a fascinating & frankly quite educational article; it maintains epistemic humility while carefully walking us through the various angles of the problem, from the highly technical to the institutional & political. I'm not sure what to believe, tbh, but this is swaying my stance
---
RT @mtracey
This strongly suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus was in fact man-made. Particularly damning is the explanation of how public perceptions were purposely ma…
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1390114531247071235
Nicholas Wade, the author, is no stranger to scientific controversy, having been consistently embroiled in it for quite a while. this is apparent in how careful he is in his wording, and the tentative way in which he makes his claims; this is no raving lunatic, or crackpot quack
the article explores arguments for & against the leading theories of covid-19s origin: natural emergence & lab-escape. it gives each a fair chance, surfacing the prevailing arguments for both, coming out leaning strongly towards the latter, seemingly supported by the arguments
the crux of the argument rests on an epistemological claim, that since there is no conclusive proof for either theory, the one with fewer unlikely steps in the chain of reasoning is more likely to be correct; indeed, this is difficult to argue w/, withholding motivated reasoning
while I haven't personally reviewed his supporting evidence, which he does provide, if it is to be taken at face value, the argument is quite strong; there seem to be fewer leaps of faith required to believe the natural emergence hypothesis, if we are to start from a blank slate
two of the most convincing arguments presented, imo, are such: 1, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was receiving funding to carry out the precise research requisite to develop a virus very similar to SARS-CoV-2 (aka SARS2); funding from the US federal govt, no less
and 2, that the specific aspect of SARS2 which makes it much more infectious in humans was exceedingly unlikely to emerge naturally, as it is a feature which a. no other coronaviruses share, and b. could not have been produced thru natural selection in the requisite timeframe
there are many more details I could go into here, but instead I'll encourage you to read the article yourself & form your own opinion, perhaps even review the supporting evidence if you possess the capability and inclination. personally, I found it compelling enough to consider.
I'm personally more concerned w/ cultivating an environment in which honest intellectual discussion of uncomfortable topics is not only tolerated, but encouraged; while I certainly am interested in the outcome of this specific debate, its more of a case study in epistemics for me
from a more abstract perspective, there's also pretty important questions to consider regarding the sociopolitical conditions which make this hypothesis anathema; it doesn't bode well for the health of public discourse that such a well-supported position is branded conspiratorial