Discussion: Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Wuhan has been working with bats and coronavirus for many years - DNA manipulations, cloning....

[Pathfinder]

Johns Hopkins

In Response: Yan et al Preprint
Examinations of the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 September 21, 2020

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of novel
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused more than 961,000 known deaths1
since it was reported to the World Health Organization on December 31, 2019. Determining the origin of the
pandemic coronavirus is of great importance, not only to understand the mechanics of how the virus
replicates and spreads but also to anticipate and prevent additional viruses from becoming future
health security crises. If an origin can be found for SARS-CoV-2, steps can then be taken to prevent
a similar pathway for other viruses to lead to a pandemic. For that reason, it is the responsibility of
the scientific community to review and analyze data relating to the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

Several analyses of the potential origin of SARS-CoV-2 have been published in scientific journals
that provide peer review prior to publication.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 Peer review is central to the scientific process because
scrutiny by experts allows for meaningful conclusions to be drawn about available data and reduces inappropriate
extrapolation or misinterpretation. It is an imperfect process, often criticized for slowness, but peer review
is a necessary part of building reliability in the scientific record. Complex scientific details are best understood
and critiqued by others who are also experts in a technical field. When the audience for an article is
broadened, even to a technical audience in an adjacent scientific field, data may appear smoother
and less conflicting than it is in reality, leading to a blurring or skewing of its real meaning.

In this document, we have undertaken a scientific review of a recent report, released as a preprint put
forward by the Rule of Law Society, authored by Li-Meng Yan, Shu Kang, Jie Guan, and Shanchang
Hu. The report, Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory
Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route,
10 presents a theory about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 but offers contradictory and inaccurate information
that does not support their argument. As the report has not been submitted to a scientific peer-reviewed
publication, which would provide the expert scrutiny expected by the scientific community and the
larger public, we aim to provide an objective analysis of details included in the report, as would be
customary in a peer-review process.
...
Page 21 (Conclusion)
1. While the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on global public health is undeniable, the pathogenic
effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection at an individual or cellular level are not unprecedented. Many
viruses are capable of causing high morbidity and mortality,59,60 infecting several organs, and/
or presymptomatic or asymptomatic transmission.61 Additionally, other viral infections (eg,
chikungunya) also induce long-term sequelae.62 Humans have contended with many scourges
and it is a certainty that COVID-19 will not be the last.
...

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/2020/200921-in-response-yan.pdf

[sharon sanders]

Thanks Pathfinder. Very detailed and easier to comprehend than Racaniello's verbal presentation. I also like that unlike the Racaniello group they stuck to the science. Politics deleted.

[Emily]

(Disclaimer - no evidence that would hold up in court here.)

From the Hopkins report:

On the capacity to predict function from genotype. Line 28: Yan et al overstate the capabilities
of deducing functional changes from genetic manipulation of coronaviruses, referring to an
“abundant literature indicat[ing] that gain-of-function research has long advanced to the stage
where viral genomes can be precisely engineered and manipulated to enable the creation of novel
coronaviruses possessing unique properties.”10 Technologies like CRISPR have enabled precise,
directed gene editing, and are major advances for the biological sciences. However, the report
overstates current capabilities in designing phenotypes and genetic functions of viruses, which
are not already elucidated, including coronaviruses, and vastly overstates the capabilities of
genetic manipulation of coronaviruses in 2019, before these viruses were the focus of worldwide
interrogation by the scientific community. There were 6 coronaviruses known to infect humans
prior to 2020, but their prevalence and pathology in different age groups is incompletely
understood, which would hamper any potential design of novel coronavirus functions. Prior to
2020, coronaviruses were not as intensely researched as other viruses that cause human disease,
such as HIV, and influenza.

That is exactly why GOF work is so dangerous.

Now here is what can be done in a lab to make a natural non-human animal virus more dangerous to humans:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535877/

Altered Tropism
Several studies have demonstrated the ability to alter the tropism of viruses. The avian
influenza H7N9 strain has been causing isolated human infections since the initial outbreak in
China in 2013, but sustained human-to-human transition has not been documented. In a recent
publication, de Vries and colleagues (2017) demonstrated that only three mutational changes in
the sequence of the hemagglutinin gene are sufficient to switch the virus’s tropism from avian to
human and support binding to human tracheal epithelial cells. However, the researchers did not
perform follow-up experiments to test whether these mutations were sufficient to make an actual
host range shift in the ferret model. In earlier studies with avian influenza, researchers used sitedirected
mutagenesis to introduce mutations into the hemagglutinin gene to allow wild-type H5N1
virus to bind to human receptors (Herfst et al., 2012). This group went on to show that as few as
five mutations can lead to airborne transmissibility of H5N1 between ferrets (Linster et al., 2014).
Researchers have also used synthetic biology to alter tropism in investigations of the respiratory
syndromes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory
syndrome). There is considerable evidence indicating that a SARS-like virus in bats was the origin
of the 2003 outbreak of SARS in humans (Li et al., 2005). The bat virus, however, does not grow
in cell culture. To help elucidate the steps that may have occurred to convert bat SARS-CoV into
a virus infecting humans, Becker and colleagues (2008) substituted the human SARS coronavirus
receptor binding domain for the equivalent domain in the bat SARS-CoV virus, making the bat-
SARS virus replication competent in cell culture and mice. Similarly, to develop a small-animal
model of MERS-CoV, researchers modified both the mouse, to express a chimeric receptor, and
the virus (Cockrell et al., 2016).

And..

Enhanced Transmissibility
Airborne transmission of pathogens occurs through aerosolization and droplets. Airborne transmissibility
determines the distance over which the virus may travel, and the determinants of this property are
complex and dependent on multiple host and viral factors (Herfst et al., 2017). In a follow-up to the H5N1
experiments described under Altered Tropism (above), the mutated virus was sequentially passaged in
ferrets to force natural selection of heterogeneous viral mixtures and, after 10 passages, na?ve recipient
ferrets were exposed to the infected ferrets in an adjacent cage without direct contact. Three of four recipient
ferrets became infected, demonstrating that selection had occurred for airborne transmissibility of the
virus (Herfst et al., 2017). In another study, Imai and colleagues (2012) constructed a reassortant virus
possessing the hemagglutinin from an H5N1 virus and seven gene segments from a 2009 H1N1 virus.
After passaging through ferrets, a mutant of this reassortant was obtained that had four mutations in the
hemagglutinin gene and was capable of respiratory droplet transmission in ferrets. This work demonstrated
that a mammalian transmission phenotype could be conferred to highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza.
Enhanced Stability
The stability of a virus outside the host is influenced by multiple environmental factors including temperature,
ultraviolet radiation, relative humidity, and air movement, as well as the structure of the pathogen
itself. Enveloped viruses are generally less stable outside the host than non-enveloped viruses (Polozov
et al., 2008; Herfst et al., 2017). Although it would be impossible to convert an enveloped virus to a nonenveloped
virus because addition of the envelope is tightly coupled to specific features of the replication
cycle, it may be possible to alter other features of a virus to enhance its stability for weaponization and
mass dispersal.

Regarding the enhanced stability:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3102158/coronavirus-constantly-surprising-virus-found-be-heat-tolerant

Coronavirus: constantly surprising virus found to be heat tolerant, self-healing and very resilient in lab tests

• Hungarian team finds virus particle withstands being probed by a nano needle 100 times, possibly making it the most physically elastic virus known
• French scientists find it can replicate in animal cells after being exposed to temperatures of 60 degrees Celsius for an hour

Stephen Chen in Beijing
Published: 11:00pm, 18 Sep, 2020
Updated: 3:50am, 19 Sep, 2020

I think this virus is a little more unusual than the Hopkins paper makes it out to be.

[JJackson]

As my interest is primarily in the route of zoonotic disease emergence I am in favour of GOF experiments as I think the benefits far outweigh the risks, assuming they are done in an appropriate level of BSL. A more detailed explanation of my reasoning can be found here in my reply to a post by Mike Coston. https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/...401#post553401

[bertrand789]

C'est une position respectable, si cela est fait par des personnes respectables et dans des lieux ad hoc.

Vous pouvez nous donner votre avis sur ce qui a ?t? fait en Chine avec la complicit? ou pire de cette O.N.G, qui ne s'ocuppe pas de science mais de politique?

Que la recherche fondamentale et m?me la recherche militaire existent, soit, mais avec un management identifiable et pas des o.n.g , sur des sujets de ce type de mon point de vue ...

Vous imaginez que l'on aille faire cela sur les influenzas , par exemple, des dindes sauvages aux U.S.A ?

[JJackson]

Sorry Bertrand which ONG and what was done in China - not sure what you are referring to.

[JJackson]

This CIDRAP post has two studies (not peer reviewed) which at first sight seem to add weight to the initial viral load hypothesis but do not seem to address the other confounding factors. In the first

"Wayne State University researchers in Detroit, involved a retrospective analysis of 708 initial nose-throat swabs from hospitalized coronavirus patients tested from Apr 4 to Jun 5 using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The goal was to better describe the effects of changing viral loads—which is a measure of virus density—at a population level."

I do not see that viral load at the point of hospital admission has anything to do with' viral density at a population level' it seems to have a great deal to do with at what point in disease progression the patient was tested. It then goes on to give loads at week 5 and 6 which is problematical given the retrospective analysis was performed over a 4 week period.

The second from Italy
"Researchers analyzed data from 373 COVID-19 patients in an emergency department in the northern city of Negrar to assess a possible association between the severity of coronavirus signs and symptoms with viral load as the pandemic transitioned from high to low transmission.
As patient viral loads declined over the course of the pandemic, the percentage of patients admitted to the ICU declined substantially from March (6.7%) to April (1.1%), and May (0.0%).
"As the epidemiological context changed from high to low transmission setting, people were presumably exposed to a lower viral load, which has been previously associated to less severe clinical manifestations," the authors wrote."

Again they are assuming initial viral load relates to later high viral titers but without allowing for the facts that there was lower threshold on hospitalisation as cases fell and that clinicians had more knowledge on patient care both of which I would expect to account for the change in ICU admission along with the changed age profile. To pick one factor and point to it seems unjustified. Also I have a big problem with the section in italics as I am unaware of any data that corroborates that statement.

[Emily]

I agree absolute data is hard to come by for true initial viral load at the infection point. (Inoculum, I think is the term.) The researchers in the article I posted mentioned it wouldn't be ethical to do LD50 experiments on humans. They cited some work with hamsters, but I didn't read that in detail. Might not translate.

[JJackson]

The problem with animal experiments is they tend to give them ridiculously high initial doses of virus, orders of magnitude more than might be encountered in a natural infection, to insure their experiment is not a wash-out due to not enough infections to generate useful data. Under these circumstance it is possible to see a dose/severity relationship but the host is being swamped by far more virus than any animal's immune system has evolved to cope with.

[sharon sanders]

Ok. So what we have here is a disagreement among scientists. Some who actually do splicing think it is easy and possible to manipulate a virus and others say it is hard to do.

Even if you disregard Dr. Yan's assertions, there are still scientists who believe it is possible that SARS-Cov-2 is not 100% natural evolution.

Also - I really think with the predominance of China and US research dollars generating studies and supporting scientists, it is always a good idea to follow the $$$. The problem is that most researchers are always needing that next grant.

The lure of the carrot.

--------------------------------------------------

15 JANUARY 2020

China is closing gap with United States on research spending

The United States is no longer the ‘uncontested leader’ in science globally, the National Science Foundation says.

Preliminary data from 2019 suggest that China has already surpassed the United States in R&D spending, said Julia Philips, chair of the National Science Board’s science and engineering policy committee, during a press briefing. The board oversees the NSF and produces the Indicators reports.

“The US–China relationship is the most important international scientific collaborative relationship we have right now,” says Kei Koizumi, a former senior adviser in science policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington DC. It’s more appropriate, he continues, “to think of China as a collaborator than as an adversary”.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d415...0same%20period.

---------------------------------------------------

How the U.S. Surrendered to China on Scientific Research

Washington could show its seriousness about key technologies like AI, gene editing and quantum computing by making big federal investments

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the...ch-11555666200

---------------------------------------------------

China’s Lavish Funds Lured U.S. Scientists. What Did It Get in Return?


For years, China’s Thousand Talents recruitment plan attracted U.S. scientists with its grants. Investigators now say China used the program to steal sensitive technology.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/u...in-return.html

[JJackson]

Crispr-Cas9 gene editing is a well established microbiological technique practiced in many labs and at the core of many of the vaccines now being developed for SARS-CoV-2 and is not particularly difficult. The problem is knowing what and where to edit and what effect your changes will have on the edited genes. If you are removing, say the ACE2 receptor in a mouse and replacing it with human ACE2, this would be taking one understood gene sequence and replacing it with another. Nature has already done the hard work of working out how to make a human optimised ACE2 protein. What we do not know how to do is work out what changes we need to make to turn a bat optimised virus into a human optimised one. If we knew what edits to make it would not be a big problem to make the changes but we know so little about Corona viruses this step is exceedingly hard and currently beyond our ability. If this was your goal you would have to make your best guess make the changes and try and infect a human, see what happened, go back to the drawing board and keep trying changes infect more humans and keep repeating the process until you hit on something that worked to your satisfaction. A long and tedious process you would never get past the bio-ethics review process in the US, China or anywhere else.

[Emily]

(Disclaimer: This is not evidence of SARS2 lab origin)

Just want to make people aware that China is not fully compliant with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Deena Agamy, Off with Their Heads! How China's Controversial Human Head-Transplant Procedure Exceeds the Parameters of International Ethical Standards in Human Experimentation, 47 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 491 (2019).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/gjicl/vol47/iss2/6

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4132579/

Yu X, Li W. Informed Consent and Ethical Review in Chinese Human Experimentation: Reflections on the "Golden Rice Event". Biotechnol Law Rep. 2014;33(4):155-160. doi:10.1089/blr.2014.9979
...
The above requirements are still a bit weak; for example, they lack the obligation to disclose the “research funding source,” a provision included in the “Declaration of Helsinki.” If there is no opportunity to learn about the research's funding sources—and all the power and money entanglements behind the research institutions—subjects can neither understand who truly gains by the human experimentation nor fully evaluate any conflicts with their own interests.

And there is not a lot of transparency into what is happening in their 're-education camps.' We don't know what is going on in China, even if we think an accidental release from a legal GOF experiment is more likely than some covert bio-warfare experiment failure.

New evidence of China’s concentration camps shows its hardening resolve to wipe out the Uighurs

Xinjiang: Large numbers of new detention camps uncovered in report

[Pathfinder]

Part 2 of the article is not posted yet.

SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus origins alternative theories – do they hold up against science? Part 1

28/09/2020
Posted by:
Dr.M.Raszek

Controversies around the SARS-CoV-2 virus continue

Earlier this month a deeply controversial and outright shocking report came out purporting to provide smoking gun evidence that SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus was laboratory engineered. Apparently Zenodo is gaining recognition as a "source" for those in the "no".
...
The authors continued with their recommendation: "In regard to this recent recombination scenario, the animal reservoir could not be bats because theACE2 proteins in bats are not homologous enough to hACE2 and therefore the adaption would not be able to yield an RBM sequence as seen in SARS-CoV-2. This animal reservoir also could not be humans as the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would not be able to infect humans. In addition, there has been no evidence of any SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2-like virus circulating in the human population prior to late 2019. Intriguingly, [...] SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans since the start of the outbreak."

This is indeed true and still the unsolved mysteries as to what that intermediate host species allowed the evolution of the virus to become infectious to humans, plus how did SARS-CoV-2 instantly show such high adaptation for infection in humans without ever being observed before in a more intermediate form? Thus far these are still gaps in the current theory of the natural evolution of the virus that await solved solution.

...it brings us to another very unusual and completely overlooked report regarding the history of SARS-CoV-2 which proposed how this very event might have taken place: hosting two viruses at the same time to produce a new one. And not inside some intermediate host, but in humans!

https://merogenomics.ca/blog/en/116/SARS-CoV-2_coronavirus_origins_alternative_theories__do_the

[JJackson]

This is indeed true and still the unsolved mysteries as to what that intermediate host species allowed the evolution of the virus to become infectious to humans, plus how did SARS-CoV-2 instantly show such high adaptation for infection in humans without ever being observed before in a more intermediate form? Thus far these are still gaps in the current theory of the natural evolution of the virus that await solved solution.

I am not sure there is a need to invoke an intermediate species, or any evidence for the existence of one. We know very little about the genome of the natural host bat species. What we do know is that the ACE2 receptors in these bats is very variable which may be an indication that it is not the only, or primary, cell entry binding site in bats allowing considerable scope for evolutionary adaption in the bats to avoid infection. In the original SARS-1 outbreak the virus was found in animals in the wet markets around the case zero. These samples were basically identical (>99% homology) to the human isolates and when the suppliers to these markets of the infected animals were investigated no virus, or antibodies, was found in the farmers or animals. A wider examination of the same species in the wild also came up blank so it is not clear if the virus jumped to people and then the animals in the wet market, or the other way around.
It is certainly true there are lots of holes in the data regarding the genetic variability in bats, and their viral pathogens, which are not going to be solved until we get back into the the bat caves and take samples.

[Kathy]

Was the pandemic caused by SARS2 the result of vaccine research gone wrong?

https://ccnationalsecurity.org/are-the-global-scientific-elite-trying-to-bury-the-truth-about-the-origin-of-covid-19/

[Pathfinder]

China Arrests Mother of Dissident Virologist Who Blamed Beijing for Virus Coverup

BY EVA FU October 5, 2020 Updated: October 5, 2020

Chinese authorities recently arrested the mother of a Chinese virologist who has accused the regime in Beijing of a coverup of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yan Limeng confirmed her mother’s arrest to The Epoch Times on Oct. 5, but declined to provide further details.
...

https://www.theepochtimes.com/china-arrests-mother-of-chinese-dissident-virologist-who-blamed-beijing-for-virus-coverup_3527057.html

[Emily]

Sorry to hear this.

[Emily]

https://www.prnewswire.com/ae/news-releases/new-research-points-to-the-peoples-liberation-army-hospital-in-wuhan-china-as-the-origin-for-the-worldwide-coronavirus-pandemic-301158985.html

New Research Points to the People's Liberation Army Hospital in Wuhan, China as the Origin for the Worldwide Coronavirus Pandemic
News provided by
Dr. Steven Quay 28 Oct, 2020, 11:03 GMT
SEATTLE, Oct. 28, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- A paper published on Zenodo (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.4119263) by Dr. Steven Quay, M.D., PhD., head of two COVID-19 therapeutic programs at Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATOS), illuminates new scientific observations and conclusions documenting that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic began at the General Hospital of Central Theater Command of People's Liberation Army (PLA Hospital) in Wuhan, China, located at 627 Wulon Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan. International biospecimen data repositories indicate as early as December 10, 2019 COVID patient records were being created by PLA personnel, weeks before the Chinese government informed the WHO of the pandemic...

[sharon sanders]

https://www.prnewswire.com/ae/news-r...301158985.html

In conclusion, Line 2 of the Wuhan Metro System services the PLA Hospital with the first genomic cluster of patients with COVID-19, the hospitals where patients first went in December 2019 and early January 2020, and is the likely conduit for human-to-human spread throughout Wuhan, China, and the world. The Hunan Seafood Market, Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the Wuhan CDC, all locations suggested to be the possible source of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, are also all serviced by Line 2 of the Metro system, suggesting this public transit line should become the focus for further investigations into the origin of this pandemic.

https://zenodo.org/record/4119263

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FluTrackers pointed out the proximity of the Hankou Railway Station on January 4:

https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/-2019-ncov-new-coronavirus/china-2019-ncov/821830-china-original-2019-ncov-news-thread-weeks-1-4-december-30-2019-january-25-2020?p=822103#post822103

[sharon sanders]

I have no idea about zenodo. People can get anything posted somewhere.

Proximity to a major transportation hub can be a important factor in an outbreak.

[JJackson]

Sharon
"Proximity to a major transportation hub can be a important factor in an outbreak." - Absolutely.
My problem is they then try and tie it in the WIV and CCDC with "all locations suggested to be the possible source of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan". Neither of these institutions are shown to have anything to do with the outbreak. The US Military have also been 'suggested to be the possible source of SARS-CoV-2' with exactly the same amount of evidence to support the claim, i.e. none.

[Emily]

Zenodo looks fine to me. When people start confusing epidemiology with conspiracy theories, I think of animals trying to chew their own legs off to escape a trap.

https://www.eui.eu/Research/Library/ResearchGuides/Economics/Statistics/DataPortal/Zenodo

"Resource description

Zenodo is a multi-disciplinary open repository maintained by CERN. Datasets, documents and other research materials can be located via the Zenodo search engine.

Scholars from any research discipline can upload data in any file format. A digital object identifier (DOI) is automatically assigned to all Zenodo files. Details on how to assign metadata to research datasets are in section 5(c) of the EUI Library Research Data Guide. For assistance, write to resdata@eui.eu

In April 2020, Zenodo launched a Coronavirus Research Community - COVID-19 accepting data from all scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines.

Zenodo is compliant with the data management requirements of Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, the EU's research and innovation funding programmes. "The OpenAIRE project, in the vanguard of the open access and open data movements in Europe, was commissioned by the EC to support their nascent Open Data policy by providing a catch-all repository for EC funded research. CERN an OpenAIRE partner and pioneer in open source, open access and open data, provides this capability.""

[sharon sanders]

bump this

[sharon sanders]

#269.3
JJackson commented
Today, 08:28 AM
Sharon
"Proximity to a major transportation hub can be a important factor in an outbreak." - Absolutely.
My problem is they then try and tie it in the WIV and CCDC with "all locations suggested to be the possible source of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan". Neither of these institutions are shown to have anything to do with the outbreak. The US Military have also been 'suggested to be the possible source of SARS-CoV-2' with exactly the same amount of evidence to support the claim, i.e. none.

-------------------------------------------

We have already gone over and over this. There are absolutely ties to both the WIV and CCDC labs in Wuhan as to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. I am not going to argue with you about this again. People can read this thread and make up their own minds.

[JJackson]

I have wasted a lot of time debunking some of the posts in this thread and I have not seen anything yet that that implicates either the WIV or CCDC in the zoonotic emergence of SARS-CoV-2. I would be grateful if someone could explain exactly what they are being accused of. To the best of my knowledge the WIV has played a key role in the primary research which we have used in developing drugs and vaccines and the CCDC has done a far better job than any of its international counterparts in containing the virus's spread. Beyond being in Wuhan what is it that they are being accused of and where is the evidence to support the accusations.

[longshots]

I believe the WIV and/or CCDC are being accused of doing research, possibly GoF, in order to anticipate future outbreaks and develop ways to combat them and that they accidentally released the virus. Yes, there are those who think it was done maliciously, but I don't. There are examples of this happening at labs around the world including the US. We humans do stupid stuff and make stupid mistakes... and then we try to hide it...