hopemax
Well-Known Member
When we talk about "people" I think we are referring to different subsets.
There is a subset within the affected professional communities who is legitimately questioning if they gave lab leak the proper examination. They consider themselves conscientious researchers, and are uncomfortable with the idea that they might have skipped some steps because they are committed to good research. The assumption was the intermediary would be obvious, and it hasn't worked out that way, so they are working through a legitimate process by "going back to the beginning." I expect that as they re-work through the process of what the SARS-CoV-2 genome is vs what viruses are known and available they will once again realize that the genetic disparities are too significant to be explained by human modification. Humans are not yet *that* good at manipulating that many nucleotides with success. Again, I refer to the implied hubris that comes with the idea that humans can do large-scale genetic modifications, in multiple areas of a genome and end up with a successful, replicating virus, because we've figured out how to tweak stuff. We hear 96% similarity and think "oh, close." The professionals do the analysis of recognizing that's still a difference of 1200 nucleotides, located all over the genome, not just the few highlighted nucleotides within the spike protein receiving all the attention, and come up with a different conclusion. Lab leak depends on proving that a proper backbone exists, and it is in this area where I expect the theory to be ultimately unable to explain. Things whittle down to which thing is more likely to find in nature, the previously discovered backbone close enough to make human manipulation feasible, or the zoonotic origin. Two different needles in a haystack.
It is not to this group that I was referring to by my statement.
There is a much larger group of people who are reacting to the recent volume of prominent articles, the people who are over-estimating the relevancy of their adjacent knowledge, and the continued political or personal agendas by the loudest proponents. Of course, many in this group wants to believe they are part of the conscientious group and not being manipulated or falling into a rabbit hole of incorrect assumptions and inadequate knowledge. And the manipulators certainly won't indicate that they doing any kind of piggy-backing on the conscientious concerns, when their intent is nefarious.
For the record, I don't find the proximity of the lab as suspicious as apparently a lot of people do. IMO, it feels like what happens with police investigations when you have a situation where a relationship between culprit and victim is the biggest factor in the crime. But the most likely relationship is one in which the subject has a sterling reputation that makes the crime unlikely. But there is a nearby criminal who has the appropriate history, but no relationship with the victim can be found. In the past, expediency and the touchiness of "ruining the reputations of good people" has led detectives to focus on the criminal despite their lack of connection. The "stranger" theory becomes elevated. DNA evidence, has resulted in refocusing to the people with relationships, and acknowledgement that even upstanding members of communities, good parents, and the like are capable of committing crimes too. The lab is the "nearby criminal" and the zoonotic option is the "relationship" that in almost every case has led to these situations.
