Reply With QuoteThanks!Originally Posted by lowenz
Not only tissues, simple blood screening too
Please translate this: https://www.istitutotumori.mi.it/pag...mico-in-italia
Not only tissues, simple blood screening too
Please translate this: https://www.istitutotumori.mi.it/pag...mico-in-italia
Thanks!Not only tissues, simple blood screening too
Please translate this: https://www.istitutotumori.mi.it/pag...mico-in-italia
You're welcome.Thanks!
Today's fresh news: https://www.ansa.it/canale_scienza_t...8dafcbdfd.html
Skin biopsy in this case, november 2019.
No idea what I was saying, or to whom. I wasn't drunk, I swear.
Last edited by Gryzemuis; 17th Jan 2021 at 20:11.
I am hesitant to make conclusions based on single (or even a handful of) findings - especially given that they're apparently mass-testing samples. False positives are a thing.
I'm always cautious of making grand conclusions on the basis of single articles rather than a collective body of work.
Single papers presented as conclusive generally comes from conclusion shopping from loaded search terms.
AS far as I know, there is a team of scientists funded by the WHO which will be looking into this.
I think the current front runner theory is that the virus originated in bats (known coronavirus reservoirs) and maybe passed to humans via something like pangolins, expedited by rural market practices.
I will be surprised if this changes much, since it was expected way back in 2007 that coronaviruses could be a time bomb due to the unchecked incubation in bat populations giving it all the opportunity needed to keep thriving and mutating.
One very important thing to note from the Nature paper:
I think we can be relatively confident in this due to the absence of any manipulation markers in the viral genome. Human gene engineering is not sophisticated enough to insert / modify genes without leaving a trace.Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.
Don't we already have a coronavirus thread?
Last edited by faetal; 12th Jan 2021 at 08:08.
I'll tell you what - I don't see much chat about the rioters/protestors and Covid spread. There must have been.
Also faetal, I'd already read/heard that several groups couldn't find any markers of human manipulation of the Covid virus. But at least one said the same as you - that we don't have the tech - but with the caveat that if it WERE manipulated it would be by someone waaaay ahead of the game
@SubJeff I don't know about the rioters but two officials at the Capitol have tested positive after being locked for hours with Republicans who refused to wear masks.
Too far ahead of the game. Also, one key bit of logic is a problem. This stuff is almost identical to naturally occurring bat viruses:I'll tell you what - I don't see much chat about the rioters/protestors and Covid spread. There must have been.
Also faetal, I'd already read/heard that several groups couldn't find any markers of human manipulation of the Covid virus. But at least one said the same as you - that we don't have the tech - but with the caveat that if it WERE manipulated it would be by someone waaaay ahead of the game
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0092_article
Ok, so let's review the logic. They did some engineering on a bat virus, got it to infect humans *without* also having humans test subjects, all to make a super-virus, but one that doesn't show any actual signs of anyone tampering with it. Making the actual virus is next-level, being able to know *what to make* is several levels above that. We can't even consistently predict what simple molecules will do to people, let alone how to engineer a super-virus from scratch in a lab.SARS-CoV-2 showed high genome sequence identities (87.6%–87.8%) to SARSr-Rp-BatCoV-ZXC21/ZC45, detected in Rhinolophus pusillus bats from Zhoushan, China, during 2015 (6). A closer-related strain, SARSr-Ra-BatCoV-RaTG13 (96.1% genome identity with SARS-CoV-2), was recently reported in Rhinolophus affinis bats captured in Pu’er, China, during 2013
However, if the above is true, then why on Earth would they have started with a bat virus when they could have just used human viruses as the basis and pulled the same shit? It would have been far easier. Secret bioweapon labs are full of stuff that's actually toxic to humans and they want to work out how to weaponize that stuff. Nobody is interested in diseases that *don't* infect humans and want to work out how to make them do that. Anyone sensible trying to make super-coronavirus wouldn't start with a *bat* virus, they'd start with a human coronavirus then attach some kind of payload to that.
Last edited by Cipheron; 14th Jan 2021 at 02:05.
The only conspiracy theory that makes a lick of sense is that the virus is natural but could have been released from a lab.
This won't stop a dedicated conspiracy nut. They'll just link really tenuous and bad research which they think proves that gene manipulation was used to boost virulence in humans (paper refuting that here).
I mean, we can predict what simple molecules will do to people, as shown by the entire pre-clinical pharma product development pipeline. This ranges from computer modeling, through to human cell line cultures and up to humanized mouse models. Before we get to first in human trials, there's a decent idea of what the range of outcomes could be. It's not air tight, but enough to work with. If someone wanted to mess with virus coat proteins to make them more virulent to humans, it is entirely possible they could. Just not sure why anyone would want to as even from a biological warfare perspective it is like setting fire to the apartment under yours because your neighbour stole your newspaper.Ok, so let's review the logic. They did some engineering on a bat virus, got it to infect humans *without* also having humans test subjects, all to make a super-virus, but one that doesn't show any actual signs of anyone tampering with it. Making the actual virus is next-level, being able to know *what to make* is several levels above that. We can't even consistently predict what simple molecules will do to people, let alone how to engineer a super-virus from scratch in a lab.
Because it is much more simple to add human receptor affinity (handful of simple genes / sequences) to a virulent animal virus, than it is to add virulence (varied, complex genes, sequences, loci) to a human virus. Look no further than the source of most of the harmful pandemics which come our way - how many are from animal viruses which have mutated to cross the species barrier vs. human viruses which which become more virulent? Highest frequency = fewer steps needed to get there.However, if the above is true, then why on Earth would they have started with a bat virus when they could have just used human viruses as the basis and pulled the same shit?
I'm all for refuting nut cases with logic, but better for it to be based on biology rather than speculation. Otherwise the nutjobs can google up a "well actually" and reinforce their own beliefs (not that they don't also do that for actual science...).
Last edited by faetal; 14th Jan 2021 at 10:01.
There's a theory floating around that it was collected in humans in a hospital, taken to the Wuhan lab, and escaped that lab. Relatively plausible on the face of it, but also means that it was already spreading in the population when it got out of the lab, i.e., the lab would be a secondary source at best.
I concede the article doesn't explicitly link the two, but the inflammation link is a logical deduction.
In any case, the 37 trial results for Vitamin D supplementation are finally in, and they show very positive results on death and severity rates
There was a story floating around that a lab technician or doctor got unknowingly infected by a sample, and then brought it to his family, which kicked off this whole thing. It's not implausible
It's a logical possibility, but a research paper linking the 2 would do so explicitly, along the lines of "thus vitamin D deficiency may have a role in susceptibility to long COVID".
I am supplementing vit D myself on the basis of this, was only contesting whether the article was claiming a link between vit D & long COVID, not severity or general outcome.In any case, the 37 trial results for Vitamin D supplementation are finally in, and they show very positive results on death and severity rates
Possible, but virus escaping from lab vs virus mutating in the wild to cross species barrier (as is expected of coronaviruses in general), is a bit zebra vs horse in response to hoofbeats.There was a story floating around that a lab technician or doctor got unknowingly infected by a sample, and then brought it to his family, which kicked off this whole thing. It's not implausible
Sea World San Diego operated as a zoo for several months (we're pass members and went a couple times but it really isn't the same with the whole kids area closed) but even that isn't allowed anymore since Californians are dying in droves. So, they've made a creative new move: They're now a drive-thru! Lol. ...Most of the exhibits absolutely won't work with this so I think it's going to be kind of sad and pathetic, but I'm still curious enough to give it a go.
https://seaworld.com/san-diego/event...ade-of-lights/
Some promising developments.
Echinacea (which has a slight mitigating effect on colds), has antiviral properties against Covid in vitro.
Also, an antidepressant, Fluvoxamine, appears to stop the progression of the virus in infected subjects, at least in a preliminary trial.
Other article on the above: https://www.cavalierdaily.com/articl...ience-research
Early days.
Yeah, could be dead ends, but we'll see
"How do you feel now?"
"Much better!"
"...And your breathing?"
"Still awful, but I'm not depressed about it anymore!"
Re echinacea's effects on colds: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...65229918312585
Zinc compounds (also showing potential against URTIs) also being looked at re COVID-19: https://www.spandidos-publications.c...ijmm.2020.4575Conclusions
Our review presents evidence that echinacea might have a preventative effect on the incidence of upper respiratory tract infections but whether this effect is clinically meaningful is debatable. We did not find any evidence for an effect on the duration of upper respiratory tract infections. Regarding the safety of echinacea no risk is apparent in the short term at least. The strength of these conclusions is limited by the risk of selective reporting and methodological heterogeneity.
Implications of key findings
Based on the results of this review users of echinacea can be assured that echinacea preparations are safe to consume in the short term however they should not be confident that commercially available remedies are likely to shorten the duration or effectively prevent URTI. Researchers interested in the potential preventative effects of echinacea identified in this study should aim to increase the methodological strength of any further trials.
Last edited by faetal; 19th Jan 2021 at 05:34.
New study came out today on 28 patients treated with zinc, but unfortunately the article is locked.
An older one on 4 patients does show improvement though.
The problem with the flurry of research lately is that these things tend to be easier to conver to useful therapy when the data has matured a bit.
Common cold interventions have been being researched for decades and the jury is still out on most of it. Usually a Cochrane review shows an inverse correlation between studies showing positive outcomes and study quality.
This makes it really hard to assess individual articles without having a proper read of the experimental & data analysis methodologies used.
Posting Permissions
