Live data from Hacker News

Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

theintercept.com

461–470 of 494 posts

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#461
post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 virolo…

Covid wasn't a brand new disease. They had most of the research necessary to create a vaccine completed two years before the outbreak. We would likely have had the Johnson and Johnson vaccine by July of 2020 if Trump hadn't shut down the pandemic response team purely because it was created by Obama. They were the ones already preparing the ground work necessary for a vaccine to existing SARS Corona virus diseases tha…

Most of your points about coronavirus vaccine research also apply to coronavirus gain-of-function research: scientists have been studying these viruses for decades. They've also been proposing – & sometimes doing! – gain-of-function-like work on these same viruses for years.

And why would it take a "virtual miracle" to accomplish via purposeful lab work the same thing that a 'wholly natural origin' explanation would suggest happened by dumb luck in natural recombinations?

What if it was both 'natural origin' and a 'lab leak'? For example, perhaps a wholly natural zoonotic event created the novelty, but it wasn't circulating in humans until after researchers found that crossover-ready virus in the wild – doing research similar to that in this just-revealed proposal – & brought it to Wuhan for study. Then, either with or without further 'gain-of-function' tinkering, inadvertently let it loose into an urban population?

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#462
post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a nearly identical RBD in the wild. But... without the furin cleavage site. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28649716 And you know what, northern Laos where the RBD was found, and south Yunnan, where the well documented sars outbreak happened (which presumably led to the discovery of ratg13), share a border with each other

What if EcoHealth (originally Wildlife Preservation Trust International) was infiltrated by eco-terrorists who did the reasearch anyway then released a depopulation virus to punish humans and 'restore balance' to the ecosystem, in a sicko 'Army of the 12 Monkeys'-style act of terrorism? But either they weren't that successful ( only 5 million deaths is not depopulation) or their goal was lockdowns and reduced air tra…

What if it was Aliens? /s

One of the reasons i despise the Silicon Valley tone of conversation is how naive (read removed from the brutality that exists in the world outside the US' protected borders) the line is.

Like, are you kidding me? - Research Lab near outbreak - Connected to person that proposed a similar GoF research for a grant in the US and was turned down - History of loose ethical standards and evidence of published works connecting the CCP to military usage of viruses - Absolutely no evidence of natural origin circumstantial or otherwise in spite of over 18 months of looking

And we have people here closing their eyes, fingers in their ears going "la la la" with moronic arguments like : "Can you show me the evidence?"

I mean, can you constructively participate in the discussion with an attempt to push it forward and call out the clear risks of weaponizing infectious vectors instead of saying "Nothing to see here, show me more" in the face of all we've seen.

All that does is gives a pass to the people doing this in the dark. Accident or not, that work is ongoing and if a literal global mass casualty event doesn't help regulate it, what will ?

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be conflating subjective and opinion on the one hand with statistical on the other. Actually, Bayes statistics works great in poorly defined problem spaces where we can update our priors as new information becomes available. Just like in the issue under discussion. Your example of rolling dice is Frequentist, not Bayesian. We wouldn't use Frequentist stats in this domain, for the reasons you mention.

>Actually, Bayes statistics works great in poorly defined problem spaces where we can update our priors as new information becomes available. Just like in the issue under discussion. Can you give me a few comparable scenarios where it worked great?

One of the techniques is Bayesian search https://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/dmr/Notes2019/7-Ba...

I don't know whether Bayesian search is currently being used to search for the unknown reservoir species from which SARS-COV-19 jumped to infect humans (assuming a natural cause).

Under this approach, the longer the search goes on, the more we may lessen our confidence in the prior assumption that it was a natural infection.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#464

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…

Scientists absolutely need to investigate themselves as well, to avoid biases and blind spots. Just because someone is smart, doesn't make them arbiter of truth. So we need to examine ourselves AND facts.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#465

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…

This 'looks guilty' thing is akin to witch hunting. If millions of people died and you were right there when it happened, a likely suspect, you might want to deflect blame as well. Populism and Politics have little to do with the truth. If the masses are fired up over one theory, or if the highly politicized academic community is fired up over one of their own sensitivities, it can be destructive for many involved. R…

Systemic failure perhaps, certainly when regards to the soul-crushing CCP (not the Chinese).

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 speci…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28649120 People have asserted in this thread that it would take 30-40 years for the closest known natural covid relative to aquire the necessary 1000 mutations and turn into covid. And yet here we are, almost 2 years since the pandemic started, with no identified natural reservoir for covid. Where is the covid source? ----- Consider https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)0099…

>Where is the covid source?

Probably in bats or other animals prone to corona viruses. Likely some animal that naturally does not interact with humans a lot, and has significant populations in remote habitats. Basically everything that can live in difficult terrain is rather likely. Less likely, but far from impossible: it mutated over extended periods of time in some animal meat factory farm on an accelerated schedule thanks to how these farms operate, with animals showing few if any symptoms thanks to the young ages of the entire population (no old animals in your factory farm ;), until it finally made the jump to humans.

>to aquire the necessary 1000 mutations

They compared strains we already now about because somebody sequenced them; the important word there is "known". The thing about that is that there is a ton of strains we do not know about because nobody sequenced that particular local cohort of animals. Hell, we do not even know every species of animals are on planet at all, if the still hight rate of discovering new species is any indication - and we do constantly discover species that we can see with our naked eyes without having to whip out lab equipment.

>And yet here we are, almost 2 years since the pandemic started, with no identified natural reservoir for covid.

There is a real good chance that this "natural reservoir" is just a place nobody looked at with a sequencer hunting for virus strains, i.e. most of the Earth.

Or it might have been created in a lab.

The thing is, we do not know. But there is some evidence apparently that it was a natural origin because a) it looks like a natural progression from previously known strains and b) because there are no hallmark indicators for direct manipulation. Not entirely conclusive evidence, but sound argumentation making a case for the possibility of natural occurrence. And the theories you recapped arguing it cannot be natural just do not use a sound argumentation in my opinion as even I myself - not a domain expert and thinking about it for a few minutes - can poke gigantic holes in it.

Frankly, the "no natural source" argument as you presented it immediately reminded me of the pro-Creationist "missing link" argument.

All the while the evidence you mentioned is that there probably was a lab in Wuhan which probably did stuff with Corona viruses... which is rather vague argumentative. Sure, it's a clue furthering the lab theory a little, but it's hardly conclusive. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#467
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal should be to find the truth. Not “hold China accountable”. We can’t punish people for crimes we can’t prove they committed.

> The goal should be to find the truth. Not “hold China accountable” In this case it is the same thing unless you are claiming Covid started in some other country and they tried to hide the evidence.

China hasn’t tried to hide the evidence that COVID stated there. But to “hold China accountable” implicitly makes the assumption that they did something wrong and should be punished.

There’s a number of perfectly reasonable ways for COVID to start without China doing anything, and making accusations based on thin evidence is not going to encourage collaboration.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not evidence! It is at best a coincidence. An even stronger coincidence would be that this lab had a genotypically similar virus stored prior to its detection. But even that is not evidence of release; it is just a stronger hypothesis. If I was near a bank robbery at the time of occurrence, it does not count as evidence that I did it. Not even if I have a history of robbing banks. It must be combined with oth…

At best a coincidence and at worst what? Evidence? I think being near or at a bank at the time it was robbed totally does count as evidence that you may have done it. Forgive me for pointing out little details in your post, but > It must be combined with other, stronger evidence ... This sounds like you agree. It's just weak evidence, and that's for darn sure.

I don’t agree that the virus appearing near a lab is evidence that it was released from a lab, no. Just like I don’t believe being near a bank robbery at the time of a robbery is evidence I did it.

The comment mentioning Bayes Theorem has the right idea. Your priors are exceptionally different from my own, so we do not see this the same way and maybe never will.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#469
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The goal should be to find the truth. Not “hold China accountable” In this case it is the same thing unless you are claiming Covid started in some other country and they tried to hide the evidence.

China hasn’t tried to hide the evidence that COVID stated there. But to “hold China accountable” implicitly makes the assumption that they did something wrong and should be punished. There’s a number of perfectly reasonable ways for COVID to start without China doing anything, and making accusations based on thin evidence is not going to encourage collaboration.

> China hasn’t tried to hide the evidence that COVID stated there.

That is not true, China claims Covid started in the US.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58273322

> making accusations based on thin evidence is not going to encourage collaboration.

exactly which is why China should have been completely honest and transparent from the start. I dont understand why you keep saying there is thin evidence, we know Covid started in China, we know China delayed in giving crucial data about Covid, they dont support an honest investigation, China bought PPE from other nations leaving them exposed.

They literally murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people and yet you still defend a dictatorial regime?

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acros…

> It's well-known that there has been high-risk coronavirus research across the globe. Not to me. >Actually there are even documentaries from before the pandemic, not sure why this has to be double-emphasized. Got any names/years so I watch them?

There's one documentary from ARTE.tv, a french-german state-owned TV station that I watched in Spring 2020 but which was from around 5 years ago at that time. I cannot find it but I'd add a link here if I do eventually. (Not easy since so much similar content has popped up since then)

One particular reference (point) the documentary was revolving around was the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies which has been pointing out the problem with zoonotic epidemics/pandemics vs. populations and wild ecosystems intertwining too much. (AIDS, SARS, MERS)

Maybe that's interesting enough:

"Thus, it is highly likely that future SARS- or MERS-like coronavirus outbreaks will originate from bats, and there is an increased probability that this will occur in China. Therefore, the investigation of bat coronaviruses becomes an urgent issue for the detection of early warning signs ..."

Bat Coronaviruses in China, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466186/ from March 2019

That said, all this conspiracy discussion is giving the research a bad taste. I mean they cannot build up a lab in a bat cave or ignore the whole issue. And this is not the first epidemic/pandemic of this sort.

Post reply on HN