After six months of exhaustive research, the global scientific community has not been able to determine the natural source of COVID-19. that is, when, where and how he “jumped” from animals to people.
Some now suggest that we will never know the natural origin of COVID-19.
In the news article The recently published international scientific journal Nature reviewed the progress or absence of one that identifies the natural source of COVID-19.
According to the article, COVID-19 probably came from bats, in particular, horseshoe bats that contain two closely related coronaviruses, named RaTG13 and RmYN02, whose genomes are 96% and 93% identical to COVID-19, respectively.
Both coronavirus samples were isolated from bats in Yunnan, RaTG13 in 2013 and RmYN02 in 2019, and were studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
In Wuhan, an outbreak of COVID-19 occurred, located about 1,000 miles from Yunnan.
The Nature article does not mention that RaTG13 is actually a duplicate of another bat coronavirus, BtCoV / 4991, of which there has been virtually no published experimental data since it was isolated in 2013, despite the fact that it is potential pandemic pathogen.
That is, in addition to the structure analyzed only by Chinese scientists, almost nothing is known about RaTG13.
The Nature article also does not mention that the receptor-binding domain of RmYN02 showed only 61.3% sequence identity with COVID-19, which means that it is highly unlikely that RmYN02 can even bind to human cells.
The Nature article suggests that pangolins (scaly anteaters) can be an intermediate host because some pangolin coronaviruses “share up to 92% of their genomes” with COVID-19, presumably bridging the gap between bats and humans.
When asked about this possibility, Dr. Ralph Barik, Coronavirus Expert at the University of North Carolina, March 15, 2020 interviewclearly stated that the dinosaurs were not the source of COVID-19:
“Pangolins have more than 3,000 nucleotide changes – in no way are they a reservoir species [for COVID-19]absolutely no chance.
Nevertheless, the COVID-19 receptor-binding domain is structurally closer to pangolins than bats, which indicates a recombinant event, in this case, probably, an artificial one.
In fact, Ralph Barik and Zheng-Li Shi, “Bat” from the Institute of Virology, Wuhan conducted just such an insertion of an artificial receptor-binding domain from the recently isolated bat coronavirus (SHC014) into the “spine” from SARS-CoV, the coronavirus responsible for the 2003 pandemic.
December 9, 2019 interviewDr. Peter Dashak, president of the Environmental Health Alliance and a longtime employee at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, allegedly referring to Ralph Barik-Zheng-Li’s experiments, said that “You can manipulate them in the lab quite easily,” inserting the spike protein “into the base of another virus.”
Thus, an artificial recombinant event held in the laboratory would be a much better explanation for the pangolin-like structures appearing on the backbone of the bat coronavirus than those that are found in nature, at least given the current level of knowledge.
The most noticeable sign of genetic manipulation with COVID-19 is the presence of a polybasic furin cleavage site, a structure that is not found in any of the coronaviruses that have so far been identified as possible direct ancestors.
Authors RmYn02 the article further proves that RmYN02 has a precursor cleavage site.
In fact, this is a feeble attempt to give a natural explanation for the presence of the polybasic furin cleavage site in COVID-19.
Unfortunately, the amino acid sequence of PAA, the insertion referenced by the authors, is chemically neutral, completely unlike the polybasic PRRAR sequence of COVID-19, and PAA does not have the ability to cleave anything.
Based on evidence, it is unlikely that RmYN02 is a natural close relative of COVID-19.
Although COVID-19 seems to have been “Adapted” In the case of human infection, artificially introducing a polybasic furin cleavage site may explain the potentially significant point mutation in COVID-19, which may have increased its infectiousness.
In accordance with article “The mutation of D614G in the SARS-CoV-2 peak protein reduces S1 excretion and increases infectivity,” during a human pandemic, the position of one amino acid changed from aspartic acid to glycine, increasing the stability of the peak protein and thereby making COVID-19 more infectious.
As suggested by the authors, this mutation may have been the so-called “positive selection” to compensate for the structural instability created after the artificial introduction of the polybasic furin cleavage site.
The burden of evidence now lies with China to demonstrate that COVID-19 is found in nature because most of the evidence available indicates otherwise.