
The Case Is Building That Covid-19 Had a Lab Origin - BruceEel
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/
======
duaoebg
Why was this flagged/dead? It seemed pretty solid to me.

~~~
akvadrako
It’s because the media and polite company decided long ago that a lab release
was a “conspiracy theory” and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Why this is the case is more mysterious. One plausible explanation from Bret
Weinstein is that it makes the work of virologists look very dangerous; maybe
even more dangerous then not studying viruses.

------
vaibhavthevedi
The best part about the article is so many references.

~~~
mhh__
What proportion of the recent ones have seen peer review? I saw a lot of *xivs

~~~
Thorrez
These 5 from 2020 all seem to be peer reviewed. I'm no expert though.

> (Zhou et al., 2020; Wrapp et al., 2020; Wan et al., 2020; Walls et al.,
> 2020; Letko et al., 2020).

[https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7)

[https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2507](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2507)

[https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00127-20](https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00127-20)

[https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.19.956581](https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.19.956581)

[https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0688-y](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0688-y)

~~~
stepstop
Does peer review still hold significant stature? It’s been discussed many
times here how limited it is. I’m sad about it

------
sunw
[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/independent-science-
news/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/independent-science-news/)

------
lucd
"the 41 earliest cases, including the first, had no connection to the animal
market" Were they connected to the lab?

~~~
cjhopman
Well, they weren't. But conspiracy theories are rarely about what things are
or what happened and more about incredulity about what things aren't.

~~~
cjhopman
Also, wtf is with your blatant misquote of even this biased article. It's 14
of the first 41 have no connection.

------
redis_mlc
Anybody who's well-read on corona estimates it's 50/50 lab or natural. The
fact that 2 corona labs are located in Wuhan is awfully suspicious.

But what is not discussed in detail is the following.

Western articles focus on the market as being a "wet market", but that's
possibly the wrong emphasis.

There's 2 reasons to focus on just the "market" word:

1) As a major market, it's a high traffic area. SARS-1 is said to have come
from a high-traffic market in 2002.

2) Apparently Wuhan residents don't eat bats, so those were unlikely to be in
the market. That means the transmission is much more indirect than thought,
and the source is even more likely to be the labs.

The terrifying thing is that one scientific summary paper discusses Gain of
Function (GOF) research at those labs, which have poor isolation, and that the
CCP wiped those labs. GOF is modifying corona to either attack more animals,
or be more virulent. And here we are.

~~~
cjhopman
Anyone who reads this, be aware, it's total nonsense. It's ridiculous fear
mongering, "omg, if it's not from eating bats, it must be from a lab!!!".

~~~
Thorrez
Are you saying redis_mlc's comment is total nonsense, or the article is total
nonsense, or both? Because redis_mlc's comment seems to agree with the
article.

