Man-made in a Wuhan lab?
#171
https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/huma...ndemic-threat/
An excerpt:
analysis circulated at the 2017 meeting for the Biological Weapons Convention, a conservative estimate shows that the probability is about 20 percent for a release of a mammalian-airborne-transmissible, highly pathogenic avian influenza virus into the community from at least one of 10 labs over a 10-year period of developing and researching this type of pathogen. This percentage was calculated from FSAP data for the years 2004 through 2010.
Analysis of the FOIA NIH data gives a much higher release probability—that is, a factor five to 10 times higher, based on a smaller number of incident reports.
While there is no obvious reason in the NIH data that would explain this high probability, exposures and latent (not-active) infections with M. tuberculosis was indicated in four incident reports. M. tuberculosis is not a select agent so incidents involving it would not necessarily be reported to the FSAP. Tuberculosis is highly contagious by the airborne route, so it might be easier to acquire a TB infection in the lab. Unfortunately, airborne TB infections might be a harbinger of what could occur in research on airborne-transmissible flu.
Facility-reported descriptions of the 11 relevant incidents are provided in the Supplementary Material (Appendix 2). Lab-acquired infections are often discovered some time after the incident occurred. Only for three were the causes confirmed to be human error. For the other eight, neither the infected lab workers nor facility officials knew how the infection occurred. While it is likely that human error was involved in many of these eight infections, their causes will never be known.
Analysis of the FOIA NIH data gives a much higher release probability—that is, a factor five to 10 times higher, based on a smaller number of incident reports.
While there is no obvious reason in the NIH data that would explain this high probability, exposures and latent (not-active) infections with M. tuberculosis was indicated in four incident reports. M. tuberculosis is not a select agent so incidents involving it would not necessarily be reported to the FSAP. Tuberculosis is highly contagious by the airborne route, so it might be easier to acquire a TB infection in the lab. Unfortunately, airborne TB infections might be a harbinger of what could occur in research on airborne-transmissible flu.
Facility-reported descriptions of the 11 relevant incidents are provided in the Supplementary Material (Appendix 2). Lab-acquired infections are often discovered some time after the incident occurred. Only for three were the causes confirmed to be human error. For the other eight, neither the infected lab workers nor facility officials knew how the infection occurred. While it is likely that human error was involved in many of these eight infections, their causes will never be known.
#172
We'll just have to disagree that the evidence is "overwhelming" at this point.
The challenge is how do we come to a definitive conclusion? Beg and plead Beijing to cooperate (they probably already know, either way)? Or use intel-style means to pry at the edges and hope we don't cause the CCP clam to close up tighter than it already is?
Occam's razor. Humanity has been subject to epidemics and pandemics for hundreds of thousands of years, and essentially all of it came from nature. So there's a precedent hinting that nature should not be ruled out.
Also the relevant science community has been warning of exactly such a natural outbreak (amplified by human mobility in the jet age) for years.
I did over three decades in the .mil, am not a socialist or Panda hugger by any means. Just trying to be an objective observer.
#173
So do you want to base your historical data on way back in 14 May, 1796 when Edward Jenner started playing with smallpox (and we know there have been multiple inadvertent releases of smallpox from laboratories and far more inadvertent spread of Vaccinia)? Or the 1880s when Pasteur was playing with rabies? Or even more recently when a lab error at the Cutter laboratories led to 40,000 cases of polio - with 200 kids paralyzed and 10 deaths? Or the SARS lab caused deaths the Chinese actually admit to?
I think if you use Occam’s razor with an appropriate timeframe it points directly TO the Wuhan lab. How many other laboratories with known and well documented deficiencies in their containment systems were actually playing with COVID-related viruses?
Whether it was inadvertent release of a natural virus under study or inadvertent release of an artificially modified (gain of function) virus remains to be seen, as does whether it will ever be provable either way.
#174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 704
And for what percentage of those hundreds of thousands of years have scientists actually been experimenting with viruses in laboratories? I mean, one can scarcely Occam’s razor those years when viral laboratories did not even exist, can you? That would be akin to saying the Apollo astronauts couldn’t have walked on the moon because in the hundreds of thousands of years before, no one had ever walked on the moon. If you are using Occam’s razor on a technical issue, you need to use only a timeframe when the technology existed to make the thing possible.
So do you want to base your historical data on way back in 14 May, 1796 when Edward Jenner started playing with smallpox (and we know there have been multiple inadvertent releases of smallpox from laboratories and far more inadvertent spread of Vaccinia)? Or the 1880s when Pasteur was playing with rabies? Or even more recently when a lab error at the Cutter laboratories led to 40,000 cases of polio - with 200 kids paralyzed and 10 deaths? Or the SARS lab caused deaths the Chinese actually admit to?
I think if you use Occam’s razor with an appropriate timeframe it points directly TO the Wuhan lab. How many other laboratories with known and well documented deficiencies in their containment systems were actually playing with COVID-related viruses?
Whether it was inadvertent release of a natural virus under study or inadvertent release of an artificially modified (gain of function) virus remains to be seen, as does whether it will ever be provable either way.
So do you want to base your historical data on way back in 14 May, 1796 when Edward Jenner started playing with smallpox (and we know there have been multiple inadvertent releases of smallpox from laboratories and far more inadvertent spread of Vaccinia)? Or the 1880s when Pasteur was playing with rabies? Or even more recently when a lab error at the Cutter laboratories led to 40,000 cases of polio - with 200 kids paralyzed and 10 deaths? Or the SARS lab caused deaths the Chinese actually admit to?
I think if you use Occam’s razor with an appropriate timeframe it points directly TO the Wuhan lab. How many other laboratories with known and well documented deficiencies in their containment systems were actually playing with COVID-related viruses?
Whether it was inadvertent release of a natural virus under study or inadvertent release of an artificially modified (gain of function) virus remains to be seen, as does whether it will ever be provable either way.
If you are fishing in a waterway in southern Georgia and catch an strange African Cichlid and there is a tropical fish hatchery in the area that in fact breeds hybrid tropical fish, it’s a good bet it came from said hatchery and did not spontaneously evolve in that creek.
The same can be said of this virus. The rules of logic at some point must point to this hypothesis, which probably can never be proved at this point, but would be the natural likely conclusion that applying the Occam’s Razor philosophy.
#175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,236
#176
Quite right, Occam's razor would point to an accidental leak from the Wuhan lab.
If you are fishing in a waterway in southern Georgia and catch an strange African Cichlid and there is a tropical fish hatchery in the area that in fact breeds hybrid tropical fish, it’s a good bet it came from said hatchery and did not spontaneously evolve in that creek.
If you are fishing in a waterway in southern Georgia and catch an strange African Cichlid and there is a tropical fish hatchery in the area that in fact breeds hybrid tropical fish, it’s a good bet it came from said hatchery and did not spontaneously evolve in that creek.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...me-from-nature
#177
But we weren't fishing in Georgia, coronaviruses are endemic in the wild in the wuhan region, and known potential vectors existed via the wet markets... that's WHY the wuhan lab is located where it is. Also that was how SARS got loose.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...me-from-nature
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...me-from-nature
The second time was human error.
that sort of reduces Occam’s razor to a coin flip.
#178
#179
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 936
#180
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,236
But we weren't fishing in Georgia, coronaviruses are endemic in the wild in the wuhan region, and known potential vectors existed via the wet markets... that's WHY the wuhan lab is located where it is. Also that was how SARS got loose.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...me-from-nature
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...me-from-nature
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post