TWiV Special: How the pandemic began in Nature, in 5 key points
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- TWiV rebuts a recent opinion piece which falsely claims that the COVID-19 pandemic began in a lab (it began in Nature). This material has been extracted from TWiV 1121.
Show notes at www.microbe.tv...
Become a patron of TWiV at microbe.tv/con...
----------- CONNECT -----------
🎯 Subscribe! bit.ly/2HOYdNP
Instagram: @profvrr and @microbe.tv
Twitter: @profvrr
TikTok: / microbe.tv
Facebook: / thisweekinvirology
Our Podcasts: microbe.tv
Contribute: www.microbe.tv...
----------- MORE VIROLOGY -----------
•My Virology Course virology.ws/co...
•Virology Blog: www.virology.ws
•Virus Watch bit.ly/3ngvQIM
•Principles of Virology textbook amzn.to/34onDtg
----------- OUR SCIENCE PODCASTS -----------
•This Week in Virology bit.ly/30uUhrX
This Week in Parasitism bit.ly/3ndUNUZ
•This Week in Microbiology bit.ly/33tOUeO
•Urban Agriculture microbe.tv/urbanag
•This Week in Evolution bit.ly/3ne1bf5
•Immune bit.ly/2HOyCVb
•This Week in Neuroscience bit.ly/2So12Yd
•Infectious Disease Puscast bit.ly/3K4EKF0
- Who Am I? -
I’m Vincent Racaniello, Earth’s Virology Professor, and I believe that education should be free.
I’m also a professor of virology at Columbia University in New York. I’ve been doing research on viruses since 1976, and teaching virology in classrooms and online since 1999. On this UA-cam channel I share videos of my lectures, podcasts, and more.
New videos are uploaded several times each week.
I do not run ads on our work as it is disruptive to learning. We depend on your support.
If you would like to support our work, go to www.microbe.tv...
MicrobeTV appreciates your donation and your support of our mission. Our budget and ongoing financial health rely on accounting for and accepting irrevocable, non-refundable donations from the public. Therefore, MicrobeTV considers all donations to be nonrefundable.
Content in this video should not be construed as medical advice.
-----------------------
#microbe #viruses #coronavirus #pandemic
-----------------------
reading the slack messages of kristian andersen, even the author of proximal origins of covid thought it was engineered and continued to think it was engineered while drafting that paper and making opposite public statements, he even discussed how to throw off a 'spot on' journalist who was asking him questions about it
Ander$on and Gary were my personal favourites. They were the ultimate contradiction given their private views vs public statements.
It's shocking how they changed opinions and did so in record time.
@@jammin1881 8.9 million reasons to change their minds.
@@jammin1881shocking ? Seriously ? Where did your common sense and integrity go ? Why did you omit the process through which they arrived at conclusion ? Ie talking with worlds leading corona virus experts including Marian Koopmans.
Also why do you think he insists that release the whole emails exchange and not just the cherry picked ones ?
@@GaryVoltsyou lie a lot . Do you think among any lab leakers any body raised by decent parents ?
@@Sceince01 Where are you from? You write in a very unique way.
Please forward this to the ombudsman at NYTimes. The editors need to appreciate the misinformation that they have propagated!
Yes, please!
The panelists seem to have overlooked some recent papers that undermine Worobey et al and Pekar et al though? For example they cite Pekar et al as evidence of multiple spillovers but Lv et al (2024) published new genomes indicating intermediate genomes before the A-B split. So a single spillover is more likely and A came first. So the market cases (which were all lineage B) are not the primary cases. Weissman (2024) also showed the early case data was subject to ascertainment bias so it wasn't informative as to origin in any case. Ultimately WHO is still calling for data on both the animal trade and Wuhan labs.
Lol, Prof. Vincent doth protest too much.
Do people know that he's a big time proponent of gain of function research and therefore does not want the pandemic to be attributed to his own idiotic advocacy?
I don't know what ails the New York Times. They keep repeating this stuff like it will become believable - and it could.
Better yet, allow Vincent to critique and then Chan to rebut, etc. Keep doing it long enough and public debate might occur, something we need and couldn't get whilst one viewpoint had the power to censor.
Thank you so much! This should be posted on all the youtubers who think they know "better" like Brett Weinstein, Joe Rogan, Russel Brand and all other self proclaimed "experts"...
It's NOT just podcasters that are saying this though. Many virologists, scientists and micro biologists are saying the same thing.
What we have here is misinformation with teams of scientists with CLEAR conflicts of interest (having ties to gain of function and bioweapons defence programs) defending natural origins.
People like Fauci, Anderson and Garry have started lying and doubling down. They keep lying.
Well at least those are independent voices. This dude is partly culpable for the pandemic as one of the leading boosters for this kind of dangerous experimentation prior to the pandemic.
@@GaryVolts
Exactly. Most people who still cling vehemently to natural origins either have massive conflicts of interest or pushed and advocated for gain of function.
*None will accept responsibility for the millions of deaths and the largest mass disabling event in modern history.*
Why are the panelists still referring to Pekar et al in support of multiple spillovers when new genomes published in Lv et al (2024) show intermediate genomes and spread before the A-B split? These lineages were only two mutations apart anyway so it was always questionable that they reflected separate spillover events. A new PubPeer comment also shows Pekar compared likelihoods of *different outcomes* for N=1 and N=2, with N=2 given a bigger target. When corrected single spillover is more likely.
@@VoidPangolin I used to cherish time (hours in fact!) spent listening to the crew at TWiV. I am shocked by their behavior.
@@janetmasleid4085 So who do you listen to now?
- So a comment on a PubPeer, not a paper is justification of question Pekar? Are you talking about Gilles Demaneuf ? His analysis is that the correction only showed a moderate chance of a single spillover, NOT more likely. And that was from 4 days ago. And his original post, showed irritation that his and others contributions weren't acknowledged. Hardly peer reviewed.
@@AlbertMark-nb9zo If you go to 'MEDIUM' (links will not post here)
Backstage story: The Oct 2023 Correction to Pekar et al
When formal peer-review fails
Gilles Demaneuf
·15 min read
·Oct 25, 2023
Introduction:
The preprint publication of Pekar et al at the end of February 2022 was accompanied by an aggressive global media push. That push presented the preprint conclusions as ‘dispositive’, and the preprint itself as a fine example of clever work. All for a piece of complex modelling that had not yet been peer-reviewed. The preprint was followed by a peer-reviewed publication in Science on 26 July 2022, with essentially the same content.
This Medium article explains how some undeterred quantitative-minded individuals decided to check the modelling and its assumptions, shortly after the publication of the preprint. This was done in a dedicated DRASTIC Twitter group created in March 2022, where eventually one of them (Nod, @nizzaneela) triggered a substantial correction to Pekar et al in Science in October 2023, by posting detailed modelling issues, their effects, and their corrections on PubPeer, a post-publication peer-review site.
After going over the modelling issues and their corrections, I will show how they substantially affect the market double-jump hypothesis. I will then show that the amended text of Pekar et al largely downplays the significance of these corrections, and draw some conclusions on the limitations of publication peer review.
Two spillovers are unlikely because even though there can be multiple spillovers, the rare event is the mutation of human-to-human transmission, which is highly unlikely to occur at the same time. This panel is out of their lane.
Really appreciated this video because I read the opinion piece, and it was not written by a virologist.
It was written by a scientist who has spent countless hours on the subject for the past 3 or 4 years and is now one of the most knowledgeable person around.
@@jean-francoisbrunet2031 A Post doctoral fellow does not compare with virologists who have worked for 40 years or more on viruses.
@@jean-francoisbrunet2031actually pushing a book for profit unlike these scientists here. The author is making money by spreading misinformation about Covid-19 which is a multi billion dollar business.
@@jean-francoisbrunet2031 - She was a well known pusher of the lab leak. I've seen articles stating her in SciAm. So what. There are others who have spent countless hours as well. The question is what experience does she have with breakouts and other aspects of this subject.
@@AlbertMark-nb9zo If you have any doubt that a lab leak is LIKELY (and Chan never said more than that) and that it should be investigated in a way that it never was because of a massive obstruction from China (what else to expect from them?) but also from a a bunch of American virologists in collaboration with China (EcoHealth and friends, and that obstruction is PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt, unlike the lab leak itself), you have not followed this story very carefully.
Dr Angela Rasmussen ( virologist)issued a point by point rebuttal on June3 to Chan’s opinion piece . Dr Rasmussen essentially supports the TWiV rebuttal. Other scientists who have expertise in virology are concurring with her.
Where can I find?
@@sallybrookner4158 she starts to discuss it June 3 at her account on X or twitter
I kind of know this sci-comer virologist present on social media right? Used to run a lab or something. Anyway, she kinda sorta knows these virology experts. And get this-when she talks, I actually nod along like she's making sense.
@@sallybrookner4158 for some reason my response to the citation to Rasmussen will not stay posted here. Google her and she did a response on June 3. Hope that helps.
Did find an excellent article (layman friendly) at sciencebasedmedicine:
“The New York Times promotes “lab leak” conspiracy theories”
David Gorski
There seems to be these challenges going on to the natural origin theory. Papers refuting the latest attacks on the natural origin can be found in,
"No evidence of systematic proximity ascertainment bias in early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan Reply to Weissman (2024) Florence Débarre, Michael Worobey "
The Lv paper is probably "Evolutionary trajectory of diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants at the beginning of COVID-19 outbreak"? It doesn't say anything about number of spillovers. They acknowledge Peckar and say "it remains unclear when, where, and how SARS-CoV-2 first appeared in humans prior to its initial identification in December 2019 in Wuhan". But if this is the paper they don't want to reveal, then no, it isn't claiming what they are claiming it is saying.
Yes, there seems to be challenges going around. And since you manifested elsewhere that you believe exclusively in published articles, you might want to signal to your audience that Débarre and Worobey is not published. It is in ArXiv (strangely not BioArxiv), where basically anything goes (not that "published" means much either, but still...).
@@jean-francoisbrunet2031 - ARXiv hosts both pre-prints and post-prints of articles. Worobey's other work on the the spread, has been peer reviewed. The Worobey and Debarre "paper" stated was a rebuttal. Not a study, but a critique of someone's peer review of their process. It wouldn't be really the stuff a full journal would print. Now where Alina Chan's even partial research?
@@jean-francoisbrunet2031 - You might want to look into the fact that it was a rebuttal. To something that was in itself not peer reviewed.
@@AlbertMark-nb9zo Not peered reviewed? In the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A? And accepted after more than a year (!) of revision? Can you document your assertion?
@@jean-francoisbrunet2031 - Weissman's critique was published as a letter to the editor. Those aren't peer reviewed. The papers are. Letters to the editor, I believe, aren't. You could've looked that up yourself. It was also in arXiv, so much for "anything goes".
Has TWIV or anyone respectable engaged anyone in debate over this? There are plenty that would be willing to do it. This video expresses a pretty solid position. It’s not silly to debate it like flat earth. My whole problem during the pandemic was the lack of enthusiastic curiosity. Mostly by the media. And once you’re lied to or gaslit, called a racist, trust finds refuge elsewhere.
David Relman or Jesse Bloom would be good people to have on to offer a more nuanced view.
@@PK779able No way would Vincent do it.
They'd loose, that's why they're stuck preaching to the choir while most people have come to the obvious conclusion that it was a lab leak.
The lack of curiosity is because they already knew what happened and they would in effect be implicating themselves. Media is in pocket of pharma who is in pocket of federal health agencies. "Brought to you by Pfizer!"
Ok
This is an edit of the earlier episode.
Yes, this is great thank you TWiV
Thank you. The dead giveaway was that the article was an "opinion" piece in the NYT. It wasn't a peer-reviewed paper in a respected scientific journal. I've listened to some of TWIV's earlier episodes that address the lab origin "theory" so I knew you would have a rebuttal.
The infamous Proximal Origins paper wasn't peer reviewed either. It was just a letter in the editorial section of that publication.
@@GaryVolts
They love citing that opinion piece "proximal origins."
Even though it was a fraudulent paper and also not reveiwed. It was an opinion piece to stop any discussion into the real cause of the pandemic.
@@jammin1881 And whenever they talk about it, they infer that it WAS peer reviewed.
@@GaryVolts
It was an opinion piece and nothing more. One that quote "Proximal Origin employed fatally flawed science to achieve its goal. And, finally, Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci used Proximal Origin to attempt to kill the lab leak theory."
They all had ties to risky research and and conflicts of interests a mile wide. Even the people who made this video were vocal advocates for gain of function. Now they desperately sewk to believe it was natural also.
@@jammin1881actually Ander$en and Garry at least were clean, that’s why it was so important that they be “turned”. After they took they made the deal for $8.9M they were horribly conflicted.
The implausibility of the number changes in genome from the initial two strains needs to put in the context of those that can occur when using classical methods to generate live attenuated virus for vaccine production by longer passaging in cell lines. Live attenuated strains generated in cell culture often have many such undirected genomic changes. How does that compare in terms of the 'number of base pairs different' rebuttal? There are also far too many reactive and emotive comments from the 'discussion' panel in assessing the points raised in the NYT article. Some objectivity and an open mind please. Isn't that the foundation of the scientific method?
Actually studies have shown again and again that when they grow sars-civ-2 in culture it looses the ability to infect . Which scientifically goes against lab leak as well .
Since there are no ifs and buts about the fact that Alina Chan was lying . Why do you think Alina Chan had to resort to lying if there are valid scientific reasons for lab leak ?
@@xponeke2440 which one of the points tased in the BYT was not ridiculous ?
2: are you even in your senses ? Lol really so when virus is passed through culture changes happen in one place and not the other ?
3: so the very specific changes that occurred infected two people and by chance both time lead to super spreader events ? Ha ha ha .
Great panel - this group nailed it👍👊
This was awesome! Thanks so much for clearly explaining the falsities of the lab leak theory. I always learn so much from you all!
37:00 Why are two superspreader events more unlikely than two spillovers? And anyway, spillovers are not rare, the rare event is the mutation of human-to-human transmission. I think that favours lab leak.
For a single natural virus spill over, SARS1, they had 3 lab leaks in just China. Seems to me like labs leak more often than viruses cross over and sustain successfully
lol . Only if you are dishonest enough to separate the events and want to hide upstream and downstream events to make a point .
Are you aware that even just looking at genome there are tell tale signs that this is a natural virus ? Even if you want to be dishonest enough to pretend that in reality the upstream and downstream events did not occur .
I would wager that you’re more likely to be right than wrong on the origen, but the fact remains that no one yet knows. There are good reasons to think it could originate from the lab as well, but it has less to do with scientific evidence, and more to do with the behavior of the Chinese government in obstructing investigation into this question. There is other circumstantial evidence as well. I highly doubt there is was any malicious attempt involved. It’s possible, for instance, that a sample intended for the lab infected a courier and the virus was passed in Wuhan. It’s even possible that an infected person outside of Wuhan brought the virus. Purely speculative, but until we know, we don’t know. I see no point in politicizing the hypothesis because we desire either the lab leak theory, or the wet market, or a third origin possibility. I’ve been a big fan of your show since about December 2019 or around the time the first rumors came out of an outbreak in Wuhan. I really would like to see scientists work explicitly toward an ethic of apolitical striving regarding their science education. To sit in echo chambers of belief is destructive to our society and both sides do it, even if unconsciously.
Probability. You're claiming anything less than 100% means any possibility is just as likely, and that's not true.
@@jaykanta4326 I’m making no such claim. I’m simply saying we don’t know and that there are many possible explanations. I’m not willing to guess at the probability of anyone being correct. I do give a lot of credibility to TWIV and so I’m inclined to think they are probably right that it didn’t come from the lab. However, we don’t know so that is just my bias.
@@vkevpe " However, we don’t know"
@@jaykanta4326 we don’t know is temporary until we do know. True: some probabilities are more likely. It’s not a fallacy to say we currently do not know where it originated. It’s also not a fallacy to say there are a number of different possibilities. Maybe some day we will know. We should keep trying to find a definitive answer. Maybe we never will know. What we shouldn’t do is politicize this question or try to silence dissenting opinions.
@@vkevpe Keep hope alive, right? No one is silencing dissenting opinions. Otherwise you wouldn't have heard about those opinions.
But a lot of those "opinions" are just conspiracy theories and utter nonsense with no plausibility or are being done to attack China, or science, or just political nonsense. It's right to call them out as utter bollocks and bullshite.
The NYT is dying in our new media economy. The clickbait environment is why they published it
No.. it is because all lead publications have been captured
@@wendyg8536 been captured by what?
NYT turning in favour of lab leak reminds me the twist they did to Bill Gates in 2021. He was a "hero" in 2020 but by 2021 he was a "life long creep". How quickly they turn on their own
I canceled my subscription on that one
I just sent the Editors of the NYTimes a letter stating Chan’s opinion piece requires a rebuttal . I included details as to why.
Thank you, well done
Thank you - from 🇨🇦
thank you? OMG
Question 1: Where do the people speaking on this video get their funding?
Question 2: Do these scientists think that the risks associated with viral gain of function research are worse than the potential benefits? In particular should the US NIH have been funding corona virus gain of function research?
Comment : There are scientists who do think that SCV2 was engineered. This channel would have more credibility if it sponsored a debate between those 2 groups rather than just presenting the ‘natural occurrence’ side of the debate.
Science is not done through debate. It's done in peer-reviewed research, and that consensus clearly indicates that it was a natural emergence.
If any do think it was engineered they have so far completely failed to bring forward any evidence .
Also engineered is laughable as no virus near enough is available and there are genomic considerations within. This virus that clearly make it look it was not engineered . So what would cascade accomplish ? Change facts ?
So far Alina Chan has talked about Iab leak but has clearly had to resort to lying ?
No.
Donations from viewers and listeners to their podcasts. TWIV was been doing podcasts for about a decade prior to COVID.
@@StuartLynne Donations from viewers and listeners might pay for this channel, but they don’t fund these people in their primary professional jobs. That’s what I was referring too. But, you knew that.
5:09 episode 876 changed my mind. Before that episode, I was tempted to believe the lab leak theory. You do make a difference!!!
I find it oddly striking that a virus with key features emerges in the door of a lab. With many features that were part of a proposal from DARPA.
I find the suppression and deathly fear of discussion into a leak another huge give away in where this came from.
I also find it funny that the people with the biggest conflicts of interest are the people who are the most vocal and adamant this came from "nature."
38:00
39:00 >> Re: market linked
Wasn't there a paper that mapped the Hankou Train Station ??
// It's 500m from the market
see
"Zoonosis at the Huanan Seafood Market: A Critique"
- October 2022
The 2 line subway links all the keys sites in Wuhan. The wet market, airport and the WIV.
The virus was likely taken to the market vs produced there.
Scores of people have now made this claim.
Many have also discussed how the virus is an anomaly.
I’ve listened to this and many other TWiV episodes on the topic of COVID origin and I’m still struggling to understand their certainty that COVID can from animal spillover. The only evidence for zoonosis, when you really get down to it, is that pandemics generally (tho not always) start from animal spillover. Other than that, what else is there? No intermediary host has been found. There is good evidence that the pandemic didn’t even start at the Hunan market at all. How does a person look at this wafer thin evidence and confidently conclude zoonosis?
TWiV often criticizes lab leak proponents of having tunnel vision, and perhaps that is merited. It’s hard for anyone to consider the other side when you’ve made your mind up. That said, they should also look at their own biases because an honest assessment of the current evidence does not merit their level of certainty.
as Hillary Clinton once said 'at this point what difference does it make?'
Read up on the 2001 anthrax scare and recognize that the government is not your friend, and they have every incentive to lie and distort the facts to protect their image.
lol
So you did not understand anything ? You representing evidence that Twiv has not even presented as evidence and gibberish as it did . What if you could actually understand them ?
@@Sceince01 perhaps you can help me then. What is the evidence that COVID came from zoonosis? If you are persuaded, what persuaded you?
@@labastar clearly you did not learn any thing from the show than ? You admit that ?
1/ I will raise just a few points initially .
It comes from both ways - in favor of zoonosis and how it was not lab leaked ( if not lab leaked the alternative was must be true )
1: there were two lineages A and B .
2: the older lineage appeared later in
3: how can virus leak twice in two weeks ?
4: how can each time a leaked virus makes a B line to market and avoid spreading in more likely places of lab leaked ?
6: how did co workers of lab workers not infected
7: how did initial cases have no neighbors or relatives or families or lab workers ?
8: the lab was always publishing its viruses and putting data on line and no closely related virus in there
9: two ( not one ) intelligence reports clearly state WIV got the virus genome after it started spreading
10 : genome of the virus clearly shows signs of zoonotic creation ( haphazard changes )
Next post why zoonotic
@@labastar this one was easiest for Kay men to understand since this clearly went above your head there is no point in linking even better shows because this rate more technical but clearly explain zoonotic nature - here are a few Linus though
1: The genomes of the earliest cases show to be coming from two different genetic trees
2: these are 2 to 8 animal to human from jumps apart
3: the number at adaptation to humans are occurred a few weeks after the spread
4: all 750 earliest cases are clustered around market
5: the market untrusted cases are also clustered around market
6: the case occurred where zoonotic spread work occur - stall 6.29 with animal stacked over each other exchanging decal material
7: the earliest cases were detected by doctors not by agencies
4:00 - "wet market supports natural origin."
Here - in May 2020 even Chinese scientists were openly saying this..... Quote
in May 2020, Gao said samples collected from animals in the market in early January did not contain traces of the coronavirus, which were only found in sewage. “At first, we assumed the seafood market might have the virus, but now the market is more like a victim,” he said. “The novel coronavirus had existed long before.”
Extraordinary for a Chinese scientist to make the claim but continuing on.
Backed up also by Robert Redfields interviews stating the wet market was a victim of the virus and not the originating point.
Also openly stating that the virus quote "was likely part of a bio weapons defence program, vectoring for vaccines." End quote.
@@jammin1881 only if we also relegate ourselves to your very low standards and start giving into political statements ( even by scientists ) instead of evaluating scientific evidence . Sorry your illogical bs is not gonna fly here . What’s the last para by GAO in that paper ? He wanted to put the blame outside of China . What was the motivation for GAO for GAO - again take the blame of of China that it did not originate in wet market so China could not be blamed for illegal animal trade resulting in pandemic in the same way it happened with SARS.
So country to fool other this is a channel for smart and ethical people.
To put this video in context, people need to know that the presenter, Vincent Racaniello, was one of the leading proponents of gain of function experimentation prior to the pandemic. He's hardly a disinterested 3rd party in the debate. This video is really a CYA event.
To put the your post in context the clown Gary is completely uneducated . He has presented many lies and not a single fact . He even thinks all virologists are wrong and he can teach them by contesting well established methods . He contested the methods without evidence z can not point out a single foe in this video and qualify it with evidence . In short it’s a rant Bourne out of sheer ignorance.
Professor Vincent Racaniello is a well know and respected virologist, he was the first to sequence the polio virus.
Gain of Function experiments are standard procedures is virology (and other) labs. The name is a misnomer. Change of Function might be a better term. In many case the researchers are trying to answer a simple question, such as trying to determine which genes determine eye colour. Or which mutations in a virus change the rate of transmission. In most case the changes introduced reduce the the fitness of the virus, but give clues that help determine where there may be a weakness. Such experiments are closely reviewed and unsupervised.
Most of the general public do not understand Gain of Function and almost no politicians.
@@christopherrobinson7541 Correction: WAS a well-respected virologist.
Even well-meaning people can screw up when they let their pride and ambition overrule their better judgement. He should have come clean and said they made a mistake and the Chinese screwed the pooch.
Everyone knows what kind of gain of function experiments we're talking about. Nobody is buying your games with semantics.
@@GaryVolts I suggest you read virology 101.
@@christopherrobinson7541 thanks to this pandemic I effectively already have. Wish I never had to.
In evaluating scenarios involving engineered sites, it’s crucial to treat exceptions as just that-EXCEPTIONS not the norm. We must integrate probability into our analyses, maintaining a discerning approach to what is likely versus what is merely possible.
Among the four main lineages of betacoronaviruses (A, B, C, and D):
1) Lineage B betacoronaviruses, which include SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, generally do not feature a furin cleavage site. SARS-CoV-2 is an EXCEPTION within this group, possessing a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 boundary in its spike protein, which is considered unusual for this lineage and is a significant factor in its enhanced transmissibility compared to other coronaviruses like SARS-CoV.
2) Lineage A betacoronaviruses (like HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1) also LACK a furin cleavage site in their spike proteins.
3) Lineage C and D betacoronaviruses, less studied compared to lineages A and B, have NOT typically been identified with prominent furin cleavage sites, although specific studies may provide more detailed insights as new viruses are discovered and characterized within these groups.
Overall, the presence of furin cleavage sites is NOT common across all betacoronaviruses and is seen as a notable feature primarily in SARS-CoV-2 within the context of the current pandemic. This feature enhances the ability of the virus to infect human cells, making it a significant target for gain of function, and that is why it was proposed in the grant application.
Also dishonesty must be excluded which you failed to do .
It was not this gain of function it was gain of function research for other viruses related more closely to data cov1 - why did you not take Clyde that very essential piece of information ? Did you want your twisted para to look a certain way and bring out whole facts would not do that so you chose to omit that most essential price of information ?
Also dishonesty must be excluded which you failed to do .
It was not this gain of function it was gain of function research for other viruses related more closely to data cov1 - why did you not take Clyde that very essential piece of information ? Did you want your twisted para to look a certain way and bring out whole facts would not do that so you chose to omit that most essential price of information ?
You also missed another essential piece of information which Micheal worobey has stressed on - it’s not just the furin clevege site that makes it a pandemic virus it’s multiple other changes as well that make it so special . So to present just the furin cleavage site as fear makes it a pandemic virus is plain dishonest
248 other CoVs with 86 diversified furin cleavage sites that have been detected in 24 animal hosts in 28 countries since 1954.
Firvsars civ2 this furin cleavage site combined with other changes makes it generalist virus for many animals not just humans .
The infamous furin cleavage site. Which isn't as important as conspiracy theorists say it is. There's various TWIV episodes on the importance of the furin site. Before the outbreak, six types of coronaviruses were known to infect humans: four low-pathogenicity coronaviruses (HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-HKU1) and two highly pathogenic zoonotic pathogens (MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV), all of which are betacoronaviruses except HCoV-229E and HCoV-NL63 (two alphacoronaviruses). Four coronaviruses with furin cleavage sites known to infect humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV) and a human enteric coronavirus 4408 (HECV-4408) first detected in Germany in 1988 are marked in red.
Add to that fact that the 2018 DEFUSE proposal from the WIV said they intended to add this FCS to these kinds of bat viruses, and which attests to the work having begun, and it looks pretty bad.
No political agenda paranoid fantasies here. Just the facts and opinions from actual virologists.
Asking about potential conflicts of interest has nothing to do with conspiracies. It’s simply a reasonable question. You know full well the legitimacy of asking such a question. One that you didn’t really answer.
Asking legitimate questions isn't paranoid. It's nature and science.
What I do find concerning is how the people with the biggest conflicts it interest are usually the ones pushing for a natural origin.
Any discussion into previous lab accidents or historical lab accidents are strictly avoided. Then the talk about the creation of Covid makes them curl up in fear.
*Fauci, Collins, Daszack are all hiding stuff. They are petrified of their names been attached to a virus that killed between 15-20M and caused trillions in economic damages.*
people who talk about politics of this are politicizing it
Ha! My comment got censored. What a surprise.
*Asking questions or seeing the evidence and usual features of this virus isn't "conspiracy theory" its science and reasonable scientific debate.*
They remove all the replies and don't post comments on any section of this video?
Even posting links and data gets removed?
Thank you, thank you!
Lol, Prof. Vincent doth protest too much.
Do people know that he's a big time proponent of gain of function research and therefore does not want the pandemic to be attributed to his own idiotic advocacy?
You do know that "gain of function research" is a very broad vague term that encompasses a wide variety of experimental processes, right......and that it's an essential & integral aspect of all modern microbial research, right.......
......of course you do - why don't you list some of these and explain the possible negative/dangerous aspects thereof.
@@fifthoarsmanoftheacropolis4173 Yes, of course, I realize that. It is a bit insulting that you would assume that I do not know the difference but I can understand that given most of Vincent's audience gets very biased and often incorrect information.
I am against gain of function research of concern (GOFROC) ie taking viruses in the lab and performing experiments on them that are "reasonably anticipated" to create potential pandemic pathogens. (using the definition presented in the P3CO framework). And I am pro "gain of function research" that does not fit the previous GOFROC definition.
Prof Vincent, on the other hand, is pro gain of function research of concern (GOFROC).
Not only that he disingenously mixes the two different gain of functions often to make his case.
For example, he strawmans people who oppose GOFROC as people who oppose GOF just like you assumed.
Second, he attributes benefits of benign GOF while arguing for GOFROC. This is extremely bizarre since no one wants to ban GOF but only GOFROC.
It is extremely unethical and immoral to make arguments for GOFROC by strawmanning the concerns as being against GOF. A scientist repeatedly making such disingenous claims can only be attriputed to sociopathic behaviour on Vincent's part.
Talking about the benefits of GOFROC, there are none because you could get the same scientific insights using techniques that don't create novel potential pandemic pathogens.
Do I need to spell out the risks after what happened with SARS-CoV-2 which very likely leaked from one such research experiment being done in Wuhan?
I don’t think Vincent is an actual sociopath but I totally agree with the rest of your comment.
Gain of function research has been used to create new types of apples. I think the gain of function angle is tiresome. Try again
@@clippybrokentooth1305he was warned and he continued anyway. If the shoe fits... A lot of scientists have a single minded devotion to their field
Why was this reposted?
To make it short and more palatable for more people.
@@Sceince01 Is it shorter, really, or are you just repeating propaganda? The former head of the CDC, who is an MD, has gone on the record about this topic, and completely contradicts this video.
You really can't dismiss the former head of the CDC with some ad hominem or nonsense about the unwashed army of the imaginary "anti-vaxxers" or "conspiracy theorists".
The wet market theory does not have an unbroken chain of custody, or third party verification because the CCP refused to share evidence or to allow access to foreigners. To accept this data, and it's PCR analysis is to blindly trust the Chinese Government. There is nothing "scientific" about that.
They wiped out a really long post were I rebutted the video point by point
@@ivermec-tin666you post a lot of bs and nonsense and have never tried to learn and educate yourself .
You would do better if instead of the big names (which only use when suit your lies ) you actually looked for evidence . Just present the evidence the former CDC director posted so you don’t look as dumb and ign orant as you always do as you do now .
@@GaryVolts anything above toddler level intellect or anything that was in there that was not a lie ? So far there is not a post where you did not except this one .
6:54 what is that word?
Sooty mangabey, an Old World monkey used in AIDS research.
Working with RAT13 in a lab a scientist could swap out the Receptor Binding Domain with a different one that binds to human ACE 2 receptors
We really have no idea what viruses they were using in the government lab of an authoritarian country. RATG13 is a strawman
Joline, Joline, Joline, Joline Sooty mangabey are so cute! The tone has changed of the show, we wonder if yall have been able to get a Sars-cov2 sample to asses for yourselfs. ?
Question: Where do the speakers in this video get their funding?
Full disclosure is necessary in order to ascertain whether their statements may suffer from a potential conflict of interest. Recent history has sadly shown that scientists don’t tend to bite the hand that feeds them. In fact they tend to be willing to shield such.
Today on "how to make up useless conspiracy theories".
Move on, the scientific consensus is that it was a natural emergence.
@@jaykanta4326 look up the Captain America Time Square Barilla ad - we have all been touched by His noodly appendage. FSM created the universe and all coincidences therein
@@jaykanta4326 Much funding for peers of theirs' peers of TWiV (peers who rely on risky research and grants) came from the NIH via the conduit known as EcoHealth Alliance. Over a hundred million USD.
EHA as well as its president Dr. Peter Daszak were defunded by Collins at the NIIH and they were (each) just debarred by our government agencies.
Fauci stated last week that he agreed with this.
They wish to appeal this decision.
@jaykanta4326 exactly, for there to be conspiracy, there would have to be things like deleting email evidence, altering evidence to evade foia requests, non-cooperation and deleting of records. None of which the NIH or the CCP took part in.
"...Question: Where do the speakers in this video get their funding? ...."
Well, they didn't get their funding from co-authoring a crappy book full of bullshit conspiracy theories.....but I know of someone who has.
24:10. This section makes explicit an argument or assumption that undergirds many of the points in this video: That the Chinese researchers were normal scientists doing normal work with normal incentives to transparency.
To believe that a high-profile situation involving nearly 100 million casualties would not be under the strict oversight of a security apparatus in a one-party state is to suspend disbelief beyond reasonable limits. Such a stance disregards the fundamental principles of intelligence analysis, which require understanding the governance and contextual nuances of the environment where an event unfolds. In regimes where government control permeates all facets, including science, it's expected that the dissemination of significant information would be meticulously controlled and curated. Here's an excellent illustration of this naiveté as pointed out by Jolene, who seems to think that scientists within the CCP operate in an isolated vacum of independence as if the stakes are not high, it's astonishing: 26:26
"It's one thing to think that about a government, it's another to think that about individual scientists who are really caring and clearly over time demonstrating that they take care in how they do their experiments and how they report their data and experiments to the rest of the world."
and they are not?
@@claoca7267
Read the Danny Shoham paper in 2015, titled "China’s Biological Warfare Programme: An Integrative Study with Special
Reference to Biological Weapons Capabilities, Journal of Defence Studies, Vol. 9" it details all the labs and research under the control of the CCP.
@@claoca7267 Did you know that mangers have been executed in China for industrial accidents that killed only a handful of innocents? Have you been to China?
Started in Nature, modified in a lab most probable
Agree
Yup
Awesome!! Update!
1st! Lol
Thank you all for the work you've done on this subject - have been sharing with those who might listen who have been going down a conspiratorial route
Did you know Vincent Racaniello was one of the main cheerleaders for this kind of dangerous research before the pandemic broke out? He was on the losing side of the debate that resulted in the federal ban on gain of function experimentation.
Protecting your own...sad...we need the truth, so this doesnt happen again
Derp
@@jaykanta4326 you mean DURC
Of course it’s a legitimate debate.
@@rbdesigner725 which has mostly been answered scientifically but it is only the republicans who want to fool their voters who claim otherwise without a shred of evidence and while falsely maligning real life super heroes like Dr Fauci credited with saving millions of lives.
It was a debate but it’s vein to ducky been settled now.
Thanks!
You're supporting a guy that's culpable in the genesis of the pandemic.
Greetings from Scotland.
15:47 retrospective analysis suggests that HIV/AIDS was possibly around in the late 1960’s early 1970’s, with late 1970’s as the latest possible date.
To believe that a high-profile situation involving nearly 100 million casualties would not be under the strict oversight of a security apparatus in a one-party state is to suspend disbelief beyond reasonable limits. Such a stance disregards the fundamental principles of US intelligence analysis, which require understanding the governance and contextual nuances of the environment where an event unfolds. In regimes where government control permeates all facets, including science, it's expected that the dissemination of significant information would be meticulously controlled and curated. Here's an excellent illustration of this naiveté as pointed out by Jolene, who seems to think that scientists within the CCP operate in an isolated vacum of independence as if the stakes are not high, it's astonishing that she would imagine the situation in CCP is the same in a liberal democratic nation.: 26:26
"It's one thing to think that about a government, it's another to think that about individual scientists who are really caring and clearly over time demonstrating that they take care in how they do their experiments and how they report their data and experiments to the rest of the world."
She is 109% correct and twisting of facts only makes you dishonest and shows your desperation and nothing else .
Also the US intelligence report did say WIV did not have the virus until late December 2019 after discovery of first cases .
The evidence to date verifies that as well . They published what they had and there is no virus close enough for that on there
Alan Dove used to say repeatedly say something similar, which is that if it started in a lab, there would inevitably be whistleblowers. The absence of such being used as as an argument against lab. Beyond naive...
Hammer hitting nail on head. Thank you.
@@eyelashedbla5994 lol so do you think the only way to prove lab leak is ignore facts and let dumb imagination run wild? What are you smoking and why can’t you handle facts ?
Mother Nature doesn't need BSL lab conditions, she has her own, the whole Earth. 🤣
And a lab can create conditions that never would have happened in nature in a million years such as an enteric bat virus from SE Asia with furin site keyed to humanized mice lung tissue.
OK, so this is an edited version of the original 1121 episode and it's a reasonably good rebuttal, but don't you see you're still playing defense? This is NOT a prospective, succinct 5 key points in favor of a natural origin argument. I get that you're all brilliant scientists and not communication experts, but Dr. Chan did an excellent job making a case for the lab leak hypothesis, even if it's wrong. I'm not a virologist, but I am a communicator. This is sort of what a prospective case could look like: 1. Throughout history, all viral pandemics have been shown to have had a natural origin (if this is true. If not, say "most." Cite Spanish flu, H1N1, Ebola, etc.) 2. The Huanan Seafood Market was the epicenter of the initial outbreak of the pandemic. Just as Chan used logic and inferences to support her hypothesis, discuss how out of all the possible places for an outbreak: a school, a shopping mall, etc. it was a wildlife market! Here discuss Worobey statistical analysis. 3. There were two lineages uncovered at the Huanan market (in lay terms explain why this is indicative of the market origin vs. lab. you touch on it in episode 1121 but it's not easy for a lay person to process). 4. Environmental samples collected from stalls in the Southwest part of the market show both mammal DNA from Sars susceptible animals (Civets and racoon dogs) and mRNA virus. 5. Stalls at the Huanan market had documented human cases (the anecdote about the shrimp vendor) and statistical analyses shows spread at cafes, etc. in geographical proximity to the market vs. cafes and such far away. This is rough. I'm just trying to get it started. Offense vs. defense.
Those points are countered by recent papers showing ascertainment bias and that the market samples aren't linked to susceptible animals and SARS-COV-2 genetic material. Liu et al (2023) also note the sampling bias towards the wildlife-stalls. Also, historically viruses weren't being collected in urban research facilities. WHO actually warned the risk of SARS re-emergence was potentially greater from a laboratory source as SARS1 leaked several times. Wuhan was even used as a control in 2015 for a serological study on SARS-related bat coronavirus infection due to its location. WIV won't share their records (the NIH terminated WIV's subaward for this refusal in 2022) so it's an open question.
References below:
Dietrich Stoyan, Sung Nok Chiu, Statistics did not prove that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was the early epicentre of the COVID-19 pandemic, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 2024;
Jesse D Bloom, Importance of quantifying the number of viral reads in metagenomic sequencing of environmental samples from the Huanan Seafood Market, Virus Evolution, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2024,
Michael B Weissman, Proximity ascertainment bias in early COVID case locations, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 2024
The thing is Chan addressed the epicentre claim citing Weissman (2024) who shows the case data was affected by ascertainment bias? The fact two lineages were in the market is offset by intermediate genomes published earlier this year (Lv et al). They show a single spillover with lineage A coming first. All the market cases were lineage B so the available cases aren't the primary cases.
The historical argument overlooks SARS1 leaked several times and WHO warned the risk of re-emergence was potentially greater from a laboratory source. Wuhan was used as a control for a serological study on SARS-related bat coronavirus infections due to its urban location in 2015. So it's understandable WHO considers all hypotheses remain on the table.
Thank you both for your response. I personally maintain an open mind. Under oath, both Fauci and Baric stated that a lab leak hypothesis can’t be ruled out. Your citations make me wish for a live debate.
@@janicelipsky8200 true Fauci said he would not rule it out but he recently stated last week with the current evidence that market spillover is supported by science.
@@BloombergisBack - The paper from Lv is "Evolutionary trajectory of diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants at the beginning of COVID-19 outbreak", is it not? And they don't show a single spillover at all. If you want to quote it. They acknowledge Peckar and say "it remains unclear when, where, and how SARS-CoV-2 first appeared in humans prior to its initial identification in December 2019 in Wuhan".
@janicelipsky8200 - So you have the actual paper in hand. Do you trust the misrepresentation of it? And their entire narrative? Maybe I'm wrong on the paper but think, why don't they give the actual title.
I'm using this narrow-width comment format that UA-cam is planning to make everyone use soon.
So comments written in very long paragraphs are even more frustrating to read than before. Just scrolling down long paragraphs, I easily lose my place amongst all the sentences mashed together.
Please break long paragraphs up into more paragraphs. I learned this in middle school. Invoke a bit more communication skill, and hit Enter twice in reasonable places.
Thank you.
So basically you're 'dumbing it down' for the public to read...ahh today's educational system at its finest.
I got Congressman Wenstrup's email about how his committee goes along with this editorial.
Please find my comment somewhere on this page - thank you
I have been following this issue intensely, daily, for months and months with folks *other* than the compromised individuals that the good people here at TWiV have been relying on. They are in an echo chamber that is in frantic mode.
@@janetmasleid4085compromised individuals ? The only ones who are not lying about the facts regarding the lab leak . Any lab leakers who are not lying ?
They are not compromised at all. Also in what way they are compromised ? All they have done is provide evidence while Alina Chan clearly lied .
@@janetmasleid4085 Do these "folks" have evidence? If so, where is it?
@@janetmasleid4085
If you are following this intensely, I must assume that you have already listened to all of the following episodes of TWiV, and read all the associated articles. If not, please do.
TWiV 1019: Eddie Holmes on SARS-CoV-2 origins
TWiV 1017: From Nature, not a lab
TWiV 995: Viral origin stories
TWiV 940: Eddie Holmes in on viral origins
TWiV 876: Spillover market with Michael Worobey
TWiV 762: SARS-CoV-2 origins with Robert Garry
TWiV 760: SARS-CoV-2 origins with Peter Daszak, Thea Kølsen Fischer, Marion Koopmans
TWiV 774: Kristian Andersen, Robert Garry, and the deleted SARS-CoV-2 sequences
@@janetmasleid4085 You are clearly not an expert.
Hi TWiV, thank you for doing this so carefully, while nothing will ever persuade those who have chosen to believe the man-made narrative to change their mind the rest of us who remain cautiously critical are still interested in facts and real information.
I do not actually fully understand much of the background these people discuss but just the manner and style of it does suggest that they do know quite a lot about the subject, this does not entirely preclude carefully constructed fiction but the level of precision and detail is very rare in the fantasy world. The main claim of the Wuhan Lab 'escape' appears to be severely lacking in coherent practical detail, this indicates that the people involved have made a more or less random association of ideas applying more correlation than causation and seeking only 'evidence' that might confirm the hypothesis, again these weaknesses do not serve alone to refute the hypothesis but do leave it struggling for breath!.
There has always been one critical underlying issue here of course, that is what actual difference does establishing the origin of this pathogen make to the way it functions in human society?.
Could it be that finding out the truth of this matter is of purely academic interest only?.
There is one other factor that seems to be in play here, that is because whatever the 'true' facts they will never be fully exposed to us, even if they were we lack the mental capacity to recognise truth anyway. What we will find is a range of complex dynamic relationships between many agents and factors which when stimulated by environmental factors create the environment it which what can happen does happen, everything in reality is the product of cause and effect but that continues regardless of our knowledge and understanding, creative human agency is a vanishingly small component in nature.
This reality is alien to many people who are deeply convinced that our continued existence is fundamentally dependent on our understanding and control, without which we all must perish!. This concept is predicated on the idea that the environment in which we live is actually hostile to us, a concept that seems to me to be based solely on human anxiety, there is a distinct lack of empirical evidence, vast numbers of humans have lived full and often happy lives without any such ideas!.
Cheers, Richard.
But not all professors are liars.
willful ignorance comes to mind
The mass formation psychosis continues. Amazing
Ironic that you claim others are duped when you got duped into believing that "mass formation psychosis" is an actual psychological phenomenon. Try to find the term validated in any modern psychology textbook. Hint: you won't. You got suckered.
@@RodrigodelaJara
Un-injected and yet somehow still here going on five years after the fact…it must be a miracle or perhaps not. You might not find it in a textbook but you knew exactly what I was referring to. You see, life happens first in the real world before eventually finding its way into a textbook.
@@rg5445 1) You're innumerate if you think it could even begin to qualify as a miracle. 2) I also know about the Flat Earth theory. People knowing about it doesn't give it credibility. You are bad at logic. 3) The Flat Earth isn't real. Neither is Mass Formation Psychosis. Either might find its way into textbooks as examples of what happens when people lack critical thinking, math, and science skills, not as validated facts. You're intellectually defenceless not just because of those deficits, but because you're too lazy to fact check concepts you'd like to believe in. If you make a habit of fact checking you'll eventually realize that pretty much every anti-vax claim turns out to be BS.
Oh the phrase coined by one of the biggest liars ?
@@rg5445 celebrating dumb luck and proudly announcing that you are not good at taking smart decisions ? Are we supposed to be impressed ?
I would agree two lineages would show it was natural, but that assumes the Huanan Market was the epicenter of the initial spillover events.
However, Dr. Baric has testified that sars2’s molecular clock shows that it emerged in humans in October, a month before the Huanan Market cases.
The authors must answer for this.
It could have emerged elsewhere, be carried to the market a spread from there. It was only detected because of the nearby expertise.
@@christopherrobinson7541of course the military games were held in Wuhan in October 2019, whether this is significant we can never know now.
@@MRCAGR1 I doubt that this was a factor, the outbreak of the virus occurred in the countries that attended or did not participate at about the same time. The epicenter of the outbreak was the wet market. Why would participants of the games go to the market? If the games had been the source of the outbreak why was the epicenter not where the participants were staying? If the games were involved why was there not a residual footprint of infection left after the participants had gone home?
It is obviously impossible to prove a negative, but if the games had been involved there should have been witness marks left behind.
@@christopherrobinson7541 I was thinking out loud about your comment that it’s possible it emerged outside of Wuhan and wasn’t detected because of lack of testing facilities.
If this is a possibility then could it have been brought into Wuhan by a local visitor to the military games or other gathering, perhaps a street vendor or a spectator rather than a participant, maybe not the full blown SARS-CoV-2 but a precursor? Could this account for the molecular clock being earlier than expected? Especially if the virus mutated rapidly? Just a few random thoughts.
@@MRCAGR1 Possible, but the epicentre is still the wet market, so why would the visitor go to the market? It is more likely that they went to the market for a purpose, probably as a vendor or visitor to the market. The zoonotic jump did not necessarily have to have taken place in the market, it could have happened a for days before people hd signs and symptoms. However, it is unlikely to be nearby as such cases were not identified. If not in the wet market, then it probably was in more rural areas where the animals were caught of reared.
Additionally the only possible explanation for the origin of Omicron is a second lab leak from a lab that was using humanized ACE2 mice.
More likely is a genetic recombination from COVID and an existing cold virus in a coinfected cell. What man makes, nature unmakes.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, get onto to the Joe Rogan podcast.
Rogan will ruin him
@@GaryVolts
Really, in what why would he get ruined?
Rogan has been asked 1000 times to get him as a guest but refuses.
@@paultrauzzi5360 Rogan already knows it came from that lab. He's not going to buy this guy's conflicted BS.
@@GaryVolts
Sir Gary, are you ready to learn or just keep sliding down the complicacy theories?
Any virologist or immunologist or even an evolutionist could cleanly show you why a lab leak is impossible as an explanation.
If you are ready to learn let me know.
@@paultrauzzi5360 I've been all over this from the beginning and I think I've heard just about every bogus rational. But why don't you give it a try; I'll stop you if I've already heard what you're about to say so you don't waste to much of our time. I presume you have something other than what this video covers?
I see we have no Popperian scientists on the team. Always looking to confirm, no attempt to falsify their own narrative, or is that done behind closed doors?
They aren't trying to understand the cause of the pandemic, they're just playing defense for their team that is partly culpable in the deaths of millions of innocents.
@@GaryVolts Their collegiality is the death of science. I've never seen them argue.
@@roncarlin3209 If you argue, you're cut in edit and off the show. Vincent is an advocate for his own reputation. Doesn't want to be seen as the guy that ignored warnings that GoF would start a pandemic and still pushed for it.
Not narrative just facts . Why did they discuss that’s not factual ?
@@roncarlin3209to argue with evidence one has to have evidence to the contrary . If there is no evidence to the contrary there can not be argument .
sad how far the nyt has fallen
This overlooks Weissman (2024) showing ascertainment bias in early case data? Also, multiple spillovers looks unlikely given the new genomes published by Lv et al (2024). The market cases were all lineage B but as lineage A came first the market cases were not the primary cases. Jesse Bloom's papers also show there is no link between susceptible animals and SARS-COV-2 genetic material. So understandably WHO is still calling for data on both the animal trade and Wuhan labs.
They haven't addressed the proximity ascertainment bias identified by Weissman cited in Dr Chan's NY Times piece. And they are still citing Pekar et al for multiple spillovers despite the new genomes published by Lv et al this year that undermine that theory.
not as far as the lancet who published completely made up numbers in the surisphere scandal, nowdays anything can get peer reviewed if they support the official narrative
So you were fine with them when they were still flogging racoondogs?
@@GaryVolts wasn't reading it
Goodbye. Unsubscribed.
how long had you been a subscriber? is this episode out of line with previous episodes? or was it something else that prompted your leaving?
Goodbye.
@@PirateCommander sure, sure. could you tell me why though? particularly, why now, under this particular video?
@@claoca7267 Viruses aren't the only contagious things and the group are clearly comfortable repeating the mantras that got them and everyone else into the current mess. I'm the odd man out here. There's a lot of scientific evidence supporting the lab leak but most of the wet market claims are paper thin and like the grasping of children for reassurance. The gain of function evidence is over whelming and the research has to be shut down. Pandemic like breakouts have been occurring since the 1980's but previously were very rare events.
@@claoca7267Please scroll up (or down?) to find my long entry/comment. Dr. Ralph Baric, world class corona virus expert, disagrees with the sources of information that the TWiV crew unquestionably use over and over again. I don't know if its willful ignorance on their part or they, too, are in panic mode. The virologists that they keep quoting have enormous COI's/ conflicts of interests.
It came from a lab, there is no viable animal host.
Your evidence for that?
@@eddiehartsfield9012 it is perfectly evolved for human to human transmission on day one, and it is hardly able to infect any other animal
@@briansullivan7036
None of which is true. Plenty of animals have been infected. Deer, cats, dogs, zoo animals etc. etc. (Google is your friend :-))
Where is your evidence that it was perfectly transmissible on day one?
@@eddiehartsfield9012 A study was done to find animals with strongest affinity and the answer was hACE2 mice and man.
@@eddiehartsfield9012 It became a pandemic right off the bat, no precursor has been found from when the virus was still evolving to infect people. The highest affinity of that virus is for people and hACE2 mice. It doesn't infect bats.
Thank you, thank you, once again TWiV team debunks the nonsense.
Plus they have discussed the idea on previous shows that we may never know for certain but analysing probable cause is useful in perhaps catching things SOONER and learning more about viruses how they jump from animals to humans etc.
They make some great points yes. But there are MANY other scientists who also made great points on the other side of the coin.
Not so much. Mostly self serving fiction. It's hard to accept that they may be culpable in a disaster that killed millions.
@@GaryVolts sorry but I don’t think you understand the science supporting this. Show me the science that supports it started in the lab. That would be very interesting.
@@trishhawkins4966 First of all, what do you think the odds are of this virus starting in the same city as THE bat coronavirus lab that had just the year before proposed creating this kind of virus? Second, there has never been a suitable infected intermediate animal found, as much as this would have benefitted the Chinese government, and they looked. Third, the virus contains within its genome, residual marks (called restriction sites) of it being created to be used in a laboratory setting where they mix and match parts of other viruses.
thank you
Ignorance spouted here as fact is criminal.
It's worse than that, they're being disingenuous.
the claim, depends on the speakers assuming they know whats going on in a military Bioweapon lab. Incredibly naive. useful I&#^@s.
"military Bioweapon lab"
Herp derp levels of dumb.
like the US military bioweapon scientist who is the sole culprit of the 2001 Anthrax scare? Talk about a lab leak and an inside job lol
@@jaykanta4326 DURC DURC
@@janetmasleid4085 lol , it’s actually pretty clear what was going on . Also it’s not about what was going on in the lab it’s about the events after point away directly away from lab . Also what do you make of two intelligence reports that clearly state that the lab did not have sars virus until after
@@Sceince01 Are you referring to the unfortunate situation with Dr. Yus-n Zh--u?
"You want to put some kind of explanation down here before you leave? Here's one as good as any you're likely to find. We're bein' punished by the Creator. He visited a curse on us. So that man could look at... what Hell was like. Maybe He didn't want to see us blow ourselves up, put a big hole in the sky. Maybe He just wanted to show us He's still the Boss Man. Maybe He figure, we was gettin' too big for our britches, tryin' to figure His shit out"
Day of the Dead (1985)
Sure. And building 7 just manically fell.
And the government was totally sure Saddam had WMD
😊
🙌🏽🙌🏽
There is a deeper question here. Does new problems come from God or man (nature or a lab)? And then the next question: Do the solutions come from God or man (immune system or a lab)? People will choose their answers and path, I believe in their free will to pick
new problems come from DURC
@@janetmasleid4085 is that NIH? governments are not going to provide solutions to society's problems - they are the problem
God and Nature, aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Even if God is the primary cause, Nature would be one of His products, iwould it not? So in some ways, just answer to the question won't matter.
Futhermore, science is yet another, man-made addon cognitive and cultural byproduct attempting to be well-informed by Nature.
In any case, humankind is such a huge tangent from classic, animal evolution. We have brains and cultures that are so creative, we can invent and quickly spread new ways to understand reality, or fantasies that ignore reality.
The problem in current times is when really large groups or "tribes" of people can't or don't even try hard to discern the difference between reality and fantasy. Charismatic politicians and cult leaders come to mind.
@@ot9er I agree, nature has fixed rules, never changing, but then God will do miracles, to remind humans who made it all. Science in it's pure form is honest, but centralized authority corrupts it, like how Eugenics was taken over by Nazis in the 1930s
I agree, humans both have creativity and free will, things that other creatures on Earth don't have
I think there will be evolution's "natural selection" occurring, those who follow the laws laid down by Moses will thrive, and the other "tribes" won't make it, and then Jesus' saying "the meek will inherit the Earth" will happen again, like it has many times in the past
You mean just using free will and a g prong hard facts ? Because when considering facts many have to g ore free will .
Thank you. I’m very frustrated that the NYT published this garbage opinion piece. The editors of the opinion page are so irresponsible! All they had to do was consult their own Science editors to vet this hot trash. I have to wonder if the choice to publish this opinion was driven by the desire to generate “clicks” and engagement through fear and outrage. Shameful. So grateful to TWiV for responding to this point by point to explain how and why Chan is wrong. 🩷
No
This overlooks Weissman (2024) showing ascertainment bias in early case data? Also, multiple spillovers looks unlikely given the new genomes published by Lv et al (2024). The market cases were all lineage B but as lineage A came first the market cases were not the primary cases. Jesse Bloom's papers also show there is no link between susceptible animals and SARS-COV-2 genetic material. So understandably WHO is still calling for data on both the animal trade and Wuhan labs.
Except Dr Chan's article is based on more recent papers such as Weissman 2024 which shows there was ascertainment bias in early case data towards the market. They don't address this and the multiple spillover theory is challenged by new genomes published by Lv et al this year.
@@PK779able -
"No evidence of systematic proximity ascertainment bias in early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan Reply to Weissman (2024) Florence Débarre, Michael Worobey "
If the paper from Lv is "Evolutionary trajectory of diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants at the beginning of COVID-19 outbreak", is it not? And they don't show a single spillover at all. If you want to quote it. They acknowledge Peckar and say "it remains unclear when, where, and how SARS-CoV-2 first appeared in humans prior to its initial identification in December 2019 in Wuhan". Show anyone the actual name of the paper and where the multiple spillover theory is challenged.
But it's not just Alina Chan that is challenging these claims and making these assertions. There are scores or virologists and scientists saying that the virus has some very unique and key features. Even main stream scientists have stated that the virus is an anomaly with some alarming features as yet undiscovered in naturally occurring viruses. Slating "Chan" for her view points is actually laughable.
Thanks!
Additionally the only possible explanation for the origin of Omicron is a second lab leak from a lab that was using humanized ACE2 mice.
2nd lab leak?
@@GaryVolts yes, the obvious answer
Is it also came from a BSL lab
@@briansullivan7036 I'm of the opinion that what man makes, nature unmakes. So man made the original virus but nature is mutating and recombining it back into the fold of the viruses that already existed in that niche of the microbiome.