UPDATE - I realize that the Wuhan Lab used a mouse backbone and that the covid-19 virus is from a different bat and from a pangolin.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3.pdf?proof=trueMay%2F
This conservation level places the 2019-nCoV RBD between HKU3-4 (62.7% conservation), a bat virus that cannot use human ACE2, and [Wuhan Virology Lab Strain] rSHC014 (80.8%), the most divergent bat CoV spike known to use human ACE2 for entry [16,32].See below for reference to this above smoking gun quote. Now for the discussion:
So the science community is arguing there needs to be a "secondary host" between the bats and the humans - and says the wild wet exotic market provides a secondary host as a civet or pangolin or ferret. But the Wuhan lab provides the secondary host as the MOUSE and the Wuhan Lab strain otherwise PERFECTLY fits the pandemic strain - minus a secondary host!
Thanks to a reader and supporter - for sending me this link.
Professor Francis Boyle interview on "gain-of-function" increase as bioweapon threat of coronavirus
So Professor Boyle already corroborated my claim of the sanctions on Iraq being genocidal. I was standing with a banner on a bridge at the University of Minnesota - the banner said, "Stop US Genocide on Iraq." That was in 1998. A professor walked by, the director of center of genocide studies at University of Minnesota - just to inform me that I was wrong. Professor Boyle confirmed that indeed I was correct.
So let's take a closer look at his research on these science articles. http://www.bifurcatedneedle.com/new-blog/2014/12/15/is-virus-gain-of-function-research-a-security-risk
the National Academies’ “Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research Symposium,” about the biosecurity risks of gain-of-function research. The US government announced on October 17 that there would be a pause in funding so-called “gain of function” (GOF) work with influenza, MERS, and SARS until the risks and benefits could be evaluated. Monday’s symposium is part of the “deliberative process wherein the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), the National Research Council (NRC) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) consider the risks and benefits associated with research involving pathogens with pandemic potential.”
Albert Osterhaus of Erasmus University conceded that with these techniques, “You could create a monster. But it’s a monster that nature could produce as well.
So Professor Boyle says he doesn't think the release was deliberate since it's just too dangerous! Chinese scientists have stated that there was an accident at the lab - someone was infected and spread it. It's asymptomatic for 24 days. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Xiang_Li511/publication/339171290_Bat_origin_of_a_new_human_coronavirus_there_and_back_again/links/5e54e59b299bf1bdb8395ee7/Bat-origin-of-a-new-human-coronavirus-there-and-back-again.pdf
Coronavirus study identifies 'gain of function for efficient ...
Mar 10, 2020 - CORONAVIRUS scientists have identified a 'gain of function' in the virus, which has allowed for the 'efficient spread in humans,' a bombshell ...
The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade
Wow - Professor Boyle's original interview link has been CENSORED by Youtube! Amazing.
But as the Express itself notes in a correction, the research paper Boyle cited does not speculate on what caused the gain-of-function in the virus. “It was therefore incorrect when our article claimed ‘the paper suggested Covid-19 has been tampered with,’” the correction notes.Their correction?
The medical definition for gain-of-function, also known as GOF, is a mutation that confers new or enhanced activity on a protein.
While gain-of-function research can involve genetic engineering, it can also be naturally occurring in the virus.So if you read the article - they are recommending genetic engineering techniques to stop the spread of the virus. So now here is the second article.
https://www.genengnews.com/news/coronavirus-evolved-naturally-and-is-not-a-laboratory-construct-genetic-study-shows/
So is this claim correct? Let's investigate!
Transmission electron microscopic image of an isolate from the first U.S. case of COVID-19, formerly known as 2019-nCoV. The spherical viral particles, colorized blue, contain cross-sections through the viral genome, seen as black dots. [CDC/ Hannah A Bullock; Azaibi Tamin]
Anderson and colleagues concluded, the results “clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”OK the point that Professor Boyle is making is that this virus accidentally escaped from a Bioweapons Lab!! So even if it was not "manipulated" - it was already identified as being extremely dangerous!!
would have evolved to their current states prior to the virus jumping to humans. SARS-CoV-2 spread would probably then have been rapid, as soon as humans were infected, because the virus would have already evolved the key features that make it pathogenic and able to pass between people.”So they're calling this "natural evolution" - but the pre-conditions - the environmental adaptation were the "wet markets" or "exotic" markets of China with the popularity of bat soup and pangolin in Wuhan. So then this virus was ALREADY identified as extremely dangerous - due to those conditions of it being created "naturally" via Westernized modernization - a globalized wildlife food market.
For instance, some coronaviruses from pangolins have an RBD structure that is very similar to that of SARS-CoV-2. A coronavirus from a pangolin could possibly have been transmitted to a human, either directly or through an intermediary host, such as civets or ferrets.
OK so now I read Professor Boyle's other citation - not mentioned in the UK Express "disavowal" of Boyle...
So the genetic engineering news is using this feature to prove that the current pandemic is not created in a lab:
But the scientists found that the SARS-CoV-2 backbone differed substantially from those of already known coronaviruses and mostly resembled related viruses found in bats and pangolins. “… the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone,” the scientists stated in their report. Anderson added, “These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rule out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for SARS-CoV-2.”So since it didn't have that "mouse-adapted" backbone.... then it was not from a science lab....
“… since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in relation to coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”OK so Professor Boyle's big expose is that these features were ALREADY IDENTIFIED in the Wuhan Lab!! And then they were "accidentally" spread into the Wuhan....
So you have a virus that had to be identified after it had already spread from bats to an intermediate host - a pangolin or civet - and THEN it was identified in the Wuhan lab...
So an earlier study was withdrawn and debunked... after claiming the coronavirus had HIV inserts that most likely were NOT natural....
few hits on coronaviruses, but none of them are HIV-1 related. Blast against viral sequence database also showed these insertion sequences widely exist in all kinds of viruses from bacteriophage, influenza, to giant eukaryotic viruses (Table 1). More hits were found for coronaviruses and a few also hit on HIV-1 sequences than the search against the entire database (Table 1). However, while the 100% match between the insertion 1 and 2 sequences and the HIV sequences were found in 19 entries, the matches between the insertion 3 and 4 sequences and HIV-1 sequences were rather poor (from 42% to 88%).
Ok so back to that 2nd study on coronavirus - this is very fascinating!
So they compare it to SARS and then state:
OK so how does this adaptation happen?
So the question here is if civets are a "secondary host" then why isn't the Wuhan research lab ALSO a secondary host?
So they are stating a "natural" backbone of Coronavirus from bat virus mutation could then combine with a "poised" spike protein mutated from the civets and humans - to then create a new virus as we currently have as the pandemic.....
And here is the Smoking Gun! A "gain-of-function" study is definitely .... "the creation of chimeric viruses based on circulating strains" and therefore "too risky to pursue."
the work of Dr. Ralph Baric. A microbiologist and chemistry professor at the University of North Carolina who had raised the eyebrows and the ire of the immunological community in 2015 by undertaking an unauthorized “gain of function” study for the synthesis of a supercharged SARS coronavirus. Work strictly forbidden by both the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. Both Baric’s hubris in ignoring a CDC/WHO contravention against gain of function studies and his clear disregard for the consequences of his activities immediately captured instinctual attention as someone whose activities bore closer inspection for potential connection to the Wuhan crisis that is now a global pathogen gaining momentum with each passing day.
All that was missing was a direct connection between Baric’s maverick killer coronavirus research and the BSL-4 lab in Wuhan at the (Wuhan Institute for Science and Technology) that serves as China’s only bioweapons research facility, located in the very city where the COVID-19 pandemic began.
If only I’d read the finest of fine print sooner. Buried in the minutiae of Baric’s published study documents, two barely credited collaborators in the gain of function coronavirus study: Doctors Xing-Yi Ge and Zhengli-Li. Microbiology and immunology researchers working at Wuhan Institute for Science and Technology, undertaking precisely the same gain of function study for a newly augmented coronavirus.
http://www.shadolsonshow.com/2020/01/13/covid-19-born-in-north-carolina-sold-to-wuhan-lab-optimized-for-pandemic-spread/
http://english.whiov.cas.cn/Exchange2016/International_Conferences2017/201712/U020171215362207340934.pdf
So a 2017 Wuhan conference on the risks of "gain-of-function" research....
Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate | The Scientist ...
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502?archived_content=9BmGYHLCH6vLGNdd9YzYFAqV8S3Xw3L5
Such gain-of-function (GOF) experiments could help scientists better anticipate and prepare for pandemics. But critics worried that if such a lab virus were accidentally or deliberately released, it could spark a global outbreak.https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/after-criticism-federal-officials-revisit-policy-reviewing-risky-virus-experiments
So this is from the Wuhan lab collaborators with North Carolina
They are stating very clearly they CREATED a new strain...
And .... the pandemic is tied to it!
Finally, it should be noted that many observed bat SARS-like CoVs that have an evolutionary convergent RBD sequence with 2019-nCoV and SARS-CoV may be pre-adapted to human host receptor ACE2, and hence would be potential new coronavirus sources to infect humans in the future.So then it's stated that a vaccine would be developed based on their previous creation of chimera strains!!
So now we find the answer - how close is the Chimera created virus to the actual pandemic virus?
https://www.zmescience.com/science/china-releases-draft-genome-of-new-pneumonia-outbreak-virus/
Rough tree puts it between HKU3/273-CoV and SHC014-CoV, a bat virus capable of using human ACE2.So they have PROVEN that it is closely tied to the same lab created chimera strain!
So then....
strange that the common Wuhan origin is not made since both SHC014-CoV and 2019-nCoV were in Wuhan. But considering the author of this report was collaborating with Wuhan - we can see a reason to cover up this connection....
And indeed SHC014 is distinctly CLOSER to 2019-nCoV than the other close connection of HKU3
So just how close is this? A more recent - the DEFINITIVE Genome analysis:
https://sci-hub.tw/downloads-ii/2020-03-04/ad/zhou2020.pdf#view=FitH
Strangely that chart is the ONLY mention of the close connection to SHC014-CoV.
No comments:
Post a Comment