Are people right to believe that COVID was from the Wuhan Laboratory?

Watch
username3962008
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
It appears to be feasible that this was from a lab, why else wouldn't they have origins? I mean it was probably released accidentally, but I am not going to blame any country. With SARS the origins were found pretty quickly, I'm very confused at how it could be a cross between a bat/pangolin, it's been a year and there are so many unanswered questions. Do you think people are right to believe it is a government conspiracy theory though?
0
reply
username3962008
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by Rosessta3rs7)
It appears to be feasible that this was from a lab, why else wouldn't they have origins? I mean it was probably released accidentally, but I am not going to blame any country. With SARS the origins were found pretty quickly, I'm very confused at how it could be a cross between a bat/pangolin, it's been a year and there are so many unanswered questions. Do you think people are right to believe it is a government conspiracy theory though?
I know that COVID is real, I just want to know what other people think.
0
reply
caravaggio2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
From what I have read it is more likely to be from a lab, accidental or deliberate I don't know, but I would guess an accident. Either way the CCP lied to the WHO about it being transmittable human to human and for at least two weeks banned all internal flights from Wuhan while allowing international flights to carry on thus knowingly allowing it to spread to many other countries.

OP said...."Do you think people are right to believe it is a government conspiracy theory though?" Which government and which theory.
Last edited by caravaggio2; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
MeyPingas
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
4 reasons why no one wants to say it came from the Wuhan lab...

1. The West built the Wuhan lab and funded the gain of research there with US research grants.
2. The scientific community doesn't want extra regulations.
3. China doesn't want the finger pointed at them.
4. 'Orange Man Bad' said it came from there.
4
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
I have provided already in another thread a scientific publication which concludes that the likelihood of the virus coming from the animal kingdom naturally is very low. The authors consider very seriously that this is a lab-leak.

Here is the title of the paper. Anyone can download it and read it.

The Evidence which Suggests that This Is No Naturally Evolved Virus

A Reconstructed Historical Aetiology of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Birger Sørensen, Angus Dalgleish & Andres Susrud, Immunor & St Georges University of London.
1
reply
OxFossil
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
There are vested interests on both sides. This is the position articulated in Nature - arguably the most reputable science journal in the world - as of 8th June:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

TL : DR - most scientists consider there is insufficient evidence to rule out a lab-leak, but the "natural" origin is consistent with similar viral outbreaks,including previous coronavirus outbreaks, ebola and HIV
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by OxFossil)
There are vested interests on both sides. This is the position articulated in Nature - arguably the most reputable science journal in the world - as of 8th June:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

TL : DR - most scientists consider there is insufficient evidence to rule out a lab-leak, but the "natural" origin is consistent with similar viral outbreaks,including previous coronavirus outbreaks, ebola and HIV
Nature is a reputable science journal highly influenced by political correctness and politics.

For a bit of fun if you have the time have a look at the following two videos that were conducted by Talk Radio a few days ago.

Dr Richard Taylor who was an MP as far as I know. I don't know whether he is still an MP by the way. Look carefully how is he getting exposed and getting dismantled by the interviewer for arguing politics instead of science.

Then the video below that one.
Dr John Lee. A reasonable voice of science. A former NHS Consultant Pathologist
Lee makes a very important statement during his interview in relation to Covid and the situation created in its name, hysteria, paranoia, and the rest.

Lee says that the situation is like when politics met science and politics won!! If I remember well from his interview. A very important statement to be made.

Bearing in mind that science has been politicalised and especially the field of Biomedical Sciences. The scientists are not longer at liberty to produce whatever publications they want most of the time. In controversial issues most will remain silent even if they feel strongly about the matter. The reason as we all know and especially those who have been to Universities is that reputations take years to build up and moments to destroy. Apart from that everyone doesn't want to play dice with their careers. Hence most remain silent. It's the few that speak up. Always it has been the case.

Nature maybe referenced but the same we can do about the WHO. However this is a political organisation.
0
reply
OxFossil
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Lucifer323)
Nature is a reputable science journal highly influenced by political correctness and politics.

For a bit of fun if you have the time have a look at the following two videos that were conducted by Talk Radio a few days ago.

Dr Richard Taylor who was an MP as far as I know. I don't know whether he is still an MP by the way. Look carefully how is he getting exposed and getting dismantled by the interviewer for arguing politics instead of science.

Then the video below that one.
Dr John Lee. A reasonable voice of science. A former NHS Consultant Pathologist
Lee makes a very important statement during his interview in relation to Covid and the situation created in its name, hysteria, paranoia, and the rest.

Lee says that the situation is like when politics met science and politics won!! If I remember well from his interview. A very important statement to be made.

Bearing in mind that science has been politicalised and especially the field of Biomedical Sciences. The scientists are not longer at liberty to produce whatever publications they want most of the time. In controversial issues most will remain silent even if they feel strongly about the matter. The reason as we all know and especially those who have been to Universities is that reputations take years to build up and moments to destroy. Apart from that everyone doesn't want to play dice with their careers. Hence most remain silent. It's the few that speak up. Always it has been the case.

Nature maybe referenced but the same we can do about the WHO. However this is a political organisation.
You have now presented the argument that no science can be trusted. Well done.

Why do you think "Nature" is so "reputable"? Is it because it is so "highly influenced by political correctness and politics"? Or is it because - on the contrary - it is transparent about its sources, strives to avoid vested interest, and can be relied upon to produce accurate science? Do you think we should trust your opinion on this issue over that of "Nature"?
Last edited by OxFossil; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by OxFossil)
You have now presented the argument that no science can be trusted. Well done.

Why do you think "Nature" is so "reputable"? Is it because it is so "highly influenced by political correctness and politics"? Or is it because - on the contrary - it is transparent about its sources, strives to avoid vested interest, and can be relied upon to produce accurate science? Do you think we should trust your opinion on this issue over that of "Nature"?
No. I haven't presented that no science can be trusted. This is a misrepresentation of what I said.

Clearly I have argued that you need to be very cautious in our days when you reference magazines such as Nature or organisations such as the WHO. The reason is the politics involved.

You should think before coming up with these premature conclusions of yours.

And I will repeat again that Nature and the WHO have been influenced by politics. That's standard.

For a good round of science type arXiv and enjoy the free preprints of several scientists and academics in the field of Natural Sciences. That you can trust! It's a guarantee!
Last edited by Lucifer323; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
OxFossil
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Lucifer323)
No. I haven't presented that no science can be trusted. This is a misrepresentation of what I said.

Clearly I have argued that you need to be very cautious in our days when you reference magazines such as Nature or organisations such as the WHO. The reason is the politics involved.

You should think before coming up with these premature conclusions of yours.

And I will repeat again that Nature and the WHO have been influenced by politics. That's standard.

For a good round of science type arXiv and enjoy the free preprints of several scientists and academics in the field of Natural Sciences. That you can trust! It's a guarantee!
First off, I should apologise for the sarcastic "well done" I added to my last post.

Moving to the substance of your reply:

You assert that "Nature" and the WHO "have been influenced by politics." So do you think "Nature" is especially biased? If so, what is your evidence? If not, why bother to mention political bias at all? Why do you think it remains amongst the most prestigious and well-regarded international journals? All science is influenced by the social context in which it operates. This is as true today as it was in the Middle Ages when natural science was often sponsored by wealthy patrons, who influenced both the subject of inverstigation and the interpretation of results. The point about the research published in Nature is that it is always peer reviewed, and its editorial board includes scientists of high international repute.

Do you think arXiv is free of these biases? You must be aware that publication on arXiv is not contingent on independent peer review, and it includes pre-publication papers that have not been peer-reviewed at all.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by username3962008)
It appears to be feasible that this was from a lab, why else wouldn't they have origins? I mean it was probably released accidentally, but I am not going to blame any country. With SARS the origins were found pretty quickly, I'm very confused at how it could be a cross between a bat/pangolin, it's been a year and there are so many unanswered questions. Do you think people are right to believe it is a government
It took more than a decade to track down the origin of SARS
0
reply
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
A good write up of the various pieces of evidence pointing to the Wuhan Lab here:

Lab leak or natural? How the evidence stacks up in the coronavirus origin investigation

https://theprint.in/health/lab-leak-...gation/674905/
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
The Evidence which Suggests that This Is No Naturally Evolved Virus

A Reconstructed Historical Aetiology of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Birger Sørensen, Angus Dalgleish & Andres Susrud, Immunor & St Georges University of London

I am reposting this one as it is very significant.

A good scientific publication which concludes that the probability the virus came naturally from the animal kingdom is very small.

I recall that there was resistance when I first presented this a few weeks ago. Resistance however is futile when you deal with these matters. When you try to defend entire states such as China or organizations such as the WHO it is probable that you will get into debates and conflict with every other user.

The question whether people can make a hypothesis in relation to the origins of the virus is a valid one. I won't use the word belief though.

There is definitely more to this story.

Am international investigation is needed and plenty of transparency.
0
reply
OxFossil
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Lucifer323)
The Evidence which Suggests that This Is No Naturally Evolved Virus

A Reconstructed Historical Aetiology of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Birger Sørensen, Angus Dalgleish & Andres Susrud, Immunor & St Georges University of London

I am reposting this one as it is very significant.

A good scientific publication which concludes that the probability the virus came naturally from the animal kingdom is very small.

I recall that there was resistance when I first presented this a few weeks ago. Resistance however is futile when you deal with these matters. When you try to defend entire states such as China or organizations such as the WHO it is probable that you will get into debates and conflict with every other user.

The question whether people can make a hypothesis in relation to the origins of the virus is a valid one. I won't use the word belief though.

There is definitely more to this story.

Am international investigation is needed and plenty of transparency.
Thanks.

I imagine the study you refer to is the paper titled: "Biovacc-19: A Candidate Vaccine for Covid-19(SARS-CoV-2) Developed from Analysis of its General Method of Action for Infectivity" , It's a rationale for the approach being used by a commercial pharma company, Immunor AS, for a vaccine currently in development.

There are 3 authors: Birger Sørensen and Andres Susrud, who are both employees and shareholders, and Angus Dalgleish, who is on the scientific advisory board and has stock options in Immunor AS (from the declaration of interest). Such interests are not uncommon, but they are important in understanding the point of view of the authors.

Their claim of a lab origin rests on 2 main points. First, that that there is an "inserted portion" of spike protein that must have been engineered, and second, and that the absence of evolution in the COVID virus suggests it is "already fully adapted" to humans. Both these claims appear to be flat wrong. Gunnveig Grødeland, a vaccine researcher at the University of Oslo (who holds no position on any commercial pharma company), has said that this so-called "inserted sequences" are not unusual in nature: "Examples can be found in other viruses including subtypes of influenza (including "bird flu"), HIV, and several human coronaviruses (MERS, OC43, HKU1)." We are all now aware that COVID has evolved several spike protein variants, just as we see in all pandemic viruses.

Apparently, there are reports that the paper was rejected by both Nature and the Journal of Virology, but I don't know why.

None of this is demonstrates that the lab origin hypothesis is wrong. But it undermines the authority of the paper you are promoting, and helps explain why the scientific consensus so far remains that this virus is of natural origin.
1
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by OxFossil)
Thanks.

I imagine the study you refer to is the paper titled: "Biovacc-19: A Candidate Vaccine for Covid-19(SARS-CoV-2) Developed from Analysis of its General Method of Action for Infectivity" , It's a rationale for the approach being used by a commercial pharma company, Immunor AS, for a vaccine currently in development.

There are 3 authors: Birger Sørensen and Andres Susrud, who are both employees and shareholders, and Angus Dalgleish, who is on the scientific advisory board and has stock options in Immunor AS (from the declaration of interest). Such interests are not uncommon, but they are important in understanding the point of view of the authors.

Their claim of a lab origin rests on 2 main points. First, that that there is an "inserted portion" of spike protein that must have been engineered, and second, and that the absence of evolution in the COVID virus suggests it is "already fully adapted" to humans. Both these claims appear to be flat wrong. Gunnveig Grødeland, a vaccine researcher at the University of Oslo (who holds no position on any commercial pharma company), has said that this so-called "inserted sequences" are not unusual in nature: "Examples can be found in other viruses including subtypes of influenza (including "bird flu"), HIV, and several human coronaviruses (MERS, OC43, HKU1)." We are all now aware that COVID has evolved several spike protein variants, just as we see in all pandemic viruses.

Apparently, there are reports that the paper was rejected by both Nature and the Journal of Virology, but I don't know why.

None of this is demonstrates that the lab origin hypothesis is wrong. But it undermines the authority of the paper you are promoting, and helps explain why the scientific consensus so far remains that this virus is of natural origin.
I don't know whether the paper was rejected by both Nature and the Journal of Virology.
It could also mean if it was rejected that Nature is politicalised to a certain degree.

However you are missing the point when it comes to science. It happens through disagreement and fierce debate and not through consensus. Censorship of views is highly unethical and creates suspicion at the very least.

The consensus is not a substitute for evidence and proof by the way.

The consensus that the virus came naturally from the animal kingdom is just an assertion. Nothing is proven yet either way.

PilgrimOfTruth

Question to TCA2b
Do you happen to have what you have shown me before i.e the way herd immunity was defined and the attempts to change its definition. I am not quite sure if the WHO was involved in this one.
0
reply
OxFossil
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Lucifer323)
I don't know whether the paper was rejected by both Nature and the Journal of Virology.
It could also mean if it was rejected that Nature is politicalised to a certain degree.

However you are missing the point when it comes to science. It happens through disagreement and fierce debate and not through consensus. Censorship of views is highly unethical and creates suspicion at the very least.

The consensus is not a substitute for evidence and proof by the way.

The consensus that the virus came naturally from the animal kingdom is just an assertion. Nothing is proven yet either way.

PilgrimOfTruth

Question to TCA2b
Do you happen to have what you have shown me before i.e the way herd immunity was defined and the attempts to change its definition. I am not quite sure if the WHO was involved in this one.
You appear to have had difficulty understanding my post.

Even though you were unaware of the rejections by Nature and the Journal of Virology, you think you know enough to suggest that this happened because Nature "is politicalised [sic]" and to imply that both journals are guilty of "censorship". You offer no evidence for either of these claims. I wonder what your experience of submitting research to a peer-reviewed journals is. Do you understand the process? Do you have evidence that peer reviewing and editorial decision making on Nature and the Journal of Virology (that notorious hotbed of woke science :lol:) is "politicalised"? If so, what is it?

You also appear to have failed to understand my closing para. Here it is again, broken down for easier comprehension::

"None of this is demonstrates that the lab origin hypothesis is wrong..."

Trans: it is possible that the lab origin hypothesis is correct.

"...but it undermines the authority of the paper you are promoting..."

Trans: better evidence is required to justify the hypothesis advanced by of the paper

"...and helps explain why the scientific consensus so far remains that this virus is of natural origin."

Trans: so far, the weight of scientific evidence remains that a natural origin is a more likely explanation.

Even simpler translation: It looks like it's a natural origin, but more evidence is needed.
Last edited by OxFossil; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by OxFossil)
You appear to have had difficulty understanding my post.

Even though you were unaware of the rejections by Nature and the Journal of Virology, you think you know enough to suggest that this happened because Nature "is politicalised [sic]" and to imply that both journals are guilty of "censorship". You offer no evidence for either of these claims. I wonder what your experience of submitting research to a peer-reviewed journals is. Do you understand the process? Do you have evidence that peer reviewing and editorial decision making on Nature and the Journal of Virology (that notorious hotbed of woke science :lol:) is "politicalised"? If so, what is it?

You also appear to have failed to understand my closing para. Here it is again, broken down for easier comprehension::

"None of this is demonstrates that the lab origin hypothesis is wrong..."

Trans: it is possible that the lab origin hypothesis is correct.

"...but it undermines the authority of the paper you are promoting..."

Trans: better evidence is required to justify the hypothesis advanced by of the paper

"...and helps explain why the scientific consensus so far remains that this virus is of natural origin."

Trans: so far, the weight of scientific evidence remains that a natural origin is a more likely explanation.

Even simpler translation: It looks like it's a natural origin, but more evidence is needed.
I have understood well what you have said. But I don't think you have understood what I have said...well enough.

The consensus is not a substitute for evidence and proof. I have already explained it earlier.

What is more likely to have happened isn't an argument. It may look logical but that's far from being true.

Yes it is possible that the lab hypothesis is correct. We agree on this from the beginning.

Given that there are many scientists around the world who have expressed similar views like the ones above, from those who have written the paper, it seems to me that consensus isn't even the case here in terms of the numbers involved.

You forget that controversial views and hypotheses that are not easily digested will not materialise and become published scientific papers. Most scientists will prefer to remain silent when it comes to these matters and not become the center of attraction & attention. Moreover they will look not to damage their careers, especially in the biomedical sciences.

In natural sciences you can pretty much publish whatever you want. The censorship and criticisms are by far less and almost non existent in most cases.

Peer review in mathematics and physics is not the same as peer review in virology and medicine. The latter are highly politicalised and can affect peer-review.

Don't worry about the rest.

This is not a debate relevant to this thread by the way. I can pm you if you wish.

Editing: I am not aware that this publication was rejected by Nature. But I am not surprised if it did. Most will expect such rejection as it clearly concluded that the probability the virus has emerged from the animal kingdom is very low. Leaving only one conclusion which is that it was created in the lab. This will have enormous implications for all those involved and primarily China. It will be an international scandal and the Relationships between the countries will change forever. Lawsuits upon lawsuits forever.

If you have any questions regarding the paper and why it was rejected it is best to ask the authors and post their response if they agree. I mean I would be very glad to know.
However they don't seem conspiracy theorists to me or crackpots.

It reminds me the case of Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford who is one of the top epidemiologists in the world. He was heavily criticised when he published more than a year ago his estimates about the infection fatality rate of Covid which he estimated to be around 0.15% (globally). It wasn't the consensus at that time which was giving 3% or a little less according to whichever data you were reading. He wasn't also politically correct as he wasn't offering the disaster and doom scenario many others did.

Guess what?! Globally the IFR is 0.15% and it could be even lower!
Ioannidis had controversial views at that time. He was called a conspiracy theorist, a crank, a scientist who wasn't that great, etc.

But let's not continue with this conversation.
Last edited by Lucifer323; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Lucifer323)
I don't know whether the paper was rejected by both Nature and the Journal of Virology.
It could also mean if it was rejected that Nature is politicalised to a certain degree.

However you are missing the point when it comes to science. It happens through disagreement and fierce debate and not through consensus. Censorship of views is highly unethical and creates suspicion at the very least.

The consensus is not a substitute for evidence and proof by the way.

The consensus that the virus came naturally from the animal kingdom is just an assertion. Nothing is proven yet either way.

PilgrimOfTruth

Question to TCA2b
Do you happen to have what you have shown me before i.e the way herd immunity was defined and the attempts to change its definition. I am not quite sure if the WHO was involved in this one.
Yup. They've since reverted, and it still includes their spin (inserting their own moral opinions) on it, but here is an example:

Image


And another...

https://archive.vn/Zfmg1

Incredibly misleading way of positioning it, IMO, in the re-defined version from June 2020. Whatever their views on the best way of achieving it, the concept is not exclusive to vaccines.
Last edited by TCA2b; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by TCA2b)
Yup. They've since reverted, and it still includes their spin (inserting their own moral opinions) on it, but here is an example:

Image


And another...

https://archive.vn/Zfmg1

Incredibly misleading way of positioning it, IMO, in the re-defined version from June 2020. Whatever their views on the best way of achieving it, the concept is not exclusive to vaccines.
OxFossil

Different definitions of herd immunity by the WHO.

I wonder why...

One with natural immunity + vaccinations
(just as it should be)

The other only with vaccinations...

Instead of defending this organisation they pay them.

Likewise for Nature but I don't want to refer to the editor or the various figures around there as the thread will be closed.

PilgrimOfTruth
0
reply
OxFossil
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Lucifer323)
OxFossil

Different definitions of herd immunity by the WHO.

I wonder why...

One with natural immunity + vaccinations
(just as it should be)

The other only with vaccinations...

Instead of defending this organisation they pay them.

Likewise for Nature but I don't want to refer to the editor or the various figures around there as the thread will be closed.

PilgrimOfTruth
The claim that the WHO changed the definition of "herd immunity" at the behest of vaccine companies has been spread by numerous alt-right, anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorists. Highly respected epidemiologist - oh, no, sorry, that should be "American footballer" - Russell Okung - was instrumental in spreading the rumour. Here's a "fact check" on his claim. https://www.boomlive.in/fact-check/w...ll-okung-11883

What's particularly sad is that you have failed to absorb the fact that even your helper has just told you that the current WHO definition includes both vaccination AND naturally acquired immunity.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about starting university this autumn?

Really excited (58)
21.8%
Excited but a bit nervous (122)
45.86%
Not bothered either way (34)
12.78%
I'm really nervous (52)
19.55%

Watched Threads

View All