Comment by sorcerer-mar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sorcerer-mar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This entire thing is derived from the vibes of the Internet. You should consider looking into the specifics with your own eyes.

What happened is that scientists who believed a theory advocated for it over competing theories... which is how science happens. Granted it so happened that some of those advocates were very notable and well-regarded scientists, but again: this is literally the story of science. It's constantly a question of when someone's prior success and credibility hits a wall and gets successfully challenged — which is always difficult.

And yes, one consideration was their (IMO entirely legitimate) concern that statements on the generous end of true rather than the cautious end of true (i.e. "we don't know but it looks zoonotic" vs "we don't know but it doesn't look synthetic") would have gigantic negative consequences including prompting military action against China.

The funding note toward the end would be a bit worrying except that NIH also didn’t fund any study examining the zoonotic origin.

Scientists publishing a paper with their assertion that they find the lab leak theory implausible is not "censorship" or "throwing their full weight" behind squashing alternatives, lol. Anyone else was free to publish their paper arguing the opposite.

I’m familiar with the specifics, and if anything gpt-4o is underselling the egregious behavior. It doesn’t mention for example, that those scientists who immediately changed their views concurrently received millions of dollars in new grants, which looks incredibly suspicious in retrospect. It also doesn’t discuss rank self-interest as a possible motive for suppression, namely that Fauci was responsible for funding research at WIV which could plausibly have lead to the creation of SARS-COV-2. I’ll ask 03 to summarize and provide sources:

‘As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Anthony Fauci oversaw grant R01AI110964—channeled through EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology—that financed experiments creating chimeric bat coronaviruses whose enhanced growth in human-ACE2 mice met the federal definition of gain-of-function, a fact NIH conceded only in an October 2021 letter after Fauci had publicly denied such funding . A 2023 HHS-OIG audit later found NIH “did not effectively monitor or take timely action” on this award, missing chances to mitigate its risks . On 1 February 2020, e-mails show Fauci was warned the pandemic virus might have leaked from WIV; he then “prompted” authors of the influential Proximal Origin paper and worked with NIH leadership to “put down” the lab-leak hypothesis—actions that, if successful, would deflect scrutiny from his own institute’s funding decisions . A 2024 House Select Subcommittee report further concluded that EcoHealth “used taxpayer dollars to facilitate gain-of-function research…contrary to previous public statements, including those by Dr. Anthony Fauci,” underscoring his personal and institutional stake in suppressing the lab-leak narrative .’

Inline sources are provided in the result, but missing in the copy.

> 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.

> 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.

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....

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.

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.

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!

>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.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?

Your link doesn't work (oops forgot to actually read your sources?). Here's the right document: https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Documents/P3CO.pdf

The research at WIV was assessed as not being GoF under this framework by multiple levels of reviewers when it was approved. Nobody really disputes this, they just argue that it should have been assessed as GoF (an argument that's circularly evidenced by the claim one of those viruses is responsible for the pandemic).

You seem to be willfully misunderstanding the E. coli point. Obviously it doesn't satisfy the P3CO definition, but nor did the research approved at WIV.

> Are you kidding? Or are you really don't know about Daszak rushing there and cleaning up all the evidence?

Hey now, don't get tired from moving those goal posts! Your claim was that Proximal Origins authors didn't consider the lab leak. You are unambiguously wrong.

Please share your evidence of "Daszak rushing there and cleaning up all the evidence." Not familiar with it!

You again failed to provide definition. And you seem to get confused about goalposts. So, let me reiterate 3 hard facts here:

1. as my previous link is gone here is 2 pretty same NIH and government definitions of GoF, 2016 and 2025:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/738...

            (1) Gain-of-function research.--The term ``gain-of-function 
        research'' means any research that--
                    (A) involves the genetic alteration of an organism 
                to change or enhance the organism's biological 
                functions, which change or enhancement may include 
                increased infectivity, transmissibility, pathogenicity, 
                or host range (which is the spectrum of hosts that an 
                organism can infect); or
                    (B) may be reasonably anticipated to confer 
                attributes to an organism, such that the organism would 
                have enhanced infectivity, pathogenicity, or 
                transmissibility, or otherwise pose a threat to 
                national security, public safety, or the health of 
                humans, companion animals, or livestock, poultry, 
                seafood and aquaculture species, or game animals.

https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Gain-of-Fu...

"Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens."

Both definitions clearly cover Wuhan research - genetically implanting ACE2 binding protein on non-human coronavirus so that the resulting virus infects and kill human cells containing ACE2 receptor. Thus hard fact numero uno - Fauci lied to Congress.

2.

>Your claim was that Proximal Origins authors didn't consider the lab leak.

No. My claim is that NIH didn't perform any scientific study - which would naturally include peer reviewed publishing of results - of Wuhan created viruses vs. COVID.

What doesn't count as such a study is the lazy email chat between several dudes who were recruited by Daszak without even letting them know of the conflict of interests that he and Fauci had on the matter.

3. Fauci as a top leader at a scientific institution had the duty to maintain scientific integrity of the institution. Giving his and Daszak conflict of interests on the matter, he catastrophically failed at maintaining that scientific integrity when he didn't not send independent investigators to Wuhan instead of Daszak.

Note how synergistically the fact 3. dovetails with the fact 1. and how that provides very plausible explanation for the fact 2.

And with that i rest my case :)

Ah yes, now linking to the GoF definition that 1) doesn't govern NIH's decisions and 2) includes E. coli for insulin manufacturing.

Great stuff.

And just totally bailing on your claim that "Daszak ran into WIV and destroyed evidence" lol

Have a good night!

I worked with researchers in this space - virology + combatting future pandemics - in the decade before the pandemic. The one fact that the last 5 years never readily disclosed is that the core ideology of this community of researchers was fundamentally divided. About half of the researchers, including many leading virologists whose names appeared in the news, believed and argued passionately for the lab-based creation of super-viruses and super-bacteria. They believed that the only way to save humanity from a catastrophic pandemic was to engineer absolute nightmare bugs in the lab so that they could develop cures and vaccines. The other half of us, myself included, thought that this was pure hubris and infinitely too dangerous because humans and labs are fallible and leaks happen with surprisingly regularity. The moment that this pandemic become broad public knowledge, the portion of the community that advocated for creating these super-viruses became shockingly quiet and everyone just started to cover-their-asses and their funding.

In about 5 years it will become common knowledge that longCOVID is simply the persistance of the SARS-CoV2 virus within the human body and that there are both symptomatic versions of this disease (aka "longhaulers") and asymptomatic versions of this disease (aka, many of the so called "fully recovered"). Note that we have zero direct evidence that the virus ever leaves the body; it is just assumed because nasal swabs test negative and, for some, symptoms go away. It is a good time to invest in pharmaceutical companies that have already developed antivirals.

This is partially why I think the whole "they're conspiratorially lying to us and it was for sure a lab leak!" is a huge distraction. First, we have literally hundreds of pages of emails of scientists saying they believed (correctly or incorrectly) it was not a leak. Second, there is approximately zero chance we will ever know that it came from a lab. Third, it doesn't actually give us any more information: it could have come from any one of countless labs doing work on viruses like this.

Dangerous GoF research should be outright banned regardless!

Insofar as there is huge ambiguity in what we did or didn't know at the time, I can fault scientists for covering their own asses and their preferred research directions (which I agree are dangerous), but I can't fault them for biasing themselves against statements that leaned on the side of ambiguous that might have, at the time, literally sparked a war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com