Live data from Hacker News

Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

theintercept.com

91–100 of 494 posts

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#91
post #78
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The submitted title ("New Leaked Documents Point to Engineered Lab Origin for SARS‑CoV‑2") broke the site guidelines badly by editorializing. Submitters: please don't do that—it will eventually cause you to lose submission privileges on HN. Instead, follow the site guidelines, which include: " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsgu…

> (I'm assuming, of course, that it wasn't the article title that got subsequently changed. If that was the case, ignore the above.) Not the first time I've seen you say this. Would it be worthwhile to fetch articles when they're submitted, if only for your own sanity?

Fetching them in a way that information (like titles) can be meaningfully extracted from is a lot harder than it sounds - we've worked on it in the past and got bogged down in lots of details and corner cases etc. An easier way might be to rely on one of the archiving services, e.g. archive.org. If a snapshot could be taken at submission time than it would be there to refer to later.

On the other hand, titles changing on the fly isn't that big a headache as far as sanity-affecting headaches go. NYT does it all the time, or used to. The main thing I don't like to do is scold someone for breaking the title guideline and then finding out later that it was the site, not the submitter, that changed it.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#92
post #78
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The submitted title ("New Leaked Documents Point to Engineered Lab Origin for SARS‑CoV‑2") broke the site guidelines badly by editorializing. Submitters: please don't do that—it will eventually cause you to lose submission privileges on HN. Instead, follow the site guidelines, which include: " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsgu…

> (I'm assuming, of course, that it wasn't the article title that got subsequently changed. If that was the case, ignore the above.) Not the first time I've seen you say this. Would it be worthwhile to fetch articles when they're submitted, if only for your own sanity?

The truly irritating thing is that even that wouldn't necessarily be enough, because so many sites actually do live A/B/C/[n] title tests simultaneously to randomized sets of users then choose whichever one gets the most clicks or whatever metric first. Even without any manual shenanigans. So there's a window where merely refreshing or browsing from a different IP will yield a different title. Sometimes evidence is left in the URL or interactions with older systems on the a site but that's all baroque. So so so many edge cases in grabbing titles.

Probably not worth the effort on HN to try to automate vs just treating it case by case. It doesn't usually seem to be a problem. "Pre-optimization is the root of all evil" and all that.

Edit: or archive.org as dang says, but I don't know if even they see all versions of a page if there is a simultest situation. Regrettably seems pretty SOP on even reputable places.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#94

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.

Ok, but to play in this space for a second: toward the beginning of the pandemic when these theories were flying left and right, where exactly was the "sufficient and meaningfully qualified evidence" to assert that it had natural origins?

Is the default to simply assert that, because it is biological, it naturally evolved? In the modern era we're in, I'm not convinced that is a sensible default.

The most sensible default is to say we don't know, and all reasonable possibilities are being explored. That is not the same as saying that its reasonable and responsible to downplay a completely reasonable theory; for all that's holy, the virus was first discovered in the same city as China's only L4 biohazard lab studying human pathogens, literally that evidence alone is enough to say the lab-leak theory is "reasonable". Not a smoking gun! But REASONABLE and not worthy of downplay.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#95
post #71

Daszak should be compelled to reveal everything he knows and all relevant evidence --- all proposals, all emails, all files, any other documentation. I'm mystified why this hasn't already happened. I mean, his career depends on government largesse so it shouldn't even require coercion. Full cooperation or no cash.

what he knows might embarrass or reveal dishonesty from others in the government or those seeking positions in the government

The government is not a monolith. The US Congress could do this and individual Congresspeople don't have an obvious interest in covering this up.

Edit: the problem looks like partisan politics to me. Republicans have been agitating to pressure Daszak, and therefore Democrats are against it.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#96
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 agree with your characterisation of the evidence, except I think "Points to" is not synonymous with "smoking gun" so I don't think the criticism of the title is valid. In terms of how important this evidence is, it isn't just "a novel aspect of a viral genome", it is the aspect of the genome which is hardest to square with a natural origin. And it is an aspect that scientists involved in this research explicitly pr…

"And then what's more, they sat on the fact that they had requested funding for this research for the last 18 months, when the world has been desperately trying to find any relevant information on the virus' origins. The fact that they did not put this forward themselves in in and of itself suspect."

They didn't just "sit on it". EcoHealth and Peter Daszak deliberately and aggressively attacked anyone who pointed to lab-leak origins as conspiracy theorists and bigots. They did so in an article in The Lancet journal where they also stated they had no conflicts of interest.

Reading this statement, knowing what you know now, and it becomes very clear how sinister and calculated the misdirection was:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

And look at the end of the letter, at the sentence: "We declare no competing interests." That's a blatant lie, as we now know.

Those of us who have been seeing this for a long time were attacked, bullied, and tarred as bigots because of these irresponsible scientists desperately trying to cling to their grant funding. My comment history on HN has numerous comments, from months and months ago, where I was attacked, downvoted, and called an anti-Asian bigot for saying what is now obvious. Talking about this before the 2020 election resulted in immediate accusations of being a Trump sycophant/white nationalist, along with banning and deletions from social media. As a lifelong heterodox thinker, I always sort of shrugged my shoulders at being surrounded by people who predominantly just go with the herd on things. But this entire situation has now made me actively despise the "herd". After being a lifelong liberal Democrat who got demonized, bullied, and yes, beaten up for opposing the Iraq war in the conservative area I grew up in, I was shocked to realize that the other side isn't any different. Just a little more sophisticated. They don't physically assault you, but they'll try to get you fired, and equate you with a Nazi in a heartbeat.

As a result of this pandemic, my mother-in-law and aunt are dead, a friend took his own life when his charter fishing business went under, and my wife's mental health has been crushed. I myself was infected a month before I was eligible for the vaccine. Luckily it was a mild case, but I still don't have my sense of smell. Billions around the world had it worse than me, and it is unforgivable that the media, big tech, and the scientific community have colluded to obfuscate the true origins of this manmade disaster. The Soviets would have dreamed of having this kind of cover as Chernobyl spewed radiation into the atmosphere.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#98

[deleted]

1. We can do two things at a time. Investigation of origins does not block anyone from making and following policies to stop the spread.

2. I don't know about you but I have lost more than 1.5 years of my life to this. World around me has changed fundamentally in many ways. Just for closures sake I would like to know why this happened to me.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#99

1. There is no viral backbone anyone knows of which would have been used in this research 2. There is no spike protein anyone knows of which would have been used in this research 3. The PRRAR furin cleavage site is not one humans would have tried it is unlike any other known furin cleavage sites in coronaviruses 4. There are now many known related sarbecoviruses which have been found with furin cleavage sites 5. Furi…

These are all very compelling claims. I am wondering if you can provide at least one reference for each. E.g. "There are now many known related sarbecoviruses which have been found with furin cleavage sites" is a claim that can be referenced pretty easily with a link to papers reporting said sarbecoviruses.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187350612...

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.26.428212v1

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/phylogeo...

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.5847...

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/j...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21240-1

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1

Post reply on HN