Ahem....about that Lab Leak Hypothesis

[FL GMAN]

Excellent and thought provoking article written by Nicholas Wade a respected science writer on the origins of the virus. Wade does not say if came form the lab, only that we don't know. He directly challenges two scientists who were leading the natural origin argument and dismissing the  lab origin as false. The first was Peter Daszak of the Eco Health Alliance. Daszak it seems was involved with the funding of the lab and had a clear conflict of interest. The other Kristian Anderson Professor of immunology for the Scripps Research center made definitive claims about the origin he could not have known, per Wade. He lays out why but it's very technical and you would have to read the article. The total resistance to the Lab origin and denial of any investigation by the Chinese has many rethinking their initial assumptions.

[MightyGiants]

Excellent and thought provoking article written by Nicholas Wade a respected science writer on the origins of the virus. Wade does not say if came form the lab, only that we don't know. He directly challenges two scientists who were leading the natural origin argument and dismissing the  lab origin as false. The first was Peter Daszak of the Eco Health Alliance. Daszak it seems was involved with the funding of the lab and had a clear conflict of interest. The other Kristian Anderson Professor of immunology for the Scripps Research center made definitive claims about the origin he could not have known, per Wade. He lays out why but it's very technical and you would have to read the article. The total resistance to the Lab origin and denial of any investigation by the Chinese has many rethinking their initial assumptions.

Why should we believe Nicholas Wade over Doctor Peter Daszak ( a British zoologist and an expert on disease ecology, in particular on zoonosis) and Kristian G. Andersen, (PhD-Professor Department of Immunology and Microbiology California Campus with more of his credentials posted below)?


Scripps Research Joint Appointments
Professor, Department of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology
Director of Infectious Disease Genomics, Translational Research Institute
Faculty, Graduate Program
Other Joint Appointments
Vice President, Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium
Research Focus
Kristian Andersen is a professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research, with joint appointments in the Department of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, and at the Scripps Research Translational Institute. Over the past decade, his research has focused on the complex relationship between host and pathogen. Using a combination of next-generation sequencing, field work, experimentation, and computational biology he has spearheaded large international collaborations investigating the emergence, spread and evolution of deadly pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, Zika virus, Ebola virus, West Nile virus, and Lassa virus. His work is highly cross-disciplinary and exceptionally collaborative.

Kristian earned his doctoral degree from the University of Cambridge and performed postdoctoral work in Pardis Sabeti's group at Harvard University and the Broad Institute.

Education
Ph.D., Immunology, University of Cambridge, UK, 2009
B.Sc., Molecular Biology, University of Aarhus, DK, 2004
Professional Experience
Postdoc
Harvard University & Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard

Graduate
University of Cambridge & MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology

Undergraduate
Aarhus University & University of Kent, Canterbury
Awards & Professional Activities
2016, Ray Thomas Edwards Foundation Career Development Award
2016, Pew Scholar in the Biomedical Sciences
2009, Carlsberg Foundation postdoctoral fellowship
2008, Max Perutz prize for "outstanding graduate research"
2005, Carlsberg Foundation scholarship at Churchill College

[FL GMAN]

You can believe who you want. All I'm saying is that Daszak appears compromised. If the positions were reversed you would be screaming about this. The man was part of the funding of the lab. As for Christian, read the article, her reasoning as to why the virus couldn't have come from the lab appears incorrect. I'm sure there will be discussion on this going forward. You frequently claim to be open minded but get angry at any questioning you don't agree with. If the CCP won't allow inspections and verification why would anyone be anything other than suspicious.

[MightyGiants]

You can believe who you want. All I'm saying is that Daszak appears compromised. If the positions were reversed you would be screaming about this. The man was part of the funding of the lab. As for Christian, read the article, her reasoning as to why the virus couldn't have come from the lab appears incorrect. I'm sure there will be discussion on this going forward. You frequently claim to be open minded but get angry at any questioning you don't agree with. If the CCP won't allow inspections and verification why would anyone be anything other than suspicious.

In my role in public health emergency preparedness, I have sat through many a lecture from top doctors in infectious diseases and top epidemiologist.   This was all before Republicans and Conservatives tainted the science with their political agenda.    I understand where all these pandemics start (hint it's not in laboratories of political enemies)

To correct you, I am not "open-minded" rather I adhere to my own brand of critical thinking with is a combination of intellectual honesty, the scientific method, the principles of critical thinking, along with viewing "expert" witnesses the way a court would.    So if you come to me with a politically motivated wildly implausible conspiracy theory that is utterly devoid of proof, you are simply not going to find a taker.

If you had that little thing called evidence to support your accusations, you would find me all ears.  Without proof and the fact that your claims fly in the face of established science, you are not going to find a taker.   If in your mind that makes me closed minded, so be it.

[FL GMAN]

 When you responded you cited the credentials of the people being tested as better than Wade, you end with citing your own "credentials", why is that.  As for being scientific, you had no problem telling everyone Florida's numbers for Covid were fake when a Fraud looking to make money made that statement. Was that critical thinking. Read the article it's thought provoking. People can be wrong sometimes.

[MightyGiants]

When you responded you cited the credentials of the people being tested as better than Wade, you end with citing your own "credentials", why is that.  As for being scientific, you had no problem telling everyone Florida's numbers for Covid were fake when a Fraud looking to make money made that statement. Was that critical thinking. Read the article it's thought provoking. People can be wrong sometimes.

FL GMan,  I know the far right propaganda machine put out hit pieces throughout their propaganda network attacking the Florida Whistle Blower.   However, I have not seen any factual evidence to support their smear attack.  Yet, you as a consumer of far right propaganda do.   Why is that?   Why do you accept anything produce by the right-wing propaganda network completely and without question? 

[FL GMAN]

Mighty I heard about her around 1 year ago and I even mentioned to you that she might not be who you think she is. If you read the story it lays out what she did including trying to frame police for actions they never committed. She will get her day in court but if you read the story it takes her apart with facts not assumptions. I did not think about her again until I read the story and it's damming.

[MightyGiants]

Mighty I heard about her around 1 year ago and I even mentioned to you that she might not be who you think she is. If you read the story it lays out what she did including trying to frame police for actions they never committed. She will get her day in court but if you read the story it takes her apart with facts not assumptions. I did not think about her again until I read the story and it's damming.

I am aware you believe the right-wing propaganda machine and I also am aware you refused to believe the whistleblower.

[FL GMAN]

Mighty it doesn't matter whether one believed her or not, her story has been proven false. I also saw that 18 scientists have come forward and penned a letter to the WHO that the origin of the virus in the lab cannot be ruled out. The 18 include the leading epidemiologist at Harvard. Do you think he's a right winger as well. There is doubt on the origin of the virus whether you like it or not. I don't understand why this would be a right wing issue, don't we all want to know what happened.

[MightyGiants]

Mighty it doesn't matter whether one believed her or not, her story has been proven false. I also saw that 18 scientists have come forward and penned a letter to the WHO that the origin of the virus in the lab cannot be ruled out. The 18 include the leading epidemiologist at Harvard. Do you think he's a right winger as well. There is doubt on the origin of the virus whether you like it or not. I don't understand why this would be a right wing issue, don't we all want to know what happened.

I have not seen any factual evidence that has "proven her story false"

I looked at the letter.  They want more investigation into the origin and dispute the World Health Organisation's findings that determined the origin to be natural.   Of course, none of the scientists made the claims you and the rest of the FOX News BBH contingent have made.  I mean they are not agreeing with Rand Paul's dishonest and immoral false accusations and attacks against Dr Faucci, they are not doing like JimmyZ who claimed there was "new evidence" which factually is false, or Bob suggesting that China is vanishing people to hide the truth.

There is a world of difference between the world of science where some scientists want more proof and more study, verses you guys creating a totally unsubstantiated conspiracy theory to wield as a political weapon.

[MightyGiants]

FL Gman

That right-wing propaganda machine hit piece on the Florida whistleblower.  Tell me did the author of the article attempt to be fair and impartial (meaning he also reached out to the Whistle Blower for her response/side of the story) or did he only use the information that was provided to him by Ron Desantis's people?

[FL GMAN]

Ron Desantis hit machine? Did Ron Desantis put the cam on the officer that proved false her claim that they terrified her children and acted inappropriately. She will have her day in court but somehow I don't think that will matter to you. If she was really being attacked and had even a leg to stand on, the NYT, Washington Post , CNN and MSNBC would have her on every day and you know it. Let's just agree to disagree.

[MightyGiants]

Ron Desantis hit machine? Did Ron Desantis put the cam on the officer that proved false her claim that they terrified her children and acted inappropriately. She will have her day in court but somehow I don't think that will matter to you. If she was really being attacked and had even a leg to stand on, the NYT, Washington Post , CNN and MSNBC would have her on every day and you know it. Let's just agree to disagree.

I take that to mean-  "why, yes Rich it was a one-sided hit piece put out by Desantis and the right.  They never talked to or tried to talk to the whistleblower, journalism wasn't the goal, propaganda was"

[bldevil]

OK, so I actually read the whole Nicholas Wade article this morning.  Took me like 45 minutes.

This thread needs to redirect to the theory, and the science, if we are truly interested in science.  Wade claims, multiple times, that his article does NOT comprise proof.   Rather, he proposes two (main) hypotheses on the virus origin, lab-escape theory versus natural evolution.  (A third theory is also noted as possible but unlikely at the end of Wade's article, that the virus jumped directly from bats to humans.)  Then the article contrasted evidence in favor of each.  He uses Occam's razor (implicitly) to argue for the unintended lab accident theory of origin as opposed to natural evolution origin.

I found argument #3, the presence of the furin cleavage site, the most riveting, along with Baltimore's assertion that it was "smoking gun" evidence that SARS2 was engineered.

Wade's article is a rationally-written step-by-step analysis.  This is not Donald Trump-driven say-what-you-want-and-label-it-truth-after-the-fact vitriolic election-stealing conspiracy theory. 

I think one can rationally disagree with Wade's analysis, and Wade admits that the lab-escape hypothesis is just that, it's not proof.  But the call to action from the article is to get more information from what happened at Wuhan Institute of Virology.