zlacker

Prescient how? This article is about a rejected proposal. Not only did the research not happen, we have no reason to believe this type of research caused the pandemic.

>>tootie+(OP)
There's more evidence for this type or research happening where the pandemic arose than there is for natural origin.

>>echelo+9
There's some evidence this kind of research happens. There's not really evidence it was happening in Wuhan nor evidence that the virus we have is the result of experimentation. Historically lab leaks are vanishingly rare and acquisition from animals is extremely common. For lab leak to be even a plausible story the evidence would have to be very strong and it is nowhere near convincing right now.

>>tootie+(OP)
A rejected proposal does not mean research does not happen. It means they were unable to get funding from DARPA. It does not necessarily mean they were unable to get funding from "somebody".

And yes we do have reason to believe this type of research caused the pandemic.

>>rhacke+61
So, who did they get funding from, if not one of the only bodies in the world capable of funding this kind of work?

Oh, that’s right, they didn’t. You can tell that by looking at what they did work on next. Did you look?

Like it says in the article.

>>tootie+Y
Lab leaks are not rare the actual thing is that lab leaks that turn into pandemics are an anomaly but only because pandemics are an anomaly statistically speaking

>>lolwut+r1
We already know the NIH partially funded field survey work that appears to be very similar to this. It's pretty obvious to see that they continued applying elsewhere and may have been successful in getting the funding the requested. It just might be from several grants.

>>tootie+Y
Looks like a pretty probable lead to me to continue investigating, especially since this leak evidence directly conflicts with many previous statements from Daszak and associates.

>>willup+C2
Right, did you look at the publication records of the academics involved?

When you beg for grants you have to publish to show you’re good for the next one.

This isn’t a mystery.

It’s literally right there, published for your subscriber access.

>>willup+I2
Continue investigating what though? The research this team has done is all public knowledge. A rejected proposal doesn't shed much light. Lab leak remains remotely possible, but not supported by any direct evidence. Meanwhile, evidence for animal source is getting stronger: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02519-1

>>lolwut+y3
If you were doing research that led to a global pandemic that killed millions of people, would you then publish your results? I have a feeling that might not have the effect of showing you're "good for the next one."

Obviously the lack of evidence isn't proof that this happened, but I also don't think it's safe to say that it's proof it didn't.

>>rhacke+61
As an academic, ain’t no way research from an unfunded grant proposal is happening…

The problem with your second statement is that we all of these posts and articles are attempts to throw evidence to support something you have already decided is true. More bad/non evidence does not make an argument and continually citing bad evidence that doesn’t prove your point reduces the credibility of the argument you are making.

>>avs733+hi
As a non-academic: huh?

The claim wasn't that the research was unfunded, just unfunded by DARPA.

To your second point, bad/non-evidence of essentially __everything__ is why the internet is the way it is today. You're saying "fake news is fake" which isn't really saying anything at all.

>>avs733+hi
Ok, as another academic: this happens all the time. People use funds from one grant to subsidize other research. I've heard a colleague refer to it "as using one project to pay the bills of another project."

It's all also a moot point in that just because the grant wasn't funded from DARPA doesn't mean it wasn't funded. And if it was funded, it doesn't mean we would know who funded it.

Not trying to be conspiratorial, just trying to point out the funding on this grant or lack thereof doesn't mean anything about it happening or not happening. It just means the researchers were interested in it happening.

>>tootie+R4
The USA might need to come out and say "we were working on a vaccine with Wuhan." EHA and WIV might need to say "we had an oopsies." I doubt China will admit anything though. So this is the circus we must deal with until people wake up and demand for answers.

>>willup+1l
Exactly. The evidence for this scenario is incredibly compelling and it deserves more investigation.

I haven't seen any refutations of these claims apart from "those involved say no". There's a nonzero chance that these people are lying to cover things up or protect their reputations. Millions of deaths being attributed to a lab accident would be pretty damning.

Why do people on HN want this to not be the case? (As evidenced by all the downvotes?) The truth could be anything, and we should be looking for it. This is one possibility that carries a lot of weight and demands our attention.

There's nothing wrong in stating that the evidence is substantial and that we should investigate more. Why put your head in the sand?

This isn't anti-science.