Here
and
Now

opinions

Why scientists are concerned about leaks at biolabs

29 Comments
By Issam Ahmed, Lucie Aubourg and Paul Handley

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

© 2021 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments
Login to comment

This was the stuff of "conspiracy theories" a week or two ago. But now...

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

This was the stuff of "conspiracy theories" a week or two ago. But now...

No it was not, biosafety and biosecurity worries are not the stuff of conspiracy theories, it is entirely normal to have them and for scientists to try and prevent any and all possible weakness on the systems that prevent biohazardous materials to be leaked into the environment (including things apart from infectious materials).

What was considered conspiracy theories were people saying the leak was confirmed using false and misleading information like the Yan manuscript, the supposed research leading directly to SARS-CoV-2 or the leaked information that supposedly explicitly said the lab was guilty of producing and releasing the virus. Those things keep being false and anybody using the material as an argument is still mistaken.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

virusrexToday  12:49 pm JST

This was the stuff of "conspiracy theories" a week or two ago. But now...

No it was not, biosafety and biosecurity worries are not the stuff of conspiracy theories, it is entirely normal to have them and for scientists to try and prevent any and all possible weakness on the systems that prevent biohazardous materials to be leaked into the environment (including things apart from infectious materials).

What was considered conspiracy theories were people saying the leak was confirmed using false and misleading information like the Yan manuscript, the supposed research leading directly to SARS-CoV-2 or the leaked information that supposedly explicitly said the lab was guilty of producing and releasing the virus. Those things keep being false and anybody using the material as an argument is still mistaken.

You'll say anything to protect your precious narrative. Fact is, over the last 15 months basically anyone who suggested in public that the virus "could" have come from the WIV was smeared or laughed at as a nutter. Now even folks like Fauci are being forced to consider that it may be possible/not rule it out after strenuously denying it since early last year.

Add this to emerging evidence from those released emails of conflicts of interest among Fauci et al with respect to gain-of-function research (which I acknowledge as useful in some circumstances) that could involve the WIV, and things are looking a little shaky for your lot. Face it, your narrative is slowly starting to crumble. You can keep obfuscating, but more and more people are rightfully refusing to buy your faulty product.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

The one reason why a lab leak theory seems plausible is absence or lack of determination of an amplifier host. Bats are a reservoir of viruses and have been for thousands of years but most of the times they can not directly infect humans with these. A spillover requires an amplifier host.

In the case of SARS, it was palm civets. In the case of MERS, it was dromedary camels. In the case of Hendra virus outbreak in Australia in the mid-90s, it was horses. Which is the intermediate host this time which supports the theory of a natural zoonotic spillover? Pangolins in the Wuhan wet market? It's only a speculation.

Therefore the theory of an accidental lab leak from a lab where safety protocols were not adhered to seems plausible.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Fact is, over the last 15 months basically anyone who suggested in public that the virus "could" have come from the WIV was smeared or laughed at as a nutter.

That is false, only those that used obviously false arguments were, and that is valid and desirable, false information and the people that try to mislead others by repeating it even when knowing is false should be ridiculed. There has been multiple editorials, comments, reviews, etc. that mention the possibility of artificial origin of the pandemic that never were ridiculed because they never use any of those flawed arguments, the problem may be that they were neither a popular video on youtube because they did not include "testimony" from secret spies confirming the whole thing.

Nobody is being forced to consider anything not disproven as possible, that is what science is about, it is still extremely unlikely and the most probable explanation is still the natural origin, the same as has happened countless of times before, but anyone has the freedom to say they consider other explanations as still worth of being pursued, even if it is only to be able to discard them completely.

Every single laboratory that works with pathogens is doing gain of function research, it is a routine work even to characterize a virus, saying that any institute of virology is suspicious because it does it is like saying a hospital is suspicious of malpractice because they are doing... injections!

You can believe whatever you want but that doesn't make the artificial origin more likely, it is still a longshot compared with the usual, repeated occurrence of natural introduction of a zoonosis.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

You're really clutching at straws, virusrex. You can push whatever line you like or whatever line you're paid to push (yeah, yeah, I know...). But even Blind Freddy can see your narrative is falling apart - you know it's getting tough for your lot when they have to admit to the plausibility of the lab-leak hypothesis after denying it so hard for so long. There might've been scientists saying it early on, but they weren't taken seriously by the mainstream. And of course there's the CCP, font of virtue, denying access to the WIV for nearly a year before they sanitised it and the nearby wet market before allowing some approved inspectors in for a stage-managed 3-hour tour. An lo! Nothing to see here. But where's the bat cave where the these elusive bats came from?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

No it was not, biosafety and biosecurity worries are not the stuff of conspiracy theories

If the lab leak was never a conspiracy theory, why did you call it a "conspiracy theory" on January 29th?

So the "virus escaped from the lab" conspiracy theory would need to explain how the virus managed to not only escape the laboratory, but also a highly populated city without causing outbreaks, then go to more rural areas where slowly spread between patients until it came back again to the city, this time causing a very obvious cluster that raised the alarm (and was mismanaged horribly by the authorities until it was too late to stop it there). So, it would need to explain how COVID-19 behaved much more like a natural transmission from a wild animal reservoir than coming from a lab.

-@Virusrex Jan. 29 2021 02:57 pm JST

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

If if the only "argument" that you can use is to imagine people that can prove you wrong must be paid to do it, that is the closest you can get to recognizing you have no argument at all. I mean, going explicitly against the rules of the sites just to write something is not exactly something that people with actual arguments would need to do.

The laboratory origin (or extraterrestrial origin, or US bioterrorism, etc.) is still extremely unlikely, but scientifically has to be considered plausible until it is categorically disproved or the real origin substanciad, that has not changed at all but must be a surprise for people that don't understand the scientific method. It is much more easier to have some supreme authority to just declare something as the unmovable truth that is impossible to demonstrate as false, this way you would not need to examine any evidence.

And again, your problem is thinking the scientific discussions (and this is a scientific discussion) are done in "the mainstream" and that anything that you don't see there doesn't exist. Forget already about it if you want to get informed, go directly to the primary sources and open scientific and medical sites of discussion, you would stop being surprised by things that have been continuously discussed there.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

If the lab leak was never a conspiracy theory, why did you call it a "conspiracy theory" on January 29th?

Because it was, people were using as arguments information that was easy to demonstrate as false or mistaken. That is what makes it so.

Let me reduce it so you can clearly see the problem.

"The laboratory escape is a possibility"

This is not a conspiracy theory, the possibility (even if extremely low) is still there. It would still need to explain a lot of conflicting evidence that support the natural origin.

"The laboratory escape has been confirmed by a paper by Yan and leaked US military information"

This is a conspiracy theory, because it is based on false "evidence" that do not prove it at all.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

You keep banging on about "the science," virusrex, but ignore or defame science that contradicts your narrative. Especially when it comes to attention on the WIV and competing COVID-19 treatments to your beloved vaccines. I understand the scientific method, and have a hunch that I also understand human nature a lot better than you do. I have a good understanding of why people lie, deceive, mislead and the like, and scientists and their PR mouthpieces are not immune to this kind of behaviour. Doesn't even take many to muddy the waters, just some with interests and careers to protect. The FOI'd Fauci emails hint at this. You're aware of those, right? After more than a year of public denials, why the sudden change in stance? Diffuse a bit of heat?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

You keep banging on about "the science," virusrex, but ignore or defame science that contradicts your narrative. 

Again, you are free to prove me wrong by making a list of recognized medical and scientific organizations that support your views, the last time you went completely silent, which mean it is actually the scientific consensus even if you don't like it.

Your hunchs and how you evaluate your understanding is irrelevant. Your position requires the whole scientific community of the world to be wrong just so you can be right, that is not believable. It is simply much more likely you do not want to accept what the science have found about COVID, that is a perfectly common explanation.

Now, can you quote exactly what part of the e-mails "hint" at anything? I mean, since you could not prove the scientific consensus is not opposite to your views.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

virusrex, here's a link with some of the emails.

https://www.worldtribune.com/fauci-exposed-emails-reveal-bid-to-divert-attention-from-his-gain-of-function-research-wuhan/

And at risk of being off-topic, here is research by doctors on the ground who have been working with Ivermectin. Remember that "consensus" is a phone argument. Medicine like any other science is constantly evolving. All it takes is for one person to find something new to render the consensus meaningless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn_b4NRTB6k&t=524s

This an ICU doctor who is actually working with patients and getting real results.The research links are under the video. This was posted yesterday be me and someone else, but the posts were deleted.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

virusrex, here's a link with some of the emails.

So you could not find any quote to share? again, what exactly is that you think "hints" at something? the article you link at makes a lot of overreaching assumptions and logic leaps, so which part is the one that according to you is wrong?

https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/fauci-emails-heres-what-we-learned/

And at risk of being off-topic, here is research by doctors on the ground who have been working with Ivermectin. Remember that "consensus" is a phone argument. 

No, I can't remember such a thing because you never came with any examples of institutions that supported your claims, that is conceding that the consensus is real and against your personal opinion. The situation with ivermectin is still part of it, some people find it work, other find it doesn't help at all, so the scientific thing to do is to put forward huge studies that can decide what exactly is happening and for the moment let people use it inside of clinical trials with proper ethical review and vigilance of the participants to avoid putting them in unnecessary risk.

Nothing in your link contradicts this.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Still 59? Close them all, damned! I told you already last year to close such facilities when it has already long been crystal clear how this pandemic had begun.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Did you actually read the article? If so, break it down for us with your expertise, won't you? Point by point.

And with the other link, all you're doing is appealing to authority by referring to "the institutions" and a phoney "consensus," while grudgingly acknowledging doctors who are getting real results on the ground to show that ivermectin works when used as a prophylactic and as a treatment when administered in appropriate doses - ethically, clearly - otherwise they'd be hauled before their certification boards. It's clear you haven't watched the video discussion or followed the links pointing to the research. Otherwise you'd understand the doctor's discussion about clinical trials.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Jonathan Cook's article here makes very interesting reading. He says that no-one, not the Chinese, the WHO, the US or the corporate media have any interest in discovering the truth of the origins of covid19, for a variety of reasons.

https://consortiumnews.com/2021/06/03/was-there-a-wuhan-lab-leak/

The narrative has been managed for the last 15 months and it's still being managed now. The key article here is this one from Nicholas Wade, a former science writer with the New York Times.

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

I'd never heard of Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York until I read this article. Now it appears he's got his hands all over what we assume we know about the origins of covid19.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Alfie, I don't usually agree with much of what you post. But this is good stuff.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

And at risk of being off-topic, here is research by doctors on the ground who have been working with Ivermectin. Remember that "consensus" is a phone argument. Medicine like any other science is constantly evolving. All it takes is for one person to find something new to render the consensus meaningless.

I don't remember ever hearing an actual scientist talking about "consensus", is a phony argument used to silence opposing views and push a narrative that can't be defended otherwise. Scientists do not use that word, or extremely rarely.

BTW, here is a long discussion between Pierre Kory & Bret Weinstein. Haven't listened to it yet, but it promises to be good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn_b4NRTB6k

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Not only because of bio-engineering (anyone still remember the media blanket thrown over any mention of that odd furin cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 about a year ago?), I had increasingly become so disgusted with blunt but effective social engineering and profiteering at a world-scale through mass media, social media, and a particular forum-that-shall-not-be-named (henceforth referred to as 'fubar') ... that I haven't turned on my television for a few weeks now — and depend on triangulating for news through original abstracts, independent websites, or competitors to YouTube.

I took a break from fubar because my own posts were either routinely disappeared under the rubric of 'off topic', edited without my permission, and followed with a trail-of-tears downvotes. Ha, I could say 'My dog, Spot.' and get an instant squall.

Though slow in learning the game, I've spotted another strategy in controlling the narrative. Regardless of number of comments or their length, with a flip of the ''Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.'' switch, the editor decides whether the water is getting too hot, or who gets in the last word.

But I'm glad to have returned for a brief peak and comment at the Pic of the Day, May 30 and June 2, and now here. What now seems like a lifetime ago, I thought I was the only one who had a problem with a now easily identifiable shill for Big-Pharma (particular thanks to Gooch, Raw Beer, and Alfie Noaks), and am pleasantly surprised to find myself among a few who have both a moral backbone and critical thinking skills regarding the official narrative and its would-be apologist. Extra kudos for those who've shared time and sources of information in comments that could be removed or edited at a whim.

For what it is worth, (and as long as this post lasts) some names I'd like to add to the pot ... YouTubers Chris Martenson, (Ph.D. Toxicology, Duke), Dr. Sam Bailey (Medical practitioner and author, New Zealand), Ivor Cummins (Ireland), already mentioned in comments Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, Dr. Scott Jensen (Minnesota Senator and physician), Dr. Peter Breggin (Harvard trained but independent), Dr. Judy Mikovits (there is a good reason her book is ranked so highly on Amazon), Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize winning inventor of PCR ... and even more enjoyable, if not directly relevant, book), Laura Dodsworth's deep dive into England's social engineering through fear (State of Fear), and 'big-picture' social gadflies The Corbett Report, The Last American Vagabond, and Alison McDowell — all of the above waaaaay above my pay-grade, but also way above a particular shill's.

As I've learned the hard way, the moment I hit the 'Post' button, I am saving the article above and all comments to date, to hard disc ... a future reference and possible publication regarding how a 'creative' manufacturing of history sustains both the narrative and perverse incentives alike. Joseph Goebbels might have taught the world to sing 'in perfect harmony', but now that I've found out that crows and ravens are the world's largest songbirds, I am having a go at learning how to cackle. ;-)

Even more than the article, some of the comments preceding my own made my day, give me some hope.

Cheers all. — steve

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Questioned by Congress last week, Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health denied this amounted to gain of function research, but Ebright said it clearly does.

Fauci's recently released emails show that he knew very well that they were doing gain of function research. He should be fire immediately, at the very least...

@ Steve Martin

Welcome back; I made sure to make back up copies of your last recent great posts.

Thanks for the names. I know many of them, but I'll make sure to check out the remaining ones.

Don't worry about the down votes, I suspect they do not all come from separate members.

There are a number of decent posters, including a bunch of news ones...

Cheers all!

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Sick scientists were hospitalized, the asymptomatic scientists walked out the front door... Not rocket science.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Well said, Steve. I’ll check out the names I haven’t come across as well.

Agree with Raw Beer - the more downvotes you get on topics like this generally means you’re over the target and scoring hits.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Ivor Cummins, Scott Jensen, Judy Mikovits? even the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" comments from Mullis? Is this some parallel dimension where people found to be wrong, liars and criminals became examples to follow? I am suprised Wakefield and Robert Kennedy Jr did not make the cut, maybe in the next comment?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

We seem to forget that until about a hundred years ago, epidemics were entirely normal occurrences, without anyone claiming that they were caused by a leak from a laboratory.

Cholera, yellow fever, polio, smallpox, typhus, and scarlet fever were not unusual. It is only within the last century that we have begun to think of ourselves as superior to the diseases that ran rampant for thousands of years.

There may be a certain lack of trust between many of the world powers, but scientists have to be fully aware of the danger to our species from newly evolving viruses jumping from animals to humans. It is much more likely that the Wuhan lab, and the other labs like it around the globe, have been working to try to protect us, rather than trying to find new ways to kill us.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

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

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Is this some parallel dimension where people found to be wrong, liars and criminals became examples to follow?

It is actually quite common, people tend to gravitate towards figures that do the same mistakes as them, somehow feeling it makes those mistakes valid. If your only approach to discuss something is to use false information then you end up also admiring those that produce the false information in the first place.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Agree with Raw Beer - the more downvotes you get on topics like this generally means you’re over the target and scoring hits.

Be careful. That’s how they get you. You may’ve said too much already. Maybe use code words or wrap your modem with clingfilm. Whatever you do, don’t use Windows, Gates is behind this all, you’ll see. 15 months from now, you’ll all see. Finally everyone will see I was smart and I was right all along.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics

A list of some of the worst epidemics in history. The Black Death, 700 years ago, killed at least a third of all the people in Europe and Asia. Should we be looking for a laboratory to blame for that one too? Looking at things with an historical perspective helps keep the conversation grounded in common sense. Plagues are part of the human condition. It is only the marvels of modern medicine, and the laboratories working to protect us, which have enabled us to forget that.

BTW, when laboratories around the world raced to come up with vaccines, they relied on early research by the Wuhan lab to identify the genetic structure of the Covid-19 virus. The Wuhan lab was working to protect the world, not destroy it, and made the results of its research freely available to anyone who could use it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

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