Ruling out engineered.

https://bsky.app/profile/gregggonsalves.bsky.social/post/3ku7djn7urc2x

Great long thread on Bluesky from Kristian Andersen showing how so much of Alina Chan's New York Times opinion piece on coronavirus origins is steeped in an elaborate conspiracy theory when you actually read her argument.

As Andersen discusses, what available evidence we do have undermines that conspiracy theory significantly.

It is a good example of how much of the lab leak discourse is simply conspiracy theorizing and throwing stuff at the wall.

These excerpts from Ralph Baric's congressional testimony are especially important. A common element of the lab leak discourse is an implicit argument that the virus was engineered. In Chan's piece she insinuates the DEFUSE proposal as the source of the virus.

Baric was one of the scientists in the DEFUSE proposal. In his testimony he discussed how the DEFUSE proposal was different than SARS-COV-2. Most importantly though we also have no evidence the coronavirus was engineered to begin with.

As Baric notes, we of course can't rule out a lab leak. But we can rule out an engineered virus.

What available evidence we do have suggests possible natural origins for the coronavirus. However we don't have enough evidence to confirm it at present.

Jonathan Katz had a really good piece on this in particular but I really do hate how so much of the lab leak discourse is internally contradictory.

Like yes not everyone is talking about "Chinese bioweapons" in this space (a lot are). There is a possibility for a lab leak.

But most of the actual lab leak theories are all over the place. They can't even get the lab they think is the culprit straight. They assume a bunch of scientists from different countries are lying. They keep on bringing up debunked talking points like the "sick scientists" or the DEFUSE proposal.

It makes debunking difficult as well. Since they aren't actually discussing a coherent and consistent story.

Like if it was based on DEFUSE, the virus should show particular hallmarks of that. It doesn't.

As Andersen notes, if it came from WIV, then Shi must be lying. But if that theory is correct, then the outbreak should have started in September. Phylogenetic analysis doesn't agree with that start time.

So it is whack a mole. And once you poke holes in one part, they move to another and pretend like that just didn't occur.

By throwing all this shit at the wall it comes across as thorough and extensive. But there is very little actual evidence in that mess at the end of the day. And the points don't even correspond with each other.