills. Source of bats yes. Source of ideas no.

 

[Laroxe]

Its really a puzzle as to why this is still an issue, certainly trying to trace the origin has a function in understanding the virus, but this is known to be quite difficult, even the evolutionary history of the influenza virus that caused the 1918 pandemic remains a mater of debate. It seems in the USA this has become a way of discrediting the Chinese Government rather than understanding the disease. The original WHO team that went to China had limited time to do their work but still had access to masses of data, they intended to go back and this was not considered to be a problem until the political blame game started. It's interesting that at the G7 summit when Pr. Biden tried to involve the European countries in these attacks, he was politely ignored.

As in most of these situations, that involve biological organisms, there are lots of pieces of information that muddy the water. We still have very limited information about coronaviruses in the wild, despite the massive impetus in research caused by Covid, but it has become clear that small clusters of Coronavirus infections have been occurring in rural areas for decades, we simply don't know which coronaviruses caused them.
It is really fairly common for viruses to jump species, it doesn't just affect humans, in fact currently there is also a pandemic among amphibians and another among plants but no one seems to be blaming a Chinese lab for those. There is also the fact that virtually all the common viral infections seen in humans, originated in other animals, becoming established in humans only when the situations facilitated these infections. Despite the frequency of how often cross species infections happen, there are significant barriers to them becoming established as a human pathogen. The last Coronavirus to jump species, such a close relative of Covid 19 it earned it its name of SARS-Cov 2, failed at the last hurdle, effective transmission. SARS has disappeared, which is just as well considering its severity.

I just think that if this virus was created in a lab, that would make it truly unique in the history of human disease. If it was a deliberate creation it's difficult to see any possible purpose, if it escaped, then presumably it must have still had a natural source, and it would make no sense to start trying to manipulate an unclassified virus with no knowledge of its "abilities". This is a situation in which a variant of Occams Razor could be a useful guide.

 

[Phil Core]

The reason the origin question is of concern is that a very large segment of the scientific community was cock sure that the only explanation for the origin of the SARS-Cov 2 was some strange bat - pangolian union. COVID-19: Time to exonerate the pangolin from the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to humans - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405773/ The reason being that similar parts of the virus could be found in Nature. They made it sound like a lab leak was preposterous.

And then to defend the WHO's recent report is beyond the pale. Where, when, how, who was all monitored.

Here is a You Tube video that is very interesting - It gives some clues as to what people where really doing.

Daszak does ramble for quite some time but around the 28 min mark - Daszak notes that “coronaviruses are pretty good… you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily… the spiked proteins drive a lot about what happens. You can get the sequence you can build the protein, we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this, insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in a lab.”

FYI - Baric was working with mice whose ACE receptors had been "humanized". The virility of the SARS-Cov 2 virus is attributable to its binding strength with human ACE receptors.

A related article is https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4104828 It is published in the Taiwan News but it does provide new information especially with respect to the time line of events.

 

[russ_watters]

No one has had complete access to the day to day records of what when on in the lab during 2019 - 2020. There is no day to day account of what was done each day in the lab and who was doing it.

1. What was being done in the lab on a day to day basis? Work log
2. Number of people involved? Personnel log
3. Inventory of supplies?
4. Lots of other day to day records that would support the individual reports of parts of the project.

One hallmark of conspiracy theories is that claimants tend to demand extreme and impossible to acquire evidence to disprove them while leaning on thin evidence at best to support them. You want to look at their timesheets to prove there is no project called "Coronavirus Bioweapon Research" on it? Seriously? That request is wholly unreasonable and wouldn't prove anything anyway. And you know it doesn't prove anything, so it's not a serious request: it's made because you know it isn't attainable, so it provides a permanently open door.

An idea that you have never seemed to have considered is that perhaps additional research was done somewhere else rather than in Shi's level 4 WIV lab and she really did not know the full extend of the work. It is like working on a need to know, compartmentalized project.

...and if it wasn't done there, then an unidentified lab somewhere else could have been doing the work? That's well beyond "thin evidence", it's whole-cloth fantasy.

 

[russ_watters]

Here is a You Tube video that is very interesting - It gives some clues as to what people where really doing.

Daszak does ramble for quite some time but around the 28 min mark - Daszak notes that “coronaviruses are pretty good… you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily… the spiked proteins drive a lot about what happens. You can get the sequence you can build the protein, we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this, insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in a lab.”

I didn't hear that quote at that timestamp, maybe you could try again with where it is because I don't want to listen to him ramble for half an hour. What I did hear from about 27:30-29 is him talk about just how common coronaviruses are in bat populations and how there is also a lot of human exposure (not to mention the prior SARS outbreak itself). This is building the environment/groundwork for natural causes of this. Frankly, it tells us we haven't been paying enough attention to these diseases and the likelihood of a pandemic like the one we're in.

[edit] Found it, it's more like 29:50. I don't know exactly what you think he's saying there (some vague conspiracy theory implication surely), but what he is actually saying is that it should be possible to develop vaccines. He back-handedly predicted the vaccine success (this interview was in May of 2020). [edit] Actually, that's just when it was posted. It's actually from Dec of 2019.

To paraphrase, what he said was: There's lots of coronaviruses out there, constantly jumping back and forth between animals and humans, so we need to work on protecting from future pandemics. The virus is easy to manipulate in the lab, so we should be able to produce vaccines for them.

And yet you (evidently) heard: The virus is easy to manipulate in the lab, so we should be able to create a bioweapon.

 

[Phil Core]

I apologize. The quote can be found around the 30:04 mark.

He says this. If you think that supports a Nature only origin must be the new math.

“coronaviruses are pretty good… you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily… the spiked proteins drive a lot about what happens. You can get the sequence you can build the protein, we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this, insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in a lab.”

Are you familiar with Baric's work. Very interesting.

"One hallmark of conspiracy theories is that claimants tend to demand extreme and impossible to acquire evidence to disprove them while leaning on thin evidence at best to support them."

Wow! All I am asking for is the daily logs that should be readily available in any research lab. Have not been able to get the daily Wuhan logs for 2019-2020. To call asking for the daily logs extreme and impossible is ??

Perhaps you have never worked on a need to know, departmentalized study. They do exist. If I was doing suspect research I would not do all of it at a location that everyone is familiar with.

Why would it be impossible to do some of the research here - State Key Laboratory of Pathogen and Biosecurity, Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Beijing, China?

Danzak does justify the need for research as a means of developing vaccines. Perhaps something when awry? Regardless they were manipulating virus sequences that had been adapted for humans in labs.

 

[russ_watters]

I apologize. The quote can be found around the 30:04 mark.

He says this. If you think that supports a Nature only origin must be the new math.

Ok, that's enough. You're ignoring the context of what he's saying. The question asked - the words immediately before that quote - were: "You can't vaccinate against them...what do we do?" And the quote you provided continues on with discussion about how to create vaccines.

Thread closed. No more conspiracy theories please.