A Continued Candid Conversation with Richard Ebright on the History of U.S. Research Funding for Biological Agents in America and Abroad that Lack Critical Safety Overview
A Continued Candid Conversation with Richard Ebright on the History of U.S. Research Funding for Biological Agents in America and Abroad that Lack Critical Safety Overview
I don't understand; I think the evidence for zoonotic spillover of SARS is much stronger; for example Guan et al (2003) reported in Science that "SCoV-like viruses were isolated from Himalayan palm civets found in a live-animal market in Guangdong, China. Evidence of virus infection was also detected in other animals (including a raccoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides) and in humans working at the same market. All the animal isolates retain a 29-nucleotide sequence that is not found in most human isolates. The detection of SCoV-like viruses in small, live wild mammals in a retail market indicates a route of interspecies transmission, although the natural reservoir is not known."
Their methods are unbelievable. It doesn't match but it must be evidence of crossover! The foundational studies used PCR primers to amplify bits they liked from a load of garbage swiped from someone's nose, and ignored the rest. No purification, just a pile of gunk. No specific pathologies, just a smattering of people with coughs and headaches and the like. The foundational papers for the creation of the original sequence are painful reading for anyone familiar with the scientific method. This one, for example, https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa030747 which bears considerable resemblance to the nonsense that launched SARS2. They even detected C. pneumoniae in their one patient, but chose to ignore it. Staggering. Once you have a sequence on record - obtained by guesswork using fragments freely, but barely, matched to other supposed coronaviruses - any idiot can easily match fragments from a nasal swab to it as often as you like. We're still doing this today. No interest in falsification whatsoever. How any of this nonsense passes as science is beyond me. High technology wielded by useful idiots.
Hmm. The evidence for zoonotic spillover is as thin for SARS as it is for SARSv2.
I don't understand; I think the evidence for zoonotic spillover of SARS is much stronger; for example Guan et al (2003) reported in Science that "SCoV-like viruses were isolated from Himalayan palm civets found in a live-animal market in Guangdong, China. Evidence of virus infection was also detected in other animals (including a raccoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides) and in humans working at the same market. All the animal isolates retain a 29-nucleotide sequence that is not found in most human isolates. The detection of SCoV-like viruses in small, live wild mammals in a retail market indicates a route of interspecies transmission, although the natural reservoir is not known."
Their methods are unbelievable. It doesn't match but it must be evidence of crossover! The foundational studies used PCR primers to amplify bits they liked from a load of garbage swiped from someone's nose, and ignored the rest. No purification, just a pile of gunk. No specific pathologies, just a smattering of people with coughs and headaches and the like. The foundational papers for the creation of the original sequence are painful reading for anyone familiar with the scientific method. This one, for example, https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa030747 which bears considerable resemblance to the nonsense that launched SARS2. They even detected C. pneumoniae in their one patient, but chose to ignore it. Staggering. Once you have a sequence on record - obtained by guesswork using fragments freely, but barely, matched to other supposed coronaviruses - any idiot can easily match fragments from a nasal swab to it as often as you like. We're still doing this today. No interest in falsification whatsoever. How any of this nonsense passes as science is beyond me. High technology wielded by useful idiots.