https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted7,11. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone20. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss whether selection during passage could have given rise to SARS-CoV-2.
his for details:https://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message4523067/pg1
ReplyDeleteOn the day that Scientific American endorses a liberal political candidate , this post loses that much more credibility. Like Pravda assuring us that there was no Gulag, like Chinese newspapers telling us that Uighers are willingly in voluntary re-education institutions and like CNN telling us to ignore burning cities because all the BLM protests are peaceful, this claim can be ignored. "Nothing to see here" has been overused by the liberals too many times.
ReplyDeletemore nonsense!
ReplyDeleteWell, some of my academic professors in UK endorsed Jeremy Corbyn in the UK for the election last year. The reason being his backing of science and technology, and the environment - allegedly.
ReplyDeleteallegedly this is total nonsense
ReplyDeleteWe covered this BS article already. Andersen and Scripps are conflicted. They are in favor of viral GOF experimentation, and therefore they push the natural origins theory because a lab origin would add more scrutiny not only to GOF research in particular, but to the biosafety regulations of all virology labs like their own - regulations which they don't want.
ReplyDeleteThe lady doth protest too much.
They provide no proof in this article one way or the other, and the logical deductions they make from Zalgen's "prediction software" are laughable. That they immediately pushed this narrative so aggressively in the very first few months of the pandemic when so little was known about the virus yet, only points to them having an agenda.
Anyone arguing a natural non-lab origin for this virus is left with a big giant elephant in the room question ---- WHY was it already human-adapted at the beginning of the pandemic if it started as a result of a zoonotic spillover like they claim? That it was human adapted points to a lab origin. Like it or not.
What is nonsense in what I wrote?
ReplyDelete