CLAIM 2019 novel coronavirus contains "pShuttle-SN" sequence proving laboratory origin VERDICT SOURCE: Alex Jones, Mike Adams, Infowars, Natural News, 2 Feb. 2020 DETAILS Inaccurate: A comparison of the nucleic acid sequence of the 2019 novel coronavirus with pShuttle-SN reveals that the 2019-nCoV genome does not contain a pShuttle-SN sequence as claimed. KEY TAKE AWAY The pShuttle-SN vector was designed by researchers seeking to develop a potential SARS vaccine. However, the 2019 novel coronavirus does not contain a sequence from the pShuttle-SN vector as claimed. There is no evidence supporting the claim that 2019-nCoV is man-made.
SUMMARY The article containing this claim was published in early February 2020 and went viral on Facebook within days, receiving more than 23,000 interactions and 900,000 views on Facebook. Published by InfoWars, it states that the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is man-made and that this is proven by the presence of a “pShuttle-SN” sequence in the viral genome. Identical or similar claims have been repeated in outlets such as Natural News and The HighWire.The claim is based on another article published on 30 January 2020 and authored by James Lyons-Weiler who formerly worked at the University of Pittsburgh as a bioinformatician. Lyons-Weiler claimed that a gene sequence in the 2019-nCoV genome, which he named INS1378, is similar to part of the sequence of the pShuttle-SN expression vector. pShuttle-SN was created in a laboratory as part of an effort to produce a potential SARS vaccine[1]. Based on this observation, he posited that 2019-nCoV was a man-made virus that arose from the SARS vaccine experiments. Experts who examined Lyons-Weiler’s hypothesis found it to be scientifically unsound. , a virologist and senior research fellow at Duke-NUS Medical School, pointed out that the similarity between INS1378 and pShuttle-SN is actually low, with only a 67% match between the DNA sequences. Lyons-Weiler acknowledged this finding in his article, but InfoWars and other outlets did not. In fact, conducting a multiple sequence alignment of INS1378 against all sequences in the National Center for Biotechnology Information database demonstrates that INS1378 has a much higher similarity to bat coronaviruses than to pShuttle-SN, which does not even appear in the list of 100 closest matches. This result thereby refutes Lyons-Weiler’s suggestion that the “unique sequence” in 2019-nCoV is more strongly related to pShuttle-SN than to other coronaviruses. The screenshot below shows the results of the multiple sequence alignment, which lists the first 30 most similar sequences to INS1378. Steven Salzburg, a computational biologist and professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, highlighted that “the two aligned sequences are distantly related, but this would argue against [Lyons-Weiler’s] claim. If the insert came from a commercial vector, it would be near-identical.” In short, Lyons-Weiler’s analysis does not support his claim that 2019-nCoV is a laboratory-engineered virus or that the virus is linked to a SARS vaccine. Inaccurate interpretation of his analysis by InfoWars and other outlets have further compounded the scientific errors, resulting in an inaccurate and highly misleading report. SCIENTISTS’ FEEDBACK Aaron T. Irving, Senior Research Fellow, Duke-NUS Medical School: The original blog post by James Lyons-Weiler lists 4 options for how 2019-nCoV originated. He rejects options 1 and 2 [which state that 2019-nCoV arose naturally] as he is not an expert in virus evolution and so disregards the valid science. Option 3 is kind of crazy and completely irrelevant; SARS and 2019-nCoV are only BSL3 pathogens so it doesn’t even matter if Wuhan has a BSL-4 lab.Lyons-Weiler suggests option 4 to be most likely. Option 4 shows that the “INS1378” insert in 2019-nCoV has homology to pShuttle-SN, a vector used in an attempt to create a SARS vaccine. This is normal and expected, since it is based on SARS-CoV. He even states himself there is “low sequence homology” with only a 67% match (for this insert) at the nucleic acid level (as shown in the screenshots). He also looks at a partial protein sequence from this insert where there is only a “62% identity” to SARS-CoV and a “70% identity” to a bat SARS-like virus. Alex Jones of InfoWars incorrectly interpreted the “92% query cover” as homology when in fact it means only 92% matched (at 62% homology) and 8% of this protein chunk has no match at all. They claim this as a statement from Lyons-Weiler when it is actually their own poor reporting. Indeed, when you perform BLAST on the insert as provided in Lyons-Weiler’s link—and “blast” it against everything in the NCBI database (with dissimilar/low homology options included), the pShuttle-SN result is not even in the top 100 results (limit of BLAST results) due to the really low homology. There is no other mention of any of the other 100 results which include bat SARS-like viruses and SARS itself, all more homologous then the vaccine attempt. This is just another example of poor science and people showing only part of the result, possibly to suit their own agenda. READ MORE Lyons-Weiler’s analysis has also been criticized by other experts in this article by FactCheck.org and another article by Science-Based Medicine. We reviewed a similar claim regarding “HIV insertions” in 2019-nCoV, which was also found to be inaccurate. Several competing hypotheses have been proposed to explain where the novel coronavirus actually came from. Health Feedback investigated the three most widespread origin stories for the novel coronavirus (engineered, lab-leak or natural infection), and examined the evidence for or against each proposed hypothesis in this Insight article. REFERENCES 1 – Liu et al. (2005) Adenoviral expression of a truncated S1 subunit of SARS-CoV spike protein results in specific humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV in rats. Virus Research.
7/10的消息，有科学家经过实验研究指出，RaTG13 has severe defects（就差说“这个是捏造的”了，但这么说了。可能文章就发不出来了。） 石正丽说RaTG13是从云南马蹄蝠身上分离出来的，那逻辑上至少这个病毒应该能感染马蹄蝠。但是，有科学家用马蹄蝠做了实验，这个RaTG13的S蛋白（RBD），就是S蛋白最重要的部分，和马蹄蝠的ACE2没有结合能力。也就是说，RaTg13无法感染宿主马蹄蝠。 关于穿山甲是中间宿主的说法，就是说马蹄蝠------穿山甲------人。研究说，新冠病毒S蛋白RBD结合人体ACE-2能力10倍于穿山甲ACE-2，换句话说，中间宿主穿山甲也大概率是捏造的。因为当时时间紧迫，需要抛出一个病毒来自圆其说，所以无法顾全这些细节了。 研究的正文链接在这里，可以翻译成中文看，英文版可以PDF下载。 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.178459v1.full （这些都是outsider在不知内情的情况下做的研究和论断，只能参考。最终还是要听闫丽梦博士的说法。我只是搬运信息分享给大家。）
照个相
这种东西都敢张嘴就黑，不知道兜里揣了多少张五毛。
就因为都5百万了才要骂人啊，这都想不明白还推理呢
武汉病毒整体和舟山病毒算最接近，大约89.12%相似度，可是最令人惊异的是，两者E蛋白绝对完全相符，共有75个氨基酸：mysfvseetg tlivnsvllf lafvvfllvt lailtalrlc ayccnivnvs lvkpsfyvys rvknlnssrv pdllv
单独拿出S蛋白比较，武汉病毒和舟山病毒仅81%的相似度。更重要的是，中间有四小段插入片段是武汉病毒的S蛋白有而舟山病毒S蛋白没有的。
更加令人惊奇的是，比较武汉病毒和舟山病毒的核酸，发现有一大段是舟山病毒没有而武汉病毒被插进去的（21697-23074，长度1378）
最令人吃惊的是，用BLAST搜索这段1378长度的插入核酸，一无所获，找不到天然类似的来源。可是它有一个来源，就是中国科学家在1980年代做的pShuttle-SN，核酸编号为AY862402。这强烈暗示这个核酸是舟山病毒人工插入一段1378长度的核酸制造的，插入片段包含了pShuttle-SN的部分结构。
最后，从微生物演化树的角度来说，武汉病毒也非常可疑：
注意亮点，所有分叉都可以几乎100%溯源，知道蛋白或核酸的序列来自哪个祖先，可是武汉病毒分叉的溯源率仅76%，有24%的东西讲不清楚来自哪里，这是来自人工拼接的重大嫌疑。
“以上种种证据，强烈证明武汉病毒是刻意人工制造的高传染性的大规模毁灭性生化武器”（原文）。
以上是原作者的推论，不是闫博士讲的，但好像很有道理的样子。不同意的，请去文学城找原作者算帐，不要找我啊，我只是搬运一下信息
之前一直觉得是自然采集来失误泄露的 如果是人造的也同样有可能意外泄露吧
能人工合成的东西，大自然也能产生出来？
你倒是说说看大自然什么时候会产生塑料啊？
洗地啊？
早晚把罪魁祸首送去远东军事法庭审判，反人类罪这是。
不光是你担心，北京不都开始宣传布置怎么躲导弹核弹之类的了嘛。
都是前几个月的阴谋论，都被学界唾弃的东西，又翻出来了。
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/2019-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-does-not-contain-pshuttle-sn-sequence-no-evidence-that-virus-is-man-made/
2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) does not contain “pShuttle-SN” sequence; no evidence that virus is man-made 1.3k SHARES ShareTweet
CLAIM 2019 novel coronavirus contains "pShuttle-SN" sequence proving laboratory origin VERDICT
SOURCE: Alex Jones, Mike Adams, Infowars, Natural News, 2 Feb. 2020 DETAILS Inaccurate: A comparison of the nucleic acid sequence of the 2019 novel coronavirus with pShuttle-SN reveals that the 2019-nCoV genome does not contain a pShuttle-SN sequence as claimed. KEY TAKE AWAY
The pShuttle-SN vector was designed by researchers seeking to develop a potential SARS vaccine. However, the 2019 novel coronavirus does not contain a sequence from the pShuttle-SN vector as claimed. There is no evidence supporting the claim that 2019-nCoV is man-made.
SUMMARY
The article containing this claim was published in early February 2020 and went viral on Facebook within days, receiving more than 23,000 interactions and 900,000 views on Facebook. Published by InfoWars, it states that the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is man-made and that this is proven by the presence of a “pShuttle-SN” sequence in the viral genome. Identical or similar claims have been repeated in outlets such as Natural News and The HighWire.The claim is based on another article published on 30 January 2020 and authored by James Lyons-Weiler who formerly worked at the University of Pittsburgh as a bioinformatician. Lyons-Weiler claimed that a gene sequence in the 2019-nCoV genome, which he named INS1378, is similar to part of the sequence of the pShuttle-SN expression vector. pShuttle-SN was created in a laboratory as part of an effort to produce a potential SARS vaccine[1]. Based on this observation, he posited that 2019-nCoV was a man-made virus that arose from the SARS vaccine experiments. Experts who examined Lyons-Weiler’s hypothesis found it to be scientifically unsound. , a virologist and senior research fellow at Duke-NUS Medical School, pointed out that the similarity between INS1378 and pShuttle-SN is actually low, with only a 67% match between the DNA sequences. Lyons-Weiler acknowledged this finding in his article, but InfoWars and other outlets did not. In fact, conducting a multiple sequence alignment of INS1378 against all sequences in the National Center for Biotechnology Information database demonstrates that INS1378 has a much higher similarity to bat coronaviruses than to pShuttle-SN, which does not even appear in the list of 100 closest matches. This result thereby refutes Lyons-Weiler’s suggestion that the “unique sequence” in 2019-nCoV is more strongly related to pShuttle-SN than to other coronaviruses. The screenshot below shows the results of the multiple sequence alignment, which lists the first 30 most similar sequences to INS1378.
Aaron T. Irving, Senior Research Fellow, Duke-NUS Medical School: The original blog post by James Lyons-Weiler lists 4 options for how 2019-nCoV originated. He rejects options 1 and 2 [which state that 2019-nCoV arose naturally] as he is not an expert in virus evolution and so disregards the valid science. Option 3 is kind of crazy and completely irrelevant; SARS and 2019-nCoV are only BSL3 pathogens so it doesn’t even matter if Wuhan has a BSL-4 lab.Lyons-Weiler suggests option 4 to be most likely. Option 4 shows that the “INS1378” insert in 2019-nCoV has homology to pShuttle-SN, a vector used in an attempt to create a SARS vaccine. This is normal and expected, since it is based on SARS-CoV. He even states himself there is “low sequence homology” with only a 67% match (for this insert) at the nucleic acid level (as shown in the screenshots). He also looks at a partial protein sequence from this insert where there is only a “62% identity” to SARS-CoV and a “70% identity” to a bat SARS-like virus. Alex Jones of InfoWars incorrectly interpreted the “92% query cover” as homology when in fact it means only 92% matched (at 62% homology) and 8% of this protein chunk has no match at all. They claim this as a statement from Lyons-Weiler when it is actually their own poor reporting. Indeed, when you perform BLAST on the insert as provided in Lyons-Weiler’s link—and “blast” it against everything in the NCBI database (with dissimilar/low homology options included), the pShuttle-SN result is not even in the top 100 results (limit of BLAST results) due to the really low homology. There is no other mention of any of the other 100 results which include bat SARS-like viruses and SARS itself, all more homologous then the vaccine attempt. This is just another example of poor science and people showing only part of the result, possibly to suit their own agenda. READ MORE Lyons-Weiler’s analysis has also been criticized by other experts in this article by FactCheck.org and another article by Science-Based Medicine. We reviewed a similar claim regarding “HIV insertions” in 2019-nCoV, which was also found to be inaccurate. Several competing hypotheses have been proposed to explain where the novel coronavirus actually came from. Health Feedback investigated the three most widespread origin stories for the novel coronavirus (engineered, lab-leak or natural infection), and examined the evidence for or against each proposed hypothesis in this Insight article. REFERENCES 1 – Liu et al. (2005) Adenoviral expression of a truncated S1 subunit of SARS-CoV spike protein results in specific humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV in rats. Virus Research.
狗急跳墙，气急败坏了哦
支持闫博士!
强帖，留个记号
不是二百斤已经认为自己是世界第一了！你不怕你国内的家人因为你说反动违反二百斤的话被抓啊！低调低调
又来这种胡搅蛮缠没有任何意义的废话了
不是说的你自己说的！你二百斤思想没好好学习啊
你的语文是体育老师教的啊
一些科学家说从自然来的，要拿出证据，从哪个动物来的，自然中有和新冠一样的基因组么，蝙蝠、穿山甲、还是三文鱼
有计划有步骤的病毒生物战
今天刚注册的新号，喷的还挺熟练，就是名字起的太不走心了，不值2毛
制造病毒的不是你的祖国，是共产党。
闫博士和她们实验室的同事做的仓鼠实验（3月发表在Nature上）显示，在老鼠身上，这个病毒没有引起死亡，其他动物也是这样。这很可能是释放病毒的人相信”可防可控”的原因。
不是说RaTG13的相似度是96%，而舟山病毒ZC45，ZXC的相似度88%
为啥说更像舟山病毒呢？
说人工能合成，大自然也能合成的那个层主真的是智商有问题
学术届目前对新冠病毒来自于自然的推测都是基于RaTG13真实存在于自然界。但如果RaTG13不存在，那推论就不成立了。 RaTG13是石正利在闫博士爆料之后一天紧急投稿发表的，号称是她在七年前发现的病毒。这个发表有诸多不合常理之处，严重怀疑为假造。同时，石正利本人也承认她并不真实掌握含有RaTG13的这个病毒样本。
屁民们的命不是命，似蝼蚁
同感，大赞有这个勇气爆料出来，真是英雄
提供黄金蓝的服务，中国说第二，绝对没人敢说第一啊。
反正2020年是大开眼界的一年，各种信息横飞，各种利益集团在背后作祟，本来也许是很简单的信息，通过层层利害链，变得扑朔迷离
如果WHO、柳叶刀和盖茨都做了中共的打手，一个简单的医学事实想要“早有定论”，可能会变得很难
闫博士没有说只有高层在用，说的是高层在吃这个药预防。
这到也说得通
有没有发表文章确实疗效现在不敢说，因为正反方的各有一篇文章被撤稿，美国现在在做大规模（几万）的临床实验结果会出来的，基于我看到的一些表象很有可能有治疗效果；好奇的是为啥能预防？怎么预防。除了疫苗，现在那种药能预防流感了，她真的是这个意思的话，不象做过博士后的专业人员
这件事必定会秋后算账!!!
那你解释下为什么中国官媒大力宣传羟氯喹没用？
医生会给immune compromised的病人在流感季开tamiflu预防流感，比如家里有免疫缺陷的病人，家里其他人得了流感，医生会给开tamiflu给免疫缺陷的病人预防用
tamiflu的作用也是褒贬不一，从我的经验来看是吃的早才有用（症状后48小时），这点倒是和羟氯喹挺像的
所以外宣，包括华人某些爱地，前一段时间的某策略是要和你讲科学。
不用和我讲了，要讲就闫博讲吧。闫博士说了，要谈科学，就来谈科学。
柳叶刀啊，还有那些所谓的科学家啊，包括那个突然从香港莫名隐退的闫博士的老板，马力克，包括那个当年出SARS论文的福奇博，蝙蝠石女，是你们站出来的时候了，有本事在媒体上，象刘欣一样约个炮，正面杠一杠闫博。
我真是很想听听挺这些科学家怎么辩驳啊。。。。别让闫博泼了你们脏水啊。。。
说”来自于自然”很容易，错了也没责任，但敢于宣布是”人造病毒”，这个学者是拿自己的全部声誉和学术前途做赌注，会被指责”阴谋论”，受到各方面的压力。 当然也有极少数人有勇气说出是”实验室来源”，比如美国一个姓康的华人生物基因学教授，用中英文写了从基因角度质疑”动物来源”的文章发在个人主页上。但这样的论文是不会被医学期刊接受的，因为这些期刊只发”病毒来自于自然”的文章。比如《柳叶刀》，它只会发”羟氯喹无效” ”全世界应该感谢中国” ”不要选川普”，任何与之不同的立场都被审查去除了。
老传统了，打延安那会儿就是这样，给外国专家外国友人配女伴。
期待那些讲科学的出来
我这个跟帖，就是想说，在美国的普通科学家，在中国受到从未享有过的优待，是个人都会产生喜悦感，亲近感，。。。
我当年的印度裔老板，去了一趟北京开大会，因为不了解，去之前很担心，还和我问东问西。我当时深粉，那时国内也确实政治清明，经济腾飞，我和他介绍一堆中国的好，年轻人都说英语，会有人热心帮助你的。
老板回来以后，大赞中国之余，特意提到会上驻组的一个女孩，把老板招待的心花怒放，回来就和我说，我们几个教授很喜欢她，商量着说把她招到美国来读博士。。。。
新出的政策是把土共和人民分开啊。
当然国内的高官说和人民血肉相连了，他们怕分开。劫匪没有人质挡前头，会被一枪爆头的。
谁会相信奶厂会在奶粉里故意加有剧毒的三聚氰胺害婴儿？ 但是往牛奶里加氮肥，高温后产生三聚氰胺这个化学知识，普通人的科学知识，能分析出来吗？
这样的国度，在一锅锅肺炎一号的大药汤子里，晾凉了，加点羟氯喹不是一个很容易的事情吗，反正什么都不用公开的，。
再说了，现在人数少，物理隔离比服药更好控制疫情，也就不用公开宣传这个药了。被美帝知道了，该抄袭我们了。
滚回你的监室去，别在这满嘴喷粪。
我们美国有监室么？你翻墙的吧？
南方人吧 attention不是attension
7/10的消息，有科学家经过实验研究指出，RaTG13 has severe defects（就差说“这个是捏造的”了，但这么说了。可能文章就发不出来了。）
石正丽说RaTG13是从云南马蹄蝠身上分离出来的，那逻辑上至少这个病毒应该能感染马蹄蝠。但是，有科学家用马蹄蝠做了实验，这个RaTG13的S蛋白（RBD），就是S蛋白最重要的部分，和马蹄蝠的ACE2没有结合能力。也就是说，RaTg13无法感染宿主马蹄蝠。
关于穿山甲是中间宿主的说法，就是说马蹄蝠------穿山甲------人。研究说，新冠病毒S蛋白RBD结合人体ACE-2能力10倍于穿山甲ACE-2，换句话说，中间宿主穿山甲也大概率是捏造的。因为当时时间紧迫，需要抛出一个病毒来自圆其说，所以无法顾全这些细节了。
研究的正文链接在这里，可以翻译成中文看，英文版可以PDF下载。 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.178459v1.full
（这些都是outsider在不知内情的情况下做的研究和论断，只能参考。最终还是要听闫丽梦博士的说法。我只是搬运信息分享给大家。）
你又是什么鬼
谎言被抽丝剥茧 真相越来越近
她条理非常清楚，而且很自信，我倾向80%相信她说的是真的，相信后面会有更多实锤，不要怪人家为什么不一下子放全料，人家也要保护自己，估计会不会她也在和美国政府谈条件，达到什么条件她才能把多重的料放出来，免得全放完自己也被暗杀了。
在一个实验室里不当最高级别管理层，知道什么？ 当个普通职员能知道公司机密啊
attension是不是shushi哥的马甲，哈哈
你除了会给别人扣帽子还能干啥，就这两把刷子啊
她丈夫现在在哪里啊
科学界本身没有保密协议一说。P3，P4是病毒的security级别，不是课题的security级别。比如闫博士说疫苗研究和军事病毒研究，从课题的方向上看，一个是保护人类，一个是武器开发。前者是绝大多数的病毒学家在做，后者极少数的军事病毒学家在做。然而两者从技术角度上讲没有差别，有的只是redline。
闫博士的丈夫告诉她的，只是验证了她的推测，知道这个病毒存在有redline，但是她和我们一样，她的所在病毒所也和我们一样，也许和发下毒誓的石正丽也一样，他们都知道有redline，但他们也许永远都不会有redline里面的真凭实据。
病毒专家绝大多数都判断为非人造，但是部分华人就是不死心，连全世界的病毒科学家都被中国收买了这样的话都能说出来，真是醉了
第一： 1月份第一次上传基因序列是错误的。过两天泰国出病例了才换了真的。 证据：她丈夫告诉她的，过两天换掉了。 这个应该是确定的，换没换一查就知道。但是很难说第一次就是故意的。
第二： 根据后来的基因序列追到蝙蝠身上，但是不是自然生成，还是在SARS基础上又增加了新的毒性。 证据：没有提供，但是有很多报道提到蝙蝠 这个应该是最直接的生化武器指控，可惜没有提出证据，学生物的人也很多，应该有学界共识才对。