#zc45

[kramlabs]

Ordered both

[didanawisgi]

Abstract

SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of the large SARS outbreak in 2003, originated in bats. Many SARS-like coronaviruses (SL-CoVs) have been detected in bats, particularly those that reside in China, Europe, and Africa. To further understand the evolutionary relationship between SARS-CoV and its reservoirs, 334 bats were collected from Zhoushan city, Zhejiang province, China, between 2015 and 2017. PCR amplification of the conserved coronaviral protein RdRp detected coronaviruses in 26.65% of bats belonging to this region, and this number was influenced by seasonal changes. Full genomic analyses of the two new SL-CoVs from Zhoushan (ZXC21 and ZC45) showed that their genomes were 29,732 nucleotides (nt) and 29,802 nt in length, respectively, with 13 open reading frames (ORFs). These results revealed 81% shared nucleotide identity with human/civet SARS CoVs, which was more distant than that observed previously for bat SL-CoVs in China. Importantly, using pathogenic tests, we found that the virus can reproduce and cause disease in suckling rats, and further studies showed that the virus-like particles can be observed in the brains of suckling rats by electron microscopy. Thus, this study increased our understanding of the genetic diversity of the SL-CoVs carried by bats and also provided a new perspective to study the possibility of cross-species transmission of SL-CoVs using suckling rats as an animal model.

Emerg Microbes Infect. 2018; 7: 154. Published online 2018 Sep 12. doi: 10.1038/s41426-018-0155-5

[xf-2]

論文は消え、研究者は消息を絶った

新型コロナウイルスの「出所」について、議論が渦巻いている。「中国の生物兵器だ」などとする説がネット上ではまことしやかに流れる一方、中国政府は「米軍が中国へ持ち込んだのだ」と主張。さらに、そうした「新型コロナウイルスは人為的に生まれた」という論調を「陰謀説だ」として否定する向きもあり、世界中で感染が本格的に拡大する中、錯綜している状況だ。

こうした最中、日本ではほとんど伝えられていないが、中国の研究者が書いた「消された論文」が海外メディアなどで話題となっている。そこには、中国に存在する「2つの研究所」が発生源として明記されていた――。

この衝撃的な論文を発表したのは、広東省広州市にある華南理工大学・生物科学与工程学院（School of biology and Biological Engineering）の肖波濤（Botao Xiao、シャオ・ボタオ）教授ら、生物学に通じる研究者。2020年2月6日、新型コロナウイルスの発生源について研究者向けサイト「ResearchGate」に投稿したのである。

この論文はその後、ほどなくして削除された。そして、肖教授らも消息を絶ってしまった。中国政府の情報操作や工作活動に通じる外事関係者が語る。

「論文には、遺伝子レベルで新しいウイルスが開発されていたことを示唆する記述などがあった。中国政府にとっては、とうてい看過できないものだ。場合によっては、国民の暴動などにつながりかねないし、国際的な非難も相当なものになるとみたからだ。論文の削除には中国政府がかかわっている可能性もある。肖教授らも、身柄を拘束されたとみられている」

中国政府は論文を抹消するばかりか、研究者らの口をも封じる強硬策に出たとみられる、というのだ。それほどまでして隠滅しようとした論文には、いったい何が書かれていたのか。

今回、「消された論文」である「The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus」（新型コロナウイルスの考えうる発生源）の原文を入手した。以下、日本語訳した全文を掲載しよう（読みやすいよう一部に改行を加え、図表や参考文献を示す番号は省略している。太字、見出しは編集部による）。

「コウモリは売られていなかった」

〈新型コロナウイルスが中国で伝染病を発生させた。2020年2月6日までに564人の死者を含め、2万8060人が感染したことが検査で確認されている。今週の（学術誌）ネイチャーの解説によると、患者から検出されたゲノム配列の96％あるいは89％が中型コウモリ由来のZC45型コロナウイルスと一致したという。研究では、病原体はどこから来たのか、そして、それがどのようにしてヒトに伝染したのかを究明することが重要視された。

（世界的な医学誌）「ランセット」の記事では、武漢の41人の人々が重症急性呼吸器症候群に罹っており、そのうち27人が華南海鮮市場を訪れていたと報じられている。伝染病発生後に市場で採集された585のサンプルのうち33から新型コロナウイルスが検出され、伝染病の発生源ではないかとみられた市場は、伝染病が流行している間、発生源隔離の規則に従って閉鎖された。

ZC45型コロナウイルスを運ぶコウモリは、雲南省または浙江省で発見されたが、どちらも海鮮市場から900km以上離れている。（そもそも）コウモリは通常、洞窟や森に生息しているものだ。だが、海鮮市場は人口1500万人の大都市である武漢の住宅密集地区にある。コウモリが市場まで飛んでくる可能性も非常に低い。

自治体の報告と31人の住民および28人の訪問者の証言によると、コウモリは食料源だったことはなく、市場で取引されてもいなかった。コロナウイルスの遺伝子が自然に組み換えされたか、あるいは中間で介在した宿主があった可能性があるが、確たることはこれまでほとんど報告されていない。

他に考えられる感染経路はあるのだろうか?　私たちは海鮮市場の周辺をスクリーニングした結果、コウモリコロナウイルスの研究を行っている2つの研究所を特定した。市場から280メートル以内に、武漢疾病管理予防センター（WHCDC）があった。

「血が皮膚についた」

WHCDCは研究の目的で所内に数々の動物を飼育していたが、そのうちの1つは病原体の収集と識別に特化したものであった。ある研究では、湖北省で中型コウモリを含む155匹のコウモリが捕獲され、また他の450匹のコウモリは浙江省で捕獲されていたこともわかった。ある収集の専門家が、論文の貢献度表記の中でそう記している。

さらにこの専門家が収集していたのがウイルスであったことが、2017年と2019年に全国的な新聞やウェブサイトで報じられている。そのなかでこの専門家は、かつてコウモリに襲われ、コウモリの血が皮膚についたと述べていた。感染の危険性が著しく高いことを知っていた専門家は、自ら14日間の隔離措置を取った。コウモリの尿を被った別の事故の際にも同じように隔離措置を講じたという。ダニが寄生しているコウモリの捕獲で脅威にさらされたことがかつてあった、とも述べていた。

（こうして）捕獲された動物には手術が施され、組織サンプルがDNAおよびRNAの抽出とシーケンシング（塩基配列の解明）のために採取されたという。組織サンプルと汚染された廃棄物が病原体の供給源だった。これらは、海鮮市場からわずか280メートルほどのところに存在したのである。

またWHCDCは、今回の伝染病流行の期間中、最初に感染した医者グループが勤務するユニオン病院に隣接してもいた。確かなことは今後の研究を待つ必要があるが、ウイルスが研究所の周辺に漏れ、初期の患者を汚染したとしてもおかしくない。

もうひとつの研究所は、海鮮市場から約12km離れたところにある中国科学院・武漢ウイルス研究所だ。この研究所は、中国のキクガシラコウモリが2002年から2003年にかけて流行した重症急性呼吸器症候群（SARSコロナウイルス）の発生源であるとの報告を行っている。

SARSコロナウイルスの逆遺伝学システムを用いてキメラウイルス（異なる遺伝子情報を同一個体内に混在させたウイルス）を発生させるプロジェクトに参加した主任研究者は、ヒトに伝染する可能性について報告している。憶測ではあるが、はっきりと言えば、SARSコロナウイルスまたはその派生物が研究所から漏れたかもしれないということだ。

要するに、誰かが新型コロナウイルスの変異と関係していたのである。武漢にある研究所は、自然発生的な遺伝子組み換えや中間宿主の発生源であっただけでなく、おそらく、猛威を振るうコロナウイルスの発生源でもあったのだ。バイオハザード（生物災害）の危険性の高い研究所においては、安全レベルを強化する必要があるだろう。これらの研究所を市内中心部やそのほかの住宅密集地域から遠く離れた場所に移転するような規制が必要ではなかろうか〉

習近平は「出所を解明せよ」と言うが…

中国外務省の耿爽報道官は2月20日、この論文が示唆した内容――すなわち「研究機関が発生源であった」とする説について「世界の著名な専門家たちは全く科学的根拠がないと認識している」と明確に否定するコメントを出した。

耿爽報道官（Photo by gettyimages）

そして3月に入ると、中国外務省の趙立堅副報道局長が「米軍が武漢にウイルスを持ち込んだ可能性がある」と英語と中国語でツイッターに投稿。その後、新型コロナウイルスの発生源が米軍の研究施設だと推測する記事を紹介するなどもしている。

さらに、これを後押しするかのような論文を習近平国家主席が自ら、中国共産党が発行する理論誌「求是」に発表。3月16日に発行された同誌上で、「（新型コロナウイルスの）病原がどこから来て、どこに向かったのか明らかにしなければいけない」と訴えた。

しかし当然ながら、その「どこから来たのか」をいち早く指摘した肖氏らの論文には一切、触れなかった。論文は消え、研究者も消え――中国政府にとってなんとも都合のいい話だが、「嘘も重ねれば真実になる」を地で行く態度には、呆れるほかない。

＊　＊　＊

（以下、肖氏らの論文の原文を転載する）

〈The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus〉 (Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao)

The 2019-nCoV coronavirus has caused an epidemic of 28,060 laboratory-confirmed infections in human including 564 deaths in China by February 6, 2020. Two descriptions of the virus published on Nature this week indicated that the genome sequences from patients were 96% or 89% identical to the Bat CoV ZC45 coronavirus originally found in Rhinolophus affinis. It was critical to study where the pathogen came from and how it passed onto human.

An article published on The Lancet reported that 41 people in Wuhan were found to have the acute respiratory syndrome and 27 of them had contact with Huanan Seafood Market. The 2019-nCoV was found in 33 out of 585 samples collected in the market after the outbreak. The market was suspicious to be the origin of the epidemic, and was shut down according to the rule of quarantine the source during an epidemic.

The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which were more than 900 kilometers away from the seafood market. Bats were normally found to live in caves and trees. But the seafood market is in a densely-populated district of Wuhan, a metropolitan of ~15 million people. The probability was very low for the bats to fly to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market. There was possible natural recombination or intermediate host of the coronavirus, yet little proof has been reported. Was there any other possible pathway? We screened the area around the seafood market and identified two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus. Within ~280 meters from the market, there was the Wuhan Center for Disease Control Prevention (WHCDC). WHCDC hosted animals in laboratories for research purpose, one of which was specialized in pathogens collection and identification. In one of their studies, 155 bats including Rhinolophus affinis were captured in Hubei province, and other 450 bats were captured in Zhejiang province. The expert in collection was noted in the Author Contributions. Moreover, he was broadcasted for collecting viruses on nation-wide newspapers and websites in 2017 and 2019. He described that he was once by attacked by bats and the blood of a bat shot on his skin. He knew the extreme danger of the infection so he quarantined himself for 14 days. In another accident, he quarantined himself again because bats peed on him. He was once thrilled for capturing a bat carrying a live tick.

Surgery was performed on the caged animals and the tissue samples were collected for DNA and RNA extraction and sequencing. The tissue samples and contaminated trashes were source of pathogens. They were only ~280 meters from the seafood market. The WHCDC was also adjacent to the Union Hospital where the first group of doctors were infected during this epidemic. It is plausible that the virus leaked around and some of them contaminated the initial patients in this epidemic, though solid proofs are needed in future study. The second laboratory was ~12 kilometers from the seafood market and belonged to Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. This laboratory reported that the Chinese horseshoe bats were natural reservoirs for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) which caused the 2002-3 pandemic. The principle investigator participated in a project which generated a chimeric virus using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, and reported the potential for human emergence. A direct speculation was that SARS-CoV or its derivative might leak from the laboratory. In summary, somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-nCoV coronavirus. In addition to origins of natural recombination and intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan. Safety level may need to be reinforced in high risk biohazardous laboratories. Regulations may be taken to relocate these laboratories far away from city center and other densely populated places.

[dickshardblog]

Coronaspiracy! Origin Story

This one is probably going to disappoint everyone.

If you're hoping I'll say that I believe Barack Obama and Anthony Fauci created COVID-19 as a bio-weapon in the Wuhan lab in coordination with Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation and released it upon the world on purpose, you're going to be disappointed.

If you're hoping I'll say that I believe this virus naturally evolved in bats, possibly jumped to another animal, a pangolin, perhaps,  before jumping to humans and was initially spread at the Wuhan wet market, you're going to be disappointed.

The first claim is ludicrous, and the second simply has no proof. It's a best guess, and nothing more.  It is based on the fact that viruses have spread that way before, and by applying Occam's Razor, so say a lot of scientists. But when all the facts are laid out, that's not necessarily the most likely scenario.

If you're hoping I'll say, "Check out this film, 'Plandemic!' It will open your eyes and help you see the truth!" You're going to be disappointed. That film is a propaganda piece designed to look like journalism featuring a discredited, disgruntled former bottom-of-the-food-chain subordinate of Dr. Anthony Fauci. She faked some research, and when she was caught, she stole all of the records of her crime from the lab she worked in. That's why she went to jail. She claims she was held without charges. There were charges. You can find this easily with a simple Google search.

Okay, so, let's look at the bare facts:

The Wuhan Center For Disease Control and Prevention is less than 300 yards from the Chinese wet market commonly blamed for the initial outbreak of the disease we now call COVID-19. It is adjacent to the Union Hospital, the site where the first group of doctors got infected.

The — ahem — "conspiracy theory" that the virus came from this lab originated in a paper from the South China University of Technology. This paper, written by scholars Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao, alleges that the WHCDC kept disease-ridden animals in laboratories, including 605 bats.

The Chinese government buried this report, but it was seen by some people before it was buried, so we know what's in it. We know that the principal investigator was involved in a project generating a chimeric virus using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system and reporting the potentiality for human spread. It was noted there was concern at the time that it might escape.

We know that genome sequences from the first patients were either 96% or 89% identical to the bat CoV ZC45 they were working with in the lab.

We know that the only native bats are found roughly 600 miles away from the Wuhan wet market, and that the probability of bats flying that far is minimal, at best.

We know that one of the researchers  described quarantining himself for two weeks after coming into direct contact with bat blood. And we know that same man also quarantined himself after a bat pissed on him.

We know that the United States Government was knowingly funding gain of function research on bat corona viruses in that lab in the past. We know that the Obama administration prohibited funding of that type of research in 2014, correctly recognizing it as risky, reckless, and unnecessary, no matter the intentions.

Gain of function research, if you don't know, as I didn't before I began my own research into this, is experimentation on viruses to try to encourage them to develop abilities they don't currently have. Abilities such as jumping species, or becoming more deadly. This type of research could be used to create a bio-weapon, sure. But in this case the research was officially to keep tabs on the bat corona viruses, find out what would cause them to do that, and make sure we're prepared in that eventuality, to get a head start on the thing.

To be clear, the United States Government ceased funding for that project, but funds did continue to flow into that laboratory for other research.  That in no way means that the lab ceased gain of function research. It only means the US stopped providing funding for it.

We know that in 2018, the US Embassy in Beijing warned of safety concerns in the high-containment laboratory.

I've read a couple papers from virologists explaining why they think the virus developed naturally, and I've read a paper claiming that the virus is man-made. The evidence that the virus is man-made is a strange, out of place furin cleavage site in the RNA sequence. This can occur when the virus is intentionally cut and a new sequence is inserted. The paper asserting that the virus was created in a lab point to this as evidence. The papers claiming it is natural point to the fact that this can occur naturally, and has occurred naturally in several ancestors of the current virus. But it does not appear in any near relatives.  So it is curious, but it's not proof.  

The proponents of the virus being natural initially claimed that the new sequence came from a pangolin. They later realized an error, it doesn't match a pangolin after all, and they have not identified what animal it could have come from.  To be honest, I followed the information as best as I could, but most of this is pretty far over my head.  So let me give them the benefit of the doubt and say there is no evidence that this was created in that lab — but there's also no evidence it wasn't.

What bothers me the most is that top epidemiologists are very emphatic that it didn't come from the lab. That, in itself, is suspicious to me. Scientists generally approach things from a position of neutrality and gather evidence. The assertion that it absolutely definitely did not come from the lab when there is literally no proof either way that they can produce to back up that claim sets off alarm bells for me.  

To be clear, I don't think this was created on purpose as a bio-weapon. Nobody would use a Coronavirus for that. They'd be working with Ebola or something equally terrifying. I'm not convinced for sure that this wasn't created for research and accidentally leaked. But let's assume it wasn't. Let's assume it's natural. Doesn’t it still make more sense that it naturally evolved from a bat to a human from an accident in that lab, and not from 600 miles away in the bats' natural habitat?

These are the top people in the field, these scientists. It's a small group of people. Lying about the origin won't change the outcome, it won't hurt more people, it won't prolong finding a vaccine or a treatment. But it will cover their asses, absolve them and their respected colleagues from blame. I saw one respected epidemiologist insisting that no matching virus existed in that lab. How would he know that? The lab is in China, the country with, arguably, the most secretive government in the world. We don't honestly know, except for the people who do.

When I look at all of this information, Occam's Razor tells me the virus probably came out of this lab. And unless or until they can produce proof that it came from elsewhere, that's what I'm going to continue to believe, because it is absolutely the most likely scenario.

The fact that Trump also believes the virus came from a lab is unfortunate. Trump, as almost everyone knows, is a pathological liar. But Trump is also a brainless human-parrot who will repeat anything he hears that suits his narrative. So, you can't discount something just because he says it. Sometimes he parrots smart people. His opinion is irrelevant when it comes to whether something is true or false.

[jdadam]

An Unusual Defector informs world more fully of COVID Deception

An Unusual Defector informs world more fully of COVID Deception

Li-Meng Yan, M.D., Ph.D., escaped from China to the United States to expose China’s cover-up of the origin of the COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 was made in a Chinese military lab. The Third Military Medical University and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command discovered a bat coronavirus called ZC45. She’s convinced that ZC45 was used as a template and/or backbone to create…

[kramlabs]

[didanawisgi]

Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route

Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang

“The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 910,000 deaths worldwide and unprecedented decimation of the global economy. Despite its tremendous impact, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has remained mysterious and controversial. The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus. In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months. Our work emphasizes the need for an independent investigation into the relevant research laboratories. It also argues for a critical look into certain recently published data, which, albeit problematic, was used to support and claim a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. From a public health perspective, these actions are necessary as knowledge of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and of how the virus entered the human population are of pivotal importance in the fundamental control of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as in preventing similar, future pandemics.”

[future2020]

CCP virus from Lab.

[xf-2]

中国の学者、中国南部のシーフード市場から300メートル以内：武漢疾病管理センターからの漏れが疑われる新しいクラウンウイルス

香港メディアの報道によると、中国の学者は、中国南部のシーフード市場に加えて、シーフード市場から300メートル以内にある武漢市疾病予防予防センター（WHCDC）も感染している疑いがあると報告している。方法の1つ。報告書はまた、研究室がコロナウイルスを研究するためにコウモリを捕獲し、研究者がコウモリの血液と尿で汚染され、14日間隔離されたと述べた。しかし、論文は科学論文共有ウェブサイトから削除されており、現在、学者に連絡することは不可能です。

「Hong Kong 01」は、南中国工科大学の教授であるXiao Botaoが最近、「New CoronavirusのSource Possibilities（2019-nCoV）」というタイトルのレポートを発行したと報告しました。一部のコロナウイルス（CoV ZC45）は類似していますが、CoV ZC45を保有するコウモリは、中国南部のシーフードマーケットから900キロメートル以上離れた雲南省とZ江省で初めて発見されました。さらに、コウモリは通常野生に生息し、コウモリが飛ぶ可能性があります非常に低いので、「武漢の2つの研究所、武漢ウイルス学研究所、中国科学院、武漢市疾病管理予防センター（WHCDC）も、ウイルスを感染させる他の方法と見なされています。

報告書はまた、WHCDCの研究を担当した研究者が2017年と2019年にコウモリに襲われたという以前の報告を引用しました。コウモリの血も彼の皮膚に飛び散ったため、14日間隔離され、コウモリによる排尿もありました分離する必要があります。

報告書は、WHCDCがこれらの動物からDNAとRNAを抽出し、手術によるシーケンスを行うことを指摘している。関連するサンプルと汚染されたごみは病原体である。最初の医師は新しいコロナウイルスを診断したため、学者はウイルスが周囲に漏れて元の患者に感染する可能性があると考えています。

しかし、報告書は、この報告書は権威ある学術雑誌ではなく、科学論文共有ウェブサイトでのみ公開されており、その論文はもはや利用できないことを指摘しました。アウトブレイクが武漢の別の研究所、武漢ウイルス学研究所、中国科学院に関連していると疑った一部の人々に関しては、当局は繰り返しそれを否定しました。

南中国工科大学教授、シャオ・ボタオの全文

Originsof2019-NCoV XiaoB Res by ScribdのZerohedge

[norbertgeorgi13]

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 910,000 deaths worldwide and unprecedented decimation of the global economy. Despite its tremendous impact, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has remained mysterious and controversial. The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus. In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months. Our work emphasizes the need for an independent investigation into the relevant research laboratories. It also argues for a critical look into certain recently published data, which, albeit problematic, was used to support and claim a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. From a public health perspective, these actions are necessary as knowledge of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and of how the%2...

[libreinfo]

Un virologue chinois «voyou» rejoint Twitter et publie des preuves que le COVID-19 a été créé en laboratoire

    Samedi, nous avons signalé que Dr Li-Meng Yan - une virologue chinoise (MD, PhD) qui a fui le pays, quittant son emploi dans une prestigieuse université de Hong Kong - est apparue la semaine dernière à la télévision britannique où elle a affirmé que le SARS-CoV-2, le virus qui cause le COVID-19, a été créé par Des scientifiques chinois dans un laboratoire. Dimanche, Li-Meng a rejoint Twitter - et lundi, il y a quelques heures à peine, elle a tweeté un lien vers un article qu'elle a co-écrit avec trois autres scientifiques chinois intitulé: Caractéristiques inhabituelles du génome du SRAS-CoV-2 suggérant une modification de laboratoire sophistiquée plutôt qu'une évolution naturelle et une délimitation de sa route synthétique probable https://t.co/g9uPdcRIew - Dr Li-Meng YAN (@ LiMengYAN119) 14 septembre 2020 Elle a également publié un lien vers ses informations d'identification sur ResearchGate, révélant son affiliation (antérieure?) À l'Université de Hong Kong et 13 publications qui ont été citées 557 fois. https://t.co/u6SbFcR3IS - Dr Li-Meng YAN (@ LiMengYAN119) 14 septembre 2020 Aller droit au but: «Les preuves montrent que Le SARS-CoV-2 doit être un produit de laboratoire créé en utilisant les coronavirus de chauve-souris ZC45 et / ou ZXC21 comme modèle et / ou squelette. Read the full article

[bagibagiinfo]

Li-Meng Yan Beri Bukti Virus Corona Dari Lab Wuhan Dan China Berusaha Tutupi Identitas Aslinya

 Ahli virologi dari Sekolah Kesehatan Masyarakat Hong Kong, Li-Meng Yan mengungkap bukti asal usul virus corona baru atau SARS-CoV-2 yang ia klaim buatan manusia di laboratorium Wuhan, China.

Melalui laporannya yang bertajuk "Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route", Li-Meng Yan mengungkap, meski teori virus corona berasal dari alam, namun tidak memiliki dukungan substansial.

"Meskipun demikian, SARS-CoV-2 menunjukkan karakteristik biologis yang tidak sejalan dengan virus zoonosis yang terjadi secara alami," tulisnya dalam abstrak laporan yang ternyata dirilis pada platform digital Zenodo.

Tidak sendiri, Li-Meng Yan menulis laporan tersebut bersama dengan Shu Kang, Jie Guan, dan Shanchang Hu.

"Dalam laporan ini, kami menjelaskan bukti genomik, struktural, medis, dan literatur, yang bila dipertimbangkan bersama-sama, sangat bertentangan dengan teori asal-usul alam," urai mereka.

"Bukti menunjukkan bahwa SARS-CoV-2 seharusnya merupakan produk laboratorium yang dibuat dengan menggunakan kelelawar coronavirus ZC45 dan/atau ZXC21 sebagai template dan/atau tulang punggung," lanjut para ilmuwan tersebut.

Berdasarkan bukti rute sintesis SARS-CoV-2, Li-Meng Yan mengatakan, pembuatan virus itu dalam laboratorium dapat mudah dilakukan dalam waktu sekitar enam bulan.

Di dalam penelitiannya, Li-Meng Yan dan teman-temannya menemukan berbagai fakta. Pertama, elemen paling penting dalam pembuatan virus corona adalah ZC45/ZXC21 yang dimiliki oleh laboratorium penelitian militer.

"Urutan genom SARS-CoV-2 kemungkinan telah mengalami rekayasa genertika, di mana virus memperoleh kemampuan untuk menargetkan manusia dengan peningkatan virulensi dan infektivitas," lanjutnya.

Mereka menyebut, karakteristik dan efek patogenik dari SARS-CoV-2 belum pernah ditemukan sebelumnya. Pasalnya virus tersebut sangat mudah menular, tersembunyi di awal, menargetkan multi-organ, gejala tidak jelas, mematikan, dan terkait dengan berbagai komplikasi.

"Dilihat dari bukti yang kami dan orang lain telah temukan, kami percaya bajwa menemukan asal mula SARS-CoV-2 harus melibatkan audit independen dari laboratorium Institut Virologi Wuhan P4 dan laboratorium kolaborator dekat mereka," paparnya.

Para ilmuwan juga menyoroti penelitian virus corona lain yang baru-baru ini diterbitkan seperti RaTG1318 dan RmYN0230. Menurut mereka hal tersebut mencurigakan karena diduga memiliki tujuan untuk menipu komunitas ilmiah dan masyarakat umum dari identitas asli SARS-CoV-2.

Li-Meng Yan sendiri sebelumnya telah membongkar asal usul virus corona baru dari wawancaranya dengan berbagai media setelah ia melarikan diri ke Amerika Serikat (AS) pada April karena khawatir dengan kselamatannya.

Ia merupakan ilmuwan yang bekerja di laboratorium tingkat keamanan patogen-3 atau disebut juga P3 lab di Hong Kong. Di sana, ia memiliki dua atasan, yaitu Professor Malik Peiris dan Profesor Leo Poon.

Sejak akhir Desember 2019, Prof. Leo Poon menugaskannya untuk melakukan penyelidikan rahasia mengenai pneumonia baru yang terjadi di Wuhan.

Pada saat itu belum ada berita resmi dari China daratan mengenai penyakit tersebut. Setelahnya, ia mendapatkan informasi, pemerintah China sudah mengetahui ada 40 kasus pneumonia baru di Wuhan dan sudah terjadi transmisi antarmanusia. Tetapi tidak ada informasi publik terkait penyakit tersebut.

Selain itu, ia juga meyakini bahwa pasar makanan basah Wuhan hanya dijadikan sebagai umpan dan bukan sumber virus.

"Pada saat itu, saya dengan jelas menilai bahwa virus tersebut berasal dari laboratorium militer Partai Komunis China. Pasar basah Wuhan hanya digunakan sebagai umpan," terangnya.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/3c7EEvb via IFTTT

[xtruss]

Wuhan Denialism

Dismissing the possibility that COVID-19 escaped from a lab in China as ‘a conspiracy theory’ is bad science

— By Khaled Talaat | May 06, 2020 | TabletMag.Com

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, has infected at least 3 million people worldwide and 1 million people in the United States alone. The debate surrounding the origin and source of the virus has heated up with many accusing the opposite side of rejecting scientific evidence. It is more important now than ever to understand the difference between scientific skepticism and a conspiracy theory.

The term conspiracy theory is often used to suggest that an explanation is an implausible hypothesis or is anti-scientific. Yet the existence of bad actors or a cover-up in a hypothesis isn’t enough to constitute a conspiracy theory. Take the Iranian nuclear program as an example. Is it a conspiracy theory to consider that the Iranian pursuit of nuclear energy or uranium enrichment is motivated by nuclear weapon capability ambitions?

It’s a fact that there are bad actors in the world—and that individuals and states alike often lie about their actions and aims in order to advance what they understand to be their own self-interest. Take India’s so-called peaceful nuclear explosion in 1974 as an example. India took advantage of the Atoms for Peace program and used the information provided by the United States and Canada as well as the CIRUS research reactor to develop its nuclear weapons program. Even more interestingly, they declared that their nuclear weapons were intended for civil applications such as large-scale excavation and not intended for military use. It is a fact that India now possesses a large arsenal of nuclear weapons.

It’s no secret to anyone—and therefore not a conspiracy theory—that communism and other forms of totalitarian rule are built on a culture of secrecy. Communism necessitates a strong central government, and for a central government to maintain strong control over a country, it’s necessary for them to control information flow into, within, and out of the country. This involves both direct and indirect censorship of the media and internet—and often, more importantly, tight administrative controls that govern the transfer of information within the country. A good example from recent history is the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of the Soviet Union. Delays in reporting the initial nuclear explosion caused many fatalities that could have been avoided had the Soviets acted and evacuated early, which in turn motivated a Soviet attempt to cover up the true extent of the disaster to maintain a strong government image.

Cover-ups don’t generally involve evil conspirators who try to hide some important truth with the primary aim of injuring large numbers of people. They often follow naturally from the structure and functioning of a state—or they can be rational if arguably selfish means of pursuing what a group of people understands to be matters of national self-interest, like ensuring adequate supplies of medicine and protective gear for one’s own citizens. Therefore, it’s not a conspiracy theory to consider the possibility of a cover-up relating to the origin and the source of COVID-19 in Wuhan, Hubei, China. In fact, there is good evidence of Chinese cover-ups from the beginning of the pandemic.

There are certain elements that are usually present in conspiracy theories that are not present in a sound scientific hypothesis. Conspiracy theories often involve lack of physical connections. A good example of this is the 5G conspiracy theory in its different forms. Basic elementary school science education is enough to refute such a “theory,” which it is painful to even call a theory. A conspiracy theory may also be a bad and malicious hypothesis that is promoted despite available, reliable data directly proving that it can’t be true. One example of this is the false claim that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered to selectively infect non-Asians. Simple inspection of infection demographics in the United States refutes this hypothesis. While there are some differences in human ACE2 receptors among different races, the differences are not strong enough to provide immunity to a particular race or group especially as coronaviruses rapidly adapt and evolve into new strains.

It is important to clarify, however, that not every false hypothesis is a conspiracy theory. For instance, some researchers pointed out the presence of HIV-like segments in the SARS-CoV-2 genome and claimed, based on an incomplete investigation, that it is evidence of intentional manipulation. The presence of HIV-like segments is an observation that is clearly explained by natural acquisition of those segments in a manner similar to that in related naturally occurring bat coronaviruses such as ZC45 and ZXC21, which contain similar segments.

Conversely, there are elements that are present in a sound scientific hypothesis that are not present in a conspiracy theory. One such element is justification. Scientists can’t investigate every idea or hypothesis. Justifying a hypothesis is one of the most tedious steps in research. This process involves gathering evidence, demonstrating that the hypothesis is plausible, and clearly explaining the need for the work in the context of the ongoing scientific conversation. Assessing the plausibility of a particular hypothesis is important to justify investigating it. This, however, must be done in context of the effect in question. A stronger effect would justify investigating even less plausible hypotheses. On the other hand, justifying the need for the work can be as simple as explaining gaps in the knowledge or finding discrepancies and loopholes in published work that are significant enough to affect the conclusions.

The hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 leaked out of a laboratory is, by scientific standards, a sound and a well-justified hypothesis. Media sources that claim to refute the lab source hypothesis often refer to the public comments of zoologist Peter Daszak, the flawed correspondence of Andersen et al., or the emotional Lancet letter in which some scientists basically expressed their support and compassion with their Chinese peers. While there are some virus hunters like Peter Daszak who assert zoonotic transfer and discount the possibility of a lab leak, there are also leading microbiologists like professor Richard Ebright who assert that a lab or lab-related accident is a possible cause of the outbreak.

Notably, virus ecologists like Peter Daszak and Jonna Mazet have an inherent conflict of interest as they are involved in similar bat and wildlife sampling activity—and, in Daszak and Mazet’s case, in research with the Wuhan labs. As an example of such activity, Daszak and collaborators sampled 12,333 bats for viruses in a big wildlife surveillance project. A lab-related accident in China involving similar research would likely affect the funding for their work as it would demonstrate the risks involved. As it happens, the NIH recently cut the funding to Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance after realizing the risks involved in that research.

Daszak’s relentless and heavily amplified public assertions that the outbreak must have originated due to a zoonotic jump, and his denial of the possibility of a lab accident involving a natural virus, even long before the SARS-CoV-2 genome was published, would appear to be motivated by the apparent conflict of interest that he has denied. Daszak’s denial of his conflict of interest raised concerns of many scientists and experts, with many explicitly describing that denial as a bold lie. Daszak has presented no direct evidence that the outbreak started as a result of a zoonotic jump outside of a laboratory. In case the outbreak is a result of a natural zoonotic jump, that would underscore the importance of Daszak’s risky wildlife sampling and “early outbreak warning” work and increase their research funding. It is important to consider conflicts of interest when assessing anyone’s claims.

Daszak’s main argument is that the majority of viruses evolve in nature and some may be transmitted to humans through natural animal contact that is frequent in Southeast Asia. This argument, however, is meaningless unless we are trying to blindly throw bets without looking at any other factors. Daszak’s argument would be a very poor and mathematically flawed reason to call off investigations on the origin and source of the virus. Facts at the population level don’t make SARS-CoV-2 in particular any likelier to be natural in its origin or transmission source.

To illustrate this with a simple mathematical example, suppose that we know from established statistics that an overwhelming 80% of the people in a particular small town are doctors. You enter a fish market in that town and see someone selling fish. Is it reasonable to say that there is an 80% probability that he is also a doctor? While there is a very small chance now that this person is also a doctor, we would need to look at the probability that someone in the town is both a doctor and a fishmonger if we wish to throw bets. If we wish to find out for certain, we could follow him, and research his background, and see if he is a doctor.

Data and statistics are useful at the population level but not at the individual level, as that information could be obtained by direct measurement. At the individual level, population statistics translate into a probability if we blindly pick a random individual. If the individual isn’t really random, i.e., if we know some other information about them, the statistics we have on the population as a whole break down and become meaningless.

Given that the 96.2% sequence match of bat RaTG13 and human SARS-CoV-2 is not enough to rule out even a chimeric origin, Andersen et al. analyzed the mutations in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 and compared features of its spike protein with that of bat RaTG13, pangolin coronavirus, human SARS-CoV, and two bat SARS-like coronaviruses. They highlighted two notable features in SARS-CoV-2, particularly the optimized binding of the spike protein of SARS CoV-2 to human ACE2 receptor and the existence of a functional polybasic site at the two subunits of the spike of nonobvious function that’s likely a result of natural mutations. Their analysis of the mutations showed that the so called RaTG13 couldn’t have been the backbone of SARS-CoV-2 had it been chimeric, with many unverified assumptions.

However, after their brief and informative scientific endeavor, the authors then presented flawed arguments on the nature and source of the virus and conclusions that only reflect their beliefs and opinion. The approach they used to reach their conclusions is not sound for verification purposes, as it relies fundamentally on faith and trust. While trust is usual and healthy in academia, it’s not suitable for verification of lab accidents involving large-scale damage or potential WMD/dual use activity backed by a state.

First, Andersen et al. don’t conduct independent sequencing of bat RaTG13 samples which were sampled in 2013 but only sequenced and uploaded to GenBank in 2020. Therefore, Andersen’s analysis is just an extension of the published work of Zhou et al. from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is one alleged source of a possible leak of the virus. Second, they assume that published information from a lab where a source is suspected is complete, and they don’t verify that bat RaTG13 is, indeed, the closest relative of human SARS-CoV-2 encountered by or known to the two labs where the origin or source is suspected.

The conclusions of Andersen et al. on the nature of the virus almost all hinge on the assumption that they know all backbone viruses studied at the Wuhan lab, which reflects circular reasoning, given their sources and assumptions. The closest known virus to human SARS-CoV-2 and bat RaTG13 is bat BtCoV/4991—but only a partial sequence for the RdRp gene of BtCoV/4991 was uploaded to GenBank in 2016. It’s unclear if BtCoV/4991 is RaTG13 itself or a closer progenitor of SARS-CoV-2, because only a partial sequence was uploaded and BtCoV/4991 wasn’t referenced by Zhou et al. It’s unclear why it would be renamed.

Third, as professor Richard Ebright had pointed out, the authors dismiss the possibility that bat RaTG13 is a proximate progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 based on unverified assumptions on the evolutionary rates and about the possibility of passage in cell culture or animal models. While Andersen et al. do briefly acknowledge the possibility of passage in cell culture, they go on to assumptively conclude that the virus is natural in both origin and source when in fact a closely related bat coronavirus could have adapted to human cells in cell culture experiments.

Fourth, Andersen argued that discrepancies between the computational analysis work of one study they cited and experimental results is “strong evidence” of the absence of any purposeful manipulation of the virus. This argument should be dismissed as a reductionist fallacy, as it underestimates degrees of freedom and available types of computational analyses. Other scientists using molecular dynamics simulations showed that SARS-CoV-2 had a much higher binding affinity to human ACE2 receptors than SARS-CoV, with predictions in agreement with experiments.

The fact that Andersen’s discussion is flawed doesn’t say anything about the nature or the source of the virus. It, however, shows that their work can’t be considered conclusive and justifies further study on the origin and source of the virus.

There are many other reasons that justify investigating the Wuhan labs, and possibly even other labs in China that work with the same viruses. In particular, (a) the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in a highly populated city in central China like Wuhan and close to the Wuhan CDC; (b) the existence of two labs in Wuhan that extensively sample bats and study coronaviruses; (c) the relatively close relationship between the SARS-CoV-2 virus and bat RaTG13 or BtCoV/4991 that the researchers obtained from bats in a cave that is 1,200 miles away from Wuhan, which suggests that SARS-CoV-2 progenitors came from the same Yunnan caves; (d) the widespread use of cell culture experiments in infectious disease transmission experiments that can allow closely related viruses to adapt to human receptors; (e) the use of chimeric coronaviruses in civil research with different backbones—the lack of knowledge of the pre-outbreak collections of the Wuhan labs justifies international inspections, and the diversity of bat ACE2 receptors can also obscure the origin of the virus as the spike proteins of natural bat coronaviruses are very diverse; (f) evidence of lax security and knowledge that lab accidents aren’t improbable; (g) evidence that not all sampled viruses are sequenced and published—the full BtCoV/4991 sequence hasn’t been published and remains a mystery despite ~99% similarity of the known portion to SARS-CoV-2, while that of RaTG13 was sampled in 2013 and published in 2020. (The large similarity of the small partial sequence of BtCoV/4991 [published in 2016] with SARS-CoV2 is evidently what motivated the WIV to release the sequence of RaTG13 which matches the known portion of BtCoV/4991. It has not been independently verified that the sequence uploaded for bat RaTG13 is accurate); (h) the available data doesn’t suggest that closely related SARS-CoV-2-like bat relatives are common among bats in China but unique to bats from a particular Yunnan area; (i) the available data doesn’t support the wet market hypothesis which prompted some lab accident deniers to propose the alternative farm source hypothesis.

The farm hypothesis is highly improbable as the bats that carry SARS-CoV-2-like coronaviruses are 1,200 miles away from Wuhan. It would have been a more probable cause had the outbreak started in the Yunnan province. Further, there is no circumstantial evidence to support the farm hypothesis or even suggest it; it’s pure speculation. A notable fact is that most bat species near Wuhan hibernate in December as pointed out by Lu et al. If the farm hypothesis was true, multiple spillovers in different cities would have taken place which is not suggested by the data, unless transmission within the intermediate species is improbable which would have made it much less likely for the outbreak to start in Wuhan from the first place. Before the farm hypothesis, there was the pangolin hypothesis which was rejected by experts because pangolins are critically endangered in many areas and it’s improbable that they acted as an intermediary, at least outside a lab.

The genome sequences of human SARS-CoV-2 in just nine early patients exhibited 1%-2% difference among the subjects. Samples of bat RaTG13, 96.2% similar to SARS-CoV-2, should be obtained, sequenced, and studied in cell culture as part of scientific verification efforts.

Scientific skepticism is not the same as propagating conspiracy theories. It’s important to acknowledge that it was Chinese scientists who first brought up the possibility of an accidental leak in a short letter. As has been pointed out by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, the available circumstantial evidence indeed suggests a lab leak, with the simplest scenario being the leak of a bat coronavirus closely related to SARS-CoV-2 from cell culture or animal model experiments after adapting to human/humanlike receptors. Investigators must carefully consider conflicts of interest of researchers, especially those who relentlessly promote Chinese government types of propaganda to protect personal interests that they don’t clearly acknowledge and their collaborations inside China. Researchers should also not be credulous and should follow systematic step-by-step approaches to avoid falling into traps of circular reasoning and repeating propaganda messaging that is controlled and spread by centralized governments.

In closing, it’s important to emphasize that science needs more evidence-based, objective research with technical rather than broad conclusions. Speculations are good for forming hypotheses but should never be presented as conclusions. The Andersen-type speculative conclusions are of questionable scientific value and make no useful contribution to available knowledge about the coronavirus pandemic. Emotions such as peer sympathy, anger, fear, personal self-interest, and partisan political attachments should all be put aside when investigating matters with broad consequences for global security and human health. While speculative conclusions of any kind may turn out to be true, science doesn't give credit to speculations. Scientists shouldn't play dice in their analysis and discussion.

Khaled Talaat is a doctoral candidate in nuclear engineering and a researcher at the University of New Mexico. He has conducted interdisciplinary research at the intersection of nuclear engineering and bioengineering.