Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Covid-19 likely to be man made

15354555658

Comments



  • This article from MIT summarizes the history of GOF research on bat coronaviruses in the US (UNC) and at the WIV. The history of this research goes back to 2002 and the first SARS outbreak where we dodged a bullet as if SARS-1 had been as transmissible as SARS-2, we would have had a much worse pandemic than the current one as the fatality rate was 10%.

    The WIV have been collecting bat coronaviruses for the past few decades and trying to culture them in the lab. A big breakthrough was made in 2012 when a series of beta coronaviruses were collected in Yunnan (92 out of a total of 170 different SARS like viruses collected across southern China). Culturing them is extremely difficult (this was referenced by Danielle Anderson in her recent article), but this obstacle was overcome in Ralph Baric's UNC lab in 2013 when he developed reverse genetics methods to both build viruses from their genetic code and mix and match sequences from multiple viruses. So it isn't difficult as Anderson claimed, it's been done repeatedly since 2013.

    This is where the controversy about GOF begins, Baric and the WIV collaborated in 2014 using one of the WIV's virus sequences to insert it's spike protein into a SARS virus he had in his lab to make a chimera virus and found "robust replication" in human cells. This work was done in a BSL-3 lab which at the time was the highest security.

    The NIH then funded the WIV (through EcoHealth) to make similar chimeras with viruses they had collected in China. We now know this work was done in a BSL-2 lab, the security level of a dentist's office, a level of risk described as "insanity" by US researchers. Between 2015 and 2017 the WIV described 8 different chimeric SARS viruses they had created.

    There is no known evidence that the WIV were working on or created the SARS-2 virus. One of the issues raising doubt is how secretive the WIV have been, most likely because they were in a race with the US to develop SARS vaccines. Next door to the WIV is the WIBP (Wuhan Institute of Biological Products) where the Sinopharm SARS-2 vaccine was developed, so it's very likely the WIV and WIBP were working on SARS vaccine development.


    https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/




  • From Bloomberg (dated yesterday)

    "The Last—And Only—Foreign Scientist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out
    Virologist Danielle Anderson paints a very different picture of the Wuhan Institute."

    "If presented with evidence that such an accident spawned Covid-19, Anderson
    “could foresee how things could maybe happen,” she said. “I’m not naive enough to say I absolutely write this off.”
    And yet, she still believes it most likely came from a natural source.
    Since it took researchers almost a decade to pin down where in nature the SARS pathogen emerged,
    Anderson says she’s not surprised they haven’t found the “smoking gun” bat responsible for the latest outbreak yet. "

    see -> URL="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid-come-from-a-lab-scientist-at-wuhan-institute-speaks-out"]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid-come-from-a-lab-scientist-at-wuhan-institute-speaks-out[/URL




  • PintOfView wrote: »
    From Bloomberg (dated yesterday)

    "The Last—And Only—Foreign Scientist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out
    Virologist Danielle Anderson paints a very different picture of the Wuhan Institute."

    "If presented with evidence that such an accident spawned Covid-19, Anderson
    “could foresee how things could maybe happen,” she said. “I’m not naive enough to say I absolutely write this off.”
    And yet, she still believes it most likely came from a natural source.
    Since it took researchers almost a decade to pin down where in nature the SARS pathogen emerged,
    Anderson says she’s not surprised they haven’t found the “smoking gun” bat responsible for the latest outbreak yet. "

    see -> URL="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid-come-from-a-lab-scientist-at-wuhan-institute-speaks-out"]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid-come-from-a-lab-scientist-at-wuhan-institute-speaks-out[/URL


    I linked to the same article above. The gist is, she thinks lab origin is next to impossible.
    During a time that allegedly lab personnel got sick, which the lab denies, she was taking bus journeys with lots of co-workers, and had frequent contact with lots of people in the lab. She did an antibody test before getting vaccinated, and found she never had Covid. Another indicator that goes against the lab origin narrative.




  • I linked to the same article above. The gist is, she thinks lab origin is next to impossible.
    During a time that allegedly lab personnel got sick, which the lab denies, she was taking bus journeys with lots of co-workers, and had frequent contact with lots of people in the lab. She did an antibody test before getting vaccinated, and found she never had Covid. Another indicator that goes against the lab origin narrative.

    I'm not sure we have learned anything new from Danielle Anderson, she's basically repeating what Peter Daszak said in March 2020, the labs are safe and they weren't working on anything like SARS-CoV-2. The first claim is incorrect as we know they were working with dangerous pathogens in a BSL-2 lab (they admitted this), and I doubt she knew much about what they were working on, other than the project she herself was working on. She also claimed genetically engineering a virus like SAR-2 would be very difficult, which is incorrect. I'm not even sure why she said that as published studies from the WIV describe culturing chimeric viruses.

    The other issue is that as a visiting scientist she would have been subject to a non disclosure agreement, and if she disclosed anything the CCP were unhappy with, she would never set foot in China again let alone the WIV.

    On the illness question, it depends on the timing. The intelligence claim is that 3 workers fell ill in Nov 2019, she left in Nov 2019, so we would need more clarity on the dates. There are also hundreds of staff spread across multiple labs, and it's likely she had interaction with a small subset.




  • PintOfView wrote: »
    From Bloomberg (dated yesterday)
    Since it took researchers almost a decade to pin down where in nature the SARS pathogen emerged,
    Anderson says she’s not surprised they haven’t found the “smoking gun” bat responsible for the latest outbreak yet. "

    Actually civet cats were identified as the source in May 2003 in Guangdong, a few months after the outbreak began, and traders who handled the animals were found to have SARS antibodies. Although it may have been that the civet cats were infected by humans, as researchers did not find widespread infection in the civet cat population.

    Since then a lot has been learned about bat coronaviruses, and it may well be that an ancestor of SARS-1 jumped from bats to humans directly and evolved over years or decades to become more infectious. The same thing could have happened with SARS-2, but so far we have found no evidence of anyone infected with SARS-2 or a SARS-2 predecessor before late 2019.


  • Advertisement


  • geospatial wrote: »
    She also claimed genetically engineering a virus like SAR-2 would be very difficult, which is incorrect.


    In the podcast transcript from Drosten that I linked to above, he says the exact same thing, and goes into great detail explaining why.


    Seriously, virologists say genetically engineering a virus like SARS2 would be very difficult, but random people on the internet come along and say 'wrong!! I understand virology better than those people. It's actually easy!'

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


    About Anderson - she actually worked there, and offers a viewpoint untainted by drama and conspiracies. So let's just say she had no idea of what the place where she worked actually does. Because conspiracy websites have better insight into labs in China than the people working there.

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:




  • In the podcast transcript from Drosten that I linked to above, he says the exact same thing, and goes into great detail explaining why.

    He doesn't, and it's obvious you haven't much of a notion what he is talking about from your prior comments on these products of GOF emerging from nature a few weeks later. They may or may not, or emerge years from now, or emerge decades from now, or never emerge. He is also talking to a reporter and dumbing it down for him, and it's translated from German. Also, don't assume because you know little about a subject matter that others are the same as you.

    This is a good summary of GOF and it's dangers. If you're interested in the detail read the 2015-2017 papers from Ralph Baric's lab and the WIV, obviously what they are doing is not technically easy but it is routine for them. Making a chimeric virus like SARS-2 would be routine in these labs, which is why the US government put a moratorium on this risky work in 2014.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/

    I can only go on what Anderson has said in her interview, and she has added nothing to what was known in March 2020. Her claim that the WIV labs were safe is flat out wrong and contradicted by numerous leading US virologists, including Ralph Baric himself, and he is the one who trained them. Nothing to do with conspiracy websites.




  • geospatial wrote: »
    Also, don't assume because you know little about a subject matter that others are the same as you.


    This is really, really childish. You claim to know more than world renowned virologists, and when I call you out on it, you make it about me?? I'm not a virologist. I never claimed to know more than they do.






    When I read that a virologist says

    “It’s not that it was boring, but it was a regular lab that worked in the same way as any other high-containment lab,” Anderson said. “What people are saying is just not how it is.”


    I accept it as credible - because that's an actual virologist, because she actually worked in the Wuhan lab, and because it's consistent what other actual virologists - people who know Shi Zhengli personally - say.





    When Drosten says
    It is often not likely that someone would have done something like that in a research project, because it simply makes no sense.
    ..
    [context of the following is artificially adding Furin cleavage sites]

    To explain that, first of all, you have to claim that scientists constructed a completely new reverse genetic system out of a completely unknown virus, and then added a Furin site....
    An analogy would be that I would like to test the sound of a new car radio. To do that, I do not use an existing car, put in the radio, and see how it sounds. Instead, I build a new car from scratch. When it's ready, I put in the new radio. This simply makes no sense. Nobody would work like this.

    I can see that he's trying to explain complex matters in layman's terms, and have no reason to doubt it.


    This is just one of many examples.
    In the same context, he debunks the narrative that 'evolution would simply take to long for the new virus to occur naturally', and gives a detailed explanation of the mechanisms that allow the exact same things to occur naturally.


    (Links and quotes are from the same sources as before, the Bloomberg article about Anderson's work in the Wuhan lab, and the transcript of the Drosten podcast about the origin of the virus.)




  • You claim to know more than world renowned virologists, and when I call you out on it, you make it about me?? I'm not a virologist. I never claimed to know more than they do.
    [/SIZE][/I]

    I don't make that claim, at all. I also have no idea where you got that idea, as I am quoting leading virologists and molecular biologists. However, I do know my way around genomics and can intelligently comment on what I read from both scientists and laypersons. And I didn't attack you, I attacked your lack of knowledge.

    Anderson worked in the newly opened BSL-4 lab, which is a high containment lab. I have no reason to doubt it was state of the art. However that has nothing to do with the issue in question, the work going on in BSL-2 and 3 labs, throughout 2015 to 2019 when the BSL-4 lab was opened. Their process was developing chimeric viruses in BSL-2 and animal experiments in BSL-3. Given they had no idea of the pathogenicity of the experiments conducted in the former, doing it in BSL-2 was insane. This is agreed to by even Ralph Baric.

    Dorsten is responding to a question on making the SARS-CoV-2 virus from scratch. Only a moron journalist would frame the question that way and no rational scientist is suggesting that. What is rational is either the virus actually already existed in bats (unlikely) and was collected by the WIV and someone got infected, or an experiment involving genetic engineering and passaging of existing viruses collected in Yunnan lead to a lab leak. The latter is quite plausible as anyone familiar with the work would agree. Dorsten was not asked this question.

    Yes, SARS-CoV-2 could have arisen naturally, and that is the explanation I currently favor. There are two hurdles, bat coronaviruses are not adapted to humans, they are adapted to bats. The fact SARS-2 is not well adapted to bats means it has diverged long ago, or that process was accelerated. There are multiple explanations for natural evolution, but we have found no evidence as yet. Recombination involves an intermediary and mutation involves humans. It absolutely can happen but so far on evidence, nada. The second obstacle is time, viruses take time to adapt to any host.

    Also, when you and others refer to lab origin hypotheses as conspiracy theories, you are offending many virologists and scientists who now lean that way. It would be good if you and your ilk would actually get up to speed on what lab origin currently means.




  • geospatial wrote: »
    Culturing them is extremely difficult (this was referenced by Danielle Anderson in her recent article), but this obstacle was overcome in Ralph Baric's UNC lab in 2013 when he developed reverse genetics methods to both build viruses from their genetic code and mix and match sequences from multiple viruses. So it isn't difficult as Anderson claimed, it's been done repeatedly since 2013.

    So, virologist Anderson says it is difficult, you say it's not.

    You argue with reverse genetics methods, when Drosten addresses exactly that, and explains it's like building a car to test the car radio, you say he wasn't asked the right questions.

    Right.


  • Advertisement


  • geospatial wrote: »
    I don't make that claim, at all. I also have no idea where you got that idea, as I am quoting leading virologists and molecular biologists. However, I do know my way around genomics and can intelligently comment on what I read from both scientists and laypersons. And I didn't attack you, I attacked your lack of knowledge.

    Anderson worked in the newly opened BSL-4 lab, which is a high containment lab. I have no reason to doubt it was state of the art. However that has nothing to do with the issue in question, the work going on in BSL-2 and 3 labs, throughout 2015 to 2019 when the BSL-4 lab was opened. Their process was developing chimeric viruses in BSL-2 and animal experiments in BSL-3. Given they had no idea of the pathogenicity of the experiments conducted in the former, doing it in BSL-2 was insane. This is agreed to by even Ralph Baric.

    Dorsten is responding to a question on making the SARS-CoV-2 virus from scratch. Only a moron journalist would frame the question that way and no rational scientist is suggesting that. What is rational is either the virus actually already existed in bats (unlikely) and was collected by the WIV and someone got infected, or an experiment involving genetic engineering and passaging of existing viruses collected in Yunnan lead to a lab leak. The latter is quite plausible as anyone familiar with the work would agree. Dorsten was not asked this question.

    Yes, SARS-CoV-2 could have arisen naturally, and that is the explanation I currently favor. There are two hurdles, bat coronaviruses are not adapted to humans, they are adapted to bats. The fact SARS-2 is not well adapted to bats means it has diverged long ago, or that process was accelerated. There are multiple explanations for natural evolution, but we have found no evidence as yet. Recombination involves an intermediary and mutation involves humans. It absolutely can happen but so far on evidence, nada. The second obstacle is time, viruses take time to adapt to any host.

    Also, when you and others refer to lab origin hypotheses as conspiracy theories, you are offending many virologists and scientists who now lean that way. It would be good if you and your ilk would actually get up to speed on what lab origin currently means.

    Agreed 100%




  • So, virologist Anderson says it is difficult, you say it's not.

    You argue with reverse genetics methods, when Drosten addresses exactly that, and explains it's like building a car to test the car radio, you say he wasn't asked the right questions.

    Right.

    Invitrogen (now thermo fisher i think) even offer seamless insertion kits for genetic manipulation without the tags etc that go along with conventional GMO work. Such a kit was used for chimeric sarbecovirus virus research work in papers in Nature even...




  • Trigger wrote: »
    Mod: Cut out the bickering, if you have nothing to add to the topic, don't post.

    Posts deleted
    Why are we discussing the literal opinions of scientists and major news articles now in the conspiracy theories forum?




  • I linked to the same article above. The gist is, she thinks lab origin is next to impossible.
    During a time that allegedly lab personnel got sick, which the lab denies, she was taking bus journeys with lots of co-workers, and had frequent contact with lots of people in the lab. She did an antibody test before getting vaccinated, and found she never had Covid. Another indicator that goes against the lab origin narrative.
    I would agree with that, but the two BSL-2 labs that were being used to also study sarbecoviruses in Wuhan weren't mentioned in this interview.




  • When the virologists say that lab origin is extremely unlikely, but should still be investigated, I would argue that the motivation for saying that is not that they give any credibility to the conspiracists, or the half truths of distorted, pseudo-scientific narratives, but rather that looking into an origin of a virus is in itself a perfectly normal thing to do - like it was with SARS1.



    So - Covid likely to be man made > conspiracy.
    Scientists: let's investigate the origin of a new virus > perfectly normal, common practice, has been done in the past.




  • Looks like Expert witnesses are now warning that it's now Highly Likely Covid 19 Leaked from Lab

    Hearing been covered here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3LuOhtrq4M&t=4s




  • So, virologist Anderson says it is difficult, you say it's not.

    You argue with reverse genetics methods, when Drosten addresses exactly that, and explains it's like building a car to test the car radio, you say he wasn't asked the right questions.

    Right.

    Except it's not me personally arguing about how easy or difficult it is, it's published science. Creating chimeric viruses has been going on for decades, and from a technical perspective it's routine with today's genetic engineering methods.

    These are the relevant papers to read if you want to get up to speed. One is from Ralph Baric's lab at UNC and the other from the WIV. Both describe in detail inserting the spike sequence from one bat coronavirus collected in Yunnan into a mouse adapted SARS backbone. The WIV paper describes creating eight different chimeric viruses using samples collected in Yunnan.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/

    David Relman from Stanford who is involved in the US government investigation was recently interviewed by CBS and stated lab leak hypotheses are "absolute legitimate and plausible" and furthermore that "it is impossible to tell whether the last bit of evolution took place in a laboratory or in nature".




  • NaFirinne wrote: »
    Looks like Expert witnesses are now warning that it's now Highly Likely Covid 19 Leaked from Lab

    Hearing been covered here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3LuOhtrq4M&t=4s

    Largely a politicized circus. I wouldn't hold out much hope for anything apart from the pre-decided narrative that "Communist China started Covid" bolstered by a few select witnesses.




  • When the virologists say that lab origin is extremely unlikely, but should still be investigated, I would argue that the motivation for saying that is not that they give any credibility to the conspiracists, or the half truths of distorted, pseudo-scientific narratives, but rather that looking into an origin of a virus is in itself a perfectly normal thing to do - like it was with SARS1.

    Yes but there is an enormous difference of opinion on origin possibilities between scientists. Some argue that lab origin is impossible while others say it is plausible.

    On one extreme is Peter Daszak who has stated that SARS-2 could not have come from the WIV because he knew everything they were doing there and they were not studying anything that could be a SARS-2 ancestor. Furthermore he claimed their work was done in high security labs and they have been transparent with their data. We know now that all three statements were false, and that Peter Daszak's sole interest was supporting the lab and the GOF work in question. Which is a perfectly normal human response, but it also means he should not be involved in any investigation, nor should anyone with a conflict of interest.

    On the other hand scientists who do not have a conflict of interest are asking for an open and transparent investigation, including an investigation of the work being done at the WIV. Difficult to do I agree given all the relevant data has been hidden and the scientists involved are under threat of imprisonment if they disclose anything.

    Lab origin, whether the leakage of a natural virus being studied, or the leakage of a genetically engineered virus, are not conspiracy theories. They are plausible explanations.




  • geospatial wrote: »
    Except it's not me personally arguing about how easy or difficult it is, it's published science.



    OK, please kindly link to that science.


    From what I can tell, you have deliberately tried to misrepresent 'possible' as 'easy'.


    Landing on the moon has been possible since the 1060s. That does not mean it's easy.

    The virologists I quoted have explicitly stated that highly complicated processes to artificially create a virus are possible, while explaining in detail while that's both nonsensical, unlikely and difficult.


  • Advertisement


  • OK, please kindly link to that science.
    From what I can tell, you have deliberately tried to misrepresent 'possible' as 'easy'.

    I attached two links for you, the creation of chimeric viruses is not just possible, it is done routinely. I have already clarified for you that it is not technically "easy", but it is routine in labs that specialize in it. Nobody sensible is suggesting SARS-2 was built from scratch in a lab.

    I am not getting into a waste of time semantic argument with you.




  • OK, please kindly link to that science.


    From what I can tell, you have deliberately tried to misrepresent 'possible' as 'easy'.


    Landing on the moon has been possible since the 1060s. That does not mean it's easy.

    The virologists I quoted have explicitly stated that highly complicated processes to artificially create a virus are possible, while explaining in detail while that's both nonsensical, unlikely and difficult.
    Look, have you ever worked with cultures, designed insertion sites and primers for then, modified an organism, used anti-microbial growth mediums etc for selecting for things that have resistance cassettes, helping to confirm you've found organisms where the modification was successful?

    Here's the kit that was used by the Shi lab in their famous paper that mentioned the creation of a chimeric virus more suited to huACE2 receptors. https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/A13288#/A13288

    Note "Invitrogen" as mentioned in the paper, became Thermo Fischer subsequently.

    So, the issue of "complexity" is really difficult to grasp and characterise. There are so many variables involved. Sarbecoviruses are not that difficult to culture, can be done in a BSL2 lab and kits like what I linked make it "easy" for someone with qualifications to make a chimeric virus from two wild-type viruses.

    It's certainly nothing like sending someone to the moon. The 2015 Shi paper didn't actually spend any time elaborating on the methodology, just mentioned they used a seamless cloning kit to create the chimeric virus, the Invitrogen one was cited somewhere else in the paper. Based on that, they appeared to think it was a trivial aspect of the observation.




  • geospatial wrote: »
    I attached two links for you, the creation of chimeric viruses is not just possible, it is done routinely. I have already clarified for you that it is not technically "easy", but it is routine in labs that specialize in it. Nobody sensible is suggesting SARS-2 was built from scratch in a lab.
    I have to agree with this, my review of the published literature supports this assertion. I feel confident that I could do so without using extra cassettes or particular restriction enzymes given how these seamless kits are available. Usually you'd go with more conventional methods as you'd require more verifiable methods of successful insertion, but with low Kbp organisms like most viruses, it's acceptable to simply have the whole created virus sequenced nowadays, and then used for whatever further experimentation is required.




  • What it comes down to:
    you guys claim to understand Coronarviruses better that the virologists who have been researching Coronaviruses for years, and, in Drosten's case, developed the first PCR test for SARS- COV-2.


    You found a link to a DNA cloning kit online - conveniently forgetting that Coronaviruses are RNA viruses. Brilliant.


    What is the reason, in your opinion, for Drosten and Anderson to make incorrect statements? Incompetence? Malicious intent?


    What I hear is meaningless pseudoscientific technobabble, that you're making up to fit the 'I blame China' narrative you're trying to promote.




  • You found a link to a DNA cloning kit online - conveniently forgetting that Coronaviruses are RNA viruses. Brilliant.

    Well at least you posted this nonsense in the right forum, and have confirmed you have no clue what you are on about.

    How does a Covid-19 PCR test work? Given a PCR test only works on DNA and not RNA, and the SARS-CoVCC-2 virus is RNA.

    Read the first few sentences.

    https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-biotechnology-revolution-pcr-and-the-use-553/




  • Ah, I see. So, you're now saying that a cloning kit is kind of like the same as a PCR test, that's why Drosten, who developed the Covid PCR test, is wrong, and you're right.


    Unrelated links. Shifting goal posts - which you do every single time the BS you post is called into question - is a misinformation tactic.



    You clearly stated 'I blame China' before.
    Everything else is just nonsense to promote your entirely political narrative.




  • Ah, I see. So, you're now saying that a cloning kit is kind of like the same as a PCR test, that's why Drosten, who developed the Covid PCR test, is wrong, and you're right.
    Unrelated links. Shifting goal posts - which you do every single time the BS you post is called into question - is a misinformation tactic.
    You clearly stated 'I blame China' before.
    Everything else is just nonsense to promote your entirely political narrative.

    Bizarre and ignorant outburst.

    I have never said "I blame China". I do however hold the CCP responsible for their cover up of the outbreak similar to SARS-1, and their persecution of scientists and doctors who tried to raise the alarm.




  • geospatial wrote: »
    I am blaming the CCP.
    geospatial wrote: »
    I have never said "I blame China".


    Apologies, I stand corrected, I confused you saying 'I blame the CCP' with 'I blame China'.



    Although, if you consider the context - assigning political blame first, and then trying to construct a pseudo-scientific narrative to validate the claim - it makes absolutely no difference.




  • Apologies, I stand corrected, I confused you saying 'I blame the CCP' with 'I blame China'.



    Although, if you consider the context - assigning political blame first, and then trying to construct a pseudo-scientific narrative to validate the claim - it makes absolutely no difference.

    Apology accepted.

    That's not what I'm doing. I am not claiming the virus originated in the WIV, although I think that is plausible and should be seriously investigated. A separate issue is the CCP covering up the outbreak, resisting access until the virus had already spread worldwide, and not allowing a proper investigation. The reality is the CCP cannot be trusted if a potential pandemic starts in China, which is actually quite scary.


  • Advertisement


  • What it comes down to:
    you guys claim to understand Coronarviruses better that the virologists who have been researching Coronaviruses for years, and, in Drosten's case, developed the first PCR test for SARS- COV-2.


    You found a link to a DNA cloning kit online - conveniently forgetting that Coronaviruses are RNA viruses. Brilliant.


    What is the reason, in your opinion, for Drosten and Anderson to make incorrect statements? Incompetence? Malicious intent?


    What I hear is meaningless pseudoscientific technobabble, that you're making up to fit the 'I blame China' narrative you're trying to promote.
    I don't know to whom that rant is directed at, but I know the DNA kit mentioned is relevant simply because a) it was literally cited in a prestigious journal as being used and b) I thought the reverse transcriptase aspect of such a cloning protocol would be obvious to informed commentary. It seems like you don't actually have a clue about microbiology though.


Advertisement