DR. FAUCI BACKED CONTROVERSIAL WUHAN LAB WITH MILLIONS OF U.S. DOLLARS FOR RISKY CORONAVIRUS RESEARC

Please read all parts first if you have not. However, to be clear, these are not assumptions; there are markers in the glycoprotein spikes, and RNA sequences inside that are conserved in evolution.There is no virus backbone, but there are other reasons for knowing it was not made in a lab.

I have no opinion on pangolins as of yet as we need more data. I suspect we will not know for 6 months or more.

I'm glad you enjoyed the read.

 

President Trump isn't trying to close and destroy the economy. That'll kill and destroy the lives of more people than the Covid 19

 

That remains to be seen. Time will tell us.

 

I'll have to think about the rest of your questions because this area is fast changing.

 

One assumptions is that markers would not be preserved if recombination was forced instead of a product of natural selection. I’ve seen no evidence this is not an assumption. I see your point if engineering was “writing code”, not cutting and splicing existing genetic material that is the result of past natural selection.

The other assumption concerning the backbone is even simpler. It assumes an engineer would use an obviously pathogenic known genetic platform to begin with. Yes, that would be easier, but not necessary. Maybe ten years ago that assumption would have a high likelihood of being correct. I don’t think so today with our ability to manipulate viruses. In fact, wouldn’t an entity nefarious enough to attempt something like this intentionally use the less obvious template?

As far as getting more information on pangolins, my understanding is all the animals at the Wuhan market were destroyed and there are no known samples taken before destruction. I hope that isn’t true.

 

I don't like it... I don't like it one bit that he was involved with the creation of the virus and now also involved in fighting it.... he's compromised isn't he. A bit like being on both sides of a war.

 

I think you overestimate our ability to manipulate viruses. CRISPR and various recombinant methods are advancing but hardly as effective as first advertised. In the lab I know first hand we cannot mix viruses and still give the impression we have a naturally occurring virus. Even with all the advances in viral splicing sequences, not even in the most advanced research at the German company, Siemans (I know the bioassays and research there very specifically) and top research Universities like Stanford can this be done without leaving a fingerprint of artificial manipulation. The research across the globe has been replicated this is not man-made. Again, I think you skipped some of the reading I pasted or just missed the finer points.

Even the very best virologists and microbiologists in general could not make a virus like this in a lab. It would be more genetically altered with more diverse genetic homology.

There are some relatively straightforward ways in a lab to test the pangolin hypothesis, but it will take time to complete.

 

An inoculated viral vector would be of little use and even groundbreaking nanotechnology cannot spread a virus wide and activate it later; even artificial molecular clocks cannot do that and those kinds of markers would show up in a non-pathogenic virus programmed to activate later; again, lloking at data from various colleagues and friends in various labs and contexts, we are not able to do this yet.

 

Older article, but still relevant:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC150674/

 

Hopefully we get better treatment options soon.

 

Good resource:

https://www.tephinet.org/

 

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/03/03/structural-biology-points-way-to-coronavirus-vaccine/

 

I’m not trying to be argumentative, but why would you post all the information you did on specifics of markers, backbones, natural selection, etc. as evidence against something that’s theoretically impossible? Again, the idea Siemans is the final authority on what’s possible in the realm of viral manipulation is an assumption. We don’t know China’s rice yields with any degree of certainty, but we are now basing our beliefs on viral manipulation capabilities on the assumption known open labs can’t be outperformed? This is an example, not an accusation on China. I prefer to leave politics out of this discussion and I’d like to thank you for your serious discussion without ad hom etc. It’s refreshing.


Back to the nuts and bolts, are you saying marker genes used in the process of recombination can not be excised and that all such possible markers are known and can be recognized as such? It is my understanding we have been excising markers for some time but maybe not in RNA viruses? Or are you referring to the tendency of naturally occurring recombinations to appear near ends of strands and other phenomena as problematic for “mixing incognito”?

 

The potential mis-use of emerging nanotechnology capabilities will make weaponized viruses as obsolete as AI and automation will make the minimum wage worker.

 

I provided evidence because you asked for evidence.
I provided evidence to show why the virus is not man-made.

I found that question a tad odd, to be honest; why ask why evidence is being given is not typical of a critical thinker.

Still, I'm not saying you are being argumentative. I'm just telling you a man made virus cannot have this exact structure and glycoprotein spike genome as it is and this shows it's a naturally occurring virus unequivocally. I'm not saying Siemans is the final authority or that Stanford, although, they are very reputable and excellent at this sort of thing. You seem to be ignoring the other evidence I provided and the global research. You also sounding Rand Paul taking to Fauci when he said begin and end all...

What we know in microbiology, virology, molecular biology, and medical epdemiology is that naturally occuring and artificially produced microorganisms exhibit specific patterns and leave specific marker characteristics. When exciting viral sequences their are only certain ones biophysically stable and others do not hold, but also, the ones that exist have different genotype expression and resulting phenotypes. We do not need to know all existing markers to test their origins and commonalities with other viruses, as well as, notable differences.

FYI I mentioned Siemans in particular besides having knowledge on research there but because they are world renowned for detecting bioassay markers.

I can refer you to Dr. Hoff at OSU as well or research in Germany, but I've made all of my points based upon the evidence.

You may want to pick up an advanced microbial textbook or virology manual as it sounds like you do have a pretty decent background.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

 

You don't understand the nanotechnology field at all. Please get a preliminary background.

 

Dr Fauci plays absolutely no role in appropriating or spending U.S.Tax Dollars. He may have made a recommendation but it is the congress who spend our money.

 

I’ve tried to be clear but we just aren’t on the same wavelength. I’m all for following the evidence. I’ve said I don’t dispute the evidence you provide that mirrors what I’ve been reading elsewhere.

My only point of divergence is in believing we know everything. I question everything and can’t accept explanations categorically that are based on the assumption we are privy to all information at this point. We don’t want to find ourselves in the position of Japan in August of 1945. They didn’t believe we had the capabilities we had even though they were involved in the same research and development themselves.

I’m not disputing the evidence. I’m advocating for not assuming too much or letting what we think we know impede our search for further knowledge.

I’m sorry I have no knowledge of your Fauci/Paul reference. I do find the tendency of many to stop questioning accepted norms a discouraging trend.

Thanks for the dialogue.

 

I’m no expert on the subject but at least I understand it’s potential far exceeds simply delivering viruses in a novel manner.

 

I'm always skeptical.

 

However, when I have the overwhelming evidence in front of me, with the deep understanding of how natural selection works at the molecular level, there is no argument against that kind of evidence.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2002106?query=TOC#