Wuhan Lab - Covid

Status
Not open for further replies.
GazC_MFC said:
You didn’t state SARS related, so on the evidence your presented scrote was pointing out that other coronavirus have it
Click to expand...
Yes but that screenshot from an organisation that *checks google* doesn't actually exist proves everything no?
 
Alvez_48 said:
In the information I have read / seen it didn't specify what coronavirus were being researched. I couldn't comment.

@SmallTown that's the most ridiculous post I've seen you post in a while, this is nothing to do with trump. This is scientists including the head of the CDC saying that the evidence shows it likely was accidentally released from a lab. The only person politicising anything is you.
As for your comment about being disgusting, take a peak in the mirror.
Click to expand...
Thanks Alvez.

I appreciate your willingness to state what you think. I should be honest, I do work in the life science field, so I was trying to get to the bottom of what you and others thought had happened that led to the evolution of this virus in a lab.

Based on what you’ve told me, I’d pose the following questions to you:

1 - what was the “starting virus” or material used in the lab?
2 - How have the gain of function experiments led from that starting material to a virus with approximately 96% similarity to the Rhinolophus affinis bat coronavirus?
3 - How did the gain of function experiments lead to the virus evolving mutations (glycosylations sites on spike protein) that provide it an advantage when encountering an immune system?
4 - Following on from that, what selection pressure allowed the virus to maintain this mutation in the lab?
5 - Why wouldn’t the scientists want to publish this incredible finding about how the SARS virus might become more virulent and gain an incredible amount of respect in their field?

Happy to discuss further.
 
SmallTown said:
"You're"

So, the badly photoshopped screenshot evidence provided was from the Institue of atomic scientists. Which doesn't appear to exist. If they wanted it to be form the bulletin you've linked to, you'd think they'd put the right name on the photoshopped screenshot!🤣🤣🤣
Click to expand...

You're a 🤦🏻‍♂️
 
boringblock_21 said:
Thanks Alvez.

I appreciate your willingness to state what you think. I should be honest, I do work in the life science field, so I was trying to get to the bottom of what you and others thought had happened that led to the evolution of this virus in a lab.

Based on what you’ve told me, I’d pose the following questions to you:

1 - what was the “starting virus” or material used in the lab?
2 - How have the gain of function experiments led from that starting material to a virus with approximately 96% similarity to the Rhinolophus affinis bat coronavirus?
3 - How did the gain of function experiments lead to the virus evolving mutations (glycosylations sites on spike protein) that provide it an advantage when encountering an immune system?
4 - Following on from that, what selection pressure allowed the virus to maintain this mutation in the lab?
5 - Why wouldn’t the scientists want to publish this incredible finding about how the SARS virus might become more virulent and gain an incredible amount of respect in their field?

Happy to discuss further.
Click to expand...

1. Covered already in reports its stated coronavirus' nothing more specific

2. See the video posted to you

3. See 2

4. See 2

5. 1 scientists are including the former head of the CDC and the current lead virologist at Caltech university. On the flip side can you not see the conflict of interest - 'If Sars-Cov2 had escaped from a laboratory a savage blowback could be expected. The storm of public indignation would effect virologists everywhere.'

My question to you as a 'scientist' is what are your thoughts, why do you give credence to one over the other, what do you think this means for that type of scientific research? If it didn't come from a lab, why bother doing gain of function research anyway as it abjectly failed to protect us in the first place?
 
Alvez_48 said:
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan ok buddy.. Jesus wept your bad.
Have you even heard of the doomsday clock.
Click to expand...
Wait, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists doesn't exist?

Is this like how some people don't believe Finland is a place? 🤔

I mean the Bulletin even has its own website. I'm confused.

thebulletin.org

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs the public about threats to the survival and development of humanity from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies in the life sciences.
thebulletin.org thebulletin.org
 
Hi Alvez,

I don’t believe in blanket referrals to videos or even articles because it doesn’t show you understand it. And said video doesn’t explain what I’ve asked you. So forgive me for pushing a little further.

Perhaps you could briefly explain why you think the virus could simultaneously evolve and maintain both a Spike protein with high affinity for its human receptor AND mutations that provide it an advantage when encountering an immune system?

thanks.
 
I’m also keen to hear Rhine and Randy’s thoughts should they be willing to engage. Asking and engaging in good faith here.
boringblock_21 said:
Hi Alvez,

I don’t believe in blanket referrals to videos or even articles because it doesn’t show you understand it. And said video doesn’t explain what I’ve asked you. So forgive me for pushing a little further.

Perhaps you could briefly explain why you think the virus could simultaneously evolve and maintain both a Spike protein with high affinity for its human receptor AND mutations that provide it an advantage when encountering an immune system?

thanks.
Click to expand...
 
boringblock_21 said:
Hi Alvez,

I don’t believe in blanket referrals to videos or even articles because it doesn’t show you understand it. And said video doesn’t explain what I’ve asked you. So forgive me for pushing a little further.

Perhaps you could briefly explain why you think the virus could simultaneously evolve and maintain both a Spike protein with high affinity for its human receptor AND mutations that provide it an advantage when encountering an immune system?

thanks.
Click to expand...

Ok cool, you're just going to ignore something that took me a couple of seconds to gather having watched and read alot, everything else I stated and ask me to write long posts on a forum page.

I'll ask again:-

My question to you as a 'scientist' is what are your thoughts, why do you give credence to one over the other, what do you think this means for that type of scientific research? If it didn't come from a lab, why bother doing gain of function research anyway as it abjectly failed to protect us in the first place?
 
SmallTown arguing with people again, shock.

You accused Randy in another covid thread earlier today of being deliberately argumentative etc etc, but i'm yet to see anyone worse than you on this board on that front.

You're like the Robbie Savage of FMTTM.
 
DanBoro4499 said:
SmallTown arguing with people again, shock.

You accused Randy in another covid thread earlier today of being deliberately argumentative etc etc, but i'm yet to see anyone worse than you on this board on that front.

You're like the Robbie Savage of FMTTM.
Click to expand...
I miss Robbie Savage driving home from away games.
 
I have never understood conspiracy theories. It seems to fulfill somethign missing in people? Always the same pattern of finding connections that other people dont see, maybe being a bit clever than others?
 
boringblock_21 said:
I’m also keen to hear Rhine and Randy’s thoughts should they be willing to engage. Asking and engaging in good faith here.
Click to expand...
Educate me, you say you have work experience in the field. Is the possibility that a virus can escape a lab by accident true?
 
DanBoro4499 said:
SmallTown arguing with people again, shock.

You accused Randy in another covid thread earlier today of being deliberately argumentative etc etc, but i'm yet to see anyone worse than you on this board on that front.

You're like the Robbie Savage of FMTTM.
Click to expand...
Some may see it as deliberately argumentive, I see it as discussing all views from all sides.
 
boringblock_21 said:
Thanks Alvez.

I appreciate your willingness to state what you think. I should be honest, I do work in the life science field, so I was trying to get to the bottom of what you and others thought had happened that led to the evolution of this virus in a lab.

Based on what you’ve told me, I’d pose the following questions to you:

1 - what was the “starting virus” or material used in the lab?
2 - How have the gain of function experiments led from that starting material to a virus with approximately 96% similarity to the Rhinolophus affinis bat coronavirus?
3 - How did the gain of function experiments lead to the virus evolving mutations (glycosylations sites on spike protein) that provide it an advantage when encountering an immune system?
4 - Following on from that, what selection pressure allowed the virus to maintain this mutation in the lab?
5 - Why wouldn’t the scientists want to publish this incredible finding about how the SARS virus might become more virulent and gain an incredible amount of respect in their field?

Happy to discuss further.
Click to expand...

This is an example of what makes this board great.

There is always someone who is more knowledgeable or expert can come along.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Ok cool, you're just going to ignore something that took me a couple of seconds to gather having watched and read alot, everything else I stated and ask me to write long posts on a forum page.
Click to expand...
mate, you've written loads on this post and many others. He seems to have asked some reasonable questions, politely and honestly. IF you have all the knowledge you require then explain it, or alternatively see if @boringblock_21 has some knowledge that could further your understanding
 
Alvez_48 said:
Ok cool, you're just going to ignore something that took me a couple of seconds to produce and everything else I stated and ask me to write long posts on a forum page.

I'll ask again:-

My question to you as a 'scientist' is what are your thoughts, why do you give credence to one over the other, what do you think this means for that type of scientific research? If it didn't come from a lab, why bother doing gain of function research anyway as it abjectly failed to protect us in the first place?
Click to expand...
Hi Alvez,

I’m not asking for long posts. I’m just genuinely trying to engage with you. Totally up to you of course. And I’m not dismissive of you btw, I’m intrigued as to how you answer the questions posed, because those are the questions I ask myself when I think about the origin of this virus. And I think as a scientist I have a responsibility to understand how the public perceives science.

On the virus specifically - My thoughts as a scientist are that if this virus came from a lab, there would be three giveaways:

The first would be some kind of molecular signature or predictable mutation that I don’t think we have in this viral genome. The mutations in the receptor binding domain of the spike don’t obviously predict a more virulent virus so it could have been “designed”. That points away from deliberate manipulation but leaves open the idea this virus escaped from GOF experiements. BUT what GOF experiment would allow a virus to evolve a bulky mutation (in terms of the protein) to avoid the immune system? An experiment where there’s an immune system present as a selection pressure. So an in vivo, or animal experiment. But then how would the spike protein become so specific for its human receptor? For this it must have been pushed through in vitro, or cell culture experiments with human cells. But why would it then maintain the earlier modification to help it avoid the immune system when no immune system is present in vitro?

The second sign it came from a lab for me would be if the virus had little (<80-90%) or no shared sequence identity with wild coronaviruses, which is not the case.

The third and final sign is that as a scientist, we trade on publications. There’s no way scientists would have tried to publish this data WAY WAY WAY before they got a virus with both of the mutations described in point 1.

So with that said, I also want to say that just because experiments don’t immediately protect us or provide obvious benefits doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be done.

Again I’m happy to discuss further with you if you are willing to engage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top