石正丽病毒结论--就是石正丽人工制造的--包子释放的

[clearjks]

怎么没人在辩论的时候提这个问题？！我觉得这个很重要。

肯定，还会更加激烈的诉讼，让天朝政府和人脸面尽失，拿到判决后没收天朝在西方的资产。

[malta]

什么鸡巴玩意，黄种人中的败类，害群之马，自甘下贱地认为自己是China Virus，你自己认，不要污蔑我们炎黄贵胄。

stupid commie, always trying to represent whole chinese race. who the fuck are you? fuck you commies

[Mountainlion]

她被当功臣对待，应该不是犯错泄漏

应该不是故意泄露的，是违规操作导致泄露。但是共产中国政府在限制甚至直接关停中国境内跨地区交通的时候，继续开放国际航班不做任何限制，这属于刻意向全世界放毒。

[cellcycle1]

她被当功臣对待，应该不是犯错泄漏

憋不能 说她啥， 太敏感，但 没给院士

[Mountainlion]

能提名，就说明不一般。要是有罪过，别人不会淌这个浑水的，尤其是在中国做官的，更是人精，知道怎么回事。

石正丽最后没当成，可能也是高层怕影响不好

憋不能 说她啥， 太敏感，但 没给院士

[cellcycle1]

能提名，就说明不一般。要是有罪过，别人不会淌这个浑水的，尤其是在中国做官的，更是人精，知道怎么回事。

石正丽最后没当成，可能也是高层怕影响不好

石本人的讲演有视频，就是一科学家，如果不是 新冠的敏感，院士可以授

[Mountainlion]

有任务的科学家。
就如钱学森一样

石本人的讲演有视频，就是一科学家，如果不是 新冠的敏感，院士可以授

[fieldman]

扯蛋，这个病毒一出来就非常不适应人类，感染人类能力仅为奥秘可溶的1%。

这个病毒有三个现象：
1.这个新馆一上来就非常适应人类，感染人类最好，对其它动物反倒要差不少。从其它动物一般很难跳到人类，所以都要找中间体。现在根本就找不到中间体。进化上几率无限低。
2，没有那个病毒的结构与石正丽病毒一样，主要区别就是这个福林位点，其它类似病毒没有在这个地方出现的，因为侵染其它动物不需要这个位点。在这个位置出现一个针对人类侵染的位点几率无限低。
3，石正丽们计划要做的病毒，结果就出来完全按计划一样的病毒。能这样准确预测的以前没有过，以后也基本不会有。

每个事件发生几率都非常，非常低，而这几件事同时发生发生了。

4。最后，石正丽自己说自己1/2/2020才知道这个病毒序列，但是她1/21/2020就申请了治疗石正丽病毒的药物专利，进一步说明她手里早就有这个病毒。不然不可能这么快。想这么快找出药是不可能的。

结论，只能是人造的，而且是石正丽实验室制造的

[fieldman]

是整理差的太远。这年头生物口的院士哪个不攥一把的CNS。

石本人的讲演有视频，就是一科学家，如果不是 新冠的敏感，院士可以授

[Mountainlion]

奥秘可容是超级适应。
新馆是非常适应人类。只是科学家没有这方面的争议

扯蛋，这个病毒一出来就非常不适应人类，感染人类能力仅为奥秘可溶的1%。

[fieldman]

那奥秘可容一定是我弟制造的了。

奥秘可容是超级适应。
新馆是非常适应人类。只是科学家没有这方面的争议

[cellcycle1]

是整理差的太远。这年头生物口的院士哪个不攥一把的CNS。

病毒本来就发 CNS 难， 她的成就 不是纯学术， 是 有实际意义的

[Mountainlion]

顶

[cellcycle1]

那奥秘可容一定是我弟制造的了。

因何宿主共生，同步进化的

[takeway]

拜登新冠有可能要退了下，以为聚聚上来先杀你们这群当初错报疫情的狗，还是追溯新冠起源？

[Mountainlion]

[Mountainlion]

总结，一切指向石正丽认为制作病毒，共产党释放病毒。共产党就是个邪恶的政权。
"In short:

A virus appeared in Wuhan that was
• Highly contagious from the get-go
• Superbly adapted to human ACE-2
• But bad at infecting bats
• And uniquely equipped with a furin cleavage site never before seen in sars like viruses

It turned up in a city where there was a lab:
• With a huge sars like virus hunting program
• That had collected hundreds of related viruses from a long way away and brought them to Wuhan
• That possessed the 9 closest relatives to SARS2 that we know of in its own freezer
• That misled us about when it had sequenced the nearest relative and why it had changed the name
• That had recently got interested in SARS1’s more distant cousins
• And that would not share its data base

That lab
• Had made chimera viruses
• With massively increased infectivity in humanized mice
• Was party to a plan to put a furin cleavage site in such a virus for the first time
• Knowing that this generally makes viruses more infectious
• Having already done it in a mers-like virus
• And when the outbreak happened they were reluctant to draw attention to the furin cleavage site in sars2

Moreover, that lab had a poor safety record:
• As testified by a US Embassy 2018 report
• Was in the habit of using inappropriate safety levels for its experiment
• And behaved very oddly when the outbreak happened.

None of this is disputed.

And meanwhile, Wuhan’s seafood market was found to contain
- No infected mammals
- No infected mammal traders
- No infected wildlife-food handlers
- And no other market was affected."

[Mountainlion]

Summary: a virus turned up in:

exactly the right city
at exactly the right time
as they were planning exactly the right experiments
that would put exactly the right insertion
into exactly the right place
in exactly the right gene
of exactly the right kind of virus.

[Shannon]

跟iPhone一样，美国设计，中国制造，传遍全世界

这句话太牛逼了
精辟！

[Mountainlion]

They refuse to this day to share the database they had accumulated with 22,000 entries in it, even though it would exonerate them in a flash if it does not contain a progenitor of SARS-2.

They changed the name of the closest relative of SARS-2 that was in their freezer (Ra4991) but did not admit to doing so, as
@MonaRahalkar
found out.

They implied they had not sequenced it till 2020 then had to admit they had been working on it in 2018.

They failed to tell the world that they had eight other similar viruses: till
@barbarlelephant
and
@franciscodeasis
found out.

When Shi Zhengli published the genome of SARS-2 for the first time, in two separate papers, she completely ignored the furin cleavage site.

Those words don’t appear in the 2 papers. One of the diagrams is truncated just before the site would appear. As
@Ayjchan
put it, that’s like describing a unicorn in detail but not mentioning the horn.

By contrast western scientists like the 5 authors of Proximal Origin were immediately alarmed by the furin cleavage site because they worried that it was a sign the virus might be man made:

Kristian Andersen: “I think the main thing still in my mind is that the lab escape version of this is so friggin likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.”

Robert Garry: “​​It’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened given the GoF research we know is happening.”

Ian Lipkin: “Given the scale of the bat CoV research pursued there and the site of emergence of the first human cases we have a nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess.”

Ed Holmes: “Seems to have been pre-adapted for human spread since the get go.”

Andrew Rambaut: “I literally swivel day by day thinking it is a lab escape or natural.”

They went on saying things like this even AFTER the paper was published – so it’s NOT that they changed their minds in the light of new evidence.

A whole month after publication Andersen wrote: “I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved” and “we also can't fully rule out engineering.”

Writing a scientific paper that says the opposite of what you think is the truth is scientific misconduct at the very least.

Why did they do this?

They made that clear too: it was political.

Andrew Rambaut: "Given the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possibly distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content ascribing it to natural processes."

Kristian Andersen replied: “Yup, I totally agree that that’s a very reasonable conclusion. Although I hate when politics is injected into science – but it’s impossible not to especially given the circumstances..."

It was political.