Despite the author's protestations of this-is-not-conspiracy-theory, it is a conspiracy theory. The pull quotes include one beginning with: "I’m just asking, Is it a complete coincidence ...". Ah, yes, the old favorite of Qanons everywhere, "I'm just asking".
This is just another attempt to cause a significant fraction of the population to throw up their hands in resignation, and excuse everyone in the USA from responsibility.
did you actually read more than the first paragraph of this terribly long article? If yes, would you or could you disprove many of the long list of arguments that are very solid?
I did read quite a bit of it. The article is a typical "Gish Gallop", just throwing out questions hoping that the reader will not bother following up on any of them, and end up believing because of the sheer weight of argumentation.
there are a ton of solid arguments. For me the most important one is: The director of the Wuhan BSL4 lab that was dealing with SARS coronaviruses said that the first thing she thought was "omg, I hope it's not from our lab". That kills ALL arguments about this being a conspiracy theory that cannot happen and is debunked. It is apparently a valid possibility. Now, let's take her word for it when she says "I swear it wasn't from us". Sounds very scientific yeah
Conspiracy mongering? No. The article contends there is no conspiracy here, only the possibility of an accident that, projected through the lens politics, has become too toxic to discuss out in the open. Time will tell.
The last section quotes the most promising bit of epidemiology I've seen on the origin of the epidemic, but alters the explanation of what happened a bit.
The article suggests that the gain of function was accomplished via passaging of the samples that the miners obtained, but the key point in the paper that is being cited is that the gain of function happened entirely inside the miner's lungs.
How did WIV get samples of this virus? Well, they harvested the thymuses of at least one of the miners, which then contained the fully passaged virus, no laboratory passaging necessary.
Why didn't this cause an outbreak in 2013? Initially, the virus was not infectious to humans without the kind of megadose that the miners received, and by the time it had evolved enough affinity for human ACE2 receptors, all of the medical staff involved in the care of the patients were extremely careful.
The author is a novelist[1], not a subject matter expert on viruses. It's frustrating to have the author add his opinion. This sort of thing:
> But in the climate of gonzo laboratory experimentation, at a time when all sorts of tweaked variants and amped-up substitutions were being tested on cell cultures and in the lungs of humanized mice and other experimental animals, isn’t it possible ...
I confess to having skimmed the article except for the final two sections, but the subject matter expert[2] I see quoted has this to say:
> Baric said he still thought the virus came from bats in southern China, perhaps directly, or possibly via an intermediate host, although the smuggled pangolins, in his view, were a red herring. The disease evolved in humans over time without being noticed, he suspected, becoming gradually more infectious, and eventually a person carried it to Wuhan “and the pandemic took off.” Then he said, “Can you rule out a laboratory escape? The answer in this case is probably not.”
So the SME thinks it's zoonotic. But proving it's zoonotic is not currently a question science can answer (apparently), and the SME is being responsible by saying so. The author is taking advantage of that fact (IMO) to write this long-form piece.
9 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 38.1 ms ] threadDespite the author's protestations of this-is-not-conspiracy-theory, it is a conspiracy theory. The pull quotes include one beginning with: "I’m just asking, Is it a complete coincidence ...". Ah, yes, the old favorite of Qanons everywhere, "I'm just asking".
This is just another attempt to cause a significant fraction of the population to throw up their hands in resignation, and excuse everyone in the USA from responsibility.
The article suggests that the gain of function was accomplished via passaging of the samples that the miners obtained, but the key point in the paper that is being cited is that the gain of function happened entirely inside the miner's lungs.
How did WIV get samples of this virus? Well, they harvested the thymuses of at least one of the miners, which then contained the fully passaged virus, no laboratory passaging necessary.
Why didn't this cause an outbreak in 2013? Initially, the virus was not infectious to humans without the kind of megadose that the miners received, and by the time it had evolved enough affinity for human ACE2 receptors, all of the medical staff involved in the care of the patients were extremely careful.
I'm just paraphrasing the paper that is cited in the articles conclusion. It's worth a read, and NYmag gets some of the details wrong. https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-propos...
> But in the climate of gonzo laboratory experimentation, at a time when all sorts of tweaked variants and amped-up substitutions were being tested on cell cultures and in the lungs of humanized mice and other experimental animals, isn’t it possible ...
I confess to having skimmed the article except for the final two sections, but the subject matter expert[2] I see quoted has this to say:
> Baric said he still thought the virus came from bats in southern China, perhaps directly, or possibly via an intermediate host, although the smuggled pangolins, in his view, were a red herring. The disease evolved in humans over time without being noticed, he suspected, becoming gradually more infectious, and eventually a person carried it to Wuhan “and the pandemic took off.” Then he said, “Can you rule out a laboratory escape? The answer in this case is probably not.”
So the SME thinks it's zoonotic. But proving it's zoonotic is not currently a question science can answer (apparently), and the SME is being responsible by saying so. The author is taking advantage of that fact (IMO) to write this long-form piece.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholson_Baker
[2] https://www.med.unc.edu/microimm/directory/ralph-baric-phd-1...