Origin of Covid-19

[Incredulity 11683]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Not even top 10. We had an aids infested tow truck crusader trying to suck kids dicks after plying them with drugs posting here. And half the idiots here celebrated the guy cause he said reasonably mean things about tow truck drivers. DDD never hall monitored that guy though. Cause he is a good judge of posting quality. 

In the land of Sequoia a Douglas Fir is still a very large tree.

[DDD Dad 14352]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Not even top 10. We had an aids infested tow truck crusader trying to suck kids dicks after plying them with drugs posting here. And half the idiots here celebrated the guy cause he said reasonably mean things about tow truck drivers. DDD never hall monitored that guy though. Cause he is a good judge of posting quality. 

Obsession noted. 
 

I bet you name your sword. 

Edited March 20, 2023 by DDD Dad

[Anastasis 23491]

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Obsession noted. 
 

I bet you name your sword. 

Projection noted, hall monitor. And for the record your mom named my sword. 

[Bevo 13601]

Who was the poster from one of the old sites that had the newer name for drag worm as his username""

[atomheartbevo 89828]

6 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Not even top 10. We had an aids infested tow truck crusader trying to suck kids dicks after plying them with drugs posting here. And half the idiots here celebrated the guy cause he said reasonably mean things about tow truck drivers.

You are completely missing the most batshit part of that story.

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/crime/article/Austin-man-convicted-rock-throwing-brain-dead-11074043.php

[DDD Dad 14352]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Projection noted, hall monitor. And for the record your mom named my sword. 

 

[Anastasis 23491]

Pre-print of the analysis pushed to Atlantic re: environment genetic samples now up, FWIW:

https://zenodo.org/record/7754299#.ZBj92HbMJHU

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23491]

So if you read the pre-print, and have the capability of understanding at any basic level what they found, it becomes quite clear that the lay press reporting was nothing more than wrong headed led by the nose propaganda. Some of the reporting moreso than others, certainly. 

[Incredulity 11683]

But, but, but level 3 labs everywhere….

[Anastasis 23491]

So GISAID (the genetic sequence library) has locked the accounts of the people involved in the media driven racoon dog drama. 

https://gisaid.org/statements-clarifications/data-availability/

Recent Discussions:

The China CDC submitted additional sequences to GISAID that were obtained early in the pandemic, including raw data. Unlike current data from viruses that are circulating and evolving, these new data originated from environmental samples collected more than three years ago.

It is GISAID’s understanding that after the China CDC submitted a first draft of their analysis to a major scientific journal, a first peer-review process yielded the request for more and improved data. The China CDC complied and provided the reviewers with improved and additional sequence data as part of a manuscript currently under review.

At the same time, some GISAID users accessed and downloaded an incomplete portion of these data. GISAID’s terms of use explicitly permit users to collaborate with other GISAID users on analyses of this data.

However, if GISAID users were to publish an analysis of this un-published data before the data generators’ own publication is released (especially, if they had knowledge the data generators submitted their own manuscript for publication), such an act would amount to scooping. Not only could this “distort[] scientific progress[,]” it could negatively impact the quality of scientific work. See Pearson, H. It's a scoop!. Nature 426, 222–223 (2003). Doing so would also run afoul to GISAID’s Database Access Agreement, which calls on the user to make best efforts to collaborate with the data generators and involve them in such analyses and further research using such data.

Unfortunately, GISAID learned that select users published an analysis report in direct contravention of the terms they agreed to as a condition to accessing the data, and despite having knowledge that the data generators are undergoing peer review assessment of their own publication.  When GISAID sought confirmation from the data generators whether best efforts to collaborate have been made in this case, GISAID was advised that a group of researchers contacted the data generators to communicate only their intent to publish their analysis of the generators’ data. As such, the best efforts requirement has not been met. GISAID communicated the above-stated observations to these users on 14 March 2023 and provided them with the opportunity to comment, but did not receive a reply as of this writing.

GISAID’s goal is to incentivize timely and transparent data sharing by providing a trusted place for data contributors to see their rights respected.  It should be apparent to everyone that the data generators are the ones most familiar with the details surrounding their submitted data and the context in which it was collected.  

This does not preclude the ability for other researchers to discuss analyses with peers or respond with publication of their own analysis once the data generators have been afforded the opportunity to have their analysis undergo a rigorous scientific peer review for purposes of publication.

GISAID is confident that the peer-review by the scientific journal will be expedited to the extent possible. GISAID strongly encourages that the complete and updated dataset will be made available as soon as possible to all GISAID users.  

Premature discussions of the scientific data in the media risks eroding the public’s confidence in scientific research.

[DDD Dad 14352]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Premature discussions of the scientific data in the media risks eroding the public’s confidence in scientific research.

With this I completely agree.

[Anastasis 23491]

17 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

With this I completely agree.

It was a pretty shitty and unethical thing to do, imo. The purpose of the genetic sequence hub and sharing is to provide transparency in research. These guys knew that the CCDC authors had a paper under peer review. They have all read the pre-print, they know that the results and the analysis (or at least the interpretation of the authors) are suggestive of the market as a human to human superspreader event and not a spillover event. That analysis and the interpretation needs to work through the peer review process at Nature, as it was doing. Fuck the CCDC frankly, but at least it this case it appears that they were responding to the peer review requests for additional data. This group of individuals however, ones with extremely vocal market origin positions staked out, grabbed the data that was posted, ran their analysis on incomplete data, and front ran the investigators working through the appropriate peer review channels. This is some shady, unethical shit. The GISAID release is appropriate and on point imo. But mission accomplished, these guys got their narrative out before the peer-reviewed work is published.  

[DDD Dad 14352]

59 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It was a pretty shitty and unethical thing to do, imo. The purpose of the genetic sequence hub and sharing is to provide transparency in research. These guys knew that the CCDC authors had a paper under peer review. They have all read the pre-print, they know that the results and the analysis (or at least the interpretation of the authors) are suggestive of the market as a human to human superspreader event and not a spillover event. That analysis and the interpretation needs to work through the peer review process at Nature, as it was doing. Fuck the CCDC frankly, but at least it this case it appears that they were responding to the peer review requests for additional data. This group of individuals however, ones with extremely vocal market origin positions staked out, grabbed the data that was posted, ran their analysis on incomplete data, and front ran the investigators working through the appropriate peer review channels. This is some shady, unethical shit. The GISAID release is appropriate and on point imo. But mission accomplished, these guys got their narrative out before the peer-reviewed work is published.  

I look forward to seeing whatever ultimately gets published after peer review.  As I've said before, I don't have a vested interest in one outcome over another.  I would like to see if we can reach a consensus (or as close to one as possible) regrading the source, but I'm not terribly optimistic we'll ever really know.

[Anastasis 23491]

11 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I look forward to seeing whatever ultimately gets published after peer review.  As I've said before, I don't have a vested interest in one outcome over another.  I would like to see if we can reach a consensus (or as close to one as possible) regrading the source, but I'm not terribly optimistic we'll ever really know.

I agree. I don't think that we ever get a definitive answer. I do speculate that certain data points that get released as part of the instruction from congress to declassify the intelligence community information, which Biden just signed, demonstrates a fair amount of evidence that Sars-Cov-2 was in circulation as early as Sept/Oct 2019.  And which might further support the notion that the market was a super spreader event and not the spillover origin point. 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Anastasis

[Dahobbs 17695]

22 hours ago, Anastasis said:

So if you read the pre-print, and have the capability of understanding at any basic level what they found, it becomes quite clear that the lay press reporting was nothing more than wrong headed led by the nose propaganda. Some of the reporting moreso than others, certainly. 

Counterpoint:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/heres-the-full-analysis-of-newly-uncovered-genetic-data-on-covids-origins/

Quote

 

Data context

They also highlighted that the metagenomic data briefly posted on GISAID is not the full extent of genetic data China CDC has, which it has not shared with the international community. Metagenomic data from other market sampling remains to be seen publicly, they note.

The data the group has been able to get its hands on so far, however, paints a nearly complete picture of how the devastating pandemic began. The metagenomic data came from around 50 data files, which are listed in the analysis' appendix B, but are currently not publicly available. The data is metagenomic sequences from some of the swabs and wastewater sampling that China CDC collected around the Huanan market after it was shut down on January 1, 2020. These swabs were previously reported; In February 2022, China CDC researchers released a preprint study on 1,380 environmental and animal samples taken from the market.

The preprint study was led by George Gao, then-director of China CDC. It indicated that environmental swabs were positive for SARS-CoV-2 and contained human genetic material but that the swabs of animals in the market—including mostly rabbits, stray cats, snakes, and hedgehogs—were all negative. Given those findings, Gao and colleagues concluded that humans—not animals—brought the virus into the large market, which then acted as an amplifier of infection due to the large number of people who visited the market daily. China previously suggested that the virus was introduced to the country on imported frozen foods sold at the market.

Still, that preprint data indicated that SARS-CoV-2-positive samples were predominantly in the southwestern zone of the market, where live mammals were sold. Other investigations have since found the same, including the Joint WHO-China study and an analysis published last July in Science by Worobey and colleagues. In Figure 4 of the Science article, Worobey and his co-authors showed that the southwest corner of the market had the highest density of SARS-CoV-2-positive environmental samples and was also where illegally sold wild mammals were held. That includes raccoon dogs, one of which was photographed in 2014 by one of the study authors, Edward Holmes, a biologist at the University of Sydney. The study also found that some of the earliest human cases of COVID-19 clustered in the western portion of the market, around where the live animals were housed.

Genetic tracks

The newly released analysis includes additional genomic data from around 50 of the SARS-CoV-2-positive swabs taken by China CDC from stalls in that southwestern corner, as well as elsewhere in the market. In contrast to the preprint by Gao and colleagues, the metagenomic data indicates that the swabs in the southwest zone were not only positive for SARS-CoV-2 and some human genetic material, they were also brimming with genetic material from wild animals, some of which are known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. These included raccoon dogs, Siberian weasels, Amur hedgehogs, hoary bamboo rats, Malayan porcupines, dogs, Himalayan marmots, and masked palm civets.

The cache of data included metagenomic information from six samples, taken from two stalls, that had high levels of raccoon dog genetic material. Raccoon dogs are known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infections and known to shed high levels of viral particles. In particular, one sample, Q61, taken from a cart contained 1,252 genetic fragments with 100 percent identity to the raccoon dog genome but contained zero sequences that had such a perfect match to the human genome. When the researchers took a closer look at the genetic fragments to see what was encoded, they found a mix of genes that are continuously active as well as tissue-specific genes, such as ones involved in mucus production and smell receptors. These findings hint that the swabs were picking up raccoon dog nasal excretions, which may have been more likely in animals sick with a respiratory virus, like SARS-CoV-2.

Such close commingling of genetic material from wild animals and SARS-CoV-2 in an area of the market with the highest density of virus-positive samples, and around which many of the earliest COVID-19 cases were identified, makes a compelling argument that a natural spillover occurred and, specifically, occurred in this area of the market, the researchers argue.

In the concluding remarks of their analysis, Worobey, Anderson, Débarre, and colleagues quickly summarize how this data fits into other data regarding the origin of the pandemic. They highlight again that the Huanan market was the initial epicenter of the pandemic, with most of the early cases having a direct link to the market or occurring in the close surrounding area. While SARS-CoV-2 samples and cases were found throughout the market, the highest concentration of positive samples centered around stalls with wild animals, many of which are known to be susceptible to the virus. Further, many of the earliest human cases also surrounded this area in the western zone of the market.

They also note that a separate genetic study published last year in Science found that there were two genetic lineages of SARS-CoV-2 in the early days of the pandemic—lineage A and lineage B. The two lineages suggest that the virus spilled over into humans on two separate occasions, days to weeks apart from each other. Both lineages were found in the market. The study authors, led Jonathan Pekar at University of California, San Diego, concluded that, based on a series of modeling, it was most likely that SARS-CoV-2 lineage B jumped into humans at the Huanan market in mid-November 2019 and lineage A jumped to humans in the Huanan market in late November.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Anastasis 23491]

That's weird @Dahobbs.  Did I just read a totally different response on my phone, before I walked over to the computer to respond?  Cause that post was more interesting and engaging than that quote from the arstechnica piece.  Which I am less interested in reading and responding to at the moment, but will certainly consider later. 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Anastasis
typos are hard

[Dahobbs 17695]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That's weird @Dahobbs.  Did I just read a totally different response on my phone, before I walked over to the computer to respond?  Cause that post was more interesting and engaging than that quote the arstechnica piece.  Which I am less interested in reading and responding to at the moment, but will certainly consider late. 

I edited my post. I decided to post the original ars technica information without my own comments. I felt my response wasn't fair as I haven't had time to fully read the preprint and the other analysis. 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Anastasis 23491]

O

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I edited my post. I decided to post the original ars technica information without my own comments. I felt my response wasn't fair as I haven't had time to fully read the preprint and the other analysis. 

I thought it was fair and something worth responding to, wrt the aspects of the Chinese government and general philosophy about institutional trust.  But to be honest I already forgot some of the good details of the line of thinking that I was going to base my response around. 

[Dahobbs 17695]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

O

I thought it was fair and something worth responding to, wrt the aspects of the Chinese government and general philosophy about institutional trust.  But to be honest I already forgot some of the good details of the line of thinking that I was going to base my response around. 

I'll probably repost my thoughts (or something similar) after I've informed myself. I do think it is a discussion worth having. 

[Anastasis 23491]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'll probably repost my thoughts (or something similar) after I've informed myself. I do think it is a discussion worth having. 

I hope so. It is certainly a more interesting and relevant discussion compared to one about pulling red balls out of a bag. We probably got a few months until the next news cycle on the issue, corresponding to the release of info. Unless something happens in the run up. 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23491]

Updated Liu pre-print. This may or may likely not represent the final accepted version under review at Nature, but at least appears to reflect at least one round of revision during the peer review process.

http://chinaxiv.org/user/view.htm?id=51115&filetype=pdf

The interpretations of the authors undermine the double spill-over HSM market origin hypothesis.  Makes for some good social media cat fights, and some of the more involved scientists appear to be outright lunatics, which is great. And I mean that sincerely, on #bothsides. Will be interesting to see the evidence released as part of the declassification taking place, and how things dove tail, but I still lean towards the market as a high traffic space/super-spreader event for a number of reasons.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Anastasis

[Homercles 10206]

Regardless whether we get the real answer or not…can countries maybe crack down on selling wild animals at markets, especially commingled with food items?  Or being sold as food?  

Bushmeat in general is such a vector for disease, but I can sorta sympathize if you’re Starvin Marvin…but selling ‘raccoon dogs’ or other shit, especially just because you believe it’ll make your dick hard or have magical powers, in an open market is asinine.  

[Anastasis 23491]

58 minutes ago, Homercles said:

Regardless whether we get the real answer or not…can countries maybe crack down on selling wild animals at markets, especially commingled with food items?  Or being sold as food?  

Bushmeat in general is such a vector for disease, but I can sorta sympathize if you’re Starvin Marvin…but selling ‘raccoon dogs’ or other shit, especially just because you believe it’ll make your dick hard or have magical powers, in an open market is asinine.  

Absolutely. No matter how the SARS-2 origin story plays out, we know the risks associated with these markets. We know from SARS-1  They are high risk scenarios. But you have dumbasses that liken the risks associated with these markets in China and other places with doggy kisses or whatever stupid shit. 

[Anastasis 23491]

Liu paper appears to be accepted, still essentially a pre-print as it hasn't been through final proofing.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06043-2

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, emerged in December 2019. Its origins remain uncertain. It has been reported that a number of the early human cases had a history of contact with the Huanan Seafood Market. Here we present the results of surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 within the market. From January 1st 2020, after closure of the market, 923 samples were collected from the environment. From 18th January, 457 samples were collected from 18 species of animals, comprising of unsold contents of refrigerators and freezers, swabs from stray animals, and the contents of a fish tank. Using RT-qPCR, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 73 environmental samples, but none of the animal samples. Three live viruses were successfully isolated. The viruses from the market shared nucleotide identity of 99.99% to 100% with the human isolate HCoV-19/Wuhan/IVDC-HB-01/2019. SARS-CoV-2 lineage A (8782T and 28144C) was found in an environmental sample. RNA-seq analysis of SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative environmental samples showed an abundance of different vertebrate genera at the market. In summary, this study provides information about the distribution and prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the Huanan Seafood Market during the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak.

 

Interesting figure, plots the animal sequence hits by SAR-CoV-2 PCR/NGS positivity. Note that there has been substantial online debate about these results, in particular the potential limitations of the reference library used. Suffice to say, the strongest relationship with samples consistently positive was homos. 

[bschoolprof 6273]

Fuckin homos. 

[Anastasis 23491]

1 hour ago, bschoolprof said:

Fuckin homos. 

Who could have thunk?

[Hate 20146]

Fuckin homos. 

Phrasing?

[Txzen 498]

Alas, it seems like an underwhelming paper, mostly because of the lack of scientific collaboration (which likely stems from lack of trust going both ways on this issue).

As noted here, some of the species supposedly identified by samples in the market could not possibly have been there ('killing a Panda carries the death sentence, so there is no way they could be in a market'). This either means the samples were contaminated and/or suffer from inaccurate species assignment. Remember that ad hoc analysis by the data by a French team (and others) came to the conclusion that raccoon dogs were a potential culprit. 

Unfortunately, the quality of the data is not going to help resolve this question.

 

[Anastasis 23491]

23 hours ago, Txzen said:

This either means the samples were contaminated and/or suffer from inaccurate species assignment. Remember that ad hoc analysis by the data by a French team (and others) came to the conclusion that raccoon dogs were a potential culprit. 

Yeah, the atlantic piece has been discussed on this thread.  From what I can glean from the online exchanges, some differences in the results are related to the different methods and references libraries and the parameters used in the analysis. 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Anastasis
removing a tweet link to a deeper look into the raccoon dog sample that appears to have a data processing error.

[Bevo 3000 10]

pretty through breakdown. Fauci is scumbag/possible psychopath. 

[Homercles 10206]

All right…new poster, digging up Covid thread from April, to post an ‘investigation’ on Fauci to support his opinion he’s a scumbag

[InkaUtexas 26172]

17 minutes ago, Bevo 3000 said:

pretty through breakdown. Fauci is scumbag/possible psychopath. 

Are we fucking doing this again? 

[Macanudo 13017]

I'm waiting until he cites Kyle Bass.

[atomheartbevo 89828]

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Are we fucking doing this again? 

[InkaUtexas 26172]

37 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

I'm waiting until he cites Kyle Bass.

And injecting bleach. I think aggy is trying to infiltrate. 

[Deej 76946]

I'm sure he's "just asking questions."

[Homercles 10206]

Waiting for posts about the USWNT and memes about Megan Rapinoe next

[Schulz2.0 29013]

7 hours ago, Macanudo said:

I'm waiting until he cites Kyle Bass.

The Tenacious D guy?

[Captainant 27828]

7 hours ago, Homercles said:

All right…new poster, digging up Covid thread from April, to post an ‘investigation’ on Fauci to support his opinion he’s a scumbag

And wouldn't ya know it, one of this sock's first posts was in the crypto thread 

I swear, GRUhorn isn't even trying to be sneaky anymore! Usually he quietly posts for a week or two before taking the mask off

[UnivTex34 1763]

hey @blacklab, he's back again.

[blacklab 11955]

done

[InkaUtexas 26172]

3 hours ago, blacklab said:

done

Thanks Dad. 

[Homercles 10206]

3 hours ago, UnivTex34 said:

hey @blacklab, he's back again.

I just love this too much

[utee94 15868]

Hey new friends, I'm just asking q...

[Pods 7586]

On 8/7/2023 at 10:39 PM, atomheartbevo said:

 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Pods

[Anastasis 23491]

Sock or not, Fauci dissembled in sworn testimony to Congress. This is very clear at this point. 

[YGIFS 19452]

Dissembled?  What does that even mean?  You guys want this site to still exist, right?  

[bernorange 8366]

John Stossel:

Quote

...
Today the FBI, the Energy Department, and others ... believe COVID most likely came from a lab.
...

https://reason.com/2023/10/25/america-funded-it-rand-paul-blasts-fauci-and-the-media-for-suppressing-the-lab-leak-theory/

[Bevo 13601]

9 minutes ago, bernorange said:

John Stossel:

https://reason.com/2023/10/25/america-funded-it-rand-paul-blasts-fauci-and-the-media-for-suppressing-the-lab-leak-theory/

[Deej 76946]