7 ms·

Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab for Risky Coronavirus Research

15 points by chaostheory 7y ago

yung0 7y ago
"controversial" Controversial for what? The lab should be backed, and has been backed, and was funded by many governments around the world. Funding should be tripled so we can find these viruses before they become pandemics (the reason for their research).
- papermachete 7y ago
  Sure, right after they keep all operations transparent and data public.
  - yung0 7y ago
    It is. You can view their research papers and their data online. They sequenced SARS-CoV-2 even, I believe.
    - papermachete 7y ago
      Can I watch some CCTV footage? See the background and qualifications and assignments of every worker there? Get a spreadsheet of the budgeting?
- zakk 7y ago
  Did you read the full article? They give a detailed explanation of why the project is controversial. You might agree, you might disagree, you might want to sit on either side of the controversy, but the article substantiates quite well the usage of the adjective "controversial" in the title.
  - yung0 7y ago
    Yes, and I don't see how they're linking the lab to GoF. The GoF component of the research has been cancelled, and I would presume (due to its association with Peter Daszak) that it was cancelled due to lack of funding from American budget cuts or from safety concerns about the virus. I could be wrong on the reasons for cancellation, though.
- swebs 7y ago
  >Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.
  - yung0 7y ago
    They cite one man, Ebright, as opposing GoF. 'Scientists' plural seems a tad exaggerated.
    - swebs 7y ago
      >More than 200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem, they said, is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident.
- _iyig 7y ago
  The controversy is explicitly described in the article: >The work in question was a type of gain-of-function research that involved taking wild viruses and passing them through live animals until they mutate into a form that could pose a pandemic threat. Scientists used it to take a virus that was poorly transmitted among humans and make it into one that was highly transmissible—a hallmark of a pandemic virus. This work was done by infecting a series of ferrets, allowing the virus to mutate until a ferret that hadn't been deliberately infected contracted the disease. >The work entailed risks that worried even seasoned researchers. More than 200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem, they said, is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident. When you set these concerns next to 2018 diplomatic cables describing safety problems at the biolab in question [0], perhaps the accidental-release theory does seem worthy of investigation. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep...
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    I wish we could read the diplomatic cables, but we can't, and all we have is a conservative opinion columnist's characterization of the cables. The columnist, Josh Rogin, has refused to publish the cables. But I strongly suspect that Rogin is mischaracterizing the cables. He claims that they express alarm over a lack of trained staff at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Staff from the WIV are trained at a US national lab in Galveston. I think it's highly likely that the directors of the WIV told US diplomats that that support was important, and asked for it to be increased. US diplomats then wrote that the lab needed more trained staff, and that the US should increase support. Someone in the Trump administration then found this cable and "leaked" it to a friendly commentator, Rogin. Rogin then characterized it as pointing out severe problems in the lab, without letting anyone see what the cable actually says. I'd bet the reason Rogin won't publish the cable is that on the whole, it probably doesn't support the characterization he's trying to make.
  - yung0 7y ago
    Were those 200 scientists talking about a Wuhan lab program, or a completely different lab + program? My comment is about the Wuhan lab. According to the article Fauci is cited as writing, that research took place in Europe and the United States. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-worth-taking/2011/12/30/gIQAM9sNRP_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-wor...
christmm 7y ago
In order to help the fight against the pandemic, it would be best if the general public was not aware of certain information.
- papermachete 7y ago
  You mean the taxpayer? The people who make labs and research financially possible?
- brutt 7y ago
  Yeah, we will survive, while our enemy will die. Moreover, if we will supply our enemy with false information, it will work even better.
hef19898 7y ago
This kind of research seems to be a rather normal and reasonable thing to do. That being said, I have two issues with this article: - it makes the Wuhan lab story sound credible, while it is just another conspiracy theory - it paints Dr. Fauci in a bad light by linking him to that lab and the theory The factually true info is the kind of research and the fact that it was cofunded by the Fauci org. Everything else is just spin.
- yung0 7y ago
  "(At this point most scientists say it's possible—but not likely—that the pandemic virus was engineered or manipulated.)" It seems as if they're confusing the 'possibility' of the manipulation theory with the 'possibility' of the lab escape theory (which is technically possible, but very, very unlikely).
  - hef19898 7y ago
    Of course the theoretical possiblity cannot be excluded. I think you're right, this can be the cause for confusion. It can also be used to promote certain agendas and spin. It even gives a certain degree of credibility, as there will be scientist that cam be quoted verbatim. I think this article falls in the agenda category, and not the confusion onr.
- RobertoG 7y ago
  I agree that the link to Dr.Fauci is only "click bait" but, after reading another linked article, I have changed my mind and now I think that the Wuhan lab theory deserves some consideration. This is the more interesting article in my opinion: https://www.newsweek.com/controversial-wuhan-lab-experiments-that-may-have-started-coronavirus-pandemic-1500503 https://www.newsweek.com/controversial-wuhan-lab-experiments...
  - hef19898 7y ago
    Same source, so same potential agenda. If some other new outlet, preferably multiple, are confirming the facts, that would be different. All I heard about the Wuhan lab story was CT stuff back in January and February, until it popped up again recently after Trump, allegedly, pushed US intel to dig into it. And now this, at it's core, anti Fauci piece.
blackrock 7y ago
So which is it guys? 1) It was man-made, and biologically engineered in a lab. It escaped containment. 2) It came into being because the Chinese eat bats. So China should shut down the wet markets. Because it cannot be both. The Trump Regime is lying and talking out of their asses, to cover up their own incompetence. And they are saying that it is both. And the American public are so gullible, that they’re believing everything Trump’s henchmen are saying (or at least his supporters are). Perhaps a more plausible theory, is that it really did emerge naturally from some random mutation in nature. And the Chinese were the first to detect it. The Lancet published back in January [1], a theory that the virus had no connection to the Wuhan Seafood Market, this was just coincidence that some early patients had gone there. Thus, the virus existed, before it got to the seafood market. The interesting new info, is that the French are now saying that they detected their first case back in December 27, 2019, after reviewing old case files [2]. This was 4 days before China published to the W.H.O. about the possibility of a new novel coronavirus. How is this even possible? Did the virus just magically hop on a plane in December? [1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market... [2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/03/french-politicians-row-lockdown-restrictions-can-eased/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/03/french-politicia... Edit: If you’re going to downvote me, then provide some counter evidence to prove me wrong.
- jml7c5 7y ago
  Just a note: a call to stop the sale of "bush meat" in wet markets is not dependent on how this outbreak started. AFAIK the practice has been considered a disease risk for some time. While obviously the pressure to do something is much stronger now, that pressure would remain even if the outbreak was conclusively shown to be unrelated, given public awareness of just how disastrous a pandemic really is. >The Trump Regime is lying and talking out of their asses, to cover up their own incompetence. And they are saying that it is both. And the American public are so gullible, that they’re believing everything Trump’s henchmen are saying (or at least his supporters are). Please limit the partisanship. The point you're making can be expressed in a way that is less vitriolic and more open to meeting of minds.
- 7y ago

15 points by chaostheory 7y ago

"controversial" Controversial for what? The lab should be backed, and has been backed, and was funded by many governments around the world. Funding should be tripled so we can find these viruses before they become pandemics (the reason for their research).

papermachete 7y ago
Sure, right after they keep all operations transparent and data public.
- yung0 7y ago
  It is. You can view their research papers and their data online. They sequenced SARS-CoV-2 even, I believe.
  - papermachete 7y ago
    Can I watch some CCTV footage? See the background and qualifications and assignments of every worker there? Get a spreadsheet of the budgeting?
zakk 7y ago
Did you read the full article? They give a detailed explanation of why the project is controversial. You might agree, you might disagree, you might want to sit on either side of the controversy, but the article substantiates quite well the usage of the adjective "controversial" in the title.
- yung0 7y ago
  Yes, and I don't see how they're linking the lab to GoF. The GoF component of the research has been cancelled, and I would presume (due to its association with Peter Daszak) that it was cancelled due to lack of funding from American budget cuts or from safety concerns about the virus. I could be wrong on the reasons for cancellation, though.
swebs 7y ago
>Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.
- yung0 7y ago
  They cite one man, Ebright, as opposing GoF. 'Scientists' plural seems a tad exaggerated.
  - swebs 7y ago
    >More than 200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem, they said, is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident.
_iyig 7y ago
The controversy is explicitly described in the article: >The work in question was a type of gain-of-function research that involved taking wild viruses and passing them through live animals until they mutate into a form that could pose a pandemic threat. Scientists used it to take a virus that was poorly transmitted among humans and make it into one that was highly transmissible—a hallmark of a pandemic virus. This work was done by infecting a series of ferrets, allowing the virus to mutate until a ferret that hadn't been deliberately infected contracted the disease. >The work entailed risks that worried even seasoned researchers. More than 200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem, they said, is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident. When you set these concerns next to 2018 diplomatic cables describing safety problems at the biolab in question [0], perhaps the accidental-release theory does seem worthy of investigation. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep...
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  I wish we could read the diplomatic cables, but we can't, and all we have is a conservative opinion columnist's characterization of the cables. The columnist, Josh Rogin, has refused to publish the cables. But I strongly suspect that Rogin is mischaracterizing the cables. He claims that they express alarm over a lack of trained staff at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Staff from the WIV are trained at a US national lab in Galveston. I think it's highly likely that the directors of the WIV told US diplomats that that support was important, and asked for it to be increased. US diplomats then wrote that the lab needed more trained staff, and that the US should increase support. Someone in the Trump administration then found this cable and "leaked" it to a friendly commentator, Rogin. Rogin then characterized it as pointing out severe problems in the lab, without letting anyone see what the cable actually says. I'd bet the reason Rogin won't publish the cable is that on the whole, it probably doesn't support the characterization he's trying to make.
- yung0 7y ago
  Were those 200 scientists talking about a Wuhan lab program, or a completely different lab + program? My comment is about the Wuhan lab. According to the article Fauci is cited as writing, that research took place in Europe and the United States. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-worth-taking/2011/12/30/gIQAM9sNRP_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-wor...

christmm 7y ago

In order to help the fight against the pandemic, it would be best if the general public was not aware of certain information.

papermachete 7y ago
You mean the taxpayer? The people who make labs and research financially possible?
brutt 7y ago
Yeah, we will survive, while our enemy will die. Moreover, if we will supply our enemy with false information, it will work even better.

hef19898 7y ago

This kind of research seems to be a rather normal and reasonable thing to do. That being said, I have two issues with this article: - it makes the Wuhan lab story sound credible, while it is just another conspiracy theory - it paints Dr. Fauci in a bad light by linking him to that lab and the theory The factually true info is the kind of research and the fact that it was cofunded by the Fauci org. Everything else is just spin.

yung0 7y ago
"(At this point most scientists say it's possible—but not likely—that the pandemic virus was engineered or manipulated.)" It seems as if they're confusing the 'possibility' of the manipulation theory with the 'possibility' of the lab escape theory (which is technically possible, but very, very unlikely).
- hef19898 7y ago
  Of course the theoretical possiblity cannot be excluded. I think you're right, this can be the cause for confusion. It can also be used to promote certain agendas and spin. It even gives a certain degree of credibility, as there will be scientist that cam be quoted verbatim. I think this article falls in the agenda category, and not the confusion onr.
RobertoG 7y ago
I agree that the link to Dr.Fauci is only "click bait" but, after reading another linked article, I have changed my mind and now I think that the Wuhan lab theory deserves some consideration. This is the more interesting article in my opinion: https://www.newsweek.com/controversial-wuhan-lab-experiments-that-may-have-started-coronavirus-pandemic-1500503 https://www.newsweek.com/controversial-wuhan-lab-experiments...
- hef19898 7y ago
  Same source, so same potential agenda. If some other new outlet, preferably multiple, are confirming the facts, that would be different. All I heard about the Wuhan lab story was CT stuff back in January and February, until it popped up again recently after Trump, allegedly, pushed US intel to dig into it. And now this, at it's core, anti Fauci piece.

blackrock 7y ago

So which is it guys? 1) It was man-made, and biologically engineered in a lab. It escaped containment. 2) It came into being because the Chinese eat bats. So China should shut down the wet markets. Because it cannot be both. The Trump Regime is lying and talking out of their asses, to cover up their own incompetence. And they are saying that it is both. And the American public are so gullible, that they’re believing everything Trump’s henchmen are saying (or at least his supporters are). Perhaps a more plausible theory, is that it really did emerge naturally from some random mutation in nature. And the Chinese were the first to detect it. The Lancet published back in January [1], a theory that the virus had no connection to the Wuhan Seafood Market, this was just coincidence that some early patients had gone there. Thus, the virus existed, before it got to the seafood market. The interesting new info, is that the French are now saying that they detected their first case back in December 27, 2019, after reviewing old case files [2]. This was 4 days before China published to the W.H.O. about the possibility of a new novel coronavirus. How is this even possible? Did the virus just magically hop on a plane in December? [1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market... [2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/03/french-politicians-row-lockdown-restrictions-can-eased/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/03/french-politicia... Edit: If you’re going to downvote me, then provide some counter evidence to prove me wrong.

jml7c5 7y ago
Just a note: a call to stop the sale of "bush meat" in wet markets is not dependent on how this outbreak started. AFAIK the practice has been considered a disease risk for some time. While obviously the pressure to do something is much stronger now, that pressure would remain even if the outbreak was conclusively shown to be unrelated, given public awareness of just how disastrous a pandemic really is. >The Trump Regime is lying and talking out of their asses, to cover up their own incompetence. And they are saying that it is both. And the American public are so gullible, that they’re believing everything Trump’s henchmen are saying (or at least his supporters are). Please limit the partisanship. The point you're making can be expressed in a way that is less vitriolic and more open to meeting of minds.
7y ago