Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Looks like legacy media is changing course again - now returning to the promotion of the Wuhan market emergence theory from two papers issued on Saturday 26, 2022. Interesting coincidence since the world wants China's help in stopping the Russian military invasion of Ukraine that started February 21, 2022. link

    I was not aware that domestic cats and dogs were wild forest animals. SARS-CoV-2 was fully adapted to cats and dogs and humans at the same time in early 2020. How is this? Jumping species takes time. A long time. This would completely rule out any one sudden human emergence event. If the researchers are correct on the emergence time frame of Nov/Dec 2019 then they can not be correct on the natural evolution theory. Only a direct intervention can short nature.


    Hong Kong - Gov: Detection of low level of COVID-19 virus in pet dog - FEBRUARY 27, 2020

    Vet Rec. Pet dog confirmed to have coronavirus - March 2020

    HK: Another dog tests positive for Covid-19 - March 2020

    Pet dog further tests positive for antibodies for COVID-19 virus - March 2020

    HK: Pet cat tests positive for COVID-19 virus - March 2020




    New studies again target Wuhan market, not lab, for COVID-19 origin

    Last Updated: Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:49 a.m. ETFirst Published: Feb. 26, 2022 at 5:52 p.m. ET
    By
    Rachel Koning Beals

    Scientists released two extensive studies on Saturday that again point to a market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the coronavirus pandemic, the New York Times reported.

    The two reports, totaling about 150 pages, have not yet been published in a scientific journal.

    snip

    The new research suggests that the virus was spread to people working or shopping at the market. And the researchers said they found no support for an alternate hypothesis that the coronavirus emerged from a lab in Wuhan.

    more..

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ne...?mod=home-page

    Comment


    • Emily
      Emily commented
      Editing a comment
      That's a brilliant observation, Sharon. When I saw the articles Shiloh posted, I felt like I'd been sent back in time to when the pandemic first started.
      I recently read in a British financial paper that Biden had a vision of forming a partnership to co-manage the world with China. We are always the last to know. Bad idea, IMO, for any two superpowers to team up like that. I like diversity.

  • bump this

    Comment


    • MJ Allen
      @MJnanostretch
      ·
      Mar 4
      Everybody on Twitter thinks theyve important things to say, I've a small footprint of ~400 followers but this might be the most important Tweet I’ve made since joining in Aug21. What's happening to Science's reputation is appalling& as an institution will take decades to recover.
      ...
      I love science& my work in it. Served on my share of review panels (50?)& reviewed 100s of grant proposals& manuscripts. Never have I seen anything like this before. Disturbing times w extraordinary occurrences never allowed previously that I can recall in my 30 yr career.
      ...
      Even if highly impactful, attracting so much media coverage as we're seeing re: explosive non-peer reviewed research doesn’t happen by accident, the authors have been provided an unheard-of gateway by someone or something much more influential than they are.
      ...
      The hyperbolic language used in the non-peer reviewed preprints splashed across MSM media pulls all stops to dispose of (send) lab leak into an early unmarked grave- unscientific& unethical. Perhaps worst, sets a horrible new precedent re: scientific scholarship &mentorship.
      ...
      Chain of custody of the evidence is also at issue. Misbehavior and poor judgement are somewhere in the mix, when hyperbolic conclusions not based on raw data generated by these scientists nor in their possession or control screams across headlines on the New York Times and NPR.
      ...
      Science's mission is never racing to submit non peer reviewed research across the largest media networks in order to influence public opinion via misleading language that doesn’t pass standards of peer review. A flagrant abuse by the project leaders who should know better.
      "Safety and security don't just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear."
      -Nelson Mandela

      Comment


      • bump this

        Comment


        • The origins of SARS-CoV-2: still to be determined


          By Laura H. Kahn | March 10, 2022

          ...
          COVID-19. In contrast to SARS and MERS, there is no direct evidence for a natural spillover of COVID-19. Neither the virus nor antibodies to the virus have been identified in animals sampled in Wuhan in 2019 or early 2020. In an article currently undergoing peer review, Gao et al. found that zero out of 457 samples taken from 18 species of animals sampled in Wuhan in early 2020 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. In addition, no correlation has been observed between human occupational exposures to animals and higher rates of infection or seropositivity to the virus.

          By early 2020, Chinese physicians had conducted many serological surveys of thousands of people to assess prevalence rates of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, but none included data on occupation. Had occupations been included, these might have revealed whether animal workers in the Huanan market had higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies than in the general population, thereby supporting the natural spillover hypothesis.

          Two recent papers, Worobey et al. and Pekar et al., present geospacial analysis of animal stalls in the Huanan market and viral phylogenetic analysis but do not provide convincing evidence of natural spillover. The data and analyses discussed by Worobey are equally consistent with both hypotheses: (1) that SARS-CoV-2 first entered humans at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, and (2) that SARS-CoV-2 first entered humans at another location and was subsequently brought to the market and then amplified in the market by humans. The authors’ assertion that the data and analyses support only the natural spillover hypothesis is false.

          Gao et al. reached a conclusion opposite to the claims of Worobey et al. and Peckar et al. Gao et al. reported that there were no positive animal samples at the Huanan market. They further reported that there was no correlation between the locations of the animal sellers in the market or the locations with the highest densities of humans and the locations of the positive environmental samples in the market. Based on these findings, Gao et al suggested that the market “acted as an amplifier,” with infections being brought into the market by humans infected elsewhere.

          The hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory-related spillover—for example, from a laboratory-acquired infection—remains a viable possibility. Laboratory accidents, including laboratory-acquired infections, occur frequently. In the most recent year for which data are available, the CDC/USDA Select Agent Program received 205 select agent theft/loss/release reports, which equates to an average of four select-agent incidents per week. Of the 205 select-agent theft/loss/release reports, fully 196 were reports of releases and 177 were “determined to represent potential occupational exposure to laboratory workers.”

          In determining the origin of SARS-CoV-2, what is needed, at a minimum, is: (1) data from serological sampling in 2019 and early 2020 that includes information on occupation and location and that encompasses both Wuhan animal market employees and Wuhan laboratory research employees, and (2) information—including samples, sequences, records, and results—on the research on SARS-related coronaviruses conducted by Wuhan researchers and their collaborators in 2015-2019.

          Science is the objective pursuit of truth. Preventing future COVID-19 pandemics requires finding the truth. Premature, false declarations of “dispositive evidence” or “proof” does not generate public trust in science and does not protect public health.

          ...

          SARS in 2003 and MERS in 2012 resulted from natural spillover events in which animals infected humans with coronaviruses. In both cases, the viruses-and/or antibodies to the viruses were identified both in humans and in animals, and humans with occupational exposures to animals exhibited higher rates of seropositivity to the viruses than the general human population. So far, studies attesting to natural spillover of COVID-19 fail to meet these criteria.
          "Safety and security don't just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear."
          -Nelson Mandela

          Comment


          • bump this

            Comment


            • Peter Daszak Answers Critics and Defends Coronavirus Research: https://theintercept.com/2022/03/11/...zak-interview/

              Comment


              • INVESTIGATION

                “This Shouldn’t Happen”: Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy

                Chasing scientific renown, grant dollars, and approval from Dr. Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak transformed the environmental nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance into a government-funded sponsor of risky, cutting-edge virus research in both the U.S. and Wuhan, China. Drawing on more than 100,000 leaked documents, a V.F. investigation shows how an organization dedicated to preventing the next pandemic found itself suspected of helping start one.

                BY KATHERINE EBAN

                MARCH 31, 2022
                ...

                Chasing scientific renown, grant dollars, and approval from Dr. Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak transformed the environmental nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance into a government-funded sponsor of risky, cutting-edge virus research in both the U.S. and Wuhan, China. Drawing on more than 100,000 leaked documents, a V.F. investigation shows how an organization dedicated to preventing the next pandemic found itself suspected of helping start one.
                "Safety and security don't just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear."
                -Nelson Mandela

                Comment


                • bump this

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Pathfinder View Post
                    INVESTIGATION

                    “This Shouldn’t Happen”: Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy

                    Chasing scientific renown, grant dollars, and approval from Dr. Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak transformed the environmental nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance into a government-funded sponsor of risky, cutting-edge virus research in both the U.S. and Wuhan, China. Drawing on more than 100,000 leaked documents, a V.F. investigation shows how an organization dedicated to preventing the next pandemic found itself suspected of helping start one.

                    BY KATHERINE EBAN

                    MARCH 31, 2022
                    ...

                    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022...ak-controversy


                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    I’d like to provide additional context to
                    @KatherineEban
                    ’s article (https://vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-nonprofit-at-the-center-of-the-lab-leak-controversy…), which reports on meeting w NIH prior to posting of my pre-print on Wuhan #SARSCoV2 sequences deleted from NIH’s SRA. Meeting also in recent FOIAs: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-03/nih-foia-request-56712_redacted.pdf… (1/n)

                    vanityfair.com
                    “This Shouldn’t Happen”: Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controv...
                    Chasing scientific renown, grant dollars, and approval from Dr. Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak transformed the environmental nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance into a government-funded sponsor of risky,...
                    2:29 PM · Mar 31, 2022




                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    Replying to
                    @jbloom_lab
                    For reference, final version of my paper is at https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/12/5211/6353034… Paper makes no specific claims about virus’s origins, but provides evidence data from China may be incomplete & so suggests caution in using it to make strong claims about virus’s early spread (2/n)

                    academic.oup.com
                    Recovery of Deleted Deep Sequencing Data Sheds More Light on the Early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic
                    Abstract. The origin and early spread of SARS-CoV-2 remains shrouded in mystery. Here, I identify a data set containing SARS-CoV-2 sequences from early in the W
                    5
                    14
                    82
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    Article by
                    @KatherineEban
                    includes summary I wrote of meeting w NIH leadership about pre-print (https://downloads.vanityfair.com/ecohealth-alliance/notes-on-meeting.pdf…). Since this is now public, I want clarify a few aspects. I assembled summary ~6 months after meeting, when I began to get inquiries (3/n)
                    1
                    9
                    56
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    But I documented aspect that has generated the most questions about ~1 wk after meeting in written reply to first inquiry (from Science reporter
                    @sciencecohen
                    ) about whether Dr. Fauci & Dr. Collins asked me not to publish preprint (4/n).

                    1
                    7
                    42
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    As my summary explains, meeting w NIH occurred Sunday, June-20-2021. This was after I submitted pre-print to
                    @biorxivpreprint
                    , but before it posted publicly. I initiated contact w NIH by e-mailing copy of pre-print to Collins, Fauci & NCBI director Steve Sherry (5/n)




                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    I felt it was appropriate to send advance copy to NIH because deleted #SARSCoV2 data from China is controversial topic, & I thought advance discussion might sort out circumstances of deletion and initiate investigation of other possible deletions. (6/n)
                    2
                    7
                    56
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    In response, Francis Collins scheduled a Sunday Zoom meeting w NIH leadership, and 4 outside scientists, two invited by NIH and two suggested by me. Several of those outside scientists are quoted in
                    @KatherineEban
                    ’s article. (7/n)
                    1
                    7
                    51
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    The meeting became contentious. One NIH-invited outside scientist explicitly suggested that I withdraw or revise pre-print. He said he could implement this via his capacity as
                    @biorxivpreprint
                    screener if I just sent him e-mail giving thumbs up to do so (8/n)
                    2
                    25
                    80
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    However, to be clear, contrary to account someone provided to
                    @sciencecohen
                    , I do *not* recall Fauci or Collins requesting withdrawal of pre-print. In fact, near end of meeting, both stated for record they wanted to emphasize they had *not* asked me to do this. (9/n)




                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    In any case, I did *not* revise pre-print after meeting & initial version that posted to
                    @biorxivpreprint
                    is same version I sent NIH. Of course scientific feedback is important, and my original goal in sharing pre-print was to solicit such feedback (10/n)
                    1
                    8
                    53
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    However, as scientist I’m often asked to attest to statements like “the funder had no role in study design, interpretation of data, preparation of manuscript, or decision to publish.” (11/n)
                    1
                    7
                    45
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    It’s unusual to have contentious weekend meetings about not-yet-posted preprints involving NIH, NIAID & NCBI directors. Given how meeting unfolded, if I revised/withdrew, would have created question if funder exerted influence, even if request from outside scientist (12/n)
                    1
                    15
                    71
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    For further transparency, when pre-print posted I made public a GitHub repo with time-stamped versions of all revisions of paper & analysis code, thereby documenting entire study from initiation to publication: https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1407445645502259201… (13/n)
                    Quote Tweet

                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    · Jun 22, 2021
                    Finally, my analysis is on GitHub at https://github.com/jbloom/SARS-CoV-2_PRJNA612766… where you can access all code, data, & paper drafts. All updates are via time-stamped commits. This ensures transparency/reproducibility of this study are not in doubt, regardless of your views on interpretation. (25/n)
                    Show this thread




                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    After initial pre-print posted I solicited critiques from another scientist,
                    @stgoldst
                    , who posted his comments publicly. I responded w revisions, documented here https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1409945528612184065… (14/n)
                    Quote Tweet

                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    · Jun 29, 2021
                    I have posted an updated version of my pre-print describing #SARSCoV2 sequences from the early Wuhan epidemic that were deleted from the Sequence Read Archive. This revision should clarify some key questions people asked about the original version: https://biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...18.449051v2… (1/n)
                    Show this thread
                    1
                    6
                    42
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    I believe above steps made study public along with Stephen's reasonable scientific critiques while ensuring that meeting with NIH leadership does not raise questions about outside influence on its content (15/n)
                    1
                    5
                    50
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    Also useful to review developments over ~9 months since I wrote paper. A month after pre-print posted, State Council Information Office of China provided their account of deletion. It’s here https://youtu.be/UA2P8hlurlQ?t=4606… at 1:16:45 (where video starts) (16/n)

                    youtube.com
                    Live: News briefing on origin-tracing of COVID-19
                    China's State Council Information Office holds a news conference on origin-tracing of #COVID19. Xu Nanping, vice minister of Science and Technology, Zeng Yix...
                    1
                    8
                    38
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    Briefly, vice-minister of China National Health Commission, Dr. Zeng Yixin, said my paper “fabricated a conspiracy theory” that created a negative image & “such actions violate science’s spirit and law; such a conspiracy has been criticized by experts in other countries” (17/n)




                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    Dr. Zeng Yixin also said earliest collection time for deleted sequences was Jan-30-2020 & so they were “not early-stage samples.” In contrast, Chinese authors originally said samples were from “early in the epidemic.” I lack data to reconcile these differing descriptions (18/n)
                    1
                    8
                    45
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    Further, Dr. Zeng Yixin said sequences were uploaded to NIH’s SRA at request of journal Small, but journal then accidentally deleted data availability statement during copy-editing, and this copy-editing error led authors to think they should delete their data too. (19/n)
                    2
                    7
                    36
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    The journal Small subsequently posted correction corroborating this account: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smll.202104078…. Small is Wiley journal based in Germany, & its editor-in-chief is Wiley’s vice-president & director for China (http://wileyeditorsymposium.com/speakers/jose-oliveira/…) (20/n)

                    wileyeditorsymposium.com
                    José Oliveira - Wiley Editor Symposium
                    José Oliveira studied chemistry at the University of the Witwatersrand (Johannesburg, South Africa). He obtained his PhD in 2000 in organic synthesis. He worked for a year as a post-doctoral resear...
                    1
                    7
                    39
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    However, some facts associated w deletion are inconsistent w State Council of China’s account. First, sequences uploaded to SRA on March 16 but paper not received by Small until April 3, so unclear how data could have initially been uploaded at journal’s request (21/n)
                    1
                    6
                    57
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    Second, actual e-mail request (below) for deletion from SRA mentions a variety of reasons, none of which are related to the journal deleting the data availability statement during copy editing. (22/n)

                    2
                    7
                    53
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    Finally, e-mails show Wuhan University deleted *two* projects, only one of which (SUB7147304=PRJNA612766) was published in journal Small & described in my paper. Initial email focused on deleting another previously unknown project (SUB7554642=PRJNA637497). (23/n)




                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    For long time no info for this other deleted project was available, but it recently became available via NCBI: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/?term=PRJNA637497… This project categorized Wuhan #SARSCoV2 into two lineages that predominated early in outbreak (24/n)
                    1
                    6
                    46
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    Analyses of these two lineages is a component of phylogenetic studies of early #SARSCoV2 in Wuhan. Unfortunately, Wuhan University initiated request to delete their project related to these two lineages <24 hrs after creating it & only limited data ever uploaded. (25/n)
                    1
                    8
                    46
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    I contacted Dr. Tiangang Liu of Wuhan University to ask if samples available for full sequencing. He replied that they “carefully autoclave the nucleotide samples after we done the experiments”—a procedure that unfortunately destroys samples & precludes further analysis (26/n)
                    1
                    7
                    44
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    In my mind, above facts reinforce a conclusion of my paper: we need to worry about data completeness as much as phylogenetic methodology. No analysis method can be confidently correct if Chinese govt isn’t allowing sharing of complete data (27/n)

                    1
                    29
                    111
                    Bloom Lab
                    @jbloom_lab
                    ·
                    19h
                    Indeed, last 9 months have provided more reasons for wariness about data completeness. The earliest case now acknowledged by Chinese govt had symptom onset of Dec-8 (or maybe later, there is some question: https://twitter.com/MichaelWorobey/status/1461829914634571779…) (28/n)
                    Quote Tweet

                    Michael Worobey
                    @MichaelWorobey
                    · Nov 19, 2021
                    First, I have learned that @franciscodeasis had earlier concluded that Mr. Chen, the so-called "Dec 8" patient, actually became ill on Dec 16: https://twitter.com/franciscodeasis/...38764990469…
                    Show this thread

                    Comment


                    • WHO chief Tedros: No dispositive evidence yet on COVID’s origin

                      Posted on April 8, 2022 by Emily Kopp
                      ...
                      In an interview in Washington on Thursday, Tedros was asked about recent preprint publications claiming “dispositive” evidence that COVID-19 originated from animals sold at a wet market. Tedros replied that all hypotheses are still in play.

                      “All options are open. We have not found any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to drop any of the hypotheses that we have,” he said. “All of the hypotheses are still in [WHO’s investigation].”
                      ...
                      “We continue to push. Of course we should know the origins. One, for the science. If we know the origin, we can prevent the next [pandemic]. So it’s a must,” Tedros said. “Second, morally, we owe it to the millions who have died and the hundreds of millions whose lives have been affected.”

                      “So we will not stop pushing,” he continued.
                      ...
                      WHO Director-General Tedros said that there is no proof showing “beyond a reasonable doubt” where the pandemic came from.
                      "Safety and security don't just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear."
                      -Nelson Mandela

                      Comment


                      • Translation Google
                        On the trail of the origin of Covid-19


                        Published: May 2, 2022 3.05pm EDT Updated: May 2, 2022 3.39pm EDT

                        Veronique Knight
                        Veterinarian epidemiologist, CIRAD

                        Francois Roger
                        Regional Director Southeast Asia, veterinarian and epidemiologist, CIRAD

                        Julia Guillebaud
                        Research Engineer, Institut Pasteur


                        While the Covid-19 virus (coronavirus SARS-CoV-2) continues to circulate and claim victims around the world, its origin remains unknown. Each scientific community advances its hypothesis . Some suggest the possibility of escape of the virus from a laboratory .

                        Another hypothesis, which is based on recent studies in connection with the Chinese market of Wuhan
                        and others carried out in Cambodia , Laos, Japan, China and Thailand , is that of an evolution from an ancestral virus present in bats, of the Horseshoe Bat family in particular, in domestic or wild animals, then the passage of the virus from these animals to humans. Indeed, during these various studies, several viruses with genetic sequences very close to SARS-CoV-2 were isolated in these bats.


                        A missing link

                        While it has now been proven that certain species of bats naturally harbor these coronaviruses, the identity of the domestic or wild animal(s) that would have acted as a relay between them and humans – missing links – remains a mystery. The Pangolin, initially suspected, now appears more as a "collateral victim" than as one of these famous missing links. Indeed, a sequence of the coronavirus genome that was detected in Pangolins was indeed related to that of SARS-CoV-2, but the rest of the genome was genetically too far from it .

                        On the other hand, the pangolins on which viruses genetically close to SARS-CoV-2 were isolated had most of the time been confiscated from live animal markets, at the end of the commercial chain, and had therefore been in prolonged contact. with other animal species. It is very likely that they were contaminated along this pathway and not in their natural environment. Mink farms have also been suspected in China.

                        Finally, pangolins and horseshoe bats do not share the same habitats, which makes possible contact between the two species very unlikely, during which the virus would have passed from a bat to a pangolin. Civets and/or raccoon dogs could constitute an intermediate reservoir for SARS-CoV-1 ). Rodents or primates can also carry pathogens with zoonotic potential, such as Hantaviruses which can in particular cause hemorrhagic fever with severe renal syndrome or Filoviruses, including the Ebola disease virus.. The latter is transmitted to humans by wild animals, in particular fruit bats, porcupines and primates such as chimpanzees or gorillas, and then spreads in the human population mainly by direct contact with blood, secretions and other bodily fluids of infected people. The average case fatality rate is around 50%.

                        In 2013, the first cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) were detected in West Africa . This emergence will cause more than 10,000 deaths mainly in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.

                        Bushmeat consumption: a risky practice

                        The risks of transmission from animals to humans, a phenomenon known as spillover , whether during hunting, animal handling or the consumption of wild meat are therefore real and potentially devastating.

                        It is the characterization and quantification of this risk, in Cambodia, that the ZooCov project has explored through a "One Health" approach , for almost 2 years and since the start of the pandemic, if so, and how, pathogens such as coronaviruses could be transmitted from wild animals, hunted and eaten, to humans.

                        Indeed, in Southeast Asia, the trade in wild animals and the consumption of bushmeat are a common practice. Often opportunistic, this consumption comes in certain communities to supplement a low-protein diet. It can also be regular and targeted. In Cambodia, out of 107 families interviewed during ZooCov, 77% said they had consumed bushmeat in the previous month .

                        Medicinal use is also widespread. In Vietnam, the analysis of reports of confiscations of pangolins and derived products carried out between 2016 and 2020 by the Vietnamese authorities show 1,342 live pangolins (6,330 kg), 759 dead pangolins or carcasses (3,305 kg), and of 43,902 kg of scales.

                        But this consumption also has a cultural and social aspect that is still poorly understood. For wealthy classes, and often in large cities, this consumption can be motivated by a need for social recognition, beliefs that the consumer of this meat appropriates the physical or physiological virtues of the animal consumed, or by a desire to take issue with the consumption of industrial meat that is harmful to health. Wildlife farming to meet this demand, and/or fur production is also widespread.

                        In Cambodia, in the provinces of Stung Treng and Mondolkiri where forest protected areas still exist, more than 900 people who live on the outskirts of these forests were interviewed in an attempt to analyze the structures and functioning of commercial, illegal, meat of bush. Statistical analyzes are underway to identify the people most at risk of being in contact with such pathogens. We already know that the people exposed are mainly young, middle-class men. Some communities are also more exposed than others. Sociological surveys have also made it possible to better understand the current context – the legal framework, the profiles of the players in this trade, their obstacles and their motivations,

                        Which populations may be at risk?

                        These successive crises seem to have little impact on the practices of these communities. Beyond regular consumption, a quarter of the families interviewed still reported hunting or trapping, and 11% said they sold bushmeat and/or wild animals. In addition, and in the same study sites, more than 2000 samples of wild animals subject to trafficking or subsistence consumption - bats, rodents, turtles, monkeys, birds, wild pigs, etc have been analyzed. Some of the samples tested positive for coronaviruses in particular, and are being analyzed at the Institut Pasteur du Cambodge (IPC) to sequence the genome and learn more about its origin, evolution and zoonotic potential. At last, blood samples were taken from more than 900 people surveyed in the same area to find out if they had been in contact with one or more coronaviruses. The analyzes are still in progress, but we already know that these people had not, at the time of the investigation, been exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

                        The Covid crisis has clearly demonstrated this: it is essential to detect these emergences early in order to put in place measures as quickly as possible to prevent the spread of pathogens. And if many questions remain about the mechanisms of emergence, the same logically goes for the surveillance systems to be put in place to monitor them. The results of the ZooCov project will be used to develop a system for the early detection of spill-over events of zoonotic viruses, in particular by strengthening the wildlife health surveillance system already existing in Cambodia and set up by the Wildlife Conservation. Society WCS. Other important research and development projects will contribute to the understanding of these emergence phenomena, to their prevention and to their early detection.
                        The authors thank the Ministries of Health, Agriculture and Livestock, and Environment of Cambodia, as well as all the project partners: Institut Pasteur du Cambodge (IPC), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Flora and Fauna International (FFI), Research Institute for Development (IRD), Hongkong University (HKU), GREASE Network, International Development Enterprise (iDE), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Elephant Livelihood Initiative Environment (ELIE), BirdLife International , Jahoo, World Hope International.

                        https://theconversation.com/sur-la-p...ovid-19-181757
                        "Safety and security don't just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear."
                        -Nelson Mandela

                        Comment


                        • bump this

                          Comment



                          • Rixey, Charles. (2022). The Myth of the Blind Watchmaker. 10.13140/RG.2.2.33964.13449.

                            Abstract

                            Fusion Inhibitors and the origin of SARS-CoV-2 This was adapted from my explanation of these findings to a group of fellow scientists & researchers investigating the origins of the current pandemic. My Origin Research Reference Project, also on ResearchGate, will soon be updated with a tab specifically listing ~150 references related to the elements discussed in this document.

                            An Abstract in 4 Key Points:
                            -Dr. Fauci and a few other senior scientists knew instantly that the discovery of HIV spike inserts within
                            the SAR-CoV-2 viral genome made it almost impossible for the virus to be natural.
                            -They knew about the Furin cleavage site [FCS], the single biggest genomic contributor to SARS-CoV-
                            2’s ability to become a pandemic virus.
                            - They suppressed treatments that were already available – including the very fusion inhibitors implicated
                            by the existence of the HIV inserts.
                            -Much of what has been done to combat the pandemic – especially here in the United States – has been
                            the opposite of what would’ve been recommended, had all of the information been publicly known in
                            early 2020.

                            _____________________________________________

                            Ask Congress to Investigate COVID Origins and Government Response to Pandemic.

                            i love myself. the quietest. simplest. most powerful. revolution ever. ---- nayyirah waheed

                            "...there’s an obvious contest that’s happening between different sectors of the colonial ruling class in this country. And they would, if they could, lump us into their beef, their struggle." ---- Omali Yeshitela, African People’s Socialist Party

                            (My posts are not intended as advice or professional assessments of any kind.)
                            Never forget Excalibur.

                            Comment


                            • bump this

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X