zlacker

This is worth a read:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

>>dm319+(OP)
>>*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

>>dm319+(OP)
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).

>>mgamac+I1
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...

>>f430+B2
In the first few weeks the main source of info was the CCP and well known virologists. Both have conflicts of interest.

>>f430+B2
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.

>>f430+B2
>Nature has lied to protect the CCP before:

>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."

>>godelm+x1
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.