Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Emerged from a Biological Laboratory in Wuhan, China(project-evidence.github.io)
project-evidence.github.io
Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Emerged from a Biological Laboratory in Wuhan, China
https://project-evidence.github.io/#%28part._the-end%29
10 comments
It might be my fault as I linked to the conclusion, but you are reducing the whole article to a part of the 9 miles distance argument
jacquesm(1)
I don't have much faith in crowd sourced investigations based on data only available on the internet and analysed by armchair experts
9 miles is a very close distance in a 60x50 mile city. Queens is next to the Statue of Liberty compared to Philadelphia.
The author appears to have the honest intention of analysing this question as thoroughly as possible.
If there is some other website or paper that goes through this in more detail, it would be good if someone could post a link to that website.
It could be that next week someone discovers the intermediate host (like the civet cat was for SARS), and the whole discussion becomes moot. But for the moment I think we are still in "don't know either way" territory.
Also we may eventually come to a deeper understanding of the nature of zoonotic events, and whether it is at all possible that a scientific laboratory could accidentally become part of the chain of transfer.
For example, it might be that a coronavirus only rarely and temporarily exists in a state where it infects the source host and is capable of infecting the destination host. In which case such a transfer will only ever occur in a situation where large numbers of indidivuals from both source and destination species exist, ie in rural areas where wildlife mixes with people, or in farms, or some combination of those two.
Another thing I would note is that all the examples of laboratory accidents were of organisms already known to be dangerous human diseases. Those types of accidents can and do happen. Whether it is at all probable that such an accident could generate a _new_ dangerous human disease is not so obvious. This comes back to the question of what probabilities are involved in the events leading up to a typical zoonotic event.
If there is some other website or paper that goes through this in more detail, it would be good if someone could post a link to that website.
It could be that next week someone discovers the intermediate host (like the civet cat was for SARS), and the whole discussion becomes moot. But for the moment I think we are still in "don't know either way" territory.
Also we may eventually come to a deeper understanding of the nature of zoonotic events, and whether it is at all possible that a scientific laboratory could accidentally become part of the chain of transfer.
For example, it might be that a coronavirus only rarely and temporarily exists in a state where it infects the source host and is capable of infecting the destination host. In which case such a transfer will only ever occur in a situation where large numbers of indidivuals from both source and destination species exist, ie in rural areas where wildlife mixes with people, or in farms, or some combination of those two.
Another thing I would note is that all the examples of laboratory accidents were of organisms already known to be dangerous human diseases. Those types of accidents can and do happen. Whether it is at all probable that such an accident could generate a _new_ dangerous human disease is not so obvious. This comes back to the question of what probabilities are involved in the events leading up to a typical zoonotic event.
The alternative to me will be a rural farmer caught the disease through extensive farming. Contamination from a wild animal, directly or through livestock.
It then kicked around for months in a rural location, a lower R perhaps, with better weather conditions and less networked people. People died and family's moved on.
Until someone on a trip to the city passed it on.
Perhaps selling at the markets or perhaps to family there who then took it to the market through work or just shopping.
I would not write off the Lab theory, it's better than bats at a market, but there are other logical theories as well.
It then kicked around for months in a rural location, a lower R perhaps, with better weather conditions and less networked people. People died and family's moved on.
Until someone on a trip to the city passed it on.
Perhaps selling at the markets or perhaps to family there who then took it to the market through work or just shopping.
I would not write off the Lab theory, it's better than bats at a market, but there are other logical theories as well.
While I was building the my covid 19 tracker https://visalist.io/emergency/coronavirus , I stumbled upon this and was taken aback. These are some hard hitting evidence. What does it mean, what repercussions this can have on the World? So china has finally won the world war 3?
The article states that while the virus could have escaped from a lab, there is no evidence this was intentional.
Closing china internally while allowing outgoing international flights, and somehow convincing WHO to pressure outside world away from closing borders was intentional.
> Closing china internally while allowing outgoing international flights
That didn't happen. When China shut down Wuhan, they shut down all transit, including international flights. The airport was completely closed. Even foreign nationals needed special permission and special chartered flights organized by their governments to leave.
> WHO to pressure outside world away from closing borders was intentional.
The WHO has always been against closing borders during an epidemic. This wasn't a new recommendation. Just look up the WHO recommendations for every Public Health Emergency of International Concern. They discouraged travel bans in every single case.
That didn't happen. When China shut down Wuhan, they shut down all transit, including international flights. The airport was completely closed. Even foreign nationals needed special permission and special chartered flights organized by their governments to leave.
> WHO to pressure outside world away from closing borders was intentional.
The WHO has always been against closing borders during an epidemic. This wasn't a new recommendation. Just look up the WHO recommendations for every Public Health Emergency of International Concern. They discouraged travel bans in every single case.
Hacker News has officially lost the plot. Instead of flagging this and moving on we are now debating not whether or not to ban project-evidence on sight but whether or not the release was intentional or not.
Can we all come to our senses please? What are the chances that you'd find out about this from some github.io pages instead of from all the intelligence services in the West who would have been on this like flies if it had a snowball's chance in hell of being true.
A large amount of evidence collected to make a certain narrative look plausible is not worth to be debated on its merits. There is evidence that Martians created our moon because gravity is real. Try refuting that.
Can we all come to our senses please? What are the chances that you'd find out about this from some github.io pages instead of from all the intelligence services in the West who would have been on this like flies if it had a snowball's chance in hell of being true.
A large amount of evidence collected to make a certain narrative look plausible is not worth to be debated on its merits. There is evidence that Martians created our moon because gravity is real. Try refuting that.
Are we really at the point where we know for certain how this pandemic came about? Is there really only one true view?
There's basically 3 theories that have been put out:
1: The US military developed it. This theory from some CCP higher ups was quickly discredited.
2: It originated in a wet market in Wuhan
This theory does not account for a few things, such as (a) how did the bats end up there? (b) Is there any proof that there were every any bats there? (c) What about the early patients who had no connection to the market?
3: It originated from a lab in Wuhan
The report shows that there are 2 labs in Wuhan, and both of these labs dealt with bats that have a high probability of having this virus. They show this through the published research from the labs as well as other items such as job announcements, etc.
This at least puts the bats (and virus) in Wuhan, explaining how they ended up being there from so far away.
The report goes to great pains to state that no conspiracy is needed, or tie in to bio weapons, or whatever. We simply have some labs dealing with these bats and viruses, in the location where the pandemic started, and there are many possible avenues as to how the virus could have got out.
I don't see how the report delves into conspiracy theories.
There's basically 3 theories that have been put out:
1: The US military developed it. This theory from some CCP higher ups was quickly discredited.
2: It originated in a wet market in Wuhan
This theory does not account for a few things, such as (a) how did the bats end up there? (b) Is there any proof that there were every any bats there? (c) What about the early patients who had no connection to the market?
3: It originated from a lab in Wuhan
The report shows that there are 2 labs in Wuhan, and both of these labs dealt with bats that have a high probability of having this virus. They show this through the published research from the labs as well as other items such as job announcements, etc.
This at least puts the bats (and virus) in Wuhan, explaining how they ended up being there from so far away.
The report goes to great pains to state that no conspiracy is needed, or tie in to bio weapons, or whatever. We simply have some labs dealing with these bats and viruses, in the location where the pandemic started, and there are many possible avenues as to how the virus could have got out.
I don't see how the report delves into conspiracy theories.
You left out theory 4, which is what the vast majority of virologists believe:
4. The virus transferred from an infected animal (not necessarily a bat) to a human, either at the Wuhan South China Seafood market or somewhere else, possibly in the countryside. The market might have just been the site of the first superspreading event. In a big country like China, millions of people come into contact with infected animals all the time. There's no need to invent a Hollywood-style theory about the virus escaping from a lab to explain how it got into humans.
4. The virus transferred from an infected animal (not necessarily a bat) to a human, either at the Wuhan South China Seafood market or somewhere else, possibly in the countryside. The market might have just been the site of the first superspreading event. In a big country like China, millions of people come into contact with infected animals all the time. There's no need to invent a Hollywood-style theory about the virus escaping from a lab to explain how it got into humans.
Innuendo and rumor mongering? That's where HN is now?
These are serious accusations, and you owe it to the rest of us to provide some serious proof.
These are serious accusations, and you owe it to the rest of us to provide some serious proof.
When common sense and critical thinking skills break down, cult worship of dishonest charlatans, and pervasive dishonest, magical thinking and brutality overtake reason and decency, civilization is close to upheaval or on its way out.
I think HN needs filters to avoid conspiracy theory and hate sites, and suggest tags based on AI proofreading to if phrases, themes, or hate are present.
It's either that or create a nicer, saner HN that is vouched invite-only with almost identifiable identities and low-res face photo avatars (reduce cyberdisinhibitionism per BaseCamp's findings)... because this sort of content is as garbage as flat earth and chemtrails.
I think HN needs filters to avoid conspiracy theory and hate sites, and suggest tags based on AI proofreading to if phrases, themes, or hate are present.
It's either that or create a nicer, saner HN that is vouched invite-only with almost identifiable identities and low-res face photo avatars (reduce cyberdisinhibitionism per BaseCamp's findings)... because this sort of content is as garbage as flat earth and chemtrails.
They present this as a conspiracy, but whether it escaped from the lab is a bit of a whatever in comparison to the coverup and the damage of suppressing the initial epidemic and playing it down after they were found out.
No one is really saying it was intentional; and while risky, the research into coronavirii that could trigger a future pandemic was valuable. But it was a screw-up; someone made a mistake or took a shortcut and here we are.
China is going to be under pressure regardless to either open up that research facility, or shut it down so it doesn't happen again there, or anywhere else in the world.
No one is really saying it was intentional; and while risky, the research into coronavirii that could trigger a future pandemic was valuable. But it was a screw-up; someone made a mistake or took a shortcut and here we are.
China is going to be under pressure regardless to either open up that research facility, or shut it down so it doesn't happen again there, or anywhere else in the world.
> whether it escaped from the lab is a bit of a whatever
It's actually a big difference:
It's the scenario of accepting a statiscal misfortune from mother nature versus the scenario of a lack of duty-of-care from a public institution, closely followed by having to pay reparations to a very long list of countries.
It's actually a big difference:
It's the scenario of accepting a statiscal misfortune from mother nature versus the scenario of a lack of duty-of-care from a public institution, closely followed by having to pay reparations to a very long list of countries.
Duty-of-care is usually interpreted as what would a reasonable person expect them to do in that situation. As long as they took all reasonable precautions and followed the safety protocols required for handling a pathogen of that type, then there shouldn't be any liability.
My point is that they failed in their disclosure whether it came from the lab or not, and more likely where foreign governments would pursue them for any repatriations.
It's the same situation if there was a nuclear accident - once it has occurred the expectation is to be upfront with the facts so other nations can prepare and deal with any damage. The circumstances of why are only important as far as preventing it happening again.
My point is that they failed in their disclosure whether it came from the lab or not, and more likely where foreign governments would pursue them for any repatriations.
It's the same situation if there was a nuclear accident - once it has occurred the expectation is to be upfront with the facts so other nations can prepare and deal with any damage. The circumstances of why are only important as far as preventing it happening again.
Evidence is of two types: circumstantial or direct.
This thing only has the first, and doesn't try looking for evidence of the contrary.
At least they acknowledge this inconclusiveness at the end.
At least they acknowledge this inconclusiveness at the end.
I would argue the same exercise could be made against the 'wet market theory', no?
What direct evidence do we have for the 'wet market' theory that is currently most widely accepted?
Looking from a distance, it appears that the volume of circunstancial evidence for this 'laboratory accident/negligence' theory is far larger.
What direct evidence do we have for the 'wet market' theory that is currently most widely accepted?
Looking from a distance, it appears that the volume of circunstancial evidence for this 'laboratory accident/negligence' theory is far larger.
Circumstantial evidence is what you use to support a theory you really want to be true but cannot prove. Direct evidence is what you use when you want to actually figure out what happened.
> What direct evidence do we have for the 'wet market' theory that is currently most widely accepted?
A couple of million years of Zoonotic events should count as pretty good evidence that that is how these things happen.
True, but then for that to be consistent, the epicenter around patient zero should have been next to a habitat where a large pool of this virus exist. However the closest matched virus seems to be carried by a species of bat that doesn't exist anywhere near the region of Wuhan. But coincidentally, if we trust the facts brought forward by this repo, was a species that was studied in these virology labs.
An interesting read.
They present evidence of 2 labs in Wuhan, and each lab was doing work with bats with a high degree of likelihood of having this virus.
This puts the virus at the scene of the crime, so to speak.
This is opposed to the wet market theory which has no evidence of said bats at the market, or explanation for how bats from 1000 miles away ended up there.
They present evidence of 2 labs in Wuhan, and each lab was doing work with bats with a high degree of likelihood of having this virus.
This puts the virus at the scene of the crime, so to speak.
This is opposed to the wet market theory which has no evidence of said bats at the market, or explanation for how bats from 1000 miles away ended up there.
[deleted]
Writing standards for conspiracy theories are on the rise, huh?
Didn't read all of it, but I'm not sure what a GPG key is doing there.
Didn't read all of it, but I'm not sure what a GPG key is doing there.
I am sure it was not your intention but dismissing (what appears to be) factual information with references, as a conspiracy, is a common strategy of autocratic states when dealing with information that generates a lot of difficult questions. Is there a particular part of the text that you found innacurate?
The key is probably to allow for people to share encrypted data with the author/contributor? Although to me it feels that github is not exactly the best medium for anonymous info leaks.
The key is probably to allow for people to share encrypted data with the author/contributor? Although to me it feels that github is not exactly the best medium for anonymous info leaks.
Maybe it's just the fact that this theory perfectly aligns with the current west-based propaganda effort that seeks to demonise China? Dismissing information as a conspiracy is a common strategy of autocratic states, as is seeding the internet with lies that align with their own interests.
An extremely good point, we are all at risk of being vehicles of information wars.
However, information spinners still need to spread info based on reality or partial truth in order to be effective in their spinning.
To me the current volume of evidence for a 'lab accident/negligence' theory versus the volume of evidence for a 'wet market' theory sticks out like a sore thumb even if we account for information war effects.
However, information spinners still need to spread info based on reality or partial truth in order to be effective in their spinning.
To me the current volume of evidence for a 'lab accident/negligence' theory versus the volume of evidence for a 'wet market' theory sticks out like a sore thumb even if we account for information war effects.
I eagerly await for the James Bond movie sequel where instead of evil villain you have a control-freak trying to cover up their incompetence.
I have my own conspiracy theory that some group with a financial stake in wet markets or the general trade in wildlife meat/products is manipulating right wing racists to push the theory that the virus originated in a lab rather than due to unsafe handling of wild game meat so that the Chinese government won't feel pressure to further curtail wild game markets.
My hard hitting github of evidence will include the fact that wet markets exist in China and also that racists exist in the US and other western countries. QED.
My hard hitting github of evidence will include the fact that wet markets exist in China and also that racists exist in the US and other western countries. QED.
I mean, that text is trying to make it seem like they are close to each other when actually it just means that both are in the same city. 9 miles is not a small distance in a big city like wuhan.
It's like saying that Queens is next to the Statue of Liberty.