Yes, that is what I should have written. I understand that the theory entails that there were viruses that the WIV was secretly storing/investigating and that they hid this from the world.
All that would mean is that someone from the lab contracted the virus out in the community because they were in a situation that increased their chances of exposure. It would not mean that the virus was ever stored in the lab, therefore no lab leak.
We do not know how this virus would have passed on to human hosts, and AFAIK it does not require direct contact with bats, but likely occurred thru an intermediate host. So there is no good reason to assume that workers at WIV would have been more likely to contract the virus.
Now we are discussing semantics. The question is not this semantic distinction you are making, but whether the scientific activity of the Wuhan lab contributed or was a necessary link the origin of the virus.
At the same time, it is an abuse of terms to suggest that a foray to a bat cave is catching the virus “in the community,” as that is not a normal activity.
It is a central question whether scientific work (such as unprotected visitation of a bat cave) was critical in the origin of the virus vs. if it was butcher of wild animals in a wet market, and the answer should direct policy going forward. Even if we rule out intentional engineering of the virus, It is not clear at all to me that these other scenarios ruled out.
What is the evidence that it went through an intermediate host?
As I understand it, the primary evidence is that bats are not usually in contact with humans, so we would expect an intermediary. Except some people (the scientists) were in regular contact with wild bats. Of course, as a respiratory virus, it does not require “direct” contact with bats to acquire it from visiting a bat cave.
It is common for scientists to collect data that is kept private before publication. If that pre-publication data ends up implicating a lot of people in a global pandemic that kills millions, it would not be surprising for people to hid the data that implicates them.
I’m not saying that this in fact happened. But rather I’m not sure anyone can trust that Chinese government would be forthright about the data here if it implicates the Lab.
These are all good points. I think the most plausible lab-leak case is something along the lines you describe. Conjectures that a novel coronavirus was deliberately engineered effectively de novo are absurd, but I suppose one good thing is only the most ignorant internet conspiracy nutters are advocating something that extreme anyway (I’ve already seen some on youtube).
It is however not outside the realm of possibility that a virus significantly closer to SARS-Cov2 than RatG13 has been evolved through serial passage to become more adapted to human cells. It’s just that even this seems like an unnecessary assumption to explain a lab-leak scenario.
When it comes to the known genetic and phenotypic attributes of SARS-Cov2 there doesn’t appear to be anything particularly suspicious about it. The clade is known to contain viruses that are capable of infecting humans and causing severe respiratory disease already, and known to have furin cleavage sites. The most “damning” piece of evidence advanced by lab-leak proponents - the case of double CGG arginine codons - is extremely weak. Invariably in a clade with a huge diversity of viruses of the type, carrying furin cleavage sites, you’re going to run into one with a rarely used codon.
The best evidence for a lab-leak hypothesis is the circumstantial evidence surrounding the location of the origin of the pandemic (Wuhan specifically, though also rather weak considering it’s regional role as a animal trading hub), and a number of strange inconsistencies in the statements made by Chinese officials and scientists concerning when, where, and how their bat-virus database close to the start of the pandemic was taken offline. From my perspective it is these circumstantial pieces of evidence that most merits the lab-leak hypothesis, and forms the basis for any call for a more in-depth, independent investigation.
No, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the Chinese are lying. We don’t have to posit ill intend (or a communist plot) other than self-preservation. They could simply have messed up and now want to avoid the embarrassment of having to admit that.
I don’t think the lab-leak scenario by uncareful workers sampling wild bat viruses and an attempted “coverup” is outside the realm of possibility. And we don’t strictly speaking need to posit that any egregious gain-of-function research occurred to give SARS-Cov2 the attributes it has.
Why do you characterize the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory? Do you think that David Baltimore or Robert Redfield are conspiracy theorists? Are you aware that many reputable scientists now think that the lab leak theory is a serious possibility that should be investigated further?
Sadly, we live in a time where any challenge to an official statement or widely held belief can now be considered ‘conspiracy’. But not sure the trick will work this time!
I have a different understanding of the claims being made. To my understanding, the specific accusation being made is that the WIV knowingly had SARS-CoV-2 in the lab, and this is being covered up. If the virus was inadvertently and unknowingly introduced into the human population thru that lab’s field work, that is a different scenario and, TBH, not one I have previously heard suggested.
But, sure, it is a possibility. One that would have been ruled out if, as I understand, lab workers were tested for exposure to COVID-19 and all results were negative. I do know it has been reported that all tests were negative, but I do not know how extensive that testing was.
Good question. All I know is that this is what most virologists are saying.
So, if I am following you correctly, this is the scenario you are suggesting (but not advocating):
The WIV collected and stores samples of SARS-CoV-2 as part of its field research.
During the course of collecting these samples, some of the workers became infected with the virus, and were the vectors thru which the virus entered the general human population, leading to the pandemic.
All officials and researchers who were aware of this link subsequently concealed all evidence that the lab was researching this virus and have maintained the cover up ever since, including lying to the WHO team that was sent to investigate.
However, there was not necessarily any “lab leak” or accident at the lab itself, beyond the fact that the workers had contracted the virus while out in the field.
Is that more or less what you are suggesting (which is not to say what you believe happened)?
If the Chinese gov’t, officials at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and probably many others as well, are deliberately concealing the fact that the virus was stored at the WIV and subsequently spilled out into the community, then that would be a conspiracy.
Which would make any theory that entails such a scenario a conspiracy theory, simply by definition.
If they believe the above conspiracy actually happened then, yes, they are in this instance.
Yes.
I have yet to here from them a single scrap of evidence that supports the conspiracy they are alleging, nor exactly what further investigations they think should be undertaken, beyond what is already happening. Could you clarify?
I’m just saying it is a very plausible hypothesis I haven’t seen any clear data to rule out, and it seems to be something a lot of people with a lot more information than me (e.g. WHO inspectors and the US govt.) are all asking for more information about.
Change “collected and stores samples of SARS-CoV-2” to “regularly visits bat caves” and I agree.
We don’t have any evidence they had collected and stored SARS-CoV-2 specifically (and they claim they did not). The fact that they are virology group is not necessarily really relevant, as we are talking about incidental infection.
Perhaps. Of course, the lab itself might been an initial hotbed of the infection where many people were initially infected. Who knows.
Whether we term this a “lab leak” or not, the message on this is confusing a lot of people, conflating very reasonable hypothesis as to the origins with outright conspiracy theories. Conflations like that are dangerous. They undermine trust and make it difficult to do the research necessary to settle the matter.
And if one of the plausible theory is validated, the conflation will make it seem like the conspiracy theorists with implausible nonsense were vindicate. That would be bad (and it already might be happening)!
Claiming that people and governments implicated in a mistake are covering it up is not a “conspiracy theory.” That happens all the time, and is not a conspiracy. Otherwise, we’d never be able to challenge coverups without being called a “conspiracy theorist.” That’s absurd.
In contrast, claiming that the US government is covering up China’s mistake (and there is no plausible reason for this) is a conspiracy theory.
We also live in a time of unparalleled misinformation and misrepresentation, some of which feed conspiracy theories. We need trusted source of information AND to verify it. Real conspiracies involving more than a handful of people don’t stay a secret forever, or even for very long in many cases. An accidental release in a lab involving only a few people might be successfully covered up. But on a scale involving national (China) or international (WHO) agencies it becomes very difficult to keep that kind of secret.
That’s a very big difference IMHO. If the scenario you are suggesting is true, then it is quite likely that no one involved in the situation even knew they had started the pandemic, asymptomatic infection being as common as it it.
And, TBH, this scenario does not seem very probable at all. I mean, sure, people regularly visiting bat caves will be more likely to contract bat viruses. But it seems to me there are so many other vectors by which zoonotic spread could have occurred, that there is no particular reason to favor this one in the absence of any supporting evidence.
It is if there is no good evidence to back it up. And that is particularly the case when a conspiracy is invoked to explain away the absence of evidence, as is the case here WRT to the records of viruses stored at the lab and then negative findings by WHO investigators.
I think it’s a good thing if, when people are maligning the reputation of a dedicated scientist like Shi Zhengli, they are required to come up with some robust evidence before they are taken seriously.
I entirely agree. Even if the Lab is implicated, she might not have anything to do with it. Even if what i discussed is plausible, that doesn’t make it true.
Not in the scenario you suggest. But if the lab was storing or investigating the virus, she would have to have known. Here is a statement she made to Science magazine on the subject:
We first received the clinical samples of SARS-CoV-2 on December 30 2019, which
were called back then samples of “pneumonia with unknown etiology”. Subsequently, we
rapidly conducted research in parallel with other domestic institutions, and quickly identified
the pathogen. The complete genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was submitted and published
via WHO on January 12. Before that, we had never been in contact with or studied this virus,
nor did we know of its existence.
If the Lab Leak Theory is correct, then she is lying there, no two ways about it.
I see no reason to doubt she is telling the truth.
This was a fair and careful (but brief) coverage of just these issues. Wade quoted Baltimore’s reference to the “smoking gun”, and it was discussed that Baltimore was corrected and has since backed away from his original assertion. The podcast hosts are careful to say no hypotheses should be discarded at this point, including the possibility of a lab leak. They also talk quite a bit about the political issues involved in demands for a full-scale lab investigation.
Perhaps she didn’t have the info to know she was wrong.
There is reason to think anyone in her situation would be tempted to lie. But she is also a generally trustworthy scientist.
But even otherwise Trustworthy scientists sometimes lie, and perhaps more often don’t exercise due diligence when the consequences of knowing are high.
That’s the tension. And that is why the WHO initiated an investigation. It would be premature to conclude much at all before the next phase is completed. All we have now is the interim report.
If it is the case that US agencies have funded gain of function studies at the WIV, then it is not very hard to see that these agencies may have had a vested interest to also cover up the lab leak scenario.
In this regard, the video below is interesting.
Perhaps. But it would also be impossible to do so. The checks and balances are strong enough that no one would lie on behalf of the people who screwed up, out of fear of being implicated themselves.
Is there any evidence in the video that the US funded GoF studies at the WIV? I listened to about half of it and it seemed to be deliberately misleading, treating all research on coronaviruses as GoF research.
