Originally posted by seanD
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Lab Leak: The conspiracy theory is shaping up to look like real possibility
Collapse
X
-
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
- 1 like
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSo they take a virus, try to infect a humanized mouse, then CREATE MUTATIONS of that virus to see if they can get those to infect humanized mice and you don't see that as "gain of function?"
An alternative reading is that the mutations would be to "the spike (or other receptor binding/fusion) protein genes", and they would use these mutants to create "pseudoviruses", and test the pseudoviruses to see if they had the ability "to use ACE2, CD26/DPP4 (MERS-CoV receptor) or other potential CoV receptors."
Pseudoviruses are not particularly dangerous, since they "are only capable of replicating once" and "also lack the virulent components of their parent virus, which practically eliminates the possibility that these virus particles could cause an active infection to an exposed individual."
I could easily see a distinction being made between the creation of a pseudovirus with a new capability, and the creation of a virus with a new capability, with the former not being considered "gain of function".
Most of the discussion about "gain of function" has revolved around the creation of chimeras, where the spike protein of WIV1 was replaced with the spike protein from various other bat coronaviruses. So far, I haven't seen any discussion of "mutants", and I don't have the expertise to interpret that section of the application with much confidence.
But my understanding is that the application was reviewed by experts at the NIH, and they determined that the research was not "gain of function".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostIf that's what they did, then it was "gain of function". Unfortunately, the level of detail in the application leaves the meaning ambiguous, as least to a layman like me.
An alternative reading is that the mutations would be to "the spike (or other receptor binding/fusion) protein genes", and they would use these mutants to create "pseudoviruses", and test the pseudoviruses to see if they had the ability "to use ACE2, CD26/DPP4 (MERS-CoV receptor) or other potential CoV receptors."
Pseudoviruses are not particularly dangerous, since they "are only capable of replicating once" and "also lack the virulent components of their parent virus, which practically eliminates the possibility that these virus particles could cause an active infection to an exposed individual."
I could easily see a distinction being made between the creation of a pseudovirus with a new capability, and the creation of a virus with a new capability, with the former not being considered "gain of function".
Most of the discussion about "gain of function" has revolved around the creation of chimeras, where the spike protein of WIV1 was replaced with the spike protein from various other bat coronaviruses. So far, I haven't seen any discussion of "mutants", and I don't have the expertise to interpret that section of the application with much confidence.
But my understanding is that the application was reviewed by experts at the NIH, and they determined that the research was not "gain of function".
And they said "With bat-CoVs that we've isolated or sequenced, and using live virus or pseudovirus infection in cells of..."
meaning they admitted they were using live viruses also.
Last edited by Sparko; 09-15-2021, 08:00 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostNote also that we DO actually have Sars-COV-2 which does infect humans. Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is that they succeeded in their gain of function experiments and it escaped the lab.
And they said "With bat-CoVs that we've isolated or sequenced, and using live virus or pseudovirus infection in cells of..."
meaning they admitted they were using live viruses also.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostI'm not sure Occam's razor favors either of the two origins hypotheses. Zoonotic spillover is still a pretty simple hypothesis. For the other, you kind of have to assume bad motives on the part of the Chinese scientists, performing experiments that they didn't tell us they were going to perform, on viruses that they were keeping secret. Without actual evidence for such a hypothesis, some might call it a "conspiracy theory".
They were certainly using live viruses for the chimeras, replacing the spike protein for WIV1 (live virus) with the protein from other bat coronaviruses. My understanding is that this was done to see if the other bat coronaviruses were infectious to humans. This couldn't be done with the other bat coronaviruses directly, because only WIV1 and WIV16 could be cultured in vitro. And to reiterate, this was not considered "gain of function" because there was no expectation that the resulting chimeras would be any more infectious than WIV1 or WIV16.
Comment
-
Headlines in today's paper have a Chinese defector saying that he gave warning in 2019. The New York Post carries the same story:
the former Chinese Communist Party insider, whose defection to the United States in 1997 made global news, alerted intelligence agencies, a US politician with links to the president and Chinese human rights activist Dimon Liu.
Asked if he had any sense the intelligence agencies were taking seriously his intelligence about a new virus in Wuhan, 70-year-old Wei said: “I felt they were not as heavily concerned as I was so I tried my best to provide more detailed information. They may not believe there is (a) government of a country that would do something like that (cover up a virus). So I kept repeating myself in an effort to try to persuade them.
I don't think it would have been possible to act on the information at the time though, even if the evidence was iron-clad.
1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou can continue to make up excuses, but the reality is that the virus originated right there where they were experimenting on making bat coronaviruses infect humans.
And now we have a bat corona virus that infects humans.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out what most likely happened. And new evidence keeps popping up.
My only argument is that this isn't conclusive, any more than the myriad efforts of Trump and his cronies to obstruct the Muller investigation proves conclusively that they colluded with the Russians.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostIt was first discovered there, anyway. It's possible that it originated far from there, but the low level of infection (until mutations adapted it better to humans), the relatively low mortality rate, and the fact that the symptoms weren't much different from other potentially fatal respiratory infections, kept it from being recognized until a superspreader event happened in a city where the expertise was available to recognize it.
It's not the first bat coronavirus to infect humans.
I would agree with you as to what most likely happened, mainly because of the Chinese government making it difficult or impossible to properly investigate the origins of the virus. This makes it easier to assume bad motives on their part, so the idea of secret experiments with secret viruses is much easier to believe.
My only argument is that this isn't conclusive, any more than the myriad efforts of Trump and his cronies to obstruct the Muller investigation proves conclusively that they colluded with the Russians.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIt won't ever be conclusive Stoic. Not anytime soon anyway, barring someone in China making a leak of some documents, if there ARE any documents. But everything points to a lab leak/accident. Odds are that is what happened is the best we can say.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
It won't ever be conclusive Stoic. Not anytime soon anyway, barring someone in China making a leak of some documents, if there ARE any documents. But everything points to a lab leak/accident. Odds are that is what happened is the best we can say.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View Post
You don't demand that there be no investigation into a lab leak (which was always a possibility) without it being a cover-up, especially by the same folks who were behind the funding of the research at the same facility in question. That's pretty much the smoking gun IMO.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
There are so many smoking guns in this that you have to beblind, deaf and dumba liberal not to see what's going on.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostYou don't demand that there be no investigation into a lab leak (which was always a possibility) without it being a cover-up, especially by the same folks who were behind the funding of the research at the same facility in question. That's pretty much the smoking gun IMO.
My current science research is being funded by a big funding organization in my own country, but I don't know the name of any of the people in that organization who are signing off on that funding, and I don't happen to know of any other specific projects or any other specific scientists who are currently being funded by that organization even though there will be hundreds. It's like the bank - just because I have an account with a bank, it doesn't mean I happen to know anyone who works at the bank, and I sure don't know who else happens to have accounts with the same bank!
So when the conspiracy theorists grab their piece of connector string and put a pin in two articles about science funding both coming from huge organizations like the NIH, or Wellcome Trust, etc and say there's obviously a link between these, I just shake my head. That's nothing more interesting than a "they happened to bank with the same bank!" The conspiracy theorists have yet to make a worthwhile case, as far as I have seen, in terms of there being real conflicts of interest or any cover-ups beyond the Chinese government's run-of-the-mill secrecy."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostThe links I've seen people make between these haven't come across to me so far as very convincing. What people outside of science don't seem to understand is that big funding organizations fund a huge proportion of all work done. It's like saying that a few of the biggest banks together serve a significant percentage of the US population. You can then say any two random people in the US are 'connected' because they happen to both bank with the same bank. But that's a coincidence that happens because there are a few big banks, and it doesn't mean the two people know each other.
My current science research is being funded by a big funding organization in my own country, but I don't know the name of any of the people in that organization who are signing off on that funding, and I don't happen to know of any other specific projects or any other specific scientists who are currently being funded by that organization even though there will be hundreds. It's like the bank - just because I have an account with a bank, it doesn't mean I happen to know anyone who works at the bank, and I sure don't know who else happens to have accounts with the same bank!
So when the conspiracy theorists grab their piece of connector string and put a pin in two articles about science funding both coming from huge organizations like the NIH, or Wellcome Trust, etc and say there's obviously a link between these, I just shake my head. That's nothing more interesting than a "they happened to bank with the same bank!" The conspiracy theorists have yet to make a worthwhile case, as far as I have seen, in terms of there being real conflicts of interest or any cover-ups beyond the Chinese government's run-of-the-mill secrecy.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
63 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
363 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Yesterday, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
389 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
440 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 12:45 PM |
Comment