Covid-19 likely to be man made

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120343418#Comment_120343418

Is this the same Anderson on this podcast?

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5jYXB0aXZhdGUuZm0vZGVjb2RpbmctdGhlLWd1cnVzLw%3D%3D&episode=NmM1NGE1MmMtNTgzOS00MjA3LWEyZjQtM2NjZTkzNTlmNmMx

Quite long but tears apart a lot of the lab leak arguments mentioned here. Gets very technical in places and frankly above my head at times. Makes it appear fairly unlikely that it's a lab leak and the average person simply doesn't have the expertise to understand why. They reality of this conspiracy theory is somewhat boring technical detail.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120347909#Comment_120347909

To be fair, "boring technical detail" is why most of the conspiracies end up not holding water, they only work if you ignore all the science parts (or believe in magic/undiscovered science as the root explanation).

mcsean2163

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120347909#Comment_120347909

Two crackpots. Anderson who suddenly changed his mind and Worobey who joined team NIAID.

Jamie Metzel who has been pushing for transparency commented on Worobey's recent attack.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JamieMetzl/status/1634196206724300800

if memory serves he got significant funding following his paper that said covid19 emerged from the market and completely omitted the possibility of someone visiting the market being the source. Neither situation negates a natural origin but the papers wrote about his preprint before peer review after which some of his outrageous claims were whittled back.

It's incredible how some of these clowns with their speculation achieved such exposure.

geospatial

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120347909#Comment_120347909

Listened to it, and while all three are highly qualified and credible scientists, have two issues with it.

The statement was made that there was no preferred hypothesis and both lab leak and natural spillover were equally considered. But that's not just an attempt to rewrite history, but it's to deny reality. From the Lancet statement of Feb 19th 2020 signed by 27 leading global Virologists and Public Health scientists: "We stand together to condemn conspiracy theories that Covid 19 did not have a natural origin". Now the three on this podcast did not sign the statement, but to suggest there was no preferred hypothesis is nonsense, the Lancet statement and the Proximal Origins paper with Kristen Anderson and Eddie Holmes as authors (2 of the podcast parrticipants) are the basis for the preferred natural spillover hypothesis, and the basis for the claim there was a consensus within science on the origins question. Keeping in mind that both articles were drafted within a month of the outbreak when very little was known at all about plausible origins.

The second issue is the complete avoidance of the published and proposed gain of function work between UNC and WIV which is the basis for the most plausible lab leak hypothesis, that the virus emerged from such work. After listening for the first 2/3 of the podcast, we finally get a question addressed to all three, and I though here we go, finally we get to the meat of the discussion. What do we get in response? A quick dismissal from one participant saying it's expected that they would be looking at furin cleavage sites as a coronavirus virus pandemic is likely to have a furin cleavage site. No follow up, no discussion of all the published research since 2014 on building chimeric viruses, no discussion of passaging experiments, no discussion of the details of the Defuse proposal, nothing.

It would have been good if they had someone there who could present the actual plausible lab leak hypothesis, and the evidence to support it. Just for balance.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120350429#Comment_120350429

Huh weird.

You're dismissing very qualified people as "crackpots" and you're accusing them of fraud and being part of a conspiracy based on pretty much nothing.

Seems very contradictory given your previous stance where people more qualified than you cannot be questioned or doubted.

Or maybe this rule only applies to people who suggest lab leak stuff.

SafeSurfer

The two possible sources for the origin of Covid are

1. Natural, and the scientists and virologists are the heroes working to protect us from deadly natural viruses.
2. Lab leak and scientists are the bad guys, putting everyone at risk with their dangerous experiments.

I know which option would be most appealing to me if I was a virologist, especially if I had links with the laboratory from which the virus potentially emerged.

Can we stop pretending that the lab leak theory was not censored for many months after the virus first emerged. For something to have happened doesn’t mean it has to continue happening forever.

There are also still people in jail in China for attempting to investigate the origins of Covid in Wuhan, others have been “disappeared”. The official Covid origin story from China now is that it didn’t emerge naturally in China but entered the country in frozen food.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120351516#Comment_120351516

Again you guys are engaging in the things you accuse others of.

Your two options are silly strawmen that conflate many things to form stances no one actually holds.

The lab leak theory was not censored.

You are once again pretending that the conspiracy theories that were being spread about the virus didn't exist. Just because they aren't being spouted now it doesn't mean they weren't spouted.

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120351762#Comment_120351762

Once again, despite it being pointed out to you how obnoxious it was, you refer to a poster as “you guys”.

Straw men? Do you disagree that the origin of the pandemic is either zoonotic or lab leak?

You are suggesting that no one holds either of these views which is demonstrably inaccurate, incorrect and pretty darn stupid.

You keep repeating that the lab leak theory was not censored. The only explanation I can think of is

https://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356031#Comment_120356031

I Keep referring to you guys as in people who are suggesting that there is a conspiracy at play. In the current case the conspiracy being a plot to censor the idea of a lab leak.

And yes strawmen. Your argument is a ridiculous parody of people's stances. You know full well that this is the case as no one is referring to "heroes and bad guys".

I did not suggest that no one holds the views of it being a lab leak or a virus jumping to humans. That's another strawman on your part.

I keep repeating the fact that the lab leak idea wasn't censored because it wasn't. You've failed to demonstrate it has been without resorting to changing definitions, (eg. Scientists penning an open letter is not censorship) or claiming things say stuff they don't (eg. Claiming those scientists refer to the lab leak theory rather than the idea the virus was man made) or falling back on conspiracy theories and the tactics you accuse others of.

Hannibal_Smith

@King Mob it's been highlighted to you before that the 'You guys' tag isnt received well and as has happened here it just helps in derailing discussion.

@SafeSurfer Safe Surfer if you have an issue with a post or poster report it, don't respond with further name calling.

Most importantly if you cannot discuss the topic with each other without sniping at each other, then don't reply to each other. It offers nothing to any thread.

HS

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356107#Comment_120356107

Maybe it would be helpful if you could outline your understanding of the word “censorship.”

Perhaps when you have your dictionary open, look up the word “was” also. Your argument for the lab leak theory not having been censored is asking why the FBI issued a report in late 2021 stating the lab leak theory was likely.

People have said the lab leak theory “was” censored.

If someone states that it “was” raining this morning and you look out your window and declare you are wrong, it’s not raining. It may not be as strong an argument as you seem to believe.

It has been already shown how social media companies etc treated the lab leak theory. How, after the Lancet letter, the one in which it’s signees didn’t declare their conflict of interest, “natural origin” was conflated with the lab leak theory being a conspiracy theory.

“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”

You seem to deliberately fail to grasp this as you deliberately fail to grasp the fact that if it was a lab leak, the resulting pandemic was not caused by a natural event but rather it was caused by a human event.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356351#Comment_120356351

But as I said, a letter isn't censorship even if you weren't conflating what it said.

The letter does not refer to a lab leak. That's your conflation while you pretend the torrent of conspiracy theories about the virus being artificially ceeated didn't exist.

We've also seen that you likewise make assumptions that the US government issued orders to social media companies to specifically censor the lab leak theory.

I understand the term well enough thanks.

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356364#Comment_120356364

It seems not.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356391#Comment_120356391

If boards ban you, is it censorship?

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356582#Comment_120356582

It would of course depend on the context.

If I was banned for example for calling another poster an imbecile then that would be uncivil, a breach of guidelines and a ban would not be censorship.

If I was banned for expressing an opinion on something for which differing theories existed, such as the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 and I was banned specifically for expressing one particular opinion, such as, for example Al Qaeda hijacked the plane and if all other posters who expressed the same opinion were banned then that would look very much like censorship of one theory to explain something for which no definitive explanation existed.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356391#Comment_120356391

No I do.

An open letter is not censorship. Yet you keep claiming that it is.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356817#Comment_120356817

More false conflating.

Expressing conspiracy theories about a plane crash is not the same about expressing conspiracy theories about medical topics.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356817#Comment_120356817

None of that is censorship. You don't have a right to have your voice amplified on any platform regardless of the context.

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120357276#Comment_120357276

You are making an entirely separate point now. You asked a question about censorship and now you are making a statement about rights.

You say nobody has a right to have their voice amplified I understand your meaning, even if this is not strictly true.

In the context of censorship, section 31 prevented certain views from, as you put it, being “amplified”, while other views, deemed acceptable faced no such obstacles.

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120357157#Comment_120357157

Why is speculation on the origins of Covid different from speculation about flight MH370?

I can understand conspiracies about vaccines being considered a medical topic but struggle to understand how the origin of the pandemic can be considered medical.

Would the medical response to Covid be different if it was natural or lab leak. I guess the answer is no, because we still don’t know which caused the pandemic but the medical response has been the same.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120357616#Comment_120357616

Again, it's conflation. Medical conspiracies are not the same as other conspiracies. Nor can you simply ignore the fact that misinformation and conspiracy theories about the origins of the virus were tied up and intertwined with those of the vaccine etc.

An example of this is Luc Montagier. He has been held up recently as an example of someone who was unfairly censored for suggesting a lab leak.

This of course ignores all the silly conspiracy he's claimed about the virus. And the fact that he has been pushing and amplifying anti-vaxxer messaging.

You are suggesting we ignore all the context and just pretend that none of that exists or is in any way connected.

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120357946#Comment_120357946

You are just being ridiculous now.

I am not suggesting anything. I am disputing your assertion that whether the pandemic was as a result of natural spillover or a lab leak is a “medical conspiracy”.

You talk about conflating and then come out with this nonsense.

---‐--------

Warning applied for ignoring mod instruction

HS

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120358003#Comment_120358003

Viruses are a medical topic.

Conspiracy claims about the origin of the virus are very very often tied up with other conspiracy claims that include anti-vaxx misinformation. A prime example of this being Luc Montagier.

Again, you are mispresenting my position, I never said "whether the pandemic was as a result of natural spillover or a lab leak is a “medical conspiracy”."

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120357616#Comment_120357616

Medical conspiracies and disinformation can be harmful. It can be sensitive subject during a global pandemic for obvious reasons.

E.g. the conspiracy that Covid was deliberately engineered and released on purpose could cause panic, retaliation against the country accused of it, etc.

Speculating about what happened to a plane is generally harmless.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120358141#Comment_120358141

Not to mention the fact that the people promoting the beliefs that it was deliberately engineered etc also have a very high likely hood of also promoting other false medical claims. Or they promote other people and sources who do. Which leads to things like lower confidence in vaccines.

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120358141#Comment_120358141

I don’t disagree with you that medical conspiracies and disinformation are dangerous.

I just thought that the lab leak theory was no longer being dismissed as a conspiracy theory, never mind a medical conspiracy theory.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120358465#Comment_120358465

The problem isn't so much now, it was back then. Early in the pandemic, there were a lot of rumors and speculation. It was important to classify what we knew and what we didn't know, and not to indulge too much in the speculation (which could run out of control). The majority of scientists and experts, with access to equivalent information, that early in the pandemic, didn't know for sure what the origin was, but based on the information pool they had at the time, many of them were leaning in a particular direction.

The thing about the lab leak theory was that it pointed the finger at a particular country, okay, but that's a very sensitive thing to do, especially so early on. What if it was wrong? There could have been significant damage. The optics of publicly "going with a hunch" during a global pandemic doesn't add any value. Plus it carries the risk of being wrong.

Case in point - certain politicians straight away jumped on it. Their agenda? To smear that country regardless of whether the theory turned out to be true or not.

Mullaghteelin

A quick search brings up dozens of articles from a broad variety of news sources stating that the lab leak theory was suppressed, with some as early as 2021.

Here's something from a week ago.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11826847/Experts-call-lab-leak-denying-doctor-Jeremy-Farrar-sacked-World-Health-Organization.html

"EXCLUSIVE: Experts call for lab leak-denying doctor Jeremy Farrar to be fired from new post as World Health Organization's chief scientist after he censored debate about Covid's origin"

Although, I suspect the Daily Mail will be rubbished here by some for being a far-right rag.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120358595#Comment_120358595

And from the article itself:

"On the day that paper, titled 'Proximal Origin', was first published, emails also show Dr Farrar pushed through a crucial change that poured even more doubt over the theory - despite privately expressing concerns the virus was man-made."

"'Sorry to micromanage/micro edit! But would you be willing to change one sentence?', Dr Farrar asked in the email chain. He asked for the word 'unlikely' to be swapped with 'improbable' in a statement talking about the lab leak.

The tweaked sentence then read: 'It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of an existing SARS-related coronavirus.'

Which I'd still agree with. There is still little consensus among the scientific community that the virus was "man-made" aka created or bioengineered in a lab.

The current lab leak theory posits it was an incidental or accidental leak of a zoonotic virus. The article again demonstrates how easy it is for people to confuse the two theories as being "one and the same".

Dohnjoe

This part of the article really encapsulates how the two theories keep getting conflated.

"He said: 'Jeremy Farrar, the guy who then publicly disdained the lab leak theory despite privately admitting he was still 50:50 on the lab leak should not be in charge of the WHO or any investigations into the origins of Covid.'

Emails leaked last year show that Dr Farrar privately expressed concern that Covid could have leaked from a lab in February 2020.

He famously told Dr Anthony Fauci and colleagues that he was 50:50 between a lab leak and natural origin.

But in the following weeks, Dr Farrar seemed to have a dramatic change of heart and put his name to a letter in the Lancet denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a 'conspiracy theory'.

The statement signed along with 26 other scientists, said: 'We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid does not have a natural origin."

The statement referred to is the below, signed by 27 scientists

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2930418-9/fulltext

"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10 as have so many other emerging pathogens."

AKA "we don't think it was made/engineered by humans in a lab". Which is still the prevailing theory. Even the FBI aren't stating that it was made/engineered by humans in a lab.