Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It did though. Animal origin only stopped being the most favored explanation because we haven't found the link in 5 years.


There was a nucleotide sequence in the covid strain that did not show up in any of the proposed hosts or progenitor viral sequences, which is where leaked documents showed NIH (Fauci included I believe) discussing the non-natural origin of the nucleotide sequence. It's possible to search for articles about the Fauci NIH emails, and whether they mean anything scandalous.

Here's a technical article at NIH discussing the theory of no known natural origin for a nucleotide subsequence

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8209872/


This is an open access journal by two people whose publication history you can look up if you want to draw your own conclusions. Read the disclaimer at the top of the link. Don’t bootstrap its credibility by linking it to being at NIH (which does mean something) anymore than saying something found on Google is from the company itself.


Don’t imagine any bootstrapping of credibility is stated. It’s a citation to one article of many with no assertion otherwise. That’s how science discussions work.


This is interesting, thanks for sharing.


I'm confused, do you mean the animal origin had no evidence either, but was favoured? But not having evidence for 5 years suddenly makes the other theory favoured instead?

So basically neither had real evidence, but one was favoured?


False equivalence. Zoonotic diseases have precedent (SARS, MERS) and SARS-CoV-2 most closely resembles BANAL-52, a bat Coronavirus.

Animal origin still seems more likely to me, but less than 5 years ago, since we have a missing link one would expect to see.


Animal origin does not contradict a lab leak however. Especially if you have a biolab studying coronaviruses in bats in the city identified as ground zero.

It does favor an accidental lab leak over a targeted weaponization and release, but it doesn't contradict a lab origin.


Coronavirus lab leaks in China also had precedent. What's your point?

There was no evidence for a zoonotic origin other than it was possible.

There was little evidence for a lab leak other than it was possible, but at least there was some.


That is not true at all. Some scientists at the time suspected a lab leak, talk of which was deliberately shut down.

"Dr Robert Redfield, who led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the Trump administration, told Vanity Fair that he received death threats from fellow scientists when he backed the Wuhan lab leak theory last spring. "I was threatened and ostracised because I proposed another hypothesis," Dr Redfield said. "I expected it from politicians. I didn't expect it from science."[1]"

The US State Department were told to not to explore claims of Gains of Function research:

"According to an investigation in Vanity Fair magazine published on Thursday, Department of State officials discussed the origins of coronavirus at a meeting on 9 December 2020. They were told not to explore claims about gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan lab to avoid attracting unwelcome attention to US government funding of such research, reports Vanity Fair.[2]"

We may never know the truth, but its clear that there was politics being played since the beginning of the pandemic to obscure the truth, and not just by China.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57352992

[2] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-...


A lot of careers are tied up in research that isn't gain of function officially, but sure looks like it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: