Fake news.
Don't forget the idiots, gullible chugging on Ivermectin, tbh
Fake news.
Fake news, right, tell it to these two fools...
Two people in New Mexico are suspected to have died as a result of taking ivermectin, a medicine not proven to treat COVID-19, according to state health officials.
https://www.usatoday.com/two-people-died-ivermectin-poisoning-new-mexico
No one said they had.
The genetic sequencing absolutely does NOT suggest that the Chinese genetically engineered a synthetic virus.
As of right now it is infinitely more likely the virus has an animal background than a brand new synthetic virus made by China.
We want info from China on more than just origins. We would like the patterns of spread.
What does this say about my devotion to the CCP?
Yes, you continue to ignore genetics.
We here describe how the two main SARS‐CoV‐2 features, (1) the presence of a furin cleavage site missing in other CoVs of the same group and (2) an receptor binding domain (RBD) optimized to bind to human cells[ 2 ] might be the result of lab manipulation techniques such as site‐directed mutagenesis. The acquisition of both unique features by SARS‐CoV‐2 more or less simultaneously is less likely to be natural or caused only by cell/animal serial passage.
Before the SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreak, pangolins were the only mammals other than bats do ented to carry and be infected by SARS‐CoV‐2 related CoV.[ 12 ] Recombination events between the RBD of CoV from pangolins and RaTG13‐like backbone could have produced SARS‐CoV‐2 as chimeric strain. For such recombination to occur naturally, the two viruses must have infected the same cell in the same organism simultaneously, a rather improbable event considering the low population density of pangolins and the scarce presence of CoVs in their natural populations.x Moreover, receptor binding studies of recons uted RaTG13 showed that it does not bind to pangolin ACE2.xi
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7744920/
Also...your source
Why does that paragraph only focus on pangolins?
So it must be genetically engineered?
Guess what. YOU have a genetic sequence that has never been observed in nature. YOU are unique. There is no other human or animal on earth that has the same genetic sequence you have. FACT. So YOU must have been engineered by the Chinese.
So what you are saying is Corona viruses that infect people were genetically engineered to do so because you have now ruled out animal origin in Pangolins. Yet a small human population in China living next to bats had been infected by a Covid virus very much like a bat virus. So... Genetic engineering made the virus.
Thats total bull . So because China is not coming clean they must have engineered a virus that would infect world populations...
Another TSA wonder conclusion.
Last edited by pgardn; 03-07-2023 at 01:20 PM.
Because he does not understand the article. One that he keeps integrating with another article that is totally boffo and says something very different.
He looks up articles and does not understand what they are saying.
Looks like he's just regurgitating what he's been fed. Probably a thread on AR15.com. Maybe a grocer's blog.
His MO is wall copy/pasta and then trying to inflate one particular unknown which he does not understand.
Daily Caller would be my guess.
And there definitely are some important points to be made about the Chinese not giving us info or access to their scientists but he wont touch these.
These points dont make a tasty pizza. But I really dont think he knows enough to even begin want to understand them.
Speaking of not understanding the article the le of the ing paper is The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. No one said it MUST be genetically engineered.
You bring up a small human population in China living next to bats and conveniently forget to mention this same small human population lived next to the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology that was doing GOF research on coronaviruses![]()
Time to take a breather, you must be tired from jumping to all these conclusions.
TSA backtracking now that he sees his up
"Does not rule out"
Then tell us what a laboratory origin means for you now since you are backtracking?
I specifically mentioned genetically engineered in a lab as not true MULTIPLE TIMES and you brought up a craptastic study that said it was genetically engineered!
I have been mentioned this all along and NOW you finally decided you don’t like it?
The lab I mentioned MADE THE FIND you knuckle head.
Then when they started cultivating the virus for study; they had worried that the cultivation might be a source for larger outbreaks in which people were getting sick , which was found to be NOT THE CASE. But in any event they did not engineer the virus, they were the first lab to FIND the virus in nature! The lady who found it was one of few people who had studied other benign coronaviruses. Then they started finding it in other places other than the cave and in other people. It was cultivated from her lab but not leaked. It had already infected people anyway outside of her knowledge! We know this because the Chinese were still letting the lab talk to us at this time. It had not yet become a worldwide problem ya damn stupid fat head. It had gotten noticed in China and there were fears that it could spread easily just as it had done in some parts of China. She stumbled upon a virus that was already out and about! That was one of the major findings the Chinese scientists gave us early on. And I forgot to mention it ? when you fkn failed to read anything but a little inaccurate scrawl about it.
You just wander into something you have read little to nothing about and still don’t get it because you get your “news” from horrible sources and then further distort the info on your own. You don’t even have the timelines of major discoveries about this virus correct. Therefore you make stupid ass statements about the Chinese. And they love it. The confusion of a bunch of Trumper dumbasses like yourself. Have you learned nothing from your Italian recipes?
The virus has an animal origin, just like many other viruses we find that make world wide rounds and have origins from Asia.
It’s a very crowded part of the world with a lot of close human to animal contact. Best bet by far.
Viruses “jump” species quite readily now and like they have done in the past.
Every human on Earth has viral sequences (mostly inert ie not transcribed or translated) that they pass on to their kids via egg + sperm.
Run in fear and blame China.
another glib DarrinS take expires on the starting line. he has a higher than average ratio of that.
This is why it's so pointless to go back and forth with you, your reading comprehension is . The study I linked never said it was genetically engineered, you just make up to confirm your bias.
“The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” is one of the most influential scientific articles in history.
In February 2020 — about a month before a pandemic had been declared — five top virologists huddled to examine aspects of a rapidly emerging coronavirus that seemed primed to infect human cells. In particular, a unique feature called the furin cleavage site caused concern, and even kept one virologist up all night. A few days later, the virologists concluded the virus had not been engineered. In March, their conclusions were published in Nature Medicine.
“We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” the article read.
The article assured much of the media, Washington and the broader infectious disease community that there was no need to scrutinize the labs at the pandemic’s epicenter in Wuhan, China. The Wuhan Ins ute of Virology is well known for research on SARS-like coronaviruses, including gain-of-function research. Though a “correspondence” and not a formal paper, the article has been cited in the press 2, 127 times.
It took 15 months and Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to reveal that each of the five authors had expressed private concerns about engineering or the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology’s store of novel coronaviruses and work in relatively low biosafety levels.
Also troubling: A confidential teleconference had framed early drafts of the article. But several scientists on the call had undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Wellcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar organized the teleconference at the request of National Ins ute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci.
NIAID had funded the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology — a fact Fauci had been alerted to by late January. Minutes after being alerted by one of the virologists to gain-of-function research underway in Wuhan, Fauci dispatched an aide to determine whether his ins ute had funded this work. Fauci was conferring with the National Security Council and the White House almost daily at that time, his schedule shows.
Also present on the call for “advice and leadership ” but not publicly credited: director of the National Ins utes of Health Francis Collins.
Two authors were later found to have collaborated with the Wuhan lab or its American partner, EcoHealth Alliance.
Christian Drosten, a prominent virologist who participated in the teleconference, was once listed as a participant in a “virus hunting” project co-led by EcoHealth Alliance.
Ron Fouchier, another virologist who shaped the article’s central ideas without credit, is synonymous with controversial viral engineering.
The authors of the “proximal origin” article are Scripps Research virologist Kristian Andersen, University of Sydney virologist Edward Holmes, Tulane School of Medicine virologist Robert Garry, University of Edinburgh virologist Andrew Rambaut and Columbia University virologist Ian Lipkin.
Another virologist was notably absent.
To Farrar, Holmes and Andersen, the work of another American virologist appeared to be “a how-to manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus in a laboratory.”
North Carolina University virologist Ralph Baric, a close collaborator of the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology, is a leading expert on coronaviruses and engineering techniques. His research had been at the center of the gain-of-function debate in the U.S. a few years earlier, sparking concerns it could generate “SARS 2.0.”
Several of his papers were discussed on the call, according to presentation slides obtained under FOIA.
But because of his ties to the Wuhan lab, he was left out of the discussion, according to Holmes.
“We decided not to invite Ralph Baric just because he was too close to the WIV. … He’s a great virologist. He’s guilty of nothing, I’ll tell you that right now. But we wanted to make it a proper investigation,” Holmes said in a December 2022 interview.
This timeline compiles numerous sources in an effort to covey the backstory of the enormously influential article. The timeline is likely to grow as more information emerges. All times have been approximated to Eastern Time.
Farrar said that “proximal origin” was motivated by the absence of an investigation by the WHO. However, emails show that Farrar simultaneously shepherded along the article and appealed to the WHO.
In reality, Farrar expressed a desire to leaders at the WHO to “get ahead of the science and the narrative of this.” Fauci agreed.
Four days after flagging aspects of the genome that appeared engineered, Andersen coauthored an early draft which stated that such a scenario would be “largely incompatible with the data.” After days of discussing the possibility of the furin cleavage site arising from serial passage in the lab — a method of making a virus more dangerous in the lab without engineering — the possibility was dismissed in the final report.
Farrar described the frenzy and panic preceding the publication of “proximal origin.”
“Just a few of us – Eddie, Kristian, Tony and I – were now privy to sensitive information that, if proved to be true, might set off a whole series of events that would be far bigger than any of us. It felt as if a storm was gathering,” he said.
The aim, Farrar told his colleagues at the time, was to “lay down a respected statement to frame whatever debate goes on – before that debate gets out of hand with potentially hugely damaging ramifications.”
The scientists’ familiarity with the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology’s work on novel coronaviruses calls into question a central premise of the paper — that SARS-CoV-2 could not have been engineered because it appeared to be novel.
Summary
January 27, 2020: Fauci learned he funds the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology.
January 29, 2020: Andersen discovered a paper describing gain-of-function techniques with coronaviruses involving the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology. Farrar asks to speak with Fauci.
January 31, 2020: Fauci and Andersen spoke privately. Four virologists, including three authors of the article — Andersen, Holmes and Garry — found the virus to be “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”
February 1, 2020: Farrar organized a secret teleconference between the virologists and NIH. Separately, Fauci sought to learn more about which projects NIAID funded at the lab.
February 2, 2020: The virologists exchanged thoughts. Several leaned toward a lab origin. Garry said he cannot understand how SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged naturally after comparing it to RaTG13. The scientists express concerns about work with coronaviruses being done in Wuhan in BSL-2 conditions.”Wild west,” said Farrar. Farrar emphasized the importance of publishing something quickly to counteract “lurid” claims emerging about a lab origin.
February 4, 2020: A draft was circulated. Holmes, “60-40 lab,” said the draft “does not mention other anomalies as that will make us look like loons.” Andersen derided the idea of an engineered virus as “crackpot” and promoted the phrase “consistent with natural evolution” to scientists outside of the confab.
March 6, 2020: Andersen thanked Farrar, Collins and Fauci for their “advice and leadership.”
April 17, 2020: Fauci told reporters COVID-19 is “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human,” citing the paper.
August 19, 2020: Collins and Fauci discussed the termination of an EcoHealth Alliance grant and the lab leak theory. Eight days later, a new grant is extended from NIAID to EcoHealth and Andersen’s lab.
June 20, 2021: Collins, Fauci, Andersen and Garry encouraged a researcher to rethink a preprint about early SARS-CoV-2 sequences that NIH improperly ed from its database. Andersen proposed deleting it from a preprint server.
July 31, 2022: New entries to an NIH database indicated a relationship between Holmes and the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology, including work on RaTG13.
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/t...of-sars-cov-2/
There are currently 21 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 21 guests)