1 hour of anyone talking about anything doesn't constitute proof. (Except for math.) Either way, virology is proved in lab and peer reviewed publication based on lab, not YouTube. Why would we watch any of it?
-
Well, evolution is certainly one answer. So is genetic manipulation of the sort routinely used by virologists to explore gain of function and spillover by adding a proteolytic cleavage site at the S1/S2 boundary. Why is evolution "more likely" in your view here?
Chris, if you haven't read the CIDRAP article, please do so - it has good answers. What's important to remember here - I look at my computer screen writing a tweet on the internet and I think to myself - WOW, how's that even possible?! Then I realize I'm not an engineer.
-
-
And also "genetic manipulation of the sort routinely used by virologists to explore gain of function and spillover by adding a proteolytic cleavage site at the S1/S2 boundary" would need to be done using a reverse genetics system, and it's not related to any known virus backbone.
-
Or to quote Dr. Andersen and colleagues directly, "the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone."
- Nog 4 antwoorden
Nieuw gesprek -
-
-
I went and checked the article and it didn't explain the furin cleavage site... Only mentioned that they thought the virus could bind without it. It didn't explain it. Could you, without condescending, explain it?pic.twitter.com/ulRncEgOD7
-
Apparently not lol
Einde van gesprek
Nieuw gesprek -
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.