RESEARCHERS IDENTIFY EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF SARS-COV-2 – ITS NOT RATg13

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   23 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 23 total)
  • Sat, Aug 01, 2020 - 05:56pm

    #11
    Mpup

    Mpup

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 01 2020

    Posts: 66

    count placeholder

    I too was hoping Dr. Mayer might read this and comment

Was going to PM him but didn’t want to bother.  No doubt he is very busy and may not read all the threads. (I think he alluded to this)  But then he’s already shared the scientific data that gives the origins.  Perhaps in time, he will share his thoughts.

  • Sat, Aug 01, 2020 - 08:48pm

    #12
    Dr. Jurgen Mayer

    Dr. Jurgen Mayer

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 08 2020

    Posts: 49

    count placeholder6+

    RESEARCHERS IDENTIFY EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF SARS-COV-2 – ITS NOT RATg13

If you had me a genome, I can show you the science. This article lacks both the science and the genome, so there is nothing here to work with aside from speculation.

“By reconstructing the evolutionary history of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic”

How do you reconstruct the evolution of a virus that has unidentified primary and secondary hosts? You cannot. We must insert presumptions in order to craft a narrative that fits our needs. Question. What is the definitive origin host animal of hCoV-2019? That is unknown. If zoonosis occurred, what is the definitive secondary host animal of hCoV-2019? That is unknown. Until those fundamentals are answered, this question of evolution cannot even be discussed.

“Coronaviruses have genetic material that is highly recombinant, meaning different regions of the virus’s genome can be derived from multiple sources”

Exactly. Please cite those multiple sources. If the scientists fail to do so then we are building the research on a foundation of speculation and probability. That is not science.

“Next, they reconstructed phylogenetic histories for the non-recombinant regions and compared them to each other to see which specific viruses have been involved in recombination events in the past.”

They are comparing these regions to known viruses in public databases. If the origins of this virus are still out in nature or are related in private databases, then their research would not obtain the correct match. Given the limited information, they are working with it means they MUST end up with matches of KNOWN viruses. If we begin with a phylogenic tree that is known to have many gaps, why then, in the end, ignore the gaps and presume the data is correct? Do you see the issue with this?

“Importantly, although SARS-CoV-2 is genetically similar (about 96%) to the RaTG13 coronavirus, which was sampled from a Rhinolophus affinis horseshoe bat in 2013 in Yunnan province, China, the team found that it diverged from RaTG13 a relatively long time ago, in 1969”

This is 100% speculative and backed up by zero science. Any data set to view?

“The team found that one of the older traits that SARS-CoV-2 shares with its relatives is the receptor-binding domain (RBD) located on the Spike protein, which enables the virus to recognize and bind to receptors on the surfaces of human cells. This means that other viruses that are capable of infecting humans are circulating in horseshoe bats in China”

Someone, please tell me the accession number of a single bat virus that has been confirmed to directly infect humans, as this paper suggests. I am struggling to bother to continue typing at this point. Please read that again. “other viruses that are capable of infecting humans are circulating in horseshoe bats”. This is a direct assertion that a bat has directly infected (docking with hACE2) humans. Now the article has simply deleted zoonosis and the secondary animal. The way I just read that passage is “now that we have seen a bat virus directly infect others it means that other viruses are capable of infecting humans are circulating in horseshoe bats”.

The pure stupidity of this entire topic has made me lose interest to continue typing this response. No bat in world history has ever been confirmed to directly infect (dock with hACE2) humans. Yet this article just made a DECLARATIVE STATEMENT that other bats that are capable of this are circulating in horseshoe bats.

 

I cant..

  • Sun, Aug 02, 2020 - 01:27am

    #13
    stevedaly

    stevedaly

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 23 2020

    Posts: 95

    count placeholder

    Who are these people?

Xiaowei Jiang, Tommy Tsan-Yuk Lam, Blair Perry, Todd Castoe, Andrew Rambaut, David L. Robertson, Philippe Lemey, Maciej Boni.  Hate to say it — virology buffoons?

  • Sun, Aug 02, 2020 - 04:18am

    #14
    Mpup

    Mpup

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 01 2020

    Posts: 66

    count placeholder1+

    RESEARCHERS IDENTIFY EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF SARS-COV-2 – ITS NOT RATg13

Here is a the article from Nature Microbiology that claims to explain the evolutionary origins:

http://www.castoelaboratory.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Boni.etal2020_NatureMicrobiol.pdf

Much of this is above my ability to assimilate. From the article:

“Furthermore, the other key feature thought to be instrumental in the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to infect humans—a polybasic cleavage site insertion in the S protein—has not yet been seen in another close bat relative of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

I’m not sure this article tells us much more than Covid-19 is descended from bats which is already known.  The question arises whether this study will be used by the media and powers to be to further the zoonotic evolution theory.   Unless I’m missing something, the article still doesn’t answer the underlying question of whether Covid-19 is zoonotic or a manipulated virus.  More funding please, we have an agenda to further.

  • Sun, Aug 02, 2020 - 07:11am

    #15
    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 631

    count placeholder1+

    RESEARCHERS IDENTIFY EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF SARS-COV-2 – ITS NOT RATg13

I feel your pain. I can only speak for myself but I really appreciate you being here and deconstructing all of this.

What will happen with information like this is it will be passed on to the media and it will be taken as fact w/o any investigation other than an interview with Peter Daszak.

As you clearly state none of this is science. This is actually an all out frontal assault on science. Those in control of the narrative declared a long time ago that first it came from the wet market in Wuhan. When that was debunked and they could not explain the furin cleavage site they continued with the shell game.

Question is why are so many virologists falling in line with such a preposterous speculation. If they were honest at the minimum they would say ” We really don’t know where it came from and we are working diligently through the scientific method to come up with the answers.

Thanks again for being here Jurgen

  • Sun, Aug 02, 2020 - 07:38am

    #16
    tbp

    tbp

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 12 2020

    Posts: 296

    count placeholder

    Hiding RaTG13 like HCQ?

So in short: RaTG13 IS the closest relative of SARS-CoV-2 by far, and there are efforts underway to make it look like it’s not.

  • Mon, Aug 03, 2020 - 07:59am

    #17
    tatagiri

    tatagiri

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 11 2020

    Posts: 64

    count placeholder1+

    RESEARCHERS IDENTIFY EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF SARS-COV-2 – ITS NOT RATg13

Thank you @Dr. Jurgen Mayer for deconstructing this. The paper was in Nature Microbiology. You would assume Nature would do some checks, apparently not so much.  It is interesting to know that “No bat in world history has ever been confirmed to directly infect (dock with hACE2) humans” – but does this lack of evidence is really an evidence of absence? .

https://jvi.asm.org/content/86/11/6350.full

This paper seems like ACE2 binding capability can co-evolve in bats and leads to  much simpler hypothesis than zoonotonic theory and requiring an intermediate organism – such as civets. Again, all this is modeling through software and math and no physical experiments to substantiate them – however, it is interesting to see theories of direct propagation too. We probably need more data.

  • Mon, Aug 03, 2020 - 08:42am

    #18
    Chris Martenson

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 5213

    count placeholder1+

    More than just ACE2

It is interesting to know that “No bat in world history has ever been confirmed to directly infect (dock with hACE2) humans” – but does this lack of evidence is really an evidence of absence? 

No, not all on its own, of course.

But consider that SARS2 didn’t just allegedly jump from a bat/+? able to bind human ACE2 with vastly higher affinity than any other tested specie, but also to bind to CD147, Neuropilin, and 3 or 4 other receptors/matrix proteins.

Weird, right?  Any one of those other possible binding sites would be sufficient for some level of infection and replication.  How odd that so many were stacked up ready for ONE BIG JUMP – all at once.  Not just to humans, but the mink farms in the Netherlands have been wiped out (by humans terminating infected animals, not due to direct killing of ferret family members by SARS2), and cats and tigers and even dogs get it too.  One would think such a capable virus would have been detected out in the wild by now.

So in the scheme of ‘preponderance’ the table is heavily tilted towards ‘not natural’ rather than a legit, rare but possible zoonotic jump.

Far more likely, in the preponderance game, is the idea of directed tinkering to insert the PRRA site, and then do a whole bunch of serial passages in cells and then some live animal passages…followed by some sort of release, accidental or otherwise.

 

  • Mon, Aug 03, 2020 - 09:45am

    #19

    davefairtex

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2086

    count placeholder1+

    what are the odds?

Yeah.  I’m gonna summarize all of Chris’s science talk with one phrase:

“What are the odds” this whole pattern occurred spontaneously in nature?

Zero Percent?

 

  • Mon, Aug 03, 2020 - 09:45am

    #20
    tatagiri

    tatagiri

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 11 2020

    Posts: 64

    count placeholder1+

    RESEARCHERS IDENTIFY EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF SARS-COV-2 – ITS NOT RATg13

Thank you @DrMarenson  & @DrMayer.  Academic literature seems to take the hypothesis and convey them without qualifications with certainty. eg. sarscov2 is evolved through nature or children cannot transmit covid19 etc. It is a bad science not to state the uncertainty around certain hypothesis or conclusions. @Drmartenson’s charecterization

So in the scheme of ‘preponderance’ the table is heavily tilted towards ‘not natural’ rather than a legit, rare but possible zoonotic jump.

seems to be appropriately qualifying the uncertainty but giving the priors and directional evidence so far.

Other question I have is  – Scientists complain that they do not have a good animal model for SC2. In absence of animal model, how are we successful at selecting this virus for so many deadly characteristics

  • CD147 and evading immune system like HIV
  • Delayed immune response
  • ACE2 binding with polybasic furin cleavage site
  • Asympotamtic transmission
  • Vascular damage and blood clotting etc..

Its truly mind boggling, how HB19  excels at so many things. Hope there will be years of research coming establishing how these functionalities were gained either through natural selection or other means.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 23 total)

Login or Register to post comments