Unfortunately, a lot of it is tainted by a pervasive and politically motivated anti-Chinese sentiment wrapped in a political movement obsessed with unfounded conspiracy theories.
4 Likes
Yes, I agree. Problem is that leads to sweeping a number of facts under the rug, which only provides further fuel for conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories fuel themselves and are impervious to facts. There are no facts supporting the release of SARS-CoV-2 from a lab in Wuhan.
3 Likes
Hmm, correct, but the question is whether the virus is created in a lab. The answer there is not entirely clear. It does not seem to clearly lie outside the realm of possibility:
- Fauci has been funding and promoting change of species research for awhile
- Wuhan lab, funded by the organization Fauci heads, has been involved in change of species research very close to sars-cov-2
- There is existing research showing that change of species can be generated in a lab through directed evolution
For some reason, Natureās debunking article ignores all this, and focuses exclusively on debunking the possibility sars-cov-2 was hand coded from a well known virus backbone. Anyone doing a bit of research can easily find out this is not the only way, and that directed evolution is actually associated with research relevant to the covid-19 outbreak.
I think defusing conspiracy theories would be much more effective if there was focus on debunking points 1-3 connection to sars-cov-2. I also think they should talk up Fauciās association with all this, b/c we can see he is a genius foreseeing this outbreak.
Thatās the language of unfounded conspiracy theories. Possibilities arenāt facts. There is no evidence that a close relative of SARS-CoV-2 was present in any lab and no evidence that any such virus was adapted to other species prior to its emergence. We do find very close relatives of the virus naturally occurring in species within the Wuhan region, which is a fact.
3 Likes
But the possibility is considered significant enough that Nature published a debunking article. All I am saying is if they want to really debunk the possibility, they should focus on the most plausible avenue of lab generation. Otherwise, conspiracy theorists easily repurpose the article as intentional obfuscation.
This also is a bit weird, given my NCBI database scan. The Wuhan lab has been around for a long time, since 1956, and have presumably been collecting samples since then.
So, it is still strange the samples picked up by the lab havenāt shown the upward slope. I do believe theyāve been contributing to the NCBI database before the outbreak.
How should they focus on it? What do you want them to do?
The conspiracy theory itself is a huge piece of intentional obfuscation. This is why you try to create links to Fauci, a popular piece of obfuscation in almost all hair brained COVID conspiracy theories.
Itās not strange at all.
1 Like
I donāt know much about the conspiracy theories. I try to stay away from them. I picked Fauciās connection up from this Newsweek article.
I just hope that there arenāt anymore new viruses to come out of this bat cave. It would be terrible if an terrorist group would get ahold of something like this or worse.
Since you both agree that there exists no evidence that shows that the virus was generated in a lab, Iām curious, and I guess others would be as well, what probability each of you would assign to the lab-created scenario. Just your own personal opinions.
I wouldnāt go that far. The information jump I posted further up in the thread is at least weird, especially when combined with the fact that very lab was previously involved in zoonotic jump research from bat coronavirus to human using directed evolution, which very well could have created sars-cov-2.
There are a lot of very strange facts surrounding this situation that can very easily be explained by a lab generated virus, and are harder to explain otherwise. But, we are all very hesistant to pin human responsibility for such a catastrophe, so that is why I withhold judgment. However, my personal probability is in the 90% percentile.
Note, I am not a trained professional in any of this. I am just a computer science guy with too much time on his hands, so take my personal opinion with a huge grain of salt.
1 Like
Thatās another strange thing. Why arenāt there a bunch of new human infectious viruses coming out of that cave, given how promiscuously viruses share all their genetic material, and how closely packed all those bats are?
Thanks, Eric, for your response. I tried to choose my italics carefully, but I think it would be fair to say that neither of you are claiming lab-creation as a fact. Thanks for your estimate, too.
2 Likes
Correct, definitely not a fact. Just a speculation at this point.
2 Likes
Well Michael. What do you think?
I think that both from nature or lab are theories. The definitive proof would to find it in nature.
It was incorrect misleading and possibly deceptive that tv show 60 minutes interviewed a scientist that basically said that the virus couldnāt have come from a lab because they could tell from backbone all the while ingnoring that the many gain of function studies from Baric and Wuhan lab. They could design this virus. The furin cleavage Site is difficult to explain. I am not saying that they did do this but they could. And bioweapon labs around the world are sophisticated and can do this as well. could you imagine a terrorist group or even country like North Korea doing this? T
1 Like
Conspiracy theories are still responsible for encouraging antimasking and the resulting suffering and death. Truth matters more than the mere conjectures made up by people who are mistrusting and the rumors they spread. What does Paul say about them in the epistles?
2 Likes
I agree we should be truthful transperant and forthcoming. To say that it could not have come from a lab was misleading at best and deceitful at worse. To not be transparent and truthful only leads people to conjecture that they are not being truthful and enhances the conspiracy theorist.
To make accusations and promoting conspiracist conjectures and rumors is constructive how? Letās ask someone who lost a loved one because of antimasking conspiracy theories.
ā¦, those who are easily led to counterproductive wasting of everyoneās time. Iām a bit upset because I saw a dear friend, a Christian, get consumed by conspiracy theories, and she still is, to the destruction of many relationships, not to mention her own usefulness for the Lord.