4 ms·

This is worth a read: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

by dm319 6y ago

godelmachine 6y 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.* From the conclusion section
- 2bitencryption 6y ago
  my understanding of primitive/early vaccines is this: 1. take a virus that is highly adapted to humans, and inject it in another animal (like a rabbit) 2. the virus will cause a very low-grade infection in the rabbit, since the virus is adapted to humans, not rabbits - but it will still be a non-zero level of effectiveness 3. at the peak level of the rabbit's low-grade infection, the mutants of the virus that are more effective against rabbits will be expressed more than any others, and replicate themselves more than any other mutant 4. capture these variants from the rabbit, and inject them into another rabbit. 5. step 3 and 4 repeat as the virus becomes less human-specific and more rabbit-specific 6. if all goes well, you will have transformed the human-effective virus into a rabbit-effective virus. But the virus still has enough of the same characteristics that it will provoke an immune response in humans that will also protect against the human-specific variant I imagine if you wanted to do the opposite, and craft a virus that is more effective against humans instead of less, you would simply follow the steps in reverse. Since these steps are so simple, and require no direct modification of the genetic material (you simply encourage it to drift in a certain direction) it seems like it would be hard to tell which viruses were manipulated in this way.
mgamache 6y ago
This was from early last year and really focuses on Pangolins which have been downgraded as a zoonotic source. Serial Passage is the most likely source (as all sources are low probability).
- f430 6y ago
  The thing is they claimed it originated from the seafood market yet couple blocks across the street there was a BS4 bio lab literally working with the materials. It's amazing so many people will just take CCP's narrative at face value, there are still many that think it came from the seafood market. Nature has lied to protect the CCP before: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/asia/china-springer-nature-censorship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/asia/china-springer...
  - mgamache 6y ago
    In the first few weeks the main source of info was the CCP and well known virologists. Both have conflicts of interest.
  - agumonkey 6y ago
    I don't know what happened obviously, and I'm not really wishing for any theory to win (lab or nature). But I've read Chinese virology labs were made in partnership with France and french experts/teachers said many safety protocols were not fully applied.
  - ZoomerCretin 6y ago
    >Nature has lied to protect the CCP before: >https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/asia/china-springer-nature-censorship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/asia/china-springer... Your article does not support your claim. "One of the world’s largest academic publishers was criticized on Wednesday for bowing to pressure from the Chinese government to block access to hundreds of articles on its Chinese website."
f430 6y ago
We simply don't know the author's connection to the CCP. Why not share that publicly as to add credibility to their claims? Not the first time Nature was caught covering for the CCP: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/asia/china-springer-nature-censorship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/asia/china-springer... Why are all the criticisms of CCP downvoted and flagged on HN?
- ZoomerCretin 6y ago
  This is supposed to be a scientifically-literate forum. Ad hominem dismissal of good data/analysis because it could come from a source you've been taught to dislike isn't conducive to good discussion. If you're curious about the authors' links, they are in the article you didn't read.
- oasisbob 6y ago
  Conspiracy theories regarding genetically engineered viruses don't do well here.
  - mgamache 6y ago
    You should understand what Serial Passage and Gain of Function is. It's using natural selection in a lab and not easily detected. It was also a type of research that was being done at that lab. The paper addresses Serial Passage in the last part.
  - vixen99 6y ago
    Much work has been done on genetically engineering viruses and that includes coronoviruses. We certainly know very well how to do it for one purpose or another. This is a fact not a theory. Currently it's impossible to say Covid-19 resulted, maybe in part, from this activity or not. Terrible not to know something for a fact but that's how it is. Call a particular view a conspiracy theory if you like but that's just rhetoric and takes us not a step further towards a definitive answer.

This is worth a read: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

by dm319 6y ago

This is worth a read: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

godelmachine 6y 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.* From the conclusion section

2bitencryption 6y ago
my understanding of primitive/early vaccines is this: 1. take a virus that is highly adapted to humans, and inject it in another animal (like a rabbit) 2. the virus will cause a very low-grade infection in the rabbit, since the virus is adapted to humans, not rabbits - but it will still be a non-zero level of effectiveness 3. at the peak level of the rabbit's low-grade infection, the mutants of the virus that are more effective against rabbits will be expressed more than any others, and replicate themselves more than any other mutant 4. capture these variants from the rabbit, and inject them into another rabbit. 5. step 3 and 4 repeat as the virus becomes less human-specific and more rabbit-specific 6. if all goes well, you will have transformed the human-effective virus into a rabbit-effective virus. But the virus still has enough of the same characteristics that it will provoke an immune response in humans that will also protect against the human-specific variant I imagine if you wanted to do the opposite, and craft a virus that is more effective against humans instead of less, you would simply follow the steps in reverse. Since these steps are so simple, and require no direct modification of the genetic material (you simply encourage it to drift in a certain direction) it seems like it would be hard to tell which viruses were manipulated in this way.

mgamache 6y ago

This was from early last year and really focuses on Pangolins which have been downgraded as a zoonotic source. Serial Passage is the most likely source (as all sources are low probability).

f430 6y ago
The thing is they claimed it originated from the seafood market yet couple blocks across the street there was a BS4 bio lab literally working with the materials. It's amazing so many people will just take CCP's narrative at face value, there are still many that think it came from the seafood market. Nature has lied to protect the CCP before: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/asia/china-springer-nature-censorship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/asia/china-springer...
- mgamache 6y ago
  In the first few weeks the main source of info was the CCP and well known virologists. Both have conflicts of interest.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  I don't know what happened obviously, and I'm not really wishing for any theory to win (lab or nature). But I've read Chinese virology labs were made in partnership with France and french experts/teachers said many safety protocols were not fully applied.
- ZoomerCretin 6y ago
  >Nature has lied to protect the CCP before: >https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/asia/china-springer-nature-censorship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/asia/china-springer... Your article does not support your claim. "One of the world’s largest academic publishers was criticized on Wednesday for bowing to pressure from the Chinese government to block access to hundreds of articles on its Chinese website."

f430 6y ago

We simply don't know the author's connection to the CCP. Why not share that publicly as to add credibility to their claims? Not the first time Nature was caught covering for the CCP: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/asia/china-springer-nature-censorship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/asia/china-springer... Why are all the criticisms of CCP downvoted and flagged on HN?

ZoomerCretin 6y ago
This is supposed to be a scientifically-literate forum. Ad hominem dismissal of good data/analysis because it could come from a source you've been taught to dislike isn't conducive to good discussion. If you're curious about the authors' links, they are in the article you didn't read.
oasisbob 6y ago
Conspiracy theories regarding genetically engineered viruses don't do well here.
- mgamache 6y ago
  You should understand what Serial Passage and Gain of Function is. It's using natural selection in a lab and not easily detected. It was also a type of research that was being done at that lab. The paper addresses Serial Passage in the last part.
- vixen99 6y ago
  Much work has been done on genetically engineering viruses and that includes coronoviruses. We certainly know very well how to do it for one purpose or another. This is a fact not a theory. Currently it's impossible to say Covid-19 resulted, maybe in part, from this activity or not. Terrible not to know something for a fact but that's how it is. Call a particular view a conspiracy theory if you like but that's just rhetoric and takes us not a step further towards a definitive answer.