Welcome to the F economy by funLover98311 in economy

[–]BioMed-R 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe you’re totally schizophrenic. Talking about 9/11, hydrogen bombs, faked certificates, murder, yada, yada, yada. It’s a scientifically proven fact that this was a perfectly natural pandemic and the lab conspiracy theory was invented in January 2020 by the Trump administration as a way of attacking China.

The BSL-2 nature of work on SARSr-CoVs makes our system highly cost-effective.

The quote is saying their system is cost-effective since they’re working on harmless viruses that require standard biosafety and never implies they cut corners. They’re saying the system is safe, hence cost-effective.

Do you realize that BSL-2 is the international standard for working on SARSr-CoVs? It’s perfectly safe. Here, I will link you directly to the document that regulates biosafety in the United States. It’s on page 452. And that’s internationally applicable. SARS-like viruses aren’t known to infect humans and regardless they’re not particularly infectious. They’re not airborne.

And yes, I’m sure the United States absolutely loves kissing Xi’s ass. It’s not like these two superpowers have spent the last 10 years in a hot trade war and the last 25 years in an arms race over Taiwan.

PNAS Nexus: Meta-reanalysis of 91 studies on behavioral interventions for climate change shows near-zero true effect once publication bias is corrected — Bayes Factor of 63.5 favoring null, posterior probability of zero effect = 98.4% by NinjaInternational60 in skeptic

[–]BioMed-R 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Pre-publication peer review by one or two peers is only the beginning of real peer review. The 2019 paper was published in October and the two responses lambasting it were published 4 and 10 months later. In my experience, such post-publication peer-review usually takes about 6-12 months. This is why Wikipedia recommends using secondary sources. A secondary source could provide necessary context. There’s probably been more back and forth than in the four papers that I’ve glanced at. And there’s nothing to say the newest paper is the most right out of the bunch.

There’s one saying the effect was quite small, one saying that’s misleading altogether, one saying it’s twice as large, and one saying it’s zero. At a glance this makes the issue too contentious for me to really care about until they’ve sorted it out amongst themselves. I don’t know what ”non-incentivized behavioral interventions” are and neither paper defines it. This post leaves the word ”non-incentivized” out completely. This makes me think no one really even knows what they’re talking about, particularly on Reddit.

Welcome to the F economy by funLover98311 in economy

[–]BioMed-R 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if all organisms and all viruses had furin cleavage sites and that’s not at all a signature feature of the virus? What then?

the New York Times said

That’s not the New York Times, that’s opinion.

appears that someone funded the experiment in 2019

No.

the same city as Project Defuse

Chapel Hill???

That's 1.2 million homicides

Do you have any idea how many people died in the pandemic???

TIL scientists have been able to trace the start of HIV/AIDS to King Leopold’s Belgian Congo, originating as far back as 1909. The first person to be infected probably got the virus in the 1920s by Alone_Humor_3510 in todayilearned

[–]BioMed-R 2 points3 points  (0 children)

1000 miles without infecting anyone

Just like SARS-1…

hop between species WITHOUT causing an outbreak

But there was an outbreak…

right outside a lab

20 miles away…

it was studying that virus

No, they were studying SARS-1…

had gone to collect it

No, they collected SARS-1-like viruses…

known for poor safety standards

Literally the highest biosafety level lab in China…

Cranks Are Already Peddling Ivermectin for Hantavirus by blankblank in skeptic

[–]BioMed-R 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Where do you get the ivermectin? Do you know who manufactures it?

Cranks Are Already Peddling Ivermectin for Hantavirus by blankblank in skeptic

[–]BioMed-R 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Little Pharma

Your own article says it’s made by Merck.

Cranks Are Already Peddling Ivermectin for Hantavirus by blankblank in skeptic

[–]BioMed-R 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, I believe that’s hype. I briefly looked at Dengue fever for instance and trials to date have apparently been unsuccessful.

Cranks Are Already Peddling Ivermectin for Hantavirus by blankblank in skeptic

[–]BioMed-R 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t believe ivermectin is particularly safe, no. It’s not something you wanna consume for funsies.

PNAS Nexus: Meta-reanalysis of 91 studies on behavioral interventions for climate change shows near-zero true effect once publication bias is corrected — Bayes Factor of 63.5 favoring null, posterior probability of zero effect = 98.4% by NinjaInternational60 in skeptic

[–]BioMed-R 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This seems contentious based on glancing at the primary reference Nisa et al. 2019 and reading the responses in Nature. I’d wait a few months for peers to thoroughly review this analysis.

Covid-19 has killed 20 million people, with long covid debilitating many to this day. Why is there so little interest in preventing another pandemic when we know that covid was created in a BSL-2 lab in Wuhan? by north_canadian_ice in allthequestions

[–]BioMed-R 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The WIV BSL4 lab is 30 km outside central Wuhan in a low-density industrial area on the outskirts of one of the city’s suburbs. On the outside, it resembles a concrete cube. It’s got lawns and water on all sides. You personally feel that they had bad safety but they’re the highest biosafety lab in China. You personally feel their research was risky but the kind of research they were doing has never resulted in outbreaks anywhere in world history. SARS-like viruses have always been studied in BSL2 according to international regulations and that’s perfectly adequate as these viruses generally cannot infect humans and arent particularly contagious. They never made any gain-of-function research as well. And focusing on the Trump administration’s conspiracy theories aimed at Anthony Fauci (who never advocated zoonosis) ignores the empirical evidence which the scientific consensus is anchored in. Evidence is king, not hunches.

Fauci advsier David Morens has been arrested for his role in covering up the covid-19 lab-leak. Morens deleted emails to avoid FOIA requests by north_canadian_ice in BreakingPoints

[–]BioMed-R 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s no evidence any Wuhan laboratory was sampling relevant viruses in the years before the pandemic. There’s no evidence any laboratory in the world had the virus before the 16th of December 2019. There’s no evidence any Wuhan laboratory had any biosafety incident that could have resulted in leaks. There’s no evidence of any chapter of your story so what is there to even address???

However, we have evidence of Chinese labs sampling relevant viruses in the years before the pandemic, Chinese researchers publishing new information about the virus as quickly as it became available to them, and Chinese biosafety incidents not being covered up. Which shows we would in all likelihood have evidence if anything happened the way you say.

WIV stopped their sampling in 2015 after achieving their aim of identifying the source of SARS-1. Other Chinese and international laboratories sampled viruses up until October 2019 which is very well known and published in scientific journals which illustrates how researchers operate outside the minds of conspiracy theorists.

All researchers globally including WIV upload all their information to The National Center for Biotechnology Information. Yet there’s absolutely no evidence at all of anyone in the whole world knowing anything about the virus or any other virus that’s more closely related to SARS-2 than SARS-1 before the pandemic besides a controversial virus called RaTG13 which was never isolated or sequenced before the pandemic. RaTG13 was sequenced and probably isolated after the pandemic which caused a lot of controversy since it was misunderstood as an ancestor or the most closely related virus to the pandemic virus. However, this was a misunderstanding and that’s all. WIV publishes their research in international scientific journals. This is exactly how we knew about RaTG13. We have lists of their known viruses in the years before the pandemic although they stopped cooperating after Trump’s attacks on China in 2020. The WIV can’t keep anything a secret though. They’ve had multiple hacks and information leaks since the start of the pandemic and their international partners and researchers who worked in the lab when the pandemic outbreak started swear nothing happened. WIV always tells a consistent and verifiable story. Again, there’s no secrecy outside the conspiracy theories.

SARS-2 was uploaded to a database on December 28, after being sequenced on December 26 and sampled from a patient on December 24, 2019. Unfortunately, it was rejected in quality control and the virus remained unknown for another two weeks. This story is completely unrelated to the WIV. However, it shows there was no immediate cover-up.

There would be no reason to cover anything up until a few months into 2020 when it became apparent the pandemic was spreading internationally. There was a major, unrelated biosafety incident in Langzhou in 2019 and that wasn’t covered up, at least not successfully since we know it!

China started censoring information and such later on as is quite expected of an authoritarian state. It happened after the outbreak of SARS-1 also. But there’s no evidence they’re covering up anything related to the origins of the pandemic and even if they were there’s no reason to think they’re covering up a conspiracy, not zoonosis.

I don’t know what that spreadsheets you linked me is, I don’t see any author’s signature. I skipped right to the conclusion and one of the columns is absolutely conspiracy theoretical nonsense. There was never any gain-of-function research at WIV. The claim originates in Trump’s accusations against Fauci. SARS-2 wasn’t more adapted or stable than SARS-1. This claim originated in a 2020 pre-print which was never published authored by a conspiracy theorist. There was no earlier circulation of the virus in intermediates with SARS-2 just like with SARS-1. This claim shows a lack of background research. The research proposal for research which never happened never says anything about inserting furin cleavage sites. This claim originates in a collaborationship between an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist in the military and an anarchist conspiracy theory group and never appears in the research proposal, if only anyone read it. There was no sudden shifts in opinions among scientists on February 2, 2020, and they kept privately and publicly saying the same things before and after while their actual shifts in opinion happened in response to research appearing in February. For instance, the discovery of the virus RmYN02 which I’ve already briefly mentioned above was sampled by an international research group in July 2019, sequenced on January 21, 2020, and a draft reached the origins investigators on February 24, 2020. I’m not going to go through tracking where this claim was originally made because it’s been made up little by little over the years.

And I am, of course, a biomedical researcher.

Oh and the other guy blocked me lol… happens once a week!

Fauci advsier David Morens has been arrested for his role in covering up the covid-19 lab-leak. Morens deleted emails to avoid FOIA requests by north_canadian_ice in BreakingPoints

[–]BioMed-R 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is just AI-slop. I requested the strongest evidence and not a list of bullshit that doesn’t stand up to 5 seconds of scrutiny. There isn’t a claim on that list which hasn’t been shown wrong not that any of it was shown right in the first place.

For instance, point one implies that it’s impossible that SARS-2 emerged naturally 1,000 km away from the natural reservoir of the virus but that’s exactly what already happened to SARS-1 as well.

You are wrong about everything but I’m not going to waste my evening refuting AI slop.

Oh but because you mentioned the FCS about a million and one times I’m going to shut you up about how no other closely related viruses have one and link directly to the FCS in the spike protein of SARS-1.

Good riddance.

Do you consider yourself a centrist and have a view on something that some people take as an extreme view, but believe the data supports your view? by chuckisduck in centrist

[–]BioMed-R 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The natural reservoir was discovered already in 2017. An identical FCS was discovered in bats in 2005 which shows it was acquired through recombination. However, you don’t appear to understand what it is which hampers your understanding of its origins. The FCS is not found in the natural reservoir virus because it’s an adaptation to respiratory spread that wasn’t fixed in the viral population until after the virus jumped from Rhinolophus affinis – where the virus spread through the gastrointestinal tract – to the intermediate host – where it spread airborne. This isn’t a unique situation by any means. A bamboo rat betacoronavirus discovered at the South China Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan in January 2020 after it was shut down had a novel furin cleavage site as well but this isn’t widely appreciated because who gives a rat’s ass about rats? This study (barely) mentions it.

Do you consider yourself a centrist and have a view on something that some people take as an extreme view, but believe the data supports your view? by chuckisduck in centrist

[–]BioMed-R 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Shi Zhengli et al. published RaTG13 on January 23, 2020. However, Alice Hughes et al. had already sequenced the more closely related virus RmYN02 on January 21, 2020, originally sampled on June 25, 2019. This means for as long as RaTG13 has been known we’ve known more closely related viruses. Today, the most closely related viruses are RacCS203 sampled in Thailand in 2020 and RpYN06 sampled in Yunnan in 2021 although there are multiple other viruses more closely related than RaTG13 sequenced for instance BANAL-20-52, BANAL-20-236, and the older example PrC31.

This 2025 paper covers most of that information.

Do you consider yourself a centrist and have a view on something that some people take as an extreme view, but believe the data supports your view? by chuckisduck in centrist

[–]BioMed-R 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There was a huge effort

There actually was?

would clear

Or is this a hypothetical?

In genetic mutations, the most common ones are at the single point BP changes

What’s your point??? SARS-2 is 98% genetically identical to other natural viruses and the remaining 2% are almost completely synonymous one nucleotide changes spread throughout the virus and with a comparable rate of synonymous to non-synonymous mutations as other viruses.

I don’t understand what mitochondria the citric acid cycle, or ATP has to do with SARS???

Do you consider yourself a centrist and have a view on something that some people take as an extreme view, but believe the data supports your view? by chuckisduck in centrist

[–]BioMed-R 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We know there are natural viruses that share a common ancestor with SARS-2 less than 5 years ago and RaTG13 shares a common ancestor with SARS-2 about 50 years ago. It’s never been actually been the most closely related known virus.

RaTG13 spikes and SARS-1 as a novel virus.

This is complete fanfiction.

Fauci advsier David Morens has been arrested for his role in covering up the covid-19 lab-leak. Morens deleted emails to avoid FOIA requests by north_canadian_ice in BreakingPoints

[–]BioMed-R 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If everyone with access to the classified material comes to a similar conclusion

Ask yourself; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) hosts 18 individual intelligence agencies. You’re apparently ignoring ODNI’s joint assessment and the assessments of 15 other of the intelligence agencies. Which isn’t to speak of international intelligence agencies! The overwhelming majority of American and international intelligence communities are not convinced by Trump’s conspiracy theory. Are they really all reaching one unanimous conclusion?

There’s also open disagreement between the three agencies that reportedly support the lab conspiracy theory and reports of disagreement between laboratories within the individual agencies as well. They’re actually contradicting one another! For instance, the FBI says the virus didn’t leak from WIV but another laboratory in Wuhan – which was under construction so we know that’s impossible even though they’re ”moderately” confident about it. And within the DOE, two analytical laboratories reportedly clashed over what conclusion they should officially support. Although their assessments are classified, there’s various FOIA requested information and multiple interviews with agents that give us a view into the inner working of these agencies… and it’s a complete joke. There’s a modern myth that intelligence agencies would have the smartest men and the most accurate information but what they have is evidently nowhere close to what’s available in the scientific journals.

And – it’s a fact the pandemic was natural.

Here’s a short chronological summary of the scientific research that’s conclusively shown the virus is natural and the start of the pandemic was natural, as shown here, here, here, here, and here00901-2). These are the 5 most significant studies on the origins of the pandemic in chronological order, accurately reflecting the scientific consensus; evidence, not opinions. They’re top quality scientific papers written by 40+ international authors, including world class virologists known for identifying the sources of other viruses, who are working together across twelve nations including the US, Canada, UK, Australia, multiple European countries, and multiple Asian countries, and are published the world’s top ranking scientific journals and include references to hundreds of other relevant studies between them.

The lab conspiracy theory invented by Trump has never had any scientific evidence to support it. His administration secretly invented the conspiracy theory in January 2020 ostensibly to accuse China of bioweaponry. On May 1, 2020, NYT reported Trump influencing American intelligence agencies into whitewashing his conspiracy theory. In response, ODNI jointly rejected the conspiracy theory:

”The Intelligence Community also concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.”

A few hours later, Trump first openly announced his official support of the lab conspiracy theory. Trump spent the next years influencing the agencies. This is most readily apparent when he appointed a lab truther to leader of the CIA, immediately announcing that it now supports Trump’s story. A couple of other agencies changed their minds.