• Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It seems like you’ve read enough to get halfway there.

    You should go back and read the source documents and go over what ecohealth alliance were actually doing, and where they were doing it. The funding proposals were extremely detailed, right down to carrying out gain of function research to aerosolise the corona viruses harvested from bats.

    It is almost impossible to immunise bats using droplet transmission and this is the source of the global fuckup.

    At some stage during this process, the modified pathogen from very early stages of developing a corona vaccine FOR BATS (the stated goal of the funding request) it somehow got out of one of the labs involved. (Malice or stupidity, we’ll never know)

    At that stage it would still be fair to call the original escaped variant a VIRUS because it had not yet reached the development stage of being attenuated sufficiently to be called a vaccine, but it was a long way from a wild type variant.

    This lines up with early sequencing of the virus that is widely documented. Those with any scientific integrity have acknowledged from day 1 that there were portions of the sequence that can not occur without human intervention.

    In short, this was all being done with US funding in labs with woefully inadequate safety protocols.

    So long as we are prepared to accept the risk/reward profile of gain of function research being carried out anywhere in the world, the risk of a similar global pandemic will never go away.

    • justdoit@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Grant Project Number: 2R01AI110964-06

      “Aim 1. Characterize the diversity and distribution of high spillover-risk SARSr-CoVs in bats in southern China. We will use phylogeographic and viral discovery curve analyses to target additional bat sample collection and molecular CoV screening to fill in gaps in our previous sampling and fully characterize natural SARSr-CoV diversity in southern China. We will sequence receptor binding domains (spike proteins) to identify viruses with the highest potential for spillover which we will include in our experimental investigations (Aim 3). Aim 2. Community, and clinic-based syndromic, surveillance to capture SARSr-CoV spillover, routes of exposure and potential public health consequences. We will conduct biological-behavioral surveillance in high-risk populations, with known bat contact, in community and clinical settings to 1) identify risk factors for serological and PCR evidence of bat SARSr-CoVs; & 2) assess possible health effects of SARSr-CoVs infection in people. We will analyze bat-CoV serology against human-wildlife contact and exposure data to quantify risk factors and health impacts of SARSr-CoV spillover. Aim 3. In vitro and in vivo characterization of SARSr-CoV spillover risk, coupled with spatial and phylogenetic analyses to identify the regions and viruses of public health concern. We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.”

      Color me shocked, but that’s the funding proposal and there’s nothing in there even approaching whatever you’re talking about. But hey, maybe you’re referring to the rejected DARPA grant proposal leaked by DRASTIC:

      “THE PROPOSAL PLANNED TO INTRODUCE “KEY RBD RESIDUES” INTO LOW RISK STRAINS TO TEST PATHOGENICITY IN HUMAN AIRWAY-CELLS”

      Wowie, looks like we have a hit! Rather than reading their spin though, I went and found the REJECTED grant proposal:

      “We will sequence spike proteins, reverse engineer them to conduct binding assays, and insert them into bat SARSr-CoV backbones (these use bat-SARSr-CoV backbones, not SARS-CoV, and are exempt from dual-use and gain or function concerns)”

      If you’re not aware, these backbones are common lab vectors which aren’t pathogenic themselves, made from different viruses. Their sequences are significantly different than either SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-2. So, chimeric receptor/backbone pairs are used to assess viral entry into humanized cells more so than virulence. You may disagree with whether or not that’s still too dangerous of a method, but it’s a moot point here because 1. The backbones proposed here are completely different than COVID, so it can’t be the same viral agent and 2. This is a REJECTED PROPOSAL. None of this was actually done and it’s fantasy to pretend it is.

      Next claim: aerosolized droplet for vaccines:

      “We will complement [broad scale immune boosting with bat interferon] by coupling agonist treatments with SARSr-CoV recombinant spike proteins to boost pre-existing adaptive immune response in adult bats… we will incorporate [recombinant spike proteins] into nano particles or raccoon pox virus vectors for delivery to bats”

      They’re not proposing aerosolizing whole droplets with competent SARS-CoV in them you moron, they’re basically saying “hey, you know those nasal sprays we use for the flu every year? Let’s give that to bats”.

      Ooh, my favorite. No scientist with integrity says that the genome wasn’t manipulated.

      You’re gonna have to tell that to the couple hundred scientists who have been studying this for a while:

      “There is no logical reason why an engineered virus would utilize such a suboptimal furin cleavage site, which would entail such an un- usual and needlessly complex feat of genetic engineering. The only previous studies of artificial insertion of a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 boundary in the SARS-CoV spike protein uti- lized an optimal ‘‘RRSRR’’ sequence in pseudotype systems (Belouzard et al., 2009; Follis et al., 2006). Further, there is no ev- idence of prior research at the WIV involving the artificial insertion of complete furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses.”

      There really isn’t any evidence of manipulation at all. The backbone isn’t a standard lab construct. The cleavage site could have arisen from recombination. In the spirit of good science, I would never rule anything out, but the evidence very much supports a natural origin. Lab leak from a sample? Maybe, but that’s different than genetic engineering. For that you need stronger evidence. The strongest bit of evidence we have is the stonewalling from WIV and China, which is certainly suspicious. But, it’s unfortunately incidental and that isn’t good enough to jump to conclusions.

      Try actually reading the text of these proposals before reading someone else’s spin on it.

      • notacat
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am somehow still surprised at how many of my intelligent, educated healthcare coworkers believe in the purposeful bio weapon theory despite there being no evidence of human-made genetic manipulation. We can analyze whole genomes now, there’s no need to make shit up.

        • justdoit@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, it’s pretty sad. But I have fun digging into the sources for the misinformation, so there’s that.