It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 hasn't naturally evolved

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.


The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.


According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.


Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.


The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.


Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.



They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses


This is highly disputed in the paper I linked and the other sources exist on this subject for this particular classes of coronaviruses.


No, it is a theoretical paper. Which is also in contradiction to other theoretical papers. None of the science upon which the paper is based is wrong. And neither is the science in the other papers it contradicts. We have NO scientific genomic evidence of viruses from the 1800's.

Also, many any of those modern pundits who dispute this paper, do so on the basis of their beliefs in particular American political ideas. If you remove those from the consideration, the paper presents completely reasonable and viable theory in science.

(*Where we derq one, we derq all).



edit on 14/10/2022 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.


The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.


According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.


Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.


The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.


Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.



They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses


This is highly disputed in the paper I linked and the other sources exist on this subject for this particular classes of coronaviruses.


No, it is in fact, a theoretical paper. Which is in contradiction to other theoretical papers. None of the science upon which the paper is based is wrong.

Many of those who dispute this paper do so on the basis of their beliefs in particular American political ideas. If you remove that from the consideration, the paper presents completely reasonable and viable theory in science.


I think you are mistaken again here and it is in the papers that (quoting myself after quoting the papers I have linked)


One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."


The others things you have claimed are also wrong.
All coronaviruses do come from other wild animals to humans. Zoonosis is the main mechanism that is responsible for these viruses being present in humans. The only one which is disputed is SARS-CoV-2 due to it's unusual characteristics and especially the dual action capability of infecting cells which is highly unlikely to be a result of natural processes, i.e binding in the ACE2 receptors when at the same time its main mode of action is another co-receptor dependent phagocyte.
edit on 14-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.


The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.


According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.


You are mistaken here.

The most popular idea is that the virus has jumped to humans front animals via zoonosis as it's called.

Perhaps you haven't read at all the literature in regards to the two hypotheses i.e zoonosis and the lab-manufacture and leak


I am aware that everyone is only talking about either a lab or zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, but that is only because they are ignoring the most obvious, likely, and normal natural source, namely that it arose in humans from another, quite benign, human hosted coronavirus.

A virus won't mutate where it's not. It mutates in an environment where there are numerous hosts that are infected.


If you are suggesting that the virus existed already in some benign form then you have to show the virus was already around long before the start of the pandemic.


That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Very similar viruses, SARS and MERS, existed decades beforehand, and well before humans had the genetic engineering nous to modify viral genomics.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that there were benign forms of these specific precursor viruses circulation in human populations for decades.

We have the proof of the existence of those SARS and MERS viruses, of which we have also had outbreaks in the human population, so we know they did once infect us. If they had mutated to a benign form, we wouldn't have noticed that, because it wouldn't create any dangerous or obvious symptoms.

A mild and 'cold like' version of these viruses could go entirely un-remarked and unseen by science, hidden among all the other 'cold' causing viruses.


But that's not true. There are other coronaviruses which are well documented and recorded. One of them has probably caused a similar pandemic called the Russian Flu back in 1889-1890 and I have created a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the links too.


While I agree that there are numerous benign coronaviruses, the Russian flu was not from a coronavirus. It was from the H1N1 strain of influenza - a different virus with no genomic similarity or link to any coronaviruses.


The Russian Flu is a misnomer and it is likely caused by human coronavirus OC43 and not by a strain of the H1N1 influenza virus. You may want to see the links I have in my thread and the discussion.

Clinical evidence that the pandemic from 1889 to 1891 commonly called the Russian flu might have been an earlier coronavirus pandemic

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

OC43 appears to be benign but in the past it has caused as it seems the 1889-1890 pandemic. Now it causes common colds after us and the virus have evolved to live peacefully with each other.


So, despite the orthodoxy of numerous scientists and papers which ascribe the Russian flu to H1N1, you take a single theoretical paper (because we can't genotype a virus from 100 years ago, and we have no samples from then) and assume it is an undisputed fact.

And also, here you claimed that "The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin" and yet that is the entire basis of the paper that you claim establishes supposed 'fact' that the Russian flu was caused by OC43?

And additionally, OC43 if it was the source of the Russian flu and went benign, that is entirely supportive of the idea that I proposed.

My suggestion that SARS, or MERS, or whatever didn't cease to exist, but went benign and unnoticed in the human population until it mutated once again and became virulent in a new way. Gives SARS-CoV-2 an entirely natural evolutionary path, in humans, requiring no other 'magical' and as yet unknown species to cause it.



edit on 14/10/2022 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3
The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.



Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.


The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.


Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.



They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses


This is highly disputed in the paper I linked and the other sources exist on this subject for this particular classes of coronaviruses.


No, it is in fact, a theoretical paper. Which is in contradiction to other theoretical papers. None of the science upon which the paper is based is wrong.

Many of those who dispute this paper do so on the basis of their beliefs in particular American political ideas. If you remove that from the consideration, the paper presents completely reasonable and viable theory in science.


I think you are mistaken again here and it is in the papers that (quoting myself after quoting the papers I have linked)


Re-quoting the same papers, means that you have no further answers to the questions raised.

I asked for a valid scientific reason why the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have arisen naturally in human hosts from a benign precursor virus in the same family. Something for which you, and very many others, have not tended a reply.



One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."


The others things you have claimed are also wrong.
All coronaviruses do come from other wild animals to humans. Zoonosis is the main mechanism that is responsible for these viruses being present in humans. The only one which is disputed is SARS-CoV-2 due to it's unusual characteristics and especially the dual action capability of infecting cells which is highly unlikely to be a result of natural processes, i.e binding in the ACE2 receptors when at the same time its main mode of action is another co-receptor dependent phagocyte.


While it is likely that sometime in its genetic history the SARS-CoV-2 virus came from another species via zoonotic transfer, it is not established that it did so recently, at least in the last decade in which it arose - yet another 'missing link' in evolutionary theories.

Since there is no hard objective evidence, all becomes just theory.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus IS different from its ancestor viruses. Surely that is the entire result of mutations. To say it is unnatural because it is different, is silly. Every species is different in some way, from every other.

edit on 14/10/2022 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



The Washington Post came out with a story blithely admitting that the largest army of internet psyops soldiers in the world is in fact being fielded by the US.

The Story of the Century Just Broke (And No One Noticed)



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.


The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.


According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.


You are mistaken here.

The most popular idea is that the virus has jumped to humans front animals via zoonosis as it's called.

Perhaps you haven't read at all the literature in regards to the two hypotheses i.e zoonosis and the lab-manufacture and leak


I am aware that everyone is only talking about either a lab or zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, but that is only because they are ignoring the most obvious, likely, and normal natural source, namely that it arose in humans from another, quite benign, human hosted coronavirus.

A virus won't mutate where it's not. It mutates in an environment where there are numerous hosts that are infected.


If you are suggesting that the virus existed already in some benign form then you have to show the virus was already around long before the start of the pandemic.


That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Very similar viruses, SARS and MERS, existed decades beforehand, and well before humans had the genetic engineering nous to modify viral genomics.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that there were benign forms of these specific precursor viruses circulation in human populations for decades.

We have the proof of the existence of those SARS and MERS viruses, of which we have also had outbreaks in the human population, so we know they did once infect us. If they had mutated to a benign form, we wouldn't have noticed that, because it wouldn't create any dangerous or obvious symptoms.

A mild and 'cold like' version of these viruses could go entirely un-remarked and unseen by science, hidden among all the other 'cold' causing viruses.


But that's not true. There are other coronaviruses which are well documented and recorded. One of them has probably caused a similar pandemic called the Russian Flu back in 1889-1890 and I have created a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the links too.


While I agree that there are numerous benign coronaviruses, the Russian flu was not from a coronavirus. It was from the H1N1 strain of influenza - a different virus with no genomic similarity or link to any coronaviruses.


The Russian Flu is a misnomer and it is likely caused by human coronavirus OC43 and not by a strain of the H1N1 influenza virus. You may want to see the links I have in my thread and the discussion.

Clinical evidence that the pandemic from 1889 to 1891 commonly called the Russian flu might have been an earlier coronavirus pandemic

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

OC43 appears to be benign but in the past it has caused as it seems the 1889-1890 pandemic. Now it causes common colds after us and the virus have evolved to live peacefully with each other.


So, despite the orthodoxy of numerous scientists and papers which ascribe the Russian flu to H1N1, you take a single theoretical paper (because we can't genotype a virus from 100 years ago, and we have no samples from then) and assume it is an undisputed fact.

And also, here you claimed that "The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin" and yet that is the entire basis of the paper that you claim establishes supposed 'fact' that the Russian flu was caused by OC43?




There are many sources and papers that attribute the Russian Flu Pandemic to OC43 and not to H1N1. There is plenty of information one can find and it seems the cause of the 1889-1890 Pandemic was misunderstood for sometime now.

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Clinical evidence exists that show the characteristics of the disease were similar to the characteristics of COVID-19



The human coronavirus OC43 came into existence in the late 19th century and this coincides with the Russian 'Flu' Pandemic. It has a zoonotic origin just like most human viruses they have jumped from wild animals to us.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Even Wikipedia acknowledges that the 1889-1890 may have been cause by OC43

en.wikipedia.org...


Here is another great article that describes how we get to know that OC43 is most likely the cause of the 1889-1890 pandemic

ec.europa.eu...



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3
The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.



Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.


The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.


Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.



They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses


This is highly disputed in the paper I linked and the other sources exist on this subject for this particular classes of coronaviruses.


No, it is in fact, a theoretical paper. Which is in contradiction to other theoretical papers. None of the science upon which the paper is based is wrong.

Many of those who dispute this paper do so on the basis of their beliefs in particular American political ideas. If you remove that from the consideration, the paper presents completely reasonable and viable theory in science.


I think you are mistaken again here and it is in the papers that (quoting myself after quoting the papers I have linked)


Re-quoting the same papers, means that you have no further answers to the questions raised.

I asked for a valid scientific reason why the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have arisen naturally in human hosts from a benign precursor virus in the same family. Something for which you, and very many others, have not tended a reply.



One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."


The others things you have claimed are also wrong.
All coronaviruses do come from other wild animals to humans. Zoonosis is the main mechanism that is responsible for these viruses being present in humans. The only one which is disputed is SARS-CoV-2 due to it's unusual characteristics and especially the dual action capability of infecting cells which is highly unlikely to be a result of natural processes, i.e binding in the ACE2 receptors when at the same time its main mode of action is another co-receptor dependent phagocyte.


While it is likely that sometime in its genetic history the SARS-CoV-2 virus came from another species via zoonotic transfer, it is not established that it did so recently, at least in the last decade in which it arose - yet another 'missing link' in evolutionary theories.

Since there is no hard objective evidence, all becomes just theory.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus IS different from its ancestor viruses. Surely that is the entire result of mutations. To say it is unnatural because it is different, is silly. Every species is different in some way, from every other.


I think you are still confusing zoonosis with mutations. Mutations happen all the time given the nature of RNA viruses. There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 existed in humans in a benign form. We would have found the virus long time ago if it did exist in humans.
edit on 14-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.


The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.


According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.


You are mistaken here.

The most popular idea is that the virus has jumped to humans front animals via zoonosis as it's called.

Perhaps you haven't read at all the literature in regards to the two hypotheses i.e zoonosis and the lab-manufacture and leak


I am aware that everyone is only talking about either a lab or zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, but that is only because they are ignoring the most obvious, likely, and normal natural source, namely that it arose in humans from another, quite benign, human hosted coronavirus.

A virus won't mutate where it's not. It mutates in an environment where there are numerous hosts that are infected.


If you are suggesting that the virus existed already in some benign form then you have to show the virus was already around long before the start of the pandemic.


That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Very similar viruses, SARS and MERS, existed decades beforehand, and well before humans had the genetic engineering nous to modify viral genomics.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that there were benign forms of these specific precursor viruses circulation in human populations for decades.

We have the proof of the existence of those SARS and MERS viruses, of which we have also had outbreaks in the human population, so we know they did once infect us. If they had mutated to a benign form, we wouldn't have noticed that, because it wouldn't create any dangerous or obvious symptoms.

A mild and 'cold like' version of these viruses could go entirely un-remarked and unseen by science, hidden among all the other 'cold' causing viruses.


But that's not true. There are other coronaviruses which are well documented and recorded. One of them has probably caused a similar pandemic called the Russian Flu back in 1889-1890 and I have created a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the links too.


While I agree that there are numerous benign coronaviruses, the Russian flu was not from a coronavirus. It was from the H1N1 strain of influenza - a different virus with no genomic similarity or link to any coronaviruses.


The Russian Flu is a misnomer and it is likely caused by human coronavirus OC43 and not by a strain of the H1N1 influenza virus. You may want to see the links I have in my thread and the discussion.

Clinical evidence that the pandemic from 1889 to 1891 commonly called the Russian flu might have been an earlier coronavirus pandemic

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

OC43 appears to be benign but in the past it has caused as it seems the 1889-1890 pandemic. Now it causes common colds after us and the virus have evolved to live peacefully with each other.


So, despite the orthodoxy of numerous scientists and papers which ascribe the Russian flu to H1N1, you take a single theoretical paper (because we can't genotype a virus from 100 years ago, and we have no samples from then) and assume it is an undisputed fact.

And also, here you claimed that "The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin" and yet that is the entire basis of the paper that you claim establishes supposed 'fact' that the Russian flu was caused by OC43?




But this is precisely how viruses become benign. When they jump from wild animals to humans then humans will most likely have an issue as there is no immunity to them. As time passes humans are well adapted to the virus, such as OC43, which now causes common colds.

You have argued the opposite i.e that SARS-CoV-2 existed in some benign form and now has become pathogenic. This is very very unlikely to happen generally speaking and furthermore there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 existed prior to its discovery.
edit on 14-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3
The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.



Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.


The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.


Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.



They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses


This is highly disputed in the paper I linked and the other sources exist on this subject for this particular classes of coronaviruses.


No, it is in fact, a theoretical paper. Which is in contradiction to other theoretical papers. None of the science upon which the paper is based is wrong.

Many of those who dispute this paper do so on the basis of their beliefs in particular American political ideas. If you remove that from the consideration, the paper presents completely reasonable and viable theory in science.


I think you are mistaken again here and it is in the papers that (quoting myself after quoting the papers I have linked)


Re-quoting the same papers, means that you have no further answers to the questions raised.

I asked for a valid scientific reason why the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have arisen naturally in human hosts from a benign precursor virus in the same family. Something for which you, and very many others, have not tended a reply.



One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."


The others things you have claimed are also wrong.
All coronaviruses do come from other wild animals to humans. Zoonosis is the main mechanism that is responsible for these viruses being present in humans. The only one which is disputed is SARS-CoV-2 due to it's unusual characteristics and especially the dual action capability of infecting cells which is highly unlikely to be a result of natural processes, i.e binding in the ACE2 receptors when at the same time its main mode of action is another co-receptor dependent phagocyte.


While it is likely that sometime in its genetic history the SARS-CoV-2 virus came from another species via zoonotic transfer, it is not established that it did so recently, at least in the last decade in which it arose - yet another 'missing link' in evolutionary theories.

Since there is no hard objective evidence, all becomes just theory.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus IS different from its ancestor viruses. Surely that is the entire result of mutations. To say it is unnatural because it is different, is silly. Every species is different in some way, from every other.


I think you are still confusing zoonosis with mutations. Mutations happen all the time given the nature of RNA viruses. There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 existed in humans in a benign form. We would have found the virus long time ago if it did exist in humans.


We know that SARS-CoV-2 spreads directly human to human. No animals required.

Zoonosis requires a one-off unobserved event, among billions of observed events where zoonosis clearly didn't happen.

End of story.



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3


The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.


According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.


You are mistaken here.

The most popular idea is that the virus has jumped to humans front animals via zoonosis as it's called.

Perhaps you haven't read at all the literature in regards to the two hypotheses i.e zoonosis and the lab-manufacture and leak


I am aware that everyone is only talking about either a lab or zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, but that is only because they are ignoring the most obvious, likely, and normal natural source, namely that it arose in humans from another, quite benign, human hosted coronavirus.

A virus won't mutate where it's not. It mutates in an environment where there are numerous hosts that are infected.


If you are suggesting that the virus existed already in some benign form then you have to show the virus was already around long before the start of the pandemic.


That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Very similar viruses, SARS and MERS, existed decades beforehand, and well before humans had the genetic engineering nous to modify viral genomics.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that there were benign forms of these specific precursor viruses circulation in human populations for decades.

We have the proof of the existence of those SARS and MERS viruses, of which we have also had outbreaks in the human population, so we know they did once infect us. If they had mutated to a benign form, we wouldn't have noticed that, because it wouldn't create any dangerous or obvious symptoms.

A mild and 'cold like' version of these viruses could go entirely un-remarked and unseen by science, hidden among all the other 'cold' causing viruses.


But that's not true. There are other coronaviruses which are well documented and recorded. One of them has probably caused a similar pandemic called the Russian Flu back in 1889-1890 and I have created a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the links too.


While I agree that there are numerous benign coronaviruses, the Russian flu was not from a coronavirus. It was from the H1N1 strain of influenza - a different virus with no genomic similarity or link to any coronaviruses.


The Russian Flu is a misnomer and it is likely caused by human coronavirus OC43 and not by a strain of the H1N1 influenza virus. You may want to see the links I have in my thread and the discussion.

Clinical evidence that the pandemic from 1889 to 1891 commonly called the Russian flu might have been an earlier coronavirus pandemic

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

OC43 appears to be benign but in the past it has caused as it seems the 1889-1890 pandemic. Now it causes common colds after us and the virus have evolved to live peacefully with each other.


So, despite the orthodoxy of numerous scientists and papers which ascribe the Russian flu to H1N1, you take a single theoretical paper (because we can't genotype a virus from 100 years ago, and we have no samples from then) and assume it is an undisputed fact.

And also, here you claimed that "The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin" and yet that is the entire basis of the paper that you claim establishes supposed 'fact' that the Russian flu was caused by OC43?



But this is precisely how viruses become benign. When they jump from wild animals to humans then humans will most likely have an issue as there is no immunity to them. As time passes humans are well adapted to the virus, such as OC43, which now causes common colds.


It also goes the other way, too.

The flu strains extant in 2017-18 caused five times more deaths than in the 2011-2012 season in the USA. Because sometimes, strains arise with mutations that make them more deadly:

Past Seasons Estimated Influenza Disease Burden - CDC

The insistence that mutation is somehow directed towards reduced virulence is a total nonsense. Mutation is random, it can go either way.

And zoonosis is something different to mutation. I'm not confusing the two.


You have argued the opposite i.e that SARS-CoV-2 existed in some benign form and now has become pathogenic. This is very very unlikely to happen generally speaking and furthermore there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 existed prior to its discovery.


It is not unlikely for a virus to mutate in its host species. We can see it happening in humans with various strains of SARS-CoV-2.

Also, SARS-CoV-2 was not created by its discovery. It MUST have existed prior to that, to be discovered. Your rationale is faulty, there.



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.


The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.


According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.


You are mistaken here.

The most popular idea is that the virus has jumped to humans front animals via zoonosis as it's called.

Perhaps you haven't read at all the literature in regards to the two hypotheses i.e zoonosis and the lab-manufacture and leak


I am aware that everyone is only talking about either a lab or zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, but that is only because they are ignoring the most obvious, likely, and normal natural source, namely that it arose in humans from another, quite benign, human hosted coronavirus.

A virus won't mutate where it's not. It mutates in an environment where there are numerous hosts that are infected.


If you are suggesting that the virus existed already in some benign form then you have to show the virus was already around long before the start of the pandemic.


That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Very similar viruses, SARS and MERS, existed decades beforehand, and well before humans had the genetic engineering nous to modify viral genomics.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that there were benign forms of these specific precursor viruses circulation in human populations for decades.

We have the proof of the existence of those SARS and MERS viruses, of which we have also had outbreaks in the human population, so we know they did once infect us. If they had mutated to a benign form, we wouldn't have noticed that, because it wouldn't create any dangerous or obvious symptoms.

A mild and 'cold like' version of these viruses could go entirely un-remarked and unseen by science, hidden among all the other 'cold' causing viruses.


But that's not true. There are other coronaviruses which are well documented and recorded. One of them has probably caused a similar pandemic called the Russian Flu back in 1889-1890 and I have created a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the links too.


While I agree that there are numerous benign coronaviruses, the Russian flu was not from a coronavirus. It was from the H1N1 strain of influenza - a different virus with no genomic similarity or link to any coronaviruses.


The Russian Flu is a misnomer and it is likely caused by human coronavirus OC43 and not by a strain of the H1N1 influenza virus. You may want to see the links I have in my thread and the discussion.

Clinical evidence that the pandemic from 1889 to 1891 commonly called the Russian flu might have been an earlier coronavirus pandemic

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

OC43 appears to be benign but in the past it has caused as it seems the 1889-1890 pandemic. Now it causes common colds after us and the virus have evolved to live peacefully with each other.


So, despite the orthodoxy of numerous scientists and papers which ascribe the Russian flu to H1N1, you take a single theoretical paper (because we can't genotype a virus from 100 years ago, and we have no samples from then) and assume it is an undisputed fact.

And also, here you claimed that "The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin" and yet that is the entire basis of the paper that you claim establishes supposed 'fact' that the Russian flu was caused by OC43?




Something else I forgot to mention given that the conversation went into mutations. To determine the origin of a zoonotic virus it maybe a difficult task sometimes and it depends on genetic and antigenic similarities of the viruses as well as their genomes.

An example of this OC43 that is genetically and antigenically a very close match to bovine virus BCoV and it has been shown that there was a recent zoonotic transmission event around 1890.
Here is the parer.

journals.asm.org...

It's rather clear that OC43 came from cattle back in the end of the 19th century.

Mutations themselves don't show the origin of the virus. How genetically compatible viruses are, the genetic and antigenic similarities, and the virus genome determine from which animal it has jumped into humans and what the original virus was (if possible). Mutations do happen during zoonosis as the virus has to mutate to adapt to the new environment which is a new host, in this case humans.



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3
The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.



Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.


The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.


Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.



They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses


This is highly disputed in the paper I linked and the other sources exist on this subject for this particular classes of coronaviruses.


No, it is in fact, a theoretical paper. Which is in contradiction to other theoretical papers. None of the science upon which the paper is based is wrong.

Many of those who dispute this paper do so on the basis of their beliefs in particular American political ideas. If you remove that from the consideration, the paper presents completely reasonable and viable theory in science.


I think you are mistaken again here and it is in the papers that (quoting myself after quoting the papers I have linked)


Re-quoting the same papers, means that you have no further answers to the questions raised.

I asked for a valid scientific reason why the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have arisen naturally in human hosts from a benign precursor virus in the same family. Something for which you, and very many others, have not tended a reply.



One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."


The others things you have claimed are also wrong.
All coronaviruses do come from other wild animals to humans. Zoonosis is the main mechanism that is responsible for these viruses being present in humans. The only one which is disputed is SARS-CoV-2 due to it's unusual characteristics and especially the dual action capability of infecting cells which is highly unlikely to be a result of natural processes, i.e binding in the ACE2 receptors when at the same time its main mode of action is another co-receptor dependent phagocyte.


While it is likely that sometime in its genetic history the SARS-CoV-2 virus came from another species via zoonotic transfer, it is not established that it did so recently, at least in the last decade in which it arose - yet another 'missing link' in evolutionary theories.

Since there is no hard objective evidence, all becomes just theory.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus IS different from its ancestor viruses. Surely that is the entire result of mutations. To say it is unnatural because it is different, is silly. Every species is different in some way, from every other.


I think you are still confusing zoonosis with mutations. Mutations happen all the time given the nature of RNA viruses. There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 existed in humans in a benign form. We would have found the virus long time ago if it did exist in humans.


We know that SARS-CoV-2 spreads directly human to human. No animals required.

Zoonosis requires a one-off unobserved event, among billions of observed events where zoonosis clearly didn't happen.

End of story.


It doesn't need an animal reservoir now.
It did need one before though. This is how zoonosis works. No, you are trying without any evidence to support a scenario for which there is no scientific paper written or discussion made.



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3
The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.



Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.


The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.


Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.



They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses


This is highly disputed in the paper I linked and the other sources exist on this subject for this particular classes of coronaviruses.


No, it is in fact, a theoretical paper. Which is in contradiction to other theoretical papers. None of the science upon which the paper is based is wrong.

Many of those who dispute this paper do so on the basis of their beliefs in particular American political ideas. If you remove that from the consideration, the paper presents completely reasonable and viable theory in science.


I think you are mistaken again here and it is in the papers that (quoting myself after quoting the papers I have linked)


Re-quoting the same papers, means that you have no further answers to the questions raised.

I asked for a valid scientific reason why the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have arisen naturally in human hosts from a benign precursor virus in the same family. Something for which you, and very many others, have not tended a reply.



One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."


The others things you have claimed are also wrong.
All coronaviruses do come from other wild animals to humans. Zoonosis is the main mechanism that is responsible for these viruses being present in humans. The only one which is disputed is SARS-CoV-2 due to it's unusual characteristics and especially the dual action capability of infecting cells which is highly unlikely to be a result of natural processes, i.e binding in the ACE2 receptors when at the same time its main mode of action is another co-receptor dependent phagocyte.


While it is likely that sometime in its genetic history the SARS-CoV-2 virus came from another species via zoonotic transfer, it is not established that it did so recently, at least in the last decade in which it arose - yet another 'missing link' in evolutionary theories.

Since there is no hard objective evidence, all becomes just theory.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus IS different from its ancestor viruses. Surely that is the entire result of mutations. To say it is unnatural because it is different, is silly. Every species is different in some way, from every other.


I think you are still confusing zoonosis with mutations. Mutations happen all the time given the nature of RNA viruses. There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 existed in humans in a benign form. We would have found the virus long time ago if it did exist in humans.


We know that SARS-CoV-2 spreads directly human to human. No animals required.

Zoonosis requires a one-off unobserved event, among billions of observed events where zoonosis clearly didn't happen.

End of story.


If the virus already exist in humans then mutations are very common especially with RNA viruses. However in this case there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 existed prior in a benign form.

Can you find a paper or article that supports this idea?



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3
The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.



Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.


The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.


Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.



They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses


This is highly disputed in the paper I linked and the other sources exist on this subject for this particular classes of coronaviruses.


No, it is in fact, a theoretical paper. Which is in contradiction to other theoretical papers. None of the science upon which the paper is based is wrong.

Many of those who dispute this paper do so on the basis of their beliefs in particular American political ideas. If you remove that from the consideration, the paper presents completely reasonable and viable theory in science.


I think you are mistaken again here and it is in the papers that (quoting myself after quoting the papers I have linked)


Re-quoting the same papers, means that you have no further answers to the questions raised.

I asked for a valid scientific reason why the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have arisen naturally in human hosts from a benign precursor virus in the same family. Something for which you, and very many others, have not tended a reply.



One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."


The others things you have claimed are also wrong.
All coronaviruses do come from other wild animals to humans. Zoonosis is the main mechanism that is responsible for these viruses being present in humans. The only one which is disputed is SARS-CoV-2 due to it's unusual characteristics and especially the dual action capability of infecting cells which is highly unlikely to be a result of natural processes, i.e binding in the ACE2 receptors when at the same time its main mode of action is another co-receptor dependent phagocyte.


While it is likely that sometime in its genetic history the SARS-CoV-2 virus came from another species via zoonotic transfer, it is not established that it did so recently, at least in the last decade in which it arose - yet another 'missing link' in evolutionary theories.

Since there is no hard objective evidence, all becomes just theory.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus IS different from its ancestor viruses. Surely that is the entire result of mutations. To say it is unnatural because it is different, is silly. Every species is different in some way, from every other.


I think you are still confusing zoonosis with mutations. Mutations happen all the time given the nature of RNA viruses. There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 existed in humans in a benign form. We would have found the virus long time ago if it did exist in humans.


We know that SARS-CoV-2 spreads directly human to human. No animals required.

Zoonosis requires a one-off unobserved event, among billions of observed events where zoonosis clearly didn't happen.

End of story.


After either coming from animals to humans via zoonosis or being manipulated in the lab.



posted on Oct, 15 2022 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3
The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.



Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.


The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.


Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.



They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses


This is highly disputed in the paper I linked and the other sources exist on this subject for this particular classes of coronaviruses.


No, it is in fact, a theoretical paper. Which is in contradiction to other theoretical papers. None of the science upon which the paper is based is wrong.

Many of those who dispute this paper do so on the basis of their beliefs in particular American political ideas. If you remove that from the consideration, the paper presents completely reasonable and viable theory in science.


I think you are mistaken again here and it is in the papers that (quoting myself after quoting the papers I have linked)


Re-quoting the same papers, means that you have no further answers to the questions raised.

I asked for a valid scientific reason why the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have arisen naturally in human hosts from a benign precursor virus in the same family. Something for which you, and very many others, have not tended a reply.



One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."


The others things you have claimed are also wrong.
All coronaviruses do come from other wild animals to humans. Zoonosis is the main mechanism that is responsible for these viruses being present in humans. The only one which is disputed is SARS-CoV-2 due to it's unusual characteristics and especially the dual action capability of infecting cells which is highly unlikely to be a result of natural processes, i.e binding in the ACE2 receptors when at the same time its main mode of action is another co-receptor dependent phagocyte.


While it is likely that sometime in its genetic history the SARS-CoV-2 virus came from another species via zoonotic transfer, it is not established that it did so recently, at least in the last decade in which it arose - yet another 'missing link' in evolutionary theories.

Since there is no hard objective evidence, all becomes just theory.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus IS different from its ancestor viruses. Surely that is the entire result of mutations. To say it is unnatural because it is different, is silly. Every species is different in some way, from every other.


I think you are still confusing zoonosis with mutations. Mutations happen all the time given the nature of RNA viruses. There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 existed in humans in a benign form. We would have found the virus long time ago if it did exist in humans.


We know that SARS-CoV-2 spreads directly human to human. No animals required.

Zoonosis requires a one-off unobserved event, among billions of observed events where zoonosis clearly didn't happen.

End of story.


So to help the conversation you have made a hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 existed prior to the start of the pandemic in December 2019 (others out it a little earlier). Therefore it existed in a benign form for some period of time according to you and this could have been several months or even years.

But is there any evidence other than your personal view in this matter that SARS-CoV-2 existed in a benign form prior to the pandemic?
Any article? Scientific research publication? Doesn't matter whether it is peer reviewed or a pre-print. Any other information?

Because on the other hand there are several publications and articles examining zoonosis which is still considered by many as the way the novel virus appeared. However there is a growing number of scientists that support the lab-leak hypothesis and have published some information.



posted on Oct, 15 2022 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3
The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.



Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.


The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.


Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.



They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses


This is highly disputed in the paper I linked and the other sources exist on this subject for this particular classes of coronaviruses.


No, it is in fact, a theoretical paper. Which is in contradiction to other theoretical papers. None of the science upon which the paper is based is wrong.

Many of those who dispute this paper do so on the basis of their beliefs in particular American political ideas. If you remove that from the consideration, the paper presents completely reasonable and viable theory in science.


I think you are mistaken again here and it is in the papers that (quoting myself after quoting the papers I have linked)


Re-quoting the same papers, means that you have no further answers to the questions raised.

I asked for a valid scientific reason why the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have arisen naturally in human hosts from a benign precursor virus in the same family. Something for which you, and very many others, have not tended a reply.



One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."


The others things you have claimed are also wrong.
All coronaviruses do come from other wild animals to humans. Zoonosis is the main mechanism that is responsible for these viruses being present in humans. The only one which is disputed is SARS-CoV-2 due to it's unusual characteristics and especially the dual action capability of infecting cells which is highly unlikely to be a result of natural processes, i.e binding in the ACE2 receptors when at the same time its main mode of action is another co-receptor dependent phagocyte.


While it is likely that sometime in its genetic history the SARS-CoV-2 virus came from another species via zoonotic transfer, it is not established that it did so recently, at least in the last decade in which it arose - yet another 'missing link' in evolutionary theories.

Since there is no hard objective evidence, all becomes just theory.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus IS different from its ancestor viruses. Surely that is the entire result of mutations. To say it is unnatural because it is different, is silly. Every species is different in some way, from every other.


I think you are still confusing zoonosis with mutations. Mutations happen all the time given the nature of RNA viruses. There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 existed in humans in a benign form. We would have found the virus long time ago if it did exist in humans.


We know that SARS-CoV-2 spreads directly human to human. No animals required.

Zoonosis requires a one-off unobserved event, among billions of observed events where zoonosis clearly didn't happen.

End of story.


It doesn't need an animal reservoir now.


Why? For what scientific reason?


It did need one before though.

Why? For what scientific reason?


This is how zoonosis works. No, you are trying without any evidence to support a scenario for which there is no scientific paper written or discussion made.


Really? What about his paper, which does suggest the possibility that the virus mutated is human ACE-2 affinity and furin bonds (very human species specific attributes), in human hosts, prior to becoming noticeably virulent?

The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2



posted on Oct, 15 2022 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Answering one by one the questions.
For some reason I can't reply to your text directly. It has happened before.

You have made a series of arguments. One in relation to mutations. To determine the origin of a given virus one must know which viruses are genetically compatible. Genetic similarities and antigenic similarities as well as the virus genome are what determine potential candidates.

A good example and model for coronavirus zoonosis is OC43 which is genetically very similar to bovine virus BCoV. The jump was very likely made in around 1889 from cattle and this coincides with that Russian 'Flu' Pandemic. There is actually clinical data that I have linked above

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...



And here from the journal of virology.

journals.asm.org...


And here

ec.europa.eu...


It explains well how coronaviruses jump from humans to animals. Note that natural selection after zoonosis isn't considered and no evidence exists that natural selection after zoonosis occured in both cases of OC43 and SARS-CoV-2. If zoonosis has happened and it hasn't been a result of a gain of function research.
edit on 15-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2022 @ 10:26 AM
link   
What do you mean by 'for what scientific reason'??
There has to be an animal reservoir of virus for zoonosis to occur.

Once the virus has adapted well in the new host and once we are able to pass it to other humans and human to human transmission is possible then animal reservoirs are not anymore needed.



posted on Oct, 15 2022 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The paper you have linked here discusses zoonosis again.

www.nature.com...

In particular natural selection before zoonosis (which is the most likely scenario) If zoonosis has occured and the virus isn't a gain of function research consequence.

I have probably linked the same paper somewhere else as I remember its title. I didn't see the discussion on the natural selection after zoonosis has occured. Apart from this I haven't seen anything else on the topic and certainly no evidence that the virus existed undetected for a considerable amount of time, being benign, before becoming pathogenic. This is very unlikely and no evidence is there.

The way viruses act when introduced in a new population which hasn't adapted well to them is pretty much known, and especially with coronaviruses that are known to be pathogenic regardless of their very small infection fatality rate.
It's when they are introduced they are the most pathogenic and not after. Examples are all the known endemic coronaviruses, including OC43 which now causes a cold.

It's very very unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 existed prior to its discovery. There isn't any evidence for it.

The authors also make a bold statement that the lab leak is improbable. However more and more scientists are entertaining the idea of the lab leak which they find...probable! Example is the OP paper but there are others too which I want to use when making another thread.



posted on Oct, 15 2022 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The lead author of that paper is Kristian G. Andersen.

Kristian G Andersen

"Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Andersen and other scientists consulted the NIH and NIAID about the possibility of a lab leak.[2][3][4] Andersen was the lead author of the scientific paper The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,[5] published in Nature Medicine in March 2020, which concluded that "SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus".The authors were criticized for failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest."

Anderson works for Scripps Research:

Scripps Research

"Grants and contracts provide funding for a significant portion of the institute's research. This revenue is derived primarily from the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies. In addition, grantors include, among others, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and the Juvenile Diabetes Association.

Gifts from individuals and private foundations provide an important source of funding for Scripps Research. Private foundations that have provided support include the ALSAM Foundation, Lucille P. Markey Charitable Trust, W.M. Keck Foundation, Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Ellison Medical Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Harold L. Dorris Foundation.

The establishment of the Scripps Florida campus was made possible by a one-time $310 million appropriation of federal economic development funds and by the Florida State Legislature and by an economic package provided by Palm Beach County.[40]"

Imagine my surprise as i research the authors and find the same old fingerprints all over the funding of their research.

The same guy who was caught in the Fauci emails exclaiming the virus "looks engineered".


edit on 15/10/22 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join