Intelligent Design Peer review Philosophy Science

At Lancet: An appeal for an honest debate in science about the origin of COVID-19

Spread the love

Specifically, the origin of the virus that causes the disease, An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 — lab or nature:

On July 5, 2021, a Correspondence was published in The Lancet called “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans”.1 The letter recapitulates the arguments of an earlier letter (published in February, 2020) by the same authors,2 which claimed overwhelming support for the hypothesis that the novel coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic originated in wildlife. The authors associated any alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”. The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists.3 The 2021 letter did not repeat the proposition that scientists open to alternative hypotheses were conspiracy theorists, but did state: “We believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals”. In fact, this argument could literally be reversed. As will be shown below, there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible.

There is so far no scientifically validated evidence that directly supports a natural origin. Among the references cited in the two letters by Calisher and colleagues,1, 2 all but one simply show that SARS-CoV-2 is phylogenetically related to other betacoronaviruses. The fact that the causative agent of COVID-19 descends from a natural virus is widely accepted, but this does not explain how it came to infect humans. The question of the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2—ie, the final virus and host before passage to humans—was expressly addressed in only one highly cited opinion piece, which supports the natural origin hypothesis,4 but suffers from a logical fallacy:5 it opposes two hypotheses—laboratory engineering versus zoonosis—wrongly implying that there are no other possible scenarios. The article then provides arguments against the laboratory engineering hypothesis, which are not conclusive for the following reasons. First, it assumes that the optimisation of the receptor binding domain for human ACE2 requires prior knowledge of the adaptive mutations, whereas selection in cell culture or animal models would lead to the same effect. Second, the absence of traces of reverse-engineering systems does not preclude genome editing, which is performed with so-called seamless techniques.6, 7 Finally, the absence of a previously known backbone is not a proof, since researchers can work for several years on viruses before publishing their full genome (this was the case for RaTG13, the closest known virus, which was collected in 2013 and published in 2020).8 Based on these indirect and questionable arguments, the authors conclude in favour of a natural proximal origin. In the last part of the article, they briefly evoke selection during passage (ie, experiments aiming to test the capacity of a virus to infect cell cultures or model animals) and acknowledge the documented cases of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV, but they dismiss this scenario, based on the argument that the strong similarity between receptor binding domains of SARS-CoV-2 and pangolins provides a more parsimonious explanation of the specific mutations. However, the pangolin hypothesis has since been abandoned,9, 10, 11, 12 so the whole reasoning should be re-evaluated.

Jacques van Helden et al., “An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2” at Lancet (September 17, 2021)

We wish Jacques van Helden and his co-authors good luck getting an honest discussion going. It’s not like China is going to become transparent anytime soon. In any event, few virus researchers would want to be told bluntly that, because gain-of-function research in viruses can go badly wrong, they now face controls. Some nations wouldn’t heed the controls. And nature never responds – on her own – to calls for clarification. Most likely, whatever happened with COVID will need to happen again a few more times until a pattern develops. Then we’ll see.

It doesn’t help that Lancet itself became politicized in recent years. See: “A Woke medical journal’s war on having kids” and “Why has a historic medical publication gone weird?” They’ll regret going Woke if they now need to be taken seriously about something important.

Note also from the current letter to Lancet:

Contrary to the first letter published in The Lancet by Calisher and colleagues,2 we do not think that scientists should promote “unity” (“We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture”). As shown above, research-related hypotheses are not misinformation and conjecture. More importantly, science embraces alternative hypotheses, contradictory arguments, verification, refutability, and controversy. Departing from this principle risks establishing dogmas, abandoning the essence of science, and, even worse, paving the way for conspiracy theories. Instead, the scientific community should bring this debate to a place where it belongs: the columns of scientific journals.31, 32

Jacques van Helden et al., “An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2” at Lancet (September 17, 2021)

In the context, “unity” could mean, in some cases, “in league with people who could not give a good account of themselves.” There are definitely principles more important than mere unity.

3 Replies to “At Lancet: An appeal for an honest debate in science about the origin of COVID-19

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    The origin of the ‘measures’ is the broader question. We know one piece of the puzzle. Carter Mecher, the monster who gave the order to lock everything down in March 2020, had been working on this project for 15 years. Bush Junior ordered him to build a “whole-of-society” pandemic attack in 2005, as part of Bush’s “response” to Bush’s 9/11 “attack”. We don’t know much about what the Mecher team was doing between the first instruction and the actual “attack”. This was the exact same “bioterror” team that had already performed the anthrax “attack” shortly after 9/11, so they certainly had access to all of our “bioterror” facilities.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    While on the subject of COVID-19, I thought this was News-worthy,

    Covid: Immune therapy from llamas shows promise

    A Covid therapy derived from a llama named Fifi has shown “significant potential” in early trials.

    It is a treatment made of “nanobodies”, small, simpler versions of antibodies, which llamas and camels produce naturally in response to infection.

    Once the therapy has been tested in humans, scientists say, it could be given as a simple nasal spray – to treat and even prevent early infection.

    Prof James Naismith described nanobodies as “fantastically exciting”.

  3. 3
    es58 says:

    Medical witness :Covid exactly what you’d expect if it was a lab leak

    https://youtu.be/YeW5sI-R1Qg

    Evidence of significant event at Wuhan in September 2019 – they deleted info about areas of research from their website

    https://youtu.be/fgAl0uSB9cA

    And this one says it was weapon

    https://youtu.be/pbbJaaMG7Bs it

    And these suggest fauci knew made efforts to cover it up

    [7/2, 11:22 AM] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3F2ZJGipiE
    [7/4, 3:39 PM] https://youtu.be/ovU4e8Cfreg

Leave a Reply