- Error: You do not have permission to do that.
Forum Replies Created
Sellins article is presented in the wionews link:
“There is conclusive scientific evidence, however, that COVID-19’s receptor binding domain within the spike protein is structurally closest to that of pangolins (scaly anteaters), not bats, and it was the result of a recombination, not convergent evolution.
“Yet, pangolins have been ruled out as the intermediate host for COVID-19.
“Even Dr Ralph Baric in a March 15, 2020 interview, beginning at the 27:40 time point, stated unequivocally, that pangolins were not the source of COVID-19:
“Pangolins have over 3,000 nucleotide changes – no way they are the reservoir species [for COVID-19], absolutely no chance.”
It is, therefore, logical to conclude that the recombinant event resulting in a pangolin receptor binding domain within a bat coronavirus backbone must have occurred in a laboratory, in a manner similar to the experiment conducted by Ralph Baric and Zheng-Li Shi in 2015.”
Is this a round about way of stating:
1. COVID-19’s receptor binding domain is closest to the pangolin’s. (Pangolin would provide the most suitable backbone for COVID-19.)
2. Daszac says Baric has demonstrated the ability to insert a GOF spike protein into a backbone.
3. Baric’s statement that pangolins were in no way the (natural evolution) source of COVID-19
4. Therefor, COVID-19 was a lab creation.
???? The article continues:
“Furthermore, COVID-19’s S1/S2 furin polybasic cleavage site, a distinctive feature widely known for its ability to enhance pathogenicity and transmissibility in coronaviruses, does not appear in any of 45 bat, 5 human SARS, 2 civet, 1 pangolin and 1 racoon dog coronaviruses, that have S1/S2 junction structures otherwise identical or nearly identical to COVID-19.
“There is no credible scientific evidence that the furin polybasic cleavage site evolved naturally, although the methods for artificially inserting such cleavage sites are well-established.”
Thanks for the information, Sand Puppy. I’m having a little trouble verifying the calc.s. Are you using 350 in your calc.s instead of your 400? Is that a more accurate estimate after all? Also I keep coming up with 0.0003% rather than 0.00002% if I use the 400 figure. Also is it possible that there were more damages to the population, damages for which claims were not made or claims denied?
This is a chance for me to thank you for all the in depth research you bring to the subjects discussed here. It adds a rich background and makes the whole effort here very much more worthwhile.
As Dr. Martenson has explained, HCQ is acting as an antiviral. Most effective when used with zinc in the first 7 days after exposure, killing or minimizing COVID-19 and allowing the immune system to do its job. (The FDA has not authorized HCQ except for emergency use until the patient is in an emergency. What good is that?) Will the truth win out over time? Will the value of the HCQ treatment win out over (and eventually swamp) all the negative Pravda-type stuff? Will President Trump’s HCQ prophylaxis help bring out the truth?