4 ms·

> It doesn’t mention for example, that those scientists who immediately changed their views concurrently received millions of dollars in new grants Would you h

> It doesn’t mention for example, that those scientists who immediately changed their views concurrently received millions of dollars in new grants Would you have preferred that they have their grant applications cancelled after having published a paper? Let's dig in a little bit to the weasel words here. ======== > Fauci "prompted" authors of the influential Proximal Origin paper Here's the source email that mentions this nefarious "prompting": > There has been a lot of speculation, fear mongering, and conspiracies put forward in this space and we thought that bringing some clarity to this discussion might be of interest to Nature [sic]. Prompted by Jeremy Farrah [sic], Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins, Eddie Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Bob Garry, Ian Lipkin, and myself have been working through much of the (primarily) genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus. What a smoking gun! Err... I guess not... ===== > worked with NIH leadership to “put down” the lab-leak hypothesis This refers to Francis Collins asking Fauci whether there was more that could kill momentum behind the competing theory. It's important to note this momentum was driven primarily by media attention and not growing scientific consensus or any new scientific evidence. That is entirely consistent with someone who does not want what they see as an incorrect explanation to become the public's consensus view (especially when concerned about the possible ramifications of that consensus forming without sufficient evidence). This happened after Fauci had "prompted [a team] to work through much of the (primarily) genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus." Fauci's response: "I would not do anything about this right now." ==== Again: No one prevented any scientist from publishing their competing theories. They may have had a hard time getting taken seriously, they may have not been accepted to Nature, they may have been called a quack: but that is often what it means to go up against the consensus view. That is not censorship. That is the imperfect system of science as it always works in every domain.

trhway 1y ago
You're weaseling around the fact that Fauci outright and knowingly lied to the Congress about funding the gain-of-function research in WIV. That research in particular includfed successful inserting of human ACE2 receptor binding protein into non-human coronavirus with the resulting virus successfully killing off mice engineered with the human cells with ACE2 receptors. That happens to be exactly what COVID is, and that happened right before the official COVID emergence in Wuhan. >to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus. you can't do this if you don't include the viruses created in Wuhan, and they intentionally hadn't. Of course they couldn't find anything definitive because they outright excluded the real source - the lab. That is dishonest manipulation which in particular killed the NIH scientific credibility.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  You're weaseling around the fact that Fauci used the actual regulatory definition of GoF, under which the WIV did not qualify as GoF. I can understand why this irks people, but I can also understand why someone as habitually precise as a virologist would use the statutory definition of a given term of art in sworn Congressional testimony. If you listen to his testimony about that testimony, he goes on to explain that if he were to take the more expansive laymen term of "gain of function," then the other side of the boundary becomes meaningless. E.g. Using e. coli to produce insulin is gain of function. > you can't do this if you don't include the viruses created in Wuhan, and they intentionally haven't. Of course they couldn't find anything definitive because they outright excluded the real source - the lab. No they didn't. You can read the Slack messages and emails. There are literally hundreds of pages of the Proximal Origins authors debating the lab leak hypothesis... obviously. Unless you're talking about these private individuals not somehow parachuting into WIV to conduct forensics themselves? Here are a few excerpts from their private communication: > I am of the view that the natural selection hypothesis is the most likely (specifically the non-bat reservoir). > I disagree with Ron that the passaging hypothesis is evidentially equal to the engineering hypothesis. > Now, the presence of the furin site in pangos would nail it, but the absence (as it appears to be) wouldn't really tell us much. These are the words of people who believe one thing (which may or may not end up being true) and both interrogating it and advocating for it... i.e. "doing science." And again: science doesn't work by every scientist advocating for every theory. That is not remotely realistic from either a practical or a psychological perspective. It works by scientists vigorously advocating for the theories they find most plausible, and other scientists saying that they're stupid and pointing out why they're wrong, which again anyone was free to do!
  - trhway 1y ago
    >Fauci used the actual regulatory definition of GoF, under which the WIV did not qualify as GoF. that is just not true. Otherwise feel free to provide that magical definition. In the meantime this is definition by the government: https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/gain-of-function.pdf https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/gain-of-function.pd... "Gain-of-function studies, or research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease," By the way that 2014 document above is exactly the document which was the base for the gain of function research to be moved from US to in particular Wuhan. And Fauci was instrumental in that move. So, Fauci lied. Blatantly. >If you listen to his testimony about that testimony, he goes on to explain that if he were to take the more expansive laymen term of "gain of function," then the other side of the boundary becomes meaningless. E.g. Using e. coli to produce insulin is gain of function. Again, he lies here. Just look at the government definition of GoF above - according to it, using e. coli to produce insulin isn't gain of function. >Unless you're talking about these private individuals not somehow parachuting into WIV to conduct forensics themselves? Are you kidding? Or are you really don't know about Daszak rushing there and cleaning up all the evidence?
ckw 1y ago
> Would you have preferred that they have their grant applications cancelled after having published a paper? I don't understand what you're saying here. We know that Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry were concerned that the virus was not of natural origin because Andersen wrote to Fauci and Collins on January 31 that “some of the features [of SARS-CoV-2] … look engineered” and that he, Robert Garry and others found the genome “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” The next day they joined Fauci's emergency teleconference and 11 days later they submitted The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 to Nature. Five weeks after the paper appeared in Nature, Fauci's institute (NIAID) awarded Andersen and Garry a new $8.9 million grant, naming them co-principal investigators of the West African Emerging Infectious Disease Research Center. One might argue that each link in this chain of events is in principle explainable in perfectly innocent terms, and that's true. But to do so would be ironically concordant with the sort of reasoning and argumentation exhibited in the Proximal Origins paper. Specifically, at each turn the original concerns of Andersen and Garry are addressed in a manner emphasizing that in principle the anomaly could be explained in innocent terms. So for example, the poly-basic (RRAR) cleavage site could arise by ordinary insertion or recombination because similar sites appear in other coronaviruses and even evolve during serial passage of influenza, so its presence is “compatible with natural evolution,” and the codon context and flanking O-linked glycans would be an odd choice for a genetic engineer but fit with immuno-evasion seen in naturally evolving viruses, and the genome is “not derived from any previously used virus backbone”, and so on. What they don't do is adduce any evidence that these theoretical natural pathways actually obtained, they don't systematically weigh their joint probability, and they don't seriously address the possibility of inadvertent lab adaptation and escape (they label the scenario as "improbable" in a single paragraph). All of which is to say that it seems implausible that they themselves were actually convinced by their arguments. And if they weren't convinced by their arguments, then it seems likely they didn't actually change their view, just publicly voiced the opposite view. Why would they do that? I can think of 8.9 million reasons.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Anyone can read the emails themselves. They show people debating the origins, as you would expect. The grant for the West African Emerging Infectious Disease Research Center was $1.8 million, not $8.9, and it was granted exactly on the schedule outlined in the RFA: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-AI-19-028.html https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-AI-19-028.... No, it is not surprising nor even suspicious that eminent infectious disease researchers both wrote a paper on the biggest infectious disease in a generation and also were given money to lead a research center on infectious disease. > What they don't do is adduce any evidence that these theoretical natural pathways actually obtained, they don't systematically weigh their joint probability, and they don't seriously address the possibility of inadvertent lab adaptation and escape (they label the scenario as "improbable" in a single paragraph). Sure, and if you've never seen how science is done you might think this raises eyebrows. But as I have mentioned elsewhere, science isn't conducted by each individual researcher remaining unconvinced and coldly calculating all possible explanations — however they may try. People buy into the theories they find most plausible (often mistakenly), they advocate for those theories, and other people do the same thing for their preferred theories and publish competing papers. As anyone was more than free to do. > All of which is to say that it seems implausible that they themselves were actually convinced by their arguments. And if they weren't convinced by their arguments, then it seems likely they didn't actually change their view, just publicly voiced the opposite view The emails to me clearly show people unconvinced of either side but genuinely leaning toward zoonotic. I agree their ultimate publication of it being "implausible" was a bit too strong. But I can think of another reason, which is the one they actually mention: the political system apparently foaming at the mouth looking for a reason to — it appeared — go to war with China. Given that the [lack of] evidence allowed for a very broad scope of interpretations, as they debated, it is completely understandable that in what they published they'd want to fall on the opposite side of that ambiguity. It's all imperfect and totally human, as science always is, which is why it is other scientists' responsibility to publish their competing arguments.

trhway 1y ago

You're weaseling around the fact that Fauci outright and knowingly lied to the Congress about funding the gain-of-function research in WIV. That research in particular includfed successful inserting of human ACE2 receptor binding protein into non-human coronavirus with the resulting virus successfully killing off mice engineered with the human cells with ACE2 receptors. That happens to be exactly what COVID is, and that happened right before the official COVID emergence in Wuhan. >to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus. you can't do this if you don't include the viruses created in Wuhan, and they intentionally hadn't. Of course they couldn't find anything definitive because they outright excluded the real source - the lab. That is dishonest manipulation which in particular killed the NIH scientific credibility.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
You're weaseling around the fact that Fauci used the actual regulatory definition of GoF, under which the WIV did not qualify as GoF. I can understand why this irks people, but I can also understand why someone as habitually precise as a virologist would use the statutory definition of a given term of art in sworn Congressional testimony. If you listen to his testimony about that testimony, he goes on to explain that if he were to take the more expansive laymen term of "gain of function," then the other side of the boundary becomes meaningless. E.g. Using e. coli to produce insulin is gain of function. > you can't do this if you don't include the viruses created in Wuhan, and they intentionally haven't. Of course they couldn't find anything definitive because they outright excluded the real source - the lab. No they didn't. You can read the Slack messages and emails. There are literally hundreds of pages of the Proximal Origins authors debating the lab leak hypothesis... obviously. Unless you're talking about these private individuals not somehow parachuting into WIV to conduct forensics themselves? Here are a few excerpts from their private communication: > I am of the view that the natural selection hypothesis is the most likely (specifically the non-bat reservoir). > I disagree with Ron that the passaging hypothesis is evidentially equal to the engineering hypothesis. > Now, the presence of the furin site in pangos would nail it, but the absence (as it appears to be) wouldn't really tell us much. These are the words of people who believe one thing (which may or may not end up being true) and both interrogating it and advocating for it... i.e. "doing science." And again: science doesn't work by every scientist advocating for every theory. That is not remotely realistic from either a practical or a psychological perspective. It works by scientists vigorously advocating for the theories they find most plausible, and other scientists saying that they're stupid and pointing out why they're wrong, which again anyone was free to do!
- trhway 1y ago
  >Fauci used the actual regulatory definition of GoF, under which the WIV did not qualify as GoF. that is just not true. Otherwise feel free to provide that magical definition. In the meantime this is definition by the government: https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/gain-of-function.pdf https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/gain-of-function.pd... "Gain-of-function studies, or research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease," By the way that 2014 document above is exactly the document which was the base for the gain of function research to be moved from US to in particular Wuhan. And Fauci was instrumental in that move. So, Fauci lied. Blatantly. >If you listen to his testimony about that testimony, he goes on to explain that if he were to take the more expansive laymen term of "gain of function," then the other side of the boundary becomes meaningless. E.g. Using e. coli to produce insulin is gain of function. Again, he lies here. Just look at the government definition of GoF above - according to it, using e. coli to produce insulin isn't gain of function. >Unless you're talking about these private individuals not somehow parachuting into WIV to conduct forensics themselves? Are you kidding? Or are you really don't know about Daszak rushing there and cleaning up all the evidence?

ckw 1y ago

> Would you have preferred that they have their grant applications cancelled after having published a paper? I don't understand what you're saying here. We know that Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry were concerned that the virus was not of natural origin because Andersen wrote to Fauci and Collins on January 31 that “some of the features [of SARS-CoV-2] … look engineered” and that he, Robert Garry and others found the genome “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” The next day they joined Fauci's emergency teleconference and 11 days later they submitted The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 to Nature. Five weeks after the paper appeared in Nature, Fauci's institute (NIAID) awarded Andersen and Garry a new $8.9 million grant, naming them co-principal investigators of the West African Emerging Infectious Disease Research Center. One might argue that each link in this chain of events is in principle explainable in perfectly innocent terms, and that's true. But to do so would be ironically concordant with the sort of reasoning and argumentation exhibited in the Proximal Origins paper. Specifically, at each turn the original concerns of Andersen and Garry are addressed in a manner emphasizing that in principle the anomaly could be explained in innocent terms. So for example, the poly-basic (RRAR) cleavage site could arise by ordinary insertion or recombination because similar sites appear in other coronaviruses and even evolve during serial passage of influenza, so its presence is “compatible with natural evolution,” and the codon context and flanking O-linked glycans would be an odd choice for a genetic engineer but fit with immuno-evasion seen in naturally evolving viruses, and the genome is “not derived from any previously used virus backbone”, and so on. What they don't do is adduce any evidence that these theoretical natural pathways actually obtained, they don't systematically weigh their joint probability, and they don't seriously address the possibility of inadvertent lab adaptation and escape (they label the scenario as "improbable" in a single paragraph). All of which is to say that it seems implausible that they themselves were actually convinced by their arguments. And if they weren't convinced by their arguments, then it seems likely they didn't actually change their view, just publicly voiced the opposite view. Why would they do that? I can think of 8.9 million reasons.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Anyone can read the emails themselves. They show people debating the origins, as you would expect. The grant for the West African Emerging Infectious Disease Research Center was $1.8 million, not $8.9, and it was granted exactly on the schedule outlined in the RFA: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-AI-19-028.html https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-AI-19-028.... No, it is not surprising nor even suspicious that eminent infectious disease researchers both wrote a paper on the biggest infectious disease in a generation and also were given money to lead a research center on infectious disease. > What they don't do is adduce any evidence that these theoretical natural pathways actually obtained, they don't systematically weigh their joint probability, and they don't seriously address the possibility of inadvertent lab adaptation and escape (they label the scenario as "improbable" in a single paragraph). Sure, and if you've never seen how science is done you might think this raises eyebrows. But as I have mentioned elsewhere, science isn't conducted by each individual researcher remaining unconvinced and coldly calculating all possible explanations — however they may try. People buy into the theories they find most plausible (often mistakenly), they advocate for those theories, and other people do the same thing for their preferred theories and publish competing papers. As anyone was more than free to do. > All of which is to say that it seems implausible that they themselves were actually convinced by their arguments. And if they weren't convinced by their arguments, then it seems likely they didn't actually change their view, just publicly voiced the opposite view The emails to me clearly show people unconvinced of either side but genuinely leaning toward zoonotic. I agree their ultimate publication of it being "implausible" was a bit too strong. But I can think of another reason, which is the one they actually mention: the political system apparently foaming at the mouth looking for a reason to — it appeared — go to war with China. Given that the [lack of] evidence allowed for a very broad scope of interpretations, as they debated, it is completely understandable that in what they published they'd want to fall on the opposite side of that ambiguity. It's all imperfect and totally human, as science always is, which is why it is other scientists' responsibility to publish their competing arguments.