Talk:Mòjiāng virus

There is unambiguously a single virus recognized as Mòjiāng virus

Given MojV's close phylogenetic relationship to members of the genus Henipavirus, it is important to contextualize that MojV may be a causative agent of severe and fatal human disease because it is currently an uncategorized agent. Because the pathogenesis of sarbecoviruses is well understood, there is no additional value in including this conspiratorial SARS-like-CoV tangent. Furthermore, the article Mòjiāng virus is intended to detail the submicroscopic obligate parasite called Mòjiāng virus and it's natural history. No claims were made whatsoever that it was an etiological agent of any disease.

Pathogenic henipaviruses are highly transmissible and cause acute respiratory distress and encephalitis in multiple mammalian hosts. A pandemic of such a virus would truly be devastating on a scale you simply cannot imagine. Providing clear, timely, and accurate information on these agents is a priority. There should be absolutely no confusion with unrelated viruses.

No one has claimed that it's related as the cuasative agent for either SARS-CoV-2 or the sick miners. the connection is that it was sampled in the same location as SARS-CoV-2 closest known relative RatG13, that is important information, even if it is not about MojV itself, addtionaly the notion that it's connected to the miner cases needs to be strongly dispelled.

this article mixes 2 topics: 1.the Mojiang outbreak. 2.An unrelated virus which was found as a product of the interest that this outbreak generated.

Another thing which is troubling me about this topic, is that it was created in May 2020, in the height of the pandemic and interest of its source, and not in any of the years after 2012 when it emerged as an item, and it made the implication that MojV is related to the miner cases, but obvsiouly unrelated to SARS-CoV-2. this to me looks like an attempt to create misdirection and obfuscate some key details!

Further, The encylopdian value of MojV itself is very suspect. I don't see how it's unique from the uncounted billions of virus variations going through various hosts in the wild. it is not causing human infection, speculating on how deadly or bad it might be were it were the case is really pointless. Shturmavik71 (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You can create a page about cases of unexplained pneumonia among miners in Mojiang Hani Autonomous county, however Mòjiāng_virus is singularly dedicated to MojV the henipavirus. The reason I created this page in May 2020 is not related to me covering for the CCP. Any thought suggesting otherwise is absolutely paranoid and needs to be shut down immediately. It unfairly puts an obnoxious burden of proof onto me, where in reality I have full license to write about any henipavirus at any time I should chose.

MojV is undoubtedly of much greater import than any sarbecovirus because of it's close relationship with Hendra and Nipah, both notable BSL4 and category C select agents (which means they are the highest priority for US biodefense). It doesn't matter whether RaTG13 or LYRa3 were present in that cave because they are widespread among rosettus bats in that region. MojV is unique in that it is a poorly understood virus with exceedingly high pathogenic potential, and it has only ever been isolated from this site.

Obfuscating this important discovery with baseless COVID-19 conspiracy theories detracts from the efficient communication of the limited information we have on MojV. I will continue to escalate this because you are not only promoting conspiracy theories about COVID-19, but you are also actively creating misinformation about MojV.

Henipa (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I dont agree, COVID-19 is one of the most important events of the century so far. mojiang is one of it's possible origins, as has been well supported be evidence.

'mojiang virus' is the natural landing place for any one looking for facts on the matter. the way the page was written to intentionally link the human illness to MojV, and it's creation date is hughly suspect, something most users would agree with. this being the first page you created, also raises major flags. china/CCP has been caught many times in attacks and misinformation campagins, and it's interest in covering up information related to covid, which is well documented and established is obvious.

I'm sorry but I dont take your word for it. the way this page has been worded and it's timing, and it's obvious intent to conflate 2 viruses whose only commonality is they were sampeld from the same place, is very very suspicious.

MojV might be of some interest scientifically, but it's non exsitant relation to human infection should be well and clearly worded!

as well as it's coincendental relationship to those 2012 events.

My edit left the the MojV information intact, and added a clear explanation wbout how the virus was found.

your edit just misconstrued the facts about it.

I will revert all further vandalism, please stop adding misinformation. Henipa (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC on the matterShturmavik71 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This page is misleading

There are many varieties of viruses collected from the Mòjiāng mine, after the 2012 incident, only one of these happens to be the focus of this page. it makes the assertion by association that the 3 miners died due to the henipavirus. but this is unfounded and unssuported. the henipavirus samples taken are NOT from the miners themselves, which were treated for an extensive amount of time in a hospital. they were taken from a collection in the cave, the association with the sick miners is coincidental at best, and it seems it's made with the intention to deceive the uninformed reader.

In fact, in the same cave, there have been located a multitude of novel bat coronavirus species, by Shi Zhengli's team. one of which is the supposed famed RaTG13, the closest relative of SARS-COV2.

[1] Has translated a Chinese master's thesis of the doctor treating the sick miners, and outlines in detail the likely culprit. the miners were treated under an assumption of a SARS-like agent, and the foremost Chinese expert on SARS was brought in to advise on their cases.

With this in mind, the writing of this page, in may 2020, at the height of interest in the case, seems like an intention to obfuscate the issue and confuse it. the henipavirus discovered might be of some academic interest, but the encyclopedic value of the virus which actually ailed the miners is of far more value! Shturmavik71 (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

independentsciencenews.org is not a WP:MEDRS source. Any claims about the Mojiang virus (and particularly exceptional claims, such as the one made in the independentsciencenews.org article) have to be sourced to WP:MEDRS sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not medical material but a dispute about factual events. "Stone, Richard (2014). "A New Killer Virus in China?". ScienceMag", is as high a level scientific source as possible, and it reports, that no connection between the Mojiang virus and the miners exists. this article clearly states the words of the original author: “we have not established a direct relationship between human infection and MojV,” the article currently implies that it is.

you seem to edit most of the articles regarding WIV, SARS-COV2, and Shi zhengli with a distinct agenda, which is not one of honest representation of established facts.

Which of the clarifications in the article I've rewritten do you dispute?

1.It is a fact, that after the 2012 outbreak, the mine became a source of interest to a number of research groups,

2.it was confirmed by Shi zhengli in her ScienceMag interview that she has (with her group) performed sample collection in the mine.

3.The other group is the group the discovered the aftermentioned henipavirus virus.

4."Novel Virus Discovery in Bat and the Exploration of Receptor of Bat Coronavirus HKU9 (Canping Huang ; Supervisor: Gao Fu ; Shu Yuelong ; China CDC, 2018)" is another researcher examining the case of the miners, though his thesis has been recently deleted, so I can't find a ref now.

That makes 2 verified groups.

There is not one but a number of viruses that originate from this location, one is indeed the henipavirus reported here, RaTG13 is another one confirmed by Shi to be sourced from this location. along with a large number of other types of bat coronaviruses (she said that a significant part of the samples was carrying varius coronaviruses)

Those are facts requiring RS sourcing, not medical information subject to WP:MEDRS.

Please do not delete well-sourced information on a whim. Shturmavik71 (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

independentsciencenews.org and Master's theses are not reliable sources for information about SARS-CoV-2. For scientific information about SARS-CoV-2, we do, in fact, require WP:MEDRS sources. Random websites or non-peer-reviewed preprints, even if written by scientists, are not strong enough. The Science Magazine interview is a stronger source, but Shi Zhengli specifically says that there's no evidence any of the miners was infected with a coronavirus:

I guess you are referring to the bat cave in Tongguan town in Mojiang county of Yunnan Province. To date, none of nearby residents is infected with coronaviruses. Thus the claim that the so-called "patient zero" was living near the mining area and then went to Wuhan is false.

Please remove the material you've added that is poorly sourced. It is not acceptable to link to conspiracy theory articles about SARS-CoV-2 here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

While this is related to SARS-CoV-2, and some strong evidence point to Moijang being the possible source of it, my edit does not imply it. I merely rephrased the article to clearly state that MojV is not the only virus discovered in the Mine, and further, by a direct quote of the scientists involved, clarified that MojV is not linked to any human infection. The outbreak and the sick miners case obviously created a lot of interest in many research groups, which sampled the mine and wrote various academic papers on it. but the former phrasing makes the completely incorrect implication that MojV is related to the miners case, which is categorically untrue, by any source.

Since MojV is indeed an established name for a specific (IMHO unimportant but it's beside the point) virus, it would be confusing and incorrect to add all the relevant information about the outbreak itself here. but I think a separate page for this important event is warranted, where all known facts related to it should be detailed. but first, it's important to dispel the erroneous notation that MojV is the cause.

"I guess you are referring to the bat cave in Tongguan town in Mojiang county of Yunnan Province. To date, none of nearby residents is infected with coronaviruses. Thus the claim that the so-called "patient zero" was living near the mining area and then went to Wuhan is false."

I'm not sure what you are referring to, I never wrote about a 'local' patient zero on this page, or anybody going to wuhan. While, I think it's completely plausible that patient zero is one of the miners, as per the "miners passage hypothesis" of Dr.Latham, but at that point it's still a hypothesis out of a number (IMHO the most supported one).

While I'm no wiki expert, from reading the details of WP:MEDRS, it's intended for proper sourcing of medical information as I understand. Claims such as "chilli is a cure for flu" should better be WP:MEDRS, while factual information such as "chilli was patented as a treatment for flu in May 2017 in the US (#Patent)" is simply RS for example.

On a side note, why would you claim a Master's thesis is not a reliable source (*on it's subject matter and not beyond). A thesis is a serious academic work with considerable reporting requirements. For a thesis to be approved a committee of experts in the field has to review it in a multistage process and it has to be defended. A thesis is written by an aspiring scientist which puts his name behind it. A thesis is a far more reliable source than the typical article written even by a well-known journalist. A pre-print while on a lower bar, can also be a valuable source for some information, from familiarity with the field there are many cases where a pre-print makes more sense than a regular paper, for example, making it open access without paying open-access fees, reporting results ahead of others, general low volume of work not justifying a full paper, etc...Shturmavik71 (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Further on WP:MEDRS, you are trying to apply this stringent standard to suppress non-medical information you don not like. stating "the six miners were the first infected with SARS-COV2" is unsupported, but stating "In 2013, Li Xu, one of the doctors treating the miners, concluded they are likely to be infected by a SARS-live COV from a Chinese rufous bat" is well supported by the thesis (it's the thesis conclusion), unless you think the original chinese thesis and the translation are a complete fabrication, which is very unreasonable. Shturmavik71 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

A master's thesis is not a peer-reviewed scientific study. The level of scrutiny given to a master's thesis is far below the level of scrutiny given to a paper published in a reputable journal.

WP:MEDRS is the standard generally being applied to CoVID-19-related information, including scientific information (such as the origin of the virus). Poorly sourced conspiracy theories about the origins of the virus are frowned upon here. Even though you haven't mentioned the conspiracy theories in your edits to the article, you've linked to web pages that promote conspiracy theories. Please remove these links. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

As someone who wrote both peer-reviewed papers (a few published in decent impact journals) and a Master's thesis, you can take it on my subjective experience, that a master's thesis is scrutinized no less than a typical paper, and overall constitutes a much larger academic investment, but that is beside the point.

You are trying to discredit valuable sources based on personal opinion regarding the subject matter. Dr.Latham and Dr.Wilson are experts in the field (Ph.D. in virology and Ph.D. in genetics), the fact that their findings haven't yet been published in a peer-reviewed form is immaterial to the factual and journalistic basis of their findings.

You are using the term 'conspiracy theory' way too liberally.

And In any case, all of this is not-relevant to the edits I've made to this page to clarify the meaning of MojV which previously implied a cause and effect connection to the miners case. do you dispute that MojV is not connected to humans? or do you dispute that the outbreak generated interest and subsequent collections from multiple groups in the mine. both facts are matter-of-fact and well-sourced and hardly require MEDRS.Shturmavik71 (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Btw, here is another peer-reviewed article discussing the findings [[2]], please review it before making FRINGE allegations.Shturmavik71 (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't take your word for it, and I disagree. A Master's thesis is fundamentally a school project. This is basically one step above citing a student's final paper for a class. The FrontiersIn article you link looks extremely suspect: it's written by two people whose fields of expertise appear to have little to nothing to do with virology. Finally, yes it does matter where Dr. Latham or Dr. Wilson publish their views. Non-peer-reviewed material is not even worth considering, if we're talking about the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

If you think that this Wikipedia article misrepresents the sources, that's one thing. But adding in links to conspiracy theory websites is unacceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems Doug has not ruled on your complaint, yet you went ahead and reverted the entire contribution.

Completely ignoring all of my points. your opinion about what constitutes a conspiracy theory is your own. and is not policy. and now the peer-reviewed paper I've provided is 'suspect' by your standards. well, your activity in pushing a certain false narrative and suppressing information that answers all reliability criteria yet you don't like is suspect in my view. I don't intend to argue with you, as you have never addressed any of the points I've raised and you are arguing in bad-faith. I've removed from this page the source you find so offensive, but left the content as is, with 2 other supporting sources. if you completely revert it again, I will find the correct place to escalate to. Shturmavik71 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not the way that Wikipedia works. If you make major changes to an article, and someone else raises objections, you're supposed to seek agreement, not force through your changes. See WP:BRD. I've removed the Science Magazine interview, because it does not say that the pneumonia cases increased interest in the cave. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for civil debate, you should engage in it in good-faith, yet for the last couple of weeks, you have not addressed any of the issues I've raised. and focused on attacking everything as promoting conspiracy theories. and trying to enfore unrelated wiki policies. maybe you need a refersher on how wiki works.

As for the article, the connection is clear. A virologist and her team embark on sampling viruses in a location 2000 miles away from her lab, from the same spot where a number of people died due to a new uknown pathogen. This makes 2 teams, one which sampled the MoJV and Shi's team.Shturmavik71 (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Shturmavik71

User Shturmavik71 has consistently vandalized Mòjiāng_virus please stop linking unsubstantiated fringe and conspiracy theories. Henipa (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Henipa See my response above Shturmavik71 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Speculation on MojV and human disease

Given the recent controversy surrounding isolation of sarbecoviruses at the same site that MojV was first isolated, I want to clarify that it is completely unknown which virus (if any) caused the outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology in the miners. The isolation of multiple viruses, a subset of which were uncharacterized, further complicates matters.

The symptoms that the miners experienced were not pathognomonic of sarbecovirus infection, although this is also speculative and the master's thesis translation cannot be included as a peer-reviewed document. Having reviewed the case reports, I think that infection with a novel neuroinvasive henipavirus should be equally considered among the alternative unsubstantiated theory that they were sarbecovirus infected. There is no reason to favor the diagnosis of coronavirus over another novel virus, other than baseless sinophobic paranoia. Henipa (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Well your theory has much less authority than the doctor treating the patients. Shturmavik71 (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, any other theory is not relevant at Mòjiāng virus. It doesn't matter if you think the patients were sarbecovirus infected, put that on RaTG13 if you want. The only information that is relevant to readers at Mòjiāng virus is the characterization of MojV. Henipa (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

There are 3 facts that need to be clear

1.MojV is NOT infectious to humans (there is no evidence of that)

2.MojV was identified as a result of interest in the miners case, and not related to it medically in any way.

3.The same mine where it was located was also the source of RatG13.

Do you dpisute these factually?

I don't put my theories about the patients here, as they are out of scope of the article.

What I want the page to be is clear about the facts sorrunding MojV. where it was located (and it's relation to the most discussed topic of 2020) IS important and relevant. Shturmavik71 (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, you've also changed some key facts for some reason. there were 6 sick miners, 3 of which died. the mine was a copper mine. and the miners were busy clearing bat feces.

why did you remove that?Shturmavik71 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The source that ICTV references for the phylogenetic classification of MojV references that it was connected to an outbreak of fatal pneumonia in 3 persons (so while I have read the case reports from the translated masters thesis that detail the 6 miners, we cannot include that because it is not a reliable source).

There is no evidence to conclude MojV doesn't infect humans as you continue to suggest, or that it is apathogenic. All available evidence suggests that MojV is highly infectious and likely fatal given its characterized cytopathology, the functionality of its P/V/C gene, and deduced tissue tropism. Unlike bat sarbecoviruses, all henipaviruses can readily cross species barriers when amplified sufficiently and readily cause disease in humans (except for Cedar).

From the sources that we are allowed to use, we cannot conclude that there was any known etiology of the human disease outbreak. Because this page is exclusively dedicated to MojV (which is absolutely a priority, even though you continue to neglect it) it is prudent to establish that there is a known connection with a human outbreak. For other large henipavirus outbreaks (namely Malaysia and Kerala), the standard of diagnosis can be suspect in the case of exposure. For instance, when someone is exposed to a sarbecovirus we still go and test because there is a good chance that there was no infection established. Generally with henipavirus or morbillivirus, infection is so much more likely in the case of exposure. Exposure alone is thus sufficient to suspect henipavirus disease.

All of the available publications on MojV reference the miners. You have no idea how critical these small details are in trying to understand MojV when we already have such little to go on.

"There is no evidence to conclude MojV doesn't infect humans as you continue to suggest" there is a clear source (ScienceMag) that explitly states in the words of the original author “we have not established a direct relationship between human infection and MojV,” it's as clear as it gets. there are as I said uncounted bilions of viruses in the wild, the only thing that makes it special is that someone wrote a paper about it.

It's hardly been established that the thesis is not a reliable source just because Thuscydius411 thinks so. the thesis is as reliable as it gets, as it was written well before current events, and is a direct and important source of the events, it has already been cited in published peer-reviewed papers. I will get the opinion of the community, and I'm sure they will back me up on that.

by the way, that thesis says that the 6 miners tested positive for Ig to a SARS-like-CoV. and the conclusion of the author is that they were higly likely infected with 'SARS-like-CoV'

So claiming that it can be infectious despite clear evidence to the contrary AND trying to link it to the miners is simply wrong.

As I said, I'm of that opinion that MojV is nothing but a distraction and a coverup in the grand scheme of things. and at the very least I will set the record straight regarding what it isn't.Shturmavik71 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The master's thesis (untranslated) can still be considered a primary source, but there are major errors and biases in the English translation. Because Jonathan Latham is a conspiracy theorist, citations linking to him should be considered as such. You continue to say that MojV is known to specifically not cause human disease, and is somehow unimportant because it is not a sarbecovirus and among the "billions of unimportant viruses". The issue here is that henipaviruses have a stronger connection with human disease (and they generally present with the signs that the miners reported), whereas sarbecovirus infection is widespread and often apathgenic in humans, as is believed to be the case for RaTG13. Non-SARS human infections are common in that region evidenced by serology, so positive sarbecovirus anti-S IgG is really not special. If that was diagnostic then the thesis wouldn't specifically be titled pneumonia of <<unknown>> cause.

Again, all of the peer-reviewed virology literature regarding MojV specifically references a possible connection to fatal pneumonia in 3 persons. Adding misinformation on Mòjiāng_virus that contradicts this accepted paradigm, instead citing the likes of known conspiracy theorists, is an obvious attempt to damage scientific knowledge about MojV.

Your constant vandalism of Mòjiāng_virus and character attacks on me demonstrate a clear attempt to spread misinformation. In reality, nobody will doubt my pure intentions for writing this article when I did because it takes a mind with established sinophobic paranoia to make such a connection.

You are not in a position to make any claim about the miner cases connection to MojV, this is nothing more than conjecture on your part.

My source may not stand up to the rigors of MEDRS but it's still a source, with significant Prima facie evidence pointing to a different pathogen.

other henipaviruses might cause human infection, and it might be a terirrble one, but that is besides the point. there is no evidence pointing to a connection in this case, and there is a clear statement that no connection exists. you claiming a connection (and wording the article to imply it) is misrepresnenation of the evidence.

your accusations of vandalism, sinophobia or calling me paranoid for pointing out what is on it's face suspicious editing don't really phase me in the slightest, it's the internet in 2020, ccp troll farms are a fact (im not accusing you of being one, just that trust for anonymous persons is non-existent, I judge based on actions). Shturmavik71 (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

MojV is known to infect human cells, however the pathogenesis hasn't been tested yet. You continue to misunderstand that. I'm not personally making an etiology call on the outbreak of pneumonia of unknown cause- this is based on the official ICTV characterization of MojV.

Whether or not you perceive your own decisions to ultimately be caused by sinophobia, I could care less. That is the basis of the conspiracy theory you are acting on behalf of. And I'll remind you that your only sources are this conspiracy theory, and as such, this is the ultimate motivator of your argument.Henipa (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You keep attacking my character and my motivations, and completly disregarding all the points I've raised.

I dont understand why you insist on obfuscating the timeline of events, which is:

1.6 miners get sick, 3 died, 2.this creates interest in a number of research groups(supported by the other ScienceMag article), which go on to sample the mine, 3.one of the viruses sampled is MojV, 4.it is not found to be related to the sick miners

Those facts are from ScienceMag (except the number of sick). my original edit was a summary of that in a few lines.

The second point is that In the same site another important virus strain has been located. (also ScienceMag)

Both points are well sourced.

Please respond to those points without resorting to accusations of conspiracy theories or sinopobia Shturmavik71 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

So there is nothing to debate, we can only use the 4 real sources- the official ICTV page and the source publication (2), Illona's paper on MojV-G, and that paper about generalized recombinant henipavirus vaccines.

Jonathan Latham (therefor independentsciencenews.org and the bioscience resource institute) is not a credible source and he seeks to intentionally spread misinformation. Like I said, even the biased translation of the case reports in the masters thesis specifically mentions that the pneumonia was of unknown cause- which means it wasn't a sarbecovirus because that's what looked for and ruled out.

Bat sarbecoviruses are widespread in that part of China, like RaTG13 or LYRa3, and there is serological evidence that they frequently infect humans without pathogenesis. There is nothing unique or interesting about RaTG13 being isolated from this mine. Also, it is clear that RaTG13 wasn't chronically present in the cave. When MojV was identified, the samples were amplified and sequenced using NGS which would have also picked up any nonredundant coronavirus fragments.

What is truly interesting and scary, is that this cave is unique as the only known location where a novel henipavirus was present. Had MojV been identified when the miners were sick, they would have likely tested for MojV infection. Because sarbecoviruses are well known, they did test for them and it was clearly not the cause of this pneumonia outbreak.

To summarize, you haven't made any real points. The science is clear so adding misinformation about MojV clearly serves only one purpose. Henipa (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

As I expected you haven't addressed anything I said, and which is backed by RS sources, and you went on a tangent about your theory about what could have been. Shturmavik71 (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Henipavirus background

User:Shturmavik71, before Mòjiāng virus was created, all of the henipaviruses were on the Henipavirus page. This was useful in the early 2000's especially because Hendra and Nipah are very similar and they were only recently categorized- so most research on them was joint (for instance, anyone who studied Hendra would be expected to also study Nipah because they are the same serotype). We started running into challenges when the three (probaly four now) other Henipaviruses were characterized, including MojV. It was unrealistic to dedicate the genus page to in-depth biographies on all of the henipavirus species. Mòjiāng virus is the most divergent henipavirus and challenges some of our assumptions about viral entry, even broadly for paramyxoviruses in fact. Sometimes I want to pull my hair out every day because we understand so little about MojV, but we do know that is probably one of the most dangerous viruses known.

I understand that virologists and virology content can overload people because of the insane diversity of viral species. However, it doesn't mean that the variation is less important or significant. Categorizing viral diversity is a major priority because, as Benhur Lee once put it, "viruses are the best cell biologists".

Your primary concern is irreconcilable with the fact that Mòjiāng virus is named Mòjiāng virus, but that judgement call has already been made and it is out of our hands.

I will offer you a compromise: In the first paragraph, I can edit the longform name of MojV to reflect that it is primarily a viral type and poorly characterized henipavirus. However, I don't want to remove the wording surrounding the outbreak as purported by ICTV sources because this is still important to the virology of MojV. It doesn't matter what you believe the miners got sick with, but anyone handling MojV does take the pathology in the miners as a concern. Henipa (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I concede my knowledge in virolgy isn't deep enough to argue the possible importance of MojV. And that the name was set long before current events. so MojV should be mainly about the henipavirus (I never argued agianst that, just that due to the confusion with the outbreak a clarfication that they are distinct was needed). and that it's remotly possible that despite contraty evidence the miners could have been sick with it. but the language should strongly explain that on it's face no etiological proof has been found. and that the samples were located from animal sources from the mine 6 months after.

I will try to write a page about the 2012 outbreak itself when I'll find the time.

I will edit the line about the connection to covid hypothesis. how about "Unproven theories linking the miners cases or the mine where MojV was found to COVID-19 have been proposed. MojV, however, should not be mistaken to be related, as it's from an all-toghther differnt viral family" Shturmavik71 (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I don't understand some of how you worded this... but it seems like we're on the same page? We don't need to agree on the virology or pathogenesis- but just the scope of each page (ie. henipavirus page is dedicated to MojV, outbreak page is dedicated to pneumonia of unknown cause).

Also, if it's any consolation, I think they might also try to cover up a MojV outbreak. MojV requires higher containment than a sarbecovirus, so if there was a random outbreak of MojV that would be internationally perceived as worse. Not saying that it was one or the other- it would just in the like 1% of viruses that would be unlikely picks to cover up a minor pneumonia outbreak with. Probably they would say it was of bacterial/fungal origin but they can't say bacteria because they pumped those miners full of abx. It doesn't make sense to try and cover up an outbreak (even if it did lead to a pandemic) with a much much more dangerous virus because that would inherently draw attention and strongly encourage foreign scientists to try and go to that cave (as is the case for me).Henipa (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are on the same page or very close at least.

Would this be better, "Unproven theories linking the miners cases or the mine where MojV was found to COVID-19 have been proposed. MojV itself, being a henipavirus, should not be mistaken to be related to SARS-CoV-2, a coronovirus, an all-toghther differnt genus" ?

on a side note, frankly I doubt that we will ever get a full answer, the international community has let it go, and while the origin (of covid) is important, the initial cover up by the CCP of human transmission is alot more obvious but goes unpunished by the world all the same. as the CCP does not allow independent access to any of the WIV logs. and any remaining evidence will get santizied over time. I'm not hopefull we will ever know for sure. Shturmavik71 (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

For the page on MojV the henipavirus I prefer the phrasing, "outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology" which is consistent with the ICTV source. Like I've continued to say, the actual pneumogen isn't actually important at Mòjiāng_virus only that it is either MojV or not (then the not category can be further speculated upon at the outbreak page).

Because there are multiple other agents that are speculated to have caused the pneumonia (it's not down to MojV vs sbCoV) it wouldn't make sense to give a detailed list on a page specifically dedicated to MojV.

Also, I'll let you know that there are publications currently in manuscript regarding MojV at least. The fact that there was a henipavirus in that cave is significant cause for concern. You probably have you opinions on EcoHealth Alliance- but we did have mechanisms like that in the past when we had *better* international cooperation. They would usually let us sample and dick around without much fuss, but now the situation is more complicated at least for sarbecoviruses. Surveillance of henipaviruses in southeast asia is a WHO/CEPI and US perennial priority so we still can go do that via international coalitions.Henipa (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

you mean this line "...mine in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County developed fatal pneumonia +of unknown etiology+..."?.

yes, it is reasoable If I understood you correctly. (as long as the note about no etiological link found remains)

Btw, As this is an interesting conversation, I'm not against virology research done with proper checks and safety, but I fear that the lessons that should have been learned (from what I think is very likely a lab escape of some sort) have not been learned. I've read the 2015 Shi's nature paper, and it seems the WIV have been toying with CoV gene editing (the gain-of-function stuff) for sake of...pretty much seeing if they could, which is bad enough. but I was horrified to learn that it was carried out in BSL2 and 3. I happen to have BSL2 training from a western unviersity (dealing with cell lines etc), and I know how badly inadequate this is for any sort of infectious stuff, and how it's actually handled by students etc. considering that WIV has a documented poor safety record...well you know the rest. Shturmavik71 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Most sarbecovirus work is carried out at 3, sometimes animal studies are in the 4. MERS (unrelated coronavirus) is typically handled in the 4, but this is ultimately at the facility discretion. SARS and MERS are both select A which is a stricter requirement in terms of handling, but only applies within the US.

Gain-of-Function research gets a lot of hype, but if you think about it, it's not always this dirty thing that people make it out to be. Because the whole point of reverse genetics experimental methodology is supposed to tell you the change in phenotype (ie, does this genetic change lead to this phenotypic change) you can't actually know the change in phenotype until you make the genetic change. Which means you don't know what the change in function will be until you make it.

Classical genetics (identifying the genetic basis of phenotype) was founded on genetic ablation and knockout, which is like taking a sledgehammer and knocking out function. So really there's little chance that it could turn into a "gain-of-function" conspiracy. Reverse genetics is a much more delicate way of doing something similar in viruses, but usually some function is rescued. It's unfair to smear reverse genetics (which is our only tool to understand the function of viral machinery) because one of it's potential results is function acquisition.

Like I quoted above, viruses are the best cell biologists. Most genetic changes you can make to a virus will ablate function, not add it. If there was some surprise function that could make a virus a better pathogen, it would likely already have those changes. Also it's near damn impossible to specifically predict how a virus would be better and intentionally make that change. Again, it would be easier to take a directed evolution approach and just see how the virus varies by induced environmental condition. This wouldn't be gain-of-function, it would just be artificial selection.

From what I've read out of these Chinese labs who did the sarbecovirus survey's, like Shi's lab, it seems like they were all intensely paranoid of the original SARS virus for years. This is why they continued to sample bats and just catalogue a shitton of RNA. Because they were so narrow-mindedly focused on preventing the original SARS virus, they didn't see much notable about SARS-2 in the beginning because this one that wasn't the spitting image of its predecessor. The genetic studies that they carried out on these sarbecoviruses that they sampled all tended to see how well these various bat sarbecoviruses could bind hACE2, which is a good predictor of how easily that species barrier could be crossed. Because the thousands of bat viruses (like RaTG13) barely infected human cells, they put S on the SARS backbone- which was the only one at the time known to infect humans. Technically they could have tried a slightly safer method, but it works the worst for sarbecoviruses.

This isn't just unique to WIV and chinese labs. UNC chapel hill does stuff in their 3 using escape variants of the original SARS virus which is pretty much exactly what you are complaining about. During the 2014-2016 Ebola pandemic, the US used the exact same method as Shi to make rVSV-ZEBOV which is the Ebola vaccine. What they do isn't unique or any more dangerous than what happens in your backyard, you just don't hear about it.Henipa (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I dont think reverse genetics is all bad, but current events teach us in my opinion that they should be carried out in much stricter control (and some experiment types banned all togther). I was aware that UNC and Ralph Baric and other groups have been doing similiar experiements since at lest the 90s, so I know Shi and the WIV are not unique in this regard (they were just unlucky, probably due to bad safety practices). the NIH grant Shi received from the US outlined the funds to be used for similiar reasearch anyway. It seems that this was partially to bypass the US moratorium on such research. regarding this, there is a good commentary that seems slightly prohpetic from 2015 in nature, [3]. this was in a way a race to the botom between a number of groups.

Plus, there is benign reverse genetics, altering 'non-critical' genes, to study their role. and then there is what they were doing, swapping out parts of the spike protein from different species and testing the resulting infectivity on hACE2. I don't see what's to be gained from it. we know that CoV sometimes cross into humans, and that S protein is key. what's the point of simulating it.

I think another takeaway from covid, is that all the predictive virology, was worth jack shit in the end. most of this reasearch is funded on the promise of predicting the next outbreak and having a vaccine ready. but as we've seen, making a vaccine is a multi billion dollar effort, which is undertaken against a specific virus circulating in humans (and which has a profit potential). even a vaccine for the original SARS was never finished as there was no monetery interest. the one thing that Shi has developed over the years against a future SARS outbreak, chloroquine (+potientally zinc), which is inhibiting some common CoV used enzyme, while effective in vitro. proved ineffctive in vivo (due to serious side effects).

Chernobyl was a wake up call to the world and to nuclear engineering, and brought in it's wake massive improvments in safety to nuclear energy around the glove. Today, I'm a firm supporter of nuclear energy, but I'm aware that it's dangers need to be taken very seriously.

Covid in various ways is the chernobyl of virology (and with a far higher final cost), but it's lessons to the entire scientific community have not even started to be analyzed or debated. this momentous reckoning which is required, and the huge questions that need answering (mostly reagriding ethics, priorities, etc) by the entire field, is part of the systemic resistance to any plausible alternative theory (some of which have much more evidence in support then 'wet-market-zoonosis') Shturmavik71 (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

User:Shturmavik71 and User:Fa_suisse The consensus I'm hearing from Talk:Mòjiāng virus is that we will spin off a separate page about the outbreak of pneumonia of unknown cause where all of the serology, PCR, and imaging data can be presented for every different pneumogen suspected by the researchers. I did keep mention of the NiV serology and PCR tests that they performed on the survivors because that's very specific to the henipavirus side of things, although still indirect. Henipa (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Henipa, User:Fa_suisse, Yes I agree, outbreak of pneumonia of unknown cause should be the place to elaborate on these. though the name should really be improved, "outbreak of pneumonia of unknown cause" is really vague. I think Mojiang 2012 outbreak or Mojiang 2012 pneumonia event or Mojiang 2012 pneumonia of unknown cause outbreak (though it's a bit of a mouthfull) Shturmavik71 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank for the notifications. I agree with a self-standing article. 2012 Mojiang pneumonia outbreak of unknown cause ? Fa suisse (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Shturmavik71 Pneumonia of unknown etiology (PUE) surveillance system is the specific terminology, and PUE is the reporting system in China. It's not just a mouthful.Henipa (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Shall we start writing a draft ? Fa suisse (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Addendum to Nature Article

This article covers a contentious issue and has been a battleground of an edit war between two editors in the not so distant past, and there remains the question of whether the translated Master's thesis can be considered a reliable source, which many scientists think it is. There is also a PHD thesis, which can also be cited as a reliable source, link here.

On 17/11/20, an addendum to the Nature article referenced here was published, which is of significance to all scientists researching Covid-19 origins. In the addendum, the authors clairfy they were involved in the investigation of the mysterious pneumonia at the Tongguan mine in Mojiang County. They had analyzed serum samples from four patients, they write, but were unable to identify the cause of the disease. Assuming it was a new virus, they visited the mine once or twice a year from 2012 to 2015, collecting a total of 1322 samples. In these samples they identified 293 different coronaviruses, of which 9 beta-coronaviruses (all SARS-related); one of these is RaTG13, whose genome was fully sequenced in 2018, except for the two ends. This addendum therefore confirms the timing of the sequencing that Shi Zhengli provided to Science, clearly contradicting what was written in her original Nature paper. In order to demonstrate that those people were not infected by SARS-CoV-2, they recently reanalyzed the serum samples looking for SARS-CoV-2 proteins; this is quite a strange choice, given that in serum you hardly find viral RNA. Many questions still remain. For example: how did they add the 15 missing nucleotides at the end of the RaTG13 genome a few weeks ago, if there was no more sample available? Why did Shi Zhengli say to Scientific American that those pneumonia had been caused by a fungus? Were the patients really negative for anti-SARS antibodies, as written in the addendum, or were they positive, as claimed in the Master thesis and also in another PhD thesis? But most of all: why did they wait 9 months before revealing to the world that the finding of RaTG13 was linked to mysterious (and lethal) pneumonia caused by an unknown virus? Will they finally share with the scientific community the samples and sequences of these 8 novel SARS-related coronaviruses, in addition to the old serum samples of the sick miners?

This article needs to be updated to reflect this newly available information, but also to address user Shturmavik71's point above, as to the Speculation on MojV and human disease, and the fact that many varieties of viruses collected from the Mòjiāng mine. User Henipa's position that this entry should mainly be about a Henipavirus, is completely unfounded.

This article was created as a split from a previous Henipavirus article, we split off Kumasi at the same time. None of the other henipavirus articles contain information about unrelated viruses. Like I've mentioned before it would make the most sense to just create a separate article about the outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology instead of putting content about unrelated coronaviruses on this page which was created based on updated taxonomy. MojV is also select, so the information in this article should be presented clearly. Henipa (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

None of your speculation about Shi Zhengli or RaTG13 is relevant here. This is an article about a specific Henipavirus called Mòjiāng virus. The Master's thesis and PhD thesis are not usable as MEDRS sources. If scientists agree with the contents of those theses, then that will eventually be reflected in the peer-reviewed literature. Meanwhile, there's no rush. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)