Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research • Hacker News Board

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#51

Post by iammisc » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

imbnwa wrote: post #18

chrsw wrote: post #7

I could be missing something but this isn't exactly the smoking gun the title makes it seem. I'm sure there are proposals, plans and applications for all types of things. What I'm waiting for, perhaps naively, is strong evidence, revelated an independent investigation, that there was some foul business going on here. Until I see that, I'm more inclined to rely on the word of experts who have no connection to any of t…

I mean, even in the case that occurs, what is the endgame? Fine China? Sanction China? Demand accountability from China? Not happening, not when they make everyone's chips among other things. Can someone enlighten me about the value of this theory? It just seems like another vector of anti-establishment distrust discourse with a more intelligent veneer; easy to profit off of (clicks, book sales, etc) and doesn't requ…

[flagged]

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#52

Post by iammisc » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #9

recursivedoubts wrote: post #2

if you called someone crazy at some point for suggesting this as a possibility, it is time to pause and reflect

It is reasonable & responsible to downplay theories that get constructed in absence of sufficient and meaningfully qualified evidence.

Such as the theory, presented often without evidence, that Sars-Cov-2 came from an imaginary population of bats in Wuhan?

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#53

Post by mandmandam » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #31

BellLabradors wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think of these quotes?: "“Some kind of threshold has been crossed,” said Alina Chan, a Boston-based scientist and co-author of the upcoming book “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.” Chan has been vocal about the need to thoroughly investigate the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a lab while remaining open to both possible theories of its development. For Chan, the revelation from the pr…

Are you a scientist? I was. I can tell you that all of those quotes require a great deal of inspection and you cannot take them at face value. At the very least, most scientists speak ultra-confidently about this beliefs (beyond their own internal level of confidence) because they've learned to use narrative techniques to make their beliefs sound true. Any scientist who is actively speculating that this funding is "s…

There is a thing that you are full of. I'mma be polite but you are full to the brim of it.

edit: Wow, flagged within one minute. That's not weird at all /s

So I'll expand: The comment above is ridiculous for 7 reasons. Try to find them all.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#54

Post by iammisc » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

martythemaniak wrote: post #11

recursivedoubts wrote: post #2

if you called someone crazy at some point for suggesting this as a possibility, it is time to pause and reflect

I've asked people to explain to me why I should care one way or another, beyond curiosity, and no one has been able to answer yet. That is to say, is there an actual person who is perfectly fine with all the terrible things the CCP plainly does, but finding out that they've been incompetently handling research will suddenly make them change their views?

Yes... Many people claim 'global warming' or 'globalization' make pandemics more frequent and more likely and want us to spend lots of money preparing for pandemics. However, if this pandemic turned out to be engineered or modified, then there is a political solution to this enhanced likelihood of pandemics from rogue nations.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#55

Post by mensetmanusman » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

chrsw wrote: post #42

baja_blast wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there will never be an independent investigation

If this is true, then I think we have a bigger problem on our hands. Even if there's no lab connection to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Is China a bigger problem than the pandemic? Hmmmm….

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#56

Post by burnished » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

speed_spread wrote: post #34

jtdev wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't "make everyone's chip's"... that would be Taiwan. Regarding what should be done: stop giving money to China for GoF research would be a great start...

GoF? Is China still caught in the OO Design Pattern trap?

Gain of Function.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#57

Post by api » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

imbnwa wrote: post #18

chrsw wrote: post #7

I could be missing something but this isn't exactly the smoking gun the title makes it seem. I'm sure there are proposals, plans and applications for all types of things. What I'm waiting for, perhaps naively, is strong evidence, revelated an independent investigation, that there was some foul business going on here. Until I see that, I'm more inclined to rely on the word of experts who have no connection to any of t…

I mean, even in the case that occurs, what is the endgame? Fine China? Sanction China? Demand accountability from China? Not happening, not when they make everyone's chips among other things. Can someone enlighten me about the value of this theory? It just seems like another vector of anti-establishment distrust discourse with a more intelligent veneer; easy to profit off of (clicks, book sales, etc) and doesn't requ…

If this were true, the US is also involved. That would mean both countries are responsible.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#58

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 9:47 PM UTC

imbnwa wrote: post #18

chrsw wrote: post #7

I could be missing something but this isn't exactly the smoking gun the title makes it seem. I'm sure there are proposals, plans and applications for all types of things. What I'm waiting for, perhaps naively, is strong evidence, revelated an independent investigation, that there was some foul business going on here. Until I see that, I'm more inclined to rely on the word of experts who have no connection to any of t…

I mean, even in the case that occurs, what is the endgame? Fine China? Sanction China? Demand accountability from China? Not happening, not when they make everyone's chips among other things. Can someone enlighten me about the value of this theory? It just seems like another vector of anti-establishment distrust discourse with a more intelligent veneer; easy to profit off of (clicks, book sales, etc) and doesn't requ…

> Fine China? Sanction China? Demand accountability from China?

If China caused this and then lied about it, there would absolutely be geopolitical will to organize and extract concessions.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#59

Post by subsubzero » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 9:51 PM UTC

chrsw wrote: post #7

I could be missing something but this isn't exactly the smoking gun the title makes it seem. I'm sure there are proposals, plans and applications for all types of things. What I'm waiting for, perhaps naively, is strong evidence, revelated an independent investigation, that there was some foul business going on here. Until I see that, I'm more inclined to rely on the word of experts who have no connection to any of t…

I think the chain of evidence is suspicious to say the least.

1. In 2018 EcoHealth Alliance(Peter Dazsak and team) apply to a grant to darpa for viral modification research and highlight a change in "furin cleavage site" at the same location as covid-19's change, this change has never been seen before in nature.

2. In the darpa proposal is listed "Wuhan institute of virology" as a team member, this was a year before the covid-19 outbreak in wuhan in 2019.

3. Rather damning for Peter Dazsak is he publicly denied any plausibility in the idea of a lab created source for covid-19, while behind the scenes at the same time telling his two students to distance themselves from this darpa proposal as the virus was rapidly spreading through cities in the world.

4. Even more unusual is that Peter Daszak and Linfa Wang, two of the researchers who submitted the proposal, did not previously acknowledge it until now.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#60

Post by derbOac » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

chrsw wrote: post #7

I could be missing something but this isn't exactly the smoking gun the title makes it seem. I'm sure there are proposals, plans and applications for all types of things. What I'm waiting for, perhaps naively, is strong evidence, revelated an independent investigation, that there was some foul business going on here. Until I see that, I'm more inclined to rely on the word of experts who have no connection to any of t…

There must have been something about the title that changed, so I'm responding to something that's maybe a bit different with context. However...

Some other sites' coverage of this highlighted some of the grant content a bit more prominently. I agree it's not quite a smoking gun, but the content of the grant that was discussed was eerily similar to what's been put together by investigating organizations. It's akin to if you were trying to solve a burglary and concluded "if this happened, the suspects would have done A, B, D, and H", and then later you found some emails sent back and forth by the suspects saying "hey how about we do A, B, D, and H?" It's not proof they actually did it but it's about as close as you can get to a smoking gun without it being a smoking gun.

The timing is also uncanny.

I don't want to miscommunicate the extent to which I think the grant proposal proves anything, as I don't think it does, but it blurs the moral difference so much that I start to find myself wondering why as a society we shouldn't react with some things as if it did. That is, I don't think it rises to some level where I would say it definitely proves beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone did anything, but I do think it compels some deep reflection about the scientific-media-authority-academic-funding complex.