Scientist who won Nobel Prize for discovering HIV says SARS COV2 created in lab(pourquoidocteur.fr)
pourquoidocteur.fr
Scientist who won Nobel Prize for discovering HIV says SARS COV2 created in lab
https://www.pourquoidocteur.fr/Articles/Question-d-actu/32184-EXCLUSIF-Pour-Pr-Montagnier-SARS-CoV-2-serait-virus-manipule-Chinois-l-ADN-de-VIH-podcast
14 comments
It's amusing how some people are like "trust the science" and tout the knowledge and authority of experts but then scientists like this get flagged because their findings don't align with their beliefs. There seems to be a mixed signal here. Should we trust experts or not?
I was shocked today to see how almost any submission offering any alternative viewpoint on Covid-19 is flagged. Sad.
TL:DR
He is an expert in the HIV genome.
Agrees with Indian scientists that the very specific sequences from HIV that are newly present in SARS Cov2 could only be inserted in a lab and would not occur naturally.
He points out that the Wuhan lab was studying SARS Corona viruses as a potential vector for an AIDS vaccine.
He is an expert in the HIV genome.
Agrees with Indian scientists that the very specific sequences from HIV that are newly present in SARS Cov2 could only be inserted in a lab and would not occur naturally.
He points out that the Wuhan lab was studying SARS Corona viruses as a potential vector for an AIDS vaccine.
[deleted]
"Claim that coronavirus came from a lab in China completely unfounded, scientists say."
https://www.newsweek.com/claim-that-coronavirus-came-lab-chi...
https://www.newsweek.com/claim-that-coronavirus-came-lab-chi...
So if the lab theory lacks evidence - where's the evidence that it came from a wet market? I've seen a Lancet paper that there were cases outside of the market that couldn't be traced to the market either - so it can be inferred that it didn't start there.
The lab theory rests in part on the proximity of the lab to the wet market. If the evidence for the outbreak starting near the wet market gets weaker, so does the evidence for the lab theory.
The SARS outbreak was first discovered in Guangdong province, but afterwards traced to bats in a cave in Yunnan province, which doesn't even share a border with Guangdong. So it's entirely possible that the virus was carried into Wuhan from somewhere far away and only started spreading there due to the higher population density.
The SARS outbreak was first discovered in Guangdong province, but afterwards traced to bats in a cave in Yunnan province, which doesn't even share a border with Guangdong. So it's entirely possible that the virus was carried into Wuhan from somewhere far away and only started spreading there due to the higher population density.
If this is the new reality of the world we live in, what do you think will be the new protocols for international travel?
I imagine a standardized heath test without which you can't board a flight?
There are many hypotheses floating around.
(a) China created this virus and released that as a bioweapon.
(b) Wuhan lab does research on bat viruses, trying to find a vaccine for HIV using modified coronaviruses. Somehow, this virus got accidentally leaked out of that lab.
(c) Wuhan wet markets, virus jumping from bats to pangolins to humans
(d) CIA created it in order to bring back the manufacturing to USA: https://cryptome.org/2020/02/CIA-biovirus-2019.pdf
Which hypothesis is better? Which hypothesis can explain more facts than others? Which hypothesis has more evidence?
I am not a virologist. Hypotheses (a) and (d) depend on political facts, along with evidence from virology. (b) and (c) just depend on evidence from virology. So, either of them is possible at the moment.
(a) China created this virus and released that as a bioweapon.
(b) Wuhan lab does research on bat viruses, trying to find a vaccine for HIV using modified coronaviruses. Somehow, this virus got accidentally leaked out of that lab.
(c) Wuhan wet markets, virus jumping from bats to pangolins to humans
(d) CIA created it in order to bring back the manufacturing to USA: https://cryptome.org/2020/02/CIA-biovirus-2019.pdf
Which hypothesis is better? Which hypothesis can explain more facts than others? Which hypothesis has more evidence?
I am not a virologist. Hypotheses (a) and (d) depend on political facts, along with evidence from virology. (b) and (c) just depend on evidence from virology. So, either of them is possible at the moment.
Dupe.
If you google Luc Montagnier he defends ideas of the like of homeopathy, water memory and DNA comunicating with water via electromagnetism...
If you google Luc Montagnier he defends ideas of the like of homeopathy, water memory and DNA comunicating with water via electromagnetism...
But also an expert in virology, HIV, and a Nobel prize winner.
Wait until you find out all of the crazy stuff Sir Isaac Newton believed in.
sudoaza, do you think its a coincidence that the virus outbreak began about 1/2 a mile from the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Your argument is that Dr. Montagnier must be wrong because he believes in some crazy stuff, and you must be right because you became a virus expert about 2 months ago. I looked through your old posts and you mostly post about political stuff, so you obviously don't work in medicine, but hey I guess you know more than Dr. Montagnier, right?
Your argument is that Dr. Montagnier must be wrong because he believes in some crazy stuff, and you must be right because you became a virus expert about 2 months ago. I looked through your old posts and you mostly post about political stuff, so you obviously don't work in medicine, but hey I guess you know more than Dr. Montagnier, right?
This is the guy who discovered the AIDS virus, also won a Nobel prize for medicine.