I present here a partial record of over a century of biosafety regulations.
Not conceived and originated by politicians at the same time they were attacking the literal scientific work on COVID.
Guidelines NOT trotted out to discredit health research into making us dramatically healthier.
Guidelines not targeting people who said (oh, so correctly) that the President and his allies were promoting absolutely absurd lies about COVID cures.
Guidelines developed by years of consideration, long before the President declared he would get revenge against enemies and decimated the very US agencies that have done all the good work.
Rather, smart and evolving guidelines for the sensible conduct of research, to protect the scientists themselves and those who might be exposed to any mistakes.
There is no need for agitated insults and hate in the comments, especially when based on falsehoods. I think it is better to take a timeout and focus your energy on things that bring you joy in life.
Naw, the entire set of “lab leak” claims rest on the idea that a large group of Chinese and Americans *conspired* to hide their culpability. Without a conspiracy, there's no way that the truth wouldn't out from a culture where discovery and publication is paramount to success.
Thanks for this detailed explainer, Dr. Markolin, it's very helpful. I was confused why rather twitter-active scientists like Drs. Andersen and Worobey felt so strongly that these two 2022 studies presented such definitive evidence supporting zoonotic origins. The NYT article on their pre-prints helped a bit, but I was still confused. Your breakdown here gives a better explanation of the link I was missing. Specifically, it shows why Pekar et. al's analysis of the two lineages suggests to them the strong possibility of multiple spillovers in the market, which would foreclose the possibility of a lab leak. This helped to clarify things for me. Thanks!
Does anyone have a sense of why the WIV has not opened its research to scrutiny? Or why the PRC has failed to share the data from November 2019 pneumonia patients in Hubei hospitals and later SC2 genetic samples collected by Chinese researchers? At the very least, why has EcoHealth Alliance failed to disclose its pertinent records? It seems to me* that this would have put to rest any good faith suspicions, especially around the supposed "nefariousness" of the rejected DARPA proposal and the FOIA'd interior communications leading up to the March 2020 Proximate Origins letter.
*as the most casual of lay-people who knows nothing about virology or science
The unduly neglected #OneHealth approach is explained to a general audience in a 25-minute video produced by the Party for the Animals (a parliamentary party in the Netherlands).
The narrator is Marianne Thieme, a human rights lawyer and co-founder of the Party for the Animals. Produced in 2014. Called for a summit on veterinary public health, among other measures. Still relevant today.
“At biological research facilities across the United States and around the world, hundreds of safety breaches happen every year at labs experimenting with dangerous pathogens. ... yet the public rarely learns about these incidents...”
The WIV could have had a 100% leakage rate of all viruses they ever had, and it would still not make the "lab leak" hypothesis square with the body of evidence we have for a zoonotic origin.
Ok. Obviously I’m coming to this late via Tyler Cowen’s link to your more recent article. I only made it through section A but I will keep reading. It has been some time - do you still consider this post to be the best defense of the zoonotic origin? Or is there another review source I should also consider? I kept up with this topic until about half-way the through the pandemic (estimating at least 40% probability of some sort of lab involvement) and lost interest, would be interest in getting more up to date now. (I have some academic virology training from past work.)
While I'm a big fan of much of your work, the answer here depends on which viruses the lab actually had. Unless I'm missing something, a release of only two viruses could be consistent with the literature, no? (genuinely asking)
If this is the case, the situation all boils down to a question of trust. Performing a Bayesian analysis of the chances of whether or not these viruses were actually present (presumes that Shi Zhengli and the system that surrounds her lied), and what the chances of release were is now (after deliberate destruction and withholding of evidence) very challenging. The error bars would probably make any conclusions not meaningful.
Thank you for this excellent piece, which I'm so far, only into far enough to have seen,
“…in the end, a scientific question needs a scientific answer.”
True enough! And yet there are important related questions that Science CANNOT answer, such as “Why did Trump let Navarro promote hydroxychloroquine?”
The USA, like most(?) nations, employs National Security people, asks them to think like a paranoid, examine potentially-harmful futures to protect us. Their work is not unlike scientists exploring subjects where our understanding of mechanisms is poorly understood, even quite unknown.
Where by “due attention,” I mean a considered public hearing that includes all the relevant info, not simply a choice of Team A versus Team B.
NatSec possibilities and unknowns, raised by experts (!) in THEIR field, deserve due attention for public policy, because missed scenarios could be devastating. Any discussion about COVID origins that ignores NatSec concerns, *might* be focused on the most likely answer but will NOT include a very important aspect.
Not unlike you, I think, I have seen virtually NO information to support ANY of the “lab leak” hypotheses with anywhere near the strength of the zoonosis hypothesis. But until we have an honest broker in the White House who's willing to say, “here's how we're moving on for now,” my choice is only my choice, and we will continue to have literal conspiracy theories fighting against evidence.
I present here a partial record of over a century of biosafety regulations.
Not conceived and originated by politicians at the same time they were attacking the literal scientific work on COVID.
Guidelines NOT trotted out to discredit health research into making us dramatically healthier.
Guidelines not targeting people who said (oh, so correctly) that the President and his allies were promoting absolutely absurd lies about COVID cures.
Guidelines developed by years of consideration, long before the President declared he would get revenge against enemies and decimated the very US agencies that have done all the good work.
Rather, smart and evolving guidelines for the sensible conduct of research, to protect the scientists themselves and those who might be exposed to any mistakes.
https://www.mdpi.com/2813-8856/1/3/13#:~:text=In%20the%20early%201900s%2C%20laboratories,transmission%20in%20the%20lab%20setting.
Hope that helps dispel your confusion and/or trolling
There is no need for agitated insults and hate in the comments, especially when based on falsehoods. I think it is better to take a timeout and focus your energy on things that bring you joy in life.
Naw, the entire set of “lab leak” claims rest on the idea that a large group of Chinese and Americans *conspired* to hide their culpability. Without a conspiracy, there's no way that the truth wouldn't out from a culture where discovery and publication is paramount to success.
Thanks for this detailed explainer, Dr. Markolin, it's very helpful. I was confused why rather twitter-active scientists like Drs. Andersen and Worobey felt so strongly that these two 2022 studies presented such definitive evidence supporting zoonotic origins. The NYT article on their pre-prints helped a bit, but I was still confused. Your breakdown here gives a better explanation of the link I was missing. Specifically, it shows why Pekar et. al's analysis of the two lineages suggests to them the strong possibility of multiple spillovers in the market, which would foreclose the possibility of a lab leak. This helped to clarify things for me. Thanks!
Does anyone have a sense of why the WIV has not opened its research to scrutiny? Or why the PRC has failed to share the data from November 2019 pneumonia patients in Hubei hospitals and later SC2 genetic samples collected by Chinese researchers? At the very least, why has EcoHealth Alliance failed to disclose its pertinent records? It seems to me* that this would have put to rest any good faith suspicions, especially around the supposed "nefariousness" of the rejected DARPA proposal and the FOIA'd interior communications leading up to the March 2020 Proximate Origins letter.
*as the most casual of lay-people who knows nothing about virology or science
The unduly neglected #OneHealth approach is explained to a general audience in a 25-minute video produced by the Party for the Animals (a parliamentary party in the Netherlands).
Entitled “Zoonoses.” Link: https://www.onesingleplanet.nl/zoonoses/ .
The narrator is Marianne Thieme, a human rights lawyer and co-founder of the Party for the Animals. Produced in 2014. Called for a summit on veterinary public health, among other measures. Still relevant today.
“At biological research facilities across the United States and around the world, hundreds of safety breaches happen every year at labs experimenting with dangerous pathogens. ... yet the public rarely learns about these incidents...”
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/30/lab-leaks-shrouded-secrecy
The WIV could have had a 100% leakage rate of all viruses they ever had, and it would still not make the "lab leak" hypothesis square with the body of evidence we have for a zoonotic origin.
Ok. Obviously I’m coming to this late via Tyler Cowen’s link to your more recent article. I only made it through section A but I will keep reading. It has been some time - do you still consider this post to be the best defense of the zoonotic origin? Or is there another review source I should also consider? I kept up with this topic until about half-way the through the pandemic (estimating at least 40% probability of some sort of lab involvement) and lost interest, would be interest in getting more up to date now. (I have some academic virology training from past work.)
Depends on how deep you want to go; primary literature is always important.
While I'm a big fan of much of your work, the answer here depends on which viruses the lab actually had. Unless I'm missing something, a release of only two viruses could be consistent with the literature, no? (genuinely asking)
If this is the case, the situation all boils down to a question of trust. Performing a Bayesian analysis of the chances of whether or not these viruses were actually present (presumes that Shi Zhengli and the system that surrounds her lied), and what the chances of release were is now (after deliberate destruction and withholding of evidence) very challenging. The error bars would probably make any conclusions not meaningful.
Thank you for this excellent piece, which I'm so far, only into far enough to have seen,
“…in the end, a scientific question needs a scientific answer.”
True enough! And yet there are important related questions that Science CANNOT answer, such as “Why did Trump let Navarro promote hydroxychloroquine?”
The USA, like most(?) nations, employs National Security people, asks them to think like a paranoid, examine potentially-harmful futures to protect us. Their work is not unlike scientists exploring subjects where our understanding of mechanisms is poorly understood, even quite unknown.
Where by “due attention,” I mean a considered public hearing that includes all the relevant info, not simply a choice of Team A versus Team B.
NatSec possibilities and unknowns, raised by experts (!) in THEIR field, deserve due attention for public policy, because missed scenarios could be devastating. Any discussion about COVID origins that ignores NatSec concerns, *might* be focused on the most likely answer but will NOT include a very important aspect.
Not unlike you, I think, I have seen virtually NO information to support ANY of the “lab leak” hypotheses with anywhere near the strength of the zoonosis hypothesis. But until we have an honest broker in the White House who's willing to say, “here's how we're moving on for now,” my choice is only my choice, and we will continue to have literal conspiracy theories fighting against evidence.