Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
It could be a joke making fun of the logic of the right. You can tell by the audience reaction there was some confusion. But then there's always some left-wing figure that all of the sudden bends right.
I am not upset or mad at Stewart, he's a comedian and this is what he does for a living. It's just that people like him have gained so much intellectual influence over a vast swathe of the American populace that some will undoubtedly bent his satire as some kind of truth telling lol..In some Americans mind, scientists know jack s..t but guys like Trump, Stewart, and the Kardashians are the mount Rushmore of intelligence.
 

SimaQian

Junior Member
Registered Member
This is a paper written by Ralph S. Baric, one of Detrick Lab researchers . This guy characterized covid virus back in 2006. This guy is implicated with this highly correlated twitter claim inside this
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

More story about this guy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

His paper
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Some selected contents

Biological warfare (BW) agents are microorganisms or toxins that are intended to kill,
injure or incapacitate the enemy, elicit fear and devastate national economies. Because
small amounts of microorganisms might cause high numbers of casualties, they are
classified as weapons of mass destruction. A number of naturally occurring viruses have
potential uses as BW agents, although the availability of these agents is oftentimes
limited. This report discusses the potential use of recombinant and synthetic DNAs to
resurrect recombinant BW viruses de novo and the potential for altering the pathogenic
properties of viruses for nefarious purposes. Examples of weaponized viruses include
Variola major (Smallpox), Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEE), and the
filoviruses Marburg and Ebola viruses, with the classic example being the use of
smallpox virus-contaminated blankets against indigenous North American Indian
populations (76).

Traditionally, biological warfare concerns have focused on a relatively limited, select group of naturally occurring pathogens viewed as having a set of desirable characteristics: 1) highly pathogenic, 2) readily available, 3) easily produced, 4) weaponizable, 5) stable, 6) infectious at a low dose, 7) easily transmissible, and 8) inspiring of fear (32)

With the advent of synthetic biology, recombinant DNA technology, reverse genetic approaches
(i.e. the development of molecular clones of infectious genomes) and the identification of
virulence alleles, not only are new avenues available for obtaining these pathogens, but
more ominously, tools exist for simultaneously modifying the genomes for increased
virulence, immunogenicity, transmissibility, host range and pathogenesis (22, 59).
Moreover, these approaches can be used to molecularly resurrect extinct human and
animal pathogens, like the 1918 human influenza virus (81)


This paper builds upon earlier work and seeks to review the methodologies in isolating recombinant viruses in vitro and the application of these methods globally to biological warfare and biodefense


If notoriety, fear and directing foreign government policies are principle objectives, then the release and subsequent discovery of a synthetically derived virus bioweapon will certainly garner tremendous media coverage, inspire fear and terrorize human populations and direct severe pressure on government officials to respond in predicted ways.

Another approach might be to “humanize” zoonotic viruses by inserting mutations into virus attachment proteins or constructing chimeric proteins that regulate virus species specificity (viral attachment proteins bind receptors, mediating virus docking and entry into cells).



He seems to know how covid virus works.


More paper written by this Baric guy. This time it is written in 2016 and collaboration with some authors.
So these people studied a coronavirus from Chinese horseshoe bats, they mixed and match the genome of this virus with other known viruses such as the SARS1 virus to prove that it might have a pathogenic potential before nature can do it and even thanked Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for access to bat CoV sequences and plasmid of WIV1-CoV spike protein.

Do we still have to believe that this covid virus is from natural origins?


Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A study led by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found that a SARS-like virus known as WIV1-CoV, which is found in horseshoe bats, could bind to the same receptors as SARS-CoV and replicate in human cells without the need for adaptation. Thought to be a critical barrier, the results indicate that bat populations maintain SARS-like viruses poised to reemerge in humans.

The study, titled “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,” was published in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). The study’s primary investigator is Ralph Baric, PhD, professor of epidemiology at UNC’s Gillings School of Global Public Health.



The science paper:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Selected contents:

The discovery of SARS-like virus clusters that bridge the gap between the epidemic strains and related precursor CoV strain HKU3 virus provided the best evidence for emergence of SARS-CoV from Chinese horseshoe bats (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). Comparing the receptor binding domain (RBD), SARS-CoV Urbani and WIV1 share homology at 11 of the 14 contact residues with human ACE2 (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
); importantly, the three amino acid changes represent relatively conservative substitution not predicted to ablate binding (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). Therefore, exploring WIV1 strains allows examination of emergence, pathogenesis potential, and adaptation requirements. Using the SARS-CoV infectious clone as a template (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
), we designed and synthesized a full-length infectious clone of WIV1-CoV consisting of six plasmids that could be enzymatically cut, ligated together, and electroporated into cells to rescue replication competent progeny virions (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). In addition to the full-length clone, we also produced WIV1-CoV chimeric virus that replaced the SARS spike with the WIV1 spike within the mouse-adapted backbone (WIV1-MA15,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
. WIV1-MA15 incorporates the original binding and entry capabilities of WIV1-CoV, but maintains the backbone changes to mouse-adapted SARS-CoV. Importantly, WIV1-MA15 does not incorporate the Y436H mutation in spike that is required for SARS-MA15 pathogenesis (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). Following electroporation into Vero cells, robust stock titers were recovered from both chimeric WIV1-MA15 and WIV1-CoV. To confirm growth kinetics and replication, Vero cells were infected with SARS-CoV Urbani, WIV1-MA15, and WIV1-CoV (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
); the results indicate similar replication kinetics and overall titers between the CoVs. However, Western blot analysis suggests potential differences in spike cleavage/processing of WIV1 and SARS-CoV spike proteins (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
); the ratio of full-length to cleaved spike varied between SARS spikes (Urbani, 1.21; MA15, 1.44) and WIV1 (full length, 0.61; WIV1-MA15, 0.25) signaling possible variation in host proteolytic processing (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). Overall, the results indicate comparable viral replication, but possible biochemical differences in processing.


WIV1-CoV in Human ACE2 Expressing Mice.

Whereas studies in wild-type mice provide insight into pathogenesis potential, the absence of clinical disease in the epidemic strains of SARS-CoV suggests that the mouse model may not be adequate to access human disease potential. To test a model more relevant to humans, we generated a mouse that expresses human ACE2 receptor under control of HFH4, a lung ciliated epithelial cell promoter (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
).


A number of factors may contribute to reduced mouse pathogenesis observed following WIV1-CoV spike-mediated infection. In the context of both the SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, focus had been primarily directed to spike binding as the key component of emergence and pandemic potential. Supported by adaption at Y436H in mouse-adapted SARS spike (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
), improved binding to host receptor cannot be discounted as a crucial component in emergence. This fact is supported by improved replication of WIV1-CoV in mice expressing human ACE2 compared with control (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
versus
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). However, in vivo attenuation of WIV1-CoV relative to SARS-CoV Urbani despite efficient infection in primary human airway cultures suggests that additional factors contribute to epidemic emergence. One possibility is that adaptation outside of spike protein may lead to emergence via altered host–virus interactions.
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
This kind of research is supposed to attempt to mimic how a virus might look like with a future evolution. The purpose supposedly is to study how a future evolution of a virus might look like before it naturally occurs so it can be characterized and prevented before it happens. But I think this kind of research is highly dangerous because we know that viruses have mechanisms to pass DNA to other organisms and vice-versa. The risk of a breakout was highly likely and that is what some people seem to think happened here. Other researchers claim the virus DNA sequence does not show evidence of it being explicitly genetically modified with appearance of being a chimera virus but can we really know there was no gene transmission because of these experiments? Also, it is quite clear that whatever this research was supposed to achieve, it certainly did not lead to early creation of a vaccine. Compare the time it took in the late 1950s to create the vaccine for Asian H2N2 flu virus. Was about the same. Claims of wonderful new XXIst technology being much more efficient seem bunk to me. Only thing you can argue helped was fact virus this time was genetically sequenced. But this was not an impediment in late 1950s to create a vaccine.
 
Top