Claim:HIV Protein Sequences in Covid-19 (report withdrawn by authors) & other "man made" claims

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
Moderator deirdre
Readers: this thread is for claims that Covid-19 is engineered or man-made.

Claims regarding a natural source of Covid-19 breaking out of the Wuhan lab should be posted in this thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/natural-covid-19-broke-out-of-wuhan-lab-not-man-made.11212/




Hold onto your hats everyone, we have may have a slew of conspiracy theories coming our way. A pre-print on the bioRxiv server (a server where pre-prints of papers can be viewed before they are peer-reviewed) today claimed the following: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1 (full PDF attached below)

The summary in other words is that the researchers found four short portions of the coronavirus genome that highly resemble pieces of two different proteins from HIV and aren't present in other coronaviruses. They comment that these insertions are unlikely to be fortuitous (happen by chance), implying that this virus could have been designed artificially. This is pretty crazy for even a pre-print to suggest, but we have to keep in mind that this has not yet been peer-reviewed.

For what it's worth, my interpretation is that these Coronavirus motifs that are similar to pieces of HIV proteins aren't super striking. It is never really surprising to find that parts of two different proteins resemble each other. However, it does seem unusual that the specific parts that aren't found in other coronaviruses match with pieces of HIV proteins. I can see this fueling conspiracy theories so keep an eye out for this paper and what peer-reviewers will have to say about it.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
For what it's worth, my interpretation is that these Coronavirus motifs that are similar to pieces of HIV proteins aren't super striking. It is never really surprising to find that parts of two different proteins resemble each other. However, it does seem unusual that the specific parts that aren't found in other coronaviruses match with pieces of HIV proteins.
there are a few threads on reddit where it sounds like people in related fields are commenting. (if you want to look at it, i'm too much of a laymen to make heads or tails of any of it
ex:
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/ewuotw/discussion_biorxiv_preprint_on_2019ncov_spike/fg4jjrq/


??
 

Arugula

Member
*Edit: It looks like the early peer review process is not going well:



Source: https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1223387421120684032


Here's another source, thinking the pre-print paper was just a faulty analysis by people not very experienced using BLAST: https://massivesci.com/notes/wuhan-...ar&utm_medium=social&utm_source=meetedgar.com

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
thinking the pre-print paper was just a faulty analysis by people not very experienced using BLAST:
Yep, if you BLAST those short sequences against all known proteins you get 100% matches to a lot of different proteins in a lot of different organisms. Like I said, the length of the matches makes this not very striking. Their conclusions were very overstated, but I think it will be enough spawn conspiracy theories. Prominent anti-vaxxer Del Bigtree has already had guests on his show, The Highwire, talking about how they can tell that the virus was engineered by looking at its genome.
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
Hold onto your hats everyone, we have may have a slew of conspiracy theories coming our way. A pre-print on the bioRxiv server (a server where pre-prints of papers can be viewed before they are peer-reviewed) today claimed the following: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1.full.pdf
The summary in other words is that the researchers found four short portions of the coronavirus genome that highly resemble pieces of two different proteins from HIV and aren't present in other coronaviruses. They comment that these insertions are unlikely to be fortuitous (happen by chance), implying that this virus could have been designed artificially. This is pretty crazy for even a pre-print to suggest, but we have to keep in mind that this has not yet been peer-reviewed.

For what it's worth, my interpretation is that these Coronavirus motifs that are similar to pieces of HIV proteins aren't super striking. It is never really surprising to find that parts of two different proteins resemble each other. However, it does seem unusual that the specific parts that aren't found in other coronaviruses match with pieces of HIV proteins. I can see this fueling conspiracy theories so keep an eye out for this paper and what peer-reviewers will have to say about it.
I'm surprised that this manuscript passed initial screening:
https://www.biorxiv.org/about-biorxiv
The immediate reaction to the paper from the scientific community (currently 10 comments) tears apart the authors' conclusions (see at the bottom of the page https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1)
Update

The publisher added the following note at the top of the article page:
 
Last edited:

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
The first author has made the following comment in the discussion of the preprint (emphasis mine):
http://archive.ph/tZgVI
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
Update

This article has been withdrawn. Click here for details
 

Dingo

Member
Not much more to say. Absolute garbage. This is akin to finding two words the same in the Bible and the NIST 9/11 report and then claiming that god did it.
 

Agent K

Active Member
The "uncanny similarity" here is to the KGB's Operation Infektion disinformation campaign that accused the U.S. of inventing HIV/AIDS as a biological weapon. The accusations were initially published by an Indian newspaper that was set up by the KGB. This was discussed in the Lawfare article, "Is the Threat of ‘Fake Science’ Real?" although it talked about scientific fraud in China, not India.
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
Here is another aspect that may still fuel some conspiracy theorists who have caught onto this story. Chinese scientists started to see that anti-HIV drugs are effective against the coronavirus. However, this is not surprising given that both HIV and the coronavirus are RNA viruses and the drugs target a generic viral protein. I should add that this protein is not the "spike (S)" protein that the focus of the now retracted paper in question in this thread. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...r-other-existing-drugs-outwit-new-coronavirus
Also, this same drug cocktail was effective against SARS, which was also caused by a coronavirus.
Although the SARS studies were limited and the new coronavirus studies are not complete, it HIV-drugs having an effect is not evidence that the virus was lab-made.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Would someone please explain why we are using letters like Q,L,K, etc when there are only ATGC and sometimes U?!
2019-nCoV is a RNA virus.

but I think you are asking about the protein sequencing?
from the study paper (PDF linked in Opening Post above)

x.png
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3503725/

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-biology1/chapter/the-genetic-code/


not sure if this answers your question. ?
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
Would someone please explain why we are using letters like Q,L,K, etc when there are only ATGC and sometimes U?!
Just to add to the previous post, DNA is read by machinery in the cell and transcribed into RNA (RNA is what has U instead of T). Then the RNA is read by different machinery and translated into proteins, which you can consider to be the functional units of genes. When the RNA is read, three letters of the AUGC sequence correspond to one amino acid in the protein. Proteins can be made up of hundreds of amino acids, which are abbreviated to letters like R, K, P, and E. There are 20 amino acids in all. Here is a great video illustrating this process. Skip ahead to 3:40 Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BwWavExcFI
 

Agent K

Active Member
From today: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...-conspiracy-theories-about-origin-coronavirus
Should we make a new thread about the origin of SARS-CoV-2? This article from 2015 has been making the rounds, forcing the editor to add an Editor's note in March.
https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-1.18787
 

Agent K

Active Member
New study debunking conspiracy theories
"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
A new study on probable origin of SARS-CoV-2 published this week in Nature:
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
I briefly reviewed and listed some papers describing the evolution and origins of SARS-CoV-2 in a video a couple of weeks ago, right before that Nature paper was published. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh3apmFrP4Y&t=5s
One of the less talked about points that invalidates this conspiracy theory is that two coronaviruses that most closely resemble SARS-CoV-2 were isolated from bats in 2015 and 2017.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa112/5721420
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32007145
By Occam's razor, this alone allows us to discredit the idea that this virus was somehow engineered. This family of coronaviruses has been spreading, mixing, and evolving within bat populations for a very long time. It was only a matter of time until a strain that can efficiently infect humans appeared and was able to make the jump from animal(s) to human. And it is only a matter of time before it happens again, either with a coronavirus or a different virus.
 

vooke

Active Member
Once dismissed as wild conspiracy theory,it seems evidence is mounting that Wuhan Institute of Virology may have played a role in the outbreak.

The laboratory at the centre of scrutiny over the pandemic has been carrying out research on bats from the cave which scientists believe is the original source of the devastating outbreak.

Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday show the Wuhan Institute of Virology undertook coronavirus experiments on mammals captured more than 1,000 miles away in Yunnan – funded by a $3.7 million grant from the US government.

Sequencing of the Covid-19 genome has traced it to bats found in Yunnan's caves.


It comes after this newspaper revealed last week that Ministers here now fear that the pandemic could have been caused by a virus leaking from the institute.

Senior Government sources said that while 'the balance of scientific advice' was still that the deadly virus was first transmitted to humans from a live animal market in Wuhan, an accident at the laboratory in the Chinese city was 'no longer being discounted'.

According to one unverified claim, scientists at the institute could have become infected after being sprayed with blood containing the virus, and then passed it on to the local community.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rming-experiments-bats-coronavirus-caves.html

The sentence on sequencing could be referring to this 2017 paper from which I quote part of the Abstract:
We hypothesize that the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV may have originated after sequential recombination events between the precursors of these SARSr-CoVs. Cell entry studies demonstrated that three newly identified SARSr-CoVs with different S protein sequences are all able to use human ACE2 as the receptor, further exhibiting the close relationship between strains in this cave and SARS-CoV.
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._insights_into_the_origin_of_SARS_coronavirus
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The sentence on sequencing could be referring to this 2017
SARS -Cov is not Covid-19.

and in this article "more closely related" means it is not an exact match to the cave bats in Yennan Cave. So the "evidence" isn't mounting, there could still be a cave samples haven't been taken from...or newer samples from Yennan that haven't been taken yet ? that would show a closer match to Covid-19. ie. a natural source.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...to-the-one-in-bats-than-the-one-in-pangolins/
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
SARS -Cov is not Covid-19.

and in this article "more closely related" means it is not an exact match to the cave bats in Yennan Cave. So the "evidence" isn't mounting, there could still be a cave samples haven't been taken from...or newer samples from Yennan that haven't been taken yet ? that would show a closer match to Covid-19. ie. a natural source.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...to-the-one-in-bats-than-the-one-in-pangolins/
The National Review quotes the Wallstreet Journal:
Basically, we know how fast these viruses mutate, so we can tell when their common ancestor lived (approximately).

I'd also say that is clear evidence that the virus did not originate from that laboratory: if that is the closest virus they have, then they don't have SARS-CoV-2. If they don't have it, it can't escape.

(The lab also said that the staff member who was exposed to batshit was quarantined for 14 days.)

The WSJ is unequivocal: there is no evidence, they don't have the right virus
The National Review: somehow it could still have happened
Argh!

The key fact is that virologists sequence the viruses. They know the genome. That is like the DNA on a crime scene: if the DNA does not match, it wasn't the guy!
So when the virologists thought, "maybe it's one of ours", all they had to do is look in their database, and then there's either evidence or there isn't, and the absence of evidence clears them.
 

vooke

Active Member
So @Mendel , @deirdre , the closest virus to SARS-CoV-2 is RaTG13 from Yunnan cave bats such as that collected by the lab in 2013, but these two good back’ forty years,right? That’s my understanding.

The researchers‘ goal is to get a closer match than RaTG13 or exact match in wild animals and with that their source.

I think I can see why the article is sensationalism
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
So @Mendel , @deirdre , the closest virus to SARS-CoV-2 is RaTG13 from Yunnan cave bats such as that collected by the lab in 2013, but these two good back’ forty years,right? That’s my understanding.

The researchers‘ goal is to get a closer match than RaTG13 or exact match in wild animals and with that their source.
Yes, if we could find a closer match in some animal population, that would be interesting to virologists, and help prevent reinfection from the same reservoir. As it is, they did detect what looks like pangolin genes in SARS-CoV-2: there is a virus in pangolins that is pretty close to SARS-CoV-2 and codes some key proteins also found in "our" virus, but not in RaTG13. The idea is that the bat virus infected some pangolins and mutated there, and then transferred to humans. If confirmed, that is another piece of evidence that it's unlikely to have "escaped" from a bat laboratory.
https://www.cell.com/pb-assets/jour...BIO_CURRENT-BIOLOGY-D-20-00299-compressed.pdf
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
and the absence of evidence clears them.
no. that is like skepticism 101. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

TO be fair, im hoping it escaped from the lab because then we can eradicate it. But unfortunately I agree with the science i'm reading that it is unlikely they would have engineered covid-19 that way. :(
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
no. that is like skepticism 101. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In this case, it is, though.
Compare: if the police think a suspect has been shot with a gun stolen from my gun locker, and there is no evidence that any of the guns were stolen, that disproves it. If none of my guns fired the shot, that's it.
If you have the genetic fingerprint of the virus and genetic fingerprints of the viruses in the lab, then the absence of a match clears the lab.
 

Agent K

Active Member
David Ignatius speculated about the origin of SARS-CoV-2
"How did covid-19 begin? Its initial origin story is shaky."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...75d488-7521-11ea-87da-77a8136c1a6d_story.html
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The Lancet noted in a January study that the first covid-19 case in Wuhan had no connection to the seafood market.
Yep. In that study, the first patient fell ill on December 1st. We know now that that was not patient zero.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6477/492

I can't access https://www.scmp.com/news/china/soc...nas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back right now, alledgedly it has a more complete narrative of the early cases?
 

vooke

Active Member
On 27 January, Xinhua reported that researchers have found evidence of the new coronavirus in 33 of 585 environmental samples taken at the market on 1 January—the day it was closed—and on 12 January. They all came from the western end, which had a concentration of booths selling wildlife.
i think with the market closed we may never know if indeed SARS-CoV-2 came from there.

A quick one,
how did they figure out SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 go back 40 years using two samples? My guess is they measure the rate of mutation of SARS-Cov-2 and divided that by the differences between it and RaTG13 to arrive at how long all the cumulative mutations took. I submit I may be wrong. My question is, is this 40 years a certainty?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
It could've come from a sexton cleaning out a church steeple full of bat shit, who knows? If they ever narrow down the animal population that has the virus, we might learn more.
A quick one,
how did they figure out SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 go back 40 years using two samples? My guess is they measure the rate of mutation of SARS-Cov-2 and divided that by the differences between it and RaTG13 to arrive at how long all the cumulative mutations took. I submit I may be wrong. My question is, is this 40 years a certainty?
Actually, they did look at the mutation rates for SARS-CoV-1 and MERS and HCoV-OC43 and then estimated off that. For context, this is a statistical method,, much like radiocarbon dating, it depends on events happening at a fixed random rate and averaging out over time. Since we're looking at relatively fewer events than carbon decay over centuries, the uncertainties are larger. For example, if you throw a coin 100 times, you're probably going to be closer to 50% heads than if you only throw it 6 times.
This estimate also depends on having identified the pieces that recombined correctly, and the proportions in which they occur in the population. (As an aside, these researchers think that the pangolin virus genes might have jumped from the pangolins to the bats, and that a bat migt have transferred it to us.)
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.015008v1
(This is a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed, but the authors are a large group from different institutes and countries, so it looks pretty good.)

Note the error margins in the bolded section: the lineages might have split a mere 20 years ago. So, 40 years isn't precise: we could say the lineages split between 20 and 70 years ago and be more confident of being correct.
 
Last edited:

RayLopez

New Member
Hi my first and possibly last post here, but I don't want to invest a lot of time and find my posts deleted due to an over-aggressive moderator, as has happened with other sites. I will see if this post sticks then possibly post more later. Nice site btw, I perused your UFO forum. I'll try and keep this short but with my legal background that's going to be tough...

My background: couple of science degrees, I've done work in patent litigation, now retired, and I firmly subscribe to the Third Law of Litigation ("for every expert there's an equal and opposite expert"). In several decades of experience I have never seen a single litigation in technology, where enough money was at stake, for this law to be violated. E.g. if you are trying to prove the earth is stationary and the sun goes round the earth, which is of course absurd, in litigation you would find a highly distinguished astronomer expert witness, just a distinguished as the opposing counsel's expert witness, to say that indeed the earth is stationary, carefully worded, and possibly not run afoul of the US Fed rules of civil procedure on expert testimony, by saying that for simple navigation you can assume a Ptolemaic model (I believe in fact some maps and/or software still used for simple navigation make this assumption, or indeed after Copernicus, navigators continued to make this assumption since it was convenient to do so). And of course in a US jury trial hope an ignorant jury are not paying attention and/or opposing counsel botches their cross-examination, which happens roughly around 10% of the time regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of one's case (one reason people constantly litigate in the USA). Thus in my opinion in life there's no "Truth" but it's all a function of your priors.

Now on the claims that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) is a man made chimeric virus (note that's not redundant, since you can have a natural chimeric organism, see here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160616300902 - 'bizarria' plant chimera from over 400 years ago; but for casual conversation 'chimeric' equals 'man-made' through recombinant DNA technology rather than artificial or natural selective breeding or other non-recombinant DNA lab methods)

[1] Source: https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748
- hereinafter the Medium article, this is a the 'go-to' article on chimeric viruses and Covid-19. One purpose for posting today was to cite this article.

The hypothesis and stipulations advanced, in no particular order, from the Medium article, unless otherwise noted, are:

(1)(A) SARS-CoV-2 (the Covid-19 virus) is a Dr. Shi Zhengli (Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) director until early this year, when she was replaced by a Chinese military biotech officer, and a gag order on all talk about the origins of Covid-19 was ordered by the Chinese government) chimeric virus comprising of DNA from three sources: (i) the 2015 chimeric virus Dr. Shi et al created at the Univ of NC (Chapel Hill) with NIH funding, called the SARS-CoV virus (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/), (ii) the RaTG13 bat coronavirus, very similar to the chimeric coronavirus of (i), which Dr. Shi allegedly discovered in the wild in either 2013, but curiously did not disclose until 2020, or in 2016, with the RaTG13 virus possibly being the same as the 2016 published putative natural bat coronavirus RaBtCoV/4991 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26920708), and (iii) a known naturally occurring pangolin coronavirus. See the Medium article on furin cleavage sites, spike proteins, and similarity in amino acid and genome nucleotide positions that shows the SARS-CoV-2 virus can be made from these three viruses with 100% certainty and/or match.

(1)(B) It's stipulated that it is impossible to determine with 100% certainty whether a gene sequence and thus an organism is natural or artificial. Recombinant DNA has been made joining plant DNA with animal DNA for example, which would clearly be deemed artificial, but analogous to the discovery of the platypus, a skilled designer can easily make an artificial DNA organism look natural (more on this later with the March 2020 Nature Medicine article by Kristian Andersen et al allegedly proving the Covid-19 virus was natural and not chimeric).

(2)(A) Dr. Shi and Dr. Ralph Baric, co-authors and co-inventors of the 2015 chimeric virus SARS-CoV, were engaged in a friendly or otherwise competition to design chimeric viruses. Dr. Baric is known as the father of chimeric viruses, and Dr. Shi is also a chimeric virus superstar, known affectionately as "Batwoman".

(2)(B) The WIV had in the fall of 2019 placed an advert for a position for a researcher in bat coronaviruses, as reported in ZeroHedge and elsewhere. This is not unusual since bat coronaviruses are the Drosophila or guinea pig for virus research. In fact, Google Patents lists over 200 hits with keywords "Wuhan", "coronavirus"( https://patents.google.com/?q=coronavirus+Wuhan&oq=coronavirus+Wuhan )

(2)(C) Shi's lab may have raced to beat a December self-imposed deadline, and a chimeric virus escaped the lab, "haste makes waste". Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0VJLYRhPHg
From the comments: "Gen Li @Sebastian K Have you read the genetic analysis in the NEJM? I have. The report makes this theory have a great deal of credence. The ACE2 receptor coronavirus matches the pre-pub announcements of the Wuhan lab [in the fall of 2019]. They were rushing research for a big conference [in December 2019]"

(3) (A) China has been the source of leaks from their biotech labs in the past. Specifically, twice with SARS-CoV in 2004 (Beijing). Other countries labs have also leaked the SARS virus (Singapore, Taiwan), and in the US the biotech / bioweapons lab of Ft. Detrick, MD has been sanctioned last year for having a potentially leaky lab (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ak-ebola-anthrax-smallpox-ricin-a9042641.html) (Note nearly all countries subscribe to the 1969 convention against bioweapons but nevertheless advance such bioweapons under the cover of 'defensive' medicine to create a vaccine, the WIV undoubtedly being no exception). This stipulated fact is to show that a bioweapons-grade or otherwise chimeric virus could indeed escape the WIV, a BSL-4 lab, as is the Ft. Detrick, MD lab.

(3) (B) China in 1977 accidentally released a strain of H1N1 virus that infected Russians at their border; the virus was lab created (selected or attenuated in strength) and was, as is common with lab viruses, temperature sensitive. The Covid-19 virus is also temperature sensitive.

(4)(A) a widely published scientific paper allegedly rebutting that the Covid-19 virus is man-made is the Andersen et al. March 2020 Nature Medicine article, key passage here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9#ref-CR20 (March 17, 2020) "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" by Kristian G. Andersen et al - "While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal7 and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding7,11. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation."

This article is astonishingly weak yet widely cited. Essentially it is saying that the Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) is not as optimal at infecting humans as the chimeric virus SARS-CoV that Dr. Shi, Dr. Baric and others invented in 2015 in the Univ of NC (Chapel Hill), hence, being sub-optimal in infecting humans, it cannot be the design of a competent gene jockey. But a moment's reflection should indicate, even to somebody unversed in science, that a competent bioweapons lab creating an infectious chimeric virus would not want to create exactly the same virus as before, the SARS-CoV virus of 2015, for fear of the virus being found to be clearly man made. In particular since this 2015 chimeric virus was so controversial that the US NIH, a sponsor, sanctioned the authors, and extended a ban on such "gain of function" (i.e. radical jumps in genetic structure not usually occurring in nature) chimeric viruses for a full two years afterwards, until 2017. Understandably after such sanctions by the NIH, chimeric virus scientists are naturally reluctant to promote any theory that the Covid-19 virus is chimeric, for fear of future sanctions. IMO this is clearly driving the debate from the experts point of view. It's analogous to asking lawyers to reform the legal profession to make it so you don't need lawyers. To put it mildly, it's not going to happen easily. Further, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has in fact been highly successful at infecting humans, even if it is indeed sub-optimal at infecting humans compared to its predecessor virus, the chimeric SARS-CoV virus of 2015 invented by Shi et al.

(4)(B) - appeals to authority are common when dealing with technical issues, as I can personally attest from years of litigation. Again, the Third Law of Litigation. Mental shortcuts are common with most people outside their area of expertise. So read the below passage criticizing the Andersen et al Nature Medicine article, keeping in mind the scientist criticizing is of the opinion that the Covid-19 virus is not man made. Nevertheless, the scientist indicates the Andersen et al authors made numerous assumptions that, in a litigation setting, would not go as unchallenged as they have in the popular press:

"Professor Richard Ebright of Rutgers University’s Waksman Institute of Microbiology, a biosecurity expert who has been speaking out on lab safety since the early 2000s, does agree with the Nature Medicine authors’ argument that the new coronavirus wasn’t purposefully manipulated by humans, calling their arguments on this score strong"

"Ebright points out that scientists in Wuhan have collected and publicized a bat coronavirus called RaTG13, one that is 96 percent genetically similar to SARS-CoV-2. The Nature Medicine authors are arguing “against the hypothesis that the published, lab-collected, lab-stored bat coronavirus RaTG13 [RaTG13 is similar to SARS-CoV, within 3-4% of SARS-CoV-2 - RL] could be a proximal progenitor of the outbreak virus.” But, Ebright says, the authors relied on assumptions about when the viral ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 jumped to humans; how fast it evolved before that; how fast it evolved as it adapted to humans; and the possibility that that the virus may have mutated in cell cultures or experimental animals inside a lab. "

Note Ebright is saying the Andersen et al authors made assumptions, assumptions that can be easily challenged. In fact, the Covid-19 virus has a "gain of function" of four, usual for a natural virus (but not impossible to achieve) and a genetic drift that indicates it would take 25 to 50 years for the Covid-19 virus to occur naturally (numerous cites online). So 18 years after SARS broke out, and only 5 years after SARS-CoV was artificially created, we are to believe that the Covid-19 virus occurred naturally? Possibly, but, it leads to the next and final point.

(5) no intermediate host or prior to a human host has been found for the Covid-19 virus. No animal save man is known to have the Covid-19 virus; not bats, not pangolins. This is not true of other deadly viruses, like H1N1 (pigs are the host), Ebola virus (bats are the host), MERS-CoV virus (camels are the host) or SARS (civet cats are the host). In fact, in all the prior virus outbreaks, the animal host prior to human infection was quickly found. Such is not the case with the Covid-19 virus. Quite possibly, it's because no such animal exists. Covid-19 is a man made virus.

(6) https://project-evidence.github.io/ is concerned with a natural release of the Covid-19 virus, so it belongs to the other thread in this forum, but the passage below supports the assertion that WIV could have created a "lab virus" simply by selective breeding of bats, allowing the coronaviruses to mutate inside the bats rather than using a test tube and recombinant DNA technology. As per stipulation (1)(B) above, that's about the same thing, functionally.

From the paper on the site: "While the phrase "laboratory-based scenario" is abstract, given prior context, we will assume this again refers to the "Manipulated Virus" theory. It remains plausible for a lab animal to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, either prior to arriving at the lab or as part of a spillover event occuring in the lab, afterwards spreading the virus to human Patient Zero. From the layman’s explanation of Paper 1 we remember that: Multiple coronaviruses can infect the same bat (coinfection) Coronaviruses like to mix their genes together (recombinate) If two coronaviruses infect the same bat and recombinate, they can potentially result in a novel (never before recognized) coronavirus It only takes a few changes ("exchange of a relatively small sequence segment") between two coronaviruses to result in a third coronavirus that can infect other animals ("host-switching")
The odds of this happening are pretty good! Indeed, wouldn’t it be far more likely for such a recombination event to occur in a laboratory housing many bats in close quarters, such as the WHCDC, rather than anywhere else in Wuhan?"

Final thoughts:

I could include facts about the destruction of the Wuhan wet market (destruction of evidence that, if it was done in a US litigation after commencement of a lawsuit, would result in a default judgement in favor of the party not destroying evidence, here, the China skeptics); about the alleged patient zero (either a senile old man at the wet market or an employee at WIV who allegedly has disappeared); about the alleged adjunct biotech laboratory not many kilometers form the Wuhan wet market, as is the WIV, but a mere couple of hundred meters away which allegedly was removed from Google Maps and has also been closed; how neither bats nor pangolins were sold at the Wuhan wet market, which in any event are found many thousands of kilometers away from the Wuhan wet market, the directive by CHN president Xi Jinping in early January that tightened safety protocols of biotech laboratories in China, which long-time China observers say is a clear signal a breach of safety occurred (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0VJLYRhPHg
), the stories (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/28/wuhan-laboratory-most-likely-coronavirus-source-us/) that WIV was very lax with their bio-safety protocols, even allegedly selling experimental animals after experiments and even, astonishingly, cooking and eating eggs that were used in experiments (heat inactivates viruses but that's one egg I would not want to crack), the rumors that Dr. Shi in January was upset on social media that her lab may have been responsible for the outbreak, or that she was removed as director of WIV after the outbreak--if that's not a demotion then what is it?--and replaced by a military general and a gag order against Covid-19 origin talk. Further, not just US president Trump is calling for an investigation but also the more neutral EU, reference [*] below.

In US law, the numerous circumstantial evidence surrounding the outbreak of Covid-19 points to a coverup, and of a lab created virus. Without question it would be sufficient to get a grand jury indictment in a criminal case. Whether it would be enough for a conviction is debatable (from a competent jury, I'm not referring to the well-known to US litigators 10% rule that I reference above). Personally, if I was offered 100:1 odds that the Covid-19 virus was chimeric, or even 10:1 odds, I would bet serious money that it is.

The above is not copyright, feel free to cut and paste anywhere without attribution.
--RL

[*] Ursula von der Leyen said the international community should investigate how the coronavirus pandemic started |
The Commission chief says studying the outbreak’s origins is necessary to set up an ‘early warning system.’
By LAURENS CERULUS 5/1/20, 12:00 PM CET Updated 5/1/20, 12:19 PM CET
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the international community should investigate how the coronavirus pandemic started in order to be better prepared for future outbreaks. In an interview with U.S. news channel CNBC published Friday, von der Leyen suggested the international community needed to study the coronavirus outbreak in order to set up an "early warning system." "You never know where the next virus is starting so we all want that, for the next time, we have learned our lesson and we have established a system of early warning that really functions," she said, adding "the whole world has to contribute to that." Von der Leyen's suggestion comes after the Swedish health minister called for an "international, independent investigation" into the origins and the spread of the virus. It also follows a statement by U.S. President Donald Trump, who suggested he had seen evidence that the virus originated in a Chinese scientific lab
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Critical Thinker Claim: Correlations Between Media Preference and Coronavirus Infection Rates Coronavirus COVID-19 11
L Claim: NASA is doctoring an image [Scanner Dirt] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 7
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Martin Gugino Was Using a "Police Tracker." Conspiracy Theories 42
Rory Claim: A dog in Manchester could sense its owner's return by unknown means UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 20
jarlrmai Claim: UFO following jet into landing at JFK on 11/11/19 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 15
Dingo Claim: U.S. Covid-19 Deaths are being Artificially Inflated Coronavirus COVID-19 38
W Claim: The Heart Is Not A Pump Health and Quackery 6
J Another sun path claim Flat Earth 4
J Claim sun paths prove flat earth Flat Earth 41
R Claim: Apollo 15-17 Live TV Feed - Antenna signal would be interrupted from all the violent shaking when Astronauts touch the buggy General Discussion 26
Rory Claim: Spanish flu caused by radio waves Coronavirus COVID-19 3
J [False] Claim that Scale Model of 2017 Eclipse Disproves the Heliocentric Model Flat Earth 29
Rory Claim: UK Coronavirus Bill (HC Bill 122) means "bad things" Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Claim: China Mobile loses 8.116 Million subscribers because of Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Agent K Claim: Harvey Weinstein has coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Claim: Julian Assange offered pardon to "Lie" for Trump Current Events 20
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Wiggles Claim: Distant Objects Being Obscured Is Due To the "Mirror Blocking" Effect of Inferior Mirages Flat Earth 7
Mick West Claim: Section 13.1 on Vaccine Inserts Removed to Hide that Vaccines not Tested to Cause Cancer Conspiracy Theories 7
Rory Claim: footage of Great South Bay Bridge supports flat earth Flat Earth 11
mudr0 Claim: Australia was not visible from the moon for Apollo 11 Broadcasts Conspiracy Theories 7
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Moon Passing The Meridian Disproves Globe Earth Flat Earth 0
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Seeing The Same Stars All Year Disproves Globe Earth Flat Earth 20
Mick West Claim: Fertility Clinics are a new thing (David Icke) Conspiracy Theories 12
Rory Claim: Nasa' in Hebrew means "to deceive" Flat Earth 11
Leifer Claim: magnetic dust on cars proves chemtrail fallout Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Neil Obstat Claim: zooming in on setting sun proves flat earth Flat Earth 23
Marin B Claim: Passenger luggage limited to make room for chemical tanks Contrails and Chemtrails 15
MikeG Claim: DC officials are "flocking" to "Doomsday Camps" Conspiracy Theories 4
StarGazer Convex Earth Claim: Ships Disappear Below The Horizon Due To A Optical Phenomena Flat Earth 3
Nth Claim: 146 Mile Microwave Transmission Proves Flat Earth Flat Earth 26
FlightMuj Apollo 12 photo analysis shows Sun as bulb [claim] Conspiracy Theories 19
inkwell American Airlines Flight 77 Missing from Bureau of Transportation Departure Report 9/11 12
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
derwoodii Claim Melania Trump has a double, will the real 1st lady please stand up Conspiracy Theories 11
StarGazer Claim: First Image of Space Taken from V-2 Rocket Proves the Earth is Flat Flat Earth 17
Z.W. Wolf Claim: The Moon's Shadow During The Solar Eclipse Disproves Sphere Earth Flat Earth 97
B Claim: Flu vaccine from multi-dose vials Use Too Much Mercury Health and Quackery 19
SR1419 Claim: 757s cant dump fuel. (True) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
ki_cz Claim: Satellite imagery showing 'sheet' of contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
vaccine papers Claim: flu vaccine increases risk of non-influenza infection Health and Quackery 8
Rory Claim: Japanese man puts animals to sleep with chi UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 23
MikeC Claim: FAA conspiring with Police to limit news access to Black Rock General Discussion 3
derwoodii Claim The seabed around Kaikoura, New Zealand has risen by up to 1.8 m earthquake General Discussion 20
Abishua Claim: water in moonlight cools faster than water not in moonlight [False] Science and Pseudoscience 160
MikeC Claim: New Zealand quakes man made...... Conspiracy Theories 4
TEEJ Claim of "UFO" interacting with "Chemtrail", Paris, France, 28th September 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Provemewrong Explained: Why flying isn't impossible on a globe Flat Earth 106
S Claim: Russian radar would have picked up MH17 missile Flight MH17 15
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top