Section 15: (Alt title: Alt title)

(A Response to the NY Mag's Coronavirus Lab Escape Theory https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html - originally a long discord post before I realised I could milk it)

Foreword: 

The reason I suppose why I dislike this article so much is that it could have been much shorter. It could have literally gone: lab accidents are frequent, and the Wuhan labs were no exception.  

Instead it weaves a perplexing narrative, where a self-admittedly non-military venture was compared to military ventures, where the perpetrators alternated between deranged scientists seeking more funding in an accelerationist nightmare, and a simple accident. It repeatedly reaffirmed the notion that such respiratory diseases being a centre of concern caused a respiratory disease pandemic. It insisted on its apolitical nature whilst theorising about the influence of Trump, and the need to obtain funding in a post 9/11 landscape.

It is a very odd article, to say the least.

 

In this 'piece' I will attempt to demonstrate the rhetorical tricks used in the article, and give up halfway through.

Section 1: (Alt title:  A Very Spoooky Foretelling of Things to Come)

 

It opens with a clear statement of its purpose:

"What happened was fairly simple, I’ve come to believe. It was an accident."

Then they go over a brief overview of what might have happened from the zoonotic hypothesis perspective.

Then it goes into raising doubt:

"Certainty craves detail, and detail requires an investigation. It has been a full year, 80 million people have been infected, and, surprisingly, no public investigation has taken place. We still know very little about the origins of this disease."

So far we've had intent of the article (essentially an opinion piece to, if not convince the reader of the manufactured nature of the virus, then to raise doubt about the zoonotic hypothesis).

"Nevertheless, I think it’s worth offering some historical context for our yearlong medical nightmare. We need to hear from the people who for years have contended that certain types of virus experimentation might lead to a disastrous pandemic like this one. And we need to stop hunting for new exotic diseases in the wild, shipping them back to laboratories, and hot-wiring their genomes to prove how dangerous to human life they might become."

Restatement of the purpose, as well as raising concern over such practices. Especially through the use of colloquial and quite emotive words, in "hunting for"..."hot-wiring", which, regardless of if it was done on purpose or not, conjures up the idea of shady dealings with people not knowing exactly what they're doing.

The next paragraph (not going to paste it in here, because of its length) essentially talks about what scientists have been doing, and explicitly talks about the diseases scientists have manipulated in the lab. That paragraph then concludes with "The virologists who carried out these experiments have accomplished amazing feats of genetic transmutation, no question, and there have been very few publicized accidents over the years. But there have been some.", again raising doubt about the nature of the virus.

The next paragraph involves quotations from experts, again, to essentially add credence to their hypothesis, without directly saying it, and without providing direct evidence. Then the very epic, very funny "x is apolitical".

So, the opening/introduction comprises of the author stating their purpose/authorial intent. Then they use quite interesting language techniques in order to raise doubt, and to back up their point without explicitly stating it (i.e. this is a hypothesis -> scientists have been doing such things -> these experts have stated their concerns -> __ {fill in the blanks}).

Again, quite interesting rhetorically.

Section 2: (Alt title: Security, and Why I’m so Damn Insecure)

First paragraph is essentially a short recap, and serves as a frame for the next points.

Then with the second paragraph, it juxtaposes the 'strange' occurrences in relation to disease control, as well as hypotheses on where the virus came from, contrasting a paper by a Chinese scientist with a personal journal article. Given the existing doubt over the veracity of Chinese papers, this serves to reinforce both doubt, and the idea that the concept of a man made virus is neither novel nor strange.

The following paragraph is a statement of the author's background, and what they have written. Ironically, they wrote about a Pentagon plan to manufacture biological weapons for combat purposes, whereas they stated in the opening that "SARS-2 was not designed as a biological weapon. But it was, I think, designed." Again, writing about the US government's activities in creating biological weapons. This doesn't really add to their argument; especially given that it is by two different governments, and with, as the author will proceed to state, different purposes in mind. So essentially it serves to further doubt, and concern over government activities (and given that trust in governments, especially in the US, where I presume their audience is largely from, has decreased, it is effective rhetorically).

It raises issues regarding lab safety, and the accidents along the way. Again, this does not mean that an accident in a Chinese lab caused it. The situations are different (1960s vs 2019), and the purpose of the viruses would be different (military, combat usage vs under their hypothesis, testing out a hypothesis). Then stories from a widow, and other dead scientists. That part doesn't really add to their argument, it just works as an emotional frame (and is quite based, I should use that too. Tragedy for personal gain? Pogchamp).

The next paragraph is similar, it documents accidents and their after effects. It is interesting to note that quite a few of them were for military purposes.

This does not mean that the facility in China had such problems. It would be valid if they raised concerns over the biosecurity of the Chinese facility (of which there were cases where staff members allegedly sold test animals at a nearby market). But in the absence of that, it's another exercise in manufacturing doubt.

I will cover the next paragraphs together, since they are essentially quotes from experts to back up the previous paragraphs. Chan mentions that there is a reasonable chance that it was natural, which interestingly was not quoted; King raises concerns about biosecurity, and how he thought it was a lab accident; Murphy states that all possibilities should be on the table; Petrovsky, an endocrinologist, mentions there are unexplained features regarding the disease that aren't stated in the text; Ebright mentions concerns, and believes it was a lab release.

So in this section, they raise a valid concern about biosecurity. However, it would have been a valid argument had they demonstrated failings in biosecurity at the Wuhan facility (which exist, and I believe are documented). Instead, they raised concerns over military uses of diseases for several paragraphs (which isn't what they claim corona was made for), and they quoted the concerns of scientists without going into explicit details, or selectively quoted one particular scientist.

Section 3: (Alt title: Political Machine Goes Brrrrrr, Whether You Like it Or Not)

So it starts out with the basic bitch "x isn't political" thingo.

Then it goes into conspiracy theories made regarding the idea of a manufactured virus, and their tangible effects.

Followed by a counterstatement by lancet lads. Which does awfully reek of poisoning the well.

So rhetorically, it's like this:

1. X should not be political (we won't discuss that here, it's another entire fucking tangent that I could write an essay about)

2. People have made it political

3. The people in favour of the zoonotic hypothesis reacted to the above (and again, I'm not sure if the lancet lads actually responded to the bigotry, or if it is just clever framing on the author's part). It then goes on to say that the person behind the lancet statement funded research in the Wuhan lab. Which again, reeks of x -> y -> fill in the blanks, motherfucker.

And so the section goes on listing proponents of the zoonotic hypothesis.

Then they essentially blatantly said it was political in a shocking twist (motherfucker, they could have at least given me the excuse to write more lines), saying "Everyone took sides; everyone thought of the new disease as one more episode in an ongoing partisan struggle."

And then they compared it to shit Trump and Pompeo said.

So this isn't an argument so much as it is a segment screeching about politics and how science isn't for scientists anymore or something.

Section 4: (Alt title:  We’re being censored over here!)

"Even so", or despite this (this being the politicisation of the virus, see Section 3), there were thoughtful people speaking up. Again, this is a rhetorical technique, which hilariously is quite similar to the silent majority sort of idea. That is,

"despite the politicisation of this matter, several people have dared to stand up".

The journalist, Husseini asks a reasonable question, to which he got a reasonable response (the CDC rep could not have said that it was certainly zoonotic, because certainty in anything is cringe).

Then it goes into the spikey boi. So it says that it was not present in bat viruses, but in MERS. So, again, this is essentially the nudge nudge wink wink "we're not saying that it was engineered, but..."

The paper from Botao Xiao is interesting. So he essentially starts out with, well, a hypothesis. It is entertaining how often he switches from the typical low modality to high modality, with high modality in "The tissue samples and contaminated trashes were source of pathogens", and low in " It is plausible that the virus leaked around and some of them contaminated the initial patients in this epidemic, though solid proofs are needed in future study". In the concluding paragraph, however, the madlad states that the disease was meddled with. With complete certainty. "In summary, somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-nCoV coronavirus." And, well, certainty is a bit cringe in this field.

And with Fang, of course it's unlikely that all four amino acids were added at once. But it is important to remember the 96% similar virus was discovered in 2013, and corona virus mutations aren't exactly infrequent (see South Africa, the UK, Denmark). Furthermore, I honestly would have liked a link to the Taiwan Public Health association page.

So in this section, it's more of the same as the previous 3 sections.

Section 5: (Alt title:  The Chicken or the Egg, Zoonosis or Man-made)

So, this is an interesting point that sort of shoots itself in the foot. Covid-19 is novel. That is to say, as far as we know, this was new.

So the article starts out with SARS. It goes through a general history of corona viruses. Nothing too special, no real rhetorical tricks (although, I must admit that it is well written purely from an aesthetic standpoint.)

So it goes through the main infection, and then it points out that smaller outbreaks occurred later due to mismanagement in labs. This narrative is repeated with MERS, where the initial cases were due to zoonosis, and the later incident a result of lab accidents.

The reason why this is strange is because, as we know, the Wuhan cases were the first. So to say that the cases in Wuhan were caused by a lab accident is strange when the authors have painted a narrative of zoonosis, followed by lab accidents.
And they back this up with mishaps within the facility (this would have been useful in section 2, but they would have had to have half or a quarter of the length of the current article.) Again, the article uses the same "fill in the blanks" format.

Section 6: (alt title: "along with some rhetorical exaggeration")

Honestly, I'm just going to start repeating myself (I have already, I hope you haven't noticed, dear reader).

I mean...this one is conjecture.

It demonstrates that we have the capacity to make diseases. And then it includes, quite pointedly, "Not only that, but they’d figured out how to perform their assembly seamlessly, without any signs of human handiwork", which is essentially the pinnacle of radical doubt.

I'm going to have to switch from discussing the rhetoric of the article, and deal with what the article actually means.

Essentially, the purpose of the article, whether by intention or not, is to seed doubt. This has culminated, thus far, in this section.

They mention how the two experts in bat-human coronaviruses began collaborating in 2015. That doesn't mean much. Especially when you look at their previous section, where they have painted a narrative of zoonosis first, then lab accidents later. It also doesn't really provide evidence that they made it.

But the clincher is that you can't prove that they didn't make it. There is no certainty in this matter. Which is the dangerous part, because even if the vast majority of scientists agree that it was borne from zoonosis, there will always, always be the possibility of it being man made. The possibility may asymptotically approach 0, but it will never reach 0. And from the basis of this, we can essentially have radical doubt.

There will always be a lingering question of "how do you know?", and "what if?" But these questions don't help anybody. When this has essentially turned into a blame game, it distracts from the real issue of people fucking dying.

This is essentially the culmination of the rhetoric. It's essentially "I don't know, and you don't know for certain, so I can always say that it was a possibility."

Section 7: (alt title: I too have insomnia)

So, it starts off with a story about Shi.

The article states that Shi determined the disease did not come from her lab. But it is another rhetorical trick.

It demonstrates that there was a worry that it could have originated from the lab, and in conjunction, with the last section, it paints a portrait of a potential lab origin.

Again, in this situation, it:

1. Resolved itself (the virus did not originate from Shi's lab)

2. Goes against the narrative of zoonosis followed by lab accidents as set out by the author.

I think it also has a mistake in it. It is written such that Shi does not seem to be a director of the lab; in the text it reads "[Shi] heard from the director of the Wuhan Institute that there was an outbreak of a new disease in the city." But then it later states "If one of the first thoughts that goes through the head of a lab director at the Wuhan Institute of Virology isthat the new coronavirus could have come from her lab", which either indicates the author made a mistake, or Shi was talking to herself.

On the note of the investigation, there are a few issues:

1. Within the first months of the pandemic (epidemic back then), Wuhan was shut down. Closed off, and sealed off from the world. It honestly would have been very difficult to find people willing to go there, and able to go there outside of journalists

2. The world has been struggling with covid. Beijing was shut down several times because of new cases, America is going through a what the fuck phase, the UK is...being the UK, Europe is getting fucked. Really, the only secure places are in Asia, with SEA, Australasia and East Asia being based. But even then, right now in Korea we have a third wave. In Sydney, and Melbourne, we have the third wave. And other nations in SEA may not have the resources to fund an investigation.

Finally, I don't really understand the need for the final paragraph in this section

Section 8: (Alt title: not gonna lie, I instantly thought of Cory Doctorow when they mentioned anthrax)

It uh. It uses the fear of biological weapons to sow doubt about the nature of the disease, despite the article stating in its very opening "SARS-2 was not designed as a biological weapon. But it was, I think, designed."

It's not really an argument for covid being manufactured, insomuch as it is about how fucked up the war on terror is (which I hope we all can agree upon).

But also Cory Doctorow's Little Brother was based.

Section 9: (Alt title: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bugs)

I was going this section with trepidation, verbally pronouncing "oookaaaay" every few lines.

So it starts out with Baric working on a vaccine for SARS. This again, is conjecture. He was working on a SARS vaccine, and he exposed cells to SARS, and changed the protein spikes on the virus. Sure. But it is also important to remember how serious SARS was at the time. How serious infectious diseases are.

So when I went back to China in 2016, at the Beijing Airport, they essentially monitored your temperature as you went out of customs, with policemen making sure you weren’t symptomatic.

Even earlier, in, I believe, 2012 when I returned to China, there were still posters telling people to get the vaccine for SARS, and how SARS could spread adorning areas near my grandparents' apartment.

I remember thinking in early January 2020 that with the high incidence rate of COVID 19, relative to SARS, more people in the west might actually take it seriously this time (how naively wrong I was).

Baric modifying SARS isn't evidence of how COVID could have been manufactured, it's evidence of how serious SARS was. And when the article states "So Baric was exposing and adapting his engineered viruses to an extraordinarily true-to-life environment — the juicy, sticky, hairy inner surface of our breathing apparatus.", it just strikes me as odd. Because if you want to have a vaccine for humans, you at least need to test it on human cells. Sure, in terms of scientific studies, it's one of the weaker methods; it's no RCT, but we still need to do it as a preliminary assessment.

Furthermore, one of the reasons why the COVID vaccine came out so quickly is because of research done by Baric, and scientists like him.
This section was just odd.

Take the line in the next paragraph "SARS-2 seems almost perfectly calibrated to grab and ransack our breathing cells and choke the life out of them." The article itself mentioned the R-A-R-R protein sections earlier, that MERS had.

Or take:

"It could have happened in Wuhan, but — because anyone can now “print out” a fully infectious clone of any sequenced disease — it could also have happened at Fort Detrick, or in Texas, or in Italy, or in Rotterdam, or in Wisconsin, or in some other citadel of coronaviral inquiry. No conspiracy — just scientific ambition, and the urge to take exciting risks and make new things, and the fear of terrorism, and the fear of getting sick. Plus a whole lot of government money."

It is true that crisp-r and how easily it can be used is both based and scary as fuck. But it's operating on the premise that the virus was manufactured in the first place, in some sort of spooky circular reasoning.

Furthermore, the "no conspiracy" part is just odd. The way they described it makes it literally a conspiracy (not a theory, a literal conspiracy).

"A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation, while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it." (sourced from Wikipedia)

Section 10: (Alt title: People getting worried gets me worried)

I genuinely don't know the point of this section. As in, it could have been removed, and nothing of value would have been lost (although the same could be said for about 3/4s of the article).

It's a continuation of the previous 3 sections.

And it flows like this:

People were worried about zoonosis (understandably) -> People collected possible pathways through which zoonosis could occur and fuck us up -> someone used this knowledge to create a virus, and either realised it on purpose to get more funding for a project that was already well funded, or released the virus on accident.

Like, okay? That's conjecture, but okay?

Section 11: (alt title: So many theories, so many theories, therefore my theory must be right)

So it starts off with points of agreement between...zoonoticists....and...well, they didn't give a label for themselves, so let's go with anthroticists. Anthroticists and zoonoticists agree that there is essentially no certainty in this matter. Both sides also agree that the mutations were limited in scale; both in terms of number and time.

Right off the bat, we have our first bit of rhetorical fuckery. Just because both sides agree on somethings, does not mean that both sides are equally valid.

For example, if you press, say, a doctor far enough, you can probably get them to admit that "sure we don't know 100% for certain, with a single shred of doubt that it's the cancer that's killing you. It could be God abandoning you."

But just because neither side can be proven completely, 100%, without a single shred of doubt to be the right case, does not mean that both views are equally valid.

Let's move on.

So the article lists the extensive efforts to find the zoonotic source of the disease. From a language perspective, it uses repetition to draw emphasis on how there are so many conflicting theories on the disease was spread to humans, despite all the resources allocated.

So here's the issue. It's fucking hard. Figuring out the exact path of transmission is hard, however, that does not make the theoretical framework flawed. Reality is often complicated. Actually, it more or less is always complicated. We should not be surprised if we cannot find the mode of transmission with 100% certainty.

Then it goes into the rhetorical nonsense that is equivalent to saying

"COINCIDENCE??? I THINK NOT!"

So, read the following not-in-parenthesis parts first, and then read the whole thing.

What are those odds that people worked on a disease and a host that the public didn't know about (despite the prior sections demonstrating that Baric and co. knew about the potential dangers of such a disease as far back as the 1990s)?

What are the odds of a Chinese research centre working on the disease (despite SARS having existed, compounded with the knowledge that such a zoonotic disease was likely to exist)?

See, it all works very well rhetorically without the context.

And hilariously, the context was covered in previous sections, only to be used as further 'evidence' in this dumpster fire of conjecture.

The final paragraph details research conducted by anthroticists. One of them, published in the website Independent Science News, which curiously features the same nymag article within its front page, details an "an unexplained viral pneumonia in a bat-infested copper mine in 2012". Bat-infested. Bat-infested.

The following articles do detail how the virus could have come about in the 2012-2013 time period, and how the mutations have not occurred simultaneously, naturally. This is perhaps where people may disagree. For one thing, the mutations need not have arisen simultaneously. Rather than a probability fuckery of x/100 * y/100 * z/100, it may have been x+y+z/100. Secondly, this does not mean that the virus was released by the lab. This, as the author has admitted earlier, does not mean that the virus was certainly manmade.

Section 12: (Alt title: All aboard the Baric Hate Train)

It's...Section 8, 9, and 10 all over again. That's...that's basically it. See those sections for the criticisms.

Section 13: (Alt title: Proximity mines mine!)

This is just a call to investigate the origins of the virus. That's literally it.

Section 14: (Alt title: Thank god it's finally over (unfortunately covid isn't))

There's nothing new.

It's a recap.

Although, I really don't like the last two paragraphs

"This may be the great scientific meta-experiment of the 21st century. Could a world full of scientists do all kinds of reckless recombinant things with viral diseases for many years and successfully avoid a serious outbreak? The hypothesis was that, yes, it was doable. The risk was worth taking. There would be no pandemic.

I hope the vaccine works."

They could have limited the article to just about the anthrototic theory. But no. They just had to throw in a "I hope the vaccine works". Really. I get the need to have a punchy end (I use it quite a lot as well), but really?

A punchy finisher over the vaccine. In an American article.

Really?

Post Editing Thoughts:

Someone should do a postmodern (or even better yet, metamodern) reading of this, where God is compared to humans developing a virus, or "Intelligent Design Vs Literal Intelligent Design"). Given that God is dead, and all.