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

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#261

Post by sayonaraman » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 5:53 AM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #122

sayonaraman wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well how about establishing safety procedures, research guidelines and international regulation body governing dangerous GoF research so that such outbreak doesn't happen again.

Can’t we do that either way?

you've gotta know the details, kind of like those 19th and 20th century epidemiologists who went to the ground zero of say cholera outbreak* and investigated how it started and what was its source, and how exactly it originated and spread, and such investigations were helpful to bring about vaccines and preventive measures (and more recently see Ebola response for example).

Now while we do have effective Covid vaccines (at least for some variants of the virus), knowing the exact origin of a major pandemic, either it came from a natural source or a lab, is of major importance for science, medicine and public health.

Arguably we're lucky COVID was not as deadly as some other viral pandemics of the past** and we have to gather as much info as possible on its origin and distribution in order to prevent something like this (or worse) happening in the future.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_Haffkine

**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#262

Post by gfodor » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 5:54 AM UTC

passivate wrote: post #227

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…

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…

How about we at least agree that we can all imagine this having been a lab leak, and therefore should take the requisite changes to protocols, funding, and so on that we would do if it were proven as such.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#263

Post by gfodor » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 6:00 AM UTC

stablechaos wrote: post #242

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.

Because all of the major players, the Chinese Communist Party, the US government (DARPA & the NIH), and several universities and their IRB boards (UNC-Chapel Hill, WIV, and others), all had a hand in this, and the second they give legitimacy to this theory--that the hubris and recklessness of scientists and bureaucrats led to the deaths and suffering of millions--then they'll never be able to put the cat back in the…

Well, the good news is that either way we are still exposed to a lab leak of an airborne highly contagious coronavirus as much as we were before. Oh wait did I say good news?

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#264

Post by gfodor » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 6:04 AM UTC

somewhereoutth wrote: post #150

Fairytales 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.

Actually given people like you seem insistent that such lab leaks cannot happen, having it proven as such would help us prepare for the next because it would force us to listen to the people who have been warning us it will happen for years.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#265

Post by blablabla123 » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 6:09 AM UTC

ramraj07 wrote: post #183

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…

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.

Certainly not true in the area of particle accelerator experiments. Every single step there is done in public so to say. And it's not that it's a niche, literally thousands of scientists and engineers work on this stuff. (Also I know people that had to change thesis topics half-way through, although I cannot fully recall the reasoning for that.)

It's well-known that there has been high-risk coronavirus research across the globe. Actually there are even documentaries from before the pandemic, not sure why this has to be double-emphasized.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#266

Post by scythe » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 6:13 AM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #169

createdapril24 wrote: post #143

Earlier 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…

>Yet they managed to do all that work in perfect secrecy without any leaks. That is the hallmark of a conspiracy theory.

But nobody is alleging that they did all the work in perfect secrecy. Clearly we know about a lot of the work: you'd use the same equipment, location, and so forth. Only a few things are left that need to be secret; namely, the origin of the viral sequences that preceded SARS-CoV-2. And if those were present in the wild it seems not entirely surprising that WIV could have simply obtained them.

Furthermore, it is not really that surprising that research which potentially develops weapons of mass destruction is kept secret, pandemic or no. Whether it caused the pandemic or not, people are still generally concerned that this kind of thing was occurring.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#267

Post by xenophonf » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 6:14 AM UTC

taurusnoises wrote: post #72

AlbertoGP wrote: post #24

There is a live stream right now by Dr. Kevin McCairn (neuroscientist) commenting on this paper, a grant application from EcoHealth Alliance (Peter Daszak) detailing what they were going to do in Wuhan: https://youtu.be/ayNMSFp7pOE

"Video removed by uploader." Is there anything about this virus that isn't suspicious!? Like, can't even a YouTube video stay up when it's supposed to?

I only have the GP's word that the removed video was about the topic they claim it was. For all I know, this video could have been a rickroll.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#268

Post by Gibbon1 » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 6:16 AM UTC

createdapril24 wrote: post #145

lamontcg wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's 1,000 nucleotide differences between the closest known progenitor and SARS-CoV-2. That is an evolutionary distance of 30-40 years in a coronavirus. You can't replicate that many years of evolution by serial passage in a lab. Serial passage isn't a magic wand. And the rest of it is that you're arguing in favor of a science fiction explanation for the capabilities of the WIV lab.

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…

> How quickly, versus natural evolution, can serial passage evolve a virus?

Look how many infections were needed to go from Covid Classic to the Delta Variant. What's that a billion?

Comment I read from someone that aught to know what they are talking about pointed out that gain function in a lab produces viruses that are good at infecting cells in petri dishes. Not ones that are good at infecting vertebrates with full fledged immune systems trying to kill it.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#269

Post by lovemenot » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 6:19 AM UTC

proc0 wrote: post #255

passivate wrote: post #227

Earlier 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…

There's more than science here. This is also game theory, if a lab leak is still plausible. Why was this being researched? Who knew about it and why was it covered up, and to what extent was it covered up? Personally I think it's naive that people are omitting human and government intentions from all this, as if they are not actors in complex political world. These huge world changing events don't happen in a vacuum,…

Game theory could plausibly explain why PRC keeps resurfacing their unsubstantiated US military origins theory.

Assuming an actual lab leak at WIV, from a US project similar to the one rejected by DARPA. And PRC is aware of all these facts.

Under these assumptions, this story/rumour could be seen as a threat, which re-emerges whenever PRC feels under pressure: "We won't go down alone for this"

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#270

Post by gojomo » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 6:26 AM UTC

teh_klev wrote: post #166

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 t…

But why would one denial from one particularly finicky funding source (Trump-era US agencies) make researchers – who thought they were doing essential work – stop such essential work? Why wouldn't they use other funding, possibly from overhead funding or prior grants, or from other less-finicky funders? And in a jurisdiction – China – where many of the same limits or reporting-requirements might not exist?

Are virologists the only humans who, thwarted by one jurisdiction's limits, give up without considering doing their career-making, essential-to-humanity work elsewhere?

> …it's incredibly difficult to engineer new viruses… [and] …also incredibly difficult to create stable "gain of function"…

Indeed, but humans do incredibly difficult things all the time. In fact, they're often attracted to the challenge, and seek funding to help them do it, and often don't let a 'no' from any one funder stop them from bootstrapping work in other ways.

It's also incredibly difficult to engineer & get approval for vaccines to a brand-new disease, but that got done, recently, faster than ever before.

It was incredibly difficult to create nuclear weapons, but a lot of countries have done it independently.

Given the significant number of dangerous pathogen escapes from disease labs, it's also "incredibly difficult" to keep dangerous contagions safely contained. It's comparatively easy to accidently let them out!