There is no evidence supporting the claim by Yan et al.g that genetic sequences of several coronaviruses were fabricated to support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally. The presence of highly similar or identical gene and protein sequences are common among organisms that are evolutionarily related to each other. Therefore, it is expected that members of the coronavirus family share similar or identical genetic or protein features. Scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that the virus arose naturally in wildlife before it crossed over to humans.
Search Results for coronavirus
People have died from COVID-19. This is evident from the excess mortality observed in 2020 compared to previous years before the pandemic occurred. Monoclonal antibodies that bind to SARS-CoV-2 have also been discovered and reported in published studies, and pathologists have been using such antibodies, as well as other techniques like in situ hybridization which do not require antibodies, to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in human tissue.
Preliminary results from small-scale animal studies suggest that the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford researchers may be protective against viral pneumonia. However, the researchers also detected viral genetic material in nasal passages in vaccinated monkeys, leading scientists to caution that the vaccine may not prevent virus shedding and its spread. Financial backing for the production of the Oxford vaccine has come from several sources, including the U.K. government and charities.
Blaylock produces no evidence for his claim that wearing a face mask increases risk of coronavirus infection of the brain. His statement that using face masks lead to serious health risks are also unsupported. While face masks and cloth face coverings do not provide 100% protection from infection, they still play an important role in reducing the risk of disease transmission by blocking infectious droplets containing the virus, which is the main mode of COVID-19 transmission.
Patents cited to support this claim are not related to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which was first identified as a new virus in early January 2020 after genome sequencing. Instead, these patents are for known coronavirus strains such as SARS-CoV-1. The joint pandemic simulation exercise Event 201 did not predict the COVID-19 pandemic, and the hypothetical virus it modeled does not resemble SARS-CoV-2. Genomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 indicates no signs of genetic modification, and the wide scientific consensus is that the virus is of natural origin and that the outbreak began through zoonotic infection, not through a lab accident.
Developing or repurposing drugs is a long, stepwise process with a low chance of success. In vitro studies are the first step in that process. Given the high rate of failure, it is impossible to conclude from positive in vitro studies that a drug will be efficient at treating a living person. The 2005 study cited in these articles was actually a Canada-funded study, which revealed an effect of chloroquine on SARS-CoV-1 infection in cell cultures. Contrary to what the articles suggest, the study was not conducted or funded by the NIH. Although SARS-CoV-1 shares some similarities with the current SARS-CoV-2, an in vitro study of the former does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that it will effectively treat COVID-19.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019, many hypotheses have been advanced to explain where the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) actually came from. Initial reports pointed to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, China, as the source of infection, however later studies called this into question. Given the uncertainty, many have suggested that … Continued
Genomic analyses of the novel coronavirus shows that it has a natural origin and was not engineered. The claim that the virus has genetic material from HIV is based on a preprint with significant flaws in study design and execution that was later withdrawn by the authors. As it turned out, the so-called “HIV insertions” identified by the authors could also be found in many other organisms apart from HIV, refuting the claim that genetic material from HIV was inserted into the novel coronavirus.
The PCR tests for COVID-19 are designed to be highly specific for the novel coronavirus—they can detect this virus unequivocally and differentiate it from other members of the coronavirus family. These PCR tests are also capable of measuring viral load (amount of virus) in patient samples, which is related to virus transmissibility and severity of infection.
All available data indicate that SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, is of natural origin. Comparisons of viral genome sequences show that it shares a strong identity with similar coronaviruses that infect pangolins and bats. And further investigations of the SARS-CoV-2 genome suggest that the virus was not artificially created or propagated in laboratories. In the absence of evidence proving otherwise, the claim that SARS-CoV-2 was lab-created and intentionally released is not only unsubstantiated but also implausible.