Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Lab Modification Rather Than Nat

[musick]

The paper brings attention to a few interesting characteristics and what really got my attention was the introduction of a furin cleavage site into the SARS-CoV-2 spike gene, which is absent in other B β coronaviruses.

https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X19xByXZglR

https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Gated_Institutional_Narrative

[tundraboomer]

Anyone who thinks this virus wasn't modified in some way in a laboratory environment is delusional.

[as_rocketman]

Who is the "Rule of Law Society?" This paper is highly irregular. Not saying that to dismiss it, but as this claim obviously conflicts with others, it bears close scrutiny.

Personal bias disclaimer, I am so far very unconvinced by claims that it was a bioweapon, and I am skeptical that one can convincingly prove it was created as a more innocent gain-of-function experiment through analysis of the pathogen itself. Accidental release of a natural pathogen is plausible to me, and should be easier to prove, if so. However I am not sufficiently trained in this subject to detect a well-crafted fake without relying on expert opinion

[musick]

Who is the "Rule of Law Society?" This paper is highly irregular. Not saying that to dismiss it, but as this claim obviously conflicts with others, it bears close scrutiny.

As far as I am aware they are a human rights organization focused on China:

https://www.rolsociety.org/en/#section-mission

I believe all claims, from all sides, should be scrutinized.

Personal bias disclaimer, I am so far very unconvinced by claims that it was a bioweapon, and I am skeptical that one can convincingly prove it was created as a more innocent gain-of-function experiment through analysis of the pathogen itself. Accidental release of a natural pathogen is plausible to me, and should be easier to prove, if so. However I am not sufficiently trained in this subject to detect a well-crafted fake without relying on expert opinion

When a virus moves from one species to another it is not well positioned. It is typically poor at its job because it doesnt have evolutionary experience with that host, so its not good at leaping between that hosts cells which means its always in low numbers and its not good at transmitting from one individual to the next. Thats the key question when something leaps into a new species and becomes a pandemic its because it has solved that second problem. There is no evidence in the case of this virus that that happened. It showed up in Wuhan and spread immediately. It became pandemic. It already had the means and experience. How it got that experience we dont know. What we do know is that this virus was well adapted to our cells and well adapted to transmit between individuals and that is suspicious.

[Dirtlaw]

We have some awesome people here. On this topic I'm going with Musick due to superior credentials.

[as_rocketman]

My disclaimer: Im a microbiologist, not a virologist, who has experience working in BSL 3 labs. That said, I do have some understanding of how viruses work and continue to learn more as research becomes available. Im not 100% convinced of anything yet, however, based on my own research, it appears more likely to have “escaped” from a lab than have happened naturally.

There is some undistributed middle here -- it is possible that it's a natural pathogen, isolated in a lab for study, that got loose. That's actually my personal belief although I have no solid evidence for it.

I'm not a biologist, but my wife manages a BSL3 facility. When the talk turns to data science I may be able to bring some personal expertise, otherwise I'm just a generalist in this fight. But there are solid contrasting papers.

One peripheral observation, though -- it is implausible to claim that mainstream journals are "suppressing the truth," as this paper does. (Is this even a real journal, or just a whitepaper? CC4.0 license??) These days, with preprints publicly available for free, the editorial boards of journals have MUCH less power to obscure results than ever before. Now, a mainstream journal might object to a particular interpretation, but we should be able to establish objective facts free of any suspicion.

[numpty]

The paper brings attention to a few interesting characteristics and what really got my attention was the introduction of a furin cleavage site into the SARS-CoV-2 spike gene, which is absent in other B β coronaviruses.

Oh man, you too?

J/K...I'm leaving this to the experts!

[five.five-six]

In other news: water is wet and dirt is dirty.


Up next: is Kamala Harris a whore?

[theLBC]

There is some undistributed middle here -- it is possible that it's a natural pathogen, isolated in a lab for study, that got loose. That's actually my personal belief although I have no solid evidence for it.

I'm not a biologist, but my wife manages a BSL3 facility. When the talk turns to data science I may be able to bring some personal expertise, otherwise I'm just a generalist in this fight. But there are solid contrasting papers.

One peripheral observation, though -- it is implausible to claim that mainstream journals are "suppressing the truth," as this paper does. (Is this even a real journal, or just a whitepaper? CC4.0 license??) These days, with preprints publicly available for free, the editorial boards of journals have MUCH less power to obscure results than ever before. Now, a mainstream journal might object to a particular interpretation, but we should be able to establish objective facts free of any suspicion.

reasonable.

i think the main question isn't how it might have been released (accidental, negligent or on purpose) but if they were doing GoF development (that i am told was deemed too dangerous in the US) and did scumbag fauci fund it when the program was terminated here in the states?

[musick]

I'm going with Musick due to superior credentials

Oh, please dont trust me. Im an idiot!

Oh man, you too?

[musick]

There is some undistributed middle here -- it is possible that it's a natural pathogen, isolated in a lab for study, that got loose. That's actually my personal belief although I have no solid evidence for it.

It is also possible that its a natural pathogen, isolated and “enhanced” in a lab for study, that got loose. Its no secret that WIV had one of the largest collection of genetically modified coronaviruses in the world, so im a bit puzzled by what appears to be your lack of acceptance of that.

But there are solid contrasting papers.

Agreed.

One peripheral observation, though -- it is implausible to claim that mainstream journals are "suppressing the truth," as this paper does...Now, a mainstream journal might object to a particular interpretation, but we should be able to establish objective facts free of any suspicion.

Thats why I mentioned the GIN in my initial post. Some ideas are not allowed to be entertained within these institutions and many of the most important ideas may be those that are the most disruptive. Eric mentioned a few examples such as what if diversity, wasnt a sign of our strength, but sometimes a sign of our weakness? What if, for example, immigration was far from being an issue of xenophobes versus xenophiles and actually an instance of redistribution having little to do with xenophobia or xenophilia to begin with?

Scientific journals may not be actively "suppressing the truth" but I do believe they are not allowing all ideas to be equally accessible based on my own personal experiences. Part of that is because we dont want ‘crackpot theories’ (which can be tested away using the scientific method btw) to ‘clutter’ or ‘stain’ our ‘sacred’ journals, but it is also true that there is danger in upsetting the narrative.

How can the establishment suggest that we should always “trust the experts” when Fauci has gone back and forth on multiple aspects of this virus? To date, no one has ever produced a safe and effective vaccine against a coronavirus but now we are expected to believe that they will be able to fast track one now? I dont think its unreasonable to demand that our experts must show their work.

[musick]

... and did scumbag fauci fund GoF when the program was terminated here in the states?

I didnt think that was up for debate:

"But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses."

https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741

https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-studying-coronavirus/

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/04/26/giuliani-fauci-gave-3-7-million-to-wuhan-laboratory-in-2014/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/breaking-dr-fauci-obama-admin-gave-wuhan-lab-3-7-million-top-dr-shi-zhengli-us-project-shut-sent-back-china/

[as_rocketman]

I'm not unwilling to entertain this hypothesis. But I'm concerned about testability. Without access to their task plans and lab books, how can we distinguish between an unaltered but rare pathogen, and an altered one? Some methods of enhancement leave tell-tale clues, but not all of them. I'd like to keep the conversation focused on facts that we have access to.

I'm reasonably well published in my field. There can be no question that editors and editorial boards have a particular emphasis or overall arc in mind for their imprints, and they would want to avoid the taint of something off the wall. But in general there should be no problem getting at least a submission out the door, no matter the subject, so long as it's not too speculative. I agree that "WuFlu is probably biowarfare!" will never appear in Nature, but there should be no issue publishing "SARS-CoV-2 exhibits introns never before seen in coronaviruses" or something to that effect.

Yeah, this is the kind of extraneous comment that won't help the discussion. You're not wrong to ask for them all to show their work, but there are very sound reasons why such a vaccine is not only feasible but probable. For something more off-beat like entertaining alternate origin stories of the virus, it'll be important to stay focused on objective facts, and to clearly separate fact from hypothesis and speculation. This need not become a conspiracy theory.

[Den60]

In other news: water is wet and dirt is dirty.


Up next: is Kamala Harris a whore?

Umm, she prefers the term "escort."

[Silence Dogood]

It'll be interesting to see how experts in the field respond to her next paper, to be released at some later date and referenced by her on Tucker Carlson this evening.