Sorry, conspiracy theorists. Study concludes COVID-19 'is not a laboratory construct'

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Sorry, conspiracy theorists. Study concludes COVID-19 'is not a laboratory construct'



Sorry, conspiracy theorists. Study concludes COVID-19 'is not a laboratory construct'
Some have suggested the virus is actually an engineered biological attack.
By
Kate Holland
March 27, 2020, 5:00 AM
5 min read
00:0702:29









Copy and paste to share this video
Copy and paste to embed this video
2:28
Coronavirus explainedEarly cases of COVID-19 are believed to be linked to a live-animal market in Wuhan, China.
Conspiracy theories claiming COVID-19 was engineered in a lab as part of a biological attack on the United States have been gaining traction online in recent weeks, but a new study on the origins of the virus has concluded that the pandemic-causing strain developed naturally.

An analysis of the evidence, according to the findings first published in the scientific journal Nature Medicine, shows that the novel coronavirus "is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus," with the researchers concluding "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."


"There’s a lot of speculation and conspiracy theories that went to a pretty high level," Dr. Robert Garry, a professor at the Tulane University School of Medicine and one of the authors of the study, told ABC News, "so we felt it was important to get a team together to examine evidence of this new coronavirus to determine what we could about the origin."

Tune into ABC at 1 p.m. ET and ABC News Live at 4 p.m. ET every weekday for special coverage of the novel coronavirus with the full ABC News team, including the latest news, context and analysis.

Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, supported the study’s findings, writing on his blog, "This study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19."

Researchers concluded that the novel coronavirus is not a human creation because it does not share any "previously used virus backbone." It likely arose, the study said, from a recombination of a virus found in bats and another virus, possibly originating from pangolins, otherwise known as scaly anteaters.

MORE: Coronavirus live updates: US now leads world with over 82,000 cases
COVID-19 is 96% identical to a coronavirus found in bats, researchers said, but with a certain variation that could explain what has made it so infectious.

"We know from the study of other coronaviruses that they’re able to acquire this [variation] and they can then become more pathogenic," Garry told ABC News. "This is a good explanation as to why this virus is so transmittable and has caused this pandemic."

This handout illustration image taken with a scanning electron microscope shows SARS-CoV-2 (yellow)also known as 2019-nCoV, the virus that causes COVID-19isolated emerging from the surface of cells (blue/pink) cultured in the lab.
This handout illustration image taken with a scanning electron microscope shows SARS-CoV-2 (yellow)also known as 2019-nCoV, the virus that causes COVID-19isolated emerging from the surface of cells (blue/pink) cultured in the lab.Handout/National Institutes of Health/AFP via GettY Images
The mutation in surface proteins, according to Garry, could have triggered the outbreak of the pandemic, but it’s also possible that a less severe version of the illness was circulating through the population for years, perhaps even decades, before escalating to this point.

"We don’t know if those mutations were picked up more recently or a long time ago," Garry told ABC News. "It’s impossible to say if it actually was a mutation that triggered the pandemic, but either way, it would have been a naturally occurring process."

And while many believe the virus originated at a fish market in Wuhan, China, Garry said that is also a misconception.

"Our analyses, and others too, point to an earlier origin than that," Garry said. "There were definitely cases there, but that wasn’t the origin of the virus."






Genomic Study Points to Natural Origin of COVID-19
Genomic Study Points to Natural Origin of COVID-19
Posted on March 26th, 2020 by Dr. Francis Collins



Sscanning electron microscope image of SARS-CoV-2 (round blue objects) emerging from the surface of cells cultured in the lab.

]No matter where you go online these days, there’s bound to be discussion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Some folks are even making outrageous claims that the new coronavirus causing the pandemic was engineered in a lab and deliberately released to make people sick. A new study debunks such claims by providing scientific evidence that this novel coronavirus arose naturally.

The reassuring findings are the result of genomic analyses conducted by an international research team, partly supported by NIH. In their study in the journal Nature Medicine, Kristian Andersen, Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA; Robert Garry, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans; and their colleagues used sophisticated bioinformatic tools to compare publicly available genomic data from several coronaviruses, including the new one that causes COVID-19.

The researchers began by homing in on the parts of the coronavirus genomes that encode the spike proteins that give this family of viruses their distinctive crown-like appearance. (By the way, “corona” is Latin for “crown.”) All coronaviruses rely on spike proteins to infect other cells. But, over time, each coronavirus has fashioned these proteins a little differently, and the evolutionary clues about these modifications are spelled out in their genomes.

The genomic data of the new coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 show that its spike protein contains some unique adaptations. One of these adaptations provides special ability of this coronavirus to bind to a specific protein on human cells called angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE2). A related coronavirus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in humans also seeks out ACE2.

Existing computer models predicted that the new coronavirus would not bind to ACE2 as well as the SARS virus. However, to their surprise, the researchers found that the spike protein of the new coronavirus actually bound far better than computer predictions, likely because of natural selection on ACE2 that enabled the virus to take advantage of a previously unidentified alternate binding site. Researchers said this provides strong evidence that that new virus was not the product of purposeful manipulation in a lab. In fact, any bioengineer trying to design a coronavirus that threatened human health probably would never have chosen this particular conformation for a spike protein.

The researchers went on to analyze genomic data related to the overall molecular structure, or backbone, of the new coronavirus. Their analysis showed that the backbone of the new coronavirus’s genome most closely resembles that of a bat coronavirus discovered after the COVID-19 pandemic began. However, the region that binds ACE2 resembles a novel virus found in pangolins, a strange-looking animal sometimes called a scaly anteater. This provides additional evidence that the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 almost certainly originated in nature. If the new coronavirus had been manufactured in a lab, scientists most likely would have used the backbones of coronaviruses already known to cause serious diseases in humans.

So, what is the natural origin of the novel coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic? The researchers don’t yet have a precise answer. But they do offer two possible scenarios.

In the first scenario, as the new coronavirus evolved in its natural hosts, possibly bats or pangolins, its spike proteins mutated to bind to molecules similar in structure to the human ACE2 protein, thereby enabling it to infect human cells. This scenario seems to fit other recent outbreaks of coronavirus-caused disease in humans, such as SARS, which arose from cat-like civets; and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), which arose from camels.

The second scenario is that the new coronavirus crossed from animals into humans before it became capable of causing human disease. Then, as a result of gradual evolutionary changes over years or perhaps decades, the virus eventually gained the ability to spread from human-to-human and cause serious, often life-threatening disease.

Either way, this study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19. And that’s a good thing because it helps us keep focused on what really matters: observing good hygiene, practicing social distancing, and supporting the efforts of all the dedicated health-care professionals and researchers who are working so hard to address this major public health challenge.

Finally, next time you come across something about COVID-19 online that disturbs or puzzles you, I suggest going to FEMA’s new Coronavirus Rumor Control web site. It may not have all the answers to your questions, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction in helping to distinguish rumors from facts.

Reference:
[1] The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 . Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, Holmes EC, Garry RF. Nat Med, 17 March 2020. [Epub ahead of publication]

 

[MischievousMonkey]

Try to convince conspiracy theorists with studies breh

 

[Breh13]

Try to convince conspiracy theorists with studies breh

Fr.

They throw out CGI when you show them real-life pics of Earth from space.


They'll probably tell you scientists installed fake eyes while they were asleep if someone personally took them out to space to see for themselves. It's a ridiculous entrenched position.

 

[JOHN.KOOL]

If you know anything about studies and the scientific community you will know nothing any study 'concludes' can be taken as gospel.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

If you know anythung about studies and the scientific community you will know nothing any study 'concludes' can be taken as gospel.

 

[hu3ypdadon]

I never seen them come out and say AIds & HIV Wasn’t made in the Lab..Hmm I wonder why

 

[African Peasant]

A study concludes that a study about the said study is indeed a study.

 

[Counter Racist Male]

I didn't hear too many people actually saying that this might be some bioengineered weapon. From the start of always heard it was a zoo tonic virus that originated in the markets of Wuhan China.

 

[JOHN.KOOL]

I dont understand the point of this reply to my post.

 

[mbewane]

"Lol of course it would conclude that, the study is part of the plan to cover it up"

"Have YOU done the study?"

"Believe in cac studies brehs"

 

[jackswstd]

So these muthafukkers were eating bats and anteaters

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I never seen them come out and say AIds & HIV Wasn’t made in the Lab..Hmm I wonder why

because its not from a lab

Patient Zero | Radiolab | WNYC Studios

 

[Breh13]

Study: Pangolins are Missing Link in Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from Bats to Humans | Medicine | Sci-News.com

There are so many studies out though and most news cover it before scientific critique.


Anyway,

History and Recent Advances in Coronavirus Discovery : The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal

Human coronaviruses, first characterized in the 1960s, are responsible for a substantial proportion of upper respiratory tract infections in children. Since 2003, at least 5 new human coronaviruses have been identified, including the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, which caused significant morbidity and mortality. NL63, representing a group of newly identified group I coronaviruses that includes NL and the New Haven coronavirus, has been identified worldwide. These viruses are associated with both upper and lower respiratory tract disease and are likely common human pathogens. The global distribution of a newly identified group II coronavirus, HKU1, has not yet been established. Coronavirology has advanced significantly in the past few years. The SARS epidemic put the animal coronaviruses in the spotlight. The background and history relative to this important and expanding research area are reviewed here.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2

The strain was first discovered in Wuhan, China, so it is sometimes referred to as the "Wuhan virus"[15] or "Wuhan coronavirus".[16][17][18][19] Because the World Health Organization discourages the use of names based upon locations[13][20][21] and to avoid confusion with the disease SARS,[22] it sometimes refers to the virus as "the virus responsible for COVID-19" or "the COVID-19 virus" in public health communications.[23] The general public often call both the virus and the disease "coronavirus", but scientists typically use more precise terms.[24]

As usual, nature will always be the greatest lab.

 

[concise]

So ... can they name an example of a virus that was made in a lab?

 

[Spliff]

There are many ways the novel coronavirus may have come about/

Nature Medicine ran a 3 page article that claimed to explain why the novel coronavirus is not a lab construct. USA Today wrote a summary piece explaining it:

“If someone were seeking to engineer a new coronavirus as a pathogen, they would have constructed it from the backbone of a virus known to cause illness,” the report said. “But the scientists found that the SARS-CoV-2 backbone differed substantially from those of already known coronaviruses and mostly resembled related viruses found in bats and pangolins.”—USAT​

Yet it turns out to be a specious argument, relying on the fact that the novel coronavirus backbone sequence was not already known in the open virology literature.

1. While starting from a known RNA sequence is one easy way to create a pathogen, it is certainly not necessary to do so.
2. Nor is it likely that biodefense/biowarfare programs share knowledge of all their creations. They never have before.
3. Finally, it is relatively easy to detect the human hand when a chimera of known virulence factors is strung together.
4. And because plausible deniability is a critical component of a bioweapons attack, I doubt that a chimera using known sequences is the path that would have been followed by a modern biowarrior.

I will briefly mention some of the old techniques for creating bioweapons, none of which require that a known, published RNA backbone would be required to build a novel, virulent coronavirus:

1. China has unique bats. So do other countries. Unique bats likely harbor unique viruses. Bits of these viruses can be strung together, while no outside parties are aware that these particular RNA threads exist in nature.​

2. You take an already virulent RNA virus, subject it to high rates of mutation via chemical or radiological exposure, and test the viruses that survive for the acquisition of new virulence characteristics.​

3. You simply passage the virus through tens, hundreds or thousands of lab animals or cell cultures and test the results for acquisition of new virulence characteristics.​

4. You mix different viruses together with different virulence characteristics, allow them to grow together, and seek recombinants that have obtained the desired new mix of virulence factors.​

All these possibilities result in viruses that are hard to pin on lab production. I dare the Nature Medicine scientists to dismiss these scenarios.

Still, I doubt that any national program would deliberately release this coronavirus onto the people of the earth, because it is so hard to control.

Historically, bio-weaponeers have required their creations to be controlled at all costs. In one well-documented example of biowarfare, unleashing african swine fever on an island was associated with no spread beyond the island. In another, anthrax spores were used because they stay put-- their use did not cause anthrax cases beyond the border of Rhodesia.

So why do we have this epidemic now?

An accidental biowarfare laboratory release is the best current hypothesis, in my opinion. Such accidental releases have been documented for many decades, throughout the world. But I could certainly be wrong.

And before I get hit with "you posting from random blog," the author:

Meryl Nass, MD, ABIM, is an internist with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War illness, fibromyalgia, and toxicology. As a biological warfare epidemiologist, she investigated world's largest anthrax epizootic, in Zimbabwe, and developed a model for analyzing epidemics to assess whether they are natural or man-made.

An anthrax expert, Nass has reviewed government-sponsored anthrax research in the context of the Biological Weapons Convention, used anthrax as a model for discussion of how to prevent biological warfare, reviewed anthrax vaccines and their role in biological warfare prophylaxis, and played a central role in educating service members, Congress, and the public about anthrax and the science underlying anthrax vaccine use, as well as other methods of responding to the anthrax threat. She has played a major role in creation of a coalition that has fought the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program. Nass is active in assisting legal teams defending anthrax vaccine refusers and ill service members in the U.S. and Canada.

Meryl Nass, MD, ABIM