Australian Vaccine developer Prof Nikolai Petrovsky suggests Lab Origin:
'virus is exquisitely adapted to infect humans'; censored by MSM
Newsletter published on May 19, 2020
(1) Australian Vaccine developer Prof Nikolai Petrovsky suggests Lab
Origin for Covid-19; censored by MSM
(2) However, the story DID make it into medicalxpress.com: 'exquisitely
adapted to infect humans'
(3) Petrovsky's new vaccine for Ebola
(4) Australian Scientists Found that the C-19 coronavirus was Designed
to Attack Humans
(5) Coronavirus is optimized for penetration into human cells, rather
than animal cells
(6) Petrosky's paper 'In silico comparison of spike protein-ACE2 binding
affinities across species'
(7) 'Optimal human adaptation": Virus researchers uncover new evidence
implying COVID-19 was created in a lab
(8) scimex.org panel: 3 of 4 Australian experts deny Lab origin;
Petrovsky disagrees
(9) Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong warns Covid-19 a "pretext" for World
Government beyond all control
(1) Australian Vaccine developer Prof Nikolai Petrovsky suggests Lab
Origin for Covid-19; censored by MSM
- by Peter Myers, May 19, 2020
Petrovsky wrote, "COVID-19 virus is exquisitely adapted to infect humans".
"The virus's ability to bind protein on human cells was far greater than
its ability to bind the same protein in bats, which argues against bats
being a direct source of the human virus."
Today I searched Google for "Nikolai Petrovsky" "coronavirus"
Date: May 19, 4.11pm AEST; time specified: "past week"
I checked the first 60 hits - minor news outlets did report this story;
no MSM hits reported the following story, even though some reported
Petrovsky's new vaccine for Ebola.
Why would the Globalist media censor this story? As Cardinal Zen says
(item 8), they want World Government, and need China to be part of it.
Yet China clearly has a mind of its own; it has no intention to submit
to their rule. However for the Globalists to admit that China has
escaped their control, they have to abandon the Globalization project.
Rather than face that fact, they depict Trump as the enemy. On that,
both the Globalists and China agree.
Whoever wins in November, a Cold War will exist between the West and China.
(2) However, the story DID make it into medicalxpress.com: 'exquisitely
adapted to infect humans'
MAY 14, 2020
Origins of COVID-19 still a mystery
by Flinders University
The highly-infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus is most ideally adapted to infect
human cells—rather than bat or pangolin cells, according to new computer
modeling.
In a quest to find a vaccine or drug treatment for COVID-19,
high-performance computer modeling has been used by Australian
scientists to study the virus's ability to target a variety of 12 exotic
and domestic animals in the hope of identifying the original source of
the virus.
The study, led by Flinders University scientists, compared the modeling
to the virus's ability to bind to human cells and found the SARS-CoV-2
virus targets humans more potently than any of the tested animal species.
"The results clearly show that the COVID-19 virus is exquisitely adapted
to infect humans," says Flinders University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky,
lead author of a new paper just published online in arXiv, a leading US
preprint server for researchers.
"The virus's ability to bind protein on human cells was far greater than
its ability to bind the same protein in bats, which argues against bats
being a direct source of the human virus."
The team's computer modeling shows the SARS-CoV-2 virus also bound
strongly to cells of pangolins, an exotic ant-eater illegally imported
into China.
"While it has been suggested by some Chinese scientists that the
COVID-19 virus might have been transmitted to humans from pangolins,
currently available data does not support this idea," Professor
Petrovsky says.
How and where the SARS-CoV-2 virus adapted to become such an effective
human pathogen remains a mystery, the scientists conclude, adding that
finding the origins of the disease will help efforts to protect people
against future coronavirus pandemics.
The research points to a number of reasons why the virus became so well
adapted to humans, such as convergent evolution after exposure to human
cells, rare mutations that mix two species genes, and exposure to human
cells very early in the pandemic.
But how and where the SARS-CoV-2 virus adapted to become such an
effective human pathogen remains a mystery that requires intensive
further scientific investigation, the researchers conclude.
The article, 'In silico comparison of spike protein-ACE2 binding
affinities across species; significance for the possible origin of the
SARS-CoV-2 virus' (2020) has been published on the arXiv pre-press server.
Journal information: arXiv
Provided by Flinders University
(3) Petrovsky's new vaccine for Ebola
New vaccine appears to be highly protective against Ebola infection in mice
Reviewed by Emily Henderson, B.Sc.May 18 2020
As the world focuses on finding a COVID-19 vaccine, research continues
on other potentially catastrophic pandemic diseases, including Ebola and
Marburg viruses.
The world cannot afford to take our eye of other threats, says Flinders
University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky, who warns the highly lethal and
infectious Ebola virus could appear in a more virulent form.
While a live virus vaccine has recently been developed to protect
against Ebola, it is not necessarily effective against all forms of
Ebola and Marburg and is sensitive to heat which requires it to be
stored frozen - a problem in poor tropical countries in Africa with
erratic power supplies, which is where Ebola resides."
In the latest collaboration with US partners, a vaccine turbocharger
called Advax™ adjuvant, developed at Professor Petrovsky's Australian
laboratory was combined with a synthetic protein against Ebola developed
by the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious
Disease (USAMRIID).
The resulting vaccine appeared to be highly protective against a lethal
Ebola virus infection in mice, including after just a single injection.
As well, the protection generated by the vaccine was long-lasting and
shown to be able to be transferred to naïve mice using antibodies taken
from the immunised mice.
This work provides promise that a more convenient and heat stable
version of the Ebola vaccine can be developed, which could then play a
key role in preventing further Ebola outbreaks in Africa, Professor
Petrovsky says.
"While developing a COVID-19 vaccine is a top priority including for our
team, we must also continue developing vaccines against a wide range of
other potentially catastrophic pandemic diseases including Ebola and
Marburg viruses, as these continue to periodically jump from wild
animals to people in Africa," he says.
The Petrovsky lab and Vaxine Pty Ltd is currently using the same Advax™
vaccine turbocharger approach to develop a recombinant protein vaccine
against COVID-19, which is now in late stage animal testing ahead of
human trials in Australia.
"Like coronaviruses, we must continue research into improving the
world's vaccine pipeline for diseases, particularly rapidly changing
viral infections believed to be transmitted to people from wild
animals," he says.
The World Health Organisation notes Ebola virus disease (EVD) is a
severe, generally fatal illness with an average case fatality of over 50%.
The 2014-2016 outbreak in West Africa was the largest and most complex
Ebola outbreak with more cases and deaths than all others combined since
the virus was discovered in 1976. It also spread between countries,
starting in Guinea then moving across land borders to Sierra Leone and
Liberia.
Infected patients traveled to many countries around the globe before the
outbreak was stopped by quarantine measures.
Source: Flinders University
Journal reference: Stronsky, S.M., et al. (2020) Adjuvant selection
impacts the correlates of vaccine protection against Ebola infection.
Vaccine. doi.
(4) Australian Scientists Found that the C-19 coronavirus was Designed
to Attack Humans
By Paul Ebeling on May 16, 2020
Australian Scientists Found that the C-19 coronavirus was Designed to
Attack Humans
A major new Australian study of C-19 coronavirus found that it is
specially adapted to infect human cells, casting doubt on whether it
emerged in bats or pangolins when it 1st erupted in China.
As a consequence, the scientists behind the study say, a "possibility
which still cannot be excluded is that SARSCoV-2 was created by a
recombination event that occurred inadvertently or consciously in a
laboratory handling coronaviruses, with the new virus then accidentally
released into the local human population"
The high-performance computer modeling was used by Australian scientists
to study the virus’s ability to target a variety of 12 exotic and
domestic animals in the hope of identifying the original source of the
virus.
The goal is to find a vaccine or drug treatment for the highly
infectious C-19 coronavirus.
Led by scientists at Flinders University, looked at the the virus’s
ability to bind to human cells and found the SARS-CoV-2 virus targets
humans more potently than any of the tested animal species.
"The results clearly show that the COVID-19 virus is exquisitely adapted
to infect humans," says Flinders University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky,
lead author of a new paper just published online in arXiv, a leading US
preprint server for researchers.
"The virus’s ability to bind protein on human cells was far greater than
its ability to bind the same protein in bats, which argues against bats
being a direct source of the human virus."
The study cast doubt on the idea that it emerged with pangolins, an
anteater very popular with some Chinese cooks.
"While it has been suggested by some Chinese scientists that the
COVID-19 virus might have been transmitted to humans from pangolins,
currently available data does not support this idea," Professor
Petrovsky says.
The Big Q: How did C-19 so quickly become lethal to humans?
The Big A: The research points to a number of reasons why the virus
became so well adapted to humans, such as convergent evolution after
exposure to human cells, rare mutations that mix 2 species genes, and
exposure to human cells very early in the virus event.
The article, ‘In silico comparison of spike protein-ACE2 binding
affinities across species; significance for the possible origin of the
SARS-CoV-2 virus’ (2020) was published on the arXiv pre-press server.
(5) Coronavirus is optimized for penetration into human cells, rather
than animal cells
From: Samih Abdeen <samihabdeen@yahoo.com>
[Submitted on 13 May 2020]
In silico comparison of spike protein-ACE2 binding affinities across
species; significance for the possible origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus
Sakshi Piplani, Puneet Kumar Singh, David A. Winkler, Nikolai Petrovsky
The devastating impact of the COVID19 pandemic caused by SARS
coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV2) has raised important questions on the origins
of this virus, the mechanisms of any zoonotic transfer from exotic
animals to humans, whether companion animals or those used for
commercial purposes can act as reservoirs for infection, and the reasons
for the large variations in susceptibilities across animal species.
Traditional lab-based methods will ultimately answer many of these
questions but take considerable time.
In silico modeling methods provide the opportunity to rapidly generate
information on newly emerged pathogens to aid countermeasure development
and also to predict potential future behaviors. We used a structural
homology modeling approach to characterize the SARSCoV2 spike protein
and predict its binding strength to the human ACE2 receptor. We then
explored the possible transmission path by which SARSCoV2 might have
crossed to humans by constructing models of ACE2 receptors of relevant
species, and calculating the binding energy of SARSCoV2 spike protein to
each.
Notably, SARSCoV2 spike protein had the highest overall binding energy
for human ACE2, greater than all the other tested species including bat,
the postulated source of the virus. This indicates that SARSCoV2 is a
highly adapted human pathogen.
Of the species studied, the next highest binding affinity after human
was pangolin, which is most likely explained by a process of convergent
evolution. Binding of SARSCoV2 for dog and cat ACE2 was similar to
affinity for bat ACE2, all being lower than for human ACE2, and is
consistent with only occasional observations of infections of these
domestic animals.
Overall, the data indicates that SARSCoV2 is uniquely adapted to infect
humans, raising questions as to whether it arose in nature by a rare
chance event or whether its origins lie elsewhere.
(6) Petrosky's paper 'In silico comparison of spike protein-ACE2 binding
affinities across species'
In silico comparison of spike protein-ACE2 binding affinities across
species; significance for the possible origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus
Sakshi Piplani1,2, Puneet Kumar Singh2, David A. Winkler3-6*, Nikolai
Petrovsky1,2*
1 College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford
Park 5046, Australia 2 Vaxine Pty Ltd, 11 Walkley Avenue, Warradale
5046, Australia 3 La Trobe University, Kingsbury Drive, Bundoora 3042,
Australia 4 Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash
University, Parkville 3052, Australia 5 School of Pharmacy, University
of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD. UK 6 CSIRO Data61, Pullenvale 4069,
Australia
*Joint senior authors
Abstract
The devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic caused by
SARS–coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has raised important questions on the
origins of this virus, the mechanisms of any zoonotic transfer from
exotic animals to humans, whether companion animals or those used for
commercial purposes can act as reservoirs for infection, and the reasons
for the large variations in SARS-CoV-2 susceptibilities across animal
species. Traditional lab-based methods will ultimately answer many of
these questions but take considerable time. Increasingly powerful in
silico modeling methods provide the opportunity to rapidly generate
information on newly emerged pathogens to aid countermeasure development
and also to predict potential future behaviors. We used an in silico
structural homology modeling approach to characterize the SARS-CoV-2
spike protein which predicted its high affinity binding to the human
ACE2 receptor. Next we sought to gain insights into the possible origins
and transmission path by which SARS-CoV-2 might have crossed to humans
by constructing models of the ACE2 receptors of relevant species, and
then calculating the binding energy of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to each
of these. Notably, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein had the highest overall
binding energy for human ACE2, greater than all the other tested species
including bat, the postulated source of the virus. This indicates that
SARS-CoV-2 is a highly adapted human pathogen. Of the species studied,
the next highest binding affinity after human was pangolin, which is
most likely explained by a process of convergent evolution. Binding of
SARS-CoV-2 for dog and cat ACE2 was similar to affinity for bat ACE2,
all being lower than for human ACE2, and is consistent with only
occasional observations of infections of these domestic animals. Snake
ACE2 had low affinity for spike protein, making it highly improbable
that snakes acted as an intermediate vector. Overall, the data indicates
that SARS-CoV-2 is uniquely adapted to infect humans, raising important
questions as to whether it arose in nature by a rare chance event or
whether its origins might lie elsewhere.
Introduction
The devastating impact of COVID-19 infections caused by SARS–coronavirus
2 (SARS-CoV-2) has stimulated unprecedented international activity to
discover effective vaccines and drugs for this and other pathogenic
coronaviruses.1-16 It has also raised important questions on the
mechanisms of zoonotic transfer of viruses from animals to humans,
questions as to whether companion animals or those used for commercial
purposes can act as reservoirs for infection, and the reasons for the
large variations in SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility across animal
species.17-19 Understanding how viruses move between species may help us
prevent or minimize these pathways in the future. Elucidating the
molecular basis for the different susceptibilities of species may also
shed light on the differences in susceptibilities in different
sub-groups of humans.
Very recently, Shi et al. published the results of experiments to
determine the susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 of ferrets, cats, dogs, and
other domesticated animals.20 They showed that SARS-CoV-2 virus
replicates poorly in dogs, pigs, chickens, and ducks, but ferrets and
cats are permissive to infection. Other studies have reported the
susceptibility of other animal species to SARS-CoV-2.17,20,21
Susceptible species such as macaques, hamsters and ferrets are used as
animal models of SARS-CoV-2 infection.22-24 In the absence of purified,
isolated ACE2 from all the relevant animal species that could be used to
measure the molecular affinities to spike protein experimentally,
computational methods offer considerable promise for determining the
rank order of affinities across species, as a method to impute which
species may be permissive to SARS-CoV-2.
Here we show how computational chemistry methods from structure-based
drug design can be used to determine the relative binding affinities of
the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein for its receptor, angiotensin converting
enzyme (ACE)-2, a critical initiating event for SARS-CoV-2 infection,
across multiple common and exotic animal species.25-27 The aim of these
studies was to better understand the species-specific nature of this
interaction and see if this could help elucidate the origin of
SARS-CoV-2 and the mechanisms for its zoonotic transmission. [...]
Although bats carry many coronaviruses including SARS-CoV, a relative of
SARS-CoV-2, direct evidence for existence of SARS-CoV-2 in bats has not
been found. As highlighted by our data, the binding strength of
SARS-CoV-2 for bat ACE2 is considerably lower than for human ACE2,
suggesting that even if SARS-CoV-2 did originally arise from a bat
precursor it must later have adapted its spike protein to optimise its
binding to human ACE2. There is no current explanation for how, when or
where this might have happened. Instances of direct human infection by
coronaviruses or other bat viruses is rare with transmission typically
involving an intermediate host. For example, lyssaviruses such as Hendra
are periodically transmitted from bats to horses and then to humans who
contact the infected horse. Similarly, SARS-CoV was shown to be
transmitted from bats to civet cats and from them to humans. To date, a
virus identical to SARS-CoV-2 has not been identified in bats or any
other non-human species, making its origins unclear. To date, the most
closely related coronavirus to SARS-CoV-2, is the bat coronavirus,
BatCoV RaTG1, which has 96% whole-genome identity to SARS-CoV-2.50. The
fact that SARS-CoV-2 has also not been found in any likely intermediate
host raises questions of the origins of the original SARS-CoV-2 virus
that infected human case zero in late 2019. Wuhan, the epicentre of the
outbreak, hosts China’s only BSL4 facility and is the site of
considerable bat coronavirus research. Identification of an intermediate
animal host in which SARS-CoV-2 might have adapted to a human ACE2
permissive form would go a long way to alleviating concerns that
SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural virus. Lam et al.44 made confused public
claims of finding SARS-CoV-2 in Malayan pangolins, suggesting that
pangolins were an intermediate vector for SARS-CoV-2. However, further
sequence analysis of these claims by Zhang et al. established that
Pangolin-CoV was a very different coronavirus that had modest at best
~90% sequence similarity to SARS-CoV-2. While Pangolin-CoV spike RBD
shared some similarities to SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein did not share
the furin cleavage site that was a prominent feature of SARS-CoV-2 spike
protein.51 Hence, any similarity of Pangolin-CoV to SARS-CoV-2 was
restricted to the residues in the RBD and RBM. Overall, Pangolin-CoV is
only a distant relative of SARS-CoV-2.
Based on our data, the similarity of Pangolin-CoV to SARS-CoV-2 in the
spike RBM could be a case of convergent evolution of the two viruses,
whereby the close similarity of the structure of the pangolin ACE2 spike
binding domain (SBD) to the same region of human ACE2, drove the
convergent evolution of the spike protein RBD of both viruses, allowing
them to bind to pangolin and human ACE2, respectively. Such close
similarity of pangolin and human ACE2 SBD could make it easy for any
pangolin CoV to cross from pangolins to humans. Nevertheless, with no
virus matching the SARS-CoV-2 sequence identified in pangolins this
makes it less likely that SARS-CoV-2 has a pangolin origin. However,
this does call for more intensive survey of coronaviruses in pangolin
populations, should such viruses pose future human pandemic threats.
This finding also supports the need for strict enforcement of a
worldwide ban on any trafficking of pangolins to reduce risks of
pangolin coronaviruses crossing to humans and becoming a trigger for a
future coronavirus pandemic. However, there continues to be a lack of
evidence to indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is a pangolin-derived virus that
first crossed from pangolins to humans in late 2019.
Early in the COVID-19 outbreak it was suggested that snakes may be an
intermediate vector. ACE2 of turtle and snake has very low homology to
human ACE2 and SARS-CoV-2 was shown to not bind to reptile ACE2, making
snakes unlikely as possible hosts for SARS-CoV-2. 46 This is consistent
with our own data predicting moderate to low binding of SARS-CoV-2 to
snake ACE2. Rodents varied widely in their permissiveness to SARS-CoV
with mice being resistant and hamsters permissive. Similarly there is
inefficient virus replication of SARS-CoV-2 in mice making them
unsuitable as models to test SARS or COVID-19 vaccines or drugs. 47 This
reflects the low predicted binding energy of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
for mouse ACE2, as demonstrated by our model data. Mice only became
permissive for SARS infection when made transgenic for human ACE2, with
the same likely to be true for SARS-CoV-2. By contrast, hamsters were
highly permissive for SARS-CoV infection. Our model predicted that
hamster should be permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection based on the
predicted strong binding of SARS-Cov-2 spike protein for hamster ACE2
(Table 4). Consistent with our model data, Syrian hamsters have been
shown to exhibit clinical and histopathological responses to SARS-CoV-2
that closely mimic human upper and lower respiratory tract infections,
with high virus shedding and ability to transmit to naïve contact
animals.24 Ferrets were another permissive model of SARS CoV infection,
and our modelling data indicated that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar binding
energy to ferret, as it does to hamster, ACE2 (Table 4). Consistent with
our model data, ferrets have been shown to be permissive to infection
with SARS-CoV-2, with high virus titre in the upper respiratory tract,
virus shedding, infected ferrets showing acute bronchiolitis but without
severe disease or death, and active transmission to naïve ferrets
through direct contact.20,22
Cat and tiger ACE2 were shown by our model to have similar binding
affinity for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and both these species have been
shown to be permissive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Similarly our data
suggests that SARS-CoV-2 binds with moderate affinity to dog ACE2
suggesting that dogs may be susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2. In
the case of companion animals that live in close proximity to humans,
Shen at al. state that SARS-CoV-2 can be efficiently transmitted in cats
and dogs while Shi et al. found that SARS-CoV-2 replicates poorly in
dogs, pigs, chickens, and ducks, but that ferrets and cats were
permissive to infection. Temmam et al. tested 9 cats and 12 dogs living
in close contact with their owners, two of whom tested positive for
SARS-CoV-2 and 11 of 18 others showed clinical signs of COVID-19 but no
antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detectable in their blood using an
immunoprecipitation assay. Goumeniu et al. published an editorial
querying the role of dogs in the Lombardy COVID-19 outbreak and
recommended use of computational docking experiments to provide evidence
for or against infection of dogs.43 Hence, our model data suggesting
that dog ACE2 might be permissive for SARS-CoV-2 binding and infection
is therefore consistent with anecdotal reports of dogs being infected
with SARS-CoV-2. Hence other genetic factors could underlie the apparent
lack of susceptibility of dogs to COVID-19 clinical infection.
It is known that gain of function (GOF) mutations occur in viruses that
can lead to pandemics. GOF means viruses gain a new property e.g. in
influenza virus GOF has been associated with the acquisition of a new
function, such as mammalian transmissibility, increased virulence for
humans, or evasion of existing host immunity.49 The conditioning of
viruses to humans as pandemics progress is well recognized. However, the
SARS-CoV-2 structures and sequences that we employed were from viruses
collected very early in the pandemic. It is therefore not clear how
SARS-CoV-2 could have developed such a high affinity for human ACE2,
notably higher than for those of putative zoonotic sources for
SARS-CoV-2, unless it has been previously selected on human ACE2 or an
ACE2 of another species bearing a closely homologous spike protein
binding domain. Interestingly, pangolin ACE2 bears some similarities in
its SBD to human ACE2. This marries with the fact that Pangolin-CoV
shares a highly similar RBD to SARS-CoV-2, although their remaining
sequence has only 90% similarity. This could be consistent with a
process of convergent evolution whereby human and pangolin coronaviruses
infecting via ACE2, have come to the same solution in respect of
evolving an optimal spike RBD for binding of either human or pangolin
ACE2, respectively. Our data does indicate that humans might be
permissive to pangolin CoVs that use ACE2 for cell entry, a fact that
needs to be borne in mind in respect of future potential coronavirus
pandemic sources. However, this does not mean that pangolin ACE2 was the
receptor on which the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RBD was initially
selected, with the strength of binding to pangolin ACE2 lower than
binding to human ACE2. This makes it unlikely that pangolins are the
missing intermediate host. If SARS-CoV-2 spike was selected on pangolin
ACE2, then given the higher affinity of SARS-CoV-2 for human ACE2 than
for bat ACE2, SARS-CoV-2 would have to have circulated in pangolins for
a long period of time for this evolution and selection to occur and to
date there is no evidence of a SARS-CoV-2 like virus circulating in
pangolins.
Another possibility would be a short term evolutionary step where a
pangolin was recently co-infected with a bat ancestor to SARS-CoV-2 at
the same time as it was infected by a pangolin CoV allowing a
recombination event to occur whereby the spike RBD of the pangolin virus
was inserted into the bat CoV, thereby conferring the bat CoV with high
binding for both pangolin and human ACE2. Such recombination events are
known to occur with other RNA viruses and can explain creation of some
pandemic influenza strains49. Nevertheless, such events are by necessity
rare as they require coinfection of the one host at exactly the same
time. Most importantly, if such a recombination event had occurred in
pangolins it might have been expected to have similarly triggered an
epidemic spread of the new highly permissive SARS-CoV-2 like virus among
pangolin populations, such as we now see occurring across the human
population. Currently there is no evidence of such a pangolin SARS-CoV-2
like outbreak, making this whole scenario less likely. Indeed, pangolins
might be protected from SARS-CoV-2 infection due to the existence of
cross-protective spike RBD neutralising antibodies induced by exposure
to pangolin CoV, given the RBD similarity of these two viruses. Another
possibility which still cannot be excluded is that SARS-CoV-2 was
created by a recombination event that occurred inadvertently or
consciously in a laboratory handling coronaviruses, with the new virus
then accidentally released into the local human population.
Given the seriousness of the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, it is
imperative that all efforts be made to identify the original source of
the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In particular, it will be important to establish
whether COVID-19 is due to a completely natural chance occurrence where
a presumed bat virus was transmitted to humans via an intermediate
animal host or whether COVID-19 has alternative origins. This
information will be of paramount importance to help prevent any similar
human coronavirus outbreak in the future.
(7) 'Optimal human adaptation": Virus researchers uncover new evidence
implying COVID-19 was created in a lab
Virus researchers uncover new evidence implying COVID-19 was created in
a lab
Preliminary study results suggest virus was produced in lab cultures
using human cells.
Sat May 16, 2020 - 10:48 am EST
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
May 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A team of Australian scientists has
produced new evidence that the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is
optimized for penetration into human cells rather than animal cells,
undermining the theory that the virus randomly evolved in an animal
subject before passing into human beings, and suggesting instead that it
was developed in a laboratory.
The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, provides new but not
yet conclusive evidence favoring the theory that the novel coronavirus
originated not in a food market as has been claimed, but rather in a
laboratory, presumably one operated by the Wuhan Institute of Virology
in Wuhan, China, the city in which the first outbreak of COVID-19
occurred in December of 2019.
The lead researcher on the team says that the results represent either
"a remarkable coincidence or a sign of human intervention" in the
creation of the virus.
The authors of the study, led by vaccine researcher Nikolai Petrovsky of
Flinders University in Australia, used a version of the novel
coronavirus collected in the earliest days of the outbreak and applied
computer models to test its capacity to bind to certain cell receptor
enzymes, called "ACE2," that allow the virus to infect human and animal
cells to varying degrees of efficacy.
They tested the propensity of the COVID-19 virus’s spike protein, which
it uses to enter cells, to bind to the human type of ACE2 as well as to
many different animal versions of ACE2, and found that the novel
coronavirus most powerfully binds with human ACE2, and with variously
lesser degrees of effectiveness with animal versions of the receptor.
According to the study’s authors, this implies that the virus that
causes COVID-19 did not come from an animal intermediary, but became
specialized for human cell penetration by living previously in human
cells, quite possibly in a laboratory.
The authors write that "this finding is particularly surprising as,
typically, a virus would be expected to have highest affinity for the
receptor in its original host species, e.g. bat, with a lower initial
binding affinity for the receptor of any new host, e.g. humans. However,
in this case, the affinity of SARS-CoV-2 is higher for humans than for
the putative original host species, bats, or for any potential
intermediary host species."
As a consequence, they add, a "possibility which still cannot be
excluded is that SARSCoV-2 was created by a recombination event that
occurred inadvertently or consciously in a laboratory handling
coronaviruses, with the new virus then accidentally released into the
local human population."
In a separate public statement about the research made by Prof.
Petrovsky on April 17, the researcher notes that the results of his
study are either "a remarkable coincidence or a sign of human
intervention," and adds that it is "entirely plausible that the virus
was created in the biosecurity facility in Wuhan by selection on cells
expressing human ACE2, a laboratory that was known to be cultivating
exotic bat coronaviruses at the time."
"If so the cultured virus could have escaped the facility either through
accidental infection of a staff member who then visited the fish market
several blocks away and there infected others, or by inappropriate
disposal of waste from the facility that either infected humans outside
the facility directly or via a susceptible vector such as a stray cat
that then frequented the market and resulted in transmission there to
humans," he added.
The researchers recognize that other possibilities exist, but regard
them as improbable. They found that the novel coronavirus has a strong,
but lesser binding effect on the ACE2 receptor of Pangolins, which are
mammals eaten in China as a delicacy which has often been proposed as
the intermediary of the novel coronavirus between bats and humans.
However, they note that the Pangolin doesn’t offer a reasonable
candidate for an intermediate species for human transmission, because
"given the higher affinity of [the novel coronavirus] SARS-CoV-2 for
human ACE2 than for bat ACE2, SARS-CoV-2 would have to have circulated
in pangolins for a long period of time for this evolution and selection
to occur and to date there is no evidence of a SARS-CoV-2 like virus
circulating in pangolins."
A preliminary form of the study, which is currently entitled, "In silico
comparison of spike protein-ACE2 binding affinities across species;
significance for the possible origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus," has been
published on a repository site maintained by Cornell University, which
warns that studies published prior to peer review should not be
considered "established information" unless multiple experts in a given
field are first consulted.
According to his university webpage, in addition to his work as a
university professor, Professor Petrovsky is currently Director of
Endocrinology at Flinders Medical Centre of Flinders University, and
Vice President and Secretary-General of the International Immunomics
Society. He is also the founder of Vaxine Pty Ltd., which is funded by
the U.S. National Institutes of Health and is currently working on a
COVID-19 vaccine.
In addition to Professor Petrovsky, the research team that produced the
study includes Prof. Sakshi Piplani, also of Flinders University, Puneet
Kumar Singh, who works with Petrovsky and Piplani at Vaxine Pty Ltd.,
and Prof. David A. Winkler, who teaches at the University of Nottingham
in the U.K and Monash University in Australia.
Study contradicts scientists who claim "zero evidence" for lab origin of
virus
The results of the study tend to contradict virologists who have claimed
that the novel coronavirus shows no signs of having been produced in a
laboratory, some of whom have gone so far as to dismiss such theories as
"conspiracy theories." The "conspiracy theory" claim has been
uncritically echoed in much, but not all, of the international media.
The staff of the Wuhan Institute of Virology have repeatedly denied the
virus came from their lab.
Their position has been supported by a widely-referenced letter from
several scientists published in Nature Medicine on March 17, which
argues against the likelihood of a laboratory generating the virus in a
human cell lab culture.
The argument made by the researchers in the letter is mostly based on
the claim that no genetically-close progenitor to the novel coronavirus
that could be a candidate for such a process has been described in any
scientific study. They also assert that "repeated passage" of
coronaviruses in cell cultures have not been mentioned in scientific
literature.
However, the letter’s authors do not address the possibility that the
Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers simply did not report all of
their research to the public, a possibility that seems to have been
reinforced in recent months by secrecy and cover-ups regarding COVID-19
research in China, and the repeated refusal of the Chinese government to
participate in an international probe of the origins of the novel
coronavirus. Unless an animal version of virus is found, evidence points
to "human intervention"
Professor Petrovsky told LifeSite in an email interview that his study
indicates that "there are some highly unusual features, including
optimal human adaptation, that in the absence of identification of a
close to identical virus in an animal population from which COVID19
could have arisen, would point in the direction of human intervention at
some point in the evolution of COVID19."
He noted that, so far, researchers in China and elsewhere have not
produced evidence of the presence in animals of a virus closely similar
to the one that causes COVID-19 in humans, which would give credence to
their theory of natural development in an intermediary between bats,
which presumably originated the virus, and humans.
"If an animal vector and virus could be found then of course this would
resolve the matter completely," Petrovksy told LifeSite. "One would have
thought that the Chinese would be intensively sampling all conceivable
animals trying to find such a virus to exonerate their labs. If no such
intense search is going on (which I don’t know one way or the other)
then the inference could be that they are not looking because they
already know what they might find."
Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University who has
been critical of laboratory studies that might produce new pathogens
dangerous to humans, told LifeSite that Petrovsky’s results "are
plausible," but cautioned that the results of the pre-print of the study
"are from computational modelling, not from experiments, and therefore
must be considered as provisional at best."
Ebright noted that an earlier study on ACE2 receptor binding found that
a bat coronavirus similar to the COVID-19 virus had strong binding power
with the ACE2 of tree shrews and ferrets, making them possible animal
intermediary candidates. However, the study did not compare the binding
power of the virus’ animal species’ ACE2 receptors with the binding
power with humans, as does Petrovsky’s study. Moreover, it did not use a
gene sequence from an early version of the novel coronavirus itself, as
does Petrovsky’s study, but rather used the gene sequence of a similar
bat coronavirus reported by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, called RaTG13.
Ebright told LifeSite that he believes that multiple physical
experiments that will ultimately determine if the novel coronavirus is
optimized for binding with human cells are "probably underway in
multiple locations," although he did not cite any specific studies.
What is needed, according to Prof. Petrovsky, is a thorough
international investigation into the true cause of the COVID-19
outbreak, something the Chinese government has repeatedly refused.
"Whilst the facts cannot be known at this time, the nature of this event
and its proximity to a high-risk biosecurity facility at the epicentre
of the outbreak demands a full and independent international enquiry to
ascertain whether a virus of this kind of COVID-19 was being cultured in
the facility and might have been accidentally released," wrote Petrovsky
on April 17.
Contact the author at mhoffman@lifesitenews.com.
(8) scimex.org panel: 3 of 4 Australian experts deny Lab origin;
Petrovsky disagrees
EXPERT REACTION: Did COVID-19 come from a lab in Wuhan?
Publicly released: Fri 17 Apr 2020 at 1130 AEST | 1330 NZST
Not peer-reviewed: This work has not been reviewed and scrutinised by
independent experts. ...
Speculation that the virus that causes COVID-19 originated in a Wuhan
lab has been given some weight, as the Trump Administration has
announced an investigation into the matter. Secretary of State Mike
Pence has been quoted saying Beijing "needs to come clean" on what they
know.
Expert Reaction
These comments have been collated by the Science Media Centre to provide
a variety of expert perspectives on this issue. Feel free to use these
quotes in your stories. Views expressed are the personal opinions of the
experts named. They do not represent the views of the SMC or any other
organisation unless specifically stated.
Professor Edward Holmes is an evolutionary virologist and a member of
the Charles Perkins Centre and the Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious
Diseases and Biosecurity at the University of Sydney
"There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 in
humans, originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
Coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2 are commonly found in wildlife species and
frequently jump to new hosts. This is also the most likely explanation
for the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
The closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 is a bat virus named RaTG13,
which was kept at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There is some
unfounded speculation that this virus was the origin of SARS-CoV-2. However:
(i) RaTG13 was sampled from a different province of China (Yunnan) to
where COVID-19 first appeared; and
(ii) the level of genome sequence divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and
RaTG13 is equivalent to an average of 50 years (and at least 20 years)
of evolutionary change.
Hence, SARS-CoV-2 was not derived from RaTG13.
In addition, we know that viruses related to SARS-CoV-2 are also found
in pangolins. This suggests that other wildlife species are likely to
carry relatives of SARS-CoV-2.
In summary, the abundance, diversity and evolution of coronaviruses in
wildlife strongly suggests that SARS-CoV-2 is of natural origin.
However, a greater sampling of animal species in nature, including bats
from Hubei province, is needed to resolve the exact origins of SARS-CoV-2."
Last updated: 17 Apr 2020 12:20pm Declared conflicts of interest: None
declared.
Professor Nigel McMillan is the Director in Infectious Diseases and
Immunology at Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University
"All evidence so far points to the fact the CVOID19 virus is naturally
derived and not man-made.
The genetic changes in the virus can be found in two other coronaviruses
from bats and pangolins and these are the source hosts. If you were
going to design it in a lab the sequence changes make no sense as all
previous evidence would tell you it would make the virus worse. No
system exists in the lab to make some of the changes found.
Finally, analysis shows that the sorts of mutations found in the virus
are clearly natural and not man-made. All this is outlined in serious
detail in an article by Christian Stevens from the Mount Sinai School of
Medicine, New York (here)."
Last updated: 17 Apr 2020 12:17pm Declared conflicts of interest: None
declared.
Nikolai Petrovsky is a Professor in the College of Medicine and Public
Health at Flinders University. He is also Research Director, Vaxine Pty Ltd
"An extremely important but still unanswered question is what was the
source of COVID-19 virus. While COVID-19 has close similarities to SARS
and other bat viruses no natural virus matching to COVID-19 has been
found in nature despite an intensive search to find its origins. This
raises the very legitimate question of whether the COVID-19 virus might
be the result of human intervention.
Certainly, our and other analyses of the genomic sequence of the virus
do not reveal any artificial gene inserts that would be the hallmark of
a gene jockey, genetic engineers who manipulate or even create viruses
by splicing in artificial inserts into their genome. These are generally
easily recognisable and hence clear signatures of human intervention in
the creation of a virus. The fact that these artificial inserts are not
present has been interpreted by some to mean this virus is not the
result of human manipulation.
However, this logic is incorrect as there are other ways in which humans
can manipulate viruses and that is caused by natural selection. What do
I mean? All viruses and bacteria mutate and adapt to their environment
over time, with selection of the fittest individuals for survival in
that particular environment.
Take a bat coronavirus that is not infectious to humans, and force its
selection by culturing it with cells that express human ACE2 receptor,
such cells having been created many years ago to culture SARS
coronaviruses and you can force the bat virus to adapt to infect human
cells via mutations in its spike protein, which would have the effect of
increasing the strength of its binding to human ACE2, and inevitably
reducing the strength of its binding to bat ACE2.
Viruses in prolonged culture will also develop other random mutations
that do not affect its function. The result of these experiments is a
virus that is highly virulent in humans but is sufficiently different
that it no longer resembles the original bat virus. Because the
mutations are acquired randomly by selection there is no signature of a
human gene jockey, but this is clearly a virus still created by human
intervention.
My group in collaboration with other Australian researchers have been
using a modelling approach to study the possible evolutionary origins of
COVID-19 by modelling interactions between its spike protein and a broad
variety of ACE2 receptors from many animals and humans.
This work which we will publish on a prepress server next week shows
that the strength of binding of COVID-19 to human ACE2 far exceeds the
predicted strength of its binding to the ACE2 of any of the other
species. This points to the virus having been selected for its high
binding to human ACE2. In the absence of evidence of historic human
infections with this virus, which could result in such selection, this
either is a remarkable coincidence or a sign of human intervention.
This, plus the fact that no corresponding virus has been found to exist
in nature, leads to the possibility that COVID-19 is a human-created
virus. It is therefore entirely plausible that the virus was created in
the biosecurity facility in Wuhan by selection on cells expressing human
ACE2, a laboratory that was known to be cultivating exotic bat
coronaviruses at the time. Is so the cultured virus could have escaped
the facility either through accidental infection of a staff member who
then visited the fish market several blocks away and there infected
others, or by inappropriate disposal of waste from the facility that
either infected humans outside the facility directly or via a
susceptible vector such as a stray cat that then frequented the market
and resulted in transmission there to humans.
Whilst the facts cannot be known at this time, the nature of this event
and its proximity to a high-risk biosecurity facility at the epicentre
of the outbreak demands a full and independent international enquiry to
ascertain whether a virus of this kind of COVID-19 was being cultured in
the facility and might have been accidentally released."
Last updated: 17 Apr 2020 12:14pm
Declared conflicts of interest: Vaxine Pty Ltd has a COVID-19 vaccine in
advanced preclinical development that is anticipated to commence human
clinical trials in the near future.
Associate Professor Hassan Vally is an Epidemiologist and Senior
Lecturer in Public Health at La Trobe University
"There is no substance to this claim and other conspiracy theories about
the origin of COVID-19.
We’ve been aware for some time that another coronavirus, like SARS and
MERS before it, could cause a pandemic, and so in many ways, the
emergence of a new coronavirus with pandemic potential is not a surprise.
Whilst there is absolutely no evidence to support the conspiracy
theories being propagated by a few individuals, there actually is
evidence to support the natural emergence of the novel coronavirus, with
preliminary genotyping studies showing its relationship with other bat
viruses. We have to be careful to not aid those irresponsibly using this
global crisis for political point-scoring by giving any oxygen to these
and other rumours."
Last updated: 17 Apr 2020 12:10pm
Declared conflicts of interest: None declared.
(9) Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong warns Covid-19 a "pretext" for world
government beyond all control
Cdl. Zen condemns globalization, China’s encroachment on other nations
'In China the people are slaves under the Communist Party,' the bishop
emeritus of Hong Kong declared, and 'the poor of the poor countries did
not feel they got any help from this globalized economy of the world.'
Fri May 15, 2020 - 10:32 am EST
By Martin Bürger
May 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Joseph Zen has condemned the
modern phenomenon of globalization while also calling out China for the
role the country is playing in the world community, as well as among its
own citizens.
"In China the people are slaves under the Communist Party," the former
bishop of Hong Kong pointed out in a blog post he contributed to, titled
"Preparing for Post-Pandemic Humanity."
"The fact is: a pandemic started in China and it spread quickly over the
whole world," he wrote.
"The analysis: it must have something to do with globalization.
Globalization is a fact and the enormously increased mobility of the
people explains, in part, the fast spreading of the pandemic."
Cardinal Zen is one of three cardinals who signed the appeal "for the
Church and the world," warning that the COVID-19 pandemic is being used
as a "pretext" by world leaders to "control" people and strip them of
their fundamental rights, providing a "disturbing prelude to the
realization of a world government beyond all control."
In his blog post, published in English on May 13, Zen used the
coronavirus pandemic "of apocalyptical dimension" to encourage people to
"have a hard look at the journey in history of our humanity. Can we be
proud of our scientific progress, of the many possibilities of more
consumption?"
He pointed out that there are two aspects to globalization. "Pope John
Paul II used to distinguish a ‘globalization of solidarity’ from a
‘globalization of marginalization’, one is operated by people who care
for the real good of all human beings, the other is driven by selfish
interest of individuals and groups."
In the course of his article, it became clear that his criticism of
globalization, and China’s role in it, was specifically directed at the
"globalization of marginalization."
While many people had welcomed globalization at first, Zen said, "the
actual outcome was [very] disappointing."
According to Zen, "the poor of the poor countries did not feel they got
any help from this globalized economy of the world."
Instead, the people "running the economic globalization are the world’s
rich and strong." He specifically mentioned the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund.
Zen lamented that too often, those kinds of organizations "end up …
helping the Governments of the poor countries, the rich and powerful
people in those countries, not the poor people, because the poor people
of the poor countries have not been invited to take active part in the
process."
"The managers of the globalization plan the world economy with scarce
consideration of the real local situation and needs," Zen continued.
"Local governments and other operators, rich and powerful, may be more
interested in getting the money into their own pockets rather than
helping the poor people of their country."
The cardinal then turned his attention to China. In the past, Zen had
severely criticized the Chinese treatment of the Catholic Church, as
well as the deal Pope Francis made with China.
Even though China is widely considered to be rich and strong, Zen urged
the readers of his blog post "to distinguish between the people and the
nation."
"In a totalitarian regime the people contribute to the wealth of the
nation, but they don’t get a fair share in its prosperity. In China the
people are slaves under the Communist Party. To slaves … is not allowed
the luxury of dignity," Zen said in no uncertain terms.
At this point, even the people of China have become a problem, Zen said.
"Under the dominion and bad example of their masters, the Chinese people
have lost their traditional virtues. In a world of ‘struggle for
survival’ they make recourse to lies and violence, just like their
masters. China became a threat to the world."
Zen compared China to the colonial powers of the time before the two
world wars, coming to the conclusion that the "new colonizers are worse
than the old ones!"
The modern silk road, officially termed the Belt and Road Initiative,
has been criticized, among others, by India’s Prime Minister Narendra
Modi. He called it a "colonial enterprise" threatening to leave "debt
and broken communities in its wake."
The Chinese government took over a port in Sri Lanka. It was handed over
to China on a 99-year lease, which was immediately described by some as
an erosion of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty.
The $1.3-billion port "was opened seven years ago using debt from
Chinese state-controlled entities," the Financial Times reported in
2017. "But it has since struggled under heavy losses, making it
impossible for Colombo to repay its debts."
Cardinal Zen pointed out that as the coronavirus has stopped life as
virtually the entire world knew it, "we realize how [much] more
important is the truth, our right to information and the freedom of
expression."
"In close contact with death we are encouraged to pursue the human and
gospel values with more determination," the 88-year-old prelate said.
"We discover that the real heroes are not those we use[d] to admire on
the screen, but those who sacrifice themselves in serving the sick,
those who take care to keep clear and healthy our environment."
"Finally," he added, "we appreciate our faith which teaches us that we
are children of God, brothers and sisters in the human family. Thank you
Lord, for this lesson from the pandemic."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.