Peer review reduces strength of claims of a wildlife market origin of Covid
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Peer review reduces strength of claims of a wildlife market origin of Covid
#2Here is my evaluation of a recent Science Magazine publication, "The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic".
Re: Peer review reduces strength of claims of a wildlife market origin of Covid
#3Thank you, this gave me a lot to think about.
This feels like a strong claim given the source:
> Medical personnel at hospitals and clinics across the city were informed to only report suspect cases if they were linked to the market. These details have been publicly confirmed (see above)
Source: https://archive.ph/iMQVD
Their sources are:
> Liu Yue ( pseudonym at the request of the interviewee ), director of the emergency department of a tertiary hospital in Wuhan, told reporters that after the New Year's Day holiday, the hospital held a meeting, and the director of the department attended the meeting. The hospital leaders verbally conveyed to them a "reporting standard" for "unknown viral pneumonia"."
> Li Xia ( pseudonym ) , director of the emergency department of another tertiary hospital , also confirmed to reporters that on January 3, the hospital held a similar meeting.
> "The leadership of the hospital requires that this reporting standard can only be communicated through face-to-face, telephone, or WeChat voice." Li Xia said.
This is a strong claim. Is it true? Is there any evidence for this other than two pseudonymous reports?
Re: Peer review reduces strength of claims of a wildlife market origin of Covid
#4No post body was provided.
Re: Peer review reduces strength of claims of a wildlife market origin of Covid
#5No post body was provided.
Re: Peer review reduces strength of claims of a wildlife market origin of Covid
#6The origin story is still under debate? It's been known for 2 years that the Pangolin coronavirus was modified.
Just under 97% of the the Pangolin Coronavirus matches SARS-CoV-2.
What does not match? The Furin Cleavage Site. There are foreign inserts there (that aren't found in any other Coronavirus) which seem to make it more transmissible and deadly.
MSH3 Homology and Potential Recombination Link to SARS-CoV-2 Furin Cleavage Site https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.8348...
The study is a bit technical but a not-as-techincal summary can be found here https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/lab-leak-theory-new-arti...
To summarize, a gene sequence from the Furin Cleavage Site found in SARS-CoV-2 shows up in a Moderna patent from 2016.
Don't take my word for it though, research it for yourself.
Re: Peer review reduces strength of claims of a wildlife market origin of Covid
#7Damned crazy conspiracy theorists! And their nutjob lab leak nonsense!
Oh wait they were right?
Re: Peer review reduces strength of claims of a wildlife market origin of Covid
#8Figure 1A shows 120 cases from 2019 with no known link to the market, yet they cluster about the market. So the allegation of ascertainment bias does not appear to be substantiated.
Further, the criticism of rewording "these analyses provide dispositive evidence" to "these results provide incontrovertible evidence" is bizarre. The term "dispositive" in this context is equivalent to "the last and final word" which in a scientific context was rightfully removed, though it was replaced by a strong assertion.
With these two matters, I did not think the author has sufficient credibility for me to further investigate their claims.
Re: Peer review reduces strength of claims of a wildlife market origin of Covid
#9Figure 1A shows 120 cases from 2019 with no known link to the market, yet they cluster about the market. So the allegation of ascertainment bias does not appear to be substantiated. Further, the criticism of rewording "these analyses provide dispositive evidence" to "these results provide incontrovertible evidence" is bizarre. The term "dispositive" in this context is equivalent to "the last and final word" which in…
Thanks for the feedback.
On the unlinked cases - if you read my medium post, it explains that even the cases with no connections to the market had been identified with ascertainment bias. Local investigators had searched hospitals and the neighborhood near the market for cases even if they had no link to the market.
On your 2nd point, I've clarified that it was not a rewording but a removal of both claims of dispositive and incontrovertible evidence from the preprint. This means that peer review flagged both of these strong assertions in the manuscript and the authors had to remove both of them.
Re: Peer review reduces strength of claims of a wildlife market origin of Covid
#10Thank you, this gave me a lot to think about. This feels like a strong claim given the source: > Medical personnel at hospitals and clinics across the city were informed to only report suspect cases if they were linked to the market. These details have been publicly confirmed (see above) Source: https://archive.ph/iMQVD Their sources are: > Liu Yue ( pseudonym at the request of the interviewee ), director of the emer…
Yes, there is much more evidence. My medium blog also cites the Chinese CDC in early 2020 and the China-WHO joint report, both of which corroborate the fact that case definitions used in Dec 2019 to mid-Jan 2020 required a link to the market or at least that the patient had to be admitted to a hospital near the market or live in the neighborhood of the market.
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8393104/ https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-con... (pages 125 and 161)