[unyttigfjelltol]

In 2020 Luc Montagnier identified Covid-19 as a lab creation and predicted that, because the original strain was unnatural, later strains would be less problematic as the virus reverted to its true (less problematic) nature. In contrast, the public health conversation was about a permanent threat and how much worse can it get and generally government running around hair-on-fire.

Maybe the initial quarantine recommendation would have been the same--or even stronger-- but the pandemic impacted all aspects of life everywhere, and elements of that would have been different. EcoHealth would be a bad dream, no one would be running interference for Fauci. Vaccinations would have been a different conversation, because this would have been recognized as a temporary threat.

[n4r9]

How does the virus have a "true nature", and why would it revert to it?

My understanding is that that viruses are well known to become more infectious and less symptomatic as they mutate over time. The reason for this is that causing the host to quickly hole up reduces the chance of replication.

[unyttigfjelltol]

Unfortunately Luc's hypothesis was not explored because, as you will see from googling his name, he became the topic of debunking and adhomenim. And maybe some of his views on other topics were wrong, but his comments on this subject have aged well.

After an hour of googling I finally found a reference to his original hypothesis.

"According to him, the altered elements of this virus are eliminated as it spreads: “Nature does not accept any molecular tinkering, it will eliminate these unnatural changes and even if nothing is done, things will get better, but unfortunately after many deaths.”"

https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chinese-coronavirus-is-a-man-m...

[wk_end]

But this is just magical thinking, some variation of the naturalistic fallacy. Nature absolutely will accept molecular tinkering if it provides an evolutionary advantage.

Another commenter pointed out that, for a while, the virus became more dangerous over time, not less. And the extent to which COVID has become less dangerous over time (which probably has as much to do with widespread immunity either via vaccination or prior infection, along with the fact that most people particularly vulnerable to COVID have already died), there's no indication that it had anything to do with undo'ing any kind of "unnatural change" - in particular, the furin cleavage site that's one of the more likely candidates for being "unnatural" is still there.

So no, I wouldn't say his comments on the subject have aged particularly well.

[unyttigfjelltol]

Everything is relative, and Luc's view has aged better than authoritative admonitions that the virus might never moderate in severity.[1] I mean, Luc was a Nobel prize winner in this field. His ideas were creative, sure, but magical? It's not hard to see the logic-- these kinds of molecules subside in evolution because they didn't arise from evolution in the first place. I mean, his opinion was a first take when the world was Cloroxing bananas, There's more info now, but this still is an example of how the conversation may have gone differently had governments taken the view that lab-origin was viable.

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/debunking-idea-viruses-evolve-...

[n4r9]

If the virus was reverting to its "true nature" or "undoing" molecular tinkering, then I would expect to see a clear pattern of progress/equilibration towards a specific strain. That doesn't appear to be the case; the virus is continually branching out into a host of sub lineages, some of which are more transmissible, some more virulent, some less affected by vaccines.

It's a rule of thumb that variants which are more transmissible and less virulent are more likely to succeed over time, and I remember discussing this with people early in the pandemic. By no means does this provide credence for a lab leak hypothesis.

I think "magical" is quite an accurate description of the idea that even viruses have a "true nature" that they will revert to. That's some Plato-level adherence to the rigidity of nature.

[EdwardDiego]

Well, that logic fell down with the Delta variant.

[jedmeyers]

> because the original strain was unnatural, later strains would be less problematic as the virus reverted to its true (less problematic) nature

Is it possible for someone to speed up this process in a lab somewhere, like South Africa, and release the less problematic version to the public to achieve the herd immunity quicker?

[twoWhlsGud]

I doubt it. However, luckily for us someone has already invented called a vaccine that is far safer and plays a similar role in achieving herd immunity ; )

[jedmeyers]

Which vaccine specifically provided the "immunity"?

[evandale]

GP said "herd immunity" not "immunity" and herd immunity has nothing to do with 100% of the population being 100% immune.

[jedmeyers]

How are you getting to "herd immunity" without "immunity"? No one said saying about 100% of the population being 100% immune, it's a strawman.

[gojomo]

There are curious aspects of Omicron's emergence – more closely related to older less-circulating strains, many adaptations bursting onto scene all at once – that make people think that even if the original Wuhan strains weren't lab-creations, Omicron was – as a natural & contagious 'vaccine' against worse variants.