@drsagvolden.bsky.social
Turløper, stientusiast, leseesel. Liker snø. Jobber innenfor psykisk helse.
22-Oct 2022 headline from The Economist A new paper claims SARS-CoV-2 bears signs of genetic engineering But it has yet to be peer reviewed. And others strongly disagree
🧵Remember the preprint claiming SARS-CoV-2 has a "synthetic fingerprint"?
It said a restriction map was "extremely unlikely to have arisen by random evolution.”
I took its claims seriously.
The "synthetic fingerprint" hypothesis collapses. My new preprint explains why.
arxiv.org/abs/2510.23833
![Conspiracies threaten science – not the other way around
There is a growing scientific consensus that SARS-CoV-2 most likely originated from a previously unidentified animal sold at the wet market in Wuhan. The arguments against this explanation, as advanced by Sigrid Bratlie in her book "Mysteriet i Wuhan" and in Aftenposten on October 15, have been largely refuted or taken out of context. Bratlie misrepresents peer-reviewed research and repeats media speculation to support the theory of a laboratory leak.
For a thorough review, we recommend the book "Lab Leak Fever " (2025) by Philipp Markolin, an Austrian science journalist [...]. Unlike Bratlie, he has interviewed key researchers such as Zhi Shengli, Peter Daszak and Kristian Andersen. These are people against whom Bratlie makes serious accusations.
Markolin shows that researchers [...] started with an openness to all hypotheses, as Bratlie asks us to do. When all the scientific facts pointed in one direction, they followed the science. Bratlie, on the other hand, interprets the fact that someone has changed their mind as a sign of a conspiracy.
The book documents how researchers who have worked extensively on the nature and origins of the virus are being subjected to threats and harassment. It also highlights how social media today promotes conspiracy theories and weakens trust in science.
The documentary film "Blame" (2025), directed by Christian Frei, depicts how research into the origins of the pandemic has come under attack in a political game. The film will be screened at BIFF in Bergen this October and at Film fra Sør in Oslo in November.
No one wants to take away Bratlie's freedom of expression. On the contrary, few have been given such broad space in the public sphere, often without critical counter-questions. She has even been invited to the Research Council's panel debate "The Fight for Truth" later in October. We recommend that she read Markolin's book before that debate.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5zqjavyvxgpqup52vic4whgn/bafkreihxq44247c6vcqb334szwqoxmohrn6gnnj4bbsuppvhtdbtivjtem@jpeg)
Conspiracies threaten science – not the other way around There is a growing scientific consensus that SARS-CoV-2 most likely originated from a previously unidentified animal sold at the wet market in Wuhan. The arguments against this explanation, as advanced by Sigrid Bratlie in her book "Mysteriet i Wuhan" and in Aftenposten on October 15, have been largely refuted or taken out of context. Bratlie misrepresents peer-reviewed research and repeats media speculation to support the theory of a laboratory leak. For a thorough review, we recommend the book "Lab Leak Fever " (2025) by Philipp Markolin, an Austrian science journalist [...]. Unlike Bratlie, he has interviewed key researchers such as Zhi Shengli, Peter Daszak and Kristian Andersen. These are people against whom Bratlie makes serious accusations. Markolin shows that researchers [...] started with an openness to all hypotheses, as Bratlie asks us to do. When all the scientific facts pointed in one direction, they followed the science. Bratlie, on the other hand, interprets the fact that someone has changed their mind as a sign of a conspiracy. The book documents how researchers who have worked extensively on the nature and origins of the virus are being subjected to threats and harassment. It also highlights how social media today promotes conspiracy theories and weakens trust in science. The documentary film "Blame" (2025), directed by Christian Frei, depicts how research into the origins of the pandemic has come under attack in a political game. The film will be screened at BIFF in Bergen this October and at Film fra Sør in Oslo in November. No one wants to take away Bratlie's freedom of expression. On the contrary, few have been given such broad space in the public sphere, often without critical counter-questions. She has even been invited to the Research Council's panel debate "The Fight for Truth" later in October. We recommend that she read Markolin's book before that debate.
Apparently, Norway has been hit by its own motivated conspiracy theorists, including Alina Chan's facsimile, Sigrid Bratlie, who has been making the media rounds with her fan fiction book.
The article below coldly recommends she first read my book before debating 😂
Translation in alt text:
Anders Goksøyr and I wrote in Aftenposten last week.
We recommed Sigrid Bratlie to read Markolins new book, not that she will shift her position on the lableak, but perhaps get new perspectives of the persons she wrongfully accuses for conspiracies.
www-aftenposten-no.translate.goog/meninger/deb...
It was nice to read @zachhensel.bsky.social 's Op Ed in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten
"Let's return to an evidence-based debate about the corona pandemic"
Google-translated version: www-aftenposten-no.translate.goog/meninger/deb...
Tylenol/acetaminophen/paracetamol use in pregnancy probably doesn't give babies autism.
Now unlocked for all to read
gidmk.substack.com/p/tylenol-us...
Full conversation here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H55...
17.08.2025 22:42 — 👍 6 🔁 2 💬 0 📌 0"Last week’s attack on the #CDC could have been a slaughter."
Absolutely.
And, importantly, thanks to the inflammatory rhetoric, falsehoods, disinformation, and conspiracy theories constantly spouted by the very same person who's responsible for the agency - HHS Secretary RFK Jr.
He must go.
The Gabbard Files: "Zombie Food" for the Feed The "Files" genre thrives on speed, screenshots, and vibes. But Gabbard's claims collapse under minimal scrutiny.
New post up on Substack: I wrote about why frames beat facts, and why this Administration relies so heavily on “Files” dumps to shape reality & feed the base 🍽🧟♂️ The Twitter Files model is now foundational for MAGA.
open.substack.com/pub/agentsof...
(If you prefer Ghost, signup @ reneediresta.com)
I will never get over how creepy it is how the NIH X account is a full time propaganda machine now
12.08.2025 02:52 — 👍 134 🔁 39 💬 4 📌 8
More than 3yrs down the line this has held up surprisingly well, very much because of @lewan.bsky.social prescience borne from climategate and previous clashes with USRTK
What we couldn’t predict was how the conspiracists would destroy US biomed science
www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-...
Our research has been engulfed by an endless torrent of lab leak conspiracy theories about the origin of the pandemic - even as the evidence for zoonosis has only grown stronger.
This fuels anti-science agendas and erodes public trust.
Now, we respond 👇
theconversation.com/how-conspira...
Ebright battles grok. grok says consensus among experts remains zoonotic origins (80%+ likeliehood). Ebright replies that Grok is broken and tags elon
grok has been added to the hate list
24.07.2025 23:06 — 👍 42 🔁 3 💬 4 📌 3What has always irritated me about this debate - and what I discuss in this piece - is how the lab leak has never had a shred of evidence supporting it. People are using the same arguments today that they were in 2020.
Meanwhile, zoonosis has only gotten more likely over time.
I expanded this thread about the hypocrisy of HHS and NIH leadership for spending half a billion dollars on an ancient vaccine technology that was tested with “dangerous gain-of-function” research.
rasmussenretorts.substack.com/p/gold-stand...
How did the pandemic start?
I have avoided publicly commenting on this for 5 years. Here's my take as someone who has no stake at all in the game.
gidmk.substack.com/p/pandemic-r...
Okay, this isn't hitting quite like I hoped it would, maybe because people are tired of hearing about the death of American science. So how about this: I also go into combat mode at Bhattacharya & his clown car of minions' efforts to destroy virology.
rasmussenretorts.substack.com/p/gain-of-fi...
Har skrevet litt om vitenskapsjournalistikk i forbindelse med utgivelsen av boka "Mysteriet i Wuhan", men også dekningen forut for dette
Sviktende vitenskapsjournalistikk share.google/qHTZ8SzwovQI... dette.
@drsagvolden.bsky.social criticize Norwegian Press in @journalisten-norge.bsky.social for hyping the lab leak bestselling book "Mysteriet i Wuhan". @kgandersen.bsky.social
www.journalisten.no/sviktende-vi...
So ‘inconclusive’ is a meaningless word to smooth criticism from outside, but doesn’t mean what the lab leakers want it to mean. The panel is very clearly that the weight of evidence makes zoonotic emergence most likely. What is unknown is how it got there.
28.06.2025 09:49 — 👍 13 🔁 2 💬 1 📌 0
Quick thread on the WHO's SAGO report on the origins of COVID-19, highlighting key points and even *new* data.
Their summary is that a zoonotic origin of COVID-19 is best supported by available data. This is consistent with most scientific reviews and statements in the rest of the literature.
thank you @acritschristoph.bsky.social for an interesting thread. Textbook science communication
28.06.2025 04:59 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
Disappointing from @janeqiu.bsky.social, who is well aware that scientists haven’t shut down legitimate inquiry into a “lab leak.” No evidence supports it.
Trust is lost not by scientists publishing evidence, but by dishonest actors misrepresenting the evidence.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
Op ed (in Norwegian): Why the lab leak theory still got so much attention.
www.khrono.no/hvorfor-far-... @kgandersen.bsky.social @angelarasmussen.bsky.social
Bratlie har heller ikke spesialkompetanse innenfor virologi eller epidemiologi som man bør inneha, ala Ph D o.l. i disse feltene. Bratlies Ph D er ikke innenfor disse områdene.
12.06.2025 21:23 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0Hvis du skal lese én bokanmeldelse i år!
11.06.2025 09:23 — 👍 2 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
Sigrid Bratlie has a book out in Norway with a theme of complaining about being called a conspiracy theorist.
Today, she's reading a story illustrated by three mad scientists photoshopped around a witch's cauldron, and speculating that there's a conspiracy stretching from Wuhan to Oslo to La Jolla.
This month's bonus episode is about the rise of the lab leak theory from an unfounded theory promoted by right-wing cranks to an unfounded theory promoted by prominent liberal journalists.
30.05.2025 16:14 — 👍 415 🔁 73 💬 25 📌 45
Jeg har skrevet litt på Filter Nyheter om RFK, autisme, vaksiner og sånt.
filternyheter.no/kommentar-he...
Apparently these people aren’t conspiracy theorists…..
03.06.2025 19:39 — 👍 21 🔁 4 💬 4 📌 1Recommend reading this and others in @drsagvolden.bsky.social's threads. If you don't speak fluent Norwegian, you can make do w/ Swedish...
(or even use Google translate at a pinch....😉)
