• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Zoonic overload

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
The way I understand it is the study of zoonic diseases is done in just about any lab in any university. I think thats too many and that there should only be a handful in the world run by the top scientists to ensure safety. Things need to change.....
Furthermore isn't the way we find vaccines tried and true and can be only done a certain way and we know that way? So why have thousands of people and thousands of places playing around with deadly viruses? I don't know I'm no scientist. Maybe we do need all them people. I'm not being sarcastic I'm being serious.
 
Last edited:

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
Well this one we haven't found the origin so I would say no but I'm looking to the future
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The way I understand it is the study of zoonic diseases is done in just about any lab in any university. I think thats too many and that there should only be a handful in the world run by the top scientists to ensure safety. Things need to change.....
Furthermore isn't the way we find vaccines tried and true and can be only done a certain way and we know that way? So why have thousands of people and thousands of places playing around with deadly viruses? I don't know I'm no scientist. Maybe we do need all them people. I'm not being sarcastic I'm being serious.
Do you know how many people are involved in research virology? Do you know how many biosafety level 1,2, 3 and 4 labs there are and where they are? I bet you have no idea.

I've already explained to you several reasons why research on viruses is valuable, on the other thread you started.

And yet you now come out with this. Why?
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
Do you know how many people are involved in research virology? Do you know how many biosafety level 1,2, 3 and 4 labs there are and where they are? I bet you have no idea.

I've already explained to you several reasons why research on viruses is valuable, on the other thread you started.

And yet you now come out with this. Why?
And I totally agree with you that research is needed but I'm just going over the options as to how we can be safer which I already told you
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
And I totally agree with you that research is needed but I'm just going over the options as to how we can be safer which I already told you
And you never gave me an answer as to how many so I went and made a new thread
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The way I understand it is the study of zoonic diseases is done in just about any lab in any university. I think thats too many and that there should only be a handful in the world run by the top scientists to ensure safety. Things need to change.....
Furthermore isn't the way we find vaccines tried and true and can be only done a certain way and we know that way? So why have thousands of people and thousands of places playing around with deadly viruses? I don't know I'm no scientist. Maybe we do need all them people. I'm not being sarcastic I'm being serious.
Where is the evidence about how much research is being done where? Where is your evidence about vaccine development?
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
And I totally agree with you that research is needed but I'm just going over the options as to how we can be safer which I already told you
Right I don't know but if you could share I would really appreciate that
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
Where is the evidence about how much research is being done where? Where is your evidence about vaccine development?
I really don't have any evidence because I can't seem to get any answers here so I'm just throwing out some ideas so maybe someone will bite and tell me the truth. I know it's deceitful but I don't really care
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
Do you know how many people are involved in research virology? Do you know how many biosafety level 1,2, 3 and 4 labs there are and where they are? I bet you have no idea.

I've already explained to you several reasons why research on viruses is valuable, on the other thread you started.

And yet you now come out with this. Why?
You did share the bio level information so I googled that there's 50 bio 4 in the world which I think is reasonable but 1300 bio 3 level in the United States I think might be a touch much
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I did read that. But what I found interesting is they haven't found a bat with it. Surely there must be one
I haven't read about it just repeating the rumor that I heard. Anyways they are still developing tests for humans, so maybe they don't know how to test the bats, either.
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
I haven't read about it just repeating the rumor that I heard. Anyways they are still developing tests for humans, so maybe they don't know how to test the bats, either.
Well actually I forgot that I read that it probably went from bat to another animal then to us so I guess it could've escaped in a lab then another animal and then to us as well who knows
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well actually I forgot that I read that it probably went from bat to another animal then to us so I guess it could've escaped in a lab then another animal and then to us as well who knows
I feel very panicky about CRISPR technology. Its not enough though to make me trust in an extreme authoritarian government. I think what we have, in terms of technology, is an opportunity to finally beat viruses for good. We just need to accept the risk and reach for the goal of eliminating viruses, their symptoms and the cancers that they cause. We can't achieve that if we restrict information about how to do research. We do, however, already restrict access to the most dangerous viruses. For example not just anybody may get hold of some smallpox. There is, yes, a real possibility that we will all be wiped out someday from bioresearch; but if we hobble research then we guarantee viruses will be with us forever, always mutating and causing terrible problems. I think we should keep looking for ways to end viruses altogether.
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
I feel very panicky about CRISPR technology. Its not enough though to make me trust in an extreme authoritarian government. I think what we have, in terms of technology, is an opportunity to finally beat viruses for good. We just need to accept the risk and reach for the goal of eliminating viruses, their symptoms and the cancers that they cause. We can't achieve that if we restrict information about how to do research. We do, however, already restrict access to the most dangerous viruses. For example not just anybody may get hold of some smallpox. There is, yes, a real possibility that we will all be wiped out someday from bioresearch; but if we hobble research then we guarantee viruses will be with us forever, always mutating and causing terrible problems. I think we should keep looking for ways to end viruses altogether.
I agree but I think 1500 United States biolevel 3 labs is a touch much
are they really needed? That's my question.
I'm being totally serious if they are needed then research away but isn't our methods for finding vaccines tried and true?
cant we do that in a few labs? Or is 1500 labs needed in the off chance some genius will make a breakthrough?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
They can tell by the DNA in it that it probably crossed over to humans from bats.
RNA. There's no DNA in this virus.

I understand it is 96% identical to a known bat virus, so it is presumably not just the RNA that is almost the same but the various proteins as well.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
You did share the bio level information so I googled that there's 50 bio 4 in the world which I think is reasonable but 1300 bio 3 level in the United States I think might be a touch much
I don't think you can form a useful opinion about that unless you have some idea of what research is done in these labs.

It really does seem a funny time for you to start thinking we should do less virology research. The speed with which we have been able, not only to identify and sequence the SARS-cov-2 virus, but also develop candidate vaccines (already now in clinical trials only 4 months after the virus emerged) is astonishing. This would have taken several years by traditional methods.

None of this would have been possible without virology research.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well this one we haven't found the origin so I would say no but I'm looking to the future

I believe we have found the source. There is ongoing research into the genetics of COVID 19 origin from animals butchered and sold at the Wuhan market. I will cite a source later. Found one quick.

COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic has a natural origin.

COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic has a natural origin
Date:
March 17, 2020
Source:
Scripps Research Institute
Summary:
An analysis of public genome sequence data from SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses found no evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered.
Share:
Adobe Stock


The novel SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that emerged in the city of Wuhan, China, last year and has since caused a large scale COVID-19 epidemic and spread to more than 70 other countries is the product of natural evolution, according to findings published today in the journal Nature Medicine.

The analysis of public genome sequence data from SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses found no evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered.

"By comparing the available genome sequence data for known coronavirus strains, we can firmly determine that SARS-CoV-2 originated through natural processes," said Kristian Andersen, PhD, an associate professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research and corresponding author on the paper.

In addition to Andersen, authors on the paper, "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2," include Robert F. Garry, of Tulane University; Edward Holmes, of the University of Sydney; Andrew Rambaut, of University of Edinburgh; W. Ian Lipkin, of Columbia University.

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that can cause illnesses ranging widely in severity. The first known severe illness caused by a coronavirus emerged with the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic in China. A second outbreak of severe illness began in 2012 in Saudi Arabia with the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).

On December 31 of last year, Chinese authorities alerted the World Health Organization of an outbreak of a novel strain of coronavirus causing severe illness, which was subsequently named SARS-CoV-2. As of February 20, 2020, nearly 167,500 COVID-19 cases have been documented, although many more mild cases have likely gone undiagnosed. The virus has killed over 6,600 people.

Shortly after the epidemic began, Chinese scientists sequenced the genome of SARS-CoV-2 and made the data available to researchers worldwide. The resulting genomic sequence data has shown that Chinese authorities rapidly detected the epidemic and that the number of COVID-19 cases have been increasing because of human to human transmission after a single introduction into the human population. Andersen and collaborators at several other research institutions used this sequencing data to explore the origins and evolution of SARS-CoV-2 by focusing in on several tell-tale features of the virus.

The scientists analyzed the genetic template for spike proteins, armatures on the outside of the virus that it uses to grab and penetrate the outer walls of human and animal cells. More specifically, they focused on two important features of the spike protein: the receptor-binding domain (RBD), a kind of grappling hook that grips onto host cells, and the cleavage site, a molecular can opener that allows the virus to crack open and enter host cells.

Evidence for natural evolution

The scientists found that the RBD portion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins had evolved to effectively target a molecular feature on the outside of human cells called ACE2, a receptor involved in regulating blood pressure. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was so effective at binding the human cells, in fact, that the scientists concluded it was the result of natural selection and not the product of genetic engineering.

This evidence for natural evolution was supported by data on SARS-CoV-2's backbone -- its overall molecular structure. If someone were seeking to engineer a new coronavirus as a pathogen, they would have constructed it from the backbone of a virus known to cause illness. But the scientists found that the SARS-CoV-2 backbone differed substantially from those of already known coronaviruses and mostly resembled related viruses found in bats and pangolins.

"These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rules out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for SARS-CoV-2" said Andersen.

Josie Golding, PhD, epidemics lead at UK-based Wellcome Trust, said the findings by Andersen and his colleagues are "crucially important to bring an evidence-based view to the rumors that have been circulating about the origins of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) causing COVID-19."

"They conclude that the virus is the product of natural evolution," Goulding adds, "ending any speculation about deliberate genetic engineering."

Possible origins of the virus

Based on their genomic sequencing analysis, Andersen and his collaborators concluded that the most likely origins for SARS-CoV-2 followed one of two possible scenarios.

In one scenario, the virus evolved to its current pathogenic state through natural selection in a non-human host and then jumped to humans. This is how previous coronavirus outbreaks have emerged, with humans contracting the virus after direct exposure to civets (SARS) and camels (MERS). The researchers proposed bats as the most likely reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 as it is very similar to a bat coronavirus. There are no documented cases of direct bat-human transmission, however, suggesting that an intermediate host was likely involved between bats and humans.

In this scenario, both of the distinctive features of SARS-CoV-2's spike protein -- the RBD portion that binds to cells and the cleavage site that opens the virus up -- would have evolved to their current state prior to entering humans. In this case, the current epidemic would probably have emerged rapidly as soon as humans were infected, as the virus would have already evolved the features that make it pathogenic and able to spread between people.

In the other proposed scenario, a non-pathogenic version of the virus jumped from an animal host into humans and then evolved to its current pathogenic state within the human population. For instance, some coronaviruses from pangolins, armadillo-like mammals found in Asia and Africa, have an RBD structure very similar to that of SARS-CoV-2. A coronavirus from a pangolin could possibly have been transmitted to a human, either directly or through an intermediary host such as civets or ferrets.

Then the other distinct spike protein characteristic of SARS-CoV-2, the cleavage site, could have evolved within a human host, possibly via limited undetected circulation in the human population prior to the beginning of the epidemic. The researchers found that the SARS-CoV-2 cleavage site, appears similar to the cleavage sites of strains of bird flu that has been shown to transmit easily between people. SARS-CoV-2 could have evolved such a virulent cleavage site in human cells and soon kicked off the current epidemic, as the coronavirus would possibly have become far more capable of spreading between people.

Study co-author Andrew Rambaut cautioned that it is difficult if not impossible to know at this point which of the scenarios is most likely. If the SARS-CoV-2 entered humans in its current pathogenic form from an animal source, it raises the probability of future outbreaks, as the illness-causing strain of the virus could still be circulating in the animal population and might once again jump into humans. The chances are lower of a non-pathogenic coronavirus entering the human population and then evolving properties similar to SARS-CoV-2.

Funding for the research was provided by the US National Institutes of Health, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Wellcome Trust, the European Research Council, and an ARC Australian Laureate Fellowship.
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
I don't think you can form a useful opinion about that unless you have some idea of what research is done in these labs.

It really does seem a funny time for you to start thinking we should do less virology research. The speed with which we have been able, not only to identify and sequence the SARS-cov-2 virus, but also develop candidate vaccines (already now in clinical trials only 4 months after the virus emerged) is astonishing. This would have taken several years by traditional methods.

None of this would have been possible without virology research.
I'm glad there's research going on especially now. And I really did wish I knew what exactly went on in these labs so I can form an opinion as to whether or not 1500 bio level 3 labs are really needed. But common sense tells me they probably are needed
 
Top