May 17, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, DBW said: They don’t give a real number and they estimate that range because nobody gives a F about flu anymore because they have a false sense of security after their flu shot. No. They give a range because if they relied on counting only the number of people that died from influenza AND had a positive test confirmation of influenza, and/or influenza was listed as an underlying cause of death on the death certificate, it would result in a significant undercount of how many people actually died from influenza. As it stands now there is likely an undercount of how many people have actually died due to COVID-19. I’m sure in a few years someone will look back to analyze the excess mortality data to provide a range to try to account for the true number of deaths.
May 17, 20205 yr Colorado amends coronavirus death count - says fewer have died of COVID-19 than previously reported https://www.fox5ny.com/news/colorado-amends-coronavirus-death-count-says-fewer-have-died-of-covid-19-than-previously-reported.amp
May 17, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said: No. They give a range because if they relied on counting only the number of people that died from influenza AND had a positive test confirmation of influenza, and/or influenza was listed as an underlying cause of death on the death certificate, it would result in a significant undercount of how many people actually died from influenza. As it stands now there is likely an undercount of how many people have actually died due to COVID-19. I’m sure in a few years someone will look back to analyze the excess mortality data to provide a range to try to account for the true number of deaths. But they are falsifying covid deaths as it is, in an effort to inflate the numbers. You’re suggesting they do the opposite with flu, so that must mean covid isn’t really all that bad. They’re trying to make it worse to drive the agenda. Thanks for helping my case
May 17, 20205 yr Author LINK Can We Now Stop The Anti Antibody Hysteria? Your body fights infections with antibodies just as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow. There are extremely few exceptions, but despite this, the media has played with the mass hysteria idea that somehow this virus was different and wouldn’t cause the body to produce antibodies. Why? To sell more eyeballs to advertisers. Now a new study hopefully puts an end to this insanity. In addition, we’ll dive into the common sense science behind all tests to understand how to use testing to end this corona nightmare. What Is An Antibody? An antibody (aka Ab or immunoglobulin (Ig)) is a large, Y-shaped protein produced mainly by a specialized white blood cell (B lymphocytes). Your body uses antibodies to neutralize bad bacteria and viruses. This works by the antibody having a region that binds to an antigen on the surface of the bacteria or virus (aka pathogen). The antibody then deactivates the pathogen and "marks” it so that larger cells called macrophages can come by and "eat” the pathogen. As you get older and your immune system is exposed to more pathogens, antibodies are why your body can respond quickly to various infections. The Media Mass Hysteria The media has a love-hate relationship with all coronavirus testing. It began by attacking antibody testing claiming that it wasn’t accurate or somehow bad. It also began the hysterical concept that antibody tests wouldn’t work with coronavirus. It then intermixed those messages with stories that posited that antibody testing could be the holy grail. Meaning that it was the only way to get out of the pandemic. Now we see stories attacking all testing and at the same time, it’s something we desperately need more of. What the heck is going on? The New Research So what’s the real deal with coronavirus antibodies? Researchers publishing in Nature Medicine looked at 285 people hospitalized with severe COVID-19 (1). ALL OF THEM developed antibodies to the SARS-Cov-2 virus within 2-3 weeks of infection. About 40% developed Ig-M in the first week after onset of symptoms and 95% had developed antibodies by 3 weeks. All also produced Ig-G, the antibody associated with immunity. Is any of this the least bit surprising? NO! Recovery from this virus which happens for more than 99% of those infected could only happen via antibodies. Two Different Tests Out There I’m a sucker for a great science graphic and the one above is a from a JAMA article (2). Some of the hysteria generated by the media on antibody and all coronavirus testing is easily explained by this diagram. First, note that no test is going to pick up the SARS-CoC-2 virus in the first week or so after you have been exposed and before you get symptoms. After the virus takes hold (during which you may or may not have symptoms), the first test to show positive will be PCR. That’s the swab up the nose or in the mouth test that looks for snippets of the genetic code of the virus. Somewhere in that first few days to 2 weeks, most people begin producing antibodies and that’s when this type of test shows positive. However, the up the nose PCR test becomes negative during this time while antibodies continue to be positive. Hence, you need to use the right test at the right time to detect coronavirus. Also, if you test too early, no test will be positive. However, there’s another key concept here to understand, which is test accuracy and how the status of the disease in any community dictates that metric. When a Positive Test Really Isn’t Positive Every coronavirus test out there suffers from having the same tough mistress-statistics. Meaning that there is a concept called positive predictive value (PPV) which really screws up the best of tests. PPV means that the likelihood of a false positive or negative test goes way up when the number of cases is a community is low. Huh? Isn’t this the same test? How could it be more accurate in NYC where there are more cases and less accurate in Montana where there are few? Let’s dig in. All tests have a percentage error. If the test is trying to detect someone who really has the disease and it fails, that’s called a false negative. If the test says that someone has the disease and they really don’t have it, then that’s called a false positive. This is also tied to numbers published about tests called sensitivity and specificity. A highly sensitive test will pick up almost everybody who has the disease (few false negatives) and a highly specific test will correctly identify almost everyone without the disease (few false positives). However, how well the test works also depends on the percentage of people expected to be positive in that community. This is called prevalence. For example, if the prevalence of coronavirus is only 1%, even a test that’s 99% sensitive will be wrong about half the time! That accuracy gets better if there’s a higher prevalence of coronavirus. Why? This is a good explanation of the math below: What We Really Need: Surveillance Programs + Testing So as you can see, the media’s love/hate relationship with testing is largely based on not understanding how testing works in this and every other disease. Medical tests are sometimes positive or negative in various stages of a disease. In addition, the accuracy of really picking up a true positive test depends not only on how accurate the test is or isn’t, but also on the number of people out there with the disease. Hence, testing was only ever going to be one part of controlling a pandemic. The other half of trying to control this thing will be surveillance programs. Meaning, it’s also valuable to know if you’ve come into contact with anyone who had coronavirus and whether that was walking by someone or hugging them. In addition, knowing if you have symptoms associated with coronavirus or a high temperature is also important. If all of these things are combined with testing, then our ability to accurately identify people at higher risk for spreading the disease goes up. All of that needs to happen in the context of protecting our civil liberties. In addition, one way to fix that low prevalence problem that I discussed above is through double testing. Hence, if you run that same test with a 99% sensitivity twice, the accuracy goes up from a coin toss to 98%! Do you see a trend here? We need doctors on the ground making these decisions about who is and isn’t a risk to spread the disease based on contacts, symptoms, temperatures, and tests. The upshot? The media has done what it always does, stoke panic to sell eyeballs to advertisers. In the case of testing, all tests have limitations. However, we can use testing to help guide us here, but that will need to be combined with other things to help us contain this bad bug!
May 17, 20205 yr 3 hours ago, NVeagle said: Colorado amends coronavirus death count - says fewer have died of COVID-19 than previously reported https://www.fox5ny.com/news/colorado-amends-coronavirus-death-count-says-fewer-have-died-of-covid-19-than-previously-reported.amp How much where coronavirus death downplayed in Georgia after reopening? 272 in Colorado + 200 in Pennsylvania after "upplaying" deaths seems to override the additional deaths that Georgia had by moving the goalposts after reopening.
May 17, 20205 yr 2 hours ago, Smokesdawg said: I don't know about other states, but in Delaware, masks are only mandatory for 13 & older, optional for 3-12, and masks are specifically banned for 2 & under. Masks are detrimental to young children. That's what the science says, at least.
May 17, 20205 yr 6 hours ago, Toastrel said: I'm gonna have to disagree and say that a virus that kills 80,000 Americans in a couple of months is pretty unusual. The speed of this one is unusual and we were facing an unknown situation while observing China doing all sorts of crazy things. Of course we very much needed to hit the brakes. Slowing everything down and taking precaution was the right thing to do. At the end of the year we can assess how many more deaths we've had vs. normal years after 1st removing any other abnormalities (abnormal weather disasters, etc.). The difference will give us a rough indication of the actual impact. Quite a few of those that will have died would have died anyway. Many more would have died had the brakes not been slammed on. However, those slammed brakes were a temporary help and are not sustainable (and in fact damaging) over the long term.
May 17, 20205 yr 9 hours ago, DBW said: From oct 2019 to April 2020, cdc estimates between 24-65k Flu deaths. They don’t give a real number and they estimate that range because nobody gives a F about flu anymore because they have a false sense of security after their flu shot. As soon as we have a magic corona vaccine nobody will give a F about this either. But for arguments sake let’s say the number is 65K, so the 80k for corona (albeit still counting) isn’t all that far off from an ordinary flu season. It’ll kill more people than the flu for sure, but again that’s a simple matter of we have a magic flu vaccine which is only 35% effective any given year, so let’s say the Rona kills 100k as predicted and we had a magic 35% vaccination cocktail. Guess what, there’s your 65k. It’s all a sham to drive another money making vaccine to market because they realize that the flu vaccine isn’t really effective and more and more people are skipping it entirely and taking their chances of not feeling good for a week. follow the money - gates and fauci are the prime benefactors of the chlorowhateberitisaphine, and they are teamed up working on a vaccine for this....complete with gates microchip that will track your every movement so they help analyze the data. Ok I’ll take off my tinfoil hat for a minute...some of that was sarcasm but some of it is very real. I’ll let you decide on your own. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm Put the hat back on and wear it proudly, screwball. Bill Gates and Dr. Faucci make zero of vaccines. Bill loses money - $100 million into vaccine research. The idea that Faucci is the on making money on drugs he doesn't make and doesn't push is just as ridiculous.
May 17, 20205 yr 8 hours ago, DBW said: But they are falsifying covid deaths as it is, in an effort to inflate the numbers. You’re suggesting they do the opposite with flu, so that must mean covid isn’t really all that bad. They’re trying to make it worse to drive the agenda. Thanks for helping my case No, they are not falsifying the data. No, I’m not saying they are doing the opposite with the flu. I’m saying if they counted flu deaths the same way they are counting COVID deaths, then this would result in a significant UNDERCOUNT of flu deaths. I’m saying when a review of excess mortality is performed when this is all said in done, we will likely see that the official count is LOWER than the true amount of people that died. In other words, the current official number is an UNDERCOUNT, not an inflated number.
May 17, 20205 yr Daily update from the Doc https://www.nothingbutthetruthmd.com/2020/05/51620-covid-19-update.html?m=1 Good evening, Burger King furnishes masks to all employees and requires they be worn while at work. Validation of a Clinical Risk Score to Predict the Occurence of Critical Illness in Hospitalized Patients with Covid -19 JAMA Network May 12, 2020 This very interesting study was performed in China. The authors, through a retrospective chart review, aimed to develop a risk score to help predict the development of critical illness in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. The authors identified 10 independent variables and developed a risk score that predicts, with fair accuracy, the development of critical illness in these patients. Predictors: (on admission) 1. abnormal chest x-ray 2. age 3. coughing up blood 4. shortness of breath 5. unconcious 6. number of comorbidities 7. history of Cancer 8. neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (twl different types of white blood cells) 9. acidosis (infers to much acid in the blood stream, which usually portends shock) 10. liver abnormality as measured by direct bilirubin The authors in collaboration with the National Health Commission of China, reviewed in a retrospective fashion, a cohort of patients from 575 hospitals. A total of 1590 charts made up the development group. Epidemiologic, clinical, laboratory and imaging studies were screened utilizing very fancy statistical methodology to construct a predictive risk score. The score provides an estimate of the risks that a hospitalized patient with Covid-19 will develop critical illness. Critical illness was defined as the composite measure of admission to the Intensive Care Unit, mechanical ventilation or death. (the ultimate in critical illness) Data from four additional cohorts hospitalized in China with Covid-19 were used to validate the risk score. There were 710 reviewed charts in this group. In the development cohort the mean age was 48.9, and 54.7% were men. In the validation cohort the mean age was 48.2 and 53.8% were men. The risk calculator is available to the public at: https://118.126.104.170/ The clinical spectrum of Covid-19 varies from hardly noticeable illness with minimal symptoms to severe pneumonia, acute ARDS, septic shock and death. Risk stratification has become popular in the last 30 to 40 years, more recently some very good validated tools have been made available to the clinician. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project's (NSQUIP) Risk Calculator is widely used (includes millions of patient's data) by surgeons, anesthesiologists and other critical care specialists to improve risk stratification of patients and properly inform perioperative decision making and management. It helps to optimize resource utilization and deliver patients to appropriate care settings. The importance of placing patients most likely to deteriorate, in settings where the deterioration will be observed expeditiously cannot be over stated. Recently, I cared for a sick, frail, elderly patient undergoing a vascular procedure. Based on the clinical history and her NSQUIP risk calculator score, I decided that an arterial line, which would give me the ability to see beat to beat blood pressures (normally an automated blood pressure cuff with time intervals of three to five minutes is used) was advisable and in concert with the vascular surgeon, that the ICU would be the appropriate environment for this patient postoperatively. She was relatively stable during the operation and the arterial line made quick adjustments possible. At the end of the procedure I decided to keep the patient intubated. We observed her for 10 minutes in the operating room, she continued to be stable, and we transported her to the post anesthesia recovery unit. There was no urgency since she had been stable but when we arrived in the post anesthesia unit (a three minute walk) and hooked up the arterial line her blood pressure had dropped dramatically. Normally, I would have needed to wait a minute or two before the blood pressure cuff would have generated a pressure. When a patient is trying to die, minutes are precious. We were able to treat aggressively in seconds rather than minutes. This risk stratification that the Covid risk calculator will provide, will allow clinicians to place at risk patients in higher acuity units, check on such patients more frequently, and might prompt more invasive monitoring which will allow quicker recognition of deteriorating conditions and can only be beneficial. Numbers: 1800 from the Hopkins Website USA fatalities 88,473 - see the destruction we ourselves have caused Tests - 11,077,179 (356,994 test in the last 24 hours) USA - 1,464,057 (up 1.71%, down from 1.72% but an increase in the number of cases) New York - 348,232 (up 0.69%, down from 0.7%, 343 fewer new cases than the day before) New Jersey - 145,089 (up 0.76%, down from 0.8%, 175 fewer new cases than the day before) Pennsylvania - 65,185 (up 1.63%, down from 1.76%, but up in cases) Maryland - 37,968 (up 2.65%, down from 3.13%, 71 fewer cases than the day before) California - 77,516 (up 1.52%, down from 3.24%, 260 fewer new cases than the day before) South Carolina Texas - 47,107 (up 4.20%, up from 2.99%). Texas is still going up in hospital beds utilized World - 4,621,327 (up 2.15%, down from 2.21% but up in cases) Please get pass this message on - Went to Sea Isle City, New Jersey today, many oblivious to the concept of wearing masks. Talked with a restaurant owner later in the day, absolutely chagrined at the lack of compliance, afraid they will be closed in August. Thank you Live Safely Be Well
May 17, 20205 yr 6 hours ago, DrPhilly said: The speed of this one is unusual and we were facing an unknown situation while observing China doing all sorts of crazy things. Of course we very much needed to hit the brakes. Slowing everything down and taking precaution was the right thing to do. At the end of the year we can assess how many more deaths we've had vs. normal years after 1st removing any other abnormalities (abnormal weather disasters, etc.). The difference will give us a rough indication of the actual impact. Quite a few of those that will have died would have died anyway. Many more would have died had the brakes not been slammed on. However, those slammed brakes were a temporary help and are not sustainable (and in fact damaging) over the long term. A person who dies 6 months early doesn't count? I know this argument is coming soon, I said it would. It's BS.
May 17, 20205 yr 40 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: A person who dies 6 months early doesn't count? I know this argument is coming soon, I said it would. It's BS. That’s not what I said. If we can’t have an intelligent nuanced discussion then all hope is lost.
May 17, 20205 yr 43 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: That’s not what I said. If we can’t have an intelligent nuanced discussion then all hope is lost. I am having a nuanced discussion. Tell me does a person who dies 6 months earlier count? How about a year? How about 3 months? 3 days? Where is the cutoff? If you are going down that path , that''s where you need to start. We already had this debate ad naseum in PR when the study came out readjusting hurricane Maria deaths to 4K from the official under 100 it was. Trump of course denied the adjusted numbers just as he will with COVID. So have at it, where's the cutoff?
May 17, 20205 yr 49 minutes ago, L.E said: Dipping our toes back into the hoax propaganda I see. They were dipping toes a couple weeks ago, between this and "Obamagate' they just dove head first into the frozen lake.
May 17, 20205 yr 3 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said: No, they are not falsifying the data. No, I’m not saying they are doing the opposite with the flu. I’m saying if they counted flu deaths the same way they are counting COVID deaths, then this would result in a significant UNDERCOUNT of flu deaths. I’m saying when a review of excess mortality is performed when this is all said in done, we will likely see that the official count is LOWER than the true amount of people that died. In other words, the current official number is an UNDERCOUNT, not an inflated number. The cdc ESTIMATES, that 29 million people had the flu last year. Again that’s just an educated guess. And they report that hospital/doctor visits for flu like symptoms was down 7-10%. It’s down because people don’t give a F about the flu. They deal with the symptoms and they mostly survive. Just like they won’t give a F about corona once the magic treatment comes out and they’ll deal with the symptoms and they’ll mostly survive.
May 17, 20205 yr 46 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: I am having a nuanced discussion. Tell me does a person who dies 6 months earlier count? How about a year? How about 3 months? 3 days? Where is the cutoff? If you are going down that path , that''s where you need to start. We already had this debate ad naseum in PR when the study came out readjusting hurricane Maria deaths to 4K from the official under 100 it was. Trump of course denied the adjusted numbers just as he will with COVID. So have at it, where's the cutoff? You fired out an arbitrary number putting words in my mouth and then categorically shut it down by calling BS. That's not an intelligent nuanced discussion where I come from. I don't know where the cutoff is though you seem pretty sure it isn't six months. Maybe you know? My point is that we don't have a clear set of metrics or guidelines to rely on to guide us.
May 17, 20205 yr 16 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: You fired out an arbitrary number putting words in my mouth and then categorically shut it down by calling BS. That's not an intelligent nuanced discussion where I come from. I don't know where the cutoff is though you seem pretty sure it isn't six months. Maybe you know? My point is that we don't have a clear set of metrics or guidelines to rely on to guide us. I shut it down because I've been ready for this argument since March. I said it would happen, I've already thought this through and it is the crux of my argument to why Trump is Toast in November. Sorry if I fired too hot at first shot. But have at it, where is the cutoff? You want this nuanced discussion or not?
May 17, 20205 yr Fox News: Coronavirus is a hoax! Also Fox News: We never said Coronavirus was a hoax! We'll sue you! Also also Fox News: But Coronavirus seems like a hoax.
May 17, 20205 yr 16 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: I shut it down because I've been ready for this argument since March. I said it would happen, I've already thought this through and it is the crux of my argument to why Trump is Toast in November. Sorry if I fired too hot at first shot. But have at it, where is the cutoff? You want this nuanced discussion or not? Yeah you fired WAY too quickly. I never suggested there was a cutoff. Ok, let's have an intelligent and honest discussion. I'm going to leave out stuff like the China situation, 2020 election, Trump, the environment, etc. etc. for simplicity's sake though all of those things and more should really be part of the discussion. Here we go... I'm thinking that we know a lot more than we did say two or three months ago but we also know much more about how much we just don't know. One thing we know is that we cannot rely on a vaccine any time soon and perhaps maybe ever. We also know that we can't sustain the form of lock down that most US states have been thru for extended periods of time. I'm going to say that we can probably handle another similar 6-8 weeks at some time in the future should it become obvious that numbers are sky rocketing and that hospitals are being overrun but that's probably about it. We also know that the lock down has been effective at largely slowing the spread BUT that it has come at a tremendous economic and social cost which is putting a very big strain on society that will impact it for years to come. Further, we know that there are many factors which impact how quickly the virus can spread and much havoc it will reek. Those factors give each region/state/country its own set of unique challenges to work with and as such require different sets of policy. An additional item that we all agree with is that we must protect our medical workforce and we cannot allow things to reach the levels of strain that Italy had to go thru which would be devastating for everyone. So, the question becomes what mid to long term strategy do we put together and what immediate tactics do we take. This is how I would set the table to start. Obviously, there is a ton more detail that we could push up but let's try to start with some form or executive summary.
May 17, 20205 yr My first true mentee lost his father to COVID yesterday. For many years he was like a brother to me and it pains me to read something like this knowing I can't do a damn thing to help him in his time of need Quote I don’t even know where to begin. And in the absence of the possibility of a real funeral during these times, here is my attempt at putting some words to what just happened. Yesterday I lost my father to COVID-19. He started his battle on March 28th. I can tell you that he fought this monster bravely and he showed so much strength and courage through it all. Unfortunately, the battle was finally lost on May 15th. He was 63 years young. He is survived by his wife N**** B*****, and his sons Michael and Eric B*****. This is a date that will now be part of my story for the rest of my life. With the passing of time, every May 15th from now on will be the day I lost the only father I have known, the person who I loved deeply, love dearly, and will miss forever. My dad taught me a lot of things. He taught me that family will love you unconditionally. He taught me how to make a toast at the dinner table. He taught me that quality is priceless. He taught me how to play basketball and shoot pool. He taught me that respect is earned, and not demanded. He taught me how to be loyal. He taught me how to be humble and thankful for everything that you have. He taught me how to properly shovel snow, after throwing his back out while doing it wrongly. (It’s with your knees and not your back in case you didn’t know.) He taught me how to have fun, and enjoy the good things in life. He taught me how to be resilient and strong. He taught me how to be generous and not condescending. I think the most illuminating picture that I can give you of who my father was, is a story. This story begins in the little city of Kulashi, Georgia about 10 years ago. It had been the first time that my father was back in his hometown since he had left some 30 years ago. My father was looking for the house that he had grown up in, the house that my grandparents had sold to a friend before they moved to the United States. We stopped on the street where the house was supposed to be and started looking around. The house that Abba believed to be the place, looked a little different. A little boy of about 7 or 8 was playing outside, and when he saw us standing and staring, went inside. His grandmother came out of the house and called down to us asking what we were looking for. As soon as my father replied, just a few words – "Hello, yes we’re just looking around.” The grandmother immediately asks – "Are you A*****?”. After 30 years, the family friends who had moved into my grandparent’s house, recognized the son who had moved to the United States – and I’m not going to sugar coat this but my dad had changed some in that time, going bald for starters and also being 30 years older. She invited us inside immediately. Once inside she set the table – all the cookies and cakes you could eat, plus the customary bottle of Vodka. We started talking to the family and just catching up and reminiscing. Times were and are still tough in Georgia, and it had taken its toll on this family. The single family home, had multiple generations living in it. It was the dead of winter and there was barely any heat in the house. The thought occurred to me that even when they have so little, they can still show this much generosity to strangers in their home. While I was trying to think of some way that I could repay them for their kindness, my father calls out to the little boy, and starts asking him some questions – "What is your name?” Masha "How old are you?” 7 and a half "When is your birthday?” In a couple of months "Oh, your birthday is coming up… what would you like for your birthday?” The boy at this time turns to look sheepishly at his grandmother knowing full well that what he really wants is not something attainable in their current state. I would like a bike was his reply. To put this in context, the price of a bike would have been 75-100 US dollars, but, to them was about 4 months of living expense. My father turns around and hands $200 dollars to the child, and tells him "That is money for your birthday. You tell your dad that he should get you a bike with this money.” The boy held on to the money and started smiling so big. And that is how he left it. This is a story that makes me smile. So many of you have already reached out, and I can’t thank you enough for the support that you have shown me and my family during this time. I know that we have lost someone very dear to our hearts. He was so much more than a father, brother, uncle, cousin, nephew, and friend to each and every one of us. In this time I know that we are all hurting, but I think my dad would have wanted us to smile and remember the good times. If you feel so inclined to share, please leave your favorite stories of my father in the comments below or send me a message privately. It has been so nice to read how my father has impacted your lives and learn just that little bit more each and every day of just exactly how he was loved. And on this day and every May 15th hereafter, though the day will be heavy and sad, your memory will live on dad. Love you. לעילוי נשמת אבישי בן דוד הנולד מן ריבקה. נשמתו תנוח בגן עדן (Leilui nishmat Abishai ben David ha nolad min Rivka. Nishmato tanuach be Gan Eden) Thank you for reading.
May 17, 20205 yr Quote EXCLUSIVE: Virus researchers uncover new evidence implying COVID-19 was created in a lab Preliminary study results suggest virus was produced in lab cultures using human cells. May 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A team of Australian scientists has produced new evidence that the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is optimized for penetration into human cells rather than animal cells, undermining the theory that the virus randomly evolved in an animal subject before passing into human beings, and suggesting instead that it was developed in a laboratory. The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, provides new but not yet conclusive evidence favoring the theory that the novel coronavirus originated not in a food market as has been claimed, but rather in a laboratory, presumably one operated by the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, the city in which the first outbreak of COVID-19 occurred in December of 2019. The lead researcher on the team says that the results represent either "a remarkable coincidence or a sign of human intervention” in the creation of the virus. The authors of the study, led by vaccine researcher Nikolai Petrovsky of Flinders University in Australia, used a version of the novel coronavirus collected in the earliest days of the outbreak and applied computer models to test its capacity to bind to certain cell receptor enzymes, called "ACE2,” that allow the virus to infect human and animal cells to varying degrees of efficacy. They tested the propensity of the COVID-19 virus’s spike protein, which it uses to enter cells, to bind to the human type of ACE2 as well as to many different animal versions of ACE2, and found that the novel coronavirus most powerfully binds with human ACE2, and with variously lesser degrees of effectiveness with animal versions of the receptor. According to the study’s authors, this implies that the virus that causes COVID-19 did not come from an animal intermediary, but became specialized for human cell penetration by living previously in human cells, quite possibly in a laboratory. The authors write that "this finding is particularly surprising as, typically, a virus would be expected to have highest affinity for the receptor in its original host species, e.g. bat, with a lower initial binding affinity for the receptor of any new host, e.g. humans. However, in this case, the affinity of SARS-CoV-2 is higher for humans than for the putative original host species, bats, or for any potential intermediary host species.” As a consequence, they add, a "possibility which still cannot be excluded is that SARSCoV-2 was created by a recombination event that occurred inadvertently or consciously in a laboratory handling coronaviruses, with the new virus then accidentally released into the local human population.” In a separate public statement about the research made by Prof. Petrovsky on April 17, the researcher notes that the results of his study are either "a remarkable coincidence or a sign of human intervention,” and adds that it is "entirely plausible that the virus was created in the biosecurity facility in Wuhan by selection on cells expressing human ACE2, a laboratory that was known to be cultivating exotic bat coronaviruses at the time.” "If so the cultured virus could have escaped the facility either through accidental infection of a staff member who then visited the fish market several blocks away and there infected others, or by inappropriate disposal of waste from the facility that either infected humans outside the facility directly or via a susceptible vector such as a stray cat that then frequented the market and resulted in transmission there to humans,” he added. The researchers recognize that other possibilities exist, but regard them as improbable. They found that the novel coronavirus has a strong, but lesser binding effect on the ACE2 receptor of Pangolins, which are mammals eaten in China as a delicacy which has often been proposed as the intermediary of the novel coronavirus between bats and humans. However, they note that the Pangolin doesn’t offer a reasonable candidate for an intermediate species for human transmission, because "given the higher affinity of [the novel coronavirus] SARS-CoV-2 for human ACE2 than for bat ACE2, SARS-CoV-2 would have to have circulated in pangolins for a long period of time for this evolution and selection to occur and to date there is no evidence of a SARS-CoV-2 like virus circulating in pangolins.” A preliminary form of the study, which is currently entitled, "In silico comparison of spike protein-ACE2 binding affinities across species; significance for the possible origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” has been published on a repository site maintained by Cornell University, which warns that studies published prior to peer review should not be considered "established information” unless multiple experts in a given field are first consulted. According to his university webpage, in addition to his work as a university professor, Professor Petrovsky is currently Director of Endocrinology at Flinders Medical Centre of Flinders University, and Vice President and Secretary-General of the International Immunomics Society. He is also the founder of Vaxine Pty Ltd., which is funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and is currently working on a COVID-19 vaccine. In addition to Professor Petrovsky, the research team that produced the study includes Prof. Sakshi Piplani, also of Flinders University, Puneet Kumar Singh, who works with Petrovsky and Piplani at Vaxine Pty Ltd., and Prof. David A. Winkler, who teaches at the University of Nottingham in the U.K and Monash University in Australia. Study contradicts scientists who claim "zero evidence” for lab origin of virus The results of the study tend to contradict virologists who have claimed that the novel coronavirus shows no signs of having been produced in a laboratory, some of whom have gone so far as to dismiss such theories as "conspiracy theories.” The "conspiracy theory” claim has been uncritically echoed in much, but not all, of the international media. The staff of the Wuhan Institute of Virology have repeatedly denied the virus came from their lab. Their position has been supported by a widely-referenced letter from several scientists published in Nature Medicine on March 17, which argues against the likelihood of a laboratory generating the virus in a human cell lab culture. The argument made by the researchers in the letter is mostly based on the claim that no genetically-close progenitor to the novel coronavirus that could be a candidate for such a process has been described in any scientific study. They also assert that "repeated passage” of coronaviruses in cell cultures have not been mentioned in scientific literature. However, the letter’s authors do not address the possibility that the Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers simply did not report all of their research to the public, a possibility that seems to have been reinforced in recent months by secrecy and cover-ups regarding COVID-19 research in China, and the repeated refusal of the Chinese government to participate in an international probe of the origins of the novel coronavirus. Unless an animal version of virus is found, evidence points to "human intervention” Professor Petrovsky told LifeSite in an email interview that his study indicates that "there are some highly unusual features, including optimal human adaptation, that in the absence of identification of a close to identical virus in an animal population from which COVID19 could have arisen, would point in the direction of human intervention at some point in the evolution of COVID19.” He noted that, so far, researchers in China and elsewhere have not produced evidence of the presence in animals of a virus closely similar to the one that causes COVID-19 in humans, which would give credence to their theory of natural development in an intermediary between bats, which presumably originated the virus, and humans. "If an animal vector and virus could be found then of course this would resolve the matter completely,” Petrovksy told LifeSite. "One would have thought that the Chinese would be intensively sampling all conceivable animals trying to find such a virus to exonerate their labs. If no such intense search is going on (which I don’t know one way or the other) then the inference could be that they are not looking because they already know what they might find.” Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University who has been critical of laboratory studies that might produce new pathogens dangerous to humans, told LifeSite that Petrovsky’s results "are plausible,” but cautioned that the results of the pre-print of the study "are from computational modelling, not from experiments, and therefore must be considered as provisional at best.” Ebright noted that an earlier study on ACE2 receptor binding found that a bat coronavirus similar to the COVID-19 virus had strong binding power with the ACE2 of tree shrews and ferrets, making them possible animal intermediary candidates. However, the study did not compare the binding power of the virus’ animal species’ ACE2 receptors with the binding power with humans, as does Petrovsky’s study. Moreover, it did not use a gene sequence from an early version of the novel coronavirus itself, as does Petrovsky’s study, but rather used the gene sequence of a similar bat coronavirus reported by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, called RaTG13. Ebright told LifeSite that he believes that multiple physical experiments that will ultimately determine if the novel coronavirus is optimized for binding with human cells are "probably underway in multiple locations,” although he did not cite any specific studies. What is needed, according to Prof. Petrovsky, is a thorough international investigation into the true cause of the COVID-19 outbreak, something the Chinese government has repeatedly refused. "Whilst the facts cannot be known at this time, the nature of this event and its proximity to a high-risk biosecurity facility at the epicentre of the outbreak demands a full and independent international enquiry to ascertain whether a virus of this kind of COVID-19 was being cultured in the facility and might have been accidentally released,” wrote Petrovsky on April 17. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-virus-researchers-uncover-evidence-implying-covid-19-was-created-in-a-lab For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these: TEW was right again.
Create an account or sign in to comment