[ad_1]
The thesis of Hong Kong-born virologist Dr. Yen Limeng’s thesis that Corona 19 (a new coronavirus: COVID-19) was created and spread in China is controversial. Some academics objected to the study, saying that it is baseless and has not undergone a peer review (peer review).
In a video interview with UK ITV’s ‘Loose Women’ on the 11th, Dr Yan Limeng revealed: “The Corona 19 virus did not occur naturally, but was manufactured in a laboratory in Wuhan. We have evidence for try this”. She gave birth to a wave. Several national media unilaterally broadcast Dr. Yan’s claims.
Dr. Yan Limeng did not present the evidence, but on the open information platform 14 (local time) ‘Zenodo’, ‘The genome of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) appeared through sophisticated laboratory manipulation instead of a natural evolution. He published an article titled “Explanation of the unique characteristics of the (genetically) and possible synthetic pathways.” Dr. Yan and four other scientists are co-authors.
In his thesis, Dr. Yan Li-Meng explained that it could be consistent with the theory that the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is the product of laboratory manipulation, and explained a very likely route. Dr. Yan argued that “the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is similar to that of the bat coronavirus found in the military laboratory of the Third Army Medical University in Chongqing, China, and the medical laboratory of the Command of Nanjing “.
The authors argue that the ‘receptor binding motif (RBM)’ in the ‘spike protein’ of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that determines the host specificity of the virus is similar to that of the SARS virus of 2003 (SARS-CoV). He claimed to show that he was completely tampered with.
They say that the ‘purine cleavage site’ contained in the ‘spike protein’ of this virus (SARS-CoV-2) is known to significantly improve viral infectivity and cellular affinity, but this site is not present in coronavirus found in nature. I said no.
In particular, they argued that “SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory-enhanced virus,” saying that step-by-step work using materials available in a laboratory setting and molecular, cellular and viral technology can create such a virus in six months.
There were voices that some researchers were refuting this claim as unfounded. Newsweek published online on the 15th (local time) in “ Fact Check: Did the new study give evidence that the coronavirus was made in a laboratory? ”, “ Six Key Experts in the Field of Evolutionary Biology and Infectious Diseases Commissioned by Newsweek ” According to the report, this document does not provide new information, makes numerous unsubstantiated claims, and the scientific case is weak.
Newsweek said Andrew Preston, an expert on microbial diseases at the University of Bath in England, said that “this pre-printed report cannot confer any credibility in its current form.”
With the publication of this article on the open information platform Zenodo, Newsweek said: “It was pre-printed in Zenodo” and “passed the rigorous ‘peer review’ required for publication in scientific journals. It means I didn’t. “Newsweek said:” With a conspiracy tone in the first part, we launched a discussion on the origin of the virus as a battle against censorship of objections and fraud. “Does not provide (bibliographic basis).”
It was also responded that the authors placed “restriction sites” in the genetic sequence of the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and argued that the virus was made using enzymes that act like “molecular scissors” to add or subtract genetic material. According to Newsweek, McMaster University virologist ArinJ. Banerjee said: “Every DNA sequence in nature has a restriction site. Not surprisingly, the SARS-CoV-2 genome also has a restriction site.” The evidence presented here has not been proven. “
Banerjee also disputed the author’s claim that the “purine cleavage site,” part of the virus spike protein that is used to adhere to human cells, was intentionally inserted into the virus, Newsweek said. Newsweek wrote that Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California at Davis, said the article was “full of unsubstantiated claims.”
Carl Bergstrom, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, referred to the article as “picturesque and baseless” in a tweet.
“This report is not based on an objective interpretation of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) genome,” said Preston of the University of Bath in the UK. “This interpretation is not supported by data, it is unsubstantiated, and the interpretations are mostly specified but not explained.” “I pointed.
Copyright © Media Today, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.
[ad_2]
