Origins of Covid

[lionking]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Looks like case closed to me:





https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/exp...ovid19s-origin

Beat me to it. Published in "Science" by people who spent a lot of time in Wuhan.

Quote:

If the COVID-19 virus originated in a lab, as some conspiracy theories suggest, you’d expect a single introduction into humans – rather than two distinct viral lineages. And both strains were found in samples taken from Huanan market. “That, I think, is pretty good evidence,” says Dwyer.

It looks like real experts have relegated the lab leak theory to CT status.

[angrysoba]

Steven Novella summarizes the two papers here.

He essentially considers them to be a body blow and a knock-out punch to the lab leak theory.

David Gorski is a little more restrained, which is more or less my position, but points out that the scientific evidence strongly supports zoonotic spillover, and argues that while there was nothing inherently unscientific or conspiratorial about the possibility of a lab leak, the arguments in favour of lab leak have become increasingly conspiratorial. I agree with this.

We have seen a lot of it in this thread....

Quote:

Since the early days of the pandemic, there has been a question of whether SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally or had escaped from a lab. The latter hypothesis didn’t start out as a conspiracy theory, as lab leaks have happened before—although none had ever caused a pandemic that has thus far claimed millions of deaths worldwide, over a million in the US alone. However, it rapidly took on the characteristics of a conspiracy theory such that even those advocating the “lab leak” hypothesis often had difficulty not interspersing more serious scientific arguments with what can be only described as a dollop of conspiratorial thinking. As time went on, if anything, the lab leak hypothesis drifted further and further from legitimate science and deeper and deeper into conspiracyland, such that, try as I might, I now have a difficult time finding examples of lab leak advocates who don’t add conspiracy mongering narratives to their arguments.

Here’s what I mean. By by May 2021 it clearly had developed all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory, complete with a coverup narrative in which China and powerful forces in the US were “suppressing” all mention of a lab leak as a “conspiracy theory,” attacks on funding sources of investigators doing research on coronaviruses, bad science in the form of anomaly hunting (Nicholas Wade and furin cleavage sites or Steven Quay and Richard Muller and CGGCGG, anyone?) in which any observed oddity in the nucleotide sequence of the virus was portrayed as clear-cut evidence of lab manipulation by scientists doing gain-of-function research (which, apparently, went very wrong), all coupled with an utter resistance to disconfirming evidence. It didn’t help, of course, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was not far from the wet markets that were first identified as likely sources of the outbreak and that WIV was studying coronaviruses and thus had them on premises. Lab leak proponents are also fond of other kinds of conspiratorial thinking, such as attribution errors, weaponization of disagreements within a general consensus, shifting the burden of proof, moving the goalposts in response to disconfirming evidence, and others, all with an intense belief in a coverup at the highest levels of multiple governments.

Yes, we know that China is a repressive secretive country, but lab leak theories now apparently implicate a wide range of scientists from all over the world because of their reliance on funding. There is also a kind of lab leak of the gaps argument being made when specific data points ("the early cases") that are not known or may not even exist are apparently "ignored". Surely, if we only had that data, then the current picture of the cases emanating out of the Huanan Market, with those directly linked to the Huanan Market apparently living further away from it, than those who were not linked to it, would change and presumably favour the lab leak.

Gorski thinks that the lab leak cannot be completely ruled out (he says it is "not homeopathy level improbable"), but the papers certainly make spillover the best explanation so far.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by lomiller

"Mainstream science is suppressing the truth!!!" is the catercorner of virtually every pseudoscience and conspiracy theory out there.

meaningless comment

Quote:

The lab leak side was asked to provide evidence, and so far it hasn't managed to come up with any.

... and exactly how would that evidence look?

Quote:

As for why zoonotic crossover is the default, it's something that has been happening for billions of year and there are infection outbreaks and epidemics that start this way every single year.

Show me where it is stated for zoonotic being the default because "it's something that has been happening for billions of year..."

Quote:

Every virus that infects humans likely crossed over from some other species at some point. Conversely there isn't a single recorder example of a novel virus coming from a lab leak.

Completely false comment! Small pox escaped from British lab(s) in the 1970's. The 1977 flu is "suspected" to be a lab leak. It is suspected because it is virtually impossible to detect a lab leak unless the lab announces it. Again, how do you disprove a lab leak?

Quote:

It's been explicitly proven that Covid wasn't created in a lab.

Where do you come up with these comments. Point us in the direction where it is "explicitly proven that Covid wasn't created in a lab"?

Quote:

I don't know where you got you mistaken impressions about GoF research, but it's a critical tool in identifying what viruses are a risk to jumping to humans. Not knowing what viruses could jump from other animals and kill you isn't going to save you from it happening.

What is my mistaken impression? Read up on GOF, it genetically alters an organism.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Still no evidence of the Great Lab leak?

Colour me unsurprised.

Still no evidence of COVID being found in nature. By the way, "most likely" does not mean conclusive.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by No Other

Still no evidence of COVID being found in nature. By the way, "most likely" does not mean conclusive.

Know what, I think I’ll go with the “Science” article linked a few posts ago.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Steven Novella summarizes the two papers here.

He essentially considers them to be a body blow and a knock-out punch to the lab leak theory.

David Gorski is a little more restrained, which is more or less my position, but points out that the scientific evidence strongly supports zoonotic spillover, and argues that while there was nothing inherently unscientific or conspiratorial about the possibility of a lab leak, the arguments in favour of lab leak have become increasingly conspiratorial. I agree with this.

We have seen a lot of it in this thread....



Yes, we know that China is a repressive secretive country, but lab leak theories now apparently implicate a wide range of scientists from all over the world because of their reliance on funding. There is also a kind of lab leak of the gaps argument being made when specific data points ("the early cases") that are not known or may not even exist are apparently "ignored". Surely, if we only had that data, then the current picture of the cases emanating out of the Huanan Market, with those directly linked to the Huanan Market apparently living further away from it, than those who were not linked to it, would change and presumably favour the lab leak.

Gorski thinks that the lab leak cannot be completely ruled out (he says it is "not homeopathy level improbable"), but the papers certainly make spillover the best explanation so far.

This is nothing but an opinion. The papers are not a "body blow" to a lab leak... not even close. Below is the quote which was to deliver the "knock out punch"...

We report that live SARS-CoV-2 susceptible mammals were sold at the market in late 2019 and, within the market, SARS-CoV-2-positive environmental samples were spatially associated with vendors selling live mammals. While there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred via the live wildlife trade in China, and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

All hilites show the amount of speculation that is taken. The final sentence is the most sophomoric comment regarding a "finding" without providing one lick of evidence. At best, he can show a correlation that SARS-CoV-2 susceptible mammals were sold at the market and the market is considered ground zero and that is all. Outside of that, he provides absolutely nothing which proves SARS-CoV-2 came from a mammal at the market.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lionking

Beat me to it. Published in "Science" by people who spent a lot of time in Wuhan.



It looks like real experts have relegated the lab leak theory to CT status.

How exactly is Stephen Dwyer "the real expert"?

[No Other]

Originally Posted by lionking

Know what, I think I’ll go with the “Science” article linked a few posts ago.

I read that over and over... When the conclusions contain phrases like: "likely", "suggest", "however" are used ... it is only speculation. They did a scientific experiment but it was not conclusive and it failed to provide a causation. What is missing from the detailed maps (in the paper) is the location of the Wuhan Virology Lab and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control in relationship to the Huanan Seafood market along with the #2 Metro Line that service all 3 locations. But they don't even though the Line is the fastest and most highly used route to reach all 3 locations. Kristian Andersen has already shown his colors with his hastily put together presentation on Pangolins all he does with this one is continue his shot gun approach to guessing.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by No Other

This is nothing but an opinion. The papers are not a "body blow" to a lab leak... not even close. Below is the quote which was to deliver the "knock out punch"...

We report that live SARS-CoV-2 susceptible mammals were sold at the market in late 2019 and, within the market, SARS-CoV-2-positive environmental samples were spatially associated with vendors selling live mammals. While there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred via the live wildlife trade in China, and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

All hilites show the amount of speculation that is taken. The final sentence is the most sophomoric comment regarding a "finding" without providing one lick of evidence. At best, he can show a correlation that SARS-CoV-2 susceptible mammals were sold at the market and the market is considered ground zero and that is all. Outside of that, he provides absolutely nothing which proves SARS-CoV-2 came from a mammal at the market.

In fact, I agree with this to some extent, which is why I said my own position is similar to that of Gorski's rather than that of Novella.

Obviously the papers are written as scientific papers should be with plenty of cautious language.

However, if you look at the likelihood of spillover and compare it to the case of lab leak, then you will notice that the evidence for spillover is getting stronger:

a) The earliest known cases were connected with the market, and those that were not directly linked turned out to be closer to the market than those directly linked.

b) I am not competent to assess this, but the Pekar et. al paper suggests two spillovers - or two independent entries to humans. Again, I cannot verify this myself, but that would surely be strong evidence of a spillover.

c) The fact that there were animals in the market that were candidate animals for spillover is evidence for spillover. This is, after all, how SARS got started.

d) Although lab leak is not, in principle, impossible, nearly all suggested arguments in favour of it require an ever-expanding conspiracy. Many of the original planks of the theory have since been shown to be refuted: 1) The bioweapon theory is (for most) completely dead now, 2) RaTG13 being the progenitor virus that was GoFed in the lab after its pandemic potential was covered up, was refuted by the discovery of BANAL-52 (and other viruses which had RNA sequences closer to that of SARS-CoV2) 3) The RBD being special to SARS-CoV2 has also been conclusively refuted by the discovery of SARS-CoV2 4) The idea the FCS cannot evolve in nature has been apparently refuted (though I have no competence to assess this either). 5) The apparent emergence date of SARS-CoV2 debunks the idea that public access being made available to a database is a factor as that was taken down months before.

Of course, this does not mean it is impossible, but it seems less a scientific argument than it does a conspiratorial/political argument to assert the lab leak is more likely than a spillover.

There are certain things that I still find odd about it. I do think the DEFUSE proposal looks very dodgy in context given that it was proposed to find viruses and insert FCS to test their pandemic potential.

Jeffrey Sachs of the Lancet Study Group is now suggesting it came from a US lab. But scientists say he is talking out of his arse as he is not a scientist and seems to be speculating. Link

The two papers in Science, though, assuming other scientists agree with the findings, seem to make the most plausible case, as far as I can see.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by No Other

I read that over and over... When the conclusions contain phrases like: "likely", "suggest", "however" are used ... it is only speculation. They did a scientific experiment but it was not conclusive and it failed to provide a causation. What is missing from the detailed maps (in the paper) is the location of the Wuhan Virology Lab and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control in relationship to the Huanan Seafood market along with the #2 Metro Line that service all 3 locations. But they don't even though the Line is the fastest and most highly used route to reach all 3 locations. Kristian Andersen has already shown his colors with his hastily put together presentation on Pangolins all he does with this one is continue his shot gun approach to guessing.

Did you also note that the researchers believe that those who think the virus was released from the lab are conspiracy theorists? Their words not mine.

And I'd rather their "likely" than the certainty of some who post here that the virus came from the lab.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by No Other

Originally Posted by lomiller

Conversely there isn't a single recorder example of a novel virus coming from a lab leak.

Small pox escaped from British lab(s) in the 1970's.

Wow, thanks!

I always wondered where smallpox came from. All those thousands of years we've been wondering and it came from a lab with a time machine.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Wow, thanks!

I always wondered where smallpox came from. All those thousands of years we've been wondering and it came from a lab with a time machine.

Beat me to it. Only the most deluded imagine Small Pox originated from a UK lab in the 1970s.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by No Other

I read that over and over... When the conclusions contain phrases like: "likely", "suggest", "however" are used ... it is only speculation. They did a scientific experiment but it was not conclusive and it failed to provide a causation. What is missing from the detailed maps (in the paper) is the location of the Wuhan Virology Lab and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control in relationship to the Huanan Seafood market along with the #2 Metro Line that service all 3 locations. But they don't even though the Line is the fastest and most highly used route to reach all 3 locations. Kristian Andersen has already shown his colors with his hastily put together presentation on Pangolins all he does with this one is continue his shot gun approach to guessing.

Also, only conspiracy theorists, Fox News and woos (and some in this thread) make definitive statements about the origin of covid. Real scientists make considered statements. Is this speculation? **** no.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lionking

Also, only conspiracy theorists, Fox News and woos (and some in this thread) make definitive statements about the origin of covid. Real scientists make considered statements. Is this speculation? **** no.

Who on here has made definitive statements? Some have stated that they consider the lab leak scenario is more convincing but I don't recall anyone stating an absolute belief in the idea of a lab leak.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Who on here has made definitive statements? Some have stated that they consider the lab leak scenario is more convincing but I don't recall anyone stating an absolute belief in the idea of a lab leak.

Well Skeptic Ginger has in my view. Interesting she hasn’t posted for a while.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lionking

Well Skeptic Ginger has in my view. Interesting she hasn’t posted for a while.

I've never got that impression, more that SG considers the commitment of others to the spillover event to be excessive.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Lplus

I've never got that impression, more that SG considers the commitment of others to the spillover event to be excessive.

Well she is wrong by the latest evidence.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by lionking

Did you also note that the researchers believe that those who think the virus was released from the lab are conspiracy theorists? Their words not mine.

And I'd rather their "likely" than the certainty of some who post here that the virus came from the lab.

Yes and when people are accused of being a CT, it is to back them down and to build up one's own theory.

Using "likely" requires a comparison without a conclusion. This virus was either man-made or natural... those are the only options, to say "likely" is to give a nod towards a direction without enough empirical evidence to draw a conclusion and that creates a bias.

What is entertaining is that neither side (lab leak vs nature) can shore up their positions. It is understandable the lab leak people can't because of restrictions on access and just the difficulty of "proving" a lab leak. On the other hand, the Nature people are rehashing information that has been out there since day one and/or they develop their case by showing the similarities of various components and then declaring that those similarities point us toward natural selection.

Instead of conducting an unbiased/unprejudiced research there is a desire to prove one over the other...

[No Other]

Originally Posted by lionking

Also, only conspiracy theorists, Fox News and woos (and some in this thread) make definitive statements about the origin of covid. Real scientists make considered statements. Is this speculation? **** no.

There is merit in your statement. In this scenario, "likely" is not appropriate as there are no shades of gray, it can only be binary.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by No Other

I read that over and over... When the conclusions contain phrases like: "likely", "suggest", "however" are used ...

That's how real scientific papers are worded...

Originally Posted by No Other

In this scenario, "likely" is not appropriate as there are no shades of gray, it can only be binary.

Pseudoscience love binary choices, real science does not.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by No Other

What is entertaining is that neither side (lab leak vs nature) can shore up their positions.

What "shoring up" is required? The first know cases come from in and around the market and radiate outwards from there. This by itself is compelling evidence that the pandemic originated in that market. Furthermore the virus has been confirmed as being in animals in that market, the Covid genome is consistent with an evolutionary spectrum of Corona viruses known to exist in the wild, there were multiple strains right from the start something you'd only expect if it were of zoonotic origin.

Conversely the initial outbreak is in the wrong place at the wrong time to be a lab leak, the virus has never been identified in existing lab samples, which it should if it was a lab leak, and as pointed out by others the idea that it's a human engineered virus has been completely debunked.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by lomiller

That's how real scientific papers are worded...



Pseudoscience love binary choices, real science does not.

I guess being partially pregnant is being considered "real science". Unless you are engaged with something that cannot be tested... then speculation is accepted. Areas like String Theory are required to have speculation but not virology. It can be tested, if the proper elements are found (that is why the virologist are looking for that creature). Until the accepted basis of zoonotic transmission is established... it cannot be called zoonotic. That is straight forward without equivocation and we are currently at that phase unless you can provide conclusive proof otherwise.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by lomiller

What "shoring up" is required? The first know cases come from in and around the market and radiate outwards from there.

You just stated that the total process of COVID-19 started in the market... how insane is that? There is a difference between when something is first notice and where, when and how what was noticed came to being.

Quote:

This by itself is compelling evidence that the pandemic originated in that market.

I am not arguing that it was not found in the market, I do however take exception that COVID-19 originated in the Huanan Market. Please provide your proof that COVID-19 originated in the market.

Quote:

Furthermore the virus has been confirmed as being in animals in that market

There were animals in the market place that had this virus susceptibility but I am not aware that an animal from the Huanan market was tested and found to contain the virus. Please provide your support for that claim.

Quote:

the Covid genome is consistent with an evolutionary spectrum of Corona viruses known to exist in the wild, there were multiple strains right from the start something you'd only expect if it were of zoonotic origin.

Wrong but prove your point by providing conclusive evidence that COVID-19 is a natural occurrence.

Quote:

Conversely the initial outbreak is in the wrong place at the wrong time to be a lab leak, the virus has never been identified in existing lab samples, which it should if it was a lab leak, and as pointed out by others the idea that it's a human engineered virus has been completely debunked.

You provided a nice summation as to why a lab leak is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Having said that, if the virus is naturally found then that will support your claim; unfortunately that has not taken place hence why we have speculation and all of those scientific terms like... "likely", "however" and "suggest" are laced in those papers.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by lionking

Also, only conspiracy theorists, Fox News and woos (and some in this thread) make definitive statements about the origin of covid. Real scientists make considered statements. Is this speculation? **** no.

Real scientists don't tell you what to think; real scientist provide their findings along with explanations regarding assumptions... not speculations. I see no mathematics applied to the claims that COVID-19 could be found in nature or should be found in nature. The most current papers are resource richer than the releases in early 2020 yet they fail to make appreciable advances in the zoonotic theory. These incremental forward movements are similar to a mini-Bayes' Theory where each new piece of information improves your chances but failing to make it home. This is the proverbial rabbit who is 5 miles away from his destination and if he jumps half the distance to his destination with each hop... how many hops will it take to reach the destination?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by No Other

I guess being partially pregnant is being considered "real science".

Partly and probably are two different word with two different meanings. You should really spend some time figuring out what they mean before you try to use them in a sentence...

Originally Posted by No Other

Unless you are engaged with something that cannot be tested... then speculation is accepted. Areas like String Theory are required to have speculation but not virology. It can be tested, if the proper elements are found (that is why the virologist are looking for that creature).

If you are doing something that can't be tested it's not science. What you don't seem to understand is that a positive test means the hypothesis you are testing is probably correct. At least if the test is any good.

Originally Posted by No Other

It can be tested, if the proper elements are found (that is why the virologist are looking for that creature). Until the accepted basis of zoonotic transmission is established... it cannot be called zoonotic.

It can be tested, and in fact has been tested. We know what the fingerprint for zoonotic origin looks like in terms of who gets infected, where and when and what the virus should look like compared to it's wild relatives. These tests come up positive.

We also know the early infection profile for a lab leak, where and when cases occur and what a man made virus would look like and what research records would show if it was a natural virus released by accident. These come up negative.

Both sets of tests heavily favor zoonotic origin, which is why the scientists who activaly study virus outbreaks near unanimously say it's probably zoonotic in origin.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by No Other

You just stated that the total process of COVID-19 started in the market... how insane is that? There is a difference between when something is first notice and where, when and how what was noticed came to being.

I am not arguing that it was not found in the market, I do however take exception that COVID-19 originated in the Huanan Market. Please provide your proof that COVID-19 originated in the market.

There were animals in the market place that had this virus susceptibility but I am not aware that an animal from the Huanan market was tested and found to contain the virus. Please provide your support for that claim.

Wrong but prove your point by providing conclusive evidence that COVID-19 is a natural occurrence.

You provided a nice summation as to why a lab leak is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Having said that, if the virus is naturally found then that will support your claim; unfortunately that has not taken place hence why we have speculation and all of those scientific terms like... "likely", "however" and "suggest" are laced in those papers.

Nonsensical gibberish.

Viral outbreaks radiate outwards from their place of origin. The data shows the Covid outbreak radiating outward from the fish market. This tells us that the market was place the outbreak started.

Not only does the data not show the outbreak radiating outwards from the lab, the outbreak starts 25Km away from the lab and moves towards the lab, the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a lab leak.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by lionking

Beat me to it. Only the most deluded imagine Small Pox originated from a UK lab in the 1970s.

The virus escaped... not one word was said about smallpox originating in GB.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Nonsensical gibberish.

Good way to not address comments...

Quote:

Viral outbreaks radiate outwards from their place of origin. The data shows the Covid outbreak radiating outward from the fish market. This tells us that the market was place the outbreak started.

Origin of what? Origin of the virus itself or origin of people who contracted the virus?

Quote:

Not only does the data not show the outbreak radiating outwards from the lab, the outbreak starts 25Km away from the lab and moves towards the lab, the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a lab leak.

You completely miss my points probably due to my inability to relate to your level (whatever level that is...)

I would rather have this COVID-19 be a natural creation. If it is a lab leak, then GOD help us for in the future we could have something much more dangerous than what we are currently experiencing.

If found naturally, we at least have an opportunity to address it and prepare like we have for decades. The problem if it was naturally created is that we (the World) must be lacking some skills needed to find the origin in a timely manner and I will say that close to 3 years is not timely when it comes to dealing with a pandemic.

In short, no matter if it is a lab leak or a natural occurrence we are screwed. We are screwed because we have people arguing about the wrong aspect of this pandemic. We should examining why the USA has the highest number of deaths per 1K due to COVID-19 than the entire west coast of Africa (worldometers has now stop keeping track of this for the USA). We should be examining why we made a knee jerk reaction to shutting down the economy without any supportive data outlining why quarantining will stop this virus. We should be examining our role as a country in funding experiments. We should be examining why our medical industry rolled over which allowed the government and insurance companies to dictate courses of actions along with employers.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by No Other

We should examining why the USA has the highest number of deaths per 1K due to COVID-19 than the entire west coast of Africa

My guess would be that it was mostly due to the average life expectancy of Africans being sixty something, and the POTUS being a moron.

Quote:

We should be examining why we made a knee jerk reaction to shutting down the economy without any supportive data outlining why quarantining will stop this virus

.
I think we had all the data we needed to support the contention that the spread of a highly infectious virus could be reduced by limiting person to person contact.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lionking

Did you also note that the researchers believe that those who think the virus was released from the lab are conspiracy theorists? Their words not mine.

And I'd rather their "likely" than the certainty of some who post here that the virus came from the lab.

If you had been following from the beginning you would have seen Daszak's big push to get everyone repeating the CT nonsense. To that Tedros from the WHO pushed back and noted this dismissal of the lab leak hypothesis was before any evidence had been collected about the possible origin of the virus in the lab. Other researchers pushed back noting there was no proof of either origin hypothesis.

That has not changed. Trying to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis as a CT is an attempt to cover up the fact the natural spillover hypothesis is unproven and still has many holes.

Why are you or anyone else here trying to assert one of the two origin hypotheses is a CT? What are you basing this CT accusation on?

Who is doing this conspiring? How are you not just trying to insult people who are standing up for a view you don't hold?

There is one actual conspiracy. China is trying to prove the virus originated outside of China. And a number of researchers have a confirmation bias against finding a lab accident responsible for the pandemic. I've posted about these elements that are affecting the interpretation of the research.


The assertions in this thread and elsewhere that the natural spillover has been proven is false.

Where's the proof? There isn't any.

What are the holes in the natural spillover hypothesis?

No source animal.
No outbreaks outside of Wuhan and not just that, no outbreaks in Wuhan except near the WIV.
China has not shared key information about the earliest cases.
The virus appeared in humans ready to go right out of the box, that is highly unusual for a zoonosis source.
China took the coronavirus genome database offline.

Have any of these problems been resolved? No, they haven't. Certain researchers filled in the blanks in their hypotheses where there was no supporting evidence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by No Other

... We should be examining why we made a knee jerk reaction to shutting down the economy without any supportive data outlining why quarantining will stop this virus. We should be examining our role as a country in funding experiments. We should be examining why our medical industry rolled over which allowed the government and insurance companies to dictate courses of actions along with employers.

That's off topic in this thread. Take it to one of the politics threads, thanks.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lionking

Well she is wrong by the latest evidence.

What latest evidence?

You are wrong, along with others here, that the spillover hypothesis has been proved. No, it hasn't been.

You're not even up to date in this discussion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Lplus

I've never got that impression, more that SG considers the commitment of others to the spillover event to be excessive.

You could put it that way when some people are willing to overlook the lack of established evidence because some researchers have hypothesized how this or that could have occurred.

You need evidence that it is how this or that occurred, not speculation how it might have occurred.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lionking

Well Skeptic Ginger has in my view. Interesting she hasn’t posted for a while.

Interesting that I have a life?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Who on here has made definitive statements? Some have stated that they consider the lab leak scenario is more convincing but I don't recall anyone stating an absolute belief in the idea of a lab leak.

Pretty much. The evidence supported position is that neither hypothesis has been proved.

Gleefully proclaiming one hypothesis is now favored is not an evidence based assertion. It's wishful thinking.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lionking

Also, only conspiracy theorists, Fox News and woos (and some in this thread) make definitive statements about the origin of covid. Real scientists make considered statements. Is this speculation? **** no.

Oh my word.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lionking

Beat me to it. Only the most deluded imagine Small Pox originated from a UK lab in the 1970s.

And this is relevant to this discussion, how?

And who has ever made that claim in the first place? Never mind, don't answer, it's off topic.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by No Other

The virus escaped... not one word was said about smallpox originating in GB.

Per the exchange below you gave Smallpox as an example of a novel virus originating from a lab leak from a British lab in the 1970's.

Originally Posted by No Other

Originally Posted by lomiller

Conversely there isn't a single recorder example of a novel virus coming from a lab leak.

Completely false comment! Small pox escaped from British lab(s) in the 1970's.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by No Other

Good way to not address comments...

Why would I address your nonsensical comments?

Originally Posted by No Other

I would rather have this COVID-19 be a natural creation.

It is natural in origin. This has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. The virus has properties that no researcher would have known to even try prior to 2020 and other cases of unintelligent design" that no competent researcher would do.

To create such a virus would require a virologist who is simultaneous the most brilliant in the history of the field and utterly incompetent all at the same time.

We also traced much of Covids evolutionary history by studying it's close relatives, including 1 virus who's spike protein diverged from Covid less than 10 years ago.

[angrysoba]

This may well be interesting. It seems that a member of DRASTIC found another dissertation. However, in this case, the dissertation was about the first exported case of Covid-19 in Beijing.

Link


The man who had Covid, had worked in a small pharmacy in the entrance of the Huanan Seafood Market:

Quote:

One of the new patients disclosed in this paper is 51M. He was previously not known to be an early patient and/or connected to the Huanan seafood market. However, he is among the earliest genome patients in December 2019 and connected to the market.

Link

Quote:

First preprint with
@Engineer2The

@Drinkwater5Reed

@Franciscodeasis
on our dive into early Covid cases, focusing on sequences. https://zenodo.org/record/6672912

We found some raw reads unpublished as sequences (https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/15/713/5780800 ) and that Beijing's 1st case was earlier than thought

They wrote a pre-print which has some - perhaps unexpected conclusions...

Quote:

We also present some information on the first Beijing patient, who had an onset date of December 17, 2019 and was related to the Huanan market outbreak.

Using the collated information, significant progress has been made towards solving the discrepancies in the early sequences. A phylogeny of 19 early patients is presented, based on onset dates, as well as several tMRCA estimates – falling in late November.

Link

I have not read the pre-print, but interesting to me that some DRASTIC members, doing their own research, have come to conclusions very consistent with the theory of a spillover in November from the Huanan Seafood Market.

Quote:

Overall we get 19 sequenced patients with onset in 2019, 16 of which are linked to the Huanan market.
We could then obtain a reasonable consensus genome for each of these early patients, likely representing the haplotype at the time of onset.

Link