> we concluded that the formations of a part of Omicron isolates BA.1, BA.1.1, and BA.2 were not the products of genome evolution as is commonly observed in nature, such as the accumulation of mutations and homologous recombinations. Furthermore, the study of 35 recombinant isolates of Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2, confirmed that Omicron variants were already present in 2020. The analysis we have shown here is that the Omicron variants are formed by an entirely new mechanism that cannot be explained by previous biology
> This paper aims to point out that SARS-CoV-2 has undergone unthinkable mutations under conventional coronavirus mutation mechanisms, and we hope that the possibility of artificial theory should be included in the discussion seriously as to the formation of SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Oh it's another lab leak theory. The Lancet (the most prestigious medical journal) already debunked these conspiracy theories [1].
The Lancet lost much of their credibility by allowing Peter Daszak to spread misinformation on their platform. They have a long way to go to remain trust in the scientific community.
From that official US government statement: 'SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered'
That goes against the premise of the science paper, which is saying that the epidemic started with a bunch of covid viruses that had a biologically implausible enrichment of non-synonymous mutations (and were therefore genetically engineered probably with CRISPR).
It can be both not genetically engineered and a lab leak at the same time.
We study dangerous pathogens in labs all the time. All it takes is a laboratory accident for it to escape containment.
“Two years before the novel coronavirus pandemic upended the world, U.S. Embassy officials visited a Chinese research facility in the city of Wuhan several times and sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab, which was conducting risky studies on coronaviruses from bats.”
This is a motte and bailey. The article is about genetic engineering, not accidental leaks, so the specific lab leak theory in this context would be one where not only the virus, but it's subsequent mutations, were engineered and leaked. The probability of it being genetically engineered first for the leak and then for the subsequent mutations is incredibly unlikely and a soft, qualitative model of synonymous mutations is not up to the standard. Especially since the model takes first sequencing as direct evidence for location of origin (it isn't) and it doesn't take into account the mishmash of explosive spread, reinfection, superinfection, and chronic infection that isn't, to my knowledge, present for any other known virus - a strong quantitative model would be necessary at minimum.
Both the CCP and members of the American government that funded risky gain of function research at Wuhan Institute of Virology indirectly through the EcoHealth Alliance have a strong motive to coverup a lab leak as they would be considered culpable in the pandemic.
The wet market theory wouldn't even be seriously considered if it weren't for the messaging by the CCP early on and people being afraid to be labeled "xenophobic" for blaming the pandemic on the irresponsible poor safety practices that were called out in the article I linked to earlier in this thread.
Given all the evidence and ignoring the official narratives of those with something to hide, the likelihood of an accidental lab leak from WIV is overwhelming in comparison to the wet market theory where it just coincidentally appeared out of thin air in the city of Wuhan with no prior animal reservoir ever found.
"According to The Wall Street Journal, three signatories' said that upon further reflection, they thought a laboratory accident was plausible enough to merit consideration. Bernard Roizman is reported to have said "I'm convinced that what happened is that the virus was brought to a lab, they started to work with it…and some sloppy individual brought it out".[19]
In June 2021, ABC News reported Calisher had "completely changed his position", saying he believes that "there is too much coincidence" to ignore the lab-leak theory and that "it is more likely that it came out of that lab."[20]
In an email to Undark Magazine, Stanley Perlman wrote that versions of the lab leak idea differed in whether they posited the virus was engineered in a lab before leaking, explaining that the Lancet letter focused more on engineering.[21]
In an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung in February 2022, Christian Drosten said that had the experiments being done at the laboratory in Wuhan been disclosed by those involved, he would have "at least asked questions" before signing the letter."
OK but if it were a real lab leak then it would be in the news, like not only on fox news with laura ingraham. Also it was signed by twenty thousand people I'm not surprised that three of them started questioning their certainty when they are grilled by journalists.
No, left or right, this is not the merit of truth. Fox News, MSNBC, and anything in between. If you haven't heard the litany of problems with natural origin, you're in the exact same bubble as fox news but on the opposite side, you're pretty much making fun of yourself.
Is the US government DNI, under a Democrat Administration, "only on fox news?"
"the IC remains divided on the
most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an
infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident.
Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2
infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a
virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to
China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most
likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal
handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky
nature of work on coronaviruses.
Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional
information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the
hypotheses as equally likely.
Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and
scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps."
I certainly don't know enough to understand all the science here, but when they say "deliberate natural selection," are they implying that the variants are the results of laboratory manipulation? If so, how is it that they appear in different parts of the world? If it's a conspiracy, it's a pretty big one.
I think they are saying that early lab-created variants (with non-synonymous mutations only) first spread around the world, and then they only later acquired synonymous mutations by natural evolution.
Yes, Omicron cannot be explained evolutionary. It might be wither a lab leak (not very likely), or result of being inside of someone who takes mutagens.
> or result of being inside of someone who takes mutagens.
If it's inside someone who takes mutagens then that would result in some synonymous mutations as well. The point of the paper is related to not seeing enough synonymous mutations. Basically, they are saying it was made with CRISPR in a gain of function lab.
Although I consider that it is moderately (5%?) probable it was a result of scientific research went wrong, they are wrong because there is dude in Ohio that researches cryptic lineages in the wastewater and his conclusion was that this kind of dS/dN is possible in immunocompromised people.
This paper will need feedback and consideration from the community. To me there seem to be two major issues.
First, the paper starts with a detailed analysis of known information about SARS-CoV2 but then veers off into "unnaturalness" of genetic changes and "suboptimal" furin cleavage sites.
Second, there are already hypothetical explanation for these variations. Furin cleavage sites are common in viruses and exhibit quite a bit of variation. Specific to the observed "unnaturalness" this could be caused by someone being infected with a second strain after getting an advanced infection. While the long prelude following the appearance of different strains appears thorough what it actually demonstrates is that there were various strains appearing in different locations and then disappearing. Testing resources were not available to all especially during the critical time when variants were splitting off and spreading globally.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that coronavirus do not have a simple construction where genes code for proteins found in the completely reproduced virus, but rather a series of proteins and enzymes are produced that divide and reassemble. This process increases the variability of the result, for example in the structure of the furin cleavage site.
So all this is potentially interesting, but the idea that this proves labs were involved is a stretch. Known natural mechanisms could potentially account for what is seen, so more evidence will probably be needed.
24 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 61.0 ms ] threadUnnaturalness in the evolution process of the SARS-CoV-2 variants and the possibility of deliberate natural selection
> This paper aims to point out that SARS-CoV-2 has undergone unthinkable mutations under conventional coronavirus mutation mechanisms, and we hope that the possibility of artificial theory should be included in the discussion seriously as to the formation of SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Oh it's another lab leak theory. The Lancet (the most prestigious medical journal) already debunked these conspiracy theories [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)
Thou dost not research hard enough.
is this how we say 'Do your own research, people!' on hacker news
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declass...
The Lancet lost much of their credibility by allowing Peter Daszak to spread misinformation on their platform. They have a long way to go to remain trust in the scientific community.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/under-fire-lancet-...
That goes against the premise of the science paper, which is saying that the epidemic started with a bunch of covid viruses that had a biologically implausible enrichment of non-synonymous mutations (and were therefore genetically engineered probably with CRISPR).
We study dangerous pathogens in labs all the time. All it takes is a laboratory accident for it to escape containment.
“Two years before the novel coronavirus pandemic upended the world, U.S. Embassy officials visited a Chinese research facility in the city of Wuhan several times and sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab, which was conducting risky studies on coronaviruses from bats.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep...
The wet market theory wouldn't even be seriously considered if it weren't for the messaging by the CCP early on and people being afraid to be labeled "xenophobic" for blaming the pandemic on the irresponsible poor safety practices that were called out in the article I linked to earlier in this thread.
Given all the evidence and ignoring the official narratives of those with something to hide, the likelihood of an accidental lab leak from WIV is overwhelming in comparison to the wet market theory where it just coincidentally appeared out of thin air in the city of Wuhan with no prior animal reservoir ever found.
"According to The Wall Street Journal, three signatories' said that upon further reflection, they thought a laboratory accident was plausible enough to merit consideration. Bernard Roizman is reported to have said "I'm convinced that what happened is that the virus was brought to a lab, they started to work with it…and some sloppy individual brought it out".[19]
In June 2021, ABC News reported Calisher had "completely changed his position", saying he believes that "there is too much coincidence" to ignore the lab-leak theory and that "it is more likely that it came out of that lab."[20]
In an email to Undark Magazine, Stanley Perlman wrote that versions of the lab leak idea differed in whether they posited the virus was engineered in a lab before leaking, explaining that the Lancet letter focused more on engineering.[21]
In an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung in February 2022, Christian Drosten said that had the experiments being done at the laboratory in Wuhan been disclosed by those involved, he would have "at least asked questions" before signing the letter."
No, left or right, this is not the merit of truth. Fox News, MSNBC, and anything in between. If you haven't heard the litany of problems with natural origin, you're in the exact same bubble as fox news but on the opposite side, you're pretty much making fun of yourself.
Is the US government DNI, under a Democrat Administration, "only on fox news?"
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declass...
"the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident.
Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.
Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.
Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps."
If it's inside someone who takes mutagens then that would result in some synonymous mutations as well. The point of the paper is related to not seeing enough synonymous mutations. Basically, they are saying it was made with CRISPR in a gain of function lab.
First, the paper starts with a detailed analysis of known information about SARS-CoV2 but then veers off into "unnaturalness" of genetic changes and "suboptimal" furin cleavage sites.
Second, there are already hypothetical explanation for these variations. Furin cleavage sites are common in viruses and exhibit quite a bit of variation. Specific to the observed "unnaturalness" this could be caused by someone being infected with a second strain after getting an advanced infection. While the long prelude following the appearance of different strains appears thorough what it actually demonstrates is that there were various strains appearing in different locations and then disappearing. Testing resources were not available to all especially during the critical time when variants were splitting off and spreading globally.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that coronavirus do not have a simple construction where genes code for proteins found in the completely reproduced virus, but rather a series of proteins and enzymes are produced that divide and reassemble. This process increases the variability of the result, for example in the structure of the furin cleavage site.
So all this is potentially interesting, but the idea that this proves labs were involved is a stretch. Known natural mechanisms could potentially account for what is seen, so more evidence will probably be needed.