Lab Leak: The conspiracy theory is shaping up to look like real possibility

[Mountain Man]

It's important to also note that that was the main reason the lab leak story was getting shunned in the media, why science publications shunned studies about it, and what caused the chilling effect with other scientists. That was the eye-opening mechanism to me of how the science machine works and how influential just a few powerful and influential corrupt scientific heads can be to the entire machine.

Critics try to dismiss it as some sort of widespread conspiracy theory, but it only takes a few at the top to corrupt an entire organization..

[Stoic]

Not hard to prove, merely impossible to convince those like you who worship at his feet.

I see. That's why you're afraid to try.

[Stoic]

So they take a virus, try to infect a humanized mouse, then CREATE MUTATIONS of that virus to see if they can get those to infect humanized mice and you don't see that as "gain of function?"

If that's what they did, then it was "gain of function". Unfortunately, the level of detail in the application leaves the meaning ambiguous, as least to a layman like me.

An alternative reading is that the mutations would be to "the spike (or other receptor binding/fusion) protein genes", and they would use these mutants to create "pseudoviruses", and test the pseudoviruses to see if they had the ability "to use ACE2, CD26/DPP4 (MERS-CoV receptor) or other potential CoV receptors."

Pseudoviruses are not particularly dangerous, since they "are only capable of replicating once" and "also lack the virulent components of their parent virus, which practically eliminates the possibility that these virus particles could cause an active infection to an exposed individual."

I could easily see a distinction being made between the creation of a pseudovirus with a new capability, and the creation of a virus with a new capability, with the former not being considered "gain of function".

Most of the discussion about "gain of function" has revolved around the creation of chimeras, where the spike protein of WIV1 was replaced with the spike protein from various other bat coronaviruses. So far, I haven't seen any discussion of "mutants", and I don't have the expertise to interpret that section of the application with much confidence.

But my understanding is that the application was reviewed by experts at the NIH, and they determined that the research was not "gain of function".

[Sparko]

If that's what they did, then it was "gain of function". Unfortunately, the level of detail in the application leaves the meaning ambiguous, as least to a layman like me.

An alternative reading is that the mutations would be to "the spike (or other receptor binding/fusion) protein genes", and they would use these mutants to create "pseudoviruses", and test the pseudoviruses to see if they had the ability "to use ACE2, CD26/DPP4 (MERS-CoV receptor) or other potential CoV receptors."

Pseudoviruses are not particularly dangerous, since they "are only capable of replicating once" and "also lack the virulent components of their parent virus, which practically eliminates the possibility that these virus particles could cause an active infection to an exposed individual."

I could easily see a distinction being made between the creation of a pseudovirus with a new capability, and the creation of a virus with a new capability, with the former not being considered "gain of function".

Most of the discussion about "gain of function" has revolved around the creation of chimeras, where the spike protein of WIV1 was replaced with the spike protein from various other bat coronaviruses. So far, I haven't seen any discussion of "mutants", and I don't have the expertise to interpret that section of the application with much confidence.

But my understanding is that the application was reviewed by experts at the NIH, and they determined that the research was not "gain of function".

Note also that we DO actually have Sars-COV-2 which does infect humans. Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is that they succeeded in their gain of function experiments and it escaped the lab.

And they said "With bat-CoVs that we've isolated or sequenced, and using live virus or pseudovirus infection in cells of..."

meaning they admitted they were using live viruses also.

[Stoic]

Note also that we DO actually have Sars-COV-2 which does infect humans. Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is that they succeeded in their gain of function experiments and it escaped the lab.

I'm not sure Occam's razor favors either of the two origins hypotheses. Zoonotic spillover is still a pretty simple hypothesis. For the other, you kind of have to assume bad motives on the part of the Chinese scientists, performing experiments that they didn't tell us they were going to perform, on viruses that they were keeping secret. Without actual evidence for such a hypothesis, some might call it a "conspiracy theory".

And they said "With bat-CoVs that we've isolated or sequenced, and using live virus or pseudovirus infection in cells of..."

meaning they admitted they were using live viruses also.

They were certainly using live viruses for the chimeras, replacing the spike protein for WIV1 (live virus) with the protein from other bat coronaviruses. My understanding is that this was done to see if the other bat coronaviruses were infectious to humans. This couldn't be done with the other bat coronaviruses directly, because only WIV1 and WIV16 could be cultured in vitro. And to reiterate, this was not considered "gain of function" because there was no expectation that the resulting chimeras would be any more infectious than WIV1 or WIV16.

[Sparko]

I'm not sure Occam's razor favors either of the two origins hypotheses. Zoonotic spillover is still a pretty simple hypothesis. For the other, you kind of have to assume bad motives on the part of the Chinese scientists, performing experiments that they didn't tell us they were going to perform, on viruses that they were keeping secret. Without actual evidence for such a hypothesis, some might call it a "conspiracy theory".


They were certainly using live viruses for the chimeras, replacing the spike protein for WIV1 (live virus) with the protein from other bat coronaviruses. My understanding is that this was done to see if the other bat coronaviruses were infectious to humans. This couldn't be done with the other bat coronaviruses directly, because only WIV1 and WIV16 could be cultured in vitro. And to reiterate, this was not considered "gain of function" because there was no expectation that the resulting chimeras would be any more infectious than WIV1 or WIV16.

You can continue to make up excuses, but the reality is that the virus originated right there where they were experimenting on making bat coronaviruses infect humans. And now we have a bat corona virus that infects humans. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out what most likely happened. And new evidence keeps popping up.

[tabibito]

Headlines in today's paper have a Chinese defector saying that he gave warning in 2019. The New York Post carries the same story:

the former Chinese Communist Party insider, whose defection to the United States in 1997 made global news, alerted intelligence agencies, a US politician with links to the president and Chinese human rights activist Dimon Liu.

Asked if he had any sense the intelligence agencies were taking seriously his intelligence about a new virus in Wuhan, 70-year-old Wei said: “I felt they were not as heavily concerned as I was so I tried my best to provide more detailed information. They may not believe there is (a) government of a country that would do something like that (cover up a virus). So I kept repeating myself in an effort to try to persuade them.

I don't think it would have been possible to act on the information at the time though, even if the evidence was iron-clad.

[Stoic]

You can continue to make up excuses, but the reality is that the virus originated right there where they were experimenting on making bat coronaviruses infect humans.

It was first discovered there, anyway. It's possible that it originated far from there, but the low level of infection (until mutations adapted it better to humans), the relatively low mortality rate, and the fact that the symptoms weren't much different from other potentially fatal respiratory infections, kept it from being recognized until a superspreader event happened in a city where the expertise was available to recognize it.

And now we have a bat corona virus that infects humans.

It's not the first bat coronavirus to infect humans.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out what most likely happened. And new evidence keeps popping up.

I would agree with you as to what most likely happened, mainly because of the Chinese government making it difficult or impossible to properly investigate the origins of the virus. This makes it easier to assume bad motives on their part, so the idea of secret experiments with secret viruses is much easier to believe.

My only argument is that this isn't conclusive, any more than the myriad efforts of Trump and his cronies to obstruct the Muller investigation proves conclusively that they colluded with the Russians.

[Sparko]

It was first discovered there, anyway. It's possible that it originated far from there, but the low level of infection (until mutations adapted it better to humans), the relatively low mortality rate, and the fact that the symptoms weren't much different from other potentially fatal respiratory infections, kept it from being recognized until a superspreader event happened in a city where the expertise was available to recognize it.


It's not the first bat coronavirus to infect humans.


I would agree with you as to what most likely happened, mainly because of the Chinese government making it difficult or impossible to properly investigate the origins of the virus. This makes it easier to assume bad motives on their part, so the idea of secret experiments with secret viruses is much easier to believe.

My only argument is that this isn't conclusive, any more than the myriad efforts of Trump and his cronies to obstruct the Muller investigation proves conclusively that they colluded with the Russians.

It won't ever be conclusive Stoic. Not anytime soon anyway, barring someone in China making a leak of some documents, if there ARE any documents. But everything points to a lab leak/accident. Odds are that is what happened is the best we can say.

[Stoic]

It won't ever be conclusive Stoic. Not anytime soon anyway, barring someone in China making a leak of some documents, if there ARE any documents. But everything points to a lab leak/accident. Odds are that is what happened is the best we can say.

Reasonable people can disagree about what the odds are, just like with Russian collusion.

[seanD]

It won't ever be conclusive Stoic. Not anytime soon anyway, barring someone in China making a leak of some documents, if there ARE any documents. But everything points to a lab leak/accident. Odds are that is what happened is the best we can say.

You don't demand that there be no investigation into a lab leak (which was always a possibility) without it being a cover-up, especially by the same folks who were behind the funding of the research at the same facility in question. That's pretty much the smoking gun IMO.

[Sparko]

You don't demand that there be no investigation into a lab leak (which was always a possibility) without it being a cover-up, especially by the same folks who were behind the funding of the research at the same facility in question. That's pretty much the smoking gun IMO.

There are so many smoking guns in this that you have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to see what's going on.

[Mountain Man]

There are so many smoking guns in this that you have to be blind, deaf and dumb a liberal not to see what's going on.

Edited for accuracy.

[Starlight]

You don't demand that there be no investigation into a lab leak (which was always a possibility) without it being a cover-up, especially by the same folks who were behind the funding of the research at the same facility in question. That's pretty much the smoking gun IMO.

The links I've seen people make between these haven't come across to me so far as very convincing. What people outside of science don't seem to understand is that big funding organizations fund a huge proportion of all work done. It's like saying that a few of the biggest banks together serve a significant percentage of the US population. You can then say any two random people in the US are 'connected' because they happen to both bank with the same bank. But that's a coincidence that happens because there are a few big banks, and it doesn't mean the two people know each other.

My current science research is being funded by a big funding organization in my own country, but I don't know the name of any of the people in that organization who are signing off on that funding, and I don't happen to know of any other specific projects or any other specific scientists who are currently being funded by that organization even though there will be hundreds. It's like the bank - just because I have an account with a bank, it doesn't mean I happen to know anyone who works at the bank, and I sure don't know who else happens to have accounts with the same bank!

So when the conspiracy theorists grab their piece of connector string and put a pin in two articles about science funding both coming from huge organizations like the NIH, or Wellcome Trust, etc and say there's obviously a link between these, I just shake my head. That's nothing more interesting than a "they happened to bank with the same bank!" The conspiracy theorists have yet to make a worthwhile case, as far as I have seen, in terms of there being real conflicts of interest or any cover-ups beyond the Chinese government's run-of-the-mill secrecy.

[seanD]

The links I've seen people make between these haven't come across to me so far as very convincing. What people outside of science don't seem to understand is that big funding organizations fund a huge proportion of all work done. It's like saying that a few of the biggest banks together serve a significant percentage of the US population. You can then say any two random people in the US are 'connected' because they happen to both bank with the same bank. But that's a coincidence that happens because there are a few big banks, and it doesn't mean the two people know each other.

My current science research is being funded by a big funding organization in my own country, but I don't know the name of any of the people in that organization who are signing off on that funding, and I don't happen to know of any other specific projects or any other specific scientists who are currently being funded by that organization even though there will be hundreds. It's like the bank - just because I have an account with a bank, it doesn't mean I happen to know anyone who works at the bank, and I sure don't know who else happens to have accounts with the same bank!

So when the conspiracy theorists grab their piece of connector string and put a pin in two articles about science funding both coming from huge organizations like the NIH, or Wellcome Trust, etc and say there's obviously a link between these, I just shake my head. That's nothing more interesting than a "they happened to bank with the same bank!" The conspiracy theorists have yet to make a worthwhile case, as far as I have seen, in terms of there being real conflicts of interest or any cover-ups beyond the Chinese government's run-of-the-mill secrecy.

That's what I initially thought before all this happened. According to Alina Chan and others in the field of research, because a group of scientific heads (who apparently also conspired with some china heads) wrote a scathing rebuke in the Lancet against the lab leak theory, this created a chilling effect among her colleagues to even explore the possibility. And of course, we know that the MSM and social media did for a year to cover it up, undoubtedly also because of the Lancet statement. But the covid cult is going to believe what they want to believe.