3 ms·

You probably need to just read the paper. It has very cold professional and neutral tone, lots of verifiable links and references. I mean, it really does not ma

You probably need to just read the paper. It has very cold professional and neutral tone, lots of verifiable links and references. I mean, it really does not matter in what faith it is made, as soon as it checks out.

HelloNurse 6y ago
I fail to discern a "cold", "professional" or "neutral" tone. Scientific jargon is not enough: there is a lot of cherry-picking, fallacious reasoning and "because I say so". > The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. > the RaTG13 virus also diverted the attention of both the scientific field and the general public away from ZC45/ZXC21 > It is believed that the researchers of that laboratory were being punished for having disclosed the SARS-CoV-2—ZC45/ZXC21 connection. > This finding further substantiates the suspicion that the reported sequence of RaTG13 could have been fabricated > Even if we ignore the above evidence that no proper host exists for the recombination to take place and instead assume that such a host does exist, it is still highly unlikely that such a recombination event could occur in nature. > Importantly, this, and the other recombination event described below in section 1.3 (even more impossible to occur in nature), would both have to happen to produce a Spike as seen in SARS-CoV-2. > Strikingly, consistent with the RBM engineering theory, we have identified two unique restriction sites > Once the restriction sites were successfully introduced, the RBM segment could be swapped conveniently using routine restriction enzyme digestion and ligation. Although alternative cloning techniques may leave no trace of genetic manipulation (Gibson assembly as one example), this old-fashioned approach could be chosen because it offers a great level of convenience in swapping this critical RBM > The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence. Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation. Regarding links and references, how many are other papers from the same group, sock puppets, irrelevant material, bad research that remains a preprint for good reasons, and so on? For example: 8. Segreto, R. & Deigin, Y. Is considering a genetic-manipulation origin for SARS-CoV-2 a conspiracy theory that must be censored? Preprint (Researchgate) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31358.13129/1 (2020). 20. Singla, M., Ahmad, S., Gupta, C. & Sethi, T. De-novo Assembly of RaTG13 Genome Reveals Inconsistencies Further Obscuring SARS-CoV-2 Origins. Preprints, 2020080595 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202008.0595.v1) (2020).
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  Socket puppet? R. Segreto is not a sock puppet. Preprint, because big scientific magazines deny her article for potentially political reasons.
  - HelloNurse 6y ago
    I was just showing two examples of obviously partisan references, indicative of a bubble of like-minded opinions that is a dangerous foundation for scientific research even when those opinions are mostly correct.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      have you _actually_ read the references? There is nothing partisan about it. Rosanna Segreto is a Ph.D. scientist in University of Inssbruck, one of top 100 Universities in EU; no partisan affiliations. There is nothing "bubble-like" in that papers; scientist are not obliged to speak in mute terms. All that matters is the contents of the research.

HelloNurse 6y ago

I fail to discern a "cold", "professional" or "neutral" tone. Scientific jargon is not enough: there is a lot of cherry-picking, fallacious reasoning and "because I say so". > The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. > the RaTG13 virus also diverted the attention of both the scientific field and the general public away from ZC45/ZXC21 > It is believed that the researchers of that laboratory were being punished for having disclosed the SARS-CoV-2—ZC45/ZXC21 connection. > This finding further substantiates the suspicion that the reported sequence of RaTG13 could have been fabricated > Even if we ignore the above evidence that no proper host exists for the recombination to take place and instead assume that such a host does exist, it is still highly unlikely that such a recombination event could occur in nature. > Importantly, this, and the other recombination event described below in section 1.3 (even more impossible to occur in nature), would both have to happen to produce a Spike as seen in SARS-CoV-2. > Strikingly, consistent with the RBM engineering theory, we have identified two unique restriction sites > Once the restriction sites were successfully introduced, the RBM segment could be swapped conveniently using routine restriction enzyme digestion and ligation. Although alternative cloning techniques may leave no trace of genetic manipulation (Gibson assembly as one example), this old-fashioned approach could be chosen because it offers a great level of convenience in swapping this critical RBM > The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence. Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation. Regarding links and references, how many are other papers from the same group, sock puppets, irrelevant material, bad research that remains a preprint for good reasons, and so on? For example: 8. Segreto, R. & Deigin, Y. Is considering a genetic-manipulation origin for SARS-CoV-2 a conspiracy theory that must be censored? Preprint (Researchgate) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31358.13129/1 (2020). 20. Singla, M., Ahmad, S., Gupta, C. & Sethi, T. De-novo Assembly of RaTG13 Genome Reveals Inconsistencies Further Obscuring SARS-CoV-2 Origins. Preprints, 2020080595 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202008.0595.v1) (2020).

SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
Socket puppet? R. Segreto is not a sock puppet. Preprint, because big scientific magazines deny her article for potentially political reasons.
- HelloNurse 6y ago
  I was just showing two examples of obviously partisan references, indicative of a bubble of like-minded opinions that is a dangerous foundation for scientific research even when those opinions are mostly correct.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    have you _actually_ read the references? There is nothing partisan about it. Rosanna Segreto is a Ph.D. scientist in University of Inssbruck, one of top 100 Universities in EU; no partisan affiliations. There is nothing "bubble-like" in that papers; scientist are not obliged to speak in mute terms. All that matters is the contents of the research.