My 2 COVID questions no one could answer are coming into focus

If you go back through it all, a few posters were tracking this thing in January. There was some interest and some dismissive posts, which, by now haven’t aged well.

In March I asked two questions and have re-asked them often, as I had not seen any news, studies or even discussion about them.

The second one is starting to get answered and it’s answer leads one to believe that it is also an answer for the first.

1- What other coronavirus has this 2-14 day symptomless incubation where you are transmissible?

2- What other coronavirus involves multiple pathological presentations, I.e. attacks as a respiratory virus, buy also the blood vessels and major organs?

While studies have found now that it is more of a blood vessel disease, the following compilation of European studies tells us why.

2 Likes

Did you read the source document the article links to? It says… well… absolutely nothing that the article claims it does. The article references a Cambridge paper on vaccine development- it never even suggests or hints at the idea that this could be man-made.

The paper does suggest that the ACE-2 receptor is not the only or even the ideal target for a vaccine, and it goes on to give reasons why. But that’s it. As for the idea that it’s a blood vessel disease and not a pulmonary one- well, that could still be true and I’ve seen other papers that discuss that idea specifically. But this paper (and especially this article about this paper) are probably not the best sources to use to back that argument.

2 Likes

The article states an opinion about it being man made based on these two observstions, which are in the full study pdf


The authors state two conclusions: (1) the mutations that would normally be seen in the course of animal to human transmission have not occurred in SARS-CoV-2, indicating that it was fully “pre-adapted” for human infection and (2) SARS-CoV-2 has insertions in its protein sequence that have never been detected in nature and contribute to its infectivity and pathogenicity.

That is, SARS-CoV-2 has a receptor binding domain specifically designed for the human angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptor (ACE2) found in lungs, kidneys, intestines and blood vessels.

In addition, SARS-CoV-2 has a furin polybasic cleavage site not found in any closely-related bat coronaviruses as well as other artificially inserted charged amino acids that enhance the virus’ ability to bind to and enter human cells by forming “salt bridges” between the virus and the cell surface.

Those modifications are key to understanding the unique transmissibility and potency of SARS-CoV-2.


Maybe that is jumping the gun opinion wise, sure.

Also the second or further binding sites/methods beyond ACE2 looks like the actual physical structure answer to my second question.

How it got that way is indeed a separate, related, follow in question.

Good points made by you regarding the data in the study and the conclusion made by the article being two different things, yet the study may be a part if the path to pricing that opinion.

You’ve know my stance since the get-go

  • man made period.

Why it was made… I am with the grouping that it was for military application of some sort but I can’t go 100% as I simply don’t have mind reading abilities (yet!)

Why was it leaked? Same as always / most likely unintentional but we will never know.

The authors of the actual study do not say anything remotely like this. The authors of the article do, and then link to a study that does not support their claims. It’s lazy, inflammatory journalism.

1 Like

OK, let me read it again. I’m slow sometimes

The actual paper is full-blown academic jargon… so it’s not an easy read. There’s definitely a lot of “this is unusual for a coronavirus” stuff in there, but there’s absolutely no “so China must have made it”.

I’m no scientist. Nor do I play one on TV. This article which links to the BLAST database explains it pretty well to me that it’s not man made

There’s also all the past articles and Ted talks predicting that this happens in nature and was just a matter of time - and we needed to be better prepared.

Well, it happened and we were not prepared. At all. Not in the slightest.

1 Like

I haven’t read this article, but saying that it hasn’t yet been found in nature until now, doesn’t necessarily mean it was man made. Not discovered until now…to…man made is an ill advised leap.

1 Like

Maybe so. Also , it may fit a pattern of revealing small pieces of a puzzle a little at a time until the picture is finished slowly as opposed to ratcheting things up to 11 all at once…time honored political tactic

1 Like

Not for me - there are several article that were out there awhile back that broke it down very, very nicely and had links to the CCPs websites for validation etc…

In my world, it’s man made.

You live in a different world…

Lol - the perception rolls both ways!

But, in the big picture of live, where I am at, where you are at, it really doesn’t matter does it.

Virus, where it’s made or not… really it’s not stopping life for me or you in the end…

Correct. But if it was man-made, they did a crappy job! Should be much more lethal;)

1 Like

That’s largely why it’s unlikely.

But I think the realization that some crazy dictator might decide to level the playing field with a deadly virus is becoming much more concerning.

False dichotomy.

This is a proper example
In of itself my friend.

You “assume” I’m wrong and you can’t prove it …

I’m aware I’m “only” going of my intell I know of regarding the Chinese government … reading and watching several videos on it that support what I believe.

I know I’m more than likely right but always willing and open minded to look at other options… which you appear not to want to do…

You aRe absolute in your opinion it’s natural an bayou can’t prove it 100%.

Denial

I’m cool with my opinion at … um say … 85%. Until proven otherwise.

I hop you can be open minded enough to at least admit you can’t dispel it completely…

I assume you’re directing that at Bugman.

My comment to him (labeling his response a false dichotomy) disagrees with the notion that man-made would necessarily be more lethal or that for it to be a success it would need to be more lethal.

Wait, is that a double entendre false dichotomy?

Ahhhhhhh - my double bogey dichotomy!’

1 Like

Who says it was a weapon?

Who says they were done with it?

Lots of assumptions

1 Like