zlacker

[return to "US raises ‘deep concerns’ over WHO report on Covid’s Wuhan origins"]
1. ttz+rc[view] [source] 2021-02-13 19:17:03
>>lazycr+(OP)
First gen Chinese, grew up in NA. Have contact with relatives "on the ground".

My own experience: Don't ever trust the Chinese government on issues that could potentially involve the reputation of the party. Note that I'm not saying don't trust what CCP says, ever (sometimes they actually do good things) - just not on issues that involve anything to do with how the world might perceive them.

Which is exactly what this issue is about.

That's not to say we have compelling evidence that this was a lab virus, either. I think, for me, it's a, "we don't know, but I wouldn't be shocked at all if it was a lab virus".

◧◩
2. mkolod+qg1[view] [source] 2021-02-14 05:45:10
>>ttz+rc
There's a real possibility that a gain-of-function experiment created SARS-CoV-2:

"Lipsitch’s activists (calling themselves the Cambridge Working Group) sent around a strong statement on the perils of research with “Potential Pandemic Pathogens,” signed by more than a hundred scientists. The work might “trigger outbreaks that would be difficult or impossible to control,” the signers said. Fauci reconsidered, and the White House in 2014 announced that there would be a “pause” in the funding of new influenza, SARS, and MERS gain-of-function research." [0]

In December 2017, the US began funding gain-of-function research on these deadly diseases again. This research creates deadly diseases that may not have existed otherwise.

This pandemic has been enough for me to strongly believe that there should be a global ban on gain-of-function experiments on deadly viruses and bacteria. I'd like to help prevent a future pandemic, and that's one clear way we can help.

[0] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-esca...

◧◩◪
3. raverb+wm1[view] [source] 2021-02-14 07:28:19
>>mkolod+qg1
It could be. But that I find extremely unlikely

A failed experiment? Maybe a bit more likely, but still I don't think so

Sars-Cov-2 looks like pretty much what it is: a zoonotic virus that "doesn't know what's going on"

Hence why only the recent mutations made its transmission more efficient.

Now, if it escaped unbeknownst from a research lab, that I would put on the plausible category. Would be more possible if it wouldn't have had a perfect virus breeding ground right next to it.

◧◩◪◨
4. tim333+AC1[view] [source] 2021-02-14 11:19:33
>>raverb+wm1
>Sars-Cov-2 looks like pretty much what it is: a zoonotic virus that "doesn't know what's going on"

It was actually remarkably stable in the early days suggesting it was used to reproducing in human cells. Or so Professor Petrovsky says https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8356751/How-COVID-1...

As how that could have happened lab wise here's Daszak saying they routinely infect human cells with coronavirus in the lab https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1701&v=IdYDL_RK--w&feature=y...

Or maybe it was in humans a bit before it took off. I see Daszak's kind of changed his tune a bit these days to not mention anything like that lab stuff.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. raverb+aH1[view] [source] 2021-02-14 12:04:04
>>tim333+AC1
"Human cells" are mammal cells. Macaques and Golden Hamsters can get sick with Covid-19

The common Flu can infect horses and even chickens. "stability in human cells" means pretty much nothing

[go to top]