Gaslighting
Gaslighting
"On reading," by Simon Wain-Hobson, is a weekly discussion of scientific papers and news articles around gain of function research in virology.
Since January 2024, Dr. Wain-Hobson has written weekly essays for Biosafety Now discussing risky research in virology. You can read his entire series here.
On reading COVID-19 origins: plain speaking is overdue. The Lancet Microbe 5: 100953, online July 18, 2024
On this question there is insufficient data to come off the fence, a point already mentioned in a few essays. Despite this, the editorial starts thus: SARS-CoV-2 is a natural virus that found its way into humans through mundane contact with infected wildlife that went on to cause the most consequential pandemic for over a century. While it is scholarly to entertain alternative hypotheses, particularly when evidence is scarce, these alternative hypotheses have been implausible for a long time and have only become more-so with increasing scrutiny. Those who eagerly peddle suggestions of laboratory involvement have consistently failed to present credible arguments to support their positions.
Indeed, plain speaking is overdue. First, the key words are mundane contact, the rest we agree with. Where are the data? Second, there is no new data in the past year that has changed the situation so increasing scrutiny is not even poetry. Third, benchmarking the discussion on HIV origins for which there is a consensus among informed virologists, there is woefully insufficient data for the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Entertaining numerous hypotheses when evidence is scarce is normal. Fourth, an implausible hypothesis to some doesn’t make it invalid; only data does.
Take the time to reflect on the paragraph above and how many words were expended to make the simple point that COVID-19 had a natural origin. Incorrect point given how little we know. The 80 words in the opening paragraph do not make a case, they propagate a known hypothesis.
So why? Now, now, now it comes out: This is because there are many people, most notably in the USA, with disproportionate influence who are poised to seize on less explicit statements to undermine a simple, and pretty straightforward, truth. These are the same people who are willing to malign individuals—a topical example being former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci—who dedicated themselves to understanding and lessening the impact of the pandemic.
The piece may have been written in response to the Heritage Foundation report on China’s responsibility over the COVID pandemic and/or the introduction of the Risky Research Review Bill in the US Senate.
It is worth reading these pieces if only to realize how little we know, why the lab leak hypothesis hasn’t fizzled out. Recent Congressional testimony has highlighted the reluctance of NIH staff to yield documents to government oversight committees.
The targets of course are Republican House and Senate members. The editorial is part of political infighting which we’ll avoid. Let’s concentrate on the text which expresses outrage and plays the victim.
The sheer hubris needed to underpin alternative hypotheses was an early signal of their tenuousness, when we are intensely aware that the natural processes needed to bring about this sort of pandemic are constantly churning and testing the boundaries between animal and human populations.
The sheer chutzpah, disregard for knowledge and scientific method - and we’re only at the beginning of paragraph three. Obviously, zoonoses have generated pandemics from time immemorial, and will continue to do so. Nobody has ever said otherwise. However, virology has already had its Chernobyl moment, notably the 1977 Russian flu pandemic that was responsible for 700,000 deaths and then millions more as it transitioned to seasonal flu up to 2009.
Ever since microbes have been isolated in the late 19th century lab accidents have occurred (Lab Acquired Infections). Humans have willingly exploited infectious disease in the past to decimate populations eons before Pasteur and his germ theory. The mere existence of the Biological Weapons Convention in Geneva indicates this trait is not behind us. By any means.
Again, novel human microbes in the past have spilt over from animals and insects and will continue to do so. But this doesn’t invalidate a COVID virus lab leak. Drs. Fauci and Collins have said the hypothesis is credible all the while preferring the natural hypothesis.
To be frank, the fanciful ideas put forward by self-described free thinkers are more in keeping with popular movies than the realities of working with pathogens. The editorial conflates conspiracy theorists and serious scientists who have their doubts. By mixing them up the authors attempt to disparage the serious minds. It’s an endlessly used tactic these days and reflects only on the user, showing them to be the conjurer. The reader may not need reminding that four authors of the Proximal origins of COVID-19 paper – all senior academics so hardly self-described free thinkers - initially thought that the SARS-CoV-2 viral genome harbored unnatural features. And even after publication, they still exchanged doubts even though the paper tried to demolish the lab leak hypothesis, albeit with poor arguments.
This topic is not so trivial to be left to the instincts of commentators paid by the word or media outlets seeking the next titillating headline. But news outlets focusing on entertainment over information is so commonplace now that it can seem futile to highlight that this is a failing. Ah, it seems the target’s changed. Since when did spin doctors and conspiracy theorists ever pay attention to facts or an editorial in Lancet Microbe, Science or Nature Medicine? Sure, it is a sad fact, but this is the world we live in.
And, more recently, they have engaged in what they would describe as an official investigation, but to the dispassionate observer seem like attempts at political point scoring against both domestic and foreign opponents. These exercises have involved raking through the correspondence of scientists and public servants to find any slip that might provide them with evidence to back up their arguments. They have found nothing. One, we’re back to politics. Two, incorrect. DRASTIC and USRTK have unearthed many worrying documents and many examples of NIH staff blocking access to US government lawmakers. Furthermore, emails showed how mixed up/confused/uninformed (delete as appropriate) a number of the Proximal origins authors were. This is important given the number of times the article has been viewed. Three, they align with the dispassionate observer as though they know what (s)he is thinking. Unlikely and presumptuous if nothing else.
A worrying potential consequence of this saga is that it might have a chilling effect on the pursuit of answers in the future on both COVID-19 and new potential threats. With researchers unwilling to ask questions freely for fear of being persecuted when facts lead to inevitable refinement or revision of earlier conclusions. So, while we should defend the right to ask awkward questions, we should also defend the right to change our minds. Hmm, chilling effects. Some of us have experienced cold winds for more than a decade in the DURC (ex-GOF) avian flu saga (Chilled virology). Ditto for those asking questions related to the COVID lab leak. Facing up to or asking difficult questions has always been part and parcel of science. If you are reluctant to pose such questions, quit.
It might sound cynical, but if money is around, On reading’s hunch is that when the next pandemic virus strikes, shoals of virologists will switch to study it - just look at COVID-19 (Going places). Oops, there’s more around than viruses. Reboot. When the next microbe strikes, shoals of microbiologists will switch.
In summary, although the finer details of the events leading to the COVID-19 pandemic will take time to uncover, the story is one of a series of largely unremarkable steps coalescing to produce a momentous event—a perfect storm if you will. What’s this doing here? The finer details? We don’t even have a sister virus in an animal that is ~99% similar at the genetic level even though the COVID-19 virus has infected many mammals.
We don’t have thousands of divergent bat SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses (Cancel virology). This is totally incomprehensible given the technical firepower around these days. If the virus came from an intermediate host, why hasn’t that species been identified? Where are the previous spillovers? These are basic, not finer details. Perfect storm? More wordsmithing.
The last sentence, Those arguing for other explanations have their reasons, but none of these are public safety, is frightening. Journals are part of Big Science and yet we see here that editors flout data, scientific method and feel that their opinions count. It is for the scientists in the field or at the bench to create a consensus by generating data, discussing it openly and testing hypotheses. And this needs time. No journal editor can advance this agenda. None. Your comments hinder. We’ve seen this in the more than decade long DURC (ex-GOF) controversy.
What bothers them so and why take an unjustifiably hard line? Protecting science, aka the establishment, the status quo, when only openness can and will protect it. Dear reader, don’t change your mind, there’s a fault with reality.
Aside 1
Writing that the COVID lab leak is simply wrong when there is insufficient data either way is simply wrong. Science needs time.
Aside 2
Nobody and no organization are beyond a slip up. A journal is only as good as its external peer reviewers and its editorial team. A Lancet publication in February 1998 entitled "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children" ended up being retracted with the senior author disbarred. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud
Do a Google search with ‘Lancet retraction’ to see it’s an ongoing process, an occupational hazard if you will. Science is tough.
Aside 3
Setting gas alight generates carbon dioxide. Another no-no.
Amazing that the Lancet is still publishing this dreck. Science is in a dire place.