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.
The very fact that you are closed minded and refer to the possibility of a lab leak as "conspiracy" proves that you are not a scientist.
"Scientists take biosafety and public concerns seriously"
Stop lying.
https://www.propublica.org/article/near-misses-at-unc-chapel-hills-high-security-lab-illustrate-risk-of-accidents-with-coronaviruses
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11323677/Outrage-Boston-University-CREATES-Covid-strain-80-kill-rate.html
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.