A theory I saw about how COVID may have escaped from the Wuhan lab

[paulmarkj]

There is a great BBC radio programme called ‘More of Less’ that has covered this and other covid stories.

More or Less is a programme that looks at thestatisitcs behind stories and is a available as a podcast. I recommend it for anyone interested in the real data of stories.

In a recent episode they looked into the idea that the covid is 96% similar to the flue virus and therefore (some said) it must have been engineered from that. Of course, the simple answer was that 96% is not a particularly close match, but also…

The RNA differences between Covid and flu are randomnly spread across the RNA. But an engineered RNA has a whle chuck inserted, and so the covid RNA is not engineered.

(Other stories covered by more or less include Covid deaths in care home, Vaccine data, the medical trial that proved Trump wrong, clot risks)

[Tfletch1]

@paulmarkj

In a recent episode they looked into the idea that the covid is 96% similar to the flue virus and therefore (some said) it must have been engineered from that. Of course, the simple answer was that 96% is not a particularly close match, but also…

The RNA differences between Covid and flu are randomnly spread across the RNA. But an engineered RNA has a whle chuck inserted, and so the covid RNA is not engineered.

I think you mean that SARS-CoV-2 (covid) is 96% similar to the bat coronavirus, not the flu. And yes, the RNA differences between SARS-CoV-2 and the related bat virus are randomly dispersed throughout their genomes.

[Tfletch1]

@DMC

@Tfletch1 had been doing and continues to do a yeoman’s job of fighting the ignorance here and was doing so before it even caught my attention.

Thanks, @DMC! It may turn out to be from the Wuhan lab but we don’t even know who the patient zeroes are or when it first started spreading out. All we know is when and where the superspreader event occurred. There’s no way we’ll get any evidence that it came from a lab unless someone gets a hold of those stocks that shows the GOF, genetic engineering, or some kind of accidental recombination that transformed bat coronaviruses to SARS-CoV-2 in the lab.

Meanwhile, I’ll be keeping my eyes out for evidence showing that this started months before Dec. 2019. I think that’s where we’ll find the origin.

[Morgyn]

@paulmarkj

Of course, the simple answer was that 96% is not a particularly close match, but also…

Humans and chimps are a 99% genome match, so yeah, a 96% match between SARS-CoV-2 and various flu viruses is really poor “evidence” for engineering the one from the other.

[Tfletch1]

@Morgyn

Humans and chimps are a 99% genome match, so yeah, a 96% match between SARS-CoV-2 and various flu viruses is really poor “evidence” for engineering the one from the other.

I think he meant SARS-CoV-2 to the bat coronavirus studied by the Wuhan lab. SARS-CoV-2 is about as similar to the flu virus as humans are to malaria.

[EastUmpqua]

@Aspenglow

You have not shown evidence for your assertions, or even a cite that indicates a significant number of experts agree with the positions about which you are speculating.

I appreciate this. You’re absolutely right, I didn’t read my own links, or others, carefully enough. I own this, and lesson learned. I will do better.

[Aspenglow]

@EastUmpqua, it’s rare that someone engaged in a heated discussion takes the time to slow down, read a suggestion and consider its merit before shooting from the hip with an angry response. I appreciate it, and I commend you for taking responsibility for your posts, links and responses.

A good example for us all. Thanks for setting it.

[Tfletch1]

This is why scientists think a natural origin is so much more likely than a lab leak.

SARS-like viruses may jump from animals to people hundreds of thousands of times a year

Study pinpoints Asian regions that could spark the next coronavirus pandemic

SARS-like viruses may jump from animals to people hundreds of thousands of...

[Melbourne]

@Tfletch1

And lied to their own people about it. And THEN threw the Wuhan officials under the bus and blamed them.

So very different than the home life or our own dear Queen.

[Magiver]

@Tfletch1

This is why scientists think a natural origin is so much more likely than a lab leak.

How do scientists feel about a lab that studies corona viruses to see how they naturally combine or evolve in a controlled environment.

[echoreply]

@Magiver

How do scientists feel about a lab that studies corona viruses to see how they naturally combine or evolve in a controlled environment.

Probably that the research is necessary to understand how these viruses work?

Some new data weighs in strongly on the side of a natural origin and natural animal to human spread.

First, the closest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in bats in Laos. The results are still not peer reviewed, so it’s always possible somebody will find a mistake, but for the moment it shows that features thought to be unique to SARS-CoV-2 do exist in “wild” viruses.

In another report, scientists claim that two different lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were circulating in Wuhan at the start of the outbreak. Lineage B was found at the Huanan market, and became the dominant lineage globally. Lineage A was found at other markets selling wildlife in Wuhan, and spread in China.

If the dual lineage results are correct, then it suggests two or more spillover events. And to me, how easy these spillovers can occur.

This in no way is meant to let the Chinese government off the hook. They have encouraged wildlife trade, despite repeated warnings that exactly this type of spillover is inevitable.

[Great_Antibob]

@echoreply

This in no way is meant to let the Chinese government off the hook. They have encouraged wildlife trade, despite repeated warnings that exactly this type of spillover is inevitable.

Also the efforts to pre-emptively avoid any criticism, which not paradoxically, has boomeranged around on them and exacerbated criticism and encouraged CTs instead.

[DMC]

@Great_Antibob

Also the efforts to pre-emptively avoid any criticism, which not paradoxically, has boomeranged around on them and exacerbated criticism and encouraged CTs instead.

To be fair to them, had they been an open book, there would be an insane amount of criticism and CTs regarding this, they just might be believed by slightly fewer people.

[Magiver]

@echoreply

This in no way is meant to let the Chinese government off the hook. They have encouraged wildlife trade, despite repeated warnings that exactly this type of spillover is inevitable.

Well that and destroying any evidence that existed in the lab.

@DMC

To be fair to them, had they been an open book, there would be an insane amount of criticism and CTs regarding this, they just might be believed by slightly fewer people.

uh huh.

[Aspenglow]

Moderating:

@DMC

@EastUmpqua

My “claim” is that the origins of covid-19 should be further investigated, to help prevent another pandemic. The articles I posted are relevant only if you read and understand them. Not sure where you’re coming from.

But I did read them and they’re not relevant at all. Did you perhaps forget to read them yourself?

This is gentle guidance, not a warning, to remind you that if you alter another poster’s quote in any way, including adding bolding that wasn’t part of the original post, you hazard receiving a mod note or a warning.

The bolding contained in the quote above would have been fine if you had in some way made it clear that it was your emphasis and not that of the OP. I’ve done it this way myself and no problems.

There was a brief discussion among mods after this post was flagged, and all agree your intent was not to alter the meaning of the quote. Call this a technical violation for which you are receiving a mod note for consistency’s sake within the community.

Thanks for your kind understanding.

[DMC]

Absolutely my bad and all on me, so I apologize for the quote modification. As you surmised, I was bolding the part I was responding to, not trying to alter any meaning. I’ll do my best to remember to add “bolding mine” or similar in the future, but I do know better so I’m not making any excuses.

[Aspenglow]

Graciously receiving guidance is always appreciated! Thanks again.

[DMC]

@Magiver

uh huh.

Well, you woke the thread up after several weeks. Did you have some evidence to back up the lab escape hypothesis or did you just want to remind everyone that the lab did research on corona viruses?

[Tfletch1]

@Magiver

How do scientists feel about a lab that studies corona viruses to see how they naturally combine or evolve in a controlled environment.

Can you be more specific in your question? If you’re hinting at GOF research, there was a thread on it with some scientific discussion. Rand Paul And Fauci

[Magiver]

@Tfletch1

Can you be more specific in your question? If you’re hinting at GOF research, there was a thread on it with some scientific discussion. Rand Paul And Fauci

Yes, Fauci. When asked if he funded the lab he said he did not fund GOF research… which was an an answer to a different question.

I’m not hinting at anything. I’m saying outright:

• the lab in question specifically did research on the virus
• the pandemic started in close proximity to the lab
• the Chinese government destroyed any and all evidence.
• Fauci has no way of knowing what actually went on in that lab
• China deliberately withheld the urgency of the pandemic to the point they threatened anyone who tried to warn people.
• China punished Australia for statements made about the pandemic