Origins of Covid

[Chris_Halkides]

I have not followed this debate very closely, but until yesterday I thought that there were three distinct hypotheses. One, this virus has a natural origin and jumped from other species into humans. Two, this virus was found in animals, studied in the lab, and accidentally released. Three, this virus was deliberately engineered as a weapon. After reading the article by Nicholas Wade, it seems to me that there is a fourth hypothesis: the virus was engineered but it then escaped from the lab. The fourth hypothesis blends portions of hypotheses two and three. Is this summary of the hypotheses correct and complete?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

I have not followed this debate very closely, but until yesterday I thought that there were three distinct hypotheses. One, this virus has a natural origin and jumped from other species into humans. Two, this virus was found in animals, studied in the lab, and accidentally released. Three, this virus was deliberately engineered as a weapon. After reading the article by Nicholas Wade, it seems to me that there is a fourth hypothesis: the virus was engineered but it then escaped from the lab. The fourth hypothesis blends portions of hypotheses two and three. Is this summary of the hypotheses correct and complete?

I think we can throw out the "deliberately engineered as a weapon" hypothesis, and I am not aware of anyone serious promoting that idea.

The idea that Nicholas Wade is talking about is actually that the research was being done with the best of intentions, the objective being to predict what the next zoonotic outbreak like SARS or MERS might look like. So yes, you manipulate the naturally-occurring virus to see what sort of mutations might make it more likely to jump from animals to humans. Then you test it in vitro to see if the virus can infect human cells. But you are not supposed to let it escape of course. I guess the idea is that you could make vaccines and such ahead of time and have them ready when it actually happens?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_of_function_research

Quote:

Gain of function research (GoFR) is a field of medical research focused on the serial passaging of microorganisms in vitro and in vivo. This places positive selective pressure on the microorganisms to effect mutations that would increase their pathogenicity, transmissibility, and antigenicity. These studies can also expand the host tropism of a pathogen to new host species or organ tissue. This research is intended to reveal targets to better predict emerging infectious diseases and to develop vaccines and therapeutics.

In virology, gain-of-function research is employed with the intention of better understanding current and future pandemics.[1] In vaccine development, gain-of-function research is conducted in the hope of gaining a head start on a virus and being able to develop a vaccine or therapeutic before it emerges.[1]

So, as you can see, this is not intended to create a weapon. It's intended to understand the viruses better, to develop vaccines and therapeutics, and to predict emerging infectious diseases.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

I have not followed this debate very closely, but until yesterday I thought that there were three distinct hypotheses. One, this virus has a natural origin and jumped from other species into humans. Two, this virus was found in animals, studied in the lab, and accidentally released. Three, this virus was deliberately engineered as a weapon. After reading the article by Nicholas Wade, it seems to me that there is a fourth hypothesis: the virus was engineered but it then escaped from the lab. The fourth hypothesis blends portions of hypotheses two and three. Is this summary of the hypotheses correct and complete?

Well, the WHO speculate four hypotheses, although they don't seem to really be distinct:

1.) The virus that causes Covid came directly from bats to humans (there have been similar viruses such as RatG13 which is maybe the closest known virus to SARS-CoV2 and which did manage to kill some people in a cave although this is probably because of the close proximity to it).

2.) Covid came to humans from bats via another animal. Various other animals have been suggested such as pangolins (I believe there is a coronavirus found in pangolins that has similar spike protein which made it one of the top suspects for a while, and this would be similar to how SARS came to humans, via markets which sold wild animals, specifically a civet cat. Many other viruses seem to have made a journey from bats to humans via an amplifying animal - Hendra, Ebola, Nipah...)

The thing about (1) and (2) is that the closest viruses known to SARS-Cov2 seem to have come from Yunnan Province which is a long distance from Wuhan. So this has led to some speculation...

3) WHO/China also suggested that the virus somehow hitched a ride to Wuhan on frozen food (I think almost nobody seems to take this one seriously, and really doesn't it still depend on 1 or 2? so it isn't a parsimounious explanation.)

or

4) Given that Zhengli Shi is one of the foremost researchers of SARS-like coronaviruses and her work was mostly in Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), wouldn't that solve the mystery of how it got to Wuhan?

So then, yes, there are subdivisions of 4 that present themselves.

4a) It was made entirely there as a bioweapon. - No evidence for that and almost nobody takes it seriously although there is a Chinese dissident scientist who claims she worked there and saw it all and says that is exactly what happened.

4b) Shi's team collected some type of SARS-like virus and put it through Gain of function treatment to make it more virulent and easier to transmit to humans for the purpose of being able to more easily find counter-strategies against it (the claim then is that the WIV scientists were working on something they believed would benefit humanity, rather than 4a, which suggests that they were acting out of malevolence). And then...oops, it got out...maybe someone got infected, maybe protocols weren't followed, maybe it was thrown out in a biohazard bin, etc...

4c) Similar to 4b: It is a virus that was collected from bats, but it was not experimented on, or not altered, but it got out anyway.

In addition to the 4a,b,c hypotheses, it is claimed that the virus got out around September, or at least that is when the Chinese authorities discovered it, and they took down a database of SARS-like coronaviruses.

I think that about covers the hypotheses.

Please add to this list if I left something out.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

4a) It was made entirely there as a bioweapon. - No evidence for that and almost nobody takes it seriously although there is a Chinese dissident scientist who claims she worked there and saw it all and says that is exactly what happened.

Who is this person? Somehow I must have missed this news. It sounds rather far-fetched to me. For starters, its military utility seems to be close to zero. It mainly only kills old people or those with pre-existing conditions. Soldiers are young and healthy, and get discharged from the military if they aren't. It makes no sense as a bioweapon.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Who is this person? Somehow I must have missed this news. It sounds rather far-fetched to me. For starters, its military utility seems to be close to zero. It mainly only kills old people or those with pre-existing conditions. Soldiers are young and healthy, and get discharged from the military if they aren't. It makes no sense as a bioweapon.

Here is a link. As I say, I don't think it is being taken seriously by many people.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Who is this person? Somehow I must have missed this news. It sounds rather far-fetched to me. For starters, its military utility seems to be close to zero. It mainly only kills old people or those with pre-existing conditions. Soldiers are young and healthy, and get discharged from the military if they aren't. It makes no sense as a bioweapon.

1 - It could have been a work in progress

2 - There's more to bioweapons than direct military action. Consider the economic damage that the world has suffered by exposure to a virus which kills mainly retired people.

That said, I don't take the idea seriously either.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yes, but read again...



It only says that wildlife farms were supplying vendors.

It says literally nothing about whether they had been shown to be the trail for Covid.

I remember what was said at the time, only that they know who the vendors are and that should be the next stage of the research.

There was literally never any suggestion that they had found the Covid trail and that it would appear in the report. That was never promised.

You seem to be in denial about Daszak promoting this version of 'it wasn't the lab'. Why?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

You are always attributing motive and machinations to Daszak. ....

This was reported on, it wasn't me that came up with it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

I have not followed this debate very closely, but until yesterday I thought that there were three distinct hypotheses. One, this virus has a natural origin and jumped from other species into humans. Two, this virus was found in animals, studied in the lab, and accidentally released. Three, this virus was deliberately engineered as a weapon. After reading the article by Nicholas Wade, it seems to me that there is a fourth hypothesis: the virus was engineered but it then escaped from the lab. The fourth hypothesis blends portions of hypotheses two and three. Is this summary of the hypotheses correct and complete?

I guess this depends on one's definition of "engineered".

Just before the first cases came to the attention of the medical community Daszak was interviewed (the link to the interview is here) about the gain of function research with coronavirus he was involved in. The interview was in early Dec IIRC.

Gain of function research could produce a virus that looked natural. I was under the impression that an engineered virus was one that genetic segments were purposefully inserted and that would be easily detected with genetic analysis. That was not detected.

The CT this was the Chinese military developing a bioweapon was for all intents and purposes, ruled out.

'Chimeras' show a genetic shift rather than genetic drift and they occur in the wild. This occurs with the flu virus and it also occurs with coronavirus. IOW it is a natural occurrence but one can encourage such a recombinant strain to occur in the lab.

It's my understanding the potential means this virus emerged as a pandemic are:

1) Directly constructed (no evidence of this).
2) The 'chimera' occurred in the wild.

2a) Could have occurred in the horseshoe bats and directly infected humans. There is evidence this is possible.
2b) Could have occurred with an intermediary species in between — bat -> unidentified spacies -> human. The problem with this hypothesis is no unidentified species like the Civet Cat with SARS 1 has been found.

3) And it could have been developed experimentally in the lab using similar processes that occur in the wild. It would look the same genetically as if it had occurred in the wild.

The research paper developed by Andersen et al back in early 2020 and linked to much earlier in the thread showed the 2 different strains she found. It took the earliest cases back to Sept in Wuhan, but she hypothesized it went back even further. If the first cases were in Sept it explains the Chinese government removing a large amount of coronavirus genetic data from general scientific access.

Andersen also thought the 2 strains diverged earlier than Sept and found evidence in strains circulating in different populations.

Two questions arise, I don't see a timeline of when those specimens were collected. And why then did this pathogen emerge very near the lab where gain of function research was going on?

I left those questions unanswered when I posted Andersen's work.

Dr Quay's two papers directly connected the initial cases to the WIV including showing temporal and physical evidence. That included a pattern of hospitalized cases in the path of the mass transit line #2 that goes from the WIV into other parts of Wuhan.


I still haven't looked closely at the new citation Capsid posted. (Tax day is Monday. I can't ever seem to get my taxes done until the last minute.)

[CORed]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Who is this person? Somehow I must have missed this news. It sounds rather far-fetched to me. For starters, its military utility seems to be close to zero. It mainly only kills old people or those with pre-existing conditions. Soldiers are young and healthy, and get discharged from the military if they aren't. It makes no sense as a bioweapon.

Covid-19 seems an unlikely bioweapon, for reasons you stated and others. Generally, for a bio-weapon, you want something that is rapidly lethal or incapacitating, but not excessively contagious, so that you can target it carefully, and not have it spread back to you. Antrhax is one example. I think the hypothesis that it was something the Wuhan lab was experimenting with, that escaped accidentally is quite plausible, but I haven't seen any huge reason to favor that hypothesis over it being an entirely natural event of an animal virus jumping to humans.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Here is a link. As I say, I don't think it is being taken seriously by many people.

OK, that's even beyond the level of crazy that I had imagined:

Quote:

Yan's second report doubles down on the theory, accusing scientists from around the world of creating and uploading fake coronavirus sequences from bats and other animals into a genetic data bank. The goal of this effort, according to the paper, is to obscure the "true origin" of the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

The authors have little evidence to back-up these accusations, according to Emma Hodcroft, a geneticist who studies the coronavirus with the Nextstrain group in Switzerland.

"To me, the most outlandish claim is that there is a global conspiracy of scientists planting 'fake' SARS-like-CoV genomes into public databases in order to lay the groundwork for manufacturing and releasing a deadly variant," she told Business Insider.

This would mean that it's not just the Chinese military, but somehow scientists from all over the world who have sequenced the virus are also in on it.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

This would mean that it's not just the Chinese military, but somehow scientists from all over the world who have sequenced the virus are also in on it.

Well most lab leak theories tend to assume some complicity of virologists all over the world.

Daszak is the one most often mentioned, but he was part of a WHO team with scientists from all over the world.

They are apparently keeping silent and/or complicit in the lab leak cover-up according to most theories on this.

Similarly, all the virologists on TWiV routinely cover-up for China, the WHO, EcoHealth Alliance, etc...

It doesn't mean it isn't true, but if the argument works against the bioweapon theory, then it also works to some extent with the idea that the leaked virus was on the database, the database was taken down, and the virologists of the world are claiming ignorance (or just simply not mentioning anything at all about an apparently suspicious pattern of behaviour).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Here is a link. As I say, I don't think it is being taken seriously by many people.

So maybe post it in the CT thread instead of trying to discredit this one.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Well most lab leak theories tend to assume some complicity of virologists all over the world.

Not in that way though. I.e., "creating and uploading fake coronavirus sequences". More like, they want to make sure that their profession isn't blamed for creating a pandemic, and also they don't want their research funding to be cut, so they are very keen to dismiss the (accidental) lab-leak hypothesis.

Quote:

Similarly, all the virologists on TWiV routinely cover-up for China, the WHO, EcoHealth Alliance, etc...

I am not a regular listener to that podcast, but is there a particular episode of that which delves into the origin question?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Well most lab leak theories tend to assume some complicity of virologists all over the world.

Daszak is the one most often mentioned, but he was part of a WHO team with scientists from all over the world.

They are apparently keeping silent and/or complicit in the lab leak cover-up according to most theories on this.

Similarly, all the virologists on TWiV routinely cover-up for China, the WHO, EcoHealth Alliance, etc...

It doesn't mean it isn't true, but if the argument works against the bioweapon theory, then it also works to some extent with the idea that the leaked virus was on the database, the database was taken down, and the virologists of the world are claiming ignorance (or just simply not mentioning anything at all about an apparently suspicious pattern of behaviour).

Did you just completely ignore all the links in this thread discussing Daszak's conflict of interest? And how that played a role in the WHO making some initial claim that the lab leak hypothesis was ruled out which caused the head of the WHO to speak out the lab leak was not ruled out?

You don't seem to be keeping up when it comes to the evidence of Daszak's conflict of interest.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So maybe post it in the CT thread instead of trying to discredit this one.

Would you get that chip off your shoulder, please! Your knee-jerk hostility and constant leaping to the most uncharitable assumptions about others is tiresome.

I was asked to supply a link to one of a number of hypotheses. I was saying exactly the same thing as you and others that this is one of a number of hypotheses and one that nobody takes seriously.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I am not a regular listener to that podcast, but is there a particular episode of that which delves into the origin question?

There have been a few, but not in a comprehensive systematic way.

I suppose there is one where they talk about it here:

https://youtu.be/LqGPuFoYiNY?t=3935

I think each week when Vincent Racaniello and Amy Rosenfeld take Q&A they get people asking about lab leak etc... It might be worth tuning in for those (I think they would be about 9 am our time in Japan every Thursday. I tend to have it on in the background when I am doing other work, or I listen to it later).

That said, they have said that three members of the WHO team will be coming onto the podcast (I think that includes Daszak) so that should be interesting.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Did you just completely ignore...[snipped the same old song that I have heard over and over again]

I've acknowledged it over and over again.

[angrysoba]

One thing I do notice however, is that there do appear to be factions within the microbiology world with virologists, epidemiologist and molecular biologists apparently warring with each other.

One thing that had caused friction before was the dispute over the use of gain of function research. Most people who appear on TWiV tend to be all for it.

Other scientists, some of whom they clearly have some professional animus with, are dead against it and ultimately in the US, at least, the latter prevailed and got the research effectively banned.

As you noted, Puppycow, much of this is done at a very low biosecurity level as well.

So I can see how the biases on each side may lead to certain conclusions that are in opposition.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I am not a regular listener to that podcast, but is there a particular episode of that which delves into the origin question?

I was listening to the latest one and it just heard the host saying that Fox News played a clip of him talking to Peter Daszak from a TWiV episode that went out not long before the pandemic.

Apparently parts of the interview had been played on Tucker Carlson's show...

https://youtu.be/l7iRb4YjzzQ?t=1387

The response on the show is that the interview was misunderstood, although they seem to be so excited to talk about how it was misunderstood that I didn't really understand it.

The interview being referenced is here:

https://youtu.be/IdYDL_RK--w?t=1791

However, one interesting point here is that one person mentioned here (Ralph Baric), I think, signed the letter that was sent to Science saying that the lab leak theory cannot be ruled out.

Quote:

LETTERS
Investigate the origins of COVID-19
Jesse D. Bloom1,2, Yujia Alina Chan3, Ralph S. Baric4, Pamela J. Bjorkman5, Sarah Cobey6, Benjamin E. Deverman3, David N. Fisman7, Ravindra Gupta8, Akiko Iwasaki9,2, Marc Lipsitch10, Ruslan Medzhitov9,2, Richard A. Neher11, Rasmus Nielsen12, Nick Patterson13, Tim Stearns14, Erik van Nimwegen11, Michael Worobey15, David A. Relman16,17,*

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Would you get that chip off your shoulder, please! Your knee-jerk hostility and constant leaping to the most uncharitable assumptions about others is tiresome.

I was asked to supply a link to one of a number of hypotheses. I was saying exactly the same thing as you and others that this is one of a number of hypotheses and one that nobody takes seriously.

It's not a chip. I have tried to keep this thread on the topic of evidence and science. Posting the latest CT belongs in the thread in the CT forum.

This has all the elements of pure CT crap:

Quote:

... accusing scientists from around the world of creating and uploading fake coronavirus sequences from bats and other animals into a genetic data bank. The goal of this effort, according to the paper, is to obscure the "true origin" of the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

It doesn't belong in this thread.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I've acknowledged it over and over again.

Comments like these suggest you are not taking Daszak's conflict of interest at the level the evidence supports:

Quote:

Daszak is the one most often mentioned, but he was part of a WHO team with scientists from all over the world.

They are apparently keeping silent and/or complicit in the lab leak cover-up according to most theories on this.

Who are they? And where has it been posted there is a coordinated effort to cover up the origin of COVID?

There are the Chinese authorities.

There is Daszak.

And there is the 'bat woman' top researcher at the WIV who stated nothing in her studies came close to matching COVID genetics.

It has also been noted the WHO does not wish to piss the Chinese government off.

No one has posted they believe there is any kind of cabal here.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Comments like these suggest you are not taking Daszak's conflict of interest at the level the evidence supports:

This is a meaningless statement. What comment am I supposed to make? What is the level the evidence supports?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Who are they?

WHO are they!

Quote:

Members of the international team:

Prof. Dr. Thea Fisher, MD, DMSc(PhD) (Nordsjællands Hospital, Denmark)
Prof. John Watson (Public Health England, United Kingdom)
Prof. Dr. Marion Koopmans, DVM PhD (Erasmus MC, Netherlands)
Prof. Dr. Dominic Dwyer, MD (Westmead Hospital, Australia)
Vladimir Dedkov, Ph.D (Institute Pasteur, Russia)
Dr. Hung Nguyen-Viet, PhD (International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Vietnam)
PD. Dr. med vet. Fabian Leendertz (Robert Koch-Institute, Germany)
Dr. Peter Daszak, Ph.D (EcoHealth Alliance, USA)
Dr. Farag El Moubasher, Ph.D (Ministry of Public Health, Qatar)
Prof. Dr. Ken Maeda, PhD, DVM (National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan)

Link

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And where has it been posted there is a coordinated effort to cover up the origin of COVID?

There are the Chinese authorities.

There is Daszak.

And there is the 'bat woman' top researcher at the WIV who stated nothing in her studies came close to matching COVID genetics.

It has also been noted the WHO does not wish to piss the Chinese government off.

No one has posted they believe there is any kind of cabal here.

Well, there you go. You have said that the Chinese (including Zhengli Shi - the batwoman) have covered it up to save face , Daszak is also involved because of his conflict of interest. The WHO is playing to China's tune. That's the cabal right there, implied right in this very post.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I realize it isn't easy.

That said, my other points stand.

As far as access to a Chinese BSL-4 lab is concerned, I would expect from the outset that it is difficult to get full access.

As a thought experiment, would a US BSL-4 be open to a WHO inspection where the team gets to look at anything and everything they want?

My guess is, no.

It may depend on the lab, but certainly a WHO team with Chinese and Russian team member wold NEVER get access to labs like the one in Fort Detrick Maryland.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Lplus

1 - It could have been a work in progress

2 - There's more to bioweapons than direct military action. Consider the economic damage that the world has suffered by exposure to a virus which kills mainly retired people.

That said, I don't take the idea seriously either.

Most military research would actually be involved in developing counter measures to biological attacks. If anything this research is even more sensitive because if someone knows your countermeasures they can potentially find a way around them

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Comments like these suggest you are not taking Daszak's conflict of interest at the level the evidence supports:Who are they? And where has it been posted there is a coordinated effort to cover up the origin of COVID?

There are the Chinese authorities.

There is Daszak.

And there is the 'bat woman' top researcher at the WIV who stated nothing in her studies came close to matching COVID genetics.

It has also been noted the WHO does not wish to piss the Chinese government off.

No one has posted they believe there is any kind of cabal here.

Has anyone ever asked Daszak what he did for the money he received from the Pentagon? According to a recent FOIA filed last July, he got over $40m from them (and Homeland Security) starting in 2013, the year before GOF was banned in the US (with some exceptions for certain projects to finish).

Dasak's own website says he got DoD funding so it isn't as if it is a secret.

Quote:

EcoHealth Alliance (‘EHA”) is the recipient of various grant awards from federal agencies including the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the US Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense.

The foia request is real and can be seen logged here:
https://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/FY2020%20FOIA%20Log.pdf

DTRA stands for Defense Threat Reduction Agency- the part that deals with nuclear threats and disarmament, dirty bombs and other WMD's- including chemical and biological.
The bulk of the money is from this agency. (if those who got the FOIA are relating the contents truthfully!)

The summary of funding can be seen here:https://www.independentsciencenews.o...-Contracts.pdf

So, while USAID and the NIH make perfect sense for research and aid as to work in global health and disease threats, what exactly was Peter providing to the Pentagon for all that money?

I'm not suggesting what relationship was there or the work done. I honestly do not know. If anyone can find descriptions of these grants in detail, please do tell!!

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Has anyone ever asked Daszak what he did for the money he received from the Pentagon? According to a recent FOIA filed last July, he got over $40m from them (and Homeland Security) starting in 2013, the year before GOF was banned in the US (with some exceptions for certain projects to finish).

Dasak's own website says he got DoD funding so it isn't as if it is a secret.


The foia request is real and can be seen logged here:
https://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/FY2020%20FOIA%20Log.pdf

DTRA stands for Defense Threat Reduction Agency- the part that deals with nuclear threats and disarmament, dirty bombs and other WMD's- including chemical and biological.
The bulk of the money is from this agency. (if those who got the FOIA are relating the contents truthfully!)

The summary of funding can be seen here:https://www.independentsciencenews.o...-Contracts.pdf

So, while USAID and the NIH make perfect sense for research and aid as to work in global health and disease threats, what exactly was Peter providing to the Pentagon for all that money?

I'm not suggesting what relationship was there or the work done. I honestly do not know. If anyone can find descriptions of these grants in detail, please do tell!!

What he did for the money?

As in "who did you have to blow to get that kind of funding"?

Or do you mean what did he do with the money?

There is a page which shows the Annual Reports, here.

There is also a link on that page to Charity Navigator that gives EcoHealth Alliance an excellent score for transparency and use of funding. It turns out that it spends about over 90% on its programme, and around 6% on administration, so it sounds very much above board. If EcoHealth Alliance are also upfront about the fact that they get funding from the Pentagon then I am not sure what the issue is.

(Is Charity Navigator a good source? I don't know).

So what is its programme that they put money into? Well, that is on their website too:

Quote:

Biosurveillance
Deforestation
One Health
Pandemic Prevention
Wildlife Conservation

I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon was interested in working on Pandemic preparedness and biosurveillance. Indeed, some of the GoF work is designed to identify potential threats.

I also found this published by EcoHealth Alliance: "Opportunities for Enhanced
DEFENSE, MILITARY,
AND SECURITY SECTOR
ENGAGEMENT IN
GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY"

[angrysoba]

Looking more into the links you posted and the questions of what does EcoHealth Alliance do with the DoD and why, the independent science news link itemizes how much and to which programs.

Biosurveillance for spillover of filoviruses etc...
Rift Valley fever research in South Africa
Reducing threat of pathogens of febrile illnesses in Liberia
Hemorraghic fever in Tanzania
It looks like they also work with AfriCom...

I don't understand what is nefarious about this?

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Looking more into the links you posted and the questions of what does EcoHealth Alliance do with the DoD and why, the independent science news link itemizes how much and to which programs.

Biosurveillance for spillover of filoviruses etc...
Rift Valley fever research in South Africa
Reducing threat of pathogens of febrile illnesses in Liberia
Hemorraghic fever in Tanzania
It looks like they also work with AfriCom...

I don't understand what is nefarious about this?

It's not 'nefarious'. All the world powers spend money on bio-threats, natural and potentially weaponized.

I was surprised at all of the direct overlap with other 'pandemic threat' programs that are most talked about, like the USAID backed PREDICT program which was reinvented last Sept as STOP Spillover ($100M):

Quote:

With the consortium's cross-disciplinary experience and deep relationships in partner countries, STOP Spillover will contribute directly to the reduction of future outbreaks from known zoonotic viruses.

Then there are research grants by 5 or 6 other depts (like NIH and NSF)- which also have many international partners, including gov't, NGO, scientific institutes, and private firms.

NIH and also USAID fund "One Health" ($85M) which establishes the EpiCenter for Emerging Infectious Disease Intelligence (they also get funds for the Global Virome Project):

Quote:

Our team will facilitate collaborative responsiveness to emerging infectious disease risk at the local, regional, and international levels. Our work will focus on arboviruses, filoviruses, and coronaviruses, as well as newly emerging threats that pose epidemic and pandemic risk.

The main US agency in charge or pandemic response is the Dept of HHS which has the CDC and ASPR (Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response) which "advises on matters related to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies."

There are the main international bodies like the WHO and the GHSA (Global Security Health Agenda) for which the US gov't contributes heavily to coordinate efforts in preventing emerging health threats.

NATO and the UN also have their own task forces dedicated to bio-threats.

DoD's dept grant to study bat viruses in W. China says
"DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY (DTRA), DEPT OF DEFENSE: SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH - COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Objectives
To support and stimulate basic, applied and advanced research at educational or research institutions, non-profit organizations, and commercial firms, which support the advancement of fundamental knowledge and understanding of the sciences with an emphasis on exploring new and innovative research for combating or countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)."

Many of these grants are shared with the same programs, with the same people and partners, and the same research activities as others - all with essentially the same goal of reducing global disease threats.

The difference in the DoD is that, in addition to an interest in general 'health security' from natural sources, they have the added responsibility of looking out for for weaponized bio-terrorism threats and ways to combat it. I don't think it's too outlandish to wonder how scientific or intelligence reports to the military may differ from the others.

It may also be as simple as a way for all the agencies to collaborate and share the expenses- with the DoD having the largest purse. Which is why I asked about it....because I don't know.

[Skeptic Ginger]

My taxes are done so I can spend more time on this tomorrow.

As far as Daszak is concerned, his company is nonprofit and the causes the company invests the grants on are worthy causes. I said that earlier. That doesn't mean he doesn't collect a hefty salary and he has a significant interest in the work his company does.

That translates to him having serious motivation to hide the potential that the pandemic resulted from his company's work or from the WIV. All the funding from multiple sources could dry right up if it turns out one of the dangerous viruses they were working with escaped the lab.

Given COVID should have been the very thing they were working to prevent, it says that at a minimum the research Daszak's company was doing did not prevent or even ready the world for this pandemic.

And that is especially troublesome given COVID is within the range of horseshoe bat coronaviruses.

So we still have the very thing the WIV and Daszak were working on just happened to start in Wuhan and nowhere else in China.

Back to Andersen's work finding 2 distinct strains of COVID in Wuhan, the biggest question becomes, isn't this finding even more of an improbable coincidence?

So what is the hypothesis here, that 2 different wet markets in China just happened to infect 2 different people in Wuhan? Where did the 2 strains diverge?

Andersen believed she found links to both strains outside of Wuhan. That's fine but I've not seen the timeline of these other infections. Were they before or after Sept 2019 which is when Andersen found both lineages in Wuhan.

If the evidence of divergent lineages really does rule out the WIV and/or Daszak's work as the likely source, how did those 2 lineages end up in 2 patients in Wuhan in Sept 2019?

IIRC, Andersen didn't identify these 2 patients, but rather walked the genetic clock back and that's where she believed 2 patients in Wuhan were infected. I'll have to review the evidence tomorrow or in the next couple days if it takes me longer.

If there is evidence the pandemic didn't start in Wuhan, let's see it. I don't mean evidence it could have happened outside of Wuhan. I mean evidence it did.

Given there have been undetected cases there still should be some evidence explaining how or why the known cases turned up in the very place researchers were investigating related coronaviruses.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Given COVID should have been the very thing they were working to prevent, it says that at a minimum the research Daszak's company was doing did not prevent or even ready the world for this pandemic.

And that is especially troublesome given COVID is within the range of horseshoe bat coronaviruses.

That's hardly fair. There are charities and institutions that work to stop famine, and war and various other problems. If those things happen we don't say, "well those charities and institutions are a failure!"

EcoHealth Alliance are involved in all kinds of projects all over the world with all kinds of viruses, formulating policies for how to live around bats, trying to identify hotspots and new viruses etc... They can't nessarily be everywhere at once.

Besides, do we know that the work they and their colleagues have done not helped the world's virologists when it comes to vaccines etc...?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Back to Andersen's work finding 2 distinct strains of COVID in Wuhan, the biggest question becomes, isn't this finding even more of an improbable coincidence?

So what is the hypothesis here, that 2 different wet markets in China just happened to infect 2 different people in Wuhan? Where did the 2 strains diverge?

Andersen believed she found links to both strains outside of Wuhan. That's fine but I've not seen the timeline of these other infections. Were they before or after Sept 2019 which is when Andersen found both lineages in Wuhan.

If the evidence of divergent lineages really does rule out the WIV and/or Daszak's work as the likely source, how did those 2 lineages end up in 2 patients in Wuhan in Sept 2019?

IIRC, Andersen didn't identify these 2 patients, but rather walked the genetic clock back and that's where she believed 2 patients in Wuhan were infected. I'll have to review the evidence tomorrow or in the next couple days if it takes me longer.

If there is evidence the pandemic didn't start in Wuhan, let's see it. I don't mean evidence it could have happened outside of Wuhan. I mean evidence it did.

Given there have been undetected cases there still should be some evidence explaining how or why the known cases turned up in the very place researchers were investigating related coronaviruses.

If you are talking about the same Andersen as I think you are, Andersen is a he.

And if you are talking about the more recent paper, I believe it is by Robert Garry, although Andersen and Garry seem to have been doing a lot of research together with other researchers such as Ian Lipkin, Andrew Rambaut and Eddie Holmes such as this earlier paper.

Quote:

Sept 2019 which is when Andersen found both lineages in Wuhan.

Andersen found both lineages in Wuhan in Sept 2019? Where is this stated?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I somehow read "she" or maybe I misread "Kristain". Anyway, correction noted.

I still have to review the links I posted last year to discuss the rest.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

That's hardly fair. There are charities and institutions that work to stop famine, and war and various other problems. If those things happen we don't say, "well those charities and institutions are a failure!"

EcoHealth Alliance are involved in all kinds of projects all over the world with all kinds of viruses, formulating policies for how to live around bats, trying to identify hotspots and new viruses etc... They can't nessarily be everywhere at once.

Besides, do we know that the work they and their colleagues have done not helped the world's virologists when it comes to vaccines etc...?

I do question the risk vs reward of the virus hunting. Seems to me that it is better to look for human or animal sickness in areas of concern, then take measures, as they did with the people in Africa who were getting infected from contaminated sap from bats sipping on it. Put a small cover on it, provide local education...and the problem was mitigated.

Going out purposefully to find one of the 800k- 1M or so (estimated) dangerous unknown viruses at risk for spillover and bringing them back to labs to see how easily they could infect humans....and then using humans to do the tests on other mammals with human traits seems to be pretty risky!

Recall that SARS infected 3 different labs even after it was under control, and 3 separate times just at one high level BS-4 lab in Beijing.
That is just one virus.
Another virus being studied (Hanta) infected students (and then other locals) in Yunnan with an unknown recombinant strain- a NEW spillover between lab animals.


Let's say that the scientists are given enough money to look for thousands more dangerous viruses. 10k or 20k even. What are the odds of a natural spillover vs a lab spillover getting to a major city? What are the odds that both would happen anyway given that the natural one probably goes undetected or mutates outside of the collection time period in some area that was unknown to be ripe for it?
Essentially, they are testing mostly 'losers' without knowing the Russian roulette they play that could result in a pandemic. That's why most of the coronavirus work was done in BS-2 and BS-3 labs and not the BS-4 one. The vast majority of wild non-human samples are relatively harmless- always have been and always will be.

But it just takes ONE.
The virus we have as our pandemic de jure is not like the leaks before. Exposure through aerosols may go unnoticed. There may be no sickness in a day, or a week, or ever! There would be no reason to even test for it.
All the while transmission is possible and can quickly grow exponentially.

Monitor the people and the animals. Then assess risk. If a pattern emerges that populations of a certain size living in proximity with animal vector habitats or bird migration areas are ill or positive for virus antibodies, then investigate thoroughly and take measures.

The evidence for spillover was encountered a few times in Yunnan- and 4 people exposed at the same time actually DIED. What was done? Isnt this what they are there to prevent??? To catch it at the first infections?
They took samples back to the lab to study. And kept coming back for more, for years.
What else needed to happen to get their attention of a problem?

And now, knowing they were right there where this thing originated (no matter what hoops the virus traveled through afterwards), and they called the area concerning for spillover of dangerous viruses.... how did that 10+ yrs of research help us? That we 'know' things about some of the related viruses is just extra knowledge, but it hasn't helped any humans survive, or get vaccinated, or develop treatments. It could help with the next one....or it could be the cause of it.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I do question the risk vs reward of the virus hunting. Seems to me that it is better to look for human or animal sickness in areas of concern, then take measures, as they did with the people in Africa who were getting infected from contaminated sap from bats sipping on it. Put a small cover on it, provide local education...and the problem was mitigated.

Going out purposefully to find one of the 800k- 1M or so (estimated) dangerous unknown viruses at risk for spillover and bringing them back to labs to see how easily they could infect humans....and then using humans to do the tests on other mammals with human traits seems to be pretty risky!

Recall that SARS infected 3 different labs even after it was under control, and 3 separate times just at one high level BS-4 lab in Beijing.
That is just one virus.
Another virus being studied (Hanta) infected students (and then other locals) in Yunnan with an unknown recombinant strain- a NEW spillover between lab animals.


Let's say that the scientists are given enough money to look for thousands more dangerous viruses. 10k or 20k even. What are the odds of a natural spillover vs a lab spillover getting to a major city? What are the odds that both would happen anyway given that the natural one probably goes undetected or mutates outside of the collection time period in some area that was unknown to be ripe for it?
Essentially, they are testing mostly 'losers' without knowing the Russian roulette they play that could result in a pandemic. That's why most of the coronavirus work was done in BS-2 and BS-3 labs and not the BS-4 one. The vast majority of wild non-human samples are relatively harmless- always have been and always will be.

But it just takes ONE.
The virus we have as our pandemic de jure is not like the leaks before. Exposure through aerosols may go unnoticed. There may be no sickness in a day, or a week, or ever! There would be no reason to even test for it.
All the while transmission is possible and can quickly grow exponentially.

Monitor the people and the animals. Then assess risk. If a pattern emerges that populations of a certain size living in proximity with animal vector habitats or bird migration areas are ill or positive for virus antibodies, then investigate thoroughly and take measures.

The evidence for spillover was encountered a few times in Yunnan- and 4 people exposed at the same time actually DIED. What was done? Isnt this what they are there to prevent??? To catch it at the first infections?
They took samples back to the lab to study. And kept coming back for more, for years.
What else needed to happen to get their attention of a problem?

And now, knowing they were right there where this thing originated (no matter what hoops the virus traveled through afterwards), and they called the area concerning for spillover of dangerous viruses.... how did that 10+ yrs of research help us? That we 'know' things about some of the related viruses is just extra knowledge, but it hasn't helped any humans survive, or get vaccinated, or develop treatments. It could help with the next one....or it could be the cause of it.

Well, that is why I am looking forward to hearing what Daszak and others say on TWiV when they come on the podcast in a week or two.

In the meantime, from what I understand they have done some important work in mitigating or understanding viruses (Nipah, Hendra (which is related to Nipah), and Ebola for example).

Some of the work is of course controversial and it will be worth examining.

At the moment, I don't think any of us know enough to make those judgments yet.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I somehow read "she" or maybe I misread "Kristain". Anyway, correction noted.

I still have to review the links I posted last year to discuss the rest.

No problem. I think some people on Twitter (of the lab leak persuasion) have taken to calling him Hans (Hans Kristian Andersen, presumably because they consider him to be telling fairy tales).

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

although there is a Chinese dissident scientist who claims she worked there and saw it all and says that is exactly what happened.

Who? Nameless Chinese dissident scientist has the strong smell of woo conspiracy about it. Much like the old "Russian scientist" woo decades ago.

Any chances to actually track that one down?

Originally Posted by lomiller

Most military research would actually be involved in developing counter measures to biological attacks. If anything this research is even more sensitive because if someone knows your countermeasures they can potentially find a way around them

Far more plausible, and there is even evidence for that. No evidence I know of for an accidental leak, but certainly evidence that China was afraid the US would have the ability, and were working on countermeasures in Wuhan.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Who? Nameless Chinese dissident scientist has the strong smell of woo conspiracy about it. Much like the old "Russian scientist" woo decades ago.

Any chances to actually track that one down?

It's all mentioned in the thread. We don't need to retread this ground.

[angrysoba]

Andersen tweets:

Quote:

And here they are - the 'mysterious' (hint, not mysterious) eight SARS-like CoVs from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, just put online at CNCB.

I expect paper to follow? These are distantly related to SARS-CoV-2 as previously mentioned.

Zhengli Shi and co-authors seem to have a pre-print up about these.

Are these coronaviruses that people had been wondering about being scrubbed from the database, or somehow not available when they should be?

[Chris_Halkides]

"I am not convinced about that, I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out to the best of our ability what happened," Fauci told PolitiFact's managing editor Katie Sanders.
"Certainly, the people who investigated it say it likely was the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals, but it could have been something else, and we need to find that out. So, you know, that's the reason why I said I'm perfectly in favor of any investigation that looks into the origin of the virus," he continued.
A quote from a story at CNN
It is difficult to know what to make of his cautious statement. Perhaps he is hedging his bets.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Huh? What is Fauci reconsidering and what "bets" would he be hedging?


ETA: He doesn't appear to be reconsidering. He hasn't contradicted anything he's said earlier and he never expressed any final conclusion that would even make reconsidering possible. This appears to be blown up for sensationalism purposes.