Tenwest Mandarin School

GoKunming Articles

Scientists "99 percent" certain SARS originated in Yunnan bats

By in News on

It appears the longstanding and deadly mystery surrounding the origin of the SARS virus has been solved. Virologists have been scouring China for clues since the 2002 outbreak, finally stumbling upon a cave in Yunnan where they believe with near certainty the contagion originated. Only a few questions — very major ones — remain unanswered.

Writing in the journal PLoS Pathogens, scientists Shi Zhengli and Cui Jie of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, explained they singled out bats while conducting their SARS origin research. Specifically, they focused on horseshoe bats, which Australian scientists linked to the virus in 2013. Once the two virologists arrived in Yunnan, they spent five years painstakingly observing populations and collecting tissue and fecal samples.

After surveying dozens of locations, their research team identified one cave in particular, where they found "a single population of horseshoe bats [harboring] virus strains with all the genetic building blocks of the one that jumped to humans in 2002," Nature reports. Out of caution, the location of the cave has not been made public, although researchers say it is less than one kilometer from the nearest town.

Shi and Cui now believe the SARS virus originated in this group of bats, then spread to other animals — such as civets — before jumping to humans. And that is where the mystery remains. Professor Tu Changchu, who peer reviewed the SARS bat origin research, told Nature the results are 99 percent conclusive. He stated that if a method of animal-to-human transmission could have been found, "the evidence would be perfect".

But that crucial link has yet to be discovered. When SARS — severe acute respiratory syndrome — first emerged in 2002, scientists suspected several animals including bats, civets, monkeys and badgers as being potential culprits. Once communicable in people, the virus infected at least 8,700 people worldwide, proving fatal in 775 cases.

One other major question hangs in the air — How did a virus originate in Yunnan, affect no one in the province, and yet still travel all the way to Guangdong province, where the first infections arose? Tu, the virologist peer reviewer commented that this conundrum "has puzzled me a long time". Thanks to the work of Shi, Cui and their research assistants, the world is one step closer to answering the riddle of SARS and similar viruses. But the key mechanism explaining how and when such infections jump to humans remains an open question.

Editor's note: Special thanks to GoKunming user 'jiangwu' for first bringing our attention to this story in the Forums.

Image: Cashmancuneo

© Copyright 2005-2018 GoKunming.com all rights reserved. This material may not be republished, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Share this article

Comments

Uh, how do they know there aren't populations of this or other bats in guizhou, guangxi, guangdong, or hunan that harbor a bat precursor of the human sars virus? Plenty of caves and bats in all of those other provinces. Also, 1% uncertainty is a total failure to explain the transmission mechanism of sars from Yunnan bats to humans? That's a very generous 1%.

i guess you didn't read the guardian article

Yes, I did. How does the Guardian article refute my point that other bat populations in other provinces might be viral reservoirs also? And where in the Guardian article did they explain Yunnan bats to human viral mechanism or have any other supporting evidence besides the genetic viral code that bats from that Yunnan cave started the SARS outbreak in humans?

they dont refute, they confirm both your points. tween the grudian and nature, both have already adressed your points. they say they dont know the exact mechanism from bat to civet to humans but virus in bats has all the nescesary ingredients. also say that there will be other bat caves, but this is the first they have found and is a significant breakthrou

For the transmission, it was probably an infected civet that was illegally caught and shipped to Guangdong for sale in the wild food markets.

Does The Guardian give references to professional journals? The popular press is notoriously unreliable when it comes to anything scientific or scholarly.

So Easier, where is the proof, that these bats in Yunnan were the ones that started it? Again, the Guardian article never provides details this. If your only point is that the viral precursor is found in this group of bats, then duh? An Aussie led group of scientists found it in horseshoe bats prior to this Yunnan discovery. I'm just saying until you can detail the transmission mechanism from Yunnan bats to humans, it could be any bat colony in any of those other provinces I mentioned that were the originators.

i don't think you recognize what you read for what it says

When I find out which bat started all this I'm gonna wring its neck.

whereever there is a bat cave, there is a joker ;-)

I thought bats only came out at night.

@Alex, I think you are right.

I hope people don't take this out on the bats, they're clever animals and do a good job of reducing insects, and hope people stop selling them as food they do have a lot of diseases.and they're too small to eat anyway. I don't understand the point of people eating them, such a waste.

ozzie osborne bit the head off a bat. years later he was asked what it was like, he said it was a bit like a crunchie bar

i would have guessed that biting the head off a bat must be a lot like reading fake news about the origins of sars.

@dolphin : What is it that you're calling fake news and why?

rabies is a virus that is transmitted through saliva ie when you get bitten.

here, we are told that the virus is transmitted, but no one knows how. it's far-fetched to assume an animal can infect someone without direct contact and that it passes through several animals before finally getting to humans.

in addition, it seems far-fetched that an animal virus would affect the respiratory system.

and why ONLY these particular bats in one particular cave in yunnan? in the case of rabies, you can get rabies virtually anywhere in the world. but mysteriously, only this one cave has bats that cause sars.

what's next? erectile dysfunction caused by alligators in a remote secret undisclosed pond in the everglades?

the article seems like a complete joke to me. stranger than fiction because it is fiction.

i guess you posted when you came back from the bar. rabies is transmitted by saliva, correct. everything else you write is just wrong. did they say it was not transmitted by direct contact? they say the dont know. animal viruses do affect the resp system, we are animals and we have lots of virus diseases of lungs. aritcile did not say only these bats from this cave, this was pointed out to you before and you just ignore it. then the aligator remark is just reducto ab absurdum. if article seems like joke to you you either cant read, or revelling in your ignorance, or just trolling t

There are several diseases that are passed from one mammal species to another, with biting insects acting as a vector. Insects may also carry diseases from a source and then contaminate foods. Contaminated air and water also play a part. Coughs and sneezes do spread diseases. Fomites also act as a means of transmission.

Dolphin, what's your better explanation of the rise of SARS?

Scientists probably have different ideas about how the virus may have been transmitted and transferred between species. Some may be fairly certain., but the cannot say with absolute certainty, and so they say that they do not know.

Why do they say this? Because even if they are '99 percent certain'some idiots will shout "FAKE NEWS, FAKE NEWS'.

"After surveying dozens of locations, their research team identified one cave in particular, where they found "a single population of horseshoe bats [harboring] virus strains with all the genetic building blocks of the one that jumped to humans in 2002"

Can someone who is honest and trustworthy and who doesn't have any hidden agendas please go out to the cave and get some samples and prove the above statement? Anyone can claim anything about anything. It doesn't make it science or fact. The above statement is no different than someone claiming they saw a UFO. You have to take their word for it on blind faith since you cannot prove or disprove it.

99% could be another lie. So that means nothing.

You can doubt virtually any scientific findings, but unless you are a relevant scientist yourself you are going to have to trust somebody who is. Why do you distrust these scientists? If there's a good reason to mistrust them, what is it?

why are you acting like an ambassador to these scientists? you own stocks in sars vaccines?

there are many examples of fake science with hidden agendas. that's good enough reason for me to mistrust them.

although my approach is flawed because it can lead to excessive mistrust when it is not warranted, surely you can understand that your approach "unless you are a scientist" is equally flawed as conning someone with that mindset is as easy as stealing candy from a baby.

what would king canute say today? global warming is fake news. i believe that about 99% of science is correct fact, only about 1% is pseudo science.people how believe otherwise have their head where the sun dont shine

@dolphin: No ambassador, no stock in SARs vaccine. How do you choose which scientists to believe/disbelieve? Yea, science is never final truth, but it's usually the best approximation we've got, unless we have reason to doubt particular research or reports. So tell us why you doubt this one.

sceince isnt always the final truth, but never say never. there is a difference between theory of x and law of x. an apple will always fall from a tree, water always runs downhill,, fact, newtons law. dont become a scienctific proof appologist.

Fake News May Be Coming For Your Mind, But Fake Science Is Here For Your Wallet
rantt.com/[...]

"A new study suggests that hugging your dog is bad for your dog".
"A new study shows that drinking a glass of red wine is just as good as spending an hour at the gym."

I got it, Dolphin: some 'science' is fake, or anyway wrong. Question is, do you think most of science is fake or wrong? If not, why do you think this particular report is fake or somehow wrong?

rant.com sounds like a well balanced source with a name like that. my mum made a bad meal occasionally, does that mean all my moms coooking was bad and should be avoided?

Seriously dolphin, by the time most of my peers had left high-school (secondary school to be accurate) they all had the common sense to recognise when someone was trying to pull the wool over their eyes. There have been tall stories around since time immemorial. I don't see a genuine issue here, other than some people wanting to shout 'fire' every five minutes and cause worldwide mass hysteria.

alien, i already answered that question. i find it unlikely that a disease would emanate from only one single bat cave in the world.

i also looked up bats and found this.
www.acoolcave.com/cavebats.html
Many people think bats are dirty, disease-carrying creatures. Again, this is largely based on false information. Bats are actually clean, relatively disease-free. People are most concerned with bats and rabies. This falsehood began more than forty years ago when erroneous testing procedures resulted in all bats testing positive for rabies. After additional testing, it was discovered that the bat carries a harmless virus that caused the same reaction as the rabies virus. Unfortunately, the damage was already done and this peaceful little creature was labeled as a menace to society. We must understand that because bats are mammals, there is the possibility of contracting the disease, but in this part of the United States, rabid bats are very rare.

they did not say it spread from one single bat cave learn to read

Dolphin, it seems unlikely to me too, but what do I know? Those who have actually studied the situation, and have the intellectual and academic and experiential resources to do so, conclude otherwise. They may be wrong - no doubt there will be further research, but I won't be doing it - I am in no position to doubt their results and no reason to doubt either their competence or their integrity. If you do, tell us why. The article you posted is interesting in its discussion of bats, but somehow I have a feeling that the researchers in this effort are very familiar with it, and it does nothing to throw doubt on their findings. What are your qualifications for doing so? Maybe you can find scientists or others who have presented good arguments or data that will refute it? If so, let us have them - better yet, let the researchers here have them (and somehow I rather suppose they are more up to date concerning contrary arguments than any of us here are).

SYMPTOMS:
1) Discount any information presented you feel is "far-fetched" ..... CHECK
2) Present questions to validate doubt regarding said information without doing research to answer those questions ..... CHECK
3) Demand others to present proof of their beliefs without presenting proof of one's own ..... CHECK
4) Casually wave-off objective findings from objective scientists as fake news while readily believing random website with a very clear bias ..... CHECK

DIAGNOSIS:
A very clear classical case of confirmation bias.

TREATMENT:
There is no know cure at present time. The best course of action is to effect a quarantine of infected individuals to prevent the spread of the condition. If quarantine is not viable, the second best course of action is to disengage and maintain distance from infected individuals to prevent secondary conditions of anguish, wasted time and effort.

@satirical... The person who needs to read it will probably either ignore it, or not recognize themselves.

> and it does nothing to throw doubt on their findings

No, it does. They claim that bats are not disease-carrying, which is the exact opposite of what the scientists are claiming. They both can't be right.

Satirical, my so-called 'symptoms are better than believing everything you read.

> and it does nothing to throw doubt on their findings

No, it does. They claim that bats are not disease-carrying, which is the exact opposite of what the scientists are claiming. They both can't be right.

Satirical, my so-called 'symptoms are better than believing everything you read.

Dolphin: Any animal can carry disease, including human beings, as you certainly know.

animals carry disease needs to be scrutinized.
Snakes are venomous. This is known because many people have witnessed someone being bitten by a snake. It is not just 2nd hand info from scientists. Also, snakes can only kill you by biting you directly, as I know. Not indirectly. Also, snakes have carried venom since the beginning of time.

Nnoble posted that trash from BBC supposedly to lend more credibility to your team. It makes it look worse to me. Bats are being blamed for a different virus, nipah. So bats in yunnan cause.a different virus than in india. Bats in. Norway are harmless. Both nipah and SARS are 'new' diseases .... seems suspicious to me.
Also, nipah causes respiratory illness AND. mental confusio? Wow, what a nasty piece of work those bats in India must be. As far as I can guess intuitively, respiratory illness can only be caused by airborne particles, not bats pooping somewhere. Also, can an illness actually cause respiratory problems and mental problems? That sounds absurd to me. also, labelling mental confusion as a symptom seems absurd. How do you even define mental confusion? Do they give them a quiz? dr: where are you? Patient: the Eiffel Tower. Dr: who is the current president of the USA? Patient: I know! Putin!

THe devil is in the details, and the details are absurd because it's lies.

More absurdity.

the problem is that after trump, people will believe anything

@Dolphin: Devil in the details? May be, but you don't have any, Researchers do - but you'd rather rely on intuitions. If you;re really excited about all this you'll find out what they are before you, first of all, understand them; and then, okay, challenge them if you want - that's the sort of thing that well-trained scientists attempt to do. Do you think that's a bad idea? Note that most of us don't have the time or knowledge to go into it that deeply - which is one of the reasons that we have scientists.
. .

Supposing it's not true; what would be a credible motive for fabricating research (to the detail they can reasonably guarantee they could get it past peer reviews) and propagating lies?

@nnoble: Exactly. Tell us, Dolphin.

@ dolphin All this 'conspiritorial' research: www.sixthtone.com/[...] By the way, I don't don't go looking for this, it just turns up in daily news.

beneath their feet lie layers of bat dung. ha ha.

anyone want to go to a bat cave to investigate this further?

Give Bats a Break
issues.org/33-3/give-bats-a-break/

If bats were even remotely as dangerous as postulated, why has it not been possible to explain the following facts? Why is it that I and hundreds of other bat researchers remain in good health, despite countless hours of close contact, often surrounded by thousands, even millions of bats in caves? Like veterinarians, we are vaccinated against rabies because we are sometimes bitten in self-defense by the animals we handle. However, throughout most of our careers, we have not been protected against any of the other deadly diseases for which bats are now speculated to serve as reservoirs.

Furthermore, why hasn't it been possible to document bat-caused disease outbreaks among the millions of people who regularly eat bats throughout the African and Asian tropics or among the many Africans, Asians, and Australians living in cities cohabited by hundreds of thousands of bats? Why are guano harvesters who spend most of their lives in major bat caves no less healthy than their neighbors? How is it that millions of tourists have safely viewed from close range the emergence during summer nights of the million-plus bats that have lived for the past 35 years under a road bridge in the middle of Austin, Texas?

——

Yet once one delves into the world of bats and infectious diseases, these stories begin to fall apart. A closer look at what science knows about bats strongly suggests that the scientific and media furor is at best overstated, and is likely a distraction from more serious research and health problems. Above all, it turns out that while we certainly should be concerned about bats, we probably don't need to worry very much about what they might do to us. Rather, we should be worrying about what we are doing to bats in the name of science and public health.

> what would be a credible motive for fabricating research

To get grants.

@Dolphin: I have nothing against bat, have no argument against those who say that bats do not often carry infectious diseases, and have been in plenty of caves with bat dung under my feet and remained healthy. I've also known humans and caught measles when I was a kid. Maybe bats are generally cleaner than people. But the argument has to do with specific bats in a specific cave at a specific time in the history of disease. The article you have contributed deals with generalities, not specifics.
Your point about getting grants - does this mean you dismiss all research as fabricated? If not, why pick on this particular research? Do you think there are ANY scientists who do honest work?

Is it possible that the research is fabricated? YES, it is possible. Why do you think the research is probable in this particular case?

correction: 'Why do you think the research is probably fabricated...'?

> Do you think there are ANY scientists who do honest work?

Yes.

There is a web site called "quackwatch.org".
The site exists because there are hundreds of scientific topics for which there are contradictory claims by different scientists. So obviously, when there are two sides, one side can't be right. And just because one scientist or group is calling another scientist or group quacks doesn't mean they are the ones who are right.

and there are millions of scientific works that are not contradictory

Millions? Wow! That many, huh?

Ok, gentlemen. Prepare to have your minds blown now.

Did you know that there are scientists with contradictory theories regarding some of the most widely accepted science that you have never even heard of?

I'll bet none of you know who Auguste Antoine Picard is, do you?

Please let me tell you who Auguste Antoine Picard is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Piccard
Auguste Antoine Piccard (28 January 1884 – 24 March 1962) was a Swiss physicist, inventor and explorer, known for his record-breaking helium-filled balloon flights, with which he studied Earth's upper atmosphere .... Piccard also was the first to witness views of earth from 10 miles up, stating in a 1931 Popular Science magazine that "It [i.e., Earth] seemed a flat disk with upturned edge"

Picard said 'it seemed" - are you trying to tell us that Picard thought the world was flat? If so, you're misreading the article - which has nothing to do with the topic here anyway.

so there is a strong argument the world is flat and there were no moon landings, because you didn't see it yourself

I, for one, don't believe the pyramids or stone hedge are real. I mean, it is hard enough lifting those big giant stones with modern cranes, it just seems far fetched to me that ancient civilizations could have built such things with their bare hands. All those pictures are just fake news. I mean, it's so easy to photoshop pictures now-a-days. You can't believe any pictures you see.

If you watch the film with George Clooney in space, does it look real or fake? If they told you this is real footage of Clooney in space, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Want to create fake footage of Mars? It's very simple. Find a landscape with dirt. And then paint it red in Photoshop. You are giving yourselves way too much credit in thinking you would be able to spot the real Mars in a photo.

And "why would they do that?" The same reason the serpent deceived adam and eve in the garden of eden. You ain't living in paradise here where everyone is always honest and has positive intentions. Best of luck with all the bs out there!

and dolphin is just an alias of an old member who had to leave the forum, fake, so sad

Why would you suspect THESE PARTICULAR SCIENTISTS, researching SARS and bats, of behaving like Satan in the story - driven by envy of God???
Dolphin, where are you coming from?

He is trolling you, and you keep taking the lure.

Not trolling ... but admittedly I am a bit (or a lot) of a mad philosopher ... my apologies.

Not sure what motivated the snake. Feel free to think mythology is not relevant. But I do sincerely believe that there are lies out there on a MASSIVE SCALE. It's almost too much for the mind to deal with. And one almost needs mythology to explain it. Regarding SARS ... who knows? Let's give these scientists the benefit of the doubt.

Do you guys like to wear sunscreen lotion? Is it protecting you from skin cancer? Are you sure? Or does it contribute to skin cancer?
Why would they lie and deceive? Not sure. I feel like Snoopy now. I just want my blanket.

Sunscreen and the Lies We've Been Told About the Real Causes of Skin Cancer
thetruthaboutcancer.com/causes-of-skin-cancer/
Sunscreen blocks vitamin D production, which is an essential nutrient for health and cancer prevention. Many major brands of sunscreen also contain toxic chemicals, which are absorbed through the skin, enter the bloodstream, and then circulate throughout the body. Could blocking vitamin D synthesis and slathering toxic chemicals on our skin actually be among the main causes of skin cancer?

only when thoughts escape as words

I would take science skeptics more seriously if they are able to use arguments not taken from other scientists or religion. You can't exactly attack science as false by using scientists, it would be like arguing God doesn't exist because He told you. You can argue specific scientific claims are invalid but you can't argue science in general is invalid unless you argue ALL science is invalid, then in which case you can't use scientists to subtansiate your argument.

I also find irony in the argument that because there are contradictory observations in science, I am left with no choice but to believe in a higher being, of which there have been NO observations, instead of further investigation.

I wonder how the world would work if this logic is applied in other fields.
—Since you two lawyers can't agree if the man is guilty of murder or not, then the law is fake. No more law, everyone pray that no one gets murdered ever again.

—Since you two doctor can't agree on the cause of the patient's illness, then medicine is not real. Everyone pray that the no one gets sick ever again.

—Since you two Christians can't agree on who qualifies to go to heaven, then Church is a fraud.....hey, wait a minute.

russels'teapot springs to mind

yes, my brain is sometimes my own worst enemy.
and fair points, satirical. but the law field is also full of corruption and bias. you don't think guilty people get off the hook because a good lawyer is able to manipulate and hide the facts? wherever there is complexity and hidden information, there are murky waters.

maybe in 2 years, you will read about another scientist claiming sars comes from monkeys in tanzania. and then all i can say is ... good luck. i'm outta here.

@dolphin: good point about Tanzania etc. But the way science works is this: we go with the best and most comprehensive explanation/theory that we have so far.
Example: Newton on gravity, for a couple centuries; then, Einstein came up with a better and more comprehensive explanation for all the same observation that Newton made - and then some. So if you, or somebody, can falsify the cave bat theory and come up with a better explanation, then do so and give us the superior theory - otherwise we have no choice but to accept the best authority that exists to far.
If you want absolute truth final and forever, don't ask human beings, we know we're fallible.

Sorry, but I have to say it. This is just a whole new level of stupid. First of all, who is Louis Savain, what paper has he published? Ah right, because the peer review process is "corrupt", he does not publish any papers but instead, publish it in a blog for all to see. Sour grapes?

Second, "time dimension would make motion impossible because [...] motion in time assumes a velocity in time " WTF!? It would be like saying life can not exist because we know life requires water and there is no water in space. To use another analogy, your last post cannot possibly exist because you said you "are outta here" in the previous post.

Thirdly:

"Louis Savain, who calls himself a "rebel scientist", is probably a minor figure, but deserves exposure as an excellent example of a certain mindset. Savain is a crackpot who disagrees with most of the major discoveries in modern science, including relativity and evolution, and has written several posts of "scientific" takedowns of theories of which he appears to have a rather tenuous grasp. Instead, Savain comes up with his own hypotheses and theories, often based to a greater or lesser extent on the Bible. "
americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/07/1112-louis-savain.html

"I'd be surprised if any of you knew who Louis Savain is — he's a weird little crackpot that I stomped on hard all of 3½ years ago. He claims that the Bible is actually a complete and accurate technical description of the neurological workings of the human brain. It was one of the more memorably loony ideas I've seen come out of religious derangement."
freethoughtblogs.com/[...]

"Anyone who has browsed Savain's website will not be surprised to see that the secret message is left in no other scientific source than the Book of Revelation. Yes, that Book of Revelation. The one with the Seven-headed Beast and the Whore of Babylon. And horsemen. "

scienceblogs.com/[...]

I'm sorry, but if you keep posting this type of dribble, I have no choice but to assume you are an idiot, a religious nutty one at that.

maybe get a job at the whitehouse or the epa or get nominated for some other executive agency job

He is a "minor figure" and a "weird little crackpot". Are these scientific terms? Do you not see that people who use this kind of language are under-handed and therefore not to be trusted? Not saying everything this blogger says is accurate either. But if you use the gray matter between your ears and look at subtle clues, then you will understand how things work without even understanding the scientific theories.

People who use these dirty tactics of character assassination are snakes in the grass. We don't need to debate the science. Which admittedly, most of it is over my head anyway.

Stephen Hawking is another fraud, in my opinion. What was the purpose of his (mostly fake?) science other than to convert people to atheism? You don't need God. All you need is an iPhone!

Oh, the hypocrisy. You demean science and yet expect other to maintain scientific? Do you not see that by posting this kind of dribble that you are being "under-handed and therefore not to be trusted?" And "if you use the gray matter between your ears" you'll realize that you are an IDIOT and a DOTARD. Why bring up a debate about science when you don't want to debate the science? Isn't that just moronic? And if you admittedly know that the science at the core of Mr. Savain arguments are over your head, how can you make the determination that he is correct and others are wrong?

I postulate that in place of gray matter between your ears, you have a flock of parrots echoing all that dribble you keep spewing out, which is clearing affecting your ability to hear yourself.

Please do us all a favor, if you believe religion (especially the particular flavor you subscribe to) is the answer to all things, stop using products that are the result of science, Stop turning on your computer, stop carrying a mobile phone, walk or ride a horse as your mode of transportation. And for God's sake, stop ordering take-away food.

it also amazes me how people who come out with such ilconsidered drivel like to elevate themselves to the role of philosopher

dolphins prefer Christopher Hitchens when considering healthy aetheism.

or douglas adams

the answer to all your questions is 42.

"Einstein was right! Scientists confirm general relativity works with distant galaxy"
www.foxnews.com/[...]

Speaking of science, from Fox, no less.

Well, fox news ... we're off to a bad start. But even if it's Scientific American, I'm not impressed. My thesis is very simple. If scientists or anyone else is making outrageous claims that cannot be verified by the average person, then it cannot be taken as fact. Actually, these claims seem absurd to me. In their tests, the used an entire galaxy as an "object"? Seems completely absurd and impossible. More likely to me, it's all made up nonsense. Impossible is nothing? No. Impossible is this time-space make-believe gibberish.

it is about reliable sources, and the ability to evaluate those sources. some people seem to be distinctly lacking in that ability

Wow, I guess we are now judging truth by what an average person understands. So the next time you need a life saving medical procedure you can forgo it as quackery because your average person will not be able to verify the efficacy or the medical science behind the operation. I mean, it sounds really, really, far-fetched. You're going to cut me open, take something out that "God" has given me, and I'm going to get better? Get the fk outta here.

Actually, you should also be very suspicious about the computer and the mobile phone you are using. Wait, what!? You are telling me that there are these tiny things called electrons that we can't see, spinning around generating something called "electricity" and that they travel through tiny wires thinner than my hair and using nothing but 0's and 1's, they can power and run the world? What kind of witchcraft is this?

""Some people are born ignorant and some choose to be ignorant, either way, you're just really stupid. I don't really care, do u?"

— Melania Trump

"Forget everything that you think you know."
- Dr. Strange

wao, interesting epistemology guys! make me wanna come back shangri la and talk with you about deep philosophy drunk...

to get back to sars and bats, one must not forget that 1 reason of the spread of the deadly disease was the horrible life conditions of industry animals, which are denied most hapiness and freedom rights

yes?

Maybe, but that didn't have anything to do with the bat cave.

Gompo, your statement is false and please start a separate thread on veganism, which I will be happy to debate with you.

dolphin: ok, animal exploitation as cause of sars transmission was my memory from the time, as i were in china.

now it seems they link the animal transmission to civet, which i guess are used in poor conditions, yes?

www.who.int/ith/diseases/sars/en/

like the dolphin said, you is thread hijacking. start yer own thread and he will respond, dont sh1t on this thread

Login to comment Register to comment