“Novel coronavirus born from artificial genetic modification” is a big lie

Serious points:

  1. In fact, the conclusions in the papers published informally by Indian scholars are completely impossible to obtain from the data provided by them, and there are many “hard edges”.
    Several scientists have verified that the so-called “genetic similarities to HIV” are, incidentally, also widely present in other common viruses.
  2. This paper by the Indian scholar is too hasty and exaggerates the conclusion of “coincidence”.
    In fact, on January 28, 2020, a scientific paper was officially published, according to the analysis of genome-wide evolutionary characteristics, the novel pneumonia coronavirus and the bat-SARS similar virus gene sequence highly overlap, indicating that the virus is the result of the evolution of the coronavirus, rather than artificial synthesis.

Verification: don’t blame her love | surgery at the university of Tokyo, Dr

Conspiracy theories have always been popular, and whenever something new comes along that can’t be explained by existing knowledge, a conspiracy theory will soon emerge.
The novel coronavirus is no exception.

Since Novel Coronavirus began its rampage in December 2019, multiple conspiracy theories have popped up on social media.
For example, “Novel Coronavirus” is an American chemical and biological weapon specifically aimed at the Chinese.
Such rumours are easy to refute because they originate from non-scientific conspiracy theorists and are purely conjectural.

But one piece of news has gone viral on social media in both Chinese and English.
The novel coronavirus identified in the Indian paper does have a gene fragment that is close to HIV, but by no means unique, and is found in a wide range of other common viruses, according to American scientists

According to the viral news, “Scientists in India have found that novel coronavirus has gene fragments that are not found in other coronaviruses, and these gene fragments are very close to human immunodeficiency virus HIV,” and have concluded that “these gene fragments are most likely man-made.”
The story immediately spread.
If it was synthetic, by whom?
What is the purpose?
Think down this thinking, will vest hair cool, is “novel coronavirus” really artificial synthetic biological weapons?

Of course not!

Papers by Indian scholars are not officially published academic papers, nor have they been peer-reviewed

The paper on which this claim is based was posted on the BiorXiv website by the authors.
This website is dedicated to publishing some scientific research papers that have not been formally published by academic papers, nor have they been peer-reviewed.
It’s a kind of online database that allows people to read papers before they’re published, or for those that aren’t.

The paper is from the well-known Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in India and is entitled “2019” novel coronavirus with unique inserts that are very unusual and very similar to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) “.

This article is a professional paper and difficult for ordinary people to understand.
Let me explain briefly.

Author got “will be coronavirus” virus genome (thanks to scientists in China, the first time to isolate the virus and completed the complete sequencing, then to the public, to provide the world scientists study), will be “will be coronavirus” compared with other coronavirus, found “will be coronavirus” with other coronavirus genome 96%, only 4% is different.

That 4% is about 1200 base pairs.
Of the 1200 base pairs of amino acids/peptides transcribed, four inserts were found to have gene sequences not found in other coronaviruses.
The four inserts were then analyzed, and it was found that the three-dimensional structure formed by them was most likely on the tip of the spinous process protein on the surface of the virus, which was the part of the initial contact with the host cell.
The authors then compared the sequences of these inserts with those of HIV, and found that they closely matched the sequences of at least one type of HIV.

The authors conclude that our discovery is unlikely to have happened by chance.

This is all the author has said.
But it certainly makes sense.
If the new virus has a structure that other family viruses do not have, these mechanisms would still help the virus enter host cells, and would be close to HIV, which is unlikely to be a natural product.
It’s very fishy.
Is it really a man-made virus?

The novel coronavirus identified in the Indian paper does have a gene fragment that is close to HIV, but by no means unique, and is found in a wide range of other common viruses, according to American scientists

The world is on edge.

Dan Samorodnitsky, the science writer for Massive Science, a former biologist and current science writer, is a deadly serious man.
He took the paper and read it again using gene-sequencing tools, using what it said were four inserts that were unique and only close to HIV.

The results are as follows:

The first inserted gene was indeed very close to some of the sequences of HIV, but the authors inadvertently or intentionally overlooked that it was also present in many other viruses, not unique to HIV and the novel coronavirus.
For example, this gene sequence is also present in the most common type of streptococcus, in viruses that live in human bronchial tubes, and in a wide variety of viruses.
Below is the sequencing match he posted, listing the other microbes that were a 100 percent match to the first inserted fragment.

The second test was the same.

The second insert is indeed close to a part of HIV, but it is also present in the most common herpes virus, cytomegalovirus (which causes kissing disease), which is very common in teenagers, and a virus that infects tomatoes.
Here are the other microbes that the second gene fragment matches.

The other two clips are no exception.
Not only in novel coronavirus and HIV, but also in many other common viruses, such as the plant virus xanthosis virus, bovine papillomavirus, and so on.

So what this article intentionally or unintentionally ignores is that while the novel coronavirus he identifies does have a gene fragment that is close to HIV, it is by no means unique, and that these genes are also widely present in other common viruses.
What role these four so-called unique inserts played in this outbreak is unknown.
Conspiracy theories about the Novel Coronavirus virus as a man-made or even a biological weapon are wildly imaginative.

In fact, the conclusion of the Indian scholar’s paper is completely impossible to obtain from the data provided by it. There are many “hard wounds” in the paper.

Go over the paper again carefully.

The key conclusions of this paper are: 1. The newly discovered gene fragment is completely new, which is not found in other coronaviruses, but is similar to HIV; 2.

  1. It is unlikely to be natural;
  2. These new structures help the virus enter the host cell and produce an attack.

But these conclusions are completely unfathomable based on the data presented in the article.

  1. First of all, it’s perfectly normal for families of viruses to have different genetic sequences.
    Human twins have different parts of their genes.
  2. The HIV analogs are very short and are located in the regions where the virus is most prone to mutation.
    It’s tiny compared to the genome of the entire virus.
    To say that a “novel coronavirus” is associated with HIV is like saying that a section of the Great Wall is related to a wall of another city because it is made of similar bricks.
    Moreover, these fragments are present not only in novel coronavirus and HIV, but also in a large number of other viruses.
  3. So far, the research on “novel coronavirus” has not found that “novel coronavirus” has any characteristics similar to HIV, or has very different characteristics from other coronavirus.
    The recent findings of biologists around the world are consistent: Novel coronavirus has 96% of the same gene sequence as other coronaviruses, and its biology is basically the same.
    Its biological characteristics, clinical characteristics, infectivity, and so on are very similar to other coronaviruses.
    One of the characteristics of coronaviruses is that they infect humans from wild animals, like bats, through other intermediate hosts, like the SARS virus.
    “Novel Coronavirus” is no exception.
    It is hard to say how meaningful that 4 per cent difference in the genome is, since it is only 4 per cent, and it is an area that is extremely prone to variation.
  4. Looking for a matching gene in the gene bank with the so-called four new inserts is like taking a piece of brick and trying to match it with the vast wall of the world. You can always find a similar part.
    These similarities are by no means unique to HIV.
    Dr Trevor Bedford, a professor of genomics and infectious diseases at the University of Washington in the US, did a similar analysis today and found that these short genes are widely present in other viruses as well.
    Even similar fragments have been found in a variety of bacteria, plants, fungi, and fruit flies.
    The accompanying chart shows the genetic sequences of other microorganisms found by simple computer analysis that are almost 100% similar to these genes.

Below is his analysis of genetic matches between novel coronavirus, SARS, and another coronavirus that is close to SARS.
It can be seen that these three viruses have obvious traces of evolution, many parts are undergoing mutation.
This also shows that because of the rapid mutation of the coronavirus, in a certain part of the coronavirus is not consistent with other coronavirus, but close to other viruses, it is very common and common.

  1. In terms of viral biology, the spinous process protein of the novel coronavirus is not related to the gp120 protein of HIV (which, as mentioned in the Indian article, is a protein with a similar gene fragment).
    The spinous process protein of the coronavirus helps the virus recognize the angiotensin-converting enzyme receptor on the surface of the host cell and enter the host cell.
    In HIV, this protein helps the virus recognize the CD4 receptor (surface antigen differentiation cluster 4 receptor) in lymphocyte T cells and invade T cells.
    The other HIV protein identified in the paper is the Gag protein, which is present in the virus, not on the surface.

So they have completely different mechanisms.
Otherwise, a novel coronavirus could infect a T cell, or HIV could infect any cell.
But so far, there is no evidence that novel coronavirus can infect lymphocytes, or that HIV can infect ordinary cells.

  1. Most importantly, rapid gene sequencing by Chinese scientists after the outbreak of the epidemic has told us that “novel coronavirus” is most likely from a wild animal, and further tests by biologists in other European and American countries also support this conclusion.
    If the conclusion of the Indian article is true, it will take biologists all over the world to join forces to fake it or to make biological weapons to extermination of humanity.

This paper by Indian scholars is too hasty and exaggerates the conclusion of “coincidence”.
There has long been an official research paper pointing out that “the genome-wide evolutionary analysis of novel coronavirus overthrows the hypothesis that this virus is synthesized by human gene recombination technology”.

To sum up, the conclusion “unlikely to be spontaneous” from the Indian article would be alarmist if not rash.

Nor is it surprising that the HIV-similar gene fragment measured is unique, nor is it unique to novel coronavirus and HIV. It is not uncommon to find similar, small pieces of a gene in a vast pool of genes.
The conclusion should not be “unlikely to have occurred naturally”, but “just by chance”.

Interestingly, the scientific community was anticipating such a rumor and came out ahead of this article.
“A genome-wide evolutionary analysis of a novel coronavirus reproves the hypothesis that the virus was synthesized by recombination of human genes,” the Greek researchers wrote in the January 28 issue of the journal Infection, Genetics, and Evolutionary Chemistry.
‘Based on the analysis of genome-wide evolutionary features, the novel pneumonia coronavirus has a high overlap with the bat-SARS-like virus, suggesting that the virus is the result of the evolution of the coronavirus, rather than a synthetic synthesis,’ the paper said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *