[1/*] Using Twitter has put reading comprehension into a very different perspective for me. I used to think reading comprehension tests were silly when I was in grade school, because they seem so easy. But I guess I took for granted the skill of understanding a paragraph of text.
So that article seems to require a login, so I don't know, but it is entirely possible that the author never mentions the other grant. You can read the other grant, and the progress reports, on-line since the Intercept FOIA'd them (unlike the DARPA grant, which was a "leak")
-
-
With regards to the topic of that article specifically, I don't know if the "spew particles into caves to modify bat immunity FOR SCIENCE" idea from the (unfunded) DARPA grant was ever carried out, because I don't recall seeing it in the 900+ pages of the (funded) NIH grant.
-
Obviously many things took place at WIV and related institutes that we do not know about, but in terms of things we have positive confirmation of, I do not believe that was one of them. So there may have been no reason to mention the other grant in the article?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
[1]