I followed you on Twitter until my small account was permanently suspended for reasons never explained. You've done great work. The machinations of the zoonosis-only virologists/funding agencies/PR agents on Twitter were both shocking and alarming to me, as I used to believe the foremost principle among scientists was integrity. Scientists are people like everyone else and can have conflicts of interest, like everyone else. This cannot be overstated, and is the reason such high-risk research as GoFRoC - if society deems worth doing at all - must not be left to the regulations and oversight of the very same bodies that fund it. Instead, an independent body must take on this role, along the lines of the IAEA for nuclear technology.
Just as a side note Alex, you would make a wonderful teacher. For you are able to take complex concepts & explain them in ways that everyone can understand which then creates an atmosphere of wanting to learn more. I also believe that your ability to make science easier to digest for the lay person is why some of the people who struggle to simplify their logic may attack you, they are threatened by you as it widens science audience.
You are such a relief from all the superheated rhetoric. I really appreciate how your sanity shines through this piece.
You clearly articulate what it takes to not participate in bad faith science: "I pledge to listen for good ideas no matter where they come from and do my best to update my thinking in light of new evidence."
Nailed it in heading & sub heading. Examined Question & crucially TESTED.
We all learned this is primarily school & although a simple concept it’s fundamental to solving problems & then proving that you found the right solution.
I just fail to comprehend how science has lost it’s way, especially with Covid. It’s like living in a alternative universe where people no longer function in reality, that shows us there is more going on than we would like to accept. Mind games, manipulation & Government sanctioned propaganda is the only explanation at this point. I would never had believed it if I hadn’t lived through it. Alex you are a rare breed that is purely looking for the answers rather than trying to obscure them. Thank you for keeping it ethical because it was getting rather grim on that front.
Impressive Alex and thank you for liking my previous message. Science it's a process and I think many people do not understand this. I also think that Covid came from the lab, thank you for your work on this
"4) Gao et al. tested animals in the wet market and not one animal tested positive"
In the LA Times (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-08/covid-lab-leak-energy-department-fbi) Worobey states: "But not a single relevant live animal was tested there before the market was closed". Do you know if that's true? Or stated by Gao etc to be true? It does not make sense to me that they would close the wet market without testing any animals then for sale - even if they didn't test them earlier. In the same article (and twitter thread) Worobey claim that numerous labs in China could have been the source - but as far as I know only Wuhan was doing gain of function on coronaviruses, and (in late 2019) only Wuhan had a BSL 4 lab.
I agree, on balance, China would release information re a farmed or wild source of the pandemic, if they had found one .. even though this would result in some loss of face (but far less than if the pandemic arose via the WIV). I don't entirely agree with you that "no-one would blame China if an infected civet or whatever caused this outbreak as happened with SARS1" .. I think the Chinese leadership is hypersensitive; probably more in 2019 - and now - than in 2002/03; I think they took steps to try to prevent a recurrence of SARS (ie in early 2000s); I think those safeguards faltered and I think they would be embarrassed if the epidemiology for covid-19 proves to be similar to SARS-1. I think similar motivations underlie their attempt to shift blame to imported frozen foods, or maybe to the military games.
But they have far more to lose if WIV turnd out to be the source.
What is the probablilty that Gao etc would find no such animal, even if they looked hard (were it to exist?) Until recently I took at face value claims that they did look hard .. after more engagement with Gao et al, however, I have started to wonder .. Their search may have been influenced in some way by authorities who were more meddlesome/directive than when the corresponding investigators searched for SARS in 2003; ie their search strategy may have had less chance of success.
I strongly agree with you that Worobey et al have not proven a market origin.
FWIW I have barely looked at the companion paper (Pekar et al) .. phylodynamics and phylogenetics (etc) is not a strength. However, I do know that it is largely Worobey's work on the phylogenetics of HIV that has been used to undermine the hypothesis (most strongly developed by Edward Hooper) that HIV first emerged via polio vaccines in what is now the Dem Rep Congo. I wonder if "molecular clocks" run all at the same speed - and what other assumptions are involved?
Pekar et al seem to be suggesting that not only did one very unusual event occur at the market, but two. Using Ockham's razor that seems unlikely to me.
Anyway I appreciate this public dialogue and hope it continues. But, in the short run, I have to get back to my "day job".
Excellent -- thank you for your time, hard work and intelligence!
I followed you on Twitter until my small account was permanently suspended for reasons never explained. You've done great work. The machinations of the zoonosis-only virologists/funding agencies/PR agents on Twitter were both shocking and alarming to me, as I used to believe the foremost principle among scientists was integrity. Scientists are people like everyone else and can have conflicts of interest, like everyone else. This cannot be overstated, and is the reason such high-risk research as GoFRoC - if society deems worth doing at all - must not be left to the regulations and oversight of the very same bodies that fund it. Instead, an independent body must take on this role, along the lines of the IAEA for nuclear technology.
Brilliantly written. Your patience, humility, and curiosity are a beacon of light in the darkness of pseudoscience.
Just as a side note Alex, you would make a wonderful teacher. For you are able to take complex concepts & explain them in ways that everyone can understand which then creates an atmosphere of wanting to learn more. I also believe that your ability to make science easier to digest for the lay person is why some of the people who struggle to simplify their logic may attack you, they are threatened by you as it widens science audience.
Full respect to you. You exemplify how science should see itself: dispassionate, considerate, rigorous, and ever-curious. Thank you. 🙏🏽
Wow, really well written piece that should make sense to everyone. Thank you!
You are such a relief from all the superheated rhetoric. I really appreciate how your sanity shines through this piece.
You clearly articulate what it takes to not participate in bad faith science: "I pledge to listen for good ideas no matter where they come from and do my best to update my thinking in light of new evidence."
I’m sharing this with as many as I can, including those who still believe the liars.
Nailed it in heading & sub heading. Examined Question & crucially TESTED.
We all learned this is primarily school & although a simple concept it’s fundamental to solving problems & then proving that you found the right solution.
I just fail to comprehend how science has lost it’s way, especially with Covid. It’s like living in a alternative universe where people no longer function in reality, that shows us there is more going on than we would like to accept. Mind games, manipulation & Government sanctioned propaganda is the only explanation at this point. I would never had believed it if I hadn’t lived through it. Alex you are a rare breed that is purely looking for the answers rather than trying to obscure them. Thank you for keeping it ethical because it was getting rather grim on that front.
Extraordinary insights.
Impressive Alex and thank you for liking my previous message. Science it's a process and I think many people do not understand this. I also think that Covid came from the lab, thank you for your work on this
"4) Gao et al. tested animals in the wet market and not one animal tested positive"
In the LA Times (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-08/covid-lab-leak-energy-department-fbi) Worobey states: "But not a single relevant live animal was tested there before the market was closed". Do you know if that's true? Or stated by Gao etc to be true? It does not make sense to me that they would close the wet market without testing any animals then for sale - even if they didn't test them earlier. In the same article (and twitter thread) Worobey claim that numerous labs in China could have been the source - but as far as I know only Wuhan was doing gain of function on coronaviruses, and (in late 2019) only Wuhan had a BSL 4 lab.
Brilliant - thank you for your hard work and calm intelligence. Great reading.
I agree, on balance, China would release information re a farmed or wild source of the pandemic, if they had found one .. even though this would result in some loss of face (but far less than if the pandemic arose via the WIV). I don't entirely agree with you that "no-one would blame China if an infected civet or whatever caused this outbreak as happened with SARS1" .. I think the Chinese leadership is hypersensitive; probably more in 2019 - and now - than in 2002/03; I think they took steps to try to prevent a recurrence of SARS (ie in early 2000s); I think those safeguards faltered and I think they would be embarrassed if the epidemiology for covid-19 proves to be similar to SARS-1. I think similar motivations underlie their attempt to shift blame to imported frozen foods, or maybe to the military games.
But they have far more to lose if WIV turnd out to be the source.
What is the probablilty that Gao etc would find no such animal, even if they looked hard (were it to exist?) Until recently I took at face value claims that they did look hard .. after more engagement with Gao et al, however, I have started to wonder .. Their search may have been influenced in some way by authorities who were more meddlesome/directive than when the corresponding investigators searched for SARS in 2003; ie their search strategy may have had less chance of success.
I strongly agree with you that Worobey et al have not proven a market origin.
FWIW I have barely looked at the companion paper (Pekar et al) .. phylodynamics and phylogenetics (etc) is not a strength. However, I do know that it is largely Worobey's work on the phylogenetics of HIV that has been used to undermine the hypothesis (most strongly developed by Edward Hooper) that HIV first emerged via polio vaccines in what is now the Dem Rep Congo. I wonder if "molecular clocks" run all at the same speed - and what other assumptions are involved?
Pekar et al seem to be suggesting that not only did one very unusual event occur at the market, but two. Using Ockham's razor that seems unlikely to me.
Anyway I appreciate this public dialogue and hope it continues. But, in the short run, I have to get back to my "day job".
Excellent point
Thank you.