The idea that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab leak is certainly a plausible one, but I think it's far more likely that the leak was from an accident/negligence than some grand conspiracy that China was...
The idea that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab leak is certainly a plausible one, but I think it's far more likely that the leak was from an accident/negligence than some grand conspiracy that China was working on a bioweapon.
Where China does deserve the blame is in how they handled the initial outbreak. The country should have locked down much sooner, and it wasn't until after Chinese New Year that any talks of a lockdown were even there. Also, covering up the outbreak and prosecuting journalists for informing the public that maybe there's a deadly virus spreading is a bad idea.
Honestly, I'm kind of upset that this story was published. It doesn't benefit the public to know about this. In fact, it just gives more fuel to the "chinese bioterrorism" theorists - the worst of...
Honestly, I'm kind of upset that this story was published. It doesn't benefit the public to know about this. In fact, it just gives more fuel to the "chinese bioterrorism" theorists - the worst of humanity.
Unless there is actual proof of Covid being a bioweapon, there's literally no reason to investigate the lab leak hypothesis. The best excuse I've seen for investigating if that happened is to improve lab safety, but if that were the case then it shouldn't really be an American agency doing the investigation, and even if this happened on US soil it shouldn't be the CIA!
Everything about this just makes the world a worse place to live in. As others have pointed out, the real takeaway everyone should have gotten about the origins of Covid should have long ago settled on "I don't know". But honestly, the news as it is today seems to exist entirely to prevent people from being OK with not knowing things. They don't follow up on stories when they get cold except when it's divisive, in which case they will harp on it for years to make those divisions fester. There was a time when I was considering journalism as a career, but in the proceeding years I have come to realize that in spite of the noble intentions of journalists, they just seem to make things worse.
It’s entirely possible for Covid—19 to have been a virus of natural origin and to have leaked from the WIV. All it takes is an exhaust air filter that wasn’t replaced, a malfunctioning effluent...
It’s entirely possible for Covid—19 to have been a virus of natural origin and to have leaked from the WIV. All it takes is an exhaust air filter that wasn’t replaced, a malfunctioning effluent decontamination tank, or a lab employee who was sickened due to poor biosafety practices.
As for the why this would be important: it would emphasize the need to improve safety culture at BSL-3/4 laboratories (potentially to the level of nuclear power plants), and possibly to relocate them away from major metro areas (most such labs in the U.S. are located in major urban areas, including Boston, Greater Houston, San Antonio, Atlanta, and Metro DC)
If I could push back some. As a former research scientist in epidemiology and biostatistics, every dimension of the pandemic is interesting to study and useful to advancing the state of our...
If I could push back some.
As a former research scientist in epidemiology and biostatistics, every dimension of the pandemic is interesting to study and useful to advancing the state of our knowledge about many things. More importantly, understanding as much as we can about this global phenomenon are crucial to responding more effectively to the next one.
It's unfortunate that politics has played such a role in this pandemic, but that's a function of humanity in general. This particular story, however, is not strictly political. As TFA and my first post pointed out, the origins, and much of the research effort, involved in this conclusory shift was completed under Biden.
It's a very important question to answer about how, where, and whether we should perform high-risk science. No relevant data should be excluded or occluded, and no plausible, meaningful idea left unexplored.
Edit: I'll add, it is important to be honest and humble about the level of our knowledge. There is no such thing as certainty in any endeavor, and you're right that it serves no good purpose to pretend we have an answer when we don't. However, debate and inquiry should proceed on an issue as important as this (which is literally life and death).
I don’t have an issue with scientific curiosity. But this is very clearly not an issue motivated strictly by scientific curiosity. If I were to guess - which, to be fair, we have no real...
I don’t have an issue with scientific curiosity. But this is very clearly not an issue motivated strictly by scientific curiosity. If I were to guess - which, to be fair, we have no real barometers into the minds of the people in charge here - I would think that the motivations are much more likely to be political than scientific.
Having this happen under Biden doesn’t mean a thing. A president being in office doesn’t mean that everyone in government magically adopts all of their ideals, even if the people at hand are appointees. And once again, keep in mind that the agency we are talking about is the CIA. They are not a public health agency. They do not exist to help public health; they exist to protect the state. That makes their actions inherently political.
Beyond that I don’t think “politics” is an accurate description of the things that are bothering me about this story. It’s not the politics that bother me insomuch as the social implications - the people who will be encouraged and discouraged by it. That’s why I’m almost more disappointed in the publication of the story rather than the actions that it describes.
I feel that I could agree with you that this is an issue that is important to have debate and inquiry about, but certainly not the way things are now. This is not something that the laymen who read this story should be involved in. They do not have the understanding and experience to meaningfully contribute anything to it, and only make such processes worse, making conclusions inaccurate - or perhaps more realistically, impossible. This is something I do not think there will ever be a socially settled answer for. The people who think this is a lab leak or a bioweapon will be likely to continue to think that until the day they die.
Further, the CIA being involved in this is an inversion of how such conversations should be handled. The CIA has long been involved in swaying countries and groups into taking specific actions or believing certain things - counterintelligence. They have been involved in unethical medical research in the past - see MKUltra. They are not a trustworthy source for the kind of thing you want to see happen.
These are all good points, and after considering them, I'm forced to agree that the NYT times reporting at least is suspect, and also probably the CIA, but . . . I think it would actually be the...
These are all good points, and after considering them, I'm forced to agree that the NYT times reporting at least is suspect, and also probably the CIA, but . . .
I think it would actually be the proper role of the CIA to ascertain the date that China and other actors have hidden, obfuscated, altered, etc. And also to analyze and hopefully disseminate it so we could do the really useful, human-protective work of figuring out what really did happen and resolve it.
I’m with ~Akir on this for the most part. Totally plausible it was a leak. Totally transparent (to me) this is FUD because it’s the NYT reporting on information provided by the CIA! If this were...
Totally plausible it was a leak. Totally transparent (to me) this is FUD because it’s the NYT reporting on information provided by the CIA!
If this were The Public Heath Journal from the Asian-American Infectious Disease Review citing data from some other peer-reviewed study with links and whatnot… (fully made up Journal and panel name, but you get the gist) Then one can look at the credentials and do some due diligence.
This is straight up anti-China propaganda IMO.
It reminds me of the joke or line from some movie I quoted to a couple of Fox News watchers I’m related to:
You know the difference between Russians and Americans?
Russians know their news is propaganda.
At least the NYT is being stupidly transparent about it.
It's the difference between figuring out from a scientific angle the source of the virus and the political angle. It'd be great for science to know so policy can improve (though personally I'm...
It's the difference between figuring out from a scientific angle the source of the virus and the political angle. It'd be great for science to know so policy can improve (though personally I'm pretty convinced about the natural evolution, I don't think lab leak makes sense). But this is the CIA, and regardless when it started, what's being released is happening in this current moment at the orders of the current administration, not by happenstance. So it's politics.
If I don't trust this administration why would I trust this?
There was a weird sort of scientism that outright rejected any lab leak hypotheses because crackpots ran with conspiracy theories. I was guilty of some of it myself at one point, but it's been...
There was a weird sort of scientism that outright rejected any lab leak hypotheses because crackpots ran with conspiracy theories. I was guilty of some of it myself at one point, but it's been interesting seeing the estimated timelines (from September to December with an estimated 5% error, by one paper) for when it actually started. Researchers are still not 100% on the origins, since even the wet market hypothesis has some gaps that need filling. There was an Italian researcher who, IIRC, was working to pinpoint the specific alleged cave that the virus may have come from, but that didn't pan out AFAIK.
Thank you so much for validating this point. It was so frustrating to me how otherwise smart people couldn’t even entertain the notion of a lab leak or separate lab leak/natural origin from...
Thank you so much for validating this point. It was so frustrating to me how otherwise smart people couldn’t even entertain the notion of a lab leak or separate lab leak/natural origin from bioweapon claims. It was an awful time in so many ways though to be sure.
The problem is that claims of a lab leak had zero evidence. “There is a lab nearby” is a relevant fact, but it is not evidence. People just claimed whatever fit in their mind, while scientists...
The problem is that claims of a lab leak had zero evidence. “There is a lab nearby” is a relevant fact, but it is not evidence.
People just claimed whatever fit in their mind, while scientists were explaining how and why things were happening.
Some people did just claim whatever fit in their mind, that is true. However, that doesn't mean that sober people can't or shouldn't explore all relevant lines of inquiry. As the maxim goes,...
Some people did just claim whatever fit in their mind, that is true.
However, that doesn't mean that sober people can't or shouldn't explore all relevant lines of inquiry. As the maxim goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm also wary of claims of absolute claims like "zero." Proximity of a lab that is performing research on viruses remarkably similar to covid19 to earliest identified cases is not conclusive, but it is inferential evidence that warrants a close look.
But my complaint was not about people challenging conclusions being made based purely on speculation. Instead, people categorically excluded any line of inquiry regarding the lab with an almost religious fervor. In light of the extensive trove of data deliberately removed from view, there is not anywhere close to sufficient evidence for natural origins to exclude alternate possibilities. That said, weakness in the data under review doesn't automatically exclude it either. As was said above, the real answer (based on publicly available information) right now is "we don't know, but it the natural origin model has some supporting evidence."
I imagine someone working there looking to make a few bucks under the table by selling previously infected animals (for lunch or pets or livestock) instead of destroying them like they were...
I imagine someone working there looking to make a few bucks under the table by selling previously infected animals (for lunch or pets or livestock) instead of destroying them like they were supposed to do. Probably got away with it for a long time too.
I still don't see anyone answering the question of why any gain of function research is allowed to take place within one hundred miles of any city, town, or village. It should be going on in antarctica or the sahara or a remote island where the bugs (and any escaped animals) die rapidly in the outside environment and have nothing around the site to infect in the first place. The only proper place to do this safely is where there are no streets outside for miles in every direction.
All the labs are still located in cities. This tells me that no one has ever taken this issue seriously. I guess a legit pandemic is not enough of an inconvenience to make changes in how this research is managed. It doesn't matter if it did or did not leak from a lab - the possibility that it could should not even be in the cards by virtue of the containment protocols used.
I was going to say "These sorts of events are pretty rare" but wanted to be sure and... boy was I wrong. It's not even due to any specific country's lax attitudes toward lab protocols, and most...
I was going to say "These sorts of events are pretty rare" but wanted to be sure and... boy was I wrong. It's not even due to any specific country's lax attitudes toward lab protocols, and most are in the US. Usually these breaches happen because of some random breakdown of existing controls.
Which is to say I'm in full agreement, but the problem is an unidentified exposure incident, which these typically are, doesn't really limit the risk. An uncaught patient zero can still wreak havoc on a large population.
Well, I do think it would be pretty easy to put everyone coming into and out of the facility into a mandatory two week quarantine individually - a trailer or cabin or other small domicile on site...
Well, I do think it would be pretty easy to put everyone coming into and out of the facility into a mandatory two week quarantine individually - a trailer or cabin or other small domicile on site yet isolated. Being locked up for two weeks after you arrive at the lab, and for two weeks after you get out but before you leave the site, would prevent humans from being able to accidentally carry pathogens into the general population. Sure, it sucks for the researchers, but that's why we pay them more money to work in desolate places even now. The teams that rotate into and out of antartica already are a fine example of how to do it like this without burning out your people.
I get what you're going for, but it's probably worth pointing out that the arctic circle (siberia) is known to have many frozen bodies of reindeer contaminated with Anthrax, and which have...
It should be going on in antarctica.... where the bugs (and any escaped animals) die rapidly in the outside environment and have nothing around the site to infect in the first place
I get what you're going for, but it's probably worth pointing out that the arctic circle (siberia) is known to have many frozen bodies of reindeer contaminated with Anthrax, and which have infected humans as the region warms as of late. It has survived in the corpses for more than 70 years and can still be lethal.
There’s some practical reasons for this. One is supplies and infrastructure, although that is manageable for a price. Another is attracting talent to work in that environment. Many might do that...
There’s some practical reasons for this. One is supplies and infrastructure, although that is manageable for a price. Another is attracting talent to work in that environment. Many might do that short term for the right compensation, but finding qualified researcher who probably want to have families…
I'm right there with you. While lab leak doesn't necessarily mean ulterior motives I think that's how most people willr ead it nowadays. I think it was just like most workplaces. Complaceny set...
I'm right there with you. While lab leak doesn't necessarily mean ulterior motives I think that's how most people willr ead it nowadays. I think it was just like most workplaces. Complaceny set it, some rules weren't followed, and bam accidental release.
But yes the after effects of how china and the US handled it were shameful for both.
Couple that with and it feels like a lame attempt at justifying hostilities with China.
Couple that with
Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas and the new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has long said he thought the pandemic originated in one of the Wuhan labs and praised the shift in judgment by the agency.
“Now the most important thing is to make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world,” Mr. Cotton said.
and it feels like a lame attempt at justifying hostilities with China.
Also worth mentioning that unlike the framing, John Ratcliffe is not some new guy inheriting the report. He and David Asher are the source of many unsubstantiated claims, some in direct conflict...
Also worth mentioning that unlike the framing, John Ratcliffe is not some new guy inheriting the report. He and David Asher are the source of many unsubstantiated claims, some in direct conflict with the IC.
He has believed it was engineered by China from the start (claims he found out about sick workers in October 2019), and it would be putting it politely to say he has been shown to be unreliable in his career.
He's also who the Heritage Foundation tapped for Project 2025's recommendations for reforming the intelligence community, the focus of which is unsurprisingly about countering China.
Right? I feel like we're definitely skipping a couple steps on the journey between "low confidence" and "fragmentary and incomplete" to "make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world".
Right? I feel like we're definitely skipping a couple steps on the journey between "low confidence" and "fragmentary and incomplete" to "make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world".
Maybe a dash of distraction from the brewing H5N1 time bomb, which we know full well started and went zoonotic on US farms. I have little confidence in this country's ability to contain it at this...
Maybe a dash of distraction from the brewing H5N1 time bomb, which we know full well started and went zoonotic on US farms.
I have little confidence in this country's ability to contain it at this point, and certain characteristics could make it a risk far worse than COVID, with the current administration already basically taking the NIH out of play and withdrawing from the WHO.
Byline: I’m as suspect of Trump as anybody, and similarly the CIA under any administration. But broken clock and twice a day etc. My review of the published reports does not indicate that the...
Byline:
A new analysis that began under the Biden administration is released by the C.I.A.’s new director, John Ratcliffe, who wants the agency to get “off the sidelines” in the debate.
I’m as suspect of Trump as anybody, and similarly the CIA under any administration. But broken clock and twice a day etc.
My review of the published reports does not indicate that the natural origins theory is more likely or somehow scientifically validated. I think it’s best to say that most analyses of available data align with a model of natural origin and pandemic epicenter centered on the market. A glaring error in judment when accepting this consensus as reflective of reality is discounting the extensive data intentionally obscured by the Chinese government.
I have been saddened by the dogmatic resistance to human-agent origins among the nerd class. It’s certainly a shift from a generation or two previously. I call it the Y-files problem, after the 90’s show the X-files, when most among the technically inclined were skeptical of institutional motivations[1] and open to exploring, still skeptically, alternative explanations of phenomena. This shift probably happened, or perhaps climaxed, when Art Bell retired.
My one ask to anyone inclined to respond to this: please distinguish between the various models accurately and precisely:
totally natural orgin: virus evolved in nature, traveled to market by organic means, jumped to humans
natural origin, accidental leak: lab was studying natural virus which accidentally escaped probably to the market
natural origin, intentional deployment
technical origin, accidental leak: lab performed ‘gain of function’ technique or equivalent on the virus
technical origin, intentional deployment: aka the Three Body Problem model (in the book, maybe the second one in the series? Some bad agency’s solution to a tricky assassination is to devise a virus which is lethal only to their target, and for everyone else completely harmless but very contagious, which quickly spreads to the few people who interact with the target and infect him.
p.s. There might be a realpolitik reason for pretending to the natural origin nature of the virus. I just long for a space where we don’t have to pretend to buy into it, and can discuss it’s merits directly.
p.p.s. please note I did not include a politics tag, as the agency began developing this position while Biden was still president
[1] I understand there is debate around institutions, and am personally moving cautiously toward a more conservative position: Institutions are very valuable to making the world a more pleasant place to be, but only when they are subject to a high degree of porosity, transparency, and accountability.
I think the origin debate is an example where we don't have a smoking gun, and there are two plausible theories, so people can choose whichever theory they understand best or which validates their...
I think the origin debate is an example where we don't have a smoking gun, and there are two plausible theories, so people can choose whichever theory they understand best or which validates their world view. Barring someone having access to private information, all someone should really be able to say is "I think A, but can't rule out B." However, given the age we are in, people would rather fight tooth and nail than admit uncertainty.
It’s a good litmus test for whether someone can be trusted to think critically. The average person has done 0 research on the subject. They’ve just read an article, seen a news segment, or heard...
It’s a good litmus test for whether someone can be trusted to think critically. The average person has done 0 research on the subject. They’ve just read an article, seen a news segment, or heard gossip. So if they’re certain of one or the other they’re displaying their ignorance.
Agreeing with @krellor. Until some really solid evidence is found, I think these are both reasonable positions: In favor of some kind of lab leak, but not ruling out that it could be of natural...
Agreeing with @krellor. Until some really solid evidence is found, I think these are both reasonable positions:
In favor of some kind of lab leak, but not ruling out that it could be of natural origin
In favor of natural origin, but not ruling out a lab leak
And the only difference is which scenario you emphasize.
Another, even more reasonable position, is "gosh, I haven’t the faintest", which saves time, but many people have a hard time with that. (Including me.)
Everything scientific (i.e., from people who actually understand virology and whatnot) that I have seen states that it's extremely improbable that it was manmade because it's clearly just a jumble...
Everything scientific (i.e., from people who actually understand virology and whatnot) that I have seen states that it's extremely improbable that it was manmade because it's clearly just a jumble of random mutations, including ones that make it less effective, and it doesn't really follow any patterns of engineered viruses.
That doesn't mean it couldn't have been in a lab, but it does also indicate that it would have been unlikely to have been intentionally deployed because there's no compelling reason to choose this virus over any other.
Yeah, this is where I stand as well. Full disclosure is that until recently I was working in microbiology/molecular genetics within a lab whose focus was pathogen surveillance through sequencing....
Yeah, this is where I stand as well. Full disclosure is that until recently I was working in microbiology/molecular genetics within a lab whose focus was pathogen surveillance through sequencing. Prior to COVID we were focused much more on Influenza surveillance and then very rapidly shifted to research of SARS-CoV-2. While I don't think its possible to say for certain it was definitely not a lab leak, I have a difficult time believing that was the cause for many reasons including what you mentioned above related to its genetics. The virus evolving in nature has always had more compelling evidence from where I was sitting. The fact that the CIA and gov agencies keep bringing up this lab leak concept definitely has raised its odds in my mind, because my assumption is that they are operating in good faith and have access to information I don't. But for the lab leak to be real also asks us to really consider that a lot more happened than just "virus got out of lab", and I have a hard time wrapping my mind around all those steps without it feeling like I am dipping into conspiracy.
I was convinced (and am finally justified) that it was not purely natural origin, and at least an unintentional lab leak. By not natural I don't mean making a bioweapon, but perhaps trying a...
I was convinced (and am finally justified) that it was not purely natural origin, and at least an unintentional lab leak. By not natural I don't mean making a bioweapon, but perhaps trying a little bit too hard to make already not great viruses even worse.
The US outsourcess this kind of research to China (other countries too)
They were going into bizarre Laotian caves to harvest bats that were particularly....capable of surviving with horrible viral infections (almost like the beginning of 90% of recent zombie/vampire movies)
Laos can't even keep it's food or water clean, let alone manage the transport of virus riddled bats
AdvChina had some interesting videos on researchers disappearing or being removed from the Wuhan research center's website
Pretty sure I had the exact same symptoms late in the previous year prior to COVID becoming news in January/February (just after CNY). Ended up not being able to return because China closed their borders.
Overall I'd say the US and China are equally to blame.
The idea that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab leak is certainly a plausible one, but I think it's far more likely that the leak was from an accident/negligence than some grand conspiracy that China was working on a bioweapon.
Where China does deserve the blame is in how they handled the initial outbreak. The country should have locked down much sooner, and it wasn't until after Chinese New Year that any talks of a lockdown were even there. Also, covering up the outbreak and prosecuting journalists for informing the public that maybe there's a deadly virus spreading is a bad idea.
Honestly, I'm kind of upset that this story was published. It doesn't benefit the public to know about this. In fact, it just gives more fuel to the "chinese bioterrorism" theorists - the worst of humanity.
Unless there is actual proof of Covid being a bioweapon, there's literally no reason to investigate the lab leak hypothesis. The best excuse I've seen for investigating if that happened is to improve lab safety, but if that were the case then it shouldn't really be an American agency doing the investigation, and even if this happened on US soil it shouldn't be the CIA!
Everything about this just makes the world a worse place to live in. As others have pointed out, the real takeaway everyone should have gotten about the origins of Covid should have long ago settled on "I don't know". But honestly, the news as it is today seems to exist entirely to prevent people from being OK with not knowing things. They don't follow up on stories when they get cold except when it's divisive, in which case they will harp on it for years to make those divisions fester. There was a time when I was considering journalism as a career, but in the proceeding years I have come to realize that in spite of the noble intentions of journalists, they just seem to make things worse.
It’s entirely possible for Covid—19 to have been a virus of natural origin and to have leaked from the WIV. All it takes is an exhaust air filter that wasn’t replaced, a malfunctioning effluent decontamination tank, or a lab employee who was sickened due to poor biosafety practices.
As for the why this would be important: it would emphasize the need to improve safety culture at BSL-3/4 laboratories (potentially to the level of nuclear power plants), and possibly to relocate them away from major metro areas (most such labs in the U.S. are located in major urban areas, including Boston, Greater Houston, San Antonio, Atlanta, and Metro DC)
I've mentioned that, and I listed reasons why I disagree with it.
If I could push back some.
As a former research scientist in epidemiology and biostatistics, every dimension of the pandemic is interesting to study and useful to advancing the state of our knowledge about many things. More importantly, understanding as much as we can about this global phenomenon are crucial to responding more effectively to the next one.
It's unfortunate that politics has played such a role in this pandemic, but that's a function of humanity in general. This particular story, however, is not strictly political. As TFA and my first post pointed out, the origins, and much of the research effort, involved in this conclusory shift was completed under Biden.
It's a very important question to answer about how, where, and whether we should perform high-risk science. No relevant data should be excluded or occluded, and no plausible, meaningful idea left unexplored.
Edit: I'll add, it is important to be honest and humble about the level of our knowledge. There is no such thing as certainty in any endeavor, and you're right that it serves no good purpose to pretend we have an answer when we don't. However, debate and inquiry should proceed on an issue as important as this (which is literally life and death).
I don’t have an issue with scientific curiosity. But this is very clearly not an issue motivated strictly by scientific curiosity. If I were to guess - which, to be fair, we have no real barometers into the minds of the people in charge here - I would think that the motivations are much more likely to be political than scientific.
Having this happen under Biden doesn’t mean a thing. A president being in office doesn’t mean that everyone in government magically adopts all of their ideals, even if the people at hand are appointees. And once again, keep in mind that the agency we are talking about is the CIA. They are not a public health agency. They do not exist to help public health; they exist to protect the state. That makes their actions inherently political.
Beyond that I don’t think “politics” is an accurate description of the things that are bothering me about this story. It’s not the politics that bother me insomuch as the social implications - the people who will be encouraged and discouraged by it. That’s why I’m almost more disappointed in the publication of the story rather than the actions that it describes.
I feel that I could agree with you that this is an issue that is important to have debate and inquiry about, but certainly not the way things are now. This is not something that the laymen who read this story should be involved in. They do not have the understanding and experience to meaningfully contribute anything to it, and only make such processes worse, making conclusions inaccurate - or perhaps more realistically, impossible. This is something I do not think there will ever be a socially settled answer for. The people who think this is a lab leak or a bioweapon will be likely to continue to think that until the day they die.
Further, the CIA being involved in this is an inversion of how such conversations should be handled. The CIA has long been involved in swaying countries and groups into taking specific actions or believing certain things - counterintelligence. They have been involved in unethical medical research in the past - see MKUltra. They are not a trustworthy source for the kind of thing you want to see happen.
These are all good points, and after considering them, I'm forced to agree that the NYT times reporting at least is suspect, and also probably the CIA, but . . .
I think it would actually be the proper role of the CIA to ascertain the date that China and other actors have hidden, obfuscated, altered, etc. And also to analyze and hopefully disseminate it so we could do the really useful, human-protective work of figuring out what really did happen and resolve it.
I’m with ~Akir on this for the most part.
Totally plausible it was a leak. Totally transparent (to me) this is FUD because it’s the NYT reporting on information provided by the CIA!
If this were The Public Heath Journal from the Asian-American Infectious Disease Review citing data from some other peer-reviewed study with links and whatnot… (fully made up Journal and panel name, but you get the gist) Then one can look at the credentials and do some due diligence.
This is straight up anti-China propaganda IMO.
It reminds me of the joke or line from some movie I quoted to a couple of Fox News watchers I’m related to:
You know the difference between Russians and Americans?
Russians know their news is propaganda.
At least the NYT is being stupidly transparent about it.
It's the difference between figuring out from a scientific angle the source of the virus and the political angle. It'd be great for science to know so policy can improve (though personally I'm pretty convinced about the natural evolution, I don't think lab leak makes sense). But this is the CIA, and regardless when it started, what's being released is happening in this current moment at the orders of the current administration, not by happenstance. So it's politics.
If I don't trust this administration why would I trust this?
There was a weird sort of scientism that outright rejected any lab leak hypotheses because crackpots ran with conspiracy theories. I was guilty of some of it myself at one point, but it's been interesting seeing the estimated timelines (from September to December with an estimated 5% error, by one paper) for when it actually started. Researchers are still not 100% on the origins, since even the wet market hypothesis has some gaps that need filling. There was an Italian researcher who, IIRC, was working to pinpoint the specific alleged cave that the virus may have come from, but that didn't pan out AFAIK.
Thank you so much for validating this point. It was so frustrating to me how otherwise smart people couldn’t even entertain the notion of a lab leak or separate lab leak/natural origin from bioweapon claims. It was an awful time in so many ways though to be sure.
The problem is that claims of a lab leak had zero evidence. “There is a lab nearby” is a relevant fact, but it is not evidence.
People just claimed whatever fit in their mind, while scientists were explaining how and why things were happening.
Some people did just claim whatever fit in their mind, that is true.
However, that doesn't mean that sober people can't or shouldn't explore all relevant lines of inquiry. As the maxim goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm also wary of claims of absolute claims like "zero." Proximity of a lab that is performing research on viruses remarkably similar to covid19 to earliest identified cases is not conclusive, but it is inferential evidence that warrants a close look.
But my complaint was not about people challenging conclusions being made based purely on speculation. Instead, people categorically excluded any line of inquiry regarding the lab with an almost religious fervor. In light of the extensive trove of data deliberately removed from view, there is not anywhere close to sufficient evidence for natural origins to exclude alternate possibilities. That said, weakness in the data under review doesn't automatically exclude it either. As was said above, the real answer (based on publicly available information) right now is "we don't know, but it the natural origin model has some supporting evidence."
I mean, it is some evidence, but not nearly enough on its own to conclude the lab leak theory is true.
I imagine someone working there looking to make a few bucks under the table by selling previously infected animals (for lunch or pets or livestock) instead of destroying them like they were supposed to do. Probably got away with it for a long time too.
I still don't see anyone answering the question of why any gain of function research is allowed to take place within one hundred miles of any city, town, or village. It should be going on in antarctica or the sahara or a remote island where the bugs (and any escaped animals) die rapidly in the outside environment and have nothing around the site to infect in the first place. The only proper place to do this safely is where there are no streets outside for miles in every direction.
All the labs are still located in cities. This tells me that no one has ever taken this issue seriously. I guess a legit pandemic is not enough of an inconvenience to make changes in how this research is managed. It doesn't matter if it did or did not leak from a lab - the possibility that it could should not even be in the cards by virtue of the containment protocols used.
I was going to say "These sorts of events are pretty rare" but wanted to be sure and... boy was I wrong. It's not even due to any specific country's lax attitudes toward lab protocols, and most are in the US. Usually these breaches happen because of some random breakdown of existing controls.
Which is to say I'm in full agreement, but the problem is an unidentified exposure incident, which these typically are, doesn't really limit the risk. An uncaught patient zero can still wreak havoc on a large population.
Well, I do think it would be pretty easy to put everyone coming into and out of the facility into a mandatory two week quarantine individually - a trailer or cabin or other small domicile on site yet isolated. Being locked up for two weeks after you arrive at the lab, and for two weeks after you get out but before you leave the site, would prevent humans from being able to accidentally carry pathogens into the general population. Sure, it sucks for the researchers, but that's why we pay them more money to work in desolate places even now. The teams that rotate into and out of antartica already are a fine example of how to do it like this without burning out your people.
I get what you're going for, but it's probably worth pointing out that the arctic circle (siberia) is known to have many frozen bodies of reindeer contaminated with Anthrax, and which have infected humans as the region warms as of late. It has survived in the corpses for more than 70 years and can still be lethal.
There’s some practical reasons for this. One is supplies and infrastructure, although that is manageable for a price. Another is attracting talent to work in that environment. Many might do that short term for the right compensation, but finding qualified researcher who probably want to have families…
I'm right there with you. While lab leak doesn't necessarily mean ulterior motives I think that's how most people willr ead it nowadays. I think it was just like most workplaces. Complaceny set it, some rules weren't followed, and bam accidental release.
But yes the after effects of how china and the US handled it were shameful for both.
Nothing to see here.
Couple that with
and it feels like a lame attempt at justifying hostilities with China.
Also worth mentioning that unlike the framing, John Ratcliffe is not some new guy inheriting the report. He and David Asher are the source of many unsubstantiated claims, some in direct conflict with the IC.
He has believed it was engineered by China from the start (claims he found out about sick workers in October 2019), and it would be putting it politely to say he has been shown to be unreliable in his career.
He's also who the Heritage Foundation tapped for Project 2025's recommendations for reforming the intelligence community, the focus of which is unsurprisingly about countering China.
Right? I feel like we're definitely skipping a couple steps on the journey between "low confidence" and "fragmentary and incomplete" to "make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world".
Maybe a dash of distraction from the brewing H5N1 time bomb, which we know full well started and went zoonotic on US farms.
I have little confidence in this country's ability to contain it at this point, and certain characteristics could make it a risk far worse than COVID, with the current administration already basically taking the NIH out of play and withdrawing from the WHO.
Byline:
I’m as suspect of Trump as anybody, and similarly the CIA under any administration. But broken clock and twice a day etc.
My review of the published reports does not indicate that the natural origins theory is more likely or somehow scientifically validated. I think it’s best to say that most analyses of available data align with a model of natural origin and pandemic epicenter centered on the market. A glaring error in judment when accepting this consensus as reflective of reality is discounting the extensive data intentionally obscured by the Chinese government.
I have been saddened by the dogmatic resistance to human-agent origins among the nerd class. It’s certainly a shift from a generation or two previously. I call it the Y-files problem, after the 90’s show the X-files, when most among the technically inclined were skeptical of institutional motivations[1] and open to exploring, still skeptically, alternative explanations of phenomena. This shift probably happened, or perhaps climaxed, when Art Bell retired.
My one ask to anyone inclined to respond to this: please distinguish between the various models accurately and precisely:
totally natural orgin: virus evolved in nature, traveled to market by organic means, jumped to humans
natural origin, accidental leak: lab was studying natural virus which accidentally escaped probably to the market
natural origin, intentional deployment
technical origin, accidental leak: lab performed ‘gain of function’ technique or equivalent on the virus
technical origin, intentional deployment: aka the Three Body Problem model (in the book, maybe the second one in the series? Some bad agency’s solution to a tricky assassination is to devise a virus which is lethal only to their target, and for everyone else completely harmless but very contagious, which quickly spreads to the few people who interact with the target and infect him.
p.s. There might be a realpolitik reason for pretending to the natural origin nature of the virus. I just long for a space where we don’t have to pretend to buy into it, and can discuss it’s merits directly.
p.p.s. please note I did not include a politics tag, as the agency began developing this position while Biden was still president
[1] I understand there is debate around institutions, and am personally moving cautiously toward a more conservative position: Institutions are very valuable to making the world a more pleasant place to be, but only when they are subject to a high degree of porosity, transparency, and accountability.
I think the origin debate is an example where we don't have a smoking gun, and there are two plausible theories, so people can choose whichever theory they understand best or which validates their world view. Barring someone having access to private information, all someone should really be able to say is "I think A, but can't rule out B." However, given the age we are in, people would rather fight tooth and nail than admit uncertainty.
It’s a good litmus test for whether someone can be trusted to think critically. The average person has done 0 research on the subject. They’ve just read an article, seen a news segment, or heard gossip. So if they’re certain of one or the other they’re displaying their ignorance.
Agreeing with @krellor. Until some really solid evidence is found, I think these are both reasonable positions:
And the only difference is which scenario you emphasize.
Another, even more reasonable position, is "gosh, I haven’t the faintest", which saves time, but many people have a hard time with that. (Including me.)
Saying "I don't know, I'm not an expert" or "I'm not familiar enough to have a closely held position" is an underrated skill.
Everything scientific (i.e., from people who actually understand virology and whatnot) that I have seen states that it's extremely improbable that it was manmade because it's clearly just a jumble of random mutations, including ones that make it less effective, and it doesn't really follow any patterns of engineered viruses.
That doesn't mean it couldn't have been in a lab, but it does also indicate that it would have been unlikely to have been intentionally deployed because there's no compelling reason to choose this virus over any other.
Yeah, this is where I stand as well. Full disclosure is that until recently I was working in microbiology/molecular genetics within a lab whose focus was pathogen surveillance through sequencing. Prior to COVID we were focused much more on Influenza surveillance and then very rapidly shifted to research of SARS-CoV-2. While I don't think its possible to say for certain it was definitely not a lab leak, I have a difficult time believing that was the cause for many reasons including what you mentioned above related to its genetics. The virus evolving in nature has always had more compelling evidence from where I was sitting. The fact that the CIA and gov agencies keep bringing up this lab leak concept definitely has raised its odds in my mind, because my assumption is that they are operating in good faith and have access to information I don't. But for the lab leak to be real also asks us to really consider that a lot more happened than just "virus got out of lab", and I have a hard time wrapping my mind around all those steps without it feeling like I am dipping into conspiracy.
I was convinced (and am finally justified) that it was not purely natural origin, and at least an unintentional lab leak. By not natural I don't mean making a bioweapon, but perhaps trying a little bit too hard to make already not great viruses even worse.
Overall I'd say the US and China are equally to blame.