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

61–70 of 494 posts

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#61

Post by phkahler »

Some people:

>> Vincent Racaniello, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, was adamant that the proposal did not change his opinion that the pandemic was caused by a natural spillover from animals to humans. “There are zero data to support a lab origin ‘notion,’” Racaniello wrote in an email.

There seems to be zero data to support his spillover idea too. But now we have documentation of people wanting to do the exact experiments that could lead to this, and he's still sticking to his fantasy.

I dont think the point here is to definitively determine the origin of this virus, it's to point to the fact that unchecked scientists are wanting to do exactly the kind of experiments that could kill us all. IIRC an Ebola gene was successfully put in a flu virus years ago but contained - hemorrhagic influenza anyone?

This stuff needs to stop.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#62

Post by majormajor »

imbnwa wrote: post #18
chrsw wrote: post #7

I could be missing something but this isn't exactly the smoking gun the title makes it seem. I'm sure there are proposals, plans and applications for all types of things. What I'm waiting for, perhaps naively, is strong evidence, revelated an independent investigation, that there was some foul business going on here. Until I see that, I'm more inclined to rely on the word of experts who have no connection to any of t…

I mean, even in the case that occurs, what is the endgame? Fine China? Sanction China? Demand accountability from China? Not happening, not when they make everyone's chips among other things. Can someone enlighten me about the value of this theory? It just seems like another vector of anti-establishment distrust discourse with a more intelligent veneer; easy to profit off of (clicks, book sales, etc) and doesn't requ…

This was a proposal to DARPA from a US-based group so the "if it came from the Wuhan lab we need to deal with China" part of the common reaction to the lab-origins idea seems wildly unfounded.

If it came from a lab - hell, even if it DIDN'T come from a lab, but could have - then we need to globally think about what sort of things we're doing and how safely we can do them.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#63

Post by tshaddox »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #2

if you called someone crazy at some point for suggesting this as a possibility, it is time to pause and reflect

"Suggesting this as a possibility" is a pretty weak statement. But it's actually good to criticize someone for claiming that it happened without having any evidence, even if there happens to later be evidence that it happened.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#64

Post by tshaddox »

iammisc wrote: post #52
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is reasonable & responsible to downplay theories that get constructed in absence of sufficient and meaningfully qualified evidence.

Such as the theory, presented often without evidence, that Sars-Cov-2 came from an imaginary population of bats in Wuhan?

I mean, if it's a random comment on the Internet that makes a claim without presenting evidence, yet evidence does exist and is readily available, I don't have much of a problem with that. After all, you just made the claim that the theory is often present without evidence without actually presenting evidence of that claim. The real question is what evidence exists, not what evidence may or may not be presented with every online comment you may come across.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#66

Post by andyxor »

iammisc wrote: post #52
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is reasonable & responsible to downplay theories that get constructed in absence of sufficient and meaningfully qualified evidence.

Such as the theory, presented often without evidence, that Sars-Cov-2 came from an imaginary population of bats in Wuhan?

there is a lab called "Wuhan Coronavirus Research Lab" in the epicenter of coronavirus pandemic ground zero, and there is evidence of lab members seeking (and getting) grants in the US for dangerous gain-of-function research in the last few years, doesn't it make you stop and think?

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#67

Post by Consultant32452 »

My hypothesis on this whole mess.

China was going to do bioweapon research and there was nothing we or anyone else could do about it.

Quietly funding research in Wuhan was a way for the US IC to keep an eye on what China was doing.

Something from that lab escaped. It's not clear or particularly relevant to me whether what escaped was directly involved in the particular experiments we funded. In my mind if the US funded 50 experiments and China funded 50 other experiments of categorically the same type, and one of those 100 escaped, both are culpable regardless of whether it was on of our 50 or their 50.

Fauci and other officials can't just come out and say "This is part of a top secret weapons/intelligence program where we were using this funding to spy on China." And so they will lie in public. They will lie under oath. And there will be no consequence because the people (Congress/Presidents/etc) with the classified truth are all similarly culpable (they probably okayed/funded it).

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#68

Post by Factorium »

angelzen wrote: post #39
speed_spread wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with people saying "but it was engineered!" is that it the origin does not change what our reaction should be. The virus is here and now we have to face it. Whether it's a natural mutation, part of a big masterplan, or an accidental release is a matter of international politics, in which most of us have very little, if anything to contribute.

If we go back to business as usual, covid will be far from the last allegedly engineered virus to kill millions. The health sciences establishment is in dire need of a reality check, their actions have consequences reaching well beyond petty grant politicking.

Its unlikely the virus was engineered expressly to kill millions - it seems increasingly likely that the virus was engineered to drive mRNA vaccine sales, as well as to disrupt the 2020 American election (by forcing an unprecedent switch to mail-in paper ballots and upending a vibrant US economy - at the same time as China was struggling under international tariffs).

Just look at what an investment in BioNTech would have done if you bought in October 2019:

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BNTX:NASDAQ?window=5Y

You'd be 25x in less than 2 years.

How convenient for the Gates Foundation to invest $55 million in September 2019! https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det...

The chief innovation of mRNA vaccines is that instead of using expensive egg cultures, you can reproduce viral proteins inside the vaccinated patient themselves. This presumably means much cheaper manufacturing.

Additionally, you can drive long-term vaccine sales, since antibodies based on a single protein (spike) are more likely to fail compared to immunity based on the complete protein structure. We're already seeing this now with the 'need' for booster shots in response to variants driven by these leaky vaccines.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#69

Post by woodruffw »

iammisc wrote: post #51
imbnwa wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, even in the case that occurs, what is the endgame? Fine China? Sanction China? Demand accountability from China? Not happening, not when they make everyone's chips among other things. Can someone enlighten me about the value of this theory? It just seems like another vector of anti-establishment distrust discourse with a more intelligent veneer; easy to profit off of (clicks, book sales, etc) and doesn't requ…

[flagged]

I'm not sure I'm following: are you saying that the current president should be believed, or the former one? Similarly, are you saying that either president has cited classified information that directly contradicts the media's reporting on COVID-19?

To my recollection, neither president has forcefully declassified any evidence that supports the more egregious claims made about COVID (that it was intentionally leaked). In the mean time, there seems to be ample & bipartisan willingness among the general public to at least entertain more benign "accidental leak" theories.

Re: Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research

#70

Post by fredgrott »

chrsw wrote: post #7

I could be missing something but this isn't exactly the smoking gun the title makes it seem. I'm sure there are proposals, plans and applications for all types of things. What I'm waiting for, perhaps naively, is strong evidence, revelated an independent investigation, that there was some foul business going on here. Until I see that, I'm more inclined to rely on the word of experts who have no connection to any of t…

short biology explanation as I do not know how much the HN readers has.

We did not have the tools to do genetic manipulation as far s the physical techniques until recently...ie they were not around when I took biochem in 1990s.

HOWEVER, we still do not have enough concrete knowledge about this domain to reliably design anything on purpose including viruses organs ,etc.

Anybody that states otherwise is a danger to themselves and others. Blunt as I can put that.

Post reply on HN