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

Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 494 posts

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#391

Post by Justin_K »

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…

The only evidence that exists is indirect because of China's stonewalling. When International researchers are denied access to the EpiCentre of a global pandemic, you cannot use the argument that there is no evidence.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#392

Post by Aeolun »

marcosdumay wrote: post #379
Aeolun wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There's evidence that COVID-19 was not created by direct genetic manipulation.

There’s also evidence it cannot possibly (or well, with such a low chance it may as well be) have occured naturally.

What am I supposed to believe here? Even the people on my side of the fence, even the people that research this stuff themselves all seem to have an agenda and when research turns up one thing, I can practically guarantee that other research turns up the opposite.

There’s too much damn smoke in this whole thing for there to be no fire.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#393

Post by mandmandam »

dekhn wrote: post #389
mandmandam wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Egregiously? Really? Shit, what would a _mildly bad_ comment look like? It's also weird that you'd take issue with my comment and not the one I'm replying to. Did you read it? It's got literally 7 kinds of deliberately crafted misinformation.

there's no deliberately crafted misinformation in my comment. It's a simple and straightforward evaluation of the reliable evidence we have so far.

> Are you a scientist?

Implying only scientists can have opinions based on evidence.

> I was.

Argument from "authority" (without evidence btw).

> I can tell you that all of those quotes require a great deal of inspection and you cannot take them at face value.

Hand waving.

> At the very least, most scientists speak ultra-confidently about this beliefs

Not true at all.

> (beyond their own internal level of confidence) because they've learned to use narrative techniques to make their beliefs sound true.

You're thinking of storytellers.

> Any scientist who is actively speculating that this funding is "strong evidence" rather than saying "it's logically consistent and seems more than coincidental" is just wrong.

That's not true, considering that "Peter Daszak, despite coming out forcefully against the lab leak theory, and purposely downplaying his involvement with the lab in so doing, and being inexplicably selected as a member of the WHO team to investigate the lab origin theory, completely neglected to mention having made this proposal a mere two years prior", as well as myriad other deliberate misinformation from Peter.

> That's a big mistake a lot of the early folks who claiimed it was human engineered made.

There was more than enough evidence to warrant an international independent inspection of both labs in Wuhan. Location alone was enough, without everything else.

> The evidence is not strong, but not strong enough to convince a rational person.

Implying rational people will come to the same conclusion as you, despite all the above.

I say all this because you claim to be the rational scientist in the room, when actually there's so much smoke in the room that anyone saying there's no fire needs a strong head check.

Smell the air: smells like smoke - and something else.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#394

Post by rodrigods »

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…

You’re saying that a research proposal that combines corona viruses and the very specific advantage from the virus that makes it so effective in spreading in humans is not a strong evidence?

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#395

Post by xqcgrek2 »

dang wrote: post #237
president wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN (Y Combinator) has an incentive to curb posts that could potentially make China angry. Being a forefront Silicon Valley investment company, they have to play the globalist game. Therefore, I suspect there may be policies in place, whether spoken or unspoken to suppress these types of posts. I don't doubt that there are bots or Chinese nationals that also downvote/flag these posts as well.

I can assure you with high confidence—since I'm the person making these calls—that this has nothing to do with how we moderate HN. I mean, it's possible that you know more about my unconscious than I do - but I think the odds are low. I'm pretty sure we're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck and don't give a shit about the "globalist game". Re "I don't doubt that there are bots or Chinese national…

Interesting. You don't actually refute any of his arguments.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#396

Post by rustybelt »

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…

You’re conflating came from a lab and created in a lab. It is very possible that the virus was leaked from a lab without being created there. Maybe not your intention, but your post comes across this way.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#397

Post by rndgermandude »

Aeolun wrote: post #392
marcosdumay wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> There's evidence that COVID-19 was not created by direct genetic manipulation. There’s also evidence it cannot possibly (or well, with such a low chance it may as well be) have occured naturally. What am I supposed to believe here? Even the people on my side of the fence, even the people that research this stuff themselves all seem to have an agenda and when research turns up one thing, I can practically guarantee…

>There’s also evidence it cannot possibly (or well, with such a low chance it may as well be) have occured naturally.

Now, I remember reading about it most likely not being a result of direct genetic manipulation, and it sounded sound to me.

Do you have any sources for your assertion that there is evidence it cannot have occurred naturally?

As far as I read such viruses have a natural tendency to sometimes jump species, as was likely the case with SARS-CoV and MERS.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#398

Post by MaxDPS »

reilly3000 wrote: post #224

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?

At the moment, that type of research takes a lot of resources. In the future, I’m sure that will change, which is a bit worrying.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#399

Post by blix »

passivate wrote: post #279
blix wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, scientif…

I'd argue there is more evidence for the lab leak theory than either aliens or reptilians; it's a tremendously low bar. There is not even flimsy circumstantial evidence for aliens, yet many people believe.

Yes knowingly abandoning the princinples of science in order to acquire money is quite the flaw. For whatever reason it is basically non-existent among grad students, but not uncommon among successful professors. It's almost like our institutions select for and reward this behavior.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#400

Post by rualca »

Aeolun wrote: post #392
marcosdumay wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> There's evidence that COVID-19 was not created by direct genetic manipulation. There’s also evidence it cannot possibly (or well, with such a low chance it may as well be) have occured naturally. What am I supposed to believe here? Even the people on my side of the fence, even the people that research this stuff themselves all seem to have an agenda and when research turns up one thing, I can practically guarantee…

> There’s also evidence it cannot possibly (...) have occured naturally.

I feel this claim is simply not believable nor possible to take at face value, given that in order for a proof of impossibility to even be considered you need supporting evidence and a falsifiable model, which you have none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

Given this, do you have any reference that supports your assertion? I'd like to hear your rationale to claim that something like this is outright impossible.

Post reply on HN