That’s not what they said.
“. . . we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”
The laboratory-based scenario is genetic modification in a lab. That is what they are saying is not plausible.
Talk about moving the goal posts. I wonder if in the 2700 times it’s been cited, it was ever treated as an opinion piece.
“In the above exchange, the health officials seem to be contemplating the possibility that the repeated passage of a coronavirus through genetically modified mice in an insufficiently secure lab could have resulted in the accidental emergence and release of SARS-CoV-2.”
I hope that I am wrong about this, but this is beginning to look desperate
What is beginning to look desperate? You are pulling bits and pieces for disparate parts of the paper and trying to act as if they one in the same. That is desperate.
This is what they said about passage of an unmodified virus in cell culture:
They didn’t rule it out. Instead, they think a natural origin is a better (i.e. more parsimonious) explanation. They also give their reasons why they think passage in cell culture is a poor explanation:
“. . . we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”
If anything you can blame it on the reviewers for not not catching a poorly written statement
We can blame it on the people who pulled a partial sentence out of context and misrepresented the intent of the authors. In context, the intent and meaning is very clear.
That is something that will be better judged with time
You can judge for yourself right now by reading the paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
It appears that you are looking at other articles that only talk about the paper. Why not read the paper itself?
I read parts of it, and it’s a matter of personal judgement how “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible," should be read in light of the emails.
It’s a letter to the editor – ‘Correspondence’, in Nature’s terminology. Such pieces may be peer reviewed but needn’t be and do not present primary research. So yes, it’s pretty much a scientific opinion piece.
1 Like
And cited 2700 times as opinion?
You are imposing your own conspiratorial thinking onto the words. What you are trying to claim just doesn’t exist in the paper.
What they are CLEARLY stating is that it is not plausible that SARS-CoV-2 is the product of either direct genetic manipulation or the product of long passage in cell culture in a lab. They are NOT saying that it is implausible that an unmodified virus leaked from the lab. That’s what the words of the paper say.
Why not? I’m an author of an opinion piece in Nature on a much less controversial subject that’s been cited 173 times.
1 Like
That’s probably what I don’t understand in relation to what they wrote about the repeated passage of a coronavirus through genetically modified mice in an insufficiently secure lab.
Was this actually ruled out?
Their reasoning can be summed up in four points:
-
It would have taken a lot of work to adapt SARS-CoV-2 to humans, and none of that work has been described by anyone nor has any preliminary work been published.
-
Any animal models would have had to use ACE2 receptors very similar to humans which rules out common lab species. They mention that the S protein does fit mink ACE2 quite well, but no one is using minks as a lab animal.
-
Specific features are much more likely to have been selected for by an immune system which would not have existed in human cell culture.
-
The same types of adaptations are known to have happened in nature.
You may also want to read the last paragraph:
3 Likes
Thank you. I’ll take your word for it at this point.
Two years ago, and even last year, people were claiming that the idea that Covid came from a lab leak was a “fantasy word,” akin to believing the moon landing was faked.
Maybe helpful:
- Natural immunity offers little protection compared to vaccination
- Masks even cloth masks prevent transmission
- School closure reduced covid transmission
- Myocardititis from vaccine is less common than from the infection
- Young people benefit from a vaccine booster
- Covid originating from the wuhan lab is a conspiracy theory and we have proof of a natural origin
- It was important to get the second vaccine dose three to four weeks after the first dose
- Data on the bivalent vaccine is crystal clear
- One in five people get long covid and the vaccine prevents long covid
- Vaccine prevents transmission and infection
- There are few if any vaccine injuries which the vaccine manufacturers have no liability for injury ever.
- The vaccine is safe and effective and there were no adverse contraindications events found in the FDA submissions
- For kidsand young adults the benefits outweigh the risk from repeated vaccine and don’t need long term safety data
- All cause mortality is not above average
- There is no association of vitamin D levels and Covid outcomes
- There is no association with BMI and Covid outcomes
- There is about a 2 percent fatality rate across all ages
- Remdesivir is effective and safe treatment.
- The government would not mandate vaccine
- Ivermectin is a dangerous horse dewormer
- One million people died from covid and none of these died with covid.
- Our NIH didn’t support gain of function work and didn’t fund Sars gain of function at the Wuhan lab or eco health.
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Two years ago, the idea of a lab leak was an unfounded accusation, and it remains so today.
3 Likes