News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19... by lamontcg on Thursday June 03, 2021 @09:41PM (#27389549)
They indirectly gave WIV funding to support research into Pig SARS -- Swine acute diarrhea syndrome coronavirus (SADS-CoV).

There is exactly fuckoff zero evidence that funding wound up supporting gain of function research for anything.

And giving China money to study diseases in pigs happening in China that are closely related to a human disease that we were worried about it (or maybe a close relative) spilling over into humans only makes sense.

Re:The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19... by 1980phipsi on Friday June 04, 2021 @08:01AM (#27392737)
Money is fungible.
Re:The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19... by deugo on Thursday June 03, 2021 @09:48PM (#27389605)
> There is exactly fuckoff zero evidence that funding wound up supporting gain of function research for anything.

From the Fauci e-mails: People Fauci directly worked with seemed surprised and shocked to learn otherwise, and could not even instantly say if their funding had made it abroad.

There are papers resulting from GoF research of concern at the WIV. There are grant proposals, which specify the exact modifications they will do to Bat SARS to increase infectivity on mice with humanized lungs. How can you speak so certain, if you are unaware of this?

> And giving China money to study diseases in pigs happening in China that are closely related to a human disease that we were worried about it (or maybe a close relative) spilling over into humans only makes sense.

It makes sense, but you'll see through studying the records that it was the cover for military funding. What was the Defense Threat Reduction Agency funding doing at the WIV where military researchers shared floors with civilian researchers working on the same animals? Making sense to research spillover?

Re:The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19... by lamontcg on Thursday June 03, 2021 @09:53PM (#27389638)
- There was GOF research done on US soil at UNC Chapel Hill which collaborated with WIV. They took a SARS-CoV-1 backbone and splied in a surface protein from another coronavirus and ran it through mice to produce a mouse coronavirus.

- There's no papers out of WIV indicating GOF research

> but you'll see through studying the records that it was the cover for military funding.

You're offering a blatant conspiracy theory now with no substantiation.

The funding to WIV had nothing to do with GoF and there's no evidence of anything else. But it HAD to be GoF research. Circular, evidence-free logic.

Re:The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19... by ravel-bar-foo on Friday June 04, 2021 @03:18AM (#27391417)
> There's no papers out of WIV indicating GOF research

This is something I'm confused about. There are a bunch of papers from the WIV and the North Carolina lab which describe "reverse genetics", spike protein modification, and other obvious gain of function research which acknowledge funding from USAID and EcoHealth Alliance. (The most recently famous of these is Menachery et al, Nature 2015.) But it looks like the actual GoF was done at the Baric lab in North Carolina. The closest I could find was serial passaging experiments done at Wuhan to isolate viruses and test vaccines. One could argue that testing virus infectivity by serial passage is dangerous enough...

> The funding to WIV had nothing to do with GoF and there's no evidence of anything else.

The funding to EcoHealth Alliance specified GoF under such terms as "reverse genetics", "virus infection experiments ... humanized mice."

EHA may have put restrictions on how this money was used, but with the revelation in this article that WIV has lied about doing military research... I'm not so confident we can say no GoF was done there.

[dead]
Re:The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19... by Natsu on Thursday June 03, 2021 @10:40PM (#27389949)
I wouldn't say that all GOF research is for bioweapons, part of it is to see where the virus is likely to evolve next and protect against that, which is more on the defensive side of that.

Doesn't mean it's less risky, mind you, and this is convincing me that the experts on this need to reassess whether it's worth the risks and if so, what safety precautions are needed. I would think that BSL-2 is just way too low, but I would defer to the scientists on this and only say that I think this shows that anything done to make something more infectious to humans should be treated as though it already was highly infectious to humans.