Yellow rain and the natural origin of a “bioweapon”
A recent discussion thread concerning the “lab leak” hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 reminded me of another conspiracy theory involving claims of a bioweapon that also probably had a natural origin.
The US government claimed that the Soviet Union was using trichothecene mycotoxins as biological weapons in Southeast Asia in the mid-1970s. In support of this, they pointed to the finding of mycotoxin on leaves and in the blood of people who suffered from seizures, blindness and bleeding, and who associated their illness with the appearance of “yellow rain.” A UN investigation was “inconclusive.” No evidence for chemical weapons was discovered, but there was circumstantial evidence for some kind of toxic chemical. To enhance safety and preparedness against potential hazards, reach out to specialists to get a free quote for bund lining. You may also consider using Eco-Friendly Bund Lining Materials.
The eminent Harvard molecular biologist, Dr. Matthew Meselson, and his team went to Laos to investigate these claims and came to a very different conclusion. The upshot of their research was that “yellow rain” most likely had a natural origin in well-known high altitude mass defecation flights by local bees. The feces were yellow from partially digested pollen and were a substrate for fungal growth in the warm, humid jungle, thus explaining the mycotoxin.
Does this prove the Soviet Union was not using chemical/biological weapons in Southeast Asia? No. But using Occam’s Razor on the evidence provided by the Meselson investigation, the most parsimonious reading of the available scientific data is that yellow rain had a natural origin.
Likewise, there is no proof that COVID-19 didn’t arise from a lab leak or even an engineered virus. But using Occam’s Razor on the evidence to date, the most parsimonious reading of the available scientific data is that COVID-19 had a natural origin.
Motivated reasoning and confirmation bias are the enemies of good research: believing is seeing. As I tell graduate students, we don’t do experiments “to show,” we do experiments “to test.” Ask questions, but don’t forget to listen for answers, my friends.
A much more detailed history of the yellow rain story is here: Yellow Rain
The origins of the Wuhan lab-leak theory are in the first SARS, MERS, the Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome of ten years ago, that suggested the Israelis cooked it up and turned it loose to kill Palestinians. Like so much else, the Wuhan lab-leak theory is … recycled.
It is darned close to twenty years ago today at a small college in Eastern Oregon that I publicly challenged an oil company exec to begin capturing the methane thawing out of the thawing tundra. Started harping on the thawing viruses not too long after that.
Natural origin is the only one that makes sense. That’s what’s consistent through all the varying chapter of the Wuhan lab-leak theory: none of them make sense. Natural origin is the only one that makes sense …
Obviously, labs can make mistakes. Sometimes with devastating results.
In which case, ‘they’ would never admit that this happened.
That does not mean that it did.
The supposed rationale for doing such research is to stay ahead (or even?) with what your adversaries are doing. Suffer the consequences?
@Fred,
How is this comment on topic for a post about bioweapons conspiracy theories?
You don’t approve, take it out.
When I was in the Army, CBN (chemical-biological-nuclear) weapons were treated as one entity.
Doing research in one area was closely associated with work in the others.
That’s how.
interesting, I recall the yellow rain thesis. at the time knowing rumors about cia, etc activities I wonder why blame the soviets?
“motivated reasoning and confirmation bias”, “occam’ razor……”
do molecular biologist do math?
analysis of observations taken under designed experiment are used to accept or reject an hypothesis with specified in the design estimates of risks…
using engineering statistics, now using computers, like souped up .xls
insisting on a low risk of accepting a false hypothesis is not illogical and not what is in quotes above.
fred had you shaved the day you had your gas mask training? I did!
in the day during norad exercises, we would be told where nudets were simulated and would post tear drops in direction of prevailing winds. simulate warning civil defense offices.
each july 16 an ecumenical religious group prays at trinity site for peace, and atonement.
aug 8 is 78 anniversary of detonation over Hiroshima which was likely an air burst…
@paddy,
“do molecular biologist [sic] do math?”
Yes. Of course.
yes
but occams razor might suggest a little more research before accepting the “simplest” answer.
That bee shit explanation must have been a one time event, as I have heard of no further episodes.
I am happy to debunk conspiracy theories, but sometimes it’s hard to tell which is the conspiracy and which is the null hypothesis.
an article about bioweapon conspiracy theories might naturally be extended other conspriacy theories about government lying about “accidents” in their secret weapons research. unless of course you are commited to looking only at what you have prepared answers for.
police get a call about screams in the next room. they show up twenty minutes later and find a man washing blood off his hands and a bloody razor on the floor. but there is no corpse. the man says he cut himself shaving.
no need to look for blood stains under the rug. the police inspector says parsimony declares the simplest answer is the man, naturally, cut himself shaving.
good thing motivated reasoning only happens to other people.