@pevaquark - Today i got the first word about clearing the deck for incoming COVID-19 related projects. I still don’t have data or questions in hand.
I came across this article the other day calling Christians to a higher standard:
5 Likes
As noted above, though, conspiracists will merely say, as they always do, we are the gullible ones.
1 Like
Right! They also call it legitimate concern, not conspiracy. They feel that “conspiracy” is an insulting term that implies they’re not being rational (“gullible” in Stetzer’s article).
The parallels to discussions with YEC are significant…yet a friend who believes WHO, CDC, Fauci and Gates are all corrupt and in cahoots is also an evolutionary creationist.
The breakthrough for my listening to evolution came in high school when my Christian teacher explained she was worried that I was cynical and unfair to the evidence. I realized it was a character flaw. Maybe explaining that slandering others is against the Bible would help…similar to Stetzer’s rebuke. I am not sure though. It takes tact. I have pretty much sworn off communicating via email about it, to avoid miscommunication.
3 Likes
The word ‘conspiracy’ is not a problem for the one whom I know. She even bought the idea several years back that the Germanwings suicide pilot was a Mossad kamikaze agent. Hoo boy. (It was promoted by an Islamist site called… are you ready for this… nodisinfo.com, now shut down.) And COVID-19 is caused by 5G towers.
She was a dear friend and is a Christian, and her Facebook page is a sad mix of conspiracist stuff and devotional quotes. She has had trauma in her marriage, and I think that helps explain the psychology of the affliction, but I don’t think I love enough nor am patient enough (nor wise enough) to pursue @LM77’s approach.
2 Likes
@LM77 you may laugh, but I broached the idea of the Socratic method with my conspiracy adhering friends, and they laughed and said that’s their method too–so we probably would get no where.
Such is life.
Just don’t drink any herbal wine they offer!
1 Like
Hi everyone. I am a first time poster here, however, a fairly long-time lurker. Some background about me: I actually purchased and read Dr. Francis Collins’ book The Language of God back in 2007 (hardcover), right after it first came out. I had become a Christian earlier that decade, and was excited to see that a noted scientist (the head of the NIH, no less) was offering a way to reconcile evolution and other biological truths with the Bible. While I didn’t come away completely convinced by his arguments, it was enough that for a number of years, I didn’t feel the need to look to closely into biblical reconciliation, and it felt re-assuring that a scientist of his caliber could take the Bible literally. In recent years, as I’ve grown in my faith, the issue of reading the Bible literally has come up again. In particular, with regards to whether we can take the book of Genesis literally, and secondly, whether the Flood was global or local? This forum has been very helpful as a few posters with deep scientific credentials have given some plausible theories on the likelihood of the local flood and why it can be reconciled with the biblical interpretation. So I am very indebted to this forum as its helped me to grow in my faith. As you can see, I am a big fan of finding evidence for claims (I am an academic and researcher) and if possible, will always try to find supporting evidence for things considered controversial.
However, the issue of the origins of the Coronavirus and whether or not it is a ‘conspiracy theory’ concerns me. In particular, on March 26, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ran a blog with the headline: “Genomic Study Points to Natural Origin of COVID-19″ and in the process, adamantly refuted any assertion that the virus came from non-natural origins.
Curious as to how the NIH could have come to this conclusion so quickly, I took the liberty to Google search the relationships between the NIH and gain of function research (note that gain of function refers to the controversial process of upgrading viruses in order to make them more transmissable and lethal to humans, though ostensibly for research and non-harmful purposes).
Well, guess what I found? I discovered this article from the New York Times, stating that in 2017, the Federal government had lifted its ban on ‘making’ viruses more lethal and dangerous. The article goes on to reference how there were efforts being made to add G-o-F capability to the flu virus, SARS, and MERS, the latter two of which are also coronaviruses similar to COVID-19:
A further detail, discovered in 2015: After scientists working at the UNC and Wuhan Institute of Virology successfully engineered a chimeric, SARS-like virus derived from bats that can easily transmit to humans, scientists around the world begin to question whether this sort of research should be continued:
In summary, if the NIH was funding this sort of research, wouldn’t it appear that at the very least, there may be some conflict of interest in having them to also objectively advise the American public on the origins and treatment of the virus?
Would appreciate any honest opinions on this, thanks and GB.
There are so many voices out there it gets confusing in a hurry. In regard to your initial question, I think they came to the conclusion it was natural quickly because gene sequencing is soreadily available and the sequence was found to be a close match in nature. Now, the question of if it was a natural virus that escaped from a lab is more problematic. I’m sure China knows the gene sequence of whatever bat coronaviruses it was studying, but whether that is ever shared may be doubtful.
As to your other concerns, it is tough running down the original articles on the pop science reports sited, and I am not sure I would reach those same conclusions as the writers. I’ll leave that discussion to someone else.
1 Like
Welcome!
Please would you clarify? Are you saying that if they are able to make a deadly virus, they can’t advise us on treatment on another one?
Or on where this one came from?
Would that not even be a greater strength?
What kind of vested interest would there be? I don’t understand.
Labs in hospitals grow all kinds of TB, etc in cultures. I’m a family doc who spent most of his time in inpatient wards, too.
I can’t think of a better place for testing of dangerous viruses than NIH. You could also ask Francis Collins himself at his website. https://directorsblog.nih.gov/
Glad to see you here. I am learning a lot, too.
Randy,
Appreciate your welcome!
I guess what I’m saying is, if no one knows for certain where COVID-19 came from, and they were able to make an earlier version of the coronavirus that COVID-19 is derived from, and that there would be big trouble for them if the masses found out that COVID-19 was based off of or derived from one of their designs, then wouldn’t the situation be a bit like the fox guarding the hen house? I’m not saying things happened this way, but it raises serious confict of interest issues for them. Sure, they could tell us how to treat it, fine. But to clarify, my question here is about the origins.
I will be sure to ask Francis Collins in his blog, that’s a good suggestion, thanks. Hopefully he will respond.
As for the original poster saying that there is no way the CDC could have known about COVID-19 beforehand, while I believe this is true, I will also say there is sizeable anecdotal evidence that they were playing around with GOFR for a long period of time beforehand. For example, the case in 2014 where CDC was experimenting with aerosolized anthrax and ended up infecting 84 of its own scientists:
This leads to the question, why engineer anthrax to become aerosolable in the first place? To guard against a threat that doesn’t already exist? Weren’t the 2001 anthrax attacks (which partly were used as justification for the Iraq War) later discovered as done by an in-house employee?
For that matter, why bother genetically engineering a “live” polio virus from chemical compounds (2002):
TRACES OF TERROR: THE SCIENCE; SCIENTISTS CREATE A LIVE POLIO VIRUS - The New York Times)
… or reconstruct the 1918 “Spanish Flu” virus (2005)?
…or create a highly pathogenic H5N1 (avian) influenza virus strains that is now airborne transmissible between ferrets as a model for transmission to humans? (2011)
What, exactly, is the point of this research?
What do you think that it is? Why do scientists risk their lives and wear cumbersome PPE every day?
I’m not following what you’re saying. There are lots of coronaviruses that are endemic to China and it’d be great if we could figure out a way to fight those viral reservoirs:
2 Likes
One of NIH’s tasks is to see what new viruses might evolve from animals and jump to our ranks (like Ebola, HIV, the Black Death, and the 1918 virus). There were unique elements of Black Death in the 1600s and the 1918 virus (I just read the article; I’m at work and will have to look it up for you) that explain why. They want to formulate new vaccines and ways to prevent that from happening. They do this every year with sampling influenza and other viruses, trying to get the right match for a vaccine. In fact, as a result of last year’s work, this year’s vaccine was particularly good (Paul Offit was involved in it as well;) and I will tell you that that has borne out in this year’s influenza batch. People who were vaccinated did particularly well in preventing influenza.
An equine virus from bats killed farmers in Australia a few years ago, but didn’t evolve to transmit from person to person. Hanta virus in the SW US comes from rodents to people, but not from person to person. It’s a really neat way of how things work–but the NIH does not do that to infect people (I don’t think that is what you’re saying). They all suffer from this, too.
You can track genetic variation over weeks and see what groups evolve from where. A cool Biologos article recently described how they discovered Covid had actually been around a bit before they realized it in Washington.
Thanks.
1 Like
Here’s an article that I found very clear and helpful. Thanks.
This is a VERY american dynamic. It says something
Welcome, SoGIA! It’s always nice to have new folks drop by the forum and ask interesting questions.
I was able to find this explanation on the NIH website:
Just a few mutations allow the avian H5N1 influenza virus to spread through the air, according to a new study. Another recent report found that 4 mutations and a genetic reassortment also enable airborne transmission. These insights will help researchers prepare for potential future flu pandemics.
In other words, the experiments helped the NIH prepare for a scenario in which H5N1 might acquire a few mutations in the wild and become a pandemic.
Why did they use ferrets?
ferrets … are considered the best influenza animal model.
But the ferrets were treated humanely.
None of the identified viruses were lethal to the ferrets after airborne transmission. The viruses were sensitive to the antiviral drug oseltamivir and also reacted well with antibodies from ferrets that had been vaccinated against H5N1 strains.
But don’t these studies create risks?
“Both of these studies provide important insight into how H5N1 could mutate into a potentially pandemic-causing virus,” says NIAID Dr. Director Anthony S. Fauci. “Their publication in full is of great benefit to the public health and far outweighs the potential risks.”
You asked about other NIH programs, @SonofGodIAm. I bet it wouldn’t take you much effort to Google the NIH site and get the answers you’re looking for.
Best,
Chris
1 Like
Excellent, thanks to everyone for your responses. I believe many of you are right, it is clear that the most likely point of this research was to work on a cure in the event that the virus in question mutated and could infect humans- getting in front of the curve, so to speak.
For example, with regards to the avian flu mentioned above, the NIAID has clearly stated the case for performing GOFR on it was to better assess the threat it posed:
“To better assess the pandemic threat posed by A(H7N9) viruses, investigators from the NIAID Centers of Excellence in Influenza Research and Surveillance and other expert laboratories in China and elsewhere have characterized the wild-type avian A(H7N9) viruses in terms of host range, virulence and transmission, and are evaluating the effectiveness of antiviral drugs and vaccine candidates. However, to fully assess the potential risk associated with these novel viruses, there is a need for further research, including experiments that may be classified as ‘gain of function’ (GOF).”
https://www.nature.com/articles/500150a
However, this didn’t indicate that the research wasn’t without controvery, hence the ban in 2013 by Obama:
“Such gain-of-function (GOF) experiments could help scientists better anticipate and prepare for pandemics. But critics worried that if such a lab virus were accidentally or deliberately released, it could spark a global outbreak.”
Nonetheless, in the past several years, we have already seen a lot of collaboration between US- and Chinese- researchers on GOFR on viruses, such as this one on the SARS-CoV:
Interesting to note, I just noticed in the Acknowledgments section at the bottom; this research was performed before the Obama ban began, nonetheless, it was approved for continued study by the NIH:
"Experiments with the full length and chimeric SHC014 recombinant
viruses were initiated and performed prior to the gain of function research funding pause and have since been reviewed and approved for continued study by NIH. "
So somehow, this research between UNC and Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists on adding GOF and transmissability to humans for the bat-derived SARS CoV got an exemption from the Obama ban, by the NIH, to be continued.
Lastly, we have evidence that mainland China had some shadow labs that allowed them to continue work originally performed in the US or under local collaboration with US teams:
"…Dr. McKinney said it appeared that researchers with well-funded “shadow labs” in China had been instructed not to disclose their existence to the N.I.H. because few did so.
This had two perverse effects. “Those scientists could have a competitive advantage over other people applying for N.I.H. funds because they had two labs doing the work of one,” Dr. McKinney said. “In addition, they could claim that the discoveries occurred in China, even if they were really a result of research originally performed in the U.S., and the Chinese lab could keep the ideas as trade secrets for further development.”
So, was there work being done by the disparate groups on a derivative virus in the past, and did the CCP scientists continue to work on it on their own in their own shadow labs? Were the shadow labs even further involved? In either case, it’s hard to say either way.
To summarize, does all of this combine to prove that the virus absolutely came from a lab in Wuhan? No, we can’t prove it. But does it present a case where it plausibly could have, without the knowledge of official overseers and former partners? I would think so, especially since no one can prove otherwise.
What boggles my mind, therefore, are the blanket denials we are seeing at many levels of officialdom, from the CCP government, to the CDC, to the mainstream media, as if it were an open and shut case. But how could anyone really know, especially when the CCP government hasn’t been cooperating in this area?
Can you see how a person could be skeptical of the official story?
My goal here is to do what is in accordance with Ephesians 5:11. I hope you can understand. You are all my respected brothers and sisters, as is Biologos, as is Dr. Collins, all of whom I truly and deeply respect and admire.
Thank you and in Love,
I think there are two questions: Is there any evidence that the virus was at all engineered by humans, that is to say “created” in a lab? The answer I have repeatedly seen to that question is no, it originated in nature. How do they know? By analyzing the genome.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext
The second question is whether the virus, as an object of study in a lab, could have infected workers and that was how it first spread to humans. The answer to this question appears to be “highly unlikely, but not provable.”
From the article linked above:
“If you do the math on this, it’s very straightforward. … We have hundreds of millions of bats in Southeast Asia and about 10 percent of bats in some colonies have viruses at any one time. So that’s hundreds of thousands of bats every night with viruses,” Daszak says. “We also find tens of thousands of people in the wildlife trade, hunting and killing wildlife in China and Southeast Asia, and millions of people living in rural populations in Southeast Asia near bat caves.”
Next, he says, consider the data he’s collected on people near bat caves getting exposed to viruses: “We went out and surveyed a population in Yunnan, China — we’d been to bat caves and found viruses that we thought could be high risk. So we sample people nearby, and 3 percent had antibodies to those viruses,” he says.
“So between the last two and three years, those people were exposed to bat coronaviruses. If you extrapolate that population across the whole of Southeast Asia, it’s 1 million to 7 million people a year getting infected by bat viruses.”
Compare that, he says, to what we know about the labs: “If you look at the labs in Southeast Asia that have any coronaviruses in culture, there are probably two or three and they’re in high security. The Wuhan Institute of Virology does have a small number of bat coronaviruses in culture. But they’re not [the new coronavirus], SARS-CoV-2. There are probably half a dozen people that do work in those labs. So let’s compare 1 million to 7 million people a year to half a dozen people; it’s just not logical.”
The lab in Wuhan was studying other bat coronaviruses in its research related to SARS-1, but SARS-1 and the other bat viruses they were studying were genetically very different from the one that causes COVID-19, and there is no evidence that the lab had cultures of SARS-CoV-2:
In 2020, they reported on a virus called RaTG13 that they’d discovered in a cave in Yunnan, China, in 2013. This virus shares 96 percent of its genome with the new coronavirus, which makes it the new virus’s closest known relative.
Some have speculated that perhaps the new coronavirus is derived from RaTG13. Yet virologists say it’s very unlikely: A 4 percent difference in genome is actually huge in evolutionary terms.
“The level of genome sequence divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is equivalent to an average of 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change,” said Edward Holmes, a professor at the University of Sydney who has published six academic papers this year on the genome and origin of SARS-CoV-2, in a statement. “Hence, SARS-CoV-2 was not derived from RaTG13.”
3 Likes
Good reading on the Vox link. I may share on my Facebook feed, but wonder. So much misinformation is posted, it tends to get lost in the shuffle. People are so polarized, and as you might expect, it seems to be economic. The most vocal posters tend to be those with businesses shut down or their employees in my friend list.
Our pastor discouraged people from posting unsubstantiated information, and it becomes a judgement call to decide if posting a legitimate article is beneficial or just feeds the fire. Still, it angers and depresses me to see some outlandish stuff posted and I feel it should be opposed. Not unlike the reaction I have to some of the YEC stuff. Sigh.
3 Likes