Logic and evidence have been abandoned

In my last post, I argued that the most credible explanation for the emergence of the novel Coronavirus as a human pathogen, is one that involved a laboratory. Since then, I’ve seen an increasing number of press articles supporting the belief that the novel Coronavirus emerged entirely naturally and without human agency – although they never specify the most significant details of this hypothesis, let alone any evidence – and describing the possibility that it passed through a laboratory as a “conspiracy theory” which is not supported by evidence. Despite (usually) acknowledging, grudgingly, that the available evidence is inconclusive, the tone of these articles is one of certainty. Usually they rely on appeals to authority (understandable, given their difficulty with finding any evidence); some prominent person or organisation is quoted as saying that they “believe” that the virus emerged entirely naturally.

The common logical error that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, is repeated: these articles always say that there is no evidence for the laboratory hypothesis (despite this being untrue) as if that disproved it. One possible laboratory hypothesis is this: over several years, agents for the WIV/CDC collected bats in the wild as experimental animals and brought them to Wuhan; the viruses were experimented on in the labs, possibly using gain-of-function techniques; and the novel virus, in either a half-adapted or fully-adapted form for human hosts, was then accidentally and negligently released from the lab (an incident which the Chinese themselves may or may not be aware of). Each step in this sequence is fully evidence-backed.

We know that the Wuhan labs collected and experimented on bats and bat viruses, because for a long time, they have published details of this sort of work in scientific journals. Indeed, they received American funding for exactly this kind of work. This explains both the geographical part of the journey (from the bat caves of rural China to the centre of a major city) and the timing (wild bats hibernate, so the move into the city probably happened some time before the disease outbreak in December). We also know they used Gain of Function experimental techniques, from those same publications; we also know from the published work that they looked specifically for the ability to bind to the human ACE2 receptor. We know that biosecurity is poor in these labs because several previous incidents of negligent releases from Chinese labs have been recorded, including releases of the SARS virus; and in 2018, US diplomats warned of poor standards specifically at the WIV, stating there was a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians. This doesn’t guarantee the escape of any particular bug from the lab, but the presence of holes in a bucket does make the escape of water from that bucket rather likely.

This hypothesis therefore involves nothing which has not happened before and been documented; nothing in this explanation is speculative or invented. There is plenty of high quality evidence for each step. Compare that to the official Act of God hypothesis, with no intermediate host species identified, no genetic trial-and-error incidents, and a pattern of infection showing that the virus was immediately highly virulent in humans, which is unusual for natural zoonotic events. The presence of an intermediate host animal (necessary to explain the geographical journey, as there were no bats in Wuhan outside the labs; and usually necessary for natural zoonotic transfer) has to be postulated without evidence; this is the great missing link in the Act of God explanation. Without the intermediate host, this narrative really doesn’t get off the ground. It would not be too hard to find; there are only a limited number of candidate species and a limited number of routes by which they come into central Wuhan. Only one infected specimen is required to fill this gap in the narrative (although, if you can find one, you can find any number, once you know where to look). Not only would finding this animal answer the big question, it would also enable public health action to prevent another outbreak, so if there isn’t a significant effort going on to find such an animal, one has to ask, why not? We might go as far as to say that unless the postulated intermediate host species can be positively identified soon, the Act of God hypothesis will be holed below the waterline.

In the Act of God narrative, the zoonotic jump, in particular the development of the ability to bind to the human ACE2 receptor, has been postulated to occur spontaneously and without detailed explanation (did that change happen in animals? Humans? When? How? leaving what traces?). Any attempt to explain the emergence of the novel Coronavirus has to address this specific point. Without such details, it is at most half a story which, although possible, doesn’t fit well to the few facts we have, and for which the most obvious kind of supporting evidence (an identified intermediate host) is rather glaringly absent. Science has a principle known as Occam’s razor, that the simplest explanation should be preferred over ones which require the presumption of additional steps, hidden entities, or complications. The lab hypothesis is the simplest because nothing has to be made up or speculated into existence; nothing is involved which has not happened before and been properly documented.

Supporters of the Act of God hypothesis claim that it has happened before (in the cases of SARS and MERS). However, in those cases, the natural processes left evidence of the early stages of the zoonotic jump and in particular, there were easily identified intermediate host animals. In the current case, an intermediate host is speculated on – Pangolins, maybe, or something else. Until such a host can be positively identified, there is “no evidence” for the Act of God narrative, while the lab hypothesis remains fully documented. I know which I prefer – until there is some new evidence. Anyone who “believes” (and this isn’t religion, it’s science – belief has no place) the Act of God story is ignoring the few known facts and clinging to an irrational idea for whatever reasons – politics or whatever – not following objective scientific logic.

The fact that Donald Trump has taken up the laboratory hypothesis as a way to attack China, has politicised the whole question. The Chinese themselves actively promote the wet market narrative (which is unable to explain the fact that the first known human patient had no connection with the market) as it makes them relatively innocent. Trump’s political critics and opponents – and I am one – have a motive to criticise whatever Trump comes out with. The virology profession, even outside China, has some incentive to avoid being blamed for doing dangerous experiments and negligently allowing bugs to escape. So, everyone has an agenda, a bias, and a reason to commit, prematurely, to a particular story of the origin of this disease. Which is a pity; the truth is less likely to come out if we all focus on politics rather than evidence and logic, and there will be a price to pay in lives.