Evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 hasn't naturally evolved

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

You are mistaken here.

The most popular idea is that the virus has jumped to humans front animals via zoonosis as it's called.

Perhaps you haven't read at all the literature in regards to the two hypotheses i.e zoonosis and the lab-manufacture and leak


If you are suggesting that the virus existed already in some benign form then you have to show the virus was already around long before the start of the pandemic. But that's not true. There are other coronaviruses which are well documented and recorded. One of them has probably caused a similar pandemic called the Russian Flu back in 1889-1890 and I have created a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the links too.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

wait for the killnet drop. wont be any hiding after that.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.

The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

You are mistaken here.

The most popular idea is that the virus has jumped to humans front animals via zoonosis as it's called.

Perhaps you haven't read at all the literature in regards to the two hypotheses i.e zoonosis and the lab-manufacture and leak

I am aware that everyone is only talking about either a lab or zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, but that is only because they are ignoring the most obvious, likely, and normal natural source, namely that it arose in humans from another, quite benign, human hosted coronavirus.

A virus won't mutate where it's not. It mutates in an environment where there are numerous hosts that are infected.

If you are suggesting that the virus existed already in some benign form then you have to show the virus was already around long before the start of the pandemic.

That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Very similar viruses, SARS and MERS, existed decades beforehand, and well before humans had the genetic engineering nous to modify viral genomics.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that there were benign forms of these specific precursor viruses circulation in human populations for decades.

We have the proof of the existence of those SARS and MERS viruses, of which we have also had outbreaks in the human population, so we know they did once infect us. If they had mutated to a benign form, we wouldn't have noticed that, because it wouldn't create any dangerous or obvious symptoms.

A mild and 'cold like' version of these viruses could go entirely un-remarked and unseen by science, hidden among all the other 'cold' causing viruses.

But that's not true. There are other coronaviruses which are well documented and recorded. One of them has probably caused a similar pandemic called the Russian Flu back in 1889-1890 and I have created a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the links too.

While I agree that there are numerous benign coronaviruses, the Russian flu was not from a coronavirus. It was from the H1N1 strain of influenza - a different virus with no genomic similarity or link to any coronaviruses.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: AaarghZombies

So it's just a coincidence that the Earths landmass is over 150 million sq km, yet this natural genetic mutation happened only a few km from a virology lab working on gain of function research into bat coronaviruses? Specifically the technology to create a bat coronavirus capable of binding to human ACE2 receptors.

I'm amazed you still turn up here to be ridiculed, thought your ass would be too painful after the Redneck shot you down in flames.

How many cases of the virus being found prior to the Wuhan outbreak, would it take to totally debunk a Wuhan origin (and also the lab-origin at the same time)?

Who is 'patient zero' in the coronavirus outbreak? - BBC

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

You are mistaken here.

The most popular idea is that the virus has jumped to humans front animals via zoonosis as it's called.

Perhaps you haven't read at all the literature in regards to the two hypotheses i.e zoonosis and the lab-manufacture and leak

I am aware that everyone is only talking about either a lab or zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, but that is only because they are ignoring the most obvious, likely, and normal natural source, namely that it arose in humans from another, quite benign, human hosted coronavirus.

A virus won't mutate where it's not. It mutates in an environment where there are numerous hosts that are infected.

If you are suggesting that the virus existed already in some benign form then you have to show the virus was already around long before the start of the pandemic.

That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Very similar viruses, SARS and MERS, existed decades beforehand, and well before humans had the genetic engineering nous to modify viral genomics.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that there were benign forms of these specific precursor viruses circulation in human populations for decades.

We have the proof of the existence of those SARS and MERS viruses, of which we have also had outbreaks in the human population, so we know they did once infect us. If they had mutated to a benign form, we wouldn't have noticed that, because it wouldn't create any dangerous or obvious symptoms.

A mild and 'cold like' version of these viruses could go entirely un-remarked and unseen by science, hidden among all the other 'cold' causing viruses.

But that's not true. There are other coronaviruses which are well documented and recorded. One of them has probably caused a similar pandemic called the Russian Flu back in 1889-1890 and I have created a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the links too.

While I agree that there are numerous benign coronaviruses, the Russian flu was not from a coronavirus. It was from the H1N1 strain of influenza - a different virus with no genomic similarity or link to any coronaviruses.

The Russian Flu is a misnomer and it is likely caused by human coronavirus OC43 and not by a strain of the H1N1 influenza virus. You may want to see the links I have in my thread and the discussion.

Clinical evidence that the pandemic from 1889 to 1891 commonly called the Russian flu might have been an earlier coronavirus pandemic

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

OC43 appears to be benign but in the past it has caused as it seems the 1889-1890 pandemic. Now it causes common colds after us and the virus have evolved to live peacefully with each other.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

You are mistaken here.

The most popular idea is that the virus has jumped to humans front animals via zoonosis as it's called.

Perhaps you haven't read at all the literature in regards to the two hypotheses i.e zoonosis and the lab-manufacture and leak

I am aware that everyone is only talking about either a lab or zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, but that is only because they are ignoring the most obvious, likely, and normal natural source, namely that it arose in humans from another, quite benign, human hosted coronavirus.

A virus won't mutate where it's not. It mutates in an environment where there are numerous hosts that are infected.

If you are suggesting that the virus existed already in some benign form then you have to show the virus was already around long before the start of the pandemic.

That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Very similar viruses, SARS and MERS, existed decades beforehand, and well before humans had the genetic engineering nous to modify viral genomics.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that there were benign forms of these specific precursor viruses circulation in human populations for decades.

We have the proof of the existence of those SARS and MERS viruses, of which we have also had outbreaks in the human population, so we know they did once infect us. If they had mutated to a benign form, we wouldn't have noticed that, because it wouldn't create any dangerous or obvious symptoms.

A mild and 'cold like' version of these viruses could go entirely un-remarked and unseen by science, hidden among all the other 'cold' causing viruses.

But that's not true. There are other coronaviruses which are well documented and recorded. One of them has probably caused a similar pandemic called the Russian Flu back in 1889-1890 and I have created a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the links too.

While I agree that there are numerous benign coronaviruses, the Russian flu was not from a coronavirus. It was from the H1N1 strain of influenza - a different virus with no genomic similarity or link to any coronaviruses.

www.who.int...(mers-cov)

In case you can't open the link just go to the WHO

Here is another link

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


MERS for example was identified in Saudi Arabia in 2012 and didn't exist before that. And of course MERS appear to be a zoonotic virus that is transmitted between animals and humans contrary to what you have claimed above, which is a plausible hypothesis but it doesn't have much evidence to support it.


From the link above

Zoonotic transmission: MERS-CoV is a zoonotic virus, which means that is transmitted between animals and people. Studies have shown that humans are infected through direct or indirect contact with infected dromedary camels, although the exact route of transmission remains unclear. MERS-CoV has been identified in dromedary camels in several Member States in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia. Despite a limited number of human infections reported outside the Middle East, recent studies in human populations with occupational exposure to dromedary camels in a number of Member States indicate that there is also zoonotic transmission occurring in Member States in the African continent.

It's usually the other way around from the one you have suggested. When novel viruses are introduced to a population it's when they are the most virulent and pathogenic. As time passes they evolve just as we are, to live in relative peace and harmony with each other.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.

The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.

Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

You are mistaken here.

The most popular idea is that the virus has jumped to humans front animals via zoonosis as it's called.

Perhaps you haven't read at all the literature in regards to the two hypotheses i.e zoonosis and the lab-manufacture and leak

I am aware that everyone is only talking about either a lab or zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, but that is only because they are ignoring the most obvious, likely, and normal natural source, namely that it arose in humans from another, quite benign, human hosted coronavirus.

A virus won't mutate where it's not. It mutates in an environment where there are numerous hosts that are infected.

If you are suggesting that the virus existed already in some benign form then you have to show the virus was already around long before the start of the pandemic.

That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Very similar viruses, SARS and MERS, existed decades beforehand, and well before humans had the genetic engineering nous to modify viral genomics.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that there were benign forms of these specific precursor viruses circulation in human populations for decades.

We have the proof of the existence of those SARS and MERS viruses, of which we have also had outbreaks in the human population, so we know they did once infect us. If they had mutated to a benign form, we wouldn't have noticed that, because it wouldn't create any dangerous or obvious symptoms.

A mild and 'cold like' version of these viruses could go entirely un-remarked and unseen by science, hidden among all the other 'cold' causing viruses.

But that's not true. There are other coronaviruses which are well documented and recorded. One of them has probably caused a similar pandemic called the Russian Flu back in 1889-1890 and I have created a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the links too.

While I agree that there are numerous benign coronaviruses, the Russian flu was not from a coronavirus. It was from the H1N1 strain of influenza - a different virus with no genomic similarity or link to any coronaviruses.

The Russian Flu is a misnomer and it is likely caused by human coronavirus OC43 and not by a strain of the H1N1 influenza virus. You may want to see the links I have in my thread and the discussion.

Clinical evidence that the pandemic from 1889 to 1891 commonly called the Russian flu might have been an earlier coronavirus pandemic

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

OC43 appears to be benign but in the past it has caused as it seems the 1889-1890 pandemic. Now it causes common colds after us and the virus have evolved to live peacefully with each other.

... and if OC43 once again became virulent, would it then be from a zoonotic source, or from a lab, if it had mutations specific to its host species?

Let's use a little reasoning here.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Grenade

Yeah I get that and I'm not saying there's not any truth in it but your looking at a lot of governments and a lot of different officials who don't even agree and have never all come together on anything in the history of ever.

It's a tall order to say the least.

They are all in agreement with the Antarctic Treaty so it is possible their public disagreements are just that, for public display and persuasion. In times of conflict they can do what they want, because they riled up the masses and got them all hating each other. Just a theory.

a reply to: chr0naut

You don't actually believe that?

Of all the places for the virus to originate, it's a stone throw from one of the the only places on Earth that was experimenting with the exact technology which could create it. Apply the principle of parsimony without bias and get back to me.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

You are mistaken here.

The most popular idea is that the virus has jumped to humans front animals via zoonosis as it's called.

Perhaps you haven't read at all the literature in regards to the two hypotheses i.e zoonosis and the lab-manufacture and leak

I am aware that everyone is only talking about either a lab or zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, but that is only because they are ignoring the most obvious, likely, and normal natural source, namely that it arose in humans from another, quite benign, human hosted coronavirus.

A virus won't mutate where it's not. It mutates in an environment where there are numerous hosts that are infected.

If you are suggesting that the virus existed already in some benign form then you have to show the virus was already around long before the start of the pandemic.

That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Very similar viruses, SARS and MERS, existed decades beforehand, and well before humans had the genetic engineering nous to modify viral genomics.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that there were benign forms of these specific precursor viruses circulation in human populations for decades.

We have the proof of the existence of those SARS and MERS viruses, of which we have also had outbreaks in the human population, so we know they did once infect us. If they had mutated to a benign form, we wouldn't have noticed that, because it wouldn't create any dangerous or obvious symptoms.

A mild and 'cold like' version of these viruses could go entirely un-remarked and unseen by science, hidden among all the other 'cold' causing viruses.

But that's not true. There are other coronaviruses which are well documented and recorded. One of them has probably caused a similar pandemic called the Russian Flu back in 1889-1890 and I have created a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the links too.

While I agree that there are numerous benign coronaviruses, the Russian flu was not from a coronavirus. It was from the H1N1 strain of influenza - a different virus with no genomic similarity or link to any coronaviruses.

The Russian Flu is a misnomer and it is likely caused by human coronavirus OC43 and not by a strain of the H1N1 influenza virus. You may want to see the links I have in my thread and the discussion.

Clinical evidence that the pandemic from 1889 to 1891 commonly called the Russian flu might have been an earlier coronavirus pandemic

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

OC43 appears to be benign but in the past it has caused as it seems the 1889-1890 pandemic. Now it causes common colds after us and the virus have evolved to live peacefully with each other.

... and if OC43 once again became virulent, would it then be from a zoonotic source, or from a lab, if it had mutations specific to its host species?

Let's use a little reasoning here.

Ok let's see.

You have made a series of claims without much to back it up.

You said the Russian 'Flu' came from a strain of H1N1. I have shown you this isn't the case and the most likely scenario is that the pandemic of 1889-1890 was likely caused by OC43. There is plenty of evidence around and just read the article I have linked. There are many more.


Here is a great article and a good read as it is very informative.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

All seven coronaviruses that are known to infect humans have a zoonotic origin..

From the article above

When HCoV-OC43 crossed species to infect humans from domestic livestock around 1890, a pandemic of respiratory infection was recorded

The paragraph I quoted it's important in understanding the origin of the virus and the 1889-1890 pandemic.

It shows clearly that the virus jumped to humans from animals in the late 19th century and it coincided with the Russian 'Flu' Pandemic. In a few words zoonosis back in 1889 and a pandemic due to the absence of immunity at that time. It's rather simple.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.

The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.

Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.

They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

You don't actually believe that?

Of all the places for the virus to originate, it's a stone throw from one of the the only places on Earth that was experimenting with the exact technology which could create it. Apply the principle of parsimony without bias and get back to me.

What a coincidence this would be?!

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

You are mistaken here.

The most popular idea is that the virus has jumped to humans front animals via zoonosis as it's called.

Perhaps you haven't read at all the literature in regards to the two hypotheses i.e zoonosis and the lab-manufacture and leak

I am aware that everyone is only talking about either a lab or zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, but that is only because they are ignoring the most obvious, likely, and normal natural source, namely that it arose in humans from another, quite benign, human hosted coronavirus.

A virus won't mutate where it's not. It mutates in an environment where there are numerous hosts that are infected.

If you are suggesting that the virus existed already in some benign form then you have to show the virus was already around long before the start of the pandemic.

That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Very similar viruses, SARS and MERS, existed decades beforehand, and well before humans had the genetic engineering nous to modify viral genomics.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that there were benign forms of these specific precursor viruses circulation in human populations for decades.

We have the proof of the existence of those SARS and MERS viruses, of which we have also had outbreaks in the human population, so we know they did once infect us. If they had mutated to a benign form, we wouldn't have noticed that, because it wouldn't create any dangerous or obvious symptoms.

A mild and 'cold like' version of these viruses could go entirely un-remarked and unseen by science, hidden among all the other 'cold' causing viruses.

But that's not true. There are other coronaviruses which are well documented and recorded. One of them has probably caused a similar pandemic called the Russian Flu back in 1889-1890 and I have created a thread for this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the links too.

While I agree that there are numerous benign coronaviruses, the Russian flu was not from a coronavirus. It was from the H1N1 strain of influenza - a different virus with no genomic similarity or link to any coronaviruses.

The Russian Flu is a misnomer and it is likely caused by human coronavirus OC43 and not by a strain of the H1N1 influenza virus. You may want to see the links I have in my thread and the discussion.

Clinical evidence that the pandemic from 1889 to 1891 commonly called the Russian flu might have been an earlier coronavirus pandemic

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

OC43 appears to be benign but in the past it has caused as it seems the 1889-1890 pandemic. Now it causes common colds after us and the virus have evolved to live peacefully with each other.

... and if OC43 once again became virulent, would it then be from a zoonotic source, or from a lab, if it had mutations specific to its host species?

Let's use a little reasoning here.

Ok let's see.

You have made a series of claims without much to back it up.

You said the Russian 'Flu' came from a strain of H1N1. I have shown you this isn't the case and the most likely scenario is that the pandemic of 1889-1890 was likely caused by OC43. There is plenty of evidence around and just read the article I have linked. There are many more.

Here is a great article and a good read as it is very informative.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

All seven coronaviruses that are known to infect humans have a zoonotic origin..

As you posted previously, that is a theory, not fact.

From the article above

When HCoV-OC43 crossed species to infect humans from domestic livestock around 1890, a pandemic of respiratory infection was recorded

The paragraph I quoted it's important in understanding the origin of the virus and the 1889-1890 pandemic.

It shows clearly that the virus jumped to humans from animals in the late 19th century and it coincided with the Russian 'Flu' Pandemic. In a few words zoonosis back in 1889 and a pandemic due to the absence of immunity at that time. It's rather simple.

The two species that share similar ACE-2 are humans and cats. As cats are common domestic pets, and can suffer as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, why is no-one suggesting the virus incubated in domestic cats and recently began to infect humans? There is so much theory that is barely likely and is for some reason more favored than other, reasonable theories.

For a virus to jump species, the transitory virus must be good at infecting both species, or of evading the immune system of its final host, but more usually, of both.

Can you state a single rational reason why the virus could not have mutated in humans?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.

The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.

Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.

They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

You don't actually believe that?

Of all the places for the virus to originate, it's a stone throw from one of the the only places on Earth that was experimenting with the exact technology which could create it. Apply the principle of parsimony without bias and get back to me.

What a coincidence this would be?!

They are 21.7 miles away from each other, across a river. Knowing the infectiousness and airborne nature of the virus, why weren't there more cases clustered around the labs, if they were the release point?

And the earliest case of COVID-19 discovered so far was not in Wuhan, or near the lab, at all. It was in the countryside and affected a loner, with Alzheimers who had little reason to leave his house, let alone visit the city which was several bus rides away.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.

The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.

Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.

They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses

This is highly disputed in the paper I linked and the other sources exist on this subject for this particular classes of coronaviruses.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why isn't anyone suggesting that the virus arose naturally in humans?

We have already seen it mutate significantly, and naturally, in humans.

The whole idea of a zoonotic source seems to assume humans aren't part of the same natural biology.

So, I'll say it: "The SARS-CoV-2 virus arose naturally in humans. That explains why it is so specifically effective against the human species.

The mutations of a virus can't tell you its origin.
RNA viruses such as coronaviruses and influenza are well known to mutate regardless of how they originated.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
What do you mean by the whole idea of a zoonotic source?

A zoonotic virus is one that jumps from wild animals to humans.

According to evolutionary science, it is by mutation, and then natural selection, than new viruses come about.

The idea that the virus, in its current form/s, came fully-formed from another animal species is argued against by the fact that we cannot identify any other species as effectively infected with the virus as humans are. It is particularly suited to the human ACE-2 receptor region. That is at the core of its infectivity and in part at the core of its lethality.

Although the virus looks very similar to a bat virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't infect bats very well, and so they are an unlikely zoonotic source, because they can't become a large enough reservoir of hosts to enable the whole mutation and natural selection process. Ditto for nearly every other proposed zoonotic source.

There are, however, billions of human beings and they provide a significant pool of hosts from which a mutation could arise of a virus that binds specifically to human ACE-2.

We have seen the genomic instability and mutability of the virus in the proliferation of sub-strains since the original virus was typed. This same genomic variability, evidenced in the numerous strains, could also be where the original alpha strain came from.

It could have been a benign and therefore undocumented 'cold' in humans and then have mutated into a form that is lethal in some cases.

I.e: the virus arose in humans, and has affinity for its hosts, because it mutated from a similar 'human hosted' virus. You don't need other animals to explain it. It simply arose naturally in humans by exactly the same method as we can see it is mutating into sub-strains, with. All natural and you don't need ridiculous and un-evidenced theories to explain it.

Here the authors of this paper present a very popular belief and one of the two major hypotheses.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Bats are the reservoir hosts of a number of additional novel coronaviruses, particularly Chinese horseshoe bats, and a number of these novel coronaviruses can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor, human ACE2, and replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titres equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV48,49. This indicates that other potential cross-species events could occur in the future. There is therefore a strong reason to ban unregulated wild animal sales in Chinese wet markets, particularly exotic species, both from a public health perspective and for ecological reasons. Such a ban would be difficult to instigate for cultural reasons, but China’s top legislative committee on 24 February 2020, passed a proposal to ban all trade and consumption of wild animals. If this is legislated as a permanent ban, it might help reduce the risk of another novel virus emerging from wildlife in China in the future.

The paper I have provided in the opening page argues that the SARS-CoV-2 has unusual characteristics and strongly points to the gain of function research.

Those same things that look like 'unusual' stuff in a zoonotic virus, are entirely normal in a host adapted virus. The specificity of the ACE-2 bonds are what you'd expect from a virus entirely adapted to its host.

They are not apparently.

I am quoting myself in the opening page here:

"One of the most important features of SARS-CoV-2 is it's dual action capability i.e to be able to bind to the ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain and at the same time its general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. The chance it possesses a dual action capability and this being a result of the natural processes is very small.

One of the furin-cleavage sites of the spike protein is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. However this cleavage site is completely absent in these classes of coronaviruses found in nature."

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses

I am replying again to this message as I can't reply to the above for some reason.

Let's see as you made a series of claims and will examine them one by one.

Coronaviruses are known to have originated in animals and then jumped to humans via zoonosis.
The article I have linked discusses the origin and history of all coronaviruses

Here it is again:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

There is no evidence that these coronaviruses existed before in a benign form in human beings and because of some mutations become virulent causing severe disease and deaths.

If anything the opposite it true. For example the human coronavirus OC43 jumped from animals to humans in the late 19th century and this is a fact. It's not a theory as you have claimed. It is also likely that it was the cause of the 1889-1890 pandemic as the clinical evidence shows very similar characteristics with the ones Covid-19 presents.

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

All seven coronaviruses are considered to have zoonotic origin. SARS-CoV-2 due to its unusual characteristics may have been a result of a gain of function research according to the hypothesis we examine. Nobody considers the possibility that these viruses existed already in some benign form, or let's say SARS-CoV-2 existed prior to its discovery and was discovered after it became virulent, simply because there is no evidence for this.

In addition you forgot a key process of zoonosis and this is the intermediate hosts before it comes to humans. A virus may originate, usually in bats with coronaviruses, and then passed to other animals before arriving to humans.

The virus is continuously mutating in humans. I don't understand your question. Nobody has claimed that it hasn't mutated. On the contrary you can see the different variants and subvariants that have emerged. What you don't see is any conversation that SARS-CoV-2 has already existed in a benign form. There is no evidence on this.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

You don't actually believe that?

Of all the places for the virus to originate, it's a stone throw from one of the the only places on Earth that was experimenting with the exact technology which could create it. Apply the principle of parsimony without bias and get back to me.

What a coincidence this would be?!

They are 21.7 miles away from each other, across a river. Knowing the infectiousness and airborne nature of the virus, why weren't there more cases clustered around the labs, if they were the release point?

And the earliest case of COVID-19 discovered so far was not in Wuhan, or near the lab, at all. It was in the countryside and affected a loner, with Alzheimers who had little reason to leave his house, let alone visit the city which was several bus rides away.

I think you are missing the point here.
The coincidence does raise great suspicions given that the lab is only some miles away.