New York Times: Where Did the Coronavirus Come From? What We Already Know Is Troubling.

[JonDouglas]

The post title is the exact title of the piece in today's New York Times.

There were curious characteristics about the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 1977-78, which emerged from northeastern Asia and killed an estimated 700,000 people around the world. For one, it almost exclusively affected people in their mid-20s or younger. Scientists discovered another oddity that could explain the first: It was virtually identical to a strain that circulated in the 1950s. People born before that had immunity that protected them, and younger people didn’t.​

​

But how on earth had it remained so steady genetically, since viruses continually mutate? Scientists guessed that it had been frozen in a lab. It was often found to be sensitive to temperature, something expected for viruses used in vaccine research.​

​

It was only in 2004 that a prominent virologist, Peter Palese, wrote that Chi-Ming Chu, a respected virologist and a former member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told him that “the introduction of this 1977 H1N1 virus” was indeed thought to be due to vaccine trials involving “the challenge of several thousand military recruits with live H1N1 virus.”​

​

For the first time, science itself seemed to have caused a pandemic while trying to prepare for it. Now, for the second time in 50 years, there are questions about whether we are dealing with a pandemic caused by scientific research.​

​

More at Source​

So, what's up? Not long ago, the NYT would have labeled an article like this as being racist and a conspiracy. Are they trying to get out in front of something? Red herring? In the long run, though, I really don't care what they publish but it does provide a few moments of mental diversion.

 

[chic]

The post title is the exact title of the piece in today's New York Times.

There were curious characteristics about the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 1977-78, which emerged from northeastern Asia and killed an estimated 700,000 people around the world. For one, it almost exclusively affected people in their mid-20s or younger. Scientists discovered another oddity that could explain the first: It was virtually identical to a strain that circulated in the 1950s. People born before that had immunity that protected them, and younger people didn’t.​

​

But how on earth had it remained so steady genetically, since viruses continually mutate? Scientists guessed that it had been frozen in a lab. It was often found to be sensitive to temperature, something expected for viruses used in vaccine research.​

​

It was only in 2004 that a prominent virologist, Peter Palese, wrote that Chi-Ming Chu, a respected virologist and a former member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told him that “the introduction of this 1977 H1N1 virus” was indeed thought to be due to vaccine trials involving “the challenge of several thousand military recruits with live H1N1 virus.”​

​

For the first time, science itself seemed to have caused a pandemic while trying to prepare for it. Now, for the second time in 50 years, there are questions about whether we are dealing with a pandemic caused by scientific research.​

​

More at Source​

So, what's up? Not long ago, the NYT would have labeled an article like this as being racist and a conspiracy. Are they trying to get out in front of something? Red herring? In the long run, though, I really don't care what they publish but it does provide a few moments of mental diversion.

I never caught that virus. I would been the right age for it too. Funny how NYT is changing its perspective but as more becomes known, so are many.

 

[WhatInThe]

Keep in mind most super power militaries have conducted and trained in biological warfare for decades so not shocked but still digusted.

But yeah is it a coincidence that a virus from the 50s shows up 30 years later unchanged and only affects young people. Just a coincidence...