Holy *****

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

claym711 said:

---

It's going to be absolutely wild if scottimus's source is one of the a&m profs that China bought.

---

Given that he seems consistently wrong, I wouldn't be surprised.

---

Fascinating internal subcomponent to this thread.

StrickAggie06 said:

---

scottimus said:

---

erudite said:

---

Redstone said:

---

---

Scientific paper please.

---

Expert saying:

Quote:

---

This is not a real publication.

Biorxiv is a site you can put anything up on

If you want actual papers, go to PubMed

Here is a real publication:
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2930211-7

---

---

Genetics Ph.D. here. As a disclaimer, I'm a little out of practice and virology/biophysics is not my area of expertise, so I'll defer to your expert assuming he's well qualified in this area.

Having said that, assuming the reasearch behind the paper is legit, I think it does raise legit questions about the origin of this virus, and I don't think the authors' conclusions are terribly off base. I would be very interested to know why your expert feels otherwise, other than his dislike of Biorxiv (which I'm not familiar with).

The methods behind their comparative analysis of RNA sequence and amino acid residues seem reasonable. Assuming they are correct that the amino acid residues in question are only present in this Coronavirus and HIV, then it should be highly unlikely for all 4 of them to be present in only this new Coronavirus as a natural occurrence.

While I'm not familiar with the specific challenges associated with using CRISPR or similar gene editing techniques on various viruses, I think it is reasonable to start questioning whether it may have been engineered.

---

Hi stupid question here.
We were talking about that gene earlier, CCR5. Let us dive down the rabbit hole and assume the Chinese gov was attempting to eliminate the CCR5 to prevent HIV.

Now bear with me a second.
Could it be possible that they screwed the edit and allow it to use CD4? I have been told this CANNOT be removed because it is required for the immune system to function?
In otherwords. What is the chance of screwing up an edit in your ballpark?

So maybe that "negative" result in college station was corona virus, and spread it to others now in Texas. CDC admitted reliable testing is not figured out yet?

bmks270 said:

---

So maybe that "negative" result in college station was corona virus, and spread it to others now in Texas. CDC admitted reliable testing is not figured out yet?

---

Possible chance they ran it multiple times to be sure too.

I couldn't find that CDC quote anywhere. Link?

StrickAggie06 said:

---

scottimus said:

---

erudite said:

---

Redstone said:

---

---

Scientific paper please.

---

Expert saying:

Quote:

---

This is not a real publication.

Biorxiv is a site you can put anything up on

If you want actual papers, go to PubMed

Here is a real publication:
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2930211-7

---

---

Genetics Ph.D. here. As a disclaimer, I'm a little out of practice and virology/biophysics is not my area of expertise, so I'll defer to your expert assuming he's well qualified in this area.

Having said that, assuming the reasearch behind the paper is legit, I think it does raise legit questions about the origin of this virus, and I don't think the authors' conclusions are terribly off base. I would be very interested to know why your expert feels otherwise, other than his dislike of Biorxiv (which I'm not familiar with).

The methods behind their comparative analysis of RNA sequence and amino acid residues seem reasonable. Assuming they are correct that the amino acid residues in question are only present in this Coronavirus and HIV, then it should be highly unlikely for all 4 of them to be present in only this new Coronavirus as a natural occurrence.

While I'm not familiar with the specific challenges associated with using CRISPR or similar gene editing techniques on various viruses, I think it is reasonable to start questioning whether it may have been engineered.

---

I am glad you brought this up. I am still "arguing" with him about it, now.


I stated: Yeah, but Vhina is shutting down the 2nd larges economy in the world for 200 deaths? Something is up...

Quote:

---

Lol

That is normal for China

That is how they do things

You know I worked at Beijing university?

---

No I did not

Quote:

---

Well, I do understand how things work there

I train people that are in their CDC

I was there just last year.

---

CDC just issued a quarantine

Quote:

---

Yep

Quarantine is no surprise

Why are you surprised?

---

Because this is a lot of action for just over 200 deaths

Quote:

---

It isn't the deaths, its the need to properly contain it

If this had been done earlier, it would not have gotten so far

They had the chance earlier, it wasn't done right

---

Here is your MedPub article! (Sent link to HIV identical sequence from Wuhan)

Quote:

---

Is there a point? I understand how CRISPER works, if that is what are asking about.

We use it all the time

---

You don't find it uncanny..the study from Wuhan?

Quote:

---

No

It is good they are working on HIV, it is a problem

CRISPR will probably never be applied that way though

It is not effective

---

CDC just issued the first quarantine in the US and they said they cannot isolate the virus

Quote:

---

We have had quarantines in the US since we were founded

the plague

---

Of course, but I am talking about this one

Quote:

---

all patients with the coronavirus or that may have it should be quarantined, why is that a surprise

They have isolated the virus many times

When you engineer something it is always obvious

We have sequences of virus form numerous patients

None were engineered

All were natural

These viruses are not all that uncommon or confusing to us

---

Then I am astounded that the 2nd largest economy in the world has shut down and the freest country in the world has begun to quarantine people over 258 deaths, only. Does not add up.

Quote:

---

Yes it does

**** happens

Then you need to deal with it properly

It will be over soon

---

END

claym711 said:

---

I couldn't find that CDC quote anywhere. Link?

---

CDC admitted in the press conference today that their test was not rock solid. A very close paraphrase is along the lines of.. If I have your blood sample I can say with 100% certainty if a patient has AIDS, with a test for this novel coronavirus we are far far from that.

Pretty sure I remember him repeating far as if to emphasize.

Again look at the actions not the words.

All US citizens returning from China are quarantined for 14 days. No non-citizens will be allowed into the US if they have been in China in the last 14 days. Does that sound like they have a reliable test? Why would they hold someone who tests negative? Because the test is not 100%. It's quite obvious.

Dude is a bit arrogant. Hopefully he is right.

claym711 said:

---

I couldn't find that CDC quote anywhere. Link?

---

Find me a video of the press conference the CDC just had and I will show you.

I transcribed it verbatim the Brazos Corona Thread.

I watched live on FB and it wont post here.

I agree

Hogties said:

---

claym711 said:

---

I couldn't find that CDC quote anywhere. Link?

---

CDC admitted in the press conference today that their test was not rock solid. A very close paraphrase is along the lines of.. If I have your blood sample I can say with 100% certainty if a patient has AIDS, with a test for this novel coronavirus we are far far from that.

Pretty sure I remember him repeating far as if to emphasize.

Again look at the actions not the words.

All US citizens returning from China are quarantined for 14 days. No non-citizens will be allowed into the US if they have been in China in the last 14 days. Does that sound like they have a reliable test? Why would they hold someone who tests negative? Because the test is not 100%. It's quite obvious.

---

The bolded isn't true. If they come from Huebei they're quarantined. Not all of China

Don't know anything about Medical Express dot com, but I definitely don't trust the official communist information minister's tally:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-01-wuhan-infected-coronavirus.html

Quote:

---

"We estimate that 75,815 individuals have been infected in Wuhan as of January 25, 2020," a team led by Gabriel Leung from the University of Hong Kong reported in The Lancet.

---

EastSideAg2002 said:

---

Dude is a bit arrogant. Hopefully he is right.

---

He is very arrogant.

He is also a well known scientist arguing about TexAgs rumors with a guy on his soccer team.

He probably is only humoring me because I am better than him at soccer...

Also half his age...

claym711 said:

---

I couldn't find that CDC quote anywhere. Link?

---

I transcribed it verbatim:


In response to a question about potential patients undergoing testing.

Quote:

---

We have done virus isolation, but I want to be clear. The current test we have developed, at CDC , is not...we are not sure of the actual history of how the virus is isolated. You isolate it one day and three days later you can't. We are seeing cases in the hospital, we are seeing cases where people had detectable virus...and then they didn't have detectable virus...and three days later they had detectable virus. We are using the virus cultures now, more to learn about this virus.

---

So that article in the twitter feed:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2019.00069/full

Quote:

---

Limitations of the CRISPR/Cas9 Application
CRISPR/Cas9 technology has been widely used not only in HIV-1/AIDS treatment (Chen et al., 2018), but also in other human diseases, such as frontotemporal lobar degeneration with tau inclusions (FTLD-tau) (Jiang et al., 2018), Parkinson's disease (PD) (Zhou et al., 2018) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) (Lim et al., 2018),with the characteristics of safe, efficient and simple construction. However, some limitations must be considered before designing clinical trials.
One major concern is the potential off-target effect, which may induce important gene mutations and chromosomal translocations (Kimberland et al., 2018).

---

Translation please? I understand mutations/translocation are usually bad, but what does off site mean? For virus being used or for the patient?

Apologies for the inaccuracy about US citizens from all of China, but the point of a less than 100% reliable test for coronavirus still stands based on the CDC actions

I saw Day Z. Whats Israels policy currently?

erudite said:

---

So that article in the twitter feed:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2019.00069/full

Quote:

---

Limitations of the CRISPR/Cas9 Application
CRISPR/Cas9 technology has been widely used not only in HIV-1/AIDS treatment (Chen et al., 2018), but also in other human diseases, such as frontotemporal lobar degeneration with tau inclusions (FTLD-tau) (Jiang et al., 2018), Parkinson's disease (PD) (Zhou et al., 2018) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) (Lim et al., 2018),with the characteristics of safe, efficient and simple construction. However, some limitations must be considered before designing clinical trials.
One major concern is the potential off-target effect, which may induce important gene mutations and chromosomal translocations (Kimberland et al., 2018).

---

Translation please? I understand mutations/translocation are usually bad, but what does off site mean? For virus being used or for the patient?

---

Unintended consequences.

Civil.Savage said:

---

I saw Day Z. Whats Israels policy currently?

---

Israel is not allowing flights from China to enter the country until further notice, and all travelers coming back from China will be put in isolation at home for two weeks in light of the coronavirus outbreak, Health Minister Yaakov Litzman said on Thursday.

Earlier, El Al Israel Airlines said that it is suspending its flights between Tel Aviv and Beijing until March 25,

EastSideAg2002 said:

---

Dude is a bit arrogant. Hopefully he is right.

---

Those responses look pretty typical of what its like when an expert has to answer questions from someone who is somewhere along the Dunning-Kruger spike. A conversation between like a normal person and a flat earth idiot, for example would look similar and would not necessarily be arrogance.

I agree, we talk often and he is a very soft spoken, nice guy.

...and I am entering his field that he knows I have no background in.

Already gave me a couple...it is too much for you to understand. lol

Funny thing, he won't talk about work at soccer games! I tried and he said no work....then, I tried the texting approach.

Until you find out he has been on the Chinese payroll.

erudite said:

---

So that article in the twitter feed:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2019.00069/full

Quote:

---

Limitations of the CRISPR/Cas9 Application
CRISPR/Cas9 technology has been widely used not only in HIV-1/AIDS treatment (Chen et al., 2018), but also in other human diseases, such as frontotemporal lobar degeneration with tau inclusions (FTLD-tau) (Jiang et al., 2018), Parkinson's disease (PD) (Zhou et al., 2018) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) (Lim et al., 2018),with the characteristics of safe, efficient and simple construction. However, some limitations must be considered before designing clinical trials.
One major concern is the potential off-target effect, which may induce important gene mutations and chromosomal translocations (Kimberland et al., 2018).

---

Translation please? I understand mutations/translocation are usually bad, but what does off site mean? For virus being used or for the patient?

---

CRISPR at this point in time is a little like using a shotgun. You'll hit your target, sure, but you might also hit other stuff you didn't mean to.

More specifically, while you will edit the gene or sequence site you want, CRISPR will also edit other areas of DNA that have the same or very very similar target sequences. As a result, you might splice your new sequence right in the middle of a completely different gene, which mutates it and can cause a wide range of bad effects.

This issue is precisely why you aren't seeing tons of clinical trial ready CRISPR therapies; there is simply still a lot of research to be done to perfect it to eliminate unintended consequences.

StrickAggie06 said:

---

erudite said:

---

So that article in the twitter feed:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2019.00069/full

Quote:

---

Limitations of the CRISPR/Cas9 Application
CRISPR/Cas9 technology has been widely used not only in HIV-1/AIDS treatment (Chen et al., 2018), but also in other human diseases, such as frontotemporal lobar degeneration with tau inclusions (FTLD-tau) (Jiang et al., 2018), Parkinson's disease (PD) (Zhou et al., 2018) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) (Lim et al., 2018),with the characteristics of safe, efficient and simple construction. However, some limitations must be considered before designing clinical trials.
One major concern is the potential off-target effect, which may induce important gene mutations and chromosomal translocations (Kimberland et al., 2018).

---

Translation please? I understand mutations/translocation are usually bad, but what does off site mean? For virus being used or for the patient?

---

CRISPR at this point in time is a little like using a shotgun. You'll hit your target, sure, but you might also hit other stuff you didn't mean to.

More specifically, while you will edit the gene or sequence site you want, CRISPR will also edit other areas of DNA that have the same or very very similar target sequences. As a result, you might splice your new sequence right in the middle of a completely different gene, which mutates it and can cause a wide range of bad effects.

This issue is precisely why you aren't seeing tons of clinical trial ready CRISPR therapies; there is simply still a lot of research to be done to perfect it to eliminate unintended consequences.

---

Chance it was a dude who saw the man who did the CISPR babies and copycatted this?

claym711 said:

---

Until you find out he has been on the Chinese payroll.

---

That would only potentially change the confidence you could have in his opinions and information. It doesnt change the level of relative expertise between the two sides having a conversation. My point was it always looks like arrogance when one party understands a subject or field, and the other doesnt have the basic tools to even know how much there is that they dont know about the subject.

erudite said:

---

StrickAggie06 said:

---

scottimus said:

---

erudite said:

---

Redstone said:

---

---

Scientific paper please.

---

Expert saying:

Quote:

---

This is not a real publication.

Biorxiv is a site you can put anything up on

If you want actual papers, go to PubMed

Here is a real publication:
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2930211-7

---

---

Genetics Ph.D. here. As a disclaimer, I'm a little out of practice and virology/biophysics is not my area of expertise, so I'll defer to your expert assuming he's well qualified in this area.

Having said that, assuming the reasearch behind the paper is legit, I think it does raise legit questions about the origin of this virus, and I don't think the authors' conclusions are terribly off base. I would be very interested to know why your expert feels otherwise, other than his dislike of Biorxiv (which I'm not familiar with).

The methods behind their comparative analysis of RNA sequence and amino acid residues seem reasonable. Assuming they are correct that the amino acid residues in question are only present in this Coronavirus and HIV, then it should be highly unlikely for all 4 of them to be present in only this new Coronavirus as a natural occurrence.

While I'm not familiar with the specific challenges associated with using CRISPR or similar gene editing techniques on various viruses, I think it is reasonable to start questioning whether it may have been engineered.

---

Hi stupid question here.
We were talking about that gene earlier, CCR5. Let us dive down the rabbit hole and assume the Chinese gov was attempting to eliminate the CCR5 to prevent HIV.

Now bear with me a second.
Could it be possible that they screwed the edit and allow it to use CD4? I have been told this CANNOT be removed because it is required for the immune system to function?
In otherwords. What is the chance of screwing up an edit in your ballpark?

---

Without doing a ton of research into the sequences/amino groups of CD4 and CCR5, and comparing them to the sequences/amino groups of viral glycoproteins, I'd say in general that faulty gene editing inadvertently switching the virus's binding affinity from CCR5 to CD4 might be possible, but I can't say that with any sort of confidence.

It depends on a lot of things, including how the amino acid residues from adding/removing RNA sequences affect protein folding and structure.

StrickAggie06 said:

---

erudite said:

---

StrickAggie06 said:

---

scottimus said:

---

erudite said:

---

Redstone said:

---

---

Scientific paper please.

---

Expert saying:

Quote:

---

This is not a real publication.

Biorxiv is a site you can put anything up on

If you want actual papers, go to PubMed

Here is a real publication:
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2930211-7

---

---

Genetics Ph.D. here. As a disclaimer, I'm a little out of practice and virology/biophysics is not my area of expertise, so I'll defer to your expert assuming he's well qualified in this area.

Having said that, assuming the reasearch behind the paper is legit, I think it does raise legit questions about the origin of this virus, and I don't think the authors' conclusions are terribly off base. I would be very interested to know why your expert feels otherwise, other than his dislike of Biorxiv (which I'm not familiar with).

The methods behind their comparative analysis of RNA sequence and amino acid residues seem reasonable. Assuming they are correct that the amino acid residues in question are only present in this Coronavirus and HIV, then it should be highly unlikely for all 4 of them to be present in only this new Coronavirus as a natural occurrence.

While I'm not familiar with the specific challenges associated with using CRISPR or similar gene editing techniques on various viruses, I think it is reasonable to start questioning whether it may have been engineered.

---

Hi stupid question here.
We were talking about that gene earlier, CCR5. Let us dive down the rabbit hole and assume the Chinese gov was attempting to eliminate the CCR5 to prevent HIV.

Now bear with me a second.
Could it be possible that they screwed the edit and allow it to use CD4? I have been told this CANNOT be removed because it is required for the immune system to function?
In otherwords. What is the chance of screwing up an edit in your ballpark?

---

Without doing a ton of research into the sequences/amino groups of CD4 and CCR5, and comparing them to the sequences/amino groups of viral glycoproteins, I'd say in general that faulty gene editing inadvertently switching the virus's binding affinity from CCR5 to CD4 might be possible, but I can't say that with any sort of confidence.

It depends on a lot of things, including how the amino acid residues from adding/removing RNA sequences affect protein folding and structure.

---

Thanks. We shall see. Time will tell, sure someone is working on trying to locate method of entry as we speak.
I assume the chance that the virus edit failed to make it harmless is also a possible scenario?

Edit: I should also mention one of my sources is a Ph.D in some field studying HIV/infectious disease transmission. They last told me they weren't even being told to work on the virus yet.

I just wanted to eat bats snakes or uh dogs or whatever they eat thats strange in wuhan .

Bridging this to the Q thread. I would automatically think China is working on all of this. They have the test subjects.

So the theory is that they edited the genes of a coronavirus to include their HIV resistant CRISPR method, released it on the public either purposely or accidentally, and in the infected it is replicating and causing immune deficiency infections. It hasn't been as severe and is hard to detect in anglos because of inherent resistance to HIV.

Zerohedge Twitter acct suspended, supposedly for tweeting the HIV article

A faulty edit making it less harmless would also be a possibility, in theory. In an extreme example, the viral glycoproteins could be rendered completely non functional, making it incapable of infecting cells of any organism. Alternatively, you could simply revert the virus back to a non-human affecting strain.

Of course, this is all hypothetical. Your contact should be able to give a better idea as to whether those possibilities have any merit, given that he's directly involved in HIV and infectious disease research.