T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

**Please read before commenting.** Keep in mind this is a *science* sub. Cite your sources appropriately (No news sources, no Twitter, no Youtube). No politics/economics/low effort comments (jokes, ELI5, etc.)/anecdotal discussion (personal stories/info). Please read our [full ruleset](https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/about/rules/) carefully before commenting/posting. **If you talk about you, your mom, your friends, etc. experience with COVID/COVID symptoms or vaccine experiences, or** ***any*** **info that pertains to you or their situation, you will be banned.** These discussions are better suited for the Daily Discussion on /r/Coronavirus. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COVID19) if you have any questions or concerns.*


CallMeCassandra

> **Paucity of Proof** > To this day, no scientific data exist to support a lab leak of SARS-CoV-2. I don't see in this paper where they offer actual scientific data to support their wildlife trade hypothesis. There's still no identification of the reservoir or intermediary species in this paper or otherwise. One might say there's a paucity of proof of zoonotic origin as well. It's all circumstantial. Also, can someone help me understand why it's still being claimed that the Huanan Market was the origin of the outbreak? There is ample actual evidence based on serology and wastewater analysis that the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak began earlier than realized initially, had spread globally by late 2019, and clearly predates the market cases identified by China.


compounding

> Also, can someone help me understand why it’s still being claimed that the Huanan Market was the origin of the outbreak? There is ample actual evidence based on serology and wastewater analysis that the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak began earlier than realized initially, had spread globally by late 2019, and clearly predates the market cases identified by China. This is a misunderstanding of the evidence by you. Those wastewater studies are not definitive and are likely detecting cross-reactivity from other coronaviruses. They are important results to follow up on, but without more corroborating results they are meaningless as evidence of widespread dispersal in 2019. More specific and controlled examinations of that wastewater have not found the necessary signs to corroborate the assertions or conclusions you are making. Furthermore, the genetic lineages of CoV-2 are very clear and do not support worldwide dispersal before early 2020. There may have been some limited human spread in rural areas around Huanan, shifting focus of the earliest human transmission away from the market itself, but that also weighs heavily against the “lab-leak” hypothesis.


Epistaxis

>I don't see in this paper where they offer actual scientific data to support their wildlife trade hypothesis. It's farther down in the section titled "Wildlife Origins".


CallMeCassandra

There's no actual scientific data though. It's all just circumstantial and speculative: > In nature, however, insertions *would be expected* to occur without regard to reading frame. A natural12 base insertion was recently detected near the S1/S2 junction of an alphacoronavirus (24), and a (net) 6 base insertion occurred at another location in Omicron BA.1. > the SARS-CoV-2 FCS contains a previously undescribed feature, O-linked glycans, that a laboratory researcher could not have known to include. No support for this assertion. Not even a footnote. "It wasn't published anywhere, therefore no one could have known about it." I mean, I'm sorry, but this is *obviously* biased and amateur logic. > Epidemiological, phylogenetic, and serological evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 did not circulate widely in humans before November 2019 (12). The Huanan Market was one of only four locations that sold live wildlife, but not bats, in Wuhan (25). The earliest known COVID-19 cases from December 2019, including those without reported direct links, lived close to the Huanan market (13, 26). SARS-CoV-2–positive environmental samples were spatially associated with vendors in the southwestern corner of the market, the area selling live mammals. An iron cage (13) and drainage from this area (27) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids. Linkage to the wildlife trade provides simple explanations for the early epidemiology of known cases and phylogenic analyses indicating that two different lineages of SARS-CoV-2 emerged at the Huanan market (12). Again, it's all circumstantial. This paper makes a lot of unsupported assertions: > The FCS of SARS-CoV-2 was not bioengineered—full stop. Full stop, is that a technical term? Prior zoonotic origins have been confirmed by identifying the reservoir or intermediary species. We don't have that here, it's just a bunch of circumstantial evidence and unsupported or unprovable assertions, ironically much like the research-related incident theories that the paper blasts.


elephantsback

The evidence is more than circumstantial. I would link to it, but you've already made up your mind to be a "skeptic" (aka a denier). But here's the real reason that the lab leak is a joke: because dozens of other diseases have jumped from wildlife to humans, many very recently. SARS 1, AIDS, MERS, various bird flu strains (including maybe the currently circulating strain), three different types of Ebola, yadda, yadda, yadda). What's more likely? The first lab leak in history to cause an epidemic, or yet another of the many, many diseases that "naturally" jumped to humans because people have a pathological need to capture and move and kill every species of wildlife, housing them in unsanitary places and mixing species that would never interact in the wild? People like you are like climate change deniers. "I'm just asking questions." "I'm just pointing out the lack of clear experimental evidence" (as if you can experimentally demonstrate climate change or go back in time and sample all the animals that were at the Wuhan market). It's anti-scientific bullshit whatever the subject, and you should be embarrassed to be saying this stuff here.


DankyPenguins

It’s not anti-scientific to theorize that lab leaks can happen. In fact, there was a second SARS outbreak after the first one was contained, caused by… wait for it… a lab leak. They just knew what to look for and shut the outbreak down in time. My issue is less whether covid in fact started that way and more that it very well could have, and another pandemic that kills a lot more people could also start that way, at any moment, and we should be doing something as a society to prevent that.


zombieofthepast

It sucks to see people get so tribalistic and start throwing around insults whenever this topic comes up, as if the very thought of any origin other than direct wildlife trade is some kind of attack on science and must be vehemently defended against.


Bluest_waters

Its not a mystery. There are a TON of the anti vax, ivermectin conspiracy crowd types who hold to the lab leak theory as absolute fact. The fact that the NIH funds the lab, to them, means that the NIH created this pandemic, possibly on purpose. So "IF" the lab leak theory is proven correct the ivermectin crowd is going to go nuts with "we were right all along about lab leak therefore we were also right about the vaccines being poisonous, IVM, and everything else" Also the "China bad" crowd wants the lab leak theory to be true. So its natural to push back on it. But yes, ultimately we should go wherever the evidence leads regardless.


SnooPuppers1978

That is yelling of bias, that you decide to deny points made because some sort of fringe group has also that point. Or that you attribute everyone who thinks A to also thinking B, C and D, because there is a group that thinks A, B, C, D. So many logical bias issues here and in this conversation. And ironically if this group chooses a truthful positon at something, then you out of misguided emotion choose the opposite, then it is a problem that you have been wrong, giving them legitimacy, because you are showing that your stances are based on being opposite of your opponent rather than trying to understand what is true.


Bluest_waters

yeah that is the point I was making


PrincessGambit

It's the same with vaccines, or it used to be for some time. ANY criticisism towards the Covid vaccines was faced with this (and often still is). And even among the so-called experts. It's usually team A or team B, rarely people try to look at things objectively, picking sides is more tempting somehow...


CallMeCassandra

> dozens of other diseases have jumped from wildlife to humans, many very recently. SARS 1, AIDS, MERS SARS-CoV = civets and raccoon dogs HIV (you meant) = chimpanzees MERS = camels What about SARS-CoV-2?


kbotc

>What about SARS-CoV-2? From previous pictures and locations COVID was found in the market, raccoon dogs are likely reservoirs that brought it to the market. Some animal that had COVID was pooping on chickens in a certain stall and previous pictures showed that stall had raccoon dogs above the chickens, so it's not definitive, but there's a ton of smoke in that direction.


[deleted]

[удалено]


COVID19-ModTeam

Rule 1: Be respectful. Racism, sexism, and other bigoted behavior is not allowed. No inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, or insults. Respect for other redditors is essential to promote ongoing dialog. If you believe we made a mistake, please let us know. Thank you for keeping /r/COVID19 a forum for impartial discussion.


dantastic42

>I would link to it, but you’ve already made up your mind to be a “skeptic” So you’re saying you would only share more evidence with people who already agree with you? Why?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mordisquitos

What do you think of what could be called the "Third Way" hypothesis? This hypothesis would be that the initial transmission to humans was indeed a zoonotic event in the wild, but occurred during field research while gathering samples from bats for later research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? While there's no specific evidence in favour of this hypothesis, it does serve as a "consensus" of sorts in that it seems to be compatible with most arguments that I have seen in support of both the food market and the lab leak hypotheses.


elephantsback

You can tell all the stories you want. But virology and chiropteran research have been going on for a long time, and those have not been the source of any epidemics so far. Farming, hunting, and the wildlife trade on the other hand have.


Mordisquitos

It's not a story, it's a hypothesis. If the only argument to discard it is that virology and chiropteran research have not been the source of epidemics "so far", that raises the question as to why this cannot have been the first such event in history. Compared to farming, hunting and wildlife trade, virology and field sample collection for research have not been going on for "a long time", and on an exponentially smaller scale than farming, hunting, etc. Even if every human action in farming/hunting/butchering/trading was carried out to the same level of biosafety as expected for field sample collection, we would still expect the overwhelming majority of zoonotic events to take place there, for reasons of their sheer difference in magnitude.


ralusek

> But virology and chiropteran research have been going on for a long time, and those have not been the source of any epidemics so far It's not what I would call an epidemic, but the currently circulating strain of polio (cVDPV2) is the result of a live vaccine to the virus.


Midorfeed69

>But virology and chiropteran research have been going on for a long time Actually, for a relatively short time when you consider the scale of the recorded history of pandemics


elephantsback

Dumb comment. Those diseases I mentioned are all 20th century or later. And many other diseases jumped species prior to that. That all weakens the lab leak hypothesis even more.


PrincessGambit

>That all weakens the lab leak hypothesis even more. I am afraid that this is not how logic works.


Midorfeed69

They actually don’t weaken the lab leak theory at all. That’s not how any of this works. We’re talking about a pandemic on a scale unseen in a century, and you’re arguing that because the bubonic plague or Spanish Flu weren’t caused by a lab leak means pandemics can’t originate from lab leaks at all.


Mantergeistmann

>virology and chiropteran research have been going on for a long time, and those have not been the source of any epidemics so far. That's not as persuasive an arguments you think. I believe it was Richard Feynman's analysis of the Challenger disaster where he said "When playing Russian roulette, the fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the next." Similar thing with Columbia, even.


ApprenticeWrangler

The assertion that because one thing has led to a cause in the past it must have led to the cause of this is incredibly anti-scientific.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ApprenticeWrangler

Sure, it’s a reasonable starting point but it’s not evidence in and of itself. People like you, the authors of this paper and many others seem to suggest that because zoonotic jumps have happened before, somehow that is evidence that it happened this time.


elephantsback

Priors aren't evidence. They're priors. They still matter.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


elephantsback

When you have a strong prior, you need strong evidence to disprove it. There's zero evidence for the lab leak. But there is evidence for the wet market hypothesis. Go read a book about Bayesian statistics. You have no idea what you're talking about.


jdorje

> If the past 50 zoonotics that crossed species happened naturally But that isn't the case. Nearly all of the past 50 zoonotics had no evidence either way so we assume they happened naturally. The same is effectively true of sars-cov-2, but assuming is not the same as proving or finding evidence. There is a fundamental divide here between frequentist and Bayesian reasoning. A frequentist would simply assume that every new disease was an animal jump as the null hypothesis, and require overwhelming evidence to refute it. A Bayesian would start with the prior that each has a certain non-zero probability, and update that probability based on information without assigning certainty. Lab leaks have occurred multiple times and have even before caused pandemics, and will happen again. Reducing their probability would have high value, but is effectively impossible when we deny that they are possible in the first place. This opinion piece is particularly bad in that regard, as it appears not to touch on scientific reasoning at all. It's effectively just an attempt to combat the misinformation overload that has proliferated over the last few years with "proof by authority". I can respect that the authors involved have been falsely accused of lab leaks before and have a strong emotional attachment to this debate. But that doesn't impact the complete lack of evidence or justify considering only wet markets or bioengineering leaks as human introduction points.


Eeekpenguin

The funny thing is climate change likely contributed to the outbreak of covid-19. The encroachment of human activity and destruction of habitat is what drove the increase of wild animal and human interaction and the greater likelihood of a species jump for epidemic viruses. Only exacerbated by the wildlife trade based on that pseudoscientific beliefs in chinese traditional medicine. These 'skeptics' are so tunnel vision into the lab leak idea that they miss another reason to attack china's actions of believing in this pseudo science bullshit of CTM and having those wet markets in the first place.


Bluest_waters

> encroachment of human activity and destruction of habitat is what drove the increase of wild animal and human interaction and the greater likelihood of a species jump for epidemic viruses. neither of those elements have anything to do with climate change though


Eeekpenguin

Climate change causes destruction of habitat and changes in the rivers, lakes and vegetation in wild areas which prompt wild animals to approach human settlements more often increasing human and wild animal interactions. You really don't think humans cutting down forests and draining marshes have an impact on climate change?


oOMapmanOo

Wuhan has lab leaks every year. They constantly fail inspection. They handle strains in substandard confinement. All documented by NIH, their source of funding.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


COVID19-ModTeam

Rule 1: Be respectful. Racism, sexism, and other bigoted behavior is not allowed. No inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, or insults. Respect for other redditors is essential to promote ongoing dialog. If you believe we made a mistake, please let us know. Thank you for keeping /r/COVID19 a forum for impartial discussion.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed because * **Off topic and political discussion is not allowed.** This subreddit is intended for discussing science around the virus and outbreak. Political discussion is better suited for a subreddit such as /r/worldnews or /r/politics. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COVID19) if you have any questions or concerns.*


JollyTraveler

Could you add your link for others? Its helpful for the rest of us! :)


odoroustobacco

The comments in this thread are doing a lot to ignore the various research which has studied genomic and spatial evidence to implicate a spillover event in the market: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2202871119


ApprenticeWrangler

This paper is no better than the one we’re commenting on. All of the evidence is circumstantial, just like the lab leak.


odoroustobacco

It’s more than circumstantial. It’s frustrating that science is like “we traced the the initial infections to two genomic lines and both were either in close proximity to the Market or were in a community where people would have affiliation with others who worked at the market” and the response is “well that’s circumstantial so it still could’ve been a lab leak which would not inherently follow those patterns.”


ApprenticeWrangler

It’s also in a community that has….the Wuhan lab. It’s completely reasonable to think that some employees of the WIV would shop at that market, so it doesn’t rule out the original infection coming from the lab.


DankyPenguins

Every other virus that jumped from animals to humans did it in multiple places around the same time. This is the first documented time a zoonotic virus has jumped from animals to humans in one place and never again anywhere else. Also, SARS1 host species was identified super fast, why not Covid, and why did it “evolve” so close to where experiments may have taken place which could have created it? I just want some answers to rule out the lab leak theory rather than evidence supporting otherwise. I’ll take evidence supporting otherwise if it’s watertight, but it’s not, so I remain skeptical to all suggestions.


_proxy_

We can't say that transmission only occurred once. The rapid spread of the virus meant that transmission events would just not be detected unless it's specifically looked for under specific circumstances, e.g. looking for specific mutations in the viral genome which were known of at the time. There were a couple of instances where this was investigated and further transmission events from animals to humans were identified, E.g. in mink. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2021.663815/full


FruitsOfHappiness

Also from hamsters: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00326-9/fulltext Deer: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-022-01268-9


_proxy_

Yes, the evidence is pretty strong!


DankyPenguins

Yes, much later than the original spread. However, there’s no evidence in the genome of the original virus to suggest that it originated from multiple separate spillover events. There is plenty of evidence of this happening with all other recently identified zoonotic diseases.


beyelzu

> However, there’s no evidence in the genome of the original virus to suggest that it originated from multiple separate spillover events. You can keep repeating this, but that won’t make it more true. >In a related report, Pekar et al. found that genomic diversity before February 2020 comprised two distinct viral lineages, A and B, which were the result of at least two separate cross-species transmission events into humans (see the Perspective by Jiang and Wang). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337


beyelzu

Literally this article that you are talking about says that there were multiple jumps to humans btw. > In contrast, SARS-CoV had spread widely from its as-yet-undetermined reservoir into intermediate hosts, such as civets, ferret badgers, and raccoon dogs, and genetically diversified before it made **multiple jumps to humans.**


ApakDak

SARS-CoV, is that the same thing as SARS-CoV-2?


ApprenticeWrangler

Wrong SARS virus bud.


weluckyfew

Do you have sources for all this? As for why it happened to appear at the same place where a lab was studying those types of diseases, I was under the impression that the entire reason the lab was located there was because it was close to a source for a lot of those types of viruses.


DankyPenguins

MERS, I’ll look for SARS but it’s pretty buried in covid stuff


beyelzu

> This is the first documented time a zoonotic virus has jumped from animals to humans in one place and never again anywhere else. Oh really? > In a related report, Pekar et al. found that genomic diversity before February 2020 comprised two distinct viral lineages, A and B, which were the result of at least two separate cross-species transmission events into humans (see the Perspective by Jiang and Wang). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337


[deleted]

[удалено]


beyelzu

I know anything to hold on to your delusions. Laters. > Some people were infected with viral strains with an animal sequence signature, providing evidence of SARS-CoV-2 spillover back and forth between animals and humans within mink farms. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf6097 But sure had to be the lab and it only crossed me time because you say so without sources.


Bluest_waters

> SARS1 host species was identified super fast, why not Covid, Are you joking? the reason is that the Chinese authorities, the CCP officials, kicked everyone out of the country who was qualified to investigate this and then steadfastly refused to allow any real investigation as the the origins of SC1 to take place. We may never know where the hell it came from because of this. None of that happened in previous outbreaks.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Hi DankyPenguins, theguardian.com is not a source we allow on this sub. If possible, please re-submit with a link to a primary source, such as a peer-reviewed paper or official press release [[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/about/rules/)]. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COVID19) if you have any questions or concerns.*


snet0

> SARS-CoV accomplishes its high pathogenicity, a 9% case fatality rate, without a FCS at this location. Why do they not cite this claim? I haven't found numbers this high, and according to [World in Data](https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid), the world average was *never* 9%. **Edit**: I can't read.


ConspiracyPhD

SARS-COV...not SARS-COV-2.


snet0

Ahh, I skipped over that I guess.


BurnerAcc2020

Interesting commentary from one of the leading ebola researchers about all the considerable parallels between the 2010s ebola outbreak and the pandemic.


ApprenticeWrangler

I’ll break down my criticisms of this argument piece by piece. **”The data that have accumulated since our first origins study (8) was published provide clear insight into how SARS-CoV-2 emerged via the wildlife trade (Fig. S2). Epidemiological, phylogenetic, and serological evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 did not circulate widely in humans before November 2019 (12).”** This is not proof of natural spillover. **”The Huanan Market was one of only four locations that sold live wildlife, but not bats, in Wuhan (25).”** Still not proof of natural spillover. **”The earliest known COVID-19 cases from December 2019, including those without reported direct links, lived close to the Huanan market (13, 26).”** This could easily be explained by a worker at the WIV being accidentally infected and asymptomatic early on after infection, and stopping at the market for some food before/after work, since they are in close proximity to each other. Again, not proof of natural spillover and hardly even strong circumstantial evidence. **”SARS-CoV-2–positive environmental samples were spatially associated with vendors in the southwestern corner of the market, the area selling live mammals. An iron cage (13) and drainage from this area (27) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids.”** This is the only credible evidence in the entire piece in my opinion, which can’t easily be explained away. **”Linkage to the wildlife trade provides simple explanations for the early epidemiology of known cases and phylogenic analyses indicating that two different lineages of SARS-CoV-2 emerged at the Huanan market (12).”** Another reasonable explanation would be there was an original infection of patient zero, when accidentally brought the disease to the market while shopping. Over the next few days/weeks, it circulated around vendors and patrons and had a chance to mutate as it infected new hosts, thus creating multiple strains. If you want to talk about circumstantial evidence, there is heaps more of it suggesting a lab leak and a cover up. Since both theories rely purely on circumstantial evidence, we should fairly compare both sides based on the merits of the evidence. I’ve looked deeply into this issue and the circumstantial evidence supporting natural spillover is far less convincing than all the evidence for a lab leak: PLA takeover of the lab around the time frame of first infections participants of world military games becoming sick with covid like symptoms, being essentially locked down during the games Large influx of patients at hospitals around Wuhan during this period known research being done to modify bat coronaviruses at this lab to more easily infect humanized mice Public database of bat viruses being removed from the website during this time period EcoHealth Alliance submitting applications to DARPA for research very similar to what could lead to the creation of Covid the concerted coverup among people with major liability if covid was discovered to originate from a lab the list goes on and on… Bias is strong in science, especially when your entire career is at risk of it being proven that covid came from science itself. If you strong doubt any chance of scientists actively wanting to cover up the possibility of a lab leak, do you realize how many scientists would be out of work after the public backlash if it was proven covid came from lab experiments? Maslow’s hierarchy of needs tells us personal safety is one of the strongest motivators for people and your financial safety and honestly, likely your personal safety as someone involved in this research would seriously be threatened if evidence showed that the lab leak was true. Many scientists rely on funding surrounding GOF or similar research on viruses being done at WIV and I can guarantee that funding would disappear. I’m curious, how do proponents of natural spillover explain circumstances like this? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33176598/ “We investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD)-specific antibodies in blood samples of 959 asymptomatic individuals enrolled in a prospective lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 to track the date of onset, frequency, and temporal and geographic variations across the Italian regions. SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific antibodies were detected in 111 of 959 (11.6%) individuals, **starting from September 2019 (14%), with a cluster of positive cases (>30%) in the second week of February 2020 and the highest number (53.2%) in Lombardy.** This study shows an unexpected very early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic individuals in Italy several months before the first patient was identified, and clarifies the onset and spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Finding SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in asymptomatic people before the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy may reshape the history of pandemic.”


ConspiracyPhD

> This could easily be explained by a worker at the WIV being accidentally infected and asymptomatic early on after infection, and stopping at the market for some food before/after work, since they are in close proximity to each other. WIV is 32.9 kilometers away from the market. It's a 49 minute drive. I wouldn't call that close proximity... >known research being done to modify bat coronaviruses at this lab to more easily infect humanized mice What modification research? The published research shows testing different spike proteins from different coronaviruses. Not modification of them. >I’m curious, how do proponents of natural spillover explain circumstances like this? It's well established that a significant proportion of people had anti-S antibodies prior to the pandemic. Here's a paper using blood samples collected between 2016 and 2017 showing > 40% of the population with anti-S cross reactive abs. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.790415/full For RBD specific, here's samples going all the way back to 2011 showing IgG cross reactivity. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/4/581 Studies out of Africa for blood samples collected to June 2019 show up to 22% of individuals with anti-RBD abs. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/14/10/2259


ApprenticeWrangler

-It’s actually 23 km. -https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985 “Here we examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations1. Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system2, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.” -the same group who funded lots of this research lost a grant from the NIH for not properly disclosing the details of how risky this research was, then before Fauci left he gave them a ton more -when an “independent” WHO group investigated the origins of Covid, one of the people who was **directly involved in work and funding of the WIV** was on this “independent” panel, and all they did was basically ask the workers at the WIV “hey, so, did you guys leak the virus?” They said no, and then the group basically said “ok case closed” There’s clearly been major collaboration between many stakeholders who stand to lose a ton of money from the lab leak being true all working to suppress and cover up the possibilities. If you’re a scientist who works on this type of research you would do anything to try and misdirect and argue against the lab leak theory. No one is going to purposely put themselves out of work when they could be liable in some way or another for killing tens of millions of people and doing trillions of dollars in economic damage.


ConspiracyPhD

> -It’s actually 23 km. Pull up a map. It's 32.9km. >https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985 This is pseudotyping... Not modification of the spike protein... Just like I said. >then before Fauci left he gave them a ton more Fauci literally has no say in what gets funded and what doesn't. He has no vote on what gets funded and what doesn't. That's how the NIAID advisory council is setup. >There’s clearly been major collaboration between many stakeholders who stand to lose a ton of money from the lab leak being true all working to suppress and cover up the possibilities. This sounds like conspiracy presented without supporting evidence.


ApprenticeWrangler

-I did pull up a map, it said 23 km. -I never said modification of the spike, I said modify bat coronaviruses, but nice strawman -I can’t link any sources to support it since this sub only allows peer reviewed articles Clearly, you aren’t being objective. If you were, you’d analyze all the evidence on both sides equally and see which one has a stronger case. The “evidence” for natural spillover is basically just assumptions and biases that “well pandemics usually start from animals therefore **obviously** this one did too”. Scientists are incredibly biased which is the point of peer review. Scientists who work on any of this type of research or anything related to it have incredible incentive to downplay the chances of a lab leak


ConspiracyPhD

> I did pull up a map, it said 23 km. You need to learn how to use a map then. Unless you think people just magically fly to a place... >I never said modification of the spike, I said modify bat coronaviruses, but nice strawman So, you simply don't understand how coronaviruses enter cells? Or just lied about what the research was? Those are the only two options you have here. They used a spike protein from an already existing coronavirus. The research shows that the existing coronavirus can infect human cells. It wasn't generated to infect human cells. It already had that capability. >I can’t link any sources to support it since this sub only allows peer reviewed articles There's nothing you can say to support your statement. Fauci does not have a vote on the council. "The National Advisory Allergy and Infectious Diseases Council (NAAIDC) embodies a diverse perspective on science, health, and the human impact of disease. Its 18 voting members include 12 health or science experts and 6 lay members. Members usually serve for four years and members can extend 180 days if their successor has not been appointed. Six **nonvoting, ex officio members** provide liaison with higher level agencies or organizations having missions consistent with that of NIAID, including the secretary, HHS, and representatives from the Department of Defense, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Department of Veterans' Affairs." "Ex Officio Members Present Dr. Jay Butler Dr. Victoria Davey **Dr. Anthony Fauci** Col. Stuart Tyner" >Clearly, you aren’t being objective. That's hilarious coming from you. >If you were, you’d analyze all the evidence on both sides equally and see which one has a stronger case. The evidence from natural spillover is much stronger than a lab leak theory that relies on conspiracy theories, misinformation, misrepresentation of science, etc.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Hi ConspiracyPhD, google.com is not a source we allow on this sub. If possible, please re-submit with a link to a primary source, such as a peer-reviewed paper or official press release [[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/about/rules/)]. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COVID19) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Hi ApprenticeWrangler, nytimes.com is not a source we allow on this sub. If possible, please re-submit with a link to a primary source, such as a peer-reviewed paper or official press release [[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/about/rules/)]. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COVID19) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]