What are to be the consequences of this debacle on public trust for scientific institutions?
Unfortunately, your link doesn’t present any evidence. What are they talking about?
1 Like
Just to pick an example, this shows that these scientists were developing their views over time. This really isn’t reflected in that attack article:
Edit: This post should come after my other one below. Moderators approved in the wrong chronological order.
1 Like
Consequence? Nothing.
People who trust scientific processes and results will continue to do so. People who reject science will continue to do so. Ignorant yahoos who overstate unevidenced conspiracy theories about subjects they don’t understand will continue to do so.
1 Like
I am surprised that you are unaware of this affair. Here is a link with more stuff
Apparently you have to follow the links in the references, which will send you to some pdf files with screenshots of conversations the authors of the nature paper had, leading up to it’s publication. They appear to be going through considerable periods of back-and-forth discussions concerning what they think is plausible or not, concerning SARS-Cov2 origins.
I’ve read about 20% of the first pdf from the Slack discussion (it’s quite long) and I would agree the sentiments they express in private appear to not be completely consistent with what they later appear to write in their paper. That said, I also find they express some nuances about their state of mind that are not being well represented in those articles that accuse them of scientific misconduct.
Rather, it really looks to me like they are very uncertain about a lot of the facts about Coronaviruses, how it would/could have evolved prior to the pandemic, and they’re sort of learning a lot of stuff as the discussion progresses.
It really reads largely like they don’t want to be out there giving ammunition to conspiracy theories (or worse, gain reputations as crackpots) only later to be made to look like fools if, (for example) a pangolin coronavirus is found that has a furin cleavage site.
1 Like
This is extremely misleading (from one of the articles purporting to show scientists were contradicting their private conversations with their paper):
- Scientists thought lab leak was possible months after saying otherwise
The messages reveal that Andersen still suspected that a lab leak was possible in mid-April, a full month after Nature Medicine officially published “Proximal Origin,” and two months after the authors published a preprint. “I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved,” Andersen wrote to his co-authors on April 16. “We also can’t fully rule out engineering (for basic research).” As we noted on Tuesday, if Andersen wasn’t convinced that no culturing was possible, why did he rule out “any type of laboratory-based scenario” in his paper?
Possible/impossible =/= plausible/implausible.
This “mistake” is constantly made in the articles that attack the authors of the nature paper.
Their nature paper says they don’t consider a lab-leak to be plausible, but it doesn’t “rule out” the lab-leak scenario as that sentence claims. None of the authors have ever claimed that a lab-leak scenario is or ever was impossible or that it had been “ruled out”.
This is what the nature paper actually says(my bold):
The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. 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.
That is just crap journalism. Misleading political spin that mischaracterizes what the authors of the paper are saying.
1 Like
My question was not about trust in the scientific processes but trust in the scientific institutions. Try again
Do you think the scientists that wrote the open letter to Nature Medecine reject science?
Can you please specify which conspiracy theories you are referring to?
In this case, yes. They are following their egos.
I’m guessing that Roy is referring to ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, your hero Didier Raoult (backed up by utterly unethical research practices), and a bunch of antivax silliness.
What’s your opinion of Andrew Wakefield, Gil?
1 Like
Don’t know him
Roy was referring to people that don’t understand their subject. Not sure it can be said that Raoult doesn’t understand his subject, can it?
Well, then, it’s about time you were introduced:
1 Like
That would be the most charitable explanation for his lack of ethics. At best, he appears to be unaware that a scientist’s duty is to try to DISprove his hypothesis, not to prove it by taking shortcuts and faking data.
Do you think his behavior was just plain evil, then?
1 Like
No, not at all. I think that most of the accusations made against him are at best unfounded and at worst fakes. Meanwhile, he has done his best to treat his many patients, successfully IMO.
I don’t believe you’ve even looked. If I’m wrong, which ones specifically and which evidence specifically?
I don’t see any evidence to support your opinion.
Do you really think that a study on only 24 patients, regardless of all of the other issues, should be taken as significant?
Why isn’t he suing all of these people and news organizations for libel, then?
3 Likes
On Twitter I saw this graphic circulating a little (promoted by the likes of Richard Ebright) - a list of quotes from the authors of the PO paper:
Of course, it’s touted as the smoking gun that the authors committed fraud:
I decided to track down all the quotes (I could for all but one of them), and read the 140-page PDF of the slack archive. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, the vast majority of the quotes are from days or weeks before the authors submitted the PO paper to Nature Medicine:
I highly recommend everyone read through the Slack archive (link to download the PDF here), because it shows the authors grappling with new data in real time and changing their minds accordingly. This includes several of them starting off leaning towards various lab leak scenarios and then later changing their minds.
I don’t see how it’s possible for anyone acting in good faith to suggest that the Slack archive shows the authors hatching a sinister plot to misrepresent their own views and mislead the public.
Ian Lipkin is the only author who seems to have more recently changed his mind to be more open to some kind of lab escape theory (see the 2023 quotes) after hearing that some bat coronavirus work was performed at BSL-2 at the WIV. However, he still maintains there is no positive evidence in favour of this, he basically seems to just be spooked by the possibility of an accidental release.
Of course, regardless of the dates, several of the quotes are taken completely out of context, like the one from Eddie Holmes about China wanting to “rewrite what happened” - in the same post Eddie makes it clear that he thinks the Chinese government doesn’t want any investigation of origins because even in a natural scenario they come out looking bad (referring to the wet markets).
Eddie Holmes 18:38 April 17th
“China are definitely trying to rewrite what happened, but Im pretty certain that’s because they don’t what anyone to think about the origin in any context rather than trying
to suppress the lab escape theory. They’ve been trying to suppress this from day 1 in December because the word ‘SARS’ is just so toxic to the regime.”
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.