Right, and what if that more potent variant somehow escapes their lab and starts another pandemic??
Are you okay with that??
If you respond with yes and you're okay with millions more dying, I'm putting you on ignore
Last edited:
Scientist who worked at Wuhan lab says COVID was man-made virus
- Thread starter dirtyharry555
- Start date
Are you okay with that??
If you respond with yes and you're okay with millions more dying, I'm putting you on ignore
Sure but it isn't in any kind of credible format, especially with how well Veritas is know for creative editing.
Next thing veritas will prove to us the identity of CIA spies by filming drunk people on first dates.
That would be very bad.
Makes me think you would want real investigations and regulations around research and not Project Veritas style culture war sensationalism.
Of course it isn't credible, it's Project Veritas.
The obvious question is what "potent" meant in that conversation.
The obvious thing for a real journalism unit to do would be to release the unedited tape.
This broke through enough that people are going to follow up, which is good, but there are people who are going to reject anything that is found out of hand because the original piece came from PV.
PV is the only media doing real journalism! Wait until republicans in congress drill the CEO pzfizr for mutating virus’s for profit! Creating a new COVID virus in order to sell more vaccines!
Nothing says "real journalism" like an LED Box truck.PV is the only media doing real journalism! Wait until republicans in congress drill the CEO pzfizr for mutating virus’s for profit! Creating a new COVID virus in order to sell more vaccines!
Abstract
To prevent future pandemics, it is important that we understand whether SARS-CoV-2 spilled over directly from animals to people, or indirectly in a laboratory accident. The genome of SARS-COV-2 contains a peculiar pattern of unique restriction endonuclease recognition sites allowing efficient dis- and re-assembly of the viral genome characteristic of synthetic viruses. Here, we report the likelihood of observing such a pattern in coronaviruses with no history of bioengineering. We find that SARS-CoV-2 is an anomaly, more likely a product of synthetic genome assembly than natural evolution. The restriction map of SARS-CoV-2 is consistent with many previously reported synthetic coronavirus genomes, meets all the criteria required for an efficient reverse genetic system, differs from closest relatives by a significantly higher rate of synonymous mutations in these synthetic-looking recognitions sites, and has a synthetic fingerprint unlikely to have evolved from its close relatives. We report a high likelihood that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated as an infectious clone assembled in vitro.
Lay Summary To construct synthetic variants of natural coronaviruses in the lab, researchers often use a method called in vitro genome assembly. This method utilizes special enzymes called restriction enzymes to generate DNA building blocks that then can be “stitched” together in the correct order of the viral genome. To make a virus in the lab, researchers usually engineer the viral genome to add and remove stitching sites, called restriction sites. The ways researchers modify these sites can serve as fingerprints of in vitro genome assembly.
We found that SARS-CoV has the restriction site fingerprint that is typical for synthetic viruses. The synthetic fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2 is anomalous in wild coronaviruses, and common in lab-assembled viruses. The type of mutations (synonymous or silent mutations) that differentiate the restriction sites in SARS-CoV-2 are characteristic of engineering, and the concentration of these silent mutations in the restriction sites is extremely unlikely to have arisen by random evolution. Both the restriction site fingerprint and the pattern of mutations generating them are extremely unlikely in wild coronaviruses and nearly universal in synthetic viruses. Our findings strongly suggest a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2.
Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2 | bioRxiv
To prevent future pandemics, it is important that we understand whether SARS-CoV-2 spilled over directly from animals to people, or indirectly in a laboratory accident. The genome of SARS-COV-2 contains a peculiar pattern of unique restriction endonuclease recognition sites allowing efficient dis- and re-assembly of the viral genome characteristic of synthetic viruses. Here, we report the likelihood of observing such a pattern in coronaviruses with no history of bioengineering. We find that SARS-CoV-2 is an anomaly, more likely a product of synthetic genome assembly than natural evolution. The restriction map of SARS-CoV-2 is consistent with many previously reported synthetic coronavirus genomes, meets all the criteria required for an efficient reverse genetic system, differs from closest relatives by a significantly higher rate of synonymous mutations in these synthetic-looking recognitions sites, and has a synthetic fingerprint unlikely to have evolved from its close relatives. We report a high likelihood that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated as an infectious clone assembled in vitro.
Lay Summary To construct synthetic variants of natural coronaviruses in the lab, researchers often use a method called in vitro genome assembly. This method utilizes special enzymes called restriction enzymes to generate DNA building blocks that then can be “stitched” together in the correct order of the viral genome. To make a virus in the lab, researchers usually engineer the viral genome to add and remove stitching sites, called restriction sites. The ways researchers modify these sites can serve as fingerprints of in vitro genome assembly.
We found that SARS-CoV has the restriction site fingerprint that is typical for synthetic viruses. The synthetic fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2 is anomalous in wild coronaviruses, and common in lab-assembled viruses. The type of mutations (synonymous or silent mutations) that differentiate the restriction sites in SARS-CoV-2 are characteristic of engineering, and the concentration of these silent mutations in the restriction sites is extremely unlikely to have arisen by random evolution. Both the restriction site fingerprint and the pattern of mutations generating them are extremely unlikely in wild coronaviruses and nearly universal in synthetic viruses. Our findings strongly suggest a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2.
Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2 | bioRxiv
Interesting study methodology. We'll see if it survives peer review.
My quick read says they tested to see whether they could mutate related corona viruses to match the original SARS-CoV-2 strain. What they found is the covid strain was different than the randomly mutated strains in their study and then jump to the conclusion that this means those mutations couldn't have happened naturally. It also seems they cherry picked a mutation group that reinforced their preconception instead of using the whole body on 'wild' covid strains.
The fact that there are numerous studies finding the exact opposite that have been reviewed makes me suspect this study won't hold water.
www.sciencedirect.com
My quick read says they tested to see whether they could mutate related corona viruses to match the original SARS-CoV-2 strain. What they found is the covid strain was different than the randomly mutated strains in their study and then jump to the conclusion that this means those mutations couldn't have happened naturally. It also seems they cherry picked a mutation group that reinforced their preconception instead of using the whole body on 'wild' covid strains.
The fact that there are numerous studies finding the exact opposite that have been reviewed makes me suspect this study won't hold water.
No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2
Published in Emerging Microbes & Infections (Vol. 9, No. 1, 2020)
www.tandfonline.com
The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review
Since the first reports of a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronavirus in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, there has been intense …
www.sciencedirect.com
Just read the comments in the article he linked, you can see a lot of the issues with their paper.
This came out last fall, and there was actually quite a good discussion at the time.
You can see some of that back and forth (some of it quite testy) just in the comments.
Lets just say this is far from a slam dunk analysis
AHAHAHA..
They put Naomi Wolf in the "Doctors" list?
I love the scary music.
"Thank God for Elon Musk"?
How humiliating.
Well, the Twitter Files did their job - people will be using them to spew bullshit for years now.
Bump
The FBI says it's now "most likely" that COVID came from a lab in Wuhan. I'm shocked, shocked I say.
www.bbc.com
The FBI says it's now "most likely" that COVID came from a lab in Wuhan. I'm shocked, shocked I say.
FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely
Other US agencies have come to different conclusions from the FBI on how the pandemic began.
www.bbc.com
To all the libtard ( liberals terbite) who said covid 19 didn’t came from a lab in Wuhan was disininformation from the far right or from the antivaxer . They the libtard / democratic & fauci can all go to hell!Bump
The FBI says it's now "most likely" that COVID came from a lab in Wuhan. I'm shocked, shocked I say.
FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely
Other US agencies have come to different conclusions from the FBI on how the pandemic began.
Nothing's changed.Bump
The FBI says it's now "most likely" that COVID came from a lab in Wuhan. I'm shocked, shocked I say.
FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely
Other US agencies have come to different conclusions from the FBI on how the pandemic began.
The FBI has said that since the initial assessment.
That's the one in the report that went with lab leak. It used to be the only one.
DOE moved from undecided to pro-lab leak. The FBI is just reminding people it already said that.
As the BBC points out, they are still in the minority. This moves it from 4 against, 1 for, 3 undecided to 4 against, 2 for, 2 undecided.
