2 ms·

Isn’t the gist of this fairly old news? Or did they just not have the names before?

larsiusprime 3y ago
Being able to tie it specifically to the lab this concretely, by identifying the first patients by name, and having that (allegedly) from US government officials, is all new information, AFAIK.
- indigodaddy 3y ago
  Yes, this would seem to be a bit of a game-changer on the question. Too bad this appears it’s going to be buried within the HN algo and likely won’t be reported upon seriously in MSM either..
  - dang 3y ago
    It spent 12 hours on HN's front page.
hwillis 3y ago
Very. This was put out in the state department Jan 2021, 2.5 years ago: https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.html https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan... > The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.
- sixQuarks 3y ago
  You’re very giddy to try to brush this under the rug. The truth is that big tech and Fauci colluded to suppress the lab leak theory, there are leaked emails that prove it. YouTube and Twitter were censoring and demonetizing channels that would talk about the lab leak theory. What do you have to say about that?
  - indigodaddy 3y ago
    Wasn’t the comment just a validation that this story has been out there previously? (not to this extent with the names and a lot more info/context, but thats indeed what I was trying to get clarification on). How does clarifying a news item lead to some bias or stance on the matter, or trying to “brush under the rug?” I think you have read into that comment way too much..
  - hwillis 3y ago
    > What do you have to say about that? I think that despite the efforts of any of those people, I never stop hearing about these "bombshells" which are trivially disproven. There has been no new evidence or anything of lab leaks since early 2020 and I am just tired of hearing the same things over and over.

Being able to tie it specifically to the lab this concretely, by identifying the first patients by name, and having that (allegedly) from US government officials, is all new information, AFAIK.

indigodaddy 3y ago
Yes, this would seem to be a bit of a game-changer on the question. Too bad this appears it’s going to be buried within the HN algo and likely won’t be reported upon seriously in MSM either..
- dang 3y ago
  It spent 12 hours on HN's front page.

hwillis 3y ago

Very. This was put out in the state department Jan 2021, 2.5 years ago: https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.html https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan... > The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.

sixQuarks 3y ago
You’re very giddy to try to brush this under the rug. The truth is that big tech and Fauci colluded to suppress the lab leak theory, there are leaked emails that prove it. YouTube and Twitter were censoring and demonetizing channels that would talk about the lab leak theory. What do you have to say about that?
- indigodaddy 3y ago
  Wasn’t the comment just a validation that this story has been out there previously? (not to this extent with the names and a lot more info/context, but thats indeed what I was trying to get clarification on). How does clarifying a news item lead to some bias or stance on the matter, or trying to “brush under the rug?” I think you have read into that comment way too much..
- hwillis 3y ago
  > What do you have to say about that? I think that despite the efforts of any of those people, I never stop hearing about these "bombshells" which are trivially disproven. There has been no new evidence or anything of lab leaks since early 2020 and I am just tired of hearing the same things over and over.