Conspiracy?
Jun. 23rd, 2021 12:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ny_quantIn a new study, I identify and recover a deleted set of #SARSCoV2 sequences that provide additional information about viruses from the early Wuhan outbreak: https://t.co/1zdeiOQ0vo (1/n)
— Bloom Lab (@jbloom_lab) June 22, 2021
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2021-06-23 05:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-06-24 12:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-06-24 01:56 pm (UTC)Допустим, что это случилось. Просто сменится новостная повестка, особенно у Fox и консервативных комментаторов, и, возможно, погрозят пальцем Китаю, он сделает вид, что не заметил.
Так пойдет, или нужны аутодафе?
no subject
Date: 2021-06-23 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-06-23 05:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-06-23 05:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-06-23 05:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-06-23 05:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-06-23 08:21 pm (UTC)While researching Sars-CoV-2, Professor Bloom found a project by Wuhan University that sequenced 34 positive coronavirus cases from January 2020, and 16 further cases in early February.
The project looked into diagnosing Sars-Cov-2 infection by a technique called nanopore sequencing. Its results, published in March as a pre-print then in June after peer review, remain publicly available.
However, the genomic sequences obtained as part of the study - which were uploaded to the US-maintained Sequence Read Archive (SRA), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) - are not.
The NIH told The Telegraph they had “reviewed the submitting investigator’s request to withdraw the data” in June 2020, and removed it.
“The requestor indicated the sequence information had been updated, was being submitted to another database, and wanted the data removed from SRA to avoid version control issues,” a spokesperson said. “Submitting investigators hold the rights to their data and can request withdrawal of the data.”
no subject
Date: 2021-06-23 08:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-06-23 09:48 pm (UTC)Блум опубликовал свое исследование вчера.
Уже есть какая-то реакция ВОЗ ?
Они закончили своё расследование в Китае в марте 2020.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf
Wuhan University официально, после peer review, опубликовал результаты в июне 2020
Пока что только истерия в твиттере набирает обороты со страшной скоростью:
https://twitter.com/search?q=China%20deleted%20early%20coronavirus%20data%20that%20could%20help%20explain%20pandemic%20origins%2C%20researcher%20finds&src=typeahead_click
no subject
Date: 2021-06-24 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-06-24 01:16 pm (UTC)Как я понял Блум единственный, который заинтересовался этим исследованием, причем намного позже , в 2021.
Блум "belong to an outspoken group of scientists who have called for more research into how the pandemic began. In a letter published in May, they complained that there wasn’t enough information to determine whether it was more likely that a lab leak spread the coronavirus, or that it leapt to humans from contact with an infected animal outside of a lab."
no subject
Date: 2021-06-24 03:42 pm (UTC)Блум не то чтобы какой-то фрик, он вполне в мейнстриме и среди авторов того письма был, например, тот же Дашак который считает что вирус напрямую пришел из природы. Расследование происхождения и раннего распространения вируса не является признаком какой-либо конспиралогии, это вполне нормальные вопросы, которые задаются после любого аутбрейка.
no subject
Date: 2021-06-24 06:19 pm (UTC)Сам отчет остался.
Spreadsheet остался.
Блум просто кликнул на download и обнаружил что файлов нет.
>Расследование происхождения и раннего распространения вируса не является признаком какой-либо конспиралогии, это вполне нормальные вопросы, которые задаются после любого аутбрейка.
Есть кто-то, кто с этим не согласен?:)
Nature пишет, что китайцы уже протестировали десятки тысяч животных в поисках origin.
Последний отчет ВОЗ(updated on 6 April 2021) называется
WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2:
China Part
Joint WHO-China Study
The joint team’s assessment of likelihood of each possible pathway was as follows:
• direct zoonotic spillover is considered to be a possible-to-likely pathway;
• introduction through an intermediate host is considered to be a likely to very likely pathway;
• introduction through cold/ food chain products is considered a possible pathway;
• introduction through a laboratory incident was considered to be an extremely unlikely pathway.
Introduction through a laboratory incident
Explanation of hypothesis
SARS-CoV-2 is introduced through a laboratory incident, reflecting an accidental infection of staff
from laboratory activities involving the relevant viruses. We did not consider the hypothesis of
deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome (3).
Arguments in favour
Although rare, laboratory accidents do happen, and different laboratories around the world are working
with bat CoVs. When working in particular with virus cultures, but also with animal inoculations or
clinical samples, humans could become infected in laboratories with limited biosafety, poor laboratory
management practice, or following negligence. The closest known CoV RaTG13 strain (96.2%) to
SARS-CoV-2 detected in bat anal swabs have been sequenced at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market. Such moves can be disruptive for the operations of any laboratory.
Arguments against
The closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2 from bats and pangolin are evolutionarily distant from SARSCoV-
2. There has been speculation regarding the presence of human ACE2 receptor binding and a
furin-cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2, but both have been found in animal viruses as well, and elements
of the furin-cleavage site are present in RmYN02 and the new Thailand bat SARSr-CoV. There is no
record of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 in any laboratory before December 2019, or genomes
that in combination could provide a SARS-CoV-2 genome. Regarding accidental culture, prior to
December 2019, there is no evidence of circulation of SARS-CoV-2 among people globally and the
surveillance programme in place was limited regarding the number of samples processed and therefore
the risk of accidental culturing SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory is extremely low. The three laboratories
in Wuhan working with either CoVs diagnostics and/or CoVs isolation and vaccine development all
had high quality biosafety level (BSL3 or 4) facilities that were well-managed, with a staff health
monitoring programme with no reporting of COVID-19 compatible respiratory illness during the
weeks/months prior to December 2019, and no serological evidence of infection in workers through
SARS-CoV-2-specific serology-screening. The Wuhan CDC lab which moved on 2nd December 2019
reported no disruptions or incidents caused by the move. They also reported no storage nor laboratory activities on CoVs or other bat viruses preceding the outbreak.
Assessment of likelihood
In view of the above, a laboratory origin of the pandemic was considered to be extremely unlikely.
What would be needed to increase knowledge?
Regular administrative and internal review of high-level biosafety laboratories worldwide. Follow-up
of new evidence supplied around possible laboratory leaks.
(3) Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, Holmes EC, and Garry RF (2020). The proximal origin
of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Medicine 26:450-452
no subject
Date: 2021-06-24 08:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-06-23 06:17 pm (UTC)Надо еще порыться в ДНК вируса - может, там какие коменты забыли вычистить?
--
Коган-варвар
no subject
Date: 2021-06-23 07:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-06-24 03:29 am (UTC)не очень понятен вот этот сам механизм.
как совершенно простая мысль: а не утечка ли это из лаборатории?
сначала очень дружно и сильно высмеивается. ну, батенька, вы и загнули!
конспиролух!
и вдруг та же самая ровно мысль перекочевывает в "main stream" (ну, в мусорку, конечно, но что есть, то есть)
и даже (даже!) Jon Stewart начинает едко шутить по этому поводу в телевизоре.
прямо заслушаешься. только вот, где же ты был, Jon, год назад, когда Твиттер яростно
стирал именно эти вопросы, а фейсбук за них банил?
отвечать не надо. просто свежий пример того, какое все таки говно
этот ваш "main stream" не дай бог в него вляпаться