EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

Smoking Gun: NIH Was Funding Research In China Into Producin

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Smoking Gun: NIH Was Funding Research In China Into Producin

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:45 am   



On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:22:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Quote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 1:50:47 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 11:27:11 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 10:38:21 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 05:25:30 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

snip

C19 could be natural. All the previous centuries of colds and flu
were. We get colds and flu every winter.

Not likely to be natural, it's too optimized for human infection.

Natural selection is perfectly natural, and any virus that show up in humans is selected for it's capacity to infect more human, which does means that when you run into one that has infected a lot of humans, it's going to look optimised for the job.

What's special about Covid-19 that has suggested - to anybody who knows what they are talking about - that it's had the benefit of intelligent design by humans?

Fred Bloggs clearly doesn't know what he is talking about, so hi opinion doesn't count.


So says Sloman who has been wrong about every last aspect of this whole fiasco since day one. His ignorance and errors are too numerous to list.
Apparently the imbecile is ignorant of the fact that lab techniques exist to make virus transmissibility much worse just using animals. No genetic engineering necessary.
Dunno why opinion should count, but NIH just last week summarily zeroed the funding for all of the virus work being done in China, no explanation given.


Quote:

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Bill Sloman
Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:45 am   



On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 2:20:43 AM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
Quote:
On 2020/04/29 9:11 a.m., dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 10:53:25 AM UTC-4, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 29.04.20 um 16:38 schrieb jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com:


What Republican administration do you blame for inventing the 1918 flu
virus?

Do you mean the Kansas flu that was renamed Spanish to rewrite history?
That was not only not contained by the US but actively exported
with troop transporters full of ill GIs?

Gerhard

If you European kids would just learn to get along, we wouldn't have
to come over so often! <grin

Fair Warning: Next time we intend to bring 'light beer'.

Cheers,
James Arthur


Ah, you guys just came over after the Canadians did all the hard work
and showed you the way...


Our house in Nijmegen was occupied by Canadian officers in late 1944 and and early 1945 before the allies pushed on over the Rhine. The Americans had parachuted into Groesbeek a bit earlier, but the Canadians got stuck with job of patrolling the area after the front stabilised. The convent across the road from the house became a military hospital, and there was a temporary military cemetery next door to our house for the patients that didn't make it. The bodies got dug up after the war and consolidated into one big military cemetery on the other side of Nijmegen.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bill Sloman
Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:45 am   



On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 2:30:26 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:11:22 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 10:53:25 AM UTC-4, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 29.04.20 um 16:38 schrieb jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com:


What Republican administration do you blame for inventing the 1918 flu
virus?

Do you mean the Kansas flu that was renamed Spanish to rewrite history?
That was not only not contained by the US but actively exported
with troop transporters full of ill GIs?

Gerhard

If you European kids would just learn to get along, we wouldn't have
to come over so often! <grin

Fair Warning: Next time we intend to bring 'light beer'.

Threaten them with parachute drops of Bud Light and they won't dare
start another war.


That would constitute chemical warfare. Bashar al-Assad and Saddam Hussein seem to have indulged in that. Donald Trump might be civilised enough to decide that it wouldn't be a good idea, but his veneer of civilisation is remarkably thin.

--
Bill Sloman, sydney

Bill Sloman
Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:45 am   



On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 6:40:20 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:52:43 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold_at_gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 11:27:11 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 10:38:21 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 05:25:30 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

It's called gain-of-function research. And they apparently succeeded in making a real doozy.

The Obama administration halted funding for the research deemed too dangerous in 2014.

"Nevertheless, in 2014, under pressure from the Obama administration, the National of Institutes of Health instituted a moratorium on the work, suspending 21 studies."

Then the geniuses in the Trump administration, ignoring top scientific advice as usual, resumed funding for the research in 2017:

"Three years later, though?n December 2017?he NIH ended the moratorium and the second phase of the NIAID project, which included the gain-of-function research, began."

Coincidence? Only a fool would believe the SARS-Cov-2 was a natural occurrence.

https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741?amp=1

What Republican administration do you blame for inventing the 1918 flu
virus?

NIH is supposed to be researching cures for disease, and not creating new ones.


Virus research might be dangerous. But the alternative is to let colds
and flu kill millions of people every year forever.

All we can do is try to place smart bets, and play the game out.

C19 could be natural. All the previous centuries of colds and flu
were. We get colds and flu every winter.
Government's are going to research viruses, for the same reason they
are throwing money at quantum computing. If they don't do it,
the other guy will and you get behind.

There's no nationalistic advantage to researching viruses. Whatever we
learn will be shared with the world.


The US does seem to be hogging a lot of the consequences of Covid-19 at the moment. It's got 27% of the international casualties so far (61,618 out of 227,906), and is forging head of the rest of the field.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

whit3rd
Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:45 am   



On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:49:16 AM UTC-7, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

> NIH is supposed to be researching cures for disease, and not creating new ones.

Studying a disease before curing it IS proper research.

The first disease ever identified with a culturable microbe was anthrax. It was
studiied in its full life cycle, BEFORE we knew how to cure it, and it made a LOT
of public-health difference that this was done, because many of the preventive
measures in place at the time (burying diseased carcases) were
ineffective. Burial in cold climates just preserved the spores.

Part of the life cycle of a virus (over long times) is mutating to evade
immunities among its hosts. It makes sense to study that process.

The various 'escaped from a lab' theories don't make sense for COVID-19, IMHO,
but... apparently an anthrax breakout years back WAS due to a disturbed individual
with lab access. It makes sense, also, to study such disturbed individuals.


Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:45 am   



bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote in
news:92035aec-5539-4f0b-bb28-15b116562c8d_at_googlegroups.com:

You spelled 'smocking' wrong. "smocking gun" -Donald John Trump

Bill Sloman
Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:45 am   



On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 10:24:35 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:22:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 1:50:47 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 11:27:11 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 10:38:21 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 05:25:30 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

snip

C19 could be natural. All the previous centuries of colds and flu
were. We get colds and flu every winter.

Not likely to be natural, it's too optimized for human infection.

Natural selection is perfectly natural, and any virus that show up in humans is selected for it's capacity to infect more human, which does means that when you run into one that has infected a lot of humans, it's going to look optimised for the job.

What's special about Covid-19 that has suggested - to anybody who knows what they are talking about - that it's had the benefit of intelligent design by humans?

Fred Bloggs clearly doesn't know what he is talking about, so hi opinion doesn't count.

So says Sloman who has been wrong about every last aspect of this whole fiasco since day one. His ignorance and errors are too numerous to list.


Whereas I have cited a few points where Fred Bloggs has made claims that illustrate that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

He claimed that the corona virus spike protein doesn't mutate - when it does, but is clearly conserved by the fact that any significant change stops it working and kills off that strain of the virus. One can follow his thinking, but the fact that he can't see that he went wrong in very revealing way means that his opinion really can't be taken seriously.

<snipped Fred being even more stupid than usual>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Tom Del Rosso
Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:45 am   



John Larkin wrote:
Quote:

There's no nationalistic advantage to researching viruses. Whatever we
learn will be shared with the world.


We would but China wouldn't. Some in this thread have said that the
Trump administration restarted the research, but actually it was a
Chinese scientist who went back to China and resumed it. They obviously
created it a lab and had an accident.

Ricky C
Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:45 am   



On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 10:36:18 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Quote:
John Larkin wrote:

There's no nationalistic advantage to researching viruses. Whatever we
learn will be shared with the world.

We would but China wouldn't. Some in this thread have said that the
Trump administration restarted the research, but actually it was a
Chinese scientist who went back to China and resumed it. They obviously
created it a lab and had an accident.


Why is that "obvious"? I've seen no reasonable evidence to support that idea, much less compelling evidence.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209


Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:45 pm   



On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Quote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 10:24:35 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:22:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 1:50:47 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail..com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 11:27:11 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 10:38:21 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 05:25:30 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

snip

C19 could be natural. All the previous centuries of colds and flu
were. We get colds and flu every winter.

Not likely to be natural, it's too optimized for human infection.

Natural selection is perfectly natural, and any virus that show up in humans is selected for it's capacity to infect more human, which does means that when you run into one that has infected a lot of humans, it's going to look optimised for the job.

What's special about Covid-19 that has suggested - to anybody who knows what they are talking about - that it's had the benefit of intelligent design by humans?

Fred Bloggs clearly doesn't know what he is talking about, so hi opinion doesn't count.

So says Sloman who has been wrong about every last aspect of this whole fiasco since day one. His ignorance and errors are too numerous to list.

Whereas I have cited a few points where Fred Bloggs has made claims that illustrate that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

He claimed that the corona virus spike protein doesn't mutate - when it does, but is clearly conserved by the fact that any significant change stops it working and kills off that strain of the virus. One can follow his thinking, but the fact that he can't see that he went wrong in very revealing way means that his opinion really can't be taken seriously.

snipped Fred being even more stupid than usual


Once again you couldn't be more wrong. No one cares about any general description of the spike protein. The people who actually work with this virus, with the aim of actually accomplishing something, have narrowed their focus on the ACE-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. They find the RBD to be "highly conserved," so much so that they were able to identify and observe antibodies produced for one virus working on the other. See antibody CR3022 as one example of an antibody targeting the spike protein of both SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, despite a genetic overlap of just 79% between the two viruses.

Quote:

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney



Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:45 pm   



bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote in news:3b1e86a5-4416-43eb-ba69-
13eb138552c9_at_googlegroups.com:

> See antibody CR3022

We can kill it with a watch battery?

It would make a nice Trump joke except he is way too stupid to know
what a watch battery is / looks like / is called.

Tom Del Rosso
Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:45 pm   



Ricky C wrote:
Quote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 10:36:18 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

There's no nationalistic advantage to researching viruses. Whatever
we learn will be shared with the world.

We would but China wouldn't. Some in this thread have said that the
Trump administration restarted the research, but actually it was a
Chinese scientist who went back to China and resumed it. They
obviously created it a lab and had an accident.

Why is that "obvious"? I've seen no reasonable evidence to support
that idea, much less compelling evidence.


They claimed it came from the market, but bats weren't sold there, and
they sterilized the place before samples of the original strain could be
taken. So they were covering up the fact that it wasn't there.

The lab is near the market.

It come from bats that live 1000 miles away, and they had harvested bat
virus for study.

It has elements of HIV that are not likely to get in it naturally.

Because of this and some other bits and pieces, their actions were
suspicious in ways not consistent with what they did after past
outbreaks.

Bill Sloman
Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:45 pm   



On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 9:04:42 PM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 10:24:35 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:22:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 1:50:47 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 11:27:11 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 10:38:21 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 05:25:30 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

snip

C19 could be natural. All the previous centuries of colds and flu
were. We get colds and flu every winter.

Not likely to be natural, it's too optimized for human infection.

Natural selection is perfectly natural, and any virus that show up in humans is selected for it's capacity to infect more human, which does means that when you run into one that has infected a lot of humans, it's going to look optimised for the job.

What's special about Covid-19 that has suggested - to anybody who knows what they are talking about - that it's had the benefit of intelligent design by humans?

Fred Bloggs clearly doesn't know what he is talking about, so hi opinion doesn't count.

So says Sloman who has been wrong about every last aspect of this whole fiasco since day one. His ignorance and errors are too numerous to list.

Whereas I have cited a few points where Fred Bloggs has made claims that illustrate that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

He claimed that the corona virus spike protein doesn't mutate - when it does, but is clearly conserved by the fact that any significant change stops it working and kills off that strain of the virus. One can follow his thinking, but the fact that he can't see that he went wrong in very revealing way means that his opinion really can't be taken seriously.

snipped Fred being even more stupid than usual

Once again you couldn't be more wrong. No one cares about any general description of the spike protein.


One has to wonder why Fred included that. I was high-lighting the fact that he'd confused "conserved" with "not mutating", and nothing in this post addresses that bizarre oversight.

> The people who actually work with this virus, with the aim of actually accomplishing something, have narrowed their focus on the ACE-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein.

Of course they would. That's the bit that does the work.

> They find the RBD to be "highly conserved," so much so that they were able to identify and observe antibodies produced for one virus working on the other.

That was one of the things that the "sychophantic" PNAS news article was talking about. The vaccine that was being developed against SARS is also active against Covid-19, although the antigen being synthesised should be tweaked to make the antibody evoked one that was slightly more active against Covid-19.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/15/8218.full.pdf

> See antibody CR3022 as one example of an antibody targeting the spike protein of both SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, despite a genetic overlap of just 79% between the two viruses.

The overlap is over the whole 33k length of genome. The interesting question would be the matching between the segment - gene - that coded for the spike protein, and again - as you point out - the receptor binding segment of the spike protein would be crucial. The rest of the protein still has to fold into the right shape to put the receptor binding segment in the right place at the right angle to work for the virus.

The CR3022 antibody is referred to in a 2006 paper

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16796401

It was harvested from a patient who had recovered from SARS so it doesn't seem to be what the PNAS news article was taking about.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bill Sloman
Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:45 pm   



On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 10:47:56 PM UTC+10, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Quote:
Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 10:36:18 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

There's no nationalistic advantage to researching viruses. Whatever
we learn will be shared with the world.

We would but China wouldn't. Some in this thread have said that the
Trump administration restarted the research, but actually it was a
Chinese scientist who went back to China and resumed it. They
obviously created it a lab and had an accident.

Why is that "obvious"? I've seen no reasonable evidence to support
that idea, much less compelling evidence.

They claimed it came from the market, but bats weren't sold there, and
they sterilized the place before samples of the original strain could be
taken. So they were covering up the fact that it wasn't there.


The wet market was implicated in an outbreak of a new and nasty virus disease. About half the early cases were associated with the market. It got sterilised as a public health measure - the Chinese aren't nuts. Imagining that they were "covering up" anything is lunatic comnspiracy theory

The ancestral virus is found in bat that live 1000 miles away, and can't infect humans. It seems likely that the more immediate ancestor of the Covid-19 virus had made the jump to some other species before it made the next step to humans. Pangolins are a possible intermediate host. They couldn't have been legally sold at the Wuhan wet market, but some illegal trade does seem to have gone on.

> The lab is near the market.

But much less likely to let a virus escape.

> It come from bats that live 1000 miles away - not directly - and they had harvested bat virus for study.

Which would only infect bats.

> It has elements of HIV that are not likely to get in it naturally.

It has elements that are similar to elements in HIV. They got into HIV naturally, and could have got into Covid-19 equally naturally.

The grand-standing elderly Nobel Prize winner who got his Nobel Prize for work on the HIV virus is going to see more similarity to HIV than people with other interests.

Quote:
Because of this and some other bits and pieces, their actions were
suspicious in ways not consistent with what they did after past
outbreaks.


After the SARS outbreak they were aware of the risks. Their actions don't look suspicious to rational people, but lots of irrational people are weighing in with some remarkably silly speculations.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:45 pm   



On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Quote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 9:04:42 PM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 10:24:35 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:22:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 1:50:47 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 11:27:11 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 10:38:21 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 05:25:30 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

snip

C19 could be natural. All the previous centuries of colds and flu
were. We get colds and flu every winter.

Not likely to be natural, it's too optimized for human infection.

Natural selection is perfectly natural, and any virus that show up in humans is selected for it's capacity to infect more human, which does means that when you run into one that has infected a lot of humans, it's going to look optimised for the job.

What's special about Covid-19 that has suggested - to anybody who knows what they are talking about - that it's had the benefit of intelligent design by humans?

Fred Bloggs clearly doesn't know what he is talking about, so hi opinion doesn't count.

So says Sloman who has been wrong about every last aspect of this whole fiasco since day one. His ignorance and errors are too numerous to list.

Whereas I have cited a few points where Fred Bloggs has made claims that illustrate that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

He claimed that the corona virus spike protein doesn't mutate - when it does, but is clearly conserved by the fact that any significant change stops it working and kills off that strain of the virus. One can follow his thinking, but the fact that he can't see that he went wrong in very revealing way means that his opinion really can't be taken seriously.

snipped Fred being even more stupid than usual

Once again you couldn't be more wrong. No one cares about any general description of the spike protein.

One has to wonder why Fred included that. I was high-lighting the fact that he'd confused "conserved" with "not mutating", and nothing in this post addresses that bizarre oversight.

The people who actually work with this virus, with the aim of actually accomplishing something, have narrowed their focus on the ACE-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein.

Of course they would. That's the bit that does the work.

They find the RBD to be "highly conserved," so much so that they were able to identify and observe antibodies produced for one virus working on the other.

That was one of the things that the "sychophantic" PNAS news article was talking about. The vaccine that was being developed against SARS is also active against Covid-19, although the antigen being synthesised should be tweaked to make the antibody evoked one that was slightly more active against Covid-19.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/15/8218.full.pdf

See antibody CR3022 as one example of an antibody targeting the spike protein of both SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, despite a genetic overlap of just 79% between the two viruses.

The overlap is over the whole 33k length of genome. The interesting question would be the matching between the segment - gene - that coded for the spike protein, and again - as you point out - the receptor binding segment of the spike protein would be crucial. The rest of the protein still has to fold into the right shape to put the receptor binding segment in the right place at the right angle to work for the virus.

The CR3022 antibody is referred to in a 2006 paper

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16796401

It was harvested from a patient who had recovered from SARS so it doesn't seem to be what the PNAS news article was taking about.


If the RBD folds correctly for binding to ACE-2 then it will fold correctly for the antibody.

This is all good news for vaccines offering immunity not only across near mutations being observed but also across many strains.

It is probably bad news for developing fast antibody testing with any kind of specificity performance that would be useful for purposes of mitigation. This is why Birx recently announced we need a new antibody testing technology.


Quote:


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Smoking Gun: NIH Was Funding Research In China Into Producin

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map