One BSL4 lab in all of China. They do gain of function testing at this lab, specifically adding proteins to coronaviruses that have never been transmissible to humans. It’s in Wuhan. There is absolutely nothing anyone can ever say to make me believe the simple explanation is that a random mutation never before seen in nature just happened in the same town with this lab.
At this point it's been effectively proven that it came from the lab. The body of evidence is enormous. The entire argument against it has been that a relative of the virus has been found in bats.
That's akin to saying that pork could not have come from the butchers because it's found in pigs. Or that fish can't have come from the river because fish are found in the sea. It's nonsense and not at all logical. It also gives the game away because notice what they're not saying. Has the virus itself or the closest relative been found in bats? No. They have not found the missing links needed to explain its passage into humans.
The devil is in the details. They'll say the closest relative was found in bats. That is false. The closest known relatives are found in bats. The closest known relative or its sequence was found in a laboratory. They said that before it was in the laboratory they took it from bats. We don't even know if that is true. The only thing we do know for certain that is true is that the closest known relative was found in a laboratory.
One of the first papers saying it wasn't from the laboratory gave an argument against it being from the laboratory which actually better supports it being from a laboratory.
They said when they used a relatively standard simulation suite to simulate the protein against hACE2 it didn't bind very well so it must have been designed by nature. First that argument is nonsense because they have no idea what methods or capabilities the laboratory in questions has.
The staggering thing about it is that they completely ignored that mismatch can cause an accident. You have a virus you're messing with in research and your toolkit predicts it to be relatively bad at infecting humans. So you don't even run it in the BSL3 or BSL4 lab because it looks like it's not that contagious or virulent, you run it at BSL2 or just in a standard lab somewhere.
On top of that, in gain of function research you want it to be minimally effective. To effect humans but at the minimal level. That's all you need for a proof of concept. He has the scientific goals backwards. You would not be trying to make something that can infect humans as effectively as possible but something that can infect humans but ineffectively enough to truly cause contagion.
So the first paper saying it's not from the laboratory actually presents a perfect scenario where a virus like this could be released by accident.
You've got a scenario where they have a design that looks like what they want and is a minimal biosecurity threat on paper but in practice it's a maximum level biosecurity threat. When they go and synthesise the virus for real or do the genetic manipulation with minimal containment procedures for in vitro and in vivo testing you catch it and it spreads.
That in itself is a stupid mistake though because the whole point of live testing is to confirm the simulation, yet they may have based their approach on the simulation. The simulation says it's a minimal contamination risk so you test it for real to confirm it's a minimal contamination risk using procedures that treat it as a minimal containment risk. Shock and horror when the tests fail and there's an outbreak. Will this virus cause a pandemic? Well lets try it and see! Yes, it will!
The fact that no one noticed at all when the first paper considering a natural or laboratory origin gave an example of how it could emerge in the laboratory even during peer review shows just how easily it is for such an oversight to occur.
One BSL4 lab in all of China. They do gain of function testing at this lab, specifically adding proteins to coronaviruses that have never been transmissible to humans. It’s in Wuhan. There is absolutely nothing anyone can ever say to make me believe the simple explanation is that a random mutation never before seen in nature just happened in the same town with this lab.
At this point it's been effectively proven that it came from the lab. The body of evidence is enormous. The entire argument against it has been that a relative of the virus has been found in bats.
That's akin to saying that pork could not have come from the butchers because it's found in pigs. Or that fish can't have come from the river because fish are found in the sea. It's nonsense and not at all logical. It also gives the game away because notice what they're not saying. Has the virus itself or the closest relative been found in bats? No. They have not found the missing links needed to explain its passage into humans.
The devil is in the details. They'll say the closest relative was found in bats. That is false. The closest known relatives are found in bats. The closest known relative or its sequence was found in a laboratory. They said that before it was in the laboratory they took it from bats. We don't even know if that is true. The only thing we do know for certain that is true is that the closest known relative was found in a laboratory.
One of the first papers saying it wasn't from the laboratory gave an argument against it being from the laboratory which actually better supports it being from a laboratory.
They said when they used a relatively standard simulation suite to simulate the protein against hACE2 it didn't bind very well so it must have been designed by nature. First that argument is nonsense because they have no idea what methods or capabilities the laboratory in questions has.
The staggering thing about it is that they completely ignored that mismatch can cause an accident. You have a virus you're messing with in research and your toolkit predicts it to be relatively bad at infecting humans. So you don't even run it in the BSL3 or BSL4 lab because it looks like it's not that contagious or virulent, you run it at BSL2 or just in a standard lab somewhere.
On top of that, in gain of function research you want it to be minimally effective. To effect humans but at the minimal level. That's all you need for a proof of concept. He has the scientific goals backwards. You would not be trying to make something that can infect humans as effectively as possible but something that can infect humans but ineffectively enough to truly cause contagion.
So the first paper saying it's not from the laboratory actually presents a perfect scenario where a virus like this could be released by accident.
You've got a scenario where they have a design that looks like what they want and is a minimal biosecurity threat on paper but in practice it's a maximum level biosecurity threat. When they go and synthesise the virus for real or do the genetic manipulation with minimal containment procedures for in vitro and in vivo testing you catch it and it spreads.
That in itself is a stupid mistake though because the whole point of live testing is to confirm the simulation, yet they may have based their approach on the simulation. The simulation says it's a minimal contamination risk so you test it for real to confirm it's a minimal contamination risk using procedures that treat it as a minimal containment risk. Shock and horror when the tests fail and there's an outbreak. Will this virus cause a pandemic? Well lets try it and see! Yes, it will!
The fact that no one noticed at all when the first paper considering a natural or laboratory origin gave an example of how it could emerge in the laboratory even during peer review shows just how easily it is for such an oversight to occur.
Not Chinese people, the CCP,
Oh so racist, me so horny and love you long time!
I wish that was satire but getting rid of pets "for the environment" is actually a thing.