Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 494 posts

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#161

Post by mkhpalm »

missinfo wrote: post #102

Check out this prescient article from 2017, when the ban was lifted: Critics say these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic... Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist who directs the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard School of Public Health, called review panels “a small step forward.” Recent disease-enhancing experiments, he said, “have given us some m…

NIH had been funding grants for spillover risk with Eco Health Alliance / Daszak since 2014.

https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9819304

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#162

Post by teh_klev »

djenendik wrote: post #160
teh_klev wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, a panel of virologists and related researchers with the same scientific understanding in the field should make these decisions.

It's ok to have wishful thinking. Plenty of grants include virologists and epidemiologists, so your proposal isn't practical.

Sure, they could provide anecdotal input based on past outbreaks, but they don't have the biological expertise to decide solely on what research should or could be carried out.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#163

Post by leereeves »

teh_klev wrote: post #159
leereeves wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epidemiologists study the spread of diseases and their impact on communities. That's an important factor to consider when judging the potential impact of risky research, and it's not something virologists are trained in.

Sorry, but epidemiologists have no ability to make these predictions. Epidemiologists generally work in the field of "who, when, and where" based on historical data evidence.

Mathematical disease modelling is also part of epidemiology. You may have seen their work discussed in the press early in the COVID epidemic when they predicted the possible death count and the likely impact of various interventions.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#164

Post by rapind »

teh_klev wrote: post #152
missinfo wrote: post #102

Check out this prescient article from 2017, when the ban was lifted: Critics say these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic... Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist who directs the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard School of Public Health, called review panels “a small step forward.” Recent disease-enhancing experiments, he said, “have given us some m…

I don't want to diminish the work of "epidemiologist"'s but they aren't virologists. They're ultimately specialised statisticians and shouldn't have any say in how or what research is carried out.

What? I’m no virologist or epidemiologist and yet I definitely want to have a say. And when physicists start creating black holes, and AI researchers start creating thinking killer robots, and generals go to war, etc.

I value expert opinions but oversight is necessary.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#165

Post by jmvoodoo »

lolwut8374 wrote: post #134
willupowers wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already know the NIH partially funded field survey work that appears to be very similar to this. It's pretty obvious to see that they continued applying elsewhere and may have been successful in getting the funding the requested. It just might be from several grants.

Right, did you look at the publication records of the academics involved? When you beg for grants you have to publish to show you’re good for the next one. This isn’t a mystery. It’s literally right there, published for your subscriber access.

If you were doing research that led to a global pandemic that killed millions of people, would you then publish your results? I have a feeling that might not have the effect of showing you're "good for the next one."

Obviously the lack of evidence isn't proof that this happened, but I also don't think it's safe to say that it's proof it didn't.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#166

Post by teh_klev »

twobitshifter wrote: post #86

Daczak serves on the WHO team to investigate the virus origins, but this did not get mentioned in any reports. Instead he warns other not to discuss it. He does not include notes that research was done on modifying bat viruses to make them infectious to human cells. These behaviors look like a guilty person, do they not? The wuhan and eco-health researchers had already started work on the furin cleavage sites and why…

> why would they stop when DARPA blocked it

Because the Trump administration decided that along with a bunch of other offshore collaboration funding decided to pull the money (America First!). There's a Vincent Racaniello episode on Microbe TV that explained what happened there. I don't remember the episode but here's his channel:

https://www.youtube.com/c/VincentRacaniello/videos

I think if folks would listen more to virologists than the press they'd find out that it's incredibly difficult to engineer new viruses (that's actually in his coursework - also on his channel), but it's also incredibly difficult to create stable "gain of function" (for weaponising) which has been suggested as the source of SARS2 and that whole Wuhan conspiracy theory thing.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#168

Post by teh_klev »

leereeves wrote: post #163
teh_klev wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but epidemiologists have no ability to make these predictions. Epidemiologists generally work in the field of "who, when, and where" based on historical data evidence.

Mathematical disease modelling is also part of epidemiology. You may have seen their work discussed in the press early in the COVID epidemic when they predicted the possible death count and the likely impact of various interventions.

Well what were their predictions vs actual outcome?

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#169

Post by lamontcg »

createdapril24 wrote: post #143
lamontcg wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But at the end of the day you have zero evidence of any of that actually happened. The backbone doesn't exist, the spike doesn't exist, the effort necessary to culture that completely unknown virus in the lab isn't documented anywhere. And the grant proposal very specifically is concerned with using the WIV1 and SHC014 backbones, nothing related to SARS-CoV-2. And going from sequence to live culturable virus that you…

The specific claims here that are most compelling to me are: "The grant proposal very specifically is concerned with using the WIV1 and SHC014 backbones, nothing related to SARS-CoV-2." The counterargument is "Well, they could have altered the proposal when they pursued funding elsewhere." The takeaway is that it is not likely this specific proposal was funded elsewhere, leading to SARS-CoV-2. "If they actually carri…

> "Well, they could have altered the proposal when they pursued funding elsewhere."

It isn't as simple as altering the proposal. You're speculating a very large and hidden process using sequences that were kept perfectly secret and have not been leaked, with virus backbones that would take considerable effort to create but which were never shared publicly (and kept perfectly secret before SARS-CoV-2 happened before there was any need for perfect secrecy). We have this leaked information from 2018 about the proposal with the WIV1/SHC014 backbones which leaked because it was not kept with perfect secrecy. Yet they managed to do all that work in perfect secrecy without any leaks. That is the hallmark of a conspiracy theory. It requires a bit of a time machine because Daszak would have to have known in 2018 to tighten up his "OpSec" in response to the pandemic that hadn't happened yet and leaks that hadn't yet occurred.

Things are also getting worse for the lab leak theory on other fronts, I just stumbled across this a few minutes ago:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02519-1

If there's multiple lineages from multiple zoonotic spillover events that makes the lab leak theory a poor fit and will require a lot more mental gymnastics.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#170

Post by teh_klev »

rapind wrote: post #164
teh_klev wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to diminish the work of "epidemiologist"'s but they aren't virologists. They're ultimately specialised statisticians and shouldn't have any say in how or what research is carried out.

What? I’m no virologist or epidemiologist and yet I definitely want to have a say. And when physicists start creating black holes, and AI researchers start creating thinking killer robots, and generals go to war, etc. I value expert opinions but oversight is necessary.

> What? I’m no virologist or epidemiologist and yet I definitely want to have a say

Well there you go.

Post reply on HN