Five Eyes dossier leaked. Damming indictement of China.

[The Audience]

What proof do you have that observation clearly pointing to human to human tranmission is not acceptable as an innitial assesement with high certainty, that only sequencing is acceptable? While sequencing can add to our understanding, observation is an essential part of the scientific process.

As initial assessment, yes observation can be useful to give indications of possible h-h transmission and precautionary measures can be adopted like isolation of patients, but until you know what is causing the illness it cant be concluded with the degree of certainty expected to be scientifically relied on, that the pathogen is h-h transmissible. Any of the studies into h-h transmissibility of viruses that ive looked at all use the methodology that I posted before: they start with an index lab-confirmed case and work from there.

 

[MicroBrew]

As initial assessment, yes observation can be useful to give indications of possible h-h transmission and precautionary measures can be adopted like isolation of patients, but until you know what is causing the illness it cant be concluded with the degree of certainty expected to be scientifically relied on, that the pathogen is h-h transmissible. Any of the studies into h-h transmissibility of viruses that ive looked at all use the methodology that I posted before: they start with an index lab-confirmed case and work from there.

You do not need 100% certainty. The origin of the 2002 SARS virus is attributed to horseshoe bats in Yunnan province , but the similarity between the virus fround in the bats and the 2002 SARS virus is 97%, not 100%.

Observation is a foundational building block of the scientific process. Old techniques and discoveries do not get tossed out because they are old, they get discarded or revamped when new discoveries are made that upend the old theories. The theory of evolution has not been tossed out, it has been tweaked over the years. The scientist who discovered that the Spanish Flu transmitted human to human was using the scientific method to arrive at the conclusion. When AIDS was first noticed in 1981 , in the US, no one knew what was causing it, but by 1982 scientists knew the disease was transmitted human to human, even thought it wasn't until 1983 that scientists discovered it was a RNA virus causing the infection. The 1980s is a long ways from the era of the Spanish Flu.

Doctors in Wuhan were warning of a contagious infection before the virus was sequenced. Hospital staff at Wuhan noticed human to human transmission long before CCP acknowledged it. The Chinese authorities silenced these doctors.

 

[Orgasmo]

Murica about to enter the head down, ass up kowtow position to CCP again for money.

The US has said it wants to borrow a record $3tn (£2.4tn) in the second quarter, as coronavirus-related rescue packages blow up the budget. The sum is more than five times the previous quarterly record, set at the height of the 2008 financial crisis.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52537938

 

[MicroBrew]

For those of you wanting a non rightwing source on whether a synthetic virus was created, here is Nature affirming the creation of a synthetic "chimera" virus

Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research

Lab-made coronavirus related to SARS can infect human cells.

An experiment that created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus — one related to the virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) — has triggered renewed debate over whether engineering lab variants of viruses with possible pandemic potential is worth the risks.


In an article published in Nature Medicine1 on 9 November, scientists investigated a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China. The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and to mimic human disease. The chimaera infected human airway cells — proving that the surface protein of SHC014 has the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them. It also caused disease in mice, but did not kill them.

https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-1.18787

-

And the Paper itself is below
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system2, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis

--

Ofcourse this does not mean Sars-Cov-2 was bio-engineered. Just putting the above info out here because the report on the dossier did mention the creation of a synthetic virus.

 

[The Audience]

You do not need 100% certainty. The origin of the 2002 SARS virus is attributed to horseshoe bats in Yunnan province , but the similarity between the virus fround in the bats and the 2002 SARS virus is 97%, not 100%.

Observation is a foundational building block of the scientific process. Old techniques and discoveries do not get tossed out because they are old, they get discarded or revamped when new discoveries are made that upend the old theories. The theory of evolution has not been tossed out, it has been tweaked over the years. The scientist who discovered that the Spanish Flu transmitted human to human was using the scientific method to arrive at the conclusion. When AIDS was first noticed in 1981 , in the US, no one knew what was causing it, but by 1982 scientists knew the disease was transmitted human to human, even thought it wasn't until 1983 that scientists discovered it was a RNA virus causing the infection. The 1980s is a long ways from the era of the Spanish Flu.

Doctors in Wuhan were warning of a contagious infection before the virus was sequenced. Hospital staff at Wuhan noticed human to human transmission long before CCP acknvvowledged it. The Chinese authorities silenced these doctors.

But the Sars virus did not jump directly from bats, it was found to have jumped from a civet intermediate, evolving from a civet virus that had 99.8% genetic similarity. Besides, im talking about being certain of the causative agent of an illness by genetic sequencing. This is comparing a sample taken from a patient and comparing it with known viruses to check if it present, or if not to identify it as a novel virus.

Regarding AIDS, they were working on the hypothesis that it was being caused by a transmissible pathogen and the CDC recommendations of 1983 reflect this in the wording of their recommendations on transmissibility that its 'probable that' , 'suggested that' etc. Note that even after they deduced that a virus was involved, there remained doubt whether this virus was causing the illness, or whether the illness was just allowing an opportunistic virus to take hold. Again, that was the best practice of the time with the technology available. Remember also, that youre talking years of observation and many many cases here, not the few weeks and limited cases in December 19. Nowadays h-h transmission is a more precise finding, and has a specific methodology to confirm it that relies on genetic identification, even though clinical observation may suggest it to be highly possible.

Look i appreciate that you have offered some good counter-arguments but i feel like we are just repeating. The data is out there on how h-h transmission & sustained h-h transmission are established so il leave it at that. I wish you well on your research path, im nearing the end of mine.

 

[The Audience]

For those of you wanting a non rightwing source on whether a synthetic virus was created, here is Nature affirming the creation of a synthetic "chimera" virus

Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research

Lab-made coronavirus related to SARS can infect human cells.

An experiment that created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus — one related to the virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) — has triggered renewed debate over whether engineering lab variants of viruses with possible pandemic potential is worth the risks.


In an article published in Nature Medicine1 on 9 November, scientists investigated a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China. The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and to mimic human disease. The chimaera infected human airway cells — proving that the surface protein of SHC014 has the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them. It also caused disease in mice, but did not kill them.

https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-1.18787

-

And the Paper itself is below
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system2, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis

--

Ofcourse this does not mean Sars-Cov-2 was bio-engineered. Just putting the above info out here because the report on the dossier did mention the creation of a synthetic virus.

And here is a discussion and rebuttal:

"Another claim in Chinese social media points to a Nature Medicine paper published in 2015 [7], which reports the construction of a chimeric CoV with a bat CoV S gene (SHC014) in the backbone of a SARS CoV that has adapted to infect mice (MA15) and is capable of infecting human cells [8]. However, this claim lacks any scientific basis and must be discounted because of significant divergence in the genetic sequence of this construct with the new SARS-CoV-2 (>5,000 nucleotides).

The mouse-adapted SARS virus (MA15) [9] was generated by serial passage of an infectious wildtype SARS CoV clone in the respiratory tract of BALB/c mice. After 15 passages in mice, the SARS-CoV gained elevated replication and lung pathogenesis in aged mice (hence M15), due to six coding genetic mutations associated with mouse adaptation. It is likely that MA15 is highly attenuated to replicate in human cells or patients due to the mouse adaptation.

It was proposed that the S gene from bat-derived CoV, unlike that from human patients- or civets-derived viruses, was unable to use human ACE2 as a receptor for entry into human cells [10,11]. Civets were proposed to be an intermediate host of the bat-CoVs, capable of spreading SARS CoV to humans [6,12]. However, in 2013 several novel bat coronaviruses were isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats and the bat SARS-like or SL-CoV-WIV1 was able to use ACE2 from humans, civets and Chinese horseshoe bats for entry [8]. Combined with evolutionary evidence that the bat ACE2 gene has been positively selected at the same contact sites as the human ACE2 gene for interacting with SARS CoV [13], it was proposed that an intermediate host may not be necessary and that some bat SL-CoVs may be able to directly infect human hosts. To directly address this possibility, the exact S gene from bat coronavirus SL-SHC014 was synthesized and used to generate a chimeric virus in the mouse adapted MA15 SARS-CoV backbone. The resultant SL-SHC014-MA15 virus could indeed efficiently use human ACE2 and replicate in primary human airway cells to similar titres as epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. While SL- SHC014-MA15 can replicate efficiently in young and aged mouse lungs, infection was attenuated, and less virus antigen was
present in the airway epithelium as compared to SARS MA15, which causes lethal outcomes in aged mice [7].

Due to the elevated pathogenic activity of the SHC014-MA15 chimeric virus relative to MA15 chimeric virus with the original human SARS S gene in mice, such experiments with SL-SHC014-MA15 chimeric virus were later restricted as gain of function (GOF) studies under the US government-mandated pause policy www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih- director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research). The current COVID-2019 epidemic has restarted the debate over the risks of constructing such viruses that could have pandemic potential, irrespective of the finding that these bat CoVs already exist in nature. Regardless, upon careful phylogenetic analyses by multiple international groups [5,14], the SARS-CoV-2 is undoubtedly distinct from SL-SHC014-MA15, with >6,000 nucleotide differences across the whole genome. Therefore, once again there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the SARS-CoV-2 is derived from the chimeric SL-SHC014-MA15 virus."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7054935

Pretty much done with all of this now. All of the covid19 research is freely accessible so decide for yourself.

 

[MicroBrew]

And here is a discussion and rebuttal:

"Another claim in Chinese social media points to a Nature Medicine paper published in 2015 [7], which reports the construction of a chimeric CoV with a bat CoV S gene (SHC014) in the backbone of a SARS CoV that has adapted to infect mice (MA15) and is capable of infecting human cells [8]. However, this claim lacks any scientific basis and must be discounted because of significant divergence in the genetic sequence of this construct with the new SARS-CoV-2 (>5,000 nucleotides).

The mouse-adapted SARS virus (MA15) [9] was generated by serial passage of an infectious wildtype SARS CoV clone in the respiratory tract of BALB/c mice. After 15 passages in mice, the SARS-CoV gained elevated replication and lung pathogenesis in aged mice (hence M15), due to six coding genetic mutations associated with mouse adaptation. It is likely that MA15 is highly attenuated to replicate in human cells or patients due to the mouse adaptation.

It was proposed that the S gene from bat-derived CoV, unlike that from human patients- or civets-derived viruses, was unable to use human ACE2 as a receptor for entry into human cells [10,11]. Civets were proposed to be an intermediate host of the bat-CoVs, capable of spreading SARS CoV to humans [6,12]. However, in 2013 several novel bat coronaviruses were isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats and the bat SARS-like or SL-CoV-WIV1 was able to use ACE2 from humans, civets and Chinese horseshoe bats for entry [8]. Combined with evolutionary evidence that the bat ACE2 gene has been positively selected at the same contact sites as the human ACE2 gene for interacting with SARS CoV [13], it was proposed that an intermediate host may not be necessary and that some bat SL-CoVs may be able to directly infect human hosts. To directly address this possibility, the exact S gene from bat coronavirus SL-SHC014 was synthesized and used to generate a chimeric virus in the mouse adapted MA15 SARS-CoV backbone. The resultant SL-SHC014-MA15 virus could indeed efficiently use human ACE2 and replicate in primary human airway cells to similar titres as epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. While SL- SHC014-MA15 can replicate efficiently in young and aged mouse lungs, infection was attenuated, and less virus antigen was
present in the airway epithelium as compared to SARS MA15, which causes lethal outcomes in aged mice [7].

Due to the elevated pathogenic activity of the SHC014-MA15 chimeric virus relative to MA15 chimeric virus with the original human SARS S gene in mice, such experiments with SL-SHC014-MA15 chimeric virus were later restricted as gain of function (GOF) studies under the US government-mandated pause policy www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih- director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research). The current COVID-2019 epidemic has restarted the debate over the risks of constructing such viruses that could have pandemic potential, irrespective of the finding that these bat CoVs already exist in nature. Regardless, upon careful phylogenetic analyses by multiple international groups [5,14], the SARS-CoV-2 is undoubtedly distinct from SL-SHC014-MA15, with >6,000 nucleotide differences across the whole genome. Therefore, once again there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the SARS-CoV-2 is derived from the chimeric SL-SHC014-MA15 virus."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7054935

Pretty much done with all of this now. All of the covid19 research is freely accessible so decide for yourself.

I specifically said the article does not mean the virus was bio-engineered. The article in the O.P. also does not say the virus was bio-engineered.

I posted the article because it was mentioned in dossier referenced in the O.P.
As the O.P. used right leaning sources , which some posters here are not comfortable with, I posted the Nature article and paper.

 

[mon]

Pointless to even do trade there, China will bribe their way into the Vietnamese market and pretend the good your getting is Vietnamese manufactured. To close to their territory.

Love Vietnam but personnelly India is a far better choice as they aren't and never will be in China's pocket, are a nuclear power, are more in line with the west's values and are in a perfect geographically.

 

[legomaheggroll]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/03/us-...aggp_f4DV8O8jRF45bd7Yzt-PGG1h1Fpty8SoBzSb6iI4

not sure if this has already been posted in this thread but i found it relevant to the discussion.

 

[senri]

Love Vietnam but personnelly India is a far better choice as they aren't and never will be in China's pocket, are a nuclear power, are more in line with the west's values and are in a perfect geographically.

For now yes, you would ultimately need to relocate cheap manufacturing to Africa eventually.

 

[mon]

For now yes, you would ultimately need to relocate cheap manufacturing to Africa eventually.

Ideally it would return to our own countries, back to the day where. .....made meant quality (at least in the west). Unfortunately I can't see that happening as our whole world revolves around money and the cronyism between big businesses and our politicians.

Got to disagree about Africa though as the sovereign risk is far too high and (I think) getting worse not better. Maybe in 15 years IF they can get their shit together.