During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the “lab leak” theory gained little traction. Sure, U.S. President Donald Trump suggested SARS-CoV-2 originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China—and called it “the China virus”—but he never presented evidence, and few in the scientific community took him seriously. In fact, early in the pandemic, a group of prominent researchers dismissed lab-origin notions as “conspiracy theories” in a letter in The Lancet. A report from a World Health Organization (WHO) “joint mission,” which sent a scientific team to China in January to explore possible origins with Chinese colleagues, described a lab accident as “extremely unlikely.”
But this spring, views began to shift. Suddenly it seemed that the lab-leak hypothesis had been too blithely dismissed. In a widely read piece, fueled by a “smoking gun” quote from a Nobel laureate, a veteran science journalist accused scientists and the mainstream media of ignoring “substantial evidence” for the scenario. The head of WHO openly pushed back against the joint mission’s conclusion, and U.S. President Joe Biden ordered the intelligence community to reassess the lab-leak possibility. Eighteen scientists, including leaders in virology and evolutionary biology, signed a letter published in Science in May that called for a more balanced appraisal of the “laboratory incident” hypothesis.
Yet behind the clamor, little had changed. No breakthrough studies have been published. The highly anticipated U.S. intelligence review, delivered to Biden on 24 August, reached no firm conclusions, but leaned toward the theory that the virus has a natural origin.
Fresh evidence that would resolve the question may not emerge anytime soon. China remains the best place to hunt for clues, but its relative openness to collaboration during the joint mission seems to have evaporated. Chinese officials have scoffed at calls from Biden and WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus for an independent audit of key Wuhan labs, which some say should include an investigation of notebooks, computers, and freezers. Chinese vice health minister Zeng Yixin said such demands show “disrespect toward common sense and arrogance toward science.” In response to the increasing pressure, China has also blocked the “phase 2” studies outlined in the joint mission’s March report, which could reveal a natural jump between species.
Despite the impasse, many scientists say the existing evidence—including early epidemiological patterns, SARS-CoV-2’s genomic makeup, and a recent paper about animal markets in Wuhan—makes it far more probable that the virus, like many emerging pathogens, made a natural “zoonotic” jump from animals to humans.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-coronavirus-lab-leak-virology-origins-pandemic-11633462827
ReplyDeletewhenever the title reads "scientists think / say" have to look at which scientists they are. They may be following a particular line , or government policy. There are other scientists who disagree..
The work of a task force commissioned by the Lancet into the
ReplyDeleteorigins of covid-19 has folded after concerns about the conflicts of
interest of one its members and his ties through a non-profit
organisation to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2414
"A report from a World Health Organization (WHO) “joint mission,” which sent a scientific team to China in January to explore possible origins with Chinese colleagues, described a lab accident as “extremely unlikely.”"
ReplyDeleteHahah. What a laugh. They cite the sham WHO "investigation," which was in part led by Peter Daszak, a man with deeply conflicting interests. Are you not aware that he has since been forced to recuse himself from this team's efforts due to these conflicts?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/uk-scientist-centre-pandemic-origins-debate-removed-inquiry/
Are you not aware that the WHO's chief investigator Peter Embarek, has since admitted that this 2020 exercise was a sham, information and access was withheld from them by the Chinese authorities, and they were pressured by China to say these things your article cites as the conclusions of the investigation? He openly admits this now.
See here: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2023
And here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/12/who-origins-embarek/
It is strange to latch onto this point of view even now when it's been completely undermined. The origin of the virus cannot be determined by wishful thinking but only by a proper investigation and a transparent provision of documents and samples. As of February 2020 ("proximal origins" paper from Scripps) there was certainly no investigation and as of now there has still not been a proper investigation. Of course certain people have manipulated and obscured this entire process and that doesn't reflect favorably on their possible role in this. The recently revealed grant proposals are shocking. And there is no denial whatsoever from EcoHealth, and of course they never mentioned this grant proposal and never intended for the public to know about it.
You should listen to the heretofore heavily suppressed point of view of scientists who are not directly involved in this type of work and therefore do not stand to gain from the virus's origins being a certain way, such as: David Relman, Alina Chan, Richard Ebright, David Baltimore... The list goes on and on.
There is so much more that can be said on this topic.
Wow you just learned scientists disagree?
ReplyDeleteSo what do the majority believe?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01211-0
ReplyDeleteShould we discount the laboratory origin of COVID-19?
----
"Majority" in science is not the same as in Halacha. And there is no "Zakein mamre" in science, although there is the politics of zakein mamre in science and academe in general.
The above paper cites the "mountain of ...evidence " that Biotech Observer was alluding.
"But
ReplyDeleteJack Nunberg, director of the Montana Biotechnology Centre at the
University of Montana, warned that implanting chimeric viruses into mice
with a human cell receptor could cause the virus to adapt to that
receptor: “You are setting yourself up for the possibility of selecting
for something that transmits better to humans.”
Nunberg said the bat virus research outlined in the EcoHealth grant report did
not seem particularly dangerous – given the researchers were using bat,
not human viruses – nor did it seem to be a breach of the grant
evaluation process.
“Retrospectively you can question, but at the time, it wasn’t someone wanting to … get it more airborne or resurrecting a pandemic strain of flu,” he said.
“But any time you make a new virus, you are rolling the dice.” "
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3148833/debate-over-claim-coronavirus-came-wuhan-institute-virology
Okay, so China lies through its teeth but when it says "No, not from one of our labs" (remember they tried to say it came from visiting soldiers?) people nod sagely and say "Well there you go." Because Trump said it came from a Chinese lab so no way.
ReplyDeleteChinese scientists who operate in a system more monitored and oppressive than Stalin's wettest dreams say "No, not from one of our labs" and people nod sagely and say "Well there go you go." Because... Trump.
The WHO sends a team to China to investigate. China denies access to any actual materials that might solve the question. The team announces "No evidence of a lab leak!" and everyone says "See? No lab leak!" Because Trump!
A concerning number of American scientists had a strong investment in the same lab they continue to deny the leak came from. Anywhere else this would be huge conflict of interest and they'd be denounced. But Trump!
China denying that this came from their lab is like the Nazis claiming that Auschwitz was a work-skills training camp.
If Trump had been around in 1940 and called out the Germans on the Holocaust, liberals would've rushed to put on swatiskas.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant. First you have to do some sifting. Remove all scientist with Chinese names. Sorry, sounds racist but has to be done. Then remove all scientists with financial ties to Chinese institutions or who ever received money from China. Then do the poll.
ReplyDeleteWho/Chinese say it's unlikely - so they must be right.
ReplyDeleteMost archeologists deny Torah, so we should accept them
Wow!
ReplyDeleteWith that type of speculation you can prove that there was widespread voter fraud and that vaccinations are designed to kill!
this is scientific conspiracy theory!
I was curious about the origin of the virus. And I found incontrovertible evidence it did not start in a laborarory and it did start in a bat cave.
ReplyDeleteI traveled to Wuhan and went to the laboratory there. I was refused entry. Which made me suspicious they were hiding something. Of course there is no evidence it comes from a laboratory, I thought. They won't let me collect the evidence.
But then the people at the front desk of the lab who were blocking my entry further into the building showed me around outside to the back. Sure enough there was a dumpster there and someone had spray painted on it in English the words, "VIRUS DID NOT ORGINATE HERE."
Well, that settled that. But where did the virus originate from, then? I took a train trip to where the bat caves are found. I crawled through an opening and found myself surrounded by thousands of eyes staring at me. I waved my hands and the bats flew off the wall. And on the stone someone had spray painted, "PANDEMIC STARTED HERE."
So, there you are.
Curiously, science magazines won't publish my study, but the media is all over my findings.
again, nonsense. you don't understand the points brought in the paper.
ReplyDeletethe paper is presenting many dead ends, and incosnsitency in the claim that it was a natural animal virus that leaked naturally into human circulation from a wet market.
On the other hand, Wuhan was experimenting with these viruses, and there is strong reason to beleive that they were combining different viruses to create kilayim. According to your presentation, and scientific investigation and proposal of theries, models, explantions for new phenomena are ipso facto "conspiracy theories"
NIH doles out government research dollars. Are there scientists who control the flow of government money who might not want to distribute funds to scientists in academia and elsewhere who question the party line that the virus did not spread due to its.escaping from a lab?
ReplyDeleteJust asking.
Rav Schiller of Ohr Sameach yeshiva was talking about how Halacha develops - he says it is a democracy of opportunity, but an aristocracy of opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn science, it is almost the complete opposite . There is a democracy of opinion, ie anyone can express a theory or hypothesis, but it is a meritocracy of opportunity - only a small number of students progress to become experts. They don't say that anyone can become the next Einstein. But in yeshivas they say you can become like rabbi Akiva!
https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&q=t.co/ozgLjwzpB8#S5GR4Djyi/vpUABSDy5/
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&q=t.co/TwRGGbhNFh#uagqxRIdP/WcxabWmi/
ReplyDeletemore nonsense!
ReplyDeleteActually it's more similar.
ReplyDeleteAny rabbi can challenge Rav Moshe or another Gadol's psak. It's just that if he wants to get taken seriously, he has a huge challenge in doing do.
Any scientist can take on Einstein but again, good luck making enough data to convince people.
No, the difference here is very important -
ReplyDeletea small-ish guy like Eliezer Berkovits , or Shlomo Goren (although he was a gadol hador) can come up with brilliant argumentation, sources etc, but they are not part of the "aristocracy", so they are not considered , at least in the hareidi dominated world. In science, there is no longer any aristocracy - Newton is dead, Einstein A'H is long gone, so it can be a dude with a PhD from Idaho or Honolulu university who comes up with evidence challenging eg gravitational waves, black holes etc. I am not saying they are automatically right, but they do not need to be a recognized "gadol" before they can constribute. Once they have done, then they get a Nobel prize.
and your previous story about the Chatam sofer - if it was true - that he is the Chatam sofer so he doesn't need sevora to disagree with someone else..... Nice story, got any evidence for it?
ReplyDelete