7 ms·

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 resear

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 that got any traction suggested it was non-manipulation based gain of function research, but that was disproved only a few weeks after the paper's release as well. I know we all want to know where it came from, but the odds against us ever having actual evidence of it being from a lab are virtually zero. And no, rejected research proposals do not constitute proof of anything.

dash2 5y ago
The fact that the grant proposal was rejected does not mean the research didn’t happen. They could have got alternative funding. This happens a lot.
- sgt101 5y ago
  They would have had to be very quick though. Submission was end of march 2018, there would have been a review process and I think it's unrealistic to put that at under six weeks. So that takes us to mid may 2018. Then they would have to have got some money and ask someone else - again that's going to take three months or so unless they had the money in their account. Then the project would have to be stood up - lab space sorted and so on so that takes us to 2019 even on an express train. I think that the Darpa projects in this call were aimed at start in 2019 btw. So then the work would have to have happened and the virus escape happened in 10 months. In the proposal they are looking at q5 of the project for the genetic engineering to happen. I don't think that the time lines work - also the genetic engineering was slated to happen in North Carolina...
  - madamelic 5y ago
    > also the genetic engineering was slated to happen in North Carolina... This is honestly the most damning part of evidence. China has shown over and over their current strategy is to snap up resources, countries and partnerships that the West, and specifically the United States, refuse or ignore. China would have strong motivation to have SARS related research considering SARS originates in their country. So we have a country with strong motivation, lots of money and a repeated willingness to ignore ethical & safety concerns... I don't see how it isn't a big question mark. Especially considering how quickly and forcefully China shut down the conversation and refuse to allow in investigators.
    - rualca 5y ago
      > This is honestly the most damning part of evidence. What evidence? There was a grant proposal, and the proposal was rejected. Why do you feel that the fact that the rejected proposal referred to North Carolina is supposed to be "damning" at all, or even remotely relevant? > China would have strong motivation to have SARS related research considering SARS originates in their country. It has. They fund their own lab at Wuhan. Why is this damning in light of a failed grant proposal that never went off the ground?
      - salawat 5y ago
        You don't get it. just because tge grant was denied, does not mean the work was not done. The fact it was even written at all is evidence someone thought it'd work. You're willfully blinding yourself to how the world actually works.
        rualca 5y ago
        > You don't get it. just because tge grant was denied, does not mean the work was not done. The fact it was even written at all is evidence someone thought it'd work. You should really pay attention to what you're claiming, specially as there is absolutely zero substance or evidence supporting your claim. Your accusation boils down to the same exact witch hunt logic that led angry mobs to burn innocent people at the stake: claim you believe someone happened without zero evidence at all, proceed to allege someone of having the means to do it, from a massive logical leap start to accuse someone who you alleged is capable of something of actually doing it in spite, again, of having zero evidence at all, and proceed to throw that victim to the fire. I suppose our witch hunting days are behind us, but you're dragging them back to the present by repeating the same logical mistakes and in the process throw innocents into the fire. Do the world a favor and cut out all the baseless accusations and unsubstantiated claims. It's one thing to argue that some bits should be investigated, but it's an entirely different thing to screw up logical and rational thinking so badly to the point that you make the same completely baseless and unsubstantiated claims you're making.
Aeolun 5y ago
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 (possibly in slightly different form), someone was clearly thinking about it.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  > 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.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    > 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.
    - rndgermandude 5y ago
      >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.
      - angelzen 5y ago
resonious 5y ago
This novel virus started spreading pretty close to a lab that studies viruses. I think that counts as "actual evidence" that it came out of a lab. Of course, evidence != proof. And even if it did come from the lab, that in itself does not imply malice.
- rustymonday 5y ago
  Exactly. It likely wasn't made in a lab, but it likely did escape from the lab accidentally.
  - sgt101 5y ago
    possible that it did escape...
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    How does that follow? Where did the virus come from? Viruses don’t spontaneously come into existence in labs. If it wasn’t made in the lab, then it was already naturally occurring. Which means it didn’t need to escape anything, on account of it existing in the wild before it ever got near a lab.
    - robflynn 5y ago
      If something were naturally occurring in a remote location where not many humans were around to cause mass spread, and the virus was being studied (but not engineered or modified) and the virus escaped, that could be an example of a naturally occurring, non-manmade, virus which escaped a lab.
    - platz 5y ago
      did you not read anything about the article, it talk about novel modification in a lab that is unlikely to occur in nature, not creation out of whole cloth
- beowulfey 5y ago
  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 other, stronger evidence (I was inside the bank, my fingerprints were there, I was caught on camera) to build a case.
rodrigods 5y ago
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?
rustybelt 5y ago
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.
colordrops 5y ago
I read the entire thread for this submission last night, which has an amazing amount of deep discussion, to wake up to a comment from a user without much post history saying nothing more than "guys, nothing to see here" pushed to the top. And the account name matches that of many other farmed accounts on Twitter and Reddit, that being two words and some random numbers. I can't help but be very suspicious. I know this is may be against the hacker news ethos, but ive been on here for 10 years and don't make comments like this lightly.
- dang 5y ago
  The votes were perfectly ordinary. So is the username. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and sticking to them? You broke them badly with this comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - colordrops 5y ago
    Understood. I got carried away by the topic, will be more mindful in the future.
    - dang 5y ago
      Appreciated!
spfzero 5y ago
> "This did not happen!" It did not happen, with DARPA money, upon this particular proposal. There are many other ways for that research, or similar, to have happened. This tells us there were researchers actively seeking to.

dash2 5y ago

The fact that the grant proposal was rejected does not mean the research didn’t happen. They could have got alternative funding. This happens a lot.

sgt101 5y ago
They would have had to be very quick though. Submission was end of march 2018, there would have been a review process and I think it's unrealistic to put that at under six weeks. So that takes us to mid may 2018. Then they would have to have got some money and ask someone else - again that's going to take three months or so unless they had the money in their account. Then the project would have to be stood up - lab space sorted and so on so that takes us to 2019 even on an express train. I think that the Darpa projects in this call were aimed at start in 2019 btw. So then the work would have to have happened and the virus escape happened in 10 months. In the proposal they are looking at q5 of the project for the genetic engineering to happen. I don't think that the time lines work - also the genetic engineering was slated to happen in North Carolina...
- madamelic 5y ago
  > also the genetic engineering was slated to happen in North Carolina... This is honestly the most damning part of evidence. China has shown over and over their current strategy is to snap up resources, countries and partnerships that the West, and specifically the United States, refuse or ignore. China would have strong motivation to have SARS related research considering SARS originates in their country. So we have a country with strong motivation, lots of money and a repeated willingness to ignore ethical & safety concerns... I don't see how it isn't a big question mark. Especially considering how quickly and forcefully China shut down the conversation and refuse to allow in investigators.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > This is honestly the most damning part of evidence. What evidence? There was a grant proposal, and the proposal was rejected. Why do you feel that the fact that the rejected proposal referred to North Carolina is supposed to be "damning" at all, or even remotely relevant? > China would have strong motivation to have SARS related research considering SARS originates in their country. It has. They fund their own lab at Wuhan. Why is this damning in light of a failed grant proposal that never went off the ground?
    - salawat 5y ago
      You don't get it. just because tge grant was denied, does not mean the work was not done. The fact it was even written at all is evidence someone thought it'd work. You're willfully blinding yourself to how the world actually works.
      - rualca 5y ago
        > You don't get it. just because tge grant was denied, does not mean the work was not done. The fact it was even written at all is evidence someone thought it'd work. You should really pay attention to what you're claiming, specially as there is absolutely zero substance or evidence supporting your claim. Your accusation boils down to the same exact witch hunt logic that led angry mobs to burn innocent people at the stake: claim you believe someone happened without zero evidence at all, proceed to allege someone of having the means to do it, from a massive logical leap start to accuse someone who you alleged is capable of something of actually doing it in spite, again, of having zero evidence at all, and proceed to throw that victim to the fire. I suppose our witch hunting days are behind us, but you're dragging them back to the present by repeating the same logical mistakes and in the process throw innocents into the fire. Do the world a favor and cut out all the baseless accusations and unsubstantiated claims. It's one thing to argue that some bits should be investigated, but it's an entirely different thing to screw up logical and rational thinking so badly to the point that you make the same completely baseless and unsubstantiated claims you're making.

Aeolun 5y ago

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 (possibly in slightly different form), someone was clearly thinking about it.

marcosdumay 5y ago
> 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.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  > 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.
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    >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.
    - angelzen 5y ago

resonious 5y ago

This novel virus started spreading pretty close to a lab that studies viruses. I think that counts as "actual evidence" that it came out of a lab. Of course, evidence != proof. And even if it did come from the lab, that in itself does not imply malice.

rustymonday 5y ago
Exactly. It likely wasn't made in a lab, but it likely did escape from the lab accidentally.
- sgt101 5y ago
  possible that it did escape...
- avianlyric 5y ago
  How does that follow? Where did the virus come from? Viruses don’t spontaneously come into existence in labs. If it wasn’t made in the lab, then it was already naturally occurring. Which means it didn’t need to escape anything, on account of it existing in the wild before it ever got near a lab.
  - robflynn 5y ago
    If something were naturally occurring in a remote location where not many humans were around to cause mass spread, and the virus was being studied (but not engineered or modified) and the virus escaped, that could be an example of a naturally occurring, non-manmade, virus which escaped a lab.
  - platz 5y ago
    did you not read anything about the article, it talk about novel modification in a lab that is unlikely to occur in nature, not creation out of whole cloth
beowulfey 5y ago
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 other, stronger evidence (I was inside the bank, my fingerprints were there, I was caught on camera) to build a case.

rodrigods 5y ago

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?

rustybelt 5y ago

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.

colordrops 5y ago

I read the entire thread for this submission last night, which has an amazing amount of deep discussion, to wake up to a comment from a user without much post history saying nothing more than "guys, nothing to see here" pushed to the top. And the account name matches that of many other farmed accounts on Twitter and Reddit, that being two words and some random numbers. I can't help but be very suspicious. I know this is may be against the hacker news ethos, but ive been on here for 10 years and don't make comments like this lightly.

dang 5y ago
The votes were perfectly ordinary. So is the username. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and sticking to them? You broke them badly with this comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- colordrops 5y ago
  Understood. I got carried away by the topic, will be more mindful in the future.
  - dang 5y ago
    Appreciated!

spfzero 5y ago

> "This did not happen!" It did not happen, with DARPA money, upon this particular proposal. There are many other ways for that research, or similar, to have happened. This tells us there were researchers actively seeking to.