LIVING IN THE LAND OF ABJECT OBJECTIVITY, as a truly independent scientist, I see streams of information from a wide and diverse number of sources. It’s also a cozy little spot where arrows of bias from “both sides” of every issue are flung with remarkable ease – and with little consideration for liability over unwarranted attempts at defamation.

Of course, some would say I’ve “defamed” myself merely by admitting that vaccines can harm, and vaccines can kill – as if that’s (a) not true, and (b) a reality that is so taboo that anyone who dares breathe a word of it is fair game for the slightest expression of hate (such as name-calling) and outright accusations of being a fraud.

Peanut gallery managers who do little to actually effect change in a positive manner, enjoy the chance to bully someone with, apparently, society’s blessings. “Hit ’em harder!” “Well done!” Except everything I publish is backed by experiment, if not that, by observational studies, if not that, by summary statistics, if not that, by initial observersations leading to Science. Their habit of following objective scientists around is a mere annoyance.

COVID-2019?

World Health Organization (WHO) has renamed the virus SARS-CoV-2, and the disease it causes COVID-2019. The classification of viruses should ideally reflect their phylogenetic relationships and especially inherited genetic capacity for pathogenicity [thx reader for the update on the name]. But that would require a deep understanding of the evolutionary history of the functional elements contributing to the virulence and transmissibility of viruses – something that public health officials and run-of-the-mill MDs are too distant from to understand.

For the last week, I’ve been analyzing the motif patterns in B-CoV’s, and as a result of that, having settled the issue that pShuttle-SN is not likely to have been involved in the origin of COVID-19, and furthermore that no recombinant B-coronavirus for which we have data is likely to be ultimately found to be the ancestor of COVID-19 (in review), it’s time to look at another claim about the virus now raging: ACE2.

ACE2

A paper, “The novel coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV) uses the SARS-coronavirus receptor ACE2 and the cellular protease TMPRSS2 for entry into target cells”, published on bioRxiv, examined SARS 2 (new name for 2019-nCoV) cell entry using pseudoviruses made (using recombinant technology) that express the SARS 2 spike protein, which is used by SARS 2 to gain entry into cells. The pseudoviruses were made using vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) particles. The authors of the study evaluated the abilty of these pseudoviruses to enter a variety of human and animal cell lines under different experimental conditions.

Their experiments and analysis found that SARS 2 Spike protein binds to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), and that it uses a cellular protease called TMPRSS2 to activate, or “prime” viral fusion and entry into cells.

This means that TMPRSS2 might be potentially useful therapeutic target for the treatment and prevention of SARS 2 entry into cells. One such candidate is camostat mesylate, a known TMPRSS2 inhibitor. Camostat mesylate is approved for human use in Japan.

The authors also noted that serum from a convalescent SARS-CoV patient neutralized S-protein mediated entry into cells. This means that survivors of the infection may be a useful source of biologics to help others who are infected survive or avoid critical illness. The rate of critical illess of COVID-19 in China is staggering.

It’s important to note that the SARS 2 Spike protein uses a different cellular entry receptor from MERS-CoV, which uses human DPP4. Also, the seasonal coronavirus uses 229E (human APN), and that other coronaviruses, including SARS and HCoV-NL63, use ACE2 to enter cells. The finding that COVID-2 has especially strong binding capacity to ACE2 is consistent either with recent adaptation for living in humans, or for older adaptation in the wild to a mammal that has ACE2 structures that resemble humans.

ACE2 has other roles in the body has well; gene expression data tell us that it plays a role in the regulation of cardiovascular and renal function, as well as fertility (Refseq).

IS COVID-2019 DESIGNED TO SPECIFICALLY ENTER VIA ACE-2 TO “TARGET” ASIANS?

So, clearly there are important positions that people can take in the area of international intrigue. In the area of bioweapons rumors, Western countries like the US and Canada have touted the idea that COVID-19 might be a bioweapon that escaped. In China, far-right groups are touting that the virus was made by the US and is an attack on the Han people.

Polymorpisms certainly exist in the ACE locus, and earlier studies found differences among Asians, Caucasian, and people of African descent with respect to the frequencies of two alleles – the D and I alleles. Alleles combine in pairs to make genotypes (one from mom, one from dad), and the meta-analysis reported that the II, ID and DD genotypes were found at 22.5% II, 47% ID, and 30.5% DD. (As an aside, here’s a handy Hardy-Weinberg calculator to test for HW-Equilibrium to see if there’s anything ususual about this distribution that might lead to a hypothesis of ongoing selection. For those who like to do such things).

The specific D allele frequency found across ethnic groups were 39.1% in Asians, 56.2% in Caucasians, and 60.3% people of African descent. (For those who may not know, the corresponding I allele frequency) would be 100%-D for each ethnic group).

This distribution of genotype and alleles of the ACE gene would be a TERRIBLE target for a bioweapon that is alleged to target Asians for obvious reasons: it would end up targeting a huge proportion of the rest of the world, and the “home” population, whichever side targeted people based on their ACE genotype.

So, without bothering to condescend to those who thought that somehow ACE was so different in Asians that a bioweapon has been masterminded and has been recently, I am very happy to say that the likelihood of this from a purely strategic standpoint is nil. (NB: ACE is a different gene from ACE2, see article addressing this here).

Since recombination in nature is not a likely explanation of the massive morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 from SARS 2, and recombination technology was not used to create this, and it is not a US Bioweapon that backfired, nor a Chinese bioweapon that backfired, we still need to wonder: why is the mortality and critical illness from COVID-2019 in the Wuhan district so high in comparison to that seen in the rest of the world so far?

Another possibility is high ambient exposure to bat coronaviruses. People in the region, however, have been eating wild-caught animals for thousands of years. Since China has such an exceptional written history going deep into their past, it would behoove humanity to study the ancient scrolls from China for evidence of plagues traced to eating bats, pangolins and other animals we now know understand can harbor coronaviruses. It is likey that B-coronaviruses have been infecting humans for tens if not hundreds of thousands of millenia.

So what’s different in 2019? On Dec 1, a new national vaccine law went into effect. “China is to implement a state immunization program, and residents living within the territory of China are legally obligated to be vaccinated with immunization program vaccines, which are provided by the government free of charge. Local governments and parents or other guardians of children must ensure that children be vaccinated with the immunization program vaccines (art. 6).”

The first reported case of COVID19?

December 1, 2019.

In my first article on the origins of the virus, I mentioned that one way to get hundreds of thousands super sick from a coronavirus is to have sensitized the population with a vaccine containing a spike protein. Why? Because prior animal studies showed high mortality following re-challenge in vaccinated animals. See studies, below.

References

Staessen, J., Ginocchio, G., Wang, J. G., Saavedra, A. P., Soubrier, F., Vlietinck, R. & Fagard, R. (1997). Genetic variability in the renin-angiotensin system: prevalence of alleles and genotypes. Journal of Cardiovascular Risk 4, 401–422.

Te et al., 2012. Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7(4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22536382

Tseng et al., 2012. Double-Inactivated Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Vaccine Provides Incomplete Protection in Mice and Induces Increased Eosinophilic Proinflammatory Pulmonary Response Upon Challenge https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209347/

Yasui et al., Prior immunization with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) nucleocapsid protein causes severe pneumonia in mice infected with SARS-CoV. J Immunol. 181:6337-48 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18941225 https://www.jimmunol.org/content/181/9/6337.long

66 thoughts on “CLEAR EVIDENCE it is NOT a Bioweapon. So What’s All This About ACE2 and nCoV-2019 (COVID-2019)?

    1. That these botched vaccines make you more susceptible to pulmonary infection upon the next infection, it looks like…

    2. He’s implying that the overwhelming locus of infection in Wuhan (or China in general) may be a result of a mandatory vaccination scheme that included a spike protein. After sensitization by a vaccine against a form of corona virus, a rechallenge by another corona virus can lead to massive pneumonia, according to the research.

  1. I’m working on a paper about the 2019-nCoV for my MSN program epidemiology class and I agree with your conclusions here. The research that I’ve done on the epidemiology has proven, first of all, that totalitarian regimes suck at pretty much everything… and that this virus really hits hard for those who have high levels of systemic inflammation, whether due to age, smoking, or pre-existing medical conditions.

    Something I haven’t seen recommended by the CDC (at least not publicly), that the Lancet’s paper (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30211-7/fulltext#back-bib1P) seems to indicate would be useful is testing those with laboratory confirmed 2019-nCoV for CRP levels and absolute lymphocyte levels. Like SARS, this coronavirus seems to seriously burn through lymphocytes. It appears that patients with high CRP values and low absolute lymphocyte levels should be closely monitered as they are the patients progressing rapidly to ARDS, septic shock and multiple organ failure.

    Any thoughts?

    1. Lisa – If look into the animal tests of SARS vaccines – in the references – and read what happened to the vaccinted animals following rechallenge infection they are key to understanding.

      I expect epidemiological studies will ultimately show that patients with previous infections with SARS also make find NCoV2019 more dangerous.

  2. For those of us in the back, the laymen. Am I right that you are concluding that those who have been vaccinated for these types of illnesses are more susceptible? It is more dangerous for them to contract than us in the US that have not come into contact with these viruses, or the vaccines? Please dumb it way down, my friend.

    1. Animal studies of spike protein-based SARS vaccines:

      Healthy Mouse -> Vaccinate -> Expose to SARS Virus -> MANY DIED.

      As in, a lot more than in other vaccine safety studies.

      Check out Dr. Dale Brown’s review of some of the studies

  3. I must seriously disagree on your conclusions. Relying on ACE-2 receptor that may or may not be more prevalent in some populations. Even if this is not RACE specific, it can be CULTURE specific:

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.05.20020107v1.full.pdf

    China consumes a large portion of the worlds cigarette / Tobacco production, and the high estimate is that up to 68% of Chinese men Smoke:

    https://qz.com/521662/68-of-chinese-men-are-smokers-and-millions-will-die-because-of-it/

    from the Lancet papers we have both cited:

    “Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41)”

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

    AND

    “The average age of the patients was 55·5 years (SD 13·1), including 67 men and 32 women. ”

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30211-7/fulltext

    That would be a neat little way to have plausible deniability, yet hit Chinese males Harder. ( how much remains to be seen).

    Even if the increase in ACE-2 receptors turnes out not to be significant, that does not prove this is not a lab created virus.

    https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2020/02/02/moderately-strong-confirmation-of-a-laboratory-origin-of-2019-ncov/

    “AND HAVE COMPELLING RESULTS OF A KEY SIGNATURE USEFUL FOR IDENTIFYING A PARTICULARLY PATHOGENIC CORONAVIRUSES LINEAGE. GIVEN THAT WE HAVE FOUND THIS SIGNATURE, A FUNCTIONAL MOTIF FINGERPRINT, PRESENT IN THE HK-3 CoV FROM 2005, WE BELIEVE THIS EXONERATES RECOMBINATION IN THE LAB AS A SOURCE OF THE VIRUS. THIS DOES NOT EXONERATE ACCIDENTAL RELEASE, HOWEVER. WE ARE WORKING TO PUBLISH OUR FINDINGS.”

    A signature or a marker also does not say anything other than a familial relationship AFAIK. http://130.88.97.239/PRINTS/index.php

    Why could a lab not take the “functional Motif Fingerprint” from HK-3 Cov and combine it with other genetic materials…( such as the withdrawn 4 strands of HIV paper, and even if wrong, maybe ANYTHING else). Markers and signatures are only parts of DNA, they do not rule out foul play.

    Recently China has had severe outbreaks of H5N1, and “Pig Ebola”, and now this 2019 N-CoV (COVID19)…

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-02/pig-ebola-virus-sends-shock-waves-through-global-food-chain

    https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/china-reports-h5n1-bird-flu-outbreak-hunan-wuhan-coronavirus-12381796

    https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/pig-ebola-is-now-running-wild-in-indonesia-and-it-has-already-killed-about-one-fourth-of-the-worlds-pigs/

    IMHO china is being given a “black eye” in international esteem, Isolated due to real concerns of Viral outbreaks, and having their food supply curtailed. So they will ultimately buy more USA farm products out of survival. They have already agreed to do so in the “stage I” trade deal, but now it will be practically mandatory to some extent.

    None of this is happening in a vacuum, President Trump (informally) invoked the Economic Powers act of 1977 and “ordered” U.S. based companies to look for alternatives to manufacturing goods in China…about six months ago, or about 4-5 months before the Virus made a big splash:

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458652-trump-takes-aim-at-media-after-hereby-ordering-us-businesses-out-of

    China and Russia and the USA are preparing for WAR, make no mistake…. every week a new Russian weapons system is launched or older ones upgraded…don’t take my word for it, just read TASS ( dot) com -the site is in english. While our U.S. leaders want to cut Social Spending to increase Military in the new proposed Budget. Does that sound like peace to you?

    “This brings the total number of destroyers launched in a single year to 10: An unprecedented record.”

    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/12/china-launched-the-24th-type-052d-6th-type-055-71st-type-056-vessels-for-plan/

    Hypersonic missiles, USA giving up on arms control treaties signed when I was a kid, etc. etc. etc.

    I can bet you this virus ( COVID19) has slowed them ( China / Russia) down a bit….and slowing the enemy advance, “softening them up” is the point of dirty tricks in warfare. Natural gas and Oil are down as a result of low economic activity….that hurts everyone, but it hurts Russia ( Nat. gas /oil Producer ) and China MORE than the US of A. The USA also produces much oil, but has the status of World reserve currency to buy what it wants and weather the economic storm.

    China has GOLD, it mines it, is the #1 producer and sells very little abroad other than a few overpriced pandas…but internationally, Gold is priced in Dollars, for now.

    I do not believe we have seen even a tenth of the problems we will face in the coming years…

    A simple Lewi

    1. You must be new here. James is solidly in the camp that it is an engineered virus.

      I have no problem believing this is one massive own-goal by China, a country famous for ordering peasants kill all the birds to the insects stop eating the seed.

      1. OK I’ll play ball…

        If you say “You must be new here. James is solidly in the camp that it is an engineered virus.”

        Then what do you make of this update?

        James Lyons-Weiler, PhD 2-2-2020

        UPDATE – 2/9/2020 – IPAK HAS CONDUCTED FURTHER, IN-DEPTH STUDIES OF THE GENOMIC AN PROTEIN SEQUENCES OF THE 2019-nCoV CORONAVIRUSES AND THEIR RELATIVES AND HAVE COMPELLING RESULTS OF A KEY SIGNATURE USEFUL FOR IDENTIFYING A PARTICULARLY PATHOGENIC CORONAVIRUSES LINEAGE. GIVEN THAT WE HAVE FOUND THIS SIGNATURE, A FUNCTIONAL MOTIF FINGERPRINT, PRESENT IN THE HK-3 CoV FROM 2005, WE BELIEVE THIS EXONERATES RECOMBINATION IN THE LAB AS A SOURCE OF THE VIRUS. THIS DOES NOT EXONERATE ACCIDENTAL RELEASE, HOWEVER. WE ARE WORKING TO PUBLISH OUR FINDINGS.

        IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARITY, WE ARE KEEPING THE ARTICLE BELOW AS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED FOR POSTERITY AND PROVENANCE. – JLW

        https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2020/02/02/moderately-strong-confirmation-of-a-laboratory-origin-of-2019-ncov/

  4. James,

    You raise a very interesting hypothesis related to vaccination and the new law from 12/1/2019. In order to wrap up your hypothesis, doesn’t it require showing coronavirus spike immunization were among the newly required vaccines?

    Also, if other Chinese provinces require the same vaccinations, how does this hypothesis explain the different fatality rates across different provinces?

    I completely agree all of us have far more questions than answers, and the best way to discover the answers is to keep asking questions. From that perspective, your site offers some of the best-balanced and objective material on the web today. Please continue the great work!

    1. With the massive deaths of old people in Italy it looks like this hypothesis was incorrect. Most likely Wuhan’s medical infrastructure simply became so overloaded they couldn’t handle all the critical cases. Appears to be the conclusion of Fauci and why we are trying to minimize the speed of the epidemic at the current moment.

  5. The prevalence of deaths in people with serious pre-existent health conditions may also mean that they have been accidentally injected with something containing a concentrated viral load. Many years ago, in the 80s, I accidentally discovered a Help C contamination in many thousand anti-tetanus boost doses. No newspapers reported that fact. Now, it would be interesting knowing if COVID-2019 can be found also in green monkeys and if the manufacturing process of certain vaccines implies the use of green monkeys’ organs. I speak clearer: if 10,000 get 10,000 contaminated shots with COViD-2019, most likely 50℅ of them will die after having infected a few hundred thousands….. Which is what we are seeing…

  6. The Virus is named with SARS-Cov 2, not COVID-19. The disease is named COVID-19. Just like HIV and AIDS.

  7. Unfortunately , you have jumped from science to (faulty) political conjecture.

    Having lived and worked in China, I think it is a poor assumption to leap to the conclusion that the CCCP would not engineer a virus to disproportionately target native Chinese. They forced sterilization for years as still kill dissidents to the tune of hundreds of thousands of people a year according to some human rights groups.

    The country has been on the verge of insolvency with an aging population for years (witness the mass failure of Chinese banks and forced theft of Alibaba from Jack Ma) under the weight of a communist demand on social services.

    They have killed teens in Hong Kong for merely suggesting that islanders should maintain autonomy.

    Engineering it for non Asians would be an act of war. Engineering a quick end to the nonproductive elderly and infirmed merely continues the legacy of Mao.

    1. I doubt that release of a deadly RNA virus into one’s own population for the purpose of culling the herd would be an acceptable strategy –
      especially a recombining RNA virus that has the capacity to evolve rather quickly.

      There are atrocities, and there is insanity.

      1. On this I agree with Dr. Weiler.

        It is very unlikely the Chinese government would release this on purpose.

        We also cannot be sure yet from ONE study with ONE sample of ONE Asian individuals lungs that this targets Asians Specifically. The study I posted quoted the study you refer to, and found that SMOKERS were MIGHT be more at risk, of course up to 68% of Chinese men smoke… so how is that for covering ones tracks: 🙁

        ( the possible flaw in the “blame smoking” study was that they used ( lung?) Cancer patients, and how that affects ACE-2 receptors i do not know).

        The Chinese have many, many more effective means to cull older people in hospitals because they control the health care.

        I have lived in countries with full bore socialized medicine, old people are often left to die, denied care, etc. Let alone the mobile execution vans/ Units for criminals, re-education camps, secret police , networks of informants, etc. There would be many better ways to cull than to release a random killer into the population.

        This Virus is a huge threat to China and it’ s stability. If the people on the street feel they have no hope, and the government can not protect them, they risk loosing social order.

        With malice to none, and hoping that the WORLD can get a grip on what the Chinese call a “Demon Virus”….

        A simple Lewi

  8. Do you know if there are different expression levels of Ace2 in different races? If there is just a lot more of that protein on the cell surface on one race compared to another I could see it being feasible that a faster progression of the disease could lead to a more acute illness. The difference between recovery and death, possibly.

  9. Doctor Weiler, thank you for the article. I however, have one question to ask:
    How possible it is to target Caucasians, specifically Americans, with this Virus? How lethal would it be based on biology and virology standpoint? We already know that this virus is dangerous to people with pre-existing conditions, while 40% of American people are obese.

    1. Given its ability to evolve and adapt even within one person from initial infection to full-blown diagnosis the ability to make a coronavirus weapon that targets just one ethnic group is likely nil. For the same reason, stable and effective CoV vaccines seem unlikely.

      1. Never under estimate the stupidity and criminality of the Eugenics movement.

  10. Man-made virus is nothing new in PRC.
    However, for this round of SARS-2, the possibility of lab-made is bigger than man-made.
    Please keep this in mind:
    DURC: Dual Use Research Concerns. A lab work on vaccine v virus for public health can become a bio-weapon in terrorist hands.
    Bio-weapon and its attack may not be done by state actor only, in fact, [non-state actor] is a much greater threat under current international conditions.

    1. It doesn’t even have to be on purpose. To study a virus in a laboratory it helps to make it more viable for that environment, which could explain why the damned thing can live up to 9 days on a coughed-on surface.

      One thing is for sure: China has a history of making big f-ups just as every other monolithic centrally planned society. I somehow have doubts that a country unable to assure the quality of steel can follow the strict procedures of a level 4 bio containment unit (especially when the boss isn’t looking).

      1. That’s still a possibility for sure. But so is ambient exposure in a hypersensitized population. That would explain a lot. More on that soon.

  11. Interesting Article about the origins from two seemingly knowledgeable and creditable people.

    Logistical and Technical Exploration into the Origins of the Wuhan Strain of Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) – This report is the product of a collaboration between a retired professional scientist with 30 years of experience in genomic sequencing and analysis who helped design several ubiquitous bioinformatic software tools, and a former NSA counterterrorism analyst.

    https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/01/31/logistical-and-technical-analysis-of-the-origins-of-the-wuhan-coronavirus-2019-ncov/

    Dr. Weiler, what are you thoughts are their conclusion?

  12. Lay person here. If someone is infected with the coronavirus, and recovers… Does that mean that if they get reinfected at some point in the future that the likelihood of that individual becoming critically ill from the second infection increase significantly? Or would that only apply to people who actually got some sore of sars vaccination?

    Thank you.

  13. GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to make its adjuvant technology available to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations’ (CEPI) effort to create a prophylactic against the coronavirus radiating out from China. CEPI is supporting programs to develop coronavirus vaccines underway at groups including Inovio Pharmaceuticals and Moderna. Coupling GSK’s adjuvant systems with the pioneering platform technology we are funding has the potential to make more vaccine available more rapidly. GSK has previously applied its adjuvant technology to the development of vaccines against pandemic strains of influenza. In 2009, GSK used AS03, an adjuvant containing squalene, DL-α-tocopherol and polysorbate, to improve the immune response of people who received its Pandemrix vaccine against a pandemic H1N1 strain. AS03 is at the center of a debate about the safety of Pandemrix, specifically cases of narcolepsy in people who received the vaccine. The cause of the cases of narcolepsy is unclear, though. Faced with an unresolved safety concern and the known, positive effect of adjuvants on immunogenicity, some researchers may decide the benefits outweigh the risks. https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/gsk-makes-adjuvant-available-to-coronavirus-vaccine-project Bill Gates by the way is linked to Moderna, Inovio, CEPI. Under the terms of the Moderna agreement for example, Moderna will manufacture an mRNA vaccine against 2019-nCoV, which will be funded by… CEPI. Even also linked to hong kong university where another vaccine was mentioned for coronavirus. What amazing precognition 🙂

  14. China passed a strict vaccine SAFETY law.

    https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/07/article/china-adopts-tough-vaccine-safety-law/

    … The new law also toughens penalties on the production and sale of fake or substandard vaccines. It stipulates that people whose violations constitute a crime shall bear heavier criminal responsibility in accordance with the law.

    As well, producers and sellers of defective vaccines will face a fine of 15 to 50 times the value of the illicit products, while substandard vaccine makers or sellers face a fine of 10 to 30 times the value. …

    1. Their definition of “defective” is “counterfeit”… and I don’t know that “substandard” means – is that like “non-inferiority”? That results in product X5 was as safe as X4 was as safe as X3 was as safe as X2 was a safe as X1, each comparison being held to the standard of “average safety measure not less than the Lower 95 tile of the compared drug/vaccine”. Hope that makes sense. Concern is not just China, obviously.

    2. Yeah, this from the country that sold millions of fake malaria drug doses, fake insulin, fake statin drugs, and real penis pills.

  15. Report A: A herbal formula for the prevention of transmission of SARS during the SARS epidemic in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region – a prospective cohort study

    Abstract. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has a long history of being used to treat respiratory ailments. Many clinicians in China have used TCM to treat SARS patients with favourable outcomes as the symptoms of SARS closely resemble those of wen bing (feverish disease). The use of TCM for the treatment of respiratory illnesses in China has shown promise in the prevention of SARS particularly among high-risk groups SARS attack rates for two cohorts of health care workers from 11 hospitals in Hong Kong SAR, one using a herbal supplement for a 2-week period (n = 1063) and a control cohort comprising all health care workers who did not receive the supplement (n = 36 111) were compared prospectively. Changes in quality of life and influenza-like symptoms of the herbal supplement users were also examined at three time points. Results None of the health care workers who used the supplements subsequently contracted SARS as compared to 0.4% of the health care workers who did not use the supplements (p = 0.014). Improvements in influenza-like symptoms and quality of life measurements were seen among users of the herbal supplements. Fewer than 2% of supplement users reported adverse events and all such events were minor. The results of this pilot study suggest that use of the TCM preparation is a safe, efficacious and affordable SARS prevention measure. The simple, uniform formula might be considered to have violated the fundamental principles of treatment advocated by herbal experts in that only one formula was used. However, its efficacy supports the feasibility of using a uniform formula when facing an urgent need for broad prevention.

    http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js6170e/14.html#Js6170e.14

    Anecdotal at this point but my friends in China believe these solutions that were effective against SARS are already spreading in use and effectiveness against COVID-2019 also.

  16. Hello James,
    Maybe you should read two of these articles:
    1, Evidence of recombination in coronaviruses implicating pangolin origins of nCoV-2019 This article checks pangolin. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.939207v1.full.pdf
    2, A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. It is a Nature paper by Team of Zhang Yongzheng, China’s Fudan University. Should be noticed: it is the earliest institute who received samples from Wuhan.
    Both of them find similar finding like your early findings, check their graph of gene similarity.

  17. This is speculative, but is it possible that the severity of the disease depends on the original aerosolized dose of virus, and those doses are tending to be higher in Wuhan because the situation is out of control (lots of infected people in lots of closed quarter environments)? Thinking about it on a cellular level, if one or a few viruses are inhaled initially, perhaps there is initially a small locus of infection in the lung before the virus replicates and spreads to other lung loci. That is, the immune system gets a critical few days of head start fighting the infection before massive tissue damage occurs, setting the state for pneumonia and death. Coronavirus propagation in the body seems slow relative to viruses like norovirus (and possibly rhinovirus, flu, etc) so perhaps there is something to this line of thinking? It would explain why the mortality appears to be much greater in Wuhan than in the rest of the world at this time, with the idea being that the doses world travelers have gotten have been lower, in generally more hygienic countries, etc.

    Unfortunately, it may also just be that not enough time has passed for sick people outside of Wuhan to show the true death rate. I believe average time to death, when death occurs, is at least a coupe of weeks after first symptoms, right? That’s a long time, so it may just be there is a lag to mortality “catching up” in the more recent worldwide cases.

    Personally, I think it’s just a matter of time – about a year or 18 months – until about half the world has been exposed to this virus. Then I think the pandemic will taper off. Let’s all hope for a vaccine scale up in the meantime.

  18. Lets not hope for a vaccine. Seems that sars/coronavirus vaccines might be what is causing all the fuss over in China right now.

  19. Interesting information from CNBC:
    -China said it confirmed 15,152 new cases and 254 additional deaths and that those figures include the ones reported earlier by Hubei province.
    -China’s Hubei province reported an additional 242 deaths and 14,840 new cases as of Feb. 12.
    -The province said it is starting to include “clinically diagnosed” cases in its figures and that 13,332 of the new cases fall under that classification.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/13/coronavirus-latest-updates-china-hubei.html

    Clinically Diagnosed:
    Diagnosis based on a study of the signs and symptoms of a disease.

    So if this is correct they (China) are no longer doing a TEST to determine if a person has the virus they are relying on symptoms & signs.

    NO tests for the presence of the coronavirus are now necessary, in China.

    The new method of counting? CT scans (computed tomography scans) of the chest.

    The scans are used to diagnose standard traditional lung diseases.

    For example, pneumonia.

    And pneumonia is called THE “coronavirus illness.”
    (video at link)

    “There is only one problem. Deaths from pneumonia, in China, appear to be 300,000 per year / 3 million per decade (I’m making a major downward estimate, based on correcting an error and referring to a trusted source.) These deaths certainly occurred in time periods before the purported emergence of the new coronavirus. Pneumonia has been around forever.”

    Get it? A test for ordinary pneumonia—CT Scan—now becomes a test that delivers a diagnosis of “new epidemic coronavirus.”
    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/02/13/sudden-spike-in-coronavirus-cases-only-means-new-method-of-counting/

    Than there is this:
    The CDC sent novel coronavirus testing kits to Florida. They might not work
    Florida health officials received testing kits for novel coronavirus earlier this week but can’t use them yet because it’s unclear whether the tests are working.
    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/health-care/article240223446.html
    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/02/12/cdc-announces-test-kits-for-coronavirus-dont-work/

    So, do we really know what is going on in China?

  20. I believe you’ve made a mistake in your analysis of ACE2.

    AFAIK there is no information/research done on how different alleles of ACE2 might affect the entry of SARS-CoV-2. The claim is instead that higher levels of ACE2 expression in lung tissues are observed in Asians compared to other racial groups; and it is also slightly more elevated in males compared to females.

    The D vs. I allele difference actually refer to 2 different alleles on the ACE gene, not the ACE2 gene. The former is located on chromosome 17, while the latter is on the X.

    1. Do you have a reference for typically higher ACE2 expression in Asians? I know of one transcriptomics manuscript but not aware of any test of the generalizability of the claim re: typical for Asians. And I suspect you are correct about my oversight; ACE and ACE2 are distinct genes. Will confirm my source and return.

      1. I am a medical nutrigenomic researcher. Absolutely ACE insertion/insertion aka ACE II is a totally different gene from ACE2. These genes are even on different chromosomes.
        ACE Angiotensin-converting enzyme is on chromosome 17
        ACE2 Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 in on the X chromosome (so potentially women who have two X chromosomes may have more expression of ACE2 than men, who have only one X chromosome).

        A just published (not peer reviewed paper) of many samples of lung tissue from Asians and Caucausians saw no difference in ACE2 expression between the two groups. They did however see that smokers had higher expression.
        
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202002.0051/v1

        Past research looked at SARS severity in Asians and it does not appear to be related to genetic variants of ACE2.
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15331509
        ACE2 gene polymorphisms do not affect outcome of severe acute respiratory syndrome.
        We therefore conclude that although ACE2 serves functionally as the receptor for entry of the SARS coronavirus into human host cells, the evidence provided by this study does not support an association between its common genetic variants and SARS susceptibility or outcome. Despite its X-chromosome location, poor outcomes in male SARS patients do not appear to be related to genetic variants of ACE2.

        IT remains to be seen if any mutations in ACE2 that may effect Covid-19 host susceptibility that are more prevalent in Asians. I suspect not, as currently there are no putative functional variants in ACE2.

        Given the deaths in Iran and Italy, I do not think non-Asians will have any protection genetically. Host susceptibility is influenced by dozens of mutations in likely dozens of genes that participate in adaptive and innate immune response, inflammation, detoxification, free radical quenching, etc. This is a bad virus that causes ARDS in the elderly, immunocompromised and in those already chronically ill.

  21. Did anyone see the news report interview with the female head of US hospital who handled the first case of Coronavirus in the US when she stated that the patient was treated with an “antiviral” and then went home well? Dr. Amy Compton-Phillips, executive vice president and chief clinical officer at Providence St. Joseph Health said, “the patient rapidly declined and we got permission for the CDC for Compassionate experimental use of an antiviral that week and the patient recovered and was able to go home.”

    STOP THE PRESSES — ISN’T THIS A CURE????

    Harris Falukner, the anchor on Fox, said “what is the name of the antiviral and can we all get it?”
    And the doctor did NOT answer and would NOT give the name. I’m paraphrasing the above.
    https://www.foxnews.com/shows/outnumbered-overtime

    Hello, why isn’t this like breaking news?

  22. Is there 100% confirmation evidence – that the pShuttle-SN series, or any remnants, are not in the Wuhan virus. (COVID -19).

    Also, will the LVL 4 Bio Lab in Wuhan publish its inventory of Corona Viruses.

    1. I am extremely confident based on phylogenetic placement of pShuttle-SN within another group that as originally formulated it is not “in” SARS CoV 2. SARS CoV 2 being a B coronavirus would already have a spike protein.

  23. So a Taiwan researcher at one of the top hospitals says its probably from a lab because its 96% similar to the Bat virus RaTG13 with 4 extra amino acids that improved transmission. Says its unlikely a mutated virus would suddenly take on 4 additional amino acids.

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2020/02/23/2003731479

    Obviously need evidence but the absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

    The good news is if its a synthetic virus it should die out quickly since its not from the ecosystem. Not sure I agree with that as its possible it might enter the ecosystem

    I think it probably sticks around but will become less pathogenic due to partial herd immunity from previous exposure, except in the few who are susceptible to immune enhancement

  24. a bioweapon doesn’t need to have tight tolerances in its target, if its goal is depopulation, infertility and herd culling of the global population.

    Also, there ARE differences in ACE2 protein mutations between populations, so to expect different outcomes between populations is valid. especially on the second (naturally potentiated) infection wave of what will be an endemic virus

    1. Yes Flow… nothing published rules out the possibility that SAR-CoV 2 was the product of “work-in-progress’ bio-weapons research, not a finished product. In this scenario SAR-CoV 2 could have been inadvertently leaked from the Wuhan BLS-4; or planted by a US lab.

    1. This was confusing. They rule out recombination but report the middle fragment as source unknown.

      “Phylogenetic analyses using different methods confirmed these findings. A BLAST search of 2019-nCoV middle fragment revealed no considerable similarity with any of the previously characterized corona viruses”

      and

      “Our analysis suggests that the 2019-nCoV although closely related to BatCoV RaTG13 sequence throughout the genome (sequence similarity 96.3%), shows discordant clustering with the Bat_SARS-like coronavirus sequences. Specifically, in the 5′-part spanning the first 11,498 nucleotides and the last 3′-part spanning 24,341–30,696 positions, 2019-nCoV and RaTG13 formed a single cluster with Bat_SARS-like coronavirus sequences, whereas in the middle region spanning the 3′-end of ORF1a, the ORF1b and almost half of the spike regions, 2019-nCoV and RaTG13 grouped in a separate distant lineage within the sarbecovirus branch”

      This does not rule out reecombination.

      We need a 99.99% match to a lab source or an animal source if the origin is still an issue, which it is increasingly not.

      1. Not to mention:

        “The unique genetic features of 2019-nCoV and theirpotential association with virus characteristics and virulence in humans remain to be elucidated”

Leave a Reply to Xx Cancel reply