I would like to suggest one thing to journalists asking about the #OriginsOfCovid - whether natural or lab-based.
Everyone is asking what do we know, what evidence do we have.
Ask scientists what we don’t know, what evidence are we still waiting for.
New evidence, new information should change a scientist’s perspective.
By forcing scientists to give you a likelihood estimate now, in the absence of definitive evidence, you’re constraining their future ability to change their minds.
Starting out strong on the topics of gain-of-function research, SARS2-related viruses under study at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the lack of intermediate hosts for SARS2.
I know a lot of people are in shock hearing that the lab leak hypothesis was plausible all along.
For those truly trying to understand what has happened over 2020, what the circumstantial evidence is for lab vs natural origin, please read these articles:
The idea that a lab accident might cause a pandemic “is a very difficult, uncomfortable scenario for many scientists to accept,” @DavidRelman said. Without more specific evidence in favor of the lab-leak hypothesis, “people will wring their hands.."
I share @DavidRelman's view that it is important to engage in the scientific process to investigate the lab leak hypothesis.
Even if the chances of finding the #OriginsOfCovid are low, we need to set a precedent of tracking novel pandemic pathogens.
My opinion is that it is anti-scientific to obstruct or censor other scientists from investigating a possible lab leak #OriginsOfCovid - a scientific question - just because you're afraid that it will make some racists or Trump supporters happy.
It is problematic that the whole world population (predominantly asian btw) is put at risk of a future lab-based pandemic - no investigation of #OriginsOfCovid, no informed mitigation strategies - because Western scientists are afraid to fan the flames of racism.
The @WHO declined to comment on this project specifically when asked by @Minervanett@Akselfrids but said there was a need for regulatory oversight to reduce the risks of research involving "high-consequence pathogens in an era of rapid technology development."
Also, @Minervanett reached out to @PLOSPathogens to see if they have more info about the biosafety level at which these SARS-related virus research had been conducted.
@Akselfrids take a number. I'm still waiting for PLoS Pathogens to handle the pangolin paper 1 year later.
Can we just ask the NIH - do you have any information about the work funded at the WIV or not?
It’s that straightforward.
If there’s no information other than the grant proposals already posted online and Peter Daszak’s tweets then we know millions of dollars have gone down the drain.