-
FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website. -
We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.
Discussion: Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Wuhan has been working with bats and coronavirus for many years - DNA manipulations, cloning.... - Ja
- Thread starter tetano
- Start date
NATURE
NEWS
05 June 2020
The biggest mystery: what it will take to trace the coronavirus source
https://www.nature.com/articles/d415...52569-44881153
In mid-May, the World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization’s key decision-making body, passed a resolution that calls on the agency to work with other international organizations to identify the animal source. But scientists say that the nature of the evidence required means it’s going to be hard to track down the animal source — and also difficult to completely rule out the facility in question, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), as the source.
The WIV hosts a maximum-security lab that is one of a few dozen biosafety-level-4 (BSL-4) labs around the world. Although there’s no evidence to support the suggestion that the virus escaped from there, scientists say that completely ruling it out will be tricky and time consuming.
The lab does hold coronaviruses related to SARS-CoV-2, so it is possible that one could have escaped, perhaps if a lab worker accidentally became infected from a virus sample or animal in the facility and then passed it on to someone outside the facility. It is also theoretically possible that scientists at the lab tweaked the virus’s genome for research purposes before it escaped, but, again, there is no evidence that they did. Shi declined to respond to Nature’s questions about her experiments, saying that she has been inundated with media requests.
NEWS
05 June 2020
The biggest mystery: what it will take to trace the coronavirus source
https://www.nature.com/articles/d415...52569-44881153
In mid-May, the World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization’s key decision-making body, passed a resolution that calls on the agency to work with other international organizations to identify the animal source. But scientists say that the nature of the evidence required means it’s going to be hard to track down the animal source — and also difficult to completely rule out the facility in question, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), as the source.
The WIV hosts a maximum-security lab that is one of a few dozen biosafety-level-4 (BSL-4) labs around the world. Although there’s no evidence to support the suggestion that the virus escaped from there, scientists say that completely ruling it out will be tricky and time consuming.
The lab does hold coronaviruses related to SARS-CoV-2, so it is possible that one could have escaped, perhaps if a lab worker accidentally became infected from a virus sample or animal in the facility and then passed it on to someone outside the facility. It is also theoretically possible that scientists at the lab tweaked the virus’s genome for research purposes before it escaped, but, again, there is no evidence that they did. Shi declined to respond to Nature’s questions about her experiments, saying that she has been inundated with media requests.
sharon sanders
Editor-in-Chief & President
Thanks for posting that. This site was bashed for having a thread about the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 started as a lab escape. And some media contacts and professionals silently withdrew from us - a few who have been long time friends of FluTrackers. Oh well. It is fortunate by design that we do not depend on any financial sources to run this site. We are free to be objective.
A search for the truth is always uncomfortable.
Thank you to everyone who has stuck with us.
A search for the truth is always uncomfortable.
Thank you to everyone who has stuck with us.
Last edited:
Emily Gain of Function experiments are not scientifically trivial, they are very important in understanding the changes need to make a virus circulating pathogenic. If you know that certain changes convert a CoV from not being able to bind to human ACE2 to being able to bind then you know which of the circulating strains are likely to be a danger to us. When used in conjunction with the sampling (that has, stupidly, just been de-funded) you would know how prevalent those mutations are in the gene pool.
Last edited:
That 2.7%% sero-positive equates to over a million people who have been infected with bat CoVs one of whom, not surprisingly, caught SARS-1 and another caught SARS-2 and others will catch further SARS like strains in the future. Wouldn't it be nice is we had researchers out in the field trying to find out what dangerous pathogens are circulating in the bat population? If you want to understand what Peter Daszak and the Ecohealth alliance do then listen to this interview with him https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-623/ which was recorded after their de-funding, or this one recorded last Dec. when SARS-2 was circulating but no one knew yet https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-615/
This is exactly the sort of science that should be the highest priority for funding as it is the most useful in making sure we are not blindsided by the next zoonotic emergence. Had we done this earlier we could have had broadly acting pharmaceuticals capable of helping patients with a wide range of SARS like infections. We would also be further ahead in vaccine development. Most importantly we would know about human wildlife interactions that are high risk and how to avoid them.
This is exactly the sort of science that should be the highest priority for funding as it is the most useful in making sure we are not blindsided by the next zoonotic emergence. Had we done this earlier we could have had broadly acting pharmaceuticals capable of helping patients with a wide range of SARS like infections. We would also be further ahead in vaccine development. Most importantly we would know about human wildlife interactions that are high risk and how to avoid them.
Last edited:
It is my pleasure Sharon!
I found also quite interesting this article in Nature from 2018
COMMENT
07 June 2018
Nature 558, 180-182 (2018)
doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05373-w
Pandemics: spend on surveillance, not prediction
Trust is undermined when scientists make overblown promises about disease prevention, warn Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut and Kristian G. Andersen.
Forecasting fallacy
Supporters of outbreak prediction maintain that if biologists genetically characterize all of the viruses circulating in animal populations (especially in groups such as bats and rodents that have previously acted as reservoirs for emerging viruses), they can determine which ones are likely to emerge next, and ultimately prevent them from doing so. With enough data, coupled with artificial intelligence and machine learning, they argue, the process could be similar to predicting the weather.
This is misguided. Determining which of more than 1.6 million animal viruses are capable of replicating in humans and transmitting between them would require many decades’ worth of laboratory work in cell cultures and animals. Even if researchers managed to link each virus genome sequence to substantial experimental data, all sorts of other factors determine whether a virus jumps species and emerges in a human population, such as the distribution and density of animal hosts. Influenza viruses have circulated in horses since the 1950s and in dogs since the early 2000s, for instance[SUP]7[/SUP]. These viruses have not emerged in human populations, and perhaps never will — for unknown reasons.
...
In short, there aren’t enough data on virus outbreaks for researchers to be able to accurately predict the next outbreak strain. Nor is there a good enough understanding of what drives viruses to jump hosts, making it difficult to construct predictive models.
Even if it were possible to identify which viruses are likely to emerge in humans, thousands of candidates could end up being identified, each with a low probability of causing an outbreak. What should be done in that case? Costs would skyrocket if vaccines and therapeutics were proposed for even a handful of these.
I found also quite interesting this article in Nature from 2018
COMMENT
07 June 2018
Nature 558, 180-182 (2018)
doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05373-w
Pandemics: spend on surveillance, not prediction
Trust is undermined when scientists make overblown promises about disease prevention, warn Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut and Kristian G. Andersen.
Forecasting fallacy
Supporters of outbreak prediction maintain that if biologists genetically characterize all of the viruses circulating in animal populations (especially in groups such as bats and rodents that have previously acted as reservoirs for emerging viruses), they can determine which ones are likely to emerge next, and ultimately prevent them from doing so. With enough data, coupled with artificial intelligence and machine learning, they argue, the process could be similar to predicting the weather.
This is misguided. Determining which of more than 1.6 million animal viruses are capable of replicating in humans and transmitting between them would require many decades’ worth of laboratory work in cell cultures and animals. Even if researchers managed to link each virus genome sequence to substantial experimental data, all sorts of other factors determine whether a virus jumps species and emerges in a human population, such as the distribution and density of animal hosts. Influenza viruses have circulated in horses since the 1950s and in dogs since the early 2000s, for instance[SUP]7[/SUP]. These viruses have not emerged in human populations, and perhaps never will — for unknown reasons.
...
In short, there aren’t enough data on virus outbreaks for researchers to be able to accurately predict the next outbreak strain. Nor is there a good enough understanding of what drives viruses to jump hosts, making it difficult to construct predictive models.
Even if it were possible to identify which viruses are likely to emerge in humans, thousands of candidates could end up being identified, each with a low probability of causing an outbreak. What should be done in that case? Costs would skyrocket if vaccines and therapeutics were proposed for even a handful of these.
bertrand789
Well-known member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0kasJuNDTw&t=50s
si la premi?re ?tait bien, la seconde est d?solante.
C'est amusant, dans cette vid?o les scientifiques sont en tenue de cosmonaute dans les grottes, donc ils peuvent faire, ou plus de pr?tendre... Il est vraiment urgent qu'un vrai audit des managements des programmes chinois et am?ricians qui ont eu lieu en Chine soit fait
C'est pas dans ces grottes que l'on trouve aussi des nids d'hirondelle , par exemple ?
si la premi?re ?tait bien, la seconde est d?solante.
C'est amusant, dans cette vid?o les scientifiques sont en tenue de cosmonaute dans les grottes, donc ils peuvent faire, ou plus de pr?tendre... Il est vraiment urgent qu'un vrai audit des managements des programmes chinois et am?ricians qui ont eu lieu en Chine soit fait
C'est pas dans ces grottes que l'on trouve aussi des nids d'hirondelle , par exemple ?
bertrand789
Well-known member
Kathy for those who still advocate massive and poorly managed investment, because it is unmanageable, in predicting, here is an exercise:
I would like to glimpse a human and animal prevention plan drawn up, for such an agent, unidentified, and having characteristics, different from 25%, in one way or another, occurring in India?
If the copy is deemed relevant after a real public consultation, example in this place (one of the rare places, which by protecting its sources, allows those knowing how to glimpse), then YES. But I have great doubts ...
I would like to glimpse a human and animal prevention plan drawn up, for such an agent, unidentified, and having characteristics, different from 25%, in one way or another, occurring in India?
If the copy is deemed relevant after a real public consultation, example in this place (one of the rare places, which by protecting its sources, allows those knowing how to glimpse), then YES. But I have great doubts ...
@bertrand789 I am not sure if I have understood your question. For me a perfect example of money bad invested in prediction of future pandemics is SARS-CoV-2. Despite the enormous budget used in the last almost twenty years there are no vaccines for SARS, MERS and you see what it is happening now with SARS-CoV-2.
bertrand789
Well-known member
Kathy
I completely agree. Even if the consensus bodies at the global level all seem weakened, as they seem to be the only solution, this will be temporary.
Now, for what needs to be done, at the state level, America shows us a path of its own:
https://www.bfmtv.com/international/...e-1928927.html
it seems indeed in the United States, it is necessary, by their culture and their right, to destroy to rebuild.
As they do not have only faults, it must be noted. Except that, they should not impose it on others, because frankly in terms of management, there are other possibilities ...
***********************************
je suis tout ? fait d'accord. M?me si les instances de consensus au niveau mondial semblent toutes affaiblies, comme elles semblent la seule solution, cela va ?tre provisoire.
Maintenant, pour ce qui doit ?tre fait, au niveau des ?tats, l'Am?rique nous montre une voie qui lui est propre:
https://www.bfmtv.com/international/...e-1928927.html
il semble en effet aux Etats Unis, il faut, de par leur culture et leur droit, d?truire pour reconstruire.
Comme ils n'ont pas que des d?fauts, il faut en prendre acte. Sauf que cela, ils ne doivent pas l'imposer aux autres, car franchement en terme de management, il y a d'autres possibles...
I completely agree. Even if the consensus bodies at the global level all seem weakened, as they seem to be the only solution, this will be temporary.
Now, for what needs to be done, at the state level, America shows us a path of its own:
https://www.bfmtv.com/international/...e-1928927.html
it seems indeed in the United States, it is necessary, by their culture and their right, to destroy to rebuild.
As they do not have only faults, it must be noted. Except that, they should not impose it on others, because frankly in terms of management, there are other possibilities ...
***********************************
je suis tout ? fait d'accord. M?me si les instances de consensus au niveau mondial semblent toutes affaiblies, comme elles semblent la seule solution, cela va ?tre provisoire.
Maintenant, pour ce qui doit ?tre fait, au niveau des ?tats, l'Am?rique nous montre une voie qui lui est propre:
https://www.bfmtv.com/international/...e-1928927.html
il semble en effet aux Etats Unis, il faut, de par leur culture et leur droit, d?truire pour reconstruire.
Comme ils n'ont pas que des d?fauts, il faut en prendre acte. Sauf que cela, ils ne doivent pas l'imposer aux autres, car franchement en terme de management, il y a d'autres possibles...
This is true the reason there is no vaccine but because there is no funding. All the work on SARS-1 stopped when it disappeared in humans despite the fact there was a know reservoir of SARS like viruses in bats that was very likely to cause a re-emergence of SARS or something like it. Ecohealth knew it was still a danger and kept working to evaluate it. They will keep up this important work, just without NIH funding. Had the funding not dried up we would have been much better prepared to deal with this outbreak.
Last edited:
Gert van der Hoek
In Memoriam - Editor, Senior Moderator
Norway Scientist Claims Report Proves Coronavirus Was Lab-Made
Jun 7, 2020
Norwegian scientist Birger S?rensen has claimed the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is not natural in origin. The claims by the co-author of the British-Norwegian study—published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics—are supported by the former head of Britain’s MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove.
The study from S?rensen and British professor Angus Dalgleish show that the coronavirus's spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted.
They also highlight the lack of mutation since its discovery, which suggests it was already fully adapted to humans. The study goes on to explain the rationale for the development of Biovacc-19, a candidate vaccine for COVID-19 that is now in advanced pre-clinical development.
Properties that have never been found in nature
S?rensen told NRK that the virus has properties that differ greatly from SARS, and which have never been detected in nature. He explained that China and the United States have collaborated for many years on coronavirus research.
S?rensen claimed that both countries participate in "gain of function" studies, in which the pathogenicity or transmissibility of potential pandemic pathogens can be enhanced in order to understand them better.
For months, rumors have persisted that the virus was created in the advanced virology lab in Wuhan. Lab bosses told Chinese state television that the claims were “total fabrication” and that the lab had never done any research into viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2.
According to S?rensen, it was Chinese scientists that first released the sequences that the British-Norwegian study later claimed to have been unnatural in origin. He claims that China has since put a lid on other such studies.
Jun 7, 2020
Norwegian scientist Birger S?rensen has claimed the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is not natural in origin. The claims by the co-author of the British-Norwegian study—published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics—are supported by the former head of Britain’s MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove.
The study from S?rensen and British professor Angus Dalgleish show that the coronavirus's spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted.
They also highlight the lack of mutation since its discovery, which suggests it was already fully adapted to humans. The study goes on to explain the rationale for the development of Biovacc-19, a candidate vaccine for COVID-19 that is now in advanced pre-clinical development.
Properties that have never been found in nature
S?rensen told NRK that the virus has properties that differ greatly from SARS, and which have never been detected in nature. He explained that China and the United States have collaborated for many years on coronavirus research.
S?rensen claimed that both countries participate in "gain of function" studies, in which the pathogenicity or transmissibility of potential pandemic pathogens can be enhanced in order to understand them better.
For months, rumors have persisted that the virus was created in the advanced virology lab in Wuhan. Lab bosses told Chinese state television that the claims were “total fabrication” and that the lab had never done any research into viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2.
According to S?rensen, it was Chinese scientists that first released the sequences that the British-Norwegian study later claimed to have been unnatural in origin. He claims that China has since put a lid on other such studies.
Gert van der Hoek
In Memoriam - Editor, Senior Moderator
Abstract of study mentioned in the previous post.
A Candidate Vaccine for Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Developed from Analysis of its General Method of Action for Infectivity
ABSTRACT
This study presents the background, rationale and Method of Action of Biovacc-19, a candidate vaccine for Covid-19, now in advanced pre-clinical development, which has already passed the first acute toxicity testing. Unlike conventionally developed vaccines, Biovacc-19's Method of Operation is upon non human-like (NHL) epitopes in 21.6% of the composition of SARS-CoV-2's Spike protein, which displays distinct distributed charge including the presence of a charged furin-like cleavage site. The logic of the design of the vaccine is explained, which starts with empirical analysis of the aetiology of SARS-CoV-2.
Mistaken assumptions about SARS-CoV-2's aetiology risk creating ineffective or actively harmful vaccines, including the risk of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE). Such problems in vaccine design are illustrated from past experience in the HIV domain. We propose that the dual effect general method of action of this chimeric virus’s spike, including receptor binding domain, includes membrane components other than the ACE2 receptor, which explains clinical evidence of its infectivity and pathogenicity.
We show the non-receptor dependent phagocytic general method of action to be specifically related to cumulative charge from inserted sections placed on the SARS-CoV-2 Spike surface in positions to bind efficiently by salt bridge formations; and from blasting the Spike we display the non human-like epitopes from which Biovacc-19 has been down-selected.
A Candidate Vaccine for Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Developed from Analysis of its General Method of Action for Infectivity
ABSTRACT
This study presents the background, rationale and Method of Action of Biovacc-19, a candidate vaccine for Covid-19, now in advanced pre-clinical development, which has already passed the first acute toxicity testing. Unlike conventionally developed vaccines, Biovacc-19's Method of Operation is upon non human-like (NHL) epitopes in 21.6% of the composition of SARS-CoV-2's Spike protein, which displays distinct distributed charge including the presence of a charged furin-like cleavage site. The logic of the design of the vaccine is explained, which starts with empirical analysis of the aetiology of SARS-CoV-2.
Mistaken assumptions about SARS-CoV-2's aetiology risk creating ineffective or actively harmful vaccines, including the risk of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE). Such problems in vaccine design are illustrated from past experience in the HIV domain. We propose that the dual effect general method of action of this chimeric virus’s spike, including receptor binding domain, includes membrane components other than the ACE2 receptor, which explains clinical evidence of its infectivity and pathogenicity.
We show the non-receptor dependent phagocytic general method of action to be specifically related to cumulative charge from inserted sections placed on the SARS-CoV-2 Spike surface in positions to bind efficiently by salt bridge formations; and from blasting the Spike we display the non human-like epitopes from which Biovacc-19 has been down-selected.
Emily
Editor, Senior Moderator
JJackson, who is claiming that a vaccine for SARS1 could have been used to protect against the SARS2 virus? Or is Daszak claiming if they had more money to sample more bats and do more gain-of-function that they would have predicted this virus and would have started working on that vaccine a couple of years ago so it would be proven safe and effective now? That would be nonsense to claim that scientifically. Do they ever weigh the risks of more human to bat contact and more risk of lab accidents in the equation? AND they ignore the progress vaccine science has made over the years all without their help. Those new technologies are being applied right now to respond to THIS virus, not SARS1.
Emily
Editor, Senior Moderator
Discussion of paper gsgs found here:
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum...-covid-19-new-coronavirus?p=868388#post868388
There are links to translations of the original paper about the miners here:
https://twitter.com/TheSeeker268/status/1262459039297961989
This all raises many questions.
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum...-covid-19-new-coronavirus?p=868388#post868388
There are links to translations of the original paper about the miners here:
https://twitter.com/TheSeeker268/status/1262459039297961989
This all raises many questions.
sharon sanders
Editor-in-Chief & President
Yikes. I had no previous knowledge of the 2012 mine incident.
That means that the virus that causes COVID-19 isn't really SARS2, it's SARS4 (or maybe SARS7?). We apparently had not only one warning about these coronaviruses, but at least three. Remember that in the fall of the 2003, following the SARS1 outbreak, there were four unconnected human coronavirus infections in Guangdong that were not due to circulating coronaviruses. At the time, they were diagnosed as SARS, but multiple sources indicate that the virus was not the known SARS virus from the earlier outbreak. If all four were due to the same virus (circulating in bats or rodents), then COVID-19 is SARS4. If they're all distinct, then this is at least the 7th jump to humans of these viruses.
That means that the virus that causes COVID-19 isn't really SARS2, it's SARS4 (or maybe SARS7?). We apparently had not only one warning about these coronaviruses, but at least three. Remember that in the fall of the 2003, following the SARS1 outbreak, there were four unconnected human coronavirus infections in Guangdong that were not due to circulating coronaviruses. At the time, they were diagnosed as SARS, but multiple sources indicate that the virus was not the known SARS virus from the earlier outbreak. If all four were due to the same virus (circulating in bats or rodents), then COVID-19 is SARS4. If they're all distinct, then this is at least the 7th jump to humans of these viruses.
A great podcast of Bret Weinstein with Yuri Deigin as guest on a possible lab origin of SARS-CoV-2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug
Yuri is author of this very informative article on SARS-CoV-2 and lab manipulation of coronaviruses:
Lab-Made? SARS-CoV-2 Genealogy Through the Lens of Gain-of-Function Research
https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748
@alert: the SARS from the miners, was not so good adapted from humans, otherwise we would have had at that time a pandemic. RaTG13 did not have a perfectly adapted receptor binding domain for human cells and a furin cleavage site that make possible to infect different cell types and species. SARS leaked several times from different labs.
Just an example:
Chinese authorities on alert as SARS breaks out again
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403836/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug
Yuri is author of this very informative article on SARS-CoV-2 and lab manipulation of coronaviruses:
Lab-Made? SARS-CoV-2 Genealogy Through the Lens of Gain-of-Function Research
https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748
@alert: the SARS from the miners, was not so good adapted from humans, otherwise we would have had at that time a pandemic. RaTG13 did not have a perfectly adapted receptor binding domain for human cells and a furin cleavage site that make possible to infect different cell types and species. SARS leaked several times from different labs.
Just an example:
Chinese authorities on alert as SARS breaks out again
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403836/
Yes, I am aware there were multiple accidental leaks of the SARS1 virus in the summer/fall of 2003, both in China, and elsewhere (Singapore, Taiwan). That's not what I'm referring to,
In addition to the 2012 miners, there were four sporadic cases of infection with a bat coronavirus in Guangdong between December 2003 and January 2004. They were not infected with the SARS1 virus from a lab, nor with RaTG13, nor with COVID-19, and none of them infected anyone else. It's not clear to me now whether all four of them had the same virus or different ones. None of them had a lab exposure, and at least a couple of them had an animal exposure.