Experienced virologists heavily favor the natural-spillover theory. That’s because the phenomenon has been common throughout history, accounting for the spread of most viruses and indeed for most pandemics. The direct animal source hasn’t been identified; it’s not unusual for investigations of that nature to take years. SARS2 has been known to scientists for only about 18 months.
“We cannot prove that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin and we cannot prove that its emergence was not the result of a lab leak,” Kristian Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, lead author of a seminal paper on the origin of the virus, told me by email.
“However, while both scenarios are possible, they are not equally likely,” Andersen wrote. “Precedence, data and other evidence strongly favor natural emergence as a highly likely scientific theory for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, while the lab leak remains a speculative incomplete hypothesis with no credible evidence.”
Other virologists challenge the assumption by Wade and the assertion by Baltimore that there’s anything unique or especially unusual about the furin cleavage site on SARS2. Such sites have been found in similar viruses, and natural mechanisms for their appearance have been identified.
As a scientist, he has to be very careful with his statements, so "smoking gun" is very loose talk , and he admits there is no hard evidence that can identify the exact origins of the virus.
ReplyDeleteOf course, he neglects to mention that the relative academic freedom he enjoys in the good old US of A is not replicated in China, a dictatorship that censors everything, including social media, has shut up people talking, has removed damning evidence and testimony... and continues with its concentration camps where it holds millions of muslims, who are being systematically tortured, raped killed, or remodelled to return to communist society.
So since the Chinese are bad people they must be assumed guilty of all allegations!
ReplyDeleteSince the Chinese regime is totalitarian, one has to be skeptical of the information they are putting out. Do you accept everything that Reform say? You don't even accept what Rabbis with great smichas say, eg rav Goren or Rackman, but you accept the position of the atheist Chinese govt?
ReplyDeleteillogical!
ReplyDeletebasically when did you stop beating your wife - your question starts with false premise
Oh really?
ReplyDeleteFalse premise - China is totalitarian? Even facebook is banned there. Perhaps it reminds you of har nof restrictions on internet?
The question is when did you stop being a Marxist?
More table banging!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, given how politics has corrupted science he has to be careful of what he says. If he comes out and says "Yep, Chinese lab leak" then his employment and future academic prospects could be harmed. So if he's say "Welllllll, it might be but obviously it's not so likely" then that's pretty much him say "Yes, but I don't want the Chinese to destroy my life"
ReplyDeleteIf this blog was around in 1938, would you have defended the Germans the same way?
ReplyDeleteWhy not? Gedolim did the same.
ReplyDeleteHe could lose his Nobel Prize, leMafrea.. Sweden is always neutral, so they don't tolerate criticism of fascist regimes.
ReplyDeleteInstead of trusting media portrayals and characterizations, here are Dr. Baltimore's direct statements from an interview on the subject: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/the-debate-over-origins-of-sars-cov-2
ReplyDeleteAnd just as I quoted him as saying in my previous comment, he said regarding lab origins: "I do know that it's a hypothesis that must be taken seriously."
How did a "Hypothesis that must be taken seriously" and an entirely plausible origin of a pandemic get characterized as a Conspiracy theory? And even before there was any investigation? It was done dishonestly by people with an agenda and a serious financial conflict of interest, it was done with lack of proof or evidence to support zoonotic origins, it never should have been characterized this way, and it certainly shouldn't be now.
"Such sites have been found in similar viruses,"
ReplyDeleteNot one sarbecovirus on the planet other than Sars-Cov2 has a furin cleavage site. Not one. (And thus it's dishonest and misleading when they make this claim about irrelevant viruses). Do you understand how evolution works?
"However, while both scenarios are possible, they are not equally likely,”
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing that in the mental system of some people, Andersen's mere opinion about the matter constitutes a "rebuttal" of some sort to those suggesting an investigation is needed and that lab origin is plausible, to the point that they would declare it a conspiracy theory (which despite Andersen's past stance, even he doesn't suggest anymore as he used to do so erroneously from the standpoint of his "seminal paper" from almost 2 years ago). But, in that same mental system, the contrary opinion of a different scientist is of course to be dismissed! Dismissed, diminished and ridiculed by someone not even connected to the field and with no subject matter expertise. Because Andersen said the opinion I like and prefer.
" Andersen wrote. “Precedence, data and other evidence strongly favor natural emergence as a highly likely scientific theory for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, while the lab leak remains a speculative incomplete hypothesis with no credible evidence.” "
It's amazing that for all the times Andersen said a natural zoonotic spillover event was the more likely origin, he has never put forth a worthwhile argument as to why that's the case and never presented compelling evidence suggesting the spillover was more likely, to support his stated opinion. Nothing beyond conjecture and bias. "Precedence" is of course a ridiculous argument for his claim because for all of human history until the very recent past, humans did not have the capability to genetically manipulate viruses. So of course past pandemics would not have resulted from experimentation.
For one example, it was only in 2016 ish that the Shi lab reported their technique for seamlessly insert varying spike protein sequences onto SARS-like coronavirus genomic backbones to test out novel virus creations. It was only in 2014 that a gain-of-function-produced novel virus prompted the GOF research moratorium.
This would leave thousands of years of human existence in recorded history without this capability in which all previous pandemics recorded in history would have perforce been natural ones.
It also ignores the fact that in recent years there have been multiple lab leaks of *existing viruses* from labs researching them. SARS has escaped from labs in China multiple times since the SARS pandemic. It is a stroke of good luck that those leaked viruses are not as contagious as SARS-Cov2 and otherwise did not spread to additional hosts and reach a level beyond the possibility of containment in those instances.
ReplyDeletehttps://t.co/pwMY5k5S1b?amp=1
ReplyDeletelink to WaPo article
Richard H. Ebright
@R_H_Ebright
·Aug 26
"In the United States, NIH Director Francis S. Collins and Anthony S. Fauci, director of the agency’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have led the federal funding and oversight of gain-of-function research."
"Collins and Fauci in recent years have helped shape policy changes, directly and through..aides, that undercut the [review] committee’s authority, according to..documents, congressional testimony and interviews with dozens of present and former officials and science experts"
Richard H. Ebright
"Fauci said[, lying brazenly]..the..experiments..are 'done with the highest degree of oversight'"
"'To the extent that we can be transparent, that the system would allow us to be transparent, we go overboard to be transparent,' Fauci said[, lying even more brazenly]."
"From 2017 to 2020, no more than “three or four” [of the 18] projects were forwarded to the review committee, said Robert Kadlec, who oversaw the panel."
"'They were grading their own homework,' Kadlec said [referring to Collins and Fauci]."