zlacker

[return to "The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins"]
1. lamont+2h[view] [source] 2021-06-04 01:54:40
>>codech+(OP)
> Wade devoted a full section to the “furin cleavage site,” a distinctive segment of SARS-CoV-2’s genetic code that makes the virus more infectious by allowing it to efficiently enter human cells.

> Within the scientific community, one thing leapt off the page. Wade quoted one of the world’s most famous microbiologists, Dr. David Baltimore, saying that he believed the furin cleavage site “was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus.” Baltimore, a Nobel Laureate and pioneer in molecular biology, was about as far from Steve Bannon and the conspiracy theorists as it was possible to get. His judgment, that the furin cleavage site raised the prospect of gene manipulation, had to be taken seriously.

Furin cleavage sites have evolved and are present in multiple coronaviruses:

- HCoV-OC43 (infects humans)

- HCoV-HKU1 (infects humans)

- MHV-A59

- ChRCoV-HKU24

- BtCoV-ENT

- BtNeCoV-PML-PHE1

- BtCoV-HKU4

- BtCoV-HKU5

- MERS-CoV

- BtHpCoV-Zhejiang2013

- SARS-CoV-2

Phylogenetic analysis suggests that it has evolved independently at least 6 times that we know of.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187350612...

After that article was published a team in Thailand found furin cleavage sites in sarbecoviruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 called RacCS203 (91.5% similarity to SARS-CoV-2) and RmYN02 (93.3% similarity to SARS-CoV-2)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7873279/

Furin cleavage sites are common, nature understands how to utilize that trick very well, and continuously has re-discovered it.

◧◩
2. Throwa+Oh[view] [source] 2021-06-04 02:01:04
>>lamont+2h
<s>The</s> A gravamen of the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site claim is that it's not aligned like others in the coronaviruses you cite.
◧◩◪
3. henear+Ni[view] [source] 2021-06-04 02:10:21
>>Throwa+Oh
I'd love more information if you have.

Because per se it does not prove the claim of bioengineering.

◧◩◪◨
4. Throwa+6m[view] [source] 2021-06-04 02:41:52
>>henear+Ni
It's not in Nicolas Wade's article, which I now see has been unfairly maligned along with David Baltimore who's been selectively quoted to leave out the technical detail of what made the latter say the SARS-CoV-2 is a smoking gun, see the 4) A Question of Codons: https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-th... If correct, that's getting strongly into bioengineering evidence.

You are of course more likely correct about the alignment issue, I can't find my source now, and the above is probably much stronger evidence. For the alignment you'd have to be a virologist, probably one specializing in coronaviruses, to be able to really judge this. Of course a whole bunch of biologists have shifted their focus to coronaviruses in the last year and a half.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. lamont+Zo[view] [source] 2021-06-04 03:12:12
>>Throwa+6m
So you don't have any idea what you're talking about and don't have any ability to weigh if what you're looking at is human bioengineering or natural bionengineering, but you're going to strongly assert that its evidence of human tampering.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. deugo+qu[view] [source] 2021-06-04 04:13:41
>>lamont+Zo
Yes.
[go to top]