Origins of SARS CoV-2 - split from: Covid-19 miscellany

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Clearly, you're not an expert neither. You are describing some math, but you are not giving any background basis for what the inputs should be, because you don't have it. Don is right about it sounding like ID, this is no different than when Michael Behe comes up with some probability that proves evolution couldn't produce some protein. Just like Behe does, your .05 x .05 assumes simultaneous mutation. And a 1/400 number is hardly a big hurdle anyway when you consider a single covid infection produces over a billon copies.

I am glad you recognize these kinds of things. I used to have a Jehovah's Witness uncle who was duped by creationist propaganda. He'd often repeat the analogy of "say you have 50 stacks of lumber, shingles, 500 nails, and a stick of dynamite. you blow it up with the dynamite are you going to get a house? hmmm... are you?!" Then, he'd cackle insanely at how ridiculous the idea of evolution is.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, back on topic. Angra Mainyu's assertion that the probability of the pandemic starting because the Coronavirus escaped from a laboratory in China is greater than 50% reminds me of this brief exchange:

Are you trying to make an authority argument? I'm asking because I'm not sure. If so, that is reasonable, but I have already considered that many virologists consider the lab leak hypothesis improbable, or even very improbable.
I have considered also other factors, including the views of a minority of virologists, and the plausible reasons for the rejection of the lab leak hypothesis.

As I said, overall my assignment is >0.5, not that it is the probability in an information-independent manner. Probabilities depend on information, and as a result on the agent to some extent.

ETA: but if you like to read from scientists who disagreed with the rejection of the lab leak theory (though it appears some of them publicly they rejected it, for non-scientific reasons) for example, you can consider the following evidence (just a tiny bit):

Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’

Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so

www.telegraph.co.uk

Fauci and Collins Dismissed Prominent Scientists Who Endorsed Lab-Leak Theory, Emails Show

Early in the pandemic, scientists urged Anthony Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins to seriously consider the theory that Covid escaped from a Chinese laboratory.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Hermit]

So, back on topic. Angra Mainyu's assertion that the probability of the pandemic starting because the Coronavirus escaped from a laboratory in China is greater than 50% reminds me of this brief exchange:

Are you trying to make an authority argument? I'm asking because I'm not sure.

Yes, I definitely place more trust in the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists than yours.

If so, that is reasonable, but I have already considered that many virologists consider the lab leak hypothesis improbable, or even very improbable.
I have considered also other factors, including the views of a minority of virologists, and the plausible reasons for the rejection of the lab leak hypothesis.

OK, so you side with a handful of virologists who disagree with the vast majority of their colleagues. I don't know why you felt the need to tell me that. It's not difficult to figure out from what you've already written.

As I said, overall my assignment is >0.5, not that it is the probability in an information-independent manner. Probabilities depend on information, and as a result on the agent to some extent.

Unless I misunderstood, that is no different to what you said here:

The probability that the pandemic originated in a lab (whether by the virus being engineered in a lab, or else by the virus being collected from the wild but scaping from a lab) is higher than 0.5

In both instances, on the basis of the evidence you've seen and including the views of a minority of virologists, you regard the chances of the Coronavirus having escaped from the Wuhan laboratory as better than 50%. What am I missing?

ETA: but if you like to read from scientists who disagreed with the rejection of the lab leak theory (though it appears some of them publicly they rejected it, for non-scientific reasons) for example, you can consider the following evidence (just a tiny bit):

Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’

Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so

www.telegraph.co.uk

Fauci and Collins Dismissed Prominent Scientists Who Endorsed Lab-Leak Theory, Emails Show

Early in the pandemic, scientists urged Anthony Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins to seriously consider the theory that Covid escaped from a Chinese laboratory.

news.yahoo.com

Not wanting to engage in further discussions concerning the hypothesis that the Coronavirus has escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, let me just note I have read from scientists who disagreed with the rejection of the lab leak theory, and I continue to do so. I have also read what the consensus about the proffered evidence is.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes, I definitely place more trust in the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists than yours.

The question was not whether you trusted some of those scientists more than me or the others, but whether you were again making an authority argument. I wasn't sure you were just repeating the argument made repeatedly in the thread by several posters including yourself, and/or whether there was a further point (beyond making fun of my with the cartoon).

OK, so you side with a handful of virologists who disagree with the vast majority of their colleagues. I don't know why you felt the need to tell me that. It's not difficult to figure out from what you've already written.

First, I did not feel the need to do anything, but I did feel the inclination to explain my position in order to defend my posts.

Second, remember, you insisted on an argument from authority already made repeatedly in the thread by several posters, yourself included. You had already made fun of me with the global warming comparison, remember?
So, if I repeated my explanation of my view, it was in reply to your repetition of a previous authority argument. It is surprising you reply in such an unfriendly manner ("feel the need"), or that you are surprised. I thought maybe you had missed something, or else at least it was useful to explain my views again, given you were again attacking them in the same manner as before.

In both instances, on the basis of the evidence you've seen and including the views of a minority of virologists, you regard the chances of the Coronavirus having escaped from the Wuhan laboratory as better than 50%. What am I missing?

I'm not sure what you missed if anything, but given that you insisted on an authority argument, I insisted on the reply just in case my position was not clear, and then added further links. If you were not missing anything, I am not sure why you felt the need (hostile, right? but you if you throw a "feel the need", it's proportionate to throw one back at you) to repeat the same sort of argument that has been repeated by several posters already, yourself included. But given that you did, then repeating my explanation of my position is reasonable.

Still, I did add some new links, in case you were interested to read something that is not often repeated in the media.

Not wanting to engage in further discussions concerning the hypothesis that the Coronavirus has escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, let me just note I have read from scientists who disagreed with the rejection of the lab leak theory, and I continue to do so. I have also read what the consensus about the proffered evidence is.

Not wanting to engage in further discussions? That seems odd. In your previous post (the one I replied to), you said:

So, back on topic. Angra Mainyu's assertion that the probability of the pandemic starting because the Coronavirus escaped from a laboratory in China is greater than 50% reminds me of this brief exchange:

and then repeated an argument from authority, in a rather hostile manner (but not more hostile than before, I grant). Well, then, given that you said you were going back on topic, and indeed brought back an attack on my position by repetition of an authority argument, surely you are not surprised that I responded - though I did not only repeat what I said before; I added further evidence, which you now choose not to address.

Now, I do want to make some further points:

First, how do you know what the vast majority believe?
Second, how have they come to believe it?
In cases like this, most scientists do not actually study the case in detail, but go with what is perceived as scientific consensus. And part of that consensus was manufactured for political reasons against the lab leak hypothesis. The evidence of that sort of manipulation is pretty clear. That of course does not establish the lab leak hypothesis, but certainly undermined the argument from authority, and I would say significantly.

 

[Hermit]

Yes, I definitely place more trust in the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists than yours.

The question was not whether you trusted some of those scientists more than me or the others, but whether you were again making an authority argument.

Yes, Angra Mainyu, I did make an argument from authority. It was by way of saying I definitely place more trust in the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists than yours. It was meant to tie in with a link in a previous post of mine you saw fit to delete when you replied to it. There is a certain parallel with both you and Brey Jabba claiming a high likelihood of the Coronavirus having escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan. This one:

What exactly is wrong with placing more trust in the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists than Brey Jabba's or yours?

OK, so you side with a handful of virologists who disagree with the vast majority of their colleagues. I don't know why you felt the need to tell me that. It's not difficult to figure out from what you've already written.

First, I did not feel the need to do anything, but I did feel the inclination to explain my position in order to defend my posts.

So you felt the need to explain ("explain"? "state" seems the appropriate word in this context) to me something that was so obvious it was in no need of stating. Got it.

You had already made fun of me with the global warming comparison, remember?

Explain to me (you do like to explain things to me, don't you?) what, apart from it causing you to feel personally slighted for reasons best known to yourself, is wrong with this:

It is very easy to find virologists who assign high probability to the lab leak hypothesis.

Almost as easy as finding climatologists who deny anthropomorphic global warming.

Not wanting to engage in further discussions concerning the hypothesis that the Coronavirus has escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, let me just note I have read from scientists who disagreed with the rejection of the lab leak theory, and I continue to do so. I have also read what the consensus about the proffered evidence is.

Not wanting to engage in further discussions? That seems odd. In your previous post (the one I replied to), you said:

So, back on topic. Angra Mainyu's assertion that the probability of the pandemic starting because the Coronavirus escaped from a laboratory in China is greater than 50% reminds me of this brief exchange:

Nothing odd about it. I wrote: "Not wanting to engage in further discussions concerning the hypothesis that the Coronavirus has escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan...", and I made no reference to the hypothesis that the Coronavirus has escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan itself. I merely noted the similarity of your and Brey Jabba's estimate regarding the likelihood of the Virus having escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan. I don't know if I had been insufficiently clear about what I meant with "Not wanting to engage in further discussions concerning the hypothesis that the Coronavirus has escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan", or if you could do with some remedial lessons in reading comprehension, but I do hope you now understand what I meant.

Now, I do want to make some further points:

First, how do you know what the vast majority believe?
Second, how have they come to believe it?

Yes, and yes.

In cases like this, most scientists do not actually study the case in detail, but go with what is perceived as scientific consensus. And part of that consensus was manufactured for political reasons against the lab leak hypothesis. The evidence of that sort of manipulation is pretty clear. That of course does not establish the lab leak hypothesis, but certainly undermined the argument from authority, and I would say significantly.

Opinion noted.


I hope you don't feel offended that I have snipped all but the first of your eight references to authority. My reply (finishing with a question) applies to all of them.

I also felt free to ignore your readiness to get your knickers in a knot ("making fun of my (sic) with the cartoon", "You had already made fun of me", "you reply in such an unfriendly manner", "repeated an argument from authority, in a rather hostile manner").

 

[Elixir]

OK, so you side with a handful of virologists who disagree with the vast majority of their colleagues.

"Equal and opposite experts" are the lifeblood of right wing extremist conspiracy theories. Climate change, tobacco, plague variants... it's consistent throughout the realm of RW stoopid.

 

[Keith&Co.]

OK, so you side with a handful of virologists who disagree with the vast majority of their colleagues.

"Equal and opposite experts" are the lifeblood of right wing extremist conspiracy theories. Climate change, tobacco, plague variants... it's consistent throughout the realm of RW stoopid.

I saw a meme yesterday. Shows 10 guys at a table. "9 out of 10 dentists recommend flossing."
Next pic is Joe Rogan. "That 10th guy must be on to something, let's have him on the show."

 

[Keith&Co.]

The question was not whether you trusted some of those scientists more than me or the others, but whether you were again making an authority argument.

Yes, Angra Mainyu, I did make an argument from authority. It was by way of saying I definitely place more trust in the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists than yours.

Argument from authority isn't a fallacy. That's how it's supposed to work. It's why we have authorities.
The fallacy is when the argument is from respect for authority.

All those commercials that claim 'scientists say' without mentioning the discipline they're trained in. Or talk shows, news shows, etc. Just 'We asked a scientist...' Or 'With us today is a Doctor.'

Or when creationists say 'Isaac Newton (or Einstein, or Watt) believed X, do you think you're smarter than (whoever)? (See also, Spiritualists asking, "Do you think you know more than the guy that invented Sherelock Holmes?")

Or creationists again, presenting the opinion of someone WIth Five Degrees! Just, none of them identified (or actually relevant to the issue at hand)...

 

[Elixir]

I will say that if there is any or no "truth" about "OMG, this affects DNA" in the article it will only be shown by very specialized experts. Hopefully a few of them can relay dumb downed explanations.

Not even by people who know quite a lot about biology. The mistakes they will likely make will be in a football analogy by like saying that cornerbacks are on offense and tight ends are on defense.

If you wanna really freak yourself out, read up on endogenous retrovirii. It will give you a glimpse into the future of human DNA.
Yes, a virus can - and many do - effect the human genome. All it takes is the infection of a gamete cell of a single individual who is also a prodigious reproducer, and a few (hundred) generations later it can appear almost throughout the population. Human ERVs currently comprise up to 8% of the human genome.
The good news is (as usual) SO WHAT? If an infected gamete had an inhibiting effect on the reproductive success of the individual, it would disappear from the population. And if not, who cares?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What exactly is wrong with placing more trust in the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists than Brey Jabba's or yours?

You seem to have lost track of the exchange here. I asked a question; specifically, I asked whether you were making that argument, because it seemed like that. I answered conditional to that being the case, which was so.

So you felt the need to explain ("explain"? "state" seems the appropriate word in this context) to me something that was so obvious it was in no need of stating. Got it.

No, I did not feel the need to do any of that. I felt the inclination to reply and explain my position in order to defend my posts. And of course, that does not mean in your eyes only, but readers as well.

Explain to me (you do like to explain things to me, don't you?) what, apart from it causing you to feel personally slighted for reasons best known to yourself, is wrong with this:

Well, the reasons are not difficult to figure out, but that aside, I already explained to you part of what else was wrong. For one thing, it misses the point entirely, given the post of bilby I was replying to (additionally, it is wrong in that suggests that the lab leak theory is on par with denial of global warming).

But you seem to be losing track of the conversation again. When I said " You had already made fun of me with the global warming comparison, remember? ", I was bringing up the fact that you are the one who engaged in repetition before, before being hostile towards me for repeating the points in reply to your repetition.

Nothing odd about it. I wrote: "Not wanting to engage in further discussions concerning the hypothesis that the Coronavirus has escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan...", and I made no reference to the hypothesis that the Coronavirus has escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan itself. I merely noted the similarity of your and Brey Jabba's estimate regarding the likelihood of the Virus having escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan. I don't know if I had been insufficiently clear about what I meant with "Not wanting to engage in further discussions concerning the hypothesis that the Coronavirus has escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan", or if you could do with some remedial lessons in reading comprehension, but I do hope you now understand what I meant.

Let me try again: if you choose to bring back the same sort of authority argument against my assignment >0.5 to the lab leak hypothesis, right after you say "So, back on topic.", then you should assign a considerably higher probability to the hypothesis that I will reply bringing up further points concerning the hypothesis that the Coronavirus has escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, than if you were to, well, not do that. My point is that you now say you didn't want to engage in further discussions, after you did what would clearly increase the chances of such further discussions.

 

[Hermit]

What exactly is wrong with placing more trust in the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists than Brey Jabba's or yours?

You seem to have lost track of the exchange here. I asked a question; specifically, I asked whether you were making that argument, because it seemed like that. I answered conditional to that being the case, which was so.

Yes, you asked

Are you trying to make an authority argument?

and I replied:

Yes, Angra Mainyu, I did make an argument from authority.

Then I asked:

What exactly is wrong with placing more trust in the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists than Brey Jabba's or yours?

Considering you mentioned 'authority' eight times in the post I replied to it is reasonable to expect an answer.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What exactly is wrong with placing more trust in the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists than Brey Jabba's or yours?

You seem to have lost track of the exchange here. I asked a question; specifically, I asked whether you were making that argument, because it seemed like that. I answered conditional to that being the case, which was so.

Yes, you asked

Are you trying to make an authority argument?

and I replied:

Yes, Angra Mainyu, I did make an argument from authority.

Then I asked:

What exactly is wrong with placing more trust in the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists than Brey Jabba's or yours?

Considering you mentioned 'authority' eight times in the post I replied to it is reasonable to expect an answer.

Actually, the number of times I mentioned 'authority' does not tell you what I said in the post. If you take a look at what I said in the post, you would see that I did not say or suggest there was something wrong with placing more trust in the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists than mine - let alone Brey Jabba, as I do not even know who that is, and context and tone clearly indicate hostility on your part (you surely knew I did not know mention any Brey Jabba, didn't you?).

So, given that, it is not reasonable to expect an answer. Let me make it clear: suppose I asked you 'what exactly is wrong with A'?, where you never said or implied something is wrong with A. That is a similar situation.

That said, I did not leave your question unaddressed. I did not answer it because it a the wrong question to ask (as I just explained), but I did explain why it was a wrong question to ask: Again, in your question, you seem to have lost track of the exchange. I asked a question, specifically, I asked whether you were making that argument, because it seemed like that. I answered conditional to that being the case, which was so. I did not claim it was improper of your part to trust the assessment of trained and qualified virologists and immunologists more than mine or Brey Jabba - whoever that person might be.

As to what is proper for you to do when assessing the evidence, well, as usual, you should make your probabilistic assessment on the basis of the available evidence. Of course, the evidence available to you isn't all of the evidence you could make available by searching, since reasonably you have other things to do. Even so, considering only the opinions of a majority of experts while ignoring the evidence regarding how those opinions formed or the minority who disagrees would not be proper. And if you are considering all of those factors and you still reckon the lab leak hypothesis is improbable, then that per se is not wrong on your part.

On the other hand, assessing that the lab leak hypothesis is on par with denial of global warming in terms of probability appears clearly improper, as there seems to be no way you could reasonably come up with that assessment even by weighing majorities and looking for consensus. But if you want to actually make a case for that instead of just make fun of your opponents without giving arguments, I'm all ears.

 

[Bomb#20]

you’re just making it more and more blatant that you accept the natural origin hypothesis

“Accept?”

Among the numerous hypotheses I’ve seen, I consider natural origins to be most likely.

Oh come off it. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. If you weren't dismissing the accidental lab-leak hypothesis out of hand then you wouldn't keep attacking it with ridicule, guilt-by-association, and painfully blatant deliberately trumped-up strawman arguments. And if you genuinely don't "accept" the natural origin hypothesis, by all means point out a third hypothesis that you consider more viable than a lab-leak.

So I ask myself “what is the most likely origin of the Chyyyna hypothesis, who is advancing it, and why?”

That's ridicule, not argument.

That’s how I come to provisionally hold that natural origins are most likely.

That's the genetic fallacy.

I am not married to the idea, and have no dog in that race.

Of course you have. The possibility that the trumpsuckers you despise might turn out to have been right about something clearly appalls you.

OTOH, I see a number of posters here who appear quite dedicated to finding malevolent actors to blame

That's a strawman argument. What's being blamed is negligence, not malevolence, and you damn well know it.

in the typical manner of right wing fearmongers.

That's guilt-by-association.

(And if you were seriously asking yourself what is the most likely origin of the lab-leak hypothesis then you would have done at least a cursory investigation of its origin, and would therefore know by now that the hypothesis originated with qualified academic virologists who raised that possibility months before right wing fearmongers ever heard about it.)

I also consider “origin” a tertiary concern. It is what it is, and that’s what we have to deal with. ... I don’t see that being the least bit productive.

You and everybody else trying to shut down the lab-leak hypothesis with belittling instead of evidence. Which is to say, you're admitting you have a dog in the race -- you are judging the hypothesis based on whether you feel it's beneficial for people to think it might be true instead of based on whether there's a good reason to think it might be true.

But I am disappointed that B20 is apparently quite committed to the right wing conspiracy theory that is the Chyyyna hypothesis.
I have found him to be the most - or at least one of the most - reasonable voices from the right on this board, and if he can get sucked in by this fearmongering invention, it does not bode well for us all.

How lovely that you think so well of me. A pity I can't reciprocate. Every time you utter the word "conspiracy" you prove that you are not arguing in good faith. You are trying to get a rhetorical win in the eyes of casual readers by deliberately misrepresenting the arguments of the people who disagree with you. The hypothesis is accidental escape. You know perfectly well that the hypothesis is accidental escape. Accidental escape is not a conspiracy theory, and you know that too.

Your arguments are ALL based on ignorance. If we knew everything about where every coronavirus "came from" we wouldn't have pandemics. Oh - except the ones caused by organisms developed in secret for nefarious reasons that escape from labs, of course.

If you were honestly not married to the idea and honestly had no dog in that race then you wouldn't keep fabricating baseless trumped-up ad hominem personal attacks on those who disagree with you. You are acting like a jerk, and it's crystal-clear that the reason you're acting like a jerk is because in fact you care very deeply about discrediting the opposing hypothesis, because your outgroup is in favor of it.

Which is to say, nobody here is suggesting the organisms were developed in secret for nefarious reasons. It wasn't nefarious -- it was perfectly legitimate scientific research that could have contributed to better epidemic prediction and better vaccine development -- and it wasn't developed in secret. The WIV published scientific papers telling the world they were doing gain-of-function research. (And they openly said they were doing it in BSL-2 and BSL-3 labs.) When you wrote "Oh - except the ones caused by organisms developed in secret for nefarious reasons", you were deliberately insinuating that I was advancing a theory that you already knew was not the theory I was advancing, in order to falsely and maliciously paint me as the sort of idiot who would believe it was developed in secret for nefarious reasons. You should be ashamed of yourself. So just stop behaving this way. Now. Try to deserve some respect.

 

[Elixir]

If you weren't dismissing the accidental lab-leak hypothesis out of hand then you wouldn't keep attacking it with ridicule,

I have been railing (ridiculing if you prefer) against those who elevate a bio terror/escape conspiracy theory to “probable” status without reason, not against the possibility.

While I see some reason to suspect such an accidental escape, I see far more political reasons to try to keep it alive. One would have be blind not to see that the loud voices of alarm are coming from right field.

Fearmongering bothers me. Even more than having I’ll motives falsely imputed to me.
And since there’s no prescribed response even if the object of fear really exists, let’s tend to what we know to be real, eh?

 

[Bomb#20]

Hard to find good fish an artificially created ocean full of red herring.

...
When you typed the oddly specific phrase "novel coronavirii that caused an accidental/intentional pandemic", you were playing a rhetorical game: you were relaxing the criteria for classifying previous events as the same kind of event as the current one, and doing it in precisely the right way to make SARS qualify but past lethal lab-leak outbreaks not qualify. Anyone can play that game. You can relax the sameness criteria some different way to make some other event qualify and make SARS not qualify, and thereby make some other explanation pass the "It's simplest because it's happened before" test. Playing that game is a special-pleading fallacy.

Speaking of arbitrary levels of criteria, relaxing or making stringent, the Wade article does that a few times. Did you notice?

Feel free to point some out and we can analyze them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hard to find good fish an artificially created ocean full of red herring.

...
When you typed the oddly specific phrase "novel coronavirii that caused an accidental/intentional pandemic", you were playing a rhetorical game: you were relaxing the criteria for classifying previous events as the same kind of event as the current one, and doing it in precisely the right way to make SARS qualify but past lethal lab-leak outbreaks not qualify. Anyone can play that game. You can relax the sameness criteria some different way to make some other event qualify and make SARS not qualify, and thereby make some other explanation pass the "It's simplest because it's happened before" test. Playing that game is a special-pleading fallacy.

Speaking of arbitrary levels of criteria, relaxing or making stringent, the Wade article does that a few times. Did you notice?

Feel free to point some out and we can analyze them.

Either you noticed or you didn't. Which is it?

 

[blastula]

ETA: but if you like to read from scientists who disagreed with the rejection of the lab leak theory (though it appears some of them publicly they rejected it, for non-scientific reasons) for example, you can consider the following evidence (just a tiny bit):

Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’

Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so

www.telegraph.co.uk

Fauci and Collins Dismissed Prominent Scientists Who Endorsed Lab-Leak Theory, Emails Show

Early in the pandemic, scientists urged Anthony Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins to seriously consider the theory that Covid escaped from a Chinese laboratory.

news.yahoo.com

What do you mean they rejected it for non-scientific reasons? That first article names 5 scientists in the emails (early 2000) as making comments saying they suspect unnatural origin: Jeremy Farrar, Mike Farzan, Andrew Rambaut, Eddie Holmes, and Bob Garry. 4 of those 5 are authors on that 2021 review that endorses a zoonotic origin.

The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review - Cell

The fifth is Farzan, but I haven't been able to find anything from him saying anything publicly one way or the other about it since.

Here's an interview with another scientist who also suspected unnatural origin, and he talks about what changed his mind.

Lab-Leak Theory: Kristian Andersen On His Fauci Email and Covid Origins - The New York Times.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Reposting from post made back in June...

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses

Highlights

• Phylogenetic tree of spike proteins reveals major groups of coronaviruses.
• Furin cleavage sites at spike S1/S2 are common in coronaviruses.
• Furin cleavage sites at spike S1/S2 naturally occurred independently for multiple times in coronaviruses.

Abstract
The spike protein is a focused target of COVID-19, a pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. A 12-nt insertion at S1/S2 in the spike coding sequence yields a furin cleavage site, which raised controversy views on origin of the virus. Here we analyzed the phylogenetic relationships of coronavirus spike proteins and mapped furin recognition motif on the tree. Furin cleavage sites occurred independently for multiple times in the evolution of the coronavirus family, supporting the natural occurring hypothesis of SARS-CoV-2.

Graphical abstract
View attachment 33896

 

[crazyfingers]

ARGGG. I wish Coronavirus origins debate could be a different thread.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What do you mean they rejected it for non-scientific reasons? That first article names 5 scientists in the emails (early 2000) as making comments saying they suspect unnatural origin: Jeremy Farrar, Mike Farzan, Andrew Rambaut, Eddie Holmes, and Bob Garry. 4 of those 5 are authors on that 2021 review that endorses a zoonotic origin.

I did not say all of them, sorry if I gave the wrong impression. But yes, it seems that some virologists seem to have rejected the lab leaked hypothesis for apparently political reasons - unless they had personal reasons, but in any event, those are not scientific reasons.

You can find some info in this article; for example:

In his book Spike, Farrar portrays the events between the February 1 conference and publication of the two medical journal letters as a judicious process in which he held an agnostic view and played no role other than asking questions. “On a spectrum if 0 is nature and 100 is release—I am honestly at 50!” Farrar says he emailed to Fauci and Collins a day after the conference. But if that were honestly so, he fails to explain his switch from 50 to 0 when signing the Lancet letter a few days later.

According to Spike, it wasn’t until March, “after the addition of important new information, endless analyses, intense discussions and many sleepless nights” that Andersen and his four fellow virologists “were ready to pronounce on the origins of the novel coronavirus.” Why then was Andersen, the virologists’ leader, ready to pronounce just 3 days after the conference that lab release was a conspiracy theory? Farrar’s account does not match with the available facts.

It looks like Farrar rejected the lab leak hypothesis for non-scientific reasons. Whether he later also had scientific reasons (I doubt it, but even assuming so) would not change that.

I don't want to quote too much, but the article has more information if you're interested. If you prefer an article from people who reject the lab leak hypothesis, here is one. While I disagree with their assessment of the evidence in re: lab leak, I think they too give an interesting analysis of how the hypothesis was dishonestly silenced.