Energy Prospectus

Worthwhile article and link to 54 minute documentary about the origin of the Wuhan virus. https://www.theepochtimes.com/who-creat ... 05798.html

It was not (could not have been) the Wuhan wet market, according to this documentary. Rather, the documentary concludes that COVID-19 could not have been transmitted directly from animals to humans, and was instead, after years of research dating back to the SARS 2003 outbreak, recombinated (synthesized) in a lab (P4 Biosafety lab) at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in a form transmissible in humans, likely as one of China's multiple biological weapons.

The producers present multiple layers of evidence, seemingly linked, of ongoing bat coronavirus research (much of it published over a period of years) at the state controlled virology lab near Wuhan that led to recombination (synthesizing) of COVID-19. After it apparently leaked from the lab and began transmitting among Wuhan residents, the film documents many official steps designed to conceal and destroy evidence (including alleged patient 0's connection to the lab), and to misinform, and multiple whistleblower evidence, some from inside the Institute. Various Chinese scientists who were involved, and their presentations/publications, are shown, with analysis by American scientists. Only a virologist would be qualified to weigh the plausibility and persuasiveness of the scientific evidence, but to a layperson it is persuasive enough to yield the conclusion that thorough, independent investigation is urgently needed.

China experts Gordon Chang and retired Air Force BG Robert Spalding (Hudson Institute) provide context, affording a degree of legitimacy.

The organization that produced the documentary, The Epoch Times, is conservative and anti-Communist, so the degree to which political bias has influenced content and conclusions is a fair question.

This is more than a "conspiracy piece." It maybe one of the reasons why Trump is bashing the WHO.It is worth your time to watch.Btw,Happy Easter to all.

Here are two articles, both by the same group of authors, and both recounting that group’s analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genome at such relates to the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

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

http://virological.org/t/the-proximal-o ... -cov-2/398

This group concludes that SARS-CoV-2 was not the result of any lab engineering process. That conclusion, of course, would controvert one of the major implications of the film.

It's reassuring to see what we have been hearing, that the scientific community is aggressively trying to sort through the evidence to ascertain the most likely source of SARS-CoV-2.

Their most strongly stated conclusion is "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus." Their analysis of the genomic features includes this conclusion: "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."

This observation, if I understand correctly, is the foundation for their conclusion that laboratory recombination of multiple viruses (one of more from bats) could not have resulted in SARS-CoV-2, the virus which, in a few mutations, has caused the current pandemic.

Knowledge of the science relevant to analysis, and thus evaluating their conclusion, must be left to others having the requisite qualifications. Instinct prompts this question, though: On what basis do they conclude "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." How do they reach that conclusion from their observations that "interaction is not ideal and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding"? Perhaps the answer would be evident to a geneticist-virologist. Answering that satisfactorily seems essential to defending their conclusion that high affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could not have been the consequence of some engineering process.

Hopefully, their analysis will be definitively addressed in their future publications and those of others.

They propose two alternate theories for the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host (bats and/or Malayan pangolins) before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. Both of these will presumably be carefully studied by them and others. Presently, though, they remain theories.

While further scientific investigation takes place, it would be helpful to investigate the claims in the film about destruction/concealment of evidence and the whistleblower allegations from inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Even if SARS-CoV-2 was not the result of biological weapon research, if the years long research there accidentally infected a lab worker, starting the pandemic, establishing such could be important to accountability and possibly adoption of measures designed to reduce future occurrences.

The Johns Hopkins University website has stopped reporting the number of people who have recovered. I wonder why, since that it an extremely important stat.