Uhajanje iz laboratorija Wuhan je bolj verjetno kot izvor Covid-19, so sporočili iz britanskega parlamenta. Kanadski molekularni biolog je dejal, da je laboratorijski izvor Covida-19 v tem trenutku bolj verjeten kot naravni izvor.
https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/wuhan-lab-leak-more-likely-origin-of-covid-19-uk-parliament-panel-told-121121501377_1.html
*
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
*
Raziskovalci v genomu virusa SARS-CoV-2 odkrili "sintetični prstni odtis" in dokazali, da je bil ustvarjen v laboratoriju. Nova študija je pokazala, da ima virus SARS-CoV-2, edinstven "prstni odtis", ki dokazuje, da je lahko izviral le iz laboratorija.
https://www.wnd.com/2022/10/study-finds-dr-faucis-fingerprint-origin-covid-virus/
*
*
Project Veritas o izvoru SARS CoV-2 januar 2022
https://dokumentarac.hr/covid-19/vojni-dokumenti-o-pojacanju-djelotvornosti-virusa/
*
Dr. Zelenko 27.1. 2022
Create a bat coronavirus with lung destructive power that can infect humans
Adv Exp Med Biol. 1998;440:43-52. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-5331-1_6. PMID: 9782263
J Virol. 1999 Jan;73(1):638-49. doi: 10.1128/JVI.73.1.638-649.1999
Patent US-7279327-B2
April 19, 2002
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001176
J Virol. 2015 Sep;89(17):9119-23. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01279-15. Epub 2015 Jun 10
*
Kitajski in ameriški znanstveniki so na koronavirusih netopirjev uporabili metode genskega inženiringa, ki so neopazne
*
Povzetek postopka razvoja in patentiranja koronavirusa SARS CoV-2
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PUJN6I9l3VnG/
*
Video predavanja: Jonathan Weissman o cepivih COVID-19: Kaj bi vam morali povedati
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=f6zqb8RTgkE
V soboto, 17. septembra 2022, sem imel predstavitev z naslovom "COVID-19 cepiva: Kaj bi vam morali povedati o njih." Kopija diapozitivov moje predstavitve, na katero se v celoti sklicujem, je na voljo na moji spletni strani https://www.alltherisks.com
1. del) Zgodba o izvoru: Ameriški davki so nezakonito financirali zasnovo virusa
01:23 Pridobitev funkcijskih raziskav na Kitajskem
02:50 Kršitve biološke varnosti in uhajanje iz laboratorijev
04:45 Ključni liki, ki stojijo za raziskavami Gain of Function
06:26 Predlog DARPA za financiranje DEFUSE
08:12 Kratka zgodovina raziskav CoV Gain of Function
10:05 Časovni potek zgodbe o izvoru SARS-CoV-2
11:25 Raziskave Gain of Function, ki jih financirajo ZDA iz davkov
*
Shi Zheng Li blog (znanstvenica iz Hong Konga):
https://shizhengli.net/?fbclid=IwAR3-hpsu3DBmNyl4Qy6n0IiWPs4mr8ORSf8TNxilYHLbgiwc3WgftpmYF2g
https://www.technocracy.news/chinese-defector-reveals-covid-origin/
*
Resnica o izvoru virusa SARS CoV-2 (video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWQ9PCm0uW8
*
Fauci / NIAID signed private and confidential vaccine agreement weeks before we even knew about the pandemic:
*
Vodja "komisije za izvor COVID-19", ugledne znanstvene revije The Lancet, je "prepričan", da je virus nastal v laboratoriju, in pravi, da se preprečuje resnična preiskava.
Profesor Jeffrey Sachs je za Current Affairs povedal, da je "povsem prepričan, da je virus SARS Cov-2 prišel iz ameriške laboratorijske biotehnologije", in opozoril, da bi lahko sedanje raziskave virusov privedle do novega izbruha pandemije.
https://www.technocracy.news/head-of-lancets-covid-19-origins-commission-blows-whistle/
*
*
Študija o izvoru SARS CoV-2
file:///C:/Users/Uporabnik/Downloads/SQuay_Bayesian%20Analysis%20of%20SARS-CoV-2%20FINAL%20V.2.pdf
*
Univerza Severna Karolina je novembra 2019, pred izbruhom Covid-19 pandemije, Moderni poslala cepivo za koronavirus:
*
*
*
*
Ameriški obveščevalci so izvedeli, da so trije delavci v laboratoriju na inštitutu za virologijo v Vuhanu novembra 2019 zboleli za simptomi, podobnimi covidu-19, in poiskali zdravniško pomoč, tako je v nedeljo poročal The Wall Street Journal. Iz tega razloga so se pojavili pozivi k ponovni oceni, ali se je covid-19 dejansko začel na omenjenem inštitutu, je poročal Insider.
*
Nacionalni inštitu za zdravje (NIH) je priznal,m da je financiral "gain of function študije" v Wuhanu in postavil dr. Faucija na laž: https://www.facebook.com/100073385141872/videos/959159788281204
*
*
Raziskava: SARS CoV-2 kot biološko orožje
https://www.scribd.com/document/479227984/The-2nd-Yan-Report?fbclid=IwAR2ZNWIeUTYGTszaYfwNjan6ThjBER7_BUC5wzzb2xCl1omRwXGKshhCY3c#fullscreen&from_embed
*
https://thetruthaboutvaccines.com/covid-19-origins-revealed/
*
72 strani o postopku izdelave virusa SARS CoV-1 in s tem povezani patenti
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qlVGAzl21iJMYB6IfGMc_B3Dl2rZclWbg_Fal8Dupj8/edit
*
Odvetnik dr. Rainer Fuellmich in Francis Boyle o SARS CoV-2 kot biološkem orožju
od 5.31.00- do 6.25.40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsBmCsuTj0k
*
https://drasticresearch.org/?fbclid=IwAR3qIRssJABjX8_QD1zSVsNmjG0DF_A-rNGsNq-YFA364xTQXjJE11qetqw
Vse o izvoru SARS CoV-2 iz Inštituta za virologijo v Wuhanu
*
Senator Paul Rand o "gain of function" raziskavah v Wuhanu in vlogi dr. Anthony Faucija
https://rumble.com/vk6guk-rand-paul-exposes-dr.-fauci-fauci-funded-the-controversial-wuhan-gain-of-fu.html?fbclid=IwAR0iMdngz6z-nI32YJyYy-OAAutLyqc6cU1atPBpwSsuNzAUWtVddvioqbs
*
Dr Martin David ICAN pri dr. Rainer Fuellmichu: koronavirus SARS CoV-2 in mRNA cepivo je biološko orožje
*
Priča o porijeklu korona virusa pretvara se polako u pravu sapunicu. Bilokakva nagađanja da je napravljen u laboratoriju, donedavno su proglašavana teorijama zavjere. Ali upravo ovih dana, tu teoriju počeli su zastupati američki zvaničnici, uključujući i zloglasnog dr. Faucija.
Ovo je zbilja zaokret za 180 stupnjeva. Pazite, do prije samo nekoliko dana, to se smatralo potpunom teorijom zavjere. Odličan primjere je ovaj članak iz Forbes magazina, objavljen 20. Maja 2021.
*
Kdo je patentiral koronavirus?
*
dr. Faucijev projektni direktor je priznal, da je naredil SARS CoV-2
https://banned.video/watch?id=609af3cbb493572075b0c04a
*
*
Član svetovalnega odbora WHO o izvoru SARS CoV-.2 iz laboratorija Wuhan: "Naključja so preveč velika". Najverjetneje gre za izvor virusa iz laboratorijskih incidentov," trdi strokovnjak za genetiko Jamie Metzl:
*
Fauci and the NIH caught funding China’s covid bioweapons research
Monday, May 10, 2021 by: Mike Adams
This was all covered by The Weekend Australian, which reviewed a 265-page document from the Chinese government that claimed a bioweapon attack, “could cause the enemy’s medical system to collapse.”
That same document revealed that biological weapons developed in China could be, “artificially manipulated into an emerging human disease virus, then weaponized and unleashed in a way never seen before.”
*
https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-05-16-nih-established-loophole-exploiting-moratorium-gain-of-function-coronavirus-research.html
*
Covid19 is NOT ONLY a bioweapon- they put HIV/AIDS in it AND its designed to KEEP REPLICATING into over 180+ variants to bypass the Vaccine.... AND mRNA and the spike proteins are designed to damage the body and destroy the autoimmune system.
The MORE MASS vaccinations that are done -
THE MORE that 'Viral Immune Escape' happens.
https://rumble.com/vqvhn1-we-knew-the-truth-would-come-out-but-this-is-worse.html
*
20.5. 2020
Nekatera dela so bila opravljena ob minimalnih standardih biološke varnosti. Poročilo Jonathan Matthews-a in Claire Robinson
Pojavili so se dokazi, da raziskovalci z Inštituta za virologijo Wuhan na Kitajskem, ki sodelujejo z znanstveniki v ZDA, že nekaj let gensko spreminjajo viruse netopirjev, da bi raziskali nalezljivost - z uporabo neprepoznavnih metod inženiringa. Inštitut za virologijo Wuhan je le nekaj milj od kitajskega mesta, od koder domnevno izvira pandemija COVID-19 in je glavni osumljenec možnega scenarija, da je virus izhajal iz laboratorija.
Dokazi zavračajo trditve novinarjev in nekaterih znanstvenikov, da virusa SARS-CoV-2, odgovornega za sedanjo pandemijo COVID-19, ne bi bilo mogoče gensko razviti, ker nima "znakov" ali "podpisov", ki naj bi jih pustile tehnike genskega inženiringa.
Tisti, ki te trditve navajajo, kot dokaz navajajo pismo, ki ga je v Nature Medicine marca 2020 objavil ameriški mikrobiolog Kristian Andersen in njegovi sodelavci. Članek navaja, da ni dokazov, da je bil virus SARS CoV-2 gensko manipuliran, in je zaključil, da se je virus pojavil z naravno mutacijo in selekcijo pri živalih in ljudeh gostiteljih. [1]
Tipičen medijski odziv na pismo Nature Medicine je bil članek, objavljen v časopisu The Scientist, v katerem je bilo navedeno, da "v genomu SARS-CoV-2 ni znakov genetske manipulacije". BBC je tudi poročal, da "študija genoma koronavirusa ni našla nobenih znakov, da bi bil virus narejen v laboratoriju".
Drugi strokovnjaki pa so poudarili, da obstajajo dobro znani načini manipulacije z genskim materialom virusa, ne da bi pustili kakršne koli take znake. Zdaj je dr. Richard Ebright, strokovnjak za nalezljive bolezni na univerzi Rutgers (ZDA), javnost opozoril na dokaze, da so raziskovalci iz Inštituta za virologijo v Wuhanu in iz ZDA, genetsko manipulirali viruse netopirjev, da bi preučili njihovo sposobnost okužbe ljudi, in sicer s splošno uporabljenimi metodami, ki ne puščajo nobenega znaka ali podpisa človeške manipulacije.
Dr. Richard Ebright je opozoril na znanstveni članek, ki so ga leta 2017 objavili znanstveniki Inštituta za virologijo v Wuhanu, vključno s Shi Zhengli, virologinjo, ki je vodila raziskave koronavirusov netopirjev, ki je sodelovala s Petrom Daszakom iz ameriške zveze EcoHealth Alliance. Financiranje teh raziskav je bilo razdeljeno med kitajskimi in ameriškimi institucijami, med katerimi je tudi ameriški Nacionalni zdravstveni inštitut in USAID.
Raziskovalci poročajo, da so izvedli poskuse z virusno infektivnostjo, kjer se genetski material kombinira iz različnih vrst koronavirusov, povezanih s SARS, da bi ustvaril nove "himerne" različice. To je bilo del njihovih raziskav o tem, katere mutacije so bile potrebne, da se nekateri koronavirusi netopirja privežejo na človeški receptor ACE2 - kar ključni korak pri človeški infektivnosti s SARS-CoV-2.
https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698
Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698
Znanstveniki iz Inštituta za virologijo v Wuhanu so to storili, poudarja dr. Richard Ebright, "z uporabo postopkov brezšivne ligacije, ki ne puščajo znakov (podpisov) človeške manipulacije". Na to je treba opozoriti, ker so Andersen in njegova ekipa izključili iz preiskave možnost, da je bil SARS-CoV-2 možna posledica genskega inženiringa - ki je bil v uporabi v samem laboratoriju v Wuhanu, ki je glavni osumljenec za pobeg koronavirusa. Skupina znanstvenikov z Univerze v Severni Karolini v ZDA in Shi Zhengli iz Inštituta za virologijo v Wuhanu, so leta 2015 objavili študijo, v kateri so opisali podobne poskuse, ki vključujejo himerne koronaviruse, ki so bili prav tako ustvarjeni s standardnimi neopaznimi tehnikami genskega inženiringa.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26552008
*
*
Raziskava iz leta 2015: SARS-u podobni koronavirusi netopirja imajo potencial za okužbo ljudi
A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.
Dr Michael Antoniou, londonski molekularni genetik, nam je povedal, da se te metode genskega inženiringa pogosto uporabljajo že desetletja in ne puščajo nikakršnega "podpisa". Ko je komentiral Andersena in njegovo ekipo, ki niso omenili teh metod v svojem članku v Nature Medicine, nam je dr. Michael Antoniou dejal: "To kaže, da sklepi teh avtorjev o tem, ali bi lahko bil genski inženiring vpleten, niso utemeljeni z razpoložljivimi dokazi."
Minimalni standardi biološke varnosti
Dr. Richard Ebright je opozoril tudi na nov dokument znanstvenikov iz Inštituta za virologijo v Wuhanu, ki vzbuja zaskrbljenost. V pravkar objavljenem dokumentu opisujejo raziskovanje sposobnosti beljakovin konic (spikes) iz netopirskih SARS virusov, da se vežejo na netopirjeve in človeške ACE2 receptorje - z drugimi besedami, kako lahko učinkovito okužijo ljudi. Dr. Richard Ebright poudarja, da dokument navaja: "Vsa dela z nalezljivim virusom so bila opravljena pod pogoji stopnje biološke varnosti 2". Ta raven je primerna za delo, ki vključuje samo povzročitelje z "zmernimi potencialnimi nevarnostmi za osebje in okolje".
Ta dokument je na strani: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.093658v1.full.pdf Evolutionary arms race between virus and host drives genetic 2 diversity in bat SARS related coronavirus spike genes
Najvišja raven biološke varnosti je stopnja 4 (BSL-4). To je namenjeno delu s snovmi, ki bi jih zlahka prenesli aerosoli v laboratoriju in pri ljudeh povzročili hude ali smrtne bolezni, za katere ni na voljo cepiv ali zdravil. Ker ima Inštitut za virologijo v Wuhanu laboratorij BSL-4, so mnogi domnevali, da je takšno delo na nalezljivih koronavirusih netopirjev, povezanih s SARS koronavirusom, ki je tesno povezan s SARS-CoV-2, potekalo na najvišji ravni biološke varnosti BSL-4. Jasno pa je, kot navajajo raziskovalci iz Inštituta za virologijo v Wuhanu, da to ni bilo tako. Vendar niso krivi, če za to delo ne uporabljajo BSL-4 standarda varnosti, saj se korovirusi SARS ne prenašajo kot aerosol.
Vendar pa delo s koronavirusi spada pod raven biološke varnosti 3, ki je namenjena delu z mikrobi, ki lahko z vdihavanjem povzročijo resne in potencialno smrtonosne bolezni. Zato se zdi neopravičljivo, da je bilo raziskovanje izvedeno le na razmeroma nizki ravni biološke varnosti 2 - ki, kot pravi dr. Richard Ebright, "zagotavlja le minimalno zaščito pred okužbo laboratorijskih delavcev".
Evolucijska možnost virusov da okužijo človeka
Bioznanstvenik dr. Jonathan Latham je kritiziral tovrstne raziskave na koronavirusih netopirjev, ki potekajo v Wuhanu in ZDA, kot "zagotavljanje evolucijske priložnosti", da bi takšni virusi "skočili v človeka". Latham, ki ima doktorat iz virologije, trdi, da je tovrstno delo preprosto "zagotavljanje priložnosti za onesnaženje in uhajanje iz laboratorijev, ki se dogajajo rutinsko". Glede na to, da so laboratorijske nesreče pogoste, tudi na Kitajskem, kjer je virus SARS večkrat pobegnil iz visoko zadrževalnih prostorov, podrobnosti o raziskovalnih dejavnostih Inštituta za virologijo Wuhan in ameriških znanstvenikov znova poudarjajo potrebo po verodostojni neodvisni forenzični preiskavi izvora sedanje pandemije COVID-19. Potrebna je tudi širša preiskava celotne palete bioloških groženj, ki izhajajo iz različnih področij potencialno nevarnih, a slabo reguliranih raziskav biotehnologije.
Opomba 1:
V pismu Nature Medicine Christian Andersen in sodelavci dejansko niso iskali - in niso našli - "znaka" ali "podpisa" genskega inženiringa, podobnega vizit kartici, ki jo je pustil obiskovalec. To ni presenetljivo, saj so nedvomno vedeli, da bi bilo takšno iskanje brezpredmetno. Dejansko so rekli, da bi bil virus, če bi bil vključen v genski inženiring, drugačen od tega, kot je: zasnovan bi bil na bolj "idealen" način za nalezljivost ljudi, ki bi temeljil na napovedih njihovega računalniškega modeliranja. Kot trdijo strokovnjaki, se s to trditvijo pojavljajo velike težave. Programi za računalniško modeliranje so le tako dobri kot podatki, ki jih vnašajo v njih ljudje, zato ni utemeljeno domnevati, da program - ali ljudje, ki so ga zasnovali - ve, kako bi bil videti "idealen" virus v resničnem svetu.
V pismu je bilo tudi navedeno, da če bi nekdo poskušal virus narediti kot patogen, bi ga "najverjetneje" zgradil iz hrbtenice virusa, za katerega je znano, da je kužen za ljudi (upoštevajte, da "verjetno" pušča veliko prostora za alternativne metode konstruiranja virusa). Mogoče pa je, da če je bil izdelan iz hrbtenice, to ne bi bilo znano zunaj njihove raziskovalne skupine. To je mogoče, če je šlo za tajnost - na primer za biološko orožje / raziskave biološke zaščite ali razvoj komercialnih cepiv.
Vsem bi moralo biti že jasno, da je trditev, da SARS-CoV-2 koronavirus ni produkt genske manipulicije, nedokazana domneva, ki temelji na drugih nedokazanih predpostavkah, in ne predstavlja znanstvenega dokaza.
Po analogiji lahko enačimo preiskavo Andersena in sodelovacev o izvoru SARS-CoV-2 s policijsko preiskavo sumljive smrti, ki bi lahko bila posledica umora ali naravnega vzroka. Andersen in njegovi sodelavci so opazovali truplo in o vzroku smrti so pripravili računalniško modeliranje, kako naj bi izgledal morilec (v primeru, da je šlo za umor). Potem pa so odpustili glavnega osumljenca, ker se ne ujema s profilom modela in so sklepali, da je bila smrt posledica naravnih vzrokov. Tak postopek in sklep ne bi imel smisla, prav tako so nesmislene trdtive Christiana Andersena in kolegov, da ni šlo za gensko manipulacijo koronavirusa SARS CoV-2.
Vir: https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19403
* * *
Molekularni genetik prof. dr. Tomislav Terzin: SARS CoV-2 ima sekvence virusa Ebola in retrovirusa HIV. Narejen je umetno v več laboratorijih, ki so ga razvijali
https://www.facebook.com/stoplaznivimmedijem/videos/502177767475812
*
DOKAZ, DA JE KORONAVIRUS SARS-CoV-2 GENSKO MANIPULIRAN
* * *
Znanstvenik trdi, da je dokaz o "naravnem" izvoru koronavirusa SARS CoV-2 ponarejen. Poroča: Claire Robinson, dne 12.5. 2020
Anonimni znanstvenik [1] je objavil podroben članek, v katerem trdi, da je SARS-CoV-2, koronavirus, ki povzroča pandemijo COVID-19, genetsko inženiran v laboratoriju. Še več, avtor trdi, da je konkretni koronavirus netopirja, iz katerega naj bi bil naravno nastal SARS-CoV-2, virus RaTG13 - izmišljotina. Z drugimi besedami, avtor pravi, da je bil "naravni izvor" virusa narejen v obupnem poskusu, da bi odgovorni za laboratorij pobegnili od odgovornosti.
Po navedbah avtorja je izmišljotino nadaljevala Shi Zhengli, direktorica Inštituta za virologijo Wuhan na Kitajskem. Ta Inštitut je le nekaj kilometrov od trga morskih sadežev in divjadi v mestu Wuhan, ki je bil sprva okrivljen za izbruh epidemije. Zhengli so mediji poimenovali "ženska netopir" zaradi njene vloge pri zbiranju virusov netopirjev iz narave za njene sporne raziskave o "pridobitvi funkcije" virusov. (gain of function)
Raziskave o "pridobivanju funkcije" (gain of function) skušajo viruse narediti bolj virulentne ali bolj prenosljive - na primer, da se virusi lahko širijo po zraku ali da se bolje prilagodijo različnim gostiteljskim vrstam. Takšne raziskave niso nujno namenjene razvoju biološkega orožja, temveč naj bi pomagale razviti cepiva in terapevtska zdravila za virusne epidemije ter so temeljne raziskave obnašanja virusov. Toda nekateri znanstveniki že desetletja ostro kritizirajo, da tovrstne raziskave predstavljajo velika tveganja za javno zdravje v zameno za malo ali nič koristi. Dejansko avtor tega članka res nakazuje, da je bil SARS-CoV-2 razvit kot biološko orožje, čeprav ne predlaga, da bi bil namerno sproščen v okolje kot orožje. Novi članek z naslovom "RaTG13 - nesporni dokazi, da je Wuhanski koronavirus ustvaril človek", se je pojavil na spletnem dnevniku "Nerd has Power". Spletno mesto ne identificira avtorja, zato ga bomo imenovali "Nerd" in domnevali, da je moškega spola. Članek je delno tehničen, vendar se Nerd po svojih najboljših močeh trudi, da je laičnim bralcem razumljiv, tako da razloži vsak njegov korak in hkrati poda tudi definicije znanstvenih izrazov. Po naših izkušnjah mu to uspeva, čeprav bodo laiki morda morali večkrat natančno prebrati tehnične dele članka. https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/ratg13-is-fake.html
Novi članek prinaša trdne znanstvene dokaze o nastanku SARS-CoV-2. Nekateri znanstveniki so rekli, da je virus posledica naravne evolucije pri živalskih ali človeških gostiteljih. Toda drugi pravijo, da čeprav je naravni pojav mogoč, tudi ni mogoče izključiti bega iz laboratorija, bodisi naravnega virusa, pridobljenega iz narave za raziskave, ali celo gensko spremenjenega virusa. Kot poudarja Nerd, se vse publikacije, ki zagovarjajo naravni izvor za SARS-CoV-2, opirajo na en sam dokaz - zaporedje domnevnega koronavirusa netopirja z imenom RaTG13.
RaTG13 je videti kot "tesni bratranec" SARS-CoV-2 - oba sta 96% enaka v celotnem zaporedju virusnega genoma. Če je RaTG13 naravni virus, zelo verjetno izvira tudi SARS-CoV-2 iz narave in mora z RaTG13 deliti nedavnega skupnega prednika. Tisti, ki podpirajo naravni izvor SARS-CoV-2, trdijo, da je virus nastal z mutacijo RaTG13 pri živalskih in / ali človeških gostiteljih.
Vendar pa obstaja ena velika težava s teorijo naravnega izvora, pravi Nerd: Virus RaTG13 ni resničen. Ne obstaja kot "živi" vzorec virusa, ampak zgolj kot zaporedje črk v računalniku, ki je bilo šele januarja letos, po napadu COVID-19, naloženo v javno bazo podatkov. Nerd meni, da je bil izmišljen edini dokaz njegovega obstoja, njegovo genetsko zaporedje. In pravi, da je glavni osumljenec te izmišljotine znanstvenica Shi Zhengli iz Inštituta za virologijo v Wuhanu. Spodaj povzamemo tehnične argumente znanstvenika Nerda, da je bil SARS-CoV-2, kot so ga prvotno našli v kitajskem Wuhanu, genetsko narejen. Kljub temu bralce močno spodbujamo, da pogledajo njegov celotni članek, si ogledajo grafe, ki ponazarjajo njegovo trditev, in preverijo povezane vire.
Nerdove trditve mnogi dobro usposobljeni komentatorji jemljejo resno, tako na Twitterju kot v razdelku "komentarji" njegove prvotne objave. Tu je njegova posodobljena objava, ki upošteva komentarje in popravke, ki jih je prejel od bralcev. https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/ratg13-is-fake.html
1) Mnoge mutacije v naravni evoluciji so enojne DNA ali RNA nukleotidne substitucije; to je sprememba ene same bazne enote (nukleotida) v vrstnem redu osnovnih enot, ki predstavlja gensko gradivo organizma. (Opomba: Genetski material koronavirusov je RNA, ne DNK.) Te naključne enojne nukleotidne mutacije znotraj območja, ki kodira beljakovine, v genskem materialu organizma imajo lahko od enega od dveh rezultatov. Ali ne more vplivati na genetski zapis in s tem ne vpliva na vrstni red aminokislin v ustreznem proteinu - to je znano kot „sinonimna mutacija“; ali pa je posamezna nukleotidna sprememba, ki lahko spremeni gensko kodo, kar vodi v spremembo aminokislinskega zaporedja proteina, za katerega se kodira, pri čemer daje beljakovinam nove lastnosti - to je znano kot "nesinonimična mutacija".
2) Obstajajo stroga pravila, ki urejajo naravno evolucijo s pomočjo naključnih mutacij enega nukleotida. Zlasti razmerje med številom sinonimnih mutacij in nesinonimnih mutacij mora znašati približno 5: 1; to pomeni, da skozi ta postopek nastane 5-krat več sinonimnih mutacij kot nesinonimnih. Z drugimi besedami, sprememba aminokislin bi morala potekati z vsako 6. nukleotidno mutacijo.
3) Če upoštevamo naravne stopnje in vzorce mutacijskih sprememb med dvema navideznima avtohtonima koronavirusoma netopirjev, ki jih je ugotovil laboratorij na Kitajskem, ki ima vojaško ozadje, ZC45 in ZXC21, je vse tako, kot je predvideno, v skladu s tem, kar vemo o virusih, ki se razvijajo v naravi. Spremembe so skladne s pričakovanji, ko se dve liniji tesno navezujeta ena na drugo in razlike v njunih zaporedjih so rezultat naključnih mutacij. Razmerje med številom sinonimnih mutacij in ne-sinonimnih mutacij je približno 5: 1.
4) Toda primerjava med SARS-CoV-2 in njegovim domnevnim tesnim sorodnikom RaTG13 kaže vzorec, ki je v celoti neskladen z naravno evolucijo z enojno nukleotidno substitucijo. Razmerje med sinonimnimi in nesinonimnimi mutacijami je 44: 1 - močno različno od razmerja 5: 1, ki se pričakuje od naravne evolucije.
5) Če primerjamo SARS-CoV-2 in RaTG13, ima celoten spekter zaporedja RNA in aminokislin zelo veliko podobnost v vsakem genomskem območju, razen v S2 (Spike 2) polovici beljakovine konice - ki je zelo različno zaporedje. Področje beljakovin S2 spike ne sledi evolucijsko predvideni in opaženi pogostosti hitrosti sinonimnih in nesinonimnih mutacij za koronaviruse. Čeprav obstaja 90 nukleotidnih razlik, obstajata le dve substituciji aminokislin, ne pa 15, kar bi lahko pričakovali. Tako je v primerjavi s tistimi, ki bi se morale zgoditi naravno, veliko manj substitucij aminokislin.
6) Trdna ugotovitev zgornjih točk je, da med SARS-CoV-2 in RaTG13 virusom vsaj en izmed njiju ni naraven. Če je en od teh virusov naraven, potem drugi ni. Možno je tudi, da nobeden od teh dveh virusov ni rezultat naravne evolucije.
7) Del virusa, ki določa, kako učinkovit je pri okužbi ljudi, je domena, ki se veže na receptorje (RBD), ki se nahaja v območju S1 proteina, ki se nahaja na površini virusa. RBD določa, ali se ta virus lahko veže na receptor ACE2 na površini človeških celic in s tem okuži človeka. To je "poslovni del" virusa. Če ni skladen z receptorjem celice, ne bo okužil ljudi.
8) Če je virus RaTG13 izmišljen, kakšni so resnični virusi netopirjev, ki so najbolj povezani z virusom Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 in so torej lahko njegovi "starši"? S primerjavo aminokislinskih in nukleotidnih zaporedij, Nerd identificira dva koronavirusa netopirja, o katerih poročajo v znanstveni literaturi, to sta virusa ZC45 in ZXC21, kot najbližja SARS Cov-2. ZC45 in ZXC21 sta si tudi med seboj izjemno podobna, z 97-odstotno identiteto zaporedja.
9) Primerjava aminokislinskih sekvenc virusa Wuhan SARS-CoV-2, kot je bila prvotno opisana, in virusov ZC45 in ZXC21 kaže izjemno identiteto v vseh ključnih regijah, razen v enem. V večini virusa je 95% identično zaporedje aminokislin, vendar obstaja eno ključno območje, kjer se geni presenetljivo razlikujejo, in je le 69% enakosti. To je S1 območje beljakovine v konicah, ki skriva RBD. Glede na zelo visoko identiteto v vseh drugih regijah virusa SARS-CoV-2 v primerjavi z ZC45 in ZXC21 je zelo malo verjetno, da bi tako velika razlika samo v S1 delu spike proteina SARS-CoV-2 nastala v naravi v časovnem obdobju, v katerem naj bi ti virusi sobivali v naravi. (op. prev.: domneva je, da vrh spike proteina S1 kodirajo štirje geni retrovirusa HIV, kar je bilo narejeno z genskim inženiringom, tako da je korona virus SARS CoV-2 lahko postal patogen za ljudi. Brez teh 4 genov, ki kodirajo vrh spike proteina S1, koronavirus SARS CoV-2 ne bi mogel okužiti ljudi)
10) Drugi presenetljiv rezultat primerjave med koronavirusi SARS-CoV-2 in ZC45 / ZXC21 se nanaša na drugo komponento - protein E. Protein E je strukturni protein koronavirusov, ki lahko prenaša veliko število mutacij brez negativnega vpliva na delovanje beljakovine. To poudarja dejstvo, da so bile že po samo dveh mesecih po izbruhu pandemije COVID-19 ugotovljene mutacije v E proteinu koronavirusa SARS-CoV-2. Če pa primerjamo originalni virus SARS-CoV-2 z virusi netopirjev ZC45 / ZXC21, imajo 100-odstotno enako zaporedje aminokislin E proteina. Glede na visoko stopnjo mutacije, opaženo pri SARS-CoV-2 (in na splošno koronavirusih), in glede na dejstvo, da se mutacije lahko pojavijo kjerkoli v virusnem genomu, tudi v območju proteina E, nima biološkega smisla, da bi originalni koronavirus SARS -CoV-2 imel 100% enako zaporedje aminokislin E proteina, kot virusa netopirjev ZC45 / ZXC21.
11) Obe zgornji osnovni biološki opazovanji močno kažeta, da je edini način, da je SARS-CoV-2 v območju S1 beljakovine (konice, ki je ključnega pomena za človeško infektivnost) tako različen, vendar enak v precej manj pomembni komponenti, kot je E protein, s pomočjo namerne zasnove (genetske manipulacije v laboratoriju) in ne z naravnimi mutacijami in selekcijo pri živalskih in človeških gostiteljih.
12) Zgornji podatki močno kažejo na to, da je koronavirus SARS-CoV-2 zgrajen na podlagi enega ali obeh virusov netopirja, ZC45 in ZXC21, ne pa na domnevnem koronavirusu RaTG13.
NAMEN MANIPULACIJ- komentar organizacije GM Watch
Na podlagi zgornjih informacij, v interpretaciji GMWatch, je namen teh genetskih manipulacij ugotoviti, katere spremembe aminokislin so potrebne v RBD virusov netopirjev, da bi pridobili nalezljivost /okužbo v človeških celicah. Ne delimo sklepa Nerda, da je bil prvotni koronavirus SARS-CoV-2 nujno razvit kot biološko orožje, čeprav ni nobenega dokaza, da ni bil. Enako verjetno je, da je bil razvit za namene študija in / ali za pomoč pri razvoju terapij ali cepiv za sedanje ali prihodnje pandemije koronavirusa.
Vloga znanstvenice Shi Zhengli
Obstaja tudi vprašanje vpletenosti znanstvenice Shi Zhengli. Nerd postavlja vrsto vprašanj, ki morajo prebuditi sum v vsakomur, ki je seznanjen z ambicijo, ki je značilna za znanstveno raziskovanje virusov v "gain-of-function" študijah. Nerd sprašuje: Če je bil RaTG13 najbolj naraven koronavirus netopirjev, odkrit v naravi leta 2013, kot trdi Shi Zhengli, glede na njegovo "zvezdniško kakovost" glede velikega potenciala za okužbo ljudi, zakaj ni Shi pohitela z objavo genskega zaporedja virusa v prestižni reviji že leta 2013? Navsezadnje je to storila že prej z drugimi koronavirusi netopirjev, Rs3367 in SHC014, ki imajo veliko podobnost zaporedja z virusom SARS. Zakaj je Shi Zhengli čakala do januarja 2020, ko se je začel javni prepir o možnem laboratorijskem izvoru SARS-CoV-2, preden je objavila gensko zaporedje, domnevno odkrito leta 2013? [2] Posledica trditev Nerda je, da se je s špekulacijami o možnem laboratorijskem izvoru SARS-CoV-2 in Inštitutu za virologiju v Wuhanu kot glavnemu osumljencu, Shi Zhengli posrečilo, da bi prišla do nekakšnih "dokazov", ki bi pokazali, da ima koronavirus SARS CoV-2 naravni izvor in da ni povezan z njenim laboratorijem. Ti „dokazi“ so izmišljeno gensko zaporedje RaTG13 za virus, ki ne obstaja v fizični obliki.
Zakaj leto 2013?
Če sprejmemo sklep Nerda, da je gensko zaporedje RaTG13 izmišljeno, zakaj bi Shi Zhengli in njeni sodelavci trdili, da je bilo odkrito že leta 2013, [3] in ne kasneje? Nerd se ne ukvarja s tem vprašanjem, toda GMWatch verjame, da sta dva možna razloga:
1) Da se izognemo nerodnim vprašanjem, zakaj ni na voljo vzorca v živo iz domnevnega RaTG13, ki bi nam omogočil potrditev njegovega resničnega obstoja - navsezadnje je leto 2013 že zdavnaj minilo.
2) Dati dovolj časa, da domnevni koronavirus RaTG13 naravno naravno mutira in se pojavi kot SARS-CoV-2, s čimer podpira hipotezo "naravnega izvora" koronavirusa pri epidemiji COVID-19.
GMWatch sledi Nerdu pri iskanju zamude Shi Zhengli pri objavljanju genskega zaporedja RaTG13, kar je zelo zanimivo, in razumemo, zakaj Nerd meni, da je to zelo sumljivo. Po našem mnenju bi bilo takšno delo, ko je enkrat objavljeno, splošno priznano kot neizmerno koristno za javno zdravje in bi lahko bilo vredno Nobelove nagrade. Če je koronavirus RaTG13 resničen, ne bi bilo verjetno, da znanstvenica Shi Zhengli o njem ne bi poročala kar sedem let. Kot vam lahko pove vsak znanstvenik, jih je gnala želja, da bodo prvi napovedali novo odkritje in tako dobili prepoznavnost in slavo, ki jo takšno odkritje virusa prinaša - razen seveda, če je bila tajnost naložena, ker je bil načrt za uporabo domnevnega koronavirusa RaTG13 morda skriven razvoj biološkega orožja. V vsakem primeru je Shi Zhengli odgovorna, če je koronavirus RaTG13 resničen ali če je izmišljen.
Če korona virus RaTG13 resnično obstaja, se zdi dejstvo, da Shi Zhengli ni takoj sporočila tega odkritja kot dejanje skrajne malomarnosti, ki je nepremišljeno ogrožalo javno zdravje. V skladu z ustreznim znanstvenim ravnanjem v javnem interesu bi Shi Zhengli morala moralno nemudoma objaviti svoje odkritje koronavirusa RaTG13 in tako svetovne zdravstvene organe opozoriti na možnost, da bi ta virus netopirja potreboval razmeroma malo mutacij, potrebnih za pretvorbo v človeškega patogena, kar bi vodilo v novo pandemijo SARS.
Če je koronavirus RaTG13 izmišljen, bi Shi Zhengli bila kriva za znanstvene goljufije, očitno prikrivanje dejanja malomarnosti, v obliki gradnje laboratorija in naključnega sproščanja koronavirusa SARS-CoV-2 v okolje. Po našem mnenju zgoraj predstavljeni dokazi kažejo, da je nujno potrebna verodostojna in neodvisna mednarodna preiskava o izvoru SARS-CoV-2 in o vlogi Shi Zhengli, kitajske vlade in ameriških organov, ki so pomagali pri financiranju raziskave virusa na Inštitutu za virologijo v Wuhanu, vključno z Nacionalnimi inštituti za zdravje in zvezo EcoHealth Alliance.
Vir: https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19396
Opombe
Tudi priznani znanstveniki na področju virologije, dr. Marco Ruggiero, dr. Judy Mikovits in Nobelov nagrajenec virolog Luc Montaigner menijo, da je koronavirus SARS Cov-2 narejen v laboratoriju in ni rezultat naravnih mutacij.
Več o tem:
https://publishwall.si/narava.zdravi/post/544616/dr-judy-mikovits-cepiva-so-vir-epidemije-covid-19
https://publishwall.si/narava.zdravi/post/543339/ameriski-obvescevalci-so-zaceli-preiskavo-instituta-za-virologijo-v-wuhanu
https://publishwall.si/narava.zdravi/post/543107/covid-19-zda-je-dala-37-milijona-usd-laboratoriju-v-wuhanu
https://www.hop.com.hr/2020/10/18/ekskluzivni-intervju-dr-sc-srecko-sladoljev-kako-bi-koronavirus-napravili-ucinkovitijim-laboratorijski-su-ga-naoruzali-proteinom-da-dodatno-blokira-plucne-f/?fbclid=IwAR0x1JCL6wSy2PwjaXkIk62eDJBNkADhfWYeBiqqe5I_z9uM3WF1JhqoxNw
*
Dr Srečko Sladoljev: https://informativno2020.wixsite.com/koronavirus?fbclid=IwAR2aBQzTfcaCUsiPlr1YD01SRzlfOukliG_5ZUhywotS6TM3O2P1QAcEp00
* * *
After Dr. Anthony Fauci was caught lying about NIH involvement in coronavirus gain-of-function research, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) revealed a government document called the “Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens.”
The 2017 HHS document reveals the US government is involved in funding and overseeing research to “create, transfer, or use” pandemic pathogens.
*
Avstralski raziskovalci vidijo manipulacijo koronavirusa
Bill Gertz, 21.5. 2020 The Washington Times
Prihajajoča avstralska znanstvena študija ugotavlja, da koronavirus SARS CoV-2, ki povzroča globalno pandemijo COVID-19, vsebuje edinstvene lastnosti, ki nakazujejo, da je bil manipuliran v kitajskem laboratoriju in da ni bil naravni pojav. Pet znanstvenikov, ki so izvedli raziskavo, je odkrilo nenavadno sposobnost virusa SARS-CoV-2, da zlahka okuži ljudi. Znanstveniki so povedali, da zaenkrat ni znakov, da bi virus lahko našli tudi pri drugih živalih, vključno z netopirji ali eksotičnimi divjimi živalmi, ki se prodajajo za sveže meso na tržnici v kitajskem mestu Wuhan, kjer je bil virus prvič identificiran in kjer Kitajska vzdržuje glavni laboratorij, ki preučuje tovrstne viruse.
Predhodno poročilo študije, ki je trenutno strokovno pregleduje, temelji na računalniškem modeliranju sposobnosti virusa, da okuži različne živali, vključno s človekom. Objavljeno je bilo 13. maja 2020 na spletni strani univerze Cornell arXiv.org, ki se uporablja za razpravo o prispevkih predno se objavijo. Nikolaj Petrovsky, vodilni raziskovalec, je dejal, da njegova ekipa sumi na človeško manipulacijo v Wuhanu, zaradi neprimerljive sposobnosti virusne štrleče konice (S proteina), da okuži človeške celice.
Moč vezanja virusa SARS CoV-2 za človeške celice "daleč presega" podobne lastnosti za okužbo drugih živali, je dejal v izjavi za prihodnje poročilo. "To, plus dejstvo, da v naravi ni bilo ugotovljenega ustreznega virusa, vodi do možnosti, da je COVID-19 virus, ki ga je ustvaril človek," je dejal prof. Nikolaj Petrovsky, profesor na Visoki šoli za medicino in javno zdravje na Univerzi Flinders v Adelaideu v Avstraliji.
"Zato je povsem verjetno, da je bil virus ustvarjen v Inštitutu za virologijo v Wuhanu s selekcijo na celicah, ki izražajo človeški ACE2. V laboratoriju, za katerega je bilo znano, da je takrat gojil eksotične koronaviruse netopirja."
Človeške pljučne celice vsebujejo ACE2 receptorje, za katere se je izkazalo, da so ključne tarče SARS-CoV-2. Prof. Nikolaj
Prof. Nikolaj Petrovsky je dejal, da raziskovalna skupina meni, da je hiter razvoj koronavirusa in njegova edinstvena sposobnost okužbe ljudi bodisi "izjemno naključje ali znak človeške intervencije." Tiskovna predstavnica kitajskega ministrstva za zunanje zadeve Hua Chunying je ta mesec znova zanikala, da je bil vir izbruha Wuhan Inštitut za virusologijo, ki preučuje patogene. Vodja laboratorija Wuhan je tudi po pregledu prepričana, da njen laboratorij ni igral nobene vloge pri širjenju virusa.
Drugi uradnik kitajskega zunanjega ministrstva Zhao Lijian je predlagal idejo, da je ameriška vojska virus pripeljala na Kitajsko med vojaškimi igrami v Wuhanu. Predsednik Trump in drugi najvišji uradniki so to obtožbo jezno zanikali. Avstralska študija nasprotuje trditvam drugih znanstvenikov, da ni dokazov, da je virus izviral iz kitajskega laboratorija ali da je rezultat laboratorijske bioinženiringa.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, direktor Nacionalnega inštituta za alergije in nalezljive bolezni (ki je financiral z več kot 7 Milijoni USD raziskave na netopirjih v Wuhanu) in ključni svetovalec g. Trumpa glede pandemije, je zavrnil kakršne koli predloge, da bi virus prišel iz kitajskega laboratorija. "Če pogledate na razvoj virusa pri netopirjih in na znanstvene dokaze, ne bi bilo mogoče umetno ali namerno manipulirati," je ta mesec dejal (op. prev.: zavajal) za National Geographic. "Vse o postopni evoluciji skozi čas močno kaže, da se je ta virus razvil v naravi in nato skočil na človeka."
Prihodnja avstralska študija pa zaključuje, da je energija vezave virusa "spike" proteina - kronskih izrastkov, ki obkrožajo površino okroglega mikroba - najvišja za človeka in večja od vseh drugih preizkušenih vrst, vključno s netopirji, ki so ciljno usmerjen kot verjetni izvorni vir koronavirusov. "To kaže, da je SARS-CoV-2 zelo prilagojen človeški patogen," so zapisali v avstralskem poročilu. Skupina je analizirala vezavo virusa na beljakovine na drugih živalskih vrstah, vključno s pangolini, cibetkami, mišmi, hrčki, mačkami, psi, kačami, konji, tigri in kravami.
"Na splošno podatki kažejo, da je SARS-CoV-2 edinstveno prilagojen za okužbo ljudi, pri čemer se postavljajo pomembna vprašanja o tem, ali se je v naravi pojavil zaradi redkega slučajnega dogodka ali pa bi bil lahko njegov izvor drugje," je zapisano v poročilu.
Jonathan J. Couey, docent za nevrobiologijo na Univerzi v Pittsburghu, je dejal, da se strinja z avstralskimi ugotovitvami. "Razumevanje natančnega izvora tega virusa je bistvenega pomena za to, da oblikovalci politike in zdravstveni delavci enako razlagajo vse znanstvene in medicinske podatke," je dejal dr. Couey. Vendar pa je dejal, da so razprave o laboratorijskem izvoru virusa zavirali znanstveniki, ki nasprotujejo in sploh ne razmišljajo o tej možnosti. Več znanstvenikom z očitnim navzkrižjem interesov je bilo dovoljeno, da zanikajo, da bi bilo mogoče narediti tak virus v laboratoriju, in izrecno navajajo, da zaporedja SARS-CoV-2 ne bi nikoli izbral noben strokovnjak za genski inženiring," je dejal dr. Jonathan J Couey.
Ta zanikanja niso na podlagi resničnih znanstvenih dejstev, temveč so posledica semantičnih psevdo zanikanj, ki jih formulirajo nekateri izmed tistih znanstvenikov, ki so najbolj vezani na financiranje teh raziskav o pridobivanju funkcije virusov (gain of function), za povečanje sposobnosti patogenov, da povzročajo bolezni.
Skupina indijskih znanstvenikov je 31. januarja objavila članek, v katerem so ugotovili, da novi koronavirus vsebuje štiri vstavke v beljakovino konice S, ki so edinstveni za SARS-CoV-2 in jih ne najdemo v drugih koronavirusih. Po njihovih lastnostih so podobne tistim, ki jih najdemo v retrovirusu, znanem kot HIV. Znanstveniki so zaključili, da podobne strukture "verjetno niso naključje". Dokument indijskih raziskovalcev je bil umaknjen pod pritiskom Kitajske, vendar so vpleteni znanstveniki odklonili zavrnitev svojih raziskav in obljubili, da bodo svoje ugotovitve na koncu objavili.
Prof. Nikolaj Petrovsky, ki je tudi direktor raziskav v biotehnološkem podjetju Vaxine Pty Ltd., ki ima sedež v Bedford Parku v Južni Avstraliji, je dejal, da vir virusa ostaja izjemno pomembno vprašanje.
Čeprav ima koronavirus, ki povzroča COVID-19 veliko podobnost s SARS in drugimi virusi netopirjev, v naravi ni bilo najdenega naravnega virusa, ki bi ustrezal SARS CoV-2 za COVID-19, kljub intenzivnemu iskanju njegovega izvora," je dejal. "To sproža zelo legitimno vprašanje, ali je virus COVID-19 lahko posledica človekovega posredovanja." Tako kot drugi znanstveniki, ki so preučevali virus, tudi avstralska skupina ni našla zlahka prepoznavnih umetnih genskih vložkov, ki bi pokazali delo virusnega inženiringa. Prof. Nikolaj Petrovsky je dejal, da obstajajo načini za manipulacijo z virusi brez takšnih vidnih vložkov. Na primer, laboratorijski tehniki bi lahko vzeli korovirus netopirja, ki ni kužen za ljudi, in pospešili njegovo evolucijo s kultiviranjem virusa s celicami, ki imajo človeški receptor. Ta postopek so že uporabili za gojenje koronavirusov SARS v laboratorijih.
Rezultat bi bil, da "so lahko prisilili viruse netopirja, da se prilagodijo in okužijo človeške celice z mutacijami v beljakovini," je dejal prof. Nikolaj Petrovsky. Laboratorijski razvoj virusov lahko ustvari tudi druge naključne mutacije. "Rezultat teh poskusov je virus, ki je pri ljudeh zelo virulenten, vendar je dovolj drugačen, da ne spominja več na prvotni virus netopirja," je dejal. Ker bi te mutacije pridobili naključno v laboratoriju, ne bi bilo podpisa bioinženiringa, "vendar je tak virus očitno še vedno ustvarjen s človekovim posredovanjem."
Kitajska vlada je sprva dejala, da se zdi, da virus izvira s trga morske hrane Huanan v Wuhanu, vendar je pozneje spremenila svojo uradno različico, da je izvor znan, ter da je potrebno, da znanstveniki preučujejo izvor virusa.
Peking je sprva nasprotoval mednarodnim pozivom k preiskavi, kako se je začel izbruh bolezni COVID-19, ta teden pa so Kitajci dejali, da bodo podprli neodvisno raziskavo Svetovne zdravstvene organizacije (op. prev.: ki je pod kitajskim vplivom) glede ravnanja z izbruhom bolezni. Kritiki trdijo, da je kitajska tajnost znanstvenikom preprečila spoznavanje koronavirusa SARS CoV-2. Vendar pa "narava tega dogodka in bližina visoko tveganega objekta za biološko varnost v epicentru izbruha v Wuhanu zahtevata popolno in neodvisno mednarodno preiskavo, da bi ugotovili, ali se v laboratoriju goji virus SARS CoV-2 in ali je bil morda slučajno izpuščen, "je dejal prof. Nikolaj Petrovsky.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/21/australian-researchers-see-virus-design-manipulati/
* * *
*
* * *
Prof.dr Luc Montaigner, virolog in dobitnik Nobelove nagrade
-
Vprašanje: To je virus, o katerem ne sme nihče preveč vedeti. Vi ste na televiziji rekli, da je bil ta virus malo dodelan s strani človeka.
To je virus, ki ga sedaj dobro poznamo in imamo vse možnosti za monekularno, gensko proučitev itd. Jaz sem bil in sem še virolog in dobro poznam viruse. Korona virus je virus srednje velikosti. Na Kitajskem se je povezal z raspiratornimi potmi in ljudje so se tam nanj navadili.
A ta virus je zelo specialen, ker je dobil neke dodatke drugega virusa, to je lahko bila kemična sinteza, to pričnemo spoznavati. A ustvarjalci tega virusa ne smejo o njem ničesar povedati, to naročilo so dobili od kitajske vlade. Mislim, da je to napačna odločitev Kitajcev, saj bolj ko nekaj skrivamo, bolj začnejo ljudje verjeti, da skrivajo nekaj slabega. Bilo bi bolje, če bi povedali, da je bil virus delno narejen in je pobegnil iz skrbno varovanega laboratorija. To je človeška napaka, ni pa direktne odgovornosti, cel svet je odgovoren.
Minute: 4,23
-
Vprašanje; Zakaj se ne pove, da je bil virus narejen. Zakaj se tega sporočila ne pove.
Zato, kar je po angleško »cover upp general« To pomeni, da so tudi znanstveniki plačani. Tudi ameriški, francoski, angleški, vsi govorijo, isto: da je virus nastal naravno. To je narobe in to vsi dobro vedo. Ravno tu je velika laž in moramo se vprašati, zakaj, kje so razlogi. To je denar. Plačani so za to, da povedo, kar povedo. Če tega ne rečejo, bodo morda izgubili svojo pozicijo. Torej tu je strah: Če povedo resnico, izgubijo svojo karijero. To je izredno slabo za znanost. Mislim, da je tudi pritisk medijev, sedaj je to en kompliciran sistem, ki se ga lahko prikaže. Je dosti znanstvene resnice, ki se jo skriva, ker kitajska vlada ne prizna te resnice in dela vse, da bi skrila in uničila dokaze. Pravo resico bomo izvedeli le, če bi kitajska ekipa to priznala. To se bo verjetno zgodilo, a potrebno bo še dosti časa. Med tem časom se bo pa še naprej verjelo nekaj, kar ne obstaja.
Vir: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9VDarILtWc&feature=emb_logo
* * *
Znanstvene indikacije, ki kažejo da je SARS CoV-2 rezultat človeškega delaeils
22 May 2020
Genska zaporedja koronavirusa COVID-19, pangolina in koronavirusa netopirjev RaTG13:
COVID-19
N S N N L D S K V G G N Y N Y L Y R L F R K S N L K P F E R D I S T E I Y Q A G S T P C
N G V E G F N C Y F P L Q S Y G F Q P T N G V G Y Q P Y
Pangolin
N S N N L D S K V G G N Y N Y L Y R L F R K S N L K P F E R D I S T E I Y Q A G S T P C
N G V E G F N C Y F P L Q S Y G F H P T N G V G Y Q P Y
RaTG13
N S K H I D A K E G G N F N Y L Y R L F R K A N L K P F E R D I S T E I Y Q A G S K P C
N G Q T G L N C Y Y P L Y R Y G F Y P T D G V G H Q P Y
Na viroloških blogih se zdaj razpravlja o dodatnih informacijah, ki nakazujejo, da COVID-19 v naravi ne obstaja, ker je njegovo različno razmerje med sinonimnimi in ne-sinonimnimi mutacijami genov zelo drugačno v primerjavi s tistimi, ki se v naravi pojavljajo med populacijo virusov netopirjev, pa tudi med naravnimi dejavniki, ki bi vplivali na prisotnost furinskega polibazičnega mesta cepitve.
* * *
Kitajski in ameriški znanstveniki so pred leti v nevarnih raziskavah o pridobitvi funkcije gensko inženirali koronaviruse netopirjev
Avtor: GM Watch Claire Robinson, 26.5. 2020
Kitajski in ameriški znanstveniki že leta sodelujejo v nevarnih poskusih za povečanje funkcije (gain of function), ki vključujejo genski inženiring koronavirusov iz netopirjev in drugih živali, kot je razkrila vrsta znanstvenih publikacij. Koronavirusi so povezani z virusi SARS, ki pri ljudeh povzročajo hude bolezni dihal. Znanstveniki so imeli sedež na Inštitutu za virologijo v Wuhanu na Kitajskem, laboratoriju, ki ga nekateri sumijo, da je nenamerno sprostil virus SARS-CoV-2, ki je povzročil pandemijo COVID-19, in na Univerzi v Severni Karolini v ZDA. Toda nenavadno je, da je bila ta dolga in odmevna raziskovalna zgodovina v celoti izpuščena iz znanstvenega prispevka, objavljenega v reviji Nature februarja letos, v katerem so Shi Zhengli in njena ekipa iz Inštituta za virologijo v Wuhanu trdili, da so ugotovili naravni izvor SARS-CoV- 2. Po mnenju znanstvenikov iz Wuhana je bil to virus netopirja RaTG13, za katerega se je domnevalo, da je skočil z živali na človeka na trgu morskih sadežev in divjadi v Wuhanu ("zoonotska" teorija - to je, da virus živali prehaja na človeka). Zakaj opustitev? Da bi razumeli možni razlog, moramo najprej razumeti naravo raziskovalnega dela, ki so ga opravili znanstveniki iz Inštituta za virologijo v Wuhanu in njihovi ameriški sodelavci.
Namen teh študij je bil raziskati potencial koronavirusov netopirjev, da okužijo ljudi, izboljšati sposobnost znanstvenikov za napovedovanje pandemije in razvoj cepiv ali drugih načinov zdravljenja.
Vendar pa so to tudi raziskave o pridobitvi funkcije (gain of function), katere cilj je, da virusi postanejo bolj nalezljivi ali prenosljivi. Zaradi takšnih raziskav so znanstveniki že več let podvrženi vse večjim kritikam, zaradi velikih tveganj za malo koristi. Ta strah izhaja iz izredno tveganega eksperimenta za pridobitev funkcije, ki so ga izvedli v ZDA in o katerem so leta 2015 poročali ameriški znanstveniki iz Univerze Severne Karoline v sodelovanju s kitajskimi znanstveniki iz Inštituta za virologijo v Wuhanu, vključno s Shi Zhengli, ki so ji na Kitajskem rekli "ženska netopir" zaradi dela s koronavirusi netopirjev.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26552008 Raziskava iz leta 2015: SARS-u podobni koronavirusi netopirja imajo potencial za okužbo ljudi
Raziskavo so financirali:
* Nacionalni inštitut za alergije in nalezljive bolezni (NIAID) Nacionalnega inštituta za zdravje v ZDA (NIH). Direktor NIAID je dr. Anthony Fauci, ki trenutno vodi ameriški odziv na pandemijo COVID-19. Denar NIH je bil usmerjen prek Zavezništva za ekološko zdravje ZDA (Eco-Health Alliance), ki ga je vodil dr. Peter Daszak;
* Ameriška agencija za mednarodni razvoj -US Agency for International Development (USAID)
* Kitajske institucije.
V objavljenem prispevku, ki poroča o tem tveganem eksperimentu, znanstveniki navajajo, da so svoje delo začeli pred ameriškim začasnim moratorijem na študije o pridobitvi funkcije virusa leta 2014, ki je bil posledica več odmevnih neuspehov pri biološki varnosti v ameriških laboratorijih. Toda kljub moratoriju, kot je navedeno v prispevku, je Nacionalni inštitut za zdravje (NIH) dal dovoljenje za nadaljevanje študije. Dr . Anthony Fauci iz NIAID je raziskavo oddal zunanjim sodelavcem izven ZDA - to je kitajskemu Inštitutu za virologijo v Wuhanu.
Alarmantna ugotovitev
V eksperimentu leta 2015 so znanstveniki vzeli mišji koronavirus in zamenjali njegovo beljakovinsko konico - del na površini virusa, ki določa infektivnost - z eno iz korovirusa netopirja, ki je bil podoben virusu, ki povzroča človeško epidemijo bolezni SARS. Ohranili so osnovno strukturo (hrbtenico) mišjega virusa, njegovo osnovno RNA in molekularno strukturo proteinov. Koronavirus netopirja v svojem naravnem stanju ni mogel okužiti ljudi, saj je njegova beljakovinska konica (spike) neprimerna - ni se mogla vezati na ACE2 receptor v membrani človeških celic. Infektivnost naj bi bila mogoča ravno zaradi beljakovine konice S.
Ta, z genskim inženiringom ustvarjeni himerni virus, se je nepričakovano izkazal za zelo nalezljivega za človeka. Dejansko je bila njegova infektivnost, testirana na celicah človeških dihalnih poti, primerljiva s človeškim virusom SARS-CoV Urbani.
Znanstveniki so bili zaradi te ugotovitve očitno presenečeni in razburjeni. Kot navajajo, "na podlagi prejšnjih modelov nastanka", ni bilo pričakovano ustvarjanje takšnega himernega virusa, ki bi imel povečano patogenost. Ugotovili so, da narava samih beljakovin v konicah ni dovolj za določitev infektivnosti - pomembna je tudi struktura (hrbtenica) drugih sestavin beljakovin. Nato so raziskovalci poskušali - vendar niso uspeli - razviti zdravljenje s cepivom ali protitelesi. Protitelesa niso mogla blokirati domene, ki veže receptorje (RBD - del spike proteina, ki se veže na človeški receptor ACE2, kar ima za posledico okužbo) himernega virusa netopirja. Raziskovalci so zaključili svojo objavo leta 2015 zelo previdno in vprašanje je ostalo v zraku. Pisali so, da njihove ugotovitve "predstavljajo stičišče raziskav, ki jih imajo raziskave za pridobitev funkcije (gain of function); da je potencial za pripravo in ublažitev prihodnjih izbruhov treba pretehtati s tveganjem za nastanek nevarnejših patogenov. Pri razvoju politik je pomembno upoštevati vrednost podatkov, pridobljenih s temi raziskavami, in ali te vrste študij himernih virusov zahtevajo nadaljnjo preiskavo glede na z njimi povezana tveganja." Skratka, raziskave, za katere nekateri trdijo, da so potrebne za razvoj cepiv in drugih posegov, tvegajo nastanek pandemije.
Vodnik za izdelavo biološkega orožja
Čeprav pri izvajanju takšnih raziskav obstajajo resna tveganja, obstajajo tudi tveganja, povezana z njihovo objavo. V tem primeru so raziskovalci pregledali aminokislinsko zaporedje beljakovinske konice S virusa netopirja in identificirali zaporedja, ki so potrebna za nalezljivost ljudi - ter objavili podatke o tem. Londonski molekularni genetik dr. Michael Antoniou je komentiral: "Informacije o zaporedjih aminokislin v tem prispevku so ključne za oblikovanje virusa, ki je kužen za ljudi. Vsakdo, ki ima dostop do standardnega laboratorija, bi lahko uporabil informacije za oceno zaporedja aminokislin, potrebnega za inženiring RBD, ki bi zelo verjetno okužil človeške celice. " Z drugimi besedami, raziskovalci so leta 2015 pripravili vodnik za izdelavo biološkega orožja. Dr Michael Antoniou je pojasnil, kako njihovi podatki naredijo hitrejši in učinkovitejši postopek, ki bi sicer bil zelo naporen postopek. Če začnete postopek brez informacij, lahko z genskim inženiringom ustvarite virus, ki bo okužil ljudi, kot na primer SARS coV-2, z uporabo "usmerjenega iterativnega evolucijskega selekcijskega postopka". To bi vključevalo uporabo genskega inženiringa v postopku mutageneze za ustvarjanje velikega števila naključno mutiranih različic RBD spike proteina SARS-CoV, ki bi bil nato izbran za močno vezavo na človeški receptor ACE2 in posledično visoko infektivnost človeških celic.
Vendar pa z uporabo podatrkov, ki so jih leta 2015 objavili raziskovalci Univerze Severna Karolina in Inštituta za virologijo Wuhan, "ni treba slepo uporabljati skupne mutageneze aminokislinskega zaporedja RBD. Ni vam treba začeti iz črnega polja neznank. Že imate vpogled v to, katero aminokislinsko zaporedje je potrebno za nalezljivost ljudi, tako da vas bo vodilo, kako genetsko inženiriti virus", je povedal dr. Michael Antoniou.
Pri tem se postavlja etično vprašanje, ali je raziskava o pridobitvi funkcije kdaj vredna tveganja, ki ga nosi. Dr. Michael Antoniou verjame, da ni: "Raziskave te vrste niso potrebne za določitev novih ciljev za terapevtsko posredovanje. Za to zadostuje preiskava osnovnih mehanizmov, kako poteka in napreduje okužba z virusi. Zato je treba prepovedati raziskave o pridobitvi funkcije (gain of function) z znanimi nevarnimi patogeni, kot so koronavirusi. " Več raziskav o pridobitvi funkcije (gain of function) virusov
Kljub nevarnostim, ki so bile izpostavljene v dokumentu 2015, in po začasnem moratoriju ZDA na raziskave o pridobivanju funkcije virusov, so se raziskave s koronavirusi netopirjev nadaljevale - tokrat na Kitajskem. Leta 2017 so znanstveniki Inštituta za virologijo v Wuhanu, vključno s Shi Zhengli, objavili študijo s finančnimi sredstvi kitajskih in ameriških institucij, kot sta ameriški Nacionalni inštitut za zdravje (NIH) in ameriška Agencija za mednarodni razvoj (USAID).
Raziskovalci poročajo o ugotovitvah eksperimentov z virusno infektivnostjo, kjer so genetski material kombinirali iz različnih korovirusov, povezanih s SARS, da bi tvorili nove himerne različice. Skušali so ugotoviti, katere mutacije so potrebne, da bi se nekateri koronavirusi netopirja lahko vezali na človeški receptor ACE2. Ugotovili so, da sta se dva človeška himerna virusa „učinkovito“ razmnožila v človeških celicah. Posledice bega takšnih virusov so lahko resne.
Potem so šele ta mesec znanstveniki iz Inštituta za virlogijo v Wuhanu, pod vodstvom Shi Zhengli, objavili poročilo pred tiskom, v katerem so med drugimi koronavirusi, ki se nanašajo na netopirja in človeka, raziskovali sposobnost beljakovin konic S koronavirusa SARSr-CoV, da se vežejo na netopirjeve in človekove ACE2 receptorje. Z drugimi besedami, preučili so, kako učinkovito ti koronavirusi okužijo človeka in kako je mogoče izboljšati infektivnost ljudi. Skrivnost manjkajoče raziskave
Zgoraj opisani trije dokumenti kažejo, da so kitajski in ameriški znanstveniki v obdobju nekaj let uporabljali tehnike genskega inženiringa za eksperimente za pridobivanje funkcije koronavirusov, kar je povzročilo nastajanje virusov, ki so bili bolje prilagojeni okužbi ljudi.
Glede na to je februarja letos Shi Zhengli objavila svoj pomemben prispevek v reviji Nature, potem ko se je pandemija COVID-19 razširila po vsem svetu. V tem prispevku sta Shi in njeni soavtorji trdili, da so identificirali najbližjega sorodnika SARS-CoV-2 in njegovemu "verjetnemu" izvoru, naravni koronavirus netopirja, ki so ga poimenovali RaTG13. V prispevku je poudarjena zoonotska teorija naravnega izvora za SARS-CoV-2 - da je na trgu morskih sadežev in divjadi Huanan skočil iz živali v človeka. Te teorije pozneje niso podprli novi dokazi.
Vse publikacije, ki zagovarjajo naravni izvor za SARS-CoV-2, se v veliki meri opirajo na ta članek Shi Zhenglija in njenih sodelavcev, ki opisuje zaporedje domnevnega naravnega koronavirusa netopirja z imenom RaTG13. Toda v prispevku sploh ni nobenega sklicevanja na Shi in njene sodelavce, dolgo zgodovino raziskav genskega inženiringa s koronavirusi netopirjev, opisano zgoraj. To vključuje pomemben članek znanstvenikov Univerze Severne Karoline in Inštituta za virologijo iz Wuhana iz leta 2015, ki je povzročil zaskrbljujoč rezultat, da je neškodljiv virus netopirja spremenil v človeškega patogena.
Izkazana zanimanja
Kot da tega raziskovalnega ozadja preprosto ni bilo. Zakaj? Mogoče bi zato, ker bi opozarjanje na te raziskave lahko vzbudilo sum v možganih ljudi, da bi bil SARS-CoV-2 morda tudi namerno ali po naključju optimiziran v laboratoriju med raziskavami o pridobitvi patogene funkcije?
Konec koncev bi lahko zaradi prepričanja, da bi virus ušel iz laboratorija, virologi lahko pričakovali, da bodo njihove raziskave "imele poostrene laboratorijske kontrole", kot je v razlagi pojasnil vodilni raziskovalec cepiv prof. Nikolaj Petrovsky Zdi se, da zato znanstveniki podpirajo idejo, da virus izvira iz tržnice v Wuhanu in ne iz laboratorija.
Seveda bi zo skoraj zagotovo nenadoma lahko pripeljalo konca raziskav o pridobivanju funkcije virusov, kar bi povzročilo velik politični vihar. To bi lahko celo zbudilo dvome javnosti glede varnosti drugih tveganih aplikacij genskega inženiringa. Kljub temu pa je treba čim prej začeti forenzično raziskovanje natančnega izvora pandemičnega virusa, za katerega se po besedah prof. Nikolaja Petrovskyja zdi, kot da je bil zasnovan za okužbo ljudi.
Vir: https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19410
SARS-CoV-2 je lahko ušel iz laboratorija, tudi po krivdi ZDA
Avtor: Claire Robinson 4.5. 2020
Hipotezo o laboratorijskem pobegu virusa povečuje novica, da je ameriška obrambno-obveščevalna agencija (DIA) posodobila svojo oceno o izvoru virusa COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2, ki bi lahko razkrila, da je bil virus morda nenamerno sproščen iz laboratorija v Wuhanu zaradi "nevarnih laboratorijskih praks". Toda medtem ko številni mediji množično omenjajo domnevno krivdo Kitajske, le redki omenjajo neprijetno dejstvo: nevarne raziskave, ki bi lahko privedle do pobega virusa, so v veliki meri financirale ZDA. Poleg tega ima to financiranje korenine v velikih varnostnih napakah v ameriških laboratorijih, ki vključujejo smrtonosne nalezljive bolezni.
Leta 2019 je Nacionalni inštituti za zdravje (NIH) s podporo ameriškega Nacionalnega inštituta za alergije in nalezljive bolezni (NIAID) namenil 3,7 milijona ameriških dolarjev za šestletne raziskave, ki vključujejo "pridobivanje funkcije virusov" na Inštitutu za virologijo v Wuhanu in v drugih institucijah. "Gain of function" je raziskava, ki si prizadeva, da bi smrtno nevarne patogene naredila za še bolj smrtonosne, vključno s patogenimi povzročitelji v zraku, ki prej niso bili patogeni, a so jih spremenili tako, da so bolje prilagojeni na človeške gostitelje. Program je sledil še 5-letnemu projektu zbiranja in preučevanja koronavirusov netopirjev v višini 3,7 milijona dolarjev, ki se je končal leta 2019. Skupno to pomeni 7,4 milijona dolarjev za raziskave pridobivanja funkcij virusov. Dr. Anthony Fauci, zadolžen za trenutno ameriško strategijo med epidemijo koronavirsa, je NIAID vodil v preteklosti in ga še vedno vodi.
Pomanjkanje varnosti v ameriških laboratorijih
Da bi vedeli, zakaj so ZDA financirale Kitajsko za nevarno delo s koronavirusi netopirjev, se moramo ozreti v leto 2014, ko so ameriški Centri za nadzor bolezni ( CDC) imeli vrsto varnostnih tveganj, ki vključujejo viruse ebole, antraksa in smrtonosnega seva ptičje gripe. Laboratorij ameriške vojske pa je nehote (?) odposlal žive vzorce antraksa v skoraj 200 laboratorijev po vsem svetu. Kasneje je Lancet poročal: "Novica, da je bilo na desetine delavcev v centrih za nadzor in preprečevanje bolezni (CDC) mogoče izpostavljenih antraksu, da so viale virusov črnih koz (small pox) pustili ležati v skladišču Nacionalnega inštituta za zdravje (NIH) in da je CDC nehote poslal vzorce navadnih virusov gripe, okuženih s zelo patogenim virusom ptičje gripe H5N1, je šokirala tiste, ki so prepričani v učinkovitost postopkov biološke varnosti v državi. "
Moratorij v ZDA
Kot rezultat teh zaskrbljujočih dogodkov je vlada ZDA leta 2014 postavila začasen moratorij za financiranje raziskav o pridobitvi funkcije nekaterih virusov - gripe, sindroma dihanja na Bližnjem vzhodu (MERS) in hudega akutnega respiratornega sindroma (SARS).
Vendar pa je bil en poskus, ki je ustvaril gensko zasnovano himerno različico koronavirusa netopirja - povezanega z virusom, ki povzroča SARS - že pred začetkom moratorija v ZDA. Raziskava je bila v okviru programa sodelovanja med univerzo v Severni Karolini, Harvardom in kitajskim Inštitutom za virologijo v Wuhanu. Ameriški nacionalni inštitut za zdravje (NIH) je omogočil nadaljevanje te raziskave, medtem ko jo je agencija pregledovala, kar je povedal Ralphu Baric, raziskovalec nalezljivih bolezni na univerzi Severna Karolina v Chapel Hillu, ki je sodeloval v raziskavi. NIH je na koncu ugotovil, da delo ni tako tvegano, da bi sodilo pod moratorij, je dejal Ralph Baric. Poročilo za Washington Post opisuje laboratorijsko delo na pridobivanju funkcij virusa, ki je potekalo v Inštitutu za virologijo v Wuhanu. "Desetine rutinskih raziskav so zahtevale odvzem virusov iz fekalij netopirjev in njihovo gojenje v serijah za uporabo v širokem številu eksperimentov. Pri nekaterih projektih so raziskovalci zlepili genetski material iz različnih koronavirusov, da bi ustvarili himere, ki bi lažje okužile človeške celice za laboratorijske poskuse. " Raziskava je kitajske znanstvenike spodbudila k večkratnim opozorilom o možnosti, da bi nova bolezen, podobna SARS-u, skočila z netopirjev na človeka. Kot je zapisano v prispevku, so z vsakim poskusom prišli do možnosti nenamerne izpostavljenosti nevarnim patogenom.
Leta 2015 je bil objavljen raziskovalni članek, v katerem so podrobno opisali delo ameriških in kitajskih znanstvenikov s koronavirusi netopirjev v reviji Nature Medicine. Delo je bilo kontroverzno, en znanstvenik pa je komentiral: "Če bi virus ušel, nihče ne bi mogel napovedati njegove poti."
Raziskava je bila financirana od Nacionalnega inštituta za alergije in nalezljive bolezni (NIAID- dr. Anthony Fauci), Nacionalnega zdravstvenega inštituta ZDA (NIH) in newyorškega neprofitnega zavezništva EcoHealth. Predsednik združenja EcoHealth Alliance je Peter Daszak, ki je glasni zagovornik teorije, da je SARS-CoV-19 skočil iz živali v človeka. V interesu podjetja EcoHealth je, da se zavrne možnost, da bi virus pobegnil iz laboratorija, katerega delo je pomagal financirati. Nacionalni inštitut za zdravje (NIH) črpa sredstva
1. maja letos se je pojavila novica, da je NIH ukinil sredstva za raziskave na koronavirusu, navidezno zaradi hipoteze o pobegu iz laboratorija, ki preganja njihovega raziskovalnega partnerja - Inštitut za virologijo v Wuhanu. EcoHealth je podal izjavo, ki zagovarja njihove raziskave, rekoč, da so "bile namenjen analizi tveganja za nastanek koronavirusa in pomoč pri oblikovanju cepiv in zdravil za zaščito pred COVID-19 in drugimi nevarnostmi koronavirusa". Z drugimi besedami, EcoHealth je trdil, da je bila njihova tvegana raziskava o pridobitvi patogene funkcije koronavirusa "biološka zaščita". (op.prev.: kar je sprevrženo)
Težava z izrazom "biološka zaščita" (biodefence)
Trditev o „biološki zaščiti“ je, da so raziskave o pridobitvi funkcije patogenosti virusov pogosto upravičene. Ideja je, da znanstveniki vzgajajo bolj nevarne patogene z domnevnim namenom, kako najti način za boj proti njim. Ampak kot je pred kratkim zapisal Sam Husseini, direktor za komunikacije Inštituta za točnost javnih informacij, "čeprav se zdi, da je to raziskovanje uspelo ustvariti smrtonosne in nalezljive povzročitelje, vključno s smrtonosnimi sevi gripe, je takšno "obrambno" raziskovanje nemočno pri svoji sposobnosti obrambe pred to pandemijo [SARS-CoV-2]."
Teorija "tržnice v Wuhanu" ni dokazana
Možnost pobega virusa iz laboratorija pridobiva medijsko prednost pred prejšnjo zgodbo, ki jo je uradno sprožil wuhanski Center za nadzor in preprečevanje bolezni (CDC), o tem da je virus na naraven način skočil z divjih živali na ljudi na huananski tržnici morskih sadežev in divjih živalih, nekaj metrov od CDC. Pri netopirjih je bil ugotovljen bližnji sorodnik SARS-CoV-2 in teorija trdi, da je virus prešel v človeka neposredno iz netopirjev ali prek vmesnega gostitelja - na primer pangolina, luskavega mravljinčarja, ki ga lovijo, z njim trgujejo v mrtvi in živi obliki in ga jedo na Kitajskem. Teorijo tržnice so izbrali svetovni mediji in jo splošno sprejeli kot verjeten scenarij, vključno s skupino znanstvenikov, ki so v Nature Medicine zapisali, da SARS-CoV-2 "ni laboratorijski konstrukt ali namensko manipuliran virus", ampak verjetno nastal z naravno selekcijo pri živalih ali ljudeh, potencialno na trgu Huanan.
Toda dokazi za teorijo wuhanske tržnice, kot poudarja članek Washington Post, se "majejo". Mikrobiolog Richard Ebright je opisal decembrski video iz CDC-ja v Wuhanu, v katerem so uslužbenci pokazali, da zbirajo koronaviruse netopirjev z neustrezno osebno zaščitno opremo in nevarnimi operativnimi praksami. Poleg tega je David Ignatius, strokovnjak za biološko varnost, citiral dva kitajska članka iz leta 2017 in 2019, v katerih so opisali raziskovalca iz Centra za nadzor bolezni v Wuhanu, ki je med lovljenjem netopirjev v jami "pozabil sprejeti zaščitne ukrepe", tako da je urin netopirja kapljal z vrha glave raziskovalca "kot dežne kaplje".
Hipoteza o nesreči v laboratoriju ima podporo tudi na Kitajskem. Poročilo, ki še ni strokovno preverjeno in ga je objavil raziskovalec iz South China University of Technology, zaključuje, da je koronavirus verjetno prišel iz laboratorija v Wuhanu, ali iz Inštituta za virologijo ali pa iz Centra za nadzor bolezni.
Ne "kupujte" trditve, da virus ni prišel iz laboratorija
Biotehnični strokovnjak in podjetnik Jurij Deigin je tudi objavil dolg članek, v katerem je podrobno opisal, kako bi bilo mogoče SARS-CoV-2 genetsko inženirati ali "sintetizirati" v raziskavah o pridobitvi funkcije virusa v laboratoriju, iz katerega je pobegnil. Deiginov članek je tehničen, zelo podroben in, kolikor lahko rečemo, znanstveno dober. V njem izziva lažno prepričanje, ki kroži med samooklicanimi strokovnjaki, ki trdijo, da virus ne bi smel biti gensko inženirsko ustvarjen v laboratoriju, ker nima "podpisa" genskega inženiringa. Zapiše: "Če slišite, da kdo trdi, "vemo, da virus ni prišel iz laboratorija ", ne verjemite - ker ni dokaza za to. Laboratoriji po vsem svetu že leta ustvarjajo sintetične viruse, kot je SARS CoV2. In ne, njegov genom ne bi nujno vseboval znakov človeške manipulacije: sodobna orodja genskega inženiringa omogočajo rezanje in lepljenje genskih fragmentov, ne da bi pustili sledi. Tudi to je mogoče hitro narediti: švicarski ekipi je bil potrebno manj kot mesec dni, da so ustvaril sintetični klon virusa SARS- CoV2.
Jurij Deigin opozarja, da so vse nenavadne lastnosti SARS-CoV-2 standardne tarče raziskav o izboljšanju funkcije koronavirusa, kakršne izvajajo v laboratoriju WIV.
Jurij Deigin zavrača sklepe članka Nature Medicine, ki je zavrnil laboratorijsko hipotezo in promoviral idejo, da se je virus pojavil z naravno selekcijo. Deigin pravi: "V članku Nature Medicine ni neizpodbitnih dokazov, le glasen zapis, da "ne verjamemo v to ", ki temelji na majavih temeljih." Deigin parafrazira argument avtorjev Nature Medicine kot je: Računalnik pravi, da način, na katerega se virus veže na človeške celice, ni idealen ("optimalen"); zato mora biti SARS-CoV-2 rezultat naravne selekcije; zato je to močan dokaz, da SARS-CoV-2 ni izdelan v laboratoriju.
Toda Deigin pravi: "Ker se CoV2 razlikuje od nekega" optimalnega "virusa, to še ne pomeni, da ga ne bi mogli ustvariti v laboratoriju. Ne v laboratoriju, ki poskuša ustvariti "optimalno" biološko orožje, ampak v laboratoriju, ki ustvarja himere naravno najdenih sevov, recimo, pri netopirjih in pangolinih. " Deigin ni edini strokovnjak, ki se ne strinja z argumenti avtorjev članka v Nature Medicine: Dr. Michael Antoniou in prof. Stuart Newman sta prav tako odločno izpodbijala njihove trditve.
Laboratoriji nagnjeni k nesrečam so po vsem svetu
Niso realne trditve, da imajo ZDA ali katera koli druga država zunaj Kitajske visoko biološko varnost v laboratorijih. V članku, ki ga je objavil Salon z naslovom: "Je ta virus prišel iz laboratorija? Mogoče ne - vendar izpostavlja grožnjo tekme za biološkim orožjem." Sam Husseini ugotavlja, da čeprav je večina medijev in političnih organizacij grožnjo zaradi takega laboratorijskega dela zmanjšala," nekateri jastrebi ameriške desnice, kot je senator Tom Cotton, R - Ark., označili kitajske raziskovalce na področju biološke obrambe kot izjemno nevarne. Toda Sam Husseini poudarja, da "obstajajo vsi pokazatelji, da je delo v ameriškem laboratoriju prav tako tvegano kot v kitajskih laboratorijih. Ameriški laboratoriji delujejo tudi na skrivaj, znano pa je tudi, da so nagnjeni k nesrečam." Nenamerno izpuščanje patogenih virusov, ohlapni postopki ter nevarne in neetične raziskave so bile v mnogih desetletjih v laboratorijih v Veliki Britaniji, ZDA in Rusiji.
Dolgoletna kritika raziskav o pridobivanju funkcije virusov
Številni znanstveniki so že dolgo kritični do raziskav o pridobivanju funkcij patogenov. Po laboratorijskih incidentih z antraksom v ZDA je več kot 200 znanstvenikov podpisalo izjavo delovne skupine v Cambridgeu, ki zagovarja prepoved eksperimentov, ki ustvarjajo potencialne povzročitelje pandemije, „dokler ne pride do kvantitativne, objektivne in verodostojne ocene tveganja, potencialnih koristi ter priložnosti za zmanjšanje tveganja in primerjavo z varnejšimi eksperimentalnimi pristopi."
Marc Lipsitch, ustanovni član delovne skupine v Cambridgeu, je komentiral: "Še vedno ne verjamem, da je bil prepričljiv argument, zakaj so te raziskave potrebne z vidika javnega zdravja." Dodal je: "Na ta način povečati potencialne povzročitelje pandemije preprosto ni vredno tveganja." Po nedavnih poskusih za izboljšanje bolezni je dejal: "dali so nam nekaj skromnih znanstvenih spoznanj in skoraj ničesar niso storili za izboljšanje naše pripravljenosti na pandemije, vendar so tvegali, da bi ustvaril nenamerno pandemijo."
Cenzura na Kitajskem
Vprašanja, od kod izvira virus, verjetno ni mogoče rešiti brez izčrpne neodvisne preiskave osebja in postopkov v laboratorijih. A zdi se, da se to ne bo zgodilo kmalu. Po poročanju Newsweeka se zdi, da kitajska vlada cenzurira raziskave o izvoru epidemije COVID-19, tako da od znanstvenikov zahteva, da pred objavo predložijo svoje študije vladi. Spletno stran Kitajske univerze za geoznanosti v Wuhanu, ki jo je Newsweek pregledal (po tem je bila odstranjena), kaže, da so bile zahteve posodobljene, tako da bi morali znanstveniki pred objavo pridobiti odobritev kitajskega Ministrstva za znanost in tehnologijo. Kitajska vlada tudi ameriškim strokovnjakom ni zagotovila vzorcev novega koronavirusa, zbranih iz najzgodnejših primerov. Šanghajski laboratorij, ki je 11. januarja objavil zaporedje genoma koronavirus SARS CoV-2, so oblasti hitro zaprle zaradi „popravil“. In več zdravnikov in novinarjev, ki so že zgodaj poročali o širjenju virusa, je izginilo.
Človeška napaka
Članek Filippe Lentzosa, strokovnjakinje za biološke grožnje in biološko varnost, poudarja, da čeprav so laboratoriji, ki preučujejo nevarne viruse in bakterije, zgrajeni za zaščito raziskovalcev, javnosti in okolja pred škodo, "laboratorijski dizajn ne more odpraviti človeških napak ali slabega usposabljanja. Z vsakim poskusom se pojavijo priložnosti za naključne izpostavljenosti in nenamerne okužbe. Nesreče se ves čas dogajajo v laboratorijih po vsem svetu. " Lentzos-ova poudarja tudi, da so bili dokumentirani primeri varnostnih pomanjkljivosti med delom s koronavirusi, zaradi česar so delavci trpeli zaradi laboratorijskih okužb. Citira tudi članek Yuana Zhiminga, glavnega znanstvenika na Inštitutu za virologijo v Wuhanu, ki opisuje velike pomanjkljivosti pri usposabljanju na področju biološke varnosti na Kitajskem. Zhiming ugotavlja, "večina laboratorijev nima specializiranih upravljavcev in inženirjev biološke varnosti". Dodaja: "Stroški vzdrževanja so na splošno zanemarjeni; v več laboratorijih [BSL-3] ni dovolj operativnih sredstev za rutinske, a vitalne procese ... nekateri laboratoriji BSL-3 delujejo na zelo minimalnih operativnih stroških ali v nekaterih primerih sploh ne." Lentzos komentira: "To je zaskrbljujoče, saj ima Kitajska več deset laboratorijev BSL-3 in namerava zgraditi še šest laboratorijev z varnostno stopnjo 4 (BSL-4), kjer delajo z najbolj smrtonosnimi virusi."
Čas je za prepoved raziskav o pridobivanju funkcije virusov
Čas je, da prepovemo raziskave o pridobitvi funkcije patogenov. Kot je dejal David Relman, profesor mikrobiologije na univerzi Stanford, „veliko preveč je primerov laboratorijskih nesreč. Naš lastni Center za nadzor bolezni in vsi ostali so imeli nesreče, tudi z zelo nevarnimi povzročitelji. Tega preprosto ni mogoče preprečiti, saj so ljudje nedosledna in omejena bitja. "
Drugi strokovnjak, Toby Ord, višji znanstveni sodelavec na Oxfordovem inštitutu Future of Humanity, pravi, da tveganja ne bi mogla biti višja kot so. Opozarja, da svetovna pandemija, ki jo sprožijo raziskave o pridobitvi funkcije virusa, zdaj predstavlja eno od dveh glavnih eksistencialnih groženj za nadaljnje preživetje človeštva. Pobegi pandemičnih povzročiteljev celo iz laboratorijev z najvišjo stopnjo biološke varnosti (BSL-4) so neizogibni, kar je razvidno iz slabih izkušenj biološke varnosti v preteklosti.
Vir: https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19391
POVZETEK DOKAZOV DA JE KORONAVIRUS SARS-CoV-2 PRIŠEL IZ LABORATORIJA V WUHANU
Avtor: GM Watch 3.5. 2020
Odličen povzetek dokazov, da je virus, ki je odgovoren za pandemijo COVID-19, morda nastal v laboratoriju v Wuhanu na Kitajskem, je objavila "anonimna skupina raziskovalcev", ki trdi, da ni "povezana z nobenim podjetjem, državo, ali organizacijo“. Dokument se osredotoča na dokaze, ki vključujejo dva potencialna krivca: Wuhanski Center za nadzor in preprečevanje bolezni (CDC) in Inštitut za virusologijo Wuhan (WIV). Znano je, da oba delujeta z koronavirusi netopirjev, ki so tesno povezani s SARS-CoV-2. Avtorji pišejo: "Cilj tega dokumenta je preučiti dokaze, ki lahko dokažejo, da je bil:
(1) virus SARS-CoV-2 prisoten v biolaboratoriju v Wuhanu na Kitajskem in
(2) da je bil virus SARS-CoV-2 vnesen v večjo populacijo Wuhana z okuženim laboratorijskim delavcem ali živaljo
Ta dokument ne poskuša dati konkretnega sklepa o tem, ali je katera koli trditev dejansko resnična. Preprosto preučuje verjetnost, da je vsaka trditev resnična, da lahko bralcu omogoči, da sam naredi zaključek. Čeprav nobena trditev ne more biti nepreklicno dokazana kot resnična, je bil poskus zagotoviti, da so dokazi, uporabljeni v podporo tem trditvam, čim bolj dejanski. Avtorji ne navajajo ali nakazujejo, da je bil virus namerno oblikovan kot bio orožje ali je bil sproščen kot tak. Prav tako se radi oddaljijo od protikitajskih čustev, ki se širijo v nekaterih medijih okoli hipoteze pobega iz laboratorija, ki ta trend imenujejo "rasistični". Vendar pa dokument predstavlja prepričljive dokaze, da je bil virus lahko rezultat laboratorijskih raziskav "pridobitve funkcije" (gain of function). Študije o pridobitvi funkcije so namenjene temu, da patogeni virusi postanejo bolj virulentni ali bolj prenosljivi. Pogosto se izvajajo zaradi razvoja cepiv ali terapevtskih snovi ali zaradi "biodefeence" - biološke obrambe. Avtorji navajajo, da je eden od njihovih ciljev "nadaljnje širjenje globalne zavesti o nevarnostih, ki jih predstavljajo biolaboratoriji, zlasti pa študije povečane funkcionalnosti virusov in bližina mestnih območij".
Te vrste raziskav že več let deležne zaradi čedalje večjih kritik znanstvenikov in drugih zaradi njihove možnosti, da povzročijo pobege patogenov. Novi dokument je obsežen in strokovno napisan na način, ki laičnim bralcem olajša razumevanje argumentov. Jasno je del tekoče preiskave, saj avtorji občasno objavljajo obvestila o pomanjkljivostih dokazov in bralce prosijo, naj predložijo dodatne dokaze. Sklep objavljamo v novem dokumentu spodaj, ker dobro povzema argumente - vendar preberite celoten dokument na izvirnem URL-ju, da vidite vse citirane dokaze in vire.
* * *
* * *
Dokazi da so SARS-CoV-2 virusi izhajali iz biološkega laboratorija v Wuhanu na Kitajskem
Objavljeno 16. aprila 2020; Posodobljeno 2. maja 2020
https://project-evidence.github.io/
ZAKLJUČEK
V nekem trenutku konec leta 2019 je veliko ljudi, ki so obiskali tržnico morske hrane v Huanan, zbolelo zaradi nove bolezni. Do danes izvor te bolezni ni znan.
Ta tržnica je manj kot 15km oddaljene od Inštituta za virologijo Wuhan, Kitajske akademije znanosti, ki: * Sodeloval je s francoskimi oblastmi pri gradnji laboratorija BSL-4, vendar ko je podjetje želelo preveriti svoje varnostne standarde, so bili izločeni iz projekta, in francoski znanstveniki, ki naj bi tam delali, niso bili nikoli poslani tja * Razvili so himerne koronaviruse, podobne SARS * Izvajali so "nevarne" raziskave o pridobitvi funkcije virusa SARS-CoV-1 * Vzpostavili so 96,2 % podobnost s SARS-CoV-2 in virusom, ki so ga vzorčili iz jame, ki je več kot 1600 km oddaljena od Wuhana * Od julija 2019 vbrizgajo v žive pujske koronaviruse netopirjev * Testirali so svoje razkuževalne postopke s koronavirusom netopirja * Novembra 2019 so objavili članek o potomcu SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV virusa * Zbirajo vzorce netopirjev z neprimernimi osebnim zaščitnimi sredstvi tudi po tem, ko jih je eden od njih ugriznil * Inštitut je najel raziskovalce koronavirusov netopirjev novembra 2019
* Ameriški državni urad je trdil, da je imel Inštitut "neustrezno varnost"
* Izbrisali so sporočilo za javnost, v katerem je podrobno opisan obisk ameriškega State Departmenta
* Ni zagotovil konkretnih dokazov, da je eden od njihovih predhodnih raziskovalcev še vedno živ, kljub govoricam na kitajskih družbenih medijih, da je bil "prvi pacient", kljub temu, da je ena od njihovih drugih vrhunskih raziskovalcev prisegla, da virus nima nič skupnega z njenim laboratorijem * Raziskovalka je obtožila direktorico inštituta, da je prodajala okužene laboratorijske živali prodajalcem na Weibo (s slikami sebe in njenega osebnega dokumenta); zatem pa je trdila, da so ji to "podtaknili" * Osebje Inštituta se je usposobljalo pri kitajsko-kanadskemu znanstveniku v edinem kanadskem laboratoriju BSL-4, ki je zdaj že skoraj eno leto pod preiskavo RCMP, ker so pošiljali virus ebole in henipahvirus iz tega laboratorija v Kanadi v laboratorij na Kitajskem
Tržnica je tudi manj kot 5km oddaljena od Centra za nadzor bolezni Wuhan, ki:
* Dejansko je že bil obtožen, da je bil vir izbruha virusa v zdaj že umaknjenem akademskem prispevku uglednega kitajskega učenjaka na Južnokitajski univerzi na Kitajskem * Nekoč so v svojih laboratorijih hranili netopirje, znane kot rezervoar za koronaviruse SARS-CoV-1 * Nekoč so izvajali operacije na živih živalih v svojih laboratorijih * Je imel raziskovalca, ki je bil v karanteni ob dveh ločenih priložnostih; enkrat po stiku s krvjo netopirja, potem ko je bil napaden, in drugič, ko je bil uriniran od netopirja v jami, medtem ko je nosil neustrezno osebno zaščito
Poglejmo tudi ukrepe Kitajske pred in po izbruhu:
* Virus SARS-CoV-1 je dvakrat pobegnil iz laboratorija v Pekingu
* Izplačali so kompenzacijo družinam, potem ko je bilo 27 študentov okuženih med tečajem anatomije leta 2011z bakterijo Brucella
* Trenutno poteka preiskava podobnega izbruha bakterije Brucella med več kot 100 študenti in uslužbenci decembra 2019
* Izdali so smernice za biološko varnost, da bi odpravili kronične pomanjkljivosti pri upravljanju virusnih laboratorijev
* Januarja 2020 so aretirali "vrhunskega akademika" zaradi nezakonite prodaje laboratorijskih živali in mleka uporabljenega v eksperimentih
* Cenzurirali so lokalne zdravstvene delavce, ki so poskušali prijaviti izbruh bolezni
* Ukazali so, da lokalni laboratoriji uničijo vse vzorce novega virusa SARS CoV-2
* Genom koronavirusa SARS CoV-2 so objavli skoraj 7 dni po sekvenciranju
* Nenehno so zanikali prenos virusa iz človeka na človeka
* Začeli so največjo nacionalno karanteno v človeški zgodovini, potem ko zadrževanje virusa ni uspelo
* Izdali so odredbo, s katero so preprečili nepooblaščeno objavljanje kakršnega koli akademskega gradiva, povezanega s SARS-CoV-2
* Dovolil tiskovnemu predstavniku partije, da obtoži vojsko Združenih držav Amerike, da je namerno prinesla SARS-CoV-2 v Wuhan (med vojaškimi vojaškimi igrami v Wuhanu)
* Še naprej zavrača neodvisno preiskavo nastanka izbruha in grozi Avstraliji z bojkoti, če bodo to preiskovali
Januarja 2020 je ministrstvo za pravosodje ZDA aretiralo dva državljana Kitajske in predsednika Oddelka za kemijo in kemijsko biologijo na univerzi Harvard zaradi domnevnega prejemanja nezakonitih plačil s Kitajske, saj naj bi deloval kot agent tuje vlade in je poskus pretihotapiti 21 vial biološkega materiala na Kitajsko.
Nazaj na tržnico: na trgu Huanan Seafood sploh ni bilo netopirjev za prodajo in večina vrst netopirjev v Wuhanu bi v času izbruha hibernirala. Poročalo se je, da 34% bolnikov ni imelo stika s tržnico in med prvim bolnikom in poznejšimi primeri ni bilo ugotovljena nobene epidemiološka povezava. Če je bila v resnici krivec okužena žival, zakaj ni okužila niti ene osebe zunaj tržnice? Na tržnici se ni bilo mogoče okužiti, saj ni bilo netopirjev, ki bi lahko služili kot vir okužbe. Kje so se torej vsi okuženi ljudje zunaj Wuhana okužili do takrat, ko se je SARS-CoV-2 začel širiti na tržnici?
Upamo, da je ta dokument ustrezno obravnaval vsako trditev, za katero so dokazi na voljo in je izpolnil svojo sekundarno odgovornost, da vas pouči o varnosti biolaboratorijev. Zdaj upamo, da razumete, da te trditve niso nemogoče; v resnici so več kot verjetne. Mogoče nikoli ne bomo izvedeli resnice. Vsekakor pa smo prepričani, da teh trditev ne bi smeli odvreči in da bi bilo treba opraviti veliko več raziskav o tem.
Vir: https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19390
* * *
Prof. Stuart Newman meni, da ni upravičena trditev, da SARS-CoV-2 ni bil gensko inženiran
Details 27 April 2020
* * *
Drug strokovnjak za biotehnologijo je napadel dokaze, ki se uporabljajo za zanikanje, da je bil SARS-CoV-2, ki povzroča COVID-19, morda gensko zasnovan. Profesor celične biologije in anatomije na newyorški medicinski fakulteti dr. Stuart Newman pravi, da ključni argument, ki zanika, da bi lahko šlo za gensko inženiran sev, ki je pobegnil iz laboratorija, dejansko kaže ravno na nasprotno. Z drugimi besedami, kaže na to, da bi bil SARS-CoV-2 lahko gensko inženiran in da bi lahko pobegnil iz laboratorija. Dokaz, ki se navaja, da SARS-CoV-2 „ni laboratorijski konstrukt ali namenoma manipuliran virus“, je prispevek, ki so ga objavili imunolog Kristian Andersen in sodelavci v Nature Medicine. Kot je opozoril Adam Lauring, izredni profesor za mikrobiologijo, imunologijo in nalezljive bolezni na Medicinski šoli na Univerzi v Michiganu, Andersenov dokument navaja, da ima "virus SARS-CoV-2 nekaj ključnih razlik v specifičnih genih glede na prej identificirane koronaviruse - tiste, s katerimi naj bi delal laboratorij. Zaradi tega sklopa sprememb naj bi bilo malo verjetno, da je virus pobegnil iz laboratorija."
* * *
* * *
Toda profesor Stuart Newman pravi, da je to povsem neprepričljivo, saj so bile "ključne razlike" v regijah beljakovine koronavirusa (S proteina), ki so bile dve desetletji predmet poskusov genskega inženiringa v laboratorijih po vsem svetu (predvsem v ZDA in na Kitajskem). Tako Newman ne misli samo, da bi koronavirus SARS CoV-2 lahko pobegnil iz laboratorija, ampak tudi, da bi lahko izviral iz zaloge virusa, ki je bil v nekem trenutku podvržen genskemu inženiringu.
Prof. Stuart Newman, ki je glavni urednik revije Biological Theory in soavtor (s Tino Stevens) knjige Biotech Juggernaut, je v intervjuju z GMWatchom razširil to ugibanje tako, da je zapisal: "članek v Nature Medicine kaže na variacije na dveh mestih spike proteina novega koronavirusa, za katerega trdijo avtorji, da so zagotovo posledica naravne selekcije. Vendar pa je od leta 2005 predlagan genski inženiring enega od teh mest, domene proteina S, ki se veže receptorje ACE2, da bi pomagali ustvariti cepiva proti tem virusom. Presenetljivo je, da avtorji članka v Nature Medicine niso citirali tega prispevka, ki je izšel v ugledni reviji Science. " Poleg tega je prof. Stuart Newman dodal: "Drugo mesto, za katero Andersen in sodelavci trdijo, da je nastalo na naraven način - je razkroj vrha S proteina zaradi encimov, kar običajno ne najdemo v tej vrsti virusov, in je dejansko rezultat genskega inženiringa v podobnem koronavirusu, kar je opisano v spodnji raziskavi iz leta 2006, ki ga avtorji navajajo. To je bilo storjeno z namenom raziskovanja mehanizmov patogenosti. "
Furin Cleavage of the SARS Coronavirus Spike Glycoprotein Enhances Cell-Cell Fusion but Does Not Affect Virion Entry. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16519916/
Prof. Stuart Newman je dejal, da ne verjame, da so bile te spremembe namerno uvedene, da bi povečale patogenost katerega koli posameznega seva, ampak da je imel SARS-CoV-2 v svoji zgodovini morda gensko spremenjene sestavine, preden so bile nenamerno vnesene v človeško populacijo.
Newman ni edini znanstvenik, ki je spregovoril o možnosti genskega inženiringa elementov virusa. Pred kratkim smo objavili članek, v katerem je molekularni genetik dr. Michael Antoniou tudi dvomil o trditvah, da virus ni bil gensko razvit. Dr Antoniou je določil metodo, s katero je bilo mogoče z virusom gensko manipulirati in izbrati za povečano infektivnost v laboratoriju. Dr. Antoniou niti prof Newman niti GW Watch ne dajemo nobenih napovedi, da bi v primeru, da gre za gensko inženiring, bil namen ustvariti biološko orožje. Takšne raziskave o „povečani kužnosti“ se izvajajo na virusih po vsem svetu (in ne samo na Kitajskem), da bi raziskovali njihovo vedenje in razvili cepiva in druge terapije, pa tudi za „biološko obrambo“.
Vir: https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19387
* * *
Strokovnjak je napadel EcoHealth Alliance zaradi vpletenosti v zelo tvegane raziskave koronavirusov netopirjev v laboratoriju v Wuhanu
ils
05 May 2020
Tu je (nekoliko skrajšani) prepis pomembnega intervjuja (z Ianom Mastersom, 29. aprila 2020), ki ga je za KPFK Pacifica radio dal bioznanstvenik dr. Jonathan Latham, ki je doktoriral iz virologije. Ozadje brifinga zajema ameriško politiko in mednarodne zadeve. Oddaja se na več kot štiridesetih radijskih postajah po ZDA, njegovi programi pa so na voljo tudi kot podcasti.
V intervjuju je dr. Jonathan Latham izrazil svojo zaskrbljenost zaradi vrste raziskav, ki se izvajajo v Wuhanu na Kitajskem, ki vključujejo vstavljanje koronavirusov netopirjev v človeške celice in optimiziranje za razmnoževanje. Pojasnjuje tudi vlogo newyorškega združenja EcoHealth Alliance in kako so mediji malo poročali o njihovih resnih in večkratnih konfliktih interesov. Ob poslušanju intervjuja je jasno, da je voditelj programa, Ian Masters, bil precej presenečen nad tem, kar je Jonathan Latham pravil o zavezništvu EcoHealth. Mediji so pogosto navajali, da Eco Health Alliance obsoja vse poskuse povezave virusa iz sedanje pandemije COVID-19 z laboratorijem v Wuhanu, v katere so oni tako veliko investirali.
Zavezništvo EcoHealth je nameravalo ohraniti pozornost osredotočeno na wuhansko tržnico Huanan Seafood kot vir izbruha pandemije. A kot pravi dr. Jonathan Latham v intervjuju, obstajajo ne le jasni razlogi za dvom, da je bil vir ta tržnica, ampak tudi od vas zahtevajo, da sprejmete najbolj osupljivo naključje. Konec koncev, glede na to, da so podobne tržnice zelo razširjene na Kitajskem - v resnici po večjem delu Azije, kako neverjetno je, da se je zoonotski skok virusa z živali na človeka pravkar zgodil na eni tržnici, ima laboratorij za viruse oddaljen manj kot 300 metrov, in drug Inštitut za virologijo znotraj 15 kilometrov, kjer poteka raziskovanje ne samo koronavirusov netopirjev, ampak tistih virusov, ki so najbolj povezani z izbruhom COVID-19?
In kot ugotavlja tudi dr. Jonathan Latham, ta raziskava, ki je bila izvedena v sodelovanju z združenjem EcoHealth Alliance, vključuje tako imenovane študije o pridobitvi funkcije (gain of function), pri katerih koščke humaniziranega virusa vstavijo v živalske viruse in nato vidijo, kako ti virusi delujejo v človeških celicah oz. drugih celicah. Vse to "zagotavlja priložnosti za kontaminacijske dogodke in izpuščanje virusov iz laboratorijev, ki se dogajajo rutinsko." Z drugimi besedami, delo, ki ga zveza EcoHealth financira in omogoča v Wuhanu, "zagotavlja evolucijsko priložnost, da koronavirus skoči v človeka".
Kljub temu, da je Trumpova administracija znižala donacije za raziskave v Wuhanu, so se v ZDA številni, vključno s progresivnimi mediji, nagibali k temu, da bi zavezništvo EcoHealth predstavljali kot nedolžno žrtev Trumpove "slabe znanosti" in preprečili nadaljnje poizvedovanje o tej organizaciji ali njenih dejavnostih.
Ko je novinar Sam Husseini pojasnil, da: "Ni pomembno, kaj je dejanski vzrok za pandemijo. Pomembno je, kaj pravi Trump, in morajo napadati to, kar pravi Trump, ker naj bi to počeli tisti, ki so napredni ." Če bi natančneje pogledali, kar poudarja Husseini, bi odkrili, da so "med političnimi svetovalci združenja EcoHealth Alliance David Franz, nekdanji poveljnik Fort Detricka, glavnega ameriškega vladnega obrata za biološko varstvo / biološko zaščito, ki je govoril leta 2018 na desničarskem Hudsonovem inštitutu in Thomas Geisbert, ki v Galvestonu deluje na področju biološke zaščite / biovarstva. " Kot je povedal dr. Jonathan Latham, bodo tudi ugotovili, da so med partnerji EcoHealth Alliance korporativni velikani, vpleteni v uničevanje naravnega okolja, za katerega EcoHealth Alliance trdi, da ga namerava zaščititi.
Komentar Jonathana Matthews
EcoHealth Alliance Hid Nearly $40 Million in Pentagon Funding
Investigation reveals $34.6 million of the just-under $39 million EcoHealth Alliance received in Pentagon funding from 2013 to 2020 came from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, a branch of the DOD tasked to “counter and deter weapons of mass destruction and improvised threat networks.”Collecting dangerous viruses is typically justified as a preventive and defensive activity, getting ahead of what “Nature” or “The Terrorists” might throw at us. But by its nature, this work is “dual use.” “Biodefense” is often just as easily biowarfare since biodefense and the products of biowarfare are identical. It’s simply a matter of what the stated goals are.
This is openly acknowledged [see below] by scientists associated with EcoHealth Alliance when talking about alleged programs in other countries — like Iraq.
For much of this year, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance garnered a great deal of sympathetic media coverage after its $3.7 million five-year NIH grant was prematurely cut when the Trump administration learned that EcoHealth Alliance funded bat coronavirus research at the WIV.
The temporary cut was widely depicted in major media as Trump undermining the EcoHealth Alliance’s noble fight against pandemics. The termination was reversed by NIH in late August, and even upped to $7.5 million. But entirely overlooked amid the claims and counter-claims was that far more funding for the EcoHealth Alliance comes from the Pentagon than the NIH.
To be strictly fair to the media, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance obscures its Pentagon funding. On its website EcoHealth Alliance states that “A copy of the EHA Grant Management Manual is available upon request to the EHA Chief Financial Officer at finance ( at ) ecohealthalliance.org”. But an email to that address and numerous others, including Peter Daszak’s, requesting that Manual, as well as other financial information, was not returned. Neither were repeated voicemails.
Only buried under their “Privacy Policy,” under a section titled “EcoHealth Alliance Policy Regarding Conflict of Interest in Research,” does the EcoHealth Alliance concede it is the “recipient of various grant awards from federal agencies including the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense.”
Even this listing is deceptive. It obscures that its two largest funders are the Pentagon and the State Department (USAID); whereas the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which accounts for a minuscule $74,487, comes before either.
Meticulous investigation of U.S. government databases reveals that Pentagon funding for the EcoHealth Alliance from 2013 to 2020, including contracts, grants and subcontracts, was just under $39 million. Most, $34.6 million, was from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which is a branch of the DOD which states it is tasked to “counter and deter weapons of mass destruction and improvised threat networks.”
Most of the remaining money to EHA was from USAID, comprising at least $64,700,000*. These two sources thus total over $103 million. (See Fig).
* * *
Raziskovanje izvora COVID-19 koronavirusa SARS CoV-2
Transkripcija brifinga z Ian Masters-om, 29 Aprila 2020
https://soundcloud.com/user-830442635/bbriefing-2020-04-29a-jonathan-latham
Ian Masters: Pridružil se nam je dr. Jonathan Latham, ki je soustanovitelj in izvršni direktor Resource Project Bioscience in urednik Independent Science News. Je tudi direktor projekta Poison Papers, ki objavlja dokumente kemijske industrije in njenih regulatorjev. Objavljal je znanstvene prispevke v tako raznolikih disciplinah, kot so rastlinska ekologija, rastlinska virologija, genetika in gensko inženirstvo. Dobrodošli dr. Jonathan Latham. Jonathan Latham: Živjo. Hvala, ker si me povabil, Ian. Ian:… Trump je nedavno na tiskovni konferenci, v odgovoru na vprašanje o pogodbi, ki jo ima zveza EcoHealth z Nacionalnim inštitutom za zdravje (NIH), dejal: "Da, to donacijo bomo zelo hitro končali". No, danes se je zgodilo: Zveza EcoHealth, ta newyorška raziskovalna skupina za nalezljive bolezni, ki sodeluje z Inštitutom za virologijo v Wuhanu na Kitajskem, je zdaj izgubila vladna sredstva. V resnici jim je ostalo še nekaj denarja, del donacije 370.000 dolarjev, in sporočili so jim, da morajo zdaj ta denar vrniti. Torej gre za nesrečno povezavo slabe znanosti in slabih informacij, ki prihajajo od predsednika. Kaj veste o odnosu med zvezo EcoHealth Alliance in Inštitutom za virologijo v Wuhanu?
Jonathan: Da je bil zelo tesen odnos. Na primer vemo, da je wuhanski Inštitut leta 2017 objavil članek o koronavirusih netopirjev, v katerem so opravili raziskave o vstavljanju koronavirusov netopirja v človeške celice. In posebna skrb, ki jo imam, je, da so tovrstne raziskave resnično tvegane raziskave. In postavilo se je celo vprašanje, ali je bil ta laboratorij v Wuhanu izvorni vir virusa. In to zavezništvo EcoHealth medije prosi, naj v komentarjih o poreklu virusa zanikajo, da je prišel z Inštituta za virologjo. Toda EcoHealth je financiral Inštitut za virologijo v Wuhanu, kot se meni zdi, za zelo tvegano eksperimentiranje. Tako ima EcoHealth zelo zanimivo navzkrižje interesov. Nisem oboževalec predsednika Trumpa, vendar je bila ta raziskava že dlje časa sporna in če bi jo kdo končal, mislim, da bi to verjetno bilo dobro.
Ian: Torej, zakaj bi imeli raziskave, v katerih so preučevali viruse pri netopirjih, od katerih se je nekaj izkazalo za zelo bližnjih sorodnikov tega koronavirusa SARS CoV-2 ? Zakaj ni dobro, če imamo te zoonotske skoke z živali v ljudje s SARS, MERS, ebolo itd. Zakaj naj ne bi preučevali teh virusov, ki se pojavljajo v naravi in katerih prenašalci so netopirji?
Jonathan: No, morali bi preučevati te viruse. O tem ni dvoma. Vprašanje je, kako to storiti. Vprašanje postane: Ali je potrebno, kot na primer poroča prispevek iz leta 2017, ki je rezultat sodelovanja med združenjem EcoHealth Alliance in Inštitutom za virologijo v Wuhanu, da so v človeške celice vnesli cel koronavirus, da so optimizirali razmnoževanje virusa? To, kar počnejo, v bistvu zagotavlja evolucijsko priložnost, da virus skoči v človeka. In ves smisel zavezništva EcoHealth je opozoriti, kako je to nevarno, vendar kljub temu to delajo v laboratoriju. In če želite narediti cepiva, razumeti virus, vedeti, od kod prihaja in podobno, so to vsi dobri cilji raziskav. Vendar takšni poskusi v resnici niso napredni. In če preberete zaključke prispevka, so v bistvu tisti, ki bi nas morali skrbeti glede koronavirusov. No, že prej smo bili zaskrbljeni zaradi koronavirusov, zaradi izbruha koronavirusa SARS. Razlog za zaskrbljenost je vrsta raziskav, ki jih opravljajo v laboratorijih, kot so raziskave o pridobitvi funkcije (gain of function). Sodelovali so z združenjem EcoHealth Alliance pri raziskavah za pridobitev funkcije, kjer so koščke humaniziranega virusa vstavili v živalske viruse in nato opazovali, kako delujejo v človeških celicah ali v drugih celicah. Vse to pa daje priložnosti za kontaminacijske dogodke in izpuščanje virusov iz laboratorijev, ki se dogajajo rutinsko.
Ian: No, ti laboratoriji s štirimi nivoji varnosti naj bi bili najbolj varni na svetu pri vseh vrstah disciplin, ali ne?
Jonathan: Ja, toda njihovi varnostni zapisi so grozni. Vidite slike ljudi v oblekah s pritiskom in podobno, in tako naprej, vendar so zapisi teh laboratorij res slabi. To je poanta članka v Washington Postu, ki opozarja na dopise ameriške vlade, ki pravijo, da so zaskrbljeni zaradi tega laboratorija v Wuhanu, kjer opravljajo tvegane raziskave in ne upoštevajo ustreznih varnostnih ukrepov. Skrbelo jih je tudi usposabljanje osebja. Večkrat so obiskali to spletno mesto in bili zelo nezadovoljni s tem, kar so našli. Ena stvar je laboratorij za biološko varnost, toda Kitajska v bistvu nima predpisov za biološko varnost. Kitajski predsednik je govoril o tem, da morajo imeti predpise za biološko varnost. No, predpise bi morali imeti, preden so začeli opravljati raziskave. Ian: Ampak ena stvar, ki jo lahko razjasnimo, o nekaterih od teh teorij zarote o Inštitutu za virologijo v Wuhanu in njegovem odnosu z EcoHealth Alliance, je, da je genetsko zaporedje tega koronavirusa SARS CoV-2 COVID-19 bil zelo hitro objavljen in da raziskovalci po vsem svetu pa delajo s tem virusom in da ni nobenih znakov, da je šlo za manipulacijo in spajanje genov, ki bi kazalo, da je šlo za nekakšno biološko orožje.
Jonathan: Da, popolnoma se strinjam. Nihče, s komer sem govoril ne misli, da je SARS CoV-2 biološko orožje in s tem se strinjam. To so ljudje, ki poskušajo razviti cepiva, poskušajo razumeti virus, in tako naprej. Toda to ni orožje, nihče tega ne misli. To bi bilo zelo neumno orožje, ki bi ga poslali v svet.
Ian: Kaj mislite, da se bo zgodilo? Vemo, da ameriške obveščevalne službe to preiskujejo in Kitajci seveda ne sodelujejo prav dobro. Dejstvo je, da je Inštitut za virologijo v Wuhanu samo okoli 15km od tržnice v Wuhanu, ki naj bi bila izvor tega zoonotskega preskoka. To je preveliko naključje, kajne?
Jonathan: Neverjetno naključje. Poleg tega, morda niste vedeli, da obstaja še en virološki laboratorij, ki je le 300 metrov od tržnice v Wuhanu. To je laboratorij BSL2, kjer naj bi opravili raziskave na koronavirusu. Torej imamo dva laboratorija v Wuhanu. Zdi se, da oba delata raziskave na koronavirusih. Veliki laboratorij BSL4, ki bi moral biti bolj varen, ima največjo svetovno zbirko koronavirusov netopirjev, vključno s tistim, ki je najbolj povezan z izbruhom- SARS CoV-2. Torej je to prvovrstno naključje.
Če želite reči, da je pandemija rezultat trgovine z živalmi, kmetovanja, cibetovke ali trgovine s pangolini in netopirji, ali ljudi, ki jedo netopirje, in tako naprej, če želite to ponuditi kot razlago, morate tudi razložiti zakaj se je ta izbruh zgodil v Wuhanu. Ker je Wuhan mesto z 10 milijonov ljudi; Kitajska ima 1,2 milijarde prebivalcev in zakaj bi se ta izbruh zgodil ravno v Wuhanu? Ni razloga, da se to ne bi zgodilo nekje drugje glede na to, da noben od zgoraj naštetih dejavnikov ni edinstven za Wuhan, kajne?
Tako ostaja vprašanje: Zakaj se je to zgodilo ravno v Wuhanu? In ko tam delajo te raziskave o pridobitvi funkcije najbolj sorodnih virusov, jih dajo v človeške celice, počnejo po mojem mnenju nore eksperimente. To so zelo resna vprašanja.
Ian: No, brez dvoma so same njihove prehranjevalne navade vprašljive. Mimogrede, še vedno prodajajo netopirje, menda na tisti tržnici v Wuhanu.
Jonathan: No, obstaja znanstveni članek, ki pravi, da na tem trgu ni bilo netopirjev. To ni zadnja beseda o tem. Ljudje jedo netopirje. Zato mislim, da je težko vedeti, kaj je bilo na tistem trgu v Wuhanu. Če pomislite na trg lokalnih kmetov, kjer ljudje prodajajo meso ali pa ne, in tako naprej, ne bomo nikoli izvedeli, kaj se je prodajalo na tej tržnici. Toda vprašanje, na katerega bi se vrnil, je: Zakaj je bolezen v Wuhanu izbruhnila 300 metrov od laboratorija za virologijo in biološko varnost.
Ian: Ali menite, da bomo dobili odgovor na to vprašanje? Ne verjamem, da ga bo dala kitajska vlada.
Jonathan: Zgodbe krožijo, da kitajska vlada poskuša ... Te zgodbe bi vzel s ščepcem soli, toda CNN in Washington Post ter različni drugi uradi trdijo, da kitajska vlada zavira preiskavo, da uničuje vzorce virusov in da izginjajo ljudje, ki so blizu vira okužbe. In Svetovna zdravstvena organizacija je poslala ekspedicijo v Wuhan, da bi preučila vse vidike izbruha virusa, vendar sploh niso raziskali možnosti, da bi morda šlo za pobeg virusa iz laboratorija zaradi laboratorijske nesreče. Zato mislim, da je vse zelo težavno.
Druga težava pri vsem tem pa je, da če pogledate zavezništvo EcoHealth Alliance, ki deloma financira te raziskave, vidite da sodelujejo s Svetovno zdravstveno organizacijo, Centrom za nadzor bolezni (CDC) in da je Fundacija Melinde in Bill-a Gatesa v njihovem svetu svetovalcev. Zato se postavlja vprašanje: Kdo bo vodil takšno preiskavo izbruha, kajti katera druga verodostojna organizacija bi to naredila? Vsi so vpleteni v tisto, kar financira zveza EcoHealth Alliance, ki financira raziskave ne le na koronavirusih. Zbirajo viruse z vsega sveta, vseh vrst, kot je virus ebole in podobno. Vsepovsod delajo te poskuse. Na stotine milijonov dolarjev so vložili v projekte za tovrstne raziskave. Torej to presega samo koronaviruse. Torej imate pri vsem tem zelo velike interese in ni nobene verodostojne organizacije, ki bi dejansko lahko opravila preiskave izbruha.
Ian: No, spet nihče ne bi dvomil v veljavnost tovrstnih raziskav virusov. Očitno gredo v jame in od netopirjev pridobivajo slino in kri. In potem v njih najdejo razne vrste virusov in očitno so zamrzovalniki na Inštitutu za virologijo v Wuhanu polni vseh vrst virusov. In to je eden od očitkov, ki jih je zveza EcoHealth Allaince predložila predsedniku Donaldu Trumpu, ki jim je ukinil sredstva.
In to mi je povsem jasno zaradi vprašanja, ki ga je Trump dobil od Newsmax-a, ko je rekel: "Prekinil bom financiranje" in je za financiranje teh raziskav ponovno obtožil Baracka Obamo, kar pa ni res. Zdi se mi, da je Trump spet napadel znanost. Ne vem, kako se počuti dr. Anthony Fauci glede prenehanja financiranja, a EcoHealth Alliance pravi: "To je noro. Imamo vse te viruse, ki jih preučujemo in so zdaj v zamrzovalniku na Kitajskem. Vedeti moramo, kaj so ti virusi in kaj lahko storijo, če kdaj končajo v ljudeh."
Jonathan: No, obstajajo dobri in slabi razlogi za podporo zavezništvu EcoHealth. Glede zveze EcoHealth Alliance je veliko vprašanj, bi rekel
Če preberete, kakšna je njihova skrb glede nastanka teh okužb, je resnično zanimivo, da po eni strani radi govorijo o velikih slikah človekovih vplivov na okolje, kako sekamo deževni gozd in tako naprej in in tako naprej. Toda potem v svoji pripovedi vedno govorijo: "No, moramo ustaviti trgovino z divjimi živalmi." Pravijo: Moramo ustaviti majhne igralce (op. prev.: in ne velikih korporacij)
In pravi problem je, da te virusne okužbe izvirajo iz vdora človeka v naravni svet in pogledati morate industrijo govejega mesa, industrijo soje, industrijo palmovega olja. In zavezništvo EcoHealth ne pokriva tega. Ukvarjajo se s trgovino z divjimi živalmi, pri čemer ignorirajo dejstvo, da človeško uničevanje pragozda vpliva na agrobiznis. To je povezano z velikimi korporacijami. In treba je poudariti, da zavezništvo EcoHealth Alliance financirajo velike korporacije, kot so Colgate Palmolive, Reckitt [Benckiser], Johnson & Johnson. Prav? Kaj počnejo ta podjetja? Odkupujejo velike količine palmovega olja. Torej tukaj prihaja do navzkrižja interesov. Tu se dogaja veliko zapletenih zgodb. In združenje EcoHealth Alliance se pogovarja v vseh teh medijskih hišah, od New York Timesa, do Scientific American… Po vsem svetu mediji ne krivijo palmovega olja, ne krivijo agrobiznisa, ne krivijo ljudi, ki so pravi krivci za uničenje ekosistemov. Strinjam se, da je trgovina z divjimi živalmi težava. Vendar to ni tako velik problem, kot je industrija palmovega olja, ki je stokrat večji problem.
Ian: No, nisem prepričan, da lahko zvezo EcoHealth Alliance krivijo za to, da novinarji niso osredotočeni na resničnega krivca. In to je agrobiznis, kot ste poudarili in tudi ta velika živilska podjetja, ki uporabljajo palmovo olje ... preprosto uničujejo vse, kar je ostalo od pragozdov sveta, da te stvari dajo v hrano.
Jonathan: Vendar zveza EcoHealth Alliance ne govori o tem. Nominalno je njihov namen ljudem pokazati povezavo med uničenjem naravnega sveta in njihovim zdravjem. Ampak v resnici tega ne počnejo, popolnoma prezrejo glavni del tega. Niso ....nimajo interesa za industrijo palmovega olja.
Ian: No, nisem prepričan, da je njihova odgovornost, da bi govorili o tem. Če je njihov namen raziskovanje tržnic, zakaj se te stvari med seboj izključujejo? Če pa jemljejo denar od proizvajalcev palmovega olja ali podjetij, ki uporabljajo palmovo olje, bi prišlo do navzkrižja interesov.
Jonathan: Vsekakor je.
Ian: Vidim. OK. No, zahvaljujem se vam, da ste se nam pridružili in nas informirali. Ne predstavljam si, da bomo tako ali drugače kdaj ugotovili, kakšen je izvor te pandemije. Mislite, da bomo kdaj izvedeli?
Jonathan: Mogoče je, da bodo preiskave prispevale k temu. Mislim, da če nihče ne najde živalskega posrednika in virusa, ki plava okoli cibetke ali pangolina, ali karkoli že je, v tej smeri ni več poti naprej; in vendar vemo, da se S protein SARS CoV-2 (spike) neverjetno močno veže na človeške receptorje ACE2 in vemo, da je laboratorij v Wuhanu delal poskuse, ki so v bistvu usposobili ta koronavirus netopirja, da se je prilagodil človeškemu ACE2 receptorju in tako smo blizu v znanstvenem smislu, da bomo to dokazali.
Vir: https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19392
* * *
PROFESOR IMUNOLOGIJE Dr. sc. Matko Marušić: Korona virus je umetno narejen. Kitajci so imeli za cilj narediti biološko orožje, kot sredstvo v primeru izgube vojne. To počnejo tudi druge velike države, Kitajecem pa je virus ušel iz laboratorije.:
U prirodi ima neznano mnogo vrsta virusa, a ima ih mnogo iz porodice Korona (porodica je skupina vrsta određenog stupnja sličnosti). Ovu epidemiju je, koliko ja mogu procijeniti izazvao umjetni virus napravljen u Kini, koji je ‘pobjegao’ iz laboratorija u pučanstvo. Nazvan je SARS-CoV-2, jer mu je osnova virus iz skupine SARS (koji su jako opasni). Kinezi nisu ciljali na zarazu nego na biološko oružje – za pričuvu u slučaju nevolje koja se zove rub gubitka rata. Isto rade i druge moćne države, ali Kinezima je virus pobjegao. To zaključujem zato što su njihovi znanstvenici u najuglednijim znanstvenim časopisima u svijetu godinama objavljivali svoje napredovanje u konstrukciji takvoga virusa. Nitko nije prosvjedovao, što znači da i drugi to rade. (Sada jedino g. D. Trump govori tu istinu, a napadaju ga ljubitelji kineskoga političkog sustava.) SARS-CoV-2 nikad nije postojao u prirodi i ni jedan organizam na njega ne razvija (jaku) sekundarnu imuno reakciju. Kineski znanstvenici su mu ciljano dodali gen koji mu omogućuje ulazak u stanicu preko molekule koja je inače normalno nazočna na nekim ljudskim stanicama. To je molekula povezana s jednim od hormona koji reguliraju krvni tlak (angiotenzin) i zove se „enzim 2 koji prerađuje angiotenzin“, ali njome se ovdje ne ćemo zamarati. No nije na odmet uočiti koliko su vješti bili ti kineski znanstvenici i koliko su znalački i precizno ciljali.
* * *
Dr. sc. Sladoljev | Dokazi, zapravo tvrdnje o manipulativnom prorijeklu COVID-19 virusa dolaze iz više pravaca. Luc Montagnier to zaključuje zbog podudarnih nizova virusa korone i AIDSa. Smatra da se to nije moglo dogoditi slučajno. Dr Li Meng Yan to pak tvrdi iz izravnih uvida. Sudjelovala je u tome. Meni se učinilo sumnjivim zbog čudnih koincidencija. Na laboratorijsko porijeklo upućivali su brojni koronaradovi i patenti unatrag više godina. Koronazaraze buknule su istovremeno u Italiji (Bergamo) i Kini (Wuhan) gdje su biotehnološki kompleksi koji takve viruse mogu napraviti i razmjenjivati. Nije slučajna ni financijska prisutnost Georga Sorosa u njima. Kako se moglo dogoditi da za „nultog“ koronapacijenta odmah sazna cijeli svijet! Uz stotinu tisuća koji umiru svaki dan, udarna „vijest“ je, eto, da je netko u Kini umro od gripe! Dnevnonoćno maltretiranje ljudi o izmišljenoj „novoj“ bolesti (koja nije u Top 50 svih uzroka smrti, a tek je na 14-tom mjestu uzroka smrti od zaraznih bolesti sa smrtnošću 0,5 – 1,0% u populaciji starijoj od 70 godina s teškim kronicitetima) – nije slučajno. „Akcija“ je sinhronizirana putem medija. Svjedoci smo MEDIdemije a ne pandemije.
Korona virus je planski izabran da „nosi“ PLANdemiju zbog visoke zaraznosti, i inače svojstva svih virusa prehlade. Da bi bio „učinkovitiji“, laboratorijski je „naoružan“ da blokira plućne funkcije. U sinergiji ovih svojstava, trebao je sijati smrt, baš onako kakve su bile početne projekcije. Očito su nešto znali dok se o virusu još ništa nije znalo? Na razočaranje PLANdemijskih arhitekata, takav scenarij nije uslijedio. Virus su zaustavili moćni alati stanične antivirusne obrane pa ga mladi i zdravi ljudi svladavaju kao i običnu prehladu. Još prije desetak godina, u vrijeme „svinjske“ PLANdemije, objasnio sam zašto kolovođama depopulacije neće uspjeti napraviti virus koji će zaobići sve prepreke stanične obrane, a kojeg će imunološka obrana u konačnici dokrajčiti. To je moguće samo u američkim filmovima. U Hollywoodu.
Iako je ovaj zadnji depopulacijski virus savršeno smišljen, činjenica je da ga večina zaustavlja bez simptoma bolesti. I baš takav, asimptomatski ishod, predvidio sam odmah po proglašenju pandemije od strane Melinde i Billa Gatesa via WHO.
*
Spoštovan evropski znanstvenik in predsednik Svetovne Akademije za biomedicinske znanosti in tehnologije (WABT) pravi: COVID-19 je bil inženiran v kitajskem laboratoriju in malo verjetno je, da bomo dobili učinkovito cepivo
August 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – It will not be possible for the Dr. Fauci’s of the world to dismiss Professor Giuseppe Tritto as a crank. Not only is he an internationally known expert in biotechnology and nanotechnology who has had a stellar academic career, but he is also the president of the World Academy of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies (WABT), an institution founded under the aegis of UNESCO in 1997.
In other words, he is a man of considerable stature in the global scientific community. Equally important, one of the goals of WABT is to analyze the effect of biotechnologies—like genetic engineering—on humanity.
In his new book, this world-class scientist does exactly that. And what he says is that the China Virus definitely wasn’t a freak of nature that happened to cross the species barrier from bat to man. It was genetically engineered in the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s P4 (high-containment) lab in a program supervised by the Chinese military.
Prof. Tritto’s book, which at present is available only in Italian, is called Cina COVID 19: La Chimera che ha cambiato il Mondo (China COVID 19: The chimera that changed the world). It was published on August 4 by a major Italian press, Edizioni Cantagalli, which coincidently also published the Italian edition of one of my books, Population Control (Controllo Demografico in Italian) several years ago.
What sets Prof. Tritto’s book apart is the fact that it demonstrates—conclusively, in my view—the pathway by which a PLA-owned coronavirus was genetically modified to become the China Virus now ravaging the world. His account leaves no doubt that it is a “chimera”, an organism created in a lab.
He also connects the dots linking the Wuhan lab to France and the United States, showing how both countries provided financial and scientific help to the Chinese as they began to conduct ever more dangerous bioengineering experiments. Although neither American nor French virologists are responsible for the end result—a highly infectious coronavirus and a global pandemic—their early involvement may explain why so many insist that the “chimera” must have come from nature. The last thing they want to admit is that they might have had a hand in it.
Those of us who, early on, argued for a laboratory origin were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. Our articles were censored as “fake news,” often by American virologists who knew perfectly well what the truth was, but preferred to protect China, and themselves, from scrutiny lest they themselves be implicated.
Dr. Tritto’s 272 pages of names, dates, places, and facts leaves such apologists with no place to hide. The story begins following the SARS epidemic of 2003, as the Chinese attempt to develop vaccines to combat the deadly disease. Dr. Shi Zhengli, about whom I have previously written, was in charge of the program at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
In vaccine development, reverse genetics is used to create viral strains that have reduced pathogenicity but to which the immune system responds by creating antibodies against the virus. But reverse genetics can also be used to create viral strains that have increased pathogenicity. That is what Dr. Shi, encouraged by PLA bioweapons experts, began increasingly to focus her research on, according to Prof. Tritto.
Dr. Shi first solicited help from the French government, which built the P4 lab, and from the country’s Pasteur institute, which showed her how to manipulate HIV genomes. The gene insertion method used is called “reverse genetics system 2.” Using this method, she inserted an HIV segment into a coronavirus discovered in horseshoe bats to make it more infectious and lethal.
The U.S. was involved as well, particularly Prof Ralph S. Baric, of the University of North Carolina, who was on the receiving end of major grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. This is, of course, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s shop. Fauci was a big proponent of “gain of function” research, and when this was prohibited at Baric’s lab because it was considered to be too dangerous, the research was shifted to China.
Prof. Tritto believes that, while Dr. Shi’s research began as an effort to develop a vaccine against SARS, it gradually morphed into an effort to use “reverse genetics” to build lethal biological weapons. This was the reason that the Wuhan lab became China’s leading center for virology research in recent years, attracting major funding and support from the central government.
I would add that the rule in Communist-controlled China is “let the civilian support the military,” which means that as soon as Dr. Shi’s research showed any potential military uses the PLA would have begun exercising control of the research. This came out in the open with the outbreak, when China’s leading expert on bioweapons, People’s Liberation Army Major General Chen Wei, was immediately placed in charge of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As for Dr. Shi Zheng-Li, she seems to have disappeared.
As Dr. Tritto explained in an interview with Italian media:
In 2005, after the SARS epidemic, the Wuhan Institute of Virology was born, headed by Dr. Shi Zheng-Li, who collects coronaviruses from certain bat species and recombines them with other viral components in order to create vaccines. In 2010 she came into contact with American researchers led by Prof. Ralph Baric, who in turn works on recombinant viruses based on coronaviruses. Thanks to the matrix viruses provided by Shi, Baric created in 2015 a mouse Sars-virus chimera, which has a pathogenic effect on human cells analyzed in vitro.
At that point, the China-US collaboration becomes competition. Shi wants to work on a more powerful virus to make a more powerful vaccine: it combines a bat virus with a pangolin virus in vitro and in 2017 publishes the results of this research in some scientific articles.
Her research attracts the interest of the Chinese military and medical-biological sector which deals with biological weapons used as a deterrent for defensive and offensive purposes. Thus Shi is joined by doctors and biologists who belong to the political-military sphere, such as Guo Deyin, a scholar of anti-AIDS and anti-viral hepatitis vaccines and expert in genetic recombination techniques. The introduction of the new engineered inserts into the virus genome is the result of the collaboration between the Shi team and that of Guo Deyin. The realization of this new chimera, from a scientific point of view, is a success. So much so that, once the epidemic has broken out, the two researchers ask WHO to register it as a new virus, H-nCoV-19 (Human new Covid 19), and not as another virus derived from SARS. It is reasonable to think that Shi acted only from the point of view of scientific prestige, without however taking into account the risks in terms of security and the political-military interests that her research would have aroused.
When asked why China has refused to provide the complete genome of the China Virus to the WHO or to other countries, Dr. Tritto explained that “providing the matrix [source] virus would have meant admitting that SARS-CoV-2 [China Virus] was created in the laboratory. In fact, the incomplete genome made available by China lacks some inserts of AIDS amino acids, which itself is a smoking gun.”
The key question, for those of us who are living through the pandemic, concerns the development of a vaccine. On this score, Prof. Tritto is not optimistic:
Given the many mutations of SARS-CoV-2, it is extremely unlikely that a single vaccine that blocks the virus will be found. At the moment 11 different strains have been identified: the A2a genetic line which developed in Europe and the B1 genetic line which took root in North America are more contagious than the 0 strain originating in Wuhan. I therefore believe that, at the most, a multivalent vaccine can be found effective on 4-5 strains and thus able to cover 70-75% of the world’s population.
In other words, by withholding from the world the original genetic code of the China Virus that it created, the Chinese Communist Party is ensuring that no completely effective vaccine will ever be developed by the West.
In other words, China continues to lie, and people continue to die.
Steven W. Mosher @StevenWMosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s “Dream” is the New Threat to World Order.
https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/are-we-creating-pandemic-viruses-simply-generate-research-funds-interview-dr-jonathan-latham
Koronavirus je lahko po nesreči ušel iz laboratorija v Wuhanu, je rekel bivši direktor britanske obveščevalne agencije MI6 (od 1999-2004) Sir Richard Dearlove za The Telegraph dne 4. 6. 2020. Povedal je tudi, da je videl poročilo o tem, da je virus delo človeških rok.
Zaradi slabe biološke varnosti naj bi koronavirus SARS CoV2 ušel med eksperimentom rezanja genov in Kitajska naj bi to skušala prikriti. Omenil je poročilo prof. Angusa Dalgleisha iz University of London in norveškega virologa Birger Sorensena, ki trdi da ima ta virus vstavljene sekvence genov. Poročilo navaja tudi neuspešnost cepiva, ker ne razumejo prave narave tega koronavirusa, ki kaže znake človeške manipulacije.
Dearlove je rekel, da so to poročilo zavrnile mnoge znanstvene revije, da ne bi razjezili Kitajske.
Dearlove je podvomil o nepristranskosti znanstvenih revij, ki so zavrnile prejšnjo analizo, saj so v kratkem času sprejeli članke kitajskih znanstvenikov, in pohvalil je avstralskega premierja Scotta Morrisona, ki si je drznil zahtevati mednarodno preiskavo nastanka pandemije koronavirusa.
TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — The coronavirus may have escaped from a laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan during an accident, the former head of the UK's foreign intelligence service said in The Telegraph Thursday (June 4).
Sir Richard Dearlove, chief of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, also said he had recently seen a report claiming the virus had not emerged from nature but was instead man-made.
In a podcast interview with The Telegraph, he suggested that a biosecurity failure might have led to the virus escaping during a gene-splicing experiment on bat coronaviruses. Dearlove added that he did not believe it was deliberately released but that China had clearly tried to cover up the danger.
The retired intelligence chief referred to a report by University of London Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian virologist Birger Sorensen that claims this virus was different from others as it contained “inserted sections.” The document even said vaccine development would end in failure because scientists had misunderstood the true nature of the coronavirus.
Dearlove said the report had been rejected by multiple scientific publications and watered down, which he claimed was to avoid angering China. Further analysis by Dalgleish and his team is slated for release in the near future, and it says that the Wuhan coronavirus had “unique fingerprints” that could not have evolved naturally, indicating manipulation by humans, The Telegraph reported.
Dearlove questioned the impartiality of the scientific journals which had rejected the earlier analysis, as they had accepted articles from Chinese scientists at short notice, and he praised Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison for daring to demand an international investigation into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.
Vir: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3944712
VIDEOPOSNETKI:
Did the pandemic begin in a lab? – Video interviews with experts
Dr Michael Antoniou was video-interviewed by Italian journalist Paolo Barnard for an upcoming documentary for the La7 Tv Network about the possibility that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, may have escaped from a lab. Mr Barnard also interviewed Dr Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Dr Wain-Hobson offers unnerving revelations about the history of virus gain-of-function research, which aims at making viruses more virulent or transmissible. Prof David Walt, a pathologist at Harvard, discusses the problems inherent in testing people for antibodies as a condition for allowing them back into society. Mr Barnard has posted the interviews on Youtube in advance of the documentary's broadcast in Italy, which is expected to be at the end of June. The interviews are in English, with a small amount of commentary in Italian.
In addition, Pat Thomas has interviewed a series of experts on these topics:
- Dr Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College in Valhalla, New York
- Dr Jonathan Latham, co-founder of Bioscience Resource Project and editor of Independent Science News
- Sam Husseini, independent journalist.
* * *
The Long History of Accidental Laboratory Releases of Potential Pandemic Pathogens Is Being Ignored In the COVID-19 Media Coverage
by Sam Husseini
Many people are dismissing the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic might have come from a lab. It is possible that they are unaware of the frequency of biohazards escaping from laboratories.
On Feb. 11, I asked Anne Schuchat, the CDC’s Principal Deputy Director, at the National Press Club if it were a “complete coincidence” that the outbreak of the novel coronavirus happened in Wuhan, a center of China’s declared biowarfare/biodefence capacity. I got an answer that was remarkably evasive. She wouldn’t answer my followup question about whether the claimed “zoonotic origin” precluded the outbreak from being caused by pathogens from nature that then could be accidentally leaked from the labs.
But neither are the facts always being provided to the public. A search on “Democracy Now” shows that the first time the program mentioned “Wuhan” and “lab” or “laboratory” was on April 6 — to credit “the Wuhan lab that identified the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.” Mainstream outlets at least reported the existence of the lab to their audiences in a somewhat timely manner, even if they distorted the information.
And skew the information they did.
Forbes (3/17/20) published the piece “No, COVID-19 Coronavirus Was Not Bioengineered. Here’s The Research That Debunks That Idea,” which depends on a misreading of a strange and misleading Nature Medicine article to dismiss the notion that it came out of a lab. The Forbes senior contributor on health, Bruce Y. Lee wrote: “it’s a lot easier to leak a pocket of air though your butt than a virus from a BSL-4 facility.” Apparently this was supposed to be reassuring.
Similarly CNN (4/6/20) mocked the notion of a lab leak when re-assessing the source of the pandemic, describing one possibility being that: “It leaked — like a genie out of a bottle — from a lab in an accident.”
But even a cursory look at the record shows that these labs, where ever they exist, have a lot of accidents — just from 2019, the New York Times (8/5/19) reported: “Deadly Germ Research Is Shut Down at Army Lab Over Safety Concerns”, an article about Fort Detrick in Maryland: “Problems with disposal of dangerous materials led the government to suspend research at the military’s leading biodefense center.” (The local paper, the Frederick News-Post has provided some coverage, including publishing letters by local activist Barry Kissin.)
USA Today had a reporter on this beat, Alison Young, but she left the paper. A sampling of her work:
“Hundreds of bioterror lab mishaps cloaked in secrecy” (8/17/14)
“Worker at Tulane possibly exposed to bioterror bacteria” (3/11/15)
“CDC failed to disclose lab incidents with bioterror pathogens to Congress” (6/23/16):
“GAO finds more gaps in oversight of bioterror germs studied in U.S.”:
“Government regulators have no idea how often laboratories working with some of the world’s most dangerous viruses and bacteria are failing to fully kill vials of specimens before sending them to other researchers who lack critical gear to protect them against infection, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office.” (9/21/16)
“Congress demands details of secret CDC lab incidents revealed by USA TODAY” (1/17/17)
Even since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, Nature reported: “Chinese institutes investigate pathogen outbreaks in lab workers.” (12/17/19)
Then, on April 16, “Democracy Now” interviewed Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance. Daszak is an interested party. He has worked with and helped fund the coronavirus experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He dismissed the prospect of lab release outright. The episode was headlined: “’Pure Baloney’: Zoologist Debunks Trump’s COVID-19 Origin Theory, Explains Animal-Human Transmission.”
Listeners to “Democracy Now” were not given elementary facts about the history of lab accidents. They were also not told that among the policy advisors for EcoHealth Alliance are David Franz, a former commander at Fort Detrick, the principle U.S. government biowarfare/biodefence facility and Thomas Geisbert, who is doing biodefence/biowarfare work at Galveston National Laboratory. EcoHealth Alliance partners include universities but also major corporations like Johnson & Johnson and Colgate Palmolive. Most importantly the EcoHealth Alliance has worked with USAID to fund dangerous collaborative work between scientists in the U.S. and in Wuhan.
According to Daszak they are simply trying to defend against pandemics. This requires collecting and even creating dangerous pathogens for the stated purpose of defending against them.
But, to Richard Ebright of Rutgers University, an eminent scientist and one of the few who scrutinize the well-funded biodefense/biowarfare networks, this is all incredibly dangerous:. Ebright calls it “Not ‘vaccine research.’ Not research that provides information useful for preventing or combatting outbreaks. Just reckless pseudo-scientific Indiana-Jones adventurism with high risk of infection of collector, and from there, infection of public.” He also charges that collecting thousands of such viruses is the “Definition of insanity.”
Interestingly, even the researcher who Daszak’s group supports at the Wuhan Institute of Virology says that she was initially quite concerned that the lab was the source. Shi Zhengli was profiled by Scientific American, (March 11, 2020) “How China’s ‘Bat Woman’ Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus“: “If coronaviruses were the culprit, she remembers thinking, ‘could they have come from our lab?’ … Shi breathed a sigh of relief when the results came back: none of the sequences matched those of the viruses her team had sampled from bat caves. ‘That really took a load off my mind,’ she says. ‘I had not slept a wink for days.'”
She seems more self reflective than Daszak, but why should the world take her word? As Ebright at Rutgers states: “A denial is not a refutation.”
In fact, there is no doubt that Fox News Channel, Senator Tom Cotton, and others are clearly trying to demonize China and portray Chinese labs as uniquely dangerous. The liberal counter to this is that Chinese labs are great, like U.S. labs. Excluded from this “discussion” is the obvious truth: These labs are all dangerous and there is no meaningful distinction between biowarfare and biodefence. The U.S. has effectively spurred a bioweapons arms race, as documented by Francis Boyle in his Biowarfare and Terrorism (2005).
By not taking on the issue of biowarfare, the left is effectively turning it over to the prowar right which is weaponizing it against China. The better tack, surely, is to take a comprehensive approach to ensure a bioweapons arms race doesn’t continue to threaten humanity.
On Fox, Sen. Cotton stated that U.S. labs do work that is “in large part done for preventative purposes,” like “trying to discover vaccines.” In contrast, “China is obviously very secretive about what happens at the Wuhan laboratory.” (FNC 2/16/20) In fact, all countries who do this work are secretive. Much of the rightwing coverage in the U.S. on this issue has been led by the reporting of Bill Gertz in the Washington Times whose books include The China Threat: How the People’s Republic Targets America and, from 2019: Deceiving the Sky: Inside Communist China’s Drive for Global Supremacy.
Similarly, Josh Rogin’s reporting in the Washington Post, “State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses” emanates from self serving elements of the U.S. government.
If current dynamics continue, the rightwing will use the issue of biolabs to demonize China, and perhaps other states, without there being any serious scrutiny applied to bioweapons work by the U.S. and its allies (Israel has not even signed the Biological Weapons Convention).
While some seek to demonize China, others, like David Ignatius of the Washington Post are calling for the U.S. and Chinese governments to work together. As are some Chinese officials. That can be a very dangerous proposition as well. Consider the dynamics of the other major weapon threatening humanity: nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia are effectively colluding to maintain their geopolitical power by maintaining their nuclear weapons stockpiles. They have blocked moves toward a nuclear weapons ban — an effort backed at the UN by 122 countries. There has been precious little discussion about this issue even though the group behind the effort, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, once won the Nobel Peace Prize. I challenged this collusion by asking about it at the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki but was dragged out of the hall, shackled, thrown in the back of a police vehicle and detained for six hours.
Following the 9/11 anthrax attacks, which likely originated in U.S. government labs — the U.S. government perversely and dramatically escalated spending on “biodefence” — building more labs all over the country, training hundreds if not thousands of more scientists to work on the planet’s most dangerous pathogens. This spending approximates to about five billion dollars each year since the anthrax attacks.
On April 21, the Times published the piece “How Scientists Could Stop the Next Pandemic Before It Starts,” about Daszak and friends, complete with fancy graphic, in which the Times states: “Researchers believe they could pre-emptively create vaccines and drugs to fight a wide range of viral threats — if they can get sufficient funding.”
So, while we still don’t know if the cause of the pandemic wasn’t this dangerous lab work, the people doing it — who are well funded already — are getting pieces into the New York Times effectively beating down the door for even more money.
And Ft. Detrick is about to get what appears to be the biggest and expensive “biodefense” lab ever built.
USAMRIID’s new high containment lab PHOTO: HDR/DAN SCHWALM
Still sanguine about the labs? In 2018, the Federal Select Agent Program “received eight reports of loss and 193 reports of a release of a biological select agent or toxin.”
Or try reading this excellent 2014 paper — “Laboratory Escapes and ‘Self-fulfilling prophecy’ Epidemics” — by Martin Furmanski of the Scientist’s Working Group on Chemical and Biologic Weapons and the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation (versions of it were published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and Slate):
He warned of “The danger to world or regional public health from the escape from microbiology laboratories of pathogens capable of causing pandemics, or Potentially Pandemic Pathogens (PPPs).”
Furmanski documented smallpox accidental releases in Britain in the 1970s, which eventually led to the head of the lab committing suicide, Venezuelan equine encephalitis in 1995, foot-and-mouth disease in Britain in 2007 which began “4 kilometers from a biosafety level 4 laboratory.”
More recently, he notes: “SARS has not naturally recurred, but there have been six separate ‘escapes’ from virology labs studying it: one each in Singapore and Taiwan, and in four distinct events at the same laboratory in Beijing. …
“It should be emphasized that these examples are only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ because they represent laboratory accidents that have actually caused illness outside of the laboratory in the general public environment. …
“Public awareness of the 1977 H1N1 pandemic and its likely laboratory origins has been virtually absent. Virologists and public health officials with the appropriate sophistication were quickly aware that a laboratory release was the most likely origin, but they were content not to publicize this, aware that such embarrassing allegations would likely end the then nascent cooperation of Russian and Chinese virologists, which was vital to worldwide influenza surveillance. …
“It is hardly reassuring that despite stepwise technical improvements in containment facilities and increased policy demands for biosecurity procedures in the handling of dangerous pathogens, that escapes of these pathogens regularly occur and cause outbreaks in the general environment. Looking at the problem pragmatically, question is not if such escapes will happen in the future, but rather what the pathogen may be and how such an escape will be contained, if indeed it can be contained at all.
“Advances in genetic manipulation now allow the augmentation of virulence and transmissibility in dangerous pathogens, and such experiments have been funded and performed, notably in the H5N1 avian influenza virus. The advisability of performing such experiments at all, and particularly in laboratories placed at universities in heavily populated urban areas, where laboratory personnel who are potentially exposed are in daily contact with a multitude of susceptible and unaware citizens is clearly in question. If such manipulations should be allowed at all, it would seem prudent to conduct them in isolated laboratories where personnel are sequestered from the general public and must undergo a period of ‘exit quarantine’ before re-entering civilian life.”
Sam Husseini is an independent journalist and founder of VotePact.org, which encourages principled progressives and conscientious conservatives to work together.
Was the COVID-19 virus genetically engineered?
Details Published: 22 April 2020
Netopir in pangolin mravljinčar
Since the COVID-19 pandemic took off, speculation has been rife about its origins. The truth is that nobody knows for certain how the virus first took hold. But despite that uncertainty, suggestions that the virus may have been genetically engineered, or otherwise lab-generated, have been rejected as “conspiracy theories” incompatible with the evidence.
Yet the main evidence that is cited as ending all speculation about the role of genetic engineering and as proving the virus could only have been the product of natural evolution turns out to be surprisingly weak. Let’s take a look at it.
The authors of a recently published paper in the journal Nature Medicine argue that the SARS-CoV-2 virus driving the pandemic arose through natural mutation and selection in animal (notably bats and pangolins) or human hosts, and not through laboratory manipulation and accidental release. And they say they have identified two key characteristics of the virus that prove this: the absence of a previously used virus backbone and the way in which the virus binds to human cells.
Not the "ideal" design for infectivity?
As you would expect of a virus that can cause a global pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 is good at infecting human cells. It does this by binding with high affinity (that is, it binds strongly) to the cell surface membrane protein known as angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which enables it to enter human cells. But, basing their argument on a computer modelling system, the authors of the Nature Medicine paper argue that the interaction between the virus and the ACE2 receptor is “not ideal”.
They say that the receptor-binding domain (RBD) amino acid sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein – the part of the spike protein that allows the virus to bind to the ACE2 protein on human cell surfaces – is different from those shown in the SARS-CoV family of viruses to be optimal for receptor binding.
They appear to argue, based on their and others’ computer modelling data, that they have identified the “ideal” CoV spike protein RBD amino acid sequence for ACE2 receptor binding. They then seem to imply that if you were to genetically engineer SARS-CoV for optimal human ACE2 binding and infectivity, you would use the RBD amino acid sequence predicted by their computer modelling. But they point out that SARS-CoV-2 does not have exactly the same computer program-predicted RBD amino acid sequence. Thus they conclude that it could not have been genetically engineered, stating: “This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.”
To put it simply, the authors are saying that SARS-CoV-2 was not deliberately engineered because if it were, it would have been designed differently.
However, the London-based molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou commented that this line of reasoning fails to take into account that there are a number of laboratory-based systems that can select for high affinity RBD variants that are able to take into account the complex environment of a living organism. This complex environment may impact the efficiency with which the SARS-CoV spike protein can find the ACE2 receptor and bind to it. An RBD selected via these more realistic real-world experimental systems would be just as “ideal”, or even more so, for human ACE2 binding than any RBD that a computer model could predict. And crucially, it would likely be different in amino acid sequence. So the fact that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t have the same RBD amino acid sequence as the one that the computer program predicted in no way rules out the possibility that it was genetically engineered.
Limits to computer modelling
Dr Antoniou said that the authors’ reasoning is not conclusive because it is based largely on computer modelling, which, he says, is “not definitive but only predictive. It cannot tell us whether any given virus would be optimized for infectivity in a real world scenario, such as in the human body. That's because the environment of the human body will influence how the virus interacts with the receptor. You can’t model that accurately with computer modelling as there are simply too many variables to factor into the equation.”
Dr Antoniou added, “People can put too much faith in computer programs, but they are only a beginning. You then have to prove whether the computer program’s prediction is correct or not by direct experimentation in a living organism. This has not been done in the case of this hypothesis, so it remains unproven.”
It is even possible that SARS-CoV-2 was optimized using a living organism model, resulting in a virus that is better at infecting humans than any computer model could predict.
More than one way to engineer a virus
The authors of the Nature Medicine article seem to assume that the only way to genetically engineer a virus is to take an already known virus and then engineer it to have the new properties you want. On this premise, they looked for evidence of an already known virus that could have been used in the engineering of SARS-CoV-2.
And they failed to find that evidence. They stated, “Genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.”
But Dr Antoniou told us that while the authors did indeed show that SARS-CoV-2 was unlikely to have been built by deliberate genetic engineering from a previously used virus backbone, that’s not the only way of constructing a virus. There is another method by which an enhanced-infectivity virus can be engineered in the lab.
A well-known alternative
A well-known alternative process that could have been used has the cumbersome name of “directed iterative evolutionary selection process”. In this case, it would involve using genetic engineering to generate a large number of randomly mutated versions of the SARS-CoV spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD), which would then be selected for strong binding to the ACE2 receptor and consequently high infectivity of human cells.
This selection can be done either with purified proteins or, better still, with a mixture of whole coronavirus (CoV) preparations and human cells in tissue culture. Alternatively, the SARS-CoV spike protein variants can be genetically engineered within what is known as a “phage display library”. A phage is a virus that infects bacteria and can be genetically engineered to express on its exterior coat the CoV spike protein with a large number of variants of the RBD. This preparation of phage, displaying on its surface a “library” of CoV spike protein variants, is then added to human cells under laboratory culture conditions in order to select for those that bind to the ACE2 receptor.
This process is repeated under more and more stringent binding conditions until CoV spike protein variants with a high binding affinity are isolated.
Once any of the above selection procedures for high affinity interaction of SARS-CoV spike protein with ACE2 has been completed, then whole infectious CoV with these properties can be manufactured.
Such a directed iterative evolutionary selection process is a frequently used method in laboratory research. So there is little or no possibility that the Nature Medicine article authors haven't heard of it – not least, as it is considered so scientifically important that its inventors were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018.
Yet the possibility that this is the way that SARS-CoV-2 arose is not addressed by the Nature Medicine article authors and so its use has not been disproven.
No proof SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered
In sum, the Nature Medicine article authors offer no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been genetically engineered. That's not to say that it was, of course. We can’t know one way or the other on the basis of currently available information.
Dr Antoniou wrote a short letter to Nature Medicine to point out these omissions in the authors’ case. Nature Medicine has no method of submitting a simple letter to the editor, so Dr Antoniou had to submit it as a Matters Arising commentary, which the journal defines as presenting "challenges or clarifications" to an original published work.
Dr Antoniou's comments were titled, "SARS-CoV-2 could have been created through laboratory manipulation". However, Nature Medicine refused to publish them on the grounds that “we do not feel that they advance or clarify understanding” of the original article. The journal offered no scientific argument to rebut his points.
In our view, those points do offer clarification to the original article, and what’s more, there is a strong public interest case for making them public. That’s why we reproduce Dr Antoniou’s letter below this article, with his permission.
Not genetic engineering – but human intervention
There is, incidentally, another possible way that SARS-CoV-2 could have been developed in a laboratory, but in this case without using genetic engineering. This was pointed out by Nikolai Petrovsky, a researcher at the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in South Australia. Petrovsky says that coronaviruses can be cultured in lab dishes with cells that have the human ACE2 receptor. Over time, the virus will gain adaptations that let it efficiently bind to those receptors. Along the way, that virus would pick up random genetic mutations that pop up but don't do anything noticeable.
“The result of these experiments is a virus that is highly virulent in humans but is sufficiently different that it no longer resembles the original bat virus,” Petrovsky said. “Because the mutations are acquired randomly by selection, there is no signature of a human gene jockey, but this is clearly a virus still created by human intervention.”
Dr Antoniou agrees that this method is possible – but he points out that waiting for nature to produce the desired mutations is a lot slower than using genetic engineering to generate a large number of random mutations that you can then select for the desired outcome by a directed iterative evolutionary procedure.
Because genetic engineering greatly speeds up the process, it is by far the most efficient way to generate novel pathogenic viruses in the lab.
Vested interests?
So why do some experts – and non-experts for that matter – seem so determined to put a stop to any speculation about whether SARS-CoV-2 could have been genetically engineered?
One explanation might be fear of a backlash against such research from the victims of the pandemic. Virologists, for example, who may want as much freedom as possible to study and manipulate viruses in their labs, won’t want their research restricted because of public concern. Others using genetic engineering in their work may also fear it will damage the general reputation of the technology and encourage tighter regulation.
And if concerns that SARS-CoV-2 may have been developed in a lab were to gain traction, the consequences in such a heavily commercialised area as biotechnology might not just be reputational but also financial.
In this context it is worth noting that one of the authors of the Nature Medicine piece is Robert F. Garry, who lists his “competing interest” as being “co-founder of Zalgen Labs, a biotechnology company that develops countermeasures to emerging viruses”. Heavier restrictions on genetic engineering or laboratory virus research might be considered counter to the interests of Zalgen Labs.
Conclusion
It is clear that there is no conclusive evidence either way at this point as to whether SARS-CoV-2 arose by natural mutation and selection in animal and/or human hosts or was genetically engineered in a laboratory. And in this light, the question of where this virus came from should continue to be explored with an open mind.
---
SARS-CoV-2 could have been created through laboratory manipulation
Dr Michael Antoniou
Kristian Andersen and colleagues (“The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2”, Nature Medicine, 26: 450–452, 2020) argue that their amino acid sequence comparisons and computational modelling definitively proves that SARS-CoV-2 has arisen through natural mutation and selection in animal or human hosts, and not through laboratory manipulation and accidental release. However, although the authors may indeed be correct in how they perceive SARS-CoV-2 to have arisen, the data they present does not exclude the possibility that this new coronavirus variant could have been created through an in vitro, directed iterative evolutionary selection process (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution). Using this method, a very large library of randomly mutagenized coronavirus spike proteins could be selected for strong binding to the ACE2 receptor and consequently high infectivity of human cells. The power of such directed evolution to select for optimal enzymatic and protein-protein interactions was acknowledged by the award of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018 (see https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2018/summary/).
Source: https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19383
COVID-19 SARS CoV-2 je rezultat številnih genetskih manipulacij koronavirusa SARS, ki je povezan z akutnim respiratornim sindromom. Pridobljen je z "blanco alveolar" izpiranjem bolnikov, okuženih s koronavirusom SARS, katera so opravili znanstveniki iz Inštituta Pasteur pred letom 2003 v francoski bolnišnici v mestu Hanoi v Vietnamu.
Koraki gentske manipulacije obsegajo patente za SARS CoV - SARS CoV1 - SARS CoV2
SARS CoV je bil narejen s prvim patentom Inštituta Pasteru leta 2003: Patent EP1 694 829 B1 in US 012.8224 A1. Gre za 1 DNK sekvenco z 29746 nukleotidi ter 157 DNK in PRT sekvenc, vstavljenih v RNK genom SARS CoV. Patentiran je v EU in ZDA in narejen je bil na podlagi vzorcev, ki so jih zbrali v bolnišnici v Vietnamu pred letom 2003.
Drugi korak je Patent iz leta 2011- Patent US 8.243. 718 B2, ki je nadaljevanje prejšnjih dveh patentov za SARS CoV-2. To je patent Inštituta Paster za SARS CoV-1.
Tretji korak je produkcija koronavirusa SARS CoV-2 z vstavljanjem 4 sekvenc genov RNA retorivursa HIV / AIDS (za aminokisline gp120 in Gag) . Patent je Inštitut Pasteur vložil leta 2019 in bo v javnosti objavljen leta 2021.
Oče COVID-19 SARS CoV-2 je dr. Frederic Tangy, direktor inovacij na področju cepiv v Inštitutu Pasteur. Dejansko je bil COVID-19/ SARS CoV2 koronavirus narejen v Franciji na Inštitutu Pasteur, iz naravnega SARS koronavirusa. Potem je bil prenesen v Inštitut za virologijo v Wuhanu na Kitajskem, kjer so ga francoski znanstveniki iz Inštituta Pasteur namerno razpršili, ne da bi znanstveniki v Wuhanu ali kitajska vlada to vedeli. Ko Kitajska trdi, da SARS CoV-2 ni kitajski virus, ne laže.
Cepivo za COVID-19 ne bo imelo učinek takoj po injeciranju. Kajti pozneje se lahko pojavijo smrti zaradi malarije, AIDS-a itd...Cepljena oseba bo lahko imela pomanjkljivo delovanje imunskega sistema, kar pomeni, da bo lahko v naslednjih letih umrla zaradi kakršne koli okužbe.
če mislite da je to lažna novica, preverite prosim informacije na strani
Vir: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=RNx4Ow-OqFI&fbclid=IwAR16r-kex-fLFpAcjEH0DMIfwVgtIWRc_jcjNzxCoV56sttSwBLh5rlcZVo&app=desktop
* * *
Yan earlier told a visibly startled Carlson that she has “solid scientific evidence” that the virus “actually is not from nature, it is a man-made virus created in the lab.”
*
*
The first case of SARS-CoV-2 didn't emerge from a Wuhan wet market, according to experts at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Instead, the live animal market may have been the site of a superspreader event, where one person spread the virus to many other people, one US-based expert told Live Science.
Since the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, reports have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) jumped from animals to humans in Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Now, experts at the WIV have said publicly that the theory was wrong, and that the virus must have originated elsewhere, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
"I haven't seen anything that makes me feel, as a researcher who studies zoonotic disease, that this market is a likely option," said Colin Carlson, a professor at Georgetown University who studies the spread of such zoonotic viruses, which transmit between animals and humans. Carlson does not work for the WIV.
Related: How does the new coronavirus compare with the flu?
The theory was plausible, he said. For a virus to jump from animals to humans, the animal host needs to come into contact with humans somewhere. And viruses often jump from one animal to another before breaking into the human population. In fact, the genome of SARS-CoV-2 is most closely related to coronaviruses isolated from horseshoe bats in China. From there, scientists suspect the virus may have jumped to another animal and then hopped to humans. Wet markets, where lots of different species of live animals are clustered, and lots of humans come into contact with them, offer opportunities for that sort of transmission. And the outbreak of another coronavirus, dubbed SARS, began at a similar market in 2002, after that virus spread from bats to civets.
A number of early cases of the outbreak in Wuhan were tied to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Later, researchers took environmental samples that suggested the virus had landed on surfaces in the market. But in the period since, tissue samples from the market's animals have revealed no trace of the virus. For the virus to jump from animals to humans, the animals have to actually be carrying it.
"None of the animals tested positive. So since January, this has not actually been particularly conclusive. But this has developed into a narrative," he said.
Carlson said his colleagues in China have been careful and precise in their work, publishing data according to international regulations that any scientist anywhere in the world can examine, and that strongly supports the conclusion that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market wasn't the source of the virus.
One reason this idea has gained such traction is that it dovetails with conservation efforts. Many wet markets sell exotic, endangered and highly trafficked animals such as pangolins. And it would be a victory for animal conservation, he said, if markets like this one were shut down after being blamed for the disease. But that doesn't mean that the evidence is there.
"This is an animal-origin virus that made the leap, maybe from bats to humans, maybe through… another animal, maybe through livestock. And we don't have the data yet to know where or how," he said. "That takes time. The study that really definitively showed the bats that SARS came from was published in 2017," roughly 15 years after the outbreak first occurred.
"It took that long to go through caves, to go through samples, and build an evidence base where we could confidently say: 'This was the sort of bat, in this cave, at this time," Carlson said.
So when will we know for sure where SARS-CoV-2 came from? Ruling out one site took a few months. Finding the definitive origin site will likely take much longer, he said.
https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-did-not-start-at-wuhan-wet-market.html
*
Nobelov nagrajenec in virolog prof.dr Luc Montaigner : SARS CoV-2 je bil narejen v laboratoriju: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9VDarILtWc&feature=emb_logo
*
WHO inspector caught on camera revealing coronavirus manipulation in Wuhan before pandemic
Video shows scientist mention coronavirus experimentation in Wuhan lab weeks before pandemic
18.1. 2021
TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — Video taken just days before the start of the coronavirus pandemic shows a current World Health Organization (WHO) inspector discuss the testing of modified coronaviruses on human cells and humanized mice in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), just weeks before the first cases of COVID-19 were announced in the city of Wuhan itself.
In a video that was originally taken on Dec. 9, 2019, three weeks before the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission announced an outbreak of a new form of pneumonia, virologist Vincent Racaniello interviewed British zoologist and president of EcoHealth Alliance Peter Daszak about his work at the nonprofit to protect the world from the emergence of new diseases and predict pandemics. Since 2014, Daszak's organization has received millions of dollars of funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which it has funneled to the WIV to carry out research on bat coronaviruses.
In the first phase of research, which took place from 2014 to 2019, Daszak coordinated with Shi Zhengli, (石正麗), also known as "Bat Woman," at the WIV on investigating and cataloging bat coronaviruses across China. EcoHealth Alliance received US$3.7 million in funding from the NIH for this research and 10 percent was channeled to the WIV, reported NPR.
The second, more dangerous phase, which started in 2019, involved gain-of-function (GoF) research on coronaviruses and chimeras in humanized mice from the lab of Ralph S. Baric of the University of North Carolina. Funding for the program was withdrawn by the NIH under the Trump administration on April 27 amid the pandemic.
At the 28:10 mark of the podcast interview, Daszak states that researchers found that SARS likely originated from bats and then set out to find more SARS-related coronaviruses, eventually finding over 100. He observed that some coronaviruses can "get into human cells in the lab," and others can cause SARS disease in "humanized mouse models."
He ominously warned that such coronaviruses are "untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals [antibodies] and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine." Ironically, he claims that his team's goal was trying to find the next "spillover event" that could cause the next pandemic, mere weeks before cases of COVID-19 were beginning to be reported in Wuhan.
When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the GoF experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the WIV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk."
Daszak mentions the WIV's collaboration with Baric: "and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC [University of North Carolina] to do this." As has been suggested by proponents that SARS-CoV-2 is a chimera made in a lab, he speaks of inserting the spike protein "into a backbone of another virus" and then doing "some work in the lab."
dr. Vicent Racaniello (left) and Peter Daszak (right)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYDL_RK--w&feature=emb_logo
Providing evidence of the creation of chimeras for the sake of a vaccine, he states "Now, the logical progression for vaccines is, if you are going to develop a vaccine for SARS, people are going to use pandemic SARS, but let’s try to insert these other related diseases and get a better vaccine.”
Based on Daszak's statements, it appears that just before the start of the pandemic, the WIV was using GoF experiments with chimeras in an attempt to create a vaccine. These experiments appeared to have included infecting mice genetically modified to express the human ACE2 protein with these chimeras.
In a presentation titled "Assessing Coronavirus Threats," which was delivered four years before the pandemic in 2015, Daszak points out that experiments involving humanized mice have the highest degree of risk. Demonstrating his close ties with the WIV, he also listed the lab as a collaborator at the end of the presentation.
Controversially, Daszak has been included among a team of experts from the WHO that has finally been allowed by Beijing to investigate the origin of the outbreak of COVID-19, over a year after it started. Scientists such as Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, are condemning Daszak's participation due to conflicts of interest "that unequivocally disqualify him from being part of an investigation of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic," reported the Daily Mail.
In light of the WHO's trip to Wuhan, a researcher who goes by the pseudonym Billy Bostickson and his colleagues at DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) have created a petition demanding that the international investigation team answer 50 key questions about the outbreak in Wuhan. Among the questions is a request to access to the facility's database and laboratory records, which are supposed to go back 20 years and include a look at its safety procedures, safety audit reports, and safety incident reports.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4104828
*
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03165-9
*
Potpuno razotkrivena lažna pandemija Covid-19 i Frankenštajn cjepivo!
Covid-19 nije Sars CoV-2 već je genetska manipulacija Sars-CoV-2, drugim riječima to je Frankeštajn koji po svojim karakteristikama ulazi u sferu biološkog oružja. On je početak priče stvaranja lažne programirane pandemije uz konstantno nametanje ograničenja i širenja straha, od strane četverokuta „ Vlade svijeta – medicina – korporacije - mediji“ koji trebaju natjerati čovječanstvo na cijepljenje tijekom nadolazećeg razdoblja.
Tim vrhunskih liječnika iz Francuske objavio je (uz svu dokumentaciju) na svojim stranicama dokument pod nazivom THE WHOLE TRUTH, COVID19, COVID 19 VACCINES.
Nastajanje Covida 19
Covid-19 je rezultat nekoliko kontinuiranih genetskih manipulacija soja coronavirusa „Sars-CoV“ koje su se odvijale u Institut Pasteur, u Francuskoj. Svaka od tih genetskih manipulacija zaštićena je patentom na nivou Europe i/ili na nivou Amerike tako da može bilo kojem čitatelju biti lako provjerljiva.
Prvi korak
U genetskoj manipulaciji je stvaranje Sars-CoV-1 od Sars Cov virusa prikupljenog prije 2003 g. u francuskoj bolnici Hanoiu-Vijetnam. Sars Cov 1 proizveden je i zaštićen patentom EU 2003g. pod brojem EP 1694829 B1 i patentom USA 2003 g. pod brojem 0128224 A1. U ovom prvom koraku su u RNA ge od Sars-Cov-a ubačeni:
1 DNA sekvenca od 29746 nukleotida,
1 s 7 DNA i PRT sekvence (thimerosal, formaldehin, aluminijum itd)
Drugi korak
je promjena imena iz Sars-Cov-1 u Sars-Cov-2 koja nije sa sobom donijela nikakvu genetsku manipulaciju već su prvi US patent i EU patent zaštićeni novim patentom US 2011 ovaj put pod brojem US 8,243,718 B2.
Treći najopasniji korak
su genetske manipulacije na novopatentiranom Sars-Cov-u 2 izvedene u razdoblju između 2011 -2015 g. koje su stvorile pravog Frankerštajna pod nazivom Covid-19. U ovom koraku su ubačena četiri fragmenta HIV-a koji se u cijelosti podudaraju s kratkim segmentima amino acida pronađenih u gp 120 (glikoprotein koji strši na omotnici virusa i koji je i ključan za priključenje na stanicu čovjeka i za proboj virusa u stanicu) i Gag-u (koji je glavni strukturni protein ) kod HIV-a i DNA sekvence od malarije.
Ove gore navedene manipulacije su potvrđene tijekom 2020 g. od poznatog ruskog mikrobiologa profesora Petera Chumakova, japanskog profesora Tasuku Honjo, dobitnika Nobelove nagrade za medicinu 2018 g.,francuskog profesora Luca Montagniera, dobitnika Nobelove nagrade za medicinu 2008 g., kao i multidisciplinarnog tima indijskih znanstvenika.
Razdoblje usnulog Covida 19
Po nekoj logici stvari Covid 19 je trebao biti patentiran 2015 g. međutim isto nije urađeno već se Covid 19 pojavljuje u javnosti tek krajem 2019 godine.
Što se događalo u periodu od 2015 – 2019 g., dok je virus bio u dubokom snu?
A/ 13.10 2015 g. prijavljen je „US patent za izum testova za COVID-19“ pod brojem US 2015/622,407 P u kojem se upisuje cjelokupna metoda utvrđivanja postojanja viralne infekcije Covidom-19 kod korisnika testa. Patent je prijavio Richard Rothschild. Gledajući godinu u kojoj je rađena prva genetska manipulacija- 2003 g. kao i godinu u kojoj se pojavio virus-2019 g., pojavljuje se neizbježna činjenica da je pandemija bila programirana minimalno 16 godina unaprijed.
B/ Daljnji dokazi ove programirane pandemije ukazuju da je došlo do prodaje testova za Covid-19 u 2017 g. velikom broju država za iznos od preko 10 milijardi $.
C/ U veljači 2017 g. delegacija Francuske vlade zajedno s predstavnicima Instituta Pasteur putuje u Wuhan zbog zajedničke znanstvene suradnje u novom P4 laboratoriju
Stvaranje cjepiva
Buđenjem Covid-19 krajem 2019 g. I pojavom lažne pandemije dolazi do utrke u proizvodnji cjepiva Covid-19 i u osmom mjesecu 2020 g. Prijavljeno je WHO-u 160 kandidata za razvoj cjepiva.
Kod stvaranja cjepiva „ChAdOx1-a-Cov-19“ osim 4 fragmenta HIV-a (posljedice su kod cijepljenih su AIDS Sindrom i kronično slabljenje imuniteta) i virusa Malarije dodani su:
- Vektor Chad OH1 koji predstavlja modificirani adenovirus chimpanze koji mu omogućava nesmetanu replikaciju.
- Nanočestice koje su patentirane kao „US Psatent WO 2020/060606 A1“ upisan od strane Microsoft-a Jednom kada nanočestice budu ubačene u tijelo cijepljeni ljudi mogu biti neprekidno praćeni preko 5G mreže i -5G satelita.
*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoXzrjwnLPg - SARS CoV-2 je ušel iz laboratorija
* * *
*
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/bulletin-atomic-scientists-opens-wuhan-virus-pandoras-box
6. maj 2021
Authored by Nicholas Wade via the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (emphasis ours),
The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives the world over for more than a year. Its death toll will soon reach three million people. Yet the origin of pandemic remains uncertain: The political agendas of governments and scientists have generated thick clouds of obfuscation, which the mainstream press seems helpless to dispel.
In what follows I will sort through the available scientific facts, which hold many clues as to what happened, and provide readers with the evidence to make their own judgments. I will then try to assess the complex issue of blame, which starts with, but extends far beyond, the government of China.
By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze.
The virus that caused the pandemic is known officially as SARS-CoV-2, but can be called SARS2 for short. As many people know, there are two main theories about its origin. One is that it jumped naturally from wildlife to people. The other is that the virus was under study in a lab, from which it escaped. It matters a great deal which is the case if we hope to prevent a second such occurrence.
I’ll describe the two theories, explain why each is plausible, and then ask which provides the better explanation of the available facts. It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction. And having inferred that direction, I’m going to delineate some of the strands in this tangled skein of disaster.
A tale of two theories. After the pandemic first broke out in December 2019, Chinese authorities reported that many cases had occurred in the wet market — a place selling wild animals for meat — in Wuhan. This reminded experts of the SARS1 epidemic of 2002, in which a bat virus had spread first to civets, an animal sold in wet markets, and from civets to people. A similar bat virus caused a second epidemic, known as MERS, in 2012. This time the intermediary host animal was camels.
The decoding of the virus’s genome showed it belonged a viral family known as beta-coronaviruses, to which the SARS1 and MERS viruses also belong. The relationship supported the idea that, like them, it was a natural virus that had managed to jump from bats, via another animal host, to people. The wet market connection, the major point of similarity with the SARS1 and MERS epidemics, was soon broken: Chinese researchers found earlier cases in Wuhan with no link to the wet market. But that seemed not to matter when so much further evidence in support of natural emergence was expected shortly.
Wuhan, however, is home of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading world center for research on coronaviruses. So the possibility that the SARS2 virus had escaped from the lab could not be ruled out. Two reasonable scenarios of origin were on the table.
From early on, public and media perceptions were shaped in favor of the natural emergence scenario by strong statements from two scientific groups. These statements were not at first examined as critically as they should have been.
“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” a group of virologists and others wrote in the Lancet on February 19, 2020, when it was really far too soon for anyone to be sure what had happened. Scientists “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” they said, with a stirring rallying call for readers to stand with Chinese colleagues on the frontline of fighting the disease.
Contrary to the letter writers’ assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy. It surely needed to be explored, not rejected out of hand. A defining mark of good scientists is that they go to great pains to distinguish between what they know and what they don’t know. By this criterion, the signatories of the Lancet letter were behaving as poor scientists: They were assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true.
It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”
Virologists like Daszak had much at stake in the assigning of blame for the pandemic. For 20 years, mostly beneath the public’s attention, they had been playing a dangerous game. In their laboratories they routinely created viruses more dangerous than those that exist in nature. They argued that they could do so safely, and that by getting ahead of nature they could predict and prevent natural “spillovers,” the cross-over of viruses from an animal host to people. If SARS2 had indeed escaped from such a laboratory experiment, a savage blowback could be expected, and the storm of public indignation would affect virologists everywhere, not just in China. “It would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom,” an MIT Technology Review editor, Antonio Regalado, said in March 2020.
A second statement that had enormous influence in shaping public attitudes was a letter (in other words an opinion piece, not a scientific article) published on 17 March 2020 in the journal Nature Medicine. Its authors were a group of virologists led by Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute. “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the five virologists declared in the second paragraph of their letter.
Unfortunately, this was another case of poor science, in the sense defined above. True, some older methods of cutting and pasting viral genomes retain tell-tale signs of manipulation. But newer methods, called “no-see-um” or “seamless” approaches, leave no defining marks. Nor do other methods for manipulating viruses such as serial passage, the repeated transfer of viruses from one culture of cells to another. If a virus has been manipulated, whether with a seamless method or by serial passage, there is no way of knowing that this is the case. Andersen and his colleagues were assuring their readers of something they could not know.
The discussion part of their letter begins, “It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus.” But wait, didn’t the lead say the virus had clearly not been manipulated? The authors’ degree of certainty seemed to slip several notches when it came to laying out their reasoning.
The reason for the slippage is clear once the technical language has been penetrated. The two reasons the authors give for supposing manipulation to be improbable are decidedly inconclusive.
First, they say that the spike protein of SARS2 binds very well to its target, the human ACE2 receptor, but does so in a different way from that which physical calculations suggest would be the best fit. Therefore the virus must have arisen by natural selection, not manipulation.
If this argument seems hard to grasp, it’s because it’s so strained. The authors’ basic assumption, not spelt out, is that anyone trying to make a bat virus bind to human cells could do so in only one way. First they would calculate the strongest possible fit between the human ACE2 receptor and the spike protein with which the virus latches onto it. They would then design the spike protein accordingly (by selecting the right string of amino acid units that compose it). Since the SARS2 spike protein is not of this calculated best design, the Andersen paper says, therefore it can’t have been manipulated.
But this ignores the way that virologists do in fact get spike proteins to bind to chosen targets, which is not by calculation but by splicing in spike protein genes from other viruses or by serial passage. With serial passage, each time the virus’s progeny are transferred to new cell cultures or animals, the more successful are selected until one emerges that makes a really tight bind to human cells. Natural selection has done all the heavy lifting. The Andersen paper’s speculation about designing a viral spike protein through calculation has no bearing on whether or not the virus was manipulated by one of the other two methods.
The authors’ second argument against manipulation is even more contrived. Although most living things use DNA as their hereditary material, a number of viruses use RNA, DNA’s close chemical cousin. But RNA is difficult to manipulate, so researchers working on coronaviruses, which are RNA-based, will first convert the RNA genome to DNA. They manipulate the DNA version, whether by adding or altering genes, and then arrange for the manipulated DNA genome to be converted back into infectious RNA.
Only a certain number of these DNA backbones have been described in the scientific literature. Anyone manipulating the SARS2 virus “would probably” have used one of these known backbones, the Andersen group writes, and since SARS2 is not derived from any of them, therefore it was not manipulated. But the argument is conspicuously inconclusive. DNA backbones are quite easy to make, so it’s obviously possible that SARS2 was manipulated using an unpublished DNA backbone.
And that’s it. These are the two arguments made by the Andersen group in support of their declaration that the SARS2 virus was clearly not manipulated. And this conclusion, grounded in nothing but two inconclusive speculations, convinced the world’s press that SARS2 could not have escaped from a lab. A technical critique of the Andersen letter takes it down in harsher words.
Science is supposedly a self-correcting community of experts who constantly check each other’s work. So why didn’t other virologists point out that the Andersen group’s argument was full of absurdly large holes? Perhaps because in today’s universities speech can be very costly. Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. Any virologist who challenges the community’s declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency.
The Daszak and Andersen letters were really political, not scientific, statements, yet were amazingly effective. Articles in the mainstream press repeatedly stated that a consensus of experts had ruled lab escape out of the question or extremely unlikely. Their authors relied for the most part on the Daszak and Andersen letters, failing to understand the yawning gaps in their arguments. Mainstream newspapers all have science journalists on their staff, as do the major networks, and these specialist reporters are supposed to be able to question scientists and check their assertions. But the Daszak and Andersen assertions went largely unchallenged.
Doubts about natural emergence. Natural emergence was the media’s preferred theory until around February 2021 and the visit by a World Health Organization (WHO) commission to China. The commission’s composition and access were heavily controlled by the Chinese authorities. Its members, who included the ubiquitous Daszak, kept asserting before, during, and after their visit that lab escape was extremely unlikely. But this was not quite the propaganda victory the Chinese authorities may have been hoping for. What became clear was that the Chinese had no evidence to offer the commission in support of the natural emergence theory.
This was surprising because both the SARS1 and MERS viruses had left copious traces in the environment. The intermediary host species of SARS1 was identified within four months of the epidemic’s outbreak, and the host of MERS within nine months. Yet some 15 months after the SARS2 pandemic began, and after a presumably intensive search, Chinese researchers had failed to find either the original bat population, or the intermediate species to which SARS2 might have jumped, or any serological evidence that any Chinese population, including that of Wuhan, had ever been exposed to the virus prior to December 2019. Natural emergence remained a conjecture which, however plausible to begin with, had gained not a shred of supporting evidence in over a year.
And as long as that remains the case, it’s logical to pay serious attention to the alternative conjecture, that SARS2 escaped from a lab.
Why would anyone want to create a novel virus capable of causing a pandemic? Ever since virologists gained the tools for manipulating a virus’s genes, they have argued they could get ahead of a potential pandemic by exploring how close a given animal virus might be to making the jump to humans. And that justified lab experiments in enhancing the ability of dangerous animal viruses to infect people, virologists asserted.
With this rationale, they have recreated the 1918 flu virus, shown how the almost extinct polio virus can be synthesized from its published DNA sequence, and introduced a smallpox gene into a related virus.
These enhancements of viral capabilities are known blandly as gain-of-function experiments. With
coronaviruses, there was particular interest in the spike proteins, which jut out all around the spherical surface of the virus and pretty much determine which species of animal it will target. In 2000 Dutch researchers, for instance, earned the gratitude of rodents everywhere by genetically engineering the spike protein of a mouse coronavirus so that it would attack only cats.
Virologists started studying bat coronaviruses in earnest after these turned out to be the source of both the SARS1 and MERS epidemics. In particular, researchers wanted to understand what changes needed to occur in a bat virus’s spike proteins before it could infect people.
Researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, led by China’s leading expert on bat viruses, Shi Zheng-li or “Bat Lady,” mounted frequent expeditions to the bat-infested caves of Yunnan in southern China and collected around a hundred different bat coronaviruses.
Shi then teamed up with Ralph S. Baric, an eminent coronavirus researcher at the University of North Carolina. Their work focused on enhancing the ability of bat viruses to attack humans so as to “examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs [coronaviruses].” In pursuit of this aim, in November 2015 they created a novel virus by taking the backbone of the SARS1 virus and replacing its spike protein with one from a bat virus (known as SHC014-CoV). This manufactured virus was able to infect the cells of the human airway, at least when tested against a lab culture of such cells.
The SHC014-CoV/SARS1 virus is known as a chimera because its genome contains genetic material from two strains of virus. If the SARS2 virus were to have been cooked up in Shi’s lab, then its direct prototype would have been the SHC014-CoV/SARS1 chimera, the potential danger of which concerned many observers and prompted intense discussion.
“If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” said Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris.
Baric and Shi referred to the obvious risks in their paper but argued they should be weighed against the benefit of foreshadowing future spillovers. Scientific review panels, they wrote, “may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue.” Given various restrictions being placed on gain-of function (GOF) research, matters had arrived in their view at “a crossroads of GOF research concerns; the potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks must be weighed against the risk of creating more dangerous pathogens. In developing policies moving forward, it is important to consider the value of the data generated by these studies and whether these types of chimeric virus studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved.”
That statement was made in 2015. From the hindsight of 2021, one can say that the value of gain-of-function studies in preventing the SARS2 epidemic was zero. The risk was catastrophic, if indeed the SARS2 virus was generated in a gain-of-function experiment.
Inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Baric had developed, and taught Shi, a general method for engineering bat coronaviruses to attack other species. The specific targets were human cells grown in cultures and humanized mice. These laboratory mice, a cheap and ethical stand-in for human subjects, are genetically engineered to carry the human version of a protein called ACE2 that studs the surface of cells that line the airways.
Shi returned to her lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and resumed the work she had started on genetically engineering coronaviruses to attack human cells. How can we be so sure?
Because, by a strange twist in the story, her work was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). And grant proposals that funded her work, which are a matter of public record, specify exactly what she planned to do with the money.
The grants were assigned to the prime contractor, Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, who subcontracted them to Shi. Here are extracts from the grants for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. (“CoV” stands for coronavirus and “S protein” refers to the virus’s spike protein.)
“Test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice.”
“We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.”
What this means, in non-technical language, is that Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. Her plan was to take genes that coded for spike proteins possessing a variety of measured affinities for human cells, ranging from high to low. She would insert these spike genes one by one into the backbone of a number of viral genomes (“reverse genetics” and “infectious clone technology”), creating a series of chimeric viruses. These chimeric viruses would then be tested for their ability to attack human cell cultures (“in vitro”) and humanized mice (“in vivo”). And this information would help predict the likelihood of “spillover,” the jump of a coronavirus from bats to people.
The methodical approach was designed to find the best combination of coronavirus backbone and spike protein for infecting human cells. The approach could have generated SARS2-like viruses, and indeed may have created the SARS2 virus itself with the right combination of virus backbone and spike protein.
It cannot yet be stated that Shi did or did not generate SARS2 in her lab because her records have been sealed, but it seems she was certainly on the right track to have done so. “It is clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was systematically constructing novel chimeric coronaviruses and was assessing their ability to infect human cells and human-ACE2-expressing mice,” says Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and leading expert on biosafety.
“It is also clear,” Ebright said, “that, depending on the constant genomic contexts chosen for analysis, this work could have produced SARS-CoV-2 or a proximal progenitor of SARS-CoV-2.” “Genomic context” refers to the particular viral backbone used as the testbed for the spike protein.
The lab escape scenario for the origin of the SARS2 virus, as should by now be evident, is not mere hand-waving in the direction of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is a detailed proposal, based on the specific project being funded there by the NIAID.
Even if the grant required the work plan described above, how can we be sure that the plan was in fact carried out? For that we can rely on the word of Daszak, who has been much protesting for the last 15 months that lab escape was a ludicrous conspiracy theory invented by China-bashers.
On December 9, 2019, before the outbreak of the pandemic became generally known, Daszak gave an interview in which he talked in glowing terms of how researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been reprogramming the spike protein and generating chimeric coronaviruses capable of infecting humanized mice.
“And we have now found, you know, after 6 or 7 years of doing this, over 100 new SARS-related coronaviruses, very close to SARS,” Daszak says around minute 28 of the interview. “Some of them get into human cells in the lab, some of them can cause SARS disease in humanized mice models and are untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine. So, these are a clear and present danger….
“Interviewer: You say these are diverse coronaviruses and you can’t vaccinate against them, and no anti-virals — so what do we do?
“Daszak: Well I think…coronaviruses — you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happen with coronavirus, in zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work a lot with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab. So you can get more predictive when you find a sequence. You’ve got this diversity. Now the logical progression for vaccines is, if you are going to develop a vaccine for SARS, people are going to use pandemic SARS, but let’s insert some of these other things and get a better vaccine.” The insertions he referred to perhaps included an element called the furin cleavage site, discussed below, which greatly increases viral infectivity for human cells.
In disjointed style, Daszak is referring to the fact that once you have generated a novel coronavirus that can attack human cells, you can take the spike protein and make it the basis for a vaccine.
One can only imagine Daszak’s reaction when he heard of the outbreak of the epidemic in Wuhan a few days later. He would have known better than anyone the Wuhan Institute’s goal of making bat coronaviruses infectious to humans, as well as the weaknesses in the institute’s defense against their own researchers becoming infected.
But instead of providing public health authorities with the plentiful information at his disposal, he immediately launched a public relations campaign to persuade the world that the epidemic couldn’t possibly have been caused by one of the institute’s souped-up viruses. “The idea that this virus escaped from a lab is just pure baloney. It’s simply not true,” he declared in an April 2020 interview.
The safety arrangements at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Daszak was possibly unaware of, or perhaps he knew all too well, the long history of viruses escaping from even the best run laboratories. The smallpox virus escaped three times from labs in England in the 1960’s and 1970’s, causing 80 cases and 3 deaths. Dangerous viruses have leaked out of labs almost every year since. Coming to more recent times, the SARS1 virus has proved a true escape artist, leaking from laboratories in Singapore, Taiwan, and no less than four times from the Chinese National Institute of Virology in Beijing.
One reason for SARS1 being so hard to handle is that there were no vaccines available to protect laboratory workers. As Daszak mentioned in the December 19 interview quoted above, the Wuhan researchers too had been unable to develop vaccines against the coronaviruses they had designed to infect human cells. They would have been as defenseless against the SARS2 virus, if it were generated in their lab, as their Beijing colleagues were against SARS1.
A second reason for the severe danger of novel coronaviruses has to do with the required levels of lab safety. There are four degrees of safety, designated BSL1 to BSL4, with BSL4 being the most restrictive and designed for deadly pathogens like the Ebola virus.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology had a new BSL4 lab, but its state of readiness considerably alarmed the State Department inspectors who visited it from the Beijing embassy in 2018. “The new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory,” the inspectors wrote in a cable of January 19, 2018.
The real problem, however, was not the unsafe state of the Wuhan BSL4 lab but the fact that virologists worldwide don’t like working in BSL4 conditions. You have to wear a space suit, do operations in closed cabinets, and accept that everything will take twice as long. So the rules assigning each kind of virus to a given safety level were laxer than some might think was prudent.
Before 2020, the rules followed by virologists in China and elsewhere required that experiments with the SARS1 and MERS viruses be conducted in BSL3 conditions. But all other bat coronaviruses could be studied in BSL2, the next level down. BSL2 requires taking fairly minimal safety precautions, such as wearing lab coats and gloves, not sucking up liquids in a pipette, and putting up biohazard warning signs. Yet a gain-of-function experiment conducted in BSL2 might produce an agent more infectious than either SARS1 or MERS. And if it did, then lab workers would stand a high chance of infection, especially if unvaccinated.
Much of Shi’s work on gain-of-function in coronaviruses was performed at the BSL2 safety level, as is stated in her publications and other documents. She has said in an interview with Science magazine that “[t]he coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories.”
“It is clear that some or all of this work was being performed using a biosafety standard — biosafety level 2, the biosafety level of a standard US dentist’s office — that would pose an unacceptably high risk of infection of laboratory staff upon contact with a virus having the transmission properties of SARS-CoV-2,” Ebright says.
“It also is clear,” he adds, “that this work never should have been funded and never should have been performed.”
This is a view he holds regardless of whether or not the SARS2 virus ever saw the inside of a lab.
Concern about safety conditions at the Wuhan lab was not, it seems, misplaced. According to a fact sheet issued by the State Department on January 21, 2021, “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.”
David Asher, a fellow of the Hudson Institute and former consultant to the State Department, provided more detail about the incident at a seminar. Knowledge of the incident came from a mix of public information and “some high end information collected by our intelligence community,” he said. Three people working at a BSL3 lab at the institute fell sick within a week of each other with severe symptoms that required hospitalization. This was “the first known cluster that we’re aware of, of victims of what we believe to be COVID-19.” Influenza could not completely be ruled out but seemed unlikely in the circumstances, he said.
Comparing the rival scenarios of SARS2 origin. The evidence above adds up to a serious case that the SARS2 virus could have been created in a lab, from which it then escaped. But the case, however substantial, falls short of proof. Proof would consist of evidence from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, or related labs in Wuhan, that SARS2 or a predecessor virus was under development there. For lack of access to such records, another approach is to take certain salient facts about the SARS2 virus and ask how well each is explained by the two rival scenarios of origin, those of natural emergence and lab escape. Here are four tests of the two hypotheses. A couple have some technical detail, but these are among the most persuasive for those who may care to follow the argument.
1) The place of origin. Start with geography. The two closest known relatives of the SARS2 virus were collected from bats living in caves in Yunnan, a province of southern China. If the SARS2 virus had first infected people living around the Yunnan caves, that would strongly support the idea that the virus had spilled over to people naturally. But this isn’t what happened. The pandemic broke out 1,500 kilometers away, in Wuhan.
Beta-coronaviruses, the family of bat viruses to which SARS2 belongs, infect the horseshoe bat Rhinolophus affinis, which ranges across southern China. The bats’ range is 50 kilometers, so it’s unlikely that any made it to Wuhan. In any case, the first cases of the COVID-19 pandemic probably occurred in September, when temperatures in Hubei province are already cold enough to send bats into hibernation.
What if the bat viruses infected some intermediate host first? You would need a longstanding population of bats in frequent proximity with an intermediate host, which in turn must often cross paths with people. All these exchanges of virus must take place somewhere outside Wuhan, a busy metropolis which so far as is known is not a natural habitat of Rhinolophus bat colonies. The infected person (or animal) carrying this highly transmissible virus must have traveled to Wuhan without infecting anyone else. No one in his or her family got sick. If the person jumped on a train to Wuhan, no fellow passengers fell ill.
It’s a stretch, in other words, to get the pandemic to break out naturally outside Wuhan and then, without leaving any trace, to make its first appearance there.
For the lab escape scenario, a Wuhan origin for the virus is a no-brainer. Wuhan is home to China’s leading center of coronavirus research where, as noted above, researchers were genetically engineering bat coronaviruses to attack human cells. They were doing so under the minimal safety conditions of a BSL2 lab. If a virus with the unexpected infectiousness of SARS2 had been generated there, its escape would be no surprise.
2) Natural history and evolution. The initial location of the pandemic is a small part of a larger problem, that of its natural history. Viruses don’t just make one time jumps from one species to another. The coronavirus spike protein, adapted to attack bat cells, needs repeated jumps to another species, most of which fail, before it gains a lucky mutation. Mutation — a change in one of its RNA units — causes a different amino acid unit to be incorporated into its spike protein and makes the spike protein better able to attack the cells of some other species.
Through several more such mutation-driven adjustments, the virus adapts to its new host, say some animal with which bats are in frequent contact. The whole process then resumes as the virus moves from this intermediate host to people.
In the case of SARS1, researchers have documented the successive changes in its spike protein as the virus evolved step by step into a dangerous pathogen. After it had gotten from bats into civets, there were six further changes in its spike protein before it became a mild pathogen in people. After a further 14 changes, the virus was much better adapted to humans, and with a further four, the epidemic took off.
But when you look for the fingerprints of a similar transition in SARS2, a strange surprise awaits. The virus has changed hardly at all, at least until recently. From its very first appearance, it was well adapted to human cells. Researchers led by Alina Chan of the Broad Institute compared SARS2 with late stage SARS1, which by then was well adapted to human cells, and found that the two viruses were similarly well adapted. “By the time SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV,” they wrote.
Even those who think lab origin unlikely agree that SARS2 genomes are remarkably uniform. Baric writes that “early strains identified in Wuhan, China, showed limited genetic diversity, which suggests that the virus may have been introduced from a single source.”
A single source would of course be compatible with lab escape, less so with the massive variation and selection which is evolution’s hallmark way of doing business.
The uniform structure of SARS2 genomes gives no hint of any passage through an intermediate animal host, and no such host has been identified in nature.
Proponents of natural emergence suggest that SARS2 incubated in a yet-to-be found human population before gaining its special properties. Or that it jumped to a host animal outside China.
All these conjectures are possible, but strained. Proponents of a lab leak have a simpler explanation. SARS2 was adapted to human cells from the start because it was grown in humanized mice or in lab cultures of human cells, just as described in Daszak’s grant proposal. Its genome shows little diversity because the hallmark of lab cultures is uniformity.
Proponents of laboratory escape joke that of course the SARS2 virus infected an intermediary host species before spreading to people, and that they have identified it — a humanized mouse from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
3) The furin cleavage site. The furin cleavage site is a minute part of the virus’s anatomy but one that exerts great influence on its infectivity. It sits in the middle of the SARS2 spike protein. It also lies at the heart of the puzzle of where the virus came from.
The spike protein has two sub-units with different roles. The first, called S1, recognizes the virus’s target, a protein called angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (or ACE2) which studs the surface of cells lining the human airways. The second, S2, helps the virus, once anchored to the cell, to fuse with the cell’s membrane. After the virus’s outer membrane has coalesced with that of the stricken cell, the viral genome is injected into the cell, hijacks its protein-making machinery and forces it to generate new viruses.
But this invasion cannot begin until the S1 and S2 subunits have been cut apart. And there, right at the S1/S2 junction, is the furin cleavage site that ensures the spike protein will be cleaved in exactly the right place.
The virus, a model of economic design, does not carry its own cleaver. It relies on the cell to do the cleaving for it. Human cells have a protein cutting tool on their surface known as furin. Furin will cut any protein chain that carries its signature target cutting site. This is the sequence of amino acid units proline-arginine-arginine-alanine, or PRRA in the code that refers to each amino acid by a letter of the alphabet. PRRA is the amino acid sequence at the core of SARS2’s furin cleavage site.
Viruses have all kinds of clever tricks, so why does the furin cleavage site stand out? Because of all known SARS-related beta-coronaviruses, only SARS2 possesses a furin cleavage site. All the other viruses have their S2 unit cleaved at a different site and by a different mechanism.
How then did SARS2 acquire its furin cleavage site? Either the site evolved naturally, or it was inserted by researchers at the S1/S2 junction in a gain-of-function experiment.
Consider natural origin first. Two ways viruses evolve are by mutation and by recombination. Mutation is the process of random change in DNA (or RNA for coronaviruses) that usually results in one amino acid in a protein chain being switched for another. Many of these changes harm the virus but natural selection retains the few that do something useful. Mutation is the process by which the SARS1 spike protein gradually switched its preferred target cells from those of bats to civets, and then to humans.
Mutation seems a less likely way for SARS2’s furin cleavage site to be generated, even though it can’t completely be ruled out. The site’s four amino acid units are all together, and all at just the right place in the S1/S2 junction. Mutation is a random process triggered by copying errors (when new viral genomes are being generated) or by chemical decay of genomic units. So it typically affects single amino acids at different spots in a protein chain. A string of amino acids like that of the furin cleavage site is much more likely to be acquired all together through a quite different process known as recombination.
Recombination is an inadvertent swapping of genomic material that occurs when two viruses happen to invade the same cell, and their progeny are assembled with bits and pieces of RNA belonging to the other. Beta-coronaviruses will only combine with other beta-coronaviruses but can acquire, by recombination, almost any genetic element present in the collective genomic pool. What they cannot acquire is an element the pool does not possess. And no known SARS-related beta-coronavirus, the class to which SARS2 belongs, possesses a furin cleavage site.
Proponents of natural emergence say SARS2 could have picked up the site from some as yet unknown beta-coronavirus. But bat SARS-related beta-coronaviruses evidently don’t need a furin cleavage site to infect bat cells, so there’s no great likelihood that any in fact possesses one, and indeed none has been found so far.
The proponents’ next argument is that SARS2 acquired its furin cleavage site from people. A predecessor of SARS2 could have been circulating in the human population for months or years until at some point it acquired a furin cleavage site from human cells. It would then have been ready to break out as a pandemic.
If this is what happened, there should be traces in hospital surveillance records of the people infected by the slowly evolving virus. But none has so far come to light. According to the WHO report on the origins of the virus, the sentinel hospitals in Hubei province, home of Wuhan, routinely monitor influenza-like illnesses and “no evidence to suggest substantial SARSCoV-2 transmission in the months preceding the outbreak in December was observed.”
So it’s hard to explain how the SARS2 virus picked up its furin cleavage site naturally, whether by mutation or recombination.
That leaves a gain-of-function experiment. For those who think SARS2 may have escaped from a lab, explaining the furin cleavage site is no problem at all. “Since 1992 the virology community has known that the one sure way to make a virus deadlier is to give it a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction in the laboratory,” writes Steven Quay, a biotech entrepreneur interested in the origins of SARS2. “At least 11 gain-of-function experiments, adding a furin site to make a virus more infective, are published in the open literature, including [by] Dr. Zhengli Shi, head of coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
4) A question of codons. There’s another aspect of the furin cleavage site that narrows the path for a natural emergence origin even further.
As everyone knows (or may at least recall from high school), the genetic code uses three units of DNA to specify each amino acid unit of a protein chain. When read in groups of 3, the 4 different kinds of DNA can specify 4 x 4 x 4 or 64 different triplets, or codons as they are called. Since there are only 20 kinds of amino acid, there are more than enough codons to go around, allowing some amino acids to be specified by more than one codon. The amino acid arginine, for instance, can be designated by any of the six codons CGU, CGC, CGA, CGG, AGA or AGG, where A, U, G and C stand for the four different kinds of unit in RNA.
Here’s where it gets interesting. Different organisms have different codon preferences. Human cells like to designate arginine with the codons CGT, CGC or CGG. But CGG is coronavirus’s least popular codon for arginine. Keep that in mind when looking at how the amino acids in the furin cleavage site are encoded in the SARS2 genome.
Now the functional reason why SARS2 has a furin cleavage site, and its cousin viruses don’t, can be seen by lining up (in a computer) the string of nearly 30,000 nucleotides in its genome with those of its cousin coronaviruses, of which the closest so far known is one called RaTG13. Compared with RaTG13, SARS2 has a 12-nucleotide insert right at the S1/S2 junction. The insert is the sequence T-CCT-CGG-CGG-GC. The CCT codes for proline, the two CGG’s for two arginines, and the GC is the beginning of a GCA codon that codes for alanine.
There are several curious features about this insert but the oddest is that of the two side-by-side CGG codons. Only 5 percent of SARS2’s arginine codons are CGG, and the double codon CGG-CGG has not been found in any other beta-coronavirus. So how did SARS2 acquire a pair of arginine codons that are favored by human cells but not by coronaviruses?
Proponents of natural emergence have an up-hill task to explain all the features of SARS2’s furin cleavage site. They have to postulate a recombination event at a site on the virus’s genome where recombinations are rare, and the insertion of a 12-nucleotide sequence with a double arginine codon unknown in the beta-coronavirus repertoire, at the only site in the genome that would significantly expand the virus’s infectivity.
“Yes, but your wording makes this sound unlikely — viruses are specialists at unusual events,” is the riposte of David L. Robertson, a virologist at the University of Glasgow who regards lab escape as a conspiracy theory. “Recombination is naturally very, very frequent in these viruses, there are recombination breakpoints in the spike protein and these codons appear unusual exactly because we’ve not sampled enough.”
Robertson is correct that evolution is always producing results that may seem unlikely but in fact are not. Viruses can generate untold numbers of variants but we see only the one-in-a-billion that natural selection picks for survival. But this argument could be pushed too far. For instance, any result of a gain-of-function experiment could be explained as one that evolution would have arrived at in time. And the numbers game can be played the other way. For the furin cleavage site to arise naturally in SARS2, a chain of events has to happen, each of which is quite unlikely for the reasons given above. A long chain with several improbable steps is unlikely to ever be completed.
For the lab escape scenario, the double CGG codon is no surprise. The human-preferred codon is routinely used in labs. So anyone who wanted to insert a furin cleavage site into the virus’s genome would synthesize the PRRA-making sequence in the lab and would be likely to use CGG codons to do so.
A third scenario of origin. There’s a variation on the natural emergence scenario that’s worth considering. This is the idea that SARS2 jumped directly from bats to humans, without going through an intermediate host as SARS1 and MERS did. A leading advocate is the virologist David Robertson who notes that SARS2 can attack several other species besides humans. He believes the virus evolved a generalist capability while still in bats. Because the bats it infects are widely distributed in southern and central China, the virus had ample opportunity to jump to people, even though it seems to have done so on only one known occasion. Robertson’s thesis explains why no one has so far found a trace of SARS2 in any intermediate host or in human populations surveilled before December 2019. It would also explain the puzzling fact that SARS2 has not changed since it first appeared in humans — it didn’t need to because it could already attack human cells efficiently.
One problem with this idea, though, is that if SARS2 jumped from bats to people in a single leap and hasn’t changed much since, it should still be good at infecting bats. And it seems it isn’t.
“Tested bat species are poorly infected by SARS-CoV-2 and they are therefore unlikely to be the direct source for human infection,” write a scientific group skeptical of natural emergence.
Still, Robertson may be onto something. The bat coronaviruses of the Yunnan caves can infect people directly. In April 2012 six miners clearing bat guano from the Mojiang mine contracted severe pneumonia with COVID-19-like symptoms and three eventually died. A virus isolated from the Mojiang mine, called RaTG13, is still the closest known relative of SARS2. Much mystery surrounds the origin, reporting and strangely low affinity of RaTG13 for bat cells, as well as the nature of 8 similar viruses that Shi reports she collected at the same time but has not yet published despite their great relevance to the ancestry of SARS2. But all that is a story for another time. The point here is that bat viruses can infect people directly, though only in special conditions.
So who else, besides miners excavating bat guano, comes into particularly close contact with bat coronaviruses? Well, coronavirus researchers do. Shi says she and her group collected more than 1,300 bat samples during some eight visits to the Mojiang cave between 2012 and 2015, and there were doubtless many expeditions to other Yunnan caves.
Imagine the researchers making frequent trips from Wuhan to Yunnan and back, stirring up bat guano in dark caves and mines, and now you begin to see a possible missing link between the two places. Researchers could have gotten infected during their collecting trips, or while working with the new viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Technology. The virus that escaped from the lab would have been a natural virus, not one cooked up by gain of function.
The direct-from-bats thesis is a chimera between the natural emergence and lab escape scenarios. It’s a possibility that can’t be dismissed. But against it are the facts that 1) both SARS2 and RaTG13 seem to have only feeble affinity for bat cells, so one can’t be fully confident that either ever saw the inside of a bat; and 2) the theory is no better than the natural emergence scenario at explaining how SARS2 gained its furin cleavage site, or why the furin cleavage site is determined by human-preferred arginine codons instead of by the bat-preferred codons.
Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.
That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence.
It’s documented that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were doing gain-of-function experiments designed to make coronaviruses infect human cells and humanized mice. This is exactly the kind of experiment from which a SARS2-like virus could have emerged. The researchers were not vaccinated against the viruses under study, and they were working in the minimal safety conditions of a BSL2 laboratory. So escape of a virus would not be at all surprising. In all of China, the pandemic broke out on the doorstep of the Wuhan institute. The virus was already well adapted to humans, as expected for a virus grown in humanized mice. It possessed an unusual enhancement, a furin cleavage site, which is not possessed by any other known SARS-related beta-coronavirus, and this site included a double arginine codon also unknown among beta-coronaviruses. What more evidence could you want, aside from the presently unobtainable lab records documenting SARS2’s creation?
Proponents of natural emergence have a rather harder story to tell. The plausibility of their case rests on a single surmise, the expected parallel between the emergence of SARS2 and that of SARS1 and MERS. But none of the evidence expected in support of such a parallel history has yet emerged. No one has found the bat population that was the source of SARS2, if indeed it ever infected bats. No intermediate host has presented itself, despite an intensive search by Chinese authorities that included the testing of 80,000 animals. There is no evidence of the virus making multiple independent jumps from its intermediate host to people, as both the SARS1 and MERS viruses did. There is no evidence from hospital surveillance records of the epidemic gathering strength in the population as the virus evolved. There is no explanation of why a natural epidemic should break out in Wuhan and nowhere else. There is no good explanation of how the virus acquired its furin cleavage site, which no other SARS-related beta-coronavirus possesses, nor why the site is composed of human-preferred codons. The natural emergence theory battles a bristling array of implausibilities.
The records of the Wuhan Institute of Virology certainly hold much relevant information. But Chinese authorities seem unlikely to release them given the substantial chance that they incriminate the regime in the creation of the pandemic. Absent the efforts of some courageous Chinese whistle-blower, we may already have at hand just about all of the relevant information we are likely to get for a while.
So it’s worth trying to assess responsibility for the pandemic, at least in a provisional way, because the paramount goal remains to prevent another one. Even those who aren’t persuaded that lab escape is the more likely origin of the SARS2 virus may see reason for concern about the present state of regulation governing gain-of-function research. There are two obvious levels of responsibility: the first, for allowing virologists to perform gain-of-function experiments, offering minimal gain and vast risk; the second, if indeed SARS2 was generated in a lab, for allowing the virus to escape and unleash a world-wide pandemic. Here are the players who seem most likely to deserve blame.
- Chinese virologists. First and foremost, Chinese virologists are to blame for performing gain-of-function experiments in mostly BSL2-level safety conditions which were far too lax to contain a virus of unexpected infectiousness like SARS2. If the virus did indeed escape from their lab, they deserve the world’s censure for a foreseeable accident that has already caused the deaths of three million people. True, Shi was trained by French virologists, worked closely with American virologists and was following international rules for the containment of coronaviruses. But she could and should have made her own assessment of the risks she was running. She and her colleagues bear the responsibility for their actions.
I have been using the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a shorthand for all virological activities in Wuhan. It’s possible that SARS2 was generated in some other Wuhan lab, perhaps in an attempt to make a vaccine that worked against all coronaviruses. But until the role of other Chinese virologists is clarified, Shi is the public face of Chinese work on coronaviruses, and provisionally she and her colleagues will stand first in line for opprobrium.
2. Chinese authorities. China’s central authorities did not generate SARS2, but they sure did their utmost to conceal the nature of the tragedy and China’s responsibility for it. They suppressed all records at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and closed down its virus databases. They released a trickle of information, much of which may have been outright false or designed to misdirect and mislead. They did their best to manipulate the WHO’s inquiry into the virus’s origins, and led the commission’s members on a fruitless run-around. So far they have proved far more interested in deflecting blame than in taking the steps necessary to prevent a second pandemic.
3. The worldwide community of virologists. Virologists around the world are a loose-knit professional community. They write articles in the same journals. They attend the same conferences. They have common interests in seeking funds from governments and in not being overburdened with safety regulations.
Virologists knew better than anyone the dangers of gain-of-function research. But the power to create new viruses, and the research funding obtainable by doing so, was too tempting. They pushed ahead with gain-of-function experiments. They lobbied against the moratorium imposed on Federal funding for gain-of-function research in 2014, and it was raised in 2017.
The benefits of the research in preventing future epidemics have so far been nil, the risks vast. If research on the SARS1 and MERS viruses could only be done at the BSL3 safety level, it was surely illogical to allow any work with novel coronaviruses at the lesser level of BSL2. Whether or not SARS2 escaped from a lab, virologists around the world have been playing with fire.
Their behavior has long alarmed other biologists. In 2014 scientists calling themselves the Cambridge Working Group urged caution on creating new viruses. In prescient words, they specified the risk of creating a SARS2-like virus. “Accident risks with newly created ‘potential pandemic pathogens’ raise grave new concerns,” they wrote. “Laboratory creation of highly transmissible, novel strains of dangerous viruses, especially but not limited to influenza, poses substantially increased risks. An accidental infection in such a setting could trigger outbreaks that would be difficult or impossible to control.”
When molecular biologists discovered a technique for moving genes from one organism to another, they held a public conference at Asilomar in 1975 to discuss the possible risks. Despite much internal opposition, they drew up a list of stringent safety measures that could be relaxed in future — and duly were — when the possible hazards had been better assessed.
When the CRISPR technique for editing genes was invented, biologists convened a joint report by the US, UK and Chinese national academies of science to urge restraint on making heritable changes to the human genome. Biologists who invented gene drives have also been open about the dangers of their work and have sought to involve the public.
You might think the SARS2 pandemic would spur virologists to re-evaluate the benefits of gain-of-function research, even to engage the public in their deliberations. But no. Many virologists deride lab escape as a conspiracy theory, and others say nothing. They have barricaded themselves behind a Chinese wall of silence which so far is working well to allay, or at least postpone, journalists’ curiosity and the public’s wrath. Professions that cannot regulate themselves deserve to get regulated by others, and this would seem to be the future that virologists are choosing for themselves.
4. The US role in funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology. From June 2014 to May 2019, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance had a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, to do gain-of-function research with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Whether or not SARS2 is the product of that research, it seems a questionable policy to farm out high-risk research to unsafe foreign labs using minimal safety precautions. And if the SARS2 virus did indeed escape from the Wuhan institute, then the NIH will find itself in the terrible position of having funded a disastrous experiment that led to death of more than 3 million worldwide, including more than half a million of its own citizens.
The responsibility of the NIAID and NIH is even more acute because for the first three years of the grant to EcoHealth Alliance, there was a moratorium on funding gain-of-function research. Why didn’t the two agencies therefore halt the federal funding, as apparently required to do so by law? Because someone wrote a loophole into the moratorium.
The moratorium specifically barred funding any gain-of-function research that increased the pathogenicity of the flu, MERS, or SARS viruses. But then a footnote on page 2 of the moratorium document states that “[a]n exception from the research pause may be obtained if the head of the USG funding agency determines that the research is urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security.”
This seems to mean that either the director of the NIAID, Anthony Fauci, or the director of the NIH, Francis Collins, or maybe both, would have invoked the footnote in order to keep the money flowing to Shi’s gain-of-function research.
“Unfortunately, the NIAID director and the NIH director exploited this loophole to issue exemptions to projects subject to the Pause—preposterously asserting the exempted research was ‘urgently necessary to protect public health or national security’ — thereby nullifying the Pause,” Ebright said in an interview with Independent Science News.
When the moratorium was ended in 2017, it didn’t just vanish but was replaced by a reporting system, the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (P3CO) Framework, which required agencies to report for review any dangerous gain-of-function work they wished to fund.
According to Ebright, both Collins and Fauci “have declined to flag and forward proposals for risk-benefit review, thereby nullifying the P3CO Framework.”
In his view, the two officials, in dealing with the moratorium and the ensuing reporting system, “have systematically thwarted efforts by the White House, the Congress, scientists, and science policy specialists to regulate GoF [gain-of-function] research of concern.”
Possibly the two officials had to take into account matters not evident in the public record, such as issues of national security. Perhaps funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is believed to have ties with Chinese military virologists, provided a window into Chinese biowarfare research. But whatever other considerations may have been involved, the bottom line is that the National Institutes of Health was supporting gain-of-function research, of a kind that could have generated the SARS2 virus, in an unsupervised foreign lab that was doing work in BSL2 biosafety conditions. The prudence of this decision can be questioned, whether or not SARS2 and the death of 3 million people were the result of it, which emphasizes the need for some better system of control.
In conclusion. If the case that SARS2 originated in a lab is so substantial, why isn’t this more widely known? As may now be obvious, there are many people who have reason not to talk about it. The list is led, of course, by the Chinese authorities. But virologists in the United States and Europe have no great interest in igniting a public debate about the gain-of-function experiments that their community has been pursuing for years.
Nor have other scientists stepped forward to raise the issue. Government research funds are distributed on the advice of committees of scientific experts drawn from universities. Anyone who rocks the boat by raising awkward political issues runs the risk that their grant will not be renewed and their research career will be ended. Maybe good behavior is rewarded with the many perks that slosh around the distribution system. And if you thought that Andersen and Daszak might have blotted their reputation for scientific objectivity after their partisan attacks on the lab escape scenario, look at the second and third names on this list of recipients of an $82 million grant announced by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in August 2020.
The US government shares a strange common interest with the Chinese authorities: Neither is keen on drawing attention to the fact that Shi’s coronavirus work was funded by the US National Institutes of Health. One can imagine the behind-the-scenes conversation in which the Chinese government says, “If this research was so dangerous, why did you fund it, and on our territory too?” To which the US side might reply, “Looks like it was you who let it escape. But do we really need to have this discussion in public?”
Fauci is a longtime public servant who served with integrity under President Trump and has resumed leadership in the Biden Administration in handling the COVID-19 epidemic. Congress, no doubt understandably, may have little appetite for hauling him over the coals for the apparent lapse of judgment in funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
To these serried walls of silence must be added that of the mainstream media. To my knowledge, no major newspaper or television network has yet provided readers with an in-depth news story of the lab escape scenario, such as the one you have just read, although some have run brief editorials or opinion pieces. One might think that any plausible origin of a virus that has killed three million people would merit a serious investigation. Or that the wisdom of continuing gain-of-function research, regardless of the virus’s origin, would be worth some probing. Or that the funding of gain-of-function research by the NIH and NIAID during a moratorium on such research would bear investigation. What accounts for the media’s apparent lack of curiosity?
The virologists’ omertà is one reason. Science reporters, unlike political reporters, have little innate skepticism of their sources’ motives; most see their role largely as purveying the wisdom of scientists to the unwashed masses. So when their sources won’t help, these journalists are at a loss.
Another reason, perhaps, is the migration of much of the media toward the left of the political spectrum. Because President Trump said the virus had escaped from a Wuhan lab, editors gave the idea little credence. They joined the virologists in regarding lab escape as a dismissible conspiracy theory. During the Trump administration, they had no trouble in rejecting the position of the intelligence services that lab escape could not be ruled out. But when Avril Haines, President Biden’s director of national intelligence, said the same thing, she too was largely ignored. This is not to argue that editors should have endorsed the lab escape scenario, merely that they should have explored the possibility fully and fairly.
People round the world who have been pretty much confined to their homes for the last year might like a better answer than their media are giving them. Perhaps one will emerge in time. After all, the more months pass without the natural emergence theory gaining a shred of supporting evidence, the less plausible it may seem. Perhaps the international community of virologists will come to be seen as a false and self-interested guide. The common sense perception that a pandemic breaking out in Wuhan might have something to do with a Wuhan lab cooking up novel viruses of maximal danger in unsafe conditions could eventually displace the ideological insistence that whatever Trump said can’t be true.
And then let the reckoning begin.
Acknowledgements
The first person to take a serious look at the origins of the SARS2 virus was Yuri Deigin, a biotech entrepreneur in Russia and Canada. In a long and brilliant essay, he dissected the molecular biology of the SARS2 virus and raised, without endorsing, the possibility that it had been manipulated. The essay, published on April 22, 2020, provided a roadmap for anyone seeking to understand the virus’s origins. Deigin packed so much information and analysis into his essay that some have doubted it could be the work of a single individual and suggested some intelligence agency must have authored it. But the essay is written with greater lightness and humor than I suspect are ever found in CIA or KGB reports, and I see no reason to doubt that Deigin is its very capable sole author.
In Deigin’s wake have followed several other skeptics of the virologists’ orthodoxy. Nikolai Petrovsky calculated how tightly the SARS2 virus binds to the ACE2 receptors of various species and found to his surprise that it seemed optimized for the human receptor, leading him to infer the virus might have been generated in a laboratory. Alina Chan published a paper showing that SARS2 from its first appearance was very well adapted to human cells.
One of the very few establishment scientists to have questioned the virologists’ absolute rejection of lab escape is Richard Ebright, who has long warned against the dangers of gain-of-function research. Another is David A. Relman of Stanford University. “Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts,” he wrote. Kudos too to Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who told CNN on March 26, 2021 that the “most likely” cause of the epidemic was “from a laboratory,” because he doubted that a bat virus could become an extreme human pathogen overnight, without taking time to evolve, as seemed to be the case with SARS2.
Steven Quay, a physician-researcher, has applied statistical and bioinformatic tools to ingenious explorations of the virus’s origin, showing for instance how the hospitals receiving the early patients are clustered along the Wuhan №2 subway line which connects the Institute of Virology at one end with the international airport at the other, the perfect conveyor belt for distributing the virus from lab to globe.
In June 2020 Milton Leitenberg published an early survey of the evidence favoring lab escape from gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Many others have contributed significant pieces of the puzzle. “Truth is the daughter,” said Francis Bacon, “not of authority but time.” The efforts of people such as those named above are what makes it so.
Nicholas Wade is a science writer, editor, and author who has worked on the staff of Nature, Science, and, for many years, the New York Times
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/bulletin-atomic-scientists-opens-wuhan-virus-pandoras-box
*
*
https://www.logicno.com/politika/novi-podaci-o-bolestima-istrazivaca-u-laboratoriji-wuhan-mogli-bi-podstaci-debate-o-porijeklu-covid-19-navodi-se-u-izvjestaju.html
*
*
Dr. Peter Hotez, ki je od ameriškega Nacionalnega inštituta za zdravje (NIH) prejel 6,1 milijona dolarjev za razvoj cepiva proti SARS, katerega cilj je bil odzvati se na vsak "nenameren izpust koronavirusa iz laboratorija", je obsodil načrte, da bo naslednje leto izvedeno zaslišanje o možnosti, da je virus SARS-CoV-2 ušel iz laboratorija Wuhan na Kitajskem.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaccine-industry-peter-hotez-funded-wuhan-gain-of-function-study/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=b403e33a-6002-4da3-8319-2da60d6d9dbf
May 24, 2020
