Author: Sister Karamazov 【㊙️G-Translators/ Authentic Writing Team】
Proofreader: Voice of Heart
Given all the evidence that has been accumulated over the past year, how likely is the CCP virus lab-made? That’s the question that Dr. Steven Quay (MD, PHD) managed to answer in his 193-page report published on January 29th. Using Bayesian analysis, he estimated that the probability that the CCP virus was lab-made is 99.8%.
In the beginning of the report, Dr.Quay stated with great sympathy that “This work is dedicated to the men, women, and children who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 over the last year. ” He also sincerely hoped that “this work becomes part of the body of evidence to help inform the public about gain-of-function pathogen research and that a renewed debate can be had about the benefits and risks of this research in the context of world health.”
As of now, most of the scientists and researchers in academia support the assumption that the CCP virus come from nature. Also, the CCP was doing everything it can to try to find the “natural origin” of CCP virus. As a result, according to Dr.Quay, “one can assume that any evidence in favor of a natural origin, no matter how trivial, would become widely disseminated and known”. That means on the other hand, the claim that “CCP virus was lab-made” is brutally suppressed. Therefore, the general narrative on this issue in academia and media has been terribly distorted.
In this report, Dr.Quay adopted Bayesian analysis and began with “presumption of almost innocence” – he first assumed that the CCP virus came from nature with 98.8% probability, which means he was almost certain that that the virus came from nature in the very beginning. However, as all kinds of evidence gradually piled up and fed into the model, the probability estimate that the virus come from nature gradually decreases. In the end, when all the 26 pieces of evidence was incorporated into the Bayesian analysis, the posterior probability estimate of “nature origin” dropped to a strikingly low 0.2%, which means it’s almost impossible to claim that the virus comes from nature after collecting all of the evidence listed in the report, even though the prior opinion was that the virus almost certainly come from nature.
Brief Introduction on Bayesian Analysis
Bayesian analysis, named after the 18th century English statistician Thomas Bayes, is a very common tool in statistics and has been especially popular in recent years, mainly in the application of big data analytics and artificial intelligence. The principle of Bayesian analysis is actually very simple. From a philosophical point of view, Bayesian analysis is a mathematical process of combining subjective prior opinion with objective evidence, and yields the final/posterior opinion.
We’ll use a simple example in Dr.Quay’s report and see how Bayesian analysis work:
First of all, we form a prior opinion and assume the following:
There is only 1% probability that the virus originates from lab (lab-made) and 99% probability that it comes from nature. This prior opinion can be expressed with the following equations:
P(lab origin) = 1%; P(nature origin) = 99%.
(Note that in Dr.Quay’s report, there are only two possibilities regarding the origin of the CCP virus: nature or lab-made, and these two possibilities are mutually exclusive.)
We also assume the following probabilities:
If the CCP viruses somehow find its way to get out of the (Wuhan) lab, under the condition that the virus was lab-made, there’s a 51% probability that there’s a first breakout in Wuhan. This can be expressed with the following equation:
P(Wuhan first breakout | lab origin) = 51%.
We also assume that under the condition that the virus originates from nature (in Yunnan Province, since there is a “bat cave” there, according to CCP), there’s a 10% probability that the first breakout occurs in Wuhan. This can be expressed with the following equation:
P(Wuhan first breakout | nature origin) = 10%.
As a result, the probability that the first breakout occurs in Wuhan regardless of the virus origin (lab/nature) is 10.41%, which can be calculated as the following:
P(Wuhan first breakout) =
P(Wuhan first breakout | lab origin) * P(lab origin) +
P(Wuhan first breakout | nature origin) * P(nature origin)
= 51% * 1% + 10% * 99% = 10.41%
With all the assumptions and calculations listed above, the posterior probability that the virus was lab-made under the condition that the first breakout was in Wuhan can be calculated as follows:
P(lab origin | Wuhan first breakout) =
(P(Wuhan first breakout | lab origin) * P (lab origin)) | P (Wuhan first breakout) =
(51% * 1%)/10.41% = 4.9%.
And that concludes a simple example of Bayesian analysis.
As we can see from the example above, with Bayesian analysis, the probability that the virus was lab-made increased from 1% (prior opinion) to 4.9% (posterior opinion). All the other posterior probabilities in Dr.Quay’s report can be calculated in the similar manner.
The Final Posterior Probability That the Virus was Lab-made Was Estimated at 99.8%
In Dr.Quay’s report, the prior probability that the virus comes from nature is set at 98.8%, which is, in my opinion, as conservative as possible. Plus, even this 98.8% number was estimated in such a way that Peter Daszak’s data was also taken into consideration (Peter Daszak is a so-called WHO researcher who used to work with “batwoman” Shi Zhengli. He always speaks for CCP). And the fact that data from CCP’s side was used here made the 98.8% prior probability more robust against scrutiny.
As 26 pieces of evidence gradually added into the model, the “nature origin” probability estimate gradually dropped to almost 0 (0.2%), and the “lab-made origin” probability estimate gradually increased to almost 100% (99.8%). The chart below plots the gradual probability change process of the two probabilities:
In the plot above, all the 26 pieces of evidence are listed below:
- Evidence #1: International committees to determine CoV-2 origin may not be impartial
- Evidence #2: Three key zoonotic papers: pros and cons
- Evidence #3: SARS-like infections among employees of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the fall of 2019 reported by US Government
- Evidence #4: Location of first cases near Wuhan Institute of Virology
- Evidence #5: Lack of evidence of seroconversion in Wuhan and Shanghai
- Evidence #6: Lack of posterior diversity
- Evidence #7: Opportunity: The Wuhan Institute of Virology has publicly disclosed that by 2017 it had developed the techniques to collect novel coronaviruses, systematically modify the receptor binding domain to improve binding or alter zoonotic tropism and transmission, insert a furin site to permit human cell infection, make chimera and synthetic viruses, perform experiments in humanized mice, and optimize the ORF8 gene to increase human cell death.
- Evidence #8: Lack of furin cleavage sites in any other sarbecovirus
- Evidence #9: Rare usage of -CGG- single codons & no CGG-CGG pairs
- Evidence #10: Routine use of CGG in laboratory codon optimization, including Daszak & Shi
- Evidence #11: Spike Protein receptor binding region (200 amino acids) optimized for humans
- Evidence #12: Whole genome analysis shows pre-adaption of CoV-2
- Evidence #13: The finding of CoV-2 in Barcelona wastewater in early 2019 was an artifact
- Evidence #14: Shi and the WHO comment early on that CoV-2 seemed to begin with a single patient
- Evidence #15: Mammalian biodiversity between Yunnan and Hubei is significantly different, limiting a potential common intermediate host
- Evidence #16: The ancestor of CoV-2 can only obtain a furin site from other subgenera viruses but recombination is limited/non- existent between subgenera
- Evidence #17: Canvas of 410 animals shows humans and primates are the best, bats are the worst, for ACE2-Spike Protein interaction
- Evidence #18: A government requested review of samples collected from a mineshaft may have caused the COVID-19 pandemic
- Evidence #19: The Hunan Seafood Market and farmed animals in Hubei province are not the source of CoV-2
- Evidence #20: Line 2 of the Wuhan Metro System is the likely conduit of the pandemic and is the closest subway line to the WIV
- Evidence #21: Feral and domestic cats are not the intermediate host
- Evidence #22: Extraodinary pre-adaption for the use of human tRNA is observed
- Evidence #23: Evidence of lax operations and disregard of laboratory safety protocols and regulations in China
- Evidence #24: Previous SARS-CoV-1 laboratory accidents
- Evidence #25: Shi and Daszak use Wuhan residents as negative control for zoonotic coronavirus exposure
- Evidence #26: RaTG13 could be CoV-2 precursor using the synthetic biology ‘No See ‘Em’ technique
(Source: Dr. Quay’s report, page 6: https://zenodo.org/record/4477081#)
To put it in plain English, Dr.Quay began with “presumption of almost innocence” and a guilty verdict was shown in the end due to all kinds of objective evidence.
Possible Sophistry from CCP
From the perspective of Bayesian analysis process, sophistries by CCP regarding this report might be set from the following aspects (include but not limited to):
- The Model Used in the Report – Bayes’ Theorem
In my opinion, it’s very unlikely that CCP challenges from the perspective of Bayes’ theorem, since this is in the realm of pure mathematics and logic. If CCP, who holds a purely Marxist and materialist view of everything, attacks from a philosophical point of view – by arguing that Bayesian analysis is fundamentally combining subjectivity (idealism) and objectiveness (materialism) and is therefore not purely materialist, I don’t think that will work either. This is because the report already holds a prior, subjective opinion that the virus almost for certain comes from nature. The final result would even favor the “lab-made origin” more if purely using the objective evidence mentioned in the report.
- Prior Probability
In Dr. Quay’s report, prior probability of virus coming from nature is set as 98.8%, which is almost “presumption of innocence”. Also, Dr.Quay used Peter Daszak’s data and calculated in the report that the probability of “lab origin” was 9%, which is much higher than the prior probability of “lab origin” (1.2%). As a result, in my opinion, CCP’s potential argument against prior probability setting may also be limited.
- Objective Evidence
- CCP might add some pieces of fake evidence: due to the nature of Bayesian analysis, the probability changes based on the evidence. If CCP adds some pro-nature fake evidence in the model, the final posterior probability estimate of “lab-made origin” might be lowered.
- CCP might argue that there are too many parameter assumptions in the report and they might not all be reasonable: indeed, there were a lot of subjective parameter assumptions made in the report, and can be pretty flexible. However, with the overwhelming pieces of evidence, I tend to believe that the final posterior probability is not likely to change too much, even if changing some of the parameters estimates.
- CCP might argue on the order of the evidence: this will not work either. As Dr.Quay mentioned in his report, “the order in which they are used in the overall calculation is immaterial and the same end likelihoods will be reached regardless of the order of input.”
- Final Posterior Probability
In Dr.Quay’s report, the final posterior probability of a lab-made origin is estimated at 99.8%, against which CCP can argue: well there’s still 0.2% chance that this virus came from nature! However, as Dr.Quay mentioned in the beginning of the report, a probability of 99.8% “exceeds most academic law school discussions of how to quantify ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ the threshold for finding guilt in a criminal case”. So attacking from the perspective of posterior probability will not work either.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the usual trick of CCP is “muddying the waters” instead of starting an open and honest dialogue within the realm of logic or science. So it is likely that none of the potential arguments above will occur. It is more likely that they continue spreading false information here and there, turning people into “scatterbrains”, who gradually lose the ability to focus on the key issue – the true origin of CCP virus. Or they will just simply let the report “cool down” and “fade out” – since CCP believe most people are pretty forgetful. The worst and the dirtiest common trick CCP use is that they might launch a smear campaign against Dr.Quay and his team, exactly like what CCP did to other brave researchers with conscience, like Dr. Li-Meng Yan.
Different Approaches, Same Result
Unlike the two bombshell scientific reports by Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who was a witness and analyzed from the perspective of virology and intelligence, Dr.Quay collected all the objective evidence and used mathematical methodology from a by-stander’s perspective. However, with different approaches yield the same result – that it’s impossible that CCP virus came from nature. The reports by these two scientists complement each other and show even stronger proof that the CCP virus is lab-made, therefore CCP has to be held accountable. We sincerely thank all the scientists and researchers who fight dauntlessly for truth and well-being of all humanity.
Link to the report: https://zenodo.org/record/4477081#
(The article merely represents the author’s own opinion)