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

First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

public.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 792 posts

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#431

Post by baja_blast »

wk_end wrote: post #320
mensetmanusman wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roll an N-sided die representing all possible locations for possible human/bat human/animal interactions. What percentage of those facets are city centers near level 4 bio labs that research these types of viruses?

FWIW my understanding is that the labs were only BSL-2.

The WIV has BSL-4, BSL-3 and BSL-2 labs. But the research involving insertion of human specific furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses sampled in the wild was done in BSL2 which just means a thin medical mask and gloves. https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#433

Post by Chathamization »

archagon wrote: post #410
nancyhn wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird how many smart people still haven't realized they are being lied to by the legacy media and establishment figures. Even after repeatedly discrediting themselves. Taibbi and Shellenberger aren't perfect either, but they are more reliable and honest. Taibbi is still the investigative journalist he's always been.

Step one is realizing that the establishment lies to you. Step two is recognizing that the other guys are more than happy to lie to you too, or lie to themselves, and have an even easier time of it due to lack of vetting.

Exactly. Having general skepticism is admirable. Having selective skepticism isn't.

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#434

Post by manicdee »

ethbr0 wrote: post #261
geuis wrote: post #225

I don't trust this article at all . > Sources within the US government say that three of the earliest people to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 were Ben Hu, Yu Ping, and Yan Zhu. All were members of the Wuhan lab suspected to have leaked the pandemic virus. > It is unclear who in the U.S. government had access to the intelligence about the sick WIV workers, how long they had it, and why it was not shared with the pub…

People need to start thinking of politically-impactful truths in terms of probability distributions and outcome possibility spaces, rather than absolutely. If it were a lab leak, there are probably a handful of eyewitnesses. Any information (not leak; was leak) would have serious ramifications to the political systems of the two largest economies in the world (the US and China). What are the chances that we'll ever h…

> If it were a lab leak, there are probably a handful of eyewitnesses.

Not at all. The chances are that if it was a lab leak the people involved had no idea the leak happened at all. That's how lab leaks work: people make mistakes and inadvertently leak stuff from the lab. eg: Karen Wetterhahn vs lead

What you're talking about is a deliberate release from a lab, which would have eyewitnesses because they know what is happening and see it happening and can corroborate the reports of other witnesses. eg: Thomas Midgley Jr vs lead

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#435

Post by metafour »

vt102 wrote: post #430
letmevoteplease wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't have to wait long for confirmation. The Director of National Intelligence will be required by law to declassify information about the infected researchers on June 18th, including their names, symptoms, date of onset and role at WIV.[1] [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/619...

How can you determine the June 18th date? I'm not finding a reference to it.

Section 3 paragraph 1 states

> Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act…

It looks like it was signed into law by the President on 3/20/23

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#436

Post by seattle_spring »

ozr wrote: post #112
hotpotamus wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This comment is laden with rhetoric, but, to address your point regardless: 'military arms' are widely available. The equipment and knowledge to perform advanced virology work is not. It's much simpler to restrict.

> This comment is laden with rhetoric

Can you elaborate on why this was worth pointing out for the parent comment, but not GP?

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#437

Post by ahahahahah »

artificial wrote: post #342
mock-possum wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why Politicians Are Trying To Take Your Children > California legislation would punish parents who don't affirm gender dysphoria wow yeah that's a take

AB957 is still being amended. Prior to amendment a parent not affirming gender identity would fall under child abuse. Here's the clause: (6)A parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity because it is in the best interest of the child to affirm their gender identity. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

What an absolute lie.

The subsection 6 that you quoted is under the section:

3011. (a) In making a determination of the best interests of the child in a proceeding described in Section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant and consistent with Section 3020, consider all of the following

For example, another subsection is

(3) The nature and amount of contact with both parents, except as provided in Section 3046

This has absolutely nothing to do with falling under child abuse.

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#438

Post by Eisenstein »

archagon wrote: post #410
nancyhn wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird how many smart people still haven't realized they are being lied to by the legacy media and establishment figures. Even after repeatedly discrediting themselves. Taibbi and Shellenberger aren't perfect either, but they are more reliable and honest. Taibbi is still the investigative journalist he's always been.

Step one is realizing that the establishment lies to you. Step two is recognizing that the other guys are more than happy to lie to you too, or lie to themselves, and have an even easier time of it due to lack of vetting.

The problem is that when you are leaning towards believing something anyway and find out that you were being lied to about it, you don't become more critical of all information, just information that is in conflict with what 'seems' right to you.

It is a terrible side-effect of doing things like teaching kids in the 80s and 90s that marijuana was a terrible drug because when they find out it isn't, then everything else they said is suspect and any authority that tries to say anything about drugs gets treated with suspicion.

In line with this, using fear of the worst possible outcome in order to scare people backfires heavily if it doesn't happen because then convincing them of anything related to that subject again is going to have to come from a completely different source and direction.

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#439

Post by [deleted] »

spacemadness wrote: post #351
mock-possum wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why Politicians Are Trying To Take Your Children > California legislation would punish parents who don't affirm gender dysphoria wow yeah that's a take

This list of articles is right out of a conspiracy theorists fever dream. Great intellectual content here HN, thanks for sharing. Now go outside and take a walk before you go off the deep end.

[deleted]

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#440

Post by Neekerer »

vt102 wrote: post #430
letmevoteplease wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't have to wait long for confirmation. The Director of National Intelligence will be required by law to declassify information about the infected researchers on June 18th, including their names, symptoms, date of onset and role at WIV.[1] [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/619...

How can you determine the June 18th date? I'm not finding a reference to it.

90 days

> Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall-- (1) declassify any and all information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), including-- (A) activities performed by the Wuhan Institute of Virology with or on behalf of the People's Liberation Army; (B) coronavirus research or other related activities performed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the outbreak of COVID-19; and (C) researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who fell ill in autumn 2019, including for any such researcher-- (i) the researcher's name; (ii) the researcher's symptoms; (iii) the date of the onset of the researcher's symptoms;

[[Page 137 STAT. 5]]

                          (iv) the researcher's role at the Wuhan 
                      Institute of Virology;
                          (v) whether the researcher was involved with 
                      or exposed to coronavirus research at the Wuhan 
                      Institute of Virology;
                          (vi) whether the researcher visited a hospital 
                      while they were ill; and
                          (vii) a description of any other actions taken 
                      by the researcher that may suggest they were 
                      experiencing a serious illness at the time; and
            (2) >  submit to Congress an unclassified 
        report that contains--
                    (A) all of the information described under paragraph 
                (1); and
                    (B) only such redactions as the Director determines 
                necessary to protect sources and methods.
Post reply on HN