health

Calling the coronavirus the 'Chinese virus' connects label with bias

50 Comments
By Brad Bushman

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© The Conversation

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

50 Comments
Login to comment

If the Chinese had informed the WHO earlier, cooperated with it more closely, didn't scrub the Wuhan market clean by the time international inspectors arrived, denied any culpability, etc., then maybe people wouldn't feel so negatively toward the Chinese.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

It is what it is. If the virus comes from China, it's a China Virus. Can't change where it came from no matter what you put in the media.

11 ( +21 / -10 )

It originated in china=china virus. It’s killed millions, an apology and financial compensation to those that suffered and lost income would be nice, but China don’t work like that. Instead we all have to try our best not to offend a nation sterilising its own people, and threatening all the nations in this region. The world is sleepwalking to a Ukraine type situation in Taiwan..

6 ( +9 / -3 )

If China and the Wuhan Laboratory have nothing to do with the origin of the virus, why are they still refusing access to data?

Why are they still refusing to answer questions?

If they have nothing to hide, why are they not open to any investigation?

If China and the Laboratory in Wuhan are innocent, why do they not fully support any investigation?

It should be also in their interest to prove their innocent.

As long as China is not open to any investigation, and as long as China and the Wuhan Laboratory refuses access to data and reports and as long as they do not fully support any investigation, it will be unclear if the Virus is from a natural or a laboratory origin.

And as long as China is behaving like that...they have something to hide!

If they have nothing to hide, they would be open to every investigation to prove their innocent.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

If China wanted to to minimize unnecessary negative effects on its nation, economy, and people they shouldn't have created the virus.

Calling it the WIV virus or CCP virus might avoid some the negative effects.

4 ( +16 / -12 )

Monty, I assume that the article you're talking about is this one from n-tv(https://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Drosten-Laborunfall-moeglich-aber-unwahrscheinlich-article23115164.html). Do you actually speak German or did you pick up that information somewhere else? I'm just asking to see if you knowlingly decided to omit important parts for whatever reason or if your source is at fault here.

Publizierte Projektberichte würden zeigen, dass "in Wuhan durchaus Sachen gemacht wurden, die man als gefährlich bezeichnen könnte.

It begs to question for instance why this part was omitted.

"Dabei hätte nicht das Sars-CoV-2-Virus herauskommen können", ist der Experte allerdings überzeugt.

The virologist whom you partly cited explicitly states that in his opinion this could not have resulted in the COVID virus. Hopefully it's just a coincidence that you dropped this part, right? While he said that they were doing stuff in Wuhan one can consider dangerous, COVID was not created there.

Der Entdecker des Sars-Rezeptors, Mike Farzan, schätzt die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass der Ursprung von Sars-CoV-2 im Labor liegen könnte, auf 60 bis 70 Prozent ein.

Why not also cite the part where it is mentioned that this was said in a teleconference shortly after the start of the pandemic (so likely about 2 years ago)?

Vertuschungsvorwürfe, wie sie von Wiesendanger gegen ihn erhoben wurden, wies Drosten erneut entschieden zurück. Die Kritik des Hamburger Physikers bezieht sich vor allem auf einen E-Mail-Verkehr, der Anfang Januar im US-Kongress veröffentlicht wurde. In den E-Mails wird eine Telefonkonferenz führender Virologen nachgezeichnet, die kurz nach Beginn der Pandemie darüber diskutieren, was der Ursprung von Sars-CoV-2 sein könnte.

See? A teleconference held by virologists shortly after the start of the pandemic. Yes, the emails have only been released in January but the actual teleconference was a long time ago. So the part about the 60 to 70& is not something someone said just a short while ago.

Lastly, why also drop the part that leading virologists released a statement shortly after the teleconference that said that they disagree with this view?

The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens. This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent.

...

I'm honestly not sure if you are knowingly misrepresenting what is written in articles or not. It won't kill anyone if there are a few sentences more to read, so please don't just pull single parts out of context and give people the option to read everything. It would also be nice to provide the URL to the articles you mention so others don't have to hunt them down themselves.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The virus came from a lab in wuhan. Besides being the most obvious conclusion, did you miss Fauci’s e-mails (2nd or 3rd release) covering the early “debate” and easily identified man-made genome sequences that was squashed by the NIH?

But really even without the “health experts” just go back to the lab being absolutely the most obvious smoking gun. Missing bats, missing reports, missing employee & recruitment records, missing people, a complete cover-up.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Call it the WHO CARES virus since the World Health Organization backs China!!! Own it

4 ( +5 / -1 )

So how much hate was poured on the Spanish for the Spanish flu? Hard to say, but nobody ever talks about it. This virus came from China, most likely from the WIV, so let's call it what it is - the China virus. If the CCP doesn't like it, maybe it should stop behaving like a guilty puppy sitting next to a puddle.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

This is a part of an article from Germany just last month:

Publizierte Projektberichte würden zeigen, dass "in Wuhan durchaus Sachen gemacht wurden, die man als gefährlich bezeichnen könnte.

Published Project Reports shows, that the Wuhan Laboratory is working on things which can be described as dangerous. 

Der Entdecker des Sars-Rezeptors, Mike Farzan, schätzt die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass der Ursprung von Sars-CoV-2 im Labor liegen könnte, auf 60 bis 70 Prozent ein.

The explorer of the Sars Rezeptor, Mike Farzan, estimates the possibility that the origin of Sars Cov2 is in a laboratory from 60% to 70%.

Endgültige Gewissheit über den Ursprung des Coronavirus werde man erst haben, wenn auch China bei der Aufklärung darüber voll kooperiere, was weiterhin nicht geschehe, kritisiert der Virologe. "Es fehlen wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen mit Begutachtung.

Final certainty about the origin can not be given, as long as China do not fully cooperate in the investigation of the origin.

Scientific published reports with assessment are still missing.

Which means, that it is still not clear if the virus is from a natural or a laboratory origin.

And I think, the world will never know it, because China is not cooperating with investigations about the origin.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

@virusrex

contradict the available consensus

But the article do also not prove that any available consenus is correct.

But That is not the purpose of the article.

The article's purpose is not to contradict or prove something.

The article says, and it clearly says it, and you can ignore that as much as you want, but that doesn't change anything what the article clearly says;

Final certainty about the origin can not be given, as long as China do not fully cooperate in the investigation of the origin.

And all information and so called consenus which you mentioned, which shows that the virus is natural origin, is completely invalid as long there was no fully investigation, by a fully independant team with fully access to everything at the Laboratory in Wuhan.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

china virus.

trying to disingenuously link Black American attacks on Chinese people in the USA to this term changes nothing.

China virus.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I've never met a German person and thought "Oh, German measles, better be careful"

Or met a Spanish person and disliked them because "Spanish flu"

etc etc

It should be known by wuhan flu, it's that simple. There's nothing racist at play here, it's accepted terminology everywhere.

Unless we want to reprint a large number of millions of history books, removing WestNile virus, Spanish Flu etc from them.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Wuhan, perhaps???

2 ( +7 / -5 )

@Confusuius

Yes, I speak german and I picked just the important parts which shows that a virus origin in a laboratory in China is not off the table.

Other parts of the article, which e.g. you pointed out, ist der Experte allerdings überzeugt, doesn't mean this expert is correct. I guess, you understand the meaning of the word, überzeugt.

I am also überzeugt from many things, but that doesn't mean that I am correct.

Also what you pointed out, 60 to 70% is not something someone said just a short while ago.

Even it was said a long time ago, doesn't mean it is wrong. As long as there are still no clear evidence shown by a fully investigation at the Laboratory in Wuhan, it can be correct.

The important conclusion of the article is, that both patterns (natural origin and laboratory origin), are still on the table.

*Endgültige Gewissheit über den Ursprung des Coronavirus werde man erst haben, wenn auch China bei der Aufklärung darüber voll kooperiere, was weiterhin nicht geschehe, kritisiert der Virologe. "Es fehlen wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen mit Begutachtung.*

Drosten said that it is "unwahrscheinlich", that the Virus is created in the Lab, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible.

And until today, there was not a clear investigation with fully access to all data and fully access to all staff and scientists who are working there, and fully access granted for an international independent investigation team, (not the WHO one).

And as as long as this does not happen...nobody can clearly say that the origin of the virus is natural or in a laboratory.

Why is China refusing access to all data and why they are refusing a fully investigation?

Virusrex argue, that the CCP always do that,.

Yes that is correct...but why are the CCP always do that?

Because they always have to hide something!!!

China do not want the world to see the truth what they are doing behind closed doors.

If the virus is natural, and China has nothing to hide and can prove that they are innocent, so why do they not prove it by a clear and fully investigation with an independent investigation team?

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that the Virus is for sure created in the Laboratory in Wuhan, but, to come back to the word überzeugt, I am überzeugt from that.

But again, that I am überzeugt from that, doesn't mean that I am correct.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

@Virusrex

I am not sure if you can read german language, therefore let me explain to you again the conclusion of the article.

I know that you completely ignored it, like you always do when something brings a hole in your bubble, but here you go:

Endgültige Gewissheit über den Ursprung des Coronavirus werde man erst haben, wenn auch China bei der Aufklärung darüber voll kooperiere, was weiterhin nicht geschehe, kritisiert der Virologe. "Es fehlen wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen mit Begutachtung.

Final certainty about the origin can not be given, as long as China do not fully cooperate in the investigation of the origin.

Scientific published reports with assessment are still missing.

Maybe my translation in english is poor, so maybe some other person here can clearly translate this for you, in case you do not understand my translation.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

And one last thing,

Look around the world, look around you, there are many many people who are saying there is a possibility that the Virus is made at the Wuhan Lab.

Why are these people believing that?

Because China is not cooperating with a full investigation.

And if you refuse a full investigation in whatever, means what?

You are hiding something.

Virusrex argued yesterday, the CCP is always doing that.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that China is correct.

China always violates human rights, so does that mean they are correct?

Just because you always and always do the same (even bad) thing doesn't mean that you are correct.

Of course not!

What Farzan said about the 60% - 70%, that is just his personal estimation.

All other people, who think that there is a possibility the Virus is made in Wuhan Lab have also their own estimation.

Some maybe 40%, some 90%, some even more or less.

How about you?

Are you 100% sure that the virus is a natural origin?

I don't think so, because otherwise you would not say Yes, it is not of the table.

But, if China would be fully cooperate to a full investigation and submit everything that is requested, access to everything, including people involved...and so on, and the result of that investigation would clearly prove that the Lab in Wuhan has nothing to do with the origin of the Virus, ... yes, then I would say, OK I am 100% sure and I accept the virus is a natural origin.

But as long as this is not done, sorry, I can not be sure and can not accepted that the virus is natural origin.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The virus came from China and funnily enough was spread by Chinese travelers!

Italy was one of the first European countries to suffer from deaths from the virus and those deaths were a result of the large numbers of Chinese going to Italy

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Well it was most likely leaked from the Wuhan virology institute so it’s better to call it the Wuhan virus rather than the Corona virus. The poor Corona beer company was on the verge of collapse because of the stigma attached.

1 ( +14 / -13 )

There’s no doubt the virus originated in Wuhan, China, in a way that no-one has yet been able to prove or disprove one way or the other. There’s no doubt that the Chinese authorities have been less than open with the rest of the world about what they know.

But there’s also no doubt whatsoever that terms such as “the China virus” and “Kung flu” were invented by some particular leaders specifically to distract attention from the miserable responses of their own and other governments around the world to the pandemic, either by miring themselves in political in-fighting and/or by refusing to adopt strategies to reduce the impact of the virus, even when they had plenty of warning that Covid was out there, it was real, and it was about to hit them. How many inquiries have there been worldwide as to who was responsible for all those unnecessary deaths? How many inquiries are there going to be that won’t be a facade or a whitewash? How many heads will roll, how many jail terms for criminal incompetence will there be? Very few, yet all of these are more important than going on and on about China, because what we could learn from inquiries into the response to Covid are the lessons that could actually save us from the worst consequences of a pandemic the next time it happens.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

with demonstrated bias against them, investigate their facilities. Especially research institutions.

China isn't dumb, they know it would just be a foot in the door that would never end.

That's the point.

Therefore I said in my first post: the world will never know it, because China is not cooperating with investigations.

The world will probably never know what is the complete truth behind all that.

And who knows...maybe it is better not to know it.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Yes, I speak german and I picked just the important parts which shows that a virus origin in a laboratory in China is not off the table.

You picked the parts that fit your narrative and nothing else. In fact you picked it in a way that changed the meaning of what was really said. Yes, it is not of the table but by omitting that he is convinced that it is not the case, you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said. Yes, I'm also well aware that when someone is convinced of something that that person can be wrong. It is also not uncommon for scientists to avoid talking in absolutes if there is another possibility no matter how small. The fact that the word of an expert in a field and a scientist at that holds more weight than yours still remains as well. He made his statement based on facts and evidence, so I'm far more willing to believe him that it most likely did not happen. By misrepresenting what someone has said you're also just discrediting your own posts as well. Why should I believe anything you write when a quick search shows me that you are not being honest?

Also what you pointed out, 60 to 70% is not something someone said just a short while ago.

Even it was said a long time ago, doesn't mean it is wrong. As long as there are still no clear evidence shown by a fully investigation at the Laboratory in Wuhan, it can be correct.

No, it is quite important that this statement was made long ago. Has Mike Farzan since repeated this statement? Maybe I missed an article but a quick search did not yield any such statement apart from articles mentioning the emails from January. He made this statement years ago based on the information available to him back then. In the time after his statement there has obviously been a lot of research and new information and evidence have come to light. If he has not repeated it since, it is just as likely that he has changed his view. We have no idea if he still holds this view or not. There is no point to use it as evidence instead of statements based on current knowledge.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

There is nothing unfair with the truth in using the term China Virus. No less than saying CCP, regardless of what the CCP wants us to call it.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Published Project Reports shows, that the Wuhan Laboratory is working on things which can be described as dangerous.

Are you going to be surprised also that hospitals are full of sick people? what do you imagine virology laboratories work with?

The whole point of having BSL2, 3 and 4 laboratories is that they can work with dangerous biological materials.

The explorer of the Sars Rezeptor, Mike Farzan, estimates the possibility that the origin of Sars Cov2 is in a laboratory from 60% to 70%.

And he could have said 200% because he presents no evidence that actually indicates this is the case (and much less that the much more likely possibility of a natural introduction was not responsible, the same as countless times before).

Which means, that it is still not clear if the virus is from a natural or a laboratory origin.

Molecluar, epidemiological evidence clearly points out to an origin well before the cases on Wuhan, and at least two different introductions to humans, there is zero evidence that points to the laboratory being in any way involved.

So, if you see a puddle on the street after heavy rain and someone says this could be an ice comet that dropped there, what would you think if he says "it is not clear if the water came from the rain or from a comet"?

Why are they still refusing to answer questions?

one, because that is what the CCP alwasy do, how many examples can you bring of them cooperating fully with anything they do?

two, because they have enough responsibility about their mismanagement, so they are not going to help anybody understand better how the pandemic went out of control, even if they had absolutely nothing to do with creating the pathogen.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

So, if you see a puddle on the street after heavy rain and someone says this could be an ice comet that dropped there, what would you think if he says "it is not clear if the water came from the rain or from a comet"?

And what if a bear tried to make popcorn in the vacuum of space?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Not hiding anything either.

https://theintercept.com/2022/02/20/nih-coronavirus-research-wuhan-redacted/

NIH SENT THE INTERCEPT 292 FULLY REDACTED PAGES RELATED TO VIRUS RESEARCH IN WUHAN

The NIH continues to withhold critical documents that could shed light on the origin of the coronavirus pandemic.

292 of 314 pages, blank.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/sapporo-virus ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok, I'll try to explain this to you once again. Omitting parts from sources in a way they change how people can interpret them, is misrepresenting things. Why also leave out the part that shows that the latter part is something that was said years ago and might no longer be up to date?

So first we have the part where Drosten states that dangerous things are being done in the laboratory in Wuhan. And then we have the view of another scientist that in his view the virus was likely created in said laboratory. By leaving out part of what Drosten said, you make it seem like two experts gave statements that point in the same direction, while in reality the opposite is the case. By leaving out the information on the date of the latter statement, one could think that both were made around the same time not long ago, while in fact one was made years ago and one is actual. This means that Drosten had far more information available to him when he mad his statement than Farzan did when he made his.

And no, I'm not confirming what you said, at least not in the way you'd like to believe. There is a certain degree of uncertainty in Drosten's comments. But like I said, it is quite common for scientists to avoid absolutes if there is even a minimal chance that the other of two events occurred. Not dismissing a possibility is quite different from presenting said possibility as likely though(remember the 60 to 70% part?). Since he is convinced that the virus was not created in a laboratory, the uncertainty is in my opinion quite likely based on the lack of evidence that to 100% shows that the virus is of natural origin. If there was any convincing evidence that said otherwise, I'm sure that he would have used different words.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You said, might no longer be up to date?

Might Not...do you understand the meaning of your own words?

Might not means that there is a possibility that it is correct.

And again you also said: Yes, it is not of the table.

And that is the ONLY point I am referring to in my posts.

That It is not off the table.

And if you would clearly read my posts and my opinion, then you would understand that I am NOT saying the virus is for sure made in the Lab.

I said that I am überzeugt from that.

And again, that I am überzeugt does NOT mean, that I am correct.

But again, as long as there is not a fully examination conducted at the Lab in Wuhan, with a full cooperation from China, and that is what Farzan also said, *Endgültige Gewissheit über den Ursprung des Coronavirus werde man erst haben,* wenn auch China bei der Aufklärung darüber voll kooperiere, was weiterhin nicht geschehe , nobody can be sure that the Virus is natural origin.

Farzan said that shortly after the pandemic starts, ( you said many years ago even it is just 2 years... but OK)....but UNTIL TODAY, there was no fully investigation conducted at the Wuhan Laboratory.

So it doesn't matter if Farzan said that 2 years ago, because he is until today correct with what he said by was weiterhin nicht geschehe.

Because until today, China is not fully cooperating.

Oder in Deutsch: es geschieht weiterhin nicht.

And you can turn around the article as much as you want and try to find some loopholes, but it doesn't change the fact that what Farzan said is valid until today:

*Endgültige Gewissheit über den Ursprung des Coronavirus werde man erst haben,* wenn auch China bei der Aufklärung darüber voll kooperiere, was weiterhin nicht geschehe.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No, your original point is that it was not clear if the origin was natural or not

That proves that you zero understand my posts either the articles purpose or let me better say meaning of the article.

But OK, the article is in german language and about my posts, I am not a native englsh speaker. So maybe that is the problem.

Are you 100% sure that the virus is a natural origin?

Are you 100% sure the virus is not magical in origin? prehistoric, extraterrestrial?

You do what you always do best.

Ignore and do not answer directly the question.

But ignoring the question means to me, that you also are not 100% sure that the virus is natural origin.

But anyway that question was not to you.

Why are these people believing that?

There are people that believe the planet is flat, 5G antennas produced COVID or that vaccines contain microchips,

I think I don't need to explain to you, how stupid your comment is.

But as always, if you don't have any clever and convincing argues, you compare a simple question with some complete out of topic content. (like seatbelts and such things...)

0 ( +3 / -3 )

That proves that you zero understand my posts either the articles purpose or let me better say meaning of the article.

That is what you literally wrote in your first comment, if that is a bad understanding of your intentions that would mean you are the one doing it, more likely you are now moving the goalposts by seeing how easy it was to see how you misrepresented a source that said something very different from how you presented it

You do what you always do best.

Ignore and do not answer directly the question.

No, I am making sure your question is irrelevant and misleading by proving you yourself refuse to answer equivalent questions.

I think I don't need to explain to you, how stupid your comment is.

But still it proves exactly why people could believe things even when they are obviously false, which anybody at this point should easily understand.

 virus being engineered in a lab does not mean that they created it from scratch.

Which have absolutely nothing to do with the many reasons that clearly indicate the natural origin, from patients in locations not congruent with a laboratory escape (and long before the Wuhan market outbreak) to the proof that the laboratory continously published a different way of adaptation, which would make absolutely no sense if they had the virus that caused the pandemic.

All laboratories of virology do gain of function, and precisely because the one in Wuhan have published papers is why it is obvious SARS-CoV-2 do not comes from it, because their publication history clearly points to another different way for adaptation to humans. Once again this "explanation" depends completely on shoehorning a bad fit with the available evidence while ignoring all and every piece of information that points to the natural origin, this means it is a lousy explanation.

Combine all this with the E-mails demonstrating Fauci and friends conspiring to cover up their links to WIV and discredit all those promoting the lab-leak origin. 

No, such thing this is disinformation promoted by antiscientific groups, there is nothing wrong with discrediting people that provide false information or pretend baseless conjectures are scientifically supported, even when they are obviously not.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@confusius

You exactly confirmed with your post what I was saying.

You said and agreed in your post, Yes, it is not of the table.

That is exactly what the article said and what I pointed out as the key point.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And you also said in your post, *to believe him that it most likely did not happen.*

Also exactly what I pointed out from the article and what Drosten said, wahrscheinlich.

And most likely or wahrscheinlich means, it is not sure that it is correct.

So you completely agreed with the same things I pointed out from the article.

So are we both misrepresenting the article?

I dont think so.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

virusrex is absolutely right that your argument is solely based on an option not being disproven. It does not seem like you are even willing to confront actual arguments made by others. Otherwise you would at least have acknowledged that you did indeed at the start misrepresent the content of an article. It is quite telling how that is unimportant to you, since Drosten still used a language that lacked absolutes and did not dismiss an unlikely option. Repeating that something can not be disproven is not a sound argument and you would do well to instead provide evidence that actually supports your claims instead. No, just saying that there are people that also believe that the virus is of artificial origin is not evidence but a claim. We all know that there are such people, but the people you are talking about could be the guy working down the street in the convenience store and the old lady you know from the park for all we know. It is a whole different story if those people are actually experts and have made such statements not too long ago.

Remember how I said that scientists hardly speak in absolutes? That is exactly why I wrote that the information Farzan's statement was based on is most likely outdated. Unless they have conducted absolutely no research in the last 2 years, there should be far more information available now than it was before. But hey, maybe they just sat on their hands and didn't do anything at all for the last few years. I refrain from using absolutes here because I myself don't have the evidence to back up that there is now more information available, but common sense would dictate that they did actually try to make new findings. Only Farzan knows if those new findings did or did not change his opinion concerning the origin of the virus.

Also, how can you claim that Farzan's statement is correct? He did not say anything that can objectively verified as either correct or incorrect. Sure, if it's artificial he got it right with the 60 to 70% and if it is natural he still got it right with the remaining 30 to 40%, but that is like covering all possibilities in a statement and then claiming it's correct.

I'm not looking for loopholes either, I was merely trying explaining to you how people in science work and what language is usually used.

Here for you a small excerpt from an article published in Cell (a peer-reviewed scientific journal) back in mid-September and written by 21 different authors. I'm not trying to convince you of anything with this article, but you can see how the authors at several places used language with a certain degree of uncertainty.

The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421009910#bib82)

Conclusions

As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. The documented epidemiological history of the virus is comparable to previous animal market-associated outbreaks of coronaviruses with a simple route for human exposure. The contact tracing of SARS-CoV-2 to markets in Wuhan exhibits striking similarities to the early spread of SARS-CoV to markets in Guangdong, where humans infected early in the epidemic lived near or worked in animal markets. Zoonotic spillover by definition selects for viruses able to infect humans. Although strong safeguards should be consistently employed to minimize the likelihood of laboratory accidents in virological research, those laboratory escapes documented to date have almost exclusively involved viruses brought into laboratories specifically because of their known human infectivity.

There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, in contrast to the clear epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan, nor evidence that the WIV possessed or worked on a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 prior to the pandemic. The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses. Wuhan is the largest city in central China with multiple animal markets and is a major hub for travel and commerce, well connected to other areas both within China and internationally. The link to Wuhan therefore more likely reflects the fact that pathogens often require heavily populated areas to become established (Pekar et al., 2021).

We contend that although the animal reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 has not been identified and the key species may not have been tested, in contrast to other scenarios there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin. Although the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely relative to the numerous and repeated human-animal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife trade. Failure to comprehensively investigate the zoonotic origin through collaborative and carefully coordinated studies would leave the world vulnerable to future pandemics arising from the same human activities that have repeatedly put us on a collision course with novel viruses.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

They do? The US had a moratorium on that until about a year before SARSCoV-2 emerged

That is completely false, the moratorium was on one very specific kind of research, including a reporter gene in the genome of a virus so infected cells can be identified (to say a very common example) do count as gain of function research (because obviously viruses do not make cells become fluorescent in nature). People that have never stepped in a virology lab tend to have terrible misunderstanding of what "gain of function" means, that is why they tend to confuse it with increased danger, even when obviously it is not the case.

Oh, I see. Because they did not publish their work on the creation of SARSCoV2 means they did not create it! Riiight....checks out....

No, because they publised a very successfu but completely different way for highly pathogenic coronaviruses to adapt to infect human cells or tissues is why it makes no sense. If the accusations were true they would have published this specific kind of adaptation instead the one that they did. Pretending not to understand this is not a valid argument.

And no, just by including people that have repeatedly been found mistaken (and pushing proven lies) any discussion becomes anything but promising. For that you would need at least that all participants are people famed for their adherence to current scientific facts instead of pushing false information for personal profit.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Feel free to reveal anytime and to all of us that mysterious missing link animal, then I call it more specifically the Chinese bat coronavirus. lol

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

apart from the fact it seems to have been in Europe earlier

The main point is that this is not "earilier than in China" but "earlier than the first detected cases". None of the experts on your sources is saying it came from a different place.

This situation is also present in China with the first cases detected are not tough to be the first actual human cases of the disease, just the ones that were serious and close enough to raise the alarm.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

If the virus is natural, and China has nothing to hide and can prove that they are innocent, so why do they not prove it by a clear and fully investigation with an independent investigation team?

Because no sovereign nation is in the regular practice of letting foreign bodies, particularly governments with demonstrated bias against them, investigate their facilities. Especially research institutions. At the very least, it would set a precedent no country in the world wants. "Oh, you let us investigate back in 2022, why not now!? You must be up to something". It makes more sense to be consistently against it until there is significant evidence to begin with. China isn't dumb, they know it would just be a foot in the door that would never end.

The US did the same when the ICC wanted to investigate them for human rights abuses/war crimes, and the US denied entry and threatened their visas.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

But the article do also not prove that any available consenus is correct.

That is irrelevant, the consensus is that the natural origin is in comparison much better substantiated, and do not contradicts any of the available evidence, the laboratory origin is the exact oposite, with no actual evidence of it happening and plenty of evidence that contradicts it. Trying to misrepresent the situation as if anything was equally possible (when it is not) is the problematic part of your comment. For example the extraterrestial origin has not been "proved" false, but nobody takes it seriously either.

My objection is not with the article but how you tried to use invalidly selected parts of it to defend a mistaken belief that the laboratory origin is a seriously considered possibility in the same degree as the natural origin, while hiding all the information included that clearly contradicts it.

And again, not knowing what is the vector animal or if the transmission was done directly by bats (unlikely but possible) do absolutely nothing to support the validity of the much more forced and contradicted explanations.

And all information and so called consenus which you mentioned, which shows that the virus is natural origin, is completely invalid as long there was no fully investigation

No, it is not, only because you don't understand it does not mean it is not valid. If an evolutionary study proves above reasonable doubt the first human cases happened in October (to give one example), it is irrelevant how much the CCP cooperates, that would change nothing about this piece of evidence. Same happens with the data indicating the virus entered humans several times, or that the evidence published from the laboratory in Wuhan would indicate they where predicting a very different way for the virus to adapt to humans. Zero need for cooperation to prove this, which indicates very strongly the natural origin. What the cooperation of the chinese government would help with is to clafify exactly how this happened and how it could be prevented in the future (or what wrong steps were taken this time).

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Closest relative of covid-19 found in bats in Laos. So much for your engineered in Wuhan-lab narrative.

A virus being engineered in a lab does not mean that they created it from scratch. They start off with a real natural virus, and they make changes to it to give it new functions (gain of function). That is what they were doing at the WIV, that is no secret, they have published papers on this.

Daszak was a leading member of the WHO team sent to investigate the origins of the virus. He is also the one who funneled NIH funds to the WIV and there are videos of him bragging about how easy it is to add an engineered spike protein to a coronavirus... Combine all this with the E-mails demonstrating Fauci and friends conspiring to cover up their links to WIV and discredit all those promoting the lab-leak origin. How can anyone still think this is a natural virus?!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Does it matter?

it does not.

If I punch you in the face and called it forgetting punch, would you forget who punched you?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Closest relative of covid-19 found in bats in Laos. So much for your engineered in Wuhan-lab narrative.

Newly Discovered Bat Viruses Give Hints to Covid’s Origins - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

All laboratories of virology do gain of function.

They do? The US had a moratorium on that until about a year before SARSCoV-2 emerged. Fauci circumvented that moratorium by funding the WIV, via EcoHealth Alliance....

and precisely because the one in Wuhan have published papers is why it is obvious SARS-CoV-2 do not comes from it, because their publication history clearly points to another different way for adaptation to humans.

Oh, I see. Because they did not publish their work on the creation of SARSCoV2 means they did not create it! Riiight....checks out....

BTW, if anyone is interested, I haven't watched yet, but here's a promising discussion on the origins of SARSCoV-2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvJn5D0zknM

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

And people are wondering why so many Chinese and Asians are being verbally and physically abused and even murdered. I've lost count the casualties in SF and NYC. American Chloe Kim has had to endure it for years.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

In a perfect world labelling a virus solely by geographical origin should be fine. Once it seems that was the case. I may have missed it in my history classes but I don't think there was a massive backlash against Spaniards during the Spanish flu.

However now, calling it "the China virus" has led to an inherent undeserved association with Chinese people. Just look at the massive spike of anti-asian violence in places like the US, people wrongly blaming Chinese people for the virus.

I think it is simply irresponsible to call it that if it stokes the flames of racism and sinophobia at a time when they are already major issues. We have another name for that which is far more regularly used, just use that. At this point in time anyone calling it "The China virus" has a political or inherently racist agenda.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Yes, I speak german and I picked just the important parts which shows that a virus origin in a laboratory in China is not off the table.

No, what you did was to completely misrepresent the article picking up only the parts that appeared to suit your opinion and completely removing those that clearly contradicted you. This is called cherry picking and it s a well known technique used by people to use valid sources to apparently support something that they do not. "important" for you means what can be used to misrepresent a source, which is not intellectually honest.

It is very clear that one opinion that was not supported by any evidence, that was later found mistaken and that do not reflect the current scientific opinion of the professionals is not something that can be used as an argument for a very minuscule possibility to be "on the table". One possibility is well supported by the previous (frequent) occurrences, epidemiological and molecular evidence. The other one is contradicted by a complete lack of things that should have been clearly present (and that do not depend at all with the cooperation of China to be examined). Betting for the baseless, contradicted option is at best not rational, much less if you already have a much more likely explanation that the experts of the world coincide to call it that way.

Yes that is correct...but why are the CCP always do that?

Mostly because they can, and secondarily because they do have a responsibility in the obvious mismanagement, which is what they don't want to recognize, this is not an argument that can be used to "prove" they are hiding any debunked possibility you like to believe. If it were the case it would be as strong evidence for the extraterrestrial/time-travel/magical origin of the pandemic. I mean, if your only argument is that they are hiding something, so that something is what you want to believe, then it applies for everything else that could be imagined.

For the CCP the wild accusations you are so fixed into believing are extremely beneficial. Once people make the laboratory origin the main accusation they have it becomes trivially easy to refute it (for example by the serologic evidence of human infections in rural areas outside of Wuhan long before the market outbreak) which automatically disqualify the criticism. But if the criticism is made about how the reaction after the first cases was completely inadequate and made the problem much worse then they have nothing to defend themselves. You are simply giving them the perfect excuse to pretend innocence.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Maybe my translation in english is poor, so maybe some other person here can clearly translate this for you, in case you do not understand my translation.

Absolutely nothing in the article nor in your translation contradict the available consensus that the natural origin is simply the hugely more likely explanation, even if the specific mechanism has not been clarified yet. The laboratory production of the virus is still a much more forced explanation that is widely contradicted by the available evidence. Your translation is not the problem, hiding extremely pertinent information to completely misrepresent the intetion of the report to fit your personal beliefs is what is the problem.

In short, because you tend to completely misrepresent (and then mis-remember) anything that you don't want to accept. Not knowing the specific mechanism (and vector) that mediated the introduction of the infection to humans (something impeded by the lack of cooperation of the CCP) does nothing to support one of the least likely explanations, even if you like it better.

The virus came from a lab in wuhan. Besides being the most obvious conclusion, did you miss Fauci’s e-mails (2nd or 3rd release) covering the early “debate” and easily identified man-made genome sequences that was squashed by the NIH?

No such thing, that is just another completely invalid misrepresentation of the actual content, which is well known and do not contradict the consensus about no man-made sequences evident anywhere in the virus.

But really even without the “health experts” just go back to the lab being absolutely the most obvious smoking gun. 

How can this be a "smoking gun" if it does absolutely nothing to disprove the available information that clearly points to the natural origin as the much more likely explanation because it does not contradict the evidence? what if a gas station also have missing records? would that prove the virus came from it?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

That It is not off the table.

No, your original point is that it was not clear if the origin was natural or not, the natural origin is the only realistic possibility at this point, even when you tried to misrepresent a very preliminary position that had no scientific basis as if it was still valid at this point, something the rest of the article you kept hidden clearly says it is not.

When you say the virus has a realistic chance to be produced in a lab is where you are still wrong. The same as saying it was a biological weapon from the US released in China or extraterrestrial in origin (because none of those possibilities have been "scientifically disproven" either). Saying you believe something "may" be true even if the evidence clearly contradict it, based only on the fact you don't understand that evidence is also part of why you are not only "sure to be right" but actually wrong. What Farzan said can be proved wrong with the available evidence without any need for further investigation, this is just an excuse for not wanting to accept that the available evidence is already more than enough to point to the natural origina as the hugely more likely explanation.

Are you 100% sure that the virus is a natural origin?

Are you 100% sure the virus is not magical in origin? prehistoric, extraterrestrial? do you have evidence to disprove perfectly those options? because that is your argument, which makes it worthless.

Look around the world, look around you, there are many many people who are saying there is a possibility that the Virus is made at the Wuhan Lab.

Why are these people believing that?

There are people that believe the planet is flat, 5G antennas produced COVID or that vaccines contain microchips, there are countless reasons for people to keep believing things even when completely debunked, from giving too much importance to their own opinions to benefiting from making other people sharing those mistaken beliefs. An appeal to popularity is one of the easiest fallacies to identify, even if half the world believed earth was the center of the universe that did not made it true.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

If China wanted to to minimize unnecessary negative effects on its nation, economy, and people they shouldn't have created the virus.

For all practical purposes the only realistic possibility is that nature created the virus, trying to force a bland, unsuported and repeatedly contradicted possibility only helps diluting the responsibility of the CCP because of their mishandling of the early pandemic.

Well it was most likely leaked from the Wuhan virology institute

No, it is not, the same as uncountable other pathogens (including not only coronaviruses but also paramixoviruses, reoviruses, orthomixoviruses, etc. etc.) the actually most likely origin (and by much) is just another introduction from nature, the same that has happened from prehistory and keeps happening even now (because SARS-CoV-2 is not the latests zoonosis that have appeared in the region).

-7 ( +10 / -17 )

Something funny was happening in and near Fort Detrick in mid to late 2019. Just saying.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

It either came from China or it didn't. No 'expert' is disputing it came from there... apart from the fact it seems to have been in Europe earlier

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7428442/ /

https://www.newsweek.com/covid-19-spreading-earlier-thought-scientists-1502077

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites