4 ms·

The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2

82 points by zekrioca 7y ago

throwaway5752 7y ago
" Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."
- GrumpyNl 7y ago
  But they are not 100% sure.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    That's how science works. 99.9% still leaves a small chance, so no good scientist would say 'I'm sure'. They'd only say that if they had proof of something and you can't prove a negative. So there never will be proof that it is not the case, only ever more evidence that it probably is not the case. And all of that evidence could - in theory - be made moot by proof to the contrary.
- downerending 7y ago
  It's not like the "creator" of a virus has to sign their work. It's ultimately just an RNA sequence. One can make guesses about the origin of the sequence, but that's it.
arcanus 7y ago
'Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.'
- T-A 7y ago
  They start out saying that, but keep reading and "clearly show" becomes "is improbable": "It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone." Their argument boils down to "it doesn't look like previously published work" (that's me paraphrasing, not a quote).
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Those poor conspiracy nuts, they'll find a way to spin it. Nature is in the pay of 'them'.
fuzzzz 7y ago
One fact that checks out is the CDC owns the patent and will make a copious amount of CASH by all the sheep that will line up for their NON-SAFETY tested, non double blind placebo, not tested for carcinogenesis, not tested for mutagenesis, not tested for infertility, expedited va((ine. Curious to see how that all plays out. -Bring on the bots and paid bashers

82 points by zekrioca 7y ago

" Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."

GrumpyNl 7y ago
But they are not 100% sure.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  That's how science works. 99.9% still leaves a small chance, so no good scientist would say 'I'm sure'. They'd only say that if they had proof of something and you can't prove a negative. So there never will be proof that it is not the case, only ever more evidence that it probably is not the case. And all of that evidence could - in theory - be made moot by proof to the contrary.
downerending 7y ago
It's not like the "creator" of a virus has to sign their work. It's ultimately just an RNA sequence. One can make guesses about the origin of the sequence, but that's it.

arcanus 7y ago

'Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.'

T-A 7y ago
They start out saying that, but keep reading and "clearly show" becomes "is improbable": "It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone." Their argument boils down to "it doesn't look like previously published work" (that's me paraphrasing, not a quote).
jacquesm 7y ago
Those poor conspiracy nuts, they'll find a way to spin it. Nature is in the pay of 'them'.

fuzzzz 7y ago

One fact that checks out is the CDC owns the patent and will make a copious amount of CASH by all the sheep that will line up for their NON-SAFETY tested, non double blind placebo, not tested for carcinogenesis, not tested for mutagenesis, not tested for infertility, expedited va((ine. Curious to see how that all plays out. -Bring on the bots and paid bashers