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

211–220 of 494 posts

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#211

Post by willupowers »

tootie wrote: post #140
willupowers wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like a pretty probable lead to me to continue investigating, especially since this leak evidence directly conflicts with many previous statements from Daszak and associates.

Continue investigating what though? The research this team has done is all public knowledge. A rejected proposal doesn't shed much light. Lab leak remains remotely possible, but not supported by any direct evidence. Meanwhile, evidence for animal source is getting stronger: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02519-1

The USA might need to come out and say "we were working on a vaccine with Wuhan." EHA and WIV might need to say "we had an oopsies." I doubt China will admit anything though. So this is the circus we must deal with until people wake up and demand for answers.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#212

Post by shadowgovt »

ramraj07 wrote: post #181
lamontcg wrote: post #83

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…

All valid points, but let’s be real scientists and work the other way? Can you conclusively rule out that this virus wasn’t engineered (and then maliciously covered up) in a lab? The reason this approach is important is because the stakes here are higher. This means people who should have been careful weren’t, and are responsible for the death of millions and they’re happy continuing to cover up their part in it. The…

Natural occurrence is how almost every known virus exists.

Given that prior, "can you disprove the lab" is the Russell's Teapot hypothesis. No, I can't. I also can't disprove it rode in on a meteorite or was beamed in by aliens. And I'm not about to start.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#213

Post by akimball »

Mizza wrote: post #208
darawk wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I believe what you mean to say here is that there is no published literature describing these things…

I have a little long bet going that in 10 years, Peter Daszak's name will be on the same lists as the world's worst mass killers. Imaging writing this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159294/ and then being forced to disclose this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8215723/ 4.5 million dead so far. More than Pol Pot, less than Leopold II. There's still time.

15.9 million per The Economist

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#214

Post by radus »

mhh__ wrote: post #204
andyxor wrote: post #65

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck

The difference is that I'm guessing 99% of people reading this (myself include) have no idea what a duck is, let alone how it quacks. Merely the amount of "gotcha!"-ing that happens as the news-pendulum swings from each side of this debate suggests to me that this in large part driven by emotions and tribalism rather than solely an honest desire for the truth.

Strongly agree with this. Sure seems like a lot of people have become duck experts overnight though.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#215

Post by sillysaurusx »

derbOac wrote: post #205
lamontcg wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 t…

... but then you'd have to explain the infection geography in humans with two events. Not saying it's not possible, but lining it up with what's known epidemiologically speaking is different. Also, I'm not sure why the lab leak hypothesis is suddenly trickier. They had all sorts of samples. Labeling this all as "mental gymnastics" as in the article, or "a dagger in the heart of the lab leak hypothesis" is just the so…

Just wanted to chime in and thank you both for an extremely interesting discussion. Carry on. Being a fly on the wall is fascinating here.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#216

Post by willupowers »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #174
teh_klev wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can't hide behind the "go and look it up" response as is often uttered by science deniers.

The extraordinary claim is that the virus was man-made. Edit to say: I don't think saying the virus came from nature requires any additional proof. The claim that requires extraordinary, indisputable proof is the claim that it was man-made. And I have yet to see it, from this or any source. Just a big compilation of weak, circumstantial evidence.

It's no longer an extraordinary circumstantial claim. It might never have been because this kind of research that very well could cause a COVID pandemic was being concealed by the very people that decided very early that there was no question the origin was natural. They were performing risky and highly similar research and they made huge contradictory statements that conflict with this leaked evidence, and they are very well connected to each other. You are going to need extraordinary reasons why these people don't deserve an investigation into what they had been doing and what they did know that wasn't being shared.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#217

Post by gjs278 »

justapassenger wrote: post #15
ryeights wrote: post #5

Why is this being flagged? Genuinely asking.

I've flagged it. Article is ok. But the title on HN is a cheap clickbait. Someone, in USA, asking for a grant in the past doesn't point to anything about origins of SARS-CoV-2.

delete your account

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#219

Post by willupowers »

throwawaysea wrote: post #196
roca wrote: 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.

It’s not just Daszak. The NIH itself has refused to cooperate with members of Congress who’ve called for transparency. I’m not sure why the Biden administration is OK with agencies being secretive about something that like this that clearly deserves public scrutiny: https://www.newsweek.com/its-time-nih-transparency-wuhan-res...

Right now it looks like the U.S. might have been working with Wuhan on a vaccine. And Wuhan had an oopsies. We just have a confirmation statement from DARPA that they weren't working with WIV. I bet someone knows the rest of the details why we've been watching a circus act for a couple years now.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#220

Post by mr_toad »

015a wrote: post #94
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 def…

> Is the default to simply assert that, because it is biological, it naturally evolved?

Unless you’re a creationist, then yes?

Post reply on HN