Origins of Covid

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I don't disagree with any of that.

I also don't think that a lab leak is out of the question. It certainly could have happened.

The problem is that most of the arguments I have heard from it are based on flimsy evidence.

Not any more flimsy than a natural spillover when after almost 2 years no source animal can be found. That you deny that is flimsy evidence because then you can pretend such an absence of evidence is understandable.

Quote:

So what do you do if you don't trust China and you have to rely on experts in the field?

Well, you listen to those experts, and most of the experts seem to be more persuaded by natural spillover arguments.

The experts on the side of lab leak often don't turn out to be people who are actually in the right field of expertise, OR they have some political partizanship, OR they have some kind of long-running feud and an axe to grind.

You conveniently ignore scientists who are in the field and think the lab leak is very plausible. Of course you dismiss a wealth of legit evidence by attacking the people who presented it with ad homs and anything else to hand wave it away, but at the same time you ignore Daszak's and Shi's blatant conflict of interest.

Quote:

Also, many of the arguments seem to be pushing forward different scenarios - from the idea that it was someone bitten by a bat, to the idea that there was secret gain of function happening from an incident in 2012, to the idea that the structure of the virus looks man-made. It seems that they cannot all be correct, but lab leakers are happy to let the doubts mutate into virulent narratives of their own.

I bolded your straw man.

Is there supposed to be something wrong with the idea there are a number of scenarios a lab accident might have occurred? Just how many different scenarios are being pushed about a natural event? Let me help you with that.

wet market: no evidence of a second wet market
wild animal farm, no source animal found
frozen food, no evidence
somewhere outside of Wuhan, the evidence supports Wuhan was the location of the initial event
pangolins, the coronavirus only matches in one segment and no pangolins were found being sold in Wuhan, and they are rare to find in a wet market in the first place
spillovers in general always need a number of mutations to get it right, no evidence of such an adjustment period from animals to humans
no past lab accident causing a new pandemic, ??? as if there can never be a first one when PPPs (potential pandemic pathogens) are being increasingly studied in labs around the world

Anything I missed?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So you have no issue admitting one can get COVID in a lab accident, angrysoba, but you think it couldn't have happened to start the pandemic?

And you post that the lab leak hypothesis is a CT then pretend you didn't really say that? "People are saying" comes to mind.

Lol…wut?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Lol…wut?

Who do you think you are fooling with posts like this?

Quote:

Does anyone see why the lab leak is often considered a conspiracy theory?

It is not because a lab leak is, per se, a conspiracy theory, but all the "evidence" has to be forced into a narrative where there are always scientists doing devious things and covering stuff up, etc... and for reasons that don't make a lot of sense.

You're not fooling anyone by claiming it's not a CT per se when you clearly believe it is and keep trying to inject that BS: 'people are saying' into the discussion.



I notice you didn't answer the challenge to your claim there's no evidence for a lab accident but for some reason you believe there is evidence for a natural event.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Who do you think you are fooling with posts like this?


You're not fooling anyone by claiming it's not a CT per se when you clearly believe it is and keep trying to inject that BS: 'people are saying' into the discussion.



I notice you didn't answer the challenge to your claim there's no evidence for a lab accident but for some reason you believe there is evidence for a natural event.

I think I was clear that it is not a CT to say that a lab accident could have happened. Most of your arguments about secret gain of research for no apparent reason instead of publishing a paper on a spillover…well, THAT is a CT.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Not any more flimsy than a natural spillover when after almost 2 years no source animal can be found. That you deny that is flimsy evidence because then you can pretend such an absence of evidence is understandable.

You conveniently ignore scientists who are in the field and think the lab leak is very plausible. Of course you dismiss a wealth of legit evidence by attacking the people who presented it with ad homs and anything else to hand wave it away, but at the same time you ignore Daszak's and Shi's blatant conflict of interest.

I bolded your straw man.

Is there supposed to be something wrong with the idea there are a number of scenarios a lab accident might have occurred? Just how many different scenarios are being pushed about a natural event? Let me help you with that.

wet market: no evidence of a second wet market
wild animal farm, no source animal found
frozen food, no evidence
somewhere outside of Wuhan, the evidence supports Wuhan was the location of the initial event
pangolins, the coronavirus only matches in one segment and no pangolins were found being sold in Wuhan, and they are rare to find in a wet market in the first place
spillovers in general always need a number of mutations to get it right, no evidence of such an adjustment period from animals to humans
no past lab accident causing a new pandemic, ??? as if there can never be a first one when PPPs (potential pandemic pathogens) are being increasingly studied in labs around the world

Anything I missed?

You yourself posted some people claiming the furniture cleavage site proved it was man-made. The claims were it was against the laws of physics. You dug your heels in when I pointed out how preposterous the argument was.

Seriously, you are all over the shop with this one.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

You yourself posted some people claiming the furniture cleavage site proved it was man-made. The claims were it was against the laws of physics. You dug your heels in when I pointed out how preposterous the argument was.

Seriously, you are all over the shop with this one.

I have said from the very beginning of this thread that "engineered" as in putting genetic segments together was not supported by a shred of evidence. I have not changed from that POV.

I posted all kinds of stuff, weak and strong and some that going back to it later tied in with new information.

As for the furin cleavage site, the codon sequence, and using the spike protein, I've not said much about those issues because at the time I didn't know enough to comment. I do now, BTW, those things are rare in nature but the claims they never occur were wrong.

You OTOH have been implying I'm a CTer from early in the thread. You can pretend to be innocent all you want. Your posts speak from themselves.


Moving on, you have ignored the problems with the natural origin while claiming such problems only occur with the lab origin.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I have said from the very beginning of this thread that "engineered" as in putting genetic segments together was not supported by a shred of evidence. I have not changed from that POV.

I posted all kinds of stuff, weak and strong and some that going back to it later tied in with new information.

As for the furin cleavage site, the codon sequence, and using the spike protein, I've not said much about those issues because at the time I didn't know enough to comment. I do now, BTW, those things are rare in nature but the claims they never occur were wrong.

You OTOH have been implying I'm a CTer from early in the thread. You can pretend to be innocent all you want. Your posts speak from themselves.


Moving on, you have ignored the problems with the natural origin while claiming such problems only occur with the lab origin.

My position rests on this: SARS-CoV2 must have come from somewhere and ultimately it came from nature. The question is whether it also passed through a lab en route to becoming a pandemic. I haven’t seen evidence of that.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

My position rests on this: SARS-CoV2 must have come from somewhere and ultimately it came from nature. The question is whether it also passed through a lab en route to becoming a pandemic. I haven’t seen evidence of that.

Well there IS evidence. The outbreak started nearby the lab. It's not much, but it's not nothing. That's why it's on the table. If the lab was 1000km from the Wuhan, nobody would even think about it.

[angrysoba]

I think it would certainly be interesting to get Ian Lipkin's expert testimony on this. He apparently says he heard about the outbreak in Wuhan on 15th December.

He's an infectious disease expert who consulted with the makers of the movie, Contagion.

I remember listening to a TWiV episode with him talking from China about how he caught Covid, there.

Quote:

One of the world's top epidemiologists admits he first heard about the pandemic outbreak in Wuhan more than two weeks before it was disclosed to global health bodies.

The revelation by Ian Lipkin, a professor at Columbia University honoured by China for work on the first Sars epidemic earlier this century, undermines the official Beijing narrative on the origins.

Prof Lipkin told a documentary by the director Spike Lee that he learned of 'the new outbreak' on December 15, even repeating the date for clarification.

Yet China claims there were only five known patients before that time in Wuhan – a city of 11 million people – with the earliest confirmed case of a patient with the novel coronavirus supposedly cropping up just one week earlier.

The World Health Organisation was not tipped off for another 16 days after Taiwan raised the alarm.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Well there IS evidence. The outbreak started nearby the lab. It's not much, but it's not nothing. That's why it's on the table. If the lab was 1000km from the Wuhan, nobody would even think about it.

IMO proximity does not rise to the level of actual evidence. More of a clue or speculation worthy of further investigation. As you say, It's not much, but it's not nothing. The ongoing investigation, thus far, has not produced actual evidence of a connection to the lab.

[angrysoba]

By the way, I think Capsid, you said that you were at the Nipah virus conference in December 2019. Given that the movie, Contagion, is based on Nipah, was Ian Lipkin at the conference, and if so was there much chatter about the virus between talks, at the water cooler, the bar, etc…?

ETA: Ah... sorry, I have just seen that the Nipah Conference was on 9-10th December.

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

By the way, I think Capsid, you said that you were at the Nipah virus conference in December 2019. Given that the movie, Contagion, is based on Nipah, was Ian Lipkin at the conference, and if so was there much chatter about the virus between talks, at the water cooler, the bar, etc…?

ETA: Ah... sorry, I have just seen that the Nipah Conference was on 9-10th December.

There was no mention of COVID at the Nipah conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Steve

IMO proximity does not rise to the level of actual evidence. More of a clue or speculation worthy of further investigation. As you say, It's not much, but it's not nothing. The ongoing investigation, thus far, has not produced actual evidence of a connection to the lab.

And just what evidence would that be which isn't being covered up by the Chinese?

In addition to proximity, there is no evidence of an alternative source.

For example the bat species which harbors other SARS-like CoVs is not near Wuhan. The seafood wet market was only connected to a super-spreader event and no evidence actually exists which we have access to implicates another wet market.

Then there is the issue of just what was being studied at the WIV and other nearby labs which makes the coincidence a lot more than just "proximity".

No smoking gun evidence is there for either hypothesis. I realize you are not dismissing the lab origin, but minimizing the evidence to nothing more than proximity isn't quite accurate.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And just what evidence would that be which isn't being covered up by the Chinese?

I have no such evidence. And no one else has presented any such evidence. That is exactly my point.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

In addition to proximity, there is no evidence of an alternative source.

This is true, as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

For example the bat species which harbors other SARS-like CoVs is not near Wuhan. The seafood wet market was only connected to a super-spreader event and no evidence actually exists which we have access to implicates another wet market.

Then there is the issue of just what was being studied at the WIV and other nearby labs which makes the coincidence a lot more than just "proximity".

No smoking gun evidence is there for either hypothesis. I realize you are not dismissing the lab origin, but minimizing the evidence to nothing more than proximity isn't quite accurate.

In my view it is entirely accurate. Almost everything that has been presented in this lengthy thread as evidence is merely questions, guesses and insinuation.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Not any more flimsy than a natural spillover when after almost 2 years no source animal can be found. ...
Anything I missed?

We have known the probable source animal for over a year. We do not expect quick identification of the exact source animal . We know there is the possibility of never finding the exact source animal.
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

Quote:

SARS-CoV-2 has close genetic similarity to multiple previously identified bat coronaviruses, suggesting it crossed over into humans from bats.[11][12][13][14][4] Research is ongoing as to whether SARS-CoV-2 came directly from bats or indirectly through any intermediate hosts.[15][16] Initial genome sequences of the virus showed little genetic diversity, although subsequently a number of stable variants emerged (some spreading more vigorously), indicating that the spillover event introducing SARS-CoV-2 to humans is likely to have occurred in late 2019.[17][18] Health authorities and scientists internationally state that as with the 2002–2004 outbreak of SARS-1, efforts to trace the specific geographic and taxonomic origins of SARS-CoV-2 could take years, and the results could be inconclusive.[19]

The "wet market: no evidence of a second wet market" errors yet again.
3 September 2021: The WHO study states "28.0% to the Huanan market only, 22.6% to other markets only, and 4.8% to both."
The Huanan and other markets were sources of infection. Markets are where people would be in contact with people who were in close contact with animals (butchers and live animal vendors). Markets are where people would be in contact with infected people. It is no surprise that markets would be associated with the December 2019 cases.

The Huanan market as a source has not been an option to scientists for over a year. WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part

Quote:

An association with the Huanan market was identified among some of the earliest recognized cases and, for a short period until mid-January 2020, exposure to the Huanan market was included in the case definition. It rapidly became clear, however, that there were cases without a link to the Huanan market, and this element of the definition was dropped a few days after being introduced (Annex E3)

You may want to read the study Annexes.
Annex E3 - Case definitions: evolution over time
2020-01-15 Epidemiological history including "Direct and indirect exposure to related markets in Wuhan especially farmers market in Wuhan within 14 days before the onset of illness."
2020-01-18 Epidemiological history with no markets.
Also read
Table 1. Exposure history of 174 COVID-19 cases which lists types of exposure as Market, Huanan Market only, Others only, Dead animals, Live animals, Cold-chain products, Travel history.

Quote:

1. Market exposure history
Among the 168 cases, 93 cases had been to markets, 47 cases had only been to the Huanan Market, and 38 cases had only been to other markets. Among the 38 cases, 3 clusters (2 persons in each group) had been to the same market, the remaining 32 cases had been to different markets. Other 8 cases had been to both the Huanan Market and other markets. According to the onset date, the peak incidence of cases with market exposure history was earlier than cases without market exposure history, as shown in Figure 9.
According to an analysis of 168 COVID-19 cases with or without a history of exposure to the Huanan Market, the first case had no history of exposure to the Huanan Market, and the incidence of cases with and without history of exposure to the Huanan Market basically increased simultaneously. However, the cases with exposure history decreased after reaching the peak on 25 December, and the cases without exposure history reached the peak on 30 December, as shown in Fig. 10.

"Both of the first and the second COVID-19 cases had a history of dead animals exposure" and what looks look the first case in Fig 12 having live animal exposure is a suggestion of transmission from a dead or live animal to humans. It could also mean transmission from a vendor of those animals who was asymptomatic or unreported.

[angrysoba]

Okay, so I don't understand any of the science here, but it seems that one of the questions to do with the origins is at what stage lineage A and lineage B of SARS-CoV2 diverged.

Well, a group of scientists including Michael Worobey, suggest that maybe they did not and that they therefore represent different points of emergence.

Link

This might bolster the multiple spillover theory.

Michael Worobey, on this Twitter thread, discusses a dispute he is having with one of the DRASTIC members about whether he is doing the science right. As Worobey says, it is pretty technical, and I have no idea how to say who is right and who is wrong in this.

The bottom line seems to be that there has been more than one introduction of SARS-CoV2 into humans, which would support the idea of multiple spillovers rather than, say, a single lab accident.

Two possible counter-arguments are that:
1.) The two lineages diverge from each other, and we have evidence of that which Worobey is throwing out (I think that is Daoyu's position)

and

2.) The two lineages diverge from each other even if we currently don't have evidence of it, and the divergence is simply lost somewhere.

As I say, I have no idea.

Maybe Capsid or SG want to chime in here...

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Capsid

There was no mention of COVID at the Nipah conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for your reply. I only realized after that Ian Lipkin recalls learning about Covid after the conference was over.

Still, it is interesting to note that apparently nobody knew about Covid in early December.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Steve

I have no such evidence. And no one else has presented any such evidence. That is exactly my point.

Just saying you left off an important caveat.

Originally Posted by Steve

In my view it is entirely accurate. Almost everything that has been presented in this lengthy thread as evidence is merely questions, guesses and insinuation.

Well then you aren't paying attention.

Evidence of past lab accidents
Evidence of past lab accidents in Chinese labs where people contracted the infections being studied
Including an actual case where an accident infected a researcher with COVID-19
Evidence the WIV was researching SARS-like CoVs
Evidence of exposures to bats when WIV students and staff were collecting specimens in Yunnan complete with pictures of the injuries and lack of proper PPE
Dr Shi lying about the 6 miners having had fungal infections, not a virus

There's more but dismissing these as "questions, guesses and insinuation" really misrepresents what said evidence actually is.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Evidence of past lab accidents
Evidence of past lab accidents in Chinese labs where people contracted the infections being studied
Including an actual case where an accident infected a researcher with COVID-19

None of these are evidence of SARS-CoV2 coming from a lab.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Evidence the WIV was researching SARS-like CoVs

Nobody disputes they were researching SARS-like coronaviruses. They published papers on this in major journals.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Evidence of exposures to bats when WIV students and staff were collecting specimens in Yunnan complete with pictures of the injuries and lack of proper PPE

Which would support natural origins, of course, if it came directly from virus collection in the wild. And of course, it is merely a possibility. Interestingly, it also makes the whole "gain of function" thing moot if it is true.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Dr Shi lying about the 6 miners having had fungal infections, not a virus

This is a disputed insinuation, of course.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There's more but dismissing these as "questions, guesses and insinuation" really misrepresents what said evidence actually is.

I think it is a perfectly accurate summary.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

None of these are evidence of SARS-CoV2 coming from a lab.

So a SARS-CoV2 infection contracted in a lab accident is not evidence of SARS-CoV2 coming from a lab?

Riiiight.


You keep insisting the only evidence that is actual evidence is a direct smoking gun. And when I point out there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that does not meet the definition of a smoking gun you hand-wave it all away.

Until you get past that ridiculous definition of what is evidence I see no reason to keep posting the same things over and over.

Let me know when you figure out the definition of evidence here is not confined to an all or none smoking gun.

On the natural origin side, OTOH, I have pointed out specifically why the circumstantial evidence presented in each case has been refuted by the facts I listed.

Oh and until you recognize Daszak and Shi both had significant conflicts of interest, there's no point in addressing that evidence over and over again either.

I'll look at your link here and address it in my next post.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Okay, so I don't understand any of the science here, but it seems that one of the questions to do with the origins is at what stage lineage A and lineage B of SARS-CoV2 diverged.

Well, a group of scientists including Michael Worobey, suggest that maybe they did not and that they therefore represent different points of emergence.

Link

This might bolster the multiple spillover theory.

Michael Worobey, on this Twitter thread, discusses a dispute he is having with one of the DRASTIC members about whether he is doing the science right. As Worobey says, it is pretty technical, and I have no idea how to say who is right and who is wrong in this.

The bottom line seems to be that there has been more than one introduction of SARS-CoV2 into humans, which would support the idea of multiple spillovers rather than, say, a single lab accident.

Two possible counter-arguments are that:
1.) The two lineages diverge from each other, and we have evidence of that which Worobey is throwing out (I think that is Daoyu's position)

and

2.) The two lineages diverge from each other even if we currently don't have evidence of it, and the divergence is simply lost somewhere.

As I say, I have no idea.

Maybe Capsid or SG want to chime in here...

I had to take those ******* quote marks out of your link to make it work. It would be nice if you would test links before hitting reply.

https://news.arizona.edu/story/novel...19-cases-wuhan

I posted about that already. I referred to it as sputtering. It's an hypothesis but I didn't see any evidence that supported it. I'll look again.

I do think the two lineages has to put the origin back before Oct explaining the removal of access to the WIV work on Sept 19, 2019.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So a SARS-CoV2 infection contracted in a lab accident is not evidence of SARS-CoV2 coming from a lab?

Riiiight.

?????

Unless you are talking about the origin of the virus, then no. It is obviously not.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I had to take those ******* quote marks out of your link to make it work. It would be nice if you would test links before hitting reply.

The links work fine for me so I have no idea what the **** you are talking about.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So I have a couple of issues here re the Twitter entries.

One)

Quote:

If a human-transmissible SARS-CoV-2 progenitor was circulating among such animals, the SARS1 story teaches us that it would be likely to jump multiple times into humans.

And yet, not only is there no direct evidence of a jump from any species to humans one time, there clearly isn't evidence of 2 separate jumps, both tied to Wuhan in some way or even not tied to Wuhan directly.

And the second issue is the WA State case was not the first case in the US after all. Six earlier cases in 5 different states have been found.

In addition, while contact tracing of the first WA case to the Seattle case detected in a flu study to the outbreak at the Life Care Center in Kirkland WA wasn't feasible by the time they were all detected, there was no reason to think they were not connected cases. Our lovely underfunded public health department here in King County (where all the cases were) failed to take the most basic steps of contact tracing before the index patient was diagnosed. They followed up on all the people the index case exposed after he was diagnosed. But the guy had come through SeaTac airport directly from Wuhan before he ended up in Everett a short time later where he was diagnosed.

Everyone on the plane and in the airport were exposed during flu season here where such a respiratory illness wouldn't seem that unusual to the exposed persons.


I'll keep reading.

[angrysoba]

I guess I should have linked to the original Twitter thread that Worobey posted that accompanied the research he and his group are doing.

Link

The links work fine for me. The quotation marks are added by the software on this platform whenever you embed a link. If you can't go to the link the problem must be at your end.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

The links work fine for me so I have no idea what the **** you are talking about.

Now I can't get the link to open up at all. I'll try it on my other laptop later.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Now I can't get the link to open up at all. I'll try it on my other laptop later.

Which proves it is at your end and that your unpleasant outburst in which you blamed me for it was uncalled for.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Including an actual case where an accident infected a researcher with COVID-19.

If a researcher got COVID-19 in 2020 when working with SARS-CoV-2 after the outbreak, that says nothing about a lab incident releasing SARS-CoV-2 before December 2019.

I highlighted "If" because Skeptic Ginger does not give any sources. This may be the probable fake news Skeptic Ginger has cited before.
18 August 2021: If credible news sources have ignored a news article for almost 2 weeks (since 5 August), it is probably fake news.
24 August 2021: Skeptic Ginger cites probably fake news again.

Senior Chinese scientist acquired SARS-CoV-2 in lab infection accident, virologist says
The US Right To Know web site got Professor Shan-Lu Liu’s emails. One email has "Feng Gao s my 师兄 in 北京的病毒所 we we e from the same lab where my former director has now been infec ed by SARS CoV 2! Ve y sad but he s doing OK!" Followed by "Your former colleague was infected with sars2 in the lab?" question from Lishan Su and a "Yes, he was infected in the lab!" email from Shan-Lu Liu.

The report originally from US RTK is an lie according to an equally "valid" source.
Source refutes Aussie journalist’s rumor that researcher at Beijing lab infected with coronavirus at work

Quote:

Regarding the accusations in the report, the Global Times learned from a source close to the NIVDC on Monday that the report was a complete lie. A person familiar with the situation told the Global Times that one researcher at the institute did become infected early last year but that person belonged to the institute's viral hepatitis division, which has nothing to do with the coronavirus research work. His office and his activities were located on the second floor of the institute and he had no access to the samples or to the P3 laboratory on the sixth floor of the building.
According to the source, the researcher was infected out of the workplace early last year when the COVID-19 epidemic was much severe in China. Relevant departments in Beijing have visited the NIVDC to investigate the case and confirmed that the infection process was not connected to the laboratory. This case was also included in Beijing's COVID-19 infection data and there was no "cover-up" as alleged in some reports.
...
However, another source close to the NIVDC told the Global Times on Monday that Liu had left the institute for "at least more than a decade" and that it was impossible for him to know what was going on at the institute as researchers were not close to him.

What makes this fake news is that it popped up on August 5, 2021 and a month later no one else has reported that this researcher caught COVID-19 in the lab.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Dr Shi lying about the 6 miners having had fungal infections, not a virus

How China’s ‘Bat Woman’ Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus

Quote:

Three years earlier Shi’s team had been called in to investigate the virus profile of a mine shaft in Yunnan’s mountainous Mojiang County—famous for its fermented Pu’er tea—where six miners suffered from pneumonialike diseases and two died. After sampling the cave for a year, the researchers discovered a diverse group of coronaviruses in six bat species. In many cases, multiple viral strains had infected a single animal, turning it into a flying factory for new viruses.

“The mine shaft stunk like hell,” says Shi, who, like her colleagues, went in wearing a protective mask and clothing. “Bat guano, covered in fungus, littered the cave.” Although the fungus turned out to be the pathogen that had sickened the miners, she says it would have been only a matter of time before they caught the coronaviruses if the mine had not been promptly shut.

Dr Shi did not lie. The miners could not have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 related viruses because there were no such viruses in the cave ! That leaves the probable cause as fungal infection. Dr Shi stated what she believed.
WHO study Annex, p131.

Quote:

With regard to the matter of morbidity and mortality in miners in a mine in Mojiang, Yunnan Province, where bats were present, Professor Shi said that the events had been clarified in an addendum to her Nature article. Doctors sent her the samples for testing after something like three months of illness. Miners had been to the cave 2-3 times and it was 1 meter thick with bat feces. Professor Shi’s team went there in 2012-15 about seven times to look for novel viruses. They found no viruses close to SARS-CoV but there was a rat henipa-like virus (Mojiang paramyxovirus), as reported by another group in China. Samples taken during subsequent visits to the cave were found to contain no viral sequence related to SARS-CoV-2 (like RaTG13). However, none of them has higher similarity to SARS-CoV-2 than the RaTG13 has. Therefore, none of them are the progenitor virus of SARS-CoV-2 (this would usually entail >99% in genome). None could be isolated. The reported illnesses associated with the miners, according to the WIV experts, were more likely explained by fungal infections acquired when removing a thick layer of guano.

A minute with Google gives Fungal pneumonia

Quote:

Fungal pneumonia is an infection of the lungs by fungi. It can be caused by either endemic or opportunistic fungi or a combination of both. Case mortality in fungal pneumonias can be as high as 90% in immunocompromised patients,[1][2] though immunocompetent patients generally respond well to anti-fungal therapy.

My guess is that probable SARS-1 origin at the time (2012) as bats lead to inappropriate treatment of the miners and thus the deaths.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

If a researcher got COVID-19 in 2020 when working with SARS-CoV-2 after the outbreak, that says nothing about a lab incident releasing SARS-CoV-2 before December 2019.

I highlighted "If" because Skeptic Ginger does not give any sources. This may be the probable fake news Skeptic Ginger has cited before.
18 August 2021: If credible news sources have ignored a news article for almost 2 weeks (since 5 August), it is probably fake news.
24 August 2021: Skeptic Ginger cites probably fake news again.

Senior Chinese scientist acquired SARS-CoV-2 in lab infection accident, virologist says
The US Right To Know web site got Professor Shan-Lu Liu’s emails. One email has "Feng Gao s my 师兄 in 北京的病毒所 we we e from the same lab where my former director has now been infec ed by SARS CoV 2! Ve y sad but he s doing OK!" Followed by "Your former colleague was infected with sars2 in the lab?" question from Lishan Su and a "Yes, he was infected in the lab!" email from Shan-Lu Liu.

The report originally from US RTK is an lie according to an equally "valid" source.
Source refutes Aussie journalist’s rumor that researcher at Beijing lab infected with coronavirus at work

What makes this fake news is that it popped up on August 5, 2021 and a month later no one else has reported that this researcher caught COVID-19 in the lab.

I wouldn't rely on Global Times which is pretty clearly a propaganda outlet for the Chinese government.

[The links work fine for me. The quotation marks are added by the software on this platform whenever you embed a link. If you can't go to the link the problem must be at your end.]

Either way, none of this really gets us closer to the origins.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I wouldn't rely on Global Times which is pretty clearly a propaganda outlet for the Chinese government.

Thus my quotes around "valid". Both sources have biases and are unreliable. That may be a reason that they were ignored by credible news agencies. More likely, journalists did the simple step of asking Shan-Lu Liu for his source and found that it was gossip. They may have contacted the lab and found no director was infected from an lab incident.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

The links work fine for me so I have no idea what the **** you are talking about.

Sorry, my mistake. Apparently it won't open with my outdated Chrome on the other laptop.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Which proves it is at your end and that your unpleasant outburst in which you blamed me for it was uncalled for.

Yeah right, like no one in this thread has ever posted anything unpleasant to me.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Sorry, my mistake. Apparently it won't open with my outdated Chrome on the other laptop.

No problem. Glad it got sorted out.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yeah right, like no one in this thread has ever posted anything unpleasant to me.

No doubt people do, so how about we call a truce and try to go through things objectively. The first one to be unpleasant to the other one's a loser. How about it?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Just saying you left off an important caveat.

Well then you aren't paying attention.

Evidence of past lab accidents
Evidence of past lab accidents in Chinese labs where people contracted the infections being studied
Including an actual case where an accident infected a researcher with COVID-19
Evidence the WIV was researching SARS-like CoVs
Evidence of exposures to bats when WIV students and staff were collecting specimens in Yunnan complete with pictures of the injuries and lack of proper PPE
Dr Shi lying about the 6 miners having had fungal infections, not a virus

There's more but dismissing these as "questions, guesses and insinuation" really misrepresents what said evidence actually is.

There is nothing in this list that provides evidence that the current COVID 19 pandemic originated in a release from a lab. The list suggests that CLOVID 19 could have originated in a release from a lab, but that suggestion can equally be made without reference to any of the listed items. And I would, and do, equally accept that release from a lab could be the origin without being presented with that list. The list itself adds nothing.

Further, you are insinuating that the combination of the items on this list rises to the level of actual evidence that the current COVID 19 pandemic originated in a release from a lab. It really does not. What it actually provides evidence for is that in some cases security it some labs has been a problem. It does absolutely nothing to address an actual release of COVID 19.

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Okay, so I don't understand any of the science here, but it seems that one of the questions to do with the origins is at what stage lineage A and lineage B of SARS-CoV2 diverged.

Well, a group of scientists including Michael Worobey, suggest that maybe they did not and that they therefore represent different points of emergence.

Link

This might bolster the multiple spillover theory.

Michael Worobey, on this Twitter thread, discusses a dispute he is having with one of the DRASTIC members about whether he is doing the science right. As Worobey says, it is pretty technical, and I have no idea how to say who is right and who is wrong in this.

The bottom line seems to be that there has been more than one introduction of SARS-CoV2 into humans, which would support the idea of multiple spillovers rather than, say, a single lab accident.

Two possible counter-arguments are that:
1.) The two lineages diverge from each other, and we have evidence of that which Worobey is throwing out (I think that is Daoyu's position)

and

2.) The two lineages diverge from each other even if we currently don't have evidence of it, and the divergence is simply lost somewhere.

As I say, I have no idea.

Maybe Capsid or SG want to chime in here...

I'd concur with that. Seems the sequences of the 2 lineages can not have occurred by transition and rather could be a sequencing error.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Capsid

I'd concur with that. Seems the sequences of the 2 lineages can not have occurred by transition and rather could be a sequencing error.

Thanks for that, Capsid. Would that, therefore, increase the likelihood of multiple introductions into humans and thus increase the likelihood of multiple zoonotic/spillover events?

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Thanks for that, Capsid. Would that, therefore, increase the likelihood of multiple introductions into humans and thus increase the likelihood of multiple zoonotic/spillover events?

Worobey seems to think so, "If a human-transmissible SARS-CoV-2 progenitor was circulating among such animals, the SARS1 story teaches us that it would be likely to jump multiple times into humans."

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

No doubt people do, so how about we call a truce and try to go through things objectively. The first one to be unpleasant to the other one's a loser. How about it?

I'm more than happy to try again to discuss the actual evidence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Steve

There is nothing in this list that provides evidence that the current COVID 19 pandemic originated in a release from a lab. The list suggests that CLOVID 19 could have originated in a release from a lab, but that suggestion can equally be made without reference to any of the listed items. And I would, and do, equally accept that release from a lab could be the origin without being presented with that list. The list itself adds nothing.

Further, you are insinuating that the combination of the items on this list rises to the level of actual evidence that the current COVID 19 pandemic originated in a release from a lab. It really does not. What it actually provides evidence for is that in some cases security it some labs has been a problem. It does absolutely nothing to address an actual release of COVID 19.

I can't say it enough apparently, BOTH options are on the table, neither has been supported with conclusive evidence.

The evidence does not support a natural event. Feel free to list the evidence you think does and/or to post why any particular piece of evidence for a lab leak is questioned.

That does not mean simply saying the evidence isn't direct proof. I've never said it did.