SARS-CoV-2: conspiracy theories and politics

[Michael_Okoko]

@Sam

Did it contain the words massive negligent homicide?
Just search for the word homicide in the article. Didn’t find it. Care to help.

If this was a joke, it isn’t funny. The article did not use the exact words John used, but it did so in effect, like in this section:

1. Chinese virologists. First and foremost, Chinese virologists are to blame for performing gain-of-function experiments in mostly BSL2-level safety conditions which were far too lax to contain a virus of unexpected infectiousness like SARS2. If the virus did indeed escape from their lab, they deserve the world’s censure for a foreseeable accident that has already caused the deaths of three million people. True, Shi was trained by French virologists, worked closely with American virologists and was following international rules for the containment of coronaviruses. But she could and should have made her own assessment of the risks she was running. She and her colleagues bear the responsibility for their actions.

I have been using the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a shorthand for all virological activities in Wuhan. It’s possible that SARS2 was generated in some other Wuhan lab, perhaps in an attempt to make a vaccine that worked against all coronaviruses. But until the role of other Chinese virologists is clarified, Shi is the public face of Chinese work on coronaviruses, and provisionally she and her colleagues will stand first in line for opprobrium.

First, Wade has not released any evidence that Chinese virologists conducted GOF experiments. He just asserted it and Gil bought it and so did many other readers unable to vet or demand evidence for this claim.

Second, he only cited one paper supposedly documenting the methods and results of a GOF experiment by Dr Shi, but on analysing that paper, we found out it was blatant lie.

Wade, Gil and many others are standing close to that edge, that’s if they have not already fallen head-first into the abyss.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Faizal_Ali

Ask some of the working scientists here if they allow absolutely anyone who asks to look at the data for a research project they plan on publishing.

Speaking as a working scientist, I can confidently say that there is no way I would show absolutely anyone who asked unpublished data that I was working on. On the other hand, as a working scientist working on SARS-CoV-2, I can also confidently say that there is no way in hell I wouldn’t show my data to an official WHO panel investigating a possible leak from our lab that had killed millions.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Michael_Okoko

@Sam

Did it contain the words massive negligent homicide?

Just search for the word homicide in the article. Didn’t find it. Care to help.

If this was a joke, it isn’t funny. The article did not use the exact words John used, but it did so in effect, like in this section:

1. Chinese virologists. First and foremost, Chinese virologists are to blame…

Exactly. When Wade claims they are to blame but did not do so deliberately, that’s negligent homicide right there.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

@BrianLopez

Right, because GoF is done quite often, it’s normal procedure, right?

It depends on how one defines it.

GoF to make a human infectious virus more infectious seems to be very uncommon. Perhaps we could find some papers, but that isn’t a usual sort of study.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Jordan

So to be more clear and put my cards out on the table, this is how I’m thinking about the whole SARS-CoV-2 origins question. First, I see 5 possibilities:

1. completely natural, zoonotic origins. WIV not involved at all.
2. completely natural, but originating at WIV due to frequent interactions with bats, etc. An accident.
3. lab-created and accidentally leaked. WIV was working on something novel and it “escaped”. An accident.
4. lab-created bioweapon and accidentally leaked. WIV was working on something nasty and it accidentally escaped.
5. lab-created bioweapon intentionally deployed. China doing bad bad things.

I agree with your “very likely” ranking, but perhaps if China was more forthcoming earlier on, with #1, there would not be as much suspicion invested in possibilities #2 through #5.

[Faizal_Ali]

@glipsnort

Speaking as a working scientist, I can confidently say that there is no way I would show absolutely anyone who asked unpublished data that I was working on. On the other hand, as a working scientist working on SARS-CoV-2, I can also confidently say that there is no way in hell I wouldn’t show my data to an official WHO panel investigating a possible leak from our lab that had killed millions.

Very reasonable. I suspect most would agree.

And, because there appears to be considerable misinformation on this subject, I will just note that the WHO panel has said they were allowed to see all data they requested.

@Jordan

At this point in time, with the WHO reports, and lots of genomic data, I think I’d assign:

1. Very likely
2. Somewhat unlikely
3. Unlikely
4. Very unlikely
5. Very unlikely

That looks pretty good to me. IMHO #3-5 no longer need to be investigated unless the evidence changes to make them more likely. That appears to be the approach that is being taken.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Sam

I ask you to concede that if one has something to hide they can use this as an excuse.

They can try. Just as an accused criminal can try any excuse he wishes to block the investigation of relevant evidence.

If there is adequate justification to see the evidence, the excuse won’t work.

@Sam

I’ve made the claim that this analogy of yours depends on knowing the answer (your innocence) ahead of time. How do you ignore this?

Have I ignored it? I thought I had dismissed it because it’s not true, but maybe i didn’t do that in writing. If so, I will now rectify it. If one of my neighbours was in the exact position I was, I would not demand that the cops investigate them further.

@Sam

I’ve got in mind a great analogy, but I’m being policed and not allowed to use it.

@Sam

Mercer, you around? Maybe to partisan?

Hmm, you’re pretty eager to make unjustified allegations, aren’t you? Well, you are at least consistent about that.

@Mercer

Because the sequence evidence isn’t being hidden. We also use it to reliably infer ancestral sequences.

Ah, but what about the massive number of sequences that we haven’t seen because they’re being hidden? How do we know they are being hidden? Because we haven’t seen them !!!

Logic FTW!