More On the Lab Leak Hypothesis

[MightyGiants]

Back to the science...

What about the furin cleavage site?  The junction between the S1 and S2 proteins appears to have been man-made.  Nobel-prize winning biologist  that the virus was man-made.  Is this not enough evidence to at least warrant an investigation?

Science involves examining all the facts and this claim should have been qualified that other experts dispute it:

Kristian G. Andersen
@K_G_Andersen
Infectious diseases & genomics. Immunologist in (voluntary) exile. Minimal sarcasm. Fierce HOA (Hater of Acronyms).



Kristian G. Andersen
@K_G_Andersen

[Bob In PA]

I seem to be the kiss-of-death for this topic...hope I don't kill this thread a 2nd time.

Back to the science...

bld: Please stop interrupting the "Jimmy-Rich-Bob Show" with your wild conspiracy theories.  LOL   

Seriously, I for one would greatly appreciate hearing (through you) from as many other scientists as possible who have the expertise to analyze Wade's reporting and the actual science behind "fiddling" with viruses.

I just hope we're able to keep up with you, so try to present it in a manner in which laypersons can best understand the details (as you have thus far).

Bob

[jimmyz]

Bob,

Factually speaking the "wrong virus" can already exist in nature or nature will eventually create it.   The whole point of this virus research is to prevent the "wrong virus" from wiping out humanity.   There is a lot of false and bad politically motivated claims about viruses being created or engineered in this lab. Factually speaking, there is nothing to support those claims.  They were studying Covid viruses that they found in nature (mostly from bats) to help learn more about it.   


That's not to say there are not labs around the world that tinker with viruses to see what sort of mutations can cause what sort of harm (called gain-of-function research).   The creation of virus mutations to help better prepare for a future pandemic is controversial, with good reason.    There are serious questions if the benefits derived (in terms of what we learn about these man-made mutations and how it helps mankind prepare for a future pandemic) have to be weighed against the odds of an accidental release of these manmade viruses.   

In many ways that particular debate reminds me of the debate over nuclear power.   



Bob,

Still want to claim that this thread isn't just JimmyZ regurgitating what he learned on FOX News?

That's not politics.  That's a real problem if the media is gonna be the megaphone for science.  If they believed the science why didnt they report the science instead of reporting on Trump's lies? 

[bldevil]

OK, so there's some disagreement among scientists.  In my opinion, that means more investigation is worthwhile.

If it is NOT worthy of investigation, then why this letter in Science magazine:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1.full

"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."

"Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the team assessed a zoonotic spillover from an intermediate host as

[MightyGiants]

OK, so there's some disagreement among scientists.  In my opinion, that means more investigation is worthwhile.

I wanted to give you the credentials of the scientist who I posted disputing the "smoking gun" claims

Kristian G. Andersen, PhD
Professor
Department of Immunology and Microbiology
California Campus


Laboratory Website
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

[Bob In PA]

If it is NOT worthy of investigation, then why this letter in Science magazine:

bld: I think that's a very fair statement. Wish I had said it as well. Yes, the people of the various countries are not the problem... as with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the problem is with the power-seekers.  Bob

[Bob In PA]

I wanted to give you the credentials of the scientist who I posted disputing the "smoking gun" claims
Kristian G. Andersen, PhD
Professor
Department of Immunology and Microbiology
California Campus

Rich: Thanks. Another guy well worth listening to. I've also heard others dispute the so-called smoking gun observation. It's a bit over my head, so I figure my best course is to just keep listening to both sides.  Bob

[MightyGiants]

B Devil,

I have "unrolled" the Twitter thread with this expert goes into great detail why the "smoking gun" claim is wrong


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1391507230848032772.html

[MightyGiants]

That same expert mentions this article as a must-read to properly understand this topic

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx5ndx/china-coronavirus-origins-who-mission

[bldevil]

B Devil,

I have "unrolled" the Twitter thread with this expert goes into great detail why the "smoking gun" claim is wrong


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1391507230848032772.html

Thank you professor.  I have some homework to do!  Not sure I'll get to it before my tee-time this afternoon.  ("tee" time, er, not "tea time".)

[bldevil]

Rich: Thanks. Another guy well worth listening to. I've also heard others dispute the so-called smoking gun observation. It's a bit over my head, so I figure my best course is to just keep listening to both sides.  Bob

I'm in no-where near a position to judge Dr. Anderson's credentials, I can only assume he is extremely well-versed on the topic.  He did have a hand in establishing the base hypothesis, in this letter of March 17 of last year, that the virus was natural in origin. 

"It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. "

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Nicholas Wade goes through Anderson's argument in the Nature letter. 

Let's just leave it at there is disagreement among scientists...all of whom I presume to be good people, without axes to grind, who have different opinions on a highly-technical controversial subject.

[MightyGiants]

I'm in no-where near a position to judge Dr. Anderson's credentials, I can only assume he is extremely well-versed on the topic.  He did have a hand in establishing the base hypothesis, in this letter of March 17 of last year, that the virus was natural in origin. 

"It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. "

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Nicholas Wade goes through Anderson's argument in the Nature letter. 

Let's just leave it at there is disagreement among scientists...all of whom I presume to be good people, without axes to grind, who have different opinions on a highly-technical controversial subject.

Nicholas Wade is not a scientist.  He is a journalist who published a rather out-there book claiming that the various races are rather different in terms of intelligence, character etc. due to recent evolutionary changes.  Needless to say with the exception of one libertarian scientist, his book was not particularly well received


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Wade

[Bob In PA]

Nicholas Wade is not a scientist. 

Rich: All true, and fairly stated.  However, as a reporter who worked for the New York Times and other highly-regarded publications (now semi-retired) he did a very careful crawl through the events, IMO.

In the end, he did personally tilt to the "escaped from a laboratory" view, but also correctly emphasized that it is a close call and that we need to keep digging for more information.

IMO, because his expertise is not in the sciences, his conclusion is worth no more than mine or yours. It's just his personal opinion, which played no part in my regard for the work he did in assembling his article.

Bob

[bldevil]

I don't know Nicholas Wade from a hole-in-the-wall.  His article is extremely well-written and states explicitly that it only offers circumstantial evidence for the lab-release theory.  I think the hallmark of reasonable discussion is to admit that your hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis and not revealed truth.  And his article does just that.

He may be a kook but his article isn't, it can stand on its own.  It's not just Wade arguing for investigation of the lab-release hypothesis.  You also have the head of the WHO and a bunch of other eminent biologists asking for the same further investigation.  Note that it is *investigation* that is warranted.  No one has said we can conclude that the lab-release *hypothesis* is corrrect.

Shutting down an investigation into the root cause of the most significant biological event of the last century is not warranted.   Not when the head of the WHO and a number of eminent biologists are saying it should be investigated.

[MightyGiants]

I don't know Nicholas Wade from a hole-in-the-wall.  His article is extremely well-written and states explicitly that it only offers circumstantial evidence for the lab-release theory.  I think the hallmark of reasonable discussion is to admit that your hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis and not revealed truth.  And his article does just that.

He may be a kook but his article isn't, it can stand on its own.  It's not just Wade arguing for investigation of the lab-release hypothesis.  You also have the head of the WHO and a bunch of other eminent biologists asking for the same further investigation.  Note that it is *investigation* that is warranted.  No one has said we can conclude that the lab-release *hypothesis* is corrrect.

Shutting down an investigation into the root cause of the most significant biological event of the last century is not warranted.   Not when the head of the WHO and a number of eminent biologists are saying it should be investigated.

pursuing all possibilities without bias is good is just good science.

The right/GOP making political hay because their favorite theory hasn't been disproven is literally no better than the Chinese government who is doing the exact same thing and making political hay because their favorite theory that the virus was imported into China via frozen/refrigerated foods hasn't been disproven either.