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

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#221

Post by throwawaysea » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 4:00 AM UTC

mhh__ wrote: post #203

throwawaysea wrote: post #192

Reminder that the NIH and NIAID (which Fauci leads) systematically undermined oversight processes meant to flag dangerous research for additional review. See https://dailycaller.com/2021/04/04/nih-gain-of-function-anth...

Is the Daily Caller a reliable source?

They are reasonably reliable. I am by no means a regular or even occasional reader, but it is very difficult to find left biased news sources covering this lab leak story with any degree of honesty and professionalism. You can verify the claims in this particular article by visiting the Twitter feed of the Professor they mention.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#222

Post by stablechaos » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 4:01 AM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #129

btilly wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proposal that this article is about weakens your argument significantly. They were going to experiment with multiple backbones, experimenting with multiple variations of spikes, looking specifically to try novel types of furin cleavage sites. There was no public reporting of what happened with this research. We don't know what they have because WIV database was taken offline. They claimed to have searched it, but…

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…

"Zero evidence", huh? The epicenter of Covid-19 was the middle of a major metropolitan city (instead of a rural area near lots of animals), blocks away from a major virology lab which was specifically studying these viruses, collecting hundreds of wild strains from field operations, in research DARPA said before the fact endangers the local community and was banned by NIH, trying to specifically create this virus as closely as possible for the research to be successful...

It's like seeing smoke billowing out of a building and refusing to accept that there's a fire until you see the flames. Very convenient that your standard of evidence surpasses anything we can possibly obtain after the CCP scrubbed everything.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#223

Post by btmorex » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 4:01 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #212

ramraj07 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We haven't had the technology to create novel viruses for very long so you statement is meaningless.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#224

Post by reilly3000 » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 4:05 AM UTC

If you are an expert in virology I’d love to know the answer to this question:

If given the right resources, would it be feasible to synthesize a pandemic-inducing virus in a lab setting?

If so, a general question: why haven’t the villains of the world done so already?

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#225

Post by kyrra » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 4:08 AM UTC

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…

Peter Daszak was also one of the people organizing the letter in the lancet back in 2020 denying that it came from a lab.

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

Lancet responding to criticism: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#226

Post by diatone » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 4:08 AM UTC

teh_klev wrote: post #168

leereeves wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Speaking from experience, last year we had an outbreak in Melbourne, Australia. The local government's response was guided by modelling from epidemiologists (and others), and went on to match the peak and length of the outbreak to the model's estimations almost down to the day[0].

[0]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-29/coronavirus-melbourne...

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#227

Post by passivate » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 4:08 AM UTC

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…

That is the wrong way to go about it. You have to approach it as you would in legal theory. Innocence is not something that is proven. The verdict is guilty or not guilty (which means evidence wasn't sufficient to convict, but that doesn't mean the defendant is innocent). In this case you have to prove that the virus was engineered by providing evidence.

>All valid points, but let’s be real scientists and work the other way?

What you're proposing isn't science and it isn't what 'real scientists' do.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#228

Post by angelzen » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 4:12 AM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #175

createdapril24 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a question I've encountered a few times. How quickly, versus natural evolution, can serial passage evolve a virus? Using this figure, we could have some parameters around how much time such a project must have taken and its latest start date (assuming its evolved from known or closely-related-to-known viruses). Using this figure, and a theoretical timetable, we can also specify how close a cousin virus we wou…

Serial passage isn't magic, it is just what nature does. In the lab you'll get a handful of mutations not thousands. After serial passage through some large fraction of a billion humans, with large evolutionary pressures due to the recent species jump, the delta variant is still well over 99% homologous to the reference Wu-1 strain. A 96.1% different would require serial passage through billions of organisms, but the…

Then 'it was not serial passage' theory is unfalsifiable (sorry for the double negation):

* If a wild strain is too far away from covid, then it would have taken too long to do the passage.

* If a wild strain is almost identical to covid, then obviously covid derived from that without seeing the interior of a lab.

Under what circumstances would you consider that serial passage work done in a lab might have had something to do with covid?

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#229

Post by passivate » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 4:12 AM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #175

createdapril24 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a question I've encountered a few times. How quickly, versus natural evolution, can serial passage evolve a virus? Using this figure, we could have some parameters around how much time such a project must have taken and its latest start date (assuming its evolved from known or closely-related-to-known viruses). Using this figure, and a theoretical timetable, we can also specify how close a cousin virus we wou…

Serial passage isn't magic, it is just what nature does. In the lab you'll get a handful of mutations not thousands. After serial passage through some large fraction of a billion humans, with large evolutionary pressures due to the recent species jump, the delta variant is still well over 99% homologous to the reference Wu-1 strain. A 96.1% different would require serial passage through billions of organisms, but the…

Well said, also you have little control over which colonies will take over.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#230

Post by stablechaos » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 4:12 AM UTC

btmorex wrote: post #223

shadowgovt wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We haven't had the technology to create novel viruses for very long so you statement is meaningless.

And the novel technology to create novel viruses was being actively developed in this lab. They've proudly and openly published results to this effect. Further, they were trying to get tens of millions in grant funding to develop the technology further.