旷野青春 | 隐形防线（英文字幕版）

While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal7 and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding. Thus, 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. [LINK] concludes that since maybe (because computational analysis) it isn't as efficient for the receptor binding it wasn't purposefully manipulated. Maybe making the most efficient virus was not the goal, maybe there were many trials and many attempts to get a virus with certain qualities and this one was a failure that got mishandled. --- Anyway, collecting viruses is had work, as shown in this video from December 10, 2019 by the Shanghai Media Group (SMG, one of China's largest state-owned media): [VIDEO] The road is bumpy but we must learn to stick to our initial choice when we feel confused and lost. In the past 10 years we have visited every corner of Hubei Province. We explored dozens of undeveloped caves and studied more than 300 types of virus vectors. But I do hope these virus samples will only be preserved for scientific research and will never be used in real life. Because humans need not only the vaccines but also th

Your assertion was, "At the very least, proponent of this theory should be able to provide evidence that bats or viral samples from bats were present in the lab before the outbreak". Yes, it's clear they were working with live bats of the species that most scientists, even those who believe in the pangolin hypothesis, believe is the natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2. Multiple papers published from BOTH Wuhan labs describe such bat research. The Wuhan CDC did so much live animal research that they employed collections expert by the name of Tian Jun-Hua, whose work collecting bats is described in a number of pre-pandemic media reports (including several times he quarantined himself after being exposed to gross amounts of bad urine or blood). You can see him doing his work, including live bat collections, in this (government produced) documentary about the Wuhan CDC: [VIDEO] But to your question, here's a paper from the Wuhan CDC lab published in a well-known international journal that I happened to have open: Guo WP, Lin XD, Wang W, et al. "Phylogeny and Origins of Hantaviruses Harbored by Bats, Insectivores, and Rodents" PLoS pathogens Before you stop reading and respond, "those are hantaviruses they were studying. Covid-19 is a coronavirus.", let me stop you. My hypothesis, like others who believe this is a possibility, has never been that they were studying SARS-CoV-2 specifically, but rather that the lab, or a lab-adjacent facility, was where the virus accidentally "spilled o

> I'm not sure who you're quoting, but it's not me. Indeed, I oversaw that it was "yorwba" who put that comment into "our" thread, not you. My apologies. > As for the claim that the Wuhan cdc is tight next to the seafood market, I direct you to this comment: [LINK] which thoroughly and completely debunks those claims. That's not a "thorough and complete" debunking, that's an erroneous assessment regarding the functions and location(s) of the Wuhan CDC, based on a cursory glance at websites. A little bit more research would've revealed that the Wuhan CDC indeed was performing experiments on bats and that it has several facilities (including one near the seafood market). [VIDEO] [LINK]

> If you search on Google Maps for the Wuhan Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, you instead find a building about 1.5 km from the seafood market. There is not just one building, this is the one mentioned: [LINK] Remember that Google is effectively not operating in China anymore, so their information is bound to be outdated and incomplete. > But further, when I look at the web page of the WHCDC, it looks like they're mainly a community health institution, not a research institute. The people studying coronaviruses are 15 km away, in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Scientists at the Wuhan CDC are studying live bats and bat coronaviruses: [VIDEO]

I had a longer response but my browser crashed so I'll just try to summarize my thoughts. Our disagreement basically comes down to how we assign priors. I'm not really sure how productive a debate on priors can be because it's not like there are a bunch of previous similar scenarios that we can study in detail. On P(WIV leak): Wikipedia[0] lists 50 lab leaks (or more precisely, failure of lab biosecurity measures) in the past century. The actual number is probably much higher because people and institutions like to hide their mistakes. So the base probability of a lab leak happening from a lab that studies pathogens is only moderately low to begin with. But P(WIV leak) is probably significantly higher than average here, because WIV had worse than average safety procedure. - According to leaked cables from 2018, american officials & scientists were already concerned about unsafe practices & lack of properly trained personnel at WIV[1] - WIV researchers collected unknown viruses from bat caves with only hazmat suits + surgical mask as PPE, and handled vials of viral vector specimens without even masks[2]. If they demonstrated poor attention to safety outside the lab, it is likely that they disregarded it within the lab as well - I recall reading something similar involving Shi Zhengli but I can't find the link now - Shi Zhengli admitted (!) that bat coronavirus research was performed under BSL-2 and BSL-3 conditions, both of which are significantly more lax than BSL-4[3] On P(l

Yes, the WIV does indeed study the bats that we're questioning. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? The claim you're questioning is "There are horseshoe bats near Wuhan". Do you think they just invented the bats? I mean... they're on video... [VIDEO]