What Does 'Novel' Virus Really Mean? Robin Monotti Robin's co | Robin Monotti Cory Morningstar

What Does "Novel" Virus Really Mean?
Robin Monotti

Robin's comment and questions on the 2015 paper by Menachery, Yount & Baric.

I work with language, namely I worked on academic papers for many years as University lecturer and researcher. I have an MA in History and Theory, and attended several years of a language based PhD. I am a published translator. I work with film scripts on a daily basis, including writing them. Therefore I am experienced with words. This analysis is word based, not science based. I believe words are shared across professions, therefore people who work with words like me are more than legitimized in asking questions of the words used by scientists for whom words come generally after experiments are allegedly conducted, like in the case below. These are my language based questions. I believe language is used to both reveal and conceal:

The paper claims that the bat CoVs were "circulating". Does this mean they were already circulating in humans? Circulating to me means not new: not novel.

Then it mentions they built a "chimeric" virus. Chimeric, from the word chimera, means a virus that contains at least two different parts of different viruses. Essentially the circulating virus is mixed with another part of a circulating virus, in this case, is it a part of the HIV virus mentioned in the context of "pseudotyping"? Does this make it a "novel" virus given both parts were in circulation? The paper claims not a novel virus, but a "novel, zoonotic" CoV spike protein. If the spike protein in question is novel, then how can it be zoonotic already?

Zoonotic means already present in another species. This opens up the question of time: when does the virus jump species as claimed? Could it have been thousands of years ago? In which case "novel" and "zoonotic" are contradictions?

The specific bat virus used as a base is mentioned and named: RsSHCO14, isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats.

The part added is described as an HIV-based pseudovirus?

Note that the government funding via USAID & EcoHealth Alliance to "Z.-L.S." was initially omitted. Are these not the initials of Zhengli-Li Shi at Wuhan Lab?

Was the funding originally omitted from the paper reinstated because gain of function was banned within US territory so they had to cover themselves and say it was done in Wuhan?

Please note that where the "chimeric" virus was assembled is NOT necessarily the same thing as where the virus was released. Both may be untrue, but please do not confuse the claim the virus was assembled in Wuhan with the claim the virus was released in Wuhan. Both maybe false, or one may be true and one false, or both maybe true.

I generally believe reality to be more complex than: all is a lie, or all is true.

Robin Monotti

@RobinMG

https://t.me/robinmg/27532