either way china covered it up and owes us repararions. atleast 10T worth
Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research
271–280 of 494 posts
Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So link to the actual indisputable proof.
Well while this is not indisputable proof there is a very relevant discussion on virological.org related to both Furin cleavage sites and orgins of SARS-COV-2. The damning part of the leaked research proposal is that they ALREADY had partner researchers located near caves in three different parts of Yunnan Province.
For a more detailed discussion of the origins of SARS-COV-2 while not directly addressing the leaked DARPA proposal please see: https://virological.org/t/tackling-rumors-of-a-suspicious-or...
They also discuss that the base virus was mostly likely linked to bats in Yunnan province. How it got from Yunnan to Wuhan is a matter of question.
However, if the research was being conducted in the US and accidentally leaked into the population it may have been in circulation for sometime (months) before causing serious illness or disease (mutations).
Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? I find it halfway interesting, as it is a discussion between someone who clearly understands the science and bureaucracy that surrounds that type of work, and someone who is chaining speculation and "what if's" like their life depended on it.
Definitely. Because companies need both types of people to succeed. I’ve also been on both sides of the table. It’s easy to underestimate the what-iffer and to overestimate the established senior —- and vice versa. Better than TV.
Jaysus, I just wanted to say thanks for a convo. To confess my sins, I didn’t read it too closely on either side. I’m currently trying to fall asleep. The idea that people did know a thing or two about biology on HN was appealing.
I have to say though, the flagged reply was thoroughly entertaining. Thank you sir or ma’am for the high praise; I aim to please.
Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research
#274Earlier 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…
These researchers were apparently simulating the process of spillover and host adaptation of recombinant coronavirus in the lab. Of course this process will resemble a natural event in some respects. In a natural event, we would expect some traces of the adapting virus to be left in the world. Here, there are none. The virus appears having already adapted completely to it's new host.
Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
You seem to be suggesting that because this 2018 grant was recently "leaked", we now have... perfect info on all other grants & projects, including any that are part of the 'black budgets' of the US or China.
But maybe some things just haven't leaked yet? Or were kept secret by others even more skilled at secrecy & misdirection than Daszak?
Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think employing probabilities and likelihoods which are subjective and will needlessly cause back and forth arguments over their use and validity. Could you provide some data to support the assertion that the virus was engineered? I'm hoping something like a leaked paper, or a lab notebook, or maybe hand written data on a piece of scrap paper that somebody found in the garbage bin in china.. I mean, I'll take anyth…
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It all comes down to burden of proof. The more circumstantial evidence of a lab leak piles up, the more reasonably open-minded people will tend to shift their priors in that direction. You will only accept hard evidence, yet you are aware that parties in China have actively removed some possible evidentiary sources. And others in USA promoted a campaign to shut down lin…
Statistical models work great for well defined problem spaces like the probability of rolling a die in a particular way. You can reason in your own mind the probability of aliens or extinction events or lab leaks or anything really, but it doesn't get you very far (IMO) in proving anything.
To paraphrase Wernher von Braun - "Hard data is worth a thousand expert opinions." :)
Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research
#277Fairytales about lab leaks won't absolve us of our abject failure to deal with this novel pathogen, nor will they help us prepare for the next.
Reducing the frequency of these leaks would seem like a good idea.
Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research
#278Daczak 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…
Do also note that damn near every lab today would not propose a new approach or project without already secretly having gone half the way in it with prior funds. No one proposes a potential novel idea without already being fully sure it will work.
100% true for theoretical/computational physics, solid state physics, optics, catalysis research, and many more. You use existing grants to explore completely different topics and once you have something promising where you are 50-80% there, you write the next grant. Rinse, repeat.
Particle physics (or gravitational wave research for example) is the odd one out here. Maybe because it is 100% fundamental research, where it is known to not produce applicable results.
Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ot…
Depends on which real scientists you are talking about. I've worked with many "real scientists" who will consider possiblity unless they see conclusive evidence against it. On the frontiers, there is very little conclusive evidence; this is why they are the frontiers. I have also met "real scientists" who actively dismiss conclusive evidence if it doesn't line up with what they think will get funded. It doesn't seem…
>I've worked with many "real scientists" who will consider possiblity unless they see conclusive evidence against it. On the frontiers, there is very little conclusive evidence; this is why they are the frontiers.
Oh sure, I consider the possibility that there might be aliens out there. However, we both know that this is very different than considering the possibility that Obama was a reptilian. In any case, scientific frontiers are areas of active research. So yeah, lets go spelunking!
>I have also met "real scientists" who actively dismiss conclusive evidence if it doesn't line up with what they think will get funded.
That is an all too common human flaw :)
Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
First, it really doesn't take major effort to make a viral backbone. You'd like to make a protocol that generates them in high multiplex (thousands, millions, billions) and then selects on that background to find functional ones. The current virus could descend from a recombinant generated with such an approach. It might never have been sequenced or observed directly because it was one of innumerable examples that were competitively cultured.
But, this nature piece is really problematic. When removing likely sequencing errors, the independent "spillover events" appear to fit perfectly into a single phylogeny with each node separated by a single mutation. And the A clade descends cleanly from the B clade. There are not enough mutations between them to support a complex explanation like multiple spillovers. This is linked but not explained properly by the nature piece https://virological.org/t/evidence-against-the-veracity-of-s...