Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory Gets Another Look

[clivebaxter]

22 hours ago, xylophone said:

And the Congo for HIV, the Middle East (Jordan it is believed) for MERS and so on........and perhaps the US for what was called the Spanish Flu???

 

Won't happen.

Or perhaps China for the Spanish flu?

 

https://www.history.com/news/china-epicenter-of-1918-flu-pandemic-historian-says

[Salerno]

39 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

but there was one decent show where politicians had to answer questions from the public.

 

Q&A by any chance? https://www.youtube.com/user/abcqanda If so, it's gone way down over the past 2 or 3 years. 

 

42 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

ABC used to be on the Pattaya tv, but Abbott stopped that when he won the election by changing something, but I don't remember what it was.

 

It was a glitch; still broadcasting but a bit heavy on the propaganda last time I watched it. http://www.abcaustralia.net.au/

[WaveHunter]

17 hours ago, candide said:

I would argue the opposite. The lab leak hypothesis is based on unknown information, while the non-leak hypothesis is coherent with known facts. I will distinguish between the "pure leak" hypothesis (a "natural" Covid-19 had been collected and then leaked) and "GoF" hypothesis (a manufactured cv leaked).

Pure leak hypothesis:

As mentioned in one of the articles, there is no information that they had the Covid-19 in the lab, unlike other CVs. It doesn't prove they did not have it, but it is unknown that they had it.

GoF+ leak hypothesis

In order to apply GoF, you need to use a prior virus, and then make it evolve.  The closest known CV, sharing 96% of its genes, could not have been engineered to become CV-19 for two reasons. First, it is still too different to be a plausible candidate. Second, CV-19 is different from this CV in several different ways, while GoF research is applied to change only a limited number of functions.

 

It doesn't mean that these hypotheses may not be valid, but they are based on unknown information.

 

Too many people are ready to assume that all the facts are in about whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a natural zoonotic crossover from animals to humans, or whether it might have been engineered in a lab.  Worse, some are quick to call the lab leak hypothesis nothing but an unfounded conspiracy theory.

 

The fact is, there are many problems in explaining a natural zoonotic crossover, and there is a growing body of evidence that supports the notion this may have been engineered.

 

Firstly, The Wuhan Institute of Virology is a BioSafety Level 4 Lab.  That is the type of lab that is specifically designed to study and manipulate only the most dangerous pathogens, and it the only BSL-4 lab in China.   Therefore, if such engineering were to occur, that is the ONLY lab in China that would be doing it.

 

Secondly, Virologist Shi Zhengli (known as the "Bat Woman") is a leading researcher of bat viruses at the Wuhan Lab, and the work that her lab conducted is well documented in many published research papers.   In these papers it's clear that many of her studies involved Gain of Function (GoF) research before the US banned funding such research.

 

A 2015 paper by her lab that was published in the journal Nature  confirms that her lab was engaged in GoF research involving bat coronaviruses.  This was before the US banned funding for GoF research.  

 

So there is really no question that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was engaged in GoF research of bat coronaviruses before the pandemic.

 

For those who believe that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was the result of a natural zoonotic crossover from bats to humans, one of the biggest problem with that idea is that scientist to date have yet to find a bat population harboring an exact genetic match to SARS-CoV-2.

 

Those who oppose the idea that this could have been engineered in a lab, point out that the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 virus has no tell-tale hallmarks of being engineered, but that may not actually be true.

 

The main distinction between the SARS-CoV-2 virus and other coronaviruses is the acquisition in the spike protein of a cleavage site activated by a host-cell enzyme furin. 

 

The problem is...this insertion of the furin cleavage site on the SARS-CoV-2 is not in frame with the rest of the genetic sequence.  

 

That's not to say that the furin cleavage site on SARS2 validates the lab-leak theory, but it is a big mystery and a possible smoking gun that indicates it was genetically engineered and not naturally occuring.

 

The Wuhan Institute of Virology is one of 11 BSL-4 Lab worldwide that are known to have done this particular type of of GoF research.

 

There are a lot of credible science-based sources that strongly support this possibility.  Here are a few, but there are many more that can be found bo googling " furin cleavage site"

 

For instance, check these sources:

• Origin of Covid — Following the Clues
• The origin of SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site remains a mystery
• The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin

 

Even the WHO's own director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has called for a new investigation, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study." 

 

And even Dr Fauci now says he's "not convinced" the virus originated naturally.

 

Nobody can really have an objective opinion about whether this was a naturally occuring virus or an engineered one until more is known.

Edited June 20, 2021 by WaveHunter

[candide]

49 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Too many people are ready to assume that all the facts are in about whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a natural zoonotic crossover from animals to humans, or whether it might have been engineered in a lab.  Worse, some are quick to call the lab leak hypothesis nothing but an unfounded conspiracy theory.

 

The fact is, there are many problems in explaining a natural zoonotic crossover, and there is a growing body of evidence that supports the notion this may have been engineered.

 

Firstly, The Wuhan Institute of Virology is a BioSafety Level 4 Lab.  That is the type of lab that is specifically designed to study and manipulate only the most dangerous pathogens, and it the only BSL-4 lab in China.   Therefore, if such engineering were to occur, that is the ONLY lab in China that would be doing it.

 

Secondly, Virologist Shi Zhengli (known as the "Bat Woman") is a leading researcher of bat viruses at the Wuhan Lab, and the work that her lab conducted is well documented in many published research papers.   In these papers it's clear that many of her studies involved Gain of Function (GoF) research before the US banned funding such research.

 

A 2015 paper by her lab that was published in the journal Nature  confirms that her lab was engaged in GoF research involving bat coronaviruses.  This was before the US banned funding for GoF research.  

 

So there is really no question that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was engaged in GoF research of bat coronaviruses before the pandemic.

 

For those who believe that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was the result of a natural zoonotic crossover from bats to humans, one of the biggest problem with that idea is that scientist to date have yet to find a bat population harboring an exact genetic match to SARS-CoV-2.

 

Those who oppose the idea that this could have been engineered in a lab, point out that the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 virus has no tell-tale hallmarks of being engineered, but that may not actually be true.

 

The main distinction between the SARS-CoV-2 virus and other coronaviruses is the acquisition in the spike protein of a cleavage site activated by a host-cell enzyme furin. 

 

The problem is...this insertion of the furin cleavage site on the SARS-CoV-2 is not in frame with the rest of the genetic sequence.  

 

That's not to say that the furin cleavage site on SARS2 validates the lab-leak theory, but it is a big mystery and a possible smoking gun that indicates it was genetically engineered and not naturally occuring.

 

The Wuhan Institute of Virology is one of 11 BSL-4 Lab worldwide that are known to have done this particular type of of GoF research.

 

There are a lot of credible science-based sources that strongly support this possibility.  Here are a few, but there are many more that can be found bo googling " furin cleavage site"

 

For instance, check these sources:

• Origin of Covid — Following the Clues
• The origin of SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site remains a mystery
• The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin

 

Even the WHO's own director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has called for a new investigation, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study." 

 

And even Dr Fauci now says he's "not convinced" the virus originated naturally.

 

Nobody can really have an objective opinion about whether this was a naturally occuring virus or an engineered one until more is known.

Interesting. However, I checked the second source you linked (the first one is not a scientific source, and I cannot access the third one). I also checked the article preprint commented in your source. None of the two evoke the possibility of GOF manipulation, they just conclude that research should be directed at finding and analysing more recent viruses than the three viruses allegedly sharing a common ancestor with Covid-19.

Quote from the conclusions of the original pre-print:

 

"SARS-CoV-2 origin matters. The million-dollar question: would a bat coronavirus RatG13, isolated in 2021, have the functional polybasic furin site?"

(Comment: RatG13 has been isolated in 2013 and is the closest relative)

Edited June 20, 2021 by candide

[friendofthai]

The official Chinese answer to all these claims is here:

"I'd like to stress that if the United States truly respects facts, it should open the biological lab at Fort Detrick, give more transparency to issues like its 200-plus overseas bio-labs, invite WHO experts to conduct origin-tracing in the United States, and respond to the concerns from the international community with real actions. We hope certain U.S. politicians can respect science, act with due conscience, stop shifting the blame or playing the political game, and fostering a favorable environment for international cooperation on origin-tracing and combating the virus, which is what they should do at the moment."

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/nanhai/eng/fyrbt_1/t1847010.htm

 

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Interesting. However, I checked the second source you linked (the first is not a scientific source, and I cannot access the second). I also check the article preprint commented in your source. None of the two evoke the possibility of GOF manipulation, they just conclude that research should be directed at finding and analysing more recent viruses than the three viruses allegedly sharing a common ancestor with Covid-19.

Quote from the conclusions of the original pre-print:

 

"SARS-CoV-2 origin matters. The million-dollar question: would a bat coronavirus RatG13, isolated in 2021, have the functional polybasic furin site?"

(Comment: RatG13 has been isolated in 2013 and is the closest relative)

FYI, the first link I provide is from Nicholas Wade who is a highly respected science journalist and editor for publications like Nature, Science, and has written for many other prestigious science-based publications.  He is known for doing objective research and meticulous fact checking, providing in-depth reporting of scientific topics that can be fully appreciated by all.

 

In this particular article, he wrote it in collaboration with people like Peter Daszak, who was one of the controversial scientists involved in funding coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, so that makes Wade's story particularly important which is why I linked it first. 

 

His inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is objective, fair, and balanced journalism that rightly makes no conclusion about the origin, but leaves that up to the reader to form his/her own opinion.  THAT is the mark of good journalism 

 

That's what makes it such an important read as far as I'm concerned, and DEFINITELY NOT one you should just dismiss becuase, as you put it, "it is not a scientific source"

 

The whole problem with controversial topics like this one (natural vs engineered) is that most people for an immediate opinion after only hearing one side of the story and then only look for data that will support that opinion, instead of continuing to objectively  explore the topic from all different sides

 

BTW, The link about Shi's research lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology confirms that GoF research was going on there in as early as 2015.  it is pretty technical, but it's clear to a lay observer that this was GoF research. ( 2015 paper by her lab that was published in the journal Nature)

 

You will never find the truth if you only look at one side of the equation.

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by WaveHunter

[candide]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

FYI, the first link I provide is from Nicholas Wade who is a highly respected science journalist and editor for publications like Nature, Science, and has written for many other prestigious science-based publications.  He is known for doing objective research and meticulous fact checking, providing in-depth reporting of scientific topics that can be fully appreciated by all.

 

In this particular article, he wrote it in collaboration with people like Peter Daszak, who was one of the controversial scientists involved in funding coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, so that makes Wade's story particularly important which is why I linked it first. 

 

His inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is objective, fair, and balanced journalism that rightly makes no conclusion about the origin, but leaves that up to the reader to form his/her own opinion.  THAT is the mark of good journalism 

 

That's what makes it such an important read as far as I'm concerned, and DEFINITELY NOT one you should just dismiss becuase, as you put it, "it is not a scientific source"

 

The whole problem with controversial topics like this one (natural vs engineered) is that most people for an immediate opinion after only hearing one side of the story and then only look for data that will support that opinion, instead of continuing to objectively  explore the topic from all different sides

 

BTW, The link about Shi's research lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology confirms that GoF research was going on there in as early as 2015.  it is pretty technical, but it's clear to a lay observer that this was GoF research. ( 2015 paper by her lab that was published in the journal Nature)

 

You will never find the truth if you only look at one side of the equation.

 

To recall what my point was. It was not that the leak hypothesis is not to be considered, It was that there are only clues and assumptions, but no certain facts to support it, in particular about the virus itself.

Pure leak hypothesis (leak of a naturally evolved CV)

There is no evidence that this lab or another one had the current CV.

GoF + leak hypothesis 

The closest known CV is too different to be able to create cv-19. So there is no evidence of the existence of an ancestor which could have been manipulated.

 

Considering some assumptions and not others, a plausible leak hypothesis can be logically deduced, and may be verified some day. However, it is not true that facts support this hypothesis and not the natural evolution hypothesis, which was my original point.

 

BTW, another interesting and quite recent article which seems to be balanced.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

 

 

[Pattaya Spotter]

Fight Over Covid’s Origins Renews Debate on Risks of Lab Work

 

At a Senate hearing...last month, Sen. Paul asked Anthony Fauci if the NIH had funded “gain-of-function” research on coronaviruses in China...Dr. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, flatly rejected the claim: “Senator Paul...you are entirely...incorrect, that the N.I.H. has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute.” This exchange, and the bit of scientific jargon at the heart of it, has gained traction in recent weeks by people suggesting that the coronavirus was engineered, rather than having jumped from animals to humans, the explanation favored by most experts on coronaviruses. The uproar has also drawn attention back to a decade-long debate among scientists over whether certain gain-of-function research is too risky to allow.

 

https://nyti.ms/3vRxC6l

Edited June 20, 2021 by Pattaya Spotter

[tgw]

3 hours ago, friendofthai said:

The official Chinese answer to all these claims is here:

"I'd like to stress that if the United States truly respects facts, it should open the biological lab at Fort Detrick, give more transparency to issues like its 200-plus overseas bio-labs, invite WHO experts to conduct origin-tracing in the United States, and respond to the concerns from the international community with real actions. We hope certain U.S. politicians can respect science, act with due conscience, stop shifting the blame or playing the political game, and fostering a favorable environment for international cooperation on origin-tracing and combating the virus, which is what they should do at the moment."

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/nanhai/eng/fyrbt_1/t1847010.htm

 

let's not forget where the outbreak occured: Wuhan.

[tgw]

5 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Firstly, The Wuhan Institute of Virology is a BioSafety Level 4 Lab.  That is the type of lab that is specifically designed to study and manipulate only the most dangerous pathogens, and it the only BSL-4 lab in China.   Therefore, if such engineering were to occur, that is the ONLY lab in China that would be doing it.

 

 

from what I read, including Nicholas Wade's articles, I doubt GoF research was exclusively done in BSL-4, the required safety level seems to be BSL-3.

Besides the BSL-3 labs at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, there are 13 more BSL-3 labs in Wuhan.

 

have a look at this:

https://gillesdemaneuf.medium.com/a-count-of-bsl-3-labs-in-china-664f2b354276

 

Wuhan University has labs for animal experimentation, BSL-3, which did all kind of research, including MERS, SARS, coronaviruses, etc. If there has been an outbreak in 2019 in minks (very very likely according to clues), there is a chance samples would have been sent there for research.

But there are many other labs in Wuhan.

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by tgw

[WaveHunter]

15 hours ago, tgw said:

 

from what I read, including Nicholas Wade's articles, I doubt GoF research was exclusively done in BSL-4, the required safety level seems to be BSL-3.

Besides the BSL-3 labs at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, there are 13 more BSL-3 labs in Wuhan.

 

have a look at this:

https://gillesdemaneuf.medium.com/a-count-of-bsl-3-labs-in-china-664f2b354276

 

Wuhan University has labs for animal experimentation, BSL-3, which did all kind of research, including MERS, SARS, coronaviruses, etc. If there has been an outbreak in 2019 in minks (very very likely according to clues), there is a chance samples would have been sent there for research.

But there are many other labs in Wuhan.

 

You need to get your facts straight.

 

The Wuhan Institute of Virology not only has  20 BSL-2 labs, and 2 BSL-3 labs, but built the first and only BSL-4 lab in China that went into operation in 2018 for the express purpose of doing research  with the most dangerous of all pathogens.

 

GoF research is commonplace and safely practiced in labs all over the world, however when it involves the most deadly of pathogens, those commonly studied only in BSL-4 labs, there are unimaginable risks involved.

 

This type of GoF research meddles with Nature's genetic codes in a way that human beings are ill-equipped  to safely do, and many people feel, should never be done becuase it is tantamount to "playing God".

 

Such research can have inimaginable repercussions that can not be undone if it gets out of control becuase GoF research is a deliberate attempt to make a pathogen that normally would not be a risk to humans, highly virulent and transmissible to humans.

 

Whether or not the SARS-CoV-2 virus was engineered in Wuhan's BSL-4 lab is, as yet, unclear, but there is VERY compelling evidence that it could have been.  

 

For anyone to simply rule out this possibility as nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory without thoroughly investigating it would be foolish and irresponsible.

 

Edited June 21, 2021 by WaveHunter

[Thomas J]

We may never get the smoking gun.  However if you compare the two alternatives 1. it jumped from nature and 2. it was a leak from the Wuhan lab which of these is more reasonable.

1. A horseshoe bat the closest being 1,600 km from Wuhan had the virus, infected either a human or an animal that someone did not infect anyone else on its 1,600 mile trek to Wuhan.  These bats though containing the virus did not "jump" to humans in any of the preceding centuries and somehow the virus made its way to a Chinese city that had a Level 4 virology lab known to be studying bat viruses. 

2. A lab in Wuhan known to have studies bat viruses, had Sheng Zengli the bat virologist on its staff, had "reportedly" three workers hospitalized in November 2019 for unknown reasons and NBC news reports that cell phone activity "suggests" the high security area of the lab was shut down just prior to the Coronavirus outbreak.  China has admitted ordering the destruction of coronavirus samples.  Huang Yanling, a virologist at the lab is "thought" to be the first case of Covid and internet reports state she is missing. 

Now I think  that O.J. Simpson had less compelling circumstantial evidence presented against him.  The very idea that of all the places in the world that the bat virus would jump to human happened in Wuhan the home to a Level 4 virology lab studying bat viruses is so coincidental beyond mathematical probabilities. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/report-says-cellphone-data-suggests-october-shutdown-wuhan-lab-experts-n1202716

[WaveHunter]

16 hours ago, candide said:

To recall what my point was. It was not that the leak hypothesis is not to be considered, It was that there are only clues and assumptions, but no certain facts to support it, in particular about the virus itself.

Pure leak hypothesis (leak of a naturally evolved CV)

There is no evidence that this lab or another one had the current CV.

GoF + leak hypothesis 

The closest known CV is too different to be able to create cv-19. So there is no evidence of the existence of an ancestor which could have been manipulated.

 

Considering some assumptions and not others, a plausible leak hypothesis can be logically deduced, and may be verified some day. However, it is not true that facts support this hypothesis and not the natural evolution hypothesis, which was my original point.

 

BTW, another interesting and quite recent article which seems to be balanced.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

 

 

The most telling sentence in that Nature story is:

 

• "...Scientists don’t have enough evidence about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 to rule out the lab-leak hypothesis, or to prove the alternative — that the virus has a natural origin. ..."

My point is that as time goes by there seems to be more and more evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was engineered in a lab through through Gain-Of-Function research (GoFR) that was being conducted in Wuhan's BSL-4 lab.

 

BSL-4 labs are only built to do research on the most deadly pathogens, or more specifically, to do proactive research on pathogens that are not presently a danger to human but could be in the future if they were to naturally mutate.  

 

The whole purpose of GoF research is to change a pathogen from one that is not dangerous to humans, to one that is, to figure out ways to deal with it should that occur in in Nature.

 

The virologist, Shi Zhengli's (known as The Bat Woman) of the Wuhan Institute of Virology is well known for her work studying the coronavirus' associated with bats.  Much of her work was considered controversial and dangerous, and much of it had to be conducted in the BSL-4 lab due to this.  So, there is no question this type of work was occuring there.

 

Though there is yet no overwhelming evidence that GoFR created the SARS-CoV-2 virus, there is compelling evidence that this could have happened.  The furin cleavage site that was discussed in depth by Nicholas Wade may turn out to be the most compelling proof that SARS-CoV-2 may have been engineered in a lab and not a natural occurrence.

 

As for the theory that SARS-CoV-2 virus was a natural zoonotic crossover from animal to human, the big problem with that scientists have have yet to find a bat population harboring a genetic match to SARS-CoV-2.  THAT is a huge concern if we are to believe in that theory!

 

My point is simply this:  there is not sufficient evidence on EITHER side of this debate to confirm whether SARS-CoV-2 is a natural occurrence or whether it was man-made, and that makes it all the more important to investigate the ACTUAL origin.

 

Edited June 21, 2021 by WaveHunter

[WaveHunter]

47 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

We may never get the smoking gun.  However if you compare the two alternatives 1. it jumped from nature and 2. it was a leak from the Wuhan lab which of these is more reasonable.

1. A horseshoe bat the closest being 1,600 km from Wuhan had the virus, infected either a human or an animal that someone did not infect anyone else on its 1,600 mile trek to Wuhan.  These bats though containing the virus did not "jump" to humans in any of the preceding centuries and somehow the virus made its way to a Chinese city that had a Level 4 virology lab known to be studying bat viruses. 

2. A lab in Wuhan known to have studies bat viruses, had Sheng Zengli the bat virologist on its staff, had "reportedly" three workers hospitalized in November 2019 for unknown reasons and NBC news reports that cell phone activity "suggests" the high security area of the lab was shut down just prior to the Coronavirus outbreak.  China has admitted ordering the destruction of coronavirus samples.  Huang Yanling, a virologist at the lab is "thought" to be the first case of Covid and internet reports state she is missing. 

Now I think  that O.J. Simpson had less compelling circumstantial evidence presented against him.  The very idea that of all the places in the world that the bat virus would jump to human happened in Wuhan the home to a Level 4 virology lab studying bat viruses is so coincidental beyond mathematical probabilities. 
 

Totally agree.  Occam's razor more or less implies that the simplest and most logical explanation usually turns out to be the truth. 

 

Right now there are compelling reasons to believe that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in the Wuhan Lab (see Nicholas Wade's objective discussion of in "Origin of Covid — Following the Clues", particularly his in-depth description of the furin cleavage site.  For me, this was a real eye-opener.

 

Concerning the theory that SARS-CoV-2 came from a natural zoonotic crossover from bats to humans, consider the fact that scientists have yet been able to find a bat population harboring a genetic match to SARS-CoV-2.

 

Neither of these things offer undeniable proof of the true origin of SARS-CoV-2, but they make it clear, right now, that nobody can rule out that SARS-CoV-2 did not come from a lab.

 

For those who still blindly cling to the belief that SARS-CoV-2 could only have come from a natural origin, and that it is only unfounded conspiracy theory to believe that it could have been engineered in a lab is about as logical and objective as sticking one's head in the sand to avoid reality.

Edited June 21, 2021 by WaveHunter

[tgw]

2 hours ago, Thomas J said:

1. A horseshoe bat the closest being 1,600 km from Wuhan had the virus, infected either a human or an animal that someone did not infect anyone else on its 1,600 mile trek to Wuhan.  These bats though containing the virus did not "jump" to humans in any of the preceding centuries and somehow the virus made its way to a Chinese city that had a Level 4 virology lab known to be studying bat viruses. 
 

 

can you expand on this? I have never read that a bat had "the virus". I read about a bat that had a virus that is 96% similar and was ruled out as ancestor.

[tgw]

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

You need to get your facts straight.

 

The Wuhan Institute of Virology not only has  20 BSL-2 labs, and 2 BSL-3 labs, but built the first and only BSL-4 lab in China that went into operation in 2018 for the express purpose of doing research  with the most dangerous of all pathogens.

 

GoF research is commonplace and safely practiced in labs all over the world, however when it involves the most deadly of pathogens, those commonly studied only in BSL-4 labs, there are unimaginable risks involved.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(18)30006-9/fulltext

 

Quote

Gain-of-function experiments are typically done in biosafety level (BSL) 3+ facilities

 

[Thomas J]

4 minutes ago, tgw said:

can you expand on this? I have never read that a bat had "the virus". I read about a bat that had a virus that is 96% similar and was ruled out as ancestor.

I don't believe they have conclusively proven that it came from a horseshoe bat however numerous articles show that horseshoe bats have a virus that is similar to Covid 19.  Again if the theory is that it jumped from an animal to human, then some animal had the virus and passed it on.  So far the best suggestion has been a horseshoe bat. 



https://www.uea.ac.uk/news/-/article/novel-coronavirus-discovered-in-british-bats

[tgw]

11 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I don't believe they have conclusively proven that it came from a horseshoe bat however numerous articles show that horseshoe bats have a virus that is similar to Covid 19.  Again if the theory is that it jumped from an animal to human, then some animal had the virus and passed it on.  So far the best suggestion has been a horseshoe bat. 
https://www.uea.ac.uk/news/-/article/novel-coronavirus-discovered-in-british-bats

 

ah ok, #1 was a theory "A horseshoe bat the closest being 1,600 km from Wuhan had the virus"

...

 

the story might be slightly different though - the role of bats might not be as important.

 

https://reporterre.net/Mounting-evidence-suggests-mink-farms-in-China-could-be-the-cradle-of-Covid-19-22020

Quote

in 2019 Shandong produced 6.5 million mink pelts, down from nearly 15 million in 2018

so there likely was a huge virus outbreak in mink farms

 

[Thomas J]

16 minutes ago, tgw said:

so there likely was a huge virus outbreak in mink farms

Yes but the minks "caught" the virus but they were not the originators of it.   The reason that bats are suspected is that they have been found to carry similar viruses. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/

[tgw]

17 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Yes but the minks "caught" the virus but they were not the originators of it.   The reason that bats are suspected is that they have been found to carry similar viruses. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/

 

yes... but the minks easily catch all kinds or viruses, as shown by the list included in the article I linked. minks seem to catch many viruses affecting many other animals including swine, poultry, etc.

 

minks could have caught an originally rather harmless coronavirus from any source and then it spread and mutated during 6+ months, including jumps to humans, look at what happened in the Netherlands.

 

if we accept the mutations in the mink farms as a natural explanation for how the furin cleavage site and the spike were gained by the virus, the remaining question is the fast transmission from one or several infected mink farms to Wuhan.

 

two ways:

- mink outbreak was observed by veterinary authorities and samples were sent to BSL-2 labs for analysis and then leaked
this does not make too much sense IMO, because the outbreak would then have originated from a single or a couple of people in a lab and would have been spreading slower

- mink meat from a particular or a group of infected farms was mislabeled and sold to a large distributor in Wuhan
that would check a number of boxes in the theory, for example why a rapid outbreak occured and why no apparent link could be found between the first patients, and why covid was found on surfaces and in drains at the Wuhan wet market, but not in animals.

 

 

[tgw]

also very very interesting:

https://theconversation.com/in-2010-a-virus-similar-to-sars-cov-2-was-already-present-in-cambodia-154491

 

[Thomas J]

3 minutes ago, tgw said:

yes... but the minks easily catch all kinds or viruses, as shown by the list included in the article I linked. minks seem to catch many viruses affecting many other animals including swine, poultry, etc.

Yes but the minks had to catch it from something.  They were not the "originators" of the virus.  If it occurred naturally the closest match was from a bat.  Now the bat "could have" transmitted it to a mink, cat or numerous other animals susceptible to catching the virus.  That still does not explain how it made the "leap" from a virus only found in some animals notably bats suddenly after centuries became a virus capable of being contracted by humans.  It also does not in any way explain how of all the billions of places on earth that the virus could have first appeared that it strangely enough was in of all places Wuhan and the Wuhan lab was studying coronavirus.  I just don't believe the latter is just a coincidence.   I would have a far greater belief in the virus being something that naturally occurred if it did not originate in the exact city and within blocks of the wet market which is believed to be the epicenter of the virus breakout and if the patient believed to be the first coronavirus case was not also a worker at the Wuhan lab.  

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Yes but the minks had to catch it from something.  They were not the "originators" of the virus.  If it occurred naturally the closest match was from a bat.  Now the bat "could have" transmitted it to a mink, cat or numerous other animals susceptible to catching the virus.  That still does not explain how it made the "leap" from a virus only found in some animals notably bats suddenly after centuries became a virus capable of being contracted by humans.  It also does not in any way explain how of all the billions of places on earth that the virus could have first appeared that it strangely enough was in of all places Wuhan and the Wuhan lab was studying coronavirus.  I just don't believe the latter is just a coincidence.   I would have a far greater belief in the virus being something that naturally occurred if it did not originate in the exact city and within blocks of the wet market which is believed to be the epicenter of the virus breakout and if the patient believed to be the first coronavirus case was not also a worker at the Wuhan lab.  

If the place the virus originated from was in the US, but all the other factors were similar, IMO the media would have placed the blame long ago.

[tgw]

7 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Yes but the minks had to catch it from something.  They were not the "originators" of the virus.  If it occurred naturally the closest match was from a bat.  Now the bat "could have" transmitted it to a mink, cat or numerous other animals susceptible to catching the virus.  That still does not explain how it made the "leap" from a virus only found in some animals notably bats suddenly after centuries became a virus capable of being contracted by humans.  It also does not in any way explain how of all the billions of places on earth that the virus could have first appeared that it strangely enough was in of all places Wuhan and the Wuhan lab was studying coronavirus.  I just don't believe the latter is just a coincidence.   I would have a far greater belief in the virus being something that naturally occurred if it did not originate in the exact city and within blocks of the wet market which is believed to be the epicenter of the virus breakout and if the patient believed to be the first coronavirus case was not also a worker at the Wuhan lab.  

 

actually it does explain it.

many of the coronaviruses present in bats can infect humans as well as minks and other species. once the virus infected a mink farm, its evolution is pretty straightforward.

 

the wet market is no longer believed to be at the epicenter of the virus outbreak.

 

Quote

the patient believed to be the first coronavirus case was not also a worker at the Wuhan lab.  

and I will need a source for this

 

I still believe another lab than the WIV could be the origin of an hypothetical lab leak.

Wuhan as an origin is still logical, even if the WIV and Dr. Shi were not involved.

As I previously stated, of China's 62 BSL-3 labs, 17 are in Wuhan. That makes Wuhan concentrate about a quarter of virus research facilities of all China, which is remarkable.

Wuhan University, Wuhan CDC, Wuhan State Laboratory, Wuhan Veterinary Laboratory, they all did/do research on MERS, SARS-CoV-1 and many other human and animal viruses.

The idea that samples from another region (mink virus?) were sent to Wuhan for analysis and research is realistic.

 

Also, if secret bioweapons research was carried out by the Chinese, it would likely have been carried out in Wuhan, because of the proximity of all the experts.

I also believe such research would have been done out of view from foreigners working at the WIV.

Edited June 21, 2021 by tgw

[Pattaya Spotter]

Scientists battle over the ultimate origin story: Where did the coronavirus come from?

 

Stanley Perlman...got a nasty email June 4: “Dr. Frankenstein just wants more public money and wants to research things he shouldn’t be messing with. THANKS A LOT FOR CORONA LOSER.” Perlman, a... virologist at the University of Iowa, didn’t know the author of the email and had nothing to do with the emergence of the coronavirus. But he had co-signed a letter to the Lancet in February 2020 saying SARS-CoV-2 was not a bioengineered virus and condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” That remains the consensus of many scientists — but the “lab leak” theory has never gone away and has become louder than ever.

 

(May be behind a paywall...the richest man in history wants you to pay for news.)

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/2021/06/20/30b10be2-c3d9-11eb-8c18-fd53a628b992_story.html

Edited June 21, 2021 by Pattaya Spotter

[tgw]

14 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Scientists battle over the ultimate origin story: Where did the coronavirus come from?

 

Stanley Perlman...got a nasty email June 4: “Dr. Frankenstein just wants more public money and wants to research things he shouldn’t be messing with. THANKS A LOT FOR CORONA LOSER.” Perlman, a... virologist at the University of Iowa, didn’t know the author of the email and had nothing to do with the emergence of the coronavirus. But he had co-signed a letter to the Lancet in February 2020 saying SARS-CoV-2 was not a bioengineered virus and condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” That remains the consensus of many scientists — but the “lab leak” theory has never gone away and has become louder than ever.

 

(May be behind a paywall...the richest man in history wants you to pay for news.)

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/2021/06/20/30b10be2-c3d9-11eb-8c18-fd53a628b992_story.html

 

interesting article, especially the end:

Quote

Lipkin said two scientific papers co-authored by Shi indicated bat coronaviruses were handled in biosafety level 2 laboratories, rather than more secure BSL-3 or BSL-4 labs. That raises the possibility of sloppy handling of a dangerous virus, he said.

An accidental infection in a lab with an undocumented virus would be nearly impossible to distinguish from one that occurred outside the lab, he said.

 

[Thomas J]

40 minutes ago, tgw said:

actually it does explain it.

many of the coronaviruses present in bats can infect humans as well as minks and other species. once the virus infected a mink farm, its evolution is pretty straightforward.

 

the wet market is no longer believed to be at the epicenter of the virus outbreak.

Maybe we are not communicating.  The virus "originated" somewhere.  It did not start with a mink.  The mink could have been a carrier and potentially infected other animals including humans but the minks still got it from something.  The "most likely" originator was a bat.  Now could a bat have infected a mink.  I suppose but the first question I would ask is, why after thousands of years did suddenly a virus that had never infected another mink suddenly do so.  The second and much more telling answer is, if the bat either directly or through the mink caused the infection what are the odds that of all the billions of places on earth did it surface suddenly in of all places Wuhan China the home of a virology lab that just by strange coincidence was studying bat coronavirus strains.  Sorry but if there is a "strain" it is believing that it is just a coincidence that the lab was studying coronavirus infections, that the virus outbreak happened in Wuhan, that the worker at the lab was considered patient zero, and that three lab workers reportedly got sick enough to be hospitalized in Nov. 2019 coincident to the outbreak.  The odds of all of the latter things happening are just infinitesimally small. 

[Thomas J]

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the place the virus originated from was in the US, but all the other factors were similar, IMO the media would have placed the blame long ago.

As previously stated there are more circumstantial events pointing to the Wuhan lab than there was evidence that O.J. was responsible for Nicole Simpsons death.  The only thing missing in Wuhan was the White Bronco chase with the lab technician holding the lab sample. 

[tgw]

8 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Maybe we are not communicating.  The virus "originated" somewhere.  It did not start with a mink.  The mink could have been a carrier and potentially infected other animals including humans but the minks still got it from something.  The "most likely" originator was a bat.  Now could a bat have infected a mink.  I suppose but the first question I would ask is, why after thousands of years did suddenly a virus that had never infected another mink suddenly do so.  The second and much more telling answer is, if the bat either directly or through the mink caused the infection what are the odds that of all the billions of places on earth did it surface suddenly in of all places Wuhan China the home of a virology lab that just by strange coincidence was studying bat coronavirus strains.  Sorry but if there is a "strain" it is believing that it is just a coincidence that the lab was studying coronavirus infections, that the virus outbreak happened in Wuhan, that the worker at the lab was considered patient zero, and that three lab workers reportedly got sick enough to be hospitalized in Nov. 2019 coincident to the outbreak.  The odds of all of the latter things happening are just infinitesimally small. 

 

I think you need to read more about the viruses and bats, minks, etc.

There are over 5000 coronaviruses in bats alone, probably much more.

Thousands of different coronaviruses from bats infect different species every day.

What I say is that the virus maybe somehow found its way into minks from where it then jumped to farm workers and back into mink, and evolved and mutated into sars-cov-2.

 

I don't rule out a lab leak, but I say it's not very surprising it happened in Wuhan, as the city concentrates China's virology researchers.

 

you say:

Quote

that the worker at the lab was considered patient zero

do you have a source for this? yes, I ask again.

who is that "patient zero"? where is your source?

 

 

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, tgw said:

 

I think you need to read more about the viruses and bats, minks, etc

I have done some reading and yes I have read that there are thousands of infection virus in bats.  I know minks are susceptible but I have not read anything about them being consider the original source or any virus.  That still does not explain why suddenly after hundreds of years that whatever source originated the virus that it suddenly appeared.   I would have far less skepticism if the virus did not just coincidentally first appear in Wuhan a lab studying bat coronavirus.  Seems like too much of coincidence.