I personally studied the first sequence “Wuhan-1” that was released by NCBI as soon as it became available and the furin cut site was the most noticeable difference among the closest SARS viruses. Curious thing is that RaTG13, which is called a “pro” for natural origin, doesn’t actually argue for this being that it was swabbed from a bat from a cave not local to Wuhan or even near it, and not containing the furin site. In fact that sequence came from a swab in 2013 supposedly. But we also assume that metadata and sequence annotations are truthful reports. Many scientists argued that the furin cut site was recombined naturally and that it was not likely it would spliced in through engineering. In fact a 2020 interview in Scientific American quoted a Montana virologist that said it is unlikely the furin site would be spliced in through “seamless” DNA engineering means when this exact lab had published exactly a paper on this placing a furin cut site into SARS1.
All of the circumstances just seem like an accident. It happened before. It doesn’t seem that there was malicious intent, but a massive coverup to erase the tracks. I believe we heard there were infected lab workers...that would be the place to start.
The John Hopkins 2019 SARS virus Event 201 pandemic prep in October 2019 is the strangest part of the story when you read the policies that were considered in the simulation: precisely what happened. Eerie coincidence?
The easiest thing would have been for China to be responsible and prepared for a spread before the new year etc.
It’s amazing how media shaped and silenced anyone even considering that the virus did not spread via an intermediate host.
...and then this? GOF can also occur naturally via serial passage through adaptation to a new animal host. "Six passages in mice or in human intestinal cells, mimicking putative early spillover events, selected adaptive mutations without appearance of a furin cleavage site and not change in virulence." https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052752
For sure serial passaging and animal host passaging can arrive at a furin sequencing through strong positive selection on spike. Curious if SARS was ever serially passaged to arrive at a furin site, the last SARS pandemic was without furin so this is interesting. For certain if the polybasic site emerges it in culture it will quickly overtake other sequences because of purifying positive selection. My argument is how scientists who so strongly argued for naturally derived zoonosis were also some of the same scientists who were engineering furin cut sites in their own GOF work. So in other words, the furin cut site could easily equally be evidence that it was engineered as much as it arriving naturally, so why push only the naturally-derived? And the scientists doing the work could easily have made comment on this because they were actually doing these experiments, but chose to not mention it (see link to the furin + SARS paper). Another site of mutation is the polymerase itself...the more you make a sloppy polymerase the more you get mutations. Also not to mention that if spike were under such intense positive selection, why was this the only choice site for vaccines? To reflect back on this PLOS paper and the paper I posted, it is very difficult to tell how furin got there...that indeed seamless methods are possible...
But what the PLoS paper did was try to resolve haplotypes...in the case of sequences in NCBI, it hasn’t been possible to chart this out...would it be expected for there to be mutations that are co-selected to aid in lineage tracing...there isn’t enough to go on as it seems. It always arrives at the missing intermediate host conclusion. I could be totally wrong here, but to the best of my knowledge there are no strong updates on this.
It’s a funny thing as despite this being in the public domain I still feel that it does not really matter to the majority. Almost like most people are quite accepting of the lies, gaslighting and corruption. So for that reason I don’t feel safe.
Accountability is not just about the original events but I believe there needs to be accountability of every single person involved in all of the machinations of the response to the original event. This was a global effort that was full of hubris, paid lackies, controlled opposition and huge transference of power and wealth. There needs to be committees of people who do not have a price and whose value is not aligned to money.
I personally studied the first sequence “Wuhan-1” that was released by NCBI as soon as it became available and the furin cut site was the most noticeable difference among the closest SARS viruses. Curious thing is that RaTG13, which is called a “pro” for natural origin, doesn’t actually argue for this being that it was swabbed from a bat from a cave not local to Wuhan or even near it, and not containing the furin site. In fact that sequence came from a swab in 2013 supposedly. But we also assume that metadata and sequence annotations are truthful reports. Many scientists argued that the furin cut site was recombined naturally and that it was not likely it would spliced in through engineering. In fact a 2020 interview in Scientific American quoted a Montana virologist that said it is unlikely the furin site would be spliced in through “seamless” DNA engineering means when this exact lab had published exactly a paper on this placing a furin cut site into SARS1.
All of the circumstances just seem like an accident. It happened before. It doesn’t seem that there was malicious intent, but a massive coverup to erase the tracks. I believe we heard there were infected lab workers...that would be the place to start.
The John Hopkins 2019 SARS virus Event 201 pandemic prep in October 2019 is the strangest part of the story when you read the policies that were considered in the simulation: precisely what happened. Eerie coincidence?
The easiest thing would have been for China to be responsible and prepared for a spread before the new year etc.
It’s amazing how media shaped and silenced anyone even considering that the virus did not spread via an intermediate host.
...and then this? GOF can also occur naturally via serial passage through adaptation to a new animal host. "Six passages in mice or in human intestinal cells, mimicking putative early spillover events, selected adaptive mutations without appearance of a furin cleavage site and not change in virulence." https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052752
For sure serial passaging and animal host passaging can arrive at a furin sequencing through strong positive selection on spike. Curious if SARS was ever serially passaged to arrive at a furin site, the last SARS pandemic was without furin so this is interesting. For certain if the polybasic site emerges it in culture it will quickly overtake other sequences because of purifying positive selection. My argument is how scientists who so strongly argued for naturally derived zoonosis were also some of the same scientists who were engineering furin cut sites in their own GOF work. So in other words, the furin cut site could easily equally be evidence that it was engineered as much as it arriving naturally, so why push only the naturally-derived? And the scientists doing the work could easily have made comment on this because they were actually doing these experiments, but chose to not mention it (see link to the furin + SARS paper). Another site of mutation is the polymerase itself...the more you make a sloppy polymerase the more you get mutations. Also not to mention that if spike were under such intense positive selection, why was this the only choice site for vaccines? To reflect back on this PLOS paper and the paper I posted, it is very difficult to tell how furin got there...that indeed seamless methods are possible...
But what the PLoS paper did was try to resolve haplotypes...in the case of sequences in NCBI, it hasn’t been possible to chart this out...would it be expected for there to be mutations that are co-selected to aid in lineage tracing...there isn’t enough to go on as it seems. It always arrives at the missing intermediate host conclusion. I could be totally wrong here, but to the best of my knowledge there are no strong updates on this.
What are your thoughts on this? "Researchers serially grew a related bovine beta
coronavirus (embecovirus) in three different cell types that resulted in a furin cleavage site. In
this study, the five amino acid sequence resulted after four to five serial viral passages." https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052752
Also why did the RaTG13 sequence suddenly show up in database in 2020, when it was supposedly collected in 2013...
See quote by Jack Nunberg.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-biggest-mystery-what-it-will-take-to-trace-the-coronavirus-source/
Then see this research article.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682206000900?via%3Dihub
It’s a funny thing as despite this being in the public domain I still feel that it does not really matter to the majority. Almost like most people are quite accepting of the lies, gaslighting and corruption. So for that reason I don’t feel safe.
Accountability is not just about the original events but I believe there needs to be accountability of every single person involved in all of the machinations of the response to the original event. This was a global effort that was full of hubris, paid lackies, controlled opposition and huge transference of power and wealth. There needs to be committees of people who do not have a price and whose value is not aligned to money.
There are 2 truths.
COVID 19 was man made
COVID 19 was purposefully man released to usher in the new world order