Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

b34rman t1_jaaowzu wrote

“The bottom line remains the same: Basically no one really knows,” one of the officials said.

189

PPQue6 t1_jaarf8g wrote

This is the only thing that needs to be said. The amount of traction this story has gained is ridiculous.

121

jjblarg t1_jabr7o9 wrote

Lost what little respect I had left for Nate Silver.

16

Porteroso t1_jacscsd wrote

Why is that?

4

jjblarg t1_jaecnyy wrote

Because he's blowing this DOE story completely out of proportion and -- once again -- whining about all the people who disagree with him or don't see it the same as him.

I guess he was always kind of a man-baby. But now it's just in your face every day.

8

[deleted] t1_jadk47m wrote

[removed]

−11

b34rman t1_jaeq7db wrote

So, still no conclusive evidence. This is precisely a conspiracy theory!

3

Xyrus2000 t1_jab92j5 wrote

Is this the same "little-known scientific team" that brought us "Saddam is buying yellowcake!" and "Saddam has mobile weapons labs'?

The DoE's track record on intelligence leaves bit to be desired. :P

69

AwesomeBrainPowers t1_jabag62 wrote

I'm pretty sure that's why the "confidence level" system was introduced.

It's worth repeating (again and again) that this DoE report was categorized as "low confidence", which should mean only slightly more than absolutely nothing at all.

54

somereallyfungi t1_jackdi8 wrote

But saying anything is infinitely more than saying nothing. Like, mathematically

1

jjblarg t1_jabriwq wrote

I love the way that there is a 100% overlap of (a) people who are sure it was a leak from a bioweapons lab, and (b) the people who think everyone is overreacting to the virus

31

tronaldmcdump t1_jachb2b wrote

Also "The mainstream media is all lies!"... Then using a news story posted by mainstream media to vindicate themselves lol.

15

[deleted] t1_jadkdxa wrote

[removed]

−1

jjblarg t1_jaeccdi wrote

So you believe: (a) the virus leaked from a lab, and (b) lockdowns, masks, and vaccine mandates were totally warranted as response to the virus.

4

Squirrel_Inner t1_jaerwpa wrote

I think the evidence strongly supports the lab leak theory and that the response to the virus was reasonable, considering how dangerous it was. We still don’t understand the full effects of long covid or how it’s mutations could continue to be a problem.

All those things may not have been as effective as hoped and I think vaccine mandates are authoritarian and do more harm than good. But I got the vax, despite concerns over it.

Those concerns aren’t based on any conspiracy, just the fact that the US has a piss-poor history of allowing companies to use known toxic materials in their products. I got it anyway because I felt the benefits to all outweighed my personal risk.

1

Jskidmore1217 t1_jabwaz1 wrote

No, actually there’s not. The people who are most read up on the lab origin hypothesis seem to mostly be in support of a strong response to the virus.

−22

BarCompetitive7220 t1_jac9y8f wrote

Team Rupert is publishing anything to divert attention away from his admission that he turned a blind eye to what his well paid Foxbots were saying about voter fraud in 2020.

27

PositionParticular99 t1_jaaplzh wrote

Sure set the base of, see China.....

The report said maybe, its possible. Not evidence of it.

19

8to24 t1_jad878u wrote

>The Energy Department has now concluded with "low confidence" that the COVID-19 pandemic most likely began after an unintentional laboratory leak in China, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cited a classified intelligence report provided to the White House and members of Congress. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2023/02/27/covid-lab-leak-energy-department-theory-explained/11357354002/

This is a game where people are cherry picking the data they most want to be correct. No federal agency has a high confidence that Covid came from a lab.

Those running around screaming that this low confidence assessment proves something are ridiculous.

15

Squirrel_Inner t1_jadk7d8 wrote

There's a lot more evidence than that: https://www.reddit.com/user/Squirrel_Inner/comments/11edudn/factual_evidence_for_wuhan_lab_leak_of_covid19/

−12

shoebee2 t1_jaeg4x1 wrote

Ahhhh yes! The infamous Squirrel_inner report! /S

Wtf is the matter with you people?

1

Squirrel_Inner t1_jaeqgj0 wrote

…squirrel people? People that compile evidence from valid sources to argue an important point? Your going to have to be more specific.

1

rayinreverse t1_jacqsyi wrote

Why is the wet market in Wuhan the source of this virus and NOT much larger markets in Guangdong with far higher trade numbers? Probably has something to do with the fact Wuhan is the site of the most intensive programme of research on SARS-like viruses in the world, and among those viruses was one that was 96.2 per cent the same as SARS-CoV-2

7

adsfew t1_jacuefn wrote

96.2% actually seems massively different to me.

With a genome size of ~30 kb and proofreading ability, that's over 1000 SNPs acquired between a hypothetical leak and the sequencing of the wild-type virus. Omicron has > 30 amino acid mutations, so only ~100 SNPs—a whole order of magnitude lower than the link to a lab strain.

Obviously you can't directly compare a virus to a mammal and the generation times are wildly different, but humans and chimps share about 96% of the genome. 96% similarity means things were phylogenetically related at some point, but I'm skeptical that a direct leak would only be 96% similar.

7

Squirrel_Inner t1_jadl3dk wrote

Actually, it was the entire sequence except for the RBD, according to virologist Bob Garry:

“I lined n-CoV” — so, the new coronavirus — “with the 96 percent bat Coronavirus, sequenced at the WIV. Except for the RBD” — and that means receptor-binding domain — “the S proteins are essentially identical at the amino-acid level, while all but the perfect insertion of 12 nucleotides, that adds the furin site, as to is over its whole length, essentially identical. I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to [SARS-CoV-2] where you insert exactly 4 amino acids 12 nucleotide[s] that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function…. I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.”

Taken from this article: https://theintercept.com/2022/05/06/deconstructed-lab-leak-covid-katherine-eban/

1

rayinreverse t1_jacvbgs wrote

That’s a really solid point, and I have no legitimate counter to it. But also the town that has a SARS lab is where a SARS virus originates and we are skeptical it came from the lab, and convinced it was from a wet market? If I show up with a piece of Swedish furniture that we need to build and the instructions have no words only pictures, you’re going to be pretty fucking convinced it’s from IKEA even if I continue to say it’s not.

−5

adsfew t1_jad5q2k wrote

I'm not an investigator and I don't have their facts or finding, so this is all just an extremely uninformed opinion.

I absolutely think a leak is plausible. But if 96% really is the similarity to the closest lab strain, then I just wanted to put in context how dissimilar that is genetically. I think it's one of those times where 96% sounds really high, but genetically it's pretty divergent imo.

It's still totally possible that it's a leaked strain and maybe the lab just destroyed the records of that strain or something. But taken on its own, 96% isn't that high in this context.

7

Electric-Frog t1_jad8b5c wrote

And if all of the pieces were labelled "Ikeya", then it would be pretty obvious that it's not IKEA.

There is no way that 3 months of limited spread in a small area would cause 10 times as much variance as 2 years of borderline uncontrolled spread over a large portion of the world.

4

WirelessBCupSupport t1_jad55ko wrote

Plausible under-paid tech selling test animals to the Wuhan market since its closer and less obvious trying to transport to larger market?

2

ph4mp573r t1_jadpc7o wrote

The RaTG13 sample at Wuhan was from 2013 and was no longer live at the time SARS-COV-2 started spreading.

Before China stopped cooperating with the international community after being accused of being responsible for COVID the Wuhan lab regularly uploaded all it's sequences and results to public databases, they weren't working on any similar viruses at the time.

That should be the entire theory killed. But fear of secret bioweapons research gone awry keeps it alive.

1

[deleted] t1_jae73nb wrote

[removed]

0

ph4mp573r t1_jaenz4m wrote

>RaTG13 was just one of the COVID19-like samples they collected.

Name another. It's the only one with a direct relationship they ever found. Other teams have found similar since.

>We actually don't know what other similar genomes they found in the wild.

Yes we do. They published all their research in the open like most good scientific institutions.

>They used to publish a database of the genomes they found and worked with (though even then, some parts of the database were private). In September of 2019 they took the database offline.

They continued uploading all their sequences and research to both GenBank and Virological until December of 2020 when the CCP ordered them to stop due to Trump's rhetoric.

>What we do know is that in 2018 WIV proposed adding a furin cleavage site to a SARS-like corona virus. Two years later emerges COVID19, the only known SARS-like corona virus with a furin cleavage site.

Furin cleavage sites are a natural feature of multiple different coronaviruses:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873506120304165

Is all of this proof that there was no lab leak? No.

But it IS proof that you and many others continue to spread false narratives and misinformation in support of a politically motivated theory on the origin of COVID-19 which obfuscates legitimate attempts at finding the true origin.

3

justforthearticles20 t1_jadjk3b wrote

All of the Conspiracy spreaders are failing to include the "Low Confidence" part of the "Conclusion". It was highly unprofessional to release a report that basically says, "We don't think this is actually true but, It's All True"

7

wcstorm11 t1_jae1mub wrote

Why is it conspiracy!? The largest pandemic in recent history and we still don't know the source, why rule this out?

−5

justforthearticles20 t1_jaetemk wrote

Because the source of it was Q, and Russian Troll Farms, and Fox News*.

Fox News* is already screaming "Coverup" based on this Shocking Revelation by the DOE. "Low Confidence" means they don't believe it, but wanted to stir up trouble anyway.

2

wcstorm11 t1_jaeuf4z wrote

That's incredibly reductive. Literally just follow the data, there was some dystopian censoring going on under the guise of racism. A facility that literally worked on the virus, where the virus started, destroyed evidence and refused independent investigation. If it wasn't a political issue people would have unanimously freaked out.

Instead, we still don't know exactly how this one happened, which would be amazing if it could help stop this happening again.

Low confidence means they have supporting data but it isn't a high degree of confidence. I have a pen and paper, and a written letter is near me. There is a low level of confidence I wrote it.

Edit: didn't the FBI say the same with moderate confidence?

−3

[deleted] t1_jabbcjs wrote

[removed]

−10

boofbeer t1_jabew5e wrote

You have to be exceptionally dishonest to characterize the distance from the Huanan Market to the Wuhan Institute of Virology as "a few blocks". It's more than ten miles away, and the outbreak didn't begin at markets which were closer to the Institute.

18

sexisfun1986 t1_jabi8jm wrote

The lab was built in the area because there where previous infections.

6

[deleted] t1_jaat39i wrote

[removed]

−18

MachoKingMadness t1_jaauvy0 wrote

Talking about sources as you literally quote a far right rag from New Media Foundation.

30

[deleted] t1_jaavdly wrote

[removed]

−10

MachoKingMadness t1_jaawbfd wrote

Did I ever say that? No, of course not.

Is questioning a source “attacking” it? No, of course not.

You should always check the sources of an article. The story this whole thing has been based on literally says that no one knows where the leak came from. The headlines that have been used have been extremely misleading.

You should also learn a little bit about the person who writes the articles. especially when they are “the founder of one of the largest lobbying and information group for controversial religions.”

21

[deleted] t1_jaax9dz wrote

[removed]

−5

MachoKingMadness t1_jaaxx4m wrote

You mean they are doing what every government does when something catastrophic happens?

I’m going to be very clear, WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE THE ORGIN OF THE DISEASE.

Could it have come from a lab leak? Yes.

Could it have been through an animal to human transfer? Yes.

Again, we do not know.

15

[deleted] t1_jaaz09z wrote

[removed]

−18

DearMrsLeading t1_jab3wt8 wrote

What do you do for a living? Either you’re an epidemiologist or you’re pulling that conclusion out of your ass.

12

Difficult_Height5956 t1_jadwz7f wrote

Apparently, no one knows if it was a lab leak or not, so I'm obviously pulling it out of my ass. The fact that the Chinese were not at all transparent does make me think they fucked up. Kinda like trump swearing he didn't do anything but refusing any testimony

0

MajesticOuting t1_jaaz23u wrote

The attempts to rewrite history are pretty bad aren't they?

−20

[deleted] t1_jabcezl wrote

[removed]

−24

sexisfun1986 t1_jabhgkz wrote

The lab was built there because the area was the source of other serious infections that spread globally.

You also think volcanology detection facilities cause volcanoes to erupt?

26

[deleted] t1_jac1749 wrote

[removed]

−5

crlb2525 t1_jackiaa wrote

If we apply Occam's razor you’re right. Simplest answer is a mistake at the lab.

−5

sexisfun1986 t1_jae8516 wrote

No it’s not. Pandemics have occurred countless times before the only thing close to a pandemic occurring because of a “lab leak” was a possible production failure with a wide spread vaccine program, as in millions of failure points.

This region has already been the source of past global infections.

So a natural process that has resulted in multiple past incidents including some in this specific spot, is the simplest explanation.

Adding an extra step to a known process a lab leak which also does not have a record of causing a such an occurrence is the definition of adding complexity

2

crlb2525 t1_jaekn9f wrote

Aside from the "hey, it came from a wet market that doesn't sell the animals.....

What was that about adding complexity?

−2

sexisfun1986 t1_jaemy3i wrote

No yeah a hundred percent random markets procedures are way more absolute then labourites. There is no chance that a market might have different offerings at different times and they are always perfectly recorded . /S

Hey fun fact zoonosis occurs whit contact to animals by humans not from stocked shelves.

2

[deleted] t1_jaenlsq wrote

[removed]

−2

sexisfun1986 t1_jaf2mmj wrote

LoL, Jesus Christ zoonosis is the way this has happened multiple multiple times this the way this the standard method there is no add complexity.

Also again the lab was built there because everyone realized this was going to happen again you know because this happened before, as in before the lab was built.

Let me guess you also think volcanic eruptions are caused by volcanology research facilities.

3

No_Improvement7573 t1_jabftk8 wrote

"Right next door" is a weird way to say "miles away"

21

[deleted] t1_jac014f wrote

[removed]

−6

No_Improvement7573 t1_jacouhv wrote

Give it a rest, shitdick. I don't pretend to know what happened but I know it wasn't [insert fringe conspiracy theory]. Find a better way to entertain yourself.

5

Agent_Angelo_Pappas t1_jac4hk6 wrote

You don’t think it’s curious that when the earliest cases are plotted they create a bullseye pattern centered on the market and show no apparent geographic relation to the Wuhan Institute of Virology or the neighborhoods where its employees worked/lived?

Do you not find it curious that when looking at initial sampling researchers actually found the pattern of viral particles increased in concentration near the area of the market where butchering was occurring?

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp871

What’s most curious to me is how it seems like infectious disease experts and epidemiologists are overwhelmingly in agreement it seems most likely this was a typical zoonotic transfer, and it’s only politically driven government agencies in completely unrelated fields like Energy that are pushing accusations on the lab with vague reasoning.

16

TwoFrontHitters t1_jac5reg wrote

Can't believe it's taken nearly 3 years to start taking this hypothesis seriously. Dismiss the "wet market" nonsense and move on to reality.

−21