Yuri Deigin

Apparently seemless recombination was successfully attempted (search word seemless here https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens… Whole post is quite interesting despite author alluding from time to time to lab leak being likely. What I got from it is that lab leak is entirely possible but there are at least few indications that it would require mixture of ineptitude and pointless cunningness. And that natural origin is superbly likely because coronavirus are just amazing melting pot where same exact mutations popup in multiple unrelated species.

I too am disappointed at how politicized this is. That includes the Vanity Fair article, which was mostly about press coverage, funding, memos, and circumstantial evidence. Here's some good science sources: - Comprehensive reddit post [0] from a virologist (table of contents, also linked as a 34 page pdf), referencing over 150 sources, with several sections going into the details of the genetic evidence, also interesting to read the comments. - Here's an article [1] talking about different origin theories and the related genetic evidence, having a section I was interested in about the cleavage site and o-linked glycan, something apparently that has to develop in an animal with an immune system (this is something I haven't seen any lab-made proponents speak to yet). - Lastly, here is an article [2], much more scientific than the Vanify Fair article, in favor of a lab connection (unfortunately, for me, this article doesn't mention the o-linked glycan, nor the genetic evidence that covid-19 may have originated hundreds of miles from Wuhan [3]) That's as far as I've gotten so far following the science. I'm hoping there will be more virologist commentary as more data comes out, perhaps something based on the full WHO report/data that I heard was released last week. I'd like to think that science will give us more definite answers eventually. It could take years. I'm not so much interested in conjecture from politicians and journalists. I'm really taken back by all the…

Not just the media, folks, also the rest of our "sense making apparatus". Wikipedia has been suppressing lab leak discussion, and still to this moment will not allow the old Lab Leak Hypothesis page back. It still redirects to a declared "Misinformation!" page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesi… And guess where else lab leak was suppressed? Here on HN. Yes, dang, you suppressed discussion of a perfectly reasonable hypothesis many times. So, while I have your attention, the real problem vis a vis Covid19 is not the lab leak. The real problem is "gain of function" research, using gene splicing to make more virulent-to-humans pathogens. And don't read into anything I'm saying, please pay attention to literally what I say here; if you have to reword what I say to cast doubt, you're not playing fair. This virus was likely man-made because gain of function man made viruses are quite common in research; and this is not a coverup conspiracy caused by the Chinese tendency for face-saving, swept under the carpet, "truths", though there is plenty of that. This scandal was caused by western experts: our best virologists are themselves engaging in gain of function research right here in our very own cities. If you ask them, as the media did, "what likely happened here", their answer is not going to point the finger at themselves, too much funding is at stake. Good background and in-depth research on the gain of function and lab leak hypotheses was…

The WIV published lots of gain-of-function research, but all by genetic engineering and not serial passage. Ralph Baric's group has published on coronavirus gain-of-function by serial passage though: > We adapted the SARS-CoV (Urbani strain) by serial passage in the respiratory tract of young BALB/c mice. Fifteen passages resulted in a virus (MA15) that is lethal for mice following intranasal inoculation. https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens… So it doesn't seem implausible to me that the WIV would bring up a similar program. The lack of any public record doesn't seem like it requires any conspiracy to me, just for them not to have published yet (especially since they only got the BSL-4 lab where they'd likely be doing that work in 2018). I think I probably understated the plausibility of a genetically-engineered origin in my comment above, too. I've just re-read Andersen's reasoning in the Nature article, and it's based heavily on the dissimilarity of SARS-CoV-2 from previously-known viruses. But we know the WIV had a private database--for example, RaTG13 was allegedly collected in 2013, but not published until after the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. Honestly this whole area of research seems terrifying to me. Regardless of whether it's eventually shown to have caused this pandemic or not, I see no indication that this work is delivering any benefit commensurate to its risk. Many prominent…

Thank you for writing this, I was just about to start writing up something similar. The linked paper might be 'serious' in tone but the claims are not convincing. One of the best articles I have seen on the lab-made hypothesis is here: https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens… If you want to go down a more skeptical route, closer into conspiracy theories and Chinese politics, you can read some of the writings on this site: https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/blog/scientific-evidence-and-logic-beh… Please, when reading these, keep your scientist hat on and evaluate the claims with an open mind. That being said, if anyone has links to rebuttals of some of the key ideas behind these articles, or further evidence of natural origin beyond the Andersen et al Nature paper, please link it, I'd very much like to change my mind.

There were very good arguments that Covid (probably) leaked from a lab as early as April 2020 at the latest (and in January if you were a virologist included in top-level NIAID emails). HN largely went along with the shunning of debate, which helped give everyone the impression there was "zero evidence" of a lab leak compared to solid evidence of zoonotic origin, which was simply never true. https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens…

Even the 122 year record is likely fake - https://yurideigin.medium.com/jaccuse-why-122-year-longevity-record-ma… Human bodies seem to pack up with age regardless of how much you spend on healthcare. I suspect major change may come more from a merging with AI scenario rather than better healthcare.

> Death certificate were not signed out of nowhere even in 1934. Actually, the curious thing in this case is it kind of was: "Curiously, her death certificate was issued on the basis of testimony of a sole witness, a 71-year-old unemployed woman (i.e. not a doctor or nurse) who “saw her dead”" https://yurideigin.medium.com/jaccuse-why-122-year-longevity-record-ma…

The main problem with such evidence is that even in a lab-made virus it simply may not exist. Basically, a good genetic engineer can create a synthetic virus that would be indistinguishable from a natural one. Moreover, often researchers deliberately introduce some synonymous mutations into their designs so that later they can discern their strain from natural ones. But if the creators choose not to reveal these markers, it is impossible to distinguish them from natural mutations. https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens…

This is older but it shows the BLAST of the two viruses. They're more than the same family. RaTG13 is the closest sequence ever discovered (in open literature) to SARS-CoV-2. https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens…

There is a rather detailed description of circumstantial evidence that leans towards the gain of function statement: https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens…

This was the only piece I found last year that discussed the possibility given the science of the virus: https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens… Unfortunately I'm nowhere near informed enough on virology to understand whether these claims are accurate or are some sort of sleight of hand.

Someone on HN posted this a few days back https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens… The science is over my head and it’s, yknow, some guy on the Internet so take it with a grain of salt, but it seems to present a pretty compelling case that SARS-CoV-2 is in fact very similar to two viruses the WIV would have had on hand, and that the way it’s structured looks an awful lot like a bunch of other chimeras the people there had built.

I would implore those who are skeptical of a lab leak hypothesis to listen to the evolutionary biologist Bret Weinsteins Darkhorse Podcast with Yuri Deigin on the subject: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bret-weinstein-and-yuri-deigin-d… Related article by Deigin: https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens… The podcast is a much easier listen then the deep dive that is in the article. All in all, the facts do not rule out lab leak, and there are definitely mysteries to explain.

specifically he is a specialist in bat biology, but perhaps more relevantly he had a very interesting conversation with a russian virologist who also thinks this is the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug here is an essay written by his guest: https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens…

This analysis is obviously garbage, but links to a much better post https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens…

I've only read this [1] before, and its not a bad story, but I wonder how sure you can be without knowing every corona virus strain in the region, it can still be from a strain we haven't sequenced. Also, it is more likely a something like this gets discovered in a major city vs some rural backwater, because they have more educated doctors there and more patience to detect a pattern. [1] https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens…

I think this is the relevant line of inquiry. >We know what viruses the lab was working with, and SARS-CoV-2 wasn't one of them. Do we really know what was being worked with at the time of outbreak? Plenty of published literature exists for the years leading up to the outbreak. It shows that they were working with viruses with all of the component parts of CoV-19. Their published research also shows that they were genetically combing these viruses so that they can cross species barriers and testing their ability to infect and spread in living models. There were publications as recent as October 2019 where they were modifying chicken corona viruses with engineered furian binding sites very similar to that of CoV-19 so that they could cross the species barrier. The question then becomes how much data typically gets shared for projects in progress before publication. I don't know what this standard practice is here. The most informative post I have seen on the topic was shared back in April 2020 here on HN [1] https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens…

The lab leak was a valid hypothesis since early 2020 and credible scientists had been warning about the possibility of a leak, specifically from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, well before that. By April, there were long arguments with evidence being published, such as here https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens… These were not "China==bad" arguments. Just people willing to look at the facts. If anything, they were "gain-of-function research==bad" but the Obama administration had put the kibosh on funding GoF research in the US for similar concerns, so surely that was acceptable criticism. When Trump took office, it appears that Fauci took advantage of the chaotic transition period to quietly lift those prohibitions. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence to support that the virus was in fact "designed in the lab by humans" so not sure why you're lumping that in with "conspiratorial reasoning". Meanwhile, there was what looks like an actual conspiracy by prominent scientists led by Peter Daszak to mislead the public about the possible origins of the virus. These scientists intentionally, collectively, misled the public and hid their obvious conflicts of interests. Wouldn't that qualify as a conspiracy? History and the nature of the spread did not support a zoological origin of the virus. The likelihood of zoological vectors is an over-stated fever dream of gain-of-function grant seekers. If…

I'm not sure whether on the balance gain of function research is a good idea or not. The point of my comment was just that discussing the impact is highly relevant, and isn't "putting the cart before the horse". But I guess I should expand on it. Regarding whether gain of function research is a good idea: Creating synthetic variants (to see if there is gain or loss in function) is very helpful in that it allows well-controlled experiments, which is necessary to establish causation. As I said elsewhere, I don't think the risk is appreciably different whether the lab's collection of dangerous viruses is all-natural or not. That is, if we ban gain of function research we should probably stop studying the unmodified variants also. There have been near-misses with accidental releases of SARS-CoV-1 and Guanarito [0]; no gain of function required. And the 1977 release of H1N1 came from vaccine development. Regarding describing the net impact of gain of function research as one pandemic, zero help: I don't know what would be different if gain of function research had been banned. The underlying methods have been used since at least 1999 on, among other things, MERS and SARS-2003 [0], so they have contributed to the general knowledge base that permitted extremely rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccine. This was a significant help, not zero help. On a technical and scientific level we were very well prepared for COVID-19. Its biology was well-understood almost…

I feel like there's a deliberate attempt at obfuscation going on. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that, at the very least, Beijing isn't being honest about the initial stages of the outbreak (see: the reports around the recent WHO investigation in Wuhan). And that possibly, SARS-CoV-2 escaped from the Wuhan viroligy lab, where it was involved in gain-of-function research to make it more virulent (see: [1][2]). There's no reason to believe it's an escaped bioweapon, and it shows no telltale marks of direct genetic tampering (though that can't be ruled out, apparently). Talking about these things, or rolling out people who do only to "debunk" them, is basically a distraction, as far as I'm concerned. [1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.… [2] https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens…

https://github.com/Project-Evidence Give it a read over some coffee. There's some other good deepdives by some biotechies as well, it'll take me a bit to get my brain to cough back up the magic query to get back to the articles in question. Here we go: Yuri Deigin https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens… The bulletin: https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-natu… A colorful, but delightfully detail packed couple pf articles I came across. take: https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/01/31/logistical-and-technical-a… https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/03/19/china-owns-nature-magazine… There was the Stephen Quay paper that I mever chased down, https://zenodo.org/record/4477081 Not sure on the merits there Though. Trying to find one last one... Point being, of you haven't found the good collections pf this stuff, you're probably filter bubbled.