Quote:
Originally Posted by Yu Ominae
|
Obvious CCP shill that guy is aside, I'll actually try to counter his claims. Note, I'm not a virologist....my field is immunology.
First off, the thing says TV Asahi had a report blaming the US for being the virus source. Ironically, the only sources claiming this are Chinese and South Korean. Among Japanese sites, these are the only things I could find
http://japannews01.blog.jp/archives/50532885.html
https://www.moeruasia.net/archives/49659968.html
https://twitter.com/search?q=%E3%83%...rc=typed_query
There is no primary report there. Might have been scrubbed but the main sources are Chosun Ilbo and the Global Times.....which are infamous for being full of shit.
Instead, searching Feb 21 for TV Asahi reveals this:
https://kakaku.com/tv/channel=10/pro...odeID=1340631/
Quote:
|
アメリカではインフルエンザが猛威をふるい、今シーズンはすでに患者約2600万人、死者約1万4000人 に上っている。そんな中、CDCがインフルエンザではないと断定したものについて新型コロナウイルスの疑い があると発表した。インフルエンザの疑いがある患者の検体を調べたところ、実際にはインフルエンザではなか ったものもあったという。ニューヨークやロサンゼルスなどの大都市で大幅な検査体制の見直しが始まった。感 染の実態が把握できていない理由に、健康保険の未加入者が多く、医療費が高額で医者に行かずに自己判断に頼 る人がいるという事情があるという。CDCは直接は言及していないが、アメリカでも新型コロナウイルスの感 染が拡大している可能性を指摘する声も上がっている。
|
TL;DR, US Flu season is pretty bad, there's a possibilty a portion of the casualties are from coronavirus. But that's something that has been suspected around the world since forever given air travel.
Way to take a report out of context and twist it to "coronavirus source is America."
The Taiwanese virologist's theory is also full of holes. My Chinese is too shit to follow the vid but America is where everyone around the world goes to. Having various imported strains is not out of the question. Taiwan being infected by Americans or Australians is not out of the question because the virus has likely been spreading for much longer than officially reported.
Second, let's look at the actual science he claims as proof.
Yes, it's known the source is not the market but the wild animal supply chain extends to way further than just the market. This was known since the Lancet report that he cited and is the current assumption now internationally.
Neither Andersen's report nor the Lancet report discounts the source as being within China however. In fact bat coronavirus strains are common in wild animal handlers in southern China. here is another report by Andersen that gives a clearer picture:
http://virological.org/t/the-proxima...sars-cov-2/398
as well as two others comparing them to the RatG13 bat coronavirus from Yunnan:
http://virological.org/t/tackling-ru...AscTtbWRaB_wy8
http://virological.org/t/divergence-...n-relative/388
They agree these two viruses diverged around 1950s-1978. All reports agree SARS-COV-2 is not human engineered because the virus uses no reverse genetic systems used for such experiments and has a target receptor binding efficiency that came about through natural selection rather than the most efficient solution found in a computer prediction program. Due to the divergences from RatG13 also, RatG13 can't have been the basis from which this virus is modified.
On another note, certain theories also claim that the Wuhan BSL4 lab was doing experiments on coronavirus using a pseudovirus construct based on HIV and is thus proof the virus is modded with HIV characteristics as suggested by the now retracted Pradhan et al paper. Pradhan et al claimed that several inserts on SARS-COV-2 resemble HIV motifs. Their paper is linked here for anyone interested (
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...27871.full.pdf).
This paper has been refuted
here and elsewhere, including on Twitter and Virological.org but certain theories still claim the HIV pseudovirus construct as supporting evidence that the so-called HIV-like motifs were artificially engineered into SARS-COV-2.
However, the published work most frequently cited for this is a
2008 paper by said Wuhan BSL4 lab. Here, the group wanted to study if replacement of SARS-like coronavirus receptor binding domain with that of SARS could facilitate infection of human cells in order to study differences between receptor binding mechanisms of the two virus types. To this end, they employed the HIV-based pseudovirus system (pNL4.3.Luc.R−E−-Luc) which incorporates SARS S-protein with HIV P24 capsid protein. However, this construct does not contain viral genomic material required for replication and instead replaces it with a luciferase reporter (that essentially causes a glowing effect so infection of test cells can be confirmed by a reader machine).
This is a common tool known to anyone who does molecular biology regardless of their field. If anyone tried to weaponize it, it would be recognized immediately, otherwise it is akin to mistaking a water gun for an actual firearm.