Nerd Has Power
  • Blog
  • Article in Chinese
  • RaTG13 is fake
  • 被捏造的 RaTG13
  • About
  • Contact
  • Links

Scientific evidence and logic behind the claim that the Wuhan coronavirus is man-made

3/15/2020

2277 Comments

 
​There has been much controversy regarding the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus. It appears that both possibilities, naturally occurring or man-made, are legitimate enough to be debated fully. However, although voices on social media are equally strong from both sides, when it comes to written pieces, there is a predominance of scientific literature and other forms of writing that were produced to disapprove the “conspiracy theory”. In contrast, not nearly as much literature or other forms of substantial writing have been put out to describe or argue for the other possibility – this virus is man-made.  My goal here is to use scientific evidence and logical thinking to evaluate, and legitimate, the possibility that the Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV, SARS2-CoV, etc.) is of non-natural origin. 
 
Importantly, I will base my reasoning on solid, credible evidence; I will exclude any unqualified evidence that may have been thrown in by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with an intention to disturb the “investigation” and thereby cover up the truth. My role or perspective here can be considered as a combination of a scientific reviewer, a detective, and a judge on a criminal trial. 
 
Why are people suspicious of the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus
 
This has a lot to do with how the sequence of this virus (in other words, its genome) compares with those of related coronaviruses. 
 
When comparing sequences, one can compare either gene sequences or protein sequences. For viruses, however, this makes almost no difference as the whole genome of a virus is practically translated into proteins (in fact, a virus typically produces a single polyprotein by translating its entire genome and then cuts this long polyprotein at specific places to produce a set of particular proteins for specific use). Here, we will compare different viruses only on their protein sequences. 
 
By doing such a comparison, one can see that the Wuhan coronavirus is about 86% identical to the SARS coronavirus, which caused a pandemic back in 2003. This level of sequence identity basically says that the Wuhan coronavirus could not have come from SARS, something the field agrees unanimously.  
 
At the same time, the Wuhan coronavirus is STRANGELY similar to two bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21. Overall, the sequence of either of the two bat coronaviruses is 95% identical to the Wuhan coronavirus. In fact, for most part of the genome, such level of identity is maintained or even surpassed. The E protein, in particular, is 100% identical. The nucleocapsid is 94% identical. The membrane protein is 98.6% identical. The S2 portion (2nd half) of the spike protein is 95% identical. However, when it comes to the S1 portion (1st half) of the spike protein, the sequence identity suddenly drops to 69%. This pattern of sequence conservation, between either of the closely related bat coronaviruses and the Wuhan coronavirus, is extremely rare and strange!
 
This is extremely rare because natural evolution typically takes place when changes (mutations) occur randomly across the whole genome. You would then expect the rate of mutation being more or less the same for all parts of the genome. 
 
Could other forms of evolution lead to such a strange pattern of sequence identity? Yes, there is one evolutionary event that could lead to drastic changes in only one part of the genome. It is what is called “recombination”. We would defer to the next section to explain why recombination is also practically impossible in this case.
 
For now, let’s fix our eyes on the part that is seeing this sudden drop of sequence identity, the S1 portion of the spike protein. 
Picture
​Figure 1. Coronavirus particle with spike proteins (red) decorating its surface. Image from the CDC website (not a photo of a real virus, but a model generated based on scientific knowledge).
 
Spike proteins are the protrusions that you see on the outside of the virus particle (Figure 1). They are literally responsible for the name “corona” as they make the virus look like a “crown”. However, spike proteins are located here for reasons beyond decoration. They are actually the “key” that coronaviruses use to open the “lock” so that viruses can enter our (host) cells. 
 
Figure 2 shows the structure of the spike protein of the SARS virus (such structure images are as real as photos of actual people). Given the sequence similarity/conservation here, the spike protein of the Wuhan coronavirus would look pretty much the same, which is indeed confirmed by a recent publication (1). 
Picture
​Figure 2. Structure of the SARS spike protein and how it binds to human ACE2 receptor. Pictures generated using the published structure (PDB ID: 6acj) (2). A) Three spike proteins, each consisting of a S1 half and a S2 half, form a trimer. B) The S2 halves (shades of blue) are responsible for trimer formation, while the S1 portion (shades of red) is important for binding human receptor ACE2 (dark gray). C) Details of the binding between S1 and human ACE2. The part of S1 that is important and sufficient for binding are colored in orange, with most crucial amino acid sidechains shown as sticks. This orange piece is presumably what’s “taken out of” SARS spike and “inserted” into a bat coronavirus spike protein, thereby creating a novel human-infecting coronavirus.
 
Three spike proteins have to come together to function properly as the “key”. This three-protein assembly is what they call a “trimer”. To form this trimer, you would need the blue portion of the spike protein, which is referred to as S2 of spike. This S2 part can be regarded as the part of the “key” that you hold with your fingers; it does not actually go into the lock. However, for this “key” to work, S2 has to be there and has to preserve the ability of forming trimers. 
 
The other half of spike, the red portion or what is referred to as S1, is responsible for binding the host receptor. S1 can be considered as the portion of the “key” that literally enters the “lock”. It has to fit precisely to the delicate shape of the “lock” (host receptor) so that the “door opening” action can be accomplished. Whether or not a particular “lock” can be opened by a specific “key” is decided exclusively by this S1 part of spike. In other words, S1 of a coronavirus dictates which host(s) or cells the virus can infect.
 
Now you may be able to appreciate what I call extremely strange. While everything else of the Wuhan coronavirus remains almost identical to the two bat coronaviruses, the S1 portion, which dictates which host a coronavirus targets, has changed significantly from the two bat coronaviruses to the Wuhan coronavirus.
 
Let’s zoom in further (Figure 2C) and look at the exact part on S1 that dictates whether or not S1 binds a host receptor (in this case, the human ACE2 protein). This most critical part of S1 is a relatively small stretch of amino acids, labeled in orange in Figure 2C with important residues shown as sticks. This part includes everything needed for interacting with the human ACE2 receptor. You will see below how this segment, known to be unique to the SARS spike and sufficient for its interaction with human ACE2, is practically “copied” over by the Wuhan coronavirus.
Picture
​Figure 3. Sequence alignment of the spike proteins from relevant coronaviruses, including viruses isolated from current pandemic (Wuhan-Hu-1, 2019-nCoV_USA-AZ1), closely related bat coronaviruses (Bat_CoV_ZC45, Bat_CoV_ZXC21), and SARS coronaviruses (SARS_GZ02, SARS). Region marked by orange lines is the segment important for interaction with human receptor ACE2. Crucial residues for interaction are additionally highlighted by a red stick on top. Region marked by green lines is a furin-cleavage site that exists only in the Wuhan coronaviruses but not in any other beta coronaviruses. Alignment was done using the MultAlin webserver (http://multalin.toulouse.inra.fr/multalin/).
 
Figure 3 is the sequence alignment of the spike proteins from six coronaviruses. Two are viruses isolated from current pandemic (Wuhan-Hu-1, 2019-nCoV_USA-AZ1); two are closely related bat coronaviruses (Bat_CoV_ZC45, Bat_CoV_ZXC21); two are SARS coronaviruses (SARS_GZ02, SARS). By glancing through this figure, you can easily tell that the second half of spike (690 and beyond), namely S2, look pretty much the same for all six viruses. The difference is in the front half (1-~690), or the S1 portion. Now if you look at the top four sequences — the two Wuhan coronaviruses and two bat coronaviruses, you can see that they are largely the same across the S1 half of spike. Only a couple of places are different. However, the details of these differences and the way the human and the bat viruses differ from each other here in S1, in my and many other people’s eyes, practically spell out the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus – it is created by people, not by nature. 
 
First important difference is what is highlighted in between two orange lines in Figure 3. Clearly, this part of the Wuhan coronavirus spike differs significantly from those of the bat virus spikes, despite the overall high identity between them. Intriguingly, this same segment of the Wuhan coronavirus resembles, on a great deal, the corresponding piece on the SARS spike protein. Indeed, this is precisely the region highlighted in Figure 2C in orange. As we have pointed out earlier, this segment contains everything needed for human ACE2 interaction. Here, it seems that this critical piece was “copied” from the SARS spike protein and then “pasted” into a bat coronavirus. 
 
There are of course differences between these two, which may make it seem unlikely a direct “copy and paste”. However, careful examination shows that all residues essential for binding (orange sticks in Figure 2C and residues highlighted by red short lines in figure 3) are either precisely preserved or substituted with residues of similar properties. At the same time, differences lie mostly at residues non-essential for binding ACE2. Judging from this observation, one can safely envision that not only Wuhan coronavirus spike will bind ACE2 but also it will bind ACE2 exactly the same way that SARS spike does (Figure 2BC).
 
For the two bat coronaviruses here, given how they lack many of the key residues (what is marked by red sticks in Figure 3) for binding human ACE2, it is easy to predict that these two bat viruses would not be able to infect human.
 
The Wuhan coronavirus, while being almost identical to their bat relatives (ZC45 and ZXC21) everywhere else, has somehow “inherited” the critical, short piece from SARS spike to replace the incompetent piece in the bat coronavirus spike. As a result of this miraculous “replacement” in S1 — all key residues preserved and many non-essential residues changed, the Wuhan coronavirus has practically “acquired” the ability to infect humans, something its closest bat relatives do not have.
 
Could natural evolution achieve something this precise and, at the same time, this deceptive???
 
If you have not been “awed” enough, let’s move on to appreciate magic trick #2. Please look at the region marked by two green lines in Figure 3. Here only the Wuhan coronaviruses contain an additional piece, SPRRA. Importantly, this added piece allows the spike protein to be readily cleaved by a host protease enzyme – furin, a desirable property known to produce more infectious viruses in the case of influenza. Note that no beta coronaviruses in the same lineage (lineage B), except this new Wuhan coronavirus, contain such a furin-cleavage site. 
 
Further explanation on why these changes could not have come from nature
 
We have briefly explained why random mutations could not result in the weird pattern of sequence identity between the Wuhan coronavirus and related bat coronaviruses, ZC45 or ZXC21. Let’s dig a little deeper here. Although the spike proteins of different coronaviruses are more likely to differ, greater discrepancy in S1 may only be expected if two viruses have been long separated during evolution and have adapted, through random mutation, to their respective hosts for a long, long time. In that scenario, the overall sequence identity would be low as well. In the present case, however, the sequence identity between either of the bat coronavirus and the Wuhan coronavirus is over 95%, suggesting these two viral lineages must have diverged from each other fairly recently. Therefore, a sequence identity of 69% for the S1 portion of spike protein is simply insane. The S1 of Wuhan coronavirus could not have originated from the S1 of a bat coronavirus, a recent common ancestor that the Wuhan virus shares with ZC45 and ZXC21, through random mutations.
 
Now let me explain why recombination also could not be responsible for the observed pattern.
 
What happens in a recombination event is that one segment of a gene can be “replaced” by a similar segment from another gene. In evolution, recombination events happen much less frequently than random mutations. When recombination happens, however, it often brings abrupt changes to certain areas of the genome. 
 
If naturally-occurring recombination event(s) lead to the creation of the Wuhan coronavirus, how would it transpire? First, it would have to take place when an ancestor bat coronavirus, something very similar to ZC45 or ZXC21, co-existed with another coronavirus in the same cell of the same animal. Under extremely rare circumstances, recombination may occur, where a random piece in the ancestor’s genome is replaced by a similar but different piece from the other coronavirus. Importantly, to go from such ancestor to the Wuhan coronavirus, one combination event is not enough. What has to happen is that recombination has to take place twice during the evolution of the Wuhan coronavirus. In one occasion, the ancestor bat coronavirus would have to acquire, through recombination with a SARS-like coronavirus, the precise short segment of S1 that is responsible for human ACE2 interaction (region highlighted in orange in both Figure 2 and Figure 3). In another occasion, the “improved” bat coronavirus would further swap in a furin-cleavage site through recombination with yet another coronavirus that carries a furin-cleavage site between its S1 and S2 of spike. 
 
Also, again, given the overall high sequence identity (95%) between the bat coronaviruses and the Wuhan coronavirus, it is reasonable to believe that these two diverged from each other fairly recently. Therefore, both recombination events must have taken place fairly recently as well.
 
Now, we know that SARS crossing over to infect human is a very rare event. To have another SARS-like sequence exist in nature so that the ancestor bat coronavirus can do recombination with is a very unlike event. Not to mention that this SARS-like virus must have a spike that binds ACE2 the same way as SARS and yet the piece of S1 that is most critical for binding ACE2 would differ with that of SARS spike only at non-essential sites. On top of that, furin-cleavge site has not been observed in any beta coronaviruses in the same lineage so far. Although similar furin-cleavage sites have been observed in other coronaviruses, none of them contains the same exact sequence. Therefore, the chance that the furin-cleavage site in the Wuhan coronavirus was obtained through recombination with another furin-cleavage-site-containing coronavirus is very low.
 
Now, what are chances for both of these next-to-impossible recombination events to take place? My answer is NO CHANCE. This Wuhan coronavirus cannot be coming from nature.
 
Why some literature has to be excluded in the analysis
 
Someone who has been following the recent literature on this topic would point out that the above analysis failed to take into account some crucial evidence. Such evidence, coincidentally, supports a natural origin of the Wuhan coronavirus. Then how dare I leave it out in my analysis?
 
The short answer: that “evidence” was very likely fabricated. 
 
Please allow me to switch my mode now, from a scientist to a detective or a judge. If we consider this matter as a crime under investigation, then we have so far one big suspect, Dr. Zhengli Shi from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the biosafety level 4 (P4) lab for virology research. As the top coronavirus expert in China, since the beginning of the outbreak, Zhengli Shi has been singled out as THE suspect who may have created this virus, which somehow leaked out of the P4 lab. Intriguingly, Shi published an interesting paper in Nature a couple of weeks ago (3). There she compared the freshly obtained sequence of the Wuhan coronavirus with those of other beta coronaviruses, which allowed her to delineate an evolutionary path of this new virus. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, she reported a bat coronavirus, RaTG13, which shares high sequence identity with the Wuhan coronavirus. Strikingly, between RaTG13 and the Wuhan virus, the mutational rate is low (or sequence identity is high, 98.5%) for all parts of the genome, including the spike protein. If we have questioned the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus because of the weird pattern of sequence conservation between the Wuhan coronavirus and the two bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21, then RaTG13 does not show any concern in that regard. Here, the spike protein is just as conserved as other proteins. From the first look, it seems that RaTG13 belongs to the same small lineage as the Wuhan coronavirus and that the two must share a very recent common ancestor. Such finding strongly suggests a natural origin of the Wuhan coronavirus. This paper reporting the RaTG13 coronavirus (3) is the evidence that I “failed” to take into account in the earlier analysis.
 
According to credible sources, Shi has admitted to several individuals in the field that she does not have a physical copy of this RaTG13 virus. Her lab allegedly collected some bat feces about 7 years ago and analyzed these samples for possible presence of coronaviruses based on genetic evidence. To put it into plainer words, she has no physical proof for the existence of this RaTG13 virus. She only has its sequence information, which is nothing but a string of letters alternating between A, T, G, and C. 
 
Can the sequence be fabricated? It cannot be any easier. It takes a person less than a day to TYPE such a sequence (less than 30,000 letters) in a word file. And it would be a thousand times easier if you already have a template that is about 98% identical to the one you are trying to create. Once the typing is finished, one can upload the sequence onto the public database, without being really questioned for its authenticity or correctness. Once uploaded and released, such sequence data becomes public and can be used legitimately in scientific analysis and publications.
 
Then, can this RaTG13 sequence be used as evidence in judging the matter? Well, remember, a central part of the matter is whether or not this Wuhan coronavirus is engineered or created by ZHENGLI SHI. It is Shi, not anybody else, who is the biggest suspect of this possible crime that is grander than any other crime ever committed in human history. Given the circumstances, if the evidence she raised to prove herself innocent is nothing but a bunch of letters recently typed in a word file, should anyone treat it as valid evidence?
 
Unfortunately, in several recent reports, scientists indeed based their analyses on this RaTG13 sequence and thereby reached conclusions such as the Wuhan coronavirus is a result of natural evolution. I hope you now agree that these conclusions could not be trusted because they are based on data that is most likely FABRICATED BY SHI. 
 
Now, let us think about this from the other direction. The RaTG13 virus has a highly alarming sequence. Glancing at the sequence of the spike protein of this virus, any expert would immediately realize that this virus resembles SARS in its potential in binding human ACE2 and therefore may very likely be able to infect humans. Shi herself is such an expert. According to Shi, her lab studies bat coronaviruses so that they could someday predict novel coronavirus outbreaks and better prepare the public for such events. If her statement is true, then how could she possibly overlook this extremely interesting finding of RaTG13, something that clearly has the potential to infect humans? If this RaTG13 was discovered SEVEN years ago, why did Shi not publish this astonishing finding earlier? Why did she decide to publish such a sequence only when the current outbreak took place and people started questioning the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus? 
 
None of these make sense. All in all, these facts should make people question Zhengli Shi even more in terms of her possible involvement in the matter; she either was directly involved in the creation of this virus/bioweapon, or helped cover it up, or both. Of course, these facts also speak the necessity to exclude this RaTG13 sequence from any scientific analysis.

The same goes to the notion that pangolins might be the intermediate host responsible for transmitting the virus from bats to humans. In early Feb, a press conference was held, where three researchers from South China Agriculture University (SCAU) claimed that their recent findings point to Pangolin as a possible intermediate host. First of all, the timing of the press conference is interesting – just when people are saying that bat viruses cannot directly infect humans and an intermediate host must exist (where the viral spike protein would “learn”/adapt to bind an ACE2 similar to human ACE2). When something MUST exist to favor the side of the CCP, this something always miraculously appears, just like Shi’s RaTG13. This time, it is the Pangolin coronavirus. Before even publishing the paper, these researchers showed their evidence – sequence of the receptor binding domain of the pangolin coronavirus that looks almost identical to the Wuhan coronavirus. Again, no live virus exists here, just the sequence (not even released back then). It is the same deal as the RaTG13 case; a person can literally type this sequence out in a few minutes. Therefore, for similar reasons, one has to be extremely cautious and alert that this may again be fabricated by the CCP with an intention to help cover up the truth. 
 
Fortunately, the field seems to have excused pangolins. The pangolin coronavirus sequence that was finally released by the SCAU group and another research group in Hong Kong fell short in convincing people about pangolin’s role as an intermediate host (4, 5). This is in part because, according to its sequence, the pangolin coronavirus also does not have the furin-cleavage site. 
 
Nonetheless, like RaTG13, these recent papers claiming the role of pangolin as an intermediate host should be discarded (4, 5). In fact, very recently, these SCAU researchers admitted to the press that, upon further analysis of the complete sequence of the Pangolin coronavirus, they also do not believe Pangolin is a possible intermediate host of the Wuhan coronavirus. 
 
Some scientific literature that deserves the spotlight
 
We have just laid out the reasons why certain “scientific evidence” should be excluded. Now let us switch over to see why some other scientific evidence deserves our complete attention. 
 
First, the two bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21, that are STRANGELY CLOSE to the Wuhan coronavirus were collected by a military research lab of the CCP. They published the finding and the sequences of these two viruses back in 2018 (6). I want to emphasize two facts here: 1) if the Wuhan coronavirus was man-made, then it must have been created using ZC45 or ZXC21 as a template; 2) nobody in this world has these bat coronaviruses, except for the CCP as evidenced by this publication.
 
Second, Zhengli Shi co-authored a paper in Nature Medicine back in 2015 (7), where she collaborated with Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina to show that replacing the spike protein of a non-human-infecting coronavirus with a spike protein capable of binding human ACE2 led to a novel coronavirus that gained the ability to infect humans. Now, what is happening in the Wuhan coronavirus essentially follows the same scheme; the changes, although minimal, are sufficient to turn the bat coronavirus into a virus that can infect humans. The only difference is that, when changes are this subtle, tracing the origin of the virus becomes much difficult.
 
Third, a 2006 publication showed that inserting a furin-cleavage site in the junction region of S1 and S2 of spike of the SARS coronavirus led to much enhanced membrane fusion activity of the virus (8). Although viral infectivity enhancement was not observed in their study using pseudo viruses, presence of such furin-cleavage sites is known to be associated with high pathogenicity in influenza virus infections. Miraculously, this is precisely what is observed in the Wuhan coronavirus (region marked by two green lines in Figure 3). Furthermore, influenza viruses containing such furin-cleavage sites often infect a greater variety of cells and are therefore more likely to target organs in addition to the lung. Now you should recall multiple recent reports describing that the Wuhan coronavirus infects multiple organs, including lung, heart, blood vein, liver, central nerve system, etc. 
 
Simple and yet clear logic on how this Wuhan coronavirus may be made by the CCP
 
If you put the pieces together, you should be able to appreciate how easily this virus can be created by the CCP. Obviously, the starting virus template used here, either ZC45 or ZXC21, is owned only by the CCP (6). What they would do then was to modify things such that this bat coronavirus, non-infectious to humans, could be converted to a novel coronavirus that infects humans with high efficiency. They did so by following two published concepts (7, 8): 1) they converted the crucial spike protein to something that follows the scheme of the SARS spike protein so that the virus can target human ACE2; 2) they inserted a furin-cleavage site in between S1 and S2 of spike, which may make the virus more pathogenic. These two concepts are the only ones out there to get such a job done. Yet, miraculously, they are being followed precisely here. If it were mother nature who has created this virus, then mother nature must have studied recent scientific literatures very carefully and followed these key findings faithfully in her work (2, 6-8).
 
Also, let’s go back a little and think why they spend so much time fetching coronaviruses all over the place. Is it really like what they claimed – to understand the potentials of coronaviruses and therefore better predict future emerging coronaviruses? Why didn’t they put as much effort on vaccine research or drug discovery targeting a function/protein conserved in most coronaviruses then? The latter is not only more beneficial to the public but also way easier than predicting emerging viruses. 
 
Another possibility, of course, is that they are collecting these things to create coronavirus-based bioweapons. What is the truth? You can make up your own mind.
 
As of me, I am fully convinced that this is a bioweapon made by the CCP.
 
Given all the facts and the logic connecting them as laid out above, it is completely reasonable to argue that, unless the CCP can prove otherwise, the world has all the right to believe that the Wuhan coronavirus was made by the CCP.
 
 
Reference
 
1.         Daniel Wrapp NW, Kizzmekia S. Corbett, Jory A. Goldsmith, Ching-Lin Hsieh, Olubukola Abiona, Barney S. Graham, Jason S. McLellan. Cryo-EM Structure of the 2019-nCoV Spike in the Prefusion Conformation. Science. 2020.
2.         Song W, Gui M, Wang X, Xiang Y. Cryo-EM structure of the SARS coronavirus spike glycoprotein in complex with its host cell receptor ACE2. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(8):e1007236.
3.         Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, Hu B, Zhang L, Zhang W, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020.
4.         Kangpeng Xiao JZ, Yaoyu Feng, Niu Zhou, Xu Zhang, Jie-Jian Zou, Na Li, Yaqiong Guo, Xiaobing Li, Xuejuan Shen, Zhipeng Zhang, Fanfan Shu, Wanyi Huang, Yu Li, Ziding Zhang, Rui-Ai Chen, Ya-Jiang Wu, Shi-Ming Peng, Mian Huang, Wei-Jun Xie, Qin-Hui Cai, Fang-Hui Hou, Yahong Liu, Wu Chen, Lihua Xiao, Yongyi Shen. Isolation and Characterization of 2019-nCoV-like Coronavirus from Malayan Pangolins. bioRxiv. 2020.
5.         Tommy Tsan-Yuk Lam MH-HS, Hua-Chen Zhu, Yi-Gang Tong, Xue-Bing Ni, Yun-Shi Liao, Wei Wei, William Yiu-Man Cheung, Wen-Juan Li, Lian-Feng Li, Gabriel M Leung, Edward C. Holmes, Yan-Ling Hu, Yi Guan. Identification of 2019-nCoV related coronaviruses in Malayan pangolins in southern China. bioRxiv. 2020.
6.         Hu D, Zhu C, Ai L, He T, Wang Y, Ye F, et al. Genomic characterization and infectivity of a novel SARS-like coronavirus in Chinese bats. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2018;7(1):154.
7.         Menachery VD, Yount BL, Jr., Debbink K, Agnihothram S, Gralinski LE, Plante JA, et al. A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. Nat Med. 2015;21(12):1508-13.
8.         Follis KE, York J, Nunberg JH. Furin cleavage of the SARS coronavirus spike glycoprotein enhances cell-cell fusion but does not affect virion entry. Virology. 2006;350(2):358-69.

2277 Comments
Polo
3/27/2020 01:50:44 am

If true..then dna sequencing can help gene editing to get cure...let us not worry as detective has found answer..all go back home and use this evidence to get cure..bye all and dont worry..thank you detective/judge/biologitst/darwin

Reply
Nerd has power
3/29/2020 07:42:51 pm

Well, it is true that this has nothing to do with how to cure someone with coronavirus infections. But keeping a blind eye and not taking actions may have consequences. If you know someone in your neighborhood is a serial killer, would you feel comfortable giving him freedom and keeping him active? If CCP got away this time, you bet they will throw another one at you next time around. Things can be much worse than coronaviruses, and CCP definitely has more than one thing in their pocket.

Reply
Alberto Rubio Casillas
5/22/2020 08:08:05 am

Dear NERD HAS POWER. I have important information to share with you.
Please contact me to send it.
Best regards

Henri
5/23/2020 04:57:38 pm

Why don't you submit a letter to Cell detailing your analysis? The Editor should send the letter onto Zhengli Shi, allow a reply and publish both together in a future issue.

Adrian Gibbs link
5/23/2020 06:03:26 pm

I see that you are concerned that the sequences being discussed are merely sequences obtained by analysing materials(eg bat poo), and no live virions or viral nucleic acid are available. In fact much of virology is being done in this way nowadays - the sequences are called metagenomes, they are assembled in computers from short sequences read from various materials - even water.

Kumar
7/6/2020 03:21:00 pm

WHO Visit to China to inquire into Virus Origin (gleaned from reading detailed Research Papers by an anonymous 'Nerd has Power')

Kumar

Questions to WHO citing weblinks to your two Articles.

1 Abrupt variance in S-1 (Key that binds with Human Cells) in nCoV w/ Bats' ZC45 and ZXC21, while other portions match 94-100%

2 Similarity of S-1 in nCoV w/ SARS, which allow Bat Viruses to infect Human

3 Appearance of small String allowing Cleavage of S-1 by Furin -not in other Bat Coronas

4 VLow Possibilty of Double Recombination Event in Nature

5 Zhangli Shi of Wuhan Inst Vir published fictitious RaTG13 seq in Jan 2020 of a Virus collected in 2013 w/o Virus Physical Copy to divert attention from Gain Function

6 To explain pangolin as int host a fictitious binder seq w/o virus physical copy published by S. China Agri Univ in Feb 2020

7 Zhangli paper in 2015 how to replace spike protein to make virus to infect Human

8 2006 paper showed cleavage at S1-S2 can make 'em more pathogenic

9 Is Mother Nature reading Nature/ Virology Jls and recombining Viruses?

David Rivard link
7/7/2020 11:23:53 am

Good comments, but this is the moment in history that such research have been speculating about..in situ! Keeping the world's best minds in synch, and in science in a no blame environment is critical. Apart from that, Congress needs to explore EcoHealth.org's publically available 1090's and their auditor's required supporting docs to help unravel their research. This science would help with vaccines and therapeutics.

David Rivard link
7/16/2020 09:49:22 am

There have been a few apologetic comments whose authors note; "but I realize this is beyond the scope of this scientific piece." In these historic times, however, our analysis could benefit now and then from a Voltaire who could see that we are living in an age of survival where his "all things are related" thesis might now have a deeper relevance (with certainly the original authors of this blog). It might be that if we now and then see a purpose to function we can develop new relevant sets of discoveries that can further assist our virology, especially now with an additional overlay personal survival but on a shared massive scale. Its an awareness of purpose that comes from our own personal (and according to Voltaire, relevant) level of consciousness.

If the science overturned on this site gains wider acceptance, we all realize that it will open another door that will inescapably be policy driven.

coolbean
8/2/2020 06:00:38 pm

Nerd Has Power,

Well, it looks like you were right that RaTG-13 is fake.

According to the Chinese Whistleblower, Li-Meng Yan, she said in a recent interview that SARS-CoV-2 was lab made by the PLA, and RaTG-13 was faked by the WIV. The closest relative to the virus actually did not come from Yunnan Province, it came from Zhoushan Island in Zhejiang Province instead.

https://youtu.be/WUXm0PepVUQ?t=194

https://youtu.be/w6lNtUBiqAw

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135831/

Craig Paardekooper
10/5/2020 07:55:18 am

When you know someone in your neighbourhood is a serial killer....

When we hear that SARS_COV_2 mutates, does that mean it mutates naturally, or does it mean that bio-weapons scientists are still tweaking it to perfect its effects. Do recent mutations indicate Gain of Function or Loss of Function?

It is quite possible that the outbreak was only version 1, and will be regularly updated to achieve its intended purpose.

Vivian Wang
10/21/2020 08:15:21 pm

Hi there, I'm a New York Times reporter hoping to reach you about your assessment here. If you're willing, would love to hear from you. Thanks very much.

新新
6/7/2021 02:18:44 am

Even if it is a human-made virus, it is not necessarily made by the Wuhan Virus Laboratory. Before the epidemic of the new crown virus, Wuhan held a military games. Who can say that it is not a virus released by the relevant personnel? This is not the first time the United States has done such things, and it cannot be the last. At least the Americans have done this, and personally will not be surprised. The fake is planted and the thief shouts about the thief,

Rascal
9/4/2021 02:54:42 pm

I would like to understand why it is reasonable to believe ZC45 & ZXC21 are both natural taking from your article;
"What is inconsistent with this trait is the fact that ZC45/ZXC21 and the Wuhan coronavirus, while significantly distant from each other in evolution, share 100% identity in E proteins. Again, in no way this could be a result of natural evolution. This further supports the claim that the Wuhan coronavirus is made in a lab by following ZC45/ZXC21 as a template."
If both so identical in this ?
I have no genetics training or detail knowledge so please excuse any lacking....
I am an engineer so inquisitive....

Errata
9/6/2021 01:41:46 pm

@Rascal

Why should ZC45 & ZXC21 be accepted as natural?

CoV2 must have been built around a natural virus backbone. Shortly after the CoV2 outbreak began, Chinese scientists published a flurry of virus sequences. The raw data looks fake and the pattern of mutations between them looks unnatural. ZC45 & ZXC21 date from before the outbreak, their raw data looks normal, and the comparison of ZC45 to ZXC21 shows no anomalies. The collection of ZC45 & ZXC21 was in 2015-2017 with publication in 2018 before the current spat of fraudulent papers. Although ZC45 might be fake or it might only be a cousin of the ancestral lineage, it is the best candidate for a natural virus backbone donor from among the published viruses in the CoV2 family tree.

Another reason is that the existence of ZC45/ZXC21 is awkward for the CCP's narrative. The publication by Zhengli Shi of RaTG13 came out simultaneously with the publication of another paper giving ZC45/ZXC21 for precursors of CoV2. From the 1st Yan Report: "the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre, which published a Nature article reporting a conflicting close phylogenetic relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 rather than with RaTG13, was quickly shut down for 'rectification'. It is believed that the researchers of that laboratory were being punished for having disclosed the SARS-CoV-2 — ZC45/ZXC21 connection."

Adrian Gibbs
5/12/2020 04:05:10 pm

I am a long retired virologist living in Canberra Australia. Is there any chance of getting that alignment from you as I would like to have a look at it, but, as a very elderly person, I baulk at the task of assembling and aligning so many long sequences.

Reply
Adrian Gibbs
5/12/2020 04:10:02 pm

Apologies. I am interested in obtaining the nucleotides not the amino acids. Adrian

charly
5/18/2020 03:31:03 am

you can find all published sequence on websites like genbank, eg: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT439597.1 for your concern

Nerd has power
5/18/2020 07:39:45 am

Thank you, chary, for the help.

Hi Adrian, sorry for the delay. I'm a little occupied at the moment and could not keep up with all the discussions. I have listed either the unique names or the accession numbers of these sequences in the figure legends. Please go to the Genbank and search with these info. They should lead you to the correct sequences. Sorry that I won't be able to list every sequence here as there are too many. If there is anything you could not find with the Genbank search, please let me know and I can help you with individual cases. Thank you and take care!

Geo
8/6/2020 10:36:59 am

The point is if they can make this virus that is hard to detect in who made it and created a weapon. It shows the CCP is making illegal biological weapons of mass destruction. Can you imagine if they did the same thing with small pocs?

Reply
Dave Romain
6/1/2021 07:11:38 am

PLEASE send me a copy of your 'proof' that RATG13 is fake and permission to use it. I intend to include it in a self-published book's chapter on the |Cov2 virus.

Reply
Chris
3/27/2020 06:55:03 pm

about the publications 3,4,5 even if I understand that the dates of publications arrive at the right time just when it was necessary to justify the theory of natural genetic evolution, do you have more convincing elements which could accredit the thesis cheating?

Reply
Na
3/29/2020 05:54:10 am

These papers were published by the Chinese (government) and used as evidence to discredit this theory. 1. These papers came after the initial accusation 2. They are taken by most scientists as evidence to disprove the man made theory. That's all he is telling you - paper was written claiming this was man made. Fake reports were then published by China to disprove this theory, scientists keep citing these papers as a reason this theory is wrong. He is telling you these papers need to be discounted as a reason, plus he is asking why would they have been necessary, all published by CCP scientists.

Reply
Nerd has power
3/29/2020 08:01:13 pm

Technically, I do not have more elements. A lawyer or a judge don't have to show proof to discredit certain evidence, right? It's common sense that the defendant's own words don't count. I am simply saying, given the circumstances (timing of publication being only one, but not the only one), the RaTG13 sequence cannot serve as credible scientific evidence. The same goes to the other two papers on pangolin coronaviruses (there are odd things in the way they acquired their samples, BTW. I can't spend the time describing this though). The CCP should show proof on RaTG13 and pangolin coronaviruses. Again, when the evidence against them is strong, they cannot prove themselves innocent only with their own "words" (sequences).

Reply
Nerd has power ---- corrections made on 3/29/2020
3/29/2020 08:17:42 pm

I updated some things in the article. Someone kindly pointed out two errors in my earlier version. First, in the 2006 paper (reference 8), they actually did not see enhanced viral infectivity. My memory fooled me during my writing. I have corrected this mistake and clarified that insertion of Furin cleavage site lead to greater infectivity and greater cell tropism in INFLUENZA virus, not the pseudo virus in this 2006 paper.
Second, I originally wrote that Furin-cleavage site does not exist in any beta coronaviruses. That is not correct (you can tell that I am not a coronavirus expert). Such site is not seen in any lineage B beta coronaviruses, but similar ones (not the exact sequence) are observed in lineage A and other coronaviruses (such as MERS). I have corrected this also. I have to admit that this change weakens my argument (that acquiring this Furin cleavage site through recombination is extremely low) slightly. I have changed my tone accordingly. However, I don't think such change makes any fundamental difference in the overall picture. I remain fully convinced that this Wuhan coronavirus is of non-natural origin.

Reply
Debbie
5/15/2020 05:19:56 pm

Dr. Judy Mikovits confirms much of your evidence, and I hope you have watched her interviews online - thank you for your great courage and integrity.

Reply
Andrew M
5/16/2020 01:42:28 am

https://www.snopes.com/collections/plandemic/
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-judy-mikovits-controversial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral

Pete Ross
5/21/2020 10:57:02 am

Dr. Mikovits does not refer to the analysis here.

She only makes the assertion.

About her credibility, follow HousatonicLive, YouTube

a
4/1/2020 08:08:29 pm

Interesting article.

Could you provide more details on where you obtained genetic sequences, and what arguments to use for analyzer?

Pictures are too small, and impossible to inspect

Reply
Nerd has power
4/6/2020 09:19:13 pm

These sequences are all on the public database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). I will list the accession numbers and you can use them to retrieve the actual sequences of these viruses.
For comparing sequences, you may use Blast (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi) or play with the server listed in Figure 3 (http://multalin.toulouse.inra.fr/multalin/).

Wuhan-Hu-1 NC_045512

2019-nCoV/USA-AZ1 MN997409

CoV_ZC45 MG772933.1

CoV_ZXC21 MG772934

SARS_GZ02 AY390556

SARS_CoV NC_004718.3

MERS_CoV NC_019843.3

Bat_RaTG13 MN996532

Reply
Piguin
4/6/2020 08:01:13 pm

Nicely written and very hard to dismiss.
My only question is how do you think Shi did it?
There are existing papers claiming that with known methods, it is easy to detect if a virus is artificially made.

Reply
Nerd has power
4/6/2020 09:10:52 pm

I have some thoughts on what methods Shi or others might have used to create it. I might put it into another writing. I know what paper you are referring to though. It's the nature medicine paper published by Andersen, right? His statement that it is easy to detect if a virus is artificially made is laughable. He is either deliberately helping cover things up (his co-author Lipkin is a longterm partner with the CCP) or is simply ignorant about current tools for cloning. Nowadays you can easily edit genes without leaving a trace. Even if it is tedious to remove the trace, wouldn't you do all you can to achieve so when you are making a bioweapon? That nature medicine paper is a shame.

Reply
J17
5/8/2020 06:28:56 pm

Which nature medicine article "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2"??? I have computer modeling background as well as virus/bacteria manipulation. I can't believe that made it into nature.

I talked to my lab guy and he said he could do it in both RNA & DNA form. Crispr has a method for RNA

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6239212/

Chris Martinsen from Peak Prosperity talks about infectious DNA clones which makes it even easier. There is also a paper on converting a RNA virus (HIV) into a DNA clone.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10505681/

Nerd has power
5/10/2020 04:25:36 am

Thank you for sharing these info. Yes, we were referring to that Nature Medicine paper.

What might be the best way to deceive the world and cover this up? My answer would be to have a renowned team of scientists, all with non-Chinese names, publish that kind of an article on a most renowned scientific journal. If you look a little carefully at their backgrounds, almost all authors on that paper had close ties with China. An interesting question is who orchestrated the collaboration as these individuals don't seem to have close ties with one another in the past.

Hugo S. L.
5/10/2020 07:09:02 am

Could you explain if Kristian Anderson's paper is full of flaws then why no other academic papers challenging him and why Dr. Fauci quoted it? A statement made by Anderson to dismiss the lab-manipulation is that the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is not optimized for affinity with ACE2. I found that argument is somewhat vulnerable if someone only aimed to using lab-manipulation to create a artificial chimeric virus from pangolin and RaTG13(let's ignore its authenticity in nature for now). I found several other weakness in his argument especially when he was interviewed by NYTimes because he could not articulate a persuasive argument to explain how the evolution process could have produced SARS-CoV-2 from pangolin and RaTG13. So I am wondering why there is no academic paper to challenge Anderson's view? Does that mean the whole academics are corrupted because, for example, they all want to find grants from Dr. Fauci or someone else who has supported gain of function research in China? Why did not Ralph Baric say something about it as he was the one who helped China to gain the genetic technology to manipulate virus genes in the lab?

John F Signus
5/10/2020 08:54:39 pm

In fact, when you look at the RBD domain, the underlying nucleotide sequence diverge significantly from the pangolin sequence. Which rule out recent recombination as a possible source of the RBD assuming that sequence was real. (BTW. the "new" Nature paper was a reprint of the 17/02/2020 paper where MP789 first came out, and none of the pangolin strains were submitted to GenBank before 08 Feb 2020. They likely waited for the E gene of SARS-CoV-2 to come out, before using it to finalize the "reconstruction" of the genomes. which explained the fact that they does not show up in an "identical protein report" from the E protein data of any of the SARS-CoV-2 E proteins.)
If the recombination was not recent, such a virus (RaTG13-like with the RBD of SARS-CoV-2, but without Furin cleavage site) should be already detected in nature, due to the high infectivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RBD. The outbreak should have started approximately 19.8-55.4 years before the RBD nucleotide sequence have drifted into the sequence we seen here. A period that is so long, we should have already seen the trace.
Also, a pair of new restriction sites found in neither RaTG13 nor MP789 (NbvI and YwpI) can be found flanking the RBD of SARS-CoV-2. The restriction sites was not found in either RaTG13 or MP789. Similar new restriction sites also show up around the S1-S2 junction with the PRRA insert. (the BspMI and BsrDI site), with corresponding removal of a Conserved Bse1I/BsrI/BseNI/BseSI site between the sites, which was found in both RaTG13 and MP789 but not SARS-CoV-2.
All these restriction sites and the fact that the inserted RBD differs greatly from the MP789 ("pangolin coronavirus" in both papers) on the nucleotide level, points toward the fact that the RBD sequence seen in SARS-CoV-2 was likely synthesized from the Amino Acid sequence, optimized to match the codon reference to the rest of SARS-CoV-2, before being put into there via molecular cloning, the new sites being introduced via PCR before a traditional restriction digestion and ligation process was used to splice the construct into the genome.
The same thing also point toward the S1-S2 junction, with the large number of synomynous substitutions and the differing internal restriction sites within the region also point toward the S1-S2 junction, with the furin cleavage site insert PRRA, was likely a synthetic construct that was cloned into the SARS-CoV-2 Genome, using the new BspMI and BsrDI sites that were likely introduced using PCR.

John F Signus
5/10/2020 08:57:11 pm

For the reference on the Restriction sites, go here
https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748

Nerd has power
5/18/2020 08:26:17 am

Thank you, John! Powerful analysis and reasoning as always. I do see restriction sites flanking the RBD, even before I read Yuri's article. I agree that there is a very good chance that the RBD was cloned in using the traditional method of cloning.

Hi Hugo, I think John's analysis is very powerful on the science part. I will share my view on why no academic people came out and publicly opposed it.

I don't think all people are corrupted. I think more than a handful of people were pissed when Andersen said that, if the virus is man-made, you will definitely see traces. However, academic people are also miserably busy and not all had the time or interest to dig into it (even though they should because this thing affects everyone).

More importantly, Andersen used RaTG13 as the main evidence to support the notion that the virus is of natural origin. If you don't question that (most people usually don't when it's a Nature publication), then Andersen has no major holes to cover in his claims. Most academic people, even if they are paying some attention to this topic, must feel that, given the "existence" of RaTG13, the Wuhan coronavirus can easily come from Nature.

Finally, for people who are convinced that it is man-made, they can't argue for this claim without pointing out that people may have fabricated things like RaTG13 and Pangolin coronaviruses. Articles like mine here have too much politics involved, which makes them not suitable for pretty much all scientific journals. But in reality, it's the CCP that is putting politics into this in the first place. The cover-up with RaTG13 or pangolin viruses is more of what the CCP needs than Shi's personal interests.

Sorry if this sounds frustrating. If you are convinced with these articles, please help spread them around so that more people are aware. Things will change because truth will prevail, gradually but surely.

Nerd has power
5/18/2020 08:52:27 am

Forgot that ioderESTEl shared this on May 5th:

"Some other science community commentary on the original Nature Andersen, et al paper.

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19387-another-expert-challenges-assertions-sars-cov-2-was-not-genetically-engineered

This in particular cites a method for creating a large number of spike protein candidates using a “phage display library.”

https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19383

Note how Nature refused to publish the challenge."

David Rivard
7/16/2020 09:54:15 pm

Aside from the etiology, but perhaps supporting your general thesis, is the continued forward thrust of information focused upon mortality. WHO is still echoed by most other national authorities. Perhaps the most important information that the public should be focused upon is morbidity. Other than delayed reporting, WHO continues to: 1) Relate C-19 to the common flu. This influenced much of the global public to take it both lightly and politically. 2) Emphasis on deaths, rather than morbidity presented to policy makers to distill the danger, while emphasizing alleviation of respiratory conditions as defining the cure. Note the tens of thousands, and at least 50% of those testing positive, have actually been on their own "recuperation" phase, some since the disease was revealed. There have been support groups established in almost every country. No centralized, (WHO??), or local national authorities, are cataloging long term outcomes (gathering and sharing local epidemiologic data). This population is complaining about being much less vital. Additionally, the only measurable morbidity would be if they were athletic and had past performance or work levels they could measure against (in te scientific world). In fact, a perfect bio-weapon would make populations less vital, with an albeit inevitable, but much smaller but consequential death rate. In concourse it is truly amazing that every country on earth is following the only effective treatment, the science of avoidance, and there is such a dearth of information shared with the public.

Haha
4/7/2020 01:55:50 pm

But Shi's research on collecting virus all over China is funded by ecohealth alliance, via the PREDICT program funded by USAID.

Reply
Nerd has power
4/9/2020 04:44:16 am

Ecohealth alliance may be one of her funding sources. But researchers receive funding from many sources. Shi is funded much much more by the CCP. She is the top expert in virology and leads the top lab at the top facility in China. You can find a bunch of titles that the CCP has given her. If you think she is not under the control of the CCP, then you probably don't really know how things are in China. USAID might have given her some money, but that doesn't mean that they get to watch what her team is doing every minute. However, the CCP can and will. Has Shi obeyed and served the CCP? These titles of hers may tell you a bit on that.

Reply
List Mist link
4/11/2020 10:13:12 am

Well written. I am not a virologist. But can you take a look to see if ihttps://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/04/07/2004999117 is valid? 70 cent army paid by CCP posted this link almost everywhere in YouTube. Here is what I replied to them:

A paper based on an incomplete virus sample set is invalid. Haven't all virus samples already been destroyed by CCP by January 3rd? I can easily find materials stating that CCP virus is made by CCP: https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/ Further, if CCP can corrupt U.S. media like VOA, CNN, Washington Post, Wall street Journal, what else cannot they corrupt? Which costs CCP a whole lot less? Buying a few authors to fool the world or paying the world for their inhuman crime? Surely, the former.

Reply
Chris
4/11/2020 11:17:15 am

Do you have the YouTube Links ?

Reply
Nerd has power
4/11/2020 11:22:05 am

I saw this paper. You have made a very good point that the sample size in this PNAS paper is too modest. Furthermore, although I'm not a huge expert in bioinformatics, I can say that the way they analyzed these sequences (tracing individual mutations) is very old fashioned and not powerful in today's standards. The combination of these two already diminished their conclusions. But the biggest problem is that they did their analysis by assuming that the RaTG13 virus is the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus (reference 7 in their paper). Their conclusion is reached based on which sequence resembles the RaTG13 sequence more. As you probably know, I am convinced that any scientific analysis based on this RaTG13 sequence should be discarded.
I completely agree with your other point too. The CCP always gets its way by corrupting a few individuals. I'm not saying the authors of this PNAS paper are also puppets of the CCP, but many people out there are, including the president of the WHO. US pays big dollars for the organization, while the CCP still made WHO work for them by corrupting the one(s) in power. It is the typical approach of the CCP.

Reply
List Mist
4/11/2020 12:15:23 pm

Thank you for your explanations! Well said! Here are the videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bXWGxhd7ic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg5budPRY1Q&lc=Ugz3ew_4EdozAqOqeqR4AaABAg.975XmdSc5DM97JHddv_GEM&feature=em-comments

Jim Low often picks the comments that have most thumbs up to speak in favor of CCP .with his links.

Shaun link
4/12/2020 04:03:56 am

This paper/blog is in *serious* need of an abstract. Please consider.

Reply
Shaun
4/12/2020 12:25:49 pm

This is the most insane paper. I've read the whole thing from top to bottom and have shared it with the world. I am also convinced that this is a bioweapon. The timing is too perfect, everything from the furin-cleavage site to the S1 protein being a SARS variant, and the fact that these "recombination" techniques were previously used by the "Bat Lady" in research *specifically* for simulating potential human coronaviruses.

And she warns, "there's more where that came from" - because the binding site won't be a target

But a random question. Weren't there two coronavirus strains that came about "magically" at one point? And that one "suddenly appeared" somewhere?

Reply
Nerd has power
4/12/2020 02:54:07 pm

Thank you for sharing it with others. The matter itself is insane and everybody deserves to know what's really going on.
I don't think I quite understand your question. Could you rephrase it a little bit? Are you asking whether recombination between two coronaviruses as magical as this one has been evidenced before?

Reply
Shaun link
4/14/2020 02:08:25 am

Referring to the confusion that arose towards the very beginning of the epidemic re: Seattle coronavirus vs. Wuhan

Like there were two different strains or something

If this were the case, if there were in fact two different strains of coronavirus circulating, this would speculate further into the nature of the potential "release" scenario.

There was some "mystery" towards the beginning of the outbreak with regards to two different strains.

Shaun link
4/14/2020 02:19:42 am

*Furthermore* if the "recombination" event (i.e. addition of SARS-like spike protein) happened on two separate bat coronaviruses, that would almost *solidify* the fact that it were not by natural selection if those SARS-like spike proteins were similar.

Of course, this all pending the level of expertise one could have with creating new SARS-like viruses by testing binding affinities to ACE2

What an extraordinarily dangerous time we're living in. Who needs nuclear weapons when you can build genetically-engineered viruses

You have to consider, and wonder, if this was just a nuclear test.

Nerd has power
4/14/2020 09:33:19 pm

Thank you for the clarification. I see your point now. As far as I know, the evidence predominantly supports a single origin of the virus. There appear to be questions of where it originated (although there is actually no doubt that it came from Wuhan), but I don't think any scientific literature really hinted about different strains initiating independently at different places. Again, I think the evidence strongly support a single origin of the pandemic.
And, yes, extraordinarily dangerous time indeed. Nuclear weapons don't spread like this. Nobody is not affected by it. The world needs to wake up to the fact that communism and dictatorships are enemies of the entire human race. If we don't get them and instead allow them to gather money and resources, they will get us. The CCP has to be taken down and eradicated from this world.

Jim jones
5/8/2020 04:31:17 am

Communism is great and has nothing to do with dictatorships. Capitalism dictates. You gave the game away with your scientific bias there. This appears to be about your personal fears and political predudices.You haven't even given a motive for creating this virus or how it benefuts china. Viruses and RNA sequence evolution are far more complex than you make out. Just like your politics.

Nerd has power
5/10/2020 04:38:44 am

Thanks, Jim Jones, for sharing your thoughts. You and I apparently have different views on communism. I just want to bring up one fact. Many countries have converted from communism to capitalism. Have you seen much complaints or people there wanting to go back? I never said capitalism is perfect, but in my opinion it is far more superior than communism. Also, if Kim Jong Un can be interested in making nuclear bombs, we will have to admit that communism is not against having massively disruptive weapons.

David Rivard
7/18/2020 11:44:19 am

I participate in several scientific blogs regarding C-19. Our office also gets up-to-date information from the executive offices of many different countries (typical of many executive offices) and the Health Minister then produces health policies regarding C-19. I have reached my own conclusions from my experiences so far.

Lacking an invitation, the lab door has been opened by many scientists outside of the scientific establishment. Defenders of the door have been the most prominent academic publishers, such as Lancet, Science, Nature et al, not to mention the CCP, unwitting UN organizations and even our own CDC and popular media. Gradually, academic publishers just started to assist in opening the door with a few journalists in the popular media.

What was behind the door? A completed bio-weapon, requiring no passaging, that is extremely adept at using many delivery pathways.

The unintended, but inescapable, effect was to cause (relatively) few deaths. The design effect; de-vitalizing individuals, infrastructure, cultures and economies until they finally succumb. The design effect is well underway.

On an individual level, the CDC and WHO's continued focus on mortality rates to define the effects of the disease, comparing it to a severe flu, rather than morbidity rates lulls a younger public into thinking that getting the disease is simply like the flu and if contracted they will simply develop immunity. Additionally, mentioning possibilities of "herd immunity" and vaccine development offer public optimism for politicians but is counterproductive to other recommended efforts to take the disease more seriously. The only proven science we have thus far to combat C-19 is to practice disease avoidance.

However, C-19 has an effect upon the immune system more akin to HIV. Those contracting the disease are initially alarmed by respiratory symptoms and seek health care. When they get the benefit of a test or when they are determined positive symptomatically they are cataloged. These patients leave the hospital because the respiratory symptoms get better. When they get two consecutive negative PCR tests, (that measure the virus in the upper respiratory tract), they are officially pronounced cured. The tens of thousands of those previously infected, and, so far, over half of those who tested positive, even those that were initially deemed as "asymptomatic" or "recovered", are increasingly found in support groups where they seek advice about non-acute but lingering and worsening health problems (and their information is still relegated to anecdotal forums where data is not collected).

The disease seems to maintain a chronic state even when acute symptoms subside. Some have "caught" it twice, where it seems to be worse. Many have had persistent symptoms over many months and complain about getting worse. They do not feel like they have completely recovered. Some, through their personal physicians, have discovered that a stool sample is far more accurate in measuring viral loads than the T cell (antibody) tests that are so unavailable.

The next door to open should be easier, ironically because the timing was too perfect. Policy makers must now determine if it was an intentional release.

sam
5/8/2020 05:20:13 am

Did Zhengli Shi say, "There's more where that came from"? Can you show me where she says that?
Thanks

Reply
Angel link
7/16/2020 03:05:45 pm

I'm relieved that so many have been eyeballing this virus' origin question! I am not a scientist or biochemist in background but have spent some years learning bits and pieces. My educational tool through this Pandemic has been MedCram.com. They blessedly covered biochemistry basics along this journey as well as what the virus DOES and HOW it is mutating. My husband has been my captive audience throughout our SIP as we both have underlying conditions of concern. I mentioned to him in February-March about how this virus didn't seem to be "acting" like a normal virus we see. I started watching this one in DECEMBER 2019. Our other viruses I've glanced at and just went over "laundry list" of "do's" and on with life. Not so for this one; how would our household prepare and meet this one. I told husband at different times that "this one acts engineered".
Regular searching led to regular mainstream sources-"Bah!!!" You have all reassured me that I am not wrong. My next question: is anyone working on bringing this thing to a stand still? Too may lives have been lost already, and hate to see more! An in self-quarantine right now. Guy sneezed on me--allergies, cold, Covid-19? Sometimes I wish there were a specific sign that shows up--purple ears, green little toe? Something? The stress is getting to many, myself included! But I really do thank you for your conversation here and your "Doing" whatever you can to help the world.
Can you imagine if this had been meant for spreading at OLYMPICS, but escaped early?

Reply
Seek The Truth
4/13/2020 07:19:26 pm

Fascinating...I notice that the comments are "split" (no pun intended)...between here and the Chinese version...I noticed some interesting comments from Elannor D Allens (and your responses) in the Chinese comments section....could you do an 'edit' to incorporate newly provided info/discovery from Elannor D Allens here as well? (I noticed from your comments here...English section...that you made updates as made aware by the commenters)...I think that inclusion of Elannor D Allens' additional info to your write-up would strengthen your assertion considerably...

Reply
Nerd has power
4/14/2020 09:38:37 pm

Great suggestion! I completely agree that comments made by Elannor D Allens are very powerful and supportive of the conclusion here. I will work on translating these over to this English section soon. Thank you!

Reply
Chris
4/16/2020 03:44:13 pm

Yes please translate this comments by Elannor

Greg Felton
8/26/2020 04:37:30 pm

Who is Elannor (Eleanor?) Allens and where did she publish her findings about those 79 codons?

Greg Felton
8/27/2020 07:53:59 am

Who is “Elannor D Allens” and is that spelling correct? a google search turned up nothing. Is it supposed to be Eleanor D. Allen?

Reply
Greg Felton
8/29/2020 10:16:00 pm

STT:
I am trying to find Elannor D. Allens and her comments about the syn/non-syn ratio, but her name does not turn up on any search. It seems as though she may be Chinese and "Elannor" (odd spelling) is her English name.

Can you point me to where I can find her and her evidence? I can read Mandarin.

Thanks

Reply
CCP is NAZI
8/29/2020 10:24:25 pm

Search "Elannor D Allens" in the next door for Chinese comments

Nerd has power
4/16/2020 03:56:59 pm

As noted by Seek The Truth in the comment above, Elannor D Allens made an excellent point in the Chinese comments section next door, which strongly supports the claim that the Wuhan coronavirus is man-made. I have looked into this aspect myself and found it very convincing. Below is this finding and its implications in English. Please note that it is not an exact translation of the comments made by Elannor, although the contents are largely the same.

This concerns the S2 portion of the spike protein (blue labeled parts in Figure 2AB). More specifically, here, we are comparing the Wuhan coronavirus and the RaTG13 virus (the sequence of which I believe is fabricated by Zhengli Shi) on the sequence between 647 and 1124 of the S2 protein. Note that this part of the protein typically sees mutations as evidenced in Figure 3. However, interestingly, between Wuhan coronavirus and the RaTG13 virus, not a single amino acid has changed in this region. What is striking is that, at the gene level and within the same region, the two differ 79 times.

When a gene (composed of nucleotides) is being translated into a protein (composed of amino acids), every three consecutive nucleotides constitute a codon and each codon corresponds to a particular amino acid. On the other hand, an amino acid typically corresponds to four codons, although some amino acids have one or two more and some one or two less (you can learn more about it here: https://passel2.unl.edu/view/lesson/3ccee8500ac8/6). What does it mean? It means that, when a nucleotide has changed (or in other words a single mutation has occurred) in the gene, the codon is certainly altered but the corresponding amino acid may or may not change. This is because the new codon may encode the same amino acid as the old codon did. In evolution, on average, every nine nucleotide changes result in the change of one amino acid.

Now, let’s take a look at our case here: 79 nucleotides are different and yet not a single amino acid has changed. Remember, again, we are looking at a region of the virus that can easily tolerate changes. The above pattern is, therefore, EXTREMELY STRANGE! According to Elannor’s calculations, the chance of this happening in nature is 1/9,526,094 or 0.000000104974819 (Elannor listed an equation for this, which I’m not expert enough to comprehend unfortunately). Furthermore, the nucleotide changes almost exclusively took place at the third position of the codon (77 out of 79), which tend to lead to no change in amino acid. Such a strong bias to the third position, over the first and second positions, is a strong indication of artificial manipulation – can nature be so selective in carrying out RANDOM mutations?

What do these observations mean? They mean that, between the Wuhan coronavirus and the RaTG13 virus, at least one is non-natural. If one is natural, then the other one must be not. Of course, the other possibility also exists – neither of them came from nature.

Elannor seems to believe that RaTG13 does exist and was used as the template to create the bioweapon, the Wuhan coronavirus. When those devils worked on creating this bioweapon, they followed the same exact amino acid sequence of S2 of RaTG13 but may have intentionally changed its nucleotide sequence, without affecting any amino acid identity, to make the bioweapon look different from RaTG13 (The two nucleotide sequences being exactly the same would be a clear indication that the bioweapon is made out of RaTG13).

I tend to believe the other possibility: the RaTG13 virus does not exist and its sequence was fabricated to make people believe that there is a natural origin of the Wuhan coronavirus. In this scenario, when they were fabricating the RaTG13 sequence, they wanted to make sure that the amino acid sequence of S2 does not change much from that of the Wuhan coronavirus because S2 is typically conserved as seen in other coronaviruses. At the same time, they wanted to make sure that the gene sequence of RaTG13 differs just the right amount from the Wuhan coronavirus so that the two look like very close relatives with each other, thereby deceiving people to believe an evolutionary origin of the Wuhan coronavirus. The thing they forgot to take care of here, however, is the correlation between the number of nucleotide mutations and the number of amino acid mutations. Their product, the RaTG13 sequence, now exhibits an extremely unnatural disproportion of 79 nucleotide changes vs. zero amino acid change, when compared with the sequence of the Wuhan coronavirus at this part of S2. This, together with the bizarre bias of “mutations” occurring predominantly at the 3rd position of the codons, adds tremendously to my already well-supported notion that the RaTG13 sequence was very likely fabricated.

Whichever scenario is true, this finding undoubtedly strengthens the assertion (thank you, Seek The Truth, for these words) that the Wuhan coronavirus is

Reply
Nerd has power
4/16/2020 03:58:21 pm

a bioweapon made by the CCP.

Reply
Ilius
4/24/2020 07:51:18 am

It appeared that there have already been amino acid mutations, acquired during the spread of this virus in humans, that are located at this particular part of the S protein, found in the later samples of this virus which have mutated in humans since it’s contnued spread about a month ago— further indication that such a part of the S protein can indeed tolerate changes and have started to change once it have been spreading intensively in humans. Further proof of the unnatural origin of the original SARS-COV-2 genomes, of which the protein sequences here are all identical with RaTG13.

Nerd has power
4/25/2020 06:12:21 am

Thank you so much for sharing your finding. It is very powerful and strongly supporting the claim that the virus is man-made.

Annette
5/12/2020 04:49:01 pm

A very interesting article and I will need to read it again. I was most interested in the E proteins as they to my understanding cause the immune reaction and possibly the cytokine storm. Please can you comment on the use of E proteins in SARS Cov 2? https://thenativeantigencompany.com/products/sars-coronavirus-envelope-protein-e-coli-2/

Nerd has power
5/18/2020 08:39:52 am

Hi Annette, my knowledge on the E protein came largely from reading this review:

https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-019-1182-0

I wouldn't be able to explain things any better. Hope you find the answers you are looking for in there.

john kelleher link
5/8/2020 02:36:22 pm

Thank you for your work.The youtube channel Peak Prosperity has backed up some of your conclusions. He is a trained virologist.
As you probably know the scientific community has been a target over the climate change issue. Trump is heavily involved with this and is continuing to ignore science on other issues. I think his comments concerning Covid-19 being made in a lab in Wuhan will go nowhere. He has many agendas. Thanks, John.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/10/2020 05:05:15 am

Thank you for the comments, John. I have seen one video from Peak Prosperity. It was fantastic. I think it's a believable source of scientific insights into this issue.

I happen to support President Trump's claim that Covid-19 is made in a lab. Truth will come out, with more solid evidence backing it up. Once that happens and everyone is convinced that it was a bioweapon made by the CCP, I don't see any reason for anybody not to be angry about it. For many people, Trump might not be their most favorable person. But he didn't create this most horrible Covid-19 and let it spread to every corner of the world. If he is telling the truth here and the CCP did all that, I actually can picture how people from left and right all join him to fight that increasingly-visible enemy. It would be for the good of the USA and world. My two cents.

Alesh Aras
5/27/2020 06:42:05 am

Where did you get the info that the Peak Prosperity guy is a “trained virologist?” Below is is the public profile I could get from his website:

“I’m a trained scientist, having completed both a PhD and a post-doctoral program at Duke University, where I specialized in neurotoxicology. I tell you this because my extensive training as a scientist informs and guides how I think. I gather data, I develop hypotheses, and I continually seek to accept or reject my hypotheses based on the evidence at hand. I let the data tell me the story.”

https://www.peakprosperity.com/about/

Greg Felton
8/19/2020 09:26:28 pm

Hi Nerd:
Is there any way you can point me to the source of Eleanor Allens' analysis. I can read Mandarin though I will likely need a dictionary for technical terms.

Thanks,

Greg

Reply
Greg Felton
8/30/2020 12:21:11 am

Sorry, CPP is Nazi:
I found it.

List Mist link
4/16/2020 06:31:03 pm

Beijing tightens grip over coronavirus research, amid US-China row on virus origin: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/12/asia/china-coronavirus-research-restrictions-intl-hnk/index.html. Exactly, what are CCP trying to hide? The more CCP are trying to hide, the more they are actually exposing the origin of this lab made CCP virus. We definitely need to investigate this thoroughly and hold CCP accountable for their virus. Otherwise, we don't even know how we die one day in the future with more evil virus CCP are so eager to develop!

Reply
Nerd has power
4/17/2020 05:56:14 am

Completely agree. When we say the CCP is anti-human, we risk of understating its evilness. It used to be that not everybody believes this -- because people are generally nice and probably never even tried to comprehend things of such evil nature. But now is the time that everybody be brought to the same page. The CCP must be held accountable. The world cannot afford having communism around any longer.

Reply
Chris
4/17/2020 03:26:39 am

Can I spread your text in France ?

Reply
Nerd has power
4/17/2020 06:10:11 am

Please do! I was disgusted by how some high-profile scientific publications misled people, intentionally or not. That's why I wrote this. I just want more people to know the truth. The more the better. Thank you for your efforts. We are doing the same things.

Reply
Pete Ross
5/21/2020 11:35:23 am

There are experts, including Luc Montagnier, who assert that the SARS-CoV-2 genome contains HIV-like sequences. Thoughts?

Also, to date, the pathophysiology of COVID appears to be best characterized as a coagulopathy, either though disruption of free radical suppression pathways causing injury to the endothelium and thus release of pro-clotting factors (i.e. Von Willibrand factor). Alternatively or in addition, is anyone making a search for pro-clotting factors and/or pro-free radical factors in the SARS genomes, i.e. SARS-1, CoV-2, etc?

Nerd has power
5/23/2020 09:07:18 am

Hi Pete, I have said a few times in the comments that I'm not convinced that there are insertions of HIV sequences into the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Please scroll down to find such comments if you are still interested.

In terms of pathophysiology, I must admit that I'm completely unqualified to comment on that. I'm also not aware of any research looking for pro-clotting factors in these viral genomes.

Patric Hausammann
4/17/2020 10:11:36 am

I have checked your work by comparing it to the published sequences on "ncbi" sources of the viruses and I couldn't find any mistake. I think the virus was pretty sure lab made. The mutations do not look natural at all, and I guess some virologes should study more, or they should not take money from the CCP.
The shown and marked sequences at "fgure 3" are striking. But there seem to be more obviouse mutations. Here a link: https://photos.app.goo.gl/1WcGJhwY4sWaggzh6
I marked the strangest mutations in violet.

Reply
Nerd has power
4/18/2020 09:39:00 am

Thank you very much for your efforts. There are indeed more mutations than what I have focused on describing. The reason I didn't discuss about all mutations is because I wasn't sure how the rest of them might be involved in the actual function. I'm pretty sure about the mutations I did talk about and highlight in terms of how they are important in function and might have been manipulated. There could be more manipulations than what I was able to detect, which may involve the additional strange mutations that you've marked out. But, again, I wanted to focus on things that are more solid and well supported. I don't want to include any less-than-convincing arguments because they may take advantage of those arguments to trash the whole article.

Reply
Patric Hausammann
4/22/2020 01:57:08 pm

Thank you for your appreciated answer. I absolutely agree to use your suggested sequences in your article to prove the claim of man made manipulations. Maybe, there comes out some evidence about the other "strange" changes later.

Greg Felton
8/26/2020 12:23:00 pm

Nerd: I have read that you oppose the HIV origin of the PRRA insert at aa 681. What is the reason for your doubt, and where do you think the insert came from?

Thanks.

Annette
12/12/2021 01:54:52 am

Looks like the discussions on HIV and sARS Cov-2 lab chimera is not rearing its ugly head blaming SA and some sick man as patient ) for omicron! Has anyone explored the Omi genome yet?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/11/why-uncontrolled-hiv-may-be-behind-the-emergence-of-omicron?utm_term=61b5ac0bb546408905fd390aae42f99f&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email

Reply
Patric Hausammann
4/17/2020 04:58:09 pm

Here I have a link to the uploaded first 1501 positions of the sequences of WUHAN HU-1, 2019-nCoV, bat CoV ZC45, bat CoVZXC21, RaTG13("invention"), SARS, SARS_GZ02 and MERS in comparison to eachother.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/178M3rj9OdfWS-5zxp1QKz_PG56ljroLk/view?usp=sharing

Reply
Jean Claude perez
4/20/2020 09:02:47 pm

> Jean-Claude PEREZ. (2020). “WUHAN COVID-19 SYNTHETIC ORIGINS
> AND EVOLUTION.” International Journal of Research - Granthaalayah, 8(2), 285-324.
> https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3724003.

Reply
Visitor
4/21/2020 07:12:02 am

Your article appeared to have been deleted. Could you please upload it again?

Reply
Perez
4/21/2020 07:48:22 am

> Jean-Claude PEREZ. (2020). “WUHAN COVID-19 SYNTHETIC ORIGINS
> AND EVOLUTION.” International Journal of Research - Granthaalayah, 8(2), 285-324.
> https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3724003.

Patric Hausammann
4/22/2020 01:43:41 pm

I couldn't open the link to the article of Mr. Perez too. But I think I've found a working link to his work.
Here it is: https://zenodo.org/record/3724003#.XqCrjplCSUl

Nerd has power
4/23/2020 07:01:19 am

Dear Mr. Perez, thank you very much for sending your published work. I have to admit that the mathematics involved in your study is way beyond me. Although I am in agreement with your conclusion that the Wuhan coronavirus is a result of human manipulation, I'm completely disqualified to comment on this part of your study.
I did look into the sequence similarity between certain Spike regions of the Wuhan coronavirus and different HIV/SIV sequences that you identified. However, unfortunately, my blast search did not return confident results (mostly because the sequences are too short). I am inclined to believe that such level of sequence similarity is not a strong evidence of HIV/SIV sequences being inserted into the Wuhan coronavirus genome. Of course, my judgement here is completely up for debate.

Reply
Simen D arreighher
4/21/2020 02:20:53 am

This is something that you may wan’t to see.
https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/01/31/logistical-and-technical-analysis-of-the-origins-of-the-wuhan-coronavirus-2019-ncov/
Also this.
https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/03/23/no-monkey-ever-reheated-a-frozen-burrito-what-the-expanse-tells-us-about-the-covid-19-pandemic/
I found that the references quite convincing. Though some of the references these two articles used have yet again forced to be withdrawn.
CCP pressure, perhaps?
https://www.cell.com/pb-assets/journals/research/cell-host-microbe/PDFs/chom_2285_preproof.pdf
It appear that one the only animals that have been proven to produce viable infections of Covid-19 that is not a human are ferrets and tree shrews—both lab animals. And it require lab conditions for the animals to be infected in the first place, as there were no evidence anywhere a wild animal, or any animal that is outside a lab, to be confirmed to be infected at all.
Which confirms the findings of https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.025080v1
Apparently undergoing edits to incorporate more data from more animals, that confirms that the best animal hosts for the virus were indeed ferrets and tree shrews. And that all coronaviruses that target the human ACE2 receptor, won’t be able to form a good bond with the pangolin ACE2 receptor— indicating that such an RBD is incapable of infecting pangolins at all.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22723413/

Also backed up by

https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwaa036/5775463

Which suggest the “similarity” are at best the result of convergent evolution, and a recombination of RaTG13 and one of the pangolin CoVs would be at least “19.8 to 55.4 years ago”. At least two times the evolutionary distance of RaTG13 to Covid-19, an estimate of 9~10 years. Meaning that the alleged similarity was extremely unlikely due to the virus passing through pangolins at all.
Serial passage within ferrets have been used to make the deadly H5N1 bird flu airborne in mammals—And the commenter suggest that all viruses that have been made to perform airborne transmission in ferrets, are capable of equally powerful airborne transmission in humans—further proof that the only human-like ACE2 receptors are found in the lab animals ferrets and tree shrews.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/11/scientists-brace-media-storm-around-controversial-flu-studies

Sialiation of the proteins may also play a role—as suggested by

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2179-y

which proves that one of the sialic acid residues on the Human ACE2 receptor were used in the interaction between Covid-19 and ACE2.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1075706/

It appear that the withdrawals were due to Nature killing articles that disfavors the CCP, though the accuracy of this is yet to be confirmed.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/10/03/book-publishers-part-ways-springer-nature-over-concerns-about-censorship-china

Reply
Nerd has power
4/23/2020 07:25:05 am

Thank you for your work. What you have posted are all quality info in my opinion. Among them, the most intriguing is the link to ferrets and tree shrews. These really may have been the lab animals that they used in the course of selecting and improving viral strains, which should have followed their initial manipulation of the genome via molecular cloning.

Reply
John F Signus
4/25/2020 04:45:51 am

The nucleotide sequence coding for the E protein in Bat-Cov-ZC45,ZXC21 and RaTG13 are exactly the same, indicative of an extremely well conserved gene that have not seen a single mutation during the entire 5 years of divergent evolution across the two very distantly related viruses(as indicated by the vast differences in the S protein) —but curiously, the first sample of SARS-CoV-2 show 3 nucleotide substitutions within this gene (without changing the amino acid sequence), and newer examples of SARS-CoV-2 have shown amino acid substitutions within up to 4 different locations within this protein, in merely 3 months of human-to-human transfer. An indication of an extremely high mutation rate within the E gene, and the permissivity of the E protein toward changes in it’s amino acid sequence.
The E protein of Coronaviruses is on the inside of the viral envelope and is a structural protein— it can not even make contact with host receptors and does not partition in interaction with host cellular proteins since it’s role is to line the inside of the mature virions—a place that is devoid of any host proteins.
This mean, that the E gene play absolutely NO role in host selection and virulence in specific hosts, and the mutation rate within this particular gene should be relatively constant across all coronaviruses. A survey of bat coronaviruses confirmed that this protein in deed tolerate large amount of changes across both bat hosts and human hosts(SARS).
So how did such a gene manage to not change a single nucleotide across the very distantly related ZC45/ZXC21 and RaTG13, Code for the exact same protein in the very first sample of SARS-CoV-2, yet suddenly started to change in both the nucleotide sequence and the amino acid sequence it codes for once it’s in a human host? Remember that the E protein in Bat coronaviruses varies greatly across different strains—which mean that such changes could easily happen and be tolerated in a bat host. (That mean that the mutation rates of the E gene are similar in both bats and humans, and this gene should not be as conserved as indicated by the sheer evolutionary distance between ZC45/ZXC21, RaTG13 and for the protein, SARS-CoV-2.)
Or alternatively, this feat could also easily be explained via molecular cloning of the ZX45/ZXC21 E gene into the RaTG13 sequence, with subsequent codon optimization to generate the SARS-CoV-2 E protein.
Sequences to look for and MultiAlin to confirm this discovery:
Wuhan-Hu-1
ZC45
ZXC21
AP040581.1
RsSHC014
SC2018
NP_828854.1
SARS_GD01
BtRs-BetaCoV/HuB2013
SARS_ExoN1
BM48-31/BGR/2008
SARS_TW-GD1
SARS_Sino1-11

QHZ00381.1
QJA42107.1
QIS60608.1
QIZ14355.1
QIU81527.1

Look for the full GenBank of the protein sequences and find the corresponding nucleotide sequence, in order to get the nucleotide sequence of the E genes for these viruses.

Nerd has power
4/25/2020 06:09:47 am

Wow!!! Powerful evidence! Thank you so much for sharing. I completely agree with your analysis. The E protein being identical among ZC45, ZXC21, RaTG13, and initial samples of SARS-CoV-2 is highly suspicious to begin with. Now amino acid changes in E protein have already been observed in such a short period of human-to-human transmission. It's just such a strong proof.

John F Signus
4/25/2020 10:30:36 am

Closer analysis of RaTG13 and ZC45 have also revealed that the identicality of the E gene on these two viruses being highly suspicious.
The BLAST result page.
Bat coronavirus RaTG13, complete genome
Sequence ID: MN996532.1Length: 29855Number of Matches: 2
Range 1: 1 to 21563GenBankGraphicsNext MatchPrevious Match
Alignment statistics for match #1
Score Expect Identities Gaps Strand
26679 bits(14447) 0.0 19227/21597(89%) 80/21597(0%) Plus/Plus
Query 16 CTTCCCAGGTAACAAACCAACTAACTCTCGATCTCTTGTAGATCTGTTCTCTAAACGAAC 75
||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sbjct 1 CTTTCCAGGTAACAAACCAACGAACTCTCGATCTCTTGTAGATCTGTTCTCTAAACGAAC 60

From the comparison analysis, the similarity between RaTG13 and ZC45 is about 89% in the part of the viral genome where a match have been found. There were parts that were not matched between these two viruses—let’s ignore all if these.—the most conservative estimate.
The # of base pairs that were different=21597-19227=2370
The total query length is 29855.
The length of the E protein gene=75AA. There is no W within the gene, and the first codon AUG can’t mutate. All other codons have an alternative codon that codes for the same AA at the third location. Two of the Amino acids, L and R, can accept mutations at the first position without change of the AA sequence.
Let’s assume that the E protein somehow reject all changes within it’s amino acid sequence. This gives a total of 74 positions where a substitution could land on.
The chance of a single mutation from ZC45->RaTG13 to not land on one of these silent locations=(29855-74)/29855=0.99752135.
The total chance of ALL mutations from ZC45 to RaTG13 to not land on one of this sites=0.99752135^2370=0.00279008 < 0.3%.
This indicate that there ls less than 0.3%(at most 1.8% if the kind of nt substitution is considered) of a chance that the nucleotide identity of ZC45 and RaTG13 was the result of natural evolution.
Which mean that this identity is extremely unlikely to be fortuitious.

Nerd has power
4/28/2020 08:20:31 am

Thank you again for these excellent analyses. I looked at the nucleotide conservation myself for the E proteins. There are actually two single nucleotide substitutions between ZC45/ZXC21 and RaTG13, although they did not lead to amino acid changes. It's a small error, which of course does not alter your whole logic or conclusion.
I am preparing an updated version of my article, which will likely be posted on a different platform. I would like to incorporate your finding on the E protein in that version. Please let me know whether it is okay. Of course I would acknowledge you for observing this phenomena and providing your insightful analysis. Thank you!

John F Signus
4/29/2020 01:59:56 am

Did you use ZXC21? I am not aware of that sequence. I did a Multalin on the sequence ZC45 and RaTG13 and the nucleotide sequences were exactly the same. If the 2 substitutions on the ZXC21/ZC45-RaTG13 were on the ZXC21 sequence, then it will be a more solid evidence that the RaTG13 N protein gene was a direct clone from ZC45. Further evidence that RaTG13 was unnatural.

John F Signus
4/29/2020 02:47:45 am

Sorry for the mistake. I think I compared the wrong sequence.
With two nucleotide substitutions, with the “strict” standard on mutation rates the chance of ZC45/ZXC21 to RaTG13 mutation being natural becomes 0.0021805 and 0.02067 assuming all other mutations are freely available. Considering the levels of protein sequence conservation across the rest of the sequences (which was to assume that the number of variable positions within the rest of the viral sequence being similar to that of the variability of the E protein itself as seen in other bat coronaviruses), however, this chance pummels to 0.9948692^1563=0.00032228, about 0.04%.

Nerd has power
4/30/2020 07:37:39 am

Thank you for the update. Please don't apologize. Your analysis was brilliant. I'm still working on that updated version of the article. I will show a sequence alignment/comparison by following your suggested strains. That, in combination with what you have described for E proteins, is very convincing.

Silverfox
4/22/2020 01:27:10 am

I I have read your analysis carefully and I do find that it stands completely.
A few days ago, a new study appeared in preprint.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20060160v1.full.pdf

In this study by Chinese researchers (sic), it appears that the virus undergoes significant mutations at a fairly short rate. Some of these mutations appear to increase the aggressiveness of the virus. As I understand it, Li's team has detected more than 30 mutations. Of these, 19 mutations - about 60% - were new.

They discovered that some of these mutations could cause functional changes in the virus’s advanced protein, the unique structure above the viral envelope allowing the coronavirus to bind to human cells. A computer simulation predicted that these mutations would increase its infectivity.

According to the words of Professor Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine, if the virus is a virus manipulated in the laboratory, it will quickly mutate on the portions of its RNA that have been modified because "nature does not accept any changes ". He considers this behavior to be further proof that the virus would have been manipulated.

In view of this last study, what are your interpretations in relation to the analysis that you have carried out? Does this support your hypotheses?

Reply
Nerd has power
4/23/2020 07:37:36 am

Thank you for your comments. I was made aware of Dr. Li's work, although I did not get to read it in full. I think her work is very relevant in developing therapeutic and treatment strategies, which may or may not hint the origin of the virus. My two cents.

Reply
Pete Ross
5/21/2020 01:47:51 pm

Anyone address this type of contention?

http://virological.org/t/tackling-rumors-of-a-suspicious-origin-of-ncov2019/384

"We know from influenza H1N1, for which we have serial isolates from 1918 to the present, that wobble base mutagenesis occurs at a rate of 0.95% per decade. This permits an estimation of the TMRCA of the two sequences nCoV2019 and RaTG13 of 69.5 years ago – roughly 1950 +/- 10 years or so.

RaTG13, or anything nearly identical to it at the RNA level, simply could not be a proximal source of nCoV2019. It just LOOKS like it might be…at first glance.

Given that furin cleavage signals are present in other coronaviruses at exactly that point in the S1/S2 boundary region, it only LOOKS unusual, especially against the backdrop of SARS. The preponderance of evidence, coupled with Ockham’s razor (that the simplest explanation is preferred) dictates that the PRRA sequence has been conserved in nCoV2019 from a long ago ancestor virus. It is not of suspicious origin. The closest bat virus sequence is really not close at all.

RNA don’t lie.

Bill Gallaher"

Lois Geerhardt
4/8/2021 07:04:46 pm

Hi,
I'm late to this, but, if you have updated your very helpful analysis, if you would email I will be busy passing it on with proper attribution. I'm not savvy enough to find it if it is here on this site.
THANK YOU for writing this!

RaffRag link
4/23/2020 01:14:26 am

Sir, you have only shown that a stretch of amino acids of S1 looks like “copied” from the SARS spike protein and then “pasted” into the Wuhan coronavirus. Don't you think that, to confirm your hypothesis, you should verify that the same does not hold true for the S1 segment from other species?

Reply
Nerd has power
4/23/2020 08:03:53 am

Thank you. It's a very good question. Most coronaviruses don't contain this "copy/pasted" piece in their S1. The exceptions are SARS (of course) and about two SARS-like bat viruses. However, none of these SARS-like viruses "copy/paste" this critical piece as precisely as what's seen in the Wuhan coronavirus (residues important for SARS spike/ACE2 interaction all preserved/conserved and changes only occur at non-essential locations).
More importantly, this "copy/paste" is striking because it is in stark contrast with how the rest of the genome match between Wuhan coronavirus and the "template" coronaviruses (ZC45 and ZXC21). Such level of genome-wide similarity is not observed between Wuhan coronavirus and any of the SARS-like coronaviruses that contain a similar "copy/pasted" critical piece. Again, the "template" coronaviruses are discovered, published, and owned only by the military research lab of the CCP. Hope I'm making myself clear.

Reply
MZ1234
4/24/2020 12:40:39 am

A leading Russian microbiologist has claimed the coronavirus is the result of Wuhan scientists doing 'absolutely crazy things' in their laboratory.

World renowned expert Professor Petr Chumakov claimed their aim was to study the pathogenicity of the virus and not 'with malicious intent' to deliberately create a manmade killer.

Professor Chumakov, chief researcher at the Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology in Moscow, said: 'In China, scientists at the Wuhan Laboratory have been actively involved in the development of various coronavirus variants for over ten years.

'Moreover, they did this, supposedly not with the aim of creating pathogenic variants, but to study their pathogenicity.

'They did absolutely crazy things, in my opinion.
'For example, inserts in the genome, which gave the virus the ability to infect human cells.
'Now all this has been analysed.
'The picture of the possible creation of the current coronavirus is slowly emerging.'
He told Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper: 'There are several inserts, that is, substitutions of the natural sequence of the genome, which gave it special properties.

'It is interesting that the Chinese and Americans who worked with them published all their works in the open (scientific) press.

'I even wonder why this background comes to people very slowly.
'I think that an investigation will nevertheless be initiated, as a result of which new rules will be developed that regulate the work with the genomes of such dangerous viruses.
'It's too early to blame anyone.'

He said the Chinese scientists created 'variants of the virus … without malicious intent' possibly aiming for an HIV vaccine.

Reply
List Mist
4/24/2020 11:08:13 pm

Well, https://www.newsmax.com/navrozov/china-biological-russia/2009/09/17/id/335042/ written over 10 years ago speaks well regarding whether the Chinese scientists created variants of the virus with or without malicious intent.

Reply
Nerd has power
4/25/2020 05:46:13 am

Thank you! I obviously agree that this virus is a result of human manipulation. However, I don't think this Russian expert should so confidently say that they did it "without malicious intent". In my opinion, the evidence speaks the opposite.

Reply
RaffRag link
4/24/2020 01:38:05 pm

Thank you, sir. Anyway, I have found this recent article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2179-y. What do you think about?

Reply
Nerd has power
4/25/2020 06:33:27 am

Thank you for bringing up this article. It actually proves two of my predictions. First, it proves that the S1 of the Wuhan coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 as everyone else prefers) binds ACE2 the same way as SARS S1 does. I predicted this by just looking at the sequence comparison. As I mentioned in the article, there appears to be a well-plotted "copying" of a critical piece in S1 of SARS and then "pasting" it into a template virus to create the S1 of SARS-CoV-2.
Second, this Nature paper proves that the S1 of the RaTG13 virus can indeed bind ACE2. So the RaTG13 virus, if indeed exists, should be able to infect humans. I said in my article that Zhengli Shi needed to take one little peek at the sequence of RaTG13 and realize at once that this virus has the potential to infect humans. There is no reason that she should let this thing sit for 7 years and only decided to publish its sequence once the outbreaks took place.
Note: the RaTG13 S1 gene used in this Nature article was synthesized, not obtained from Zhengli Shi (they have been collaborators in the past), a proof of my other claim --- Shi does not have a physical copy of the RaTG13 virus.

Reply
NotA~A
4/25/2020 02:51:35 am

From the comment section of this article: https://www.virology.ws/2020/02/20/pangolins-and-the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-coronavirus/

------

Regarding the mysterious sequence RaTG13, and the hint that I should look closer at the sequence KP876546 that is cited in the article:
Ge, X., Wang, N., Zhang, W. et al. Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft. Virol. Sin. 31, 31–40 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12250-016-3713-9

The sequence KP876546 in NCBI is very short (only 370 bp) and is defined as Rhinolophus bat coronavirus BtCoV/4991 partial RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. This sequence is also analysed in the article Characterization of a New Member of Alphacoronavirus with Unique Genomic Features in Rhinolophus Bats https://doi.org/10.3390/v11040379.

I blasted the KP876546 sequence in NCBI and I got 100% identities with RaTG13 and 99% identities with MT039890 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 isolate SNU01, complete genome (South Korea). Next closer sequence not from SARS-CoV2 is the pangolin sequence MT084071.
To my opinion the sequence KP876546 could be the first evidence of the RaTG13 sequence or a sequence even closer to SARs-CoV2. In Ge et al., it is stated that the 370 bp sequence was prolonged of 816 bp and the spike protein was sequenced but this information for this sample has been not made public.

I have found a publication on the comparison of KP876546 with SARS-CoV2 before that RaTG13 was submitted to NCBI:

Liangjun Chen, Weiyong Liu, Qi Zhang, Ke Xu, Guangming Ye, Weichen Wu, Ziyong Sun, Fang Liu, Kailang Wu, Bo Zhong, Yi Mei, Wenxia Zhang, Yu Chen, Yirong Li, Mang Shi, Ke Lan & Yingle Liu (2020) RNA based mNGS approach identifies a novel human coronavirus from two individual pneumonia cases in 2019 Wuhan outbreak, Emerging Microbes & Infections, 9:1, 313-319, DOI: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1725399

The author writes that: “further sequencing of the corresponding PCR product (from SARS-CoV2) surprisingly suggested that the virus discovered is more closely related to BtCoV/4991” (KP876546) “(97.35%) but not SARS-CoV. The genomes of the 2019-nCoV were further analysed to determine its origin and evolutionary history. Full genome comparisons indicated that 2019-nCoV is close to CoVs circulating in Rhinolophus (Horseshoe bats). For example, it shared 98.7% nucleotide identity to bat coronavirus strain BtCoV/4991 (GenBank KP876546, only 370 nt sequence of RdRp gene) and 87.9% nucleotide identity to bat CoV strain bat-SLCoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21, indicating that it was quite divergent from the currently known human CoV, including SARS-CoV (79.7%). The close relationship with BtCoV/4991 is quite essential in tracing the potential reservoir host of 2019-nCoV. Unfortunately, the BtCoV/4991 sequence was only partial (373bp in length) and thus no comparisons can be made for the rest of genomes.”

In the article:
Zhou, P., Yang, X., Wang, X. et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature 579, 270–273 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7

where for the first time RaTg13 appears, it is written:

“We then found a short RdRp region from a bat coronavirus termed BatCoV RaTG13 which we previously detected in Rhinolophus affinis from Yunnan Province showed high sequence identity to nCoV-2019. We did full-length sequencing to this RNA sample. Simplot analysis showed that nCoV-2019 was highly similar throughout the genome to RaTG13, with 96.2% overall genome sequence identity.”

Interestingly, the article of Ge et al. is not part of the bibliography of this work. To my opinion further sequencing of KP876546 was so interesting that the results were kept secret and manipulations of this virus was carried over until the outbreak of SARS-CoV2.

Reply
Nerd has power
4/25/2020 06:46:00 am

Thanks for sharing! Whoever made the comment has captured something very interesting, which successfully eluded the public's attention.There seems to be a reason that Zhengli Shi does not bring this up herself -- she would struggle to explain it one way or the other. Again, great catch!

Reply
Hydride
4/25/2020 12:19:20 pm

bits and pieces. RaTG13 used for gene assembly, the optimize to get SARS-CoV-2. How could an RdRp from an alphacoronavirus (phylogenetic distance so high that even recombination (require homologous sequences flanking the RNA fragment)was considered impossible with betacoronaviruses.) wind up in a “Natural” bat Betacoronavirus?
Further evidence that RaTG13 was unnatural.

Reply
Bryan
5/7/2020 01:56:43 pm

Great find. This is real evidence that RaTG13 did exist prior to 2020 and wasn't completely made up.

Reply
Veltra
5/10/2020 10:31:55 pm

Did look at the publication--and they did not actually post any of the sequence data in regard to RaBt4991/RaTG13. Except a single figure of the phylogenetic tree. We can still not prove that RaTG13 is not manipulated.

Bryan
5/11/2020 07:45:16 am

It doesn't prove that the rest of the genome wasn't made up, but they did share at least part of the replicase gene in 2015 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/KP876546.1/

Biohazard0808
6/9/2020 03:30:05 pm

First of all, when looking at the "viruses" isolated from bats, it should be noted that no replication-capable viruses were actually sampled in most cases. As Shi's Science paper from 2005 describes, not a single active virus was isolated from the first 408 samples including blood, respiratory and faecal swaps. P.D. said in a recent interview that a total of 15,000 samples were taken to date just to find a few replicable viruses. Apparently, everything else was "reproduced" from RNA fragments, reverse transcribed into cDNA and re-assembled. In fact bat SL-CoV-WIV1 was the first viable CoV that was isolated in 2013 (described in nature paper). From only about 1.5% of the (mostly faecal samples) a positive RT-PCR was obtained according to the first paper in Science (although sampling methods have improved since then - in 2013 there were 23% that delivered at least a positive PCR result).

This outcome is not surprising, since RNA is extremely fragile and, in most cases, highly fragmented RNA was isolated from samples (e.g. from bat droppings), which can then only be reverse transcribed and amplified into pieces of cDNA with a length of just a few kbp. For most (partial) sequences published there has obviously no active replicating virus been isolated in the first place. However, R.B. special "no see’m cloning technology" allowed the cDNA pieces to be assembled "seamlessly" with each other, as he himself states about "novel means to recover previously uncultivable zoonotic coronavirus strains". Maybe these were also utilized in addition to the few active CoV they isolated to reinfect captured bats that were kept in cages. P.D. says in his interview (US Embassy KL Talks 42:50 min) after being asked if bats were immune to the CoV "We've shown that in the lab", i.e. that isolated (if not reconstructed) viruses were used in infection studies with bats (maybe even the ones which are kept at WCDC). Even if these viruses originated from nature, there is a certain probability that the dead specimens from bat droppings were brought from the caves into civilization.

Regarding sequence analysis: Of course, the observed genetic mosaic may be a result of a recent natural recombination event (otherwise you'd expect a higher divergence between the viruses back in Dec). RdRP copy choice errors in co-infected host cells as B.G. postulated earlier would also be possible. However, his hypothesis does not explain the accumulation of synonymous mutations within spike gene compared to the published bat CoV and the "normal" mutation rate within this "conserved" sequence since its first human-to-human transmissions. This many synonymous mutations within Spike compared to other genetic regions, however, could also point towards a viral barcoding method, similar as used by A. Russell, C. Trapnell and J.D. Bloom in 2018 instead of visibly tagging the sequences. This method was described in a paper titled “Extreme heterogeneity of influenza virus infection in single cells”. They used the technique for heterogeneous influenza virus populations in single cells to be able to differentiate the variants from each other after selection in vitro. It is also possible to distinguish whether a cell was initially infected by one or multiple viral particles or whether an observed viral heterogeneity resulted from "true infection" rather than "mRNA leakage" from lysed cells and perform a great statistical analysis of viral variability.

The purpose of this is to study how the outcome of infection varies between different cell types. To achieve that you must firstly create a library that is subsequently selected in whatever target cell lines (let's take for example Vero E6, Hela, CaCo-2, Calu-3 and 293T) using low MOI as they did with influenza pseudo virions. The artificially selected (still highly heterogeneous) populations are then evaluated by single cell sequencing using the viral barcoding method. Since you need to preserve the amino acid sequences in the barcoded region, you have to use synonymous mutations of course, which could explain the observation within the spike sequence. It is obvious that with a barcode system on a 2100 nt stretch in every third position of a codon you can tag an infinite number of genetic variants, which should not have too much impact on viral growth kinetics. RaGT13 may be just one of these variants from such a library. The spike gene is then used as a conserved sequence (maybe E-protein too), which you can find in extremely heterogenous populations using primers within S-gene without having to sequence the whole 30 knt genome. Although this observation is certainly no proof of a virus engineered in a laboratory, it adds to the evidence that libraries may have been used to test different variants of bat viruses in various cell lines, perhaps in mammals, possibly even in bats.

Reply
NotA~A
4/26/2020 07:54:47 am

something is moving:

https://project-evidence.github.io

https://osf.io/wy89d/

https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748

Reply
Nerd has pwer
4/26/2020 07:47:23 pm

Thanks for sharing. The more we dig, the more people digging it, the sooner we will get to the bottom of this. We are moving along.

Reply
RaffRag link
4/26/2020 08:06:03 am

Sir, thank you for your patience and consideration. I have a few questions. First, that the S1 of the SARS-CoV-2 binds ACE2 the same way as SARS S1 (or as the S1 segment from other species, not only bats, does) does not prove that binding is necessarily infectious. For example, does SARS-civet infect humans? Second, isn't the fact that the high level identity for most part of the genome with that of bat coronaviruses is not maintained in the S1 segment of the Wuhan coronavirus only a prove of how nature has learned to preserve the ability to bind ACE2, whatever random mutation or recombination may take place? Others seem convinced that SARS-CoV-2 might be a recombinant virus between viruses closely related to SARSr-Ra-BatCoV RaTG13 and pangolin-SARSr-CoV/MP789/Guangdong/2019. Indeed, coronaviruses have been shown to have a high frequency of recombination (Adv Virus Res, Volume: 48, Pages: 1-100, 1997). Their tendency for recombination and high mutation rates may allow them to adapt to new hosts and ecological niches, including natural recombination in coronavirus associated with human infection. Last, but not least, you suspect that a colleague of yours has only recently published a paper about RaTG13 infectiousness, of which she was aware SEVEN years ago, which has no other explanation than her involvement in spike protein engineering. How could she know that without having checked human infection?

Reply
Nicholas V Thartkins
4/26/2020 09:31:18 am

(Translated from the Chinese section of this blog, originally by Dithionite)
The problem with MP789, GenBank MT084071.1, was that the MP789 sequence was incomplete--A quick check in the GenBank revealed 1872 nucleotides, 1872/27989=6.69% of total, that are marked as "N", or nucleotides that are unknown.
This incompleteness mean that actual, live examples of the MP789 coronavirus does not exist, and what they do have is just the incomplete metagenomic data, Submitted at 13-FEB-2020 and couldn't have actually been sequenced one month earlier , AFTER the outbreak. Impossible to rule out sample contamination, especially if SARS-CoV-2 was used as the template for it's reconstruction.
Secondly, There were the GX pangolin Covs, of which the complete sequence ARE available within GenBank, with RBDs of the same length as MP789 and SARS-Cov-2, but with different critical amino acid residues (Fig.3) on the place where the RBD binds ACE2, with a consensus sequence of
DALTGgNY__LYRLFRKSKLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGQVGLNCYYPLERYGFHPTTGVNYQPFRV.
Especially for the four major difference between the two, SARS/MP789->GX_P1E/P5E/P4L/P5L/P2V
L(I)446X S(D)499R Q(Y)503H G509N of which will cause either Electrostatic repulsion or Steric clash that would prevent the proper binding of SARS-CoV-2 or MP789 RBD to the pangolin ACE2 receptor,
This sequence is only about 78% similiar with that of SARS-CoV-2, 76% similiar with RaTG13.
As substitution mutations are all that is needed to change the binding affinity for an receptor when the length of the RBD domain was the same, the existence of a Consensus sequence between actual pangolin CoVs that are very different with MP789 imply that the the Actual RBD sequences that can bind to the pangolin ACE2 receptor would be not very different form the Consensus sequence of the GX-pangolin-Covs for ACE2 RBDs of this length.
As the sequence we seen in MP789 or SARS-Cov-2 differs greatly from the consensus sequence between 5 different Complete pangolin CoV sequences that have actual samples of the virus, and since there were computational analysis,
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.025080v1.article-info
that have concluded that Coronavirus ACE2 RBDs that binds optimally to Humans, such like RaTG13 or SARS-CoV-2, binds to the pangolin ACE2 receptor very poorly (and much less than that of ferrets or tree shrews), we could safely say that the MP789 RBD will not bind optimally to the pangolin ACE2 receptor--implying that the MP789 sequence was either contaminated, or was the result of fabrication.

Sequences of SARS-CoV-2, MP789,RaTG13 and the Gx-pangolin-CoVs are available for Multalin analysis below
>SARS_COV_2
NNLDSKVGGNYNYLYRLFRKSNLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGVEGFNCYFPLQSYGFQPTNGVGYQPYRV
>MP789
NNLDSKVGGNYNYLYRLFRKSNLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGVEGFNCYFPLQSYGFHPTNGVGYQPYRV
>RaTG13
HIDAKEGGNFNYLYRLFRKANLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSKPCNGQTGLNCYYPLYRYGFYPTDGVGHQPYRV
>GX-P1E
DALTGGNYLYRLFRKSKLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGQVGLNCYYPLERYGFHPTTGVNYQPFRV
>GX-P5E
DALTGDNYGYLYRLFRKSKLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGQVGLNCYYPLERYGFHPTTGVNYQPFRV
>GX-P4L
DALTGGNYGYLYRLFRKSKLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGQVGLNCYYPLERYGFHPTTGVNYQPFRV
>GX-P5L
DALTGGNYGYLYRLFRKSKLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGQVGLNCYYPLERYGFHPTTGVNYQPFRV
>GX-P2V
DALTGGNYGYLYRLFRKSKLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGQVGLNCYYPLERYGFHPTTGVNYQPFRV

Reply
Nicholas V Thartkins
4/26/2020 10:03:15 am

Especially L449K, of which a major steric clash from the much longer Lysine side chain would shave off at minimum 150KJ/Mol of binding affinity of MP789/SARSCoV2 to the pangolin ACE2 receptor -- bringing the affinity from 699Kj/mol typically seen in Coronaviruses to it's native host ACE2, down to at most 550KJ/Mol.
Burying the charges at R449S and H503Q would knock dowwn another 20KJ/mol, Clash at H503Q would shave off another 50KJ/Mol and L/I446X would probably lose another 4Kj/mol, bringing the pangolin ACE2 Affinity down to about 480KJ/mol -- less than even the RaTG13, which have an affinity of 504.76KJ/mol and are considered not being able to use pangolins as a host In Vivo.
Not a single chance that the alleged MP789 or SARS-CoV-2 could possibly infect a pangolin at all.

Nerd has power
4/26/2020 08:31:24 pm

Thank you so much! Great translation and analysis!

Nicholas V Thartkins
4/30/2020 05:22:44 am

The units should be Kcal/mol not Kj/mol.

RaffRag link
4/26/2020 02:31:47 pm

Line 8 of my last comment
"prove" reads "proof"

Reply
Nerd has power
4/26/2020 08:27:43 pm

I will try to answer each one of your questions.
First, binding data alone certainly does not mean that the RaTG13 virus is actually infectious toward human. But it speaks strongly for such a possibility or potential. That's what Shi was claiming to chase after -- things that have the potential to cross over to humans. The fact that the authors in this Nature paper tested the binding between RaTG13 RBD and human ACE2 indicated that this potential is nothing but legitimate.
Second, you are talking about convergent evolution leading to different viral strains (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS, for example) preserving the same critical motifs for binding human ACE2. It is a true phenomena in evolution. If we are only comparing SARS and SARS-CoV-2, we may very comfortably suggest that the two ended up having similar RBD motifs due to convergent evolution (other parts of the genomes differ quite a lot too between the two, which is consistent with convergent evolution). But here, we are comparing ZC45 and SARS-CoV-2 (Wuhan coronavirus), which share high sequence identity overall and clearly share a recent common ancestor. I'm saying the evolution events that separate these two lineages cannot be random mutation (convergent evolution occurs through random mutation, many many rounds of random mutation). Hope I'm making this point clear.
Now this brings to your next point, could recombination be responsible? I have detailed my reasoning about this in the article. However, you mentioned a scenario that I excluded from my analysis: recombination between RaTG13 and Pangolin coronavirus. Unfortunately, an important part of my article was to disapprove both of these as valid, credible scientific evidence. You may look back at the comments I made on Apr 16th to see additional evidence of RaTG13 being very likely fabricated. Nicholas also kindly translated info on some additional evidence against the credibility of the pangolin coronavirus.
Finally, I don't have any colleague who are involved in the publication. I meant the authors of the Nature paper that you brought up used to collaborate with Zhengli Shi. If RaTG13 is a real virus, these authors could very conveniently obtain a copy of the gene from Shi. However, they chose to synthesize the gene instead. Again, Shi does not need to know whether this RaTG13 can or cannot infect humans to decide to work on it. She only need to recognize such a potential, which is very apparent in this case.

Reply
Nerd has power
4/26/2020 10:20:24 pm

Forgot to comment on the high frequency of recombination in coronavirus. Yes, it is a true fact. However, that does not mean that any type of change in coronavirus evolution is reasonable. I did the best I can to explain how I think recombination is unlikely to lead to the weird pattern of sequence similarity between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21. Anyone can of course make up his/her own mind on this claim. Again, please check the comment made on Apr 16th. That one, in my opinion, is a very strong evidence.

Reply
Metabisulfite
4/26/2020 08:15:33 am

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1.full.pdf
The alleged claim of HIV GP120 and Gag inserts in SARS-CoV-2.
By performing a PDB analysis (3JWD, 4NCO) of the HIV GP120 protein, It seems that the first and second insert (V4 and V5 variable regions) formed the CCR5 binding site of the original HIV-1 GP120 protein. the same study have also indicated thet the three inserst are tightly clustered together on the "corners" of the S protein-- in a separate domain that is located before the ACE2 RBD. in addition, the high and uniform pI(11,10 and 10.84) of all three inserts appeared to indicate that these three inserts formed a binding site for a specific protein co-receptor. considered that the HIV V1 binds CD4, V4 and V5 binds CCR5, and the fact that this virus can enter immune cells, it appeared that these three inserts have in deed imparted HIV-1 like function to the SARS-CoV-2.
MAY NEED FURTHER VERIFICATION

Reply
Metabisulfite
4/26/2020 08:22:55 am

Also, leronlimab, a CCR5 antagonist, seems to work well for treating COVID-19.
https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/cytodyn-leronlimab-covid-19-second-trial/

Reply
Nerd has power
4/26/2020 08:42:40 pm

Thank you for your comments. I have answered this in the Chinese section, I believe. I am actually skeptical whether there are any insertions of HIV sequences in the SARS-CoV-2 genome. I have read this preprint article when it first came out and was not convinced by the evidence within. According to my own blasting, those "inserted" pieces do not necessarily come from HIV.

Reply
Kathy
4/26/2020 08:31:31 am

KP876546 is a SARS-related betacoronavirus

I guess RaTG13 = R = Rhinolophus A =affinis TG= Total Genomic 13= 2013 sequence

A interesting new article:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340924249_Is_considering_a_genetic-manipulation_origin_for_SARS-CoV-2_a_conspiracy_theory_that_must_be_censored

Got already a bad comment here:
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/the-pandemic-discussion-forum/824572-discussion-chinese-academy-of-sciences-cas-in-wuhan-has-been-working-with-bats-and-coronavirus-for-many-years-dna-manipulations-cloning/page4#post854139

Reply
Nerd has power
4/28/2020 08:37:23 am

Thank you for sharing these!

Reply
Silverfox
4/27/2020 11:42:20 pm

Hi again, I read every day comment on your article, and I realy appreciate your analyse. Then I would like to submit you a new article, from Jean-Claude PEREZ and Luc MONTAGNIER published in preprint on april 26.

https://osf.io/d9e5g/

This article seems to confirm, as the precedent article from PEREZ
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339331507_Wuhan_nCoV-2019_SARS_Coronaviruses_Genomics_Fractal_Metastructures_Evolution_and_Origins

that there's less and less chances that this virus is natural. As predicted previously, the portions of the RNA code who are mutating faster than the rest of the genome are precisely the "Exogeneous Informative Elements"...

Did you read it ? What do you think ?

Reply
Nerd has power
4/28/2020 08:46:53 am

Thank you for sharing these articles. Unfortunately, I have been a little busy the last few days and did not get to read them. Hopefully I will get to later this week. I may not be able to offer much insights though because I don't have the proper knowledge in Mr. Perez's research area and methods.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/3/2020 06:34:02 am

Sorry for the delayed response. I did get to read Mr. Perez's work here. It's different from the one he shared with us earlier. Although I'm in agreement with Mr. Perez on the conclusion that the Wuhan coronavirus is of a synthetic origin, I again would have to admit that I'm not the best person to judge such an article. Based my limited knowledge, I would say that the sequences suspected as insertions are all on the shorter end, which tend to make things inconclusive in terms of where (HIV or other origins) they could be from. I did find the higher mutational rate of the EIEs over the whole genome very interesting. This could be a sign of artificial manipulation. On the other hand, it seems to me that these EIEs are located within Orf1b and the Spike regions (correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not 100% sure I have this right). I believe that these two regions of the coronavirus genome do tend to see higher frequency of mutations. This could just be a natural trait of coronavirus evolution. Of course, this may also mean that this bioweapon did not go through exhaustive optimization/passage before being put on the real mission and therefore is now adapting to the new host.

Reply
Tholix
4/28/2020 04:15:24 am

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340786428_COVID-19_Pandemic_Its_Origin_Implications_and_Treatments
Peer reviewed article about the origin of the coronavirus. The same author have purposed a working serum therapy that have saved lives during the early outbreak in WuHan. A therapy that includes the extraction of neutralizing polyclonal antibodies from recovered patients—which could be conceivably cloned to generate both a working vaccine and a viable cure.

Reply
Nerd has power
4/28/2020 08:49:06 am

Thank you for sharing the info!

Reply
Ana Salinas
5/1/2020 05:32:23 am

Hi Nerd has Power, I would like to talk to you a little further. Would you give me your mail? thanks in advance!

Reply
Nerd has power
5/3/2020 06:46:53 am

Do you mind sharing your thoughts here in the comments section? I would prefer public discussions. The communications here have been great. Thank you!

Reply
Edix
5/1/2020 07:58:27 am

I did the Homology based modeling analysis on the MP789 RBD and the pangolin ACE2 receptor.
In order to ensure the free energy calculations are limited to Binding energies only, Chimeric hACE2/pACE2 receptors are constructed using Homology Based Modeling, by swapping out the sequence of the part of the hACE2 protein that binds the ACE2 RBD with that of the pACE2 protein. Similarily, Chimeric MP789 RBD is constructed by swapping out the Receptor Binding Motif(RBM) of the SARS-COV-2 RBD with the sequence from MP789.
The Rossetta-based software, Foldit, was used for the docking and the modeling of the interaction. The proteins are docked and the free energies of the resulting complex were minimized, before a total free energy reading was taken.
The following are the result, in Rosetta Energy Units(REU),of the total free energy of three protein complexes.
SARS-COV-2-ACE2-RBD+hACE2=-522.530
Chimeric MP789-ACE2-RBD+Chimeric pACE2=-498.16
As a control, the total free energy of SARS-COV-2 and hACE2, when separated, is calculated to be -502.69 R.E.U.
Since the canonical binding free energy of the SARS-COV-2 RBD to hACE2 was determined to be -904.76Kcal/Mol,

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.025080v1

and the Rosetta Energy Unit scales only with total molecular mass and number of residues within a protein (of which were the same across two different experiments), The scale of the R.E.U for this particular experiment was determined to be -904.76/(-522.419-(-502.690))=45.85Kcal/Mol.
Using the scale obtained from the control experiment calculation, the binding energy between MP789-RBD and pACE2 was calculated to be (-498.16-(-502.690))=4.53 R.E.U =+207.7005+-500Kcal/mol, with a maximum binding affinity of -293.2995Kcal/mol and a minumum binding energy of +707.7005 Kcal/Mol. None of which could lead to In-Vivo infection as indicated with the same computational study using Bat_CoV as a control on the hACE2 receptor.

A positive binding free energy indicate that the proteins will not dock--the dramatically different binding residue pattern of the pangolin ACE2 receptor would have excluded the SARS-CoV-2 RBD, or even more so, the MP789 RBD as the hydrogen bonding between a binding side Aspartate residue with Q503 of SARS-COV-2 was abolished when the longer Glutamine side chain is relaced with the shorter Histidine side chain.
From closer structural analysis, it turn out that a major clash between Y513 of SARS-COV-2/MP789 and a histidine residue of the pangolin ACE2 receptor where a Glycine was present in the Human ACE2 receptor at the location, along with the abolishment of two(three if counting Q503H) of the four major interactions between the hACE2 and SARS-COV-2 inMP789/pACE2, completely abolishes binding of the MP789/SARS_COV_2 ACE2 RBD to the pangolin ACE2 receptor.



The pACE2 sequence used for the analysis:
>XP_017505752.1 PREDICTED: angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 [Manis javanica]
MSGSSWLLLSLVAVTAAQSTSDEEAKTFLEKFNSEAEELSYQSSLASWNYNTNITDENVQKMNVAGAKWS
TFYEEQSKIAKNYQLQNIQNDTIKRQLQALQLSGSSALSADKNQRLNTILNTMSTIYSTGKVCNPGNPQE
CSLLEPGLDNIMESSKDYNERLWAWEGWRSEVGKQLRPLYEEYVVLKNEMARANHYEDYGDYWRGDYEAE
GANGYNYSRDHLIEDVEHIFTQIKPLYEHLHAYVRAKLMDNYPSHISPTGCLPAHLLGDMWGRFWTNLYP
LTVPFRQKPNIDVTDAMVNQTWDANRIFKEAEKFFVSVGLPKMTQTFWENSMLTEPGDGRKVVCHPTAWD
LGKHDFRIKMCTKVTMDDFLTAHHEMGHIQYDMAYAMQPYLLRNGANEGFHEAVGEIMSLSAATPKHLKN
IGLLPPDFYEDNETEINFLLKQALTIVGTLPFTYMLEKWRWMVFSGQIPKEQWMKKWWEMKREIVGVVEP
VPHDETYCDPASLFHVANDYSFIRYYTRTIYQFQFQEALCQTAKHEGPLHKCDISNSAEAGQKLLQMLSL
GKSKPWTLALERVVGTKNMDVRPLLNYFEPLLTWLKEQNKNSFVGWNTDWSPYAAQSIKVRISLKSALGE
KAYEWNDSEMYLFRSSVAYAMREYFSKVKKQTIPFEDECVRVSDLKPRVSFIFFVTLPKNVSAVIPRAEV
EEAIRISRSRINDAFRLDDNSLEFLGIQPTLQPPYQPPVTIWLIVFGVVMGVVVVGIVVLIFTGIRDRKK
KDQARSEQNPYASVDLSKGENNPGFQNVDDVQTSF
The hACE2 used for this analysis:
>AAQ89076.1 ACE2 [Homo sapiens]
MSSSSWLLLSLVAVTAAQSTIEEQAKTFLDKFNHEAEDLFYQSSLASWNYNTNITEENVQNMNNAGDKWS
AFLKEQSTLAQMYPLQEIQNLTVKLQLQALQQNGSSVLSEDKSKRLNTILNTMSTIYSTGKVCNPDNPQE
CLLLEPGLNEIMANSLDYNERLWAWESWRSEVGKQLRPLYEEYVVLKNEMARANHYEDYGDYWRGDYEVN
GVDGYDYSRGQLIEDVEHTFEEIKPLYEHLHAYVRAKLMNAYPSYISPIGCLPAHLLGDMWGRFWTNLYS
LTVPFGQKPNIDVTDAMVDQAWDAQRIFKEAEKFFVSVGLPNMTQGFWENSMLTDPGNVQKAVCHPTAWD
LGKGDFRILMCTKVTMDDFLTAHHEMGHIQYDMAYAAQPFLLRNGANEGFHEAVGEIMSLSAATPKHLKS
IGLLSPDFQEDNETEINFLLKQALTIVGTLPFTYMLEKWRWMVFKGEIPKDQWMKKWWEMKREIVGVVEP
VPHDETYCDPASLFHVSDDYSFIRYYTRTLYQFQFQEALCQAAKHEGPLHKCDISNSTEAGQKLL

Reply
Exins FG Adam
5/2/2020 07:18:54 am

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1opowSQgcvpSb58piY1mvSf4AIGzpjssS
I have currently submitted this article to preprints.org and other biorxiv.org--Disproving both RaTG13 and MP789.

Reply
Chris
5/2/2020 10:52:18 am

Thank you. Tell us if the paper is accepted or not
Thanks

Reply
Exins FG Adam
5/2/2020 06:59:29 pm

Sorry but biorxiv.org have rejected my paper--citing that is should be sumbitted on a peer-reviewed journal instead of on BiorXiv.
Can you send the google drive file to [email protected] so he could issue an review?

Nerd has power
5/3/2020 07:51:28 am

Thank you for posting it here too. Great work! Too bad that they turn it down at bioRxiv. I saw some other preprints on this place: zenodo.org. Maybe you can give it a try here?

Reply
Exins FG Adam
5/5/2020 04:30:13 am

https://zenodo.org/record/3786451#.XrFN4YijeUk
Thank you so much. Sorry that I can't show my name here.
This is now a preprint.

Nerd has power
5/7/2020 09:55:17 am

That's great! Congrats on the preprint! Thank you for doing it.

JC onabike link
5/2/2020 01:52:45 pm

I’d love to discuss this with you. I would love to make a video summarizing your take. It’s very similar to mine and others. Harvard2Thebighouse has done some of the first coverage in Jan.

I did some videos exploring papers cited by Dan and here we are now months later.

Please if you are interested in working with me, Ill be making a commentary on this work this week.

https://youtu.be/HmSCMb8Nds4

Be well,
J.C. on a bike

Reply
Nerd has power
5/3/2020 07:35:08 am

Great video! I love the concept of journal club on a bike. You properly shattered that Nature Medicine paper.

It would be great if you could summarize this write-up in a Journal club video. I also have an updated version with some significant additions. It's published on a platform named Gnews:

https://gnews.org/192144/

I will likely post the updated article here too as the one on Gnews had a little too many editing errors unfortunately.

Let me know if you want to discuss anything further. Thank you!

Reply
ioderESTEl
5/2/2020 10:09:02 pm

You may want to check this as well:

https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748

In it you will find they linked a 2019 Chinese study that added furin cleavage sites through an off-the-shelf kit method. Apparently it is very easy to do.

The study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6832359/

Inserted into live chicken virus.

The medium post goes into great detail in showing that published research demonstrates the capacity to complete each form of edit necessary for this kind of lab based recombination.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/3/2020 08:05:49 am

Thank you for sharing these info. I love the article written by Yuri Deigin. It's so thorough, rich in information, and in the end convincing (although I'm already convinced). I learned quite a lot of details and side stories reading it. The only thing I would be picky about is that he was too scientific in his discussions and did not properly factor in how evil the CCP can be. It's certainly not Yuri's fault. The CCP certainly want to and can make bioweapons. They are also professional on covering things up, using all sorts of resources. Here they chose to use, among other things, fake science (RaTG13, Pangolin coronaviruses, Nature Medicine paper by Andersen and Lipkin, etc).

Reply
ioderESTEl
5/5/2020 02:00:39 pm

Some other science community commentary on the original Nature Andersen, et al paper.

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19387-another-expert-challenges-assertions-sars-cov-2-was-not-genetically-engineered

This in particular cites a method for creating a large number of spike protein candidates using a “phage display library.”

https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19383

Note how Nature refused to publish the challenge.

Nerd has power
5/10/2020 05:43:18 am

Thank you so much for sharing these. So glad to see prominent scientists coming out publicly to challenge that Nature Medicine paper and the claim that the virus is of natural origin. I thoroughly enjoyed reading these two articles as they articulated many of the same things that have been in my mind for a long time. I focused on describing the logic and evidence of human manipulation, but I had similar thoughts on how they might have worked on creating this artificial virus. Directed evolution could easily be involved.

Nerd has power
5/3/2020 12:48:17 pm

As you may have noticed, there are new pages added to this site. I just published an updated version of the earlier article on GNEWS (a great news platform created by the heroic Miles Kwok). However, there were quite a few editing errors of my GNEWS article. So I'm posting this updated article here too (RATG13 IS FAKE). This new version benefited tremendously from the insightful comments made here, especially by Ellannor D. Allens and John. F. Signus. I have acknowledged their contributions at the end. Thank you!

Reply
Viennah K Erchus
5/3/2020 06:59:55 pm

A takedown on the recent study claiming that the furin site may have been from HKU9 through "Co-infection"
http://virological.org/t/tackling-rumors-of-a-suspicious-origin-of-ncov2019/384/4
The HKU9 isolate were found in Guangdong province in 2011--thousands of miles away from Yunnan where they allegedly claim to have started. Bats does NOT migrate--no way that HKU9 could have traveled there.
The RBD from HKU9 belong to the kind that will not infect humans-- Not a chance that it could form a viable infection in humans for the recombination to occur.
About potential recombination--Should the HKU9 claim of a template selection error to be valid, especially since the non-orphaned random 11-mer of the claimed insert sequence are literally found all over biology, we should have seen Bat-borne coronaviruses of Lineage B with inserts at the S1-S2 junction all over the place in nature...... Mors specifically, a variant of HKU9 with the exact insert should have already been detected in bats, should such an insert confers evolutionary advantage in the Bat host.
But there were not a single bat lineage-B betacoronavirus that have been discovered with an insert at the S1-S2 junction, not a single lineage B isolate fron a reviously detected sorce that have a number of amino acids other than 6 between Y673 and R681/684, including RmYN02.
In addition, a Furin site have never been observed within the S1-S2 junction in lineage B betacoronaviruses other than SARS-CoV-2, even the kind that would arise from a single nucleotide substitution as in the Lineage A coronavirus, the MERS-CoV.
This proves that the Bat host, or any Wild animals in that matter, will not tolerate a sequence length at the Si-S2 junction other than 6 amino acids, and a Furin site is certainly not tolerated at the location for anything that exists in the wild.
One of the probable reason may be that such a cleavage would separate the S1 and S2 of the spike protein in a wild animal--the more robust immune system of wild animals, with the kind of antibody that were found in bats, (in comparison to the immunocompromised conditions found in cell or lab passage) will pry the S1 off the S protein shoult it exit the cell pre-cleaved, disabling the virus and stopping such lineages as soon as it emerged.
Such an observation would also be consistent with the general observation that no animals are capable of transmitting the virus outside of lab conditions, without intentional inoculation.
This would have excluded the bat/intermediate host-recombination theory--a recombinant virus with a furin site at the S1-S2 junction will not be able to survive in any animals other than a human, at most past a single host. a virus that can not survive in it's original host, without a rerfectly optimized RBD at least as good as in SARS-CoV, that would allow immediate direct human-to-human transmission (Since neither HKU-9 S1 nor RaTG13 S1 have been proved to show infectivity for humans In Vivo), such a virus is orphaned and will just fizzle out, without any possibility to transmit any further.
Also, dont forget, that they are only able to deduce 10 out of the 12 nucleotides within the insert--
HKU9 gcatttgta caga------cctcggcgggc ctctgt

CoV-2 tatcagact cagac ttg 'ct "cctcggcggg" ' c acgtagt
('' is what they claimed to be the insert in compared to RaTG13, which was very likely invalid, while "" is the part they have claimed to find in HKU9)
There were an entirety of 5 nucleotides, 2 of which were found in the PRRA insert, that were orphaned and NOT found in the HKU9 "source"!
So in order for this particular virus, which couldn't infect a bat any more due to the intolerance toward insertions at the S1-S2 junction in Lineage B betacoronaviruses in a Bat host, to even survive and then come up with a PRRA furin insert at the location, it would have to immediately find the other two missing nucleotides through insertion, an additional chance of 1/(29855^2*4^2)=1/14261136400 for a piece of RNA that were now broken and would be deader than a doornail in the bat cell that the "template selection error" allegedly happened.
So far we have excluded the intra-animal-recombination theory.
Now could this have happened in a co-infection within a human host?
The RBD of the Bat-HKU9 have not been proved to bind to the human ACE2 receptor, nor does it's sequence suggets that it could do, of which the only sequence that is capable of doing so for a bat virus is that of RaTG13, and the ACE2 receptor of a bat is very distant from that of a human--nomatter what kind of In Vitro data they may get for isolated (VERO E6, not even human) cells without an immune system, a bat virus can NOT infect a human In Vivo. Inoculation in the bloodstream to cause an immune response as in a vaccine, Yes. Actual infection as entry into human cells, No. And there were no concerns about a recombinant super-virus arising from a live vaccine inoculation because it can't enter human cells.
Could it be ZC45/ZXC21 and HKU9 in hu

Reply
Viennah K Erchus
5/3/2020 07:01:08 pm

Could it be ZC45/ZXC21 and HKU9 in humans?
According to Figure 3, the RBM of ZC45 and ZXC21 are broken--they will never be able to bind hACE2, and will not enter a human cell in the wild. so the other pieces of the puzzle, the only confirmed wild virus with the exact E protein as in SARS-CoV-2 other than RaTG13 are ZC45/ZXC21. From phylogenetic analysis we have already established that neither inserts nor furin sites at the S1-S2 junction is tolerated in lineage-B betacoronaviruses in a bat or a wild animal, so the only place this could have taken place is within a human. Human cells of which ZC45/ZXC21 can't get into. Again, not possible.
Could it be RaTG13?
According to the analysis done by Elennor D Allens and the newer article here, the sheer discrepancy of sense V.S. silent mutations between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 mean that if one is natural, the other must not be. If RaTG13 is valid, then SARS-CoV-2 is DEFINITELY engineered from it, case closed. If RaTG13 is Invalid, then the only RBD in bat caves that could enter a human cell just vanished. Leaving any S1-S2 insert-and-Furin-site-containing reject Coronaviruses (that could no longer spread and evolve within it's original host unless it drops the insert immediately) without the necassary RBD for it to enter the only host where it can survive and thrive, the Humans.
Additional bat viruses to conferm that an S1-S2 insert is not tolerated in any lineage-B betacoronaviruses that uses bats or wild animals as a host.
AAS00003.1
AAV49723.1
AVP78042.1
AVP78031.1
ADE34766.1
ADE34755.1
AID16716.1
ADE34812.1
AAZ41329.1
ADE34812.1
ADE34722.1
ACU31051.1
ATO98169.1
ABD75332.1
ACJ60703.1
QDF43835.1
ACU31032.1
AIA62320.1

Reply
Nerd has power
5/4/2020 05:23:27 am

Thank you for the thorough and powerful analysis! I think you successfully dismissed all possible routes of its natural occurrence. However, they can always fall back to say that there might be a perfectly identical furin-cleavage site in a bat virus out there that we just haven't discovered yet (don't be surprised if one of the Chinese research labs will soon publish such a sequence). The burden is definitely heavier on our side, but it's becoming more apparent. The truth will come out.

Eitcherius F Asken
5/5/2020 03:55:23 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZUJhKUbd0k
Well, someone in this have just pointed out a study that confirmed that neither furin sites nor inserts in the S1-S2 junction exist within any coronavirus spike proteins with sequence homology to SARS-CoV-2 higher than 40%. Confirming the finding that such a site is likely not tolerated in wild animals.
Without possibility of Furin-site persistence in the wild after an alleged recombinition, it becomes exponentially unlikely that the single virus, foolish enough to get this site or inserts at this location in a wild animal, to just jump to humans in the exact same time befor it gets eliminated. and even if this DO happen, the lack of a viable RBD within bat caves that constitutes in-vivo human infections, let alone human-human transmissible ones that is necessary for persistence of the hypothetical precursor in the human population, even after a furin insert, prevent any possible "spillovers" of this potential virus to the human population.
That is, unless cell culture were involved in it's passage, so the potential infection is not immediatedly eliminated by a human/animal-like immune system. However, with cell culture passage, this will be a clear lab-based scenario.

Nerd has power
5/5/2020 05:19:24 am

Thank you for posting this YouTube video. I listened to the whole thing. It's wonderful. I apparently agree with you and Chris in this video that the natural occurrence of the Furin-cleavage site is impossible. What I did not appreciate in full earlier was that all the viruses containing a similar (no one has the exact) sequence are less than 40% identical to SARS-CoV-2. That makes the chance of such a site arising from natural recombination close to zero. It's a great finding. Of course, that family tree, portraying SARS-CoV-2 being the one in that half of the branch that has a furin-cleavage site, is also very powerful. Better than what words can describe. Overall, the claim that this furin-cleavage site is a result of lab manipulation is becoming rock solid.

Ornius
5/3/2020 07:47:38 pm

Someone kindly reminds me that such co-infection experiments have already taken place in IMMUNOCOMPROMISED BAT CELL LINES by Zhengli Shi. So a recombination during cell passage may also be a plausible origin of the Furin site, in addition to deliberate insertion.
Smoking article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6178081/
2018.
"We believe that future studies should investigate coinfections in specific bat cell lines using a coronavirus similar to Ro-BatCoV HKU9 & the relevant orthoreoviruses from which it will be possible to reveal more of the underlying basis of heterologous coronavirus recombination"
Coinfection may be unnecessary in this case though, as chimeric Spike proteins with a SARS/MERS RBD and the C terminus gene, bearing the sequence claimed to be the source of the Furin site insert, derived from the very HKU9 coronavrus spike protein, were already patented by Ralph Baric in 2015.
Smoking patent:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e9/b2/98/15d4808eff87c9/WO2015143335A1.pdf
If someone decided to perform cell or animal passage of a spike protein, constructed according to the patent, within lab condition, where Polybasic cleavage site inserts ARE tolerated for influenza viruses, The site could then arise from an Intragenomic recmbination event and be easily tolerated within the cell lines or intentionally-inoculated lab animals, where it manifests as an increase in pathogenicity. (bad in wild animals as this will likely either kill the host and destry the virus prior to transmission, or separate the S1 and S2 and deactivate the virus itself against a wild-animal immune system.) Increase of pathogenicity that would be then immediately recognized as a potential bioweapon.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/4/2020 05:39:12 am

Completely possible. They could introduce it in several different ways and animal passage might very likely be involved. The method that was actually used may only be revealed by the one(s) who did it.
The literature/patent evidence, if you dig, clearly says that the techniques and knowledge are all out there for someone to create, conveniently, a bioweapon-equivalent virus.

Viennah K Erchus
5/4/2020 10:57:40 pm

I have seen bad comments on your Gnews article.
CCould you also include an E alignment of Bat and SARS coronaviruses to show that this protein is indeed highly variable, even in bats, in your article?
SARS_CoV_2, ZC45/ZXC21, RaTG13, Bat and SARS sequences provided below.
>AA_Wuhan-Hu-1_E
MYSFVSEETGTLIVNSVLLFLAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCC
NIVNVSLVKPSFYVYSRVKNLNSSRVPDLLV
>AA_ZC45_E
MYSFVSEETGTLIVNSVLLFLAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCC
NIVNVSLVKPSFYVYSRVKNLNSSRVPDLLV
>AA_ZXC21_E
MYSFVSEETGTLIVNSVLLFLAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCC
NIVNVSLVKPSFYVYSRVKNLNSSRVPDLLV
>AA_RaTG13_E
MYSFVSEETGTLIVNSVLLFLAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCC
NIVNVSLVKPSFYVYSRVKNLNSSRVPDLLV
>AA_Bat_APO40581.1
MYSFVSEETGTLIVNSVLLFLAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCCNIVNVSLVKPSFYIYSRVKNLNSSQGIPDLLV
>AA_RsSHC014
MYSFVSEETGTLIVNSVLLFLAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCCNIVNVSLVKPTVYVYSRVKNLNSSQGVPDLLV
>AA_SC2018
MYSFVSEETGTLIVNSVLLFLAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCCNIVNVSLVKPTIYVYSRVKNLNSSEGVPDLLV
>AA_Bat_NP_828854.1
MYSFVSEETGTLIVNSVLLFLAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCCNIVNVSLVKPTVYVYSRVKNLNSSEGVPDLLV
>AA_SARS_GD01
MYSFVSEETGTLIVNSVLLFLAFMVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCCNIVNVSLVKPTVYVYSRVKNLNSSEGVPDLLV
>AA_BtRs-BetaCoV/HuB2013
MYSFVSEETGTLIVNSVLLFVAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCCNIVNVSLVKPTVYVYSRVKNLNSSEGVPDLLV
>AA_SARS_ExoN1
MYSFVSEETGTLILNSVLLFLAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCCNIVNVSLVKPTVYVYSRVKNLNSSEGVPDLLV
>AA_BM48-31/BGR/2008
MYSFVSEETGTLIVNSVLLFLAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCCNIVNVSLVKPTFYVYSRVKSLNSSQEVPEFLV
>AA_SARS_TW-GD1
MYSFVSEETGTLINSVLLFLAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCCNIVNVSLVKPTVYVYSRVKNLNSSEGVPDLLV
>AA_SARS_Sino1-11
MYSFVSEETGTLINSVLLFLAFVVFLLVTLAILTALRLCAYCCYIVNVSLVKPTVYVYSRVKNLNSSEGVPDLLV

Reply
Nerd has power
5/5/2020 05:24:27 am

I certainly can! Thank you for providing these sequences. I don't think I get to update the GNEWS article, but I can update the version here by adding an amendment. I will leave a comment on GNEWS and direct people to check it out on this blog. I hopefully will get it done by the end of tomorrow. Thanks again!

Reply
Nerd has power
5/10/2020 05:52:34 am

Hi Viennah, sorry for the delay, but I had finally updated the article per your suggestion. Thank you so much for retrieving these sequences and put them into the right format. It made creating the figure so much easier. I will leave comments under the GNEWS article and encourage people to migrate over here to see the updated info.

Reply
Kathy
5/6/2020 03:25:27 am

I have a question: the furin cleavage site sequence is inserted in SARS-CoV-2 in a way that produces a split of the codon for Serine in the pangolin sequence MP789 and Ratg13. Please see fig.1 here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340924249_Is_considering_a_genetic-manipulation_origin_for_SARS-CoV-2_a_conspiracy_theory_that_must_be_censored/figures

I know that you consider Mp789 and RaTG13 not real, but could this insertion prove that the furin sequence was artificially inserted? I am wondering if natural recombination could result in such split. All the people I have asked so far do not know.

Reply
Firox TD Jackinson
5/6/2020 04:45:26 am

It maybe that the insert was made in that way. Site-directed mutagenesis experiments are very conservative about the number of nucleotides they can insert/delete, and would normally be designed in such way that it minimizes the change to the original genome while achieving the goal of the operation. Making the result look as natural as it can. So if the one who made the insert found out that by splitting the Serine codon one can minimize the overall change toward the entire genome and make it look more natural than just inserting in-frame, then it will be such an insert that ended up being chosen.
Also, It's unclear that the insert was actually out-of-frame, as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZUJhKUbd0k pointed out, the insert can also be completely normal and in-frame, if a silent mutation was ended up being introduced into the overall sequence at the 3rd position of the S679 codon during the subsequent optimization process, Inserting/replacing 13 nucleotides in total. Which is likely the case since the new silent mutations introduced, considering the overall difference from RaTG13>SARS-CoV-2, was quite uniform across this region, Indicative of a round of optimization after insertion.
It may also be a distraction, should they decide to orchestrate the insertion/substitution in such a way that it would appear out of frame by +1. As this would make it look more "natural". This may be of significant consideration when designing a Bioweapon without leaving a trace--if they find out that the can shift the insert by +1 while preserving the overall sequence, they will surely do it in that way to minimize trace. 12 nucleotides are not that hard to design in this way.
In fact, due to S679's high variability, should the +1 out-of-frame insert be natural, then that paticular Serine will unlikely be preserved, as the first nucleotide, not in-frame to the PRRA, have a 50% chance of changing it to an Arginine. Which will make the Furin site canonical (RPRRAR, two cuts instead of just one) and dramatically increase the infectivity than even the current PRRA. So the only reason for such a choice is because that the entire sequence was first laid out in Amino Acids, then back-translated to nucleotides--of which the S->R mutation will not be considered when designing the Amino acid sequence alone.
Remember that neither RaTG13 nor MP789 were independently sequenced other than by their original publisher--and both of them were likely fabricated. So the RaTG13 and MP789 sequences themselves may well be made in such a way that it make the insert looks out-of-frame, hiding the traces of artificial insertion.
https://zenodo.org/record/3786451#.XrKaHoijeUm

Reply
Firox TD jackinson
5/6/2020 05:30:56 am

Looked up the codon table-- and the +1 insert is very easy to design. the codon for A/Alanine can have any nucleotide at the 3rd position, so just keep the 3rd position of the original S679 at the last 1bp of the PRRA. So leave it unchanged & save 1 nucleotide on your primer. The Codon for Serine TCA/TCT can also have any nucleotide at the 3rd location and it's not in-frame with the P-R-R-A. So just change it to anything else.
Sorry for the prior Arginine claim. But it demonstrates that is very easy to design the insert in such a way that it would appear +1 out-of-frame and look more "natural". Primers for Site-directed mutagenesis are very expensive and a thorough consideration for nucleotide design must have taken place prior to performing such an insertion. Depending on techniques used, Placing the insertion at frame +1 may actually reduce the # of nucleotides needed to be designed/synthesized to 11 instead of 12 (by reusing the end of the reverse primer, shifting it by -1). Which is unlikely to have slipped past the designer's eyes when every extra nucleotide count in such experiments. It may even look more natural if a template that may form such a sequence was already recorded in their databases--random 8-mers are not that hard to hunt down from GenBank, especially if they can fit the core NCCNCGNCGNGC(N) to some virus of bat origin, nomatter how strange or out-of-frame it may be on the "source". 2^8=65536--a suitable candidate could be found once in every 65536 nucleotides of random DNA. Both R in the P-R-R-A insert uses the codon that can have any nucleotide at the third, or Wobble position, CGG-CGG--and that is not by accident. So does the split Serine codon. It reduces the range one needed to search for a "natural" candidate down by as much as 2*2*4*4=64 times. Making a Cover-up much more easier, especially since this is a Bioweapon that needs to be covered up.
And it's not by accident that such a choice reduce the total number of "defined" nucleotides within this sequence to the absolute minumum--It was designed as such. To both save cost for Oligonucleotide synthesis, to minimize overall changes to the genome, and to aide in covering up the bioweapon.
The bottom line is that all such nucleotide-changing experiments are always carefully designed nucleotide-by-nucleotide because Oligonucleotide synthesis costs far more than computational screening/design of the sequences themselves. Modern tools have made optimizing the required changes cost next to nothing while Oligonucleotide synthesis still cost a lot and still require weeks to complete. Therefore, even a single nucleotide reduction in the length of sequence they needed to synthesize (which saves a fortune) matters enough to justify putting the entire insert +1 out-of-frame (Which costs next to nothing).
Especially if such a design choice makes covering-up the traces much more easier (which is one of the uttermost concern for designing a bioweapon).

Firox TD Jackinson
5/6/2020 05:42:26 am

4^8=65536.

Kathy
5/6/2020 07:52:31 am

Thank you very much for checking this and the links!

I think that here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZUJhKUbd0k at 19:31 they did just a translation of the amino acid PRRA to show the nucleotide sequence of the furin site. My alignment of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is quite different and also here at a first look you think that it is frame, but you can see the shift checking the codons.

The real sequence inserted is ctcctcggcggg and not cctcggcgggca as they show.

Anyway, for the rest I liked very much. Mostly the comments about Andersen & co. eheheh

I agree that this sequence must have been designed to preserve as much as possible the original amino acid sequence. The change in the codon is not visible at a first look.

Nerd had power
5/6/2020 12:39:26 pm

Thank you for the analysis and explanation. I did not get to read the original article, but I don't think there is anything that you did not cover :). The Youtube video was excellent. It made it so crystal clear that the furin-cleavage site was not out of natural evolution.

Firox TD Jackinson
5/7/2020 05:49:54 am

Thank you for your analysis. Technically the insert could be either +1 or +2 out of frame, or is a 12nt in-frame insertion+1 silent mutation. With the +2 insert however, it would make the needed primer 2nt shorter than the in-frame 12, by shifting the reverse primer by -2. reducing the total absolute extra length need for synthesis to 10. Unlikely to have slipped past the eyes of the designer/software when designing the insert/primers.
Also, if the insert were indeed +2 and is natural, then there will be an extremely high chance (11 out of 12) that the Serine will not be preserved-- it may turn into F,Y, L, C or W. of which L is known to appear on the S1-S2 junction and was the go-to for most betacoronaviruses of Lineage B.
Technically, whether the insert was +1 or +2 was simply the result of the kind of algorithm you uses for alignment-- it depends on the "seed squence" that were used in this kind of analysis. Both +1 and +2 inserts are equally valid for a 12nt insert, and a 12nt in-frame insert with a silent mutation at the wobble position of the S679 Codon is still the most likely scenario.
With a +2 insert, however, it would likely save one extra nucleotide on the primers used and not change the total number of defined nucleotides that is needed to search for a cover-up. So maybe it was what that was used in the final design decision.
However, with the Ser and Ala codon both having C at the second position, Both a +1 and +2 primer design will be equally valid and will apear identical on the final sequence. There will be no distinctions. and a +1 primer is still the most likely scenario for the insertion, since it's easier to design.
Also, since the first 1, or 2 nt of the 12nt insert are both "Orphaned" on Genbank, the actual case for primer design may still be +1 instead of +2. as that will be the insert that is most similar to a sequence that is found on GenBank, instead of the +2 one.
However, since the +2 insert costs 1nt less for Oligonucleotide synthesis than the +1 one, it may be chosen due to economical reasons once they figured out that the cost of the +1 design could be further reduced by shifting the frame by a further +1 nucleotide on synthesis while preserving the original destination sequence.
However, since either design will end up with the exact same nucleotide sequence on the SPRRA junction, we may never know which was actually chosen. As both S679 and A683 have C on the second position for all codons that preserves the flanking sequence, There are no alternative forms of the +2 insert other than a simple frameshift of the +1 insert by +1 for S-P-R-R-A, hence both primer designs are equally valid.
Also, Even with a +1 insert, you still end up having to make up the first 1nt of the insert by an extremely unlikely insertion--a frameshift after recombinition is always lethal. As insertion rates are at a measly 10^-7 per site per cycle for even the most unstable retroviruses,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC253716/pdf/jvirol00087-0299.pdf
and that the recombination and the insertion would have to happen at the exact same cycle on the exact same RNA molecule, with recombinition rate of less than 1/1404.76 that of the substitution rate, The chance of such an insertion to happen at the exact same site as the recombinition, which was iteslf happen less than (120/1404.76)=0.085 per species per year globally, is less than 1e-7*0.085/(29855^2)=9.58*10^-18 times per species per year. Assuming every bat carries it's own species of Coronavirus (which was order of magnitudes higher than what may actually be since there were never observation of >30 species of Coronaviruses per cave, caves that hosts ~100 to ~3000 bats each), and all the bats are allowed to recombine with the one spicies that had this exact sequence, the smallest bat weights ~10g and the total mass of wild mammals being 3.8e+7 tonnes, and let's say all of these were bats (which was obviously not the case), it would still take at least 26841.63 years for such an event to happen in nature for Once.
And we know that Furin sites were not tolerated in any coronaviruses that had a Spike(S) protein gene sequence homology larger than 40% with SARS-CoV-2, meaning that such a site can never survive in a bat even if it could form, It would have to then enter humans at the exact same cycle as it was formed or else it will be eliminated.
As the closest Coronavirus to SARS-CoV-2, RaTG13, was allegedly first obtained in 2013 and does not have a furin site, This leaves the total time window for such an opportunity being at most 7 years where an emergent site of this strain could enter humans.
7/26841.63=1/3834.519. This is the chance that the Furin site found in SARS-CoV-2, so far being the only example (Species) of it's clade, being the result of a natural recombinition event, even assuming such recombinition could happen in the first place.
In the other way around, the chance of the Furin site insert within the S1-S2 junction of S

Reply
Firox TD Jackinson
5/7/2020 06:02:41 am

Protein being of Non-natural origin is more than 3833/3834, or more than 99.9739%
Or, spoken in the other way. It is 3833.519 times more likely that the PRRA furin site insert of SARS-CoV-2 was the result of purposeful manipulation, instead of being the result of "natural recombinition".

NasCinx
5/6/2020 04:01:58 am

It seems that a lot of debate was going on a short 370bp partial RdRp sequence known as RaBtCoV/4991, claiming that it was the first sample of RaTG13. However, this does not remove any of the questions surrounding RaTG13.
First, if there was already RaBtCoV/4991, why they did not recognize and publish the RBD?
This will be a proof that the rest of RaTG13 was fabricated from the small sequence.
Second, Assume that RaBtCoV/4991 is indeed complete and is RaTG13, then it would be obvious that SARS-CoV-2 was made from it, as pointed out by Elannor D. Allens and your more thorough analysis on the identicality of E and unnaturally low sense/silent mutation rates of S2.
"Out of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13, only one could be natural."

Reply
Nerd has power
5/6/2020 12:40:28 pm

Exactly!

Reply
Kathy
5/9/2020 02:35:51 pm

Now we know it:

Peter Daszak confirmed that RaTG13 is BtCoV4991.

https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1259111768217063424

Link to the database:

http://www.mgc.ac.cn/cgi-bin/DBatVir/main.cgi?func=accession&acc=MN996532

Reply
Nerd has power
5/10/2020 06:27:23 am

Thank you for sharing these, Kathy. I invited Peter under that tweet to come over and see how "RATG13 IS FAKE". I would love to see his comments coming up in this section.

RV
5/7/2020 12:10:59 pm

I find your hypothesis very compelling and I also find an article arguing the opposite very compelling. What do you think? You both argue your cases very well and as a layman I don't know who is right. I hope you will look at it and consider a rebuttal.

http://virological.org/t/tackling-rumors-of-a-suspicious-origin-of-ncov2019/384

Reply
Alix
5/7/2020 07:02:07 pm

See Viennah K Erchus’s comment on the takedown of that hypothesis.
Also, HKU9 is a guangdong strain while RaTG13 is a Yunnan strain. They are geographically too distant to be seen infecting the same cell of any animals. Bats included. Except in labs where “co-infection experiments” were performed in bat cell lines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6178081/
2018.
"We believe that future studies should investigate coinfections in specific bat cell lines using a coronavirus similar to Ro-BatCoV HKU9 & the relevant orthoreoviruses from which it will be possible to reveal more of the underlying basis of heterologous coronavirus recombination"

Also see Firox TD Jackinson‘s comments on why such an insert was ended up being chosen. Remember that this is a bioweapon and it needs Cover-up. The choice both eases cover-up , is more economical in term of Oligonucleotide synthesis and is very easy to design

Reply
Firox TD Jackinson
5/9/2020 09:07:03 pm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7075523/
Well, I just recieved a confirmation from Yuri Deigin that the HKU9 Spike will not bind ACE2, DPP4 nor CD147(which was on the NTD of SARS-CoV-2, the part where the "HIV inserts" were). The Spike protein is just too distant from either SARS-CoV-2, RaTG13 nor MP789 for them to even bind to the same receptor, let alone to the same cell in the same species.
Since HKU9 can't even infect the same kind of cells as RaTG13, MP789 or SARS-CoV-2, let alone the same species, Any recombinations with HKU9 can be solidly ruled out.
https://medium.com/p/98c838e8387e/responses/show

Reply
Nerd has power
5/10/2020 10:24:32 am

Thank you, Alix and Firox. Very nice info and analysis!

Hi RV, this Youtube video explained the Furin-cleavage site issue very well. I highly recommend that you check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZUJhKUbd0k

Reply
NM
5/7/2020 01:26:08 pm

hopefully you have seen this ....
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/database-wuhans-batwoman-altered-48-hours-covid-19-samples-ordered-destroyed

Reply
Rikaja
5/7/2020 01:58:00 pm

Amazing research. Please, try to publish in a peer-reviewed journal for scientists to see.

Reply
Bryan
5/7/2020 02:10:06 pm

One thing that really throws off estimations of similarity between RaTG13 and SARS CoV2 is the weird mutation pattern. Almost all the SNPs are C<->T or A<->G changes. This is not the mutation profile of replication errors. A recent article makes a pretty good case that this could be the result of deamidation by host cell APOBEC or ADAR proteins.

https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/fvl-2020-0066

Reply
Argin
5/7/2020 05:41:34 pm

Technically, this will not affect the mutation rate analysis as the same holds true for ZC45/ZCX21 and the rest of RaTG13/CoV2.
The Syn/Nonsyn subatitution rate data actually accounts for all possible RNA modification systems within host cells, as SNP polymorphisms like this are just equally as likely to cause AA changes as the “normal” kind.

Reply
Bryan
5/9/2020 09:11:04 am

That's not quite right. I'd assume enzymes like APOBEC edit any position in a codon equivalently. But the type of mutations done by APOBEC or ADAR are transitions (APOBEC: T<->C and ADAR: A<->G). Generally in the 3rd, or "wobble" position of a codon, transitions do not change the encoded amino acid, whereas a transversion does. Transitions will still usually change the encoded amino acid if they occur in the 1st or 2nt position of a codon. Interestingly, I just did a quick analysis of the SARS-CoV2 spike protein and there is a somewhat higher percentage of Cs and T/Us in the 3rd codon position (62% C/T content) compared to the first (41%) or second (54%). If APOBEC randomly converts any C/T, it's more likely to occur an the wobble position just because of the abundance of C/Ts. Overall, this means that APOBEC mutations are much more likely to cause silent (synonymous) mutations than more random mechanisms (like coping errors).

Argin
5/10/2020 08:15:41 am

However, when you look at the mutation rates between the rest of RaTG13/CoV2, the Syn/Nonsyn ratio is completely normal near 5:1. If an RNA modification system was involved, why it would selectively modify just the S2 but not the rest, like ORF1ab, M or N?

Also, APOBEC and ADAR works on Cellular mRNA. they have a single reading frame and can be easily modified on the Wobble position only. Coronavirus Genomic RNA, however, contain multiple ORFs and the APOBEC and ADAR will make their modifications Out-Of-Frame, nullifying the "wobble position only" hypothesis.

The real problem is that the the nonsyn/syn ratio on S2 was unnaturally low between RaTG13/SARS-CoV-2 when compared to the rest of the sequence itself (which look completely normal) and the fact that they still manage to hit an overall 5:1 Syn/Nonsyn ratio on the entire S1+S2. (but bungled with the distribution of Syn/Nonsyn mutations)

The cover-up was what have exposed them.

Again, the real problem it not that the nonsyn/syn substitution rates on the S2 was unnaturally low, it was the fact that it was Unnaturally low When compared to the rest of the sequences.

Argin
5/10/2020 08:26:36 am

62% compared to (54%+41%)/2 was not that high. Assuming only conversions from APOBEA/ADAR possible, it will only cause a minor (6.526-to-1 instead of 5-to-1 "natural") deviation from the established pattern. Not the complely unnatural 44-to-1 ratio as we see here. Even factoring the RNA modification, this ratio still return a chance of 2.76e-6 for the entire S2 protein to be natural. a 1 in 361730 chance.

Argin
5/10/2020 04:54:37 pm

In fact, if APOBEC and ADAR causes more synomynous changes than normal mutation processes in the viral RNA, we should have seen a change in the codon preference between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2--the ratios of codon usage should have changed since an elevated level of synomynous changes over non-synomynous changes will bias the codon preference of SARS-CoV-2 significantly from "the extreme CpG deficiency of SARS-CoV-2" when compared to RaTG13.
However, as per the analysis done by Yuri Deigin
https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748
The codon usage ratio of SARS-CoV-2 is nearly identical to RaTG13. There were no bias as would be expected from an eleveted level of synomynous modification when compared to non-synomynous changes.
It turned out, APOBEC and ADAR recognized specific motifs on the RNA-- they does not recognize reading frames and the changes are just as equally likely on any of the 3 possible reading frames on any pieces of RNA. Motifs are not "Codons" because they are two times as likely to be out-of-frame than being in-frame in the context of a specific gene, which occupies only 1 of all the 3 possible reading frames.
Because APOBEC and ADAR changes equally likely on all the 3 possible locations on a single codon, the changes they make will not prefer synomynous changes over non-synomynous changes outside of specific cellular mRNAs that co-evolved with these enzymes.
Therefore, by comparing the Codon usage ratio of RaTG13 to SARS-CoV-2, we can safely assume that the RNA modification systems did not contribute to any higher syn/nonsyn ratio than normal mutation processes did.

Nerd has power
5/10/2020 06:25:36 pm

Can't agree more. Wonderful discussion and analysis. Thank you!

Exid
5/10/2020 08:11:15 pm

It also appeared that the CpG deficnency in RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 was ancestral-- it likely happened BEFORE the two viruses branched away on the evolutionary tree. So Whatever kind of modification system at work in the ancestor have stopped working when RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 came to place.

Also, SARS-CoV-2 showed a higher level of CpG deficnency than RaTG13--Confirming the previous argument that any processes that prefers synomynous over non-synomynous substitutions in this kind of genomic change will cause a significant bias on the codon preference of RaTG13/Sars-CoV-2. which, as said before, were nearly identical.

Even assuming that the editing process have reached their endpoints (which is likely not since SARS-CoV-2 is clearly more CpG deficient than RaTG13), RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 had vary different hosts whose codon preference are very different(Bat vs human). (see the Codon preference part on https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748 for all the different viruses, their codon preference and their hosts)

Should the introduced mutations are largely synomynous (which was not), this kind of drift and host change should have caused the Codon prefernce to diverge significantly from each other, both from normal genetic drift during editing and adaptation to different hosts. They should never be near-identical for the number of mutations we see here. Especially the Lysine codon who have AAA or AAG ratio that are identical in both strains. The A/G on the wobble position is a substrate of ADAR. which interconverts them. Should this be biased toward Silent vs sence, it should have caused the AAA/AAG ratio to drift away from each other. Quite significantly.

In fact, the only way for the codon prefernece to staty constant with significant mutations taking place is for the Sense/Silent ratio on the majority of the sequences to be normal. as any bias toward the wobble position invariably lead to a significant change in the codon preference (Wobble positions are what determines the Codon preference, therefore mutations biased toward there translates to an equal bias toward changing the Codon usage ratio significantly, especially the A+C and T+G, which was not under any selection pressure under the context for a drive toward lower CpG), Either way around. Such a change was not observed between RaTG3/SARS-CoV-2.

In fact, the near-identical codon preference of RaTG13 to CoV2 (which stand out in their own separate class, previously undetected in any other betacoronaviruses) point toward the sequences being fabricated in a way that the codon preference was closely matched toward SARS-CoV-2. This is usually done by changing the wobble position on the non-synomynous locations (as well as introducing additional synomynous mutations, keeping the total Syn/nonsyn ratio to 5:1).
Also, the large CpG deficnency also point toward optimization for quick replication as ApT replicate faster than CpG. Which were likely overdone to make the bioweapon as lethal as it can. This kind of CpG ratio was never detected in any other betacoronaviruses other than RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2, including the alleged pangolin strains. pointing out an artificial origin of RaTG13/Sars-CoV-2. This have also excluded the idea that either strains had been evolved in pangolins for any amount of time. (which had a different codon preference and an elevated CpG ratio, instead of being CpG deficient).

Nerd has power
5/12/2020 02:18:42 pm

Thank you, Exid. Great finding! Unless they argue that SARS-CoV-2 directly crossed over from bats, they would not be able to answer why the codon bias is the same between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13.

The unique deficiency of CpG in both SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 speaks for the possibility that both might be unnatural -- SARS-CoV-2 optimized for enhanced replication/infection and yet RaTG13 sequence fabricated by following the same codon bias of SARS-CoV-2. Excellent work!

Bryan
5/14/2020 10:33:56 am

Argin,
You bring up some good points. The fact that APOBEC causes transitions, not transversions wouldn't, by itself' address the variation in syn/nonsyn rates across the genome, but only the overall syn/nonsyn rate. Maybe identifying APOBEC motifs could address the different rates in different regions, but I'm not sure how to do that analysis. It would also be interesting to look at just the transitions/posible transition rates for syn and nonsyn. Maybe there are so many transitions between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV2 because there a disproportionate amount of syn mutations, not because of APOBEC editing. That would be an interesting finding, and could blow up the APOBEC hypothesis.

I think we agree that APOBEC/ADAR edits would be equally likely in all reading frames. That's not why these edits might skew the overall rate toward more synonymous mutations. It's because of the type of mutations (transitions). For neutral mutations, there are 3 possible mutations at each nucleotide. Almost any mutation at position 1 or 2 will be a nonsynonymous mutation. Generally, the two transversions at position 3 will also be nonsynonymous where as the 1 transition at position 3 will be nonsynonymous. Thus for unbiased mutations, a mutation in a codon will by synonymous 1 time out of every 9 mutations, and will be nonsynonymous 8 times. So 11% synonymous (it's actually a bit higher than that since a few transversions in position 3 and a few mutations in positions 1 and 2 can be silent too). Whereas, if you only have transitions happening then you have 33% synonymous since a transition in position 1 or 2 are nonsynonymous, transition in position 3 is synonymous. Thus APOBEC/ADAR mutations are 3 times more likely to cause synonymous mutations than random mechanisms.

Another detail that seems to be being glossed over is this 5:1 expected ratio. There isn't one overall ratio like this. It really depends on the type of selection pressures an organism experiences. A ratio of 5 syn to 1 nonsyn would indicate fairly high purifying selection. A completely neutral ratio would have multiple nonsynonymous for every synonymous since most SNPs cause an amino acid change. If a virus jumps species, I would think that there would be high positive selection in at least some regions of the genome (e.g. the RBD), which would throw off the syn/nonsyn ration in those regions.

Nerd has power
5/18/2020 09:18:30 am

Hi Bryan, I would like to comment on the last point you raised. I agree that the 5:1 ratio is very raw. It's a general trend due to the purifying pressure that most proteins experience in evolution. You are also correct that different protein/sequences, when facing different selection pressures, would exhibit different dS/dN ratios.

For S2, however, there is high purifying pressure as this part of the protein has to maintain the trimer formation. Failure to do that would severely affect viral infectivity. So there seems to be a reason that 5:1 ratio is kept here.

More importantly, I did the analysis by comparing the natural group (ZC45 vs. ZXC21) and the suspicious group (RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2). Basically, the ratio exhibited by the natural group would very likely be held constant by other coronaviruses even if they are jumping to other hosts -- S2 is not involved in making known interactions with host proteins. Again, its job is to mediate trimerizaiton. For S2, a dS/dN ratio of 44:1 is too far off to be coming out of nature.

Bryan
5/19/2020 03:51:34 pm

Hey Nerd Has Power,
I think the comparison of SARS-CoV2 and RaTG13 may be more typical than you realize if the only comparison you made was to ZXC21 vs ZC45. I've looked at a dozen or so S-protein comparisons like you did (that SNAP tool is pretty handy). Other natural CoVs show as big or bigger changes in syn to nonsyn mutation ratios at about the same spot in the S protein as SARS-CoV2 and RaTG13.
Higher purifying selection in the S2 portion of ORF2 is a trend in these viruses. Throughout the S-protein there is a constant synonymous mutation rate. However, the nonsynonymous rate is almost always many times higher in the S1 portion than in the S2 portion. When you are looking at really similar proteins like the S proteins from ZXC21 and ZC45 it's easy to miss this trend since there are so few mutations there’s poor signal to noise. You pointed out that the syn/nonsyn rate for the part of S2 that you chose was 44:1. That's right, and it's equivalent to the ps/pn=104 (adjusting for probabilities). Whereas the S1 portion of the protein up through the RBD, you have a ps/pn of 31. Less than a third of the S2, that’s a pretty big difference, right? Actually, it seems pretty consistent for these CoV pairs. I’ll ignore the two genomes you are suspicious about (RaTG13 and the pangolin MP789) and go slightly more distant to compare the bat CoVZC45 to the pangolin CoV GX-P5E. If you compare the S1 portions of these genomes you see the ps/pn is 3.4, whereas the S2 portion’s ps/pn=18. If the the SARS-CoV2 vs RaTG13 3X higher ps/pn ratio in S2 was big, this 5X change in the natural pair is huge. S2 is just under much higher purifying selection that S1. Like you said, “S2 is not involved in making known interactions with host proteins. Again, its job is to mediate trimerization”, thus it’s not going to be under positive selection, it’s going to be under high purifying selection. That’s exactly what we see when comparing various pairs of CoVs, including SARS CoV2 and RaTG13.

A different issue is that the overall ps/pn ratio is just higher between SARS-CoV2 and RaTG13. This issue could be partly explained by APOBEC editing, but I think it may also suggest that these viruses have been under more purifying selection than many of the other viruses. I haven’t looked at the other ORFs between SARS-CoV2 and RaTG13, do you know if they have similarly high ps/pn values? Is this a trend throughout the whole genome?

Note: I ignored the RBD (aa# 435-684) between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV2 because it’s obviously a mess. Something happened there. It could be recombination with a pangolin virus like some have suggested, or hyper selection pressure (I suspect to a new host). You see some similar RBD scrambling in other pairs of closely related CoV viruses like KY417150 and KY417146.

Argin
5/20/2020 06:21:11 am

See Farvous's comment on the next door. the ORF1ab dS/dN is a normal 6.22:1. not a sign of the extreme kind of purifying selection or an APOBEC/ADAR transition jockey here. also, ORF1ab is more purifying for viruses that have different host than S since the main mutations are on the S to mediate host switching. While in the same host the ORF1ab is less purifying than the S since the S will be more conserved to maintain host adaptation.
In fact, even with a 9:1 dS/dNe on the S2 for RaTG13/CoV2(making an unreasonably high overestimation), it will still spit out a possibility of 1 in 899 for that 44:1 S2 mutation ratio to be the result of "natural mutation".
We should see a S2 dS/dNe at most similar, most likely way lass than ORF1ab for RaTG13/CoV2-- the S is under strong CHANGING selection pressure as the host and all the conditions was entirely different. Even the S2. (may react to changing environmental conditions, but will definitely be requiring more than just 2 AA mutations across the entire stretch of 90 synomynous nucleotide changes that what it currently is. And the expected dS/dN should be definitely lower than that of ZC45/ZXC21).
The bottom line is that the 44:1 dS/dN on the S2 is completely unnatural nomatter what kind of "natural reason" you may attempt to use to explain it.

Nerd has power
5/23/2020 12:32:14 pm

Thank you, Argin, for bringing up Farvous' analysis.

Bryan, your opinion is important here in these discussions as you hold a slightly different view on this issue. I would love to hear more of you analyses and reasonings. Could you try to reconcile this discrepancy between S2 and Orf1ab in terms of the syn/non-syn ratio when comparing RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2? Could you imagine a scenario where one could be 44:1 and the other 6.22:1?

Two other things I want to briefly mention. The overall sequence identity between ZC45 and ZXC21 is 97%, which is very much comparable to that between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 (96%). Therefore, the differences in each pair are results of random mutations. If you choose to compare viral sequences that are much farther apart, other evolutionary events might be involved and responsible, which would be less appropriate in my opinion.

Finally, if it's me, I would avoid the recently published pangolin coronaviruses all together, not just MP789. If my suspicion happens to be the reality, then any comparison made with these pangolin coronaviruses would be risky. If you could, try to avoid other coronaviruses published by Zhengli Shi as well (this could be challenging since she has published so many).

John F. Signus
6/18/2020 07:29:46 am

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xp1zBf2d-hu32XSKkyJ7UBOg9ZHuAURS/view?usp=sharing
This is a recent collation of known SARS-CoV-2 S mutations in transfer. up to 25 mutations are already found on the S2. this is clearly NOT under purifying selection.

Bryan
7/5/2020 08:11:48 pm

Hey Nerd, sorry it's taken me a while to respond.I don’t think it’s a reasonable assumption to have uniform mutation frequencies or syn/nonsyn ratios throughout a viral genome. That might be an alright first null hypothesis, but if one actually want’s to make a case that a genome isn’t natural (either that it’s engineered or that it’s made up) you really need to look to nature, not a naïve assumption of uniform mutation rates. Is the relationship between SARS-CoV2 genome and RaTG13 different than the relationship between other related coronaviruses?
What is the expected difference in syn/nonsyn ratios between S2 and ORF1ab and is the 5-fold difference in syn/nonsyn between the two really a discrepancy? This is not an abstract a priori question that is answered with ‘everything should be 5:1’, instead this is an empirical question. How do these ratios normally differ in related coronaviruses? I’m sure a broader survey of coronaviruses could give a better range of expected values, but to pick one example that would be maybe the best apples-to-apples comparison (while avoiding any genomes from WIV or Shi Zhengli) is the original SARS and its closest bat relative (BtRs-BetaCoV/YN2018B).
SARS-hCoV and its close bat relative mirrors the relationship of SARS CoV2 and RaTG3. Both pairs of viruses show more purifying selection in the S2 protein than ORF1ab. Both also show a higher ratio of nonsynonymous mutations in S1 with a very sharp transition point near the transition to S2 with only a few nonsynonymous mutations in all of S2. The ps/pn (ratio of probabilities of synonymous to nonsynonymous mutations) jumps 7 times higher in the first SARS/bat and 5 times higher in SARS2/bat. They are not exactly the same ratios (it would be weird if they were). The SARS ORF1ab ps/pn ratio is about half-way between the S1 and S2 ratios, while the SARS-CoV2 ORF1ab ps/pn ratio is a lot closer to the S1 ratio. But overall, the trends look similar and nothing in the SARS2 RaTG13 comparison looks very far from what is typical in nature.
It doesn’t make sense to say something is not natural unless you take the time to figure out what natural really looks like. Natural does not look like some simplified model of uniform syn/nonsyn mutation rate across the genome or across the S protein. Comparing ZC45 and ZXC21 was a good start, but I think a broader survey of coronaviruses is needed to understand what natural is—especially looking at viruses from different species. The relationship between SARS CoV2 and RaTG13 does look different than that between ZC45 and ZXC21, but it looks a lot like the relationships seen between SARS hCoV and YN2018B or numerous other pairs of coronaviruses.

Exidos B freeman
5/7/2020 09:13:23 pm

https://zenodo.org/record/3786451#.XrTZjCV6uEc
See this. There is actually more evidence than just the AA sequence that point out that RaTG13 was fabricated. The Gene coding for the E protein, a 225bp sequence, is only 2nt different than ZC45/ZXC21. Which is more than 99%identical on the nucleotide level. While the entire genome is at most 89% similar to each other.
The most conservative estimate for this to be kept with the divergence between ZC45/ZXC21 and RaTG13, was estimated to be 1 in 19241.66 again when compared against the chance that the E gene being the result of artificial mainpulation.

Reply
Bryan
5/9/2020 08:20:31 pm

I'll look at that link, is it a similar argument to that posted here?
The E-protein similarity doesn't look like a strong point though. If you look at related proteins, the E protein seems to by highly conserved. Of the sequences below from bats & pangolins, all of them have 100% amino acid identity in the E protein and over 96% nucleotide identity despite much less identity in other parts of the genome. If you look at even more distant clusters you see the same pattern too. This just looks more like a highly conserved protein than any anomaly with these particular couple sequences.
MN996532
MT040333.1
MT040334.1
MT072864.1
MG772933.1
KY417146
MT040335.1
MT084071.1
MG772934.1
MT072865.1
MT040336.1

Exidos B freeman
5/9/2020 08:52:31 pm

Well, My analysis is done on the nucleotide level-- Even assuming a highly conserved protein, the underlying nucleotides should have seen synomynous changes since it shouldn't affect the Amino Acid sequences, therefore it shouldn't affect anything at all. The point is that The newer "Evidence" (e.g. RaTG13, pangolins, etc.) Had too little synomynous substitution rate when compared to the rate that is seen in the rest of the genomic sequence. Which isextremely unusual, and seems to point out a common E sequence that were used for the fabrication of the "evidences", which were all obtained from short sequence metagenome sequencing data.

Nerd has power
5/10/2020 06:42:35 pm

Great finding on the severe discrepancies of the nucleotide sequence identity on E vs. whole genome! It seems that the more different ways we compare RaTG13 to other viruses, the more evidence we could find supporting its fabrication. Thanks, Exidos!

Bryan, I would recommend that we use these Pangolin or bat coronavirus sequences with caution. I listed my reasons in the article.

Farvous
5/11/2020 12:01:15 am

Did a BLAST on the ORF1ab polyprotein on RaTG13 to SARS2-- the Syn/nonsyn ratio is about 6.22:1.

AA(1ab)=QHR63299.1 -> 103(mut)
nt(1ab)=NC_045512.2 -> 744(diff)

which is likely overestimated since ORF1ab is more conserved when compared to S.

Using this ratio, the chance that the 44:1 Syn/nonsyn ratio being the result of natural mutation (S2 is not considered to be recombined with anything) is less than
(1-(103/744))^(90-(2*(744-103)))=1.28*10^-5. less than 1 in 77530.

It also proved that there were no elevated level of Syn/nonsyn substitutions between RaTG13/CoV2 any higher than ZC45/ZXC21. Therefore, using ZC45/ZXC21 for the mutation rate analysis is perfectly valid.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/12/2020 02:31:17 pm

Thank you for the work! Again, they must have manipulated the sequence of Spike more than anything else --- they know people would scrutinize the RBD of S1 more than anything. However, they apparently spent too much time "editing" RaTG13's RBD that they had to be stingy about non-synonymous mutations when "editing" the sequence of S2. It is really nice to confirm that the syn/non-syn ratio is largely normal when other parts of the genome are being compared between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2. Thanks again!

Jogn F. Signus
6/18/2020 07:31:17 am

Also, may want to try SARS/YNLF31C.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xp1zBf2d-hu32XSKkyJ7UBOg9ZHuAURS/view?usp=sharing
This is a chart of current mutations on the S2 in SARS-CoV-2. It proved that the S2 is not under purifying selection.

Exid
5/16/2020 06:52:58 pm

However,
Farvous on the next floor Did a BLAST on the ORF1ab polyprotein on RaTG13 to SARS2-- the Syn/nonsyn ratio is about 6.22:1.
No sign of a transition jockey here anywhere. the ratio is kept around 5:1 which point out that there were no APOBEC/ADAR editing to skew the ratio of dS/dN.

AA(1ab)=QHR63299.1 -> 103(mut)
nt(1ab)=NC_045512.2 -> 744(diff)

which is likely overestimated since ORF1ab is more conserved when compared to S.

Using this ratio, the chance that the 44:1 Syn/nonsyn ratio being the result of natural mutation (S2 is not considered to be recombined with anything) is less than
(1-(103/744))^(90-(2*(744-103)))=1.28*10^-5. less than 1 in 77530.

It also proved that there were no elevated level of Syn/nonsyn substitutions between RaTG13/CoV2 any higher than ZC45/ZXC21. Therefore, using ZC45/ZXC21 for the mutation rate analysis is perfectly valid.
Also, you mention that the 5:1 ratio on the S2 itself is already under purifying selection because ZC45/ZXC21 used the same host.
Therefore for RaTG13/CoV2 which had different hosts, there will be no purifying selection and the "natural" dS/dN on the S2 should be significantly lower than 5:1.
Therefore, nomatter how your hypothesis claimed, it should give an overal skewed dS/dN to >9:1 . but this ratio is not observed for the overall genome of RaTG13/SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the APOBEC/ADAR hypothesis is still invalid on a mutation rate standpoint.

Reply
Exid
5/20/2020 06:00:53 am

Therefore, nomatter how your hypothesis claimed, it should *Not* give an overal skewed dS/dN to >9:1 . but this ratio is not observed for the overall genome of RaTG13/SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the APOBEC/ADAR hypothesis is still invalid on a mutation rate standpoint.
Sorry for the single word error.

Jon1717
5/7/2020 02:22:27 pm

Ok silly question, can you help me reproduce the sense / nonsene graph? I'm not getting the same results. I don't get the flatline for nonsyn mutations.

I performed the alignment with this:

https://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/sequence/CodonAlign/codonalign.html

and I downloaded alignment in clustal forman and pasted it into SNAP

https://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/sequence/SNAP/SNAP.html

My understanding is the spike protein for SAR-COV-2 is from 21563 to 25384

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_045512.2?report=fasta&from=21563&to=25384

And for RaTG13 it's from 21545 to 25354

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN996532?from=21545&to=25354&report=fasta

I don't get the same flat line for nonsyn mutations. Any help?

Reply
Exip
5/7/2020 06:00:37 pm

Maybe you accidentally made the alignment out-of-frame. Look at the assembly and locate the CDS for the “S” gene. Make sure you start with “AUG”. Your sequence may be misaligned.

Reply
Bryan
5/14/2020 09:20:36 pm

Those are the right sequences. I think you are missing the alignment step. The input to SNAP needs to be aligned on a codon basis. I use a program called seaview that allows me to view the DNA sequences as proteins, align them (Clustal or Muscle), and then switch back to the DNA view. Then put the DNA seqs into SNAP. If you put unaligned sequences into SNAP, It will all be full of random syn and nonsyn mutations as soon as you hit any INDELs. In this case, once you hit amino acid 681 (SARS-CoV2's polybasic cleavage site) it'll all be noise.

Reply
Mitch
5/7/2020 03:29:24 pm

While I appreciate your efforts, I agree with those who have pointed out that blog publishing is probably not the first choice of those who would like to have their information fully vetted by experts in the field.

I'm sure there are ways that your information could be submitted anonymously to journals by yourself or perhaps some of the commenters here.

Presumably, the journals' peer review process would then expose any flaws in your arguments, so that those who are not experts could have more confidence in your conclusions, or see that other experts lacked such confidence.

It would be great to know either that you have submitted your allegations to journals, or to have some explanation of why you don't think that would be appropriate.

Thank you.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/10/2020 06:58:27 pm

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't mind having the article judged by anybody, including reviewers/experts. Apparently, the comments/discussions we got here are excellent. I have tried to reply to each one before, but I started to feel a bit overwhelmed and may not be able to keep up -- some comments are made by people who are real experts (I am an half expert) and there are too many of them now. You don't get this in a peer-review process. Reviewers' comments are typically not seen by public -- they can be unreasonable (more frequently so than you might expect) and yet the public wouldn't know. Here, on the open platform, you see everything. I personally believe that this article is being judged harsher than a manuscript undergoing peer review. If I were you, I will feel safer about the contents as they are being constantly validated.

Reply
Alesh
7/5/2020 11:06:28 pm

Good point

Suresh K Narayanan link
5/7/2020 05:03:44 pm

I ran your analysis of SARS Cov 2 with RaTG13 by downloading a FASTA alignment file MN996532.1 x NC_045512.2.aln from NCBI virus and loading it on SNAP. I got a slightly different curve. I was wondering if I could send it to you?

Reply
nah link
5/7/2020 05:18:37 pm

This pseudo "scientific evidence" have no value. Or maybe for reddit or conspiracy theory fans.

Reply
Fight Against CCP
5/7/2020 05:35:31 pm

CCP dog has finally arrived. Why cannot you just disprove it? Barking around only shows your weakness!

Reply
Kathy
5/7/2020 10:36:23 pm

Articles that clearly state an artificial origin for SARS-CoV-2 do not have a chance to be published. There is a huge censorship on the topic. What else we have that to make preprints and meet on these platforms? I am grateful that they exist.

David link
5/7/2020 07:51:55 pm

I am no native English speaker.An alternative view on it.Very impressive article and comments.I tought I was intelligent but you guys put me in my place at least in biology.I was suspicious about the way they said it was from nature in the first place because it break out where the only lab is of mainland china and where they do research with this kind of virus.Also patient zero not found on market which plays role in nature speculation.I think there were lots of infections on market because a lot of people come together there, just that. If objective mind the researchers should lower the odds of naturel accuring already a bit on that.But I often see that people have bias against a possible truth they dont like.Also scientist. When there is social research with differnt gender, race for example and they dont like the result they come with very long explanation of the least controversial possible explanation they can find.When it is 99,999 % chance from lab and you bring evidance which makes it 99,99999% from lab they would hold on to nature version.I saw some bias against bio-weapen in myself some time ago. When I realised humans are capable of nuclear weapons I changed my mind and not longer saw accident as 99% the couse.

Some think it is bad if it comes out it is from the lab.But if it does not come out I think is way worse.Then you cant learn and it is waiting for the next danger it will bring.

Also i read somewhere that when a virus is very wide spread a vaccin will lead to fast survival of the fittest of the virus and it makes kind of sense to me just as that when a virus is too strong it will be selected against the opposite is also true.If this happens also with flu it would be much slower because there are much less people infected so less mutations.But some say it is noticable for flu already. When a vaccin gives 100% protection it is safe but when it is relativelty poor effective like flu vaccin and very wide spread virus it is dangerous I think.Also it takes a lot of time to vaccin all people which gives virus more time for strongest versions to survive.

Reply
Nonameneeded
5/7/2020 11:51:44 pm

Can someone do an in silico analysis of the role of the proline in the PRRA insert. What happens when this is removed or substituted with alanine? Asking because this may kink the secondary structure and increase solvent and protease exposure.

Also regarding the HKU9 RaTG13 discussion, apart from the geographic concerns my understanding is that HKU9 is from a large fruit bat while RaTG13 is supposedly from a horseshoe bat, so very different niches and encounter/recombination is unlikely.

Also, can someone reflect on CpG representation in this virus compared to SARS and other coronaviruses? The more suppressed CpG is, the less innate immune sensing by ZAP there is, which could account for the very prolonged incubation period and asymptomatic carriers. Any modulations in RNA motifs pertinent to the innate immune system between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS/MERS should be exhaustively examined because this is the crucial aspect that has allowed the spreading - the evasion of interferons and other intracellular mechanisms of resistance.

Finally, any data on bat cells or in vivo bat models of the virus? I have to wonder if the virus can even sustainably infect bats, or causes a very harsh disease that would obviously be incompatible with this being the natural host. This is worth looking into.

Reply
Kathy
5/8/2020 11:38:48 am

....If the virus can even sustainably infect bats, or causes a very harsh disease that would obviously be incompatible with this being the natural host. This is worth looking into.

It is really worth looking into:

https://www.swinehealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SHIC-106-FLI-SARS-CoV-2-Report-4-7-2020.pdf

Reply
nonameneeded
5/8/2020 12:33:15 pm

Not sure why they did it in the fruit bats rather than intermediate horseshoe bats (and pangolins), which are the hosts that are bandied about.

Also, it occurred to me that the P of PRRA may create O-glycosylation sites nearby. Would be interesting to see if those drop out on the prediction tools when proline is taken out.

Nerd has power
5/10/2020 07:09:22 pm

Agree that some lab really should look at whether RaTG13 can infect its alleged natural bat host. I thought about this too -- what if it can't??? Maybe Zhengli Shi will blame it on the incompetency of the ones who did the test. I'm sure that, if she does the test in her lab, the infection will be "successful" and yet the bat will die very quickly -- leaving just the remains which contains the RaTG13 virus in the proper organs.

Reply
Malcolm
5/8/2020 01:03:01 am

Re: RATG13 IS FAKE
The RaTG13 S2 subunit has a section with 84 synonymous nucleotide differences with SARS-CoV-2 without a single non-synonymous difference (over a span of 541 amino acids). The probability of this occurring by chance in related genomes (based on the 5:1 ratio) is one in five million. This is strong evidence that RaTG13 only exists on paper.

Reply
Malcolm
5/8/2020 05:30:56 am

Calculations if anyone is interested.

The 1623 nucleotides downstream from the RaTG13 furin cleavage insert contain 84 synchronous differences with SARS-CoV-2 and zero non-synchronous differences.

Based on the expected synchronous to non-synchronous ratio of 5:1, the probability of any difference being a synchronous difference is 100/6 x 5 = 0.83333 or 83.33%

So the probability of all 84 differences all being synchronous differences is 0,83333 to the power of 84 (i.e.0.83333 x 0.83333 x 0.83333 etc etc.. )
= 2.2324 to the power of -7
= 0.00000022324
Which equals approximately one in five million chance.

Reply
Kathy
5/8/2020 05:48:53 am

Can you exclude that RaTG13 is real but "just" edited? There is a possible record of if named BtCoV4991

Reply
Malcolm
5/8/2020 07:05:33 am

BtCoV-4991 is a very small fragment (370 nucleotides or 123 amino acids) of the ORF1a gene, collected at the same time and place that RaTG13 was claimed to be found. A blast search gives a 100% match with RaTG13 and 98.92% with SARS-CoV-2, which is only a three nucleotide difference.

My belief is that the RaTG13 genome exists but it is actually SARS-CoV-2. Its spike protein sequence has been edited to optimize the receptor-binding-domain for human transmission, RaTG13 has 17 amino acid differences in the critically important amino acid sequence that allows SARS-CoV-2 to bind to human ACE2. It is telling that so many differences in this critical domain are non-synchronous; and that is because they were needed to make the jump from bats to humans with high affinity for human ACE2. The addition of the furin cleavage insert gives it enhanced cell fusion and pathogenity.

Prior to the belated release of the "RaTG13" genome in January this year, deliberate on paper changes were needed in order to disguise its true identity and create a plausible natural evolutionary link to SARS-CoV-2.

Mitch
5/8/2020 06:53:58 am

I understand that some of those coming here are used to an environment of strict censorship. But unless you are ready to declare that the journals covering virology have peer-review committees which are all corrupt, it seems contradictory to point to evidence of scientific fraud which is (1) obvious and (2) incapable of being published in a peer-reviewed journal.

At the very least, it would be helpful to the lay observer to be able to see the explanations (reasonable or unreasonable) that an article submitting "obvious" facts would not be published.

Reply
Kathy
5/8/2020 08:37:05 am

I am aware that BtCoV4991 is a short sequence, but as you say, it was collected the same year, by the same group and in the same place as RaTG13 is supposed to. Coincidence? Perhaps. I am a fan of the pangolin theory, with the switch of the RBD of RaTG13 (edited) with the one from the pangolin CoV plus a furin cleavage site from another bat living in the same cave (I am still hunting this). An evolutionary study with the potential to develop a global corona-vaccine gone wrong. Interesting that these two articles were sponsored bathe same grant (Baric+Shi).

https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/fvl-2017-0143

https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC7097006&blobtype=pdf

This last review from Shi is very informative. It seems to me to present the plan to build SARS-CoV-2 and in Fig. 4 YN could be RaTG13. It is close to that strain from Bulgaria, as BtCoV4991 was here

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12250-016-3713-9

(Fig. 2).

We have different theories, but in common believe that SARS-CoV-2 is artificial. We need to find the final proof for it. Speculations can be rejected and censored, the final proof not. Then, it is good to work together.

John F Signus
5/9/2020 04:13:42 am

The paper is actually a repost of a February 17 preprint under the same title. Parts that concludes that the pangolin coronavirus have no furin cleavage site were redacted. As well as the full S gene that is very distant.
It was the same article where MP789 was first published. figures are exactly the same. Even the submission date suggest that that article was the same as the first article of ”pangolin Cov”, the MP789 article.

As for their “computational analysis”? They skewed their model so much that they conclude that a Bat-Cov had higher infectivity toward humans than SARS-CoV, at the same level as SARS-CoV-2. This is the opposite of reality since that should already caused an infection in 2013. Nothing happened.

And even after all this manipulation, they still could not bump the pangolin infectivity of either SARS-COV-2 or “ pangolin Cov” to levels above the human infectivity. Especially the “ pangolin Cov” that showed less pACE2 affinity than even SARs-CoV-2. Something that already had much poorer pangolin affinity than human affinity and were supposed to have evolved in humans. There is absolutely no chance that something that evolved in pangolins would bind to pACE2 less than something that evolved in humans, whose ACE2 was very different.

If anything that article was useful in, it actually proved that due to the dramatic difference in 4 of the 10 contact residues in hACE2 to pACE2 (H34S,L79I,M82N,G354H,especially L79I and G354H which was bulkier in pACE2 than hACE2, causes clashes that will likely destroy the binding interaction), it would be extremely unlikely that such a perfectly human-adapted RBD would bind to pACE2 efficient enough to constitute In-Vivo infection. (Which seems to be the case since this particular RBD was not isolated as a live virus, exist as a fragmented, incomplete metagenome data, and is probably introduced due to contamination)

Actually, if you look more closely, you can see a pair of new Restriction sites on the ends of the RBD of SARS-CoV-2, but not in RaTG13 or pangolin-Cov. The newly introduced restriction sites are indicative of cloning, and the underlying nucleotides on the RBD looks nothing like the alleged pangolin sequence.

https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748

This is an indication that the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 was probably synthesized from the published AA sequence and swapped into the backbone via classic restriction digestion and cloning.

As the furin site is never found in any CoV spike protein that had more than 40% Sequence homology to SARS-COV-2, it lacked a natural origin (see my takedown on the alleged natural theory in my prior comments), and will need to be artificially inserted.

I agree that this may be a GOF study on the “new” pangolin RBD AA sequence (available to the WIV since October 2019) that have gone wrong, possibly due to the insertion of a furin site after the researcher was dissatisfied of it’s infectious capacity.
Probably after serial passage in VERO E6 as there were indication that the removal of the furin site causes it to infect VERO E6 more than anything else, by a high margin.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420302622

In fact, the high VERO E6 affinity prior to PRRA insert is already an indication that it have been passed extensively in the lab prior to the artificial insertion of the PRRA furin site. The Intermediate host is a cell line that exist nowhere except in biolabs.

Also, the Cryo-EM study done by the same article have disproved the idea that an O-linked glycan exist around the Furin site. the S1-S2 junction was NOT glycosylated.

John F Signus
5/11/2020 02:49:01 am

Read the Nature article more thoroughly.

They clain that their "Serological test" had an inter-test variation of 15% (which mean that there is a 15% chance for a false positive and a 15% chance for a false negative). and they conducted their test only once.

For reference, commercial COVID-19 serological test kits, even at April 15, was expected to have a specifity <90%. e.g. They will have a false positive rate >10%. And that is a modern antibody test. We can not expect their much earlier tests conducted before 16 Feburary (the date of submission) to have a specifity any higher than the figures we have today. Most likely they will have a specifity much poorer than that, since the first three FDA approved antibody tests have a specifity ranging from 83 to 96 percent--giving an average of 10.1% of all tests being false positives.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/covid-19-antibody-testing-tougher-than-true-false

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/clinical-care/antibody-tests-coronavirus-can-miss-mark

As there were no FDA approved test kits for SARS-CoV-2 before 31 March 2020, We can reasonably put a lowest false positive rate on serological tests being >17% (since that if a test managed to have a higher specifity before, it should have already been approved by the FDA) . Therefore, we can consider the author's claim of a 15% inter-test variation rate to be the absolute minimum of the false-positive rate of their serological assay. (Their ELISA kit does not actually state anything about their specifity, other than that "it had no cross-reactivity to SARS-CoV, common and avial influenza viruses, mycoplasma, and chlamydia." Obviously there were far more than just these 5 pathogens that may cause cross-reactivity and false positives.)

Using a false positive rate of 15%, we can expect to see one false positive sample out of at most every 7 samples tested using the kit (an average of 1 in (1/0.15)=6.67 samples)

they only had 1 out of all 8 plasma samples that were tested positive, out of the 3 PCR-positive samples for their "pangolin coronavirus", which itself is only 93.21% complete even until today. (It was the same sequence as MP789 (possibly an earlier, more incomplete version) as indicated by their collection data, the date of analysis, the identical figures and the small fragment of sequence they put out after heavy censorship. See https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748 for details about the specific event and collection data. the entire article was the exact same preprint at 17/02/2020 and have been extensively criticised for the poor data curation and lack of independent verification).

Which mean that out of every 8 samples (12.5%) it's completely expected to see a false positive given a false positive rate of at least 1 in 7-- It could be hACE2 contamination from the handling of the samples since their tests used the RBD of SARS-CoV-2, which binds hACE2 very well. It may also be cell fragments from human ACE2+CD147 cells contaminating their samples during handling (which will bind both the S1 and the RBD), as they have their sample frozen for at least 4 months before testing (as indicated from their collection data), and they tested only plasma samples instead of actual serum samples that are free of cell debris. Also, the fact that this is not human antibodies will also significantly impact the specifity of such a test in a negative manner, as we can not be certain that antibodies from a non-human animal will react to the test materials in the same way the antibodies from a human will.

This mean that their alleged "Serological test" evidences are well within the false positive rates of their early, experimental and therefore must less accurate tests, and are not really evidence at all.

The date of the testing (well after the COVID-19 outbreak) may also indicate contamination from fragments of SARS-CoV-2 that were being tested inside their lab. Which was supported by the fact that none of the pangolin Cov submissions dated before 08-FEB-2020. A time where many of the chinese labs have already begun to perform studies on SARS-CoV-2 itself.
Contamination may explain the "identical RBDs", alongside with straight data fabrication. As by the time they have begun testing this in their labs they already have samples of SARS-CoV-2 within the same lab.
RT-PCR is a very sensitive technique, and could pick up even the slightiest traces of RNA contamination. This is especially problematic since you are already looking for sequencces that resemble SARS-CoV-2 as closely as possible. You may pick up actual SARS-CoV-2 fragments contaminating your samples and think it is a part of your expected virus (like the E protein gene), especially when dealing with metagenome data from samples which can contain mixed genetic information from multiple sources, that may or may not agree with each other on the ends (which were used for "

John F Signus
5/11/2020 06:24:50 am

Which was used for "Assembling" the genome. It's very easy for the researchers to mistake a contamination from SARS-CoV-2 itself, or other "more similar sequences" that they pulled off "The raw reads from public databases" as something that is more close to SARS-CoV-2, and mistakenly assemble it into the resulting genome.
Their Methods section have also pointed out that "The raw reads from public databases" were used for the assembly of their alleged "pangolin CoV" as well as "some in-house metagenomic datasets" which noone else had nor independently sequenced.
The short sequences were then "trimmed to remove adaptor and low-quality sequences". and "mapped to the SARS-CoV-2 reference sequence (MN908947) using BWA-MEM (v0.7.17) with >30% matches". It looke like that they actually discarded any dissatisfying reads and pulled data that is not from their alleged samples, in order to assemble a genome that is as closely related to SARS-CoV-2 as possible. It looked more like straight up data fabrication than any actual, serious science.
There was a reason why their "assembled full-length genome" wasn't available on GenBank apart from the incomplete MP789 sequence. Even though the data was available since at least the end of march.
And even the MP789 sequence, originally published on their preprint indicating that this Exact experiment as done on the alleged samples using the exact same method have in fact failed to produce a complete genome, was likely either heavily contaminated or was straight out fabricated using their skewed sequencing/assembly methods.

Troy T Dow
5/8/2020 11:59:34 am

I wish John F Signus would comment again. I'm worried his real name is Bing Liu, murdered in Pittsburgh on May 2nd.

Reply
J17
5/8/2020 07:23:23 pm

I talked to my lab guy and he agrees with the Yuri article. He wonders how often furin sites are so perfectly added to close relatives without any extra junk. So I'm going to be doing analysis of closely related RNA viruses w/ and w/o furin to see how often that happens.

Reply
Anonymous
5/9/2020 12:01:24 am

If the argument is that the COVID-19 E protein mutated over time and that E proteins mutate at a constant rate within bat populations, why then are ZC45 and ZXC21 identical? Or am I missing part of the logic?

Reply
John F Signus
5/9/2020 03:27:53 am

ZC45 and ZXC21 are very closely related—while RaTG13 or CoV2 are very distantly related to ZC45/ZXC21.

Reply
Anonymous
5/9/2020 04:11:50 am

Sorry, John F. Signus, but I still do not understand the logic of your argument. Although they were collected 1.5 years apart, because ZXC21 and ZC45 are "related," they should have not undergone any mutation and, therefore, are identical. RaTG13 is not related to them, but has an identical E protein. How does the short term mutation of COVID-19 fit into that argument? That is, would not any E protein mutation also apply to ZXC21 and ZC45, which would then show a sequence difference? Thank you in advance for a clarification.

John F Signus
5/9/2020 11:26:51 am

ZC45/ZXC21 was 98% similar. They are more similar to each other than RaTG13 to SARS-CoV-2. Also collected at the same site. The evolutionary distance is very short between ZC45/ZXC21. Much shorter than ZC45/ZXC21->RaTG13/CoV2. See the RaTG13 article to see how short their distance was, Evolutionarily. The reason that E was suspicious, was, due to the fact that there were closer Bat-CoVs and SARS-CoV, with a different E protein and genetic similarity higher than RaTG13->ZC45/ZXC21.

FreeFreedomain
7/2/2020 07:14:03 pm

John, thanks for the detailed explanation. I'm trying to understand it. If ZXC21 and ZC45 are 97% similar and CoV2 is 95% similar to both ZXC21/ZC45. Why having identical E protein when similarity is 97% is ok and natural, but when similarity is 95%, then it's nearly impossible to have identical E? There is only 2% difference between these two cases.

John F Signus
5/10/2020 02:51:09 am

https://zenodo.org/record/3786451#.XrFN4YijeUk
See this. The real problem is that even assuming perfect conservation of the E protein, the underlying nucleotide sequence still show too little synomynous substitutions than it should given the large distance between ZC45/ZXC21 and RaTG13/CoV2.
E is a protein coding gene. as long as the protein itself remain unchanged mutations on the underlying nucleotides should not cause any difference.
ZC45 and ZXC21 was 98% similar. It was expected that the small amount of mutations between them have not landed anywhere on the E gene.
However, with RaTG13/ZC45 it was a 89% identity on a pair of sequences where only 72% that can mapped to each other ("Coverage").
By comparing the ORF1ab polyprotein with a very distantly related coronavirus that is not on the same lineage, SARS, we can estimate that the total number of positions within the Lineage B coronavirus genome that can tolerate mutation being

29855*(3315+3*(7073-3315))=20526. or 68% of total.

As the part of two genomes that can not be aligned are typically more different than the part that can be aligned, We could use a conservative estimate for the total number of nucleotide substitutions between ZC45 and RaTG13:

29855-(19227/21597)*29855=3276.21.

Using the figure of ORF1ab, the range of which these 3276.21 substitutions could land on becomes

29855*(14589/21219)=20526.63 nucleotides.

Assuming that the E proteins of Bat coronaviruses of lineage ZC45/ZXC21-RaTG13 was perfectly conserved (e.g. no amino acid substitutions are tolerated), since there was no Tryptophan(W) within the E proteins in neither proteins, and
the Start codon must be ATG for Methionine, This
gives a total number of places where a mutation can be accepted within the E gene being 75-1=74 nucleotides.
Getting the first two mutations to land within the E gene will require an average of 2*(20526.63/74)=544.77 Substitutions, which leaves the other

3276.21-544.77=2731.44

nucleotide substitutions to land on the places other than the E gene.
The chance of which all the other 2731.44 nucleotide substitutions did not land on the E gene is
((20526.63-74)/20526.63)^2731.44=5.197056e-5, or 1 in 19241.6.

Therefore, the phenomenon that the underlying nucleotide sequence of the E gene being only 2nt different between ZC45/ZXC21 and RaTG13 being the result of "Natural evolution" was less than 1 in 19241.6.

The GX-CoVs had more than 9 synomynous substitutions in the E gene--well inside the "natural" range that would be estimated from Synomynous substitution rate analysis data alone. Therefore their E proteins does not have such a problem, which was reflected by the fact that the GX-CoVs were complete genomes.

MP789 had only 1nt different from RaTG13 but the total genomic distance was only 88.9% similarity to RaTG13, 90.1% similarity to CoV2 with 2 mutations on the E gene.
While the sequence itself is only 93% complete with 1872 unsequenced nucleotides marked as "N".
Applying analysis using similar techniques, the chance of this difference being the result of natural evolution (assuming the E was conserved), was only about 1 in 1846.
The MP789 sequence was incomplete, and was not isolated as a live virus.
The analysis above seems to point out that the particular nt sequence of the E for MP789, which was "obtained" from short sequence data just like every other "pangolin Covs" and RaTG13, seems to be an archived filler that was used to "fill in" the blanks on the E gene during the "reconstruction" (e.g. fabrication) of the genome, with synmonymous mutations thrown in to make it look different. BLAST on the E protein actually revealed that much of the incomplete Coronavirus sequences published by the CCP used the exact same nucleotide sequence for the E protein, despite the large distances otherwise.
Notably, the only E protein that is shown in the "identical protein group" with the SARS-CoV-2 E protein was RaTG13, ZC45 and ZXC21. No other E protein sequences were listed, including the alleged "pangolin Covs", which seems to point out that the RNA sequence was likely added to the other "identical E CoVs" as a filler during metagenome assembly. Indicating that the other "identical E proteins" from the nt sequence was not real.
This is a sign that this particular sequence was being used as the filler/placeholder for the E protein during short sequence assembly, as no way in nature that across all these distantly related coronaviruses that the E sequence was perfectly conserved, without even a single synomynous substitution.
This may also indicate that the Particular RNA sequence for the E protein was a sequence that was used extensively in Coronavirus engineering. Therefore, whenever a new coronavirus partial genome was assembled, particularly when using SARS-CoV-2 as a template, the sequence was used as filler for the E protein.
And whenever a chimeric/synthetic coronavirus was engineered, the particular E protein sequence was used for it's c

Reply
John F Signus
5/10/2020 03:00:28 am

And whenever a chimeric/synthetic coronavirus was engineered, the particular E protein sequence was used for it's construction. It may then acquire the (unnaturally few) synomynous mutations after brief passage in cell culture.
Alternatively, they may throw in one or two synomynous substitutions to make the E protein gene more unique for strains that were used for Bioweapons--an 100% identical E gene down to the nucleotide level is a very clear sign of engineering.
As well as for fabricating sequences that were used as "critical pieces of evidence". Again, an 100% identical nucleotide sequence for any genes of an RNA virus will be a very clear sign of fabrication.

Unfortunately, they seems to have underestimated the mutability of the E protein gene. so whenever a complete, proven genome comes out, the E shows much more synomynous substitutions than the incomplete ones that were used as "evidence", bringing the complete genomes well into what was expected for the genomic distance by synomynous substitution rates.

John F Signua
5/10/2020 03:11:01 am

"By comparing the ORF1ab polyprotein with a very distantly related coronavirus that is not on the same lineage, SARS, "
should be
"By comparing the ORF1ab polyprotein between two very distantly related coronavirus that is not on the same lineage, SARS and MERS,". Sorry for the writing error.

Nerd has power
5/10/2020 07:36:56 pm

Thank you, John. Fantastic analysis and reasoning as always!

Physics Guy
5/11/2020 02:44:00 pm

Hi John F Signus, Nerd has Power and others. As my name suggests I am not a biologist, but I follow this discussion with interest. As an outsider I can in any case see that a moratorium was tried on research that creates viruses with pandemic potential

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/moratorium-risky-virology-studies-leaves-work-14-institutions-limbo?fbclid=IwAR2o3fIfA1mvCppqg41u3ZbFl_oFST0IKepXFDII0qD47F7r9Ua2ItvtqUs

and with good reason

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/opinion/anthrax-thats-not-the-real-worry.html?_r=0&fbclid=IwAR0jvHFvnmN-0DRmTLdiP-bUpOAX89gz4rgSDcPWYpeMtW1NUCNzfHXFzCo

That the epidemic started in Wuhan of all places to me suggest that without any other information the lab-leak scenario is about 100 times more probable than the natural scenario. I have no idea which percentage of the viruses that are handled regularly at such a lab is natural and which percentage is non-natural.

Anyway, my reason for commenting is that I noticed a small mathematical error in your calculation. Where you calculate the probability that at most 2 mutations fall in the E-protein part, I think you should use a binomial probability distribution with p=74/20527, n=3276 and number of succes x<=2. This gives a probability of ~1 in 1655.

I wonder if you also took into account the "look-elsewhere-effect"? Do you calculate the probability for the E-protein because the is an a priori reason why this part of the gen is special in this regard or is it picked merely because it looks the most improbable? In the latter case you should multiply by something of the order of 20527/74=277 to account for the other 277 same length sequences that you could also have selected because they could have looked improbable. I honestly don't know whether this is an issue in this case or not. If so you get a probability of ~1 in 6.

John F signus
5/11/2020 05:01:38 pm

The actual problem it that the E protein is a protein coding gene—it is Significant in the sense that it is Both a distinct part of Coronavirus biology and Coronavirus reverse genetic systems. It is not a “random sequence”. Other sequences are non-significant, therefore they Can not be compared to a plausible synthetic origin By engineering.
However, for the E itself, it DO have significance in engineering (It’s a structural protein of the coronavirus virion, also the first things they consider when looking at coronavirus genomes) and therefore The chance for natural origin is compared against the chance for engineering (it would be what you expect for bioweapons engineering, take an existing archived sequence and throw in one or two synomynous substitutions to make it more unique.) . That’s why such a comparison is valid.
From your reasoning, for that sequence to be exactly that of a gene that is of the same length (the E), it would have to land exactly on the location the E was located. Then the chance becomes 1/(29855*6)=1/179130.

Physics Guy
5/12/2020 01:02:48 am

Great. I don't follow your last bit 1/(29855*6)=1/179130. My estimate for the "look elsewhere effect" was just a maximum. How many of these locations like the E-protein one are there, for which you could a priori expect something "fishy" if the virus is not natural? Roughly the "look elsewhere effect" says that if there are for example 4 of such a priori locations and you find something fishy for 1 of those 4, then you divide your final probability by 4.

John F Signus
5/13/2020 12:01:56 am

Well, there is only ONE E gene in SARS-CoV-2. the only other suspicious protein is the first part of S2. using the "look elsewhere" effect, for the specific sequence (btw it was an 225bp sequence out of 29855, not a 75bp sequence), the maximum should be 1 in 6*(225/29855)=796.16, or based on the only 2 identical proteins of significance, 1 in (1655/2)=827.5.
Here you have. the maximum chance for a natural origin of the E gene nucleotide sequence, assuming the maximum of "look elsewhere" effect, being either 1 in 796.16, or 1 in 827.5. more than 99.85 chance that it was the result of deliberate genetc manipulation.

K. Evangeline Luk
5/9/2020 02:37:34 am

I'm not sure if @Raoul89573207 that tweeted me this blog was you, but you need to come onto our Riot server.

What we've found might inform you on the science front, and maybe you'd know something in the Chinese researcher circle or history of biological sciences there that can help us with the investigation as well.

The most I can write here is that the whole thing started decades ago, and at least three more countries are involved (none publicly funding the labs I think), and about a dozen of Chinese virologists/immunologists' lives are hanging by the thread right now (cue: Bing Liu).

I'll see you at https://matrix.to/#/!fseEHHdfaSBvFYbopt:matrix.org?via=matrix.org&via=junta.pl

EV

Reply
Eva Celia
5/9/2020 11:23:36 pm

Have you read about the odd pneumonia outbreak in Virginia back in summer 2019 https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/health-officials-to-give-update-after-respiratory-illness-sickens-dozens-at-virginia-retirement-community/135890/ and also this from France in Nov 2019 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3083599/france-had-covid-19-november-hospital-says-after-analysis-chest

Reply
Kathy
5/9/2020 11:28:55 pm

COVID RIDDLE Fears coronavirus arrived in Europe in OCTOBER ‘when French athletes at World Military Games in Wuhan brought it home

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11565077/fears-coronavirus-europe-october-french-athletes-military-games-wuhan/

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/corona-scare-india-part-wuhan-games

https://www.web24.news/u/2020/05/military-world-games-in-wuhan-in-focus-we-are-all-sick.html

Reply
Fight Against CCP
5/9/2020 11:41:06 pm

Well done, Kathy! :) Such a large scale virus couldn't have originated from anywhere else and hidden for so many months until the first largest outbreak in Wuhan. That's why COVID-19 = CCP Originated Virus Infectious Disease-19. As you can see, CCP propaganda and dogs are everywhere. They would not know how evil CCP are until they themselves become CCP's victims.

Fight Against CCP
5/9/2020 11:48:54 pm

Here are more to add to your list:

https://twitter.com/jenniferatntd/status/1229921498464505856

http://bbs.creaders.net/life/bbsviewer.php?btrd_id=5367211&btrd_trd_id=1451321

Nerd has power
5/10/2020 07:46:59 pm

Agree. Given how easily this virus spreads and how little people know back then about having to use masks to stop it, there is no chance that France (or any other place that the CCP wants to mis-label as the "true origin") could have avoided community spread back then.

to go deeper
5/10/2020 12:21:12 am

But summer comes before fall

See message from Eva Celia

Reply
CCP is NAZI
5/10/2020 09:58:57 am

Have you actually compared its sequence with CCP Virus' sequence side by side? If so, why don't you bring its sequence here to let virus specialists verify? Even look at it from a non scientific perspective view, with such a high infectious rate that CCP virus has, why nothing happened in U.S. afterwards until after Wuhan lock down? Interestingly, CCP tried their very best to help this deadly CCP virus spread as fast and wide as possible all over the world by silencing 8 doctors like Li Wenliang , by destroying all virus samples, by stressing it's preventable and controllable, by denying the fact about human to human transmission, by letting people out from Wuhan to everywhere in the world but not within China? Were CCP able to prevent and control it? Exactly, what's CCP's hidden agenda? Well, aren't these https://www.newsmax.com/navrozov/china-biological-russia/2009/09/17/id/335042/ and https://www.theepochtimes.com/did-chinas-plan-to-destroy-the-united-states-backfire_3223117.html enough to tell CCP's world domination goal?

Reply
Jane
5/18/2020 05:37:49 am

Did you read this?

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1181292.shtml

Flu, vaping or novel coronavirus: experts suspect the US might have failed to identify causes of deaths

CCP is NAZI
5/10/2020 11:16:38 am

Where is the bat woman and the virus queen - Shi Zhengli? Why don't you invite her here to see what she has to say? Where is the Patient Zero, Huang Yanlin? Is she already dead or hidden? Why did Wuhan P4 lab take her picture down while still leaving her name there? Look at her with her lab mates on 2018 New Year Day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVzne_ZQ0Vo I'm sure that CCP really has hard time to find someone who not only looks like her, but also has a virologist's knowledge. Further, U.S. has the best CCP virus tester to test her to see if she was infected with or is currently infected with CCP Virus.

Reply
detailfreak
5/10/2020 02:07:13 am

Two tracks to follow now that we know that RaTG13 is BtCoV4991:

https://twitter.com/schnufi666/status/1259035090811846661

1) check the Pairwise identities of nucleotides and amino acids % (nt/aa) of RaTG13 in comparison with the CoVs in the supplementary data here

https://europepmc.org/article/med/26920708

Search everywhere a publication (maybe in Chinese?) with the spike of BtCoV4991

PCR screening of coronaviruses and sequencing One-step RT-PCR (Invitrogen, San Diego, USA) was used for the amplification of a 440-bp fragment target-ing the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene (RdRp)of all known alpha- and betacoronaviruses (de SouzaLuna et al., 2007). Amplification of an 816-bp fragment extending the 440 bp was performed using published methods (Drexler et al., 2010). Spike (S) genes wereamplified using degenerate primers designed based on the alignment of known coronaviruses (sequences provided upon request).

The cherry on the cake: Remdesivir targets RdRp

Reply
Lincolin
5/10/2020 06:31:43 am

Did a BLAST on all of them.
https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/A0A126K9A8 -> Bat coronavirus 1B
https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/A0A126KBA2 -> Bat coronavirus 1B
https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/A0A126KBA0 -> Bat coronavirus 1B
https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/A0A126K9U6 -> BtMf-AlphaCoV/AH2011
https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/A0A126K9I9 -> Bat coronavirus 1B
https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/A0A126K9J8 -> BtMf-AlphaCoV/AH2011
https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/A0A126KB98 -> Bat coronavirus 1B
https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/A0A126KBA9 -> Bat coronavirus 1B

Bat coronavirus 1B-> https://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/393768
Is an Alphacoronavirus.

BtMf-AlphaCoV/AH2011-> https://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/1503278
Is an alphacoronavirus.

NO betacoronavirus Spike proteins were sequenced on https://europepmc.org/article/med/26920708

There were still NO confirmation of RaTG13 Spike protein anytime before 7 Mar 2020.

Reply
Lincolin
5/10/2020 07:00:55 am

There were a total of 8 Spike proteins Listed there.
KU343205==A0A126K9I9 -> MfulBtCoV/3759-1 = AMB43195
KU343206==A0A126KBA9 -> MsBtCoV/4001-1 = AMB43196
KU343202==A0A126K9U6 -> MsBtCoV/3710 = AMB43192
KU343203==A0A126KB98 -> RsBtCoV/3716 = AMB43193
KU343201==A0A126KBA0 -> MfulBtCoV/3709 = AMB43191
KU343208==A0A126K9A8 -> MsBtCoV/4068 = AMB43198
KU343207==A0A126K9J8 -> MsBtCoV/4056 = AMB43197
KU343204==A0A126KBA2 -> MfulBtCoV/3736-1 = AMB43194

All of them were Alphacoronaviruses, and obviously none of them was the 4991 Spike gene.

Record on 4991:
AMB42835
Rhinolophus bat coronavirus BtCoV/4991 partial RNA-dependent RNA polymerase

KP876546
Rhinolophus bat coronavirus BtCoV/4991 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) gene, partial cds.

A0A126KB67 A0A126KB67_9NIDO RNA-dependent RNA polymerase RdRp Rhinolophus bat coronavirus BtCoV/4991

Reply
Lincolin
5/10/2020 07:46:28 am

Therfore, there were still no Spike gene dequence data, or any pieces of data other than the tiny 370bp BtCoV/4991 Partial RdRp, of RaTG13 that were published, or confermed, before the pandemic.

Reply
Dartagnan
5/12/2020 03:00:04 pm

Wow... so the gene fragment that codes for the RdRp of the virus is conveniently put out there 3-4 years ago. Just enough time for someone to develop an effective RdRp Inhibitor drug (like remdesivir or likely something even more effective given in pill form which is not public yet) that can be given prophylactically to high level officials or others you want to favor. These people will be protected from infection or treated quickly once the pandemic hits, while the rest of the world is physically and economically paralyzed. Gilead's tenofovir, which is the adenine analog chain terminator cousin of remdesivir, is already used this way as a reversetranscriptase inhibitor prophylactic for HIV. Then folks like Peter Daszak can go on 60 Minutes and say that their dangerous GOF research helped lead to life saving breakthroughs like remdesivir...

Reply
CCP is NAZI
5/12/2020 03:35:08 pm

No surprise. CCP's evilness is way more than what you can imagine. CCP's Nazi conduct are doomed to be severely punished. I wish more people can wake up to knock down CCP with whom the world would not have any peace.

Javier
5/10/2020 07:46:23 am

Hello. Excellent work here in this blog. Thanks.

Following, is one recent paper that claims to have proven natural mutation origin of the FCS (furin cleavege site) in CoV-19
title:"A mutation model explaining acquisition of the furin cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 genome". Shan Gao (Nankin University 03-2020)
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340091740_A_mutation_model_explaining_acquisition_of_the_furin_cleavage_site_in_the_SARS-CoV-2_genome)
Extracted from this paper (still non peer reviewed):
"In a preliminary study, we also unexpectedly found that some avian influenza viruses acquired FCSs through mutation, indicating that
acquisition of the FCS in the SRS-CoV-2 genome through natural mutation is probable".
"Based on the above findings, we proposed an original theory that the accumulation of non-neutral mitochondrial mutations (CNV of STR as the predominant type) may constitute one of the most important causes for ageing and cancer [6]. In the present study, we found similar findings in the mutation pattern of SARS-CoV-2 within one host (human).
Based on the mutation data of animal mitochondrion and viruses, we propose the non-neutral theory of molecular evolution, and have used the theory to interpret acquisition of the FCS in the SARS-CoV-2 genome. This leads to revealing the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 at the molecular level".

Can someone put more light about these arguments.

Reply
John F Signus
5/10/2020 07:51:03 am

The article claimed that the Furin site arose in humans-- However, if that was the case, why the very first sample of SARS-CoV-2 already had the exact perfect PRRA furin cleavage site? Why there were never a detection of a "Progenitor virus" in humans that lacked this site? If it arose in humans, it should have already been detected. no intermediate CoV2 W/O PRRA is a clear indication that id did not arise that way.

Reply
John F Signus
5/10/2020 08:03:41 am

From phylogenetic data and the comment made by Firox TD Jackinson, We already knew that a furin site will not survive nor persist in wild animals for Spike gene that is more than 40% homologous to SARS-CoV-2. So it can't arise in an animal. And there were no detection of a "intermediate virus" in humans that is near-identical to SARS-CoV-2 while laching the PRRA. Therefore, it can't arise in animals and did not arise in humans, leaving the only possible source of the furin site as either deliberate insertion or lab-based passage. Cell passage may cause it to arise in the lab in that mechanism, however. (the AIV example cited by the paper is actually in-vitro passage data) Since cell culture lacked an immune system, they will not eliminate the furin-cleavable spike immediately like wild animals, but since they are not humans, the intermediate will be shielded inside a lab and therefore will not be discovered in actual, live humans. explaining the lac of an intermediate in humans.

Javier
5/10/2020 09:12:50 am

Very interesting reply John.


Then, we have no existing known progenitor virus in humans with these features.
then, any room to exist any other known virus able to jump to and mutate in humans in such a specific way?
You know, perhaps, this slow gradually "cooking" in humans since several months earlier.

John F signus
5/11/2020 05:20:05 pm

The problem is that both the FCS containing precursor and the RBD containing precursor are potent enough to cause an epidemic in humans. More so than SARS. We already knew that the FCS is not tolerated in wild animals for betacoronavirus spike protein genes that is more than 40% homologous to SARS-CoV-2. So it can’t arise in that way.
If this arose in humans, then there should already be an epidermic of a precursor virus that is exactly like this, that either lacked an RBD (outbreak of FCS-contain RaTG13) Or lacked a FCS (outbreak of FCS-lacking SARS-COV-2). Such an outbreak should have already alerted the health authorities and should have been sequenced like SARS or MERS.
We didn’t see any of such precursors causing an outbreak.
Therefore, even if your assertion was valid (which is not since the mechanism they proposed are only observed in INFLUENZA viruses, an entirely different family of viruses with a Negative sense RNA genome. coronaviruses are positive sense RNA viruses that are replicated and packaged in entirely different mechanisms and are just too distantly related to possibly share this same mechanism), it should have already caused an detectable outbreak in humans before it have reached the state as we observed like today. We did not observe such an outbreak, therefore it can only happen in a non-animal-non-human situation. Which mean that it can only occur in a lab.

Reply
IdoNotLikeCherries
5/10/2020 09:36:32 am

Anther cherry on the cake:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/magazine/pandemic-vaccine.html

The final list — which did contain SARS and MERS, along with seven other respiratory, hemorrhagic or otherwise-lethal viruses — also included something the W.H.O. dubbed “Disease X”: a stand-in for all the unknown pathogens, or devastating variations on existing pathogens, that had yet to emerge. Daszak describes Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2, as exactly the kind of threat that Disease X was meant to represent: a novel, highly infectious coronavirus, with a high mortality rate, and no existing treatment or prevention. “The problem isn’t that prevention was impossible,” Daszak told me. “It was very possible. But we didn’t do it. Governments thought it was too expensive. Pharmaceutical companies operate for profit.” And the W.H.O., for the most part, had neither the funding nor the power to enforce the large-scale global collaboration necessary to combat it.

well, it looks like that at the end they got some money for it ;)

https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741

Reply
Nerd has power
5/10/2020 08:21:50 pm

Fantastic efforts, everybody! This place is becoming alive, with all your insights and excellent analyses. I must admit that they are much better than what I was able to offer in the original article. Please keep adding it.

Only if Zhengli Shi and Peter Daszak could visit and join our discussions, right? Maybe it will happen. We'll see.

I will become more of an observer at this point and will not try to participate in all discussions -- some of them are out of my reach actually. Also, next two weeks will be a bit packed for me. I apologize in advance for delays in responding to questions directed at me. Thank you!



Reply
Batman link
5/11/2020 02:38:51 am

In 2013-15, Zhengli Shi and colleagues thought the Rhinolophus sinicus bats they had found in Yunnan caves had a Coronavirus capable of infecting human lungs.

In early February 2020 , Zhengli Shi and colleagues published their paper claiming the similarity of Covid-19 to RaTG13.

Earlier on 27 January 2020, they filed the complete genome of Bat coronavirus RaTG13, with GenBank: MN996532.1, after supposedly having found it seven years earlier in 2013!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN996532

Supposedly, this genome was derived from droppings from the cave in Yunnan.

But from which of the seven Bat species they found in the cave?

In the complete genome of Bat coronavirus RaTG13, filed
by Zhengli Shi and colleagues, they claimed the source was:
“ /host=Rhinolophus affinis" and the Rhinolophus sinicus bats were not mentioned.

Really?

“Rhinolophus affinis” bats are widespread over Asia, but suddenly they appeared in winter, in Wuhan alone, with a deadly and virulent Coronavirus RaTG13?

Really?

Reply
Marco Belladama
5/11/2020 05:37:25 am

I'm a system integrator.... need to download the genome and a little guide to remake the picture like in this post

Reply
Sam
5/11/2020 09:52:18 am

Does the existence of BtCoV/4991 RdRp - a fragment of a viral genome that got published in 2016, 4 years before RaTG13, and seems the same as the RatG13 sequence published in Jan 2020 affect your argument (that RatG13 is a fake) at all? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/KP876546

Peter Daszak tweeted that: These are sequences from the same sample, 1st RdRp using sample code at that time, then full genome using 2019 sample naming system.
https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1259111768217063424?s=20

What do you make of 4991? Thanks.

Reply
Simen
5/11/2020 08:03:47 pm

The existence of RaBtCoV/4991 actually does not prove anything. The sequence is only 370bp in length and everything elve were still not published until 27-JAN-2020 . The only other reference of RaBtCoV/4991 was a single figure in that 2019 paper, which published no sequences. Notably, if what they claim was true on the S protein, we should already seen the RBD of RaTG13 being published before. We didn't.
Therefore, we can not rule out fabrication/manipulation for the rest of RaTG13/RaBtCoV/4991. Without being able to rule out such fabrication/manipulation, The argument that RaTG13 is invalid as "evidence" for a "natural" origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still as valid as it currently is.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/12/2020 03:22:37 pm

Thank you, Simen! Agree with your analysis.

Sam, I answered your question in a later post of yours. Please scroll down to look at it. Again, I sent Peter the invitation with hope that he would join the discussion here. So far that has not happened.

Reply
Sam
5/13/2020 03:35:14 am

Thank you so much for your interesting reply and for taking the time to respond. Much appreciated.

Robespierre
5/11/2020 10:34:31 am

China knew at least on March 7, 2020, probably earlier, that RaTG13 and BtCoV/4991 were the same. Why the charade?

Reply
Batwoman
5/11/2020 11:36:33 am

Maybe few in China knew it, but most of the others not. Are you aware that in science you can’t change the name of a sample that it has been published to avoid to lose the track of previous works? Only who has something to hide would do it. Are you a friend of Peter Daszak?

Reply
Sam
5/11/2020 12:45:40 pm

Not at all. I think he has very little credibility and has clearly lied about a number of things, not least his claim to “have no conflicts of interest”! But I am interested in what Nerd makes of 4991.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/12/2020 03:20:10 pm

Hi Sam, here is my take on this 4991.

They did publish it in the 2016 paper:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26920708

In there, it was named RaBtCoV/4991. According to the paper, the sample was collected in 2013.

First, why do they change the name in the 2020 publication? They didn't have to. Also, why didn't they cite this 2016 publication in their 2020 Nature paper? For something this important, they should do all they can to explain its origin in the paper. Yet the reality is the opposite: they breezed through this part light-heartedly. In addition, they changed its name and they failed to cite their own 2016 paper when 4991 was first published.

Second, if they have sequenced the RBD of 4992 back then, why didn't they publish anything about it? That RBD sequence is so bright that Shi's eyes would hurt just by looking at it. Could she curb her enthusiasm so well and then go out strenuously to hunt for other bat viruses? Many of the ones Shi did publish in between 2013 and 2020 are far less attractive in comparison to the 4991/RaTG13 in terms of sequence.

If they could not sequence the RBD back then (they must have tried because it is THE most interesting piece in their eyes), how come they could sequence it now? The sample did not improve. If anything, RNA tends to decay easily.

I have said this in an earlier post: I think the reason that Shi did not mention this 4991 in the 2020 Nature paper is because she would struggle to explain the above points.

BTW, I actually invited Peter under that tweet to come over and join our discussion here. I don't think he posted any comments yet (maybe he did???)

Dusha
5/11/2020 11:51:09 am

Many thanks for your interesting article! I have one question. You say, "As stated in the [Shi's] paper, RaTG13 was discovered from Yunnan province, China, in 2013." What is the reference for the 2013 date please, as I can't find it anywhere in Shi's 2020 paper here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7
Is there some other evidence to show that this was a 2013 isolate?

Reply
Batwoman
5/11/2020 11:59:32 am

The article where BtCoV4991 is cited is here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26920708

They did not cite it in the article in Nature. They just said that they magically found the RdRp sequence of RaTG13, that is 100% identical to the nucleotide sequence of BtCoV4991. We forced them now to admit that it is the same strain.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/12/2020 03:32:39 pm

Yes, the publication listed by batwoman is the original one that reported about how this 4991 was discovered back in 2013. Please see my answer right above for my take on this 4991.

Reply
guesswho
5/13/2020 02:34:18 pm

Something more on BtCoV4991. Here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26920708

BtCoV4991 clusters with GU190215 from Bulgaria.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20686038

The RBD of GU190215 showed high similarity with that of SARS-CoV. Can they really claim that the spike of BtCoV4991 was not sequenced before 2020, after that they have seen that phylogenetic tree? We should ask Drosten. He does the same dirty experiments in Germany and he was one of the supporters in Lancet of Shi, present also at the WHO meeting in Ginevra where all started.

Reply
Aydin
5/11/2020 03:27:28 pm

Interesting to read Peter Daszak@PeterDaszak's tweet:

"The answer is already in the papers & obvious to people working in virology: These are sequences from the same sample, 1st RdRp using sample code at that time, then full genome using 2019 sample naming system. Oh yes, & by the way this is NOT the same virus as SARS-CoV-2"


What is this "2019 sample naming system"?

Recently saw someone interprets RaTG13 as "Total Genomic 2013"' . A bit strange.

Reply
Dalstra
5/11/2020 05:25:59 pm

Also add in the fact they have never produced a physical copy of RaTG13 nor let anyone else resequence it’s genome. And the fact that it was not submitted nor published anywhere (Except for the 370bp RaBtCoV/4991) until January 27, well after the outbreak.

Reply
Tongguanzhen
5/12/2020 08:56:58 pm

https://twitter.com/paleovanguard/status/1257416405835792388

Thread on Twitter seemed to be on a right track regarding naming: TG being Tongguanzhen

Reply
cippi
5/13/2020 02:17:17 pm

TG sounds to me more Total Genome

Aydin
5/11/2020 03:44:01 pm

Per "The Bats Behind the Pandemic" Wall Street Journal by Matt Ridley (4/9/2020)

"RaTG13 is the name, rank and serial number of an individual horseshoe bat of the species Rhinolophus affinis, or rather of a sample of its feces collected in 2013 in a cave in Yunnan, China. The sample was collected by hazmat-clad scientists from the Institute of Virology in Wuhan that year. Stored away and forgotten until January this year, the sample from the horseshoe bat contains the virus ..."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bats-behind-the-pandemic-11586440959

Reply
John kelleher
5/11/2020 03:46:53 pm

https://connect.biorxiv.org/relate/content/181
Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag
Prashant Pradhan, Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Akhilesh Mishra, Parul Gupta, Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Manoj Balakrishnan Menon, James Gomes, Perumal Vivekanandan, Bishwajit Kundu
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].
AbstractFull TextInfo/HistoryMetrics Preview PDF
Abstract
We are currently witnessing a major epidemic caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The evolution of 2019-nCoV remains elusive. We found 4 insertions in the spike glycoprotein (S) which are unique to the 2019-nCoV and are not present in other coronaviruses. Importantly, amino acid residues in all the 4 inserts have identity or similarity to those in the HIV-1 gp120 or HIV-1 Gag. Interestingly, despite the inserts being discontinuous on the primary amino acid sequence, 3D-modelling of the 2019-nCoV suggests that they converge to constitute the receptor binding site. The finding of 4 unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have identity /similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature. This work provides yet unknown insights on 2019-nCoV and sheds light on the evolution and pathogenicity of this virus with important implications for diagnosis of this

Reply
Nerd has power
5/12/2020 03:35:30 pm

I have commented on this article a few times, I believe. Sorry that I won't repeat myself here again, except to say that I'm not completely bought by their evidence and conclusions (although I agree that the virus is of non-natural origin).

Reply
Jane
5/18/2020 06:00:28 am

Can we exclude that Daszak & co. figured out that the spike of BtCoV4991 modified with the RBD of the pangolin CoV and furin site had HIV properties and for this reason they inserted in the BtCoV4991 backbone to develop a super vaccine/drug?

Reply
Nerd has power
5/18/2020 09:39:07 am

Sorry that I don't think I fully understand your question. But I would simply say that 1) I personally have not been convinced that there are HIV sequences inserted into the genome of SARS-CoV-2; 2) no one would try to create a vaccine this way --> making it resemble SARS and then, on top of that, adding a Furin-cleavage site to make it more infectious. The manipulations are intended for the opposite.

Hans Fields
5/11/2020 07:49:46 pm

I ran a sequence alignment on RaTG13 vs Sars-CoV-2 and it only turns up 4 nonsyn mutations on the N protein (419 len). It seems a bit low given that there are 18 nonsyn mutations comparing ZC45 to Sars-Cov-2.

Reply
BreakingBad
5/12/2020 05:06:10 am

China’s own scientists have provided evidence that COVID-19 is man-made

https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/heres-what-chinas-scientists-have-to-say-about-the-origin-of-covid-19-298213

Reply
yano
5/12/2020 06:39:07 am

What is the probability that the SARS-CoV-2 E protein become 100% similar to ZC45 and ZXC21 naturally?

Why do ZC45 and ZXC21 have the same 100% similar E protein?

Why are scientist ignoring this?

Reply
Nerd has power
5/12/2020 03:43:18 pm

Please scroll back to see the conversation between Anonymous and John F. Signus on this topic. John explained it very well.

Reply
yano
5/12/2020 06:51:11 am

The Feb 11 2020 E protein for SARS-CoV-2 is 100% similar to ZC45 and ZXC21. It is thought that the virus went into humans in Sept-Oct 2019.
Why was there no mutations in the E protein between Oct 2019 and Feb 2020?

Reply
Nerd has power
5/12/2020 03:46:57 pm

You need the size of infected populations to be big enough to see these mutations showing up in sequencing. Please note that not all samples are sequenced. There might be mutations in E from earlier patients, but those may not be selected for sequencing.

Reply
Claire Robinson
5/12/2020 06:53:46 am

An article has been published about Nerd Has Power's research here:
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19396

Reply
Nerd has power
5/12/2020 04:05:04 pm

Thank you, Claire and your team, for publishing the article. You have successfully identified me being a male. One error in your article is that you mentioned (twice, I believe) that ZC45 and ZXC21 were discovered by Zhengli Shi. It's not correct. The discovery was made by another lab in China that has a military background. Here is the publication:

Hu D, Zhu C, Ai L, He T, Wang Y, Ye F, et al. Genomic characterization and infectivity of a novel SARS-like coronavirus in Chinese bats. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2018;7(1):154.

I hope you get to update things in there. But either way, great article and summary! Thanks again!

Reply
Claire Robinson
5/13/2020 02:14:06 am

Corrected the article--many thanks!

Claire Robinson
5/12/2020 06:55:31 am

An article has been published about Nerd Has Power's research here:
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19396

Reply
ioderESTEl
5/12/2020 05:41:15 pm

As if on queue, now that questions about the cleavage site have been raised more widely, Shi has produced another 'natural' bat coronavirus with the requisite cleavage site.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(20)30662-X.pdf?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS096098222030662X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Reply
nonameneeded
5/12/2020 08:14:25 pm

Chinese propaganda in overdrive. I hope no one buys into this nonsense about a new lineage B betacoronavirus with a furin cleavage site that was reportedly collected in May-October 2019 that they sat on until April 2020.

I looked through the methods. It seems to me that the NGS has poor coverage. The sequences were reportedly found in only a single pool (1 out of 55). They make no mention of the read depth at the S1/S2 hinge, so for all we know there was a handful of reads off of which this is based. Then the Sanger sequencing supposedly isolated the RmY02 in only a single bat feces sample which was collected in June 2019.

Also, I can't understand why it took them until April 2020 to put together this paper, not least because the lead author of this paper (Professor Weifeng Shi in Shanghai) was also one of the senior authors of a high profile Lancet paper in January, which had very similar types of figures, including sequence identity, phylogenetic analysis, amino acid comparison, and Swiss-Model protein modeling). The Lancet paper was submitted 20 days after publication of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence, so why it took 95 days to do the comparison of SARS-CoV-2 and RmY02 is not clear to me, well except for the fact that this is a clear attempt to undercut one of the major arguments that this virus was lab-manipulated.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30251-8/fulltext#seccestitle190

Unsurprisingly, one of the co-authors of this newest paper is none other than Edward Holmes, who was the co-author of the fraudulent "Proximal origin" paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Reply
Lima
5/13/2020 12:19:46 am

It was actually the very old paper on RmYN02. you will need to look at the sequence/alignment more closely.
Count the number of amino acids from Y674 to V687 on their alignment for RmYN02. Based on how you intepret the grey dashes (it was supposed to represent codons that were only partially known), it may either be ?NSPAAR? or just NSPAAR.
Which is either a completely normal sequence length for S1-S2 in Lineage B, or two deletions. It is most likely a completely normal length sequence with 2 unknown AAs. as the S1-S2 junction will need at least an RS/RN (R followed by a polar residue) to be properly cleaved during the process of cell-cell fusion. RV is not one of the possible S1-S2 cleavage sites for coronaviruses, and it should have completely deactivated the virus assuming the deletion scenario.
Therefore, the only possible scenario was the identical-length ?NSPAAR? sequence for Y674-V687 of RmYN02. with a length of 8 amino acids just like every other normal Lineage B betacoronaviruses that exists.

yano
5/13/2020 10:10:30 pm

What kind of crazy system allows un-verified and possibly fake virus data to be manufactured and uploaded without verification.

No one will know if these viruses are real or a fake unless they have a sample.

I'm waiting for the angry mobs of pitch forks and torches.

Reply
Henri
5/18/2020 03:31:46 pm

Has it not occurred to you that sending live, potentially pathogenic viruses through the post to another lab would be a serious safety risk?

Henri
5/18/2020 01:08:19 am

Are you suggesting that RmYN02 is also a 'fake' sequence?

Reply
Lima
6/18/2020 07:53:32 am

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gGX4EobrnP3EKYLQDsl9Xa6tKoiwmI8O/view?usp=sharing
Counting the AAs there--NO inserts at all.

yano
5/12/2020 07:42:07 pm

Is this new work with the likely copy and paste 100% E protein and the mysteriously appearing furin cleavage site causing virologists to accept the lab creation theory?

If not, how can this information get elevated to the right people? This just seems crazy that we have top ignorant scientist pushing the natural virus propaganda.


Just for curiosity, what is the probability that SARS-CoV-2 is a natural (not man made) virus? 0%, 5%, 10%????

Reply
nonameneeded
5/12/2020 08:16:13 pm

It is not ignorance. It is a conspiracy of silence by virologists who know much, much better.

Reply
nonameneeded
5/12/2020 08:45:25 pm

Edward Holmes is also on the Malayan pangolin coronavirus paper that appeared in Nature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2169-0

Seems like there's a circle of very fishy researchers and administrators who were deeply involved in this, including Shi Zhengli, Ralph Baric, Edward Holmes, Anthony Fauci, and Peter Daszak.

Reply
John F Signus
5/13/2020 12:22:09 am

See my takedown on it at 5/9/2020 04:13:42 am.

Reply
Dex
5/19/2020 09:54:46 pm

Edward Holmes lab work was outsourced to the PLA.

"The Daily Telegraph can reveal that the “sequencing” and “virus isolation” on which the study relied was done by laboratories run by the PLA in China.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/coronavirus/the-covid-files-australianfunded-coronavirus-paper-used-in-chinese-military-facility/news-story/7241a6b112816f3951495e0fa52ed2aa

Reply
Even Yahalom
5/13/2020 11:26:20 am

Who are you?
Email me.
I am a virologist on this situation.
Thanks,
Even

Reply
Lilian
5/13/2020 02:44:51 pm

I have a question abt the RaTg13 spike protein:

it was updated https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/QHR63300.1

and in the old version there is an extra coding sequence (MFLLTTKRT) that is actually present in both RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 but it has not been annotated. It overlaps with the end of ORF1b in SARS-CoV-2. Is that normal?

Reply
Lilian
5/13/2020 02:55:26 pm

I just noted that it has 100 % match with SARS Urbani, just after Ratg13

Reply
Lilian
5/13/2020 03:04:09 pm

but missing there the starting ATG...mmh...

Nerd has power
5/23/2020 01:08:10 pm

It may be a conserved sequence at the end of Orf1b. Orf1b and Spike are located right next to each other in the genome, so the end of Orf1b should be right in front of the beginning of the spike.

John F. signus
5/30/2020 08:49:03 am

However, this leader sequence were not found in other SL-CoVs as this in-frame insert. All the other SL-CoVs appeared to have 1 less Nucleotide on the junction meaning that they won’t translate to such.
Highly likely that they removed just that nt to get to an extra Start codon to serve as an in-vitro protein tag(but will not affect the virus In-Vivo.)to potentially purify the Spike for use in the lab.
Also. The genome assembly Coverage on TG13 is really, really bad. Not much from the “sample” even cover the S gene. Not on the beginning of the S, either. The Tg13 sample is mostly garbage. And had 4% primates and 21% rodents in it. And the MtDNA readings contain oddly-spaced “N”s that seems to be duplicated on a sequence-specific manner. This is not the kind of “N”s you may see in real ILLUMINA runs as these came from mechanical errors (like bubbles) and are co-located with the Position index of a nt in a read. Instead it imply In-Silico work being used to fabricate most of the dataset to give it a “bat” origin.
It in stead imply an origin in cell culture or lab rats. This is the incomplete GOF backbone that were used to make CoV2 by genetic engineering.

Physics Guy
5/14/2020 02:23:24 am

Has someone checked the non-synonymous to synonymous ratio of the S2 part of the spike for the mutations that are now naturally occurring in COVID-19? Is there evidence/non-evidence for natural selection in favour of synonymous changes there?

Reply
Libres
5/14/2020 03:20:23 am

Well, the dS/dN on the ORF1ab between RaTG13 and SARS-COV-2 was 6.22:1. Ruling out the possibility that selection in this lineage favoring Syn over Nonsyn.
The dS/dN between the S2 of ZC45 and ZCX21, two viruses that used the same host, is 5:1. This rules lou selection favoring Syn over Nonsyn on the S2 as well.
Since neither ORF1ab nor ZC45/ZXC21 S2 suggest an elevated dS/dN during selection, the 44:1 dS/dN on the S2 of RaTG13/SARS-COV-2 was a very clear sign of either one of them being unnatural.

Reply
Physics Guy
5/14/2020 03:36:38 am

I know, but further evidence as I suggest could further prove/disprove the hypothesis.

nonameneeded
5/14/2020 09:09:16 am

Can you check the dS/dN between specifically GD pangolin vs SARS-CoV-2?for

1) RBD of S
2) S1
3) S2
4) Entire S protein
5) other structural and nonstructural proteins, particularly E and N

This paper suggests that despite the very high amino acid identity, the underlying nucleotides evince a high dS/dN in the spike protein (compared to the rest of the virus) pointing to positive selection.

https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwaa036/5775463

I am not very handy with these alignments or calculations, but I think if the RBD is demonstrated to be a near replica of GD pangolin RBD when it comes to protein identity, yet the nucleotide analysis reflects significant drift and positive selection pressure, we can infer that either any recombination event occurred implausibly long ago given the clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, OR that the selection was artificial and accelerated, pointing to laboratory manipulation.

I am sure this can be put on a surer footing mathematically, I just don't have the skills or expertise to do so, and would be curious if others have looked at this.

John F Signus
5/14/2020 03:20:50 am

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420302622
There is a smoking gun indication that the virus have been passaged through VERO E6 BEFORE the insertion of a polybasic furin cleavage site.
These scientists, in order to assay the binding affinity of the S1 RBD portion of SARs-COV-2, constructed pseudoviruses with the SARS-COV-2 with the furin site removed. Termed S fur/mut. What they found is that such a spike enters VERO E6 cells nearly one and a half times more efficiently than BHK cells that expresses the hACE2 receptor. The SARS-COV-2 S with the furin site removed also enters VERO E6 More than one and a half times efficiently than the original SARS-COV Spike.
This mean that the S RBD of SARS-COV-2 binds the ACE2 of VERO E6 more than 1.5 times more efficiently than hACE2, 1.5 times more efficiently than the SARS-COV RBD could on the same cells.
This is way higher than even the heavily skewed calculation of the RBD’s affinity to the pACE2 receptor in that Nature article (which, despite being skewed so much that they even conclude that RaTG13 had more infectivity in humans than SARS, still showed a higher hACE2 affinity to pACE2. Their “pangolin-1” showed even lower pACE2 affinity than SARS-COV-2 in their own models—not what you expect for a virus that was supposed to have been evolved in pangolins)
Normally, an ~1.5 time higher infectivity in an organism than any other host cells is a clear indication that this organism was the intermediate host— but in this time, Physical assay revealed that the Intermediate host was VERO E6.
VERO E6 is a cancerous cell line mutated from the VERO 76 cell lines with attenuated contact inhibition, the VERO 76 cell line itself was mutated from the original VERO cell line in 1968, distinguished by a lower saturation density. Then the VERO Cell line was a cancerous derivative from a monkey cell line isolated in 1962. There is absolutely no way that VERO E6 can even be turned back into the original organism, let lone be found in wild nature in any way. The only place cells like VERO E6 exists and can exist is within a lab.
VERO E6 is used for the cultivation and isolation of viruses from all kinds of sources.
This Spike had a history in VERO E6 before the PRRA furin cleavage site was added in. Which could only mean one thing. SARS-COV-2 have been in a lab before it gets the polybasic furin cleavage site and went into humans.

Reply
yano
5/14/2020 07:30:52 am

Great! I am so happy people are digging out this information. The world is waiting for justice. Keep up the good work!

Reply
Javier
5/16/2020 09:07:07 am

Congratulations, good work. I'm trying to understand your reasonings, but I have one doubt.
You say:
“This Spike (SARS-CoV-2 ) had a history in VERO E6 before the PRRA furin cleavage site was added in. Which could only mean one thing. SARS-COV-2 have been in a lab before it gets the polybasic furin cleavage site and went into humans”
“Normally, an ~1.5 time higher infectivity in an organism than any other host cells is a clear indication that this organism was the intermediate host— but in this time, Physical assay revealed that the Intermediate host was VERO E6.”

In the paper you mentioned, by making assays in two different cell culture types (VERO E6 and BHK cells, this latter being transiently transfected with hACE2) the capacity or affinity of coronavirus spike (S) glycoproteins to enter into cells was tested.
In this paper, next findings are reported (according to the figures 1A and 1B):

- SARS-COV-2 S-MLV (9000 RLU) and SARS-CoV S-MLV (8500 RLU) ,both pseudoviruses entered VERO E6 cells equally well.
- SARS-COV-2 S-MLV fur/mut (fcs removed) present 1.5 times higher affinity (13500 RLU) to VERO E6 than SARS-COV-2 S-MLV (9000 RLU) and SARS-CoV S (8500 RLU).
- SARS-COV-2 S-MLV presents higher affinity (13000 RLU) to BHK cells (hACE2 transfected) than SARS-COV-2 S-MLV fur/mut (9000 RLU)
-¿¿¿ SARS-COV-2 S-MLV presents NULL affinity to BHK cells (NOT hACE2 transfected)??? (What does it mean?)

Author's conclusion: “The observed transduction efficiency of VeroE6 cells was higher for SARSCoV- 2 Sfur/mut-MLV than for SARS-CoV-2 S-MLV (Figure 1A), whereas the opposite trend was observed for transduction of hACE2-expressing BHK cells (Figure 1B). These results suggest that S1/S2 cleavage during S biosynthesis was not necessary for S-mediated entry in the conditions of our experiments (Figures 1C and 1D. We speculate that the detection of a polybasic cleavage site in the fusion glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 could putatively expand its tropism and/or enhance its transmissibility, compared with SARS-CoV and SARSr-CoV isolates, due to the near-ubiquitous distribution of furin-like proteases and their reported effects on other viruses”.
Speculation says (in my opinion successfully) that the polybasic cleavage site enhance its transmissibility.
Now, my doubts about your second reasoning: I don’t see clear enough since (see above) SARS-COV-2 S-MLV presents higher affinity (13000 RLU) to BHK cells (hACE2 transfected) and SARS-CoV S-MLV (8500 RLU) to VERO E6 cells.
So, it seems that really in both cultivation cells, not only in VERO E6, SARS-COV-2 S-MLV has high ACE2 affinity.

Reply
John F Signus
5/20/2020 05:55:31 am

Well, the hACE2 transfected BHK cells had less affinity to FCS removed S than the FCS on S. BHK itself does not express any ACE2 and is used to model human cells by transfecting it with hACE2 and overexpressing it on the cell surface. the real point is that SARS-CoV-2 fur/mut had the highest affinity to VERO E6 (13500 RLU) than any other assays done. including the SARS-CoV-2 S on hACE2/BHK (13000 RLU).
The NULL affinity on non-transfected cell is just to be used as a control--to prove that there were no other interference and the hACE2 receptor assay data is valid.
technically, the hACE2 transfection/overexpression on BHK should make it even MORE suspectible than actual human cells in-vivo--most human cells does not overexpress ACE2 like that.
yet it still had less affinity to even the intact S than the fur/mut S to non-transfected (ACE2 expression level normal) VERO E6.
The real comparison is here. S(fur/mut) display no pre-cleavage on the S1-S2 junction making the S1-S2 and S2 machinery a homologue of the SARS-CoV S1-S2 and S2. therefore the comparison is between these 3 pairs:
SARS-CoV RBD->VERO E6 ACE2 (normal expression)
SARS-CoV-2 RBD->VERO E6 ACE2 (normal expression)
SARS-CoV-2 RBD->hACE2 (overexpressed in BHK)
the RBD had way higher affinity to the VERO E6 ACE2 than hACE2, and even the BHK overexpression did not knock it down in comparison. this strongly suggest that the SARS-CoV-2 RBD is far more adapted to the VERO E6 ACE2 receptor than the hACE2 receptor.
As a Control, SARS-CoV-RBD (known to NOT be native to VERO E6) displayed an affinity to the VERO E6 ACE2 that is similar to the SARS-CoV-2 RBD to hACE2. Implying that the SARS-CoV-2 RBD is not native to the hACE2 receptor.
comparison is between these 3 pairs:
SARS-CoV RBD->VERO E6 ACE2 :Non-native(known)
SARS-CoV-2 RBD->VERO E6 ACE2 :Native. far higher affinity than the other two interactions.
SARS-CoV-2 RBD->hACE2 :Non-native. same level as SARS-CoV RBD to VERO E6 ACE2.
Compiling the two pieces of data, we can deduce that the actual native host receptor of the SARS-CoV-2 RBD/S1 is the VERO E6 ACE2. implying that the S1 and RBD was evolved there.

Nerd has power
5/23/2020 01:33:01 pm

Thank you so much, John. Great finding and analysis!

Bugsy
5/14/2020 06:45:46 am

A two-step approach, first receptor binding, then the addition of a furin site was implied in a study by Ralph Baric's group "SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence," replacing the spikes of SARS Urbani and WIV1.
"Whereas the receptor binding domain had garnered the
most interest, changes in the remaining portion of S1 as well as the
S2 portion of spike may also play a critical role in facilitating CoV
infection, transmission, and/or pathogenesis (20). Differences in
these regions of spike may yield increased protease targeting,
enhanced spike cleavage, and/or expanded tropism leading to
more robust infection for the epidemic SARS strains."

Reply
nonameneeded
5/14/2020 08:39:45 am

For those who are interested, this is the 2014 patent for the chimeric virus construction and serial passaging by Ralph Baric at UNC. The patent was assigned to NIH in 2017.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170096455

Methods and compositions for chimeric coronavirus spike proteins

"1. A chimeric coronavirus spike protein comprising, in orientation from amino to carboxy terminus:
a) a first region comprising a portion of a coronavirus spike protein ectodomain that precedes a coronavirus spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) as located in a nonchimeric coronavirus spike protein, of a first coronavirus;
b) a second region comprising a coronavirus spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) of a second coronavirus that is different from said first coronavirus;
c) a third region comprising a portion of a coronavirus spike protein S1 domain as located in a nonchimeric coronavirus spike protein immediately downstream of the RBD, contiguous with a portion of a coronavirus spike protein S2 domain as located immediately upstream of a fusion protein domain in a nonchimeric coronavirus spike protein, wherein said third region is of said first coronavirus; and
d) a fourth region comprising a portion of a coronavirus spike protein from the start of the fusion protein domain through the carboxy terminal end as located in a nonchimeric coronavirus spike protein of a third coronavirus that is different from said first coronavirus and said second coronavirus."

Special attention should be given to the figures in the pdf, where clear reference is made to serial passaging in mice to enhance pathogenicity (see figure 16).

Reply
Andrew M
5/14/2020 01:01:17 pm

Isn't the differential ratio of synonoymous to non-synonymous mutations simply down to the effect of purifying selection in the region concerened - exactly what you might expect?

Reply
John F Signus
5/14/2020 05:03:38 pm

Well, ZC45 and ZXC21 uses the same host, yet their ds/dn on the S2 was 5:1 with 5 nonsyn mutations. CoV2/RaTG13 have different hosts— we should see both a bigger difference on the S2 and at least a similar dS/dN. However, In RaTG13/CoV2 it was 44:1 with just 2 nonsyn substitutions. Somehow it ended with more nucleotide substitutions than ZC45/ZXC21, yet had less Nonsyn substitutions on the S2 with ZC45/ZXC21. This is completely unnatural.
Remember that ZC45 and ZXC21 Had the same host. There can not be higher “purifying selection” in RaTG13/CoV2 than ZC45/ZXC21.

Reply
Tony
5/15/2020 07:19:04 am

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.27.969006v1.full.pdf

Physics Guy
5/15/2020 08:20:23 am

As I have suggested above I think it would be good to also look at syn/non-sym ratio of the spike regions in the current mutations of COVID-19. As an outsider to this field to me it seems that this could either further prove the the hypothesis or disprove it.

Andrew M
5/16/2020 01:37:29 am

Sorry, I can't follow this. You just seem to be asserting that different ratios in different places are "unnatural", when in fact it could just reflect stronger selection in certain region(s). The article linked by Tony below seems to this.

Tony
5/16/2020 07:53:45 am

Why there can not be higher “purifying selection” in RaTG13/CoV2 than ZC45/ZXC21?
Such statements can only be made if you count over the evolutinary history of the organism.
Standard methods rely on the assumption, that the base composition is at the equilibrium.
Moreover, the assumption that the ratio of these mutations (N/S) must remain constant over the entire gene is not correct. It has also been shown for RNA viruses that that synonymous mutations can have a wide range of fitness effects and that they can contribute to adaptation the same way as non-synonymous ones. This is also immediately obvious when looking at the RNAs secondary structures of SARS-CoV2. One can be sure that changes here have an impact on the virus and altered RNA structures are particularly important when dealing with polycistronic transcripts.

John F Signus
5/20/2020 05:38:17 am

ZC45/ZXC21 never left the same cave and had the exact same host. There can't be a more stable, purifying selection than this.
RaTG13 was in YunNan. Sars2 was in Wuhan. >1000km geographical distance. RaTG13 was allegedly found in a mineshaft in bat poop while SARS2 broke out in a crowded metropolis in humans. The location, condition and host are totally different. You can't expect to see "purifying selection" holding across such a great geographical distance. Also, S2 have already started to mutate in later versions of SARS-CoV-2 during human transmission. Implying that neither the Bat host(ZC45/ZXC21) not the human host(WuHan-Hu-1/later CoV2) are capable of purifying selection for the S2 of betacoronaviruses. The RBD was located on S1. S2 is not critical for host selection as it's buried within the S (it does not interact with host receptors) and it's sole job is to facilitate membrane fusion AFTER the virus have attached to/internaized by the right kind of cell using receptors determined by the S1/RBD. From all the other viruses (fig3), it's very clear that there is a lot of flexibility in S2. other way, there can not be a higher purifying selection in RaTG13/CoV2 than ZC45/ZXC21.

John F. Signus
6/18/2020 07:57:05 am

And--unfortunately, CoV2 S2 is not the type of S2 that is under purifying selection. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xp1zBf2d-hu32XSKkyJ7UBOg9ZHuAURS/view?usp=sharing
up to 25 mutations on S2 have appeared during transmission. this is not "purifying" since none of these S2 mutations confers an adavantage.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.21.108506v1

Zhong Hua link
5/14/2020 01:05:27 pm

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1454999851131440366#editor/target=post;postID=4346645706657233226;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=postname

Please help spread the truth.

Reply
John F Signus
5/14/2020 05:07:08 pm

Sorry, but it keep saying that you does not have the permission to view this page. Could you update it?
Thanks

Reply
Andrew M
5/14/2020 03:47:27 pm

Another question having read your paper more carefully. You say recombination is rare and thus can't explain differences between the S1 portions of the various coronaviruses. But I have read elsewhere that recombinations are quite common in coronaviruses. The % difference between the genomes and typical mutation rates of such viruses suggest their evolutionary paths 2 diverged decades ago - plenty of time for such recombinations to have taken place. Any thoughts on this?

Reply
Nerd has power
5/19/2020 09:07:40 pm

Sorry for having missed this. I posted something on 5/18 in a reply to charly. You will find my answer to your question there. Please scroll down to read it. Thank you!

Reply
John Kelleher
5/14/2020 07:45:19 pm

I think our governments have no brakes on their train. If the release was planned ,Shi could have published the RaTG13 paper before the release. Maybe ?
nonameneeded the patent you posted seems to be worded to be a vaccine . ,https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170096455
Funded by the U.S. Government.

Reply
Tony
5/16/2020 08:19:08 am

"nonameneeded the patent you posted seems to be worded to be a vaccine . ,https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170096455"

Yes, maybe a vaccine. It is the double-edged sword of "dual use", which is always part of gain-of-function research.
If you prohibit GoF, you should also prohibit loss of function, because often you do not know what will come out later.
Besides, I believe that a general ban on GoF is counterproductive with regard to protection programmes such as vaccine development.
If we want to understand the basic mechanisms of these pathogens in advance, there is no way around it.
These are of course questions that need to be discussed openly, but it is a different question whether Shi wanted to produce a biological weapon. If so, there are many many ways to make this easier.
And it is of course another question whether the virus is of natural origin or whether it is made in a laboratory.
Unfortunately a lot of things are mixed up, some of which are not based on evidence but on rumours.

Reply
Jane
5/18/2020 06:12:46 am


Do you really need GoF studies to develop vaccines? Maybe for viruses that might arise in the future, that maybe will never appear. And you take the chance to cause the next pandemic with your experiment that might go wrong. This was the case of SARS-CoV-2, I fear.

Robert Piller link
5/15/2020 02:10:17 am

A Nerd has Power.

I have to say I was intrigued by the title, I for one have never been in any doubt about this, but all too often this power can be highly destructive. So much so I've written a publication on this.

The Hapless Conservationist. Please take a read.

https://static.wixstatic.com/ugd/74da12_dde38c5de5ea45389debda0a22ab3038.pdf

If you get in touch I'll put your details onto our mailing list.

Reply
John Kelleher
5/15/2020 12:48:49 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUW51MYQ_XQ
This a video from 2005. It is listed with no information. A women is presenting a vaccine to reduce religious fundamentalism in the Middle East.

Reply
Andrew M
5/16/2020 02:11:47 am

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-funvax-pentagon-briefing-on-removing-the-god-gene-hoax.317/

Reply
Adam
5/15/2020 08:12:31 pm

I am not a virologist so can't comment on the analysis and its accuracy however why don't you reveal your identity? Are you are based in China and forsee a threat? As you judge others of being biased, would be great if you let the readers judge your biases as well. Not accusing you of anything just making sure we know the person behind the article. I dont understand Chinese hence can't really read the Chinese version.

Regarding whether the virus was man made or not, world is fucked as we know it anyway. How will you penalise China if its proved with absolute evidence that China created the virus and it was leaked?

Reply
Fight Against CCP
5/16/2020 12:26:54 am

I'm not a virologist either. Neither am I the author of this article. However, why do everyone have to disclose their identity especially on internet? Have you ever tried to figure out why and how the world known virologist died suddenly and mysteriously back in this January? Have you ever tried to figure out Czech Senate leader Jaroslav Kubera's sudden death right before his trip to Taiwan? What about the vaccine developer, Liu Bin's being assassinated? I'm sure that you have this common sense as well, as otherwise, you would have disclosed your real full name.

Letting as many scientists as possible see through CCP's Nazi conduct is all what a scientist can do. As for how CCP will be punished, the governors of each country will have their own decision, Besides, does truth really require disclosing one's identity to be proven to be true? Don't worry, just wait to see how CCP will end up with the similar fate as NAZI. The evil will eventually be punished.

If you really want to understand what the Chinese comments are, just simply right click the mouse to select "Translate to English" in Chrome to understand everything.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/18/2020 04:38:02 pm

Thank you, my brother. We are in this fight together.

Hi Adam, I have my own reasons (part of it is fear) to not reveal my identity. If you are willing to believe your own ability to reason and judge, who I am does not matter. I can assure you that I'm no comparison to Andersen of the Nature Medicine paper, which argued for a natural origin of the virus. So, if names are important for you in judging this, I would admit failure right away. If you don't feel safe believing it, please help invite real experts over to join the discussion. The comment section here offers even more than what's in the articles. More critical insights, the closer we will be to the truth.

True Crime
5/16/2020 06:56:39 am

Is Shi trying to say now (new paper) that it was not Rhinolophus affinis from Yunnan, but may be Rhinolophus sinicus from... Hubei?

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.093658v1

R. Ebright seems to have noticed it and replied accordingly.

https://twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1261649950078836736

Reply
True Crime
5/16/2020 07:17:54 am

All out:

https://twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1261660326082367489

Richard H. Ebright
@R_H_Ebright
En respuesta a
@DrEricDing
WIV constructed a series of novel chimeric viruses encoding different receptor binding domains--with different receptor binding affinities--in an otherwise constant genomic context. And did so using "seamless ligation" procedures that leave no signatures of human manipulation.

Reply
CCP is NAZI link
5/16/2020 12:40:37 pm

EXCLUSIVE: Virus researchers uncover new evidence implying COVID-19 was created in a lab:


In a LifeSite exclusive, reporter Matthew Cullinan Hoffman breaks the story about the preliminary results of a new study that strongly suggests that the novel coronavirus was produced in a laboratory, presumably a lab of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The study, which was carried out by a team of Australian scientists, produces evidence that the virus that causes COVID-19 is specifically optimized for attacking human cells, indicating that it did not arise in an animal host.

Hoffman has been researching this issue for weeks, and this is his first major piece, with more to come in the days ahead.While preliminary, this new study raises serious questions about the narrative on the virus from China, the World Health Organization, the global health establishment, and social media censorship.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-virus-researchers-uncover-evidence-implying-covid-19-was-created-in-a-lab

Reply
Lori
5/16/2020 04:11:07 pm

I've been following your work along with reading the comments and just wanted you to know you are not the only one who thinks this virus was manipulated to make it transmissible to humans.

The Coronavirus Is Man Made According to Luc Montagnier the Man Who Discovered HIV

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oDzY1m720UYJ:

https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chinese-coronavirus-is-a-man-made-virus-according-to-luc-montagnier-the-man-who-discovered-hiv/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


EXCLUSIVE: Virus researchers uncover new evidence implying COVID-19 was created in a lab
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-virus-researchers-uncover-evidence-implying-covid-19-was-created-in-a-lab?fbclid=IwAR0OhZqkRBeysQCrx5rEcsDH7VWOhnjqjq4_0o5axzVQi3iPYalJSt2Q3Po

BTW China now claims they destroyed the original samples.

China admits to destroying early virus samples sought by Pompeo
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/china-admits-to-destroying-early-virus-samples-sought-by-pompeo

Why would China destroy the virus samples?

What is China hiding were they altering the virus to use as a bio weapon?

Ex-Chinese Official Details Plan for World Domination
https://www.newsmax.com/navrozov/china-biological-russia/2009/09/17/id/335042/

Reply
Ape link
5/16/2020 04:39:02 pm

Instinctively skeptical of useful novel organisms. This article seems compelling, (and great illustrations). https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748

Reply
nonameneeded
5/16/2020 06:51:02 pm

Sad that it's the dailymail that reports on this and not the more "prestigious" mainstream media a la NYT, BBC, Guardian, WaPo. I doubt this will go into a high profile journal, although quite excellent.

They compared SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 evolution and show that the dN/dS is flat in the latter and in SARS-CoV at the end of the epidemic, whereas it was quite steep for early SARS-CoV. They suggest the high dN/dS early on in SARS-CoV suggests a process of animal->adaptation which SARS-CoV-2 never demonstrated, suggesting very high adaptation to human infection from the very beginning. And they finally do allude repeatedly to the lab possibility being very real.

They also put the stupid wet market theory to death.

Preprint below:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262v1

Reply
Nerd has power
5/18/2020 01:42:49 pm

Thank you for sharing it. Great article! Reading in between the lines, I can tell that the authors are as convinced as many of us here, and yet they just can't say it in a submitted manuscript. They are so brave to bring their work to the public in this manner. Doesn't matter whether it makes to a top journal, we should spread it.

The statistical aspect of this study is the real force. Given their data, one has to agree that there has been no sign of adaptation of SARS-CoV-2 in humans, which is in great contrast to how SARS worked its way (clear adaptations) in the early stages to eventually settle down in the human population.

Reply
Lori
5/16/2020 11:31:11 pm


Database Of Wuhan's 'Batwoman' Altered 48 Hours Before COVID-19 Samples Ordered Destroyed

https://nypost.com/2020/05/06/what-is-china-covering-up-about-the-coronavirus-devine/

Reply
Henri
5/18/2020 01:34:14 am

No, it was not 'ordered destroyed' according to the news article. 'The article says 'made substantial changes' which, upon further reading, turns out to be 'remove the terms 'wild life' and 'wild animal'.

So, you have exaggerated the report.

Reply
Lilian
5/18/2020 01:41:44 am

You need to practise reading Henri:
Lori writes database altered, he is right

Days before the Wuhan wet market was bleached, whistleblowers were punished and virus samples were destroyed, someone at the high-security Wuhan Institute of Virology censored its virus database in an apparent attempt to disassociate the laboratory from a novel-coronavirus outbreak that would become a global pandemic.

Henri
5/18/2020 02:46:58 am

Read the article more carefully, Lilian. Read ALL OF IT. That 'censoring' was not destroying the data base at all. It was changing some words or deleting some words viz: wild animals. Your other points, even if true (which I doubt) does not involve the database.

Lilian
5/18/2020 04:38:49 am

Who is using the word destroying in relation to the database? The article says that the samples were destroyed, not the database.
Please read carefully what Lori writes. He writes the same.

Why do you doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is Disease X?

Ridan
6/18/2020 07:58:36 am

Unfortunately, that 64.3MB database is now gone. completely.

Reply
Ape link
5/17/2020 08:47:47 am

When asked by Zhong Nanshan if her lab is responsible for creating and losing the virus, Shi says, "She said that's totally ridiculous, she had never been doing anything like that," said Zhong, who called Shi a "good friend."
"She said based on their equipment and facilities and manpower... they were unable to do anything, any kind of artificial virus at this time." Was her lab technically "unable" to manipulate/modify viruses? - https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/16/asia/zhong-nanshan-coronavirus-intl-hnk/index.html

Reply
CCP is NAZI
5/17/2020 10:05:03 am

How would you expect a CCP criminal to admit their crime? They know exactly what kind of consequence admitting their crime would lead to. None of those CCP's mouths has any credibility including CNN which is short for ChiNiese News who serves as CCP's propaganda. Sadly, none of the sources you use have any professional ethics.

Reply
Henri
5/18/2020 01:10:53 am

What are these 'reliable sources' that the Wuhan lab does not have a hard copy of RaTG13?

Reply
Lilian
5/18/2020 01:18:18 am

Is it not enough that the name of the sample was changed from BtCoV4991 to RaTG13? What do you need more than this demonstration of scientific fraud?

Reply
Henri
5/18/2020 01:41:18 am

This does not answer my question

charly
5/18/2020 03:34:28 am

You can see there https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN996532 that they published in 2020 a sequence from a sample collected in 2013. While this does not constitute any fraud, and their claims support it, it is unusual.

Reply
Lilian
5/18/2020 04:31:16 am

It is a fraud to change the name of a sample. In 2016 BtCoV4991, in 2020 RaTG13.

Nerd has power
5/18/2020 02:02:20 pm

This is what I was told by people I trust (hence my reliable sources):

Upon the publication of Shi's 2020 Nature paper, many people in the field wondered whether RaTG13 could infect humans directly. As I said in the article, anyone with adequate knowledge in coronaviruses would immediately think of such a possibility if they simply peek at the sequence of RBD. Some people even intended to obtain the gene of RaTG13 and try to prove or disapprove the theory of such a virus jumping directly from bats to humans. As you could imagine, many of them know Shi personally and asked her, either for an answer or for a copy of gene. The message from Shi was consistent: she does not have a physical copy of the virus and she only has the sequence info.

You know who the best source is? Zhengli Shi herself. If you got the time, you could email her directly and see what her answer would be. It would be even better if you could manage to get her here. I would love to see her comments in this section.

Reply
Henri
5/18/2020 02:49:30 pm

Do, your 'reliable source' is hearsay snd nothing else. You email Zhengli Shi and get a response before you make unfounded allegations

Henro
5/18/2020 03:34:55 pm

So, your 'reliable sources' turns out to be hearsay.

YOU are the one making the allegation that RaTG13 is a made up sequence. So, I suggest YOU email Zhengli and at least give a chance of a response. So, find her email address and get on the ball. Fair enough?

Nerd has power
5/18/2020 04:16:00 pm

You are right. I am the one making the allegation that RaTG13 is fabricated. I wrote a whole article about it. However, this "reliable sources" thing is just a small part of my reasoning. Don't forget there are other more substantial evidence in there. Calling the allegation unfounded is, in my opinion, unfounded.

BTW, is there any evidence that Shi has shared any copy of this RaTG13 virus with anybody? Many did request. Her close collaborator Peter Daszak confirmed on tweeter that Shi only obtained the sequence info. I actually invited Peter under that tweet to come over and comment, but I don't think he did. I doubt Shi would be responding any more positively. A request sent by a neutral person might be treated differently though.

Henri
5/18/2020 06:06:58 pm

In other words you want someone else to do your dirty work because you din't have the courtesy or courage to do it yourself

Nhele
5/18/2020 09:02:11 pm

How curious Henri that you make such a statement about 'dirty work' and a lack of courtesy and courage. It appears the author of this article has, in a very reasonable way, indicated that he has invited these experts to share their point of view here. Your response sounds childish and repudiates your attempts to present a serious alternative to some very in depth analysis appearing here in the commentary.

Henri
5/18/2020 10:09:00 pm

Nhele,

Nerdhaspower has made serious allegations against Zhengli Shi.NerHasPower suggested I should email her to clarify issues. My reply was that since he / she has made the allegation, he / she should email her. His / her response was that someone else should email her on his / her behalf to get a better response.

I find that a cop out and graphically said as such. Zhengli Shi's email address is available. I feel very strongly that NerdHasPower should contact her directly and invite a response.

If you think my suggestion is childish, so be it. I still feel NerdHasPower should be the email and not have the cheek to request someone else to do it on his / her behalf.

Maybe you should email Zhengli Shi on NerdHasPower's behalf. Will you do it?

Leo
5/18/2020 11:38:55 pm

I bet that RaTG13 is not functional. Otherwise someone would have already synthetized it to make a proof of existence using this method:

Rapid reconstruction of SARS-CoV-2 using a synthetic genomics platform

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2294-9

I hope that a group not involved in this story will do it soon and show how RaTG13 behave.

@Henri: I am totally at Nerd’s side. Are you aware of all people involved with this story that have been killed?

Justice Defender
5/19/2020 12:03:51 am

The author wrote down his or her analysis, hence s/he is already done with his/her job. Now that you are the one making "unfounded allegations" statement, why cannot you first prove how it is unfounded? If you can show your so called "unfounded"
evidence, I'd be happy to email her directly once you provide her email(I cannot find it.). This is absolutely NO big deal! Further, are you sure that she will come to comment on this site in spite of the CCP's strict censorship? Hasn't Wang YanYi wechated everyone i the lab not to discuss about the virus? If I email her without any response, how will my time be compensated just because you are barking around here?

ll11ll11
5/19/2020 10:19:53 am

I wouldn't argue with this "henri", he apparently just a stupid troll, just ignore him.

Lilian
5/18/2020 01:21:29 am

Synergistic China–US Ecological Research is Essential for Global Emerging Infectious Disease Preparedness

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-020-01471-2

EcoHealth volume 17, pages160–173(2020)

Do you need more evidence?

Reply
Lilian
5/18/2020 01:24:32 am

Here you are:

How Scientists Could Stop the Next Pandemic Before It Starts

On a cold morning in February 2018, a group of 30 microbiologists, zoologists and public-health experts from around the world met at the headquarters of the World Health Organization in Geneva.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/magazine/pandemic-vaccine.html

Disease X = SARS-CoV-2

Reply
charly
5/18/2020 03:44:53 am

Some red flags triggered during my reading:
- 'When comparing sequences, one can compare either gene sequences or protein sequences. For viruses, however, this makes almost no difference as the whole genome of a virus is practically translated into proteins'
I dont agree, mutations occur at the nucleotide level, and many mutations will not translate into a different amino acid when isinde a gene (aka silent mutations). However, such mutations must be accounted for when you try to compare the genetic distance between two individuals.
So the whole amino acid interpretation is biased in my opinion.

- 'This is extremely rare because natural evolution typically takes place when changes (mutations) occur randomly across the whole genome. You would then expect the rate of mutation being more or less the same for all parts of the genome. '
I dont agree. A species will likely accumulate mutations not killing itself. So there are genes which will accumulate very few mutations because most of them would be deadly for the virus. In other genes however, they may only alter the host the virus can infect, which is no issue for the survival of the species.

- 'In evolution, recombination events happen much less frequently than random mutations.'
I don't have the frequencies in mind. But I know for sure recombination still occur during each meiosis in drosophilia, which lead morgan to push genetics forward. Also, it seems recombination is known to occur in coronavirus since a few years now, with the implications on human health.
Also, some recombination mechanism has been more or less conserved during evolution, so this is probably non negligible. On the other hand, multiple mechanisms to correct random single point mutations exists across various species.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/18/2020 03:27:46 pm

Thank you for the comments. I was just about to call the day for blogging and move on to other things. Your red flags gave me a reason to linger here a bit longer. I will address each of the points you raised.

First, would the sequence comparison based on amino acid sequences be appropriate or biased? Honestly, a big concern that I had was whether or not they have manipulated the sequence of the Wuhan coronavirus when “creating” it. If a person is making a bioweapon by basing on a template, he/she wouldn't dare to change the amino acid sequence much because it would more likely affect the function. In contrast, he/she has more room to play with nucleotide sequences. As you pointed out, there could be silent mutations, right? The benefit there is clear – the template and the product would look further apart. Out of this fear, I felt that it is safer to compare amino acid sequences.

Importantly, doing the comparison using AA sequences does not mean that we completely ignore silent mutations in nucleotide sequences. In fact, if you read the newer article “RaTG13 is fake”, you will see that I did a thorough analysis on the synonymous (silent) and non-synonymous mutations for the spike gene. That analysis actually indicated further, and very firmly, that RaTG13 was fabricated.

Second, certain genes may accumulate more mutations than others. You are correct on this. In fact, I mentioned the same thing in my article:

“Although the spike proteins of different coronaviruses are more likely to differ, greater discrepancy in S1 may only be expected if two viruses have been long separated during evolution and have adapted, through random mutation, to their respective hosts for a long, long time.”

I’m not hiding this fact. Can random mutations convert an average bat RBD to an ACE2-binding, SARS-CoV-2-like RBD? It actually can! That would have to come from convergent evolution. The problem is that convergent evolution takes enormous amount of mutations and therefore a long, long, long time. Well, could such a convergent evolution leave the E protein intact (remember E is 100% identical between ZC45 and early samples of SARS-CoV-2)? I say – NO WAY. Not to mention all the other proteins also remain highly identical between ZC45/ZXC21 and SARS-CoV-2. In fact, I will challenge you to find an example where convergent evolution (not recombination) has been shown to be responsible for 69% identity in one protein and 95-100% identity in other proteins.

Finally, how often does coronaviruses see recombination? Pretty often. I did not state that in the article, but I did say so multiple times in the comments. However, just because recombination could happen in coronaviruses does not mean any pattern of the genome can be achieved through natural evolution. There have been some great discussions here, which clearly dismissed the possibility of Furin-cleavage site being acquired through recombination. I also listed the reason why the RBD region (more precisely the RBM, receptor-binding motif) of SARS-CoV-2 is next to impossible to be obtained through such a precise recombination. Importantly, both of these two recombination events have to occur to get to SARS-CoV-2. I did the best I can to show that this is not possible, but I certainly did not expect to convince everybody.

Also, drosophilia may not be the best comparison here. If ZC45 is only recombing with itself, it can never get to SARS-CoV-2. What it would take is for ZC45 and another beta coronavirus (viruses too distant from ZC45 most likely would not work because recombination needs high sequence identity) to be in the same cell of the same bat (it’s horrible, but this bat should not die right away, otherwise the recombined virus don’t get to be passed around). This other beta coronavirus has to somehow steal all the good tricks from SARS RBD and yet drop a bunch of non-essential elements (it actually would be less suspicious if the RBD here simply resembles SARS RBD). And then, the recombination has to occur in a very specific manner – just the RBD being swapped between ZC45 and this other SARS-resembling/non-identical coronavirus. I mean, this last step alone is just so so so unlikely to happen. The most common form of recombination in coronaviruses is template switching, which is not going to give you what is needed here. Alright, putting all these requirements together, how likely is it going to happen in nature? When you get a number for it, don’t forget to multiply it with the probability of recombination to acquire Furin-cleavage site too.

Alright, I think this would be the last time I try to re-explain why recombination is impossible here – at least in my eyes.

Reply
John
5/19/2020 07:04:06 pm

People win the lottery sometime too, Covid likely a gain of function experiment but not impossible that is came from wet market. On the other hand, how many doctors get reprimanded for using WeChat for simply noticing a SARs like infection in the hospital and sharing it with other Docs in Wuhan. No real reason to "kill the messenger" over a natural spillover event unless they are covering something up.

Nerd has power
5/23/2020 02:08:11 pm

Yes, you are right in that they can always argue that, even if the chance is one out of one million years, it is still a possibility. That's the beauty of recombination.

But, then again, what is the need to publish a fake RaTG13 virus and fabricate its sequence?

As you said, the weirdest thing is actually not about scientific evidence. It is how the CCP government censored discussions on the topic, strictly screened scientific manuscripts looking into the origin of the virus, and reacted furiously to foreign requests of investigating the Wuhan institute of virology. Shouldn't the CCP government be the most interested in finding out where it came from and how the pandemic initiated?

Shannon Entropy
5/20/2020 07:44:36 pm

I tried to do my own mathematical analysis of the Wuhan virus genome compared to the other known beta corona viruses. I was able to download all the genome data from www.viprbrc.org.
Since I am not a biologist, the only biological information I am using is the genetic code. I excluded all other 2020 data.

The only extremal property of the Wuhan virus (and of RaTG13) among all these corona viruses which I was able to find was the codon usage percentages for certain codons (I used the ORF1ab-polyprotein). This is implicitly also oberved, in the paper https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.15.950568v3.full and probably best explained by the CpG Deficiency
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/advance-article/doi/10.1093/molbev/msaa094/5819559

I am interested in the genome of RmyN02 to repeat the analysis done by Nerd has Power. This genome is not in the Genbank as it seems and only available via https://www.gisaid.org/
as EPI_ISL_412977.

But this is secret "science" since gisaid says when I like to access the data:

"You may not distribute GISAID data outside the GISAID community, such as by releasing genetic sequences obtained in GISAID in any publication, transferring the data to colleagues that are not registered users, or offering GISAID data on a server accessible by others who are not duly registered with GISAID".

Could someone with access please make the sequence somehow available? This should be in the public interest since it is said that it proves the natural origin of the Wuhan virus.

Reply
Verner Von Rovan
5/21/2020 06:42:22 am

RmYN02 actually had two deletions. one at T678 and the other at S686. the nt sequence appears to possess multiple short indels scattered across the S1-S2 junction when compared against ZC45. a hallmark of an low-quality sequence being used for assembly and resuled in a misplaced contig at S1-S2.
the deletion of S686 will also deactivate S1-S2 junction cleavage-- either an R!S, R!N or R!G is needed at mimimum for TMPRSS2/Cathepsin L/Trypsin recognition and proper cleavage of the S1-S2 junction during entry.There is no furin site at the S1-S2 location--which prevents cleavage of S1-S2 during exit.
the result is a S protein that can't be cleaved. and therefore a deactivated virus that will not be able to infect anything In-Vivo. RmYN02 is either very poorly curated, or is straight up fabricated.
either way, RmYN02 is not an example of "insertions" happening in lineage B in the wild, nor is it an example of a furin site.

The real problem is the completely normal 6.22:1 dS/dN on RaTG13/CoV2 orf1ab and the completely impossible 44:1 dS/dN on the S2. nomatter which kind of model you propose the maximum dS/dN possible in the natural origin model is <9:1. still leave a nearly impossible 1 in 899 chance for natural mutations to cause a dS/dN like this.
The S2 still make it crystal clear that either RaTG13 was fake, or SARS-CoV-2 was engineered out of it.

Reply
Henri
5/21/2020 09:41:29 pm

If what you say is correct, then why not send a letter to the Editor of Cell and see if you get a response? They should pass you letter on to the authors and allow them to reply followed by publication of both letters at the same time.

yano
5/22/2020 07:54:46 am

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262v1.full.pdf

" In a side-by-side comparison of evolutionary dynamics between the 2019/2020 SARSCoV-2 and the 2003 SARS-CoV, we were surprised to find that SARS-CoV-2 resembles SARSCoV in the late phase of the 2003 epidemic after SARS-CoV had developed several
advantageous adaptations for human transmission."

More scientist are starting to see the evidence.

Maybe someone could comment on this interesting issue of a stable S protein from the beginning.

A pre-adapted to human transmission virus implies one of two things. It was manipulated in the lab to do this. Or it circulated in humans for months/years without getting anyone sick.

The former seems more possible

Reply
Andrew M
5/22/2020 11:26:06 am

You appear to be reading something in this article which isn't in it. Search this discussion thread for "Bill Gallagher". Read that. Go to his site and read the rest of his comments. There is nothing about the S protein which implies a man-made creation.

Reply
yano
5/22/2020 12:14:41 pm

I understand I am reading something into this article. This is why I am asking for input.

Is this not suspicious that the S protein was already tailor made to infect humans? The SARS CoV-1 came from animals and the S mutated significantly over time to better "FIT" humans.

SARS-CoV-2 was "FIT" for humans from the beginning. This seem very suspicious.

What are possible explanations for this? 1) It was created this way by humans in the lab, or 2) it was mutating inside humans getting no one sick for months or years?

I'm suggesting this is another piece of information that points to a lab created virus.

Tony
5/23/2020 10:25:28 am

You mean Bill Gallaher(?):
http://virological.org/t/tackling-rumors-of-a-suspicious-origin-of-ncov2019/384

Indeed that is a very good and different view. It's the first time I've read that the construction of the insert is actually not in frame. If you take a closer look at the nucleotide sequences, you wonder why somebody should make it so complicated.
Of course you can, but that's extremely weird.
Also the palindrome sequence in connection with a copy-choice_recombination is impressive. Overall, the analysis just confirms that RaTG13 is simply not the ancestor of CoV2.

Nerd has power
5/23/2020 02:35:49 pm

Thank you, Yano, for bringing up this preprint article again (someone did it in an earlier comment too). It is THE best work so far, in my opinion. Very powerful analysis. The pattern is not just seen in the S protein. It's the overall feature of adaptation: SARS-CoV-2 is well adapted to humans from the very beginning, while SARS clearly worked diligently in the earlier stages to gradually settle down in the human population. In other words, SARS did look like a virus jumping from an intermediate host to humans. SARS-CoV-2 did not.

To other commenters here, yes, comparing what is laid out here with what Professor Bill Gallaher has been saying must be very interesting. I don't think anything is not in frame for the furin-cleavage site, but it's been too long since I read his post and I forgot his actual argument. I tried to leave a comment under his blog, but somehow wasn't able to. Anyways, I'm glad people are looking both ways. It is the best way to stay unbiased.

Reply
Med
5/22/2020 11:29:53 am

Hi,
The epoch times documentary said there are 3 gp 120 hiv and 1 hiv gag insertions in the sars-cov-2.
The only other known viruses to have a similar sequence is the:
- Hiv virus
- a bat coronavirus that zenghli shi found.
Isn't this bat coronavirus ^ the RaTG13 ?
Thanks.

Reply
Andrew M
5/22/2020 12:33:34 pm

The Epoch Times is Falun Gong propaganda. They have less interest in science and more in discrediting the CCP. Their motives may well be good ones - I make no comment on that. But the HIV insertion story is nonsense - it has been thoroughly debunked and is not worth pursuing. It detracts from Nerd's theory, which is at least worth parsing,

Reply
Shakti
5/22/2020 12:52:21 pm

You have presented a lot of very interesting information here but I don't understand one thing - why is everyone referring to Dr. Shi Zhengli as Dr. Zhengli Shi? I'm pretty sure that Shi is her first name.

Reply
mz1-2-3-4
5/22/2020 03:38:50 pm

You are simply clueless in this very topic (the name). Her name: Last = Shi; First = Zhengli. In Chinese: 石正丽

Reply
Shakti
5/22/2020 03:51:46 pm

My sincere apologies for the mistake. I only read articles in my native language, English, where she is always referred to as Dr. Shi Zhengli - and in English, the name that comes first is the first name.
Example: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/

Keith link
5/22/2020 01:46:09 pm

I believe you will find this blog review of your paper useful

https://www.randombio.com/ratg13.html

Reply
Andrew2
5/22/2020 02:44:37 pm

I think This is HIV insertion paper...Please discuss it after reading not before reading!
https://osf.io/d9e5g/

Reply
Andrew M
5/22/2020 03:41:31 pm

I can't say I understand this paper - particularly when I got to the part about the golden ratio numbers in DNA. The 2 authors really do not check out very well. Montagnier, true is a Nobel prize winner who made excellent discoveries in the past but is now an 87 year old embracing some quack homeopathy "science" theory and the other guy - well - read his Twitter.

I don't think this should really be taken as support for Nerd's theory, as it detracts rather than adds to the plausibility.

Reply
Annette
5/23/2020 01:13:51 am

I found Montagnier paper very informative and robust. My understanding is he was able to detect electromagnetic signals at high dilutions and is quoted as saying "High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.” A Homeopathy uses high dilutions the proof that remedies have an effect when prescribed professionally should not be debunked but further understood. It is a poor scientists who closes his mind to research as it will limit his/her ability to see things outside of the expected.

Regarding the discussion, does anyone have information to say if a lab created synthetic virus in plant/medicine will challenge the immune system in the same way as the natural virus and leave a person with long term immunity or will they become chronic with an auto immune disease?

Andrew2
5/22/2020 04:15:54 pm

I am sure there is something there as original sars was also had similarity with HIV...also some of the signs of this disease are similar to aids but no one compare those! I am especially worried for long term chronic form of disease with some kind of immunodeficiency for life ..also a paper shows the same genetic risk factor for HIV, could influence your resistance to covid, please see PMID= 23361009 ...I really hope I am wrong!

this is also jean Claude Perez twitter...May be he engaged more in real discussion...he is a little younger!

https://mobile.twitter.com/jcperezcodexlang=en

Reply
Andrew M
5/22/2020 04:39:30 pm

There isn't "similarity" - they are completely different viruses. They have different proteins doing different things (with some overlap, admittedly). This paper seems to find repeated short sequences, after searching through all HIV genomes available (there are quite a few!). Before we even get to considering why viruses and their proteins might have common short sequences for natural reasons, where is the statistical analysis to demonstrate this is anything other than random?

Can't get your Perez link to work, but try mine:
https://twitter.com/JCPEREZCODEX?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

"Golden ratio"! looks like a nutcase (he's 72).

Reply
Andrew2
5/22/2020 04:52:51 pm

I know but those sequences are unique to this virus...don't forget francis Boyle that for many years claim all SARS are man made!

Andrew2
5/22/2020 04:48:48 pm

oops...that was older paper...The pmid=32348495. In that paper please check ref10.

Reply
Andrew2
5/22/2020 07:36:32 pm

Ref8

Reply
Greg
5/22/2020 11:58:41 pm

Hello, I found your blog post very interesting but I have one question regarding the dn/ds ratio that you use as evidence to show that either ratg13 or sars-cov-2 is not natural. First, isn't it a more parsimonious explanation that the skewed dn/ds ratio in certain portions of the S protein gene is due to the fact that cov-2 contains sequences from the pangolin derived coronavirus, specifically in the RBD region of the S protein gene and therefore in those regions, the dn/ds ratio would be different compared to the rest of the genome? Shouldn't one compare the dn/ds ratio in the RBD region of cov-2 to the RBD region of the pangolin derived virus? Also, even if they are different, a skeptic could say so what. Although this may not occur often, it could occur just due to random chance. Is there any way to test whether the differences are statistically significant using a Chi square test or something like that?

Reply
Nerd has power
5/23/2020 02:19:28 pm

Thanks for the comment. The RBD is in S1, not S2. So the comparison of dn/ds for S2 is not affected by a possible RBD-specific recombination.

Reply
Greg
5/24/2020 06:51:50 pm

Thanks for your response. But what about the fact that positive or negative selection can also skew the dn/ds ratio? Couldn't a skeptic just say that the S2 region underwent strong positive selection, accounting for a high dn/ds ratio, while the rest of the genome is under negative or purifying selection which produces a low dn/ds ratio? This alternative explanation could account for the genetic peculiarities of Cov-2, but it seems like it would raise more questions, specifically it seems like cov-2 is well adapted to humans, its genetic polymorphism resembling the original SARS virus late into the epidemic after human adaptation. The question then becomes in what host this adaptation (positive and negative selection) occurred. It wasn't pangolins and it wasn't bats since the binding affinity of the S protein to human ACE-2 receptors is greater than to the bat/pangolin ACE-2 receptor. There's also no evidence of early adaptation of Cov-2 to a human population. Isn't the most likely explanation that Cov-2 adapted to human cell culture lines?

John F Signus
5/25/2020 10:40:53 am

Even the pangolin strain had 8 sense mutations on the S2. The virus itself is about 10% different and the mutations on the S2 appears to have been saturated. However, with the ZC45/ZXC21 bearing 5 dN at a level of similarity being ~97% and pangolin/CoV2 bearing 8dN at a level of similarity being ~90%, the ~96% similar RaTG13/CoV2 can never have just 2dN. The expected dN should be between 5 and 8– and the pangolin strain tells that the dN on RaTG13/CoV2 is far from saturated. The 44-to-1 ratio should never happen at all.

Further examination revealed all the original samples of the pangolin-CoV were heavily contaminated.
Using the NCBI GenBank Trace tool (called Krona, Accessed via the “analysis” tool of the SRA dataset), The pangolin-09 on Nature is 40% human, Lung07 is 3% human, Lung08 is 2% human (7% hominid RNA), Lung09 is 65% human and Lung11 is 1% human. These corresponds to up to 1.4mg out of an 100mg sample sent to sequencing in Lung11(which have only 2Kb reads) , 4.2mg out of 100mg in Lung08, 5.2mg from the 100mg Lung07, up to 86% of Lung09 and up to 44.9% of the Nature article sample (pangolin-09 being the only sample with mapped reads for “Sarbecovirus” and “WuHan seafood pneumonia virus” That were “identified as SARS-COV-2 related” by their methods section).
The samples were supposed to be lung tissue. As we know, Lung tissue does not directly contact Any outside surfaces within the animal since the lung is located deep inside the body cavity. You may get bacteria there but Human RNA can only enter via one route: direct contact and contamination of the sample after the sample have been taken from the original animal/organ/tissue.
The Human RNA fraction is very high when comparing the fraction of reads from human against the fraction of reads from pangolin. Up to a significant fraction of the total weight of the sample. Even things like improper handling of the samples without globes won’t give such a high fraction.
The only logical explanation? The Samples were artificially spiked with material from virus cultures in human-derived cells. The contamination fraction in Lung07, Lung08 and Lung11 were in fact consistent with someone putting a swab or a pipette tip worth of Human cell culture material into the sample before sequencing was conducted.
We knew that in order to design a very high binding affinity RBD, extensive cell passage must first happen in order to artificially select for an RBD that best binds to human cells. The RBD design would have taken during September to November. The same timeframe where the “sequencing” of the samples allegedly happened. (During the initial sequencing of the samples, they did not assemble a genome and have never produced a S or an RBD. That part may not even be from their datasets as they claimed to obtain it using “specific PCR assays” of which the data was never available to anyone. Even the PLOS Pathogens article recovered a very poor coverage on the Spike, leaving 5 gaps in their published Spike gene.)
The most logical reason for the alleged “detection” of a similar S RBD will simply be the result of contamination from one of the experiments being done in the labs. The Lung09 data imply a significant mix-up of sample as it’s mostly human.
The coverage on the Spike in both the PLOS and the Nature article were very poor—Less than 144 reads out of a total of more than one hundred million reads from all 4 samples. Statistically insignificant.
judging by the high level of contamination in the samples, it may have came from a researcher that have previously handled virus cultures before, or from contaminated instrumentation that were previously used for the analysis of the Gain-Of-Function project on the RBD. RNA sequencing is a very sensitive technique, and The Spike gene reads was simply too sparse to have been significant from contamination in any way.
In addition, the Nature sample was sequenced well after the First outbreak of SARS-COV-2. Their sample, which is 44.9% human, is best explained by deliberate mixing of Human cell-derived virus culture material Into the sample (note: the Nature article claimed to use VERO E6, but they are not human cells and should not leave behind a definitive Human (homo Sapiens) DNA signature which accounts for 26% of total human+ pangolin reads.)
This may actually be the proof of GOF being conducted there— either playing with an RBD extracted from these samples during their Pathogens gathering and testing project (the RBD nucleotides have a very high TMRCA of >19.8 years Ruling out a recent recombination, High RBD infectivity to hACE2 rule out early recombination (should have triggered an outbreak) but is consistent with synthetic constructs where large Amount of dS Being introduced either via the Backtranslation process from the AA sequence, or for optimizing the construct during the cDNA design and s

John F Signus
5/25/2020 10:42:33 am


This may actually be the proof of GOF being conducted there— either playing with an RBD extracted from these samples during their Pathogens gathering and testing project (the RBD nucleotides have a very high TMRCA of >19.8 years Ruling out a recent recombination, High RBD infectivity to hACE2 rule out early recombination (should have triggered an outbreak) but is consistent with synthetic constructs where large Amount of dS Being introduced either via the Backtranslation process from the AA sequence, or for optimizing the construct during the cDNA design and synthesis process.), Splicing in a PRRA which neither the bat nor the pangolin had, Which ended up with a leak of the engineered virus;
Or it was the result of a virus culture bearing the RBD being inadvertently mixed into the samples from a GOF experiment conducted in the same lab (all the sequencing were conducted in Chinese military labs, from the Nature article.), resulting in a misread of the RBD. Which is supported by the fact that all samples positive of Coronavirus reads showed an unacceptably high level of contamination by human-derived material.

John F Signus
5/25/2020 04:13:59 pm

The tens of million refers to all sequencing reads.

Greg
5/25/2020 10:22:38 pm

John F Signus, that’s quite an explosive claim. You are saying that the pangolin lung tissue has up to 40 percent human DNA? It would be easy to test whether this came from a cell culture or whether it was a contaminant, if it was a contaminant it should’ve been from human rna from skin epithelial cells, ie basal cells in the skin or something like that. If it’s a cell culture, there should be a particular rna that’s more likely to be expressed in human cell lines

John F. Sugnus
5/26/2020 08:52:08 am

Exact RNA type may not be known or important--there are hundreds of different cell culture lines, many of hich were used to culture viruses within. also, we do not know how the samples were contaminated, other than the fact that it can only happen after the sample have been taken and that it formed significant mass fractions in all samples with reads positive for the "pangolin coronavirus". with samples that tested negative showing no such contamination.
Three routes are possible--two of which may not leave a specific RNA signature other than that it was human RNA.
First route: deliberate "spiking" of the samples with GOF research material in order to "prove" the existence of a "natural" origin of the RBD. This is likely how the Nature sample gets contaminated during sequencing.
Second route: by inadvertant mixing of GOF research material from a researcher, or from within the lab. If this is the case, the material will be mixed with Human Epithelial cells from the hands of the researchers who have previously handled GOF material. the RNA signature may be washed out, or even become useless.
Third route: Contamination of the sequencing instruments by GOF research material sequenced prior to the sequencing of the sample. If this is the case, contamination will be from multiple cell lines and the RNA signature will too be messed up.
However, we DO know that all such samples with positive mapped reads were contaminated, and the negative samples were not. and we also know that lung tissue does not make contact with human skin or tissue materials until they were sampled, as the lungs, especially the inside of the lungs, were located deep inside the chest cavity and the mechanisms in a living animal excludes solid and RND-bearing contaminants very efficiently.
Graphical summary and proof pulled from the GenBank SRA database:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1020E8X4iQF5-XF98Tnd0GS5epaqQ4yDW/view?usp=sharing

John F. Signus
5/26/2020 08:57:11 am

Lung09 is nearly 65% hominid DNA in total-- and judging by mass of the sample (Human DNA/pangolin DNA), the actual mass fraction directly attributed to humans is more than 69% the total weight of the sample--and they do say that some of the S reads were mapped there......Very likely thatthe RBD was one of the previous GOF experimental cultures being mixed up with the actual sample.

Nerd has power
5/26/2020 09:14:13 pm

That is fantastic, John. Thank you for sharing it with us. Have you seen this preprint article?

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.07.077016v1

He is saying pretty much the same things. Did you analyzed pangolin viruses from all three reports (ref 1-3 in that preprint) or a subset of them? Either way, this is SOLID proof!

John F. Signus
5/27/2020 05:46:54 am

On the Dataset SRR10168374, or Lung12. This dataset was claimed by the third article to contain Coronavirus-related reads. however Genomic analysis on the NCBI database failed to identify any.
It contained 26% reads from "Catarrhini"--the order which apes and humans belong to. It imply a large mass-fraction of Primate-derived material in the sample. However, this does not solidly home to the Human genome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrhini
In order to plot the fraction of Human DNA within that contamination, we chose to analyze the concentration of MtDNA from the two species of interest: The Human MtDNA reference genome NC_012920.1 and The pangolin MtDNA reference genome NC_026781.1. This represent only a very small fraction of the transcriptome of both species, but the MtDNA concentration serves a good proxy of how much of each and every part of a sample was composed of when the NCBI analysis tool did not give a detailed enough classification.
BLAST analysis on the Mitochondrial DNA revealed 229 150bp reads from the Human mitochondrial genome and 10217 150bp reads from the pangolin Mitochondrial genome. which gives a total fraction of human-derived sample mass at a minimum of 2.19% out of all Human+pangolin derived material (bulk mass of the sample). This MtDNA fraction is well supported by the 26%"Catarrhini" reads indicating at least 20% of the read "Catarrhini" reads were from human. (the Human MtDNA tends to form a smaller subset of the total cell transcriptome when compared to other animals for these samples. Likely due to cell culture conditions reducing the total mitochondria content of cultured cells when compared against animal cells In Vivo. The other samples with Definitive Homo Sapiens readings appears to underrepresent Human MtDNA. (though readings of the Human MtDNA were found at a significant number in all the other contaminated samples.) the other 4 SRR databases with BLAST results for Coronaviruses, as claimed by that article, were the Lung07(SRR10168378), Lung08(SRR10168377), Lung09(SRR10168376) and Lung11(SRR10168375). which were all contaminated by Human DNA and explained in detail by my last comment.
There is another dataset, deposited at 15-Feb-2020, was an abridged dataset containing only virus reads: "SRX7732094: RNA-Seq of GD Pangolin coronavirus: Pangolin 2". However, examining the only other Complete SRR dataset under the same name in NCBI SRA, revealed no traces of Nidovirales nor Coronaviruses in general.
Metadata of that dataset says: "Design: This dataset contains coronavirus-like sequence reads, based on BLAST search." Indicating it's likely a pooled-up dataset of the other "coronavirus-related sequences" pulled from "published databases and some in-house metagenomic datasets" mentioned by the Nature article.

The other SRR experiments, experiments with a more complete Sequencing dataset, under the same BioProject, are all datasets for the GX-Pangolin-CoVs which lacked the RBD.
Tracing back to the Biosample revealed no source tissue/organ recorded, unlike the GX samples which specified lung, blood, intestines or cell culture material(the P2V dataset).
Interestingly, this dataset contained definitive Reads from SARS-CoV-2 sequences that are distinct from the "Pangolin Coronavirus" they talked about earlier. (they may be Ultra-conserved sequences, but is not certain.) and the sequencing date was After the Outbreak have begun. This definitive reads fraction of Sarbecoviruses and "WuHan Seafood Market Pneumonia Virus", which were both at 2~3Kb in total, indicate that this dataset is likely the "Blast search results" dataset mentioned by the Nature article, which likely included the "pangolin 9" dataset that had the same level of SARS-CoV-2 and "Bat SARS-like Coronavirus" contamination in their analysis result.
Further examination of the reads across all 5 datasets there revealed identical "Pangolin Coronavirus" sequences with the earlier data reads, with only 2 SNP positions being different for 5 records at highly redundant positions in Lung08, likely due to sequencing error in the Lung08 dataset. This indicate that all the different raw sequence datasets contained only one strain/sequence of GD-Pangolin-CoV, with the only SNPs across all the datasets being 3 locations across 7 reads. easily attributed to RNA sequencing/amplification error.
The databases (the other database was of the Nature sample, one likely duplicated into the abridged one at SRX7732094 as an "in-house metagenomic dataset") with definitive reads mapped to SARS-CoV-2/WuHan Seafood Marked Pneumonia Virus and Bat SARS-Like coronaviruses were all sequenced well after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak--most likely source was contamination by COVID-19 test material from the same lab as the methods section in the Nature article with the unabridged dataset claimed to have "serological test" capability. and the only unabridged sample with the same two phylogenetic analysis hits, the Nature article "pangolin 9", was 1

Nerd has power
5/27/2020 06:17:52 am

Thank you so much, John. I have to read it a few more times to better understand it as I'm no expert in such research. But from what I can understand so far, it's already rock solid. Amazing work!

Nerd has power
5/27/2020 06:22:17 am

Judging from the quality of the figure, I can see a publication coming out of this, which would be amazing. Thanks again for revealing this truth! I look forward to the published article!

John F. Signus
5/27/2020 06:34:18 am

17% human by sequence and 26.1% human by total sample mass--Indicating a heavy contamination by SARS-CoV-2 containing COVID-19 test material. The strange dataset was heavily redacted and contained no other non-coronavirus-related reads making analysis of contamination difficult. However, the sequencing date was after the Outbreak and are very close to the Nature article sequencing date, meaning that it was likely a workbench version of the "pooled reads" from the method section of the early Nature article, which have sequenced a contaminated sample that returned the same two signals with a total mass fraction being 26.1% human, so far remaining the only unabridged dataset that had these two hits.
Deep analysis of sequence sizes revealed that the contaminating sequences we seen in this dataset match in numbers with the Nature sample--indicative of an abridged preprint version of the "pooled dataset" in the Nature article.
It also appeared to be far more incomplete and evenly fragmented when compared to the other non-abridged datasets. Coverage analysis also revealed a lack of coverage of the RBM in this paticular dataset.
As the methods section explictly says that they searched public databases and "some in-house metagenomic datasets" for matches toward SARS-CoV-2, it appeared that SARS-CoV-2-related reads of the other contaminated sample was included here as well.
In addition, both datasets with identified SARS-CoV-2-related contamination were sequenced well after the outbreak and happens in a time where the labs have already been processing COVID-19 patient genomes--therefore the existence of such sequence in the abridged SRX7732094 dataset have the same origin as the "pangolin 9" genome sequenced at a very close date with the Nature article on the exact same set of samples--Contamination from COVID-19 testing ongoing in the lab.
Therefore, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 related sequences ("related", with only 11 identical reads that may also be from highly conserved areas, typical of an in-lab contamination since this is after COVID-19) in this Post-COVID-19 Dataset is an solid indication that even that dataset was contaminated--and they used the same contaminated sample-- Not just by a in-house Gain-Of-Function experiment, but also by SARS-CoV-2 itself currently being tested in the lab (from clinical samples being tested or sequenced before using the same instrumentation. This is during the time where all major Chinese labs have already begin testing, sequencing and processing COVID-19 clinical samples. also a proof that lab contamination of samples are very commonplace).

Rubber Ducky
5/23/2020 04:14:21 am

Synonymous mutations and the molecular evolution of SARS-Cov-2 origins https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.20.052019

"We perform a detailed analysis of the synonymous divergence, which is less likely to be affected by selection than amino acid divergence, between human SARS-CoV-2 and related strains. We show that the synonymous divergence between the bat derived viruses and SARS-CoV-2 is larger than between GD410721 and SARS-CoV-2 in the RBD, providing strong additional support for the recombination hypothesis. However, the synonymous divergence between pangolin strain and SARS-CoV-2 is also relatively high, which is not consistent with a recent recombination between them, instead it suggests a recombination into RaTG13."

Reply
Johnny M
5/23/2020 05:33:02 pm

1. CoVID-19 symptoms relates to Nipah Virus - it has massive cell-to-cell fusion and primarily relates to endothelial cells.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21054904/

2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3807285/ 181-182

3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9484801/

4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750020302924

Reply
yano
5/25/2020 02:27:48 pm

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199

The devastating impact of the COVID19 pandemic caused by SARS coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV2) has raised important questions on the origins of this virus, the mechanisms of any zoonotic transfer from exotic animals to humans, whether companion animals or those used for commercial purposes can act as reservoirs for infection, and the reasons for the large variations in susceptibilities across animal species. Traditional lab-based methods will ultimately answer many of these questions but take considerable time. In silico modeling methods provide the opportunity to rapidly generate information on newly emerged pathogens to aid countermeasure development and also to predict potential future behaviors. We used a structural homology modeling approach to characterize the SARSCoV2 spike protein and predict its binding strength to the human ACE2 receptor. We then explored the possible transmission path by which SARSCoV2 might have crossed to humans by constructing models of ACE2 receptors of relevant species, and calculating the binding energy of SARSCoV2 spike protein to each. Notably, SARSCoV2 spike protein had the highest overall binding energy for human ACE2, greater than all the other tested species including bat, the postulated source of the virus. This indicates that SARSCoV2 is a highly adapted human pathogen. Of the species studied, the next highest binding affinity after human was pangolin, which is most likely explained by a process of convergent evolution. Binding of SARSCoV2 for dog and cat ACE2 was similar to affinity for bat ACE2, all being lower than for human ACE2, and is consistent with only occasional observations of infections of these domestic animals.


Overall, the data indicates that SARSCoV2 is uniquely adapted to infect humans, raising questions as to whether it arose in nature by a rare chance event or whether its origins lie elsewhere.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
5/25/2020 04:52:02 pm

Australian scholars reveal that CCP virus is carefully lab engineered and optimized to infect human:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1264876787881791488

Reply
Alesh Aras
5/25/2020 05:22:34 pm

How will the below change your conclusions?

1. Can you do a similar cumulative syn, nonsyn, and indels analysis between pangolin and ZC45 (MG772933) and ZXC21 (MG772934) coroviruses?
2. How will the recent suggestion (https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/fvl-2020-0066) that most of the mutations between RaTG13 and SARS CoV2 are due to base editing by APOBEC proteins, not the more typical copying errors, affect your mutation rate analysis?

Reply
Mr. Tuesday
5/25/2020 10:23:37 pm

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.15.950568v1.full

SARS-CoV-2 was first identified in human, but its codon usage was very different from other four types of Betacoronavirus that infecting human (Supplementary Figure S5A). In fact, the codon usage at both the amino acid level and synonymous level denoted that the orf1ab gene in SARS-CoV-2 had closest relationship to bat-origin SARSr-CoV, especially RaTG13. The CoVZX45 and CoVZXC21 had similar amino acid usage but relatively different synonymous codon usage to SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 3). This result in orf1ab was in accordance with the full-genome phylogenetic analysis (Supplementary Figure S7), showing a close relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 by the overall backbone of the genome.

The S protein are responsible for receptor binding which is important for viral entry. The genetic variability is extreme in spike gene26, and this highly mutable gene may possess valuable information in recent evolution history. In our results, the synonymous codon usage of SARS-CoV-2 in spike gene was distinct from those of RaTG13 and other phylogenetic relatives (Figure 3A), which was not observed in orf1ab or nucleocapsid gene. Although the codon usage in spike of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 were similar at amino acid level, the difference at synonymous codon usage level indicated that they are unlikely to share a recent common ancestor. It is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 might have undergone different evolution pathways for a certain period of time. The amino acid usage of SARS-CoV-2 in membrane was clustered with bat SARSr-CoV, however the synonymous codon usage of SARS-CoV-2 was still distinct to these bat coronaviruses. Our result supported different evolutionary background or currently unknown host adaption history in SARS-CoV-2. The codon usage of SARS-CoV-2 in nucleocapsid gene was similar to bat SARSr-CoV both at amino acid level and synonymous level, suggesting that there was no highly significant mutation happened in this gene.

Reply
John F Signus
5/26/2020 08:38:29 am

Did you just say "unique synomynous codon usage" on the S protein? it would be exactly what is expected for a synthetically constructed protein being back-translated to a nucleotide sequence, with a bunch of synomynous mutations thrown in to make it more "distinct" from known nucleotide libraries. they failed to account for the codon usage, though.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/26/2020 09:27:43 pm

I know it's hard for any author in a submitted manuscript to call it out, but really our claim here works perfectly in interpreting their finding that "SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 might have undergone different evolution pathways". It is this way because at least one of them is not natural. I will have to study their paper more, but can't help comment on it first.

Reply
Mother Jones
5/26/2020 10:40:00 am

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12985-017-0766-9

In 2017 Xing-Yi Ge and Zheng-Li Shi report a RRAR furin polybasic cleavage site in a rat coronavirus. In Feb 2020 Xing-Yi Ge would report the RRAR in SARS-CoV-2. Also in Feb 2020, Xing-Yi Ge and Zheng-Li Shi would report on RaTG13. What a coincidence.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/26/2020 09:47:03 pm

Thanks for sharing. Yuri first found out about this and posted it on Twitter. It's an alpha coronavirus that is far away from SARS-CoV-2 or beta coronavirus in general in terms of sequence identity. Therefore, RRAR in SARS-CoV-2 could not be acquired through recombination.between a precursor beta coronavirus and this alpha Coronavirus.

On the other hand, Zhengli Shi apparently knew, at least since 2017, that a RRAR sequence is a functional Furin-cleavage site. Talking about the knowledge and tools Shi has gathered in understanding coronavirus biology (and for the creative work too). She could have used them to help the world......

Reply
Henri
5/27/2020 02:58:26 am

I have asked you this before and got no reply. I'll ask again. Why don't you write up your hypothesis that RaTG13 is fake, based on your analyses presented in this blog, and submit a letter to the Editor of Nature Medicine? The Editor should pass the letter to Zhengli Shi and allow a reply. Then, the two letters might be published together in a future issue of nature Medicine.

Nerd has power
5/27/2020 05:38:19 am

Thanks, Henri. I appreciate your suggestion. Challenging Shi and RaTG13 in a reputable journal would be a powerful approach. However, these journals may not be as accommodating for "conspiracy theorists" as people wish. If you looked back on some earlier comments, you will see how Nature has refused to publish an article written by a reputable scientist, arguing for a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2. My attempt would not turn out any better. On top of that, I prefer to not reveal my identity as many do here. Things might change, who knows. If you can't wait, please check out the link below. Some people have already published preprint manuscripts challenging the authenticity of RaTG13:

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiF5bC6mc3pAhWmneAKHXLTCi4QFjACegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.preprints.org%2Fmanuscript%2F202005.0322%2Fdownload%2Ffinal_file&usg=AOvVaw1jpIVRdCYIwaBLBRuLcrrE

Henri
5/27/2020 07:42:31 pm


The link you gave me does not work. Please give me the title and author (s) of the pre-print so I can Google it myself.

The only other pre-print I can find alluding to this 'RaTG13 is fake' idea is something by Dean Brengston who claims that all publications using RaTG13 should be withdrawn on the basis that the origin of the virus is in question. He notes a partial sequence published in 2016 is identical to a sequence in RaTG13. For some reason, he seems to think that this proves that the RaTG13 sequence is fake. I do not understand his reasoning. Perhaps you can enlighten me, in simple terms.

I note that you are unwilling to submit a letter to Nature Medicine since you wish to remain anonymous and you doubt that they will publish something so strongly attacking someone of such a high research profile. I therefore have another proposal. I am not afraid of identifying myself and I wish to get to the bottom of this. Thus, I will write the letter to Nature Medicine, drawing attention to your blog and summarising the most important points. I will NOT attempt to take credit for your work. Bioinformatics is not my field so I politely request that you read my letter first and check that I have got the information and ideas correct.

Although I am now retired, coincidentally I am affiliated with a research laboratory in Wuhan. Thus, there can be no allegations that my letter is 'political aimed at stirring up trouble'.

This would not be the first time that potential fraud has been brought up in the science world. See, for example, the claim that HIV was present in a 1959 blood sample and the whole Wakefield situation. I still have faith in Zhengli Shi and her research group. I do not believe that the whole group could be knowingly involved in such a fraud, if, indeed it is fraud. However, I remain open minded.

Give me 1 or 2 weeks to compose the letter. I will get back to you.

Nerd has power
5/29/2020 04:14:09 am

Thank you very much, Henri. That's a wonderful proposal. It would be great if you could send a letter to Nature Medicine, drawing their attention to my blog. I would be more than happy to edit your letter. When you post the letter, please use a fresh comment as it gets hard to roll back and check old comments.

I have always considered Zhengli Shi a victim as well, a victim of the system. She is no doubt a great scientist and could totally be on the other side of the aisle in this situation. Well, I probably should not say too much about it just yet. We should let the truth tell the story.

Accessing the link above would lead to a direct download of the PDF file. So, check your download folder. You might have it there already.

Uncle Weatherby
5/26/2020 10:01:07 pm

China Rules Out Animal Market and Lab as Coronavirus Origin

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-rules-out-animal-market-and-lab-as-coronavirus-origin-11590517508  

Reply
CCP is Nazi
5/26/2020 10:11:07 pm

Who gives it a damn shit on what China has to say? What did they say that is not a lie? Isn't WSJ bought by CCP as CCP's mouthpiece? Which NAZI criminal would admit their NAZI conduct?

Reply
Alesh Aras
5/26/2020 11:01:13 pm

I would rule out wet market as well: China in a hurry to reopen wet markets is prima facie evidence that the CCP doesn’t think that the virus came from there.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
5/26/2020 11:12:54 pm

But CCP rules out their P4 lab as the CCP virus origin as well. It's like saying this shit is not from their ass but from someone else'. Once I see the subject in the URL, I would not even waste a single second to read on.

Alesh Aras
5/26/2020 10:59:20 pm

Bat woman Shi Zhengli has resurfaced.

https://youtu.be/8opSfaCD5iE

Reply
Nerd has power
5/27/2020 05:55:49 am

The head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology also gave an interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P0kH5wVj4s

Don't worry about her speaking Chinese. The CCP's propaganda machine CGTN has been so sweet that they made English subtitles for readers like you! There is no real meat in almost all her answers, except this:

Zhengli Shi does not have the real RaTG13 virus. She only has its sequence info.

It happens that some commenters here recently challenged this same notion that I made in the article. I can't believe the head of WIV would come out and help me clarify. My "reliable sources" turned out well in the end. I'm so happy for them.

One thing I have to warn you about is that the way they interacted in the interview may seem unfamiliar to you ---- the questions are so soft and comforting. Indeed, the two of them are just acting together, not interacting :).

Reply
Tony Soprano
5/27/2020 09:12:04 pm

The Wuhan Seafood Market theory of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is out and the "multiple origins" theory is in.

https://weather.com/en-IN/india/news/news/2020-05-27-coronavirus-originate-wuhan-multiple-origins-claims-china-covid-19

It is based on this scientific article.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2355-0

Reply
CCP is NAZI
5/27/2020 10:15:30 pm

Who gives it a damn shit on what China has to say? Ya, Nature with a bunch of Chinese "scientists" who only speak what their NAZI CCP want them to say. Otherwise, the lab in Shanghai would not have been ordered to shut down shortly after the lab shared the virus sequence. But are you sure Nature is still science centric and not bought by CCP if CCP have already bought bigger organization like WHO, WTO and many other world organizations? I am so glad that President Trump stopped funding WHO. Let's see how many lies WHO continue to tell the world without the world's biggest donar.

Multiple origins? Lol, sure, thanks to CCP's NAZI conduct, their lab made virus has been spread to multiple so called "origins" simultaneously:
https://www.news18.com/news/sports/new-revelations-from-world-military-games-participants-hint-at-covid-19-spread-in-china-in-october-2625391.html

No matter what, if NAZI CCP really hadn't done anything wrong, why is it so hard for CCP to open their P4 lab to let world scientists investigate? The more they are trying to cover up, the more evident their NAZI crime is.

Reply
Leo
5/27/2020 11:11:26 pm

The journal Nature is corrupted, they have so many connections with EcoHealth Alliance.

In this article

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2355-0_reference.pdf

How is it possible to accept such a phrase: our time-resolved phylogeny analysis suggests that the earliest zoonotic spillover event might occur at late November 2019, which is in agreement with the analysis by Andersen et al.

No, it was already going around during the Wuhan Military Games.

And what about these cases?

https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/united-states/pneumonia-and-influenza-like-illnesses-ili-ae/virginia-aa/815013-va-three-dead-others-hospitalized-in-unidentified-virus-outbreak-at-fairfax-retirement-community-rhinovirus

Rhinovirus?!

Try to do a little research on the internet. From Europe there is no access to most of the sites.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
5/27/2020 11:26:17 pm

Have you actually compared its sequence with CCP Virus' sequence side by side? If so, why don't you bring its sequence here to let virus specialists verify? Even look at it from a non scientific perspective view, with such a high infectious rate that CCP virus has, why nothing happened in U.S. afterwards until after Wuhan lock down? Interestingly, CCP tried their very best to help this deadly CCP virus spread as fast and wide as possible all over the world by silencing 8 doctors like Li Wenliang , by destroying all virus samples, by stressing it's preventable and controllable, by denying the fact about human to human transmission, by letting people out from Wuhan to everywhere in the world but not within China? Were CCP able to prevent and control it? Exactly, what's CCP's hidden agenda? Well, aren't these https://www.newsmax.com/navrozov/china-biological-russia/2009/09/17/id/335042/ and https://www.theepochtimes.com/did-chinas-plan-to-destroy-the-united-states-backfire_3223117.html enough to tell CCP's world domination goal?

Reply
Leo
5/28/2020 12:35:24 am

We need a forensic analysis on these early cases in USA.
Their CDC has the samples.
Why USA has now so many cases? Could it be a sum of early cases starting in summer 2019 + the cases fired back from Wuhan? Do you know about vaping illness in 2019 in USA? Are you aware of the tight collaboration between USA and China on coronavirus research?

Smiley Evans, T., Shi, Z., Boots, M. et al. Synergistic China–US Ecological Research is Essential for Global Emerging Infectious Disease Preparedness. EcoHealth 17, 160–173 (2020).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-020-01471-2

Both China and USA are probably trying to cover up the whole story to avoid to pay for all the rest of the world.

CCP is NAZI
5/28/2020 06:38:24 am

I know everything including how NAZI CCP have been faking their total sum of infected cases, how Obama administration used their tax payers' money to fund HIN who then outsourced to Wuhan P4 lab, how CCP have been threatening each country and scientist who is revealing the truth and facts, how CCP have been developing biowar non stop with still tons of under developed virus in their P4 lab which are far more lethal than what was already released, the so called CCP virus, how CCP have been destroying the virus samples, how CCP have been shirking their crime, how https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global shows all CCP virus mutation could be traced back to China. Oh, too much to list.

Is's absolutely irresponsible, illogical and non scientific to compare the number from a country that has the most extensive and accurate testing with a country with totalitarian regime that has been severely under reporting their actual infected cases using testing kits with at most 30% accuracy.

No matter what, if NAZI CCP really hadn't done anything wrong, why is it so hard for them to open their P4 lab to let world scientists investigate? Don't CCP want to find the source of the virus as well?Merely shirking around never solves the problem until CCP opens their P4 lab.

Bubba Gump
5/28/2020 12:31:29 am

This article "Viral and host factors related to the clinical outcome of COVID-19" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2355-0, published on May 20th, which is now being used by China and the media as the basis for the "multiple origins" theory for SARS-CoV-2, appears to suffer from many of the same problems as "On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2" https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwaa036/5775463, published in March 2020, as explained in a criticism of it http://virological.org/t/response-to-on-the-origin-and-continuing-evolution-of-sars-cov-2/418

Reply
CCP is NAZI
5/28/2020 06:45:19 am

At this moment, the most important is not who has published what considering how many world organizations and journals CCP have been buying, threatening and silencing(Isn't WHO the best example to prove my point?) but when CCP can open their Wuhan P4 lab.

Reply
Leo
5/28/2020 07:02:16 am

I am not sure if USA has the most accurate testing for covid19 cases:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/18/health/cdc-coronavirus-lab-contamination-testing.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/06/health/us-coronavirus-death-count-cdc-explainer/index.html


I agree completely with you on which crimes CCP did. What USA did, comes as extra. USA and CCP did this together. Both pushed first on the natural origin of the virus and in the meantime some of them accused each other of lab release. Is it that not weird?

Reply
Leo
5/28/2020 07:04:52 am

This article is quite good for an overview of the facts

https://asiatimes.com/2020/05/us-china-blame-game-a-lose-lose-proposition/

Reply
Leo
5/28/2020 07:20:32 am

This is also interesting:

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1185291.shtml

Ancestral type of COVID-19 virus mainly found in the US: study

Reply
CCP is NAZI
5/28/2020 07:32:53 am

I'm sorry, but I don't waste even a single second on CCP propaganda such as global times, cnn, nytimes. Trump should craft executive order on fake news just like how he crafts one for social media. I cannot wait to see how 50 cent army will suffer from this: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-crafts-executive-order-on-social-media-weighs-commission-to-probe-bias-amid-twitter-fight I will be eager to test out if anti CCP words still keep disappearing on YouTube and will definitely sue them once the order comes to legal effect.

I'm also eager to see how long CCP's money can last to pay those media to speak for them now that the world is pulling their manufacture chain out of China The best time to see if those media still speak for them is when CCP is running out of money. Let's wait for a year to check those media again?

Again, no matter what, if NAZI CCP really hadn't done anything wrong, why is it so hard for them to open their P4 lab to let world scientists investigate? Don't CCP want to find the source of the virus as well?Merely shirking around never solves the problem until CCP opens their P4 lab.

Reply
Leo
5/28/2020 07:47:12 am

It is probably hard for CCP to open their lab as it is for Fort Dietrich.

They might have worked in parallel on the same stuff

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30849247/

Reply
Bubba Gump
5/28/2020 07:53:02 am

Can we stick to scientific analysis here? Political diatribes contribute nothing to what we are trying to achieve.

Reply
Leo
5/28/2020 08:02:52 am

You are right, but it is difficult to avoid to make the discussion political. If this virus is lab made, it is normal to try to find out from which lab it might come. We probably need to wait for more analysis like the one done by Forster with more data.

Reply
charles
5/28/2020 10:31:50 am

Stop sidetrack the discussion. You are just trying to throw in multi-origin conspiracy theories to deflect the spot light on CCP - a typical CCP propaganda and a trick by the Global Times shills. The quickest and easiest way is always transparency from CCP. They are stonewalling from day 1 and their further actions to destroy evidences speak loudly of their complicity in their role in the pandemic to say the least.

Reply
Nancy
5/28/2020 11:02:40 am

You're absolutely right, charles! 50 cent army is everywhere. Luckily, this site isn't paid or operated by CCP. Otherwise, the truth and facts discussed here would be censored or deleted just like YouTube /Twitter/Facebook. There isn't anything easier than being transparent or opening CCP's P4 lab to prove if CCP are NAZI criminals or not. Unfortunately, Xi Jinping suggested to open their lab to the world in a year, after all evidence are destroyed or everyone forgets about it. Come on, no one would ever forget this NAZI crime! If we let it go this time, we don't even know how we die tomorrow!

Bubba Gump
5/28/2020 11:26:00 am

I recommend that the administrator delete the childish political comments before they ruin the site. The children can go waste people's time ranting on Twitter or elsewhere and let the adults have a serious discussion about the science here.

Reply
Nancy
5/28/2020 01:21:27 pm

Which adults fist started the political games here? Which adults only talked about who says what, but nothing substantial or scientific from
their own brains.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
5/28/2020 12:20:17 pm

I also request the administrator to remove CCP's "multiple origins" conspiracy theories along with CCP propaganda to clean up the trash and lies. Just bring your own analysis, virus sequence and facts here.
We have plenty of conspiracy theories and CCP propaganda elsewhere. No need to bring those trash here to distract everyone.

Reply
Bubba Gump
5/28/2020 08:08:35 pm

Here's the problem in a nutshell - when you have people like "CCP is Nazi," who pollute a scientific discussion with useless political comments, it ruins the site. "CCP is Nazi" either did not read or did not understand the articles about "multiple origins" upon which my post was based. The last citation is a scientific criticism of the articles supporting "multiple origins." So, my post about "multiple origins" debunks rather than supports the theory of "multiple origins." Not surprisingly, "CCP is Nazi" got it all wrong, is the one who is the distraction, adding nothing to the scientific discussion and will end up ruining it for everyone. Sadly, that type of behavior is all too common on social media sites, people with big mouths and little brains.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
5/28/2020 09:56:47 pm

This is not the first time I name like this. I don't know why you are the only one fussing about this. Anyone can decide what name to use just like how you name yourself as Bubba Gump instead of your
real name. I have brought an article into the discussion previously just like what you have done, yet it seems that you have a bigger brain even though I'm not seeing any scientific analysis from your own brain. But isn't this "Scientific evidence and logic behind the claim that the Wuhan coronavirus is man-made" talking about how Wuhan virus is lab made? What? Releasing lab made Wuhan virus is not a NAZI conduct? Really, how many scientists on earth do not work for political purpose? I wish all scientists only work for science not politics, so that we would not even have this bio war in the first place.

Reply
Bubba Gump
5/28/2020 10:23:05 pm

The irony is people like "CCP is Nazi" and "Nancy" practice exactly what thw communists and Nazis did, that is, the political interpretation/use of science e.g. Soviet Lysenkoism and Nazi racial science. Offer scientific analysis here and reserve your political views to a more appropriate forum.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
5/28/2020 10:42:01 pm

While Bubba Gump is asking others not to talk about politics, he himself is just doing the same. How funny! Those who do not agree with CCP is NAZI are undoubtedly NAZI themselves.

Reply
Rose
5/28/2020 11:21:45 pm

I suggest to use rather our energy to definitely demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is lab made, in a way that it is finally accepted from the rest of the people who still think is natural, because I fear they are still the majority.

I was really surprised to see that genetic manipulation of the spike protein of coronaviruses started already before the first SARS:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10627550/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11162792/

And that Daszak was hunting bat viruses also before that:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/287/5452/443.long

But I could not find a direct record of coronaviruses in bats before the first SARS. Is anybody aware of it? Maybe some records in Chinese?

Reply
Bubba Gump
5/29/2020 03:07:47 am

"Rose," Peter Daszak started his career in parasitology and migrated into virology. Here is a review article he published in January 2000 with some of his citations. He was into Nipah virus before coronavirus, I believe.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/287/5452/443.abstract

Reply
Rose
5/29/2020 03:46:44 am

Ah yes thanks, it is the same article I posted. I am just wondering if he could have seen before emerging of SARS, that bats carried CoVs, since he was already studying their viruses before 2000.

Nipah virus is another big part of his research, even more scary than CoV:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/health/nipah-virus-india-vaccine-epidemic.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6732787/

https://books.google.de/books?id=pymSBkVU-FsC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=genetic+manipulation+nipah+virus&source=bl&ots=H4l0r-ulwG&sig=ACfU3U27gz3PNwtt7ajfQh-wI__d5loEyQ&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbvbrCiNfpAhVIyoUKHd95A4MQ6AEwBnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=genetic%20manipulation%20nipah%20virus&f=false

Reply
Nerd has power
5/29/2020 04:50:06 am

I appreciate everyone's contributions to this comments section. It has certainly surpassed my exceptions. Many analysis and findings that people shared here are just brilliant. We are piercing deep into the thickness. It's great.

We are all here trying to dig out the truth and protect it from being smeared or hidden. However, not everyone's approach is the same. While I think all of these actions are honorable, I agree with some of the above comments that the best use of this space is to discuss the scientific aspects of this suspicious virus. In light of this spirit, I suggest that we don't have to involve too much politics in every thread. Avoiding politics completely is of course impossible here. But we can try to keep it at a minimum and focus more on the scientific evidence and analysis. In the end, hard facts will convict these criminals. Sometimes, opposing views on a scientific topic and a fair discussion are what's needed to get to the bottom of a particular point. So, as long as it is not a clear case of the CCP's 50-cents army being involved, we don't have to blame the CCP for every opposing view. That's my two cents.

Reply
Henri
5/30/2020 04:42:22 am

I have composed a 'diplomatic' letter for Nature Medicine. The technical bit, which I need you to check over and correct if necessary is below.

I will require a copy of the synonymous non-synonymous Figure to submit with the letter. Can you give an email address so we can communicate more efficiently?

Among others, the main 'anomalies' raised by the website's author are as follows:


A) SARS-COV2 has overall 95% sequence similarity to bat corona viruses ZC45 and ZXC21. However, this similarity is not evenly spread over the genome. It ranges from 94 -100% for the nucelocapsid, S2, membrane and E proteins, but is only 69% for the S1 portion of the spike protein. This pattern extremely rarely occurs naturally but is common in laboratory chimeric viruses.

B) The E protein has a structural role and can withstand repeated mutation without loss of function. It is highly unusual that the E protein found in the earlier identified SARS-COV2 has an identical amino acid sequence to a distantly related virus, RaTG13. Moreover, later isolates of SARS-COV2 have already shown mutation in this region in just a few months.

C) The synonymous (s) to non-synonymous (ns) mutation ratio remains at the typical 5:1 ratio when ZC45 is compared to ZXC21 I (Fig. 1a). In contrast, comparison of SARS-COV2 with RaTG13 shows an unusual pattern, including a flat region which is highly unlikely to occur in nature.

D) In an interview with the Institute's head, which can be found online (7), it is admitted that the laboratory does not have an isolate of RaTG13 and is no longer in possession of the sample taken in 2013 from which the sequence was derived. Thus, significant conclusions about the origins of SARS-COV2 is relying upon a computer-generated sequence and not on the characteristics of an established virus.

Reply
Henri
5/30/2020 07:26:24 pm

The letter to nature is ready to be submitted. Please check the technical bit given above and make any changes you feel necessary. If I don't hear from you soon, I shall submit on the assumption I have described your main objections correctly.

Reply
Lilian
5/29/2020 06:09:28 am

I have found some interesting information on the ORF10 in SARS-CoV-2

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.17.952895v1.full.pdf

https://chemrxiv.org/articles/Molecular_Insights_into_the_Contagious_Nature_of_Pandemic_Novel_Coronavirus_2019-nCoV/12118839/3

If you blast the protein in NCBI, there are only few matches, mostly in Australia and USA, and with the weird pangolin sequence.


Reply
Jule
5/29/2020 09:47:41 am

What I do not understand is why Shi did not simply synthesize RaTG13 to avoid any suspicion.
After all, from what I read here several times, this is supposedly very simple.
With all the criminal energy she is accused of, an icredible energy which she has used in a rather cumbersome way to cover up the true origin, the obvious thought would be to do just that.

Furthermore, I don't understand why Shi's blood must have boiled when he saw the RaTG13 sequence. If I look at the Bat CoV sequences listed here (upper half), my blood would boil exactly at the ones Shi actually published.
„Importantly, RaTG13 preserves the binding motifs as much as, if not better than, any other bat coronavirus in Shi’s list. „
I do not see it like that. There is actually only one amino acid to which this applies: Position 472, all other amino acids are worse compared to the published Bat-CoVs.

Reply
Rose
5/29/2020 10:31:21 pm

I bet that RaTG13 is not functional as designed. Let’s see if someone try to synthetize it.

And the boiling blood of Shi is expected because in 2013 they were still searching desperately for the source of SARS1. In that cave where 4991 alias RaTG13 was found, this was the only SARS like CoV. Some miners got SARS-like pneumonia and three even died. But no, at WIV it was decided to leave RaTG13 in the freezer and to take it out only 7 years after, when SARS2 popped out.

To prove that SARS2 has a natural origin.

Reply
Tim Pearson
5/29/2020 12:51:36 pm

When the SIV of sooty mangabees crossed over into humans and became HIV, there weren't any alternative theories that some local laboratory within West Africa had been responsible for that occurring.

Reply
Rose
5/29/2020 10:34:47 pm

You can ask Fauci, he is the HIV expert and best friend of Daszak

Reply
ioderESTEl
5/29/2020 03:00:16 pm

So SARS-CoV-2 has another dangerous characteristic tied to ORF8. I wonder if another animal virus sample showing this particular characteristic will suddenly be published.

Have any of you scrutinized this section?

"The ORF8 Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Mediates Immune Evasion through Potently Downregulating MHC-I"

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.24.111823v1.full

Reply
Rose
5/29/2020 10:18:32 pm

You can have a look here:

https://twitter.com/Daoyu15/status/1265499547666657282

Reply
Reminder
6/8/2020 07:16:05 am

If the link is down, here is a mirror to that file.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18twqD8_FOwLBdUZ375O6T3Zkr9wnC1ny/view?usp=sharing

Pete Ross
5/30/2020 05:56:29 am

To add or subtract from the mystery of SARS-2 (CoV2) origins are this series of tweets from Dr. Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, recently deprived of NIH funding just last month.
NIH funding seems to be a small fraction of the Pentagon-associated Alliance, being all at once a private charity NGO , a global megacorporations' NGO and a defense contractor, with an annual estimated annual operating budget ranging from $16 to $99 million and biosafety laboratories in at least 30 countries.
EcoHealth Alliance is a spinff of the Rockefeller's WWF - World Wildlife Fund.


Peter Daszak
@PeterDaszak
·
Oct 17, 2019
What better way to show our
@EcoHealthNYC
Board members the work we do - visiting farmer Wei’s rat farm in Guilin China where
@nycbat
is giving us a sampling demo! Watch out for the big ‘chompers’
0:00
480 views
Peter Daszak
@PeterDaszak
·
Oct 17, 2019
We’ve been working with him for over 8 years - he’s the head of a wildlife farmers trade group in China
Peter Daszak
@PeterDaszak
·
Oct 17, 2019
Never thought I’d be live tweeting from a rat farm
Peter Daszak
@PeterDaszak
·
Oct 17, 2019
And by the way these animals are bamboo rats bred for food - they’re extremely cute which makes you a bit sad but at least it means they’re not taken from the wild
Peter Daszak
@PeterDaszak
We’re testing for viruses to see if the trade is a rack for public health I. Southern China
11:20 AM · Oct 17, 2019 from Guangxi, People's Republic of China·Twitter for iPhone
1
Retweet
2
Likes
Peter Daszak
@PeterDaszak
·
Oct 17, 2019
Replying to
@PeterDaszak
And here’s me with farmer Wei, his wife and my goddaughter Luo Yuan

https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1184746055050694661

for more background material:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/29/847948272/why-the-u-s-government-stopped-funding-a-research-project-on-bats-and-coronaviru

https://globalbiodefense.com/2015/12/09/who-got-biodefense-funding-from-dtra-in-2015/

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2000/03/Infectious-Disease-Research-Institute

The Pandemic Century: One Hundred Years of Panic, Hysteria, ...books.google.co.il › books
For Daszak and his colleagues in the EcoHealth Alliance, the buzz generated by Disease X presented an opportunity to leverage additional funding for research ...
Mark Honigsbaum - 2019 - ‎Medical


https://sites.google.com/a/housatonicits.com/home/research/dr-peter-daszak?authuser=0

Reply
Alexandrian LC rocks
5/30/2020 09:11:06 am

This is an important lead. Remember Shi’s previous statement? They were gathering bits and pieces from naturally occurring viruses throughout the world, mix and match them in the lab not necessarily with seamless ligation, put them throughout cell and animal passage Until they generated the perfect disease X to be unleashed into humans. All in the name of “saving wildlife”.
Hence the choice to release it at the Huanan Seafood Market. It was the scapegoat to usher in their radical environmentslist agenda.

Reply
pangolin
5/30/2020 10:44:17 am

I perfectly agree with disease X possibly being SARS-CoV-2 but the market has nothing to do with the initial spread. The real boosters were the military games in Wuhan in October 2019. There are posts here on it.

Alexanderian TD Rocks
5/30/2020 09:13:24 am

From an early source. Explain the EcoHealth agenda very clearly.
The Coronavirus IS a bioweapon, albeit an unfinished one. Zhengli Shi have conducted gain-of-function researches on coronaviruses in three different papers--2013, 2015 and 2018. All three papers involve splicing a human ACE2-targeting domain into the spike protein of otherwise harmless coronaviruses and "proving" that the resulting chimeric strain could infect humans, to pandemic potential. An early stage of Bioweapons development. The bioweapon is not yet mature, and that's whi it does not have the common, military-targeting aspect of hypothetical bioweapons. In fact, no actual strain of known developing, or deployed bioweapons as already known genuinely had this trait engineered into the agent. Engineering the alleged age-group specifity and reduced infectivity without affecting leathality is just impossible with current technology, so all known historical or current bioweapons are really just strains that are known to be highly leathal, highly infectious, or have been engineered to be so. Strains that have been labeled as "Select agents" by the CDC.
https://www.selectagents.gov

Bioweapons are WMDs. Weapons that are intended to wipe out an entire population. An eitire country or ethnicity perhaps. specifity and fine-tuned control is of little concern in their development and will not really be something that hold back a user, especially that of a terrorist organization, from finding potential in, developing or using agents such like Ebola, SARS, Anthrax, HIV/AIDS or chimeric SL-Coronaviruses as their mean to achieve their goals. The official cover-up on this subject only strengthened this possibility.

Real World biological agents are deployed as soon as a vaccine is available to at least the military of the country thadt developed it-- and even if the strain is yet to be deployable they are almost always listed as Select Agents of great bioweapons potential/bioterrorism threat by the relevant authorities, like the CDC, primarily due to the potential catastrophic consequences such an agent could cause in case of a leak.

This is an act of ecoterrorism of a rogue actor within one of the many acedemic, social and environmental groups. groups which are known to ardently stick to the depopulation agenda and hold firm beliefs that humanity is to be somehow culled, if not eliminated. Especially that of the acedemic researcher Zhengli Shi, a known worshiper of nature who had fallaciously attributed an animus to nature, something that a well-disciplined acedemic would never do, just a month ago at 1st feburary in China. Who have been studying SARS and SL-CoVs since 2003 and have published multiple papers on engineering more infectivity and leathality into them, even to the point of openly proving the effectiveness of the agent on her 2015 Nature article https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

through animal tests on genetically engineered mice bearing Human ACE2 receptors and ferrets, which had ACE2 receptors almost identical to that of humans.

The virus fits nearly perfect to the environmentalist narrative of "eating wild animals are bad, cause sickness, et cetera" when there are absolutely NO evidence of either a confirmed case of Covid-19 contracting it from an animal (After it have been confirmed that the Wuhan Seafood market was NOT the source of the outbreak

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

), nor there have been any known epidemics caused by eating wild animals even thouth tropical people have been hunting and eating wild animals for more than 50000 years, since the dawn of history. For example, the Indonesians have eaten fruit bats for more than 1500 years yet not even a single confirmed new human-transmissible virus in indonesians have been solidly confirmed to have came from a bat. If a specific group is to be blamed, it was the environmentalists.

Who had the perfect motive in an desperate attempt to end their percieved "uncivilized" habit of eating wild animals (all highly civilized western countries hunt all kinds of wild animals and eat their game, the only difference being a official excemption in the form of a liscence/permit which disprove this narrative).

The perfect technology for doing so, with the exact reverse genetic system of engineering deadly SARS-like coronaviruses from bat genetic materials being developed as early as back in 2012

journals.plos.org › plosone › article › journal.pone.0032857

by the same cluster of potential eco-terrorist acedemics that have produced such deadly viruses in at least three different occcasions.

They have a perfect delivery system, with virus samples developed in the U.S. and Cannada being stolen and sent to chinese labs of which bats were tested and experimented on all the time

https://nationalpost.com/news/canadian-lab-immersed-in-rcmp-probe-sent-ebola-and-another-deadly-virus-to-china-health-agency

Reply
Babstar
5/30/2020 01:04:39 pm

Alina Chan just tweeted ?
2006 study inserts furin cleavage site into SARS-CoV spike at the exact residue where SARS-CoV-2's PRRA(R) site is - and demonstrates enhanced cell-to-cell fusion.
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1266805310313967617?s=20

Direct link to the paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7111780/

The noose tightens.

Reply
Henri
6/1/2020 07:47:19 pm

Why does the noose tighten? No one denies such reearch has been performed.

Reply
George Formby
5/30/2020 10:48:01 pm

This first appeared as a pre-print at the end of March, published on May 29th.

"Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 through recombination and strong purifying selection"

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/28/sciadv.abb9153

Comments?.

Reply
Nerd has power
6/2/2020 06:15:44 am

Thank you for bringing up this paper. I think their evidence proves the opposite. They mainly argued that because all the suspicious elements of SARS-CoV-2 (RBM, furin-cleavage site) are hinted to exist in nature, then recombination must be responsible for the appearance of SARS-CoV-2. Of course, in my eyes, they used all the wrong sequences, RaTG13, pangolin coronaviruses, YN302, to do their analysis and thus support their "conclusion". But I think their data revealed the opposite. When they analyzed the syn/non-syn mutations, they showed extreme high purifying pressure for SARS-CoV-2, RaTG13, pangolin viruses in S gene and in other genes (figure 4 and 5). Unfortunately, they did not always include a similar analysis of another group. I think they probably did those analysis in figure 5 and I suspect that the results are too daunting and not aligned with their "conclusion" of natural recombination being the source. I will try to find the time to do that comparison for them.

The strong purifying pressure thing is self-contradicting. The virus is jumping in between species in group A of figure 4. If anything, they should see less purifying pressure than group B, which are viruses that have comfortably settled down in bats. Honestly, this claim itself should make people sick. I don't know how they managed to say it in the paper and how the reviewers let it pass. On the other hand, this saying is in line with their analysis. You can't argue against your own results, I guess. Also, if their conclusion is that the virus is not of natural origin. then their university (Jilin Univ) would not let the manuscript out because the Chinese government strictly screens manuscript looking into the origin of the virus.

Anyways, this paper has some interesting hints and needs to be figged further.

Reply
John F. Signus.
6/8/2020 07:06:18 am

Also, Here is a complete, detailed analysis on why RmYN02 itself--Not only it have no furin site, but it was also Not viable!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CuWg0h2rJ1kTGJDP04u1LUNkGk7AGgA3/view?usp=sharing
Either a R!Polar residue TMPRSS2 site, a RxxR furin site, or a KxR tryptin site, is required for coronavirus S1-S2 cleavage and Spike function. However, In RmYN02 neither of these three sites were present at the S1/S2 junction--indicating that the Spike will not be claeved in a host, nomatter which stage of infection it was currently in. This kind of S1/S2 deactivation is only ever found in highly attenuated coronavirus varients only able to infect cell cultures--it is not viable in a real bat.

Javier
6/2/2020 12:59:54 pm

ZXC21 and ZC45 : strong purifying selection and same habitat (in caves collected by a military research lab of the CCP)
Wuhan-Hu-1 and RaTG13: strong purifying selection ¿and same habitat (WIV lab)?

Reply
Henri
5/31/2020 06:09:21 pm

Open request to NerdHasPower:

For the third time, I ask NerdHasPower to check the technical portion of my Letter to Nature (reproduced below) and make any changes that may be needed. Otherwise I will assume I have presented you arguments correctly and submit the letter by mid-day TODAY.

TECHNICAL PORTION OF MY LETTER TO NATURE:

The author of the website wishes to remain anonymous. I am therefore acting as an intermediary.

Amongst others, the main 'anomalies' raised by the website's author are as follows:

A) SARS-COV2 has overall 95% sequence similarity to bat corona viruses ZC45 and ZXC21. However, this similarity is not evenly spread over the genome. It ranges from 94 -100% for the nucelocapsid, S2, membrane and E proteins, but is only 69% for the S1 portion of the spike protein. This pattern extremely rarely occurs naturally but is common in laboartory chimeric viruses.

B) The E protein has a structural role and can withstand repeated mutation without loss of function. It is highly unusual that the E protein found in the earlier identified SARS-COV2 has an identical amino acid sequence to a distantly related virus, RaTG13. Moreover, later isolates of SARS-COV2 have already shown mutation in this region in just a few months.

C) The synomonous (s) to non-synonomous (ns) mutation ratio remains at the typical 5:1 ratio when ZC45 is compared to ZXC21 I (Fig. 1a). In contrast, comparison of SARS-COV2 with RaTG13 shows an unusual pattern (Fig. 1b), including a flat region for the ns mutations leading to an unusually high s/ns ratio which is highly unlikely to occur in nature.

D) In an interview with the Insitute's head, which can be found online (7), it is admitted that the laboratory does not have an isolate of RaTG13 and is no longer in possession of the sample taken in 2013 from which the sequence was derived. Thus, significant conclusions about the origins of SARS-COV2 is relying upon a computer-generated sequence and not on the characteristics of an established virus.

Reply
yano
5/31/2020 09:16:52 pm

E) At the beginning of the 2019 pandemic SARS-CoV-2 was better adapted to infect humans than any other animal. No selective mutations or adaption to humans was needed (or observed). This suggests the virus was already well adapted to human cells and did not come from animals

As a comparison, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 jumped from animals to humans, then mutated to better infect humans as the pandemic progressed in time. See Ref. above

Reply
Henri
6/1/2020 03:41:43 am

Letter submitted. Let's see what happens.

Nerd has power
6/2/2020 05:08:10 am

Sorry for not responding earlier. Did not find the time to pay a visit here for two days. You were saying that you needed 1 or 2 weeks to draft the letter. So I didn't think you have it ready already. Anyways, the letter looks very good to me. Point C did not explicitly state that comparison was done for the Spike, but that does not hurt the argument or make anything incorrect. Thanks again for doing it. Please keep us posted with the results.

John F. Signus
6/8/2020 06:59:41 am

Also YNLF31C/SARS.

Reply
MagmaHombre999
6/2/2020 12:40:07 am

Have you considered the possibility that rather than the changes in the ratios of synchronous to non-synchronous mutations were in the published "RaTG13" genome were an intentional signal from Dr. Shi as she was probably ordered to conduct the cover-up??? Could there be a coded message in the changes???

Reply
Nerd has power
6/2/2020 06:59:36 am

I don't know, but I do hope that's the case. If one day she would be able to come out and tell the truth to the public, it would be good for the world and for herself. Maybe she desires for such an opportunity too.

Reply
Henri
6/2/2020 07:20:09 pm

The Letter to Nature was rejected outright. I appealed. The appeal failed. I now intend to take the matter up with the Editor-in-Chief. If that fails to get the letter published, we must discuss our next move.

Henri
6/4/2020 03:32:54 am

Radio silence form the Editor in chief and Nature. So, NerdHasPower, where we do we go from here? I have a couple of ideas. Your thoughts please.

Lilian
6/2/2020 10:41:35 am

The Case Is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/

Reply
Javier
6/2/2020 12:42:37 pm

Three well done summaries, reported by Claire Robinson

"Evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is genetically engineered" (May 12)
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19396
"Chinese and US scientists genetically engineered bat coronaviruses in dangerous gain-of-function research stretching back years" (May 26)
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19410-chinese-and-us-scientists-genetically-engineered-bat-coronaviruses-in-dangerous-gain-of-function-research-stretching-back-years
"Lab escape theory of SARS-CoV-2 origin gaining scientific support" (May 28)
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19412-lab-escape-theory-of-sars-cov-2-origin-gaining-scientific-support

Reply
Lila Rajiva link
6/3/2020 08:33:59 am

Hello Nerd,

Wonderful, lucid analysis. This pulled it together for me.

As a political observer, I concluded a long time ago that this was either a lab accident being covered up or an engineered virus intended as the pretext for an economic shut-down that provides cover for the long-heralded global collapse.

One question. How does your argument bolster or weaken the other arguments made in favor of a man-made origin?

Specifically, I am thinking of the preprint paper published and then withdrawn under international pressure by a group of Indian scientists that noted the similarity of SARS-CoV-2 to the AIDS virus and speculated that it had been created in the quest for an AIDS vaccine.

This was shouted down by all the usual suspects in February. But then in April, the French doctor who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the AIDS virus, came out in support of the Indian paper, drawing on similar conclusions by a French statistical researcher. And another French scientist also concluded the virus was created in imitation of the AIDS virus.

Wasn't it yet another French scientist who created a furor a decade ago with his gain-of-function research involving the flu virus and ferrets? And didn't the French have a large input into the Wuhan Institute?

Regarding your question of how various experts covering up the lab origin could all be coordinating their responses, perhaps you should research a bit more into the ties of the Wuhan Institute of Virology with WHO, CDC, NIH, and the role of the foundations (especially the Gates Foundation) in funding and supporting these bodies. The CDC for instance receives money through its private foundation, the CDC Foundation, whose private partners include major corporations and foundations like the Gates Foundation. Gates funds a frightening number of media outlets, universities, research labs, and public health bodies all over the world. If you trace the connections, the experts covering up this bio-weapon all go back to this network.

This stuff goes right to the top - to participants in the World Economic Forum, to Davos, to the biggest players.

It would be nothing for a transnational intelligence agency to coordinate a global media cover-up. They do it all the time!

Thanks for your work.

Reply
Henri
6/3/2020 07:20:51 pm

You seem to have misunderstood my position. I am on the side of 'it was NOT made in a lab'. NerdHasPower has put forward SOME arguments that RaTG13 is fake. As a scientist, I believe his arguments summarised in my letter require addressing by the Wuhan group. I believe there are satisfactory answers in scientific terms.

Since NetdHasPower wishes to remain anonymous, I have offered to act as an intermediary and submit a letter to Nature on his / her behalf. Whilst I am on the side side of 'not lab made' I am also on the side of 'Nature magazine has a responsibility to further investigate possible scientific fraud'. Consequently, I am pissed off that they have rejected my letter outright and have refused to publish it.
As for the Indian group and HIV, again it is an incorrect analysis. The HIV sequences are so short that just by chance they occur in many species, even fish. I did my own BLAST search and many, many organisms came up with the same short sequences. Why Montagnier jumped onto this bandwagon is beyond me. To add to his embarrasment, many
sequences he published are not even in-frame. That is, they would not code for HIV amino acid sequences.

I hope this clarifies my position. I still believe that my letter should be published by Nature and I trust you will support my efforts to get it done so in the near future. I can already see that Nature arr going ti be stubborn about this and this might lead to allegations of a cover-up. I hope it does not get to that stage but, if it does, they only have themselves to blame.


Reply
Robert Cartwright
6/4/2020 02:17:44 am

Here the new paper of Perez and Montagnier

https://osf.io/tgw2d/

Lila Rajiva link
6/4/2020 02:42:14 am

Sorry, I meant to address the blog owner and the author of the original post.

Also, it is not just Montaigner. There are two other French scientists.

Lila

Robert Cartwright
6/4/2020 02:42:39 am

I think Henri's comment about Montagnier and Perez is exactly the same as that of the mainstream scientific community: many, many organisms came up with the same short HIV sequences. This, in my opinion, completely misses the point. The problem is not that the sequences are short and common but where they are located, and what mutations it induces subsequently (i.e. the S1 protein). This, I seem to understand, has been deduced by artificial intelligence simulations and, contrary to what Henri thinks, is the most sensible research direction to explore. This hypothesis, in the absence of information from Wuhan) is a hypothesis that can be verified ex-post only by analyzing whether the evolution of the virus deletes the exogenous RNA Sequences. The new Perez and Montagnier show that this is happening

Nerd has power
6/4/2020 09:52:09 pm

Thank you, Lila, for the comment and thoughts. I have answered the question of whether or not HIV sequences have being inserted into the SARS-CoV-2 genome. But I understand that it is very hard to screen all the comments now. My short answer is that I'm not convinced that such insertions are true. Or I should say that my own analysis failed to convince me in believing so. My conclusion that the virus is man-made is apparently based on other evidence and reasoning.

Reply
Greg Felton
8/21/2020 02:02:45 pm

Hi Nerd:
I have seen arguments pro and con about HIV being the source of the insert, and have to agree with you that evidence is lacking. I have also seen claims for MERS and Ebola. Is there any evidence for any one of them?

Lilian
6/3/2020 03:12:53 pm

Another article worth to read

https://ccnationalsecurity.org/a-new-scientific-study-provides-evidence-of-genetic-manipulation-in-covid-19/

Reply
Wilson Volleyball
6/4/2020 01:06:12 am

Exclusive: Coronavirus began 'as an accident' in Chinese lab, says former MI6 boss

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/03/exclusive-coronavirus-began-accident-disease-escaped-chinese/

In an interview with The Telegraph, Sir Richard Dearlove, former director of British intelligence said he had seen an "important" new scientific report suggesting the virus did not emerge naturally but was man-made by Chinese scientists.

Reply
Andrew M
6/4/2020 03:41:02 am

Some of the commenters don't leave facility for a direct reply - I don't know why that is. So, a general post about HIV, Montagnier and Perez. And Dearlove.

This HIV material really just detracts from Nerd's thesis and he has stated above he does not endorse it. Montagnier is well into his dotage and Perez is a quack. Their paper is cod science, written at too sophisticated a level for the majority of readers to appreciate that. Perez believes in numerological analysis of DNA - a golden ratio hidden in the code - that kind of thing (here's his blog: http://golden-ratio-in-dna.blogspot.com/). He is a numerologist (which is to a mathematician what an astrologer is to an astronomer). This is why the mainstream scientific community does not even bother to respond - their claims are not worthy of a scientific response.

On Richard Dearlove: have we got to the point now of taking as evidence a newspaper article referring to a scientific paper which someone says they have seen? Let's see the scientific paper itself and then decide for ourselves if there's anything in it worth considering. Not much that appears in The Daily Telegraph can be relied upon. NB of the 2 authors of the scientific paper, the British one has been a candidate for a right-wing political party but never a virologist. The Norwegian one has been an HIV researcher - so maybe a little bit more credibility there.

Reply
Henri
6/4/2020 03:56:25 am

I agree. That is why in my letter to Nature I have mentioned only what I feel are the most powerful points made by NerdHasPower. I still have faith that there is a satisfactory explanation. But, I also feel Nature has a public duty to investigate the claims. They have remained stubborn about not publishing the letter. No real reason given. So, what next? Any suggestions?

Reply
pangolin
6/4/2020 03:59:35 am

I would try to find another journal not controlled by EcoHealth Alliance. But it might be hard.

Andrew M
6/4/2020 06:17:01 am

Write it up formally as a paper and find a journal willing to publish it as a pre-print, inviting peer review?

Find an academic (a genuine, practising virologist) willing to address the points?

Robert Cartwright
6/4/2020 04:16:18 am


I don't think Andrew M read Perez and Montagnier's latest article. In any case, I think he has a prejudice that has nothing to do with their arguments. In any case, I have provided a method to evaluate their validity gradually: that is, to observe whether the progressive evolution of the virus deletes the HIV exogenous sequences. I believe that until Batman confesses that he is the missing link between the bat and the man, it is a path that can be followed

Reply
Andrew M
6/4/2020 06:04:07 am

"I don't think Andrew M read Perez and Montagnier's latest article"

Perez' most recent publication (in a non-peer-reviewed journal) is under his sole authorship. Turgid nonsense though it is, I have struggled through it.

"I think he has a prejudice that has nothing to do with their arguments"

What, for statistical validity over random observation?

"to observe whether the progressive evolution of the virus deletes the HIV exogenous sequences"

Are you a scientist?

Henri
6/4/2020 04:11:35 am

Possibly. But, it was Nature who published the RaTG13, so Nature should answer.

Reply
pangolin
6/4/2020 04:30:15 am

Nature even did not add yet the information that RaTG13 is BatCoV4991 on their paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7

"We then found that a short region of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) from a bat coronavirus (BatCoV RaTG13)"

Well, the short region was named BatCoV4991. They should update the paper.


Reply
Henri
6/4/2020 04:58:17 am

Hallo NerdHasPower,

Two rejections by Nature, no adequate reason given snd the Editor-in-Chief has not replied. Any suggestions?

Reply
yano
6/4/2020 08:06:56 am

So typical of cancel culture. When an opinion turns into fact science tat cannot be challenged.These so called experts are a joke.

Did they publish your letter? Can you provide a link to your letter on Nature?

Reply
Hcnri
6/4/2020 09:28:29 am

No, it is not published

Nerd has power
6/4/2020 09:12:32 pm

Thanks, Henri, for your great effort. I wasn't surprised with the way Nature responded -- I think people have said in an earlier post how Nature has turned down an article with a similar argument. I don't really have any suggestions in terms of how to make Nature change its mind. It is already very hard if it's a less sensitive topic.

The only alternative that I can think of is to help invite reputable virologists to come over and judge my article. Someone in the Chinese section said that he invited via email the Australian scientist Nikolai Petrovsky to visit this blog in April. Now Professor Petrovsky just recently published a pre-print article arguing that SARS-CoV-2 is lab-made. I guess, if the story was true and he did read my article, apparently he didn't disagree with my reasoning or conclusion much. So, this is a possible route and may help you better judge the matter. Publishing in Nature, although is really hard, does not mean that the article has more truth than a blog. I still think that my blog article, with so many comments made by clear experts, has been and continues to be rigorously judged and validated. In my opinion, the validation here (open for everyone to see) is greater than a formally published piece. Of course, I clearly have some conflict of interests in making this last statement.

Reply
Henri
6/4/2020 10:43:06 pm

I am toying with the idea of getting the UK press involved. What do you think?

Alternatively, and I AM BY NO MEANS ENCOURAGING THIS, but you could email the editor,

Clare Thomas at [email protected]

and request the scientific reasons why manuscript number 2020-05-10070 was rejected outright especially since it addresses a recent paper published in Nature and it is of international public interest to have answers to the questions raised.

Eva Celia
6/5/2020 02:23:54 pm

Do you read that a professor did a study and already said that this virus is natural?

There have been claims that #COVID19 has acquired mutations leading to more transmissible strains. We formally tested whether this was the case using 15,000 #SARSCoV2 genomes from all over the world:
... and the answer is no, not at all!
(1/5)

Here is the thread https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1263745877702737920?s=20

evidence
6/4/2020 01:04:11 pm

Today came out a quite good up-to date review by Milton Leitenberg
'Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus arise from a bat coronavirus research program in a Chinese laboratory? Very possibly.'
https://thebulletin.org/2020/06/did-the-sars-cov-2-virus-arise-from-a-bat-coronavirus-research-program-in-a-chinese-laboratory-very-possibly/
while maybe not new for everybody regarding every single aspect, it still sums up neatly the current logic and evidence leading to a possible WIV/lab origin beyond the hardware genome analyses (done here), but in the same time trying to keep politics out as much as possible.
Personally, I still agree with Nerd's notion that the most likely source might be an accident of a hidden Chinese biological WMD program (biowarfare Chernobyl) - in contrast to an exclusively civilian lab accident, given the (comparative) virus analysis here and elsewhere - but Leitenberg also made the following interesting observation during the past, quote:
'As my historical review of lab escapes that resulted in pandemics or wide area epidemics published in the BAS found, most pandemic, continental or large scale community outbreaks originating from lab escapes came from civilian labs working with public or veterinary pathogens of non-military interest. It takes only one superspreading graduate student or maintenance worker to start a pandemic.'
Maybe this has been only true for the past. On the other hand: if somehow a hidden biological WMD program (and not exclusively civilian research) has also contributed to Covid19, the CCP might get us eventually used to the 'unconvenient truth' of a lab origin (e.g., slowly during the course of the year), but will do everything in their power (maybe even in quiet complicity with their American counterparts), to keep the biological WMD program in general (including GOF research) out of public scrutiny - insulate this 'dark field research' completely from similar science topics, which will be discussed in public during the coming months. That would be my guess/prediction. That will become the CCP's 'core public relation front' - so to speak.
If I am correct, they will be precisely working on this future narrative (admitting 'lab origin being possible' given the gigantic evidence vs. categorically denying/diverting all hints to biological WMD programs) already now - again in quiet complicity with their American counterparts -which equally have a lot to lose. In the light of this likely future CCP public campaign strategy, I also would see their current burial of the 'outdated' wet market 'hypothesis' - (after having successfully distracted with this propaganda hoax specifically western MMS for months).
Hence, I believe, while still focusing on the virus hardware analysis, the discussion here should also continue to consider and press the millitary aspect (in contrast to a lab source hypothesis only) - as this has been already marvelously done in the past.

Reply
Henri
6/4/2020 07:46:33 pm

1) The WIV is an Academic Institute. The research groups will consist of Group Leaders, Clinicians, Senior Scientists, Post-Docs, Ph.D students, undergraduates and International collaborators - all from academia, not military. Are you suggesting that somewhere among these there was a secret group working on a bioweapon withou anyone else in the lab knowing about some kind of secret research?

2) It is a pretty useless bioweapon. Why go to all the trouble of developing a weak bioweapon when there are already far more deadly microbes available?

3) NerdHasPower's analysis raises questions of a scientific nature but all are explainable by current available knowledge

Reply
Nerd has power
6/4/2020 09:36:34 pm

Thank you, Evidence, for the comment and insights.

I would like to quickly address two points raised by Henri.

1) From what I know, there is a military counterpart of the academic P4 lab. Both labs are in the same building, but different floors. Why do they arrange things in this manner? You can have your own answer. I never said that Zhengli Shi or her lab actually carried out the whole "creation". They only need to demonstrate and teach, knowingly or not. But I do believe that the Shi lab helped with the cover-up with RaTG13.

2) I would say that this coronavirus is a very successful bioweapon. I guess it depends on how you define war. Such a bioweapon can disable the military, destroy the economy, and disrupt almost all social functions. Yes, it may not be as deadly as, say, ebola. But Ebola don't transmit through air; it has to be touching the bodily fluid. Plus, when it's too deadly, the virus don't spread as much. Coronaviruses don't cause as much death (10% is not modest either), but they transmit more easily through air. They can help you fight not only a hot war, but also an economic war, a financial war, etc. Let's say, in certain settings, this could be the perfect bioweapon.

Dex
6/4/2020 10:06:59 pm

This kind of research may have dual purposes. Clearly the US Department of Defense has an interest in it, evidenced by their extensive funding of EcoHealth. The stated interest maybe purely to develop defensive capability (i.e. a vaccine in case of a terrorist bioweapon attack is the scenario commonly cited, and most funding came from a Threat Reduction agency).

But gain-of-function techniques first produce an offensive capability, a more lethal or virulent virus, the objective (perhaps) being to later find a vaccine. It seems doubtful that they have progressed to that stage.

PLA military researchers are known to have worked within WIV. Also some of their military academies have an interest in this area. PLA academics have also been cited as co-authors with some of the western researchers. Again whether it is defensive or offensive capability they are interested in, is unknown (both probably) but seems unlikely they have progressed to a stage where a weapon could be controllably deployed.

evidence
6/6/2020 07:56:19 am

@ Henri. Thanks for your questions.
(No. 1) First, it was my intention to mention the Leitenberg article. At this point, in my view, it is also important to consider the cirumstancial evidence.
Yes, I do believe in the possibility, once the techniques and knowledge (on the civilian side) is out, the dark research field can be extremely informal and discrete, including being done at different times in the same place....
Particulaly a P4 and other costly high end labs might be more considered as a kind of lab service facility instead of being an individual lab.
Alternatively, maybe the final crucial, highly risky GOF experiments (e.g., infecting human respiratory cell lines or Vero cell lines in dishes following the animal passage with ferrets) had been secretively performed elsewhere in China to keep it out of the spotlight, illegally but nevertheless w/o an incidence, professionally done by highly experienced military researchers, then again secretely a batch shipped or taken back to the WIV, maybe during late September 2019, for some quick low-threshold confirmation studies (samples, carcasses and equipment intended to be completely burned/incinerated later on), for example to see wether the original lab ferrets still can be infected after that external tissue-passage again, and with most of the WIV staff not even being informed, but there, an unlucky, not so experienced postdoc/grad student inside P4 did a fatal mistake (with some surveillance evidence of a total WIV closure in October in line with the molecular clock analysis by Dorp,
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kleelerner/files/20200505_infection_genetics_evolution._emergence_of_genomic_diversity_and_recurrent_mutations_in_sars-cov-2_.pdf
in which the estimate of the recent common ancestor/patient zero infection, Oct 6 -Dec 11 2019, overlaps with that time frame) - who knows: the possibilities are numerous (again: cf. above Leitenberg articel or Lynn Klotz
https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/human-error-in-high-biocontainment-labs-a-likely-pandemic-threat/
https://thebulletin.org/2012/08/the-unacceptable-risks-of-a-man-made-pandemic/
, among other, regarding past mishaps);
- after all, it's their lab, not the lab of some visiting international scientist or grad student, and not Shi's - that's why we all agree on sticking to the analysis of the virus hardware, a rich 30k letter book with an abundan wealth of copies ('quasispecies') being likely the putative corpus delicti.
(N.b.: the above alternative scenario would even be formally in line with Leitenberg's observation: while very possibly being at least partly enhanced prior by military researchers, the final incident happened to come out of a civilian facility.)

(1.a) Adding to my thoughts on CCP's likely future narrative in order to keep their WMD program out of public focus, I would even speculate, that, if necessary (under international pressure), they (the CCP) will ultimately be ready to sacrifice Shi on the civilian side (as being the scapegoat), as well as a highly dismanteled WIV (open to an offical WHO visit sometimes in the future) in order to hide their military programs, because civilian research ultimately does not have (higher) geopolitical priority in dual use situations, or more precisely: they (CCP) might leave some vague Covid19-traces for the external investigators leading to the WIV to make them a little bit happy - but only after having totally purged all traces to the dual use programs/military research. That's why they might also still need a little bit more time to make the invitation.

Also by logical reasoning, probably one of the most important questions, which should be addressed regarding the puzzling fact, why is it that a (sophistiated) scientific discussion in this direction beyond populism, the very discussion Nerd is asking for, is met with so much reluctance, I believe, is the following: << Given the gigantic damages, who has to lose if the lab accident hypothesis were to become an officially acknowledged possibility, for example who would be risking judicial prosecution, particularly inside the U.S., perticularly on a state-level, since the constantly violated Boyle-law is still effective (and now the damages are out)? >>
That question answers the abundant conflict of interest situations (hence: silent complicity) a lot of experts in the field as well as decision-makers are finding themselves suddenly into - not only including inside the U.S., but also in Europe etc. as well.

In order to get a broader picture here for judging the evidence, I also would like to point out to a historical analogy, the (at that time newly developed) Nuclear power and warfare research and the corresponding dual use funding situation during the 1950 to 70ties/early cold war era: atomic und nuclear physicists, while being the unsurpassed experts in the field, could not be expected to spearhead public scrutiny, concern and outrage or being the leading investigators to

evidence
6/6/2020 08:10:17 am


[suite]

...leading investigators to uncover the coverup of scientific misconduct at those times (e.g., they did not spearhead the ban on plutonium production, like virologist do not necessarily spearhead a ban on GOF today), because of their large conflict of interests, e.g., being largely dependent also on military budgets. They often showed a cooperatively biased, secretive and defensive behaviour when challenged by public, particularly regarding possible atomic accidents and risks, insurance and litigation questions. It had been other scientific communities and a concerned public which would challenge that situation.
From that not so distant science history lesson we can learn a lot for judging the current situation: likewise, we currently cannot necessarily fully trust experts in high profile peer-reviewed journal publications (supposingly mirroring the scientific consensus) because of the infiltration of military funding.
Please keep in mind: the virologist scientific community is not a very large one (even compared to the microbiology community) - so the dependence on 3rd party funding becomes quickly very high in relative terms as soon as there will be poored some money, coming from 3rd parties, into the field (higher RISK of disproportionate 'FUNDING BIAS' for small, highly specialised scientific communities).
I also do believe, that this problem might even partly explain your own recent experience with the Nature magazine's response you got: The few reviewers which turned down your challenge (as well as other important challenges in other peer-reviewed journals) might be the same few virologists who do find themselves in relevant conflict-of-interest situations.
It's not even the CCP here.
In that line, I think, that the Andersen et al. letter last March eventually might turn out to be one of Nature publisher's biggest blunders. They (Nature publishing) will by then try to save their face by saying: 'Oh - it was only a letter to the editor of trusted experts..'
All those unfortunate circumstances make this forum here so very valuable.

Javier
6/10/2020 02:36:25 pm

There is no scientific 100% evidences at all.
But the outbreak has started in Wuhan.
Only this 100% certainty, is enough, to put all the effort to clarify the matters in Wuhan and the lab in Wuhan.
This is the way of logical thinking of most of the people no matter scientist or not.
It is enough!

Javier
6/10/2020 02:29:17 pm

When I start reading an article and the first or second paragraph of the article started talking about Trump, Pompeo...
I just think ,shit..., nothing this person says is worth it.
Most journalist lack rigor.

Reply
Jagdish
6/5/2020 09:53:39 pm

Preprint questioning origins of RaTG13 and highlighting serious concerns on the methodology of genome sequencing used by Zhengli Shi et Al came out yesterday.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202006.0044/v1

Reply
Henri
6/5/2020 11:36:46 pm

RE:
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202006.0044/v1

This reports appears to be in two major parts: A - the origin of RaTG13 and B - the methods used.

I am not a Metagenomics expert and cannot comment on B.

The points made concerning the origin werr first raised by Bengston and have been repeated by NerdHasPower. I did not include this argument in my Nature letter because, the way I see it, it is a non-starter issue. I will try and explain my reasoning and people can correct me if I have missed something.

1) No-where in the Nature paper did Zhou et al claim that the sequence of RaTG13 was obtained in the year 2013. They say that the sequence was found in a sample TAKEN in 2013. This is not the same thing and thus allegations that they 'sat on it' for 7 years are not founded.

2) I agree that the BtCoV4991 sequence (published in 2016) is probably RaTG13. SO WHAT? I have assumed that this 4991 sequence was found in the same 2013 sample. when SARS-COV2 came along, then the group probably realised that 4991 sample was of immediate relevance. They thus went back to that sample and determined the whole sequence, RaTG13.

At worst, the group failed to mention this in the Nature paper and, additionally, simply renamed the virus. Again, so what? What is the big deal? What have I missed?

3) In an interview, the Head of the WIV explains why viruses such as RaTG13 were not followed up. At the time (i.e. BEFORE SARS-COV2), the sequence did not fulfill their criteria of what to concentrate on viz: 90% similarity to previous SARS viruses. I think RaTG13 is 79% similar (I stand to be corrected).



3)

Reply
map
6/6/2020 05:12:04 pm

Your arguments seem to me to suggest that RaTG13 was only sequenced very recently. If that is the case, then why does not Shi have a sample of the virus ?

Henri
6/6/2020 06:57:29 pm

'Map:

Because Metagenomics does not involve actually isolating a virus. It simply sequences nucleic acid with a sample. The existence of the virus in nature is then assumed.

Nerd has power
6/7/2020 03:33:08 pm

Henri, I think you are contradicting yourself here. If you agree that 4991 is RaTG13 and was found in 2013, then your own point #1 is gone. Shi has admitted to people that 4991 is RaTG13. So yes, she did sit on it for SEVEN years.

This RaTG13 is a huge discovery that "explains" the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Given its significance and that it is a nature publication, it is crucially important that the authors describe in full where it was discovered and whether or not it has been published before. If it was published before, the authors ought to cite the earlier publication. If the name of it is being changed (although there is no reason to do so), the authors have to state it in the paper in order to not cause confusions for the field. All of these are principles that people follow routinely in biological science. As everyone else agrees, many rules were violated in Shi's 2020 Nature paper.

RaTG13 is grouped by Shi into the same group of viruses as SHC014 and WIV1 in the 2016 publication when 4991 was reported. Yet both SHC014 and WIV1 were published in Shi's 2013 Nature paper and gained huge popularity. If these two are SARS-like enough, then RaTG13 certainly is too. There is no reason that they would look into SHC014 and WIV1 so closely and only leave RaTG13 out.

Also, please go and read "RaTG13 is fake" and review Figure 3 again. If you can make a satisfactory explanation of it, then feel free to come and argue for RaTG13 being real. We can discuss more after that.

John F. Signus
7/22/2020 10:01:25 pm

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vTV2d7SqHcsLB0R-QwY0Ua8fec5A_fk4/view?usp=drivesdk
One picture is worth a thousand words.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LDaGYmkrvcx2y3Xg_PX0vF6LCZgFZi09/view?usp=drivesdk

Javier
6/6/2020 06:09:38 am

Dr Sean Lin in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO_kvtrfPWc

What Dr. Sean Lin demands is the maximum rigor and transparency that any scientific work must have:
"Under the openness and ethics guidelines for scientific publications, particularly in Nature and given the magnitude of the pandemic’s impact, the Shi’s team has the obligation to provide samples of RaTG13 & BtCoV/4991 for other scientists to conduct independent verification experiments and further characterization of this RaTG13 or BtCoV/4991 virus strain"

In fact, it is an invitation to collaborate with the scientific community by providing the RaTG13 samples.

Now we will see the answer to this requirements.

Reply
Henri
6/6/2020 06:14:11 am

In an interview, the lab head mentions that all the sample has been used up. If you are a lab researcher, you will know that samples eventually get used up.

Javier
6/6/2020 12:20:52 pm

It seems there is still a claim for raw data and related RaTG13 samples??

"...This was because WIV did not isolate the RaTG13 virus and does not have any related viral stocks, if the statement from Dr. Yanyi Wang (the director of WIV) in a recent TV interview17 was accurate.
Therefore, a careful examination of the related RaTG13 samples and raw data sets of its genome sequencing are warranted to exclude any possibilities of errors or the potential coinfection
of two different strains of coronavirus. And the authors need to clearly explain the relationship between RaTG13 and BtCoV/4991, whether they were the same strain or two closely related strains"

Javier
6/7/2020 02:08:38 am

Hi Henry,

In comment below (Map 6/6/2020 06:09:14 pm) .."with regard to sample being used up.." it seems that the claim for samples is feasible.

Dr. Sean Lin makes a right ".. call for the retraction of this Nature paper to further verify thesequencing data, patient sample collection date and provide more information regarding the origin, identification and characterization of this BatCoV RaTG13. Proper verification should involve Dr. Zhengli Shi sending the RaTG13 and BtCoV/4991-related bat samples to other noncollaborating
laboratories to be analyzed independently".



John F. Signus
6/8/2020 06:56:30 am

I don't think RaTG13 was from a "fecal swab".
I went to the TG13 dataset claimed by Zhengli Shi myself. The result?
Not only did the dataset contained only 0.65% bacteria (faeces are supposed to be mostly bacteria), but it also contained the wrong species of bat. Hipposideros Armiger. The dataset is extremely degraded, but it still had a definitive TRACE of 2.36% Hipposideros Armiger with 2 full-length 100% match reads with just 3 minutes of BLAST search on the available genomes. Rhinolophidae, on the other hand, did not return any TRACE results. BLASTing against the entire Rhinolophus dataset gives just 5 100% match reads--and one of them was in the wrong direction for it to be cDNA.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1agGemF2FA2x7SOuo1BIjYxvrD-n-uCOQ/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NIblUxGSyLNXJlaZzSYfkW7LLiezg38i/view?usp=sharing
It also contained significant levels of rodents and some primates. This is tree shrews.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QZkhWXYcEFTNXWKuMrdE435URkeGNU1O/view?usp=sharing
I attempted to assemble the TG13 genome on it. and i discovered significant polymorphisms and indels between the recovered reads/contigs and the official sequence, and also significant polymorphisms and indels between the contigs themselves. It imply a mixed sample of cell culture products and passage products in tree shrews/humanized mice. with Rhinolophus-like reads doctored in at the last second.

Greg
6/6/2020 04:04:08 am

The way I see it is that some of these claims are testable, others provide some evidence of manipulation (but no smoking gun), while other simply don’t stand up to scrutiny:

A) if Ratg13 is fake then the virus synthesized from this fake sequence should not be able to infect its putative natural hosts like horseshoe bats. If this is so easy testable, why hasn’t anybody synthesized a virus from the Ratg13 sequence?

B) the assertion that the synonymous to non-synonymous mutation rate of the s2 portion of the spike protein is highly unlikely to occur in nature is only true under the assumption that the s2 protein is not under very strong purifying or negative selection. Very strong negative selection can produce a 46:1 synonymous to non-synonymous ratio, as all the non-synonymous mutations are erased but natural selection doesn’t act on synonymous mutations

C) the fact that the orf1b gene is 100 equivalent in ratg13 and sars-cov-2 seems suspicious but not if it was under negative selection in its natural host (horseshoe bat)

D) it’s highly suspicious that the binding energy of sars-cov-2 S protein is greater for human ace2 receptors than for its supposed natural hosts like pangolins or horseshoe bats.

E) it is also highly suspicious that sars-cov-02 seems well adapted to humans and there’s not much genetic polymorphism in the virus population since it jumped into humans. Rapid adaptation to humans would be expected if this virus recently jumped from pangolins into humans

F) some pangolin viral sequences were contaminated with human DNA (up to 20 percent of the weight of the sample). This could provide evidence that the pangolin sequence was mixed with a coronavirus from human cell lines, and then this mixture was sequenced, but some studies have shown that the pangolin lung samples were also contaminated by mice DNA and tiger DNA. It seems more likely that this is because the lab doesn’t clean their equipment properly when taking samples from different animals.

Overall, this D and E provide evidence of a non-natural origin, A is testable, but B and C can just be explained by negative or purifying natural selection

Reply
map
6/6/2020 05:49:26 pm

Regarding A) I don't think that RaTG13 being able to infect horseshoe bats would discount it as being fake. It think it would be quite possible to invent a virus that would infect horseshoe bats, especially if you had knowledge of other viruses that infected horseshoe bats. However, if it could not infect horseshoe bats, then that would be pretty convincing evidence that it was a fake sequence.

Reply
map
6/6/2020 06:09:14 pm

Also, with regard to sample being used up. If you isolate a sample and store it at -80, than at some time do a partial sequence, but still have sample enough to do a full sequence at a later date. A date in which by the partial sequence you previously did tells you that the sample could be extremely important because it may the closest thing you have to a virus causing a major pandemic. Then it is not a great idea to run out of that sample, particularly if you can just use some of the sample to infect cells and have the cells make as many copies as you want so that you never have to run out.

When labs have cDNA clones they never run out or have purchase more than once. When you run low, you put it in a bacteria and the bacteria make as many copies as you want. It is an endless supply.

If you have enough sample to do a full sequence and you are doing the full sequence because it could be a very important sample, how could you run out ?

John F. Signus
7/22/2020 10:05:11 pm

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XrgovgELzNHb1wWxTrkX1OooBSFv_Ysn/view?usp=drivesdk
Well—2 different papers now put RaTG13 to the test—they discovered that it have no affinity to any of the horseshoe bat species tested. It can’t even infect a bat!

John F. Signus
6/8/2020 06:38:54 am

https://zenodo.org/record/3885333#.Xt48CzmjeUk
However, what we DO have is that all pangolin datasets that had Coronavirus readings, contained Humans/Primates. The samples that does not contain Human/Primate readings, also don't contain any coronavirus readings.
This is extremey suspicious since the Human Contamination is Co-present with Coronavirus-derived reads--it strongly imply that the coronavirus came from the Human cell culture material being mixed into the samples.
Also, on the "strong negative selection" claim. there are claim of 46:1 dS/dN in some locations--however, all these claimed sequence pairs have no alterations on the RBD. the RBD residues were exactly identical indicating that these were siblings rather than relatives.
With significant RBD changes, like on TG13-CoV2, or SARS-YNLF31C, a 96% similar Pair that DO have different RBDs, the dS/dN on the S2 is a very normal 5.62:1.
Why? if you change the RBD, then it can't be of the same host. If they used different hosts (like RaTG13/CoV2 or SARS/YNLF31C), then the "extreme negative selection" is no longer there, and you will have a 5.62:1 dS/dN on the S2. ORF1ab on RaTG13/CoV2 is obviously NOT under purifying selection (it had a dS/dN of 6.22:1), and the S1/RBD is also very different. this indicate that it was not under purifying selection, and therefore the 44:1 dS/dN on the S2 is extremely strange.

Reply
John F. Signus
6/18/2020 08:09:45 am

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xp1zBf2d-hu32XSKkyJ7UBOg9ZHuAURS/view?usp=sharing
This is a followup on S2 mutations. up to 25. S2 don't interact with host receptors so the levels of purification is only related to the stability and properties of the protein itself--in Humans, up to 25 mutations on the S2 have been observed. This indicate that the S2 is NOT under negative selection.

Jerry K
6/6/2020 10:27:21 am

Anyone seen this yet?
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-33201/v1

Reply
Brian
6/6/2020 06:29:12 pm

WTF is going on? Now MALARIA on top of HIV? This is like ordering supreme pizza with everything on it! Shame on Chinese virologist! Or whoever behind this...

ok, Can someone evaluate whether the MALARIA sequence from Perez and muntganier paper match NNLD.. 7 aa? This is the paper:
https://osf.io/d9e5g/quote

Sorry to be direct but this is called genocide! Say than again "Genocide"

Reply
M-Z-1-2-3-4
6/6/2020 07:07:15 pm

HCQ (plus Zinc Sulfate) is an effective treatment for covid-19 esp. in early stage.

HCQ is a standard, proven treatment for Malaria for, like, 60 years by now?

Is there any relation here, or I am just grasping?

Jerry K
6/7/2020 04:16:35 am

Perez is finding Plasmodium yoelii in a different part of SARS-CoV-2.

This new paper finds a different Plasmodium in the RBM.

Could help shed light on the CNS issues being seen around the world.

map
6/6/2020 07:47:01 pm

The hypthesis is that HCQ acts as a zinc ionophore, meaning that it gets zinc into cells. Zinc in known to inhibit a major enzyme of the virus. HCQ has other effects on cells. I think it prevents vesicles from forming or fusing with the membrane. I am not sure. The other effects may be more important in malaria, but I do not think getting zinc into cells is thought to be important in its role against malaria becasue it does not seem to be given along with zinc when used for other diseases.

Reply
Mike
6/11/2020 11:06:44 am

Has the protective study of HCQ been done like it was on SARS?

Reply
Henri
6/7/2020 02:58:32 am

Javier,

It is not possible to share the sample if all the sample has been used up.

Reply
Not.qualified
6/7/2020 04:47:34 am

Nerd.has.power or John Signus (especially!)

Can you eval & comment on article below as it pertains to the current lack of evidence of natural selection of current pandemic, it is all a bit over my head but seems relevant to this discussion...thx in advance for any conclusion or reply!

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Cross-host evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus in palm civet and human

Huai-Dong Song, Chang-Chun Tu, Guo-Wei Zhang, Sheng-Yue Wang, Kui Zheng, Lian-Cheng Lei, Qiu-Xia Chen, Yu-Wei Gao, Hui-Qiong Zhou, Hua Xiang, Hua-Jun Zheng, Shur-Wern Wang Chern, Feng Cheng, Chun-Ming Pan, Hua Xuan, Sai-Juan Chen, Hui-Ming Luo, Duan-Hua Zhou, Yu-Fei Liu, Jian-Feng He, Peng-Zhe Qin, Ling-Hui Li, Yu-Qi Ren, Wen-Jia Liang, Ye-Dong Yu, Larry Anderson, Ming Wang, Rui-Heng Xu, Xin-Wei Wu, Huan-Ying Zheng, Jin-Ding Chen, Guodong Liang, Yang Gao, Ming Liao, Ling Fang, Li-Yun Jiang, Hui Li, Fang Chen, Biao Di, Li-Juan He, Jin-Yan Lin, Suxiang Tong, Xiangang Kong, Lin Du, Pei Hao, Hua Tang, Andrea Bernini, Xiao-Jing Yu, Ottavia Spiga, Zong-Ming Guo, Hai-Yan Pan, Wei-Zhong He, Jean-Claude Manuguerra, Arnaud Fontanet, Antoine Danchin, Neri Niccolai, Yi-Xue Li, Chung-I Wu, and Guo-Ping Zhao
PNAS February 15, 2005 102 (7) 2430-2435; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0409608102
Communicated by Zhu Chen, Shanghai Institute of Hematology, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, December 22, 2004 (received for review November 20, 2004)

Reply
Andrea Montelaro Bergeron
6/7/2020 05:58:07 am

To summarize, if the virus were NOT man made, shouldn’t evolutionary evidence of the kind detailed in the above article exist in abundance?

Reply
John F. Signus
6/8/2020 06:41:42 am

This is exactly why the complete lack of persistent mutation of SARS-CoV-2 in the human population is extremely strange!
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.21.108506v1
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262v1

Nerd has power
6/10/2020 03:34:05 pm

I agree with both Andrea and John. The second paper John listed (done by Chan and colleagues) made it crystal clear. SARS-CoV-2 lacked signs of human adaptation, which is in great contrast to SARS. SARS-CoV-2 did not seem to come from an animal host. Instead, since the very beginning, it is more than ready to use human ACE2 to infect human cells and is showing the level of comfort that only a well-adapted virus would enjoy.

The Chan paper also completely dismantled the wet market theory. The samples they collected at the market showed too tiny of a difference with viruses isolated from human patients. Too tiny to be consistent with the sample viruses being isolated from an animal. Rather, these samples are just as divergent as a virus isolated from another patient. The CCP came out later (head of CDC) and admitted that wet market should not be the source. I think they were reacting to the Chan paper.

Question: why didn't the CCP admit it earlier? They had these samples the longest time. They should be the first to learn that the wet market is "innocent". My guess --- they made up the wet market theory to begin with and would put their hope (of covering things up for them) on it for as long as it could live, hopefully forever. Until they found out that the theory can no longer sustain, they decided to come out and concede.

Henri
6/7/2020 10:45:24 pm

NerdHasPower,

No! I do not think RaTG13 / 4991 was sequenced in 2013. I think a PARTIAL sequence was obtained in 2016.

Reply
Javier
6/8/2020 02:41:41 am

Henry please,

RaTG13 has been presented as the proof of the most probably natural link between CoV19 and Bat Coronaviruses.
Then, if someone asks for details of how you got these findings and believes more research is needed, the answer is: we have no more samples of it, they are just all have been used up

Nothing happens. Everything is OK.

Reply
John F. Signus
6/8/2020 06:45:53 am

With samples that were being used up, This is basically the "Null Hypothesis" claim. They were stemming debate. also, the bat reads in TG13 points to Hipposideros Armiger--which is a Bat-derived cell line commonly used for growing viruses.
https://www.european-virus-archive.com/service/cell-line-hipem52
Unless this sample can be provided for independent sequencing, then all data on RaTG13 must be considered to be at least lab-derived, if not fraudulent.

John Kelleher
6/8/2020 01:40:34 pm


This following paper was given an article by Forbes magazine, It was pulled today.The research said many journals would not publish paper for fear of angering the CCP.

Norwegian scientist Birger Sørensen has claimed the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is not natural in origin. The claims by the co-author of the British-Norwegian study—published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics—are supported by the former head of Britain’s MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove..

The study from Sørensen and British professor Angus Dalgleish show that the coronavirus’s spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted.

They also highlight the lack of mutation since its discovery, which suggests it was already fully adapted to humans. The study goes on to explain the rationale for the development of Biovacc-19, a candidate vaccine for COVID-19 that is now in advanced pre-clinical development.

Properties that have never been found in nature
Sørensen told NRK that the virus has properties that differ greatly from SARS, and which have never been detected in nature. He explained that China and the United States have collaborated for many years on coronavirus research.

Sørensen claimed that both countries participate in “gain of function” studies, in which the pathogenicity or transmissibility of potential pandemic pathogens can be enhanced in order to understand them better.

For months, rumors have persisted that the virus was created in the advanced virology lab in Wuhan. Lab bosses told Chinese state television that the claims were “total fabrication” and that the lab had never done any research into viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2.

According to Sørensen, it was Chinese scientists that first released the sequences that the British-Norwegian study later claimed to have been unnatural in origin. He claims that China has since put a lid on other such studies.

Former MI6 head backs the research
Sir Dearlove, who was head of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, told the Daily Telegraph that the research shows that the pandemic that paralyzes the world may have started in a lab.

He suggested that a biosecurity failure might have led to the virus escaping during an experiment with bat coronaviruses. Dearlove added that he thought it unlikely to have been released deliberately, but that China had clearly tried to cover up the release.

“I I think this started as an accident. This raises the question of whether China will assume responsibility and whether China should pay compensation. I think this will make all countries think through their relationship with China and how they relate to China’s leadership,” said Dearlove. He also added that the report had been rejected by multiple scientific publications to avoid angering

Reply
M-Z-1-2-3-4
6/8/2020 05:12:32 pm

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202006.0044/v1

“Major Concerns on the Identification of Bat Coronavirus Strain RaTG13 and Quality of Related Nature Paper“

(xiaoxu lin and Shizhong Chen)

Not sure above paper has been commented here or not. Rarely see Chinese researchers write paper against nature-origin (for obvious reasons), although both authors are in U.S. it looks like.

Seems to me most if not all of their points have been discussed here. So there is a chance they got some inspiration from this board. Good for them if that were the case.

Reply
Nerd has power
6/10/2020 03:43:53 pm

Thank you for posting it. I think Javier brought it up in an earlier post too. It is very brave for these authors to stand out and publish such an article. Of course, their science is solid too. Doesn't matter whether they were inspired by information presented here or not. What is important, and telling, is that experts in the field, with varied expertise, are raising similar concerns ---- whether or not RaTG13 truly exists in nature. Shi and WIV should formally respond to these concerns.

Reply
John Kelleher
6/8/2020 08:15:21 pm

Norway scientist claims report proves coronavirus was labe made.

The above article from Forbes on Norwegian and British Covid -19
was pulled and replaced with an article on experts denying lab origin.
I have never seen an article replaced by a different article using the same URL.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/06/07/norway-scientist-claims-report-proves-coronavirus-was-lab-made/#20c62719121d

This URL above even states /norway-scientist-claims-report-proves-coronavirus-was-lab-made, but when you follow the URL there is a different article titled
" Controversial Coronavirus Lab Origin Claims Dismissed By Experts "

Reply
Andrew M
6/9/2020 02:20:43 am

It is not a different article. It is the same article which has been substantially revised in response to criticisms received (extending to matters of clear fact). The title has also been revised to reflect the resulting change in tone.

The actual article (Sorenson/Dalgleish) under discussion is here:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/DBBC0FA6E3763B0067CAAD8F3363E527/S2633289220000083a.pdf/biovacc19_a_candidate_vaccine_for_covid19_sarscov2_developed_from_analysis_of_its_general_method_of_action_for_infectivity.pdf

Can anyone point me to the part where it says the SARS-Cov-2 virus is man-made and offers up proof? It is a long article and I have struggled to locate it.

Reply
Brian
6/9/2020 03:19:43 pm

No, the paper cannot be changed after publication. the author should retract the paper....and present the reason...Normally, The critics should put some kind of letter to editor that for example, person x, y from university of WMD, would like to challenge the findings due to these reasons...

John F. Signus
6/18/2020 08:12:22 am

https://techstartups.com/2020/06/07/norwegian-scientist-birger-sorensen-claims-coronavirus-lab-made-not-natural-origin/
this is a backup for that original report.

Robert Cartwright
6/9/2020 02:35:35 am

Good morning, maybe you already know this https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32387564/

Researchers analyzed 7666 Sars-CoV-2 sequences from numerous countries in various geographic areas and observed at least 198 independently emerged mutations (homoplasms). Almost 80% of the recurrent mutations produced changes in the protein level, suggesting a possible ongoing adaptation of SARS-CoV-2. The fact that the mutations are concentrated in at least 4 specific sites, one of which is the Spike protein, the one that the virus uses to attach to human cells, leans towards an adaptation of the virus. "The fact that in these sites there are more than 15 mutations, can indicate a convergent evolution and are of particular interest in the context of the adaptation of SARS-CoV-2 to the human host" reads the article.

Can any of you help me understand if mutations observed in the spike protein have canceled one or more of the HIV sequences that Montagnier believes to be exogenous? thanks

Reply
Nerd has power
6/10/2020 04:03:10 pm

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. However, I would not be able to offer any insights for your final question -- the resolution there is, in my opinion, not down to individual mutations. Also I can't say that I'm convinced there are insertions of HIV sequences in the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Maybe someone else here could provide that help.

Reply
Robert Cartwright
6/9/2020 03:03:17 am

Maybe this image can be of help to the experts for a comparison...

https://twitter.com/JesseWMorrell/status/1267811758544236544/photo/1

Reply
Roger Rabbit
6/9/2020 08:47:42 pm

Regarding the article "Emergence of genomic diversity and recurrent mutations in SARS-CoV-2"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199730/

Generally speaking from what I have read, SARS-CoV-2 has shown to be rather stable over the course of the pandemic, the vast majority of mutations being neutral and some deleterious.

This study points to significant mutations indicating human adaptation, but occurring in regions related to immunity, which to me does not seem terribly surprising.

Reply
Javier
6/10/2020 02:40:48 pm

Too much words, too much things.
Is anything worthy to clear all this stuff in Wuhan Lab?
Yes or not.
If yes let's try to force investigate whats going on there.
Otherwise, everything will be forgotten.

Reply
yano
6/10/2020 06:12:46 pm

"This unprecedented genomic resource has already provided strong conclusions about the pandemic. For example, analyses by multiple independent groups place the start of the COVID-19 pandemic towards the end of 2019 (Table 1). This rules out any scenario that assumes SARS-CoV-2 may have been in circulation long before it was identified, and hence have already infected large proportions of the population."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134820301829

Same article above.

More evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was made in a lab. It was already pre-adapted to humans at the end of 2019. How does this kind of pre-adaption happen in nature? I don't think it does.Some magic change that just happens to be perfect or near prefect. What is the probability of this happening. I bet very very small.

Has the S protein mutated to be better adapted to enter into human cells? Is the S protein stable?

"Of note, we also identify a strong recurrent mutation in nucleotide position 21,575, corresponding to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (codon 5). While the spike protein is the known mediator of host-cell entry, our detected homoplasy falls outside of the N-terminal and receptor binding domains."

Does not look like the prt of the S protein that is used to enter the cells is changing. ???

Reply
Nerd has power
6/13/2020 08:23:09 am

Yes, powerful bioinformatics studies prove the same point: SARS-CoV-2 was well adapted to the human population since the very beginning. Where else can the adaptation take place except for in a lab? It is becoming even more clear.

John Kelleher
6/10/2020 08:02:13 pm

This is the Sorensen's paper . Andrew M inquired about the statements concerning the Lab Made hypothesis.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-
core/content/view/DBBC0FA6E3763B0067CAAD8F3363E527/S2633289220000083a.pdf/


Biovacc-19:
A Candidate Vaccine for Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Developed from Analysis of its General Method of Action for Infectivity
B. Sørensen(1), A. Susrud(1), A.G.Dalgleish(2)


From the abstract.
Caps are added for purpose of emphasis.

We propose that the dual effect general method of action of this chimeric virus’s spike, including receptor binding domain, includes membrane components other than the ACE2 receptor, which explains clinical evidence of its infectivity and pathogenicity. We
show the non-receptor dependent phagocytic general method of action to be specifically related to cumulative charge
from INSERTED SECTIONS placed on the SARS-CoV-2 Spike surface in positions to bind efficiently by salt bridge formations; and from blasting the Spike we display the non human-like epitopes from which Biovacc-19 has been down-selected.

( I love the frankness of these researchers. If you are going to make a vaccine that works you might want to start with the correct sequence for Covid -19} paraphrased.

Caps are added for purpose of emphasis.
pg. 4, first paragraph.
"It has been recently suggested that new X-Ray crystallography can assist in one of our key investigations: the docking of spike with receptor. (Jian et al. 2020) Unfortunately We Cannot Agree. The Nature paper entitled “Structural Basis of Receptor Recognition by SARS-CoV-2 DOES NOT, in fact, represent a true structure of the Spike SARS-CoV2 trimer apart from a modified part of the receptor binding motif (RBM). It uses the structure and the sequence for
SARS-CoV deposited on 1 August 2005 as the backbone and then creates a chimera with the RBM (437-508) of
SARS-CoV-2 MODIFIED and INSERTED. This is a confusing structural determination, REPRESENTING NEITHER VIRUS."



Nerd et al., This a site is asking for further proof of Covid-19 https://project-evidence.github.io

"We are an anonymous group of researchers. We are not affiliated with any company, nation state, or organization. We are not receiving funding from any sources, public or private."

"Contribution Policy
We welcome contributions to this document as new factual evidenc emerges from the scientific and Internet community as a whole"
It does prefer peer reviewed papers but you have nothing to lose and circulation would be positive . Thanks Nerd

Reply
Andrew M
6/11/2020 02:01:23 am

So the the article's alleged statement that the virus was laboratory made consists solely of the ambiguois use of the phrase "inserted sections". Thanks for explaining. Anyone unfamiliar with his history may be interested to know that Dearlove has considerable past form for mis-interpreting, re-interpreting and over-interpreting information sources. The most glaring example was his support for the famous "dodgy dossier" which falsely gave Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for launching the 2nd Gulf War. There are others. If Sorenson's research has truly led him to this conclusion (I discount Dalgleish who has no relevant background), there will be press interview material somewhere where he discusses this, no?

Reply
yano
6/11/2020 02:30:12 pm

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v1.full

Spike mutation pipeline reveals the emergence of a more transmissible form of SARS-CoV-2


"To date, mutations are extremely rare in the Spike RBD"

No need to mutate when SARS-CoV-2 is already well adapted to humans.

Reply
Nerd has power
6/13/2020 10:04:02 am

Thanks for sharing it. The paper also indicated that, for these patient-derived SARS-CoV-2 viruses, amino acid mutations have occurred in multiple places in the extended region of S2 (605-1124), where RaTG13 and earliest SARS-CoV-2 share 100% amino acid identity. Again, for a region that is clearly able to accommodate mutations, how can a bat virus share 100% sequence identity with the virus that infects humans (earliest isolate)?

Reply
Brian
6/11/2020 04:40:57 pm

Some Chinese network such as CNN promoting this preprint paper that still, the paper look interesting:
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/42669767

Reply
yano
6/11/2020 09:46:59 pm

This is what a real animal-to-human virus transmission looks like.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1609170/

"Adaptation of an animal virus to a new human host usually faces two crucial bottlenecks: the receptor adaptation of viral surface protein to its new host, followed by the adaptation of key enzymes (e.g. viral replicases) associated with viral replication to new cellular components that possibly support poorly productive infection"



"Here, we confirmed that the S gene undergoes strong positive selection [7,14-16], and identified twelve positively selected amino acid sites, including 75, 239, 244, 311, 479, 609, 613, 743, 765, 778, 1148, and 1163 during the whole SARS outbreak (Table ​(Table1).1). Among these sites, positions 239, 311, 479, 609, 743, 778, 1148, and 1163 appeared to be exposed on the surface of S protein [9,24], suggesting that they are likely to play a key role in viral transmission and survival."

Reply
yano
6/11/2020 09:54:49 pm

SARS-COV-1 2003 by the way

We found that S genes underwent strong positive selection in both groups of 02–04 interspecies epidemic and 03-early-mid epidemic, whereas no positive selection was observed in 03-late epidemic group (Table ​(Table2).2). It suggests that S protein experiences a step-by-step adaptation process to human cellular receptors.


much much different than SARS-CoV-2 2019 that has no or very minor adaptation to humans

Reply
gsgs link
6/12/2020 06:24:04 am

what about 80% of mutations being non-synonymous ?
Is it normal for coronavirus ?
I'd rather expected 20% as in influenza
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134820301829

gsgs
6/12/2020 06:28:23 am

these insertions at the cleavage site are quite common in influenza.
That's why they cull poultry flocks with low-path H5-,H7-,
because it may get an insertion (may take months,years)
to make it high-path

Reply
yano
6/12/2020 07:47:14 am

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134820301829

"While the spike protein is the known mediator of host-cell entry, our detected homoplasy falls outside of the N-terminal and receptor binding domains."

The RDB portion of the spike protein is not mutating. its well adapted from the start of the pandemic. how does this happen in nature?

Reply
John F. Signus
6/18/2020 08:15:14 am

That is in INFLUENZA viruses. No sign of this happening in Lineage B betacoronaviruses at all. SARS did not get a FCS even after extended hth transfer.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CuWg0h2rJ1kTGJDP04u1LUNkGk7AGgA3/view?usp=sharing

Reply
Bugs Bunny
6/13/2020 05:05:39 am

New study on D614G being widely hyped in the media.

https://www.scripps.edu/_files/pdfs/news-and-events/The%20D614G%20mutation%20in%20the%20SARS-CoV-2%20spike%20protein%20reduces%20S1.pdf

Reply
Andrew M
6/13/2020 02:51:55 pm

Is it really being widely hyped in the media? Maybe you could give some links. I've not seen it mentioned anywhere except here. Moreover, having read the article, I'm not convinced it has any great significance.

Reply
Rayne
6/13/2020 06:57:03 am

Great post!

I have two points to share.
1) it might be helpful to mention purifying selection in your actual post when you explain that 1:44 is not what you'd expect to see even if it is occuring. (If only to forestall objections that you're not accounting for it)

2) On the subject of purifying selection - Li et al. DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.20.000885 suggest that the S2 region has been under strong purifying selection for some time now.

Whereas NextStrain.org shows that a mutated form of the S protien (Codon 614) is now the most common world wide. (Also, that the mutation has occurred multiple times).

This shows that the virus mutated to a more effective version (repeatedly) in months despite theoretically being barely changed since diverging from its closest ancestor "decades ago".

This real world observation of the virus is at odds with claims about the stability of its sequence and the strength of selection.

Reply
Nerd has power
6/13/2020 10:24:03 am

Thank you very much for the suggestions. Yes, I did not go into depth in explaining positive and purifying selections. But the subsequent discussions have covered this aspect. I think I will leave the article as it is and let the comment sections do the job of explaining it.

The virus is definitely mutating and, at the same time, it is definitely mutating at a very modest rate with no clear signs of positive selection. I think the stability of the genome is evident according to several bioinformatics studies analyzing large datasets. This stability however, is not against the possibility that advantagous mutation(s) may still emerge. Given the magnitude of this pandemic, this real-world adaptation "experiment" is for sure at a scale much greater than that carried out in the lab earlier. So, it ought to produce something slightly better. Again, the overall feature of human adaptation of SARS-CoV-2 resembles the late stage of SARS, not consistent with something that recently crossed a specie barrier.

Reply
John F. Signus
6/18/2020 08:17:33 am

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xp1zBf2d-hu32XSKkyJ7UBOg9ZHuAURS/view?usp=sharing
You can actually look at here. the S2 is changing a lot. not producing any adavantages, just drifting. This is not Purifying selection. it indicate that CoV2 S2 in fact is not under such kind of selection. So the 44:1 dS/dN is completely valid here.

evidence
6/13/2020 07:25:31 am

Re: Further hint for VERO E6 cells as likely intermediate host (prior to FCS insertion, evidence given by J.F. Signus and other)

Maybe this has been discussed (or even discarded) somewhere else - but it is something I find quite interesting and at first sight quite obvious, and important to mention:
The remarkable higher Covid19 interferon susceptibility, in particular in comparison to Sars-CoV1,
[cf.
Ogando et al.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.20.049924v1.full.pdf

Lokugamage et al
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.07.982264v2
]

might also be another important hint for the extensive Vero E6 cell passages (as they are kidney epithel cells devoid of Interferon response/pressure).
This might be a quite general (among different virus genera convergently occuring) loss-of-function feature, while undergoing extensive Vero cell rounds, as can be seen for Orthoreovirus in a past paper
[cf
Lanoie et al. (2018)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004268221830374X
].
The Lanoie paper also shows, that at for Orthoreovirus the loss-of-function can easily occur with a single point mutation only, despite mentioning a quite sophisticated network in Orthoreovirus to counter INF alpha challenge.
The paper goes on by saying, quote: 'As somewhat expected, the resulting Vero-cell-adapted virus (VeroAV) was both adapted for better growth in Vero cells and exhibited an increased sensitivity to interferon compared to the original wild-type virus (Jabre et al., 2013; Sandekian and Lemay, 2015b);'

Hence, this would represent a striking (converging evolutionary) feature after Vero cell passages on the phenotypic side in general: higher INF alpha sensitivity as trade-off for better replication.
That means, this might also be an even more accessible phenomenon for experimental virologists and experimental investigations, in particular, including checking whether the likely closest BAT relatives/'origins' (progenitor BAT strain isolates used as Covid19 backbones, as ZC45, ZXC21, or other closely related bat strains) would show a way lesser Interferon (alpha) sensitivity in comparison to (early) Covid19 strains - and which corresponding mutations on the genotypic side might be responsible for this (as already discused in the above papers).
(N.b.: Maybe in that line, there might be even more common loss-of-function mutations/phenotypic features for (early) Covid19 due to the Vero E6 cell passages out there.)

Since we know bats do have a very strong innate immune system, including strong INF alpha (baseline) response/pressure
[cf.
Zhou
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043466613005747
],
all BAT-CoV strains certainly had been in elaborate arms-races and highly fine-tuned power balance with their bat hosts for a very long time (possibly millions of years), hence resulting in a very elaborate and highly complicated response network to counter INF-alpha challenge in bats
[cf. review by
Kindler et al (2016): Interaction of SARS and MERS with interferon response
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7112302/pdf/main.pdf
]
, so it is unlikely for any bat-CoV, which would naturally directly spill over to humans, having such a high Interferon alpha sensitivity.

Additionally, it can be expected, that late Covid19 strains (maybe already the ones of the current tide hitting South America) would gradually become less sensitive to INF alpha (human) host-challenge in comparison to the early ones examined for example in the Ogando paper.
It might be therefore one of the features, which had NOT been pre-adapted to the human host yet ;)

Reply
Nerd has power
6/13/2020 10:33:13 am

Interesting point! Thanks for sharing. Maybe some virologist would look into this aspect. It is also possible that they have done animal work after Vero cell passages. So the virus could be a bit more ready for dealing with human-like innate immunity. My two cents.

Reply
evidence
6/16/2020 09:55:23 am

Re: NerdhasPower.
Thanks for the feedback!
While I agree on almost everything with you, I am not sure if I would consider this one (animal passages following dish rounds again) being likely, since I believe streamlining the RBD would come first as GOF goal, while FINE-TUNING the virus to counter the immune response likely comes second, particularly since the host's innate immune response is always kind of a little bit coarse-grained (including not always host-species specific to a very extreme end). One (i.e., WMD researcher) would not potentially trade again a sufficiently streamlined RBD for a little bit more appropriately optimized counter-response to the innate immune system. Also, the Covid19 virus (of the early outbreak) does not seem at all being appropriate or balanced with respect to the new human host immune system as we know, e.g. leading for example ultimately to host's overeaction in some patients (self-attack, cytokine storm etc.). Also, I am not sure, if they had been fully aware of the (unintendedly) high SARS-CoV2 IFN sensitivity before it ultimately broke out in humans.
So (also considering the Petrovsky group paper) I would still go for the following sequence of late events, also mainly considering Signus' posts + references (as of 5/14/2020, 5/20/2020 in particular):
RBD insertion -> ferret passage - > Vero E6 cells (extensively) -> FCS insertion -> double checking if it's still working on ferrets (with no GOF intendend at this point): and here the likely spill-over accident would have had occured.
But this is certainly very elaborate, and only a model based on what we have as far - as I see it - and certainly can be corrected at any time as new evidence comes out.
However, my MAIN general point/line of reasoning talking about the interferon feature has also been: once they go extensively through specific (selected) tissue or disconnected cells (instead of exclusively full animal hosts only), the likelihood that there is something typical (with respect to the tissue) also unintendedly being LOST (in comparison to only serial passages done in live animal host), is quite high (even if they had animal passages done before on it), and so are the stakes that this is being reflected in the evolutionary memory of the genome - and that this can even quite possibly be reproduced in laboratories again. (I think tissue cells can be thought here as being kind of a depleted ecosystem for the virus, as well as having characteristic relaxation of some former constraints - this has to leave a few characteristic signatures, also on the phenotypic side. Especilly in case, where the original cell tropism of the virus, even only slightly, differs from the dish rounds, which had been the case here.)
So, my own 2 Cents for the possibility, that there would be more Vero E6 specific, yet unknown, loss-of-functions out there (early) SARS-CoV2 shares with it's Vero peers... ;)
-
Overall, I also would like to underline, that your written Essay contributions as well as your initative establishing this forum is of paramount value, dwarfing over 90% of all publications concerning Covid19 origin so far. I continue to remain speechless how there still can be publications coming out by researchers uncritically relying on Ratg13 without even at least cautiously addressing all these widespread concerns.
Starting with basic textbook knowledge - this is a must-read for every undergrad in life-sciences on how easily also science can get corrupted/biased and how hard it is at the beginning to see it, as the devil lies in the detail, and it takes also courage to attack him at the level of details - and that trapping did not happen to our ancestors only but it can happenand happens to us - any time.
Many thanks, it is certainly been a powerful eye-opener for many of us - including this formatt of an ongoing debate.

Chantilly
6/13/2020 03:58:54 pm

I thank everyone for contributions to this blog. It is certainly lays out a convincing argument that the virus is lab produced. I do, however, have a question. While the virus has been globally impactful, it is has not been completely devastating. The actions of the CCP early on (building large hospitals in 10 days, welding apartment blocks shut, and fumigating city centers, 24/7 incinerator operations, ...) seem indicative of a severe impact, or at least a severe expected impact. Yet, while not acceptable, the death toll outside China appears to be lower, possibly considerably lower. Does anyone wish to speculate on an epidemiological reason why this might be the case? Is it possible that as a bioweapon the virus has been a disappointing success (from the viewpoint of those that released it) outside of China? If so should we prepare for round 2, because in war there is always a round 2.

Reply
Pete Ross
6/13/2020 09:35:33 pm

Good question!
Part of solving the riddles is evaluating the events at Ft Detrick in the summer of 2019; an outbreak of an unidentified pneumonia in a nursing home not far away; reports of flu-like illnesses in Sept-Nov 2019 in both the US and Europe, especially the lethal vaping syndrome EVALI that disappeared from the medical literature exactly when it should have received closer scrutiny; reports of testing kits contaminated with the virus; reports of athletes feeling ill during the Wuhan games and the refusal to release medical information; the bizarre coincidence of Event 201: Novel Coronavirus Pandemic Simulation of 18 Oct 2019, under auspices of Gates/Microsoft, that focused on media messaging; the mixed-messages and obstruction to investigation on the China side; that the US bioweapon program is run by foreign nationals; that the DTRA contractor EcoHealth Alliance was present in China in Oct 2019; statements by Fauci and others, asserting that the 'next administration' will be challenged with a pandemic; that Gates/Microsoft dominates global health policy of infectious disease through WHO and innumerable public and private entities; the insistence to bypass FDA testing for both COVID vaccination programs and therapeutics; the insistence upon the inevitability of a 'second wave' arriving despite the absence of evidence or theory for such an outcome; the role of individuals from NIH, NCI, Ft Detrick and NATO in preparing WHO R&D pandemic responses who are now positioned to profit from commercial therapeutics and vaccines. For starters.
The sudden death of Dr Frank Plummer, who was working on coronavirus as a vector, as well as that of his colleague, and of course the sudden deaths of many virologists during the prior two decades, all need to be probed.
Apparently, coronavirus vectors have been in recent clinical trials for poultry under the auspices of Gates/Pirbright/Porton Down.
Is the epidemiology consistent with human-to-human transmission as the only mechanism of transmission? Does analysis of the strains suggest a vaccine trial gone awry - the presence of an attenuated strain and a lethal strain?
Is there evidence that CoV-2 was designed with GOF elements that promote clotting, free radical damage, micro- and macro- angiopathy?
Why was the CDC response so mismanaged, leading to a critical delay of at least a month in testing?
Why did the Governor of Maryland request the extraordinary secret shipment of 500,000 unapproved test kits from a Korean firm when FDA approved kits were already widely available?

Reply
Shinara
6/13/2020 11:26:38 pm

Sounds like the usual wumao misdirection campaign.

Jenny
6/13/2020 11:45:05 pm

It sounds like the right direction to follow.

CCP is NAZI
6/13/2020 11:48:22 pm

Stop sidetrack the discussion. You are just trying to throw in conspiracy theories to deflect the spot light on CCP - a typical CCP propaganda and a trick by the Global Times shills. The quickest and easiest way is always transparency from CCP. They are stonewalling from day 1 and their further actions to destroy evidences speak loudly of their complicity in their role in the pandemic to say the least.

Why don't you help answer questions even a Chinese diplomat like Zhao Lijian failed to answer? Here are my questions:

If CCP Virus were really released by U.S. like what you accused,
why would CCP help U.S. to punish the 8 doctors like Wenliang Li?
Why would CCP help U.S. to lock down Wuhan P4 lab?
Why would CCP help U.S. wash cleaned Huanan Seafood market?
Why would CCP help U.S. to invite thousands for dinner?
Why would CCP help U.S. to give thousands of free admission tickets?
Why would CCP help U.S. to spread CCP virus all over the country?
Do CCP betray China after they transferred all the corrupted fund abroad?

He couldn't answer any of those questions and here is his only response:

Lijian Zhao
赵立坚@zlj517
You’re blocked

Jenny
6/13/2020 11:54:11 pm

What about a common vaccine program gone wrong paid by USA and China with leak in USA? A virus discovered first in USA 96% close to the one carried by a Chinese bat would have immediately raised the question if it could be natural.

CCP is NAZI
6/14/2020 12:00:44 am

Ya, thanks to CCP infiltrated Obama who used tax payers' money to fund NIH who then outsourced the fund to WuHan P4 lab that was not developing vaccine but bioweapon. Still, my questions above were never answered by any CCP PRO.

yano
6/13/2020 09:21:27 pm

pre print

A rebuttal to “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2”:Covid-19 is plausibly from a man made virus.Emergency regulatory reform for stopping epidemics

I like this part

"When looked at carefully, not a single argument presented in The Letter appears to have merit. Invalid conjectures and assumptions were presented as fact.This does not represent proper,relevant,modern scientific methodology"


https://osf.io/usx58


A recent letter in Nature Medicine(www.doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9)claims that genomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 shows that it is clearly not manmadeand that natural evolutionary causes are adequate to explain its appearance. By contrast the case is made here that genomic analysis of the virus showsthat directed evolution, a human engineering process honored by the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, provides superior explanation forits origin. The simultaneous appearances of a new RBD backbone, a new polybasic cleavage sight, new fusion improvements, asymptomatic transmission, and an initial stable mutation rate indicative of mature adaptation to a host work together to lead to a common conclusion: directed evolution provides more plausible explanation of the virus’s origin than does natural evolution. The major concern here is not who might have made the virus, but rather that technology already exists and is already well-understood throughout the world which is capable of creating new, future pandemics and appear to be the proximal cause of Covid-19.

Reply
Pete Ross
6/14/2020 04:40:19 am

There are dangers to digging too deeply into the events surrounding the origin of this 2019-2020 COVID pandemic, as a possible outcome is that one or more nations perceive correctly or incorrectly that an act of war has taken place.
It may be wise at this point for the nations involved to grant a no-fault amnesty to one another on the national level, in the spirit of encouraging full transparency access to one another's biological programs. There is a Gordian Knot of obscure circumstances, misunderstandings, miscalculations, and outright, premeditated malfeasance by some if not all parties involved.
A starting point might be the WHO statement of Jan 14, 2020 proclaiming that "human to human" transmission was not a feature of transmission.has not been observed.
An additional starting point is to investigate the medical establishment's scientific fraud. For example the fraud that CoV-2 arose 'naturally' rather than being a lab creation. For example, the deliberate portrayal of a HCQ + zinc + macrolide combination as being 'too dangerous' and 'essentially ineffective', as claimed in the top journals as well - and this alongside an aggressive censorship campaign perpetrated both by a hegemonic medical community and by the social media monopolies.across all platforms.
A third starting point of inquiry is to refresh the evaluation of the EVALI cases which mimic the COVID syndromes, as well as the reports of other sporadic outbreaks of COVID-like symptoms predating the purported Dec 2019 date for the Wuhan index case.
A fourth mode of inquiry might focus on the Event 201 Novel Coronavirus Pandemic Simulation of 18 Oct 2019, which indicates not only foreknowledge of an impending outbreak.but as well, the premeditated waging of a global mass-media campaign to overplay the dangers of contracting COVID,.including the media blitz to insist upon an absolute indication for mass vaccination with experimental methodology. Indeed, there are signs that job positions for quarantine officers and lucrative contracts for contact tracing were being negotiated earlier in the year.
It seems possible that confounding international politics might be avoided if the investigation is reduced to a number of initially independent lines of inquiry focusing on these issues of medical management.
Intra-national investigations also need to be initiated immediately, while memories are still fresh. There's evidence in some US States of colossal over-diagnosis and under-diagnosis resulting in malpractice and mass tragedy.that potentially rise to the level of criminal behavior. Here again, a bizarre and malicious propaganda campaign was waged against the use of generic medicines in favor of untested, proprietary compositions.
The censorship issues most probably stifled critical investigations into the structure-function and mechanism of action of the novel virus, which, as a lab creation, may comprise as yet unrecognized GOF elements that promote the observed oxidative damage and clotting pathology in addition to the optimally adapted binding tropism for human cells deduced from sequence analysis.
Yet another initially independent line of inquiry is the epidemiology, which apparently behaved as first order kinetics as opposed to the mass media fear-mongering campaign of exponential kinetics, as repeatedly emphasized for the preparatory propaganda master class, e.g. Event 201 Novel Coronavirus Pandemic Simulation. Perhaps Event 201's most egregious 'flood the zone' propaganda talking point was to insist upon using the ancient and grossly irrelevant 1918 'Spanish Flu' pandemic as the prototype upon which to model the current pandemic; clearly a fear-mongering tactic based upon a fake science from which additional elements of psychological warfare were derived and fiercely promoted, such as a "65 million death toll" and the 'inevitable arrival' of a second wave and third wave in subsequent flu seasons - predictions without empirical or theoretical basis - unless one pretends that a pandemic from 1918 by far the most relevant model while excluding all what has been learned from all the outbreaks of infectious disease during the past century.

So to conclude, it is critical to clearly articulate the answer to the question: "Why has this SARS-2 (CoV-2) pandemic been the subject of intense mass media psychological warfare conducted across all platforms, including rampant social media censorship, waged upon the USA and many other countries?"

Reply
yano
6/14/2020 07:41:28 am

"Why has this SARS-2 (CoV-2) pandemic been the subject of intense mass media psychological warfare"

When a politician like Trump stands up and says, Yes HCQ, Yes lab creation by China". the political media automatically takes the opposite side. This is called Trump derangement syndrome(TDS). TDS is very real.

The media will go so far as to side with communist China censoring the opposite political and scientific views.

What is really comical is the arrogance and or ignorance of the virology community. To think they could stand up on a soap box and proclaim, at the top of their lungs that, "This virus is 100% from nature". When the science is pointing to a lab created virus. Nothing is 100% probable of course. Well maybe death, but even this is up for debate.

Reply
Jenny
6/14/2020 08:04:29 am

Many virologists might be directly involved and many might be concerned to lose grants for their research and the shame on virology. This sadly comes before the pity for who died. They do not care to risk the next pandemic with their experiments.

Nerd has power
6/15/2020 04:15:25 am

Very good points, Yano and Jenny. If there is someone who is always trying to protect American people and American interests, it is President Trump. HCQ and his claim that this virus is lab-made are two good examples.

The many virologists that sided with the CCP or kept silent saddens me as well. While it is possible that some people were initially fooled by the fake evidence and bought the notion that the virus came from nature, I don't think they still are. Not standing out due to the fear of losing grants or the shame on virology makes things even worse for them. The lack of compassion in the science community is shocking. As a scientist myself, I feel sad thinking of how people might perceive scientists once the truth is widely accepted around the world.

Chantilly
6/14/2020 08:08:15 pm

Covid19 was manufactured. It was then released either accidentally or on purpose.

If accidentally, I can see China asking for help in containing an experiment that went awry. A responsible player in the world of virology would do just that. Even if China wanted to save face, there is a way to warn the world, and save face. They did none of that. In fact they muzzled their own scientists that were raising the alarm.

That leaves intentional release. Then the question becomes for what purpose? Was it to gain advantage in Hong Kong and it got out of hand, or was it to gain advantage over the world?

The answer to the second question will determine the events of the next 6-18 months. If it was Hong Kong and it got out of hand I can see the world taking a collective breath and slapping on economic sanctions and calling it a day.

If however it was option 2, then the implication is that this was a global act of WAR that cannot be allowed to stand -- lest it give some other parties similar ideas.

As you say, a miscalculation on the second one comes with grave consequences regardless of which the miscalculation goes. It is therefore important to determine whether it was intentional, and whether or not it was as effective as planned (assuming intent). If it was NOT as effective as planned then a phase 2 is likely and we should plan for it as well as a response to it.

Reply
Alesara
6/14/2020 08:21:18 pm

If for Hong Kong, then also for Taiwan. Unfortunately for the CCP, Taiwan knows the CCP well enough not to get hoodwinked by a CCP/WHO combination public health misinformation attack.

Nerd has power
6/18/2020 01:27:04 pm

Whether it was intended for Hong Kong or it was a "small-scale" human experiments getting out of control, the CCP knew what the virus was. Importantly, one has to be reminded with these facts: 1) the CCP had Zhengli Shi publish a fabricated sequence of RaTG13 after the outbreak took place; 2) the CCP stopped all the domestic travels from Wuhan and yet allowed international flights to run out of Wuhan, freely, for weeks. It's pretty obvious to me that at least some of what happened was intentional.

Alberto
6/14/2020 09:58:01 am

I am sharing my work with you, I sent it to 3 Journals and it was rejected. So, I uploaded it to Researchgate:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alberto_Rubio-Casillas/publication/342110627_Scientists_not_COVID-19_conspiracy_theorists_reveal_how_to_create_a_synthetic_virus/links/5ee2abeb92851ce9e7dcaafc/Scientists-not-COVID-19-conspiracy-theorists-reveal-how-to-create-a-synthetic-virus.pdf?origin=profileFeaturedResearchPublicationItem


Andersen et al.3 in his Nat. Med. article: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, affirmed that SARS- CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. He also stated: “if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for beta coronaviruses would probably have been used.
Every scientist who has worked with these reverse genetic systems knows that such manipulation leaves no trace (see page 4). This is widely known so it is very strange that Nature reviewers have not objected on this issue. Unless, of course, that article had not been subject to peer review.

Reply
yano
6/14/2020 04:59:06 pm

Yes, papers have been written about how viruses can be constructed and are fully functional at replicating. In 2002. This is not new technology.

No traces of genetic engineering are left behind. Papers specifically point this out and are proud of the fact.

This Nature paper is working off of very old technology, they are behind the times. At the least they are ignorant, at the worst they are hiding the facts.

Reply
Nerd has power
6/18/2020 01:09:43 pm

Thank you, Alberto, for publishing your article and sharing it here. Yes, there is no doubt that voices on this side are being suppressed. But I don't think that would last forever. Every little bit counts. All we have to do is to keep adding facts. Great and courageous work!

Reply
yano
6/14/2020 05:01:59 pm

@Jenny
"Many virologists might be directly involved and many might be concerned to lose grants for their research and the shame on virology. This sadly comes before the pity for who died. They do not care to risk the next pandemic with their experiments."

Losing funding is a conflict of interest. Are they claiming this in their papers?

Reply
Dobaman
6/15/2020 04:46:15 am

Everyone should watch the latest "This week in Virology" podcast with Ralph Baric and watch his reaction to a "GoF" comment made. Its hilarious. :-)

Reply
Ralph's Cousin
6/15/2020 12:04:44 pm

In the "This week in Virology" podcast found here https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/

Ralph Baric goes into significant detail between 35:20 - 37:25 about his gain of function experiments manipulating SARS-CoV-2. When another panel member calls it the "best use of gain of function" there is stunned silence and nervous laughter.

Reply
Henri
6/16/2020 01:50:39 am

I detected no 'stunned silence' and no ' nervous laughter'.

Reply
Pete Ross
6/16/2020 02:48:37 am

Is that good or bad?

Reply
Henri
6/16/2020 06:47:01 pm

Neither

Brian
6/16/2020 03:34:11 pm

Ralph and Shi , the "old coworkers", should be in the court of law right now providing evidence that they are not guilty. The FBI, by now, should have raid their homes . The fact that none of these happening means that something really really is wrong! The fact that they still proudly broadcast podcast, and laughing to dead bodis, means that there is something really really Fucked up! You got to be serious and boycott and socially shamed these so called scientist? Why you even listen to them? They should come clean with some kind of video confession... Is there not enough evidence that the are creating GOF variants? Why there is no prosecution? This is just 9/11 all over again for your generation!

Reply
Not.qualified
6/16/2020 06:26:47 pm

Brian you are exactly correct, Ralph & Shi should be held accountable for this BEAST they intentionally willfully created...it is their dog now biting ALL OF HUMANITY

Reply
Not.qualified
6/16/2020 07:20:22 pm

Need.has.Power, John F. Signus, & other GenBank users:

Re: GenBank MT308984

Were you all aware that on May 22, 2020 Ralph Baric added an author correction to his 2015 original article “ A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT308984

“In the version of this article initially published, the sequence of the mouse adapted SHC015-MA15 virus had not been deposited in GenBank. The sequence has now been deposited in GenBank under accession number MT308984.”

Link:
Nat Med. 2020 May 22 : 1.
doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0924-2 [Epub ahead of print]
PMCID: PMC7242891

Can you please comment on this recent MT308984 GenBank addition and whether or not it can be traced to the COVID 19 virus in any way? Is my understanding that his work contributed to the creation of this pandemic virus correct? Please advise!

Thx again so much in advance to Nerd, John, and everyone here keeping the science accountable!!

Nerd has power
6/18/2020 01:54:10 pm

Thanks for the info. The timing of this upload is very interesting. I did a quick blast and saw that the nucleotide sequence of this virus is 82% identical to that of SARS-CoV-2. I think it would be very hard to detect anything in terms of whether or not SARS-CoV-2 can be traced back to this virus.

My guess is that Ralph has been pressured by "somebody" to provide and release this piece of info, which has been missing for years. Could it be the FBI? Not completely impossible. If Ralph can come out clean, then Zhengli Shi and the Wuhan P4 lab should be the next to be investigated. The CCP would resist until the pressure is so big that it can't.

Not.qualified
6/17/2020 05:00:42 am

Nerd Nation please continue the debate in the meantime...above request may take a sec :)

Reply
Not.qualified
6/17/2020 10:27:10 am

P.S. (Brian, especially!) ...meaningfully the article I reference above lists Shi & Baric together as co-authors...

Reply
Brian
6/17/2020 03:24:05 pm

Sch014 that they engineered in 2015 may not be related to ratg13.
That may be for next round!?

Reply
Brian
6/20/2020 08:44:56 am

Look like more than 50 scientist are in trouble with 399!!!! To go...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/fifty-four-scientists-have-lost-their-jobs-result-nih-probe-foreign-ties

I am wondering if someone has the names so we know what is going on...

Reply
Arnaud
6/18/2020 07:39:28 am

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_(number)

#Event201
201 is an HTTP status code indicating a new resource was successfully created in response to the request, with the textual part of the response line indicating the URL of the newly created document

As the two factors of 201 are both Gaussian primes, 201 is a Blum integer.
https://t.co/FV4pwyCQsB

This means that the factors of a Blum integer are Gaussian primes with no imaginary part.

a 201 file is a file detailing an employee's history and records with a particular employer

A 201 file is a set of documents maintained by the US government for members of the Armed Forces. It is also referred to as the Official Military Personnel File.

201 in binary (11001001) is the title of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Reply
Ted
6/19/2020 01:40:08 pm

@ Nerd has power, @ John F. Signus. A published protein alignment of the S region is interesting and seems worthwhile to note here. As in the alignment in the article above it compares SARS-CoV-2 (Wuhan-Hu-1) to a mix of bat CoVs (including ZXC21 and ZC45) and CoVs from the prior SARS pandemic. A useful addition is that it also includes RaTG13. Since it is published it can be easily cited. @ Nerd, all your related observations in your two articles appear to apply to this alignment published in:

Structure, Function, and Antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420302622 (scroll to Supplemental Information, Data S1 “Amino Acid Sequence Alignment of Sarbecovirus S Glycoproteins” or download directly: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867420302622-mmc2.pdf )

This alignment compares the S region of SARS-CoV-2 (Wuhan-Hu-1) and RaTG13 followed by seven SARS-CoVs infecting humans from the prior pandemic, followed by four CoVs from bats. Their respective accession numbers are listed in the Data S1 supplemental Information (not in the PDF itself).

@ John, the amino acid numbering in the publication happens to match your CoV2 alignment jpg linked in your comment on 6/18/2020 07:29:46 am. You may find the comparison easy and interesting. The subregions below are named and numbered according to your jpg (do you have a published source for the subregion locations?).

First simple takeaway:
Aside the CTD/RBD subregion of S, CoV2 and RaTG13 are nearly identical while there is much greater variation with the other CoVs.

SP SUBREGION (1-13)
CoV2 versus RatG13: 100% Identical.
All 13 CoVs: No column contains identical amino acid (changes in 100% of columns).

NTD SUBREGION (14-305)
CoV2 versus RatG13: Only three mutations/changes at 34, 51, 218
All 13 CoVs: 198 amino acid columns contain changes (68% of 291 columns contain changes)

CTD/RBD SUBREGION (319-541)
CoV2 versus RatG13: 16 amino acid mutation/changes
All 13 CoVs: 99 columns contain changes (42% of 236 aa columns contain changes)

REMAINDER OF S1 (542-680 plus Furin clevage insert 681-685)
CoV2 versus RatG13: 100% identical (not including Furin cleavage PRRA insert in CoV2 at 681-685)
All 13 CoVs: 40 amino acid columns contain changes (29% of 138 aa columns)

S2 SUBREGION (685-1273)
CoV2 versus RaTG13: Only two changes at 1125 and 1228.
All 13 CoVs: 80 amino acid columns contain changes in the group S2 (13.6% of 588 aa columns in this region). Compared to S1, the S2 region amino acids are relatively conserved.

Reply
gsgs
6/20/2020 08:02:41 pm

may I ask people here,
whether they are biased,
whether they have an agenda
whether they are US-republican voters
whether they would like evidence to emerge for a lab origin
whether they are more likely to present/discuss evidence for a lab-origin
than against it
whether they are more likely to ignore evidence for a natural origin
I mean, are you just curious or are you searching for support of an already formed opinion ?

Reply
Brian
6/20/2020 10:18:42 pm

Your question whether this site belongs to a political party is nonsense.
The science tells us that ratg13 is #likely# made by human thanks to professor Nerd who discovered this. You have to appreciate this finding if you are in this field.
The journals can not and will NOT accept any preprint paper discussed in this site unless the political environment change. I can say that 99% of all discussed preprint paper is scientifically correct but will never be published. It is NOW your decision: Do you believe in science of fake news? Do you want a pseudocomfort so you can sleep good in bed or you want a real true? We are all addicted to pseudocomfort ! We need that so we can be a positive life in tommorrow....

Reply
gsgs
6/22/2020 11:21:14 pm

Brian wrote on Jun20:

> Your question whether this site belongs to a political party is nonsense.

a question is no statement ... it could be politically motivated, I often see it in other
US-discussion. And here the lab-origin is obviously "a Trump's" thing.
Well, Nerd says below he started in Feb., before this came up. But others may have
joined, found this, because of Trump.

> The science tells us that ratg13 is #likely# made by human thanks to professor Nerd
> who discovered this. You have to appreciate this finding if you are in this field.

it's not generally accepted, so not "The science tells us"

> The journals can not and will NOT accept any preprint paper discussed in this site
> unless the political environment change. I can say that 99% of all discussed preprint
> paper is scientifically correct but will never be published. It is NOW your decision:
> Do you believe in science of fake news? Do you want a pseudocomfort so you can
> sleep good in bed or you want a real true? We are all addicted to pseudocomfort !
> We need that so we can be a positive life in tommorrow....

I'm not sure yet. Too much material, too complicated. How can you be sure ?

Alesh
6/23/2020 01:05:30 am

“And here the lab-origin is obviously "a Trump's" thing..... others may have
joined, found this, because of Trump.“

The opposite is truer: A lot of people are willing to overlook the evidence for unnatural origin of the virus just because they are anti-Trump.

yano
6/21/2020 11:49:28 am

" ignore evidence for a natural origin"

What evidence? Please provide evidence that SARS-COV-2 came from nature. At this point I have only seen speculation and conjecture.


The evidence is pointing to a laboratory creation. This evidence is also being ignored because scientist have a conflict of interest that they are not disclosing.

A lab created virus would put shame and loss of funding on the community. Follow the money.

Reply
gsgs
6/22/2020 11:23:06 pm

Yano ,

there is almost always "evidence" for and against a theory. (but how much probability ?)
You'll see evidence for a natural origin commonly formulated.
No similar virus known (lab viruses are usually known)
Motive unclear.
Chinese reaction, they would have behaved differently, if they had known it in Feb.
It cannot be easily concluded from the sequence against a natural origin,
that would likely be the case for a fabricated virus. Well, unless sophistically
hiding it.

Jenny
6/21/2020 01:11:56 pm

The evidence provided so far for a natural origin comes from a highly biased study in Nature, the Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2

https://unherd.com/2020/06/so-where-did-covid-come-from/

““We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” concluded one influential paper in Nature Medicine (although it failed to mention one author is a guest professor at a body running one of the suspect units while another has just been honoured by Beijing for his work in China).”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Holmes

Holmes is also an Honorary Visiting Professor at Fudan University, Shanghai, China (2019-present) as well as Guest Professor at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (2014-present)

China Honors Ian Lipkin

https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/china-honors-ian-lipkin

Did the authors sign the letter about no conflict of interests when they submitted their paper to Nature?

Reply
Nerd has power
6/21/2020 09:31:35 pm

My first article was written in late Feb. By then, no republicans or democrats had said anything about a lab origin of the virus, as far as I can remember. I was convinced by the scientific evidence and logic, not by American politics. If the Democrats had first come out and spoken what I believe is the truth, I would praise them just as much.

To me, the CCP just "bombed Pearl Harbor". It's that clear. Tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives. Millions lost their jobs. Doesn't matter you are democrat or republican. What is being hurt is America. Of course, the whole world, including Chinese people (CCP=\= Chinese people), are also victims. You are of course entitled to question the motives here, but please don't be distracted from what really matters --- the truth. What we are really providing here are facts. Opinions are ultimately your own.

Reply
evidence
6/21/2020 02:32:54 am

Re: New experimental support for RBD pre-adaptation

On June 17 came out a large, powerful experimental RBD-hACE (quantitative) binding study, also indirectly supporting the notion of pre-adaptation of the RBD to the human host, sampling n= 3804 variants with RBD amino acid mutations:

Starr et al. 'Deep mutational scanning of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain reveals
constraints on folding and ACE2 binding'
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.17.157982
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.17.157982v1
.
This study shows, that of all known isolates, NO RBD-mutation, which had been fixed during the ongoing pandemic as far, exhibits advantageous binding affinity in comparison to the original wildtype (Wuhan-Hu-1), acccording to their assay (also see Fig 3B there),
quote (p.9): 'RBD mutations that have appeared in SARS-CoV-2 to date are slightly deleterious or nearly neutral with respect to these two biochemical phenotypes, with the exception of one mutation (V367F) that increases expression of folded protein. Notably, there has been no selection to date for any of the numerous evolutionarily accessible mutations that strongly enhance ACE2 binding affinity.'

The motivation for this experimental study was of course vaccine research (Seattle-based group + cf. acknowledgments...): the authors avoided meticulously to mention/discuss the implications regarding the very origin question (in contrast to the Piplani/Petrovsky study which had not even been cited here), including taking RaTG13 as a granted reference - however, the experimental results are important here and speak for themselves - and are absolutely in line of what we know as far.

Reply
yano
6/21/2020 11:41:03 am

How does this even happen in nature? This seem totally crazy to even suggest a RBD pops out of nature fulling adapted to human cells.


What other science points to how this happens in nature?
The only thing I can think of is that this virus was in humans for some time not getting people sick. What is the likelihood of this? Seems very small.

There is also science showing one single infection event. One single genetic ancestor.

Reply
Nerd has power
6/21/2020 09:38:06 pm

Thanks for sharing this paper. It is in line with Alina Chan's paper, which revealed that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was well adapted for infecting humans from the very beginning.

Reply
Ted
6/21/2020 02:29:35 pm

Yuri Deigin, the author of the Medium article much discussed in the comments above, with Rossana Segreto, published a preprint this month on ResearchGate. Worth reading.

Is considering a genetic-manipulation origin for SARS-CoV-2 a conspiracy theory that must be censored?
Rossana Segreto (Department of Microbiology, University of Innsbruck, Austria)
and Yuri Deigin (Youthereum Genetics Inc., Toronto, ON Canada)

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31358.13129/1
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340924249_Is_considering_a_genetic-manipulation_origin_for_SARS-CoV-2_a_conspiracy_theory_that_must_be_censored

Reply
Nerd has power
6/21/2020 09:41:59 pm

Thanks! I have seen this preprint. It's wonderful. Yuri also had an interview with Bret Weinstein, which is worth watching although it's a bit long:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug

Reply
gsgs link
6/23/2020 01:23:00 am


hi Nerd, I only now fully read the article (above all the comments).
I had only briefly looked at it earlier, I had found the site by searchengine with keywords
in some of the comments. I'm a programmer, without medical or lab-experience,
but I did influenza-database analysis in the birdflu forums since 2006.
And one thing that I discovered in 2009 is the strange amino-acid conservation
in the inner segments in mallards, the national reservoir of influenza-A .
There are few amino-acid differences but many nucleotide differences.
This changes once the flu evolves in poultry or mammals, then the amino-acid
mutations also accumulate over the years.
I speculate that this could be the case in Coronavirus Spike end Envelope Protein too :
few amino-acid changes within one host-species and many within another one.

I had put this here :
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/general-science-information/gsgs-s-workroom/75730-antigenic-avian-influenza-evolution-is-mainly-restricted
As a coincidence it was Eddy Holmes whom I sent it and who kind of confirmed it,
that it were known but not directly published. At that time he was not yet in Australia
and doing influenza. Taubenberger used it as the "avian consensus"
(amino-acid,inner segments). Apparently Kawaoka et.al didn't know it before they posted
about it some years ago, warning that the 1918 inner segments are still around in mallards (afair)

Reply
gsgs
6/23/2020 02:59:04 am


here is the Kawaoke paper (from 20140
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931312814001632
> Interestingly, for most viral proteins (except for hemagglutinin [HA], neuraminidase [NA],
> and PB1-F2), we found [current] avian influenza virus proteins that differed from
> their 1918 counterparts by only a limited number of amino acids

"interestingly" .
They didn't really expect this.
Flu doesn't mutate away in the inner segments (except HA,NA) in mallards
(and some other species) at the amino-acid-level.
This can especially be seen when comparing the American and Eurasian sub-strains.
which mainly evolve separately for decades.



Reply
John F. Signus
6/24/2020 06:13:26 am

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tW8g6tJQ1zsDBg3W-EmnpeX7fpiirP6C/view?usp=sharing
Recommend adding SARS and YNLF31C as well. that is also 5.62:1 on the S2.

Nerd has power
6/24/2020 07:26:38 pm

Thanks, John! I do plan to dig a bit more on the syn/non-syn analysis. Will definitely include SARS and YNLF31C in there.

Nerd has power
6/23/2020 08:55:47 pm

Thank you for sharing your work and opinion. I guess you were referring to Figure 3 in "RaTG13 is fake" and arguing that having lots of synonymous mutations could be totally normal for certain viral proteins.

You are correct that some proteins or some part of a protein don't tend to tolerate amino acid mutations. That's exactly why I did a comparison between a natural group (ZC45 and ZXC21) and a suspicious group (SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13). When the natural group exhibits a normal ratio of synonymous/non-synonymous mutations, the suspicious group is very off ---- having only two amino acid changes in the S2 region when there are 90 nucleotide mutations. This is a severe violation of natural evolution. Please note, when the virus is changing hosts, the amnio acid changes are predicted to increase rather than decrease. So the fact that there are only two amino acid changes between RaTG13 (bat host) and SARS-CoV-2 (human host) is a clear sign that one of them is not natural.

Interestingly, a recent preprint article showed clearly that the SARS-CoV-2 spike are seeing quite a large number of mutations. The S2 region has seen amino acid mutations at ~28 different locations. This clearly indicates, again, that the S2 region is very much capable of accommodating mutations. The number is in stark contrast with the two amino acid changes between RaTG13 S2 and the earliest SARS-CoV-2 S2. The article is here:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.071811v1

If you could be convinced with the above analysis, please ask one question: why would Shi or the CCP bother to fabricate a RaTG13 virus?

Reply
Pete Ross
6/24/2020 02:34:21 am

So pro-clotting peptides are a consideration when examining the genome of a COVID-agent, such as SARS-CoV-2.
COVID is increasingly perceived as a coagulopathy or an angiopathy, both macro and micro, which may involve one or more mechanisms.

For example, there's been discussion of elevated defensin as a feature, and so it's reasonable to probe the CoV-2 genome for defensin-like sequences.
From some preliminary BLAST protein to protein results, it seems that it may be worthwhile to investigate for potential homologous regions for any one of the CoV-2 genes.
It's not a job for a novice like myself.
Hopefully somebody has the skills to search for pro-clotting factors throughout the genome.
Positive results might be a significant step towards developing therapies.
Happy hunting to whomever has a go at it!

gsgs
6/24/2020 08:23:24 am


if RaTG13 were fabricated -and they knew it - then I don;t understand the
papers and interviews and statements. Their surprise, the declared new openness.
And why they would have done it that way,
so a Nerd could figure it out.

Nerd has power
6/24/2020 08:17:39 pm

Thanks, Pete, for sharing the info. I don't have such expertise either. Hopefully someone else could be inspired and take it on.

Hi gsgs, per your request, here is another dose of the nerdiness. They have to publish the paper to make RaTG13 known to the field and the world. Only then, people (both scientists and the general public) could buy their story that there is a bat virus in nature that shares high sequence similarity with SARS-CoV-2. Without publishing the paper and this fake RaTG13 sequence, the natural origin theory would be 100 times harder to sell.

Wang Yanyi admitted in her interview in May that the WIV and Shi lab do not have a physical copy of RaTG13. I would bet that Wang Yanyi never visited a site like this one or was fully aware that some people have uncovered the fraudulent nature of RaTG13. Her interview was intended to convince the viewers that WIV does not have any viruses that look like SARS-CoV-2. This way, people would be led to think that the outbreak was not due to a lab leak. On the record, RaTG13 is the closest virus to SARS-CoV-2. Admitting that WIV has no copy of RaTG13 would work the best in exempting WIV from being the source of a lab leak. Again, I don't think she was aware that her statement further solidified the claim that RaTG13 is just a fabricated sequence with no physical copy of it ever existent. Maybe she just doesn't care since they have sort of taken care of the RaTG13 issue in the scientific field ---- high profile publications and renowned scientists had endorsed it. Some nerdy blogs or a few preprints are no comparison here. I personally agree with her that it was not an accidental lab leak. What I don't necessarily agree is their chance of getting away from the RaTG13 fabrication. I think it's only a matter of time.

Mr1k
6/23/2020 09:09:47 am

Isn't it also strange they actually do not know where the original SARS origin came from?? But it must be zoonotic...
Same shit talking ,different day..

Reply
Brian
6/23/2020 04:29:05 pm

I was listening this evening to the Dr. Fuci and his team in congress hearing. No single question raised about the origin of this virus by neither parties. Why is that?? There was No senator Tom Colton present there...who is supposedly the front runner of lab-made virus comments ''at the political level''. Where he was?....The fact that both Republican and Democrat were totally shut down today again means that you need to review my comments above...and I don't want my IP address block again...so good luck! And enjoy daily increase of killing spree...

Reply
yano
6/23/2020 08:48:38 pm

I think there are a couple of things going on.

There is no political advantage to pointing out a lab made virus. So the politicians have dropped it. Trump already knows is was made in a lab, He stated so in public.

Proving it came from a lab at this point is basically impossible without CCP cooperation. and we all know the CCP will not cooperate in an investigation.

A chimeric virus can be construction and placed in a pangolin and then "manically found" in nature. So really it's a mute point, nature or lab.The CCP can manufacture and proof of nature it wants.

The only way of proving is if several lab whistle blowers came forward.and even this would be suspect because many justifiably hate the CCP.

Really all we can do at this point is create awareness and force more criticism on these GOF labs. This GOF research needs to stop.

Where are these promised vaccines that these GOF labs have been working on? Sorry, no vaccines, they were to busy making new more deadly viruses that would never evolve naturally.



Reply
Pete Ross
6/24/2020 05:30:16 am

OK yano,

This was no accident - it's premeditated bioterrorism on a global scale with many non-China entities colluding with the CCP Wuhan facility.
Why would you assume you need cooperation from the China side to understand how these strains were designed and tested and what other stuff is in the pipeline?
The only suspects are in China?

Pete Ross
6/24/2020 05:37:59 am

Capitol Hill politicians and insiders send Hundreds of Billions of dollars to NATO every year unless there is a war like Afghanistan or Iraq (then it’s trillions) with the understanding they want a big chunk of that back. That’s why NATO would have the motive to BioWeapon Trump far more that China. When you see NATO operatives and couriers all around something when the COVID-19 like the Wuhan NATO Military Games, you have to think about which organizations have the means, motive, and opportunity to do the Bioweapons test of the relatively safe strain of COVID-19 in October 2019. Those are the same orgs with the means, motive, and opportunity to do a more lethal version of COVID-20 in October 2020. Beware the angry teenager screaming for more and more money and less and less responsibility. NATO has the motive, not China, to BioWeapon

Reply
Brian
6/24/2020 11:40:40 am

There is also unintended consequence of unleashing a wild virus into human population such as D614G mutation. ...To their surprise!

Reply
Nerd has power
6/24/2020 12:17:14 pm

What matters at the moment is not who has the biggest motive to create a bioweapon. It is who created this particular coronavirus-bioweapon and who released it to the human population. What I can see is 1) only the CCP has the backbone for engineering this virus; 2) the CCP fabricated the RaTG13 virus as a cover-up; 3) the CCP silenced whistleblowers to conceal the information at the beginning of the outbreak; 4) the CCP also most likely fabricated the pangolin coronaviruses to cover up things; 5) the CCP blamed everybody for being the source of the virus when all evidence points to Wuhan; 6) the CCP got really mad at Australia for proposing an independent investigation of the WIV and the P4 lab.

One other thing that not many people know or appreciate is that, in the summer of 2019, the CCP has practiced public health emergencies in facing a MERS-like outbreak in Wuhan. Remember MERS was around only between 2014 and 2015. Like SARS, people generally don't consider MERS being a returning health threat. The CCP never worried about MERS in 2016, 2017, or 2018. Yet, they made a huge deal about this type of potential threat in 2019. It seems that they knew a coronavirus is coming their way.

Reply
Pete Ross
6/25/2020 01:42:36 am

There is strong, irrefutable evidence of collusion with other powerful syndicates, in particular the corporate main stream media and tech giant social media platforms, both deploying psychological warfare active measures that are painfully obvious.

Why have certain authorities been steadfastly predicting a' second wave' when there is no biological theory or empirical evidence to suggest such an event?

In fact, now weeks into the wake of mass protests in many major cities (and rioting at night) there's no evidence of a renewed outbreak.

So what else does the epidemiology say?

Most of the US fatalities were in nursing homes in blue states, where Governors disobeyed WH recommendations, placing COV+ patients into the affected nursing homes.

What kind of infectious illness doesn't affect people under the age of 18?

Could it be that the main vector of spread is not direct human-to-human, which conforms with the formal statements issued by WHO/China in January 2020?

Both the mysterious pneumonia outbreak in the Fairfax County nursing home and the appearance of the vaping-associated illness known as EVALI in the summer of 2019 are suggestive of prior field testing of the pathogen.

There is a plethora of anecdotal reports from individuals experiencing a novel flu-like syndrome, not limited to the US west coast, during Sept to December 2019.

Indeed, the Ft Detrick facility was shutdown due to contamination concerns in the summer of 2019.

Did somebody leave the door open on their way out ? Did Bavari then get involved in start-up firms positioned to profit from such a pandemic?

Sina Bavari, Moncef Slaoui (NATO, GSK, Operation Warped Speed), and a NATO intel-associated person are all named as preparing the WHO R&D response plans for novel disease outbreaks.

Another foreign national, Dr Peter Kuhn from Berlin, actually being in charge of the bioweapons facility, suggests hands-on by NATO. Virologists at the Wuhan facility have Tunneling Consultants (Kuhn) on their resume.

What are we to make of the Gates-sponsored 'novel corona virus simulation' Event 201 that was held on Oct 19th the same day as the opening of the Wuhan military athletic games?

How did Dr Fauci know to predict in January 2017, that "the next administration will be challenged with a global pandemic situation"?

"Fauci Warned Trump Administration a 'Surprise Outbreak' Was Coming in 2017"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh3twYon8pc

Why hasn't NATO made available the medical records of the athletes and other personnel that participated in the Wuhan games?

Annette
7/25/2020 03:51:44 am

https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q%26A.pdf

This response to the questions asked by Science to Shi. Shi says "I would like to emphasize that we have only the [RaTG13] genome sequence and didn’t isolate this virus." Does anyone know who did isolate the virus from the conversation I thought she said she found it on her 2013 expedition but did not sequence it further. Is that correct?

yano
6/24/2020 09:20:33 pm

I don't believe NATO did any bio-weapon. I believe it was either a lab accident in China or a purposeful spiteful release of the virus in China, by lab personnel, to take down the CCP. As regime destruction history is repeating itself. Maybe someone in Shi's lab. A hateful bitch that hated the CCP.. Hear that somewhere by the way.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
6/24/2020 11:55:09 pm

The only country that has the strongest motive to develop bio weapons is China who smuggled virus to China either from the P4 lab in Canada:

https://greatgameindia.com/coronavirus-bioweapon/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/national-microbiology-lab-scientist-investigation-china-1.5307424

or Harvard university:

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/28/800442646/acclaimed-harvard-scientist-is-arrested-accused-of-lying-about-ties-to-china

Nazi CCP's world domination dream long started decades ago:

https://www.newsmax.com/navrozov/china-biological-russia/2009/09/17/id/335042/ and https://www.theepochtimes.com/did-chinas-plan-to-destroy-the-united-states-backfire_3223117.html.

If NAZI CCP cannot even treat their own people right, how can you expect them to treat the world right? Those who believe in communism should wait for their organs to be live harvested by CCP, as this is what CCP have been doing.

Reply
Jimmy Kudo
5/31/2021 12:53:51 am

Seems like you're still stuck in ancient China...

gsgs
6/24/2020 07:48:04 am

I meant, SARS2 may have evolved in another species for decades
(and recombined) and that's why there are so few amino acid differences
with many nucleotide differences in some regions.
It could be species-dependent as in influenza.

Reply
Nerd has power
6/24/2020 12:27:24 pm

Your argument is under the assumption that the S2 protein is doing different things in different host and therefore could face different selection pressures. I don't think that is the case though. S2 maintains trimer formation and mediates membrane fusion with its freed N-terminal fusion peptide. That is true in every host, nothing more and nothing less. S2 has seen a fair amount of amino acid mutations in different SARS viruses, in different bat coronaviruses, and in different SARS-CoV-2 viruses. Only when it comes to comparing RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2, this natural trait is gone. To make things worse, the syn/non-syn ratio has skyrocketed to 44:1. At least one of the two is non-natural.

Reply
Pete Ross
6/25/2020 02:12:55 am

What was Dr. Peter Duszak, another foreign national, of EcoHealth Alliance, doing in China in October 2019?

Recall that Duszak 'just happened' to join the CDC as an 'accidental volunteer' just in time for a Nipah outbreak.

Like W.H.O., the chief sponsor of which is Microsoft Gates, the CDC is quasi-governmental, dependent upon contributions from 'charities'.
W.H.O. is essentially the health arm of NATO.

What happened that the CDC lost over a month of actively containing the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak due to reliance on test kits that turned out to be contaminated with the virus?

There are at least two additional incidents of contaminated test kits.;

So why did the Governor of Maryland order 500,000 tests kits from a S. Korean firm despite knowing about the availability of FDA-approved, Made-in-USA, test kits?

What is the role of the infamous, Parsi-speaking, fake-FBI-agent, CIA-operative, coup-maker Peter Strzoks Jr., who is related by marriage to the former US Ambassador to S. Korea?

Reply
Andrew M
6/25/2020 12:46:59 pm

It's a problem Nerd has setting up a site like this. Along with serious scientific discussion of his ideas and spin-off therefrom, it acts like a lamp to moths for every lunatic and conspiracy theorist with a particular interest in this subject. The consequence is that the majority of people visiting will read this nonsense and write the site off, along with Nerd's theories about the origin of SARS-Cov-2.

Reply
yano
6/25/2020 01:26:53 pm

The science is still good and stands no matter how many theories show up. I don't see this as a negative thing.

alesh
6/25/2020 07:38:33 pm

I’m open to deleting these posts, including those obviously wumao, fifty-center coordinated disinformation attempts.

alesh
6/25/2020 07:36:03 pm

“What happened that the CDC lost over a month of actively containing the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak due to reliance on test kits that turned out to be contaminated with the virus?”

Rubbish post. The Feb 2020 failed CDC covid RT-PCR test kits weren’t contaminated, they just had a faulty control component.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/united-states-badly-bungled-coronavirus-testing-things-may-soon-improve

Reply
Brian
6/25/2020 10:03:56 pm

Well, a fruit called pawpaw become test positive. that is kind of weird. the point is there is no similar virus in this food so the term false positive may not work here! We don't know the prevalence of this kind of errors since there won't be any followup!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tanzania/president-queries-tanzania-coronavirus-kits-after-goat-test-idUSKBN22F0KF

Also I've heard the nasopharyngeal sampling might disrupt healthy nasal mucosal barrier and expose you to the virus. These are need to be tested for...of course you can call it ridiculous theories and stay happy.

CCP is NAZI
6/28/2020 11:57:59 pm

Those scientists, real or fake, politically correct or incorrect, and those non scientists including WuMao(i.e. 50 cent army) should watch this warm up video to review how this CCP virus was started and spreaded to the world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ74NhEUY-w&feature=youtu.be

If there is still any trying to throw in mult origin conspiracies or shirk the culprit's crime, try to first answer the questions below:

Why did CCP punish the 8 doctors like Wenliang Li while inviting thousands for new year dinner and giving away thousands of park free admission tickets?
Why did CCP lock down Wuhan P4 lab?
Why were there no cellphone signals for an entire month back in last October?
Why did CCP wash cleaned Huanan Seafood market right away even though it was not the origin of CCP virus?
Why did CCP let people flying out of the source of CCP virus to everywhere all over the world but not any cities within China?
Why did CCP order all labs to destroy all virus sequence(watch the video above to see how scientists can trace a given virus sequence back to original outbreak date no later than last October)?
Why did CCP keep sending their scientists to steal virus around?
Why did CCP keep resisting the world's persistent offers to send over top scientists to control CCP virus even though they are still having outbreak right in BeiJing?

Exactly, what are CCP trying to cover up? The world would not have any peace with NAZI CCP who are spreading their red claws everywhere to enslave the world.

Reply
Greg Felton link
6/25/2020 01:18:40 pm

Dear Sir/Madam:

Your analysis is outstanding and corroborates what I have seen elsewhere. I am writing my own proof of the artificial nature of SARS-Cov-2 and am taking aim at Shi Zhengli's Nature paper, which, even to a non-expert like me, looks like a propaganda ploy. I would like to cite your excellent article, but need something more definitive than "Nerd has Power". Is there a name you would be comfortable sharing with me? I read Chinese, so you can respond in Mandarin if you like.

thanks you,

Regards,

Greg Felton

Reply
alesh
6/25/2020 07:42:10 pm

Amateur ploy to unmask.

Nerd has power has legitimate reasons to keep his anonymity. If you didn’t understand that you should learn more about how the CCP tries to control and punish Chinese overseas. If you knew that but still asked anyway then I can only assume you’re wishing harm towards Nerd’s person and family,

Reply
Greg Felton link
6/25/2020 08:30:01 pm

I mean no harm.
I would be happy with a pseudonym.

Nerd has power
6/28/2020 04:07:25 am

Thank you, Alesh. I appreciate your help, but I agree that Greg did not mean to harm anybody. I blame the CCP for making us all supersensitive on things that we shouldn't be sensitive about. Talking about all the negatives the CCP brings........

Nerd has power
6/28/2020 03:58:30 am

Hi Greg, sorry for the delay in responding. Thank you for your efforts in uncovering the truth about this virus. As you would understand, I don't yet feel comfortable revealing my true name. I understand how awkward it could be to cite a name like this in a serious writing. However, another pseudonym wouldn't improve the situation much, in my opinion. If you could manage not to mention the name or simply call me an anonymous scientist, it would be great. Thank you again and please share the link to your article here once it's published. I believe people here would be very interested in learning your insights.

Reply
Greg Felton link
6/28/2020 04:37:27 am

Thank you, Nerd has Power:
I had already decided to do as you asked, so not to worry. I was wondering, though, if you could answer two technical questions:

1. Can you explain the origin of the P-R-R-A multibasic furin cleavage site in the S1/S2 region of SARS-CoV-2? I have some sources that claim it was spliced in from HIV; others say MERS. Perhaps there is another.

2. Much of the support for HIV synthesis comes from an Indian paper that was retracted, but I find the retraction suspicious. Do you know if it was the result of genuine scientific re-evaluation or political intimidation?

Thank you,

Greg

Nerd has power
6/28/2020 07:29:39 pm

To be honest, I'm not convinced that any HIV sequence has been inserted into the SARS-CoV-2 genome. I would be happy to be proven wrong though.

The PRRA insertion was intended to create a polybasic pattern (here it is RRxR) that furin recognizes. There are other ways to arrange these Rs and some R can also be replaced with K. There are a lot more options for x and the flanking residues. Basically, you don't necessarily need to follow an exact sequence. You can design one based on the known sequence-specificity of the furin protease. Once you have a desired sequence, many molecular cloning techniques can help you get that sequence inserted. Importantly, none of those techniques would leave any cloning marks at all.

For that Indian paper, I of course don't know the exact reason for its retraction. It could very well be political pressure. On the other hand, again, I have to be honest that I myself was not convinced by the analysis provided in their preprint. I don't think the insertions they identified exclusively point to a HIV origin.

Greg Felton link
6/25/2020 08:31:46 pm

I do not know how any nefarious intent could be inferred from my original post.

Reply
Greg Felton link
6/28/2020 11:29:40 pm

Many thanks for your answer. If you don't mind, I would like you opinion on the following two points.

It it true that the PRRA insertions do not necessarily point to HIV chimerism, but since HIV has furin cleavage sites and SARS beta-coronaviruses do not, the presence of these cleavage sites on SARS-CoV-2 does seem to indicate that some kind of splicing went on. If not HIV, what other possibilities are there?

Also, since SARS-CoV-2 has been said to be 10x more contagious than SARS, the RBDs of which only attacked ACE2 receptors, is it fair to say that SARS-CoV-2 attacks more than just ACE2 receptors?

I am of the opinion that SARS-CoV-2 was artificially created, a view that has only increased with the collapse of the Huanan-market origin claim and the spurious nature of RaTG13.

Many thanks for your patience.

Greg

Reply
Nerd has power
6/29/2020 08:03:47 pm

No problem, Greg. You are correct that HIV does have furin-cleavage site. I agree that they are simply following the knowledge/examples from other viruses. From what I know, the effect of furin-cleaveage site in infectivity and pathogenicity was best validated in influenza viruses, although there were also such gain-of-function examples in coronaviruses. I think it's fair to say that they were just following the knowledge that adding a furin site here makes a virus super bad.

I don't see any evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RBD is binding to anything other than or in addition to ACE2. Please note that the SARS-CoV-2 RBD and SARS-CoV RBD don't share the same exact sequence. So even though they both bind to ACE2, they may have different binding affinities. The SARS-CoV-2 RBM (receptor binding motif) might come from structure-based design, which might be followed by optimization using directed evolution. Higher affinity binding with ACE2 should be quite within reach with such an approach.

Reply
Brian
6/29/2020 08:22:47 pm

not to disagree , just want to add that this bioweapon seems to trigger multiple pathways including CD147 pathway and this is the one that may cause a long term chronic disease...

https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/overlooked-receptors-could-explain-quirks-of-covid-19-that-ace2-alone-cannot-9470817f59d0

Nerd has power
7/1/2020 02:12:47 pm

Thank you for sharing the link!

Greg Felton link
7/1/2020 03:21:57 pm

Yes, indeed: thanks.

I have read that Shi Zhengli is missing. Can anyone confirm this?

Reply
Nerd has power
7/2/2020 08:43:02 pm

I don't know how much Shi was involved in the actual creation. I don't believe Shi single-handedly did the whole thing and leaked it out by accident or on purpose. I do believe that, at this point, if there is anyone who could be the scapegoat for the CCP, it would be her. I hope she doesn't suddenly die and leave a letter of "confession". Her being missing is not a good sign -- the real criminals might be planning a scene.

Where did you read that info, Greg? Would it be possible to share the link? Thank you!

Reply
CCP is NAZI
7/2/2020 09:01:18 pm

https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2020/may/02/chinas-missing-virologist-with-secrets-of-covid-19-origin-denies-defecting-to-west-2138364.html

https://www.wionews.com/world/chinas-bat-woman-shi-zhengli-goes-missing-297076

https://zeenews.india.com/world/chinas-missing-bat-woman-shi-zhengli-appears-on-state-tv-says-coronavirus-tip-of-the-iceberg-2286568.html

Greg Felton link
7/2/2020 10:09:18 pm

As you can see "CCP is NAZI" was the quicker off the mark with the answer than I was. I agree with you that Shi did not act alone, but she has to take ultimate responsibility given her position. I think it more likely that she is being held incommunicado so that she doesn't have to field any more media questions, particularly about RaTG13. I have read, perhaps here, that she does not have a physical copy of the RaTG13 RNA sequence, which has been "legitimized" in countless articles in otherwise respectable journals.

Babstar
7/3/2020 12:32:03 am

– The most logical explanation is that it comes from a laboratory

The well-known Norwegian virologist Birger Sørensen and his colleagues have examined the corona virus. They believe it has certain properties which would not evolve naturally. These conclusions are politically controversial, but in this interview he shares the findings behind the headlines.

https://www.minervanett.no/corona/the-most-logical-explanation-is-that-it-comes-from-a-laboratory/361860
archived version
https://archive.vn/S2Pis

Reply
yano
7/3/2020 03:26:05 pm

He gives a 90% probability SARS CoV 2 is from a lab, lol. That was my guess too.

Reply
Lilian
7/3/2020 10:20:43 pm

That’s kind from you. I bet 99.999%. A virus like SARS-CoV-2 with that RBD and that special furin cleavage site has almost no probability to originate naturally. All the closest “natural” CoVs sequences provided so far, RaTG13, pangolin CoV form Guangdong and the perfect timely discovered RmYN02 smell of fabricated.

gsgs
7/6/2020 11:06:44 pm

Lilian , I give you another factor of 100 and bet $1 against your $1000
that theyll find another virus with those properties in Nature
within 1 year.

Lilian
7/7/2020 01:01:41 am

gsgs: you might win. They are really good in finding what they need in order to prove the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. Andersen wrote: “Given the level of genetic variation in the spike, it is likely that SARS-CoV-2-like viruses with partial or full polybasic cleavage sites will be discovered in other species.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

And RmYN02 magically appeared. With a fraudulent alignment and nothing to do with a furin cleavage site, but still they used it to claim it is valid. They just ignore who comments that is a fake proof.

Greg Felton link
7/3/2020 11:46:41 pm

At https://www.minervanett.no/corona/the-most-logical-explanation-is-that-it-comes-from-a-laboratory/361860, Norwegian scientist Birgir Sørensen says that SARS-CoV-2 attaches itself to receptors in the upper respiratory tract in addition to ACE2 receptors, which are found in the lower tract. The point is that this other receptor's vulnerability may explain the order of magnitude difference in SARS-CoV-2 cases and fatalities.

Does anyone know which other receptor he means?

Reply
Lilian
7/3/2020 11:57:09 pm

"As with SADS, the similar pathology associated with Covid-19 points in the direction of a different and more promiscuous attachment/ co-receptor like CLEC4M/DC-SIGN driven by a positively charged Spike trimer surface."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/DBBC0FA6E3763B0067CAAD8F3363E527/S2633289220000083a.pdf
/biovacc19_a_candidate_vaccine_for_covid19_sarscov2_developed_from_analysis_of_its_general_method_of_action_for_infectivity.pdf

Reply
Greg Felton link
7/5/2020 11:40:42 pm

Thank you, Lillian:
Is there any history of the 2002-2003 SARS-Cov attacking CLEC4M receptors, or was it strictly ACE2? Also, are CLEC4M receptors found in the upper respiratory tract?

Jenny
7/4/2020 01:02:29 am

The scientists who signed this letter in The Lancet:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext

“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

should be taken to the court to respond to perjury.

Holmes, who is co-author of this article:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2169-0

should be taken as well to the court for using falsified data. The GD pangolin CoV dataset is contaminated with human sequences:

https://zenodo.org/record/3885333#.XuweQeT92Ef

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.07.077016v1

These CoV sequences are most probably the product of cell passaging, so he is probably involved in making SARS-CoV-2.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
7/4/2020 08:30:29 am

Am I reading this alright? The criminals now want to take victims to the court instead of the other way around? If this CCP virus were confined within its origin in the first place, who on earth would give it a damn shit as to whether CCP virus has a natural origin or a lab made product?! Not even the people living in Wuhan, as Chinese Communist Party have been treating their own people as disposable objects whose everything including their homes and organs all belong to the Chinese Communist Party which explains why Chinese Communist Party would live harvest even children's organs! See how cruel they are! https://twitter.com/newyorkluo/status/1278686298547552262 As you see, the kids' bodies were even nicely sewed up after their organs were harvested.

If there is anyone who try to shirk the culprit's crime, first answer the questions below:

Why did CCP punish the 8 doctors like Wenliang Li while inviting thousands for a large scale dinner and giving away thousands of free admission tickets to various parks?
Why did CCP lock down Wuhan P4 lab?
Why were there no cellphone signals for an entire month back in last October?
Why did CCP wash cleaned Huanan Seafood market right away even though it was not the origin of CCP virus?
Why did CCP let people flying out of the source of CCP virus to everywhere all over the world but not any cities within China?
Why did CCP order all labs to destroy all virus sequence samples(watch the video above to see how scientists can trace a given virus sequence back to original outbreak date no later than last October)?
Why did CCP keep sending their scientists to steal virus around?
Why did CCP keep resisting the world's persistent offers to send over top scientists to control CCP virus even though they are still having outbreak right in Bei Jing?

What are the Chinese Communist Party really afraid of if CCP virus really had a "natural origin" like what they claimed? Show the so called "natural origin" please!!!

Reply
CCP is NAZI
7/4/2020 08:45:32 am

Just because the world didn't hold Chinese Communist Party accountable for their SARS, there comes CCP virus today.
The world MUST take CCP accountable!!!

yano
7/4/2020 09:22:29 am

From the Lancet => "We speak in one voice. To add your support for this statement, sign our letter online. LM is editor of ProMED-mail. We declare no competing interests."

"We declare no competing interests" Except the conflict of interest around losing funding for gain of function research.

What's funny about this is how quickly these scientist yelled out "Nature, Nature" before getting all the facts, Before looking at the stable genetics. Did they think people would just blindly take their word for it? How disgustingly arrogant.


This really does give science a huge black eye. People's trust in science and scientists is gone. and trust a hard to win back.

A more humble approach would have been best but its unlikely humbleness is in these scientist's "nature".


Reply
Greg Felton link
7/5/2020 11:13:20 pm

Can someone please explain to me what the (1-7) in Angiotensin (1-7) means?

Reply
Lori
7/6/2020 10:59:47 pm

Hi Nerd Back again I thought you might find this interesting.

EXCLUSIVE: New Evidence Confirms China Lied – Current Coronavirus is Not New and Was Identified Back in 2014

Guest post by Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/07/exclusive-new-evidence-suggests-china-lied-source-coronavirus-not-man-made/

Reply
Nerd has power
7/11/2020 08:49:02 am

Thank you for the info! Yes, this is definitely interesting. The twitter investigative scientists crew has done a spectacular job digging this info out. I barely managed to keep up with their progress.

Although I don't really think that the 2012 virus from the mineshaft was really the whole RaTG13 story or even became SARS-CoV-2, I also don't know how to best explain the fact that the WIV accessed the 4991/RaTG13 sample repeatedly in 2017-2018. We might need another insider, this time from the WIV, to tell the whole story there someday. For now, I still feel very comfortable believing that RaTG13 sequence was a fabrication, which was based on a partial segment of RdRp from 4991.

Importantly, the RBD of RaTG13 does not bind to the ACE2 of two different kinds of horseshoe bats. Although they did not test the ACE2 from R. affinis (the alleged natural host of RaTG13), I don't think anyone would bet money on the ACE2 from affinis having any affinity toward RaTG13 RBD. There really is no other explanation, except that RaTG13 sequence was simply fabricated as a virus with that genetic makeup cannot infect horseshoe bats at all.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.178459v1.full

Reply
evidence
7/7/2020 05:56:59 am

RE:
(1) Artificial FCS insertion AFTER Vero E6 passage: further experimental support for that specific chain of GOF manipulation events;
(2) Predicted loss of pathogenicity of Covid19 specifically related to FCS attenuation during the course of the pandemic in the long run can be interpreted as new epidemiological support for (late) artificial FCS de novo lab insertion w/o concomitant adaptation.

(1) I assumed above (post 6/16/2020 09:55:23 am) in accordance with other posts (in particular Signus, 5/14/2020 03:20:50 am, with reference), that the FCS insertion has most likely been the LAST GOF-manipulation step, after the Vero E6 serial passages in particular.
On June 22, Ogando et al. came out with a new paper
[
https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/jgv.0.001453?crawler=true
https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.001453
] ,
in which the FCS had been lost EARLY in part of their strains due to a seemingly strong selection pressure towards this loss-of-function mutation while going through their own Vero E6 cells, giving rise to remarkable better host cell population/plaque formation (as compared to the wildtype/FCS+ strains) - a macroscopically visible heterogeneity, as they note, which they never had seen in all their extensive work with SARS-CoV1/Vero E6 cell rounds during the past 17 years before.
Hence, these published dish passages again also support the notion, that the furin cleavage site had been inserted AFTER Vero E6 passage in the GOF chain of events for SARS-CoV2 manipulations, since the highly potent FCS has a difficult time even surviving in a few Vero E6 passages.

(2) And again, with the support also of these findings (FCS not likely to be stable in Vero E6 passages) I would further speculate, that in the long run, there will be an emerging (less pathogenic) SARS-Cov2 mutant strain ultimately prevailing, which specifically will be having a largely attenuated FCS function, being likely the predominant wildtype leading to rather mild or asymptomatic Covid19 infections to an even larger extent (in relative terms as compared to severe cases), since, while the mere existence of the FCS might broaden cell-tropism (and enhances fitness), it is likely that the currently highly functioning/pathogenic FCS increases mortality, not necessarily net inter-individual transmissibility (reduces host longevity -> hence reduces viral fitness). Therefore, as the pandemic levels off, especially with all the control and monitoring measures (which also equate to a selection pressure towards mutant strains generating more silent/asymptomatic carriers), we might see first a more heterogenic pathogencity of SARS-CoV2 strains with quite different FCS potency and genotypic variance around the FCS (quasi-species becomes broader) for the intermediate time frame, due to selection pressure towards an attenuation of those very last artificially added feature(s) (the potent FCS in particular). Those attenuated strains will be manifest at first only in viral sub-populations (which can be even localized geographically) - before ultimately this 'extra-pathogenicity' (the high FCS potency) will be kind of 'washed out' (having inferior fitness) - in line with what Monatgnier originally predicted in general (as far as I know as early as in March/April, this media excerpt from June)
[
https://www.palmerfoundation.com.au/the-coronavirus-is-man-made-according-to-luc-montagnier-the-man-who-discovered-hiv/
quote:
'In any case, this thesis, defended by Professor Luc Montagnier, has a positive turn. According to him, the altered elements of this virus are eliminated as it spreads: “Nature does not accept any molecular tinkering, it will eliminate these unnatural changes and even if nothing is done, things will get better, but unfortunately after many deaths.”
].

Also on that venue, another epidemiological report, hinting into this direction, just came out of China on July 3rd, where a less virulent Covid19 strain ZJ01 has already been emerged, again specifically linked to an altered (most likely reduced) FCS efficacy (due to nearby mutations likely leading to conformational changes):
[ Xi Jin et al.: 'Virus strain from a mild COVID-19 patient in Hangzhou represents a new trend in SARS-CoV-2 evolution potentially related to Furin cleavage site'
https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1781551
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1781551
quote (p.3):
''The evolutionary pattern of SARSCoV-2 towards FCS formation may result in its clinical symptom becoming closer to HKU-1 and OC43 caused mild flulike symptoms, further showing its potential in differentiating into mild COVID-19 subtypes.'
]
Already known is an older report of April 2, which detected an emerging deletion flanking the FCS on its upstream side [del23585-23599] they commonly found in vitro, and in addition existing in at least 6% of their investigated in vivo strains:
[ Zhe Liu et al.: Identification of a common deletion i

Reply
evidence
7/7/2020 06:01:00 am

[ Zhe Liu et al.: Identification of a common deletion in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.31.015941
]

In summary, it is safe to say the evidence for the lab-origin becomes scientifically more substantiated and sophisticated almost on a daily basis - even by findings and results of proponents of the opposite theory - putting it differently by quoting: "It is theory which decides what we can OBSERVE" -Einstein.
In that line, the lab-origin theory remains way more powerful, since, as any powerful hypothesis, with all those new findings, it continues even being able to make strong, quite specific predictions for the future development of the pandemic - which in principle could be falsified, but have been only corroborated as far. (While in contrast, its opponents OBSERVE next to nothing with respect to the origin question - at least nothing new: confusion instead of coherence.) Given the evidence the FCS insertion being likely the last manipulation step to make the virus more deadly (hence, the LEAST adapted manipulation), the prediction/corollary of the lab-hypothesis, that the FCS also subsequently will be one of the first features to be altered, attenuated (or even has to go in lab rounds with specific cell-types), has not been falsified yet - only widely supported.
Montagnier was the first who publicly made the powerful prediction that SARS-CoV2, being most likely an artificially produced virus strain, will gradually converge phenotypically to a less virulent hCoV strain, like those already existent - specifically with respect to its artificial manipulations on its genotypical side.

Reply
Brian
7/7/2020 10:23:09 am

The problem is ''IF'' the assumption of lab origin is correct, ''THEN'' it can be ''REINTRODUCE '' to population in different countries ''ANYTIME'' as they wish! The source need to be destroyed NOW. Who is going to do that? Mr Biden? Even Trump try to ignore it! the racial tension was made to distract people and it was not enough. now what? There is something really really ...ucked up here!

Nerd has power
7/11/2020 09:07:08 am

Great analysis. If it becomes attenuated naturally by losing the FCS, it would be good news for us human. There are many uncertainties though, including Brian's concern that someone (the CCP) will keep sending the original recipe to your doorstep. It has to be cut at the source.

Yes, more and more evidence points to its lab origin. There is no doubt. The insider, Dr. Li-Meng Yan from the top infectious disease lab in Hong Kong University (also under the control of the CCP), has bravely come out and started telling the truth about this virus. I think follow-up interviews of Dr. Yan's will break the political dilemma -- she is purely there to warn the world, not just the republicans. The truth coming from her should help unite the nation and the rest of the world to face the problem the right way. I suspect that we could expect some proper actions then.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/chinese-virologist-coronavirus-cover-up-flee-hong-kong-whistleblower.amp?__twitter_impression=true

evidence
7/13/2020 08:20:07 am

Re: FCS likely to remain for human infections

Thank you for the responses! -
Maybe, I was not totally precise concerning the prediction, especially by citing Montagnier, and I would like to detail this point again.
I do expect for the human population (in contrast to Vero cells) the FCS to REMAIN, but I expect it will be substantially (and indirectly) altered in its efficacy (i.e., attenuated in the long run), particularly by subtle nearby/neighbouring mutations in order to make the virus a little bit less deadly and less antigenic (which also affects mortality via host cytokine storm etc). Mutations, which (indirectly) affect/reduce the FCS potency (and antigenicity) specifically by conformational/geometrical changes of the relevant spike protein regions - not necessarily (wild-type fixation of amino acid) mutations of the FCS itself: PRRA might not change for the future SARS-CoV2 predominant wildtype proteome.
Hence, I do not think the FCS will be lost within the human pandemic or thereafter (in contrast to specific cell line passsages, i.e. the Orgando Vero cell rounds mentioned above), since - in terms of overall viral fitness - the greater diversity of cell tropism with an existing FCS likely outweighs to a far greater extend the costs of a shorter lifepan of a few infected unlucky patients (even given the fact, that the FCS has been inserted artificially late and not been adapted before): it certainly overall enhances the virus (with respect to humans).
In broader terms as mentioned already: the FCS (being artificially inserted late) has (in sharp contrast to the RBD) not been pre-adapted before the spill-over accident (i.e., not gone through animal or cell passage rounds - again in sharp contrast to the RBD). What we currently see is its adaptation, its fine-tuning to the human population.
For example, it cannot be excluded yet, that also the known and already quite famous D614R amino acid mutation (genome location: A23403G), which had been fixated during the pandemic only recently (i.e., not before March/April), also indirectly affects (i.e., attenuates) the FCS. What we do know is that D614G increases infectivity/transmissibility and obviously reduces pathogenicity (and also antigenicity)
[cf. Korber et al. (6/26/20): S protein D614G mutation increases COVID-19 virus infectivity
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.043
reviewd for example in:
https://www.thailandmedical.news/news/sars-cov-2-mutations-study-shows-that-g614-strain-less-lethal-in-short-term-than-d614-but-is-aggressive-in-transmissions-and-multiplies-rapidly
]
- in line with what would be predicted.

Actually, the general prediction of a turn towards reduced viral pathogenicity and higher infectivity is also shared by the natural-origin advocates (both sides agree on that point). However, what the lab-hypothesis can be specific about is the fact, that this gradual turn towards lesser viral pathogenicity specifically affects those features and parts of the virus (including being mutational hot-spots on its respective genotypic side), on which the lab-hypothesis claims they had been artificially altered late without pre-adaptation- hence the (broader) FCS region in particular.
In line with this are epidemiological observations, that the mutational hot spots of the virus in fact include the (broader) FCS region.
[ Cf. for example
Kim et al (asof 06/01/2020) Genome-wide identification of SARS-CoV-2 point mutations
https://doi.org/10.24171/j.phrp.2020.11.3.05
https://ophrp.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.24171/j.phrp.2020.11.3.05
]
Especially on Fig. 7 (p.9 in the pdf) there it can be already slightly visible (what also is alrready known) that the non-synonymous mutation frequency in particular for the entire (pre-adapted) RBD is slightly lower than for the rest of S1 (cumulative length of all red bars over the concerning sequence length, 'red bar density'), while the S1-region adjacent to the FCS the 'red bar density' is in particular substantially higher, and again specifically for the FCS (PBSC there) they found only one amino acid mutation in one strain (R682Q), hence also a quite low 'red bar density'.

FreeFreedomain
7/7/2020 09:41:08 am

If ZXC21 and ZC45 are 97% similar and CoV2 is 95% similar to both ZXC21/ZC45. Why having identical E protein when similarity is 97% is ok and natural, but when similarity is 95%, then it's nearly impossible to have identical E? There is only 2% difference between these two cases.

John F Signus tried to explain it at 5/10/2020 02:51:09 am but it's still not clear.

Reply
Nerd has power
7/11/2020 09:11:24 am

SARS-CoV-2 is 89% identical to ZC45/ZXC21 on the gene level, not 95%.

Reply
FreeFreedomain
7/12/2020 11:21:02 am

Thanks for getting back to me!

In the article on this page you write the following:
"At the same time, the Wuhan coronavirus is STRANGELY similar to two bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21. Overall, the sequence of either of the two bat coronaviruses is 95% identical to the Wuhan coronavirus."

So is it 89% or 95%? What's the source article for this similarity?

Ted
7/8/2020 11:43:52 am

The tweets by Alina Chan (post doc at MIT and Harvard), @Ayjchan are remarkably interesting to read. She is also one of authors of the paper cited above that claims that “SARS-CoV-2 resembles SARS-CoV in the late phase of the 2003 epidemic after SARS-CoV had developed several advantageous adaptations for human transmission.” https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262v1

One notable tweet states “2006 study inserts furin cleavage site into SARS-CoV spike at the exact residue where SARS-CoV-2's PRRA(R) site is - and demonstrates enhanced cell-to-cell fusion.” https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1266805310313967617?s=20

In a July 5 tweet, she claims that “the amplicon sequencing data on NCBI clearly shows that the WIV accessed the sample repeatedly in 2017 and 2018” She is referring to RaTG13. https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1279761424919732224?s=20

Reply
Nerd has power
7/11/2020 09:24:44 am

Yes, Alina Chan and her co-author Shing Hei Zhan have been fantastic in revealing critical facts embedded in the genomes of relevant viruses. They also published a preprint questioning all the pangolin coronaviruses that the CCP labs have published recently:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374v1

We should also be aware that, contrary to what the CCP labs have been trying to convince people with, pangolins from Malaysia don't really carry coronaviruses:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.19.158717v1

It is becoming increasingly clear that RaTG13 is not the only fabrication that the CCP has engaged in.

Now, our question is, if the SARS-CoV-2 virus is natural, why do the CCP bother with creating all these garbage?

Reply
gsgs
7/8/2020 11:49:27 pm

I just found this recent French paper about SARS2-origine
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02891455/document

Reply
Andrew M
7/9/2020 03:21:54 am

This is a really good, readable, thorough, well-balanced article which summarises many of the relevant issues. In passing it explains why the Montagnier/HIV theory is completely "fringe". Correctly (in my view), it concludes that neither natural nor man-made origin can be proven and advocates further research be conducted. Until then, each of us is left with Bayesian inference as a way of deciding what we think is the answer.

Reply
Brian
7/9/2020 04:33:29 pm

The question is why they did not reference Nerd article that the ratg13 is potentially fake. They seem that review all controversial aspects but not this one.
Do you, as a scientist , have any concern about this? Or you think magic happens all the time-- I don't know like presence of water in earth just due to meteor!

Nerd has power
7/11/2020 10:49:42 am

Thanks for sharing it. I would have to critical about this paper, although I praise them for officially raising the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 coming out of genetic manipulation. Given it's a preprint, it would be hard for the authors to speak in full what they truly believe. However, unfortunately, in their analysis, they placed heavy weight on RaTG13 and the pangolins viruses, which are clearly problematic and even proven fraudulent. In addition, they mentioned that the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 could not be obtained from genetic "copying" from SARS RBD because phylogenetic analysis of the RBDs categorized the two viruses into two distant groups. I hope they realize that, if someone is carrying out genetic manipulation, they would most likely avoid a direct "copy/paste" and would manage to make things look further apart. The fact that the two look further apart does not exclude genetic manipulation of the RBD here. As I pointed out in my article, all the essential residues are "copied" over and changes are in non-essential sites.

Reply
Andrew M
7/9/2020 05:33:32 pm

Brian M - you have left no "reply" box at the end of your comment, yet you ask me questions. The French scientists summarise various articles in the scientific literature. Nerd hasn't written such an article for them to comment on. Why might they even be aware of his website? So I have little concern about their lack of comment on a potential faking of RATG13, which is not an obvious inference from the scientific evidence available, nor do I think magic happens all the time. That the earth originally gained its water from "meteorites" (asteroids actually) is one of the main theories on this issue, so maybe you chose a bad analogy there.

Reply
Brian
7/9/2020 08:04:46 pm

Andrew: I don't know how to do that here...sorry about that...

If you are not convinced that ratg13 is fake, then ask your questions from professor Nerd etal team... I am eager to learn and read your questions...
Howevere, if you are convinced then "get serious" and do something good for you, your family and humanity...

plus, how in the world that 4 HIV sequence plus Malaria sequence all combined together in this package? Don't answer me...just think logically and hopefully with new line of research and ideas in your environment ...best!

Reply
Andrew M
7/10/2020 01:49:02 am

Brian - this time there is a reply box and though you request me not to answer, I want to make the following point clear for the benefit of othere readers. If you read the paper upon which I commented, you would understand that the appearance of short sequences common to certain strains of HIV is not statistically significant - ie random coincidence is a perfectly adequate explanation. My hunch would be that the same result would be obtained for malaria if someone performed the analysis. Note that Nerd discounts the HIV hypothesis too.

Reply
Brian
7/10/2020 03:40:48 pm

That is fair assessment...but how about combining all these probabilities together.
So we have 4Hiv, we have Malaria...what else...hmmm...how about affinity for CD147, plus insertion of Furin...(Please also note that this insertion not even seen in pangolin! Also Furin insertion is extra!
It means that it did not replace with other nucleotides...just "simp!y" inserted!!!)
What would be the co occurrence combination probability for all of these together?! I am trying to expand discussion here not to make a negative statement...best

CCP is NAZI
7/10/2020 11:31:44 am

Li-Meng Yan told Fox News that she believes China knew about the coronavirus well before it claimed it did. She says her supervisors also ignored research she was doing that she believes could have saved lives:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/chinese-virologist-coronavirus-cover-up-flee-hong-kong-whistleblower

Reply
Andrew M
7/10/2020 03:51:11 pm

Og dear Brian. No reply box again. You should try at least to get the hang of this simple principle. For sure design a statistical test that all these things can't be random. Given that an individual test for one of them shows just randomness, maybe that's hard. But to say "they can't all together be random" - that is not science, just sensationalism.

Nerd doesn't support these wilder claims - are you really helping his case by continuing to promote them?

Reply
Brian
7/10/2020 05:11:19 pm

This combined probability should be statistically calculated by some young phd guys from here.
Also adding these to the probability that ratg13 is fake because of the ratio of 44 to 1 ... then the whole thing is going to be either magic or lab made...so we need a p value here...anyone?
(Sorry I use IE, and I don't see option for box reply in this laptop!)

Reply
Andrew M
7/10/2020 05:35:17 pm

Nonetheless you've succeeded in attaching a reply box again.

Why don't you read the article that sparked this exchange and understand the statistical methods which show the HIV hypothesis is pants.

Your suggestion that "we just need a p value" that some young PhD can calculate implies you don't really have a handle on how this stuff works.

A combined probability for the various theories here all being true, including the whackiest ones is going to be quite small. Nonetheless it would be a fascinating null hypothesis. If you thnk such a calculation is possible, what do you think the null hypothesis might be, and how do you imagine you would carry out a combined statistical test? In particular, how does the "44 to 1 ratio" figure in this?

Alesh
7/10/2020 06:46:39 pm

Sometimes you wonder whether the CCP is intentionally trying to derail the RatG13 is Fake comment section by employing trolls who frustrate us all by launching into multiple useless tangents.

Reply
Greg Felton link
7/10/2020 06:32:55 pm

I’m sorry if this question has been asked, but what is the evidence for claiming that the theory of HIV insertions has been debunked.

Also, can someone tell me what the term Angiotensin 1-7 means?

Thanks.

Reply
Brian
7/10/2020 07:01:27 pm

Greg
You need to know more about renin angiotensin system and pathway and the metabolic byproducts. You can wiki it! So ACE2 for example change angiotensin 2 to angiotensin 1 7 and angiotensin 1 to angiotensin 1 9.

Andrew
Obviously probability of supposedly inserted sequence depends on having better info on phylogenic tree and the ancestral virus ...so that is missing part...in nature however we know that 44:1 is almost impossible. But how we can explain it in terms of p value? Nerd may give a comment here. Assuming the pangoln is the best ancestor..

Reply
Greg
7/10/2020 07:55:44 pm

Thanks, Brian, but I understand the renin-angiotensin cycle. I just don’t know what the “1-7” means. Does it refer to certain molecules on a long chain? Angiotensin I and II are written with roman numerals; 1-7 are Arabic numerals. So far, web searches have not helped.

Thanks

Brian
7/11/2020 07:40:51 am

Greg
That just the way there are named based the number of aminoacids in these bioactive peptides...e.g:
1-7 is a heptapeptide.
1-9 is a nanopeptide

Nerd has power link
7/11/2020 12:22:36 pm

I'm not a bioinformatics person either, but P test is likely not appropriate when comparing the syn/non-sym differences. Some expert can prove me wrong.

44:1 is impossible, not almost impossible. That's my conclusion. The only way to challenge it is to use facts, which I bet you can't find in nature. Please don't bring recent pangolin coronaviruses or that rmYN02 or RaTG13 or Shi's WIV series into your analysis. If you do, you might end up proving a theory that you want to oppose :).

Andrew M
7/11/2020 02:30:51 am

It's in the french article linked above.

It's also debunked here:

https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1223666856923291648

Reply
Greg link
7/11/2020 01:35:57 pm

Thanks, Brian and Andrew.

It seems from the French article that the credibility of the HIV insertion theory hangs more on the size of the inserted segments than on the codon sequences of the insertions. In other words, HIV could have been spliced into SARS-CoV, but there is no proof of it. Can anyone tell me if the 4 insertions have anything in common with Malaria or MERS?

Thanks

Ted
7/11/2020 08:37:12 am

For discussion:

Tweet (July 1) from @Ayjchan

On May 19 of this year, someone from the WIV uploaded sequencing data of RaTG13 dating back to 2017 and 2018: https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?run=SRR11806578

Multiple sequences uploaded.

Reply
Nerd has power
7/11/2020 11:49:00 am

Thank you, Ted. I have briefly commented (7/11/2020 09:24:44 am) on it in a reply to your earlier post. However, let me add that the evidence here contradicts Shi's description that they only went back to the sample after the outbreak started. It is basically another piece of clear evidence suggesting that Zhengli Shi has not been the most honest person on this planet.

In addition to other theories (4991 from that mineshaft is being sequenced here, followed by a name change to RaTG13; the mineshaft virus is passaged in the lab to become SARS-CoV-2), here is one other possibility ----- they might have worked on this fabrication over a long period of time, while they were making progress on their bioweapon manufacturing.

Reply
alesh
7/11/2020 07:30:44 pm

I only see 2020 dates on those entries. Where is the 2016/17 dates?

Reply
alesh
7/11/2020 06:06:38 pm

Nerd has power said: “I'm not a bioinformatics person either, but P test is likely not appropriate when comparing the syn/non-sym differences. Some expert can prove me wrong. 44:1 is impossible, not almost impossible. That's my conclusion. The only way to challenge it is to use facts, which I bet you can't find in nature.”

My comment: I think that is really the biggest vulnerability of Nerd’s argument: whether you really can’t find it in nature?

Conversely, if someone can find natural viruses that exhibit something similar to the 44:1 relationship then the logical superstructure becomes vulnerable.

Reply
Nerd has power
7/11/2020 09:26:48 pm

Haha, yes, I have voluntarily highlighted a vulnerable part of my analysis. I welcome all challenges on this issue. If anyone can bring Peter Daszak or Zhengli Shi over to challenge me, it would be fantastic. Shi might simply tell me to "shut my stinky mouth". But that wouldn't work very well here as I demand that the challenge has to be facts-based.

Reply
gsgs
7/12/2020 02:44:07 am

yes, I found some such pairs in Coronaviruses some weeks ago.
Maybe it was only a certain region, I forgot. I can search my HD

Reply
gsgs
7/12/2020 02:52:35 am

[code]

1 , 2317 , 88 , 2 , 1:>-------- 2019-12-01 29884 Index:Wuhan 2019-12-01
2317 , 1 , 88 , 2 ,2317:> MN996532,Bat coronavirus RaTG13

2380 , 2208 , 93 , 2 ,2380:> GQ153543,Bat SARS coronavirus HKU3-8
2208 , 2380 , 93 , 2 ,2208:> KF294457,Bat SARS-like coronavirus
2380 , 2384 , 79 , 2 ,2380:> GQ153543,Bat SARS coronavirus HKU3-8
2384 , 2380 , 79 , 2 ,2384:> GQ153547,Bat SARS coronavirus HKU3-12
2379 , 2208 , 94 , 3 ,2379:> GQ153542,Bat SARS coronavirus HKU3-7
2208 , 2379 , 94 , 3 ,2208:> KF294457,Bat SARS-like coronavirus
2379 , 2384 , 80 , 3 ,2379:> GQ153542,Bat SARS coronavirus HKU3-7
2384 , 2379 , 80 , 3 ,2384:> GQ153547,Bat SARS coronavirus HKU3-12

2306 , 2643 , 88 , 2 ,2306:> MK211374,Coronavirus BtRl-BetaCoV/SC2018
2643 , 2306 , 88 , 2 ,2643:> KY417143,Bat SARS-like coronavirus
2306 , 2646 , 93 , 2 ,2306:> MK211374,Coronavirus BtRl-BetaCoV/SC2018
2646 , 2306 , 93 , 2 ,2646:> KY417147,Bat SARS-like coronavirus
2306 , 2647 , 102 , 2 ,2306:> MK211374,Coronavirus BtRl-BetaCoV/SC2018
2647 , 2306 , 102 , 2 ,2647:> KY417148,Bat SARS-like coronavirus
2306 , 2648 , 85 , 2 ,2306:> MK211374,Coronavirus BtRl-BetaCoV/SC2018
2648 , 2306 , 85 , 2 ,2648:> KY417149,Bat SARS-like coronavirus
2306 , 2828 , 93 , 3 ,2306:> MK211374,Coronavirus BtRl-BetaCoV/SC2018
2828 , 2306 , 93 , 3 ,2828:> MK211378,Coronavirus BtRs-BetaCoV/YN2018D

2359 , 398 , 124 , 3 ,2359:> DQ071615,Bat SARS CoV Rp3/2004
398 , 2359 , 124 , 3 , 398:> JX993987,Bat coronavirus Rp/Shaanxi2011
2359 , 2111 , 78 , 3 ,2359:> DQ071615,Bat SARS CoV Rp3/2004
2111 , 2359 , 78 , 3 ,2111:> DQ412043 DQ071612 DQ159957,Bat SARS CoV Rm1/2004

398 , 2111 , 121 , 4 , 398:> JX993987,Bat coronavirus Rp/Shaanxi2011
2111 , 398 , 121 , 4 ,2111:> DQ412043 DQ071612 DQ159957,Bat SARS CoV Rm1/2004
398 , 2448 , 113 , 4 , 398:> JX993987,Bat coronavirus Rp/Shaanxi2011
2448 , 398 , 113 , 4 ,2448:> KJ473814,BtRs-BetaCoV/HuB2013

2111 , 2448 , 104 , 4 ,2111:> DQ412043 DQ071612 DQ159957,Bat SARS CoV Rm1/2004
2448 , 2111 , 104 , 4 ,2448:> KJ473814,BtRs-BetaCoV/HuB2013

2116 , 2359 , 81 , 4 ,2116:> DQ648857,Bat CoV 279/2005
2359 , 2116 , 81 , 4 ,2359:> DQ071615,Bat SARS CoV Rp3/2004

2317 , 2869 , 208 , 4 ,2317:> MN996532,Bat coronavirus RaTG13
2869 , 2317 , 208 , 4 ,2869:> MT040334,Pangolin coronavirus
2317 , 2870 , 208 , 4 ,2317:> MN996532,Bat coronavirus RaTG13
2870 , 2317 , 208 , 4 ,2870:> MT040335,Pangolin coronavirus
2317 , 2871 , 208 , 4 ,2317:> MN996532,Bat coronavirus RaTG13
2871 , 2317 , 208 , 4 ,2871:> MT040336,Pangolin coronavirus

[/code]

#1,
#2,
nucleotide-differences in spike-s2
amino-acid-differences in spike-s2
name of #1

--------------------------------------------------------------------

2874 S2-spike subunit regions from coronaviruses at genbank , release 238.0 ,
which contain the "FIEDL" motive.

nucleotide and amino-acid sequences were aligned with MAFFT
all 2874*2874 pairs are examined for nucleotide-differences
and amino-acid-differences in that alignment.

The above 19 pairs were found which contain more than 77 nucleotide-differences
but less than 5 amino-acid differences.

Reply
Nerd has power
7/24/2020 04:16:02 pm

Thank you for sharing the info! They are very helpful. Sorry for not responding earlier. Hope you still would check back on this comment.

I agree with your list in that they all exhibit strangely high syn/non-syn ratios. However, I stand by my assertion that this 44:1 syn/non-syn ratio should not be possible for S2 in natural evolution. Then what do we make of these pairs then? Some are easy to decipher -- the pangolin coronaviruses. As I said in the article, they may not come from nature. Some newer evidence says exactly that. Then what about the rest of your list? For them, I might have to return to my comfort zone of being a "conspiracy theorist". If anyone is interested, try to look up this pair: KY417148 and KY417149. They are both included in the above list but not paired together. Whoever does not think their syn/non-syn look bizarre please make sure to say so in the comments. Basically, we might be uncovering more RaTG13-like viruses here.

Reply
gs
7/12/2020 03:22:35 am

note also the pangolins. These sequences were not known when RaTG13 was submitted.
They have 208 nucleotide differences and 4 amino-acid differences with RaTG13.
While SARS2 has 88 nucleotide-differences and 2 amino-acid differences.
So this is > twice as far away genetically but the dS/dN ratio is
even lower.

{do not use this info for creating pandemic viruses}

Reply
Fuddman
7/13/2020 06:06:10 pm

So California is shutting down, again ,after a spike in new cases. Should California react to “new cases” or should they be reacting to some other virus effect?
Asking for a friend

Reply
CCP is NAZI
7/13/2020 08:21:28 pm

Dr. Lawrence Sellin: Evidence Indicates the China Coronavirus “Most Likely a Product of Laboratory Manipulation”:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/07/dr-lawrence-sellin-evidence-indicates-china-coronavirus-likely-product-laboratory-manipulation/

Reply
Crocodilite
7/14/2020 01:44:35 pm

Dear Nerdhaspower,

First let me say that I loved your blog posts. Very well written and compelling! I’m a fan! :)

I have also read a lot of the comments here that are well thought out.

One question has bugged me for a while. Simply put, the question is…

What could possibly have Shi found in the copper mine in 2013 that would be consistent with their subsequent behavior and everything we know now?

Note that this question is different from those concerning 4991 (or RaTG13). Please allow me to elaborate.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-year-covid-trail-revealed-l5vxt7jqp
https://archive.fo/LPCD1

We know something significant was found in the cave in 2013. To simplify the discussion, I will temporarily give it a name. I’ll just call it BtSht13.

I understand 4991 and RaTG13 are highly suspicious. So this question is not about 4991 or RaTG13. The question is: what could BtSht13 have actually been that would be consistent with everything we know now. Unlike 4991 or RaTG13, we can ascertain that BtSht13 possesses the following characteristics:

-- It was most likely real. I mean a real virus of some sort existed in the cave that possessed the following characteristics.

-- It was natural.

-- It was quite deadly already in 2013. It killed at least three of the six miners involved, if not more.

-- It was not SARS1.

-- There might be some strong indication, though not certain, that BtSht13 was likely quite similar to SARS-CoV-2.

I believe this list is not controversial. Most of us (possibly even including the main perpetrators, ie., Shi and company) would agree (except the miner-killing bit, which she denied).

What I would like to invite you to do is to speculate about what BtSht13 could have actually been. More specifically, I want us to speculate about what kind of S1 tip it could have had, and what kind of backbone it could have had. The way I see it, there are at least three possibilities. (There may be more. If there’s more, I’d like to invite people to add to the list.) But all possibilities lead to certain contradictions, but some of these contradictions might be more tolerable than others!

Possibility 1: The Shi team was actually mostly telling the truth. So BtSht13 would be very much like RaTG13.

Possibility 2: BtSht13 was already very much identical to SARS-CoV-2.

Possibility 3. BtSht13 was substantially similar to SARS-CoV-2. But it’s not identical. (In particular, we’ll talk about what kind of S1 it could have had.)

Let us consider the possibilities.

Most of us probably would agree that Possibility 1 is unlikely for all the reasons everyone is discussing here. I tend to agree. Among many things, I personally believe it was highly unlikely that BtSht13 actually contained a furin site.

Possibility 2. BtSht13==SARS-CoV-2. At a first glance, it could to some extent have explained the deception and other strange behavior of the perpetrators: they would have been seen as the ones who brought the thing from the cave to the world. If this possibility were true, it would also mean that SARS-CoV-2 is actually natural! They would still have been guilty of spreading it, but they wouldn’t have made it. But I think this scenario is also unlikely due to many reasons. One indication is that the short fragment of 4991 is still some short distance away from SARS-CoV-2. As I said, we can’t be entirely sure of the believability of 4991, but considering that it was published in 2016 and found to be >98% identical to SARS-CoV-2, I could maybe accept that they didn’t just make it up in 2016 from thin air, having not known what would eventually transpire in 2020. If they didn’t entirely make up 4991 in 2016, there’s a chance that 4991 was a true reflection of BtSht13, but only in the tiny fragment published. Note that I fully accept that 4991 says absolutely nothing about the rest of BtSht13. But considering that at least in that fragment, 4991 is different from SARS-CoV-2, I could venture to guess that BtSht13 was also different from SARS-CoV-2. Not very different, but also not identical. This and other reasons would have to make me rule out possibility 2.

This brings us to Possibility 3. In my personal opinion, the most likely possibility. BtSht13 was substantially similar to SARS-CoV-2 but slightly different.

Up until this point, I don’t believe that I have made any controversial point. What I believe to be the tricky question starts only now.

I want to invite us to speculate what kind of S1 tip BtSht13 could have contained that would be logically consistent with everything we know or believe. There are again two sub-possibilities.

Sub-possibility 3.1. BtSht13 contained an S1 tip that’s substantially different from the S1 tip in SARS-CoV-2. If this were true, this sub-possibility actually degenerates to Possibility 1 above! Namely, this degenerates to the case where RaTG13 was actually real! What was RaTG13

Reply
Crocodilite
7/14/2020 01:47:35 pm

Sub-possibility 3.1. BtSht13 contained an S1 tip that’s substantially different from the S1 tip in SARS-CoV-2. If this were true, this sub-possibility actually degenerates to Possibility 1 above! Namely, this degenerates to the case where RaTG13 was actually real! What was RaTG13 anyway? It was the case of something similar but with a different S1 tip. Since we have already discounted that possibility, sub-possibility 3.1, the equivalent, is also discounted!

Sub-possibility 3.2. This seems the only reasonable possibility left. In this sub-possibility, BtSht13 contained an S1 tip that was substantially identical to the one found in SARS-CoV-2. The backbone of BtSht13 was also likely substantially identical to that found in SARS-CoV-2. But BtSht13 was still different from SARS-CoV-2 in important ways. For example, I believe the furin site was spliced into BtSht13 (along with other obfuscation changes) to turn BtSht13 into SARS-CoV-2.

It would seem to me that this is not only the only reasonable possibility left, but it would also explain the shenanigan behavior from the Shi people. The fact that BtSht13 contained *the* main murder weapon possessed by SARS-CoV-2, namely the S1 tip, is something they are rather reluctant to let the world see, to say the least. The S1 tip was never published when they released the fragment sequence of 4991. And the frantic manufacturing of RaTG13 out of thin air was solely in service of the purpose of doctoring its S protein sequence, thus triggering the dubious shady graph that you cited to “prove” that RatG13 was actually fake!

So far, so good, but here’s the final point, the point that’s been bugging me, and the point that you might NOT like to hear…

If sub-possiblity 3.2 were indeed true as I speculated above, then BtSht13 would possess characteristics that you swear couldn’t occur in nature! BtSht13 would contain the S-protein of SARS-CoV-2 and very likely the backbone of SARS-CoV-2. A combination that you don’t believe could be natural! After all, based on my definition, BtSht13 had to be natural!

The irony of this conclusion is that it supports your main conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 was man-made (because I believe it took lab work to turn BtSht13 into SARS-CoV-2), but it also invalidates your main premise, that the S-protein and the backbone seen in SARS-CoV-2 couldn’t have arisen naturally, because it did, at least in BtSht13!

Though perhaps unwelcome, I still tend to view this to be the most likely possibility. Like what you said in your initial blog, a possible, though rare recombination could have occurred to bring together the S-protein and the body of BtSht13 and hence SARS-CoV-2. I think it’s the second recombination that would have brought in the furin site that was practically impossible. And it’s the furin splicing that gave away the lab work.

I should stress again, in case it hasn’t been obvious yet, that this chain of logic in no way relies on the veracity of 4991 or RaTG13, both of which I agree to be extremely suspicious-looking! BtSht13 is a hypothetical construct that should have existed in the copper mine regardless what Shi’s nonsense has lied about!

The main question really boils down to just this: what kind of S-protein do you think BtSht13 could have possibly contained that would be consistent with everything we know and/or believe?

Regards,
Crocodilite

Reply
Crocodilite
7/14/2020 02:07:56 pm

Sorry, typo: please scratch out the reference to the furin site in the discussion of "Possibility 1." That reference was meant to have gone into "Possibility 2!"

Fuddman
7/15/2020 01:45:46 pm

"We know something significant was found in the cave in 2013."

Wrong.

Your basing your premise on a newspaper article? An non sourced newspaper article? And you expect people to buy into that?

The article was written with "inputs" from Shi Zhengli (probably) & Peter Daszak (for sure). Both of whom who have a vested interest in directing the public discussions of the origins of the virus they created.

Cmon, man. Get real.

Reply
Crocodilite
7/15/2020 10:49:26 pm

The Times piece practically covers the 4991-to-RaTG13 renaming shenanigan with the tone of uncovering a scandal, accuses both the WIV and the government of covering up and continuing the coverup of the deaths of the miners to this date, extensively sources the medical doctor papers and hospital records through extensive digging of buried records, postulates multiple possibilities that the whole thing could have been the result of a lab leak, and as any good investigative journalism would, gives the accused or relevant parties opportunities to respond, some of whom did, unconvincingly, most chose to remain silent.

Shi did not respond. The ridiculous Shi quote about a fungus infection was an indirect quote from a much earlier Scientific American piece. (Her quotes from a previous poster about cave stinks and such were not from the Times piece either--they all came from Scientific American, which unlike the Times piece, did not take on a critical tone.) Her fungus nonsense was clearly rebutted in the Times piece by the extensive medical records and documents that they have unearthed.

The piece ends with this paragraph, quote:

The Sunday Times put a series of questions to the WIV. They included why it had failed for months to acknowledge the closest match to the Covid-19 virus was found in a mine where people had died from a coronavirus-like illness. The questions were met with silence.

End quote.

I doubt you read any of it.

Crocodilite
7/14/2020 02:01:54 pm

Sorry, typo: please scratch out the reference to the furin site in the discussion of "Possibility 1." That reference was meant to have gone into "Possibility 2!"

Reply
Brian
7/14/2020 06:57:50 pm

Crocodilite. Fyi:

Dr. Deigin has in depth article that also cover history and timeline...he updated some sections:

https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748

Reply
Crocodilite
7/15/2020 02:28:07 am

Thank you Brian. I had read Yuri’s excellent article before. And I just quickly looked at it again to look for updates--he marked them with “[Updated]” tags. While the article is truly awesome, I don’t believe it answered my question.

Unlike Nerdhaspower, who strongly believes RaTG13 was faked, Yuri, as far as I could tell, did not make that accusation. In Yuri’s very long article, as far as I could tell, although he notes RaTG13 seemed like a very puzzling beast, he seemed to be writing under the assumption or tone that RaTG13 was real. In the lingo of my original question, he’s operating under the assumption of Possibility 1, that BtSht13==RaTG13.

In Yuri’s world, if BtSht13==RaTG13, then my question of what kind of S1 tip BtSht13 could have possibly possessed, is trivially answered: the same as the one seen in RaTG13. (For the time being, I need not take a position for or against Yuri’s assumption.)

In Nerdhaspower’s world, BtSht13 is absolutely not RaTG13, because RaTG13 is alleged to be faked, while BtSht13, according to my definition, was real. So then my question becomes significant: if BtSht13 and RaTG13 are allegedly different, can we speculate on what kind of S1 tip BtSht13 could have possibly possessed that would be logically consistent with known facts and/or our beliefs?

To further sharpen the focus, here’s one way to frame my question. Nerdhaspower has made two important accusations. (1) RaTG13 is fake. (2) S1 couldn’t have arisen naturally, not with the backbone seen in SARS-CoV-2. (To be honest, I’m sympathetic to both points.) But my question kind of forces him to make a Sophie’s Choice. It would seem to me that in answering what kind of S1 tip BtSht13 could have possibly possessed, the above two points can’t be true simultaneously. The S1 tip in BtSht13 is either substantially identical to the S1 tip in SARS-CoV-2 or not. If it is, then (2) is false. If it isn’t, then (1) is (very likely) false. It seems that we can’t have both ways! That’s really the crux of my question!

Don’t get me wrong--I’m more than happy to hear that I’m wrong in the above assertion. I would be intrigued to hear an explanation that could square everything! That indeed there exists a hypothetical BtSht13 configuration that would be logically consistent with both (1) and (2) being viable.

Cheers,
Crocodilite

Crocodilite
7/15/2020 04:29:31 am


If I had to make the Sophie’s Choice, at this point, I’m going to go with (1) RatG13 being fake and grudgingly sacrifice (2) that a highly infectious S1 couldn’t possibly have arisen naturally with something that resembles a SARS-CoV-2 backbone.

Here’s more reasoning, and further support evidence that RatG13 was likely fake.

https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/covid-causing-virus-not-likely-to-have-come-just-from-bat-virus

Reply
Crocodilite
7/15/2020 04:31:51 am

Quote:

Nikolai Petrovsky is a Professor in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University. He is also Research Director, Vaxine Pty Ltd

"This reported finding that a spike protein resembling that of bat viruses RaTG13 does not bind to the human ACE2 is supported by the spike protein and ACE2 modelling data from our collaborative group, which comprises researchers from Flinders University, La Trobe University, and Vaxine Pty Ltd, using Cloud HPC resources provided by Oracle Corporation.

It is important to appreciate that RaTG13 itself is a conceptual rather than proven real virus, as a virus corresponding to RaTG13 has never been isolated and cloned. Instead, the sequence of RaTG13 was derived from short reads of amplified sequences isolated from pooled bat specimens, and thereby may itself be an artefact rather than a real virus, made up of sequences from different but related coronaviruses.

This just adds to the puzzle of the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and how it acquired its distinctive and pathogenic features, including its furin cleavage site, which is not seen in any closely-related bat or pangolin coronaviruses, and its spike protein with extremely high human ACE2 affinity, this spike protein closely resembling a previously-isolated pangolin CoV spike protein. This pangolin CoV-like spike protein provided a presumed bat virus such as one mimicking RaTG13 with the ability to efficiently infect human cells. making it a highly efficient human pathogen.

Without its pangolin CoV-like spike protein with its non-pangolin-like furin cleavage site, the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have become a virulent human pathogen. This makes it all the more critical to determine where the SARS-CoV-2 virus initially came from and how it was created, so that future pandemics with similar viruses can hopefully be prevented."

End quote.

Reply
Crocodilite
7/15/2020 04:34:09 am

So, we have the following assertions:

-- RatG13 incapable of infecting humans.

-- BtSht13 (the “mine virus,” if you haven’t read my lingo in the earlier post) killed 3 of the 6 miners working there in 2013.

--Therefore, BtSht13 not= RatG13. I mean, further potential evidence that RatG13 is fake.

-- If BtSht13 was so good at killing miners, it probably had a very potent S1 already. So they might not have to go as far as some more distant Pangolin virus elsewhere to get a potent S1 to put into SARS-CoV-2.

-- Therefore, in BtSht13, we had a natural combination of the potent S1 and backbone that are in SARS-CoV-2.

-- But, as the quote above states, BtSht13 not= SARS-Cov-2, because of, for the 1000th time, the all-important smoking gun (or pesky inconvenience, depending on who you are), the furin cleavage.

Again, I believe what was actually found in the mine in 2013 was a critical puzzle piece, if not *the* piece.

yano
7/15/2020 11:47:16 am

Looks like Shi found some viruses in that mine but a fungus was the actual pathogen that sickened and killed the miners. At least this is what this article says.

No doubt Shi has collected many many viruses over the last ten years. The bragging propaganda video stated 2000 newly found viruses if im not mistaken. From this, it's entirely possible Shi found any number of viruses that are close to SARS-CoV-2.

But they were working on chimeric viruses. Bragging and publishing papers on how chimeric viruses can be made cutting and pasting at will with no signs of human engineering left behind.

My bet is on SARS-CoV-2 being a chimeric virus synthetically made from a natural found backbone, a pangolin spike protein, an addition of a nice furin cleavage site to round out the package, then run though human cell culture to make sure it works as designed.

I am also leaning towards a purposeful release of the virus to force the downfall of the hated CCP in rememberance of the fall of the Han Dynasty. But this in only speculation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/

Three years earlier Shi’s team had been called in to investigate the virus profile of a mine shaft in Yunnan’s mountainous Mojiang County—famous for its fermented Pu’er tea—where six miners suffered from pneumonialike diseases and two died. After sampling the cave for a year, the researchers discovered a diverse group of coronaviruses in six bat species. In many cases, multiple viral strains had infected a single animal, turning it into a flying factory for new viruses.

“The mine shaft stunk like hell,” says Shi, who, like her colleagues, went in wearing a protective mask and clothing. “Bat guano, covered in fungus, littered the cave.” Although the fungus turned out to be the pathogen that had sickened the miners, she says it would have been only a matter of time before they caught the coronaviruses if the mine had not been promptly shut.

Crocodilite
7/15/2020 11:29:56 pm

According to the Times piece, from hospital records and interviews of doctors, at the time, all six miners tested positive for antibodies against an unknown Sars-like coronavirus, but Sars was definitively ruled out. And, quote:

Shi’s interview with the Scientific American mentions the discovery of a coronavirus that 96% matches the Covid-19 virus, and has a reference to the miners dying in a cave she investigated. However, the two things are not linked and Shi downplays the significance of the miners’ deaths by claiming they succumbed to a fungus.

Experts consulted by this newspaper thought it was significant the men had tested positive for antibodies against Sars. Professor Martin Hibberd, a professor of emerging infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said the antibodies provided “a good clue” that the cause of death was “a proper coronavirus”, which “most likely” was Sars-related.

End quote.

It was curious and ironic that Shi was going out of her way to discredit a potential source of evidence that could have indirectly backed up an alternative natural-origin theory. But I think it’s quite understandable. For one, her name is irrevocably linked to the cave and she doesn’t want to be seen as someone who might have brought the thing out of the cave into the world, even if it turns out to be natural-origin. Second, as I said, even though the apparently natural mine virus seemed quite deadly already, it seemed very unlikely it had a furin site at the time, and it seemed quite plausible that the furin site was spliced in by Shi later on. So she had good reasons to spew the fungus nonsense. Unlike the extensive hospital records unearthed by Times that back up the theory that the miners were killed by an unknown coronavirus, the fungus theory was backed up by absolutely nothing but her words!

Lilian
7/15/2020 12:42:40 pm

In the hypothesis of a purposeful release of the virus it can be interesting to watch this short video where Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), warned members of the incoming Trump administration in January 2017 about the inevitability of a "surprise outbreak" of a new disease.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh3twYon8pc

Something to get goose bumps.

Reply
Lilian
7/15/2020 10:50:47 pm

Fuddman: there is a Thesis, which has been recently translated in English that describes the symptoms of the miners.

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Medical doctors should have a look at it and define if the symptoms can be caused only by COVID19 like illnesses or an infection from another virus or a fungus could cause them.

We are all here trying to contribute in proving that this virus is synthetic, so no need to spoil contributions from the others.

Reply
Crocodilite
7/15/2020 11:50:44 pm

Wow, that looks like a very interesting link!!

Fresh off the press too--with a timestamp of today!!

It's long so I will have to read it carefully later.

(But a quick eyeballing seems to show that they have multiple interesting theories about the furin site!)

Thanks for the link!

Reply
Crocodilite
7/16/2020 04:55:18 am

Wow, just wow! I believe the technical term for this is: “Holy bat shit!!”

I’m blown away! Is an understatement of what’s in this piece!

People will have to read it by themselves. Again, here’s the link.

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Their main theory of the piece, to be fair, is still just a speculation, albeit a very informed and educated speculation. I personally don’t have an axe to grind and don’t have any vested interest either way in any particular theory, seeing who some of the people on this particular blog might be, so I’m not going to talk about their main thesis. And, what they are saying in this piece is just a “baseline:” the baseline is not necessarily incompatible with potentially much greater guilt, some of which are being explored on this blog. I mean, what happened with the miner saga could have just been the beginning. A beginning that’s not necessarily mutually exclusive with bigger shenanigans later.

I just want to point out two things of this piece that totally blows me away, and these two things are likely going to become facts that are beyond dispute, if not already, or likely focal points of inquiry in the future.

(1) Shi and WIV are in possession of human tissue samples of the infected miners, including ones from the dead!! For all these years!!

At least that’s what we’re told!

If true, the degree of deception involved in hiding this fact seems mind-boggling to me and I think the authors of this piece should have highlighted it when they are laying out the list of her culpabilities!

In all their public utterance, Shi and company have only cryptically mentioned a tiny sample of bat poop. And have indirectly claimed that the sample is in fact used up, so all traces of anything are gone!

At no place was there ever mention of a big stash of human tissue samples that are, at least according to this piece, likely heavily laden with the virus(es) in question!

Exactly what has happened to these samples, I hope, will at some point, become a focal point of inquiry!

I would be extremely intrigued to learn whether the virus from the human tissue samples turn out to contain the all-important furin site!

(2) I think the authors of this piece should have been a little more careful about using the term “RaTG13” throughout this piece, as if it’s a word that has a clear definition! To me, in light of what’s been revealed, what “RaTG13” could have actually been is a wild question: what it actually is is anyone’s guess!

It could have been from the bat poop, which, critically, could be very different from what’s in the miner samples, especially in light of the main thesis of this piece, that there had been significant adaptation inside the miner lungs. (Again, I personally take no position for or against that thesis--it’s just a speculation at this point, but, again, a speculation that’s not necessarily incompatible with greater guilt.)

It could have come from the miners’ samples.

It could be a hodge-podge of several things in the bat poop.

And, of course, it could be faked!

Considering that the authors of this piece are laying out a strong condemnation against Shi and company’s conduct, I find it slightly ironic and naive for them to continue to cite “RaTG13” as if it’s a clearly defined entity in which anyone could invest any meaning or trust. No, I don’t blame the authors--I blame the perpetrator.

Anyways, I’m glad I wrote on this blog: if nothing else, being sent a link and reading this piece on its first day of publication has been a privilege and an eye-opener! Thank you!

Reply
Crocodilite
7/16/2020 05:10:01 am

And the all-important question of why, why did Shi and company hide this entire saga and the existence of the samples, for all these years, the all-important question of *motive* is anyone’s guess!

(I understand it’s kind of beyond the scope of this scientific piece so it was probably prudent for the authors not to go there.)

David Rivard
7/16/2020 10:09:27 am

Are any papers being published that compare the current strains in China with those of the US?

Crocodilite
7/16/2020 12:41:36 pm

Hi David, re: “apologetic comments” about “beyond the scope” of science, well said.

When I mentioned “beyond the scope of science,” I was actually referring to the most excellent piece written on the miner saga by Latham and Wilson. I was saying that their undoubtedly carefully chosen words to not veer off science was prudent. Their priority is to get their voices heard. They are already facing an uphill battle in a world of corruption where prestigious scientific forums such as Nature have apparently become “weaponized” and, indeed, monopolized by the corrupt forces to an astounding degree of success. The last thing they need is to give the corrupt forces extra excuse or ammunition to dismiss brave and intelligent, but lone, voices like theirs.

On a blog like this one, we’re comfortably cloaked in our thin veneer of anonymity so we could perhaps afford a little bit more liberty sometimes. Also, I think it’s the intentions of people like Latham and Wilson that we, the audience, read between the lines, and draw the obvious inferences that they are not necessarily at liberty to say, for the reasons stated above, and perhaps, if necessary, on occasion, speak the rest of the lines on their behalf!

So, it is in this spirit, let me just say a few such “rest of the lines.” It ain’t Voltaire, but, I hope, as said at the end of the movie Babe, “that’ll do pig, that’ll do!” :)

So I’m going to try to speculate about my own question about the *motive* here. I thought someone would have said it explicitly by now, but since I haven’t seen it, I might as well say something...

To the question of why, the answer we hear is to wait for BSL4. And, indeed, many of you have already pointed out, they don’t need BSL4. So, here I quote another movie, Matrix Reloaded:

Merovingian: Oh yes, it is true. The Keymaker, of course. But this is not a reason, this is not a `why.’ The Keymaker himself, his very nature, is means, it is not an end, and so, to look for him is to be looking for a means to do… what?

BLS4 is not why. BSL4 is means. It is not an end. To wait for BSL4 is to wait for a means to do… what?!

Crocodilite
7/16/2020 12:44:57 pm

Shi has busloads of international collaborators spread all over the world. Indeed, I believe some of their bat poop was sequenced in San Diego. If very dangerous coronavirus needs a little more safety precaution than that, I’m sure she and her huge circle of well-connected cohorts could pull some strings somewhere to have the work done overseas.

But let’s back up a bit here. Think for a moment about her career. Her whole career is about this postulate that Sars-like bat coronaviruses could jump from bats to humans (again). Her whole life had been building up to this very moment! And here it is, the holy grail, the motherlode! You have a bunch of miners who just got infected in the mother of all bat caves. You have all the samples you want. All handed to you on a silver platter. Is she the kind of person who’s going to let a little pesky safety protocol get between her and fame and accolade? For god knows how many years?

Also, ask yourself, what kind of “work” could possibly be required from her esteemed Nature peer reviewers? “Uh.. this is a pretty good draft, but we don’t think the mine bugs you have now is quite deadly enough yet. We recommend a bit more oomph if you could please manage it somehow…”

Also, she’d been busily splicing stuff, creating worse and worse monsters, way beyond 2013. Now, step back for a second again… Have we forgotten the excuse for splicing in the first place? The excuse for splicing was they were posulating viruses could jump to humans but they couldn’t find such real cases so they were splicing to show it *could* happen. Now that the real McCoy *had* indeed happened, and it indeed looked as bad as it could get, can someone please remind me what’s the purpose of splicing again?

So, I’m not still seeing the answer of why here. BSL4 is a means, a means to do what?!

I hate to have to spell out the obvious here. Here’s a previously unknown deadly virus. What kind of use could it possibly have if we keep it undercover? To serve this purpose that I hate to have to spell out, you could certainly use more “work.” A little obfuscation couldn’t hurt. A little “enhancement” here and there sounds scintillating!

I’m a scientist and engineer by training. It’s not in my nature to sound like a kook. I’m extremely open to alternative suggestions of answers to the question of “BSL4 is a means to what end?” Maybe there’s an innocent explanation, and I hope there is one. As I said, I don’t have an axe to grind about any ideology or theory. I’m just an engineer following logic, even if logic leads you to an unpleasant, uncomfortable, unwanted place.

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Fuddman
7/16/2020 02:25:38 pm

The Nerd running this thread calls Shi Zhengli a liar. And that she released the SARS-CoV-2 as a bio weapon.

I'm with him on all that and I would go further to say she is evil. Her virus killed 586,000 people worldwide. She knows it. And doesn't care.

Keep this in mind, too. She's got lots of reputation in the "trade" and lots of access to the big mouthed gurus in the "trade". And gobs of money courtesy of her boss, the Chinese Communist Party, CCP.

So, when you read an article or paper in which Shi Zhengli is a contributor, you need to go back and read what I just posted above. Just to get your head straight about who your dealing with. Then, you should be able to, pretty much, predict what the article will conclude.

Lately, Shi Zhengli is being scrutinized by some of her contemporaries. Articles are appearing which convincingly tie her to a created virus. And her defenses are going up in stages.

Stage one defense was back in Feb/March when Trump said the virus came out of China. Vehemently denied by the CCP.

Nobody bought that denial so stage two defense is now in progress. "Yeah we did it: but, it was a natural virus, accidentally released and it was all because we were trying to create a better the world."

You just know that line will sell with many in the "trade." And, of course, it sounds so right to Scientific America, IndependenceScienceNews (which is the one you refer to), Cell, Nature and all the rest of the trade publications. But that line, bit by bit, is, also, starting to fall apart.

Stage three defense, discussion and accusations of a bioweopon release is going to be a lot trickier, particularly why. IMO, it's not that hard to answer.

Reply
yano
7/16/2020 08:54:12 am

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Human petri dishes growing a pandemic virus. This certainly could explain the well adapted human SARS-CoV-2 virus.

"Furthermore, according to the Master’s thesis, the immune systems of the miners were compromised and remained so even for those discharged. This weakness on the part of the miners may also have encouraged evolution of the virus."


"The Andersen authors, in their critique of a possible engineered origin for SARS-CoV-2, also stress the need for passaging in whole humans:"

and the reason for the delay? 2012 to the 2019 pandemic.

"Our supposition as to why there was a time lag between sample collection (in 2012/2013) and the COVID-19 outbreak is that the researchers were awaiting BSL-4 lab construction and certification, which was underway in 2013 but delayed until 2018."

why hide this? I bet they could not wait to thaw these virus samples and start work.

Reply
Lilian
7/16/2020 09:24:59 am

Also because a BSL-3 lab seems to be enough to work on CoVs.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/09/coronavirus-bsl-3-lab/

And what about this article?

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30812-6.pdf

I bet SARS-CoV-2 was already part of this study before the outbreak.

In 2017 the GX pangolin CoV were discovered and RaTG13 started to sequence (again). Casualty? Perhaps. But plenty of time for cell passaging and insertion of the pangolin CoV RBD in RaTG13 backbone plus the furin site followed by more cell/ animal passaging.
This stays my favourite explanation.

Reply
Greg Felton
7/16/2020 11:22:16 am

I have my doubts about this. Genetically modifying pathogens requires BSL4-level security and safety. Scientists have to wear moonsuits, which are not required at the BSL 3 level.

Lilian
7/16/2020 11:58:50 am

Interesting reading on GoF research and biosafety level from 2016:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1535676016661772

"As most GOF research is conducted in the United States in laboratories operating at biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) with enhancements..."

Marilene
7/31/2020 06:49:10 am

"I bet SARS-CoV-2 was already part of this study before the outbreak."

But still they have not guessed the correct date of publication, as the date on the pdf is ...
"Dai et al., 2020, Cell 182, 1–12 August 6, 2020".

Or maybe the pdf came from the future.

Brian
7/16/2020 01:26:10 pm

I can add that some of these miners were antibody positive for original SARS1 based on an interview that I heard from Yuri

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug

That means that the cause of death is not clear. Also if that was real covid19 in 2013, there should be some outbreaks between 2013 and 2020. No outbreak means, it was either a beta testing back then or the package was not ready yet!

Reply
Crocodilite
7/16/2020 02:22:48 pm

The Master’s thesis, which was based on hospital records, stated clearly that SARS1 was among the first things they looked for and was able to categorically rule out.

This is not surprising since the Chinese hospitals and doctors were very much on the lookout for SARS1 and they would test for it and they knew well how.

Antibody tests, as we know, are a different and complex business. Back in 2013, they couldn’t possibly have had anything else other than a SARS1 antibody test. Antibody tests are distinct from the direct SARS1 test I mentioned at the beginning of this post. (This is also how stuff is done today for Covid-19: you have nucleic acid tests to tell you if you have it now, and you have antibody tests to tell you whether you ever had it. Different tests.) Apparently something like a nucleic acid test for SARS1 all returned negative in 2013.

On the other hand, due to the close proximity of SARS1 and Covid-19, it’s conceivable that an antibody test made for SARS1 could return a positive result for an early relative of Covid-19 in 2013.

If you read the very carefully and precisely worded sentences in both the Times piece and the Latham&Wilson piece, you’d see that no one ever said anything silly like “oh, tests showed the miners had Covid-19 in 2013.” All they could say was: “we are fairly certain it’s not SARS1, but because the virus seems to cause a positive response to a SARS1 antibody test, we strongly suspect it’s an unknown Sars-like coronavirus.” Very precisely worded! And no contradiction anywhere whatsoever!

Why no outbreaks during 2013-2020? The Latham&Wilson piece gave a very good hypothesis already. The miners got sick; they either died or recovered. The L&W piece also suggested that in those earliest days, the virus was still in the process of adapting to the miners’ lungs. It’s possible that it was not as infectious as Covid-19 is today. So the miners died or recovered before they had a chance to pass it onto others. Perhaps the doctors who treated them, who were already suspicious about this thing being SARS1, would have taken extra precaution to protect themselves back in 2013. Also hospital room mates, relatives, etc. That was a hard lesson learned during the SARS1 outbreak--it was mainly fueled by super-spreaders in hospitals! So the doctors were possibly armed to teeth for SARS1! Good for them!

The mine itself probably got sealed off promptly. (If they were prudent, they probably would have banned poop-mining in similar caves too. I don’t know that.)

So that takes care of all the cases in Yunnan! For now!

At this point of the story, the focus shifts to Wuhan! The bat poop samples and the miner tissue and blood samples got shipped to Shi’s lab and got stored there. The L&W piece postulates that they didn’t mess with the samples because they were waiting for the BSL4 lab to be constructed. Once the BSL4 lab was finished, they opened the fridge and started to mess with the samples in the lab. Labs had to follow certain safety protocols so it wouldn’t be as easy for the bugs to leap out as they might outside the lab. So from the time the sample was opened, to the first accident (or perhaps a second, third… accident, who knows) when the virus finally had a chance to hitch a ride and leap from the samples to a lab technician, that amount of time is somewhat less than deterministic--who knows what sequence of events would/could/should have lead to the first release? It’s like plane crashes; you can’t tell when the next one is coming.

Again, we can’t just yet prove that’s what actually happened. But I find the L&W piece mostly amazingly coherent.

Brian
7/16/2020 04:10:59 pm

sars1 doesn't seem to be totally ruled out above based on your naratives...I think you are trying to make a peace with yourself...Then ...diiiiiing....the furin seq magically inserted into ratg13 ? Sorry to wake you up!

ape
7/16/2020 12:26:05 pm

A new article at Independent Science purports to have a plausible origin story for the virus. They claim there is NOT evidence of "specifically genetically engineered or biowarfare origin..."

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Reply
Rocky Balboa
7/16/2020 10:16:16 pm

I think the Latham and Wilson article is an interesting one, but I have a few issues with it.

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/

1. They criticize the Andersen et al. Nature Medicine article "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" for the undocumented and "quantum leap"assertion that the furin polybasic cleavage site arose in humans, but make the same argument.

2. Latham and Wilson say all the human adaptations occurred in a single infection of six miners, which is inconsistent with the long-term human adaptation seen in SARS-CoV-1 in 2002-2003.

3. Given such a huge and rapid human adaptation rate in six miners, there should have been significant variations in the mutations among minors as is seen in presumed in vivo feline infectious peritonitis coronavirus "Mutation in Spike Protein
Cleavage Site and Pathogenesis of Feline Coronavirus," which are highly variable and tend to be deleterious to furin cleavage, but possibly increasing access to other proteases. They are also all point mutations, not an insertion, which SARS-CoV-2 seems to be.

4. It is also curious to me that the S1/S2 R-S amino acid sequence is highly conserved in all of the related coronaviruses as shown by Andersen et al. The PRRA insert is also not needed to produce high human infectivity equivalent to the G614 strain in the D614G study "The D614G mutation in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein reduces S1 shedding and increases infectivity" shown in their Figure 1d, in which the furin site is ablated.

Reply
Crocodilite
7/18/2020 05:54:42 am

Good points! I’m actually not an expert in this field so I would be very eager to learn from you!

Your point (1). I’m with you. I said a bunch of times already that I think the furin site could well have been spliced in later.

Your point (2) is an excellent one! In layman’s term, you’re saying “How did all six of them get it at the same time and in the seemingly same way?” if I understood you correctly. Could be that the (most difficult) first successful jump from poop to humans occurred first in just one of the six miners, and then this first miner infected the others? And adaptation continued independently in the remaining miners? Or perhaps adaptation already got to an advanced stage in the first infectee before the remaining ones were infected so they would exhibit less variations than we might expect otherwise?

And it was not clear whether the miners were isolated from each other during their hospital stays so there was continued cross-infection among them? L&W says some of them apparently got “cured” and then it flared up again. L&W also says that even in the same lung, they saw chunks of healed parts coexisting chunks of new infections. They postulated that it was a sign multiple strains evolving in the same lungs but the multiple strains could even have come from multiple miners.

Your point (3), I’m not sure if I follow. You’re saying there should be significant variations across the six miners. But how do we know that was not the case? We don’t have genetic samples from all six miners. All we have is RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 today. The stuff we have today probably descended from a single miner’s sample. Presumably, unless we get our paws on what Shi has hidden in her fridges, we have forever lost the information concerning the other five miners. So how would we know one way or the other whether the six miners exhibited variations? (Also I mumbled something about possible scenarios that would cause less variations in the last paragraph.)

Your point (4), I must confess I didn’t understand. You said “the S1/S2 R-S amino acid sequence is highly conserved in all of the related coronaviruses as shown by Andersen et al.” In what way does that relate to the L&W hypothesis?

I think there’re several different strands in the L&W piece. At least the following. (1) The miners indeed caught something that was an ancestor of SARS-CoV-2; (2) the viruses underwent significant adaptation inside miner lungs; (3) *EVERYTHING* in today’s SARS-CoV-2 can be accounted for in the miners’ lungs. I think each of these later points is a lot more controversial than the one preceding it.

To me, personally, the biggest bombshell in the L&W piece is the potential existence of the human samples. If true, if they could be made available, it could answer so many questions, like yours. If true, the really maddeningly evil act is continuing hiding (or perhaps having destroyed) them even when the whole world is up in flames and there’s so much we could have learned from them! Hopefully, the L&W piece would lead to calls for authorities to answer for the fate of these samples and start an official inquiry!

Reply
gsgs
7/18/2020 06:12:25 am

5. the increased 3-7 fold mutation rate due to unusual
lung infection doesn't make sense to me.
Has it been seen elsewhere ? I remember it in vaccinated chickens
with H5N1, but only in HA (~Spike) and mainly nonsynonymous
and not over 7 years

Reply
Paolo Barnard
7/17/2020 05:49:04 pm

You feature in this interview of mine to Dr Michael Antoniou at King's College London. https://youtu.be/3WQp2Aqr1ps. A 100% English version of it for private viewings only is here https://youtu.be/ehow-zB_pFs. Paolo Barnard

Reply
yano
7/17/2020 07:19:58 pm

It's pathetic that only three scientist have the balls to stand up and voice their opinions. What kind of world do we live in? It's sick. We are not free if scientist cannot voice their true opinions for fear of retribution.

Reply
Brian
7/17/2020 10:04:41 pm

Dear yano...
in 911 more than 1000 scientist petition that external forces demolished the buildings... Then nothing happen... No one cares...
Please listen to bible below !? Nothing you and I can do in this fucking world!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CM5slB7fOA

Greg Felton
7/17/2020 10:20:38 pm

Brian:
Why on earth would you drag the bible into a serious discussion?!
The WTC was absolutely NOT brought down by external forces. The proof is irrefutable. Perhaps there is a missing word or two in your post.

Brian
7/17/2020 10:36:44 pm

well...and haha...The building 7 video is all over the place and again more than 1000 scientist scientifically determined that external forces was in place...there was a scientific paper published that termite was involved...you are so willingly ignorant! do you want me to send you building 7 free fall video? So you can see by your own eye? Is that scientifically enough? ...the point is they unleash this virus ..now you as a scientist tell us who are "they"

Reply
Greg Felton link
7/17/2020 11:08:54 pm

Someone like you who buys into the bible really has no place discussing physics or any other aspect of scientific investigation. The "Appeal to Authority," which you seem to worship, is a logical fallacy by which a person who cannot form a rational argument hides behind the words of others.

Building 7, like the towers, collapsed because of controlled demolition. Given that they were built to withstand airplane impact and that kerosene-based jet fuel cannot melt steel, much less undermine the skeletal structure of the buildings, I fail to see what you could be basing your scientifically indefensible argument on. Maybe there's a biblical passage I am not familiar with.

For your (badly needed) edification, here is some empirical data that exposes the fallacy that external force bringing down the WTC. It comes from Chapter 11 of my book "The Host & The Parasite––How Israel's Fifth Column Consumed America":

"Appendix A to the FEMA report states that WTC1, 2 and 7 represented the first collapses of steel-framed buildings protected by fire-resistant spray-applied material—in the case of the WTC, asbestos. As proof, the appendix cites fires at the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles (May 4–5, 1988) and at Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza (February 23–24, 1991). In each case, the structural integrity of the steel-framed buildings remained intact. Moreover, One Meridian’s columns continued to stabilize the building for several years. Nevertheless, the appendix is deficient in one important respect—it omits mention of a previous fire in WTC1. On February 14, 1975, fire broke out in the B.F. Goodrich offices on the 11th floor and spread to the 9th and 14th floors. It burned for three hours, almost twice as long as the fires that burned on September 11, yet did not compromise the tower’s structural integrity. The only possible explanation for the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the three WTC buildings is controlled demolition."

I have much more, but this should suffice.

Now, let's get back on topic: The fallacy of zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Reply
Brian
7/18/2020 05:51:30 am

Greg
somehow you misunderstood me totally...this is what I meant above using the word ext forces! So same as that time that scientist were totally ignored, this time will be the same and that was my response to Yano. I do not disagree with you!

What we can do? it gradually be forgotten at the population level . some of us however do not forget it and it is painful. One way that helps me is to listen to Ecclesiastes that I linked above! have you listened to that? It's good. I share my exp. That's all.

Mr1K
7/18/2020 05:57:45 am

I think its more likely,its a fallacy of the virus at all.
I think the testing is absolute bullshit..
The PCR was intended as a manufacturing technique ,not for diagnostic purposes.
Testing for a fragment of the so called virus..Bullshit..
Lets generate a synthesized DNA sample from the patient,that should work to run it through the PCR machine @
35 cycles,37 cycles, 40 cycles. No gold standard...
PCR machine was designed to amplify DNA not RNA..
Where is the purified Virus?????????????????
There isn't one.
Worldometer, John Hopkins all these tracking sites and
all these countries reporting and collaborating with such great precision. Bullshit
4.2 million people died of air pollution last year.
Where are those tracking stats?
We now know why Trump dumped the CDC for reporting.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2v9kY9QbWIHm/
https://youtu.be/oHREpsETpTM
https://www.andrewkaufmanmd.com/
https://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf
Where is the purified VIRUS????????
For SARS.
For SARS COV 2.
None exists....
Isolation is not purification..

.

Crodilite
7/18/2020 04:14:21 am

test?

Reply
Crocodilite
7/18/2020 06:12:13 am

(1/4)
In case it’s not clear yet, I’m not swallowing the whole of L&W sink and hook. Never did. Few others do.
As I stated earlier, I think, at least in some of its sub-components, L&W is not necessarily incompatible with subsequent human manipulation by Shi and company.
In this thesis, the miner saga was only the beginning in 2013. And this beginning was backed up by fairly solid documentary evidence in the form of hospital records, thesis, and doctor interviews, etc. That’s point A.
To me, as I said, the biggest bombshell of the L&W piece is the likely existence of human samples at Point A.
Fast-forward to 2020, we have SARS-CoV-2, as we know it today. We know what we have today. That’s point Z.
These two bookends are reasonably solid.
Exactly what happened between point A and point Z, at this point in time, we have practically zero documentary (or other type) of evidence.
As “everyone” has said, the veracity of 4991 or RaTG13 can’t be known. So we can’t take it too seriously in terms of what they tell us.
So there’s almost zero solid evidence to back up any speculation about the intermediate points between point A and point Z.
The L&W piece is very very good. I love it! It doesn’t mean I agree with everything that’s in it. We need to be careful to understand that it contains multiple “ideas.” Not all these ideas need to be true, and some of the ideas might be able to survive even if the later ones turn out to be disproved. I enumerate some of the possible ideas.
Idea (1) Miners were infected by something from the cave, and this something was very similar to what we have today. “Similar” is as far as we could go. We can’t say we know it was identical. And if it’s not identical, we can’t say how similar. This is point (A), as I said earlier, this point (A) is likely least controversial.
Idea (2) The virus continues to adapt and undergo very significant and rapid adaptations in multiple miners’ lungs. This would be likely a controversial position. As the authors concede, nothing like this has been known to have ever occurred. I wouldn’t be surprised that it could meet strong resistance from many in the field. But this is *the* key idea of L&W. A very interesting and novel idea! But, note that even if this idea were true, that the virus were rapidly evolving new characteristics, it doesn’t have to mean that all the SARS-CoV-2 features that we know of today, what we have at Point Z, had been made by this process.
Idea (3) They further postulate that *ALL* of the characteristics that we know about SARS-CoV-2 today had already been acquired through the adaptation process in the miners’ lungs. (Extra emphasis on the word "ALL.") This would be even more controversial.
In particular, about the RBD and furin site, L&W postulates that both of these key features were acquired through adaptation in the miners’ lungs, so these features were already in the virus contained in the samples when they left Yunnan on their way to Wuhan. It seems that this would meet the most resistance.

Reply
Xoco Latte
8/26/2020 02:24:11 am

Sorry for being so late to the party...

The piece written by L & W was the first paper I have stumbled upon in this controversial story of the SARS-CoV-2 virus origin, and it has taken me as a big surprise. Afterwards, I continued my own search for other pieces of the controversy, and managed to find, among others, Yuri Deigin's paper, subsequently followed by this written by Nerd.
As a consequence, I find myself leaning towards the opinion that the paper by L & W is an eye-opening, fantastic, colorized piece that ... may have been purported as a cleverly written proof for the natural origin of SC2! Its narrative may be interpreted as 'bravely' putting the blame and suspicion on WIV BSL-4 lab for being secretive about the human tissue (pulmonary lavage and spleen) samples for so many years, while dismissing the much more severe indictment for actual (and necessary) serial GoF experiments with the CoV virus insolated from these human samples.


And, to fair, seeing so many papers, opiniated writings about SC2 origin and the epi/pandemic itself, I also had a very strong feeling that this whole situation eerily resembles the so-called scientific dispute about 911 and especially the WTC buildings' collapse.

Reply
Xoco Latte
8/26/2020 02:44:38 am

One more thing (and a sorry for some tipos in my earlier sentences):

L & W also claim (and further elevate the suspicion for Shi's complicit behavior) that not only the ID change of 4991-to-RaTG13 was carried out, but much more importantly, the original annotation text for the short 4991 sequence has been also modified from 'human lung lavage fluid' to 'bat fecal sample' (or similar).

Interestingly, this seemingly tiny bit of information managed to evade anyone's scrutiny -- while IMHO this would be a direct-effect bombshell in the whole story of "WIV-stored-and-manipulated-SARS-like-virus-samples-for-years-before-COVID19-outbreak".

Crocodilite
7/18/2020 06:14:33 am


Yikes, that was poorly formatted! Trying again!

(1/4)

In case it’s not clear yet, I’m not swallowing the whole of L&W sink and hook. Never did. Few others do.

As I stated earlier, I think, at least in some of its sub-components, L&W is not necessarily incompatible with subsequent human manipulation by Shi and company.

In this thesis, the miner saga was only the beginning in 2013. And this beginning was backed up by fairly solid documentary evidence in the form of hospital records, thesis, and doctor interviews, etc. That’s point A.

To me, as I said, the biggest bombshell of the L&W piece is the likely existence of human samples at Point A.

Fast-forward to 2020, we have SARS-CoV-2, as we know it today. We know what we have today. That’s point Z.

These two bookends are reasonably solid.

Exactly what happened between point A and point Z, at this point in time, we have practically zero documentary (or other type) of evidence.

As “everyone” has said, the veracity of 4991 or RaTG13 can’t be known. So we can’t take it too seriously in terms of what they tell us.

So there’s almost zero solid evidence to back up any speculation about the intermediate points between point A and point Z.

The L&W piece is very very good. I love it! It doesn’t mean I agree with everything that’s in it. We need to be careful to understand that it contains multiple “ideas.” Not all these ideas need to be true, and some of the ideas might be able to survive even if the later ones turn out to be disproved. I enumerate some of the possible ideas.

Idea (1) Miners were infected by something from the cave, and this something was very similar to what we have today. “Similar” is as far as we could go. We can’t say we know it was identical. And if it’s not identical, we can’t say how similar. This is point (A), as I said earlier, this point (A) is likely least controversial.

Idea (2) The virus continues to adapt and undergo very significant and rapid adaptations in multiple miners’ lungs. This would be likely a controversial position. As the authors concede, nothing like this has been known to have ever occurred. I wouldn’t be surprised that it could meet strong resistance from many in the field. But this is *the* key idea of L&W. A very interesting and novel idea! But, note that even if this idea were true, that the virus were rapidly evolving new characteristics, it doesn’t have to mean that all the SARS-CoV-2 features that we know of today, what we have at Point Z, had been made by this process.

Idea (3) They further postulate that *ALL* of the characteristics that we know about SARS-CoV-2 today had already been acquired through the adaptation process in the miners’ lungs. (Extra emphasis on the word "ALL.") This would be even more controversial.

In particular, about the RBD and furin site, L&W postulates that both of these key features were acquired through adaptation in the miners’ lungs, so these features were already in the virus contained in the samples when they left Yunnan on their way to Wuhan. It seems that this would meet the most resistance.

Reply
Crocodilite
7/18/2020 06:17:42 am

(2/4)

So, let’s label some way points here:

Point A: virus leaves bat poop, enters miner lungs.

Point B: virus samples leave Yunnan and head to Wuhan.

Point C: virus escapes during lab accident, leaving WIV, entering general population.

Point Z: we’re looking at the virus as we know them today.

Idea (3) of the L&W piece postulates that the all-important RBD and furin sites were both in the virus at Point B. They mostly imply that these two features, as we know of them today, were not in the virus at Point A.

If Idea (3), or even Idea (2), is seriously challenged to the point of being unviable, you could still live with Idea (1) and then you have several alternative versions of events that could be still compatible with what we know.

(i) One or both of the two key features, somehow, were already in the virus at Point A.

(ii) The L&W idea, that both of the key features were in the virus at Point B.

(iii) Only one of the features, the RBD, was in the virus at Point B. The other feature, the furin cleavage, wasn’t! The furin cleavage was added through lab manipulation and became present only at Point C.

(iv) Neither of the two key features was in the virus at Point B. Both were inserted through lab manipulation and became present only at Point C.

We have no clear evidence that could tell us which version of the events is in fact true. (And there are other versions.)

(i) represents the entirely-natural origin theory, but it's "man-spread" in terms of being spread by the WIV.

(ii) is the L&W position. It’s “man-spread” but not man-made. In that regard, it's similar to (i).

(iii) only one of the two key features is man-made, but this still counts as entirely-man-made.

(iv) represents the entirely-man-made theory.

Reply
Crocodilite
7/18/2020 06:20:50 am

(3/4)

My personal feeling is that Idea (3) of the L&W piece is an overreach. The furin site is extremely difficult to justify. As another poster stated earlier, and I paraphrase, in their critique of the Andersen paper, they kind of accused it of postulating a magical “quantum leap.” But in their own account of how the furin site was acquired in the miners’ lungs, it appeared to be equally “magical.”

At some places, L&W is in an interesting but ironic position of simultaneously attacking an “all-natural-origin” theory but also relying on similar reasoning for their own theory, because, in the end, their over-reach Idea (3) is also an “all-natural-origin” idea that’s fundamentally similar, and therefore, could be similarly vulnerable to objections raised by people who believe in man-made origins.

I personally believe that this all-or-nothing approach doesn’t serve them well.

For the reasons I stated in a long rant I posted earlier addressed to Jurgen, I’m personally leaning towards scenario (iii), that the RBD was already present in the virus at either Point A or Point B, but the all-important furin site was added through lab manipulation and became present only at Point C, but no earlier. There’s no proof of that of course, but it appeared to be slightly more consistent with what we know, partially by us attempting to decipher the possible underlying motive of deceit behind why the extremely suspicious-looking 4991 and RaTG13 looked the way they did! (That was what my earliest long rant was about.)

Further, I do believe the *motive*, the stuff I ranted about in an earlier post, offers a significant clue. Why would they hide this saga and the samples? Waiting for BSL4 to do what? Well, of course, a clear candidate is further manipulation. L&W postulates that what was released at Point C was identical to what was at Point B. But if one of the motives of the hiding was further manipulation, there’s no reason why what ultimately escaped from the lab was identical to what entered the lab! The escaped version could obviously be the result of further manipulation. And there was a very significant time lag to allow that to happen.

In short, for many reasons, I think the all-or-nothing attitude contained in Idea (3) of L&W is problematic.

If (iii) is indeed true, my hypothesis would still be compatible with Idea (1) and Idea (2) of L&W’s piece, but diverge when we disagree on Idea (3).

Crocodilite
7/18/2020 06:22:51 am

(4/4)

One of the greatest contributions that the L&W piece could make is to alert people to a line of forensic inquiry that has a clear origin and narrative that should be pursued. Idea (2) or Idea (3) might very well prove false in the end, but now we have a lead, starting with the mine, to the hospital, to WIV. A lot of people were involved in this chain of events. There should be witnesses and paper trails. That these leads need to be pursued is entirely independent of whether one believes Idea (2) or Idea (3). The corrupt forces will likely want to confuse the matter. They would point to the potential weaknesses of Idea (2) or Idea (3) to discredit the entire L&W piece and therefore obstruct an inquiry that starts with Idea (1). People need to be aware of that and call that out if/when it happens.

Similarly, for the people who are very sure of the entirely-man-made origin, regardless which version, for the people who are sure that Shi and company committed much worse acts than I have said, if I were you, I would not go out of my way to discredit stuff like L&W just because it doesn’t agree with everything you believe. Heck, L&W doesn’t agree with everything I believe. But the mine origin story could be one of the very few, if not the only, credible forensic leads that could be the starting point of an inquiry. If your goal is to ultimately bring the guilty to justice, you don’t want to squander that lead. Heck, that lead may lead to nowhere, but what have you gotten to lose? In your pursuit of the guilty, you want every shot you could have, don’t you?! If an investigation that starts with the mine ultimately leads to uncovering crimes that more closely resemble your pet theory than mine, I certainly would have no problem, but why would you?!

It’s pretty clear that Shi and company committed some serious misdeeds. We may disagree on the exact versions of these misdeeds; we may disagree on a lot of details. But let’s be clear on one thing, our common enemy is the ones who claim this is entirely natural, that Shi and company committed no sins, that the government is not hiding anything, contrary to pretty clear evidence such as unearthed in the mine incident. So instead of attacking each other, we need to unite on a common purpose, and the common purpose is to get to the bottom of this, to bring the guilty to justice, to prevent future occurrences. In pursuit of this united goal, seeing my pet theory vindicated is the least of my concerns. I’d be more than happy to see any version of any one’s pet theory see its light of the day in launching a forensic inquiry and ultimately bringing the guilty to account.

It is in this spirit that I think we should look at a piece like L&W. It’s not your enemy. It’s your friend. Yes, we will be objective and critical about scientific details that we can relentlessly cast doubt on, as what good scientists should do. But we should support it on its strongest points that hopefully could lead to inquiries that would accomplish our united goals.

Ends, not means!

Pete Ross
7/18/2020 08:41:08 am

info on next bioattack:

https://youtu.be/X7I5LzLgNSI

Reply
Brian
7/18/2020 03:09:47 pm

Is this real??
In 2005, 195 countries signed and agreed to do a step by step pandemic exercise using a deadly virus in 2020!
At what level of leadership?
How do they know back then that they have the virus ready by 2020??
Difficult to digest...

Reply
Mr1k
7/18/2020 10:24:11 am

Where is the purified VIRUS????????
For SARS.
For SARS COV 2.
None exists....
Isolation is not purification..

Reply
Mr1k
7/18/2020 05:20:33 pm

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/about-us-cases-deaths.html

quote:
As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths. This change was made to reflect an interim COVID-19 position statementpdf iconexternal icon issued by the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists on April 5, 2020. The position statement included a case definition and made COVID-19 a nationally notifiable disease. Nationally notifiable disease cases are voluntarily reported to CDC by jurisdictions.

A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19.

A probable case or death is defined by one of the following:

Meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19
Meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence
Meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19

Frankescience

Reply
Mr1k
7/19/2020 04:52:01 am

Assuming a death from Covid 19 is not the same as proving a death.Where are the autopsy reports????

Mr1k
7/19/2020 05:11:29 am

The mystery virus and mystery disease fails Koch's Postulates:

Koch's Postulates:
Four criteria that were established by Robert Koch to identify the causative agent of a particular disease, these include:
1/ the microorganism or other pathogen must be present in all cases of the disease
2/ the pathogen can be isolated from the diseased host and grown in pure culture
3/ the pathogen from the pure culture must cause the disease when inoculated into a healthy, susceptible laboratory animal
4/ the pathogen must be re-isolated from the new host and shown to be the same as the originally inoculated pathogen

https://youtu.be/z7ibaXq3iUA

Even SARS fails.
https://www.nature.com/articles/423240a
This article title says SARS fulfilled Koch's Postulates:yet in the second paragraph.quote:
According to Koch's postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases, six criteria are required to establish a virus as the cause of a disease1. end quote.

As modified to fit Rivers criteria.
So it doesn't fulfill Koch's Postulates.
It totally misleads you into thinking it made the grade.
It does not..

Sidney Reilly
7/23/2020 10:40:42 pm

Potentially, very significant findings in this study e.g.

"Most strikingly, pseudovirus bearing raTG13 S+PRRA lost the ability to infect cells via pangolin and horseshoe bat ACE2 but gained infectivity via mouse ACE2 (Fig. 4). Pseudovirions bearing pangolin Spike efficiently entered cells via all ACE2 (including mouse ACE2 albeit by a one-log10 reduction)."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.20.213280v1

Reply
Fuddman
7/25/2020 09:17:48 am

I receive your new comments via e-mail; but, when I look for them in your blog, I have difficulty finding them.

I think it's because the new comment I get via e-mail is responding to a comment from a month ago, for example, and, thus, the new comment is attached to a posted comment from a month ago.

Thus I have to search through all the comments, one by one, to locate the new comment. Naturally enough, I'm trying to follow the train of thought between both commenters.

Manually searching through 781 comments to locate the emailed comment is a bit time consuming and I was wondering if you could design a way to locate the emailed comment more quickly.

Reply
gsgs
7/26/2020 05:18:50 am

download the whole thing and search for keywords

Reply
Fuddman
7/26/2020 02:39:48 pm

Thanks.

Nerd has power
7/29/2020 08:57:54 pm

Thanks for the tip, gsgs.

Fuddman, sorry for the inconvenience, but I'm a user of this platform as well. I don't get to modify settings much at all. We all have to live through this pain, which I might feel more than you do. Hope gsgs' tip works for you as well.

Brian
7/25/2020 03:59:03 pm

I think The link above From Pete Ross deserve some discussion.

In September 2019, a subgroup of WHO team including Anthony F., report this document that still is online.

Please see page 39! It says the U.N. And WHO (195 countries) will do simulation exercise using deliberate release of lethal respiratory pathogen!!!! and all countries should implement and report back by september 2020! Also see the last page for the list of directors!!

A World at Risk, 2019, Annual Report GPMB:

https://www.google.com/search?q=gpmb+2019&oq=gpmb&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59l2j0l7.2848j0j4&sourceid=silk&ie=UTF-8

Reply
gsgs
7/26/2020 05:24:31 am

Below I take only the first 21000 nucleotides, because there are fewer
mutations in that area and because there is no obvious recombination
in that area considering SARS2,RaTG13 and RmYN02.

Then the number of nucleotide-differences and amino-acid-differences is :
729 and 102 between SARS2 and RaTG13
767 and 122 between RaTG13 and RmYN02
562 and 79 between SARS2 and RmYN02

257 of the nucleotide-differences towards SARS2 are common in RaTG13 and RmYN02
465 of the nucleotide-differences towards RaTG13 are common in SARS2 and RmYN02
301 of the nucleotide-differences towards RmYN02 are common in SARS2 and RaTG13

From the evolution of SARS2 in humans so far I assume 15 mutations per year
in that 21000-nucleotide-area.
{ It could be 50% more in bats -
just my feeling, considering influenza in humans and birds.
that would give 2007 and 2000 below instead of 2001 and 1992}

Then this gives an estimated TMRCA for SARS2 and RaTG13 of 1992
and for SARS2 and RmYN02 of 2001.

The evolution picture in ASCII would be :


-----------------------------------

Rm----\
-270-\
------\
SA-----270----------X1---135---X2
________/
__315__/
Ra-------/


------------------------------------
2019 2013 2001 1992



and the theoretically computed values of 270,450,270 match pretty
well the observed values of 257,465,301.

So from this there are no signs that SARS2's evolution was "frozen"
for several years.

Reply
gsgs
8/2/2020 06:20:36 pm

I'd like to withdraw this. Can it be cancelled or a remark included ?
It's more complicated.
*We should remove the areas of possible recombination.
*The mutation rate is probably lower than in current
human SARS2.
*The RaTG13 is not closer to the Kenya,Bulgaria bats and
others, as it should be (6years).
(higher mutation rate in RaTG13 in that stinky mineshaft ?)
*We should exclude non-synonymous mutations.
I was also looking at the Boni et.al and MacLean et.al papers ,
they had much lower mutation rates and also considered
dN/dS, CpG.

Maybe i can post a better calculation later.

Reply
Greg Felton link
7/29/2020 07:24:15 pm

Are the SARS-CoV-2 polybasic furin cleavage sites replacements for the SARS-CoV monobasic cleavage sites or are they complementary? IOW, does cathepsin L still cleave SARS-CoV-2 at S2’ and S1/S2?

Reply
Nerd has power
7/29/2020 09:06:20 pm

Furin cleavage site is the added benefit from the virus' perspective. SARS doesn't have it and yet was quite able to survive. Yes, I believe cathepsin L still cleaves both sites in SARS-CoV-2. Having the furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 likely facilitated the processing of the spike, which presumably boosted the cell entry efficiency.

Reply
Greg Felton link
7/29/2020 09:54:20 pm

Thanks, Nerd.
Does this mean the cleaved S1 domain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is shorter than that of SARS-CoV? Is the furin polybasic cleavage site above or below the monobasic cathepsin site, or can we know?

Nerd has power
7/29/2020 09:58:58 pm

I don't think the S1 would differ in length. The furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction is essentially the RRAR sequence.

Greg Felton link
7/29/2020 11:41:10 pm

I understand, but aren't both cathespin and the RRAR sequences at the S1/S2 junction? Don't two cleavages imply a shorter S1?

Also is it your view that the furin cleavage came first and the cathespin L cleavage came after?

Nerd has power
7/30/2020 05:46:44 am

Either would do the work and one cut is sufficient. The length difference here should be tiny and should make no difference in function. S1 is shed off eventually for the membrane fusion to occur, leading to cell entry.

Nerd has power
7/29/2020 09:54:26 pm

Sorry for the radio silence in the past few days. Great discussion on the possible theories of lab origin. I won't be able to comment on each individual thread, but I would briefly say that I still feel comfortably convinced that 1) SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus using ZC45 and ZXC21 as the template/backbone and 2) RaTG13 is fake.

In case you missed them, here are some new publications you might want to check out:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.178459v1.full
(RaTG13 RBD does not bind ACE2 from two types of horseshoe bats AT ALL)

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.19.158717v1
(Not a single coronavirus detected in over 300 Malay pangolins samples collected from 2009 to 2019)

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374v1
(all the recently published pangolin coronaviruses are based on a single source)

BTW, everyone should watch what Dr. Li-Meng Yan has to say on this very topic. The WIV might not be the sole place for all the sins. Hong Kong labs (top lab in studying coronaviruses) are under the control of the CCP as well and Dr. Yan is a key insider there.

Reply
yano
7/30/2020 06:21:48 pm

She should come here and make a few comments. That would be great! She talked about writing a paper explaining how easy it is to make a chimeric virus in 6 months.

Reply
Greg Felton link
7/30/2020 06:52:25 am

If either the monobasic cathepsin site or the polybasic furin site is adequate, is there a difference in strength between the two? I get the sense that the furin cleavage Is dominant because it leads to greater membrane-cell fusion and thus greater virulence. It’s hard to see what purpose cathepsin serves.

Reply
Nerd has power
7/30/2020 08:39:00 am

I think, aside from the enzymatic activity, it also has something to do with how available each protease is in each type of cell and in each cellular location. Based on my understanding, furin is more ubiquitous, which adds to the cell tropism of the viral infection and likely facilitates S1 shedding by making the cutting happen at more than one cellular location.

Reply
fuddman
7/31/2020 08:31:27 pm

Have you looked into why the GenBank Locus Name for 4991 changed from KP876546 to KP 876546.1?

Nerd has power
8/3/2020 09:27:57 am

Such an ID change at GenBank usually means an update has been done on the entry. However, I don't know what exactly was updated for 4991 in KP876546.1.

The fact that these sequences often see updates simply means that an incorrect sequence can be uploaded successfully. No curation is really in place. In that sense, GenBank a scientific Wild West.

fuddman
8/3/2020 05:33:21 pm

"...GenBank [is] a scientific Wild West." Love that characterization and my gut feeling is - the characterization may be correct.

However, I know nothing about how NIH maintains that data base so, I'll withhold final judgement.

4991 is identical to RaTG13 according to this fellow.

https://www.peakprosperity.com/forum-topic/scientific-history-of-ratg13/

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that he's right, why would it be necessary to fake RaTG13 and 4991?

Looking to your "detective" side for an answer.

Nerd has power
8/4/2020 06:45:43 pm

4991 is RaTG13. I learned it fairly early on. Zhengli Shi most recently admitted it too in her email interview with Science. Yet she is still fumbling in explaining 1) why she made the name change (from 4991 to RaTG13) in her 2020 Nature paper without any description or explanation; 2) why she failed so miserably and did not cite her own 2016 publication where she first reported the RdRp sequence of 4991 (this short sequence is the only info published prior to COVID-19). Something is very filthy here and her recent interview did not make things any better for herself (actually she added another lie: she said that 4991 is the name for the bat sample, while RaTG13 is the name of the virus. Yet her 2016 paper clearly showed that 4991 referred to the virus, not the sample). 4991 and RaTG13 are the same and also not the same :).

Greg Felton link
8/3/2020 05:16:18 pm

Even though Furin is found within a cell's Golgi apparatus, I have read that it can preactivate cleavage before endocytosis takes place. Can some explain to me hoe this is possible and why a polybasic cleavage site is so much stronger than a monobasic one?

Thanks

Reply
John Ziggy Kelleher
8/3/2020 08:03:13 pm

Chinese Whistleblower, Dr. Li-Meng Yan Finally Dropped the Bombshells

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6lNtUBiqAw&feature=youtu.be








https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6lNtUBiqAw&feature=youtu.be
The virus was lab-made
The virus was created and owned by China’s People’s Liberation Army
RaTG-13 was faked by the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Bat Lady)
The closest relative of SARS-CoV-2 ACTUALLY came from Zhoushan Island in Zhejiang Province, rather than Tongguan in Yunnan Province.
The bat virus from Zhoushan Island was studied by the PLA

Reply
yano
8/3/2020 08:05:16 pm

"...GenBank [is] a scientific Wild West."

You mean it’s easy to commit fraud?

Reply
yano
8/3/2020 08:22:10 pm

https://www.peakprosperity.com/forum-topic/scientific-history-of-ratg13/

I read through this post. I suspect many viruses were kept secret from the world. The propaganda I saw bragged about 2000 different virus being found in China. Virus mania.


I think Dr. Mayer was talking about this Shi paper. maybe.

I love this part. This is one of the greatest quotes.

"Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.

Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis. Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein.

On the basis of these findings, we synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo. Our work suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

Why was the spike from SHC014 used?

Reply
Greg Felton
8/4/2020 11:08:30 am

Has it been proven that the added furin cleavage siteS were PRRA?

Reply
Greg Felton
8/5/2020 12:43:44 am

Let's change that question. I have seen PRRA as the added furin cleavage site amino acids but when I see the genomic analysis it is PRRAR with the RRAR as the tetra-acidic unit. Why is this?

Reply
gsgs
8/5/2020 08:50:38 pm

SARS2 has ...ACTAATTCTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAGT..
which encodes ...TNSPRRARS
RaTG13 has ...ACTAATTCACGTAGT...
which encodes ...TNSRS...

it depends on the alignment softwhere, where you insert the "-"s

evidence
8/5/2020 05:34:50 pm

Re: SUMSKILZ blog (starting past June/2020)

For anybody, who has the 'nerd-power', patience, and interest to check out other valuable, similar blogs on this issue to broaden their knowledge: for weeks I wanted to mention and recommend this Sumskilz blog discussion which is still ongoing but mainly took place in June

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?805345-The-Potential-Lab-Origin-of-COVID-19&s=de998528933ce987a0ee871ec01d7e24

p.4:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?805345-The-Potential-Lab-Origin-of-COVID-19/page4&s=76929f9c17601d3b12007ae888d9d82d
-
which has been initiated by an obviously likewise extremely well informed person in the field.

In that blog 'Sumskilz' is patiently and respectfully discussing the lab-hypothesis with its blog members, addressing even the most basic questions consistently in a polite but thouroughly manner, everytime coming to the conclusion, that the contrarians (believing in the natural origin only) lack plausibility in comparison.

What in my view makes this well-referencing, currently 4-page long blog (didactically) so interesting is the fact, that Sumskilz, while obviously being firm in all the relevant science aspects, including up-to-date with the literature, focuses explicitely also on the circumstantial evidence in his discussion (again: for example numerous conflict-of-interest situations also in the West, historical lab releases etc), as well as his excellent knowledge and his rigorous interpretation of the current literature on this topic (for example including his own take down of the Andersen paper) - while at the same time consistently sticking to a Socratic dialogue with his contrian(s) - board member Ludicus in particular, who almost assumes the role of the impertinent, sometimes even impolite 'advocatus diaboli' there, often only citing phrases out of the literature without really interpreting them ;-)

So, dispite being lengthy for quite some parts, it can be considered as a nice complementary discussion to the one here: while board members there do not make contributions in terms of revelations by their own work (as this has been greatly done here), the ping-pong of that Socratic discussion there nicely focuses exclusively on the evidence the currently accessible literature is offering,

Reply
Brian
8/5/2020 06:46:12 pm

I am still thinking about page 39 of this WHO 2019 document.
Don't you all think that the case is closed? Or this is only me?

https://www.google.com/search?q=gpmb+annual+report+2019&oq=gpmb&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l7.3246j0j4&sourceid=silk&ie=UTF-8

Have you seen the front page picture (taken in summer of 2019)? Have you read page 39??

Reply
gsgs
8/5/2020 08:58:04 pm

https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual_report/GPMB_annualreport_2019.pdf

page 39 :


Progress indicator(s) by September 2020
•
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, with the Director-General of
WHO and Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, strengthens
coordination and identifies clear roles and responsibilities and timely triggers for
a coordinated United Nations systemwide response for health emergencies in
different countries and different health and humanitarian emergency contexts.
•
The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two systemwide training
and simulation exercises, including one covering the deliberate release of a
lethal respiratory pathogen.
•
WHO develops intermediate triggers to mobilize national, international and
multilateral action early in outbreaks, to complement the existing mechanisms
for later and more advanced stages of an outbreak under the IHR (2005).
•
The Secretary General of the United Nations convenes a high-level dialogue
with health, security and foreign affairs officials to determine how the world
can address the threat of a lethal respiratory pathogen pandemic, as well as
managing preparedness for disease outbreaks in complex, insecure contexts.
39

Xoco Latte
8/26/2020 03:11:24 am

Diversification planned ahead.
Be careful at the fact, that nobody knows for sure that these plans included actual, practical drills with live pathogens and actual residents of the 195 countries. Or this is just the usual burocratic bullshit paperwork.

For sure, it eerily resembles the anecdotal stories of a handful of war game exercises and emergency drills taking place on the very day of 911, al of which, obviously, have been pre-planned way ahead of the actual date.

gsgs
8/5/2020 08:35:55 pm


does someone know, how it works, how these sequences are being assembled ?
From what I understood, they have many small partials of lengths 100-150 nucleotides
from which they form the long whole 29884-nucleotides-RaTG13-thing.
I downloaded the 2 big files from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/study/?acc=SRP249482&o=acc_s%3Aa
and got 2*11604666+ "reads" of lengths ~150 .. 380 of them matched ratg13 good enough,
but these are all only in the regions 7253-7995 and 20026-20249 ?!?
now I'm downloading
https://sra-download.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/traces/sra41/SRR/010825/SRR11085797


Reply
yano
8/6/2020 12:44:12 pm

@gsgs
I doubt they were actually going to release a virus.

"The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system wide training and simulation exercises, including one covering the [simulation of a] deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen."

Simulating a deliberate release, like a war game. Simulating a terror attack as if the terrorist released a virus.

The document is worded strangely.

Reply
Brian
8/6/2020 06:34:05 pm

thanks gsgs that print it here...

Yano
So do you (or others) aware of any other worldwide pandemic exercise that MUST happen between sep 2019 to sep 2020 and involves ''deliberate'' release of a ''lethal'' respiratory pathogen? !! Please let us know!

Reply
yano
8/7/2020 12:07:27 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Cygnus

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/

Exercises
The Center hosts a series of tabletop exercises to illustrate the high-level strategic decisions and policies stakeholders will need to pursue to diminish the consequences of a severe pandemic.

Event 201
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. The purpose of the exercise was to illustrate the pandemic preparedness efforts, response decisions, and cooperation required from global businesses, governments, and public health leaders that the world will need to diminish the large-scale economic and societal consequences of a severe pandemic.
October 18, 2019


Clade X
The Center hosted a pandemic tabletop exercise in Washington, D.C., in May 2018. The goal of this exercise (“Clade X”) was to illustrate high-level strategic decisions and policies that the United States and the world will need to pursue in order to diminish the consequences of a severe pandemic. It addressed a pressing current concern, present plausible solutions, and be experientially engaging.
May 15, 2018


Atlantic Storm
Atlantic Storm was a ministerial table-top exercise convened by the Center for Biosecurity, the Center for Transatlantic Relations of the Johns Hopkins University, and the Transatlantic Biosecurity Network. The exercise used a fictitious scenario designed to mimic a summit of transatlantic leaders forced to respond to a bioterrorist attack. The event website provides a comprehensive overview of the exercise and access to all materials and multimedia, including Atlantic Storm Interactive, and the after-action report, "Navigating the Storm."
January 14, 2005


Dark Winter
The Dark Winter exercise portrayed a fictional scenario depicting a covert smallpox attack on US citizens. The scenario is set in 3 successive NSC meetings that take place over 2 weeks. The exercise was held at Andrews Air Force Base, Washington, DC. The Dark Winter script and other event materials are available through the conference web pages.
June 22-23, 2001

Brian
8/7/2020 09:28:09 am

Yano
I don't think you are correct here. Those are not worldwide drill that the document described. all 195 WHO countries have to participate in the drill.
Those that you listed are just conference events and 201 meeting by itself was suspecious that you can not just ignore. But thanks for posting them.

yano
8/7/2020 12:01:47 am


"We also characterized the ACE2 orthologs of two horseshoe bat species (R. macrotis, R. pusillus), selected because they are closely related to R. affinis, the source of RaTG13, but in contrast to R. affinis, their ACE2 orthologs have been described."


"Unexpectedly the RBD of the SARS-like coronavirus RaTG13 isolated from horseshoe bats (R. affinis) did not bind either horseshoe bat ACE2 ortholog tested, indicating that the not-yet-described R. affinis ACE2 varies in significant ways from these horseshoe-bat orthologs. indicating that the not-yet-described R. affinis ACE2 varies in significant ways from these horseshoe-bat orthologs."


A bat virus that does not bind to bats.
Someone should check this out. Does RaTG13 bind to horseshoe bats (R. affinis) as claimed?

Are these bats really that different?

Reply
Nerd has power
8/9/2020 06:39:08 am

There is no way that the R. affinis ACE2 would differ so drastically from those of other horseshoe bats and instead would resemble closely the human ACE2.

Now, if RaTG13's RBD could not bind the ACE2 of its alleged host, how could it be a true virus that was claimed to be detected from this bat? Remember, the virus has to be substantially amplified in the body to eventually leave any trace in the fecal swab (where RaTG13 was allegedly detected).

RaTG13 is fake. It cannot be more obvious.

Reply
Nerdshaveanswers?
8/7/2020 05:29:50 am

I am very late. I have some questions. There are so many animal markets in the world. Wouldn't such things happen more often in nature if the origin story is true?
Is the science behind these claims debunked somewhere?
I am not asking about the politics. They will not tell us the truth anyway.
Isn't it a little bit soft for a bio weapon? Except it does some damage to the health for longer terms. Ok, it does some damage overall but for the average person it doesn't look like one.
I know this blog is mainly about showing that the origin is non natural.
How do the people here with deeper knowledge think about a vaccine (I read from more than 1 people that a vaccine will not take away this virus and that it stays in people's everyday life) and why are there so many people that don't think about effects to the health for the long term? Isn't it stupid to be so careless?
It seems like this Virus will not leave anymore?

Reply
Nerd has power
8/9/2020 07:16:34 am

In fact, strictly speaking, there has been no credible evidence supporting the natural origin theory. Instead, the "evidence" used to support this theory are all showing their true nature -- products of fabrication (RaTG13, pangolin coronaviruses). This fact alone (if you believe it as much as I do) should suggest a bioweapon-nature of the virus. Why else would the Chinese communist government try so hard to spread misinformation and cover up the truth?

Yes, it does not kill every person that gets infected. However, a virus that kills every host would not spread as much. This virus is almost optimal in its ability to spread and cause certain fatality. Importantly, the socio-economic impact is devastating for any country, the downstream effect of which could include severely destroying its economy, affecting its politics, or crippling its ability to be effectively engaged in a war. In that sense, the virus could be viewed as a weapon in the unlimited warfare, not traditional warfare.

I'm not an expert to take words from in terms of vaccines. I personally think we should be cautious about the prospect of effective vaccines. We may have to face the possibility that the virus will continue to haunt us for an extended period of time and public health measures may continue to be needed. I wish people could take this virus more seriously. We really don't know what could be the long-term effects of its infection. It's not something we fully understand.

Reply
Fuddman
8/9/2020 10:03:56 pm

I'm beginning to suspect the CCP/PLA is far ahead of everyone in developing, testing, releasing, concealing, monitoring and modifying a bio weapon.

It's been eight or nine months since this thing was released and we're still trying to figure out how the spike protein works. During the 9 months, the thing mutated to produce the more bad ass 614G variant.

But, did it mutate? Or is 614G another release by the CCP? Are they controlling this thing? Is there a 614X waiting to be released? Is our science just reacting to the next iteration they throw out there?

It's not good enough to work on understanding today's version of the virus. That's just playing catch up football. I think it's time we start thinking ahead on the ways this thing can be modified and made more and more severe. Somehow, we need to get ahead of it.

This bio weapon virus has an end game. Anyone figured out what it is yet?

Nerd has power
8/16/2020 06:03:16 pm

Very good points (that I almost missed). Like Dr. Li-Meng Yan said in a recent interview, when virologists make viruses, they never make just one. In addition, the CCP-controlled labs have been working on other deadly viruses, including ebola. The questions is for what??? If the world does not learn the lesson properly from SARS-CoV-2, I really think that it could be the end of things.

David Rivard
12/26/2020 10:58:41 am

I have an answer to your question about lethality. It is logical and cited by many others. Responses to more lethal diseases have always been swift and effective, no matter the up front costs or efforts.

Reply
Robert Cartwright
8/9/2020 02:06:27 am


Hello, beyond the method followed in the past (which many, rightly, may have perplexed), Perez and Montagnier in this latest version of the paper provide, in my opinion, a convincing genomic proof of the exogenous intervention on the virus: https://zenodo.org/record/3975578#.Xy-8D2QzYb0

Reply
Greg Felon
8/9/2020 07:19:00 pm

Dear Nerd: i have read polybasic cleavage sites make SARS-CoV-2 10-20 times more infectious than SARS-CoV, which only monobasic sites. Why is this the case? Why do double or triple arginines make SARS-CoV 2’s spike protein bind so much more efficiently?

Thanks,
Greg

Reply
Nerd has power
8/13/2020 05:33:12 am

Hi Greg, the furin protease recognizes sequences with multiple basic residues clustered together. Without this polybasic feature, furin protease would not be able to recognize and cut that particular sequence.

As you must have seen here or elsewhere, furin is expressed in many cell types and at multiple cellular locations. So, when furin-cleavage site is present at the S1/S2 junction such as in SARS-CoV-2, the cleavage and S1 shedding could occur more efficiently (and likely at places/cells SARS-CoV does not cause infection), making the virus more infectious and able to infect more types of cells.

Reply
Greg Felton
8/13/2020 08:01:16 am

Yes, furin is ubiquitous, but how is furin cleavage more “efficient” than, say, monobasic cathepsin L cleavage? Is the Nature of the cleavage different? Also, your comment about multiple furin site inserts is most interesting. Can you elaborate or give a source?

Thanks.

Nerd has power
8/16/2020 05:48:31 pm

The insertion of furin-cleavage site most likely does not prevent other proteases from cutting at this site. Therefore, whatever the efficiency that SARS experiences in terms of proteolytic cleavage at this S1/S2 site, more is added to it for SARS-CoV-2 because you have added another player while having kept all the old players.

Basically, it should not be a comparison of efficiency between cathepsin L and furin. Rather, cathepsin L and possibly other proteases continue to work here, while furin is added to the squad.

fuddman
8/14/2020 03:21:46 pm

This, so called, recent discovery may have an answer for you.

In essence, there exists an electrical attraction between the positively charged poly basic cleavage site and the negatively charged hACE2. I guess the COV2 binding is, thus, stronger more efficient and creates a more likely successful fusion than COV1.

Up to now, I've not heard of an electrical component associated with this virus.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200811120227.htm

Reply
Greg Felton link
8/17/2020 01:55:40 am

Many thanks, fuddmann!
This is just what I wanted.

David Rivard
8/13/2020 09:13:25 am

Are their any western clinicians working with Chinese counterparts? Where are their papers? One would think Mayo, Cleveland et al would be working with the high level Chinese counterparts. Would anyone know which clinical research sources could further educate the public in the U.S.?

Reply
David Rivard
8/13/2020 10:16:41 am

Anyone out there have a list of retracted publications or "disappeared" clinicians that theorized genetically altered insertions in the genome? Lastly, the doctors who were the first responders who were allegedly clamped down by the government?

Reply
Pete Ross
8/17/2020 01:28:56 am

Transmission Rate Studies And Not Vaccine Experiments Are the National Priority

About the mechanism and efficiency of contagious transmission, there seems to be a need for direct transmissions studies, since the current data is too thin to continue to justify many of the burdensome and often counterproductive public health interventions.

A direct transmission study is, for example, two or more young (age 21 to 30) healthy volunteers sharing a confined air space for 15 minutes to 6 hours time, one of the volunteers being PCR positive, but absent signs and symptoms, e.g. asymptomatic. Study design should probably include pre- and post- exposure quarantine and monitoring throughout, such as blood work and imaging, screening for alphacoronaviurs IgG, etc.

In parallel designs, protective equipment studies and pre- and post- exposure prophylaxis regimens can be incorporated, as well as the 'head-to-head' comparison of PCR and serology labs from different venues and the rapid saliva diagnostics now entering the market. Somebody also needs to do PCR testing on N95 masks from asymptomatic and symptomatic volunteers, as well as virus cultures thereof.

Taken together, the logistics of direct transmission studies are simple enough to be completed within a time frame of two months with a minimum n=250,000 as an international effort.

In the bio-medical-social ethical analysis, given the extremely low prevalence of COVID illnesses among the under 30 yr. age group, such transmission studies are both long-overdue and bear a safety margin far superior to any vaccine experiments.

From a national security prospective, investigating transmission and establishing rapid point-of-care and home testing takes precedence - by far - compared to yet ADDITIONAL attempts to manufacture inoculations for protection from coronaviruses.

In the absence of standardized protocols demonstrated to safely measure transmission rate by both pulmonary and oral routes with circulating strains, the testing of experimental vaccines MUST be put in abeyance.

Fortunately, the straightforward logistics of controlled transmission rate studies allows for amassing definitive data well before vaccine testing is scheduled to begin. Protocols for transmission rate study must be readily available for any following phase of vaccine experiments to fulfill the ethical, the scientific, and the national security optimal requirements.

Furthermore, safe and well-established transmission study protocols for circulating strains can and must PRECEDE vaccine experiments, which do not provide any relevant transmission data within bio-medical-social relevant time frames, and only serve to introduce additional and wild parameters while exponentially magnifying both the time frame and costs, not to mention inhibiting the recruitment of volunteers.

Of course, at first glance, the ethics of direct transmission studies may appear problematic, given some of the diabolically wild 'medical' precedents throughout history.

Today, the advent of sophisticated laboratory methods together with rapid communications combined with international transparency enables a paradigm shift for investigative epidemiology and vaccine testing.

In conclusion, both direct transmission studies and development of rapid tests are a national security imperative and both take precedence over the vaccine arm of R&D, with neither precluding but rather informing the other.

Reply
Pete Ross
8/17/2020 03:31:35 pm

The prospect of additional viral "escapes" and "more virulent mutations" belong to the analysis?

Atlantic Council (NATO SnotSeas) is running this bioshitshow.
It's all about state capture: target USA.
Nov 3 election "cheat by mail voting - create voting disruption/contested election results with no clear winner going into Jan 21, 2021.
October surprise - compromised food supply? more virulent mutant strains?

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/coronavirus-alert/vaccines-from-russia-to-germany-and-latin-america-coronavirus-found-on-food-in-china/

And from this GCHQ cut-out:


Al Jazeera English
39 minutes ago
COVID-19 updates Right pointing backhand index https://aje.io/eywfk

Flag of Malaysia Malaysia reports mutation of COVID-19 virus
Flag of India India's death toll surpasses 50,000
Flag of United States US surpasses 170,000 deaths
Flag of South Korea South Korea battles worst outbreak in months

-------------------

Malaysian scientists discover ten times deadlier coronavirus ...timesofindia.indiatimes.com › ... › Health News
15 hours ago - A new mutation of the virus has been discovered in Malaysia when a ... In a timespan of eight months, COVID-19 cases have breached 21.6 ...

Reply
Markus
8/17/2020 07:21:45 pm

China presently has a lot of people in concentration camps, who are subjected to many horrible things. Including,forced sterilization and medical experimentation. it may be that they were used as intermediate hosts.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-xinjiang-uighur-muslim-detention-camps-xi-jinping-persecution-a9165896.html

Reply
Babstar link
8/20/2020 01:37:32 am

WSJ

NIH Presses U.S. Nonprofit for Information on Wuhan Virology Lab

National Institutes of Health told EcoHealth Alliance it must hand over information and materials from Chinese research facility to resume funding for suspended grant


The Trump administration has suggested, without providing evidence, that the coronavirus behind the current pandemic originated in a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

By Betsy McKay

Aug. 19, 2020 5:30 am ET

The National Institutes of Health told a small New York-based nonprofit that it must hand over information and materials from a research partner in Wuhan, China, that is under scrutiny by the Trump administration to win back a multimillion-dollar research grant.

Among the items the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance must provide to resume funding is a sample of the new coronavirus that the Wuhan researchers used to determine its genetic sequence, according to a July 8 letter from the NIH viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

EcoHealth Alliance must also arrange for an inspection of the Wuhan Institute of Virology by an outside team that would examine the facility’s lab and records “with specific attention to addressing the question of whether WIV staff had SARS-CoV-2 in their possession prior to December 2019,” the U.S. health-research agency’s letter said.

“The NIH has received reports that the Wuhan Institute of Virology…has been conducting research at its facilities in China that pose serious bio-safety concerns,” read the letter, which was signed by Michael Lauer, the NIH deputy director for extramural research.

“We have concerns that WIV has not satisfied safety requirements under the award, and that EcoHealth Alliance hasn’t satisfied its obligations to monitor” its partner to ensure it has complied with regulations regarding the use of the grant money, the letter added.
EcoHealth Alliance, which searches for warning signs of animal viruses that could cause human outbreaks, confirmed it had received the letter.

The NIH said it doesn’t discuss internal deliberations on specific grants. Dr. Lauer declined a request for an interview, an NIH spokeswoman said.

The Trump administration has suggested, without providing evidence, that the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing the current pandemic originated in a high-security lab at the Wuhan institute.
Recipients of U.S. government research grants are required to routinely monitor subrecipients to ensure that they are using the money as intended, researchers say.

Yet the NIH doesn’t usually set the kinds of conditions it required EcoHealth Alliance to meet, said Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy and regulatory counsel at the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Jimmy Kolker, a former U.S. ambassador and former assistant secretary for global affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the NIH can routinely ask for reports about the progress of research, including updates on the work of a partner and the safety of its lab, but shouldn’t ask about matters outside the scope of the funded research.

“What they’re asking for is intelligence information that will be used for policy-making,” he said in an interview.

The NIH’s list of conditions “is outrageous, especially when a grant has already been carefully evaluated by peer review and addresses one of the most important problems in the world right now—how viruses from animals spill over to human beings,” Harold E. Varmus, a former NIH director, said in an interview. “What could be more important at the moment?”

Dr. Varmus is one of 77 Nobel laureates who asked NIH Director Francis Collins and Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar in May to review the NIH’s termination of the grant the month before.

“This whole episode is just a woeful attack on the traditional way NIH has maintained its integrity,” he said.

EcoHealth Alliance responded to the NIH last week, calling the U.S. research agency’s suspension unjustified, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by the Journal.

EcoHealth Alliance said in its response that it hadn’t sent any grant funds to the Wuhan institute before the grant was suspended, though it has provided funding to the institute in previous years.
The conditions are outside the scope of the grant, said Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, adding that his nonprofit doesn’t have access to the information the NIH is seeking.

“Our work is part of protecting the U.S. citizen against diseases like Covid-19,” Dr. Daszak said. “It’s just so shortsighted to drop that research.”

Since 2004, the New York City-based nonprofit has collaborated with Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers and others to study coronaviruses in bats in China and how they infect people, according to EcoHealth Alliance and

Reply
fuddman
8/21/2020 12:58:43 pm

The head of the NIH, Francis Collins, endorsed defunding EcoHealth Alliance

That's big because Mr. Collins, thus, broke ranks with his best buddies in the virus "trade." That would be not only the scab Dasakz, but also a biggee in the trade by the name of Barrick and his best buddy Shi Zhengli. And, then of course A Fauci as well.

As we speak, those in the trade are calling Mr. Collins a traitor to the trade. But if he is giving them a problem, they have no one to blame but themselves.

If they would have taken a little time to know him better, they would have learned Mr. Collins, a follower of C. S. Lewis, knows right from wrong. And was, therefore , not to be trusted.

Now, Mr. Collins has joined with Trump to seek the answers which will ensure this doesn't happen again. IOW, I expect they are going to rain pee on appropriate parts of the trade as well as the PLA.


Reply
Greg Felton
8/21/2020 01:07:50 pm

Fascinating development! Can you post a link?

fuddman
8/21/2020 01:47:57 pm

https://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/nih-imposes-outrageous-conditions-resuming-coronavirus-grant-targeted-trump

gsgs
8/20/2020 09:17:09 pm

can we have MN312632-5,71 ? The next closest ones.
They gave RdRp then they should be able to sequence the whole genome as with RaTG13 ?
http://magictour.free.fr/batg-l2.txt

Reply
yano
8/21/2020 07:52:58 pm

https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/1/2/131243129/syn-nonsyn-analysis_orig.png

I went back and read the post on synonymous mutations vs non-synonymous mutations.

Couple questions here. One question is about the codon range from 400 to 500. What is this region? and why do you think Shi made an exponential change in the non-synonymous genes there?

In the range from 500 to 1100, there were about 100 synonymous changes and maybe 5 non-synonymous changes. Is this possible in nature? Seems very strange that nature would roll the dice 100 get very few non-synonymous changes. Is this area so important that it cannot handle non-synonymous change?


Reply
Nerd has power
8/24/2020 07:06:53 am

Good catch! As I have explained in the article, Shi intentionally made many changes (non-synonymous mutations) in the RBD region, which is roughly the 400-500 range of codons. This is because they knew that people will look at this region very carefully and, if the RBD of RaTG13 looks too similar to that of SARS-CoV-2, it would mean that RaTG13 could infect humans as efficiently as SARS-CoV-2. Remember, one thing the WIV strives to do is to deny the lab leak possibility. So, having a virus (RaTG13) that could infect humans as efficiently as SARS-CoV-2 would make it super hard for them to shed off the lab leak accusation. That's why they edited this region so heavily, resulting in an exponential rise of the curve.

Because they used too many non-synonymous mutations in the RBD region, to maintain a reasonable syn/non-syn ratio for the overall Spike, they have decided to limit the number of non-syn mutations in the S2 half (assuming nobody would analyze the syn/non-syn so carefully and to this much details). From 500 to 1100, there should be only one non-syn mutation, in comparison to over 100 syn mutations. This area actually is capable of handling mutations, which is not only shown in Figure 3A here but also true at all places not contaminated by Shi's data. So, the abnormal syn/non-syn ratio seen here simply cannot be a result of natural evolution.

Reply
yano
8/24/2020 07:56:38 pm

The codon area from 500 to 1100 with no non-syn changes would suggest very heavy natural selection not to change. Suggesting that this area was very important to this viruses survival. After all, distant virus relatives are exactly the same, right?

and if this area typically see non-syn mutations across coronavirus relatives, seems like a pretty good smoking gun in favor of the fake hypothesis.

Found this while I was doing some research.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.27.969006v1.full.pdf

"The mutation between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 was unique across coronavirus species"

"unique", yes, like nothing every seen before in nature.

Xoco Latte
8/26/2020 05:20:23 am

Another freshly published review on the origin of SC2 with a strong support for the alternative Null hypothesis that SC2 has a lab origin.

https://zenodo.org/record/3988139#.X0ZQlsgzaMo

Anticovidian v.2 COVID-19: Hypothesis of the Lab Origin Versus a Zoonotic Event which can also be of a Lab Origin. by Fernando Castro-Chavez from Baylor College of Medicine, New York Medical College, August 10, 2020

Reply
Xoco Latte
8/26/2020 12:39:28 pm

I stand corrected for my earlier post here (I cannot refer to an actual post, so I have to quote it):
Xoco Latte8/26/2020 02:44:38 am
One more thing (and a sorry for some tipos in my earlier sentences):

L & W also claim (and further elevate the suspicion for Shi's complicit behavior) that not only the ID change of 4991-to-RaTG13 was carried out, but much more importantly, the original annotation text for the short 4991 sequence has been also modified from 'human lung lavage fluid' to 'bat fecal sample' (or similar).

Interestingly, this seemingly tiny bit of information managed to evade anyone's scrutiny -- while IMHO this would be a direct-effect bombshell in the whole story of "WIV-stored-and-manipulated-SARS-like-virus-samples-for-years-before-COVID19-outbreak".

I have to correct myself, this huge controversy was not mentioned by any of the L & W papers, nor the discussion following them. My memory served me wrong, and my apologies for that.

But with some legwork with Google search, I managed to find several Twitter posts that pointed to this controversy found inside the submission of RaTG13 sequence into Chinese GSA Library.
Even in April/May, the sample metadata were reading: "Total RNA was extracted from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (...)" while its BioProject's BioSample ID said "Bat coronavirus isolate RaTG13, isolation source fecal swab". Sometime later someone with access to the submission, made a silent modification in the text of the sample metadata, which reads right now as follows: "Total RNA was extracted from fecal swab (...)".

Today availabe information: https://bigd.big.ac.cn/gsa/browse/CRA002424/CRX097481

Screenshot of and an independent referral to the same entry back in April 22 (or even later) in Tweeter:
https://twitter.com/luigi_warren/status/1266039524586483712/photo/1

https://twitter.com/bioinformer/status/1252813545349120002

This is very weird, screaming manipulation.

Reply
Greg Felton
8/26/2020 01:14:42 pm

Indeed, this is odd, especially since a good case can be made that RaTG13 is 100% fictitious and that Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak both admit that it the same sample as Bt-CoV/4991. Is it your contention that RaTG13 is real?

Reply
Nerd has power
8/26/2020 06:16:11 pm

Yes, the twitter group has done an excellent job revealing the "bronchoalveolar lavage fluid" --> "fecal swab" change. Shi would tell everybody that it was just a correction of a careless mistake. But everyone with a brain and aware of the rest of the abnormalities surrounding RaTG13 would see this as another clear sign of fabrication.

Reply
Greg Felton
8/26/2020 06:30:49 pm

Thanks, Nerd:
Is it your opinion that Shi lied about the bronchialalveolar lavage and merely compounded it with another lie?
Also, and more importantly, I came across a researchgate paper (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Third_Sequence_COVID-19_AATGGTACTAAGAGG_HIV-1_isolate_1966324H9_from_Netherlands_envelope_glycoprotein_env_gene_sequence_ID_GU4555031) that claims that the following15 l-nt sequence is from an HIV envelope protein:

AATGGTACTAAGAGG

Is this correct?

Thanks.

Xoco Latte
8/27/2020 05:00:02 am

Well, in my non-malicious interpretation, it might have been due to some human error based on ignorance or hectic stupidity.
If you look at the ProjectName, it is indeed clear, that the WIV lab submitted this whole bunch of sequences coming from their freshly started, "live", SC2 human-samples-related work. Supposedly based on human biological samples from Wuhan hospitals.
Since the project-opening metadata already described sample source as "bronchoalveolar lavage fluid", the submitter who had the task of silently submitting the newly-found-but-old 'full genomic sequence' of RaTG13, simply has been too ignorant to realize that he/she has been submitting a sequence of a supposedly bat sample within a human project. A foul egg in the basket full of eggs...


Xoco Latte
8/27/2020 05:14:23 am

The Reply button sporadically is missing from the posts, so I have to use this method, for I am indeed sorry.

At this point, the whole story of L & W about the miners and human samples sent to WIV lab and the origin of BtCoV/4991-RaTG13 becomes even more interesting.
If (and this is a very big IF), Shi truly obtained human (bronchoalveolar fluid/thymus/blood) samples from the sick miners in 2013, and successfully isolated a CoV strains from at least one of them, the sample label should have been clearly indicating human source. (Of course this may have been changed after GoF manipulation, but that is a whole different story.)

If the major aim of the Shi lab has been to show up a definitely bat-originated closest relative of SC2, which may or may not have been based on a synthetically engineered strain that was based on some old SC1-like human strain, the labelling task may have been too much to ask for and they made a simple but very frustrating stupid error while fabricating the story.

Nerd has power
8/29/2020 07:35:38 am

The bronchialalveolar lavage thing is interesting. However, it is the least in convincing me about the fabrication of RaTG13. There is abundance of substantial evidence, some of which I have summarized in my article. You may also check out this new preprint:

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202008.0595/v1

According to these authors, no complete genome of RaTG13 could be assembled using the raw data provided by Shi and colleagues.

Greg Felton
8/29/2020 02:59:59 pm

Hi Nerd:
Thanks for the great link to the preprint piece about the speciousness of RaTG13. Could you answer two questions:

1) Who is Elannor D. Allens? That spelling turns up no Google searches.

2) The following segment of amino acids in SARS-CoV-2 (AATGGTACTAAGAGG) is supposed to have come from HIV-1. I appreciate that you do not subscribe to the HIV theory, but can you can you comment on this, please?

Ape link
8/27/2020 09:18:23 am

Jonathan Latham discusses his and Dr. Allison Wilson's work on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19 pandemic...

http://www.gorilla-radio.com/2020/08/25/gorilla-radio-chris-cook-jonathan-latham-august-24-2020/

Reply
yano
8/27/2020 02:15:07 pm

Great interview! They mentioned the nerds.

Reply
Nerd has power
8/29/2020 06:56:30 am

Great interview! Although I can't agree with Dr. Latham on some details (given how radical I am on this topic), It is nice to hear his confidence in a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2. Thanks for sharing it!

Reply
yano
8/27/2020 08:47:21 pm

https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q&A.pdf

Shi zhengli's Reply to Science Magazine

(4) Is it possible that someone associated with the institute became infected in some
other way, for instance while collecting, sampling, or handling bats?

A: Such a possibility did not exist. Recently we tested the sera from all staff and students
in the lab and nobody is infected by either bat SARSr-CoV or SARS-CoV-2. To date, there is
"zero infection" of all staff and students in our institute.

Reply
Xoco Latte
8/28/2020 01:48:15 am

How a nice and smart answer! A virus lab chief who is accustomed to virus identification molbio methods by heart would supposedly trust clinical infection diagnostics based on serum antibodies against a novel human pathogen. At least she should have been shown some self-esteem and lie about the clinical diagnostic method having been used...

Reply
Arnaud
8/28/2020 03:34:25 am

Hello,
This could be the reason of renaming Batcov4991. look at the Inserm reference image concerning VIH1. 4991 precisely...
https://www.images.inserm.fr/fr/spotlight/10231/page
Furthermore, Inserm and Wuhan lab are linked since the beginning of this lab story.

Reply
Xoco Latte
8/28/2020 06:27:50 am

Well, even the Chinese created a more compelling story behind the ID-change. A collusion of a 4-digit number with a completely unique alphabetical beginning like 'RaBtCoV/' as a viral strain ID vs. a serial number of an image inside an INSERM photo database...
Nice try! But I'm sorry. Who's next?

Reply
Arnaud
8/28/2020 08:19:31 am

This is not a nice try. Everybody is looking for a complex explanation. Inserm was very active in the creation of the wuhan lab, the database is quite old. using this number was an easy way to identify a vih vaccin study. Yves Levy 'ex Inserm boss) is very trouble man ans his wife was health minister in France until feb 2020. All that is to much for a random coincidence. I think all government are aware but also implicated in these researches, which justify the worldwide panic, even now, at the end of the epidemy.
Keeping this number 4991 would have been like a signature. inaceptable for China, France, USA et others.
The mistake is often enormous. In France we say "plus c'est gros, plus ça passe). And it works well.

Nerd has power
8/29/2020 07:04:36 am

Thanks for sharing. I don't know what to make of it though. I tend to think of this as a coincidence, but I understand how you may think differently.

Reply
Arnaud
8/29/2020 08:55:01 am

Thanks for replying. I was convinced for months of a link between the number 4991 and Vih. All what I found could be coincidence, until this yesterday. I don't understand why i did not find it earlier. So simple : Google 4991 + VIH , second result... And when i shake Inserm, Yves levy, Wuhan, Ratg13, renaming, suspicious Vih inserts , world panic etc... I can't see just a coincidence.
Have a good day

annette
8/28/2020 05:13:02 am

Regarding the discussion, does anyone have information to say if a lab created synthetic virus will challenge the immune system in the same way as the natural virus and leave a person with long term immunity or will they become chronic with an auto immune disease?

Reply
Nerd has power
8/29/2020 07:23:39 am

From what I see, I tend to believe that both are possible. A synthetic virus is still a virus. It would still challenge the immune system, which should lead to certain immunity and protection. The question, however, is how long the immunity would last. There have been multiple cases of people getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 twice within months. It was also shown that the antibodies resulted from natural infection wane away fairly quickly. These two observations are consistent with each other.

Would auto immune disease be a permanent mark left by COVID-19? I think it's possible. It wouldn't be for every person. But for some infected individuals, it could. I think a retrospective study in Italy has identified individuals who developed asthma after recovering from COVID-19. Asthma is an auto immune disease of the lung. It seems that it could be just a small percentage, but for these people, it is going to be a life-long struggle. Of course, we also don't know whether other auto immune diseases are possible.

We simply don't know enough about this virus. It has so far exceeded much of our expectations. I think many people here are with me on the non-natural origin of it. So, to us, it is not completely surprising that the virus is so non-conventional.

Reply
Xoco Latte
8/28/2020 05:26:03 am

A freshly available preprint at BioRxiv nicely overviews sequence data and mutations of ORF8 from CoV-2 with comparisons to CoV-1, RaTG13 and a few other bat CoVs, as well as pangolin CoVs.

A unique view of SARS-CoV-2 through the lens of ORF8 protein
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.25.267328v1.full.pdf

I understand that comparative sequence studies of the spike region were the most logical and necessary first step but I assume that similar studies of structural proteins are also very promising that might be important in epidemiological and clinical aspects. ORF8 therefore is of very interesting, and, I would not be surprised if studies of itself were shedding some new insigths into the very origin of this virus.

Looks as if ORF8 is under a relatively higher selective pressure than the rest of the viral genome, i.e., more frequency of mutations since last December, resulting clinically relevant new strains.

Two snippets of interest from the paper's conclusions:
"It is noteworthy that the SARS-CoV-2 ORF8 is rapidly undergoing different type of mutations, indicating that it is a highly evolving protein, whereas the Bat-CoV ORF8 is highly conserved (Fig.6) and the Pangolin-CoV ORF8 is 100% conserved (Fig.7)."

"However, unlike Bat-CoV and Pangolin-CoV, the mutational distribution of the ORF8 (SARS-CoV-2) is widespread ranging from the position 3 to 121, having no defined conserved region. This surprises the scientific community enormously. Further this property differentiates the SARS-CoV-2 ORF8 from that of Bat-CoV and Pangolin-CoV, thus raising the question over the natural trail of evolution of mutations in SARS-CoV-2."

This suggests that CoV-2 ORF8 is quite unique, especially considering that it is highly or very highly conserved in bats and pangolins, respectively. Whatever the evolutionary origin of ORF8 within CoV-2, it looks as if it is under high adaptional pressure, or in other words, it is far from being very well adapted to human hosts. Whatever that means...

Reply
reply bryan
8/29/2020 01:47:11 pm

I hope NerdhasPower can answer the reply from bryan quote:
"Hey Nerd, sorry it's taken me a while to respond.I don’t think it’s a reasonable assumption to have uniform mutation frequencies or syn/nonsyn ratios throughout a viral genome. That might be an alright first null hypothesis, but if one actually want’s to make a case that a genome isn’t natural (either that it’s engineered or that it’s made up) you really need to look to nature, not a naïve assumption of uniform mutation rates. Is the relationship between SARS-CoV2 genome and RaTG13 different than the relationship between other related coronaviruses?
What is the expected difference in syn/nonsyn ratios between S2 and ORF1ab and is the 5-fold difference in syn/nonsyn between the two really a discrepancy? This is not an abstract a priori question that is answered with ‘everything should be 5:1’, instead this is an empirical question. How do these ratios normally differ in related coronaviruses? I’m sure a broader survey of coronaviruses could give a better range of expected values, but to pick one example that would be maybe the best apples-to-apples comparison (while avoiding any genomes from WIV or Shi Zhengli) is the original SARS and its closest bat relative (BtRs-BetaCoV/YN2018B).
SARS-hCoV and its close bat relative mirrors the relationship of SARS CoV2 and RaTG3. Both pairs of viruses show more purifying selection in the S2 protein than ORF1ab. Both also show a higher ratio of nonsynonymous mutations in S1 with a very sharp transition point near the transition to S2 with only a few nonsynonymous mutations in all of S2. The ps/pn (ratio of probabilities of synonymous to nonsynonymous mutations) jumps 7 times higher in the first SARS/bat and 5 times higher in SARS2/bat. They are not exactly the same ratios (it would be weird if they were). The SARS ORF1ab ps/pn ratio is about half-way between the S1 and S2 ratios, while the SARS-CoV2 ORF1ab ps/pn ratio is a lot closer to the S1 ratio. But overall, the trends look similar and nothing in the SARS2 RaTG13 comparison looks very far from what is typical in nature.
It doesn’t make sense to say something is not natural unless you take the time to figure out what natural really looks like. Natural does not look like some simplified model of uniform syn/nonsyn mutation rate across the genome or across the S protein. Comparing ZC45 and ZXC21 was a good start, but I think a broader survey of coronaviruses is needed to understand what natural is—especially looking at viruses from different species. The relationship between SARS CoV2 and RaTG13 does look different than that between ZC45 and ZXC21, but it looks a lot like the relationships seen between SARS hCoV and YN2018B or numerous other pairs of coronaviruses.
"

Reply
yano
8/29/2020 03:44:06 pm

Wondering the dame thing. How are other natural viruses mutation ratios. Found this doing some looking.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.27.969006v1.full.pdf


"Through comprehensive comparative analysis between SARS-CoV 2 and other coronaviruses, we found the synonymous mutations is dramatically elevated between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 than that of other coronavirus strains,"

"The mutation between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 was unique across coronavirus species"

Reply
Nerd has power
8/29/2020 09:45:59 pm

Sorry that I have missed this message from Brian. Lately I did not try to roll back and look at older posts. I apologize. I hope he still checks back and will be able to see my reply.

First of all, Brian is completely correct that I overly simplified the syn/non-syn ratio in the original blog. Different proteins, due to their differed biological functions, experience different evolutionary pressure. Yes, 5:1 ratio is too general of a description of syn/non-syn mutations. Part of the reason I went with it was my laziness ---- describing positive selection vs. purifying selections in the blog seemed like a daunting task at that moment. Anyways, Brian is correct: depending on the specific evolutionary pressure a protein experiences, the natural ratio of syn/non-syn is not always 5:1. What Brian and I agree though is that the conclusion can be made by comparing the syn/non-syn ratio between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 and that between naturally occurring coronaviruses. I chose ZC45 and ZXC21. Brian thought it was a good start, but not comprehensive enough to make a conclusive judgement.

The YN2018B bat virus and SARS are a good pair for the comparison. Brian clearly spent time identifying these two. Here, the hosts are similar: human and bat. The overall sequence identity is 96%, which is also very comparable to that between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13. I have to applaud Brian for finding them.

However, there are two things Brain either failed to notice or intentionally avoided describing. First, in the Spike syn/non-syn analysis between YN2018B and SARS, the change of trajectory of the curves at the S1/2 break point is true for both syn (green) and non-syn (red) curves. In other words, they slow down at climbing simultaneously. The same has been seen between ZC45 and ZXC21. However, between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13, the green curve (syn) does not really change its trajectory -- it climbs up the same way as in S1, while the red curve (non-syn) bluntly flattens after the break point. This sudden loss of concertedness between the two curves clearly makes the SARS-COV-2 and RaTG13 pair look unnatural.

Second, let's count the syn/non-syn ratio for S2. Many of you already know that, between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13, that ratio is 44:1. Between ZC45 and ZXC21, the ratio is ~5:1. What is the ratio between YN2018B and SARS? It's 13:1.

Brian, if you see this, please comment on whether you have calculated this ratio. If not, why wouldn't you? I said that 44:1 is a clear violation of natural evolution. If you were to prove me wrong, you would have to beat this point, right? You have apparently done the whole analysis and collected all the info, why didn't you do this simple math and compare? If you have calculated the ratio, why wouldn't you share this info in your post?

It is supposed to be an honest discussion here on this forum. We don't do what they do on Nature, Nature Medicine, etc. Please don't break it.

Have I compared the syn/non-syn in other ways? Yes, I did and I'm even more convinced afterwards. Also, I think I heard rumors that someone from the twitter group is going to show such syn/non-syn analysis. Maybe we will all see such data soon, which hopefully would be as comprehensive as anyone hopes.

BTW, syn/non-syn is not the only thing. The evidence about RaTG13 being fake is mounting from all over. I don't know when Brian wrote the forwarded post of his. Maybe he already regrets for having posted this. Anyways, it would be great if you can comment on this, Brian. Thanks.

Reply
Greg Felton
8/29/2020 10:39:53 pm

Thanks, CCP is Nazi, but I don't see anything new about Elannor Allens in those Chinese sites. I want to see her personal research, the one Nerd mentioned, about the statistical improbability of the syn/non-syn ratio. Is there anywhere else I could look?

Reply
Nerd has power
9/3/2020 02:33:31 am

Here:

https://zenodo.org/record/3786451#.X1C4Iy-z00q

Reply
Xoco Latte
8/31/2020 05:08:10 am

I would wonder, why to make such an orbital mistake of admitting that the lab - which presumably had isolated and sequenced this RaTG13 bat coronavirus - has no longer possesses any samples of the virus? Since it is relatively easy to synthetically produce it, although it has been too short time to do that from end of December to end of January... Still it seems to me as a non-professional mistake. Which, obviously, does not make this whole mess less stinking.

Reply
Xoco Latte
8/31/2020 05:48:34 am

... of course, the above mentioned "mistake" is only valid if (and that is a huge IF) the sequence of RaTG13 would result in a 'viable' CoV that could be inoculate to cell cultures...

Reply
Nerd has power
8/31/2020 03:31:19 pm

One possibility is that they are afraid that the RaTG13 virus may not be able to infect anything, including horseshoe bats. If the virus physically exists (through lab creation) and people request it from the Shi lab, they would look bad for not sharing it. Yet, sharing it would mean that somebody could immediately mix it with bat cells or cells carrying bat ACE2. The myth of RaTG13 would collapse immediately.

The current approach, claiming no physical copies are around or could be found again, would be much safer. If you are an academic person, would you be willing to spend time and money re-creating and then testing RaTG13??? Think for a minute......

No, you won't. You don't have funding for it. Also, even if you do create it and test it, you won't get any future funding out of these data either. Academic is tough nowadays and funding is everything. Even if the advisor wants to do it, the student or postdoc would probably refuse. They don't worry about grant money too much yet, but they do have their own career to worry about -- such a study is not going to be shiny as it is not revealing novel cool science. You rather study what's new in SARS-CoV-2, which would give you novel science, thus good publications, thus future career opportunities, thus grant money, and maybe even fame. To most people, those are much more attractive than a label of conspiracy theorist (like what's on my forehead right now). Once you are labeled as a conspiracy theorist, your academic career......... can only sink.......

Reply
Blast
9/1/2020 02:22:21 am

I would not be surprised that a right-winged administration could finance such a project, and indeed it would be a quite eye-opening one. If the RaTG13 has a fake sequence it might very well not function at all, and that would be a valuable data...If you want to declare war to China.

Which is the whole point of this investigation? We all agree that P4 labs are a threat for humanity if they work on gain of function, this was clear from when these research were banned in US. Our priority as scientists now shall be to prevent this in the future, rather than spending time and energy in trying to make someone accountable for something which was previously allowed.

Nerd has power
9/2/2020 02:17:48 pm

Here is one possibility. Someone intentionally set your house on fire. Yet, you think it could just be an accident. Things happen. Let's move on. Whoever (including the police) think that this was done intentionally is simply over-reacting.

If that's the case, the happiest person would be the one who set the fire, right? Not only he hurt you as he wished, but also he got away! Most likely, he would also be quite encouraged to set a bigger one on your new house the next time around.

I wish you could learn the news about how the CCP is helping building P3/4 labs in Iran, Egypt, North Korea, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. I also wish you could learn the old news of how the CCP high officials openly talked about how they had acquired the ability to build strong bioweapons. Also, how the bioweapon expert of the CCP proudly said on TV that they had learned all the secrets of coronaviruses. You have the right to disregard such news, but please leave other people the right to chase the truth and fight for security and justice for themselves.

Again, you can maybe find a cure for this strain of SARS-CoV-2, but a new variant can easily throw you off. Do they have variants? Dr. Li-Meng Yan had told the world how virologists never just make one strain of a virus. Not to mention the WIV had been working on other viruses as well, including Ebola. Who knows, we might be busy putting out fire more often in the future.

To me, it does not hurt to know what exactly happened. This effort is not a diversion from seeking a cure. The world has more than enough scientists to do both. A few nobody scientists like me spending time to chase the truth would not delay your cure, I can guarantee you that :).

fuddman
9/2/2020 08:39:30 pm

Please refrain from using the term "nobody scientist" when referring to yourself.

As far as I'm concerned your a damned good scientist.

At least so far. :)

Nerd has power
9/3/2020 02:54:32 am

:D Thank you! Somebody has to look into it. I don't think it's a hard scientific question. The big figures are silent, unfortunately. If they had reacted properly and responsibly, the world would suffer a lot less.

I believed the truth will come out, most likely through the help of whistleblowers, like Dr. Yan. It was said that some scientist(s) escaped from the Wuhan P4 lab as well. I can't think of another reason for such an escape at this sensitive time. They might still be worried about the safety of their families back in China or be waiting for the right moment to blow the whistle. Maybe all we need right now is patience.

Annette
8/31/2020 06:02:13 pm


I have just received this. Is the SARS COV 19 acting like a cancer?
Noxopharm Limited ASX Announcement 1 September 2020
Veyonda® COVID-19 Study Approved For Immediate Start​
Highlights
Official approval granted for use of Veyonda® in hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Europe
NOXCOVID-1 study to commence immediately with approximately 40 patients to be treated
Important study as Veyonda® is believed to be the first drug tested in COVID-19 patients that blocks an emerging key trigger (excessive STING response) of long-term disability and death in COVID-19 patients
Sydney, 1 September 2020: Australian drug development company Noxopharm Limited (ASX: NOX) today announces the commencement of a clinical study of Veyonda® in COVID-19 patients.
Noxopharm Limited (ASX:NOX) is an Australian clinical-stage drug development company focused on treating cancer with Veyonda®.
Veyonda® is a dual-acting oncotoxic and immuno-oncology drug designed to enhance the effectiveness and safety of standard oncology treatments, i.e., chemotherapy, radiotherapy and immuno-oncology drugs. The drug acts by harnessing the body’s immune system to inflict damage on cancer cells in the body and has shown promise in treating a broad spectrum of cancers.
Noxopharm is the major shareholder of US biotechnology company Nyrada Inc. (ASX:NYR).
To learn more please visit: https://www.noxopharm.com/


Reply
Xoco Latte
9/2/2020 01:31:49 am

This is quite old news... The Australian drug company submitted an FDA clearence for clinical study in May, followed by a similar action in Europe in June.
The drug supposedly is a potent inhibitor of the cGAS-STING signalling pathway, and this mechanism is again supposedly plays a role in the so-called "cytokine storm" in the late phase of COVID-19 patients, which, ultimately leads to death.

https://kalkinemedia.com/au/noxopharm-limited-asx-nox/noxopharms-potential-covid-19-treatment-lodges-pre-ind-submission-with-fda-for-veyonda-clinical-trial

Reply
Under The Radar
9/2/2020 12:27:45 am

"SARS-CoV-2 RBD [receptor binding domain] bound human, pangolin, and horseshoe bat (R. macrotis) ACE2 more efficiently than the SARS-CoV-1 or RaTG13 RBD."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.178459v1

"Strikingly, insertion of PRRA into the raTG13 Spike selectively abrogated the usage of horseshoe bat and pangolin ACE2"

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.20.213280v1

Reply
Xoco Latte
9/2/2020 01:48:56 am

This latter preprint is truly striking... It suggests that the preexisting variant of SARS-CoV-2 has been relatively long adapted to human cells BEFORE gaining the PRRA furin cleavage site insert. Only a hypothesis, but if valid, strongly undermines the serendipitous, natural bat-to-human spillover narrative.

Reply
evidence
9/19/2020 05:42:55 am

RE: PRRA insertion likely being the last GOF manipulation step, in particular after RBD adaptation
(hypothesis rearding the LIKELY SEQUENCE OF GOF EVENTS prior to the spill-over accident - revisited)

YES, while certainly having a different intention, the latter publication of Liu et al. (at least with respect to parts of its findings) is another missing-link paper supporting the notion that the FCS has likely been the LAST GOF manipulation step (most likely shortly before the spill-over accident had occurred), hence AFTER the lab animal (e.g., ferrets) and Vero E6 cell passages. This has been postulated by others and myself for weeks (cf. for example my post 6/13/2020 07:25:31 a.m. and 6/16/2020 09:55:23 a.m. in response to Nerd).

Also, as outlined before, this implies that the FCS (in sharp contrast to the RBD) remains the LEAST adapted feature (with respect to humans), and therefore remains (unlike the RBD) under tremendous selection pressure: it is the unadapted FCS which might generate this tremendous and inappropriate or catastrophic immune response of the human host (in some individuals), and which remains under constant attack - hence this late added function, while being advantageous in general (and therefore, due to this big advantage of broadened cell tropism, NOT likely to go), it is subject to constant pressure in order to be fine-tuned with respect to its 'new host'. Hence, for example conformational changes of the S-protein with respect to the PRRA-accessibility in particular are currently occurring constantly on the phenotypic side, which translates on the genotypic site into the vicinity of the FCS genome location being a mutational hot spot (and NOT necessarily the already pre-adapted RBD): while the FCS (=PBCS) feature (i.e., PRRA sequence) likely won't be lost for the predominant Sars-CoV2 quasispecies wildtype for human infection (in contrast to cell lines or lot of animals species) for the future (since it makes Sars-CoV2 THE human superbug, so to speak: it is THE added nuclear warhead capability of the virus), the expected attenuation of the virus in general (during the course of the human pandemic and thereafter) will largely be driven by the very attenuation of that PRRA efficacy itself - making the virus less pathogenic, less deadly, less challenging for the immune response - as the overall goal for any bug aiming for co-existence - including the SARS-CoV2 superbug - remains always higher infectivity in connection with reduced pathogenicity.

I mentioned/claimed that point before in my posts above (on 7/7/2020 05:56:59 a.m., as well as 7/13/2020 08:20:07 a.m., again in response to Nerd).

Here are some more recent publications, which support (aong other) the corollary of the above prediction (vicinity of the FCS location remaining a mutational hot spot, even including being subject to deletions):

[Andres C et al (08/05/2020)
Naturally occurring SARS-CoV-2 gene deletions close to the spike S1_S2 cleavage site in the viral quasispecies of COVID19 patients
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1806735

Patro et al (08/05/2020)
Global variation in the SARS-CoV-2 proteome reveals the mutational hotspots in the drug and vaccine candidates bioRxiv
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.31.230987v3.full
].

Pete Ross
9/3/2020 03:54:20 pm

Some questions about BW's that may or may not pertain to the current situation:

1) From a BW perspective, can the epidemiological pattern of C19 disease be explained by deliberate and covert spreading events? Two typical vectors to consider are infected human agents with high viral loads and anthropogenic aerosols.
(A human vector may range from unaware stooges to immune protected individuals to kamikaze fanatics.)

2) Why has development of rapid tests - the most effective intervention for outbreak control - been so extraordinarily delayed compared to the massive expenditures invested in vaccines?

3) From a BW perspective, weaponized pathogens and mixtures thereof, are not released until the perpetrators have a reliable antidote in the form of preventive vaccine, therapeutic, or both.
What are the indications for this?

4) If filter face masks are effective barriers, why are health authorities not promoting evidence for the presence of viable virions, or RNA shards thereof, detectable on inner and outer surfaces of these filters?

5) Again, from a BW perspective, if deploying a targeted vector release program, (for example confined groups of elderly people), can a highly virulent strain diluted by 1:10,000 factor with an attenuated strain be easily detected and analyzed on a genomic level?

6) Why are healthy people <40 years of age - and especially children - being forced to wear facial filters and 'socially distance' ? Is it all just a sick joke, considering the extremely low - almost immeasurable - morbidity and mortality for the young and healthy?

7) Are the suspicions that infections with one or more C19 strains may harbor potential long-term sequellae ?

8) What is the origin and significance of the multiple HIV-1 sequences, ranging from 6 to 28 aa's, in the C19 spike?

9) What other variations of these SARS & MERS BW's are possible? How many live field tests on humans have already been conducted, and where and when?

10) Hard to assess the impact and intentions of this collaboration between neighbors that both suffer from a wide variety of endemic zoonotic pathogens.
Anecdotal reports and circumstantial findings do suggest that Faisalabad deserves closer scrutiny as an active center for dual-use BW activity, possibly as an offshore contractor for Western country BW programs, not unlike the situation with the Wuhan lab(s).
Thoughts?

China's Wuhan lab operating “covert operations” in Pakistan, handling "anthrax-like" pathogens
https://www.theklaxon.com.au/home/xdx17f6auh0tew0g57ubqrzxkdeux9

Wuhan-Pakistan deadly pathogen collab: “since 2015”https://www.theklaxon.com.au/home/wuhan-lab-conducting-deadly-pathogen-research-in-pakistan-since-2015

Reply
CCP is NAZI link
9/6/2020 12:20:02 pm

Political correctness does not work in science. Wumao/50 cent army or
CCP propaganda should ask their bat woman to answer the questions listed in the following article. In order to make the origin more "natural", CCP also need to threaten and pay a few foreign "scientists" to join her debate. If CCP can get away with this NAZI crime, they will surely
be more eager to develop more bio weapons and repeat the same stores again and again, because there are always some fake scientists who care about their money and temporary fame more than their lives.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Parise_Adadi/publication/344079336_Questions_concerning_the_proximal_origin_of_SARS-CoV-2/links/5f5142e9458515e96d2afb16/Questions-concerning-the-proximal-origin-of-SARS-CoV-2.pdf

Reply
yano
9/6/2020 01:54:05 pm

That's great! Looks like they are just pointing out how unique SARS COV 2 is and that it was pre adapted to humans. We need more scientist pointing this out.

and where are the questions? When you write a title stating questions, you should at least have some questions to answer. not a single question mark in the paper.

Here is a question.

Now that scientist can create chimeric viruses that cannot be identified as "lab made", how can we tell if a virus is natural?

A "lab made" virus can infect animals and then transmit back to humans form nature.

What is the definition of a natural virus? Is a virus natural if it is adapted to it's host animal? If so, SARS Cov 2 is a natural human virus.

At this point in time, it seems that scientist need to stop this GOF research. It's obvious from the history of lab releases that accidents happen. Stop this god complex of creating the most evil shit on earth. and where are the vaccines? that's another question. SARS 1 came out in 2003. Where are the coronavirus vaccines?

Reply
ape link
9/6/2020 03:07:41 pm

Jonathan Latham discusses GoF... http://www.gorilla-radio.com/2020/08/25/gorilla-radio-chris-cook-jonathan-latham-august-24-2020/

Interested One
9/6/2020 04:06:08 pm

We took the questions out, as we wanted to get the paper published in a major journal. Shouldn't that be obvious?

They were in prior drafts.

Interested ONe
9/6/2020 04:10:53 pm

Where are the recombinant live attenuated coronavirus vaccines, I think you are asking?

Some us think that is the central issue here, starting last October 6th.

Nerd has power
9/9/2020 09:11:00 pm

Hi Interested One, are you one of the authors of this peer-reviewed JMV article? It's a wonderful piece! Now nobody can say that "no peer reviewed articles support a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2". I can tell how you have to tailor your words just so that you pass peer review. It's not easy. Thank you for doing it and congrats on this milestone publication!

Greg Felton
9/6/2020 02:01:09 pm

Hi Nerd:
in the article at the top of this thread you mentioned that Shi Zhengli could have simply have fabricated RaTG13 by entering a string of 30,000 letters comprised of A,C, T, G. Could you confirm that you meant A,C,U G, not A,C, T, G? Thymine is found in DNA whereas Uracil is found in RNA, like the single strand RNA of Sars-CoV-2.

Thanks

Reply
Nerd has power
9/9/2020 08:58:51 pm

Sequencing of these viral RNAs is done by first converting them into the corresponding DNAs. That's why you see the sequences of SARS-CoV-2 strains on GenBank all have ATGC not AUGC. Basically, if you have settled down on a sequence, you can write it in two different ways (T vs. U) and yet they mean the same thing.

Reply
Greg Feltron
9/9/2020 09:20:28 pm

Thank you for clarifying that. The journal article you cited is an encouraging sign that perhaps real debate on the synthetic nature of SARS-CoV-2 is possible.

Interested One
9/13/2020 05:15:39 am

Nerd

You are a very brave person. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, you and others have raised important points that need to be addressed. These points may make certain countries and scientists uncomfortable, but there are clear ways to adjudicate them that have not been taken.

One thing in the JMV paper that is quite interesting is the apparent hypothetical protrusion of the lectin binding domain of the spike protein based on structural analysis, which is unlike many other coronaviruses. This would allow better binding, it appears, to C-type lectin receptors such as L-SIGN on pneumocytes and DC-SIGN on dendritic cells, macrophages, and endothelial cells, and this may make the virus more infectious and able to hide from the immune system.

Evolution would suggest that this lectin binding domain remain somewhat hidden, since it is a site of immunologic attack by the host, and in many other coronaviruses this is so.

Why this is not apparently hidden in SARS-CoV-2 is somewhat of a mystery.

Reply
Xoco Latte
9/7/2020 03:51:18 am

I am certainly ignorant or overlooked some details but would you please point me to what you refer to that presumably happened the October 6th of last year?

Re: Interested ONe

"Where are the recombinant live attenuated coronavirus vaccines, I think you are asking?

Some us think that is the central issue here, starting last October 6th."

Reply
Interested One
9/8/2020 06:40:26 pm

Cellphone mobility records show a severe decline around the WIV from 10/6/19 to 10/13/19 consistent with some event.

15 years and counting of coronavirus gain of function research to try to develop a recombinant live attenuated vaccine.

A virus that emerged with its RBD human adapted to ACE2 without much further mutation despite 26,000,000 infections and counting.

As Nerd has said, simply open up the lab notebooks to independent study.

Reply
evidence
9/12/2020 07:30:01 am


...in line with this important molecular clock analysis by DORP et al (which already came out electronically in May I think),
[
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kleelerner/files/20200505_infection_genetics_evolution._emergence_of_genomic_diversity_and_recurrent_mutations_in_sars-cov-2_.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104351
]
in which the estimate of the recent common ancestor/patient zero infection, Oct 6 -Dec 11 2019, overlaps with that time frame given by the unusual cell phone traffic disruption.
So we have circumstantial evidence (cell phone traffic disruption) plus the signature of the quasispecies genome. This is powerful.
Again: one (e.g., no virologist) should never underestimate the power of information of en entire population (quasispecies) for knowledge gain - it remains astronomical, like an endless
book library. We just have to look and stick to the most plausible theories, and a little bit of computation is needed - that's all.

(Cf. also my post in response to Henry on 6/6/2020 07:56:19 am.)

Response to: Likely time window for dating the spill-over accident.

Alex
9/8/2020 02:46:59 am

What technology would they have used, crispr?
How is it possible the very low incidence of the virus in China? and the very low incidence in Indochina? any ideas?

Reply
Alex
9/9/2020 11:37:33 pm

anyone have ideas about these questions?

Reply
Interested One
9/10/2020 06:19:56 pm

No need to use CRISPR. Nothing that fancy. Simple ligation of pieces of virus cDNA, some of them mutant through PCR mutagenesis, into a 30,000 bp cDNA construct. The construct is then either propagated as an artificial chromosome in bacteria or yeast, and then purfied and transfected into human cells permissive to the virus. The virus is then made from RNA transcription of the cDNA clone in these cells and secreted.

The gain of function virus is captured in the supernatant of these cultures, where it is infectious. At that point it can be applied to cultures of cells, or used in animal models as a live attenuated coronavirus vaccine.

Alex
9/11/2020 06:36:35 am

Merci, Interested One.
And about the almost zero incidence of the virus in China.
As well as in Thailand, Taiwan South Korea, ....
The latest figures collected in Worldmeter are extremely striking in this regard.
In February, several studies were published about the potential risk of incidence of the virus and the countries that appeared with the highest risk were precisely these, And nº 1 China.

The Philosopher
10/14/2020 06:26:36 am

@Alex
And about the almost zero incidence of the virus in China.
As well as in Thailand, Taiwan South Korea, ....
The latest figures collected in Worldmeter are extremely striking in this regard.
In February, several studies were published about the potential risk of incidence of the virus and the countries that appeared with the highest risk were precisely these, And nº 1 China.

1) China's bee lying, I've mentioned this earlier. They lie about pretty much everything (their economy, population, cities, investments, major explosions, etc)

2) Thailand Not sure, don't follow much. Could be bad reporting

3) South Korea is the best success story. They've been ready for this since MERS, and have some of the best engineering and science minds in the world. They have a populace that constantly wears masks due to Chinese dust or fine dust (misaemeonji) and many startups and major companies that were able to produce tests right away. They also have amazing software and compliance for contact tracing. It's pretty publically known they've had low incidence due to their amazing testing and contact tracing and they haven't needed to 'shut down' their economy. Hell, even clubs were open for a while until a brief breakout. I think recently some vocal nutty Christian minority protested about masks and they were being stupid, so for a few weeks due to those protests, social distancing regulations were increased, but its be relaxed again.

4) Taiwan is sort've like South Korea. Small country, they wear masks regularly. Also they're probably used to mainland China's shit. So they were ready to react quickly and close borders/enable social distancing. Their population is pretty savvy overall (lots of tech companies there) and so I'd say contact tracing worked well. Them being an island also really helps!

5) Japan - you didn't ask, but I think they're lying like mad about their numbers. Abe even resigned, I think largely to pass the buck onto Suga or whoever is going to take the PM position. The entire DLP is full of people who lie and are related to Zaibatsu or war criminals.

alex
10/14/2020 08:31:39 am

I agree with the statement that the Chinese Government is lying. But does the Chinese government also lie with the Hong Kong figures? I find it a bit more difficult to hide a high incidence in Hong Kong than in the rest of Mainland China. And in Hong Kong the mortality caused by the virus is also very low according to official figures.
The Chinese government gives very, very low mortality figures. If we apply the death rate of Iran, which does not even have a direct border with China and is not one of the highest, we would be talking about around half a million deaths caused by the virus in China, they seem very high figures to hide even for the Chinese government, maybe not.
I am surprised by the zero incidence in the countries of Indochina and in Thailand, I think I know those countries a little and no one can show me that they know how to protect themselves better than, for example, the Swedes from an epidemic caused by a virus. Has no sense
I simply believe that there is something else behind the spread and incidence of this virus.
It may not be the right forum to discuss this topic, but I think there is a lot of talent gathered in it and maybe some can give ideas on this issue.
Thank you The Philosopher for answering.

David Rivard link
9/8/2020 11:32:42 am

Of course, this could not be geo-politically related, with a release date just before the U.S. elections.

Reply
yano
9/8/2020 07:32:08 pm

https://youtu.be/ep9GxRFK3rk

Dr. Li Meng Yan points out fake Yunnan miner news.

She discredits Dr Latham's theory about the miners being the human petri dish breeding up the SARS2 virus.
https://jonathanlatham.net/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/

"The report clearly states they did not get biopsy or autopsy from the six miners"

She also points out the clear systemic conflict of interest around funding.

https://youtu.be/ep9GxRFK3rk

I can't wait to read her "scientific report". Hurry up Dr. Yan, the world is waiting. <3

Reply
M-Z-1-2-3-4
9/13/2020 09:04:08 pm

Could COVID-19 Have Escaped from a Lab? -- 9/9/2020
(https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2020/09/09/alina-chan-broad-institute-coronavirus/)

Great (and brave) article by Boston Magazine's Rowan Jacobsen on Alina Chan.
- - - -
When word spread in January that a novel coronavirus had caused an outbreak in Wuhan—which is a thousand miles from where the bats that carry this lineage of viruses are naturally found—many experts were quietly alarmed. There was no proof that the lab was the source of the virus, but the pieces fit.

Despite the evidence, the scientific community quickly dismissed the idea. Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, which has funded the work of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other labs searching for new viruses, called the notion “preposterous,” and many other experts echoed that sentiment.

That wasn’t necessarily what every scientist thought in private, though. “They can’t speak directly,” one scientist told me confidentially, referring to the virology community’s fear of having their comments sensationalized in today’s politically charged environment. “Many virologists don’t want to be hated by everyone in the field.”

There are other potential reasons for the pushback. There’s long been a sense that if the public and politicians really knew about the dangerous pathogen research being conducted in many laboratories, they’d be outraged. Denying the possibility of a catastrophic incident like this, then, could be seen as a form of career preservation. “For the substantial subset of virologists who perform gain-of-function research,” Richard Ebright, a Rutgers microbiologist and another founding member of the Cambridge Working Group, told me, “avoiding restrictions on research funding, avoiding implementation of appropriate biosafety standards, and avoiding implementation of appropriate research oversight are powerful motivators.” Antonio Regalado, biomedicine editor of MIT Technology Review, put it more bluntly. If it turned out COVID-19 came from a lab, he tweeted, “it would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom.”

That’s a pretty good incentive to simply dismiss the whole hypothesis, but it quickly amounted to a global gaslighting of the media—and, by proxy, the public. An unhealthy absolutism set in: Either you insisted that any questions about lab involvement were absurd, or you were a tool of the Trump administration and its desperation to blame China for the virus. I was used to social media pundits ignoring inconvenient or politically toxic facts, but I’d never expected to see that from some of our best scientists.
- - - -

Reply
CCP is NAZI link
9/13/2020 09:14:25 pm

The truth will soon be uncovered - Dr. Li-Meng Yan (Virologist from Hong Kong) joins this week’s edition of Uncovering the Truth to discuss the origins of coronavirus and the Wuhan lab at the center of it all.

https://wabcradio.com/episode/uncovering-the-truth-coronavirus-in-wuhan-lab/

Reply
J
9/14/2020 08:47:38 am

This is the paper she just released:
https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X19xByXZglR

Reply
yano
9/14/2020 10:55:47 am

Great! Excellent paper!
https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X19xByXZglR

great points outlined

1. Two smoking guns, the PRRA, CGG,CGG rare codons and the EcoRI/BstEII restriction sites being present.

2. The unnatural similarity of the poorly preserved Orf8 and the E protein together point to ZC45 being the backbone.

3. Pangolins don't host coronaviurses and thus are unlikely intermediate hosts for a crazy low probability of a natural recombination event.

I'm sure I missed a few.

Questions about the smoking guns.

The smoking guns, PRRA furin cleavage site using the rare CGG,CGG as a marker to detect preservation and the EcoRI/BstEII restriction sites being present.

Would these markers suggest an accidental lab release?

Leaving a furin cleavage site marker behind seems dumb for a maliciously and purposefully released virus.

Why go through all the trouble of changing the non-essential S1 protein elements just to leave behind CGG,CGG markers in the furin cleavage site? Seems illogical or incomplete for a bio weapon.



Reply
Xoco Latte
9/15/2020 07:42:58 am

Huh, that is a very focused, highly detailed piece of a manuscript!

If I had to wager, I'd say this SARS-CoV-2 has been indeed an accidental laboratory outbreak with some of its properties in infectiousness within a human population unknown at the time of its outbreak.

And as for the most possible purpose of engineering such a chimeric beta coronavirus, the most likely explanation would be creating a supervirus for antiviral vaccine/drug development, rather than a bioweapon creation.

Although I may be too naive to begin with.

Xoco Latte
9/15/2020 08:04:59 am

I try to refine my above opinion to some extent.

At the very time point of its accidental outbreak, the engineered construct has not been a state of work-in-progress, ie., having been still optimized, or in a phase of vaccine/drug development with possible plans for FUTURE release as a BW. The seemingly illogical or sloppy leftover rectriction site markers at that point may possess not any other than still functional roles in the working process.

The real question in my point of view is whether how this presumably ongoing, putative vaccine development has been proceeding in the past 9 months by the very participants responsible for the original engineering work? Is there any connection with the seemingly huge difference in incidence data in PRC versus USA and EU (and the RoW)?

Yi Wang
9/14/2020 09:08:11 pm

Thanks for your sharing! The world becomes great because of you guys!

Reply
CCP is NAZI
9/15/2020 08:25:19 am

Those who call unleashing CCP virus as an "accidental" outbreak need to explain if letting Wuhan people out to spread virus everywhere in the world but not within China is accidental, buying all the PPE all over the world back to China is accidental, preventing 3M from exporting their own masks back to U.S. is accidental, refusing to open their P4 lab to the worldwide virologists is accidental, destroying their virus sequence data is accidental, hacking/hindering other countries' vaccine development is accidental Naive? Foolish? Or simply evil???

Reply
Xoco Latte
9/15/2020 09:14:12 am

Each "evidence" you listed as solid "proofs" for a purportedly deliberate unleashing the "CCP" virus onto the rest of the world but not China, are IMHO just consequential and as such, logical, actions after an accidental breakout of a still-work-in-progress viral construct.
I would not mix action and reaction for that matter.
That is not to deny the existance of those seemingly evil reactions, BTW.

Reply
Xoco Latte
9/15/2020 09:17:00 am

Correction (eh):

"... consequential and as such, logical, REactions ..."

CCP is NAZI
9/15/2020 10:13:35 am

CCP would surely love the whole world to be just like you so that they can unleash the next batch of virus to achieve their world domination dream and realize their NAZI goal. Make sure to come back and
comment again when CCP unleash the next batch in a few years.

Greg Felton
9/15/2020 11:16:25 am

Intend to agree. Militating against deliberate release is the lack of a credible cover story. The CCP, Shi Zhengli et al. have made utter asses of themselves trying to pass off the Huanan market as the source of the pandemic and pass off the fabricated RaTG13 as the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. These are signs of desperate and incompetent improvisation.

CCP is NAZI
9/15/2020 11:30:29 am

What you are saying is like asking for the evidence destroyed by the criminal. No problem, Dr. Yan has more to disclose. Further, the evidence is well kept in Wuhan P4 lab.The quickest and easiest way is to simply open their lab to the world, you will find plenty of evidence. good luck!

CCP is NAZI
9/15/2020 01:10:03 pm

Wow, just when I said Dr. Yan has more to disclose, her twitter account is suspended. See how scared Nazi CCP are? They cannot even defend themselves or stand out to argue with her, but just use their power to suspend her account. Don't worry, for anyone who are truly interested to find out the truth, simply contact her at [email protected]. Otherwise, don't even bother, as threat does not work in science!

CCP is NAZI
9/15/2020 07:51:38 pm

Watch Fox news, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFlqXPl_hZQ, to see the witness, Dr. Yan, firmly stated that CCP virus is unleashed purposely. Those "naive" people need to stop being "naive". More to come in her second paper.

Reply
yano
9/15/2020 08:35:39 pm

I watched it. It's great she is standing up and telling the truth.

Her english is getting better and she is slowing down her speech, Very good.

Tucker asked about why other scientist did not see the lab evidence in the genome. The answer, they don't want to see it. If people knew the truth, funding would stop for virus research. It's a conflict of interest, plain and simple.

There is no doubt that knowingly allowing infected people to travel to the world while locking down China was a criminal act by the CCP.

Buying up the PPE before the world knew the significance of the virus, again, criminal.

But I don't understand the motive behind a purposeful release.

What is the motive for releasing the virus on purpose? What does the CCP have to gain? China will be destroyed economically by this virus. The economic boycott by the world has already started.

Who wants to be friends with and enrich a criminal?

Reply
Greg Felton
9/15/2020 08:47:13 pm

Outstanding post. I concur: intentional release seems implausible, notwithstanding what Yan Mengli has said. However, there may be an answer, and it is analogous to the Sarin gas attack that took place in Damascus in August 2013. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the U.S. were staging a false-flag chemical attack that would be blamed on Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and justify U.S. invasion. However, the dirty bomb went off prematurely in the neighbourhood of Ghouta. There was malicious intent, but the timing was off.

Similarly, Yan and "CCP is Nazi" may be correct in their assessment of the CCP's plan to unleash a pandemic, but lax security or abject stupidity at WIV released the pandemic prematurely before a plausible cover story could be concocted..

I have not come to a definitive conclusion yet, but this will constitute the substance of the final chapter of the book I am writing on the synthetic origins of SARS-CoV-2.

CCP is NAZI
9/15/2020 09:00:27 pm

Indeed a great video. Ex-Chinese Official's Plan for World Domination should answer all your questions:
https://www.newsmax.com/navrozov/china-biological-russia/2009/09/17/id/335042/ CCP is simply carrying out Chi Haotian's plan. Unfortunately, bioweapon is double edged. When CCP wants to hurt the west, they also hurt their own people. However, Chinese lives are disposable if CCP can go that far to live harvest organs to make profit of them. Hence, killing their own people is really not a big deal to CCP if CCP want depopulation on their own land as well.

Colin Butler link
9/15/2020 11:46:14 pm

Thanks for your work. I read your paper pretty carefully but not (so far) many comments. Apologies if my question (to follow) has been answered. I am impressed by your logic (though note the tone at times will put many off). I checked several of your references and found no problems. I wondered however, about your statement that Prof Shi's lab allegedly collected some bat feces about 7 years ago and analyzed these samples for possible presence of coronaviruses based on genetic evidence. I looked at the paper you cite and could not find evidence for this. Is it just based on your informants? If so it's not sufficiently convincing.

The paper in question, however, does not seem to reveal much about the origins of this virus (RaTG13) eg it says "We then found that a short region of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) from a bat coronavirus (BatCoV RaTG13)—which was previously detected in Rhinolophus affinis from Yunnan province—showed high sequence identity to 2019-nCoV."

I also have one comment. A fair bit of your paper concerns so called "gain of function" research, ie. deliberate attempts in a laboratory to manipulate pathogens to make them more harmful, for the alleged purpose of gaining insights that will benefit public health. I am personally very sceptical of this supposed tradeoff. In 2012 I co-authored Jeggo, M., C. Butler, F. Jing, P. Weinstein and P. Daszak (2012). "EcoHealth and the Influenza A/H5N1 dual use issue." EcoHealth 9(1): 1-3. In this editorial I managed to insert some text reflecting these concerns. The justification could lead to public health harm; I am alarmed that this could be the case regarding COVID-19.

The members of the Committee on Research Standards and Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology (2004) [Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences] had similar concerns, I believe.

Reply
Nerd has power
9/17/2020 05:15:14 pm

Thank you for the comments. To answer your question, the virus that was collected 7 years ago was named RaBtCoV/4991. It was first published in 2016:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7090819/

Dr. Shi never mentioned this name in her 2020 Nature publication or cited this 2016 work of hers (weird, right?). However, she did admit to a couple of other virologists that RaTG13 was RaBtCoV/4991.

Note that in the 2016 paper, only a short RdRp sequence (~400bp) was known and published. I apparently am convinced that the RaTG13 sequence was fabricated. However, its 400 bp RdRp segment should be real -- I think it was taken directly from 4991. The benefit here is clear: you get to claim that your virus was discovered all the way back in 2013. Who could be so lucky to find the natural origin of a world-wide pandemic in just a few weeks, right?

Thank you also for voicing the concern on gain-of-function research. I really appreciate it. However, well regulated GOF work isn't as dangerous as what I perceive as happening right now. I know I tend to sound too blunt, but I don't consider SARS-CoV-2 a simple GOF product. To me, it is a product of a bioweapon's program. There are too many reasons why I think this way, which are not necessarily all scientific reasons. I guess I can't list them all in this comment. And it is probably better that everyone finds the circumstantial evidence on one's own and decides whether or not this is a bioweapon.

Reply
Ted
9/16/2020 10:12:16 am

Thanks again for your work.
Although a layperson I was extremely impressed by the detailed sourcing of all claims made—except for one instance I noticed:

“2. The RdRp protein from RaBatCoV/4991 is unique in that it is superior than RdRp from any other β coronavirus for developing antiviral drugs…” The Yan Report, p.17
No sources were given for this assertion.

It was also dismaying that Dr. Yan asserted on the Tucker Carlson show last night that the virus was intentionally released. In my opinion, this assertion given without evidence allows many to dismiss the entire article as cut from the same cloth and thus dismissed.

To the extent that specific analyses depend on the deliberate masking of genetic manipulation (e.g. “changes might have been made intentionally at non-essential sites, making it less like a “copy and paste” of the SARS RBM,” The Yan Report, p.12) instead of straightforward gain-of-function (GoF) research, in my opinion, also weakens your powerful report. GoF research is widely acknowledged while bio-weapon research is not.

Would you please consider revision of the article to keep all claims within the field of acknowledged GoF research without incorporating bio-weapon assertions that must perforce be unsupportable?

Reply
Aihar Tol
9/16/2020 03:19:54 pm

This “Ted” sounds like the usual Wumao apparatchik trying to lead everyone away from what the CCP considers dangerous territory. I expect Yan Meng Li’s assertions to eventually converge with Nerdhaspower’s arguments, and the hurry to exclude her probably shows the CCP is really worried about this.

Reply
Greg Felton
9/16/2020 03:27:47 pm

Aihar tol, you are out of line. Ted's post was rational and intelligent. There is nothing wrong with holding Yan Mengli accountable for what she says. Your attack on Ted is ad hominem and typical of an apparatchik that wants to silence debate by deflecting attention from the substance of the argument.

I like what Yan has to say, but I am also uncomfortable with her unsubstantiated political assertions. Because she has such strong antipathy for the CCP, her comments are just as likely to contain propaganda as those of the CCP. By all means, respect and list to Yan, but don't worship her.

Aihar Tol
9/16/2020 06:14:11 pm

Greg Felton

Standard Wumao SOP for 2 apparatchiks to support each other in public to avoid the impression that their talking points are actually being run from Wumao HQ.

Greg Fellton
9/16/2020 06:22:59 pm

Aihar Tol:
Thanks for being an ass. You don't know me and have no right to imply that you do. "Wumao HQ"? Is this REALLY the best you can do? Obviously, the concept of self-parody is lost on you.

Reply
Aihar Tol
9/16/2020 06:53:45 pm

Greg Felton (Wumao, HQ)

You’re welcome. It’s my pleasure to point your team out.

Reply
Greg Felton
9/16/2020 07:01:29 pm

Dear Nerd:
I have found this thread to be of inestimable value both for my book and for general education. The depth of knowledge and research among its participants is remarkable. Unfortunately, Aihar Tol seems to object to reason and rational thought. As a zealous acolyte of Yan Mengli he is behaving in the exact same manner as the CCP and Shi Zhengli: insult and deflect when faced with even a whiff of criticism.

I hope that I am not alone in drawing attention to the unscientific, pejorative scribbling of Aihar Tol.

Reply
Aihar Tol
9/16/2020 09:49:40 pm

Not to belabor the obvious, pointing out standard Wumao techniques does not make me an acolyte of the vastly brave Yan Menli.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
9/16/2020 07:53:24 pm

For those who insist to exclude bio-weapon assertions, please read
the following article:

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/exclusive-anthony-klan-shares-details-on-china-s-wuhan-lab-operating-covert-operations-in-pakistan-1722198-2020-09-16

Unless you can show the evidence that this secret three-year deal to expand potential bio-warfare capabilities is non existent or have the ability to show Wuhan P4 lab to the world to show they are not developing biowar weapons, everyone has the right to look at things from different angles. For those who want to question Dr Yan's assertions, feel free to email her directly at [email protected] instead of asking people here not to do this or that. Further, it's too soon to jump into a conclusion before she publishes her next paper.
Thanks!

Reply
Greg Felton
9/16/2020 08:20:32 pm

CCP is NAZI:
I cannot help but think your post is directed at me. If so, I reject it. I am not interested in discussing bioweapons at this point. I am interested in defending a poster from an insulting, personal attack.

If those who defend the bioweapons theory resort to Ignorant, ad hominem attacks, they are no better that those who prop up the CCP.

If I want to contact Yan Mengli, I will do sk.


Reply
CCP is NAZI
9/16/2020 08:45:48 pm

Greg Felton,

This is directed to Ted. However, if Ted and you are actually the same person, then yes, it is directed to you as well. I am not defending anyone but those who seek safety, peace and their own well beings instead of people like Prof Zhao Shenye - shame on him
for his evil thoughts: https://gnews.org/352989/ The CCP have silenced those whistle blowers like Dr. Li Wenliang who actually told the truth but have apparently been fond of this jerk's earth destroying ideas. It's naive to think CCP would not be interested in biowars at all just like what their secret three-year deal to expand potential bio-warfare capabilities details. Those who defend the CCP or ask others not to defend themselves are just as evil as the CCP themselves.

Greg Felton
9/16/2020 09:11:22 pm

CCP is NAZI:
I am not Ted, but your attitude is nonetheless unjustified. Humour me: what, exactly, did Ted say to justify the outpouring of invective against him. Are not his questions worth answering. I thought honest enquiry is all that matters. By the way “evil” has no meaning outside of an absolutist religious context. It reflects the mind of a moralist, not a rational scientist.

Nobody can defend the CCP’s treatment of doctors who speak their minds. Should the abusive treatment of Ted be defended because he is on the othwr side?

Reply
Greg Felton
9/16/2020 09:16:09 pm

Let me rephrase: “Should the abusive treatment of Ted be defended because he does not uncritically believe everything Yan Mengli says?

Reply
CCP is NAZI
9/16/2020 09:34:31 pm

"Abusive" sounds a strong word. But if you considered what ted gets is abusive, then his demanding others to rewrite without incorporating bio-weapon is abusive as well which is like ordering others to look positively at the CCP while ignoring their secret three-year deal to expand potential bio-warfare capabilities

Ahai Tol
9/16/2020 09:42:20 pm

Greg Felton

It is hardly “abusive” to point out that Ted and yourself behave in typical Wumao fashion in trying to ferret out the real identity of Nerdhaspower as well as misdirect this whole discussion thread to hew to the CCP’s propaganda line.

There are legion of your Wumao teammates on any discussion thread that involves the CCP, always actively trying to misdirect. You cannot blame us for starting to become wise in your repetitive techniques.

CCP is NAZI
9/16/2020 09:19:12 pm

It's interesting that ted himself does not stand out to confront me but you instead. Why does he demand others to rewrite without incorporating bio-weapon? Like what I said previously: Unless you can show the evidence that this secret three-year deal to expand potential bio-warfare capabilities is non existent or have the ability to show Wuhan P4 lab to the world to prove that they are not developing biowar weapons, you have absolutely NO right to demand others to analyze CCP virus in your ways.

Reply
Aihar Tol
9/16/2020 09:36:06 pm

That’s standard Wumao SOP to make the casual observer think that Ted is a real victim and some gallant knight is defending him, when in reality they’re in cahoots with each other, reading off the same talking points, trying to misdirect everyone to the same direction.

[CCP is NAZI said:

It's interesting that ted himself does not stand out to confront me but you instead. Why does he demand others to rewrite without incorporating bio-weapon? Like what I said previously: Unless you can show the evidence that this secret three-year deal to expand potential bio-warfare capabilities is non existent or have the ability to show Wuhan P4 lab to the world to prove that they are not developing biowar weapons, you have absolutely NO right to demand others to analyze CCP virus in your ways.”]

Reply
Greg Felton
9/16/2020 09:43:10 pm

You’re hysterical, dishonest and ridiculous. I made NO SUCH DEMAND. I am not even talking about the CCP. YOU are. What I object to is your refusal to address a comment in a respectful, intelligent manner. You are apparently incapable of that. Also, how do you prove someone ISN’T doing something?? If you are so sure the Wuhan lab was making a bioweapon, then back up your allegation. All you’re doing is making your claim (and Yan’s) look emotional. I think I’ll include you in my book.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
9/16/2020 09:53:45 pm

The one who say others are hysterical, dishonest and ridiculous are just like that themselves. Many like you already asked Nerd has powers not to analyze CCP virus in terms of bioweapons and s/he already explained why s/he did. Did you simply not bother to read through or you just want to ignore it? If you want others to respect you, you need to first respect others. Don't waste everyone's time!

Reply
Ahai Tol
9/16/2020 09:58:54 pm

Yawn: standard Wumao self righteous victimism.

It should be sufficiently clear to you by now that Nerdhaspower has been very careful that the CCP not discover his real identity so that his/her family back in China could be kept as safe as possible. Yes, we are very aware that there are Wumao in this group either trying to discover Nerd’s secret identity, or trying to actively misdirect away from the direction most hurtful for the CCP. We tolerate you, but don’t need to back off from calling out your influence operations for what they are.

Reply
Greg Felton
9/16/2020 11:14:30 pm

Who the fuck do you think you are! You and your lapdog CCP is NAZi are devoid of even the most basic intelligence. You hurl ad hominem clichés like Wumao to avoid having to act like an adult. I don't give a fuck what you or anyone else thinks. Your infantile behaviour and incapacity for honest discourse should get you banned from this thread:

I ask you, Nerd: Do you condone Ahai Tol's insulting behaviour?

CCP is NAZI
9/16/2020 11:54:55 pm

Lol, lapdog? You yourself seem more like a CCP's lapdog. If things don't get your way, then a full mouth of f words which exactly shows your true nature rather than a scholar who does not even bother to go through the original purpose of this article and want everyone to only look at CCP virus in your direction but not any other directions. Nerd has power: would you condone Greg Felton's mouthful f words and insulting behavior?

CCP is NAZI
9/16/2020 10:03:09 pm

If the CCP have nothing to hide, why have they been persistently refusing Trump's persistent offer with a team of top scientists to control CCP virus? Ya, lock up the evidence to ask others to find the evidence. What a joke! Simply open up the lab to shut everyone up!

Reply
Ahai Tol
9/17/2020 03:57:35 am

If the CCP had nothing to hide then why all these elaborate ruse to try to discover Nerd’s real identity? Why all these elaborate efforts to prevent any discussion of Ms. Yan’s points? All these elaborate tag teaming to misdirect everyone in this group away from certain avenues of discussion ....?

yano
9/16/2020 10:01:12 pm

I went back and read Nerd's paper and looked through reference 6.

"First, the two bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21, that are STRANGELY CLOSE to the Wuhan coronavirus were collected by a military research lab of the CCP. They published the finding and the sequences of these two viruses back in 2018 (6). I want to emphasize two facts here: 1) if the Wuhan coronavirus was man-made, then it must have been created using ZC45 or ZXC21 as a template; 2) nobody in this world has these bat coronaviruses, except for the CCP as evidenced by this publication."

If the CCP is going to make a bio weapon and release it to the world, Why would they use a backbone virus like ZC45 that they published publicly?

Why leave an evidence trail like that?

Scenario: The CCP military hospital publishes a paper in 2018 publicly declaring they found bat CoV's, then creates a bio weapon from the same virus that they published, then releases it to the world forgetting they published the paper.

Are they really that ignorant?

Just seems like another piece of evidence that some lab technician infected themselves. A human ace2 mouse bit their finger.

1) The CCP military hospital publishes the backbone genome in 2018
2) The SARS2 genome contains the ZC45 backbone and obvious marker signatures in the furin cleavage site.
3) The SARS2 genome contains obvious restriction sites around the RBM

The above points are not actions of someone trying to hide a virus bio weapon. If they were trying to hide SARS2, they are very bad at it.


Reply
Grerg Felteon
9/17/2020 12:04:33 am

You raise some valid points. The question of a bioweapon so far is all theory. It is regrettable that febrile children like CCP is NAZI (The name pretty much gives him away) are incapable of rational discourse on the matter and resort to name-calling.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
9/17/2020 08:18:10 am

Grerg Felteon: What's wrong with using "CCP is NAZI" which is a proven fact? Those who disagree that CCP is NAZI are grounded to be nazi themselves as well and need CCP to get their organs live harvested to profoundly accept the fact.

yano: what if CCP originally didn't plan to release the bioweapon? Their 3 year secret bioweapon plan cannot erase their interest in biowars. If it were an accidental leak, simply open up their lab to show that they are not at fault. If CCP had known that they would have to sign the trade deal no matter what, they would have already signed it many months earlier instead of waiting for Trump to raise to a high tariff to sign it. There were just many uncertainties before CCP's next move. But as everyone sees, oonce the trade deal was signed and the ink was still not dry, there came the biowar. Let's wait to see what Dr. Yan has to say in her second paper to jump onto a conclusion like what Grerg Felteon has blamed her for.

CCP is NAZI
9/17/2020 08:32:39 am

What was published is already published and they cannot withdraw it or delete it like what they did to Patient Zero's profile and Dr. Yan's profile on their official P4 lab site. Had CCP known that the world would question about Huang Yanling as Patient Zero and that Dr. Yan fled to tell the world the truth, do you think their profiles would still be on their websites? CCP probably never image that they had to unleash the bioweapon so soon instead of waiting for the more mature versions to be developed for no one to get a trace of it.

Reply
yano
9/17/2020 12:16:53 pm

"what if CCP originally didn't plan to release the bioweapon?"
I suppose, Anything is possible.

Where is Huang Yanling? Has she been found? Dead?

Possible motives for an intentional BW release:
1) Envy and jealousy. Someone mad at Shi released the virus to destroy her and the WIV.
2) Someone mad at the CCP released the virus to destroy the CCP and start a global anti CCP revolution.
3) An insane eco-criminal released the virus to reduce the worlds human population, a crime against humanity.
4) The CCP released it to gain world domination, they have a secret vaccine for the top elite CCP members.
5) Human mutated ACE2 mice infected with SARS2 banded together to attack, They bit the finger of Huang Yanling infecting her thus getting revenge on humanity for killing and torturing their mutant mice ancestors.

All speculations of course.

Greg Felton
9/19/2020 12:37:57 am

Yano: Please explain to me what restriction sites do and how they are created.

Reply
하얀 왕관 참새 - PhD
9/20/2020 06:54:31 pm

Damn, Greg, just google it. Its basic genetics!

Short sequences of nucleotides that are cut by restriction enzymes, those enzymes that cleave DNA into fragments at or near specific recognition sites (the aforementioned restriction sites).

Not hard at all.

How do you create restriction sites? I suggest you first understand basic genetics and google "how to synthesize dna" because that's all you need to do (pretty much). It will be a long read and I'm being generous by providing you with that knowledge.

Note that the advent of NOT having to use restriction enzymes and ligases to anneal nucleotide chains back together is very VERY recent: https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-020-01358-2

"A ligation and restriction enzyme independent cloning technique: an alternative to conventional methods for cloning hard-to-clone gene segments in the influenza reverse genetics system"

At least in that particular viral system. So the possibility that Shi used classical cloning techniques to engineer Sars-Cov-2 is quite high, and those restriction sites are very important for that.

NOW, some absolute shills of scientists (I'm recording a list of them, so when this is all said and done, we can collectively knock on their doors and dismantle their labs and cancel them, as well as retract all their hack papers) will say this:

"“It’s like seeing the blessed virgin in a piece of toast, the restriction sites that she finds are commonly occurring elsewhere in Sars-Cov-2 and in other related viruses and if you were to engineer in restriction sites to manipulate the spike gene, I certainly wouldn’t do it like that, there’s much better ways to do that,” Kaelber said." (Jason Kaelber, Rutgers)

This is a flawed argument to make, Dr. Kaelber. Just because *you* wouldn't do it that way, doesn't mean Dr Shi wouldn't. Just because many scientists will order reagents or materials from Fisher or Sigma-Aldrich, doesn't mean I will if I can make or mix them myself. Same thing, there's tons of variations in how people do science, and yours is simply an argument from ethos. What a fucking hack. I hope he reads that. You're a hack, Jason!

Additionally, that's like saying "how do we know that OJ Simpson's wife being dead was a murder? Wives die all the time!"

Come on, guys. the restriction sites are in particular FLANKING the RBM/RBD.

하얀 왕관 참새 - PhD
9/20/2020 07:29:32 pm

Another hack, Andersen was quoted as saying this, on evidence:
"Unless somebody can present any type of data that would suggest there is actually a link to a lab, the discussion is basically over.”


What sort of data might that be? “Some whistleblower in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Somebody who committed suicide and wrote a letter saying, ‘This was my experiment.’ If somebody could produce a vial and show, ‘Here’s the pre-virus, which I found in a freezer in the lab.’ None of that has come forward, because it doesn’t exist.” (Of course some would argue that China would have taken any measures necessary to disappear such evidence, but that’s another story.)"

That's... not how evidence works, you HACK. If that were the case, you could disprove ALL biological hypotheses by stating "well you didn't actually see it happening by witnessing the cells do the biochemical process, you only observed it happen by proxy through some test, which could suggest it was related only."

Bro, even a smoking gun at a crime scene is considered circumstantial evidence (look it up) and it is VALID in court of law.

Anything that aids in the construction of a cogent story on the lab origin of this virus is evidence. That's how we write reviews, we summarize relevant findings in the primary scientific literature and tell a story that tries to make sense of it. That's how science is done! We can't fully interpret reality, so we create a story that approximates it with out understandings of how our tools collect the data and work with other peoples' findings. That's what the Yan paper is.

And, additionally, SOMETIMES WE USE NON-PEER REVIEWED FUCKING FINDINGS as references. It's called "PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE" when we discuss lab voodoo with other groups and scientists and it's too troublesome to explain all the in's and out's of a protocol. No one questions it, and it's not a peer reviewed source, but people DO it. And its OK to use it! Sometimes, non peer-reviewed sources are OK! What Yan and nerdhaspower are doing is OK as long as its logical and reasonable. Peer-review isn't some magic bullet for credibility.
"The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct" made it past peer-review, LOL

Does my fucking BRAIN need to be peer-reviewed if I have a reasonable idea and can back it up with literature than makes sense? Does it need to be published in Nature/Science and be silenced by reviewer #2 eternally?



There's no cogent hypothesis for a natural zoonotic origin. Please, if anyone has seen a good paper that supports it with evidence or a reasonable hypothesis, reply in this thread. If someone has a reasonable hypothesis without sources, I'll listen to it, too, as long as it's detailed and makes sense. I beg you.

Greg Felton
9/17/2020 12:12:59 am

CCP is NAZI:
You should know, but probably don't, that the middle ground of reasoned skepticism is the first to go as two militantly moralistic sides go at each other. To claim the middle ground as I do, immediately elicits unjustified and unjustifiable attacks that I am in the CCP camp. Ahai Tol is particularly laughable since he has nothing to offer but such insult. I take no position on bioweapons...yet. I also take no position on the veracity of Yan Mengli's writing...yet. I have the right to make up my own mind yet that is something you would deny me.

You contribute nothing to this discussion except to show that Yan Mengli's point of view cannot be defended rationally and needs attack dogs like you to sabotage informed debate.

You have no reason to attack me because I have done nothing improper, except to challenge your quasi-religious certainty and come to another poster's defence.

So, fuck off and go play somewhere else. You are waste of space.

Reply
Xoco Latte
9/17/2020 03:13:38 am

Uff, WTF is going on here?
I'm coming back here 12 hours later and finding the remains of what had been a great dialog of mostly scientific analysis, after two(?) trolls with an obvious political agenda shitted all over the place...

What a fucking shame!

Reply
Greg Felton
9/17/2020 03:23:33 am

I agree Xoco Latte, and I am sorry it came to that. If you want to point fingers look to Ahai Tol and CCP is NAZI. I came to the defence of one poster (Ted), who raised some interesting questions about Yan Mengli's accusations. I can't speak to them--at least not yet-- but I respected Ted's skepticism and resented Ahai Tol's ad hominem attack on him. For my efforts I was insulted as a Wumao troll and a CCP agent. I regret that my frustration with these two yahoos got the better of me. I hope this is the last we hear from them.

Ahai Tol
9/17/2020 03:45:07 am

Add another Wumao, make it look organic rather than the team effort that it is.

Standard Wumao SOP. It’s no secret this thread is infested with CCP trolls trying to unmask Nerd’s real identity and misdirect away from what hurts the CCP. Nerd has been ahead of you all the way, and your misdirect away from CCP malice won’t stick with a group that was put together expressly to shield members from Wumao attacks..

CCP is NAZI
9/17/2020 08:52:19 am

Ahai To: add another Wumao? Who knows? Maybe it's the same Wumao, just changed the name. Even "Nerd has power" cannot tell if the same Wumao changed not only his name but also his email address when posting. You never know. Haha...

Ahai Tol
9/17/2020 03:50:09 am

The CCP’s paid hacks are all out attacking Yan Mengli in this forum. Brave Ms. Yan must have really hit a CCP nerve. The CCP is now making it difficult for relevant medical and research personnel from defecting to the West. The CCP’s head is exploding, all thanks to brave Ms. Yan.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
9/17/2020 08:45:19 am

Reading through your posts,I don't see you have contributed more to this blog than I. So, no need to point fingers around before checking yourself first. All I see is that you are dragging Nerd has power's time to answer this or that question. Even I answered one of your questions. No need to ask Nerd has power to rewrite his or her essay in your specific direction or a politically correct way. Simply start with yourself. Aren't you claiming that you are writing a book?
Why don't you publish yours and post a link here to let everyone here to comment on?

Reply
Greg Felton
9/17/2020 03:50:15 am

Ahai tol, you are a pathetic, hostile broken record. You have nothing to say and you keep saying it.

I urge Nerd to remove you from this thread because you have nothing of scientific value to contribute.

Reply
Ahai Tol
9/17/2020 04:03:40 am

Well I implore Nerd to keep me on as I am actually following the science. I just don’t want CCP apparatchiks censoring what we’re discussing here so that it adheres to the CCP’s talking points, as it is very obvious that Nerd started this project with the expectation that the CCP will come hard after him and trying to misdirect the thrust of his research and analysis.

Reply
Greg Felton
9/17/2020 01:05:29 pm

You have shown no interest in science and are preoccupied with defaming me because I do not worship Yan Mengli. I have asked Nerd to remove you because nobody should be subjected to abuse. You have no idea who I am and have NO RIGHT to call me a CCP apparatchik.

For those who understand the science (i.e. not you or CCP is NAZI) can someone explain how Bat-CoV-ZC45 could be the backbone for SARS-CoV-2 given that the number of nucleotide mismatches?

CCP is NAZI
9/17/2020 02:43:47 pm

For those who understand the science? Lol, science has so many areas such as virology, biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, computer science, astronomy and many more. Those who claim themselves know science and assume others don't are ignorant and narcissistic. A biased or narrow minded scientist in his field is no better than someone who is not in the same field but has strong analytical reasoning and research skills.

Reply
Greg Felton
9/17/2020 02:48:45 pm

I couldn't care less what you think. I am addressing those on this site that have the intelligence and maturity to discuss the science of SARS-CoV-2 .That disqualifies you since all you can do is insult and throw tantrums.

CCP is NAZI
9/17/2020 03:02:00 pm

You are just as disqualified by asking others to rewrite without incorporating bio-weapons when more and more witness of Chinese bioweapons have emerged. No need to ask Nerd has power to rewrite his or her essay in your specific direction or a politically correct way. You have all your right to write your own, but you have no right to ask others to write something in your way. Simply start from yourself. Aren't you claiming that you are writing a book? Does your book even have a chapter? Why don't you publish yours and post a link here to let everyone here comment on?

Ahai Tol
9/17/2020 06:18:55 pm

Says the person who insults other people and throw tantrums because he can’t make everyone rewrite their analysis to agree with his CCP talking points ..... ?

Greg Felton said:
“I am addressing those on this site that have the intelligence and maturity to discuss the science of SARS-CoV-2 .That disqualifies you since all you can do is insult and throw tantrums.“

Ahai Tol
9/17/2020 06:22:03 pm

Well said.

“CCP is NAZI said:

For those who understand the science? Lol, science has so many areas such as virology, biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, computer science, astronomy and many more. Those who claim themselves know science and assume others don't are ignorant and narcissistic. A biased or narrow minded scientist in his field is no better than someone who is not in the same field but has strong analytical reasoning and research skills.”

Ape link
9/17/2020 12:40:16 pm

If I understand this article, the absence of mutation is the tell-tale sign of anthropic meddling, though some of the earliest comments on this thread suggest the opposite is evidence of Covid's lab origin? - https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2020/09/09/alina-chan-broad-institute-coronavirus/

Reply
CCP is NAZI
9/17/2020 02:48:45 pm

Didn't we just talk about Chinese bioweapons? There comes another witness other than Dr. Yan. Let's see what he has to say:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/16/second-china-defector-gives-biological-weapons-inf/

More to come and the truth will be uncovered.

Reply
Greg Felton
9/17/2020 03:08:28 pm

CCP is NAZI: *Yawn* [Communication terminated]

Reply
Greg Felton
9/17/2020 03:10:14 pm

Can anyone address the claim that ZC45 is the backbone for SARS-CoV-2?

Reply
Bemused101
9/17/2020 03:28:13 pm

Most of the scientific discussion on this blog is way beyond me. However, I am enjoying trying to get my ahead around at least the key concepts. Some of the recent comments have provided some comedy relief! It is hilarious watching some of the bloggers here jump to conclusions. One blogger makes a polite suggestion. Then others pile in suggesting that the blogger and defenders of the blogger are pro-CCP. I get that we are in heightened times of paranoia. But really.

I must read up more on CCP/Wumao teardown strategy- I thought it was very direct and devoid of subtelty.

Disclosure: I come from a country that China considers us to be chewing gum under their shoes. Just lovely.

Reply
Greg Felton
9/17/2020 03:32:26 pm

Hi Bemused 101: Good to hear from you. I am glad that someone has picked up on the petulant conduct of those two bloggers, who shall remain nameless. I, too, am learning about the epidemiology behind SARS-CoV-2 and find the SCIENTIFIC discussions on this site most helpful.

Reply
Bemused101
9/17/2020 04:56:32 pm

Hi Greg- one must keep things civil and polite at all times. I understand where some of these bloggers are coming from/relating to how the CCP operates. However- they never faced my mother (RIP) and he rules when it came to (lack of) politeness and manners. Fearsome!!

Ahai Tol
9/17/2020 06:10:17 pm

Another Wumao team mate inducted in to create the fiction that there is organic agreement around the talking points being pushed by the CCP propaganda arm ..... as well as an excuse to censor talking points not in agreement with the CCP. Even your email templates are the same ....

Reply
CCP is NAZI
9/17/2020 03:49:18 pm

It looks like if a conversation is in someone's interest, even if it's off topic, it's still fine. But if it's against his interest, he will then demand others get back on topic. How hypocritical!

Reply
CCP is NAZI
9/17/2020 04:32:42 pm

A polite suggestion with an impolite intention is just as impolite. The author has already presented his/her reasoning and argument. Now s/he is asked to rewrite a CCP friendly one for a book that probably does not even have a chapter. When asking that person to write his own and post a link of his own book or even a single page, then nothing is heard.

P.S. not all Wumaos live in China - they are in every level in every country thanks to CCP's infiltration

Reply
Ahai Tol
9/17/2020 04:49:52 pm

Amen.

And not all Wumaos use Chinese sounding names. Western sounding names are a favorite as it initially can mask the angle of attack .... but eventually you’ll notice a similarity in style, tactics, and direction of misdirection.

Reply
Bemused101
9/17/2020 04:50:11 pm

Hello CCP is Nazi. I don't understand how the original polite post from TED can be seen as CCP friendly. I thought the CCP were unfriendly to any suggestion that this virus wasn't of zoonotic origin. One wonders if the "milk before meat" adage applies here. That is: placing so much emphasis on the bioweapon argument is too hard for most people to digest and is therefore quickly discarded. And the more digestible bites of information around GoF, lab leaks etc are also discarded.

Reply
Bemused101
9/17/2020 05:12:48 pm

Correction: That the more digestible bites (GoF) lab leaks may not be so quickly discarded.

CCP is NAZI
9/17/2020 06:56:17 pm

Bemused101:

Placing so much emphasis on the bioweapon argument is too hard for most people? To whose standard? Yours? or CCP's? Ya, quickly discarded by CCP sponsored journals, as it's not in favor of CCP.

The CCP are unfriendly to anything against them. However, the world virologists are not as stupid as the CCP wish, especially, two virologist fled China with evidence. Now that achieving the impossible is unrealistic, getting away from the world's bioweapon blame on them can reduce their crime to minimal. Even though Nerd has power has presented his/her argument and answered numerous times that it's a product of bioweapon, there still came Ted's polite post to ask the author to write one without the most critical part. It's like asking Jews to say Nazi are good guys. Anyone has his or her right to write whatever s/he wants, but don't ask others to write what you want them to just like what a dictator would do. S/he post his/her work here just to share ideas instead of excluding CCP sensitive topics to get papers published so that they can get CCP's funding like many unethical and unprofessional scientists do. S/he is not here to gain fame or money.

Nerd has power just stated again, "To me, it is a product of a bioweapon's program.".

David Rivard
9/17/2020 06:26:03 pm

There are few discourses where a non-scientist, like me, can participate in a scientific discussion about this historic event which we are all a part of. This site makes me feel like I am a part of the story taking shape. “ I'm just an Ironworker and I can still figure this stuff out". As this virus reminds us, we are all the same species and whatever intellectual or physical advantages we individually think we have over one another the differences are so slight that, with equal training, we are lucky to trim off a minute over the distance of a marathon. In reality, there are probably well over 25% of the 7.8 billion people on the planet that see what I see. That's almost 2 billion people! Even if I'm half wrong, there are almost a billion of us.

Thanks to The Nerd, Dr. Li-Meng Yan, Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson and this sites scientists, even the trolls, we can all help shape C-19 information instead of being used by it.

Additionally there are hundreds of blogs popping up, with perhaps millions of followers, that talk about the clinical aspects of their own experience. It is not encouraging. Their anecdotal records tell sobering stories about the chronic nature of C-19. They keep alive still unanswered questions about the clinical nature of their experiences. What constitutes “recovery” when they tested positive and are still exhibiting symptoms for 9 months? What does “asymptomatic” mean when they tested positive but did not exhibit respiratory symptoms and were sent home with chronic fatigue? Many thousands talk about how the virus somehow de-vitalizes their life, where only an athlete can measure past performances with a more probable certainty. What do their futures hold?

Even if this blog arrives at it’s answer, your genomic contributions will live on as they match with clinical manifestations. The viral structural research you all edit and correct will translate into clinical settings (even if patients are sitting at home). Can you help predict what will their lives be like in another 9 or more months? What about the devitalized economic and political system? These are some of the issues this blog brushes against and this site brings a bright light to at least those one billion or so like me that need to be a part of this path of discovery.

When we hear bickering, people like me feel like you used to feel when your parents were bickering. It produces an insecurity because each of you have become individual characters I have come to know, even if not admired, in a novella I cannot turn off. I want all of the characters to stay! Together with the other information in my environment I will make up my own mind.

Also, I find Dr. Li-Meng Yan credible on many personal and professional fronts. I think she is a courageous heroine at a time when the world needs one and is helping to stimulate (like you are all doing) the dialogue to its truthful conclusion, either way. Even if her conclusions are somehow mistaken, she is emblematic of how the public media has taken away our options for public dialogue, and why people like me so value “The Nerd”. Give her patience in terms of rigorously defending her position. Think of her own resourcing at this point, both emotional and financial. Is she defending her thesis sitting in some room while worrying about her next meal and keeping her internet going while bickering with her husband? God only knows that the CCP wants immediate results in keeping her silenced or at least getting her back, whatever she can contribute. I only assume that her resourcing and protection is, logically, coming from US.GOV, with resources, at least, that far out match ours for discerning the truth (and maybe we are all a part of that intelligence too). For sure she has both China and the U.S. monitoring – and recording - her every conversation and research site.

In concourse, it will be our elected officials making decisions that are more consequential than us trying to persuade our fellow C-19 colleagues, but in the mean time, we can all give her a welcome. There are precious few of us, and she should feel welcomed to the team.

Reply
Ahai Tol
9/17/2020 07:07:53 pm

Totally agree with this: All we want is to participate in and learn from open scientific discussions without fear of being censored by government-funded apparatchiks that want to misdirect us to different directions that are convenient for a certain government.

My sincerest sympathies to the brave Ms. Yan as the CCP’s Wumao knives are all out for her.

Reply
Greg Felton
9/17/2020 07:19:24 pm

So, how long will my posts be held up, Nerd? I am not the one who started this, and I have been treated sith conspicuous disrespect. I am genuinely interested in your response to my question about ZC45 and SARS-CoV-2.

Reply
Ahai Tol
9/17/2020 07:53:42 pm

Respect is earned, not demanded while throwing tantrums.

Reply
Mr.Trololo
9/18/2020 03:16:37 pm

Excuse me, Nerd has power, are you this one?
https://mobile.twitter.com/nerdhaspower/status/1305505842150608896

Reply
Virus Hunter
9/18/2020 04:28:10 pm

I honestly dont find any of your arguments convincing. Your claims about improbability of natural evolution are pure speculation. You just cannot ignore the fact that many Sarbecoviruses still remain undiscovered (closer relatives etc.) and that its not so easy to find them in the first place (we have only scratched the surface). Next, Im fully aware that the CCP is capable of something like this and that it could serve them well but thats not evidence. Do you really think the CCP would use Shi Zhengli to create SARS-CoV-2? She is arguably the most famous coronavirus expert in the entire world and has also conducted gain of function research. There are likely other less known scientists capable of this. If their intention was to hide the truth...why Shi? Shi would be the first suspect by default. Now lets assume it wasnt Shi but rather someone else and lets assume its not an accident but intentional. If so...why in the freaking universe would they release it in Wuhan??? Im sure there are even better locations to start the epidemic if your goal is to spread the virus worldwide quickly. Why do it in the city that harbors the workplace of Shi Zhengli? Also isnt it reasonable to assume that something like this should have been planned for awhile? If so why not fabricate and publish the RaTG13 genome in advance instead?A reactionary publication only raises suspicion. I dont really find the "missing RaTG13 samples" suspicous either. Now correct me if Im wrong, but Shi has been identifying viruses by sequencing a short fragment in their RdRp region and only taking interest in the ones closely related to SARS-CoV. Those are the ones she used to sequence and keep as physical samples for further research. There was no reason for her to keep RaTG13 then. You said that its RBD sequence should have alarmed her but since she didnt sequence it back then it couldnt (again maybe my memory serves me wrong and I should have checked the paper again before commenting but I dont remember her presenting the RBD sequence). Back to Wuhan. Why would they claim there that SARS-CoV-2 was not found in animals at the Huanan Seafood Market? I imagine fabricating evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in an animal would have been the best thing to lie about (found in an animal from the market, just like SARS-CoV...excellent case closed!). Of course you could argue that their plan to cover their tracks was flawed but honestly...some of the flaws are so bad that it looks as if a brain-damaged person planned it out.

Reply
yano
9/18/2020 05:08:34 pm

Exactly, a bunch of dummies running around messing things up.

Although it is an excellent cover, to appear so dumb as to infect your own people. Brilliant!

Reply
Virus Hunter
9/18/2020 06:18:08 pm

@yano

Releasing the virus outside of mainland China would have been even more suspicious dont you think?

@Greg Felton

There isnt any definite proof on either side and there might aswell not be any in the future. The vast pro-lab origin arguments presented in the comments boil down to "x seems strange therefore its manmade" (especially concerning genomic data) and from what Ive read here all of them have been countered with a natural alternative (without any hard evidence aswell). I have yet to see anyone from the "pro-lab origin" side accept the fact that there just isnt enough data on all the undiscovered SARSr-CoVs to reach a conclusion. If in addition to that you cannot explain all the inconsistencies mentioned in my previous comment its not that unreasonable to dismiss the claim.

Greg Felton
9/18/2020 05:11:20 pm

Virus Hunter: Perhaps you could regale us with some definitive proof of natural origin instead of engaging in deflection and reciting cognitive denials. If you want proof that the natural-origin theory is untenable, I would be happy to send you a copy of my book when it comes out this fall.

Reply
yano
9/18/2020 05:18:41 pm

Birger Sørensen:

“The only place we are aware of where an equivalent virus to that which causes Covid-19 exists is in a laboratory,” Sørensen told Minerva. “So the simplest and most logical explanation is that it comes from a laboratory. Those who claim otherwise, have the burden of proof.”

Simple: Those who claim otherwise, have the burden of proof.

Reply
Greg Felton
9/18/2020 06:50:46 pm

Virus Hunter:
The strength of the "Pro-lab" argument comes largely from the fact that the pro-nature argument is devoid of evidence. The zoonotic theory defenders have nothing but generic clichés about bats, cheap shots against those who can prove gain-of-function manipulation and cognitive denial.

I have no problem asserting a lab origin because the genomic mutations in SARS-CoV-2 could not have come from nature.

It is also not good enough for you to hide behind the claim of a lack of proof. In fact, your bias for zoonotic origin exposes your appeal to skepticism as a cynical feint.

If you cannot offer proof that the lab origin theory is wrong, then all you are doing is muddying the waters.

Reply
Virus Hunter
9/18/2020 07:13:45 pm

"I have no problem asserting a lab origin because the genomic mutations in SARS-CoV-2 could not have come from nature."

This is an empty assertion. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that. So far nobody did it in the comment section.

Bias for zoonotic origin? Are you serious? The entire human history is filled with pandemics and local epidemics caused by species spillover. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV both spilled over in the past 20 years. What about antibodies to bat SARSr-CoVs in people in some rural areas in China clearly demonstrating that spillovers of such viruses are more common than originally thought (also in China which is one of the countries at highest risk of spillover and spread in the world). What about the abundance and diversity of SARSr-CoVs in bat populations. Have you ever heard about SADS, a CoV that spilled over to swine in China decimating piglets? If you call these "clichés about bats" than you must be pretty ignorant. Oh and lets just forget Hendra and Nipah the newly emerging bat origin Paramyxoviruses in India/Bangladesh/Malaysia/Australia.

"The strength of the "Pro-lab" argument comes largely from the fact that the pro-nature argument is devoid of evidence." --> "It is also not good enough for you to hide behind the claim of a lack of proof." You exposed your own bias with these statements.

Reply
Greg Felton
9/18/2020 07:50:39 pm

Thanks for committing intellectual suicide by doing exactly what zoonotic apologists do. Nothing you say is remotely relates to SARS-CoV-2; all you have is whinging and non-responsive, historical (or is that, hysterical) boilerplate about the history of viruses. This attempt at argument is tautological because it implicitly assumes a zoonotic origin. In logic that is known As “The Genetic Fallacy.”

You are also woefully uninformed because the comments section is full of evidence in favour of lab origin, but I don’t suppose you really looked.

Clearly, your non-responsive, repetitive, hostile behaviour marks you as a troll, and a defeated one at that.

Reply
Virus Hunter
9/18/2020 08:09:16 pm

Nothing in the comment section is anything close to solid conclusive evidence. Most of the arguments have been challenged with alternative explanations. Maybe you should scroll up again and reread them. I see you like logical fallacies - guess what, claiming that feature X of SARS-CoV-2 is suspicious because it doesnt exist in other KNOWN SARSr-CoVs or that feature Y couldnt have occurred just because you cannot think of an alternative is an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.

I see that you are so blinded by your biases that you havent even read what I said. I clearly stated that there is no conclusive evidence on both sides and considering the very real "historical boilerplate" a zoonotic origin is still more plausible. I sense alot of aggression in your comments. Getting emotional? Proclaiming victory? Lol. If presenting reality to you is trolling then I have nothing else to say. Goodbye. There are some people here who I believe can produce more credible evidence but I dont think you are one of them.

Reply
Greg Felton
9/18/2020 08:33:02 pm

I accept your inability to argue rationally.

Thanks for playing.

yano
9/18/2020 09:38:29 pm

"Nothing in the comment section is anything close to solid conclusive evidence."

What would be solid evidence?

The restriction sites around the RBM seems like pretty good evidence of lab creation. The finding shows that EcoRI and BstEII sites do not exist in the spike genes of other β coronaviruses. Is this correct?

And to have these sites surrounding the RBM. Man, seems awfully unprobable. And to have two such site, one at the front of the RBM and one at the back of the RBM.

One site would be unusual, but to have both flanking. Wow! Seems pretty good. No?

The claim is that's the smoking gun.
More probable a lab creation than a natural one.

Other competent scientists have said, "more than 90% certain that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a laboratory." I tend to agree, but I would weight the probability of lab creation a little higher.

Jenny
9/18/2020 10:02:40 pm

How do you explain that no other CoV which harbour a furin cleavage site use ACE2 receptor for cell entry? SARS-CoV-2 is really a wonder from nature, also considering the double CGG, never seen coding for that sequence. Just to remind you, the furin cleavage site is new in SARS-CoV-2 group. Sarbecovirus do not really need it, because they have at the same position another kind of cleavage site. Why should it then naturally evolve? This special sequence, which is conveniently creating a FauI restriction site, permits to track if the cleavage site is lost by cell passage. Because, beside human airway cell, this site seems to impede, more than help the virus for cell entry.

Xoco Latte
9/19/2020 02:51:58 am

Uh-uh... sorry: is this when clapping required? Congrats, this was really, truly groundbreaking, earth-shattering. Genius.

Or, on the contrary, 100% pure bullshit.

I can see now what is happining here: troll armies have been directed to come and post here until kingdom come.
What a fucking shame, again!

yano
9/18/2020 10:37:39 pm

What is the probability of a natural occurring virus having all of the features of SARS Cov 2?

I saw someone above did this with the E protein being 100% the same as another coronavirus. Seems the probability was pretty low (but not zero) if I remember correctly.

I think a few of us have done this in our minds, maybe done the weighting over all the issues. But a scientific approach would help.

What is the probability of a natural virus having,
1) the E protein being 100% AND
2) the protein similarity to ZC45 AND
3) the SARS2 RBM having the same bindings and SARS1 AND
4) the RBM being bound by two restriction sites AND
5) the SARS2 having a furin cleavage site AND
6) the furin cleavage site having unique and special markers CGG CGG
7) the SARS2 spike binding affinity being greatest for humans AND
8) the list goes on

I mean, all these low probabilities multiply together to make a crazy low probability of a natural virus.

If we can get some real numbers, then the scientist and statisticians have something to measure.

Once people have agreed to the methods, hard to argue with the numbers.

Reply
yano
9/19/2020 11:46:51 am

From John F Signus above

"Considering the levels of protein sequence conservation across the rest of the sequences (which was to assume that the number of variable positions within the rest of the viral sequence being similar to that of the variability of the E protein itself as seen in other bat coronaviruses), however, this chance pummels to 0.9948692^1563=0.00032228, about 0.04%."

This is just the E protein probability.

If this kind of analysis can be done on all of the genomic anomalies, it might just be the science needed to prove the 99.999% probability of a lab creation. Of course you can never get to 100% probability.

I would love that to be published right next to the proximal origin Andersen paper. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9. Hey Andersen, your work only has a 0.000001% chance of being true. :D

Reply
Vasile
9/19/2020 08:33:51 pm

.Good point about Andersen's paper.

Reply
Xoco Latte
9/20/2020 03:52:44 am

I unsuccessfully tried to find this paper here in the earlier comments:

"Anomalies in BatCoV/RaTG13 sequencing and provenance" written by Daoyu Zhang (https://zenodo.org/record/4008432#.X2cy3mgzaMo)

He reports the available RaTG13 datasets possess multiple significant anomalies, and the provenence of the promised claims of RaTG13 or its role in proving a probable bat origin of SARS CoV 2 cannot be satisfied nor possibly be confirmed.

An independent piece of evidential claim against RaTG13.

Reply
Xoco Latte
9/20/2020 04:18:35 am

With regards to the above referred paper, a take-home message is concluded by the author as this (most of the methods and figures are way beyond my abilities of comprehension, so I tend to accept his Conclusions):

"The raw data of BtCoV/RaTG13 contained multiple anomalies that signifies that the original sample could not have contained enough RNA template for the extraction of a complete viral genome as in MN996532.
Furthermore, many of these anomalies points toward the fraudulent use of a mixed DNA library, rather than genuine mRNA, for the sequencing of SRX7724752, evident by the presence of widespread A--T ligation of unrelated dsDNA fragments that can only happen if the same library preparation process have been ran on dsDNA instead of ssRNA, which would constitute Academic fraud.
Therefore, the sequencing of BtCoV/RaTG13 can not be considered to be valid or honest as is, and any publications, including [2], and other publications that cites or use RaTG13 as critical pieces of evidence or proof, must be immediately invalidated and retracted."

Now, I understand Nerdshavepower stance on RaTG13 sequence being just a fake typewriting specimen, but the author of this paper actually looked into the published GeneBank sequences and tried to figure out if they could be technically isolated from bat shit using standard methodology.
I would wager a sizeable amount of cash, that this "bat" CoV/RaTG13 coronavirus would never have a real chance of infecting the proper cells, or for that matter, Rhinopulos bats. Ever.

Reply
Babstar
9/20/2020 03:07:04 pm

I would wager a sizeable amount of cash, that this "bat" CoV/RaTG13 coronavirus would never have a real chance of infecting the proper cells, or for that matter, Rhinopulos bats. Ever.

This raises the question about why the most obvious experiment has not been published: Reconstruct RaTG13 using cDNA as was demonstrated in Nature (Rapid reconstruction of SARS-CoV-2 using a synthetic genomics platform https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2294-9#auth-Doreen-Muth )
It would only take a few weeks and see just what it will and won't infect on live cell lines and it's various ACE2 binding affinities actually are.

Why hasn't this been done?

하얀 왕관 참새 - PhD
9/20/2020 06:01:22 pm

@babstar some of this work has been done already and mentioned by nerdhaspower in the other article on this page and likely will appear in the 2nd Yan paper as well.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2179-y

From nerd: "​How does RaTG13, which was discovered in 2013, compare to these most cherished collections of Shi’s?

By appearance, RaTG13 clearly belongs to the “good-looking” group. It rivals with the best ones in its completeness of the RBD sequence as well as in the conservation of critical amino acids. While a single amino acid insertion is observed, it occurs in a variable region and can be easily tolerated without affecting the protein function. Importantly, RaTG13 preserves the binding motifs as much as, if not better than, any other bat coronavirus in Shi’s list. At position 442, RaTG13 has a “L”, which beats most, if not all, bat viruses in resembling the “Y” in SARS RBD (“L” and “Y” both mediate hydrophobic interactions). At position 472, RaTG13 is the only bat coronavirus that has the residue “L”, which is identical to SARS. Although the amino acids at the other three positions are not identical to their counterparts in SARS, they are all conservative mutations, which may not negatively impact the protein’s function. (In fact, a very recent publication confirmed that the RBD from RaTG13, like SARS RBD, can indeed bind the human ACE2 receptor (5). Note: the RaTG13 RBD gene used in this work was synthesized).

As an expert as Shi is, she only needed to take one peek at the sequence of RaTG13’s RBD and immediately realize: this virus closely resembles SARS in its RBD and has a clear potential of infecting humans. If Shi’s public statement is true and she indeed intends to discover bat coronaviruses with a potential to cross-over to humans, how could she possibly overlook this extremely interesting finding of RaTG13? If this RaTG13 was discovered SEVEN years ago in 2013, why did Shi not publish this astonishing finding earlier and yet let the “less-attractive” viruses take the stage? Why did she decide to publish such a sequence only when the current outbreak took place and people started questioning the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus?"

Reply
하얀 왕관 참새 - PhD
9/20/2020 06:22:25 pm

@babstar

It's an active area of research.

See also this: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.032342v1

this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7337384/

and this from John F. Signus

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XrgovgELzNHb1wWxTrkX1OooBSFv_Ysn/view?usp=drivesdk

A combination of those upper two papers I've linked, wherein it tries to normalize and understand both results (which admittedly may not be a great way to do science by post-hoc comparing two groups values as they may have arrived there through different means, but, hey, whaddya gonna do? gotta interpret multiple groups findings SOMEHOW)

Also: WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO JOHN F. SIGNUS?!? COME BACK!!

Reply
yano
9/20/2020 06:29:06 pm

From the Nerd above:

"In case you missed them, here are some new publications you might want to check out:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.178459v1.full
(RaTG13 RBD does not bind ACE2 from two types of horseshoe bats AT ALL)


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.19.158717v1
(Not a single coronavirus detected in over 300 Malay pangolins samples collected from 2009 to 2019)


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374v1
(all the recently published pangolin coronaviruses are based on a single source)"


These are significant links

Reply
yano
9/20/2020 06:35:40 pm

The bat virus that does not bind to bats. lol.

Reply
하얀 왕관 참새 - PhD
9/20/2020 07:13:39 pm

Yano: yeah the pangolin thing has been done for a while. The RBD differs from sars-cov-2 too much at the nucleotide level (the only level that matters) for it to be related.

Additonally, Alina Chan is working on officially publishing this:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374v1

Essentially stating: "To our knowledge, all of the published pangolin CoV genome sequences that share a nearly identical Spike receptor binding domain with SARS-CoV-2 originate from this single batch of smuggled pangolins. This raises the question of whether pangolins are truly reservoirs or hosts of SARS-CoV-2-related coronaviruses in the wild, or whether the pangolins may have contracted the CoV from another host species during trafficking. Our observations highlight the importance of requiring authors to publish their complete genome assembly pipeline and all contributing raw sequence data, particularly those supporting epidemiological investigations, in order to empower peer review and independent analysis of the sequence data."

And that's her being polite. What she's actually saying is: "Stop lying with the pangolin stuff. Start being honest. With all your genetic engineering pipelines and protocols."

Praise Alina. Take our energy!

Greg Felton
9/20/2020 07:22:32 pm

하얀 왕관 참새 - PhD:

Thanks for the attitude!

Reply
하얀 왕관 참새 - PhD
9/20/2020 07:33:35 pm

there's saying that i'm paraphrasing but it goes like
"those that cannot attack the substance of the argument attack the form".

Your sarcasm is not unnoticed in regards to your comment and my tone. Please do your reading before you ask other questions that are answered with simple googling. I'm being civil with you and I ask that you do not reply to me with sarcasm any further. This thread is already long enough, so please try to just respond with content, rather than commentary that is sarcastic.

Let us know what you find after reading the stuff I posted.

Reply
Greg Felton
9/20/2020 07:38:39 pm

It is clear that you think very highly of yourself, and I am only to happy to bask in the munificence of your contributions.

Anonymous
9/20/2020 07:50:15 pm

Thank you for putting the so called Google-challenged book author in his/her proper place. It’s good to see it disabused of its notion that it has been positively contributing to this thread.

하얀 왕관 참새
9/20/2020 08:11:40 pm


Are you done being sarcastic? I've provided links and contributed to this thread. Please do your research if you're writing the book, rather than ask us here.

I do appreciate your condemnation of Virus Hunter, btw.

Greg Felton
9/20/2020 10:54:31 pm

하얀 왕관 참새:

Let me assure you that my Google research skills are in fine working order. My difficulty lay in understanding certain aspects of the explanations. I appreciate your efforts, but my responses were appropriate. I think we’re done. Thanks for you support re: Virus Hunter.

Reply
The Philosopher
9/21/2020 12:09:29 am

Some more good tweets:

1) https://twitter.com/BidoliNicola/status/1306618752881037312
Bidoli Nicola engaging with known molecular geneticist Professor Tom Ellis. Ellis acknowledges the virus can be of lab origin (just like Jason Kaelber) through such techniques as outlined by Yan, but 'no one clones like this).

Remember that, because the people the media chose to talk to originally said that a lab origin was impossible or that the techniques weren't available, or there needed to be a known backbone, so you'd be able to spot it, yadda yadda ('n o see um' technology papers must have not been on their radars?) Basically, all manner of excuses that were disingenuous as to the knowledge about what actually can be done in terms of research.

Now they're saying "well, yes it can be done, but no one does like that."
Wrong! As stated above, only recently has non ligation-based technology been developed.
""A ligation and restriction enzyme independent cloning technique: an alternative to conventional methods for cloning hard-to-clone gene segments in the influenza reverse genetics system""

so Dr. Shi was likely using the typical technologies.

A tweet corroborates this (good account to follow) :
https://twitter.com/pangukaitiandi/status/1307866059693727744

Finally, according to this prolific tweeter RMYN02 definitely doesn't have a furin cleavage site. So we really need to either
a) find a related bat betacoronavirus that actually has one to help support the natural origin ... or
b) really understand that this was likely fraudulent and sars-cov-2 definitely stands out due to having this cleavage site

Reply
The Philosopher
9/21/2020 12:34:45 am

Oops, here's the tweet for the above re: rmyn02
https://twitter.com/flavinkins/status/1307681512020615173

Reply
yano
9/21/2020 06:26:52 pm

"Remember that, because the people the media chose to talk to originally said that a lab origin was impossible or that the techniques weren't available, or there needed to be a known backbone, so you'd be able to spot it, yadda yadda ('n o see um' technology papers must have not been on their radars?) Basically, all manner of excuses that were disingenuous as to the knowledge about what actually can be done in terms of research."

There are several human issues at work here,

Scientist working in the virology field have a conflict of interest they are hiding. They want the virus to be from nature to prevent funding sources from drying up (and other reasons). Really an unbiased third party should making decisions around what is fact and what is fiction.

I think some scientist are actually ignorant of the no-see'em technology. They are behind the times. Either that, or they are liars, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Trump came out early and stated that SARS-2 was made in China at a lab. The media was looking for any source to prove Trump wrong.


Reply
Another Interested One
9/21/2020 04:26:21 am

To all: let us tone down the level of rhetoric where we need to and have a respectful debate. There is enough rancor outside of this forum for that. This is why people like me dislike social media so much and do not like to participate.

However, here is something for everyone to think about.

Scientists have been doing gain of function (GOF) experiments with coronaviruses for decades. They do these for two reasons: (1) to try to understand spillover events; and (2) to try to make a live attenuated pan-coronavirus vaccine. Both of these types of experiments were being done in Wuhan last year. There is a large body of published literature establishing this fact. These statements are not in dispute.

In 2014 the US Government NIH announced a pause on funding GOF research until an appropriate mechanism for control of this research could be completed. There were apparently many exceptions to this ban, although use of NIH funds outside of the US for this work was apparently not allowed during this time period.

In 2015 a collaboration between the Wuhan lab and another lab at the University of North Carolina published a GOF coronavirus paper in Nature Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/. In this paper all the reasons above for doing GOF experiments were explained and tested. These investigators made a recombinant construct of the spike of a bat coronavirus found through meta-genomics of bat fecal samples (SHC 014) inserted into a mouse adapted SARS-like coronavirus strain (SARS-MA15). They called this construct SHC014-MA15. Surprisingly, this new live coronavirus construct bound human ACE2 (hACE2) expressed on Vero E6 cells despite SHC014 not binding hACE2 in a lentiviral construct applied to these cells. It also caused lethal disease in mice. It worked as a live vaccine against wild type SARS-MA15 infection in young mice, but in some aged mice caused death as well as antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) with this toxicity at higher doses in others.

There are two concerns with this paper, one noted by Dr. Yan, that nobody critiquing her paper talks about.

The first involves the funding. The Nature Medicine paper was published in November 2015. The GOF pause by the NIH was deliberated at the time (2015-2016) by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB). They met in January 2016 to discuss the GOF pause and agreed on ending the pause after production of a report and recommendations. The minutes of this meeting are part of the public record. In the November 2015 paper, Dr. Li did not include that her work was in part funded by the NIH through the Eco Health Alliance, in apparent violation of the GOF research pause. This was corrected in an April 2016 corrigendum https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095988/, after the NSABB meeting. While the timing is suspicious, no nefarious intent is implied. This however does require an explanation.

The second involves the construct itself. SHC014-MA15 was quietly deposited in Genbank in May 2020, 4.5 years after the original publication. This was also issued in a corrigendum https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7242891/. My understanding is that sequences of viral constructs need to be made available at the time of publication. Why did the investigators wait so long to release the sequence, in the middle of a pandemic of a similar virus, especially for work with such far-reaching implications? Bioinformaticians should examine this. No nefarious intent is implied, but this also needs an explanation.

It is as if we had an Ebola outbreak in Atlanta, where the US CDC is located, and where investigators are studying Ebola and trying to make vaccines against it. We would all want to know everything that would refute the possibility of a lab escape, since nobody wants the question hanging out there.

I am sure there are trivial answers for the above questions. Since the future relations of China with the rest of the world are affected by these answers, as well as how we handle the virus going forward depend on these answers, I truly hope so.

Reply
The Philosopher
9/21/2020 08:27:15 am

@Another Interested One: " to try to make a live attenuated pan-coronavirus vaccine"
response: To my knowledge, no such vaccine has been made, nor has progress been made.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=baric%2C+R+vaccine&filter=pubt.review&sort=pubdate&size=200

In the section of Ralph's recent review called "Unconventional Vaccines and Therapeutics – Gene Therapies":
At most, they are spitballing ideas to get more grants, like using AAVs as gene therapy to get a vaccine, with AAVs as the means of delivery. That still doesn't solve the issue of needing the genetic code for the right antigen! I thought you and Dr. Shi were working on identifying a pan-coronaviral vaccine, Ralph? Still no luck, I see. Well, keep trying. Maybe you'll get it. It's a very disingenuous point of them to make.

"although use of NIH funds outside of the US for this work was apparently not allowed during this time period."
my response: Ecohealth Alliance is a stupidly and suspiciously-named NGO that takes the NIH grants, is based in the US (NYC IIRC), and then provides funds to China. Run by Dazsak (LOL!). Isn't funneling funds through an NGO a loophole? Anyone wanna correct me on that? I think that's how they bypass the moratorium, but I'm willing to be wrong as I'm not a funding person, but an experiments person. The minutia of this sort of thing were never important to me, but now I see it could be a little important.

"The Nature Medicine paper was published in November 2015. The GOF pause by the NIH was deliberated at the time (2015-2016)"

my response: I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the research, like most science, took a year or more to do and then write up, so well before the moratorium started, they had finished the actual experiments. The writeup was likely finished when they heard about the moratorium and finished peer-review around that time, so as to not be on anyone's bad side. I think that's reasonable to conclude that they were in the clear in terms of the experimental timeline vs. when the moratorium took effect.

Anything after that, though, is suspect, especially if it used ecohealth alliance money and therefore, NIH money. Which it did.

"Why did the investigators wait so long to release the sequence, in the middle of a pandemic of a similar virus"

response: why, indeed? Hence why Alina Chan's upcoming paper is a polite condemnation of that practice.





Reply
yano
9/21/2020 08:42:12 am

Great post, but I'm going to have to add to 1) and 2) below.as the reasons for GOF research.

"Scientists have been doing gain of function (GOF) experiments with coronaviruses for decades. They do these for two reasons: (1) to try to understand spillover events; and (2) to try to make a live attenuated pan-coronavirus vaccine. Both of these types of experiments were being done in Wuhan last year. There is a large body of published literature establishing this fact. These statements are not in dispute."

3) Ego and one-upmanship, competition between scientist, pride and playing god.
4) Bio-weapon development dual use technology


In almost two decades of study since SARS-1 we have no vaccine. In months after the SARS-2 pandemic we are on the edge of vaccine deployment.

Pretty good evidence no one was working on a vaccine. Maybe I'm wrong.

Did Shi or Baric publish papers about vaccines? Did their research further vaccine development science?

Seems they were just making chimeric viruses and developing engineering methods with no trace of construction. Looks like Bio-weapon development to me. Why else would you leave no trace?

The fact you can leave no trace of engineering negates any virus found in nature as it could have obviously been reverse zoonotic.
Examples of reverse zoonitic transfer are the mink farms infected with SARS2 in the Netherlands and more recently in the US.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/covid-19-hits-us-mink-farms-after-ripping-through-europe#:~:text=COVID%2D19%20has%20now%20struck,are%20raised%20for%20their%20fur.

This is a serious mess as nature now become infected with SARS2.





Reply
Another Interested One
9/21/2020 12:06:29 pm

Did Shi or Baric publish papers about vaccines? Did their research further vaccine development science?

Yes. There is a large literature on this.

In terms of minks: tree shrews are similar to minks in their ACE2, and are native to Southern Asia, are primates, and have been used in infections disease experiments in China.

Another Interested One
9/21/2020 09:53:21 am

Were they making vaccines? Of course they were. Just none of them worked that well.

Check this out: https://mbio.asm.org/content/8/6/e01503-17

This is but one example of many by the GOF guys. This is from a US lab.

Ever wonder why the mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 was lower than expected?

Ever wonder why the most frequent mutation in SARS-CoV Glue aside from D614G was in Nsp16?

Reply
The Philosopher
9/21/2020 10:16:33 am

Re nsp16: No, care to enlighten us? Also, that paper isn't explicitly about vaccines. It's also fairly dense. Maybe explain a bit?

Reply
Another Interested One
9/21/2020 10:29:38 am

Sorry for the incorrect paper. That work is related to this vaccine paper.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6096805/

Reply
Xoco Latte
9/22/2020 12:37:13 am

Hmm, this is quite interesting paper by the Baric group, seemingly reporting an unsuccessful attempt at creating a SARS CoV-1 attenuated live vaccine, based on manipulation of SARS-CoV-1 Nsp16 in a mouse model as host:

"Using the severe acute respiratory syndrome-CoV mouse model, an NSP16 mutant vaccine was evaluated for
- protection from heterologous challenge,
- efficacy in the aging host, and
- potential for reversion to pathogenesis.

Despite some success, concerns for
- virulence in the aged and
- potential for reversion
makes targeting NSP16 alone an untenable approach."

Just based on this last sentence (edited by me for dramatization purposes), SARS-CoV-2 seems to be much more worrisome. But the very existence of this report is more than enough to have a good look at Nsp16 in SARS-CoV-2...

Reply
Dan Sirotkin link
9/21/2020 12:49:04 pm

Not sure if it’s posted above, but in case anyone needs a peer reviewed source that argues for a lab release:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000091

Reply
David Rivard
9/21/2020 05:00:38 pm

More journalists jumping aboard:

https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/chinas-narrative-about-the-origin-of-covid-19-is-starting-to-unravel-297737

https://www.timesnownews.com/international/article/who-team-on-mission-to-trace-origin-of-covid-19-in-china-returns-without-visit-to-wuhan-stirs-controversy/644202




Reply
The Philosopher
9/21/2020 05:06:28 pm

"BioEssays is a monthly peer-reviewed review journal covering molecular and cellular biology. Areas covered include genetics, genomics, epigenetics, evolution, developmental biology, neuroscience, human biology, physiology, systems biology, and plant biology. The journal also publishes commentaries on aspects of science communication, education, policy, and current affairs"

I'd never heard of it but apparently it's a legit journal. Cool!

Dan, are you not a scientist? I've never heard of you or Karl, but a quick search reveals he worked at NIH? This is.... startling. To say the least. So apparently some people with inside knowledge are willing to share a hot take!

Reply
Andrew M
9/22/2020 02:04:16 am

A few minutes On Google reveals Dan is a political scientist and that the article was peer reviewed by his father. Also that Dan has an interesting personal history ("Daniel Mandel Serotkin" will get you there faster). Why is this relevant? It goes to trust as a source. Same with Dr Yan - Fox News and Steve Bannon do not inspire trust in her as a source. So you may say I should focus on her actual "research". It's very poor. What we here from her is more innuendo than science.

Alice Chan - now she appears to be a more trustworthy source. It will be interesting to see what she comes up with next.

Reply
The Philosopher
9/22/2020 03:09:33 am

You're labeling it as innuendo. Technically, it reads more like a review, which is a legitimate scientific writing format. Also many of the sources are more valid than the "proximal origin" letter (which is in fact a letter to the editor and NOT a peer-reviewed paper. look up what a "correspondence" is in Nature medicine...)

What is poor about it? Please explain your position by judging her hypotheses based on her sources. As in, judge the hypothesis based on the logical merit. There's more evidence for the accidental lab leak than a natural origin. If not, please describe evidence favoring natural origin that is parsimonious that can account for the furin cleavage site, restriction sites around the RBD, the highest affinity for the human ace2 receptor, the lack of further mutations in the RBM, Alina Chan's observation that it was already quite well adapted for the human ace2 receptor in fall of 2019, the observation that it occured in wuhan first, rather than yunnan, where the bats that host this sort of virus live....

Please do explain.

Re: Bannon. It's problematic, I agree. However, politics is hardly ever cut and dry. We tend to think the worst of people when everyone is a complex individual acting in a certain context. Should we not listen to Yan because she is now a criminal in China and the CCP would likely execute her? So now she will likely be anti-CCP?

Should we not listen to Edward Snowden because he might be anti-establishment politics in the USA (it's far more nuanced than that).

Ideally, we pay attention to logic, first and foremost, and make conclusions based on the context of that individual's history.

So far, Yan and nerdhaspower, independent of Bannon's involvement, produced stellar reporting (and Yan has a record of a career, MD, and PhD, an amazing early career she had to THROW AWAY!)... you can't discount that. Likely, as Alina has said on twitter:
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1306393776198483970

Whistleblowers need better protections, otherwise they'll end up protected by some potentially very biased individuals.

Interested One
9/22/2020 04:08:02 am

You have no idea who people like me are. If you did you may think a bit differently about these sorts of comments.

I hate social media for precisely these reasons.

It's the idea, not the person by the way. Criticize the logic and the supporting evidence, since that's what scientific debate is all about, but leave the person out of it.

It is why we have blinded peer review, and often why peer reviewers of papers and grants are often blinded to the ID of the author.

Dr. Yan, Dr. Chan, Mr. Sirotkin, and many others may be on to something here, maybe not.

I'm not sure exactly where all of this is going, but much this controversy can easily be put to rest through transparency of the associated Chinese virology laboratories. The many prominent virologists who are commenting publicly on this matter should also be transparent in the admission that GOF research was being done in Wuhan, that this GOF work is controversial, and that is it entirely plausible that a laboratory accident with a GOF viral construct could have been the proximal origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

It is a very painful and a very harsh thing to admit, and we need to be as sure of this as we can. Natural origins are still a possibility, but the lack of transparency of the laboratories involved (removing viral databases from the internet, submitting apparently incomplete Genbank entries, being sloppy with grant attributions, etc) is making this difficult to adjudicate.

I don't like to make comments on social media blogs like this one for a variety of reasons. Many of us don't. In this case my desire to see the right thing done is overwhelming my common sense.

yano
9/22/2020 09:10:22 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQplOe8-LE

Virologists get worried about the Yan report. Their faces are telling.

They use the proximal origin paper and the RmYM02 virus to "debunk" Yan's paper.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
9/22/2020 09:31:34 pm

"In Virology, we know that just one virus never comes out during a project. Usually, there are a group of virus candidates...this is just the first type, and it has already triggered a historic pandemic," says Chinese virologist Dr Li-Meng Yan

See her interview with Indian media at https://twitter.com/WIONews/status/1308438405857017857

Reply
Carmelo
9/22/2020 09:48:52 pm


https://www.huffingtonpost.it/entry/e-possibile-creare-un-virus-in-laboratorio-senza-lasciare-traccia-la-risposta-dellesperto_it_5f5f3993c5b62874bc1f7339

The microbiologist Ralph Baric, the world's leading coronavirus scholar, one of the greatest experts in the construction of synthetic viruses, speaks for the first time in Italy

Reply
The Philosopher
9/22/2020 10:21:24 pm

@Carmelo you're leaving out the juiciest bits. I'll translate from Italian (spineless- has no integrity to go on American news! Or American news are full of pro-CCP moneypushers and wouldn't want this out there)

1) “ You can engineer a virus without leaving any trace . However, the answers you are looking for can only be found in the archives of the Wuhan laboratory ". and "there is no way to distinguish a natural virus from one made in the laboratory ”

2) So you rule out SARS-CoV-2 being a laboratory chimera? we ask him. "Not with the viruses that have been sequenced and reported to date." E Are the databases public? “Yes, the sequences can be downloaded. But then I can't know if the researchers publish every single sequence. How could I know? There are millions of virus sequences… ”.

3) The question in the scientific community was therefore: if a new strain emerges is it capable of causing an epidemic or does it have to go through a series of mutations? That was what that 2015 experiment was for, and we now know that there are viruses in bats that are pre-programmed to jump from one species to another. If they do, they will reproduce well in humans, In that case we did not have access to viruses in China, all we had was the sequence: you can chemically synthesize the sequence of the virus in the laboratory and then recreate the virus ".


4) Could SARS-CoV-2 have come out of the Wuhan laboratory? Perhaps we will never know, because the international investigation, which has been underway for months, has never started. And the Wuhan databases have disappeared:in the archives of the network we discovered that Professor Shi had made available to the scientific community a very rich database specialized in bat and rodent viruses that contained data on more than 20 thousand samples and viruses collected over the years in different parts of China. It reported very detailed information: the GPS coordinates of the sampling location, the type of virus found, whether the virus had been sequenced or isolated (ie grown in cell cultures). The database provided for password access to consult data relating to viruses not yet published, with the only obligation not to disclose the information until the date of publication. However, since June the entire page has been removed from the web. Even, according to a portal that monitors China's science databases, the data was inaccessible as early as September 12, 2019. Why? What experiments were done in Wuhan?

In the investigation of PresaDiretta the anomaly of this virus is investigated. It is not yet known which animal it came from, for Sars - a few weeks after it was identified as a coronavirus - the intermediate animal was found. And then the experiments that were carried out in the Chinese laboratory, financed by the USA; the Gain of function experiments , which for a large part of the scientific world are as dangerous as playing with nuclear power.

The CCP's lack of cooperation is akin to an admission of guilt.

Baric's truth-telling here should indicate that he is accusing Andersen et al and ALL OTHER VIROLOGISTS of LYING when they say this virus could not be manmade and they needed a known backbone. This throws new light on the established narrative.

AND THIS WAS IN HUFFPOST!! How much more reputable do you need for lab leak to be plausible, people?

Reply
Xoco Latte
9/22/2020 11:55:10 pm

First of all, it is an old technique to put a big chunk of aversional/diversional piece into foreign media in foreign language, to serve an intended goal. This is no exemption either.

Secondly, this is a blatant hypocritical piece of carefully worded, filtered shite to put the blame away from himself and his decades-long collaboration and shared financial support with WIV.

The more I think about this whole story, the more I feel that certain, more or less identified American interests were also involved deeply in this story, CCP and WIV might be the director and actor, screenwriting and production have been shared by US players as well.

The Philosopher
9/23/2020 11:34:00 am

https://twitter.com/Alannah223/status/1308754171819106311

Dear internet people: If you're going to quote me, at least link back to this comment section. And also quote the correct article. replying to andersen and mentioning Baric's quotes from an article you don't even link is sloppy.

JFC

The Philosopher
9/23/2020 11:39:51 am

https://twitter.com/Alannah223
This weirdo keeps taking my words and plastering them all over twitter, along with general anti-BLM politics.

Please keep other political issues out of our discussion of the proximal origins of this virus. I have no wish to be brought into that discussion, and association with other legal/political issues hurts the credibility of this one. Get it right.

yano
9/22/2020 10:21:53 pm

Link from The Philosopher above:

"Likely, as Alina has said on twitter:
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1306393776198483970
"
Comment from Alina:
"What I do know: claiming SARS2 was derived from the Zhoushan viruses that are >3000 mutations different -- this has destroyed the report's credibility, and, more importantly, diverted attention away from RaTG13, miners, and the missing WIV virus database (the 2nd Zenodo article)."


This was also mentioned in the youtube video above.

What is the rebuttal to this argument? Greater than 3000 mutations between ZC45 and SARS CoV 2 destroyed the report's credibility,

A backbone that is fairly different than today's virus. Is this so unbelievable?

Reply
Xoco Latte
9/23/2020 12:18:08 am

I'm no expert therefore I might be off with this opinion.
RNA sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is almost 30,000 nt. The interpretation (as the basis for the intended rebuttal of Yan's report) that "greater than 3000 mutations between ZC45 and SARS CoV 2 destroys the report's credibility" is IMHO an intentional simplification and/or blatant lie.
For the lie part: the overall difference is much less than 3,000 nt (i.e. 10%), more close to 1,600 nt (5%).
For the intentional simplification part: most of difference is not based on point mutations evenly stretching the whole lenght of the sequence. Huge parts of the genome that is, by accident, code for structural and/or functional entities of the virus show none or very minimal changes, and even some of these seem not to be the result of chance. Other parts of the genome show less than 50% homology based on statistical sum of nts, but in reality, 100s of nt long stretches are actually totally different.
And, to make things even more interesting, some of these stretches of sequences are nowhere to be found in related (or totally unrelated) coronaviruses.

Reply
The Philosopher
9/23/2020 01:46:23 am

@xoco
"Huge parts of the genome that is, by accident, code for structural and/or functional entities of the virus show none or very minimal changes, and even some of these seem not to be the result of chance."

Agreed. Too many functional bits and the e-protein share nearly 100% identity. too much to be by chance. of course if you're messing with a virus you might change some bits around, hence a little bit of *overall* divergence.

She's oversimplifying for sure, but I think honestly she's trying to minimize the potential global ramifications of massive retractions and a potential escalation of US-Sino conflict. A noble goal, but I think perhaps letting the CCP off easy will hurt us in the long run. I think placating the status quo has gone on long enough.

re: "The more I think about this whole story, the more I feel that certain, more or less identified American interests were also involved deeply in this story, CCP and WIV might be the director and actor, screenwriting and production have been shared by US players as well."

I forget if it was Jamie Metzl or Bret Weinstein who said that it's likely the case that the US Labs of Baric and some others are implicated in this due to shared NIH funding w/ Dr. Shi and shared know-how. Your analogy is spot on. This is something that has culpability on multiple actors at the nation-state, institute, and PI/Lab level.

However, proximally, the CCP has the most blame for hiding the evidence directly, silencing whistleblowers,and the spread of the outbreak w/ Lunar New year travel and communal feasts. And oh yeah, actually building and accidentally leaking the construct.

Yes yes yes
9/23/2020 07:04:38 am

Spot on, Philosopher and Xoco.

The Philosopher
9/23/2020 11:55:16 am

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1308477880398155776

Someone should tell the self-styled "detective" that circumstantial evidence is still evidence in court of law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

"Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence.[6] Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence."

Now let's see if any CCP apologists edit that article. Whoops, my cynicism is seeping through. Please someone tell her this.

Reply
David Rivard
9/23/2020 01:00:54 pm

Great comments Xoco. There are many links of Drs. Baric and Shi's research together as part of a team. In fact, there seems to be two scientific camps, the Shi team; teams of virologists working under “gain of function” grants (the haves), and a growing majority of virologists (the "have nots" of "gain of function" research). The “have nots” increasingly contribute to the notion that the natural origin story is only a theory that does not rest upon a hierarchy of genomic facts. It is heuristics until peer reviewed.

So what does the public have left from science? Political and economic science? These two sciences heuristically support intentional development and release. Worse, not through peer review, but from the general public’s anecdotal reasoning. This is worse because political and economic sciences are particularly vulnerable, even more so than virology, to their own versions of “gain of function” manipulation by both media owners, politcians and large eceonmic interests.

Solutions like "herd immunity" seem like an accession to the only logical information we have to avoid infection and morbidity, the science of avoidance. Even this science was undermined by earlier WHO, CDC, NIH et al. information that did not speak up when most media equated C-19 to a mild flu and only the compromised should be concerned. Vaccine and therapeutic development fly in the face of logic until the origin story is settled. Until then, all promises of these other, as yet, unproven solutions, seem like stories to assuage public fears by politicians.

The application of avoidance, the only proven science we have at present, seems constrained by the need of capitalist countries to come up for air now and then. The C-19 design is extremely effective and relates to all sciences.

Reply
David Rivard
9/23/2020 04:05:46 pm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405836/

"It is opined that the exposure history of SARS-CoV-2 at the Wuhan seafood market originated from human-to-human transmission rather than animal-to-human transmission (74); however, in light of the zoonotic spillover in COVID-19, is too early to fully endorse this idea (1). Following the initial infection, human-to-human transmission has been observed with a preliminary reproduction number (R0) estimate of 1.4 to 2.5 (70, 75), and recently it is estimated to be 2.24 to 3.58 (76). In another study, the average reproductive number of COVID-19 was found to be 3.28, which is significantly higher than the initial WHO estimate of 1.4 to 2.5 (77). It is too early to obtain the exact R0 value, since there is a possibility of bias due to insufficient data."

"After 4 months of struggle that lasted from December 2019 to March 2020, the COVID-19 situation now seems under control in China. The wet animal markets have reopened, and people have started buying bats, dogs, cats, birds, scorpions, badgers, rabbits, pangolins (scaly anteaters), minks, soup from palm civet, ostriches, hamsters, snapping turtles, ducks, fish, Siamese crocodiles, and other animal meats without any fear of COVID-19. The Chinese government is encouraging people to feel they can return to normalcy."

From a recent NCBI publication nonetheless. Constant editorial paragraphs exonerate the CCP while throwing Chinese culture and people under the bus, like CCP officials are politically responsive to citizen desires, so they must keep live animal markets open. The voluminous history (all aspects) of C-19 do not mention GOF research within Wuhan city limits. Interesting question marks in Figure 7, over 9 months from purported discovery.

Reply
The Philosopher
9/23/2020 04:35:06 pm

Dear all:
A little birdy turned me on to this (in case you didn't know, I know science)

https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lilly-announces-proof-concept-data-neutralizing-antibody-ly

"Phase 2 study evaluated LY-CoV555, a SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody, for the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. The trial enrolled mild-to-moderate recently diagnosed COVID-19 patients across four groups (placebo, 700 mg, 2800 mg, and 7000 mg)."

I hear the efficacious dose is at least ~3g.

All of your jaws should collectively be dropping. For an antibody? Systemically?
Average person is ~60kg. That's 3000 mg / 60 kg or
50 mg/kg.

According to me (don't take my word for it, also take Derek Lowe's https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/06/09/lots-of-coronavirus-antibody-news ) That's high.

I would wager that the hidden RBD of sars-cov-2 (see: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.26478
and
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/21/11727) really means that antibody-based therapies are going to have a rough go at first.

Alina Chan and Petrovsky's data indicate that the RBD is under extreme selective pressure to *not* mutate, and the fact that it's hidden would support that. That's one HELL of an adaptation to have! If you're a virus, you wouldn't want to lose that.

I wonder if the lab leak didn't happen, Shi and Baric would have been able to share another sweet Nature paper for having been able to engineer a hidden RBD virus that adds evidence for the validity of the canyon hypothesis. I guess we'll never know!

I think though, that since its not mutating in the RBD, any therapies that could open it up somehow or make better antibodies solely to the RBD and not just the spike in general, will fair better. Anyone wanna correct me?

Reply
The Philosopher
9/23/2020 05:11:14 pm

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54244018

Reputable source says CCP has spies in american police agencies.
CCP infiltrates many institutions, from academia (how many universities have professors with ties to the CCP?) to MSM (money and sponsorships), to police, to politics (Mitch McConnell's wife, despite her family hailing from Taiwan, are actually pro CCP
see: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/03/politics/elaine-chao-china/index.html)

Not all articles are pro-ccp or anti-ccp, but there does tend to be a bias in MSM, currently.

Reply
Fuddman
9/23/2020 08:55:25 pm

“McConnell's wife, despite her family hailing from Taiwan, are actually pro CCP”

Pro ccp? How’d you come up with that?

You need to re read your source cuz there’s nothing in there to back that up.

Suggested starting point: politics + CNN + NYT = BS

Reply
The Philosopher
9/23/2020 10:40:49 pm

Wumao detected!

This is right in the CNN link: "The report said in addition to the shipping company, Chao's family has other ties to official China, including board positions in state companies and a close relationship between Chao's father and former Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin."

Pro CCP. And Mitch himself has done very little for USA's interests and more for Moscow's.

yano
9/24/2020 07:40:25 am

https://youtu.be/xJxlOgC9Yr0

A very good interview with Dr Yan.

Reply
Maggie Zhou link
9/24/2020 11:31:25 am

What do you think of the finding that one of the primers used in WHO's covid-19 test kit is 18 bp that is identical to a part of human chromosome 8? Is that used as a positive control, or something else?

Thanks for your ingenious work!

Reply
The Philosopher
9/24/2020 12:58:48 pm

Source, Maggie?

Reply
fuddman
9/24/2020 04:32:55 pm

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/human-dna-alone-does-not-produce-a-positive-result-on-the-rt-pcr-test-for-sars-cov-2/

fuddman
9/24/2020 04:49:46 pm

https://straight2point.info/one-of-covid-19-test-kits-rt-pcr-tests-for-humanc-hromosome-8/

Reply
yano
9/25/2020 05:41:17 pm

Looks like a peer review is happening after all.

In Response: Yan et al Preprint
Examinations of the Origin of SARS-CoV-2

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/2020/200921-in-response-yan.pdf

" and none of the authors of
these 2 articles specialize in coronaviruses or viral genetics."

No conflict of interest with funding then? Excellent!


"3. Furin cleavage sites in coronaviruses. Lines 10-16: The authors assert that a furin cleavage site in
its Spike protein is absent in coronaviruses found in nature, which is not the case. SARS-CoV-1
and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) have furin cleavage sites in their Spike protein.
This is fairly common in other coronaviruses16; MERS has a furin cleavage site17 within Spike. "

Yes, other viruses have cleavage sites, the point is no close relatives and unique CGG CGG.

Must have triggered them pretty good, its long.


"Binding with ACE2. Lines 31-34: In a discussion about whether RaTG13 can bind various
ACE2 homologs from different types of horseshoe bats, the authors neglect to point out that the
ACE2 homolog of the specific species of horseshoe bat from which RaTG13 was isolated was not
included in the cited binding studies. This makes conclusions about whether RaTG13 can bind
ACE2 homologues incomplete. "

Someone needs to get one of these bats and do this. I have asked this previously. Are bats really that different?


"While use of restriction sites
as presented are theoretically possible in SARS-CoV-2, based on the authors’ own analysis, ZC45
does not have the necessary restriction sites (of EcoRI and BstEII). "

????? What?

"Yan and colleagues falsely assert the existence of restriction enzyme sites
in the SARS-CoV-2 sequence, but not in the Spike gene sequence of other beta coronaviruses, is
evidence of genetic manipulation, or that the presence of restriction sites is rare. A New England
BioLabs site search for restriction enzyme sites in the 5’ end of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence
revealed at least 7 other restriction sites in the RBM, in addition to the EcoRI site Yan et al cited
as evidence of manipulation."

We are back to the probability game again. What is the probability of two restrictions sites being exactly around the RBD? Of course they naturally occur in different places. The point is they are directly around the RBD.

more to come

Reply
Greg Felton
9/25/2020 06:17:25 pm

Yes, other coronaviruses have furin sites, but they are not linear b betacoronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2, which is unique in having them.

Reply
The Philosopher
9/25/2020 09:42:41 pm

I can just read what they wrote, and compare it to what Yan wrote:
"Within the lineage B of β coronavirusesandwith the exception ofSARS-CoV-2,no viruses contain a furin-cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction (Figure 6)57. In contrast, furin-cleavage site at this locationhasbeen observed in other groups ofcoronaviruses57,58."

It says it right there in the Yan paper. They acknowledge they exist in nature, just NOT in this particular clade.

Can these people even read? they should be disqualified for this mistake in analysis alone. Absolutely asinine. People believe this?

Other nonsense: "scientific community. There were 6 coronaviruses known to infect humans
prior to 2020, but their prevalence and pathology in different age groups is incompletely
understood, which would hamper any potential design of novel coronavirus functions. Prior to
2020, coronaviruses were not as intensely researched as other viruses that cause human disease,
such as HIV, and influenza"

Are they gonna cite that claim? LOL

" Line 27: Yan et al refer to an
extensive scientific literature providing “genomic, structural, and literature evidence”10 to counter
the prevailing theory in the scientific community that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a natural
zoonosis, emerging from animals, but they do not cite any references to support their claim—a
crucial basic practice for any researcher. "

So 4 pages of references isn't enough?

I'm done. Do I have to go line by line on these shills? Do we accept this review?

Send them an email, politely tell them to learn to read. Kelsey isn't on the website though. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-people/

[email protected]
[email protected]

Reply
The Philosopher
9/25/2020 09:51:29 pm

On second though, I retract that. How many poorly written emails will they receive? I regret that. My apologies. I do think that they should have read the Yan paper better and written a better rebuttal.

However, all that information is still public and available and by attaching their names to that document, and a public website, they open themselves up to criticism.

Reply
yano
9/25/2020 10:09:48 pm

I'm happy they commented. It starts the dialog.

They have a few good points and criticism that will make report 2 even better. Some of the Yan references appear to be missing, That can be fixed.

I like this one, "Scientific investigation in military laboratories is not uncommon; coronavirus research performed in a Chinese military research institute is not in itself suspicious, as asserted by Yan et al."

Yes it is suspicious, why is the military in any country doing virus research? Bio weapons. That needs to stop.

It would be nice to see their funding sources.

Reply
The Philosopher
9/26/2020 01:00:17 am

Oh wow, that's a cute one.

Must be fun to be their husbands. Talk about using your words against you!

Reply
yano
9/26/2020 08:44:18 am

Those smart women. Maybe they do have husbands. Which one am I? :D

We need to encourage the comments. The more peers that comment the better and more publicity for Yan et al.

Giving positive feedback to the "other side" does not necessarily mean concurrence.

Yan et al has work to do on report 2. These comments will make report 2 even that much better.

Babstar
9/26/2020 01:33:41 am

CDC Early release

Differential Tropism of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 in Bat Cells

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/12/20-2308_article

Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 did not replicate efficiently in 13 bat cell lines, whereas severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus replicated efficiently in kidney cells of its ancestral host, the Rhinolophus sinicus bat, suggesting different evolutionary origins. Structural modeling showed that RBD/RsACE2 binding may contribute to the differential cellular tropism.

Reply
Xoco Latte
9/26/2020 10:23:28 am

Hmm, a bit of interesting: the U.S. CDC published a paper written by all authors from Hong Kong. WTF?

Reply
yano
9/26/2020 10:45:36 am

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7359528/

"It is also unclear how this pressure for convergence would have arisen without these viruses switching to a novel host [14]. Both the ACE2-using viruses and non-ACE2-using viruses in lineage 1 in the RdRp tree are found within the same hosts, mostly bats belonging to the species R. sinicus and R. affinis, leaving the source of the positive selection pressure driving convergent evolution a mystery. While switching hosts and subsequently evolving via adaptation to the new host would be a potential case for the convergent evolution hypothesis, the fact that these viruses a) do not seem to be specifically adapted to any one particular species of bat given that we see nearly identical viruses in R. affinis and R sinicus bat hosts, and b) have probably not undergone novel host shifts outside these bat species in recent history, would suggest that this hypothesis is at best unsupported. Host shifts to civets and pangolins have occurred; however, they are currently not known to be the progenitor of either SARS-CoV-1 or SARS-CoV-2 [12,32]. The most current knowledge suggests that SARS-CoV-1 in particular could have emerged directly from bats, and that civets may not have been a required step in the emergence pathway [5,12]."


we see nearly identical viruses in R. affinis and R sinicus bat hosts

RatG13 did not bind to R sinicus? Hmmm, get the R affinis bat, do the test, see if RatG13 binds. Looks like it won't.

Reply
The Philosopher
9/26/2020 12:44:07 pm

Wow, nice weird paper, yano. Definitely something I'll have to dig in to fully digest. However, at first glance, the abstract has some weird, quasi-nonsensical ideas.

"Here, we report three novel sarbecoviruses from Rwanda and Uganda which are phylogenetically intermediate to SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 and demonstrate via in vitro studies that they are also unable to utilize human ACE2."

Intermediate and from Africa? Anyone know about Yunnan bats migrating to Africa? That's a new one to me. But in becoming intermediate to Sarscov2, somehow, they lost that human ace2 binding ability that sarscov1 had and that sarscov2 has.

"Furthermore, we show that the observed pattern of ACE2 usage among sarbecoviruses is most likely due to recombination. We show that the lineage that includes SARS-CoV-2 is most likely the ancestral ACE2-using lineage, and that recombination with at least one virus from this group conferred ACE2 usage to the progenitor of SARS-CoV-1 at some time in the past."

...What? So sarscov2 is the ancestral one? how can you reason that? And then the 'more recent' virus is sarscov1, and that we had an epidemic of that one 17 years ago? And the RBD is what is being recombined? What about the furin cleavage site? It was lost in all subsequent bat betacoronaviruses including sars cov 1? Where did it come from originally? 12 nucleotide insertions are phenomenally rare, and recombination events only occur with high sequence identity, and other viruses that have the site have only up to 60% identity.

"We argue that alternative scenarios such as convergent evolution are much less parsimonious; we show that biogeography and patterns of host tropism support the plausibility of a recombination scenario; and we propose a competitive release hypothesis to explain how this recombination event could have occurred and why it is evolutionarily advantageous"

Correct, it's not parsimonious because it wasn't convergently evolved naturally, it was forced to mutate or was altered or passaged repeatedly in a lab. Jesus christ, what they're arguing is also highly non-parsimonious.

Is everyone nuts? Trying to not see it as laboratory manipulation invokes VERY HIGHLY HIGHLY UNLIKELY biological events, to the point of absurdity. This is not parsimonious at all! What's parsimonious is that the CCP lied, made this virus, and lied about a release.

For God's sake, they lied about another lab accident just this weekend! They lied that it didn't happen, then lied that it was an unused facility. Wow. Just wow.
https://youtu.be/APPjgdYq5C4?t=135
Do a quick google news search for 'huawei fire lab' (not in quotes) and sort by recent. Only yahoo and reuters are the major outlets covering this in the west. CCP paid off the others, likely.

Virologists/geneticists: You really wanna bend over backwards and give yourself all that cognitive dissonance? To say that sarscov2 wasn't from the lab, doesn't contain bits from sarscov1, zc45 and zxc21 (with 100% sequence identity to their e-protein), restriction sites for swapping RBDS, and an ectopic furin cleavage site right where it has been shown for 10+ years to enhance pathogenicity. (https://www.pnas.org/content/106/14/5871)

woooow

Reply
evidence
9/27/2020 08:58:47 am

Re: 'Questions to the WHO'

A nice compilaton of unanswered questions (updated 09/21/2020) can be found on Billy Bostickson websites - with Nerd's included (beginning with question No. 244 ):

'Questions for Scientists and the WHO on the origin of SARS-COV-2'
Part 1: Questions 1-85
https://graph.org/176-Questions-for-Scientists-and-the-WHO-Part-1-07-05

Part 2: 86– 176
https://medium.com/@BillyBostickson/questions-for-scientists-and-the-who-on-the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-702bace922c6

Part 3: 184 – 260
https://medium.com/@BillyBostickson/questions-for-scientists-and-the-who-on-the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-51f8c3b6c034

.... the list is certainly not complete yet ;)

N.B.:

Scientists outraged by Peter Daszak leading enquiry into possible Covid lab leak
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19538-scientists-outraged-by-peter-daszak-leading-enquiry-into-possible-covid-lab-leak

Reply
yano
9/28/2020 05:24:58 am

https://twitter.com/JJ2000426/status/1264711207333720066

"Overall there are 7.242x10^5*3.054x10^15*1.797x10^28 =3.9744x10^49 ways this pattern could occur naturally, vs 2.1788x10^65 ways of random mutations. The odd this pattern happens randomly is 3.9744x10^49/2.1788x10^65 = 1.824x10^-16,
or 0.2 parts per quadrillion"

This is the kind of analysis that needs to be published to discredit the "natural origin" conspiracy theory.

Reply
Andrew M
9/30/2020 02:27:16 am

It's stretching a definition to call this "analysis". No mention of the possible effects of selection and recombination on the outcomes. It's more like whistling in the dark.

Reply
yano
9/30/2020 08:12:08 am

I never said the analysis was correct. Obviously this is a difficult task and will require peer review and several iterations.

But when complete with all of the genetic anomalies probabilities, the total probability is calculated using compound probability of independent events. Essentially multiplying the probabilities together.


Hypothesis: The probability of a natural origin is ridiculously small. This is due to the compound probability of independent events. Each of the unlikely genetic anomalies compounds into a very very small number.

Lets take the furin cleavage site for example.

The nature side says, "Recombinations happen and other viruses have furin cleavage sites".

The lab side says, "No other close relative virus has a furin site and by the way the RR is a human marker due to the unique CGG CGG"

At this point, it's just opinion.

If we can assign a probability of this insertion occurring in nature. Then we have a measurable repeatable fact.

Multiply all these probability facts together and BOOOM, the likelihood of a natural virus is so small only conflict of interest conspiracy theorist would take that side.

The Philosopher
9/30/2020 02:47:02 pm

@Yano:

To be clear, because not being clear hurts our point:
It's not that the two consecutive CGG codons for arginine in the furin cleavage site are 'human markers'. From wikipedia,

"Genetic marker

A genetic marker is a gene or DNA sequence with a known location on a chromosome that can be used to identify individuals or species. It can be described as a variation (which may arise due to mutation or alteration in the genomic loci) that can be observed. A genetic marker may be a short DNA sequence, such as a sequence surrounding a single base-pair change (single nucleotide polymorphism, SNP), or a long one, like minisatellites."

Just call it what it is. Two rarely occurring consecutive codons that form an ectopic but highly pathogenic/efficacious furin cleavage site that also coincidentally form a fauI restriction site.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_restriction_enzyme_cutting_sites:_E%E2%80%93F you have to read the 3' recognition sequence in reverse to see the site, because canonically we read mRNA 5' to 3', and thus the opposite end of 3' is the 5' end, making the claim by Yan and Nerd valid: "Figure 7. Two consecutive Arg residues in the -PRRA-insertion at the S1/S2 junction of SARS-CoV-2 Spike are both coded by a rare codon, CGG. A FauI restriction site, 5’-(N)6GCGGG-3’, is embedded in the coding sequence of the “inserted” PRRA segment, which may be used as a marker to monitor the preservation of the introduced furin-cleavage site" )

It's ectopic (out of place) because no closely related betacoronaviruses with sequence identity higher than what, 60%? Has such a site. So they're far too different overall to match up, recombine,and donate the site.

%%% rant about significance of furin cleavage site/faui and scientific credibility%%%%
BTW: remember when this just came out 10 days ago?

https://medium.com/@shinjieyong/critical-analysis-of-the-new-preprint-that-prove-sars-cov-2-is-manmade-d9eed3c7c858

I'll give him some credit: He supports Latham and Wilson and doesn't outright deny a laboratory origin, and supports that ratg13 has had some funkiness to it that might underlie some overall high-strangeness regarding its similarity to sarscov2. Great.

However: He's also 20 years old, only recently finished undergrad, and literally doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when he writes things like this:
"Let’s assume the two consecutive rare codons are inserted artificially. Dr. Yan also said that these rare codons are not found anywhere else in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, supporting its artificial insertion. But it remains unknown if SARS-CoV-2 can read and translate those codons into the FauI restriction site, to begin with. In fact, rare codons are not easily translatable into proteins than common codons; they are called ‘rare’ for a reason."

Hey kid: You *DON'T NEED TO TRANSLATE TO HAVE A CLEAVAGE SITE*!! The nucleotides get cleaved! Not the protein! Get a grip. Your point fails. They are *sequential, rare codons, that also make a cleavage site*.

This kid also claims to be a published author.
Ok. Only 1 paper. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32009871/
To quote Elon Musk: "Sew one button, doesn't make u a tailor; cook one meal, doesn't make u a chef..."

Let's not get delusional. It's great he has some knowledge of science, but realistically, you have to earn, minimally a PhD and have more than just 1 publication to be acknowledged in this game. Maybe an MS with a dozen publications to prove you've got chops. Right now he's slingin' Medium articles and hyping himself up portray himself as anything but what he is. A postbac. If he even were in grad school, he'd say grad student, but he isn't. So take what he says with a grain of salt. He's not an MD PhD like Yan.

And I'm not saying believe all PhDs. Far from it. But please have some skepticism when a BS tries to talk about cleavage sites getting translated... it reeks of a novice trying to appear smart.

In general, be wary of people who try to hype themselves up by saying "i'm a published author" or "i'm a scientist". Look buddy, you might have been in the lab that did some work, you might have helped collect some data. You might have written some of the methods. But scientist is a title that's earned through practice, and repeated effort at the bench. You get to say you're one when it's contextually not self-aggrandizing. Let's not kid ourselves and equate a 1 paper "published author" as someone who has the ability to write a coherent takedown of an MD PhD who has published 5 papers in the last 2 years (one being in Nature!) and one non-peer reviewed paper (that's been viewed nearly a million times, which is unheard of in academic literature)

%%%rant over%%%

If you want to calculate an (inaccurate and liberal) estimate of how you might get those mutations (maybe even also the furin site, since it's an indel but not a typical simple point mutation) you need to ALSO factor in the mutatio

The Philosopher
9/30/2020 02:49:37 pm

@Yano:

ALSO factor in the mutation rate, rather than just look at the mathematics of combinations (which is far too simplistic, despite it being intuitive).

see: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076075v1.full.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg2323

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC46468/

and https://jvi.asm.org/content/84/19/9733

Anyone else, feel free to chime in and add some thoughts. Maybe I'll give the math a shot sometime. There are other assumptions that would also need to be factored in, like some weird Bayesian stuff about how we don't see furin cleavage sites in bat betacoronaviruses, and also will need to consider the actual mutation rate of particular regions of sarscov2 (since multiple parts of the genome have different constraints to mutate or not).

If you have this calculation, you can just say, hey, the likelihood that this naturally occured, using some simple assumptions and what we know (we don't even know the intermediary host!) is this phenomenally low number.

The likelihood that some overworked postdoc/grad student messed up in a protocol, was lax about their PPE, etc is far higher.
For reference, see https://project-evidence.github.io/
and search "Note the lack of gloves on the researcher in the center and the lack of any facial protection such as safety glasses. This is despite the article mentioning the risk of being bitten by a bat, and even including that a researcher was already bitten by a bat."

Many, many pieces of evidence point to lax biosafety. The United States embassy and consular officials who visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology in January 2018 were deeply concerned. Their cable sent to the State Department noted:
“the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory”

See also nature.com/news/inside-the-chinese-lab-poised-to-study-world-s-most-dangerous-pathogens-1.21487
From Nature!
"But worries surround the Chinese lab, too. The SARS virus has escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times, notes Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Tim Trevan, founder of CHROME Biosafety and Biosecurity Consulting in Damascus, Maryland, says that an open culture is important to keeping BSL-4 labs safe, and he questions how easy this will be in China, where society emphasizes hierarchy. “Diversity of viewpoint, flat structures where everyone feels free to speak up and openness of information are important,” he says."

With enough observed weak points, it's far more parsimonious to say that the lab leak occurred. The likelihood of repeated biosafety failures is far higher than a natural origin for those mutations.

But please, someone try to calculate the probability of those mutations for posterity.

Greg Felton
9/30/2020 02:54:25 pm

Is there any consensus here on the validity of CD147 being a secondary receptor for SARS-CoV-2? I’ve come across a fair bit of discussion on it but also dismissive criticism.

Reply
yano
9/30/2020 04:42:18 pm

@The Philosopher

"To be clear, because not being clear hurts our point:
It's not that the two consecutive CGG codons for arginine in the furin cleavage site are 'human markers'. From wikipedia,"

What I meant to say there was CGG CGG markers placed there by human hands. For humans to identify as a signature of their work. My crappy writing again.

"ALSO factor in the mutation rate, rather than just look at the mathematics of combinations (which is far too simplistic, despite it being intuitive)."

Great! Add that to the list. Mutation rates causing drift and differences in the genome.


"Many, many pieces of evidence point to lax biosafety."

Exactly, and all pieces taken together is very convincing evidence.
And where is that woman that went missing from WIV?

"With enough observed weak points, it's far more parsimonious to say that the lab leak occurred. The likelihood of repeated biosafety failures is far higher than a natural origin for those mutations."

and there are plenty of weak points.

Reply
The Philosopher
10/1/2020 12:15:24 am

Thanks, Yano.

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOFtv_MJ2wM
More explosions in CCPland.
I do wonder how they manage to keep it together? Oh, right, authoritarian, totalitarian, forceful dictatorship that goes all-in on propaganda.

Regarding the missing researcher? I heard about her from Laowhy86, waaaay back in April. Seems so long ago.
https://youtu.be/bpQFCcSI0pU?t=252
Her name was Huang Yan Ling. Do not forget her. We don't have a statement from her or even a corpse.

Shout out to Laowhy86 and Serpentza. Quality journalism and they actually recanted the wet market hypothesis right when they had better info, unlike legacy media.

Reply
Xoco Latte
10/1/2020 01:31:07 am

Not that I wouldn't agree with most of your points above, especially regarding the 20-yrs-old writer at Medium, but the RNA sequence coding for the furin cleavage site is, actually , part of the spike protein that is, again actually cleaved by furin and other specific protease enzymes. So, no, you are wrong, cleavage is not occuring between the two consequtive CGG codons but rather between the two Arg's.

The Philosopher
10/1/2020 06:09:29 pm

@Xoco Latte

Read what the kid wrote: " it remains unknown if SARS-CoV-2 can read and translate those codons into the FauI restriction site"

My point ("Hey kid: You *DON'T NEED TO TRANSLATE TO HAVE A CLEAVAGE SITE*!! The nucleotides get cleaved!") was that you don't need to translate the codons to cleave them as a *restriction site*. I am now aware I said cleavage site, but I specifically meant restriction site. Either way, I was correct in stating that the nucleotides get cleaved, which they do at restriction sites. And, literally, a cleavage site is where something gets cleaved. If you were paying attention to what I was writing, about nucleotides getting cleaved, you would have understood what I meant without trying to tell me I'm wrong on some very obvious semantics.

So, you're wrong for telling me I'm wrong. There is indeed a fauI restriction site on the RNA and it can indeed be cleaved. For this to occur, translation to amino acids is not happening, and it would be done in a lab setting; you can read up on restriction digests if you'd like.

This is likely one of the simple ways the Shi lab checked on the integrity of the furin cleavage site.

And, I'll also go and debunk that kid further:
He says, "In fact, rare codons are not easily translatable into proteins than common codons; they are called ‘rare’ for a reason."
citing: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6594389/
But that paper actually says:
1) Experiments in E. coli showed that replacing rare codons with optimal codons increased overall protein production; however, these substitutions also increased protein misfolding, as assessed by different assay

2) The introduction of rare codons into a small subset of genes leads to a marked decrease in mRNA stability, suggesting a link between translation dynamics and mRNA decay

Point 2 is in Yeast, not viruses. The evidence for the claim "rare codons are not easily translatable into proteins than common codons" is equivocal at best, based on his own source (I doubt he actually read it). So if anything his statement is poorly supported and likely is an oversimplification, making it false.

Brian
10/1/2020 08:51:03 pm

Yan report:
https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X3ailN8pA1I

Also her recent interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJxlOgC9Yr0

Reply
yano
10/1/2020 09:09:24 pm

We are waiting for Yan Report 2. It's going to be good.

Reply
yano
10/1/2020 09:58:23 pm

From the Yan Report 1.

"When SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are compared on the amino acid level, a high sequence identity is observed for most of the proteins. The Nucleocapsid protein is 94% identical. The Membrane protein is 98.6% identical. The S2 portion (2nd half) of the Spike protein is 95% identical. Importantly, the Orf8 protein is 94.2% identical and the E protein is 100% identical."

Table 3 in the below link shows some mutants, including Orf8 as mentioned above.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134820302768

What percent has the October. 2020 SARS Cov 2 Orf8 gene mutated away from the December 2019 SARS Cov 2 Orf8 gene? Greater than 94.2%?

94.2% similarity between Sars Cov 2 and some distant relative ZC45.

Looks like the ORFlab gene has been actively mutating also.




https://mbio.asm.org/content/mbio/11/4/e01610-20.full.pdf

Plenty of papers on the mutation of Orf8.

Reply
yano
10/1/2020 11:36:54 pm

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134820303567

"Alignment of the ORF8 gene from 11,113 SARS-CoV-2 genomes revealed 264 (72.1%) fully conserved sites out of 366 nucleotide po-
sitions."

Wow, looks like another smoking gun. Only 72% conserved sites in only a few months.

How is it possible that ZC45 and Sars 2 have 94% conserved?

Reply
Greg Felton
10/1/2020 11:53:03 pm

Since both Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak have confirmed the fallacious origin of RaTG13, how is it possible for it to continue to be cited in scientific journals? Don't editors read? Also, about CD147 being an entry point for SARS-CoV-2: is this a sound theory?

Reply
The Philosopher
10/2/2020 11:53:53 am

@greg felton
Where exactly have they " confirmed the fallacious origin of RaTG13,"?

We need to not use exaggerated rhetoric.
They have *said and published conflicting and inconsistent things about the access, naming, storage, and sequence of ratg13/4991* which the critical members of the scientific community *infer* to be a confirmation of its falacious origin.

However the key point is that Daszak and Shi have never out-and-out said "we confirm we were fraudulent and breached ethical/integrity standards in our handling of ratg13/4991, thus jeopardizing/invalidating all data and published papers that rely on it."

(some) Sources for conflicting things that have been said:
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1279761424919732224
https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1286867155502473216

It's pretty much established fact that ratg13/4991 are essentially fraudulent in all aspects of their curation and records.

Further recent paper regarding "De-novo assembly of RaTG13 Genome Reveals Inconsistencies further
Obscuring SARS-CoV-2 Origins"
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202008.0595/v1


And a news piece on that paper: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200910/Scientists-claim-serious-data-discrepancies-in-RaTG13-sequence.aspx

And remember! Pangolins are already debunked (I mean, ethologically and ecologically, a priori, one can debunk this shit, too... pangolins and bats occupy entirely different niches, how would you get dual infection of a pangolin with a zoonotic bat betacoronavirus and a pangolin one, with multiple recombination events? Like, physically, how does that even happen to get them in the same place naturally? And then biophysically, what are the odds of that happening?? lol and then some guys in wuhan getting the pangolin virus... wow)
See these sources for the debunking proof
https://twitter.com/NoWackyScience/status/1310733754235641856

So all that needs to be done is totally smash ratg13/4991 into the ground and you don't even need to provide probabilities on the mutations that we were talking about before.

Lilian
10/4/2020 12:11:21 pm

How is it possible on the other hand, that RmYN02 is even closer than RaTG13 to SARS2 beside the exact complete ORF8 and the spike? Can they be exchanged like LEGO pieces?

Reply
yano
10/4/2020 06:14:25 pm

Recombination is the nature argument. Yes, it's just magic from nature.

Yan report => "What is not thoroughly described in this report is the various evidence indicating that several coronaviruses recently published (RaTG13 18 , RmYN02 30 , and several pangolin coronaviruses 27-29,31 ) are highly suspicious and likely fraudulent."

Wasn't there a paper showing RmYN02 was not viable, no cleavage site and defunct in some way? Seems I saw that a while back.

Build the virus from scratch, like the Swiss, in three weeks. See if it works.

Greg Felton
10/2/2020 12:06:04 pm

Your point is well taken @ Philosopher. I perhaps should have said "have confirmed by their actions".

Reply
The Philosopher
10/2/2020 12:37:00 pm

@greg felton

s'all good; just want to establish that we aren't some kooky bunch of far-reaching weirdos when we talk about things.

We want to be clear. Accurate. Correct to the best of our available information. And I want Shi et all, and the CCP to be held accountable for their lies. I want all of us scientists to have higher standards for publication, and have integrity.

Reply
Greg Felton link
10/2/2020 12:42:15 pm

Of course. On another topic, can you speak to CD147 as a receptor for COVID-19? This thread has a mention or two but not much. I have seen many journal articles on it but am not sure if the theory is valid.

Thanks.

The Philosopher
10/2/2020 03:17:50 pm

@greg felton

As you can surmise, I'm a "published author" PhD-level scientist 1st and a hobbyist philosopher 2nd, inasmuch as I love wisdom as much as I love living life itself, and I staunchly believe, as Socrates famously said: "The unexamined life is not worth living". However, coming a close 3rd is that I'm someone who adheres to strict definitions so as to both clearly learn things in particular experimental/thought experimental contexts when I encounter people who are far more knowledgeable at being either scientists or philosophers/logicians, and also not confuse people who are less knowledgeable than I.

With that out of the way: The correct word is hypothesis. It's always been hypothesis on these "smaller" matters. Theory is reserved for (and I quote) "Biology: cell theory, theory of evolution (modern evolutionary synthesis), germ theory, particulate inheritance theory, dual inheritance theory
Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory
Physics: atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory"

Re: your question:
Some decent work has come out about this. Philosophically, the burden of providing evidence falls on those making the claim, so if you're going to ask about it, please provide sources to initiate the speculation, rather than ask an expert to de novo do a search. Clearly you've done some reading already, so maybe provide those.

Please specifically ask questions as to what I think about a particular paper. This is how scientists actually critique science. What, you want me to just solve everything? Or wax poetical on a topic? Where do I begin? Am I getting paid for this, or what? If anything, you're able to monetize my answer with your book, so do the least and take a look at these papers, which may answer your question.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.14.988345v1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32307653/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2020.559841/full
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32901936/

The short answer is that it appears through some pharmacological studies by Wang et al : "First, in vitro antiviral tests indicated Meplazumab, an anti-CD147 humanized antibody, significantly inhibited the viruses from invading host cells, with an EC50 of 24.86 μg/mL and IC50 of 15.16 μg/mL"
This means that a drug/biological that blocks access to that CD147 protein keeps the virus from entering those cells with CD147 on their surface ( "could competitively inhibit the binding of Spike Protein and
CD147" in their words)

Also from the abstract : "Co-Immunoprecipitation and ELISA also confirmed the binding of the two proteins. Finally, the localization of CD147 and SP was observed in SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero E6 cells by immuno-electron microscope. Therefore, the discovery of the
new route CD147-SP for SARS-CoV-2 invading host cells provides a critical target for development of specific antiviral drugs."

So in one paper they show in vitro a variety of ways that it can enter in a CD147-dependent manner. I could go more critically into this about the methods, but thats the cliffnotes version.

Sadly I can't find any in vivo work on the CD147 pathway with regards to sarscov2; in vitro evidence only (although the evidence is quite good).

Craig Paardekooper
10/5/2020 06:55:29 am

When we hear that SARS_COV_2 mutates, does that mean it mutates naturally, or does it mean that bio-weapons scientists are still tweaking it to perfect its effects.

Reply
CCP is NAZI
10/5/2020 10:34:40 am

I'm not surprised at all if bio-weapons scientists are still tweaking it to perfect its effects. Per https://www.abc10.com/article/news/crime/san-francisco-chinese-researcher-allegedly-harbored-at-consulate/103-296b2b54-a3bc-4893-a195-9f1ff52ba044, the Department of Justice said Tang Juan applied for a non-immigrant J1 visa around Oct. 28, 2019 and alleged Tang of making fraudulent statements on her visa application. Note that the first case of CCP virus in Wuhan started on Sep 18th,2019, https://twitter.com/jenniferatntd/status/1229921498464505856. She
surely has her tasks to fly all the way from China to sick the U.S.
TAKE DOWN CCP who is the most evil kind on earth!!!

Reply
The Philosopher
10/5/2020 11:35:30 am

It mutates naturally by replicating in the host cells.RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RDRP) can "slip up" or make mistakes and insert the wrong nucleotide bases during replication, which is one of the ways mutations can occur. I've posted sources earlier which can explain, I think, that this process happens a lot for viruses (the mistakes), hence the high mutation rate, typically.

Reply
Xoco Latte
10/7/2020 03:59:07 am

CoV RdRp has a built-in autocorrection capability that could significantly lower the mutation rate compared to other type of viruses, hence, reduce the number of erroneous transcripts.
In the past 10 months of the pandemic, SARS-2 showed multiple mutations that have been advantegous or non-significant from the virulency point of view of the virus. Only a single one, D614G point mutation in the region coding for the S protein seemed to be relevant with global effect on higher virulency (but presumably decreased mortality of infected humans).

I would think that whenever a viral strain is already out in the wild with 2-3 million+ infected hosts, it would require a hugely more virulent new strain of the same virus to be deployed for the successful global emergence of the new strain with concurrent disappearence of the old one. One could postulate that D614G has been such a new lab construct but in any case, it seemingly had no relevancy with regards to the scarce therapeutical methods, or, any vaccine development. The higher virulency ablity with lower mortality actually made this new strain less dangerous, so by applying Occam's razor, I'd think D614G has been a natural result of the pandemic rather than introduction of a new lab variant.

CCP is NAZI
10/8/2020 08:11:57 am

Dr. Yan's second scientific report is published in zenodo today. Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route:

https://zenodo.org/record/4073131#.X38rS3lKiUk

Reply
yano
10/8/2020 01:44:24 pm

Yan Report 2 "1.4 The receptor-binding domain (RBD) of RaTG13 does not bind ACE2 of horseshoe bats Consistent with the above conclusion that RaTG13 does not exist in nature and its sequence was fabricated, a recent study showed that the RBD of RaTG13 could not bind the ACE2 receptors of two different kinds of horseshoe bats, Rhinolophus macrotis and Rhinolophus pusillus 45 . Although the ACE2 receptor of Rhinolophus affinis (the alleged host of RaTG13) was not tested, it is unlikely that ACE2 of R. affinis would differ significantly from those of its close relatives and be able to bind the RaTG13 RBD."

Again, R. affinis needs to be tested for binding. The nature team will point this out as a deficiency again. Get the actual bat, do the testing.

Is it possible that the R. affinis bats can be infected due to Ratg13 binding to other cell receptor proteins? Other than ACE2?

If Ratg13 cannot infect R. affinis bats, then a R. affinis bat fecal swab containing Ratg13 is fraud.



"In addition, raw sequencing reads for RaTG13, which were integral parts of the fabrication, were obtained in 2017 and 2018 24,33 . Furthermore, manuscript reporting the falsified coronavirus infections of Malayan pangolins was submitted for publication in September 2019 59 . Evidently, the cover-up had been planned and initiated before the COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, the unleashing of the virus must be a planned execution rather than an accident."

I would like to understand this timeline better. Does this mean the Ratg13 genome was known/created by Dr. Shi in 2017-2018? This would also imply that SARS-Cov-2 was known? I need to think about this more. It just seems like a mess.

Reply
The Philosopher
10/8/2020 03:52:30 pm

This is getting weird.

"In addition, raw sequencing reads for RaTG13, which were integral parts of the fabrication, were obtained in 2017 and 2018 24,33 . Furthermore, manuscript reporting the falsified coronavirus infections of Malayan pangolins was submitted for publication in September 2019 59 . Evidently, the cover-up had been planned and initiated before the COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, the unleashing of the virus must be a planned execution rather than an accident."

Very weird. There are at least 2 cogent explanations. We have to assume that the people doing this are intelligent PhDs. Right? So one is that yeah sure, they were planning on this as a coverup , assuming that they were *planning on releasing it*, but logically, this doesn't hold water to me.

I know the death toll in CCP China is probably easily in the low hundred thousand range judging by the overnight hospitals, videos of people dropping dead, 24 hour crematoriums (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.28.20116012v2) , trucks upon trucks of urns, and millions of phone numbers going out of service, see https://www.kmov.com/why-did-21-million-phone-numbers-disappear-from-china-after-coronavirus-outbreak/article_80456379-e8af-52a8-9366-f8af64b45fd1.html.

Additionally, hundreds of videos and photos of neighboring Korea are on Youtube showing clear, lovely blue skies ever since the Spring of 2020, whereas before they were having constant issues with "fine dust/yellow dust/misaemeonji" which is undoubtedly from Chinese industry being active and polluting regional air. The fact that the yellow dust has stopped almost altogether is indicative of serious, real, long-term impacts on the chinese economy and workforce. For numerical, quantitative proof, observe the Seoul Air Quality website, scroll down for the historical data. 2020 has had the least number of poor air quality days per month! (https://aqicn.org/city/seoul/) This is true evidence of serious implications on how China is working and running factories. Likely, many factories are still running at a minimal capacity or are shut down due to supply-side deficits and literally a shortage of workers due to death or life-threatening illness. Why else would the factories not be running? Because consumer demand is low? Then we must still accept that the factories are *not running* and their economy is not recovered. Still. If we entertain that thought, then it needs to be reconciled that they are reporting an economic recovery, but the industrial waste evidence suggests otherwise.

So, If you're the CCP, why would you kill thousands of your own citizens? Especially considering the virus kills off older, fatter people, mostly boomers, and these are the *core* demographic that supports the CCP (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctb_JF8-57c).
An intentional release would hurt the CCP more than help it.

So, I think that the fact that the manuscripts being submitted last fall and the earlier reads of ratg13 are all indicative of a *contingency plan* in case something went wrong. So they would have something to blame on this accident. Just a backup, a contingency plan. this, to me, is most logical.

I'd like to remind everyone that we must collectively, contextually, look at as much data as possible and filter it mentally when trying to come up with coherent hypotheses as to the origin and reason for this outbreak. These new data and links between pieces of literature are great, and we have to think of them in the context of where we are now in terms of China's economy, international relations, and previous infractions from China as well.

Xoco Latte
10/9/2020 07:00:09 am

Dr. Yan says two things.
1. IF (and that is a big if) BtCoV/4991 does really an existing bat CoV that has been collected in 2013 and its RdRp region subsequently sequenced, than put away for several years, and its full genome has been obtained only in 2017/18, it is still a mystery and stupidity (therefore hugely unbelievable) WHY this information was kept secret. She indicates that BtCoV/4991 may exist but since we have only likely credible information about its RdRp region, it is most likely that it has been used as the donor for SARS.CoV-2 in its RDP.
2. RatG13 most likely has nothing to do with BtCov/4991 (especially because RatG13 is nothing else than a fabricated sequence), other than its RDP sequence was copied from that earlier RdRp sequence.

Whatever was known by Shi in 2017/18 is most likely had a project name other than RatG13, for example BtCoV/4991 just to label the most important source of a new GOF CoV creature.

Xoco Latte
10/9/2020 08:09:35 am

I seriously think these papers are the Khalezov-reports of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic...

Reply
The Philosopher
10/8/2020 12:49:15 pm

Dr. Yan's mother was recently arrested in China.

Hmmmm is this China or is this North Korea? Very confused. More authoritarian by the minute.

https://news.yahoo.com/covid-whistleblowers-mother-arrested-chinese-012358050.html

Reply
yano
10/8/2020 02:17:02 pm

"Dr. Yan's mother was recently arrested in China."

Obvious ploy to shut Dr. Yan up. But why? Do they have something to hide?

Reply
The Philosopher
10/8/2020 03:57:19 pm

This is the CCP, look up their common scare/intimidation tactics. They do this all the time to silence dissidents. they have much to hide!

remember, they retaliated like this when canada arrested the huawei CFO (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/world/asia/china-canada-kovrig-spavor.html)

they just love to arrest people in their police state.

This is further proof that Dr. Yan is legit. If she were a plant, a troll, or a spy, why would they do this to her family? How would it help their case to have a credible source saying they made the virus? Why would the US grant her asylum and give her a pass after entering the country?

Please keep your brains engaged, everyone. Clearly there's something afoot. The sad, sad thing is that most legacy media in the US (such as CNN, ABC, NBC, etc) are not discussing Dr. Yan at all or are claiming she and Nerd aren't credible, while not rationally discussing the science.

yano
10/10/2020 06:33:57 pm

Some peer reviews of Yan's Report 1

https://rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/78we86rp/release/2

Reply
Xoco Latte
10/11/2020 12:39:20 am

IF Yan's first report is anything but a scientific proof of RatG13's being a fraud, these 4 "reviewers" did not care too much to overdo her in terms of scientific evidence gathering.
Take for example the furin cleavage site: the basic argument (and be careful, not any proof, just argument) is that such a sequence does exist in other viruses (sic!), even in some coronaviruses. None of these so-called-reviewers care to cite evidential basis for the existence of a intermediate host that has been shown to be infected in nature by a Ra bat coronavirus and such a claimed "other" virus/coronavirus to begin with. Just write the word and that is the proof. Congratulation.

These are pure golden shit and nothing else. I am not eating, thx.

Reply
Xoco Latte
10/11/2020 12:52:47 am

In other words, these are just the usual, low-quality nit-picking smear campaign elements.

The world has just decided to dream on (again and again), listening to some fancy fabricated fairy tale and make-believe that the very reality does not exist.

yano
10/11/2020 08:57:10 am

Agreed, the "peer" reviews seem to be lacking in science.

yano
10/11/2020 08:37:08 am

Can R affinis be infected with Ratg13?

R. affinis ACE2 has now been sequenced by Guo et al ie Shi and uploaded to Genbank. I speculate that in silico binding studies of Ratg13 and Sars2 can now be done on the R. affinis ACE2 gene.

I still think the bats needs to be captured and inoculated with a lab synthesized ratg13 virus. To me, this is a valid use of GOF research.

https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/20/e00902-20

From the paper:

We also analyzed the ACE2 gene of Rhinolophus affinis, which has been reported to carry SARSr-CoV occasionally (15). Due to the more diverse R. sinicus ACE2 alleles found in Yunnan, we amplified 22 R. affinis ACE2 sequences from Yunnan and one from Hubei. Used an alignment of the 23 R. affinis ACE2 gene sequences, we found that R. affinis ACE2 was more conserved between different individuals in the entire coding region than R. sinicus ACE2, and no obvious positive selection sites were observed (data not shown).


Data availability.The complete ACE2 sequences of R. sinicus and R. affinis ACE2 obtained in this study have been deposited in the GenBank database under accession numbers MT394181 to MT394201 and MT394203 to MT394225, respectively. ACE2 sequences of Rs-411 (GenBank accession number GQ999933), Rs-832 (GQ999936), Rs-3357 (KC881004), and Rs-ACT66275 have been published previously. The sequences of SARSr-CoVs spike detected from R. sinicus have been published previously as SARSr-CoV RsWIV16 (KT444582), RsWIV1 (KF367457), Rs3367 (KC881006), Rs4084 (KY417144), RsSHC014 (KC881005), Rs7327 (KY417151), Rs4231 (KY417146), Rs4874 (KY417150), and Rs9401 (KY417152).

Reply
yano
10/11/2020 09:13:55 am

2014 paper Ref 15 cited paper from above. Maybe LYRa11 is of some help.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4054348/

Here, we report another novel SARS-like CoV (LYRa11) identified from Rhinolophus affinis collected in Yunnan Province of China, which has high nucleotide and amino acid identities in its genome, similar to those of Rs3367, particularly in the RBD region.

Reply
Nerd has power
10/11/2020 07:57:39 pm

Sorry for the radio silence for the past few weeks. But the discussions here have been great (and long)! I think much of the scientific points raised have been answered in the exchanged comments and some by the 2nd Yan report. I will be around more often from now on (at least for a while) and contribute intellectually as much as I can!

Reply
Interested One
10/12/2020 04:55:36 am

I really want to stay publicly away from this debate, but after reading the "peer reviews" of the Yan paper I'm going to make a brief comment.

I am a peer reviewer for many journals, some of them major. I find the peer review comments very political and leaving a lot to be desired scientifically.

They seem to focus on the political nature of the Yan paper, and this is a somewhat valid concern. All of us would have preferred a more dry and scientific presentation.

However, they focus on the pangolin RBD, which has its flaws and these flaws are not discussed. Why is the rest of the pangolin CoV sequence so distant from SARS-CoV-2? Why are coronaviruses not endemic to wild pangolins?

They also dismiss the furin cleavage site with several specious arguments. When looking for an intermediate host, it is important to find a furin cleavage site in a virus evolutionarily close to SARS CoV-2, and one has never been found, and to say that appearance of furin cleavage in other viruses of more distant lineage is convincing of natural origin is not a good argument. Additionally, no one person to date has discussed the rare stable appearance of CGGCGG in this site, and its apparent lack in any coronavirus evaluated to date. The pangolin CoV PAA does not have this codon sequence, since it is unstable naturally. This is needs to be addressed by someone at some point.

Finally, the behavior of our Chinese colleagues in this whole affair is the elephant in the room nobody is discussing. If this was a natural origin, and our Chinese colleagues felt misrepresented, why not open up their lab notebooks, open up their viral databases, and open up the safety records of the WIV from last September and October?

When a pandemic starts in a city without bats, where a major BSL4 laboratory doing GOF coronavirus research exists, these unsettling questions must be asked. I don't know the final answer to these questions, but they must be answered one way or the other to put this issue to rest.

Reply
alex
10/12/2020 07:46:00 am

Again I ask Interested One. About the almost zero incidence the virus in China.
As well as in Thailand, Taiwan South Korea, ....
The latest figures collected in Worldmeter are extremely striking in this regard.
In February, several studies were published about the potential risk of incidence of the virus and the countries that appeared with the highest risk were precisely these, and nº 1 China.

Reply
Xoco Latte
10/12/2020 08:03:28 am

Well, I do not know about Thailand, Taiwan or South Korea, but I LOL abot the naivity of your question with regards to the RPC. I suggest more than usual reservation to be applied to REPORTED incidence figures on Worldmeter and tried to make a clever estimation of TRUE incidence rates. Not only because incidence figures of new infectious cases clearly depend on the frequency of PCR testing, the strictness in methodology of lab sampling, the false negative results rate of the PCR tests, but also due to the politically biased adjustment of test results.

alex
10/12/2020 09:45:33 am

Xoco, I am not referring to the PCR results, nor do I look at them, I am referring to the mortality data, excess mortality, a "covid peack" is not detected in any of these countries. As for example in Italia, Spain, Belgium. Assuming the data is correct.

yano
10/12/2020 11:54:49 am

You can say the same for Uganda, New Zealand, Cad, Cuba and Fiji. I think some countries are just much better at controlling the virus spread.

The people in some countries are just more respectful of others. They don't see masks as some kind of attack on their freedoms.

The Philosopher
10/14/2020 06:33:53 am

@alex

I answer you above; sorry I'm not Interested One. But I am familiar with this question.

Xoco Latte
10/14/2020 08:25:59 am

@alex: I am sorry but you asked about incidence - the definition for incidence is the number of new diagnosed cases in a given time period. Mortality is what means the frequency of deaths that are attributed to a disease.

But it is still quite naive to think that any type of data related to this pandemic by the RPC would have any meaningful relationship with reality inside the RPC. They have a politically motivated agenda to "control" publication of relevant data.

yano
10/12/2020 01:30:02 pm

"Additionally, no one person to date has discussed the rare stable appearance of CGGCGG in this site, and its apparent lack in any coronavirus evaluated to date."

What's hilarious is that "magic" by nature wins by default. "Oh it happened in nature of course, we just have not found the CGGCGG yet, you dummy, sheesh, how dare you bring up this topic you conspiracy theorist.".

Not very scientific of the scientists.This is really an extension of cancel culture. If I don't like your argument, I just discredit and cancel you.

Reply
Nerd has power
10/12/2020 07:48:46 am

So far, none of the volunteered peer reviews are really judging the science. As stated in the 2nd Yan report, point-to-point responses will be published in responding to these “peer reviews”. I don’t believe truth will be distorted or hidden forever. Discussion helps in clarifying things, just like what’s going on here on this forum.

I understand how people might want to stay away from politics. But are the CCP and bioweapon (if you are as convinced as I am) really politics? Or something beyond politics? That is a question that people need to ask themselves. I would say that there might be profound consequences not confronting the CCP. Feel free to disagree here.

As of the affiliation with the Rule of Law Foundation, it is sad to see how people think negatively about it. You can’t expect Dr. Yan to be affiliated with the University of Hong Kong anymore, right? The science is not produced by the Rule of Law Foundation. But without the Rule of Law Foundation, Dr. Yan would not have escaped from Hong Kong. Dr. Yan is only showing her gratitude toward this organization for having saved her life.

If you think you have tasted how the scientific journals could be speaking the CCP’s narratives, what do you feel about the chances that some of your media could be in that tone as well? The media’s portrait of the Rule of Law Foundation deserves your second thoughts, IMHO.

Do you think there is currently rule of law in China under the CCP government? Do you think promoting the rule of law in China, which is against the will of the communist dictatorship and is the mission of the Rule of Law Foundation, is as bad as what the media tell you? Do you think saving Dr. Yan's life by the Rule of Law Foundation negatively impacts the world? Do you think Dr. Yan being grateful to the Rule of Law Foundation is inappropriate?

Again, similarly, I’m not worried about the truth about the Rule of Law Foundation being distorted right now. I’m convinced that it will be known to all one day. I’m also not begging people to think positively about this affiliation. Just leave it out of the discussion. The science stands by itself.

Reply
yano
10/12/2020 08:42:28 am

"As of the affiliation with the Rule of Law Foundation, it is sad to see how people think negatively about it."

Not everybody thinks negatively about the Rule of Law Foundation, Bannon and Trump.

I think the political bias you are seeing is due to the association with Bannon and Trump. It did not help that Bannon has been indited for possible fraud.


Leftist academia is so emotional about Trump that they are not thinking straight. Hate for Trump has blinded them to the science. They will do anything to prove him wrong. Remember, Trump came out a made the statement, " We know the China virus is from a lab".

This is what you are fighting against, Trump hate.

In addition to Trump hate, hidden conflict of interests could cause bias. I would like to see a list of research labs receiving grants and other conflict of interest monies from the CCP.

Reply
Neutural Observer
10/12/2020 09:16:29 am

I haven't liked or disliked the Rule of Law Foundation until some REAL anti ccp folks have been attacked at their homes which makes me wonder if the Rule of Law Foundation is really anti CCP like what they claimed. Initially, I held a neutral view about the Rule of Law Foundation. I don't jump into a conclusion to a point to quickly like or dislike something until I can fully observe what it is there for. I tend to think more before next action. But when you play a video like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Qywy9B5G8(especially starting at 4:22), things start to get nasty. I am a fan of Wu Juan Ming who is a June 4th activist and went so far to give up his first love by not signing what CCP forced him to sign. I could feel his broken heart and teared for what he has sacrificed for the democracy and freedom of China. If I have to pick one between Guo Wengui and Wu Jianming as a pro anti CCP, I would definitely pick the latter. We are in the United States and should enjoy the freedom of speech. Why would Guo Wengui send people to harass Wu Jianming everyday until Wu quits his YouTube channel?
Guo has his right to do his YouTube or whatsoever, but he has no right to stop other's right to do the same. This alone has made me see Guo very negatively.

Reply
chime
10/12/2020 05:03:48 pm

There is no right for this speech starting at 4:22. The video is fighting words and is not covered under the US free speech laws. I'm sure if you point this out to youtube, it will be removed. Calling for someone's death is the definition of fighting words. It also could be viewed as inciting violence which is also not allowed under US free speech laws. As far as someone being intimidated, sounds like gang activity. There are also laws against that. Sounds like the "Rule of Law" needs to be applied equally for everyone. I love the science here. Thank you for that.

Nerd has power
10/14/2020 10:27:02 am

The definition of “REAL anti CCP” could differ between you and me. A lot of people in this world still see Zhengli Shi as a reputable, innocent, and REAL scientist. I’m certainly NOT in that camp.

Who is REAL anti CCP? Actions speak louder than words. What did Mr. Wu achieve in his decades-long “fighting” against the CCP? Did the CCP grow weaker or stronger under his attack?

On the other hand, anyone with a reasonable mind would have to admit that Mr. Guo had been hitting the CCP super hard in the last three years with his Expose Revolution.

If you are a fan of Wu Jianmin, you must be aware then that he was the one who attacked Miles Guo and the Expose Revolution first. If Mr. Wu is REAL anti CCP, why wouldn’t he support Mr. Guo when Mr. Guo is so far the most effective in taking down the CCP? Why would Mr. Wu repeatedly attack Mr. Guo, who is the CCP’s biggest enemy, and the Expose Revolution? Is Mr. Wu really anti CCP or just pretending so?

I’m going to sound crazy again, so please bear with me. The CCP’s ability to infiltrate is beyond amazing. They have a damage control system operating inside the oversea anti-CCP activists circle. Many of these self-labeled anti-CCP activists are actually under the control of the CCP. The benefit for the CCP here is that they can control, on a great level, the main narratives within this circle. These pretend-activists, who actually receive funding from the CCP, would act like REAL anti CCP activists and criticize the CCP government like crazy. However, when certain issue is really going to hurt the CCP (such as Mr. Guo or Dr. Li-Meng Yan), these CCP-controlled activists would turn around and work on neutralizing these issues. That is a mechanism that has worked well for the CCP. This mechanism is also what the Rule of Law Foundation is trying to expose now. This is important because these CCP-controlled activists not only manipulate the narratives in the Chinese-speaking world but also influence US politicians.

In this YouTube video, at 4:22, the English translation is mistaken. Mr. Guo did not say “they deserve to die”. Also, there is a context that Mr. Wu intentionally cut out in his editing of the video. What was actually said by Miles Guo was this:

“It doesn’t matter how much money these people get from the CCP (this sentence was cut out by Mr. Wu), such as ……., Wu Jianmin, ………, they wouldn’t have the fate/luck of being able to spend this money. …..”

If you are able to understand both English and Chinese, you would have found it out on your own. I’m not going to judge why you posted it here without pointing out the translation error. I give you the benefit of the doubt.

I’m also not trying to persuade you one way or the other. I just had to point out the misinformation here when I see it.

Again, feel free to feel positive or negative about the affiliation to the Rule of Law Foundation. I only ask for one thing: please leave this feeling of yours out when you judge the science in the Yan reports.

Neutral Observer
10/14/2020 01:01:53 pm

I didn't intend to bring up anything irrelevant to the topic here to
divert attention. But now that you mentioned "As of the affiliation
with the Rule of Law Foundation, it is sad to see how people think
negatively about it.", I thought I had to add my opinion. I agree
with you that the CCP’s ability to infiltrate is beyond amazing. I
also agree that Guo has done some amazing jobs such as helping Dr. Yan. But Guo's blame about Wu as a fake anti CCP(what is Guo's evidence to prove that?) is really questionable if Guo himself also said that he respected Wu as a known anti CCP fighter when you play the same video at 34:48. If what Guo says contradicts to what he does, I don't know what else he says or does I should believe. Although Wu hasn't done what Guo has done, both have done differently based on the resources they have. Guo surely has more resources given that he has such a giant social connections with Chinese officials. Wu has done what he can such as persistently posting his videos daily to educate people to understand how evil CCP are. He also actively participates anti CCP events such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7pzy6pciho if you play it at 20:08.

I haven't become political until the trade war and pandemic which opened my eyes to see how dangerous CCP are. I even changed my party preference from a Democrat to a Republican to vote Trump, as he is the first and the only president who fights against CCP fearlessly. Not until the end of this Feb did I start to watch news from YouTube/Twitter. So, I might miss any earlier videos and if you have a video to show that Wu was the fist one attacking Guo, I'd love to watch it. Wu is not the only one Guo attacks though. Is Bob Fu another fake anti CCP or did Bob first attack Guo? https://twitter.com/libert_zlin/status/1316127627233689600

Regardless, the point I'm trying to make here is that those who fled China are mostly victims of CCP to seek democracy and freedom. Why cannot they all unite together to take down CCP? We don't want internal fights before the CCP are taken down.

No matter what, my views about Guo has nothing to do with my views about Dr. Yan. Undoubtedly, she is a hero to wake up the world. I sincerely hope she is well and safe.

I understand that this blog is for science. If there is another platform I can discuss this with you, please let me know. Thanks.

Nerd has power
10/14/2020 08:54:41 pm

Thank you very much for sharing your views and being open-minded. I think I should refrain from giving anyone much of my political views. This forum is not for that, and also I cannot guarantee that I'm not biased. But I think it's safe to say that keeping an eye on both sides helps. Let their actions help us decide.

Interested One
10/13/2020 05:00:05 am

While we all debate the viral origin and we await a vaccine or better therapeutics, here are a few thing healthy things we can do that quite possibly reduce our ability to get the virus, and if we do get it, perhaps reduce our chances of dying. This does not replace any advice that you would get from your doctors, since nobody is allowed to practice medicine over the internet.

(1) About 15-20% of us are zinc deficient. One chelated zinc tablet (50 mg) or a few 12 mg zinc lozenges under the tongue daily could help. Zinc inhibits furin cleavage, and thus entry of virus into cells. It also inhibits the viral RdRP polymerase. Chelated zinc was proposed as an antidote to furin containing bioweapon coronaviruses in 2005. Even if it doesn't work, adequate zinc levels are important for a number of biologic processes.

(2) 30-40% of us are vitamin D deficient. Several recent publications and preprints have emerged that vitamin D deficiency is a strong risk factor for coronavirus incidence and mortality. vitamin D induces anti-viral peptides called calethecidins early, and quiets the immune overreaction to the virus late. Note that bats live in caves, in the dark, with low vitamin D, and they are reservoirs of the virus.

(3) The triad of hypertension, obesity, and diabetes is likely due to inflammation related to insulin resistance and is called the metabolic syndrome. It appears to be a strong risk factor for coronavirus mortality. Control of blood sugar and cholesterol appear to reduce coronavirus mortality in two Cell Metabolism papers. Therefore, the idea is to keep our cholesterol low (under 200) with a statin drug or diet, and to keep our blood sugar low with metformin or diet (keep hemoglobin A1c below 5.4%). If we are overweight (BMI > 30), we should consider a diet.

Everything above is a healthy way to live regardless of their effect on coronavirus, though in my opinion it will give some benefit as well as we await better therapeutics or a vaccine. All are relatively benign interventions.

Why am I telling you all this? Why not, since even if we learn about the viral origin, we need to figure out what to do about the disease.

Reply
yano
10/13/2020 09:15:07 am

I went back to look at the timeline.

From Yan Report 2:
"However, an intriguing revelation took place in June 2020. Specifically, filenames of the raw sequencing reads for RaTG13 uploaded on the database were found, which indicate that these sequencing experiments were done in 2017 and 2018 33 ."


and

"The complete genomic sequence of RaTG13 was first submitted to GenBank on January 27 th , 2020. The raw sequencing reads were made available on February 13 th , 2020 (NCBI SRA: SRP249482). However, the sequencing data for gap filling, which is indispensable in assembling a complete genome was only made available on May 19 th , 2020 (NCBI SRA: SRX8357956). The timing and the reversed order of events here are strange and suspicious."


The Yan report 2 states that the filenames of the raw sequencing reads for RaTG13 uploaded on the database were found from 2018.

Then the raw sequencing reads were made available on February 13 th , 2020.

I'm a little confused with this. Only the filenames were found from 2018 with no raw data? Is there data from 2018? If so, is the 2018 data the same as uploaded in 2020?

Shi caught in a lie?

Reply
Traveler
10/13/2020 02:33:06 pm

https://www.minervanett.no/alina-chan-coronavirus-covid19/contradicting-statements-cast-doubts-on-chinese-raw-data/364540

Reply
Nerd has power
10/14/2020 10:45:18 am

Okay, I will try to explain it here. These raw sequencing reads/data were uploaded in 2020. However, they were uploaded as individual files and the original filenames remain visible after the upload. When people checked these freshly uploaded raw sequencing reads, they noticed that these files are named in a way that the date of sequencing was incorporated.

https://graph.org/RaTG13-Amplicon-Names-07-03

Basically, these filenames gave the secrets away -- these sequencing were done in 2017 and 2018, instead of 2020.

So, indeed, Shi was caught in a lie as she hinted strongly in her 2020 publication that the sequencing was done in 2020. However, Shi quickly did some damage control by "clarifying" in her email interview with Science in July that the sequencing was done in 2018.

I guess we can somewhat feel happy for her as she is at least being honest on one thing now.

Reply
yano
10/14/2020 09:36:28 pm

Nerd said
"There is no way that the R. affinis ACE2 would differ so drastically from those of other horseshoe bats and instead would resemble closely the human ACE2.
RaTG13 is fake. It cannot be more obvious."

It seems like Shi is reading your comments and writing papers in rebuttal.

https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/20/e00902-20

"All tested bat SARSr-CoV spike proteins had a higher binding affinity to human ACE2 than to bat ACE2,"

" We also analyzed the ACE2 gene of Rhinolophus affinis, which has been reported to carry SARSr-CoV occasionally (15)."

ACE2 genes of 23 Rhinolophus affinis are published now

"ACE2 genes show high polymorphism among the R. sinicus populations."

Rhinolophus affinis shows much less diversity in their ACE2 and

"Two different clades of bat SARSr-CoVs were discovered, based on the size and similarity of the S protein to that of human SARS-CoV. SARSr-CoVs of clade 1, only found in Yunnan province, have an S protein identical in size to that of SARS-CoV and use the ACE2 receptor, whereas SARSr-CoVs of clade 2 are widely distributed in China and cannot use ACE2 as the receptor (19). "

Some interesting findings. Can't wait to see if Ratg13 can bind to R. affinis.

Reply
Jenny
10/14/2020 11:55:19 pm

A curious case of the missing ACE2 1-131 in every single known dataset of R.affinis

https://threader.app/thread/1297222214463320065

Reply
yano
10/15/2020 08:23:27 am

Data availability. The complete ACE2 sequences of R. sinicus and R. affinis ACE2 obtained in this study have been deposited in the GenBank database under accession numbers MT394181 to MT394201 and MT394203 to MT394225, respectively.

I don't see reference to these MT394203 to MT394225 in that thread. Why would someone fake ACE2 that can be found in nature and confirmed by others?


The Philosopher
10/15/2020 07:22:29 am

Who said what now? Can you at least re-write your comment so we can see who's saying what claims and where?

If the last 3 quotes are from Shi.... this is absolutely crazy. So we're to assume that natural evolution and zoonosis produced a lineage 1 coronavirus only in Yunan, which binds to human ACE2 better than the natural host of bats? Is this for real?

Reply
yano
10/15/2020 08:25:52 am

The quotes are from this paper. Please read and comment.

https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/20/e00902-20

The Philosopher
10/16/2020 10:29:31 am

@yano

Got a lot on my plate right now. Maybe later?

yano
10/15/2020 05:12:42 pm

Do you think these people

Huihui Mou, Brian D. Quinlan, Haiyong Peng, Yan Guo, Shoujiao Peng, Lizhou Zhang, Meredith E. Davis-Gardner, Matthew R. Gardner, Gogce Crynen, Zhi Xiang Voo, Charles C. Bailey, Michael D. Alpert, Christoph Rader, Hyeryun Choe, Michael Farzan

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.178459v1.full

"Unexpectedly the RBD of the SARS-like coronavirus RaTG13 isolated from horseshoe bats (R. affinis) did not bind either horseshoe bat ACE2 ortholog tested, indicating that the not-yet-described R. affinis ACE2 varies in significant ways from these horseshoe-bat orthologs."


know about this data?

"Data availability. The complete ACE2 sequences of R. sinicus and R. affinis ACE2 obtained in this study have been deposited in the GenBank database under accession numbers MT394181 to MT394201 and MT394203 to MT394225, respectively."

https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/20/e00902-20


Huihui Mou, please complete the study showing Ratg13 does not bind to R. affinis ACE2. Thank you. The world is waiting.

Reply
Nerd has power
10/17/2020 08:35:38 am

Yes, Mou and co-authors had the obligation to test it. Their work has been cited in the Yan reports. The world knows that they could do this test and bring an answer to this question.

Has Dr. Zhengli Shi been reading this blog and our discussions? You bet! I don't have any doubt. She probably did not contribute to the discussions directly (this forum might be a little too honest for her). However, she must have reacted to them, such as publishing a paper, and thereby brought food (or poison???) to feed our discussions.

Could you imagine that a naturally occurring bat coronavirus would carry a Spike that binds to human ACE2 better than to its natural host's ACE2? That is a little out of this world.

An important aspect of this recent JVI paper of Dr. Shi's is that all the SARS-related viruses that she tested were originally reported by her.

Do you think RaTG13 is the first fake virus reported by Dr. Shi? Isn't there a chance that Dr. Shi has been encouraged by her previous success(es) of similar kinds to courageously publish another fabricated virus this Jan?

If she had fabricated viruses, which resemble SARS in their RBD, would there be a chance that these fake viruses would bind human ACE2 better than bat ACE2? I'm not saying I have evidence that these are also fake (at least not yet), I just suggest this being a possibility.

The potential benefit of the recent Shi paper is obvious. Even if Mou or someone else would prove that RaTG13's Spike binds human ACE2 better than R. affinis' ACE2, Dr. Shi could point you to this JVI paper of hers and remind you that it is normal because we have seen it in R. sinicus.

Once a reputation is broken, it's broken. I don't think anyone would really take Dr. Shi's publications with confidence. This should include her past publications as well. The more she reports novel counter-evidence agains the Yan reports, the more she exposes her other suspicious activities. She may not have much choice now, but I think she could only blame herself and the CCP for it.

Dr. Shi, if you are reading this now, I would recommend that you respond officially to the Yan reports. There is no other way you could prove yourself innocent. It should also be published soon because no official response from you after so long is already being viewed by many as the proof that the Yan reports are all factual. So, for your own benefits, please react fast this time. The clock is ticking!

Reply
yano
10/17/2020 04:34:32 pm

"The potential benefit of the recent Shi paper is obvious. Even if Mou or someone else would prove that RaTG13's Spike binds human ACE2 better than R. affinis' ACE2, Dr. Shi could point you to this JVI paper of hers and remind you that it is normal because we have seen it in R. sinicus."

Yes, this paper is definitely interesting. But Shi states R. affinis has much less diversity in it's ACE2. So, I think its still a good idea to check the binding. Especially since the R. affinis ACE2 is published. Should be easy, right?

"we found that R. affinis ACE2 was more conserved between different individuals in the entire coding region than R. sinicus ACE2"

How can you get a virus fecal swab from a bat that cannot get infected with Ratg13? Lie number 2?

At this point it seems someone needs to verify Shi's work as an unbiased third party. Peer reviews mean nothing. These claims about random natural viruses binding to human ACE2 better than natural host bat ACE2 are amazing. and if true a real game changer.

These bats range in South East Asia, so collecting them should not be an issue. Field trip anyone? Maybe a Chinese billionaire can loan out his private jet? :)

I bet these guys know where to find them.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SEABCRU/
http://www.seabcru.org/

Wear your PPE, I hear they may have some nasty viruses, lol.

fuddman
10/18/2020 01:52:24 pm

" Isn't there a chance that Dr. Shi has been encouraged by her previous success(es) of similar kinds to courageously publish another fabricated virus this Jan?"

Could these be reports of her previous "successes"

From 2003

https://www.theage.com.au/national/speculation-sars-leaked-from-bio-weapon-program-20030501-gdvmrb.html

From 2008

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-china-sars/taiwan-suggests-sars-was-china-warfare-plot-idUSTRE49617120081007

You have to test the weapon in a real world to make sure it does what you want it to do.

IMO, the CCP is far ahead of the rest in refining bioweopons.

Percy Dovetonsils
10/18/2020 03:09:45 am

RaTG13

COMMENT On Oct 13, 2020 this sequence version replaced MN996532.1.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN996532.2

Reply
Greg Felton
10/18/2020 03:41:55 am

How is this possible since both Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak have admitted that RaTG13 is BtCov/4991?

Reply
Nerd has power
10/18/2020 05:02:13 am

Thanks for the info!

Reply
The Philosopher / alabasterCrown
10/21/2020 01:15:58 am

OK all, we're done. I'm done. This should be it! This should be enough proof!

"Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian proteomes: implications for the vaccine"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12026-020-09152-6

"On Classification and Taxonomy of Coronaviruses (Riboviria, Nidovirales, Coronaviridae) with the special focus on severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2)"
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.17.343749v1?rss=1%22

You all don't need me here to bang this drum. Surely people will find this out... right? Right??

Reply
yano
10/21/2020 03:34:13 pm

I like this part,
"Thus, even closely related viruses from the Sarbecovirus clade (including the newly discovered SARS-Cov-2 and bat coronaviruses RaTG13and RmYN02), are all remarkably different from one another from a comparative standpoint. The same is true for every relationship within Coronaviridae we have recovered in our analyzes."

and the punch line.

"Such simple observations automatically exclude the possibility of the recombination origins of SARS-Cov-2 (reviewed in (19), see also (8,20)) as well as other similar propositions."

Simple observation being overlooked by many scientist. How many scientist are now on board with the lab release? Or at least see some serious funny business with SARS Cov 2. I see more and more papers. The evidence continues to build.

Reply
Nerd has power
10/24/2020 04:56:38 am

Thanks for sharing these two articles. Excellent work done by both groups of scientists. I'm not an huge expert in bioinformatics, so I can't vouch for the veracity of the bioRxiv preprint. But I like their conclusion a lot though:

"no member of Sarbecovirus clade is an ancestor of SARS-Cov-2, and humans are the only known host."

The other paper is also powerful. It's a novel angle to inspect SARS-CoV-2. And man, doesn't that look weird?!?! I wonder what they would see when another coronavirus is put up for the same test (molecular mimicry on the peptide level), but I seriously doubt any of the naturally occurring coronaviruses would have a Spike that mimics human and mice peptides more than mimicking their coronavirus cousins'.

The finding is also saddening and scary. If a vaccine is targeting a Spike peptide that exactly matches a human peptide, there is a chance that this vaccine is going to be more harmful to you than to the virus....... I don't know whether this is part of their design. If so, then I have underestimated the darkness involved in their scheme.

This reminds me of the molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 Spike and human ENaC (sodium channel) on the furin-cleavage site, which was pointed out in the 2nd Yan report. Aiming for high cleavage efficiency and greater cell tropism is just one goal; they might have also hoped that a vaccine targeting the furin-cleavage site would destroy your cells carrying your ENaC protein on your cell surface.

This is awakening even for me, a person who has been convinced a long time ago that SARS-CoV-2 is man-made with an evil intention......

Reply
yano
10/25/2020 10:58:54 am

"I wonder what they would see when another coronavirus is put up for the same test (molecular mimicry on the peptide level)"

maybe I am misunderstanding your comment here, the paper clearing tests other human coronavirus for mimicry. Do you mean other SARS-Cov virus?

"Likewise, the proteomes of the three human coronaviruses
HKU1, 229E, and OC43, which were used as viral con-
trols, have no or only a few peptides in common with the
spike glycoprotein. In this regard, it seems that the SARS-
CoV-2 spike glycoprotein is phenetically more similar to
humans and mice than to its coronavirus “cousins”."


and the last paragraph is key,
"Finally, this study once more reiterates the concept that
only vaccines based on minimal immune determinants unique
to pathogens and absent in the human proteome might offer
the possibility of safe and efficacious vaccines [16, 27–30]."


The existing Chinese vaccines should be looked at carefully. Do the Chinese vaccines target proteins unique to the SARS-Cov-2 virus? If not, this would suggest a lack of understanding and no forethought of the mimicry.

fuddman
10/25/2020 02:50:16 pm

".....there is a chance that this vaccine is going to be more harmful to you than to the virus...."

You seem to be suggesting the same thing as these people:

"We are concerned that use of an Ad5 vector for immunisation against SARS-CoV-2 could similarly increase the risk of HIV-1 acquisition among men who receive the vaccine,"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32156-5/fulltext

Nerd has power
10/29/2020 02:57:14 pm

Yano:

I think they just looked at how SARS-CoV-2 Spike's peptides resemble/mimic peptides from human or other coronaviruses. What I was suggesting was that they could also look at a naturally occurring coronavirus, for example ZC45, and see whether its Spike peptides also mimic human's more than they mimic other coronavirus' peptides. I doubt it would be the case.

Fuddman:

I didn't read the lancet paper and I don't know what is the connection between Ad5 vector and HIV here. I have a feeling that it's not the same problem as what is concerned by the molecular mimicry paper. However, I'm a little hesitant to dive into this paper though -- too many things to catch up with at the moment.

David Rivard
10/21/2020 08:16:18 am

(So what animal species has such peptide sharing between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian and coronavirus proteomes…the common laboratory mouse species. Not the bat that certain GOF scientists cite?)

Reply
yano
10/21/2020 04:07:39 pm

@The Philosopher. Yes, this really sucks. Seems this virus is a human virus trained in human mice. It would have been better if it was from nature, it would be less perfect. A depressing read.

But I like the probability numbers.

"A massive heptapeptide sharing exists between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and human proteins. Such a peptide commonality is unexpected and highly improbable from a mathematical point of view, given that, as detailed under the “Methods” section, the probability of the occurrence in two proteins of just one heptapeptide is equal to ~ 20−7 (or 1 out of 1,280,000,000). Likewise, the probability of the occurrence in two proteins of just one hexapeptide is close to zero by being equal to ~ 20−6 (or 1 out of 64,000,000).

Only the viral peptide sharing with the murine proteome and, at a lesser extent, with the rat proteome keeps up with that shown by human proteins;"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12026-020-09152-6

Reply
Nerd has power
10/21/2020 09:25:53 pm

Here is an entertaining piece from the CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/coronavirus-lab-theory-yan-bannon-invs/index.html

And here is my short response to it posted on twitter:

https://twitter.com/nerdhaspower/status/1319127563554426881

"CNN accuses the Yan reports of copying from my blog/Gnews.

Hello! I AM A CO-AUTHOR (Shu Kang) of the Yan reports! Do these reporters do any homework? Shu Kang is a pseudonym for safety concerns. Isn’t that common sense given the circumstances? Shame on you! @CNN @CNNPolitics"

The "scientists" they invited to comment on the Yan reports are interesting too. They seem to be asking for some attention, which I think they have secured.

Reply
Nerd has power
10/21/2020 10:01:47 pm

I also updated my "ABOUT" tab just so that no other reporters would be "confused" again!

Reply
yano
10/21/2020 11:13:11 pm

This is hilarious! OMG the charts are the same. AND even Facebook says its false. :) Thanks for the good laugh.

The sad thing is that people will actually believe CNN. There is no homework or thinking. It's the CNN anti Tucker, Trump, Bannon, Guo, hive mind at work. Worker bees just get the programming and repeat the narrative.

Notice there is zero discussion of the science, just a political smear campaign.

Where are Yan's responses to the Johns Hopkins Center review? Seems that was the best review so far.




Reply
Nerd has power
10/24/2020 05:12:56 am

I don't know whether you can call the Johns Hopkins review "the best". I don't really see any quality in any of their arguments. I'm amazed how Connell and Gronvall dare to speak on CNN and describe the Yan reports as garbage. If I were them and had produced this self-destroying, pretentious "peer-review", I would hide away from the public as much as possible. But that's just me. People care about different things. I think they are anxious to see the responses too, just a different kind of "anxious".

yano
10/24/2020 08:34:47 am

@Nerd "I don't know whether you can call the Johns Hopkins review "the best"."

When you line up feces next to each other, you can still have "the best" feces out of the group. :) At least they spent the time to go through the reports in detail. Although it seems most of their arguments stem around the lack of evidence from nature. "We have not found the links in the tree yet".


One totally false note here from the Johns Hopkins paper:
"Lack of evidence regarding gain of function research in coronaviruses. Line 2: Some gain of function research using coronaviruses has been published, but the author’s statement of an “abundant” literature in this area overstates the amount known. The papers referenced do not support the author’s claim that such research led to human competent viruses. One paper, Ren et al, 35 inserted the Spike protein gene of all SARS-CoV-like viruses (not SARS) into a viral backbone and did not use the entire SARS virus or infect live animals."


Baric created entire competent virus from nothing in 2002. If anything, Yan has understated GOF research. Maybe the definition of GOF needs to be clarified. https://jvi.asm.org/content/76/21/11065. Maybe the authors would volunteer to test the human competency of these many GOF virus.



Creating a virus from scratch having only a computer genome should be included in the GOF research definition. After all, the function of a computer genome is zero, but after creation, the virus has gained significant real world function.

The Swiss group recreated SARS-Cov-2 in three weeks.



alex
10/22/2020 07:15:42 am

Tonigh at 22:00 hour in Spain, interview with Dr. Yan in telecinco.

Reply
David Rivard
10/22/2020 02:52:10 pm

mmm, Mighty Mouse once said; "Are we mice or are we men?"
SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein calls both home, without an item out of place.

Reply
alex
10/22/2020 11:55:03 pm

Here the interview with Dr Yan.
https://www.telecinco.es/informe-covid/a-la-carta/programa-completo-hd-li-meng-yan_18_3031620002.html

Reply
Xoco Latte
10/27/2020 07:11:37 am

An interesting and perhaps important new paper at bioRxiv today:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.23.20218511v1

"Large-scale population analysis of SARS-CoV2 whole genome sequences reveals host-mediated viral evolution with emergence of mutations in the viral Spike protein associated with elevated mortality rates"

Highlights:
"Importantly, two emergent variants: V1176F in co-occurrence with D614G mutation in the viral Spike protein, and S477N, located in the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of the Spike protein, are associated with high fatality rates and are increasingly spreading throughout the world. The S477N variant arose quickly in Australia and experimental data support that this variant increases Spike protein fitness and its binding to ACE2. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 is evolving non-randomly, and human hosts shape emergent variants with positive fitness that can easily spread into the population. We propose that V1776F and S477N variants occurring in the Spike protein are two novel mutations occurring in SARS-CoV-2 and may pose significant public health concerns in the future."

It is striking as these mutations, if driven by natural selection forces, make the virus more virulent and lethal.

Reply
John Doe
10/31/2020 09:34:01 pm

"There is a lot we do not know about what coronaviruses China has collected, how accurate the sequences are and how they might have been manipulated.

I BLASTed RmYN02 ORF1ab partial nucleotide sequence,
CAATGGGGTTTTACAGGTAACCTACAAAGCAACCATGATCTGTATTGTCAAGTCCATGGTAATGCACATGTAGCTAGTTGTGATGCAATCATGACTAGGTGTCTAGCTGTCCACGAGTGCTTTGTTAAGCGTGTT

which matches SARS-CoV-2 100.00% and RaTG13 98.81%, but nothing else above 90%. They differ by three synonymous codon substitutions, CAAGTC to RaTG13 CAGGTT and AGG to AGA. The amino acid sequence,

QWGFTGNLQSNHDLYCQVHGNAHVASCDAIMTRCLAVHECFVKRV,

is a 100% match with SARS-CoV-2, RaTG13 and Pangolin MP789, but the RmYN02 amino acid sequence differs (95.56%) from dozens of bat coronaviruses at the same LY position."

https://twitter.com/LawrenceSellin/status/1322590003097194496

Reply
Nerd has power
11/1/2020 08:55:10 am

Thank you for sharing this info. Yes, during the fabrication process, they must have made more mistakes than what has been pointed out in the 2nd Yan report. This is another excellent example. RmYN02, pangolin coronaviruses (including MP789), RaTG13 are all fraudulent --- It cannot be more obvious. If we look harder, we will certainly find even more proofs.

Despite all our efforts, Zhengli Shi continues to be recognized for her "significant" contributions in science:

https://www.sohu.com/a/427927757_100001695

This is the world we live in. We can have all the truth, our voice still may not penetrate through.

They really think they can bury all the truth. They are confident that their media control (not just Chinese media) and their huge influence in science (Nature, Cell, Lancet, WHO, coronavirus experts) will make things go their way in the end.

Now we also learned from the ongoing revelations that not just media/scientists/editors/WHO officials can be corrupted by the CCP money, US politicians/FBI/CIA can be too. I guess when you have the CCP's money in one pocket and the Wall Street money in the other, you really have a say on everything that is going on in this world. How can you NOT feel confident in that situation?

For whoever is convinced about the nature of SARS-CoV-2 as I am, please help spread this truth. I don't know what else we can do.

Not doing anything is easy, but probably not wise. It's not exaggerating to say that, if the CCP gets away this time, humanity is going downhill. So, please act, for yourself and for our future generations. It's that critical.

Reply
Mister1k
11/1/2020 03:12:43 am

Are you all still chasing your tails?? Your being played..explain this article.
https://jcm.asm.org/content/46/5/1734
just a snippet:
RNase-resistant, noninfectious virus-like particles containing exogenous RNA sequences (armored RNA) are good candidates as RNA controls and standards in RNA virus detection. However, the length of RNA packaged in the virus-like particles with high efficiency is usually less than 500 bases. In this study, we describe a method for producing armored L-RNA. Armored L-RNA is a complex of MS2 bacteriophage coat protein and RNA produced in Escherichia coli by the induction of a two-plasmid coexpression system in which the coat protein and maturase are expressed from one plasmid and the target RNA sequence with modified MS2 stem-loop (pac site) is transcribed from another plasmid. A 3V armored L-RNA of 2,248 bases containing six gene fragments—hepatitis C virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV1, SARS-CoV2, and SARS-CoV3), avian influenza virus matrix gene (M300), and H5N1 avian influenza virus (HA300)—was successfully expressed by the two-plasmid coexpression system and was demonstrated to have all of the characteristics of armored RNA. We evaluated the 3V armored L-RNA as a calibrator for multiple virus assays. We used the WHO International Standard for HCV RNA (NIBSC 96/790) to calibrate the chimeric armored L-RNA, which was diluted by 10-fold serial dilutions to obtain samples containing 106 to 102 copies. In conclusion, the approach we used for armored L-RNA preparation is practical and could reduce the labor and cost of quality control in multiplex RNA virus assays. Furthermore, we can assign the chimeric armored RNA with an international unit for quantitative detection.
another snippet:
Construction of pACYC-3V.An exogenous chimeric sequence 2,248 bp in length comprising the following sequences was inserted into a pACYCDuet-1 plasmid (p15A-type replication origin; Novagen): M-300 (nt 17∼373, 357 bp from avian influenza virus matrix gene; GenBank accession no. DQ864720), SARS-CoV1 (nt 15224 to 15618, 395 bp from SARS-CoV; GenBank accession no. AY864806), SARS-CoV2 (nt 18038 to 18340, 303 bp from SARS-CoV; GenBank accession no. AY864806), SARS-CoV3 (nt 328110 to 28692, 583 bp from SARS-CoV; GenBank accession no. AY864806), a pac site (19 bp), HCV (nt 18 to 310, 293 bp from HCV 5′UTR; GenBank accession no. AF139594), and HA300 (nt 295 to 611, 317 bp from H5N1 avian influenza virus; GenBank accession no. DQ864720). The target sequence included the forward and reverse primer sites, flanking regions, and probe-binding sites previously published or described. A 19-mer pac site was placed between SARS-CoV3 and HCV (Fig. 1). We spliced the six target DNA sequences using overlapping extensions (10). During the first-round PCR, these six small fragments were amplified as follows. SARS-CoV1 was amplified from a pBSSR-V6 plasmid (kindly provided by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences), containing nt 13785 to 16051 of the SARS-CoV gene, using the primers S-SARS1 and LAP-SARS1. SARS-CoV2 was amplified from a pNCCL-SARS plasmid (constructed by our laboratory), containing nt 18038 to 18340 of the SARS-CoV gene, using the primers LAP-SARS2 and A-SARS2. SARS-CoV3 was amplified from a pBSSR7-8 plasmid (kindly provided by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences), containing nt 27730 to 29212 of the SARS-CoV gene, using the primers LAP-SARS3 and A-SARS3. The HCV fragment was amplified from a pNCCL-HCV plasmid (constructed by our laboratory), containing nt 18 to 310 of the HCV gene, using the primers S-HCV and HCV-LAP1(underlined for 19mer pac site). HA300 was amplified from a pNCCL-H5N1 plasmid (constructed by our laboratory) using the primers HA300LAP and A-HA300. M300 was amplified from a pNCCL-H5N1 plasmid (constructed by our laboratory) using the primers M300-S′ and M+SLAP1. The PCR products from the first-round amplifications were gel purified and used, together with outside primers, in the overlap extension PCR. In the second-round PCR, amplified SARS-CoV1 plus SARS-CoV2 and HCV plus HA300 were amplified using the primers pairs S-SARS1-LAP-SARS2+ and FIVELAP2-OverlapA′, respectively. The PCR products from the second round were gel purified. The third-round PCR amplified SARS-CoV1 plus SARS-CoV2 plus SARS-CoV3 using the primers M+SLAP2 and FIVELAP1. The PCR products from the third round were gel purified. The fourth-round PCR amplified SARS-CoV1 plus SARS-CoV2 plus SARS-CoV3 plus HCV plus HA300 using primers M+SLAP2 and OverlapA′. The fifth-round PCR amplified M300 plus SARS-CoV1 plus SARS-CoV2 plus SARS-CoV3 plus HCV plus HA300 using the primers M300-S′ and OverlapA′. Sense and reverse primers contained FseI and PacI restriction sites (underlined in Table 1), respectively. The

Reply
Mister1k
11/1/2020 03:16:58 am

I can't begin to understand it.But SarsCov,SarsCov2,SarsCov3 and PCR. They built it.

https://jcm.asm.org/content/46/5/1734
History

Received November 20, 2007
Returned for modification December 28, 2007
Accepted February 16, 2008
Published online May 6, 2008.

Reply
Nerd has power
11/1/2020 09:07:19 am

Thank you for the article. I think the paper is about devising a system for convenient packaging of long RNAs. They chose to name their tested SARS variant genomes: SARS-CoV1, SARS-CoV2, SARS-CoV3. However, their SARS-CoV2 is not a virus and is different from our famous COVID-19 pathogen, SARS-CoV-2. It's just the namesake of it.

Of course SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic are man-made. But these authors (https://jcm.asm.org/content/46/5/1734) might not have that much to do with this crime :). Maybe they contributed in some other ways --- I don't know. But they should not be the ones that made the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Reply
yano
11/1/2020 05:37:48 pm

I like these Norwegians

"This study presents the background, rationale and method of action of Biovacc-19, a candidate vaccine for corona virus disease 2019 (Covid-19), now in advanced preclinical development, which has already passed the first acute toxicity testing. Unlike conventionally developed vaccines, Biovacc-19’s method of operation is upon nonhuman-like (NHL) epitopes in 21.6% of the composition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)’s spike protein, which displays distinct distributed charge including the presence of a charged furin-like cleavage site. The logic of the design of the vaccine is explained, which starts with empirical analysis of the aetiology of SARS-CoV-2. Mistaken assumptions about SARS-CoV-2’s aetiology risk creating ineffective or actively harmful vaccines, including the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement. Such problems in vaccine design are illustrated from past experience in the human immunodeficiency viruses domain. We propose that the dual effect general method of action of this chimeric virus’s spike, including receptor binding domain, includes membrane components other than the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, which explains clinical evidence of its infectivity and pathogenicity. We show the nonreceptor dependent phagocytic general method of action to be specifically related to cumulative charge from insertions placed on the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface in positions to bind efficiently by salt bridge formations; and from blasting the spike we display the NHL epitopes from which Biovacc-19 has been down-selected."



Discussion about Sars-Cov-2 entering cells with other means besides ACE2. Test the R. affinis bats with Ratg13! ACE2 is not the only way to infect.

"Furthermore, that SARS-CoV-2 can enter cells without using the ACE2, but also by promiscuous attachment has implications for understanding disease epidemiology, for treatment drug method of action as well as for vaccine development strategies."

I'm thinking getting this vaccine against this bioweapon is essential. Having antibodies against the 21% non human spike proteins seems a good plan.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/qrb-discovery/article/biovacc19-a-candidate-vaccine-for-covid19-sarscov2-developed-from-analysis-of-its-general-method-of-action-for-infectivity/DBBC0FA6E3763B0067CAAD8F3363E527

Reply
Annette
11/16/2020 06:29:35 am

I am following this discussion but am not literate in the finer details of gene exploration. I still believe that we must look now to what is perpetuating it. SARS Covered -2 has taken hold and does seem to be resistant to long term immunity. What is stopping it. Will the CaMV cassette in plants mediate infection.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-74904-1
"Furthermore, the plant-produced mAb CR3022 binds to SARS-CoV-2, but fails to neutralize the virus in vitro. This is the first report showing the production of anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD and mAb CR3022 in plants."
Do GM plants expressing the CaMV P19 virus make us more susceptible to SARS CoV 2. The continuing spread of SARS CoV-2 throughout the Americas does it have something to do with diet?

Reply
yano
11/1/2020 05:45:55 pm

Birger Sørensen said,

"A major part of the spike protein has human-like domains with matured transmission adaption. Blasting the
Spike protein with a rolling window of 6 amino acids showed that 78.4% of 6 amino acid windows are human like.
This means that with nearly 80% of the spike protein has a built-in stealth property by having high human
similarity. Therefore, it is remarkably well-adapted virus for human co-existence. Such high human similarity also
implies a high risk for the development of severe adverse events/toxicity and even Antibody Dependent
Enhancement (ADE) unless specific precautions are taken when using the Spike protein in any vaccine candidate:
precautions that might not suggest themselves to designers employing conventional methodologies and innocent
assumptions about the target virus, lacking our detailed anatomisation of it. Furthermore and significantly, Zhan
et al also note that, surprisingly, this characteristic is present from the very first isolate (Zhan et al, 2020). This is
something that does not sit well with an hypothesis of natural evolution."



https://www.minervanett.no/angus-dalgleish-birger-sorensen-coronavirus/the-evidence-which-suggests-that-this-is-no-naturally-evolved-virus/362529

Reply
yano
11/1/2020 05:48:12 pm

"Furthermore and significantly, Zhan et al also note that, surprisingly, this characteristic is present from the very first isolate (Zhan et al, 2020). This is something that does not sit well with an hypothesis of natural evolution."

Well said Birger

Reply
Nerd has power
11/1/2020 07:41:12 pm

I read their paper sometime ago and forgot some details. It's interesting that you brought up the "rolling window of 6 amino acids" thing. It basically echos with the molecular mimicry finding that we have just discussed:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12026-020-09152-6

I think I missed this point made by the Norwegian and British scientists. With these two studies, it does look more and more like a scheme and not a coincidence. They apparently wanted the vaccine development to be difficult --- limited epitope choices and possible adverse effect. Such much hatred toward the human race.......

It also makes you wonder whether Zhengli Shi has this much depth. I personally doubt it. Dr. Yan has mentioned Malik Peiris many times in her interviews. He is the REAL coronavirus expert and a MD. It may be the time to start looking at him for an answer......

Reply
Nerd has power
11/1/2020 09:26:07 pm

Adding to it is this new Science paper:

"Neuropilin-1 is a host factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection"
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/10/19/science.abd3072.full

Apparently, after the cleavage by furin at the S1/S2 junction, the C-terminal end of S1 is RRAR, which is the motif that Neuropilin-1 (NRP1) recognizes. These authors have confirmed that NRP1, a cell surface receptor, is playing a role in SARS-CoV-2 infection. It seems that the role of NRP1 in mediating cell entry may be secondary, to that of ACE2. Nonetheless, NRP1 is clearly playing a role and helps enhance viral infection.

Could this be part of the design too? I don't know. I'm more convinced that the molecular mimicry is by design. than I'm convinced by this one. But I don't think you can easily rule out the possibility that this NRP1 link is by design too. It's just chilling to realize that it could be much darker than you have thought before.

Reply
yano
11/2/2020 12:53:51 pm

Nerd,
Knowing about the potential immune issues, what vaccine will you be taking, if any?

Reply
Nerd has power
11/2/2020 08:57:31 pm

I don't know. I have been skeptical about all the good news of certain vaccine trials being promising at early stages. I will take one if it has gone through all the tests and show convincing results in terms of both safety and effectiveness. I think this is everyone's preference. It may be hard to achieve though given what we have learned recently.

This speaks of the need to open the Wuhan labs and have the CCP reveal all their schemes/data on this virus. We can spend decades chasing the scientific details while confessions of the responsible CCP scientists may give us a lot of answers instantly. It could be the key for us to get out of this trouble soon.

An important note: although they could make the virus by largely following the established concepts/methods, they may not be capable enough to develop therapeutic countermeasures --- the CCP scientists have not developed a single new drug for any disease. The rest of world could do it better and faster, however, only if we get to access all the secrets hidden by the CCP.

Coming back to the vaccines, I'm not the expert here. Dr. Yan is. I highly recommend that we listen to her on vaccines. Also, she's no Fauci and wouldn't be corrupted by any big Pharma. I'm not saying that she would never misjudge anything, but she clearly has the knowledge and wants to help people.

Reply
The Philosopher / alabasterCrown
11/3/2020 11:29:08 am

vaccines will not be efficacious and have too many side effects (J&J getting halted, for example)

i think LLY and REGN and the companies aiding them will be better (say my sources) - antibodies are key.

yano
11/3/2020 02:38:22 pm

Please ask her about the Biovacc-19. This theory about targeting the 20% part of the spike NOT in the human domain seems critical.

Maybe she can spend some time on the vaccine. Tell her forget about the teaching the childish media, they are a lost cause anyway. Her smart brain is better spent on real science.

Funny, these ignorant media people will end up befitting from her work. They should kiss her feet. lol

https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines.

Nerd has power
11/4/2020 08:28:45 pm

Sadly, Dr. Yan does not have a lab to work in anymore. Plus, it takes a village to do the vaccine work. And even if Dr. Yan has a team and a lab, only one or two ideas could be tested by her with no guarantee that something will definitely work out.

The best we can do and are already doing is to encourage (with funding) more people to try their own unique ideas on developing vaccines. In the end, there will be one that is safe and effective as validated through all phases of clinical trials. It may just take longer than what is desired. But I think we can remain hopeful.

Nerd has power
11/5/2020 09:33:33 pm

I have to add one thing. Vaccines are developed against existing viral strains. When the virus mutates, there is a chance that vaccines may become less effective or completely useless. That's why flu vaccines fail all the time.

The good news for SARS-CoV-2 is that it mutates relatively slowly. The bad news, however, is that there could be secret, other SARS-CoV-2 variants stored in the lab and owned by the CCP.

People may remember that the CCP hackers hacked the NIH database for vaccine development a couple of months ago. One obvious possibility is that they may have stolen the knowledge to benefit their own vaccine development. The other possibility is that they may want to study what epitopes your vaccines are targeting. Once they have this knowledge, they will then look at their own variants list to see which variant could possibly render that vaccine less effective or completely useless.

Dr. Yan said in one of her interviews that, when a virologist makes viruses, he/she never makes just one. It's always a series. I fully agree with this statement. Do things in a batch-mode is what people prefer in the lab. Now, when the virus is created artificially and aimed for attacking and destabilizing other countries, isn't there a chance that the CCP would pick a proper variant for the next attack?

Now, coming back to the possibility of effective vaccines. Again, there is a chance that a good vaccine could be developed. But the problem is that whether the CCP will throw at you another variant that the vaccine cannot deal with. Of course, it also depends on whether the CCP wants your infection numbers to look bad at certain time.......

yano
11/4/2020 02:30:12 pm

More bad news

Reverse zoonisis, mutation, and then zoonosis after the mutation in mink.

Danish authorities said a variant of the virus detected in 12 people who had recently caught the infection from mink in north Denmark was so worrying that it raised questions of how well a potential inoculation would work across the world.

“Due to the discovery of a mutated infection in mink, which weakens the ability to form antibodies, resolute action is needed. It is necessary to kill all mink,” Mette Frederiksen, Denmark’s prime minister, said on Wednesday.

She added: “The mutated virus carries the risk that a future vaccine will not work as it should.”

Kaare Molbak, Denmark’s top epidemiologist, warned that in the “worst-case scenario, the pandemic will restart, this time in Denmark”.

https://www.ft.com/content/cdca7483-4192-4e1f-a2f7-8286c9f255dc

Reply
Xoco Latte
11/9/2020 01:30:56 am

More than disturbing news... Especially from the viewpoint of a restarting epidemics with a mutated clad that becomes more and more adapted to an intermediate host as well as to humans.

If I'm not mistaken, these minks are presumably susceptible for the SARS-CoV-2 because (again, presumably) a close relative species, like ferrets, have been used for laboratory testing during the GoF development?

Reply
keith
11/4/2020 02:48:52 pm

This vaccine candidate could address mutation issues raised:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201102110024.htm

Reply
Nerd has power
11/4/2020 08:31:19 pm

Thank you for sharing the news. It's a novel approach and is definitely promising. However, it's too early to judge it though. The real challenge/test is still ahead.

Reply
Jst
11/9/2020 08:57:20 am

Pfizer BNT162 vaccine
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02926-w

Reply
Jst
11/9/2020 08:58:06 am

is here
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-vaccine-candidate-against

Reply
Nerd has power
11/15/2020 05:26:02 am

It's been quiet here for a few days. In case anyone is paying a visit and looking for news on the topic, here is an entertaining piece from the WashingtonPost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-coronaviruss-origins-are-still-a-mystery-we-need-a-full-investigation/2020/11/13/cbf4390e-2450-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html

Although this article may appear to be a call for truth on the origin of the virus, it actually aimed for misleading. Throughout, the article promoted the idea that the virus must have come from a natural spillover from an unknown animal source. They hinted strongly that the CCP government's only wrongdoing was to hide the truth of an "accidental lab escape".

At the same time, the article completely denied the deliberate lab creation of the virus. Where is the scientific evidence for their denial? None was presented or discussed. Honestly, I don't know whether these reporters could understand the Yan reports. But that would not hold them back from telling you their conclusions and sounding like an authority while doing so.

What do they want to do? IMO, they want to throw Dr. Zhengli Shi under the bus and let the real criminal, the CCP, get away. "Yes, the CCP has done bad things, but just a misdemeanor, not a felony." That's where they are going.

This is sort of the CCP propaganda machine operating at the highest level. It is so deceiving that you almost agree with it naturally.

An analogy: "yes, there were fake votes out there in the election, but none of them was placed intentionally. They were all unfortunate, accidental mistakes. Nobody really should be punished here ......"

Reply
alex
11/15/2020 08:10:11 am

And What do you think about this iniciative?

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/20200802-tors-chn-and-who-agreed-final-version.pdf?sfvrsn=5323728d_2&download=true

Reply
Nerd has power
11/18/2020 04:59:35 am

WHO would not be the one to bring a true answer to the origin problem. That is my opinion.

My other opinion is that, from a pure scientific perspective, the answer is super clear. The two Yan reports have it all.

One thing I have to point out is that no coronavirus expert has officially responded to the Yan reports. If the science really is "shoddy" like CNN commented, these coronavirus experts would be jumping out and pouring criticisms over the Yan reports. When they don't speak at all, especially in scientific terms, you know they can't beat the science in there. They all know what is really happening. They don't want to admit it for various reasons.

The issue becomes so complicated because of things beyond science. Is WHO purely scientific? I don't think so. How much it has been involved in the politics is no secret. How much influence the CCP has over it is also evident. So, no, WHO should not be trusted here.

alex
11/18/2020 08:31:59 am

Thanks for answering,
more questions:
When do you think the "new" virus was released?
A new Italian study I think is quite well founded, says that it has evidence that it was circulating in Italy since September 2019:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0300891620974755?journalCode=tmja&

If this is true, and if the origin is in China, Wuhan, it means that it was circulating since months before September.

Nerd has power
11/18/2020 09:17:13 pm

I read this paper and have commented on it on twitter:

https://twitter.com/nerdhaspower/status/1328510985813057536

This Italian paper listed only numbers as their data. Importantly, it has been shown before that antibodies generated from other coronavirus infections could cross-react with SARS-CoV-2. I guess I can't just buy their listed numbers and believe their conclusions in full.

Furthermore, to repeat my tweet, if the virus was around in Italy in Sep 2019, how could they avoid an outbreak then? How could they NOT fill the hospitals?

Finally, if the virus originated from Italy, why did the CCP bother to fabricate RaTG13, pangolin coronaviruses, RmYN02? It's no easy task and requires a TON of planning. Why would the CCP scientists try so hard to cover up a crime not committed by them?

This may sound unfair to people, but I have to say that many scientists jumped from other areas into the coronavirus field during the pandemic. It's in general a good thing as we can pool talents together and get the perspectives and ideas brought in from other fields. However, there is cost too. Not every paper is going to be high quality. There has been conflicting results on certain topics. The sad thing is that it's not always easy to tell who is right and who is questionable.

alex
11/23/2020 10:27:23 am

Nerd thanks again for answering. I try to answer.

If antibody-based tests say nothing and neither does PCR, how do doctors know that they are in front of a patient with symptoms caused by the coronavirus? What are they based on?
The study of Italians does not say that the coronavirus has its origin in Italy, they claim that it has its origin in China, Wuhan.
I think it is not exclusive that the coronavirus has been rolling around the world since well before September 2019, with its origin being in the famous Wuhan laboratory. (In fact, the sequence is given as original, perhaps it is one of the many versions that were generated before its release on the street, I believe Dr. Yan is also pronounced in this line).
There are several strong arguments pointing in that direction:
Spain since at least January 1 and according to some cases have been detected
France in December
Sweden in November
Italy since September
Evidence of saturation in Wuhan hospitals in September October attributed to the beginning of the corona circulation: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/42669767
There is also something very important, according to the version of the Chinese authorities, at the end of December in Wuhan they were able to identify and sequence the "new" virus in just two days. This version just doesn't make sense.

If it makes sense that they were working on it for quite some time, and had it sequenced before, according to some calculations based on the evolution of the mutation rate, perhaps two or two and a half years ago.


"!Nerd Says: If the virus was in Italy in September 2019, how could they prevent an outbreak then? How NOT to fill the hospitals?"

These are questions of the million, why did the virus wait to act aggressively from March 11 and why did it act only in certain areas? Has no sense.
If the virus was in Hubei, it was identified in December, millions left Wuhan and specifically thousands and thousands to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, etc., as it was not successful in any of these places and if it did in some places as far from Europe as Lombardia in Italy, Castilla la Mancha in Spain, etc…. Has no sense.
And how is it that in places close to these like Naples or Andalusia it has not been successful. Has no sense.
However you look at it, there is something else in this story that is jealously guarded by the scriptwriters of the official narrative

Nerd has power
11/25/2020 05:29:13 am

Thanks for the analysis, Alex. Yes, I agree that we have to be open-minded. But we also have to be alert because, while the main narratives are apparently being controlled by a certain force, it is not the only strategy that this force uses. They also try to mislead you in subtler ways.

I think the virus fabrication (RaTG13, pangolin coronaviruses, RmYN02) has nailed it. Nobody can really challenge the evidence presented in the 2nd Yan report. Then the question is why there is such a large-scale, organized fabrication?

Gerhard
11/16/2020 10:40:49 am

On Sept 14 2020, Italian TV (RAI 3) had an interesting documentary with many interviews about the origins of SARS-CoV-2
Quote from the RAI website: " Where does Sars-Cov2 come from? How did a virus that most likely comes from a bat in the far south of China get to Wuhan, a city in the middle of the country, 1000 kilometres away ? What kind of research was done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Could this virus have come out of a laboratory?"
English subtitles were added.
https://www.raiplay.it/video/2020/11/SARS-COV2---Identikit-di-un-Killer-f4b539cc-07ac-41c2-a1a4-1aab862f75ff.html

Reply
David Rivard link
11/16/2020 11:03:58 am

Great comments by Nerd on 11/5/2020 and with the later WHO articles in mind, it is becoming a year and the virologic community cannot arrive at a consensus about the origin of C-19. It seems that even a general assessment of its origin, natural or artificial, has been heartedly discouraged. It is logical that so much of therapy and vaccine development depends upon understanding the origin of C-19 with certainty.

I live in a small “third world” country which is very sensitive to a softened economy. Up to August, 2019, 195 countries signed MOU's with China's Belt and Road Initiative (CBR), even Italy. Hesitant countries, certainly cautioned by the U.S. State Department, signed on to the CBR through December of 2019. Countries that didn’t sign were individually promised projects worth billions of USD with few obligations, again from late August through December 2019.

During the pandemic, leaders from most countries are getting the heat from their constitutional assemblies who play politics with available money as they ideologically divide constituents. When these leaders are more insistent upon paying for immediate public services, even for PPE, C-19 testing, health care development and funding the police and military (forget about other scheduled public works projects), if they lean towards capitalism, are criticized in local and global media for not respecting constitutional norms, and are even accused of being dictatorial in UN forums. All walk on thin ice as they communicate directly with their constituents through social media. Crime has dramatically increased in countries that already have high crime rates. Crimes where prosecutorial tools do not meet the severity or profitability of the crime, like human trafficking, money laundering (tax avoidance), extortion or arms trafficking are increasing as law enforcement resources are being diverted or become devitalized by a pandemic. Whereas local governance can always blame national governance, the national governance has become particularly fragile in these countries.

Many of these local leaders recognize the lab origin probability, but local governance must remain pragmatic (what can a small country do vs. China) in the face of total dependence upon more permanent solutions to the pandemic. With few exceptions, they look to the U.S. for leadership. These local leaders also recognize how ill equipped the U.S. government will be to point a more definitive finger at the CCP, recognizing it would nullify the main theses of their U.S. electoral success.

To many of these leaders, C-19 looks much like a bug that a CCP political scientist architected (designed) and virologists engineered. The use of instrumental variables regression in political science has evolved from an obscure technique to a staple of the political science tool kit. The surge of interest in the instrumental variables regression method, when coupled with C-19 virology research, might lead to conclusions with a higher fidelity. In the probable absence of such theses, U.S. congressional leadership could lawfully dial up demands for full public disclosure of all U.S. funded GOF research around the world and all CCP integrated UN agencies. The U.S. still remains the primary UN funder. No such bills, to date, are being introduced.

Reply
David Rivard link
11/16/2020 12:25:13 pm

Here is the logical starting point for congressional information:

https://books.google.com.sv/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dqR_DAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=GAO+GOF+Research+audit&ots=yy6RXEWJQB&sig=ozGGG8ZnbPiAzdkmCDCZRQJc9so#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research

et al.

My hope is that this blog will make the congressional staffers job easier. Please include additional contributions.

Reply
Nerd has power
11/18/2020 05:08:59 am

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. There are many things that are out of our control, but we can at least help spread the truth. Every little bit helps. Maybe things will take a turn before we know it.

Reply
Xoco Latte
11/17/2020 02:49:54 am

Another new preprint on molecular mimicry of the SARS-CoV-2:

Molecular Mimicry Map (3M) of SARS-CoV-2: Prediction of potentially immunopathogenic SARS-CoV-2 epitopes via a novel immunoinformatic approach

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.12.344424v1

"Overall, from 8,138 SARS-CoV-2 genomes, we identified 3,238 potentially cross-reactive B-cell epitopes covering six human proteins and 1,224 potentially cross-reactive T-cell epitopes covering 285 human proteins."

I wonder how does the same situation look with other human epidemic-causing viruses? Better host adaptation results in a higher level of molecular mimicry?

Reply
Nerd has power
11/18/2020 05:17:57 am

Took a quick glance. They seemed to have looked more than just the Spike. Interesting. I don't know whether host adaptation would be the reason. I'm doubtful myself. And yes, they should look at true naturally-occurring coronaviruses and see how the molecular mimicry thing may look over there.

Reply
David Rivard
11/18/2020 09:12:49 am

As this site has become my 1st. go to for this information, I became truly alarmed this morning when your email notification link produced a non-existent page. I thought, "I hope all of this work hasn't been lost", and "they got him too". I keep wondering how we can expand this forum.

Reply
Nerd has power
11/19/2020 04:46:35 am

Thanks, David. Let us know your ideas. I'm sure many here want to learn how to better spread the truth.

Reply
Curious George
11/18/2020 11:24:31 am

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2951-z

The WIV group has updated information on RaTg13 and it's association with the miner's disease. According to them, there are additional 8 coronavirus from the mine.

Reply
Aquapontanus link
11/18/2020 05:35:54 pm

I came across the above news article from Aug 2018, that ridiculed China for refusing to share samples of an emerging strain of H7N9. I’m of the assumption that the samples in question were from a 2017 outbreak in the Hubei province.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20988-9

The above paper may have been fabricated to deflect suspicions of a lab release.

“Hubei province, central China, did not experience in situ transmission during the first four waves of infection by H7N9 avian influenza virus. However, human H7N9 cases began to be reported in Hubei in January 2017, including several fatalities. This abrupt emergence of H7N9 influenza during wave 5 has attracted considerable attention.”

Following a familiar pattern, they miraculously discovered a closely related strain from 2016 that had not previously been uploaded to GISAID. Even more suspicious is the claim that while this 2016 sample was collected in Hubei province, the patient was infected in Jiangsu province.

“Human samples (n = 12) were collected from the respiratory tract of the suspected H7N9 infection in Hubei province, China, during January 2017–Febuary 2017. To these samples we added A/Hubei1/2016, an imported case in which the patient was infected in Jiangsu province in 2016, and A/Hubei/34007/2015 which was downloaded from GISAID”

Another point made that I found curious was, “The majority of viruses isolated from humans acquired the E627K mutation in PB2 protein, which increases virulence in mice”.

I’m admittedly approaching this from a position of technical ignorance. However, this appears to follow a similar narrative to the potential disinformation published to obfuscate the origins of SARS-COV-2. I would appreciate it if someone could take a more informed look into this. I what I’m proposing is valid, I believe it would strongly reinforce the positions presented here. Especially if a similar analysis can be performed of A/Hubei1/2016 as was done for RaTg13.

Reply
Aquapontanus
11/18/2020 05:40:05 pm

https://www.livescience.com/63448-china-h7n9-flu-samples-pandemic-prevention.html

Here is the news article I meant to link.

Reply
Babstar
11/18/2020 10:32:29 pm

EcoHealth Alliance orchestrated key scientists’ statement on “natural origin” of SARS-CoV-2

Posted on November 18, 2020 by Sainath Suryanarayanan

Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know show that a statement in The Lancet authored by 27 prominent public health scientists condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit group that has received millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer funding to genetically manipulate coronaviruses with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The emails obtained via public records requests show that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak drafted the Lancet statement, and that he intended it to “not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person” but rather to be seen as “simply a letter from leading scientists”. Daszak wrote that he wanted “to avoid the appearance of a political statement”.

The scientists’ letter appeared in The Lancet on February 18, just one week after the World Health Organization announced that the disease caused by the novel coronavirus would be named COVID-19.

The 27 authors “strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” and reported that scientists from multiple countries “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.” The letter included no scientific references to refute a lab-origin theory of the virus. One scientist, Linda Saif, asked via email whether it would be useful “to add just one or 2 statements in support of why nCOV is not a lab generated virus and is naturally occuring? Seems critical to scientifically refute such claims!” Daszak responded, “I think we should probably stick to a broad statement.”

Growing calls to investigate the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a potential source of SARS-CoV-2 have led to increased scrutiny of EcoHealth Alliance. The emails show how members of EcoHealth Alliance played an early role in framing questions about possible lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 as “crackpot theories that need to be addressed,” as Daszak told The Guardian.

Although the phrase “EcoHealth Alliance” appeared only once in The Lancet statement, in association with co-author Daszak, several other co-authors also have direct ties to the group that were not disclosed as conflicts of interest. Rita Colwell and James Hughes are members of the Board of Directors of EcoHealth Alliance, William Karesh is the group’s Executive Vice President for Health and Policy, and Hume Field is Science and Policy Advisor.

The statement’s authors also claimed that the “rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins.” Today, however, little is known about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, and investigations into its origins by the World Health Organization and The Lancet COVID-19 commission have been shrouded in secrecy and mired by conflicts of interests.

Peter Daszak, Rita Colwell, and The Lancet Editor Richard Horton did not provide comments in response to our requests for this story.

For more information:

A link to the entire batch of EcoHealth Alliance emails can be found here: EcoHealth Alliance emails: University of Maryland (466 pages)

U.S. Right to Know is posting documents obtained through public freedom of information (FOI) requests for our Biohazards investigation in our post: FOI documents on origins of SARS-CoV-2, hazards of gain-of-function research and biosafety labs.

Biohazards Blog coronavirus, Covid-19, EcoHealth Alliance, origins of SARS-CoV-2, pandemic pathogens, SARS-CoV-2

Source https://usrtk.org/biohazards-blog/ecohealth-alliance-orchestrated-key-scientists-statement-on-natural-origin-of-sars-cov-2/
Full links to documents in the source link

Direct link to the 466 pages of email
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Biohazard_FOIA_Maryland_Emails_11.6.20.pdf

Reply
Xoco Latte
11/19/2020 01:35:20 am

This is exactly the reason that I feel CCP and WIV are not the only stakeholders in this effing story.
And this means we may never get to know the truth, ever.

Reply
Nerd has power
11/19/2020 05:44:55 am

Thanks! Great, great info. I encourage everyone to not only read the article but also dig into the 466-page email records. There seems to be much interesting info in there. At the very least, you will be more amused next time you see these people (Peter Daszak, Linda Wang, etc.) acting in interviews.

Reply
Brian
11/21/2020 09:25:18 am

So a meteorite bring this virus on October 11 2029?? WTF!
Then someone may say ISS space station and NASA may put in meteorite or just directly spray it to atmosphere !??
Things get crazier and crazier.!

Nerd has power
11/22/2020 05:51:37 am

Linfa Wang, not Linda Wang :D

https://globalhealth.duke.edu/people/wang-linfa

Nerd has power
11/23/2020 07:23:57 pm

Brian, I think the meteorite theory was proposed by someone outside of the EcoHealth Alliance circle. That person sent his meteorite hypothesis over to EcoHealth Alliance, trying to get their support. I think the EcoHealth Alliance people were making fun of this person and the meteorite theory as well.

I see this as the evidence that the EcoHealth Alliance people are not completely removed from common sense. Their denial of the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not due to their lack of scientific knowledge or common sense. It's something else.

https://twitter.com/andy5_123/status/1330126111955709952

manhp
11/18/2020 10:32:41 pm

With regard to February 2020 Lancet statement:
https://usrtk.org/biohazards-blog/ecohealth-alliance-orchestrated-key-scientists-statement-on-natural-origin-of-sars-cov-2/

Reply
David Rivard link
11/21/2020 10:21:54 am

Yes, I think, like it or not, it is about time to take this forum to the next level. Ideas I have:
1) Catalogue and link all like sources. Of course keeping original forums, but network each forum with their site link on each others.
2) All work on and sign a common document with real names, credentials etc. The document would list both circumstantial and scientific evidence for non-natural origin. Also both circumstantial and scientific reasons why maintaining a natural origin thesis is detrimental for therapeutic and vaccine development. The document should be presented to legislatures around the world (much like "The Warning to the World" was submitted by top scientists around the UN Earth Summits. Legislators and administrations will know how to accomplish this through UN. The UN Security Council would be best to trump any WHO contributions.
3) We must be bold in unraveling and cataloguing the WHO response. We must catalogue, but hopefully the UN General Assembly, through national governments, can make it a major agenda item...again based upon implementation of more efficient therapeutic, and vaccine development, including the science of "avoidance" from the virus.
4) Concurrent to all of the above, address the need for additional bio-weapons treaties, international regulations on viral research et. al.
5) We must out-man EcoHealth Alliance's bevy of scientists to achieve a greater "consensus". Today, at least, it looks like the esteemed publications cannot be counted on until such efforts are implemented.

I probably even forgot a few steps.

Reply
Nerd has power
11/22/2020 06:05:17 am

Thank you for the ideas. Cataloguing the useful links is something I can do. But I can only pool the links that I can vouch for. There are other theories out there, which, although pointing to a lab origin, deviate from what I believe is the truth.

Reply
Nerd has power
11/22/2020 06:37:32 am

I added a "LINKS" page, where all the Yan official reports and responses are listed.

One of the links was the Yan response to CNN, which was published yesterday. It takes efforts to fight against misinformation, especially when misinformation is being carried out by a news agency as enormous as CNN. But it's necessary.

Reply
David B. B. link
11/22/2020 06:57:41 am

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/leaky-vaccines-can-produce-stronger-versions-of-viruses-072715

I understand you would vaccinate everybody when you get rid of a virus but you cant with covid , I think. But when you have leaky vaccin that doesn't elliminate transmission much but just symptoms and you also vaccine healthy people( they want in my country) then there is no other way for the virus then the relatively strong mutations to survive, right. So from then on everyone needs vaccine often because without it has become a monster.

Reply
Nerd has power
11/24/2020 04:06:33 am

Thanks for sharing. Yes, I agree that leaky vaccine could potentially lead to the spread of more virulent strains. However, this seems to depend on what exactly is defined as "leaky". In the original paper, it seems to talking about a vaccine that does not block viral transmission but reduces symptoms. This type of "leaky" is the perfect for the creation of more virulent strains.

Link to the original paper:
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198

I tend to agree that none of the current vaccine development efforts would lead to highly effective vaccines. In other words, they may not be efficient enough to block transmission completely. However, how exactly vaccines may fail in providing protection here could be different from the pattern shown in these chicken experiments.

More importantly, there could be antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in SARS-CoV-2 infections. It means that antibodies generated against the virus may somehow lead to more severe disease when the individual gets re-infected. This effect is known for SARS and is a very serious concern for SARS-CoV-2. It is of course a concern for vaccines too.However, strangely, none of the vaccine studies mentioned anything about it. This worries me. They must have looked. If the results are positive, they should have reported them. However, When the results are negative, they tend to hide them. I think there are too much stock market incentives at this stage.

I guess my answer is I don't know whether we will have that type of leaky vaccine or whether more virulent strains could come out of the vaccination. I personally am cautious about the recent news about vaccines. There are too many unknowns.

Reply
Peter Ross, PhD, MD
11/23/2020 04:58:16 pm

In studying the origins shall we acknowledge the lockdownistas - who clearly schemed-out long ago this medical martial law / globalized slavery trick?
MUST WATCH: "Lockdown - The Right Side Of History". For Truth we Toil - Forever.
https://youtu.be/hyDsjHZHsGc

Reply
Nerd has power
11/24/2020 04:35:28 am

Yes, lockdown or no lockdown, that is the question. Everyone has his or her own opinion on this question. With the virus still being around, this debate can last for a long time.

To me, the saddest thing is that none of these should have happened. The second saddest thing is that the truth of SARS-COV-2 being a bioweapon could not penetrate through the wall built by the main stream media and the CCP. People do not think they are being attacked and do not realize that the attack could still be on-going. Isn't that too convenient that, when they need to argue for mail-in ballots, the infection numbers here roared into the sky?

If we can't make the truth known, then we could only expect more suffering. Anti-lockdown people are brave. But, to me, what's more urgent is to let the truth of the virus origin known to the world. That's the cause of the cancer. Eradicating the source is the key.

Reply
David Rivard
11/24/2020 01:43:08 pm

Interesting viewpoint.

https://freedomplatform.tv/plandemic-indoctornation-world-premiere/

Disagree or not, the diversity of viewpoints, especially in a documentary type production, can only help the chase for an honest inquiry. I am wondering how many Med. doctors and virologists disagree with the natural origin story. There can't be any more than about 30 under the influence of EcoHealth.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
11/26/2020 06:13:38 am

I did not find Apolone et al. (2020) "Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the prepandemic period in Italy" @ https://doi.org/10.1177/0300891620974755 mentioned for now on this site. Quote:

"Our results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 circulated in
Italy earlier than the first official COVID-19 cases were
diagnosed in Lombardy, even long before the first official
reports from the Chinese authorities, casting new light on
the onset and spread of the COVID-19 pandemic."

@NERDHASPOWER and everybody here: I'm with you on "what's more urgent is to let the truth of the virus origin known to the world" - yet if the virus was already out in the wild in the fall of 2019 in Italy, China is out as the initial source, and we are back in terra incognita. Makes me think of the 10 million year old hominid tooth found in Germany, rendering the whole out-of-Africa-story of mankind's origin obsolete; and Wuhan would only be the 3 million year old Lucy if my analogy is any help.

There is a problem in the timeline, ladies & gentlemen.

Reply
alex
11/26/2020 07:37:35 am

I recommend you read the article, you can find it here:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0300891620974755?journalCode=tmja






Reply
Guy Fawkes
11/26/2020 06:19:30 pm

Thanks Alex, my DOI-link redirects towards the same page. Indeed, it goes without saying that I also recommend reading the paper in full, it was published October 29, 2020. There are some nice jewels in it, here some excerpts:

"This study shows an unexpected very early circulation
of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic individuals in Italy several months before the first patient was identified, and
clarifies the onset and spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Finding SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in
asymptomatic people before the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy may reshape the history of pandemic.

[...]

To test the hypothesis of early circulation of the virus in
Italy, we investigated the frequency, timing, and geo-
graphic distribution of SARS-CoV-2 exposure in a series
of 959 asymptomatic individuals, using proprietary SARS-
CoV-2 binding and neutralizing antibodies on the plasma
samples repository.

[...]

In
the first 2 months, September–October 2019, 23/162
(14.2%) patients in September and 27/166 (16.3%) in
October displayed IgG or IgM antibodies, or both. The first
positive sample (IgM-positive) was recorded on September
3 in the Veneto region

[...]

Notably, two peaks of positivity for anti-SARS-
CoV-2 RBD antibodies were visible: the first one started at
the end of September, reaching 18% and 17% of IgM-
positive cases in the second and third weeks of October,
respectively. A second one occurred in February 2020,
with a peak of over 30% of IgM-positive cases in the sec-
ond week.

[...]

Evaluation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 functional neutraliz-
ing antibodies (NAbs) was performed for all 111 SARS-
CoV-2 RBD-positive samples using a cytopathic effect
(CPE)–based live virus microneutralization assay in a
high-containment biosafety level 2 laboratory. Six of the
111 SARS-CoV-2 RBD-positive patients were positive in
the qualitative CPE-based microneutralization test. Of
these, four samples were collected in October (two on the
7th, one each on the 8th and the 21st), one in November,
and one in February.

[...]

The presence of functional
anti-SARS-CoV-2 NAbs at the beginning of October 2019
further supports the early unnoticed circulation of the virus
in Italy, particularly in Lombardy.
At the end of December 2019, COVID-19 appeared in
Wuhan City, China.

[...]

In Italy, the first case was identified in Lombardy on
February 20, and the first death attributed to COVID-19
occurred in a 77-year-old retiree living in a small town in
the Veneto region.

[...]

Since November–
December 2019, many general practitioners began reporting
the appearance of severe respiratory symptoms in elderly
and frail people with atypical bilateral bronchitis, which was
attributed, in the absence of news about the new virus, to
aggressive forms of seasonal influenza.

[...]

Moreover, a
phylogenetic analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genomes isolated
from 3 Lombardy patients involved in the first COVID-19
outbreak suggests that the common origin of the strains
dates back several weeks before the first cases of COVID-
19 pneumonia reported in China. 8 Based on these findings,
a prior unnoticed circulation of the virus among the Italian
population could be hypothesized.

[...]

Evidence
from environmental monitoring showed that SARS-CoV-2
was already circulating in northern Italy at the end of 2019. 9
Molecular analysis with reverse transcription polymerase
chain reaction assays of 40 composite influent wastewater
samples collected between October 2019 and February
2020 in three cities and regions in northern Italy (Milan/
Lombardy, Turin/Piedmont, and Bologna/Emilia Romagna)
showed the presence of viral RNA first occurring in sewage
samples collected on December 18 in Milan and Turin. This
study also indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in
different geographic regions simultaneously, which agrees
with our serologic findings.
At the international level, concordant evidence comes
from two additional studies. A first article reported a case
of a patient hospitalized for hemoptysis with no etiologic
diagnosis in an intensive care unit in Paris, France, in
December 2019. 10 Retrospective molecular analysis on the
stored nasopharyngeal swab confirmed the diagnosis of
SARS-CoV-2 infection. A second study by Harvard
University showed a relevant increase of hospital traffic in
the Wuhan region, evaluated by satellite imagery, and
COVID-19 symptoms–related queries in search engines,
since autumn 2019. 11 These findings suggest that the virus
may have already been circulating at the time of the out-
break in several countries.
To our knowledge, there are no published data on anti-
body responses to SARS-CoV-2 in the prepandemic period
in any countries in the world. Our study was carried out in a
sample of asymptomatic individuals originating from all
Italian regions. At least one SARS-CoV-2–positive individ-
ual was detected in 13 regions, and Lombardy had the high-
est number, mirroring the data from the nat

Guy Fawkes
11/26/2020 06:24:43 pm

- PART II OF THE MESSAGE ABOVE WITH A LITTLE OVERLAP -

To our knowledge, there are no published data on anti-
body responses to SARS-CoV-2 in the prepandemic period
in any countries in the world. Our study was carried out in a
sample of asymptomatic individuals originating from all
Italian regions. At least one SARS-CoV-2–positive individ-
ual was detected in 13 regions, and Lombardy had the high-
est number, mirroring the data from the national survey.
The first surge of positive cases was identified in
September–October 2019. Evaluation of anti–SARS-
CoV-2 functional NAbs identified positive samples in
CPE-based microneutralization tests already collected in
October 2019. Given the temporal delay between infection
and antibody synthesis, these results indicate that the virus
circulated in Italy well before the detection of the declared
index patient in February 2020. In addition, most of the
first antibody-positive individuals lived in regions where
the pandemic started.

[...]

Therefore, the
specificity of the assays used in the present study strongly
supports our seroprevalence findings in a relevant number
of asymptomatic individuals well before the overt pandemic
period, with positive patients in September–October 2019.
Our results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 circulated in
Italy earlier than the first official COVID-19 cases were
diagnosed in Lombardy, even long before the first official
reports from the Chinese authorities, casting new light on
the onset and spread of the COVID-19 pandemic."

--> The first Yan-report was one of the most interesting papers I ever read, kudos to the authors! Yet, the finger-pointing towards China could have been a little early, given the above context. The Italians looked, but who knows what's the global picture @ timing of anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD antibodies emerging in the populance.

I follow this specific scientific debate since spring and understand gain-of-function-research with coronaviruses was made for over 2 decades, let's only remind everyone here of Kuo et al. (2000) "Retargeting of Coronavirus by Substitution of the Spike Glycoprotein Ectodomain -- Crossing the Host Cell Species Barrier" or Menachery et al. (2015) "A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence". Yet, if I got it right, CoV-2 ***seems*** to have been based upon a military template. And at soon as the cavalry is involved - whose horsemen certainly are great fans of this blog - I guess we should all assume it's a funny game of smoke and mirrors, and all we can lean to is a pile of pre-event-publications, chronology and logic.

Let's play a little game and quote the old Epictetus:

"Appearances to the mind are of four kinds. Things either are what they appear to be; or they neither are, nor appear to be; or they are, and do not appear to be; or they are not, and yet appear to be. Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task."

So what's everyone's guess here? If for the mainstream, simple, CoV-2 is what it appears to be. For us, it would be of the 4rd kind - "CoV-2 is not [natural], and yet appears to be". But given the Italian paper, it gets more complicated, as we could also say "Cov-2 is [neither natural, nor from China], and yet appears to be". Welcome to Steppenwolf's hall of mirrors, folks!

Reply
Nerd has power
11/26/2020 08:56:52 pm

Thank you for the analysis. First, let me comment a bit more on this Italian paper. Antibody tests can be complicated. There has been observations that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could cross-react with other viruses (I will try to dig out that paper). Therefore, even if the experiment was done perfectly, there is still a chance that those 2019 blood samples in Italy had other viral infections.

In this sense, PCR test is more reliable and antibody test are not as much. I think Alex had a comment on this earlier. So, here is what I think about the methods and the robustness/weakness of the Italian paper.

As we have observed during the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 is really modest when it comes to mutations. For a virus that is not supposed to change its property abruptly, how can SARS-CoV-2 be spreading in Italy in Sep 2019 without being detected? How could it suddenly become much more lethal in Feb 2020 and send everybody to hospitals and onto ventilators?

You also mentioned the Yan reports, the 2nd of which particularly focused on uncovering the virus fabrications (RaTG13, pangolin CoVs, RmYN02). Although the 2ne Yan report was published later, the team knew about these fabrications before the 1st Yan report was published.

Clearly these fabrications all have a clear goal ---- to give the world the false impression that SARS-CoV-2 should have come from nature. It is also clear that these fabrications could not be all individual incidents that are unrelated to one another. Instead, they were clearly produced and published in a well-planned manner.

The big question is why would the CCP engage in such a large-scale, organized fraud???

Maybe you are not as convinced about the evidence in the 2nd Yan report as I am. If that is the case, I would highly recommend that you dig into it more. To me, the 2nd Yan report is just as solid as the 1st. Once you realize that these fabrications and the orchestration by the CCP are all true and real, you may understand why the role of the CCP was revealed with full confidence in the 1st Yan report.

I understand one needs to be cautious when making claims on this topic. But, if you weigh the evidence in a logical manner and diligently filter out unreliable information, the answer isn't super hard to get.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
11/27/2020 12:51:17 pm

Thank you NERD for your kind reply. Please don't get me wrong, of course I read your 2nd Yan-report in full as well and found it outstanding and outspoken, yet the 1st was an awesome concentrate on all the comments & 3rd party links over here from the past 6 month into one pub, thus priceless in making a long story short.

Indeed, weighting in all that has been already published, it's clear there is a China-connection, they seem to be the masters of their kind in that specific GOF-research on coronaviruses, or at least a science hub. Yet "connection" means they are not alone, and as a natural scientist myself, I know there are no nation borders in academia, research groups and publications.

Remember Nature's "Inside China’s pathogen lab" by David Cyranosk in vol. 542, pp. 399-400? Quote:

"The lab was designed and
constructed with French assistance as part of a
2004 cooperative agreement on the prevention
and control of emerging infectious diseases.

[...]

Many staff from the Wuhan lab have been
training at a BSL-4 lab in Lyon, which some
scientists find reassuring."

That's the thing, there are visiting researchers all the time from everywhere, it's a revolving door, thus thinking in nation-states is in my eyes a self-limiting, oldschool 20-century approach. I get that you seem to be from Taiwan and have a personal bone to pick with communist China. I'm not walking in your shoes and don't know your history, but I deeply respect your motivation. On the other hand, who knows if it's not a false flag in order to put the mainland Chinese in a shady light? Would have been rather easy to do for the other "cavalries", and by definition, those gladios work from behind, and we will never, ever find out. So we are back in unknown unknown-land.

Concerning antibody cross-reactions, I talked about it with a friend of mine who is a medical scientist. He said the same as you @ cross-reactions. Apolone et al. speak of "SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD)–specific antibodies" - it all comes down how "specific" they really are. But are those cross-reactions not limited to genetically closely related viruses? Otherwise, their ELISA-test would be utterly worthless and the whole publications bonkers.

A question that's at the back of my head for a long time now is qui bono. Who wins here? "Georgia Guidestone bringing global population down to 500 million"-interpretations aside, the whole thing makes no sense. Are the perpetrators not able to use some hardcore virus in order to reach their goal? And if the choice for something that lame [I know a lot of people who already had corona, young and old, and it was a joke for most of them - at last for now, who knows the long-term effects] was on purpose, why the bad work in not creating something flawless in relation to your 2 articles on this site?

If some entity really wants to bring down human population, why such a lame mutant? If it was by accident, where is the monday-morning-box in front of very affluent country citizen's door full of a week's supply of N99/FFP3-masks and a pair of lab-goggles? Why do I have to buy it myself? Where is the intelligence agency with some intelligence to share when people need it? Their respective research unit certainly read all papers, knew right from the start what happened, yet kept mute watching the pathetic public show of surgical masks which are worthless against viruses. Is it because they know the population is child-like not able to follow lab protocol and the maskarade is only there to give the simple minds the illusion of safety in order not to go apeshit? Yes, I know that's priority #1 for everyone in power and would be the case in such a setting.

But there is something missing in the equation in order for those who decided to release CoV-2 not to opt for something much more powerful - or at least without any lab-markers of manipulation in the genome. All that makes sense to me for now it the LIHOP [let it happen on purpose]-line for all other countries à la Rahm Emmanuel:

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

I think this blog is historic for taking down the official narrative. But the reason for picking Cov-2 and reacting globally in such a medieval way remains is a total mystery, at least to me.

Back to you all. Thanks for everyone contributing in a constructive way to these comments. And again thumbs up to NERD for creating this great & important site!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Nerd has power
11/29/2020 06:01:05 am

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will respond to a few points you touched.

About antibody cross reactions, it could be with other coronaviruses, such as those that cause common cold. Check out this link and see how professor Jonathan Stoye echoes this point:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/29/a-year-after-wuhan-alarm-china-seeks-to-change-covid-origin-story?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I am not from Taiwan. I am from mainland China. Yes, I am not a fan of the CCP. But I am also not a hatred-filled, irrational individual. I am a scientist and believe what the evidence and logic tell me.

When I first heard that the virus could be man-made, I thought it's crazy. I did not believe it could be a bioweapon. I actually thought what you are thinking ---- whoever first suggest it being a bioweapon must be biased by their negative thought of the CCP. However, I decided to give it a look myself, because I can. However, that one look immediately changed my thought. I was instantly convinced that it is man-made.

You are also correct that not just the CCP scientists have the skills. Their facilities were built by the French and they have funding from the NIH. Then why did we point the fingers only to the CCP? That's exactly why I wanted you to focus on the 2nd Yan report. If you understand it to the proper level, you would have to think about this:

Why would the CCP organize a series of fabrications ---- RaTG13, many pangolin coronaviruses, RmYN02?

Why didn't the French fabricate viruses? Why didn't the Americans fabricated viruses? Why would anyone fabricate a bunch of viruses to falsely suggest a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2? Ask yourself these questions, please.

Finally, is SARS-CoV-2 really that incompetent as a bioweapon? Is 70% lethality better than 5% lethality? Would you get this much transmission and spread?

Isn't it pretty "ideal" that your enemy suffers from crazy virus spread, crippled economy, disabled military, chaotic politics, while at the same time people won't even believe that they are being attached by a bioweapon? I think that's pretty ideal.

That's why SARS-CoV-2 should be categorized as an Unrestricted Bioweapon.

Again, I would recommend that you read the 2nd Yan report more carefully.

Nerd has power
11/27/2020 10:05:46 am

Here is an article written by a fellow blogger, humblescientist. A very good piece in my opinion:

https://humblescientist.medium.com/the-coronavirus-research-that-may-have-led-to-covid-19-4c6445a017b0

Reply
Guy Fawkes
11/28/2020 04:23:15 am

Thank you for the link to "The coronavirus research that may have led to COVID-19", there is also a PDF-version of it for offline reading:

https://github.com/humblescientist/SARS_CoV_2_articles/raw/main/original_articles/The_Coronavirus_research_that_may_have_led_to_covid-19_20201127.pdf
@

@NERD: There are now more than 1200 comments below your article. Would it be possible to divide them into several pages and perhaps to invert the sequence in order for the newest post always on top? This would make checking for new posts much simpler than to load all of them and scroll to the very bottom. Or perhaps even create a dedicated new tab for comments just like you did for the links. Just an idea! Thank you.

Reply
Nerd has power
11/29/2020 06:10:04 am

Thank you for the suggestions. I can try to explore a bit. Please don't put too much hope though because I'm embarrassingly incapable of managing webpages :)

alex
11/28/2020 08:26:23 am

new attempt to throw balls out

https://www.rt.com/news/508060-chinese-academics-covid-origins-india/
Odds that the origin of the "new" virus is in India = zero.
Probabilities that the "new" virus "is in Italy = zero.
Idem for Spain, Portugal, Greece or Sweden, per example

Reply
David Rivard
11/28/2020 09:04:44 am

The fact that Lancet, without evidence, continues to publish variations of the CCP's natural origin story, while not accepting lab origin papers with many more credible citations not only undermines their credibility, but makes them complicit in this global tragedy. Rather than giving equal exposure to both natural or lab origins, the editors have chosen to give the CCP a veneer of science as they continue force others to waste resources in either defending or dis-crediting their new inventions. Also, as a part of the disclosures, every article from Chinese academia should disavow any interests by the CCP. Academia (Lancet, et al) must warrant this new standard as another layer of truth for the sake of more efficient prevention, vaccine and therapeutic development. Is Lancet identifying as part of the CCP apparatus?

Reply
Guy Fawkes
11/29/2020 02:23:35 pm

So Italy is off the table, as stated in the Guardian article NERD pointed to:

"Reports of Covid circulating in Italy in autumn 2019, based on samples from a cancer unit, seem “weak”, said Prof Jonathan Stoye, a virologist at the Francis Crick Institute in London. “The serological data [from Italy] can most likely be explained by cross-reactive antibodies directed against other coronaviruses.” In other words, antibodies found in the cases in Italy had been triggered in individuals who had been infected by different coronaviruses, not those responsible for Covid-19."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/29/a-year-after-wuhan-alarm-china-seeks-to-change-covid-origin-story

@NERD's comment:

"Why would anyone fabricate a bunch of viruses to falsely suggest a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2?"

Indeed, the fabricated RaTG13, RmYN02 & pangolin coronaviruses are the smoking gun, combined with the military ZC45/ZXC21-ancestors, they form a solid corpus delicti @ China. When I first heard the word lab+military in the context of corona back in spring, this is when my alarm went off and I crawled out from below my rock and started reading all those nice publications. So, don't think the 2nd Yan report is not convincing, it is. But one should always be open for black swans changing the whole picture. Yet, with Italy due to cross-reactive antibodies out, and the Chinese story of Indian monkeys dead in the water [literally], all eyes are back on the WIV again.

Talking bioweapons, indeed it meets all criteria listed in chapter 4.3 "SARS-CoV-2 is an Unrestricted Bioweapon" from the 1st Yan-report. People have ebola in mind when the word 'bioweapon' falls, yet, of course, it's lethality is self-limiting.

--> Alarming to me are the long term-effects of COVID-19. There was an early pub by Ye et al. (2020) "Clinical characteristics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reactivation", quote:

"We confirmed that in a significantly proportion of COVID-19 pa-
tients, SARS-CoV-2 reactivation developed after discharging from
hospital (9%).

[...]

"SARS-CoV-2 reactivation will be a vexing and persistent prob-
lem."

This, coupled with "T cell counts are reduced significantly in COVID-19 patients, and the surviving T cells appear functionally exhausted " in Diao et al. (2020) "Reduction and Functional Exhaustion of T Cells in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)", it's not a nice outlook at all. Hence, bioweapon it is, especially in the long run, with reactivations at lower levels of lymphocytes.

But, NERD, as a Chinese, do you think CoV-2 is also intended as a biowarfare against the Chinese population itself? Back in 1987, H.R.H. Prince Philip wrote the following in the foreword of Fleur Cowles' "If I Were an Animal":

"I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus."

You are right, the "enemy suffers from crazy virus spread, crippled economy, disabled military", but the same is true for the homeland. Ergo, we are back at square 1 with global depopulation. So far, holistically speaking, that's the best explanation for the medieval international reaction to this virus.

Reply
Nerd has power
11/29/2020 05:51:42 pm

Ok, Guy, take a look at these records:

In July 2018, Wuhan had a table-top exercise/rehearsal of dealing with a MERS emergency:

http://wjw.hubei.gov.cn/bmdt/ywdt/wsyj/201911/t20191104_347604.shtml

http://www.hbcdc.cn/index.php/index-view-aid-6871.html

They pretended that, during the Military World Games in 2019, a MERS patient was identified in Wuhan. (Yes, you saw it correctly, it was not HIV, not Ebola, not dengue, but MERS)

In April 2019, Wuhan had an actual exercise/rehearsal of facing MERS emergency, in preparation of the Military World Games:

http://www.whjy.com.cn/index.php/index-view-aid-1379.html

In July 2019, Wuhan had another exercise/rehearsal of MERS emergency, again in preparation for the Military World Games:

https://m.weibo.cn/status/4418347615555173

https://udn.com/news/story/120944/4635017

I reiterate: it was always for MERS, not HIV, not Ebola, not Dengue, not ZIKA ......

It's also noteworthy that they never did any such exercise in Wuhan before. Not even when MERS was actually a problem in 2014 or 2015. They also never cared about MERS in 2016 or 2017. Yet, since 2018 and more frequently in 2019, they REALLY practiced how to face a MERS emergency.

Could the CCP unleash the virus to its own population first. Of course they can. Chinese people are their property and, in their eyes, are not too different from animals they own on their farms. Check out this tweet:

https://twitter.com/KoronaKitaya/status/1306193136113168386

Unleashing it in Wuhan first would make people look away from the fact that the virus could be made by the CCP. Because people naturally do not think any government would hurt its own people with its own bioweapon. But, as you can hopefully better appreciate now, dictators do not care about the lives of people. (It's also helpful to think Kim Jong-Un here.)

What's more, apparently, the CCP has prepared Wuhan previously so that Wuhan could theoretically contain the infections efficiently. I think the virus turned out to be harder to contain, even for Wuhan. But, nonetheless, the CCP might not have predicted this.

Finally, if it is a bioweapon and has been unleashed, do you think the CCP would stop unleashing it to their enemy? They may have stopped unleashing it in China. However, if they completely stop unleashing it elsewhere, don't you think they are wasting their investment in this bioweapon? If they are unleashing it still, who would they target?

BTW, how do you feel about the old news that China blamed the US military athletes for having brought the coronavirus to Wuhan?

Reply
babstar
11/29/2020 11:29:57 pm

Interesting choice of MERS as a pandemic model. The one big difference is the low R0 (estimate 0.50 ~ 0.69) and the lack of self sustaining chains of transmission outside health care settings. It has a relatively low prevalence in Saudi Arabia, predominately among Camel herders. Not the virus you would expect from Military age males from the Middle East.

Great MERS primer: What Have We Learned About Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Emergence in Humans? A Systematic Literature Review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6396572/

Guy Fawkes
11/30/2020 01:20:02 pm

Ok NERD, first, let me thank you for this awesome exchange!

@"But, as you can hopefully better appreciate now, dictators do not care about the lives of people."

Looks like I managed to play the naive bloke so far. Problem is your blog cannot be reached in a true anonymous way via Tor, and putting a web proxy inbetween breaks the ability to comment - reason why I stayed silent those last months. Thus, I "appreciated" a long, long time ago, only not wanted to go full dystopia right from the start. I actually read 1984, check this quote and apply it to the system of your choice:

"Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we
are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonis-
tic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear
and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being
trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but MORE
merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be
progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed
that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded
upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions ex-
cept fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything
else we shall destroy—everything. Already we are break-
ing down the habits of thought which have survived from
before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child
and parent, and between man and man, and between man
and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend
any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and
no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at
birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be
eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the
renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our
neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loy-
alty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love,
except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, ex-
cept the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will
be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipo-
tent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no
distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no
curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing
pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this,
Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Al-
ways, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory,
the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If
you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping
on a human face—for ever.’"

Thank you very much for all those MERS-drill-links. Predictive programming par exellence, to use a loaded term. Talking MERS, there is an intersting pub from 2018 by Chafekar & Fielding "MERS-CoV Understanding the Latest Human Coronavirus Threat", this in something I'd like to share:

"Even with all of these potential anti-MERS-CoV candidates, no experimental interventions have demonstrated significant benefit in acutely ill patients in a consistent or controlled manner. [...] Because of the highly sophisticated immune evasion mechanisms of viral pathogens, human vaccine development remains a major challenge. In addition, the development of safe and effective coronavirus vaccines has been even more challenging, being curtailed by major obstacles, including (1) coronavirus immunity often wanes rapidly; (2) individuals needing to be protected include the elderly; and (3) vaccines may exacerbate rather than prevent coronavirus lung immunopathology."

And related to (3), aka ADE, aka antibody-dependent enhancement, Huismann et al. (2008) "Vaccine-induced enhancement of viral infections" is quite telling:

"For vaccine-induced enhanced susceptibility to infection with certain viruses like feline coronavirus, Dengue virus, and feline immunodeficiency virus, it has been shown that antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) plays an important role. Other mechanisms may, either in the absence of or in combination with ADE, be involved. Consequently, vaccine-induced enhancement has been a major stumble block in the development of certain flavi-, corona-, paramyxo-, and lentivirus vaccines. Also recent failures in the development of a vaccine against HIV may at least in part be attributed to induction of enhanced susceptibility to infection. There may well be a delicate balance between the induction of protective immunity on the one hand and the induction of enhanced susceptibility on the other."

Finally, there is a very interesting pub from the pentagon by Greg G. Wolff (2019) "Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season", quote:

"The study population was predominantly male, Active Duty service
members, aged 18–35 years old ... Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumoviru

Fuddman
2/24/2021 02:40:59 pm

"....dictators do not care about the lives of people. "

Slight disagreement.

They care about. (1) Productive people and (2) consumers.

Without those, their source of money dries up.

What group are non productive, minimal consumers?

How about those 60 years and older?

Is their a relationship, then, that the virus kills mostly the elderly and the weapon intent?

Is it mere coincidence that the Chinese vaccine is ineffective for those over 60?

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/pakistan-says-china-s-sinopharm-vaccine-not-effective-for-people-over-60-years-101612451470795.html

As an aside, this article says June 2020; but, how long has China been vaccinating the PLA. Not too many 60 year olds in the PLA I betcha.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/health/china-coronavirus-military-vaccine-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

Annette
11/29/2020 08:58:25 pm

"This, coupled with "T cell counts are reduced significantly in COVID-19 patients, and the surviving T cells appear functionally exhausted " in Diao et al. (2020) "Reduction and Functional Exhaustion of T Cells in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)", it's not a nice outlook at all. Hence, bioweapon it is, especially in the long run, with reactivations at lower levels of lymphocytes." This virus is acting like a retro virus has anyone done any study to see if a retro viral base pair code has been inserted.

Reply
Nerd has power
12/1/2020 06:02:13 am

I think SARS-CoV-2 does not infect T cells or immune cells in general. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So, not exactly like retroviruses. Some also have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 genome has insertions of HIV sequences. However, I am not convinced about such insertions. I commented about this a few times already, but I'm sure nobody could find them now with over 1200 comments here.

Guy Fawkes
11/30/2020 01:25:17 pm

@ANNETTE: It would be very interesting to know if a retro viral base pair code has been inserted.

@NERD: Sorry, my prior comment was too long, here part II again with some overlap:

Finally, there is a very interesting pub from the pentagon by Greg G. Wolff (2019) "Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season", quote:

"The study population was predominantly male, Active Duty service
members, aged 18–35 years old ... Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus ... Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR [Odds Ratio] = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively). Conversely, all other non-influenza respiratory viruses had decreased odds in the vaccinated population."

--> So, for the first 2 pubs above, my takaway is that ADE will be a major problem with Cov-2/MERS in the future. Let's see what happens when the first round of mainstream-media-propagandized people gets vaccinated. Also, in the context of the Air Force-paper, it would be interesting to plot the severity of influenza-vaccinated people with COVID-19-symptoms vs. non-influenza-vaccinated people. Again, the long term-effects of a) COVID-19 reactivations, b) COVID-19 in interference with other vaccines and c) antibody-dependent enhancement due to CoV-2-vaccines will be most crucial to know. Looks like the whole world turned into a lab these days, and we are the monekys. On reason more to put on the best FFP3 R D or even P3R-filters + lab goggles with reduced ventilation on money can buy, and to avoid such experimental vaccines as long as possible.

@"Finally, if it is a bioweapon and has been unleashed, do you think the CCP would stop unleashing it to their enemy? They may have stopped unleashing it in China."

Of course not. But as the virus now replicates & mutates out in the wild, "stopping unleashing" it is obsolete, the ghost is of the bottle.

@"BTW, how do you feel about the old news that China blamed the US military athletes for having brought the coronavirus to Wuhan?"

Granted, given all your Wuhan-MERS-drill-links, it's a hilarious evasive defence.

On a come-with-a-solution-or-be-part-of-the-problem final note, the following doc "Masks and Respirators - Understanding the Difference" by the University of Washington is great. I guess everybody by now has seen those people showing off with their "supersafe" N95-masks which wrap around the ears, right? Only for them to be cheap KN95, ergo junk:

"Leakage occurs around mask when user inhales. [...] Does not provide wearer with reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection."

https://www.ehs.washington.edu/system/files/resources/masks-respirators-difference.pdf

Reply
Nerd has power
12/1/2020 05:52:19 am

Thank you for the info and discussion. Yes, as individuals, we all need to do the best we can to avoid it. That helps with minimizing the overall spread as well. Personally, I will continue to stay cautious about the vaccines. Like everybody else, I really hope they work. But there are significant unknowns and the recent news from Pfizer and Moderna are a bit suspicious IMO.

Yes, the virus is already out in the wild. However, this does not mean that its current spread is all natural. If you also believe that the CCP could still be unleashing it, isn't it possible that the crazy numbers we see in the US right now are partly due to the CCP-enabled unnatural spread?

In my opinion, the world is under attack and yet very few feel the need to fight back. Most people, even after learning the truth, don't seem to be bothered by the fact that the CCP attacked the world with a bioweapon. It feels like they just want to suck it all in and move on.

If I were the CCP, I would be jumping all over the place. My cheap weapon did what it is supposed to do and I got away! You know who else is encouraged? Countries like North Korea, Saudi Arab, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. Apparently, the CCP is indeed helping these countries build their own P3 labs. Please don't tell me these countries all would use their P3 labs just for improving public health.

If we let the truth be buried and the CCP evade punishment, humanity is going downhill, fast. I don't think how anyone could argue against this. However, the CCP is not invincible. The fact that they used "a poor man's nuclear weapon" to do a secret attack tells you that they are actually weak. It's a desperate shot by the CCP that could cost its whole regime. Xi Jinping has recently called this the "Ultimate Battle". They know they could lose it all. The way they avoid losing it all is to do all they can to bury the truth and make sure the world is not aware that they are the victims of an unrestricted biowarfare.

It is completely possible and, in my opinion, relatively convenient for the world to take down the CCP. We just have to make the world wake up to the truth, and everything else will follow. That's when things can actually start to return to normal. That's also how we can rescue humanity. I know many people don't want to hear this. But it is my honest opinion. I think taking down the CCP is necessary, for ourselves, for our children and children's children.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/2/2020 12:44:27 am

@"I think SARS-CoV-2 does not infect T cells or immune cells in general. Please correct me if I'm wrong."

--> Here is the pub about it, check Wang et al. (2020) "SARS-CoV-2 infects T lymphocytes through its spike protein-mediated membrane fusion", the following are the excerpts I found worth retaining [and note the similarities to MERS]:

"The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 include pneumonia, diarrhea, dyspnea, and multiple organ failure. Interestingly, lympho- cytopenia, as a diagnostic indicator, is common in COVID-19 patients ... We used pseudovirus with equal infectivity to 293T/ACE2 cells (Fig. 1c) to infect two T lymphocyte cell lines, MT-2 and A3.01, with very low, or close to negative, expression level of hACE2 mRNA (Fig. 1b). Surprisingly, over several replicates, we saw that the T-cell lines were significantly more sensitive to SARS-CoV-2 infection when compared with SARS-CoV (Fig. 1c). In other words, these results tell us that T lymphocytes may be more permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection and less permissive for SARS-CoV infection, similar to the findings in a previous study. 6 Therefore, it is plausible that the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 might mediate potent infectivity, even on cells expressing low hACE2, which would, in turn, explain why the transmission rate of SARS-CoV-2 is so high ... To further determine the susceptibility of MT-2 cells to live virus, we used SARS-CoV-2 to infect MT-2 cells and detected the SARS- CoV-2 nucleoprotein (NP) in the cells as reported previously. 6 Notably, several MT-2 cells were infected with SARS-CoV-2 (Fig. 1f). Quantitatively, the percentage of SARS-CoV-2 NP-positive MT-2 cells was 23.11% higher than that of uninfected cells at 24 h post infection, which is about 4.6-fold of the portion at 1h (Fig. 1f). This result means that the virus penetrated MT-2 cells at 24 h and infected them. Given that MERS-CoV can efficiently infect, but not replicate, in T lymphocytes, 6 we further detected the number of viral genome copies at different time points post infection to explore the replication characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 in MT-2 cells. Similar to MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2 failed to replicate in MT-2 cells (Fig. 1g). The number of viral genome copies at 6h was significantly higher than other time points in the cell lysate, but always remained steady at all time points in the supernatants. These results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may enter MT-2 cells at 6h post infection, but does not replicate, and then the viral RNA degrade ... Based on the results of pseudovirus and live virus infection, here we proved that (1) SARS-CoV-2 could infect T cells, (2) SARS-CoV-2 infected T cells through receptor-dependent, S protein-mediated membrane fusion, and (3) infection could be inhibited by EK1 peptide. However, we observed a very low expression level of hACE2 in T cells; therefore, we further proposed that a novel receptor might mediate SARS-CoV-2 entry into T cells. Similar to MERS-CoV, SARS- CoV-2 infection of T cells is abortive."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41423-020-0424-9.pdf

Nerd has power
12/3/2020 05:21:58 am

Thank you! So I was wrong. T cells can indeed be infected by SARS-CoV-2.

David Rivard
12/1/2020 10:25:22 am

@Nerd, I concur. You must have inherited some historian gene along with your scientist gene. Only those fully immersed in our current comfortable society with our values of a concurrence of goodwill will not see that when wars were initiated in the past, perpetrators do not see collateral damage as an issue. They will only start war if they perceive many tactical and strategic advantages, along with the element of surprise. They have been given a lot of time to keep this element through our scientific publishers and have the critical maintenance through several UN agencies. Their first vanguard is of course the critical question you address; natural or artificial. The second will be; intentional or not...and, they go to war to absolutely vanquish their enemies.

Reply
Nerd has power
12/1/2020 08:16:23 pm

Thank you, David. Very well said.

To me, the attack by the CCP cannot be more real. However, this unrestricted biowarfare is only part of the whole operation. The media control, the corruption in US politics, the corruption in science (coronavirus experts, top journals, WHO), the corruption in the US legal system, the fraudulent election ....... The CCP is everywhere. It has infiltrated widely into the US and the free world and has been using all these resources in a coordinated manner to cover up the truth on the virus as well as disable its enemy.

I know I have said before that this site is more about science and discussions should try to avoid politics. However, I personally don't think bioweapon or biowarfare are political issues. They are beyond politics and are more about humanity. To me, trying to avoid calling it for what it really is equals a crime against humanity.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/2/2020 02:27:01 am

@David Rivard: I fully agree. Yet your first point "natural or artificial" has been answered in all the pubs above beyond a reasonable doubt - aka it's artificial. Now about the "intentional or not", if it came from the WIV, and was the result of GOF, they made all those drills, then turned one live [remember Operation SOUTHERN MISTRAL just before the Libyan war, or those countless (up to 46 !) drills on 9/11], perhaps it went out of control Chernobyl-style and - as NERD suggested - perhaps they even helped spreading it worldwide to cover up their hotspot and fuel the mess [would also explain all those ex post facto pathetic intermediate host-fabrications], then your second question about intentional or not is also answered - aka intentional. How nice.

@NERD: The following is a constructive, respectful critique, please don't get me wrong. But talking history here, and assuming the Chinese government is knee-deep into [partly] funding, releasing and spreading all this mess, there is an elephant missing in your equation [I did not read something along the following lines in the last 1250 comments]: All other governments and their fine track record of taking good care of their people and foreigners. You say:

"[M]ake sure the world is not aware that they are the victims of an unrestricted biowarfare. It is completely possible and, in my opinion, relatively convenient for the world to take down the CCP. We just have to make the world wake up to the truth, and everything else will follow. That's when things can actually start to return to normal. That's also how we can rescue humanity."

This would be a coup d'état or an open war of aggression, both illegal under international law. Not cool. Yet something the US gov & NATO are experts in. Let's remind everybody in this lil' history box here about Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Egypt 1956, Cuba 1961, Vietnam 1964, Nicaragua 1981, Serbia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Yemen 2015 and Syria since 2011. Nothing returned back to normal over there. Just ask the refugees coming into Western Europe where they come from and why.

Furthermore, who exactly is "the world"? You mean other governments? You can be sure their respective intelligence agency research branch read all the papers above on day zero + those which have never been published. They know the true story, we don't. Their algos and analysts scan every line of this blog - as I said, it's a pitty Tor is blocked, as we are all on the watchlist. Remember XKEYSCORE? So, as Snowden told us in recent history, they make a constant "full take" of the internet. And they kill based on metadata, to cite Hayden, the former NSA-director. Based, but not that sweet-natured for a policy. You can be sure there are double agents working in every military lab, just like in the good ol' cold war times when *somehow* the CCCP and US where on the same technological level for decades. Hence, if governments had wanted to, they would have informed their public for a long time about what's really going on and how to protect against pro-style. "We just have to make the world wake up to the truth" - sounds nice, but forget it completely NERD. Gustave Le Bon, Edward Bernays and Noam Chomsky wrote books about propaganda aka "public relations". And what do you mean by "rescue humanity" - from what, from itself? What was the 1st human invention again? Ah, yes, a handaxe. Again, how cute for a species.

NERD, I deeply respect you for creating this blog and co-autoring the 2nd Yan-report. And I can envision you are right on target concerning the CCP - but I think you are utterly misled by the altruism of the governments of the US, EU & friends. So let me come back to Rahm Emanuel @ "you never let a crisis go to waste". Look what happens worldwide. The surveillance state's pink paradise. Perhaps I should have remained mute under my favorite rock.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Nerd has power
12/2/2020 10:18:20 pm

Guy, thank you for the comments and perspectives. I fully respect your views, although I do not agree with them in full. Let me share a bit more about what I consider as "the world" and who could save the questionable thing I referred to as humanity.

You have mentioned the countries that suffered from humanitarian crisis (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Egypt 1956, Cuba 1961, Vietnam 1964, Nicaragua 1981, Serbia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Yemen 2015 and Syria since 2011) and yet the international help did not result in improvement and rather have possibly made things worse. I just want to remind you that these are all regional crisis. None of them has placed the whole world on the edge of falling. There will never be a time the world is completely free of regional conflict and sufferings. However, more often than not, issues at such smaller scales do not bend the trajectory of the world as much.

What is more comparable here is World War II. That was a crisis at the global scale. It's not exaggerating to say that humanity could have gone downhill if World War II was won by the other side. Fortunately, things did not happen that way. So, I guess this is what gives me hope.

How was World War II won? I think there was a great deal of waking people up involved. The NAZIs were pretty good at propaganda too --- "when lies were told a thousand times, they become the truth". Many people bought their lies initially and did not consider fighting the NAZIs is that necessary. But things changed. The most important change, IMO, is people realizing that the danger is upon everyone and the whole world is at risk.

Why did the NAZIs try so hard in propaganda? I think it's because they knew they could lose if they don't. That is also why the CCP is trying so hard with propaganda too. In a way, the CCP is telling you how to take itself down ---- you just need to disable their propaganda. That's why I think waking up the world is important ---- I was inspired by the CCP.

Am I over optimistic about the western governments and politicians? Maybe I am. However, no matter how unreliable and corrupted these governments and politicians are, they still need to please their voters to secure their positions. Therefore, once the people get the truth, their ballots will make the government/politician do what has to be done.

What I don't want to happen is the opposite: the truth be buried and humanity has no chance of saving itself. So, as long as we are trying, there is hope. I think I'm optimistic about the final outcome, which helps with my effort here too.

Nerd has power
12/3/2020 05:10:20 am

I would like to add two more points (I was half asleep typing the above last night and failed to express myself in full).

First, a big part of waking people up is taking down the great firewall that the CCP has built. The population that the CCP could fool the most are the Chinese people. The CCP consistently portrays the western countries in a negative way and portrays itself as the protector of the Chinese people. It's fair to say that many people in China already know what is going on and how evil the CCP is. However, more Chinese people need to wake up to this truth. Once the firewall is taken down, the exposure to the truth would undoubtedly enrage the Chinese people. That's probably enough.

You have to know that last majority of the CCP members are innocent and some of them (quite a big percentage, I think) hate the CCP as well. The problem is just 5-6 families on top. The structure there is not too different from North Korea and Kim Jong-Un. Could a few drones take care of business? I think that's all it takes. That's option #2.

Then do we still need to bother waking people up in the west? I believe so. The great firewall of China is built and being maintained by US tech companies. It is unlikely that these companies will give up all the profits themselves ---- the CCP must be very generous here. However, the legislation here in the US could change that. Once a proper law is in place that bans these companies from doing business with the CCP, the firewall is gone. But how do you beat the lobbyists and the corruption? I think the key is the voice of the public. When the public opinion is firm and strong, the Congress cannot ignore it completely.

Could you send drones to China now? I don't think so. But how could you send one to attack the Iranian general? It's because the Iranian regime is properly recognized as the terrorist regime by the US government. How can the CCP be put into that category? I think the answer is again in the legislation. So, that's why I think waking up more people is the way to go.

David Rivard
12/2/2020 10:30:29 am

@Nerd, thanks for allowing us to come up for air in our departure from pure virology now and then. It's the reminder we all need of why we must plunge into the depths again until we retrieve enough of the truths that are rapidly accumulating in the net awaiting us above. I mentioned Voltaire as my previous apology for not being in the virology field (all fields of inquiry being only artificially separated), so thanks again.

Guy, thank you as well for your comments. Each of us have a different way of articulating this issue and you have given me new angles that I haven't thought of before (or you articulate them better than I). I agree with you entirely about your assessment about what the IC's probably already know and how they must be briefing their respective policy makers, but only maybe a little bit about how they are all collaborating together. There are thousands of local, regional and international IC's and they all internally filter their data into intelligence which is then shifted to the policy maker (heaven forbid that the policymaker is internal but it is ideally an elected official that executes the policy). Not wishing to sound Pollyannaish, information in these posts are extremely helpful data points that can be more conveniently verified into intelligence, saving the analyst a lot of time and agency resources (and they are not unlimited no matter how critical the issue). Guy, your comments can also give these analysts different viewpoints that will lead to different pathways of data, as you have accomplished with me.

Pollyanna; "Don't be so sure that the consequential IC community is all synching or covering up their intelligence together because they largely haven't even done it on previous big ticket events. The IC community must maintain budget constraints and is more limited than you might think in imagination, as you might imagine from a government employee...and an employee who only does what they are told. Also, all "Third World" leadership must remain pragmatic in their response in order to fulfill their constitutional mission of providing immediate security to their countries...from whoever will give it. I have been told by several presidents that "We know its from a lab, but what can we do against China?" They must wait for a super power to act, but will follow if a definitive plan is endorsed (not monolithically but mas o menos). All eyes are on the U.S. My big worry is that the new administration has gotten into a Catch 22 on many different levels, and particularly per how the election was ultimately influenced (and not internally). To most countries on earth, the U.S. is still far and away the preferable lead country and indeed has a "corner on the market" in terms of security operations and just plain old "goodwill" (USAID's democratic governance and economic uplifting programs et al). China can offer several billion to build a local port or a football stadium (always with the proviso of using Chinese workers), but U.S. programs already made the big capitalist cultural difference in the majority of these countries. Acolytes of Gustave Le Bon, Edward Bernays and Noam Chomsky and Oliver Stone must look at the modern and real world as I have done when I thought they had something to say over a half a century ago, and see that, if not at a political level but on a very personal level, China might have shot itself in the foot with it's first volley. Like it or not this will translate into political will for retribution. I find this site, however seemingly removed from the probable IC communities intelligence sequencing, to be on the edge of something far more consequential in readership and influence.

Reply
David Rivard
12/2/2020 10:53:34 am

In addition, this site probably has the largest readership, no?"

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/2/2020 02:47:16 pm

Thank you for your kind remarks, David! I'm delighted if I could leave a positive fingerprint behind here and there.

@"I agree with you entirely about your assessment about what the IC's probably already know and how they must be briefing their respective policy makers, but only maybe a little bit about how they are all collaborating together."

Not so sure if they really brief their policy makers. Remember OPERATION GLADIO, and the answer by NATO to exactly those policy makers on why they were not informed about the secret stay behind army all over Europe? "Because you change all the time". Also, I'm proficient enough in the German language to remember the inquiry commission on the BND [the German CIA] interception program - they were extremely reluctant to share anything they do with German lawmakers, much less the public, heaven forbid! Thus, if you see politicians on TV with their pathetic surgical masks on, you can be sure they were not briefed about anything of lasting substance. I hear that in Poland, politicians wear black masks fitting their suits. Classy!

Check out Bundgaard et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers" @

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Quote:

"They received 50 three-layer, disposable, surgical face masks with ear loops (TYPE II EN 14683 [Abena]; filtration rate, 98%; made in China)."

98%, wow! But what exactly? Let's see: TYPE II EN 14683 --> copy --> duckduckgo.com --> paste --> images [first result] --> click --> "bacterial filtration efficiency - equal or greater 98%; sub-micron particulate filtration efficiency at 0.1 micron - not required; splash resistance/synthetic blood resistance - not required.

Now those are awesome masks, folks. Behold, they filter germs! And a few more seconds of lifetime later point me to this:

"Although they have seen a rise in popularity among consumers during outbreaks such as the coronavirus, surgical masks are not designed to filter out viruses, which are smaller than germs."

https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/other/how-surgical-masks-are-made/#Whataresurgical

Thus, I'm not totally sure if all surgical-mask-bearing-politicians you see in the news have without an exception been briefed by misanthropic double agents, totally forgot their briefing... or were never briefed at all. But one thing is for sure, CoV-2 virions are in great fear of those surgical masks, be it straight through those 3 layers of 98%-bacterial-tight plastic, or sneaking around the edges. A friend of mine who works as a physician in a hospital even told me they now got flimsy 1 layer "surgical" masks which even feel like a cheap joke. All physicians [dentists, dermatologists, etc.] I visited this last year which had either surgical or pathetic KN95-masks on, all commented on my respirator + P3R-filters + labgoggles as if I freshly had landed from another planet. Hence, with such a level of knowledge in the political and medical arena, you get a certain grasp of how informed people who should know better really are. So much for "how they must be briefing".

About collaboration, I guess you are right, but I think I did not write about inter-agency-collaboration. It's an unknown unknown by definition. Yet I can imagine there are some loose monkeys in the machine throwing wrenches & sabots all over the place on purpose. All we can do is to watch the political factory from the outside, from behind the fence [or from below our favorite rock], and interpret the smoke coming out of the chimneys. Yet, sometimes, it's quite telling.

@Guy, your comments can also give these analysts different viewpoints that will lead to different pathways of data, as you have accomplished with me.

Again, thank you very much for your kind words!

Reply
Peter Ross
12/3/2020 09:31:01 pm

If there's no traces of virus on the mask it's not doing such a great filter job! Anybody testing that?

Also, there seems to be a rule that if one comes in contact with a PCR+ person then one must quarantine for 10 to 14 days and then get PCR tested to rule out infection...so how can hospital staff that's in contact with PCR+ go home every day?

Peter Ross
12/2/2020 12:39:05 pm

There is no pandemic, only fear of a pandemic from a self-disseminating vaccine called SARS-CoV-2 .

Reply
alex
12/3/2020 08:33:49 am

Can you expand this comment?, please, I do not understand well what you say

Reply
Peter Ross
12/3/2020 09:18:35 pm

Scientists are working on vaccines that spread like a disease ...thebulletin.org › Disruptive Technologies › Biosecurity
Sep 18, 2020 — How they work. Self-spreading vaccines are essentially genetically engineered viruses designed to move through populations in the same way ...

Covid-19: Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine judged safe for use in UK ...www.bbc.com › news › health-55145696
13 hours ago — ... people still need to remain vigilant and follow rules to stop the virus spreading - including with social distancing, face masks and self-isolation ...

Coronavirus cure: Scientists plan bizarre 'self-spreading vaccine'www.express.co.uk › News › World
Sep 26, 2020 — Researchers said “self-disseminating vaccines" could stop coronaviruses passing from animals to humans - but there are concerns of harmful ...

Greg Felton
12/2/2020 01:12:55 pm

Greetings Nerd and others:
My book on the synthetic nature of SARS-CoV-2 has just been published: “SARS-CoV-2: Contagion, Collusion, Corruption”. I could not have written without the valuable posts on this thread that pointed me to primary research documents. Many of your views are in the book.

https://www.turningthetidepublishing.com/shop/sars-cov-2

Thank you, again.
Greg

Reply
David Rivard
12/2/2020 07:45:33 pm

Thanks Greg, I'll both read it and shop it around for you. Another great outcome for this site.

Reply
Greg Felton
12/2/2020 07:53:07 pm

Much obliged, David: I just did an interview out of England and my publisher is lining up others. I give a plug to Nerd has Power whenever I can.

Reply
Nerd has power
12/2/2020 09:25:21 pm

Greg, glad to learn that your work has already come to fruition. I'm sure it will bring more people closer to the truth. Big congratulations!

Peter Ross
12/4/2020 07:48:33 am

https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/are-the-global-scientific-elite-trying-to-bury-the-truth-about-the-origin-of-covid-19-332583

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/4/2020 01:20:18 pm

@Peter Ross: Wow Peter, so much to muse about in this wionnews-article, pure awesomeness:

First, about the author, "Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, who previously worked at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and conducted basic and clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry", well, he should be in the know, some potential psy-ops left aside.

Second, the title "the global scientific elite" is interesting in a way I touched upon before, aka there is not "the CCP", "China" or some monolithic nation involved here. I guess few of you nerds over here know about the seminal French technological philosopher Jacques Ellul, the guy was a luminary in his field. Can't remember in which of his books I read it, but he remarked a few times that the politicians + the public are at leat half a century behind their times. Think of Antifa promoting class warfare and you get an idea in which decade they kept stuck. Either way, Colonel Sellin talking about a "global scientific elite" is striking, as we see that it's not just the CCP, nor China, nor Eurasia, but a global cabal of ivory tower lab dwellers playing the game. Forget nation-thinking, that's black-n-white cold war stuff, folks.

Third, in the article, he talks about a "growing scientific evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic may have resulted from a vaccine development project gone wrong". First I said to myself "but wait, there is the other dark branch of research aka GOF", yet there is more he brings forward: "Of additional importance is that the live-attenuated virus vaccines should clear quickly from the body and not revert or mutate back to the natural pathogenic form. To fulfill those characteristics, certain modifications providing protection strategies, or “circuit breakers,” must be engineered into the viral genome, which are also potential markers of artificial manipulation." Damn, partypeople! Remember Farkas, Mella & Haigh (2020) "Large-scale population analysis of SARS-CoV2 whole genome sequences reveals host-mediated viral evolution with emergence of mutations in the viral Spike protein associated with elevated mortality rates", hm? Quote:

"We support the latter with the observed non-random signatures of nucleotide changes in these mechanisms, and the presence of SARS-CoV-2 error-correction machinery, not seen in other RNA viruses. [...] These observations provide strong evidence that the S477N variant is a novel gain of function Spike protein mutation, as has recently been demonstrated for the D614G mutation. We argue that the constant spread of V1176F and S477N variants over the world ultimately may lead to a further significant concern in public health, due to their association with higher mortality rates. [...] It is possible that these variants can confer antigenic escape, since recently, it has been registered that a reinfection case containing A222V and D614G mutations has occurred. Nucleocapsid variation has also been documented in the nucleoprotein of the influenza virus and nucleocapsid of the hepatitis virus. Both RNA viruses escape cellular immunity by these mechanisms and could also be the case for SARS-CoV-2."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.23.20218511v1

Fouth, he talks about the syn:non-syn-ratio and the furin cleavage site, which, thanks to NERD, we are all familiar about.

And last but certainly not least, fifth, the kicker:

"Given its role in the virus-cell or cell-cell membrane fusion process, the DRASTIC team suggests that the insertion of the furin polybasic cleavage site may have been related to a high-risk attempt to produce an intranasal “self-spreading” vaccine spray. “Self-spreading vaccines are essentially genetically engineered viruses designed to move through populations in the same way as infectious diseases, but rather than causing disease, they confer protection.”"

Holy. I know NERD will be angry and I proactively duck and cover blow my rock, but I can't repeat often enough that, as a bioweapon, Cov-2 is lame. Longterm, we will see in 10 years, but short term, I think throwing swollen corpses with trebuchets like the oldtimers did was by far a more effective bioweapon.

--> Yet the self spreading vaccine gone wrong, THIS is the first time I hear a holistically sound hypothesis about what was the initial idea behind CoV-2. Explains more or less anything we see going on globally, be it the "international scientific elite" covering their peers, be it all those govs [or unelected intelligence agencies, as "those govs" perhaps have not the slightest clue as they were never briefed] neither telling what is really going on, nor distributing FFP3R-masks every monday morning, while in the same time pushing their own little orwellian tracing app and vaccine doctine; be it the ill-fated approach on pathetic bobbin-laced masks in order to protect nobody from what is coming, or be it the coverup and fabricati

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/4/2020 01:24:24 pm

...

--> Yet the self spreading vaccine gone wrong, THIS is the first time I hear a holistically sound hypothesis about what was the initial idea behind CoV-2. Explains more or less anything we see going on globally, be it the "international scientific elite" covering their peers, be it all those govs [or unelected intelligence agencies, as "those govs" perhaps have not the slightest clue as they were never briefed] neither telling what is really going on, nor distributing FFP3R-masks every monday morning, while in the same time pushing their own little orwellian tracing app and vaccine doctine; be it the ill-fated approach on pathetic bobbin-laced masks in order to protect nobody from what is coming, or be it the coverup and fabrication of the wet market fairy tale and demoni[s/z]ation of anything else.

Excuse my French, but this is really ****** up. See what happens if you give a handaxe to a monkey and let him play with it for a coupla million years?

David Rivard
12/4/2020 08:03:54 pm

But I think it is a brilliant bioweapon because it does not kill right away. It is sufficiently dangerous as it devitalizes individuals, economies and political systems. The long haulers are still long haulers after 10 months. There are millions of them. In all countries it seems that roughly half of those that test positive are in some way symptomatic... devitalized. It seems to be the perfect remedy for both capitalism and personal freedom. I am waiting for a more robust China to start replacing more 3rd world institutions that have been supported and dominated so long by the United States. The US still has a corner on the market with security operations in most of these countries. You will see their replacement very soon. Our politicians seem to be primarily focused on the silver bullet of a vaccine. I think we all have a lot of questions about how that is going to be actually limiting the infection rate, never addressed. So far their tactics have been brilliant.

Greg Felton
12/4/2020 04:33:00 pm

Inasmuch as I agree with you and Lawrence Sellin, it is not advisable to use generic epithets like “global scientific élite” or “psy-op”. This is empty rhetoric, which those who are inclined to disagree with us can claim are merely conspiratorial clichés, however accurate they may be.

Reply
Peter Ross
12/4/2020 04:55:55 pm


It stands to reason that the so-called 'SAR-CoV-2 plague' of 2019 and 2020 is NOT of a natural origin since real plagues don't need
PCR as 'the test of choice';
a globalized psychological warfare campaign of fear-mongering;
manipulation of death certificates;
distortion of statistical parameters;
brutal suppression of all forms all intellectual dissent;
calamitous economic and social shut-downs;
nor switching to unsecure election polling methods!
By applying the cui bono rule, identification of the culprits is made less complex. An author choses to use whatever epithets seem appropriate. In this case 'global elites' does seem too kind and too non-specific, since we know exactly who they are in some cases. One clue is publishing a totally fake review article on the 'dangers of HCQ'. Another clue is continuing to insist upon a bizarre conspiratorial of a 'pangolin-bat-stew' origin, especially since RICO laws don't apply yet to more than one life form.
RICO laws conceivably do apply to journalistic malpractices. Nuremberg-type laws could apply to physicians promoting untested invasive therapies when they are not indicated.

The structural analysis provided by Nerd_has_Power and D.R.A.S.T.I.C. indicates not only a synthetic origin but very possibly the original intent of the virus creators: to create a vaccine comprised of a stable and contagious virus of very low lethality.

A vaccine-origin hypothesis is borne out by the observations that infants are virtually unscathed from exposure and that the fatalities recorded for other potentially vulnerable groups appear to be due to intercurrent medical conditions and iatrogenic causes.

Among iatrogenic causes are exposing patients to high doses of the virus by closed-confinement in virus-dense medical wards; abandoning of home care protocols; and/or systematically misrepresentating the cause of death on the relevant certificates.

A true plague-causing contagion would make it impossible for hospital staff to return home after treating even a single case of illness without imposing a quarantine interim on the hospital; just imagine the bizarre notion of treating smallpox and then going home the same day to a smallpox-naive family! More likely is a scenario in which the synthetic virus called SARS-CoV-2 was designed to be a stable vaccine preparation of low lethality.

Of course, proper management of the crisis requires proper recognition of the SARS-CoV-2 origin as being most likely of a novel contagious vaccine preparation; discerning origin may be facilitated by comparison to other proposals and field tests of self-spreading vaccines intended to prevent respiratory ailments.

Guy Fawkes
12/5/2020 12:03:02 pm

@Greg Felton: Thx, but it was Colonel Lawrence Sellin himself who used "global scientific elite" in his title. I think any public statement on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when coming from somebody directly connected to the military. I guess he is right on target, but never underestimate the spectacular achievements of propaganda [to paraphrase Chomsky], ergo, IMHO, having "psy-op" projected at the back of one's mind is certainly a good idea when reading such articles. But let's agree to disagree, I'm perfectly fine with that.

Yet I take issue with your following line:

"This is empty rhetoric, which those who are inclined to disagree with us can claim are merely conspiratorial clichés, however accurate they may be."

Strange, I read something along those lines before. Where was it again? Ah, yes, CIA, anno 1967 in the now declassified "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report", quote:

"[P]ointing out that the ... charges of the critics are without serious foundation
and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation."

Thus empty rethoric, really? Greg, I get you only want to keep the discussion at a high level of quality. Kudos. But using CIA newspeak in order to please "those who are inclined to disagree with us" is the wrong party, as, by definition, anyone here is seen by the mainstream as a lunatic nerdboy lost in some shady underground blog anyway. You too, me too, all of us here. The lab release and consequent coverup is our working theory of a conspiracy by definition. That's why pleasing those "inclined to disagree" sounds like a gigantic waste of time, to me at least.

Have you ever read Gustave Le Bon's "The Crowd", originally published in 1896? Quote from chapter III:

"When it is wanted to stir up a crowd for a short space of
time, to induce it to commit an act of any nature—to
pillage a palace, or to die in defence of a stronghold or a
barricade, for instance—the crowd must be acted upon
by rapid suggestion, among which example is the most
powerful in its effect. To attain this end, however, it is
necessary that the crowd should have been previously
prepared by certain circumstances..."

And if "to induce [the crowd] to commit an act of any nature" is the aim here [put in the crosshair something of your choice, I won't open pandora's box], if "rapid suggestion" was the wet market fable, and "the crowd should have been previously prepared by certain circumstances" are the personal restrictions globally in place, then we are far away from empty rhetoric. See, I guess anyone reading these lines is here to learn something he/she/they won't anywhere else. Therefore, let's embrace new info, and not aggregate a most wanted list of banned epithets. Can we please find common ground on that?

My sincere congrats to the publication of your book, Sir!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Peter Ross
12/5/2020 07:32:52 am

Psychological warfare campaigning?
I've never heard a claim before that the ongoing social and economic and economic damages are from SARS-CoV-2 infections, but rather insidious policy decisions - some made in haste and fear due to psychological warfare agents flooding social media - and some made with deliberate intent to exacerbate rather than to ameliorate the pace of SARS-CoV-2 spread, which may or may not be a good idea.

Reply
David Rivard
12/5/2020 09:25:21 am

Sun Tzu: "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting", "Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formless".

The Parable of the River (from its many forms): There is an oft-told parable – popularised in the 1930s by social reformer and community organiser Saul Alinksy (ironic heh?) - about a group of campers on a river bank who are just settling down for the evening when one of them sees a baby in the water. He immediately dives in, braving the fierce current, and rescues the infant. But as he climbs ashore, one of the other campers spots another baby in the river in need of help. Then another. And another. Overwhelmed by the sheer number of babies, the campers grab any passer-by they can to help them.

Before long, the river is filled with desperate babies, and more and more rescuers are required to assist the campers. Unfortunately, not all the babies can be saved. And, tragically, some of the brave rescuers occasionally drown. But they manage to mould themselves into an efficient life-saving organisation and, over time, an entire infrastructure develops to support their efforts; hospitals, schools, foster carers, social services, trauma and victim support services, life saving trainers, swimming schools etc.

At this point one of the rescuers starts walking upstream.

‘Where are you going?’ the others ask, disconcerted, ‘We need you here! Look how busy we are!’

The rescuer replies: ‘You carry on here … I’m going upstream to find the bugger who keeps chucking all these babies in the river.’

Pogo: "We have found the enemy and he is us"

Sun Tzu: "Tire the enemy by keeping them busy and not letting them rest". The art of war is based on deception.

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."

"If you know others and you know yourself , not in a hundred battles will you be in danger; if you don't know others, but you know yourself, you will lose one battle and win another; If you don't know others or yourself, you will be in danger in every battle".

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors first go to war and then seek to win."

"You use the enemy to defeat the enemy"

Course, there were many parable examples and sage quotations bantered around during WW II as well.




Reply
alex
12/5/2020 09:30:42 am

@Ross
The administration of vaccines via aerosols, pills or powders, are a reality. They are even studying its dissemination by airplanes, there are precedents by other means, such as fluoride in drinking water, a subject quite questioned, by the way. In this way they can vaccinate us all even if we oppose.
Hypothesis: Were they testing a new vaccine distributed with aerosols that has produced a frog?
This would fit with Pérez and Montagnier's hypothesis, in which they maintain that the virus is the result of a vaccine trial against HIV or perhaps against malaria, or both, or perhaps against the flu. They were the first to put forward this hypothesis. They called them "gagas." But Montagnier knows a lot about the jobs that were being carried out in Wuhan and in China in general with this type of business. According to them, in this "chimeric" virus oriented to vaccines they worked on the first floor of the Wuhan laboratory, but on the second floor, which is where the military works, the business was / is? the biological weapons (with and without GOF). Although all, first and second floor, coordinated by the military.
Be that as it may, the virus came from there.
According to Pérez and Montagnier, the virus escaped. According to Yan & Nerd (Shu Kang), the virus did not escape, it was intentionally released and it was intended as a biological weapon, not as a vaccine.
The vaccine hypothesis might fit in part with Yan and Nerd's version, it was a general vaccine trial that got out of hand. Instead of vaccinating (immunizing) he started killing people, which is quite common in new vaccine trials. But as it was later shown, the version of the virus that was first released in Wuhan was not particularly contagious.
Later releases in Italy and Iran turned out to be of a more lethal version. (Perhaps exacerbated in some cases by previously administered vaccines: the case of Lombardy, Belgium and Castilla la Mancha, for example).
The spasmodic and random appearance of the virus in various parts of the world supports this version of events.
On the other hand, and as we already mentioned, it is almost certain that they had several versions of the virus, since they had been working on it for quite some time.

And now I ask @Nerd:
Is it possible that the published virus is not the real one, if not a "sweetened" version of the real one? In the real or real, human intervention / manipulation would be too obvious. Professor Tritto (Cina Covid-19, 2020) defends this idea: they have not published the complete and real sequence.
The publication of successive sequences makes you think about it.
https://virological.org/t/preliminary-phylogenetic-analysis-of-11-ncov2019-genomes-2020-01-19/329
And finally and as I said in a previous comment, and that supports this hypothesis, according to the official Chinese version, which was immediately bought by the WHO: at the end of December 2019, in Wuhan, in the middle of the flu and pneumonia season, they were capable of realizing the presence of a "new" virus, of identifying and sequencing it, in just two days. This version just doesn't make sense. Too smart to be true. And best of all, much of the scientific community has bought this version without hesitation, spearheaded by the WHO and its funders. By the way, does anyone know if the minutes/procedings of the meetings prior to the declaration of the pandemic (March 11) by the WHO can be consulted? Does anyone know if this is possible? They would help a lot to clarify what they were based on for the declaration of the pandemic.

I like how Pérez & Montagnier (July 2020) close their article:
“This analysis, made in silico, is dedicated to the real authors of Coronavirus COVID_19. It belongs only to them to describe their own experiments and why it turned into a world disaster: 650 000 lives (on 26 July 2020), more than those taken by the two atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We, the survivors, should take lessons from this serious alert for the future of humanity. We urge our colleagues scientists and medical doctors to respect ethical rules as expressed by Hipocrates oath: do not harm, never and never "

Reply
Peter Ross
12/5/2020 12:07:27 pm

@Alex
Thanks for pointing so many things out, seems like you have the proper analysis.
The possibility that authorities are not being forthcoming to the point of dissembling critical information by publishing 'sweetened' fake sequences would indicate either a beneficent intent to ward off mass hysteria panic reactions or a malevolent intent to sabotage constructive efforts. Both possibilities require highly coordinated secrecy on an international level - and among rivals - so perhaps neither possibility is relevant?

In interpreting the epidemiological data for fatality rates, which may or may not point to virus strains of varying lethality and prevalence, it should be taken into account that critical elements of treatment were omitted during the initial months. For example, W.H.O. recommendations specifically directed away from the the use of steroids. What are the factors that potentially contributed to the mortalities in Northern Italy last winter and elsewhere?

Identifying weaponized environmental spread has traditionally relied upon the detection of elements associated with manufacturing methods, for example egg proteins or proteins from mammalian cell cultures, whereas the availability of PCR methods should have ruled-out by now that environmental vectors such as highly-purified lyophilized preparations are a source of infection. Another source of stealth vectors would be the use of deliberately infected humans. Although vector spread may have been the initial form of dissemination, judging roughly from the initial punctuated geographical distributions (reference?), the current patterns of spread, based upon both PCR data and morbidity data, indicates seasonal variations as expected for upper and lower respiratory tract infections.

The economic and social damages are exclusively due to the fear of a pandemic rather than due to an actual pandemic of respiratory illness from either the synthetic SARS-CoV-2 strain(s) or from the influenza viruses. The potential role of a theoretical "debilitating course of latent infection" may or may not be relevant, but it's not something that hospital staff are reporting, as far as I know. Hospital staff remain at the epicenter of spread, and since this cohort has remained healthy, it stands to reason that recurrent exposure to SARS-CoV-2 is not a significant health issue.

From a public health position, it's hard to explain the commercial and political drive towards mass vaccination with experimental concoctions subjected to only a few months of safety scrutiny unless one accepts indoctrination of an entire class of medical professionals into a mass psychopathology that is appropriately addressed by Nuremberg Codes, which does seem to be the case! Saddenly!

Forced consumption of water containing the fluoride neurotoxin solely to prevent dental caries is an interesting analogy to consider, however the analogy is grossly incomplete, since caries is considered to be multifactorial and neither contagious nor life-threatening.

Reply
Greg Felton link
12/5/2020 12:39:14 pm

@GuyFawkes: Thank you Guy. I am certain you;'d like it. I take your point that Sellin was the source of the terms I criticized, but I think you may have misconstrued my point. Whether or not boilerplate rhetoric like "psy-op" or "global scientific elite" is accurate is not the point. These are generic, hackneyed buzzwords that say nothing in particular. Anyone, no matter how informed or ignorant, can hurl them with equal force, so it is not possible for these terms to be taken seriously or carry any "useful info." By sheer repetition, they become less and less useful.

I appreciate the Le Bon quotation, but I think you over-estimate the ability of buzzwords to inspire people to action. English always works better. Instead of "X-élite," say who these people are; "élite" is a generic noun and could be used for any establishment group. Instead of "psy-op"--a rebarbative clipped expression--say "fraud", "deception", "mind game" or some other such word. Say what you mean!

Whenever I hear someone go on about psy-ops or élites of whatever stripe, I tune out because I know the person has nothing of use to say and is only capable of parroting epithets that support his bias.

This is the reason that I object to them and believe that it is in everyone's best interest to avoid them.

Cheers,
Greg

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/5/2020 03:12:22 pm

Thank you for your kind reply, Greg. I tried to put those said terms into context, by explaining my vantage point on a) research groups which are international, and thus compartimentalized 20th century nation-think is oldschool & b) that it's always helpful to first understand who is saying something, and as soon as the cavalry is involved, one should always think twice.

"Whenever I hear someone go on about psy-ops or élites of whatever stripe, I tune out because I know the person has nothing of use to say and is only capable of parroting epithets that support his bias."

I got you, but you could perhaps rethink this information-filter you put on. It might be the person is not that biased after all. In fact, this tune out/mind lock is exactly what is triggered when people hear "conspiracy", they duck and cover proactively in order not to hold the bag. Yet perhaps there is something of value in the bag, like in David Rivard's nice parable @ "You carry on here … I’m going upstream to find the bugger who keeps chucking all these babies in the river."

Over the years, I learned - instead of cultivating my confirmation bias - not to "get on the bus", but instead to listen to very different takes on the same story. @ corona, this is how all of us ended up here, right? Makes me think of a nice quote from the sociologist & philosopher John Kozy:

"I don't know what is going on. I can only listen to what is said and ask myself whether or not it makes any sense."

What has been presented in the mainstream does not make any sense vs. what's been written in this blog, which makes by far the most sense. Therefore, thank you Greg!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Greg Felton
12/5/2020 04:06:05 pm

Thanks, Guy:
This is a most enjoyable exchange.
It has been my experience that those who rely on boilerplate phrases do so as a substitute for being able to form an argument. I am afraid I need more than "perhaps there is something of value in the bag" to change my mind. Those who DO have something of value to say capture my attention by telling me what it is right away.

There is a reason that people tune out "conspiracy" "psy-op" and other buzzwords: It's not real English. The onus should be on the claimant to use language properly, not on me to make allowances for his shallow use of language.

Guy Fawkes
12/5/2020 05:26:15 pm

You are more than welcome, Greg. And you really don't have to apologize, it's ok you need a little more proof in your tasty psy-op-pudding. Why don't you get a taste of the delicious U.S. Air Force Project by Hungerford (1950) "The Exploitation of Superstitions for Purposes of Psychological Warfare", I'm sure you will like it:

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM365.pdf

But, hey, you are also playing games my man! You rightfully remind me to use proper English, only to leave Babylonian mantraps like "epithets", "clichés" or "onus" behind. I noticed, Greg, I noticed ;-]

Guy Fawkes
12/5/2020 04:55:12 pm

@NERD: A week ago, you wrote "I reiterate: it was always for MERS, not HIV, not Ebola, not Dengue, not ZIKA ... Yet, since 2018 and more frequently in 2019, they REALLY practiced how to face a MERS emergency."

Now check this out from the Australian Infectious diseases epidemiologist Prof. Raina MacIntyre back in 2014 @ "Could MERS Coronavirus be bioterrorism? New study shows why this could be one of the explanations for the paradoxes of this virus", quote:

"The patterns of MERS-CoV are unusual, and whilst an animal reservoir or undetected mild human cases as the source of ongoing human infections are both possible, the possibility of bioterrorism should also be considered, because the data fit this explanation. In the case of deliberate release, simulating nature would be difficult with a sporadic infection, and this may explain the observed discrepancies in the epidemiology."

https://sphcm.med.unsw.edu.au/news/could-mers-coronavirus-be-bioterrorism-new-study-shows-why-could-be-one-explanations-paradoxes

Full paper here:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-014-9506-5

***

And there is a new paper from Taiwan by Chen, Chou & Hsueh (2020) "SARS-CoV-2 D614 and G614 spike variants impair neuronal synapses and exhibit differential fusion ability", quote:

"Here, we show that expression of both D614 and G614 spike proteins is sufficient to induce phenotypes of impaired neuronal morphology, including defective dendritic spines and shortened dendritic length. Using spike protein-specific monoclonal antibodies, we found that D614 and G614 spike proteins show differential S1/S2 cleavage and cell fusion efficiency. Our findings provide an explanation for higher transmission of the G614 variant and the neurological manifestations observed in COVID-19 patients. [...] Since SARS2 infects both adult and newborn patients, we also investigated the effect of spike variants on developing neurons. [...] Both the D614 and G614 spike variants cause defects in the dendritic spines of mature neurons and reduce the dendritic length of developing neurons. Since neuronal morphology is highly relevant to neuronal function, the morphological defects caused by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein imply that infected neurons function abnormally, which is likely relevant to the neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms presented by COVID-19 patients [...] S1/S2 cleavage of G614 spike is more pronounced compared to that of the D614 prototype."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.03.409763v1.full.pdf

***

Finally, talking CoV-2's effects in children, as well as its ability in binding to T-cell-receptors, I found Cheng et al. (2020) "Superantigenic character of an insert unique to SARS-CoV-2 spike supported by skewed TCR repertoire in patients with hyperinflammation", summary:

"A hyperinflammatory syndrome reminiscent of toxic shock syndrome (TSS) is observed in severe COVID-19 patients, including children with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). TSS is typically caused by pathogenic superantigens stimulating excessive activation of the adaptive immune system. We show that SARS-CoV-2 spike contains sequence and structure motifs highly similar to those of a bacterial superantigen and may directly bind T cell receptors. We further report a skewed T cell receptor repertoire in COVID-19 patients with severe hyperinflammation, in support of such a superantigenic effect. Notably, the superantigen-like motif is not present in other SARS family coronaviruses, which may explain the unique potential for SARS-CoV-2 to cause both MIS-C and the cytokine storm observed in adult COVID-19."

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/41/25254.full.pdf

Reply
Peter Ross
12/6/2020 07:54:59 am

Coronavirus may cause long-term erectile dysfunction in men, warns expert
India Today Web Desk
December 6, 2020

https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/wear-masks-coronavirus-may-cause-long-term-erectile-dysfunction-in-men-warns-expert-1747152-2020-12-06?fbclid=IwAR2d_YwAOlLzE8YfLyiSYZlg4Vrk0twWAl2Zj9Ws4FOAdq6z6wK_kwis7_M

Reply
Nerd has power
12/6/2020 08:52:41 am

Could it be a vaccine development gone awry? I do not believe so.

Simple logic for me: do you need to fabricate a bunch of viruses to suggest a natural origin for your leaked vaccine candidate? Also, remember, the fabrication of the pangolin CoVs started before Sep 2019 and the scheme of RaTG13 fabrication dates back to 2018. For anyone arguing for an accidental leak of a vaccine candidate, please try to explain these first.

Alex asked "is it possible that the published virus is not the real one, if not a "sweetened" version of the real one?" My answer: not very possible. The reason I think this way is because, once the virus is out, sequencing of patient-derived viruses would give all the secrets out. It's not the CCP that controls the reporting of sequence all over the world.

However, this does not mean that the CCP could not have released new strains. They could have, and the new ones may not look drastically different from the ones that are already circulating in the world. Sometimes a single mutation could lead to certain unique features of the strain. Importantly, they don’t necessarily need to understand why a certain mutation is associated some unique features. They just need to recognize the benefits they may gain by releasing the strain with those features.

Finally, about MERS. The CCP only used MERS as the excuse so that they can have Wuhan practice how to deal with a coronavirus emergency. They don't necessarily believe MERS is or can be used as bioweapon. They only knew that what they are developing and planning to release is a coronavirus-based bioweapon.

Reply
Peter Ross
12/6/2020 10:35:44 am

Just because SARS-CoV-2 looks like a vaccine-virus doesn't mean it's not a deliberate release - because "Wuhan" would never use a vaccine-virus as a weapon?
Well, doesn't make sense to use a vaccine as a weapon.
But "Wuhan" deliberately released a weaponized-virus along with a plan to cover their tracks by inventing all kinds of keyboard viruses for their database?
Not sure what to think.
Another way to cover tracks with a weaponized-virus is to infect an animal population to create plausible deniability.

Should we be looking at the history of coronoviruses to rule out prior field tests since SARS-1 and MERS could have been be weapons tests and/or pre-programming psychological warfare events.

The SARS-CoV-2 plandemic has many co-conspirators (Simulation 201 / WEF Great Reset) and it quickly morphed into a plandemic comprised of mostly information, not biological, warfare:


RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or ...www.thelancet.com › lancet › article
May 22, 2020 — Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment ...
by MR Mehra ·


Clinical evidence does not support corticosteroid treatment for ...www.thelancet.com › lancet › article › corticosteroid-treat...
Feb 7, 2020 — However, current interim guidance from WHO on clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection when novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infection is ...
by CD Russell · ‎2020 · ‎Cited by 1246 · ‎Related articles

Reply
Peter Ross
12/6/2020 11:50:53 am

If SARS-CoV-2 is an escaped vaccine-virus delivered by respiratory route that occasionally causes severe-but-treatable-illness in an identifiable cohort, then why is BigPharma making weird vaccines that are bound to be ineffective and of unknowable safety?

If necessary, why not just attenuate SARS-CoV-2 a bit further, by irradiation with microwave or UV light for example?

Guy Fawkes
12/6/2020 03:31:27 pm

NERD is of course right, chronologically, if they played around with an on purpose fabricated RaTG13 back in 2018, an accidental leak in 2019 does not explain the need for an earlier fabrication of a natural origin dummy beforehand. Only if they feared industrial espionage a lot, I mean a lot lot.

Peter Ross is also right:

"Just because SARS-CoV-2 looks like a vaccine-virus doesn't mean it's not a deliberate release - because "Wuhan" would never use a vaccine-virus as a weapon?
Well, doesn't make sense to use a vaccine as a weapon. But "Wuhan" deliberately released a weaponized-virus along with a plan to cover their tracks by inventing all kinds of keyboard viruses for their database? Not sure what to think."

--> I propose a gordian knot to a) an accidental regular vaccine leak which makes no sense with a fabricated natural origin backup story ready + b) a deliberate "bioweapon" release together with all kind of botched up, error-loaden keyboard viruses which does not make sense either: c) sabotage. What about sabotage?

What if it was indeed some superhightech-vaccine they [team A] were working on, and in order to make it very hard for others to reverse engineer their research later on after the planned release, they were also preparing fabricated viruses à la RatG13 in order to fool the scientific community? But then, their lab gets sabotaged and their [perhaps self-spreading & not totally finished] vaccine leaked or released [turning it thereby into a bioweapon] by a rogue party [on behalf of team B], yet the spy got caught red handed, and they first try to contain it and then later on try to cover their tracks as good as possible when it got out of hand, and publish the not finished fabrication in panic mode? Hence all cavalries involved know what's going on, get into a silent gentlemen's agreement to play dumb, bury the truth and push the wet market fairy tale to tame the masses not to go totally apeshit. What about this scenario, ladies & gentlemen? Would explain everything we see, from the genetic lab markers to geopolitics with the drills and all teams now pushing their superhightech vaccines. Of course, as with all deep time events, we will never know.

***

@Peter Ross' very good question @

"If SARS-CoV-2 is an escaped vaccine-virus delivered by respiratory route that occasionally causes severe-but-treatable-illness in an identifiable cohort, then why is BigPharma making weird vaccines that are bound to be ineffective and of unknowable safety?"

--> Perhaps, keeping Ellul in mind in a sense that we are all mentally about half a century retarded, and my above scenario is also so 20th century? Greg Felton will not be amused, but what if neither the term 'vaccine', nor 'bioweapon' are correct? What if it's both, and even CoV-2 itself is part of the system, like a subscripton model? You want absolute control, therefore, you create a problem and at the same time the solution. And as the crazy problem you created permanently mutates, you also need weird vaccines on a regular basis. Those prototype gene vaccines are bioweapons themselves which have to be updated all the time to neutralize the effect of the updated virus. Not there to heal, there to get you on the leash. A nice vicious circle, big pharma and the surveillance state are happy, and as the idea is to get everybody hooked, there was no real containment nor an effective use of lab masks. Far from it, pathetic "heard immunity" to a GOF virus, lame surgical masks and those weird gene vaccines are promoted. Does not make sense at face value, and we are all mentally stuck somewhere in the 70ies, looking like cows at the moon. Brave New World is here folks, and everybody soon gets his regular dose of soma!

“What you need is a gramme of soma.”
“All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.”

Nerd has power
12/6/2020 09:07:15 am

Dr. Jonathan Couey and Dr. Li-Meng Yan had a live discussion of the Yan reports yesterday:

https://youtu.be/ggqga4_OWo4

Please help spread it. We should encourage the natural origin supporters to come forward and do live discussions with Dr. Yan as well. If they truly believe their theory, they should welcome live discussions like we do.

Reply
alex
12/28/2020 07:47:29 am

Nerd, Do you know if there is a transcript of this convesation?

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/6/2020 11:52:47 am

There were some postings back in June 2020 about CoV-2 and interferon. Here a paper from August 11 by Shi et al. (2020) "Opposing activities of IFITM proteins in SARS-CoV-2 infection", notably "using both gain- and loss-of-function approaches", quote:

Here we show that SARS-CoV-2 Spike-pseudotyped virus and genuine SARS-CoV-2 infections are generally restricted by expression of human IFITM1, IFITM2, and IFITM3, using both gain- and loss-of-function approaches. [...] Mutation of residues within the human IFITM3 endocytosis-promoting YxxF motif converted human IFITM3 into an enhancer of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and cell-to-cell fusion assays confirmed the ability of endocytic mutants to enhance Spike-mediated fusion with the plasma membrane. [...] Indeed, the net effect of IFITM3 on SARS-CoV-2 infections may be a result of these opposing activities, suggesting that shifts in the balance of these activities could be coopted by viruses to escape this important first line innate defense mechanism. [...] Overall, these results demonstrate that while mouse and human IFITMs generally restrict infection, human IFITM3 can promote infection when its localization is shifted toward the plasma membrane. [...] These results provide confirmation of infection experiments indicating that IFITM3 enriched at the plasma membrane due to endocytosis-impairing mutations enhances SARS-CoV-2 Spike-mediated membrane fusion. Our results suggest that IFITM3 is able to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection overall, but that shifting human IFITM3 localization away from the endosomal system and toward the plasma membrane results in enhancement of infection. [...] In the context of SARS-CoV-2, we found that expression of an amphipathic helix-deleted mutant of IFITM3 (D59-68) resulted in a modest enhancement rather than inhibition of infection. Likewise, decreasing amphipathicity of the helix by mutation of its three hydrophilic residues (S61A, N64A, T65A), decreased restriction of infection. [...] These results support a model wherein IFITM3 exerts opposing activities on SARS-CoV-2, including amphipathicity-dependent restriction of virus at endosomes and amphipathicity-independent enhancement of infection at the plasma membrane. [...] Enhancement of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the plasma membrane does not require the IFITM3 amphipathic helix, as demonstrated by our observation that TMPRSS2 overexpression converts amphipathic helix mutants into strong enhancers of infection."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.11.246678v1.full.pdf

***

@Peter Ross' cockblock article: the horror, but in the context of the recent findings by Chen, Chou & Hsueh (2020) of "phenotypes of impaired neuronal morphology, including defective dendritic spines and shortened dendritic length", imagine my shock. Those long term effects are also in line with a new pub from last November by Gaebler et al. (2020) "Evolution of Antibody Immunity to SARS-CoV-2", with the virus lurking deep inside the body of those PCR-tested negative, quote:

"Analysis of intestinal biopsies obtained from asymptomatic individuals 3 months after COVID-19 onset, using immunofluorescence, electron tomography or polymerase chain reaction, revealed persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in the small bowel of 7 out of 14 volunteers. [...] To determine whether there might be antigen persistence in the intestine after resolution of clinical illness, we obtained biopsies from the upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract of 14 individuals, an average of 4 months (range 2.8-5.5 months) after initial SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Clinically approved nasopharyngeal swab PCR assays were negative in all 14 individuals at the time of biopsy. However, biopsy samples from 3 of the 14 participants produced PCR amplicons that were sequence verified as SARS-CoV-2. Immunostaining was performed to determine whether viral protein was also detectable in upper and lower GI tract, with de-identified biopsies from individuals pre-dating the pandemic (n=10) serving as controls. ACE2 and SARS-CoV-2 N protein was detected in intestinal enterocytes in 5 of 14 individuals but not in historic control samples. [...] To determine whether viral particles were present we used electron tomography to examine a tissue sample from one of the individuals who was positive by immunofluorescence. Particles with typical SARS-CoV-2 morphologies were found within intracellular membrane-enclosed vesicles consistent with coronavirus exit compartments in 201
terminal ileum apical epithelial cells, suggesting the presence of intact virions. Particles were also found in vesicles in apical epithelial cells of the duodenum, although there were fewer and less densely-populated vesicles observed. [...] The observation that SARS-CoV-2 remains detectable in the small intestinal epithelium even 3 months after infection is consistent with the relative persistence of anti-RBD IgA antibodies and continued antibody evolution."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020

Reply
Peter Ross
12/6/2020 05:49:29 pm

Yeah, here is this theoretical issue of a latent disposition for any infection, and in particular for retroviruses, but why consider it for any human coronavirus infection?

The infection with SARS-CoV-2 can be lethal without proper treatment, but:
- nearly all infections are asymptomatic or mild;
- anecdotal reports of recurrent signs or symptoms are likely anxiety-driven or agenda-driven;
- Case Fatality Rate is dropping since the common-sense re-introduction of steroids into the standard of care;
- hospital staff is not even quarantined, and they're re-exposed on a daily basis.

Why not just let the episodic breakouts run their course?

To remove doubt, recruit for challenge studies people who have recovered from an asymptomatic or mild infection.

The race towards voodoo vaccine concoctions isn't based upon treating a theoretical latent infection which, if it occurs in rare cases, is likely to be more regulated by cellular rather than humoral immunity elements.

The more likely outcome is that overall upper and lower respiratory illness from coronaviruses declines.

At what point do we stop fearing that SARS-CoV-2 is some super voodoo stuff?




Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/7/2020 03:13:39 am

Sorry nerds, my 'autistic wall of words' was again too long and ate the link, here the full DOI to Gaebler et al. (2020) "Evolution of Antibody Immunity to SARS-CoV-2":

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.03.367391

***

@Peter Ross:

"[A]necdotal reports of recurrent signs or symptoms are likely anxiety-driven or agenda-driven [...] To remove doubt, recruit for challenge studies people who have recovered from an asymptomatic or mild infection."

--> I agree, people get psychologically decompensated by the day, bombared with negative news not empowering them, there is certainly a strong psychosomatic aspect to it. Yet, there is also the pub I already excerpted some time ago from Ye et al. (2020) "Clinical characteristics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reactivation", here the DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.001

Together with your hilarious erectile dysfunction-article and the pubs about damages to the nervous system as well as virions in the small bowel, you get the picture that is more to it than mere voodoo.

A friend of mine got COVID-19 while waiting for 30min in a hospital room together with a symptomatic patient for a regular check-up, he asked to be removed, but it was already too late. He was down for weeks, and has not recovered to full strenght after 6 months. Yikes!

"At what point do we stop fearing that SARS-CoV-2 is some super voodoo stuff?"

Everyone can stop fearing super voodoo stuff right away if he wants to. Talking fear, the best is to evaluate the abstract danger and act/gear up accordingly. This is what the precautionary principle is all about, right? There are nice FFP3 R D masks and lab goggles out there, people - and if you want to rank super high in comparing clothing, there are classy full face respirators with P3 R bayonet-style connected particulate filters to mount on. As an added benefit, one can then also stop fearing that SARS-CoV-2 is some super lab stuff. Because an educated guess leads to the conclusion that, indeed, it is.

But you only have to fear corona if you a) wear flimsy surgical masks, and b) consume too much news. Better wear the best mask money can buy and don't swollow any general news. Enjoy life instead, and reinforce bonds to the people who really count to you. And as there is something called "the internet", if you really want to look up something like the latest publication on XYZ, just do an in-dept search. For the rest, nothing better than a digital timeout below a good old rock, I tell you!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
David Rivard
12/7/2020 10:18:17 am

Guy, great comments as usual. Since Feb. I have been posting that the only effective science for combating the virus is the science of avoidance. It is amazing to me that almost 1 year later it is still the case. The CCP, in fact' seems so confident in its control of C-19 epistemology that it is expanding land claims in all countries around its borders, including Tibet, Bhutan, Tajikistan, India, Nepal and even my old military Alma mater Vietnam. WION and many other news services in Malaysia, India, Philippines, Japan et al are increasingly hosting stories about the CCP's intentional release. It is encouraging that they are also lumping WHO and several other UN agencies and even includ money laundering operations of several large ECOSOC accredited NGO's like Amnesty International. Pompeo initiated a version of the ASEAN NATO about a month ago after preparing it for over a year. Popular constituencies in these countries are increasingly demanding at least commerce and banking related retribution. My hope is that the incoming U.S. State Department can keep pace with what amounts to a regional uproar over the virus and a current CCP land grab. What worries me more in terms of the virus is the certainty with which China is embarking upon the other aspects of its world domination tactics. That 2021 will be worse for infections than 2020 is obvious. 2011 might also be the official declaration of modern version of WWIII (exorcise China from any trade, commerce at al from the world community, they would be certainly be welcome to trade with others of their voting bloc within the UNSC - Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela et al). U.S. Embassies around the world are currently enhancing security requirements for local governments (no more Chinese financed ports, public works, military/police operations etc.). 2021 might be the year when the Nerd will be cited more often so lets all prepare.

Dr. Yan also mentioned @the Nerd during her news casts. The Nerd might be the only site that exists? Congrats either way Nerd. Interestingly she mentioned that if a more deadly version of the virus came out nations would have an inescapable need to quarantine in order to eradicate the new insult, like the world accomplished with Ebola. WHO's continued focus on mortality, rather than personally debilitating morbidity, and its influence on local reporting through local health agencies is still very troubling. Ask about half of those who tested positive.

Reply
David Rivard
12/7/2020 07:27:56 pm

The Body Politic

https://www.wearebodypolitic.com/covid19

has been one of the earlier support groups. Maybe by now tens of thousands. Their articles,

https://www.thecut.com/2020/11/the-cut-podcast-doctors-didnt-believe-she-had-covid.html

exemplify what actual help and effective testing we can continue to expect in everyone's real world.

Reply
Nerd has power
12/8/2020 06:07:16 am

Thank you, Guy, for sharing this article:

"Evolution of Antibody Immunity to SARS-CoV-2"

It is an impressive piece of work. Antibodies resulted from natural infection seem to be doing their jobs. However, the reason they can still be lingering around might be of serious concerns: it could be due to the residual viruses that persist in the intestines.

An important implication: are the re-infections seen around the world really re-infections? Or are they due to reactivation of the persistent and temporarily dormant infections?

An important but not so pleasant finding.

Reply
David Rivard
12/8/2020 01:02:27 pm

With no certainty about both the origin and the science, our societies will continue to fight amongst themselves where there is no sense of a common purpose. If the scientific community at large were polled, they would agree that the synthetic thesis should for now remain open. They would agree that the synthetic option has not been openly debated, but has been censored in many forums.

Accidental release or not, China is waging war by not sharing information at both the clinical level and its research. The journalists/editors who are willing to ignore or censure information without due diligence are delivery devices. If journalists and editors are simply well paid employees taking orders from management, history will see them as selfish cowards who contributed to western society’s demise. The Pogo syndrome mentioned earlier is a consequence of the political dimensions of a pandemic based upon scant information. This transcends into social dysfunction. You now see this dysfunction in most countries, excepting non-transparent totalitarian countries.

The physical/individual dimensions of this weapon are largely devitalizing and lingering; like an HIV virus, it takes time to ultimately kill, but in multifarious ways. Ultimate mortality can be blamed upon many other physical conditions of its host, and like HIV, C-19 can be a co-morbid event. This wasting disease is additionally carried by information, but there are no “sanctioned” pathogenesis tools if not for avoidance. With no reliable epidemiology (must we remember “Source and Reservoir of Infection”?) our clinics must now become our petri dishes. Not proactive. Very reactive. Our cities, as Dickensian urban pits, are packed with the virus, and are abetted with an insanity, mistrust and spiritual disease taking custody of our science and medicine. Institutions and our ideas about power and stability are falling apart with a profound and destructive shift that will rupture the social and scientific history we have achieved at least since The Enlightenment.

This has become an era where once reliable habits are becoming useless, even dangerous. This is the world where most people are relying upon their instincts and where society at large is dating back to a time before rational calculation and scientific progress.

There is no existing map that can guide us through C-19’s completely new landscape. Developing one is discouraged by the very institutions we have faithfully followed. In fact, the existing maps we stubbornly continue to use are leading us to dangerous paths and toward catastrophes we cannot even imagine.

Combining disinformation or no-information allows time for the weapon to work while the CCP seems to enjoy the confusion of their enemy. Their enemy, at least all of us in the developed west, makes mis-informed decisions while creating political and social entanglements which will make a focused engagement difficult. This clouds the battle as we waste resources and blame each other for defeat. Apologies for collateral damages occurring to the rest of the world.

Civil wars are always more horrific than externally caused battles, where the identification of an external enemy is necessary to transfer blame in order to keep original ideals and dreams alive. Like a divorce, where personal aspirations are erased, civil wars harbor a more visceral hatred.

Those who continue to sow misinformation, even as omission distortion, must ultimately answer to a growing constituency as the pandemic will grow largely unabated and external enemies and their abettors (conspirators) will be increasingly sought.

With arguably the most profound challenge that our species, as a biological entity, has faced in over 500 years, journalism (all of journalists, editors, and owners and all of local, popular and scientific publications) must engage this era with careful questions before entering into prescribed conclusions. At the onset of this pandemic, many were quick to drive an iron spike into all synthetic origin information. However, mastering the energy of this new age will require us to work in a unison where many brains must openly explore other potential pathways of solutions before the full manifestations of disease, societal and clinical, catches up. Our society is now pressing too hard on a fault line. This challenge will call for its own mastery of facts, which must readily translate into society’s mastery of the facts.

We certainly face the “epochal” quake for our society. When all of us are susceptible to a disease entity and when most humans cannot make sense of what is happening, a reactionary but inevitable and unpredictable change will occur that will drown out our landscape. Many of the reliable and old routes will be buried. This era will be inescapably turbulent – maybe the “voodoo” hypothesis as a result.

There probably is not a scientific way of comprehensively expr

Reply
Nerd has power
12/8/2020 07:33:38 pm

David, your writing is cut short by the word limit here. Please continue. I have enjoyed reading this post a lot and I'm wondering how it ends :)

Peter Ross
12/8/2020 02:57:33 pm

So covid didn't work so the new fear-mongering strategy is 'chronic covids' and 'dormant covids' and 'wasting covids' and 'covid HIV'. Totally obvious.
And issuing not-so-oblique 'Dark Winter' threats of yet another 'mysterious' strain of the common cold with scary HIV-like sequence tucked inside for extra horror-movie effect!

Reply
David Rivard
12/9/2020 08:49:42 am

No that's OK. I know my rant didn't contribute anything new but it was a little fun to write and I also appreciate everyone's eyes from a site I enormously respect. I was actually self-conscious about warping otherwise excellent scientific analysis as I watch you guys go back and forth. In the future I will be more moderate.

While at the U. of Minn. I remember asking myself "What are you doing with your life while pursuing a double major in Latin American History and Microbiology?" Made no sense. Now I find myself living in a "Northern Triangle" Central American country having been friends with the President since he was 18. I get exposed to a lot of intelligence additionally because my wife's NGO has become a specialist in counter- human trafficking over the past 25 years. We work with most in Congress and through DOS assets regarding this issue and have initiated much legislation over the years. Chinese issues have become major throughout Latin America as they have become throughout much of the developing world. China has tremendous migrant/unemployment pressures of its own and for many years you wondered how they could continue to contain it. Being very active at the UN, even helping initiate the World Criminal Court at the Hague, we have also keenly experienced Chinese influence there. We have seen the shift in NGO project funding, both at UN agencies and also within the DOS and have been implementing partners so we know how this all works. The key bellwether for us will be whether the incoming administration will be hosting Taiwan before China (interview with Joseph Wu, WION news, October 21, 2020). It might be emblematic about how the U.S. ultimately addresses the virus at the end of the day (some day probably in 2022 or so from my perspective).

Bottom line I guess is that I firmly hold these truths to be self evident.

Reply
Nerd has power
12/9/2020 10:06:42 pm

Thank you very much, David, for sharing your story and contributing to this forum. Your experience says a lot about the CCP. I'm sure others here would appreciate reading your post as well.

I have a strong feeling that we don't have to wait until 2022. Maybe I'm too optimistic. But the thought of having the simple truth buried for another year sounds suffocating to me. I'ms sure more people will wake up to the truths about the virus and about the CCP. We just have to reach that tipping point ......

David link
12/10/2020 10:57:44 am

I just relised that because corona infection gives about 99,999 immunity we would end corona without a vaccin. But with vaccin with 90 protection in short study but much less yearly+ people not taking it corona will be with us forever

Reply
David Rivard
12/10/2020 11:14:51 am

Thank you. The most important thing I would like to convey is that your site is making a big difference and from my perspective a key difference. The professional quality of your contributors is evident and you can tell they spend their valuable time as truth seekers and patriots above all else.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/10/2020 03:10:51 pm

Made the error of looking left & right while switching rocks the other day. Saw this:

"The Department of Defense released the first images of a Covid-19 vaccination record card ... the Immunization Action Coalition, which is supporting frontline workers ... Everyone will be issued a written card that they can put in their wallet that will tell them what they had and when their next dose is due ... Vaccination clinics will also be reporting to their state immunization registries ... many places are planning to ask patients to voluntarily provide a cell phone number ... Operation Warp Speed has 100 million vaccine kits ready to go if and when distribution of a coronavirus vaccine starts, Gen. Gustave Perna, Warp Speed's chief operating officer, said last month."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/02/health/covid-19-vaccination-kit-record-card/index.html

To quote an old xkcd-comic and create instant dramatic tension, I say: So it has come to this.

https://xkcd.com/1022/

But wait. Department of Defense? Check. Coalition? Check. Frontline? Check. A General?? Check. Operation Warp Speed??? Check?! Can't make this up. Is it only me or do we have militaryspeak present, folks?

Of course, if I had to pick a pet sentence, it would be this jewel:

"Everyone will be issued a written card that they can put in their wallet that will tell them what they had and when their next dose is due."

Wellwellwell, this reminds me of some oldschool beauty straight out of Orwell's 1984:

"The patrols might stop you if you happened to run into them. ‘May I see your papers, comrade? What are you doing here? What time did you leave work? Is this your usual way home?’—and so on and so forth."

If people here are really nice, I would even pick a second pet sentence:

"[M]any places are planning to ask patients to voluntarily provide a cell phone number."

A cell phone number! How convenient, but being from the cavalry, our general does not even need to deploy his IMSI-catchers in order to track the movement of anyone who's alpha testing the "last" round of vaccines. Just uses the cellphone network itself, not to speak of all those brilliant COVID-apps anyone who runs any updates on their device has on board. Ah, the wonders of modern technology, coupled with the military, what could possibly ever go wrong? Ellul would be delighted!

Hollow talk aside, did those nerds over here notice the line "when their next dose is due", as well as the 4 empty rows on the COVID-19 Vaccinate Record Card in the pic? So we talk not 1 shot [the irony!], not 2, not 3, but at least 4. G, if the virus dares to mutate and the infallible druids have to remix their little concoction once in a while, we are in for the long run.

I never installed one on my own machines since Windows 95, but did anybody ever notice that virus scanners on computers have all the characteristics of a virus? They suck your energy, take your time, rob your attention, eat your performance and phone home to mum. Can't wait to see how the phenotype of those awesome gene vaccines will look like. Perhaps like the effects of COVID-19 itself aka low energy and deep in the al-Qaeda, pardon me, the corona-database?

Empowering takeaway, ladies and gentlemen? The Thalidomide scandal aka Contergan. Took those experts 5 years to notice something was very wrong with that magic potion. In our current situation, let's not go full retard, but learn from history, follow the precautionary principle and wait for 5 years in order to see what happens. Waiting for 5 years people, you know, it's like quarantine - coming from the French "40 days" - only 46 times in a row. Or let's ask Roy Burgundy to sum it up for you nerds in a more comprehensive way:

"You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative closeby. Lay low for a while."

https://youtu.be/Uh7tgX_Uaqs

Cheers, folks!

Reply
Nerd has power
12/12/2020 08:33:43 am

Thanks, Guy. Nicely put together. Yes, what a scary world we are living in. The advancement and approval of the vaccines are something quite extraordinary. I also can't convince myself that everything in there is science-based and public health-oriented. I don't know what the outcome would be with these vaccines, but I guess we are on the course of finding out.

Reply
David Rivard
12/11/2020 10:21:05 am

Guy, I think that many find truth in what you say. And to think that all of these thoughts could have been avoided if an honest discussion about the origin were encouraged. If science said "synthetic" or even "maybe synthetic", then leaders could credibly say, "OK, we don't know if they fired at us yet but get these helmets on 'cause you're gonna need 'em". If you bellyache about the helmet they could credibly say, "You gotta go to war with what you have". I also think there are a lot of rocks to hide under but not many that have food hopping by.

Reply
David Rivard
12/11/2020 10:33:30 am

The accurate way of saying it is, "We don't know if their coordinates are off but we're takin' incoming so get those ##1 #&*## helmets on!"

Reply
Briran
12/12/2020 08:14:39 pm

Why Australian vaccine cause positive HIV test?? What about pfitzer vaccine?
also anyone look into covid positive patients to see how many become HIV positive even without vaccination? We know there are HIV insertion there...so that is not unlikely....Long term autoimmunity, women infertility and cancer are other consequences! Of course they blame those on global warming!

Xoco Latte
12/14/2020 02:33:50 am

Re: Briran (WTF?)
If you had been listening to what you have supposedly been reading, you would have known the answer to the trolling question of yours.

But anyhow, I do think that the Australian vaccine-development that has been just suspended, really begs for some clarification from the very beginning. N. Petrovsky also an Aussie-based, competing vaccinologist with decades-long knowledge about the issue stated in May that there will be problems with this very type of COVID-vaccine, ie., the big chunk of HIV-1 gp41 protein used that is used in that cvaccine to structurally stabilize the soluble tertiary conformational characteristics of the S protein segment will infer immunological reaction in the hosts. And since gp41 is the HIV-1-related functional/structural equivalent of the S2 subunit of SARS-CoV-2, this will cause fals positive HIV-1 serological results, with further unclear consequences with regards to HIV-1 immunological status.

So, without a shred of a doubt about the veracity of the suspension of this vaccine development, clinically speaking, it would be worthwile to see beyond proven serological results WHAT kind of real immunological reactions have been conferred by the vaccine in those 50-some individuals who turned to be HIV-positive... Did they become resistant to COVID-19? Perhaps also to HIV-1?

Brian
12/14/2020 04:02:00 pm

I intend to agree with your positive thinking. I just lost my trust to scientific community which seems to be bought by big pharma these days. Just look at the nature papers from the origin of virus and now to selling vaccine.
justification after events is easy...after a couple of years, they just say, oh...we made a mistake! Which is totally acceptable in science!
Justification is very easy in science and they are using it very well...

Reply
Peter Ross
12/15/2020 02:23:15 am

Maybe somebody has got a link to an exact description of the structure - polypeptide sequence, etc - for the Australian vaccine that was cancelled?
I'm curious to know if HIV sequences from within the SARS-CoV-2 might be anticipated to generate similar anti-HIV reactions in other vaccines.

Reply
Xoco Latte
12/15/2020 06:37:59 am

About the UQ-CSL V451 vaccine candidate:
CEPI requested Australia to develop a COVID19 vaccine with an unprecedented speed and provided part-funding to it. In January 2020, CEPI provided University of Queensland up to AU$15.4 million for UQ to develop the molecular clamp technology used in this vaccine.
Bill and Melinda Gates is one of the founding members of CEPI, otherwise a Norvegian and Indian organization (https://cepi.net/about/whoweare/).
In September (when not even the Phase 1 clinical trial results have been published), the Australian Government tendered CSL a billion AU$ deal for 51 million doses of the V451 vaccine.
https://www.sciencealert.com/australian-scientists-asked-to-make-coronavirus-vaccine-at-unprecedented-speed

https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/vaccines/uq-csl-v451-vaccine

About the "Molecular Clamp" that includes HIV-1 gp41 polypeptide:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7672035/pdf/fimmu-11-592370.pdf

The registered Phase 1 clinical trial:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04495933

About the adjuvant planned to be used - Novartis/CSL MF59: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1586/erv.10.111
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6343625/

That is all what I could gather in this short period of time.

Reply
Xoco Latte
12/15/2020 07:01:15 am

As far as the "Molecular Clamp" technology goes, it seems as if the same molecular conformational stabilizer has been used in vaccines against H1N1 flu, RSV, ebola, Lassa, Nipah, MERS(!) etc. Interesting type of vaccines... especially MERS for which human-human transmission has yet to be shown to begin with (but 2019 emergency drills were all about MERS, maybe just an eerie coincident).

(error correction: CEPI funded UQ in January 2019)

https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2019/01/partnership-supercharge-vaccine-production
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-university-of-queensland-cepi-and-csl-partner-to-advance-development-and-manufacture-of-covid-19-vaccine-candidate-301071175.html
Molecular clamp stabilised Spike protein for protection against SARS- CoV-2
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-68892/v1

Core Structure of gp41 from the HIV Envelope Glycoprotein
https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(00)80205-6

Reply
Peter Ross
12/16/2020 04:01:29 am

Thanks kindly!

I wonder how carefully this potential problem has been studied and published. Found this one, seems to be from Sept 2019:

"This article underscores several important learning points. We have shown for the first time that there is cross-reactivity of SARS-CoV-2 antigen/antibodies with commercial chemiluminescent immunoassays leading to a false-positive result. Kliger and Levanon via sequence analysis had shown that HIV and SARS-CoV viral proteins shared sequence motifs that construct their active confirmation, which may explain a certain degree of homology in their proteins.1 The limitation of HIV chemiluminescent assays must be emphasised. Liu and colleagues had previously demonstrated the susceptibility of fourth-generation p24 HIV antigen/antibody tests to false positivity from an array of pathogens, including that of Epstein-Barr virus and metastatic cancer.2 Other centres have also reported interfering substances such as rheumatoid factor, anti-hepatitis C virus, liver cirrhosis and autoimmune disease.3 Further, although literature has reported specificity of HIV chemiluminescent immunoassays to be 99% or better, clinicians should be cognizant to the fact that discordant COVID-19 and HIV results necessitate professional laboratory consult in view of potential analytical error, where patient safety may be compromised if treatment is initiated prematurely.4 The limitation of our report is that the patients’ attending physicians had not sent a sample for HIV nucleic acid testing, which would be definitive. To further investigate cross-reactivity, a study for spiked SARS-CoV-2 antigen/antibodies on healthy sera should be performed to verify performance of HIV chemiluminescent immunoassays."


Cross-reactivity of SARS-CoV-2 with HIV chemiluminescent ...jcp.bmj.com › early › 2020/09/08 › jclinpath-2020-206942
Sep 8, 2020 — His first nasopharyngeal swab tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and a ... of fourth-generation p24 HIV antigen/antibody tests to false positivity ...
by SS Tan · ‎2020

Peter Ross
12/16/2020 04:48:50 am

Another example -

"When results from the Pre-COVID-19-Era Control Serum Set were analyzed, the DiaSorin assay was 98.0% specific, which was significantly lower compared with the Abbott or Roche assays
(99.3% and 99.8%, P0.00 7; Table 3). The difference in specificity between the Roche and Abbott tests was non-significant
(P=0.11). False-positive rates among samples known to contain potentially cross-reactive factors are represented in Table 4. Notably, 7.6% of samples yielding false-positive SARS-Cov-2 antibody test results (6/34) contained more than one potential cross-reactive antibody (Table 4). The highest false positive rates were produced in samples containing HIV antibody/antigen (Abbott 3/25, 12.0%; DiaSorin 2/2 5,8%) or HCV IgG antibody (DiaSorin 4/44, 9.1%). The Roche assay produced few false-positive results in samples containing antibodies directed against non-SARS-Cov-2 infectious agents but did produce one false-positive result in a sample containing autoantibodies to both rheumatoid factor and ANA."

Evaluation of Three Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Serologic ...jcm.asm.org › early › 2020/10/02 › JCM.01892-20.full.pdf
Oct 5, 2020 — samples yielding false-positive SARS-Cov-2 antibody test results (6/34) ... containing HIV antibody/antigen (Abbott 3/25, 12.0%; DiaSorin 2/25, ...

Nerd has power
12/15/2020 08:32:48 pm

US Right to Know dug out another set -- email communications of Ralph Baric:

https://usrtk.org/biohazards-blog/new-emails-show-scientists-deliberations-on-how-to-discuss-sars-cov-2-origins/

The original email record is over 83,416 pages long! What's selected for highlights in the link above are already very interesting. But I'm sure more interesting things could be found there. It just needs some (actually a lot of) digging!

Reply
Xoco Latte
12/16/2020 01:44:04 am

I tend to be not naive enough to expect these kind of so-called scientist to be stupid enough to write down their true thoughts in emails sent from official email addresses. They do communicate via burner mobile phones and personally without witnesses, just as members of similarly syndicated groups, i.e. mobs and cartels.

What I really want to know after a whole year of bushwhacking and smokescreening, to what extent some American interests have been also involved in this story. Which is, IMHO, the start of the end for humankind as we know it today.

Reply
Xoco Latte
12/17/2020 05:50:10 am

A November 18 BioAssays paper by Roassanna Segreto and Yuri Deigin on the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2: The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin.

A lot of controversial details around PanCoVs and RatG13, with special emphasis on the possible engineered origin of the furin cleavage site and RBD.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346234165_P_R_O_B_L_E_M_S_P_A_R_A_D_I_G_M_S_Prospects_Overviews_The_genetic_structure_of_SARS-CoV-2_does_not_rule_out_a_laboratory_origin_SARS-COV-2_chimeric_structure_and_furin_cleavage_site_might_be_the_resul

(sorry for the huge link, the original publication is not available due to site maintenance)

Reply
Greg Felton link
12/17/2020 12:02:17 pm

Xoco: RaTG13 has been debunked, so there is. O co troversy any more. Segreto is in my book “SARS-CoV-2: Contagion, Collusion, Corruption” (available from turningthetidepublishing.com and Kindle) commenting on the rare CGGCGG arginines that make up the furin cleavage site.

Reply
Xoco Latte
12/21/2020 02:09:11 am

Debunked?
Hmmm.
Not really, as far as a publication detailing it in a peer-reviewed paper is concerned.
For this reason, I do think this BioAssays paper has certain importance, especially because it avoids citing politically charged opinions but referes to DRASTIC. Based on that, it actually cites everything that is important.

alex
12/17/2020 03:43:44 pm

Here Montagnier defends his version. New interview in France Soir.

https://www.francesoir.fr/opinions-tribunes/le-defi-de-la-verite-luc-montagnier-prix-nobel-de-medecine

Reply
Frank
12/19/2020 07:21:00 am

But what about the new findings of SARS-COV-2 already in 2019 in France, Italy, and US? It looks like it was there long before Wuhan - or? I refer to e.g. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201117/SARS-CoV-2-was-circulating-in-Italy-before-China-recognized-its-existence.aspx

Reply
Peter Ross
12/20/2020 02:20:48 pm

what does it say?

Reply
Nerd has power
12/24/2020 05:13:27 am

I think I have commented on this here. I definitely did it on twitter. Anyways, now that we know the reality of cross-reactivity of antibodies, especially those resulted from common cold (also coronaviruses), toward SARS-CoV-2, we should know how to properly judge such studies. That publication was not a convincing piece for me.

Furthermore, it is also logically impossible. How could they avoid overwhelming the hospitals back in Sep 2019 if the virus was already in Italy? Also, if Italy was the source, why would the CCP fabricate a dozen animal coronaviruses to falsify a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2? It was a lot of planning and execution.

Reply
Arnaud
12/19/2020 10:03:13 am

Again, about renaming BtCov/4991 :
https://www.images.inserm.fr/en/asset/fullTextSearch/search/4991/page/1
Have un good day

Reply
Peter Ross
12/20/2020 11:07:10 pm

Is this discussion off topic?

"The Bio-Hacker will see you now"
Nov 19, 2020
https://youtu.be/rXBjHcWkq6U

Reply
Peter Ross
12/22/2020 09:58:55 am

Hurry up and get your DARPA ..er..'Pfizer'..cyborg upgrade shots to keep up with Chinas !

Reply
Greg Felton
12/21/2020 02:41:41 am

Xoco Latte: RaTG13 has been debunked. Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak both admit it is identical to Btcov4991, which was discovered 3 years AFTER the alleged RaTG13. Chapter 1 of my book shows this as well as other evidence. https://www.turningthetidepublishing.com/shop/sars-cov-2

Reply
Xoco Latte
12/21/2020 08:16:31 am

Again, all the alternative theories about the laboratory origin notwithstanding, there is a brutal hegemony of peer-reviewed papers advocating or simply just accepting the natural origin hypothesis. In this scientific scene, peer-reviewed papers addressing the lab-origin scenario are more than welcome and necessary. I think one example is this Segreto and Deigin paper.

Without these, there's quite a low chance that there will be ever a chance for scientific debate of the issue, not speaking of truth-seeking investigations.
And I am sorry to say that, even though I am a big admirer of your integrity and championship, publication of a self-funded book about the issue does not help more than the same type of published book by Dimitri Khalezov about 9/11. It still just a self-funded advocation of one or more alternative, "conspiracy theories".
Alternative hypotheses, however being based on the truth, must penetrate the mainstream publication forums in order to replace the dominant conspiracy theories (with no quotation marks). And the best way of getting this goal is through peer-reviewed papers.

I want to repeat: this is by no means to offend you whatsoever. Your book is a very important piece of the puzzle.

Reply
Greg Felton
12/21/2020 11:49:33 am

If you're going to base your defence of RaTG13 on cognitive dissonance, then no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to make an impression on you. However, in the off-chance that it will, let me address the numerous errors in your last post.

First, the "brutal hegemony" of the zoonontic argument in peer-reviewed journals is proof of nothing. All you are entitled to say is that alternate views are under-represented. Quantity does not equal quality.

Second, your defence of these journals begs the question of their honesty. My book provides evidence of fraudulent science and publishing misconduct. As a result, your defence of "peer-reviewed" articles cannot be taken seriously since it is categorical and not based on any relevant information.

Third, I am afraid I must take offence at your condescending tone, especially your use of "conspiracy theory". it is a lazy epithet hurled to marginalize, slander, libel and otherwise delegitimize those who challenge official narratives. However, people who can PROVE the falsity of an official narrative--jet aircraft DID NOT bring down the World Trade Centre; 6 million Jews DID NOT die in Europe; and RaTG13 DOES NOT exist--are not "conspirators". A conspirator fears publicity because he does his seditious work in secret; people who challenge prevailing dogma are called heretics and historically have been persecuted for their honesty.

Fourth, my statement that RaTG13 is has been debunked is not my opinion: the evidence says so. In this regard, there is also a complete absence of evidence for its existence; parroting the discredited Feb. 3, 2020, Nature article does not count.

Fifth, all conclusions in my book are based on primary source science papers, interviews and published articles.

I must insist you read my book and deal with my evidence instead of dismissing my conclusions out of hand.



alex
12/21/2020 08:57:22 am


A question that takes us to the beginning of the times of this story:
Has anyone managed to isolate the virus? Is it documented in a peer-reviewed article?

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/21/2020 04:21:50 pm

Hello ALEX, @ [not yet peer-reviewed] preprints mentioning isolates of SARS-CoV-2, check those 3 papers:

Lassaunière et al. (2020) "SARS-CoV-2 spike mutations arising in Danish mink and their spread to humans":

"Efforts are underway to isolate each mink associated SARS-CoV-2 spike mutant strain that occurs in people residing in Denmark. To date, Statens Serum Institut in Denmark has isolated two strains of mink associated SARS-CoV-2 viruses. These include an isolate with the 453F spike mutation (F-spike) from cluster 1 and an isolate with a 69-70deltaHV, 453F, 692V, and 1229I mutation combination from Cluster 5. To ensure that subculturing of SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolates on VeroE6 cells did not induce additional spike mutations, each isolate was sequenced. The spike protein of the cultured virus was identical to that of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the original clinical sample."

https://files.ssi.dk/Mink-cluster-5-short-report_AFO2

***

Sanders et al. (2020) "SARS-CoV-2 Requires Cholesterol for Viral Entry and Pathological Syncytia Formation":

"Together with cell biological and biophysical approaches, the screen reveals an essential role for membrane cholesterol in spike-mediated fusion, which extends to replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 isolates. [...] Indeed, cholesterol tuned viral infectivity was similarly shown using both spike-pseudotyped MLV and patient isolates of SARS-CoV-2."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.14.422737v1.full.pdf

***

Dash et al. (2020) "Sequence analysis of Indian SARS-CoV-2 isolates shows a stronger interaction of mutated receptor binding domain with ACE2 receptor":

"The aim of this study was to analyze the RNA binding domain (RBD) sequence of spike protein from the isolates collected from the throat swab samples of COVID-19 positive cases and further to assess the RBD affinity with ACE2 of different species including human. [...] Whole genome sequencing for 35 clinical SARS-CoV-2 isolates from COVID-19 positive patients was performed using ARTIC amplicon based sequencing. Sequence analysis and phylogenetic analysis was carried out for the Spike and RBD region of all isolates. The interaction between the RBD and ACE2 receptor of five different species was also analysed. Except three isolates, spike region of 32 isolates showed one/multiple alterations in nucleotide bases in comparison to the Wuhan reference strain."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.28.271601v1.full.pdf

Reply
alex
12/22/2020 08:51:30 am

Thanks Guy, I will check.

Guy Fawkes
12/22/2020 12:41:02 pm

The recent Whitehead/Harvard/MIT-paper by Zhang et al. (2020) "SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome" is stirring up some otherwise peaceful spirits à la "If there ever was a preprint that should be deleted, it is this one!" over there on bioRxiv. Here the abstract:

"Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding and recurrence of PCR-positive tests have been widely reported in patients after recovery, yet these patients most commonly are non-infectious. Here we investigated the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome and that transcription of the integrated sequences might account for PCR-positive tests. In support of this hypothesis, we found chimeric transcripts consisting of viral fused to cellular sequences in published data sets of SARS-CoV-2 infected cultured cells and primary cells of patients, consistent with the transcription of viral sequences integrated into the genome. To experimentally corroborate the possibility of viral retro-integration, we describe evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse transcribed in human cells by reverse transcriptase (RT) from LINE-1 elements or by HIV-1 RT, and that these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed. Human endogenous LINE-1 expression was induced upon SARS-CoV-2 infection or by cytokine exposure in cultured cells, suggesting a molecular mechanism for SARS-CoV-2 retro-integration in patients. This novel feature of SARS-CoV-2 infection may explain why patients can continue to produce viral RNA after recovery and suggests a new aspect of RNA virus replication."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516v1

Reply
evidence
12/23/2020 08:30:41 am

Re: The equally deceiptful 'I am not a crook'-response of the Western science establishment in the context of the neo-Feudalism in the anthropocene era

Dear Nerd,

This goes back to your reply 12/2/2020 10:18:20 pm to Guy Fawkes, who pointed out to maybe having a more cautious notion with respect to the US and EU's 'and friends' governmental behaviour in particular.
Again also with all due respect and my deep admiration regarding your indispensable work, courage and service you have done to us and the scientific community as a whole: I perceive your response not necessarily as weakening what Guy Fawkes tried to cautiously point out to you.

Maybe, we should not position ourselves in the corner 'West' vs 'CCP' regarding Covid19. I deeply doubt that this is the core of the current front-line in this (ongoing information) war.

In cancer research, there has been this 'seed and soil' concept for metastatic spread - the SOIL certainly can be found in leading Western science institutions (Nature publishing as an example) with respect to the metastases of lies and subtle deflection from what the evidence here is.

I perceive the cover-up by leading Western institutions AS shocking, because our notion of a free, pluralistic Western science world has certainly been shaken - or: deconstructed.

In my view it might also not be the naivity of either the Western or Chinese (mute) public ([**], cf. my footnote below), which gives the current corruption and cover-up this new, for recent times, largely unparalleled, global dimension.
On the other hand, also the CCP's cruel behaviour has been known for decades: everybody remembers they killed its own people in numbers during the 1960s as well as before and later.
For me, what I personally perceive as traumatizing as well as unprecedented, is the outfall all at a sudden of the large conflict-of-interest situations here in the West, that is so detrimental to the population: that is THE difference in today's times (for example as compared to western countries during Cold War cover-ups by totalitarian regimes, for example). With this new circumstance, we do embrace new, GLOBAL taboos - also in science.
That makes the critical and concerned public also in the West so unexpectingly mute in particular with respect to the Covid19 origin issue - not the mere Chinese threat and maybe not their ability to undermine Western countries (while being certainly a necessary condition/prerequisite - the SEED in my cancer analogy above). - This is, what gives China's CCP such a leverage, here at home, so to speak.

In contrast, during late Cold War era, Germany was in a very risky position geopolitically. However, that did not prevent the ('ordinary') public (of West-Germany) and its mainstream media to discuss immediately and openly the true nature of the Chernobyl accident - in stark contrast to today's situation - for the West in general and also for Europe in particular: the success of the cover-up attempt of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the Chernobyl accident lasted only for a few hours or days - probably for their own people a little bit longer - but not globally.

The Conflict of interest situation of powerful parties inside the West regarding the Covid19 origin question is certainly due to their (legitimate) fear of cosmic litigation issues going into many trillions (as money talks) - that shapes new unexpected (corrupt) alliances and is in my view one of THE primary reason what makes the current CCP cover-up attempt GLOBALLY so successful for the time being - and not the mere Chinese challenge alone, which also certainly should not be underestimated, but would be largely fruitless in the U.S. and Europe, if there had been not so much at stake for mayor players also inside the West. - While certainly during Cold War era, there had been also frauds and cover-ups inside the West as well (e.g. Vietnam war, my quotation above)- but these were on the other hand antagonized and challenged by powerful oppenents, who could capitalize on those issues (Sowjet Union in particular). This is hardly the case now.

The NWO is shaped in a way which I would call neo-feudalistic (not necessarily fascism: the time of largely egalitarian mass societies, at least for the West, is kind of over), engulfing Western countries already big-time like a Tsunami - also with catastrophic effects for independent science and science whistleblowers. Hence, a war between casts, or more precisely: the wealthiest/most powerful/influential cast in the West (as well as China and numerous other emerging feudal-like nations) rages war against the rest of the population at their disposal, whenever challenged, in which information war comes first: we do find ourselves in a highly sophisticated, (and sometimes, as the Covid19 issue shows, quite intricate, e.g., not easily discernable) 'Corruption as Governence' situation - resulting in that current public confusion. And again: I doubt the frontline here is only bet

Reply
evidence
12/23/2020 08:33:05 am

And again: I doubt the frontline here is only between China in its bribed vassals on one side against the rest of us. This neo-feudalistic NWO (with new, prior unexpected sudden and corrupt alliances) is actually a very old one: feudalism has been the case for most part of human history, at least for his sedentary time. (In contrast: democracies, as well as dictatorships and facism had been rather brief exemptions in human history - all of them can only be constructed on quite egalitarian societies - which is not the case anymore for the West, and probably not for future China either.) What is new now, that this fragmented neo-Feudalism emerges globally in the context of the era of the anthropocean: naturally occuring old demons of the past we generate artificially by ourselves. Also, in that neo-feudalistic situation, evidence to be unearthed (so to speak 'the enlightenment') challenging the (social) status-quo sometimes takes a little bit longer, due to more powerful resistence - as compared to more democratic situations (a few more Gallileos have to be punished badly first) - but by in large, feudalism will be catastrophic for an independent science, i.e., science which would produce results beyond positivism.

That's why also other players (official Russia for example) do not currently capitalize on the lab-origin theory either (as Yuri Deigin tells us): over there, the scientific 'virology establishment' (hence, dual use institutions/funding) for example might lose out equally.

Yes, certainly too many (native Chinese) individuals have to fear the CCP personally regarding the Covid19 cover-up - as this has been the case for former communist dissidents during Cold War. But the true big difference: former communist dissidents/whistleblowers had been of great value for the 'free western world' - not a challenge, and got more protection and support as a result of it (being almost kind of a compensation, morally in particular). That has changed now, since influential parties in the Western world would lose out - independently of the Chinese challenge or threat. Those vulnerable individuals (whistleblowers) might get some protection - but this is often not consistently and sufficiently supported by governments - in pronounced contrast for example to Cold War era.

So, with all my humbleness: it is not enough trying to outweigh Western science against an equally corrupt CCP. We must not underestimate how much a lot of influential parties are challenged in their very existence by an impartial and independent result of the origin question and public awareness - those parties and interests might not be just as monolithic as the interests of the CCP (or how we maybe at least perceive the CCP).
Assange is in prison in a Western country (a POW of the western feudal cast), Snowden cannot even get asylum in Germany (excommunicated by the western feudal cast) - while this is horrific in terms of human rights and whistleblower protection (and its deterioation) particularly in the West, as well as precisely intended so (including the information war we can see corresponding to those issues as well) - it is however at the same time nothing China and its CCP do currently have a major stake in. (Unimaginable to me 20-30 years ago western public would one day have to accept this.)
Stay safe and inspired. God bless you.


[**] Re Covid19 origin perception of Chinese citizens. We have to remember: The Weibo poll result by Cui Yongyuan at a time (around Feb, 27 2020), when CCP's censorship maybe had been a little bit off-guard, probably also due to international pressure and the (at least at that time) internal fear of the unpredictability of the political fallout internationally and domestically of their own unprecedented lockdown: '51% of the 10,000 people who answered were convinced that it was an “artificial virus which escaped by negligence ”, 24% believed that it was spread maliciously. Only 12% thought it was of natural origin'
cf.
https://middleeasttransparent.com/en/in-the-jungle-of-wuhans-labs/
.
This poll result came at a time, when I personally myself, still clouded by Western (science) media, even with all my own science background, could not yet imagine this would come from somewhere else but nature - also my own 'Eureka moment' (which eventually would shake me up) was still about to come (quite similar to what Yuri Deigin and you yourself reported about your initial reaction to Covid19 origin -like pobably numerous others) - This poll certainly does not support the notion of a specific naivity of the Chinese public ('not having woken up yet') - in particular not in comparison to 'free' Western citizens - quite to the opposite: it reflects a rather intuitive knowledge of people used to censorship, so to speak making the best out of the 'hear-saying' (and circumstantial evidence), since the large body of genomic evidence we have now has not been known at that time. I doubt that the same poll in

Reply
evidence
12/23/2020 08:37:26 am

I doubt that the same poll in any western country at any time until now would give such a clearcut outcome.
#

Reply
Nerd has power
12/24/2020 06:08:11 am

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. I really enjoyed reading and learning them. I do agree that the interests of the Western elites (Wall Street, big tech, etc) are aligned with those of the CCP. It is a collaborative effort to weld a new order of the world with themselves fixed on top. In a way, this NWO is what you have described as the Neo-Feudalism.

The difference here is that we are now in a world of information, while the old Feudalism, in comparison, has little information flow. The partnership of the CCP and western elites believes that media control can be achieved. The reality could be different. I think that's the key. An important indicator here is the truth of COVID-19 (maybe I should add the US election too here). If they beat us (the general public) on this issue, we all know that they would win all.

And yes, just taking down the CCP is not enough. Something has to happen in the West as well. However, not taking down the CCP equals no change. I guess that's my point. What is certain is that we are at the beginning of something. I hope it's not Neo-Feudalism. Maybe it's an opportunity to upgrade civilization. I guess it depends on how well we, the ordinary, fight this battle.

Reply
evidence
12/31/2020 04:03:08 am

Thank you! - Your response humbles me. But I also would like to respond to two specific points.
1) Regarding the world of 'INFORMATION AGE' point. While not disagreeing, I would like to add, that I believe the relevance of this point is often overrated with respect to power balance. Also for Western societies experiencing the current information age, the old feudal principle holds: CRUCIAL information, i.e., information/intelligence potentially challenging the current power structure, EVENTUALLY flows upwards - to the cast on the top, not vice versa. In the 'information age' those instruments and means just had become more sophisticated (NSA as an example of a quite sophisticated tool of the feudal lords) - but the principle of spying out the well-needed vassals and refraining them from crucial information is an extremely old one for feudalism. Covid19 and its origin issue being a perfect example. (This blog here certainly is not only heavily scrutinized by the CCP+Shi and the like, but also by lots of other surveillance parties who do have very different, also quite affluent funding...;) )
For the West, we are currently witnessing a generation who throws out the merits of the French revolution, 200+ years after it had happened, into the dustbins, allowing to be lied at by their own intelligence agencies, since those agencies are becoming more and more instruments of the feudal cast. By letting that happen, we allow feudalism to re-emerge, partly because we are being 'drugged', or at least distracted, with the modern age/modern day 'circuses': too much irrelevant information in that context of the praised information age. Again: also drugging-up the disintegrating Western middle class is and had always been one of the old core strategic elements of the (information) war by the feudal cast and the rest.
Nobody has put it more concisely about what is at stake particularly in the West (i.e., including the political context, in which also the current Covid information war has to be placed), like the ultimate whistle-blower of our times:
Assange (2006): Conspiracy as governance
https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiW5aKdiuftAhWOSsAKHU58ApsQFjACegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcryptome.org%2F0002%2Fja-conspiracies.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3t6Eqv9tuPHtOjUC6OTKCU

Julian Assange Thought For the Day (Dec, 22 2020)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aca7W7w6Rl4

I specifically do cite those references, because I also do think, the principles put forward there also apply to the GLOBAL Covid cover-up story as well - and give a broader picture instead of focusing on CCP only. This cover-up eventually will be remembered as the biggest global science cover up in history as far.

The notion of a (largely independent) global (instead of a mainly China-driven) cover-up is voiced also in this quite recent Dany Shoham post, who certainly can be viewed as an insider:
[ Shoham (Dec 14, 2020): The Roots of the COVID-19 Pandemic
https://besacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/1847-Roots-of-COVID-19-Pandemic-Shoham-final-1.pdf
https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/covid-pandemic-roots/
quote:
'Several Western countries, as well as Russia, India, Japan, and Australia, had formed intelligence estimates as early as January 2020 but kept their conclusions quiet. The very persistence of intelligence agencies’ silence implies that they judge the initial contagion to have been unnatural. Had they concluded that the pandemic resulted from a natural contagion, they would probably have made that conclusion public.'
]
Shoham's assertion is basically that in particular ALL western intelligence agencies jointly and deliberately conspired (without external political/military pressure) against their own people (the taxpayers who once financed them) by concealing their own assessment - hence, the principle of 'Conspiracy as governance' applied to Covid.
I vividly can imagine how those medical intelligence agency experts (with all the classified material available to them) must have been cracking up about Andersen, Nature-publishing and the like and all the presumptuousness of the 'leading' western scientists on the corresponding civilian side. On the other hand, at the same time, strictly spoken: by conspiring against the public, those intelligence agencies and their experts became as well the public's enemy. In Assange's terms: The costs of conspiring against the public became way to low, also in the West.

2) Significance of U.S. national election. For decades, the U.S. NATIONAL election had been evolved into a masquerade, stealing the vote from the US-voter - it changes nothing in terms of rigging democracy and chronically disenfranchising power participation of its middle class, because: as we know, the 'winner takes it all principle' of the electorate (instead of proportional representation) is for centuries effectively barring any third party (= relevant extra-parliamentary opposition) from e

evidence
12/31/2020 04:06:16 am

2) Significance of U.S. national election. For decades, the U.S. NATIONAL election had been evolved into a masquerade, stealing the vote from the US-voter - it changes nothing in terms of rigging democracy and chronically disenfranchising power participation of its middle class, because: as we know, the 'winner takes it all principle' of the electorate (instead of proportional representation) is for centuries effectively barring any third party (= relevant extra-parliamentary opposition) from entering congress. (In likely contrast to single State elections, where proportional representation still largely works.) This situation is precisely intended so and this won't change.
So, specifically the U.S.-national election never changes anything in terms of augmenting democracy and transparency which would ultimately be a challenge to the feudal cast. Maybe in contrast to single state elections, it's a well financed Muppet show - a little bit comparable to elections of the E.U. parliament, where strict proportional representation is not warranted either, hence Brussels likewise does not mirror the true will of the 'European people', making it in the long run a way easier prey for lobbyism and partisan interests (and ultimately feudal lords) - in particular as compared to national elections in single European states, where proportional representation is likewise better enforced.-
The pitiful situation for the increasingly disenfranchised U.S. middle class is probably not so much mirrored by the U.S. uprisings last summer, but rather to a far bigger extend for example by the constant rise of the epidemic 'deaths of despair' numbers, an increase mainly driven by middle-aged men and women of the middle class, being already responsible for in a continuous decline of the medium U.S.-life expectancy during recent years.
This comes in stark contrast to middle classes of developing countries/emerging states (China included), where rising middle classes could see a net increase in their empowerment and participation on political decision-making, in relative terms, as compared to the ruling oligarchies, which resulted in a relative net increase in democracy for those countries - unlike Western countries.
#

David Rivard
12/23/2020 09:37:42 am

Greg, your important work is also a predictable part of the revolutionary tumult necessary to pull power from a comfortable, established asymmetric arrangement, in which a few (apparently corruptible) people control so much, into something more symmetric. I say predictable because a mutual global threat, both linked and networked, illuminates that the original advantage of “science”, the open global dialogue for all things as they rest on an “open” hierarchy of truths, where ideas can compete…openly with a global community, now no longer exists where it matters the most. Must we really have to re-live the “dare to know” age lastly challenged during the Enlightenment? The stifled global pressure to “know” (and know NOW when it matters the most), where both society and honest researchers are bearing down, is cracking apart formerly trusted publications under the mass on mass geometric progression of questions as they relate from all sciences (political, economic and biological). Now, there are tiny fractures that are causing a massive, maybe even fatal, collapsing pressure on these corrupted publications.

The corruptors have missed the lessons of our new age, the Age of Networks, Network Science. Biological research so complex that it once demanded billion dollar labs now takes place on desktops or a phone that can quickly reference immense cloud based genetic data sets. When we say “connection changes the nature of an object (from atoms on down and on up)”, the network science aspect of this site (and unfortunately there are few others), is fastly relegating certain “accredited” publications as being more fundamentalist than openly scientific. Data systems are constantly stretching and now beyond the control of visibly corrupted publications and agencies (Nature, WHO et al). Corrupted intelligence creators of this data are further exposed by those in these different sciences (corrupted means not engaging in open scientific discussion). Honest contributors to this site, in addition to your book, have become wizened analysts of the aforementioned fundamentalism.

Reply
Greg Felton
12/26/2020 01:03:24 pm

Thank you, David:
From the tone of your post it seems you read my book.
indeed, too much power is concentrated in too few hands, and those hands manufacture truth according to their self interest., I agree that cracks are forming in the official narrative of SRS-CoV-2, but it is disheartening to see so many Pavlovian governments take part in the stampede to embrace one or more of these speculative vaccines. It is as though rational thought had no place.

Reply
alex
12/28/2020 07:43:12 am

Greg in your book you don't mention the Perez-Montagnier articles. not even Dr. Tritto's book, don't you consider them relevant?

David Rivard
12/23/2020 10:05:47 am

And hopefully this will bring them back to science.

Reply
Peter Ross
12/24/2020 01:00:05 pm

Are people having fewer sex partners these days cuz coviditis panic?

Reply
David Rivard
12/26/2020 07:58:22 am

I know y'all caught it cause it's making international news. Anyone know who the WHO invited?

https://www.laprensagrafica.com/internacional/No-tenemos-nada-que-ocultar-la-cientifica-estrella-de-Wuhan-invita-a-la-OMS-a-visitar-el-laboratorio-en-el-centro-de-la-polemica-por-el-origen-del-coronavirus-20201223-0003.html

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/26/2020 09:29:58 am

¡Hola! DAVID RIVARD, could you please elaborate for those of us living under massive stones, neither reading "the" news nor understanding Spanish? Inbetween the lines, am I correct that the mainstream finally catched up and got word of CoV-2 being some pimped gain-of-function Frankenstein? Imagine my shock. Thanks in advance, Sir!

Reply
David Rivard
12/26/2020 10:18:48 am

Unfortunately not Guy. I got too wrapped up into Network Science in the way I would like to see it. There are still too many fundamentalists out there, particularly among the many partners of WIV listed previously, and headlines given by journalists trying for a gold star for the forehead:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/03/retraction-faulty-coronavirus-paper-good-moment-for-science/

The publishers really get nothing out of titling these articles excepting the black eyes that are emerging. They title to virtue signal to the theme in vogue...or in control.

David Rivard
12/26/2020 10:22:18 am

Guy, sorry that my translated version did not make it. You can use the translation option in your settings.

David Rivard
12/26/2020 10:31:19 am

Can international representative clinicians and epidemiologists access local clinical data to corroborate the lab tour?

Reply
David Rivard
12/26/2020 08:03:42 am

A heralded announcement over a year after release.

Reply
David Rivard
12/26/2020 10:05:13 am

It is still being deleted everywhere it appears:

https://www.reddit.com/r/corovirusdata/comments/f5dyyt/the_possible_origins_of_2019ncov_coronavirus/

You all have this:

https://listverse.com/2020/03/20/top-10-reasons-to-believe-the-wuhan-virology-lab-caused-2019-ncov/

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/03/retraction-faulty-coronavirus-paper-good-moment-for-science/

Partners still linked to WIV:

http://english.whiov.cas.cn/International_Cooperation2016/Partnerships/

I am still looking for the French article that reports problems with the CCP soon after the French govt. constructed one of the Wuhan labs. Anyone have it?

Reply
David Rivard
12/26/2020 10:52:17 am

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) is still on the trail and we should receive sources soon. I know you have all read this summation from April.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211291/U-S-government-gave-3-7million-grant-Wuhan-lab-experimented-coronavirus-source-bats.html

Reply
David Rivard
12/26/2020 10:37:34 am

Excepting a few partners denying affiliation, recently:

https://www.al.com/news/2020/12/feds-investigate-link-between-university-of-alabama-chinas-wuhan-institute-of-virology.html

Reply
Colin Butler link
12/26/2020 06:26:39 pm

Hello everyone

The site https://gofile.io/?c=D4zfxD is blocked by my computer with “warning malicious site”.

I haven’t tried the others.

My editorial "Plagues, pandemics, health security, and the war on nature” was published in The Journal of Human Security on December 18, 2020. It is relevant, and open access: http://www.librelloph.com/journalofhumansecurity/article/view/johs-16.1.53

Abstract:
This editorial presents a brief review of pandemics from antiquity to COVID-19. Although all large-scale epidemic diseases ("pandemics") can be considered ecological "checks" on human population size, and although COVID-19 is the biggest such pandemic since HIV/AIDS emerged it is not likely to approach the deathtoll of earlier pandemics, such as the plague. There are two major hypotheses to explain the origin of COVID-19. One is the "natural origin" hypothesis, the other is that it might have escaped from a laboratory, with its origin subsequently hidden. Although most scientists support the natural origin idea the other cannot yet be dismissed. Evidence for each hypothesis is presented. If the first theory is correct then it is a powerful warning, from nature, that our species is running a great risk. If the second theory is proven then it should be considered an equally powerful, indeed frightening, signal that we are in danger, from hubris as much as from ignorance. More pandemics are inevitable, but their severity can be reduced by greater transparency, international co-operation, and retreat from planetary boundaries.


Keywords: bats; China; COVID-19; ecology; health; medical history ; limits; security; pandemics

The editorial has one identified error (so far). The word “likely” is missing (in the original) from the sentence "Bats are the likely reservoir species for many recently discovered viral zoonoses, responsible for diseases including SARS, COVID-19, Nipah and Ebola.”

I hope 2021 is better for everyone.

Best wishes


Colin


Colin Butler PhD, MSc, BMed, DTM&H

Honorary Professor, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Australia

Member of Scientific Advisory Committee: Doctors for the Environment, Australia

https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/butler-cdd
http://colindbutler.weebly.com/
http://www.bodhi-australia.com/
http://health-earth.weebly.com

[email protected]

Reply
Nerd has power
12/27/2020 08:03:35 pm

Congratulations and thank you for sharing the link & info here.

Reply
Peter Ross
12/27/2020 06:23:56 am


Perhaps all references to a possible origin of SARS-CoV-2 as a lab-creation are subject to brutal censorship because the lab-creation origin raises too many questions regarding biological warfare in general, and the mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 release in particular, alternate possibilities being accidental versus intentional.
As a lab-creation, what was the original intent for SARS-CoV-2, and how many frankenviruses do the DARPA's of the world possess, as either offensive or defensive agents?
Which contagious and non-contagious medical pathologies can be ascribed to bioweapon programs gone astray during the past century?
From observing the course of the current covid pandemic (if that's the appropriate term.), there seem to be too many suspicious chapters, many of which seem to be scripted in advance. How many can you list?
For example, epidemics in general, respiratory contagions in particular, coronaviruses especially, do not typically show 'second wave' phenomena. In fact, the terrifying term 'second wave' is used to refer to spread of a contagion to affect additional geographical areas; the term 'second wave' refers neither to a recurrence of an outbreak in the same original geography nor to an enhanced virulent presentation of the associated illness. 'Second wave' no empirical basis for coronavirus epidemics and as for influenza epidemics, spread and recurrence typically occur in a seasonal pattern with diminished, not accentuated, amplitude. Thus, the "second wave" fear-mongering was always fakenews, yet broadly endorsed as a certainty across the medical establishment.
What could possibly motivate such behavior by the medical establishment that is so reckless and gratuitously fear-mongering that only leave room for global conspiracies as plausible explanations? Is military-grade information warfare associated with regime change operations on both national and international levels, such as exerting dramatic influence upon the electoral process in vulnerable countries engaged in trade conflicts? Would information warfare characterize the World Economic Forum's campaign to restructure western society into an Orwellian image of a low-carbon emission 'forth industrial revolution'? Has the pharmaceutical industry ever engaged in fear-mongering on a global scale?
In addition to the terrifying 'second wave' myth, the medical establishment has propagated many other subterfuges this year. one of the most egregious being the campaign to discredit any investigation of generic therapies as even a first aid approach to the covid diagnosis. Another crime is, of course, the use of PCR testing that is wrought with false positives and false negatives, which is at best, only an experimental approach to pandemic control.
Meanwhile, the traditional sources of respiratory infections seem to have "left the planet", at least temporarily. Even the most casual observer can glean that the covid case fatality rate is wildly exaggerated.
The combination of PCR testing while excluding the conventional serology approach, along with the overly-dramatized race to introduce vaccination, including the exotic and untested RNA/DNA methodology, while forcefully excluding conventional anti-viral/anti-parasite medicines from clinical trials - all within a time-frame too truncated for evidence-based safety estimates - strongly suggests that the arrival of SARS-CoV-2 , representing a class of bioweapons, was widely-greeted as an opportunity for the DARPA's of affected countries, for which the Wuhan lab seems to have been the interface. The prior outbreaks of SARS (2002, 2015) and MERS (2013) seem to have been field tests.
Has this been a premeditated international bio-military exercise driven by information warfare that got hijacked by competing geopolitical strategies, with the unanticipated result of a contested election and a Pacific Ocean saturated with every conceivable type of naval war vessel?
Or are we all already unwitting and infertile slaves of the technofascist New World Order Cult, soon to be chipped and branded, anxiously awaiting the next RNA/DNA update for our LED screen-atrophied pineal glands?
How does it end?

Reply
Peter Ross
12/27/2020 06:33:07 am

What exactly is a "pandemic" ?

https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/european-parliament-to-investigate-who-pandemic-scandal.html

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/01/facing-inquiry-who-strikes-back-fake-pandemic-swine-flu-criticism

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/weekinreview/lessons-from-a-plague-that-wasnt.html

https://principia-scientific.com/who-finally-admits-covid19-pcr-test-has-a-problem/?fbclid=IwAR0Kw5gHIQS1VniE0Q0RJZFe-_ZsHpyz2l3wi33ZKlNddFGFDiikMVsK12o


Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/30/2020 11:14:45 am

Awesome summary PETER ROSS, your rhetorical questions are right on target - thumbs up and greetings to you!

Makes me think of a certain Julian Assange interview back from 2012:

"We have this position where as we know knowledge is power, and there’s a mass transfer as a result of literally billions of interceptions per day going from everyone, the average person, into the data vaults of state spying agencies for the big countries, and their cronies – the corporations that help build them that infrastructure. Those groups are already powerful, that’s why they are able to build this infrastructure to intercept on everyone. So they are growing more powerful, concentrating the power in the hands of smaller and smaller groups of people at once, which isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s extremely dangerous once there is any sort of corruption occurring in the power. Because absolute power corrupts, and when it becomes corrupt, it can affect a lot of people very quickly. Bill Binney, National Security Agency whistleblower, who was the research head of the National Security Agency’s Signals Intelligence Division, describes this as a ‘turnkey totalitarianism’, that all the infrastructure has been built for absolute totalitarianism. It’s just the matter of turning the key. And actually the key has already been turned a little bit, and it is now affecting people who are targeted for US drone strikes, organizations like WikiLeaks, national security reporters who are having their sources investigated. It is already partly turned, and the question is, will it go all the way?"

http://web.archive.org/web/20121202083647/http://rt.com/news/assange-internet-control-totalitarian-943/

I think, 8 years later, the key is turned all the way, it's currently in the phase of being pulled and thrown away.

So it has come to this, we are right in the middle of Edward Morgan Foster's "The Machine Stops". For how it ends, see Orwell's "Room 101" in 1984, or even more accurate, Yevgeny Zamyatin's "Great Operation" in We. Happy reading everyone!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/27/2020 12:29:09 pm

Ho DAVID RIVARD,

"journalists trying for a gold star for the forehead" huhu, "[t]hey title to virtue signal[ing]", indeed. Stephen Lendman called them "presstitutes" for a reason, this sums it all up. So much for "the" press, reason why I don't waste time reading any so-called news - at all. Of course I could have used G-translate, but now you know why I didn't.

Okok, about your question @ the BSL-4/P4 lab constructed by the French, here is more than enough reading material to warm you heart. The challenges.fr-article looks promising, but partly behind a paywall and of course I did not have enough courage to read it:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=laboratoire+wuhan+p4+français

So, instead, I tried my best to stay put below my little rock, and only had a brief look at the subtitle of the following speech by the former French prime minister Bernard Guy Georges Cazeneuve during the accreditation of the famous Wuhan-BSL-4-lab on 23 February 2017:

"La France est fière et heureuse d’avoir contribué à la construction du premier laboratoire de haute sécurité biologique P4 en Chine. Conçu par des experts français, puis mis en chantier à WUHAN en 2011, cet outil de pointe constitue un élément central de la réalisation de l’accord intergouvernemental de 2004 sur la coopération franco-chinoise en matière de prévention et de lutte contre les maladies infectieuses émergentes."

https://www.gouvernement.fr/partage/8936-discours-du-premier-ministre-a-la-ceremonie-d-accreditation-du-laboratoire-de-haute-securite

Takeaway: "cet outil de pointe constitue un élément central ... en matière de prévention et de lutte contre les maladies infectieuses émergentes" aka "this high-tech tool is a central element ... in the prevention and the fight against emerging infectious diseases". No comment.

Otherwise, I remember reading in Nature's "Inside China’s pathogen lab", vol. 542, pp. 399-400, published 23 February 2017 [WTF, the very same day as the speech above!?! yes, I triple-checked], stating the following:

"The lab was designed and constructed with French assistance as part of a
2004 cooperative agreement on the prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases. But the complexity of the project, China’s lack of experience, difficulty in maintaining funding and long government approval procedures
meant that construction wasn’t finished until the end of 2014. [...] Future plans include studying the pathogen that causes SARS, which also doesn’t require
a BSL-4 lab, before moving on to Ebola and the West African Lassa virus, which do. [...] Many staff from the Wuhan lab have been training at a BSL-4 lab in Lyon, which some scientists find reassuring. And the facility has already carried out a test-run using a low-risk virus. But worries surround the Chinese lab, too. The SARS virus has escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times, notes Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. [...] But Ebright is not convinced of the need for more than one BSL-4 lab in mainland China. He suspects that the expansion there is a reaction to the networks in the United States and Europe, which he says are also unwarranted. He adds that governments will assume that such excess capacity is for the potential development of bioweapons. “These facilities are inherently dual use,” he says. The prospect of ramping up opportunities to inject monkeys with pathogens also worries, rather than excites, him: “They can run, they can scratch, they can bite.”

But as I like to come with a solution for you nerds instead of being part of the problem, here a nice graph with further links concerning filter standards:

https://shop.mask-covid-19.com/en/content/7-filtration-mechanisms

--> Beware of trashy KN95-gimmik, wear the best FFP3-masks or even P3R-filters + lab goggles you can get, people. When in doubt, just do it like those lab-bros. But please, never go full retard, don't wear them when walking alone in the woods. Been there, seen that.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Nerd has power
12/27/2020 08:32:29 pm

Thanks for the tip at the end, Guy. The person that you saw walking in the woods alone with a mask on probably would not look funnier than the rest of us in the eyes of our future generations. I think it is inevitable that the future generations would see pictures and videos of our time and laugh at us. It's not just that we look funny. They must also consider the whole thing unbelievably ridiculous -- the whole world was kept away from the simple truth of the virus for a whole year, was made to believe a safe/effective drug useless and toxic, was offered (in some cases forced to take) rushed vaccines....... We will be judged.

Reply
alex
12/28/2020 07:30:58 am

Do you know this article?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026913

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/28/2020 07:04:18 am

You are welcome, NERD.

I stop using the "reply"-button at this point, otherwise new postings are burried in the memory hole between old posts.

Talking about "the person", turned out she was a physician working in hospital [I'm living in a large European elite-university-city with a global TIER-1 hospital-complex]. I could not refrain from asking her why she wears a KN95-mask. She told me she thinks it's FFP2, it's what they get distributed in hospital and that she has a "duty" to protect herself and others. When I told her KN95 =/= FFP2, that her mask is visibly not airtight around the edges aka neither protecting her nor others, and that she also has mucus in the eyes and would - if she really thinks under large trees it the right place for it - also have to wear lab goggles besides a good FFP3-mask... well... as anticipated, she was not thrilled to say the least. But I got my valuable sociological data.

There are plenty of crazies out there for a walk in the wild in surgical masks. My favorite chap for now was the one 2 days ago in the woods who literally jumped from a wide gravel road into the ditch [WTF!], turned his head away and looked fearfully over his shoulder without any pride left when I passed in awe with my wife & kid at reasonable distance. LMAO. It goes without saying that I'm an outspoken believer in the rock-solid mental state of the bloke who lurked out of a black boxer short on his head in the supermarket; in general anyone with any kind of mask alone in a car; and I'd like to give a special shoutout to anyone on a bicycle without a helmet, in the rain, but proudly sporting a cotton mask. Based. The only really cool guy I remember seeing in great mood with a serious half face respirator and P3-filters was homeless - thumbs up to him. So it has come to this.

Boiling it all down, this is the state of the "1st" of first worlds [means nothing] in the "information era" 1 year into a global pandemic. You talk about future generations, but I tell you, joe on the street [except the homeless guy!] is not 1 braincell wiser than his/her medieval ancestor. But, but... how could they burn witches? How could they think the Earth is flat? Mercury enemas? How could they wear shaped plague doctor masks? Well, take a look around and see what's left from the Age of Enlightenment. Zero. Nutin. Thus, indeed, I'm with you that future generations will laugh at [most of] us and "consider the whole thing unbelievably ridiculous". Word! I know one should never make predictions, especially not about the future, but I dare to forecast you will have yet another crazyness the day after tomorrow, because you know what: people don't change. It's not that they don't change a lot, nor a little, they don't change at all. It's what Sir Edward Tylor called "survivals". Or to quote Mark Twain: "History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes."

Reality check: a look deeper in time, how did people during the Late Bronze Age collapse behave? Let's see. Deuteronomy 3:5-7 is a bad one:

"All these cities [were] fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon
king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves."

2 Samuel 12:29,31 is even worse:

"And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it. [...] And he brought forth the people that [were]
therein, and put [them] under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon."

I don't want to digress into any ideological or religious discussion, as I deeply respect any person of true faith, I know many from very different creeds. Good people, our best as mankind. I take those scriptures above as manifest testaments that people already were mean to others a long time ago. For anybody knowing modern history, it won't be difficult to find recent updates. So do we have progress here? Nope. Our human brain did not evolve since the stone age, take a look around in 2020, and this is what you get. So will we "be judged" by future generations? I don't think so, folks won't be any wiser in the future, even if people certainly will think they are.

So, in our current predicament, there is nobody to wake up. Either people are able to think critically if things do make sense or not - or all they really care about is to be conform, in line with the Zeitgeist, no matter how crazy at face value. As a rule of thumb, I would say 10% critical versus 90% conform. That's not even a pareto distribution!

But! But - let's preach to the choir again, and pass on some empowerment to you guys. Looks like I previously did not share Chan et al. (2011) "The Effects of Temperature and Relative Humidity on the Viability of the SARS Coronavirus", doi: 10.1155/2011

Reply
David Rivard
12/28/2020 10:41:26 am

I think the one choice is very clear. Who do you want as the Imperial Empire? People need policing for the better or for the worse. People are monkeys and monkeys are animals. When Rome fell the western world plunged into the "Dark Ages" of cities fighting cities for over one millennia. The falsely vaunted world of eastern civilizations were really no better until brief spates of order, equally "unjust" were installed. During a great stifling period (sound familiar?), sciences of previous great imperial civilizations were only partially unearthed by the Enlightenment, but think of the continuum humanity lost. Castles and knights were symbols of survival, but we managed to romanticize this order too.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/28/2020 07:12:43 am

Oh, the comment-function-dog ate the end of my little text, yet harnessing the power of the clipboard, here is it again:

But! But - let's preach to the choir again, and pass on some empowerment to you guys. Looks like I previously did not share Chan et al. (2011) "The Effects of Temperature and Relative Humidity on the Viability of the SARS Coronavirus", doi: 10.1155/2011/734690, quote:

"High relative humidity (>95%) at comparatively low temperature (28 °C) and 33 °C) did not affect the virus infectivity significantly. High temperature (38 °C) at 80–90% relative humidity led to a 0.25 ~ 2 log 10 loss of titre at 24hr. However, if the dried virus was stored at high temperature (38 °C) and high relative humidity (>95%), there was a further ~ 1.5 log loss of titre for each time point up to 24hr (0.38 ~ 3.38 log 10 ) when compared with high temperature (38 °C) at a lower relative humidity 80–90%. [...] In the present study, we have demonstrated that SARS CoV can survive at least two weeks after drying at temperature and humidity conditions found in an air-conditioned environment. The virus is stable for 3 weeks at room temperature in a liquid environment but it is easily killed by heat at 56 °C for 15 minutes. This indicates that SARS CoV is a stable virus that may potentially be transmitted by indirect contact or fomites. [...] In this study, we showed that high temperature at high relative humidity has a synergistic effect on inactivation of SARS CoV viability while lower temperatures and low humidity support prolonged survival of virus on contaminated surfaces."

Takaway? Wearing proper masks/respirators+filters + goggles in "danger zones" [aka not the forest] is on thing, but decontaminating your gear is another. So hanging it in a cold & dry place will leave the virions active potentially for weeks. The trick is to put your gizmo in a humid AND hot environment, let's say 60 °C for 1 hour, directly after use wrapped in a moist towel on the hot radiator/stove/oven [microwave at low-temp could also be very good, or in a black condura bag directly in the sun in summer] - afterwards, I put it out of the bag and let it dry completely in order to avoid mold. This should teach those pesky spikes a lesson!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Nerd has power
12/29/2020 05:50:49 am

Interesting. Malik Peiris is an intriguing figure in the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 scheme. Why did he get involved in studying the temperature & humidity effect on SARS in 2011?

You won't care about this in this much details if you are only developing vaccines using inactivated viruses -- you rather look more carefully into conditions that could have the virus killed more efficiently.

Or did people in 2011 still worry about contracting the disease from residual SARS viruses left on some surfaces? That problem was around only in 2003.

Then why did they care about this so much and did the knowledge gained become useful in any of their later scientific adventures?

Reply
David Rivard
12/28/2020 10:00:03 am

In case you haven't all read it, the forward thrust in Colin's important contribution "Plagues, Pandemics, Health Security, and the War on Nature" takes us back to some overarching questions we in the environmental community have been declaring since at least the 60's, even predating Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich ("if we do not limit our population, then mother nature is going to do it"...the original basis of the term "Sustainable Development" coined at the UNCED and now popularly used). Again, the most accredited scientific arguments were laid down throughout the UN Summit series of Boutros Boutros Ghali ("72 UN Committee on Human Development, '92 UN Committee on Environmental Development, Cairo Population Summit, City Summit et al). Resulting conventions, initiated by the environmental community and later represented by governments, were thus adopted into international and national legislation. We started with circumstantial convictions, largely based upon gut feelings and an intense love for both nature and the respective sciences we robustly lived. Colin articulates why "More pandemics are inevitable, but their severity can be reduced by greater transparency, international co-operation, and retreat from planetary boundaries" in a more scientific context than we could afford back then. The only real issue I had with the article, in the overtly stifled "scientific" environment (grants, publications et al) now more popularly revealed by C-19, in this age of information where the general public has more convenient access (remember staying at the library until 3 in the morning?), is editing the word "most" scientists to ""some" or "certain". I think this simple change would encourage the aforementioned transparency that he called out for better than we could have over a half a century ago.

Reply
Greg Felton link
12/28/2020 11:43:30 am

Alex: Thanks for asking.

I'm glad that my book is being read by people on this site, especially since it was most valuable for my research. To your questions:

I did not include the Perez-Montagnier work for two reasons. First, I found Dr. Perez's fibonacci mathematics a little difficult to get my head around without spending a lot of time. Since the purpose of my book was to debunk the natural-origin theory of SARS-CoV-2 and argue for the need for a proper aetiology, it did not seem to be as relevant as other material.

Second, I debated including Dr. Montagnier's views on HIV inserts, but since I had data on this from the Indian scientists and Birger Sørensen I decided against it. I followed the numerous attacks on Montgagnier, and although I found them to be knee-jerk and ad hominem, I would have had to evaluate them and I did not want to go off on a tangent.

I did not come across Dr. Tritto in my research.

There was much more that I could have included in the book, but I needed to stay focused on the main argument and wanted to have it published before the start of December.

I'm glad you read it and hope you found it useful.

Greg

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/29/2020 11:42:29 am

CTRL+F tells me David Relman's PNAS opinion article from November 3, 2020 "To stop the next pandemic, we need to unravel the origins of COVID-19" did not trickle down to y'all so far, but I'm pretty sure he is a fervent reader of this little blog. Kudos! Nothing new for us nerdboys, but a neat, prudent résumé, check:

"Second, SARS-CoV-2 or a recent ancestor virus may have been collected by humans from a bat or other animal and then brought to a laboratory where it was stored knowingly or unknowingly, propagated and perhaps manipulated genetically to understand its biological properties, and then released accidentally. Some have argued that a deliberate engineering scenario is unlikely because one would not have had the insight a priori to design the current pandemic virus. This argument fails to acknowledge the possibility that two or more as yet undisclosed ancestors (i.e., more proximal ancestors than RaTG13 and RmYN02) had already been discovered and were being studied in a laboratory—for example, one with the SARS-CoV-2 backbone and spike protein receptor-binding domain, and the other with the SARS-CoV-2 polybasic furin cleavage site. It would have been a logical next step to wonder about the properties of a recombinant virus and then create it in the laboratory. Alternatively, the complete SARS-CoV-2 sequence could have been recovered from a bat sample and viable virus resurrected from a synthetic genome to study it, before that virus accidentally escaped from the laboratory. The third scenario, seemingly much less likely, involves laboratory manipulation or release, with the clear intention of causing harm."

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021133117

***

Furthermore, here a nice list of "Scientific papers on the origins of SARS-CoV-2" worth a look:

https://usrtk.org/biohazards/origins-of-sars-cov-2-risks-of-gain-of-function-research-reading-list/

Perhaps anyone of you would like to connect some dots and send Sainath Suryanarayanan at [email protected] a mail in order to include NerdHasPower to the "Investigative blog articles on the origins of SARS-CoV-2"?

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Xoco Latte
12/30/2020 03:43:52 am

Thanks Guy, this is really a cautiously-worded opinion in the right direction.
I would actually cite a different snippet from it that sounds like quite a bravado critic of the smokescreen-investigation by the WHO:

"A deliberative process for investigating the origins of this pandemic must be representative of all relevant disciplines, expertise, and stakeholders; must achieve political neutrality, scientific balance, and access to all relevant information and samples; and must operate with transparency and independent oversight. Without these features, it will not be credible, trustworthy, or effective."

Reply
Guy Fawkes
12/30/2020 06:53:52 am

Thanks XOCO LATTE. Your snipplet is a truism. It's just that I opted on purpose for one in line with "Scientific evidence and logic behind the claim that the Wuhan coronavirus is man-made". I like that theme.

With regard to political smokescreen-investigations for what the Holy Inquisition was famous for, or in a more recent history the Warren- or 911-Commission[s], wellwellwell, I can't wait to imagine my shell shock by those incredible jewels the WHO will exhume. But this time it's different! To be honest, I did not even know there was any "investigation" by the WHO. You hav to understand there is a heavy blanket of snow on top of my rock. It's good snow, and it's a good rock.

So coming back to our pet topic that the Wuhan coronavirus seems to be man-made aka a creature of and by gain-of-function Frankensteinianism, just had a look at "U.S. Government Gain-of-Function Deliberative Process and Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses" from October 17, 2014, quote:

"Gain-of-function studies, or research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease ... Gain-of-function studies may entail biosafety and biosecurity risk. [...] New USG funding will not be released for gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route. [...] Upon adoption of a federal gain-of-function policy, the U.S. Government will declare the end of the research funding pause."

https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/gain-of-function.pdf

An we all know how well that ended, Menachery et al. (2015) was only a stepping stone. Fast forward to GOF in 2020, Gu et al. published "Adaptation of SARS-CoV-2 in BALB/c mice for testing vaccine efficacy" back in September, quote:

"We adapted a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2 by serial passaging in the respiratory tract of aged BALB/c mice. The resulting mouse-adapted strain at passage 6 (called MASCp6) showed increased infectivity in mouse lung and led to interstitial pneumonia and inflammatory responses in both young and aged mice after intranasal inoculation. Deep sequencing revealed a panel of adaptive mutations potentially associated with the increased virulence. In particular, the N501Y mutation is located at the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. [...] Here, we report the rapid adaption of SARS-CoV-2 in BALB/c mice, and the resulting MASCp6 strain not only replicated efficiently in the trachea and lung but also caused interstitial pneumonia and inflammatory responses, reproducing many clinical features observed in COVID-19 patients. [...] In particular, the aged mice developed more severe lung damage ... Serial passaging of virus in mouse lungs results in adaptive mutations that increase viral infectivity. The MASCp6 genome contains five mutations in comparison with its parental strain IME-BJ05, and these mutations resulted in four amino acid residue changes in the ORF1ab, S, and N genes, respectively. The N501Y mutation seems to provide a more favorable interaction with mouse ACE2 for docking and entry, thus leading to the increased virulence phenotype in mice. [...] Additionally, immunostaining results showed that lung club and AT2 cells are major target cells of MASCp6, which is in agreement with previous findings from animal models and COVID-19 patients. [...] No single animal model for SARS-CoV-2 currently reproduces all aspects of the human disease."

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6511/1603

I like the last sentence. Gives me additional trust in any source of "scientific authority" à la Nature on CoV-2's natual origin. Fast forward to today's freestyle GOF in on lab planet Earth, there is Rambaut et al. (2020) from December 19 with "Preliminary genomic characterisation of an emergent SARS-CoV-2 lineage in the UK defined by a novel set of spike mutations", drumrolls:

"Mutation N501Y is one of six key contact residues within the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and has been identified as increasing binding affinity to human and murine ACE2. The spike deletion 69-70del has been described in the context of evasion to the human immune response but has also occurred a number of times in association with other RBD changes. Mutation P681H is immediately adjacent to the furin cleavage site, a known location of biological significance."
https://virological.org/t/preliminary-genomic-characterisation-of-an-emergent-sars-cov-2-lineage-in-the-uk-defined-by-a-novel-set-of-spike-mutations/563

I hear there is still some vacant real estate left below rocks for anyone interested. I always knew cavemen were up to something, and that Neanderthalians "forgot" how to make fire on purpose. They knew. Now see what happens?

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
David Rivard
12/30/2020 11:07:57 am

I know, I must also force myself to read articles having titles that abstract their intent, like "Lead investigator says no stone will be left unturned, although existing evidence points to a natural zoonotic spillover event". What does the journalist get out of such a title other than the virtue signaling necessary to get their article through the front door with a glance? Selling quick articles that only need to mention a safe source (Daszak – the accredited zoologist and self-acclaimed virology expert – through business). Remember that many of these “journalists” are in reality “at large” (but trusted) contractors. I even doubt that in bridging a credibility gap with Jeffery Sachs for readers at large (not necessary for publication editors), Sachs was ever directly consulted.
As clinical cases rise, and as WHO continues to avoid sharing real time (or even recent time) in-situ clinical information (a part of their mandate), excepting mortalities, I continue to worry about the wasting aspect of this disease as “One of Australia’s first cases of COVID-19 dies”, "The long-term side effects of coronavirus are in the spotlight as a NSW man dies nine months after contracting the illness". There are also thousands of “long hauler” blogs written by those who are characterized by the more readily published “first conspiracy” camp, as psychosomatic. Probably because their ultimate view is to minimize the disease with popular political views, i.e., “Everything is gonna be alright” and a vaccine is on the way too!
How many tests were readily available…and effective, 9 months ago? As clinical cases rise, how many are attributable to those who could not obtain a test many months ago? Or maybe a false negative? The forward thrust of one “conspiracy camp” narrative is that “Aw, it’s really not that bad, and if it’s a bio-weapon it’s really a dud”, or even, “they” are just doing this for control purposes or to sell their vaccine, is allowed to flourish on media. This “conspiracy” camp in reality follows the WHO lead in only considering mortalities. The other “conspiracy” camp is anyone pointing to, first, synthetic or not, and second, intentional or not, never gets media attention, unless they sneak in with such an abstracted apologetic headline. This additionally holds true for shared clinical information, at least for any readily useable data sets as relating to morbidity. In particular, NONE for China.
As non-virologic circumstantial evidence bullet points have been accumulating, many discussed in various political forums as well as here, the other critical piece (if we must really depend upon reverse engineering the virus, now in its mutations), is the morbid characteristic… the complete clinical data sets.
Like the factual circumstance of the intentional release of millions of infected travelers onto the world, I believe that the chronic nature of the majority of those exposed further assures a widespread dissemination of the virus – and continued spikes for 2021 and beyond. Instead of medicine considering a “secondary chronic” effect of the virus to be such morbidities, a political and media establishment that only considers a “primary effect – morbidity”, as the only effect. The non-medical establishment, along with a non-clinical medical establishment, has re-defined a critical epidemiologic aspect for medicine. Medical doctors of the world unite!
To the lay person, the “longhaulers”, like HIV, C-19 is a form of chronic wasting…a devitalization of the person as they participate into other aspects of our society. How can this be measured? Athletes measure their performance levels over years and can only give anecdotal evidence of their dip in performance. Of the extra motivation it takes to continue daily regimens of fitness. There are no forums that gathers this accumulating data (Strava, Suunto and many others), much less the global forum that WHO is mandated with. As cases continue to spike all over the world, even now in our small country where we initially enjoyed the value of contact tracing, I wonder how many of the “new” cases were “unidentified” or “asymptomatic” months ago. If that is the case, there will be more cases of “new” infections, compounded with the aforementioned.
I cannot also help to think about how many of the vaccinated will be the final assurance of widespread infection to near saturation, simply through the selfish nature that humans were endowed with. Finally, the public, thanks to the WHO, Lancet C-19 Commission et al and popular media, generally considers that “covid is covid”, and does not really ponder the mutations. Which mutations exist among the pro-Chinese voting bloc at the UN? Clini

Reply
David Rivard
12/30/2020 11:42:22 am

Clinical transparency can only show.

I am flattered if you really read that, and noted the mistake; “primary effect – morbidity”, should have been: “primary effect – mortality”

Reply
Peter Ross
12/30/2020 06:07:03 pm

Ep104 - Vitamin D and Viral Special with Dr. David Grimes et al - Vital Viewing!
33,687 views• Dec 28, 2020
https://youtu.be/BD_96ybTMNE

Reply
Nerd has power
12/31/2020 09:07:32 pm

As nerdy as I am, I still feel the need to write something here on this last day of 2020. For whoever is still paying visits here and keeping this site alive, thank you. What a year that we had. And what the future is going to be? Some months ago, I told myself that there are two things that the world cannot tolerate any longer: communism and COVID-19. Yet, they are both still here :) I guess we will all have to continue to be distracted by these two. Hopefully the world can find a way to get rid of at least one of them in 2021. Fingers crossed.

Wish everyone a safe and healthy new year.

Reply
Peter Ross
1/2/2021 04:59:35 am

I have a feeling that c19 was a pre-emptive measure to vax the world against some nasty threat.
dunno why they did it this way - mebe to catch the crooked doctors and globalists and show everybody how ugly.
it's an alternate hypothesis that stems from the observations about sars-cov-2 structure consistent with a synthetic self-spreading attenuated virus.
https://www.wionews.com/author/lawerence-sellin

Reply
Nerd has power
1/3/2021 12:08:23 pm

I believe otherwise. I think COVID is the real deal.

When the CCP released it, they might not have fully understood its impact. If you know how the CCP runs, you would probably appreciate how a thing can be distorted when being reported from the base all the way to the top. There seems to be only 2~3 top leaders of the CCP that planned the whole scheme of this bioweapon and finally made the decision to release it. The information that they based their judgements on might not be a true reflection of the reality. On top of that, the scientists may not know the full capacity of their product either. How exactly did things transpired may only be answered by history.

On the other hand, the pandemic did make crooked doctors and globalists emerge. In a way, this is a necessary step for a good clean-up. Who knows.......

Guy Fawkes
1/1/2021 03:36:33 pm

A bird landed in front of my rock the other day, making a racket. A bird! Singing "LOC LOC LOC". LOC LOC LOC? WTF! Crawled out, took me some time to understand what all the chatter was about, then finally got it: LOC = lab on a chip. Now we are talking, and to be more precise - US patents. That's right ladies and gentlemen. US Patent 2017/0229149 A1 from August 10, 2017, check:

"The system could also be adapted with a so-called “lab on a chip” (LOC) integrated in the device itself, or with a suitable attachment added to it, for the remote testing for example, of blood samples where the smart-phone is either used for the collection and sending of the sample to a testing laboratory for analysis, or is used to carry out the sample collection and analysis within the device itself. In either case the system is adapted such that the identity of the subject and their blood sample are cross-authenticated for the purposes of sample and analysis integrity as well as patient identity certainty, through the simultaneous recording of the time-stamped video and time and/or location (or GPS) stamping of the sample at the point of collection and/or submission of the sample. This confirmation of identity is particularly important for regulatory, record keeping and health insurance reasons in the context of telemedicine, since the individual will increasingly be performing functions which, till now, have been carried out typically on-site at the relevant facility, by qualified and regulated medical or laboratory staff, rather than by the subject using a networked device, either for upload to the central analysis facility, or for remote analysis on the device itself."

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e6/08/8c/78c09472a64816/US20170229149A1.pdf

It was first filed in 2015, and called "System and Method for Using, Biometric, and Displaying Biometric Data". Pay no attention to the author. So far, so lame. But the bird kept singing "LOC LOC LOC", I had to do something, I had to take refuge under my rock again, I had to dig a little more, and guess what I found? An Update! US 2020/0279585 A1 from September 3, 2020. Has 100% the same paragraph in it as above, same author, layout, structure, figures etc. - but then, all of a sudden & mid sentence, the bird started singing "COV COV COV" like crazy in the background, I tried to focus, the title was changed to "System and Method for Testing for COVID-19", with COVID-19 now inserted all over the place. So the abstract from 2015/2017 in the patent above:

"A method is provided for processing and displaying biometric data of a user, either alone or together (in synchronization) with other data, such as video data of the user during a time that the biometric data was acquired. The method includes storing biometric data so that it is linked to an identifier and at least one time-stamp (e.g., a start time, a sample rate, etc.), and storing video data so that it is linked to the identifier and at least one time-stamp (e.g., a start time). By storing data in this fashion, biometric data can be displayed (either in real-time or delayed) in synchronization with video data, and biometric data can be searched to identify at least one biometric event. Video corresponding to the biometric event can then be displayed, either alone or together with at least one biometric of the user during the biometric event."

...was changed in 2020 into this:

"A method is provided for acquiring and transmitting biometric data (e.g., vital signs) of a user, where the data is analyzed to determine whether the user is suffering from a viral infection, such as COVID-19. The method includes using a pulse oximeter to acquire at least pulse and blood oxygen saturation percentage, which is transmitted wirelessly to a smartphone. To ensure that the data is accurate, an accelerometer within the smartphone is used to measure movement of the smartphone and/or the user. Once accurate data is acquired, it is uploaded to the cloud (or host), where the data is used (alone or together with other vital signs) to determine whether the user is suffering from (or likely to suffer from) a viral infection, such as COVID-19. Depending on the specific requirements, the data, changes thereto, and/or the determination can be used to alert medical staff and take corresponding actions."

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/61/a3/0d/3d91325d909386/US20200279585A1.pdf

"Corresponding actions?" Ever tried to muse over a PDF with a deranged bird nearby singing "LOCK LOCK LOCK"? No way! But wait. LOCK LOCK LOCK? Now with a K? WTF! LOCK? Like in... LOCK STEP? Silence. Bird gone. Damn it, I knew what it meant:

The Rockfeller Foundation & Global Business Network (2010) "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development", pp. 18-23:

"LOCK STEP – A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership ... In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for y

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/1/2021 03:42:37 pm

[...]

The Rockefeller Foundation & Global Business Network (2010) "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development", pp. 18-23:

"LOCK STEP – A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership ... In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. [...] During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. [...] Scanners using advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology become the norm at airports and other public areas to detect abnormal behavior that may indicate “antisocial intent.” [...] New diagnostics are developed to detect communicable diseases. The application of health screening also changes; screening becomes a prerequisite for release from a hospital or prison, successfully slowing the spread of many diseases."

https://archive.org/details/scenarios-for-the-future-of-technology-and-international-development-rockefeller-foundation/page/18/mode/2up

Takeaway? Don't pay any attention to birds singing in front of your rock.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
1/3/2021 04:20:29 am

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19
By YANNI GU | November 22, 2020

"According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data.”
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.
She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.
Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.
This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?
To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.
Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.
“This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes,” Briand pointed out.
When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.


This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.


The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.
“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand concluded.
In an interview with The News-Letter, Briand addressed the question of whether COVID-19 deaths can be called

Reply
Peter Ross
1/3/2021 04:22:41 am

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19
By YANNI GU | November 22, 2020

https://archive.is/DJdin#selection-1313.0-1465.267

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/4/2021 04:30:03 am

Alarming new developments with regards to the 'new' UK-variant B.1.1.7 with 17 mutations. Just like the pandemic has been restarted, now in Europe instead of China.
Accumulation of selection-driven mutations in a single host is told to be actually happening in immunocompromised patients with very long persisting infection, taking 100-150 days.

I mean, WTF is just going on?

Immundeficient or immuncompromised case examples that have been analysed for having these accumulation of mutations exist in all over the world. Therapies against hCOV-19 that were attributed for the selective pressure to accumulate these mutations include convalescent plasma, remdesivir, recombinant antibodies, i.e., therapies that are available in relatively rich countries.
Certainly in China, as well...
Could anyone explain to me, why presumably only European, North American and African nations are involved - coinciding with the timing of the start of vaccination? Is this just pure coincidence? Or, is this just due to the volume of viral sequencing performed, i.e., this new variant is everywhere, but detection of it lags behind?

Reply
Nerd has power
1/5/2021 04:45:44 am

To be fair, given the scale of the infections, mutations are going to accumulate. I think there has been more than one report where an immune compromised patient was monitored and the viruses within their bodies clearly accumulated mutations (not 17 of them though). Anyways, it's possible for this to happen naturally.

However, on the other hand, the reality is that we are in an ongoing unrestricted warfare and the CCP's bioweapon is doing what the CCP intended to do -- weaken its enemies. Chairmen Xi has not too long ago called this the "Ultimate Battle". He's taking this seriously. More importantly, this bioweapon attack continues to be well covered up. The world continues to believe that COVID came from nature. The CCP's unrestricted bio-attack cannot be more successful. So why would the CCP stop?

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/4/2021 07:00:28 am

Yo XOCO LATTE, good observations, good questions. Concerning UK mutations, check my previous excerpts out of Rambaut et al. (2020) "Preliminary genomic characterisation of an emergent SARS-CoV-2 lineage in the UK defined by a novel set of spike mutations":

"Mutation N501Y is one of six key contact residues within the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and has been identified as increasing binding affinity to human and murine ACE2. The spike deletion 69-70del has been described in the context of evasion to the human immune response but has also occurred a number of times in association with other RBD changes. Mutation P681H is immediately adjacent to the furin cleavage site, a known location of biological significance."

https://virological.org/t/preliminary-genomic-characterisation-of-an-emergent-sars-cov-2-lineage-in-the-uk-defined-by-a-novel-set-of-spike-mutations/563

Makes me think of the paper I posted exactly 1 month ago by Farkas, Mella & Haigh (2020) "Large-scale population analysis of SARS-CoV2 whole genome sequences reveals host-mediated viral evolution with emergence of mutations in the viral Spike protein associated with elevated mortality rates", check:

"We support the latter with the observed non-random signatures of nucleotide changes in these mechanisms, and the presence of SARS-CoV-2 error-correction machinery, not seen in other RNA viruses. [...] These observations provide strong evidence that the S477N variant is a novel gain of function Spike protein mutation, as has recently been demonstrated for the D614G mutation. We argue that the constant spread of V1176F and S477N variants over the world ultimately may lead to a further significant concern in public health, due to their association with higher mortality rates. [...] It is possible that these variants can confer antigenic escape, since recently, it has been registered that a reinfection case containing A222V and D614G mutations has occurred. Nucleocapsid variation has also been documented in the nucleoprotein of the influenza virus and nucleocapsid of the hepatitis virus. Both RNA viruses escape cellular immunity by these mechanisms and could also be the case for SARS-CoV-2."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.23.20218511v1

--> So what did we have back then in Spain, what do we have now in the UK, and soon in your town? Non-random signatures of nucleotide changes aka nonsynonymous positive natural selection, SARS-CoV-2 error-correction machinery, a novel gain of function Spike protein mutation, antigenic escape, reinfections... hey, what do you want more for 2021? Again from that paper, the last paragraph:

"In conclusion, we have obtained evidence that the S477N variant is a gain of function mutation occurring in the Spike protein, that is positively correlated with increased fatality rates and is becoming dominant as its increases, as was also recently observed for the D614G mutation that became dominant throughout the world."

So it has come to this. Full face respirator + P3R particulate filters + proper decontamination, anybody?

***

@NERD "When the CCP released it" - you are aware of the *possibility* of sabotage or a false flag operation, don't you? Don't get angry, but if it's that simple, and a handful of politburo-bros from "the CCP" went full retard and released their own long-term-bioweapon based upon published virus-backbones from their own military on their own soil [?!], nearby their own brand new BSL-4-lab... well, with celestral luminaries like that in deciding positions of power, who needs enemies? NERD, this makes no sense. As a rule of thumb, the truth always makes sense, reason why the official narrative is so absurd ;-]

Given the national full-panic-Wuhan-seal-off-RatG13-kneejerk reaction by the Chinese, as well as no rational geopolitical reaction by other nations, yet a L/MIHOP [let/make it happen on purpose] reaction by "the West", not grounding all planes since COVID-19 day 1 Sakoku-style, not distributing their respective populance proper FFP3R masks on a weekly basis + reminding them ad nauseam how to use them proprely [I still wait for it in suspense], but instead pushing their little surveillance states to the max --> holistically speaking, it stands to reason somebody else relased that thing, blaming it on the sino-scapegoat, and killing 2 birds with 1 stone.

You bashed communism the other day, go for it. But is the state control of the means of production + distribution/consumption not exactly what's now the end effect globally? Remember the old "destroy the village to win the village" Vietnam-strategy? This is exactly what you see, "they" blame the communists abroad, only to install neo-communism at home. Genious. Think of the philosopher Jacques Ellul: folks & politicians are at the very least half a century behind their times, their systemic thinking is a grandpa off. They will still preach global warming while the glaciers surge again, remember my words. Hearing communism, peo

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/4/2021 07:03:19 am

[...]

You bashed communism the other day, go for it. But is the state control of the means of production + distribution/consumption not exactly what's now the end effect globally? Remember the old "destroy the village to win the village" Vietnam-strategy? This is exactly what you see, "they" blame the communists abroad, only to install neo-communism at home. Genious. Think of the philosopher Jacques Ellul: folks & politicians are at the very least half a century behind their times, their systemic thinking is a grandpa off. They will still preach of global warming while the glaciers surge again, remember my words. Hearing communism, people think of class wars, Marx, factories and red flags. That's oldschool. It's 2021, people, technological permeation leads automatically to technofascism, all the Kool-Aid wonders of tech being the "rolling base" like Ellul called it for this transformation. I'm not fond of quoting Mussolini nor the Report from Iron Mountain here, so @ CoV-2, let's again finish with good, ol' Rahm Emanuel that you all like so well:

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that - it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Best,
Guy Fawkes

P.s.: Here some fun:

https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/what-is-the-source-of-covid-19-sars-cov-2

Reply
Nerd has power
1/5/2021 05:35:00 am

Did some of the West politicians and other interest groups take advantage of the COVID pandemic? They certainly did. However, when you say "You never let a serious crisis go to waste", you actually admit that the ones taking advantage of a crisis might not necessarily be the ones who created this crisis.

First of all, please don't consider the communist leaders super intelligent. Also, remember, the information they receive is often distorted -- it's because nobody really trusts anybody else in a totalitarian system. People tend to overstate their achievements/progresses to please the leaders there.

Also, there are two benefits in releasing it in Wuhan:

1. They have prepared Wuhan for dealing with coronavirus-induced emergencies. Remember the three MERS drills I mentioned before? When you are the first victims, the world would be less likely to consider you being the criminal.

2. This gives them a backup plan -- blame the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Zhengli Shi for a lab leak. We might see this happen soon.

When you consider the whole scheme of things, it's hard to conclude otherwise. For example, why would the CCP fabricate a series of viruses just o falsify a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2? If this virus was made by another government or country, would the CCP work so diligently on these fabrications? These are not easy tasks, although the CCP scientists did not do a clean job there.

Finally, let me be lazy and quote my own tweet:

"In the earliest SARS-CoV-2 publication (Jan 21, 2020, before RaTG13 was reported), this Chinese group drew a phylogenetic tree. Amazingly, ZC45 & ZXC21, SARS-CoV-2's closest match in nature, were missing.

Anyone with a brain can tell that this is intentional.

WHY SO???"

https://twitter.com/nerdhaspower/status/1346328056370245634

Reply
alex
1/5/2021 08:46:18 am

Nerd, Do you have any idea how they did it? How did they release the virus? and where?
It was released in Wuhan and from Wuhan alone it spread throughout the world.
OR
First in Wuhan and after there were specific releases at different times in other countries?

Nerd has power
1/5/2021 12:51:12 pm

I don't know how they released it in Wuhan. What I do believe is that the first release was in Wuhan. The initial spread started there.

I also believe that the CCP has been actively releasing it in other parts of the world. Maybe these subsequent releases happened after the virus has spread into the target countries/regions. When you already have the infections on your soil, you would be less likely to consider your surges being anything other than the results of natural transmission. In other words, it's safer for them to release it on you then: they are less likely to get caught and the damage on you can be magnified and ensured.

Do I have evidence of their active releases? Of course not. But there is something worth noticing for sure. For example, do you see a party line in the large number of US politicians who contracted COVID? To me, that says something.

alex
1/4/2021 07:28:26 am

Minister Wang Yi says the origin is unclear and certainly not in China

https://www.rt.com/news/511393-china-coronavirus-origins-wang/

But it is increasingly difficult to divert attention from the Wuhan laboratory.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/top-us-official-says-growing-body-evidence-shows-covid-19-leaked-chinese-lab

Reply
David Rivard
1/4/2021 11:12:35 am

Good analogy of WHO's Potemkin exercise. There were also a few since Catherine the Great, including Chamberlain visiting Hitler (CCP is Nazi is not far off). Who could execute such malevolence to humans, excepting those blinded by professional pride over pure science, or those executing a national expansionist plan in line with methodologies of previous empires? Collateral damage be damned, and cannot be factored into the purpose of this war. Already they talk about "leak" from a lab and not "synthetic" or not. If they affirm a lab leak I am sure they will be "sorry" it occurred. But the lack of sharing or discouragement of accurate information will always be directed at all collaborators, as Chamberlain was accused throughout history. After the weapon exacts its chronic wasting toll the world might finally develop an educated constituency for retribution.

Remember, the CCP's first defense was was always "a lab leak or not" and the final defense was always "intentional or not" based upon the reverse engineering the non-corrupted scientific (and media) community is trying to establish.

Reply
David Rivard
1/4/2021 11:29:38 am

Guy, Rom was just parroting the original author and purveyor of "You never let a serious crisis go to waste", which was both coined and practiced by Hillary Clinton through the Clinton Foundation. Ask any Haitian and they will confirm. If that seems too broad a statement then ask any of the Haitian National Police and they will confirm the arrest warrants out to anyone from the Clinton Foundation caught in the country. They are living in a world of consequences, soon to be joined by the aforementioned communities.

Reply
Ruca
1/4/2021 12:47:08 pm

Hello! Only wanted you all to know about this book published in August 2020 in Italy: "Cina COVID 19. La Chimera che ha cambiato il Mondo" (China COVID 19. The chimera that changed the world, by Prof. Joseph Tritto). Unfortunately it's only available in Italian - at least for now, but here is an article in English and then an interview with English subtitles:
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Prof-Tritto:-COVID-19-was-created-in-the-Wuhan-laboratory-and-is-now-in-the-hands-of-the-Chinese-military-50719.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdiHOx7EwGg

Reply
Nerd has power
1/5/2021 05:14:47 am

Thank you for sharing these. I was aware of the news reporting Dr. Tritto's work. Glad that there is an interview in English. I can't agree with Dr, Tritto on all the details, but I appreciate his work in waking the world up to the truth that SARS-CoV-2 is a lab engineered virus.

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/5/2021 08:11:47 am

A very interesting and perhaps a first phylogenetic study pointing towards the untenability of the theory of RaTG13 as the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2. What is even more interesting, it is from Chinese authors and it was published in Nature.

Phylogenetic supertree reveals detailed evolution of SARS-CoV-2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-79484-8

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/5/2021 08:14:50 am

Shit, I wanted to cite a portion of the Summary from this report:

" In particular, the MRP pseudo-sequence supertree analysis firmly disputes bat coronavirus RaTG13 be the last common ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, which was implied by other phylogenetic tree analysis based on viral genome sequences."

Reply
Greg Felton
1/5/2021 11:11:22 pm

Even though my book on the man-made theory of SARS-CoV-2 is out, for which I am especially grateful to Nerd and his followers for their contributions, I feel I must respond to Nerd's comments on the CCP, in particular his allegation that it deliberately released the virus.

By his own admission, he has no evidence of an active release; all he has is his belief and some circumstantial evidence, like U.S. politicians' contracting the disease. However, this is proof of nothing, and a claim based on belief is a solipsism, Nevertheless, Nerd asserts his theory as though it were a certainty, and this is, frankly, dishonest.

If we are supposed to condemn Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak inter alia for fabricating RaTG13, and the zoonotic theory, why does Nerd not deserve censure for essentially fabricating the claim that the CCP deliberately released the SARS-CoV-2 virus? One can argue that the CCP was involved in its manufacture, but it is irresponsible to impute motive without proof. This is how false narratives are born and develop an unnatural persistence.

How, as I wrote in my book, can anyone claim the CCP deliberately released the virus when it had no rational or plausible zoonotic cover story in place? The Huanan market, RaTG13 and RmYNo2 have all be exposed as desperate ad hoc contrivances. There is no scintilla of planning or competence in the zoonotic narrative. In nfact, a strong case is that the virus caught the CCP off guard. Does Nerd think the CCP is stupid?

It is hard not to discern a powerful animus against the CCP in the writing of Nerd and Yan Limeng, so I have to wonder how much of this animus colours their objectivity and leads them to conflate science with polemics.

I do not in any way defend the CCP or take its side in this matter, but to ascribe blame without evidence is irresponsible and serves no useful purpose. Given the history of lax biosecurity in Beijing and Wuhan, why is it implausible to conclude that the virus was accidentally released?

I urge Nerd and everyone else to stop asserting things they cannot prove and let silence continue where evidence ends.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/6/2021 04:57:11 am

false flag: a political or military action that is made to appear to have been carried out by a group that is not actually responsible

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/false-flag

@GREG FELTON: Kudos! Indeed, it seems NERD's working theory is the Chinese government went full retard, he won't move on this point, you have to accept that. So, somehow, the "West" has no informants, has not the slightest clue, and sits on their hands like lame ducks, even too dumb to close their borders or distribute antiviral masks - only able to implement those on/off half-pregnant measures after the fact. As if they were all mentally challenged.

And judging by what kind of masks people - with enough income to, in theory, be able to afford - one walk around, most people are, indeed, mentally challenged. With a little more IQ in the soup, it's as if "they" wanted it to spread, change their own laws into martial laws, and blame the Chinese and their new Wuhan-BSL-4-lab for the mess, as it was built for exactly this dual use GOF research. So the Chinese are in a catch 22 situation and cannot duck-n-cover. Clever.

Straight out of the textbook of the brilliant Chinese Thirty-Six Stratagems, we have "Disturb the water and catch a fish [confuse anyone], "Slough off the cicada's golden shell" [false flag] and "Feign madness but keep your balance" [play dumb].

Problem is that we all don't know "who did it", so "they" remain in the dark. But what we always know Prof. John Kozy-style, is if things do make any sense or not. And as I - the parrot - wrote multiple times before, the Chinese would have been shooting themselves in the foot big time by releasing their pimped military frankenvirus next to their own lab. Makes no sense at all. Ergo the sense has to have been found somewhere else, in the camp of those getting a return at the moment. The Chinese certainly don't. Worldwide civilians neither. Who really wins now are secret services all over the so-called "democratic" states in the "West". They can finally get the pesky brakes off, short game, deep state wins. And who has double agents in all strategic positions? The cavalry has. Is there a track record of false flags in order to push wars [internal or external] if you can't get them by open means? Jip. Of course, Big Pharma, Amazon and the Banking System ["dirty" fiat money bye-bye] benefits as well. Hence will we ever find out "who did it"? By definition of a false flag, we never, ever will. All we know is that things which make no sense, don't. To cite Thomas Paine:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
1/6/2021 09:11:26 am

Supposing China got punked by an adversary releasing the pathogen in Wuhan, how should China have responded differently?

Reply
Peter Ross
1/6/2021 10:09:13 am

From 6 January 2020 - exactly one year ago:


A Mystery Virus Has Left Dozens Sick In Chinese City Of Wuhan

By Tom Hale
06 JAN 2020, 12:39

An unidentified virus has struck dozens of people in Wuhan, the most populous city in Central China.

At least 59 cases have been confirmed so far, including seven patients who are critically ill, according to the Wuhan Municipal Health Committee. A further 163 people are also under medical observation after coming into close contact with the infected people.

Hong Kong authorities have activated a “serious response” level in reaction to eight possible cases of an illness they believe to be associated with visitors from the mainland Chinese city, reports the Associated Press.

All of the patients have fallen sick with pneumonia or severe respiratory tract infections, with many experiencing fever and breathing difficulties, although the source of the illness is not yet known.

There was speculation that the outbreak could be linked to SARS, the respiratory illness that started in China in 2002 and went on to kill over 700 people around the world. However, local health authorities have since ruled this out. They have also excluded the possibility of regular influenza, avian flu, adenoviruses, and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).

The earliest case was reported on December 12, 2019, and the number of patients is continuing to grow. Many of the sick work at South China Seafood City market in Wuhan, which has been closed for sanitation and disinfection since January 1. Along with fish and seafood, the large wholesale market is also said to sell wild animals, such as rabbits and pheasants.

“Citizens should pay attention to maintaining indoor air circulation, avoiding closed and airless public places and crowded places, and wear masks if necessary,” Wuhan health authorities said in a statement.

According to the World Health Organization, the strong link to the market suggests that the illness is caused by a virus that spreads between animals and humans. This is what’s known as a zoonotic disease and includes most human infectious diseases, from swine flu and salmonella to Ebola and HIV.

So far, local health authorities say lab tests have shown there’s no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission and no health care worker infections have been reported.

However, the head of the University of Hong Kong's Centre for Infection, Ho Pak-leung, has thrown doubt on this claim by saying it’s “highly possible” that the illness is spreading from human to human. He also warned that there could be a surge in cases during the upcoming Chinese New Year on January 25.

“It is highly unlikely that this will lead to a major 2003-like epidemic, though we cannot be complacent,” said Yuen Kwok-yung, a microbiologist at the University of Hong Kong, according to TIME.


https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/a-mystery-virus-has-left-dozens-sick-in-chinese-city-of-wuhan-/?fbclid=IwAR3jX6Cwp0q4mbaWk2yMjXktrIf_G-gxcqEljxibt2yc-QFn4lZRnXU0Cxk

Reply
Peter Ross
1/6/2021 09:05:25 am

Luftvägspatogener
Prov analyserade av Karolinska Universitetslaboratoriet
till och med vecka 53 2020
Luftvägsvirus: influensa A, influensa B, RS-virus, humant metapneumovirus,
coronavirus (229E, NL63, OC43, HKU1 och SARS-CoV-2), parainfluensavirus,
rhinovirus och adenovirus
Luftvägsbakterier: Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Pertussis, Parapertussis,
Chlamydophila pneumoniae och Chlamydophila psittaci

https://www.karolinska.se/globalassets/global/2-funktioner/funktion-kul/klinisk-mikrobiologi/epidemiologi/rapport-influensa--och-rs-virus-och-andra-luftvagspatogener.pdf

Reply
Peter Ross
1/6/2021 09:18:11 am

Sweden has been criticized for neglecting to impose compulsory non pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) such as mask wearing, social distancing, school closures, and lockdown curfews, yet all of the major respiratory pathogens seem to have disappeared this flu season.
The same is true for other geographies with more rigid NPI's.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/6/2021 02:05:55 pm

Ho PETER ROSS,

remember that we are into game theory scenarios here, psychological enemy territory, so we know for sure that we don't know. But the "beauty" of a false flag is that the victims cannot respond differently, no matter what, they hold the bag and look dumb. The panic mode was either a false flag in itself aka pretending they were the victims of a false flag, when in reality, the thing is a circus - OR the Chinese got indeed pwned and now look dumb, their panic mode was real and should rise some eyebrows for those who think "they did it". But this is all dog and pony as soon as the trenchcoats are involved, so better forget any fingerpointing like GREG FELTON rightly pointed out, somebody is playing games here, and all we get is the perfect show.

Makes me think of the 36 stratagems again, "Create something from nothing" [lie] & "Point at the mulberry tree while cursing the locust tree" [the victims cannot fight back without conceding guilt] certainly do apply as well.

Either way, as with other deep time events as Prof. Peter Dale Scott once called them, the soft stories are completely misleading, you have literally nutin in your hand. The only things to get a hold on are hard science facts, and this brings us back to genetic manipulation markers. They are like the nanothermate Prof. Niels Harrit found in the WTC dust using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. You just cannot explain that away with mainstream fairy tales. Some [virus] dust, that's all we have - again. Thus, tells us the official story is like always in such cases: bananas. Nothing more. Charly 5 over.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
1/6/2021 05:55:53 pm

Yep.

If you covid twice call the police!
"US7555986B2" AND "911"

Battelle National Biodefense Institute, LLCweb.frederickchamber.org › Battelle-National-Biodefen...
Battelle National Biodefense Institute, LLC | 8300 Research Plaza, Fort Detrick, MD, 21702 |

Reply
Nerd has power
1/7/2021 05:12:11 am

Greg,

I appreciate your honest opinion on my theory of intentional release. However, I don't think I should be called dishonest here -- I tell you what I believe as well as what evidence (circumstantial for the large part here) I have to back that up. If that is not honesty, I don't know what is.

The discussions here are mainly evidence-based. Let's continue it here. Please try to explain two things:

1. If the release was accidental, why fabrication of RaTG13's raw sequencing reads started in 2018 and 2019?

2. If the release was accidental, why the first fabrication of pangolin coronaviruses was published in Sep 2019 before the initial outbreak?

Please make sense of these first. Let's see whether you could break my certainty here. Thanks.

Reply
David Rivard
1/7/2021 09:06:27 am

So why would anyone take interest in participating in such a blog? Why not just get information from more popular scientific journals and media sources with faith? This site led me to many other sources that agree, or partially agree, with Nerd's premise, even though, like millions of others, I "know" that Daszak, Shi, GOF researchers, et al have our interests at heart. So do the wizened recondite's with grey beards who work as editors in Silicon Valley. WHO is certainly the global and honest broker for successfully combating the virus for the good of the world, even under the directorship of China's appointee. China's allies do not share information because they understand that China is just simply "being China". They are under no real mandate for transparency, either for the origin or the clinical manifestations are they?

Is the mainstream fairy tale a story of a natural enzootic - living under a rock or in a cave, accidental release - but not disclosed until millions of people were allowed to travel to international (and not domestic) destinations, created in a lab - with no passaging needed, intentional release - precisely before the U.S. elections, intentionally release - architected by a political scientist to defeat global capitalism, or intentional release - as an act of war to replace the U.S. as the new imperial empire? Point with certainty to the above possible, or even improbable outcomes to pursue additional science - truth as resting upon a hierarchy of truths - or else why waste time to explore less visible information? Is the whole truth a description of virologic reverse engineering necessary to better understand sequencing, or is the whole truth partially evidenced by the consequences of its (natural or artificial) development. Better get this accomplished with scientific certainty, all while not being motivated by that certain (undeniable) amount of faith.

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/8/2021 12:17:39 am

Let's agree to diasagree here.
My understanding of Guy's opinion was the idea of a false flag op, if the intentional release plays.
Reactions of reps by the official China do not truly corroborate their own intentional release scenario, more likely an accidental one.
As far as your two questions go, their answers may be indicative of some preemptive planning by some party. Whether this party served foreign or Chinese interests, it seems to be too early to call.

Reply
Greg Felton
1/8/2021 02:13:45 am

Thanks for replying, Nerd. I appreciate it.

Let me begin by stating that my suggestion of dishonesty on your part was due entirely to the post in which you said you had no evidence that the CCP released SARS-CoV-2 deliberately but merely based your claim on your beliefs. On that score, my charge is, regrettably, accurate. Since then, however, you have offered two pieces of evidence (see above). Let me address them.

First, what is your source for your claim that the fabrication of RaTG13 began in 2018 and 2019? (Why 2 years, since fabrication implies one initial event?). Even if true, it does not support your allegation of intentional release.

As I state on page 7 of my book, Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak both admit (for different reasons) that RaTG13 and BtCov/4991 (discovered 3 years later in 2016) are identical. Based on this admission, which can be found mentioned higher up in this thread, your claim that RaTG13 was invented 2 years ago is contradicted.

Second, the pangolin evidence is not relevant. It may speak to an offensive mentality on the part of the CCP, but you do not in any way connect it to intentional release. I now ask that you address my questions:

If the CCP deliberately released the virus, why did it do so in China and not in another country?

Why did the CCP deliberately release the virus when it had no rational or plausible zoonotic cover story in place?

How do you explain the incompetence of the ad hoc Huanan market, RaTG13 and RmYNo2 stories?

What was the CCP's motive?

Why, given the history of lax security at labs in Beijing and Wuhan, do you reject the possibility of accidental release?

I look forward to your responses.

Greg

Reply
Nerd has power
1/8/2021 06:13:47 am

Greg,

I think my “I have no evidence” response was to answer Alex’s question of whether I know how the CCP did it (release it). Maybe I should say more accurately that I do not have evidence on how they released it – I have no video clips or intelligence information. However, I do believe there is evidence strongly supporting intentional release over accidental leak, such as the two points I raised above.

Now I will answer your questions:

What is my evidence on the fabrication of RaTG13 starting in 2018? The answer is in the second Yan report:

https://zenodo.org/record/4073131#.X7pzfi-z00r

The whole genome assembly of RaTG13 involved using raw sequencing reads that were obtained in 2018. This was first found by Francisco De Asis, which eventually prompted Zhengli Shi to change her narrative on the timing of RaTG13 sequencing. Please read the 2nd Yan report to learn the details.

I’m more than convinced that RaTG13 is fabricated with an intention to mislead the world on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Clearly, they planned this cover-up a long time ago. If my belief on RaTG13 is correct, then is such a planned cover-up consistent with an accidental leak?

I don’t think we understand RaTG13 and 4991 to the same levels. You believe they are identical because Peter Daszak and Zhengli Shi “admitted” so, while I believe that they are identical only on the RdRp segment. I do believe there are invented portions within the reported RaTG13 sequence, so there is nothing contradictory within my theory here. I only contradict Daszak and Shi.

The reporting of pangolin coronaviruses is, in my opinion, very relevant here. Not only these pangolin viruses are faked too, but also there were five reports on them done by different Chinese labs. One sent for publication in Sep 2019 and the rest four submitted for publication in the same week of Feb. Again, all details are in the 2nd Yan report. Do you cover things up like this for an accidental leak? More importantly, would you be so successful in predicting the lab leak that you published your first cover-up story just before it occurred?

Why did they release it in China? I have offered my thoughts, I think, two days ago. Please scroll back a bit to find them. In addition to those, one other theory is that they initially only wanted it to go to Hong Kong to put out the protests. Only when it got out of control and also showed its whole capacity, they may have then decided to take advantage of it in other ways. Again, I would admit that I only have my own guess here, which is based on my evidence-based belief that the virus was intentionally released.

The timing of the release was decided likely by the political needs at the moment. They have prepared the cover-up and initiated the pangolin cover-up in Sep 2019. To say that they did not have any cover-up in place is inaccurate. On the other hand, if a pandemic happens and the world finds out that a complete story for its origin has just been published right before the outbreak, wouldn’t that be obvious too? I think the fact that they complete their cover-ups after the initial outbreak is not a horrible choice on the CCP’s end.

The Huanan market, RaTG13, RmYN02…… all are different ways that the CCP attempted to falsify a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. There are the different layers of “protection”. The reason that they are all failing one way or the other is because none of them is true and, as a result, the assigned scientists could not fabricate them perfectly. Again, please go read the 2nd Yan report for the complete answers.

I did not have a strong belief in intentional release over accidental leak right from the beginning. It was the digging and the accumulation of the evidence that gradually converted me into believing that it must be an intentional release. Again, I don’t know how exactly they released it or why exactly they picked Wuhan and the timing.

I think our comfort level with the theory of intentional release comes from how we weigh each piece of evidence. I apparently weight them in one way, and you weight them differently. That is just normal and what things should be. So, I’m not super uncomfortable when people challenge my theories. We all have our own perceptions on everything. However, the truth is singular.

Guy Fawkes
1/8/2021 03:16:47 am

I'd like to chime in at this point & throw the first stone in the air in defense of NERD. I don't think he is dishonest, all to the contrary, NERD appears to be a very fine, upright gentleman [I presume "he" is male], my warm greetings at this point to him! Like everybody, NERD has his own story and cultural background, and it's always interesting of knowing WHO says something before looking at WHAT he says. I first thought NERD was from Taiwan, turns out he is from mainland China and it seems he now lives in the US. We don't know anything about how the communists treated his family nor the reason why he left China. But that should tell us enough about how he sees the CCP. Thus let's accept his position, we don't have to agree, as we walk in other shoes, right? Furthermore, I learned over the years to take info out of no matter which political camp, as long as it's beneficial to understand the mechanics of the world we live in. The ad hominem "he is on the wrong side, thus all he says is wrong" could not be further from the path of personal progression. So let's keep this in mind, aggregate some valuable infos here and merge it into our own, personal conclusions.

@DAVID RIVARD: "WHO is certainly the global and honest broker for successfully combating the virus for the good of the world, even under the directorship of China's appointee." --> This is cryptosarcasm and you are kidding hard my man, ai? It's like "The UNHRC [United Nations Human Rights Council] was certainly the global and honest broker for successfully combating human rights violations for the good of the world, even under the directorship of Saudia Arabia 2015+."

@XOCO LATTE: Right, the "to the hills"-CCP-reaction does not point to an intentional release of their own, rather ***somebody*** released it in a covert op under disguise next to their BSL-4-facility. As I said before, those labs are dual use, and you can bet any n-letter-agency wants to have an informant there. Looks like - as NERD pointed out - the Chinese worked on something like CoV-2 for years, and we only talk published stuff aka the very tip of the biowarfare-iceberg. Would be a nasty, easy move to leak the prototype from within, destroy years of research, and watch the Chinese in damage control mode pulling an "natural origin" or if really with their back on the wall an "accidental release" story in order not to have to concede a loss of face, something culturally very hard for Asians as far as I know.

@ALEX "Every day the Wuhan access of the WHO team seems more complicated." So it has come to this and even I, under my rock, heard of their "investigation". But hey, it's satire, right? The WHO, investigating more than ONE YEAR after the fact in a BSL-4-lab built by the French for the Chinese [military] to study - according to David Cyranoski in Nature (2017):

"[T]he pathogen that causes SARS, which also doesn’t require a BSL-4 lab, before moving on to Ebola and the West African Lassa virus, which do. [...] These facilities are inherently dual use."

What do those bros think they will find? Some papertrail? The full GOF virus family in a fridge, labeled in latin letters? Elvis? What a joke. Of course the Chinese won't let the assorted cortege in, must be a lipsticked Who's Who of senior spies, with false beards and the entire paraphernalia. Hilarious. Can't wait for their "final" report.

But, again, that's all guesswork, so let's call the geopolitical side a known unknown, as we know something unknown happened. We should go on like NERD proposed:

"The discussions here are mainly evidence-based. Let's continue it here."

Where are the newest publications, folks? That's why we are here, right? I have some in my lil' pipeline, more to come. Cheers everyone! Awesome community.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
alex
1/7/2021 09:02:55 am

Every day the Wuhan access of the WHO team seems more complicated.

Is it true that at
the end they will sacrifice someone from the laboratory?

https://summit.news/2021/01/06/china-again-denies-pathetic-who-access-to-investigate-coivd-outbreak/

The internal document that appears in this article is very revealing

https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-coronavirus-pandemic-china-only-on-ap-bats-24fbadc58cee3a40bca2ddf7a14d2955

Reply
David Rivard
1/7/2021 09:35:37 am

There has never been an RFP or research without an "agenda". This for C-19, "Although a World Health Organization international team plans to visit China in early January to investigate what started the pandemic, its members and agenda had to be approved by China".

https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-coronavirus-pandemic-china-only-on-ap-bats-24fbadc58cee3a40bca2ddf7a14d2955

Reply
Ron Hawkes
1/8/2021 09:55:12 am

I red a lot of this forum, the virology fleets me. But Quantum entanglement has successfully transferred information. I think that a chinese scientist potentially defected to the u.s with its 'Genomic sequence' (forgive my inept grasp on the science). Perhaps china knew this was imminent. i dont know if RNA or whatever is 'information'. If so then that could be done completely clandestine. There was some satelite that was found and covered up in china somewhere about 20 odd days after it was announced as a pandemic. The scientist that defected was a physicist i think. Im probaly wrong but i think there are 3 of these bio labs in the world, 2 in china and 1 is owned by u.s (bill gates foundation?) and 1 in russia. This is probaly heresy. To perform this entanglement requires a photon/light particle. Maybe lichen fungus as the surrogate, maybe not though. There was way more, but ive been reading this forum for bout 6 hours now, i wanted to contribute even though its stupidly radical. The people on here are far more educated than i, could this be plausible?

Reply
Peter Ross
1/8/2021 11:20:28 am

Where it not for the non-specific and over-valued signs and symptoms used to discern between SARS-CoV-2 infection and other ailments, namely: "silent hypoxia", "impaired sense of smell", "ground-glass opacities", and "PCR positivity" - the year of 2020 AD would very likely have been recorded as the healthiest year in history.

It helps to dress everyone up in primitive HAZMAT gear and psychologically cytokine-bomb them with tales of a suspicious lab and a dying planet.

"I can't breath!", said The Orangeman.

Did SARS-CoV-2 ever leave the keyboard, Doc Wifi?

Reply
David Rivard
1/8/2021 12:15:04 pm

The problem the CCP has not pondered boils down to a rue of theories, and even truths, stemming from its constantly demonstrated opacity.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/covid-19-origin

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/china-clamps-down-in-hidden-hunt-for-coronavirus-origins-promoting-theories-that-covid-originated-elsewhere/articleshow/80023129.cms

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/from-india-to-germany-china-peddles-falsehoods-to-obscure-origin-of-covid/articleshow/79601353.cms

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54186709

This opacity limits all aspects of C-19 research for therapies, vaccines, present containment and future prevention strategies. After over one year, this opacity persists to limit intelligence necessary for even immediate needs to contain C-19 and it's variants.

Global and national authorities must fulfill their mandate to develop intelligence to keep societies safe. Trusted origin data is essential to develop this intelligence. This translates to global intelligence and solutions in the case of pandemics. Where the wholistic effects are increasingly felt on a personal level, and I believe these effects are just getting started (even the biology of the virus is just getting started), there will be acute demands for reforms in all surfaces the virus touches. Truth is a matter of reality that ultimately boils up. If you put a lid on it there will be an increased pressure and the results of the explosion will be a difficult tightrope for the CCP to negotiate.

The containment of information that ultimately exploded in our Capitol will be magnified many times over from a global community angry at any institution associated with, so far, a demonstrated discouragement of data collection. The CCP might have achieved some immediate goals but, as truths boil over, as every international weapon has produced it's own Pandora's box of wholistic effects, I can see the CCP's days numbered, at least Xi's close associates.

Xi sought an easy shortcut to global imperialism, which necessitated breaking through the brush of historic collateral damage. It is simply who he is.

https://twitter.com/xijingpingreal

For those who think the Nerd's theory is not supported, then please give circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Lord knows the science we have been drawing from for even therapeutics and vaccines are not wholly data driven because we still lack all of the data.

Reply
Ron Hawkes
1/8/2021 12:17:25 pm

Yeah i figured, i mean live in new zealand. Life here has been pretty sweet. I enjoyed our little 1 month lockdown. I dont know of or heard of anyone catching it here personally.... Im convinced its malevolent... But fight the good fight though. If i find something worth posting with actual references i might try again. Loving the independent research going on. Fantastic.

Reply
David Rivard
1/8/2021 05:10:53 pm

Yes, I am convinced that Xi seeks a quick shortcut to global imperialism, which necessitated breaking through this thicket of collateral damage, however historic. Such historic leaders have given more weight to their strategy and delegate tactics to those following orders. Collateral damages, even diplomatic, are not factors considered by the executors of tactics, much less the strategist. Such leaders consider and practice that any military and civilian prices paid are a conscripted patriotic matter, a price for the larger good, as demanded by The Strategy. It is a historic story that for many was accompanied by a similar denial of reality for those living it. As individuals we must conceive ourselves as being at the wrong place in history at the wrong time. Even trusted institutions can only stand by to experience irrelevance until they are replaced like the League of Nations. Guy would say, “Caught out from under their rocks”.

Reply
Greg Felton
1/8/2021 09:12:52 pm

NERD:
I read your comments about your response to Alex as well as your responses to my questions. Unfortunately, you are still passing off belief as fact and do not provide objective evidence for intentional release:

1. You said, re Alex: “I do not have evidence on how they released it …However, I do believe there is evidence strongly supporting intentional release over accidental leak.” You ASSUME the fact of intentional release to explain the lack of evidence for how it was done. This kind of answer is a well-known fallacy called “begging the question”: you may not assume the truth of something you purport to prove.

2. I have read the 2nd Yan report numerous times. On p.6, Yan et al. write, “[Shi] admitted that the sequencing of the full genome of RaTG13 was done in 2018.” Assuming this to be true, it does not contradict the admission by Shi and Daszak that RaTG13 is identical to the (partially sequenced) BtCov/4991, which had been in cold storage. I cannot take at face value the Yan report’s denial that the RaBtCoV/4991 virus and RaTG13 are equivalent. You believe “they are identical only on the RdRp segment” but belief is not enough to support a theory. Either it is or it isn’t.

3. The language of the 2nd Yan report is far too tendentious hypothetical and speculative to be considered authoritative. It is an odd hybrid of scientific analysis and subjective politics, and as such its conclusions cannot be accepted as objectively valid. I concur entirely that RaTG13 and RmYN02 are fabricated, that Shi et al. commit scientific malpractice, and that RaTG13 has an unnatural affinity for hACE2 receptors. However, you provide no EVIDENCE to support the allegation that the unleashing of the virus “must be” a planned execution rather than an accident.”

4. Your response to the release in China is another example of begging the question: “I only have my own guess here, which is based on my evidence-based belief that the virus was intentionally released.” “Evidence-based belief” is an oxymoron since evidence does not require belief.

5. I did not say the CCP had no cover story in place. I said it had no rational or plausible one. You again cite the pangolins as evidence of a September 2019 cover-up, but there is nothing to tie the pangolins to the release of SARS-CoV-2, despite what the 2nd Yan report would have us believe. To say that “timing of the release was decided likely by the political needs at the moment” is simply inadequate. What needs are these?

6. You are correct to say that the Huanan market, RaTG13, RmYN02 all failed because they weren’t true, but how are you entitled to claim that scientists are to blame because they “could not fabricate them perfectly”. My argument is that they failed because they were desperation measures to cover up an accidental release.

7. That fact that you admit to not knowing why the virus was released in Wuhan is gratifying, but that would seem to be the one piece of evidence that militates against intentional release.

Your need to want to blame the CCP drives you to overstate your claim by resorting to supposition, guesswork and tautology. This is the reason that I take issue with your claim of intentional release.

Reply
Nerd has power
1/9/2021 06:35:52 am

Greg,

I'm impressed how good you are in using terms to "define" me and my actions. I don't agree with them, but feel free to do it if you have to.

When you believe that RaTG13 and 4991 are identical and kept in cold storage (your point 2), how could you also believe that RaTG13 is fabricated (your point 3)? Remember 4991 is a natural virus. I'm afraid that you will have to be coherent within your own theory first.

In addition, my take that RaTG13 and 4991 are not identical also comes from my analysis of the syn/non-syn mutations, which clearly shows that RaTG13 did not come from nature.

I have said before that our perception of the intentional release depends on how we process each piece of evidence and weigh and synthesize them in a logical manner. You and I do not have the same brains. I can provide all my evidence but I can't expect that you would process them the same way I do. The same is true the other way around. So, again, it's only natural that we arrive at different conclusions.

I never said that you (or anyone) have to believe intentional release the way I do. However, you apparently are convinced that I should abandon my assertion here and join your camp. Unfortunately, I do not consider any of your arguments above convincing. So I am still where I was before. And I'm sure I did not change any of your views, so please feel free to stay where you are as well.

There is only one truth here, so we can't both be correct. However, we have both presented our evidence, reasonings, and conclusions. That's probably enough for people here to evaluate to further shape their own opinions. I think that is the most important thing here.

Reply
Greg Felton
1/13/2021 01:24:12 am

Yes, Nerd, I agree. We should let the viewers evaluate the evidence.

I do feel I need to address two points. I concur with you that RaTG13 is fabricated, and I can accept that RaBtCoV/4991 and RaTG13 are identical only in the RdRp segment.

Two, I accept that you have a perception of intentional release, but I need more than perception to believe it.

For me, at least, this has been fun.

Nerd has power
1/13/2021 09:15:38 pm

Haha, great. I accept your perception of not accepting my perception.

Peter Ross
1/10/2021 10:37:44 am

Nerd, everything you say makes sense. But it doesn't rule out a psyop deliberately intended to look clumsy.

How to make sense of the globalized, agenda-driven mass media-induced hysteria, combined with a campaign for mass human experiments using masks. lockdowns, and genetic injections?

How did all the usual respiratory infections disappear, leaving just 'SARS-CoV-2' to account for every flu-like illness?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Michael Levitt
@MLevitt_NP2013
·
This Covid19 nightmare is a perfect a mirror world: everything “said” is later “unsaid”, everything “true” is later “false”.

More like competing belief systems where neither side dares think out of the box imposed by their team’s view.

Perhaps no longer a place for science?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Michael Levitt
@MLevitt_NP2013
·
A great supporter of the Swedish policy towards COVID19, I fear this comparison with Taiwan is misleading.

Using mortality or deaths per million of those over 85 (85p) makes Taiwan look best.

In analysis of data in stmf.csv, Taiwan has no excess death.

Suspect a bug in server."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly, there's a ghost in the machine somewhere!

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/11/2021 02:40:58 pm

Geopolitical musings aside folks, check Haddad et al. (2020) "SARS-CoV-2: Proof of recombination between strains and emergence of possibly more virulent ones":

"Recombination between different strains was only observed in North American and European sequences. Additionally, we structurally modeled the two most common mutations D614G and P314L which suggested that these linked mutations may enhance viral entry and stability. Overall, we propose that COVID-19 virulence may be more severe in Europe and North America due to coinfection with different SARS-CoV-2 strains leading to genomic recombination which might be challenging for current treatment regimens and vaccine development. Furthermore, our study provides a possible explanation for the more severe second wave of COVID-19 that many countries are currently experiencing presented as higher rates of infection and death."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229765v1

Reply
David Rivard
1/11/2021 09:52:01 pm

Greg,

I would like to preface this contribution with the acknowledgement that none of us are paid contributors to this site, but there are professional researchers and policy developers that value our input and access this site regularly. It remains a welcomed (and rare) site that has been increasingly cited.

Thank you for your research. I think the intent of Nerd’s postings are stated in his opening paragraph, “My goal here is to use scientific evidence and logical thinking to evaluate, and legitimate, the possibility that the Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV, SARS2-CoV, etc.) is of non-natural origin.” This site was developed at an early time of the pandemic, and it is amazing to me that after a year of the pandemic much of the Nerd’s rational is seeming more prophetic.

Nerd goes on with some premises, some based on the much documented vetting or complete repression of information by the CCP. One can look at complaints lodged almost every day by the U.S. Department of State through the UN on their website or Mike Pompeo’s Tweets.

https://twitter.com/statedept/status/1263125518343385088
https://twitter.com/secpompeo/status/1339643335905079296


He continues: “Also, let’s go back a little and think why they spend so much time fetching coronaviruses all over the place. Is it really like what they claimed – to understand the potentials of coronaviruses and therefore better predict future emerging coronaviruses? Why didn’t they put as much effort on vaccine research or drug discovery targeting a function/protein conserved in most coronaviruses then? The latter is not only more beneficial to the public but also way easier than predicting emerging viruses.” I think the Department of State, and even the French government who funded these labs, has similar concerns. This statement in effect is a re-visitation about the purpose of GOF research that seems apparent to many others who have not seen this site (in the early days). To summarize, is the virus “synthetic or not?”

Like you, Nerd and I are inclined to believe it is synthetic. He goes on, “Another possibility, of course, is that they are collecting these things to create coronavirus-based bioweapons. What is the truth? You can make up your own mind.” and
“As of me, I am fully convinced that this is a bioweapon made by the CCP.”

He concludes with; “Given all the facts and the logic connecting them as laid out above, it is completely reasonable to argue that, unless the CCP can prove otherwise, the world has all the right to believe that the Wuhan coronavirus was made by the CCP.” Which I think is a premise that can be more readily supported at this time, at least “unless the CCP can prove otherwise”. Why would they not fully cooperate at all levels with the international community? “Chinese pride” should have vanished long ago. A simple and obvious question is, “What are they hiding?” This question seems to be constantly validated by their complete discouragement of obtaining any information, even clinical information, which could help the rest of the world defeat the virus. It is equally valid to believe that, Wuhan origination or not, China would enjoy a hero’s status if they actively cooperated with shared clinical, much less origin information. “Even for the purposes of defending the rest of the world’s front line workers”, where, “Timely information about the health of medical workers is key to understanding transmission patterns and developing strategies aimed at containing outbreaks according to the WHO.

But it was not until Feb. 14 — more than a month into the crisis — that China disclosed that about 1,700 front-line medical workers were infected at the time. The figure, which has since grown, was published in a research paper, not reported directly to the World Health Organization.

In response to questions from The Washington Post, the WHO said it has repeatedly asked Chinese officials for “disaggregated” data
https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn — meaning specific figures broken out from the overall numbers — that could shed light on hospital transmission and help assess the level of risk front-line workers face.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/world-health-organization-

While at the WHO site, check out Chinese infection rates in comparison to other countries. Could it be that they are not sharing a particular C-19 variant, knowing that in the general public’s mind, “covid is simply covid”. The point is that they leave the wildest speculation open to them if they do not share their information and cooperate with the global community beyond their sphere of influence through the International Security Council. The reasons they are hiding information, and not conceding as much as the

Reply
Greg Felton
1/13/2021 11:20:28 am

I appreciate your comments, David, but it precisely because Nerd did NOT use “logical thinking and scientific evidence” to support his claim of deliberate release that I challenged his claim. To date, he has not addressed the circularity of his argument and thinks this is merely a difference of opinion, about “one truth” it isn’t. Without demonstrating a plausible motive on behalf of the CCP, he is not entitled to assert deliberate release as fact. That’s just basic logic.

I also cannot help but notice that I no longer get alerts about posts. I wonder why that is.

Reply
Nerd has power
1/13/2021 09:49:33 pm

Can't help to comment on your quest for motive here. On a court, you only need evidence to convict someone. You do not have to describe precisely his/her motive. There are people who never admitted their crimes and yet are still convicted -- it's evidence that really counts.

I can't specify the CCP's exact motive does not equal CCP having no motive. Doe Hong Kong still have huge protests now? Is any of the CCP's enemies not suffering from COVID more than China does? Is the US not in chaos that are triggered by and/or closely related to COVID?

Again, what I perceive as logical evidence (several planned fabrications and cover-ups) is apparently perceived differently by you and certainly others. That's totally normal. Our thoughts and ways of thinking are shaped by our experiences. Plus, we get exposed to different circumstantial evidence, which also contributes to each person's overall opinion.

Also, are you suggesting that I somehow changed your alert setting or something? That's a shame. I can assure you that I have no time or interest in managing any of your setting. I don't even know how and I don't even have time managing my own. Please don't try to throw these tricks in the discussion. They don't work here.

David Rivard
1/11/2021 10:06:13 pm

. The reasons they are hiding information, and not conceding as much as they can, has been deployed as a shell game which is akin to building mobile scud missile trucks and hiding them where you can. There would logically be several layers of denial when deploying a weapon, and it is stacking up against the first hurdle “synthetic or not”. I will maintain that by the time the world comes to the notion “intentional or not” the pandemic will have sufficiently limited our options, and for that matter China’s (but for their advantage). In other words the stakes could not be higher to arrive at a truthful conclusion. If not intentional, why is the CCP still not cooperating?
https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/world-health-organization-china-not-sharing-data-on-health-care-worker-coronavirus-infections/2020/02/26/28064fda-54e4-11ea-80ce-37a8d4266c09_story.html

As with all aspects of this pandemic, even from the inception and construction of both Wuhan labs, China’s military has been in control. “The Quai d’Orsay” (The Ministry of Europe for Foreign Affairs) was convinced that the Chinese, like other countries, were seeking to develop a research program on biological weapons,” recalls Gérard Araud, director of strategic affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” between 2000 and 2003. “It was very difficult to ensure that a P4 lab would not contribute, in one way or another, to such a program.”
Going back to the beginning from even the construction phase of the labs, fearing isolation after France’s opposition to Western intervention in Iraq in 2003, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was looking for rapprochement with both Moscow and Beijing. And then, argues Hervé Raoul, director of P4 Lyonnais, “Virology always carries behind it the fear of bacteriological wars. That is why scientific collaboration is a proper way to rule out the use of a laboratory or research for other purposes. ” In short, in the enthusiasm of Sino-French cooperation, the prejudices would be swept away.
Even the payment structure for the pandemic is part of the country’s “wartime” governance.
In late January 2020, the Chinese authorities regulated that all COVID-19 patients would have their medical expenses fully covered by social health insurance and public finance. These arrangements make the Chinese government’s commitment to paying COVID-19 medical bills comparable to that of the most generous universal healthcare systems in the world.
Can the Chinese approach to funding COVID-19 medical care be purely a manifestation of the country’s “wartime” governance; or does it reflect some “norms” of the healthcare system?” As we know with all health care systems, the payor controls the clinical data. My point is that NONE of this clinical information is shared. It is tightly controlled not by other state apparatuses, but by the Military. The world desperately requires this information to be more effective in controlling the pandemic
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/12/how-china-pays-for-its-covid-19-medical-bills/
https://middleeasttransparent.com/en/in-the-jungle-of-wuhans-labs/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/12/how-china-pays-for-its-covid-19-medical-bills/

Ibid.

Reply
David Rivard
1/11/2021 10:09:01 pm

and in preventing both morbidity and mortality. Don’t even ponder the economy and societal changes.
With individual data collected via healthcare APPs, healthcare data and analytics will create further opportunities for both government and private companies to create further value. “Made in China” healthcare products would take a bigger share in global markets. During the early phases of Covid-19, most countries purchased related products like test kits, PPEs, ventilators etc. from China. It is likely that governments would further support, encourage and promote Chinese companies with high quality innovative products (ie. based upon real and trusted data), including state of the art healthcare itself to expand global market share. If, in fact, governments should trust Chinese therapies and data. Why is this not occurring? The world’s most prestigious consulting institutions can only make incomplete guesses, based upon either faulty or non-existent data, as governments continue to request help in predicting the course of this disease. I think also leading us and much of the public at large to seek our own research, whatever our predilections.
The global COVID-19 outbreak is firstly a humanitarian challenge, but it is also having a marked and growing impact on the world economy. Many forecasters say the global economy is already in recession and policymakers in multiple countries are taking steps to support industries and job markets. While China is in a stronger position than many as the world’s largest exporter of goods.
Global understanding of the severity, clinical features and prognostic factors of COVID-19 in different settings and populations remains incomplete. WHO therefore invites Member States, health facilities and other entities to participate in the global effort to collect anonymized clinical data relating to hospitalized suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 and contribute data to the Global COVID-19 Clinical Data Platform. This is a platform that China does not participate in.
The WHO uses the information to inform:
1. Characterization of the key clinical features and prognostic factors of hospitalized cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19, thereby increase understanding of the severity, spectrum, and impact of the disease in the hospitalized population globally, in different countries.
2. Characterization of clinical interventions, thereby facilitating global and national operational planning during the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 Clinical Data Platform
The platform is a secure, limited-access, password-protected platform hosted on Open Clinica. WHO will use the anonymized COVID-19 data solely for the permitted purpose(s) for which it is provided to WHO,

https://home.kpmg/cn/en/home/insights/2020/06/global-and-local-healthcare-insights.html
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/20/world-order-after-coroanvirus-pandemic/

Reply
David Rivard
1/11/2021 10:07:24 pm

and in preventing both morbidity and mortality. Don’t even ponder the economy and societal changes.
With individual data collected via healthcare APPs, healthcare data and analytics will create further opportunities for both government and private companies to create further value. “Made in China” healthcare products would take a bigger share in global markets. During the early phases of Covid-19, most countries purchased related products like test kits, PPEs, ventilators etc. from China. It is likely that governments would further support, encourage and promote Chinese companies with high quality innovative products (ie. based upon real and trusted data), including state of the art healthcare itself to expand global market share. If, in fact, governments should trust Chinese therapies and data. Why is this not occurring? The world’s most prestigious consulting institutions can only make incomplete guesses, based upon either faulty or non-existent data, as governments continue to request help in predicting the course of this disease. I think also leading us and much of the public at large to seek our own research, whatever our predilections.
The global COVID-19 outbreak is firstly a humanitarian challenge, but it is also having a marked and growing impact on the world economy. Many forecasters say the global economy is already in recession and policymakers in multiple countries are taking steps to support industries and job markets. While China is in a stronger position than many as the world’s largest exporter of goods.
Global understanding of the severity, clinical features and prognostic factors of COVID-19 in different settings and populations remains incomplete. WHO therefore invites Member States, health facilities and other entities to participate in the global effort to collect anonymized clinical data relating to hospitalized suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 and contribute data to the Global COVID-19 Clinical Data Platform. This is a platform that China does not participate in.
The WHO uses the information to inform:
1. Characterization of the key clinical features and prognostic factors of hospitalized cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19, thereby increase understanding of the severity, spectrum, and impact of the disease in the hospitalized population globally, in different countries.
2. Characterization of clinical interventions, thereby facilitating global and national operational planning during the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 Clinical Data Platform
The platform is a secure, limited-access, password-protected platform hosted on Open Clinica. WHO will use the anonymized COVID-19 data solely for the permitted purpose(s) for which it is provided to WHO,

https://home.kpmg/cn/en/home/insights/2020/06/global-and-local-healthcare-insights.html
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/20/world-order-after-coroanvirus-pandemic/

Reply
David Rivard
1/11/2021 10:12:02 pm

and will protect the confidentiality and security of the Anonymized Data, in each case, in accordance with the Terms of Use applicable to the Global COVID-19 Clinical Data Platform. However, the problem in China’s case, is that the clinical scientist must submit their information to the appropriate – not state agency - but military department.
WHO Global Report of clinical characterization of COVID-19 patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19
In order to inform clinical management guidelines and public health response, WHO Global Report presents regularly a descriptive analysis on clinical characteristics at hospital admissions, hospitalizations and on interventions and clinical outcomes (mortality, length of stay). Additionally, subpopulation analysis (e.g. children, pregnant women, populations with co-infections) are performed when possible. The report is made publicly available on WHO’s website, with due acknowledgement of the data contributors.
Upon submission of their data to WHO, contributors have access to their dataset in an analyzable format. Entities contributing data to the WHO report are encouraged to publish their data individually or collectively in their own names in peer review journals or elsewhere. Participation to the report will not jeopardize publication of individual dataset as facilities data will not be identifiable individually and data will be reported in an aggregated fashion with other data provided to WHO by third parties.

However, “WHO will not make the anonymized COVID-19 data available to the public, unless and until the anonymized COVID-19 data have already been made available to State Parties, and provided that other information about the COVID-19 epidemic has already become publicly available and there is a need for the dissemination of authoritative and independent information”, but even WHO is “calling on China to publish its clinical trial data to ensure transparency and gain public trust, saying rushing out a vaccine without adequate efficacy and safety testing is a recipe for disaster”.

“While governments around the world are planning to give the first doses of a proven Covid-19 vaccine to healthcare workers who are most exposed to the virus, China is prioritizing people on a different frontline: the military”. How can Sino Biologics, a Chinese vaccine maker that has announced several sets of positive trial results, and already providing a vaccine to People’s Liberation Army soldiers”, even though safety testing for commercial sale of the product is “not yet complete.” (the reason given for not submitting the data).
The Chinese “BGI Group, described in one 2015 study as “Goliath” in the fast-growing field of genomics research, is using an opening created by the pandemic to expand its footprint globally. In the past six months, it says it has sold 35 million rapid COVID-19 testing kits to 180 countries and built 58 labs in 18

https://www.who.int/teams/health-care-readiness-clinical-unit/covid-19/data-platform

https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/public-health-experts-urge-caution-chinas-covid-19-vaccines

https://www.ft.com/content/2c3ae017-6c09-4f7e-93b8-f8039fe79a6c

countries. Some of the equipment has been donated by BGI’s philanthropic arm, promoted by China’s embassies in an extension of China’s virus diplomacy.
But as well as test kits, the company is distributing gene-sequencing technology that U.S. security officials say could threaten national security. This is a sensitive area globally. Sequencers are used to analyze genetic material, and can unlock powerful personal (and biological – genomic – information).
In science journals and online, BGI is calling on international health researchers to send in virus data generated on its equipment, as well as patient samples that have tested positive for COVID-19, to be shared publicly via China’s government-funded National GeneBank.”
“Throughout January, the World Health Organization publicly praised China for what it called a speedy response to the new coronavirus. It repeatedly thanked the Chinese government for sharing the genetic map of the virus “immediately,” and said its work and commitment to transparency were “very impressive, and beyond words.”
But behind the scenes, it was a much different story, one of significant delays by China and considerable frustration among WHO officials over not getting the information they needed to fight the spread of the deadly virus, The Associated Press has found.
Despite the plaudits, China in fact sat on releasing the genetic map, or genome, of the virus for more than a week after three different government labs had fully decoded the information. Tight controls on information and competition within the Chinese public health system were to blame, according to dozens of interviews and

Reply
David Rivard
1/11/2021 10:14:29 pm

Can we trust Chinese Covid-19 science?
The west has been wary of China’s rise as a scientific superpower, but the pandemic has made it impossible to ignore.
Headlines like “Beijing tightens grip over coronavirus research, amid US-China row on virus origin,” and “Chinese laboratory that first shared coronavirus genome with world ordered to close for ‘rectification’, hindering its Covid-19 research” we knew during the early stages of the pandemic. However, after one year, “No reason was given for the closure of Shanghai facility, which released information about the virus ahead of authorities.”
The Shanghai laboratory where researchers published the world’s first genome sequence of the deadly coronavirus that causes Covid-19 has been shut down.
The laboratory at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre was ordered to close for “rectification” on January 12, a day after Professor Zhang Yongzhen’s team published the genome sequence on open platforms. It closed temporarily the following day. The release of the data helped researchers develop test kits for the virus. One source at the laboratory said the closure has hampered scientists’ research when they should be ‘racing against the clock’.
Why continue to withhold information even from its own vaccine manufactures? “The race to develop a vaccine would become a way for China to show the world its technological superiority as the Trump administration urges countries around the globe to avoid Chinese companies for 5G networks, computer chips and big infrastructure projects. Distributing a vaccine widely would also help China regain some lost soft power. President Xi Jinping has promised that vaccines developed by China will be a global “public good,” and said he would join a World Health Organization-backed effort to inoculate everyone against COVID-19. Still, China’s setback in Brazil combined with Pfizer’s breakthrough “puts China’s vaccine diplomacy in jeopardy,” said Yongwook Ryu, assistant professor of East Asian international relations at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. “The issue is the lack of transparency,” Ryu said. “So the right thing for the Chinese government to do is to make its trial results and related information public, so that experts can scrutinize them.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/oct/11/china-coronavirus-covid-19-medical-research

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/12/asia/china-coronavirus-research-restrictions-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3052966/chinese-laboratory-first-shared-coronavirus-genome-world-ordered

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/11/13/asia-pacific/china-coronavirus-vaccine-pfizer/

In a statement, Sinopharm said it was leading the world in all aspects of vaccine development, but didn’t offer evidence from ongoing international clinical trials that its vaccine is effective. The CCP says, of course, that because China has few infection cases within its borders, Chinese firms have had to conduct trials overseas to test their vaccines’ efficacy.
A potentially explosive new study published on the preprint server medRxiv* in June 2020 suggests that the official Chinese statistics on COVID-19 cases or mortality are neither reliable nor credible. “If true, such unreliable data during a crucial period of the pandemic in February and March 2020 could have seriously skewed the response and preparation of the rest of the world and altered the future course of the viral pneumonic illness”.
“When you have a treatment, you can measure different things in a patient,” said Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO’s assistant director general of health systems and innovation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nearly-1-million-chinese-people-have-received-drug-makers-covid-19-vaccines-11605802950

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200608/Cremation-numbers-reveal-possible-suppression-of-true-COVID-19-data-in-China.aspx

https://www.wired.com/story/china-launches-a-crush-of-clinical-trials-aimed-at-covid-19/



Reply
David Rivard
1/11/2021 10:18:27 pm

I hope y'all forgive my footnoting. Weebly's format does not take kindly to the standard word document reference format.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/12/2021 02:52:55 am

NERDS: Can we plz get back into science, and away from reading tea leaves? If one of y'all is still not tired of dog-n-pony geopolitics, visit zerohedge.com et al. and you will have busy years of autistic reading in front of you. Enjoy the show, and then CU below some large rock as soon as tired from political bewilderment. But over here, can't we focus on something a lil' more tangible? Like... Cov-2-related publications in order to get an idea of how "intelligent design" was applied to it in some undisclosed lab? Here's something:

Zaid t al. (2020) "Platelets can contain SARS-CoV-2 RNA and are hyperactivated in COVID-19", check:

"We document the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in platelets of COVID-19 patients. Exhaustive assessment of cytokines in plasma and in platelets revealed the modulation of platelet-associated cytokine levels in COVID-19, pointing to a direct contribution of platelets to the plasmatic cytokine load. [...] Functionally, platelets were hyperactivated in COVID-19 subjects, with aggregation occurring at suboptimal thrombin concentrations. Furthermore, platelets adhered more efficiently onto collagen-coated surfaces under flow conditions. These data suggest that platelets could participate in the dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 and in the overwhelming thrombo-inflammation observed in COVID-19."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.23.20137596v1

&

Venkatakrishnan et al. (2020) "Multi-pronged human protein mimicry by SARS-CoV-2 reveals bifurcating potential for MHC detection and immune evasion", check:

"We identify 33 distinct 8-mer/9-mer peptides that are identical between SARS-CoV-2 and human proteomes, along similar extents of viral mimicry observed in other viruses. Interestingly, 20 novel peptides have not been observed in any previous human coronavirus (HCoV) strains. [...] This mimicry of multiple human proteins by SARS-CoV-2 is made salient by the targeted genes being focally expressed in arteries, lungs, esophagus, pancreas, and macrophages. Further, HLA-A*03 restricted 8-mer peptides are shared broadly by human and coronaviridae helicases with primary expression of the mimicked human proteins in the neurons and immune cells. [...] Although our current study focussed on human infecting coronaviruses, molecular mimicry is expected to exist beyond human infecting coronaviruses. A stringent BLAST search was also performed for all the four immunomodulatory peptides specific to SARS-CoV-2 against all the sequences of Coronaviridae family in the non-redundant protein database. There were no hits
found outside the orthocoronavirinae family for these peptides. An exact match for peptides -‘PGSGVPVV’, ‘VTLIGEAV’ and ‘SLKELLQN’ was found onlyin either the pangolin coronavirus or the Bat coronavirus RaTG13. An exact match for ‘PGSGVPVV’ was also found in canada goose coronavirus (YP_009755895.1). The human ANXA7-mimicking peptide ‘ESGLKTIL’ is however noted only in SARS-CoV-2 sequences, with the closest known evolutionary homologs attributed to BAT SARS-like coronavirus (ESGLKTIL), the NL63-related bat coronavirus strains, and the recently sequenced pangolin coronavirus. [NOTE: Now comes the famous backflip "SCHUTZBEHAUPTUNG" like ze Germans would call it aka evasive defense in order to sail smooth&straight into retirement without any tears nor drama - drumrolls:] Our observed multi-pronged human mimicry of SARS-CoV-2, including in peptides that are notably missing from all previously human-infecting coronavirus strains, may in conclusion, owe their origins to zoonotic transmission from coronaviruses circulating within pangolins and bats as natural reservoirs, aided by genetic recombination and purifying selection. Our hypothesis-free computational analysis of all available sequencing data, from genomic sequencing and single cell transcriptomics across the host-pathogen continuum, sets the stage for targeted experimental interrogation of immuno-evasive or immuno-stimulatory roles of the mimicked peptides within zoonotic reservoirs and human subjects alike. Such a holistic data sciences-enabled “wet lab” platform for characterizing molecular mimicry and its immunologic implications may help shine a new lens on the relentless evolutionary tinkering that propels the rise and fall of viral pandemics."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.19.161620v2.full.pdf

"Multi-pronged human mimicry of SARS-CoV-2, including in peptides that are notably missing from all previously human-infecting coronavirus strains ... aided by genetic recombination and purifying selection ... hypothesis-free computational analysis of ... wet lab ... relentless evolutionary tinkering" --> Meh, can't make that up, NERDS! Dunno about you, but makes me think of the following straight out of Orwell's horse's mouth, on your marks-ready-go:

‘Do you remember,’ he went on, ‘writing in your dia-
ry, ‘Freedom is

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/12/2021 02:55:33 am

‘Do you remember,’ he went on, ‘writing in your dia-
ry, ‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make
four’?’
‘Yes,’ said Winston.
O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston,
with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’
‘Four.’
‘And if the party says that it is not four but five—then
how many?’
‘Four.’
The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial
had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over
Winston’s body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again
in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could
not stop. O’Brien watched him, the four fingers still ex-
tended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only
slightly eased.
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
‘Four.’
The needle went up to sixty.
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
‘Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!’
The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at
it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision.
The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous,
blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
1984 ?1?
‘Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!’
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
‘Five! Five! Five!’

Best,
Guy Fawkes

P.s. @DAVID RIVARD, from the context, it was clear what you meant, but for anyone not in the know, the 'Quai d'Orsay', that's not the "Ministry of Europe for Foreign Affairs", but the FRENCH "Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs", analogous to the US State Department [DOS], UK Foreign Office [FCDO] or German Auswaertiges Amt [AA], see https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en

Reply
David Rivard
1/12/2021 10:14:09 am

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/es/el-ministerio-y-su-red/descubre-la-historia-y-lugares-emblematicos-del-ministerio/el-quai-d-orsay/

Notre problème est d'apprendre à voir à la fois la science et ses manifestations.

Reply
Peter Ross
1/13/2021 04:38:39 am

People get offended easily so don't mention it's all an elaborate hoax.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/13/2021 10:09:07 am

@DAVID RIVARD: I don't see it as a problem, but a predicament. And - as a natural scientist - I would claim that what we see here [an army of freaking lil' Frankensteins on the loose in their "wet lab", to cite Venkatakrishnan] are not even genuine scientific manifestations, but technical ones. Let me quote Ellul (1954) in "The Technological Society":

"The majority of investigators in a laboratory are technicians who perform tasks far removed from what is commonly imagined to bescientific work. The research worker is no longer a solitary genius. As Robert Jungk says: “He works as a member of a team and is willing to give up his freedom of research as well as personal recognitionin exchange for the assistance and equipment a great laboratory offers him. These two tilings are the indispensable conditions without which he cannot even dream of realizing his projects. Pure science seems to be yielding its place to an applied science which now and again reaches a brilliant peak from which new technical research becomes possible. [...] But the problem of these relations, in view of the enormity of the technical world and the reduction of the scientific, would seem to be an academic problem of interest only to philosophers — speculation without content. Today it is no longer the frontiers of science which are at issue, but the frontiers of man; and the technical phenomenon is much more significant with regard to the human situation than with regard to the scientific. It is no longer in reference to science that technique must be defined. [...] It is not a question of minimizing the importance of scientific activity, but of recognizing that in fact scientific activity has been superseded by technical activity to such a degree that we can no longer conceive of science without its technical outcome Moreover, techniques are always put to immediate use The interval which traditionally separates a scientific discovery and its application in everyday life has been progressively shortened. As soon as a discovery is made, a concrete application is sought. Capital becomes interested, or the state, and the discovery enters the public domain before anyone has had a chance to reckon all the consequences or to recognize its full import. The scientist might act more prudently; he might even be afraid to launch his carefully calculated laboratory findings into the world. But how can he resist the pressure of the facts? How can he resist the pressure of money? How is he to resist success, publicity, public acclaim? Or the general state of mind which makes technical application the last word? How is he to resist the desire to pursue his research? Such is the dilemma of the researcher today. Either he allows his findings to be technologically applied or he is forced to break off his research."

https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSociety/page/n43/mode/1up

Takeaway? To plagiarize myself: See what happens if you give handaxes to a monkeys and let them play for a couple of million years?

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Nerd has power
1/13/2021 10:34:11 pm

Excellent citation, Guy. I'm half asleep, but I think I like it a lot. How to resist survival in your scientific career? True question for people living in it.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/14/2021 02:42:39 am

Thanks NERD, if you [or any other nerd over here] find the time for a digital timeout, read Ellul's book "The Technological Society" (1954) above [English language is misleading, as techne logos is only tech-talk, the French term "technique" or German "Technik" is all-encompassing]. One of the top 3 books I ever read. Ellul's "The Technological Bluff" (1989) is also a good one with fun chapters like "Technical Progress and the Philosophy of the Absurd", "The Bluff of Productivity" or "Terrorism in the Velvet Glove of Technology". And there is an oldschool-VHS-interview "The Betrayal by Technology" on YouTube with Ellul, check:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOCtu-rXfPk

But his seminal book from 1954 is the real deal, I urge any scientist and/or hacker to read it, if possible under some large rock, of course! Lab-made-CoV-2 & frankenfriends are full in line with the ethos of technique aka either things get incorporated, or destroyed. Politicians, economists and scientists get reduced to mere technicians, oiling the "fond de roulement" / "rolling ground" for technique, which is, the nation, and that's: people. Let that sink in for a moment in the current context, folks!

Best
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
1/14/2021 10:52:10 pm

The damage from this FAKE PLAGUE is not from illnesses due to a novel infection but from the Lysenkoistic quarantine policies that paradoxically target the healthy population, incurring massive economic hardships, morbidity and mortality.

Do you know the Scientific History of Lockdowns?
Jan 14, 2021
https://youtu.be/978zLJJLo-I

Reply
Nerd has power
1/15/2021 05:15:01 am

Nature Medicine can't stop. Here is what it has recently published: a piece supporting the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 written by the famous Angela Rasmussen:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01205-5

It's funny when she said at the end that an evidence-driven approach is the way to go and yet she has provided no evidence for her natural origin theory what's so ever.

Of course, in her repeated attack on the Yan reports, she also failed to challenge any scientific evidence within.

Apparently, Nature and Nature Medicine do not believe consequences --- that's for the normal, not for the superior.

Now let's see how the world sucks it in.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/15/2021 09:55:06 am

Dunno if everyone's humor, but I find it hilarious in relation to our lil' pet topic:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcbUyl8UMAAqi9q.jpg

Reply
TAKE DOWN THE CCP
1/15/2021 05:01:12 pm

U.S. Department of State just released a statement of CCP virus!

https://www.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/16/2021 11:02:41 pm

... and there you have the officially annoited conspiracy theory - er, wait a minute, is this all true or that is what's called politically motivated diplomacy?

As Guy points it out, I am far from being happy, because this is just bombarding sentences without a microgram of presentation of actual proofs. And as such, it may better serve the Chinese political agenda and not any honest truth-seeking.

Reply
TAKE DOWN THE CCP
1/19/2021 11:52:58 am

No need to argue with me. Stand out, show your identity and argue with the officials! Don't argue here like a coward with someone who is simply posting an official statement from the government!

Guy Fawkes
1/16/2021 06:41:02 am

What is said on RaTG13 is not new to us here, but in the following lies a good one:

"Despite the WIV presenting itself as a civilian institution, the United States has determined that the WIV has collaborated on publications and secret projects with China’s military. The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017."

-->

"WIV has collaborated on ... secret projects with China’s military."

Imagine my shock! And here we go again with the known unknown, we now even officially know through the US State Department that we [the people] don't know what went on in the military part of the WIV. And if the "United States has determined ... [that the] WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military", well, logic tells that the DOS most certainly not only knows THAT the WIV did it, but also WHAT. They could have told us, but didn't, so I bet we will never find out, as - by definition - it was and is secret. At least to us. See, those spy-stories are always fun.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Nerd has power
1/16/2021 07:57:04 pm

"The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017."

Remember, ZC45 and ZXC21 were discovered in 2017........

I also believe that the DOS knows a lot more than what they said here in this statement. I wish they don't stop here. The world deserves to know the truth of COVID-19. Hopefully they're just waiting for the right timing.

Reply
Peter Ross
1/16/2021 09:43:26 am

“WE'LL NEVER KNOW” IF CDN SOLDIERS BROUGHT COVID BACK TO CANADA | CONSERVATIVE MP BOB BENZEN
https://www.bitchute.com/video/K0fp0mjPdCg/

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/19/2021 02:52:47 am

@NERD@DOS: "'The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.' Remember, ZC45 and ZXC21 were discovered in 2017."

Just had a look at the original paper by Hu et al. (2018) "Genomic characterization and infectivity of a novel SARS-like coronavirus in Chinese bats", and I'd like to note that of the 15 authors, one - I'm not in a mood of naming names here - is from, drumrolls: Stony Brook University, New York, USA. Another is from the Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang, PRC, and yet another from the Jiangsu Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Jiangsu, PRC. The other 12 are indeed from one or both: Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, PRC; Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command, Nanjing, PRC. So, the pub is technically 6,7% American, this, for starters.

I like the slogan at the end "All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest." Tells me none of the 16 US intelligence agencies [any intelligence officer reading this will support my claim that there officially was no Space Force Intelligence in those times] saw any problems in Stony Brook University working together with the Chinese Third Military Medical University & Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command. Or they were sitting on their hands, something not even I do below my rock, and if anybody on Earth is vigilant, should be the cavalry. So they knew, and it was ok. In fact it was published, that's the ultimate sign of "let the masses see, does not matter". Ai?

So what was published back in 2018? Let's see:

"Between 2015 and 2017, 334 bats were sampled from Zhoushan, China. These bats belonged to the species Rhinolophus pusillus as determined by the sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene in their muscle tissues. All 334 bat samples were screened for CoV RNA using a pan-coronavirus reverse transcription (RT)-PCR assay. [...] Specifically, sequences were generated from the following samples: SL-CoV ZXC21 (MG772934) bat that was extracted froma sample procured in July 2015, and SL-CoV ZC45 (MG772933) bat that was extracted from a sample pro-cured in February 2017. [...] The two new bat SL-CoVs shared 97% genomic sequencei dentity among themselves.. [...] Phylogenetic analyses based on the S protein suggested that the S proteins of ZXC21 and ZC45 represented a separate clade related to the lineage B CoVs. [...] ZXC21 and ZC45 showed huge diversities with the previously reported CoVs of bats associated with the S1 region, and the highest level of shared identity was only 83%. An attempt was made to perform a recombination analysis during the course of this study. In our study, no potential recombination events could be identified. This could be because the two strains originated from an unsampled SL-CoV lineage residing in a bat species that is phylogenetically closer to ZXC21 and ZC45 than all other known bat SL-CoV samples. [...] Meanwhile, the infected rat tissues could react with the polyclonal antibodies associated with the ZC45 N protein, according to the results from the western blotting assay, indicating that the virus can circulate in rats. [...] Overall, 334 adult bats were captured live at the mountain cave with mist nets at four separate times from July 2015 to February 2017 in Zhoushan city (including Dinghai and Daishan), Zhejiang Province, China. All bats appeared healthy and had no obvious clinical signs at capture. [...] To test the pathogenicity of the ZC45 agent, infection experiments were performed in suckling rats. [...] Animal housing care and all animal experiments were performed in a biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) facility and were approved by the local ethics committee."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30209269/

So they catched bats, experimented with them in BSL-3-labs on poor little rats, and found out "that the S proteins of ZXC21 and ZC45 represented a separate clade related to the lineage B CoVs".

--> Takeaway? No, I'm not exploring the honey pot "it's the Chinese military, they came, they experimented, rats died" path in order to point fingers later in the context of CoV-2. Nope. My takeaway is exactly the opposite aka the paper literally got published in the first place. Because know what happens with important research, folks? A) You typically don't do a joint venture with another superpower and B) it gets classified. And you know what happens to scientist? They get invited to these research projects, get visited in person, at home. That's right. And if reluctant scientist XY does not want to collaborate, he/she get the final report slipped blow his/her door as a little symbolic gift. At least in the "free West", dunno the procedure @ other manifest forms of government. Hence how many expeditions by those willing do you think took place long before 2015 to bat caves all over the planet, how many viruses were isolated, how many papers never were published, how many unkno

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/19/2021 02:56:48 am

[...]

--> Takeaway? No, I'm not exploring the honey pot "it's the Chinese military, they came, they experimented, rats died" path in order to point fingers later in the context of CoV-2. Nope. My takeaway is exactly the opposite aka the paper literally got published in the first place. Because know what happens with important research, folks? A) You typically don't do a joint venture with another superpower and B) it gets classified. And you know what happens to scientist? They get invited to these research projects, get visited in person, at home. That's right. And if reluctant scientist XY does not want to collaborate, he/she get the final report slipped blow his/her door as a little symbolic gift. At least in the "free West", dunno the procedure @ other manifest forms of government. Hence how many expeditions by those willing do you think took place long before 2015 to bat caves all over the planet, how many viruses were isolated, how many papers never were published, how many unknown unknown fridges are full? Only [insert your favorite deity here] knows. But what we know, is that the military was officially involved, this should ring some alarm bells concerning all the other bells that never rung. Tells me, under my rock, that we don't have the slightst clue, as there are national interests [plural] involved.

Reminds me of the metaphor of quick money: 1. collect used underwear [insert backbone virus here], 2. black box [unknown unknown], 3. money [in this case, CoV-2]. 1. and especially 2. are the bells you don't hear on ze internet. Thus, again, my little disclaimer that we, the totally lame public, don't even scratch the surface. We get 3. and have to cope with it. It's like a bitcoin public key, can't reverse engineer the private key just by looking at the public. Well, and the private key is by definition private, aka secret. Anyone willing to share his private BTC keys here? See, that's why military fridges have locks.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/19/2021 08:07:14 am

Hmm, I'm not sure I follow your logic in every aspect.
But.
It strikes me as quite fishy that the paper originally published online 2018 September 12 has been just corrected as of 2020 December 25. WTF, would anyone think, why anything in that paper should have been corrected after almost two and a half years?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7782816/

As it turns out, the correction was made because the incorrect labelling of the bat species from which the samples originated that were used for identification of the two new CoVs ZXC21 and ZC45.

"The version of this article published online on September 12, 2018, contained five instances where new (at the time of the discovery) bat species CoVs were mislabeled: bat-SL-CoV ZXC21 and bat-SL-CoV ZC45.

Table 1 and the Discussion section states the bat species was Rhinolophus sinicus. The Sampling section mentions the bat species was Rhinolophus pusillus.

The correct labeling for Table 1 and the Discussion section is Rhinolophus pusillus."


I have no effing idea why is this so important, that would actually necessitated a correction. Or, how is it possible, that after 5 and 3 years respectively, all of a sudden the authors were enlightened about the correct denomination of the actual bat species?

Do you think this has anything to do with post-hoc fabrications?

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/19/2021 11:21:57 am

@XOCO LATTE, please tell me where our respective logics fork, this is where it gets interesting, agreements are totally boring. Go for it, I'm all ears.

Meh, labeling of the correct horseshoe bat [sub-]species and of the 2 said viruses was not consistent, sinicus vs. pusillus & sometimes the "bat" was put at the end or omitted. But does not change anything to the essence. I guess the paper is "rather" important, that's why they edited it again [not the 1s time, they somehow forgot to name the authors in a prior version].

Now concerning where the TRUTH lies @SARS-CoV-2's [lab] ancestors, that's a complete different matter, and I leave it to forensic shadow interpretation experts in the internet cave to tell us what lies inbetween bat-SL-CoV ZXC21/ZC45 and SARS-CoV-2. Can't wait for the WHO expedition to find the original lab protocol "hidden" somewhere.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/20/2021 12:54:20 am

Dear @Guy, our opinion do not fork per se, my English seems to be not good enough to be sure I could follow yours. Sorry for that.

The Shi lab collected bats and bat samples in Jünnan (South Westernmost region Northwest to Vietnam) from R. sinicus, and to this 2018 paper, it looks as if R. sinicus bats were claimed to be the only bat species in China(?) to hold SL-CoVs.
SL-CoVs ZXC21 and ZC45 were isolated from bats and bat samples collected in Zhoushan (the Easternmost point of continental China just South from Shanghai), some 2500 km air-distance from Pu'er City, Jünnan.
The original 2018 September paper contains a mix of bat species identifying the bat source for the samples, R. sinicus and R. pusillus. The correction coming some 2 and a half years later (which, at least to me, is suspicious) claims that the correct bat species has been R. pusillus.
Problem is, that any citing papers to be found still claim that ZXC21 and ZC45 was isolated from R. sinicus bats. And, maybe just it is me, but I do think this has a lot of importance when the official Chinese diversion hypothesis is based on recombination events taking place in the same host. I.e., when one would see that even the possible bats species is two instead of one, living in 2500 km away, ZXC21 and ZC45 could not be the immediate cousin to SARS-CoV-2, it is indeed RaTG13.
So in my opinion, this correction is a very subtle touch to the refutation of ZXC21/ZC45 being the backbone CoV in the recombination events.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/20/2021 05:18:03 am

@XOCO LATTE, you are more than welcome my man. Don't worry, language is only a vehicle to pass on ideas, it's all good. Just had a look at the paper again, they state:

"In 2005, teams from Hong Kong and Mainland China almost simultaneously discovered the presence of SL-CoVs in wild Chinese horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus sinicus) from China. These findings suggested that the bats were the natural hosts of SARS-CoV. Notably, during longitudinal surveillance of the Rhinolophus sinicus colony in the Yunnan Province of China over the past few years, a Chinese research team successfully isolated a live SL-CoV sample from Vero E6 cells that were incubated in the bat feces in 2013. [...] In recent years, many novel SL-CoVs have been identified in a variety of bat species throughout the world, including Asia, Europe, Africa, and America. Most SL-CoVs were discovered in rhinolophids from China, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Italy, while novel beta-coronaviruses related to SARS-CoV have been detected in Hipposideros and Chaerophon species from Kenya and Nigeria. [...] Between 2015 and 2017, 334 bats were sampled from Zhoushan, China. These bats belonged to the species Rhinolophus pusillus as determined by the sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene in their muscle tissues."

I know what they meant, but looks like they lacked some basics in taxonomy, as technically, Hipposideros & Chaerophon are GENERA of bats, not SPECIES. So they got confused with taxonomy and/or had a problem of communication, as in Table 1, all are marked as Rhinolophus [genus] sinicus [species]. I guess the person doing the tables/graphs did not get the final result of the exact bat species identification and sinicus was his placeholder. Just had a look for you, there is a whole zoo of bats in China, and sinicus + pusillus are found in Yunnan and Zhejiang:

http://www.bio.bris.ac.uk/research/bats/China%20bats//Rhinolophidae.htm

Zhoushan is in the North of Zhejiang, and according to the map on the following site

http://www.bio.bris.ac.uk/research/bats/China%20bats//rhinolophussinicus.htm

Rhinolophus sinicus has already been found there. I guess that's why they assumed it was sinicus, and only later found out it was pusillus, as those were only found to the extreme East of Zhejiang, see

http://www.bio.bris.ac.uk/research/bats/China%20bats//rhinolophuspusillus.htm

So those 2 species do not live 2500 km away, they coexist in those caves I guess, and both live in whole Southeast China anyway.

Talking all those professionals doing a copy&paste-move, their problem, they should have read the paper more closely in order to notice that there is a contradiction in the same pub @

"Our 2-year longitudinal surveillance of bats in Zhoushan indicated that all 334 bats that were collected belonged to the species Rhinolophus sinicus, suggesting that it was the dominant bat species found in our study and has been shown to be the natural reservoir of SARS-CoV."

v.s.

"Between 2015 and 2017, 334 bats were sampled from Zhoushan, China. These bats belonged to the species Rhinolophus pusillus as determined by the sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene in their muscle tissues"

But again, as both bat species inhabit China's Southeastern caves, I don't see any deeper repercussions on the species-combo. And @ Cov-2-backbone, we are all wading through a Steppenwolfian mirror-room full of smoke grenades all over the place, so good luck in finding the missing link!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/20/2021 06:14:58 am

Thanks a lot, Guy. I truly like your style and manners.
So, you infer RaTG13/BtCoV-4991 and bat-SL-ZXC21/ZC45 being only parts of a smokescreen, er, visible tip of a big and nasty iceberg, and there are only a handful of far-from-honest CoV-scientists in either side of the World would ever know the real story?

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/20/2021 07:23:03 am

@Guy: do you think something like this what is under the water?
https://twitter.com/BillyBostickson/status/1285167366557458434

Guy Fawkes
1/21/2021 04:18:02 am

Thanks XOCO LATTE.

Given NERD's work, we know the official story @ RaTG13 genetically does not add up - quoting from his seminal article:

"Detailed analysis of this region reveals that, between ZC45 and ZXC21, a total of 32 nucleotides have changed and 5 of them lead to amino acid mutations (27 synonymous mutations vs. 5 non-synonymous mutations). It is, again, consistent with the scenario of natural evolution: every six nucleotide changes result in the change of one amino acid; synonymous/non-synonymous ratio is about 5:1. In contrast, for the same S2 region, between the Wuhan coronavirus and RaTG13, there are a total of 90 nucleotide changes and only two amino acid mutations. Here, every 45 nucleotide changes correspond to one amino acid change. The synonymous/non-synonymous ratio is 44:1."

So, bat-SL-ZXC21 vs. bat-SL-ZC45 look genuine, but RaTG13 vs. SARS-CoV-2 don't. Then there is this peculiar furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2, and the perfect adaptation to humans since day 1. And that's all we really know. Everything else is pure scenario, as I said, that's what zerohedge.com is there for. Are all the above part of a cover story, or do we simply lack the important missing links? We have not the slightest clue.

And concerning your Twitter link, we already talked about the samples of RatTG13 being "used up" before. Is it true? Looks like they never existed in the first place, but we don't know. Will we find out about the real story on social media or in non-classified publications? I guess it's like finding out if the light was on by opening the door to the fridge and then randomly point fingers.

I really think what NERD found out about the ratios is historically comparable [BIG KUDOS TO HIM AT THIS POINT!] to finding nanothermate in the WTC-dust. Tells us both respective official stories are fake. Happens that I worked with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy myself, thus the BSE images and XEDS spectra in Harrit et al. (2009) "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 911 World Trade Center Catastrophe" told me something similar to what NERD told you via his reseach and reverbate what the philosopher Prof. John Kozy once said:

"I don't know what is going on. I can only listen to what is said and ask myself whether or not it makes any sense."

Do you now better understand why I like to duck&cover below large rocks, instead of standing in the rain of [non]information overflow?

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Nerd has power
1/21/2021 05:44:28 am

Thank you, Guy and XOCO, for the interesting exchanges. I was not aware of the recent correction. Very interesting finding. It's strange to say to the least.

About what we know, in addition to the unnatural syn/non-syn situation between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 and the peculiar furin-cleavage site, there is also the 100% identity on the E protein between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21. That is such a smoking gun, however, only to true virologists. Unfortunately, as we know now, not many true virologists are honest.

In the meanwhile, enjoy this piece -- the CCP is bringing Fort Detrick back into the spotlight:

https://gtv.org/getter/60097a0487fabe2daf3e8dc2

None of the points we deem important matter in the real world. Stuff in this clip attracts more eyes. What can you do other than smile :)

Reply
David Rivard
1/21/2021 11:35:42 am

Will the WHO report mention how much un-supervised time they spend at the labs with their scientists and administrators vs. how much time at the caves?

Reply
David Rivard
1/21/2021 12:02:28 pm

Twitter does not ban "conspiracy theories" vs. the U.S. @ https://twitter.com/Covid19Origin

Reply
David Rivard
1/21/2021 12:23:26 pm


"Ensuring a Transparent, Thorough Investigation of COVID-19’s Origin Secretary's Remarks" (published 6 days ago), was taken down yesterday with a changing of the guard at:

https://www.state.gov/404

Significant that DOS took it down - after te changing of the guard.

The original article can be found at:

https://newsabode.com/ensure-a-transparent-thorough-investigation-of-covid-19s-origin-pompeo/

Reply
David Rivard
1/21/2021 12:48:53 pm

CCP timing before the U.S. elections was impeccable. The question now becomes whether the DNC was either on the corner when the bus came by and unknowingly took advantage of the CCP's largess, or DOS DNC members had a driver on the bus. Either way the new govt. is demonstrating that it will conceal.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/22/2021 04:30:09 am

Here the U.S. Department of State Fact Sheet, straight out of the Memory Hole, in its original layout:

http://web.archive.org/web/20210116001621/https://www.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/

Obligatory quote from 1984:

"[I]n the side wall, within easy reach of Winston’s arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building."

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
David Rivard
1/22/2021 11:20:36 am

Yep, and like the poet Robert White, must the URL repeat itself?
Fact Sheet from State.gov
Fact Sheet from State.gov
Fact Sheet from State.gov

and today:

extinguished Fact Sheet from State.gov
extinguished Fact Sheet from State.gov
extinguished Fact Sheet from State.gov

Reply
alex
1/23/2021 08:24:57 am

What do you think about this?

https://peerj.com/articles/10112/

Reply
evidence
1/23/2021 12:14:59 pm

Re: Positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people (C Wehenkel)

If valid (e.g., confirmed by other studies) it would again support the notion that the lethal (by the way: as well as LONG-) Covid effects are primarily due to an immune system which has gone wild (locally in particular, i.e., in crucial tissues like lung) - the analogy of flooding and drowning a village by trying to defend it in order to extinguish a formerly unknown and very frightening new firework (napalm bombs for example) which had been dropped into the town hall.
A prior flue vaccination would just have primed that immune system more intensely in general (in this analogy: having more water gallons readily available) - with more lethal effects in the concerning risk group (the elderly).


Personally, I also do believe, the frequent allergic/immunogenic side effects of the mRNA vaccines also partly do come from the inherent immunogenicity of the artificial SARS-CoV-2 S-protein, the FCS in particular, which is also mirrored by the BNT162 mRNA (and not solely being the effect of the new mRNA vaccine class itself), in particular by having our old friend, the FCS included - which, as it has been detailed above (again: cf. [John F Signus 5/14/2020 03:20:50 am], [evidence 6/16/2020 09:55:23 am] for example), I believe is the LATEST GOF insert/manipulation step and by this, hence, the most NON-adapted part of the entire SARS-CoV2 genome (with respect to ANY host organism, driving the immune system of ANY host organism just nuts).

Hence, if I am right, a variant BNT162 vaccine with only the short PRRA-genome sequence being EXCLUDED (or altered to junk), and the entire rest of BNT162b2- mRNA reflecting the S-protein remaining, would produce significantly less frequent side effects (in particular among the vulnerable group with known allergic preconditions) without compromising too much with respect to the needed IgG response (to the RBD in particular), hence, having not compromised/traded too much of its efficacy (for example only 85% instead of the rocketing 95% efficacy reported by the phase 3 trial results). Hence it would represent the 'mild' BNT162 version for people with allergies in particular.

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/23/2021 12:54:04 pm

I want to reflect only to the virus-immune system relation and the FCS insert apparent role in any effect on the host immune system.

Early in the pandemic French authors called attention to short insert-like AA sequences within the S protein (and ORF8 if I'm not mistaken) that looked reminiscent to gp210 and gag protein sequences. They even went as far as claiming that SARS-CoV-2 is a manufactured vector virus vaccine against HIV-1.
I am not an expert in molbio, but I do take very seriously the clinical observations in most severe COVID-19 patients, that are signs for the direct attack by the virus on CD4+ lymphocytes and monocites, as well as thrombocytes and red blood cells. There is quite a serious clinical agreement that SARS-CoV-2 severely affects the immune system and other blodd cell elements, causing lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, globulinopathy, reduction of oxygen-transporting capacity of red blood cells, and severe agglutinopathy (micro blod clotting). These clinical signs are NOT detected in pathologies caused be other human coronaviruses. Some of the above symptoms are not connected to ACE2 receptor-binding and signalling, but totally different (CD147 and CD25) receptors. So this virus is anything but a "normal" coronavirus, and its effect on the human immune system is a red herring of some very fishy stuff is going on.

As for the FCS. More than 90 million infections in the pandemic and no FCS-affecting mutations revealed. None. This is absolutely not indicative of FCS being affected by adaptive pressure. On the contrary, this insert was very carefully made and was chosen for its importance and direct role in a hugh increrase in viral infectious advantage. The exact same insert has been shown in H1N9 influenza as well, with exact same advantages. So I think the preservation of the FCS after a year of pandemic actually proves its importance in the viral fitness, and I bet it would be any mutation affecting it would be the very last arising in the field.

Nerd has power
1/24/2021 08:53:21 am

Evidence:

I tend to agree with your assessment that priming of the immune system by flu vaccines could possibly be responsible for the correlation seen between flu vaccination rates and COVID death rates.

In terms of the mRNA vaccines, I'm cautious of their side effects too. However, I'm not sure whether the FCS in there is my main concern. Theoretically, the FCS being in there would ensure that the Spike protein produced would be processed similarly as in natural infection, which should allow the immune system to be trained more properly. Also, I tend to believe that these companies should have tested both the FCS-included and -excluded versions. If that is the case, there might be a reason that they both went with the FCS-included version.

In the natural infections, FCS is of course vital in ensuring high infectivity. They inserted it there for a reason --- there are solid evidence in influenza and other published GOF studies as Xoco correctly reminded us. However, in terms of the various complications COVID causes in the immune cells and blood system, I again don't feel confident myself in asserting the FCS being the main reason here. It could be a main factor -- high infectivity of the virus could certainly drive the immune system nuts. But the CCP scientists also modified other parts of the virus. Yes, some of those changes were meant to blur the connection between the template and SARS-CoV-2. But, could they have done more than the RBM engineering/FCS insertion/serial passage to gain other functional benefits? Quite likely. However, what are the other deliberate modulations is a harder question to answer. The CCP holds all the secrets.

In terms of blood system complications, here are two articles. I think somebody shared them here before, but I'm sure it doesn't hurt to post them again:

Platelets can contain SARS-CoV-2 RNA and are hyperactivated in COVID-19
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.23.20137596v1

Autoimmunity to the Lung Protective Phospholipid-Binding Protein Annexin A2 Predicts Mortality Among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.28.20248807v1

David Rivard
1/23/2021 12:13:37 pm

As of this morning DOS has not determined U.S. policy re. origination.

https://www.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/

Even searching their website under "origin covid" leads you to...no archives on their site.

Apparently they are comfortable to be excluded for source information as the global public seeks their own data, as Twitter and other social media abounds with accusations of a U.S. bioterrorism scheme from Ft. Deitrick, backed up by CCP's own research publications.

Guess it's still too close to the elections.

Reply
Peter Ross
1/23/2021 04:25:39 pm

Listening to this sharpened my perspective about this entire coronavirusopera, and in particular the wisdom of the early insistence upon a [presumably experimental] DARPA-style innoculation approach:
BIO-WARFARE - WEAPONIZATION OF MEDICINE AMID COVID
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ir2KB5WVV0k8/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The S-trimer or "spike" seems to comprise certain structural themes:

Cloaked similarity between HIV-1 and SARS ... - NCBI - NIHwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC222911
Sep 21, 2003 — Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a febrile respiratory illness. The disease has been etiologically linked to a novel coronavirus that ...
by Y Kliger · ‎2003

also, in considering the adverse reactions:


Pseudo-anaphylaxis to Polyethylene Glycol (PEG)-Coated ...pubs.acs.org › doi
Jul 26, 2019 — Bolus injections of PEG-liposomes during seroconversion resulted in anaphylactoid shock (pseudo-anaphylaxis) within 2–3 min, although ...
by GT Kozma · ‎2019 · ‎Cited by 20 · ‎Related articles

Anaphylaxis to the first COVID-19 vaccine: is polyethylene ...bjanaesthesia.org › article › fulltext
Dec 17, 2020 — Anaphylaxis to the first COVID-19 vaccine: is polyethylene glycol (PEG) ... in many injectable formulations, where a prolonged effect is needed, ...
by LH Garvey · ‎Cited by 2 · ‎Related articles

(PDF) Polyethylene glycol as a cause of anaphylaxiswww.researchgate.net › publication › 311625037_Polyet...
type reactions triggered by macrogol 3350. Case report. A 46-year-old Caucasian female with no known allergies. received an intraarticular injection with a local ...

Reply
alex
1/24/2021 08:20:31 am

Nerd, do you know this hypothesis that puts mink farms at the origin of everything?

https://reporterre.net/Mounting-evidence-suggests-mink-farms-in-China-could-be-the-cradle-of-Covid-19-22020

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/24/2021 09:51:10 am

Just my 2 cents.
The easy transmission from humans to minks is truly indicative of some already existing connection for the virus. But not minks, and not the mink > human direction. Rather, it is quite possible that some of the viral strains during development have been tested or optimized in laboratory ferrets, and due to this the highly successful transmission into minks is just a consequential inference, because minks are genetically very closely related to ferrets.

In some detail, the pandemics-starting so-called original strain infecting humans very successfully has been devoid of some point mutations characteristic to minks (especially S:Y453F and Δ69-70HV mutations), which have been signs for adaptive pressure inside minks. If the pandemic source was a mink virus, it would have contained these characteristic mutations, in other words, we would have seen mink-human adaptation, rather then the other way around.
I am aware of sporadical (published) human clinical cases where mutations observed in minks developed in immunologically challenged patients without any zoonotic possibility, and I am perplexed of thoses case because these are indeed very problematic from a genomic development point of view.
https://virological.org/t/emergence-of-y453f-and-69-70hv-mutations-in-a-lymphoma-patient-with-long-term-covid-19/580

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/24/2021 10:14:38 am

One more thing that seems to be interesting to consider.
Typical body temp of minks is 39C. Many RNA polymerase promoters are temp-sensitive and "RNA thermometers" are important in many species.
Any mutations in "promoter" regions & regions affecting RNA secondary structure could have profound effects on viral pathogenicity.
https://www.douglas.co.uk/f_ftp1/ShawStewart_MedicalHypotheses_2016.pdf

Remember, that Ralph Beric has been f...ing around with temperature sensitivity of coronaviruses long time ago? Perhaps he would know the answer re: minks adaptive mutations as well. Maybe someone forcefully shouldda squeeze him a little bit for a lot of information with regards to this nice pandemic coronavirus.

Nerd has power
1/24/2021 11:22:04 am

Thank you, Alex. I did not know this article. But are we surprised that another origin story emerging? There are so many ways we could debunk this one, but let's simply see which scientists these authors are trusting here:

"The wall erected by the Chinese government seems to be cracking, however. On 8 January, [an article signed by eminent Chinese researchers, Zhengli Shi et Peng Zou, acknowledged for the first time in Science that mink could be the host « of the virus which has become SARS-CoV-2 ». The researchers suggest carrying out « retrospective investigations of samples dating back to before the pandemic on the mink farms and other animals vulnerable to the virus »."

This was the last paragraph of the article. Apparently, it is Zhengli Shi that these reporters are putting their faith in. For people who have been ACTUALLY following the origin story and know all about RaTG13, this must not be a difficult puzzle to solve here.

Reply
Greg Felton
1/25/2021 12:00:38 am

Nerd:
You might be interested to know that the lab-origin story is getting play in the mainstream media.

https://torontosun.com/news/world/who-advisor-covid-19-pandemic-started-via-a-lab-leak/wcm/39d55a21-b1b2-45e6-a0fb-6f652c98c53f/amp/

Nerd has power
1/25/2021 04:36:15 am

Yes, I actually read it two days ago. It's certainly a step in the right direction. We can keep an eye on how far they would actually go in revealing the truth to the public.

Brian
1/24/2021 10:42:14 am

Does this group has any insight on ADE as a side effect of vaccine described in several PubMed papers since october? Is it acceptable side effect that we can ignore or will cause more severe disease after reinfection. btw, Why severe disease in compare to normal vaccine?

Reply
Nerd has power
1/25/2021 04:42:42 am

That is something that concerns me for sure. ADE is a known effect with SARS, and SARS-CoV-2 is just an enhanced version of that. So, I don't think we can easily rule out the possibility of ADE with these vaccines. I have read some articles and heard stories of reinfections leading to more severe disease in some people. Don't know how often it happens and what conditions are most correlated with ADE. There are just too many unknowns at this point, I think, that it's hard to draw a conclusion on ADE.

Reply
Dave Atkinson
1/29/2021 09:53:24 am

The mRNA vaccines have been looking really good so far, maybe some mast cell destabilization leading to some anaphylaxis in vulnerable individuals. Otherwise, looking outstanding - J&J came up flat, Sinovac not so great, Astra Zeneca not that good

David Rivard
1/24/2021 10:57:12 am

I am sure PETA and donors @ http://www.petaasia.cn/ would love such a conclusion but I don't think they have balanced how many mustelids and other species have been tortured for GOF experiments...maybe several millions in Wuhan? How many mustelid lab deliveries for Wuhan.

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4108578

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4104828

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0LUgtBTcMc

Eco Health Alliance is a 501c3 non-profit, major funder for GOF research and NIH implementing partner. As any one of these entities, it is obligated to undergo (at least) an annual audit, which includes how monies were spent - to the detail - from it's GOF budget to Wuhan. WHO could prepare for their Wuhan visit with this audit - or perhaps simply ask NIH for their audit. GAO should also have a copy.

Reply
Peter Ross
1/24/2021 04:16:41 pm

The potential market for mRNA injections to improve the human body is limited until a 'pandemic' of economy-shattering lockdowns opens the flood barrier to FDA approval.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4-DMKNT7xI

Reply
David Rivard
1/24/2021 08:27:54 pm

Fox News (Steve Hilton) did a segment on the origin story tonight which seemed to uncover the first layer of the cover up (lab or not?). Still a major media, they threw the CCP a bone by inferring that this is simply U.S. and Chinese GOF research gone awry. They presented evidence of GOF research and outlined Fauchi and Dasak's role, but provided none for their conclusion that it was an "accident".

So the two superpowers can assume responsibilities together. A brilliant news release that covers the bases. They used Dasak and Fauchi, who deserve the status, as fall guys, which should successfully occlude the rest of the story. They did not mention the timely link with a U.S. election and suggested that basically, Fauchi and Dasak are to blame for the dearth of origin information from Chinese and other scientific sources. Any other takes?

Reply
David Rivard
1/24/2021 08:49:05 pm

Zhengli Shi and other names that appear on publications might have to be sacrificed too but it will be a comparative diplomatic bargain for the U.S. and China. Any other scientists or publications want to step up into this martyr's brigade with subsequent publication credit?

Reply
Nerd has power
1/25/2021 04:54:45 am

People that are deeply involved have the risk of being used as scapegoats. This includes Zhengli Shi. To me, it's impossible that the CCP could get off this and blame it on a single person or two. But they also have demonstrated how brilliantly their media control works. To the general public, the truth can be buried, as long as they could work out a deal. In the long run, however, these people making deals on this would not look good in history either.

Reply
alex
1/25/2021 03:35:44 pm

Check this please:
https://ccpgloballockdownfraud.medium.com/the-chinese-communist-partys-global-lockdown-fraud-88e1a7286c2b#_ftn198


Xoco Latte
1/25/2021 12:23:00 am

Fresh from the preprint furnice Re: autoimmunity activation by COVID-19

An Autoantigen Atlas from Human Lung HFL1 Cells Offers Clues to Neurological and Diverse Autoimmune Manifestations of COVID-19
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.24.427965v1.full.pdf

More than 200 known autoantigen proteins showed activation or increase at mRNA transcriptional or protein translational level as an apparent direct effect of the viral infection in lung fibroblasts.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/25/2021 05:55:43 pm

Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean, that really got out of hand fast. Got 4 links to share:

#1@NERD concerning Fort Detrick, check the following, you will be delighted, I'm sure - Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying's Regular Press Conference on January 18, 2021:

"I'd like to stress that if the United States truly respects facts, it should open the biological lab at Fort Detrick, give more transparency to issues like its 200-plus overseas bio-labs, invite WHO experts to conduct origin-tracing in the United States, and respond to the concerns from the international community with real actions."

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1847010.shtml

***

#2@EVIDENCE concerning COVID-19 deaths & influenza vaccination, check this positive correlation in the Pentagon-paper by Gregg Wolf (2020) "Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season":

"Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus. [...] Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively). [...] Additionally, the laboratory data in our study showed increased odds of coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in individuals receiving influenza vaccination."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31607599/

***

#3@BRIAN concerning antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), via CTRL+C & F, look for Huismann et al. (2008) "Vaccine-induced enhancement of viral infections" of which I excerpted from and linked towards in the comments above back in November. Then, there is Wan et al. (2019) "Molecular mechanism for antibody-dependent enhancement of coronavirus entry", check:

"[S]ub-neutralizing antibodies (or non-neutralizing antibodies in some cases) are responsible for ADE of these viruses. Given the critical roles of antibodies in host immunity, ADE causes serious concerns in epidemiology, vaccine design and antibody-based drug therapy. This study reveals a novel mechanism for ADE where fully neutralizing antibodies mimic the function of viral receptor in mediating viral entry into Fc-receptor-expressing cells. ADE can lead to
worsened symptoms in secondary viral infections, causing major concerns for
epidemiology. ADE is also a major concern for vaccine design and antibody-based drugs therapy, since antibodies generated or used in these procedures may lead to ADE. ADE has been observed in coronavirus for decades, but the molecular mechanisms are unknown. In this study we first demonstrated that a MERS-CoV-RBD-specific neutralizing mAb binds to the RBD region of MERS-CoV spike and further showed that the mAb mediates MERS-CoV pseudovirus entry into Fc-receptor-expressing human cells. Moreover, a SARS-CoV-RBD-specific neutralizing mAb mediates ADE of SARS-CoV pseudovirus entry. These results demonstrated that ADE of coronaviruses is mediated by neutralizing mAbs that target the RBD of coronavirus spikes. In addition, the same coronavirus strains that led to the production of fully neutralizing mAbs can be mediated to go through ADE by these neutralizing mAbs. [...] We showed that the mAb binds to the tip of MERS-CoV spike trimer, where the RBD is 3located. mAb binding likely stabilizes the RBD in the standing-up position, triggers a conformational change of MERS-CoV spike, and exposes the previously inaccessible S2’ site to proteases. [...] Taken together, RBD-specific neutralizing mAbs bind to the same region on coronavirus spikes as viral receptors do, trigger conformational changes of the spikes as viral receptors do, and mediate ADE through the same pathways as viral-receptor-dependent viral entries. In other words, RBD-specific neutralizing mAbs mediate ADE of coronavirus entry by functionally mimicking viral receptors. [...] Overall, our study suggests that ADE of viruses depends on antibody dosages, tissue-specific expressions of viral and Fc receptors, and some intrinsic features of the antibody. [...] Moreover, the mechanism that we have identified for ADE of MERS-CoV in vitro may account for the ADE observed in vivo for other coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and feline coronavirus."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31826992/

***

#4@EVIDENCE, XOCO LATTE and others, check Wang et al. (2021) "mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants"

"Here we report on the antibody and memory B cell responses in a cohort of 20 volunteers who received either the Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccines. [...] However, activity against SARS-CoV-2 variants encoding E484K or N501Y or the K417N:E484K:N501Y combination was reduced by a small but significant margin. [...] [N]eutralization by 1

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/25/2021 05:58:23 pm

#4@EVIDENCE, XOCO LATTE and others, check Wang et al. (2021) "mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants"

"Here we report on the antibody and memory B cell responses in a cohort of 20 volunteers who received either the Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccines. [...] However, activity against SARS-CoV-2 variants encoding E484K or N501Y or the K417N:E484K:N501Y combination was reduced by a small but significant margin. [...] [N]eutralization by 14 of the 17 most potent mAbs tested was reduced or abolished by either K417N, or E484K, or N501Y mutations. Notably, the same mutations were selected when recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV)/SARS-CoV-2 S was cultured in the presence of the vaccine elicited mAbs. Taken together the results suggest that the monoclonal antibodies in clinical use should be tested against newly arising variants, and that mRNA vaccines may need to be updated periodically to avoid potential loss of clinical efficacy. [...] A number of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants that have been associated with rapidly increasing case numbers and have particular prevalence in the UK (B1.1.7/501Y.V1), South Africa (501Y.V2) and Brazil (B1.1.28/501.V3). Our experiments indicate that these variants, and potentially others that carry K417N/T, E484K and N501Y mutations, can reduce the neutralization potency of vaccinee plasma. [...] What the long-term effect of accumulation of mutations on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will be is not known, but the common cold coronavirus HCoV-229E evolves antigenic variants that are comparatively resistant to the older sera but remain sensitive to contemporaneous sera. Thus, it is possible that these mutations and others that emerge in individuals with suboptimal or waning immunity will erode the effectiveness of natural and vaccine elicited immunity. The data suggests that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may need to be updated and immunity monitored in order to compensate for viral evolution."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.426911v1

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
evidence
1/26/2021 04:10:09 am

Re: Reply to [Nerd 1/24/2021 08:53:21 am] + [Xoco Latte 1/23/2021 12:54:04 pm] responding to my last post. For convenience and for having the reply button active, I am posting here.
Thank you as always for your responses! I reply to Nerd's thoughts by qutoting them first.
1) >>there are solid evidence in influenza and other published GOF studies as Xoco correctly reminded us. However, in terms of the various complications COVID causes in the immune cells and blood system, I again don't feel confident myself in asserting the FCS being the main reason here.<<
Cell tropism of influenza, while certainly still being sufficiently broad, is a little bit more restricted (i.e., to epithelial cells), that's why the FCS there (H1N9) has less drastic (immunogenic) effects in general - in comparison to SARS-CoV2, I would say. You don't have epithel cell lines in the super-sterile compartment, the blood vessels, in which an invasion would trigger the cytokine storm.
Hence, you have the same nuclear warhead (the FCS) with still a little bit less powerful launching rocket missile (influenza cell tropism = medium range missile). In contrast, with the conjunction of the virtually ubiquitous inner organ tissue tropism given by the hACE2 RBD of SARS-CoV2, you have this super-powerful (intercontinental) missile - while still being equipped with the same nuclear warhead: the FCS. - For example, blood vessel endothelial cells are likewise packed with ACE2 (small arteries/arterioles in particular), resulting in the known inflammation of small arterial vessels (after being infected), the pulmonary ones in particular, - this on top on everything else. I believe, this is the main reason for the minuscule blood clotting (locally/tissue-dependent + in SMALL vessels): the coagulation/platelet aggregation cascade in small vessels being triggered by a locally compromised blood vessel wall which has gone into disarray as a result of the immune system attacking and inflaming the endothel cell line here (almost classical DIC pathophysiology, but just more restricted or localized to affected and inflamed tissue here). So the coagulation/aggregation effects (as well as pathological effects on the blood system/circulating blood cells) I would consider way downstream (long time after the virus has invaded the vessel walls) and more or less not highly Cov2-specific, hence, not being a direct. specific and primary result of Cov2 massivly interacting with circulating blood or immune cells, which are devoid of ACE2). Therefore not being necessarily an indication of some specific, rationally designed GOF steps for example on its NSP part being putatively responsable for this avalanche. In particular, for the Zaid paper you cited, which mentions the mRNA found in platelets, I would again consider this as being a highly downstream effect (after platelets had been activated and becoming more transmissible/susceptible. As for RBC, they are not highly useful for virus tropism in general, since lacking a replication/transcription machinery). --- Occam's razor as I would be applying it.
Re Xoco: While the FCS itself (its functionality, determining the outstanding fitness for CoV2) is not under selective pressure, the vicinity of the FCS, which determines its exposition and hence the epitope challenge to to the immune system via subtle conformational changes in the S-Protein (hence, its antigenicity - in contrast to its functionality) remains a permanent mutational hotspot. This is what I think is relevent, not the narrow look on PRRA itself.
2) >>In terms of the mRNA vaccines, I'm cautious of their side effects too. However, I'm not sure whether the FCS in there is my main concern.<<<
I am not saying the class effect of mRNA vaccine (with all the PEGylated liposomes) has no contribution. It might be major. But the FCS (without sufficient adaptation in its vicinity after this artificial GOF insertion) is contributing as well - that would still be my main hypothesis.
3) >>Also, I tend to believe that these companies should have tested both the FCS-included and -excluded versions.<<
Maybe, but I am not sure. If anybody out there has this information, please contribute!
We have to keep in mind. The FCS inclusion/exclusion question had been in comparison quite minor for them (as for the pioneering Biontech guys) during those days in Spring 2020, I would assume (in contrast to now: with all the molbio and clinical evidence we have now). Anybody would have rushed to get primarily an efficient vaccine hooked-up as soon as possible.
Biontech is now in the pool position because they had the platform technology, not because they primarily had CoV2 experts, and because hey had to rushed their TECHNOLOGY: operation warp speed.
Or more profanely: their primary concern probably had been at that time to keep it (there platform technology application) as simple and as convienent as possible to get Pfizer gigant and all its

Reply
evidence
1/26/2021 04:16:27 am

Or more profanely: their primary concern probably had been at that time to keep it (there platform technology application) as simple and as convienent as possible to get Pfizer gigant and all its ressources on board - as SOON as possible. I think that would have been their chief concern. They were certainly cautious including allergic preconditions into the trials.
To give another example (for the rush): it is suspected (at least by some german virologists) that the demanding minus 70 C storage protocol for BNT162b2 most likely only comes from the fact, that in some pre-clinical lab procederes, they had always been sticking to this without further questioning it, and then they forgot to change or properly re-evaluate it early on and it could not be changed anymore after they had submitted the applications for phase 1 trials with this demanding storage protocol included. And now, it remains mandatory for everybody for judicial reasons. So that's equally far from assuming that the freezing temperature had been elaborately optimized. That's to show how all those little (accidental) decisions at the beginning in (company) labs would affect the entire production line later on, especially if the roll-out has to be rushed.

4) My main assumption as I have mentioned numerous times before: high likelihood no serial passage in tissue done AFTER FCS insertion, as FCS for example easily gets lost/selective disadvantage in Vero E 6. (I know this notion is different to the Yan paper.)
Hence, this assumption has important implications. FCS insertion has been one of the last GOF steps before the accident, maybe the last one. (We might disagree on accident vs intentional release, but let us assume the accident for a moment, only for the sake of my model.)
That would imply the following: the FCS insertion step had also a very high likelihood being responsible for the very accident itself.
My favored scenario here is this: once they finally had inserted the FCS, they double-checked the enhanced strain on lab ferrets again, (at first) not for passaging, just for double-checking (the RBD had been streamlined on ferret + tissue passages long time before), and all of a sudden, the effect was so collossal, that they could not control anything anymore: like an experimental nuclear reactor which always was kind of lame, regardless how many control rods you would pull out: as long as you had the last one left inside, nothing would change (the nuclear fire would ultimately burn out/extinguish), but in the very moment, when you also would pull out the very last one, you get that immediate melt-down, blowing everythying up. Given this scenario: the ferrets must have been overwhelmed by the sudden immunogenic reaction in particular to the FCS, and subsequently infected the lab guys - before the scientists even fully realized the consequences, the incubation time had elapsed. - So step 5 dscribed in the first Yan paper (p. 19) was kind of cut short (and/or performed before) in my scenario. Also both Yan papers, while being very elaborate and properly balanced on all other issues and weighing the evidence regarding this colossal fraud, this point, the intentional vs acidental release, is not as thoroughly discussed in a balanced way in my view.
I think all the circumstantial evidence, in particular with all those futile containment efforts on every subsequent level, still would favor the accident scenario.
In my eyes, the accident scenario also does not contradict the fact, that they had established their entire RaTG13 potemkin village at least 2 years before, waiting on the hard drives and ready to be presented to the virology community, whenever needed (which ultimately happened to be January 2020) - an (in silico) potemkin village which maybe even saw a few updates in the meantime before, corresponding to their (in vitro and in vivo) progress, they would have made in lab.
If on the other hand, if I were the CCP and intentionally would like to release this biological weapon, I certainly would have tried to sell RaTG13 ahead of time. The fact, that they did it afterwards in my eyes also does not favor the scenario that they had been entirely in control of the chain of events. In my eyes, that, while there was definitely the criminal intent to develop this bioweapon, the accident might just have come first: the missile exploded prematurily in the launch facility once the nuclear warhead hd been mounted.
But always happy to see the flaws in my thoughts;)
I think, even for the accidental leak, the criminal intent and misconduct is beyond doubt, and I am not sure if the harder to make claim 'intntional release' serves the purpose (particularly for the West): at first the public has to ome to terms with the fact it was man-made at all. First this denialism has to stop - for scientists in particular but as well as the lay public.
#

Reply
David Rivard
1/26/2021 08:31:47 pm

Good analysis from evidence. It might have also been ordered out of the door due to the U.S. elections, when it would accomplish the most. Sometimes you have to go to war with what you have. The proactive discouragement of discussion from most quarters of science and media still has me taken aback.

Reply
David Rivard
1/26/2021 09:36:20 pm

Also, if the new administration does not change "PHEIC" policies as a condition for re-joining the WHO (as the largest single contributor), among many other logical reforms

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/528606-biden-must-set-firm-conditions-for-re-engaging-with-the-who

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-administration-must-fix-whos-china-obsession-opinion-1553911

and, although difficult to conceive, it is more difficult to ignore that not only was the DNC on the corner when the bus came by but they also had a driver on the bus...even if the driver was naive about China's ultimate intentions. It could be a complicated story if intel agencies, locally, were told to look away.

Reply
Nerd has power
1/26/2021 10:16:57 pm

Great analysis, evidence. Thank you for sharing your thoughts here. Well balanced and reasonable. Yes, we favor different scenarios, accidental vs. intentional. Maybe this can ultimately be answered only with intelligence information or an insider's confession.

I agree with what David has described -- in the time of great need, you may decide to use certain things prematurely.

Please remember the political background then: the CCP was under humongous pressure from the US. A trade deal between US and China was about to be made. However, the deal was nearly impossible to be fulfilled by China. Hong Kong was also on the edge of getting out of the CCP's control. Trump was gaining political momentum and was looking good for re-election. Could a transmissible disease turn all those around? Possibly.

Did SARS-CoV-2 turn out to be more transmissible than what the CCP has anticipated? Also possible. The CCP scientists may have underestimated this virus if it was really premature. And the CCP leaders are not even scientists. However, these leaders make the call ---- they were the ones itchy to have their need, political and personal, satisfied. What's at stake then could, in their eyes, warrant something extraordinary.

Finally, if they have spent years developing such a bioweapon, they must have also carefully evaluated what this weapon could possibly achieve and when to use it. It might just be a fit.

Sorry if you feel that I've gone too far again. Please see this as a possibility that could be used to entertain your brains a bit.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/27/2021 01:38:09 am

@EVIDENCE:

"That would imply the following: the FCS insertion step had also a very high likelihood being responsible for the very accident itself. My favored scenario here is this: once they finally had inserted the FCS, they double-checked the enhanced strain on lab ferrets again, (at first) not for passaging, just for double-checking (the RBD had been streamlined on ferret + tissue passages long time before), and all of a sudden, the effect was so collossal, that they could not control anything anymore [...] Given this scenario: the ferrets must have been overwhelmed by the sudden immunogenic reaction in particular to the FCS, and subsequently infected the lab guys - before the scientists even fully realized the consequences, the incubation time had elapsed. [...] In my eyes, the accident scenario also does not contradict the fact, that they had established their entire RaTG13 potemkin village at least 2 years before, waiting on the hard drives and ready to be presented to the virology community, whenever needed (which ultimately happened to be January 2020) [...] If on the other hand, if I were the CCP and intentionally would like to release this biological weapon, I certainly would have tried to sell RaTG13 ahead of time. The fact, that they did it afterwards in my eyes also does not favor the scenario that they had been entirely in control of the chain of events. In my eyes, that, while there was definitely the criminal intent to develop this bioweapon, the accident might just have come first"

--> Kudos, sounds very plausible, also concerning the RaTG13-backup-distraction ready in the books before. Yet we do not know if it was A) an accident, B) intentional or C) sabotage. B makes absolutely no sense in my eyes, especially at home. Accident could be, but sabotage by some other cavalry in order to gently derail their inferred bioweapon development and let them use up their backup & telling the public a wet market fairy tale. The Chinese now pointing to Fort Detrick would be in line with that cornered situation, but of course the Chinese cannot talk about their literally leaked covert bioweapon program, so they must play the game and keep the shine. I guess it's what's called being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/27/2021 04:08:40 am

Seems like the zoonosis tale gets a boost from US-French supported "research". Whatever that would mean...
92.6% sequence similarity to SARS-CoV-2 detected in three Camodian bats.
A novel SARS-CoV-2 related coronavirus in bats from Cambodia
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.26.428212v1.full.pdf

Reply
David Rivard
1/27/2021 07:45:01 am

Xoco Latte, I know it was somewhere in this string, but isn't there also 100% sequence similarity with infected Mus musculus and ferrets (or for that matter the whole family of any infected Mustelids) - or at least as communicable? Were mink farms infected through the workers? Again, there should be no reason NIH should not be disclosing their audit from taxpayer monies spend on this P4 lab, or any of them for that matter. Guy, spread the word to your neighbors that we'll start turning over stones.

Also, people generally receive their news from the top down and if it's optimistic news that will improve their lives, they will generally believe ("don't worry, the govt. has it handled"). This sites bottom up approach is immensely valuable to a public that must come to terms with the fact it was man-made. I want to be optimistic that what results is a decision due to this public pressure, however half hearted. At this point I think the best we can expect is highly publicized enhancements of GOF regulations...unless we go further.

Reply
Xoco Latte
1/27/2021 08:50:10 am

I am sorry, David, perhaps I am too dim but I do not quite get your main point. Do you suggest that authors or some of their accompanies infected those Cambodian bats with the virus and after a successful infection the bat SARS-like virus was studied by them? Well, it's a very special logic but who knows. The 92.6% must be then a fabrication, since a human-bat transmission would not result in a difference that much in the sequence. Only a fraction of a percentage difference has been caused by adaptive mutations inside minks (OK, I know, minks are perhaps do not pressure the virus that much for adaption since the virus was arguably optimized in ferrets, well, anyway.)

David Rivard
1/27/2021 09:03:54 am

So, apparently NIH, nor any other U.S. government agency funded any "Eco Health Alliance" or Chinese GOF research?

https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nih_covid19&query=Eco+Health+Alliance&commit=Search

https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nih_covid19&query=Gain+of+function+research&commit=Search

ahhh...https://osp.od.nih.gov/biotechnology/gain-of-function-research/

However, you can quickly determine that you must go down the path of a Judicial Watch if you really want to get the facts.

Just one example of the current laws that must be navigated:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/M-20-12.pdf

and it is evident that only a lawsuit will do.

Also, Mike Pompeo's deleted statement mentioned above is replaced with the new White House Policy re. C-19:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/priorities/covid-19/

while all things covid-19 in the Federal Register are shunted to the White House's new policy site.

It is as through as any CCP system.

Again to use Guy's great analogies, "but there is a GOF creature out there that is helping us overturning rocks". A suppressed etiology is enabling a bristling array of clinical morbidities that will ultimately manifest in a public appetite for comprehensive information.

Medice, cura te ipsum, ("Physician heal thyself" - Luke 4:23) is already transforming into "Civis, cura te ipsum" due to an evident hiding of information (I've used the term opacity too much). My bet is public policy and information will always be a step behind the GOF lab creature. Truth usually bubbles up, especially with a public that has no other place to go but boiling over.

Reply
David Rivard
1/27/2021 09:15:40 am

Xoco, it's not what I meant but your interpretation was more brilliant than mine none the less...and opened up some new possibilities. My general forward thrust (that needed clarification) was that, "Is it true that the only 100% sequence similarity is with infected Mus musculus and ferrets?"

Reply
David Rivard
1/27/2021 09:32:35 am

Again, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/National-Strategy-for-the-COVID-19-Response-and-Pandemic-Preparedness.pdf

is a worthwhile read.

Reply
Peter Ross
1/27/2021 10:27:55 am

So after a nine month ban, which included the fantastic fraudulant denouncements of HCQ safety perpetrated by JAMA, NEMJ and Lancet, medical societies are now endorsing liposomal/anti-parasitic drugs like HCQ to treat suspected coviditis:

Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934320306732?fbclid=IwAR3aElp0C5W6yGbqvE-CxE5U9vv28rfiLoB5sfRfIqcvu9H_A4deczrrEK0

Reply
David Rivard
1/27/2021 12:15:36 pm

Our tiny Central American country has been deploying:

Invermectina: 6mg/12hrs. X 3 dias
Acetaminofen: 500mg/every 8 hrs. X 7 dias
Vitamina D3, 2000 IU/12 hrs X 7 dias
Zinc: 50mg/12 hrs. X 7 dias
Vitamina C: 2/500mg X 7 dias
Aspirina: 100mg/por dia X 10 days

It has been deployed with a claimed 95% success since March. Treatment must be given within 3 days after symptoms. Govt. recommends using an oxymeter each day. If SpO2 levels drop to under 94, then you will get symptoms within three days. Better even to take the treatment then.

Our President has the highest approval rating in the world! The govt. also says that its even more effective if you use HCQ, but the WHO operations here discouraged including it in the kit. Funny that WHO was not interested in publishing clinical records here either. The govt. developed their own treatment, which went to the prisons first.

It is interesting to see the studies coming out now after the elections.

Reply
David Rivard
1/27/2021 12:26:31 pm

An incontrovertible litmus test is US preconditioning before resumption of WHO funding. Particularly the Biden-Harris Administration's (yes, the government's websites all say Biden-Harris Administration and do not say Biden Administration") demands to admit Taiwan as a WHO partner before re-funding commences.

Reply
David Rivard
1/27/2021 12:34:34 pm

So I would guess now that our main purpose on this site is to link the importance of origin to therapeutics and vaccine development (not to mention an obvious link to a serial killer's release of newer and more targeted strains), not withstanding my own deviations. Is that correct Nerd?

Reply
Guy Fawkes
1/27/2021 03:04:13 pm

@XOCO LATTE: Had a look at the French paper, the Institut de Recherche Biomédicale des Armées (IRBA) was on board as a co-first-author. According to their homepage, one axis of research of the IRBA is "étude de la biologie des agents transmissibles pathogènes (menaces virales, bactériennes, parasitaires) et des vecteurs de transmission des maladies. Développement de contre-mesures médicales." As usual, no comment.

@ALL: Perhaps you noticed my penchant for respiratory protection, dunno why, must be because of some pandemic. A bird told me about the following overview of all masks by 3M, sorted by risk level. I only found the German version online, but rest assured people, you will get it graphically, as on the first chart on the left, there on the bottom you find "Umgang mit biologischen Arbeitsstoffen: Viren/Bakterien (Risikogruppe 3)", trying to tell you that for the manufacturer, the ONLY level filtering viruses is P3 [marked in red]:

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1114656O/3m-auswahlhilfe-poster-in-3-schritten-zum-richtigen-atemschutz.pdf

The 8835 R D respirators [R = reusable // D = dolomite-test with pulverized rock dust passed // red elastic straps = FFP3] are what I bought for my wife & mother, but of course they/you will also have to wear a lab goggle with reduced ventilation in order not to go full retard by forgettin' your eye's mucus in plain sight. Personally, I'm sporting 6035 R particulate filters together with a 6900 full facepiece reusable respirator - yet somehow, given people's general reaction while shopping, it's everytime the feeling the Martians landed - from the POV of the Martians. But: show some respek, there are xtremely cool rocks on Mars.

Finally, I already posted in the past a pub on gizmo decontamination, if my memory is correk, it was 56°C for 15min in a wet environment for dulling those pesky corona spikes. The following doc entitled "Decontamination of 3M Filtering Facepiece Respirators, such as N95 Respirators, in the United States - Considerations" corroborates it, besides space [age] kung fu like vaporized hydrogen peroxide or ultraviolet light, there is also oldschool HEAT used in self-sealed pouches at 65±5°C and 50-80% relative humidity for 30 min, see page 7:

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1824869O/decontamination-methods-for-3m-filtering-facepiece-respirators-technical-bulletin.pdf

Takeaway? After use, directly put your mask in a bag and on the radiator/in the sun for an hour or two. It's also a good idea to clean the inside with some microbicide first in order keep your little personal zoo in check. Afterwards, take it out of the bag and let it fully dry out. Virus not amused.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
1/29/2021 09:27:24 am

Does the N95 virus-catcher catch all viruses or just the imaginary "SARS type"?
When a SARS+ patient shows up in respiratoy distress at the ER, the entire place is shut down and the staff and everybody gets quarantied for 10 days?
What am I missing?

Reply
David Rivard
1/29/2021 09:56:44 am

FYI

COVID-19 IHR Emergency Committee:

https://www.who.int/groups/covid-19-ihr-emergency-committee

Statement on the sixth meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic
(15 January 2021 Statement Reading time: 7 min):

https://www.who.int/news/item/15-01-2021-statement-on-the-sixth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic

Especially because of what's at stake, do you think their findings will be openly discussed in forums BEFORE they develop policy recommendations?

Reply
David Rivard
1/29/2021 11:28:25 am

I still harken back to the way every nation keeps track of the virus. It is the WHO template:

Canada: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/tracking-every-case-of-covid-19-in-canada-1.4852102
Active: 53,913
Recovered: 694,070
Deaths: 19,772
_______
Total Cases: 769,240 (sic)

El Salvador: https://covid19.gob.sv/
Casos Recuperados: 47,643
Casos Activos: 4,742
Casos Fallecidos: 1,604
_________
Casos Confirmados: 53,989

CDC deviates somewhat in not mentioning "recoveries".

My concern is widely established by thousands out there in individual support groups as exampled by:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/insurance-claim-denials-leave-some-covid-19-sufferers-planning-for-the-worst-1.5284932

In El Salvador, and all over the world, "Casos Recuperados" are in fact those well enough to be released from the hospital. In other words, those no longer dependent upon hospital administered respiration. "Casos Activos" in turn, are those dependent upon hospital administered respiration. CDC goes so far as to say that it is still unknown if those who have once tested positive can still infect others"...or can be re-infected themselves, and should still "quarantine until more is known" (doesn't quite square with optimism over vaccines does it).

Along with the lifestyle debilitation, physical and otherwise (I called it "devitalizing aspects" in previous posts) that usually goes along with the disease: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/insurance-claim-denials-leave-some-covid-19-sufferers-planning-for-the-worst-1.5284932

I would like to see charts including clinical questionnaires that ask the hospitalized (or their families) when they first felt symptoms, when they were first administered tests et al. I know that in our small country there has been many formerly on the "Casos Recuperados" list that went back to the Casos Activos". How can WHO keep track of new cases (develop intelligence) with a database redundancy that includes recurring infections?

Of course you can transfer this debilitative effect on to militaries, government institutions, businesses, culture et al. As previously stated the effect is like a political science architect who wanted to accomplish the above and commissioned a virology engineer to develop the tool.


Reply
David Rivard
1/29/2021 01:09:16 pm

If you are a patient or attending HCW this is the data you collect:

https://www.paho.org/en/documents/template-line-listing

Reply
David Rivard
1/29/2021 07:57:45 pm

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-tragedy-of-the-post-covid-long-haulers-2020101521173

Reply
David Rivard
1/29/2021 08:33:37 pm

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.24.20248802v2.full.pdf

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33428867/

There is much info. out there. If Ebola were a bio-weapon, it would have been contained instantly. Not so much for a random disassembler of lives and institutions. What is in store for the "asymptomatic" is still not understood. My guess would be that only athletes with previously monitored performance levels (and statistically how much of the population is that?) would make the most reliable control group...additionally, those infected would mostly be untested making their personal reports anecdotal, especially during this early (and persistent) phase of unreliable testing, or unavailable testing.

Reply
Greg Feleton
1/30/2021 02:25:18 am

Nerd: re Toronto Sun article:
It is the task of the media to uncover facts, not truths.
Truth = Fact + Belief and all belief is personal.

Reply
Nerd has power
1/30/2021 08:35:17 am

New Study By Dr. Steven Quay Concludes that SARS-CoV-2 Came from a Laboratory

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-by-dr-steven-quay-concludes-that-sars-cov-2-came-from-a-laboratory-301217952.html

I have not read the whole thing yet. It's a bit intimidating -- 193 pages long. But I glanced some sections of it. Don't know how sound Dr. Quay's Bayesian analysis is mathematically, but it's great that more medical professionals/scientists are publicly stating their evidence-based judgement that SARS-CoV-2 must be lab-made.

To me, the most interesting finding in Dr. Quay's paper is the adenovirus sequences found in the raw sequencing reads that Zhengli Shi used in assembling those earliest SARS-CoV-2 genomes. Note that these adenovirus sequences are not in the assembled SARS-COV-2 genome, but in some raw sequencing reads.

Were these raw reads really obtained from patients or amplified based on a template from an alternative source (hint: Adenovirus backbone + SARS-CoV-2 Spike, exactly how Gen. Wei Chen develops her vaccines)? Was the CCP engaged in developing adenovirus-based COVID vaccines before COVID even started? Otherwise, how could they know the exact sequence of Spike/S1 when the disease had not even appeared?

Reply
evidence
1/30/2021 03:13:41 pm

Even given statistically the odds are just overwhelming, from the logical point of view he found a few issues difficult to explain, cf. for example:
Footnote p.9:
<<10 'It is noteworthy that the furin cleavage site is actually unstable in passage in VERO cells and is often deleted within a few passages. A laboratory origin theory needs to account for this observation. On the other hand, mutations in the furin site among the human CoV-2 genomes are exceedingly rare.'>>

I think the explanation again is of course easy, by again sticking to the notion I favor time and again: no passages (for generating SARS-CoV2) anymore after FCS insertion, the FCS insertion created more or less Wuhan1 (minus 8-10 weeks evolution in the pandemic) itself.
They had been partly hesitent to insert the FCS right at the beginning because they knew that it would not be stable in those original strains (ZC45/ZXC21 and the like) in bat hosts, or maybe they did it a few times already before and it always had been a failure, was readily kicked out of the genome, until they eventually inserted it (again) after all the passages.......but I would repeat myself.
Thank you all for all your kind responses!
Still waiting this notion to be debunked....on logical grounds......;)

Reply
Xoco Latte
2/2/2021 05:22:03 am

I agree, no serial passage after FCS insertion in Vero cells, but certainly in a cell line that does not confer purifying selection towards the loss of the FCS (human lung cells expressing or overexpressing hACE2).
The observations in minks are strong evidence that the immediate progenitor might have been optimized in ferrets and humanized mice, that did not purified out FCS.

David Rivard
1/30/2021 03:54:36 pm

Bayesian Network (BN) model is in vogue for C-19, I believe because of: information urgency + lack of facts (analyzed facts thanks to sites like this one) = BN model established hierarchy of truth to build upon.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13669877.2020.1778771

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/kubinec_model_preprint.pdf

I suspect that soon, a reputed political scientist will put their own BN analysis on the origin story. Be prepared for a 100% certainty ratio of a purposely deployed bio--weapon by political or economic analysts.

Reply
Greg Felton
2/11/2021 09:35:00 pm

David: Any talk of a "hierarchy of truth" necessarily implies a subjective frame of reference to determine what truth is, but that strips truth of any claim to objective reality. It is a solipsism. Twitter openly says that it censors posts that challenge the CDC/NIH narrative of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Does that qualify as truth? It may be truth for Twitter but not for me or anyone else on this thread.

When truth is asserted without evidence or is based in prejudice, it is no different from dogma. All that we may discuss are facts; what people do with facts is another matter. Fact + Belief = Truth.

This is the reason that it is not possible to assert that the CCP deliberately released the virus. It is dogma, not fact.

Xoco Latte
1/31/2021 05:09:17 am

I read it and there are some new (to me at least) points in it that further serve as evidential proof for the lab-made theory.
I guess I know why the finding of this adenovirus sequence raw reads in the earliest outbreak patients' bronchoalveolar lavage samples cought your attention. This would be a first direct evidence for a possible ulterior planned game with this new virus, carried out before deployment.
Raw reads of the samples showed 100% matches of short segments from a rare (with no human apperance) adenovirus type 5 that are specifically used for viral vector vaccine development in China, namely the CMV promoter region of the "pShuttle" adeno5 vector. Since this type of adeno vector vaccine against SARS was developed and tested in lab animals by the Chinese, it is plausible that in a panic-laden effort they tried to use this experimental vaccine in these COVID-19 patients. But in this case, at least short sequences of the S1 gene from SARS-1 should also be in those raw reads. Well, there were none, actually, instead only that of SARS-CoV-2. By inference, this would suggest the experimental vaccine that were used was developed using part of the Spike of SARS-2, in the middle of December 2019... What's more then evidentiary, these samples also contained the full length sequence of the new CoV, so, it is very plausible to think that these patients were subjects of a COVID-19 vaccine challenge trial that led to an outbreak.

Reply
Xoco Latte
2/1/2021 03:44:32 am

Well, the more I seek additional evidential support for this pShuttle-SN adenovirus "vector" vaccine claim, the more rebuttals I find in February and March last year. Really troubling, to say the least.
Especially because Dr. Quay's paper otherwise does provide ample citational references to other scientists' publications, but at this claim he somehow omitted any citations. There was a claim by Dr James Lyons-Weiler in early February 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 sequence contains a 1300+ bp long identical segment to the pShuttle-SN sequence, which has been rebutted by several authors.
Dr. Quay shows his own evidence based on the RNA-Seq of raw reads of the LAV samples of the first patients in the pandemic, that seems to be a very different basis for a similar claim.
Is there anyone here who could verify Dr. Quay's claim?

evidence
6/26/2021 05:32:29 am

Re: Adenovirus hypothesis basically outdated (Lyons-Weiler, Quay)
For completeness and clarification, I post a late (and by now likely outdated) reply to Xoco's question regarding the vaccine trial origin hypothesis [Xoco Latte, 2/1/2021 03:44:32 am: 'Is there anyone here who could verify Dr. Quay's claim?'], which I originally wanted to post back in February in response - but it got out of my focus and I forgot it;
cf. also my assertion (evidence 6/26/2021) to Nerd's objection regarding vaccine trial origin [Nerd has power 5/30/2021 07:21:07 am].

(1) Lyons-Weiler: The fundamental logical problem about all the evidence establishing an association between Sars-CoV2 genome and adenovirus genomes, or more specifically adenovirus vector based vaccine studies, is due to the fact, that the pShuttle-SN plasmids, which can be used in those (vaccine-related) studies, are actually made out of SARS-CoV1 itself, hence present already by itself a link, i.e., an ubiquitous genomic trace to all CoV's in general.
So, the logical problem, which occurred to Lyons-Weiler, results in a classical chicken-and-egg question: it might well be the other way round: any adenovirus genomic evidence related to vector vaccine studies potentially could lead to SARS1, subsequently to CoV's in general, subsequently including to SARS-CoV2. This happened to Lyons-Weiler.
This is a nice review to read about this issue, talking specifically about the very early Lyons-Weiler findings, which, notwithstanding, remain (w/o the adenovirus implications) certainly relevant:
https://www.francesoir.fr/societe-science-tech/histoire-du-covid-19-chapitre-8-partie-2-critique-de-lanalyse-de-lyons-weiler
[maybe worth the translator to be activated].
So for the SARS-CoV2 genome itself, even Quay concedes in his original, outdated 1st (or 2nd) draft (Jan 29 2021, 193 pages),
[ SQuay_Bayesian Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 FINAL V.2
https://zenodo.org/record/4477081
]
that this has been settled, quote (p.144):
'This is not related to the previous claim, now shown to be wrong, that SARS-CoV-2 itself contained adenovirus pShuttle sequences.138'
And with (ref. 138) he even cites a natural origin reference (!):
138 https://sciencefeedback.co/claimreview/2019-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-does-not-contain-pshuttle-sn-sequence-no-evidence-that-virus-is-man-made/
This reference also states that Lyons-Weiler accepted this objection.

(2) Quay: On the other hand, Quay himself initially had been talking about something different, namely the fact that the pshuttle N vector cDNA with S-protein sequence included has been additionally, and separately found in the investigated lavage/BALF specimens of Dec 2019 PLA hospital patients, i.e., in addition and separately from SARS-CoV2 RNA.
But at the same time, Quay could not logically exclude the possibility, that this could have been a result of desperate intervention, quote (p.9):
>2. These patients were admitted with an unknown infection, were not responding to the treatment protocols for a infection of unknown origin, and they were vaccinated with an experimental vaccine in a desperate but compassionate therapeutic “Hail Mary.”<
At that time, my assumption would have gone further and I suspected, regardless how they had been instructed or even drilled not to discuss this sickness openly, including not under colleagues, the PLA hospital staff already were at least guessing, if not knowing quite well what this pneumonia was about, and where it came from, and tried everything what they had at hand, including a (however experimental) SARS1-linked vaccine against a highly suspected lab-inflicted SARS-pneumonia. People were dying anyways - so give it at least a try. (Even if this hardly makes any sense in medical terms for the critically ill; but if you are cornered, you will do everything in panic you can: they did not only have to fear loosing the patients, they, the senior military hospital staff, certainly also mostly feared that the world might discover this outbreak as being a result of a hidden criminal act, if they won't be able to immediately get the fire under control.)
On p.152 in the Jan 29 version of his Bayesian paper, Quay dismisses this option as being likely, because the S protein raw reads (of the BAL probes) had not been sufficiently long enough to support the notion of having additionally the SARS1 vaccine administered, quote: << The absence of long reads for the SARS-CoV-1 Spike Protein suggests that this vaccine was not a CoV-1 vaccine.>>
At that time, I thought it might as well be some other experimental vaccine - but in general, this did still not exclude in principle the possibility that experimental (any SARS1-related) vaccine could have been administered AFTER the infection had occurred - hence, NOT necessarily being the cause of the infection. (Yuri Deigin seemed to have had immediately the same objection or question mark, cf.:
>>I didn’t yet read it, just skimmed a

evidence
6/26/2021 05:40:33 am

(part 2)
Yuri Deigin seemed to have had immediately the same objection or question mark, cf.:
>>I didn’t yet read it, just skimmed a few pages but had a question pop up right away — could those vaccine traces have not come from some other vaccine, unrelated to SARS2? Like a flu shot?<<
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ydeigin/status/1355187434078801921#m
- And even Quay already did admit in his paper (p. 143, 1st draft): 'Only WIV scientists and Chinese authorities can answer these questions. Until the evidence of the adenovirus sequences has been confirmed by other scientists, this author will not include this evidence in the Bayesian analysis.'
So here, the chicken-and-egg question remained open as wel, as it could not be determined, if any adeno-based vaccine had been administered later (instead of being the cause).
To make that long, and already past, story short: again, contamination being the most likely cause, cf.
https://nitter.fdn.fr/BillyBostickson/status/1400009054307504130#m
; and Quay pulled the Adenovirus hypothesis in his current draft (Mar 29 2021):
SQuay_Bayesian_Analysis _of_SARS-CoV-2 FINAL v 3
https://zenodo.org/record/4642956
#

Guy Fawkes
1/30/2021 08:46:45 am

@PETER ROSS: Are you ok, or simply trolling randomly? Not exactly sure about your standpoint these days, as you used words like "FAKE PLAGUE", "coronavirusopera" & "The imaginary SARS-type". Do you try telling the fine folks here there is no happy SARS-CoV-2 in the wild? And that we are all full retard to wear proper respirators in an appropriate context and should rather follow your example in dancing on the wrong wedding, telling guests there is no bride, ey? But wait, I'm sure it's just me and I did not get your humor inbetween the lines - or are you really one of those "the virus does not exist because it was never isolated"-luminaries? Well, then I'm sure you will highly estimate the following statement by the CDC, updated December 29, 2020:

"SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community."

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html

CDC linked a pub by Harcourt et al. (2020) "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States" which states the following in Figure 1. D) on page 1269:

"Electron microscopy of virus isolate showing extracellular spherical particles with cross-sections through the nucleocapsids (black dots). Arrow indicates a coronavirus virion budding from a cell. Scale bar indicates 200 nm".

Given the scale on the nice SEM-pic, the clearly visible virions measure around 60-70 nm. So much for "The imaginary SARS-type", or don't you trust scanning electron microscopy? Did you ever use one hands on in your research? I did.

And concerning your 1st sarcastic part "Does the N95 virus-catcher catch all viruses", you play good - or don't seem to be totally familiar with the meaning of "N95", but I'm glad to help out - the N means "non oil resistant", and the number 95 in it literally stands for its ability to filter out *at least* 95% of airborne particles at 0.3 microns [that's 300 nanometers]:

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/disp_part/default.html

In other countries, that's the equivalent of a P2 respirator [I'm not talking cheap KN95 earloop-mask nonsense]

https://www.addler.com.au/differences-p1-p2-p3-n95-respirators/

UVEX also tells its customers the following @FFP2+viruses:

"Classification: Filtering half mask FFP2 | Comment, Restrictions: Does not protect against radioactive substances, viruses and enzymes."

https://www.lyreco.com/staticswebshop/sds/ENFI/IFU_ENFI_5958514_2017-12-21.pdf

Before you ask, N99-respirators filter 99%, the equivalent of an FFP3-respirator:

https://covidcovered.co.za/2020/05/18/n95-vs-ffp3-ffp2-masks-whats-the-difference/

So, if you want something to "catch all viruses", I'm sorry but neither P3 at 99.95% filtration nor even N100 at 99.97% will do the job, left aside that - as seen above - the average size of this coronavirus is less than 0.1 microns anyway, and I would not trust my life to Brownian motion @ "the planes won't pass through the hole" if you bombard your negative pressure filter often enough by "The imaginary SARS-type". Eureka, you will have to wear a positive pressure Hazmat suit in order for the virus to fear you, based bro!

--> See how kind I am for all those personalized infos, did I make your day? Cheers, Peter!

***

@ALL: Here a true autistic wall of words, 193 pages, but given the title "A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived", posting is obligatory, 100% nerdblog-related and perhaps a week-end reading for some:

https://zenodo.org/record/4477081#.YBR5TdYxmUE

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
1/31/2021 04:50:12 am

How can I know that the membrane particle with "spikes" in the EM is a SARS-type? How can I know if it's a communicable and virulent particle?

For the sake of this discussion, I'll martyr myself on the pyre of 'SARS-2 denier", why not? It's faster than dying from 'SARS" lol...

Reply
Peter Ross
1/31/2021 07:03:20 am

How did all the other respiratory viruses disappear this season? Seems like this should be front page news:

https://www.karolinska.se/globalassets/global/2-funktioner/funktion-kul/klinisk-mikrobiologi/epidemiologi/rapport-influensa--och-rs-virus-och-andra-luftvagspatogener.pdf

Reply
Peter Ross
1/31/2021 10:05:28 am

The PCR probes used to diagnosis "COVID" overlap with human DNA and RNA sequences:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/List-of-Acceptable-Commercial-Primers-Probes.pdf

https://biosearchassets.blob.core.windows.net/assetsv6/coa_sars-cov-2-kit-209829-lot-143503.pdf

Is the PCR test amplifying native human RNA and DNA sequences and counting these as "SARS" sequences?
And perhaps these are sequences that are expressed and elevated during stress?

Reply
Xoco Latte
2/3/2021 03:47:51 am

Those pShuttle-SN vector sequences from some of the earliest COVID-patient samples might have been just lab cross-contaminations, after all. There were a few other contamination-proving data as well. Not looking good either. And I bet my whole family fortune on it that WHO so-called investigation committee will ask about these data first-place no-matter-what...

Vector sequences in early WIV SRA sequencing data of SARS-CoV-2 inform on a potential large-scale security breach at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic
https://zenodo.org/record/4486195#.YBqLJehKiMq

Reply
David Rivard
1/30/2021 10:25:47 am

The WHO has a "fundamental commitment to provide information on health to all, in order to prevent ill health and to alleviate suffering. It is a vision of how to harness technology, health information, and education for the good of human development". If the CCP restricts the investigation in any way they would do better by themselves, the UN system and all nations to leave under protest rather than continue to blame China for their now perennial lack of facts.

https://www.newsweek.com/beijing-must-come-clean-about-covid-19-origins-opinion-1563524

https://twitter.com/jamiemetzl?lang=es

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/512298-the-covid-19-catastrophe-demands-a-national-commission-review

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3113237/professors-claim-chinas-friends-top-influence-us-policy-goes

Reply
David Rivard
1/31/2021 09:57:10 am

Sorry about the lack of science in my posts, but in large part they are the popularized results of your posts.

At this point, war might be cheaper than reparations for a lab leak:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfIhJZV_jAs

CCP found their shortcut to colonization:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP4wxxBn5Bk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i1n5j5BSxc

The so called "WHO leak" was released by the UN Sec. Gen. thanks in no small part to work contained in this site. Lets see if media giants see this mounting forward drift:

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRNLJ7VQmUc

Reply
Peter Ross
2/2/2021 03:25:16 am

The probes and primers used in all the Corona PCR tests conform to multiple identical copies found within human RNA and DNA.

List of CDC approved primers and probes:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/List-of-Acceptable-Commercial-Primers-Probes.pdf

Example of primer and probe sequences:

https://biosearchassets.blob.core.windows.net/assetsv6/coa_sars-cov-2-kit-209829-lot-143503.pdf

Online engine for comparing nucletotide sequences:

https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PROGRAM=blastn&PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&LINK_LOC=blasthome

Reply
Xoco Latte
2/2/2021 05:03:24 am

Effect of loss of FCS in replication, transmission and pathogenesis in vitro and in animal models. Published by the Galveston, TX BSL lab. Submitted August 26, 2020 - accepted Januar 13, 2021 -- meet the latest "accelerated" reviewing system at Nature...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03237-4

On the sidenote, this artificial variant confers lower level of antigenicity supposedly because of the lack of PRRAR epitope.

So, Galveston, TX does have the SARS-2 variant without the FCS, and they finally know what someone elses have been knowing for some time already.

Reply
Peter Ross
2/4/2021 04:25:35 pm

Good choice of paper - haven't got through it all yet - there's an opportunity in it to compare the EM to the titer from same or different pellets and supernatent ; didn't notice if there's PCR to compare.

Introducing hamsters as an assay tool might give rise to a more accurate assessment of the true epidemeology. And as a model for testing out HCQ and stuff like that.

I'm one of those who advocated for direct transmission studies using healthy soldiers under controlled conditions in quarantied military bases to establish the R for airborne transmission. The same would provide conditions to create airborne sources as vaccines attenuated by irradiation for respiratory route delivery...

--------

"In Vivo Attenuation of ΔPRRA Mutant


We next evaluated ΔPRRA mutant in vivo using the hamster model of
SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis19 using four male hamsters challenged via intranasal (i.n.) inoculation with 105 PFU of WT SARS-CoV-2 or ΔPRRA mutant (Fig. 2a). Following infection with WT SARS-CoV-2, hamsters steadily lost weight starting at day 2 and continuing through day 8 with peak weight loss nearing 15% (Fig. 2b, Extended Data Fig. 3a). Disease scores peaked at day 8, when animals had ruffled fur, hunched posture, and reduced activity requiring additional monitoring (Fig. 2c, Extended Data Fig. 3b).
Despite severe disease, the WT-infected hamsters recovered and regained their starting weight by day 15 (Extended Data Fig. 3a). In contrast, hamsters infected with SARS-CoV-2 ΔPRRA showed minimal weight loss and no disease (Fig. 2b, Extended Data 3a-b). Hamsters in both infection groups gained weight after day 10, over the remainder of the 28-day time course (Extended Data Fig. 3a)."


BTW-
Did you happen to notice that the ratio of authors to hamsters is 33 to 8 ?
I wonder how much of this past year's research efforts conform to this meme!

Reply
evidence
2/6/2021 07:08:58 am

Re: Galveston Menachery group Nature paper on delta PRRA

Interesting how long it took from submission date (26 August 2020) to publication date (25 January 2021), given the extremely high, acute scientific relevance of this publication--
seems like they had to go through a lot of clearing processes, addressing putatively detrimental implications for the core community and the respective dual use funding agencies, which are overriding the interests having such an important paper placed as soon as possible.....

Guy Fawkes
2/4/2021 12:16:17 pm

@PETER ROSS: I'm fully with you that a PCR-test magnifies contamination of a sample depending on which primers were designed, nothing more, and the more cycles [cycle threshold 40+ aka a one trillion amplification] it goes through, the more you will be able to exponentially magnify... contamination by "stuff". It's fun, a chemist once told me in lab that you will be able to find anything in tap water, any substance on Earth. Thus, imagine my excitement at all those false positive PCR-tests.

@XOCO LATTE: Fascinating read @ Daoyu Zhang's "Vector sequences in early WIV SRA sequencing data of SARS-CoV-2 inform on a potential large-scale security breach at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic", thx, there we go again with contamination of yet another kind, quote:

"The discovery of artifact-containing sequences of at least 3 different pathogen species that are phylogenetically and methodologically distinct from each other in samples that were supposedly submitted by a laboratory that is Separate from the virological research laboratories that could have hosted such clone sequences imply extensive crosstalk and cross-contamination between the various laboratories within the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which includes at least one BSL-4 laboratory with evidence of containment breach of a BSL-4 organism and it's subsequent introduction into RNA-seq samples that were processed by a laboratory of distinct and separate purposes than the basic virological research evidenced by the Infectious Clone of the Hipah Henipahvirus. Such a discovery therefore likely imply a major security breach happening within the Wuhan institute of Virology at the time when the first sequences of SARS-CoV-2 was sampled and sequenced, which have important implications on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself."

https://zenodo.org/record/4486195

--> "[A] major security breach", m-hm - sabotage or negligence? We will never know I guess.

***

@ALL: At least, we, the bewildered herd, we have oldschool publications. What has been seen cannot be unseen, you know the cat meme. Here some classic pub archeology "for the record" of this blog, back from 2015 in Yang et al. [=Zhengli Shi, Ralph S. Baric & friends] (2015) "Two Mutations Were Critical for Bat-to-Human Transmission of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus":

"An envelope-anchored spike protein mediates coronavirus entry into host cells. It first binds a host receptor through its S1 subunit and then fuses membranes through its S2 subunit. For membrane fusion, the spike must be cleaved at the S1/S2 boundary by one or more host pro- teases. [...] To evaluate the potential genetic changes required for HKU4 to infect human cells, we reengineered HKU4 spike, aiming to build its capacity to mediate viral entry into human cells. To this end, we introduced two single mutations, S746R and N762A, into HKU4 spike. [...] To confirm that the S746R mutation restored the hPPC motif, we produced retroviruses pseudotyped with HKU4 spike (referred to as HKU4 pseudoviruses) in human cells and showed that HKU4 spike containing the S746R mutation was partially cleaved during the molecular maturation process ... Moreover, mutations in these motifs in coronavirus spikes have demonstrated dramatic effects on viral entry into human cells. [...] We examined the capability of the mutant HKU4 spike to mediate viral entry into three types of human cells. [...] These results reveal that HKU4 spike needs only two single mutations at the S1/S2 boundary to gain the full capacity to mediate viral entry into human cells. [...] Here we examined the different cell entry activities of the spike proteins from human-infecting MERS-CoV and a closely related bat coronavirus, HKU4. Although MERS- CoV and HKU4 spikes share high sequence homology and recognize the same host DPP4 receptor, only MERS-CoV spike, and not HKU4 spike, mediates viral entry into human cells. Our study revealed that introduction of two single mutations, S746R and N762A, into HKU4 spike at the S1/S2 boundary fully instilled its capability to mediate viral entry into human cells. MERS-CoV spike already contained both of these mutations, explaining why MERS-CoV is capable of infecting human cells. [...] Previous research also identified two mutations in SARS-CoV spike that led SARS-CoV to transmit from palm civets to humans. These mutations increased the capability of SARS-CoV spike to bind human receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. Thus, different entry factors appear to have played the most critical roles in the cross-species transmission of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV: adaption to human cellular proteases by MERS- CoV and adaption to human receptor by SARS-CoV. Although MERS-CoV spike might also need to adapt to human DPP4 re- ceptor upon infecting human cells, such adaptations might have only incremental effects on the infectivity of MERS- CoV in human cells. In contrast, the two mutations adaptive to human cellular proteases transformed ME

Reply
Peter Ross
2/4/2021 03:57:50 pm

Is it just a bizarre accident that within the human DNA/RNA genome are found the exact same sequences being used for the probes chosen for SAR-Cov-2 PCR testing ?

Who inserted these sequences into the SARS-CoV-2 genome ?

Reply
Peter Ross
2/4/2021 04:01:59 pm

Is it not reasonable to consider that the sequences for the PCR probes were chosen first and THEN used to design the SARS-CoV-2 genome?

Guy Fawkes
2/5/2021 07:09:22 am

I fully agree my man, perhaps the "missing link" between those bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21 was a human backbone, and/or a genetically engineered lab mouse with the "right" sequence that got used in order to create our favorite little virus.

Also very probable that they first layed out everything they needed like a good mechanic with his tools in order to do a perfect job and hide all traces, also create the RaTG13-honeytrap first, and only then then create CoV-2 at the last step. But certainly does not look like a little slip off to me. Problem: It's all pure scenario, and by definition, unknown unknowns are unknown, ai?

Guy Fawkes
2/4/2021 12:24:55 pm

@ALL: At least, we, the bewildered herd, we have oldschool publications. What has been seen cannot be unseen, you know the cat meme. Here some classic pub archeology "for the record" of this blog, back from 2015 in Yang et al. [=Zhengli Shi, Ralph S. Baric & friends] (2015) "Two Mutations Were Critical for Bat-to-Human Transmission of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus":

"An envelope-anchored spike protein mediates coronavirus entry into host cells. It first binds a host receptor through its S1 subunit and then fuses membranes through its S2 subunit. For membrane fusion, the spike must be cleaved at the S1/S2 boundary by one or more host pro- teases. [...] To evaluate the potential genetic changes required for HKU4 to infect human cells, we reengineered HKU4 spike, aiming to build its capacity to mediate viral entry into human cells. To this end, we introduced two single mutations, S746R and N762A, into HKU4 spike. [...] To confirm that the S746R mutation restored the hPPC motif, we produced retroviruses pseudotyped with HKU4 spike (referred to as HKU4 pseudoviruses) in human cells and showed that HKU4 spike containing the S746R mutation was partially cleaved during the molecular maturation process ... Moreover, mutations in these motifs in coronavirus spikes have demonstrated dramatic effects on viral entry into human cells. [...] We examined the capability of the mutant HKU4 spike to mediate viral entry into three types of human cells. [...] These results reveal that HKU4 spike needs only two single mutations at the S1/S2 boundary to gain the full capacity to mediate viral entry into human cells. [...] Here we examined the different cell entry activities of the spike proteins from human-infecting MERS-CoV and a closely related bat coronavirus, HKU4. Although MERS- CoV and HKU4 spikes share high sequence homology and recognize the same host DPP4 receptor, only MERS-CoV spike, and not HKU4 spike, mediates viral entry into human cells. Our study revealed that introduction of two single mutations, S746R and N762A, into HKU4 spike at the S1/S2 boundary fully instilled its capability to mediate viral entry into human cells. MERS-CoV spike already contained both of these mutations, explaining why MERS-CoV is capable of infecting human cells. [...] Previous research also identified two mutations in SARS-CoV spike that led SARS-CoV to transmit from palm civets to humans. These mutations increased the capability of SARS-CoV spike to bind human receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. Thus, different entry factors appear to have played the most critical roles in the cross-species transmission of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV: adaption to human cellular proteases by MERS- CoV and adaption to human receptor by SARS-CoV. Although MERS-CoV spike might also need to adapt to human DPP4 re- ceptor upon infecting human cells, such adaptations might have only incremental effects on the infectivity of MERS- CoV in human cells. In contrast, the two mutations adaptive to human cellular proteases transformed MERS-CoV spike from completely lacking to fully possessing the capacity to mediate viral entry into human cells, and thus they likely played the most critical role in the bat-to-human transmission of MERS-CoV, either directly or through intermediate hosts."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/

And fast forward to 2020, what do we have here... G, the "orginal" corona-pub by Lu et al. [= Edward C Holmes & friends] (2020) "Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus", now reading like as if team B found the war axe conveniently buried nearby by team A, check this:

"A Blastn search of the complete genomes of 2019-nCoV revealed that the most closely related viruses available on GenBank were bat-SL-CoVZC45 (sequence identity 87·99%; query coverage 99%) and another SARS-like betacoronavirus of bat origin, bat-SL-CoVZXC21 (acces- sion number MG772934; 23 87·23%; query coverage 98%). In five gene regions, the sequence identities were greater than 90%, with the highest being 98·7% in the E gene (figure 2A). The S gene of 2019-nCoV exhibited the lowest sequence identity with bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21, at only around 75%. [...] Notably, the 2019-nCoV strains were less genetically similar to SARS-CoV (about 79%) and MERS-CoV (about 50%). [...] The 2019-nCoV S2 protein showed around 93% sequence identity with bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21—much higher than that of the S1 domain, which had only around 68% identity with these bat-derived viruses. [...] Through phylogenetic analysis of the receptor-binding domain of four different lineages of betacoronaviruses, we found that, although 2019-nCoV was closer to bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21 at the whole-genome level, the receptor-binding domain of 2019-nCoV fell within lineage B and was closer to that of SARS-CoV. [...] From genomic surveillance of clinical samples from patients with viral pneumonia in

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/4/2021 12:33:30 pm

Holy, sorry for triple masking folks, uh, I mean triple posting, the comment function is a tough cookie, here the last part of my autistic wall of words:

And fast forward to 2020, what do we have here... G, the "orginal" corona-pub by Lu et al. [= Edward C Holmes & friends] (2020) "Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus", now reading like as if team B found the war axe conveniently buried nearby by team A, check this:

"A Blastn search of the complete genomes of 2019-nCoV revealed that the most closely related viruses available on GenBank were bat-SL-CoVZC45 (sequence identity 87·99%; query coverage 99%) and another SARS-like betacoronavirus of bat origin, bat-SL-CoVZXC21 (acces- sion number MG772934; 23 87·23%; query coverage 98%). In five gene regions, the sequence identities were greater than 90%, with the highest being 98·7% in the E gene (figure 2A). The S gene of 2019-nCoV exhibited the lowest sequence identity with bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21, at only around 75%. [...] Notably, the 2019-nCoV strains were less genetically similar to SARS-CoV (about 79%) and MERS-CoV (about 50%). [...] The 2019-nCoV S2 protein showed around 93% sequence identity with bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21—much higher than that of the S1 domain, which had only around 68% identity with these bat-derived viruses. [...] Through phylogenetic analysis of the receptor-binding domain of four different lineages of betacoronaviruses, we found that, although 2019-nCoV was closer to bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21 at the whole-genome level, the receptor-binding domain of 2019-nCoV fell within lineage B and was closer to that of SARS-CoV. [...] From genomic surveillance of clinical samples from patients with viral pneumonia in Wuhan, China, a novel coronavirus (termed 2019-nCoV) has been identified. [...] The sequence identity between 2019-nCoV and its close relatives bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21 was less than 90%, which is reflected in the relatively long branch between them. Hence, bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21 are not direct ancestors of 2019-nCoV."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32007145/

My favorite paragraph is the following:

"As a typical RNA virus, the average evolutionary rate for coronaviruses is roughly 10 – 4 nucleotide substitutions per site per year, 1 with mutations arising during every replication cycle. It is, therefore, striking that the sequences of 2019-nCoV from different patients described here were almost identical, with greater than 99.9% sequence identity. This finding suggests that 2019-nCoV originated from one source within a very short period and was detected relatively rapidly."

Imagine my shock, looks like the war axe did not remain underground for long, as if meant to be found asap. To quote the obligatory Roy Burgundy:

"Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean, that really got out of hand fast."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Xoco Latte
2/4/2021 02:35:04 pm

The more I read and think about it, the more convinced I become that this has been a bi-phasic process where after an initial, slow beginning and perhaps an abrupt change in fundamental characteristics of the virus, a true epidemic started.
I simply refuse to understand how is it possible that not a single army athlete competing at Wuhan Military Games who got ill soon after returning to their home country (i.e., like Americans to their home bases thru Seattle), did not provided any clinical samples, were subjected to lung CT scan, so to make possible any retrospective evaluation with regards to COVID-19. It is just unbelievable.
From accumulated data it seems as if anything that caused sporadic cases from early October to early December 2019, was not able to startup the epidemic locally. Perhaps it has been a test run, with a strain lacking an FCS and/or the whole ORF8. From these early cases, with retrospective sequence analysis, it might be possible to acertain this.
Something happened starting mid-November, and changed the game overall. Aside from the starting of the flu season, and Winter in general, a viral pathogen THIS potent should have been just as infectious in early October, as well, especially at WMG with ten thousand athletes confined to small crowded spaces.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/5/2021 07:11:29 am

One reason more to think this was not an accident.

alex
2/5/2021 08:49:31 am

confluence of influenza vaccines with localized releases?


Guy Fawkes
2/5/2021 10:23:28 am

@ALEX: What do you mean by "confluence of influenza vaccines with localized releases?" --> Do you refer to influenza vaccines used as false flags? Dunno, sounds weird, but everything is possible under the sun. Yet I would rather think of cross-reactions, check "Gregg Wolf (2020) "Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season", I wrote about it before, use CTRL+F.

But: What about CoV-2 vaccines themselves, hidden in plain sight, Alex? ;-]

Best,
Guy Fawkes

alex
2/5/2021 10:36:11 am

I was referring to what you just pointed out, but with the addition of possible releases in certain places.


Reply
Peter Ross
2/6/2021 03:10:52 am

@alex @Guy Fawkes

" But: What about CoV-2 vaccines themselves, hidden in plain sight, Alex? ;-] "

Referring to the current published vaccinology or to a serruptitious use of an attenuated-vaccine strategy that escaped the initial boundaries upon implementation?

Reply
Xoco Latte
2/7/2021 06:38:21 am

A live, attenuated virus for vaccination purposes is, IMHO, anything but with regards to genomic optimization, transmissibility and infectiousness. A self-propagating vaccine requires a live and significantly attenuated viral strain, that causes very mild infection with very mild or no symptoms, infers average or strong immune response that lasts but initiates no multiorgan harm, and has a R0 between 1,0-1,5.
What we can so far be deciphered from this viral genome, shows a good example of an overoptimized human CoV with some characteristics that do not correspond to those above-mentioned desired qualities, rather to something that acts as a very infectious CoV with stealth properties.

Therefore, I am not convinced at all, that this might have been a vaccine trial that inadvertedly went wrong.

Reply
Peter Ross
2/8/2021 04:24:58 pm

Good points !

The 'R' for SARS-CoV-2 (SARS-2) , anywhere from 1 to 5.7, is considered to be lower for Influenza A H1N1 .

Presumably, seropositivity is an indication of immunity from re-infection.

For SARS-2, seroprevalence is estimated at 5 to 10% in Spanish health care workers, and 19% in Swedish health care workers.


For the more mild 'swine flu H1N1 of 2009', seroprevalence was:

"After the peak of the second wave of 2009 H1N1, HAI seroprevalence results suggest that 21% of persons in the Pittsburgh area had become infected and developed immunity. Extrapolating to the entire US population, we estimate that at least 63 million persons became infected in 2009. As was observed among clinical cases, this sero-epidemiological study revealed highest infection rates among school-age children."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828126/


Does prior SARS-2 infection protect from SARS-1 or MERS?
That would involve animal experiments, and maybe can't be answered just from studying antibodies.

"Our study demonstrates that although both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 use ACE2 as a cellular receptor, the neutralization epitopes are not shared by these two closely-related viruses, highlighting challenges towards developing a universal vaccine against SARS-CoV related viruses."

But:
"Here, by using the live SARS-CoV-2 virus infection assay as well as HIV-1 based pseudotyped-virus carrying the spike (S) gene of the SARS-CoV-2 (ppSARS-2) and SARS-CoV (ppSARS), we examined whether infections with SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 can induce cross-neutralizing antibodies."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(20)30265-6/fulltext

Guy Fawkes
2/6/2021 03:27:04 am

There is a good one in The Lancet by Talha Burki from February 06, 2021, entitled "Understanding variants of SARS-CoV-2", quote:

"All viruses mutate. [...] B.1.1.7 ... carries 17 mutations in its genome, including eight in the spike protein, which forms the basis of the three COVID-19 vaccines that have been licensed in the UK. [...] Moderna ... Pfizer ... [b]oth companies have said that they are investigating booster shots to protect against variants of SARS-CoV-2. [...] We want to put all the different variants of interest into the laboratory and determine ... whether they escape neutralising antibodies from people who have previously been infected, or from others who have been vaccinated. [...] The potential for vaccine escape is a major issue ... [A] djusting mRNA vaccines such as the Pfizer and Moderna products when necessary should be relatively straightforward. [...] But as countries around the world prepare to roll out the COVID-19 vaccines, it is essential to get an idea of how the virus is changing."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00298-1/fulltext

--> Oh this is priceless, so much jewels in there. "Booster shots/vaccine escape/adjusting mRNA vaccines", hey, this sounds like an eternal cat-n-mouse-game, awesome business model. And so handy in order to track people, Orwell would be proud. Your papers please! Yet my favorite takeaway is the last sentence in my excerpt, rolling out vaccines BEFORE having an idea on how the virus is changing. It's science, must be true. Rocks, people, large rocks to take refuge below, this is what we need.

Ah, and it has come to this, a friend of mine got thrown out of a supermarket because he was wearing a full face respirator and P3 filters. In a large 1st world posh elite university city. But hey, how could they possibly have burned witches back in the good ol' medieval times, hm? G, what were they thinking! Rest assured, this is Space Age people, we are officially enlightened, nothing can go wrong anymore, humanity progressed so much since crawling our of caves, I'm not kidding. Homo sapiens sapiens [sic erat scriptum].

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
evidence
2/6/2021 04:10:44 am

Re: (1) Evolutionary molbio consequences with respect to judging FCS insertion and Cambodian bats
[ ---> Regarding evolutionary pressure on FCS insertion vs FCS being conserved, clarifying possible misunderstanding or seemingly paradox Xoco had been referring to (Xoco Latte 1/23/2021 12:54:04 pm) in response to my earlier post]
(2) What's next?
(3) Venue of the general debate and affiliation bias

(1) Xoco mentioned the fact that PRRA has not changed at all, in the response to my assertion [evidence 1/23/2021 12:14:59 pm] that the FCS insertion is in my view likely the LEAST adapted part, and therefore under tremendous pressure.
For some seemingly a paradox at first glance, which I addressed only briefly in my response to Xoco. - I would like to elaborate on that, responding to it also on a little bit more detailed level, since Xoco also was underlining not being a molbio expert.

Xoco said [Xoco Latte 1/23/2021 12:54:04 pm]: <<<So I think the preservation of the FCS after a year of pandemic actually proves its importance in the viral fitness, and I bet it would be any mutation affecting it would be the very last arising in the field. >>

(a) My rather short reply had been [evidence 1/26/2021 04:10:09 am]: <<While the FCS itself (its functionality, determining the outstanding fitness for CoV2) is not under selective pressure, the vicinity of the FCS, which determines its exposition and hence the epitope challenge to the immune system via subtle conformational changes in the S-Protein (hence, its antigenicity - in contrast to its functionality) remains a permanent mutational hotspot. This is what I think is relevant, not the narrow look on PRRA itself.>>
(b) Differently spoken: the outstanding FCS functionality remains the given boundary condition, which cannot be traded. Hence, the (only thing the) virus can do is to adapt elsewhere, but in the same time preferably also quite close, in order to attenuate (for example the immune) host response as much as possible. This is being done by mutations in the reminder of the S-Protein amino acid chain/backbone, the FCS vicinity in particular. -- Hence, the other way round: if we can see the mutational frequency here is remarkably high (FCS vicinity being a mutational hotspot), then this is a very strong indication that this boundary condition (FCS with its superior fitness) has been established recently.
(c) Or a still more vivid picture. Given again the outstanding success story (the virus had so far concerning the new human host) with its PRRA PRIMARY sequence/structure at THIS very position, which therefore needs to be left untouched, the virus on the other hand can do whatever is needed to do with the S protein TERTIARY structure to have PRRA for example better embedded and to look closer to familiar structures for the host ('masking and mimicry'), to have the host's immune system lesser inclined attacking the virus for this new beautiful feature, its antigenicity reduced as much as possible, for example better hiding this new warhead: a highly pronounced, largely disproportional and widely shining new nuclear warhead [consider for example the rather rigid proline at the beginning, cf. link to Sellin post below (*), consider the fact that the FCS 'resides in an exterior and ostensibly unresolved loop'/Fig. 1b; quote from recent Menachery group Nature paper on delta PRRA, with Fig. 1b being a quite suggestive illustration (**)], mounted on a known battleship (the S protein), a warhead which has been initially, right after being 'mounted' (Wuhan-Hu-1 strains and earlier), extremely visible on all surveillance images the immune system has been receiving. Hence, after being 'released into service' (about Oct 2019), it subsequently got end gets a constantly improved camouflage 'overhaul' during the adaptation process (while still preserving its accessibility to furin as much as possible). Think about giving a warhead frequently a new camouflage re-paint, depending where (in which context: desert or jungle) you are with your battleship/missile/tank.
[(**) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03237-4
mentioned by Xoco Latte 2/2/2021 05:03:24 am]

NB: For those evolutionary highly conserved short primary functional sequences like an FCS, it can be assumed in general that any host immune system is certainly evolutionary extremely well trained to readily attack this feature (having here a strong, redundant and discriminatory evolutionary memory), if it appears to be embedded into something foreign (as short recognition sequences, like the FCS, being is also highly functional and intricately embedded in the host's biochemistry pathways), and therefore it should actually be discriminated extremely well. In wildlife probably even more so as compared to domesticated animals (including human), because the latter having partly lost their immune memory due to a largely reduced challenge in general.

This evolutionary biochemistry aspec

Reply
evidence
2/6/2021 04:16:17 am

This evolutionary biochemistry aspect is actually quite often the reason in general, why there is such an extensively long protein backbone around relatively restricted, small and conserved, yet at the same time extremely crucial enzymatic (or like here: recognition) sites - that (the 'near vicinity') is always the interesting location where the relevant fine-tuning (=journey through sequence space) is taking place, ONCE the (enzymatic/recognition) function has become indispensable - in Monod's words, the 'chance' had become a 'necessity':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_and_Necessity
Evolution is so to speak 'working/juggling' its way around this new 'necessity' - even literally.
So, we would actually also see the same (FCS vicinity being a mutational hotspot), if the FCS (with its outstanding functionality with respect to human host) had been in fact recently and accidentally acquired by NATURAL selection (e.g., recombination): it would remain likely as well a hot spot. (While certainly, artificially being chimed in, the mutational frequency can even be expected to be higher due the above reasons - as this seems to be right the case here.)
But the chances being naturally acquired are orders of magnitude lower, as there have been all the bioinformatics calculation done, including Quay's recent comprehensive, powerful analysis. Plus: no intermediate host yet, especially not a NON-domesticated intermediate host with CoV2 progenitor strain with an FCS INCLUDED with sufficient homology, since the FCS is obviously either not tolerated or not selected/stable [e.g., not of a big advantage for cell entry, since there are some indications that furin is more restricted intracellular space (***)] in wild animals/bats for those high SARS-CoV2 homologies.
[(***)
Najjarr (2015) Furin and Cathepsin for viral fusion protein activation in bat reservoir host
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338073/
]
Those new Cambodian bat strains with >90% homology, of course, as expected, likewise fail to have the FCS.
(1a) In that line, I also think, that the FCS in MERS might also be hinting towards the half-domestication of cameloids in general. So, also with this knowledge in mind, the (WIV/PLA) researchers might have had strong hints/very well been aware of the fact (maybe only eventually, e.g., AFTER all the passages?), that the FCS actually could be WORKING in domesticated/farmed organisms (lab animals as compared to wild live creatures), even when inserted into those respective wild bat progenitor strains (ZC45/ZXC21 and the like), as Sellin had already pointed out (*), while in contrast very unlikely/not working so far in WILD animals, bats in particular.
[(*) Sellin 10/2020
https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/was-the-mers-virus-a-model-for-the-creation-of-covid-19-335487
]

(2) Their future strategy?
Hence, vice versa, as it has been said numerous times before: the chances they will ever be able to 'establish' a host in WILD life for a CoV2 'least common ancestor/progenitor strain' with a sufficiently high sequence homology AND the FCS included [AND in particular with the unlikely CGG codon tandem for both arginines, contrasting CoV codon bias, cf. for example also recent Quay paper, p. 85-89] is asymptomatically approaching zero, for both, reservoir as well as intermediate (including domesticated) host. Regardless, how many (highly homologous) CoV strains they will be pulling out of their hats.
This is certainly far from anything new by now, and given those old facts, we actually could just be waiting and watching in awe how the natural theory will be dying a slow death, and how they will be finding........... nothing, no creature in support of it. Not in 20 years time either.
BUT, given all this, the important question which I think has to be addressed is this:
Given THEY are fully aware of this as well, what would be their next move? Only continue chasing poor bats? Or trying to groom them or other animals for this purpose (a domesticated host with FCS included strains with this unlikely tandem CGG)? Or insisting the (intermediate+reservoir) host has just gone extinct? --- I don't think so. At least not only. I think they (including possibly military researchers in the West, and all those, who find themselves in relevant conflict-of-interest [COI] situations, hence, not only the CCP-linked) will also be trying to fight very hard on the THEORY-front, trying to rewrite basic evolutionary molbio textbook knowledge, starting by grossly distorting probabilities for example. That would be my guess - with a large part of experimental virologists on their side, who in particular are having quite often only medical school training as university education, and subsequently a quite shallow theoretical evolutionary molbio background.
As David Rivard already has mentioned [in his reply to Nerd's reference to Stephen C. Quay's overwhelmingly powerful Bayesian method-based analysis (while about the adenov

Reply
evidence
2/6/2021 04:19:35 am

As David Rivard already has mentioned [in his reply to Nerd's reference to Stephen C. Quay's overwhelmingly powerful Bayesian method-based analysis (while about the adenovirus part I am not sure...)]: they might for example try to throw their own distorted Bayesian network calculations right on the market. Science fake news on a 'high' theoretical level coming from multiple sources, so to speak - that's what I would expect next. --- While the larger part of the established 'virology community', with relevant COIs would probably just be relieved, if the origin question officially remains UNRESOLVED for quite a long time to come. That's also most likely the main PURPOSE of the current WHO visit, given all the current pressure there is: keeping the origin question officially unresolved, so nobody can be hold accountable, nobody 'big' gets hurt, as in the same time this 'remaining unresolved' notion with an official WHO stamp on it likely also remains the ultimate long-term goal for the Chinese authorities on their public relations front (since the man-made hypothesis cannot be sufficiently discredited anymore by intimidation and information war).

(3) The restricted/at least partly censored debate among academics and its graduation for different life science fields.
What I found remarkable right from the beginning (up to now) is the fact, that the major intellectual pushes for an open-minded, scientifically sound Covid origin discussion had largely been coming from OUTSIDE the university/institutional life science space (of course with notable exceptions: R. Segreto, N. Petrovsky to name a few) - hence primarily freelancers, like Nerd's initiative here, or for example biotech entrepreneurs (like Yuri Deigin). Now, with the multi-millionaire Stephen Quay (with sufficient intellectual + financial clout and independence + conviction) there is another figure, who can be considered as highly independent with respect to university funds: having the independence of an entrepreneur and (partly for that reason) not being scared to be sucked into some political bashings, while breaking some hidden censorship rules.
This strikes me a lot. I also think there is a certain kind of a GRADUATION of this hidden censorship (concerning the life science academics being dependent on universities or public institutions): with the (in particular: experimental) virologist community by in large leading the bias (rejecting or just ignoring the difficult-to-accept man-made hypothesis), as compared to molecular biologists and bioinformaticians for example, among those latter communities (affiliated to institutions), I have the impression the bias is a little bit less severe.
Hence, by this observation one could almost make the following claim, applying Bayesian analysis (..once again!), that any university/institution-dependent life science researcher has a likelihood of being subject to (funding?) bias, which should be acknowledged and mentioned in the conflict-of-interest (COI) sections of any Covid paper, kind like this:
>>Given the fact that the author A/B/C is a professor having a post at, and being paid by a university/institution's life science department, might increase the risk of being cognitively biased towards rejecting the man-made hypothesis as shown by Bayesian statistical analysis.<< :-)
#

Reply
evidence
2/20/2021 12:30:33 pm

Re: (1) Characterization of S protein subdomains with respect to different mutational frequencies, including relevant implications for the FCS vicinity
(2) More evidence for FCS being inserted late, or being the very last GOF step (PS. 3 below in particular)

This post again largely (but not exclusively) goes back to Xoco's concerns [Xoco Latte 2/7/2021 08:22:16 am] about my assertion 'FCS vicinity being a MUTATIONAL HOT SPOT' - for Xoco seemingly contradicting the fact that this has not been reflected by the GISAID map - while I formally replying to Xoco, the broader purpose i to give a detailed picture of my thoughts

Xoco, thanks again you for the response!
I am not sure whether your response is only due to misunderstanding, and we actually do mean the same when you were underlining, quote:
>>> However, it is simply not true that S region around the FCS or FCS itself do not show single nucleotide variants (SNVs). [...] numerous SNVs could be acknowledged that by appearance are not so different than neighboring regions within the S gene <<
I agree, of course there are SNVs everywhere! [And specifically for the uncommon R682-R683 double cgg-codon preference, there can be in particular expected frequent syn-mutations, converging in general to the common CoV Codon bias, which in turn would again be an indirect hint for late, artificial FCS insertion with unlikely codon choice, cf. P.S.3 below.]
However, the argument goes: FCS inserted late -> not well adapted feature, while at the same time indispensable -> a lot of adaptation process as a result of it. - How is that being done? By adapting the remaining protein backbone and leaving the FCS largely the way it works best (PRRA remains largely unchanged; new non-syn mutations, which do change PRRA, unlikely to become fixated/the leading wild type). - However, since (non-syn) mutations have to be made in particular with respect to the unadapted, artificial, late PRRA [AA 681-685] insertion, those (more recurrent) mutations are likely to be expected close to that position - how close? - Obviously a region up to 70 AA upstream and about 100-200 AA downstream (AA chain position 614 to 800-900), i.e., the collar region (of the S1 head), in which PRRA is located as well.
>> A completely different question whether these SNVs result in a syn/non-syn mutation, of course.[...] But from your implication's point, it might be very important to find out.<<
Indeed, I am actually talking about the NON-synonymous (effective) mutations, the AA-changes in the proteome, including the ones which ultimately got fixated (e.g., D614G), i.e. inlcuding those, which eventually would becoming the leading wild type.
The syn-mutations reflect more or less the (largely independent, constant) 'molecular clock' behavior, i.e., the, often largely constant, travel velocity of the quasi-species, while migrating through sequence space, mostly dependent on (and vice versa as well characterizing) the fidelity of the replication (and maybe transcription) machinery. On the other hand, the non-syn mutations leading to AA substitutions (and maybe even eventual fixation), reflect the evolutionary challenges/pressure given by the surrounding ecosystem.
[And BTW, as a cautionary note: to deduce qualitative interpretations for the selection type (e.g., positive vs purifying selection) by only considering the ratio dN/dS should be made with greatest care, and by knowing well about its limitations, since it is not always possible to make the (oversimplified) claim: 'positive selection exists only for dN/dS >1'; for example, this gets difficult if the sample being investigated has not been drawn from completely segregated lineages, and the sample (or entire population) is more or less interconnected (as this likely is the case for the SARS-CoV2 quasispecies) - as this has been outlined/shown in detail by
Kryazhimskiy (2008) The population genetics of dN/dS
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000304
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000304
.]

For that reason (namely considering non-syn mutations), it is more straightforward to look at the proteome.
(1) I liked this publication:
Kim et al (05/20)
https://doi.org/10.24171/j.phrp.2020.11.3.05
I elaborated about this point already in my post back in July [evidence 7/13/2020 08:20:07 am], specifically by referring to Fig. 7 (p.9 in the pdf) of that publication:
https://ophrp.org/journal/Figure.php?xn=j-phrp-2020-11-3-05.xml&id=f7-j-phrp-2020-11-3-05&number=555&p_name=0507_555
Here, one can see a higher non-syn mutation frequency (Red Bars) starting with AA 614 (D614G) and having a (regardless how discontinuous/interrupted by gaps, but nevertheless) prolonged tail downstream deep into the S2 part of the S-protein (here: down to AA 943), with some notable red bars right adjacent to the FCS (marked PBCS on that figure).
Of course, the edges of the S protein primary sequence (espe

Xoco Latte
2/7/2021 08:22:16 am

Thank you for the detailed explanation.
FCS seems to be highly preserved in circulating variants, and a meaningful mutation closest to FCS that I am aware of is S:A626S with sofar unknown clinical and epidemiological consequences (https://covariants.org/variants/S.A626S).
However, it is simply not true that S region around the FCS or FCS itself do not show single nucleotide variants (SNVs). See GESS for some very detailed presentation based on almost half a million genomic sequences uploaded to GISAID (https://wan-bioinfo.shinyapps.io/GESS/). If you try to zoom in to the S region around the FCS (nt 23560 - 23640), the numerous SNVs could be acknowledged that by appearance are not so different than neighboring regions within the S gene. Just the two arginine-coding codons inside the PRRAR motif alone showed some 360 individual occasions. A completely different question whether these SNVs result in a syn/nonsyn mutation, of course. Unfortunately this cannot be found out from GESS directly. But from your implication's point, it might be very important to find out.

Reply
evidence
2/20/2021 12:35:41 pm

Re: (1) Characterization of S protein subdomains with respect to different mutational frequencies, including relevant implications for the FCS vicinity
(2) More evidence for FCS being inserted late, or being the very last GOF step (PS. 3 below in particular)

This post again largely (but not exclusively) goes back to Xoco's concerns [Xoco Latte 2/7/2021 08:22:16 am] about my assertion 'FCS vicinity being a MUTATIONAL HOT SPOT' - for Xoco seemingly contradicting the fact that this has not been reflected by the GISAID map - while I formally replying to Xoco, the broader purpose i to give a detailed picture of my thoughts

Xoco, thanks again you for the response!
I am not sure whether your response is only due to misunderstanding, and we actually do mean the same when you were underlining, quote:
>>> However, it is simply not true that S region around the FCS or FCS itself do not show single nucleotide variants (SNVs). [...] numerous SNVs could be acknowledged that by appearance are not so different than neighboring regions within the S gene <<
I agree, of course there are SNVs everywhere! [And specifically for the uncommon R682-R683 double cgg-codon preference, there can be in particular expected frequent syn-mutations, converging in general to the common CoV Codon bias, which in turn would again be an indirect hint for late, artificial FCS insertion with unlikely codon choice, cf. P.S.3 below.]
However, the argument goes: FCS inserted late -> not well adapted feature, while at the same time indispensable -> a lot of adaptation process as a result of it. - How is that being done? By adapting the remaining protein backbone and leaving the FCS largely the way it works best (PRRA remains largely unchanged; new non-syn mutations, which do change PRRA, unlikely to become fixated/the leading wild type). - However, since (non-syn) mutations have to be made in particular with respect to the unadapted, artificial, late PRRA [AA 681-685] insertion, those (more recurrent) mutations are likely to be expected close to that position - how close? - Obviously a region up to 70 AA upstream and about 100-200 AA downstream (AA chain position 614 to 800-900), i.e., the collar region (of the S1 head), in which PRRA is located as well.
>> A completely different question whether these SNVs result in a syn/non-syn mutation, of course.[...] But from your implication's point, it might be very important to find out.<<
Indeed, I am actually talking about the NON-synonymous (effective) mutations, the AA-changes in the proteome, including the ones which ultimately got fixated (e.g., D614G), i.e. inlcuding those, which eventually would becoming the leading wild type.
The syn-mutations reflect more or less the (largely independent, constant) 'molecular clock' behavior, i.e., the, often largely constant, travel velocity of the quasi-species, while migrating through sequence space, mostly dependent on (and vice versa as well characterizing) the fidelity of the replication (and maybe transcription) machinery. On the other hand, the non-syn mutations leading to AA substitutions (and maybe even eventual fixation), reflect the evolutionary challenges/pressure given by the surrounding ecosystem.
[And BTW, as a cautionary note: to deduce qualitative interpretations for the selection type (e.g., positive vs purifying selection) by only considering the ratio dN/dS should be made with greatest care, and by knowing well about its limitations, since it is not always possible to make the (oversimplified) claim: 'positive selection exists only for dN/dS >1'; for example, this gets difficult if the sample being investigated has not been drawn from completely segregated lineages, and the sample (or entire population) is more or less interconnected (as this likely is the case for the SARS-CoV2 quasispecies) - as this has been outlined/shown in detail by
Kryazhimskiy (2008) The population genetics of dN/dS
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000304
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000304
.]

For that reason (namely considering non-syn mutations), it is more straightforward to look at the proteome.
(1) I liked this publication:
Kim et al (05/20)
https://doi.org/10.24171/j.phrp.2020.11.3.05
I elaborated about this point already in my post back in July [evidence 7/13/2020 08:20:07 am], specifically by referring to Fig. 7 (p.9 in the pdf) of that publication:
https://ophrp.org/journal/Figure.php?xn=j-phrp-2020-11-3-05.xml&id=f7-j-phrp-2020-11-3-05&number=555&p_name=0507_555
Here, one can see a higher non-syn mutation frequency (Red Bars) starting with AA 614 (D614G) and having a (regardless how discontinuous/interrupted by gaps, but nevertheless) prolonged tail downstream deep into the S2 part of the S-protein (here: down to AA 943), with some notable red bars right adjacent to the FCS (marked PBCS on that figure).
Of course, the edges of the S protein primary sequence (espe

evidence
2/20/2021 12:39:18 pm

Of course, the edges of the S protein primary sequence (especially the N-terminus, but also C-terminus) might be well more pronounced in that diagram regarding AA mutation frequency, and would be noted first: they would be not my focus here, but I will also come back to that briefly below. However, the (broader) FCS vicinity remains discretely notable having a higher mutation frequency as well. That's my focus.
Likewise, of course I am not saying, there are no other hot spot regions, particularly in the S protein. To the contrary - but those, as mentioned, presumably (at least partly) for more different reasons. However, one can clearly see: the AA substitution rate is absolutely not evenly distributed: certain regions of the S-protein do have higher AA substitution rates than other. For example on the other hand, as widely known, the RBD remains pretty 'cold' with respect to amino acid substitutions on this picture (think about a 'red bar density function', derived from that picture/data which you would draw underneath).

(2) Compare also:
[Alouane T (Oct 2020): Genomic Diversity and Hotspot Mutations in 30,983 SARS-CoV-2 Genomes
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/9/10/829/pdf
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/9/10/829
],
here p.4-5 in the pdf.
Also the Alouane paper (n=30,983 sequences sampled between Dec 2019 and May 2020, hence very well-powered) shows for the S protein a considerably higher proteome variance right in the middle of the S protein (primary sequence), also with a corresponding long tail reaching well into S2 (Fig. 2a, p. 4 in the pdf); hence, largely in line with the Kim paper; whereas for the first (S1) part (RBD included), the distribution of recurrent mutations again remains more limited.

Specifically for the RBD, they are underlining, quote (p.2): "...36 non-synonymous mutations were identified in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein with a LOW PREVALENCE (<1%)" [capitalization added for emphasis] - hinting to the well-known fact, that non-synonymous RBD mutations generally do not have a deep penetration into the quasi-species proteome distribution. Hence, having by in large a very low chance of becoming a leading wild type (unlike what is commonly known natural spill-over events without sufficient RBD preadaptation).
[Of course, as we know, as the pandemic has evolved, by now we actually have rare notable exceptions, e.g., with B.1.351/N501Y ( E484K, K417N), but this/these mutant(s) could have been almost forecasted by the Starr paper
(Starr (06/2020): 'Deep mutational scanning of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain reveals constraints on folding and ACE2 binding
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.17.157982
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.17.157982v1.full.pdf
); if you analyze Fig 3B (p.26) very closely.
- This fact has also been pointed out by Quay in his Bayesian analysis paper (p.95 footnote 95, quote: "The recent finding of the N501Y variant, first in the UK, and now spreading globally, is evidence of the power of this analysis. N501Y is one of only five potential substitutions in the Starr analysis that had a major effect in improving ACE2 binding."
(Cf. also my prior post: evidence 6/21/2020 02:32:54 am, when I mentioned the Starr paper back in June.)
]

At this point I would like to stress the following: one of the primary motivation for all those studies (Kim, Alouane, Starr, as well as Pokhrel below) has always been vaccine research - that's how they secure funding. So, they keep their focus more on the CONSERVED regions. That's the reason, why they do not need to dig excessively deep into speculations about the evolutionary causes for the hot spot regions (even in case they, those researchers, might be the very first who are actually discovering them): those are the less interesting parts of the proteome for the time being in the eyes of a vaccine company, as those regions just might bother. - But WE do have a different motivation, we look exactly on that other side of that coin: we Want to talk exhaustively about putative reasons of certain hot spot regions, since they might be crucial traces with respect to past events - even if the findings seem to be only subtle or maybe highly unclear at first sight.

(3) And now, there has just been coming out another detailed S-protein mutational analysis:
[Pokhrel (Jan 2021): Natural variants in SARS-CoV-2 S protein pinpoint structural and functional hot spots
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.04.425340v1.full.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.04.425340
]
While again, they are also focusing on the conserved regions (vaccine-motivated study, time and again), here the diagram Fig. 1b (p. 9 pdf) should be analyzed very much in detail, e.g. also including the more subtle aspects.
I will go through the mutation frequency with this picture region by region (which I label out of convenience as A-F), starting by the N-terminus subdomain. The first subdomains A-C (discussed below) belong to t

evidence
2/20/2021 12:42:36 pm

The first subdomains A-C (discussed below) belong to the S1 head on top of the protein quaternary structure, while D belongs largely to the 'collar' ('neck') at the bottom of the head and includes the FCS, (E) is functionally the 'stalk and hinge' region (as recently discovered by Turonova et al), while (F) likely the anchor in the virus (lipid bilayer) core and containing the C-terminus.
(A) First, like before (Kim, Alouane), we see that region with pronounced higher mutation frequency highly sticking out right at the beginning of the AA primary chain (N-terminus).
The most straightforward interpretation for this hot spot region is given by this recent paper
[Garvin (12/2020): Potentially adaptive SARS-CoV-2 mutations discovered with novel spatiotemporal and explainable AI models
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13059-020-02191-0.pdf
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-020-02191-0
]; their explanation concerning the N-terminus hot spot, quote (p.17 pdf):
'The hypermutable site at 21575 corresponds to Leu5Phe and the heteroplasmy at 21570 to a Val3Gly; both are located in the signal peptide (SP) in the N-terminal domain of the S protein. Although we cannot determine the effects on the structure of the protein and if it directly affects function, it has been shown in vitro in SARS-CoV that altering the SP sequence dramatically alters the expression of S and the production of virus in different cell types [97].'
Hence, being an SP, the N-terminus influences cell tropism, replication, changes according to host tissue challenge and cell lines used in dish rounds - and for those reasons likely exhibits high mutational frequency.
The substantially higher-mutable N-terminal region extents right just until the RBD begins. Of course, the SP is only located at the beginning, and there might be other factors contributing more downstream for this subdomain.
(B) Second, as the RBD [AA 331-531] has been streamlined way before; and as expected and in line with all other studies, this region remains pretty conserved (again, cf. also Starr analysis in particular).
(C) Third, there comes also a more conserved region downstream to the RBD [AA 541-613], on which the Pokhrel paper is actually focusing on (because that's what they want for vaccines; unfortunately the Pokhrel group calls this region 'hot' - kind of misleading: it is not a mutational 'Hot spot' - to the contrary). They discuss the putative reason for this region being quite conserved (p. 4 pdf), quote:
"This invariable region is relatively hydrophobic, yet a substantial number of residues remain exposed in the open and closed conformations (Supplemental Fig. 1d). Very recently, Q564 within this region has been proposed to act as a ‘latch’, stabilizing the closed conformation of S [15]."
Hence, even coming slowly closer to the FCS, however, for this region there might be important constraints to be taken into account. Hence, any fine-tuning of the protein backbone for reasons lying elsewhere (like late FCS insertion) cannot easily be done in this subdomain, and according to Pokhrel, the hydrophobic nature of this part might be a strong hint why not.
(D) But now, fourth, we are coming to the FCS vicinity (I would call it collar region more at tthe bottom of the S1 protein quaternary structure). Beginning with AA 614, one can see (on that Fig.1b), that the substitution frequencies go up again and remain slightly quite high at least up to AA 800 and even more downstream.
Neither the Pokhrel nor any other of the above paper goes much into detail about this.
According to my notion, this is a strong hint for recent FCS insertion (going through an ongoing adaptation process, virus working to 'fit in' this new feature).
Even for example, if D614G affects primarily (indirectly) the RBD binding to hACE, and by that the virus fitness, as outlined for example by the recent Seiya Ozono Nature paper ('SARS-CoV-2 D614G spike mutation increases entry efficiency'), this adaptation (of the tertiary structure) still could actually be expected to have occured already during the course of the passages. The fact that it did not already occur earlier remains in line with the notion that substantial changes in the tertiary structure (like FCS insertion) occured without subsequent passaging again: the RBD had been well adapted to hACE, but the rest of the S-protein with its altered tertiary strucure at the S1/S2 junction not yet (as for Wuhan-Hu1).

Again, on a more general note, characterizing the shape of the mutational landscape of this concerning subdomain (AA 614-800/900): assuming that late FCS causes 'disruption' (maybe the insertion had even been a more extended sequence, as the Segreto group just had proposed: for example the super-antigenic QTQTNSPRRAR toxin motif which includes 11 AA), and the S protein had to adapt quite intensely in response to that, the fact that upstream of AA 614 the constraints are to

evidence
2/20/2021 12:48:10 pm

[part 4]
... and the S protein had to adapt quite intensely in response to that, the fact that upstream of AA 614 the constraints are too strong, due to other reasons (backbone has to remain largely conserved for other reasons upstream of 614 as discussed above), implies that there is intense pressure localized on a more restricted/narrow primary sequence region on the upstream side of the FCS (i.e., AA 614-680), hence, with Kim's and Alouane's illustrations in mind, starting quite abruptly and intensely with AA 614; whereas in contrast for the downstream side of the FCS (the beginning S2 part), for that region the adaptations are allowed to stretch out over a more extended primary sequence region, resulting in a wider and more flatter distribution. Think about a mountainous region, starting with a pronounced, steep and high cliff on one side, and extending to the other side more gradually, with a smoother and a more extended hilly region, eventually merging into the plains.
(E) Fifths, now there comes the more downstream 'stalk and hinge' region (downstream of AA 800/900/1000). Given by the above analyses (Kim, Alouane, Pokhrel), it also remains more conserved (in relative terms). As already mentioned, the notion of the function of this subdomain is being a highy flexible cantilever feature [ 3 hinges in between the stalks], as this has recently been discoverd by
[Turonova et al (10/2020)
In situ structural analysis of SARS-CoV-2 spike reveals flexibility mediated by three hinges https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6513/203
https://www.mpg.de/15269546/sars-cov-2-spike-protein
].
So in that way, the S1 head can more flexibly be rolled out in order to almost 'crawl' on the host cell surface and comfortably find the target receptor. (Also, additionally, it eventually contains the subdomain(s) responsible for fusion with the host membrane, I would say about downstream to AA 1000 .) The fact, that the AA primary sequence corresponding to this subdomain remains more conserved (relative to subdomains A and D), is hinting to the notion, that this part might had been, however highly sophisticated, but at the same time an evolutionary pretty much stable functional mechanism (maybe/likely even over diverse CoV genera, which has not been shown yet) - despite the fact that this 'stalk and hinge' mechanism only has been discovered now on SARS-CoV2 by the above group. The fact, that it is extremely well glycosylated (cf. above paper) hints also to notion, that it has been (for a long time) under strong immune attack and can pretty much well withhold that assault - because it obviously remains conserved.
The other way round: given the fact that this subdomain is supposingly the quite FLEXIBLE part of the protein, as recently discovered, mutations in this region would not be expected to change the quaternary formation of the (stiffer) S1 head and collar domain very much. Hence, any adjustments in response to recent changes in the collar region (containing the FCS), would accordingly not be expected to take place in this subdomain.
(F) And of course, sixths, there is another additional region with higher AA variance at the C-terminus....
--
To sum it up: the mutational frequency/AA variance for the proteome is certainly not evenly distributed, including not for the S protein; and the FCS vicinity in fact has a relatively higher frequency of AA substitutions, which might be subtle (particularly in comparison to other mutational hotspots of the S protein), but in my eyes still sufficiently relevant to make that point, hence being in line with the notion I do favor: higher AA variance in the subdomain adjacent to the FCS (D), hinting to a very late FCS insertion in the GOF manufacturing/processing chain of SARS-CoV2.
Of course, after all, it remains a (working) hypothesis, which always can be falsified in principle - as any valid hypothesis should.
(In particular, I might err a few AA upstream or downstream about the exact location of the mentioned features - but that should not hurt my general argument.)

Actually you had been playing with that notion (late FCS insertion after extented passaging/adaptation) yourself already once [cf. Xoco Latte 9/2/2020 01:48:56 am] ;-)
-
NB:
PS.1 (Side note, in line with what Nerd already had been pointing out to regarding the Wrobel paper referencing to ZC45/ZXC21 [Nerd has power 2/6/2021 09:08:36 am]): Concerning the also more recent Garvin paper (12/2020), I find it likewise quite remarkable and brave by the authors, that they ONLY dared to refer to ZC45/ZXC21 [p.17, by referencing to the Jasper Fuk-Woo Chan paper, ref #99, published Jan 28 2020], and, by this, implicitly and prudently avoided to compare their findings by taking RaTG13 as reference sequence. Likewise, they only cited those Shi papers, which came out prior to 2019. This can also be interpreted as a reverberation of the tide being finally noted by the 'established community': the notion of Ratg13 being highly dou

evidence
2/20/2021 12:52:45 pm

[part 5]
This can also be interpreted as a reverberation of the tide being finally noted by the 'established community': the notion of Ratg13 being highly doubtful might be slowly more and more reflected in those peer-reviewed publications. While not yet being openly discussed, Ratg seems to be becoming more and more a hot potato for the main stream virology/molbio community.

PS. 2: Not my main point right here in this post, but BTW again supporting my general claim: Also like the Cheng paper, the last Segreto paper is underlining/suspecting the likely extremely high antigenic effect of the FCS as well (what I had suspected myself time and again), quote (p.6): "The P11-P1 ‘QTQTNSPRRAR’ motif is homologous to neurotoxins from Ophiophagus and Bungarus genera and neurotoxin-like regions from RABV strains, and may act as a superantigenic fragment (Cheng et al., 2020)."
With this notion in mind of an entire toxin-like 11 AA stretch artificially inserted at this functionally highly crucial position with its superantigenic effect, for me it becomes again even more plausible, that this specific GOF step had been the final punch, being itself possibly responsible for having everthing inadvertedly blown-up.
PS. 3: The fact, that for the entire QTQTNSPRRAR motif, only R682 and R683 do contrast the usual CoV codon preference, could also hint to the possibility, that they had tried to insert the FCS numerous times, at least twice: at the beginning (before the passages) for example with this entire 11 AA stretch (and with it having initially the appropriate CoV codon bias used); than the FCS had been always kicked out (or altered) during their Vero passages, namely R682 and R683; and then, they eventually only needed to add those two arginines back into the chain (and for convenience, because of the techniques they had at hand, they used the untypical cgg codon), and when they retried the virus with the now 'repaired' PRRA on lab animals again (with this abberant codon choice), the accident occured. - An additional hint (in line with and connected to the above argument) is the fact, that for the entire QTQTNSPRRAR stretch, the synonymous SNV at the third (wobble) position of those two arginines outnumber the (syn SNVs) for all other AA at the 3rd position at least by a factor of 2-3, in relative terms (considering the arginine codon can make syn mutation into three other codons, given the cgg); in absolute terms even higher. I looked at the counts on GISAID for the SYNONYMOUS SNVs at every 3rd position for the entire QTQTNSPRRAR stretch - here are the numbers (in parantheses), retrieved on 13/2/2021 ( https://wan-bioinfo.shinyapps.io/GESS/ , with its 5/2/2021 update ):
pos675-> Q(22) T(35) Q(4) T(13) N(36) S(9) P(16) R(321!) R(148!) A(6) R(1 only!)<-pos685
So this means, the pressure for R682 and R683 (in pronounced contrast to R685) to turn back to the CoV preferred codon usage bias remains also high.
Additionally, the Ogando paper outlined in detail, that during their Vero cell passages, it was specifically R682 (and to a lesser extend R683) that had been mutated to another AA. That seemed to be quite reproducible.
Maybe at that time during Sep/Oct 2019, the PLA/WIV researchers just added the two (additional) arginines AGAIN, after the original FCS function had been lost during their own Vero passages, and after having discovered, it would have been specifically the R682 (R683), which remains under pressure, and had changed under Vero cell pressure.
In addition, maybe even the proline P681, which during the human pandemic has by now the remarkable number of currently 5699 non-syn SNVs at its 2nd position (nt 23604, cf. GISAID - maybe as expected because of the highly putative rigidity and antigenic challenge), but on the other hand obviously has not been specifically under pressure in the Ogando dish rounds, could have been originally emerged from the first arginin of their former FCS (which originally had maybe been more 'MERS-like', i.e., something like SRAR, SRxR, SRxxR during the dish rounds - as there have been for example already the SNVs (nt 23610) emerging according GISAID leading for example to R683P.
Hence, the specific venue could for example had been something like this: pos.680 SRAR -> Vero pressure -> changing to SPAR -> artificially adding the two cgg-arginines 682/682 again: pos.680 SPRRAR -> spill over accident.
This notion is also in line with the fact, that the ccu codon for P681 can be a DIRECT mutation (i.e., SNV) result from a (possibly originally pre-existing) arginine cgu codon, which itself actually would be in line with the highly preferred arginin codon choice for CoV (as this is the case for 685R: cgu), cf. for example
[Hussain (05/2020) Codon and nucleotide bias in MERS
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1176934320918861
].
After all, the rationale for the FCS being easily lost in Vero E 6 cells might not primarily be due to the specific nat

evidence
2/20/2021 12:58:54 pm

[part 6]
After all, the reason for the FCS being easily lost in Vero E 6 cells might not primarily be due to the specific nature of the Vero E 6 cells (at least not only), but might actually be due to the (almost physical) fact, that they are DISCONNECTED tissue cells, since the power of the additional FCS-feature of the PBCS might not necessarily enhance cell entry (obviously largely enabled by TMPRSS2 for lung tissue and/or cathepsin L elsewhere), but rather transfection (after being processed in the golgi network) from one cell to another, which would be particularly important in the case of CONNECTED tissue, cf.
[ Follis et al (2006): Furin cleavage of the SARS coronavirus spike glycoprotein enhances cell-cell fusion but does not affect virion entry
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682206000900?via%3Dihub
]
who already did experiments with FCS enhanced SARS1,
quote (p.9 pdf): -'-'The specific facilitation of cell–cell fusion activity by furin cleavage of the SARS-CoV S glycoprotein reported here extends previous findings from studies of the naturally cleaved group 2 CoVs, in which reductions in S glycoprotein cleavage have been associated with deficiencies in cell–cell fusion activity (Bos et al., 1995; de Haan et al., 2004; Sturman et al., 1985; Taguchi, 1993; Yamada et al., 1998). [...] the presence or absence of furin cleavage appears to have surprisingly little impact on the infectivity of the virion particle [...]. Reciprocally, cell–cell fusion by the MHV S glycoprotein is prevented by a peptidic furin inhibitor, wherea MHV infection is not (de Haan et al., 2004).'
And specifically for SARS-CoV2:
Hoffmann M(05/2020)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7194065/pdf/main.pdf
p.1:
-'Moreover, optimising the S1/S2 site increased cell-cell, but not virus-cell, fusion, suggesting that the corresponding viral variants might exhibit increased cell-cell spread and potentially altered virulence.'
] .
Hence, it is specifically the (intracellular) furin being obviously responsible for syncytia formation (typically found in autopsy specimens), while in contrast the TMPRSS2 is a transmembrane protein, truly working at the outer surface of the (lung) cell.
With this thought in mind, the FCS (feature of the PBCS) would always easily been lost in all dish rounds if DISCONNECTED cell lines are being used.
While in contrast, after having all the WIV passages (in animals and dishes) exhaustively done, followed only now by a quick insertion of the two arginines at this crucial position, andd now again ONLY followed directly by a retrial on life hosts, would have had this extraordinary bomb finally brought to its (not anticipated) explosion, as well as initiating the subsequent chain reaction, since in order for this extraordinary warhead to detonate, connected, sensitive tissue might be required.
In this analogy: the devastating power of this outstanding (additional) warhead (the additional FCS feature of the PBCS) usually does not come into action before the missile had been penetrated deep inside the enemy's territory (e.g., sensitive, connected lung tissue with sophisticated, highly vulnerable cell-cell architecture - unlike the less sophisticated and less vulnerable cell-cell architecture of the epithelial cell line of the outer respiratory tract mucosa). - The DELAYED nature of this devastating impact might also had been, what had caught them largely off-guard as well, like everybody else later on - and might also be a contributing factor for the characteristic clinical course of the severe cases: deterioration typically not before past day 10 after presenting their first, often largely unspecific, seemingly benign symptoms; and with sudden unexpected rapid progress thereafter.

For direct reply, please everybody use the reply buttons available above if not enabled down here, or post reply in the main section.
#

Peter Ross
2/6/2021 07:00:06 am

If you conclude from the sequence analysis (Segreto et al) that SARS-CoV-2 was most likely designed to serve as a self-spreading live-attenuated-virus for vaccination purposes - for example, as in an offensive or defensive biowarfare effort subject to accident, sabotage, or directed release (or a combination thereof) - then the absense of a co-existent infected animal population adds much confirmation.

Is the absense of a SARS-CoV-2-infected animal population an artifact of testing failures?

That the medical establishment continues to make exclusive use of PCR probes that are specifically designed to amplify elements found in BOTH the human DNA/RNA genome and in the SARS-CoV-2 genome begs a seemingly circular origin argument of 'which came first' - the choice of PCR probes or the epidemic of SARS-CoV-2 infections?

When choosing a PCR probe in the drawing board stage, the biomol engineer doesn't check the database to rule out the possibility of identical copies appearing in the host genome?

What are the odds that all of the PCR developers chose probes that will bind to human DNA/RNA with the same avidity as for SARS-CoV-2 derived RNA/DNA ?

Reply
Nerd has power
2/6/2021 08:25:25 am

Peter,

I looked at the link you posted earlier:

https://biosearchassets.blob.core.windows.net/assetsv6/coa_sars-cov-2-kit-209829-lot-143503.pdf

However, I think the primers targeting the viral N protein-encoding gene are specific for the virus. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't know what the RP stands for. I suspect that it is a control that is not specific for virus. I think this way because there is no 2019nCoV included in its name, unlike the N-targeting primers.

I guess I don't agree that the primers all target both viral and human genes. I have taken a few COVID tests myself and did not receive false positive results. So, based on my VERY limited experience, the PCR tests do not seem super horrible and appear to be adequately specific.

Reply
Peter Ross
2/6/2021 01:47:55 pm

Well, thank you kindly for taking a closer look at the assay. I'm trying to address internet rumours.

Yes, "RP" is probably the internal control included to avoid false negatives, as per CDC protocol. My understanding is that it refers to RPP30, a subunit of a Rnase found in one copy on chromosome 10.

According to this author, test kits using RP are likely to underdiagnose SARS-CoV-2 infections, due to the inability of the PCR to distinguish between the reverse-transcribed products arising from the added RP and from genomic DNA:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.094839v2.full.pdf

In contrast, there is much concern about the high false positive rate.

Doing a cursory BLAST, it seems that human DNA/RNA contains many 15 nt sequences that might match to one end or another of the 20 to 24 nt probes in use.

Any thoughts as to why deep swab PCR with extreme cycle thresholds was chosen to be the assay of choice ?

If one is contagious, a single nose hair should contain ample virus for easy detection; digging away at the back of the throat just adds more junk...

I'm glad you're feeling better!

Peter Ross
2/6/2021 02:00:37 pm

Or maybe "RP" just stands for Cornpop !

Fuddman
2/28/2021 09:11:46 am

Mr. Nerd:

".....the PCR tests do not seem super horrible and appear to be adequately specific"

.
This comment of yours shook me up because of my low opinion (unscientifically formed) of the PCR tests.

I'm wondering if the following reports have changed your opinion:

1) the WHO recognizes the PCR test is biased in favor of false positives.


https://principia-scientific.com/who-finally-admits-covid19-pcr-test-has-a-problem/?fbclid=IwAR0Kw5gHIQS1VniE0Q0RJZFe-_ZsHpyz2l3wi33ZKlNddFGFDiikMVsK12o

and

2) The current day obvious reduction in "cases" worldwide. (and where I live, too)


https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/why-new-covid-cases-are-crashing

Nerd has power
2/6/2021 08:51:22 am

I want to share some of Daoyu Zhang's preprints. I know this one has been posted by Xoco and Guy, but it doesn't hurt to post it often:

https://zenodo.org/record/4486195#.YB6TSy-z10v

The main finding, as many of you already know, are vector sequences and sequences from a few distinct viruses within the raw sequencing reads reported by Zhengli Shi. Note that these reported sequences were not for RaTG13, rather they were said to be obtained from patient samples and subsequently used for assembling the first genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2.

What are these weird, distinct viruses, whose sequence were detected in these raw reads? They are Nipah Henipahvirus, Influenza A virus subtype H7N9, and Spodoptera frugiperda rhabdovirus. Again, all these viral fragments were found to be embedded in the cloning region of synthetic vectors.

Honestly, I don't know how Dr. Shi managed to leave these traces in her raw sequencing reads. It's beyond me. Maybe she thought that nobody would dig into this ocean of raw reads and find anything. (We have to thank Daoyu for the great digging) Therefore, she and her lads laxed, somewhere and somehow. Or maybe everything was so rushed and further complicated by the emergency need to fabricate a RaTG13 sequence in the same publication that they let loose on the patient side a bit. I just don't know. I wish Dr. Shi could help clarify this part for us one day.

However, there is one thing I want to point out to you all: the WIV has clearly been playing with manipulating other viruses. Because these sequences clearly came from the WIV, not those patients or the hospital.

Question: do these WIV work also involve military labs???

I have said in one of my earliest comments that the CCP certainly has more than one thing in its pocket. Here is your evidence for that, provided, once again, by the untidy Shi lab.

Reply
Nerd has power
2/6/2021 09:00:40 am

The other preprint from Daoyu:

https://zenodo.org/record/4450267#.YB1OUy-z3GJ

This one is about the pangolin coronaviruses. Here Daoyu found that all of the raw sequencing reads that contain pangolin virus sequences also contain sequences from a synthetic vector pcDNA3.1.

I know people don't need to be further convinced that the pangolin coronaviruses were all fabricated. But Daoyu's effort here further nails it. I'm super impressed with Daoyu's diligence and brilliance. I don't think I can spend the time to dig this much into the ocean of raw reads.

Nonetheless, the finding of synthetic sequences within these raw sequencing reads confirms what's in the 2nd Yan report: these raw reads can be fabricated by starting with synthetic oligos.

Reply
Nerd has power
2/6/2021 09:08:36 am

BTW, this publication was cited in the 2nd Yan report as well (reference 70). It was a preprint back then and is now officially published on Nature Communications. The finding is that pangolin coronavirus spike binds poorly to pangolin ACE2 (10 times worse than binding to human ACE2).

The authors were also brave in mentioning the names of ZC45 and ZXC21 in the discussion section. The last two sentences of the discussion, they also implicated that the Spike of RaTG13 could not bind to any bat ACE2. I bet they are all convinced that RaTG13 and pangolin CoVs are all fabricated. They just can't say that in a peer-reviewed publication. Anyways, their work is important and their efforts honorable.

Nerd has power
2/6/2021 09:09:49 am

Forgot the link. Here it is!

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21006-9#Abs1

Guy Fawkes
2/6/2021 12:10:52 pm

@EVIDENCE: "So, also with this knowledge in mind, the (wiv/pla) researchers might have had strong hints/very well been aware of the fact (maybe only eventually, e.g., after all the passages?), that the fcs actually could be working in domesticated/farmed organisms (lab animals as compared to wild live creatures), even when inserted into those respective wild bat progenitor strains (zc45/zxc21 and the like), as sellin had already pointed out (*), while in contrast very unlikely/not working so far in wild animals, bats in particular."

--> Kanduc & Shoenfeld (2020) "Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian proteomes, implications for the vaccine" @ https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-020-09152-6 comes to mind with the famous human/mouse diagram. I guess this is our intermediate/reservoir host/missing link between the military bat viruses and SARS-CoV-2.

But do you really wonder why - especially in ivory league universities/papers - the scientific "community" is silent? It's all about the money and prestige, nobody wants drama. Just look what happens to your academic career if you ask some serious questions about 2 planes, 3 towers and nanothermate. And remember Socrates & Galilei!

***

@PETER ROSS: "SARS-CoV-2 was most likely designed to serve as a self-spreading live-attenuated-virus for vaccination purposes - for example, as in an offensive or defensive biowarfare effort subject to accident, sabotage, or directed release (or a combination thereof) - then the absense of a co-existent infected animal population adds much confirmation."

If you put lab mice into your equation, there you have your co-existent infected animal population. But a self-spreading, live-attenuated-virus for vaccination purposes + a worldwide vaccination frenzy - holy cow, if so, then up to the hills.

***

@NERD: "WIV has clearly been playing with manipulating other viruses" - as did others, for over 2 decades now. I already mentioned Kuo et al. (2000) "Retargeting of Coronavirus by Substitution of the Spike Glycoprotein Ectodomain -- Crossing the Host Cell Species Barrier" before, here the abstract & link to the full paper below:

"Coronaviruses generally have a narrow host range, infecting one or just a few species. Using targeted RNA recombination, we constructed a mutant of the coronavirus mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) in which the ectodomain of the spike glycoprotein (S) was replaced with the highly divergent ectodomain of the S protein of feline infectious peritonitis virus. The resulting chimeric virus, designated fMHV, acquired the ability to infect feline cells and simultaneously lost the ability to infect murine cells in tissue culture. This reciprocal switch of species specificity strongly supports the notion that coronavirus host cell range is determined primarily at the level of interactions between the S protein and the virus receptor. The isolation of fMHV allowed the localization of the region responsible for S protein incorporation into virions to the carboxyterminal 64 of the 1,324 residues of this protein. This establishes a basis for further definition of elements involved in virion assembly. In addition, fMHV is potentially the ideal recipient virus for carrying out reverse genetics of MHV by targeted RNA recombination, since it presents the possibility of selecting recombinants, no matter how defective, that have regained the ability to replicate in murine cells."

And from the discussion:

"In the work presented here, we were able [to] replace the MHV S ectodomain with that of FIPV, a representative of another of the three groups within the coronavirus genus. The MHV and FIPV S proteins, although ancestrally related, have diverged to the point where there is less than 16% sequence identity between the amino-terminal half of each molecule, and they have evolved to recognize different receptors with different regions of their ectodomains. We have shown that the resulting ectodomain-switched recombinant, fMHV, underwent a corresponding switch of its host cell species specificity. [...] The construction of fMHV is the first example of the complete, reciprocal switch of the host cell specificity of a coronavirus. [...] Another possible source of the apparent reduced fitness of fMHV may lie in the functionality, rather than the amount, of the chimeric S protein. Earlier expression studies with MHV S gene constructs have indicated that changes in the transmembrane and endodomain can affect the cell-to-cell fusion that this protein causes in susceptible cells. Although the chimeric FIPV-MHV S protein clearly exhibits this fusion activity when expressed in feline cells, the efficiency of this process may well be decreased relative to that of the parental wild-type S proteins."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10627550/

It was submitted on 8 July, 1999. 22 years ago, people! 22 years ago...

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
2/6/2021 01:53:32 pm

Yikes!

Reply
evidence
2/8/2021 04:58:56 am

Thanks for the kind reply, and in particular mentioning (again) the important Kanduc publication !

>> But do you really wonder why [...] the scientific "community" is silent?
I felt it would be approriate to stress this point time and again: I believe a lot of interested people/individuals would want to get unrestricted information about the current state of the debate - and would use this highly prolific site as a starter.
It's always a good thing having our thoughts posted also with this important educational point in mind (reaching out Beyond the nerd's world so to speak... ) :)
>And remember Socrates & Galilei!<
... and ReMember Assange!
...actually, I was referring to Galilei already in an earlier post [evidence 12/23/2020 08:33:05 am ]
:)

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/6/2021 12:18:07 pm

BTW: By copy-&-pasting some cut off postings from above into Notepad++, I just figured out rocket-science-style that the maximum character limit at weebly.com is #5000.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/7/2021 03:22:06 am

So it has come to this, nerds and girls - remember reinfections? There you have it straight, Andreano et al. (2020) "SARS-CoV-2 escape in vitro from a highly neutralizing COVID-19 convalescent plasma", buckle up:

"To investigate the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in the immune population, we co-incubated authentic virus with a highly neutralizing plasma from a COVID-19 convalescent patient. The plasma fully neutralized the virus for 7 passages, but after 45 days, the deletion of F140 in the spike N-terminal domain (NTD) N3 loop led to partial breakthrough. At day 73, an E484K substitution in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) occurred, followed at day 80 by an insertion in the NTD N5 loop containing a new glycan sequon, which generated a variant completely resistant to plasma neutralization. [...] In conclusion, we have shown that the authentic SARS-CoV-2 virus, if constantly pressured, has the ability to escape even a potent polyclonal serum targeting multiple neutralizing epitopes. [...] Therefore, we should be prepared to deal with virus variants that may be selected by the immunity acquired from infection or vaccination. [...] Interestingly, in our case, the final mutation contained an insertion carrying an N-glycosylation site which has the potential to hide or obstruct the binding to neutralizing epitopes. The introduction of a glycan is a well-known immunogenic escape strategy described in influenza, HIV-1 and other viruses, although to our knowledge this finding presents the first patient-derived escape mutant utilizing this mechanism for SARS-CoV-2. Surprisingly, only three mutations, which led to complete rearrangement of NTD N3 and N5 loops and substitution to a key residue on the RBD, were sufficient to eliminate the neutralization ability of a potent polyclonal serum."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.28.424451v1.full

80 days, people. Like in... "Around the World in Eighty Days". And then, coming home, bam!

--> Takeaway? Y'all know it by now, gotta wear one of those properly decontaminated full face respirators + P3 filters while shopping in style. If you are allowed entry, of course!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
2/8/2021 08:06:49 am

So this virus can mutate in vitro on green monkey cells...and the PRESUMABLY glycosylation-modified particle is PRESUMABLY infectious and PRESUMABLY virulent in lab animals.

what else is new?

Reply
David Rivard
2/7/2021 12:05:09 pm

Guy, the competent way you articulated that reminds me of thinking about our rationales when we look for spouses with attributes that we lack – “I’m hangin’ out with you ace because I ain’t got a clue” (Stevie Jankowitz with Kenny Powers). Move over from underneath that rock.

I do not know what national health officials are trying to achieve by reassuring their constituents that vaccine programs will achieve “Herd immunity”. There is disturbing news emerging from where variants have been springing up.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/a-wakeup-call-how-resilient-new-coronavirus-variants-could-prolong-the-pandemic-152538072.html

I also wonder if the “variant strains” and their concomitant “new” infection rates are in fact an original exposure simply maturing. The emerging evidence that both the South African and Brazilian variants have the potential to reinfect survivors of a first infection isn’t getting the attention it deserves.

The example of Manaus is especially unsettling. Last spring, a huge COVID-19 surge overwhelmed hospitals in this Brazilian city, ultimately infecting an estimated 76 percent of the population. The wave eventually subsided. Cases fell. Control measures were relaxed, and for seven months hospitalizations remained low. Scientists and government officials speculated that the city had achieved herd immunity. “Manaus will be the first Brazilian city to defeat the COVID-19 pandemic,” wrote a group of researchers from the Federal University of Amazonas.

Then came late December. Cases began to climb again. By mid-January, they had surpassed the highs of the spring. As the Washington Post recently reported,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/01/27/coronavirus-brazil-variant-manaus/

“Even in a city as traumatized as Manaus, the horror has been unlike anything doctors have seen. The oxygen quickly ran out. Dozens of hospital patients have died of asphyxiation. Scores more, unable to get care, have died at home. Every half-hour, one doctor said, a funeral procession rumbled toward the cemetery.”

There are at least four non-mutually exclusive possible explanations for the resurgence of COVID-19 in Manaus. First, the SARS-CoV-2 attack rate could have been overestimated during the first wave, and the population remained below the herd immunity threshold until the beginning of December, 2020. In this scenario, the resurgence could be explained by greater mixing of infected and susceptible individuals during December. The 76% estimate of past infection might have been biased upwards due to adjustments to the observed 52·5% (95% CI 47·6–57·5) seroprevalence in June, 2020, to account for antibody waning. However, even this lower bound should confer important population immunity to avoid a larger outbreak. Furthermore, comparisons of blood donors with census data showed no major difference in a range of demographic variables, and the mandatory exclusion of donors with symptoms of COVID-19 is expected to underestimate the true population exposure to the virus.

First, so now we harken back to the “Longhaulers”. Back in the days when testing was either unavailable or inaccurate. When many were also (even self) persuaded that they were psychosomatic, but also knew they had some type of “strange but unshakable flu” in these early days. Back in the days that unfortunately still exist today, when “infection” is defined by a test in the hospital when you are actually sick enough to be admitted (still the case with most of the “infected”), and “cured” when you are discharged because you no longer (however temporarily) require oxygen to breath.
Immunity against infection might have already begun to wane by December, 2020, because of a gradual decrease in immune protection against SARS-CoV-2 after an initial exposure (at least as demonstrated in Brazil with the new variant). Waning of anti-nucleocapsid IgG antibody titers observed in “asymptomatic” blood donors might reflect their “personal” loss of immune protection, and concomitant variant identification, because immunity to SARS-CoV-2 depends on a combination of B-cell and T-cell responses.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00183-5/fulltext

Second, a study of UK health-care workers showed that reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is uncommon up to 6 months after the primary infection. However, most of the SARS-CoV-2 infections in Manaus occurred 7–8 months before the resurgence in January, 2021; this is longer than the period covered by the UK study.

This suggests that waning immunity (as a herd or “generally” in the population) alone is unlikely to fully explain the recent resurgence. Moreover, population mobility in Manaus decreased from mid-November, 2020, with a sharp reduction in late D

Reply
David Rivard
2/7/2021 12:12:28 pm


Sigue,

This suggests that behavioral change does not account for the resurgence of hospitalizations. Perhaps it reflects the full incubation (and an evolved genetic identity) phase of the virus in the singular (but previously more robust) host? SARS-CoV-2 “lineages” might evade immunity …and even detection…generated in response to previous infection.

Three detected SARS-CoV-2 lineages (B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1), are unusually divergent and each possesses a unique constellation of mutations of potential biological importance. Of these, two are circulating in Brazil (B.1.1.7 and P.1) and one (P.1) was detected in Manaus on Jan 12, 2021.

Third, one case of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection has been associated with the P.1 lineage in Manaus that accrued ten unique spike protein mutations, including E484K and N501K. Moreover, the newly classified P.2 lineage (sub lineage of B.1.128 that independently accrued the spike E484K mutation) has now been detected in several locations in Brazil, including Manaus.

P.2 variants with the E484K mutation have been detected in two people who have been “reinfected” with SARS-CoV-2 in Brazil (are they survivors of the bronchial symptoms or have they always been infected?) and there is in-vitro evidence that the E484K mutation reduces neutralization by polyclonal antibodies in convalescent sera.

Fourth, SARS-CoV-2 lineages circulating in the second wave might have higher inherent transmissibility than pre-existing lineages circulating in Manaus. The P.1 lineage was first discovered in Manaus. In a preliminary study, this lineage reached a high frequency (42%, 13 of 31) among genome samples obtained from COVID-19 cases in December, 2020, but was absent in 26 samples collected in Manaus between March and November, 2020.

Thus far, little is known about the transmissibility of the P.1 lineage, but it shares several independently acquired mutations with the B.1.1.7 (N501Y) and the B.1.325 (K417N/T, E484K, N501Y) lineages circulating in the UK and South Africa, which seem to have increased transmissibility. Contact tracing and outbreak investigation data were simply not conducted in many countries and when they were, were prone to a politicized release (certainly not reported in scientific media) to understand relative transmissibility of this lineage, or for that matter any lineage. In my neck of the woods Belize and Nicaragua officially reported NO infections where the more scientifically oriented leaders of El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala reported true numbers as they knew them (subject to the testing and logistical limitations noted above).

The new SARS-CoV-2 lineages may drive a resurgence of cases in the places where they circulate if they have increased transmissibility compared with pre-existing circulating lineages and if they are associated with antigenic escape. For this reason, the genetic, immunological, clinical, and epidemiological characteristics of these SARS-CoV-2 variants need to be more comprehensively investigated.

Conversely, if resurgence in Manaus is due to waning of individual (within the original host) protective immunity, then similar resurgence scenarios should be expected in other locations. Sustained serological and genomic surveillance in Manaus and elsewhere should be a priority, with simultaneous monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions. Determining the efficacy of existing COVID-19 vaccines against variants in the P.1 lineage and other lineages with potential immune escape variants is crucial. Genotyping viruses from COVID-19 patients who were not protected by vaccination in clinical trials would help us to understand if there are original lineage-specific frequencies underlying reinfection. The protocols and findings of such studies should be coordinated and rapidly shared wherever such variants emerge and spread. Particularly, this relates to how important the genomic ORIGIN is to clinical treatments while identifying and postulating where the virus will “evolve”.

Remember that many of the countries that had the worst outbreaks last spring are the ones that are now manifesting the new variants.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6526/288

Results confirm that when poorly controlled, COVID-19 can infect a large proportion of the population almost instantaneously while causing relatively low mortality rates, but with a probable high morbidity, while later in the infection, causing ultimately, a high mortality.

Herd immunity is expected to arise when a virus cannot spread readily, because it encounters a population that has a level of immunity that reduces the number of individuals susceptible to infection. Buss et al. (1) describe the extent of the largely uncontrolled severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic in Manaus, the capital of Amazonas state in Brazil. Their data show the impact on mortality rates of

Reply
David Rivard
2/7/2021 12:14:59 pm

Sique,

Herd immunity is expected to arise when a virus cannot spread readily, because it encounters a population that has a level of immunity that reduces the number of individuals susceptible to infection. Buss et al. (1) describe the extent of the largely uncontrolled severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic in Manaus, the capital of Amazonas state in Brazil. Their data show the impact on mortality rates of a largely unmitigated outbreak where even with an estimated 76% of the population being infected, herd immunity was not achieved.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6526/230

So from under my rock, any such pathogen artificially constructed to optimize human infection, all of us being the same species, we are all (but maybe only not those with a higher Neanderthal gene pool) ultimately in store for the same effect are we not? Some sooner than others?

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/8/2021 06:19:14 pm

Medical device? No

Fit testing requirement? No

Face seal fit? Loose

User seal check requirement? No

Leakage? Leakage occurs around mask when user inhales.

Filtration efficiency? Does not provide wearer with reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection.

https://www.ehs.washington.edu/system/files/resources/masks-respirators-difference.pdf

--> My name is KN95, I'm an earloop teabag. Yes, I posted the above link before, and that's redundant, I know. But - I found a new gem:

The National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory used a modified version of the NIOSH Standard Test Procedure TEB-APR-STP-0059 and tested those KN95-things, and as in the real test, they used a table salt aerosol with a particle size distribution of 0.075 ± 0.020 micrometer, so let's say a median diameter of 0.070 micrometer just to pick a "round" number which isn't. For the sake of comparison, that's nice, because - as I excerpted out of Harcourt et al. (2020) "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States" before - SARS-CoV-2 virions have a diameter of around 60-70 nanometer aka 0.060-0.070 micrometer as well [I know, drill instructor Peter Ross will get mean in the comments, but it's part of our collective mental workout here, so please Peter, keep us ripped].

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/respirators/testing/pdfs/Non-NIOSHApproved-Innov-Respirator-TestPlan.pdf

Results:

"The maximum and minimum filter efficiency was 100.00% and 99.94%, respectively. [...] In addition, this product is an ear loop design. Currently, there are no NIOSH-approved products with ear loops; NIOSH-approved N95s have head bands. Furthermore, limited assessment of ear loop designs indicate difficulty achieving a proper fit."

Now do yourself a favor and scroll down to page 8 and check out the 2nd pic, totally worth it:

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/respirators/testing/results/MTT-2020-287.1_International_LanshanShendun_SD-KN95_TestReport_Redacted-508.pdf

See how they professionally glued that thing onto their metal plate? I guess just around a hole in the plate, otherwise, total filtration would have been way too simple. Awesome job. And no earloops needed anymore! Genious, so this is how your reach 100% filtration, people!

As a bonus, this other KN95-wunderwaffe is also more efficient than 95% in filtering bacteria. Wait. Yes, that's right, bacteria! See page 3

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/respirators/testing/results/MTT-2020-101.2_International_DonguanAOXING_AX-KF95_TestReport_Redacted-508.pdf

Ah, it's fun. What could possibly go wrong? With stellar filters like these, who needs human faces? Just use a perforated metal plate and plug the hole with a glued KN95! And hey, don't even think about the edges, just keep the 100% in mind. Tsss, and silly me goes shopping with a weirdo full face respirator + P3 filters and wonders why he scares the living hell out of the average KN95-Joe & surgical grandma. Every-single-time. See what happends when I leave my rock?

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
2/10/2021 04:48:25 am

So the filters, air being pushed out and sucked in, serve to concentrate virus particles which can easily be detected by examination of the filter after use?
Subjecting filters to examination seems like a a more direct - and less invasive - procedure than vigorously tickling the cribiform plate of healthy people with an uber long Q-tip, which picks up human RNA and DNA as well 'exogenous' RNA.
In fact, the nasopharyngeal swab technique is based upon extracting a piece of human RNA that codes for a RPP30 RNSase subunit as an internal control.

Why not routinely subject the face masks of school children to forensic PCR to determine how dangerous they are to their teacher?

Of course, given the imaginary magntidue of the pandemic, all face masks must be discarded as biotoxic waste bearing highly concentrated loci of infectious coronavirus...

What am I missing?

Reply
Peter Ross
2/10/2021 05:01:51 am

In fact, face masks are a highly concentrated source of all the respiratory viruses and other pathogens. And the longer the wear time, the higher the risk of contagion.

Maybe there's something magical about the choice of filter material that rapidly inactivates the microscopic dangers as they pass through - rather than being contained by - the material.

Xoco Latte
2/9/2021 04:53:17 am

Well, Nerds and Girls, this is just as comprehensive as possible at the moment... Whoa, kudos!

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2102/2102.03910.pdf

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/9/2021 01:41:12 pm

Totally awesome, thx for sharing, Xoco! It's fun to read about Mickey Mouse, exactly what I was suggesting some days ago @ the missing link:

"The combination of peptide mimicry to humans and mice, physical structure and binding strength, as well as high adaptation for human infection and transmission from the earliest strains might suggest the use of humanized mice for the development of SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory environment. The application of mouse strains expressing human ACE2 for SARS-CoV related research is well documented (Ren et al., 2008, Hou et al., 2010, Menachery et al., 2015, Cockrell et al., 2018, Jiang et al., 2020)."

--> I'd like to say thank you to the authors for their work and courage. To paraphrase Klaus Kinski: "Life is too short for wasting time with falsehood". Thumbs up, supercool!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
David Rivard
2/10/2021 09:57:15 am

I wonder how articles make it to publication with titles:

"Liu SL, Saif LJ, Weiss SR, Su L. No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory
engineering of SARS-CoV-2. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020;9(1):505-507"

"Menachery VD, Yount BL, Debbink K, et al. A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat
coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. Nat Med. 2015;21(12):1508-1513"

"Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, Holmes EC, Garry RF. The proximal origin of SARSCoV-2. Nat Med. 2020;26(4):450-452. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9"

"Chan YA, Zhan SH. Single source of pangolin CoVs with a near identical Spike RBD to SARSCoV-2. bioRxiv. Published online 2020:2020.07.07.184374 doi:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374."

"Damas J, Hughes GM, Keough KC, et al. Broad host range of SARS-CoV-2 predicted by
comparative and structural analysis of ACE2 in vertebrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci.
2020;117(36):22311-22322. doi:10.1073/pnas.2010146117"

The bias in how articles are accepted for publication is striking.

Reply
David Rivard
2/10/2021 01:09:39 pm

And why does Nature continue to present such disclaimers? As a magazine they should submit their own paper about how they are maintaining a disclaimer that amounts to an editorial comment.

30 March 2020 Editors’ note (from Nature), March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/12/2021 05:35:42 am

@PETER ROSS: "[G]iven the imaginary [magnitude] of the pandemic" huhuhu, good one! Well given the completely pathetic masks especially children get to wear from their superparents, I suspect much of the virions happily pass straight through and/or around them and get sucked in, therefore you won't detect them as a fomite, Sir! Also, imagine a negative pressure mask comparable to those insect catcher nets aka they concentrate over time what does not pass right through. Therefore, after let's say a school "shift", if it's a really good filter, a lot of virions could be on its surface. Yet, what does this tell you about what the child effectively inhaled? Zero. As an analogy, it's like measuring alpha radiation emmiting radionuclids in Becquerel [Bq], which does not pass through the filter if it touches its fibers and gets stopped by 1,5cm of air or human skin anyway. What counts is the effective dose a human gets exposed to in Sievert [Sv] or Röntgen equivalent man [rem], it's the ionizing radiation in human cells that matters. The same is true for all virions which pass the mask/filter, be it not built to filter virions [like N95 or FFP2], be it mechanically damaged, or not completely sealed at its edges like all those cheap KN95 waste prodcuts. Hence, what's on your filter, Peter, does not matter. Ai?

But you are completely right, if not properly decontaminated after each use, those masks are a zoo of all imaginable pathogens. That's why I tried not facilitate evil and be part of it, but empower ppl reading my prose by semi-autistically repeating the decontamination-part right after use aka desinfect your gizmo beforehand, then let it rest @ 60 degrees C for one hour in a humid environment in order to destroy the spikes, and then to dry it afterwars in order not to give fungi a cozy substrate. Of course, as you are only trolling and it's an """imaginary""" pandemic, all of this is cargo cult.

***

@DAVID RIVARD: Good observations concerning the titles and disclaimers. Yet I'm amazed why you are amazed! Those ivory-league publications+mainstream media+ WHO&friends have a societal role and by definition tell the truth no matter how untrue [ze Germans call it "Deutungshoheit", there is no English translation but it's something like "we are very important, we have power, you have to trust us, what we say goes] to manufacture consent and pour it into concrete of a given Zeitgeist. That's a very important buffering role in society in order to keep the bewildered herd in check, like the Church back in the days of the Holy Inquisition. That's why they use funny "scientific" approaches à la "we don't know the source of the virus, but we can categorically exclude a lab origin". Lovin' it, that's higher wizardry.

You know, that's not a bug, it's a feature. "All Liquid" world oil supply scenarios [like in: future] by the International Energy Agency in their annual Word Energy Outlook are another good example. It's fun to plot them all from 1993 onwards and see [with the exception of the WEO 1998] how it always goes up up up, even if peak global oil discovery was sometime in the... 1960ies. Or take the 911 Commission Report to learn how WTC7 came down. Or take the Warren Commission to learn something about Kennedy's death & the magic bullet. So now it has come to this - again. Imagine my shock!

But, as usual, there is a takeaway: Either punish all those prestige sources the hard way by simply not buying nor looking at them - or, if you really have to under duress, consider them as modern art, something you know it does not mean anything at face value, and you always have to read the exact opposite to what is written in order to know what the "artist" meant. Like intelligent Russians in Soviet Russia handling the Pravda the right way by adding an x(-1) in front of any title, and they were good to go!

Best
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
2/12/2021 05:52:22 pm

Yeah - there's no detectable virus particles, or remnants thereof, on either surface of the face diapers.

In fact, in suspected covid cases, there's probably not enough extracellular virions at the very back of the throat available for detection even using PCR tests run at extreme cycle thresholds.

Where are these infectious virions exactly? Not in the air, not at the back of the throat.

So you suppose this mysterious, polymorphic illness that almost exclusively affects only theinfirm and elderly is some kind of radiation posioning, measurable in Bequerels?

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/16/2021 07:10:03 am

I don't suppose anything, Peter, other than a lab virus, which, to me, makes the most sense out of what we currently see.
And David, I wrote "As an analogy", so you can keep your Pollyanna moments for worst times than these ;-]

David Rivard
2/14/2021 02:18:29 pm

Yes Guy,

I gave myself a Pollyanna moment.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/12/2021 05:38:58 am

@ALL: Here a nice one from the archives - Lim et al. (2004) "Laboratory-Acquired Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome", check:

"This case is scientifically important in that it documents laboratory-acquired SARS-CoV infection. Other, nonlaboratory sources of infection were investigated and ruled out. [...] The most likely explanation is that the patient acquired his infection in the laboratory. The strongest evidence supporting this assertion was the presence of SARS-CoV in the sample of West Nile virus with which he had been working three days before his illness began. Furthermore, the strain isolated from the patient had the same signature sequences as the SARS-CoV found to be contaminating the sample of West Nile virus, and these sequences, in turn, were highly similar to those of the predominant research strain in Institute A and Singapore. [...] This case of laboratory-acquired SARS indicates that concern regarding the potential risk to laboratory personnel is justified, and the epidemiologic criteria in the current case definitions of the World Health Organization (WHO) and CDC may need to be amended to include laboratory exposure to SARS-CoV as a risk factor for infection. Furthermore, because laboratories handling live SARS-CoV are potential sources of infection, this case highlights the importance of strict adherence to effective biosafety practices. This case underscores the need for unceasing vigilance and for the ability to respond swiftly and comprehensively in order to prevent another out- break of SARS. The patient’s illness was mild and his radiologic findings developed late, making the diagnosis dependent on a high index of suspicion and the availability of reliable laboratory tests. A delay in diagnosis in hospital settings increases the risk that the outbreak will spread and ultimately reach the community. This is the challenge we now face in preparing for the next reemergence of SARS."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa032565

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Babstar
2/12/2021 11:26:21 am

Guy Fawkes, a more recent paper with clear guidance on the current pandemic:
Laboratory Biosafety Considerations of SARS-CoV-2 at Biosafety Level 2
...
In China, diagnostic tests and laboratory tests of specimens from persons under investigation are usually performed in a biosafety level 2 environment. Laboratory staff may be at greater risk of exposure due to a higher concentration and invasiveness of emerging pathogens.
...
Reception and Preparation of Specimens

When receiving, sorting, and centrifuging specimens of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, the operator had to use BSL-2 personal protection. That protection should be upgraded to BSL-3 in case of an accidental breakage of tubes containing potentially infectious material
...
BSL-3 N95 or high-level respirator (and outer surgical mask), 2 pairs of gloves, cap, goggles, gowns or disposable gowns, face shields, shoe covers
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/hs.2020.0021?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&

My question is then, was BSL-3 standard applied to all handling of any of the SARS-like CoV material at the WIV at all times, Including the animal house?

If the answer is no, then based on the infectiousness of the SARS-CoV-2 it is entirely plausible this virus, escaped and infected someone working in the building who became patient zero,

As a reminder, we have the leaked State Department cables from 2018:
"During interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators to safely operate this high-containment laboratory," states the Jan. 19, 2018 cable.

"Most importantly," the cable states, "the researchers also showed that various SARS-like coronaviruses can interact with ACE2, the human receptor identified for SARS-coronavirus. This finding strongly suggests that SARS-like coronaviruses from bats can be transmitted to humans to cause SARS-like diseases. From a public health perspective, this makes the continued surveillance of SARS-like coronaviruses in bats and study of the animal-human interface critical to future emerging coronavirus outbreak prediction and prevention."

Reply
Peter Ross
2/12/2021 05:40:26 pm

An ICU patient in respriaory distress is going ot be coughing up a lot of infectious particles, no?

So by now all the ICU staff everywhere has natural or acquired immunity.
If not, how do they go home everyday? They should quarantied 10-14 days afer every shift, no?

What am I missing?

Guy Fawkes
2/12/2021 03:13:44 pm

@BABSTAR: Awesome stuff, thank you so much! I rather wanted to point out @ 2004 for how long this corona-sniplet-saga already goes on. I like oldschool stuff, you know.

Interesting paper concerning the biosafety standards! Yet they note in their very conclusion the following:

"This report described the laboratory biosafety control measures adopted in most Chinese clinical diagnostic laboratories since the COVID-19 outbreak. "

So we are talking post-outbreak, not pre-. What I really don't get is why an N95-respirator is the minimum for BSL-3. They say "or higher", but why not directly N99 or N100? I guess that when they work on large germs, N95 is enough and an evil XXL-bacteria cannot slip though the N95 net. Note that they write "and outer surgical mask", there we have double masking, folks!

But what I totally don't understand is the fact that the authors don't seem to know from their literature research beforehand [I checked the references, but did not find a proper source enumerated there] that THE Wuhan-lab in question was a BSL-4, the highest standard with mandatory positive pressure suit + a biological safety cabinet. Remember David Cyranoski's Nature piece (2017) "Inside China’s pathogen lab", vol. 542, pp. 399-401, quote:

"The lab’s first project will be to study the BSL-3 pathogen that causes Crimean–Congo haemorrhagic fever: a deadly tick-borne virus that affects livestock across the world, including in northwest China, and that can jump to people. Future plans include studying the pathogen that causes SARS, which also doesn’t require a BSL-4 lab, before moving on to Ebola and the West African Lassa virus, which do."

Here a nice overview of biosafety levels

https://www.utrgv.edu/ehsrm/programs/lab-safety/biological-safety-program/biosafety-levels/index.htm

or as an infograph

https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/infographics/biosafety.htm

Concerning your question: No, my understanding is that the new BSL-4-lab is a separate construction built by the French at the WIV-site, and that in its vincinity, there are multiple other/older labs with lower security levels. Specific labs & biosafety levels vary depending on the research which is done. It would indeed be enligthening to know if the Animal Biosafety Level for work with inoculation/rescue [I love the Orwellian term "rescue" in this context] of the virions of/from bats & mice, used for Corona Kung Fu at the BSL-4 Wuhan lab in question, was a corresponding ABSL-4, see

http://www.bu.edu/ehs/ehs-topics/biological/animal-biosafety-levels/

Also great you mentioned the "leaked" cable. Let's remember The Washington Post historically has always been the medium/vehicle of choice of some 3-letter-agencies in order to send a public message and make a point. The journalist could [in theory] also just have published the whole cable Wikileaks-style, but of course opted for chosen excerpts - yes of course. Of course! Who knows if the whole cable even exists RaTG13-style. Thus take it with a grain of salt, it was in my eyes a weather balloon in order to publicly tell the intelligent Pravda-readers that "the US" [whoever "the US" exactly is] knows what was going on in Wuhan. Which does not mean "going on" was only with Chinese fingerprints. We just don't know and never will, so let's generously grant the benefit of the doubt to everyone.

But hey, in that said article/cable/leak/poetry, they point out exactly what I was writing above myself:

"There are similar concerns about the nearby Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention lab, which operates at biosecurity level 2, a level significantly less secure than the level-4 standard claimed by the Wuhan Insititute of Virology lab, Xiao* said."

*Note that Xiao Qiang is "a research scientist at the School of Information at the University of California at Berkeley", certainly incredibly neutral in his analysis. Here the link to the famous article without those damn popups:

http://web.archive.org/web/20210212004401if_/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/

--> So what's the takeaway, nerdboys and girls? Different biosafety levels, different labs. Where has CoV-2 been created? Let's guesstimate in a BSL-3 or most likely a BSL-4 lab at the final stages. In Wuhan or some other BSL-4 lab somewhere below the rainbow? An known unknown, given that we think to know it came from a lab. Otherwise, it would even be an unknown unknown. Oh noes... because either way, this brings us Sisyphus-style back sitting like lame ducks on our hands @ square 1.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Fuddman
2/12/2021 10:17:27 pm

Almost a year ago, now , the Nerd said this: "As of me, I am fully convinced that this is a bioweapon made by the CCP."

A bio weapon is not created without a specific target in mind.

Now that the weapon has been released and has been doing its dirty work, for a year or more, does anyone care to guess what target the weapon was aimed at? More importantly, did the weapon succeed in eliminating what you believe to be the target?

Reply
Nerd has power
2/14/2021 05:39:41 pm

It is the unrestricted warfare that the CCP has been implementing. This concept might be new to people, but it is something the CCP has been engaged in and getting aggressive about. This bioweapon is part of that and is used to gain political advantage, not to cause casualty on a battle field per se.

There is a book that the CCP military scientists published in 2015, where they openly talked about how coronaviruses could be developed into bioweapons and how such "contemporary bioweapons" could be implemented in a way that evade detection. Unfortunately, the book is in Chinese. Some people are trying to translate it into English and other languages. I'm sure many people here would like to read it. Let's wait and see how it may change your view. It's going to be interesting.

About outcomes, are the Hong Kong protests still going on? How about the US-China trade deal that was impossible for the CCP to fulfill? Is Trump still in office? Did the CCP not gain political advantage over the pandemic? Remember, for totalitarian governments, power is everything. When they lose it, the leaders there often lose everything, including their lives. So, there are plenty of reasons that they would want to release this bioweapon back then.

Reply
Fuddman
2/14/2021 09:04:13 pm

This bio-weapon released by the CCP has been wildly successful.

Not only did it, single-handedly, remove the target, Trump, but, in so doing, it has fundamentally altered the society I live in, the USA, in a way that may be permanent. All I need to do is look around me. The truth is staring me in the face. What is all the more impressive is the mayhem being imposed by the weapon is being done in a surreptitious way.

The bio weapon techniques they used over the past year to accomplish their ends tells me the Chinese are far, far ahead of the rest of the world in this arena. In the "Virus Industry," the Chinese appear to dominate and not only in a scientific sense.. Which means they will continue to use that weapon in ways that will confuse and stymie whatever honest scientists remain in the Virus industry.

I think it's important to come off the nitty gritty virus details once in a while to look for a bigger picture. If, for example, a mutant virus suddenly appears, one needs to give some thought as to whether or not it is another release of a weapon, although, of slightly different design. And what the target might be.

CC
5/18/2021 04:12:29 am

The unrestricted weapon aims at destroying one country's systems. Medical system, economic system, etc. No countries can control their people like Chinese government. CCP could lock you in your home without giving you food. This brutal behaviour could muffle the spread of the virus very quickly. But in west countries, governments cannot do this and people will revolt if they do. This is the advantage of CCP using this bioweapon.
I hope one day people all over the world will find the truth.

Reply
Peter Ross
2/13/2021 08:35:48 am

Consider:

1) The unfolding analysis of the morbidity and mortality statistics around the world do not support the claim that there is an actual pandemic - rather there is an illusion of a pandemic created by the data deception of registering ordinary illness and death as "due to covid". Is this a reasonable biodefense strategy?

2) Absent research studies of direct human-to-human transmission, the etiology of covid has not been unequivocally determined to be an exogenous virus, airborne or otherwise. So, is there a toxicological etiology with expression of coronavirus-like genes being secondary phenomena?

3) A covid-causing exogenous virus is not likely since face masks, worn until damp, are not considered to be a source of infection. If SARS-CoV-2 were indeed airborne, why not be treating the face diapers as biohazard waste?

4) The SARS-CoV-2 genes are only detectable when extracting human cells, and even then the presence of this intracellular-but-yet- communicable virus requires amplification steps so extreme, either by RT-PCR or by in-situ culture, as to caste in doubt the 'free-range' virus theory of covid transmission.

5) The HCQ scandal demonstrates that publications appearing in even the most established medical journals are unreliable. What are the unimpeachable facts?

6) If SARS-CoV-2 weapon were truly suspected to be so potentially damaging as a potential latent infection, the R&D emphasis would be to deploy rapid tests to estimate humoral and cell-based immunity combined with therapeutics and direct human-to-human transmission studies and biopsy- and autopsy-based research.
If one suspects that an HIV-like virus has been weaponized and rendered airborne, one does not waste time and resources on redundant and nonsensical PCR-based surveillance nor deploy DARPAS's pet inoculation strategy based upon dubious technologies without understanding the basics of transmission and immune response, without which a vaccine cannot be rationally developed.

7) The delinquent behavior of the CCP cannot account for the panic-stricken and self-destructive response of other national authorities without invoking tin-foil theories that we're living inside some bizarre pre-scripted, globalized reality tv show/horror movie.

8) Is there evidence that the CCP has prepared a biodefense
in advance on their side, to protect their people from covid-the-pandemic-that-wasn't?


Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/14/2021 06:46:19 am

@PETER ROSS: Respect, now that's serious critical thinking, big up, I'm not kidding, Sir!

#1 - Indeed, but there is *something* going around, I know a lot of young and old people who got it personally, family & friends, all recovered, but they are low testo/energy afterwards, as if someone would have pulled the cord. My default question is what their energy level is compared to before the illness, and their default answer is something around 50% months later, especially concerning endurance sports. I got Salmonella once drinking out of a fountain with cows nearby like an idiot after 150km [90 miles] of cycling as I found myself without water and still had 100km [60 miles] in front of me that day. 4 weeks later, I had lost 15kg [30 pounds], but within a week or two, my energy level was back at 100%. Thus especially all those young people now who technically "recovered" and still are hooked in low energy mode are a mysterium to me. As if they all turned grandpa/ma all of a sudden. Why? Because CoV-2 sits in their intestintes etc. and waits for the next party in order to come out?

#2 - Concerning etiology [aka cause/source], that's what we are here for, ai? Do you think there is something other at play here? What? Can't just be the vaccine adjuvants, as those people who got the illness did not get the vaccine yet. Something like the timing of 5G = millimeter radiowave technology deployment on a massive scale is noteworthy and there is a nice & declassified CIA paper from 1977 about it [in fact it was a Soviet publication from Kiev by a lady called N. P. Zalyubovskaya and the US translated it the same year into the English title "Biological Effect of Millimeter Radiowaves", quote from the last paragraph: "Thus the conducted investigations indicate high biological activity and an unfavorable influence of millimeter radiowaves on the organism."], yet all patients don't live near an antenna, and as you know, the irradiance is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Double the distance from the antenna, and you have 4 times less exposure. Ey, you can learn cool stuff on the NerdHasPowerBlog! But if it was not the vaccine [but - plz - let's wait 5 years Contergan-style to know its effects], and it's not 5G [keep your distance and move on, folks!], what on Earth is it, Pete?

3# - Good point, all those trashy, not decontaminated earloop things are indeed industrial waste and a source of nasty microfauna/fungi. Thanks to you, from now on, I will regard them as official biohazard. But I'm not sure I follow your logic @ "A covid-causing exogenous virus is not likely since face masks, worn until damp, are not considered to be a source of infection." Infection to whom, someone else, or the dumb wearer? Who uses/licks someone elses mask? Or you mean the initial wearer? As - without all due respect - 99% of human population seem too dumbed down to correctly wear [airtight an the edge with enough applied pressure & without facial hair] an adequate mask [N99/N100 or FFP3/P3 + lab goggles] vs. the concrete risk or a frankrenstein virus, what those 99% wear is meaningless and an insult to human intelligence. Hence, you cannot make any deduction à la "ppl wear masks, get ill, thus it cannot be airborne". Just not.

#4 - You are right, the PCR-amplification trick is not credible. Either people are contagious AF, or they are not and you have to dig deep in order to amplifly contamination residue in your lab. You cannot have both. You earlier pointed out "If one is contagious, a single nose hair should contain ample virus for easy detection" - and that's a very, very intelligent observation, kudos Peter. I also wait - please, anyone reading this, post the paper [!!!] - for any logical explanation why asymptomatic "carriers" are the most contageous. As an evolutionary strategy, this makes sense for STDs in order for the partner to catch the fluids downunder before the other drops dead - yet for airborne transmission diseases? What they need are neverending hammering coughs & sneezes, elevators, supermarkets, public transports and Indian sweat lodges [but, for the latter, gotta be close and hurry up, think of those poor spikes]. So what's your conclusion? If it's not a communicable virus like you allude to, do you think it's a new form of cancer, placebo, or what? I'm all ears, please come forward with your least incredible scenario.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/14/2021 06:50:45 am

#5 - Yes, now we know that even in the science world, the more "respected" a paper is [read: was], the more it's under political scrunity and they will publish uttermost bullshit under scientific disguise, something alike the famous "we dunno where it's from, but we 100% know for sure it's not coming from a lab". Boy, if only the Russians created SciHub in order to punish them. Wait, they already did.

#6 - Indeed, the global "contingency strategy" was/is/stays hilarious. As if there is nothing like closing borders big time in time, grounding planes post 9/11-style, and dropping every week a box full of fresh masks [see above which ones] in front of everyone's door/tent/rock. If they have the money for silly stuff like buying new tanks or paying interest to old central banks, states should in theory also have enough creditline to distribute proper masks and tell the lemmings how to use/decontaminate them. Ah, and if there are not enough in store, simply build a damn factory or 2 and produce them on a national level asap. Yet to wait for the buggy corona vaccines instead and promote quadriple-masking is pure lunacy. Makes me think of putting pillows around every rock and tree instead of wearing a helmet downhill on a MTB. Are they mean, or retarded?

7# - Rule of thumb: The more based such a tinfoil theory, the closer it's to the truth. Remember the "stories" in the early 2000s about how every keystroke, internet search and email is recorded and stored forever? Those pesky conspiracy theorists! Well, then came Snowden and the Utah Data Center. Can't wait for some other "stories" to turn conspiracy facts.

8# - I only changed+deleted word: "Is there evidence that [NATO] has prepared a biodefense in advance on their side, to protect their people from covid-the-pandemic-that-wasn't?" --> See, it's as if I will have to punish you again by unearthing the obligatory Rahm Emanuel - you asked for it! Here we go, bam:

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that - it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
David Rivard
2/14/2021 12:35:04 pm

Peter, like myself, you have wandered into the deeper part of this tarpit of misinformation, or no-information, where we can find a few facts.The “unimpeachable” fact is that more and more of humanity chooses to join, and even cite, such sites to muck around in. If they cannot do that (credentialing or some technical reasons), they are increasingly talking in the streets or in their villages. Even if not intended as a war, it is a fact that the “Pandora’s Box” syndrome has come alive because of the lack of understandable and trusted information. Not the first time, we all know how unpredictable this era will get – and is proving to be.

Some of us are bound to wander into a deeper subjective end where it is harder to extract oneself. I understand, it is hard to avoid if you choose to get your ankles blackened in the first place. What makes society “tick” is precisely the universality of viewpoints, however suppressed, and the unexpected confluence they achieve when they meld together.

Being "internationalistas" my friends and I experience popular local views that "this would not be the first time that a supreme leader has taken calculated risks, and calculated casualties, to achieve a higher calling for his country". That a confidence in the strategy was enhanced with the level of control one has over their nation in relation to who you want to socio-economically, politically and otherwise deflate into submission. Do not think that this has to be a global war to reverse engineer this notion as we are attempting to do with the virus, even if collateral damage has been global. Regionally there are incontrovertible acts of unwanted Chinese expansion (let’s forget about the timing of the release). My big question has been WHY the CCP has vetted ALL clinical information and has actually punished or disappeared EVERYONE who does not go through official channels as it relates to the pandemic.

People can best use and evaluate therapies for now, but not the impalpable promise of magic bullets that many suspect have caveats. If you are wading further out than the virologic context of this site (as I am), you must also see that countries that even have democratically elected representatives have made the same historic mistakes. These mistakes have un-reckoned and uncontrollable consequences. The usually acceptable consequences are that their own citizens must perish in acceptable numbers to achieve the higher goal. Historically, civilians “sacrificed” have been regarded as the unmentioned martyrs of society. Those recognized, of course, have always been the militaries, but both groups are marginally factored into decision making, as long as the numbers are acceptable. The overwhelming political and socioeconomic facts are that the CCP achieved a “shortcut” to their higher calling – unimpeachably publicized. It depends upon the viewer to recognize if they are living, and can help shape, a consequential historic time. It appears that the CCP certainly did.

Interestingly, humanity has another large chronic problem, but the analysis has matured into that part of the tar pit we are both mutually sharing and has been recognized and ultimately published by the “powers that be”. It is more highly published because it is more universally recognized. They are more comprehensively assessed publications about global warming. If the SARS-CoV-2 pathology was as comprehensively mapped as global warming, it would also take the complexion of its many relational aspects, rather than just evaluating its physical and pathologic chemistry.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82474-z?utm_source=srep_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=toc_41598_11_1_20210209&utm_content=EAES_1&sap-outbound-id=934E939659ED344DE18244796540217C5BD1EAAE

I think that each day there are growing numbers of socially responsible people, or those that think they can make a difference for other reasons, joining like suppressed groups to address the pandemic precisely because there is such a chasm of critical information. It is because there is only one country, the most critical country, which has continued to unimpeachably withhold information.

Reply
Fuddman
2/14/2021 09:51:13 pm

"It is because there is only one country, the most critical country, which has continued to unimpeachably withhold information."

No one is going to get information out of the PLA. That's not to say information cannot be pried out of the CCP by way of bad press.

Unlike what was being published a few months ago, more main stream media sources are, today, suggesting the virus was a Chinese lab creation. These reputable news sources, however, are quick to point out that they think it was an accidental Chinese lab release. They also make clear they do not think it was a weapon.

All this media stuff makes the Chinese nervous. Brings up the question -"was it a weapon?" Bad press makes for bad reputation makes for bad sales.

Obviously the Chinese would rather the world swallowed the "accidental" angle. So, now they can use their considerable influence with the press/media to frame the "accident" as an unfortunate by product of the research they were doing to conquer some nasty human killer sickness - AIDS, for example.

On that one, the Chinese can just see the press headlines : "Those naughty boys."

Reply
Xoco Latte
2/15/2021 12:14:18 am

Well, I honestly like the tone of conversation this past few days, especially since the COVID-19 'Committee' blatant lies came out and a new fabulous tale of origin started to be told (frozen meat). The media and some authorities (especially the WHO's AND the leader's of the Commettee) response to this has been quite surprising and multiplied the cacophony already surrounding the case.
And now, it appears as if some expert advise finally came to fruit: the story of much more early cases with 13 different variants in places outside Wuhan would strategically (or tactically?) supplement all the controvesials that has been missing for the zoonotic source hypothesis. Which, I think is absolutely not the case: if there was an intentional release much earlier, like end of September, it would certainly lead to multiple cases and different infectious lines, which would result in their small differences in the genome.
I once again call out for sample verification of all the Military Games cases in foreign countries. Otherwise the Chinese will jsut fabricate any new evidence that suits their agenda and propaganda.

Guy Fawkes
2/15/2021 04:58:17 am

Looks like - except from "INTERESTED ONE" and one of the authors himself back in September - it's a shame we totally missed Sirotkin K. & Sirotkin D. (2020) "Might SARS-CoV-2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?", published in Bioessays back in August, quote:

"Despite claims from prominent scientists that SARS-CoV-2 indubitably emerged naturally, the etiology of this novel coronavirus remains a pressing and open question: Without knowing the true nature of a disease, it is impossible for clinicians to appropriately shape their care, for policy-makers to correctly gauge the nature and extent of the threat, and for the public to appropriately modify their behavior. Unless the intermediate host necessary for completing a natural zoonotic jump is identified, the dual-use gain-of-function research practice of viral serial passage should be considered a viable route by which the novel coronavirus arose. The practice of serial passage mimics a natural zoonotic jump, and offers explanations for SARS-CoV-2's distinctive spike-protein region and its unexpectedly high affinity for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE2), as well as the notable polybasic furin cleavage site within it."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/

Reply
David Rivard
2/15/2021 08:14:44 am

But never underestimate large corporate media. Lots of kids out there need jobs:

"The superspreaders behind COVID-9 conspiracy theories"

https://aje.io/wlvxu

It would be interesting to know their journalistic credentials

Reply
David Rivard
2/15/2021 09:02:49 am

That last link only about 3 hours old from AP and the Atlantic's self appointed intelligence committee. They want to issue another reminder that they are on the winning side.

I also think the natural origin theory must hold fast. If you "reverse engineered" an "accidental lab release", then you have the body of a completed bioweapon and the proven attempts/methodologies to hide it's deployment from the initial release onwards to dispose. That is where the State Dept. (and let's face it, every other country on earth must remain pragmatic), has a more difficult time maintaining its status to the rest of the world with, "Aw, that's just the CCP being the CCP". You cannot wade further in the tar pit when you follow hubris.

Reply
David Rivard
2/15/2021 07:08:37 pm

Guy,

Thanks for your

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/

Citations on that page are also a good reads:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7859469/

2021 Feb 4, "Regardless of COVID-19 origin, studying the evolution of the molecular mechanisms involved in the emergence of pandemic viruses is essential to develop therapeutic and vaccine strategies and to prevent future zoonoses".

"Interestingly, these samples were collected in 2013, but the full-genome sequence was only published in early February 2020 (Zhou et al. 2020a). Unfortunately, the precise location of the sample collection is documented neither in the original article nor in the sequence databases.

Based on phylogenetic inferences, sequence analysis and structure–function relationships of coronavirus proteins, informed by the knowledge currently available on the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we present our re-analysis of the available data and discuss the different scenarios evoked to account for the origin of this coronavirus. Addressing this question is important not only to understand the causes of the pandemic, but also because the actual events at the origin of the virus should be taken into account for decision-making about science policy.

Until the last hypothetical recombinant has been identified and its genome sequenced, it will not be known for certain in which species this recombination has taken place: a bat, a pangolin, another species? And above all, in which conditions? It is conceivable that the recombination took place in farm or laboratory animals rather than in wild pangolins or bats: In the former case, transmission to humans would be favored by closer and more frequent contact. Furthermore, the human ACE2 (angiotensin converting enzyme 2) protein, which is used by SARS-CoV-2 as a receptor for cell infection, is closer to the homologous protein of numerous farm animals than to the ACE2 proteins of pangolins and bats (Fig. 4).

The hypothesis promoted by most specialists is that the virus has a zoonotic origin. This hypothesis relies on phylogenetic studies suggesting two main scenarios to explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) adaptation in an animal host before zoonotic transfer or (ii) adaptation in humans after zoonotic transfer (Latinne et al. 2020; Zhou et al. 2020a; Lam et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2020; Xiao et al. 2020; Andersen et al. 2020). However, in the absence of evidence regarding the last animal intermediate before human contamination (the “proximal” origin of the virus), some authors suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may have been manufactured in a laboratory (synthetic origin) (Segreto and Deigin 2020; Relman 2020).

Others suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may result from a chiropteran virus that became adapted to other species in laboratory animal models and then escaped from the laboratory (Sirotkin and Sirotkin 2020). It might also be envisaged that it comes from a viral strain cultured on human cells in a laboratory in order to study its infectious potential, and that has been progressively “humanized” (adapted to humans) by selection of the viruses having the highest ability to spread in these conditions."

"The controversy on gain-of-function experiments (increase in virulence or infectivity of viruses by genetic manipulation) began in 2011, following the work of the teams of Ron Fouchier (Russell et al. 2012) and Yoshihiro Kawaoka (Imai et al. 2012) on the influenza virus. In order to understand the virulence factors of influenza, these researchers had tested the effect of mutations that could increase the transmissibility of the H5N1 virus in different animal models. The US Department of Health’s National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), alerted by these experiments in December 2011, asked the journals Nature and Science not to disclose the results of this work on behalf of the significant death toll expected in case of intentional (bioterrorism) or accidental release of these viruses from the laboratory. Because of the importance of the results for public health and the research communities, the NSABB ultimately recommended the general findings to be published, but recommended that the manuscripts should not include “methodological and other details that might allow replication of the experiments by those who would seek to do harm” (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 2013).

The risk of accidental escape of new potentially pandemic pathogens is increased by the proliferation of high biosafety laboratories (BSL-3 and BSL-4) in densely populated areas (Van Boeckel et al. 2013). In addition, experiments on viruses such as avian influenza viruses or SARS from chiropterans, that are currently unable to infect humans, are allowed in BSL-3 laboratories: It increases the risk of accidents because selection or mutagenesis can confer an epidemic potential to these viruses (Enserink 2003; Normile 2004; Henkel et al. 2012)."

an

Reply
David Rivard
2/15/2021 07:15:07 pm

also another exoneration of a critically endangered genera, where all 8 species have been notoriously difficult to keep alive in captivity and have rarely bred

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32768565/

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/16/2021 01:42:48 am

@DAVID RIVARD: You are more than welcome my man. Some days ago, you wrote about funny titles, and "COVID-19: Time to exonerate the pangolin from the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to humans" really is a good one. "Exonerate", like in "rehabilitate" or "aquit". I'm glad that pet made it out of of COVID-jail!

THX for the new, French paper. But Sallard et al. "Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review" is a frustrating one if you ask me. Goes straight to its peers inside the box I put a fitting sticker on which the slogan "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has all the characteristics of a duck, not sure if it's a duck". Can't stand such lukewarm "the jury is still out" lameness, those guys always stay in the green zone and are very sensitive to where the wind blows from. But as soon as the lab theory will turn mainstream [I suspect never], they will be the first to claim they always knew and wave with their fruitless paper. In this context, those 2 Sirotkin gentlemen are wonderful exceptions, are my heros, they have cojones! Problem is most scientists are not exactly the perfect phenotype of upright, fearless, virtuous & strong personalities. And so are their publications. Feel free to disagree!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Fuddman
2/16/2021 01:37:22 pm

"But as soon as the lab theory will turn mainstream [I suspect never],...."

You need to revise your suspicions.

The "mainstream media" is now educated enough to know that the
origin of this thing is essential knowledge. They know the "origin" is news, especially when the menacing idea of lab origin is part of that mix. They are writing about "origin" more and more and it's not going to stop. China can see this information train coming and they are reacting to it.

Like this: https://apnews.com/article/china-coronavirus-origin-65c6958bb2d8d22d811bb3d0c90f7418

And this: https://apnews.com/article/who-visits-wuhan-virus-lab-china-8798374a3c6acc56b1e8b973309045ba

They'll use intermediaries to eventually throw some excuse out there and here is what the intermediaries will say: "China was trying to save the world from (fill in your favorite catastrophe) and some lunk head let the thing out by accident.

Reply
alex
2/17/2021 12:49:17 am

@fuddman,
would this fit your hypothesis?:

https://www.francesoir.fr/societe-science-tech/histoire-du-covid-19-chapitre-9-partie-1-un-tropisme-du-sars-cov2-vers

Fuddman
2/17/2021 08:52:31 am

Alex: It might.

Here are the conclusions from your reference. They could actually be important. Unfortunately, the conclusions are written in Virus Industry gibberish. And not in the English language the rest of the world is communicating with. To you - what the hell do they mean in plain fu@#(*&^% english!

"CONCLUSIONS:

1)18 RNA fragments of homology equal or more than 80% with human or simian retroviruses have been found in the COVID_19 genome.

2)These fragments are 18 to 30 nucleotides long and therefore have the potential to modify the gene expression of Covid19. We have named the external Informative Elements or EIE

3)These EIE are not dispersed randomly , but are concentrated in a small part of the genome.

4)Among this part, a 225 nucleotide long region is unique to COVID_19 and BatRaTG13 and can discriminate and formally distinguish these 2 genomes.

5)In the decreasing slope of the epidemic, this region exhibits an abnormally high rate of mutations/deletions.

6)The comparative analysis of the SPIKES genes of COVID_19 and Bat RaTG13demonstrates two abnormal facts: on the one hand, the insertion of 4contiguous amino acids in the middle of SPIKE, on the other hand, an abnormal distribution of synonymous codons in the second half of SPIKE.Finally the insertion in this region of an EIE coming from a Plasmodium Yoeliigene is demonstrated, but above all seems to explain the "strategy" pursued by having "artificially" modified the ratio of synonym codons / non-synonymous codons in this same region of 1770 COVID_19 SPIKE nucleotides.

P.S. I've admired Montagnier for quite some time. He is a straight talker. I listen carefully when he speaks.

Guy Fawkes
2/16/2021 03:59:52 am

Gotta take an amused/bewildered look at the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) slides from November 16, 2020. The Forward-looking Statements and Disclaimer are/is dotted with special gems, quote:

"The forward-looking statements in this presentation are neither promises nor guarantees, and you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, many of which are beyond Moderna’s control and which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties, and other factors include, among others: the fact that there has never been a commercial product utilizing mRNA technology approved for use; the fact that the rapid response technology in use by Moderna is still being developed and implemented; the fact that the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1273 has not yet been established;"

https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/content_documents/mRNA-1273-Update-11-16-20-Final.pdf

"[K]nown and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, many of which are beyond Moderna’s control ... among others: the fact that there has never been a commercial product utilizing mRNA technology approved for use ... the fact that the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1273 has not yet been established"

--> Oh boy, this sounds reassuring! It's science. Makes me think of this good, ol' Anchorman-scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6hx1nXe41A

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
David Rivard
2/16/2021 09:09:38 am

Hopefully this site can maintain the truth serum as it becomes available. When it bubbles up others who are actually employed to do it can use this catalogue for their distillation. We must keep the articles flowing and no thanks to my ruminations. Sequencing of this information might probably require Nerd to update his original paper. Easy for us to say. My extreme thanks that he has created this path and also some disciples.

Reply
David Rivard
2/16/2021 11:26:03 am

Re. ruminations, I like to think of “next”, as probably most on this site are not employees that are directed what to do next and what to think next.

The virus has demonstrated its path and it is probably also just getting started. We have identified its accelerating pathway of death, illness, socio-economic and political disintegrations, vaccine and therapy challenges, variations et al. (the Kent variant turns out to be over 30% more lethal and over 75% more infectious. Will this become the dominant strain?). As western nations have been hardest hit and as the CCP was actually caught in the cookie jar (yes, figuratively and literally as well) collecting genomic data of western countries, subjective evidence is not stacking up well for them.

Will western nations compel Chinese transparency (and I think that the importance of getting peer reviewed raw Chinese clinical data is superseding (albeit still related to) origin information, particularly as the evolutionary story is getting more complex with variants. More immediate, did the Chinese army receive an effective vaccine during their normal course of shots?

In 2021 we can reasonably predict that certain countries that herald declining caseloads today will find reversals and new variants tomorrow. Will they collectivize any response if the U.S. maintains its rope a dope strategy? Is “herd immunity” even a valid concept for a virus that has never evolved with humans?

As the virus continues on its Frankenstonian?? path despite our interventions, the urgency to procure raw and conveniently collated data will obviously become greater than even in 2020.

Reply
Drastic
2/16/2021 10:14:32 pm

Was the virus patented?

1. Insertion of furin cleavage sites to change the characteristics of viral entry proteins has
been known for nearly 20 years. A 2007 patent, filed in 2004, describes this for the entry
protein of Semliki virus (US 7,223,390
https://www.freepatentsonline.com/7223390.html)
2. A 19 base pair cDNA nucleotide sequence, “ctacgtgcccgccgaggag,” encodes an artificial
furin cleavage site (3’ to 5’ direction) encoding five amino acids (PRRAR) found in a
2019 US Patent 10,501,513 B2. https://www.freepatentsonline.com/10501513.html. This
patent was granted to ModernaTx, Inc on 12/10/19, and the Sequence ID in this patent is
SEQ ID 11652. This patent is an extension of US patent 9,587,003 filed on 2/4/16
(https://www.freepatentsonline.com/9587003.html). Several other related international
patents have been filed.
3. On page 73-74 of the 12/10/19 US patent, the creation and use of protease cleavage sites is discussed in detail, with a patent claim to the idea of use of these sites for intracellular modification and direction to various cellular locations of numerous anti-cancer proteins produced by encoding messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics.
4. The 2013 US Supreme Court decision Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc (569 US 576 (2013) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-
398_1b7d.pdf) states that DNA (or RNA) nucleotide sequences found in nature cannot be patented. The 19-nucleotide cDNA sequence found in the 12/10/19 patent, with an explicit claim for its use, must therefore be artificial.
5. A BLAST search (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi) for nucleotide sequences
related to the 19-nucleotide “ctacgtgcccgccgaggag” sequence reveals the region encoding the PRRAR furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 (nucleotides 23557-23539) in the first 100 sequence hits with 100% homology. There do not appear to be any other naturally occurring sequences which use this particular set of sequence codons to
encode the PRRAR furin cleavage site. This is consistent with the artificial nature of this nucleotide sequence.
6. The likely insertion of an artificial furin cleavage site in a SARS-like virus spike protein backbone, with the known potential to substantially increase transmissibility of the virus, speaks directly to the possible origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Reply
Xoco Latte
2/17/2021 05:12:56 am

The Frozen Food Fallacy (FFF) - I like this! FFP against FFF.

https://www.cnet.com/news/a-frozen-food-fallacy-the-coronavirus-origin-story-that-doesnt-stack-up/

And a WSJ Editorial piece on these shameful clowns of the 'independent' WHO Interviewer Comittee.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-are-the-covid-investigators-11613401955

Reply
David Rivard
2/20/2021 04:18:01 pm

Here is my scientific piece today:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00085-0/fulltext

Global security, particularly in the western world, is dependent upon the functioning democracies the U.S. has promoted in most countries. C-19 obviously still represents a threat. We constantly hear about leaders and institutions making wrong decisions re. combating the disease, with logical political repercussions.

Accurate origin information is a timely requirement to achieve solid directions for therapies, vaccines, policy development and strategies. Maybe above all to facilitate public confidence as governments pursue strategies for survival into a covid future. As UN institutions have demonstrated too many times that their forum was incapable of stemming off the worst global catastrophes since it's inception, since at least "western civilization" is clearly in jeopardy, there remains politically unimpeded global and regional law enforcement agencies that have used international subpoena powers to access information about other global threats such as international human trafficking, organ trafficking, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, global terrorism, money laundering, tax evasion and the evasion of U.S. and UN sanctions.

Agency jurisdictions have never been established for something as unthinkable as our current crisis (how to give an acute response to something so unconventional). I cannot understand why some law enforcement agency has not opened an investigation. Presidents from the 190 countries represented by INTERPOL and SELEC (Southern European Law Enforcement Community) can so request if they feel threatened. Why have there been no subpoenas from these agencies of Eco Health Alliance, Dr. Peter Daszak,Members of the WHO team, Dr. Fauci et al.

Reply
David Rivard
2/20/2021 07:53:48 pm

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/german-scientist-999-per-cent-sure-covid-leaked-from-wuhan-lab/ar-BB1dPo1K

https://www.newsbreak.com/topics/wuhan-institute-of-virology

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2161830835964/ratcliffe-chinas-military-ordered-wuhan-lab-to-experiment-with-viruses-similar-to-covid-19-some-scientists-had-covid-like-symptoms

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/02/10/ratcliffe-chinas-military-ordered-wuhan-lab-to-experiment-with-viruses-similar-to-covid-19-some-scientists-had-covid-like-symptoms/

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2165902070063/pfizer-says-lab-test-indicates-diminished-antibody-response-by-its-covid-19-vaccine-to-south-africa-variant

https://www.eatthis.com/covid-19-signs/

https://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/2020/072720-wls-covid-symptom-study-doc.pdf

Trouble is I cannot find Dr Roland Wiesendanger actual paper. Hope it's not related to this on going issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXBQ9wmYB9s

Reply
evidence
2/21/2021 03:18:30 am

Wiesendanger paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349302406_Studie_zum_Ursprung_der_Coronavirus-Pandemie

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349302406_Studie_zum_Ursprung_der_Coronavirus-Pandemie/link/6029266592851c4ed56e5476/download
It is currently only in german -as far as I know. High time for Germans to wake up as well.


For everybody: I posted yesterday (comments # 1610-1616) my recent reply to Xoco's concerns about my assertion
'FCS vicinitiy being a mutational hot spot, being an indication for late PRRA insertion/change'.
At the end of my post(s), I also detailed about one specific pathophysiological aspect, namely syncytia formation
(in contrast to SARS1), as being another interesting factor which might be considered for this notion.
My lengthy reply is a little bit hard to find, since I wanted to have it connected there: please search for the date
'2/20/2021' or simply '2/20'.

I left also a crucial bug: I was referring to Fig 1B p.9 in the Pokhrel paper - it is actually Fig 1A on p.8
(recurrent AA substitution distribution in the S protein) on which I am discussing my point.
Also the first part I accidentally posted in front of Xoco's reply- sorry.

Direct replies can also be placd here- thank you everybody!

Reply
alex
2/21/2021 03:03:04 am


Here you have Wiesendanger document

file:///C:/Users/alexi/Downloads/Studie_Corona-Pandemie_Wiesendanger_final.pdf

Reply
Nerd has power
2/21/2021 09:31:11 am

I can't read Dr. Wiesendanger's paper since it's in German. However, I must say that this is so far the only paper that dared to cite the two Yan reports.

To be fair, the CCP has been successful up to this point in politicizing and defaming the Yan reports. As a result, not many dare to talk about the Yan reports in public and no scientific papers (including preprint papers) dared to cite them. Dr. Wiesendanger broke the ice here. Hopefully some brave virologist would do the same in the near future.

Like some of you folks here, I also feel uncomfortable reading papers when the authors clearly try to stay on the safer and softer side of the issue. It's like these scientists can't understand science and could not comprehend the scientific facts provided in the Yan reports. As a result, the CCP-fed actors (Peter Daszak, Angela Rasmussen, Nancy Connell, Roberto Gallo, and such) took over the stage and announce to the world that the Yan reports are all garbage and the virus must not have come from a lab.

When such foolishness spreads all over (science, media, politics, etc), punishment is justified. It's the CCP and the descended/corrupted morals of the Western elites that collectively led to the current disaster. It is sort of a systematic failure.

BTW, I would like to ask that we make the distinction between the CCP and the Chinese people in the discussions. It's like the NAZI and the German, not equivalent. Many many Chinese people are not on the side of the CCP; the CCP did not brain wash everybody. This is another reason the CCP must go. I can't help imagine a world without the CCP and my fellow Chinese people have democracy. The world would be a much, much better place.

Reply
evidence
2/27/2021 01:59:07 pm

Re: France Soir articles (Jan 23 2021, Jan 29 2021) by Valère Lounnas/Gérard Guillaume regarding Yan reports


Dear Nerd:

as a small moral boost, this France Soir series analysis by Valère Lounnas and Gérard Guillaume about the lab origin dedicated an entire section (Chap. 8,3) to the Yan papers, and by this, directly and openly invited l'Institut Pasteur to respond to the corresponding questions; it already came out Jan 23 2021;
you might be aware of it, but in case, if not: definitely worth the translation computer to be activated (if it had not been translated to english yet):
https://www.francesoir.fr/societe-science-tech/histoire-du-covid-19-chapitre-8-questions-ouvertes-linstitut-pasteur

- they are beginning talking about the Yan reports by (translated quote):
>>>This first article of a completely scientific format largely deserves attention. It has also been viewed 1 million times and downloaded 720,000 times, enough to make any renowned researcher green with envy. It must be said that a scientific article is considered to be successful when it is cited a few dozen times. Usually it is downloaded no more than a few hundred times and in rare cases thousands of times. The phenomenal success of Li-Meng Yan's first report is therefore out of all proportion to all the scientific articles explaining the presumed natural origin of the virus, [...] <<<

This is very nice; it is a very repectfully written contribution. They also did a recalculation and confirmation of your results. So by this, it's actually the best Yan report review plus I personally have found thus far.
As far as know, this has not been mentioned here yet (only alex [ alex 2/17/2021 12:49:17 am] and Fuddman talked about chapter 9 lately); so I wonder if it might already had come to your/everybody's attention, since it is in french.

The entire France Soir series (about the lab origin evidence) is encyclopedic- judging by what I have read thus far: very comprehensive, as well as compassionate; inviting step-by-step the naive but interested reader into that scientific journey. I guess a very good read at least for anybody who speaks french. I advice to maybe start with the last chapters to avoid possible redundancy. (Though I have to admit for the moment I have only read by now the chapters of section 8 myself.) It has likely been a journey for the authors as well (they started August 2020).
Stay protected and inspired!

PS:
They are obviously still looking for translators/interpretors, cf. comment section below on the above chapter (8,3) - if anybody out there would like to do that job...

All other sections available via:
https://www.francesoir.fr/contributeurs/l-histoire-du-covid-valere-lounnas-et-gerard-guillaume

8,4:
https://www.francesoir.fr/societe-science-tech/histoire-du-covid-19-chapitre-8-questions-ouvertes-a-pasteur-partie-4
#

Reply
david rivard
2/21/2021 11:26:07 am

If you convert to a word doc. then do a translation you will find it extraordinary. It can be more popularly understood and well supported. I hope it is not buried.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/22/2021 02:42:33 am

@FUDDMAN: Indeed, Montagnier was shooting straight since his outspoken [quote: "un travail d'apprenti sorcier" = "a sorcerer's apprentice job"] interview on French pourquoidocteur-radio last April 16, 2020 - here the link again for those of you who understand French and missed it:

https://www.pourquoidocteur.fr/Articles/Question-d-actu/32184-EXCLUSIF-Pour-Pr-Montagnier-SARS-CoV-2-serait-virus-manipule-Chinois-l-ADN-de-VIH-podcast

Montagnier is based. But looking at the German mainstream media backlash Wiesendanger got, not sure if they are prepared to listed, Fuddman. But of course you are right, fear sells. Yet I rather suspect they will keep on going with their little psyops game of reporting about it while bashing it big time, as this tells everybody who also would like to think a little crtically what happens if you don't behave. Ergo, very importantly to have a media public show trial once in a while, just to tell the bewildered herd who's the farmer here.

Ok, the direct PDF-link to the German Wiesendanger-document is the following:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roland_Wiesendanger/publication/349302406_Studie_zum_Ursprung_der_Coronavirus-Pandemie/links/6029266592851c4ed56e5476/Studie-zum-Ursprung-der-Coronavirus-Pandemie.pdf

The title "Studie zum Ursprung der Coronavirus-Pandemie" translates into "Study concerning the Origin of the Coronavirus-Pandemy". I already had a look at it on Friday, "nerd" sadly was not mentioned. But it's not a study, rather a collection of highlighted abstracts well known to the readers of this site. Structure is a little chaotic IMHO, as there is no discussion nor conclusion. First, Wiesendanger asks the question of from nature or lab. He then goes on about the disappearance of "patient zero", the doctoral student Yanling Huang at the WIV. He then lists a lot of screenshots of gain-of-function-papers [I hope this will not get him into copyright trouble]. Then there is a chapter on biosecurity, and Wiesendanger later asks the question about the role of biased scientists in misleading the public, and then he finally lists a number of questions to the WHO by the "Concerned People of the World" before posting his references.

In his first chapter "Motivation und wesentliche Ergebnisse der Studie im Überblick" = "Motivation and main results of the study", the most interesting sentence is the following:

"Die vorliegende einjaehrige Studie kommt zu dem Schluss, dass sowohl die Zahl als auch die Qualitaet der Indizien eindeutig für einen Laborunfall am virologischen Institut der Stadt Wuhan als Ursache der gegenwaertigen Pandemie sprechen."

Translation:

"The present, yearlong study comes to the conclusion that the quantity and quality of evidence clearly points towards a laboratory accident at the WIV as source of the current pandemic."

He then draws up a number of reasons: bat viruses don't jump easily over to humans; no intermediate host found; first patients without contact to wild animals; the missing WIV-researcher; no bats on the wet market but long timeline of bat cave expeditions by the WIV, the track record of GOF at the WIV; biosafety problems at the WIV; emergency contingency activities at the WIV; lab closures and hospitalzations/first casualties in the 2nd half of October 2019 in Wuhan.

--> Takaway? Wiesendanger [you can't make this up, I love those German names, even if he was born in Switzerland] is certainly redpilled, kudos. But I'm not sure if he did himself a favor with this piece, as he currently gets a serious beating in German media. Furthermore, looking at his publications

http://www.nanoscience.de/HTML/group/wiesendanger.html

it would perhaps have been wiser to publish something about the nanostructure of the CoV-2 virions or the mRNA-vaccines, as this would have been closer to his field of expertise. Whatever.

Takeaway, I forgot my takeaway! Here it is, Charlie Warzel in the NYT on February 18, 2021: "Don’t Go Down the Rabbit Hole - Critical thinking, as we’re taught to do it, isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation":

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake-news-media-attention.html

Granted, my bullshit alam did not allow me to read further than the above title, but has it really come to this that a journalist tells the world to stop critical thinking? Holy, that's so crazy that it's cool again. Perhaps I should preserve endangered critical thinking by simply not reading anything of that kind. Wait, I did. Greetings from under my rock, folks!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
evidence
2/22/2021 10:37:58 am

Re: Wiesendanger paper

I think he quite expected the shitshorm of German media. Maybe this had been also the reason, why he had been waiting so long. I think he weighed very well the consequences, as physicists a trained doing this.
It's like for Segreto or anybody else who is doing the job inside a regular university career track: the desire to look yourself in the mirror and your loved ones straight into the eyes finally largely outweighing the price you pay for a more limited science career track, becoming blunter - which feels blunt for those often underpaid scientists anyways at a certain point in time (+ getting the heat from he tabloids; that's why we guys use pseudonyms).
Also at least some Germans do have strong remembrance to fascism, and that getting the heat might be something which also might define somebody being actually on the right side.
As far as I have read his paper, and by knowing the equally suppressed discussion (or by now slowly becoming and remaining an open secret) also in Germany: his main issue is specifically to raise the long-time overdue concern among the German public, specifically for GOF to be banned. I feel, that would be (rightfully) his long-term goal, after he came to the simple conclusion (as a scientist): risks outweighing the benefits - simple. In this way he correctly and personally takes the notion 'never let a great crisis go wasted'.
As a german physicist, he is particularly aware of historical abuses of science. In this regard, he is not so much concerned about the technical details (accident vs intended release and how and why, and weighing all those technical molbio aspects), as he is not a molbio/bioninformatics nerd - but: the evidence that it's man made is sufficient, and the fact that this very possibility became an obvious taboo among leading scientists of the field (in particular including in Germany), and consequently for the german public, had become so appalling to him, that he felt the need to write as an outsider this 'discussion paper' or 'position paper' so to speak, specifically addressing the concerned german public and the wider german science community.
So he is definitely filling a gap (at least for Germany).
He is deeply appalled by the obvious abuse of science, that's why for example he is particularly naming and talking about the victims, or tragic figures (Huang Yanling).
I am almost inclined to think he purposely had written his position paper in german, so the international shit storm would not be as hard, as if it were written in english. I maybe would have done the same. (Since in my eyes, (the global) emerging conspiracies, ultimately can only be dissolved by working (and fighting) starting on a national or regional level, and raising public awareness on that (more modest) level first.)
He personally certainly assumes the accident scenario (vs intentional release), according to the circumstantial evidence (and his personal application of Occam's razor) - certainly a position I would very much relate to. But again, the technical details are kind of a black box to him. The highly sufficient circumstantial evidence is what absolutely matters to him, and should matter to a publicly open-minded, uncensored discussion in Germany, which has not happened yet (as a physicist he knows from the nuclear science research past: technical details can be as well greatly abused to delude and distract the public).
I have the impression he feels very much reminded (e.g., inspired) by the IPPNW movement during the 1980 (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War), which had been also quite strong in Germany, which likewise had not been initiated by those scientists which would be the declared 'experts' in the field (namely nuclear physicists), but by 'simple' doctors (hence, outsiders), in order to break the taboo of the holy cow of unacceptable hazard risks ('Restrisiko') of nuclear science and nuclear power, (regarding dual use situations in particular) in those times - this time the other way round: 'concerned scientists/physicists against GOF research under the medical umbrella/disguise'.
Very noble, indeed.
- I also do believe we (science nerds) can learn a lot specifically from that IPPNW fight, how they had to stand up against the conspirators, how they had been for example ridiculed at the beginning, and specifically how they had to SELL their concern SUCCESSFULLY to the public (against those adversaries), once the evidence had become clear.
#

Reply
David Rivard
2/22/2021 08:42:48 am

In case ya'll ever ran across this article and momentarily got confused, this from:

https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/the-latest-theory-that-may-answer-the-origin-of-covid-19-d9efbe7072ae

"Another fact is that SARS-CoV-2 is not human-made. Genetic engineering leaves a ‘fingerprint’ in the organism’s genome, which can be caught with genetics techniques. In January, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) used the Finding Engineering-Linked Indicators (FELIX) tool of the US Director of National Intelligence to confirm that SARS-CoV-2 was never genetically manipulated from any known coronaviruses. In fact, the FELIX tool shows that SARS-CoV-2 best matches are naturally occurring coronaviruses."

(Under the scope of the Finding Engineering-Linked Indicators program, IARPA is developing new computational and EXPIREMENTAL (HIGHLIGHTING MINE) tools to rapidly detect indicators of genome engineering in multiple types of biological systems, including viruses, improving and augmenting existing detection capabilities. Designed to work across a range of biological organisms and sample types, such as environmental collections with a mixture of organisms, the FELIX tools and methods CAN (IBID) provide early alerts to the presence of engineered organisms and help expedite appropriate responses thereby avoiding adverse consequences.

IARPA’s FELIX Program Investigates Rumors that COVID-19 Pandemic is the Result of Genetic Engineering
January 2020: The MIT-Broad Foundry, a performer team on the FELIX program, analyzed the publicly available SARS-CoV-2 genome using their FELIX bioinformatics pipeline in order to test the veracity of online stories claiming that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a laboratory. They compared the SARS-CoV-2 genome against 58 million sequences, including genomes from closely and distantly related viruses. After only 10 minutes of analysis, the FELIX tool determined that all regions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome match naturally-occurring coronaviruses better than they match any other organisms, including any other viruses. This analysis indicates that no sequences from foreign species have been engineered into SARS-CoV-2.

Figure 1: Comparison of the SARS-CoV-2 genome to a comprehensive sequence database shows that the closest genetic matches are to other coronaviruses. Image used with permission of Broad.)"

In trying to track down how many journalists have accepted, at face value, a certainty of natural origin, one of the many contributions has revealed a dependence upon the (most popularly known) MIT "DARPA, IARPA" federally funded programs. This one from a
Sarah Scoles, Freelance science writer; short-fiction lover; trail runner; dog embracer.

https://futurehuman.medium.com/how-do-we-know-if-a-virus-is-bioengineered-541ff6f8a48f

Sarah is a paradoxical person, whose passion is science fiction but has a profession as a science writer.

We have some experience with the DARPA, IARPA programs, a well funded DOD program that remains both controversial and unbaked but widely used by business venturists and reticently, by law enforcement. With association of MIT, many venture capitalists are trying to apply (albeit as loosely as they must) the general, yet unproven thematics of this still experimental program, to what they can make a buck on. They will profess humanitarianism but will bring their uninvited attorneys with them to a home dinner. Desperate and shameless carpetbaggers.

Does "National Intelligence", or even International Intelligence" use DARPA/IARPA (there is even an "et al"). It is amazing how those who dismiss circumstantial evidence are quick to cite (as the only citation) an experimental program because it is loosely associated with presumed unassailable institutions. Lousey, but very harmful journalism in it's own write. In the age of "private contractors", I guess the "freelance" journalists out there need to focus upon the sure bets for publications.

Anyone out there with any other articles on the "FELIX Tool"?

Reply
David Rivard
2/22/2021 08:59:17 am

And relatedly, and this is right up the Nerd's premise (go to "Lessons for Countering the COVID-19 Infodemic"),

https://www.nextgov.com/ideas/2021/02/covid-19-misinformation-chinese-social-media-lessons-countering-conspiracy-theories/171738/

Reply
David Rivard
2/22/2021 09:17:16 am

And latest popular news from the less edited source Duck Duck Go:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=latest+covid+origin+news&t=chromentp&atb=v261-6__&ia=web&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2021%2F02%2F21%2Fchina-has-not-given-sufficient-original-data-on-covid-origin-wh%2F&pn=1

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/22/2021 11:59:13 am

@DAVID RIVARD: Thanks, this medium-article is a perfect example for why I stopped reading "the news" over 3 years ago. Complete waste of time, there is never any long term benefit compared to a good book, and/or going straight to mutually cited scientific papers for "certain" topics we over here ***might*** share the same interest in.

To quote Sarah - the self-proclamed "dog embracer" - from your excerpt:

"Genetic engineering leaves a ‘fingerprint’ in the organism’s genome, which can be caught with genetics techniques ... January 2020 [sic?] ... a performer team on the FELIX program, analyzed the publicly available SARS-CoV-2 genome ... in order to test the veracity of online stories [!!!] claiming that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a laboratory. They compared the SARS-CoV-2 genome against 58 million sequences ... After only 10 minutes of analysis, the FELIX tool determined that all regions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome match naturally-occurring coronaviruses better than they match any other organisms, including any other viruses. This analysis indicates that no sequences from foreign species have been engineered into SARS-CoV-2."

Huhuhu, good joke, what if the "58 million sequnces" don't include neatly lab-pimped GOF-sequences we find in the spikes? And what if the furin cleavage site is naturally occuring, yet not in any CoV-2 related virus? Concerning genetic fingerprints, it seems she did not read Sirotkin & Sirotkin (2020), because otherwise, she would know the following:

"The long-standing practice of serial passage is a form of gain-of-function research that forces zoonosis between species, and requires the same molecular adaptations necessary for a natural zoonotic jump to occur within a laboratory, leaving the same genetic signatures behind as a natural jump but occurring in a much shorter period of time."

Yes, I also contextually get that this is technically a contradiction to Nerd's 2 articles and the 2 Yan reports, but I think the point here is a narrow mindlock and 100% reliance upon the output of a a rightfully highlighted EXPERIMENTAL DARPA-betasoftware which CAN detect this or that, depending on what the AI algo and data input defines - or leaves out. The other thing is that Sci-Fi-Dog-Sarah by definition loves DARPA, as they play with dog robots. Hence those "online stories" over here can't be true [not science], because DARPA "determined" in January 2020 [!?!] within 10min this and that, yadda yadda [science]. Statements like these make rock-lovers like me think of Matthew Simmons, some legendary oil banker-bro. He once made fun of pale nerdboy geologists who never did any fieldwork with a hammer and compass in hand, saying:

"We created a generation and a half of nintendo geologists."

Lovin' it, I heard all you have to do is take their GPS away and they are lost in space. Dunno if our Sarah is into Martian remote geosciences as well, but she clearly matches the Nintendo pattern. The program said so, must be true. I love those people, they don't even have to read the NYT to get rid of their remaining critical thinking, as it appears they never had any. Ah, and Matthew Simmons also said something else:

"The future could be quite ugly."

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
David Rivard
2/22/2021 08:26:35 pm

Guy thanks.I knew I could depend upon you for the great analysis. I wanted to cite this article because, as you said in better words than mine, this is as far as the analysis goes from "science writers for popular media". Hey, IC intern out there, do you have the picture?

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/23/2021 02:19:03 pm

Fascinating new paper by Kang et al. from February 17, 2021 "A selective sweep in the Spike gene has driven SARS-CoV-2 human adaptation" on loss+gain-of-function using CoV-2 and playing around with "a non-synonymous change (A1114G; T372A) within the Receptor-Binding Domain of the Spike protein". Granted, they used the obligatory congnitive dissonant & super annoying intro à la "[w]hile SARS-CoV-2 likely has animal origins" at the very start as a Schutzbehauptung aka evasive defence to secure future research $$$ and play the lame card, their results are nevertheless speaking for themselves:

"Using a novel bacteria-free cloning system for manipulating RNA virus genomes, we experimentally validated that this SARS-CoV-2-unique substitution significantly increases replication in human cells relative to its putative ancestral variant. Notably, this mutation’s impact on virus replication in human cells was much greater than that of the Spike D614G mutant, which has been widely reported to have been selected for during human-to-human transmission. [...] A total of six such sites were identified; notably, only a single site (A1114G) was centrally located in one of the sweep regions, whereby the 372 nd amino acid threonine in the Spike protein of the four Sarbecovirus members was substituted with alanine (Thr372Ala) in human SARS-CoV-2. Out of the 182,792 SARS-CoV-2 genomes, no sequence polymorphism was found in this position (1114G), suggesting a rapid fixation of this mutation via hard sweep. The alternative, putatively ancestral, coronavirus variant (A1114) was perfectly conserved in Sarbecovirus members from bats and pangolin. [...] We generated the Spike A372T reverse mutant with the putatively ancestral G1114 nucleotide, using a bacteria-free cloning approach we have previously developed to prevent bacterial toxicity associated with manipulating unstable viral genomes in bacteria. Concurrently, we generated the Spike D614G mutant that has been associated with higher titers in nasopharyngeal swabs in humans and increased replication in human cells and hamsters. Both mutants were constructed in an infectious clone originally produced in yeast of SARS-CoV-2 strain 2019-nCoV BetaCoV/Wuhan/WIV04/2019. [...] We next evaluated the replication kinetics of each virus--WT, Spike A372T, and Spike D614G--in Vero E6 and Calu-3 [human lung cancer] cell lines, monkey kidney and human lung epithelial cell lines, respectively. Following infection in Vero E6 cells, viral titers rose rapidly for all three viruses, and only minor differences in peak titers were observed among the viruses. In Calu-3 cells, the D614G mutant produced significantly higher titers than WT 1 day post-infection [...] These data indicate that an alanine at Spike position 372 confers a robust fitness advantage over several timepoints in human lung cells and that this effect is considerably more substantial than the change at position 614. [...] [W]e identified a non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) that is fixed in all SARS-CoV-2 genomes sequenced to date, while an alternative, and presumably ancestral SNP, is fixed in the other members of the Sarbecovirus lineage. Residue 372 lies within the RBD, which mediates viral entry through the human ACE2 receptor. [...] Using a reverse genetics system to generate a SARS-CoV-2 mutant containing the putative ancestral SNP, we show that the A372T S mutant virus replicates over 60-fold less efficiently than WT SARS-CoV-2 in Calu-3 human lung epithelial cells. Further, the growth of the A372T S mutant was greatly reduced for multiple days, which may be indicative of an impact on viral shedding kinetics in humans. Of note, we also generated the D614G S mutant here--widely reported to increase SARS-CoV-2 infectivity--which only increased viral titers by a maximum of 2.9-fold in Calu-3 cells compared to WT, a finding that is consistent with previous results. We also observed a slight attenuation for the A372T S mutant in Vero E6 cells. [...] Overall, our data supply solid evidence that S protein residue 372 is critical for replication in human cells. The fact that this site is not polymorphic in >180,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences further underscores its importance. The threonine-to-alanine change may have enabled the putative ancestral virus to replicate more efficiently in human cells, thus enabling efficient human-to-human transmission. [...] Since the true putative SARS-CoV-2 ancestor has not been isolated, it is impossible to know when this mutation may have arisen."

https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.13.431090

G, can somebody please remove the elephant in the lab, I would like to focus on unknown animal origins!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
David Rivard
2/23/2021 07:42:40 pm

Biden Bans References to Chinese Origin of Coronavirus to Combat ‘Xenophobia’

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3119404/biden-bans-linking-covid-19-china-bid-quell-racist-backlash-us

"As the SCMP noted, the Chinese government shows no sign whatsoever of reciprocating Biden’s generosity in forbidding U.S. federal offices to discuss where the coronavirus came from: “Chinese diplomats have promoted unfounded theories linking the virus to U.S. military athletes, while state media has reported the virus could have entered China through imported frozen foods, following cases in Chinese ports and among cold storage workers.”

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/24/2021 07:43:59 am

@EVIDENCE: Thanks for your comment on 2/22/2021, Sir! Sorry for not playing the reply-button-game, but I find it annoying to scroll and go fishing for other people's new posts, thus as straight punishment, I don't lead by example and put mine at the bottom.

Seems like you wrote some sort of psychogram of Wiesendanger and his motives. I guess you are right on target. I have some German friends who tell me the same, regular university career tracks are lame and you have to weight every political word, lately on genderneutralism and other nonsense. Indeed, we nerdboys over here use pseudonyms for a reason, would be ultrafun to see who is who and has what kind background, ey? Oh, that would be great.

Your line "I have the impression he feels very much reminded (e.g., inspired) by the IPPNW movement during the 1980[ies]" stuck my attention. Makes me think of the French philosopher Jacques Ellul who often remarked that the public and politicians [and the latter are "technicians of and by the state" to him, as are scientists "technicians of technique"] are at least half a century behind their time. Think of Antifa's class warfare 19th century dustspeak to get an idea where those lunatics are stuck in time. See, we are in 2021. Being inspired by the 80ies - and if my memory is correct, the German demonstration against the planned nuclear power plant in Wyhl was in 1975 - is not exactly close the the current Zeitgeist. Which proves my point. So if nostalgic Wiesendanger thinks he will start "a publicly open-minded, uncensored discussion in Germany, which has not happened yet", this maks me go hmmm. Take a look around @ smartphone zombies, remember Facebook's "emotional contagion" experiments and ask yourself how much respective audiences [not only in Germany for that matter] still are able to think for themselves. Gotta use the earloop test as a benchmark: how many people think their pathetic earloop KN95 things are "FFP2"? A vast majority. You think they will be "inspired" by Wiesendanger? They are not even able to find his PDF in their mainstream media article or Whatsapp-group. And will have forgotten about it 2min later anyway. Makes me think of Blaise Pascal, who once said:

"All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone."

How many people were there in the 80ies, sitting quietly alone in rooms? Probably still a lot. Today??? You know I'm sayin? Hence, this comment area is a refugium of the endangered species of people sitting quietly in rooms alone my man - word! Thumbs up to everybody reading this, take care, be smart, drink upstream the herd.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
David Rivard
2/24/2021 09:16:29 am

Lessons from the past come to mind when you took us down memory lane. We might take another lesson about IC agency think from Retired CIA Director Woosley's new book about Kennedy's assassination in "The Agencies" attempt for redemption from the still many Kennedy conspiracy advocates out there. His good friend and colleague having recently perished from covid shares much of the corroboration. Accordingly, Khrushchev ordered the Kennedy assassination but the KGB called it off at the last minute. Knowing that their boss was off the rails, the KGB called it off out of their higher knowledge about the real repercussions (they later tried to cover for their boss - to his appreciation later). Oswald executed anyway, trying to appease his infatuation with Kruschev and evidently knew about dissention within the ranks of the KGB about the epic plot. He definitely had help, but from the KGB (can only imagine double agents et al). The illogical evidence presented to the public produced a logical direction for conspiracy groups to pursue, BECAUSE OF HIDDEN FACTS. The effect was that many blamed the CIA. The CIA/FBI IC community logically hid the facts because they had assessed that policy makers would be pressured into a nuclear war if the public knew (quite a stray from Thomas Jefferson's approach of "If the government shall have a discretion with the people, the government shall inform that discretion, not take that discretion away").

IC readers out there take serious the political instabilities that will be exacerbated by a threat that, for now, are being held at bay with vaccine promises. The threat is now ongoing assassinations at very personal levels. It is still early in the game for C-19 & variants where the logical retribution will be economic, but remember that sand in the hourglass is still flowing and each grain is a viable option that cannot be retrieved. The real unknowns will be from a worldwide public that will throw the baby out with the bathwater. Agencies beware!

Reply
David Rivard
2/24/2021 10:56:29 am

Just back up on the website:

https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.html

Reply
David Rivard
2/24/2021 11:05:52 am

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-reckless-labs-put-the-world-at-risk-11614102828

Reply
David Rivard
2/26/2021 08:37:26 am

OK, the last citation article is best for y'all, but the former articles follow a beneficiary timeline. What is evidentiary value? n. Law, the quality or authenticity of a record to provide legal or historical proof or adequate evidence. It is usually supported by circumstantial evidence.

https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/china-claims-zero-infections-its-military

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beDmuDDknNI

https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/why-china-developing-military-vessels-center-its-coronavirus

https://www.oann.com/china-obstructed-who-investigation-into-origins-of-covid-19/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkCFDDCkG1k

https://www.wionews.com/world/growing-evidence-suggests-covid-19-originated-from-wuhan-lab-senior-us-official-354410

https://sputniknews.com/society/202102221082153074-theres-evidence-chinese-military-was-responsible-for-covid-19-pandemic-ex-deputy-nsa-say/

https://theprint.in/diplomacy/chinas-military-delivers-covid-vaccine-batch-to-pakistan-army/600661/

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/16/navy-reports-3-new-covid-19-cases-carrier-had-massive-2020-outbreak.html

https://ccnationalsecurity.org/author/lawrence-sellin/

https://ccnationalsecurity.org/unequivocal-scientific-evidence-that-the-covid-19-virus-originated-in-a-laboratory/

Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/26/2021 12:04:12 pm

@DAVID RIVARD: You are pushing the link-button hard my man. So what's your takeaway out of all those articles and videos - any new perspective you gained? I told you I'm oldschool, can't handle so much press from under my rock, blurres my mind. THX!

@ALL: Here an interesting one - Damas et al. (2020) "Broad host range of SARS-CoV-2 predicted by comparative and structural analysis of ACE2 in vertebrates":

"Of the 19 catarrhine primates analyzed, 18/19 scored very high for binding of their ACE2 to SARS-CoV-2 S and one scored high (the Angola colobus); the 18 species scoring very high had 25/25 binding residues identical to human ACE2, including rhesus macaques, which are known to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 and develop COVID-19-like clinical symptoms. Our analysis predicts that all Old-World primates are susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2 via ACE2. [...] We analyzed ACE2 from 37 bat species, of which 8 and 29 scored low and very low, respectively. These results were intriguing because the three Rhinolophus spp. tested, including the Chinese rufous horseshoe bat, are major suspects in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, or a closely related virus, to humans. [...] Do bat ACE2 receptors bind SARS-CoV-2 S? Zhou et al. transfected human ACE2-negative HeLa cells with ACE2 from a Chinese rufous horseshoe bat and obtained a low-efficiency infection with SARS-CoV-2. A recent report indicates that SARS-CoV-2 S protein can bind vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) pseudotypes expressing halcyon horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus alcyone) ACE2 in BHK-21 cells. However, cell lines derived from big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), Lander’s horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus landeri), and Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii) could not be infected with SARS-CoV-2. Relatedly, cell lines from six different species of bats could not be infected with SARS-CoV, which also uses human ACE2 as a receptor. These data suggest that some bat species have evolved ACE2 receptors that do not bind SARS-CoV-like viruses or bind them with very low affinity, which is supported by our results showing positive selection and accelerated evolution of ACE2 in chiropterans. Alternatively, ACE2 expression could be very low in the bat cell lines, or SARS-CoV-2-like viruses can use other receptors, such as the MERS-CoV, a betacoronavirus that uses CD26/DPP4, and porcine transmissible enteritis virus, an alphacoronavirus that uses aminopeptidase N. Also, other molecules required for SARS-CoV infection, such as TMPRSS2, might not be sufficiently expressed or function differently in bats. Whether an ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, such as RaTG13, utilizes bat ACE2 is an important question related to whether bat ACE2 receptors bind SARS-CoV-2 S (discussed above). RaTG13 was found in feces of the intermediate horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus affinis), but to our knowledge this virus has not been shown to bind to ACE2 of R. affinis or any other bat species. In addition, RaTG13 was reported not to infect human cells expressing Rhinolophus sinicus ACE2 in a recent study. Relatedly, Hoffman et al. were unable to infect bat kidney- and lung-derived cell lines derived from six different species with VSV pseudotypes bearing SARS-CoV S protein or pseudotypes of two bat SARS-related CoV (Bg08 and Rp3). Lack of concordance between the presence of bat SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses and binding to bat ACE2 may arise because of variations in susceptibility among bat species to SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses or due to one of the mechanisms discussed above."

https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2010146117

Now if you remember Kanduc & Shoenfeld (2020) "Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian proteomes, implications for the vaccine" @ peptide sharing between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian and coronavirus proteomes, ONLY mice performed at human level, monkeys [chimps, gorillas & macaques] ranked very low.

--> Batman, in both papers, is out. So where's the Joker? I did not read the NYT lately, thus critical thinking tells me there is a contradiction in plain sight here, as we have peptide sharing vs. ACE2-binding not in sync @ virions, humans, mice AND monkeys in both papers. I guess this leaves us with some genetically engineered lab missing Frankenstein blackbox link to fill the bat - XXX - human gap. Any suggestions, nerds?

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Fuddman
2/26/2021 01:38:13 pm

"--> Batman, in both papers, is out. So where's the Joker? I did not read the NYT lately, thus critical thinking tells me there is a contradiction in plain sight here, as we have peptide sharing vs. ACE2-binding not in sync @ virions, humans, mice AND monkeys in both papers. I guess this leaves us with some genetically engineered lab missing Frankenstein blackbox link to fill the bat - XXX - human gap. Any suggestions, nerds?"


Here's a suggestion, or, maybe, it's a challenge: Try conveying your ideas in plain, intelligible, English.

You've obviously have some important ideas to convey and I'd love to understand what they are, perhaps even comment on them. But, IMO, your observations, important as they may be, are falling flat. At least in part, because of your use of a sort of cutesy language.

Are you suggesting that, despite the intensive analysis of the construction of this virus, there is some hidden, undiscovered element of the virus?



Reply
Guy Fawkes
2/27/2021 12:48:43 am

@FUDDMAN: Thanks for your constructive suggestion/challenge! Cutesy language? Cutesy? Awesome, you made my day! You mean boring text is the way to go? Another sophisticated approach would be to scroll over anything you dislike, instead of telling strangers how to behave. But hey, I like your following sentence:

"You've obviously have some important ideas to convey and I'd love to understand what they are, perhaps even comment on them."

Now that's cool, peace to you, so let's get back on track:

I have no clue about what's written in the press, what the official narrative is, nor what th WHO is doing all day long - but I thought they are collectively still looking in the wild for the missing intermediate host. Makes me think of people desperately looking left and right for their eyeglasses, except on their nose. Yet, accoring to those publications in question, the intermediate host is neither the regular mouse, nor the regular monkey.

Thus, what lies between ZC45/ZXC21 and CoV-2? Did they use genetically modified lab animals and/or genetically modified cell cultures in order to jump the species barrier and generate perfect human adaptation, creating CoV-2 as a result?

I hope this was plain & intelligible enough ;-]

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
David Rivard
2/27/2021 11:38:09 am

Well, yes anyway, sorry about the links, but

https://ccnationalsecurity.org/unequivocal-scientific-evidence-that-the-covid-19-virus-originated-in-a-laboratory/

should address both of your concerns, digestibly direct and with scientific citations. It's good these guys (Pompeo, Sellin et al) are out there to collate information for their constituents.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/1/2021 03:55:13 am

@DAVID RIVARD: The short article by Col. Lawrence Sellin is outstanding. We wrote about his previous work - and background - before. In his latest piece you shared, he sums up the situation nicely:

"That is, there is still no convincing scientific evidence that the COVID-19 virus originated from any natural source, whereas the evidence for a laboratory origin is extensive and increasing. In the end, it is simply a matter of whether you want to believe a narrative shaped by those with vested interests or you want to believe the facts. The genetic engineering and related laboratory techniques to manufacture a virus like COVID-19 have existed for more than 20 years. Over time, those techniques have only become more sophisticated, such that it is now impossible to distinguish between a natural and a man-made virus. The COVID-19 virus has a number of unique structural features that cannot be explained as products of a natural evolutionary process [...] Based on the available scientific evidence, the COVID-19 virus was the product of “gain of function” research, not a natural transmission from an animal host to humans."

Important to me, he answered my question:

"Such pre-adaption for human infection can be accomplished in the laboratory by repeatedly exposing coronaviruses to genetically-engineered mice that have the human receptor, a process known as serial passage. Since 2007, Chinese scientists have used humanized mouse models to experiment with coronaviruses starting with the 2002-2004 SARS virus (6)."

I had a look at (6), that's Yang et al. (2007) "Mice Transgenic for Human Angiotensin-converting Enzyme 2 Provide a Model for SARS Coronavirus Infection", abstract:

"To establish a small animal model of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), we developed a mouse model of human severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) infection by introducing the human gene for angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE2) (the cellular receptor of SARS-CoV), driven by the mouse ACE2 promoter, into the mouse genome. The hACE2 gene was expressed in lung, heart, kidney, and intestine. We also evaluated the responses of wild-type and transgenic mice to SARS-CoV inoculation. At days 3 and 7 postinoculation, SARS-CoV replicated more efficiently in the lungs of transgenic mice than in those of wild-type mice. In addition, transgenic mice had more severe pulmonary lesions, including interstitial hyperemia and hemorrhage, monocytic and lymphocytic infiltration, protein exudation, and alveolar epithelial cell proliferation and desquamation. Other pathologic changes, including vasculitis, degeneration, and necrosis, were found in the extrapulmonary organs of transgenic mice, and viral antigen was found in brain. Therefore, transgenic mice were more susceptible to SARS-CoV than were wild-type mice, and susceptibility was associated with severe pathologic changes that resembled human SARS infection. These mice will be valuable for testing potential vaccine and antiviral drug therapies and for furthering our understanding of SARS pathogenesis."

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/aalas/cm/2007/00000057/00000005/art00003#

So we have bats + XXX --> CoV-2, and the genetically-engineered humanized mice are our catalyst on top of the reaction arrow. To stoichiometrically balance the equation and implement a gain-of-function in the bat virus backbone, let's insert some chosen XXX-sniplets at the spike protein level. QED.

Awesome, thanks for sharing, David!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
3/3/2021 07:07:31 am

Most if not all of these lab animal experiments comprise eluents obtained not from a human source but from monkey cells as the intended source of infection. Thus, the eluent being studied should be referred to as "monkey coronavirus" and not "SARS" coronavirus, which refers to a pathogen presumed to be from a human source.

From -

Mice Transgenic for Human Angiotensin-converting
Enzyme 2 Provide a Model for SARS Coronavirus
Infection
Xiu-hong Yang,1 Wei Deng,1 Zan Tong,2 Yan-xia Liu,2 Lian-feng Zhang,1 Hua Zhu,1 Hong Gao,1 Lan Huang,1 Ya-li Liu,1
Chun-mei Ma,1 Yan-feng Xu,1 Ming-xiao Ding,2 Hong-kui Deng,2,* and Chuan Qin1,*
October 2007

"Isolation of SARS-CoV and immunofluorescent assay (IFA).
SARS-CoV was isolated from the supernatants of lung homogenates, as previously described (19)"

"19. Lawler JV, Endy TP, Hensley LE, Garrison A, Fritz EA, Lesar M,
Baric RS, Kulesh DA, Norwood DA, Wasieloski LP, Ulrich MP,
Slezak TR, Vitalis E, Huggins JW, Jahrling PB, Paragas J. 2006.
Cynomolgus macaque as an animal model for severe acute respiratory syndrome. PLoS Med 3:e149."

In which -

"Methods
Virus and Cells
SARS-CoV Urbani strain was obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Tom Ksiazek) in Atlanta, Georgia and had been passaged four times in Vero E6 cells (American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, Virginia, United States) before inoculation."

From -

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/40604/

"SARS-CoV Urbani strain" is also fundamentally a monkey coronavirus, being an in situ product obtained from VERO cell cultures.

Thus, most if not all of the information being gathered about the purported structure and function of the so-called SARS and SARS-CoV-2 proteins and lipid shapes relates to a set of lab-created monkey coronaviruses never observed outside of the setting of a laboratory.

In fact, it's unlikely that these VERA-cell derived monkey SARS extracts will make anybody sick.

From -

A prefusion SARS-CoV-2 spike RNA vaccine is highly immunogenic and prevents lung infection in non-human primates
8 September 2020 [the basis for Pfizer's EUA from FDA]

"In general, virus-challenged animals showed no clinical signs of significant disease. We conclude that the 2-4 year old male rhesus macaque challenge model is primarily a SARS-CoV-2 infection model and not a COVID-19 disease model."


Since no transmissible agent from a human source has been recovered, what are the causes of the syndrome known as "covid"?

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/3/2021 10:01:41 am

@PETER ROSS: Thanks! I think the point Sellin made was that such transgenic humanized mice to "cook" your new coronavirus lab creations already exist for ca. 15 years now. And my point was that they might be the missing intermediate host everybody is half-heartedly looking for. Now to your question:

"Since no transmissible agent from a human source has been recovered, what are the causes of the syndrome known as 'covid'?"

--> Didn't we have this virus recovery/isolation-discussion already before, about a month ago? So, what do you think causes of the syndrome known as covid?

Best
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
3/3/2021 04:17:49 pm

Refining through passage in humanized mice makes sense and as also passage in unwitting human subjects could be considered as a process for exerting selective pressures.
Unlike other declared epidemics in history, infants and children have the lowest observed infection rate and and are completely resistant when they do.
Should it be accepted that virus be engineered to selectively endanger only pensioners, or should alternate etiologies be more vigorously explored?
Also a virus transmission vector for covid doesn't seem to fit well with being a seasonal respiratory illness that is not curtailed by deploying quarantines, mass media generated-hysteria, and other protective measures.
Paradoxically, the incidence of all the usual seasonal contagions has declined globally since the advent of covid and this decline has been mostly independent to the degree that governments imposed behavioral and travel restrictions.

So whatever causes covid is unique and unencountered before and this raises questions about all of the laboratory research activity devoted to studying virions obtained from monkey cells, e.g. a monkey SARS, which doesn't even make monkeys acutely ill.
Maybe RNA from Wuhan is a red-herring.

Maybe fecal-oral contagions and other environmental factors deserve more consideration:

E-book excerpt: the two modes of transmission
by Levi Quackenboss Feb 1, 2021
https://www.patreon.com/posts/46926947


The Sun Is Asleep. Deep ‘Solar Minimum’ Feared As 2020 Sees Record-Setting 100-Day Slump
by Jamie Carter May 12, 2020
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/05/12/the-sun-is-asleep-deep-solar-minimum-feared-as-2020-sees-record-setting-100-day-slump/?sh=302470b15e28

Reply
Fuddman
3/3/2021 09:58:01 pm

The sun is asleep? Deep ‘Solar Minimum’ Feared?


Nah. https://www.inverse.com/science/solar-minimum-explained

Peter Ross
3/4/2021 01:44:36 am

@Fuddman

Measuring the sun with electronic instruments is a relatively new thing. Knowing the visible sun from photographs goes back only 150 years or so:

"ARE WE EXPERIENCING AN UNUSUAL SOLAR MINIMUM?

There have been reports claiming that this solar cycle's minimum is unusually low, with over 100 days already in the year 2020 where the Sun has had no sunspots at all, according to spaceweather.com.
The year 2019 saw another unusually low number of sunspots, with a total of 281 days where there were no sunspots on the Sun. "Two consecutive years of record-setting spotlessness adds up to a very deep solar minimum,” spaceweather.com reads.
...
For the past 50 years, around four solar cycles or so, the Sun has been unusually active, .."


Whatever may play a role in regulating human health and longevity deserves attention:

"The Earth has been spinning faster lately - Phys.orgphys.org › Earth › Earth Sciences
7 Jan 2021 — Scientists around the world have noted that the Earth has been spinning on its axis faster lately—the fastest ever recorded. Several scientists ..."


What about the other animals and their viruses this year:

Influenza Seasonality: Underlying Causes and Modeling ...jvi.asm.org › content
by E Lofgren · ‎2007 · ‎Cited by 480 · ‎Related articles
Two members of the Orthomyxoviridae family, the influenza A and B viruses, are the ... The pathogen originates in avian host species and is traditionally thought to ... less-frequent and the less-periodic emergence of influenza B virus capable of ... Seasonal variations in the health and physiological statuses of animals are ...

Epidemiology of Seasonal Coronaviruses: Establishing the ...academic.oup.com › jid › article
by S Nickbakhsh · ‎2020 · ‎Cited by 91 · ‎Related articles
14 Apr 2020 — Epidemiology of Seasonal Coronaviruses: Establishing the Context ... we provide further detail on sCoVs differentiated at the species level ... In contrast, CoV-OC43 and CoV-NL63 generally exhibited annual periodicity of ... antisera of antigenic group I animal coronaviruses: implication for SARS diagnosis.


Biodefense strategy needs to anticipate which virus species will naturally dominate in approaching seasons, since an enemy will be able to exploit the same knowledge:

"Fact check: Bill Gates-backed pandemic exercise didn't predict ...www.usatoday.com › news › factcheck › 2020/03/26
26 Mar 2020 — An Instagram post claims Bill Gates hosted an event that is tied to the coronavirus outbreak, which started weeks later. We rate that claim false."

Biological threats can be contained by awareness, rapid testing and communication; the primary threat is posed by mass media-driven hysteria combined with all sorts of cyber manipulations.

It will be interesting to see what the new army of PCR warriors turns up in the years to come.
That an influenza virus brought about the 1918-1919 tragedies is only based upon a fanciful stitching together of RNA strands recovered from a handful of more or less random grave sites.

"The State of Science, Microbiology, and Vaccines Circa 1918www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC2862332
by JM Eyler · ‎2010 · ‎Cited by 39 · ‎Related articles
The influenza pandemic of 1918–1919 dramatically altered biomedical knowledge of the disease. ... The disease's regular target was the respiratory tract, and pneumonia was the most serious ... This is a point to which we will return. ... 1564–5) Other laboratory and human inoculation experiments aimed at detecting a ..."

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/4/2021 12:09:28 pm

@PETER ROSS: Very interesting exchange. Yet I don't agree on your 2 last posts:

"Unlike other declared epidemics in history, infants and children have the lowest observed infection rate and and are completely resistant when they do. Unlike other declared epidemics in history, infants and children have the lowest observed infection rate and and are completely resistant when they do.
Should it be accepted that virus be engineered to selectively endanger only pensioners, or should alternate etiologies be more vigorously explored?"

"Completely resistant"? I know a child who had COVID-19 together with this 40-something-mum, both were severely ill for 2 weeks. A friend of mine is the deputiy head of the university pediatric clinic in our city and told me about children with multiple organe failures. Another friend is in his late 20ies, got it half a year ago and still did not fully recover, I met him 2 days ago, he told me h's at 80% fitness now. "[S]electively endanger only pensioner"? I know an 80+ grandmother who recovered, so did my wife's uncle who soon will turn 70. Only to name a few. Hence neither are children resistant, nor is it a danger to all old people. I don't see a pattern there, sorry.

Also, the "imposed behavioral and travel restrictions" were and are pure jokes from A to Z, especially if imposed months after global spread - genious. Makes me think of the private video I saw of a dumb burglar hiding his face AFTER realizing he got filmed. Luckily, he only stole the piggy bank. You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity. Talking behaviour, the newest craziness: I had great fun in the woods yesterday with friends watching joggers running toward us uphill and pulling their buffs over their faces in the last moment, as if this would *help* against... airborne viruses @ 60nm median particle size?!? So much for critical thinking.

But now it gets weird:

"Knowing the visible sun from photographs goes back only 150 years or so: ARE WE EXPERIENCING AN UNUSUAL SOLAR MINIMUM?"

I have to keep my English plain for a while and team up with Fuddman on this one. Peter, are you kidding? Sunspot observations in written form date back to Babylonian times all over Eurasia. And have you ever heard of Milankovitch cycles to add some complexity? Furthermore, Solar Cycle 25 started in December 2019, and *something* happened in Wuhan months earlier, thus chronology breaks any causal relationship. There are so many factors resulting in cyclical variation of solar radiation influx, this really is off topic to this nice blog, Sir! Talking LOD [lenght of day] fluctuations, you have continental drift & icecap forming/melting in & on the crust, as well as density variations reshaping the core-mantle interface, resulting in time-varying torques, hence irregular decade fluctuations in the length of the day. Ok, enough geopoetry. So, all of this tells us what exactly @ COVID-19? Occam's razor shaves best over the lab origin theory I would say.

Finally, concerning your paragraph

"Biological threats can be contained by awareness, rapid testing and communication; the primary threat is posed by mass media-driven hysteria combined with all sorts of cyber manipulations."

Did you read Klaus Schwab's boring 'Great Reset' techno-romance? There are lame chapters in it à la "Contact tracing, contact tracking and surveillance" and even a toothless one called "The risk of dystopia" trying to blur backthoughts on Orwellian spytech. Makes me think of Edward Snowden's great quote in The Intercept from 2016:

"By preying on the modern necessity to stay connected, governments can reduce our dignity to something like that of tagged animals, the primary difference being that we paid for the tags and they’re in our pockets. It sounds like fantasist paranoia, but on the technical level it’s so trivial to implement that I cannot imagine a future in which it won’t be attempted. It will be limited to the war zones at first, in accordance with our customs, but surveillance technology has a tendency to follow us home."

Finally, concerning THE primary threat Schwab does not seem to be aware of - and leaving the default fallacy of 'trying to solve the problems of technology by ... even more technology' aside - drumrolls: Homo homini lupus --> and that subspecies is not a bug, but a feature if history is any guide.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

@ALL: In the context of the bat-to-human-intermediate-host-missing-link, check Sun et al. (2020) "A Mouse Model of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Pathogenesis" @ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7250783/

Reply
Fuddman
3/5/2021 08:41:15 pm

As you suggested, I checked out the mouse model story.

Are you postulating that the humanized mouse is in the chain of infections leading to infections in humans?

Lets see if I understand you correctly..

The bat contains a virus which has been extracted from the bat and modified several times. That is to say, Wuhan took the basic bat virus, and modified it a number of times, developing a virus mod 1, a virus mod 2, and so on. Each virus modification is then injected into separate humanized mice. This injection process continues until, at some point, a humanized mouse responds with symptoms that Wuhan is looking for.

Am I getting it right?

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/6/2021 04:54:22 am

Thank you for having a look, Fuddman. "Postulating" is the right word. Indeed, it looks like a humanized mouse model was used to adapt the modified bat backbone in order not to leave any traces of the intermediate host. Hence the perfect adaptation to hACE2 since day one. In fact, technically speaking, we only saw the final result, as the adaptation took place in those poor mice.

But this is only what logic tells me based upon what's published. If you have an even better scenario how CoV-2 came into being, please share your thoughts. Thanks!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Fuddman
3/6/2021 02:23:08 pm

"...a humanized mouse model was used to adapt the modified bat backbone..."

I don't fully understand this. Could you please tell me if this understanding is correct?

1)The 'backbone" is some kind of material taken from the bat and acts as a kind of initial framework. That initial framework is then modified. That modification is then inserted into the humanized mouse. The reactions of the mouse are then observed. This is an iterative process and is repeated until a desired mouse response is achieved.

Once the mouse shows the desired responses to the injections, material is then extracted from the mouse. That material then becomes COV2. Is that correct?

I'm not sure of the "adaptation" process. What it is and when does it end.

2) "..in order not to leave any traces of the intermediate host."
I take it the "intermediate host" is the mouse, am I correct?
If that's so, what "traces of the intermediate host" could be left behind?

Thanks

Guy Fawkes
3/11/2021 01:36:33 pm

Is this hard sarcasm, Fuddman, or are you asking for real? Not sure, because given your summary, you understood my suggestions @ 100%.

The 'backbone' was already mentioned in the 1st Yan report, quote:

"The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone."

Concerning your question:

"I'm not sure of the "adaptation" process. What it is and when does it end."

Nobody [except "them"] knows the exact and certainly very sophisticated process used. We are crawling in the dark here. But your question "when does it end" is an interesting one, as current mutations seem to be even more potent, telling us adaptation to the human host and to antibodies - given short time reinfections - is ongoing.

Finally, @ "what 'traces of the intermediate host' could be left behind", well, if the humanized mice are genetically modified in order to mimic human cells, I could imagine this mimicry is by now so advanced that nothing could be left behind at all. Reason why they [WHO & friends] will never find the "intermediate host", even if they looked for it ;;;-]

Best,
Guy Fawkes

David Rivard
3/6/2021 11:45:19 am

We cited such publications on this site a few months ago, mas o menos. En vivo experimentation means expedited and purpose driven research with a targeted outcome. Normally, they are purchased from lab supply companies, usually each with their own patented mice. The usual application of such experiments are (purpose driven) therapeutics for Infectious Diseases, Immuno-oncology, Immunology and more.

FYI, bats, civet cats, pangolins et al are extremely difficult to keep alive long enough in captivity for any valid study requirements being stress prone and with endemic diet requirements et al. The previously cited studies had 100% matches in all viral areas (obviously) with humanized mice. To date, the only animal species that is a 100% match is (humanized) Mus musculus. Seems they would start, rather than have others finish there.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/6/2021 02:50:57 pm

THX David, indeed, the 1:1 match of the peptide sharing at the 7-mer level between humans and mice in Kanduc & Shoenfeld (2020) "Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian proteomes, implications for the vaccine" is striking in this context. Looks like we now have a rather clear idea of what the steps were to create CoV-2.

I know, I digress, BUT: All this does not tell us anything about who created and/or leaked and/or spread it. Given the passive reaction of "Western" countries [where does "the West" start again?] for months, followed by nonsensical and contradictory measures, it was no SURPRISE to them, at least not to the unelected deepstate cavalry in the know [in plain English: intelligence agencies]. Governments love the current state of things, the now permanently ill-masked population is pants down, asking to plz become subjects for mRNA-experiments, and critical thinking is a sacrilege. It's as weird as it can get. Hence, to me, it was either LIHOP [let it happen on purpose], or MIHOP [make it ...]. Otherwise, why do we nerds have to dig up all that stuff, why is there such a wall of cognitive dissonance? Perhaps because, finally, things like the abolishment of cash and privacy are possible, which where not possible before? Hmmm.

The worst in all of this is what already was done to the next generation. My son and I crossed 2 boys on a gravel road in the woods the other day. The smaller of the two was perhaps 12 years old and had a green surgical mask on. I asked him why on Earth wearing such a mask in the woods while hiking with his unmasked buddy, and he told me he wears it "anywhere, all the time, in order to get better used to it, it's his right". So it has come to this people, this is so sad from a human point of view. Yet, from a dystopian vantage point, the perfect, self-policing citizen is coming, without any subversive nor revolutionary thoughts - not even deep in the woods with a friend on a sunny afternoon. Brave New World.

But, there is hope, and according to Orwell, if there is hope, it lies in the proles. I saw the homeless with their P3-respirators today again on the streets I already wrote about in the past, and had a nice chat. Good people, bright minded, very polite. I gave them some infos on decontaminaton etc. - and they told me they were so happy, as I was the first person ever giving them positive feedback about their personal protective equipment, with everybody else behind hilarious KN95-earloop-masks treating them as total lunatics. I assured them that the others are the crazy ones, and it was a pleasant exchange. So is it only me, or is there something deeply rotten in society if the only not crazy ones, carrying decent respirators in the context of an airborne pandemic [roger, Peter Ross will not agree, but let's just assume for an instant it's airborne], are the homeless? It amazes me this actually is real in 2021, WTF! Orwell, in 1984, was right - quote:

"‘If there is hope,’ wrote Winston, ‘it lies in the proles.’ If there was hope, it MUST lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. Its enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. Even if the legendary Brotherhood existed, as just possibly it might, it was inconceivable that its members could ever assemble in larger numbers than twos and threes. Rebellion meant a look in the eyes, an inflexion of the voice, at the most, an occasional whispered word. But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet——!"

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
David Rivard
3/6/2021 08:02:31 pm

Orwellian, yes, wow. And here I just looked at the whole phenomena pragmatically like my neighbors on the south side of the border. CCP needed a shortcut to global dominance and influenced U.S. elections. Apparently the technological elite, still living under the influence of Star Wars, agree it remains a necessary, albeit sacrificial step for "humankind". Do they remember that their elite equivalents did the same to Rome, and when it collapsed so too did Western civilization for 1,000 years. They called it the "Dark Ages".

Reply
Peter Ross
3/6/2021 08:02:06 pm

To make a long story short there is no virus.

"Virus" sequences are recurring PCR artifacts combine with a lot of fanciful thoughts.

Hoax.

Reply
Peter Ross
3/6/2021 11:49:07 pm

THE LARGEST UNETHICAL MEDICAL EXPERIMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY
Ronald N. Kostoff, Ph.D.
Research Affiliate, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology
KEYWORDS
Unethical Research; Electromagnetic Fields; Wireless Radiation; Radiofrequency Radiation; RF;
Non-Ionizing Radiation; Mobile Networking Technology; 5G; Adverse Health Effects

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/62452/LARGEST_UNETHICAL_MEDICAL_EXPERIMENT_FINAL.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

Reply
David Rivard
3/7/2021 09:52:20 am

Peter, CCP is lovin' your analysis. It's better than sending scientists to caves or freezers, and if they can keep certain sectors of citizens meandering down other dead end caves, then "como no?" There is a consensus among the IC's about the lab origin the world over. Maybe consequential to this blog's first established pathway...and other independent explorers. Existing TPP partners, both state and private sector, are finally realizing that a Pandora's Box must always accompany schemes where many suffer and die and particular where collateral damages are never factored into a domination strategy. This accompaniment includes a box that digs deep, all the way to China. The authorization to release many such articles such as this is my proof (there are scores more).

https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-investigators-to-scrap-interim-report-on-probe-of-covid-19-origins-11614865067

Also see new global alliances resulting from the BRI. The forward thrust of this site, as supported by the research, has been that domestic politics would remain more stable if countries would simply tell their constituents the truth.

Reply
Peter Ross
3/11/2021 11:35:07 am

There is no SARS virus, you know that by now.

Why are you promoting such fakery?

Reply
alex
3/11/2021 12:33:00 pm

??

Guy Fawkes
3/11/2021 01:13:15 pm

Ok, and what about birds, Peter?

https://birdsarentreal.com/pages/printable-flyer

fuddman
3/11/2021 01:48:18 pm

You're not going to get anywhere pushing that "fakery" stuff.

The "fakery" you refer to has killed too many people. Also, you seemed to have lost what this blog is all about. Namely, the "fakery" was designed to make people sick and kill people. It did all that and still does. Which makes you sound....well, not good.

Instead of trivializing it as "fakery," you'd come off a lot less cooky by calling it something else. Something better understood. Like maybe, call it poison. A poison which is attached to the backbone of bat genome and which expresses itself through various symptoms and death.

That definition sounds a lot more accurate. Plus, it is much less likely to start an argument over whether this thing is a virus or not.

Peter Ross
3/11/2021 02:37:49 pm

@alex @Guy Fawkes @fuddman

If you guys were really interested in solving the mystery of the latest seasonal flu syndrome, you would stop blaming a virus never shown to exist (fake virus).

David Rivard
3/7/2021 04:16:43 pm

Here we go again with the popular citations. The "Why" seemingly subjective if not objectively analyzed (like not sharing any raw data, even clinical data, et al). Many popular articles are still in a current phase of subjectively dismissing the release was on purpose (an act of war) as an apology before they cite virologic evidence of synthetic origins. "No, it was not a planned release". And FYI, this is (still) the evidence the WHO Team used to dismiss the lab story,

"We looked at the closest virus to SARS-CoV-2 they were working on — the virus RaTG13 — which had been detected in caves in southern China where some miners had died seven years previously.

But all the scientists had was a genetic sequence for this virus. They hadn’t managed to grow it in culture. While viruses certainly do escape from laboratories, this is rare. So, we concluded it was extremely unlikely this had happened in Wuhan."

But meantime, the Paris Group is not buying their report,

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/03/06/scientists-question-who-inquiry

https://singaporenewslive.com/some-scientists-question-who-inquiry-into-the-coronavirus-pandemics-origins-united-states-news-top-stories/141279/

https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-group-demands-minister-explain-origins-of-Covid-even-as-the-scientific-community-does-not-agree-on-its-beginning

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51486106

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/8/2021 10:04:54 am

Very interesting new paper from March 3, 2021 on CoV-2 reinfections, by Choudhary et al. (2021) "SARS-CoV-2 Sequence Characteristics of COVID-19 Persistence and Reinfection" - from the discussion:

"We conducted a systematic review and pooled analysis of sequences from reports of COVID-19 reinfection and persistent infection. Reports of reinfection cases demonstrate a wide range of situations: spanning a broad distribution of ages (from individuals in their 20s to >70 years), baseline health status, reinfection severity compared to the initial infection, and occurring as early as 1.5 months or >8 months after the initial infection. Common explanations for the presence of reinfection involves either waning SARS-CoV-2 antibodies or the presence of viral escape mutations. While most cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection did involve infection with a different clade (including the variant B.1.1.7), it is noteworthy that mutations were identified throughout the genomes and the frequency of mutations within the S gene was only modestly higher than the rate across the entire genome. In addition, individuals with more severe reinfections did not have significantly greater frequency of S gene mutations. Finally, the presence of rare mutations was uncommon in the reinfecting virus, which largely mirrored the contemporaneously circulating variants in the region of infection. The interpretation of this analysis is limited by the lack of immune profiling, but the results suggest that reinfection does not require an unusual set of circumstances with respect to the reinfecting virus."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.02.21252750v1

Reply
David Rivard
3/8/2021 11:20:57 am

Politics plays such a pivotal role in where research dollars are directed. It is worthwhile to remind ourselves of the former state departments assessment below:

"For more than a year, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has systematically prevented a transparent and thorough investigation of the COVID-19 pandemic’s origin, choosing instead to devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation. Nearly two million people have died. Their families deserve to know the truth. Only through transparency can we learn what caused this pandemic and how to prevent the next one.

The U.S. government does not know exactly where, when, or how the COVID-19 virus—known as SARS-CoV-2—was transmitted initially to humans. We have not determined whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

The virus could have emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals, spreading in a pattern consistent with a natural epidemic. Alternatively, a laboratory accident could resemble a natural outbreak if the initial exposure included only a few individuals and was compounded by asymptomatic infection. Scientists in China have researched animal-derived coronaviruses under conditions that increased the risk for accidental and potentially unwitting exposure.

The CCP’s deadly obsession with secrecy and control comes at the expense of public health in China and around the world. The previously undisclosed information in this fact sheet, combined with open-source reporting, highlights three elements about COVID-19’s origin that deserve greater scrutiny:

1. Illnesses inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV):

The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. This raises questions about the credibility of WIV senior researcher Shi Zhengli’s public claim that there was “zero infection” among the WIV’s staff and students of SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses.
Accidental infections in labs have caused several previous virus outbreaks in China and elsewhere, including a 2004 SARS outbreak in Beijing that infected nine people, killing one.
The CCP has prevented independent journalists, investigators, and global health authorities from interviewing researchers at the WIV, including those who were ill in the fall of 2019. Any credible inquiry into the origin of the virus must include interviews with these researchers and a full accounting of their previously unreported illness.
2. Research at the WIV:

Starting in at least 2016 – and with no indication of a stop prior to the COVID-19 outbreak – WIV researchers conducted experiments involving RaTG13, the bat coronavirus identified by the WIV in January 2020 as its closest sample to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% similar). The WIV became a focal point for international coronavirus research after the 2003 SARS outbreak and has since studied animals including mice, bats, and pangolins.
The WIV has a published record of conducting “gain-of-function” research to engineer chimeric viruses. But the WIV has not been transparent or consistent about its record of studying viruses most similar to the COVID-19 virus, including “RaTG13,” which it sampled from a cave in Yunnan Province in 2013 after several miners died of SARS-like illness.
WHO investigators must have access to the records of the WIV’s work on bat and other coronaviruses before the COVID-19 outbreak. As part of a thorough inquiry, they must have a full accounting of why the WIV altered and then removed online records of its work with RaTG13 and other viruses.
3. Secret military activity at the WIV:

Secrecy and non-disclosure are standard practice for Beijing. For many years the United States has publicly raised concerns about China’s past biological weapons work, which Beijing has neither documented nor demonstrably eliminated, despite its clear obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.
Despite the WIV presenting itself as a civilian institution, the United States has determined that the WIV has collaborated on publications and secret projects with China’s military. The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.
The United States and other donors who funded or collaborated on civilian research at the WIV have a right and obligation to determine whether any of our research funding was diverted to secret Chinese military projects at the WIV.
Today’s revelations just scratch the surface of what is still hidden about COVID-19’s origin in China. Any credible investigation into the origin of COVID-19 demands complete, transparent access to the research labs in Wuhan

Reply
David Rivard
3/8/2021 11:25:42 am

Today’s revelations just scratch the surface of what is still hidden about COVID-19’s origin in China. Any credible investigation into the origin of COVID-19 demands complete, transparent access to the research labs in Wuhan, including their facilities, samples, personnel, and records.

As the world continues to battle this pandemic – and as WHO investigators begin their work, after more than a year of delays – the virus’s origin remains uncertain. The United States will continue to do everything it can to support a credible and thorough investigation, including by continuing to demand transparency on the part of Chinese authorities.

The current State Department has still not made their new policy statement: https://www.state.gov/404

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/10/2021 02:54:47 pm

Looks like they were in serious bat caging mode over there in Wuhan, filing the following patent in mid June of 2018:

"A kind of carnivorism bat rearging cage"

https://patents.google.com/patent/CN208317981U/en

Download the corresponding PDF and scroll to the very last page, we are talking 20 cages on 2 levels per unit:

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/25/88/70/08906a90899cde/CN208317981U.pdf

***

Another patent from 2012 involving the obligatory bats, spikes and mice is

"Bat SARS-like coronavirus spike protein immunity determining area and preparation method and application thereof"

Quote from what looks like a buggy bot-translation to me:

"Another object of the present invention is to be to provide the immune determining area of a kind of bat SARS appearance coronavirus spike protein (Rp3-S) proteic preparation method. This method is simple, and is easy to operate, is easy to produce. [...] CDNA3.1-Rp3-S is injected female BALB/c mouse in 6-8 age in week with the mode that shocks by electricity in the body; Respectively 0,3 and 5 when week immune mouse; The 8th week, extract mice serum, these serum are the antiserum (antisera) that contains bat SARS appearance coronavirus S protein polyclone antibody. [...] The application of a kind of bat SARS appearance coronavirus spike protein immunity determining area albumen in identifying mouse anti S monoclonal antibody epi-position the steps include ... mouse anti bat SARS appearance coronavirus S MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES SPECIFIC FOR: the applicant will contain the bat SARS appearance coronavirus Rp3 proteic pseudovirus of strain S (HIV/Rp3-S) as antigen in BALB/c mouse according to standard method preparation. To select male clone's enlarged culturing and abdominal injection and go into, and collect ascites with the source mouse. [...] Once more, the application method specificity of the S280-455 polypeptide fragment that provides in identifying mouse anti S monoclonal antibody epi-position is good, simple to operate, is easy to repetition."

https://patents.google.com/patent/CN102690336A/en

'Many people are experimenting with mice. I heard someone say once that a lie is sweet in the beginning, and bitter in the end. And truth is bitter in the beginning, and sweet in the end. I have been meditating, but I don't have the experiences people report from experimenting with mice. Is the science of SARS like the lie, and meditation under a ROCK the truth? Or am I missing something that could really help me?'

--> I have no idea why shocking poor mice with electricity helps in any way - was thinking about it and Dj Koze's track "XTC" came into mind, with its lyrics ready to be paraphrased - if anyone of you nerds is into techno music, check this out and you will understand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQTcBBb8j9E

"Or am I missing something that could really help me?"

Best,
Guy Fawkes

P.s. Here an overview about all the filed patents by the WIV:

https://graph.org/Patents-07-24

&

https://patents.google.com/?assignee=%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%A6%E9%99%A2%E6%AD%A6%E6%B1%89%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80&sort=new

Reply
Peter Ross
3/11/2021 02:38:18 pm

If you guys were really interested in solving the mystery of the latest seasonal flu syndrome, you would stop blaming a virus never shown to exist (fake virus).

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/12/2021 12:20:33 am

@PETER ROSS: Is this some kind of modern art? Peter, seriously, look via CTRL+F at what Fuddman just wrote on 3/11/2021 01:48:18 pm. Reposting the same, unfunded, ludicrous claim does not rise its alleged quality. Not sure what your intentions are, but if you really think CoV-2 does not exist, but the seasonal flu does [ergo viruses do exist, right?], well, what the heck are you doing in this obscure corner of the web? But I'm open to any new information radically changing my world view, so plz go for it! If you have some nice publications about "a virus never shown to exist", open the valve, post it! Otherwise, as Fuddman rightly pointed out, rather stick to the inherent theme of this blog and share infos supporting/discrediting a lab escape, that's what w are here for. If not, looks like you picked the wrong wedding, Sir!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
3/12/2021 02:00:28 am

Are you worried about Covid syndromes?

Well then maybe stop pretending that they're caused by an imaginary virus.

Nobody ever isolated a coronavirus; vrilogy is mostly pseudoscience.
The PCR is based upon the same pseudoscience.
So it's no wonder that 99% of covid syndromes are the elderly and infirm getting sick and dying in the usual seasonal patterns when all they needed was aspirin and a steroid-based nebulizer.
There may be some new syndromes but there is no plague: young and healthy remained unscathed and no excess deaths in any country, just data manipulations and mass media-driven hysterias.

The entire affair is a pre-scripted simulation, an exercise in social engineering - a global reality TV show.

"Bioweapon from China" is part of the script, to scare doctors into getting all dressed-up in their biohazard gear.

If you still want to pretend there's a virus then show some proof!

Otherwise you're just running around inside the matrix and chasing your tails.

It's like that story of a guy locked-up in prison for 50 years and finally when the jail door is opened he refuses to leave...

Guy Fawkes
3/12/2021 04:43:49 am

Stay cool Peter. You meant 'symptomes'? I know a lot of people by now who got them and never fully recovered. Did you read my previous posts @ "the virus was never isolated"? That's oldschool Peter, got isolated a long time ago, do a CTRL+F for 1/30/2021 08:46:45 am and re-read my post. But of course, this does not fit into your argumentation line very well, that's why you ask again. See, I'm here to answer.

I'm absolutely with you on PCR, that's only an ill-fitted contamination test. And I'm also fully with you on the golbal TV show, that's why we don't have a TV at home. I would even call it global psyops TOGETHER with the nasty lab virus in order to tame the bewildered herd into technological submission. I only got issue about you denying CoV-2, that makes no sense.

--> Perhaps we should just agree to disagree instead of re-heating old posts and waste mutual time. Ok? Peace to you my friend.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Guy Fawkes
3/12/2021 08:08:00 am

Let's move on and get back to science everybody. Here 2 "nasty" pubs. One about wastewater:

"Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA is frequently detected in the feces of infected individuals. While infectious SARS-CoV-2 has not previously been identified in wastewater, infectious SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated from the feces of at least one patient, raising concerns about the presence of infectious SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater. The fate and inactivation characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 in water and wastewater are unknown, with current inactivation estimates based on surrogate models. In this study, the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 infectivity and RNA signal was determined in water and wastewater. The times for 90% reduction (T90) of viable SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater and tap water at room temperature were 1.5 and 1.7 days, respectively. In high-starting titer (105 TCID50 mL–1) experiments, infectious virus persisted for the entire 7-day sampling time course. In wastewater at 50 and 70 °C, the observed T90 values for infectious SARS-CoV-2 were decreased to 15 and 2 min, respectively."

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00730

--> Those times for 90% reduction (T90) of viable SARS-CoV-2 at 50 °C for 15 min and 70 °C for 2 min are very much in line with Chan et al. (2011) "The Effects of Temperature and Relative Humidity on the Viability of the SARS Coronavirus", quote:

"The virus is stable for 3 weeks at room temperature in a liquid environment but it is easily killed by heat at 56 °C for 15 minutes."

Coming back to my pet topic of personal protective equipment decontamination, the common takeaway is CoV-2 does not like it hot & wet.

***

And now, buckle your seat belts, it gets really nasty. Petrillo et al. (2020) "Increase of SARS-CoV-2 RNA load in faecal samples prompts for rethinking of SARS-CoV-2 biology and COVID-19 epidemiology", quote:

"The preliminary results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 replicates in bacterial growth medium inoculated with a stool sample from an infected patient and that the replication follows bacterial growth. These results are unexpected and when confirmed on large sample sizes hint towards novel hypotheses on the biology of SARS-CoV-2 and on the COVID-19 epidemiology. The data reported here suggest a possible ‘bacteriophage-like’ behaviour of SARS-CoV-2, which to our knowledge was never observed or described before. The discovery of possible new modes of action of SARS-CoV-2 has far-reaching implications for the prevention and the treatment of the disease, necessitating quick sharing of even preliminary findings with the global scientific community. [...] Although based on a single observation, our results suggest that the SARS-CoV-2 genome, or parts thereof, in addition to its known interactions with eukaryotic cells, is capable of replicating also outside the human body, insinuating a possible ‘bacteriophage-like’ mode of action. It is not clear whether the SARS-CoV-2 genome could just be replicated by its RNA polymerase (which would correspond to a bacteriophage pseudo-lysogenic mechanism), or if the production of full-blown SARS- CoV-2 viruses within the bacteria occur (which would correspond to the typical lytic cycle of bacteriophages). Anyhow, according to our knowledge, this is new and never described before for SARS-CoV-2. [...] Preliminary results from three independent replications of exactly the same experiment with the same samples A and B (day 10 at time of writing) show the same trend and lead to the same observations. [...] However, the interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and other eukaryotic cells present in the stool samples, in primis human cells, could also be possible. [...] Finally, in the used medium, chemical elements relevant for (parasitic and not) nematodes (e.g. cholesterol and traces of metals) are missing. [...] [A] deeper understanding of the role of the microbial community living in the human body is fundamental to tackle COVID-19 disease, and not only."

https://zenodo.org/record/4088208

It's consistent with Gaebler et al. (2020) "Evolution of Antibody Immunity to SARS-CoV-2" I already excerpted from/linked to before, quote:

"The observation that SARS-CoV-2 remains detectable in the small intestinal epithelium even 3 months after infection is consistent with the relative persistence of anti-RBD IgA antibodies and continued antibody evolution."

Can't wait to read the update by Petrillo et al. on their planned larger experiment. Because, if indeed Frankenstein can replicate in human feces [WTF?!], then good night.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
3/12/2021 10:15:51 am

Guy, as it turns out many of these "viruses" have never been isolated.

For the virology cabal, going back to Prof Enders characterization of measles, there's been a recurring perversion of the term "isolation".

Go to any Materials & Methods section of an "Isolation of Coronavirus" and you'll quickly discover that "isolation" means adding more junk than taking away; for the Vrilogy Cabal, "isolation" is the exact opposite of "purification".

It's impossible to re-construct a 30,000 kb chromosome from a mixture of fractured sequences from the dirty lung washing of a sick person that contains all kinds of human cells and bacteria and who-knows-what that is further dirtied by adding all kinds of bovine broths and monkey cells.

And in any case, monkey cells are going to yield vesicles with lipids and glycosylation patterns of monkey origin and never a product regenerated from the original source.

If you stuff enough of the junk from human lung washings or monkey cells into another primate you might be able to make him sick, but then then it's better called "host vs graft" syndrome.

So all this business about re-constructing the genome of a virus from billions of different RNA and DNA fragments arising from a multiple animal sources used to comprise the mixture is closer to voodoo than to legitimate laboratory science.

It's also voodoo to apply on such a mixture the tissue-altering techniques for preparing EM specimens and then declare that whatever vesicle-like structure you can find that conform to your pre-conceived notion of a virus particle is actually a pathogen.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/12/2021 12:52:31 pm

I get your point on voodoo science very well Peter, and I agree at 100%. Adding insult to injury, those shamans also created a voodoo creature as it looks like. Children playing with matches, this GOF-research is an infamy, see what happened.

According to one of your recent posts, you concede influenza viruses exist. And I guess you know the story of Dr. Lanka who was ordered by court to pay out those €100K he was waving with for anybody able to isolate measles - if not, check

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=measles+bet+germany

And according to Prof. Enders' seminal paper form 1954, he isolated it already back then, quote:

"Eight agents exhibiting the properties of viruses have been isolated in cultures of human or simian renal cells from the blood or throat washings of five cases of typical measles. Multiplication of the agents in vitro is accompanied by characteristic changes in the cells. Primarily these changes consist in the formation of syncytial giant cells wherein the chromatin assumes a marginal position and is replaced centrally by an acidophilic substance of unknown nature. The cytopathogenic effect of at least one of the agents is inhibited by convalescent phase measles sera from other patients with measles. Antigen appears during cultivation in vitro of the measles agents that reacts specifically in complement fixation tests with convalescent phase measles sera."

https://doi.org/10.3181/00379727-86-21073

But please respond to this Peter:

If it looks like common cold/measles/influenza/CoV-2/whatever, has all the characteristics of it, and produces all the symptoms, what else - besides our "mainstream" explanation - is there? We talked about the concept of Occam's razor here before - so in our case the most straightforward explanation for COVID-19 so far is CoV-2. But if it's not, then this is your chance to come forward and present corrobating facts for your version of the illness. I'm not kidding at this point, I really mean it. No more stories allowed of what CoV-2 is not, I want to hear what it is, see the core of the poodle. You talked about solar activity in the past, yet this is super thin ice as soon as some geoscientist might lurk from behind a tree. So, if isolation is the opposite of purification, and if you purify the agent Peter, what do you see under your scanning electron microscope? What else is there?

https://youtu.be/R1zD48BGX84

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Fuddman
3/13/2021 09:44:30 am

The recent notion arguing for Fecal/Oral transmission is not convincing to me. I'd go further and say the authors of such an idea are blowing smoke.

Mainly because the so called "scientific papers" on the subject are full of of qualifiers such as "may be," "Could possibly be explained by," and the killer phrase - "needs further study."

Secondly, there have been articles, just as scientifically based, poo-pooing the idea and saying Fecal/Oral transmission is preposterous.


And then, there is this. In an attempt to put to rest the debate about the origin of the poison out of China, the World Health Organization, is trying to convince the world the poison out of China was not a lab creation. Rather, the WHO argues, it is a by product of consumed food.

What better way for the WHO to support their position than to publish a "scientific study" on Fecal/Oral (consumed food) transmission.


Incidently, the official pronouncement of the official WHO conclusion on "origin" has been stymied by a few honest scientists. They are unwilling to endorse the Who's idea that there was no lab creation.






Reply
Peter Ross
3/13/2021 03:28:57 pm

There is no transmission from person to person.

Maybe somebody is spreading something noxious by stealth means.

Too much lead in the petrol could be.

Peter Ross
3/12/2021 01:00:58 pm

@Guy Fawkes

Even under controlled conditions, Influenza "virus" does not appear to be contagious:

Minimal transmission in an influenza A (H3N2) human challenge-transmission model within a controlled exposure environment


Jonathan S. Nguyen-Van-Tam,Ben Killingley ,Joanne Enstone,Michael Hewitt,Jovan Pantelic,Michael L. Grantham,P. Jacob Bueno de Mesquita,Robert Lambkin-Williams,Anthony Gilbert,Alexander Mann,John Forni,Catherine J. Noakes,Min Z. Levine, [ ... ],
 Published: July 13, 2020

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1008704

Could be transmission failure cuz the original inoculum is just the supernatant of monkey cells mixed with human snot cells?

Reply
Peter Ross
3/12/2021 01:05:02 pm

@Guy Fawkes

"Fast Forward To Today’s Virus Wars: Does the Measles Virus Actually Exist?

A recent episode in Germany created a suppressed stir in the field of microbiology when microbiologist Dr. Stefan Lanka claimed he would award anyone 100,000 Euros who could prove the existence of the measles virus.

At first it appeared he had lost. But Dr. Lanka took his loss to a higher court with more experts and the backing of two independent laboratories. He wound up not having to pay. It turned out that the “proof” provided was a composite of several different electron microscope images. And the composite involved different components of damaged cells. The composite could not be duplicated. The German Federal Supreme Court confirmed that there was not enough evidence to prove the existence of the measles virus."

https://vaccineimpact.com/2017/german-supreme-court-upholds-biologists-claim-that-measles-virus-does-not-exist/

Reply
Peter Ross
3/12/2021 01:25:13 pm

@Guy Fawkes

What is being identified as virus under the EM which requires extremes of heat and pressure to prepare samples?
Whatever they find that looks like "the virus".
Probably exosomes have been serially confused for contagious "virus" pathogens.

1966 American Society for Microbiology
Multiplication of Measles Virus in Cell Cultures
MINORU MATUMOTO

"In the light of these past experiences, it can be
seen that improvement of experimental techniques is urgently needed. In analytical study of virus replication, it is necessary very often that experiments be performed under the conditions
enabling us to obtain a one-step growth of virus;
with measles virus, however, it is not so easy a
task at present, since a high-titered infectious material necessary for such a type of experiment can be obtained only with difficulty. For quantitative analysis, well-controlled host cell-virus systems
are necessary. To meet these requirements, further
investigations are needed, for instance, to learn
the nutritional requirements for the replication of
measles virus, to obtain a relatively uniform population of host cells with high susceptibility to measles virus, and to obtain purified virus preparations, consisting predominantly of accurately
and easily assayable infectious units."

- Ten years after Enders and still no purified measles particles.

Yet -

"In 1963 the measles vaccine was developed, and by the late 1960s, vaccines were also available to protect against mumps (1967) and rubella (1969). These three vaccines were combined into the MMR vaccine in 1971."

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-history/developments-by-year#:~:text=In%201963%20the%20measles%20vaccine,the%20MMR%20vaccine%20in%201971.


Reply
alex
3/13/2021 02:36:28 am

@Peter Ross
Why, if the famous virus does not exist, is the CCP going to lend itself to simulate its existence? Big mystery

Reply
Peter Ross
3/13/2021 06:16:03 am

@alex

Yep, one of many mysteries.

Who wrote the script?

fuddman
3/13/2021 04:50:55 pm

I don't understand your question nor what you say is a mystery. And I'd like to.

Could you rephrase it?

alex
3/14/2021 03:27:36 am

Yes, I am going to try, according to Peter the virus does not exist, so the question is, what is the objective of the CCP in saying that it exists?
dont have much sense.

More, what do they do in those ultra-secret and ultra-protected laboratories if they don't have viruses?
what do they do?

Peter Ross
3/14/2021 04:30:35 am

@alex @fuddman

They cook up poisonous cell cultures of one species using snot from another species and stuff it all down the throat of a different species. Or inject it. And they watch the animals die from 'host versus graft' reactions which makes them very scared so they dress up like Halloween in bubble suits.

Some of them write up the experiments.

It's a lot of work to fake pandemics.

Reply
fuddman
3/14/2021 02:08:53 pm

"It's a lot of work to fake pandemics."

How very true.

And China has been in the business of creating fake pandemics for a long, long time. And to which, they have devoted an enormous amount of their wealth. By whatever metric you care to use, when it comes to creating fake pandemics, no other country comes even close. Oh, by the way, when they devote that amount of energy, they have every intention using it.

You need to get your head straight about the the Chinese Bio Weapons program, size, control and, more importantly, how they intend to use it against a threat they need to eliminate.

What better place to start than by consulting with their neighbor, India.

https://idsa.in/system/files jds/jds_9_2_2015_DanyShoham.pdf


Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/14/2021 03:10:15 pm

What's a "fake pandemic", Fuddman? Or: What's a real one? Something "occurring over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affecting a significant proportion of the population"?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pandemic

In this case, I would say Covid-19 has all the characteristics of a pandemic, as morbidity/mortality do not make it into the definition. So along what logic is the current pandemic fake? I can't follow your and Peter's logic. Help me!

Guy Fawkes
3/14/2021 09:24:52 am

People, it's getting psychadelic over here, and we really should not reduce ourselves - and this blog - to absurd levels à la

"They cook up poisonous cell cultures of one species using snot from another species and stuff it all down the throat of a different species."

That's on the level of a regular Facebook-post. I will therefore stick to something tangible:

#1 The Lanka-trials. The district court of Ravensburg ordered him to pay. He then went into appeal in front of the higher regional court of Stuttgart. There, it was conceded the presumed winner did not follow predefined lines of the bet aka one all-encompassing publication, as the opponent presented several sources, but not one. Hence, Lanka could keep his €100K, but the higher regional court of Stuttgart made it crystal clear this does in no way concede the measles virus does not exist. Did you read this, Peter? Grab your dictionary, straight from the verdict:

"Die Beweiswürdigung des Landgerichts dahingehend, dass aufgrund des eingeholten Sachverständigengutachtens bewiesen sei, dass die vom Kläger vorgelegten Publikationen in ihrer Gesamtheit den Nachweis für die Existenz und die Erregereigenschaft des Masernvirus belegten und auch die Bestimmung des Durchmessers in der vom Beklagten verlangten Form gelungen sei, ist im Ergebnis nicht zu beanstanden. [...] Der Beklagte kann letztlich auch nicht damit Erfolg haben, dass angeblich nicht aufgeklärt worden sei, ob beim RKI nicht Ribosomen im Innern der Masernviren gefunden worden seien und dies die Eigenschaft als Virus ausschließe. Der Sachverständige hat hierzu ausgeführt, dass das Masernvirus keine Ribosomen enthalte und eine solche Mitteilung erstaunlich sei, allergrößte Aufmerksamkeit hervorrufen würde, das Konzept des Virus freilich dadurch nicht zwingend „über den Haufen geworfen“ werden würde. Das begriffliche Verständnis des Virus sei nämlich durchaus im Fluss. Allein die Anwesenheit von Ribosomen stehe daher der Existenz eines Virus nicht zwingend im Wege. Soweit der Durchmesser des Masernvirus durch das RKI angeblich mit 120 - 400 nm angegeben worden sei, steht auch dies der Beweiswürdigung des Landgerichtes nicht entgegen. Dieser Größenbereich liegt innerhalb des vom Landgericht aufgrund des Sachverständigengutachtens als wissenschaftlich plausibel nachgewiesenen Größenbereich von 50 bis 1.000 nm bezeichneten Bereichs. Es kann daher nicht erkannt werden, dass sich die beiden gemessenen Werte ausschließen.

http://lrbw.juris.de/cgi-bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bw&GerichtAuswahl=Oberlandesgerichte&Art=en&sid=46bf3db2df690aba6e4874acafaf45b6&nr=20705&pos=0&anz=1

For those not proficient in German, the 1st sentence is the important, saying - I paraphrase - that 'the argumentation by the district court concerning the publications in their entirety presented by the claimant about the existance and pathogenic characeristics of the measles virus, as well as the determinaton of its diameter, succeeded, and the results are not objectionable'. So much concerning the Lanka-trials. QED.

***

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/14/2021 01:51:50 pm

#2 PETER ROSS, you are classy, your posts a pure work of art, you pull no punches, I like your intransigent style. How sad we cannot sit around a campfire with some more buddies and enjoy a good Rhum Clément/Pan Tadeusz Przepalany Vodka/Woodford Reserve/Lagavulin [in that exact order], giving toasts to the spectacular achievements of scientific propaganda! That would be fun. Until then, tell me, how many layers of irony did you wrap around the following?

"Even under controlled conditions, Influenza "virus" does not appear to be contagious:

Minimal transmission in an influenza A (H3N2) human challenge-transmission model within a controlled exposure environment"

Did you... actually read/digest the Nguyen-Van-Tam et al. (2020)-paper? If you only knew you did not only make my day, but the whole week-end! Awesome. Let me excerpt the following out of it, it's absolutely priceless:

"Uncertainty about the importance of influenza transmission by airborne droplet nuclei generates controversy for infection control. [...] Recipients were randomised as Intervention Recipients (IR) or Control Recipients (CR). IRs wore face shields evaluated to interrupt large droplet transmission but to be permissive to aerosols; in addition, IRs hand sanitised once every 15 minutes to minimise the possibility of contact transmission. IRs were only allowed to touch face via single-use wooden spatulas. Thus, IRs would be exposed to influenza only via aerosols. CRs did not wear face shields or use hand sanitiser and were allowed to touch face freely; therefore, CRs would have been exposed via all routes of transmission consistent with close proximity human-human contact. [...] The near absence of transmission to control Recipients suggests contact and large droplet spray did not contribute substantially to transmission under the conditions used in these EEs. The significantly lower than expected SAR [secondary attack rate] in this study compared with the proof-of-concept study, which had much lower ventilation rates, suggests aerosols as an important mode of influenza virus transmission in this model. [...] The route of infection with influenza virus is known to matter in the setting of experimental infection, with aerosolized virus infectious at lower doses and more likely to result in ‘typical influenza-like disease’ (fever plus cough) than intranasal inoculation. This anisotropic property of influenza virus is not unique among respiratory viruses; e.g. it is exploited by the live, unattenuated adenovirus vaccine. The implication for human challenge-transmission studies, however, may be that increased rates of lower respiratory tract infection via aerosol inoculation might be required to achieve sufficiently high rates of donors with fever, cough, and contagiousness to achieve a useful SAR. [...] The results from breath sampling with the Gesundheit-II device indicate that 26% of infected Donors had virus detectable in exhaled air during the same period. By comparison, virus shedding into exhaled breath was detected in 84% of influenza cases selected on the basis of having fever or a positive rapid test and sampled on one to three days post onset of symptoms [...] First, although fewer viral challenged subjects had virus-laden aerosols than seen in people with natural infections presenting with influenza-like symptoms, those volunteers who did produce viral aerosols did so at a rate similar to the average symptomatic naturally infected case. Second, given that a subset of the infected volunteers had moderate viral aerosol shedding in this model, observation of transmission via aerosols in quarantine studies may be strongly dependent on the dilution ventilation rate. Third, low risk of transmission to Control Recipients suggests that contact and large droplet spray transmission were not important modes of transmission in this model. The overall low SAR compared to that observed in the proof-of-concept study suggests that, given the main difference between the studies was the indoor air ventilation rate, aerosol transmission may be an important mode of influenza virus transmission between adults."

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1008704

--> PLZ read the last part of the last sentence 9x in order to memorize it well. So they found out influenza spreads via aerosols, not droplets, nor smear infection. Imagine my shock. Again, like in Lanka's case, there is 0 relationship to the existence of viruses. But if you think about it, that paper is worth it's weight in rhodium, as it tells us all that social distancing, KN95-masquerade and plexiglass-Potemkin-walling is a big joke, and what matters is serious PPE, filtering out as much as possible of aerosolized respiratory viruses with "anisotropic properties" of infection. See, this Horizonterweiterung is why I engage in such discussion, they may end up being fruitful in unexpected ways. Love it!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
3/14/2021 04:45:56 pm

Nobody got infected through the air or the hands, after spending days together in the dorm room.

That means it's not transmissible...

Explaining away the lack of transmission as a failure on the part of the inoculated group to exhale in 'fine enough mists' (<5 uM) particle size is simply hilarious!

Try to see the humor.

Reply
fuddman
3/15/2021 01:58:45 pm

Mr. Ross.

Would a human challenge study provide the transmission evidence you seek?

Peter Ross
3/14/2021 10:01:52 pm

I imagine the German high court made sure to write that it's job is not to decide about viruses per se but whether or not a contract has been fulfilled.
Nobody has brought proof to fulfill the terms of the contract only their vrilogical imaginings.

I'm sure we all could use the money:

"Wanted: Dead or Alive … The elusive COVID-19. They say it exists, but so far, they have not given any proof. It’s never been isolated, and never shown to be real. A bit like Santa Claus.

Anyway, for those who blindly believe the governments that COVID-19 is real … here is the opportunity of a lifetime. HealthGlade is officially offering $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove that COVID-19 exists.

Now I’m talking about real proof. Don’t bother sending a video of some newsreader on a mainstream media TV channel squawking like a parrot that it exists. Don’t bother sending a link to a study that has a cool sounding title, but you haven’t read it because you don’t understand it.

You will need to provide actual scientific proof. Proof that it has been isolated, and then proof that the isolated virus does in fact cause COVID-19, such as a demonstration of the supposed harm it causes. ie. Fulfill Koch’s Postulates.

Once you have foolproof evidence that COVID-19 exists, contact us to book an appointment time to make a submission. All submissions will be made over a Zoom call, where you will be required to personally present your evidence and show proof. You will need to provide your personal details so we know who you are, and agree that the recording of the zoom call will be placed on our social media video channels, so it can be independently assessed by the public. If you have provided irrefutable evidence, we will happily pay you the money."

https://healthglade.com/1000000-reward-for-proof-that-covid-19-exists/?fbclid=IwAR1BBmpwM5l2H5gvp3BLdP6YNF9s-ffJv32l744r6zjOAD5HHBo4ESy7NBY

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/15/2021 06:06:51 am

@PETER ROSS: You are right concerning the Nguyen-Van-Tam et al. (2020)-paper, this pesky incoluated group not able to infect others at the same level as the proof-of-concept study is an insolence! ;-]

I guess the reason why their setup failed was this:

"Using deep sequencing, Sobel Leonard and colleagues showed that a sample of the Baxter stock “was at least partially adapted” to the egg and/or tissue environments in which it was produced. [...] But, the impact of positive selection of the challenge virus for growth in the production environment, rather than for human transmissibility, remains a potential contributing factor to consider in choosing challenge viruses for future transmission studies."

And there we are back at the theme of this blog: gain-of-function in a lab. Looks like they used a loss-of-function-clade adapted to eggs and then wondered why thy did not produce the infections they expected in humans. In fact, this is exactly where science gets interesting - producing results you did not want.

Peter, I suggest we put this 'do viruses exist' chat ad acta, it's a complete different discussion. That's it for me, I won't go into it anymore. And the science of viruses is "in flow" anyway, like the technical expert was quoted saying in the German verdict concerning the absence of ribosomes. Thus let's focus here on publications related to the origin of CoV-2 - and perhaps practical infos in order to empower others. But let's stay cool and don't get to excited. There is nothing to win. If you negate the existence of viruses in the first place, better use your time for something more constructive. I did, just read the following yesterday in Isaiah 44:24-25, check:

"I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish."

So much for the wise men and their knowledge. It's all vanity.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
3/15/2021 08:25:08 am

Sure, the dorm experiment used the wrong virus, amiright? Imagine that - all that work for what turns out to be a strain poorly adapted to the experiment...as revealed by subsequent 'deep sequencing'...

And the dog ate my homework!

Such examples of crappy pseudoscience should prompt every ordinary person to reconsider what complete nonsense the Vrilogy Cabal has been feeding the world for the past 50 odd years.

So why hasn't anybody published the results of direct transmission studies for the current plandemic? Because transmission experiments yield negative results which contradict the plandemic narrative.

In a normal world, the science journals should be flooded with direct transmission experiments if only for fear-mongering purposes...

btw - if you're focused on whom to blame for the current plandemic, you're going to need some forensic evidence:

Autopsies of suspected SARS-CoV-2 cases - Elsevierwww.elsevier.es › ...
coronavirus 2;. Forensic Pathology;. Post-mortem;. COVID-19. Abstract Forensic physicians should consider the possibility that people who have died from.

So whom to blame for another pandemic-that-wasn't?

COVID911 is pure psyop with the usual seasonal deaths being recorded as 'corona' deaths to create the illusion of a pandemic. That explains why the average age for dying with a diagnosis of covid is the same age of death in any other year and why the claims for an excess in mortalities this past year - even including the influenza death rate for the 2019-2020 season - do not hold up to actuarial scrutiny.

Not only is there no virus there's no plague! And any contribution of folks from the Wuhan lab to the true climb in excess morbidity and mortality among the young and fundamentality healthy is due to the fear-mongering and counter-productive quarantine policies.

Unless you live in Bangladesh (where nobody dies from covids):

Did you know 63% of Bangladeshis have Neanderthal genes ...www.dhakatribune.com › world › 2020/10/01 › dna-fr...
1 Oct 2020 — Did you know 63% of Bangladeshis have Neanderthal genes? ... Covid-19 patients with a snippet of Neanderthal DNA, that crossed into the ...

----------

There is no virus and there is no plague: so if your wish is for the world to return to normal then acknowledge that it's all a psyop with or without China collusion -

"That frustrateth the tokens of the [psyops], and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish."

SAR
- Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki ›
Specific absorption rate (SAR) is a measure of the rate at which energy is absorbed per unit mass by a human body when exposed to a radio frequency (RF) ...
‎Mobile phone SAR testing · ‎MRI scanner SAR testing · ‎MSBE (minimum SAR...


Chicken Or Egg? (The Original Biblical Paradox) - Awkward ...www.awkwardmomentsbible.com › project › chicken-o...
19 Nov 2015 — Chicken Or Egg? (The Original Biblical Paradox) · Which came first – the chicken or the egg? · “The entire universe doesn't exist just so you can be ...

Reply
alex
3/15/2021 10:16:40 am

@ Peter,

Are you the same person who wrote this?.

Peter Ross02/12/2020 12:39:05 pm
There is no pandemic, only fear of a pandemic from a self-disseminating vaccine called SARS-CoV-2 .


Reply
Peter Ross
3/15/2021 11:02:58 am

It's only half true, or less than that.

There's no reason to believe that the so-called sars-cov-2 genome is transmissible from person-to-person.
In fact, the absence of publications in science journals devoted to examining directly the transmission of the sars-cov-2 genome from peron-to-person is pretty solid evidence that it can't be demonstrated even under ideal laboratory conditions and therefore is a myth.

Since influenza virus cannot be directly demonstrated to be transmissible from person-to-person, it stands to reason that the sars-cov-2 genome is not an outlier.

When I wrote that statement, I was assuming that many principles of modern virology and immunology are not based on voodoo science.

Maybe you can contact Col. Selin and bring him up to date about how the definition of "isolated" has been ritually abused so as to be conflated with "purified" throughout the past 50 years of vrilogy lab research?

"Are the global scientific elite trying to bury the truth about the origin of Covid-19?"
Written By: Lawrence Sellin
Washington Published: Oct 05, 2020
https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/are-the-global-scientific-elite-trying-to-bury-the-truth-about-the-origin-of-covid-19-332583

Reply
David Rivard
3/15/2021 11:04:15 am

These conversations do not seem to be advancing our thesis. Of course there will be vaccine wars (like China's 100% increase in vaccine material supplies, stealing information, trolling information et al).

Guy, I think you and I would be better off riding our MTB's so we could get a fresher look at the real issues at hand.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/15/2021 02:04:22 pm

Indeed David, I think by now, everybody got Peter's standpoint, let's agree to disagree and get right back to the theme of this blog - scientific evidence of lab manipulations of coronaviruses resulting in the creation of CoV-2.

Here an interesting patent back from 2004 - "Insertion of furin protease cleavage sites in membrane proteins and uses thereof", quote:

"In another embodiment, the present invention comprises a method of producing vaccine candidates for alphavirus. This method comprises the steps of inserting a furin cleavage sequence in a region that divides a membrane glycoprotein of the alphavirus into separate domains; incorporating sequence encoding the membrane glycoprotein comprising the furin cleavage sequence into a vector encoding the alphavirus; expressing the alphavirus in a host cell that does not express furin; and collecting alphaviruses produced by the host cell, wherein the collected viruses are vaccine candidates for alphavirus. [...] The instant method of obtaining membrane-free membrane glycoprotein can be applied to a number of viruses such as HIV, Herpes viruses, coronaviruses etc. In general, the furin cleavage site can be inserted into any virus membrane protein if that virus can replicate in a CHO [Chinese Hamster Ovary] cell line deficient in the protease furin or in a furin defective cell line that supports replication of the virus. The released membrane-free ecto domain of the viral glycoprotein can be used as a Subunit vaccine."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7223390B2/en

Reply
David Rivard
3/16/2021 09:35:57 am

OK! Getting back to business at hand! Peter, your interest in vaccines has relevance as well (why take the vaccine if C-19 does not exist?). Many have investigated the general patent picture that Guy has presented above. It would be worthwhile to investigate, through patent registration, the operational mechanisms of the Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Sinovac, Sputnik, Sputnik? vaccines (reverse engineer the virus from the patents). The entire global scientific community has, for over a year, gotten used to hypothesis generating from reverse engineering, so some publications might even be accepted (albeit maybe just social media if you couldn't get some prominent partners to sigh (sic) on). It would even be valid to let your imagination get carried away from there.

I know most on this site are not popular media fans, but there is enough out there that suggests the international IC's have the big picture, in large thanks to the CCP's "when the opportunity rises" approach to global dominance. If they publicly stated by 2045, then surely less is more.

There is also a now chorus of professional scientists like yourselves, and others like me, that have significantly contributed to the truth as we know it, and the truth distilled policies we should expect.

Reply
Peter Ross
3/16/2021 03:29:04 pm

In the winter season of 2010, many countries purchased but later canceled deployment of a rapid roll-out inoculation preparation based upon serosurveillance findings that many populations seemed to have asymptomatically acquired anti-Influenza A H1N1 antibodies during the 2009 summer-autumn:

Seroprevalence to Influenza A(H1N1) 2009 Virus—Where Are ...cvi.asm.org › content
by E Broberg · 2011 · Cited by 65 — After the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, seroprevalence studies found 5 to 60% of populations across different continents and age groups having antibodies against the A(H1N1) 2009 virus. The seropositivity was highest in children and teenagers (20 to 60%) as well as in the elderly older than 80 years (20 to 40%).

Seroprevalence to Influenza A(H1N1) 2009 Virus—Where Are ...cvi.asm.org › content
by E Broberg · 2011 · Cited by 65 — After the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, seroprevalence studies found 5 to 60% of ... Third, the serological samples may shed light on the asymptomatic infection rate ... The first report demonstrating cross-reactive antibodies was a U.S. study ... However, some studies, e.g., from countries with low seasonal vaccination ...

----------------

Maybe these mass vaccination campaigns associated with new-onset narcolepsy & OCD helps to explain why so many people seem to compulsively sleep-walk through so many of these global psyops:

Incidence of narcolepsy after H1N1 influenza and ... - Pub Medpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › ...
by TO Sarkanen · 2018 · Cited by 107 — An increased incidence of narcolepsy was seen in many countries after the pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccination campaign in 2009-2010. The H1N1 vaccine ...

Association of Neuro Psychiatric Disorders Following ...trisomy21research.org › 2017/11/10
10 Nov 2017 — Keywords: anorexia nervosa, obsessive–compulsive disorder, ... between the administration of the H1N1 influenza vaccine containing the ...

Reply
Peter Ross
3/16/2021 03:52:14 pm

Is Zero Covid Possible? - webinar
https://youtu.be/HBd5Q8NpvoI?t=1878

Reply
David Rivard
3/17/2021 02:32:40 pm

Peter, many good points in the webinar.

Reply
Dartagnan
3/17/2021 06:35:31 pm

Recently this Belgian vaccinologist Geert Vanden Bossche has been making some waves on the internet warning about how mass vaccination with the current SARS-CoV-2 S-protein vaccines has the potential to put selective evolutionary pressure on the virus and promote the emergence of new variant strains that could escape the vaccine induced IgG antibodies. While there are many issues with his claims, and he also seems to be peddling some sort of natural killer cell based vaccine technology, I was wondering what folks on here think about some of his ideas?

Given that the current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines all end up inducing production of a very specific viral RBD S-protein peptide in the host cytoplasm (either through introduction of exogenous mRNA or transcribed mRNA from a DNA vector adenovirus), but that none of the vaccines are whole/weakened virus based, it seems likely that they end up provoking high host antibody/IgG titers to that specific very narrow viral protein, but probably provoke a much less substantial host T-cell memory response since the immune system is never faced with identifying and eliminating a large number of its own infected cells - as would be the case during actual infection by replicating SARS-CoV-2. Is it not then possible that vaccine induced immunity is highly imbalanced towards an antibody based response rather than a T-cell based response which is what is truly necessary to definitively end an active infection?

Since the main premise on this site is that SARS-CoV-2 was likely genetically engineered and that the human RBD S-protein in particular was likely GOF'd onto another bat coronavirus template, then it seems obvious that the S-protein is where the highest number of mutations will occur now that the virus is running wild in the population, because nature will work to undo the unnatural chimeral addition. This seems to have borne out over the past year since S-protein variant strains have emerged even before vaccine pressure was applied, in the virtual absence of E-protein or N-protein mutations. In that case, isn't it likely that the number of S-protein mutations will continue to expand going forward and that eventually these will escape the narrow binding affinity from the vaccine antibodies? Once that happens, vaccinated individuals will lack an adequate T-Cell response, but will have a massive activated antibody response that is nevertheless non-neutralizing to the newly resistant variant. This could lead to a hyperinflammatory response through the activation of macrophages with significant morbidity, as has been seen in some naturally infected patients right around the time where adaptive immunity kicks in, often in the presence of lymphocytopenia.

Conversely, in non-vaccinated, naturally infected COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms, it appears that the innate immune system keeps the initial infection at bay, or that there is pre-existing adaptive crossimmunity to the E-protein or N-protein from previous natural HCoV or animalCoV exposure. There should have been no prexisting immunity to the chimeral viral S-protein prior to 2019 however, since this component of the virus is not of natural origin... yet most patients recover from natural infection. It appears to me that non-vaccinated patients with good innate immunity and/or pre-existing adaptive immunity to broader E-protein or N-protein coronavirus motifs may do better against any new S-protein SARS-CoV-2 variants, because their immunity is regardless of any S-protein mutations. Additionally, some proportion of non-vaccinated patients that contract COVID-19 and recover naturally, seem to develop S-protein IgG antibodies (which are picked up on serology tests), but these natural antibodies appear to be polyclonal and less specific than the vaccine induced antibodies, so they are more likely to remain effective while withstanding viral S-protein mutations.

Reply
Peter Ross
3/18/2021 03:59:01 pm

Fundamentally, there is no proof antibodies are directly involved during the acute course of covid, which itself is an ill-defined, heterogenous syndrome which has an average age of mortality equal to - or even higher than - the average age of mortality in general.

There is no evidence of a human reservoir of SARS particles at all, infectious or virulent or neither.


According to the conventional germ theory model, the best way to prevent recurrences of the seasonal covid/influenza syndromes is to make a full, uneventful recovery. Surviving the winter flu syndromes seems to be a function of healthy life style practices, including sunshine (Vit D) and exercise - and avoiding death-accelerating W.H.O. guidelines such as withholding steroid therapy, Ivermectin, etc., as was seen last year.


Whether or not immunoglobulin-based or cell-based immunity is critical to rapid recovery should not be taken as a foregone conclusion but rather as a working hypothesis There are many examples of chronic virus-based syndromes in which the diagnosis depends upon the presence of the anti-viral antibody, and furthermore, prior attempts to develop anti-SARS vaccines were stifled by antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) phenomena.


To create the illusion of vaccine efficacy, the mass injection campaign will commence when covid/influenza case numbers are already declining due both to the seasonality of influenza-like illnesses and to number manipulations by performing fewer throat swab biopsies while dialing down in tandem PCR cycle thresholds.

To create the illusion of injection safety, The Vrilogy Cabal might even be deploying sham injections for the initial roll-out of their new line of GMO/transhumanism inventions. So far, without proper controls, the possibility has not been rule-out.


In the case for the synthetic RNA and DNA injections, even if the transfection succeeds, whatever protein products formed in vivo will lack both the the foreign glycoproteins and the quaternary structure predicted for the wild type protein complex. Therefore, many antibodies expressed post-injection are likely to be non-specific. In fact, it's debatable if administration of actual convalescent antibodies which presumably posses the most avid affinity towards the native spike glycoprotein form, is still of measurable therapeutic value.

Although the value of the current RNA injection campaign is impossible to determine, given that there is no specific diagnostic test for covid syndromes, which are waning in any case, and that an infectious covid particle never been observed, the more direct endpoint for the experiment might be an anticipated rise in the incidence of allergies related to the PEG and noxious lipids, in which the nucleic acids are embedded.


The now recorded ~100,000 'mutant' versions of SARS-CoV-2 genomes is most likely a reflection of the irreproducibility inherent to the methods used to generate the sequence information for such genomes, which relies upon ex vivo cell cultures to generate 'pieces' of the SARS genome, which even as a full synthetic construct is non-infectious.


Rather than the worry about in silico generated 'mutants' compounding upon the methodological flaws of virus particle 'isolation', the need to immediately reconsider the mass injection campaigns has a more realistic basis: namely, the finding that the so-called S proteins share epitope mimicry with healthy human tissues of multiple organ systems, thus raising the specter of injection-induced autoimmune syndromes, which tend to be delayed in onset but chronic in course.

"Reaction of Human Monoclonal Antibodies to ... "- Frontierswww.frontiersin.org › fimmu.2020.617089 › full
by A Vojdani · 2021 · Cited by 2 — Reaction of Human Monoclonal Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Proteins With Tissue Antigens: Implications for Autoimmune Diseases.

Of course, the mass media psyops machine is 'concerned' that the process of natural recovery is dangerous; but if natural healing encourages a hypothetical reservoir or hypothetical mutants to flourish under our noses, we wouldn't be here to talk about it all!


Prof Vanden Boscche's concerns also seem to conger up a long-standing belief associated with [the market for] antimicrobial drugs:

"Is it time to stop counselling patients to finish the course of" ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC5661683
by BJ Langford · 2017 · Cited by 21 — Most of us were taught that terminating antibiotics prematurely can lead to the development of bacterial resistance. This has proven to be a myth as mounting evidence supports the opposite.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/20/2021 01:33:50 pm

@DARTAGNAN: Very intelligent observations, Monsieur! Indeed, it will be interesting to see how long it will take until vaccines and PCR-tests will have to be adapted cat-n-mouse-style due to mutations rendering the initial versions outdated. This could be an eureka-moment for a minority, and the point at which others go depressed/apeshit. Cool to drink upstream the herd in any case, meaning the manifest empowering, early deployment of serious personal protective equipment is worth the investment - and with the realization a corona-vaccine-strategy is ill-fated, melancholy/violence only leads to even more melancholy/violence. Hence take your distance from mainstream confusions.

I guess the top strategy is to follow the precautionary principle, wear - in doubt - the best respirators money can buy, avoid any hyped vaccines for at least a couple of years, and otherwise stay out of toxic multimedia exposure, enjoy nature and life with friends and family. If biometric vaccine passports get introduced in the meantime and you can't travel without, meh, explore your region instead, life is too short even at that small scale anyway. I would have to live 1000+ years to hike along every ridge in the mountains nearby and paddle on every distributary of the close-by rivers, thus I have to set priorities and hurry up. And if they really want their Passierschein, they can keep their Passierschein, n'est-ce pas?

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
David Rivard
3/18/2021 10:06:22 am



Found this interesting piece:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/15/the-superspreaders-behind-top-covid-19-conspiracy-theories/

Among others, they cite:

FRANCIS BOYLE

Greatgame india
https://greatgameindia.com/page/2/
https://greatgameindia.com/china-deletes-300-studies-covid-19/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/gairdner-awards-1.3503719?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

and Frank Plummber?
https://twitter.com/hashtag/FrankPlummer?src=hashtag_click
https://twitter.com/hashtag/FrankPlummer?src=hashtag_click

THE CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON GLOBALIZATION

KEVIN BARRETT

LUC MONTAGNIER

But Mike Pompeo is still out there with "If anything, the CCP owes the world an explanation about why they are withholding information".

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/emails-show-scientists-scrubbed-early-warning-potential-laboratory?utm_medium=social_media&utm_source=twitter_social_icon&utm_campaign=social_icons

Reply
Peter Ross
3/18/2021 12:57:14 pm

Retrovirology and microbiology are fields with high rates of premature deaths under suspicious circumstances.

Reply
Xoco Latte
3/19/2021 02:19:57 am

In my humble opinion, this Mercury News piece is not more than a piece of shite. The only "evidential information it uses as reference is the "conclusions" of the WHO sightseeing tour. Crap.

Reply
David Rivard
3/18/2021 10:28:47 am

https://www.foxnews.com/world/top-state-official-coronavirus-bioweapon-accident

Reply
David Rivard
3/19/2021 09:30:59 am

Xoco, exactly. Another example how mainstream (but local) newspapers are force feeding their captives. If you are a dissenting but otherwise accomplished scientist you become an attractive addition on their list. There might actually be a case for libel in the way they are characterized. One can only assume that somewhere in the convoluted media board structures there are those voyeurs who will forsake all for their personal enrichment. Vlad the Impaler once impaled all of the "voyeurs" in his court because they were openly taking bribes to influence public policies from enemies of state. Vlad was also the first recorded ruler to use germ warfare, disseminating the plague among the Ottomans with success! The Ottomans, never understanding the origin of their disease, started fighting amongst themselves and became so self decimated they held Vlad's Kingdom off limits until many years later.

Reply
Peter Ross
3/20/2021 10:27:39 pm


Count Dracula's War on Islam: A True Story - Military Heritagewww.militaryheritage.com › count_dracula_war_on_isl...
The true story of Vlad Dracula's war against the Islamic forces of the Ottoman Empire. ... The Ottomans conquered Wallachia, Vlad Dracul was reinstated as ruler and ... Ill subjects suffering from leprosy, tuberculosis or the bubonic plague were ...

- Vlad's original plan was to poison the Ottoman /legions with tainted moonshine...

------------------------------------------

"Perhaps the most interesting epidemiological studies conducted during the 1918–1919 pandemic were the human experiments conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy under the supervision of Milton Rosenau on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco. The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918.69 His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer's bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.
The research conducted at Angel Island and that continued in early 1919 in Boston broadened this research by inoculating with the Mathers streptococcus and by including a search for filter-passing agents, but it produced similar negative results.70–72 It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases could not be transferred under experimental conditions."


Public Health Rep. 2010; 125(Suppl 3): 27–36.
doi: 10.1177/00333549101250S306
PMCID: PMC2862332
PMID: 20568567
The State of Science, Microbiology, and Vaccines Circa 1918
John M. Eyler, PhD

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332/

Reply
John alex link
3/22/2021 05:57:52 am

On the off chance that true..then DNA sequencing can assist quality altering with getting cure...let us not concern as criminal investigator has found answer..all return home and utilize this proof to get cure..bye all and don't stress

Reply
David Rivard
3/22/2021 11:52:37 am

Bacillus influenzae is not a coronavirus. Focusing on a prophylaxis, or even treatments (that WHO is not coordinating) and calling it bad days does not advance the cause of science much less prevent future events.

The accepted genomic evidence of the synthetic origin is sequencing. This means a species specific pathogen was developed (which includes experimental lab animal Families, Genus and Species).

The only determinant left to consider is an intentional or non-intentional release of a bio-weapons grade pathogen. This determinant is wholly in the realm of policy makers who will vary their public admissions according to national strategies. The strategies are influenced with popular media articles:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13634137/wuhan-institute-virology-coronavirus-escape-lab-credible/

Not the best article, but one of many hundreds.

Reply
Peter Ross
4/7/2021 02:52:30 pm

@David Rivard

"Bacillus influenzae is not a coronavirus"

Now you tell him? You've had a hundred years to repeat the experiment - hurry up somebody!


"His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer's bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.
The research conducted at Angel Island and that continued in early 1919 in Boston broadened this research by inoculating with the Mathers streptococcus and by including a search for filter-passing agents, but it produced similar negative results.70–72 It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases could not be transferred under experimental conditions."

So which is it? The Spanish Flu wasn't actually an "airborne" (or rather "shipborne" in those days] H1N1 influenza virus pandemic that didn't originate in [neutral] Spain but rather as an iatrogenic accident from innoculating military recruits in Kansas?

"Article|October 01 1918
A REPORT ON ANTIMENINGITIS VACCINATION AND OBSERVATIONS ON AGGLUTININS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRONIC MENINGOCOCCUS CARRIERS
Frederick L. Gates
J Exp Med (1918) 28 (4): 449–474.
https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.28.4.449

1. A meningococcus vaccine suspended in salt solution has been given subcutaneously as a prophylactic to about 3,700 volunteers in three injections of 2,000 million, 4,000 million, and 4,000 or 8,000 million cocci at weekly intervals.

2. These doses rarely caused more than the mildest local and general reactions. Exceptionally a more severe reaction emphasized the presence of an unusual individual susceptibility to the vaccine. In such instances the symptoms were in part those of meningeal irritation and sometimes simulated the onset of meningitis.

3. Specific meningococcus agglutinins have been demonstrated in the blood serum of vaccinated men as compared with normal controls.

4. Moreover, agglutinins have been demonstrated in the blood serum of chronic carriers of the meningococcus. Evidence is thus brought forward that the relative immunity of chronic carriers to epidemic meningitis may be due to the presence of specific antibodies in the blood stream.

Copyright, 1918, by The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research New York"
https://rupress.org/jem/article-pdf/28/4/449/1175015/449.pdf

Sort of recounts the H1N1 fake pandemic of 1976 :

"On arrival, recruits received the 1975–1976 influenza vaccine (A/Port Chalmers/1/73 [H3N2], A/Scotland/840/74 [H3N2], and B/Hong Kong/15/72) (4). Other soldiers reported directly to advanced training programs of 4 to 12 weeks at Fort Dix immediately after basic training at Fort Dix or elsewhere. These soldiers received influenza vaccinations in basic training. Civilian employees and soldiers' families were offered vaccine, but only an estimated <40% accepted "
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-0965_article

----------------------------------------------------

"The deaths in Pittsburgh would be the start. While there was no causal evidence linking these deaths to the vaccine, they triggered many people to come forward claiming evidence of ill health, falsely blaming the inoculation. Nine states shut down their programmes."
[...]
"Still, the Guillain-Barre problem in 1976 did, sadly, cause illness and suffering among an unlucky group of people – perhaps as many as hundreds – who we can now conclude did not need to go through what they did."

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200918-the-fiasco-of-the-us-swine-flu-affair-of-1976


Acta Neurol Scand
. 1982 Oct;66(4):413-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.1982.tb06864.x.
Neurological complications of swine influenza vaccination
C M Poser
Abstract
The emphasis upon the remarkably large number of cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome which resulted from the 1976 National Swine Influenza immunization program in the U.S.A. has obscured the fact that other neurological complications, involving the central nervous system also occurred. The anatomical

Reply
Peter Ross
4/7/2021 03:05:00 pm

Acta Neurol Scand
. 1982 Oct;66(4):413-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.1982.tb06864.x.
Neurological complications of swine influenza vaccination
C M Poser
Abstract
The emphasis upon the remarkably large number of cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome which resulted from the 1976 National Swine Influenza immunization program in the U.S.A. has obscured the fact that other neurological complications, involving the central nervous system also occurred. The anatomical distribution of lesions is almost identical with that seen following other types of vaccination: involvement of the brain, cerebellum, optic nerve, cranial nerves and spinal cord occurred with approximately the same frequency. 5 instances of the very rare subacute or chronic, progressive, post-vaccinal encephalopathy are described, a situation which is identical to the subacute and chronic forms of polyradiculoneuropathy. In a number of cases, in particular the myelopathies, a subclinical involvement of peripheral nerves was demonstrated by means of electrodiagnostic studies, illustrating the often overlooked fact that central nervous system involvement will mask peripheral nerve lesions. The etiological significance of the swine influenza vaccination was overlooked and completely erroneous diagnoses were established in a surprisingly large number of the 26 new cases reported here.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6128862/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This polling suggests the median Brit thinks the average age of death from Covid is 65. In fact, though, that number is currently 82.4. And that’s in a country where the average life expectancy is 81."
https://www.ft.com/content/879f2a2b-e366-47ac-b67a-8d1326d40b5e

--------------------------------------------

European Parliament to Investigate WHO and "Pandemic ...https://healthcare-in-europe.com › news › european-par...
The Parliamentary inquiry will look into the issue of ,,falsified pandemic" that was declared by WHO in June 2009 on the advice of its group of academic experts, SAGE, many of whose members have been documented to have intense financial ties to the same pharmaceutical giants such as GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, ...
https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/european-parliament-to-investigate-who-pandemic-scandal.html

---------------------------------------------------------

"America's Fifty-Fold Increase in Obsessive-Compulsive ...https://childrenshealthdefense.org › news › americas-fift...
31 Oct 2019 — Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), considered a neurobiological ... the immune system, both in the central nervous system (CNS) and in the ... (In early adulthood, however, OCD symptoms appear more frequently in women.) ... H1N1 influenza vaccination in 2009 to autoimmune narcolepsy, and some ..."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Google "no evidence for secondary transmission"

About 232,000,000 results (0.51 seconds)

No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID ... - NCBI - NIHhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC7268273
by L Heavey · 2020 · Cited by 144 — No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from children attending school in Ireland, 2020 · Abstract · Irish school closures Finding ...
‎Abstract · ‎Finding coronavirus... · ‎Discussion · ‎Conclusion

No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID ... - PubMedhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › ...
by L Heavey · 2020 · Cited by 144 — No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from children attending school in Ireland, 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020 May;25(21):2000903. doi: ...

No evidence of secondary transmission of ... - Eurosurveillancehttps://www.eurosurveillance.org › content
by L Heavey · 2020 · Cited by 144 — No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from children attending school in Ireland, 2020 separator commenting unavailable.

No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from ...https://ncrc.jhsph.edu › research › no-evidence-of-seco...
No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from children attending school in Ireland, 2020. 1 May 2020 Eurosurveillance Heavey et al.

Covid: 'No evidence' schools spread lots of coronavirus - BBC ...https://www.bbc.com › news › health-56072460
15 Feb 2021 — Covid: 'No evidence' schools spread lots of coronavirus ... School corridor with secondary school pupils wearing masks ... The Public Health Agency says school transmission "does occur but tends to be small scale".

No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from ...https://static.rasset.ie › 2020/05 › eurosurv-25-21-1
PDF
by L Heavey · Cited by 144 — No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from children attending school in Ireland, 2020. Lau

David Rivard
3/22/2021 04:41:50 pm

The WHO report citations should not disguise sources of raw data.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/business/china-covid-19-beijing.html

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/23/2021 03:15:21 am

Here a new publication by Montagutelli et al. (2021) "The B1.351 and P.1 variants extend SARS-CoV-2 host range to mice" about our favorite missing bat-human link [mice] and their astonishing receptor binding properties to CoV-2 mutants. I wonder if these represent lab "survivals/revivals", to borrow from sociology:

"Here we show that unlike the initial virus, VOCs (variants of concern) are able to infect common laboratory mice, replicating to high titers in the lungs. This host range expansion is explained in part by the acquisition of changes at key positions of the receptor binding domain that enable binding to the mouse angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) cellular receptor, although differences between viral lineages suggest that other factors are involved in the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs to infect mice."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.18.436013v1

Reply
Peter Ross
3/24/2021 07:29:59 pm

REVIEW

"On the epidemiology of Influenza"

Published: 25 February 2008
Virology Journal 2008, 5:29 doi:10.1186/1743-422X-5-29

John J Cannell*1, Michael Zasloff2, Cedric F Garland3, Robert Scragg4 and Edward Giovannucci5
Address: 1Department of Psychiatry, Atascadero State Hospital, 10333 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93423, USA, 2Departments of Surgery and Pediatrics, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., USA, 3Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA, 4Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand and 5Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Abstract

The epidemiology of influenza swarms with incongruities, incongruities exhaustively detailed by the late British epidemiologist, Edgar Hope-Simpson. He was the first to propose a parsimonious
theory explaining why influenza is, as Gregg said, "seemingly unmindful of traditional infectious disease behavioral patterns." Recent discoveries indicate vitamin D upregulates the endogenous
antibiotics of innate immunity and suggest that the incongruities explored by Hope-Simpson may be secondary to the epidemiology of vitamin D deficiency. We identify – and attempt to explain – nine influenza conundrums:
(1) Why is influenza both seasonal and ubiquitous and where is the
virus between epidemics?
(2) Why are the epidemics so explosive?
(3) Why do they end so abruptly?
(4) What explains the frequent coincidental timing of epidemics in countries of similar latitude?
(5) Why is the serial interval obscure?
(6) Why is the secondary attack rate so low?
(7) Why did epidemics in previous ages spread so rapidly, despite the lack of modern transport?
(8) Why does experimental inoculation of seronegative humans fail to cause illness in all the volunteers?
(9) Why has influenza mortality of the aged not declined as their vaccination rates increased?

We review recent discoveries about vitamin D's effects on innate immunity, human studies attempting sick-to-well transmission, naturalistic reports of human transmission, studies of serial interval, secondary attack rates, and relevant animal studies. We hypothesize that two factors explain the nine conundrums: vitamin D's seasonal and population effects on innate immunity, and the presence of a subpopulation of "good infectors." If true, our revision of Edgar Hope-Simpson's theory has profound implications for the prevention of influenza.

https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1743-422X-5-29.pdf

Reply
Fuddman
3/25/2021 10:10:50 am

Very informative read. Made a lot of sense. By a guy from Atascadero State Hospital !

I got a kick out of the answer to conundrum #9

"9. Over the last 20 years, why has influenza mortality in the aged not declined with increasing vaccination rates?"

Study answer: lack of Vitamin D because "...the innate immunity of the aged declined over the last 20 years due to medical and governmental warnings to avoid the sun." The young, of course, ignore that warning- to some extent, anyway.

Toonewb
3/25/2021 08:23:43 am

Nerds and Girls,

I'm not qualified to carry water to this fire but have been "here" since comment #1. I'm curious to hear your comments about the reference below and ramifications.

https://virological.org/t/the-ongoing-evolution-of-variants-of-concern-and-interest-of-sars-cov-2-in-brazil-revealed-by-convergent-indels-in-the-amino-n-terminal-domain-of-the-spike-protein/659

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/25/2021 03:20:50 pm

@TOONEWB: Thank you very much for that paper! Convergent deletions & insertions for immune escape in such a short period of time should lift some eyebrows. In paleontology, the study of convergence of 2 or more unrelated fossil/modern taxa - over millions of years - is super interesting. Only take birds and bats as an example. As if putting your finger right where "God's work" was made, to paraphrase Goldman Sachs. So it has come to this, God's work in time lapse with CoV-2 variants of concern, quote from the paper:

"Recent genomic findings are showing a sudden landscape change in SARS-CoV-2 evolution since October 2020, coinciding with the independent emergence of VOCs carrying multiple convergent amino acid replacements at the RBD of the S protein. One hypothesis is that such a major selection pressure shift on the virus genome is driven by the increasing human population immunity worldwide acquired from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is continuously adapting in Brazil and that RDRs 2/4 variants here detected might have evolved to escape from NAb against NTD supersite and could be even more resistant to neutralization than the parental P.1, P.2, and B.1.1.33(E484K) viruses. The sequential evolution steps observed in Brazil recapitulates the pattern observed in South Africa where the VOC B.1.351 first acquired key RBD mutations. [...] Furthermore, the recurrent emergence of NTD ins214 variants in different SARS-CoV-2 lineages circulating in the Americas and Europe since November 2020 deserves further attention."

--> Yes, I know, let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories, and I ask every nerd to be lenient towards me. But assuming the whole pandemic was not a surprise, but either let happen or made happen on purpose: if some party spread the initial CoV-2 no matter how [accident or sabotage], further releases of gain-of-functioned VOC could have followed. This would explain the peculiar convergence of multiple amino acid replacements at the RBD of the S protein. Remember, GOF creates a whole array of viruses, and I'm sure if released on purpose, they start with the lame one first and then work their way up the fridge. We don't even know if different fridges are involved, meaning different parties. Of course, one could explain convergence away by natural selection pressure, but I'm not convinced in this case. One thing is for sure, "the urgent need to address the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines’ efficacy towards those emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants" is a road to nowhere, as these cat&mouse-games will go on, in parallel with all those mutants, forever. With friends in government, science and media telling us to wear hilarious KN95-earloop-gimmick for "protection", who needs enemies? And if this really is God's work aka lab-nerdboys fooling around with evolution, not even a Devil is needed. Now that's a bright outlook!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Peter Ross
3/25/2021 04:25:49 pm

Interesting experiment being conducted to see if synthetic RNA injections will function as S1S2 templates to invoke immune responses against "foreign" RBD ligands will prove safe from the standpoint of ACE2 associated exosome homeostasis:

Understanding Angiotensin II Type1 Receptor Signaling in ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC5897153
by S Eguchi · 2018 · Cited by 57 — AT1 receptor appears to activate several new signaling cascades including ... substrate for ADAM17 is angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). ... Cell Type Specific AT1 Receptor Signal Transduction ... involving ER, mitochondria and exosomes as well as balance among ...

Extracellular Vesicles Exploit Viral Entry Routes for Cargo ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC4867369
by HM van Dongen · 2016 · Cited by 148 — Thus, the distinctions between viruses and certain types of EVs are blurring. ... Exosomes: EVs of 50 to 100 nm in diameter, secreted by many cell types; they are ... SHARED RECEPTORS FOR VIRUS AND EV ENTRY ...

Microvesicles and exosomes in pulmonary hypertensionvpjournal.net › article › view
by R Mathew · 2020 · Cited by 1 — This article belongs to the Special Issue Microvesicles and Exosomes in Vascular ... sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, ... β (TGFβ), matrix metalloproteinases, bone morphogenic protein receptor type 2 ... angiogenesis and thrombosis, and are implicated in many diseases such as ...

Exosomes in Pathogen Infections: A Bridge to ... - Frontierswww.frontiersin.org › articles › fimmu.2018.00090 › full
by W Zhang · 2018 · Cited by 72 — Exosomes are extracellular vesicles derived from cell endocytosis which act as transmitters between cells. They are composed of proteins, ...

Angiotensin - ETD (OhioLINK)etd.ohiolink.edu › apexprod › rws_olink
Results 1 - 21 of 21 — The source of the urinary ACE2 and NEP is unlikely to be plasma since ... Stroke; angiotensin II; angiotensin type I (AT1) receptor; middle ... Dowell, Margaret Anne Influence of three-tier cost sharing on patient ... Angiotensin 1-7 (Ang 1-7) has been reported to counteract many deleterious effects of Ang II.

Activation of the Endogenous Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone ...jasn.asnjournals.org › content
by Y Qi · 2016 · Cited by 40 — Urinary exosomes secreted by multiple cell types in the kidney may participate in ... Other target peptides, including ACE1, ACE2, and angiotensinogen, did not ...

Understanding Angiotensin II Type1 Receptor Signaling in ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC5897153
by S Eguchi · 2018 · Cited by 57 — AT1 receptor appears to activate several new signaling cascades including ... substrate for ADAM17 is angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). ... Cell Type Specific AT1 Receptor Signal Transduction ... involving ER, mitochondria and exosomes as well as balance among ...

Extracellular Vesicles Exploit Viral Entry Routes for Cargo ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC4867369
by HM van Dongen · 2016 · Cited by 148 — Thus, the distinctions between viruses and certain types of EVs are blurring. ... Exosomes: EVs of 50 to 100 nm in diameter, secreted by many cell types; they are ... SHARED RECEPTORS FOR VIRUS AND EV ENTRY ...

Microvesicles and exosomes in pulmonary hypertensionvpjournal.net › article › view
by R Mathew · 2020 · Cited by 1 — This article belongs to the Special Issue Microvesicles and Exosomes in Vascular ... sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, ... β (TGFβ), matrix metalloproteinases, bone morphogenic protein receptor type 2 ... angiogenesis and thrombosis, and are implicated in many diseases such as ...

Exosomes in Pathogen Infections: A Bridge to ... - Frontierswww.frontiersin.org › articles › fimmu.2018.00090 › full
by W Zhang · 2018 · Cited by 72 — Exosomes are extracellular vesicles derived from cell endocytosis which act as transmitters between cells. They are composed of proteins, ...

Angiotensin - ETD (OhioLINK)etd.ohiolink.edu › apexprod › rws_olink
Results 1 - 21 of 21 — The source of the urinary ACE2 and NEP is unlikely to be plasma since ... Stroke; angiotensin II; angiotensin type I (AT1) receptor; middle ... Dowell, Margaret AnneInfluence of three-tier cost sharing on patient ... Angiotensin 1-7 (Ang 1-7) has been reported to counteract many deleterious effects of Ang II.

Activation of the Endogenous Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone ...jasn.asnjournals.org › content
by Y Qi · 2016 · Cited by 40 — Urinary exosomes secreted by multiple cell types in the kidney may

Peter Ross
3/25/2021 02:56:24 pm

@fuddman - yeah, it's a funny-bone tickler to envision a forensic psychiatric facility where both inmates and staff cover up their faces in the same hijab hazmat attire for self-defense from those inanimate and invisible 'gene-hijackers' - rather than just unplugging the corporate-financed television programming idiot box.

-------------------------------

Now that the flu season is waning so that excellent physicians can finally raise their dedicated gaze above trench-level:

LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER: EMERGENCY ROOM
Dr Roger Seheult of MedCram - Heroes of the Pandemic - Part 3
2,210 views•Premiered Mar 12, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chn1UWAloF4


Reply
fuddman
3/25/2021 10:46:05 pm

Thanks for the utube link. Very interesting.

Don't agree with him that cov2 escaped from B4L in Australia. A response he (Hoover?) made in the comments.

Can't wait for episode 4.

Reply
Peter Ross
3/26/2021 04:32:58 am

yep. take it all with a few grains of salt :)

Guy Fawkes
3/25/2021 05:29:50 pm

A new article by Col. Lawrence Sellin "Location of Origin of COVID-19 Pandemic Identified – Between Two of China’s Biological Warfare Facilities in Wuhan" was published, quote:

"Data published by the Wuhan Wuchang District Health Bureau state that the highest concentration of infections in the early phase of the outbreak occurred in the residential areas along Huanghelou and Ziyang streets, both located within the four miles between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Biological Preparations Institute."

https://ccnationalsecurity.org/location-of-origin-of-covid-19-pandemic-identified-between-two-of-chinas-biological-warfare-facilities-in-wuhan/

If "Biological Preparations Institute of the China Biology Technology Group Corporation" = "Wuhan Institute of Biological Products Co.,Ltd", then it's this one:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180725002640/http://en.hubei.gov.cn/business/enterprises/201605/t20160510_831724.shtml

Reply
fuddman
3/26/2021 08:52:19 am

Score one big point for the "escaped from the lab" crowd.

Former CDC director says he thinks COV2 escaped from a lab. In any case, "Science will eventually figure it out.”

Yeah, but in whose lifetime?

I think he borrowed that last line from the Nerd.


Reply
fuddman
3/26/2021 08:54:10 am

https://nypost.com/2021/03/26/ex-cdc-director-believes-covid-19-came-from-wuhan-lab/

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/26/2021 11:36:42 am

"'That’s not implying any intentionality,' Redfield said."

Lo and behold, of course not! And even if, intentionality by whom? Ah, this would be the poodle's core.

Thanks for sharing, Fuddman.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Errata
3/26/2021 01:59:59 pm

The viewpoint that the coronavirus was built in a lab is gaining momentum and will soon dominate the consensus. This has been made possible by scientists willing to pick their battles and pretend that they believe it escaped by accident. They can be forgiven because they know it is inevitable that when a lab origin is agreed upon, whether it was an accidental lab leak or a malicious attack will be the next debate. Weapons for that battle are being sharpened but are for now kept sheathed. Lets look at the edge of the sword being brandished here.

Consider: (argued by Nerd)
1) Data features prove the CoV2 family tree is fabricated and hence a coverup.
2) The bulk of the family tree is pangolin viruses so they cannot be omitted.
3) The first pangolin paper was submitted in September 2019 before the outbreak started.
4) Since the coverup started before the outbreak, it was a premeditated bioweapon attack.

Nerd, this argument is vulnerable to a "not necessarily" objection. It is possible the coverup started before the outbreak as a hedge against a lab leak. One can argue that someone with influence sufficient to organize a coverup noticed that the staff at WIV was careless but lacking sufficient influence to fix that he arranged for a coverup just in case an accident happened. The result was the first pangolin paper and the concerns that prompted its publication were soon proved valid when a lab leak happened two months later.

For science to defeat this objection it must be shown that there is a flaw in the pangolin part of the coverup that could not withstand close scrutiny. It would then be useless for a lab leak coverup because for that purpose it would have to stand the test of time. On the other hand a flawed coverup that could cause confusion in the short term would serve just fine for blowing smoke during a bioweapon attack. Therefore a flaw in the part of the family tree that derived from the first pangolin paper would prove it was a bioweapon attack. Haste would not be an excuse for flaws because the work was done in advance without urgency and the release of the data itself came at a leisurely pace in 2020. They were outright dawdling since it must mostly have been complete by the time the paper was submitted in September 2019. The lab leak theory cannot survive intrinsic flaws in the early pangolin data.

What do you have for that? Is it really a fatal flaw or just a suspicious anomaly? Make sure your blade is sharp.

The furin cleavage site makes it a bioweapon but this is only obvious to a virologist. Claiming it is not a weapon is like claiming that during the time when nuclear weapon testing was being done, the bench models built for those tests were not weapons. That is of course nonsense and likewise for any lab tests of furin cleavage site enhanced viruses. Still, it is a difficult case to make to non-scientists. Worse, although science says it was a bioweapon that does not necessarily mean it was deployed on purpose.

All that said, nobody needs science to know that it was a bioweapon attack.

Consider: (common sense obvious)
1) There is no motive to cover up a natural spillover.
2) To sell a lab leak as a natural spillover, any appearance of a coverup must be avoided.
3) The CCP engaged in a blatant aggressive coverup therefore it was neither a natural spillover nor an accidental lab leak.
4) By the process of elimination, it was a bioweapon attack.

For rhetorical use: "They arrested the whistleblower, therefore it was a bioweapon attack." Of course that arrest is just emblematic of the well documented coverup. This has been obvious to everyone since no later than March 2020. Anyone who has been saying otherwise has an agenda that justifies mass murder. They should all be indicted for crimes against humanity.

I have enjoyed immensely reading this blog, pouring over its entries and suggested links for hours on end, sometimes reading passages multiple times. Screening the data and virus sequences for flaws and anomalies is not merely of entertainment value. Proof of a coverup is necessary to convict those involved once the case is tried at the Hague. Other than Dr. Yan, first person witnesses to the coverup in the early weeks are unlikely to give testimony. They are in Wuhan and will not be allowed to leave. The testimony of Dr. Ai Fen is needed but there is no hope of that. Otherwise most of the evidence of a coverup is hearsay from biased sources. It would not stand up in court. A scientific proof that the CCP engaged in a coverup based on the virus sequences themselves would be adequate to prove guilt without eyewitness testimony. For that reason the work in this blog and others like it is important.

Reply
Peter Ross
3/27/2021 05:00:08 am

1. PROPOSED FORENSIC INVESTIGATION OF WUHAN LABORATORIES
Preprint
March 2021
Billy BosticksonYvette Ghannham

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350409839_1_PROPOSED_FORENSIC_INVESTIGATION_OF_WUHAN_LABORATORIES

Reply
fuddman
3/27/2021 06:58:46 am

Conclusion to this very exhaustive attempt at relevance:

Report item 21: "Time based constraints in terms of the time passed (over a year) since the outbreak began in Wuhan in 2019 may have a significant effect on the ability to collect any evidence in China and may render it inconclusive. "

Translation: Despite all this effort, you're going to end up empty.

It's not all together a useless report, however. Now everyone should have a better understanding of the evolution of a bureaucratic mind

Craig
3/26/2021 08:38:12 pm

I recently saw a discussion about chickens and Marek's disease. The discussion pointed to the Marek's disease vaccine driving virus selection away from the vaccine causing more virulent forms of the virus.

The similarity has been drawn between the non-sterilizing covid vaccines and the non-sterilizing Marek's disease vaccine.

What do you guys/ladies think? Are we pushing the covid virus to more virulent forms via selection away from the vaccine antibodies? A non-sterilizing vaccine still allowing virus infection seems a bad idea to me.

Reply
Peter Ross
3/27/2021 12:12:08 pm

Like chronic antibody titers used to diagnose HIV ?

Reply
fuddman link
3/27/2021 02:13:03 pm

Question for you, Mr. Ross

Is a virus alive?

Where do you come down on that issue?


Among virus industry scientist, that question is debated; and, generally, remains an open question.

As an outsider, this unknown virus characteristic is surprising to me. Mainly because it seems to be a crucial element of the truth as to whether COV2 behaves the way it is now popularized to behave. It seems to me the debate could go either way. Or can it?


If the live-or-not live debate were, hypothetically, to conclude that a virus has no life but, instead, that a virus is as dead, as a rock, then all sorts of new questions arise. To me, the big one is how can it attack a human cell so as to reproduce itself? Can a human cell be forced to create a non living organism (a rock) and then bestow life on it?

In the discussion of the weapons capability of the lab created organism COV2, this is important. At this point, the perception seems to be that COV2 is the direct killer of cells and thus people. What if it isn't the direct killer of people? What if, instead, it simply energizes some other organism to do the killing - like antibodies.

Thoughts?

Craig
3/27/2021 03:53:28 pm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516275/

This is the paper that was discussed.

"Vaccine failure in the face of virulent pathogens has been documented for at least two viruses other than MDV: feline calicivirus [43] and infectious bursal disease virus in poultry [44]. Both cases are also associated with long-term use of leaky anti-disease vaccines."

Errata
3/27/2021 07:12:36 pm

@Fuddman: the question of whether a virus is alive or not is a variation on theme of the metaphysical question of determinism. If you are a determinist the answer is of course they are. If not then the answer is of course not.

Reply
Peter Ross
3/28/2021 03:27:45 pm

@fudmann

In my next life, I plan to make my college major in metaphysics.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/29/2021 06:07:02 am

@FUDDMAN&ERRATA: Remembering what I learned in zoology/paleontology, life is defined as having ALL of the following characteristics in and by itself:

a) growth
b) metabolism
c) reproduction

--> Virus reality check:

Can a virus grow? No, as it's not even a procaryote, rather an intracellular parasite. It can only hijack&hack another cell/organism to create and then distribute virion-copies.

Does a virus have its own metabolism? No, it uses another cell's membrane & organelles/organisms.

Can viruses reproduce by themselves? See b).

Hence, viruses are not alive. The same is true for a computer virus, no growth and no metabolism nor reproduction by itself, only hijacking&hacking of an operating system.

But hey, don't be mean to rocks. Minerals can grow on their own, given enough fuild input to feed on. Metamorphism of rocks via pressure/temperature changes is all about metabolism seen from this vantage point and could even be regarded as mutation and evolution. Rocks only lack the ability to reproduce on their own. They are sterile so to say. It's the first time I think of it, but they are much more "alive" than viruses, which is fun and makes my day. Ah, and their "lifetime" is measured in millions and sometimes even billions of years!

Any geologist here to claim the opposite? ;-]

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Errata
3/30/2021 04:23:30 pm

@Guy Fawkes: Firstly let me thank you for your erudite contributions to the otherwise bland fodder I spend my evenings ruminating on. As to the definition of life, one must be ever on watch for the premises that lurk beneath definitions. They are no less dangerous than what lurks beneath rocks.

One does not expect metaphysics to lurk beneath the edifice of science because its community cultivates an image of dispassionate objectivity. It is an illusion. This CoV2 SNAFU highlights that but it is worldly. There are other more relevant examples: within the physics community there is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which clearly stems from a metaphysical viewpoint about consciousness. The Big Bang theory is the paradigm accepted by consensus among cosmologists where its popularity clearly benefits from harmony with Genesis. Cosmologists do not take the question of life into account but they should because it goes away in a steady state universe due to panspermia so the application of a proper Bayesian analysis (see Stephen Quay for an example) would dramatically suppress the probability of a Big Bang due to the low probabilities associated with all current abiogenesis models.

The definition of life is predetermined by notions of what should be included. The constraint triad in the life definition you cited {growth, metabolism, reproduction} is not a priori but rather was selected to exclude viruses. With a carefully chosen definition of metabolism the goal can be accomplished. We can cast a definition of life designed to exclude viruses and then ask whether viruses are alive but such a circular exercise leaps over the philosophical rock without peaking underneath.

Do you have free will? We all feel like we have free will. Is free will real or an illusion? If there is a cause within our universe for everything then our will has a cause. In that case it is the passive intermediary between an earlier cause and its later effect so our will is not free. This leads to a metaphysics where life is an arbitrary distinction. People who buy into this view have no patience with splitting hairs and accordingly often consider a virus alive along with anything else that exhibits at least one of the attributes {growth, metabolism, reproduction.} If free will is not just an illusion then some things in our universe have no cause. This leads to a metaphysics about life-forces and souls where life is very special. People who buy into this view are very picky about what distinguishes them as special and accordingly often consider a virus is not alive nor is anything else unless it exhibits all three of the attributes {growth, metabolism, reproduction.}

Guy Fawkes
4/3/2021 01:37:48 pm

@ERRATA: Hey, now that's a nice comment, thank you very much, Sir! So true @definitions & creatures below rocks. For the latter, always lift them with the opening facing away from you in order to give him/her the ability to run instead of biting you. Been there, done that, lesson learned.

"We can cast a definition of life designed to exclude viruses and then ask whether viruses are alive but such a circular exercise leaps over the philosophical rock without peaking underneath."

So cool, so well formulated, thanks for the Horizonterweiterung. Indeed, you are right, especially as the rock in this circular exercise would also be close to getting accepted in the life-club.

Your metaphysical separation of life as an arbitrary distinction vs. being very special is extremely interesting. Yet I think there is a 3rd possiblilty, an animistic one, in that what we consider as living is dependant from it's fetish [the inanimated object, be it a virion or a rock] being used by a spirit [an "other-than-human person" to use Irving Hallowell's term from 1960] to show itself to somebody - or not. This "show time" under the lense of the cartesian growth/reproduction/metabolism is very narrow, granted, whereas by widening the scope of space, time, awareness and interaction - a virion, a glacier, a vulcano, a star or a whole galaxy could also be regarded as alife.

Consequently, it really depends upon one's perspective, aperture and focus. Don't you think?

Peter Ross
3/28/2021 04:11:25 pm

Finally, although much remains paradoxically guarded still as trade secrets, some of the GMO voodoo injection ingredients are coming to light:

https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273/blob/main/Assemblies%20of%20putative%20SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding%20mRNA%20sequences%20for%20vaccines%20BNT-162b2%20and%20mRNA-1273.docx.pdf


"With the rollout of vaccines for COVID-19, these synthetic mRNAs have become broadly distributed RNA species in numerous human populations. Despite their ubiquity, sequences are not always available for such RNAs. Standard methods facilitate such sequencing. In this note, we provide experimental sequence information for the RNA components of the initial Moderna (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32756549/) and Pfizer/BioNTech (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33301246/) COVID-19 vaccines, allowing a working assembly of the former and a confirmation of previously reported sequence information for the latter RNA. Sharing of sequence information for broadly used therapeutics has the benefit of allowing any researchers or clinicians using sequencing approaches to rapidly identify such sequences as therapeutic-derived rather than host or infectious in origin. For this work, RNAs were obtained as discards from the small portions of vaccine doses that remained in vials after immunization; such portions would have been required to be otherwise discarded and were analyzed under FDA authorization for research use. To obtain the small amounts of RNA needed for characterization, vaccine remnants were phenol-chloroform extracted using TRIzol Reagent (Invitrogen), with intactness assessed by Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer before and after extraction. Although our analysis mainly focused on RNAs obtained as soon as possible following discard, we also analyzed samples which had been refrigerated (~4 ℃) for up to 42 days with and without the addition of EDTA. Interestingly a substantial fraction of the RNA remained intact in these preparations. We note that the formulation of the vaccines includes numerous key chemical components which are quite possibly unstable under these conditions-- so these data certainly do not suggest that the vaccine as a biological agent is stable. But it is of interest that chemical stability of RNA itself is not sufficient to preclude eventual development of vaccines with a much less involved cold-chain storage and transportation. For further analysis, the initial RNAs were fragmented by heating to 94℃, primed with a random hexamer-tailed adaptor, amplified through a template-switch protocol (Takara SMARTerer Stranded RNA-seq kit), and sequenced using a MiSeq instrument (Illumina) with paired end 78-per end sequencing. As a reference material in specific assays, we included RNA of known concentration and sequence (from bacteriophage MS2). From these data, we obtained partial information on strandedness and a set of segments that could be used for assembly. This was particularly useful for the Moderna vaccine, for which the original vaccine RNA sequence was not available at the time our study was carried out. Contigs encoding full-length spikes were assembled from the Moderna and Pfizer datasets. The Pfizer/BioNTech data [Figure 1] verified the reported sequence for that vaccine (https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/), while the Moderna sequence [Figure 2] could not be checked against a published reference. RNA preparations lacking dsRNA are desirable in generating vaccine formulations as these will minimize an otherwise dramatic biological (and nonspecific) response that vertebrates have to double stranded character in RNA (https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243). In the sequence data that we analyzed, we found that the vast majority of reads were from the expected sense strand. In addition, the minority of antisense reads appeared different from sense reads in lacking the characteristic extensions expected from the template switching protocol. Examining only the reads with an evident template switch (as an indicator for strand-of-origin), we observed that both vaccines overwhelmingly yielded sense reads (>99.99%). Independent sequencing assays and other experimental measurements are ongoing and will be needed to determine whether this template-switched sense read fraction in the SmarterSeq protocol indeed represents the actual dsRNA content in the original material. This work provides an initial assessment of two RNAs that are now a part of the human ecosystem and that are likely to appear in numerous other high throughput RNA-seq studies in which a fraction of the individuals may have previously been vaccinated. ProtoAcknowledgements: Thanks to our colleagues for help and suggestions (Nimit Jain, Emily Greenwald, Lamia Wahba, William Wang, Amisha Kumar, Sameer Sundrani, David Lipman, Bijoyita Roy). Figure 1: Spike-e

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/30/2021 03:07:44 am

@PETER ROSS: You are totally right @ "some of the GMO voodoo injection ingredients", check out what's written in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Information for Healthcare professionals PDF:

"Recombinant, replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus vector encoding the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) glycoprotein. Produced in genetically modified human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293 cells. This product contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs) [...] The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in children and adolescents (aged <18 years old) have not yet been established. No data are available. [...] The duration of protection has not yet been established. [...] No interaction studies have been performed. Concomitant administration of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca with other vaccines has not been
studied. [...] There is a limited experience with the use of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in pregnant women. [...] It is unknown whether COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is excreted in human milk. [...] Experience of overdose is limited. There is no specific treatment for an overdose with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca. [...] Generally similar trends were observed between analyses of neutralising antibodies and S-binding antibodies. An immunological correlate of protection has not been established; therefore, the level of immune response that provides protection against COVID-19 is unknown."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/963838/AZD1222_Information_for_Healthcare_Professionals_-_22-02-2021.pdf

--> Hey, this sounds like rock solid Frankensteinian science you can believe in! ;-]

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
sangerventer
3/28/2021 09:07:01 pm

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.584717/full
this paper discussed the RATG13 genome comparison in greater detail and a lot of solid data and discussions.

Reply
Fuddman
3/29/2021 05:22:40 pm

FTA "At the whole genome level, the sequence identity of SARS-CoV-2 is ......96% to that of Bat-CoV RaTG13 (collected in 2013 in Yunnan, China) (Zhang L. et al., 2020;"

Have you read this blog from the beginning? Or maybe read the beginning top banners third from the left?

With all due respect, I'm not getting what your reference adds to the gist of this blog.

Reply
Errata
3/30/2021 06:30:14 pm

Sangerventer's post contributes because:

1) This link was not posted above.
2) The authors hail from Zhejiang, mainland China.
3) Considering the gist of this blog, it is remarkable to read a paper from that compass direction ending with:

"In summary, through comprehensive comparative analysis between SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses, we found that synonymous mutations were dramatically elevated between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 compared with other coronavirus strains, and nucleotide mutations were enriched in the T:C transition. Because SARS-CoV-2 is supposed to originate from Bat-CoV RaTG13, the increased synonymous substitution between SARS-CoV-2 and the RaTG13 strain suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 genome should be under stringent negative (purifying) selection. Moreover, the mechanism underpinning the increased T:C mutations requires further investigation."

Guy Fawkes
3/30/2021 03:43:43 am

Addendum: To seize the "gist of this blog" as Fuddman rightfully put it, I'd like to point out the following observation:

Humans successfully create a problem in a lab, and then try to solve it in vain using another concoction coming from a lab. What a truely genious species we are. It's like trying to solve to problems of inflation, by adding more inflation. In my eyes, the whole problem-reaction-solution theater we see on a daily basis shows how myopic mankind really is.

We are professional fire accelerants, and our biologic niche after the lions have finished their business & before the vultures get in, puts us at our place next to hyenas. Mothballing negative feedback loops with hand axes, agriculture, petroleum and vaccines does not change what we are. See what happens if you give fire to homo? Based upon our hammerhead vision, the whole world looks as if made out of nails.

Thus, it should not come as a surprise that we now try to solve a genuine high tech problem with a perceived high tech solution. Only that the "solution" will create even more problems down the road, especially if it has all the characteristics of the initial problem. To paraphrase the brilliant George Carlin:

"This is the best we can do folks, this is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces - garbage in, garbage out. [...] So maybe, maybe, maybe it's not the [viruses/vaccines] who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here. Like... the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There is a nice campaign slogan for somebody: The public sucks, fuck hope."

https://youtu.be/07w9K2XR3f0

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Errata
3/30/2021 07:01:23 pm

Gotta love these guys:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01211-0

"several characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 taken together are not easily explained by a natural zoonotic origin hypothesis. These include a low rate of evolution in the early phase of transmission; the lack of evidence for recombination events; a high pre-existing binding to human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2); a novel furin cleavage site (FCS) insert; a flat ganglioside-binding domain (GBD) of the spike protein which conflicts with host evasion survival patterns exhibited by other coronaviruses; and high human and mouse peptide mimicry."

Reply
Guy Fawkes
3/31/2021 12:56:06 am

Hehe, "high pre-existing binding ... mouse peptide mimicry". That's a true jewel Errata, congrats! Those humanized lab mice are sneaky, you will not catch them on a fact finding mission in the jungle. No wonder Bostickson & Ghannam (2021) wrote the following at the end:

"To conclude, there is no definitive evidence to date to support a “natural origin” hypothesis via an intermediate animal host as none have been found yet."

G, still no red eyed humanized mice caught in flagranti with their paws all over the autoclave? Would be great fun to let an extended [healthy!] clone family of them run amok on the next press conference of WHO & friends right at the moment those bureaucratic minds whine about the intermediate animal host still not "found". Reality check 101 straight into their facebook, this would teach those apparatchik scientists a good lesson and/or train their cognitive dissonance.

As a thank you, George Carlin again about humans & viruses @ minute 6:20+

"What would you do if you were the planet, trying to defend youself against this pesky, troublesome species? Let's see. Hm, viruses! Viruses might be good, they seem vulnerable to viruses. And viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a new vaccine is developed."

https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c?t=380

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Guy Fawkes
4/1/2021 03:12:49 pm

Addendum: Talking humanized lab mice and the important paper by Segredo et al. (2021) "Should we discount the laboratory origin of COVID-19" Errata kindly linked above [with Yuri Deigin as a co-author btw], I guess it's a good idea to excerpt a little bit more out of the conclusion until the very end:

"The combination of binding strength, human and mouse peptide mimicry, as well as high adaptation for human infection and transmission from the earliest strains might suggest the use of humanized mice for the development of SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory environment. The application of mouse strains expressing human ACE2 for SARS-CoV-related research is well documented (Ren et al. 2008; Hou et al. 2010; Menachery et al. 2015; Cockrell et al. 2018; Jiang et al. 2020). Additionally, culturing and adapting coronaviruses to different cell lines, including human airway epithelial cells, has been experimentally conducted in various laboratories (Tse et al. 2014; Menachery et al. 2015; Zeng et al. 2016; Jiang et al. 2020). While a natural origin is still possible and the search for a potential host in nature should continue, the amount of peculiar genetic features identified in SARS-CoV-2's genome does not rule out a possible gain-of-function origin, which should be therefore discussed in an open scientific debate."

Forget about the open scientific intra-ivorytower debate, will never happen. I don't know about you all, but for me, this is it. The text of Fig. 1C from the same paper sums it up:

"Laboratory hypothesis: sampling from wild bats followed by different laboratory steps such as RNA extraction and sequencing, virus isolation or synthesis from a given sequence, growth in cell culture and infection assays, genetic engineering, passage in humanized mice or other animal models. Human infection may be caused by accidental escape of the virus from the laboratory environment."

I would change the last sentence into the following to leave all possibilities open:

"Human infection may be caused by accidental escape, sabotage or intentional release of the virus from the laboratory environment."

There we have it people, if one of you has an even more plausible scenario to propose about how this mess was created, please share. Otherwise, it begins to get boring.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Guy Fawkes
4/1/2021 03:23:54 pm

Here a new commentary by Yan et al. (2021) "The Wuhan Laboratory Origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the Validity of the Yan Reports Are Further Proved by the Failure of Two Uninvited 'Peer Reviews'" from yesterday - I note the following:

"There seems to be a consensus that the virus will not be eradicated and humans will continue to live under the influence of COVID-19 in the foreseeable future."

https://zenodo.org/record/4650821

Reply
Nerd has power
4/1/2021 03:33:41 pm

You beat me, Guy!

Reply
Fuddman
4/1/2021 09:18:50 pm

About your previous comment - "There we have it people, if one of you has an even more plausible scenario to propose about how this mess was created, please share. Otherwise, it begins to get boring."

I think you were alluding to (Figure 1C Segredo paper) the use of humanized mice by the the CCP to implant the desired lethal characteristics into the so called SARS COV 2. If so, I have a more plausible scenario.

More plausible scenario: The CCP did not use "humanized mice" to create their weapon. They used humans.

I fully agree with the lab origin idea. I fully agree it was a bio weapon. But I'm not on board with the idea it was an accidental lab leak. Instead, like Yan has said, time and again, it was deliberately released.

What kind of organization would deliberately release a killer? What sort of ethics constrains the decision makers in that organization? In that regard, it might be useful to GOOGLE "China sells body parts."

If that organization were given a choice to (a) use humanized mice and get so so results or (b) use humans and get the accurate results, which course would they take?

To me, it's hard to ascribe ethical behavior to a CCP which, among other things, deliberately releases a pathogen.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
4/2/2021 01:50:02 am

@FUDDMAN: Indeed, a sinister scenario, but not very practical. And talking ethics, I guess you don't have to look to other countries, consider this @ homo homini lupus:

https://www.whiteoutpress.com/secret-government-experiments-on-the-american-people/

I'm with you on the deliberately lab release. Question is who released it - was it the plan right from the start, or was it an inside job and sabotage by another power in order to throw a monkey wrench into PRC's advanced virological research [which is inherently dual use] and enjoy the chaos?

I know I'm in a minority of one here, and that's ok, but I do not buy "the CCP did it" story line. If I was "the CCP" [we don't talk civilians nor countries], and I want to kill as many people as possible, unless I went full retard, the last thing I do is to release my own concoction at home, next to my new BSL-4 lab like a complete idiot and then do a backflip with defensive lies & parallel constructions in order to somehow manage the mess I created myself in the first place. Ever seen videos of WWI mustard gas battles in the trenches when the wind turns? Chemical and even more so biological weapons have the largest blowback potential, ergo if you want to use them, better on the other hemisphere, but certainly not in your backyard. And then I heard there are other WMD out there men invented to kill their fellow men. Ah, and if the CCP only has population reduction in mind, why not having stuck to their 1-child-policy? Makes no sense to me. But let's agree to disagree, if you want to blame the CCP for CoV-2, do it if it makes you happy.

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Nerd has power
4/3/2021 05:30:11 am

I can't believe my eyes, Guy. If it wasn't the CCP, then why did the CCP fabricate all these viruses: RaTG13, RmYN02, pangolin coronaviruses,....???

Who do you think the CCP is covering tracks for???

Please try to answer this question every time you say that it must not be the CCP. You may be wasting your own thinking if you don't get this question straightened out.

Guy Fawkes
4/3/2021 09:30:30 am

@NERD: Hey, this is all finger pointing, not my style. Everything is possible. Yet I can very well imagine a sophisticated Chinese biowarfare program with some layers of plausible deniability as a cover story, in this case RaTG13 and the other "iterations". It's very possible the PLA worked on weaponized coronaviruses, as did/do the Russians and NATO-states in secret as well I presume. Like the atomic bomb, they all have it.

Of course those Chinese labs cover their own tracks now as much as they can, everybody would do the same, as those "international investigations" are a field trip for a cortege spies in an industrial espionage labtour. Yet my point is that it's so obvious it "came from Wuhan" next to the French-built BSL-4-lab, and the international reaction up to this day [see David Rivard's newest post on the State Department statement] is so fishy, that I do not buy neither the accident story, nor the intentional release with such a bad storyline @ "RaTG13, RmYN02, pangolin coronaviruses,...". I would expect a much better alibi.

Hence, putting all of this together, I rather think some foreign power [and I don't name names, I have no idea who exactly] wanted to put an end to the Chinese weaponized corona program by sabotaging their lab, so that they were forced to pull out their half-baken fairy tale of RaTG13 & friends and the perpetrators look at the chaos with Schadenfreude on their face and use the situation for domestic orwellianism under COVID-19's disguise. I don't know what is true, but this makes the most sense to me so far. Your version of them releasing CoV-2 by themselves on purpose in their own country with such a bad story to tell the world does not convince me.

But hey, this is all guesswork anyway, and what we are here for is to learn about the virus itself, right? Concerning who did what, I guess this a complete different ballgame, or talking secret services and psyops, rather a smoke and mirror show of the highest order. I hope you and everybody else here do not think I take party for any side, all to the contrary, I have no iron in the fire for country X nor Y. My position simply is that we don't know "who did it", and that blaming the CCP for anything is way too simple. If history is any guide, one should never underestimate the power of deception. And if all fingers point in one direction, I like to look over my shoulder. If I'm completey alone with this position, that's ok!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Nerd has power
4/1/2021 03:32:33 pm

Sorry for not showing up here lately. It's been really hectic. Don't know whether I missed any of your questions. If I did, I'm sorry.

Don't know whether you have seen the Yan responses to the "peer reviews". If you haven't, here you are:

The Wuhan Laboratory Origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the Validity of the Yan Reports Are Further Proved by the Failure of Two Uninvited "Peer Reviews"

https://zenodo.org/record/4650821#.YGZA_S-z3Up

It may be a bit long, but it could be JUST the right stuff for this crowd.

Reply
Guy Fawkes
4/2/2021 05:55:00 am

@NERD: Are you one of the co-authors again using a pseudonym? Congrats! One question in the context of the following paragaph of your latest piece:

"Using hACE2 mice for serial passage, as postulated in our report, would be the most convenient, efficient,and inexpensive way of driving the hACE2-oriented adaptation. However, not all pathogenic properties of SARS-CoV-2 associated with human infections could be shown faithfully in this mouse model becauseof the species differences. Transmissibility is one such property. Dr. Li-Meng Yan has shown that goldenhamsters are a great animal model for characterizing the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2. If the CCP scientists responsible for the SARS-CoV-2 creation and validation had used golden hamsters to evaluatethe viral transmissibility, they might have then come to a more accurate estimation of the transmissibility and would not have described the initial outbreak in Wuhan as “controllable”."

Talking hamsters, they [you] refer to Sia et al. (2020) "Pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden Syrian hamsters", quote:

"SARS-CoV-2 showed good binding for human ACE2 but limited binding to murine ACE2 1, which has limited the use of inbred mice for research. Macaques and transgenic ICR mice expressing human ACE2 receptor were shown to be susceptible for SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, there is limited availability of these animal models. Cynomolgus macaques and rhesus macaques challenged with SARS-CoV-2 showed pneumonia with limited and moderate clinical signs, respectively. The challenged transgenic mice showed pneumonia moderate weight loss, and no apparent histological changes in non-respiratory tissues. Previously generated transgenic mice expressing human ACE2 receptor have been reported to support SARS-CoV replication in the airway epithelial cellsbut were associated with neurological-related mortality due to high ACE2 expression in the brain.Golden Syrian hamster is a widely used experimental animal model and was reported to support replication of SARS-CoV but not MERS-CoV [...] Alignment of the ACE2 protein of human, macaque, mice, and hamster suggest that the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 may interact more efficiently with hamster ACE2 than murine ACE2. Here, we evaluated the pathogenesis and contact transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in 4–5 weeks old male golden Syrian hamsters. [...] Our results indicate that the golden Syrian hamster is a suitable experimental animal model for SARS-CoV-2, as there is apparent weight loss in the inoculated and naturally-infected hamsters and evidence of efficient viral replication in the nasal mucosa and lower respiratory epithelial cells. The ability of SARS-CoV-2 to infect olfactory sensory neurons at the nasalmucosa may explain the anosmia reported in COVID-19 patients. Hamsters support efficient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from inoculated donors to naïve hamsters by direct contact or via aerosols. We also show that transmission from the donors to naïve hamsters may occur within a short period early post-inoculation. Our findings are consistent with a recent report while the current study was under peer review. Hamsters are easy to handle and there are reagents to support immunological studies for vaccine development."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7394720/

--> "[T]ransgenic ICR mice expressing human ACE2 receptor were shown to be susceptible for SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, there is limited availability of these animal models". Ok, hamsters seem to be cheaper/easier to get. Yet I could imagine if you have the resources of a superpower, and your GOF-research is dual use, "limited availability" of humanized mice is not an issue. Hence, do you think - like Deigin and others - that humanized mice were used in order to adapt the prototype of CoV-2, based upon ZC45 and ZXC21, fully to humans? What about humanized hamsters?

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Nerd has power
4/3/2021 05:39:11 am

Dr. Yan's work on golden hamsters was done after the pandemic started (she's a co-first author of this Nature paper here, BTW). This knowledge was gained later, not before the pandemic. Yes, the CCP has money, but those CCP scientists apparently did not have this knowledge during their development and validation of the bioweapon.

Guy Fawkes
4/3/2021 09:01:49 am

So what does it mean concerning the humanized mouse model? Is this also your scenario of choice? Or what organisms do you think were used between those initial bat backbones and the final CoV-2 virus in order to fully adapt it to humans via serial passage? Cell cultures, humanized mice, hamsters... humans?

David Rivard
4/2/2021 01:49:46 pm

U.S. State Department replaced their (Trump Era) position paper on "coronavirus":

"Promoting Transparency

The United States remains deeply concerned by information indicating that some government regimes may have suppressed vital details about the outbreak and, given the implications to public health, continues to reiterate that all countries should transparently share information and cooperate with relevant international public health and aid organizations."

And there it is. One paradoxical sentence. Reflective of the policy. Deflectively yours, US.gov.

Ironically, even an exhaustive interview could not get DOS to engage in substantive answers.

https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-february-9-2021/

Reply
Guy Fawkes
4/3/2021 05:33:10 am

Here an empowering info, as you might know my pet topic is personal protection equipment and how to decontaminate it. Check out Sagripanti & Lytle (2020) "Estimated Inactivation of Coronaviruses by Solar Radiation With Special Reference to COVID-19", quote:

"Of relevance here is the amount of infectious virus present in the aerosolized droplets produced by COVID-19 symptomatic patients or nonsymptomatic carriers. This amount is not well established for coronaviruses, but it has been reported that nasal secretions contain up to 107 infectious influenza viral particles per ml, from which aerosolized droplets generated by coughing, sneezing and talking can contain several hundred infectious virions. These micro droplets can reach distances of 12.5 meters. [...] SARS-CoV-2 persisted viable from 3 h to 3 days depending on the type of surface on which it was deposited. Influenza virus was readily re-aerosolized by sweeping floors without much loss in infectivity. It must be assumed that SARS-CoV-2 will be re-aerosolized in a similar manner. [...] 99% of SARS-CoV-2 may be inactivated within the two hours period around solar noon during summer in most US cities located south of Latitude 43°N. Also 99% of the virus will be inactivated during two hours midday in several cities south of latitude 35°N in Fall, but only Miami and Houston will receive enough solar radiation to inactivate 99% of the virus in spring. During winter, most cities will not receive enough solar radiation to produce 90% viral inactivation during 2-hour midday exposure. [...] For example, at winter solstice (December, in the northern hemisphere), just at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, virus exposed to full midday sunlight would be reduced by at least 90% (1 Log10) during 22 min in Mexico City, and will be receiving enough germicidal solar flux to inactivate 99% of virus. A 90% inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 in December should have taken considerably longer time in Shanghai (99 min), and Cairo (86 min). Nearly full virus persistence should occur in winter (December) in the European cities. [...] Considering that SARS-CoV-2 is three times more sensitive to UV than influenza A, it should be inferred that sunlight should have an effect on coronaviruses transmission at least similar to that previously established for the evolution of influenza epidemics. If we accept a possible virucidal role of sunlight during coronavirus pandemics, then forcing people to remain indoors may have increased (or assured) contagion of COVID-19 among same house-hold dwellers and among patients and personnel inside the same hospital or geriatric facilities. In contrast, healthy people outdoors receiving sunlight could have been exposed to lower viral dose with more chances for mounting an efficient immune response. This argument supports considering the results of two opposed containment approaches to deal with the COVID-19 crisis. [...] 90% or more of SARS-CoV-2 virus will be inactivated after being exposed for 11-34 min of midday sunlight in most US and world cities during summer. In contrast, the virus will persist infectious for a day or more in winter (December–March), with risk of re-aerosolization and transmission in most of these cities."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/php.13293

--> Takeaway? Instead of cleaning your respirator with a disinfectant [I use Octenisept] after use and then putting it on a radiator for a couple of houres in a bag to retain moisture at 60 degrees Celsius and drying it completely at the air afterwards, you can also hang it during the summer months in direct sunlight for a few houres after disinfection. Either way, go outside no matter the weather as much as possible, people! Life is too short to waste your time indoors like prisoners. And if you really have to go somewhere indoors with strangers [like in a supermarket], wear the best gizmo industry offers, in my case a full face respirator with P3 filters. It's empowering, I tell you!

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Arnaud
4/3/2021 10:39:22 am

@GuyFawkes you're not alone. Le link with the french institute has never been investigate. Especially the way they could share database. In the inserm images database, Vih1 is called 4991. What a coincidence Rabtcov/4991 became Ratg13...

Reply
Guy Fawkes
4/3/2021 12:43:10 pm

Merci Arnaud! Du coup, je ne me sens plus tout seul avec ma petite théorie du sabot lancé dans la fine porcelaine chinoise. // Thanks to you Arnaud, I don't feel totally alone anymore with my little Chinese lab sabotage theory.

Reply
Errata
4/6/2021 05:07:33 pm

Guy, your eloquence is done an injustice by your modest English translation of "sabot lancé dans la fine porcelaine chinoise." You do yourself an even greater injustice by doggedly waving the false-flag theory although it gives you an excuse to show off your astute recognition of the etymology of the word sabotage.

Haven't you heard that Zhengli Shi is a Dean Koontz fan? It's true! Now you know what really happened and can stop all this false-flag nonsense.

But seriously your idea lacks depth. Clearly the CCP would interpret a false-flag attack as a natural spillover unless it matched one of their own lab products and then they would interpret the sabotage as a lab leak. From the perspective of what they would do, it makes no difference. The origin is an issue because of the actions they took, because of which checklist those actions come from. They obviously followed the checklist for a bioweapon attack. If your theory were true then the CCP would not have gone skulking around like they were attacking the world with a bioweapon.

The arrest of Li Wenliang, the testimony of Ai Fen, and the publications of Yan et al. all document a blatant aggressive coverup. The CCP coverup is one of the most reported on aspects of this outbreak. The CCP followed the checklist for a bioweapon attack.

Guy Fawkes
4/10/2021 06:23:59 am

Errata, my point was not a 1:1 schoolboy translation, but to transfer meaning. And I'm sorry one does not throw a literal monkey wrench in French. Thus you are doing me an injustice by calling me a poser my friend, especially as you don't even know my native tongue.

Talking false flags, it ***might*** even be we have different backgrounds, work in different areas, have different insights into geopolitics. Furthermore, technically speaking, no matter if a bioweapon was released by th CCP on their own soil, or if it was sabotage by a foe, both are public false flags, as depicted in the mainstream as coming of unknown natural origin.

I'm not interested in any saber-rattling, life is too short and you have too much bonus points, so let me reply in perfect sync that the following lacks dept:

"Clearly the CCP would interpret a false-flag attack as a natural spillover unless it matched one of their own lab products and then they would interpret the sabotage as a lab leak."

In order to find quick common ground again, I'm fully with you on the coverup. Yet let's just assume for a short moment it was lab sabotage, what do you think a culture in which a loss of face is a mountain of a problem would do? A coverup, specially as they would have had plausible deniability smoke grenades in their arsenal anyway in order to trouble the waters in case of a leak of any kind.

Again, no problem to stand alone with Arnaud and others in the lab sabotage camp, while respecting your bioweapon-release on purpose scenario as a valid option. So far, I have seen no corroborating evidence sabotage is out of question. But I have nothing to gain here, I'm open for any evidence taking us closer along the path of truth. If history is any guide, we only will find out far in the future - if ever - what really was going on 2019 in Wuhan.

As a gift for you, here a song from 1993 I hope will appease our ill communication:

https://youtu.be/z5rRZdiu1UE

Best,
Guy Fawkes

Fuddman
4/3/2021 09:26:27 pm

Does COV2 deserve to be called a "Novel" organism?

What person or persons assigned the title "novel' to this organism?

Seems like very important questions because when you marry "Novel" with "virus" the organism becomes an unknown danger and frightening. The term "Novel virus" carries with it a sense of impending doom that demands a sense of urgency. Much more frightening than, for example, if the organism were labeled the flu.

So, who was the first guy to label this cov2 thing "Novel."

Well looky here - it was non other than the head honcho in China - Xi Jinpong

Check it out. Jan 25, 2020

"Life is of paramount importance. When an epidemic breaks out, a command is issued. It is our responsibility to prevent and control it," Xi said, ordering Party committees and governments at all levels take novel coronavirus outbreak prevention and control as the top priority of their work."

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-01/25/c_138733715.htm

So lets get this timeline straight:

Around January 9, 2020 the Chinese bat woman tells the chinese head man, Xi Jinpong, her phony "novel" COV2 Sequence fiction is in place. And it's ok for him to shut down wohan. Shortly thereafter, the chinese head man, Xi Jinpong, goes on TV to tell the world he's taking this "novel" thing verrrrrry seriously and shuts down wuhan. The show begins.

Reply
David Rivard
4/4/2021 11:22:15 am

Too focused on previous critiques and virologic evidence presented in the second Yan Report, I overlooked the key thesis, and one that I think deserves another bump to policy makers:

"The concept of Unrestricted Bioweapon may be new to the rest of world, but to the CCP it is not. Such a novel bioweapon had been developed by the CCP secretly for a long while, and the term “Unrestricted Bioweapon”, which was first coined by us in the second Yan report, describes this novel bioweapon perfectly. In fact, the CCP did not hide its intention here. In a book published in 2015 (Figure 3), a group of CCP’s military virologists/scientists headed by professor and Major General Dezhong Xu described an ideal “contemporary genetic weapon”. The key features of it include:

• It would be created in a way that it is practically indistinguishable from a naturally occurring pathogen. This way, “even if scientific, virological, and/or animal evidence were in place (to support the accusation), (one can) deny, prevent, and suppress the accusation of bioweapon usage, rendering international organizations and the justice side helpless and unable to make the conviction”.

• Its use is not restricted for military battles, but is for non-military settings where it would be “causing terror (in) and gaining political and strategic advantage, regionally or internationally, (over the enemy state)”.

Combining the above descriptions with professor Ralph Baric’s assessment that “you can engineer a virus without leaving any trace”27, people may finally be able to connect the dots and peel off the many layers to access the core of the COVID-19 pandemic.
(A future report from us will focus on further describing Unrestricted Bioweapons as well as proposing actions in facing the attack by such a weapon)".

The point is that many who publish "under the radar" synthetic origin dialogues are unable to substantiate the other piece of their argument; that is was synthetic, but "surely" came about by accident.

Additionally, up until the second Yan Report, the synthetic to bio-warfare (not an accidental release) investigators, even like me, were actually trying to see the fireball, where non was intended (or designed). The Yan report actually substantiated this statement better than others up to this point.

The relevant policy makers are like individuals who discover they might have a serious life threatening illness - their first instinct is denial. This denial is based upon hope rather than science, as if the grim consequences and tough decisions thereof do not align with consequential and evidenced prognosis. An individual's instinct is always to credit the imaginary and deny the disease, and then blame others - even misfortune - where you can (and politicians can shirk responsibilities because they have an ample environment to blame others).

There is an obvious need to demand raw clinical data from the CCP with consequences for non-compliance, and there are many "more" palatable consequences available, if policymakers can take seriously the emerging prognosis, err on the safe side of protecting their societies and, like the vaccines they promote, adhere to a curable therapeutic regimen for the long term.

Reply
Fuddman
4/5/2021 09:06:23 pm

The problem with YAN and, frankly, NERD is they keep up this never ending argument that the "Virus" did not originate in nature.

OK guy's you won that debate. You have convinced everyone that it was created in the lab. We got that part! So stop talking about the the lab origin thing, will you? It's getting old.

How about talking about what it is. How it's configured. Why it kills.

We know what it does not look like. Now tell us what it does looks like.

Or is it, perhaps, that YAN and NERD don't even care about that part?

Reply
Xoco Latte
4/6/2021 04:15:35 am

Hear, hear.
I would like to be sound a little bit more gentle in acknowleding the origin debate on Yan and Nerd side, and, to get into the much more important part on what it is and how it is doing its mess.
For starter, I would ask for a very significant overwhelmingly important question: where has been the FCS engineered into the S1/S2 boundary taken place, what other FCS sequences had been tried out, is it truly just PRRAR or the full 20-AA sequence together, what cell culture/live animal models been used for testing -- and, what specific preventive measures against the FCS had been already known before releasing to the public?
The FCS is a definitive key for the understanding this monster coronavirus.

Fuddman
4/6/2021 10:41:26 am

I like this question Xoco Latte asks:

"...what ....live animal models been used for testing?"

Answer: If the intent of the "virus" is to kill thousands of humans why would China bother with using "animal models?" Why wouldn't they, instead, use actual humans for testing? Do you think they would be constrained by ethical concerns in developing a killer " virus" when the end result of the "virus" is to kill people?

Over the past year or so, there have been quite a few conflicting and confusing hypothesis and suppositions surrounding this "virus" weapon. However, over that time, the effects of the virus weapon and related data and information has been collected. It may now be the time to start from the beginning and using the data/information at hand to form new concepts about this "virus." Starting with the motivation behind the release of this "virus" weapon.

Errata
4/6/2021 05:18:40 pm

It has a furin cleavage site, therefore it is both engineered and a bioweapon.

Reply
Nerd has power
4/5/2021 06:05:06 pm

Thank you, David, for citing this part of the 3rd Yan report. I mentioned about this book sometime ago in one of my comments.

This is what the CCP scientists had in mind since 2015. I hope everybody on this planet could read this part of the Yan report repeatedly until he/she really gets what it means.

Reply
David Rivard
4/6/2021 12:55:50 pm

Like fuddman, I also liked Xoco Latte's "...what ....live animal models been used for testing?" Peter Daszak should have all animal shipment records, including who provided the lab animals, with their certifications and prices, as a part of his federal audit submitted to the grant makers. His own firm, in turn, is required to audit implementing partners for this public work before, and not after, they were paid. The grantmakers need these audits to conduct their own studies about how effective heir programs are (lessons learned et al). Peter, did you remember to include this information (the audits) into the WHO Report? You needed it to rule out the lab hypothesis.

Reply
Errata
4/6/2021 05:59:23 pm

Recently from Yan et al. "As revealed in our second report, the scientific misinformation and cover-up by the CCP started before the initial outbreak, which indicates that the release of the SARS-CoV-2/bioweapon was not accidental but should be intentional. Evidence suggests that the outbreak should have originated from community tests of the bioweapon that went out of control."

Two points:

The coverup indeed started with the pangolin paper in September but this can be explained away as a hedge against a lab accident. (This flaw in the logic means a proof cannot be claimed yet. Yan must show that the part of the coverup that started before the initial outbreak had intrinsic flaws that could not stand the test of time. In that case it could not be a hedge against a lab accident because for that it would have to endure. For a bioweapon on the other hand a few months of confusion would serve just fine to give time for other kinds of obfuscation to be deployed.)

Community tests in Wuhan make no sense when criminal prisoners are plentiful and thousands of Uighur Muslims are in "reeducation" camps. If anyone is looking for what 'animal' was used for the final rounds of passaging, look no further. How did the CCP know how contagious and pathogenic their bioweapon was? The answer is trivial.

There is no need to introduce golden hamsters or any other creature more plentiful than transgenic mice to account for the bulk needs of final phase of passaging. There is no need to posit a test release on the streets of Wuhan. Possible? Yes but not parsimonious. Occam's razor says human prisoners of the disposable kind were exploited of which there was and remains in ready supply to the CCP.

Reply
David Rivard
4/6/2021 11:51:53 pm

Thoughts; humans pose a greater flight risk than hamsters? They could readily acquire rodents that have not been fully humanized to eliminate the bellyaching? Lingual limitations? I know for a fact that rodents were excluded from international human rights protocols. I don't know of one NGO that advocates in their behalf.

David Rivard
4/6/2021 02:05:09 pm

OK, just today there are articles that will keep all interests going.

COVID research updates: Air traveller yields a new variant bristling with mutations

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w

and Massive Google-funded COVID database will track variants and immunity

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00490-5

Scientists call for fully open sharing of coronavirus genome data

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00305-7

So if Google really wants to guide public perceptions away from "conspiracy theories", let them collect raw data from CCP's military and the U.S. military.

Reply
Anthony Rose
4/6/2021 04:30:39 pm

Fauci's NIH founded and funded Wuhan. When gain-of-function research was banned, further funding was done indirectly.

In 2017 Fauci predicted there would be a pandemic in Trump's first term.

In 2019 there was an epidemic of a pneumonia-like virus in the USA that increased old age deaths and hit the vaping community hard (cause speculated but never discovered) - possible attenuated COVID?

In 2019 Oct a documentary was released claiming wet markets were a virus factory. Well who knew?

In late 2019 a pandemic drill was executed.

The Dems used the pandemic to steal the election with mail-in voting amongst other things (Proof of coverup: https://twitter.com/Great_Briton_I/status/1379018569074282503).

The EU have a vaccine passport programme pre-dating COVID (https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/vaccination/docs/2019-2022_roadmap_en.pdf).

The spike protein motif of SARS-COV-2 does NOT match that of the coronavirus being worked on by the Wuhan lab.
Interestingly, though, it DOES match a spike protein motif published in 2005 by a Hong Kong lab. (https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2020/03/16/sars-cov-2-origins-ipak-research-exonerates-dr-shi/ )

17 February 2009

Baxter pharmaceutical release deliveries of their seasonal flu virus samples contaminated with the bird flu (SARS) virus and remain silent when discovered by a Czech lab randomly testing on ferrets. This could have led to the infection of lab personnel, or worse, the accidental release of the virus outside of the lab.

12 August 2009

Somebody from L.A. called Dr. Ott of Republican radio (off the air) and claimed that they were a microbiologist and wanted to hand over evidence regarding tainted H1N1 vaccines being produced by Baxter pharmaceutical in the Ukraine. He maintained that the virus contained both adjuvants designed to weaken the immune system, and replicated RNA from the virus responsible for the 1918 global pandemic. He had proof that the pandemic flu was reverse engineered at Ft. Detrick, Md - and then mass-produced in bio-weapons labs in the Ukraine - and that a more virulent strain would be released in November in the Ukraine.
Dr. Ott advised him to take his evidence to a U.S. Attorney at the L.A. Federal Bldg. and then call him back. He or Dr. Bill Deagle from San Diego would then follow up.
I have personally confirmed with Dr. Ott that this whistleblower call took place.

13 August 2009

The following day, a Joseph Moshe was arrested following a chase and 9 hour standoff in his car which was disabled in front of the L.A. Federal Bldg by a truck with a giant dish mounted on it, giving an electro-magnetic pulse.
According to the FBI he had made a bomb threat against the White House (from L.A.) and was wanted for two misdemeanours for verbal abuse of his mother. Odd things about the arrest were a) the preparedness and amount of force, and b) the ability of Moshe to withstand 4 cans of teargas and pepper spray.
The FBI destroyed his car.

I have not found out whether this is the same Joseph Bar-Moshe who is/was an Israeli-American microbiologist working in viral genetics: biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/78637/Moshe_Bar-Joseph

August 16-21 2009

In the days following there are comments made on the above news pages by the public discussing the prediction of the Ukrainian outbreak in November 2009 as per Dr Ott mentioning this odd call the day before.

October 29,31 2009

Around this time I opened the Daily Mail online to see a headline of a viral outbreak in the Ukraine and a picture of a patient suffering a cytokine storm - typical of the 1918 viral outbreak - where the blood vessels get blocked and the extremities go blue.
Within an hour the photo had been replaced by stock footage of a nurse.

November 4 2009

Blog reports of Ukranian doctors referring to pressure to refer to all this as "swine flu" while they were adamant it was not.

1982-2009

Over 90 scientists esp. microbiologists have died, most in suspicious ways. 26 in 2004, the year of SARS. Here's one example: "Just four days after Dr. Que fell unconscious came the mysterious disappearance of Don Wiley, 57, ... an expert on how the immune system responds to viral attacks such as the classic doomsday plagues of HIV, ebola and influenza. He had just bought tickets to take his son to Graceland the following day. Police found his rental car on a bridge outside Memphis, Tenn. His body was later found in the Mississippi River. Forensic experts said he may have had a dizzy spell and have fallen off the bridge."

May 6 2020

Yet another virologist in a very very long line of virologists killed under odd circumstances.
Apparently he was about to publish "very significant findings" on SARS-COV-2
( https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/06/us/university-of-pittsburgh-professor-killed/index.html )

Reply
Fuddman
4/7/2021 01:35:47 pm

You started your post with this questionable assertion.

"Fauci's NIH founded and funded Wuhan."

Have you any idea how much money Xi Jinping has at his disposal?

If Xi Jinping wants a bio weapon made at Wuhan, he doesn't need to get a loan from Fauci.

I don't care for Fauci anymore than you do; but, in order to understand what's taking place, we have to correctly identify roles of the players involved. Fauci is a tool who is doing precisely what XI Jinping wants him to do, namely, maintaining the terror of a "virus" and thus keeping the world in a perpetual terror lockdown.

Fauci does that every day by telling people to keep wearing masks and standing 6 feet from each other. He does that by telling people they cannot go to church or sing in church, go to sporting events or getting together with family and friends at Christmas. And, of course by telling people about the threat of new mutations. All that has value for XI Jinping.

Faucis pocket book has zilch value to Xi Jinping.

If you want to piss off Xi Jinping, throw away your mask.

Reply
Peter Ross
4/7/2021 04:58:28 pm

@Anthony Rose

Interesting.

The tragedy from the three major fake "swine influenza pandemics" - 1918, 1976, and 2009 - are best accounted for by iatrogenic abuse of experimental vaccination campaigns.

The pace of emerging zoonotic & scary enveloped RNA vessicles is accelerating: SARS 2002 & 2015, Ebola 2014, MERS 2013 with Hollywood horror movies not slagging too far behind.

The deadly "flying exoxome vessicles" can't be isolated and studied directly but only when employing laboratory alchemy mixtures of xenotropic cell cultures deliberately contaminated with extraneous RNA and DNA and exosome-rich broths comprised from the added amnitoic cow fluids along with the extraneous RNA and DNA and exosomes arising from both those of the original patient samples and from the xenotropic or allotropic monkey or hamster or human fetus tissue substrate which are fundamentaly polyploidy, cancerous cell lines harboring all kinds of retroviral exosome species and defective glycosylation pathways.

For whtever reason, the exosomes can be purified from the "virus particles" but never the other way around.

Maybe the new tech of giving animation to the never-observed "spike" glycoprotein by injecting the cell-free synthetic RNA exosomes is an alchemical upgrade. Unless of course every cell contains innnate reverse transcriptase activity and the synthetic RNA crosses the blood brain barrier...

Corona911:
- no evidence for significant secondary infection rates;
- a nominal excess mortality rate of <10% due to CFR confined mainly to industrialized countries;
- a median victim age of ~75 years old who are mostly likely to be recieving medicines for co-morbid COPD/obesity/hypertension and regular vaccinations for respiratory illnesses.

If one suspends all disbelief, then the NATO-Ft Detrick-Wuhan fear-porn experts are monoplozing each and every mass media channel to promote an utopian Great Leap Forward / Fourth Industrial Revolution / Global Economic Reset platform only because they know that Impstoff Macht Frei ,

Yet by now, despite being devoid of basic thoretical and practical diagnostic value, about a billion deep throat biospies from all age groups have been subjected to PCR sequencers operating at 'warp speed' thresholds.

Maybe there's a unique Dali Lama or a "Messiah' gene they're not telling us about and that's the real conspiracy?

https://dryburgh.com/the-ugly-truth-about-the-covid-19-lockdowns-nick-hudson/

Reply
Peter Ross
4/7/2021 05:18:40 pm

You can find on the CDC website the fishy tale of 'reconstructing" the fabulous H1N1 of 1918 by stictihing together random strands of RNA recovered from a permafrost-covered graveyard in Cyberia circa 2000 AD.

Good that 'global warming' didn't destroy the evidence - along with the fear-porn value.

Now wonder Bill Snakes has a new scheme to upgrade The Windows:

A Bill Gates Venture Aims To Spray Dust Into The Atmosphere ...https://www.forbes.com › sites › arielcohen › 2021/01/11
11 Jan 2021 — Microsoft's MSFT +2.8% billionaire founder Bill Gates is financially backing the development of sun-dimming technology that would potentially ...

Cosmic rays linked to increased mortality
11 Apr 2018

"The intensity of secondary cosmic rays reaching Earth is significantly correlated with mortality rates in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. That’s according to researchers in Brazil and the US.

Looking at data over the past 60 years, the team found that the mortality rates for all diseases they identified were slightly – yet significantly – greater during periods of diminished solar activity, when cosmic rays are more intense, and slightly lower during heightened solar activity, when cosmic rays are less intense.

The link was stronger than the researchers expected. “I believed we could find significant results but we got surprised,” said Carolina Vieira of the University of São Paulo.

Cosmic rays consist of charged subatomic particles – mostly protons, but also helium nuclei and other particles – travelling near the speed of light, with energies upwards of 1 MeV. Originating mainly in the remnants of supernovae in our cosmic neighbourhood, they collide with gas molecules in our atmosphere, generating a cascade of secondary rays that can penetrate materials, including the human body.

Matter and electromagnetic fields emitted by the Sun partially protect us from cosmic rays. But the Sun’s activity rises and falls in an 11-year cycle, which means the intensity of secondary cosmic rays on Earth also follows 11-year cycles. Currently, the Sun is approaching a minimum in activity.

More locally, the intensity of secondary cosmic rays rises with latitude and altitude, so that in a city such as São Paulo, 23 ° south of the equator and 800 m above sea level, doses of secondary cosmic rays reach 0.2 nano-sieverts a year. For comparison, the International Commission for Radiological Protection allows uranium miners to receive 10,000 times more radiation a year.

“Although [the value for secondary cosmic rays in São Paolo] may seem to be relatively low, our results show that typical variation of cosmic-ray exposures to susceptible individuals, possibly radio-sensitive individuals, can lead to a highly significant increase of total mortality and specific mortality rates,” said Vieira.

Vieira was motivated to look into the possible health effects of secondary cosmic rays after she heard that in 2008 some children in her son’s school in São Paolo caught scarlet fever; a year later, the world suffered a swine-flu pandemic based on the same H1N1 influenza virus as the infamous 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. The events led her to wonder whether there could be an environmental agent changing the DNA of microorganisms to re-introduce certain diseases cyclically. “I decided to research what was going on,” she recalled.


Vieira and colleagues analyzed the correlation between the annual flux of secondary cosmic ray-induced ionization and various mortality rates in São Paolo using data from the period 1951–2012. Multivariate linear regression allowed them to show that the cosmic-ray ionization was correlated with total mortality, infectious disease mortality, maternal mortality, and perinatal mortality rates, with a p value of less than 0.001 – a p value less than 0.05 being the traditional threshold for significance.

“Annually, ~336 total deaths may be attributed to [secondary cosmic-ray] exposure in the city of São Paulo,” the researchers write.

They do not yet know the mechanism by which secondary cosmic rays could increase mortality rates, and are considering alternative explanations for the correlation. Since 2015, Vieira and colleagues have also been studying the possible interactions of cosmic rays, air pollutants and human health in US cities.

The study is published in Environmental Research Letters (ERL)."

https://physicsworld.com/a/cosmic-rays-linked-to-increased-mortality/

Reply
Peter Ross
4/7/2021 05:58:45 pm

@Anthony Rose

1) https://www.linkedin.com/in/moshe-bar-joseph-19091432/

2) Dr.Judy Mikovits is one of the most successful and intrepid whistleblowers of our time by revealing that not only have traditional vaccines prepared from cell cultures contain all kinds of suspicious and potentially biologically-active xenogeneic and allogeneic antigens but as well retrovirus-like exosomes.
(I have some doubts about her 'isolation of HIV' claims but that's besides the point),

3) I suspect that the "popcorn lung" contaminated vape juice illness which occured in 49 different states of the USA was deliberate poisoning, perhaps to prime radiologists to focus on the diacetyl--associated "ground glass opacities" that are also characteristic of severe covid lung disease. Perhaps it was an actual SARS, or related toxin, test run but the patients didn't show other signs of covid - as far as I know, which isn't much.
Hopefully somebody will take a deeper look into this and other mysterious outbreaks of pneumonia especially with bronchiolitis obliterans, hypercoagulation and toxins including radiation.

Reply
Fuddman
4/7/2021 09:14:26 pm

@Peter Ross

Re: your reference above containing comments by Nick Hudson.

Nick Hudson statistical approach directed at showing the ineffectiveness of lock downs and masks is very convincing. I agree with him (as if it mattered!)

But what concerns me about Nick Hudson and his group is this comment he makes - which I quote from your reference:

"The reality is that there is a virus."

Really?

@Errata has just posted a story (below), printed today, which says scientists from around the world are going to start a study to find out the origin of COV2.

Really?

So how would you reconcile these two ideas?

In other words, how can a very qualified Nick Hudson say there is a virus called Cov2 when, at the same time, a very qualified bunch of scientists are saying they are not sure a COV2 virus exists and they intend to find out by locating it's source?.

In my opinion, Nick Hudson is wrong, i.e., a Novel COV2 virus does not exist (I'm sticking with the Nerd here).

I'm also of the opinion this well intentioned group of scientist in search of the origins of something called COV2 are going to come empty. I believe China will make sure of that.

What do you think?


Lois Gearhardt
4/16/2021 05:09:29 pm

Ahhh... Judy Mikovits. Please, do not fall prey to her claims. They will not check out if you decide to look. I got to know her personally in 2011-2014. I helped her with legal issues, or rather, I tried to. In the course of that, I learned she sabotaged the entire work of the R0 NIAID detection of MuLVs (xmrv) in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) aka Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) patients federal grants. The premise is sound, and ME is very real. ME looks like, walks like, talks like a retroviral disease, and progresses just like one, and it happens that it responds very well to ARVs - which not many people know and frankly, the feds don't want to acknowledge. There are marked differences in certain aspects from HIV, HTLV. Frank Ruscetti, whom I personally spoke with, did indeed find MuLVs in ME patients, long before the grant was awarded, and before Judy was spiking cell cultures with VP62. However, Judy, rather than have Dr. Ruscetti come work with the techs and grad students at WPI in Reno, which he would have done in a heartbeat, helped the Whittemores launch falsified "tests" for xmrx (MuLv), which netted them $3+ million the first year. A tragedy that never needed to happen. Judy controlled all the samples shipped to the other scientists working on the project, always culturing the samples with VP62 instead of providing aliquots of noncultured patient blood. I discontinued representing Judy, when I realized the labyrinth of lies she concocted about the work, about stealing the lab notebooks from WPI, then at a press conference with Ian Lipkin stating her work failed, it was "contamination" and so much more. I was able to put everything together after talking witnesses, reviewing emails, papers, reviewing legal documents and more. She told, and still tells, different stories to different people. She never followed through on any promises, any necessary action no matter how minor the effort to provide witnesses, evidence, paperwork she claimed she had. as a normal innocent person would. I also discovered her plagiarized her PhD thesis, from a better paper published many months before her thesis. Her cumulative and current spiels claiming Fauci tried to steal "her" HIV work, retaliated to get her jailed for stealing lab notebooks, that she was offered a Nobel in exchange for trashing the xmrv theory, that she cultivated hiv from patient 0, and so forth, are simply to keep her on the radar of people who don't know better and haven't compared her narratives in her "books" and her prior interviews to her ever escalating whoppers. If Judy had wanted to, she would have been privately funded by fans in 2012 to redo the ME/CFS study. She would not, because she could not-she cannot do the necessary bench work herself. What I am saying is, put no faith or credit in anything she says, and besides, it will change in a week. She was removed bodily from a flight in Santa Barbara when she became physically combative when an attendant presented her with a mask. The pilot asked her to leave, since she battered the attendant, she refused and the airport police had to pick her up because she refused to cooperate. She was arraigned yesterday. She has been telling several different stories about her arrest, including claiming it was caused by Fauci. Judy of late has been claiming to be a faith healer. Judy Mikovits hurt a lot of people, and took great advantage of patients and others.

Errata
4/7/2021 06:53:17 pm

This has been bumped:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/04/us/covid-origins-letter.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china/scientists-call-for-new-probe-into-covid-19-origins-with-or-without-china-idUSKBN2BU2J2

Reply
Fuddman
4/7/2021 08:33:05 pm

Thanks for the post.

Some encouraging movement

Reply
David Rivard
4/7/2021 08:26:05 pm

Yes, the past could have predicted the unimpeded C-19 clinical timeline as it occurs today:

Symptoms and Functional Impairment Assessed 8 Months After Mild COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778528

Reactive Infectious Mucocutaneous Eruption Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection

CDC Study Finds Worsening Anxiety and Depression, Especially in Young Adults, During COVID-19 Pandemic

Incidence of 30-Day Venous Thromboembolism in Adults Tested for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in an Integrated Health Care System in Northern California

Mortality and Readmission Rates Among Patients With COVID-19 After Discharge From Acute Care Setting With Supplemental Oxygen

SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms

Coronavirus Infections—More Than Just the Common Cold

Therapy for Early COVID-19
A Critical Need

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2773058

"Longhauler" anecdotes

But the benchmark for success is still: tested infections - deaths = threat definition and a prophylaxis target.

And we haven't even addressed the variants.


Reply
Fuddman
4/8/2021 02:58:02 pm

This article provides a different approach to the problem. And, at least to me, appears to provide plausible explanations for some of the unknowns which now exist. For example, what is the "source" of COV2

I suppose an introduction could start with this idea: Re imagining a virus as an exosome.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HsF6hI8Y-5xbOxjCyrqCqBO9FYIh55Ru/view




https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HsF6hI8Y-5xbOxjCyrqCqBO9FYIh55Ru/view

Reply
Nerd has power
4/8/2021 03:52:12 pm

I would like to respond to an earlier comment made by Fuddman.

Do I care about what SARS-CoV-2 really is, how it was actually designed, and what makes it kill? Of course I do. I am being affected by the pandemic myself and would like to know when it ends and how to end it.

However, it takes more than one person or a group of four scientists to get all the answers. You need the whole virology research community to figure all these out, using not just analyses but also experiments.

How to engage the scientists in this way? Well, in my opinion, they have to look at the right direction -- acknowledging that this is a designed pathogen where certain functions could be added with a non-benign intent. Only with that kind of realization, scientists could then look at the various weird complications of COVID with the right set of glasses.

That's why waking the world up is important. Yes, people are writing these open letters:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/04/us/covid-origins-letter.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china/scientists-call-for-new-probe-into-covid-19-origins-with-or-without-china-idUSKBN2BU2J2

But don't tell me that the whole world already agrees with what Dr. Yan and the rest of us have revealed. Did any of those letters even mention once about a bioweapon? If these scientists are so far away from the actual truth, where do you think the general public are in the whole spectrum? I wish everyone is educated like most of us here on this topic. But that's not the reality.

Please remember WHEN I wrote this blog -- over a year ago. I'm probably more disappointed than anyone that this simple truth is still largely removed from the world.

Now, even if we do get to engage all scientists to look for answers of COVID in the right way, it is still not the fastest way of solving all puzzles. It's just too damn hard to do and may really take forever.

You know what is the faster way? To get the CCP to concede and tell all their secrets. That's another reason that the world has to be educated for what COVID really is.

With all that said, the 3rd Yan report did announce that more reports will be coming and possibly investigating some hidden secrets of COVID. But I again have to say that it would take more than a small team of regular human beings to figure all those secrets out from the outside. And don't be surprised that these regular human beings may even have full-time jobs themselves.

Reply
Nerd has power
4/8/2021 05:54:45 pm

Talking about the understanding of the origin of SARS-CoV-2, this is what Nature just published. Again, please don't tell me that the world has all been brought to the same page. It does not seem to be the case yet, at least to me.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00865-8?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20210408&utm_source=nature_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20210408&sap-outbound-id=E32EAB8A76FED258ACB9F6244835C9E552FB7902

Reply
Fuddman
4/8/2021 10:42:14 pm

In my humble opinion, you have done a superb job of proving COV2 is fake. My hat is off to you for that.

But your assertion, as well as Yan, that some sort of unknown bio weapon has been deliberately released for the purpose of killing people is much harder to prove than proving COV2 is fake.

To start with, you need to come up with the individual who released the weapon and the motive for doing it. Beyond that, if, as you and Yan say, COV2 is a fake, then what is it that is killing people?

The answer to theses questions, it seems to me, are not likely going to be found in the domain of, what appears to be, the monolithic virus industry and its associated scholarly, peer reviewed, research publications. I think the thought processes there are rigidly constrained in order to achieve a pre-approved outcome.

evidence
4/12/2021 04:26:47 pm

Congratulations to your 3rd Yan report!
Very good work -
Good you are all alive and well. What a relief - thank God!
So much to say - but actually, events are speaking for themselves, unfolding like another tsunami, stripping the entire (Western) life science establishment totally naked: the science emperors with all their COIs have NO CLOTHES - for each and everybody to see.
And also so much said already.

Given all your guys' marvelous contributions (including Daoyu Zhang's, Li-Meng Yan's, Segreto's, A. Chan's and numerous, numerous others): keep yourselves as safe as possible, as much as possible. Only then, there is chance, things will work out to the better.
After all this abuse and broken trust, the painstaking time of grief for the broader life science community is STILL about to come - IF there will be some healing, healing of public trust.
Never forget for example how the INFORMATION WAR eventually could take a TURN to the worse against Assange - because he had not been concerned enough about his own safety issues. After he had been so tremendously inspirational to the many of us.

All of YOU (together with Yan, Segreto, Deigin, D Zhang etc. etc.) are writing history, science history. That's for sure. There is absolutely NO doubt. Like Assange has written history. But this is war. So please SURVIVE and be WELL. Everybody.
The adversaries are beaten in numerous battles, but not overcome yet.
THEY are still running the institutional powers - they still run the 'Science Deep State', defined and shaped by their corresponding COIs; and to a certain extent also crooks kicking the balls in science.
EVEN given the fact that a WHO Tedros finally gets puzzled and concerned by now;
EVEN given the the fact that a Robert Redfield has become bitter and frustrated so much, that he finally spilled the beans.
It's a success, but we cannot let our guards down yet. The world (public) is not (outspoken) on the same page ONLY because of that information war, which is also fought inside the West. One cannot stress this enough.
The adversaries often do have access to information (including information concerning/about us/ourselves) we do NOT have access to.
And at the same time: WE have to keep in mind how scared THEY are with respect to this enormous crime, in principle still with the possibility ending up in court hanging over their heads (even if only remote), as Boyle (father of the biological warfare prevention act) has precised it already one year ago, (who is not a life science nerd/expert, and not always firm on all technical details, but who nailed down at that time the judicial implications already very neatly - that is relevant for this putative legal war):
[Francis Boyle interview 05/18/2020:
https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=eaARJge7OEhg
cf. 44'17'' when he starts talking about putative prosecutions in the West
].

This fear is still the mayor motivation for the cover up plus information war here in the West (including for example being conspicuously silent about the 3rd Yan report or the youtube-censoring the above Boyle interview): avoiding the possibility of life in prison and litigation issues.
The fallout of that information war even (indirectly) affects a multitude of other ill-fated decisions for Covid (i.e., not timely support for hydroxychloroqine/ivermectin based protocols/SMDT etc).

Public awareness and public pressure remains crucial. This can only occur if the information war will NOT be won by those conspirators (including of those in the West).
In that sense, the 3rd Yan report is another important step, as it again attacks the devil on the level of details. Very, very brave and courageous.
Thank you. Be careful an don't forget you guys have already written science history - as you yourself have done in particular in addition with this crucial and early essay and blog.
#

Errata
4/10/2021 01:30:24 pm

Nerd, you sound despondent. Cheer up! The tipping point is near. The Chinese choir still sings loudly but the congregation is falling away. Your evangelizing is winning converts. Politicians follow the people. You will win. Your victory will be sudden and dramatic.

You have silent allies in high places. When they speak out, they will all speak at once. A silent ally is for example Biden's Science Advisor Eric Lander. Notice that as head of the Broad Institute he did not stop Alina Chan. His background is mathematics so he understood the last two arguments in the 2nd Yan report. He knows it was made in a lab.

Obviously if it was made in a lab then it was a bioweapon attack. If it were a lab accident then long before it happened the CCP knew the design, the attributes, and the sequence of the virus. Even if the accident had gone unnoticed, they would have recognized the sequence immediately when it became available. At that point they would have been aware of what would be required to contain the outbreak. The CCP suppressed that information and the sequence itself for weeks. They even prevented the emergency room personnel under Dr. Ai Fen from wearing extra personal protective equipment. These actions are necessary for a bioweapon attack and inconsistent with any other scenario.

I know it is disappointing that the gate keepers failed. There are few people in the world to whom it falls to declare a bioweapon attack. It must be a terrifying responsibility to be the person on whose authority WW3 becomes a shooting war but if you accept the position then you must live up to the obligation you were entrusted with. Ghebreyesus and Fauci both are guilty of dereliction of duty. Whether it was cowardice or corruption only time will tell.

Dr. Yan made it clear she believes key people within WHO were paid off. She was their point person for Wuhan in the first days; perhaps her intuition is correct. Fauci's failure is perplexing. I hate to think of him as duplicitous but his close association with Gallo is troubling in light of the MIT reviews. Somebody needs to look into the finances of key figures pushing the 'natural spillover' myth to see who is living beyond their means. Did they pay taxes on the bribe money?

The virology research community no longer matters. They are reluctant to acknowledge the truth. They know that if it was a lab product, their research will be stopped. Their labs will be closed unless it was a bioweapon attack and then the labs will be taken over by the military. Their choices are bleak: find a new career or work in a bioweapon lab in wartime. The labs will be high value military targets. Their silence is no surprise.

If you are impatient then take it to the next level. Stop with the science campaign. File lawsuits against the people at CNN, Johns Hopkins, MIT, as well as their organizations and sue anyone else who has denounced Limeng Yan. They made up lies and ruined her reputation. Force them into a courtroom and make them prove their assertions to a jury. Common sense prevails with the common man. Press charges. Push for an indictment of Xi Jinping at the Hague for crimes against humanity. Dominate some news cycles. Get people talking about it over dinner. What the general public thinks as reflected in opinion polls will ultimately determine the course of history.

In the USA Liberals are weakening. In the midst of the Trump/Biden contest they got carried away. China stepped in with a plan for getting rid of Trump by using a pandemic to crush the economy. Prosperity is the primary indicator of whether a President gets a second term. Was it really okay to help the CCP get away with it? Was defeating Trump really justification for endorsing mass murder? Liberals now have a body count approaching that of the Nazi's. The USA now has a President put into power by the Chinese. The USA used to be a model democracy but it had a failed election. An election is a failure if the majority of those who did not support the winner believe the ballot handling and election procedures lacked integrity and honesty. In a true democracy a failed election is done over. In a police state the result of a failed election is enforced by the police and military. Twenty-thousand National Guard troops guarding the inauguration of a President does not happen in a true democracy. Like so many other nations, the USA is now a democracy in name only. This happened because Liberals went too far. Many Liberals are suffering from buyer's remorse. They are weakening in their resolve to perpetuate the lie. They know it was a bioweapon attack. They feel guilty. The tipping point is near.

Take heart Nerd, you are winning.


Reply
Nerd has power
4/11/2021 05:55:39 am

Thank you, Errata. I enjoyed learning your assessment of the situation, and I agree with it too. WE are winning and WE have to win.

The pandemic itself is historical, but the changes induced and enabled by it are even more grand. The model democracy of the US is a beacon and cornerstone of human civilization. We cannot afford having it taken down by evil forces. The slippery of civilization, which has occurred, has to be stopped. I do occasionally feel a little heavy about how much we have slipped, but I'm also optimistic that the upward course of human civilization is unstoppable and a slippery like this is unavoidable. It may be a transient period in history, however, a significant amount of time in our lives. We just have to endure it while pushing for the better.

PETER ROSS
4/9/2021 04:14:55 am

@Fuddman

Yep. The PANDA group (Hudson, Levitt, Ioannidis, Atlas, et al) all subscribe to a coronavirus virus model but with major reservations, in particular that the so-called pandemic is a wild exagerration designed to promote a nefarious geopolitical agenda; disregard the fake PCR data but rather focus on the demographics of mortality rates; increasingly consider the involvment of more than one seasonal viral pathogen; dismiss the lockdowns and face nappies as ineffective and bizarre; and in general explain the actual excess death rate, after eliminating the obvious statistical fear-porn manipulations eminating from 'the authorities', as a relatively elevated nominal mortality toll due to the relatively mild nature of the preceding 5 to 10 flu seasons.

They do seem to remain mum regarding whether or not additional natural or biowarfare toxic contributions are in play and stick nearly exclusively to the correcting the 'official' apocoplyptic narrative with their own collbartive approach to the epidemiological analysis which seems to be far more grounded in reality - which also means they need to beware of coming under constant attacks from the pharma and globalist ghouls.

There's no consensus for the phenomena of the seasonality of the flu illnesses and the emprical and experimental data for person-to-person transmission has always been weak, yet the public remains saturated with infectious disease and 'miracle vaccine' propaganda as the financial levers to keep the academic and commercial labs in business.

Since the first soical media images broadcast from Wuhan of pedatrians literally collapsing on the sidewalks, the official narrative messaging was always about The Vaccine and face diapers and qurantines and economic and social destruction was promoted as the singlular viable solution; major medical journals even comitted outright fraud with regard to publishing totally fake claims about therapeutics being inherently unsafe - unless propreitary crap like Remdesvir needd to be promoted.

For academics, promoting new paradigms is nearly always a carreer ender, although exosome research publications are now growing at an exponential pace.

Great Leap Forward / Global Economic Digiital Reset / RNA GMO injections to further the eugneics and transhumanism agendas to "improve the sheeple".

The only reasonable denouement for this plandmeic fiascso is Nuremberg Tribunals.

Reply
Fuddman
4/9/2021 09:51:15 pm

I listened to Nick Hudson on YouTube.

My takeaway is this: he believes (1) a virus exists, (2) based on his statistical analysis, he doesn't think the threat of that virus requires lock downs, (3) big pharma is behind the fear mongering, (4) he does not think SARSCOV2 is a novel virus.

Among all his comments, to me, item number 4 is the most important. That term "Novel" was assigned to the virus at the infant stages of the "outbreak." That word "Novel" was used by national leaders to convey to the public that they, the public , were confronted by a lethal danger which had never been seen before. And so, as leaders, they were required to impose lock downs to prevent the deaths from this novel killer. In January of 2020, virtually every media outlet used the word Novel to describe the virus. Virtually every virus study since uses the term "novel." in their study.

The existing fear that Nick Hudson talks about revolves around and is sustained by, the term "novel." But, contrary to what Nick Hudson believes, it wasn't big pharma that used the term as a pretext for lock downs.

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/9/2021 04:28:36 am

Thoughts?

A Single Immunization with Spike-Functionalized Ferritin ...pubs.acs.org › doi
by AE Powell · 2021 · Cited by 17 — The primary viral target for protective antibody-based vaccines against COVID-19 is the SARS-CoV-2 spike, a trimeric surface glycoprotein ...

Reply
Fuddman
4/9/2021 01:48:04 pm

Here is a thought.

The article begins this way:

"The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in the human population in 2019 has caused a rapidly growing pandemic that has disrupted nearly all global infrastructures. To date, there have been over 63 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and nearly 1.5 million deaths worldwide"

This opening dialogue is the standard opening dialogue required of all fledgling scholars who desire to be accepted by the virus industry. It confirms to the virus rulers that the authors are of the same mindset as they are in one specific element. That is, whatever you say it must perpetuate the existing atmosphere of fear.

On that basis alone, this paper doesn't make it - at least for me.

But there is something else much deeper in this experiment which bothers me. And that is the use of mice, which the scholars have horribly tortured, and subjected to constant and severe stress.

What happens to any immune system under those conditions? Here is one answer:

"Confronted with a stressful condition, the organism (the mouse) strives to cope."

And

"Various ways of adapting to the stressful condition may have vastly different repercussions on immunity. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3019042/

In other words, when you torture a mouse for days on end, there is no telling what his body is going to present you with.

The notion that a tortured mouse is going to provide you with any sort of reliable evidence strikes me as nonsensical and ludicrous.



Reply
Fuddman
4/10/2021 09:34:11 pm

Additional thought on the study you cite


This Nerd blog has proven that Zhengli Shi created a phony "virus" called SARSCOV2. In other words, that SARSCOV2 does not exist.

So, when I read that "scientists," are developing techniques to neutralize the SARSCOV2 created by Zhengli Shi, in my mind, they are, in fact, developing techniques to neutralize what doesn't exist.

Having said that, I need to give these scientists some credit. Through the use of an array impressively constructed jargon such as "lentiviral SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus assay" and so on, they sound really good. And I'm certain their thinking is likely to be well received by their colleagues.


Reply
Errata
4/9/2021 04:02:18 pm

@Ross: Virus sequences derived by lab techs around the world testing samples from patients hospitalized with pneumonia are all fraudulent? There is some sort of lab worker conspiracy to deceive the world? That is not even remotely plausible. Nobody believes that. You do not believe that.

@Fuddman: Stop encouraging Ross, he is babbling. Tortured mice? WTF?! I'm giggling, I guess you must be teasing Ross.

If you are thinking passaging through stressed animals with suppressed immune systems cannot yield a virus that is more adapted to such animals when they are unstressed then you are misinformed. The biochemistry of stressed vs. unstressed animals differs less than it does between species. Darwin always has his say.

Anyway, lab animals are not normally stressed. They are pampered except for that momentary incident when they are exposed to whatever pathogen is being tested. Symptoms take days to develop by which time they have long forgotten any momentary alarm. If it was introduced in their food there was not even that. Tests always include control animals which are not subjected to the test. The comparison yields the data. The concept is totally legitimate and sound. Whatever conditions the animals experienced during the test factors out during analysis when the control animals are considered.

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/10/2021 03:37:00 pm

@Errata

Should critic directed at the relevancy of rodents as models for the mechanisms of human health and pathology deserve more serious consideration?

A Single Immunization with Spike-Functionalized Ferritin ...pubs.acs.org › doi
by AE Powell · 2021 · Cited by 17 — The primary viral target for protective antibody-based vaccines against COVID-19 is the SARS-CoV-2 spike, a trimeric surface glycoprotein ...

Thoughts?

Reply
Errata
4/10/2021 06:56:40 pm

Rodents are fine. Rodent models may have their limitations but those who use them are aware of it. Transgenic strains can overcome that to a great degree. But as Yan pointed out, golden hamsters are a better fit for work on corona viruses. For their advantages many types of animals are used in research but they are generally more expensive and less available. Furthermore there are the objections of the animal rights community which are muted somewhat in the case of rodents. Rats and mice are generally seen as repugnant so their lack of a fan base is a significant advantage.

The ferritin particle idea for vaccines is interesting. It will be good to watch the progress. It would seem to me less likely to cause unexpected issues than for example using an adenovirus. Either way though my main concern about the CoV2 vaccines is mimicry in the spike which remains an issue regardless. This has been posted multiple times but it is worth pondering.

Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian proteomes: implications for the vaccine"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12026-020-09152-6

Arnaud link
4/10/2021 07:05:43 am

About awaking the world, and for those who read french, here is a little wink :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w84FGvuFoUPKxTZmqtuhFfI-pPbNBcms/view

Reply
Errata
4/10/2021 11:16:47 am

@Arnaud: Wearing even the most rudimentary mask in public helps protect those around you. The premise of this "little wink" is that no individual has an obligation to modify his behavior to promote the wellbeing of his community. It is a variation on theme of the mantra of the progressive movement. Any society that lives by this principle will die by it in a bioweapon war. We are currently in a bioweapon war. Too bad about the French, hate to see them go.

Reply
Arnaud
4/10/2021 01:56:52 pm

The "well-being" is already durably compromised in France, and this not because of the Covid desease. Any child should never be considered as responsable of the oldest health. But it was just a wink in this very serious discussion.

Guy Fawkes
4/11/2021 02:54:36 am

Sunday-reading for those interested: "The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028: A Futuristic Scenario to Facilitate Medical Countermeasure Communication" by Brunson et al. (2017) at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Maryland, USA:

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/2017/spars-pandemic-scenario.pdf

Here a version published in 2020 in the Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research:

https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=jicrcr

Given they opted for a coronavirus in their scenario, the parallels to CoV-2 are not surprising:

"One CDC scientist recalled reading a recent ProMed dispatch describing the emergence of a novel coronavirus in Southeast Asia, and ran a pancoronavirus RT-PCR test. A week later, the CDC team confirmed that the three patients were, infact, infected with a novel coronavirus, which was dubbed the St. Paul Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SPARS-CoV, or SPARS), after the city where the first cluster of cases had been identified. [...] As transmission of SPARS was determined to occur via droplet spread [...] The public’s concern was compounded by the apparent virulence of the pathogen."

My takeaway from it is in the title itself: 3 years of pandemic. Extrapolating it into our current reality, the suspense remains how our world-as-we-knew it will look like in 2023. Or to paraphrase John Maynard Keynes:

"[Pandemic societies] can remain irrational longer than you can remain [healthy in your body & mind]."

Best,
Guy Fawkes

P.s. Arnaud is totally right about the "well-being" already durably compromised, and not only in France. Childen stay at home all day long and have movement - thus mental - disorders, as a speech therapist recently told me; multiple teachers tell me their pupils are severely depressed; I told you about the teenage boys playing in the woods wearing masks & I know of suicides in my city because teenagers cannot see their boy/girlfriends anymore. So much for the promotion of "the wellbeing of [t]his community". This will deeply impact their mental development, it's clear the next generation will on average be the weakest and non-resilient mankind ever had. Makes me think of E.M. Forster's (1909) "The Machine Stops" turning even more real, it's Facebook-prediction only was for starters, the essence lies in their living environment itself:

"Imagine, if you can, a small room, hexagonal in shape, like the cell of a bee. It is lighted neither by window nor by lamp, yet it is filled with a soft radiance. There are no apertures for ventilation, yet the air is fresh. There are no musical instruments, and yet, at the moment that my meditation opens, this room is throbbing with melodious sounds. An armchair is in the centre, by its side a reading-desk — that is all the furniture. And in the armchair there sits a swaddled lump of flesh — a woman, about five feet high, with a face as white as a fungus. It is to her that the little room belongs."

And if anybody remembers the "world model standard run" [and I'm not even talking about their "world model with natural resource reserves (sic) doubled"] run by the Club of Rome (1972), population will be at it's peak when everything is going steeply downhill, see

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lV1NATCEGFs/Ts6QgbVXdEI/AAAAAAAADuQ/mu9XukBxpsQ/s1600/limits.standard.gif

--> Hence, given the future might/could/will look quite ugly with 10billion+ humans on a trashed planet, for them growing up without natural human interactions in their character-building childhood is the worst possible start - ever. So it has come to this.

Reply
Fuddman
4/11/2021 12:42:43 pm

The lead "scientist" in your Sunday morning read is a person by the name of Monica Schoch-Spana (Monica for short).

Employed as a "senior scholar" at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Monica is a disaster specialist who , since 1996, has written extensively on "coping with disasters." As you point out, she was, in a way, prophesying the arrival of a pandemic. In other words, for the past 25 years she was a prophet promising a pandemic.

She wasn't the only one. If you google "the coming pandemic" and restrict your search to a period, say between 2013 and 2016, you'll find there were lots and lots of pandemic prophets. Many were respected public voices (New York Times, Washington Post) and many more were voices of the Virus industry (Nature).

Of course, when speaking of prophets of the Virus industry, you cannot skip over, arguably, the head prophet for that industry.

Just days before Trump was inaugurated, Fauci made his now famous prophecy: “There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases”

I'm bringing all this out to make the point that in the United States, at least, the public but, in particular, elected public officials, the leaders, were being persistently told by all these knowledgeable and trusted sources that, not just any old virus was on the horizon, but a "Novel" and deadly virus was inevitable.

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude or, at least, suspect that elected public officials, the decision makers, were "conditioned" by the virus industry prophets. So that when someone yelled "Novel Virus!!!" these leaders instinctively jumped for the lock-down switch. And the results are as you see them today.

What individual yelled in a loud voice "Novel Virus!!!"



Reply
evidence
4/19/2021 02:02:49 pm

Re: Pandemic prophet - the other way round -
and autocatalytic reactions, networks and sets

This wise man EVEN had a bet on it (pandemic prediction); and he was also very specific in his forecast:
Martin Rees' prediction and bet
“A bioterror or bioerror will lead to one million casualties in a single event within a six month period starting no later than Dec 31 2020” ,
which he already formulated 2003/2004
[cf.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/science/30tier.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq-OBNft2OM
https://longbets.org/9/
],
has become true; and he won that bet by a high margin: Covid casualties officially surpassed the 1 million mark on Sep 25 2020 (OR, also applying the stricter constraint of a 6 months time window: there had been 1,780,564 - 512,386 = 1,268,178 casualties for example for the 6-months time period between 6/25/2020 and 12/24/2020, cf. worldometer).
In the above youtube interview (9/2010), Rees was even mentioning a SARS-like disease breaking out in urban area as the perfect example...

Expanding on Rees' thoughts, I personally would also specifically add (on a more abstract or general level): if mankind will be able to wipe out themselves, or accidentally slip themselves into a more permanent doomsday future, and this being done as a result just ONE SINGLE final human error or malicious intent ONLY (leading to a man-made global disaster), then this would always involve some kind of AUTOCATALYSIS as chemical (or physical) reaction type
(A+B -> 2B), as this is the case for example for infectious diseases (like Covid), but also as well as for example a nuclear chain reaction (or a chemical phase transition) - since also in order for life and its evolution on Earth to happen (to occcur at first place, as well as in order to remain), autocatalytic reactions had always been the most crucial, most indispensable (chemical) reaction type (even if however controlled or 'throttled' for example via enzyme-linked replication, or embedded into 'autocatalytic sets', cf. below).
Life can be understood in an abstract way as competition and cooperation between rivaling autocatalytic reactions or autocatalytic sets (here: Covid and/vs H. sapiens).
Again, 'bioerror or bioterror' being the perfect examples of an AUTOCATALYTIC event (unlike WMD with non-autocatalytically linked reaction types, for example 'chemical' warfare).
This is the deeper theoretical argument/framework, why in particular GOF contains per se superior global risks (like for example nuclear overkill as well), and why strictly enforcing a worldwide ban on GOF/bio-warfare is urgently needed, and of superior concern for mankind - even if compared to other hideous WMD research.

[A recent paper and review about autocatalytic networks as an example to show what I mean:
Xavier et al (03/2020): Autocatalytic chemical networks at the origin of metabolism
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2377
]

Arnaud
4/11/2021 06:19:26 am

France uses a very repressive way to control lockdown and limit individual freedoms. Perhaps France is the country with the most to hide? remember the inserm database picture Vih-1 ref 4991
https://www.images.inserm.fr/fr/spotlight/10231/page/1
Remember the Inserm engagement in P4 Wuhan. Remember who is Yves Lévy : Ex Inserm Boss, Agnès Buzyn husband, recently ejected from french Conseil d'Etat.
#Ratg13 #RaBtCoV / 4991
I wrote about this months ago, but nobody cares and nobody investigates.
Do you think it is really bullshit? and why? In my opinion, the random coincidence explanation is not enough

Reply
Guy Fawkes
4/11/2021 12:42:10 pm

NERD, this time, it's me who cannot believe his eyes:

"The model democracy of the US is a beacon and cornerstone of human civilization. We cannot afford having it taken down by evil forces."

You really believe this, right? Please let me remind you of the Mexican War in 1846, slavery, the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890, occupation of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines in 1898, support of the Entente with weapons and money, propaganda against the Kaiser, petroleum shipments to Hitler and atomic bombs on Japan? Then all those illegal CIA operations & regime changes in Italy (1948), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo, Dominican Republic & Cuba (1961), Vietnam (1963), Cambodia (1969), Indonesia (1965), Chile (1970), the creation of al Qaeda in 1978 by Brzezinski to "stirr up some muslims", Iran Contra to finance the secret war against Nicaragua in 1981, the incubator-lie in order to start the Gulf War in 1991, the bombing of Serbia in 1999 with depleted uranium, Afghanistan and Pakistan dronings since 2001/2004, Iraq again in 2003, Libya in 2011 and Syria in 2014 as well as the Nuland-regime change in Ukraine in 2014. The list is far from complete, but if the US is a "beacon and cornerstone of human civilization", then human civilization is in serious trouble.

If anybody wants to educate himself about those topics, as a final takeaway, I would suggest documentaries by John Pilger & Adam Curtis and books by John Perkins & Noam Chomsky.

Sadly, I came to the conclusion this comment section is not [anymore] about sharing scientific papers & learning of further genetic lab manipulation markers @ CoV-2, but rather about blaming the CCP for everything under the sun. So if I play along those lines, I'm a good boy? No, without me, I don't want to be part of this manufacturing of consent. It was an interesting read, but now it's time for me to move on - and I won't come back.

I wish all the best to everyone and hope my comments were helpful to some of you.

Adieu,
Guy Fawkes

Reply
Fuddman
4/11/2021 12:52:11 pm

Oh come on!

We're just getting to the fun part.

Don't let yourself be sidetracked by other issues, important as they may be.

Reply
Xoco Latte
4/13/2021 04:15:33 am

Dear Guy,

I am nowhere near to claim anything rational with regards to this decision of yours, so, I rather try to influence your senses. By your leaving this place would be amiss of a very genuine individual with a rather enjoyable style and ever-needed humor.

Please, don't go.

Reply
Potaytoes
4/13/2021 07:05:50 am

Guy,

Don't leave, please. Your comments and perspectives are always thoughtful and welcome.

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/13/2021 12:39:47 pm

Yeah, the USA has always been part Grande Illusion, never actualy relinqusihed by the Brisitish East India Company subversions, and with a eugenecist SnotSea deep state comprising among others: Vril Society/Skull&Bones/Standard Oil/Ford/IBM/Schroeder Bank/Sullivan&Cromwell/Prescott Bush/Dulles/Kissinger that financd the 3rd Reich and arrnged for the global regrouping of this Borman Brotherhood of Isfahan, -Permindex, Knights of Malta, Stasi, Interpol, United Nations Orgnaizatrions, Vatican Bank, Red Commies, White Russians, Banderistas, Peronistas, Bathists, Nasa Space Nazis, CCP, Bilderberg, Free Masons, Scottish Masons, Albert Pike, Walt Disney... or whatever mkUltra aliases they use. Operation Kissinger Paperclip - probably close to a 100,000 former SS recruited just for Clowns in America.

And still the most ethnically diverse and innovative republic ever formed on the earth and with the greatest Constitution.

Just needs a little swamp draining.


Reply
Xoco Latte
4/12/2021 04:25:05 am

An interesting quasi-research paper published in preprint a few days ago entitled "Who funded the research behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine? - Approximating the funding to the University of Oxford for the research and development of the ChAdOx vaccine technology".
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.08.21255103v1

The last 2 sentences from the Abstract conclusion: "Our study identified that public funding accounted for 97.1-99.0% of the funding towards the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. We furthermore encountered a severe lack of transparency in research funding reporting mechanisms."

Without making any claims towards effectiveness of said vaccine, it is quite nice to see that University of Oxford stipulated that ChAdOx vaccine should be sold on zero profit price to any countries and, even licensed to India under very beneficial terms as well.

The paper itself begs for the inquiry getting the exact same data and answering the very same questions with regards to all the other vaccines...

Reply
Fuddman
4/12/2021 08:52:43 am

"...it is quite nice to see that University of Oxford stipulated that ChAdOx vaccine should be sold on zero profit price to any countries and, even licensed to India under very beneficial terms as well."

Maybe.

From a consumers standpoint, there is a universal law which commences when the manufacturer of a product is told by government that his profit is to be $0.00. -

"You get what you pay for."

Reply
David Rivard
4/13/2021 10:25:10 am

Great analysis from Errata. Although saddened by anyone’s departure from this post, we should have taken his constant reference to crawling out from under a rock to an analysis. He and I had a lot in common. We rode MTB’s and read the same books, and for a time in my life, I even once worshiped virtually all of the authors he cited…and I acted on their findings! These “counter culture” authors had a sense of why the U.S. should change at a time when the entire world was worried about mass famine in China. Indeed their ruminations probably contributed to global policies that enhanced China’s standing, albeit while still vilifying Russia.

But those same Ivory Tower scholars have not crawled out from under their rocks into the new millennia. They have not changed their story for over half a century. Those few that have ever experienced war, like Oliver Stone, have been compromised by a celebrity dependent upon their past stories. Those with less experience, like our departed, are content to adhere to their unchanged benchmarks when they are exposed to sunlight. Hardly the “truth rests upon a hierarchy of truths” standard.

The science community must ultimately go home, and with this pandemia, release some steam, as with Guy and as with Errata and myself. I think especially as a volunteer contributor one should certainly be allowed that “downtime” even if it is “at work”. Too bad the paid researchers of the pandemia do not have Guy’s temperament else they would quit too because the science doesn’t stack up against their empirical beliefs.

Reply
David Rivard
4/13/2021 11:28:10 am

All aspects of the pandemia must be dovetailed into the "spectacles" science needs to determine source and projected outcome.

https://theforum.sph.harvard.edu/events/the-coronavirus-pandemic-33/?mc_cid=0692029511&mc_eid=633307e6b9

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01292-y

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/13/2021 12:01:49 pm


Long term outcomes in survivors of epidemic Influenza A ...https://www.nature.com › ... › articles › article
by J Chen · 2017 · Cited by 54 — Patients who survive influenza A (H7N9) virus infection are at risk of physical and psychological complications of lung injury and multi-organ ...

How the Flu Affects You Even When You're Feeling Better ...https://www.health.com › Cold, Flu and Sinus
4 Oct 2018 — The flu can have some long term effects, like increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Find out more about long term effects of the flu.

The hidden burden of influenza: A review of the extra ...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC5596521
by SA Sellers · 2017 · Cited by 173 — Keywords: extra‐pulmonary complications, influenza, respiratory virus, ... Description of organ‐specific MeSH search terms used in literature search ... Cardiovascular disease and influenza have long been associated due to ...
‎Abstract · ‎INTRODUCTION · ‎FINDINGS · ‎CONCLUSIONS

Flu Symptoms & Complications | CDChttps://www.cdc.gov › flu › symptoms › symptoms
Influenza (flu) can cause mild to severe illness, and at times can lead to death. Flu is different from a cold. Flu usually comes on suddenly. People who have flu ...

Influenza: signs, symptoms & complicationshttps://www.euro.who.int › assets › pdf_file › Infl...
PDF
Complications from influenza include: • pneumonia (lung infection). • dehydration​. • worsening of long-term medical conditions, such as lung and heart diseases, ...

Long-Term Neuroinflammation Induced by Influenza A Virus ...https://www.jneurosci.org › content
by S Hosseini · 2018 · Cited by 56 — Influenza is a highly contagious disease caused by RNA viruses affecting ... To investigate the long-term effects of IAV infection on hippocampal ...

7 Surprising Health Complications From Cold and Flu ...https://www.everydayhealth.com › cold-flu-pictures › s...
16 Dec 2014 — Learn about side effects from cold and flu, and what to watch out for. ... some having long-term neurologic consequences, and about 1 in 5 dying. ... they have a cold, flu, chicken pox, fever, or similar illness because aspirin has ...

etc

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/13/2021 04:24:41 pm

FYI

Preprint
File available
2. INVESTIGATION OF RaTG13 AND THE 7896 CLADE
March 2021
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22382.33607
Project: DRASTIC
Lab: Billy Bostickson's Lab
Billy BosticksonBilly BosticksonYvette Ghannam

Reply
Fuddman
4/13/2021 09:25:19 pm

The authors of this study spent a lot of time and money to cast doubts on the the Chinese claim COV2 is real and exists in nature.

That's a good thing. However, It took the Nerd a short time on this blog to prove COV2 is a fake and does not exist in nature.

It's good to have others substantiate the premise.

PETER ROSS
4/13/2021 01:45:39 pm


Haven't exactly processed this one, but something about it is intriguing. Can't simply be about poisoning mice (people) by creatinganti-ferritin serology:

A Single Immunization with Spike-Functionalized Ferritin ...https://pubs.acs.org › doi
by AE Powell · 2021 · Cited by 18 — After a single immunization of mice with either of the two spike ferritin particles, ... After coating, plates were washed 3× with PBST and blocked ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike Protein has been a thing for quite some time:

Google: spike protein -sars -covid -mers -coronavirus
About 35,800,000 results (0.77 seconds)


G - Major spike protein G - Escherichia phage G4 - G gene ...https://www.uniprot.org › uniprot
Attaches the circulating virion to the bacterial lipopolysaccharides which serve as receptor for the virus. Determines the phage host-range. Probably triggers with ...
Protein namesi: Recommended n...
Virus hosti: Escherichia coli;‎
Gene namesi: Name:G

S - Truncated spike protein - Transmissible gastroenteritis ...https://www.uniprot.org › uniprot
Annotation systems. Systems used to automatically annotate proteins with high accuracy: UniRule (Expertly curated rules); ARBA (System generated rules) ...
Last modified: April 1, 2015 - v1

Spike protein-nucleocapsid interactions drive the budding of ...https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › ...
by M Suomalainen · 1992 · Cited by 191 — Semliki Forest virus (SFV) particles are released from infected cells by budding of nucleocapsids through plasma membrane regions that are modified by virus ...

Role of spike protein conformational changes in fusion of ...https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › ...
by J Justman · 1993 · Cited by 72 — The alphavirus Semliki Forest virus (SFV) and a number of other enveloped animal viruses infect cells via a membrane fusion reaction triggered by the low pH ...


Capsid/spike protein, ssDNA virus (IPR016184) - InterPro ...https://www.ebi.ac.uk › interpro › entry › IPR016184
This entry represents a coat protein found in ssDNA viruses, such as the capsid protein F and the spike protein G in Microviridae. , the Parvovirus capsid protein.

murine mAb: anti-Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV ...https://www.european-virus-archive.com › murine-mab...
Antibody or Hybridoma: Hybridoma cell culture supernatant containing anti-​PEDV antibodies; targeted antigen: spike protein; clone: 4H4B1; immunization ...
Rating: 4 · ‎1 review · ‎€300.00 · ‎In stock

Variation in the spike protein of the 793/B type of infectious ...https://www.tandfonline.com › ... › Volume 34, Issue 1
by D Cavanagh · 2005 · Cited by 115 — Sequence analysis of a 793/B field isolate after passage in embryonated eggs, then in chickens and then again in eggs revealed selection for a serine and alanine ...

Spike Protein Archives - UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacyhttps://pharmacy.unc.edu › research-interest › spike-pro...
Research Interest: Spike Protein. Name, Email, PhD Program, Research Interest, Publications. UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy logo. About · Accreditation

INFECTIOUS BRONCHITIS VIRUS (IBV) SPIKE PROTEIN AS ...https://app.dimensions.ai › patent › WO-2012117045-A1
Such proteins form trimer or tetramer structures and as such they mimic the natural context of the spike protein. The present invention further relates to subunit ...

S1 domain of the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus spike ...https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com › articles › figures
Expression of the recombinant PEDV S1 protein in PichiaPink Pichia pastoris. a A small scale S1 protein expression experiment was performed, and samples of ...

SPIKE ATM Signaling Networkhttp://www.cs.tau.ac.il › ~spike › listOfMaps_files › AT...
The protein is named for the disorder Ataxia telangiectasia caused by mutations of ATM. The protein encoded by this gene belongs to the PI3/PI4-kinase family.

Team:NYMU-Taipei/Parts - 2020.igem.orghttps://2020.igem.org › Team:NYMU-Taipei › Parts
This category includes the parts of original proteins or protein fragments, ranging from RBD of hACE2, pepP protease(for spike protein cleavage), and the ...

The Type VI Secretion System Spike Protein VgrG5 Mediates ...https://iai.asm.org › content
by IJ Toesca · 2014 · Cited by 78 — Pseudomallei group Burkholderia species are facultative intracellular parasites that spread efficiently from cell to cell by a mechanism involving the fusion of ...

6JX7: Cryo-EM structure of spike protein of feline ... - RCSB PDBhttps://www.rcsb.org › ...
6JX7: Cryo-EM structure of spike protein of feline infectious peritonitis virus strain UU4.

Type VI secretion system translocates a phage tail sp

Reply
Lois Gearhardt
4/16/2021 05:30:00 pm

I apologize for barging in... I was reading, have been reading, much of the fascinating discussions here. My question is wrt discussions of the furin cleavage, etc. My understanding was that the amazing efficacy of the ccp virus' infectiousness is due to having HIV proteins, as well HTLV 1&2 CRISPRed onto the spike (the Indian lab first found this Montagnier also). Discussion of hiv proteins suddenly became "furin" almost immediately in 2020. I bring this up also because Australia stopped with implementing one of the shots, because it was causing "hiv false positives." I wish I had my sources at hand, but they said they didn't want to public o lack confidence in that shot, what with the hiv positives happening. Later I read, that there were so many hiv positives, that the followed on with CD4+4 counts, and aha, the positives were not false. The study controllers decided that they would ascribe hiv infection to the afflicted having acquired hiv during the two week interim period around administering the jab and follow up. The jabbees were not happy because they were not engaging in high risk behavior. Something was done, as the jabbees have not spoken out, perhaps they cannot or settled? That's vague, and why I wish I could find my stash of articles and snippets. If the jabs are made to ramp up production of the spike proteins, Anyway, my understanding from reading other articles, papers on the conformation of the furin arrangement, what makes the virus "novel" is that hiv furin cleaving does not occur anywhere else in nature besides siv, hiv and ccp virus. Please, no ad hominem. .

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/13/2021 04:31:08 pm

Considering the Covid Syndromes from Toxicology POV:

Maybe environmental EMF microwave pollution is related to noxious commensal metabolites, such as diacetyl, in the progressive cascade to covid-associated pneumonias?
Recent items that may be of relevance:


1)
Lactobacillus Acidophilus and Lactobacillus Casei Exposed to Wi-Fi Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Show Enhanced Growth and Lactic Acid Production
Amanat S. Mazloomi S. M., Asadimehr H., Sadeghi F., Shekouhi F., and Mortazavi S. M. J.
J Biomed Phys Eng. 2020 Dec; 10(6): 745–750.
Published online 2020 Dec 1. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1056
PMCID: PMC7753256
PMID: 33364212

2)
Exosomes are released by bystander cells exposed to radiation-induced biophoton signals: Reconciling the mechanisms mediating the bystander effect
Michelle Le, ,* Cristian Fernandez-Palomo, Fiona E. McNeill, Colin B. Seymour, Andrew J. Rainbow, and Carmel E. Mothersill
Gayle E. Woloschak, Editor

PLoS One. 2017; 12(3): e0173685.
Published online 2017 Mar 9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173685
PMCID: PMC5344502
PMID: 28278290

3)
Breath gas metabolites and bacterial metagenomes from cystic fibrosis airways indicate active pH neutral 2,3-butanedione fermentation
by KL Whiteson · 2014 · Cited by 105 — ... breath gas metabolites were measured and several metagenomes ... in exhaled breath condensate samples (Tate et al., 2002; Ojoo et al., 2005) ... as diacetyl) and 2,3-butanediol (Figure 1) (Bartowsky and Henschke, 2004) ...
https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej2013229

Reply
Fuddman
4/14/2021 10:23:17 am

Is the RT PCR test dangerous?

On this blog, SARSCOV2, is a bioweapon created in a Biosafety level 4 (BSL-4). It was created in a BSL-4 lab because the creators knew SARSCOV 2 could cause a severe to fatal disease in humans for which there are no available vaccines or treatments.

In conducting an RT PCR test, the first step is to swab out a sample of SARS COV 2 from the patients nose. Does that swab, taken from the patients nose, contain the transmissible and fatal disease, SARSCOV2, which was developed in a BSL-4 lab? If that is, indeed, the case, then, at least one question is: why aren't patient swabs for the RT-PCR test taken exclusively in BSL 4 labs?


What am I missing?

Reply
David Rivard
4/14/2021 11:28:15 am

Links to the 3rd Yan Report,

11 hours ago, Dr. Yan 3rd Report

https://gnews.org/1091837/

https://virginiaproject.com/files/The_Yan_Report.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Limeng-Yan
("If I repost they will shut down my account")

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/dr-lawrence-sellin-unequivocal-evidence-chinese-scientist-dr-li-meng-yan-provides-proof-covid-19-created-chinas-military/

Reply
Fuddman
4/14/2021 01:57:49 pm

I'm beginning to be suspicious of Ms Yan.

This latest third report strikes me as boosting the fears now keeping the world in lock down.

Is that her intent? Let's look at something she said in one of her reports.

"If not controlled immediately, the virus may lead to a pandemic and, as a result, many mutants will emerge inevitably and rapidly."

What do you suppose she meant by "...if not controlled immediately?" To me, she is promoting fear and recommending a world wide lock down.

Nick Hudson and his group say world wide fear is causing the continuation of an unnecessary lock down. He shows through excess death statistics that the effects of the "virus" are no worse than the effects of a seasonal flu and, he concludes, the fear which is driving the lock down is unjustified.

https://www.biznews.com/global-citizen/2021/04/06/youtube-nick-hudson

This conclusion contradicts Yan who suggests the "virus" is very deadly and lock-downs are necessary.

Who's right?

Reply
Arnaud link
4/14/2021 02:21:47 pm

Deadly??? Truth is that if you have a look on mortality rate and life expectancy all over the world, all the pandemic is a very big fake news. Do this exercise seriously during a few minutes. Don't just focus on Covid death count. All this can be ended just now if there is a common wish. It's up to each of us.

Reply
Limeng Yan
4/18/2021 08:02:53 pm

Hi, Fuddman, Thanks for your comments on my reports. However, may I ask when and where I suggested SARS-CoV-2 is “very deadly” and support lockdown?
Actually, I emphasized that SARS2 is not high-deadly but “high contagiousness” + “deadly”.
For lockdown, I just provide the fact that China lockdown Wuhan 3days after my first exposure on 19 Jan, 2020. My exposure was not hypothesis but based on intelligence and my knowledge/experience (including understanding of real situation in Wuhan at that time). If China government didn’t do any action to control the outbreak in Wuhan and make it transparent to public at that time, how would the pandemic be after Chinese New Year (Wuhan is the biggest transpation hub in China)? To be clear, I didn’t expect Wuhan lockdown cos it was extremely inhumanity. It is decided by China government, which is another proof that China government never cares about human rights.

Reply
nonameneeded
4/14/2021 10:14:40 pm

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/41/25254

"Superantigenic character of an insert unique to SARS-CoV-2 spike supported by skewed TCR repertoire in patients with hyperinflammation"

Interesting article that focuses on the PRRA insert but not on the usual fact that it is a furin cleavage site. Apparently it's homologous to SEB (staphylococcal enterotoxin B), which facilitates T cell-MHC interaction and a hyperactivation of lots of T cells. The authors seem to speculate that this could explain things like hyperinflammatory syndrome in some individuals. Seems very plausible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterotoxin_type_B

The coincidence of this motif having both the FSC functionality and also superantigen functionality is hard to believe unless it was designed. Because how well a superantigen "works" to effect hyperinflammation in a population depends on the haplotypes (MHCII) in the population as well as the T cell receptor variable beta chain (TRVB) composition in said population, it is worth looking at whether the SEB-like motif in SARS-CoV-2 is optimized or deoptimized for certain ethnic groups. If the rumors are true, a virus that targets European or African haplotypes or T cell receptors over Asian T cell receptors could fit within the "ethnic bioweapon" paradigm.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/08/chinas-military-pursuing-biotech/159167/

"The 2017 edition of Science of Military Strategy (战略学), a textbook published by the PLA’s National Defense University that is considered to be relatively authoritative, debuted a section about biology as a domain of military struggle, similarly mentioning the potential for new kinds of biological warfare to include “specific ethnic genetic attacks."

Reply
Xoco Latte
4/15/2021 05:21:36 am

As far as the superantigenic motifs within the spike protein go, there is more and more supporting evidence from recent publications. As the haplotypic differences between Caucasian vs African vs Asian races ar involved, there less evidences although the striking difference between pandemic deaths in Asia vs North America and Europe speaks great lengths.

What is frigthening from this respect, is that ALL of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines developed so far target the spike protein WITHOUT alterations, i.e., any superantigenic motifs left intact. What would be the consequences of that with the vaccinated population, especially when adolescents and children will be soon vaccinated as well?

Reply
nonameneeded
4/15/2021 07:01:09 am

I am actually a clinical immunologist and working in basic virology (would not quite call myself a virologist) and am kind of shocked at how I didn't pick up on this sooner. I had attributed the hyperinflammation to a generic T cell lymphopenia (which other coronaviruses have caused) leading to uncompensated viral-induced innate/monocyte driven inflammation - akin to infection-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.

The Bahar paper cites also this work:

https://doi.org/10.1089/vim.2004.17.528

Which indicates that as far back as 2004 scientists in China were focusing on the superantigenic potential of coronaviruses and of SARS in particular. Kind of a niche approach and very insightful, as again I would not jump to that as the main explanation of inflammation in these infections (again thinking of innate vs adaptive imbalance driven by T cell lymphopenia). And, again, SARS-CoV1 did not quite have the pleiotropic properties affecting many tissues with inflammation and hypercoagulability as does SARS-CoV2. SARS-CoV1 tended to stick to the pulmonary compartment.

The bigger question may be whether S protein has intrinsic pro-coagulative properties driven by this superantigen. I've found papers pointing to the staphylococcal enterotoxin superantigen (SEB) eliciting tissue factor expression by monocytes. If so, this could not only explain coagulation in SARS-CoV2 infection, but more importantly could point to this occurring with isolated high levels of S protein in a sterile setting - totally outside of infection. If this is the case, the S protein generated by the vaccines could indeed by the culprit. NOT the adenovirus vector which was blamed by many biased scientists who have been doing a hit job on AstraZeneca and now on J&J.

It is curious indeed how the S protein generated at very high levels in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines somehow doesn't induce T cell pan-activation and possibly hypercoagulability. Indeed, the curious way in which these immunizations on the 2nd dose in particular seem to induce very rapid responses with high fever, etc. highly atypical for vaccination in adults (I know multiple cases of fever as high as 104F) does prompt me to delve deeper into the intrinsic proinflammatory and procoagulative properties of S protein itself in interaction with the adaptive or innate immune system.

And, if the PRRA furin cleavage site just happens to be nested in a superantigen, is there ANY doubt about this having been introduced through human intervention?

Errata
4/17/2021 05:05:23 pm

@nonameneeded wrote(4/14/2021): "it is worth looking at whether the SEB-like motif in SARS-CoV-2 is optimized or deoptimized for certain ethnic groups. If the rumors are true, a virus that targets European or African haplotypes or T cell receptors over Asian T cell receptors could fit within the 'ethnic bioweapon' paradigm."

This is interesting because a bioweapon release must be preceded by a vaccination campaign unless it is ethnically targeted. There is evidence of vaccinations, see Nerd's earlier comment.

Nerd wrote(1/30/2021): "the most interesting finding in Dr. Quay's paper is the adenovirus sequences found in the raw sequencing reads that Zhengli Shi used in assembling those earliest SARS-CoV-2 genomes. Note that these adenovirus sequences are not in the assembled SARS-COV-2 genome, but in some raw sequencing reads."

This implies that a vaccine already existed at the time the outbreak began. Presumably this is the same vaccine being sold now, after a judicious wait, to countries such as Brazil.

Sinovac in Brazil has had a mediocre track record. In light of the low efficacy of their vaccine, it is plausible that it is not the whole story. A marginal vaccine is good enough if the virus is an 'ethnic bioweapon.'

The bioweapon thesis is not a sterile abstraction. It makes predictions. Evidence for vaccination predating the outbreak is predicted. Evidence for ethnic targeting is predicted. If either is found then the standard for inductive proof has been met.

Reply
Limeng Yan
4/18/2021 08:35:50 pm

Hi, nonameneeded,
Yes, your concerns above of potential risk induced by S protein in Covid-19 vaccines are also mine. That’s why it’s critical to realize the origin of SARS2 and push China government to hand out the secrets in the design (even unsuccessful/nonfunctional changes) for further global investigation.

nonameneeded
4/18/2021 08:58:20 pm

While vaccination is optimal, a bioweapon release does not mandate such in a society like China were the authorities knew the level of control could be brought to bear to eradicate the infection through brutal quarantine, lockdowns, remote monitoring, etc. Furthermore, widespread rollout of a vaccine before a pandemic would have been impossible to conceive and would be proof positive of nefariousness - both to their own citizens and the outside world.

Also, judging from the Sinopharm/Sinovac outcomes thus far (much lower efficacy than the American/German/British/Russian/Belgian competitors), I would politely suggest that Chinese vaccinology is significantly behind their Western counterparts, even if their pure coronavirus virology is arguably top notch (at least technically, if not by safety standards). Even the Chinese CanSino vaccine utilizes a less desirable adenovirus, Ad5, for which many potential recipients have antibodies already (thus depressing effectiveness), and which had a bad outcome in HIV trials. The other adenoviral vectored vaccines used arguably more sophisticated approaches (chimpanzee for AstraZeneca, Ad26 for J&J, and heterologous prime-boost Ad26 and Ad5 for Sputnik V). For all we know, China already had prepared some of these candidates (CanSino, Sinopharm, and Sinovac) well in advance of the pandemic erupting, and launched their vaccine trials at a plausible date.

evidence
4/16/2021 06:06:55 am

Re: 1) Super-antigenicity of extended PRRA stretch with putative Moderna patent sequence included
2) Coagulation pathways related to Covid and vaccines, and pleiotropic properties of CoV2 as compared to SARS1

[Reply to preceeding post by nonameneeded 4/14/2021 10:14:40 pm, 4/15/2021 07:01:09 am ]

1) Features of the super-antigenic stretch around PRRA.
It has been mentioned already earlier, but I also would like again to bring in mind the Drastic twitter group; they discussed last month Bela Ambati's (Oregon) Blast findings: on top of everything else, the FCS and its vicinity region also contains an approximately 19 nt long sequence pattern which was patented by Moderna in 2016, nowhere else found in investigated organisms:

https://nitter.nixnet.services/Daoyu15/with_replies?cursor=HBaEgKe1hLf7oSYAAA%3D%3D
https://nitter.tedomum.net/Rossana38510044/status/1370620481267720196#m

cf. also above comment in this blog:
[search for: Drastic 2/16/2021 10:14:32 pm ]

1.a) with respect to the superangenicity of that artificially inserted FCS/PRRAR region (approx. AA 675-690): might be interesting if BNT162b2 WITHOUT that entire super-antigenic stretch ( AA 675 - 690) applied for children and adolescents could deliver comparable protection against Covid, but with a considerably reduced risk of adverse events - my guess: it would result in sufficient protective efficacy (let's say aproxim. 70%) with a way better safety profile
[cf. my earlier posts: evidence 1/23/2021 12:14:59 pm ; evidence 1/26/2021 04:10:09 am].
But as money talks, they would probably not develop this any more. And normally kids would actually not need it (except for maybe some risk group kids). - As we should also not forget the SMDT (Sequence Multi Drug Therapy) protocol by McCulllogh et al:
https://rcm.imrpress.com/article/2020/2153-8174/RCM2020264.shtml
might also work - with possibly also better safety profile, at least for some patient groups, (as compared to vaccines) - if applied in a timely manner.

2) Diverse pathophysiological pathways of involved coagulation effects.
(2.a) For the VECTOR based vaccines, there is HIT 2 being the highly likely complication, obviously most likely because of that large, negatively charged, approximately 40kB adenovirus DNA bulk; hence this being likely a class effect for all vector based vaccs. My personal prediction: with the stellar success of mRNA vaccs, vector based vaccs won't survive the Covid pandemic, since one gets the same result as compared to the RNA vaccines (here: the S-protein antigen), but always with the price of two additional risks (which do not come with RNA vaccines): (1) cell nucleus pathway involved, hence possible interaction with the genome; (2) negatively charged large vector DNA macro-molecules which potentially trigger HIT: just because of its size (in the same way like high-molecular heparin), leading to large thrombotic-embolic events.
(2.b) But apart from that (vector vacc induced HIT), I suspect the coagulation pathway for Covid itself (corroborated by research studies) goes primarily via LOCALIZED inflammation of the endothelial cell line in SMALL vessels of affected organs/organ tissue, after the CoV2 virus has entered the endothelial cells via ACE2 [extrinsic coagulation pathway via tissue factor etc.].
(For that, you do not have to invoke a model of DIRECT interaction of the virus with freely circulating immune cells, or obligatorily via the complement pathway - it might contribute, but it is neither sufficient nor required to explain the entire phenomenology, cf. below).
This implies that it does not go exclusively at first place via platelet aggregation only. (Despite ACE2 also being on platelets, and despite the fact, that CoV2 has been also found inside platelets.)
My assumption stems from the fact, that according to autopsy studies, the DIC pathophysiology (which often can be seen for late, severe Covid) does not occur ubiquitously, but is normally strictly localized specifically to SMALL blood vessels of the correspondingly AFFECTED inner organ tissue (lung, kidney, brain, heart).
(2.b.1) And the reason, why this has not been found (to such an extreme end) in SARS1 as compared to CoV2: the pathophysiological effects of SARS1 (w/o FCS) vs CoV2 (with FCS) are different with respect to syncitia formation: you have it for CoV2 (generated by intracellular furin cutting the FCS), while you do not have it for SARS1 (despite similar tissue tropism due to similar ACE2-RBD); with this notion, this pathophysiological effect can be specifically attributed to the FCS:
[cf
Follis et al (2006):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682206000900?via%3Dihub
Hoffmann M(05/2020)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7194065/pdf/main.pdf
]
Hence, the IMMEDIATE DESTRUCTION via syncitia formation of VULNERABLE tissue (lung, small vessels), while the virus is budding and transfecting adjacent cells, is far more severe in CoV2 as compared to SARS1, spec

Reply
evidence
4/16/2021 06:13:32 am

Hence, the IMMEDIATE DESTRUCTION via syncitia formation of VULNERABLE tissue (lung, small vessels), while the virus is budding and transfecting adjacent cells, is far more severe in CoV2 as compared to SARS1, specifically due to the FCS - likely resulting in a way stronger immune response (cytokine storm), particularly as soon as CoV2 has invaded inner organ tissue with vulnerable architecture (and the super-sterile blood vessel compartment in particular) - which subsequently also results in stronger coagulation effects as soon as endothelial cells are involved and compromised, as they form likely likewise syncitia, and by doing this, get more strongly inflamed/induce a way stronger inflammation response (as compared to SARS1), and subsequently stronger coagulopathy effects.
So, we can make the FCS responsible even for all those pleiotropic effects as compared to SARS1: by forming syncitia, transfection to neighboring cells is enhanced, and CoV2 also works ('burns') itself easilier through tissue as compared to SARS1.
(2.c) So, according to this model, and in particular since BNT162b2 and the Moderna vaccine S protein stays in prefusion state, I am not extremely concerned, that there would be too many coagulation complications for those RNA vaccines as well (as compared to Covid itself and as compared to the vector vaccs - both for different reasons) - and the (statistical/empirical) data so far does not support this putative risk either.
But probably more animal models and autopsy investigations (for example of individuals which had died of stroke or bleeding after Moderna or Biontech vaccination) are still needed for confirmation and addressing this issue,
[ cf
https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595
EMA reply:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/other/reply-open-letter-concerning-vaccines-covid-19_en.pdf
]
#

Reply
Davd Rivard
4/16/2021 09:45:37 am

OK, I am all ears. Being in a small country with an unusually transparent President who has meticulously shared data and competently managed covid events, we took the Pfizer vaccine in order to travel. Like individuals and small counties alike, you choose to act pragmatically. My wife and I looked at one another other and said: "Now we can buy 5g phones!"

I hope we remain light hearted, but I'll report our anecdotal evidence nonetheless.

Reply
David Rvard
4/16/2021 10:06:57 am

The government treatment, which includes Ivermectin, acetaminofen, aspirin, zinc and an assortment of vitamins, is delivered in a box to anyone calling in with symptoms (maybe relevant to research). It has a reported near 100% efficacy if taken within 3 days of symptoms. Citizens are urged to also check oxygen saturation levels and report if under 95.

As WHO/PAHO seem to be less trusted and clearly less organized than several local national health systems, we are considering to broker a regional covid summit...yes, after one year of this continued circumstance.

Reply
Fuddman
4/16/2021 02:21:42 pm

The thinking of the posters on this blog seem bizarre to me.

It strikes me as odd when posters talk about the characteristics, consequences and vaccines for an organism, COV2, which the author of this blog has proven does not exist.

Furthermore, the blogs' bold, lead, header - "RATG13 IS FAKE" - doesn't seem to have penetrated the thinking of recent, evidently, intelligent posters.

That claim, "RATG13 IS FAKE," in effect, says virtually all the COV2 studies (& learned blog posts) produced from January 11, 2020 to this date are also "Fake."

January 11, 2020 is the day a Wuhan employee by the name of Shi Zhengli went to her boss and told him the RATG13 (the FAKE) was part of the sequence of an "new" (that's important) organism.

Shortly thereafter, this "new virus' started showing up everywhere around the globe. How was it that any common, everyday, researcher in any part of the world was able to "find" the "new (fake) virus?" And then,(following all the ooohs and ahhhs of the cognoscenti) write a peer reviewed study on it.

Simple. By use of the universally accepted RT-PCR test.

Except there is this nagging question. How is it possible for the RT-PCR test to confirm the presence of an organism composed of RATG-13? Which everyone knows is fake (at least on this blog)?

Reply
Errata
4/17/2021 03:24:48 pm

@Fuddman: "It strikes me as odd when posters talk about the characteristics, consequences and vaccines for an organism, COV2, which the author of this blog has proven does not exist."

Nerd has proven no such thing. He asserts that RaTG13 can not be used as evidence that the CoV2 outbreak is due to a natural spillover because RaTG13 was fabricated to give that appearance and deceive us. He believes CoV2 is a real virus modified in the lab from a bat virus backbone by inserting a furin cleavage site and swapping the RNA binding domain with one designed to bind well with human ACE2.

Reply
David Rivard
4/17/2021 10:42:23 am

It occurred to me that a part of the public hesitancy with covid vaccination (outside of a previous but small legacy population against vaccination of the U.S. public), is perpetuated by the CDC website itself. Despite strongly recommending vaccination to more quickly achieve "herd immunity", even in the face of variant infection, "Coronavirus Vaccine Update From the CDC With Nancy E. Messonnier, MD",

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/conversations-with-dr-bauchner

the JAMA Network, the CDC linked authority to the U.S. public, still defines C-19 as the "Bat Coronavirus", where polls say that most of the U.S. public believes it emanated from a lab.

If the CDC's Mission is “to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same. CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise".

The Mission Statement has changed from the previous administration to specifically address concerns about C-19. Thus, with the definition of the threat being "the bat-coronavirus" (since January 2020, how did they know so early?), how can JAMA accept any paper contrary to this definition?

Maintaining this definition, so early in the pandemic and persisting after much other research has come to light, is making it more difficult to achieve both the CDC Mission and achieving their stated "C-19 herd immunity" through vaccination in a seeming (and ironic from a scientific standpoint) religious attempt to fight C-19. This erodes the public trust even further with all infectious disease controlled by vaccination.

If utilitarian, much less common sense prevailed with those in charge of the CDC's advertising budget, they would convince a more willing public to receive vaccinations by admitting to a scientifically unknown source. They would get more compliance if they said it was from a lab. They would get close to 100% compliance if they said "this was designed for bio-warfare and it is the best defense we have so far".

Reply
Errata
4/17/2021 04:30:57 pm

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Dr. Yan et al. portrayed CoV2 as a lab construct built by modifying a bat virus like ZC45 with a CoV1-like RBD swapped in. The CCP would have us believe that it evolved naturally from a bat virus like RaTG13. Although RaTG13 is also a lab construct, it presumably was built by modifying a bat virus with the RDRP from RaBtCoV/4991 swapped in. These all started out as bat viruses. Is it really correct to deny CoV2 is a bat virus just because it is also a lab product?

Good point about telling the truth. The vaccine reluctant are primarily Republicans. They are mistrustful of what Democrats and the Liberal Media claim. They feel lied to. Winning them over starts with the truth. The CCP is acting like it was a bioweapon attack therefore it was a bioweapon attack. Pink sky arguments go nowhere; they know the sky is blue. Biden's CDC under Walenski is not going to make progress with Republicans starting with a misrepresentation of the virus and following that up with a "trust us on the vaccine."

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/17/2021 11:19:58 am

https://www.samueleckert.net/isolat-truth-fund/

Reply
Fuddman
4/17/2021 12:01:12 pm

I failed German in college. Is there an English version to this site?


Some German organization offering over 1 million dollars for:

"million € for scientific proof of the existence of a corona virus, including documented control attempts of all steps taken in the proof."

You would think one of those thousands of authors of those thousands of peer reviewed covid studies is sure to step up to grab that easy money.

Reply
Errata
4/17/2021 06:22:45 pm

@Fuddman: I browsed the website for you. It is a virus denier site with a rant along the lines we hear from Peter Ross. There is a page there that enumerates seven lines of reasoning which it coaches proponents on countering. Basically, all scientific evidence is indirect and they find one way or another to reject any proof that might be offered for the existence of the CoV2 virus.

I would call this a scam site. The offer of a million euros is just a come-on and they will meet any takers with the arguments from that list of seven. One would have to sue them in court to claim the money. The idea behind this kind of operation is that the founder can solicit donations and speaker fees, pay himself from what the organization raises, give himself a company car and have all expense paid trips for speaking engagements. He can live well and when the lawsuit goes against him, the organization is bankrupted but he just finds another such scam and creates another such organization. Unscrupulous people like this exist. I first became aware of the evils of pseudo-science when I took note of Peter Duesberg. I wonder if it is really a coincidence that he too was German.

David Rivard
4/20/2021 10:28:35 am

and hmmm, at least in this country there is, to date, 67,557 positive (in situ) PCR test verified C-19 cases, and we are the only country that does not lie. The global total confirmed today is 142,293,386. This means that, with all other countries lying, there is a 99.954 percent chance of C-19 being fake. Peter's analysis is brilliant.

PETER ROSS
4/17/2021 11:23:03 am

EMF-sensitive GMO Crops & Animals & Ozone
Is COVID-19 caused by a weaponized virus or by a weaponized bacteria?
https://t.me/PetrusMax

Reply
Errata
4/17/2021 03:31:10 pm

If COVID-19 were caused by a bacteria, it would respond to antibiotics which it does not. Furthermore the pathogen would have been quickly found under a microscope.

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/17/2021 08:55:43 pm

@Errata

It would be normal to see lactobacillus sp. in BAL exam. especially in the average covid victim who is immunocompromised patient with mutliple co-morbidities.

Children don't get covid, so the epidemeology pattern naturally directs to consider toxicolgy as an etiology. Furthermore, asymptomatic transmission and person-to-person transmission have not been demonstrated.

Resistance can be engineered, and lacto is already resistance wide-spectrum.

Autopsies were essentially banned anyway. Many CT scans of covid pneumonia were indistinguishable from EVALI , which also can have similar rapid hypoxic deterioration.

Lacto can be engineered to overproduce diacetyl and for overgrowth to EMF exposure.

"Probiotics in the prophylaxis of COVID-19: something is better ...https://link.springer.com › article
by K Gohil · 2021 · Cited by 4 — Some patients with COVID-19 showed a striking dysbiosis in the probiotic group of intestinal microbes such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium ..."

Biological warfare, like all warfare, is based upon deception, including sophisticated disinformation campaigns; cetainly the "official narrative" Wuhan lab story, entirely or in part, could be such.
Mixtures of pathogens is a standard approach to biowarfare.

There is no virus - nor protein parts of the virus - to be isolated and purified from in vivo samples.

There is also no substantial excess death rate in any venue, and most reports of death from covid are, upon deeper scrutiny, actually deaths with covid, based upon a positive PCR, which is a fake test.

Covid911 is fundamentally a plague comprising a well-orchestrated disinformation campaign focused on installing totalitarian globalist agendas accompanied by some weird demand to inject even the healthy with GMO synthetic RNA wrapped inside PEG vesicles, a well-known antigen.

"Anti-vax website" is a slur you should learn to avoid.- along with "shooting the messenger" ad hominems. Why associate oneself to the disinformation campaigns?
To be clear: even ignoring the massive evidence of vaccine-induced injuries accumulated over the past 50 years – most of which were already initially outmoded due to medical and social advances - at least three major vaccine preparations have been abruptly discontinued within the past 4 month period:

11 Dec 2020 — Covid: Australian vaccine abandoned over false HIV response ... A promising Australian candidate for a coronavirus vaccine has been abandoned ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55269381

30 Mar 2021 — Germany halts use of AstraZeneca for under-60s. Germany's permanent vaccine commission, known by the short name STIKO, earlier on ...
Germany restricts use of AstraZeneca vaccine to over 60s in ...
https://www.dw.com › germany-restricts-use-of-astraze...

4 days ago — Johnson & Johnson has paused its EU rollout, which started this week. It follows similar cases after doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which ...
Johnson & Johnson vaccine paused over rare blood clots ...
https://www.bbc.com › world-us-canada-56733715

COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE MODERNA (CX-024414)
COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE PFIZER-BIONTECH (TOZINAMERAN)
COVID-19 VACCINE ASTRAZENECA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19)
COVID-19 VACCINE JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S)
http://www.adrreports.eu/en/search_subst.html#


To reiterate: nothing especially sci-fi about considering toxic GMO commensals that target immunocompromised individuals.

ape link
4/18/2021 08:53:29 am

"Children don't get covid"?

Reply
Fuddman
4/18/2021 09:21:27 am

"Biological warfare, like all warfare, is based upon deception, including sophisticated disinformation campaigns..."

I think you're onto something here. Namely, you are creating a relationship between 3 elements - the thing called cov2, bio weapons and deception. Sort of like this: cov2 + bio weapon = deception.

There has been tons of discussions on the cov2 thing. Some very limited discussions on the bio weapon idea. And virtually no discussion on the idea of a deception.

So lets open a discussion on deception. I'll start. Here is a piece, written early on, 3/20/2020, about China, covid and deception.

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-china-built-a-twitter-propaganda-machine-then-let-it-loose-on-coronavirus


Reply
Fuddman
4/18/2021 01:45:42 pm

Some quotes from the cited reference:

"Since August 2019, ProPublica has tracked more than 10,000 suspected fake Twitter accounts involved in a coordinated influence campaign with ties to the Chinese government."

"...[Chinese] government-linked influence accounts that had targeted political dissidents and the Hong Kong protests turned their focus to the coronavirus outbreak. "

Reply
Errata
4/18/2021 05:41:10 pm

CoV2 + deception = bioweapon

Reply
Nerd has power
4/18/2021 06:31:08 pm

@Fuddman

If you understand my blog, you would know my opinion here – SARS-CoV-2 is a REAL virus and a bioweapon created by the CCP. I have never said or implicated that SAR-CoV-2 does not exist. So please stop saying “nerd has proved that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist”. It is not true. You would be practically facilitating their misinformation campaign if you keep making such a comment.

@PETER ROSS

I might have to ask you to prove your points that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist or COVID is caused by bacterial infection rather than viral infection. The RT-PCR test for COVID is working fine and is reliable. Viral sequences have been detected from COVID patients in every part of the world. Sequencing results all confirmed that the infections are caused by the viral pathogen SARS-CoV-2 (although different variants). Your thesis has no support in my opinion.

I would therefore suggest that you provide evidence to prove my points wrong or prove your own thesis right. Otherwise, please stop posting such information. I have never asked anybody to not visit this site or not leave comments here. However, this forum is for honest discussions that are based on validated facts and logic. I am afraid that information provided by you, which comes in significant volumes, does not contribute in that regard and rather dilutes the valuable information provided by others. So, please prove your points first.

@David

Glad to know that your country is doing so well in containing COVID. Ivermectin does seem to be effective. Is HCQ available to your people? According to Dr. Yan, HCQ seems to have less safety concerns. I really think this cheap and effective drug is THE solution, rather than the vaccines. Early treatment with HCQ would prevent practically everybody from developing severe diseases. If only the world is allowed to use it and is educated on how to use it effectively ……

@nonameneeded, evidence, Errata

I really enjoyed learning your analyses of the COVID complications, especially on the blood clotting. I am no expert in this area and have learned quite a bit from reading your posts and some of your provided papers. The superantigen aspect of the FCS site is astonishing. However, if I’m allowed to be picky, this PNAS study is purely based on simulations and computational modeling of protein-protein interactions. I don’t know whether I could be fully convinced when this practice is known to be a bit unreliable and at the same time not a single assay was used to verify these computational predictions.

I also don’t know whether this is an ethnic-specific design, although I do know that the CCP has interests in developing bioweapons targeting specific ethnic groups. I think the PNAS paper itself also hinted such a possibility (patients in Europe and US were reported develop such complications, while no such incidents were reported for patients from China, Japan, or South Korea). However, I want to point out that MANY people died in Wuhan, unlike what the CCP had reported. The situation was magnitudes-worse, and many people collapsed suddenly on the streets of Wuhan. So, in that sense, even if it was a design to target non-Asian ethnic groups, it was not a successful one. Maybe we will see that design in the next pandemic, if the CCP gets away this time.

@evidence, if I understand correctly, you believe that the blood clotting seen in COVID patients and adenovirus-based vaccine recipients may be caused by different mechanisms. It was a fascinating analysis, which looks quite valid to me (as unqualified to judge as I am). However, like Errata recently reminded us, the molecular mimicry between Spike and human proteins is significant. We have discussed about this months ago and raised the possibility of auto immune risks as a result of this mimicry. Apparently, there is some recent study suggesting that this could be the reality:

Functional autoantibodies against G-protein coupled receptors in patients with persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589909021000204

It seems to me that this is something that deserves a lot of attention. Maybe you want to incorporate into your analysis as well.

Reply
nonameneeded
4/18/2021 09:04:07 pm

Your point about the superantigen paper is well taken. It's computational and that's its weakness. This really invites a tour de force paper demonstrating that the putative superantigen acts as such in humanized mice (with hACE2 and hematopoietic cells). There are many clinical papers emerging showing associations between certain TRVBs and severe disease/MISC/hyperinflammation, although of course that is not proof that this is mediated through a nonspecific superantigenic effect.

Again, if it is a bona fide superantigen that nests the FCS, I think the theory that it is natural can be laid to rest. It beggars belief that two different structures that would enhance disease both at the virologic level and the immunologic level would not only be coincidentally present but also overlap. However, it doesn't prove intentional release of course.

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/19/2021 12:13:10 am

@nerd


"I might have to ask you to prove your points "

- I'm glad you're asking for clarifications. I hope it's ok that I respond for now with a very rough draft - I've been awake for longer than I remember and gonna grab some sleep.

1) "that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist"

- such a virus - nor protein parts thereof - has never been directly observed in vivo in a patient, dead or alive. The same is true for the monkey cell cultures that are a triple mix of green monkey, human, and bovine tissues. Same applies for when the green monkey cells are substituted with allogeneic human embryonic kidney cells: the supenatents of such cultures are an entangled mixture of millions, perhaps billions, of RNA and DNA fragments, proteins, lipids, and exosomes that derive from the three different species, as well as their endogenous RNA retrovirus particles.
Such a mixture doesn't even make Rhesus macaques sick when stuffed down their respiratory tract, which is quite surprising, considering how much foreign junk from multiple species is present in the innoculate.. Maybe the supernatent actually does contain a SARS-CoV-2 entity produced by the green monkey cells but lacks the appropriate lipids and glycosylation, or the mixture contains inhibitors?
Why not use affinity chromatgrapghy to bring the virus to purity, using a protocol; similar to the ones used to purify exosomes? Is there a gel electrophoresis to demonstrate the 30,000 nt genome?
Since there is no intact SARS-CoV-2 in such an "isolate", probes and primers based upon the original SARS from 2002 are used to amplify from among the millions of fragments enough fragments from which to contruct an in silico genome based upon the original SARS as a template, which itself was original a arrived at theroetical construct in the same type of indirect, multistep process starting from the multi-species mixture. In other words, it's a theoretical construct. There never was an intact, purified 30,000 nt monkey SARS genome to sequence, only all kinds of fragments pre-determined to fit into a predetermined theroetical genome.
So the point is that in such a multiple step process starting with such a huge and diverse pool of fragments, an in silico genome of any RNA virus can be reproduced. By way of example, choose an influenza genome as the theoretical template and the patient will have influenza. And with every lab using the same protocol there will be slight differences, e.g. mutations.

, 2) "COVID is caused by bacterial infection rather than viral infection"

That seems like a biological warfare possibility worth considering. Fecal-oral or food transmission can also fit the epidemolgical pattern. A lactobacillus engineered to overproduce diactyl might mimick the same respiratory signs and symptoms. HCQ would be a drug of choice.
I never tried this out myself but you can ask Bill Gates and Carlos Slim who have a BSL bacillus operation in Mexico, with branches in China and all kinds of places. They like to play around with EMF stimulation of microorganisms, it's not all a GMO corn and potatoes operation.
I noticed a few publications suggesing that lactobacillus supplement can be very helpful for the covid.

3) "The RT-PCR test for COVID is working fine and is reliable."

That explains why so many asymptomatic people get quarantied?
It is useful to manipulate the morbidity and mortality statistics, anyone dying within 28 days of one positive PCR and the death certificate says: "died from covid". The average age for dying with a covid diagnosis is the same age as average lifespan.
Take away the PCR and nobody would notice there's another flu season.
You know it's not just CCP running the massive psychological warfare with global coverage that is at the heart of the plandemic.
It's always been about jabbing the entire world as the only feasible solution.

4) "Viral sequences have been detected from COVID patients in every part of the world."

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The virus, nor protein parts thereof, have never been directly observed and isolated from a patient, live or dead.
Are blood titers being used now for clinical management?

5) "Sequencing results all confirmed that the infections are caused by the viral pathogen SARS-CoV-2 (although different variants)."

I hope I addressed that in answer 1), but certainly I could be completely misunderstanding the process. So kindly correct me.

6) "Your thesis has no support in my opinion."

Well your thesis makes complete sense and had a lot of heursitic value for me personally. I feel lucky to have stumbled across this blog. It even got me to doing the BLAST thing and coming across the superantigen possibility.
One of my doubts is about the person to person transmission route - that seems more like a tradtional assumption lacking direct evidence; frankly it's suspicious that direct person-to-person experiemtns haven't been mentioned, considering that the entire planet has been on prison lockdo

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/19/2021 12:15:47 am

of my doubts is about the person to person transmission route - that seems more like a tradtional assumption lacking direct evidence; frankly it's suspicious that direct person-to-person experiemtns haven't been mentioned, considering that the entire planet has been on prison lockdowns for only that theoretical reason.
Maybe I'm more paranoid and got to wondering if the entire Wuhan story isn't a carefully contrived deception. This globalist cabal has been planning this NWO SnotSea takeover for at least 30 years and more likely since befoe 1918, which wasn't "Influenza", not even contagious. More likely it was genocide by jabs promoted by a dude from Seattle named Gates. That was the playbook too in 1976 and 2009 and lots of supsicious happenings in between.

It's not heresy to be thinking about what needs to be ruled-out and not just what can be fit together to be ruled-in.

Bro
4/21/2021 05:58:42 pm

You can find the virus phylogeny tree here: https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global

These are made from samples all over the world. Are you saying these are also fake!

nonameneeded
4/18/2021 09:53:06 pm

I think it is worth directing our attention to the vaccine debacle, namely the current J&J suspension. This vaccine was deemed to be the "promised one" because of it's one-shot and low cost features, stable for months in the refrigerator. While its suspension is ostensibly to ensure its hazards don't outweigh the benefits, I am frankly incredulous that Moderna's and Pfizer's mRNA vaccines have not in their own right precipitated platelet abnormalities. I have seen quite a number of reports of ITP after these vaccines, not to mention anaphylaxis.

It is little reported that Moderna was developed at NIH's vaccine research center under the supervision (although not the scientific expertise - he does not have the competence for that) of one Anthony Fauci. He is deeply conflicted in his role as director of an NIH institute, advisor to the President, CDC overseer it would seem (he and not the CDC director seems to be the public health authority all the media flock to), and also purveyor of one of the main vaccines. He is thus incapable of objectivity when it comes to vaccines, and his influence in the J&J suspension is unmistakable.

Fauci's pushing remdesivir via Gilead and attack on hydroxychloroquine was also propped up by a panel of "experts" who were on Gilead's payroll

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/panel-financial-disclosure/

The clinical trial was conducted at NIH with initially reasonable clinical end points:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04280705

"Primary Outcome Measures:
1. Percentage of subjects reporting each severity rating on an 8-point ordinal scale
The ordinal scale is an assessment of the clinical status at the first assessment of a given study day. The scale is as follows: 1) Death; 2) Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3) Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4) Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5) Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen - requiring ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise); 6) Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care; 7) Not hospitalized, limitation on activities and/or requiring home oxygen; 8) Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities.

[Time Frame: Day 15]"

They then changed this mid-trial to a different and arguably much less relevant end-point:

"Primary Outcome Measures :
Time to Recovery [ Time Frame: Day 1 through Day 29 ]
Day of recovery is defined as the first day on which the subject satisfies one of the following three categories from the ordinal scale: 1) Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care; 2) Not hospitalized, limitation on activities and/or requiring home oxygen; 3) Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities."

Why? Because if they kept the primary endpoint mortality, life support, hospitalization, etc. they would not have significance. They then unblinded the data before the trial was completed "for ethical reasons" (what? time to hospital discharge? it was no longer mortality that was part of the primary endpoint) and Fauci announced that remdesivir was "standard of care" for a drug that did not even had EUA much less FDA approval. Scandalous behavior.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/dr-anthony-fauci-says-data-from-remdesivir-coronavirus-drug-trial-shows-quite-good-news.html

The WHO has since then stated that remdesivir has significant toxicities and doesn't really work and doesn't recommend it:

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-recommends-against-the-use-of-remdesivir-in-covid-19-patients

"WHO has issued a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients, regardless of disease severity, as there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients.
...
The evidence suggested no important effect on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes."


Fauci's associates this past fall put out a thinly veiled attack on adenoviral vectored vaccine candidates, narrowly keeping it at Ad5, but the broader implication of choosing Moderna and...maybe...Pfizer, over these "dangerous" adenoviral vectored vaccines, was unmistakeable.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32156-5/fulltext

October 31, 2020

Use of adenovirus type-5 vectored vaccines: a cautionary tale

Susan P Buchbinder
M Juliana McElrath
Carl Dieffenbach
Lawrence Corey


I would refer you to the following:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6179/49

Immune Activation with HIV Vaccines

Anthony S. Fauci1, Mary A. Marovich1, Carl W. Dieffenbach1, Eric Hunter2, Susan P. Buchbinder3

Fauci's absence from the 2020 paper is most curious given his other colleagues being together with him on this same topic (and him first author!) in the 2014 p

Reply
nonameneeded
4/18/2021 09:54:46 pm

Fauci's absence from the 2020 paper is most curious given his other colleagues being together with him on this same topic (and him first author!) in the 2014 paper. I suppose it would be too obvious how badly he was shilling for Moderna if he were on the most recent commentary.

But he could hardly resist the temptation to gently bash J&J:

https://kfgo.com/2021/04/16/jj-scientists-refute-class-effect-to-blame-for-clots-in-those-who-got-its-covid-19-vaccine/

"In an interview with Reuters on Thursday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top U.S. infectious disease expert and an adviser to the White House, said the fact that they are both adenovirus vector vaccines is a "pretty obvious clue" that the cases could be linked to the vector.

"Whether that is the reason, I can't say for sure, but it certainly is something that raises suspicion," Fauci said."

J&J cogently rejected the class effect insinuation:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106075

By the way, for those NOT in the know, the FDA people reviewing coronavirus meds are many of them former colleagues and trainees of Fauci. So they take his machinations behind the scenes very seriously. His influence goes far beyond NIH to FDA and CDC, and not just the media circus.

The reality is, the damage to J&J and potentially all adenovirus vectored vaccines in the public view has been done. Even if/when it resumes, people will be flocking to the mRNA vaccines, which was Fauci's and Pfizer's desire all along. My suspicion is that this is because Pfizer and especially Moderna do not generate as good CD8 T cell responses (and overall T cell responses) as the adenoviral vaccines, which may also affect the duration of immune memory and the breadth of defense against these variants. J&J did have notable efficacy against the South African variant (depsite just 1 shot) and has been less vocal about pushing the seasonal boosters that Pfizer and Moderna have been forecasting. While the "new variant" vaccines are not boosters but rather new vaccines, the forecasting by the mRNA companies that we will need more shots is not purely driven by greed but in all likelihood by rapidly declining titers and narrower scope of efficacy against these variants because the T cell response is frankly inferior to that of their adenovirus vectored vaccine competition.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/t-cells-recognize-recent-sars-cov-2-variants

"In their study of recovered COVID-19 patients, the researchers determined that SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T-cell responses remained largely intact and could recognize virtually all mutations in the variants studied. While larger studies are needed, the researchers note that their findings suggest that the T cell response in convalescent individuals, and most likely in vaccinees, are largely not affected by the mutations found in these three variants, and should offer protection against emerging variants."

https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/news/trial-results/moderna-raises-bar-covid-19-vaccine-efficacy

"Nothing is known so far about the nature of any T-cell responses in Cove, or about how these correlate with protection from infection. If mRNA-1273 has shown efficacy without a significant CD8+ T-cell response that could in itself be of interest; however, many view T cells as key to long-lasting immunity, and the durability of mRNA-1273’s protection will be closely watched."

Reply
Fuddman
4/19/2021 09:27:22 pm

@nerd has power

Based on your post directed to me and copied below, I think I may have a misunderstanding. My explanation follows below.

"@Fuddman

If you understand my blog, you would know my opinion here – SARS-CoV-2 is a REAL virus and a bioweapon created by the CCP. I have never said or implicated that SAR-CoV-2 does not exist. So please stop saying “nerd has proved that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist”. It is not true. You would be practically facilitating their misinformation campaign if you keep making such a comment."

My explanation for my claim SARS COV2 is a fake is a follows:

Here is something Nerd said in his discussion under the web page heading "RATG13 is Fake."

"Hopefully you are now as convinced as I am in that the RaTG13 sequence is indeed a fabrication. The first thing we should do then is to discredit any scientific publication, which based its analysis on the RaTG13 sequence and subsequently arrived at the conclusion that the Wuhan coronavirus is of natural origin. When you do a clean-up like that, you will see that there is practically nothing left. "

I did what you said.

I discredited any publication which based its analysis on the RATG13 sequence and subsequently arrived at the conclusion that the Wuhan coronavirus is of natural origin.

The first publication I found which met both your criteria for discredit was this one authored by Shi Zhengli published in February, 2020.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095418/#!po=4.16667

In this Nature publication, Shi Zhengli, using RATG13 as a basis for discovery, establishes SARS COV2 as a novel virus.

That, to me, means, using your criteria, SARS COV2 is discredited. "Discredited" means, its a fake.

What did I miss?




Virtually all the thousands of publications following this Nature article refer back to this very

Reply
Errata
4/20/2021 08:13:55 am

What you missed is that when testimony is discredited, it is rendered meaningless not false and therefore the opposite is not established as true.

Although the work of Zhengli Shi has been discredited, Yongzhen Zhang credibly established SARS-CoV-2 as a coronavirus and gave its sequence.

From the 3rd Yan report:

"In China, Dr. Zhengli Shi, the batwoman from the Wuhan Institutes of Virology (WIV), hurried out a Nature publication (submitted on January 20th and published on February 3rd, 2020)^11, where she reported a RaTG13 bat coronavirus sharing a 96.2% sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2. Since then, this RaTG13 virus has served as the founding evidence for the natural origin theory (this publication of Shi has been accessed over 1.11 million times and cited 5431 times by March 30th, 2021). Interestingly, in the same issue of Nature, a similar article was published by Dr. Yongzhen Zhang^12, which described ZC45 and ZXC21 as the closest match to SARS-CoV-2 evolutionarily."

Reply
Nerd has power
4/20/2021 08:59:29 pm

Thank you, Errata. Excellent point.

Fuddman, discrediting a publication does not equal that every word written in that publication is wrong. Clearly, like Errata pointed out, there are many papers that do not mention RaTG13 and yet prove that SARS-CoV-2 is a real virus.

Plus, I have specifically clarified what I believe. Now you don't have to be confused anymore.

Reply
Fuddman
4/22/2021 08:50:17 am

Per @nerd “ there are many papers that do not mention RaTG13 and yet prove that SARS-CoV-2 is a real virus. ”

Please name one.

evidence
4/22/2021 05:42:24 pm

@Fuddman [4/22/2021 08:50:17 am]

Re: Sample paper for SARS-CoV2 proving being a real entity, while not referencing to RATG13

Jasper Fuk-Woo Chan et al (01/28/2020, 02/15/2020):
(a)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7067204/pdf/TEMI_9_1719902.pdf
(b)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30154-9/fulltext
Their first paper had been released just a few days [cf also my eearlier post evidence
2/20/2021 12:48:10 pm, P.S.1] before the Ratg13 nomenclatura was handed out as THE officially accepted community doctrine, and before everybody of the experimental virologist community uncritically had to abide to that partyline.

I guess you made your point: authors, who actually deal with the real SARS-CoV2 virus (hence, proving its very existence), still shying away from clearly distancing themselves to that partyline, despite the obvious fraud; as they are still fearing excommunication - unlike lot's of theory or modelling/molbio analysis papers: they are far less afraid in ignoring wacky RATG13 potemkin village.
If there would be more papers just ignoring RATG13 from the experimental virologist side, than also that fear of excommunication would dissolve - but we are not quite there yet.

PETER ROSS
4/20/2021 03:07:25 am

Below an intial report based upon personal testimonials of individuals on the experience with the Pfizer syntheic RNA GMO injection adminstered intially in December 2020 to approximately ~6 million citizens in nearly all case in two separate doses.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Also there is new significant information in MedPageToday, including the comments section, regarding the transient but uncomfortable abrupt episodes of herpes simplex/shingles appearing on day 3 to day 5 following the one or two doses of the Pfizer injection] -

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/92106?fbclid=IwAR1JnNMkOn9mmhPX5TZ1u816EtsHsULLXm80GZA-4kA_VTKp7XY-e6cJUXc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Shira Raz
CIVILIAN INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE ISRAEL
report on Pfizer side-effects [draft]
18 April 2020

"There has never been a vaccine that has affected so many people," is the title of the Corona vaccine side effects report we finished writing yesterday, the saddest report I have ever participated in writing.
In the vacuum created by the complete failure of the health system to monitor and warn of the side effects of the vaccine, and the lack of functioning of the media as a mechanism for monitoring and criticizing the establishment of the establishment and exposing reality, we have no independent committee of truth and its revelation.

cont...

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/20/2021 03:08:59 am

...cont

☑️Our report is based on thousands of reports and testimonies received by Corona vaccine victims and doctors and medical staff, some of which are still in the process of verification and processing, as well as statistical analyzes of data from public information sources in Israel and around the world. The current H is intended not only for Israeli citizens, but will be distributed in various languages all over the world, against the background of our fear of a blatant potential bias in the results of the research on the Pfizer vaccine currently being conducted in Israel, and its findings, Shaky and misleading information about vaccine safety.

☑️The findings of our investigation paint a disturbing picture that indicates a large rate of serious side effects, which were observed in close proximity after receiving the vaccine, even among young people, many of them life-threatening, as well as those - and quite a few - who unfortunately ended in death. And as you read the report remember, as attorney Irit Yankelevich wrote, that behind each of the numbers in the tables are people, there are families, there are young people who with abysmal ease and criminal negligence have changed their lives.
And these are the main findings presented in the report:
☑️ We received 288 death reports in the vicinity of the vaccine (90% up to 10 days after vaccination). 64% of them are men. According to data from the Ministry of Health: only 45 deaths in the vicinity of the vaccine.

cont...


Reply
PETER ROSS
4/20/2021 03:10:08 am

cont...

☑️ According to CBS data, during January-February 2021, in the midst of the vaccination campaign, there was a 22% increase in overall mortality rates in Israel compared to the bi-monthly average mortality rate in the previous year. In fact, January-February 2021 are the deadliest in the last decade The overall mortality in them is the highest compared to the corresponding months in the last 10 years.
☑️ Among 20-29 year olds the increase in mortality rates is even greater. In this group, during the same vaccination period, January-February 2021, there was an increase of 32% compared to the bi-monthly average mortality rate in 2020
☑️ Statistical analysis of information from the CBS combined with information from the Ministry of Health leads to the conclusion that the mortality rate among the vaccinated is estimated at about 1: 5000 (1: 13000 at ages 20-49, 1: 6000 at ages 50-69, 1: 1600 at ages 70+). According to this estimate, it is possible to estimate the number of deaths in Israel in the vicinity of the vaccine, as of today, at about 1000-1100 people.
☑️ There is a high correlation between the number of vaccinators per day and the number of deaths per day, in the range of up to 10 days, in all age groups. At ages 20-49 - a range of 9 days from the date of vaccination to mortality, at ages 50-69 - 5 days from the date of vaccination to mortality, at ages 70 and up - 3 days from the date of vaccination to mortality.

...cont

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/20/2021 03:13:37 am

...cont

☑️ As of the date of publication of the report, 2066 reports of side effects have accumulated in the Civil Investigation Committee and the data continues to flow. These reports indicate damage to almost every system in the human body. "Two worlds" and which is a journalistic failure in the ability to sense, identify and report what is happening in the reality in which the citizens really live.
☑️ There are high similarities in side effect reports in countries with relatively high vaccination rates, with hundreds of mortality reports as well as damage to many systems in the human body.

☑️ Our surgery found a relatively high rate of heart-related injuries, 26% of all cardiac events occurred in young people up to the age of 40 with the most common diagnosis in these cases being myositis or pericarditis.
☑️ A high rate of massive vaginal bleeding, neurological damage and skeletal and skin damage has also been observed.

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/20/2021 03:14:15 am

...cont

☑️ It should be noted that a significant number of reports of side effects are related, directly or indirectly, to hypercoagulability (myocardial infarction, stroke, miscarriages, blood flow to the limbs, pulmonary embolism).

☑️ In light of the extent and severity of side effects, we would like to express the committee's position that vaccinating children may also lead to side effects in them, as observed in adults, including completely healthy child mortality. Since the corona virus does not endanger children at all, the committee believes that the Israeli government's intention to vaccinate the children endangers their lives, health and future development.
☑️ Two days before the publication of the report, we learned, sadly, about the death of a two-year-old girl, in close proximity to the vaccine, according to a report in the VAERS system in the United States.

☑️ There has never been a vaccine that has infected so many people! The US VARES system presents 2204 mortality reports of vaccinators in the US in the first quarter of 2021, a figure that reflects an increase of thousands of percent from the annual average of 108 reports per year.
I would like to thank my wonderful members in the Civil Investigation Commission for the amazing work, and other experts and citizens who enlisted to help us do what the state was supposed to do.



https://drive.google.com/.../1-JRsNh3hgfb2kJ42OtMPL.../view

Reply
David Rivard
4/20/2021 10:36:10 am

OK, on this date our country has 67,557 positive (in situ) PCR test verified C-19 cases, and we are the only country that does not lie. The global total confirmed by Yale today is 142,293,386. This means that, with all other countries lying, there is a 99.954 percent chance of C-19 being fake.

Reply
David Rivard
4/20/2021 11:24:46 am

@Nerd: Is HCQ available to your people? Answer; HCQ is available at any drug store, cheap, to most countries with Malaria. It is used as a prophylaxis and the U.S. State Dept. still recommends its use (for Malaria). The DOD still force feeds HCQ to its members, as they did to me for well over a year about half a century ago. Very sophisticated and educated people here are taking both Ivermectin and HCQ as a prophylaxis. I saw a need myself, with no testing, to go on the government Ivermectin/zinc/vitamin based treatment twice so far. Symptoms went away.

Yes JAMA, Nature et al, can tuck that away under anecdotal evidence and also continue to discount long term covid articles. This govt. treatment was gradually tested with near 100% efficacy on the 37,000 strong prison population because at the time, nothing else could be done. Porque? We did not want to revisit our status as the highest homicide rate in the world again. It would have statistically skewed our covid related death rates. As stated previously, for those 67,000 or so infected citizens with positive testing who took the prescribed meds, we have had over 98% cure (not needing hospitalization - but I still personally worry about what is to come...hopefully it's my wartime paranoia).

We just need a little push from the superpower to make it through this. Comon', just a little bit of truth goes a long way.

Reply
Errata
4/20/2021 07:09:35 pm

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/chloroquine-or-hydroxychloroquine-with-or-without-azithromycin/

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

Reply
Jimmy Kudo
5/26/2021 09:16:13 am

You use HCQ just because it's an antiviral? Do you use aspirin for skin cuts as well?

Reply
David Rivard
4/20/2021 11:47:04 am

More news from down under: Over the past 6 months or so, China is universally perceived as the new superpower. Gallup et al?? Why? Most folks believe that it successfully demanded that all countries should not believe their lyin' eyes.

Reply
Errata
4/20/2021 11:55:57 am

There are some things you just cannot argue with.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L_5UmUkd6_w

Reply
Fuddman
4/20/2021 08:41:53 pm

Continuing the discussion of Deception theory.

This well written reference was posted on this blog a long time ago; but, it got no response. It should have because it makes claims which appear to support the thinking of other posters on this blog.

The title of the piece: "The Communist Chinese Party's Global Lockdown Fraud."

They use the word "Fraud;" however, I would use the word "Deception" instead.

In any case, here are some highlights from the article beginning with two topics discussed at length on this blog:

"The World’s Predominant, Wildly-Inaccurate PCR Testing Protocols Are Based on Incomplete, Theoretical Genome Sequences Supplied by China"

"Predominant, Excessive PCR Testing Protocols Came from China"

"Lockdowns Originated on the Order of Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, and Were Propagated Into Global Policy by the World Health Organization..."

"The Most Influential Institution for Covid-19 Models, Self-Described as “China’s Best Academic Partner in the West,” Has Been by Far the Most Alarmist and Inaccurate Covid-19 Modeler" (Imperial College London)

"Deadly Recommendations for Early Mechanical Ventilation Came from China"

"Studies Showing Significant Asymptomatic Transmission, the Only Scientific Basis for Lockdowns of Healthy Individuals, Came from China"

"The CCP Engaged in an Early, Broad, Systematic, and Global Propaganda Campaign to Promote Its Lockdown Response"



Reply
Fuddman
4/20/2021 08:43:21 pm

https://ccpgloballockdownfraud.medium.com/the-chinese-communist-partys-global-lockdown-fraud-88e1a7286c2b

Reply
Arnaud
4/21/2021 11:19:32 am

Google recently suppressed results for 4991 + vih. Before this week you were directed to
https://www.images.inserm.fr/fr/spotligh

Reply
David Rivard
4/21/2021 11:36:42 am

Good work fuddman! When I first suspected it came from a lab, my knee jerk reaction was "we can throw everything we have proven about immune responses out the window if it is synthetic." If war, they would not leave one potential advantage to chance. It would be logical that information from the CCP that is not withheld would mislead the trusted agencies to exacerbate the weapons effect. The trusted agencies would, in turn, be working on coverups. This would muck everything even further.

Reply
Fuddman
4/21/2021 12:44:47 pm

@David Rivard

To clarify my position a bit.

Since beginning to looking into this affair, now over a year , my viewpoint has has changed.

Originally, I bought into the notion cov2 was some kind of lethal bio weaponized organism, created at Wuhan and, subsequently, released deliberately.

For quite a while, based on the constant drumbeat of death counts coming from all sorts of media,( together with the learned peer reviewed studies I attempted to understand), I believed this bio weaponized organism was legitimate and creating havoc throughout the world.

Today, I'm of the opinion

a) Cov2 was created in the Wuhan lab by Shi Zhengli

b) Shi Zhengli created Cov2 intending it to be a bio-weapon

c) BUT, the big question is : what did Shi Zhengli release from the Wuhan lab? Did she (or anyone else) release COV2?

I don't think so.

The only thing Shi Zhengli (or anyone else) released from the Wuhan lab was a sheet of paper with her phony sequence for cov2.

That phony cov2 sequence went to her boss XI Jinping telling him: (a) the pretext for a China lockdown was in place and (b) she was about to release the phony Cov2 sequence to the World Health Organization.

The crucial question; if Cov2 was never released why are people dying? Answer: Google "Where did the flu season go?"


I do not think

Reply
Lois Gearhardt
4/21/2021 02:14:22 pm

Mmmm. I came down with the ccp virus (and I'm of the opinion it's also the Baric Fauci et al virus), last June. I'm 65, and I have never had any kind of flu or other virus so bizarrely vicious in my entire life. 21 days of utter hell. Every symptom in the clinical definition, what medicos would class as 'moderately severe.' No point going to the ER even if I could have stood to be carried. Three weeks of sequlae, had to use budesonide nebulizer 3-4 x a day for three weeks. I do not go for the mask crap,lckdowns, etc. And certainly not the murder shots. I wish there had been hcq or ivermectin available then.
I agree that there is a tremendous amount of misdiagnosed flu. I think good faith practitioners are erring on the side off "possible" ccp virus, because too many don't have sufficient clinical skill and or haven't seen enough real cases, or the financial incentives, I've seen, politicized bias.
I believe the virus was released out of Wuhan; however, it's concerning that from September 2019 on, there is strong evidence it was circulating in China and Italy, looking like a flu with a cruel pneumonia secondary infection.
Reading everything I can, considering SARS 1, and MERS engineered with the available laboratory technology of the time, prescient papers, etc., plus the 'spars' exercise by Johns Hopkins & Gates, this developing disastrous dystopia is deliberate. The psychopaths have been telling us what's coming with blatant smirks. I also think these people intended to release something more lethal, but however it happened, it was the present ccp virus sowed. A "vaccine" was planned all along, there's all those patents, papers and shot candidates that were in the pipeline already. The psy ops job is much heavier handed, because the virus isn't lethal enough. In my state, a shocking 79% have gotten the shots.
I've stocked up on the therapeutics for the sake of others who evade shots yet acquire the virus. I will use the ivermectin, because I've had a relapse and a couple flares. I believe that like WNV, the main reservoir of the bioweapon is the brain; I have a consult with a serious immunologist pathologist who has been dealing with the mess. The debate here has been mostly very informative, I read the citations provided.

nonameneeded
4/21/2021 11:41:52 am

When it comes to intentional vs accidental, doesn't the release from Wuhan seem a bit inconsistent with an intentional bioweapon? You would think they would launch it from Guangdong for plausibility, not Wuhan where the WIV is located and the foods eaten don't line up with the SARS vectors. The Wuhan epicenter to me is the greatest proof that the release was accidental. The alternative is that the release was coordinated by domestic or foreign (?who) actors who wanted to implicate/blame the Chinese regime and chose the Wuhan location carefully. In that case, the virus didn't even have to originate from the Wuhan lab....there are other labs where coronavirus research is being done...

Reply
David Rivard
4/21/2021 12:32:26 pm

I guess that you would have to ask CCP about tactics, but it refuses to share any information that would make this "conspiracy theory" go away. Are their aggressive globally policies since the pandemic simply taking advantage of the situation or have they created a shortcut to global domination?

Reply
Errata
4/25/2021 02:42:13 pm

Wuhan has the advantage that they can fall back on 'lab accident' if the 'natural spillover' doesn't sell. The current debate between these two interpretations shows the wisdom of that approach. If it had been released in Guangdong then the current debate would be instead between natural spillover and bioweapon attack.

A second reason for Wuhan is that the most prudent way to release the virus is through a staged lab accident. Getting the virus to Guangdong would generate a paper trail, a record of access or theft and destroying that evidence might attract attention. At Wuhan a staged accident leaves no trace and it requires at most one conspirator. A staged accident minimizes security issues and provides plausible deniability.

One might wonder why so many countries have located their virus research labs in populated areas when common sense says such labs should be in rural settings behind barbed wire enclosures where people have to quarantine to leave. A cynical person would answer that when it comes time to release bio-weapons, the best way is a staged accident and that approach is impossible in a secure setting. From this perspective there is no such thing as an epidemic that starts with an accident at an urban lab. Whether or not such cynicism is warranted, it is oddly not the consensus view and therefore Wuhan retains the advantage that 'lab accident' is a viable backup cover story.

Reply
nonameneeded
4/25/2021 05:38:15 pm

That is an excellent point. In a strange way, the bioweapon and "natural jump from another species" theories have some points of convergence where the accidental lab leak doesn't, namely that we would expect to see *no explicit* signs of human manipulation in the nucleotide sequence even if the resultant spike protein does have something highly suggestive of manipulation, which is to say the furin cleaveage site (and I have not studied the other proteins much, it is possible there is a lot of stuff going on with the nonstructural proteins as well). We should thus see no added restriction enzyme sites, aggressive codon usage optimization, etc.

One interesting point about the FCS insertion is that it is NOT "in frame," which is to say the nucleotides added to generate PRRA do not match 1:1 to the corresponding AAs. It was argued in some paper (I cannot recall which) that if it was intentionally inserted it would be "in frame" - thus pointing a putative natural origin. Equally, by using this logic, the "in frame" vs. "out of frame" argument would tend to favor a bioweapon where utilization of "out of frame" insertion was an approach to conceal human intervention by using the less straightforward approach to inserting these nucleotides.

Interestingly, I just found this about ORF3b. Apparently it's prematurely truncated in SARS-CoV2, which helps it shut down interferon signaling much better than the full length ORF3b of SARS-CoV1. It's just fascinating how many "coincidences" there are here...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124720311748

David Rivard
4/21/2021 12:19:12 pm

Also, the first thing that jumped out at me is "PCR protocol thus has every indications of being fraudulent" (rely on in silico sequences and other information from several CCP controlled labs) as it relates to testing for the early vaccine development push we enjoy today.

Reply
Bro
4/21/2021 06:04:04 pm

The virus phylo tree is here for those who interested:

https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global

Reply
Fuddman
4/22/2021 10:35:55 am

From your reference:

"Showing 3914 of 3914 genomes sampled between Dec 2019 and Apr 2021."

Does it bother you to know that those 3914 genome samples were "legitimized" by an RT-PCR test which, itself, is wholly dependent on a phony gnome sequence dreamed up by a Chinese lab technician named Shi Zhengli ?

Reply
Errata
4/22/2021 07:33:51 pm

@Fuddman: The phrase "...wholly dependent..." is a misrepresentation. The claim that PCR testing is false because it checks for the nucleocapsid protein sequence given by Shi is worse than misleading. The CoV2 sequence has been confirmed by many reliable sources so its sequence sectors used by PCR testing are well established. To claim PCR testing technology itself is a hoax is to dismiss the whole field of genetic engineering and the advances in biotech that have be made since Watson and Crick. But you must know this. Why do you post such things?

The sequence published in Nature by Shi in her less-than-credible paper that brought us RaTG13 was never-the-less confirmed by the sequence also published in Nature by Zhang in the credible paper that first identified the close relationship to ZC45.

From the second Yan Report:

"...an article published by Dr. Yong-Zhen Zhang and colleagues on the same issue of Nature, which also discovered SARS-CoV-2 as the responsible pathogen for COVID- 19, received much less citations2. This latter article made no mention of RaTG132. Instead, Zhang and colleagues showed that, evolutionarily, SARS-CoV-2 was closest to two bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21, both of which were discovered and characterized by military research laboratories under the control of the CCP government3."

Errata
4/23/2021 07:08:41 pm

Nerd has power (4/18/2021): "I also don’t know whether this is an ethnic-specific design,... However, I want to point out that MANY people died in Wuhan, unlike what the CCP had reported. The situation was magnitudes-worse, and many people collapsed suddenly on the streets of Wuhan. So, in that sense, even if it was a design to target non-Asian ethnic groups, it was not a successful one. Maybe we will see that design in the next pandemic, if the CCP gets away this time."

The high mortality rate in Wuhan, and Hong Kong for that matter, does not rule out an ethnic-specific design. Hong Kong would not have been vaccinated for obvious reasons.

In Wuhan with a population of ~10M, an infection fatality rate of ~0.005 (0.5%) would mean 50K dead. An ethnically targeted virus with an efficacy of 50% would still leave 25K dead, a substantial number which would account for news coming from Wuhan of mass casualties. It is important to remember that Wuhan could not be vaccinated as it was the planned epicenter for the outbreak. The outbreak needed to flare out of control in Wuhan before containment efforts began. However a vaccination campaign elsewhere would have given remarkable protection even for a low efficacy vaccine if 50% of the population had background resistance. In light of Stephen Quay's adenovirus discovery and given the existence of the CanSinoBIO vaccine which uses an adenovirus and which was administered to the military, this vaccine is the leading candidate for what was used to immunize the population before the attack. The CanSioBIO vaccine may be about 70% effective. This is probably below herd immunity without masks and other controls. However, an ethnic-specific design would push them over the herd immunity threshold and make a bioweapon attack feasible using CoV2.

Reply
Arnaud
4/24/2021 12:31:46 am

Mortality rate 0,5% concerns infected people and not the whole population.

Reply
Errata
4/24/2021 06:43:27 pm

Correct. Sorry if my phrasing was misleading. The potential existed for casualties up to that number. That is not to say so many actually died. I was just trying to show that it was plausible that reports of high casualties did not necessarily preclude some intrinsic resistance even when it was as high as 50%. A recessive allele giving resistance and having a frequency of over 70% would confer such a level of protection. Half a mass casualty event is still a mass casualty event. That was the point.

Errata
4/23/2021 07:10:49 pm

Some details about CCP vaccines:

http://www.sinopharm.com/en/s/1395-4173-38923.html

Q: How is the Covid-19 vaccine produced? Please introduce its R&D process.

Liu Jingzhen: The development of the vaccine can be roughly divided into five steps: the study on the virus strain and cell or the acquisition of immunogen, production technology study, quality study, animal trials and human trials. It is a rigorous scientific process and maybe seems a bit complicated for the general public.

Virus inactivation is a classic way for producing vaccines. The killed virus is still immunogenic. It can be identified by the immune system of a human body, induce the immune response and thus produce antibody. Sinopharm CNBG’s Covid-19 Vaccine is derived from Vero cell which goes through cultivation, inactivation and purification. The vaccine’s immunogenicity, safety and immune protection are studied with a series of tests on animals like mouse, rat, guinea pig, rabbit, rhesus monkey.

On April 12, 2020, Sinopharm CNBG’s Covid-19 vaccine was the first inactivated one approved for clinical trial I/II in the world. Since June 2020, the Phase III clinical trial of our vaccine has been conducted in 7 countries such as the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Peru, Argentina and Morocco. So far, Sinopharm CNBG’s Covid-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency use by China and four other countries, and for official registration by two countries.


https://www.geo.tv/latest/346855-is-chinas-sinovac-vaccine-less-effective

Friday Apr 23 2021
Explainer: Is China’s Sinovac coronavirus vaccine less effective?

On Wednesday, Pakistan received 0.5 million doses of the Sinovac coronavirus vaccine, orders for which were placed earlier in the year.

Sinovac is the third Chinese coronavirus vaccine to be granted approval for emergency use in Pakistan, after the Sinopharm and CanSino vaccines.

The coronavirus vaccine CoronaVac has been developed by a Beijing-based biopharmaceutical company named Sinovac.

This two-dose shot went through phase III, therefore human trials, in seven countries, including Turkey, Brazil and Indonesia.

One advantage of this drug is that unlike Pfizer and Moderna, the Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine can be stored in a standard refrigerator at 2-8 degrees Celsius.

How effective is the Sinovac vaccine against coronavirus?

During clinical trials in Brazil, the Sinovac vaccine was initially declared 78% effective against the virus. Later, that figure was revised down to 50.4%.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccine-pakistan-idUSKBN2A81N0

Race for a cure, February 8, 2021
By Gibran Naiyyar Peshimam, Umar Farooq

CanSinoBIO's COVID-19 vaccine 65.7% effective in global trials, Pakistan official says

CanSinoBIO’s vaccine - which was approved for use in the Chinese military last year and has since been given to at least 40,000-50,000 people - uses a modified common cold virus known as adenovirus type-5 (Ad5) to carry genetic material from the coronavirus protein into the body.

However, researchers in an early and mid-stage trial report expressed concern the vaccine may not work in those previously exposed to Ad5, as the pre-existing antibody against the common cold virus could weaken the vaccine-triggered immune response.

CanSinoBIO is also testing a two-dose regimen of the vaccine in China including on participants aged between 6 and 17 and older than 55.

Shots from Chinese companies Sinovac and state-backed Sinopharm have shown efficacy of between 50% and 91%.

The three firms have applied to join the global vaccine sharing scheme COVAX for approval and China plans to provide 10 million doses to the initiative, which is backed by the World Health Organization and GAVI vaccine alliance.


Reply
Fuddman
4/23/2021 09:48:48 pm

Discussion on deception, cont.

1. COV2 was never released intentionally as a bio-weapon
2. COV2 was never released accidentally as a bio-weapon
3. COV2 was never a bio-weapon.
4. Cov2 never existed as an organism, COV2 only existed on paper

1. A bio weapon is referred to as a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD). There is only one person in China who has the authority to release a WMD. That would be Xi Jinping.
XI Jinping knows if he gets caught launching COV2 as a bio weapon, in the eyes of the world, that is the same as launching a WMD. He knows launching a WMD carries great risk, not only to his personal survival, but the survival of everything he has accomplished for his country since he became leader. Why take that great a risk and lose everything? And for what? Xi Jinping is not dumb. He didn't launch a bio weapon.

2. All WMD's, including bio weapons, are created in extremely compartmentalized facilities. Nothing goes in or out without layers of security checks. You don't get close to a facility making or storing WMD's unless you have a string of security clearances as long as your arm. You don't take anything in or out unless you're accompanied by guards. If an accident occurs, everything gets shut down so that no secret and top secret material in the facility is compromised. There is no way the composition of the accidently released weapon is going to be revealed to the public. All this is to say that if a bio accident had occurred at a WMD facility in China, there is no way in hell some lab technician like Shi Zhengli is going to be allowed to run out and publish an article in NATURE magazine (or inform the World Health Organization) revealing the genome of that highly classified bio weapon.

Reply
Errata
4/24/2021 07:25:20 pm

@Fuddman:

Thank you for this plausibility critique. That is always where a reality check begins.

On your point 4, you are being silly again. I'll just ignore that pink sky argument. On point 3, CoV2 is definitely a bio-weapon because of the furin cleavage site. Perhaps it was a bench test model but that does not make it less of a weapon. When the USA was testing nuclear weapons, it made a lot of bench test models. Any one of them could have been deployed as a weapon if needed. Just because something is built as a test model, one cannot claim it is not a weapon. On point 2, I love your point about the implausibility of the role Shi has been cast in by Yan et al.

The problem I have with the Shi's presumed role is that if I were Xi Jinping and I had a scientist rabid enough to knowingly and purposefully create a weapon of mass destruction designed to kill millions, I would never ever allow that person to network with the international community. People would sense the malignancy in such a personality and become alarmed. What makes sense instead is to put a kind-hearted naive gentle person in charge of 'studying' these viruses and let that scientist do all the development work while believing it was for the good of humanity. I have no doubt Shi's work led to this weapon but I seriously doubt she knew that her life's work would be used to kill people.

Now lets move on to the interesting part of what you posted, the release. Again putting ourselves in the place of Xi Jinping, your points are valid. So how can the attack be managed without endangering him? Actually there is a ploy that is easy to use. Just gather a team of screw-ups with a record of incompetence and accidents. Send them to Wuhan to study the bioweapon with orders giving them top priority and urgency thereby ensuring that any safety training they should get once they arrive will be abbreviated. For good measure they can be given a team leader with a toxic personality. Make sure everyone understands that a lab accident is an embarrassment to the Nation and that if anything happens then under no circumstances should it become public knowledge that an accident happened. Now the stage is set and Xi Jinping can sit on his hands and wait for the inevitable. When the accident happens and the automatic coverup turns it into a catastrophe, even those responsible will go to their graves believing it was an accident. Because of the potential that such a ploy was used, even admissions of an accident will not undermine the certainty that it was a bioweapon attack.

Reply
evidence
4/25/2021 04:32:15 am

Re: False notion about the supposingly high-threshold nature of bio warfare R&D in civilian research lab settings context (Option 2)

For option 2 ('accident option'), you stated:
'All WMD's, including bio weapons, are created in extremely compartmentalized facilities.'
While this is true and proven for nuclear WMD, one can certainly disagree on this crucial point (i.e., the implication you made) with respect to biological warfare.
Your assertion/assumption has been certainly true in particular for nuclear WMD for the past. Given our recent civilisation experience, this is the usual notion we all have, namely that all those activities would quite easily flash up for example particularly on today's secret service surveillance imagery.
While appropriate for example for past nuclear research with military intent, this FALSE notion about putatively sophisticated infrastructure requirement and obligatory compartmentalization with respect to bio-warfare R&D is in my mind one important reason, why the public (lay person) has so much difficulty getting an intuition for Covid being a biological warfare product (regardless being accidentally or intentionally released).
With all that discussion and awareness about nuclear WMD going on for decades, we currently lack sufficient intuition about the low-threshold nature of BIOLOGICAL GOF warfare R&D.
When it comes to switching biological R&D from civilian to military intent, in particular infrastructure is hardly an issue, even less from the science point of view - our intuition (shaped for decades by witnessing nuclear physics dual use developments) fools us on this point: for low-threshold biological WMD experiments some (rogue) scientist just needs a bench and maybe (if he is not happy enough with tissue passaging only) a few, commercially available mice, as for example for Covid:
[
https://www.taconic.com/taconic-insights/infectious-disease/transgenic-hace2-mice-for-sars-cov-2-and-covid-19.html
(Transgenic hACE2 mice for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Taconic Biosciences)
],
hence common low-threshold equipment for almost any lab, which can be purchased anywhere.
A researcher can easily perform their hideous dual use research secretively under the umbrella of all regular experiments he/she is as well doing and publishing in th same lab, same room; unlike nuclear dual use R&D, you can literally use the same bench in a lab for both purposes (P3/P4 lab or not).
UNLIKE nuclear dual use R&D, you do not need a large-scale sophisticated equipment, which would be quite different from what you have on your civilian side.
That's why experimental virologists are so scared to open up about Covid.
There is currently no sufficient awareness (in broader public as well as broader science community), that GOF is THE low-threshold life science equivalent for, let's say, what has been plutonium production for nuclear physics (which had not been low-threshold at all); and unlike nuclear physics, there are no technical hurdles/differences when crossing the line from civilian to military purpose. Only the intent is what differs. (Think for example about the fact, that putatively at the end only a few amino acids of the PBCS/recognition site had to be altered, i.e., FCS feature included, in order to be also cut by furin as well. This minor AA change has likely been necessary, but at th same time very possibly as well as sufficient, for Covid to become a global disaster.)
Secondly, the problem with (GOF based) biological WMD development differs in another key aspect with respect to prior (nuclear, chemical) WMD R&D. In contrast to nuclear WMD (i.e., nuclear warfare), which more or less have SIMILAR proof of concepts, or at least a limited number of proof of concepts (for example nuclear fission, nuclear fusion..), and the physics of those bombs remains largely the same for a given corresponding concept, for biological WMD you can design virtually a new concept for every new 'device' or weapon, as the options for a working GOF bio weapon are virtually endless (even in comparison to chemical warfare, i.e., poison): every new bio weapon in principle can differ from its peers (for example by a few mutations) - hence the burden of proof to unmask a nefarious intent (particularly during the preparation period) is way more complicated: for every new crime there can likely be a new puzzle, only for experts in the field to decipher. This is also why for example the DRASTIC twitter group and this blog here, as well as numerous others, are crunching this issue for over a year now (and successfully doing this work, which actually established scientists of established institutions are supposed to be doing themselves - and we know they failed by and large), as they are still finding new aspects, new evidence, new technical and scientific details about understanding how this bio warhead being a result of biological WMD program has actually come into action.
On the other hand, today, all (secretively performe

Reply
evidence
4/25/2021 04:40:36 am

On the other hand, today, all (secretively performed) nuclear explosion events/tests can be quite easily monitored by the global surveillance instruments. You hardly can hide that anymore.
In general for WMD as we knew them, you are right with your assessment of required compartmentalization during the preparation period, but NOT for biological, GOF based, WMD.

As I mentioned before (cf evidence 4/19/2021 02:02:49 pm), I think the AUTOCATALYTIC nature (mimicking/mirroring biological systems/networks, on which we ourselves, as biological entities, rely on) is a the crucial theoretical framework, why this is the case, why bio warfare is so much different.
This AUTOCATALYSIS of biological warfare creates the specific nature of that havoc, which is commonly known as 'butterfly effect' (again: remember the rather short FCS sequence and compare this to its giant implications), which you did not have elsewhere in warfare/WMD R&D during the past decades: the danger can remain (hidden) on a microscopic scale (literally inside a vial), and undetected until it is too late (the macroscopic event has had occurred).
And thirdly, unlike chemical and nuclear warfare, there is in particular virtually no storage problem, no need for mass production facility (as human hosts are doing the job), and again unlike chemical and nuclear warfare, already the experimentally performed 'proof of concept work' ITSELF can be absolutely sufficient for also being the production and assembly line - as this again also is the case for Covid.
Given all those circumstances, it can hardly be more discrete.
Hence, also a WIV (and their also largely civilian lab/facility network) remains absolutely sufficient for this to happen (including the accidental release of a functional bioweapon).
So the notion you put forward 'All WMD's, including bio weapons, are created in extremely compartmentalized facilities' is likely to be wrong. There is no proof for this implication to be valid for BIOLOGICAL, GOF based, WMD.
Eventually, I am convinced, Covid will become the ultimate proof of the very contrary.
Actually, this doubtful 'compartmentalization point' has already been raised by/and discussed with Henri, who at that time equally could not conceive the low-threshold character of biological (GOF) experiments with military intent inside largely civilian research facilities (cf. Henri 6/4/2020 07:46:33 pm, my reply evidence 6/6/2020 07:56:19 am).
He was extremely unhappy with Nature publishing, after he had approached them for clarification concerning the Andersen letter in particular; and since then, he did not return to this discussion here anymore. -
NB:
-- How the narrative for Main Stream Science Media has changed (i.e., becoming a taboo by now, as of 2020/2021), we can see here, as an example, when this concern could still be voiced back in 2014:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bio-unsafety-level-3-could-the-next-lab-accident-result-in-a-pandemic/
#

alejandro ipiña
4/24/2021 08:14:51 am

@Fuddman:
So, Shi Zhengli has deceived Xi Jinping by claiming the existence of a virus that does not exist. Posting the sequence of him. And everyone has believed it. Has Xi Jinping been scammed by his virologists?
And incidentally they have deceived the whole world.

225 / 5000
Resultados de traducción
@ Yan,
Xi Jinping was not deceived as Fuddman says, all this is the result of a biological weapon created in a laboratory. Have I asked Nerd before, Any idea how they have been releasing the virus in other parts of the world?

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/24/2021 12:27:46 pm

CDC didn't have PCR test until end of February; what sequence, primers, probes, were they relying upon?:

"The United States badly bungled coronavirus testing—but things may soon improve"

By Jon Cohen Feb. 28, 2020

"Speed is critical in the response to COVID-19. So why has the United States been so slow in its attempt to develop reliable diagnostic tests and use them widely?

The World Health Organization (WHO) has shipped testing kits to 57 countries. China had five commercial tests on the market 1 month ago and can now do up to 1.6 million tests a week; South Korea has tested 65,000 people so far. The U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in contrast, has done only 459 tests since the epidemic began. The rollout of a CDC-designed test kit to state and local labs has become a fiasco because it contained a faulty reagent. Labs around the country eager to test more suspected cases—and test them faster—have been unable to do so. No commercial or state labs have the approval to use their own tests.

In what is already an infamous snafu, CDC initially refused a request to test a patient in Northern California who turned out to be the first probable COVID19 case without known links to an infected person."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/united-states-badly-bungled-coronavirus-testing-things-may-soon-improve

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/24/2021 12:20:00 pm

Why publish so late in the game - June 2020?
Did they (CDC) get the same exact sequence as the original published sequence?

Volume 26, Number 6—June 2020
Research
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States
On This Page
Methods
Results
Discussion
Cite This Article
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Podcast
presentation_01 Listen to audio/Podcast
Downloads
Article
RIS [TXT - 2 KB]
Article Metrics
Article has an altmetric score of 3385
Metric Details
129 citationsExternal Link of this article
EID Journal Metrics on ScopusExternal Link
Related Articles
SARS-CoV-2 P.2 Lineage Associated with Reinfection
Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, Australia
Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern
More articles on Coronavirus, COVID-19
Jennifer Harcourt1, Azaibi Tamin1, Xiaoyan Lu, Shifaq Kamili, Senthil K. Sakthivel, Janna Murray, Krista Queen, Ying Tao, Clinton R. Paden, Jing Zhang, Yan Li, Anna Uehara, Haibin Wang, Cynthia Goldsmith, Hannah A. Bullock, Lijuan Wang, Brett Whitaker, Brian Lynch, Rashi Gautam, Craig Schindewolf, Kumari G. Lokugamage, Dionna Scharton, Jessica A. Plante, Divya Mirchandani, Steven G. Widen, Krishna Narayanan, Shinji Makino, Thomas G. Ksiazek, Kenneth S. Plante, Scott C. Weaver, Stephen Lindstrom, Suxiang Tong, Vineet D. Menachery2, and Natalie J. Thornburg2Comments to Author
Author affiliations: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (J. Harcourt, A. Tamin, X. Lu, K. Queen, Y. Tao, C.R. Paden, Y. Li, C. Goldsmith, B. Whitaker, R. Gautam, S. Lindstrom, S. Tong, N.J. Thornburg); Eagle Medical Services, Atlanta (S. Kamili, S.K. Sakthivel, J. Murray, B. Lynch); IHRC, Atlanta (J. Zhang, H. Wang); Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA (A. Uehara); Synergy America, Inc., Atlanta (H.A. Bullock, L. Wang); University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA (C. Schindewolf, K.G. Lokugamage, D. Mirchandani, S. Widen, K. Narayanan, S. Makino, T.G. Ksiazek, S.C. Weaver, V.D. Menachery); World Reference Center for Emerging Viruses and Arboviruses, Galveston (D. Scharton, J.A. Plante, T.G. Ksiazek, K.S. Plante, S.C. Weaver, V.D. Menachery)

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/24/2021 01:25:23 pm

Yes, everyone is focused on the elusive virus of a genome that's never been observed intact but rather constructed in silico based upon the RNA fragments slectively fished out from the monkey cell extract - contaminated with human and bovine RNA and DNA fragments - accoding to a pre-determined assumption that the virus is a SARS type.
The diagnosis by PCR is based upon a biopsy sample - is it detecting endogenous SARS-like RNA or DNA being expressed as markers of cellular stress?

Lactobacillus can be in food or even aerosolized. 
As a commensal in gut and lungs, would go unnoticed unless specifically looked for.
It can be genetically modified to produce toxins in addition to diacetyl.
Does lactobacillus supplement to treat covid effective because it displaces a toxic form?
Here's a possible source of the antigen that could produce antibodies mimicking "SARS infection:

International Journal of Biological MacromoleculesVolume 160, 1 October 2020, Pages 736-740 A recombinant Lactobacillus plantarum strain expressing the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2
Author links open overlay panelMaopengWangab1TingtingFub1JiayiHaobLetianLibMingyaoTianbNingyiJinbLinzhuRencChang
LibShow moreOutlineShareCitehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.05.239

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0141813020334000?via%3Dihub

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/24/2021 01:35:51 pm

:Genetically modified probiotics should be banned"

Joe Cummins &Mae-Wan Ho
Pages 66-68 | Received 23 May 2005, Published online: 11 Jul 2009

Download citation https://doi.org/10.1080/08910600510044480

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08910600510044480

Reply
PETER ROSS
4/24/2021 01:52:38 pm

FEASIBILITY OF PROBIOTIC LACTOBACILLUS AND
YEAST AS ORAL VACCINE CARRIER AGAINST
CORONAVIRUSES
HO PHUI SAN
DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2005

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48645831.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------

https://archive.epa.gov/ncer/events/calendar/archive/web/pdf/casadevall_arturo.pdf

bro
4/25/2021 09:29:58 pm

@nerd
How all of these new variants generated and viable base on a fake sequence?
https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global
It would be nice if you explain this puzzle in your future updates. Thx

Reply
Errata
4/27/2021 05:43:44 pm

@bro

Nerd does not assert that CoV2 is a fake sequence. The characters posting to this blog who have made that claim are 'Fuddman' and 'Peter Ross.' Nerd believes CoV2 is a real virus and the sequences listed by your nextstrain.org link are valid and real.

Reply
Babstar
5/1/2021 07:12:20 pm

Paper: On the Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Did Cell Culture Experiments Lead to Increased Virulence of the Progenitor Virus for Humans?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33910809/

Straight to the punchline(s)
Page 8:

Interstingly, on position 678 threonine is encoded by the same triplet ACT in SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV, and on position 681 prolin is encoded again by the same triplet CCT and on position 682 arginine by CGG and CGC. Thus, there is not only a strong identity on the amino acid level, but also on the nucleotide level between SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV. Given the code redundancy, the probability for an identical sequence encoding threonine (pos 678; which can be encoded by ACA, ACG, ACC and ACT) is 0.25×0.25=0.0625, and that of proline (pos 681; encoded by CCT, CCC, CCA and CCG) is again 0.0625. The overall probability harboring the same nucleotide sequence in these two positions is 0.0039.
---
In this context, it is important to note that a sequence comparison of SARS-CoV-2 with other viruses revealed a 117-nucleotide sequence in the virus genome that is 94.6% identical to a human intron sequence of the netrin G1 gene. Several other viruses also contain human sequences, but they are much shorter (e.g., SARS-CoV contains a 41-nucleotide sequence). MERS-CoV does not contain a human sequence

Page 12
However, a scenario seems likely, according to which the selection for a highly infectious agent took place in human cells, notably in cell culture, as a byproduct of virus propagation and experimental work. Sequence comparison revealed that the insert creating the PCS/furine cleavage site is partially identical to an insert in the spike gene of MERS-CoV. Based on this, the hypothesis was proposed that during coinfection of human cells equipped with ACE2 and DPP4, RaTG13 (or a similar progenitor) gained the sequence from MERS-CoV (or a similar virus harboring the sequence) by recombination, through which it became better propagating in vitro, which is beneficial for the experimentation (selection for high virus titer). At the same time the infectivity of the virus was enhanced allowing unintentional, cryptic infections of employees, which was the starting point for the pandemic.

Furthermore, the possibility that the progenitor virus was propagated in human ACE2 transgenic animals, which would accelerate human adaptation, should also be considered. At this point it should be remembered that releases of pathogenic viruses from the laboratory have already happened, which was a matter of serious concern in China years ago. Back in 2003, in Kunming (province Yunnan), a hantavirus outbreak occurred, and it was attributed to laboratory rats in which two hantavirus strains multiplied and generated a new type of virus through recombination. Students who had worked with the animals became infected with this. The authors of the report (published in 2010) concluded prophetically that "This study sends a timely warning that laboratory exposure remains an important source of hantavirus infection in China and that new strains continue to emerge via reassortment and recombination of the RNA genome segments"

There is no reason to believe that the same cannot happen with other virus strains. The coincidence of the outbreak of the disease COVID-19 in Wuhan and intensive ongoing work with SARS-like viruses at a research institute located there, housing the largest corona virus bank in Asia, has also sparked the public discussion whether gain-of-function experiments contributed to the pandemic.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/2/2021 11:58:40 am

@Fuddman @Peter Ross

Here are some publications on how real SARS-CoV-2 is. Please stop claiming on this forum that SARS-CoV-2 is not a real virus or COVID is caused by a pathogen other than SARS-CoV-2. Thank you.

Isolation and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first US COVID-19 patient
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239045/

Molecular characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first case of COVID-19 in Italy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7118617/

SARS-CoV-2 isolation and propagation from Turkish COVID-19 patients
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314506/

SARS-CoV-2 isolation from the first reported patients in Brazil and establishment of a coordinated task network
https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0074-02762020000100344

Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036342/

First isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical samples in India
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7366528/

Reply
Fuddman
5/2/2021 05:28:19 pm

"Please stop claiming on this forum that SARS-CoV-2 is not a real virus..."

Is this a warning that opinions which do not agree with Nerd are not allowed on this blog?

That contrary opinions will be banished ?

I was under the impression that the citizens of Hong Kong were fighting to maintain their freedom of expression. Does that sentiment exist on Nerd blog?

Reply
Nerd has power
5/2/2021 08:11:20 pm

It is the stance that opinions that do not agree with facts and logic are not welcome on this forum. This blog/forum is nothing but honest discussions on SARS-CoV-2, which are based on facts and logic. This has always been the theme.

Above, I have listed the evidence for the actual existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. You would have to prove all of them wrong before you could argue that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist. It is that simple.

Nerd has power
5/2/2021 12:12:08 pm

Errata made a great point (Errata 4/25/2021 02:42:13 pm) – “lab accident” is indeed the fallback plan of the CCP. So be careful the next time you are being presented with the “miner theory” or stories that solely focused on the bat lady Zhengli Shi.

The article shared by Babstar above is one such hypothesis, which consciously or unconsciously feeds into this need of the CCP.

In such an event (blaming the pandemic to a lab accident), Zhengli Shi will be used as the scapegoat. The CCP has been actively preparing for this because they have anticipated that their natural spillover theory very likely would fail.

As clearly stated in the Yan reports, Military-Civil Fusion is heavily involved in the coronavirus research in China. It is a bioweapon’s program, which is not operated by a single person. On this forum, I have never said Zhengli Shi single-handedly created this bioweapon. Rather, on multiple occasions, I stated that Shi is only a small part of this operation.

This “team effort” is also evidenced by the CCP’s cover-up: Shi only fabricated RaTG13, while two pangolin coronavirus fabrications clearly involved military research labs. Shi has NO authority to order the military labs or other Chinese labs to fabricate pangolin coronaviruses or the RmYN02 bat coronavirus to cover up for an “accident” that happened in her lab; such a large-scale scientific fraud and cover-up must be orchestrated by the CCP.

Evidence also made an excellent point that the threshold of bioweapon creation is not high at all (evidence 4/25/2021). The key though is to give the virus a “natural” look and to operate effective, coordinated cover-ups (virus fabrications, high-profile publications, supports of “natural origin” from top experts, media control, etc.).

At this point, I think it may be worth it to revisit something – the MERS drills in Wuhan:

https://m.weibo.cn/status/4418347615555173
https://udn.com/news/story/120944/4635017
http://www.whjy.com.cn/index.php/index-view-aid-1379.html
http://wjw.hubei.gov.cn/bmdt/ywdt/wsyj/201911/t20191104_347604.shtml
http://www.hbcdc.cn/index.php/index-view-aid-6871.html

Again, Wuhan never cared about MERS in 2014 or 2015 when it was actually causing issues in Saudi Arab and South Korea. Also, MERS never caused anything serious in China, ever. However, in 2018 and 2019, Wuhan SERIOUSLY prepared for a MERS-like outbreak. Yes, not HIV, not ZIKA, not dengue, not ebola, ………. just MERS.

Are these MERS drills consistent with a lab ACCIDENT that would happen at the end of 2019?

And what does this say about intentional release?

There are only two possibilities, really, when it comes to the real starting point of the pandemic: community test that went out of control (as described in the 3rd Yan report) or direct initiation of the unrestricted biowarfare. In either case, the release of the virus in Wuhan was intentional, and those MERS drills were necessary for either scenario.

Reply
David Rivard
5/3/2021 12:10:25 pm

I guess it’s my job to bring this up now and then. Our citizens are far removed from the concept of a “World War”. Failing to understand this from a personal standpoint would be a natural conservative reaction, but failing to understand and act is unforgivable from a historic standpoint and this is where we entrust the job of threat mitigation and long term vision to our societal managers.

Arriving at reasonable conclusions about this pandemic by stepping outside of the microscopic lens of the virologic world is also a scientific concept of Voltaire’s “All Things are Related” thesis. Remember Voltaire…one of the Enlightenment’s key figures...remember the Enlightenment…which unveiled lost knowledge with additional knowledge which took our society out of the scientific and intellectual slumber from the “Dark Ages”, brought about by the last superpowers decline? Remember the “Dark Ages”, where magnificent fortifications were constructed around the Western World for over 1,000 years in every major city?

We can safely say most virologic analysts now agree on overwhelming evidence for a lab origin. If you add the former State Department's conclusions and further, if you add actual foreign policy actions, claims, misrepresentations and representations of the CCP you get WWIII.

The question is not if COVID-19 is coincidental to CCP agressions, the questions should be; Why is the CCP not disproving “conspiracy theories”? Why is the CCP continually misleading the world about the pandemics most critical information, including raw CLINICAL data, and why does this lack of information dovetail so neatly into their current foreign policy aggressions? Why hasn’t the CCP demonstrated that it is a good global citizen from the outset? Why hasn’t the CCP tried to SAVE as many lives around the globe by contributing as much as possible to the pandemics knowledge and mitigation, especially with its penchant for central planning?

I do not agree with apologists who constantly use the “Aw shucks, that’s just China being China” analysis for what amounts to their only defense of the situation.

Global wars, or any war, have never been declared in their early stages. Much has been cited in this blog and many journals about the parallel strategies of the articulate Sun Tzu.

In the case of the last world war:

1. Nov 25, 1936 to Nov 6 1937, Axis Powers formed through Anti-Comintern Pact
2. Jul 1937, Nazi Germany Establishes Buchenwald Concentration Camp
3. Sep 30, 1938, The Munich Agreement was an agreement regarding the Sudetenland, which were areas along borders of Czechoslovakia.
4. 1939, German occupation of Poland
5. Mar 15, 1939, Germany establishes the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia
6. Apr 28, 1939, Hitler renounces German-Polish Non-Agression Pact
7. Apr 28, 1939, Hitler renounces the Anglo-German Naval Agreement
8. Sep 1, 1939, Fall Weiss: Germany Attacks Poland - First Battle of World War 2
9. Apr 9, 1940 to Jun 10 1940, The Norwegian Campaign - first Allied confrontation with Nazi forces
10. You should all now have the picture.

Reply
Xoco Latte
5/3/2021 01:40:39 pm

What Nred wrote about these "new coronavirus" drills in Wuhan in September 2019 eerily reminiscent to the situation on the very day of 9/11. At elast half a dozen military exercises were held with some of them simulating exactly the things unfolding in reality...
While an emergency epidemiological drill would never ever use live pathogens for the simulation, it provides a very convenient false flag under which a purported hidden agenda could have been carried out. And with the World Military Games just about to begin, it might have been the original plan to release the new pathogen and infect as many foreign athletes as possible.

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/3/2021 06:10:28 pm

CCP is in league with The Globalists, who also held many 'pandemic' drills, incl. for a coronavirus outbreak at the same time.
CCP doctors determined it was a new strain of 'coronavirus' based upon a bronchoalveolar lavage from a single patient, generating zxillions of RNA and DNA fragments in a monkey cell culture and somehow knowing exactly which fragments to amplify and piece to construct a theoretical but 'precise' 30,000 nt genome ...
The world internet screens were blasted with horrible lockdown scenes from Wuhan and they named the pathogen "SARS" for extra scary effect.
The mass hysteria generated gave The Globalists justification to introduce their pre-scripted technofascist population control that has lead to the public acquiescing to being turned into GMO humans through RNA injections to "set them free".

I hear from some MD's that there is no new disease: silent hypoxia, sensory loss from stuffy nose are features of the flu in general.
After correcting for age, population growth, comparison with prior years, over-diagnosis d/t fake PCR results with no 'gold standard', asymptomatic positive PCR reported as "cases", average age for dying 'from covid' being higher than that for the average life span, doctors pressured to register covid as cause of death for any positive PCR within the past 28 days - the amount of excess mortality for 2020-2021 is not a real pandemic, maybe 2 or 3 times worse than a bad flu season - but unlike influenza the new virus spares children...
So we're seeing a pre-scripted mass media-generated pandemic of hysteria to enable some kind of societal mutation on a globalized scale, promoted by mantras like: "Great Leap Forward" "Build Back Better" "New Normal" "Global Reset" "Fourth Industrial Revolution"... - more like Rise of The Fourth Reich.

W.H.O. guidelines made for inappropriate use of respirators and for withholding steroids, which were only introduced in September 2020, which made for a higher fatality count, along with all kinds of other suspicious events like banning HCQ, stuffing covid cases into nursing homes...no visitors allowed.

So it's natural to be suspicious if there is even a new disease being that the bogus PCR detects, at best, some kind of general, non-specific stress signal; nevertheless covid seems to have distinct features unlike seasonal influenza.
Also, influenzas and others seasonal afflictions like rhinovirus, adenovirus, etc. have curiously disappeared this winter. According to some folks, such variations might even be predictable in advance and should not necessarily be attributed to the lockdowns and face diapers, which in parallel seem to have no effect on the incidence of covid deaths.
Also, in some countries, August to October 2020 were especially bad months for mortality - which is also more consistent with a fecal-oral transmission pattern.
Covid911 is mainly a globalized social manipulation and a bioweapon experiment with an IFR of ~0.25% ( influenza being 0.1%) designed to selectively cull the heard of the elderly and the obese with multiple comorbidities.
Given that the so-called virus, being impossible to obtain in a purified state, thus evading direct analysis, and that "airborne" transmission theory seems to be a deception away from fecal-oral transmission, it's not far-fetched to consider a bacterial etiology. Commensal bacteria can be weaponized and even engineered to produce infectious virus, or parts thereof, adding to the deception and pathology.

The other half of this bioweapon experiment in culling the herd is the mass vaccine experiment, which is not even technically a vaccine but a genetic modification of unknown proportions, and yet basically being forced upon an unsuspecting public of all age groups and not just the groups at specific risk.
Since introducing these experimental synthetic RNA injections, which are a black box in terms of specific contents but presumably are related to the so-called spike protein, which may be a bioweapon in itself, morbidity and mortality are rising, not declining.

The Globalists and CCP both want the same things: totalitarian population control combined with depopulation of "useless eaters" and transhumanism -to 'improve' the worker bees and to achieve their own immortality.

Reply
Xoco Latte
5/4/2021 12:39:45 am

I can remember some individuals looking to complete lunatics (at best) with similarly constructed pathological ideas who years later turned out to be just hired proxies of the perpetrators.
By seemingly favoring the most radical hypothesis of this coronavirus pandemic (CCP bioweapon intentionally released to the population) and denial of the very existence of any new pathogen and fabricating colorful tales of outrageous magnitudes (it is a bit dim if it is just a soup of fabricated RNA and DNA fragments or the 'flu' virus causing never-seen-before type of organ pathologies and deaths), you actually serve only one purpose: discredit the most radical hypothesis and steer any meaningful discussion away from it by this no SARS-CoV-2 virus exists bullshit.

Trolls and proxies like you are always banned from discussion boards very quickly. I fail to understand why you are able to still lurk here. Your services are no longer needed.

Reply
Xoco Latte
5/4/2021 12:42:44 am

"I can remember some individuals looking to complete lunatics (at best) with similarly constructed pathological ideas who years later turned out to be just hired proxies of the perpetrators."

I was referring to 9/11 obviously.

PETER ROSS
5/4/2021 03:51:17 am

Not sure to whom you're addressing as "troll" or "proxy of perpetrators".

1) "denial of the very existence of any new pathogen" - I said just the opposite
2) "a soup of fabricated RNA and DNA fragments" - not fabricated, but the bronchiolar lavage is a soup of fragments.
3) "'flu' virus causing never-seen-before type of organ pathologies and deaths" - I said exactly the opposite
4) "discredit the most radical hypothesis" - what is this radical hypothesis you speak of?
5) "steer any meaningful discussion away from it by this no SARS-CoV-2 virus exists bullshit" - I'm suggesting to seriously consider a different vehicle - a bacteria - as a vessel for the so-called "SARS-CoV-2" and a different - more likely - mode of transmission: fecal-oral.
6) Sorry, but you must be willfully blind not to see that the CCP is in league with The Globalists. Not China Joe nor NATO are coming to the rescue any time soon.
7) Go ahead and silence the dissident "trolls" who don't adhere exactly to your political or scientific agenda -or maybe read more carefully what I write.

PETER ROSS
5/4/2021 04:17:26 am

https://leohohmann.com/2021/04/30/highly-cited-covid-doctor-comes-to-stunning-conclusion-govt-scrubbing-unprecedented-numbers-of-injection-related-deaths/?fbclid=IwAR2XbBL97DqyH4ENHDNEZjB4mNi_nI4FzPD_88JWqU8Pe4gU0A3GmXJkqz0

PETER ROSS
5/4/2021 06:58:19 am

"The BAC [Bacterial Artificial Chromosome] approach, originally applied to the transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus (TGEV) [5], has been successfully used to engineer the infectious clones of the feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) [13] and the human CoVs (HCoVs): HCoV-OC43 [14], SARS-CoV [15], and MERS-CoV [16], and it is potentially applicable to the cloning of other CoV cDNAs, other viral genomes, and large-size RNAs of biological relevance."


Engineering Infectious cDNAs of Coronavirus as Bacterial Artificial Chromosomes
Guest Editor (s): Helena Jane Maier,2 Erica Bickerton,3 and Paul Britton4
2The Pirbright Institute, Compton, United Kingdom
3The Pirbright Institute, Compton, United Kingdom
4The Pirbright Institute, Compton, United Kingdom

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4726977/

David Rivard
5/4/2021 09:34:07 am

Peter, I think your point below deserves more attention:

5) "steer any meaningful discussion away from it by this no SARS-CoV-2 virus exists bullshit" - I'm suggesting to seriously consider a different vehicle - a bacteria - as a vessel for the so-called "SARS-CoV-2" and a different - more likely - mode of transmission: fecal-oral.

I have also long thought that there should have been more emphasis on viral remnant tracing from municipal sewage to get a broader picture of infection. I think it is an important point you bring to the discussion.

While with some of your post I do not know if you are left or right or whatever, and I would not use the terms like "The Globalists" to characterize...I guess the globalists, in the words of one of America's Wisdom Keepers, Archie Bunker, "Listen to what I mean, not what I say" is I think an equally valid way of bringing substance to the discussion.

"6) Sorry, but you must be willfully blind not to see that the CCP is in league with The Globalists. Not China Joe nor NATO are coming to the rescue any time soon."

We are all, in fact, living through an inarguable paradigm shift in so many fields. The pleasant beach sands of many institutions we have kept faith in have been washed away. We now see the jagged rocks that some of us have only suspected as its underpinnings. They range from science to politics and the media and yes, to UN and local government agencies as well. It's even more consequential than the Panama Papers (and subsequent papers), where we see consequential corruption in the places we only suspected.The truth usually bubbles up and we are here to help it.

Although I also disagree with some of the language used here, including even my own earlier contributions, my knowledge of the scope of this paradigm shift has definitely expanded, like an ant colony bumping in to one another until the goal is finally achieved, there is a divine wisdom at work.

Once being a part of the UN system, I have heard many internal discussions of China's disproportionate role in it's institutions. I also have to say that it reached zeniths during Democratic administrations for seemingly altruistic but extremely naive rationales. I thus believe that the CCP was extremely concerned about an America becoming more nationalistic, and Trump became emblematic of this concern in so many different ways. In my view, it is certainly the historic timing of the release that confirmed the CCP's strategy. They demonstrably worried about more nationalistically solidified U.S. foreign policy institutions. Actual capital flight was literally costing them billions per day. The CCP simply could not afford to add another four years to their previously announced global plan. I think my previous posts tried to explain the validity of adding circumstantial evidence to some of the excellent science presented in this blog, ugh...even if leaning on Voltaire's scientific definitions again. Don't discount ancients like myself.

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/4/2021 11:02:54 am

The bacterium-virus combo can explain why the virus is so elusive, and potentially adds a lot of stability. Bacteria can also be weaponized in addition to carrying a deadly virus payload and can be coated with stuff that adds stability. Under the light microscope it will look like an innocent commensal that's "contaminating" the biological specimen being analyzed for viruses.

To achieve their dream of enslaving humanity in a NWO / One World Government, the Globalists need to control the USA, with CCP as their model society structure of maximum surveillance police state, social credit credit scores along with nazi-like depopulation of "useless eaters". eugenics and transhumanism - stuff like that. At the top of the Globalist pyramid is mega billionaires and their mega corporations. There are good reasons they call him "China Joe".

Reply
David Rivard
5/4/2021 11:44:49 am

Peter, I must say I like your bacterium-virus combo theory. It really should be explored. With the right variants it could even be more easily contained to a geographical context. Interesting delivery system.

Although I agree to your reference of "China Joe", I think CCP is doing the complete job of orchestrating this mess, even though there was an obvious reason he maintained Senate representation for the money laundering capital of the world, Delaware, for 40 or so years.

Reply
Fuddman
5/4/2021 01:28:19 pm

@nerd
I have claimed that something referred to as "COV2"

(a) exists only on paper and
(b) has never existed as an organism and
(c) has never been released as an organism and
(d) has only been released as a genbank item.

In response, Nerd listed several peer reviewed studies which contradict what I claim and told me to use facts and logic to prove the studies are wrong. In essence, telling me to put up or shut up.

OK, I'll start with the first reference Nerd provided. That would be a study of the First United States Case of "COV2." To save time, I'll be referring to it in this abbreviated form: the FUCCOV2 study.

First, though, a few preliminary FACTS.

In January, 2020 (Nature magazine) the world was given the sequence of "COV2" by two liars.

One liar named Shi Zhengli (Shi) the other named Yong-Zhen Zhang (Zhang).

Shi, of course, is factually established as a liar by the Nerd in his Blog home page discussion tabbed "RATG13 is fake." I know the word "liar" carries a stronger emphasis than the word "Fake." But, given the impact of her actions, she deserves that unequivocal title - and more.

Nerd appears to make a distinction between her RATG13 lies and her "discovery" of the sequence of "COV2." In effect saying that just because she lied about RATG13 doesn't mean she would lie about a sequence for COV2.

That, to me, doesn't pass the smell test. There was and is too much at stake to allow anyone even suspected of lying to be an influence. She should have been dumped in January 2020 when her Nature article came out. In fact, the exact opposite happened.

Just think, her "Peer reviewed" Nature magazine report, which included the Ratg13 lie, was cited as a reference about 5800 times. Logic tells me those 5800 references, relying on Shi lies, were themselves likely studies (perhaps peer reviewed) pushing a lie.

Next up, Mr. Yong-Zhen Zhang and story of ZC45/ZXC21

Right now, time for a break

Reply
John Kelleher
5/4/2021 02:49:54 pm

Comments of derision based on one's political party affiliation does nothing but dilute the objectivity of this blog.

Reply
Errata
5/4/2021 04:13:46 pm

On the topic of premeditation, I think this from Dr. Steven Quay deserves more attention:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jIc1w_K8074

At minute ~1:50: "...The processing of the specimens was quite unusual. The typical processing is to collect a sample from a patient, to sequence that patient, and to upload the sequence to the European Nucleotide Archive approximately sixty days later. In fifteen examples that I studied this was the pattern, a sixty day processing. The only example I could find was the four patients from the PLA hospital where the patient files were set up on December 10th, sixteen to twenty-six days before the specimens were collected and then the specimens were sequenced. This pattern ... implies that they knew specimens were coming..."

https://drquay.com/news/new-research-points-to-the-peoples-liberation-army-hospital-in-wuhan-china-as-the-origin-for-the-worldwide-coronavirus-pandemic/

https://www.prnewswire.com/ae/news-releases/new-research-points-to-the-peoples-liberation-army-hospital-in-wuhan-china-as-the-origin-for-the-worldwide-coronavirus-pandemic-301158985.html

Reply
Errata
5/4/2021 06:24:18 pm

@David Rivard and Peter Ross

The biggest flaw in the bacterium-virus combo theory is that the bacterial genome would have been picked up already by sequence fishing expeditions.

I know David that this theory is in harmony with your faith in the use of ivermectin against CoV2. I do not doubt your sincerity and the validity of the data you have access to. I just suspect that where you live there are many afflictions that go undiagnosed and sick people blame the big thing that is going around for how they feel. My hunch is that prescribing ivermectin has cured many a patient in your area of an undiagnosed problem they were plagued with. This would lead to copious anecdotal accounts of positive results.

Peter... I hesitate to recommend you browse the links below because I know how you take such things. In your interpretation they just prove that if you use this fishing technology on a sample then you can find almost anything. However the mathematics of why this is valid is beyond the scope of any blog. It would require some semesters of study even given that you had a talent for this kind of analysis which few people do and you cannot be faulted for that if you do not. I do not know how to answer you. I am sorry. This technology works and is mathematically and logically sound. I wish I could say more.

As an example of the ability to ascertain what is in a mixed sample of bacteria and viruses browse the following article by Rahalkar and Bahulikar. It is cited by Yan et.al. on page 4 of the 2nd Yan Report.

"The raw sequencing reads of RaTG13 have multiple abnormal features16,21. Despite the sample being described as a fecal swab, only 0.7% of the raw sequencing reads are bacterial reads while the bacterial abundance is typically 70~90% when other fecal swab samples were sequenced^16,21."

"The Abnormal Nature of the Fecal Swab Sample used for NGS Analysis of RaTG13 Genome Sequence Imposes a Question on the Correctness of the RaTG13 Sequence"

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202008.0205/v1

Also informative are the following examples of the use of sequence fishing technologies by both sides in this mutually antagonistic conflict.

'Viral Metagenomics Revealed Sendai Virus and Coronavirus Infection of Malayan Pangolins ( Manis javanica)' Ping Liu et.al.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31652964/

'The Pan-SL-CoV/GD sequences may be from contamination.' Daoyu Zhang
https://zenodo.org/record/3885333#.YJHkRzQpAnU

Zhang's pangolin paper is cited by Yan et.al. on page 9 of the 1st Yan Report: "However, recent independent reports have found significant flaws in this data^40-42"
It is also cited on page 17 of the 2nd Yan Report: "Adding to the above problems was the poor quality of the raw sequencing data, which has been described recently^13,14,20."

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/4/2021 10:27:25 pm

@Errata


Computers can't be hacked or spoofed and neither can high throughput sequencing...

Nobody would think of placing generic sequences adjacent to a virus sequence to spoof the analysis of raw sequence fragments to disguise the bacterial artificial chromosome origin...

In the case of a coronavirus, nobody is interested in the DNA fraction anyway.

There's got to be a reason nobody can find an intact sample of this virus.

Infectious virus hasn't even been recovered from air samples. The only reason transmission is presumed to be respiratory is because of the pneumonia.

For all we know right now, the virus RNA is a decoy and covid is due to the weaponized bacteria vector.

That this "plague" is 0.25% actual mortality and 99.75% a centralized, military-grade, mass media-driven psychological operation directed towards mandating RNA and DNA injections as the only option is kinda scary-weird. Thanks to people like @nerd we don't have to buy the jumped-out-of-a-fish-market story.

EVERYONE IS READING FROM THE SAME SCRIPT
https://www.bitchute.com/video/5on4Ya3hLMGI/

WITH LOVE FROM INDIA- WE ARE COUNTING ON NUREMBERG 2.0! 💕
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ND3aQ7EKpxIP/




Reply
Errata
5/5/2021 09:26:12 am

@Peter Ross

You wrote: "Computers can't be hacked or spoofed and neither can high throughput sequencing... Nobody would think of placing generic sequences adjacent to a virus sequence to spoof the analysis of raw sequence fragments to disguise the bacterial artificial chromosome origin..."

This scale of this conspiracy makes it implausible. Sure, one lab or computer can be compromised by a malicious actor with an agenda. Your hypothesis is that all the labs in the world being worked by many mutually antagonistic factions are motivated to commit and have successfully pulled off a mega-conspiracy with no whistleblowers or leaks. That hypothesis is laughably implausible.

You wrote: "For all we know right now, the virus RNA is a decoy and covid is due to the weaponized bacteria vector."

Lol! C'mon Peter, mind your pronouns. For all YOU know right now... Covid is not due to a bacteria and WE do know that. The bacteria idea is your pet theory which you are welcome to advocate for but please do not pretend that this whacky idea has the status of a consensus opinion anywhere. Thank you.

David Rivard
5/4/2021 10:40:31 pm

@errata, yes I agree with your assessment. C-19 mimics many other diseases and the testing certainly is deficient at many levels. Pragmatics push many countries and I related that mention to another matter. There is clearly no leadership, even at regional levels. Presidents and their agencies have been on their own and even scientific experts, like yourself, are sifting through data with small like minded groups. Much of the raw data is either not trusted because standards cannot be adhered to, or when they are, organizations generating or publicizing it are at least political suspects. Scant shared or trusted data means no comprehensive intelligence production. Incompleted intelligence means no credible public policies.

Reply
John Kelleher
5/5/2021 12:47:30 pm

Peter Ross said " That this "plague" is 0.25% actual mortality and 99.75% a centralized, military-grade, mass media-driven psychological operation directed towards mandating RNA and DNA injections as the only option is kinda scary-weird.
Peter Ross left this link , WITH LOVE FROM INDIA- WE ARE COUNTING ON NUREMBERG 2.0!

From Auschwitz - Birkenau.Org,,Over 1.1 million men, women and children lost their lives here.
From AP News ,The figure widely used in Poland of 4 million victims at Auschwitz-Birkenau was arrived at by a Soviet commission that came to the camp in February 1945, one week after its liberation. It later submitted its findings to the Nuremberg war crimes trials.
Peter Ross said , "Computers can't be hacked or spoofed...

Peter please stick to the science , not the subjectivity.

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/5/2021 02:19:45 pm

@John Kelleher

The IFR is is 0.25% - and unlike real pandemics, children are virtually unscathed.

"stick to the science"
You want to separate medicine from social science - good for you!

Good that I included some examples in video form of the psychological warfare aspect of this so-called "plague" in the name of which civil rights are being viciously trampled upon all over the world while the oligarchs are enriching themselves and now we're facing a mandatory campaign of forced experimental injections of synthetic nucleic acids.

Here in Israel it's beginning to look like more are dying - and at younger ages - in the post-vaccination period since mid-December 2020 than actually died with a covid diagnosis between March to December.

Apparently Mengele moved to Israel and not to Uruguay, because this national-level experiment - that is by coercion and without informed consent - of untested and essentially useless (according to the manufacturer) GMO injections for a fake indication - fewer than 3,000 deaths here, mostly among the >75 year age group before the injections began - is absolutely Mengele-level.

I'm not alone in calling for Nuremberg Tribunals for these crimes against humanity. We're just waiting for the police to cave in.

You have nothing to fear, right?

The main crimes against humanity committed this past year are not just in the deliberate release of the covid-causing pathogen(s) but very much in the Goebbels-level fear-mongering psychological warfare and fascist oppression instituted by a broad consortium of governments with the WEF appearing to be at the center of coordination. And the evidence of pre-meditation on their part is undeniable, including their boldly announced plans for depopulation and forced medical experiments to convert humanity into GMO's.

If what happened during WW2 freaks you out, then try to pay more attention because it's happening again - just with more finesse.

If you think that calling-out Nazi pseudo-science - nobody definitively knows what causes the covid syndromes and yet mass experimental injections are being administered by coercion and without informed consent - is somehow unrelated to "sticking to the science", you need to pay more attention.

You can threaten me all you want for not adhering to your conspiracy theories that "the CCP is solely to blame" and that there is a real "pandemic" and that the etiology of covid syndromes has been "scientifically established".

Nuremberg 2.0 won't be just hanging 12 guys like in Nuremberg 1.0

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/5/2021 02:46:27 pm

https://breaking-news.ca/the-new-nuremberg-trials-2021-please-share-this-info/?fbclid=IwAR2k--XU_ek8ik8UnuEfgshmub0bkZ2JJSjfIGRB_SWXDiql70te7In2nZ0

The New Nuremberg Trials 2021

A team of over 1,000 lawyers and over 10,000 medical experts led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich have begun legal proceedings against the CDC, WHO & the Davos Group for crimes against humanity. Fuellmich and his team present the faulty PCR test and the order for doctors to label any comorbidity death as a Covid death as fraud. The PCR test was never designed to detect pathogens and is 100% faulty at 35 cycles. All the PCR tests overseen by the CDC are set at 37 to 45 cycles. The CDC admits that any tests over 28 cycles are not admissible for a positive reliable result. This alone invalidates over 90% of the alleged covid cases / ”infections” tracked by the use of this faulty test.

In addition to the flawed tests and fraudulent death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself is in violation of Article 32 of the Geneva Convention. Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.

The “experimental” vaccine is in violation of all 10 of the Nuremberg Codes which carry the death penalty for those who seek to violate these International Laws.

The “vaccine” fails to meet the following five requirements to be considered a vaccine and is by definition a medical “experiment” and trial:...

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/5/2021 12:54:35 pm

@Errata

Read again more carefully what I wrote.

It's perfectly fine if you soften your resistance to new ideas; there's no need to indulge in strawman arguments in your criticism - as if I suggested that all the sequence labs in the world are cheating in collusion. LOL.

The creator of a BAC-virus combination has many options to spoof the sequence analysis, especially when the virus segment is coded in DNA and the investigators are probing for RNA.

There's no comfort in that you somehow "know" that covid is not due to a weaponized bacteria or some other form of stealth pathogen, unless you can prove that the various presentations of covid syndromes are exclusively due to this so-called SARS virus - which nobody has done, except in their mind.

For all you "know", covid is actually ten different diseases with ten different etiologies; it has never been proven that a so-called SARS virus is the cause of one or more of the various covid syndromes.

Try to remain focused and refrain from threats to ban alternate ideas that do not conform with your faith in "scientific consensus".

Reply
John Kelleher
5/5/2021 03:27:10 pm

Peter, I do not disagree with most of what you are saying , though this blog is not the place for political opinions.


Luc Antoine Montagnier a French virologist and one of the 1982 recipients of the 2008 Nobel in Physiology or Medicine worked as a full time Professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

Reply
John Kelleher
5/5/2021 03:31:09 pm

He stated the Covid-19 virus was made in the lab. Does anyone here have those credentials ?

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/5/2021 06:01:51 pm

I'm convinced ot the lab original since first reading @nerd's blog and since then have followed both the molecular bio analysis from various sources and the strong circumstantial evidence - for example guys like Fauci and Echohealth Alliance (Rockefeller>Kissinger) and some NATO and Ft Dietrich folks all have associations with these crimes.

I'll been reading lots of microbiological warfare stuff and will find more direct references on spoofing using BAC's, for general edification purposes.
I'm not sworn to any particular etiology but I believe it's important be open-minded and think out of the box - biowarfare is all about deceptions.

Reply
Errata
5/5/2021 06:14:20 pm

Peter, you should listen to John. His point is quite correct. You are making a fool of yourself by posting drivel. Quit the job of trolling this site. Whoever is paying is not paying you enough. If you keep this up you will get into the bad habit of sounding like a fool. Bad habits are hard to break.

Reply
Errata
5/5/2021 07:00:28 pm

@Peter Ross

Live CoV2 virus is available here at the first link below. Discussion of human challenge experiments for vaccine development has been ongoing. I am including some links. The main hangup has not been the availability of CoV2 virus but rather ethics and safety. You should also read about Koch's postulates which have been satisfied in the case of CoV2. I included links about that at the bottom.

SARS-CoV-2 Viral Culturing at CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html

SARS-CoV-2 Research Grade Test Material
https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/sars-cov-2-research-grade-test-material

Immunological considerations for SARS-CoV-2 human challenge studies
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00472-0

Human Challenge Studies to Accelerate Coronavirus Vaccine Licensure
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32232474/

Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies
https://www.who.int/ethics/publications/key-criteria-ethical-acceptability-of-covid-19-human-challenge/en/

Accelerating Development of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines — The Role for Controlled Human Infection Models
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7968616/

Koch's postulates fulfilled for SARS virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095368/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch%27s_postulates

Reply
Errata
5/6/2021 03:46:24 pm

@Peter

The following article gives an account of the procedure applied to the virus CoV2 to confirm its connection to covid-19. This is an implementation of the testing protocol for viruses analogous to and in fact an updated version of Koch's testing protocol. This is how we know that CoV2 is a virus, that it exists, and that it causes covid-19.

Notice that they compared CoV2 to the original CoV strain and found marked similarities. This is to be expected and further confirms that CoV2 exists and causes covid-19.

"...the results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 maintains a similar profile to SARS-CoV in terms of susceptible cell lines.

Having established robust infection with SARS-CoV-2 in several cell types, we next evaluated the cross-reactivity of SARS-CoV antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2. Cell lysates from infected cell lines were probed for protein analysis; we found that polyclonal serum against the SARS-CoV spike protein and nucleocapsid proteins recognize SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 3, panels B, C). The nucleocapsid protein, which is highly conserved across the group 2B family, retains >90% amino acid identity between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2."

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/6/2021 04:22:07 pm

1) Describes VERO-cell-SARS, in toehr words green-monkey-SARS, not human-SARS nor human-SARS-CoV--2

2) "The isolated virus was identical to that inoculated, as shown by negative-contrast electron microscopy"
- that's just a random exosome, no proof it's "a virus particle" nor an "infectious virus particle". An EM selected to sho an exosome or purported "virus particle" It certainly doesn't qualify as purification.

3) "Virus detection in throat, nose and faecal specimens was considered positive if Taqman RT-PCR and/or virus isolation in Vero cells yielded a positive result."
- not even original sequence can be shown to be recovered - because that's impossible anyway without a purified source of the pathogen.

- again, "isolation in VERO cells" is proof of nothing, needs to be purified and to infect a real host, preferably a human, or at least another macaque.

3) The purified pathogen needs to be shown to be transmissible to a human - or in the least to infect another macaque. This is not even shown for the VERO cell extract of recovered "virus RNA" fragments.

You're forever losing the argument. @Errata, so you need to resort to insults.
Why give yourself away so easily?

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/6/2021 04:49:02 pm

cross-reactivity proves nothing. It's just cross-reactivity.

Why are you trolling with specious arguments?

You need to PURIFY the virus from an infected HUMAN subject and show that it makes another HUMAN subject infected in the same way and can be RECOVERED as the same INFECTIOUS entity from the second subject.

It's not rocket science and it's not forbidden clinical trial. Young healthy soldiers are ideal subjects because they're asymptomatically infected, according to the claims of "The Science:.

At least show that for the Rhesus apes - and using ape virus - not xenogeneic green monkey cell junk extract.

And "the Science" demands a little more than n=1 one ape with a xenogeneic green-monkey-cell-extract-pneumonia.

I guess you resort to insults because you don't understand "Koch's postulates".. Writing "Fulfills Koch's Postulates" in the title is committing fraud.

Reply
John Kelleher
5/6/2021 06:19:09 pm

Peter Ross wrote," At least show that for the Rhesus apes - and using ape virus - not xenogeneic green monkey cell junk extract...".

There is not a primate named " Rhesus ape " (sic). Apes do not possess tails and the Rhesus Macaques do . It is an Old World monkey.
Peter, you are being provocative and thus unprofessional. Eventually you will be solely communicating soliloquies.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/9/2021 07:08:38 am

@Peter Ross

None of your BAC arguments are supported by evidence, while SARS-CoV-2 is proven in all aspects as the responsible viral pathogen for COVID-19. The support here is magnitudes more than what we could list in a comment.

Nonetheless, I don't think you responded to the literature I listed earlier. I will try again here. Please prove all these wrong next time you deny the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is the pathogen responsible for COVID-19:

Isolation and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first US COVID-19 patient
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239045/

Molecular characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first case of COVID-19 in Italy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7118617/

SARS-CoV-2 isolation and propagation from Turkish COVID-19 patients
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314506/

SARS-CoV-2 isolation from the first reported patients in Brazil and establishment of a coordinated task network
https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0074-02762020000100344

Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036342/

First isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical samples in India
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7366528/

Reply
'bro
5/9/2021 12:42:16 pm

@nerd do you think this virus can be transmitted in fecal oral rout perhaps by water contamination? I saw a few papers . I am not sure if these are correct. Please see this
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33643658/

Reply
Nerd has power
5/10/2021 05:00:52 pm

I do not know. I have not been paying attention to such literature. However, my memory seems to say that no infectious viruses are present in feces, although one may be able to detect RNA sequences there. I think the paper you are citing here is more or less supportive of this scenario.

Errata
5/10/2021 05:55:41 pm

@'bro

Virus RNA in feces is believable.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32836117/

"There is strong evidence of multiplication of SARS-CoV-2 in the gut and infectious virus has occasionally been recovered from both urine and stool samples."

The article you cited considers determining the level of CoV2 infection in a city by monitory its sewerage. The evidence seems to indicate it can work although calibration would be site specific I imagine. As to infectiousness, proper water treatment should eliminate a threat from this source.

It is plausible that infection is possible through the oral route because ACE2 receptors exist in the small intestine.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15141377/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33057894/

Infection can take hold in the mouth as well.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01296-8

"Collectively, these data show that the oral cavity is an important site for SARS-CoV-2 infection..."

That oral transmission is not the primary route is certainly because it is so highly infectious through airborne droplets. Evidence for oral transmission would be hard to separate as a source in naturally acquired cases. The virus rapidly becomes systemic when it takes hold.

Animal models have confirmed that oral transmission should be assumed to be a possible route to infection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7250783/

"Here, we sought to investigate whether SARS-CoV-2 could establish productive infection via intragastric route in hACE2 mice...in the three inoculated hACE2 mice, high levels of viral RNA were detected in trachea (2.9 × 106 copies/g) and lung (3.2 × 106 copies/g) of two animals (Figure 4B), which was comparable to that in animals infected via intranasal route."

PETER ROSS
5/22/2021 10:05:48 pm

@nerd

I'm acutely aware that I owe you a reply in regard to the isolation issue re: the publications you listed.
Been preoccupied but hope to compose the reply by next week latest.
Sincerest apology for delay.

Meanwhile I've been looking into the composition of the bnt162 synthetic RNA preparation (Pfizer), comment added to thread below.

Reply
Bro
5/10/2021 06:48:29 pm

Thank you @nerd and @errata,
very informative errata!
now I am wondering how the authorities from different countries can control all of these routes that can be misused in future?
What are the new policy for covid regulation right now? If someone collect virus and misuse it, what are the rules?

Reply
john Kelleher
5/10/2021 08:53:27 pm

nerd has power thanks for your work.

Newsweek's April 28,2020 and Times of India's April 29, 2020 articles on Anthony Fauci's funding of the GOF research at Wuhan's lab had been ignored by Main Stream Media and the U.S. Government.
Now the Fox TV show, "Tucker Carlson Tonight" is "breaking" the story of Fauci and the Lab made virus, Covid-19. It will fuel the political parties' division with each blaming the other. This plandemic is bigger than both of the parties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pmokD3_FN4

Reply
nonameneeded
5/11/2021 08:09:50 am

Can we discuss the origin in a more systematic way?

I there there are four possibilities and more and more I am inclined to think the last one is what actually happened. I am denoting natural as "1" and lab origin "2" (with subheadings).

1.) Natural origin - refuted by the furin cleavage site and the adaptation to human infection seen in the characteristic mutation trajectory after the onset of the pandemic. We can rule this out easily.

2A.) Lab origin, Wuhan origin, accidental release - supported by the epicenter of the outbreak. Arguments could be made that the virus is a "poor" bioweapon given the low lethality - I would say that it is a very effective bioweapon because the prolonged incubation and extreme transmissibility is what makes it so very effective in inspiring fear and wreaking political and economic havoc. A more lethal virus without subclinical disease, short incubation periods, and less transmissibility would in fact be the inferior bioweapon. Arguing against the accidental release is the fact that while the furin cleavage site is convincing at the protein level as are some other proteins of the virus, the DNA sequence does not demonstrate incontrovertible traces of human activity. There are no obviously novel restriction sites, insertions, tags, or other bits and pieces that a virus actively being researched might be expected to have - in other words, the virus' genome has been optimized to look as natural as possible. Another more circumstantial argument is that the timing of the "accident" is uncanny - it was in the midst of the US-China trade war and on the eve of a US presidential election. The timing clearly was all too convenient in effecting political change in the US as well as socioeconomic upheaval around the world (the latter would have happened regardless of the timing).

2B.) Lab origin, intentional release by China (Xi Jinping) - supported by some of the observations already noted above, namely the political utility of the release at the time of the US-China trade war as well as the very sophisticated cloaking of human traces on the viral genome. The problem with this theory is that China would never agree to releasing it in Wuhan since it is so incriminating given the presence of WIV there. If China were to release it intentionally, it would most likely do so with agents in a nearby country like Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, ?India - who could be blamed as the origin - or would release it in Guangdong province. There are at least 3 reasons why Guangdong would make more sense - the food markets actually do have bats, some of which carry coronaviruses, SARS1 originated in that area and was indeed zoonotic (or so we think), and Hong Kong is nearby and would quickly get infected (thus killing two birds with one stone by quickly subduing the riots). Moreover, China's vaccines have been very unimpressive. Sinovac and Sinopharm both have <70% effectiveness and even as low as 50% effectiveness. Even taking into account their confidence that aggressive lockdowns would do the trick, not even the CCP with low regard for human life and human rights would choose to intentionally release a pathogen in its own country or even nearby unless it had a very well developed and tested vaccine program, which they do not. They are far behind the US, European, and Russian vaccines.

https://apnews.com/article/china-gao-fu-vaccines-offer-low-protection-coronavirus-675bcb6b5710c7329823148ffbff6ef9

2C.) Lab origin, intentional release in China by foreign actors or domestic actors. Essentially a frame job. First, I don't know enough about internal Chinese politics but it seems an internal job is a possibility if someone wanted to use the pandemic to sow havoc in China and try to depose the CCP. I will leave that to people in the know. More likely from my perspective is that the foreign actors were based in a Western country that has very sophisticated vaccine programs. mRNA vaccines that were effective to a 94-95% efficacy rate with well designed T cell responses (the Chinese vaccines don't have this) and very high titers of antibody using membrane-bound trimeric prefusion spike protein. There was extensive research on stabilizing the prefusion form of the spike protein by Fauci's NIH. One need only look up the Google patent to see that NIH intramural people and extramural people were doing extensive immunogen research on how to stabilize a variety of coronavirus S proteins, not just the common cold ones (OC43, NL63, HKU1, and 229E), and SARS + MERS, but also things like mouse hepatitis virus, HKU9, and - curiously - WIV1. And once stabilized, these spike protein constructs generated excellent antibody responses.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200061185A1/en

Having seen in recent months China's poor SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy, the glass bridge incident, and the Chinese uncontrolled rocket fiasco:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/10/china-tourist-bridge-glass-panels-smash-longj

Reply
nonameneeded
5/11/2021 08:11:03 am

Having seen in recent months China's poor SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy, the glass bridge incident, and the Chinese uncontrolled rocket fiasco:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/10/china-tourist-bridge-glass-panels-smash-longjing-city

https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa-china-rocket-debris-maldives-long-march-5b

I am not convinced that Chinese science is at the point of sophistication to have generated the virus. I cannot speak at much length about the motivation(s) of foreign actors who essentially may have framed China by planting this virus in Wuhan, but clearly regime change (i.e. overthrowing Trump), socioeconomic upheaval, and unrolling the "salvific" mRNA vaccine platform expeditiously (now being done in children as young as 2) are potential goals.

Having observed the behavior of Anthony Fauci and his associates from January 2020, there did not seem to be a healthy concern that a man of his age should have with the virus being rampant in the community. He first worked hard to bring in as many cases as possible here in the US by coordinating with the WHO/Tedros to lie about the pandemic, and trying to prevent restriction of travel from China and then from Europe - which were the basic approaches any epidemiologist would have taken. There is something very inconsistent with making a vaccine on January 10 but then not protecting his own country or NIH employees. I have a strong suspicion that both Fauci and his close colleagues were vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine very early, possibly as early as January, before there were official human trials.


https://nypost.com/2021/03/29/fauci-says-covid-19-vaccines-are-best-decision-ive-ever-made/

"And that’s when it became very clear that the decision we made on January the 10th – to go all out and develop a vaccine – may have been the best decision that I’ve ever made with regard to an intervention as director of the institute.”

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2020/06/04/moderna-coronavirus-vaccine/

"Moderna had worked with Graham and the NIH over the past few years on its quest to bring a whole new class of vaccines to market. Traditional vaccines are made from a weakened, dead, or small piece of a pathogen—a virus or bacteria—which prompts the body to fight off the invader and builds up immunity for when the real deal comes along. In contrast, Moderna’s vaccines contain an engineered strand of messenger RNA, which tells the body’s cells to produce a very specific part of a pathogen that will ignite an immune response. In other words, mRNA vaccines shift the site of vaccine production from the factory to the body itself.

Later that day, Bancel’s phone pinged with an email from Graham at the NIH. While he couldn’t yet identify it, Graham said, “If it’s a coronavirus, we know what to do and have proven mRNA is effective.”

The NIH’s confidence stemmed from Moderna’s early-stage human trial data from 2019. In fact, that data was so encouraging that Bancel was set to announce in a few days’ time that the company would be doubling down on its vaccine-development program in 2020, with hopes of getting the world’s first mRNA vaccine—and what would be Moderna’s first licensed product—onto the market in the next few years."

https://globalnews.ca/news/7492076/moderna-coronavirus-vaccine-technology-how-it-works/

"And on Jan. 11, Chinese health authorities released the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus.

That’s all Moderna needed to get started.

Two days later, the company and the NIH designed the sequence for its coronavirus vaccine, called the mRNA-1273."

I am certain that Fauci's involvement in the virus' creation goes beyond funding GOF research and I suspect the virus was in fact made abroad or in a local lab in China with directives from abroad, then released in Wuhan in a frame-up job to pin the blame on China.

Reply
Xoco Latte
5/12/2021 01:40:34 am

nonameneeded, it has been a refreshing impulse reading your ideas.
I believe all here are not buying into possibility No. 1, and there are at least 4-5 other reasons than the insertion of the FCS.
As for scenario No. 2, you elegantly summed up sub-possibilities and I would actually lean towards agreeing with you over 2C, but I would alarmingly quick to point out that China has been having a bioweapons program long time ago, and almost certainly the very extensive coronavirus research must have been featuring a secret military part as well. Perhaps what happened was a competition who is going to be ready for deployment first, once there has been overwhelming evidences of both parties ongoing CoV BW program. And the US has been faster to make a move. And as you point it out, more prepared, even though it does not really look like it had.

Reply
Thatguy
6/11/2021 11:16:32 am

As far as who had discussed such work beforehand. Most likely Baric in NC. Fauci made sure to add Wohan lab or China to the end each time he answers that question.

John Kelleher
5/11/2021 09:20:03 pm

nonameneeded , thanks for your research. An interesting fact is that the Fauci's and the Cuomo's have been friends for 40 years. Gov. Andrew's father ,Gov. Mario would have Anthony come by as they are NYC boys.
Never mentioned during Andrew's Covid "Stardom".

Reply
nonameneeded
5/12/2021 06:30:15 am

You make an excellent point and I have no doubt that China has been weaponizing the coronaviruses in their bank. I think the obsession with the money (a paltry 3-7 million dollars) Fauci funneled through Eco Health Alliance is smoke and mirrors. Anyone in science knows this is chump change, and that Shi Zhengli was not strapped for cash since she could always go to the Chinese military for something this important and would get whatever money and manpower she needed. Rather than perseverating on US taxpayers unknowingly funding GOF research it's much more important to investigate how much exchange of information was there. Were virus stocks transferred between countries? Were modifications and innovations developed in the US (at places like UNC Chapel Hill with Ralph Baric or Vineet Menachery down in UT Medical Branch, etc.) tested in nonhuman primates in China? What exactly was the US/Fauci getting out of giving that money? It was either trying to get a closer look into the goings on at WIV, and/or to get new viral backbones that Shi Zhengli found on her speleologic expeditions, or it was to execute or complete certain experiments that were conceived or partially executed in the US in the WIV shadow lab. I do not for a second believe that Shi Zhengli's mentor Ralph Baric or his other acolytes in the US did not continue their GOF efforts and closed up shop hoping that cash Fauci was sending to China would some day bear fruit.

The idea that the US was woefully unprepared for the pandemic is a bit false. It was a synthetic unpreparedness when it came to nonpharmacologic measures, closing ports of entry, PPE, ventilators. That would be secondary to very poor advising and preparation at the level of the public health people, which would include CDC and Fauci. But it was uncannily well prepared when it came to the vaccines, first of which was Moderna, but also J&J and Novavax (who all seem to have mimicked the NIH group's spike protein prefusion stabilization). There is something amiss when the US' most trusted infectious disease public health advisor (Fauci) since the HIV-AIDS pandemic of the 1990s and even under Reagan, can have such a divergent approach to vaccination (started developing it on 1/11/20, or so he says) and containment (nothing to see here!)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-disease-official-anthony-fauci-risk-of-coronavirus-in-u-s-is-minuscule-skip-mask-and-wash-hands/4787209002/

"Short of that, Fauci says skip the masks unless you are contagious, don't worry about catching anything from Chinese products and certainly don't avoid Chinese people or restaurants."

Fauci doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave.""


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqg2kQDlPKw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fauci-china-travel-ban-coronavirus-transparency-criticizes-trump-response

"Fauci himself said he was against the travel ban on China following a meeting with senators on Capitol Hill on Jan. 24, 2020.

The longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told S&P Global Market Intelligence that both he and Robert Redfield, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told senators that imposing travel restrictions was "not a good idea at this time."

"That would create a lot of disruption economically and otherwise and it wouldn't necessarily have a positive effect," Fauci told the outlet on Jan. 27, 2020."


We are only left to conclude that the goal was to introduce a large load of virus into the country and facilitate its spread in order to create a crisis great enough that it would topple Trump and simultaneously provide a launching pad for messianic Fauci's vaccine. He did the same business with hydroxychloroquine, attacking it prematurely before there was any data against it in favor of remdesivir, which also curiously had been tested just the year prior in nonhuman primates infected with MERS in his own NIH laboratory in Rocky Mountain Labs, Hamilton, MT.

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/12/6771

"Here, we tested the efficacy of the broad-acting antiviral remdesivir in the rhesus macaque model of MERS-CoV infection. Remdesivir reduced the severity of disease, virus replication, and damage to the lungs when administered either before or after animals were infected with MERS-CoV. Our data show that remdesivir is a promising antiviral treatment against MERS that could be considered for implementation in clinical trials. It may also have utility for related coronaviruses such as the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV emerging from Wuhan, China."

Anyone who knows Fauci (and I have met him, although I can't claim to know him to any great degree) knows that he has a Napoleon complex and is dying inside over not having won the Nobel Prize f

Reply
nonameneeded
5/12/2021 06:31:31 am

Anyone who knows Fauci (and I have met him, although I can't claim to know him to any great degree) knows that he has a Napoleon complex and is dying inside over not having won the Nobel Prize for HIV-AIDS (I'm not sure why he would be awarded that, since lack of containment in that pandemic also lead to mass death and Fauci's vaccine never materialized - it was the anti-retrovirals that he had nothing to do with that saved lives). Perhaps COVID provided him a launching pad to apotheosis and prizewinning? The timing coinciding with the research done by Fauci's subordinates on generalizable coronavirus vaccines launched by an mRNA platform in the years preceding, and also the remdesivir work the year prior, is all too inplausible.

Reply
nonameneeded
5/12/2021 07:13:57 am

Fascinating new study on innate immune entrainment of the Pfizer vaccine:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1

Mihai Netea is a leader in innate immune skewing. His work has suggested that a vaccine such as BCG (against a mycobacterium) can affect the immune response to malaria (a protozoan) despite no antigenic relatedness, because of the innate immune system being epigenetically changed by the BCG vaccine. This has nothing to do directly with antibodies or even T cell receptors per se. It's about tuning the response at the level of macrophages, neutrophils, NK cells, innate helper cells, and dendritic cells - the innate immune system that is not antigen specific - to respond to pathogens in a different way.

This paper is undergoing peer review, but here's the key paragraph:

Surprisingly, the production of the monocyte-derived cytokines TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-1Ra tended to be lower after stimulation of PBMCs from vaccinated individuals with either the standard SARS-CoV-2 strain or heterologous Toll-like receptor ligands (Figures 1 and 2). TNF-α production (Figure 1B-1G) following stimulation with the TLR7/8 agonist R848 of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from volunteers was significantly decreased after the second vaccination (Figure 1C). The same trend was observed after stimulation with the TLR3 agonist poly I:C (Figure 1D), although the difference did not reach statistical significance. In contrast, the responses to the fungal pathogen Candida albicans were higher after the first dose of the vaccine (Figure 1G). The impact of the vaccination on IL-1β production was more limited (Figure 2A-2F), though the response to C. albicans was significantly increased (Figure 2F). The production of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-1Ra (Figure 2G-2L) was reduced in response to bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and C. albicans after the second vaccination (Figure 2K, 2L), which is another argument for a shift towards stronger inflammatory responses to fungal stimuli after vaccination. IL-6 responses were similarly decreased, though less pronounced (data not shown).

Could the decreased TLR7/TLR8 signaling account for herpes zoster reactivation reported after the Pfizer vaccine?

https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/advance-article/doi/10.1093/rheumatology/keab345/6225015

"The prevalence of HZ was 1.2% (n = 6) in patients with AIIRD compared with none in controls. Six female patients aged 49 ± 11 years with stable AIIRD: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 4), Sjogren’s syndrome (n = 1), and undifferentiated connective disease (n = 1), developed the first in a lifetime event of HZ within a short time after the first vaccine dose in 5 cases and after the second vaccine dose in one case."

We have yet to see the long term data on any of these vaccines and specifically of the cationic lipids employed in the mRNA platforms. It is most imprudent to be pushing this on 2 year old children, where the potential consequences years or decades down the line (exaggerated fungal infections, enhanced susceptibility to viral infections or sepsis, etc.) have yet to be seen, but the benefits in the young age group are virtually nil.

Reply
Annette
6/2/2021 05:04:40 am

Interesting the CDC is now priming us up for fungus vaccines, yet it looks as if they are creating a nice little money generating business in vaccines for the side effects of the vaccines! https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018797557/why-the-next-pandemic-could-be-a-potentially-deadly-fungus

Reply
Fuddman
5/12/2021 09:37:23 pm

The RT-PCR test is useless and has been since the beginning. That according to 22 scientist who issued this report a few months ago.

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

FTA: "The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation."

In essence, these 22 scientist are saying the "peer reviewed" research papers using RT-PCR test results should be relegated to the trash can. That should be adequate response to those references submitted by the Nerd to support the existence of something called "COV2."

But, it's not just the phony RT-PCR tests which testify against "COV2," it is even more the character of the people who brought it into existence and gave it life..

Let's take a closer at some.

1) Shi Zhengli - A liar revealed by this blog and others.

2) Ralph Baric - Who, it appears, conducted GOF research during a time when such research was prohibited by his country. https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

3) Tony Fauci who, despite prohibitions of his country to do so, funneled money to Shi Zhengli enabling her to continue GOF research. https://techstartups.com/2021/05/11/gain-function-dr-fauci-backed-risky-gain-function-coronavirus-research-bats-wuhan-labs-taxpayers-dollars-newsweek-reported/

4) Peter Daszac who circumvented his country's prohibition on GOF research. He took the U.S. money from Fauci and gave it to Shi Zhengli.
(Side note- the money Fauci gave Shi Zhengli most likely paid for the 2013 trip during which she "discovered" RATG13. Peter Daszac was on that trip) see above ref.

I refer to these 4 as the high priest or prophets of the virus industry. For many prior years, they had been prophesying of the coming of a new lethal virus which would become a pandemic, killing thousands and for which there would be no vaccine. They claimed that only they had the intelligence and skills to defeat that inevitable new virus. That was their pitch to get money which, incidentally, they thought the world owed them. You talk about self centered - these guys were full of themselves. And they still are.

Imagine what a blow it was to their world saving egos when Trump, in 2017, told Fauci that his budget would be cut 838 million dollars.
It is not beyond possible that, in those years 2016, '17, '18, and '19, the high priests were secretly hoping a lethal virus would appear so they could proclaim "See, I told you so!"

Their hopes were realized in 2019, with the arrival of the virus industry messiah. His name - Yong-Zhen Zhang

Reply
Errata
5/13/2021 04:50:20 pm

@Fuddman

You wrote (5/12/2021 09:37:23 pm):
"...these 22 scientist are saying the "peer reviewed" research papers using RT-PCR test results should be relegated to the trash can. That should be adequate response to those references submitted by the Nerd to support the existence of something called 'COV2.'"

Take another look at the caveat in the paper whose link you posted.

"RT-PCR is not recommended for primary diagnostics of infection. This is why the RT-PCR Test used in clinical routine for detection of COVID-19 is not indicated for COVID-19 diagnosis on a regulatory basis."

The criticism is not for primary diagnostics but rather for a quick-and-dirty real time test given in clinics or in other settings where a fast answer is needed and a sloppy unreliable test is better than just checking if someone has a fever. That this test has limits, or even if it is outright useless, does not in any way invalidate the existence of CoV2 as a virus. Your claim that it does is either a misunderstanding on your part or disingenuous.

"But, it's not just the phony RT-PCR tests which testify against 'COV2,' it is even more the character of the people who brought it into existence and gave it life.."

Since we cannot trust the people responsible for this virus, the virus must not exist. We have an act of pure evil, the release of a bioweapon on the world that has killed millions, and you wish to refute that fact by pointing out that the people who supposedly were involved are themselves evil.

Really Fuddman, how does your brain generate this kind of spaghetti of a thought muddle? You cannot be serious.


Reply
Xoco Latte
5/13/2021 04:29:23 am

A new paper from mostly Chinese authors showing quite a number of evidential results for the functional importance of the furin cleavage site PRRA in the spike of SARS2.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41418-021-00782-3.pdf

They did all the logical mix and match GOF studies with PRRA inserts, using SARS1, RaTG13 and pangolin CoV viruses, as well as PRRA deletional SARS2 mutant variant. They show that a very impotant pathological mechanism of action of SARS2 depends not only the existance of the FCS, but on the exact position and the exact sequence of it, as well. Especially importance is for the arginine-rich FCS, as alsp shown for other highly infectious viruses like RSV, HIV and H5N7, H1N1 influenza.
Whoever made the original PRRA insert into SARS2, should have followed the exact same path of thinking and actual practical path.

Reply
nonameneeded
5/13/2021 05:55:20 am

I speculated at the start of the pandemic that the multinucleated syncytia could be a key feature of the virus. These have also been observed in HIV, where HIV-infected T cells blend together with macrophages and generate viral reservoirs. Whenever you have a large blob full of virus, and have the capacity to form syncytia, you now have nonvirionic lateral spread (cell-to-cell without virus every budding off into the interstitial space) and also a nearly endless source of virus that may not be as susceptible to apoptosis as normally infected cells. T cells may surveil the surface but may lack the capacity to decommission these virus-packed blobs. And lateral spread will escape antibodies obviously.

I'm learning more and more about the FCS and while I previously thought that the fact that it prepares S2' for cleavage of TMPRSS2 at the cell surface was merely a means of increasing infectiousness and expanding cell tropism (because any cell expressing it on the surface could be infected, regardless of the endosomal pathway), what I didn't realize was that the endosomal pathway was important for host defense - that when SARS-CoV-2 infects the cell surface it totally evades IFITMs - interferon induced transmembrane proteins, which would otherwise impede infection.

Reply
nonameneeded
5/13/2021 06:16:30 am

Some interesting papers:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7111780/

Furin cleavage of the SARS coronavirus spike glycoprotein enhances cell–cell fusion but does not affect virion entry

From the abstract:
"Although the coronavirus (CoV) S glycoproteins share membership in this class of envelope glycoproteins, cleavage to generate the respective S1 and S2 subunits appears absent in a subset of CoV species, including that responsible for the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). To determine whether proteolytic cleavage of the S glycoprotein might be important for the newly emerged SARS-CoV, we introduced a furin recognition site at single basic residues within the putative S1–S2 junctional region. We show that furin cleavage at the modified R667 position generates discrete S1 and S2 subunits and potentiates membrane fusion activity. This effect on the cell–cell fusion activity by the S glycoprotein is not, however, reflected in the infectivity of pseudotyped lentiviruses bearing the cleaved glycoprotein. The lack of effect of furin cleavage on virion infectivity mirrors that observed in the normally cleaved S glycoprotein of the murine coronavirus and highlights an additional level of complexity in coronavirus entry."

Long story short, in 2006 they tried adding furin cleavage sites to SARS and while it facilitated syncytia it did not create a rampantly more infectious virus.

MERS, likewise, has a less efficient FCS and has nothing like the infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2.

Contrariwise, lack of the FCS in SARS-CoV-2 pretty much abolishes it as a

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03237-4

Loss of furin cleavage site attenuates SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis

From the abstract:
"Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)—a new coronavirus that has led to a worldwide pandemic1—has a furin cleavage site (PRRAR) in its spike protein that is absent in other group-2B coronaviruses2. To explore whether the furin cleavage site contributes to infection and pathogenesis in this virus, we generated a mutant SARS-CoV-2 that lacks the furin cleavage site (ΔPRRA). Here we report that replicates of ΔPRRA SARS-CoV-2 had faster kinetics, improved fitness in Vero E6 cells and reduced spike protein processing, as compared to parental SARS-CoV-2. However, the ΔPRRA mutant had reduced replication in a human respiratory cell line and was attenuated in both hamster and K18-hACE2 transgenic mouse models of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis."

So, we must conclude, there is something about the SARS-CoV-2 backbone that makes it virulently infectious when the FCS is present. Was this Daszak's task? Root out backbones from the new cave coronaviruses the Chinese were digging out...backbones that when manipulated with a simple FCS would suddenly be wildly infectious?

This is why we need an investigation.

Reply
nonameneeded
5/13/2021 06:24:18 am

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969212620303725

The Architecture of Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 with Postfusion Spikes Revealed by Cryo-EM and Cryo-ET

Abstract:
"The ongoing global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted from the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in December 2019. Currently, multiple efforts are being made to rapidly develop vaccines and treatments to fight COVID-19. Current vaccine candidates use inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viruses; therefore, it is important to understand the architecture of inactivated SARS-CoV-2. We have genetically and structurally characterized β-propiolactone-inactivated viruses from a propagated and purified clinical strain of SARS-CoV-2. We observed that the virus particles are roughly spherical or moderately pleiomorphic. Although a small fraction of prefusion spikes are found, most spikes appear nail shaped, thus resembling a postfusion state, where the S1 protein of the spike has disassociated from S2. Cryoelectron tomography and subtomogram averaging of these spikes yielded a density map that closely matches the overall structure of the SARS-CoV postfusion spike and its corresponding glycosylation site. Our findings have major implications for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine design, especially those using inactivated viruses."


This is why I do not think the Chinese created the virus. Such a ridiculous paper either means that the Chinese have no idea what they were doing with their vaccines or are just padding their resumes. It has been known for years and actually decades plus that the postfusion protein for these class I viruses is not a great immunogen and is to be avoided. In the RSV vaccine the inactivated vaccine with the postfusion protein actually worsened disease!

It is insane to me that 2 of 3 of the Chinese vaccines are inactivated. The last one, an adenovirus vectored one, used Ad5, which is widespread and thus likely leads to less efficaciousness, and also has had a bad HIV vaccine trial to go with it. The Russians used heterologous prime-boost Ad26/Ad5 in Sputnik, J&J used Ad26, and Astra-Zeneca went with chimpanzee adenovirus.

Which, to me, makes it very unlikely indeed that this kind of sophisticated virus was released - even accidentally - by the Chinese. They just lack the capabilities at this time.

Reply
Errata
5/13/2021 04:22:44 pm

They clearly had the ability to create such a virus, so similar as it is to other work by Zhengli Shi. They also had the ability to create vaccines of some sort. Their belief in traditional vaccine technology does not preclude their creation of this virus and a vaccine against it nor does it render improbable that they released it maliciously. Your argument is that they could not have done it because there is a better way to do it and they did it wrong. Sorry if I snicker but that is just silly.

Reply
nonameneeded
5/13/2021 04:53:32 pm

I think you underestimate the sophistication that went into creating this virus. It is not the technical skill of serial passaging or inserting the FCS. It is the fine tuning of the in vivo response which must have been done in viverrids or nonhuman primates (or, God forbid, prisoners - a thought that occurred to me at the start of the pandemic) that is difficult. You have to create something much less immediately lethal than SARS-1 or MERS but also far more contagious and with a prolonged incubation period to facilitate spread.

As I pointed out with other posts, merely adding a FCS to SARS-1 doesn't do the trick, nor does MERS' FCS make it resemble SARS-CoV-2. HKU1 and OC43 have FCS and they are common cold viruses. It is important but it is not the end all be all. There is something about the backbone of this virus or work done on nonstructural proteins (which you almost never hear about because all the focus is on spike) that gives it the properties that facilitated its incredible spread.

And no, I do not think Shi Zhengli or other WIV scientists had the capabilities to do the latter in vivo fine tuning. You forget that she learned most of what she knows from Baric, who was free to tutor others in the same basic techniques and refine them himself at UNC in BSL3 conditions.

The obsession with NIAID funding Shi Zhengli is a joke. She didn't need $7 million from Fauci/Daszak. China would give her 10X that to make an effective bioweapon. They NIAID link is crucial because of the backbones she unearthed in the caves in China. Those were the unique substrates that the American researchers depended on, and giving the money was an attempt to continue a "collaboration" that gave them access to those precious resources. And no doubt China allowed and facilitated the collaboration out of their own interest of stealing the ideas and techniques developed by American scientists. And there is no way that Baric/Daszak/Menachery/etc. contented themselves with watching Shi Zhengli publish virus after virus after virus and never tried to do their own manipulations on viruses they got directly from her or more likely synthesized based on the published sequence.

nonameneeded
5/13/2021 06:38:59 am

Two more interesting papers:

https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/5/e01774-19

Trypsin Treatment Unlocks Barrier for Zoonotic Bat Coronavirus Infection

These investigators, including Baric, used trypsin in their in vitro experiments to get over the "furin cleavage site" barrier (i.e. you don't need such a site if you throw in trypsin) to screen the potential infectiousness of viruses that otherwise couldn't infect, including a MERS-like Ugandan bat virus. Using this blueprint, you could screen backbones of SARS-like viruses for their infectiousness and pathogenicity in vitro by just quickly trypsin treating.

This other paper is even more curious:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34171-7

Abstract:
"Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) emerged in 2002 as a highly transmissible pathogenic human betacoronavirus. The viral spike glycoprotein (S) utilizes angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a host protein receptor and mediates fusion of the viral and host membranes, making S essential to viral entry into host cells and host species tropism. As SARS-CoV enters host cells, the viral S is believed to undergo a number of conformational transitions as it is cleaved by host proteases and binds to host receptors. We recently developed stabilizing mutations for coronavirus spikes that prevent the transition from the pre-fusion to post-fusion states. Here, we present cryo-EM analyses of a stabilized trimeric SARS-CoV S, as well as the trypsin-cleaved, stabilized S, and its interactions with ACE2. Neither binding to ACE2 nor cleavage by trypsin at the S1/S2 cleavage site impart large conformational changes within stabilized SARS-CoV S or expose the secondary cleavage site, S2′."

Why perform this study? SARS-CoV-1 did not have a furin cleavage site. If they wanted to make a stabilized prefusion spike protein for this virus, they could and did. Examining the effect of trypsinization on the stability of the immunogen in vivo (mostly presented in muscle cells and immune cells....not the GI tract where trypsin is abundant) is clearly geared towards understanding the stability of the prefusion trimer of an S1/S2 cleaved SARS-like coronavirus (SL-CoV). They wanted to make sure that cleavage didn't alter conformation or lead to S1 breaking off....that their 2-proline modified stabilized prefusion protein would be a good vaccine immunogen even if furin cleaved the S1/S2 site.

And the S1/S2 cleaved SARS protein still was stable in the desired conformation. How convenient for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine!

Reply
John Kelleher
5/13/2021 11:39:20 am

Dr. Kory of the FLCCC's recent vid showing the continued disinformation by the WHO and Big Pharma mainly on Ivermectin .Irregardless of your view on Ivermectiin this is still a thorough presentation on the extent to which the WHO will not advocate for our health.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byFEU1A5MRY

Reply
Errata
5/13/2021 04:06:46 pm

@nonameneeded

You wrote at 5/11/2021 08:09:50 am the following:

"2A.) ...while the furin cleavage site is convincing at the protein level as are some other proteins of the virus, the DNA sequence does not demonstrate incontrovertible traces of human activity."

This virus is RNA, not DNA, but let me take that as a typo. You seem to be saying that except for the incontrovertibly manipulated parts of the virus, the virus is not incontrovertibly manipulated. Huh? Anyway the rules of genetics in conjunction with the mathematics of probability give implausibly low odds that the virus is strictly natural. That it is a lab product has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

"2B.) Lab origin... The problem with this theory is that China would never agree to releasing it in Wuhan since it is so incriminating given the presence of WIV there."

The wisdom of a Wuhan release is that when the consensus settles on the virus as the product of lab manipulation, they can fall back on the 'lab accident' explanation. Releasing it elsewhere would preclude that excuse for lack of a plausible reason for bringing it there. The problem they faced is that CoV2 shows the hallmarks of a WIV construction and it would eventually be recognized as such. They could hope for the 'natural spillover' story to sow confusion but they could not hope that it would stand the test of time.

"...why Guangdong would make more sense...Hong Kong is nearby and would quickly get infected..."

As to targeting, it does not matter where a pandemic starts.

"...not even the CCP...would choose to intentionally release a pathogen in its own country or even nearby unless it had a very well developed and tested vaccine program, which they do not."

Their vaccine was good enough to stop the virus within China and the fact that it did implies the virus is ethnically targeted. If the Han Chinese are somewhat resistant then a vaccine is good enough even if it works poorly on other demographic groups.

But there are also sinister possibilities that would benefit Xi Jinping if he targeted his own population with an epidemic.

One is that after testing, perhaps on criminal prisoners or at Uyghur concentration camps, it would have been clear that this virus preferentially kills the elderly. Caring for the elderly has become a crisis in China due to the limits placed on family size previously. If the CCP is as evil as many Chinese people claim it is then one should not be surprised to find out they decided the loss of a few workers was worth the purge of the elderly. This benefit is realized even without a vaccine but such a program would be enhanced by a vaccine if it were available by vaccinating workers and the young while skipping the elderly. Health care providers dedicated to elderly are easy to avoid. Even a relatively poor vaccine would greatly exaggerate the impact of such a program.

There is another that nobody mentions and that is the political value of having an epidemic. There are always well connected people who the leadership would love to get rid of. It is not always possible to just arrest someone on fictional charges and make them disappear. During an epidemic caused by a bioweapon it is easy to get rid of inconvenient people. A relatively non-contagious but much more lethal version of the virus that never-the-less has the same protein profile the tests probe for makes the perfect assassination weapon during an epidemic. The political value of that cannot be over stated.

"2C.) "Lab origin, intentional release in China by foreign actors or domestic actors...More likely from my perspective is that the foreign actors were based in a Western country that has very sophisticated vaccine programs."

It is interesting that the NIH was working on coronovirus vaccines but such vaccines were not available at the onset to the pandemic. Accepting 2C would therefore require you to believe that such "foreign actors" "would choose to intentionally release a pathogen in its own country or even nearby" despite not having "a very well developed and tested vaccine program" a possibility that you indicated you thought "not even the CCP" would do.

Reply
Errata
5/13/2021 04:09:00 pm

"I am not convinced that Chinese science is at the point of sophistication to have generated the virus."

That poor guy on the bridge must have been scared to death. I bet he has nightmares for the rest of his life. The incidents you cite do show a certain reckless disregard for margins of safety but they do not discredit the basic ability to create such things. In any case the technologies of bridge construction and rocketry differ substantially from wet lab work. They depend on calculations of strength under dynamic loads and mistakes are about margins of error whereas the big hurdles for virus research are cleanliness and purity while mistakes are about contamination. These are quite different challenges. We do not say things like "the shed that man built is rickety, no wonder his socks are dirty."

"I cannot speak at much length about the motivation(s) of foreign actors who essentially may have framed China by planting this virus in Wuhan, but..."

The 'false flag' theory cannot be true because the Chinese are not acting like it is true. If it were not one of their own viruses then they would be acting like it was a natural spillover. If it were one of their own viruses then they would be acting like they had a lab leak. They are instead acting like they released a bioweapon. Therefore it could not have been a frame by foreign actors.

It should be emphasized that if it were a natural spillover then there would be no motive for a cover up. If it were a lab leak they wanted to sell as a natural spillover then they would have to avoid any hint of a cover up because that would discredit the story. Since the CCP engaged in a blatant and aggressive cover up, it cannot be either. By process of elimination, it is a bioweapon attack. They are acting guilty therefore it is unreasonable to say they are not guilty.

"...but clearly regime change (i.e. overthrowing Trump)...are potential goals."

Agreed, clearly indeed.

"I have a strong suspicion that both Fauci and his close colleagues were vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine very early, possibly as early as January, before there were official human trials."

This is an interesting theory. Certainly if I had the authority and access that he had then I would have seriously considered getting vaccinated myself. Of course trust in the technology would be a pre-requisite but it is plausible that Fauci and others who were well informed about it could have had that trust. I do not begrudge insiders for getting early access to vaccines. It is to be expected and there is an element of risk. I was surprised that Trump was apparently not vaccinated but that speaks to the risk assessment that insiders had.

"I suspect the virus was in fact made abroad or in a local lab in China with directives from abroad, then released in Wuhan in a frame-up job to pin the blame on China."

This idea has no depth. If it were true, the CCP would not have engaged in an aggressive cover up. They arrested the whistleblower and forbade the emergency room staff at Wuhan Central Hospital from wearing PPE or talking about what was happening at work even with their spouses. This behavior cannot be accounted for by a 'deep state' conspiracy theory about how Fauci, the NIH, Moderna, and perhaps others created and released CoV2 to advance their own nefarious agendas. There is insufficient evidence to introduce this complexity so it is ruled out by Ocham's Razor. The parsimonious theory is that the CCP made the virus and released it on purpose primarily to unseat Trump and end the trade-war with its escalating and damaging tariff policies, parsimonious because it accounts for the behavior of the CCP after the outbreak began and since. A 'false flag' conspiracy theory cannot account for why the CCP is acting like they released a bioweapon on the world.

Other than these comments, I have enjoyed reading your contribution to this blog.

Reply
nonameneeded
5/13/2021 06:17:53 pm

Errata:

"Anyway the rules of genetics in conjunction with the mathematics of probability give implausibly low odds that the virus is strictly natural. That it is a lab product has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Agreed. But the point is that these features are subtle and counterarguments, albeit unconvincing ones, can be made. For example, I see the fact that the FSC “RRAR” insertion is not in-frame with the backbone is suggestive that strenuous effort made to cloak lab origin. Which, again, to me is suggestive of a bioweapon rather than a well-meaning GOF experiment never meant to leave the lab.


“The wisdom of a Wuhan release is that when the consensus settles on the virus as the product of lab manipulation, they can fall back on the 'lab accident' explanation. Releasing it elsewhere would preclude that excuse for lack of a plausible reason for bringing it there. The problem they faced is that CoV2 shows the hallmarks of a WIV construction and it would eventually be recognized as such. They could hope for the 'natural spillover' story to sow confusion but they could not hope that it would stand the test of time.”

Well, the natural spillover theory would have been a lot more plausible had it erupted in the natural origin of the virus, which was Yunnan, or eventually Guangdong. It did occur to me that releasing from Wuhan was so they would have the “lab leak” backup explanation, but by the same argument the epicenter being Wuhan has for most people been the driving force behind the lab origin theory. Most non-scientific people neither have looked at the viral genome alignments nor have understood well the inferences about the FCS or other things (e.g. adaptation mutations or lack thereof) that people with a scientific background make. Most people hear there is a virology lab in Wuhan and conclude China made the virus. Again, China could have launched the virus from any well populated part of China with the same effect and didn’t have to use the precise location of WIV.


“Their vaccine was good enough to stop the virus within China and the fact that it did implies the virus is ethnically targeted. If the Han Chinese are somewhat resistant then a vaccine is good enough even if it works poorly on other demographic groups. But there are also sinister possibilities that would benefit Xi Jinping if he targeted his own population with an epidemic…”

All of these arguments occurred to me, including testing and adaptation of the virus to human prisoners or Uighurs and also propping up crap vaccines. I still do not agree that China would have deployed an inferior vaccine when vaccine diplomacy was a big part of their agenda early in the pandemic. They were pushing their vaccines abroad just as they were pushing defective testing kits, defective PPE, and even defective ventilators. For a country aspiring to become the next superpower, their “materials diplomacy” was startlingly bad. Now we see their vaccines are quite inferior and Chile and Seychelles are surging.

China had strong motivation to release the virus once it was rampant in parts of China. This accounts in part for some of their very shady bioweapon-consistent behavior. The question is whether they would have selected that timing of release when they were caught flatfooted on vaccines and many other countermeasures and got immediately incriminated by the WIV epicenter. Was Trump’s trade war really so horrific that China had to resort to unleashing the virus rather than bankrolling Biden or some other stooge and manipulating US politicians to subvert the election? I mean, China couldn’t wait 1-5 years to ride out Trump’s policies until a Democrat or Bush-Cheney type Republican was in power?


“It is interesting that the NIH was working on coronovirus vaccines but such vaccines were not available at the onset to the pandemic. Accepting 2C would therefore require you to believe that such "foreign actors" "would choose to intentionally release a pathogen in its own country or even nearby" despite not having "a very well developed and tested vaccine program" a possibility that you indicated you thought "not even the CCP" would do.”

NIH/Moderna had a very well developed vaccine platform. They extensively tested numerous coronaviruses (I posted the patent here) and demonstrated robust stability of their prefusion protein and good immune responses. They carefully tweaked the cationic lipids of the lipid nanoparticle to optimize CD4+ T cell responses. They were outmatched by BioNTech when it came to CD8+ T cell responses. They even admit to deploying their vaccine 2 days after publication of the sequence by China. It’s just interesting how well they refined their coronavirus platform from 2016 to 2019 so they were perfectly poised for 2020.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200061185A1/en


“The incidents you cite do show

Reply
nonameneeded
5/13/2021 06:18:46 pm

“The incidents you cite do show a certain reckless disregard for margins of safety but they do not discredit the basic ability to create such things. In any case the technologies of bridge construction and rocketry differ substantially from wet lab work. They depend on calculations of strength under dynamic loads and mistakes are about margins of error whereas the big hurdles for virus research are cleanliness and purity while mistakes are about contamination. These are quite different challenges. We do not say things like "the shed that man built is rickety, no wonder his socks are dirty.””

A fair point, but the larger point is that a sloppy slovenly architect is more likely to play fast and loose with the blueprints and building materials than one who dots his “Is” and crosses his “Ts.” It’s called signaling. The examples I gave reflect that Chinese scientists and engineers apparently cut corners in ways that German, Japanese, American, etc. scientists/engineers do not. If anything, that supports an accidental lab leak rather than a bioweapon. You cannot both claim that Chinese scientific culture is more sloppy and less safe and also assert that a lab leak is out of the question and a bioweapon is what we’re talking about.


“The 'false flag' theory cannot be true because the Chinese are not acting like it is true. If it were not one of their own viruses then they would be acting like it was a natural spillover. If it were one of their own viruses then they would be acting like they had a lab leak. They are instead acting like they released a bioweapon. Therefore it could not have been a frame by foreign actors.
It should be emphasized that if it were a natural spillover then there would be no motive for a cover up. If it were a lab leak they wanted to sell as a natural spillover then they would have to avoid any hint of a cover up because that would discredit the story. Since the CCP engaged in a blatant and aggressive cover up, it cannot be either. By process of elimination, it is a bioweapon attack. They are acting guilty therefore it is unreasonable to say they are not guilty.”

Yes and no. They exhibited some of these behaviors with SARS-CoV-1, which was a natural spillover but one partly due to disgusting food preferences. It’s embarrassing to them and a matter of national pride and saving face is paramount, to the point of stomping out people pointing to the problem. Of course they weren’t going to admit to a lab leak (if true) since they would still be culpable (analogous to manslaughter rather than murder). Their main tactic was to shut down all information coming out of China because they wanted to deflect attention from their lab and also their potential bioweapons program. I would submit that given their shame culture and Communist needs to maintain the illusion of order and tranquility at all times, their suppression tactics would have been employed regardless of the scenario (natural, lab leak, or bioweapon). It is the CCP machinations with the WHO to prevent other countries from closing their borders that bears clear signs of effective weaponization. But it is impossible to discern if that was the plan at the beginning or was an evolution from a lab leak or a bioweapon planted by someone else - even a counterattack. When Hitler started persecuting the Jews with the Nuremberg Laws, he did not immediately plan to murder them and contemplated expulsion into Russia or deportation to Madagascar, etc. The extermination plan happened at the Wannsee conference in 1942. Extrapolating back to Hitler’s intentions having been genocide in the 1930s is not accurate nor is it good history. Likewise with back-extrapolating the latter CCP behavior to conclude that necessarily the initial release was ordered by the CCP as well.


“This is an interesting theory. Certainly if I had the authority and access that he had then I would have seriously considered getting vaccinated myself. Of course trust in the technology would be a pre-requisite but it is plausible that Fauci and others who were well informed about it could have had that trust. I do not begrudge insiders for getting early access to vaccines. It is to be expected and there is an element of risk. I was surprised that Trump was apparently not vaccinated but that speaks to the risk assessment that insiders had.”

It’s not just an interesting theory. I saw what Fauci was doing at NIH in January-April, and it was shocking. His behavior was inconsistent with normal behavior of a public health authority. It was just as suspect as the behavior of the CCP. In fact, equally so, which is why I find the bioweapon argument strong but am unable to figure out who was the prime mover - the CCP, or their collaborateurs in the US. Fauci’s team had fine tuned their generalizable coronavirus vaccine platform in 2016-2019, remdesivir had promising results at Rock

Reply
nonameneeded
5/13/2021 06:19:45 pm

It’s not just an interesting theory. I saw what Fauci was doing at NIH in January-April, and it was shocking. His behavior was inconsistent with normal behavior of a public health authority. It was just as suspect as the behavior of the CCP. In fact, equally so, which is why I find the bioweapon argument strong but am unable to figure out who was the prime mover - the CCP, or their collaborateurs in the US. Fauci’s team had fine tuned their generalizable coronavirus vaccine platform in 2016-2019, remdesivir had promising results at Rocky Mount Labs (part of NIH) for MERS in nonhuman primates in 2019, and Fauci in January stated to his lab leaders that NIH was likely to play a major role in COVID. Fauci sent an NIH delegation to China in January 2020 while the CDC was barred; he ordered the creation of the COVID vaccine on January 11, 2020 (his words), but told Trump to keep the border open with China, he deceived Americans as to the danger of the virus, lied about masks (Americans and his own NIH employees were told not to wear them for months), lied about the virus being airborne (Americans and his own NIH employees were told it was not a major mechanism of transmission), manipulated the remdesivir “adaptive” clinical trial endpoints (removed mortality/intubation/hospitalization as the composite primary endpoint and switched to days to hospital discharge), etc. His hands are dripping with blood.

It is very clear that Fauci had strong motives to import the virus into the US to satisfy a number of convergent goals: 1. overthrow Trump; 2. create a catastrophe that messianic Fauci would solve with “his” vaccine and remdesivir rather than using “boring” methods of containment; 3. bolster Democrat political power and socialism in the US (more generally than merely deposing Trump)). You should read Fauci’s love notes to Hillary Clinton:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/4379

Fauci displayed brazen overconfidence in the face of a virus that was highly lethal to the elderly and that he assuredly knew in January was airborne and extremely contagious. His bizarre behavior, as well as that of his acolytes, informed me that he was protected very early on, and that he was very confident in that protection many months before the results of Moderna’s phase 1 trial were published in the summer. I thought at first it was a prophylactic medication such as hydroxychloroquine but a few months later concluded that it must have been the vaccine.


“This idea has no depth. If it were true, the CCP would not have engaged in an aggressive cover up. They arrested the whistleblower and forbade the emergency room staff at Wuhan Central Hospital from wearing PPE or talking about what was happening at work even with their spouses. This behavior cannot be accounted for by a 'deep state' conspiracy theory about how Fauci, the NIH, Moderna, and perhaps others created and released CoV2 to advance their own nefarious agendas. There is insufficient evidence to introduce this complexity so it is ruled out by Ocham's Razor. The parsimonious theory is that the CCP made the virus and released it on purpose primarily to unseat Trump and end the trade-war with its escalating and damaging tariff policies, parsimonious because it accounts for the behavior of the CCP after the outbreak began and since. A 'false flag' conspiracy theory cannot account for why the CCP is acting like they released a bioweapon on the world.”

As anyone who works in science can tell you, the parsimonious explanation is the first order explanation but is never complete and is inevitably revised with added layers of complexity. Truth is often stranger than fiction. I hear what you say about the CCP and largely agree, but having observed the internal behavior of Fauci and his acolytes I can say his/their behavior was and is just as suspect, and is not comprehensible in light of just the CCP bioweapon hypothesis. The CCP was desperate to get Trump off their backs, but the Deep State and their point man Fauci were even more hysterical than the CCP, and had brazen confidence due to “his” vaccine.

Reply
Xoco Latte
5/16/2021 01:40:12 am

Very interesting line of thoughts. Without hard evidence this problem might just stay an unsolvable mystery with wildly opposing theories with obfuscating layers of dis- and/or misinformation channelled by the culprits and its opponents. China was not fully prepared to this event even though almost certainly was in preparation of something similar. Once attacked and not being able to contain the epidemic, decided to reverse the attack and propagate the epidemic to abroad. The very strict lockdown measures and a mediocre-quality vaccine helped to contain the epidemic at home, unlike for most of other countries, especially the US. Biowarfare strategical experts would know better, especially when they would be better knowing the behind-the-scene information.
For sure this CoV pandemic is a de facto dream come true for Deep State, and nobody could claim this was not seen coming. All the elements of the epidemic and its control measures has been made known bit by bit for years. Only the chip embedding and mass-controll through it what is still missing but who told you that the show is over yet?

Reply
evidence
5/14/2021 09:19:53 am


(1) How the MEDIOCRACY of German health officials BOTCHED their vaccination campaign time and again...,
(2) ... in the light of the broader picture of our systematic under-appreciation of FAT-TAIL RISK events; and correspondingly human's dangerous urge to over-engineer solution attempts addressing those fat-tail risks/events - due to overconfidence.

(1) At the beginning of the pandemic, you would be certainly better off in Germany in relative terms as compared to a lot of other Western countries (partly due to effects of initial denialism of the corresponding leaders of the latter); this in particular also in comparison to the UK.
This situation in comparison particularly to the UK has precisely REVERSED by now, as the UK has avoided their 3rd wave, while Germany got and still gets a taste of it:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/
-- How could that have happened? How could Germany eventually have done so MANY mistakes in a row, after it had been in a relatively enviable positon at the beginning of the pandemic - in particular as compared also to the UK?
I only focus on the last mistake (and not the E.U.-organisation related ones before/ those related to centralization, purchasing and distribution failures, with correspondingly the biggest irony that Biontech is a German company with by that time already broad infrastructure): namely NOT timely (i.e., mid Feb 2021) revising the vaccination roll-out by not promptly likewise DELAYING the 2nd shot - like Great Britain successfully had been doing for the recent past, followed by some other contries.

- From what we can see if we compare the time development of Covid cases and deaths for Germany, vs Israel, vs UK (e.g., on worldometers), it became strikingly clear - at latest by March/April 2021 - that the UK were even better off as compared to Israel, specifically if the CASE FATALITY RATES are compared: THE parameter, which theoretically is expected to improve most by successful vaccination:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/

How can that be - since Israeli individuals seemingly being 'double' 'protected' with 2 shots, and at the same time (at least during the beginning of th roll-out), having a comparable or even higher relative vaccination rate for their population as compared to UK at any given time?
Of course, U.K. is an island, while Israel is not. That might contribute.
But the main interpretation is this one: once the primary infection-related deaths start to substantially decline, due (at least in part) to the strong effect of the large-scale vaccination roll-outs, the adverse effects due to this primary prevention/intervention effort, namely vaccination (with not yet having completely evaluated all fat-tail risks it entails as well, including lethal ones), become very quickly more relevant in RELATIVE terms; for example, also a silent concomittant covid infection becomes likely more lethal if you get the shot at the same time.
Consequently, with ONLY one shot (and delaying the 2nd dose for the time being), you already cut statistically all those adverse events roughly by 50% at any given time during the first months of the roll-out- including for example the fatality number of silent covid infections, aggravated while being vaccinated.
Adding to this, given their extremely high effectiveness, the protection estimates due to vaccination still give largely CONFLICTING results if comparing only one shot vs two (at least for the time being), as well with respect to how much time lag there can be tolerated, or would be optimal if you administer two shots. For example, for Astra vaccine, there has been even one publication, which says only one shot has an evenn higher effectiveness as compared to two (!):
Voysey M(02/19/2021): Single vs double dose AZD1222 and the influence of the timing
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00432-3/fulltext
quote: "The slightly lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 of 66·7% after a booster dose appears counterintuitive compared with the 76% efficacy after a single dose"

At the same time, given at that time all those UNCERTAINTIES and UNKNOWNS, UK epidemiologists in December 2020 came to a simple calculation: If you want to avoid a possible 3rd wave, you HAVE to vaccinate 2 million individuals in a WEEK:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/study-says-britain-must-vaccinate-two-million-a-week-to-prevent-a-third-covid-19-wave/
Davies N et al (12/2020)
https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/reports/uk-novel-variant/2020_12_23_Transmissibility_and_severity_of_VOC_202012_01_in_England.pdf
And that's what they did. The price: not sticking to the 'recommended' protocol.
The bold UK epidemiologists looked only at the DATA of the vaccine trials - and at the same time ignored the vaccine companies' RECOMMENDATIONS. That was not only extremely bold, but also ver

Reply
evidence
5/14/2021 09:25:16 am

The bold UK epidemiologists looked only at the DATA of the vaccine trials - and at the same time ignored the vaccine companies' RECOMMENDATIONS. That was not only extremely bold, but also very smart, since you cannot exclude a bias in those companies' recommendations, because: (a) once the population has found out that only one shot would work and might be even preferable - this possibly slashes the revenue by 50%. Which company would be happy to recommend that (uncertain) solution first hand? [NB: Eventually, the efficacy data of the trials themselves had even to be revised for the better regarding a single shot (see Bernal et al, cf. below), because the companies did not exclude the first two weeks after the first shot for their trial analysis (!) ]
(b) In addition, as we know, for the current pandemic situation, vaccine companies might possibly be liable with respect to the efficacy of their products (as they just would risk losing the contracts and subsequent revenues), but currently definitely NOT liable when it comes to corresponding adverse effects (of the solution they are selling). That is highly likely adding to their (company's) RECOMMENDATION BIAS towards higher dosis-regimen (Here: propagating strict adherence to a TIMELY two shot protocol for everybody, even if the evidence remains scarce.)
So the British epidemiologists outsmarted everybody else by ignoring the company's recommendations and only respected the data.
In contrast to Germany. At the beginning of the vaccination campaign for a German individual being vaccinated twice, according to the given company's protocol, the average risk doubles (as compared to their UK peers), first with respect to vaccination (i.e., adverse events), but in addition secondly also (on top of this) with respect to contracting the virus, since they got two shots, and by doing that, they could only vaccinate half of the number of individuals at any given time, if we consider the same boundary condition of the highly limited number of shots at the begining of the roll-out (assuming the same relative amount of shots for both populations).
Hence, the temporary risk-average for Germans under this orthodox vaccination regime is even MORE than doubling (in comparison the their UK peers), probably something between three or four times as much, during this highly dynamic situation at the beginning of the vacination campaign (+ the exponential growth phase of a 3rd wave), under similar restriction/boundary condition (i.e., same relative, highly limited amount if shots for both populations at a given time- of course there has been also more for UK initially).
This higher overall risk exposition is likely also the case even for the Covid risk group, namely the elderly (even given, according to serological and epidemiological data, their possibly, however not proven, insufficient immune response after the first shot: the UK politics at first giving only one shot seems to be more beneficial by and large even for this vulnerable age group: while those older individuals might possibly have only half the protection with one shot (one publication says 57%, current CDC data says 64% as compared to 94% fully vaccinated), this is largely more than COUNTERBALANCED by the fact, that they also have a substantially reduced exposition risk in comparison to their German peers, since the ratio of vaccinated individuals, they would encounter, is roughly at least twice as compared to their German peers during the beginning of the vaccination campaign. - And for the younger age group with only one shot (to which the older age group also has contact to), this means currently even possibly almost full protection - at least for the time being. Hence, the doubling of indirect protection at least outweighs the estimated (still uncertain, at most 40-50%) reduction of the direct (serological) protection for the elderly. In addition, some data even showed that Covid-lethality rate had been already reduced down to zero already by only one shot, even for the most vulnerable - the elderly.
So given all this interesting and encouraging data, the last mistake German healths officials had been doing (beginning February 2021), was not to timely and immediately revising their roll-out program, after the convincing numbers of the UK had come out mid February (
[Bernal et al: Early effectiveness of COVID vaccines
https://khub.net/documents/135939561/430986542/Early%20effectiveness%20of%20COVID%20vaccines.pdf/ffd7161c-b255-8e88-c2dc-88979fc2cc1b?t=1614617945615
], and not likewise administering only ONE shot for the time being. INSTEAD, they hastily just extended the age group for the more risky Astra vaccine on the basis of that same UK data (Bernal et al).

It is an example that at the beginning of the storm (here: Germany's 3rd wave), those subtle decisions seem to be quite minor, marginal, or maybe largely technical - but this only if we do not appreciate the exponential nature ('butterfly effect

Reply
evidence
5/14/2021 09:37:10 am

- but this only if we do not appreciate the exponential nature ('butterfly effect') of the first phase of every pandemic storm - including a 3rd wave. Mid Feb 2021 was exactly the time, when the 3rd wave had not yet fully materialized for Germany; one could only predict the coming with certainty, according to the grim replication rate number R>1 at that time.

And now on top of everything else: according to the data from Israel, the (rare) myocarditis adverse events of RNA vaccine largely occured after the SECOND shot (among the 'vaccine risk group', namely healthy young men - as they are the usual risk group for myocarditis in general).
Hence, in the light of possibly MARGINAL additional benefit of protection by the second/'booster' shot of this highly efficient vaccine among YOUNGER, healthy individuals, strict adherence to the 2-shot protocol became even more fallable/questionable, in particular for this group of youngger individuals. Sufficientt retrospective studies are lacking (comparing vaccine break-through numbers of the orthodox two vs one shot regimen), again, in particular for this age group.
The definite (epidemiological+serological) data and evidence, that only one shot would not be entirely sufficient for healthy individuals under 40-60, is still LACKING for the time being, while in contrast quite some evidence speaks for sufficient protection - at least for some time (beginning 4-5 weeks after the jab). On the other hand, given the jab is absolutely not cost-free with respect to putive health risks/adverse events, this might be just fine, or even optimal for healthy individuals let's say under 30-40.
- And we always have re-consider and do not forget the McCullough SMDT early-Covid HCQ/IVM based intervention protocol!

Take home message, part one:
Never pursue a perfect solution, avoid over-engineering, as long as all the fat-tail risks/effects of both, the underlying problem as well as the correspondingly promised solution, are not yet perfectly known, not yet fully understood and uncovered. Being overconfident, and not timely revising your model according to data, and not daring to come to bold, but at the same time precise decisions in accordance to the data-ADJUSTED model, is always lethal when it comes to health and health risks (as it is costly when it comes to economy) - especially for difficult-to-evaluate FAT-TAIL risk situations.
Also Germany (and her decision makers) being a recurrent, sorbering example of this.
Overconfidence and orthodoxy is specifically hurtful and toxic for pandemic situations, which, due to their autocatalytic nature, bear always unforeseen fat-tail risks.
Covid will be in line with other historic examples of ill-fated approaches to (new) epidemics due to othodoxy and/or overconfidence.


(2) And actually we do live in Western societies in a time in which FAT-TAIL risk events are being systematically underrated/under-appreciated, and in which we have been chronically 'trained' towards an overconfidentiality bias with respect to the notion that fat tail risks might be (more) controllable. We are very much trained by our current societies to having defensive attitudes and individually rejecting the benefit of a doubt with respect to fat-tail events. (Our usual knee-jerk reaction: 'Hey, this is the job for insurers - not ours' - by simply recalling our feeling of reassurance we always had after for example boarding on a plane...)
This is particularly the case for prosperous, 'stable' societies (in the sense: society that has been largely unchanged for a lot of decades, like for example the U.S.).
Actually, Covid is THE fat-tail risk event and an example of this overconfidence par excellence (cf. reference below (**) ): Zealous researchers and zealous societies kept playing with this evolutionary molecular universe for decades (and at last definitely with malicious intent), and systematically avoiding by and large the public discussion of the fat-tail risks it entails, assuming that nothing big would happen, as we are wired to intuitively extrapolate the present linearily into the future, and intuitively consider major disruptive events of the past as being frozen history only (as long as we had not been directly traumatized by those events) - regardless how close this 'history' has been.
This is particularly the case for those who are being in power, being in charge, who have a sense of agency in society (even if they are also only highly-payed vassals of the feudal cast).

Take home (2): Nerds (like ourselves) are not prone to this fallacy of overconfidence. To the very contrary: Nerds are a risk group. The worst risk group for this particular psychological pitfall 'overconfidence' are Nerds in power; and we also do live in a time, in which a lot of Nerds became very powerful, are among the richest individuals for example, and became crucial decision-makers...
#

(**) This point of risk assessment (including Covid) is discussed for example in this essay
Ra

evidence
5/14/2021 09:40:45 am

(**) This point of risk assessment (including Covid) is discussed for example in this essay
Ragheb M(04/23/2021) Risk quantification:
http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20457%20CSE%20462%20Safety%20Analysis%20of%20Nuclear%20Reactor%20Systems/Risk%20Quantification.pdf
he is also respectfully discussing the Yan report (beginning p. 182).
#

Jimmy Kudo
5/15/2021 07:45:18 am

You might be right.

"WIV accessed the sample repeatedly in 2017 and 2018."

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1279761424919732224?s=20

Reply
Nerd has power
5/16/2021 12:08:16 pm

Excellent exchanges in the past few days. I enjoyed reading your analyses @nonameneeded @Errata @evidence.

Although I really appreciate the insider’s knowledge from nonameneeded on Fauci’s behaviors, I have to say that I agree a lot more with Errata’s analyses. I just would like to add a couple of points to this “who did it” discussion.

First, please remember that fabrications (therefore cover-up) started prior to the start of the pandemic. Like Jimmy Kudo just commented above, the fabrication of RaTG13 sequence was initiated in 2017 and 2018. Also, the first fabrication of pangolin coronaviruses took place before Sep 2019. If it was a foreign actor farming up the CCP or an accidental leak, would the CCP preemptively engage in the fabrications/cover-up?

Also, at least two pangolin coronavirus fabrications involved the CCP’s military research labs (2nd Yan report). Does Fauci have the capacity in ordering the Chinese military? Not even Zhengli Shi has this capacity. It has to be the CCP.

Second, please allow me to remind you again the MERS drills done in Wuhan just before the outbreak. These drills were clearly ordered and orchestrated by the CCP government, not Fauci.

Of course Fauci’s hands are dripping blood; I would make the same comment. However, my reasons would be based more on his denial and smear of HCQ. To me, the reason Fauci and his-likes defame HCQ is because they knew HCQ works in protecting infected people from sever disease and death. HCQ is moderately effective in the prevention of infection too. Wouldn’t that knowledge (that his personal health is guaranteed by HCQ) add to his comforting looks at the beginning of the pandemic? I think it’s possible.

I also think that scientists are trained to be keen in smelling the opportunity to apply his science to new problems. Fauci could be exceptionally good at this. Once he learned that a coronavirus was causing the outbreak, he would not hesitate for a second to promote one of his own things that could become a solution, especially when he could possibly benefit from this personally in a grand fashion.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/16/2021 12:14:54 pm

I also would like to comment on whether the CCP aimed for a precise fatality rate or transmission rate when creating the bioweapon. I would say not necessarily.

In this unrestricted bioweapon, they wanted a relatively low fatality rate and high transmissibility. However, people working on creating it are scientists, who understand something this novel may not be entirely predictable. If this bioweapon turns out to be slightly more or less lethal or slightly more or less transmissible, they would still use it. Please remember, whether or not this bioweapon should be released is not a decision purely made by the scientists; it depends a lot more on the political needs of the CCP’s top officials. They just needed the bioweapon to be good enough to do the harm. It could be pre-mature, and yet the CCP would not hesitate in releasing it as long as they think it’s “time”.

Does an effective vaccine have to be in place for the launching of the biowarfare? Not really.

Having the vaccines ready to go is not a logical pre-requisite for intentionally releasing the bioweapon. HCQ is there.

Yes, regular Chinese people did not know the benefit of HCQ. However, that does not matter in the CCP leaders’ minds. As long as they themselves know how to stay healthy and away from being killed by the virus (by using HCQ), the CCP leaders could not care less about the Chinese people dying from COVID. They may have even wanted to have it happen just so that the world would not look in their direction when searching for a perpetrator. Was depopulation of the elderly a possible bonus here (as Errata has described), I do not know. What I do know is that you should not underestimate the evilness of the CCP.

Remember also that the initiation could also be due to a community test gone out of control (likely because they have underestimated the transmissibility of the virus). In that scenario, it is of course possible that vaccines may not be in place.

About the failed Chinese vaccines, again, you have to take into account the “miscommunication” that could occur between the military scientists and the CCP leaders. In that system, you report things in a way that would make you look good and also please your leader. Could the scientists have oversold their ability to quickly develop effective vaccines? They must have. An important fact here is that Chinese scientists never developed any vaccines against any virus in the past. All the vaccines doses (against other viruses) injected into the Chinese population were manufactured based on foreign inventions and by following foreign production protocols. In other words, the Chinese scientists have ever had the ability to develop good vaccines (it’s actually much more challenging than developing a bioweapon). Yet, they have to claim they could here because they have described the whole plot previously to the CCP leaders: they would create an unrestricted bioweapon to attack the world’s population and then use a vaccine to control the world. In reporting this plot to Chairman Xi, they likely omitted the fact that they do not have any record of developing effective vaccines of anything. Don’t tell me Chairman Xi could point this defect out in their plot; he never really graduated elementary school……

Finally, I have to reiterate the substantial involvement of the CCP’s military labs here.

Many military labs/scientists were involved in coronavirus research in the past decade. Importantly, the backbone of the bioweapon, ZC45/ZXC21, were discovered by a Chinese PLA research lab. Also, like mentioned above, some fabrications/cover-up were committed by military research labs too.

Great point by @nonameneeded that Shi didn’t need that NIH funding to do what she has to do. However, again, please remember that it is not just Shi. It is a bioweapon’s program with many labs of various expertise. Yes, Shi may not have the whole capacity here, but the whole team and the nation-wide network has all the expertise needed. The creation of this bioweapon isn’t the most challenging as described in the 1st Yan report.

Reply
The CCP is NAZI
5/16/2021 12:48:03 pm

Thanks, Nerd has power. I am not in the same field as you are in, but I have more trust in you than those who developed the vaccines even though I don't know much about you. I know my reply here is not so relevant to what you said, but I am very skeptical about the vaccines. Do the vaccines in general really work? I doubt it, as HIV has been around for decades, yet there is still no vaccine for it. Why would I believe CCP virus vaccine would work if it also has HIV insertion? My friend is a biologist and had the vaccine and told me that she is fine. I would say that it's too early to say if she is really fine or not. I heard that these vaccines have population control and chips for ioT(Internet of things) and cloud. I'm not sure if this is a conspiracy, but is this really possible? Why would we trust the vaccine more than HCQ? Would you take the vaccine or not? Thank you!

Regardless, I really hate the CCP and wish the party will collapse soon, otherwise the world would not have any peace.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/22/2021 09:44:00 am

Sorry for the late reply. I am not an expert on vaccines myself. I can only describe my personal choice here.

I do not want to take the vaccine myself, and I also recommended my family and some friends and colleagues not to get it. However, I didn’t feel offended when many of them did take the vaccine. Again, I’m not an expert on vaccines.

My first reason against the COVID vaccines is that there is known and unknown risks associated with them. The risk of blood clotting has been reported and some deaths were also reported to be associated with COVID vaccination. However, given the universal push of vaccines, I am convinced that side effects and deaths associated with vaccines are underreported. More importantly, the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is designed with an evil intent. While some of the engineering done for it are obvious to us (namely, RBM swap and FCS insertion), some are hidden (I don’t believe there are insertions of HIV sequences in there though). What functions are the hidden genetic manipulations intended to elicit? I don’t know. Yet, all forms of vaccines work by putting this exact Spike protein into my body. Basically, I do not know whether or not there are the long-term consequences from COVID vaccination. I do not want to take that risk myself and I also recommend others not to take that risk either.

My second reason is my fear of the ADE effect. If a new variant of the virus emerges and cannot be neutralized by antibodies elicited from vaccination, there is a legitimate possibility that these antibodies may enhance the infection efficiency of this new variant virus, thereby likely worsening the outcome of the infection. Could the CCP military virologists be searching for such variants? I personally cannot eliminate that possibility (the ADE effect is well known, dating back to studies on SARS; they must know this possibility/opportunity).

My third reason is HCQ. I know people have different opinions on HCQ. I’m personally convinced with HCQ’s effectiveness against COVID (it needs to be used early, in proper amount, and in combination with zinc). I don’t think any of those vaccines would make me safer than HCQ does (vaccinated people in India still die from COVID). At the same time, HCQ is much safer in terms of side effects.

That’s all I have. Hope you will find it helpful.

nonameneeded
5/16/2021 02:54:10 pm

Nerd has power:

“First, please remember that fabrications (therefore cover-up) started prior to the start of the pandemic. Like Jimmy Kudo just commented above, the fabrication of RaTG13 sequence was initiated in 2017 and 2018. Also, the first fabrication of pangolin coronaviruses took place before Sep 2019. If it was a foreign actor farming up the CCP or an accidental leak, would the CCP preemptively engage in the fabrications/cover-up?

Also, at least two pangolin coronavirus fabrications involved the CCP’s military research labs (2nd Yan report). Does Fauci have the capacity in ordering the Chinese military? Not even Zhengli Shi has this capacity. It has to be the CCP.

Second, please allow me to remind you again the MERS drills done in Wuhan just before the outbreak. These drills were clearly ordered and orchestrated by the CCP government, not Fauci.”

I agree that China engaged in fabrications of nonexisting viruses, which they would have no motive to do if the virus was purely an American creation framed on them. RatG13 and the pangolin CoV frauds are examples of that. They are in it up to their necks. I’m just not sure if the timing of pulling the trigger on this bioweapon was decided by China. One would think that only CCP/China had their hands on the harness, but if Shi Zhengli had assistance from Ralph Baric et. al. as the “godfather” - or one of his other brilliant acolytes at places like U Texas Medical Branch or the nefarious Daszak, then in this “collaboration” there may have been a shuttling of a small number of American scientists to and from WIV. Remember, because this is a virus and not a bacterium, they just needed the sequence as a FASTA file and could re-create anything in an American lab or really anywhere else. Baric’s reverse genetics is that good.

Regarding these preparations, all I can say is from my inside sources who know the creator of the Moderna vaccine that NIH’s vaccine research center was hellbent on developing a generalizable coronavirus vaccine and put a ton of effort into it in 2016-2019. I’ve cited a number of papers and the patent. The timing is all too coincidental. They demonstrated that prefusion constructs of all the standard coronaviruses provided excellent immune responses and then even trypsinized SARS to determine that when S1/S2 was cleaved that this prefusion trimer was stable. It’s obvious this was preparation for a SARS-like coronavirus that had S1/S2 cleaved endogenously, i.e. by furin. So they knew that the vaccine would work for such viruses. What’s more, they just published (NIH people, UTMB people, and UNC people/Ralph Baric) that trypsinization unlocks a barrier to zoonotic bat infection! What is the idea behind publishing that, other than providing a blueprint for more coronavirus bioweaponization?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30356097/

“Here, we present cryo-EM analyses of a stabilized trimeric SARS-CoV S, as well as the trypsin-cleaved, stabilized S, and its interactions with ACE2. Neither binding to ACE2 nor cleavage by trypsin at the S1/S2 cleavage site impart large conformational changes within stabilized SARS-CoV S or expose the secondary cleavage site, S2’.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31801868/

“These results suggested that additional barriers limit the emergence of zoonotic CoV. In this work, we describe overcoming host restriction of two Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-like bat CoVs using exogenous protease treatment. We found that the spike protein of PDF2180-CoV, a MERS-like virus found in a Ugandan bat, could mediate infection of Vero and human cells in the presence of exogenous trypsin. We subsequently show that the bat virus spike can mediate the infection of human gut cells but is unable to infect human lung cells. Using receptor-blocking antibodies, we show that infection with the PDF2180 spike does not require MERS-CoV receptor DPP4 and antibodies developed against the MERS spike receptor-binding domain and S2 portion are ineffective in neutralizing the PDF2180 chimera. Finally, we found that the addition of exogenous trypsin also rescues HKU5-CoV, a second bat group 2c CoV. Together, these results indicate that proteolytic cleavage of the spike, not receptor binding, is the primary infection barrier for these two group 2c CoVs. Coupled with receptor binding, proteolytic activation offers a new parameter to evaluate the emergence potential of bat CoVs and offers a means to recover previously unrecoverable zoonotic CoV strains.”

Do you have a coronavirus that doesn’t seem to do much? Try trypsin and you’ll “unlock” its potential in cell culture and then just insert a furin cleavage site and you’re good to go for in vivo studies. It’s horrifying!

Reply
Errata
5/16/2021 05:37:41 pm

@nonameneeded

"I’m just not sure if the timing of pulling the trigger on this bioweapon was decided by China."

But now you have also said:

"...all I can say is from my inside sources who know the creator of the Moderna vaccine that NIH’s vaccine research center was hellbent on developing a generalizable coronavirus vaccine and put a ton of effort into it in 2016-2019. I’ve cited a number of papers and the patent."

Assuming your sources are correct this means that the window on using CoV2 as a bioweapon was rapidly closing. Advanced vaccine technology would make it obsolete. Unless you posit that the CCP did not know then the CCP had every reason to quickly find a purpose for this bioweapon. Is it really plausible that they did not read the papers and patents you cited nor do they spy on companies like Moderna whose products will be used to counter their bioweapons? What better use for a pandemic than ending the trade war with the USA? It seems to me that the CCP found a use in the nick of time. Why now? The question is easiest to answer for the CCP and therefore the stance that it was their decision is the most reasonable.

The timing was impeccable if the agenda was to influence the Presidential election in the USA. The outbreak and its economic damage had to build up sufficiently to crush prosperity and cause widespread distress. However it could not peak early and dwindle significantly before November. The outbreak started at exactly the perfect point in the election timeline.

Economic prosperity is the leading indicator of whether an incumbent President will win a second term. It would have been obvious that control measures against an outbreak would cause serious economic damage and destroy the prosperity that the USA had in 2019. A pandemic had a good chance to unseat Trump. This would have been clear to the CCP.

Vaccines became available essentially immediately after the election. This might seem to suggest some input from vaccine developers but it is hard to argue that they could have known the path to vaccine approval would be abbreviated in exactly the way that it was. It is more plausible that the economic impact timeline was predicted by the CCP under the assumption that no vaccine would interfere, and this set the release date, than it is to suggest that the exact timing of vaccine approval was predicted by Moderna and associates, and the start of the outbreak set by that.

There was a common agenda to get rid of Trump shared by the CCP, Big Tech and other Commercial importers with their stock holders, and American Democrats with their Liberal supporters. The trigger had to be pulled when it was. There is no reason to believe the CCP would have preferred a different start date even if some other member of this political and economic juggernaut got the ball rolling. But the complexity of such a conspiracy theory makes it implausible, such ideas should be put aside as unwarranted as a conjecture without sufficient evidence. The CCP had every reason to release its bioweapon when it did so it is most reasonable to attribute the timing of pulling the trigger on this bioweapon to China.





Reply
nonameneeded
5/16/2021 03:12:48 pm

“Of course Fauci’s hands are dripping blood; I would make the same comment. However, my reasons would be based more on his denial and smear of HCQ. To me, the reason Fauci and his-likes defame HCQ is because they knew HCQ works in protecting infected people from sever disease and death. HCQ is moderately effective in the prevention of infection too. Wouldn’t that knowledge (that his personal health is guaranteed by HCQ) add to his comforting looks at the beginning of the pandemic? I think it’s possible.”

In February/March, I saw sickening behavior by Fauci and his proteges. People who wore masks at NIH were harassed to remove them. They said wash your hands and it was just the flu. No airborne transmission. They were frenetically flying in international patients, including from Italy in February/March just as Italy was melting down. They were building slapdash COVID treatment units that lacked negative pressure isolation needed for airborne agents. I am convinced they wanted to import the virus in rapidly to study it. They immediately shunted in all moderate-severely infected patients and employees into their remdesivir clinical trial. That was Fauci’s baby.

I did think HCQ was the explanation for his arrogance but subsequent international studies demonstrating poor efficacy made me suspect that Fauci was emboldened by the Moderna vaccine which he may have received as early as January/February. In case you didn’t know, that’s Fauci’s other “baby.” He rejected HCQ because he wanted to push remdesivir, that much was obvious. Gilead and NIH are deeply interconnected, just as Moderna and NIH are (and Pfizer and FDA). And then he announced that the latter was “standard of care” after a shoddy micro-trial which was subsequently refuted by the WHO SOLIDARITY trial, which showed no benefit and significant toxicity of remdesivir.


“I also think that scientists are trained to be keen in smelling the opportunity to apply his science to new problems. Fauci could be exceptionally good at this. Once he learned that a coronavirus was causing the outbreak, he would not hesitate for a second to promote one of his own things that could become a solution, especially when he could possibly benefit from this personally in a grand fashion.”

The problem with this idea is that the “system” seems to have worked like clockwork. Whenever you see near perfect coordination you must contemplate design (or conspiracy). Remdesivir was supported in a MERS trial in 2019 done in primates at NIH's Montana lab. The coronavirus vaccine by Moderna was perfected in 2019 after first perfecting the mRNA launched prefusion proteins (by the vaccine people at NIH) and working on the lipids involved in the nanoparticle for the vaccine. The optimization of those lipids to produce such high antibody titers and decent T cell responses were established on prior vaccine trials done in coordination with NIH, just so you know.

There was a history of MANY problems with prior coronavirus vaccines (naturally humans do not make long-lived coronavirus immune responses partly due to T cells being weakened by the virus and also because the virus shuts down interferons so well; B cell responses and antibodies were quickly waning after SARS-1, the phenomenon of antibody dependent enhancement (worse symptoms with low titer or certain kinds of antibodies), Th2 type immunopathology (asthma type) in animal models given vaccines, etc.) This is not their first rodeo.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/18/bill-and-melinda-gates-bet-on-this-biotech-to-develop-zika-vaccine.html

I just cannot grasp how China coincidentally releases the virus just in time when Fauci is planning to push remdesivir on us and has essentially perfected the generalizable mRNA coronavirus vaccine. Both the CCP and Fauci/Deep State were salivating at the possibility of toppling Trump with this virus - that is obvious. I think at the very least there was real coordination.

And I can only imagine that happening if the CCP was given the go ahead by traitors in the US (via Shi Zhengli a la Fauci tells Daszak/Baric, who then tell Shi Zhengli that "we have a vaccine, proceed"), or US agents who knew the sequences of the Chinese bioweapon(s)-in-progress (hence China’s subsequent coverup attempts) deciding on their own to release the virus when the timing was suitable and to do so in Wuhan so all suspicion would fall on China if the populace didn’t buy the wet market BS story.

Reply
Errata
5/16/2021 06:04:58 pm

@nonameneeded

"I just cannot grasp how China coincidentally releases the virus just in time when Fauci is planning to push remdesivir on us and has essentially perfected the generalizable mRNA coronavirus vaccine. Both the CCP and Fauci/Deep State were salivating at the possibility of toppling Trump with this virus - that is obvious. I think at the very least there was real coordination."

Correlation does not prove causation nor does it prove conspiracy. That multiple parties share a similar agenda implies that they can move together without coordination. You are inferring instead that they are conspiring to move together. That is a logical fallacy.

In any case the evidence such as it is (see Steven Quay) is that in the beginning the Chinese were using a vaccine based on an adenovirus. By your theory the CCP would have had access to Moderna's mRNA vaccine. That does not seem to be the case.

Reply
Xoco Latte
5/17/2021 04:33:07 am

I concur that this intelligent exchange of ideas seem to steer back this comment section to its original path albeit with more focused attention on the "who did it" part, once the "why is this virus a lab-made one" is more or less now a meanstreamly supported idea.

I have a modified 2C scenario that, to my feeling, could explain questions of the origin, timing, location and perpetrator identity, as well as the Chinese cover-up and full-blown supression of any meaningful investigation.

1. The original virus has been manufactured by a Chinese laboratory for bioweapon use.
2. The release to the public has been
a. accidental due to a controlled population tryout gone wrong
aa. by stupidity/human errors or
ab. intentional internal sabotage causing an accidental-looking release (not planned by the original sponsor)
b. intentional sabotage made by a foreign party after getting samples of the Chinese bioweapon

Whatever the story, this Chinese bioweapon may be a simple developmental product of the prototype viruses made within the US-Chinese collaboration. CCP has all the reasons denying any lab-origin, accidental os intentional release, not speaking of bioweapon intentions, because THEY KNOW that foreign intelligence ALSO KNOWS and ABLE TO PROVE IT.
Not counting the general public and medical services/epidemiological control, all other parties are more involved now in the aftermath and consequential race for reaping beenfits of the new situation, rather than the exact origin. The "third truth" is now more or less known by world-leader governments, a new agenda is more important now for them and to counterattack the Chinese in this WWIII.

Reply
Annette
5/29/2021 04:19:39 am

Main stream news at last. We have been touted for being conspiracy theorists in Aotearoa. (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-why-the-wuhan-lab-escape-theory-dead-and-buried-months-ago-has-risen-again/ZGTEKJJEN7MZ3Z4Q27IWXQZK3Q/)

I believe that the spin for this has been sailing close to the wind "bat virus". I think they are correct it was originally a bat virus, however with laboratory engineering, gain of function enhancement it became a AI virus. I think it was not for bioweapon but for a universal vaccine RNA. The speed with which it was created mens that it was ready to be released but no one wanted to pay for studies so create a panic and then get mass vaccination through emergency powers. Adverse effects are then obscured and can be blamed on life. This discussion has been on point from the beginning, thank you Mr. Nerd.

Reply
Fuddman
5/18/2021 04:46:18 pm

“Importantly, the backbone of the bioweapon, ZC45/ZXC21, were discovered by a Chinese PLA research lab.”

Then the PLA gave their bioweapon backbone blueprints to the United States GenBank and published the details of their new bioweapon in a research paper distributed in the United States .

Yeh, makes all kinds of sense for the chicom PLA to keep their weapons secret that way

Reply
nonameneeded
5/18/2021 07:00:13 pm

I agree that there are holes in the theory when sequences are posted directly to a public database of what are supposed to be the backbones for future killer viruses.

Whatever the true backbone was of SARS-CoV-2 before the RBD and FCS of spike was manipulated, it's unlikely to be exactly any published virus. Perhaps they found other related viruses in the Zhoushan cave and concealed the sequence based on some unusual property that at the face of things made that or those viruses good candidates for spike protein manipulation.

Is it possible that the WIV or their collaborators simply and systematically swapped out spike from SARS-1 into all their "discovered" SARS-like coronaviruses to see how pathogenic the novel backbones (sans spike) were? Good candidate backbones identified, they then moved to serial passaging and inserts into the original virus...

Reply
Errata
5/19/2021 03:24:43 pm

@Fuddman: "Yeh, makes all kinds of sense for the chicom PLA to keep their weapons secret that way"

What you imply through sarcasm is of course correct. It is unlikely that ZC45 was the exact backbone for CoV2. That is why it is worth remembering that it says "...or a closely related bat coronavirus" in the first Yan Report on page three. The full section heading reads as follows:

"1.1 Genomic sequence analysis reveals that ZC45, or a closely related bat coronavirus, should be the backbone used for the creation of SARS-CoV-2"

The second part of the first Yan report describes a procedure for building CoV2 from ZC45. This was meant to head off the objection that it could not be done. For that it was not necessary to get the exact backbone or the exact procedure correct. It was only necessary to establish that it was plausible that such a thing have been done at WIV. The Yan report was successful in showing the technology and knowledge available to researchers at WIV was sufficient to create a virus such as CoV2.

That it was necessary to include the section showing how they could have done it is proved by these recent quotes from nonameneeded:

5/11/2021: "I am not convinced that Chinese science is at the point of sophistication to have generated the virus."

5/13/2021: "Which, to me, makes it very unlikely indeed that this kind of sophisticated virus was released - even accidentally - by the Chinese. They just lack the capabilities at this time."

To which Nerd was able to reply:

"The creation of this bioweapon isn’t the most challenging as described in the 1st Yan report."

Ironically Nerd also finds support from the Johns Hopkins refutation of September 21, 2020. The project of creating CoV2 is even easier than the first Yan report asserted which is clear from this Johns Hopkins quote:

"...it should be noted that the steps described by Yan et al are not individually novel and, in our judgment, do not present a biological weapons risk, particularly as the methods chosen have been supplanted by more accurate genetic engineering tools."

@nonameneeded: "Is it possible that the WIV or their collaborators simply and systematically swapped out spike from SARS-1 into all their "discovered" SARS-like coronaviruses to see how pathogenic the novel backbones (sans spike) were? Good candidate backbones identified, they then moved to serial passaging and inserts into the original virus..."

Right, and that is the back story behind where all these 'pangolin' viruses came from. Well, not exactly the SARS-1 spike but a similar one, that of SARS-2, but perhaps that is what you meant. Clearly the Chinese have a huge stockpile of virus samples to work with. For years they have been taking samples from bats in their cave systems. That they have been practicing on this collection making all sorts of modifications should be taken for granted. It is not necessary to know the exact ones that were the basis for CoV2 and the 'pangolin' viruses. We should expect that they never were and never will be published.

nonameneeded
5/20/2021 09:54:08 am

Errata:

"That it was necessary to include the section showing how they could have done it is proved by these recent quotes from nonameneeded:"

I think you missed my earlier point. I never doubted that Shi Zhengli could swap spike (and I did mean SARS-1 spike as their starting point to identify pathogenic backbones, then used the pathogenic backbone to iteratively vary the spike proteins derived from other backbones that had been flogged in cell culture via serial passage to bind super tightly to hACE2 - could even be done with pseudoviruses).

I have some doubts that Shi Zhengli had the capacity to fine tune a bioweapon that would have so much asymptomatic spread and prolonged incubation. Those were the crucial features that SARS-1 and MERS lacked. The extreme infectiousness we may attribute to the FCS. I have no doubt Shi Zhengli got the spike protein down.

Where I lack the faith you have (in the CCP scientists) is in polishing off a backbone that is simultaneously clandestine and not innocuous, subclinical in many and deadly in some. That's where I think they had advising from American traitors. Traitors who were playing with these backbones themselves in American labs, ensuring that remdesivir was somewhat effective and the novel viruses they made were still vaccine compatible. The money sent to WIV was NOT to support Shi Zhengli. She had PLENTY of money from the CCP. It was to buy goodwill so Shi Zhengli/PLA scientists would send them back some backbones or at least agree to publish some paradigmatic ones in GenBank. Of course not the direct bioweapon ones but enough "collaboration" so that Fauci/Baric/Daszak could play around with these viruses themselves, refine some of these backbone effects that would launch a pandemic, and develop drug(s) and vaccines to counter the eventual pandemic that would bust out.

Reply
Errata
5/20/2021 02:49:56 pm

@nonameneeded: "I have some doubts that Shi Zhengli had the capacity to fine tune a bioweapon that would have so much asymptomatic spread and prolonged incubation...Where I lack the faith you have (in the CCP scientists) is in polishing off a backbone that is simultaneously clandestine and not innocuous, subclinical in many and deadly in some."

I also have my doubts about whether Shi Zhengli was involved in that aspect of development. Fine tuning and polishing for bioweapon efficacy was of concern to the CCP military and therefore was likely handled by them.

Your kind and gently nature has failed to grasp how a truly evil mind works. This fine tuning and polishing is a trivial exercise. One merely needs a human population to test viruses on and a virus selection with various options.

Prisoners are in plentiful supply and the current Uighur program has yielded another plentiful supply of human test subjects. You wrote that they "...systematically swapped out spike from SARS-1 into all their "discovered" SARS-like coronaviruses..." which is to say they were creating selections of viruses for testing. You can have faith in the CCP scientists having made a large enough array of options that the CCP military was able to select one with the needed features after human testing trials revealed what each could do.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/22/2021 09:55:00 am

Again, very interesting exchanges @nonameneeded @Errata.

Errata explained everything so very nicely that I have not much more to contribute here. However, I do want to reiterate that Zhengli Shi is not the only one involved. Rather, she is just a small part of it. The bigger part of it is the CCP’s military.

It may not be difficult to understand that the bioweapons program is top secret of the CCP’s military. Therefore, it’s simply impossible for Zhengli Shi to personally possess this top secret in full. The theory that she could have passed such information on to Fauci/Baric/Daszak does not really stand, in my opinion.

Similarly, fine-tuning of the bioweapon is unlikely to be carried out by the Shi lab. Her having no such expertise is not the counter-evidence against the CCP’s ability to develop this bioweapon. You have military research labs dedicated for this task.

More importantly, are Baric or the UTMB people or other scientists in the US more capable of fine-tuning such a virus? I don’t think so. When it comes to fine-tuning, non-human primates are not even good enough --- because they are non-human. There is no doubt that, compared to the US government, the CCP is much less restricted in testing a weaponized virus on humans.

In terms of knowledge, you don’t necessarily need American traitors here; Baric is not necessarily the world’s only expert on coronaviruses. Again, don’t look in the Zhengli Shi direction here. Look at Malik Peiris.

About whether or not ZC45/ZXC21 are used as the template here, Errata explained it very well. Let me just add that the CCP’s fabrications also speak to the role of ZC45/ZXC21 (or a related virus from Zhoushan) in the creation of the bioweapon. Without these fabricated viruses, the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 is pretty much naked. Take a look as Figure 9 of the 2nd Yan report and you will understand why.

These fabrications are of dual use: not only they would falsely suggest a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 but also they would cover up the linkage between ZC45/ZXC21 and SARS-CoV-2. The 100% identity on the E protein says everything here. I literally judge people who claim themselves as experts and yet deny this 100% E as the smoking gun.

The overall divergence between the template and SARS-CoV-2 is necessary to blur the linkage too. If there is no such divergence, you may argue for SARS-CoV-2 being a leaked gain-of-function product instead (if you only base your argument on sequence information alone). However, the fact that so many changes were intentionally introduced into the template further proves that it is a bioweapon and NOT a product of a simple gain-of-function research.

Finally, have they used prisoners for testing this bioweapon? Maybe. However, are the tests on prisoners good enough for what they wanted to do? I would say no.

What they wanted here is for the virus to transmit efficiently in your community. So, community test is necessary here. Without it, it wouldn't be fine-tuning, right? The CCP would do so without blinking an eye.

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/22/2021 11:01:58 am

One of you guys wrote this up?

Origin of COVID-19

anonymous
May 20, 2021

https://trialsitenews.com/origin-of-covid-19/

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/22/2021 10:19:04 pm

Re: Published analysis for composition of synthetic RNA injections:

https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273

The analysis referenced in the link above has many outstanding issues.

Is this "spike" for real?

The public I showing keen interest in "spike protein" , yet this synthetic RNA injection has not been shown to exert biosynthetic effects to produce even a simple protein.

There is no evidence that the bnt162 injection (Pfizer) gives rise to a trimeric spike glycoprotein complex that is membrane-embedded nor in any other form, intra- or extracellular.

There are claims that such injections raise the titer of some poorly-defined antibodies - but such assays are not equivalent to demonstrating de novo biosynthesis of a peptide, a protein, a glycoprotein, or any combination thereof.

For sure, it's a violation of basic medical and regulatory norms to inject this stuff without basic but essential information about the purported protein products that these Pfizer synthetic RNA injections supposedly inspire.

Thus, there is no direct and meaningful evidence that this so-called spike glycoprotein appears in any cellular or extracellular location following the injections.

Establishing the precise composition and fate of the injected material is the most critical question in medical science at this point in time, with the safety, freedom, and prosperity of hundreds of millions of people held in the balance.

What do we really know about the composition of these synthetic RNA inoculations?

Regarding an attempt to precisely characterize the composition, some vials for injection were obtained and submitted to analysis (see link above).

The contents are expected to be of the highest grade of purity and thus it should be a simple task for a team of experts, who routinely conduct complex metagenomic sequencing, to precisely determine the contents of the vials used for such injections.

However, the team of experts were unable to identify all portions of the synthetic RNA and, as well, reported in their findings the presence of what seem to be biologically significant impurities.
Curiously, the report does not present any raw data.

For example, one would expect the report to show the results from such elementary steps of analysis as a full digestion of the RNA to ascertain the relative stoichiometry for each type of nucleoside, as well as images of agarose gels to demonstrate length and homogeneity for the synthetic RNA strand and to rule out fragmentation.

Assays for other possible contaminants, i.e. proteins, should also be included.

Considering the gravity of the situation, the report in question should be reviewed by additional, independent experts and a proper, rigorous analysis of these products must be conducted from within a framework of maximal transparency.

Reply
nonameneeded
5/23/2021 06:14:44 am

Regarding the vaccines question, setting aside the platforms, I strongly recommend it for the elderly and even people >50 years old. My recommendation is more tepid in the 30-50 age groups. I think it's a travesty that this is being pushed on young people in their 20s, adolescents, and children.

There are now reports coming out (after intense suppression by CDC, WHO, and other authorities) of myocarditis triggered by the mRNA vaccines. I anticipate this is due to cross-reactivity of the antibodies against the lipid nanoparticle and cardiac cell membrane phospholipids.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/cdc-studying-reports-of-heart-inflammation-in-young-covid-vaccine-recipients

I have 0% doubt that they will say "no causal link" and clear the mRNA vaccines. The favor has been stacked onto mRNA and against adenoviral vectors, for reasons I cannot guess but could be either crudely mercenary and commercial (NIH pushing Moderna, FDA pushing Pfizer) or nefarious.

While China's Sinovac and Sinopharm are inactivated virus, I have not been able to find good information on how the spike protein has been adjusted - if at all - by the Cansino Ad5 vaccine, the Sputnik V vaccine, or the AstraZeneca vaccine. I believe the AstraZeneca vaccine is an unmodified spike protein.

The other major candidates, namely J&J, Moderna, Pfizer, and Novavax all use a 2-proline modified spike protein which is supposed to keep it in a prefusion conformation. The trimerization is spontaneous and it being membrane bound is a consequence of the spike itself having a transmembrane domain (as it would in the virus itself, given that these are enveloped viruses formed by budding off within the endosomal pathway of infected cells.

Re: 2P modification

https://www.biospace.com/article/1-researchers-find-low-cost-vaccine-with-more-potent-antibodies-/

"This spike protein was named 2P, for the two new proline molecules. When SARS-CoV-2 came along with COVID-19, McLellan and colleagues designed a 2P spike unique to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech and Johnson & Johnson all used that information to design their vaccines. In addition, Novavax is using the 2P spike in their vaccine, and so is Sanofi."

When it comes to the safety of the vaccine, I think it's very possible that spike conformational change and switch to the post-fusion state is what is behind the numerous clotting cases with the AstraZeneca vaccine. This is more likely because this spike protein is not 2P stabilized, so infected circulating or endothelial cells could trigger spike conformational change, fusion of cells into syncytia, occlusion of vessels, activation of tissue factor and clotting factor deposition, and induction of platelet aggregation. The coxsackie-adenenovirus receptor (CAR) to which chimpanzee Ad binds is widely distributed.

The J&J vaccine clotting events I suspect are not extremely rare and may be related to oral contraceptives, as all the patients with the cerebral sinus venous thrombosis were women of childbearing age. As I have said before, I suspect this vaccine was assaulted at the CDC/FDA level to give a leg up to the mRNA vaccines. They were scared it could reach market dominance due to ease of storage and cost so they had to vilify it. And succeed they did! Last I checked, Pfizer had been put into 54 million, Moderna into 44 million, and J&J in only 9 million in the US. The clotting in J&J is very doubtfully related to the adenoviral vector per se, since it's a different family (AD26) with a different receptor from the AstraZeneca chimpanzee adenovirus. This infects numerous cell types too, namely by binding to CD46. The protein is prefusion stabilized, so there should be less cell-cell fusion going on.

The Novavax candidate seems promising but has a big problem. It doesn't to my knowledge stimulate CD8 T cells, although I'd be happy to be corrected. It has a strong adjuvant to make CD4 T cells, and the trimer-coated nanoparticle design is great and thus will induce good antibodies, but unless there is extensive cross-priming by dendritic cells and/or macrophages, I don't see how it will make good CD8 T cells which I suspect are crucial for durable protection from COVID.

The mRNA candidates in my view give excellent antibody responses and apparently CD4 T cell responses. Moderna tailored their lipids based on prior research and thus arrived at something that generates good responses in the CD4 T cell compartment. However, their early data doesn't show good CD8 T cells. Pfizer/BioNTech apparently launched 2 separate candidates and chose after phase 1 the candidate that gave better CD8 T cells. Their lipids were tailored based on prior research on cancer vaccines (I believe prostate cancer vaccines), which were designed to force strong CD8 T cell responses. From an immunologic perspective, I think the Pfizer vaccine is probably the best. There are concerns here, however, namely safety concerns. First, with induction of spike

Reply
nonameneeded
5/23/2021 06:16:22 am

The mRNA candidates in my view give excellent antibody responses and apparently CD4 T cell responses. Moderna tailored their lipids based on prior research and thus arrived at something that generates good responses in the CD4 T cell compartment. However, their early data doesn't show good CD8 T cells. Pfizer/BioNTech apparently launched 2 separate candidates and chose after phase 1 the candidate that gave better CD8 T cells. Their lipids were tailored based on prior research on cancer vaccines (I believe prostate cancer vaccines), which were designed to force strong CD8 T cell responses. From an immunologic perspective, I think the Pfizer vaccine is probably the best. There are concerns here, however, namely safety concerns. First, with induction of spike protein expression at high levels from cells there is the risk of epitope spreading, where the attack on muscle-cell expressed spike protein triggers additional T cells and B cells to come in and start attacking natural muscle proteins. That could be what's underlying the myocarditis (skeletal and cardiac muscle having some cross reactivity). Alternatively, the lipids themselves could skew the immune response towards autoimmunity and perhaps stronger fungal immunity and weaker viral immunity. There is a paper to this effect (below). Finally, we don't have good data on exactly where these nanoparticles distribute. With adenoviral vectors, we have a good idea of what cells they infect (many) and what a broken adenovirus can do. I have not heard of a lot of molecular mimicry or epitope spread from conventional adenoviral infections, and I don't know if that is related to differential MHC expression, how the costimulatory molecules are expressed, etc. With the lipid nanoparticle, we are not dealing with a known ancient pathogen vector, to which our immune system is adapted and more importantly has insulted itself from developing overt autoimmunity. We literally have no idea what multiple doses of the lipid nanoparticles will do long term. Provoke connective tissue disease? Lupus in several years? We simply don't know. I am not against new platforms, I am against them being pushed on people coercively or on populations who are not at high risk from the disease, such as young healthy people.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18300?WT.feed_name=subjects_biotechnology

"In the first three melanoma patients treated at a low-dose level, IFNα and strong antigen-specific T-cell responses were induced, supporting the identified mode of action and potency. As any polypeptide-based antigen can be encoded as RNA3,4, RNA-LPX represent a universally applicable vaccine class for systemic DC targeting and synchronized induction of both highly potent adaptive as well as type-I-IFN-mediated innate immune mechanisms for cancer immunotherapy."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1

"Interestingly, however, the BNT162b2 vaccine also modulated the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells upon stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and non-specific (viral, fungal and bacterial) stimuli. The response of innate immune cells to TLR4 and TLR7/8 ligands was lower after BNT162b2 vaccination, while fungi-induced cytokine responses were stronger. In conclusion, the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine induces complex functional reprogramming of innate immune responses, which should be considered in the development and use of this new class of vaccines."

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/25/2021 05:58:08 am

There is no evidence these synthetic RNA injections (they're not "vaccines") have anything going for them but horrific side effects.

Not interested in laboratory parameters provided by Pfizer mercenaries.

Where's this "spike glycoprotein membrane-bound trimer" hanging out - in which cells and for how long - and where are the biosynthesis intermediates and degradation products. What's thier problem demonstrating those?

What's really in the stuff being injected is the question.
The manufacturers don't cooperate and anyway this a sham job of an analysis:

https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273

So what's inside ?

Covid went away naturally - it's seasonal - Not because of these injections.

Reply
Fuddman
5/23/2021 02:02:31 pm

@Ross

I read this reference you brought up : https://trialsitenews.com/origin-of-covid-19/

You didn't offer an opinion on it which is too bad because, to me, there is lots to talk about in this piece.

The fact the author, claiming to be a "prominent physician and researcher employed at one of the most prestigious academic medical centers in the world" wont reveal his name leads me to believe he is, at worst, a coward and at best a liar. That's number one.

He is also uninformed.

Over the past 18 months there has been an incessant drumbeat coming out of the "Science Community" yakking about how important it is to know "the origin" of this thing called Cov2. So now, we can add Mr. Anonymous to that long conga line of concerned, prominent researchers demanding the "world leaders" enter China to get the answer.

It should be clear to everyone by now, over a year and a half from the start date, that auditing China gets you nowhere. What do they expect to find in China? Some sort of preserved smoking gun sample organism that can be analyzed? Reminder: RNA has a half life of two minutes at room temperature. And, stored at -80 degrees centigrade degrades to an analytically worthless state after one year, two at the most. Sorry about that.

In summary, the scientific community (and a whole bunch of other people) have been going round and round publishing papers in support of three theories on the origins of an organism called Cov2:

1) an organism which has natural origin,
2) An organism created in the lab
3) Don't know whether the organism is natural or lab origin but must find out.

A year and half of intensive scientific effort (almost all of it thinking inside the box) has resolved nothing. That is the conclusion offered by Mr. Anonymous.

In my estimation, from December 2019 to now, a great deal of new information about the creation of this "virus" has come out. Some of that new information challenges the "expert" assumptions made early on - assumptions which are now embedded as factual science and so, almost unassailable.

If there is to be progress in resolving this (not just the origin thing), people are going to have to think outside the box, not remain anonymous and be ready to take the hits while scaling the unassailable..



Reply
PETER ROSS
5/25/2021 06:06:52 am

yeah, very fishy.

Anyway, everybody knew it's lab engineered. Who knows if some PLA generals are directly in on it or got punked by Fauci et al before their own junk was ready for release.

Can't rely on the professional journals - it's all lies.

Seasonality and the parlor trick of dialing down the PCR threshold makes it look like these injections are useful.

Bunch of dangerous injections that need to be terminated immediately before more people get injured and die.

Everyone who injected this junk into innocent victims needs to be put on trial at Nuremberg 2.0

Everywhere these RNA injections were administered mortality rates skyrocketed.

Reply
nonameneeded
5/26/2021 07:15:33 am

Apparently EcoHealth alliance got $40 million from the DoD/Pentagon:

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/peter-daszaks-ecohealth-alliance-has-hidden-almost-40-million-in-pentagon-funding/

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/EcoHealth-Funding-as-of-01_10_2020-Fed.-Grants-Contracts.pdf

Frankly it dwarfs Fauci's funding. Hard for me to believe all that money earmarked for Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever or Rift Valley fever is for real.

As I've said before, I can't put my finger on it but US involvement in the creation of this virus is far deeper than merely funding.

Reply
Errata
5/26/2021 11:49:19 am

@nonameneeded:

"The clotting in J&J is very doubtfully related to the adenoviral vector per se, since it's a different family (AD26) with a different receptor from the AstraZeneca chimpanzee adenovirus."

Perhaps the following article sheds some light on the mystery.

“Vaccine-Induced Covid-19 Mimicry”
Marschalek et al.

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-558954/v1

"According to our results, transcription of wildtype and codon-optimized Spike open reading frames enables alternative splice events that lead to C-terminal truncated, soluble Spike protein variants. These soluble Spike variants may initiate severe side effects when binding to ACE2-expressing endothelial cells in blood vessels."

Reply
nonameneeded
5/26/2021 04:31:33 pm

Yes, that could explain it, and also why the mRNA shots may have less of this complication. Since they're mRNA, there's not alternative splicing. Any coagulation induced by leached off spike protein would have to be due to cell death, shear forces, etc.

AstraZeneca would obviously have the same issue in this regard as J&J

Reply
David Rivard
5/26/2021 12:34:13 pm

In popular media today the Biden Administration to "call a full investigation on origin", being pressured by many prominent countries. Having not resurrected Mike Pompeo's distillation on the DOS website (in fact, hiding it in the archives). As only the U.S. can take the lead of such initiative, all other countries must remain pragmatic. I worry about countries not conforming to China's Belt and Road initiative, and particularly those standing in the way of the South China seas expansion, experiencing their "4th wave" as Japan currently is.

Reply
Errata
5/26/2021 04:24:40 pm

@David

The politics behind suppressing and discrediting Pompeo's work is shameful but to be expected. At least the path to the truth has been blazed. As to 4th waves it will be in the least vaccinated areas that the scourge will continue. Japan has a low vaccination rate. Lets hope the summer weather will help and by winter they will be protected also. Some links about the news you mentioned:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/26/politics/biden-intelligence-community-pandemic-origins-report/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/26/biden-orders-us-intelligence-to-intensify-investigation-into-covid-19-origins.html

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/biden-gives-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-new-life-in-call-for-deeper-intelligence-investigation-193801572.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/with-bidens-support-the-covid-lab-leak-theory-goes-mainstream-202826593.html

Of course if it came from a lab, it was a bioweapon attack because the Chinese acted like it was a bioweapon attack. They thwarted all responsible containment efforts by their own medical community in the first weeks. They suppressed and delayed the release of information about the virus. They engaged in an aggressive and blatant coverup even arresting Li Wenliang and threatening Ai Fen. These ploys were necessary for a bioweapon attack and utterly inconsistent with anything else.

Furthermore there is no such thing as an urban lab accident that starts a pandemic. The only safe place for a virus research lab is in a rural setting behind barbed wire fences where people quarantine to leave. An accidental release would be contained in such a setting. Virus research labs are inherently dual purpose so the military has a say in where they are located. They are located in cities on purpose because the only way to release a bioweapon is to stage an accident locally. Virus sequences are like fingerprints and a release anywhere will be traced back to its origin. Spies are everywhere, a virus sequence only takes a page of print, and it can never be ensured that bioweapon sequences remain secret. A release in a target country would provoke an immediate and extreme counter-attack. A pandemic quickly goes everywhere so it does not matter where it starts. Faking a lab leak is therefore the only practical way for a military to deploy a pandemic virus. That being true there is by definition no such thing a pandemic that started with an accidental lab leak.

Reply
alex
5/27/2021 09:25:34 am

@Errata
any idea how they did it? What method?

Reply
Errata
5/30/2021 11:39:57 am

How did they do it?

They staged an accident. There are many possibilities so we can only speculate on which direction their creativity went in arranging that. As I mentioned (4/24/2021 07:25:20 pm) the safest for Xi Jinping was to put poorly trained bumblers in charge of a high priority urgent study of the virus and wait for the inevitable accident. Simpler and more controllable would have been for a trusted person to have an 'accident' at WIV so that is more likely. Perhaps a military officer dressed as a courier delivered to WIV a 'pangolin' sample but dropped the package 'accidentally' when handing it over. Those present when the package was opened in the lab were then exposed, the sample discarded as ruined, and the records would therefore not show any work done on it at WIV. The pangolin label would account for Zhengli Shi changing the WIV database description (See DRASTIC) to claim it was only about bats; she wanted to make sure nobody would accuse the lab of working on pangolin viruses. I am sure there are as many clever variations of the accident scenario as there are people who read this.

DRASTIC:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349073738_An_investigation_into_the_WIV_databases_that_were_taken_offline
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CCe20HykddRWMpsYJBGIMK0eq30yOq8C/view

However the incident went down, apparently the exposed lab workers were told to go to the PLA Central Theater Command Hospital in Wuhan to be checked out and monitored but they were not told to quarantine themselves. They exposed people on Line 2 of the Wuhan Metro System starting community spread. This would account for the first cases being logged in as patients long in advance of their samples being taken. (See Steven Quay) Discretely quarantining a handful of people immediately, well before they had symptoms, would have prevented the outbreak and it would have gone unnoticed outside the lab so no preposterous argument about the 'Chinese being Chinese' applies. That they were not quarantined after exposure proves it was a purposeful attack and not an accident at all.

Steven Quay:
https://www.scribd.com/document/482084555/COVID-Pandemic-Began-at-PLA-Hospital-in-Wuhan
https://goachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/COVID-Pandemic-Began-at-PLA-Hospital-in-Wuhan.pdf

nonameneeded
5/27/2021 07:08:15 pm

If this was a bioweapon released by China....one geopolitical question I have is why Russia is building a friendly alliance with China?

Russia suffered badly from the pandemic economically and in terms of deaths. They should be angry as hell if they know it's a bioweapon. We all know it's not zoonotic.

So is the running theory that Russia believes this was actually accidental...or are they not blaming China for some reason because they want to soften the West and get their own goals done in Eastern Europe while they prepare for eventual conflict with China in Central Asia or Siberia several years down the line?

Reply
Errata
5/30/2021 12:18:19 pm

Biden is hostile toward Putin so he would only side with the USA against China if he believed the USA was going to confront and defeat the CCP. He apparently does not believe that. If the USA does not do that then China has won WW3 and can be expected to exploit its momentum aggressively. Putin's choice is to risk China doing so in his direction by allying himself with the West or to ally himself with China and protect his flank perhaps joining in the spoils. Realistically Biden cannot lead the USA to war with Chinese because they put him in power with help from the coalition of liberals and vested corporate interests. The Left wants to be communist, not defeat communism, and it is funded by those milking the Free Trade cash cow. The military is right leaning and Biden's status as the Chinese POTUS is too demoralizing for a coordinated focused effort against the Chinese by the military under his leadership. They would doubt his sincerity and balk at the risk of being hung out to dry after committing themselves too deeply. My read is that Putin looks at things this way, he has picked his winner, and placed his bet on the Chinese.

Reply
Jimmy Kudo
5/31/2021 12:56:24 am

"Realistically Biden cannot lead the USA to war with Chinese because they put him in power with help from the coalition of liberals and vested corporate interests. The Left wants to be communist, not defeat communism"

What? Just because Biden listened to science you said he wants to be communist? If China were successful in how they managed to rapidly decrease the number of infections, shouldn't the US play against China in their own game?

Meanwhile, Trump is unknowingly making China great. It's evident that Trump doesn't know how to battle against China.

David Rivard
5/28/2021 04:35:19 pm

Remember the word "classified" information in all of these news releases. Congress will soon authorize intelligence release (s). I wonder how much of this cooperation is damage control by an administration that obviously benefited, and exists because of the pandemic. Can thy be trusted for an honest evaluation?

Reply
evidence
5/29/2021 05:30:19 am

Re: (1) Accident scenario cannot be discarded by the fact that bogus Pangolin sequences had already been prepared/submitted as early as Sep 2019: tMRCA not to be conflated with index case infection;
(2) Wuhan heat map analysis evidence
(3) still intel sources out there...

Dear Nerd and others,
it is not my intend to dilute the exchange - to the very contrary. I do as well want to have the discussion about CoV2 bio-warfare lab-origin as sharpened, and as precise as possible; and it is my believe, that still under current circumstances, crowd investigation and exchange remain indispensable, as institutions have failed and deceived the public and continue doing so - as I have underlined my position numerous times before [e.g., evidence 12/23/2020 08:30:41 am, 1/26/2021 04:16:27 am, 4/12/2021 04:26:47 pm ].
And maybe I will be eventually proven wrong, i.e., my notion will be falsified. That's how science should work all the time ;)
(1) But I have to say, as far as I understand the phenomenology, I am still not convinced, that specifically the timing of the FIRST 'Pangolin paper' submission, namely as early as of Sep 2019 (Liu P et al), which had been possibly/likely the first of a string of fraudulent publication attempts for covering up the CoV2 warfare lab origin (the first hastily erected building block of their/PLA's entire Ratg13 Potemkin village), can necessarily be taken as a CORE argument for refuting the (biowarfare) ACCIDENT scenario, and subsequently taken as definite support for an intentional release scenario.
This latter view has been underlined several times before on this blog, sample quotes:
>> 'Also, remember, the fabrication of the pangolin CoVs started before Sep 2019 and the scheme of RaTG13 fabrication dates back to 2018. For anyone arguing for an accidental leak of a vaccine candidate, please try to explain these first. [Nerd has power 12/6/2020 08:52:41 am]
'The first pangolin paper was submitted in September 2019 before the outbreak started.' ( Errata 3/26/2021 01:59:59 pm) <<

[In my mind, it cannot either be fully excluded that at that time Liu P et al still just possibly overinterpreted contamination, while the later 'pangolin' paper in 2020, as well as the delayed sequence submission, most definitely were fraudulent. And maybe the truth regarding this paper is somehow in the middle, as this is often the case: at the beginning, Liu might have intended only to report about pangolin viral infections, then they made him to include CoV - with fraudulent intend, or only for keeping the door open for subsequent fraud, when the bogus sequences eventually would be deposited on Genbank, and they, and other continued to publish on this matter. - But my ambiguity about this first Liu 09/2019 pangolin paper itself will NOT be my point here, and not of major relevance, since the fraud intend certainly came from somewhere already as early as September 2019.]
However, if assuming the Ping Liu paper submitted Sep 30 2019 had been already a first documented cornerstone of their publication frauds (i.e., to prime the community falsely into the pangolin direction), in my mind the early submission/publication date
[Liu (11/2019)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893680/pdf/viruses-11-00979.pdf
],
as well as other suspicious activities during September 2019 (cf. below), can be quite easily RECONCILED with an accident scenario, if we actually PREDATE the time point of the index case infection (tIC, patient zero infection) at least into August 2019, and avoid conflating the tIC with the time point of the occurrence of the Most Recent Common Ancestor (tMRCA), as the latter occurred later (maybe late Sep 2019 or Oct/Nov 2019, extremely unlikely as late as Dec 2019, according to a number phylogenetic analyses, see for example Bai [++], Dorp et al [+++], or Pekar, and also Schrago, cf. below). In my mind, there is evidence that this in fact had been the case.
So we simply again have to PREDATE the spill-over accident, and absolutely have to differentiate between earlier tIC (likely August 2019), which in principle and technically CANNOT be determined by clock analysis, versus the subsequent tMRCA (late September or Oct-Nov 2019), which can be inferred by clock analysis, and has been determined accordingly.
Conceptual paper referring to this point: according to
[Pekar et al (03/2021) Timing the SARS-CoV2 index case
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350164626_Timing_the_SARS-CoV-2_index_case_in_Hubei_province
]
in principle, the tIC can always predate the tMRCA by a considerable amount of time (for example for HIV possibly several years, as also mentioned with reference in that same article).
By definition, the tIC is THE time point, from which all other transmission chains would still go extinct (even if only eventually), except for ONE; while in contrast the (later/subsequent) tMRCA is the time point, when at least TWO lineages do not die out anymore (schematically depicted

Reply
evidence
5/29/2021 05:35:06 am

[..] while in contrast the (later/subsequent) tMRCA is the time point, when at least TWO lineages do not die out anymore (schematically depicted for example on Fig. 2 [p.9 pdf] in the above paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709179/figure/F1/
).
In principle, the IC (Huang Yanling?) could have emerged ANY time earlier, for example at least as early as August 2019, i.e., highly likely before early September 2019 (see my arguments below); and due to all containment efforts by the PLA, they would have the outbreak largely kept in check for several weeks to come, (while fabricating meanwhile hastily the Pangolin data, including alrady likely the above Liu paper, on the science publishing front, so to speak as 'preemptive' measure for the worst case scenario, namely if the outbreak would not be able to be contained - a scenario which ultimately would have materialized); and they were ALMOST successful (except for one, all other transmission chains would have died out), but eventually, exactly (and only) ONE transmission chain survived and created the MRCA for the pandemic: as new cases popped up again (as of Oct/Nov 2019), the transmission chain had finally diverged with the corresponding MRCA creation. - The final 'dying out' of the remaining OTHER lineages (originally branching from the IC chain) can also in principle, and possibly happen even AFTER the tMRCA, with a prolonged preceding period of a correspondingly slow fading away of those other lineages (which would correspond to the Fig 2, upper right, in that above Pekar paper; expressed there the other way round: stable coalescence of the single remaining lineage would emerge prior to the extinction of all other lineages).
Again, in contrast to tMRCA estimates, the tIC in principle CANNOT be inferred by clock analysis (since for phylogenetic analysis, you need at least two lineages to compare the distance of the drawn sample), as outlined by the Pekar paper, quote:
'Phylogenetic analysis alone cannot tell us how long SARS-CoV-2 could have circulated in Hubei province before the tMRCA.'
(NB: Theoretically, in addition, regardless how likely or not, in principle there could have been several other patient zero infections as well, with all other corresponding lineages gone extinct, of which no genomic traces would be left, as that part of the quasispecies/information has simply gone. This is for example the case for undetected and unreported lab accidents with a limited number of cases.)

This scenario ( tIC prior to September 2019) is specifically supported by the following (circumstantial) evidence:
(a) As for example (again) reviewed by India Today May 19 2021 ,
https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/covid-global-questions-wuhan-lab-leak-sars-origin-coronavirus-1803938-2021-05-18
there had been
(a.1) unusual, treacherous google and wikipedia search behavior on computers in Wuhan as early as Sep 8 2019, and again later in Oct 2019 also on computers in Beijing; an analysis provided by Eric Haseltine [+]),
https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiatoday/images/bodyeditor/202105/2-1200x625.JPG?pZWLSUig4qL3nrCwZA9cX0lN1Pno2PlG
https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiatoday/images/bodyeditor/202105/3-1200x617.JPG?nlcApqS0KSsRmSvivVuJ54ivSmKlXtpw
(a.2) in addition, the India Today article goes, quote:
>>September 2019 also saw a few more events that are noteworthy. On September 6, the Zhifang Sewage treatment plant in Wuhan was officially shut down and the sewage from the plant was directly transferred to the Jiangxia STP for advanced treatment. The Jiangxia STP is in very close proximity to the WIV lab complex. Soon after, there were multiple on-site lab safety inspections at Wuhan.
A month later (October 2019), Hubei Health Commission gave license approval to numerous companies in Wuhan for making/procuring disinfectants, Sodium Hypochlorite, Pipelines, and Pipe fittings.<<
Those significant events (a.2) had already been discussed at latest by June last year cf.:
https://twitter.com/TheSeeker268/status/1286695683605454849

(b) Furthermore, an early IC emergence as soon as August 2019 would in particular explain the early and specific date of the Sep 12 2019 WIV databases take down
[cf.
Bostickson, Demaneuf (02/2021)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349073738_An_investigation_into_the_WIV_databases_that_were_taken_offline
],
because already at that time (Sep 12 2019) those databases SUDDENLY had become a tremendous corpus delicti, as the index case already had emerged.
(I guess these activities are only the beginning of a long list of crucial and telling activities during September 2019. For examplee, the RdRp sequence deposition in 09/2019 can likely be put on that list as well, etc, etc).
- Hence, the later, subsequent entire WIV shutdown in Oct 2019 possibly had been already the LARGER response to the (later) MRCA occurrence, and not the response to the (earlier) IC (patient zero) emergence. After the pat

Reply
evidence
5/29/2021 05:49:03 am

[3]
[this art is accidenttally posted in front of he ppreceding section (2)]

After the patient zero infection in August (or earlier), they hoped they could control the outbreak with some more discrete/limited containment efforts. And at latest by Oct 2019, they had to learn that all those efforts had been futile. According to the evidence of the timeline of their activities as cited above, they definitely had realized the spill over accident (=IC emergence) by latest as of Sep 6 2019 (Zhifang Sewage treatment plant shut down), likely earlier. Hence, the spill over (tIC) must have been at least 5-7 days before, again: likely earlier.
[NB: According to the unusual internet search pattern analysis as described in (a.1), one can even further speculate that the initial (more limited) containment efforts (Aug/Sep 2019) had been maybe ordered by LOCAL PLA officials (unusual google search pattern, first Sep 8 2019, occurred from WUHAN computers/desks), while the entire WIV shutdown Oct 2019 (after the MRCA had emerged) had been maybe even ordered by higher BEIJING PLA officials (unusual google search pattern occurred from BEIJING computers/desks). ]
- References:
[+] Eric Haseltine reports how his findings had been suppressed by google censorship in July 2020:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/long-fuse-big-bang/202007/the-mysterious-disappearance-key-covid-19-timeline-data

[++] Bai Y(06/2020) Comprehensive evolution and molecular characteristics of a large number of SARS-CoV-2 genomes [tMRCA September 27 2019 (95% CI: 2019/08/28- 2019/10/26)]
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.058933v3.full

[+++] Dorp et al, with review/compilation of several molecular clock analyses [tMRCA 95% CI Oct 6- Dec 11 2019]:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kleelerner/files/20200505_infection_genetics_evolution._emergence_of_genomic_diversity_and_recurrent_mutations_in_sars-cov-2_.pdf

- While in contrast, the Pekar paper analysis has come to a very late tMRCA [Dec 9 2019, as it had been most likely already FALSIFIED according for example to (U.S.-) intelligence regarding three ill WIV researchers during the 2nd week of Nov 2019
cf. for example current Reed (May 26-27) discussion on
https://nitter.fdn.fr/Drinkwater5Reed/with_replies?cursor=HBaEgL71mbS95SYAAA%3D%3D
https://nitter.fdn.fr/Drinkwater5Reed/with_replies
Demaneuf:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZjjdYqqh9cR9YMwNzMemorK17w557HxFxuDqUerSBTU/edit
];
and thy came accordingly to an (unrealistic) relatively late tIC (Nov 4 2019, with correspondingly a tMRCA-tIC difference of 35 days), inferred by a method called 'forward compartmental epidemiological model', they had applied.
I cannot judge entirely the following point: but intuitively I would also suspect, that CoV2's characteristic, non-typical, well known lack of posterior diversity might also result in a higher risk of skewing tMRCA estimates to a LATER/younger time point in those above studies. In addition, see in particular the cautionary note on Cov2-tMRCA estimates given by
[ Schrago et al (01/2021): Challenges in estimating virus divergence times in short epidemic timescales
http://www.scielo.br/j/gmb/a/gK7qKwwkgCdtVrQLjRMBzMQ/?lang=en
]
Schrago showed by also running in addition some simulations (with known infections) on DIFFERENT time scales, how the tMRCA estimates would have largely increased error margin, if the epidemic is very young, quote: 'Depending on the mutation rate, virus populations that successfully infected a new host species may not accumulate enough substitutions to allow for phylogenetic inference within a few generations after the initial transmission, resulting in branch lengths close to zero ...'.
They would accordingly come up with a CoV2 tMRCA as early as of Sep 20 2019, accompanied accordingly by an extremely high 95% CI, in particular prior to that date: 14 Nov 2018 to 16 Jan 2020 .

But coming back to Pekar's tIC approach and its problems: while certainly being reliable and having proven validity in epidemiology, the validity of this so called 'forward compartmental model' approach they have used for specifically estimating the tMRCA - tIC time difference, remains completely unproven, i.e., only an attempt, in particular given the fact, that such modelling [ cf. for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmental_models_in_epidemiology
]
is highly SENSITIVE to given parameters , and (small)variation of those parameters would severily influence the outcome. In particular, given the pandemic is manmade (which Pekar et al. do NOT even consider as a possibility!), and (according to the accident scenario) local mitigation efforts, like individual quarantines, likely had been implemented swiftly after IC emergence, as they (senior PLA scientists) certainly knew early on, what they were dealing with, and given early containment efforts would certainly influence heavily the corresponding boundary conditions/underlying parameters, it therefore has to be said again, t

Reply
evidence
5/29/2021 05:52:01 am

[part 4]
[..] it therefore has to be said again, that strictly spoken, (also) the Pekar paper can indeed ONLY speculate, only have a best guess on their tIC estimate: the application of their model to this specific problem is new, and remains uncharted territory. This in particular the case, as they have used a very specific set of underlying parameters for calculating thqeir tIC estimate, relying only on a single source, quote: 'Our simulations used parameters from the time-period prior to COVID-19 mitigation efforts, from 01 January through 22 January 2020 (Table S1), based on Hao et al. (22).'
So, I suspect, applying that particular model for a CoV2 tIC estimate is not trustworthy enough - as the underlying parameters remain shaky.
- Anyhow, for making the very important point, namely that conflating tMRCA with tIC would highly likely to be FALSE, their simulations are good enough, and (only) for that, their paper has to be given credit.
Keep in mind: (given the accident scenario) the IC-> MRCA transmission chain has been the FIRST single remaining chain, they (PLA) had been overlooking for too long in their hunt during those very early days to quell the spread, starting with the IC. While in contrast likely most of all other chains, which had gone extinct (which are not noticeable anymore today), are the succssful result due to their early, frantic (however discrete) intervention efforts. The pandemic and the corresponding tMRCA is so to speak the result of THAT (first) loophole, they had not fixed early enough.
Bottom line: the tIC - tMRCA time difference can be quite extended in principle, and early, frantic containment efforts also might result in a higher likelihood, to have this time difference/lag time increased.

(2) Also, as an additional (side) note regarding the circumstantial evidence, in my mind, specifically the Wuhan CoV2 infection HEAT MAP supports also an accident scenario, with the biggest infection rate seen in a highly significant area of the Wuchang subdistrict Huanghelou :
https://nitter.fdn.fr/pic/media%2FE1oF3rXXIAIpibT.png%3Fname%3Dorig
As this issue being already discussed by the 'InWuChang' twitter group and Brian Reed (quote May 17, 2021 Brian Reed):
"The WIBP workers' dormitory is in the sub-district with by far the highest Covid rate in Wuchang. Wuchang had the highest rate of any Wuhan district WIBP is the co-located partner of the WIV lab"
cf.
https://nitter.42l.fr/Drinkwater5Reed/status/1394434305896730630#m
and:
https://nitter.namazso.eu/Drinkwater5Reed/status/1394434305896730630?cursor=LBkWiICy1dy%252Bg9omJQISAAA%253D#r
https://nitter.fdn.fr/InWuchang/with_replies?cursor=HBaAwLDN78W62iYAAA%3D%3D

Also with this heat map evidence, the lab leak scenario would remain the most parsimonious explanation, while for intentional release one would have to come up with an explanation, why in particular that subdistrict, where the dormitory of those lab workers is located, had been the (first/main) hot spot, which in particular also inevitably would glue the CoV2 origin evidence to a WIV (and the WIBP) even further.
It might be also a more parsimonious explanation as compared to a failed vaccine trial scenario (favored for example by Quay in his paper): if a vaccine trial had been the source of the outbreak, one would not necessarily expect to have most trial participants primarily coming from one sub-district (Huanghelou). In particular, the PLA hospital is not located in Huanghelou sub-district, but on 627 Wuluo Road, Kou Shangquan sub-district/Hongshan district.
(And as a corollary: maybe one important question is the following: where was Huang Yanling's apartment - had it been close to that dormitory complex in Huanghelou subdistrict as well? Where most likely did she regularly sleep according to that heat map?)
Maybe there is also some more WEIBO information (being able supporting OR falsifying that scenario, which I still do favor), which on some hard drive archives had survived censorship, related specifically to that dormitory and its WIBP workforce residents (located in Huanghelou), e.g., their communication during that particularly interesting time frame July-September 2019.
In particular, if the biowarfare accident scenario is/were correct, then they (PLA) also must have been initially at least in part caught off-guard, and therefore could not censor everything preemptively during those early crucial weeks August/September 2019 (in contrast to later time beginning Oct/Nov 2019). So in that case, the likelihood, there is still corresponding (electronic/archived) evidence out there elsewhere, would not be zero.
(3) I guess for example NSA and other western intelligence agencies might have some, and it would be needed be declassified...
In Ebright's words (05/24/2021):
"Many threads of investigation are available in US and would be accessible to a Congressional inquiry with subpoena power.
At EcoHealth. At funding agencies (USAID, DTRA, DARPA, DHS, and NIH). At pub

Reply
evidence
5/29/2021 05:55:19 am

At EcoHealth. At funding agencies (USAID, DTRA, DARPA, DHS, and NIH). At publishers (Springer-Nature and Lancet).
No cooperation from WHO or China needed."
https://nitter.fdn.fr/R_H_Ebright/with_replies?cursor=HBaAwL2RvZaZ4yYAAA%3D%3D

This list can be extended in particular with respect to intelligence agencies...
So first, the public in the West (US congress) has to press for declassifying intelligence material. This is the route which might have a realistic chance to be successfully pursued, given the current public pressure and indignation there is, increasingly among scientists as well, as the perception is gaining momentum, that the intelligence community (with their stunning, likely overblown, $80 bn budget) equally has completely failed the public by not having been able to react accordingly to this threat.
Also, I would like to remind us again (as nonameneeded already pointed out 5/26/2021), the EHA funding by civilian donors (NIH etc) is surpassed by funding on the corresponding military side ($103 million 2013-2020 State Dept+ Pentagon), cf.
Husseini (12/2020)
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/peter-daszaks-ecohealth-alliance-has-hidden-almost-40-million-in-pentagon-funding/
Hence, again there are plenty of threads which could be investigated... as a lot of paths are leading to Rome. Currently the road to the CCP giant crimes can realistically be pursued over identifying the responsibilities here in the West and having them accountable, and in particular by forcing them to disclosures.
I also suspect, that the executive branch soon will be in need of scapegoats on the civilian side, for the likely case public pressure would be blowing up the lid. I assume in that case, civilian scapegoats (e.g., Fauci) will be chosen early OVER figures with even deeper ties to the military, i.e., they (the executive branch) would not be willing to offer Daszak (i.e., allow prosecutions to be enrolled) before they would be ready to offer Fauci. Question remains, if the military side will get away by funneling all indignitation to civilian scapegoats.
#
[part 5]

PETER ROSS
5/30/2021 05:13:28 am

Somebody posted that EchoAlliance (Rockefeller, WWF origins) has an annual budget of $90 million.
Can't locate now the source for that post.

Like Moderna, and likely Pfizer as well, Echo is a contactor for Pentagon, DTRA, DARPA.

Some of these top-secret BW positions seem to be occupied by foreign-born nationals,

Echo is related to the OneHealth Initiative - The Globalism Int'l "Big Reset" scheme.

Nobody seems to be able to characterize the precise contents of the synthetic RNA injections (Moderna, Pfizer), which is now an emergent medical imperative in light of the unprecedented epidemic of severe side-effects. Currently it is in vogue to attribute the cardiovascular events to "roaming spike protein" which in itself may thus have bioweapon potential.
The absence of any efforts to distinguish between naïve and convalescent individuals raises the specter of ADE-mediated adverse reactions, which plagued prior attempts to inoculate animals against betacoronaviruses.
The mechanism of action of these current preparations remains an unsolved mystery given that it has yet to be directly demonstrated that "spike glycoprotein membrane-bound trimers" - or parts thereof - are actually generated following injection. (Changes in antibody titres are at best non-specific, indirect evidence).

The only independent lab analysis so far seems to be published as a brief report that lacks even the most basic raw data, such as a stoichiometric comparison of nucleosides following complete hydrolysis, gel electrophoresis analysis, E.M., and analysis for potential contaminants which can range from peptides to micro- and nano- organisms..
The physiological fate of inert nano-particulates is also of concern.

Wherever the injections have been instituted a sharp increase in mortality is observed across all age groups.

Overall, this plandemic has been geared from the get go to "vaccinate the entire planet" using the coercive methods of unprecedented coordinated mass media fear-mongering, lockdowns, school closures, economic and social destruction, mandated face-daipers, travel bans, mass surveillance, "vaccine passports" ... all of which were planned out well in advance of the so-called "lab leak of a bioweapon", which ight as well be a finely-constructed psyop to add to the hysteria.

Overall, the average life span is ~75 years old while th average covid victim is ~ 80 years old, and the claims for masive death toll do not hold up to even the most basic scrutiny.

Isn't "covid" a rebranding of the usual seasonal flu-syndomes ?

Covid diagnosis is waning in a seasonal pattern regardless of the 'vaccination' status of any different countries, nd contributing to this is the dialing down of the PCR threshold from 35 to 25. In addition, the most sensitive have already succumbed and the decline in cases is obviously due to the bulk of the population having either innate or acquired immunity.



Anyone feel obliged to discuss these patterns?

Xoco Latte
5/30/2021 01:25:29 am

Uh, dear evidence, that was a very longish essay to comment on. A very thought-provoking one, and that's quite an understatement.
Without too much rigorous data collection, I also lamented excessively on the seemingly contradictory biphasic nature of this particular viral transmission in the very early phase of a local endemics versus its later phase of international propagation leading to a sustained pandemics (1), and, subsequently, on this very phenomenon with regards to likelyhood scenarios of intentional release versus accidental breakout (2).

(1) It is quite obvious from factual events and theoretical modelling data, that the spread of this virus is fairly slow in a naive population in the first 8-12 weeks, whereafter the same virus abruptly shows a huge jump in effectiveness -- I know this phenomenon is reflectedby the original R0 number. Still my problem is, how a virus with stealth propagational properties, long incubation time and showing no or relatively mild symptoms while being very infectious (original R0!) would require this long populational incubation time? It would be very fruitful to analyse all the available national/regional early phase (end of 2019/early 2020) in every country to get a reliable modelling and retrofit that model into the early Chinese data. I would hypothise that, still, any foreign national early endemics modelling would be at least a month or two faster compared to the original Wuhan dynamics, because an accidental release involving a singular patient zero (n=1) would gear up a local endemics substantially more slowly compared to 'several patient zeros' (n>10) initial patients in another naive population. (This is why the case of returning athletes from the Wuhan Military Games has the outmost importance, IMHO.)
I know that early mitigation efforts to control personal and subsequential transmissions by the original patient zero and her contacts in Wuhan could have curb down the real original value of R0 way under 1.0 and only a chance slip of the mitigation efforts might have lead to the semi-controlled regaining of the original R0 value. And this could have taken a couple of months until mid-November. With an R0>2.5 (which seems to be the native value for this pathogen) Wuhan become the epicenter of the pandemic.

Reply
Xoco Latte
5/30/2021 01:45:45 am

So the slow populational uptake of the infection is IMHO a circumstantial evidence for accidental release only involving a single patient zero, especially if, even with some lag (2-3 days the most), all secret efforts have been made to control her personal contacts, and this eventually failed to stop the chain of infections but substantially held R0 far below 1.0.

(2) Intentional release of a bioweapon, however effective, IMHO by definition would involve multiple patient zeros, in order to effectively multiply the original chain of infections. If one would plan an intentional release of a bioweapon, one would choose a location and timing that would successfully fulfill the master plan of initial infection of n>100 (or even n>1000) persons in order to supply enough zero points with inherent R0 value of the pathogen.
For this very scenario, the Wuhan Military Games would have been an ideal location and timing, with a superb chance of intented at-home (with not only Chinese athletes but some 30 thousand local volunteer workers) and international (9,300 athletes from more than 100 countries) spread as well.

Reply
Xoco Latte
5/30/2021 01:53:47 am

Correction of the above:
"Around 230,000 volunteers were recruited for the event to be staged in China."
That's rougly 240,000 potential targets, with >99% Chinese, i.e., with a hypothetical 3% average initial infectiousness rate in the sample population (of young or very young, healthy people), it would still mean more than 7,000 infected 'patient zeros', with some 25-30 athletes from foreign nations.

PETER ROSS
5/30/2021 03:47:41 am

{hasn't slipped my mind that I owe @nerd some homework, but meanwhile just some related geopolitic}

American Journalists Shielded China and Erased the Wuhan ...image.pnghttps://www.newsweek.com › Opinion › Coronavirus
3 days ago — Too many in our current news media environment are quick to politicize their coverage and seek the truth only when it's convenient for their ...
Mike Pompeo Says China Sought to Cover Up COVID-19 ...image.pnghttps://www.newsweek.com › ... › China › Coronavirus
3 May 2020 — The U.S. secretary of state said the Chinese government went to great lengths to intentionally conceal the severity of the outbreak.
China Criticizes Pompeo Over Coronavirus Wuhan Lab ...image.pnghttps://www.newsweek.com › ... › Mike Pompeo
6 May 2020 — "The huge drama of blame-shifting in the U.S. has already been heavily spoiled, and continuing the drama is meaningless," Chinese foreign ...
Mark Milley, Top U.S. General, Blames China's 'Cover-Up' of ...image.pnghttps://www.newsweek.com › ... › China › Fox News
3 days ago — It's inconclusive, we don't know." Mark Milley. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark ...

US, China Engage In Fresh 'War Of Words' Over Probe Into ...image.pnghttps://eurasiantimes.com › Americas
3 days ago — The US and China are now engaged in a fresh war of words after President Joe Biden called for a further probe into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Taiwan blames China for allegedly excluding them from ...image.pnghttps://english.alarabiya.net › coronavirus › 2021/05/24
6 days ago — Taiwan hit out at China on Monday over its continued exclusion from a crucial annual gathering of World Health Organization (WHO) members which starts this.

China government spokesman says U.S. military may have brought ...
U.S. › us-health-coronavirus-china-usa-idUSKBN20Z196
12 Mar 2020 ... BEIJING (Reuters) - A spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry suggested on Thursday the U.S. military might have brought the coronavirus to ...

Chinese diplomat backpedals on blaming US for coronavirus ...
Nikkei Asia › Spotlight › Coronavirus › Chinese-diplomat-backpedals-...
8 Apr 2020 ... BEIJING -- The Chinese official who had accused the U.S. military of bringing the novel coronavirus to Wuhan walked back his statement on ...

China Demands Access to U.S. Military Bases to Probe ...
Search domain channel411news.comhttps://channel411news.com/2021/05/28/china-demands-access-to-u-s-military-bases-to-probe-coronavirus-lab-leak/
China Demands Access to U.S. Military Bases to Probe Coronavirus Lab Leak FIRE FAUCI: Republicans call for removal of embattled Chief Medical Advisor

Beijing 2022 Olympicsimage.pnghttps://olympics.com › ioc › beijing-2022
Beijing Organising Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. PRESIDENT. Qi Cai. Executive Vice-President. Zhang Jiandong. ADDRESS.
2022 Beijing Olympics: U.S. backs away from boycott - CNBCimage.pnghttps://www.cnbc.com › 2021/04/06 › us-considering-j...
6 Apr 2021 — The 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing are due to take place between Feb. 4 and Feb. 20.
Full-blown boycott pushed for 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijingimage.pnghttps://www.espn.com › olympics › story › full-blown-...
17 May 2021 — Groups alleging human rights abuses against minorities in China are calling for a full-blown boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, ...
About CISM - Armed Forces Sports - Department of Defenseimage.pnghttps://armedforcessports.defense.gov › CISM › About-...
These are multisport events organized by CISM in conjunction with CISM ... Nations, NATO, Vatican, Sport and Peace Organization, Former Commanders in ...
Sport for Peace in International Military Sport Councilimage.pnghttps://www.milsport.one › events › sport-and-peace
CISM is the sole organization that brings together militaries from all nations to ... for Peace” Platform, uniting participants from CISM member nations, NATO, the ...

Reply
PETER ROSS
5/30/2021 05:20:54 am

Re: Attempted Analysis of Pfizer/Moderna Preparations:

Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273

https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273

Reply
Nerd has power
5/30/2021 07:21:07 am

@nonameneeded

Thank you for sharing your insights on the vaccines. Make a lot of sense.

@evidence

Great analysis on the possibility of the outbreaking being initiated prior to Sep 2019. I don’t think anybody could deny this possibility even if the modeling predicts a later tIC date (e.g. after Sep 2019).

The internet search data is very interesting despite it being only circumstantial evidence. I think it adds great weight to the possibility that the outbreak initially occurred in August 2019. A few insiders might have been responsible for the peaked searches for “SARS” or “coronavirus” on Google and Wikipedia.

In that scenario, the first fabrication/publication of pangolin coronavirus in Sep 2019 could then be a mitigation action responding to this August accident.

However, it is important to bring in all important facts into the analysis. I again would like to mention the three MERS drills, which took place in July 2018, April 2019, and September (18th) 2019, respectively. These drills had to be explained as well ---- if it was a pure and unexpected accident, would you be so engaged in early preparation for it?

Xoco Latte mentioned World Military Games in his recent comments. It’s very interesting that two of the earlier MERS drills (July 2018 and April 2019) both stated explicitly the setting ---- to prepare for possible such emergency scenarios during the World Military Games.

http://www.hbcdc.cn/index.php/index-view-aid-6871.html

http://www.whjy.com.cn/index.php/index-view-aid-1379.html

So, these MERS drills PREDICTED not only the type of outbreak but also its approximate timing. This makes it even more necessary to put the MERS drills into consideration when evaluating accidental vs. intentional.

What could possibly unite all the evidence is the scenario of community test of the bioweapon going out of control. This is what the 3rd Yan report has described. Could the community test have happened in August 2019 (and have aimed for an actual release in October 2019 during the World Military Games)?

If it was indeed community test of the bioweapon going out of control, it may be appropriate to call it both "accidental" and "intentional". Am I right?

There is one thing that I strongly disagree with evidence ---- I don’t think the PLA scientists fully understand the transmissibility of the virus back then. If they had only tested the transmissibility in humanized mice (hACE2-mice), they would have for sure underestimated the transmissibility in humans. It is highly possible that their containment strategies may not have been rigorous enough during the community test.

I agree that declassification of intelligence information would be very helpful here. Let’s see how it may play out.

Reply
Nerd has power
5/30/2021 07:25:58 am

Finally, I would like to share my thoughts on the suggestion that the pandemic could be due to an accidental leak of a virus intended for VACCINE development. In my opinion, this is just not plausible. There are several ways to argue against this. I will try two here.

Firstly, if it was an accidentally leaked virus used for vaccine research, why would you need PLA labs to fabricate pangolin CoVs to cover up? Shi or the WIV certainly would not have such authority. If it is a bioweapon, then the heavy military involvement would make a lot of sense, correct?

Secondly, the genetic modifications here are intended to deceive:

1) Why do you need to add a seemingly unrelated RBD? You could just splice in a normal SARS RBD, which would make it clear that you are doing artificial manipulation. They clearly intended to hide this.

2) You also do not have to choose BstEII as your restriction site for your RBD engineering; there are easier choices here if you want convenience. According to Baric, people generally make the cloning marks obvious so that others could know that this was genetically manipulated. The choice of BstEII here for SARS-CoV-2 Spike is obviously because it would preserve the encoded amino acids here, which are largely conserved in this lineage of CoVs. The fact that this choice was meant to conceal, rather than to declare, the genetic manipulation here clearly indicates that it must be for bioweapon development, not for vaccine research.

Reply
nonameneeded
5/30/2021 11:48:56 am

Very insightful. I agree. There are clear attempts at concealment up to the point of the bare essentials of pathogenesis. They worked hard to put in pathogenic features but equally hard to cloak them. Bioweapon 100%.

Errata
5/30/2021 06:52:19 pm

@Nerd

"...my thoughts on the suggestion that the pandemic could be due to an accidental leak of a virus intended for VACCINE development. In my opinion, this is just not plausible."

I agree wholeheartedly. The vaccine trial scenario defended for example by Steven Quay is a way to avoid stepping on the censorship land mine. It seems to confuse censors but it is outrageously absurd. Attenuated virus vaccines are only used when an outbreak is already under way. The small chance of causing the illness implicit in that kind of vaccine is of no consequence when the virus is already circulating. Proposing that anyone might do such vaccine trials with a virus not currently circulating and thereby risk accidentally causing an epidemic mocks human intelligence. Quay most certainly has his tongue in his cheek.

"What could possibly unite all the evidence is the scenario of community test of the bioweapon going out of control. This is what the 3rd Yan report has described.

---- I don’t think the PLA scientists fully understand the transmissibility of the virus back then."

As much as I agreed with and enjoyed reading the 3rd Yan report, my sense of plausibility balked at this part of it for the same reason that I am uncomfortable with the vaccine trial theory. Both involve a reckless risk. Are you really sure that the CCP's policies towards the Uyghurs do not offer a good model for community testing? My sense of the internment camps is that in many ways they are like villages. In rural areas an enclosed and guarded camp would contain an outbreak if it were to flare out of control. To me it just makes more sense that community testing would be done in the controlled environment of an internment camp on an expendable population rather than in the open streets of a city on ordinary citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps#Camp_facilities

"These camps are guarded by armed forces or special police and equipped with prison-like gates, surrounding walls, security fences, surveillance systems, watchtowers, guard rooms, and facilities for armed police."

By the way, speaking of Wikipedia and the 3rd Yan report, the Li-Meng_Yan page should mention that the criticisms of Johns Hopkins and MIT were addressed by the 3rd Yan report. Also a link to the 3rd report should be added to reference [a] which only has the first two. Wikipedia pages are widely read and therefore worth maintaining. Anybody can edit the page but it really should be you guys since it matters who made them when edits are disputed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Meng_Yan

"She co-authored several preprint research papers,[a] presenting conspiracy theories about the origin of SARS-CoV-2,[9] stating that SARS-CoV-2 was "produced in a laboratory".[9][10][11] According to a scientific review by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Yan's paper offered "contradictory and inaccurate information that does not support their argument",[4] while four review articles published by MIT Press criticised the paper as not demonstrating "sufficient scientific evidence to support its claims."[5]"

Errata
6/1/2021 07:05:43 pm

@Nerd

Excerpt from the 3rd Yan Report pg 10:

"Evidence suggests that the outbreak should have originated from community tests of the bioweapon that went out of control. As Dr. Yan shared through the LUDE Media on January 19th, 202010, community testing is a key step of the CCP’s unrestricted bioweapons plan. The goal of community testing could include: 1) To observe the bioweapon’s effect on its intended target – humans; 2) To further adapt the virus in humans and the environment and thereby give the virus a more natural look. However, due to the lack of proper animal models, the CCP scientists should have underestimated the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 and, as a result, the containment strategy used in the community tests somehow failed, leading to the release of this bioweapon. In a way, intentional release here refers to the conscious actions of the CCP scientists during the community tests – they took the virus out of the P3/P4 laboratory and released it in the community as part of its development. After the virus got out of hand, however, the CCP government did not really control it."

Releasing and then containing a bioweapon to get statistics on its behavior means taking a large unnecessary risk. It randomizes the timing of a bioweapon attack. It would be terribly poor judgement to let a test virus go in a city like Wuhan with an international airport where tourists and business travelers in the marketplace might encounter and be coughed on by a test subject. It could let a development model slip out of the country and into the possession of others where it could be perfected for use against China.

There is a safer way to learn a bioweapon's attributes. Mortality rates can be inferred by testing on a prison population and the reproduction number R, how fast it spreads, can be inferred by testing on a rural internment camp of which there is currently a varied selection in China.

There is one form of 'community tests' that would make sense. Assuming the CCP had a collection of viruses but did not know which in their arsenal would serve the purpose when the decision was made to release a bioweapon and start a pandemic, the plan could have been simply to release one after the other until one flared out of control. Such a plan would be consistent with an effort to contain each virus after release on the grounds that if it could be easily squelched then it was not suitable for the job and it was best saved for future work. But this version of 'community tests' is synonymous with a premeditated bioweapon attack.

Errata
5/30/2021 06:56:53 pm

@evidence

"Accident scenario cannot be discarded by the fact that bogus Pangolin sequences had already been prepared/submitted as early as Sep 2019"

In your scenario the outbreak was contained for months giving time to set up a cover story in case it eventually broke out. Myself, reflecting on the first pangolin paper's date of publication I became concerned about whether it can be cited as proof of premeditation at all. A pre-arranged coverup for an event does not imply that event cannot be accidental, it merely implies a desire to control appearances afterwards were it to happen. However for a virus release to be taken as a natural spillover, the cover story must be able stand the test of time.

The first pangolin paper lays the foundation for suspecting that the pangolins are a disease reservoir. A weakness of this paper is the large number of pathogens supposedly found. This was necessary to give flexibility to the foundation so that it could support many natural outbreak story lines. That is a problem for your scenario which would not have required such generality. It is a weakness because pangolins do not naturally harbor such a menagerie. Being solitary creatures by habit, their population cannot sustain an airborne respiratory virus. They are not a plausible host for a bat coronavirus spillover in nature. Considering the long evolution time implied by the virus sequence differences, the rare and endangered pangolins are not a plausible host for an endemic coronavirus in black market caged populations. If they go out of stock, the evolution clock starts over; there is no way it could run continuously for years. The first pangolin paper could not lay the foundation for a natural spillover story that would stand the test of time. Its purpose must therefore have been to sow confusion and delay a response. That purpose is consistent only with a bioweapon attack.

This model of the outbreak, that it started in August, requires that in the first months it daisy chained through a single line of victims without branching into a phylogenetic tree until December. Considering what we now know about its contagiousness, keeping the effective reproduction number R <= 1 is possible only through diligent contact tracing and victim quarantine. During those months complete awareness of the danger and the nature of the virus would have permeated all levels of decision making. If stopping it were the priority as it should have been then preparations for taking containment to the next level would have been made and implemented promptly when the virus slipped through the contact tracing net. You are correct that provisions could reasonably have included concocting a cover story and laying a foundation for it. However in fact when the virus broke out, all efforts were made to stymie containment measures. The cover story was flawed and could only provide a temporary smoke screen during an attack. In reality the CCP acted like it released a bioweapon which casts doubt on this pre-September outbreak model.

This possibility that there was a continuing battle against CoV2 going on in Wuhan for months would have just compounded the guilt. It would have meant that knowledge of the virus, its behavior, and what was necessary to control it was growing. When it finally broke out, all this knowledge should have been shared with the WHO and put to use worldwide. The more they knew about the virus the more damned they are for suppressing that knowledge in the first weeks after the breakout. If your scenario were true then the claim made by the CCP that there was no evidence of human to human transmission would have been nothing short of malicious. Although the pre-September outbreak theory does skirt around the accusation that the first pangolin paper implies premeditation, it replaces it with an equally damning accusation.

"This scenario (tIC prior to September 2019) is specifically supported by the following (circumstantial) evidence:
(a) As for example (again) reviewed by India Today May 19 2021"

The Google/Wikipedia searches in September are also consistent with planning and preparations at that time for a coming bioweapon attack. It is not possible to infer the motive from the fact of these searches. Likewise infrastructure preparations are also inconclusive. We know that extensive contingency planning was undertaken because of the hospital that was erected so quickly. That such planning included other measures such as sewage treatment upgrades should be expected. When the CCP moved to shut down the epidemic in Wuhan, they did so comprehensively.

"(b) Furthermore, an early IC emergence as soon as August 2019 would in particular explain the early and specific date of the Sep 12 2019 WIV databases take down"

Actions like the database being taken down can also be construed as motivated by the coming attack.

Reply
Jimmy Kudo
5/31/2021 12:44:39 am

What? "Hospital was erected so quickly" because of the mass infections and the current hospitals were full, with more people's lives at stake.

Reply
Errata
6/2/2021 02:23:58 pm

Jimmy Kudo, the motive to erect the hospital quickly was clearly there for the reasons you state. However motive does not guarantee the means. The speed at which it was done was remarkable. There was clearly a plan worked out in advance including the construction and stockpiling of prefab units.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-managed-build-entirely-new-hospital-in-10-days-2020-2?op=1

One must chose between believing the CCP has prefab hospitals sitting around stockpiled someplace 'just in case' or believing that the CCP knew it would soon need to construct a hospital quickly in Wuhan and made preparations. The second option implies a premeditated bioweapon attack. The first abuses credulity.

Fuddman
5/31/2021 01:25:35 pm

If Nerd facts & logic say RATG13 is fake, then, by the same facts & logic, ZC45 and ZXC21 are also fake.
1. Nerd fact: "Shi ... does not have a physical copy of this RaTG13 virus."
1. ZXC21/ZC45 fact: There are no physical copies of either ZC45 or ZXC21 in existence.
---------------
2. Nerd fact: Shi "only has its sequence information, which is nothing but a string of letters alternating between A, T, G, and C. "
2. ZXC21/ZC45 fact: ZXC41/ZC45 only exist as sequence information, which is nothing but a string of letters alternating between A, T, G, and C.
-------------------------
3. Nerd logic: Can the sequence of [RATG13] be fabricated? It cannot be any easier. It takes a person less than a day to TYPE such a sequence (less than 30,000 letters) in a word file. And it would be a thousand times easier if you already have a template that is about 96% identical to the one you are trying to create. Once the typing is finished, one can upload the sequence onto the public database. Contrary to general conception, such database does not really have a way to validate the authenticity or correctness of the uploaded sequence. It relies completely upon the scientists themselves – upon their honesty and consciences. Once uploaded and released, such sequence data becomes public and can be used legitimately in scientific analysis and publications.
3. ZXC21/ZC45 logic: Can the sequence of ZXC21/ZC45 be fabricated? It cannot be any easier. It takes a person less than a day to TYPE such a sequence (less than 30,000 letters) in a word file. And it would be a thousand times easier if you already have a template that is about 96% identical to the one you are trying to create. Once the typing is finished, one can upload the sequence onto the public database. Contrary to general conception, such database does not really have a way to validate the authenticity or correctness of the uploaded sequence. It relies completely upon the scientists themselves – upon their honesty and consciences. Once uploaded and released, such sequence data becomes public and can be used legitimately in scientific analysis and publications.
-----------------------------------
4. Nerd logic: RaTG13, if truly exists, should never be neglected by Shi for a period of seven years
4. ZXC21/ZC45 logic: ZXC21/ZC45, if they truly exist, should never have been neglected by the PLA researchers for 3 years.
---------------------------
5. Nerd logic: "The sequence of RaTG13 is highly alarming – it clearly shows a potential of the virus to infect humans."

5. ZXC21/ZC45 fact: "These findings strongly suggest the need for continued .....further research to study the possibility of cross-species transmission of these viruses [ZXC21/ZC45]." (From their study)
-----------------------
6. Nerd logic: "When something MUST exist to favor the side of the CCP, this something always miraculously appears, just like Shi’s RaTG13."

6. ZXC21/ZC45 logic: When something MUST exist to favor the side of the CCP, this something always miraculously appears, just like Yong-Zhen Zhang's XC21/ZC45.

Reply
Errata
6/2/2021 04:49:59 pm

As Yan conceded, ZC45 may not be the exact backbone but whatever really was would be similar. That concession implies recognition that ZC45 might possibly be fabricated as well. But what would be the point? In any case the issues over the synonymous/non-synonymous mutations and the matching E proteins would remain. One might wonder why ZC45 and ZXC21 were ever published. To my mind it only caused them trouble. I've toyed with the idea that it was a SNAFU. It seems more likely to me that they are real viruses mistakenly made public than that they are fabricated viruses published for some obtuse purpose. I could change my mind if someone presents a theory that makes sense. Do you Fuddman have one?

Reply
nonameneeded
6/2/2021 10:46:17 pm

Well, unless they were real viruses published in good faith and someone else was running the bioweapons program...

Fuddman
5/31/2021 02:20:42 pm

There were two inventors of the sequence for something called sars cov 2. They were Shi Zhengli and Yong-Zhen Zhang.
Using their influential position in the virus industry as launch point, they both intentionally used lies, deceptive and underhanded methods, to create, authenticate and publicize what they referred to as a "novel" virus. Oh how important that word "novel" is.

They knew each other and they knew of each other's work. They were both running towards the same goal post.

On that score, there are some Interesting side notes. For example, they both published their methods in the same dated issue of Nature magazine. From submission to publication in that magazine, a research paper requires a review that, normally, averages about 224 days. For both these "distinguished" authors, the time was compressed to about a week. Between the two, Yong-Zhen Zhang was the first to write out a sequence - in late December 2019 or early January, 2020. But he didn't reveal it to the world. Instead, he gave that honor to a buddy in Australia. Why he did that is a whole nother story.

Reply
Bro
6/1/2021 08:53:26 pm

Apparently the spike protein by itself can bind to ace2 receptor of vessels and damage cells. So either vaccine that make millions of this protein or the virus potentially damage vessels! Why this is not discussed!!!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33300001/

Reply
Errata
6/2/2021 04:30:25 pm

It is obvious that a vaccine may do some damage by emulating the pathogen. It is worthwhile to study and interesting to read the results of such studies. The approval of a new vaccine wraps all harmful effects up together in the safety and efficacy trials. In the end the decision to administer or receive a vaccine is made by weighing the risks against the benefits. In the case of damage done by CoV2 spike proteins circulated by a vaccine, that damage would be done to a greater degree by contracting CoV2 itself. It is not that the vaccine is harmless, it is that CoV2 is more harmful and the risk of getting CoV2 great enough that the risk of the vaccine is the lesser danger.

Reply
evidence
6/2/2021 04:29:10 am

Re: Post by Xoco [ Xoco Latte 5/30/2021 01:25:29 am] in reply to my earlier post about Liu pangolin paper timing [evidence 5/29/2021 05:30:19 am] : Time of patient zero infection estimate (tIC) impossible to infer from tMRCA estimates + post-tMRCA molbio data alone (i.e.,without further circumstantial evidence)


Dear Xoco,
- thanks for your kind reply and mentioning the important and relevant aspects!
Again, I guess my point is this one: I would basically say one cannot logically (and therefore neither in principle) infer sensibly a tIC-tMRCA time difference at all by ONLY knowing the behavior/properties and molbio data of the post-tMRCA pandemics, including for example by inference from the behavior of the spread into new, formerly pristine geographical areas/countries, as you have for example mentioned.
As it remains logically impossible, it remains speculation, regardless of all fancy simulations one would apply, or the plethora of data one would have available about post-tMRCA epidemics. (That's my discussion specifically about Pekar et al and their - in my view- shortcomings all about.)
Why is it fundamentally flawed? It is basically approaching a problem, which has to be approached DETERMINISTICALLY (as to establish a causal relationship, a one-by-one chain between IC -> MRCA), by STATISTICAL methods and statistical QUANTITIES of the post-tMRCA pandemics. This is the fundamental logical problem which cannot be solved. It is like trying to predict the precise trajectory of a selected individual molecule from Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics and their respective quantities (applied to the volume containing that molecule) alone - impossible.
For example, you mentioned R0: there is no use of R0 for the pre-tMRCA time window, as it is again a STATISTICAL parameter: later in the epidemics, one can certainly approach questions with statistical methods (as the infected population size is sufficiently large); but (in particular) with all their (PLA's) individual interventions (which can be assumed under the scenario I favor) at the very beginning, there is (almost only) DETERMINISTIC behavior of the initial spread: for example complete, immediate intervention on patient zero and all her (first degree) contacts would have completely killed the spread, incomplete intervention would not. Zero or One.
That's why technically, statistical methods won't get us nowhere here, no 'retrofitting' possible.
Specifically regarding the idea you offered of trying to infer tIC-tmRCA estimates by knowing the spread after it had been introduced into new geographical areas (new countries): consider for example the fact that the vastly different time development of the epidemics in those, 'naive' new countries/geographical areas had been strongly depending on (immediate) intervention measures: think about the vast difference of the development of the 1st wave of the epidemics in Taiwan (early, successful intervention with individual tracking close to respective index case infection), versus Brazil and USA (no timely intervention): how should we infer from those vastly different time developments, and get implications for the original 'Wuhan big bang'? (In particular as the situation of Wuhan September 2019 can certainly be expected to come closer to Taiwan 1st wave, given the accident scenario.)
[N.B.: Again, as expressed from the posterior, 'statistical viewpoint': after the macroscopic change/phase transition (here: pandemic emergence and its radiation) has occurred, the initial events can be regarded what is called as 'butterfly effect' (inherent to autocatalysis, cf. evidence 4/25/2021 04:40:36 am ).]
Regarding this specific, theoretical problem of tIC estimates inferred from molbio data alone the other way round on that example of Taiwan: For example from a posterior view after Taiwan successfully had countered their 1st wave, IF we did not have any MOLBIO data on Taiwan CoV2 epidemics there, but they had done exactly the same initial (successful) interventions (at least last year, during their 1st wave) as they did, and as they had gotten the epidemic under control for their 1st wave early on (i.e., having subsequent infections eventually avoided, i.e. all lineages during their 1st wave virtually gone EXRTINCT - and not only controlling the spread), then according to definition, we would have to say, they had formally even AVOIDED their respective tMRCA emergence for that geographical area. Hence, at the end of their 1st wave they got (luckily) 'stuck somewhere between tIC and tMRCA' so to speak (again, from that posterior, phenomenological view, cf. again Fig.2 Pekar paper).
- And again coming with this analogy back to Wuhan Sep 2019: we only do not know about putative, 'ephemeric' tMRCAs of all the other EXTINCT lineages in Wuhan Sep 2019, because there is no molbio data left, because either not drawn and/or purged. Hence, no best guess possible from molbio data and statistical analyses alone for infe

Reply
evidence
6/2/2021 04:38:44 am

Hence, no best guess possible from molbio data and statistical analyses alone for inferring tIC from either or both, tMRCA estimates and post-tMRCA pandemics behavior, and subsequently not possible to decide accidental vs intentional release at least from that knowledge alone.

- N.B. 2: I think this is also the ('psycho-') logical reason, why they (PLA scientists), at least initially, as well as for a very extended time period, had hoped (and some certainly still clinge to that hope), they could (also on the 'science front') get away with it, why they thought, they could lie to the entire world and started this (mind-blowing scientific) fraud at all, this on top of the core crime - which in retrospect of course seems illogical, short-sighted, if not scientific madness to us, since the fact that that it is man-made can INDEED be safely inferred (and subsequently forensically decided) by (post-tMRCA) molbio data (in conjunction with prior publications and known literature) alone, virtually without the need of circumstantial evidence.
We are already able identify their entire workflow ('CoV2 assembly line') by analyzing the molbio data alone (cf. Dayou Zhang's outstanding twitter posts) - no circumstantial evidence, no visit to China necessary at all.
This in sharp contrast to the particular issue of tIC estimate, and in contrast to deciding accidental vs intentional release: here, circumstantial evidence is needed.
- Hence, regarding those latter questions, I guess we need circumstantial evidence for that time window (July-Sep/Oct 2019). I guess, we need more intelligence material, it has to be declassified.
But on a positive note, I believe, a lot has emerged already (it just has to be PICKED up again, now with even more scrutiny and care, as we currently have different models to be falsified or supported ), as I have some of that circumstantial evidence mentioned in my post: in my mind it's already very telling and encouraging what we do have.
Again: public pressure, and indignation for me remains absolutely vital to push for more disclosures (in particular with respect to the intel community); we all certainly agree on that. - And the trigger for that current indignation is the growing awareness about the overwhelming evidence, that it is man-made at all, and the fact, that there has been a mind-blowing, China-driven, but eventually, as well as global, cover-up and fraud.

Re: the multiple patient zero scenario in connection with an intentional attack:
>> with a hypothetical 3% average initial infectiousness rate in the sample population (of young or very young, healthy people), it would still mean more than 7,000 infected 'patient zeros', with some 25-30 athletes from foreign nations.<<
I am not entirely sure, but I would tend to think, that this possibility has already been falsified by molbio data, as this scenario would exclude a sensible tMRCA estimate (no root can be found), at least no root for the time after the games. And the literature did come up with sensible tree analyses and correspondingly tMRCA estimates, including after the games. But I am not 100% sure. - Again: it is not primarily my intend to falsify the intentional release scenario. It is my intend to show, that the (bio warfare) accident scenario cannot be prematurely discarded yet, based on the evidence we have.
#

Reply
evidence
6/2/2021 05:20:43 am

Re: Post by Errata [Errata 5/30/2021 06:56:53 pm] in reply to my earlier post about Liu pangolin paper timing (not refuting accident scenario) [evidence 5/29/2021 05:30:19 am]

Dear Errata,

Thank you for your response. I reply to your contentions and assertions by quoting them briefly first.
(a)
>> In your scenario the outbreak was contained for months giving time to set up a cover story in case it eventually broke out. <<
I would NOT say, they bought time (only) in order to have the Potemkin village on their publication front well established first. According to the scenario, I do favour, they simply wanted the spread to stop.
(b)
>> The first pangolin paper lays the foundation for suspecting that the pangolins are a disease reservoir. A weakness of this paper is the large number of pathogens supposedly found. <<
Not if INITIALLY Liu just intended to report about all infections he could find on that animal specimens. Interestingly, their talk in that paper specifically about CoV came quite late - to me it seems almost a little bit like an add-on (contrasting the emphasis of the title). So he might not consider that part (CoV infection) major until the PLA told him to give it more emphasis. From there it takes only a quick change to adjust the title accordingly, i.e., to put the (bogus) CoV into spotlight.

(c)
>> It is a weakness because pangolins do not naturally harbor such a menagerie.<<
Again, it cannot be excluded that Liu at the beginning simply overinterpreted contamination. See for example Daoyu Zhang's elaborate, early (June 2020) and excellent work on that issue (cf. John F. Signus 6/8/2020 06:38:54 am), but as you have even already mentioned in a prior post of your own (Errata 5/4/2021 06:24:18 pm):
https://zenodo.org/record/3885333

(d)
>> Considering the long evolution time implied by the virus sequence differences[..] The first pangolin paper could not lay the foundation for a natural spillover story that would stand the test of time. <<
Basically absolutely correct. (And basically everybody who understood, that CoV2 is man-made, agrees on that point.) But however, NOT of any relevance for deciding intentional release vs accident, as all those Potemkin villages had been certainly established as (independent) in silico fabrication.

(e)
>> The first pangolin [...] the test of time. Its purpose must therefore have been to sow confusion and delay a response.
That purpose is consistent only with a bioweapon attack.<<
I guess I simply do not agree. It is for me 'jumping to conclusion'- regarding the attack part. The bioweapon (CoV2) is certainly a GOF product with the pupose of being a bioweapon. On that one I agree.

(f)
>> This model of the outbreak, that it started in August, requires that in the first months it daisy chained through a single line of victims without branching into a phylogenetic tree until December.<<
Wrong; i.e., could be different.
(f.1) Have you read (at least the introductory part) of the Pekar paper carefully? And specifically their diagram I had been referring to: for example there certainly can be branches diverging from that chain, which would eventually go extinct.
(f.2) I indirectly tried to confer, that personally, I am more convinced by a quite early tMRCA estimate given by Schrago (Sep 20 2019), as compared to later tMRCA estimates offered by Dorp and Pekar.
I thought that was clear from the way, I had approached this issue in my post.
So again: I believe, the tMRCA of the Schrago approach has by far the most validity, since they take into consideration more caveats and respective pitfalls, any tMRCA estimate would entail, specifically regarding CoV2 (and inferring the tMRCA from data given by EARLY epidemic only). Again, consider also their extremely high error margin, i..e, CI they put up (14 Nov 2018 (!) to 16 Jan 2020), which sounds more realistic to me as well - while Dorp and specifically Pekar are not discussing those respective (general) problems of CoV2-tMRCA estimates at all.
And again, December 2019 tMRCA (Pekar) is totally unrealistic to me, i.e., basically already falsified by intelligence (even before the paper had come out!), as I have written in my post. Did you overlook that part? (I wonder, how could that late tMRCA be realistic for you?)
Hence, it can be as little as 3-4 weeks (late August -> late September 2019) for the tIC-tMRCA time window. That is my notion. And this is not a very long time span at all.
Actually, I guess the CCP would be very happy, if everybody were buying a tMRCA estimate as late as December 2019, as they would love to see all prior information being purged. Have you considered that point?
(NB: Because I consider their tIC estimate approach fundamentally/theoretically flawed, my concern about the Pekar paper extimates would remain unchanged even if it happens to be, that [direct, e.g., intelligence/whistleblower] evidence eventually woul

Reply
evidence
6/2/2021 05:36:39 am

..., my concern about the Pekar paper extimates would remain unchanged, even if it happens to be, that [direct, e.g., intelligence/whistleblower] evidence eventually would show us, that the IC-tMRCA time difference in fact has been exactly 35 days (as their estimate would predict). However, the proposed absolute dates they are giving [tIC Nov 4 2019, tMRCA Dec 9 2019] are next to impossible in my mind.)

- But my MAIN emphasis of my post had been again this one: apparently not many have yet discussed the HUGE problem of implicitly conflating tIC and tMRCA. And of course that issue has to be addressed.
And as I have specifically stressed in my preceding reply to Xoco [evidence 6/2/2021 04:29:10 am]: without CIRCUMSTANTIAL (or direct) evidence, there is in principle no possibility to get knowledge about that specific venue (including time length) of that chain IC-->MRCA; i.e., it is impossible to infer the venue of that chain only by molbio data and post-tMRCA pandemics behavior alone.
Of course, in principle IC=MRCA (and subsequently tIC-tMRCA = 0 ) would remain a possibility as well. But I do think, that possibility CANNOT be taken for granted at all. That's my major point. And I think, it is in fact rather unlikely - again, according to given circumstantial evidence, as I see it. On this point I agree with Pekar. (And it can be as well suspecteed, that tIC=tMRCA has hardly ever been the case for any cross-species jump either, that this would likely be rather an exception and not the rule.)
And it is my believe, this list will be getting larger in the near future (unearthing circumstantial evidence regarding August/September 2019 events) , as more people will be having this issue as well (like I do), and subsequently will be digging into it. In particular inidividuals/agents of the intel community would come up reviewing/revisiting this time window.
See for example the (in my mind very instructive) twitter discussion I have been posting (URLs).
- But again argued the other way round by asking you: Would you consider Huang Yanling being the tMRCA?
Or even post-tMRCA?
Or would you say, that her case has no evidence, no specific bearing at all?
If you would consider her case has in fact any bearing and NOT being post-tMRCA: why do you believe they would actually intend to specifically get a WIV researcher infected first (or somebody, she had close contact to) - and not rather any random dude in town?

(g) (Re: internet search activities:)
>> It is not possible to infer the motive from the fact of these searches.<<
It is sufficient for me to be consistent with the scenario I am proposing.
And that's in particular what circumstantial evidence is all about: circumstantial evidence never cares for motive.

- And again: I have no stakes in this scenario, except that I still consider it being more plausible. And as I said, I always acknowledge the possibility that this scenario might be falsified one day. Again, that's how science and scientific investigation should work ;)
However, I have to say you had not been able to convince me: I do not think the bio-wafare accident hypothesis is being refuted by your response.
If the plausibility will be stronger on the intentional release side, I will be happy to accept that scenario. (At least from a pure science, i.e. investigative, point of view, because it's the only way to advance - of course with respect to society I am not equally happy regarding both scenarios. But that should not obfuscate a rigorous debate, and not stop us from crunching the puzzle. But we should not forget either: the fact that CoV2 is man-made at all, and linked to a biowarfare program, is so horrific, so beyond comprehension, that this by itself is a monumental crime. And the fraud on top of it.)
However, coming back to the issue: Core claim of my post had been, that ONLY by referring to the TIMING of the Liu paper, one cannot invalidate a (biowarfare) accident scenario, and may I quote Nerd's reply to my thoughts [5/30/2021 07:21:07 am]:
>>Great analysis on the possibility of the outbreaking being initiated prior to Sep 2019. I don’t think anybody could deny this possibility [...]
The internet search data is very interesting despite it being only circumstantial evidence. I think it adds great weight to the possibility that the outbreak initially occurred in August 2019. <<

- Errata, I appreciated very much your earlier [4/10/2021 01:30:24 pm] post, and its spirit: for me, it was insightful and relevant about what you reminded us regarding Eric Lander.
#

Reply
PETER ROSS
6/2/2021 11:48:22 am

"Communist China at the VERY LEAST is guilty of covering up the spread of the Wuhan virus.  The coverup continues putting every single living being at risk of the next great pandemic."

Join: @MichaelRPompeo
https://t.me/MichaelRPompeo/322



{not the most exculpatory statement from a West Point summa cum laude...sad}

Reply
nonameneeded
6/2/2021 10:44:39 pm

Francis Collins, chief liar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4MMtvUCs_U

I am obsessed with the degree of deception NIH went to....I simply cannot believe they weren't involved in concocting this disaster.

Reply
David Rivard
6/3/2021 12:04:12 pm

OK, thanks in no small part to this site's efforts, we are now in the "Accidental vs. Intentional Release" phase of the research.

We must now analyze the (obvious) weapon's many stage defense system;

1. Natural vs. synthetic. Accomplished
2. If a synthetic consensus, accidental release because NIH
prompted GOF experiments that went wrong.
3. CCP was duped by NIH (controlled by US.gov.),
necessitating strict internal national control (including all lab and
clinical data). Because this research was a security breach
initiated by a foreign actor, it was assigned to the CCP Military.

Reply
WesternPeak
6/3/2021 01:03:13 pm

The following is from an interview of Vineet Menachery at the 2019 Microbiology Society’s Annual Conference in Belfast:


Could you outline the research you’re presenting here?

So, in my talk I talked about a longitudinal study that had been done by Zhengli Shi’s group at the Wuhan Institute [1] on Chinese horseshoe bats, which led to a big shift in our thinking about these bat CoVs because it revealed they are much closer to the epidemic SARS strains than previously thought. Normally, we don’t evaluate anything beyond being reactive to the next emergent strain, but building on this study using our infectious clone system we had the opportunity to ask more questions – and that’s how this project started.

The study that I showed was using a chimeric approach – taking the spike protein of bat CoVs and putting them into the backbone of a virus we knew was functional. Coronaviruses are really large, so with generating the viruses there are any number of other things that could go wrong, such as incompatibilities, that might not allow that virus replicate even though the spike might be viable – by putting just the spike in a known backbone we could gain some insight into that. We chose a mouse-adapted strain for the backbone because then we could take the chimeric virus into animals, and what surprised us was that the SARS-like CoV spikes, WIV1 and SHC014, which were isolated from bats, caused robust disease.

https://www.id-hub.com/2019/05/21/emerging-technologies-investigate-coronavirus-emergence-interview-vineet-menachery/

Does anyone know if there was a recording of his presentation in Belfast, or at the very least a slide deck.

Reply
David Rivard
6/3/2021 02:10:18 pm

Of course, there is the general media and major scientific publications that definitely did follow widely accepted scientific methods. Along with the current administration's acquiescence to China's aggressions abroad, in addition to not pressuring the CCP for information that would definitely impact therapies. Could it be CCP DNC collusion? They both got what they wanted.

Reply
Nerd has power
6/5/2021 08:39:44 am

@Errata

Solid, solid reasoning. I enjoyed reading your posts very much.

Your arguments of using Uyghur camps as testing grounds for the bioweapon are powerful. However, this approach would inevitably open the bioweapon secrets to more (although limited) individuals, especially outside of the scientists circle. The chance of such top secret would leak out then increases.

Having the test done in Wuhan by the bioweapons program’s inner circle scientists would be safer. The level of trust between the military scientists and their WIV associates must be very high due to their long-term collaboration.

Another benefit of doing it in Wuhan would be the convenience. Again, there could be a bunch of beta versions of viruses that have to be tested. Moving the viruses across the nation to be tested in the camps would be time-consuming and not ideal when they want to quickly move between human tests and laboratory modifications/characterizations.

Finally, there is the top expertise immediately available in Wuhan to react to unexpected outcomes of the community tests. There are abundant the experience and expertise in containment or treatment or testing in Wuhan. This particular city (not any other city in China) also has PRACTICED against MERS emergencies three times at least from 2018 to 2019. Wuhan has been readied …….

One thing I have no way of knowing is how competent and comfortable the WIV/PLA scientists are in doing community tests. They could be very experienced/comfortable and therefore see no particular danger in doing so. However, they could have been proven overly confident when the virus would have turned out to be magnitudes more transmissible in humans than what they have anticipated.

Your other point is also excellent ---- that they may have tested one virus after another until they found one that was uncontainable, which means that it is the right bioweapon. This is not the most likely scenario, I must say, because there is too much randomness to it, which may not be ideal for the CCP leaders. They must care a lot about the timing of release of the bioweapon and initiation of the unrestricted biowarfare.

@Fuddman

ZC45 and ZXC21 were indeed isolated, not fake. There are physical copies of them that exist in this world and caused infections in suckling rats. RaTG13 is different and exists only as a sequence on paper/computer.

@Errata @nonameneeded

The CCP has been promoting a campaign to look for and collect viruses (especially coronaviruses) from the wild, which both the military virologists and the civilian virologists were encouraged to be engaged in. Both groups did engage, greatly. However, it is fair to say that not every group necessarily knows what their discoveries would mean or be possibly used for something later on. Like any funded research projects, you have to prove to your sponsors that the money invested in you lead to productivity. As a result, every single group is interested in publishing their results, especially when they don’t know their thing could be picked for something later.

Also, how do the top scientific supervisors of the bioweapons program pick winners for templates? Wouldn’t peer-reviewed journal publications a good gauge? Some external experts were used in that process to validate the findings for you. I think there is quite some convenience there.

Finally, if ZC45/ZXC21 were not published, then not so much genetic modifications would be needed. In other words, because they were published previously, using them as the template for a bioweapon would require sophisticated genetic makeovers to create large enough divergence (~10% on nucleotide level here) so that nobody would see the connection between the template and the eventual product. This would also give the room to fabricate other viruses (RaTG13, pangolin CoVs, RmYN02, etc) to further blur the connection between ZC45/ZXC21 and SARS-CoV-2.

@evidence

Great in-depth analysis on the timing of release. I agree that logical analyses and discussions on the scientific evidence and hopefully intelligence evidence would be crucial here. However, again, I would love to see how you could integrate the MERS drills into your analysis/hypothesis. To me, these drills are not something to be completely overlooked.

Reply
Fuddman
6/5/2021 01:46:34 pm

@nerd

When you talk about the establishment of ZXC21 ZC45, you are referring to this study : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7323513/

You quote me anything out of that report which says they isolated either ZXC21 or ZC45.

Secondly, the report has no source for who found those two, only that the samples were collected by some unknown expeditions conducted between 2015 and 2017.

That makes the “samples” over one year old. The half life of RNA is 2 minutes at room temperature and one year stored at -80deg C. Which means these “researchers” found the sequences for two RNA virus which had degraded to an analytically useless state.

Like I said, there is nothing in any report which justifies the existence of
ZXC21 or ZC45, much less that they were isolated

Reply
Nerd has power
6/5/2021 03:21:29 pm

Not the paper you listed @Fuddman. It's this one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30209269/

or

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1038/s41426-018-0155-5

They successfully established infection in multiple organs of suckling rats. So, there you go, they had the live virus.

Please note that the infection and isolation experiments may not be done in the year of publication (2018). It could have been completed in the year of discovery, e.g. 2017. Finalizing studies, polishing manuscripts, and getting through peer review all take time.

Importantly, ZC45 and ZXC21 can cause infection in brain tissues, which is rare. This seems to be an important parameter when they select templates ---- is it completely insane to think that the CCP would be interested in a bioweapon capable of causing neurological damage? Thank you for reminding me to bring that up.

Errata
6/9/2021 02:35:46 pm

@Nerd

"...they may have tested one virus after another until they found one that was uncontainable, which means that it is the right bioweapon. This is not the most likely scenario, I must say, because there is too much randomness to it, which may not be ideal for the CCP leaders. They must care a lot about the timing of release of the bioweapon and initiation of the unrestricted biowarfare."

I agree but you go to war with what you have. If the attributes of their bioweapons were in doubt then they faced the choice between improvising or missing the deadline if the attack was scheduled for one year before the US election. Predictions on how the pandemic would unfold would have been uncertain enough to tolerate a little randomness. They also would have had some idea about which candidates were the most promising. From the timeline and the intelligence report about a November case cluster one might infer that they picked the right bioweapon and got it going on the first try. Otherwise one could see the activities in September as an earlier attempt that failed due to containment. This may have been a version without the furin cleavage site. Notice the psychology of a second release being on November 3rd; it brushes aside a September failure by making the release seem planned. A November date for the pandemic could be interpreted to mean it should flare out of control in Wuhan in November, hence a release in September, or it could also be taken to mean a release in November. Some leeway is there for the PLA to make excuses. The release and contain deployment tactic cannot be summarily dismissed. It belongs on the table when community testing is brought up for discussion.

Reply
Errata
6/9/2021 02:47:39 pm

@evidence

Nerd wrote: "how you could integrate the MERS drills into your analysis/hypothesis. To me, these drills are not something to be completely overlooked."

Consider this point:

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/02/coronavirus-spreads-chinas-military-has-been-largely-mia/162950/

"More alarming is the fact that the Hubei Provincial Health Committee simulated the breakout of the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in April in preparation for the 2019 World Military Games in Wuhan. The city should have had contingency plans ready, or at the very least been better situated to respond. But it seems clear that Wuhan city officials and the Hubei provincial government were not able to coordinate a contingency response with PLA or other units, indicating a breakdown of communications channels or that the mechanisms in place were ineffective."

Dearest evidence, Nerd has a strong point here. Anyone defending the accident interpretation must have an answer to the following thesis:

The fact that the city of Wuhan must have had contingency plans ready and that what was done was close to the exact opposite of what should have been done to contain the outbreak is proof of maliciousness. The accounts by Ai Fen and Yan Limeng could not be more incriminating. Any city with two virus research labs, one for BSL-4 work, would have a protocol in place for a potential lab leak. Even without the MERS drill the actions taken by the CCP are inexplicable in the first days of the outbreak immediately after Li Wenliang posted the SARS lab report. The MERS drill pushes it beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not an accident.

Reply
Fuddman
6/5/2021 06:38:23 pm

““ To further explore the evolution of SL-CoV from Zhoushan, two complete genomic sequences of the representative bat-derived CoVs were generated by sequencing several overlapping amplicons. Specifically, sequences were generated from the following samples: SL-CoV ZXC21 (MG772934) bat that was extracted from a sample procured in July 2015, and SL-CoV ZC45 (MG772933) bat that was extracted from a sample procured in February 2017.

ZXC21 was over one year old when tested, ZC45 was close to a year old. Both sequences phony’s.

“ They successfully established infection in multiple organs of suckling rats. So, there you go, they had the live virus.”

No way. This is what they did

“Despite the failed isolation of the infectious virus from PCR-positive samples in Vero E6 cells, we attempted to isolate the virus from suckling rats by infecting them with tissue samples that were positive for the coronavirus.“

They used an RT-PCR test to find an infected tissue sample? Which sample? The one over a year old or the one year old sample? What primer? What level of Ct? Pretty sloppy work; but, good enough for Zhang Yongzhen, I guess.

They got a sick rat by torturing the thing, and declared it a COVID case and eventual COVID death.

Sounds familiar.

Reply
PETER ROSS
6/5/2021 08:25:40 pm

I'll add my two cents and second that.

All these "infection" experiments show it that some toxin(s) is present, along with all kinds of exogenous and endogenous RNA's and DNA's and who knows what.

Interesting that CDC wants now testing for mycobacterium. Weaponized bacteria seem like much more reliable vectors than some funny looking soap bubble with "spikes" of an unknown material and nobody knows what's even inside these exosome preparations being called "infectious viruses" - it's been what - 30 years and HIV still hasn't been isolated from the exosomes?

This "plague" - if it can even be dignified with such nomenclature - has been in the planning for 30+ years. It's very likely that much of the paper and digital trail - publications and patents nd data bases - are all diversions.

This was no accidental 'leak' and since a fake PCR was used for 'diagnosis', and no autopsies, who really knows how many pathogens or toxins are involved. This is some kind of Ft Detrick-Wuhan-Klaus Schwab collaboration and the main objective seems to be to inject the entire planet with unknown RNA and DNA and who knows what else.

So far we're lucky that something real nasty wasn't spread around.
Not the CCP that ordered lockdowns to destroy small businesses throughout the other countries and not CCP ordered banning Ivermectin & HCQ & dexamethasone and Vitamin D, etc. No does CCP control the fer-mongering psychological warfare conducted through mass media and social media censorship.

COVID911 is an attempt to enslave the inhabitants of this planet with mysterious genetic injections and brainwashing and enhanced mass surveillance and all kinds of of commie-ass draconian measures of absolute social control with a depopulation agenda for some "Great Leap Forward"/BigReset nazi crap.

So, whatever the actual pathogens/vectors/toxins are, the covid syndromes - most of which is the usual causes of mortality relabeled as "covid" - appear to be receding in a seasonal pattern.

wtf - biodefense guys focus on only one pathogen as the sole possibility. Makes no sense.

And these injections are NOT vaccines by any stretch of the imagination and nobody but the defense contractor manufacturers know what is actually inside.

So we should be busy demanding that anaytical labs get down to business and figur out what exactly is inisde.
We already know that no "membrane-bound triple-spiked glycoprotein" is not generated by these injections, just some non-specific rise in antibody titer with no evidence of a protective effect.

It's as if the real bioweapon is these mysterious contaminated injections that send lipid-plastic nano particles all over the body, with special affinity for ovaries.

Reply
Errata
6/8/2021 02:30:36 pm

@Evidence

Thank you for the kindness of responding to my concerns on this matter. I have great respect for you so if my weak powers of tact and diplomacy fail me and I become offensive, please accept my apologies in advance.

Your accident hypothesis cannot be treated cavalierly. I will share with you my observations on it but first for the sake of full disclosure about my bias, I think of the accident idea this way: if a lightening strike starts a fire on your neighbor's porch, it hardly matters that it began naturally if you ran over and threw gasoline on it. The choice to locate a virus research lab in a city is like the choice to drive drunk. The 'accident' that happens is not really accidental. We cannot read minds so a coverup is proof of guilt; the CCP arrested Li Wenliang therefore it was a bioweapon attack. The best way to deploy a pandemic bioweapon is to stage a lab accident so the question is moot in any case.

That said I consider it of some interest what science can contribute to the origin question.

Prompted by the pangolin paper of Liu et al. submitted for publication in September, we are discussing whether the outbreak could have started with an accident that predated that submission. If not then the importance of this first pangolin paper to the later fraudulent attempt to name pangolins as the transition species for CoV2 becomes incriminating and can be cited as evidence of premeditation. You are supporting the view that it escaped accidentally before the Liu paper was submitted.

Perhaps with the Liu paper it will turn out to be like a case where someone died in a suspicious accident not long after the suspect took out a life insurance policy on them. It becomes one piece of circumstantial evidence in a preponderance of evidence case.

You have mentioned some published papers that have bearing on the date the pandemic started. The Schrago paper supports your point on the September date, the Pekar paper not but it supports the idea of a long simmering infestation. You have gone into some detail on the merits of these studies.

You have also emphasized that the index case can be long before the most recent common ancestor and quoted Nerd:
>>Great analysis on the possibility of the outbreaking being initiated prior to Sep 2019. I don’t think anybody could deny this possibility [...]

On this last point I agree we must all concede, for what it's worth, that in principle it is theoretically possible.

Reply
Errata
6/8/2021 02:32:28 pm

> "December 2019 tMRCA [..](I wonder, how could that late tMRCA be realistic for you?)"

Realistically the dates given by modeling have big error bars. The intelligence report gives the 2nd week in November 2019 for the sick WIV workers which casts some doubt on Pekar's early December date but it casts even more on your early September date. At first glance Schrago's confidence interval of November 2018 to January 2020 seems to make all these dates consistent with each other. Schrago's tMRCA of September 10th 2019 would remove the taint of premeditation from the first pangolin paper but there is huge uncertainty associated with it. On the other hand that uncertainty might be offered as cause to keep open the possibility of an early tIC. Pekar claims most phylogenetic tree branches die out spontaneously which supports a long delay from tIC to tMRCA. Let's dig into this a little.

Before employing sophisticated analysis tools it is prudent to make a simple common sense check. Just assume exponential growth and extrapolate backwards. A quick look at the numbers being bandied about suggests the case fatality rate is about 2% and about 80% are asymptomatic. A ballpark number for the infection fatality rate is therefore 1/250. In the first weeks in the USA cases were doubling every 3 days, rising by a factor of 10 each week. These rough numbers can give an idea of when the outbreak started. To pass 250 takes eight doublings: 2^8 = 256 which gives ~3*8 = 24 days. A month after the virus got out of control there would have been people showing up at emergency rooms very sick. Cases would have increased rapidly and within a few weeks the exponentially rising death tally would have been impossible to hide. This agrees with the intelligence report pointing to November. It also tells us CoV2 is unlikely to have gotten out of control earlier than a couple of months before Li Wenliang blew the whistle.

Pekar claims that most infection chains fizzle out even without intervention: "we show that more than two-thirds of SARS-CoV-2-like zoonotic events would be self-limited, dying out without igniting a pandemic." That supports your idea of a simmering infestation so lets consider whether it is plausible.

Pekar ran a monte-carlo program called SAPHIRE (perhaps an in-house software tool named for Erica Ollman Saphire, a biologist at the La Jolla Institute.) The parameters were for the time period before COVID-19 mitigation efforts, Jan 1st to Jan 22nd 2020, from a study of Wuhan cases by Hao et al. which gave R0 = 3.54 for the early part of the outbreak. An online poisson statistics calculator with 3.54 as the average and 0 as the value gives 0.029 so about 3% of infections are dead ends, that is 97% of all infections are passed on. My sense of plausibility balks at believing a damping of 3% would usually squelch an outbreak that is otherwise growing exponentially with an R0 value greater than three. On this point I think Pekar et al. is mistaken and you should not put any stock in their study's ability to support the idea of a simmering infestation.

Calculators:
https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/poisson.aspx
https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1180573180
https://www.thecalculator.co/math/Poisson-Distribution-Calculator-736.html

Schrago's idea was that shape holds information. A mature fir tree looks like a smooth cone shape from a distance but a young tree can be leggy like Charlie Brown's christmas tree. With a proper algorithm for judging smoothness one should therefore be able to judge a fir tree's height from a photo. Similarly this idea can be applied to phylogenetic trees from virus outbreaks. Schrago did this and got an answer.

He then asked how trustworthy this answer is. To judge it he did a lot of work. He ran simulations and tweaked the parameters by simulating other outbreaks where he could check the simulation against known answers. This gave him a good error analysis. The result was that this approach fails. The confidence interval is too wide for his answer to be significant. His study can add nothing to our knowledge about the timing of the outbreak because there are other approaches that give much more reliable information.

So he hosed us down with jargon and published anyway. Bless him though because if he had not then someone else would have wasted time on this idea. I might quibble with him over his mutation rate parameter and his proofreading but that is probably unfair because he was understandably in a hurry to get this fiasco off his desk.

You want to use his wide confidence interval and his anomalous central value as support for the possibility of an early index case, one in September or before, which would exonerate Liu and the first pangolin paper. This is not a legitimate use of the Schrago result. The correct interpretation of the Schrago paper is that his approach failed and his result is meaningless.

Reply
Errata
6/8/2021 02:34:03 pm

>> "Considering the long evolution time implied by the virus sequence differences[..] The first pangolin paper could not lay the foundation for a natural spillover story that would stand the test of time."
> "correct [..] but however, NOT of any relevance for deciding intentional release vs accident"

Why does it matter whether the pangolin cover story could stand the test of time? There are two answers.

First: one might excuse the initial pangolin paper on the grounds that it was just a hedge against a true accident put in place by someone concerned about carelessness at WIV. However that does not work for a flawed cover story. The temporary confusion and delay caused by a flawed cover story is of no use in deflecting blame and avoiding liability. Preparing a cover story that only has value for an attack implies premeditation.

Second: because when you lie and cover up an accident, it no longer looks like an accident. The decision to lie and cover up starts with an assessment of the risk the deception will be discovered. If the risk of being caught is low then the lie and cover up are a viable choice, otherwise not. That is unless there is a third option where buying time is advantageous.

Consider a mundane example: you accidentally shot your spouse dead, say cleaning a gun after hunting. You can call an ambulance and pretend there is hope or you can bury the body and file a missing person report. The decision to bury the body starts with an assessment of whether it can be done without being caught in the act and in a way that the body will never be found. If that is not possible then the best decision is to call an ambulance. There is a third possibility and that is to hide the body and flee. Hiding the body is not an expedient that will stand the test of time but it only has to cause a delay. Although your claim that it was an accident might be convincing had you called an ambulance, if you bury the body or flee then you will be charged with first degree murder if caught. But here is where it gets interesting. If you buried the body without getting caught in the act but it was found later then conviction will rely heavily on motive. If you fled then you can be convicted even if the motive question cannot be satisfactorily resolved because your behavior implies guilt. That is why it matters whether or not a cover story could conceivably stand the test of time.

How does this pertain to CoV2? You assert it escaped accidentally. If so the CCP had a choice between alerting everyone of the danger or covering it up. They chose to cover it up but in which sense was that done? Was it like carefully burying the body or was it like stashing the body in the bushes? The former would require a motive be found, the later not. If the pangolin cover story had a good chance of being accepted and seemed robust enough to endure indefinitely then no accusation against the CCP would be appropriate without giving a compelling motive. The debate would then pivot on whether the proposed motive was worthwhile enough for the CCP to have done such an extreme thing. However the need to resolve that debate does not exist because the pangolin cover story was seriously flawed and could not stand up to close inspection. We only need a reason why the delay might have served a purpose. It is sufficient that for military purposes it is a wise strategy to confuse the enemy into a slow and irresolute response.

It is obvious also that bumping Trump out of the presidency was a benefit, ending as it did the trade war and tariffs which were harmful to the Chinese economy and an affront as well. A delay was sufficient because this became virtually irreversible after November 2020. Biden is not about to admit he owes his victory to Chinese meddling in the election and step down. We therefore have it both ways. We do not need a motive because of their guilty behavior but we do have an adequate motive. The motive explains why they used a shoddy cover story to protect them while acting guilty. Clearly the proper charge is to call the release of CoV2 a premeditated bioweapon attack.

Reply
Errata
6/8/2021 02:38:26 pm

@Evidence

Consider what you are asking us to believe with an accident date in early September or before. Working in secret with no help from the public or the medical community the CCP/PLA managed to do what no other country on the planet was able to do with all the cooperation of a concerned population. They held the virus in check and contained it for months using nothing but contact tracing and isolation. Is this really plausible?

If a trace and isolate program was ongoing then it would have been clear that the indication of pending failure would be sick people showing up at hospitals. In a city with two virus research labs a mystery pathogen would almost immediately be sequenced. If the CCP was running a containment program then they would have been monitoring hospital admissions and lab test results. They would need to do that to catch any case that eluded contact tracing. If these escaped cases became frequent then they would have implemented a backup plan. The first part of their backup plan would have been to alert emergency room directors that pneumonia cases should be transferred to a dedicated hospital rather than being admitted. These aspects of a containment program, test and admissions monitoring and patient transfers, would have been necessary both to control the outbreak and to keep it secret. The story from Ai Fen is that Wuhan Central Hospital was taking cases from a clinic so no such instructions existed. The lab report listing SARS went directly to her instead of being intercepted by someone monitoring test results. This pretty much rules out any ongoing program to suppress an incipient outbreak.

I have drifted off the science topic so in closing I should return to it. Where does the science leave us? Schrago and Pekar have let you down. Exponential growth gives November as the likely tMRCA. Poisson says Pekar is too optimistic about the prospects for containment. Clearly containment could push back tIC but Schrago offers no insight on how far. The WSJ intelligence report gives a November date which is consistent with exponential growth without containment. If you want me to commit on an index case date, I would pick November 3rd, exactly one year before the polls opened for voting in the US presidential election. It was no accident and the early November date was no coincidence. Science can say the IC virus variant is not necessarily the same as that of the MRCA and so Shi Zhengli can truthfully claim that CoV2 was never worked on in her lab. Beware of those who lie by telling the truth.

Although I have closed ranks with Yan et al., I recognize that in this crusade the skirmishes won so far have been due to the swords wielded by bearers of the accident shield. I salute you and on behalf of humanity say thank you for your bravery and the tremendous work you have done.

Reply
check this
6/10/2021 02:11:44 am

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3863213

Reply
check this
6/10/2021 02:20:05 am

Differential enrichment ofyeast DNA in SARS-2CoV-2 and related genomes supports synthetic 3origin hypothesis (Andreas Martin Lisewski)

- This divergence suggests that if RaTG13 is assumed to be a product of natural evolution then both the sequences of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 cannot be. Alternatively, the origin of RaTG13 couldbe artificial along with SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1, as our results suggest. -

Reply
Fuddman
6/11/2021 08:09:02 am

The writer is a flake.

One of many creeping out of the COVID storyline trying to make a name for themselves.

Yeast is the new smoking gun in the lab-no lab drama.

He should have titled his piece “COVID has a yeast infection “

Reply
Errata
6/11/2021 11:46:31 am

@check this

Personally I am not on board for this, especially not in these stormy seas. I'm not even going to touch the handrail of the boarding ramp. Find me back in the yacht club watching through the window from a barstool.

Lisewski seems legit but the question is whether this is like Montagnier's spurious HIV segments or instead is it an answer to the following question.

Yanzhong Huang 2004 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92479/

"What accounted for the initial government decisions to withhold information from the public and take little action against the disease, and then the subsequent dramatic shift in government policy toward SARS?" ...adapted from The Politics of China’s SARS Crisis. Harvard Asia Quarterly (Autumn 2003)

If the Chinese are allowed to get away with releasing a bioweapon then they will do it again. I am convinced that we will see the proof of that soon enough but it would be a shock for CoV2 to be that proof. I'm not ready to go there.

Did the Chinese have the expertise to do this? Perhaps, at least TAR cloning in yeast was available years before the first SARS outbreak.

Koprina & Larionov 2016 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5025352/

"Assembly of two DNA molecules by recombination in yeast was first demonstrated by Botstein and colleagues (Kunes et al. 1985; Ma et al. 1987). This team reported that a yeast vector DNA, which is broken in a sequence absent in the yeast genome, is efficiently rescued by recombination with a homologous restriction fragment included during yeast transformation (Kunes et al. 1985). A couple of years later, the authors suggested using this in vivo bi-molecular reaction as a novel method for plasmid construction as an alternative to the more common method of in vitro DNA ligation (Ma et al. 1987). The breakthrough step was the demonstration that at specific conditions, transformation-associated recombination in yeast can be utilized for selective isolation of large genomic regions from total mammalian genomic DNA as linear or circular yeast artificial chromosomes (YACs) (Larionov et al. 1996; Larionov et al. 1997; Kouprina et al. 1998; Kouprina and Larionov 2003). While the principles of this technology were developed in the late 1990s, the main parameters of TAR cloning have been modified during the past few years, which has allowed for highly efficient and reproducible gene targeting."


@Fuddman

“COVID has a yeast infection “

LOL! That is quite witty Fuddman. However it is neither proper nor fair to call the author a flake. We should be diplomatic and wait patiently for someone to confirm his work.

Reply
Errata
6/21/2021 10:00:43 am

So I'm back from the yacht club staring up the boarding ramp. Something smells and I'm looking for what is upwind. To find where guilt lies, look first at whoever is making accusations. What is this from Xu Dezhong and the CCP?


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24985597/

"SARS coronavirus without reservoir originated from an unnatural evolution, experienced the reverse evolution, and finally disappeared in the world"


https://zenodo.org/record/4650821#.YMlNFTQpAnX

"The 2015 book “Unnatural Origin of SARS and Genetic Weapons Based on Artificial Human-Infectious Viruses”.

A) Chief editors: Dezhong Xu (Major General of PLA, leading PLA epidemiologist & SARS expert) and Feng Li (Vice Director, Health Bureau of the PLA General Logistics Department).

B). Publication details. Publisher: Military Medical Science Press."


https://gnews.org/1204670/

"Xu Dezhong Is Now Finally Famous for His Evil Book"

"Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying responded to China’s military textbook in the same way as Global Times, the propaganda machine of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). And Hua stresses that Communist China has always strictly fulfilled its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention and doesn’t develop, research or produce bio-weapons.

Based on Hua’s response, Mr. Lu De concludes that no one in the CCP’s Foreign Ministry has read the book.

Again, the CCP didn’t deny that this is a book got published by a military institution. As a textbook, it must have been strictly vetted before being allowed to be published by the CCP. And it must be published as a textbook only when there is no more disagreement on the scientific theory.

This book is not teaching how to make biogenic weapons, but rather to establish a theoretical system for the use of unrestricted biological genetic weapons under unrestricted warfare.

Lu De Media now has been making Primary author Xu Dezhong very famous worldwide.

Xu has given numerous presentations at Zhongnanhai, and Mr. Lu De believes that Mr. Lu De thinks it must be Xi Jinping who requested him to write the book."


https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1223003.shtml

"Australian media slammed for twisting open book as 'evidence' of 'China weaponizing COVID-19'"

"Global Times found the leaked document mentioned by The Australian was a book titled The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bioweapon. It was published by military doctor Xu Dezhong in 2015 and is on sale on Amazon, although it is out of stock. The book suggests that SARS epidemic during 2002 and 2004 in China originated through an unnatural way of genetic modification originating from abroad. [...] biological weapons labs abroad successfully transferred the virus to civets or other mammals, and how the animals were brought into markets in southern China at the time. The subject and core argument of the book is nothing like the report by The Australian claiming China was weaponizing the SARS virus five years before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The book's author pointed out the noticeable facts that the infected cases at the time were concentrated in the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, and the island of Taiwan. Other cases were concentrated in countries and regions where Chinese nationals and their descendants lived. More cases showed that among 15 deaths out of the virus in Canada, 13 were Chinese people. "Conspiracies cannot be ruled out that terrorists abroad were developing contemporary genetic weapons to fight against China," Xu wrote in the book."

Reply
Errata
6/21/2021 11:07:00 am

Nah, I'm going back to my barstool at the yacht club. It does not make sense that the CCP would without a vaccine purposely risk a danger like the first SARS virus. Such a high kill rate as SARS had would have been seen as a personal threat to decision makers without a vaccine. It does not seem plausible that the CCP or anyone else released the first SARS virus as a bioweapon. It does not seem that the CCP had a vaccine because the researchers working with the virus were not vaccinated. After two lab leaks, in Beijing of all places, the lack of vaccination is manifest. My opinion now is that Xu Dezhong introduced this argument as a rhetorical ploy hoping it would motivate his countrymen to take his ideas on biowarfare seriously.

That said it could possibly have been engineered although it is not very likely due to the variations within the civet cat population and the rapid evolution of the RBD during the outbreak as it adapted to humans. One could argue that the civet cat variations were development versions clandestinely planted in the marketplace and that the rapid evolution was just because they did a bad job of optimizing it for use against humans. Such arguments are strained however and not convincing. More evidence is necessary before it becomes plausible that the first SARS virus was engineered.

Reply
nonameneeded
6/10/2021 06:19:21 pm

Another scandal coverup in the works. Fauci's pet vaccines, the mRNA vaccines, apparently cause quite a bit of heart inflammation in young people, especially males.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/evidence-grows-stronger-covid-vaccine-link-heart-issue-cdc-says-n1270339

https://www.fda.gov/media/150054/download#page=17

The risk of myocarditis linked to Pfizer or Moderna appears to be 3.5x greater than the risk of a blood clot linked to Johnson&Johnson.

NIH, FDA and CDC suppressing things in the interests of their corporate bosses, as usual.

Reply
David Rivard
6/16/2021 09:51:07 pm

@errata, your general assessment concurs with many Indian researchers. Incidentally, much Indian media has reported consistent research from scientists writing about bio-warfare release (WION, Republic News et al). India being the critical (shall I say allied?) link with the west - and a key target for Chinese expansion in Asia, has certainly suffered more than any other Chinese neighbor. NY attorney Ravi Batra has been the most direct, yet eloquent participant in a great series about covid origin in the many discussions hosted by Republic News. Batra says China's current indisputable war with the west was initiated with a geographically controllable but genomically different September or so release. Later in December 2019 there was a different variant released to the world. Some of the researchers and clinicians in the discussions cite that general Indian ethnicities have been particularly vulnerable, but only from their Indian geographies. The same ethnicities in Pakistan, were largely unaffected by India's latest surges and variants. We must also remember that if origin research reports were highly edited, what about other "assumptions" drawn from the same publications - particularly methods of infection and virulence. Again, those certain scientific publications are citing some variants to be over 15 times more infectious, but that is not consistent with the Indian/Pakistan experience.

Reply
Errata
6/19/2021 01:09:03 pm

Ravi Batra is more gracious than I can bring myself to be. As for his diplomacy, perhaps he is wiser than I. On his science, I have a small objection to a minor point. Batra says that since the coronavirus is becoming more dangerous, it must be unnatural. This is based in the idea that viruses naturally evolve to become milder. I keep hearing this idea expressed by others as well although usually in the form of a conviction that the CoV2 crisis will go away eventually on its own. This is not correct; viruses evolve to spread more effectively. Sometimes they become milder as a result. Although it is true that a virus that disables its victim quickly and therefore suffers from a loss of contagiousness evolves to disable them less quickly, this does not pertain to CoV2. When humans get sick they care for each other. What benefits CoV2 is that this period of care be as long as possible. As we get better at keeping victims alive, CoV2 benefits from countering that by making the victims sicker so as to prolong the period of care. After a long battle with its host and doctors, CoV2 has been evolving to survive despite them. The dangerous new variants are coming from late stage victims after long hospitalization and are likely leaking out through hospital staff or waste. That it is becoming more dangerous is not a legitimate argument in favor of a lab origin.

While looking for the material you referred to I found a video worth watching.

https://seblacks.info/cold/china-covid/pKGBu6-Li4GLnqg.html

The video features six panelists including both Batra and Yan in a debate format. One panelist Bakshi mentions the important Nicolas Wade article in The Bulletin. A link should be posted so it is here.

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

"'When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus,' said David Baltimore, an eminent virologist and former president of CalTech. 'These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2,' he said."

Reply
PETER ROSS
6/17/2021 02:55:40 am

@nerd

To revisit a basic paradox, addressing your query:

Within the realm of virology Lysenko pseudoscience, the word "isolation" is dobulespeak - it connotes the exact opposite of the original meaning.
In virology doublespeak, "isolation" means conducting an 'amplification' of the presumed pathogen by means of cell culture as if cell culture is a purification step, when in reality it comprises, at best, amplifying a myriad of viromes, bacteria, mycoplasma, etc present in the original biological sample, while further contaminating the sample with the addition of bovine serum and the cells of the culture, which re also full of RNA viromes.
Thus. all the the works you cited (see list below) are not "isolation" but rather examples of just the opposite, and the final product is not a purified sample of this or that virus but a mixture of nucleic acid polymers arising from an unknown multitude of sources. When the technician decides to use a coronavirus template for primers, a pre-selected mixture of RNA contigs is generated, some of which can be successfully assembled in silico to generate a viral genome corresponding to a coronavirus, which should be no surprise as a coronavirus template is used to generate the RNA contigs.
Then, as in the first citation, we encounter this sentence:

"Isolates from the first passage of an OP and an NP specimen were used for whole genome
sequencing. The genomes from the NP specimen (Genbank accession MT020880) and OP
specimen (Genbank accession MT020881) matched each other 100%. The isolates also matched
the corresponding clinical specimen 100% (Genbank accession MN985325). "

This just means that it is possible to selectively generate enough RNA contigs in the original specimen from which to assemble a genome to match a genome derived from the "isolate" mixtures, which should come as no surprise since the primers are all chosen from the same in silico template.

A statement such as:

"Identity was additionally supported by thin section electron microscopy (Figure 1D). We observed a morphology and morphogenesis characteristic of coronaviruses."

is meaningless, as on can always find "corona virus-like" structures in such samples -

https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/microscopy/researchers-use-cryo-em-in-the-search-for-a-universal-flu-vaccine/

- and in any case, there is no way to associate the PRESUMED components of such structures with RNA or with a specific RNA or with a specific biological activity.

If the so-called "isolate" were a purified sample, then it would be possible to demonstrate this through gel electrophoresis, which would establish the actual length of the intact virome that one hopes to associate with the biological activity. Likewise, were this "isolate" a purified preparation, gels and other methods applied to the "isolate" would show the peptides associated with the coronavirus concept - and only those. Only using a purified sample can a G-C and A-U ratio together with a RNA to protein ratio and protein to lipid ratio be established before selective amplification which distorts these ratios beyond recognition.
But this is not the case and no such purified sample has ever been achieved, probably because exosomes, which are also comprised from lipids, sugars, nucleic acids and proteins, are indistinguishable from viruses.

So what we're left with is an illness with non-specific signs and symptoms which can be associated with a particular set of RNA contigs which may or may not indicate that the pre-chosen in silico template is relevant, i.e. associated in any way with the "new" illness - which might as well be 10 different illnesses caused by 10 different imaginary pathogens or mixtures thereof.

Furthermore, there is no direct proof that the pathogen(s) are transmitted [only] through room air, rather the assumption of "through room air" is solely based upon the predominance of the respiratory clinical presentation.
There is also no proof of neither primary nor secondary person-to-person transmission for the so-called covid syndromes: this flimsy conclusion arises from an interpretation of the epidemiological data which is based upon the non-specific throat biopsy/RT-PCR assay and/or non-specific antibody assays. The lack of proof should come as no surprise since, in general, this route of transmission has never been unequivocally demonstrated for this or related influenza-like illnesses. We also KNOW that governments have been manipulating the RT-PCR assays to fortify the impression of a single-pathogen pandemic... and we KNOW that a great deal of effort was invested over the years prior to 2019 in the the globalized mass media-driven psychological operation , which is the actual pandemic - and which includes the so-called 'detection' of so-called 'variants'... which most probably represent slight variations in lab techniques used to generate sets of RNA contigs.

So then, what is going on in these BSL-4 labs, what do the past 20 year

Reply
PETER ROSS
6/17/2021 02:58:51 am

So then, what is going on in these BSL-4 labs, what do the past 20 years of published coronavirus research represent, did a novel pathogen actually arise from the Wuhan lab (or from a comparable biowarfare outfit located elsewhere), and what is the etiology of these covid syndromes?

We do know that biological toxins are being generated from the experiments in these Frankenstein laboratory , one example of which seems to be the S1 peptide.

Which brings us to the vaccine arm of this massive, government-sponsored plandemic: unveiling this 'miracle' experimental synthetic RNA and DNA technology and "vaccinating the entire world" has always been, even to the most casual observer, the paramount goal of the plandemic, Which is increasingly looking like governments directly attacking their own populations with bioweapon injections under a ridiculously disguised vaccine program, an impossible feat without the waging of psychological warfare through corporate media, which we all KNOW is controlled behind the scenes by western intelligence agencies and their proxies (if you have a different take on this, then kindly disabuse me of this forbidden knowledge).

So, what's the point of this year-long military bio-info warfare operation with very real medical and economic and social casualties?

- To suppress generic cures for seasonal respiratory illnesses such as steroids, HCQ, Ivermectin, Vitamin D, etc - that didn't work out

- To expose CCP incompetence/evil through false flag tactics in preparation for conventional war through selective leaks of 'Fauci emails'

- To kill off the elderly and infirm who already had one leg in the grave

- To expose the idiotic and nefarious medical-industrial complex in collusion with Silicon Valley

- A giant 'Milgram experiment' with sycophantic, delusional doctors and nursing as the witless Pfizer-injecting subjects the experiment, to see how far they would go in transgressing every single article of the Nuremberg Code

- to expose the sloppy voodoo science of virology and immunology

- 'Agenda 21' subjugation of hearts and minds to install Klaus Schwab and Kamila Harris as the new figure-heads for The Fourth Reich

- other

It would be a pity to erect The Fourth Reich based only upon circumstantial evidence for SARS-CoV-2 as the etiology of a bad flu season.

Cited above:

Isolation and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first US COVID-19 patient
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239045/

Molecular characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first case of COVID-19 in Italy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7118617/

SARS-CoV-2 isolation and propagation from Turkish COVID-19 patients
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314506/

SARS-CoV-2 isolation from the first reported patients in Brazil and establishment of a coordinated task network
https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0074-02762020000100344

Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036342/

First isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical samples in India
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7366528/

Reply
Errata
6/19/2021 11:07:04 am

Dearest Peter, your premise is that the basic techniques and tools of genetic engineering do not work. Furthermore, the scientists who use them are either so incompetent that they do not realize it or so dishonest that they pretend they do. I am sure your posts would be comforting and welcome to the anti-GMO crowd. As much as I find your rhetoric entertaining, might I suggest you find one of their blogs and post there instead of bothering the readers here who clearly think you are being silly.

Nerd has power
6/19/2021 05:24:54 pm

@Peter Ross

Peter, I think Errata made a very good point. Being on this forum isn’t the best way for you to spend your time or advance your agenda. Like Errata, I also don’t see you convince many on here with your theory.

One better way of going about it might be for you to write a blog, for example on weebly since it’s free. I actually thought about suggesting this before reading Errata’s comment, which apparently made a similar suggestion for you. If your thesis is convincing, your blog will attract readers. Through discussions with them, you may be able to further polish your theory. Your followers may even help spread your theory around. That’s how you could really educate/convince the world about what you believe is the truth.

Reply
PETER ROSS
6/24/2021 02:47:54 am

Chinese Covid-19 Gene Data That Could Have Aided ...
 
https://www.wsj.com › Business › Health Care › Health

11 hours ago — Chinese Covid-19 Gene Data That Could Have Aided Pandemic Research ... The National Institutes of Health deleted gene sequences at the request ... in a specialized journal, but scientists typically look for gene sequences in ... WSJ breaks down key events in three locations in China – a seafood market, ...  


WSJ : Chinese researchers directed the U.S. National Institutes of Health to delete gene sequences of early Covid-19 cases from a key scientific database, raising concerns that scientists studying the origin of the pandemic may lack access to key pieces of information.
The NIH confirmed that it deleted the sequences after receiving a request from a Chinese researcher who had submitted them three months earlier.
“Submitting investigators hold the rights to their data and can request withdrawal of the data,” the NIH said in a statement.
The removal of the sequencing data is described in a new paper posted online Tuesday by Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. The paper, which hasn’t been peer reviewed, says the missing data include sequences from virus samples collected in the Chinese city of Wuhan in January and February of 2020 from patients hospitalized with or suspected of having Covid-19.
Some of the deleted information is still available in a paper that was published in a specialized journal, but scientists typically look for gene sequences in major databases like the one the NIH maintains, Dr. Bloom said. Dr. Bloom said he was able to find the deleted data after searching for it elsewhere online.
The missing sequences are unlikely to change researchers’ current understanding of the early weeks of the Covid-19 pandemic in Wuhan. But Dr. Bloom said their removal sows doubts about China’s transparency in the continuing investigation into the origin of the pandemic.
Some other scientists agreed.
“It makes us wonder if there are other sequences like these that have been purged,” said Vaughn S. Cooper, a University of Pittsburgh evolutionary biologist who wasn’t involved in the new paper and said he hasn’t studied the deleted sequences himself.
To pursue the origin of the pandemic, scientists need access to information that could shed light on how the virus emerged into the human population and began spreading. The removal of information from a database can make it harder for them to find it, potentially slowing their research, as can lack of access to other research. An international team led by the World Health Organization as well as other scientists are investigating how the pandemic began.
According to the NIH statement, the scientist who submitted the sequences requested in June 2020 that they be deleted because they had been updated and were to be posted to another, unspecified database. The investigator said they wanted the older version to be removed to avoid confusion, according to the NIH.
Chinese researchers initially submitted the sequences to the NIH database in March 2020 and published information about them in a paper on a preprint server, according to the NIH. The paper described the use of an advanced sequencing technology to detect SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. The researchers didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
China’s National Health Commission didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
One challenge for scientists studying the origin of the virus is the paucity of data from early cases in Wuhan, Dr. Bloom says in the paper. Those data, he says, are mostly limited to virus sequences obtained in December 2019 from a dozen patients connected to the city’s Huanan Seafood Market, the site of the first known outbreak of Covid-19, and a small additional number of sequences collected before late January 2020.
The removal of the sequences yielded “a somewhat skewed picture of viruses circulating in Wuhan early on,” Dr. Bloom said. “It suggests possibly one reason why we haven’t seen more of these sequences is perhaps there hasn’t been a wholehearted effort to get them out there.”
The publication of Dr. Bloom’s paper could reinforce calls for greater collaboration from China in the global effort to pinpoint the source of SARS-CoV-2.
A WHO official working with the international team that prepared the organization’s March report on the origins of the virus said Dr. Bloom’s paper didn’t radically alter the team’s understanding of the early pandemic but did bolster the case for more analysis of the earliest Covid-19 infections.
Dr. Bloom is a co-author of a letter published in May in the journal Science that criticized the WHO report and called for a deeper investigation into two leading hypoth

Reply
PETER ROSS
6/24/2021 02:49:58 am

...cont:


But Dr. Bloom’s paper suggests that other early sequence data might still emerge, said Sergei Pond, a Temple University biology professor with expertise on the evolution of viral pathogens.
“If more sequences came to light, especially from early time points, or archival samples elsewhere, everything could change once again,” he said. “I think this is likely to happen.”
Stephen Goldstein, a University of Utah evolutionary virologist who wasn’t involved in Dr. Bloom’s research, said it was unclear if any new insights could be gleaned from the deleted sequences. “From a scientific standpoint, I don’t think they point to anything nefarious,” he said, adding that he had not made his own analysis of the sequences.
The deleted sequences are fragments, and “it’s the full genome sequences that have typically been the most informative,” said Joel Wertheim, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, San Diego and an author of a recent paper on the early pandemic.
Dr. Bloom says in his paper that even if there is no further international investigation, the approach he took could be used to learn more about the origin or early spread of the coronavirus.
“We really need to look hard and see if there is other early information about sequences that hasn’t been found,” he said. “I intend to go through every early preprint I can find about SARS-CoV-2 and see if it describes any data that isn’t in the databases.”


  
--------------------------
Virus never purified - full-length genome never observed to actually exist.
The genomes everyone is using for the presumed pathogen "SARS-CoV-2" are in silico - theoretical keyboard constructs - based upon RNA fragments assembled by 'algorithms' according to a preselected SARS template from among millions of random fragments representing entire human genome, entire green monkey genome, fetal calf growth serum, and including the unknown - but possibly predominating - contribution from commensal bacteria, viruses, fungi, mycoplasmas, mycobacterium...

Cultivation of 'infectious particles' in green monkey cell (VERO) cultures - essentially severely wounded monkey kidney cells under conditions far-removed from physiological - is NOT a purification method by any stretch of the imagination.

This news from WSJ sheds doubt not only upon the coronavirus theory for covid but upon the entire theory of a virus etiology for covid.
Exactly what some have been speculating for over a year now.

Biowarfare by deception - and indications for NIH-CCP collusion even deeper than the Fauci so-called 'gain of function' funding ...?

-------------------
@nerd

Thanks for your patience!

Nerd has power
6/19/2021 05:33:41 pm

Using scientific evidence and logic to trace back and reconstruct the possible sequence of events is powerful. Our recent discussions are largely that, which is really cool. However, we could also look at this in the natural, forward direction of time.

We can start by focusing on the 2015 book published by the CCP military virologist and general Dezhong Xu. A quick glimpse of it has been provided in the 3rd Yan report, Figure 3 of the opening statement.

This book has laid out a roadmap:

The plan, which was apparently formulated prior to 2015, was to attack the enemy with an artificial pathogen, which will look so natural that it is impossible for the enemy to decide confidently whether it is a natural pathogen or a bioweapon. That way, no conviction could be made “even if scientific, virological, and/or animal evidence were in place (to support the accusation)”.

The book also clearly stated that such a “contemporary genetic weapon” (the name they used then) isn’t for causing casualty in military battles, but rather would be used to destroy the enemy’s economy and social order. Using this contemporary genetic weapon would help “gaining political and strategic advantages, regionally or internationally”.

So, such a plot has been out there for a long time. What we are experiencing right now in this pandemic is exactly what they have PLANNED or wanted to achieve.

I think it is not difficult for people to connect the dots here. Anyone should be able to do it, not just scientists.

Then, how do you make the contemporary genetic weapon look so natural that its lab origin is hidden? There are roughly two layers here.

First, you need to make, as much as you can, the genome of the virus free of marks of genetic manipulation. Therefore, it could not be the Baric routine – make the cloning marks obvious so that people would know that it came from a specific lab. You need the opposite – be as sneaky as you can in hiding the marks of genetic manipulation (for example, RBM design, choice of BstEII, etc). They did really well here, but apparently not perfectly.

Second, you also need to construct a natural evolution pathway/story for the world to buy it. What is the most accepted evolutionary pathway for previous coronaviruses? It’s this one: one initial spillover from bats to an intermediate host, which is then followed by another spillover from the intermediate host to humans. The fabrications of pangolin coronaviruses clearly intended to falsify an evolution story: 1) the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 already exists in nature; 2) SARS-CoV-2 has a bunch of “cousins” in nature; 3) pangolins could be the intermediate host (this one did not sell).

There are of course other efforts, such as fabrications of RaTG13 and RmYN02. They got so many labs involved here, which is one of their strategies – to win by numbers.

Whether or not these stories could survive the test of time is their judgement, not ours. If they thought the story could survive, they would do it. Do they have the world’s best judgment? I don’t think so. Just look at how they performed at hiding the genetic manipulation marks. Again, they did really well there, for the large part, but still left holes. Not the best judgement.

The same is with these virus fabrications. They did fairly well and the pangolin CoV fabrications almost got away: these viruses were overwhelmingly proven to be “true”, because four “independent” labs reported similar “findings”. Also, when the Kristian Andersen paper and the Lancet statement set the tone for the world, most scientists would just buy the natural origin story. Let’s be honest, majority of the scientists wouldn’t spend a minute outside their own work to study a virus that “clearly must have come from nature”.

I think the CCP’s military scientists had faith in this plot here. But again, they do not necessarily have the world’s best judgement.

Honestly, when you look back, the story of civet cats being the intermediate host for SARS-CoV-1 isn’t the most convincing. However, the whole world bought it, completely. Wouldn’t that give the CCP scientists some hope that even a mediocre intermediate story may still sell?

Again, the pangolin fabrications look silly now (only to people who can understand the science here though. Folks advocating the lab leak theory don’t even get this), the CCP scientists may not think so back then. Basically, my point here is ---- these fabrications not being able to sustain the time test (in our eyes now) does not rule out the possibility that the first pangolin CoV paper was published as premeditation.

Anyways, having the thinking process start from the 2015 book, one may find it easier to put each piece in place.

Reply
Jimmy Kudo
6/19/2021 07:14:41 pm

"Honestly, when you look back, the story of civet cats being the intermediate host for SARS-CoV-1 isn’t the most convincing. However, the whole world bought it, completely. Wouldn’t that give the CCP scientists some hope that even a mediocre intermediate story may still sell?"


Like how the Spanish Flu could have originated from the US?

"Due to its genetic make-up, they argue, it probably originated in the Western Hemisphere, and probably in North America."
https://www.knowledgesnacks.com/articles/spanish-flu-origin/

Reply
Errata
6/21/2021 09:54:14 am

This is the passage in the 3rd Yan Report.

"Figure 3. The 2015 book “Unnatural Origin of SARS and Genetic Weapons Based on Artificial Human-Infectious Viruses”. A) Chief editors: Dezhong Xu (Major General of PLA, leading PLA epidemiologist & SARS expert) and Feng Li (Vice Director, Health Bureau of the PLA General Logistics Department). B) Publication details. Publisher: Military Medical Science Press. C) Description of some key features of contemporary genetic weapon in Chinese (top, Chapter 4, Page 85) and its translation in English (bottom).

4. Usage beyond military. Unlike traditional genetic weapon, in the absence of a world war, the main goal of using contemporary genetic weapon is not for military purposes, but for causing terror (in) and gaining political and strategic advantage, regionally or internationally, (over the enemy state). Although warfare or military actions remain an important and often the last option in reaching a political goal, they are too obvious, exposed completely under the sun, and therefore prone to be condemned by other countries and the international community. In the case of contemporary genetic weapon, its usage is deceiving and hard to prove. Even if scientific, virological, and/or animal evidence were in place (to support the accusation, (one can) deny, prevent, and suppress (the accusation of bioweapon usage(, rendering international organizations and the justice side helpless and unable (to make the conviction)."

https://zenodo.org/record/4650821#.YMlNFTQpAnX

Reply
Errata
7/24/2021 02:41:00 pm

@Nerd

I do not think it can be over stated how important mentioning the book by Dezhong Xu was to establishing plausibility for the bioweapon attack claim of the second Yan report. Harping on the point may well be the most promising path forward. It is good to see it brought back up again.

"Whether or not these stories could survive the test of time is their judgement, not ours. If they thought the story could survive, they would do it."

The point I was making was perhaps a bit too nuanced for the way I phrased it. If the cover story could stand the test of time, it would serve them well if a true accident happened. If the cover story was flawed, it would be useless in deflecting blame for a true accident. However if the cover story was flawed, it would serve just fine for blowing smoke and temporarily confusing things. This would be sufficient to influence the US election because after November 3rd, election day, it would be too late. From these observations and the speed at which the pangolin cover story was debunked and failed, I concluded that the pangolin cover story could not have had a legitimate and somewhat benign explanation behind it, it could not have been to cover for a true lab accident. Because of that and by the process of elimination I concluded that the pangolin paper was proof of premeditation.

You have successfully killed that line of reasoning with the very human observation that they may have misjudged. It seems from the cast of your argument that you were pushing in the other direction but, whether friendly fire or hostile, a direct hit is just as deadly. My argument has failed. I must now admit that the pangolin paper could perhaps have been just a cover story concocted in case there really was an unintentional mishap, an accident at a lab. Since there is a somewhat benign possibility, the date of the first pangolin paper cannot be taken as proof of premeditation. Although I am disappointed taking such a weak stance, logic lets me go only so far as to state as you did that this "does not rule out the possibility that the first pangolin CoV paper was published as premeditation." It therefore becomes only one piece of evidence in a preponderance of evidence argument.

Reply
David Rivard
6/20/2021 08:45:51 pm

As the relevant U.S. commission convenes throughout late 2021, more than a war of words is going on as CCP foreign policies expand in it's Asian neighborhood. The aggression that abets this expansion has definitely ramped up during 2020 and onto today, while these neighbors continue to experience "THE Covid-19 entity" but all at different severity levels.

As countries continue to maintain a pragmatic approach they must look to the U.S., the only country that has any chance of changing the course of infection through actual raw data distillation, especially clinical information compliance. It is necessary to understand every aspect of the creation process because previous morbidity information, based upon the wrong creation process, has been lacking in all the critical areas (see what actually happened). Information is still obtained from previously trusted institutions that have failed to base their intelligence on raw data. Perhaps more importantly, this has crippled a constituent public's cooperation necessary to finally defeat the disease (ironically, institutional faith is required for public compliance).

The actual potentials of GOF research not commonly cited
is troubling because they include:

1) What short and long-read sequencing technologies can teach us about human genetic variation and the structure of the human genome.
2) How sequencing technologies inform us about the functional consequences of genetic variation.
3) How the genetic architecture of neurodevelopmental diseases can be discovered.

Reply
David Rivard
6/21/2021 06:17:38 am

So although the CCP has orchestrated an almost flawless coverup, what can be said about the U.S. popular media and institutional science contributors who were lulled into silence during an entire election year as the world suffered and depended upon their advice?
Each additional day of inaction in terms of knowing all we can will help re-institute relevant agency competencies and re-establish trust among national allies and their constituents. Currently they (evidently the CCP and the U.S.) is still squandering time. People of the world are talking about who are the evident beneficiaries of death, chronic morbidity and economic devastation. Although as measured from the early days, will the DNC, the popular media and the institutional academic community continue to support the CCP?

Reply
nonameneeded
6/23/2021 05:26:00 pm

I'll just leave this here:

>20/million cases of heart inflammation with Moderna

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/23/cdc-reports-more-than-1200-cases-of-rare-heart-inflammation-after-covid-vaccine-shots.html

Reply
nonameneeded
6/23/2021 05:32:37 pm

Coincidence much?

https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/06/18/confidential-documents-reveal-moderna-sent-mrna-coronavirus-vaccine-candidate-to-university-researchers-weeks-before-emergence-of-covid-19/

A confidentiality agreement shows potential coronavirus vaccine candidates were transferred from Moderna to the University of North Carolina in 2019, nineteen days prior to the emergence of the alleged Covid-19 causing virus in Wuhan, China.

The confidentially agreement which can be viewed here states that providers ‘Moderna’ alongside the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) agreed to tranfer ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna to recipients ‘The Universisty of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’ on the 12th December 2019.

The material transfer agreement was signed the December 12th 2019 by Ralph Baric, PhD, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and then signed by Jacqueline Quay, Director of Licensing and Innovation Support at the University of North Carolina on December 16th 2019.

The agreement was also signed by two representatives of the NIAID, one of whom was Amy F. Petrik PhD, a technology transfer specialist who signed the agreement on December 12th 2019 at 8:05 am. The other signatory was Barney Graham MD PhD, an investigator for the NIAID, however this signature was not dated.

The final signatories on the agreement were Sunny Himansu, Moderna’s Investigator, and Shaun Ryan, Moderna’s Deputy General Councel. Both signautres were made on December 17th 2019.

All of these signatures were made prior to any knowledge of the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus. It wasn’t until December 31st 2019 that the World Health Organisation (WHO) became aware of an alleged cluster of viral pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. But even at this point they had not determined that an alleged new coronavirus was to blame, instead stating the pneumonia was of “unknown cause”.

Reply
evidence
6/26/2021 06:06:37 am

Re: Reply to Errata's further concerns regarding biowarfare accident scenario, and putative early (August/Sep 2019) infections [Errata 6/8/2021 02:30:36 pm, responding to evidence 6/2/2021 05:20:43 am]

Dear Errata,
maybe I understand your concern: confronted with conspiracy, intimidation, and war (information war in particular), a solely (scientific) evidenced-based approach would eventually come to its limits, because the relevance of a rigorous scientific debate becomes easily dwarfed and dissolved by factual events as a result of power, violence, and abuse.
And I share with you the doubts, that the 'established core scientific community' (virologists and and close alleys in life science), affiliated to institutions, would ever be able to clean up the scientific havoc by themselves, which has been done as consequences of all those events, as the COI's are too powerful, too widespread, too diversely intertwined (which can be seen being addressed for example specifically by the 3rd Yan report); the abyss remains too deep. We just have to listen to the current uttering of the concerning individuals, their denials and lies, their relativism, only trying to continue to deceive the public, to save their skin - even if they are already in a quite helpless, if not ridiculous and grotesque state of denial.
However, for me, logical thinking and rigorous scientific approach remains crucial, as it offers most to me, and as I consider this being the approach, which has solved most of the CoV2 puzzle during the past months.
- For example, on the other hand, let's assume for a moment, everybody would be IN FACT CONVINCED, CoV2 had been a result of an intentional release, but at the end, in some distant future, it would turn out beyond doubt (e.g., by direct evidence), there had been actually ('only') a biowarfare-accident: this situation would have some perils as well (even if only remote): the bio-warfare program in other countries outside China (e.g., the West, Russia) could possibly evade scrutiny by only focusing on China's CRIMINAL intend. I do not deny China's/CCP's PARAMOUNT criminal intend, and bottom line, it resulted virtually in an attack, also specifically towards the West - but anyways, this would be my concern. I think it is important that ALL biowarfare-GOF need to be loathed by public and closed down ASAP - not only the one which has killed us now, of which we know the origin. There has to be a global ban without any tolerance, after this catastrophic experience. It has to be comparable to a worldwide ban on plutonium. And again, we should not ignore or forget the (important) Cold War era experience: at the beginning, it seemed hopeless to get a ban on nuclear proliferation, and to avoiding the quite probable nuclear overkill. But eventually, the ban worked - at least partly- and became more effective by the time. And the lesson from Cold War is this one: it had definitely NOT worked by ONLY punishing the worst rogue state very badly FIRST. That had NOT been the venue for keeping the West peaceful and prosperous after year 1945. It was the other way round: a ban on nuclear proliferation had been enforced rigorously 'at home' as well first - in order to become successively globally enforced, to make the world safer: you have to start bolstering your own peace and security which what you have, so to speak. And public awareness and pressure had been crucial as well, because there had been powerful (domestic) COI's during those times as well.
In addition, another concern I do have by trying to sell intentional release without having all convincing evidence for myself: If the 'intentional release scenario' will NOT be able o be sold to the wider public (because the evidence is not sufficiently convincing for them either), then a lot of deniers (with respect to man-made origin in general) have a quite easier play to refute the man-made origin facts alltogether. Those conspirators could get back the upper hand more easily. That's (in my mind) at least some kind of adverse effect, which I saw with respect to the responses to the very important, crucial, Yan reports: public (apologetic) virologists and life scientists in particular had an easier play denouncing and ridiculing the 1st and 2nd Yan reports out-hand as conspiracy theory, without discussing content (see also 3rd Yan report concerning this issue), while for example with the Segreto papers, that was not as easy. And in that venue, I think it is at the moment also vitally important, that figures like a Kristian Andersen and a Christian Drosten and others, still pretending being independent scientists, which actually also had become straw-men in science of the interests of the corrupt deep state and/or the executive branch, do FEEL the sting of risking legal prosecution (partly as a result of mounting public indignation), if they continue to preach lies, being deceitful, and sabotage solving the puzzle (against all better knowledge). Only that sting w

Reply
evidence
6/26/2021 06:13:02 am

(part 2)
Only that sting would make them to discontinue their deceptive public relations work, harming science, and virology in particular. And for proving them being liars, and making them FEEL the corresponding sting, it is in my mind also sensible and most powerful to stick to the least common denominator: man-made origin.
My last argument for the accident scenario is based on swarm intelligence. Swarm intelligence certainly has its limits, but if you can read it in between the cracks of lies, it can be of great value. For China, during late Feb 2020, there had been such a crack, as the CCP had to let loose a little bit their censorship, and a Weibo poll result showed, that
>> '51% of the 10,000 people who answered were convinced that it was an “artificial virus which escaped by negligence ”, 24% believed that it was spread maliciously. Only 12% thought it was of natural origin'<<
https://middleeasttransparent.com/en/in-the-jungle-of-wuhans-labs/
As far as I know, NO other country had that clear-cut outcome with respect to man-made origin - even up to now, but in particular not as early as of Feb 2020.
(cf. also: evidence 12/23/2020 08:33:05 am [**] )
[While on the other hand, corresponding polls in the West cannot be seen as cracks in between the lies, but rather as a result of early, continuous, sophisticated propaganda and public manipulation; hence, as a result of lies.]
And given that swarm intelligence result, the accident is more likely as compared to intentional release. But anyhow: I have no stakes in either scenario, and nevertheless, I equally think, it is important to discuss all potential hypotheses regarding the man-made origin, including intentional release.
And, as I likely do not can convince you, or maybe even had only sparked strong sentiments (which was not my intend): I also contribute to this blog for interested, open-minded readers, who should be able to come up with their own conclusion, given the evidence and the debate.
- And as we agree that we disagree (at least on some points), I would like to list my reply to some of your concerns, again by quoting them briefly first:
(a)
>>We cannot read minds so a cover-up is proof of guilt; the CCP arrested Li Wenliang therefore it was a bioweapon attack. <<
I understand your notion, but I do not necessarily agree. Because: the fact that it is ALREADY related to BANNED biowarfare program makes the CCP and PLA guilty enough of a paramount criminal act (and possibly liable for the damages), and therefore, the paramount cover-up can be the result of fearing the consequences (i.e reparations), as it remains a giant crime, even if 'only' occurred via lab leak.
So one can easily attribute the cover-up to the fact, that they (realized, that they) are facing possible accountability, which had been enough incentive to put all their tremendous efforts into fraud, conspiracy, betrayal, and prosecution of courageous individuals - as we have seen it. Or, with a phrase already voiced before (e.g., Ebright), and becoming common place: 'Avoiding accountability is a powerful motivator.'

(b)
>>The intelligence report gives the 2nd week in November 2019 for the sick WIV workers which casts some doubt on Pekar's early December date but it casts even more on your early September date. <<
I again do not agree, and again for simple logical reasons: Schrago's estimate remains the LEAST doubtful to me (as explained earlier), and as any direct evidence for several sick individuals is ONLY strictly FALSIFYING LATER tMRC estimates. On the other hand, the November cases picked up by intelligence cannot exclude the possibility, that there had been earlier cases (which had not, or maybe not yet, been picked up by intelligence). The November cases do not make this possibility unlikely - to the very contrary.
And given the extremely strong evidence which points to a gross, systematic UNDERREPORTING in general (for any point in time throughout the pandemic) of cases by China's CCP, which they eagerly keep fabricating and want to remain the consensus narrative for all the future, we can quite safely infer vice versa, that the intel on Nov 2019 cases is dealing most likely only with the 'tip of the iceberg' - once again.
[Note for example this current (Jun 22 2021) Bloom publication on early sequence data supression and resulting/intended root/MRCA obfuscation
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v1.full.pdf
. As a historical note, also see for example for SARS1 2003 infection data supression, shown by Demaneuf
https://nitter.fdn.fr/gdemaneuf/status/1377897663337623556#m
.]

(c)
>> Pekar claims most phylogenetic tree branches die out spontaneously which supports a long delay from tIC to tMRCA. <<
It's (only) one possibility - hence, your wording is imprecise.
Again, we do NOT know anything about (the venue) tIC-> tMRCA. And again, Pekar approach has logical pitfalls, which cannot be

Reply
evidence
6/26/2021 06:19:20 am

(part 3)
Again, we do NOT know anything about (the venue) tIC-> tMRCA. And again, Pekar approach has logical pitfalls, which cannot be solved [again cf. my reply to Xoco, evidence 6/2/2021 04:29:10 am].

(c.1)
>> Just assume exponential growth and extrapolate backwards.<<
Absolutely wrong approach in my mind for the pre-tMRCA time window, [again cf. evidence 6/2/2021 04:29:10 am], as it remains LOGICALLY incorrect to infer a CAUSAL chain by statistical methods - including for a paper published in Science.
There is absolutely no basis for assuming exponential growth anymore for that pre-tMRCA time window, as it also contradicts the definition (including Pekar's definition) of that IC--> MRCA chain.

(c.1.1)
>>'Pekar claims that most infection chains fizzle out even without intervention'<<
Again: I do not buy their statistical approach for the pre-tMRCA time window: it's wrong. I do not buy ANY notion they have inferred by their simulations, trying to infer pre-tMRCA events given by post-tMRCA data.
(As mentioned earlier, the only thing which can be learned from Pekar, is the relevant notion that tIC and tMRCA could be different. But that can be seen almost as a tautology; however, in context of the 'new age of Covid science fake news', a publication only stressing this tautology might be relevant enough!)
Hence, I CANNOT buy any of your STATISTICAL numbers either (R0 etc), and corresponding values, for inferring pre-tMRCA events, which have to be approached deterministically, as the case numbers had been too small for statistical approach. For me, you are trapped in that same logical pitfall, which, again, I tried to discuss already in my earlier reply to Xoco [evidence 6/2/2021 04:29:10 am].
Given this, I do not care about Saphire, La Jolla (no offense!), or Poisson distribution, for approaching this issue - [Cf. also point (g) below.] Of course, I do not doubt the RELIABILITY of Saphire in general, as I have mentioned earlier; but, as we know, reliability does not tell us anything about VALIDITY, while addressing a specific problem.
What, in fact, is likely a RELEVANT statistical parameter for that time window IC-->MRCA, which we also DO know very well, is the median CoV2 incubation time (3-7 days, hence let's say 5 days). That is the only STATISTICAL quantity we could cautiously apply, in order to get a little bit of a picture for the pre-tMRCA venue. Hence, as we know, somebody is most contagious at the time when early symptoms start (again: 3-7 days after contracting CoV2), and if we for example would assume that tIC had occurred late August, and tMRCA late Sep 2019, then we can cautiously guess the order of magnitude of the number of individuals for that infection chain IC->MRCA: around 5-7 individuals (4 weeks divided by 5 days incubation time), could be more or less, but that is the order of magnitude (<100) which could be assumed; hence, I would say, certainly much, much less than 100 consecutive individuals in that single chain IC-> MRCA; again, if such dates would be assumed.
Again, this is all best guess, in order to come up with a grasp on that picture, we are talking about. It might be getting the haystack smaller, in which we searching the needle.
And as long as there is no (direct) intel evidence available on this matter (which might be changing soon, e.g., Dong Yingwei) - this model, like any other model, has also to remain ready to be FALSIFIED at any time. But has not yet been falsified.

(d) [Re: Schrago again]
>> The result was that this approach fails. The confidence interval is too wide for his answer to be significant. His study can add nothing to our knowledge about the timing of the outbreak because there are other approaches that give much more reliable information.<<
This can be certainly viewed that way. But IF viewed that way, as a consequence, ALL other approaches (Dorp, Pekar etc) even failed more badly, because they had not been taken all caveats into account, as Schrago did, as they had been less diligent in comparison to Schrago. Unlike Schrago, they are trying to oversell us a better error margin, but actually they are trapped by OVERCONFIDENCE.
I think what remains always important to note, is the bottom line fact, that all later tMRCA dates, already falsified by direct intelligence, can be safely discarded - that simple: we HAVE to keep working with the rest.
(d.1) [Re: still Schrago]
>> You want to use his wide confidence interval and his anomalous central value as support for the possibility of an early index case [..] Schrago paper is that his approach failed and his result is meaningless.<<
NO, again, I want to underline, that the other estimates (Pekar, Dorp) falsely suggest a confidence, which is not there, while on the other hand that Schrago paper digged deeper with respect to this issue.
I also do not agree with your notion, that Schrago's high, but at the same time also remarkable ASYMMETRIC

evidence
6/26/2021 06:25:22 am

(part 4, reply to Errata 6/8/2021)

I also do not agree with your notion, that Schrago's high, but at the same time also remarkable ASYMMETRIC CI [14 Nov 2018 to 16 Jan 2020] does not convey any information at all: I think the point, that the uncertainty is higher on the side PRIOR to their estimate (Sep 20 2019), in comparison to the time thereafter, tells us also something very important: we do have MORE uncertainty with respect to earlier dates in comparison to later ones, i.e., later dates can be more safely EXCLUDED (as this has already been supported by direct intelligence), in comparison to the earlier ones. So, while we safely can say: Dec 2019 is next to impossible, we cannot equally say that for July 2019. That is again crucial and subtle information, which does not render the Schrago paper meaningless at all.
(d.3)
>> Schrago and Pekar have let you down. <<
Sorry, once again, I do not agree (specifically not to that rhetoric). EVEN given the disturbing fact, that they were not able to consider the man-made origin in their papers (at least not outspokenly at those times), there is information which can be extracted from those publications, as outlined above.
(e)
>>Second: because when you lie and cover up an accident, it no longer looks like an accident. The decision to lie and cover up starts with an assessment of the risk the deception will be discovered. If the risk of being caught is low then the lie and cover up are a viable choice, otherwise not. That is unless there is a third option where buying time is advantageous.<<
Again, the motivation for all this is to deflect liability in the first place. For me it is that simple [again, cf (a)].

(f)
> The first part of their backup plan would have been to alert emergency room directors that pneumonia cases should be transferred to a dedicated hospital rather than being admitted. <<
Some Wuhan Sep 2019 events: There had been SARS emergency drills Sep 18 2019 at Wuhan airport. There had been a steep increase in Swab test orders of Wuhan hospitals in Sep 2019. According to a recent post by Yuri Deigin, he had heard about a red letter handed out to key academia in Sep 2019, telling them to get prepared for a putative SARS outbreak.
And there is more like this for Sep 2019.

(g)
>> Exponential growth gives November as the likely tMRCA. Poisson says Pekar is too optimistic about the prospects for containment.<<
Again, and again; I do NOT consider any statistical approach as a valid argument for the pre-tMRC time window [cf (c.1), (c.1.1)].
(g.1)
>> The WSJ intelligence report gives a November date which is consistent with exponential growth without containment. If you want me to commit on an index case date, I would pick November 3rd, <<<
Jumping to conclusion again in my mind. I still consider the possibility more cases by DIRECT evidence prior to Nov 2019 in the future. Why not?
(g.2)
And again: you did NOT at all address my crucial questions regarding Huang Yanling; so here they com again:
Would you consider Huang Yanling being the tMRCA?
Or even post-tMRCA?
Or would you say, that her case has no evidence, no specific bearing at all?
If you would consider her case has in fact any bearing and NOT being post-tMRCA: why do you believe they would actually intend to specifically get a WIV researcher infected first (or somebody, she had close contact to) - and not rather some random dude in town?

(h)
>> Science can say the IC virus variant is not necessarily the same as that of the MRCA and so Shi Zhengli can truthfully claim that CoV2 was never worked on in her lab.<<
Sorry, I do not see at all why she could make that claim (i.e., WIV lab creation impossible), in case, an earlier tMRCA date than Nov 2019 turns out to be true, and if IC is different to MRCA, as the virus would not greatly change in that IC->MRCA chain with, quite limited length.
On the other hand, with respect to subtle aspects of HER own lies, I agree with Nerd, that it is not extremely likely that (the FINAL stages of) CoV2 was created primarily by herself (and coworkers under her command), even if she had been involved. I agree with Nerd on the notion, that this giant crime (creating a GOF biowarfare reactor) had been performed by hidden military researchers, in the shadow of the WIV civilian 'reputation', and maybe, she was not even fully informed before late 2019. In that same way, I agree with Nerd about the notion (consider it being most plausible), that she was (mainly/primarily) engaged in handing out the fraudulent Ratg13 cover-up story (and probably not even involved into the pangolin paper frauds); hence, likely forced to make contributions to legitimize the crime (post-hoc) by committing scientific fraud. But with respect to CoV2 creation, this was most likely beyond her command.
But let me quote Nerd [ Nerd has power 6/4/2020 09:36:34 pm]:
>> I never said that Zhengli Shi or her la

Reply
evidence
6/26/2021 06:35:04 am

(part 5/5)
But let me quote Nerd [ Nerd has power 6/4/2020 09:36:34 pm]:
>> I never said that Zhengli Shi or her lab actually carried out the whole "creation". They only need to demonstrate and teach, knowingly or not. But I do believe that the Shi lab helped with the cover-up with RaTG13.<<

My own notion here is this: Ratg13 in silico Potemkin village had been created by shady PLA scientists months before (likely as early as 2018), independently of Shi, in order to have it at hand whenever needed. This in silico fabrication got constantly streamlined and updated, according to the progress they made in lab with their GOF BW reactor. (And for that in silico Potemkin village, they were NOT in need of any civilian researcher, neither of Shi; to the contrary: this data fabrication certainly had been highly top-level classified AT LEAST until the time before the accident/first human infection happened, i.e., at least until tIC.) And eventually, they called her (Shi) into that conspiracy circle (e.g., maybe even as late as Dec 2019, maybe after tIC), in order to give the fraudulent Ratg13-Nature paper a civilian stamp, what at that time had been crucial for them - as we know.
#

Reply
Nerd has power
6/27/2021 04:59:16 am

@evidence

Thanks again for sharing your views. First of all, it’s great that we are all brought by scientific facts and logic to agree on multiple aspects of SARS-CoV-2:

• It is a product of CCP’s bioweapons program.

• There has been substantial cover-up and scientific misinformation executed by the CCP to mislead the world on its origin.

• Zhengli Shi is not the only person responsible for its creation.

Again, the only issue that is “unsettled” is whether this bioweapon is intentionally released or accidentally leaked out.

I have not dived into the studies of Pekar and others as much as you or Errata. But please allow me to add one point. Now Jesse Bloom has proven to the world that the CCP government indeed hid and likely manipulated uploaded sequences of earliest virus isolates. Wouldn’t it mean that those tMRCA studies, which as I understand use mutations to estimate the time of initial outbreak, are not to be trusted? When the samples are not complete and artificially biased, the results could not be trusted no matter how rigorous the method is in analyzing these samples, correct? Please correct me if I’m wrong here.

One other thing that I was hoping to see is the integration of the MERS drills in your analyses. These drills are of course not scientific evidence, but they are unbiased, solid facts that should not be overlooked in the logical reasoning of this problem. I think you did a great job testing the two hypotheses. But I am very intrigued to see whether or not these MERS drills would tip the balance for you.

Reply
Nerd has power
6/27/2021 05:36:18 am

George Fu Gao (director of Chinese CDC) and colleagues very recently published a Cell paper, reporting the crystal structure of RaTG13 RBD in complex with human ACE2.

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00661-9?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867421006619%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

or

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421006619

The binding wasn’t great, but also not horrible – they solved the structure of the complex.

I guess I was right when I said this about RaTG13 in the blog:

“Glancing at the sequence of the spike protein of this virus, any expert would immediately realize that this virus resembles SARS in its potential in binding human ACE2 and therefore may very likely be able to infect humans.”

I just love the fact that people validating my points on RaTG13 are folks like Zhengli Shi (about her not having physical copies of RaTG13) and George Gao (about RaTG13’s sequence being indeed alarming, indeed capable of binding human ACE2).

A little bit more about the paper:

When they used a flow cytometry assay to assess how well the RaTG13 RBD binds to ACE2 from different animals, they found NO BINDING with ACE2 from any bat species, including the RaTG13’s “natural” host R. affinis. Isn’t it fascinating?

They then used a SPR assay to test RaTG13’s RBD in binding different ACE2s. This time, some bat ACE2 did show binding, however, with very poor affinities. The affinis ACE2 binds the second poorest of all with a Kd of 27uM, which is 10 times worse than the binding between RaTG13 RBD and human ACE2 and 1000 times worse than that between SARS-CoV-2 RBD and human ACE2.

They tried to come up with some lame excuses for the lack of or very poor binding between RaTG13 RBD and bats’ ACE2 in the discussions. However, I think they really should have just saved their time and admit that RaTG13 is fake and does not exist in nature.

It is interesting, though, how certain CCP scientists are trying to bring RaTG13 back to the spotlight. This must be against Zhengli Shi’s will. She is the last person on this planet interested in seeing RaTG13 being tested in real experiments.

The CCP’s real intention in publishing this in Cell is actually quite clear:

They want to make people believe that the pandemic originated, not from a bioweapon attack, but from a natural virus that was found in a cave, taken back to Wuhan, and then leaked out of the Shi lab.

They have elevated their game on their backup plan here, which is to sell the lab leak theory and make Zhengli Shi the scapegoat. They have worked on it somewhat secretly on places like twitter and media, promoting such beliefs. But now they started engaging their CDC director in this operation. Let’s see how much they could push this and whether or not it may backfire.

Reply
charly
7/16/2021 02:05:09 am

This is an interesting turn of events indeed. Im glad people like you takes time to dig in. The intensity of the pandemic, and the international concern, makes me hope we will eventually be able to figure out exactly what happened, but my expectations are not so high.
This reminds me a similar conspiracy with the apparition of the lyme disease. While considered not plausible, an amendement was still passed last year in the us to review weaponized ticks.

Reply
Fuddman
6/27/2021 12:53:41 pm

Without a sufficient number of COVID dead bodies, covid would not exist as a threat.

Question for 2021 becomes: In the light of the vaccines, will there be sufficient numbers of covid dead bodies in 2021 to sustain the threat of cov2

Referring here to US numbers only.

In the US, official dead bodies are tabulated by CDC, using death certificates. Death certificates are filled out by "attending physicians" or, the like, using procedures required by, the CDC (in conjunction with other entities).

According to the US CDC tabulation of death certificates, in all of 2020, COVID had fastened itself to a total of 382,742 dead bodies.

During the first half of this year, (June 20, 2021), the CDC reports that covid has fastened itself to 206,484 dead bodies.

Using basic straight line thinking, one might project that, at the end of 2021, covid could, conceivably, have fastened itself to 412,968 dead bodies.

A very likely outcome because the aged population going into the dead body zone (65 to 95+) will increase substantially in 2021 and beyond (called "baby boomers"). So there are going to be lots of dead body candidates available for the "covid" fastener.

That means 2021 covid dead bodies could exceed 2020 covid dead bodies by 30,226.

Can that be allowed to happen in the light of the 2021 vaccine push?

Will the masks go back on? Shelter in place? Business closures?

And if that does happen, who will the virologists blame for all that renewed mayhem?

Will it be a "Delta Variant?" Will it be the the intransigent vaccine deniers? Not enough boost takers?

You can take this to the bank - it wont be themselves.

Reply
alex
6/28/2021 08:25:56 am

If the sequences posted by Shi and Zhang are fakes, everything that follows too, RP-PCR, etc, everything.
What objective were they pursuing?
Was it a suggestion / order from your bosses?
Why was Zhang able to risk this game with the overwhelming consequences it could bring? Had no alternative?
At the moment the first initial swords are falling like liars: Fauci, Daszak, Anderesen, Baric, Gates himself (who is missing and awaiting new revelations that will sink him forever), WHO itself with its director at the head.
Drosten continues, but highly questioned, and hidden behind the scenes remains Zhang who may be one of the central figures of the montage

Reply
Fuddman
6/28/2021 01:32:33 pm

"Why was Zhang able to risk this game with the overwhelming consequences it could bring? "

Risk? Consequences? Are you joking. The Chinese pinned a medal on the guy.

"The international journal GigaScience and ICG-15 presented Professor Zhang Yongzhen with the 3rd GigaScience Award for Data Sharing in Wuhan, Oct 26,2020. The award was for Dr. Zhang's outstanding efforts in sharing the first whole genome sequence of the deadly COVID-19 virus on January 5th, 2020. While immediate sharing of genetic data from an incredibly dangerous, very infectious virus might seem the obvious thing to do: scientist's ability to get funding and career advancement has, for decades, been predicated on who is first to publish -- not on who is first to help people. "

Fuddman
6/28/2021 01:37:30 pm

Strange, don't you think?

All this current angst and gibberish about the origin of COV2 and there it is in plain sight.

alex
6/29/2021 07:57:25 am

Strange, don't you think?
Yes, I do believe that it is very possible that this reading is true.
It is also possible that they did not think that the measures that have been taken and that have triggered this madness were going to be taken.
Therefore, it is also possible that deception will be discovered.
Despite the huge interests against unmasking.
If the Sars1 sequence is carefully reviewed, it is like a bonzai of what happened with Sars2, which for some reason they decided to abort.

alex
7/19/2021 02:30:25 am

@Fuddman
Do you think it is possible that Zhang and Shi acted freely, that is, without the knowledge of their bosses when publishing the silico virus?

Reply
alex
1/19/2022 09:26:58 am

@Fuddman is not still reading this blog.
Just in case I repeat this question:
Do you think it is possible that Zhang and Shi acted freely, that is, without the knowledge of their bosses when publishing the silico virus?
Some recent new about Zhang

Reply
evidence
6/28/2021 05:26:37 am

Re: (1) Reply to post by Nerd [Nerd has power 5/30/2021 07:21:07 am] in response to my earlier post specifically about Liu pangolin paper timing [evidence 5/29/2021 05:30:19 am], MERS drills, Bloom sequences, Shi
(2) Vaccine trial origin hypothesis basically not supported anymore, and pulled by Quay (also cf. [evidence 6/26/2021 05:32:29 am] adjacent to Xoco's post [Xoco Latte, 2/1/2021 03:44:32 am]: 'Is there anyone here who could verify Dr. Quay's claim?')
(3) Putative relevance specifically of WIBP for CoV2 spread (security breach)
(4) Current risk of Intel agencies (and spcificall their reports) being purchased and submerged into their own COI swamp (again) - if public indignation will not be able to create sufficient momentum

Dear Nerd, thanks for your very kind replies, as always!
I was waiting for yesterday's response first, before submitting another lengthy text, which I had prepared some time ago - addressing your concerns.
Sorry, if I continue being a contrarian. I DO this at the same time with deepest respect for your work. And from a pure scientific point of view, it might be fruitful to have competing hypotheses thouroughly discussed; as it is not my aim to be ignorant. And I might be eventuelly proven wrong, in particular by direct intel or whistle blower evidence...
- Anywys, I would like to respond to a few of your remarks (5/30/2021 post), again, by quoting them first.
(1.a)
>> However, it is important to bring in all important facts into the analysis. I again would like to mention the three MERS drills,..<<
I had the MERS drill reports translated for myself and had been reading them.
I guess I have to say, this would currently not be sufficient for me as EXCLUSIVE evidence that there could have been no other venue, as compared to intentional release.
It is certainly in line with such a scenario, but does not exclude another scenario.
I think, the MERS drills could have been equally a response (i.e., preemptive measure) to the fact, that they were playing in Wuhan with those GOF biowarfare agents (quite intensely) around, in and out of those labs (and knew about such a threat), having the biggest and still growing GOF-biowarfare bank in Asia under their belly, and wanted to prepare their medical staff for a putative lab disaster - in particular since by latest 2017 the WIV had been pimped up with P4 (even despite the fact that risky CoV GOF obviously had been even taken place only in P2).
So they (PLA) might be preparing for a lab escape disaster, but of course, might not have been able to say this outspokenly (as we know how professional and skillful liars they are, as well as their respective propaganda departments), and therefore preferring the training/drill scenario of the 'IMPORTED bug', namely MERS.
And also the Military Games scenario might just as well had come as a good model, as it might equally be appealing to the military community (in addition to the medical staff); again, with incoming foreign nationals, who would be importing a disease - so a domestic source would be out of focus (in particular for the putatively more OUTSPOKEN civilian [medical] staff, which they felt, they should be properly trained, but should not be bragging to much about the real, internal, threat).
I mean, those drills (addressing putative disaster and catastrophes) are not entirely uncommon, even if in this case, the scale had been remarkable. But again: it can be also interpreted like preparing (in a little bit disguised way) key personnel towards a case of disaster of their (hidden) military GOF-reactor, which, I would guess, being internally by high-ranking PLA experts equally considered as possibly quite unsafe. Also conceivable, that there had been low-level leaks before, which had not been as transmissible (cf. below), hence, which alerted the PLA months or even years before. Often in such major disaster cases, like a biowafare reactor blowing up, you get important warning signs before.
So maybe, the incentive for them (senior PLA decision makers) to have those drills rehearsed, had been their realistic fear, that their (hidden) GOF reactor could melt down, and wanted to prepare key staff. We know about the cables to Washington with respect to safety concerns regarding the WIV. I can imagine, that behind the curtain, some high-ranking PLA officials had at least the same concerns as well. And instead of eliminating their risky sources (as they felt being indispensable for their military goals), they might have preferred to have key (medical) personnel and others drilled.
[BTW, on Sep 18 2019, as you certainly know, they again specifically had MERS/SARS emergency drills at Wuhan airport,
https://nitter.fdn.fr/pic/media%2FEYNHYbLU8AE7NPJ.jpg%3Fname%3Dorig
https://nitter.fdn.fr/pic/media%2FEYNHaAMUwAAD3g-.jpg%3Fname%3Dorig
https://nitter.fdn.fr/uacjess/status/1261930897835606016#m
what again could also be in line with both scenarios: according to the scenario (which I still consider

Reply
evidence
6/28/2021 05:31:09 am

(part 2)
...(which I still consider more plausible), for this Sep 18 2019 drill they already knew the genie had come out of the bottle, and had to activate disaster prevention at crucial infrastructure sites accordingly- in particular with the scheduled Military Games coming ahead.
And there is evidence that also Wuhan hospitals might have prepared for an outbreak as early as Sep 2019 (evidence by increased swab kit purchase etc) in response to the August 2019 leak (which I consider plausible). ]
- I know my explanation sounds disappointing or simplistic, and likely not convincing to you - but I would say: sometimes it can be simple;
- and on the other hand, also 'causal attribution' could become a pitfall as well...in particular, in case after such an endeavour of discerning complicated and intricate, and unexpected, as well as shocking causal connections during all the months before, as this had been for Covid during th past 15+.months.
So, I would say, both hypotheses are not totally invalidated yet. And I agree, certainly high-ranking PLA had the criminal intend to unleash the weapon, as you have underlined in your recent post (6/19/2021). This of course is very, very grave - and cannot be ignored, and HAS to be discussed more intensely in public. But it still does not rule out the accident in my mind.
I have read the important Bloom paper (which I also mentioned in my last post to Errata, 6/26/2021 part 2, point b). However, he has not been able to propose any specific timing (tMRCA date) either, as he could not recollect the sequence data with a time stamp. I read the paper as further support for the likeliness of an earlier MRCA date, rather than a later one, as the iceberg seems to be larger than the tip we have been seeing thus far - as expected. But of course, uncertainty remains, as the original author is stonewalling any further discloure. I frankly cannot judge on how much (statistical) weight they would have to alter current tMRCA estimates. My guess would be, they would (mostly/only) siginificantly reduce the error margin for tMRCA estimates (if the original author or somebody else would be disclosing the time point of collection), because they seem to be quite close to the root.
Hence, according to my assumption of tMRCA late Sep 2019, and given the fact, that Chinese authorities had been eager to obfuscate any molbio evidence prior Dec 2019, my guess would be, those 13 Bloom sequences had been originally sampled from Oct/Nov 2019 cases.
- I guess we both agree on 'let's see what surprises the puzzle still might offer'.
So there is quite circumstantial and direct whistle-blower evidence out there, which still waits to be analyzed and properly weighed, or MOST likely, 'only' to be declassified, I guess...
- However, even more so, and because of this current situation (molbio evidence being overwhelming, while more direct/whistle blower intel is certainly needed/would be of value), it is my believe, that currently it remains absolutely important, that the ENTIRE 'scientific community', sooner than later, agrees on the following consensus facts (as you mentioned in your 6/27/2021 post as well), for which regarding (on the molbio side) actually NO more evidence is needed, namely that:
(a) CoV2 is man-made, (b) result of GOF bio-warfare research, (c) originated in Wuhan labs, (d) corresponding frauds (in particular SCIENTIFIC fraud), fabrications, global conspiracies and cover-ups, and censorship, had been the biggest downfall for science and scientists, at least since WW2, including western scientists in particular.
If this would become the consensus, there might be a better chance that the Intel community will be pushed to disclose/declassify more evidence. Hence, this is an extremely important immediate (or interim) goal.
On the molbio side, we have ALL the data, and all analyses we need. As Sellin recently has said: that (part of the) debate is OVER. And the liars become increasingly mute.
https://nitter.fdn.fr/LawrenceSellin/status/1401213801387679745#m

And YOU had been a substantial part, UNMASKING this scientific fraud of the century; thanks to your endeavor, for having established this forum, your initiative and publications - jointly and in addition to all the numerous scientists with a healthy consciousness.
And for having the openness of this blog, in my mind, it was worth the price, that not everybody's comment had been always perfectly worded. That's what brainstorming is all about. In particular given the circumstances of being confronted with an information war, and threat of censorship, and being in an environment which is hostile to pluralism.
You will be remembered. And you should be honored.
Actually, we should congratulate each other - but we especially should congratulate you for your courageous, extremely important, as well as marvelous contributions - 128079/U-1F44F!

(1.a.1) Re the 2nd post you made yesterday [Nerd has power 6/27/2021 05:36:18 am]
>>They want

Reply
evidence
6/28/2021 05:35:40 am

(part 3)
(1.a.1) Re the 2nd post you made yesterday [Nerd has power 6/27/2021 05:36:18 am]
>>They want to make people believe that the pandemic originated, not from a bioweapon attack, but [...] leaked out of the Shi lab. [...] Let’s see how much they could push this and whether or not it may backfire. . <<<
Yes, I think that is plausible and I suspected this early on (see below), as in dual use situations, you always start with sacrificing your civilian side first. But this likely can be equally expected, if a LEAK had come from any military GOF BW project. They are cornered, as they currently have to fear that direct intel being leaked to the public any time soon. So they have to do full-scale damage control. But again, same would go for a bioweapon GOF ACCIDENT, as I would be quoting myself (my first two posts back in June 2020):
>>On the other hand: if somehow a hidden biological WMD program [...] has also contributed to Covid19, the CCP might get us eventually used to the 'unconvenient truth' of a lab origin (e.g., slowly during the course of the year), but will do everything in their power (maybe even in quiet complicity with their American counterparts), to keep the biological WMD program in general (including GOF research) out of public scrutiny - insulate this 'dark field research' completely from similar science topics, which will be discussed in public during the coming months.<< [ evidence 6/4/2020 01:04:11 pm]
and:
>>Adding to my thoughts on CCP's likely future narrative in order to keep their WMD program out of public focus, I would even speculate, that, if necessary (under international pressure), they (the CCP) will ultimately be ready to sacrifice Shi on the civilian side (as being the scapegoat), as well as a highly dismanteled WIV (open to an offical WHO visit sometimes in the future) in order to hide their military programs, [...]<< [evidence 6/6/2020 07:56:19 am]

(1.b)
But coming back to your concerns of your earlier reply [Nerd has power 5/30/2021 07:21:07 am]:
>>> There is one thing that I strongly disagree with evidence ---- I don’t think the PLA scientists fully understand the transmissibility of the virus back then. If they had only tested the transmissibility in humanized mice (hACE2-mice), they would have for sure underestimated the transmissibility in humans.<<<
Yes, I agree: they were not aware, at least not initially (prior tIC). Specifically, they likely underestimated the transmissibility prior to tIC, because patient zero got infected unintendedly at first place (given the accident scenario).
(And they also could have vice versa initially equally overestimated the pathogenicity, since they knew only SARS1 and MERS effects on humans, with higher pathogenicity/lethality. Prior to tIC, or even likely not before tMRCA, they certainly had no valid evidence on the exact CoV2 human transmissibility and pathogenicity at all.)
I guess, what I wanted to say is this: (Given again the accident scenario,) by knowing they had created a super-SARS virus, and as it had been unintendedly, suddenly infected the staff, they were sufficiently shocked at that time (immediately post-tIC), as they witnessed the meltdown of their CoV-GOF core reactor, and they quickly realized, what monumental danger it would pose; and therefore it can be assumed they (senior PLA insider scientists) reacted quickly, and drastically (regardless of however discrete and secretive their initial intervention/purge had been). That's what I meant, when I simply (and probably a little bit imprecisely) said: 'they (senior PLA scientists) certainly knew early on, what they were dealing with'.

(2) Re: vaccine trial origin basically not being propagated anymore.
>> Finally, I would like to share my thoughts on the suggestion that the pandemic could be due to an accidental leak of a virus intended for VACCINE development. In my opinion, this is just not plausible.<<
I agree, as I have (at least implicitly) said before. I always suspected, that a link to a vaccine trial origin had been an (unnecessary) additional stretch. In my prior post I primarily referred to the vaccine trial scenario for the sake of completeness; I never had been convinced.
In addition, cf. for example the Wuhan heat map evidence (I mentioned in my post 5/29/2021), which does not support specifically a vaccine (PLA hospital-) related outbreak either, while it supports a connection SPECIFICALLY to the WIBP (cf. below).
And I never had been sure/convinced specifically about Quay's adenovirus part, as I always felt, the adenovirus part had weakened his elsewise very powerful Bayesian analysis paper; and as most of us might already know, he has pulled that part, cf. 3rd version (Mar 29 2021) of his paper:
SQuay_Bayesian_Analysis _of_SARS-CoV-2 FINAL v 3
https://zenodo.org/record/4642956
[only 140 pages now, down from 192 pages before:
SQuay_Bayesian Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 F

evidence
6/28/2021 05:38:33 am

(part 4)

...[only 140 pages now, down from 192 pages before:
SQuay_Bayesian Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 FINAL V.2
https://zenodo.org/record/4477081
].
And as mentioned by DRASTIC twitter posts,
https://nitter.fdn.fr/BillyBostickson/status/1400009054307504130#m
this obviously again due to Daoyu's outstanding work - who showed, once AGAIN , that it could have been likely contamination. I could not find Daoyu's work specifically on adenovirus BALF contamination, but I guess it was his Feb 1 2021 'Nipah contamination' paper
https://zenodo.org/record/4486195#.YCwaBYYzYjc
addressing Chakraborty 09/2020, who erroneously inferred Nipah co-infections from those BALF:
https://osf.io/s4td6/
, which made Dr. Quay to change his mind. (If anybody can find something more specific- please post!)
I was wondering right from the beginning, why Quay actually would have felt the need to include the adenovirus (vaccine hypothesis) part, based on comparably weak evidence, into his strong Bayesian analysis, which certainly does not need this part - it is strong enough by itself. In my mind, he should initially have written two separate papers, and his entire work (initially) had been actually two papers: one rigorous, straight forward Bayesian analysis which beats everything else, what has been published (at least up to that date), with respect to statistically analyzing the evidence for a man-made origin in a comprehensive and review-like manner; and an additional second paper, in which he would specifically try to propose/present the adenovirus vaccine trial origin hypothesis.
- However, for completeness and clarification, I also did post a (by now likely outdated) reply [evidence 6/26/2021 05:32:29 am] directly ADJACENT to Xoco's question back in February concerning the Quay paper [Xoco Latte 2/1/2021 03:44:32 am: 'Is there anyone here who could verify Dr. Quay's claim?'], and the relationship to Lyons-Weiler; which I originally wanted to post back then in response - but it got out of my focus and then I forgot it.
Even given the fact, that by now maybe an outdated controversy, but anyhow: tribute to Xoco :)

(3) Relevance specifically of WIBP for the pandemic, i.e., putative security breach.
Maybe, the Intel community specifically should zero-in on WIPB (e.g., staff communication via Weibo etc., at least back until Jul/Aug 2019): we should keep in mind the Wuchang heat map (I mentioned, 5/29/2021), with specifically that WIBP lab worker dormitory located in that most highly affected sub-district (Huanghelou). I think the original emphasis on heat map investigation goes back to Sellin, also based on some important early Chinese publications:
[
https://ccnationalsecurity.org/location-of-origin-of-covid-19-pandemic-identified-between-two-of-chinas-biological-warfare-facilities-in-wuhan/
Cao S (11/2020)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
Li (10/2020)
https://academic.oup.com/inthealth/advance-article/doi/10.1093/inthealth/ihaa079/5923672
Peng (06/2020)
https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/9/6/402/htm
]
, as Guy Fawkes already reminded us here some time ago on this board [ Guy Fawkes 3/25/2021 05:29:50 pm].
And Daoyu recently came up with a rationale on Twitter (Jun 4 2021) for specifically a WIBP breach, being the adjacent service facility for the WIV and other labs, but on the other hand also having a history of strong links to biowafare programs itself,
[Bostickson 04/2021: Wuhan Institute of Biological Products (WIBP)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350887758_Appendix_1_-_Wuhan_Institute_of_Biological_Products_Copdf
].
As Daoyu pointed out, the WIBP could have potentially been responsible for the putative leak via the following venue: possibly (CoV2 positive) cell cultures/plasmids, that where handled between WIV and adjacent WIBP could (inside the WIBP) have caused cross-contamination of other cell cultures (e.g. BHK), on which they were working for other clients, quote (Daoyu, Jun 4 2021 twitter post):
'WIBP was producing Msh3 in BHK for some client, and the SARS-CoV-2 clone entered the cell line as a contaminant.'
'Infectious clones most likely breached the BSL-3/BSL-4 containments not as virus particles (which the protocol is designed to inactivate) but as DNA in bacterial cells[..]'
https://nitter.fdn.fr/Daoyu15/with_replies?cursor=HBaAgKOBpNqt8CYAAA%3D%3D
Hence, the WIBP being possibly the facility with the lowest threshold for an outbreak scenario.
- And in this case, once again: (cross-) CONTAMINATION - as always...?
But it's certainly also only a best guess at the moment, it is only ONE possible route.
What I would like to underline though, there are PLENTY of scenarios for an accident to happen, up to he point that it is conceivable, that unreported leaks might even had occurred before, and via diverse and different venues. But those earlier leaks of their warfare GOF products (prior to CoV2) might not had been as TRANSMISSIBLE (like FCS containing CoV2), that's why earlier leaks (w/o FCS)

Reply
evidence
6/28/2021 05:50:39 am

(part 5)
... might not had been as TRANSMISSIBLE (like FCS containing CoV2), that's why earlier leaks (w/o FCS) maybe just resolved quickly after index case contact/infection (tIC) - in sharp contrast to CoV2.

(4) Current relevance of Intel investigations
Coming back to the Intel community: in my eyes currently the biggest concern would be, that the scientists of the Intel community, ordered by the president to report to him in due time, would be purchased (once again...). The DIA shielding their source from other Intel agencies for months speaks volumes (...China's CCP infiltration).
And a lot of agents of the intel community might not only have a relevant bias/COI with respect to China, but in particular with respect to (U.S.-) biowarfare programs in general (DARPA ties etc) on top of this. That would also be a reason for putative bias in their reports, and a motivation not to declassify compromising material.
Again quoting Ebright (May 24 2021):
>>>> The IC was the largest funder of EcoHealth Alliance.
The IC provided $40 M to EcoHealth Alliance in hare-brained scheme to fund overseas BW programs in the hope this would provide intel about overseas BW programs.
The IC is conflicted up to its eyebrows<<<
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/R_H_Ebright/status/1396849624888102920#m
As we know, the molbio part is clear. And nobody listens anymore to the helpless statements of Andersen and the like, after everybody could see with the Fauci emails the deconstruction of their official propaganda; how they had been fearful with respect to lab origin themselves, and how they took this vital possibility into consideration early on, already during those early days - and at that time even without all the OVERWHELMING molbio evidence we have NOW.
And nobody (in the West) is willing to SELL any molbio lies anymore, as everybody here is aware by now, that this would definitely shred their reputation for the rest of their life (maybe except for those dead-enders who lied right from the start - as they know their reputation IS already in shatters). - Possibly, after Ratg15, CCP desktops continue to manufacture Ratg 16,17, 18... etc etc... in an autopilot-like fashion -- but no Andersen Letter 2.0. That window of opportunity on that information war frontline (namely publications on high-ranking journals signed by important names of western researchers) has gone.
- Again, this also THANKS to your early and steadfast contributions.
On the other hand, the major frontline right now is probably within the Intel community.
Hence, in my mind, currently the worst-case scenario would be, that this hybris of intel agencies with their overblown $80 bn budget and their own COI's, and with Dong Yingwei being currently their most valuable asset, could get into an internal dog-fight over CoV2 origin narrative (exorbitant $ 80bn budget + China infiltration = high risk situation for sabotage, spies, moles, counterattacks, and continuing information war) - as we should remember their lack of sharing their correct information/own assessment to protect the public at the beginning of the pandemic - again most likely as a result of their own COI's [cf. my quote of Shoham's assessment: evidence 12/31/2020 04:03:08 am], and in particular the early propaganda attacks/info war coming from silicon valley, which can also be linked to the intel community.
Maybe, defectors also came surprisingly late. It might be also a TELLTALE sign, how little protection they expect (at least: HAD expected) from the West.
And everybody, who blows the whistle in the West, has to study the Assange saga carefully first (e.g., Nils Melzer's publications): how parts of this incredible hybris of the western intelligence communities had the motivation to rage collectively war against an individual exposing them, due to their OWN COI's and fear of being more exposed, and eventually would even WIN that information war.
On the other hand, that's also what makes DRASTIC so powerful here: being a diverse, losely connected group, their adversaries cannot as easily rage a sophisticated information war against any individual, which could be singled out.
- Hence, that hybris of Intel community, and how they will navigate through the next two to three months, remains what is currently at stake. -- I guess, it's lobbying time: in the sense, there has to be pressure on the administration that the sensible voices will get heard and maintain their stance - instead of known (and unknown) crooks.
Likely, Dong Yingwei has spilled the beens to the DIA already weeks ago, even more likely already as early as past February; and it is now important that public pressure will remain strong enough for this 'RAW' intelligence material to be declassified - as there is an extremely high risk that due to said COI's of the intel community, this equally won't happen, and they would get away with it (like for example the WIV+Daszak have gotten away thus far, by not sharing the relevant 'r

Reply
evidence
6/28/2021 05:57:22 am

(part 6/6)
... (like for example Daszak has gotten away thus far, by not sharing the relevant 'raw' reads/data).
We also have to keep in mind: the fact that Daszak is still able to stonewall the sharing of his copies of the WIV Databases and requested EHA material in general (and this against all pressure fom public, the scientific community, and congress), can ONLY be attributed to the fact, that he still enjoys powerful, hidden protection from influential parts of the (US-) military and Intel community. That means vice versa, also outspoken Pompeo could have excerted his influence in due time, while he was still in charge, i.e., he could have unblocked internal resistence and dissolve EHA protection from parts of the military and the intel community, so EHA would had been also pushed from the military side to handing over requested (EHA) material early in time - however, even Pompeo obviously also chosed NOT to do so, he was NOT going after Daszak and EHA, in order to have relevant dislosures or results generated early on (supporting lab origin).
Also, Congress already failed to press for valid report regarding the concerning agencies, in absence of a subpoena - Ebright on twitter (May 26 2021):
>>Last week,..NIH finally responded to..letter sent in March by..House Energy and Commerce Committee that requested..NIH’s records on all its work with the Wuhan labs..The two-page [non]response..didn’t answer any of the questions posed by lawmakers.
EcoHealth has missed the deadline for response, has declined to request an extended deadline for response, and, evidently has decided, in the absence of a subpoena, to blow off Congress.
No subpoena. No substantive response.<<
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/R_H_Ebright/status/1397361610335957002#m
- Hence, congress likely being corrupted again, and this won't change, unless public pressure would be stronger - as compared to lobby influence, parties with COI#S, and compared to the corrupt two-party system.

--- Nerd, again thanks for the exchange. It is invaluable.
At worst (or at best: depending on the point of view :) ...), consider me being a contrarian to sharpen your point on this particular issue, on which I had based my last posting(s) :-) , as we have to be as sharp as possible, given the challenge.
And again, maybe I will be proven wrong ;)
- Or rephrasing your kind (earlier) words: at least in order to keep our brains entertained a bit! [cf. Nerd has power 1/26/2021 10:16:57 pm]
Stay protected and inspired!
#

Thank you brave nerd!
6/28/2021 06:41:38 pm

This blog and comments are revealing. Unlike virtually everything else on the internet, or at least everything addressing political or news topics, there is real information being posted here by specialists who understand it.
Reading between the lines, the author must have posted this at considerable risk. I hope he has a hard-to-trace internet connection and don’t use the blog-posting computer for any other purpose.

Reply
David Rivard
6/28/2021 08:19:31 pm

I know, this all makes our (science) job much more difficult. While all directions point to bio-warfare, there are so many linked consequential co-conspirators, including Facebook, Twitter, Utube, U.S.gov et al it becomes easy for the CCP to logically point in any direction, but it is interesting the co-conspirators are not pointing in China's direction.

Reply
John Kelleher
7/2/2021 07:37:32 pm

Definitely what the recent bloggers have felt. You especially did not lower yourself to the distraction on the site.Thanks for making me confident in my perspectives.

Reply
Nerd has power
7/3/2021 03:17:15 pm

@evidence

Thank you for your analysis. It is really important because the only outstanding question left is whether it was intentional or accidental. I therefore completely agree with your approach and really appreciate your perspective there.

About your take on the MERS drills, I agree that they are preemptive measures. It is entirely possible that these drills were done because the PLA know they would be playing with fire in Wuhan with this unrestricted bioweapon. In fact, this is very much in line with what has been described in the 3rd Yan report: the pandemic was seeded by community testing that went out of control. We have described this scenario as “intentional”, but I can understand if some others would consider this as “accidental”.

There is one thing I could not appreciate very much though. It is how you considered their repeated mentioning of the World Military Games in the MERS drills as coincidental. Yes, they could have used the 2019 World Military Games as an excuse to practice containment strategies for a coronavirus outbreak. But please also consider the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic indeed started around the World Military Games. That is too much for a coincidence. Don’t you think?

I personally would not put any weight on the so-called Dong Jingwei deflector story. I think it’s already proven to be a false one. But please try to see the logic behind a possible CCP strategy here: 1) create and propagate a fake story that an insider claimed SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon; 2) Prove later with evidence that the story is fake; 3) Leave the public with the impression that the claim of SARS-CoV-2 being a bioweapon is fake. I’m not saying this is definitely what happened, but I want us to be aware that the CCP can be very, very sneaky and deceitful.

Finally, thank you and others for the kind words for me and this forum. I was indeed inspired by them. It’s the collective efforts of everybody here. Our discussions are very helpful, and all the shared opinions that are based on scientific evidence and logic are valuable and should be applauded. I learned a lot on this forum myself. My own ideas got tested here and sharpened. My confidence on my claims got stronger too (for this I should also thank the CCP because their lame efforts on the cover-up had made the truth more evident for everybody).

I appreciate this site as much as anyone. With all the misinformation going on in the world and most people in my life got confused to different extents, it is always refreshing for me to know that I have this site here where honest discussions on this topic can take place. Scientific evidence and logic are the most valued here, which is rare on this topic in today’s world. This site is important for my sanity, which is not something I expected when I first posted the blog. I imagine some of you may feel the same way. This is enough reason for us to thank ourselves.

Reply
Xoco Latte
7/12/2021 12:44:55 am

Dear Nerd and All,

I's been more than week without a single comment, I've got an eerie feeling that Nerd last reply somehow served as an end to very the valuable forum in this rare virtual place.

I hope I will be proven wrong.
Anyway, I am humbled and very glad to be a very small part of the discussion here. Thank you all!

Reply
Errata
7/24/2021 02:48:54 pm

@Xoco Latte

It's only the eye of the storm, the worst is yet to come. If you live in an area well vaccinated then this is the time to put aside your keyboard, to go out in the street, hug your friends, sing and dance, howl at the sky and enjoy the interlude. The storm wall is coming and we will have to hunker down again soon enough.

Errata
7/24/2021 03:21:22 pm

@evidence & Nerd

evidence(6/28/2021 05:26:37 am): "I think, the MERS drills could have been equally a response (i.e., preemptive measure) to the fact, that they were playing in Wuhan with those GOF biowarfare agents..."

Nerd: "About your take on the MERS drills, I agree that they are preemptive measures. It is entirely possible that these drills were done because the PLA know they would be playing with fire in Wuhan with this unrestricted bioweapon. In fact, this is very much in line with what has been described in the 3rd Yan report: the pandemic was seeded by community testing that went out of control."

What is suspicious about the MERS drills, and proof the release was intentional, is that they did the opposite of what was needed to stop the coronavirus despite being on high alert and well drilled on the proper handling of an outbreak.

I agree with Evidence that the MERS drills themselves are not suspicious. MERS is a clear and present danger and drills second as preparations for an accidental lab leak. The only thing about MERS drills that I consider odd and remarkable is that my own city does not hold them.

Nerd is toying with the idea that they were preparations for a coming release. That interpretation surprised me. If I had subconsciously considered the idea, it had not come to my conscious attention. Reflecting on it now, it seems to make little sense because after a bioweapon release containment efforts must be hindered and made ineffective whereas practice drills make containment efforts more effective. The drills are evidence that local authorities wanted to deal responsibly with an outbreak. My first thought was that it is surprising they were allowed.

Although drills fit into Nerd's model of community release being a phase of bioweapon development, I do not accept this model because it represents an unnecessary and quite serious risk. If you are building a weapons arsenal, you do not want to one going off prematurely. Perhaps we have agreed to meet half way with the theory about serial release until one worked; we both consider this possible but unlikely so it is a sort of detente.

The model I advocate is pre-attack vaccination of key personnel and demographics then release in Wuhan with case numbers becoming significant in time for the Lunar New Year LNY followed immediately after by lockdown and suppression in Wuhan. Vaccination may have been skipped in Wuhan, or at least partially, so the outbreak would flare up quickly. For example, elsewhere medical staff may have been vaccinated but to do so in Wuhan would remove a primary path for the virus to spread by. The pre-fab hospital they erected in a week shows the extent of their preparations for suppression after the virus had spread internationally.

The MERS drills are to first order counter-productive but may have been undertaken because they served the propaganda purpose of focussing attention on external sources. As to the military games, Xi Jinping had a say in scheduling them hence the jigsaw puzzle pieces fit together well. The military games were scheduled for late October to fit the timeline of exponential growth leading up to January 20th when travel peaked for LNY celebrations. This scheduling fits with the MERS drills focussing attention on a foreign source of the virus. Accusations later blaming the USA for the outbreak would then have been an integral part of the scheme. Within this model the book by Xu Dezhong accusing Americans of responsibility for SARS1 can be seen as laying the groundwork. Xi Jinping's approval of this book's publication would then itself be evidence of premeditation on these grounds alone even ignoring what the book says about bioweapon warfare.

Reply
David Rivard
7/12/2021 01:01:30 pm

@Xoco Latte
I too was a little confused. As a prompt to the original thesis and inquiry, the variants are posing as many questions...and information continues to harbor with the same disinformation agents. Why do only a handful of variants prevail? Why are all more robust? Where is the universal clinical (raw) database. How do the variants stem from the original release?

Reply
Nerd has power
7/17/2021 12:12:34 pm

Don't know anyone paid attention to this, but the original three Yan reports were closed on July 16th, 2021. Accesses to the full articles are no longer allowed at the old web links. It was the Rule of Law Foundation and Rule of Law Society, the previous honorary affiliation of the Yan authors, that requested such closure. It was done under the direction of Miles Wengui Guo.

On July 17th, 2021, the three Yan reports were re-uploaded to Zenodo with new web links and COIs. I have updated such information under "LINKS". I will post it here again:

The 1st Yan report (Originally published on September 14th, 2020):
https://zenodo.org/record/5111537#.YPMkvi2cZ0t

The 2nd Yan report (Originally published on October 8th, 2020):
https://zenodo.org/record/5111559#.YPMkxi2cZ0t

The 3rd Yan report (March 31st, 2021):
https://zenodo.org/record/5111594#.YPMkzy2cZ0t

The new affiliation has been changed to Yan Research - An Independent Research Team. In each report, the changes, which are minimal, are summarized in a Publication Note immediately following the abstract.

I think most of you here have copies of the old Yan reports. However, if you are ever interested in downloading an affiliation-free version of each, now you have chance :)

Reply
Nerd has power
7/17/2021 12:14:46 pm

DOIs, not COIs. I guess I have been reading too much Daszak news lately :)

Reply
PETER ROSS
7/17/2021 12:40:49 pm

The thing is that all these nasty dudes from Fauci to Daszak to Baric to Gates are operatives of sorts, not the terrorist kingpins.
Corona911 is a military-grade information war, so this dossier is a good indicting start but not a "pulling back of the curtain" on the past 50 years of BigPharma virus-vaccine scams:

"The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier"
by Dr. David E. Martin.

https://f.hubspotusercontent10.net/hubfs/8079569/The%20FauciCOVID-19%20Dossier.pdf

Reply
Errata
7/24/2021 02:52:35 pm

@Peter Ross

You cited David Martin for his words about Fauci. The recent public stance by Fauci doubling down on his support for the natural spillover scam is alarming. Martin is not a trustworthy source but even a chronic liar may speak the truth. Despite the low regard Martin has earned for himself, what he says about Fauci is profoundly troubling.

Martin twists the meaning of the JAMA citation which says:

"Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill."

He pretends this unambiguously means that face masks should not be worn. What it means instead is that we should wear masks to protect those around us, not ourselves. Consider the quote: "We should not wear bathing suits at the beach to protect against sunburn." By Martin's logic this means we should go nude at beaches. That would be a preposterous misinterpretation. We wear bathing suits to protect sexual modesty, not to prevent sunburn. We wear masks to protect those around us, not ourselves. Clearly Martin's attempt is to mislead.

Reply
David Rivard
7/23/2021 08:54:57 am

This from Nature Medicine
Published: 16 July 2021:

"Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy"

(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01459-7)

"Governments should be transparent about their COVID-19 response programs and vaccine availability and should disclose how key decisions are being made. Reporting of adverse events after immunization is a key component of monitoring the implementation of vaccination programs, and although it is important for these events to be documented and reported, intensive media coverage may also discourage people from being vaccinated. The media should therefore report in a responsible and transparent manner, providing clear and unbiased information to its audiences."

Vaccination compliance being clearly dependent upon the above, coupled with why a continued vaccination booster program is looking more inevitable."

and,

(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8)

"Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection"

"Abstract
Predictive models of immune protection from COVID-19 are urgently needed to identify correlates of protection to assist in the future deployment of vaccines. To address this, we analyzed the relationship between in vitro neutralization levels and the observed protection from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection using data from seven current vaccines and from convalescent cohorts. We estimated the neutralization level for 50% protection against detectable SARS-CoV-2 infection to be 20.2% of the mean convalescent level (95% confidence interval (CI) = 14.4–28.4%). The estimated neutralization level required for 50% protection from severe infection was significantly lower (3% of the mean convalescent level; 95% CI = 0.7–13%, P = 0.0004). Modeling of the decay of the neutralization titer over the first 250 d after immunization predicts that a significant loss in protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection will occur, although protection from severe disease should be largely retained. Neutralization titers against some SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern are reduced compared with the vaccine strain, and our model predicts the relationship between neutralization and efficacy against viral variants. Here, we show that neutralization level is highly predictive of immune protection, and provide an evidence-based model of SARS-CoV-2 immune protection that will assist in developing vaccine strategies to control the future trajectory of the pandemic."

Many articles report the inevitability of booster shots, citing unvaccinated petrie dishes spawning variant's requiring enhanced or different neutralization techniques. I do not understand how petrie dishes can be thousands of miles apart and can spawn the same variant.

Reply
PETER ROSS
7/24/2021 02:49:12 am

'The variants of these corona quasispecies over time must always be random!'

Is that what you're saying?

In any case, there's no plague and never was. You know that by talking to undertakers and gravediggers who rely upon shovels and not PCR fakery. No excess mortality in 2020-2021 compared to actuarial predictions based upon prior years.

The average age for dying with a diagnosis of "coviditis", for which there are no authenticated diagnostic tests, is the same as the average age for longevity. covid fatality numbers are due to PCR fakery combined with writing "covid death" on every death certificate associated with a 'positive' PCR test.

Dressing up in hazmat gear doesn't mean there's a deadly contagion - it means mass media-induced psychosis by globalized corporations that have more power than individual governments.

There is no "coronavirus" demonstrated to actually exist outside of computer simulations that only "really smart" people can understand...

Reply
Errata
7/24/2021 03:03:36 pm

@Peter Ross

The lack of excess mortality is easily understood because the lockdowns, mask wearing, social distancing and other measures reduced mortality from other causes. Closing the bars for example dramatically reduced deaths from drunk driving. It is just common sense. You know that as well as anyone. Why do you post such drivel?

Errata
7/24/2021 02:56:32 pm

@David Rivard

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01459-7

Nature Medicine, 16 July 2021: "Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy"

"A framework developed from research done in high-income countries, called 'the 5C model of the drivers of vaccine hesitancy', provides five main individual person–level determinants for vaccine hesitancy: confidence, complacency, convenience (or constraints), risk calculation, and collective responsibility"

In these terms the problem in the USA is that Trump voters feel a lack of confidence in the authority of Democrats and their Liberal Media megaphone. They also calculate wrongly the risks of not being vaccinated being unaware that they are under attack.

Censorship of right leaning information sources compounds this lack of confidence and prevents the truth about risk from circulating. Responsible sources say we were attacked by the Chinese with a bioweapon and we need to use vaccines while we fight back. This message is censored because of the bioweapon attack claim thereby suppressing the point that vaccines are necessary to fight back. The Liberal Media and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter are acting in the best interests of China for reasons that are obscure but ultimately must be financial. This gives free reins to the CCP which is pushing misinformation through the back-channels the Right depends on for facts censored by mainstream sources. Of course the CCP does not want people taking vaccines against their bioweapon attack. The success of their misinformation program is seen in the widespread skepticism of vaccines among those of the political Right.

We must argue clearly and forcefully that China is waging a virus war against the world. It is this fact that makes the necessity of vaccinations credible. Professional Democrats and the Liberal Media must deny this fact because it undermines Biden's legitimacy as President. If admitted then Biden was put in power by the Chinese. They therefore cannot persuade the Right of the necessity of vaccinations. This message must instead come from sources like us.

Reply
Errata
7/25/2021 04:27:54 pm

@David Rivard

"Many articles report the inevitability of booster shots, citing unvaccinated petrie dishes spawning variant's requiring enhanced or different neutralization techniques. I do not understand how petrie dishes can be thousands of miles apart and can spawn the same variant."

The answer to your question has two parts: One is convergent evolution which is the principle that similar selection pressures yield similar results. The other is limited options which makes the same solution keep appearing. In the case of CoV2 which is already well optimized for humans, there are few possible options for significant improvement. The selection pressure for improved virulence in humans is the same everywhere. This means the same variant is likely to appear spontaneously multiple times in multiple locations.

For a discussion of the modifications likely to be seen in CoV2, consider browsing Steven Quay's report, the discussion around page 96.

https://zenodo.org/record/4477081#.YP3qjTQpC_U

"Baric et al. had previously identified five amino acid residues that are important for SP-ACE2 interaction. Using the amino acid numbers of CoV-2, these amino acids are: 455, 486, 493, 494, and 501. Baric opines that the most critical residues are 493 and 501 and the next most important residues are 455, 486, and 494. The authors then discuss each amino acid in turn"

There is insufficient evidence to suspect the CCP is releasing variants to keep the pandemic going. I know some people are thinking that might be the case but the mutation rate of CoV2 and the high number of cases are sufficient to account for the rise of progressively more dangerous variants. If you are considering that idea then I would encourage you to put the thought aside until and unless concrete evidence appears.

Reply
babstar
7/23/2021 10:27:14 pm

Personally I don't lean toward the bioweapon hypothesis, I'm in the leak camp.

However, two pieces of information have got me thinking about possible another scenario. Perhaps everyone is over thinking this. Occam's razor.

The first tidbit was Public Health England: Excess weight and COVID-19: insights from new evidence ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/excess-weight-and-covid-19-insights-from-new-evidence ). The Odds ratio for ICU admission is > 4 for BMI >35.

The second, I wondered if this there was any previous work on BMI and morbidity and mortality risk and rapidly spreading respiratory illnesses.
A quick pubmed search turned up: Underweight, overweight, and obesity as independent risk factors for hospitalization in adults and children from influenza and other respiratory viruses ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6304312/ )
Reference 12 caught my eye. It appears to have been established in 2010 that high BMI was indeed a risk factor morbidity & mortality for Influenza Like Illnesses (ILI).

What if this simple fact is the exploitable difference? Not a selective genetic difference between racial groups, rather a societal one. The West has an epidemic of obesity and T2D.

Simply exploit the finding that almost ANY novel highly transmissible respiratory infection will cause a collapse of the medical system in the West due to obesity & T2D.

China has the advantage that it can implement elimination strategies simply not available to democracies by highly restricting movement.

This strategy would have the advantage of been almost totally non-attributable, no need for any selectivity for a specific genetic racial profile. Ingeniously simple, almost impossible to prove.

If this hypothesis where true, the West still remains stunningly vulnerable to ANY future viral pathogen that exhibits similar characteristics. I see very little in the way of encouraging people to stop eating themselves to death, Boris Johnson aside 'I Was Too Fat.'

Reply
Errata
7/24/2021 03:43:05 pm

@babstar

"Simply exploit the finding that almost ANY novel highly transmissible respiratory infection will cause a collapse of the medical system in the West due to obesity & T2D."

This is an amusing thought and common sense says that it has some merit. However it does not account for the European experience where obesity is not the problem it is in the USA. The early collapse of the medical systems of Italy and Iran cannot be attributed to obesity. However since the bioweapon attack thesis (which you do not prescribe to) claims that the USA was the target, and specifically it was meant to bias the US election away from Trump, your argument supports it (I suppose to your chagrin.)

Reply
Errata
7/24/2021 03:54:40 pm

@evidence, response to (6/2/2021 05:20:43 am)

1) "let's assume for a moment, everybody would be in fact convinced, CoV2 had been a result of an intentional release, but [...] there had been actually ('only') a biowarfare-accident [...] the bio-warfare program in other countries [...] could possibly evade scrutiny by only focusing on China's criminal intent. I do not deny China's/CCP's paramount criminal intent [...] but anyways, this would be my concern."

Don't worry, there is no possible form of direct evidence that could prove that the accident was not staged, that it was truly an accident. If Xi Jinping is prudent, there are no records and all those involved either believe it was an accident or are dead. Proving it was not staged is in any case proving a negative and therefore impossible even in principle.

The pandemic is no accident even if the index case was "actually ('only') a biowarfare-accident." From the actions they took the CCP clearly decided a pandemic would benefit them and they did what they could to promote it. In such a case it does not matter how it started. Their handling of the first weeks is well documented by CNN, Frontline, APNews, and others. There is no need for concern that the narrative will be rewritten.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/02/asia/china-wuhan-covid-truthtellers-intl-hnk-dst/

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/a-timeline-of-chinas-response-in-the-first-days-of-covid-19/

https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-health-ap-top-news-virus-outbreak-public-health-3c061794970661042b18d5aeaaed9fae

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/how-early-signs-of-the-coronavirus-were-spotted-spread-and-throttled-in-china

https://chinamediaproject.org/2020/03/11/whistling-against-deception/

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Ai-Fen:-Authorities-gagged-me-over-coronavirus-49540.html

https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/61/6/782

https://web.archive.org/web/20200227094018/http://china.caixin.com/2020-02-26/101520972.html (Needs an online translator.)

Since it was made in the lab they knew its attributes, design, and sequence all along. There is no direct evidence that could make the lie benign when they said there was no evidence of human to human transmission. There is no direct evidence that could excuse withholding the virus sequence for weeks on the lie that it had to be verified. The sequence would have given away the fact of human to human transmission and it was obviously withheld for that reason. They terrorized their civilian medical front line workers and did everything necessary to ensure the outbreak spread. There is no conceivable revelation that could explain away their handling of the first few weeks.

Even if it had been a natural spillover their handling of outbreaks jeopardizes Western Civilization. Can we really afford to let the CCP mismanage SARS3 the way they did SARS1 and SARS2? Even if their handling of the outbreak was not malicious but just a repeat of the bureaucratic pathologies seen in SARS1, the CCP represents an existential threat to our way of life. We cannot have free movement of goods and people with pandemics raging. Even if we limp back onto the field after SARS2, we cannot recover from another such outbreak. SARS1 was handled with lies and a coverup. After SARS1 the CCP made pledges and extensive provisions for dealing responsibly with any future outbreak. When it came they did the exact same thing as SARS1, the complete opposite of their stated plans, of their practice drills, of what they had reassured the world they would do. The CCP has to be removed from power and focusing on Xi Jinping's criminal intent gives the world its only hope for the future continuation of Western Civilization.

Reply
Errata
7/24/2021 03:56:37 pm

2) "another concern I do have by trying to sell intentional release without having all convincing evidence for myself: If the 'intentional release scenario' will NOT be able to be sold to the wider public (...), then a lot of deniers (...) have a quite easier play to refute the man-made origin facts all together. Those conspirators could get back the upper hand more easily."

Rather than making the lab product origin harder to sell by connecting it to an extreme view, defending the bioweapon attack interpretation makes it easier to sell. The lab accident hypothesis in contrast seems like the moderate, middle ground stand. Those whose attention is focused on refuting the bioweapon attack interpretation leave the lab accident contingent alone allowing them unmolested to convince people it was a lab product. So far Alina Chan has succeeded whereas Limeng Yan has not. This is in part because Dr. Yan gave cover to those saying they believe Dr. Chan's claims.

3) "I think it is important that ALL biowarfare-GOF need to be loathed by public and closed down ASAP"

Shutting down all GOF research is quixotic. The equipment is too small and readily available for any meaningful ban to be enforceable. This will become more true in the future. One might hope to prohibit locating such facilities in a city but that is as far as you could hope to go.

Attempting to go too far risks making no progress at all. Learn from history, from the failure of the treaty to ban land mines; given the monopoly on manufacturing at the time, an agreement to make all mines age out in a reasonable time was possible but activists went too far and demanded a ban. Responsible manufacturers quit, the monopoly was lost, production is now done locally so the scourge of old land mines will continue indefinitely.

If you want to be an activist, a ban on urban labs makes more sense than a ban on GOF. A ban on urban labs would be like the ban on air burst atomic tests which did not stop development but did make life safer for everybody. It would also hamper bioweapon deployment by making a staged lab leak accident unlikely to start an outbreak. A ban on all GOF might also hamper deployment but it would do little good. Not all bioweapons are GOF. The CCP would never allow sufficient oversight of WIV for us to be sure GOF research was not being done there. Military labs would in any case continue their work. If the PLA made the virus in a secret lab somewhere, a ban on GOF at WIV would not have prevented this. Demanding a ban now would not prevent similar episodes in the future. If GOF research were banned then Europe and the USA would stop work but it would continue elsewhere. We cannot stop the bad work; we can only stop the good. Vaccine segments such as the McLellan 2p spike, the basis of most current CoV2 vaccines, should be developed for all dangerous coronaviruses.

Closing down GOF research is not the solution. We now live in the age of bioweapons and there is no way to make open borders and free trade safe anymore. We have come full circle. The only solution is that of the 19th century where quarantine was a routine part of the movement of goods and people. We live in a world where capacity limits for public venues need to be reduced and everyone needs to wear masks in public to protect others (not themselves). Shutting down all GOF research is a political ruse, an ineffective half-way measure that would allow people to pretend the problem was addressed so they can to back to life as before for a while. This delusion is dangerous and the dream state people would live in as a result would turn into a nightmare just before they woke up.

Currently many Republicans are anti-vax on the grounds the pandemic is a hoax. This will continue until they realize we are in a virus war where vaccines are an essential part of defense and counter-attack. They need to be told. Trump's rhetoric downplaying the virus threat was necessary because control measures were slowing vaccine approval. A fixed number of deaths were needed to achieve statistical significance in the double blind tests to prove the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Nothing could change that number of deaths. The choice was to go slow or fast. Wisest was to get a vaccine fast. Obviously Trump could not just say we need more deaths and ask people to volunteer by taking off their masks. Instead he downplayed the danger as he had to. The Liberal Media attacked him unfairly over that and thereby helped China get Biden into office. Biden's election means Trump cannot now walk back his hoax rhetoric and as President call on all Americans to get vaccinated. This reality precludes choosing to call CoV2 an accident as an expedient to accomplish some other agenda. Trump would have had other options but it is doubtful Biden can attain voluntary vaccine acceptance among Trump voters without arguing that it is a military necessity in the current virus war.

Reply
Errata
7/24/2021 03:58:30 pm

4) Your itemized list:

a) "one can easily attribute the cover-up to the fact, that they (realized, that they) are facing possible accountability"

This argument sounds like the lame excuse from a drunk driver's mother.

If a driver hits a pedestrian but stops to help and calls an ambulance then he may avoid charges. If he drives off continuing on as if nothing had happened, that is a crime. If the victim was no stranger but instead a neighbor he was feuding with, driving off as an attempt to avoid potential liability will see him charged with first degree murder because he had a motive. This is true even if it truly was an accident. We cannot read minds so when there was a motive, we do not accept it was an accident.

Xi Jinping had a motive, to unseat Trump and end his trade war with its tariffs which would otherwise escalate. Economic prosperity is the leading indicator of whether an incumbent gets another term. Studies such as Event 201 by Johns Hopkins in October 2019 made it clear a coronavirus pandemic would destroy the prosperity which otherwise would secure Trump a win. When the outbreak started, they continued on as if nothing had happened. That was a crime. Since this outbreak took out a neighbor he was feuding with, covering up as an attempt to avoid liability should see Xi Jinping charged with mass murder and crimes against humanity because he had a motive. This is true even if it truly was an accident. We cannot read minds so since there was a motive, we should not accept it was an accident.

b) "Schrago's estimate remains the LEAST doubtful to me"

As much as I hate to leave it at this, because we agree on so many points and not the least on the value of polite dispassionate scientific debate, I must reject Schrago's estimate and disagree with your view on the grounds that his study failed.

On the point of under reporting I accept the numbers released by the CCP and take it as proof of prior vaccination, of an ethnic tuned bioweapon, or both. This was an attack. I would say this to those who do not believe it was an attack: arguing that it was an attack is a wise ploy anyway. Consider the following reasons:

Epidemiologists need the Chinese to open up their database on CoV2 cases. The CCP claims there were few cases and has released little information. Since a vaccination program is the necessary precursor to a bioweapon attack, the attacker suffers few casualties. If this is stated clearly and people come to understand what it implies then the Chinese will be pressured to release their all their case records. If CoV2 was indeed not a bioweapon attack, this information would be of huge value in dealing with future outbreaks.

Research labs working on viruses and other pathogens belong in rural areas. Putting them in cities is either a stupid mistake or a military expediency. All such labs are inherently dual purpose. The only practical way to release a pandemic bioweapon is to stage an accident. We must either believe that the military works behind the scenes to get labs built in cities or we must believe our smartest people, our scientists and leaders, are chronically stupid and keep making the wrong decision about where labs belong out of pure incompetence. The realization that those who live near a lab must be passed over during pre-release vaccination so that the outbreak can flare up and become unstoppable will outrage people. The awareness by the public that labs are in cities to facilitate staging an accident for bioweapon deployment will force labs out of the cities and into the rural areas where they belong.

For these reasons it makes sense to argue that CoV2 was a malicious bioweapon attack even if you do not really believe it.

Reply
Errata
7/24/2021 04:00:45 pm

c) "Pekar approach has logical pitfalls"

I agree. I'll add a few words about that below. See 5)

c1) "There is absolutely no basis for assuming exponential growth anymore for that pre-tMRCA time window"

I confused you somehow; the exponential growth was post-tMRCA, not pre-tMRCA. From tIC to tMRCA containment efforts could potentially hold R0 to near 1 indefinitely. We agree on this point.

c11) "the only thing which can be learned from Pekar is the relevant notion that tIC and tMRCA could be different. But that can be seen as almost a tautology"

That tIC may be less than tMRCA should go without saying but if you feel it needs to be pointed out and are looking for a citation to back you up then Pekar's paper is an adequate choice for that. On whether the substance of his paper is usable support for anything, I also have my misgivings. I'll add a few words about that below. See 5)

"Hence, I CANNOT buy any of your STATISTICAL numbers"

LOL, my argument validated your viewpoint and you got the logic flipped in your mind somehow. I guess I was too terse somewhere and became cryptic. A grad student using a monte-carlo program is a special kind of SNAFU. It is typically just an opinion piece reflecting the view of his advisor with only a weak bias from reality. I have my issues with his paper as well although I favor his opinion. I'll go over Pekar's work again below. See 5)

d) "ALL other approaches (...) even failed more [...] Unlike Schrago they are trying to oversell us a better error margin"

I agree on the oversell point.

d1) "I think the point, that the uncertainty is higher on the side PRIOR to their estimate (...) in comparison to the time thereafter, tells us something very important: we do have MORE uncertainty with respect to earlier dates in comparison to later ones"

I see this only as the expected feature of a correctly done error analysis where asymmetrical boundary conditions hold. Because I consider his study to have failed, I cannot agree with you that conclusions about December or July can be drawn from Schrago's result.

e) "Again, the motivation for all this is to deflect liability in the first place. For me it is that simple"

As I pointed out above, shirking responsibility turns an accident into a crime, where there was already culpability shirking responsibility makes the crime worse, and where shirking compounds the harm it becomes the worse part of the crime. Humanity cannot afford yet another incident of the CCP mismanaging an outbreak. We have a repeat offender here, they must be put away.

f) "According to a recent post by Yuri Deigin, he had heard about a red letter handed out to key academia in Sep 2019, telling them to get prepared for a putative SARS outbreak."

Revelations about September 2019 are interesting and worth following. These developments are trouble for Chinese apologists and for yourself when you dabble in those black arts. Although the first pangolin paper by Ping Liu et al. would no longer be evidence of premeditation, the maliciousness of the CCP becomes manifest and it no longer matters whether it was an accident. If the pandemic started in September then the long experience trying to suppress human to human transmission and its ultimate failure makes the assertion in January by the CCP that there was no evidence of human to human transmission inexplicable; it has no benign explanation.

Reply
Errata
7/24/2021 04:03:39 pm

g) "I do NOT consider any statistical approach as a valid argument for the pre-tMRC time window"

Pekar again, see 5).

g2) "And again: you did NOT at all address my crucial questions regarding Huang Yanling"

Please accept my apologies for skipping over her topic; I did not mean to be rude. Since the case fatality rate of CoV2 is somewhere around 1/250 overall and quite a bit lower for young and healthy people, the a priori odds that patient zero is alive are high. Given that Huang Yanling is likely dead, the odds she was patient zero seem low. I know that Bayes would say it is more complicated than that because all the most common causes of death for such a young person have very low odds too. However there are so many things that could have happened to her, I balk at buying into an explanation which if worked out carefully would have rather low odds. It benefits the CCP to have us hunting snipes. Also it should be mentioned that after a staged accident the person who arranged it may turn up dead to ensure the secret is kept. For now I'll pass on offering an opinion but of course any news on her fate would be interesting.

"why do you believe they would actually intend to specifically get a WIV researcher infected first (or somebody, she had close contact to) - and not rather some random dude in town?"

Staging an accident is the only practical way to deploy a bioweapon because any other approach would provoke a prompt counter attack. The response to a staged accident is delayed, irresolute, and subject to diplomatic diversion. Why actually infect a lab worker? There are two reasons: One reason is that the victim really had to be associated with the lab in some way for it to look like a lab accident. It might not be possible to connect some random dude in town with the lab. The other reason is that to be convincing, the lab workers themselves had to think it was a lab accident. They had to know of an incident. Infecting some random dude in town would leave the lab workers puzzled and conspiracy theories would circulate. Staging an accident is easy. It only takes one confederate to 'accidentally' do something clumsy and it leaves everyone else convinced it was an accident. The probability that the infected victim(s) of a sham accident would actually die was small enough that it need not to have been considered a significant risk.

h) "Sorry, I do not see at all why she could make that claim"

LOL! Well my quip was somewhat tongue in cheek but the point was that if tIC was long before tMRCA then mutations would have accumulated leaving the sequences of IC and MRCA sufficiently different that Shi could deny that they are the same. You are right that MRCA would not have changed greatly but that is beside the point.

As to the role now attributed to Zhengli Shi by yourself and Nerd, I concur. Although Shi pioneered the work and has been implicated in the coverup through Ratg13, this was made in a military lab and Shi has been played.

"My own notion here is this: Ratg13 in silico Potemkin village had been created by shady PLA scientists months before (likely as early as 2018), independently of Shi, in order to have it at hand whenever needed. [...] eventually, they called her (Shi) into that conspiracy circle (e.g., maybe even as late as Dec 2019, maybe after tIC), in order to give the fraudulent Ratg13-Nature paper a civilian stamp"

Perhaps this is true, or mostly so. They did not really need to take her into their confidence. It would be easy to hide their 'Potemkin' construct among the thousands of samples and database entries without her taking notice. Shi could have been led to believe Ratg13 was a legitimate related bat virus that she should publish a paper on. That would account for why she seemed unaware that RaTG13 was based on her BtCoV/4991. They snuck it by her.

It seems we agree that this virus was engineered in a military lab rather than at WIV. I would say they brought it to Wuhan so that once their 'natural spillover' cover story broke down they could move on to 'lab accident' with all suspicious eyes focused on WIV. Released elsewhere they would have risked the lab accident finger being pointed at a military lab instead. Casting suspicion on WIV gave them an indignant and passionate Zhengli Shi to field the accusations. Framing her was a brilliant ploy.

Reply
Errata
7/24/2021 04:06:20 pm

5) Some words about the Pekar et al. paper.

Pekar et al. studied the lag from tIC to tMRCA assuming no effort was made to contain the outbreak. That such a lag can be expected was an interesting observation; kudos to you for finding his paper. Pekar's study showed a lag of a few days but as you pointed out, with containment it could be a lot longer. Pekar was apparently inspired by du Plessis and Pybus.
https://virological.org/t/further-musings-on-the-tmrca/340

You objected to Pekar's early November dates for both tIC and tMRCA on the grounds that his error analysis seemed deficient and cited Schrago's confidence interval as more realistic. Schrago's wider error margin was due primarily to the fitting error from his tMRCA algorithm which is very different from Pekar's and not because of the complexities considered. Pekar used a suite of off-the-shelf analysis packages (Nextstrain, IQ Tree, BEAST) and chose TreeStat from BEAST for tMRCA. Users depend on the error bars to be correct from such software. Schrago however was trying to develop a novel method of analysis and hence he had to do the error work himself. Pekar's dependence on a canned confidence interval does not make his error analysis less reliable than Shrago's. Pekar's maximum likelihood spread from the tMRCA algorithm is probably correct and a monte-carlo gives statistical errors which are probably also. The systematic error is just a guess and in a monte-carlo it is often dealt with dismissively. It is a bit unfair to expect Pekar to include in his error analysis uncertainty about his assumption that the outbreak spread unchecked. That said monte-carlo simulations should always be taken with a grain of salt. The erudite say there are lies, damned lies, and statistics but scientists know the worst is simulated statistics.

Assuming the November 17th case is legitimate both tIC and tMRCA must precede that date. Given the uncertainties, Pekar's tMRCA is consistent with events if we equate tMRCA with the date the outbreak got out of control, which should be close, and assume exponential growth from then onward. If the database of early cases in Wuhan was heavily redacted then the legitimacy of the November 17th first case cannot be assumed. In that case all we would know is that mounting fatalities precludes tMRCA much before November and symptom progression after early December. That said the intelligence regarding three ill WIV researchers during the 2nd week of November 2019 suggests the November 17th case can be accepted.

Contingent on the current state of the evidence, you have successfully discredited early December dates for tMRCA but considering all the fraudulent science from the CCP, everything we have may be fictional. The lag from tIC to tMRCA depends primarily on containment efforts which neither Schrago nor Pekar can shed light on. I have some issues with the Pekar et al. paper and although they are tangential to whether Liu proves premeditation, they do mean we are of the same view that Pekar should not be cited.

Pekar's claim that most infection chains die out should not be true early in the outbreak. Later in the USA there were two groups each with their own spread dynamics. Although some people complied with the control measures, the epidemic was primarily supported by super spreader events among those who were defiant. In that context most cases among compliers are dead-ends so I suspect Pekar was unduly influenced by the USA experience. Early case spread in Wuhan should have nearly followed a poisson distribution as assumed by Hao et al., the paper Pekar cited for parameters. Hao states: "We assumed that the observed number of ascertained cases in which individuals experienced symptom onset on day d - denoted as xd - follows a Poisson distribution..." Poisson with the mean of R0=3.54, the R0 used by both Hao and Pekar, gives 3% as the number of dead-end cases which seems too little to snuff out 2/3 of all infection chains.

I am skeptical of Pekar's approach tying the simulation to real calendar dates. I would have felt more comfortable if tIC were at zero and simulations run to find a mean value for tMRCA which could have then been subtracted from the tMRCA of real data giving a real tIC. However what Pekar did was odd, giving real world dates to random tIC choices and rejecting runs inconsistent with a November 17th first case. If nothing else this is made invalid if the Chinese withheld cases as Nerd emphasized. I also find myself concerned, perhaps unjustly, that this odd way to constrain the simulator led to tweaks in the parameters and distributions that contributed to the deviation from poisson statistics.

Reply
Errata
7/24/2021 04:09:19 pm

6) Summary of our discussion of the first pangolin paper by Ping Liu et al.

Is the Liu paper proof of premeditation or merely evidence of it? The pangolin cover story was clearly bogus which made it seem like a proof at first because a flawed cover story would be good enough to unseat Trump if it held until election day whereas a hedge against a real accident would have to endure. Nerd harpooned my whale with a pointed comment: "they do not necessarily have the world’s best judgement" and observed that it is their opinion on its durability that determined what they did. So it may be the 1st pangolin paper was just an incompetent hedge against a real accident. It looks bad but, although consistent with premeditation, it is not proof. The topic has therefore gone belly up but our thread got tangled so let me review it in untangled form before we sail off.

You pointed out if the index case preceded submission, that would exonerate the Liu paper. To establish plausibility you brought up that containment efforts could mean tIC << tMRCA where tIC and tMRCA are the times of the index case and the most recent common ancestor respectively. Previously Nerd had given a nod to that possibility (5/30/2021 07:21:07 am) and I had followed suit (6/8/2021 02:30:36 pm) but possibility does not imply plausibility. To establish that you cited timeline studies by Schrago and Pekar. Schrago's gave a September tMRCA and you endorsed Schrago's error analysis. You considered Pekar's later tMRCA unreliable based on his less detailed error analysis.

We disagree on how useful Schrago's result is: You assert his wide error bars justify considering a tIC in September. An early tIC is possible but I consider it an academic point only and do not believe Schrago made it more plausible. Schrago's detailed investigation of the reliability of his novel approach did not make his result more credible than what Pekar got using off-the-shelf packages.

Pekar gave an argument that supported your view although you did not exploit it. His assertion that most infection chains fizzle out on their own if true increases the plausibility of a large t: t = (tMRCA - tIC). This is because it increases the efficacy of even limited containment efforts. If most of the branches of the phylogenetic tree were dead ends, for a long time after the index case a single lineage could have been all that survived especially if contact tracing and isolation were attempted. However after checking with Poisson I came around to your viewpoint that Pekar is unreliable. You took exception to my statistics here but they supported your rejection of Pekar's results.

Although it is somewhat tangential, you pressed me on my sense of tMRCA because I suppose an earlier tMRCA favors an earlier tIC. To get a sense for it I considered exponential growth after tMRCA. (AFTER! You took it as before.) I asked what is the earliest tMRCA assuming an exponentially growing pile of corpses cannot go unnoticed. This gave early November. In light of the intelligence report, I put my chips on November 3rd abandoning early December dates for tMRCA as you advocated but an early December tMRCA is still possible for a vigilant civilian medical community in a city with two virus research labs. It only takes a few dozen cases before someone goes to a hospital, just a few generations of the virus. Such considerations about tMRCA however have no real bearing on whether the Liu paper is proof of premeditation since tIC is what counts and we have agreed that if there were containment efforts made then science cannot tell us about the time period t between them.

Since the goal of exonerating Liu is to debunk the bioweapon attack interpretation, arguing for an early index case fails if it succeeds. If they were fighting the outbreak for months, there is no benign explanation for the lies about no human to human transmission and the need to delay publishing the sequence until it could be verified. An early index case itself becomes the core proof that the CoV2 outbreak was intentional.

You successfully argued the epidemic could possibly have started before September but you did not make it plausible. If earlier cases turn up then Liu et al. would not even be evidence of premeditation but that conclusion must wait. The primary reason to consider the Liu paper to be evidence rather than proof of premeditation derives from Nerd's point that they may have just made a stupid judgement error and in fact believed the pangolin story was sound enough to provide good cover were a legitimate accident to happen. In that case the first pangolin paper has a reason behind it that is slightly less malicious. The way things stand now, the Liu paper can be cited as evidence of premeditation in a preponderance of evidence argument but it cannot stand alone as proof. Although things got a bit choppy, this was the outcome you were working towards.

Reply
Errata
7/25/2021 07:31:14 am

I keep hearing that the bioweapon attack interpretation is a crazy conspiracy theory. It is not. We live in the age of the designer virus. The equipment is readily available and the techniques published in scientific journals. Therefore a bioweapon attack is no longer even limited to sophisticated nation states. Pandemics can happen naturally but

the SIGNATURE of an ARTIFICIAL PANDEMIC is that the ATTACKER is NOT much AFFECTED.

Before releasing a bioweapon, a country would vaccinate its population. If that country has a dominant ethnicity, the ideal bioweapon would be one they have natural resistance to. With such a bioweapon a racist faction could independently launch a racial attack or a country could skip the vaccination step. The first consideration when investigating a pandemic is to confirm that there is no country or ethnicity that was relatively unaffected. If there is then what belongs at the top of the list of candidate explanations is the bioweapon attack hypothesis. These are the times we live in.

There is evidence that they had and were using an adenovirus vaccine against the CoV2 before the outbreak. (Steven Quay https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-by-dr-steven-quay-concludes-that-sars-cov-2-came-from-a-laboratory-301217952.html)

There is evidence of a racial advantage to being Chinese because of their lack of Neanderthal immune system alleles. (Hugo Zeberg & Svante Pääbo https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2818-3)

The Chinese assert that they have not been seriously affected by this virus, that they have a dramatically lower per-capita casualty count. The low case count, evidence of vaccine use, and genetic advantage are the primary indicators of a bioweapon attack.

Therefore a bioweapon attack by China would be the most likely explanation even if it did not look engineered with an odd distribution of 'mutations' and a furin cleavage site, even if the Chinese had not published fraudulent virus sequences to mislead us, even if it were not a chinese bat virus, even if it did not start near WIV, and even if the CCP had not acted in a way that promoted the spread of the virus despite extensive preparations by the Chinese CDC and repeated MERS drills to ensure proper management of a coronavirus outbreak.

All the circumstantial evidence together is a preponderance of evidence proof. The default of any well informed and rational person is therefore to assume it was a bioweapon attack. A diligent and in depth investigation with full cooperation of the CCP might turn up something to refute this interpretation but until then, the bioweapon attack hypothesis belongs first on the list of possibilities being investigated. That we hear passionate and loud rhetoric denouncing this interpretation, and most persistently from those with a conflict of interest, raises its probability rather than lowering it.

Reply
Errata
7/28/2021 05:08:43 pm

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/report-deliberate-release-covid-19-chinese-military/

"The source explained subsequent outbreak in Wuhan was entirely unexpected. That is, there was no lab leak, but unintended spread among Chinese population of Wuhan of a virus for which they had underestimated its transmissibility."

Nerd, this is nice confirmation of your opinion and that expressed in the 1st Yan Report.

From the 1st Yan Report: "We believe that those scientists might not have used a proper animal model (such as the golden Syrian hamster) for testing the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 before the outbreak of COVID-19."

posted (1/26/2021 10:16:57 pm) "Did SARS-CoV-2 turn out to be more transmissible than what the CCP has anticipated? Also possible. The CCP scientists may have underestimated this virus if it was really premature. And the CCP leaders are not even scientists. However, these leaders make the call"

posted (5/16/2021 12:14:54 pm) "the initiation could also be due to a community test gone out of control (likely because they have underestimated the transmissibility of the virus)."

posted (5/30/2021 07:21:07 am), "I don’t think the PLA scientists fully understand the transmissibility of the virus back then. If they had only tested the transmissibility in humanized mice (hACE2-mice), they would have for sure underestimated the transmissibility in humans."

If the story Stellin attributes to an insider source is legitimate then you were correct. Congratulations! I did not expect it.

Myself, I have always considered this hypothesis fantastical because SARS was a benchmark for comparison. The scientists who built CoV2 knew that passaging had converged to stability and the RDB was therefore optimized to human ACE2 so it should be at least as contagious as SARS. They had also installed the furin cleavage site which should enhance transmissibility significantly. SARS had an R0 about 3 and was characterized by super-spreader events. There did not seem to me to be a rational reason for them to assume it would be any less transmissible than that. Control of the first SARS outbreak was touch-and-go and almost failed. The claim CoV2 would do anything less than flare immediately out of control I would have called unwarranted and unsupported by the facts available before release. I can still not believe the scientists who made it would assert such a thing. Bureaucrats do however chronically ignore statements by the technical experts they should rely on. Perhaps decision makers in the CCP and PLA were surprised. I still do not understand why they had a prefab hospital waiting and ready to build in a week if they did not expect an epidemic in Wuhan. That said Sellin's source may be correctly reporting what was said. If so they meant for it to go home with the foreigners after the games although that raises the question as to why apparently it did not. This was a malicious attack on the world even if the leadership was surprised that it brought Wuhan to its knees first.

Take care of yourself, be cautious and safe. Scandal and the maelstrom of shifting alliances makes these dangerous times for you.

Reply
Nerd has power
7/31/2021 12:36:09 pm

@Errata

Thank you for the recent comments. Your reasonings on why this must be a bioweapon attack and whether or not it was an intentional release are so good. I wish more people could read them. I also liked your take on the GOF banning idea. I cannot agree more – banning GOF will only stop the responsible countries from doing such work, but the bad actors will continue to act bad.

You also brought up this Sellin article:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/report-deliberate-release-covid-19-chinese-military/

Hopefully more people would realize that this is more than just a regular news article. Information like this should help move people's perception of the pandemic closer to reality.

Reply
David Rivard
8/1/2021 09:37:30 am

"The truth will set you free", at least from constituent suspicions. If your constituents know the truth, you will get universal compliance with the defenses you need to defeat the virus. The choice should also be pretty clear about who would be the preferred dominant power. Their trajectory is now well established.

Reply
David Rivard
8/4/2021 10:15:40 pm

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/view-covid-19-chinas-bioweapon-warfare-strategy-and-global-security/articleshow/83321527.cms

Reply
Nerd has power
8/8/2021 06:03:24 am

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/chinas-next-dangerous-bioweapon-u-s-helping-build/

A new publication by Lawrence Sellin and Anna Chen explaining the structure of the PLA's bioweapons program's extended network.

Reply
Errata
8/9/2021 11:51:39 am

Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan is giving FBI Director Christopher Wray until Aug. 9 to answer the House Judiciary committee questions about Dr. Li-meng Yan's claims.

https://justthenews.com/government/congress/rep-jim-jordan-slams-fbi-director-wray-not-answering-congressional-oversight

Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, criticizing him for not following up with numerous Congressional oversight requests on various issues.

"On June 10, 2021, you testified before the Committee during our annual oversight hearing of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," Jordan said in the letter. "You committed to follow up with information and responses to a number of questions. Over a month has passed, and the FBI has not yet complied with many of these outstanding requests."

Wray was asked by California Rep. Tom McClintock, for example, for the specific number of terrorists, criminals, and gang members apprehended at the southern border; by Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz for any scientific analysis that the FBI has done regarding Dr. Li-Meng Yan’s COVID-19 origin claims; and by Texas Rep. Chip Roy for a briefing on Jan. 6 prosecutions/investigations.

In response to McClintock's question, Wray said, "I'd be happy to see if I can provide specific numbers and information to be helpful to your request separately. So I’m happy to follow up with your staff on that."

In his letter, Jordan said that Wray has not followed up and answered any of the representative's questions. Jordan is giving Wray until Aug. 9 to answer and provide "full responses and information" to the House Judiciary committee.

Reply
Errata
8/9/2021 11:55:06 am

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MoonDWvi1T8

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4966306/fbi-director-wray-questioned-bureaus-investigation-pandemic-origins

June 10, 2021: Florida Republican Representative Matt Gaetz questions FBI Director Christopher Wray about the Bureau's investigation into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, including its interview with Dr. Li-Meng Yan, a Hong Kong-based virologist who fled to the U.S. in April 2020 and has accused Beijing of a cover-up.

REP. GAETZ: THERE IS A COVER-UP TO COVER UP -- THERE IS AN EFFORT TO COVER UP THE ORIGINS OF CORONAVIRUS. ON APRIL 20, A DOCTOR LANDED IN LAX. ONE OF YOUR AGENTS INTERVIEWED HER. SHE THEN TRAVELED TO NEW YORK. YOUR AGENT FOLLOWED HER TO NEW YORK AND SOUGHT AN INTERVIEW WITH HER. THE FBI TOOK THE DOCTOR'S PHONE ON WHICH SHE SHOWED EVIDENCE OF WE CHAT CAN BE OCCASIONS BETWEEN HERSELF AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE CDC IN BEIJING GETTING BACK TO DECEMBER 2019 REGARDING THE CHINESE MILITARY'S INVOLVEMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VIRUS AND LINKS TO THE WUHAN INSTITUTE OF VIROLOGY. WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF YOUR AGENCY'S INTERFACE WITH DR. YANG. WHEN DID YOU REVIEW THOSE MESSAGES?

DIR. WRAY: I'M NOT SURE THERE IS MUCH I CAN SAY ABOUT SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS. I WILL SAY COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, I HAVE BEEN VERY VOCAL AND CONTINUE TO BE VOCAL ABOUT THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE THREAT THAT TAKES FORMS -- A VARIETY OF FORMS FROM THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY. I THINK IT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THREATS.

REP. GAETZ: IS THE DOCTOR PART OF THAT THREAT?

DIR. WRAY: I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION.

REP. GAETZ: HERE'S WHY THAT IS IMPORTANT. IN APRIL AND MAY OF 2020, WE DIDN'T HAVE NEARLY 600,000 PEOPLE DEAD AS A RESULT OF THE CORONAVIRUS. AN FBI AGENT BROUGHT A SCIENTIST TO MEET WITH THE DOCTOR IN NEW YORK ON OCTOBER 14. THEY MET FOR NEARLY SIX HOURS. CAN YOU TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT THAT MEETING AND WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THIS VIRUS. IT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO SIT HERE A YEAR LATER AND SAY HE WILL NOT TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE -- THERE IS INFORMATION ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF OUR VIRUS.

DIR. WRAY: I UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF THE QUESTION. I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL TO NOT DISCUSS SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS. IN ADDITION TO OUR INVESTIGATIVE WORK AS I THINK HAS BEEN RECENTLY PUBLIC STATED BY THE DNI AND THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE. THERE ARE DIFFERENCES WITHIN THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES OF YOU WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION -- THERE ARE DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ORIGINS.

REP. GAETZ: WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY ACCOUNTABLE IF WE THROW OUR HANDS IN THE AIR AND SAY THERE ARE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. THAT IS WHY I NEEDED EFFECTS FROM YOU. WILL YOU PROVIDE TO THIS COMMITTEE ANY ANALYSIS THAT THE FBI HAS DONE REGARDING THE DOCTOR'S CLAIMS AND MESSAGES SHE PROVIDED YOU, THE ORIGINS OF THIS VIRUS, THE MILITARY'S INVOLVEMENT, AND EVEN TO TRY TO PRESENT A FAKE GENOME SEQUENCE AT THE BEGINNING OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS?

DIR. WRAY: I AM HAPPY TO SEE WHAT INFORMATION WE CAN PROVIDE. I WILL HAVE MY STAFF FOLLOW-UP WITH YOUR STAFF.

REP. GAETZ: YOU GET THAT IF WE DON'T LOOK AT THAT INFORMATION, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHAT DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ARE CORRECT AND INCORRECT. IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE FBI DID NOT BELIEVE THE DOCTOR WAS CREDIBLE OR SIGNIFICANT. YOUR AGENT TAKES HER PHONE THAT DAY. I AM HOLDING THE RECEIPT FROM WHEN YOU GOT THE PHONE THAT HAD THE WE CHAT MESSAGES THAT HAD IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING BEIJING AND THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY. IT IS NOT EVERY DAY AN FBI AGENT FLIES FROM LOS ANGELES TO NEW YORK TO FOLLOW A CHINESE DOCTOR WHO IS A WHISTLEBLOWER AND A FACT WITNESS. EVEN IF THE DOCTOR'S ANALYSIS OF THE VIRUS IS INCORRECT, THE FACT THAT SHE SHOWED UP SAYING SHE WANTED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO TELL THE TRUTH SEEMS SIGNIFICANT. BACK WHEN THE DOCTOR MADE THESE PRONOUNCEMENTS REGARDING THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY, THEIR MILITARY INVOLVEMENT, THE LEAK OF THIS LAB, WE HAD PEOPLE TRYING TO DISCREDIT HER. ARE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THAT EFFORT IS PART OF THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE EFFORT BY THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY?

DIR. WRAY: I WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT INFORMATION I CAN PROVIDE FROM AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION AND THE OPINION IT COULD FORM. I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE ASKING ME QUESTIONS. LET ME COMMIT YOU THAT I WILL GO BACK TO MY FOLKS AND SEE WHAT INFORMATION CAN BE PROVIDED AND WHAT FORM IT WOULD HAVE TO TAKE.

REP. GAETZ: THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

REP. NADLER: GENTLEMEN'S TIME IS EXPIRED.

REP. GAETZ: I WANT UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

REP. NADLER: FOR WHAT?

REP. GAETZ: I ENTER INTO THE RECORD TO ENTER THE RECEIPT FROM THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE OF THE DOCTOR'S PHONE RECORDS.

REP. NADLER: WITHOUT OBJECTION. MR. DEUTCH.
*This text was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

© 2021 National Cable Satellite Corporation

Reply
Xoco Latte
8/10/2021 02:28:49 am

Well, more and more so, it seems as if the FBI (and other US intelligence agencies as well as authorities) are trying very hard to cover up an original cover-up by the Chinese, partly because of massive American involvemnet of the GOF acitivities and funding that help creating this monster coronavirus.

Reply
David Rivard
8/10/2021 08:35:11 am

As a global scientific community pursuing the common cause of understanding covid entities through genetic sequencing, I was astounded that Dir. Wray did not share this information with the other agencies and will not develop a policy because "EACH AGENCY WILL HAVE THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS". Even in the face of "AND EVEN TO TRY TO PRESENT A FAKE GENOME SEQUENCE AT THE BEGINNING OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS?")

The entire purpose of the DNI is to coordinate intelligence information with the other agencies under it's purview. All 18 (or so) agencies have a mandate to share information under the Patriot Act, enacted right after 9-11 to prevent similar mass attacks against the homeland.

And there is this chain of command. ALL 18 IC agencies must report to the DNI, who presents the information to the President at the Presidential Daily Briefs (PDB's). Usually the Sec. of State is in attendance with various presidentially selected officials, or other IC agents as (ultimately) determined by the President.

Mike Pompeo made an unequivocal statement on the DOS website about the "lab theory" around April 2020 bluntly blaming China of a coverup from a lab release. I am wondering which information was not presented during the PDB's. If information was sufficient to be acted upon, the President could take appropriate actions to direct other departments and agencies. How much information did that President get briefed upon, and how much is this President knowing? As it is turning out, many global institutions have been damaged and new ones are filling the niches. Certain of the IC's value stability which equal the certainty they require in their analysis.

This statement (the official DOS position) was eliminated from the DOS website on January 3, 2021. There was no link to the archive (maybe for the first time in that archives history). Sometime later the archive link was somehow resurrected.

The above linked conclusions are evident:

1) there has been a coverup within the U.S. IC, at least from the Director of National Intelligence, and maybe from within through individual agencies, like the FBI et al.
2) the IC cannot match the sheer virologic and clinical analytical abilities and data access of the global scientific community - necessary, in fact, to protect the homelands through data assistance of their clinical and scientific communities of 195 countries. This left 195 countries "on their own" for distilling the genomic sequencing and clinical data. Each country took pragmatic approaches to limiting infections and enhancing treatments (some took a political approach by shutting their eyes like Nicaragua, Belize and Brazil). To date, because of pragmatic but disjointed global effort, there exists no public confidence in either treatments or vaccines. Also, and maybe the most devastating consequence from a scientific perspective, is that no trusted global reservoir of information has emerged, resulting in the scientific freshly distilling each previous paper from the obvious need to determine the origin first (original genomic sequencing) and clinical manifestations as they occur in situ. As @errata astutely observed "The scientific community embarked was led on a global snipe hunt for information it could use to defeat the virus (sic) (This came from memory @errata so I apologize in advance).

So as 195 nations go down the path that only the variants can determine, mid August of 2021, 1.5 years after perhaps the most relevant virologist disclosed all that she knew, where is ALL of her information available for review? What DIDN'T she know? Why does she still have to defend herself? Why hasn't she been allowed to join
this global effort? Why is there a "sub-annul" of scientific discovery or disclosure or innovation (those "deleted" and threatened)?

As each country follows and can only depend upon it's own clinical and preventative pathways, wealthy counties with Remdesivir and poorer ones with Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine, so as well 85% of the world is following a path away from formerly trusted scientific and health institutions.

Reply
David Rivard
8/12/2021 10:36:40 am

There are attempts, at least to collate articles:

https://usrtk.org/biohazards/origin-of-sars-cov-2-gain-of-function-readings/

A study with ironic conclusions:
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/phylogeographic-mapping-of-newly-discovered-coronaviruses-pinpoints-direct-progenitor-of-sars-cov-2-as-originating-from-mojiang/

https://today.tamu.edu/2021/04/19/texas-a-genome-suggests-potential-resistance-to-antibodies/

There should also be a catalogue of submitted articles, along with letters of publication denial, or letters that denied peer review after publication. WHO could also post country variant clinical data at local levels to facilitate countrywide reviews, particularly by and for local health agencies.

Reply
David Rivard
8/12/2021 10:48:46 am

The WHO situation reports and data tables being wholly basic. Still based upon mortality vs. immediate survival