4 ms·

I'd also assign a small but non-zero probability to the US not wanting to point the finger because they prefer the scenario where the general population comes t

by esja 6y ago

I'd also assign a small but non-zero probability to the US not wanting to point the finger because they prefer the scenario where the general population comes to believe that the lab accident was responsible, but no hard evidence is ever produced. Why? Because it seems like US institutions and people (right up to Fauci) were involved in this research and may not want the domestic blowback. Conveniently the CCP don't want a paper trail either. I'd be pretty sure the various scenarios have already been gamed out in both countries. Edit: Not sure why this is being downvoted, but just in case it’s a reflex because I mentioned Fauci: yes, he was head of NIAID, and yes, the NIH did fund this type of research at the WIV. The grants are public information.

boringg 6y ago
Please supply links on the research grants.
- esja 6y ago
  Sure. Part 1, from 2014-2019, for 3.7M: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/8674931 https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/8674931 Part 2, from 2019 until it was cancelled in April 2020: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9819304 https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9819304 Both led by Peter Daszak who is now also the lead WHO investigator. The same person who decided the WHO didn’t need to see the deleted virus databases, and the same person who co-ordinated the Lancet statement which minimised the lab leak theory early on (and let to it being considered a conspiracy theory). Here he is on This Week In Virology, describing this sort of work. It’s worth watching the whole thing, but gets most interesting from minute 27 onward: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYDL_RK--w https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYDL_RK--w For example he confirms it’s easy to modify these viruses in the lab, and mentions collaborating with Ralph Baric at UNC. Baric invented Remdesivir (with Gilead) - the “cure” that turned out not to work very well. His lab was doing gain of function experiments before the ban. Shi Zhengli (“bat woman” from Wuhan) worked very closely with Baric and Daszak.
  - esja 6y ago
    Another overview here (there are plenty of these): https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741 https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan...
  - boringg 6y ago
    Seems like there continues to be more to this story. Still doesn't change my opinion that that is likely the source of the outbreak. I will adjust my priors as more information becomes available. It does complicate things quite a bit - would be great to know how much funding the US portion is vs the Chinese.
    - esja 6y ago
      I agree the Wuhan lab leak remains the most likely explanation. I think these additional details support that theory, as they verify that this activity was indeed taking place in Wuhan, while also helping explain the unusual behaviour of all the people who should be investigating but seem instead to be constantly deflecting.
      - boringg 6y ago
        Agree seems like we have the incentives lined up and the least plausible scenario without new information. Likely will never get to the bottom of this.

by esja 6y ago

boringg 6y ago

Please supply links on the research grants.

esja 6y ago
Sure. Part 1, from 2014-2019, for 3.7M: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/8674931 https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/8674931 Part 2, from 2019 until it was cancelled in April 2020: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9819304 https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9819304 Both led by Peter Daszak who is now also the lead WHO investigator. The same person who decided the WHO didn’t need to see the deleted virus databases, and the same person who co-ordinated the Lancet statement which minimised the lab leak theory early on (and let to it being considered a conspiracy theory). Here he is on This Week In Virology, describing this sort of work. It’s worth watching the whole thing, but gets most interesting from minute 27 onward: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYDL_RK--w https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYDL_RK--w For example he confirms it’s easy to modify these viruses in the lab, and mentions collaborating with Ralph Baric at UNC. Baric invented Remdesivir (with Gilead) - the “cure” that turned out not to work very well. His lab was doing gain of function experiments before the ban. Shi Zhengli (“bat woman” from Wuhan) worked very closely with Baric and Daszak.
- esja 6y ago
  Another overview here (there are plenty of these): https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741 https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan...
- boringg 6y ago
  Seems like there continues to be more to this story. Still doesn't change my opinion that that is likely the source of the outbreak. I will adjust my priors as more information becomes available. It does complicate things quite a bit - would be great to know how much funding the US portion is vs the Chinese.
  - esja 6y ago
    I agree the Wuhan lab leak remains the most likely explanation. I think these additional details support that theory, as they verify that this activity was indeed taking place in Wuhan, while also helping explain the unusual behaviour of all the people who should be investigating but seem instead to be constantly deflecting.
    - boringg 6y ago
      Agree seems like we have the incentives lined up and the least plausible scenario without new information. Likely will never get to the bottom of this.