What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?(unherd.com)
unherd.com
What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?
https://unherd.com/2022/06/what-happened-to-the-lab-leak-hypothesis/
745 comments
For those with a bit more background in the sciences, there's an increasingly massive amount of evidence to support Zoonotic origin. Philipp Markolin has a good rundown:
https://protagonistfuture.substack.com/p/natures-neglected-g...
Most of the "evidence" for lab leak is just weird insinuation -- it's increasingly hard to pin down what the advocates for that position are even arguing (e.g. whether it's a natural virus that escaped or an engineered one, how different lineages showed up at the market, which lab it allegedly escaped from since the WIV campus is much further from the market compared to the CCDC, etc etc).
China is a bad actor and definitely contributed to the conspiracy madness around the virus by being so shut-down and performing such a half-assed investigation but unfortunately they would have done the same whether the virus came to be via the same animal trade that caused the last SARS outbreak or if there was some secret Wuhan project.
https://protagonistfuture.substack.com/p/natures-neglected-g...
Most of the "evidence" for lab leak is just weird insinuation -- it's increasingly hard to pin down what the advocates for that position are even arguing (e.g. whether it's a natural virus that escaped or an engineered one, how different lineages showed up at the market, which lab it allegedly escaped from since the WIV campus is much further from the market compared to the CCDC, etc etc).
China is a bad actor and definitely contributed to the conspiracy madness around the virus by being so shut-down and performing such a half-assed investigation but unfortunately they would have done the same whether the virus came to be via the same animal trade that caused the last SARS outbreak or if there was some secret Wuhan project.
I think understanding the origin is important, but I also understand why it wasn't a media fixation during the pandemic itself.
1) Understanding the origin doesn't change the consequences or response to the pandemic
2) Unlike the nuclear analogy in the article, pandemic virus outbreaks happen naturally, and fairly frequently. Combined with the huge increase in global travel, when one does happen it can be around the world in every airport before anyone has even identified it.
So in the big picture this type of outbreak seems inevitable, not anomalous or inherently preventable.
Understanding the origin, either by cross-species origination or a laboratory containment breach, is indeed important and significant and should be pursued, but I also understand why the search for that answer isn't at the top of the 24-hour news cycle.
1) Understanding the origin doesn't change the consequences or response to the pandemic
2) Unlike the nuclear analogy in the article, pandemic virus outbreaks happen naturally, and fairly frequently. Combined with the huge increase in global travel, when one does happen it can be around the world in every airport before anyone has even identified it.
So in the big picture this type of outbreak seems inevitable, not anomalous or inherently preventable.
Understanding the origin, either by cross-species origination or a laboratory containment breach, is indeed important and significant and should be pursued, but I also understand why the search for that answer isn't at the top of the 24-hour news cycle.
I think the important point is not whether this outbreak was in fact a lab leak, but that it is entirely plausible due to gain-of-function research.
Even if this one wasn’t a lab leak, the next one very well could be. The risk/reward profile of that sort of research is insanely unfavorable.
Even if this one wasn’t a lab leak, the next one very well could be. The risk/reward profile of that sort of research is insanely unfavorable.
It’s because there was a series of scientific papers that pointed very strongly to a zoonotic origin: https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1499406148...
Let’s not forget that talking about the lab leak hypothesis last year resulted in censorship among social media platforms and YouTube
This is why free speech is important, it is impossible to rely on “fact checkers”.
This is why free speech is important, it is impossible to rely on “fact checkers”.
Just a reminder that the predecessor of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1 leaked from the lab 4 (yes, four) times. The Wikipedia page lists 3 of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...
Biosecurity incidents are shockingly common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...
Biosecurity incidents are shockingly common.
A lab specialized in investigating Coronaviruses in the city where the first outbreak was, is at least suspicious imo. The fact that the Chinese authorities weren't exactly helpful (to my knowledge) in debunking the lab-leak hypothesis is extra suspicious. But then again, if they really would have wanted to cover it up, they might have looked for another city to point to as the source of the outbreak, I don't know how feasible that would have been though.
There is an episode of Lex Fridman's Podcast with Jamie Metzl on the topic: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K78jqx9fx2I
Metzl is highly confident of a lab-leak. However, lab-leak doesn't require that the virus has been tampered with and I somewhat agree that is important to know if the virus escaped due to inadequate lab safety.
The unfortunate fact is that the only plausible consequence of a public acceptance (by government officials) of the lab-leak hypothesis, is that funding for research into viruses would get a lot more restrictive. Maybe not less funding, but it would go to far fewer labs, which have the highest levels of containment.
The profession which knows enough to settle this question, thus has a massive conflict of interest. We cannot expect bankers to say that the response to the GFC should be to break up banks. We cannot expect generals after a war to say that they screwed up. We cannot expect intelligence agencies to say that they should have less power and more oversight. Scientists are human, they want to keep their job and not have to move to another city to do it.
What is actually going to happen, is nothing, until and unless a second lab leak kills a lot of people.
The profession which knows enough to settle this question, thus has a massive conflict of interest. We cannot expect bankers to say that the response to the GFC should be to break up banks. We cannot expect generals after a war to say that they screwed up. We cannot expect intelligence agencies to say that they should have less power and more oversight. Scientists are human, they want to keep their job and not have to move to another city to do it.
What is actually going to happen, is nothing, until and unless a second lab leak kills a lot of people.
It's not that the origin story is not important, it's not that people don't care, it's that it is a distraction.
It doesn't help solve the crisis.
The article makes the comparison with a nuclear bomb. This is a bad comparison. If we were attacked by a sentient creature, we could reason with it and mitigate further damage or escalation.
In the case of a virus, it's good to know to prevent future pandemics maybe, and there is an academic interests, but it doesn't help with the current situation.
It doesn't help solve the crisis.
The article makes the comparison with a nuclear bomb. This is a bad comparison. If we were attacked by a sentient creature, we could reason with it and mitigate further damage or escalation.
In the case of a virus, it's good to know to prevent future pandemics maybe, and there is an academic interests, but it doesn't help with the current situation.
Based on what China's reaction to the source-chasing-efforts, I have no doubt it is where this is originated.
Wuhan is a huge city with the only lab on earth that works with SARS, virus-leak is not uncommon in China over the years(including SARS-1 that was leaked a few times but was contained quickly), after COVID China issued lots of new policies including stricter lab management, and new leadership from military to be in charge of Wuhan lab, and hide the initial samples of COVID, and started a diplomatic propaganda to paint USA as the virus maker.
Wuhan is a huge city with the only lab on earth that works with SARS, virus-leak is not uncommon in China over the years(including SARS-1 that was leaked a few times but was contained quickly), after COVID China issued lots of new policies including stricter lab management, and new leadership from military to be in charge of Wuhan lab, and hide the initial samples of COVID, and started a diplomatic propaganda to paint USA as the virus maker.
The lab-leak hypothesis is meta-scientific. When it was first tossed around, the lab leak hypothesis generated two predictions:
1. We would find evidence that someone was doing experiments on furin cleavage sites in coronaviruses.
2. We would find that the furin cleavage site matched a known sequence.
We did not find 2, which should have been easy to find. Eventually, we found 1, since a rejected DARPA grant proposal affiliated with the lab in Wuhan emerged.
Then, we found 2!! with a plausible explanation of why no one had found it earlier -- you had to turn on "patented sequence search" on NCBI blast, which is turned off by default. An easy mistake to make. As a professional biochemist for a decade I had no idea that blast had a patent sequence search, much less that it was turned off by default (which, btw is a sensible setting).
The scientific method says given a model it should make independent predictions (ideally unlikely) which are later verified. The evidence for a lab leak should be considered relatively strong.
1. We would find evidence that someone was doing experiments on furin cleavage sites in coronaviruses.
2. We would find that the furin cleavage site matched a known sequence.
We did not find 2, which should have been easy to find. Eventually, we found 1, since a rejected DARPA grant proposal affiliated with the lab in Wuhan emerged.
Then, we found 2!! with a plausible explanation of why no one had found it earlier -- you had to turn on "patented sequence search" on NCBI blast, which is turned off by default. An easy mistake to make. As a professional biochemist for a decade I had no idea that blast had a patent sequence search, much less that it was turned off by default (which, btw is a sensible setting).
The scientific method says given a model it should make independent predictions (ideally unlikely) which are later verified. The evidence for a lab leak should be considered relatively strong.
>We co-authored a book, Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19, on this topic in 2021 and it proved to be an odd experience. Eschewing speculation and sticking to what we could prove, we delved deep into the evidence and wove together the threads that linked bat viruses from southern China or Southeast Asia with an outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019. We concluded that it was impossible to be sure yet, but two theories were plausible: spillover from an animal to a person at a market, or an accident in a laboratory or during a research field trip.
> Our book received praise from readers: we received letters and emails from senior scientists, politicians, businessmen, journalists, and others commending it as a non-fiction whodunnit.
>All that was gratifying. But it stood in marked contrast to the reaction in much of the media. CNN invited us on to discuss the book then cancelled at the last minute — at the behest of their health editor. The BBC simply ignored the book altogether, as did the other mainstream US and UK networks.
The mainstream media is the enemy
> Our book received praise from readers: we received letters and emails from senior scientists, politicians, businessmen, journalists, and others commending it as a non-fiction whodunnit.
>All that was gratifying. But it stood in marked contrast to the reaction in much of the media. CNN invited us on to discuss the book then cancelled at the last minute — at the behest of their health editor. The BBC simply ignored the book altogether, as did the other mainstream US and UK networks.
The mainstream media is the enemy
If the lab leak hypothesis is proven beyond all doubt, then it embarrasses China.
Embarrassing one of the world's superpowers is broadly seen as an undesirable thing to do.
Ergo, scientists producing findings backing up the hypothesis will find plenty of opponents whose first and only job is to discredit them in any way possible, from denying their papers publication (looking at you, ResearchGate) to publicly attacking them on social media (Dr. Malone).
Embarrassing one of the world's superpowers is broadly seen as an undesirable thing to do.
Ergo, scientists producing findings backing up the hypothesis will find plenty of opponents whose first and only job is to discredit them in any way possible, from denying their papers publication (looking at you, ResearchGate) to publicly attacking them on social media (Dr. Malone).
> Reviews were mostly bad — in both senses of the word. That is to say, they were highly critical and inaccurate. In some cases, the authors said things that made clear they had not read the book but had made up their minds to dislike it. Not one but two virologists told us on Twitter that the book was full of lies — and that they had not read it. An odd thing for anybody to admit to, especially a scientist.
If you call yourself a "scientist" you have an ethical duty to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Perhaps not in the formal sense of a doctor's Hippocratic oath, but in the tradition of Galileo and Copernicus.
If you call yourself a "scientist" you have an ethical duty to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Perhaps not in the formal sense of a doctor's Hippocratic oath, but in the tradition of Galileo and Copernicus.
Jon Stewart's classic lab-leak rant on Colbert's show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8&t=178s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8&t=178s
The lab-leak hypothesis has been suppressed because it is a politically unauthorized thought.
If the hypothesis is investigated and proven true, powerful people stand to face justice, which is of course unacceptable to these very people, and so the idea has been banned by way of media silence and by way of association with other unauthorized politics, i.e. with those who are right of center.
If the hypothesis is investigated and proven true, powerful people stand to face justice, which is of course unacceptable to these very people, and so the idea has been banned by way of media silence and by way of association with other unauthorized politics, i.e. with those who are right of center.
One thing I've noticed as a result of the pandemic: there are many people who think that Listening to Experts is the same thing as Doing Science. Everyone who has strong feelings about the lab leak hypothesis (in either direction) would do well to remember the Litany of Tarski:
If SARS-COV-2 escaped from the WIV,
I desire to believe that SARS-COV-2 escaped from the WIV;
If SARS-COV-2 did not escape from the WIV,
I desire to believe that SARS-COV-2 did not escape from the WIV;
Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.
With the lack of any really strong unequivocal data supporting any real hypothesis, I think people got tired of arguing about it and recognized that throwing around huge claims with massive implications was probably irresponsible.
I initially dismissed the lab leak hypothesis because surely nobody would be stupid enough to make new SARS virus strains on purpose. They’re worthless as biological weapons, and the risks are insane.
Then it turns out that that is precisely the type of research the Wuhan lab does regularly.
And then when our prime minister merely suggested an investigation, China put punitive tariffs on billions of dollars of our exports to them.
Because clearly, that’s how innocent governments with nothing to hide act.
Immediate, massive retaliation for merely suggesting that someone should look into things.
But everybody should believe the Chinese government! They told you: it came from a pangolin in the market. Why would they lie?
They lied about the reason for the punitive tariffs, sure, making up some insane story about centrally orchestrated “dumping”.
Okay, so they lied. But not about Wuhan! That would be unethical…
Then it turns out that that is precisely the type of research the Wuhan lab does regularly.
And then when our prime minister merely suggested an investigation, China put punitive tariffs on billions of dollars of our exports to them.
Because clearly, that’s how innocent governments with nothing to hide act.
Immediate, massive retaliation for merely suggesting that someone should look into things.
But everybody should believe the Chinese government! They told you: it came from a pangolin in the market. Why would they lie?
They lied about the reason for the punitive tariffs, sure, making up some insane story about centrally orchestrated “dumping”.
Okay, so they lied. But not about Wuhan! That would be unethical…
I am all for looking into things, but this all sounds really familiar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discredited_HIV/AIDS_origins...
I think there is something in human psychology that gains some kind of comfort thinking everything is controlled by humans. Like accepting that we live in a chaotic universe we have no control over is scarier than some imagined Dr. Evil character that we can blame events on.
Not saying it’s not worth looking into, just that a lot of these same people think there is a laser satellite starting forest fires.
I think there is something in human psychology that gains some kind of comfort thinking everything is controlled by humans. Like accepting that we live in a chaotic universe we have no control over is scarier than some imagined Dr. Evil character that we can blame events on.
Not saying it’s not worth looking into, just that a lot of these same people think there is a laser satellite starting forest fires.
Given the evidence, it's easier for me to believe a covered up mishap at the lab than anything else. If anyone is going to chabuduo something like this, try to cover it up, then blame the US and everyone else, it's China.
There are obviously some conspiracy theory versions of this but the main origin of a more sane lab leak theory is by exclusion, which is to say that it existed because no other theory had definitive proof.
The most obvious alternative candidate is zoonotic origin. To many this is still the leading theory and it's likely the most plausible. But the smoking gun for zoonotic origin is finding the wildlife population of origin. This hasn't happened yet. Given the attention, that's a little weird but it's not that weird. Sometimes it takes years.
The most plausible form of the lab leak theory is that this was an accidental leak of a strain they had. Even that raises questions. If it's a strain they had, where did it come from? You run into the same issue as zoonotic origin. Could it be the result of gaint of function or similar research that would've modified a wild virus? That's possible too.
The only evidence here is circumstancial. China had, for example, not cooperated with WHO early on in investigations. Any investigations have been limited in their terms of reference. There was a DNA database of coronavirus strains that was taken down in 2019. Kind of weird timing but no tdamning. When I last looked into it this hadn't been examined by third parties. Maybe that's changed now?
So what's happened? Nothing. Because there hasn't been significant movement here on this or any other theory.
The most obvious alternative candidate is zoonotic origin. To many this is still the leading theory and it's likely the most plausible. But the smoking gun for zoonotic origin is finding the wildlife population of origin. This hasn't happened yet. Given the attention, that's a little weird but it's not that weird. Sometimes it takes years.
The most plausible form of the lab leak theory is that this was an accidental leak of a strain they had. Even that raises questions. If it's a strain they had, where did it come from? You run into the same issue as zoonotic origin. Could it be the result of gaint of function or similar research that would've modified a wild virus? That's possible too.
The only evidence here is circumstancial. China had, for example, not cooperated with WHO early on in investigations. Any investigations have been limited in their terms of reference. There was a DNA database of coronavirus strains that was taken down in 2019. Kind of weird timing but no tdamning. When I last looked into it this hadn't been examined by third parties. Maybe that's changed now?
So what's happened? Nothing. Because there hasn't been significant movement here on this or any other theory.
Lot of discussion here on the 'dispositive proof' by Worobey et al. and the lack of intermediate lineage between lineage A & B (after intermediate genomes were ruled out without having access to the raw data to properly QC). A recent paper casts some doubts on at least extent of animal zoonosis (it any occurred at all) - indicating at least several of the early market cases were due to human to human transmission.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512...
What seems to get lost on people is that no animals in the market tested positive for a SARS-2-related virus.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1370392/v1
Whatsmore the early lineage A virus was only found in one environmental sample, all other env samples were B and all human infections were B.
Both points cast serious doubt as to whether the market was really the origin - or just a superspreader location.
Using a different method than Pekar et al., Caraballo-Ortiz et al. estimate a lat Sept/E Oct ancestral virus emergence in Wuhan. If correct, we can probably discount the Hunan seafood market as the origin, and need to look esewhere in Wuhan
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34931186/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512...
What seems to get lost on people is that no animals in the market tested positive for a SARS-2-related virus.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1370392/v1
Whatsmore the early lineage A virus was only found in one environmental sample, all other env samples were B and all human infections were B.
Both points cast serious doubt as to whether the market was really the origin - or just a superspreader location.
Using a different method than Pekar et al., Caraballo-Ortiz et al. estimate a lat Sept/E Oct ancestral virus emergence in Wuhan. If correct, we can probably discount the Hunan seafood market as the origin, and need to look esewhere in Wuhan
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34931186/
While I 100% am most invested in the idea it was from some type of wild animal (probably a bat - scientists have been warning us for YEARS that when we encroach and destroy habitats of animals we are pushing our luck for exposing new diseases) I did/do have a pretty niche theory that I saw almost nowhere else. So to be clear - obviously - I do not actually think this is likely:
September 2019 there was a large explosion at one of Russia's top viral research labs (supposedly also bioweapons) in Siberia due to large natural fires in Siberia - link below
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49727101
Officials then declare the explosion and lab not to be an issue and everyone moves on.
Is it not possible that something was accidentally leaked from this lab? I am not implying intent here - just that we could be dealing with an accident caused by the huge, huge fires. This is the same lab that later develops the Russian COVID vaccine.
At the time the only other reference I could find to this was a joke made by a comedian in Russia which they very quickly cracked down on:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/04/07/russia-opens-crimi...
I posted about this once before on Hacker News and got a TON of downvotes. Not trying to spread misinformation or something here at all.
September 2019 there was a large explosion at one of Russia's top viral research labs (supposedly also bioweapons) in Siberia due to large natural fires in Siberia - link below
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49727101
Officials then declare the explosion and lab not to be an issue and everyone moves on.
Is it not possible that something was accidentally leaked from this lab? I am not implying intent here - just that we could be dealing with an accident caused by the huge, huge fires. This is the same lab that later develops the Russian COVID vaccine.
At the time the only other reference I could find to this was a joke made by a comedian in Russia which they very quickly cracked down on:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/04/07/russia-opens-crimi...
I posted about this once before on Hacker News and got a TON of downvotes. Not trying to spread misinformation or something here at all.
We need some sort of international protocol on how to do gain of function research. Something like putting these labs in remote places with strict quarantine protocols. This whole business of doing stuff like this in city centers is absolutely insane
What I really want to know is "so what?" I mean, it would be great to learn about the origin and then take steps to reduce the chance of the same thing happening in the future.
But it appears most people just want to point the finger and that no change would result.
In fact one could imagine potential improvements for either case, some of which might be worth doing regardless of the actual origin.
But it appears most people just want to point the finger and that no change would result.
In fact one could imagine potential improvements for either case, some of which might be worth doing regardless of the actual origin.
I think this article is a very good example of the sort of pseudo-compelling argument. It's like one step along the road between 4chan conspiracy to Tucker Carlson. It's lots of stuff that sound like reasonable arguments, but are actually not. It starts by couching itself in the actual concensus - other people concluding that's a possibility! - Yes, that's true, but what they're concluding as a possibility out of a cautious appraoch, you're pushing as actually being true. Then they start marking their own homework - we published our book and everyone reasonable and smart said it was great, and everyone who disagreed clearly didn't read it. Now we go to the greatest hits - the big bad mainstream media.
Now we start mis-representing our opponents. All we want is an open scientific debate! But it's too controversial! That might not at all be true, but we're going to say it anyway. It might be that the actual scientists decided that there weren't merits to your argument to justify inviting you to debate it, but who cares - let's just say they're afraid of controversy.
People are threatened by our work. We're not extremists! We're moderates! We're perfectly reasonable people who are just going to slip in this laundered conspiracy theory that Fauci funded the Wuhan lab. But don't worry, let me quote this anonymous scientist to back up every worst accusation you could make of scientists.
Everyone is covering this up because of vested interests you see! If you look up the author you'll see that he comes from this as a complete neutral outsider making cold-eyed judgements of the evidence. He's definitely not from the exact far right nutter idealogue ecosystem that you'd expect him to be from.
There's a nugget of truth in the article - the lab leak is possible as an explanation, and that China isn't to be trusted to investigate. There's nothing in this article that actually advances any evidence beyond that. The rest of it though is just the same thinly veiled conspiracy theories that have been going around since Trump going on about "The Chinese Virus".
Now we start mis-representing our opponents. All we want is an open scientific debate! But it's too controversial! That might not at all be true, but we're going to say it anyway. It might be that the actual scientists decided that there weren't merits to your argument to justify inviting you to debate it, but who cares - let's just say they're afraid of controversy.
People are threatened by our work. We're not extremists! We're moderates! We're perfectly reasonable people who are just going to slip in this laundered conspiracy theory that Fauci funded the Wuhan lab. But don't worry, let me quote this anonymous scientist to back up every worst accusation you could make of scientists.
Everyone is covering this up because of vested interests you see! If you look up the author you'll see that he comes from this as a complete neutral outsider making cold-eyed judgements of the evidence. He's definitely not from the exact far right nutter idealogue ecosystem that you'd expect him to be from.
There's a nugget of truth in the article - the lab leak is possible as an explanation, and that China isn't to be trusted to investigate. There's nothing in this article that actually advances any evidence beyond that. The rest of it though is just the same thinly veiled conspiracy theories that have been going around since Trump going on about "The Chinese Virus".
Here are two "damning" articles about the lab leak theory, for some reason these articles were not widely seen but highly recommend them if you are searching for the truth around the origin of covid:
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...
and:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-no...
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...
and:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-no...
I’m going to answer some of the questions that have come up in the comments.
1. Are Chan and Ridley selling a book?
Yes, the updated paperback comes out in the US next week: https://www.harpercollins.com/products/viral-matt-ridleyalin...
The updated epilogue now discusses three significant new developments since the publication of the hardback that are being hotly debated in the comments here. The first was the discovery of a virus in a bat in Laos that is slightly more similar to SARS-CoV-2 than the virus studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; but both are still not the progenitor of the pandemic. The second is detailed information about how prominent western virologists, who had privately thought the virus was likely manipulated in a laboratory, began to instead tell the public that no lab-based scenario was plausible. The third is a trio of conflicting studies about whether the Huanan seafood market was the site of a natural spillover of the virus from animals to people or just the site of a human superspreader event in December 2019.
As with the hardcover, half of our earnings from the book have gone/will go to charity.
2. Does the available evidence lean towards a market origin?
Some experts have asserted that there is dispositive evidence that the virus jumped from animals to people at the Wuhan Huanan market. However, their analysis failed to take into account the realities in the early days of the pandemic. Without access to the methodology and actual data collected by investigators in Wuhan, their interpretation unfortunately falls prey to ascertainment bias. Please see this thread for details: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1499794942012579843
At the moment, US intelligence, the WHO SAGO advisory group, and many top virologists and experts find both natural and lab origin hypotheses plausible and deserving of investigation. The evidence does not lean so strongly towards one hypothesis or the other that we can assume one as the default truth.
I personally think the available evidence points towards a lab origin but would not go as far as to say that there is dispositive evidence of it. Please see these 2 threads: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1524394197738049537 https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1539745736807616513
3. Can scientists manipulate and genetically engineer naturally found viruses without leaving a trace? In other words, can the genome of the virus tell us its recent history?
We describe the seamless genetic engineering capabilities developed in the years leading up to the pandemic in VIRAL. Due to advanced technologies, it is no longer always possible to use the genome of a virus to distinguish between a natural pathogen vs one that has spent time in a laboratory. Even top coronavirologists, including Ralph Baric who collaborated with the Wuhan scientists, have said that the only way to know is to look at the Wuhan lab records. You can also read my twitter thread: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1493733086089121794
Even the presence of the furin cleavage site insertion that is unique to the pandemic virus and is indeed what makes it a highly infectious pandemic virus is not “dispositive evidence” of either a natural or lab origin. Please see our peer-reviewed analysis here: https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/39/1/msab327/6426085
4. Why does the lab leak hypothesis encompass so many different scenarios by which research activities could lead to the emergence of the pandemic virus?
A natural spillover hypothesis also encompasses several different scenarios, e.g., bat direct transmission to people in natural habitats, bat to people in markets, bat to farmed animals or wildlife to people in nature, at farms or market, etc.
This doesn’t mean that a natural or lab origin are insinuations. It just means we are lacking so much key evidence that it’s not possible to pin down an exact mechanism by which the virus emerged in the Wuhan human population.
5. Does finding close relatives of the pandemic virus in bats, e.g., in Laos, mean that its origin is natural?
No, because viruses that escape from labs were also ultimately derived from nature and we know that scientists in Wuhan had been collecting viruses from across 8 countries (China and SE Asia) where the closest relatives to the pandemic virus have been found. Please see the graphic in this tweet: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1522117270612451335
6. Is there anything to do about finding the origin of Covid-19 now? Isn’t it a dead end? And is that why interest is waning?
There is plenty to do to investigate the origin of Covid-19 using sources and data that exist outside of China. Please see a recent peer-reviewed letter in PNAS: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202769119
And my thread on it: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1527381169729425410
It is very surprising to me that these feasible routes of inquiry have not been explored more than 2 years into the pandemic.
7. Have infected animals on sale at the Huanan market been found? Was there any evidence that SARS-like viruses were circulating in the Wuhan animal trading community before the emergence of Covid-19?
No. I recommend reading my medium post for more details: https://ayjchan.medium.com/a-response-to-the-origins-of-sars...
8. Regardless of the origin of Covid-19, shouldn’t the focus be on making sure there is more oversight and regulation of current and future pathogen research?
I agree and wish that we didn’t need to prove the origin of this pandemic to motivate scientific leaders to better regulate risky pathogen work. I have been dedicating efforts to this cause since last year and hope to be able to share some exciting news later this year.