Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ransomnote

345 posted on 07/07/2020 10:09:22 PM PDT by ransomnote (IN GOD WE TRUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies ]


To: ransomnote

Why would Drudge just now push that article which we have seen here on FR and in this forum for months and months? We have known this. So why now Drudge?


350 posted on 07/07/2020 10:28:48 PM PDT by Ymani Cricket ("Leadership is intangible, and therefore no weapon ever designed can replace it." ~Omar Bradley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

357 posted on 07/07/2020 11:34:34 PM PDT by ransomnote (IN GOD WE TRUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

Bttt


366 posted on 07/08/2020 12:04:39 AM PDT by thinden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

The journal Nature is tippy-top tier for scientific publications.

“Against this background Shi Zhengli published her landmark paper in the journal Nature in February this year, after the COVID-19 pandemic had spread across the globe. In this paper, Shi and her co-authors claimed to have identified the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2 and its “probable” origin, a natural bat coronavirus, which she called RaTG13. The paper highlights the natural origin zoonotic theory for SARS-CoV-2 – that it jumped from an animal into humans at the Huanan seafood and wildlife market. This theory has not subsequently been supported by emerging evidence.

All publications arguing for a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2 rely heavily on this one paper by Shi Zhengli and colleagues, describing the sequence of a purported natural bat coronavirus named RaTG13. But notably absent from the paper is any reference at all to Shi and her collaborators’ long history of gain-of-function genetic engineering research with bat coronaviruses, described above. That includes the important paper by UNC and WIV scientists of 2015, which had the alarming result of turning a harmless bat virus into a human pathogen.”

The Feb 2020 Nature paper described in the article has a publication timeline as reported below...

Zhou, P., Yang, X., Wang, X. et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature 579, 270–273 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7
Received20 January 2020

Accepted29 January 2020

Published03 February 2020

Issue Date12 March 2020

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7

NINE DAYS to from RECEIPT by the journal office to ACCEPTANCE AND only FIVE DAYs to PUBLICATION (electronic), with the paper appearing in physical print, the next month, in March. This is a scientific PUBLICATION timeline MIRACLE!
RECEIPT to ACCEPTANCE should have PEER-REVIEW, this usually takes WEEKS to MONTHS; NINE DAYS is quick.
The ACCEPTANCE to PRINT interval often requires revisions queries addressed as put forth by the peer-reviewers and editor; some are technical, some cosmetic. ACCEPTANCE to PRINT took FIVE (5) days!!! Especially for [Chinese] writers that appear to all be non-English language speakers as their native tongue! Native English speakers/writers were involved, per my humble experience, but not cited as ALL are from China.

WOW. The skids were really greased to make this happen in a timely fashion, to highlight the concept that the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 and it jumped from an animal into humans at the Huanan seafood and wildlife market.


436 posted on 07/08/2020 6:04:39 AM PDT by smileyface (I LOVE POTUS DONALD J. TRUMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson