7 HN users recommended this podcast episode5 months2020–2021score 6
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN commenters shared it in 2020 and 2021 as an early, in-depth presentation of the lab-leak case, though it is a contested viewpoint.
Bret Weinstein and Yuri Deigin discuss the evidence for the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a lab, including the furin cleavage site and gain-of-function research. The conversation draws on Deigin's Medium article.
“he had a very interesting conversation with a russian virologist who also thinks this is the case” (HN, 2020)
[this video] How does mainstream media keep their credibility? A considerable portion of the population is just ok with being lied too I guess. Shrug. At the very least we should be investigating all possibilities in regards to the origin of the virus. China has a terrible track record with viruses. They leaked SARS1 twice. The first largely publicized cluster is right next to the coronavirus lab there. Now we have a ton of genetic evidence that can't be hidden. To what length will the media go to hide this and redirect the conversation?
There's tons of propaganda trying to diminish the likelihood of a lab leak (purposeful or a mistake). Watch this though - [this video] - and it's very clear that it likely originated from the Wuhan lab (they were studying those bats originating from 200 miles away + multiple markers in the genes showing human intervention/editing) - and that what's being promoted by these orgs into mainstream is gaslighting.
There is no proof that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, however it remains a plausible hypothesis. Yuri Deigin wrote a good argument for that possibility. [link] [this video]
It would seem if you have a deep understanding and look at the actual structure of COVID-19 - then there are multiple markers that it was manipulated, if you believe Yuri Deigin knows what he's talking about: [this video]
Deigin discusses markers of manipulation in the virus.
specifically he is a specialist in bat biology, but perhaps more relevantly he had a very interesting conversation with a russian virologist who also thinks this is the case: [this video] here is an essay written by his guest: [link]
Conversation with a Russian virologist on lab origin.
> The covid-19 virus isn't the first coronavirus to jump from animals to humans Sigh, while controversial to state, there has of yet been no refutation of the lab leak hypothesis presented by scientists like Brett Weinstein [1] [1] [this video] Wanting to discuss virus origins should not be political or knee jerk censored. At the very surface, natural origins next to a P4 lab doing gain of function coronavirus research is already asking a lot from us.
Lab leak hypothesis unrefuted, presented by Weinstein.
For anyone who’s listened to Bret Weinstein’s podcast from early on in the pandemic, “gain of function research” will be a familiar term. Great to see this hypothesis getting traction in mainstream media. What’s still crazy to me is how quickly things were explained away and how strongly the directly related scientific community said the hypothesis was “fringe”. Here’s an episode of Bret’s podcast from June 2020 covering this in depth: [this video] Edit: a word
If I remember correctly, the disappearance of these sequences was discussed more than a year ago in Bret Weinstein's podcast, among many other indicators of a lab leak: [this video] He's been the canary in the coal mine on numerous issues surrounding COVID. edit: listen from 30:43, also from 25:11: [this video]
Podcast discussed deleted sequences and lab leak indicators.
Not just the media, folks, also the rest of our "sense making apparatus". Wikipedia has been suppressing lab leak discussion, and still to this moment will not allow the old Lab Leak Hypothesis page back. It still redirects to a declared "Misinformation!" page [link] And guess where else lab leak was suppressed? Here on HN. Yes, dang, you suppressed discussion of a perfectly reasonable hypothesis many times. So, while I have your attention, the real problem vis a vis Covid19 is not the lab leak. The real problem is "gain of function" research, using gene splicing to make more virulent-to-humans pathogens. And don't read into anything I'm saying, please pay attention to literally what I say here; if you have to reword what I say to cast doubt, you're not playing fair. This virus was likely man-made because gain of function man made viruses are quite common in research; and this is not a coverup conspiracy caused by the Chinese tendency for face-saving, swept under the carpet, "truths", though there is plenty of that. This scandal was caused by western experts: our best virologists are themselves engaging in gain of function research right here in our very own cities. If you ask them, as the media did, "what likely happened here", their answer is not going to point the finger at themselves, too much funding is at stake. Good background and in-depth research on the gain of function and lab leak hypotheses was carried out and published on the web over a year ago by Yuri Deigin [L
> "Lab-leak" is non-sensical in all forms which don't begin with "lab evolved/bioengineered"... That's exactly the allegation circa March 2020 though: scientists collect various bat-borne coronaviruses (e.g. RaTG13) in Yunnan province around 2013, evolve one of them at the Wuhan Institute of Virology though gain-of-function research, and then due to lax safety protocols end up accidentally leaking an evolved virus in late 2019. For example, see this podcast from a year ago: [this video]
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
10 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Citations, criticism and jokes
Read more