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

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#371

Post by echelon » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

willupowers wrote: post #211

tootie wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. The evidence for this scenario is incredibly compelling and it deserves more investigation.

I haven't seen any refutations of these claims apart from "those involved say no". There's a nonzero chance that these people are lying to cover things up or protect their reputations. Millions of deaths being attributed to a lab accident would be pretty damning.

Why do people on HN want this to not be the case? (As evidenced by all the downvotes?) The truth could be anything, and we should be looking for it. This is one possibility that carries a lot of weight and demands our attention.

There's nothing wrong in stating that the evidence is substantial and that we should investigate more. Why put your head in the sand?

This isn't anti-science.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#372

Post by dash2 » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

t0rt01se wrote: post #352

dash2 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d suggest the opposite. [edit: not the opposite, the same!] If it’s conceivable that gain of function research can release a virus that kills millions, then the burden of proof is with the researchers to prove that they’re safe and this didn’t happen.

Please read my comment again. Perhaps you aren't suggesting the opposite.

Oops! Thanks.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#373

Post by sgt101 » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 1:49 PM 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.

Not true where you have to get ethics consent. You can't do this because you're lab will be shut if you are found to be doing experiments in secret. Yes - in some labs for maths, physics and so on you are right, but not medicine & biology.

If you don't believe this then look at the failure rate of the projects.

The other thing is that the funding agencies really, really, really don't like this - they want high risk research not handle turning. So if you get caught out you will get blacklisted - it's misconduct.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#374

Post by sumedh » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

bunnie wrote: post #368

flavius29663 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occam's razor works against your argument...given everything we know so far, the simplest explanation is that a chinese lab leaked a virus and it's covering it. There is no jump in logic needed. It's actually easier to explain why the virus was so close to the Wuhan lab.

Maybe it's the other way around. They put the lab in Wuhan because it's easy to get many samples of the zoonotic viruses of concern due to the presence of many natural reservoirs and wet markets, and you want a lab near the action because you want to be able to study the hot spots. In other words, your argument is like saying occam's razor concludes that fire extinguishers start fires because they are always found in…

> are pushing ourselves further away from science and transparency...

because China was not transparent and hid (probably destroyed) evidence. Its concerning that people dont want to hold China accountable.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/how-china-blocked...

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#375

Post by sgt101 » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

dash2 wrote: post #346

tikiman163 wrote: post #339

Guys, two points here. One, this proposal was rejected. This did not happen! Two, their proposal was for genetic manipulation of an existing virus, which research on the existing corona virus shows was not the case. This has nothing to do with the corona virus strains we are currently dealing with, and more importantly, there has never been any credible research proving that Covid was made in a lab. The only paper th…

The fact that the grant proposal was rejected does not mean the research didn’t happen. They could have got alternative funding. This happens a lot.

They would have had to be very quick though. Submission was end of march 2018, there would have been a review process and I think it's unrealistic to put that at under six weeks. So that takes us to mid may 2018. Then they would have to have got some money and ask someone else - again that's going to take three months or so unless they had the money in their account. Then the project would have to be stood up - lab space sorted and so on so that takes us to 2019 even on an express train. I think that the Darpa projects in this call were aimed at start in 2019 btw.

So then the work would have to have happened and the virus escape happened in 10 months. In the proposal they are looking at q5 of the project for the genetic engineering to happen.

I don't think that the time lines work - also the genetic engineering was slated to happen in North Carolina...

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#376

Post by sgt101 » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

rustymonday wrote: post #358

resonious wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This novel virus started spreading pretty close to a lab that studies viruses. I think that counts as "actual evidence" that it came out of a lab. Of course, evidence != proof. And even if it did come from the lab, that in itself does not imply malice.

Exactly. It likely wasn't made in a lab, but it likely did escape from the lab accidentally.

possible that it did escape...

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#377

Post by sgt101 » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

resonious wrote: post #356

tikiman163 wrote: post #339

Guys, two points here. One, this proposal was rejected. This did not happen! Two, their proposal was for genetic manipulation of an existing virus, which research on the existing corona virus shows was not the case. This has nothing to do with the corona virus strains we are currently dealing with, and more importantly, there has never been any credible research proving that Covid was made in a lab. The only paper th…

This novel virus started spreading pretty close to a lab that studies viruses. I think that counts as "actual evidence" that it came out of a lab. Of course, evidence != proof. And even if it did come from the lab, that in itself does not imply malice.

The novichok poisoning in Salisbury happened next to the UK's chemical weapon capabilities in Porton Down. This is evidence that it got out from Porton Down.

The Russian agents videoed wandering about with bottles of poison are evidence of another mechanism of introduction. Perhaps the presence of a market full of various wild animals known to carry coronavirus's is also worth considering.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#378

Post by flavius29663 » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 1:58 PM UTC

bunnie wrote: post #368

flavius29663 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occam's razor works against your argument...given everything we know so far, the simplest explanation is that a chinese lab leaked a virus and it's covering it. There is no jump in logic needed. It's actually easier to explain why the virus was so close to the Wuhan lab.

Maybe it's the other way around. They put the lab in Wuhan because it's easy to get many samples of the zoonotic viruses of concern due to the presence of many natural reservoirs and wet markets, and you want a lab near the action because you want to be able to study the hot spots. In other words, your argument is like saying occam's razor concludes that fire extinguishers start fires because they are always found in…

> the presence of many natural reservoirs and wet markets, and you want a lab near the action because you want to be able to study the hot spots.

The closest relative to this virus (it's not even that close, just 95% similarity) was found in a bat cave hundreds of miles away. They flew it in Wuhan and made experiments on it (this is all documented, not some crazy theory). Something tells me it's more likely to escape from the lab right there, rather than somehow infect people for hundreds of miles undetected. Your analogy is wrong, the lab is not really a fire extinguisher, because a fire extinguisher cannot cause fires on it's own! Lab leaks happen all the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...

A better analogy is: a nuclear scientist works with heavy metals at a lab (far away from home), suddenly his family gets radiation poisoning. I wonder if it was the scientist that made a mistake, or should we focus all our search for natural radiation sources in the family's house? Sure, it's always a possibility, but what is it more likely? Also, you should at least acknowledge that the person is working with radiation and investigate that possibility thoroughly.

Those lab safety measure were criticized by the US state department https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep...

> And we'd want to encourage more cross border cooperation, not antagonize it, because viruses don't give a damn about your politics.

The Chinese took the virus database offline 2 months before the official outbreak...what a coincidence. And what a cooperation effort. Renaming the closest relative virus to hide it's trail. And a lot more.

Yeah, we need more cooperation, and China needs to do it first. They created this mess, the least they can do is cooperate rather than hinder investigations. We need better lab security and better protocols worldwide.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#379

Post by marcosdumay » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 2:01 PM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #354

tikiman163 wrote: post #339

Guys, two points here. One, this proposal was rejected. This did not happen! Two, their proposal was for genetic manipulation of an existing virus, which research on the existing corona virus shows was not the case. This has nothing to do with the corona virus strains we are currently dealing with, and more importantly, there has never been any credible research proving that Covid was made in a lab. The only paper th…

As was stated elsewhere in this thread, researchers are often halfway done with something before they even write a proposal. > Two, their proposal was for genetic manipulation of an existing virus, which research on the existing corona virus shows was not the case. I think that’s invalidated if your first point is valid right? Since the proposal wasn’t accepted. Doesn’t mean they didn’t go on to do it anyway (possibl…

> I think that’s invalidated if your first point is valid right?

No. There's evidence that COVID-19 was not created by direct genetic manipulation.

If they did it, it's not COVID-19.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#380

Post by avianlyric » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 2:02 PM UTC

resonious wrote: post #356

tikiman163 wrote: post #339

Guys, two points here. One, this proposal was rejected. This did not happen! Two, their proposal was for genetic manipulation of an existing virus, which research on the existing corona virus shows was not the case. This has nothing to do with the corona virus strains we are currently dealing with, and more importantly, there has never been any credible research proving that Covid was made in a lab. The only paper th…

This novel virus started spreading pretty close to a lab that studies viruses. I think that counts as "actual evidence" that it came out of a lab. Of course, evidence != proof. And even if it did come from the lab, that in itself does not imply malice.

Let me correct that for you. Novel virus start spreading near a lab setup specifically to study those viruses, in an area where they’re known to be naturally occurring, and where it was suspected they could make the jump to humans.

The lab in Wuhan was studying Coronaviruses because of the threat they potentially posed to humans, and because the nearby bat populations were know to carry them.

Saying that the existence of a lab studying novel viruses in their natural habitat is evidence that I can from a lab, is like saying the existence of fire stations in a cities is evidence that fire fighters start fires.