Private channel session 1353
18 messages over 11m, 2021-05-11 – 2021-05-11.
A “conversation” here is an activity session — a run of messages with under 60 minutes of silence inside it. The channel had no native conversation boundaries.
-
Was chatting to some of WHO people about the RelBloom thing today...their reaction is :man-facepalming:
-
I also had a very interesting chat with my Deep Throat in China. Got the following:
-
"No evidence so far indicate that the WIV has the virus in storage."
-
"I think George is leading the effort and BGI is help with all the sequencing works. That's the national team, although other team are also working on similar project, but with smaller scale. There has been huge effort on environments(wet market in Wuhan) and wild-life animals (all over China, including bats and pangolines). I myself is involved inthese some of the work (one with pangoline and the other with the Gamey taste animals), but nothing relavent isfound at this stage. And I haven't heard anything interesting from others either. George previously wanted me toinvolve in the data analyses, and promised to send the hard disk, but they never arrived. So I guess he is having second thoughts."
-
Plus this awesome figure: [shared file(s): Fig 1 Hv20210510v2.pdf]
-
So, nothing found yet but great they are looking so hard. Can't see any evidence for mink or raccoon dog testing though.
-
That's super interesting @Eddie Holmes Yes indeed I'm glad they are looking so hard!
-
I was typing this: JC is one of a handful of science journo that could get this right. He's probably non to happy _Science_ is publishing this crap. I find it interesting they give a Editorial credit to Jennifer Sills. On further reflectionof RelBloomshit the the two things that piss me off the most are: 1. the assertion that there is "no clear evidence" for natural origin in the WHO report and 2. "Not racists, however, the Chinese scientists, authorities, and public health officials are lying." 1 is an argument from authority meant to demean a scientific conclusion they don't like andconfuse ppl, while 2 is a self-serving plea to ignore the fact that they are proposing a massive cover-up and conspiracy.
-
My strategy now is try and do as much with China as I can get an insight into what the fuck is going on. Totally agree with your take Bob. #2 is really, really sleazy.
-
That they are looking so bloody hard suggests to me that they clearly think it is natural. Why bother if it's engineered? SLACK_000988
-
It will be interesting to see what Daszak, Koopsman and others have to say about RelBloomshit. Surely they are not going to sit still and agree about the "no clear evidence."
-
Surely not. All the WHO team have seen it.
-
"My strategy now is try and do as much with China as I can get an insight into what the fuck is going on." More power to you on this!
-
@Eddie Holmes It's really something - yeah Jon publish it. [shared file(s): image.png]
-
@Eddie Holmes A random thought - why is eDim not a signer of RelBloomshit? Going direct at NIH OD Collins maybe too radical? Any journo that really wanted to sink in teeth would find the motherload. [shared file(s): image.png]
-
"We should show the same determination in promoting a dispassionate science-based discourse on this difficult but important issue." They want a determined but dispassionate science-based discourse on the topic that WIV was doing GoF research with the CCP army on a secret progenitor of SC2. Like I said this is starting to really piss me off.I may put my scenario diagrams up on virological.
-
@Eddie Holmes https:/(www.rawstory.com/rand-paul-vs-anthony-fauci-hearing-2652950727/?utm_source=push_notifications It's getting hot out there!
-
Wuhan wildlife markets suggests SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin Robert F. Garry1.2 Introduction Our previous commentary on the Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2 (Andersen et al., 2020) concluded that, "SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus (Andersen et al., 2020)." The possibility of a laboratory release or Lab Leak was also considered, but it was determined that a natural origin ofSARS-CoV-2 is much more likely. Recently, a team of scientists under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) reached similar conclusions (WHO Report, 2021). Other groups have speculated that SARS-CoV-2 may be the result of undisclosed research on SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor and accidental release [Relman, 2020; Parisite 1, 2]. Some Lab Leak proponents have suggested that SARS-Cov-2 may be the product of laboratory passage of a progenitor virus in cell culture or animals, or Gain-of-Function research [ref]. New data presented by the WHO study provides clear findings in support of the Natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. Results The study of SARS-CoV-2 origins conducted by the WHO team provided important new data regarding the role ofwildlife markets in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. The large Huanan seafood market, which also sold wildlife and wildlife products, was a focus of early attention because it was linked to the majority of early cases of COVID-19 inWuhan. The WHO report documented that early cases were not only linked to the Huanan market, but that other early cases were linked to different markets that sold wildlife or wildlife products. Among the first 168 diagnosedcases of COVID-19 in Wuhan with onset date prior to December 31, 2019 and a known history of exposure towildlife markets 55.4% (93/168) reported such exposures. Of the 168 cases, 28% (47/168) had only been to the Huanan market, 22% (38/168) had exposure to another wildlife market and 4.7% (8/168) had exposure to the Huanan market and another market (ref table). The genetic lineages of SARS-CoV-2 associated with early cases in Wuhan were documented in the WHO report. Previously, Rambaut et al, (2020) noted that at the root of the phylogeny of SARS-CoV-2 are two lineagesdesignated lineage A and B. Early lineage A viruses, include SARS-Cov-2 isolate EPI_ISL_529213 sampled on30Dec19 from a person linked to a wildlife market different than the Huanan market (Table 7, S13, WHO report2021). Linage A viruses share two nucleotides (T8,782 in ORF1ab and C28,144 in ORF8) with the bat viruses RaTG13 and RmYN02 and other sarbecoviruses. It is likely that the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) ofSARS-CoV-2 shares the same genome sequence as these early lineage A sequences (Rambaut et al., 2020).Different nucleotides (C8,782 in ORF1ab and T28,144 in ORF8) are present at those sites in viruses assigned tolineage B, such as SARS-CoV-2 isolate Wuhan-Hu-1 (GenBank accession no. MN908947, Table 7, S13, WHO report,) sampled from the Huanan market on 30Dec19. All virus positive samples from the Huanan market, fromvenders or customers of the market or from environmental samples, contained SARS-CoV-2 of lineage B. There was limited genetic diversity in the lineage B samples from the Huanan market, which is consistent with the marketas a site of a super-spreader event. Lineage A and Lineage B viruses spread throughout Wuhan and to other countries [ref]. [shared file(s): image.png, image.png]