Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Coronavirus

Options
1…7172747677…80

Comments

  • Options
    #2192
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    "We still don't know, it is possible this came from the wild without human meddling" - he doesn't sound very convinced

    Also he's a biologist. Several of the world's top virologists, who have direct hands-on with the virus in labs are increasingly convinced it came from animal-human transmission, e.g. Dr. Danielle Anderson

    Not as exciting or "sexy" as the lab leak theory, so less appealing for some, especially for the audience on the Joe Rogan show.

    It's commonsense the virus leaked probably from a lab if they can’t find the strain in nature. There're signals/signs in the genome that suggest human tampering . These changes are extremely rare in natural viruses. This is what convinced Bret here and the other scientists he talked with a lab leak is likely the correct explanation.. Some scientists are just brave to feature that now in science papers.

    Its not a wild thought either since it now common knowledge there was a coronavirus disease lab in Wuhan. A leak from a lab would make the virus more transferable to humans in the surrounding area than the suggested method someone eat the wrong animal one day that no scientist can identify 100 percent here.


  • Options
    #2193
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    It's commonsense the virus leaked probably from a lab if they can’t find the strain in nature. There're signals/signs in the genome that suggest human tampering . These changes are extremely rare in natural viruses. This is what convinced Bret here and other scentists he talked with a lab leak is likely the correct explanation.. Some scientists are just brave to feature that now in science papers.

    Its not a wild thought either since it now common knowledge there was a coronavirus disease lab in Wuhan. A leak from a lab would make the virus more transferrable to humans in the surrounding area than the suggested method someone eat the wrong animal one day that no scientist can identify 100 percent here.
    Eh, viruses are discovered more regularly than any species. So the fact they haven't found it in nature does not mean it does not exist in nature. It's simply they haven't found it as the origin is likely in the middle of nowhere.

    Finding excuses for none of the claims getting through peer review is more an indication of how weak your argument is. I also tend to defer to the cdc, who and scientific journals rather than your virology expertise.


  • Options
    #2194
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Eh, viruses are discovered more regularly than any species. So the fact they haven't found it in nature does not mean it does not exist in nature. It's simply they haven't found it as the origin is likely in the middle of nowhere.

    .

    Yes, and that mostly likely what happened here. They encountered some bat like disease in a remote corner area of China or Africa?. They later took it to the lab and worked on it.
    They then enhanced and boosted in a lab to allow it to pass to human beings more easily. They made it more dangerous with the tampering. If the scientists found this virus in nature, some of the new changes would not be present.

    I don’t think is a conspiracy to believe a lab leak is correct when the epicentre close by to a B4 virus lab known to be testing viruses found in bats. Early days it was reported no bats were sold in the Wuhan wet market, so that makes the case for a outbreak there unlikely.


  • Options
    #2195
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The study didn't get through peer review... So it doesn't matter how much of a leading virologist you claim she is, she failed to backup her claims.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/06/07/controversial-coronavirus-lab-origin-claims-dismissed-by-experts/#6e7155f68f61

    This should show up elsewhere in the animal community, its a logical statement from him. Sorenson highlighting the virus seems to have been engineered to be more transferrable to human beings instead.
    The properties that we now see in the virus, we have yet to discover anywhere in nature. We know that these properties make the virus very infectious, so if it came from nature, there should also be many animals infected with this, but we have still not been able to trace the virus in nature”


  • Options
    #2196
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Yes, and that mostly likely what happened here. They encountered some bat like disease in a remote corner area of China or Africa?. They later took it to the lab and worked on it.
    They then enhanced and boosted in a lab to allow it to pass to human beings more easily. They made it more dangerous with the tampering. If the scientists found this virus in nature, some of the new changes would not be present.

    I don’t think is a conspiracy to believe a lab leak is correct when the epicentre close by to a B4 virus lab known to be testing viruses found in bats. Early days it was reported no bats were sold in the Wuhan wet market, so that makes the case for a outbreak there unlikely.
    Eh, thing is viruses are regularly picked up in remote areas via things like hunting or capturing animals to sell in wet markets. You've sought out research that couldn't get through peer review but validates your opinion. So your evidence is by definition weak if it can't get through peer review.

    I also can't imagine a wet market in Wuhan is particularly likely to be closely tracking what they do or don't sell. It is also very much a conspiracy when centers for disease control in both Europe and the US don't view it as man-made.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    This should show up elsewhere in the animal community, its a logical statement from him. Sorenson highlighting the virus seems to have been engineered to be more transferrable to human beings instead.

    The strain of the siv virus that transmitted to humans was only identified in 1999.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2197
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Eh, thing is viruses are regularly picked up in remote areas via things like hunting or capturing animals to sell in wet markets. You've sought out research that couldn't get through peer review but validates your opinion. So your evidence is by definition weak if it can't get through peer review.
    .

    Did you not read the article? They published the paper in a respected journal.
    The authors of a British-Norwegian vaccine study—accepted by the Quarterly Review of Biophysics—claim that the coronavirus's spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted.


  • Options
    #2198
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Did you not read the article? They published the paper in a respected journal.

    The published version that passed peer reviewed does not claim it's man made. The rejected versions made the claim. Fact check below and you can check the draft linked to in the Forbes article, it never says it was man made.

    https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-claims/


  • Options
    #2199
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The published version that passed peer reviewed does not claim it's man made. The rejected versions made the claim. Fact check below and you can check the draft linked to in the Forbes article, it never says it was man made.

    https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-claims/

    What rejected version?

    Again.
    The authors of a British-Norwegian vaccine study—accepted by the Quarterly Review of Biophysics—claim that the coronavirus's spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted.

    Artifically inserted sequences here means there was a man made manipulation. In the age of Trump context seems to changed to suit ones bias about a subject. This fact checking site and forbes clearly have an agenda.


  • Options
    #2200
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Certainly not outside the realm of possibility, or even probability.

    Think WuhanL4 had at one stage had something like x400 live bats inhouse, for COVID R&D.
    If the bins were overflowing with used/expired goods, a Porter or the even waste collection service,
    may well of went down the road to a nearby wetmarket for a few extra Yuan in the pocket.


  • Options
    #2201
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    What rejected version?

    Again.


    Artifically inserted sequences here means there was a man made manipulation. In the age of Trump context seems to changed to suit ones bias about a subject. This fact checking site and forbes clearly have an agenda.

    Firstly the article references how versions didn't pass peer review with multiple journals. Open the draft of it that the Forbes article is linking to. Find a reference to artificial sequences. There isn't any... That's what they submitted. The claim was made in an interview, not in the published article.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2202
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Firstly the article references how versions didn't pass peer review with multiple journals. Open the draft of it that the Forbes article is linking to. Find a reference to artificial sequences. There isn't any... That's what they submitted. The claim was made in an interview, not in the published article.

    This a snapshot of 9/11 here again. A paper that doesn’t agree with the political science viewpoint will be subjected to media bias and attacks. Dr Fauci supporters are involved and pushing the narrative there was no lab leak here.

    I have seen this crap before, it nothing new. Unfortunately this the crap scientists with an opposing view will have to deal with and maybe turned off by this pushback.

    Forbes who said was in the paper they published.
    The authors of a British-Norwegian vaccine study—accepted by the Quarterly Review of Biophysics—claim that the coronavirus's spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted.

    In their paper, the Norwegian scientist Birger Sørensen and British oncologist Angus Dalgleish claim to have identified "inserted sections placed on the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface" that explains how the virus interacts with cells in the human body.


  • Options
    #2203
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    This a snapshot of 9/11 here again. A paper that doesn’t agree with the political science viewpoint will be subjected to media bias and attacks. Dr Fauci supporters are involved and pushing the narrative there was no lab leak here.

    I have seen this crap before, it nothing new. Unfortunately this the crap scientists with an opposing view will have to deal with and maybe turned off by this pushback.

    Forbes who said was in the paper they published.

    The paper is linked to. Open it and find the quote where artificial sequences are mentioned. They're not. You've literally got access to the paper that you say makes the claim. Instead you're getting outraged at me. Here's the link to it.

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/DBBC0FA6E3763B0067CAAD8F3363E527/S2633289220000083a.pdf/biovacc19_a_candidate_vaccine_for_covid19_sarscov2_developed_from_analysis_of_its_general_method_of_action_for_infectivity.pdf


  • Options
    #2204
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The paper is linked to. Open it and find the quote where artificial sequences are mentioned. They're not. You've literally got access to the paper that you say makes the claim. Instead you're getting outraged at me. Here's the link to it.

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/DBBC0FA6E3763B0067CAAD8F3363E527/S2633289220000083a.pdf/biovacc19_a_candidate_vaccine_for_covid19_sarscov2_developed_from_analysis_of_its_general_method_of_action_for_infectivity.pdf

    Read page 3.


  • Options
    #2205
    Notmything
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭Notmything


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Read page 3.

    I read the page, I don't see any reference to anything being artificially inserted

    A quick word search of the document also returned zero matches for artificial


  • Options
    #2206
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,405 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    not a snark but is anybody posting about that paper actually qualified enough to understand what it is saying? stuff like:
    In consequence of our researches and therefore unlike
    conventionally developed vaccines, Biovacc-19's Method of Operation is solely upon non human-like (NHL) epitopes
    which are 21.6% of the composition of this coronavirus's Spike protein. The Spike displays distinct distributed charge
    including a charged furin-like cleavage site


  • Options
    #2207
    Notmything
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭Notmything


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    not a snark but is anybody posting about that paper actually qualified enough to understand what it is saying? stuff like:

    Tbh I was confused just reading the page numbers 😂


  • Options
    #2208
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Notmything wrote: »
    I read the page, I don't see any reference to anything being artificially inserted

    A quick word search of the document also returned zero matches for artificial

    Page 3
    Cumulative data suggests that the general method of action of this chimeric virus includes membrane components
    other than the ACE2 receptor, which may explain clinical evidence of its infectivity and pathogenicity. Data shows the
    non-spike receptor binding domain dependent phagocytic general method of action to be specifically related to
    cumulative charge from inserted sections on the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (see Fig 1) poised to form salt bridges with
    attachment receptors. This suggests that attachment to such previously reported membrane proteins has been
    enhanced directly due to the basic and positive charged inserts in the Spike protein together with other basic and
    positive charged amino acid substitutions enabling formation of salt bridges with the receptor CLEC4M/DC-SIGNR or,
    indirectly, by the additional salt bridges     formed betwee
    Positive charged amino acids are inserted into peptides and proteins to enhance cell affinity and can also be used for
    transport of peptides and proteins through the cell wall
    It is a matter of fact that there are unique inserts in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein when they are aligned with other
    SARS-CoV sequences

    Forbes highlighted this page 3 info in their article.
    The authors of a British-Norwegian vaccine study—accepted by the Quarterly Review of Biophysics—claim that the coronavirus's spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted.

    In their paper, the Norwegian scientist Birger Sørensen and British oncologist Angus Dalgleish claim to have identified "inserted sections placed on the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface" that explains how the virus interacts with cells in the human body. Virologists, however, note that similar sections appear naturally in other viruses.]


  • Options
    #2209
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    not a snark but is anybody posting about that paper actually qualified enough to understand what it is saying? stuff like:

    I'd entirely agree, that's why I'd tend to defer to fact checking etc as such a claim making it through peer review would be big international news. NRK published the original article about, it got picked up by international publications without their correction.
    Correction: In an earlier version of the case, the study stated that sequences in the coronavirus spike protein appear to be artificially inserted. This conclusion is contested by Norwegian researchers, and is not mentioned in the research article. This claim was based on statements from Sørensen to NRK. The case should have had several relevant sources that assessed Sørensen's statements and research. NRK has now published this in a separate case .

    https://www.nrk.no/norge/norsk-forsker-skaper-strid-om-virusets-opphav_-_-dette-viruset-har-ikke-en-naturlig-opprinnelse-1.15043634


  • Options
    #2210
    Notmything
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭Notmything


    But none of that means they were artificially inserted. You do realise it could be a completely natural occurance in the virus.

    The reality is your using 'inserted' to confirm your belief that the virus was created without understanding whether or not it was a natural occurance.


  • Options
    #2211
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Notmything wrote: »
    But none of that means they were artificially inserted. You do realise it could be a completely natural occurance in the virus.

    The reality is your using 'inserted' to confirm your belief that the virus was created without understanding whether or not it was a natural occurance.

    The whole point of the paper is the scientists believe the inserts are not natural and were placed there by man. Others disagree.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2212
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Soreson quoted by articles online what they believe happened here.
    The study, led by Norwegian virologist Birger Sorensen, has found that the coronavirus’s spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted.

    “The inserted sequences should never have been published. Had it been today, it would never have happened. It was a big mistake the Chinese made. The inserted sequences have a functionality that we describe. We explain why they are essential. But the Chinese pointed to them first”, Sorensen said.

    The researchers found that the virus had been doctored to bind to humans. They pointed out that it has hardly mutated since it began to infect humans, suggesting that it was already fully adapted to humans.


  • Options
    #2213
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    The whole point of the paper is the scientists believe the inserts are not natural and were placed there by man. Others disagree.

    No it's not. The point of the study is related to a prototype vaccine and runs through the logic of the design and their approach towards it. The abstract and conclusion never once refers to whether is natural. You've found the word 'insert' which can occur naturally. You've not referenced anything from the paper in relation to to it being artificial. In addition to that I've included the correction from NRK which explicitly states that the researchers made the claim in an interview and it does not appear in the published piece.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Soreson quoted by articles online what they believe happened here.

    Irrelevant, it doesn't appear in the published article. You've made a claim that's simply untrue. You don't appear to even understand what the actual research paper was about.


  • Options
    #2214
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No it's not. The point of the study is related to a prototype vaccine and runs through the logic of the design and their approach towards it. The abstract and conclusion never once refers to whether is natural. You've found the word 'insert' which can occur naturally. You've not referenced anything from the paper in relation to to it being artificial. In addition to that I've included the correction from NRK which explicitly states that the researchers made the claim in an interview and it does not appear in the published piece.

    Sorenson quoted online by different media sites. You even have a reference from Forbes where they even say the study does indeed claim the inserts are not natural. Keep on deflecting quotes and statements made here for your own agenda.


  • Options
    #2215
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,405 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Page 3






    Forbes highlighted this page 3 info in their article.

    forbes seems to have inserted the word "artificially" before the word "inserted". the word "artifiially" does not appear in the paper.


  • Options
    #2216
    ballsdeep69
    Registered Users Posts: 252 ✭✭ballsdeep69


    Titclamp wrote: »
    Why won't China let other countries top specialists to help with the virus?

    Just in case they find out it came from a lab, that the answer you were looking for ?


  • Options
    #2217
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Sorenson quoted online by different media sites. You even have a reference from Forbes where they even say the study does indeed claim the inserts are not natural. Keep on deflecting quotes and statements made here for your own agenda.

    I'm not deflecting, the word 'artificially' does not appear anywhere in the paper and no such claim is made. NRK explicitly state that it isn't in the paper and it was claimed in the interview. In addition, the paper's entire thesis is related to a vaccine, not related to if it's manmade.


  • Options
    #2218
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Sorenson quoted online by different media sites. You even have a reference from Forbes where they even say the study does indeed claim the inserts are not natural. Keep on deflecting quotes and statements made here for your own agenda.

    And? there are other virologists who don't believe it was man-made, many of them, they are also quoted in the media

    Just because something is different from the majority doesn't automatically mean it's correct or valid.


  • Options
    #2219
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,405 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    The whole point of the paper is the scientists believe the inserts are not natural and were placed there by man. Others disagree.

    can you point to the part of the paper where they say that?


  • Options
    #2220
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    can you point to the part of the paper where they say that?

    You not getting that point here like some others i see.


    The inserts are man made. Even Sorensen quoted online.
    A study, authored by University of London Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian virologist Birger Sorensen and published in Cambridge University's QRB Discovery, claims that Sars-CoV2, the virus that causes COVID-19, did not evolve naturally but rather was artificially manipulated. Specifically, the authors allege that the spike proteins of the virus contain "inserted sections."
    https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3945654

    Inserted sections I highlighted and some of you just don't understand this and thats normal around here.

    The paper even has a graph of the insertions.
    518943.png


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2221
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You not getting that point here like some others i see.


    The inserts are man made. Even Sorensen quoted online.


    https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3945654

    Inserted sections I highlighted and some of you just don't understand this and thats normal around here.

    The paper even has a graph of the insertions.
    518943.png

    The paper does not say the inserts are artificial. They can naturally occur. So no, it did not pass review with the claim of it being man made.


Advertisement