Special Lab Leak Roundtable (Audio)
Added 2023-03-08 08:10:34 +0000 UTCHey everyone,
This is a bit of a special release that we want to keep behind the Guru curtain until it is edited up with the intro and outro.
But we can trust you guys, right?
So in response to all the discussion around lab leaks we arranged an interview with three leading experts on the topic.
You have:
Kristian Andersen: a professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research, with joint appointments in the Department of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, and at the Scripps Research Translational Institute. Over the past decade, his research has focused on the complex relationship between host and pathogen. Using a combination of next-generation sequencing, field work, experimentation, and computational biology he has spearheaded large international collaborations investigating the emergence, spread and evolution of deadly pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, Zika virus, Ebola virus, West Nile virus, and Lassa virus. His work is highly cross-disciplinary and exceptionally collaborative.
Eddie Holmes: known for his work on the evolution and emergence of infectious diseases, particularly the mechanisms by which RNA viruses jump species boundaries to emerge in humans and other animals. He currently holds an NHMRC Leadership Fellowship and is Professor of Virology at the University of Sydney. He moved to the University of Sydney in 2012. He has studied the emergence and spread of such pathogens as SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus, dengue virus, HIV, hepatitis C virus, myxoma virus, RHDV and Yersinia pestis.
and
Michael Worobey: Department Head, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona. His research taps into the genomes of viruses, using molecular and computational biology, to understand the origins, emergence and control of pandemics. He has made discoveries pinpointing, for example, where, when and how HIV originated and spread worldwide and how influenza pandemics, including the intense 1918 pandemic, emerge and kill large numbers of people. Recently, his interdisciplinary work on SARS-CoV-2 has shed light on how and when the virus originated and ignited the COVID-19 pandemic in China and how SARS-CoV-2 emerged and took hold in North America and Europe.
Current research includes (1) SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology and evolution from local to global scales, (2) work at the intersection of viral evolution and immunology with both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses, (3) influenza vaccines, and (4) pandemic preparedness and prevention.
They have all published on the topic of covid origins, all are targets for conspiracy theorists, and all have in various ways examined the evidence for and against a lab leak.
We think this discussion is important and we will add an intro and outro to introduce the topic and participants and edit for clarity.
But this is the Patreon so you get the full unedited interview.
Feedback and comments welcome. Enjoy!
Comments
Maybe I'm just a nerd but I didn't find the discussion boring at all. I thought it was probably your best episode to date and the one I learnt the most from. Thanks so much for doing it and putting a more rational side to the story. Ironic I suppose, both my favorite to least favorite episodes (Maher) in such a short period of time.
Neil Hornsby
2023-03-28 12:59:30 +0000 UTCWell the discussion was boring as hell but I think that is to everyone’s credit! Real science is boring as hell sometimes. No hyperbolic claims, no conspiracies, no accusations or aspersions cast. I think they do need a Sagan figure who can go up against the Bret Weinsteins whenever they do their thing. Science needs its well-spoken champions too.
Mark K
2023-03-12 21:59:49 +0000 UTCA really great interview thanks. Sam Harris probably didn’t push back because he quite understandably hasn’t to coin a phrase done da fucking research! I don’t know if SH’s perspective has shifted. The snippet you played of him sensibly talking about trusting the experts was,I recall, really needed at a time when his erstwhile pals were doing their best to kill off all our Mams and Dads or friends and relatives with vulnerabilities. It would be nice if he had your three virologists on his podcast. He can be an utter letdown though such as when he gave up something in support of Carl Benjamin’s supposed right to hate speech and he does seem reluctant to criticise anyone he has ever shared a meal with. He does seem to crave the approval of right wing comedians like Rogan and Gervais perhaps on account of his own dreadful humourless earnestness. I quite like his waking up app which I now get for free following my retirement from useful work and consequent impecuniousness but am inclined to think it must be fairly useless really given its own creator’s often fairly objectionable takes on things. Sorry this is a rant of course. i got carried away. Any chance of you doling out scholarships?
Conal dunn
2023-03-12 16:33:40 +0000 UTCGreat interview, particularly after the recent SH podcast. Was surprised Sam didn’t push back and ask them to elaborate on the zoological arguments since they said they would be presenting arguments from both sides and proceeded to only make a case for lab leak… Ridley definitely made my bs senses bristle! Cheers to Kristian, Eddie and Michael for their valuable time.
Chris Wishy
2023-03-12 00:12:05 +0000 UTCHey- notice how your pal Robert Wright is now Russet Brand? Fancy decoding his Ukrainian politics?
Brainbiter
2023-03-10 21:02:23 +0000 UTCThanks Chris -- I'm not sure that came through clearly in the video, but hopefully it's just me. That argument does make better sense to me now that you put it that way.
Maytree
2023-03-10 17:53:08 +0000 UTCThanks for this. I've read through Stuart's twitter chain a couple of times now. My specialty is EE, and being a former patent litigator, I'm use to having to wade through technology that I'm not familiar with, but it's never instant, and one often needs hours, days, weeks, working with experts to really understand complex technological issues, then marshall them into something a judge or lay juror could understand. So in this case with the FCS/ECO/WIV proposal issue, I know I'm incapable of really understanding Stuart's argument other than quite superficially without hours and days of learning, probably some with an expert, to get up to speed enough to really get it, pressure test my understanding, distinguish what's evidentiary versus judgment based on experience, etc. Hat's off to those who are able to absorb it and be convinced through one reading. Just an observation, but it seems like it's really a steep wall for journalists to really get their heads around these points about the FCS and, for ex, what was feasible to create and within what time frame -- as critical as they are -- and communicate them effectively to the public. Which, I suppose, is just the nature of this level of required expertise. I would assume Stuart's twitter chain on this is best geared for other experts in the field. It just gives me a bit of a dim view that we are making any progress in righting the ship for what really does seem to be an unbalanced and superficial view by the public, and even public institutions, of what the evidence is and likelihood of Covid's origins being wet market v. lab leak.
Maytree
2023-03-10 17:52:02 +0000 UTCTouché Bret Stephens! https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochrane-study.html
Maytree
2023-03-10 16:56:23 +0000 UTCYou are correct. The failing is however not necessarily with journalism or scientific community, but with our broken info sphere that is asymmetrically stacked against science. I've been doing science communication on this topic for a long time, and so have the scientists... but nobody can reach audiences than the sensationalst lableak influencers get on a slow tuesday. Maybe this interests you: https://protagonistfuture.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-two-pandemic-origins
Protagonist Science
2023-03-10 15:40:54 +0000 UTCSo you mean by using their mobile phone location data? Or could they tell from something in the viral strain that this same strain had originally come from the market?
James
2023-03-10 14:30:04 +0000 UTCThis is possibly the first time I've heard good arguments for "why Wuhan of all places?" that favor zoonosis. I think I have a healthy diet of mainstream news sources like the New York Times, so it seems like a failing of journalism and/or the scientific community that basic arguments in favor of the lab leak hypothesis haven't been more publicly rebutted (i.e., outside of journal articles). Lab leak discussion hasn't been verboten as some claim but the reportage has seemed lacking.
Daniel
2023-03-09 21:36:38 +0000 UTCYeah, it’s a tricky point but the argument there is that the people themselves were not reporting the connection. It was detected independently by tracing their locations. So it didn’t rely on self report.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-03-09 21:20:14 +0000 UTCNo, there a bunch of points around this. The first which I think is the most clearly stated is that you cannot just insert a furin cleavage site into something like RATG13 to create this virus. You need a lot of other features too. It is a very technical point but see this thread for a bunch of details about what is in the proposal and what is not: https://twitter.com/stuartjdneil/status/1633439786277978114?s=46&t=P1ydLJ36IAe7etYsIKpCwA
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-03-09 21:18:05 +0000 UTCthis, together with complementary environmental sampling data at the market, as well as phylogenetic evidence, all ends up mutually reinforcing that the market was the ONLY epicenter of the outbreak (they'd also show how cases started radiating out from the market over time to other places in the city
Protagonist Science
2023-03-09 21:10:37 +0000 UTC* There were hospitalizations with a new pneumonia of unknown aetioloy recognitzed first independently in various hospitals before anybody know about the market link * patients that were identified before the market link became known would cluster around it *about half of all early cases had a market association * no matter how one stratifies the data, even when removing cases with market association, all non-associated cases still clustered around the market
Protagonist Science
2023-03-09 21:08:31 +0000 UTCI think they might have just talked too many times about this to start from the very beginning. Basically what they showed is the following:
Protagonist Science
2023-03-09 21:04:09 +0000 UTCThe other aspect I'm a bit unclear on, is that Kristian says near the 1 hour mark that they "homed in" on cases that weren't epidemiologically linked to the markets, and those patients all denied any links whatsoever to the market. Couldn't a skeptic say that cuts both ways -- you have all these cases out there in which they couldn't find a link to the market which suggests that the market wasn't necessarily where it started. Maybe I'm just confused about this point generally, but it seems possibly critical in terms of what the reaction to the podcast will be. . . .
Maytree
2023-03-09 17:39:40 +0000 UTCI'm still a bit unclear on what their response is to the argument about ECO/WIV desire and request to create a cleavage site, and lo and behold, such an aspect showed up in the SARS-2 virus. Is it just that the scientists had determined that this was a potential dangerous aspect that could develop, and so "it shouldn't be surprising" that it in fact developed? It's hard for me, not deeply understanding the technology, to judge the strength of this response versus the "what an unlikely coincidence!" argument.
Maytree
2023-03-09 17:11:12 +0000 UTCGood stuff, fellas! I found this to be very illuminating on many subtle/technical details regarding which I have been ignorant up til now.
James
2023-03-09 16:55:34 +0000 UTCum, well, ok
Dael Morris
2023-03-09 06:38:25 +0000 UTCSofie's podcast is called 'Who Hurt You?' and it's helpfully got transcriptions of episodes https://whohurtyoupodcast.com/#about
Diane Morrison
2023-03-09 05:50:44 +0000 UTCA suggestion for the lefty/female gurus - in the fat activism sphere how about Sofie Hagen or Virgie Tovar ?
Diane Morrison
2023-03-09 05:49:20 +0000 UTCI recently responded to Alina Chan on Twitter (not realising she was the one on Sam Harris podcast) because she was doing a victory lap about the US department of energy report acting like it was forbidden knowledge until then. And I said "Or one could believe the evidence isn't conclusive either way and believe more research is required". She responded saying "Too bad that kind of measured attitude doesn't show up in the literature". Me being not scientifically trained and not particularly interested in the topic spent 5 minutes looking at google scholar and found 4-5 papers that said exactly that with at least one of which were from 2020. Then I looked up who this lady was and realised it was the one that you guys were complaining about on Sam Harris podcast! Was quite amazed by how easy it was to find direct evidence she was wrong. Can't wait to listen to this. I imagine its going to be good already.
YellowDreams
2023-03-09 04:30:26 +0000 UTCWonderful! Looking forward to sharing widely!
Robert Andrews
2023-03-09 03:13:06 +0000 UTCThey are all genuinely good! This one is just extra good!
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-03-09 02:41:01 +0000 UTCYeah they were great and with a little editing I think it will be even better.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-03-09 02:37:58 +0000 UTCYeah don't worry Robert we will be on our best behaviour for this one and we already planned to introduce the topic/guests properly when they were not there. We will try and be empathetic towards lab leak advocates too, in the hope that it might lower the temperature.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-03-09 02:37:35 +0000 UTCNot quite finished listening yet, but so far this has been an absolutely excellent episode. Also, may I suggest that as much as I like nothing better than to hear Matt and Chris banter about the antics of the IDW and their Twitter melt-downs that in this particular episode please leave that kind of thing out because this conversation is one that I want to recommend to people who may be lab-leak friendly and if I send it to them, I don't want them to give up in bemusement because some guy was raging about a sign telling him not to use too much paper in the toilet. :D That said, a brief intro to explaining some of the figures and the context of this conversation might be useful such as explaining who Alina Chan and Matt Ridley are and maybe how this podcast episode is something of a rejoinder to Sam Harris's podcast episode.
Robert Andrews
2023-03-08 23:25:46 +0000 UTCThis was superb, probably one of the best explainers and debunking of the lab leak theory I've come across. Hitting the experts with all the usual talking points, and hearing their answers, has convinced at least me that any lingering doubts of a natural origin can be reduced to effectively zero.
Jason Etheridge
2023-03-08 22:26:24 +0000 UTCIt’ll be out by next week. We want a quick turnaround too.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-03-08 20:40:49 +0000 UTCAn embarrassment of riches, you have made my week. Thank you boys!
Jennydiver
2023-03-08 17:47:50 +0000 UTCBreath. Of. Fresh. Air.
Dael Morris
2023-03-08 17:40:48 +0000 UTCPlease get this out!!!! Unlikely to get through to the headliners but some of the audience might be swayed. 🙏🏻
Tom McCool
2023-03-08 17:23:56 +0000 UTCGenuinely good episode.
Dael Morris
2023-03-08 17:13:37 +0000 UTCGentlemen, I'm listening now and for once I feel like I've spent time on the internet and become smarter (usually the opposite happens). Thanks, this episode is a public service.
Artemis Green
2023-03-08 13:32:56 +0000 UTC
