> “We’re looking at spike proteins of bat viruses that are already out there,” Fauci said. “We’re not manipulating them to make them more or less likely to bind to human cells. We’re just asking, ‘Do they, or not?’”
...They weren't playing with the spike proteins of coronaviruses a few miles from the first major outbreak with the intention of making them more infectious; they were just seeing if they could.
No, you're not. To test if bat viruses can infect humans, they're taking the spike proteins of bat viruses and splicing them to backbone viruses. This new virus cannot replicate itself, it will only replicate the harmless backbone virus.
As I wrote in another comment, it's like your arms are replaced with a chimpanzee's arms. When you have a baby, that baby will have human arms, not chimpanzee's arms, because the genetic material is not altered.
“ they spliced off its spike protein and fused it to the backbone before exposing it to human cells in lab dishes to see if it would grow”
As a lay person, this is how I understand gof, based on articles in the popular press over the past decade or so. Maybe the press has been wrong, they often are, but this strikes me, again a layperson, as an obvious redefinition of gof.
The backbone virus cannot replicate the new spike attached, so there should be no danger from that experiment. If it infects human cells it will replicate the backbone's spike, not the spliced spike, which does not infect human cells.
It's like your arms are replaced with a chimpanzee's arms. When you have a baby, that baby will have human arms, not chimpanzee's arms.
So it’s only gof if it results in a viable virus? That makes sense. I guess there’s no real danger of a lab escape as long as it’s not a viable virus, but then I do wonder why the backtracking on the lab escape investigation? Was WIC maybe doing gof research and not telling people?
In the Washington Post an American virologist finally published a detailed analysis of the "spike protein research" theory:
Some people have wondered whether these types of experiments could have produced SARS-CoV-2. The answer is, in this case, not really. In theory, if you had the right viruses in your catalogue, sure. But there are no indications that anyone had ever seen this virus nor any viruses similar enough to serve as its genetic building blocks before SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the population. The Wuhan institute’s most recent chimeric virus used a very different coronavirus as its genetic backbone. Looking at the body of research produced there, it’s clear that scientists were laser-focused on the bat viruses related to SARS-CoV, which spurred research on coronaviruses worldwide after it emerged in 2003 because of its pandemic potential. There’s just no trace of SARS-CoV-2 in the lab, and if the SARS-CoV-2 progenitor or its building blocks weren’t in the lab before the pandemic, the pandemic could not have started there — even accidentally.
Apparently there's also new information now that strengthens support for the theory that it came from the market. From the New York Times:
Last month a team of researchers presented an inventory of 47,381 animals from 38 species sold in Wuhan markets between May 2017 and November 2019. It included species like civets and raccoon dogs that can act as intermediate hosts for coronaviruses. Dr. Worobey called that study “a game-changing paper.”
He also pointed to the timing of the earliest cases of Covid in Wuhan. “The Huanan market is right at the epicenter of the outbreak, with later cases then radiating outward in space from there,” Dr. Worobey said in an email. “No early cases cluster anywhere near the W.I.V., which has been the focus of most speculation about a possible lab escape,” he said.
As an American virologist, i find this intellectually dishonest. It is no mystery that the Wuhan institute is and always has been a GoF sandbox, comprised of NIH funding.
8 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 25.8 ms ] thread...They weren't playing with the spike proteins of coronaviruses a few miles from the first major outbreak with the intention of making them more infectious; they were just seeing if they could.
Am I reading this right?
As I wrote in another comment, it's like your arms are replaced with a chimpanzee's arms. When you have a baby, that baby will have human arms, not chimpanzee's arms, because the genetic material is not altered.
As a lay person, this is how I understand gof, based on articles in the popular press over the past decade or so. Maybe the press has been wrong, they often are, but this strikes me, again a layperson, as an obvious redefinition of gof.
It's like your arms are replaced with a chimpanzee's arms. When you have a baby, that baby will have human arms, not chimpanzee's arms.
Some people have wondered whether these types of experiments could have produced SARS-CoV-2. The answer is, in this case, not really. In theory, if you had the right viruses in your catalogue, sure. But there are no indications that anyone had ever seen this virus nor any viruses similar enough to serve as its genetic building blocks before SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the population. The Wuhan institute’s most recent chimeric virus used a very different coronavirus as its genetic backbone. Looking at the body of research produced there, it’s clear that scientists were laser-focused on the bat viruses related to SARS-CoV, which spurred research on coronaviruses worldwide after it emerged in 2003 because of its pandemic potential. There’s just no trace of SARS-CoV-2 in the lab, and if the SARS-CoV-2 progenitor or its building blocks weren’t in the lab before the pandemic, the pandemic could not have started there — even accidentally.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/virus-origins-nature-...
Last month a team of researchers presented an inventory of 47,381 animals from 38 species sold in Wuhan markets between May 2017 and November 2019. It included species like civets and raccoon dogs that can act as intermediate hosts for coronaviruses. Dr. Worobey called that study “a game-changing paper.”
He also pointed to the timing of the earliest cases of Covid in Wuhan. “The Huanan market is right at the epicenter of the outbreak, with later cases then radiating outward in space from there,” Dr. Worobey said in an email. “No early cases cluster anywhere near the W.I.V., which has been the focus of most speculation about a possible lab escape,” he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/science/coronavirus-origi...