Thread by @Ayjchan

People on both sides of #OriginOfCovid agree it was risky to experiment with live SARS-like viruses at BSL2 (low biosafety) & virus hunting + manipulation possibly led to COVID.

The key difference is that one side doesn't think the lab has been transparent. The other side does.

This is why one side insists that there should be an inspection of lab records, research documents, databases etc.

Whereas the other side is willing to take it on trust that the Wuhan lab(s) did not have a SARS-CoV-2 precursor in their possession prior to the detected outbreak.

As a scientist, I am incredulous that all of the virus strains and sequences in a top research lab have already been published at any one time.

But some other scientists seem to believe it is possible for all virus strains and sequences in a lab to be in the public domain.

For example, before the EcoHealth reports were released via FOIA last year, did the public know of the specific chimeric SARS-like viruses and MERS virus being handled in the Wuhan lab in 2017-2019?

Were these strains created 2-4 years ago put in the public domain in real time?

Because the disagreement is no longer about science (we largely agree now that it is plausible that Covid-19 emerged due to research activities) but now about whether to trust someone (is the Wuhan lab being honest or not?), this argument has reached a standoff.

We wrote VIRAL compiling all of the scientific & circumstantial evidence surrounding each origin hypothesis, but there is no amount of book/article writing or tweeting, no amount of fact-checking that can "debunk" someone's unconditional trust (i.e., trust without verifying).

Vice versa, there is nothing you can say that would persuade me to believe it is acceptable to trust someone's word on the #OriginOfCovid without being able to verify it via independent and non-conflicted investigators.

Difficult to think of another situation with higher stakes.

It doesn't matter if that person is the sweetest, most unimpeachable person on earth. We still need a credible, independent, transparent, data-based investigation to be conducted.

If niceness is a 100% safeguard against research-related accidents or infections in one's research group, regardless of inappropriate biosafety level and lack of protective equipment, I have to say all research institutes have been using the wrong professor selection criteria.

This difference in trust isn't a geopolitical issue, although the stakes are higher for scientists/reporters in China compared to other countries.

If a US scientist wanted us to trust them on #OriginOfCovid without allowing an investigation, I would also be raising hell.

In fact, I'm fairly sure that if, in an alternate universe, a US scientist was the one whose group might've leaked SARS-CoV-2, their lab members and building would have been endlessly mobbed by journalists and the public.

As it is, journalists in the US, UK, Australia etc. are FOIA'ing (litigating) collaborators of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in order to find any piece of evidence in their possession that might shed light on the #OriginOfCovid

I believe they have the same investigative approach as I do: investigate with an open mind, find the data/evidence, pursue all plausible hypotheses, do not take assertions or claims on trust (even if the person is a science celebrity or says that they represent science).