Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 May 2020, 5:46 pm

That's interesting. And sort of an indirect way of making a bioweapon.

And there is this....

https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backe ... ch-1500741
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 May 2020, 5:48 pm

Maybe it was...partially our fault as the Chinese have said. We funded the research in the Chinese lab to try and create new coronaviruses? It's really hard to believe. Newsweek is still a reputable news organization, right?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 May 2020, 1:28 am

A genetic study of the virus says that the "jump" to humans occurred late next year. So those "experts" saying that it would have taken a while for those human specific mutations to have evolved...appear to be wrong. At least if the genetic study is right and it is peer-reviewed and reasonable on its face.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/health/g ... index.html
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 May 2020, 7:09 am

freeman3
So instead of investigating the facts of what happened we get these opinions from researchers that do not bother to try and explain the facts but just give their conclusions.

Untrue.
What the researchers did was look at the actual material evidence. The evolution of the virus genome...
"All evidence so far points to the fact the COVID-19 virus is naturally derived and not man-made," explains immunologist Nigel McMillan from the Menzies Health Institute Queensland.
"If you were going to design it in a lab the sequence changes make no sense as all previous evidence would tell you it would make the virus worse. No system exists in the lab to make some of the changes found."
Back in late March, we covered a study published in Nature Medicine, in which the researchers investigated the genomic data of SARS-CoV-2 - particularly the receptor-binding domain (RBD) sections of the virus - to try and discover how it mutated into the virulent and deadly version we're currently struggling to contain.
As a by-product of their research, they were able to determine that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically manipulated.

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-wha ... lab-rumour

freeman3
As for this repush that it came from the market, there have been no additional facts adduced that would counter-act the evidence that the first case was not linked to the market and there were other early cases that were not linked to it as well. And there was the common-sense fact that bats were not sold at the market.


I did not say that the virus "came" from the wet market. I said it was the site of the first hot spot. There are a myriad of ways that the virus got there. Perhaps through pangolins who had been infected through bats, perhaps through people who had been exposed to human carriers. Perhaps from people who had been near agricultural areas where bat guano is used as a fertilizer.
We know the virus travels. We know that people can be asymptomatic for up to two weeks but carry the virus. We know that France believes they had a person with it back in December.
What the Wet market provided was a packed audience, and captive small animals that may have had the virus.

rayjay
My understanding of the experiments in the Wuhan lab is that they give viruses to Ferrets, who seem to have some similarities to humans. They then allow the virus to mutate in the Ferret, and pass it along to the next Ferret. In this way, the virus isn't "man-made", but it does come from the lab.

Your source?
And your source that confirms a level 4 lab somehow failed to contain a virus?
You see, again, there is physical evidence that says no.
The closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 is a bat virus named RaTG13, which was kept at the WIV. There is some unfounded speculation that this virus was the origin of SARS-CoV-2," explains University of Sydney evolutionary virologist, Edward Holmes.
"However, RaTG13 was sampled from a different province of China (Yunnan) to where COVID-19 first appeared and the level of genome sequence divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is equivalent to an average of 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change.
"

Look, virologists and immunologists that have the knowledge and access to actual study the genome and understand what is happening contradict all the conspiracy theories with physical evidence. To believe any of the conspiracy theories you first have to disprove or discount their physical evidence.
Its as if you are saying someone was murdered by a knife wielding marauder, when the autopsy shows he had three bullet holes from a gun, which has been matched to one his wife owns..
Its purposefully being obtuse. (Which is a mandatory characteristic of dedicated conspiracy theorists.)

freeman3
(By the way, you can tell by the way Fauci gave his answer he has not carefully looked at this issue, but is just relaying opinions from other researchers.)

And why do you think he trusts their reports? Because he knows their experience knowledge and expertise is worthy of his trust? If its good enough for him, why isn't it good enough for you?
What is it you know, that Fauci doesn't, that should alter his trust in the reporting from these qualified scientists?

freeman3
Investigate the facts, don't exclude possible theories without a sufficient basis to do so

One has to recognize the facts as facts. If the virus can't have been man made, and didn't have the time to evolve from a lab .... discount the wild theories. Don't keep bringing them up zombie like.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 May 2020, 8:41 am

Try responding to the arguments and facts I am presenting. You ignored the peer-reviewed study of the genetics of the virus that showed that the jump of the virus to humans occurred late last year. Earlier you quoted experts saying it could not have come from the lab because the mutations either had to occur naturally prior to zoonotic transfer or naturally after zoonotic transfer. Another expert you quoted said that the COVID virus they were working with had additional changes to it that allowed it to infect humans. So if the virus got out from the lab it could not have infected humans. (that was from Racaniello if you want to take a look) That is kind of a bizarre statement when the SARS virus was already able to infect humans...

Anyway, it looks to be clear now that when the virus jumped to humans it was already ready-made to infect humans. And it was quite good at it. The really important info is not the peer-reviewed study. That just tells us that the virus when it jumped to humans late last year it had somehow evolved to be particularly good at infecting humans. I wonder how that could have happened? Maybe if there were a lab around that was getting money to do just that...

The project proposal states: "We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential."

In layman's terms, "spillover potential" refers to the ability of a virus to jump from animals to humans, which requires that the virus be able to attach to receptors in the cells of humans. SARS-CoV-2, for instance, is adept at binding to the ACE2 receptor in human lungs and other organs.

According to Richard Ebright, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers University, the project description refers to experiments that would enhance the ability of bat coronavirus to infect human cells and laboratory animals using techniques of genetic engineering. In the wake of the pandemic, that is a noteworthy detail."

Does this count as natural or bioengineering? The researchers you cited before indicated it had to be natural that researchers could not dream up these mutations. But if youre messing around with infecting bats with the virus in experiments...and the virus mutates in ways the researchers did not specifically do themselves...is that a natural mutation or is that bioengineering?

Anyway, the fact that the lab was specifically trying to make the virus be better able to infect humans--and COVID is particularly good at infecting humans--is concerning, wouldnt you agree? And they only just canceled the project on April 24.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 May 2020, 9:30 am

freeman3
You ignored the peer-reviewed study of the genetics of the virus that showed that the jump of the virus to humans occurred late last year.

No I haven't .


freeman3
Anyway, it looks to be clear now that when the virus jumped to humans it was already ready-made to infect humans

Duh.
Since it infected humans it was ready to infect humans.
What experts do agree on is that a pandemic like this is no surprise. Scientists have been warning governments for years that a new disease was on the horizon, and that many countries were woefully under-prepared.
For example, the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci, told the incoming US government administration in January 2017 about the inevitability of a "surprise outbreak", urging them to make preparations.
"We've been aware for some time that another coronavirus, like SARS and MERS before it, could cause a pandemic, and so in many ways, the emergence of a new coronavirus with pandemic potential is not a surprise," explains La Trobe University epidemiologist Hassan Vally


freeman3
. I wonder how that could have happened?

The same way viruses always evolve to become good at replicating in humans...

freeman3
Maybe if there were a lab around that was getting money to do just that..

Sure...Get your tin hat on boy. And don't acknowledge any of the actual evidence from people who have actually studied the virus - with the required knowledge to make that call.

All evidence so far points to the fact the COVID-19 virus is naturally derived and not man-made," explains immunologist Nigel McMillan from the Menzies Health Institute Queensland.
"If you were going to design it in a lab the sequence changes make no sense as all previous evidence would tell you it would make the virus worse. No system exists in the lab to make some of the changes found."
Back in late March, we covered a study published in Nature Medicine, in which the researchers investigated the genomic data of SARS-CoV-2 - particularly the receptor-binding domain (RBD) sections of the virus - to try and discover how it mutated into the virulent and deadly version we're currently struggling to contain.
As a by-product of their research, they were able to determine that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically manipulated.


https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-wha ... lab-rumour

Freeman3
The project proposal states: "We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential."
In layman's terms, "spillover potential" refers to the ability of a virus to jump from animals to humans, which requires that the virus be able to attach to receptors in the cells of humans. SARS-CoV-2, for instance, is adept at binding to the ACE2 receptor in human lungs and other organ

This area of inquiry is essential in the development of
1) effective therapies
2) eventual vaccines

if you can't study how a virus spreads, you can't stop it.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 May 2020, 10:52 am

Yeah, it's all just a coincidence. One year after that lab gets money from the NIH to perfect the virus infecting humans it does just that. As for the idea it could not have not been bioengineered, who knows what techniques they used? It says they would use in vivo infection, meaning infecting live organisms. Whatever man-made tinkering they did with the virus if they put it into an animal then the virus is going to mutate how it will mutate. And RJ's saying that the virus was put into Ferrets make sense. That's how the virus could have adaptions for humans because I bet you that Ferrets have ACE2 receptor genes similar to humans. (ACE2 is the receptor in human lungs that COVID binds really well to) So you put the virus into Ferrets and you hope that the virus becomes better at infecting humans. So there is no "bioengineering" in the sense the scientists are saying there is not, but it's man directed.

And you know why some scientists might be very reluctant to find this virus csme from a lab? Because there is research money to do these types of experiments....
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 07 May 2020, 5:59 am

Ricky:
rayjay
My understanding of the experiments in the Wuhan lab is that they give viruses to Ferrets, who seem to have some similarities to humans. They then allow the virus to mutate in the Ferret, and pass it along to the next Ferret. In this way, the virus isn't "man-made", but it does come from the lab.


Your source?


https://www.newsweek.com/controversial- ... ic-1500503

There is no published record of animal-passage work on coronaviruses in the Wuhan Institute. The lab got its first BSL-4 lab in 2018, which is now considered a requirement for this kind of work (though some work proceeds in BSL-3-enhanced labs). It's possible that researchers started animal passage work in the BSL-4 lab but didn't finish it in time to publish before the current pandemic, when China tightened up on publications. It's possible that the work was done in secret. It's possible that it never happened at all. But some scientists think it's unlikely that an expensive BSL-4 lab would not be doing animal-passage research, which by 2018 was not unusual.


It's hard to copy from the article, but it is very well describes work with ferrets and animal passage. The ferrets were used in a European facility, It's not clear how the work was done in Wuhan.

There isn't conclusive evidence either way. It is clear that China is hiding something.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 May 2020, 8:37 am

Just as I suspected. Ferrets ACE2 receptor interacts well with the SARs virus, making it a good candidate if you wanted to come up with ways to try and make a coronoavirus more infectious to humans...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2215001531
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 May 2020, 9:26 am

Very interesting article that RJ posted. I just find it odd that only Newsweek is looking into this. My guess that if you put a coronavirus into ferrets that would result in mutatations to the virus that might make it more infectious to humans (because the virus would mutate and beneficial mutations could result that would better bind to the ACE2 receptors) appears to be a basic part of gain of function research. And you would not be able to tell that it was non-natural.

Well, there is no proof that the lab caused the pandemic, but it is certainly not a ridiculous theory. What is ridiculous is well-credentialed scientists saying the lab could not have caused it when they darn well should have known it could have caused it.
Were those experts lying or just incompetent? Well, they probably thought it did not come from the lab but did not want to mention the possibility that it came from gain of function research for fear that the research money would dry up. I dont mean to be so cynical about researcher's motivations, but I don't how competent researchers would not know about this theory. It's disturbing but I guess scientists are not immune from human foibles.

And the money for gain of function research should stop. Like something you would put in a novel that caused a civilization ending plague and readers would think that's not plausible--no way would scientists do something that dumb...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 May 2020, 2:20 pm

freeman3
Just as I suspected. Ferrets ACE2 receptor interacts well with the SARs virus, making it a good candidate if you wanted to come up with ways to try and make a coronoavirus more infectious to humans...


Or maybe to study how to create therapies or vaccines? Which virology labs all over the world do...

Influenza is a human pathogen that continues to pose a public health threat. The use of small mammalian models has become indispensable for understanding the virulence of influenza viruses. Among numerous species used in the laboratory setting, only the ferret model is equally well suited for studying both the pathogenicity and transmissibility of human and avian influenza viruses.


However one of the advantages (?) of the lab in Wuhan is that they could use primates in their research with much less red tape than elsewhere. And the closer to the human genome (bats are 84%, primates over 90%similar) the better chance of learning what therapies or vaccines will work in humans.
From 2017:
https://www.nature.com/news/inside-the- ... ns-1.21487
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 May 2020, 2:38 pm

Great. But what's pertinent here is that they had a grant to do gain-in-function research on coronaviruses...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 May 2020, 7:45 am

freeman3
Great. But what's pertinent here is that they had a grant to do gain-in-function research on coronaviruses..


Sure. Because it would a great idea to understand corona virus no?
In order to be able to quickly develop therapies or vaccines in case a pandemic ever arises. As has happened consistently in the past...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5BZ09iNdvo

Chinese Propaganda?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 May 2020, 10:37 am

I am not watching a YouTube video but given that gain in function research started 10 or so years ago I really doubt the statement that many times in the past gain on function research has helped develop therapies or vaccines. From what I have read, there is no proof this has even happened once. Or that the research has been beneficial at all. Except for employing researchers...

But please do give examples of gain-in-function research helping to develop vaccines and therapies. Maybe from a scientific article? Or at least in written form. I am only going to watch a YouTube video if it's supposed to be funny...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 May 2020, 10:54 am

Yes the video is funny.

freeman3
From what I have read, there is no proof this has even happened once. Or that the research has been beneficial at all. Except for employing researchers...


Here's the thing about doing original research. You learn things. These things might help with a specific goal of the research OR they might lead to better understanding about something only tangentially related to the stated goal of the research. In examining how the virus obtained from bats invades other species cells - what improves or slows it down - one can find potential remedies. For instance the genome work done on bats showed that similar antibodies are generated in llamas. Its a step from there to seeing how they create these antibodies to maybe, some way to trigger this in humans. Or not. You never know what will be the result of a line of inquiry

here's what American scientists working with the Wuhan Virology Lab said about their research"
EcoHealth Alliance says the terminated research “aimed to analyze the risk of coronavirus emergence and help in designing vaccines and drugs to protect us from COVID-19 and other coronavirus threats,” and that it addresses “all four strategic research priorities of the NIH/NIAID Strategic Plan for COVID-19 Research, released just this week.” The organization will, it says, “continue our fight against this and other emerging diseases.”

This is research for which Trump personally stopped funding. (So you know that was a reasoned and intelligence impulse. No? It was based upon a false claim by Newsmax.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/ ... ting-with/

This story oughta piss you off...
Point being the US is particularly isolated on its response to Covid 19. Because of Trump. And because its really only in conspiracy theory central that credence is being given to a "Blame China"
theory.
The US acts more and more like a Trump business. Avoiding responsibility and refusing to pay its bills.
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/07/85032605 ... mps-cutoff
Meanwhile all but 1 of the 194 member states of WHO are committed to ensure that if a vaccine is created that it will be shared. Guess who that one country is?