So, you still think Covid came from Bats?

I saw Quay and Muller on Sean Hannity the same day they published the WSJ editorial, and discounted what they said and wrote. Quay is a promoter and a kind of medical and biotech jack of all trades, and Muller is a physicist. They're not virologists or epidemiologists. Originally Posted by Tiny

Steven Quay and Richard Muller both earned doctorate degrees over 40 years ago, in biological chemistry and physics, respectively. They each worked for a Nobel Laureate in their fields early in their careers.

Here is a quick CV on Dr. Quay:

"Dr. Steven Quay has 360+ published contributions to medicine and has been cited over 10,000 times, placing him in the top 1% of scientists worldwide. He holds 87 US patents and has invented seven FDA-approved pharmaceuticals which have helped over 80 million people. He is the author of the best-selling book on surviving the pandemic, Stay Safe: A Physician's Guide to Survive Coronavirus. He is the CEO of Atossa Therapeutics Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapeutics for treating breast cancer and COVID-19."

I doubt if Dr. Fauci would question their scientific credentials or dismiss them for not being "virologists".

This is extremely interesting, even to a layman like me. Will Dr. Fauci respond?


The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak

The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus.

By Steven Quay and Richard Muller
June 6, 2021 11:59 am ET

The possibility that the pandemic began with an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is attracting fresh attention. President Biden has asked the national intelligence community to redouble efforts to investigate.

Much of the public discussion has focused on circumstantial evidence: mysterious illnesses in late 2019; the lab’s work intentionally supercharging viruses to increase lethality (known as “gain of function” research). The Chinese Communist Party has been reluctant to release relevant information. Reports based on U.S. intelligence have suggested the lab collaborated on projects with the Chinese military.

But the most compelling reason to favor the lab leak hypothesis is firmly based in science. In particular, consider the genetic fingerprint of CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for the disease Covid-19.

In gain-of-function research, a microbiologist can increase the lethality of a coronavirus enormously by splicing a special sequence into its genome at a prime location. Doing this leaves no trace of manipulation. But it alters the virus spike protein, rendering it easier for the virus to inject genetic material into the victim cell. Since 1992 there have been at least 11 separate experiments adding a special sequence to the same location. The end result has always been supercharged viruses.

A genome is a blueprint for the factory of a cell to make proteins. The language is made up of three-letter “words,” 64 in total, that represent the 20 different amino acids. For example, there are six different words for the amino acid arginine, the one that is often used in supercharging viruses. Every cell has a different preference for which word it likes to use most.

In the case of the gain-of-function supercharge, other sequences could have been spliced into this same site. Instead of a CGG-CGG (known as “double CGG”) that tells the protein factory to make two arginine amino acids in a row, you’ll obtain equal lethality by splicing any one of 35 of the other two-word combinations for double arginine. If the insertion takes place naturally, say through recombination, then one of those 35 other sequences is far more likely to appear; CGG is rarely used in the class of coronaviruses that can recombine with CoV-2.

In fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally. That means the common method of viruses picking up new skills, called recombination, cannot operate here. A virus simply cannot pick up a sequence from another virus if that sequence isn’t present in any other virus.

Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory.

Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?

Yes, it could have happened randomly, through mutations. But do you believe that? At the minimum, this fact—that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers—implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape.

When the lab’s Shi Zhengli and colleagues published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section. Yet the fingerprint is easily identified in the data that accompanied the paper. Was it omitted in the hope that nobody would notice this evidence of the gain-of-function origin?

But in a matter of weeks virologists Bruno Coutard and colleagues published their discovery of the sequence in CoV-2 and its novel supercharged site. Double CGG is there; you only have to look. They comment in their paper that the protein that held it “may provide a gain-of-function” capability to the virus, “for efficient spreading” to humans.

There is additional scientific evidence that points to CoV-2’s gain-of-function origin. The most compelling is the dramatic differences in the genetic diversity of CoV-2, compared with the coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS.

Both of those were confirmed to have a natural origin; the viruses evolved rapidly as they spread through the human population, until the most contagious forms dominated. Covid-19 didn’t work that way. It appeared in humans already adapted into an extremely contagious version. No serious viral “improvement” took place until a minor variation occurred many months later in England.

Such early optimization is unprecedented, and it suggests a long period of adaptation that predated its public spread. Science knows of only one way that could be achieved: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus on human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research. Mice that are genetically modified to have the same coronavirus receptor as humans, called “humanized mice,” are repeatedly exposed to the virus to encourage adaptation.

The presence of the double CGG sequence is strong evidence of gene splicing, and the absence of diversity in the public outbreak suggests gain-of-function acceleration. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory.

Dr. Quay is founder of Atossa Therapeutics and author of “Stay Safe: A Physician’s Guide to Survive Coronavirus.” Mr. Muller is an emeritus professor of physics at the University of California Berkeley and a former senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sci...ak-11622995184 Originally Posted by lustylad

Don't know if Dr Fauci has responded. However, there is a virologist that communicated with Fauci in March 2020 who disagrees with Quays findings. Specifically, the double CGG sequence was found in other Carona Viruses. This would suggest that it was not manipulated in the lab and evolved naturally.

From the link:

A: Furin cleavage sites are found all across the coronavirus family, including in the betacoronavirus genus that SARS-CoV-2 belongs to. There has been much speculation that patterns found in the virus’s RNA that are responsible for certain portions of the furin cleavage site represent evidence of engineering. Specifically, people are pointing to two “CGG” sequences that code for the amino acid arginine in the furin cleavage site as strong evidence that the virus was made in the lab. Such statements are factually incorrect.

While it’s true that CGG is less common than other patterns that code for arginine, the CGG codon is found elsewhere in the SARS-CoV-2 genome and the genetic sequence[s] that include the CGG codon found in SARS-CoV-2 are also found in other coronaviruses. These findings, together with many other technical features of the site, strongly suggest that it evolved naturally and there is very little chance somebody engineered it.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientist...114537695.html

Good post. The problem Adav8, is that you evidently are knowledgeable of genetic science. Others here are not, yet still are impelled to opine about that they don't understand. Maybe not opine, but echo the opining of those similarly uneducated. Maybe from TV, who knows? No harm...except that others want to believe what they "hear" from the uneducated source, so it propagates.

The verdict is still out,, but as I've said before and will say again, if you don't have a foundation in virology, genetics, cellular biology, immunology, etc., ...well we all know what they say about opinions.

Unclear to me, but which of the pedigrees screams hack to you?
Paul Elias Alexander, PhD, Former COVID Pandemic consultant/advisor to WHO-PAHO and former COVID pandemic advisor to Health and Human Services (HHS), United States; Parvez Dara, MD, MBA; Howard Tenenbaum, DDS, PhD.


Or are you tossing the hack card because they used actual and provable facts? That may make sense to the pole dancer at Snopes or the pretend, aka wanna-be journalist, at MediaBiasFactCheck. But in the wild, using facts from qualified sources by qualified professionals just doesn't seem hack-esque to moi mon ami. To be fair, they did provide some links to MSN and other LSM media sites, so I'll give you those as likely crap resources. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Like I said, he's got an impressive resume.

Which "actual and provable facts" are you referring to? He appears to contend the following,

COVID vaccines cause more harm to children than COVID, the disease

Asymptomatic spread of COVID does not occur

Experts on the U.S. Pandemic Task force were illogical, irrational, and unscientific, and every policy based on their input and guidance created disaster. They misled and undercut the President at each turn.

RT-PCR tests have very high false positive rates at cycle counts of 34 to 35 (true but irrelevant; I think you posted here that the tests don't go to 35 cycles?)

Hydroxychloroquine is effective for treatment (not proven, and no longer recommended by your Eastern Virginia University Medical School source)

Mr. Alexander offers no lies, no spin, no half-baked tripe, only pure evidence and truth

The risk of myocarditis among teenagers means it's unwise for them to get vaccinated

People who had COVID shouldn't get vaccinated

It only makes sense to vaccinate very high-risk people with compromising conditions

Enhanced handwashing and isolation of symptomatic persons are the best ways to control COVID.

Cloth masks are ineffective and dangerous

We should completely cease testing asymptomatic individuals

Now some of the above may be true. But some is also bull shit. While these points overlap nicely with your prejudices, they're not "actual and provable facts."

Steven Quay and Richard Muller both earned doctorate degrees over 40 years ago, in biological chemistry and physics, respectively. They each worked for a Nobel Laureate in their fields early in their careers.

Here is a quick CV on Dr. Quay:

"Dr. Steven Quay has 360+ published contributions to medicine and has been cited over 10,000 times, placing him in the top 1% of scientists worldwide. He holds 87 US patents and has invented seven FDA-approved pharmaceuticals which have helped over 80 million people. He is the author of the best-selling book on surviving the pandemic, Stay Safe: A Physician's Guide to Survive Coronavirus. He is the CEO of Atossa Therapeutics Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapeutics for treating breast cancer and COVID-19."

I doubt if Dr. Fauci would question their scientific credentials or dismiss them for not being "virologists". Originally Posted by lustylad

Dr. Quay would be my go to guy for breast cancer, if he'd see me.

Dr. Quay would be my go to guy for breast cancer, if he'd see me. Originally Posted by Tiny

first, men can get breast cancer, rare but known. and do you have "man boobs"? maybe he'd like to see 'em?


BAHHAAAAAAA

first, men can get breast cancer, rare but known. and do you have "man boobs"? maybe he'd like to see 'em?

BAHHAAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Yes, too many calories, too much soy, and too much mary jane did it to me.

I'm lying, I do not have man boobs, so it is indeed very unlikely I'll be searching out Dr. Quay for advice.

A: Furin cleavage sites are found all across the coronavirus family....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientist...114537695.html Originally Posted by adav8s28

Andersen, who's answering the questions, is mentioned in Wade's article that LustyLad referred to.

I posted a link to this last year, which expands on some of the points he's making in your link,

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Yes, too many calories, too much soy, and too much mary jane did it to me.

I'm lying, I do not have man boobs, so it is indeed very unlikely I'll be searching out Dr. Quay for advice. Originally Posted by Tiny

TWK "likes" this post


BHHAHHAAAAAAA

Steven Quay and Richard Muller both earned doctorate degrees over 40 years ago, in biological chemistry and physics, respectively. They each worked for a Nobel Laureate in their fields early in their careers.... Originally Posted by lustylad

By the way, the primary reason I discounted what they said wasn't their backgrounds, but rather Quay saying on Hannity something like there's a one in a billion chance the COVID virus came from nature. That sounds like bull shit even if it is coming from someone who worked under a Nobel Laureate. Paul Krugman spouts plenty of bull shit and he IS a Nobel Laureate.

I can't find the Hannity episode, but Quay said something similar 2 minutes into this:

https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/6257...#sp=show-clips

Dr. Quay would be my go to guy for breast cancer, if he'd see me. Originally Posted by Tiny

Do you have Gyno?

Good post. The problem Adav8, is that you evidently are knowledgeable of genetic science. Others here are not, yet still are impelled to opine about that they don't understand. Maybe not opine, but echo the opining of those similarly uneducated. Maybe from TV, who knows? No harm...except that others want to believe what they "hear" from the uneducated source, so it propagates.
Originally Posted by reddog1951

Thanks reddog1951.

Andersen, who's answering the questions, is mentioned in Wade's article that LustyLad referred to.

I posted a link to this last year, which expands on some of the points he's making in your link,

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 Originally Posted by Tiny

Same conclusion, SARS-CoV2 did not become lethal in the lab. From the link:

While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal7 and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding7,11. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.

Vaccines as of 6/13/21 5888 deaths , 329021 serious injuries Per Brain Shilhavy Health News
And that's only 1-2 % reported to the Cdc and the question still the missing link ?

Do you have Gyno? Originally Posted by Levianon17

Gynorrhea? Nope, I don’t bareback.