Slack / Private Message Drop — page 357

Please reply-all for the favor of broad illumination. Also, should any of you care to discuss SARS-CoV-2 evolution on Unbreaking Science, contact Sincerely, James Lyons-Weiler PS Re: origins: Check out HKU-3-3 - it appears to have SARS-CoV-2 -like functional motifs, but was published in 2005/ Baric downloaded it in 2008. Both the original report and his people thought it was SARS. See second report here HKU-3-3 is a SARS-CoV-2 precusor, at least from the perspective of the spike protein. http://ipaknowledge.org/covid-19-and-sars-cov-2-research.php Also available here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340769150_Motif_Pathogenicity_Typing_SARS-CoV-2_Coronavirus_May _Contain_a_Unique_Likely_Pathogenic_Protein_Motif_Signature_Also_Found_in_a_Natural_Isolate_from_2005``` [2021-01-04 09:08:56] [Robert Garry] First Alina et al. The main problem is that this is antiscience. Stop don't do it? Really dangerous and ill informed. Crawling to caves is not the best way to trap bats. They need to fly out at dusk and feed. Mist nets near the entrance are a "safe" and effective way to catch the animals. [shared file(s): image.png] [2021-01-04 09:14:44] [Robert Garry] JL-W makes an interesting hypothesis. However, PCR failures are prob not enough to account for whatever increased transmission is being seen, but potentially a factor. Modeling would probably be a good thing to do. [2021-01-04 10:13:08] [Kristian Andersen] Ehm, James looks like an idiot to me, but maybe I'm missing something :wink: . I assume none of these new origin articles actually present anything new? Just the same all speculation circulated - give me some _specific_ data or _specific_ testable hypotheses, and I'm happy to consider... Without that - fuck off. [2021-01-04 10:38:03] [Robert Garry] I think James is mainly commenting about the need for new PCRs based on some pairs missing some of the variants - yes that's obvious - at some point the PCRs need to be updated and obviously there is a need to keep monitoring. Does missing one primer out of three account for increased transmissibility? - likely not at all, but pretty simple to disprove. I don't think James is in the Lab Origins camp. He thinks he's found a "motif" that might signal pathogenicity. That is indeed a goofball notion [pathogenicity of a virus is something no one really understands], but he does write in his missive that "None of the other coronaviruses analyzed had the pathogenic motif, making it potentially useful as a forensic fingerprint. The pathogenic motif was not found in any constructed or modified coronavirus associated with Dr. Shi; she is, in my scientific view, exonerated as far as available and trustworthy data can inform us." [2021-01-04 10:45:00] [Robert Garry] "new origin articles actually present anything new" No not a thing - the "big" news is that NBC journalist that contacted you. One of Trump's minion's says he has a whistleblower? Bannon/Dr Yan copy cat or evidence for a limited Bannon playbook. Alina likes to criticize, but she carefully doesn't put out anything like "_specific_ data or _specific_ testable hypotheses." She is good at getting fringe reporters to work as her stenographer. At least Dr. Yan tried to do something scientific, which though laughable, was at least some data/hypothesis to be exposed for the pathetic nonsense that it is.