Covid-19 Covid-19 kitajski super virus

kalbo

Guru
7. okt 2013
10.901
3.837
113
Zanimivo, kako se folk razbeži ko se omeni kovid, ko pa nekomu rečeš "vježbaj pička ti materna", pa nihče ne bi prdnil.

Samo doma, kavč, TV, basanje...pa gutanje tablet in živeti 120 let.
Jih je kar nekaj vježbanih bogato nasrkalo, tko da to ni ravno pravilo. Pa mogoče še to, darjanče, fitnes ti ni ravno najjača zadeva za zdravje.
 

darjan

Vulkanizer
13. sep 2007
39.312
1.263
113
Kaki maratonci in vrhunski sportniki tudi niso merilo za zdravje. Je pa povsod seveda izjema.
Odvisno kaj delas na fitnesu.
 

kalbo

Guru
7. okt 2013
10.901
3.837
113
Hočem ti povedat, da v primeru covida ni ravno nekega pravila. Poznam primer, kjer je on rakav bolnik, ona pa zdrava in fit. Pa je on dvakrat smrknil, ona šla v bolnico za las da ni šla na respirator.
 
  • Žalosti me
Reactions: darjan

sousis

Majstr
16. nov 2019
796
410
63
Tudi pri nas scena - sorodnica 65+, visok pritisk, na tabletah za pritisk in srce, 20 kil preveč... Dva dni z vročino, pol pa kot nova. Kolega cca 30, rekreativni športnik, vsak dan na svežem zraku, pohodi, smučanje, veslanje, ni da ni... Tri mesece v bolnici, komaj se je zvlekel.
 

MrDaco

Guru
11. sep 2007
6.881
1.533
113
Tudi pri nas scena - sorodnica 65+, visok pritisk, na tabletah za pritisk in srce, 20 kil preveč... Dva dni z vročino, pol pa kot nova. Kolega cca 30, rekreativni športnik, vsak dan na svežem zraku, pohodi, smučanje, veslanje, ni da ni... Tri mesece v bolnici, komaj se je zvlekel.
Darjan bo sigurno rekel da lažeš, tega stavka ne bo prebral, ali pa trdil da je kolega imel sigurno pridružene bolezni.
 

kalbo

Guru
7. okt 2013
10.901
3.837
113
Ja v tej noriji gredo stvari tudi tako daleč. Ljudem se je skisal. Tud mene so označil za Janšista, ker sem se cepil. Sem se od srca nasmejal.
 
  • Všeč mi je
Reactions: CLIO15

Gonzo

Guru
1. sep 2007
6.014
2.232
113
EU
Naštevajo zaradi cepilne politike...Superduper zdravi in odporni komaj preživijo napad kovida.
Nezdravo živeči z visokim pritiskom, najmanj dve pridružene bolezni, plus slabo srce s spodbujevalnikom, pa zaradi kovida samo dvakrat smrknejo iz nosa.
 
  • Všeč mi je
Reactions: darjan

AndY1

Rusofil
Osebje foruma
18. sep 2007
18.464
2.003
113

It cannot yet be stated that Shi did or did not generate SARS2 in her lab because her records have been sealed, but it seems she was certainly on the right track to have done so. “It is clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was systematically constructing novel chimeric coronaviruses and was assessing their ability to infect human cells and human-ACE2-expressing mice,” says Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and leading expert on biosafety.

“It is also clear,” Ebright said, “that, depending on the constant genomic contexts chosen for analysis, this work could have produced SARS-CoV-2 or a proximal progenitor of SARS-CoV-2.” “Genomic context” refers to the particular viral backbone used as the testbed for the spike protein.

The lab escape scenario for the origin of the SARS2 virus, as should by now be evident, is not mere hand-waving in the direction of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is a detailed proposal, based on the specific project being funded there by the NIAID.
One reason for SARS1 being so hard to handle is that there were no vaccines available to protect laboratory workers. As Daszak mentioned in the December 19 interview quoted above, the Wuhan researchers too had been unable to develop vaccines against the coronaviruses they had designed to infect human cells. They would have been as defenseless against the SARS2 virus, if it were generated in their lab, as their Beijing colleagues were against SARS1.

A second reason for the severe danger of novel coronaviruses has to do with the required levels of lab safety. There are four degrees of safety, designated BSL1 to BSL4, with BSL4 being the most restrictive and designed for deadly pathogens like the Ebola virus.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology had a new BSL4 lab, but its state of readiness considerably alarmed the State Department inspectors who visited it from the Beijing embassy in 2018. “The new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory,” the inspectors wrote in a cable of January 19, 2018.
In the case of SARS1, researchers have documented the successive changes in its spike protein as the virus evolved step by step into a dangerous pathogen. After it had gotten from bats into civets, there were six further changes in its spike protein before it became a mild pathogen in people. After a further 14 changes, the virus was much better adapted to humans, and with a further four, the epidemic took off.

But when you look for the fingerprints of a similar transition in SARS2, a strange surprise awaits. The virus has changed hardly at all, at least until recently. From its very first appearance, it was well adapted to human cells. Researchers led by Alina Chan of the Broad Institute compared SARS2 with late stage SARS1, which by then was well adapted to human cells, and found that the two viruses were similarly well adapted. “By the time SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV,” they wrote.
It’s documented that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were doing gain-of-function experiments designed to make coronaviruses infect human cells and humanized mice. This is exactly the kind of experiment from which a SARS2-like virus could have emerged. The researchers were not vaccinated against the viruses under study, and they were working in the minimal safety conditions of a BSL2 laboratory. So escape of a virus would not be at all surprising. In all of China, the pandemic broke out on the doorstep of the Wuhan institute. The virus was already well adapted to humans, as expected for a virus grown in humanized mice. It possessed an unusual enhancement, a furin cleavage site, which is not possessed by any other known SARS-related beta-coronavirus, and this site included a double arginine codon also unknown among beta-coronaviruses. What more evidence could you want, aside from the presently unobtainable lab records documenting SARS2’s creation?
Proponents of natural emergence have a rather harder story to tell. The plausibility of their case rests on a single surmise, the expected parallel between the emergence of SARS2 and that of SARS1 and MERS. But none of the evidence expected in support of such a parallel history has yet emerged. No one has found the bat population that was the source of SARS2, if indeed it ever infected bats. No intermediate host has presented itself, despite an intensive search by Chinese authorities that included the testing of 80,000 animals. There is no evidence of the virus making multiple independent jumps from its intermediate host to people, as both the SARS1 and MERS viruses did. There is no evidence from hospital surveillance records of the epidemic gathering strength in the population as the virus evolved. There is no explanation of why a natural epidemic should break out in Wuhan and nowhere else. There is no good explanation of how the virus acquired its furin cleavage site, which no other SARS-related beta-coronavirus possesses, nor why the site is composed of human-preferred codons. The natural emergence theory battles a bristling array of implausibilities.
Virologists knew better than anyone the dangers of gain-of-function research. But the power to create new viruses, and the research funding obtainable by doing so, was too tempting. They pushed ahead with gain-of-function experiments. They lobbied against the moratorium imposed on Federal funding for gain-of-function research in 2014, and it was raised in 2017.

The benefits of the research in preventing future epidemics have so far been nil, the risks vast. If research on the SARS1 and MERS viruses could only be done at the BSL3 safety level, it was surely illogical to allow any work with novel coronaviruses at the lesser level of BSL2. Whether or not SARS2 escaped from a lab, virologists around the world have been playing with fire.
The US role in funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology. From June 2014 to May 2019, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance had a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, to do gain-of-function research with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Whether or not SARS2 is the product of that research, it seems a questionable policy to farm out high-risk research to unsafe foreign labs using minimal safety precautions. And if the SARS2 virus did indeed escape from the Wuhan institute, then the NIH will find itself in the terrible position of having funded a disastrous experiment that led to death of more than 3 million worldwide, including more than half a million of its own citizens.

The responsibility of the NIAID and NIH is even more acute because for the first three years of the grant to EcoHealth Alliance, there was a moratorium on funding gain-of-function research. Why didn’t the two agencies therefore halt the federal funding, as apparently required to do so by law? Because someone wrote a loophole into the moratorium.
 
Nazadnje urejeno:

AndY1

Rusofil
Osebje foruma
18. sep 2007
18.464
2.003
113
Acknowledgements

The first person to take a serious look at the origins of the SARS2 virus was Yuri Deigin, a biotech entrepreneur in Russia and Canada. In a long and brilliant essay, he dissected the molecular biology of the SARS2 virus and raised, without endorsing, the possibility that it had been manipulated. The essay, published on April 22, 2020, provided a roadmap for anyone seeking to understand the virus’s origins. Deigin packed so much information and analysis into his essay that some have doubted it could be the work of a single individual and suggested some intelligence agency must have authored it. But the essay is written with greater lightness and humor than I suspect are ever found in CIA or KGB reports, and I see no reason to doubt that Deigin is its very capable sole author.

In Deigin’s wake have followed several other skeptics of the virologists’ orthodoxy. Nikolai Petrovsky calculated how tightly the SARS2 virus binds to the ACE2 receptors of various species and found to his surprise that it seemed optimized for the human receptor, leading him to infer the virus might have been generated in a laboratory. Alina Chan published a paper showing that SARS2 from its first appearance was very well adapted to human cells.

One of the very few establishment scientists to have questioned the virologists’ absolute rejection of lab escape is Richard Ebright, who has long warned against the dangers of gain-of-function research. Another is David A. Relman of Stanford University. “Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts,” he wrote. Kudos too to Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who told CNN on March 26, 2021 that the “most likely” cause of the epidemic was “from a laboratory,” because he doubted that a bat virus could become an extreme human pathogen overnight, without taking time to evolve, as seemed to be the case with SARS2.

Steven Quay, a physician-researcher, has applied statistical and bioinformatic tools to ingenious explorations of the virus’s origin, showing for instance how the hospitals receiving the early patients are clustered along the Wuhan №2 subway line which connects the Institute of Virology at one end with the international airport at the other, the perfect conveyor belt for distributing the virus from lab to globe.

In June 2020 Milton Leitenberg published an early survey of the evidence favoring lab escape from gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
 

darjan

Vulkanizer
13. sep 2007
39.312
1.263
113
Sprejeli smo? Brez razlage o virusu, na nesmiselne ukrepe, na prisilno cepljenje....pristalo smo na vse - ker tako "mora biti".

Ovce.
 

dejan_

Majstr
23. maj 2012
1.406
379
83
To že zjutraj je brihtol s ta´velko žlico. Potem pa seka cel dan. Kot da bi se zjutraj pasulja najedel, pa bi cel dan prdel.

Sej efekt je zelo podoben...
 
  • Všeč mi je
Reactions: McGiver