No, the 2019-nCoV [coronavirus] genome doesn’t really seem engineered from HIV

The Prepared ^ | 1/31/2020 | Ari Allyn-Feuer

[MD Expat in PA]

These aren’t molecular modelers…..They’re looking at the 2D representation of this protein…..The 3D is convincing…..All but one of these insertions are in the ‘fingertip’ region of this protein….. And the idea that you’d have any number of significant insertions and end up with a gain of function mutant is dodgy itself.

https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1223666856923291648

BTW – the authors of this preprint posted this today:

Prashant Pradhan • 6 hours ago

This is a preliminary study. Considering the grave situation, it was shared in BioRxiv as soon as possible to have creative discussion on the fast evolution of SARS-like corona viruses. It was not our intention to feed into the conspiracy theories and no such claims are made here. While we appreciate the criticisms and comments provided by scientific colleagues at BioRxiv forum and elsewhere, the story has been differently interpreted and shared by social media and news platforms. We have positively received all criticisms and comments. To avoid further misinterpretation and confusions world-over, we have decided to withdraw the current version of the preprint and will get back with a revised version after reanalysis, addressing the comments and concerns. Thank you to all who contributed in this open-review process.

: Authors of the Manuscript

Scientists, especially the younger ones, use ‘unscientific’ terms all the time. Once us old farts die off, who knows what will appear in professional journals...it will be the end of the world, i’m sure.

“This virus is like totally woke and lit, I can't even, and be salty AF when you trolls and your white privilege peer review clap back, because like brah - duh?” Said no one ever in a serious scientific paper. YMMV : ),

[HollyB]

Are HIV meds currently used for anything else?

[Black Agnes]

If you don’t think the Chicoms control sci-tech these days you’ve not been paying attention.

someone pulled their chain.

i can tell you that in the back channel stuff everyone is freaking out still.

[MD Expat in PA]

A few of years ago, a study of scientific and scholarly papers was done of papers published in various peer-reviewed journals was undertaken and it discovered that an amazingly high percentage of them were bogus, and the peer-reviews were bogus as well!

I recall that some of these investigators succeeded in getting some totally made up papers accepted by journals that were completely bogus, and even got them peer-reviewed and published, before they revealed the absurdities of their papers.

Yes. But the latter ones I recall were in “soft sciences” - sociology journals and were purposely bogus to make a point.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-real-fake-hoodwinks-journals.html

But it is also a problem in other journals as you pointed out and as discussed here:

https://www.enago.com/academy/retractions-due-to-fake-peer-reviews/

The bottom line is that especially for us non-scientists, we should be skeptical of articles in the MSM with headlines like “A recent study proves…”

[MD Expat in PA]

If you don’t think the Chicoms control sci-tech these days you’ve not been paying attention. someone pulled their chain.

No. The people who pulled their chain in the comments section of their preprint, are not Chicoms but scientists who questioned and tried to replicate their results using the same methods or had looked at the same data and came to much different conclusions.

i can tell you that in the back channel stuff everyone is freaking out still.

And what sort of "back channel stuff" do you have access to that othera, especially scientists in the field do not?

[Spktyr]

Yes! Ritonavir is used to treat hepatitis C and lopinavir is used to treat human papilloma virus, to name some on-label uses.

[MD Expat in PA]

From 2003 - Cloaked similarity between HIV-1 and SARS-CoV suggests an anti-SARS strategy

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2180-3-20

[MD Expat in PA]

“Author’s note: I have a Ph.D. in bioinformatics, and am a principal data scientist at a major pharmaceutical company. This paper isn’t directly in my wheelhouse, but it’s pretty close.”

Translation: he’s a computer nerd with a special emphasis in biology data, not anything having to do with virology. He’s blowing smoke screens about his expertise and his alphabet soup behind his name.

It should be noted that the authors of this preprint paper are also in bioinformatics but unlike Ari Allyn-Feuer, do not apparently have PhD’s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics

[null and void]

OK, you 2% of reported cases, me 4% of reported cases. Anything lower that 3% I donate $10 on your behalf, above 3% you do the same on my behalf. 3% exactly $5 from both of us.

Decision point is when the epidemic is declared over. (By WHO?)

I sure hope you win, even though I am currently on a fixed zero income!

[HollyB]

Thanks !

[Swordmaker]

Yes. But the latter ones I recall were in “soft sciences” - sociology journals and were purposely bogus to make a point.

I always want to be skeptical of any published research in the squishy "sciences". . . too easy to squish and squeeze the dust, the language, and hence the conclusions, especially lately.

Now, it’s spilled over into harder sciences. Alas and alack. Woe to all of us as "scientists" fudge or even create data out of nothing to create what they need to push an agenda. I see it in everything from archaeology to astronomy to medicine to nuclear physics to climate "science." (I put that last on in quotation marks because it has become more of a cult-like religion than anything resembling science.) we will all be worse for the destruction of the scientific method.

[Swordmaker]

OK, you 2% of reported cases, me 4% of reported cases. Anything lower that 3% I donate $10 on your behalf, above 3% you do the same on my behalf. 3% exactly $5 from both of us.

Decision point is when the epidemic is declared over. (By WHO?)

I sure hope you win, even though I am currently on a fixed zero income!

Done.

[catnipman]

“Sword, there are rumors that the Chinese are doing what they did in ‘89 by cremating the bodies and, presumably, flushing the ashes down the sewers to hide the true numbers from their public for obvious reasons.”

now we’re speculating about things based on rumors ... btw,what are they telling the families and relatives of those who they cremated and flushed?

[PIF]

tw,what are they telling the families and relatives of those who they cremated and flushed?

---

Same as in 89. Nothing. U imagine that the CCP is sort of like a US political party?

[trebb]

I’m not technically qualified to answer that question - are you?
Seems like some folks with the qualifications are leaning to not engineered and the one crew who said it was is being called wrong...time will tell.

[UCANSEE2]

Thank you for the response.

I’m not technically qualified to answer that question - are you?

No.

Seems like some folks with the qualifications are leaning to not engineered and the one crew who said it was is being called wrong...time will tell.True. Allow me to lay out some possibilities.

A new virus can occur from natural mutation.

A new virus can occur from manipulated mutation (the old method).

A new virus can occur from engineering (gene editing).

A new virus can occur from engineering and can then undergo manipulated mutation.

A new virus can occur from engineering and can then undergo natural mutation.

So, only the first one is totally a 'no human intervention involved'. Just because 'they' state that the virus does show that the latest mutation was 'engineered' doesn't mean it wasn't originally produced in a lab and then mutated to it's current form. Maybe they didn't plan on it mutating to it's current form. Maybe it's like the glue on POSTIT notes. It's not what the engineers at 3M were TRYING to manufacture.

BOTTOM LINE: Saying it wasn't engineered to be a bio-weapon with the current characteristics doesn't mean it wasn't produced through human experimentation.

[trebb]

I agree - the trouble is asserting what we cannot know...I wouldn’t be surprised to find out the Chicoms were “playing” with nature and screwed up...if that is the case, i hope we find out for sure and President Trump uses the leverage to twist their nipples until the scream in agony.

[null and void]

I got a data set and have been running numbers, if I take today’s confirmed cases and today’s deaths it looks like after the 6th day the percentages stabilize near 2.15%

I expected a lag in the deaths vs confirmed cases, it might still be there, but the calculations don’t show it stabilizing very well yet.

Will work on the recovered numbers next. That looks pretty grim, almost 17,000 confirmed cased and only 525 recovered.

Hopefully either the Thai or the Indian treatment protocols will start boosting those numbers.

Still hoping you win...

[Black Agnes]

I think this is twisting the chicoms nipples. trump just needs to watch.

[Swordmaker]

Will work on the recovered numbers next. That looks pretty grim, almost 17,000 confirmed cased and only 525 recovered.

Still no data on what they are defining as "recovered."