Just a few weeks ago a PLA group announced a dangerous new viral variant *they claim* comes from a pangolin. The senior author is Yigang Tong who was engaged in a secret military project in 2017 when he isolated a pangolin virus with an RBD nearly identical to SARS-CoV-2.
Now the PLA announce isolation of another new virus from a pangolin, this one related to MERS. Useful idiots like Stuart Neil see it just as the PLA want us to, as evidence of a species teeming with deadly pathogens ready to spill over and infect humans.
Another possibility is that the PLA's Academy of Military Sciences, is doing what they've long been believed to be doing (by US State and others) - that is, developing bioweapons, and also ways to "inhibit attribution" for their use.
One way to "inhibit attribution" is to publish fake sequences, or sequences of real, but artificial, viruses and claim you found them in the wild. And no-one will check! No-one is able to reproduce or refute the results without access to the samples or sampling locations.
And samples even may be deliberately contaminated.
Instead of amplifying PLA propaganda, western scientists and journals should engage with these papers skeptically.
Do the bizarre new mechanisms of evolution implied make sense? Can we demand documentation of the provenance?
The real risk is that a new biological weapon is being developed, and fraudulent evidence for it spilling over from nature is being fabricated at the same time.
A recurring criticism of the claim SARS-CoV-2 may be a bioweapon is its low virulence- particularly against the young. It would be ineffective on a battlefield compared to known agent like anthrax.
But this is based on a restricted notion of warfare.
The US IC have rejected a bioweapon origin according to ODNI. But they don't seem to have investigated independently. The ODNI report only references a vitriolic public exchange between intransigent zoonosis proponents, and a dissident scientist who fled HK early in the pandemic.
@drlimengyan1 calls SARS-CoV-2 an "Unrestricted Bioweapon". The meaning of the first word may be lost on some westerners, being somewhat ambiguous. It might be taken to mean "out of control" but is intended to convey that it is not restricted to a conventional battlespace.
@jbkinney may be in a position where he's unable to comment on specific reasons for this, but nothing can stop us anonymous "conspiracy theorists" from speculating.🤔
I want to point out a big donor to his employer Cold Spring Harbor Lab (CSHL) - was (and is?) - BGI.
A question that keeps resurfacing is why the furin cleavage site would be engineered to be the way it is (i.e. non-canonical and sub-optimal). Why not use a canonical R-X-R-R motif that would cleave furin more efficiently?
Early SARS-1 research wasn't especially focused on proteolytic cleavage, though SARS was known to have a cleavage site at the S1/S2 boundary (not cleaved by furin, but other proteases). Receptor binding attracted greater interest.
With the advent of MERS in late 2012 interest in proteolytic cleavage grew. MERS' S1/S2 junction has a motif that can be cleaved by furin, and so does another site in S2. (Note that both of these have a minimal R-X-X-R motif, not the canonical R-X-[K/R]-R.)
Then explain why the only similar RBD published prior to the pandemic was in a virus "found" (or made) by the PLA? And why the only backbone virus of the SARS-CoV-2 clade (ZXC21/ZC45) published by the PLA? And while DEFUSE wasn't funded by the US, they did fund...the PLA?!
While there is much interaction between these groups and WIV was likely involved in either case, EcoHealth may prove to be a bit player - useful idiots rather than central to the scheme.
As for this evidence about BsmBI. Don't over-interpret it. I do think BsaI and BsmBI were likely used, the distribution of sites is unusual. But how does this costed item change what was already known? These enzymes were also used in previous work.
Like Covid-19, there is mystery shrouding the origin of the 2013-16 Ebola outbreak in West Africa (Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia). Very different diseases but the outbreaks have much in common, including many of the same people involved.
@samhusseini and @bioSRP recently revived interest in the possibility of a lab leak origin. Though they don't claim dispositive proof, they point out that evidence supporting a natural origin is fragile, and a plausible case for a lab leak can be made.
They weren't the first to suspect a lab leak. International law expert Francis Boyle (who had helped implement the Bioweapons Convention in the US) was at the time the leading proponent of a theory that a lab in Kenema, Sierra Leone, with ties to USAMRIID, was responsible.
The research group of former PLA scientist Yigang Tong has published a new paper showing a "pangolin" coronavirus (GX_P2V) variant is 100% fatal to hACE2 mice likely due to infection of the brain.
Although previous studies the group did (including a collaboration with WIV) did not show this lethality, they now suggest that mutations gained through passaging in cell culture may have resulted in a far more lethal variant.
But the provenance of this virus is still dubious. Did it really come from pangolins?
Although the paper offers references regarding the identification and isolation of GX_P2V there is no info in these on who isolated it, when and how.