The Potential Lab Origin of COVID-19

[enoch]

I lean towards lab accident but I am wired to when it comes to how China acted in the heady days (and now).

[Infidel144]

Investigate the origins of COVID-19
Jesse D. Bloom1,2, Yujia Alina Chan3, Ralph S. Baric4, Pamela J. Bjorkman5, Sarah Cobey6, Benjamin E. Deverman3, David N. Fisman7, Ravindra Gupta8, Akiko Iwasaki9,2, Marc Lipsitch10, Ruslan Medzhitov9,2, Richard A. Neher11, Rasmus Nielsen12, Nick Patterson13, Tim Stearns14, Erik van Nimwegen11, Michael Worobey15, David A. Relman16,17,*

On 30 December 2019, the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases notified the world about a pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan, China (1). Since then, scientists have made remarkable progress in understanding the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), its transmission, pathogenesis, and mitigation by vaccines, therapeutics, and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Yet more investigation is still needed to determine the origin of the pandemic. Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable. Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1

[sumskilz]

Investigate the origins of COVID-19
Jesse D. Bloom1,2, Yujia Alina Chan3, Ralph S. Baric4, Pamela J. Bjorkman5, Sarah Cobey6, Benjamin E. Deverman3, David N. Fisman7, Ravindra Gupta8, Akiko Iwasaki9,2, Marc Lipsitch10, Ruslan Medzhitov9,2, Richard A. Neher11, Rasmus Nielsen12, Nick Patterson13, Tim Stearns14, Erik van Nimwegen11, Michael Worobey15, David A. Relman16,17,*

On 30 December 2019, the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases notified the world about a pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan, China (1). Since then, scientists have made remarkable progress in understanding the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), its transmission, pathogenesis, and mitigation by vaccines, therapeutics, and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Yet more investigation is still needed to determine the origin of the pandemic. Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable. Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1

Ralph Baric, the third author there, is pretty much considered the leading expert on coronaviruses, and specifically on the type of research being done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I guess we've now officially transitioned from "conspiracy theory" to legitimate hypothesis. I'm pretty sure this has been Baric's opinion from the beginning, but until recently it was just something I'd heard passed through a short chain of mutual acquaintances. Another one of the coauthors works in David Reich's Lab, who my department sometimes collaborates with. As I recall, I mentioned fairly early in the thread that there were a lot of scientists open to the possibility who just didn't want to speak up due to potential social and/or career compromising consequences.

[Gromovnik]

There's absolutely no way that China won't be framed for this.

[Abdülmecid I]

An interesting summary of how several media unfairly smeared the lab leak theory. It's basically a combination of political bias and bad journalism (misrepresentation of cautious academic remarks). Now that the hypothesis has become more mainsteam, some sort of an apology wouldn't harm.

[sumskilz]

Some information from the Fauci emails.

On January 31st 2020, Fauci sent an email to Kristian Andersen and Jeremy Farrar asking about this article in Science: Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak’s origins

Andersen wrote back to Fauci the same day saying "The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered... I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory." The Eddie and Bob that Andersen is referring to are Edward C. Holmes and Robert F. Garry, who were two of Andersen's coauthors on the article he wrote for Nature supposedly debunking the possibility of a lab origin. That would be the same article referenced on the first page of this thread, the one which the media constantly referred to when dismissing the lab origin "conspiracy theory".

The following day, February 1st 2020, Fauci sent an email to Hugh Auchincloss, with a PDF attachment titled "Baric, Shi et al - Nature medicine - SARS Gain of function". Fauci writes "Hugh: It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on. I have a conference call at 7:45 AM with Azar. It likely will be over at 8:45 AM. Read this paper as well as the e-mail that I will forward to you now. You will have tasks today that must be done." Auchincloss is the deputy director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Jeremy Farrar who is the director of the Welcome Trust, who had been CCed on the emails between Andersen and Fauci, then set up a big conference call for the same day (February 1st), at which Andersen and Holmes talked about the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Most of the invited attendees are redacted in the email, but included Fauci, Francis Collins (director of the NIH), and Andrew Rambaut. Keep in mind, that according to the Andersen's email the previous day, he and Holmes, the two experts on this conference call, believed that the genome did not look natural. Rambaut was another one of Andersen's coauthors on the Nature article supposedly debunking the conspiracy theory. Most everything in Fauci's emails regarding this conference call has been redacted.

Just one week later, Andersen, Rambaut, Holmes, and Garry already had the preprint of their article published in Nature supposedly debunking the various conspiracy theories. Now that this has come to light, Andersen is saying that they did indeed originally believe that the origin didn't look entirely natural but after an intensive investigation, came to the conclusion that it was almost certainly of completely natural origin. In my opinion, his claim is doubtful. In that week that he and the others were supposedly involved in an intensive investigation, he apparently had time to write emails, post on twitter, and speak to journalists dismissing "crackpot theories" about the virus having been "somehow engineered".

[enoch]

Some information from the Fauci emails.

On January 31st 2020, Fauci sent an email to Kristian Andersen and Jeremy Farrar asking about this article in Science: Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak’s origins

Andersen wrote back to Fauci the same day saying "The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered... I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory." The Eddie and Bob that Andersen is referring to are Edward C. Holmes and Robert F. Garry, who were two of Andersen's coauthors on the article he wrote for Nature supposedly debunking the possibility of a lab origin. That would be the same article referenced on the first page of this thread, the one which the media constantly referred to when dismissing the lab origin "conspiracy theory".

The following day, February 1st 2020, Fauci sent an email to Hugh Auchincloss, with a PDF attachment titled "Baric, Shi et al - Nature medicine - SARS Gain of function". Fauci writes "Hugh: It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on. I have a conference call at 7:45 AM with Azar. It likely will be over at 8:45 AM. Read this paper as well as the e-mail that I will forward to you now. You will have tasks today that must be done." Auchincloss is the deputy director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Jeremy Farrar who is the director of the Welcome Trust, who had been CCed on the emails between Andersen and Fauci, then set up a big conference call for the same day (February 1st), at which Andersen and Holmes talked about the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Most of the invited attendees are redacted in the email, but included Fauci, Francis Collins (director of the NIH), and Andrew Rambaut. Keep in mind, that according to the Andersen's email the previous day, he and Holmes, the two experts on this conference call, believed that the genome did not look natural. Rambaut was another one of Andersen's coauthors on the Nature article supposedly debunking the conspiracy theory. Most everything in Fauci's emails regarding this conference call has been redacted.

Just one week later, Andersen, Rambaut, Holmes, and Garry already had the preprint of their article published in Nature supposedly debunking the various conspiracy theories. Now that this has come to light, Andersen is saying that they did indeed originally believe that the origin didn't look entirely natural but after an intensive investigation, came to the conclusion that it was almost certainly of completely natural origin. In my opinion, his claim is doubtful. In that week that he and the others were supposedly involved in an intensive investigation, he apparently had time to write emails, post on twitter, and speak to journalists dismissing "crackpot theories" about the virus having been "somehow engineered".

Why veer off into conspiracy at the end here (besides it making your narrative more plausible)?

[sumskilz]

Why veer off into conspiracy at the end here (besides it making your narrative more plausible)?

I don't know what conspiracy you're referring to. The fact that I doubt Andersen's claim? The reason why I doubt it, is that within four days, he went from saying privately that he and other experts found the SARS-CoV-2 "genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory" to referring to such a perspective as a "crackpot theory".

Or that Fauci appears to have privately taken the lab leak hypothesis seriously at first before dismissing it publicly? That's not really surprising, it's consistent with his masks don't work BS, among other incidences in which he seems to have decided that the public should only be informed about the virus on a need to know basis.

[enoch]

I don't know what conspiracy you're referring to. The fact that I doubt Andersen's claim? The reason why I doubt it, is that within four days, he went from saying privately that he and other experts found the SARS-CoV-2 "genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory" to referring to such a perspective as a "crackpot theory".

Or that Fauci appears to have privately taken the lab leak hypothesis seriously at first before dismissing it publicly? That's not really surprising, it's consistent with his masks don't work BS, among other incidences in which he seems to have decided that the public should only be informed about the virus on a need to know basis.

Why double down on conspiracy theory?

[sumskilz]

Why double down on conspiracy theory?

I could probably answer your question if I knew what you're referring to.

[Common Soldier]

Some information from the Fauci emails.

On January 31st 2020, Fauci sent an email to Kristian Andersen and Jeremy Farrar asking about this article in Science: Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak’s origins

Andersen wrote back to Fauci the same day saying "The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered... I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory." The Eddie and Bob that Andersen is referring to are Edward C. Holmes and Robert F. Garry, who were two of Andersen's coauthors on the article he wrote for Nature supposedly debunking the possibility of a lab origin. That would be the same article referenced on the first page of this thread, the one which the media constantly referred to when dismissing the lab origin "conspiracy theory".

The following day, February 1st 2020, Fauci sent an email to Hugh Auchincloss, with a PDF attachment titled "Baric, Shi et al - Nature medicine - SARS Gain of function". Fauci writes "Hugh: It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on. I have a conference call at 7:45 AM with Azar. It likely will be over at 8:45 AM. Read this paper as well as the e-mail that I will forward to you now. You will have tasks today that must be done." Auchincloss is the deputy director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Jeremy Farrar who is the director of the Welcome Trust, who had been CCed on the emails between Andersen and Fauci, then set up a big conference call for the same day (February 1st), at which Andersen and Holmes talked about the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Most of the invited attendees are redacted in the email, but included Fauci, Francis Collins (director of the NIH), and Andrew Rambaut. Keep in mind, that according to the Andersen's email the previous day, he and Holmes, the two experts on this conference call, believed that the genome did not look natural. Rambaut was another one of Andersen's coauthors on the Nature article supposedly debunking the conspiracy theory. Most everything in Fauci's emails regarding this conference call has been redacted.

Just one week later, Andersen, Rambaut, Holmes, and Garry already had the preprint of their article published in Nature supposedly debunking the various conspiracy theories. Now that this has come to light, Andersen is saying that they did indeed originally believe that the origin didn't look entirely natural but after an intensive investigation, came to the conclusion that it was almost certainly of completely natural origin. In my opinion, his claim is doubtful. In that week that he and the others were supposedly involved in an intensive investigation, he apparently had time to write emails, post on twitter, and speak to journalists dismissing "crackpot theories" about the virus having been "somehow engineered".

The problem with this is Fauci and his ilk feel entitled to deliberately lie for the greater good. Fauci did the same kind if lying with wearing mask. The real reason Fauci discouraged wearing mask was because he was worried about mask shortages for those who really needed them.
Once he was sure there was enough mask available, he did an about face and started recommending wearing masks. (Koreans were all wearing masks when Fauci was recommending against them. I knew thst as soon as the dangers of mask shortages was past, Fauci would be recommending wearing masks.)

The negative effect of this dishonesty is that it creates distrust among people. So even when you do tell them the truth, like the vaccines are safe and a good idea, you won't be believed. You can sed why Fauci lied about the lab origin, he did not want to trigger a wave o anti-Chinese hysteria, a noble reason. But he sacrificed his own credibility in the process. So Fauci can recommend vaccines all he wants, but many are not going to get them, because they see Fauci as a liar.

I am not absolutely convinced of the lab origin, but I am absolutely convinced thst the possibility of COVID being of a lab origin was dismissed due to entirely political reasons. It will come as no surprise to me that Fauci and his crowd were less than honest with the public

[Abdülmecid I]

The lab theory wasn't dismissed for the ''greater good'', like the masks, or for political reasons. WHO may have done so, in order to appease China, but the reason so many scientists dismissed it was mainly self-serving. The practice of artificially accelerating the evolution of viruses is very widespread and lots of funding/careers depend on it. It's an international phenomenon, where foreign institutions and doctors cooperate with/invest on each other for quicker results. Unfortunately, its contribution is quite controversial, because it seems more susceptible to leak virulent diseases than actually preventing their outbreak/propagation.

You can argue that Fauci had good intentions for misleading the public about the usefulness of the masks (although, as you said, he undermined public confidence in doctors in the long term), but I'm not sure if his motives behind the arbitrary dismissal of the lab leak theory were as noble. Not that all the doctors/officials that also rejected it as a conspiracy-theory were involved. Most of them simply copied more authoritative figures or hesitated to go against the mainstream line. The most outspoken proponents of the natural origins though...

[athanaric]

The lab theory wasn't dismissed for the ''greater good'', like the masks, or for political reasons. WHO may have done so, in order to appease China, but the reason so many scientists dismissed it was mainly self-serving. The practice of artificially accelerating the evolution of viruses is very widespread and lots of funding/careers depend on it. It's an international phenomenon, where foreign institutions and doctors cooperate with/invest on each other for quicker results. Unfortunately, its contribution is quite controversial, because it seems more susceptible to leak virulent diseases than actually preventing their outbreak/propagation.

This might be a good opportunity for the international community to ban those methods, and issue sanctions against any actor violating that ban.

[enoch]

I could probably answer your question if I knew what you're referring to.

The easily disprovable parts of your posts.

[sumskilz]

The easily disprovable parts of your posts.

I'm not really interested in the rhetorical games. If there are any factual errors in my posts, then easily disprove them. That I would be interested in.

[Sir Adrian]

Having read what was disclosed about the Fauci emails the only logical conclusion is that the people responsible for covid are Donald Trump and some lab workers in China who got infected as early as november 2019.

Why is Donald Trump responsible? Because the covid gain of function tests performed in that laboratory were funded by the US government. Obama cut funding for all forms of gain of function research but Trump restarted in 2016-2017

[Lord Thesaurian]

Having read what was disclosed about the Fauci emails the only logical conclusion is that the people responsible for covid are Donald Trump and some lab workers in China who got infected as early as november 2019.

Why is Donald Trump responsible? Because the covid gain of function tests performed in that laboratory were funded by the US government. Obama cut funding for all forms of gain of function research but Trump restarted in 2016-2017

That doesn’t really make sense though. A comparison would be blaming people who invested in car companies for car accidents or for safety issues caused by material defects. Sure, maybe one could believe investing in car companies is immoral, but it doesn’t track.

[Sir Adrian]

It does make sense when you look up the reasoning behind Obama's cuts. To use your analogy it would be like funding a factory in Tijuana that makes nuclear powered cars when you already know that several of their prototypes exploded. November 2019 is not the first time people from the Wuhan lab got infected and died. Moreover cars are not made to kill you whereas the whole point of gain of function is to determine how a virus could evolve to kill humans.

Simply put if you're enabling the circus to train man eating ostriches even though you know or suspect that circus has spotty tack record of animal escapes and you know that transparency is not a thing the circus does, you're at least partly to blame when the ostriches escape.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Uninformed fear mongering about nuclear power is another fitting analogy illustrative of my point.

[enoch]

Uninformed fear mongering about nuclear power is another fitting analogy illustrative of my point.

Fear mongering about extralegal immigration another fitting example.