TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @KevinMcCairnPhD

Posted - June 12, 2025 at 11:12 AM

Saved - June 17, 2025 at 2:17 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I express deep concerns about Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, arguing it has not produced any viable vaccines or therapeutics. Despite numerous studies, no effective prevention measures have emerged, and existing vaccines derive from circulating strains, not GoF work. I highlight the dangers of this research, suggesting it may contribute to pandemics rather than prevent them. Additionally, I criticize the lack of accountability in labs following leaks and the manipulation of data by authoritarian regimes, drawing parallels to historical cover-ups. Trust in such systems is fundamentally compromised.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2398/rapid-responses https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109663743902085653 You can only have GoF work generate a viable prediction or a vaccine if the next emergence is of the exact same genetic makeup as your GOF strain. The extreme diversity of viruses mean that you have (total number of viruses in the world (billions)*probability that a GOF study result being used maliciously (>1/200 minimum)) times higher likelihood that GOF research cause a pandemic in stead of preventing it. https://archive.ph/BToZR https://archive.md/YYIXp

Polio eradication: a complex end game Thomas Abraham examines the challenges of meeting the Global Polio Eradication Initiative’s target of eliminating polio by the end of this year Like the skipper of an ageing rust bucket trying to get to port before the boat goes under, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative is ploughing through choppy seas in its effort to stamp out polio and end a mission that began more than two decades ago. As the vessel lurches uncertainly on, a Greek chorus of commentators has raised questions about everything from the choice of vaccine and the technical strategies the campaign has used to the very wisdom of pursuing the goal of eradication. These questions are important because they cast light on the long and tortuous route that the polio eradication programme has followed since 1988, when the World Health Assembly passed a resolution declaring it was committed to eradicating polio by 2000. That deadline and a subsequent one have been missed, and a third deadline of the end of 2012 will probably be missed as well. Eradication seems both tantalisingly close and elusively distant. As it becomes harder to maintain the funding and government engagement necessary to keep the campaign going at the frenetic pace it has kept for several years now, there is a danger that the gains made over the past two decades will be lost, and the poliovirus, largely confined to pockets in South Asia and western and central Africa, will again entrench itself across swathes of the globe.⇓ ⇓ Countries affected by polio, 1988 WHO Countries affected by polio, 2010 WHO The initiative’s key partners—WHO, Unicef, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rotary International, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—have responded by increasing pressure on governments in polio affected countries to intensify their immunisation and surveillance efforts. However, the response … bmj.com

Flavinkins on Gab: '“2015: University of Wisconsin Prof. Kawaok and o…' Flavinkins on Gab: '“2015: University of Wisconsin Prof. Kawaok and others claim that #GOF research will help to develop new #vaccine strains, but this is only true if a #pandemic virus in the wild emerges with the same genetic profile of the GOF strain. The odds of this happening are astronomical.” https://archive.md/QJyQC @FoolsMultiply “It's difficult to bet on whether the next pandemic will come from nature or a lab when you don't know what experiments are ongoing or will be carried out in hundreds of labs around the world. It's difficult enough trying to find out what was happening in 1 lab in Wuhan #OriginOfCovid Try scaling that to 100s of labs and predicting when and where lab-based outbreaks will occur. Pathogen research today is very different than it was decades ago. Scientists are actively looking for pandemic potential pathogens and genetically modifying these live pathogens in the lab - labs often based in large metropolitan cities (and sometimes they have wet markets!). It frustrates me to see policymakers and funders looking for quick fixes to both natural and lab outbreaks. You can hunt all the viruses and use all the #MachineLearning you want - I'm confident that these are not going to help predict or prevent the next natural or lab pandemic. Let's get real. If people are dying from a mysterious new pathogen in hospitals, it's not because not enough viruses were hunted and it's not because there wasn't enough machine learning.” @Ayjchan' gab.com

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

There were never a single viable vaccine or therapeutic ever created from GOF research.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

There have never been a single productive prevention move (none claimed by their reports have been implemented), not a single working therapeutic or vaccine (no currently used antivirals or vaccine came out of EHA funded research), made by the EHA. The EHA did GOF after GOF and grew virus after virus. No currently fielded vaccine, therapeutic or preventative originated from GOF research.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

All currently fielded vaccines were developed using circulating strains in the targeted species (e.g. humans). GOFROC or virus hunting are wholly unnecessary for any vaccines or therapeutics. And unfortunately, the first use of the prefusion-stabilized Spike was to target MERS-CoV and WIV1 wasn’t the drive of the patent, nor did the patent required any GOF research. Also, the vaccines are now proven to be hazardous, driving unending waves of reinfections.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

One of the reasons why GOF virology need closed ranks is because they have to hide the fact that their actions are not only catastrophically dangerous, they are also not productive at all in any positive ways. https://archive.ph/BToZR https://archive.md/YYIXp https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108828145093274513

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

No currently fielded vaccine, therapeutic or preventative originated from GOF research.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Their “preventive measures”? Never implemented. Their “vaccine and therapeutic”? None even reached the point of receiving a name. Their Bioweapons operations under the name of “understanding XXX virus spillover potential”? Too many that couldn’t even be counted with hands and feet.

@dopaminergic13 - dopaminergic13 🐭

What ?

Video Transcript AI Summary

Construction workers in Mariupol discovered documents and medication in a former psychiatric hospital basement in December 2023, suggesting mass clinical trials were conducted on the local population for years. Files indicate numerous drugs were tested, with experiments occurring at at least eight centers across the city. Authorities believe thousands of people were involved in experiments for major pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline. Blood and other samples were sent to labs and clinics in Europe and the United States for testing, with unknown results. Shockingly, children and newborn babies were allegedly among those exposed to the testing.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Reconstruction work is taking place across Mariupol with many of the buildings here destroyed during the fighting. More is being discovered about what happened in the city along the way. In December 2023, construction workers at this former psychiatric hospital made a shocking discovery. In this basement, they found a trove of documents and medication indicating that mass clinical trials had taken place on the local population for many years. Many different drugs have been tested according to the files and the documents that we found. This map indicates the scale of the operation with experiments taking place at at least eight centres across the city. Authorities believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg. We found documents that suggested thousands of people have been involved experiments, with trials carried out for major pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline and others. Bloods and other samples were collected and then sent to labs and clinics in Europe and The United States for testing, the results of which are unknown. Most shockingly, children and newborn babies are included among the list of those exposed to the testing.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And they have never ever prevented any pandemics, produced any viable vaccines or therapeutics, or produced any constructive results in the reduction of any of the subjects they claimed to tracking.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

ePPP virologists and virus hunters are arsonists that pretends to be firefighters, and they have only ever seeked to weaponize the pathogens they “tracks” with the pretext of dual-use “research” without ever coming up with any actual clinically executed effort in their alleged goal of “prevention and treatment” for any of the pathogens.

@ban_epp_gofroc - Libertarian_Virologist

@Varro_Analytics @statnews @rickberke @peterstaley How many pandemics were prevented by EcoHealth? Somewhere between -1 and 0.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@harishseshadri2 - harish seshadri

A notable slide from Marc Lipsitch's talk at the Pathogens Project conference. * "GOFROC is not producing vaccines or other countermeasures" * "[GOFROC] has largely been driven by curiosity and by the prospect of prominent papers" h/t @OdysseyBohemian

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

All they get are epidemics and pandemics. No vaccine, therapeutic, or preventions that have reached production have ever yielded from any of these risky research. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109523507275843148

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Kingdom_foot-and-mouth_outbreak Fact: Pirbright was not shut down after FMDV leak infecting 4 farms nearby. They repaired their drain pipes and continued operation, not even interfering academic publication patterns. Ironically, cow farms were shut down and beef trade was closed during the outbreak. This resulted in an epidemic lasting 5 months in cows that lead to at least two major cullings and severe disruption to the livestock trade from the U.K. The reaction look like what they claim a zoonosis would look like, not what they declare what the WIV would do when a shut-down would certainly directly admit guilt and spell doom to both the institute and its operators. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/beijing-lab-mishap-infected-scientist-with-covid19/news-story/9b0cb0ed84df21d25da11b698be3611a Fact 2: there is no shut-down reported at all in the IVDC either after the 2004 leak of SARS or the 2020 leak of Covid. Not even a burp of interruption. Fact 3: the WIV went on hiatus to the bat CoV isolation tests over 2020-2023. During the sverdlovsk anthrax leak, they blamed the animal farms and markets nearby and did not officially shut down the facility. The construction of another anthrax facility nearby was considered potential indication of a shut-down, which is on par with the WIV hiatus. After a timescale similar to the WIV hiatus, the new facility was opened for inspection which no anthrax was found, meaning that they fixed sverdlovsk and went on, just like the WIV (chen WEI……). In fact, there have not been a single record of an lab leak or LAI in a research facility that resulted in the (especially permanent, as what they claimed would happen) shut down of the facility (despite hundreds of known incidents in record), even with significant epidemic resulted. (Ebola21, FMDV07, H1N177, Anthrax82 which no official shutdown was known).

2007 united kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Offshoring of risky virological lab work to countries with lower or zero biosafety requirements is an old strategy. Lassa/Ebola lab, Kenema Government Hospital, Sierra Leone. https://reuters.com/article/us-bioterror-africa-idUKTRE71D49820110214/ https://who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-last-ebola-survivor-of-his-team- https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5050470/pdf/jiw239.pdf http://vhfc.org Ebola at BSL-2. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5050470/ https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5050470/bin/supp_214_suppl-3_S110__index.html Supplementary Figure 1A. 2014-2021 Ebola. It is nearly universal for outbreaks to be traced back far before their official site of discovery.

The last Ebola survivor of his team who.int

Andersen Lab at Scripps Research The Andersen Lab is using genomics, computational biology, and technology development to investigate infectious diseases such as Zika, Ebola, and Lassa. andersen-lab.com

An Outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease in the Lassa Fever Zone Background. Kenema Government Hospital (KGH) has developed an advanced clinical and laboratory research capacity to manage the threat of Lassa fever, a viral hemorrhagic fever (VHF). The 2013–2016 Ebola virus (EBOV) disease (EVD) outbreak is the ... pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

HTTP 404 [Not Found] pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@danwalker9999 - Daniel A. Walker 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇬🇱🌻😷💉🚴🏻

@emilyakopp Offshoring of risky virological lab work to countries with lower or zero biosafety requirements is an old strategy. Lassa/Ebola lab, Kenema Government Hospital, Sierra Leone. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bioterror-africa-idUKTRE71D49820110214/ https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-last-ebola-survivor-of-his-team- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5050470/pdf/jiw239.pdf http://vhfc.org

The last Ebola survivor of his team who.int

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Metabiota and USAID ePPP “research” have led to also the RVFV outbreak in the nile river.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Notice how not only were measures that were taken after known lab leaks being identical to that is claimed “for zoonosis”, cover-up efforts especially in authoritarian regimes Also involves the distortion and adulteration of the officially provided “datasets” to push “zoonosis” when a lab or a bioweapons facility leaks.

@R_H_Ebright - Richard H. Ebright

@SnupSnus @scottburke777 @a_1_0_2_ @KevinMcH3 @RolandBakerIII @BillyBostickson @med_anon @flavinkins @babarlelephant @MonaRahalkar @rowanjacobsen @luigi_warren @DrAntoniSerraT1 @franciscodeasis @_coltseavers @uacjess @TheSeeker268 @Daoyu15 @still_a_nerd @jjcouey @Harvard2H @ydeigin @CarltheChippy @ico_dna @Nomdeplumi1 @Real_Adam_B @nerdhaspower @AntGDuarte @JJ2000426 @BahulikarRahul @alimhaider @antonioregalado @Ayjchan @BretWeinstein @sanchak74 @JCalvertST Bad meat then. Bat meat now.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Which is also why they preliminarily banned criticizing of the official narrative regarding the market or mentioning about the Wuhan lab before the outbreak was or can be announced.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.09112 No. GOF don’t make us safer. Nipah is a regionally self limiting disease. Any GOF over it are intended to change this property. Any culturing outside their endemic regions lead to unnatural epidemics which will never happen if it was not conducted. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109523507275843148

Nipah virus vector sequences in COVID-19 patient samples sequenced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology Abstract page for arXiv paper 2109.09112: Nipah virus vector sequences in COVID-19 patient samples sequenced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology arxiv.org

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

The cover-up of the soviet union was a single letter away from that of communist china.

@R_H_Ebright - Richard H. Ebright

@mbalter @FilippaLentzos Indeed. The Soviets attributed the Sverdlovsk outbreak to a market selling bad meat (just one letter away from a market selling bat meat.)

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

With all of the information that can come out of China being under control of the communist party, it is expected that manipulation of the scientific process and research using intentionally adulterated and fabricated “data” and “releases” will be performed by the communists—to push the origin away from their labs based on western behavior—which invoked essentially the identical playbook as the Soviet Union in the 1979 sverdlovsk anthrax leak, over comprable timeframes.

@Biorealism - Holtz

@kakape @pandemiapodcast The late Philip Russell told James Le Duc that Sars-CoV-2 reminded him of the Soviet anthrax lab leak cover up.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Trust is not possible to communist china.

@gdemaneuf - Gilles Demaneuf

A bit of history: the Sverdlovsk Anthrax outbreak. In 1979 there was an outbreak of anthrax disease in Sverdlovsk, USSR. 100+ people died. The Russians explained that these deaths were due to eating meat (possibly game meat) processed by black-market butchers.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@DrLiMengYAN1 @LawrenceSellin Authoritarian regimes uses lies regularly, and “science” was among the fields which they lie with.

@FilippaLentzos - Dr Filippa Lentzos

Matt Meselson’s wonderful closing words: “We should teach our students that once you’re a scientist you have a public responsibility, not just to work in your laboratory, but if you see some good you can do outside of your lab, think about whether you can do it, maybe you should”

@kakape - Kai Kupferschmidt

In April 1979 dozens of people died in the deadliest anthrax outbreak on record. What happened in the city of Sverdlovsk? A new @pandemiapodcast episode on anthrax, bioweapons and the search for the truth is out. Full episode (in 🇩🇪) here: https://viertausendhertz.de/pan49/ Thread to come:

Video Transcript AI Summary

Die USA hatten angefangen, wieder mehr in Bio- und Chemiewaffen zu investieren und diese zu erforschen. Es gab Hinweise darauf, dass Leute an Milzbrand gestorben waren. **English Translation:** The USA had begun to invest more in biological and chemical weapons and to research them. There were indications that people had died of anthrax.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Die USA hatten damals angefangen, Stück für Stück wieder mehr in Bio- und Chemiewaffen zu investieren und diese zu erforschen. Es kamen Nachrichtenfetzen heraus, die darauf hindeuteten, dass die Leute an Milzbrand gestorben waren.

Seite wurde nicht gefunden. – Viertausendhertz | Podcastproduktionsfirma viertausendhertz.de

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@DrLiMengYAN1 @LawrenceSellin @DrJBhattacharya @NIHDirector_Jay

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@DrLiMengYAN1 @LawrenceSellin @DrJBhattacharya @NIHDirector_Jay GOFROC is the equivalent of underaged children inserting 🧨 into piles of 💩 to see the explosion—it provided zero benefits to society except for the pleasure of its perpetrators.

@harishseshadri2 - harish seshadri

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

In fact, ePPP GOFROC frequently damage vaccine research by producing strains that lacked immune evasion—which in turn lead to vaccine candidates (when they claim to make one) which work only on the particular ePPP GOFROC product and no other strains (and only briefly). They fail in the real world unless said product was released.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

There have been no--zero--improvements in influenza vaccines or therapeutics that would have not been possible without reconstructing 1918 flu. Or any other “animal flu” or “old flu” strains. @R_H_Ebright

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Of course, biological attack agents and GOFROC strains are frequently outsourced in their development to evade scrutiny and often to push some of the risks away to other locations—usually under a “dual use” umbrella, that always make no progress in the civilian field nor result in any civilian use in reality.

@billwilliam321 - billwilliam

x.com/i/article/1932…

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

In many cases, ePPP GOFROC don’t bother to propoose any civilian uses at all. No solutions given, only dangerous strains that satisfies the perverse desire of the “researchers” with a potential for weaponization for mass destruction—zero benefit, only harm.

@zerohedge - zerohedge

South Korea Lab Makes Bird Flu 100% Lethal In Mammals: 'Virology Journal' https://www.zerohedge.com/political/south-korea-lab-makes-bird-flu-100-lethal-mammals-virology-journal

South Korea Lab Makes Bird Flu 100% Lethal In Mammals: 'Virology Journal' ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero zerohedge.com

@KevinMcCairnPhD — Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Posted - April 22, 2024 at 12:17 PM

Saved - March 7, 2025 at 5:19 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I believe there is a deliberate cover-up regarding the origins of COVID-19, particularly concerning the Wuhan P4 lab. The narrative that the virus originated from the Huanan market is questionable, especially given the absence of positive animal samples and secondary outbreaks. Data manipulation appears evident, with early case counts altered to support the market theory. Despite extensive wildlife sampling, results consistently returned negative, and attempts to blame smuggled animals or frozen food seem to be a diversion. The focus on the Huanan market raises concerns about obscuring potential lab-related sources.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://x.com/nestcommander/status/1781826378683556254?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… When they begun an official censorship campaign on all and anything on the “Wuhan P4 lab”, @AP you know that they are acting out a pre-scripted cover-up effort, and was not “genuingly clueless”. Especially when the expected precaution in response to an ongoing outbreak, such as washing hands, was also intentionally avoided. https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1718782597114016231?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… The entirety of the “they covered up the market” theory can also be interpreted as that they don’t want to let the NEGATIVE animal samples from being known. They need to shroud it in mystery, or the https://x.com/daoyu15/status/daoyu15/status/1694163822473629792?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… absence of any secondary spillovers in any other markets in China https://x.com/nestcommander/status/1779485262005023009?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA…, when SARS1 have already did 7 times over the same month and a half of no actions https://x.com/daoyu15/status/daoyu15/status/1687891376665681920, would be confirmed in the total absence of any positive animal swabs at the market. https://x.com/daoyu15/status/daoyu15/status/1754661054733242856 China, as in the national level, performed sampling of the entirety of the wildlife supply chain toward the market and have officially insisted that “it came from illegal wildlife sold at the Huanan market” up to May 2020. They even tried to blame pangolins, among the others. All the sampling results are negative, and which are in fact leaked even during this period of “you can blame only the animals”. https://x.com/daoyu15/status/daoyu15/status/1668828125617352704?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… And once again, a lower down that was tasked to eliminate potential negative evidence by the higher up, but only told to eliminate “potential evidence” in general, can easily come up with conspiracy theories about “they are tasking to eliminate positive evidence”; https://x.com/nestcommander/status/1775081708007878978?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… When in fact, The fear that a thorough investigation would turn up confirming all animals being negative and that their labs would become blamed immediately, being the the real cause, is evident in both the absence of spillovers anywhere alongside or in any other destinations of the wildlife supply chain, and the leaked preliminary sampling efforts among these supply chains that returned no positivity at all, https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1740641874032185732?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… Despite at the time when “wild animals illegally traded at the Huanan market” and then “wild animals” was the only permitted origin theory on all official outlets in China (up to May 2020).

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

When they begun an official censorship campaign on all and anything on the “Wuhan P4 lab”, you know that they are acting out a pre-scripted cover-up effort, and was not “genuingly clueless”. Especially when the expected precaution in response to an ongoing outbreak, such as washing hands, was also intentionally avoided.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And of course, they also attempted to blame it on a smuggled animal, or frozen food, as the negativity of all wildlife sampling (which is already known in Jan-Feb 2020 with the data leaks archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph on failing to get positive results even in the upstream supply farms of the market) in China is confirmed by total absence of secondary outbreaks or secondary spillovers in China when raccoon dogs have already been made livestock and wildlife trade being still alive and well online. Their evident tampering of the early cases databases And their blatant and statistically unsound lies over the serology of all the cases before the market outbreak (which none are linked to any wildlife markets at all) Confirmed that their agenda is to push the outbreak onto the market nomatter what source they have to blame on, even if they have to disclose the negativity of tests as leaked before, they need to find an explanation as “frozen food or smuggled animal”.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Before they begun enforcing their claim of “100/174 centered around the market” and starting to tamper with data to make the claim, https://ghrp.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41256-021-00200-8 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7149375/ 135/92 and 115/82 cases already got into in early peer-reviewed papers that went missing in the WHO report. Past media reports archive.md/Ea0Kw archive.md/1x658 also contradict WHO in key early cases’ residences, including the earliest case they admit in the WHO report. archive.md/5sdkR archive.md/1pcCU archive.md/N0hib archive.md/VXtu9 archive.is/Kyr1z https://archive.org/details/mace-e-pai-covid-19-analysis-redacted/page/8/mode/1up And you know that they hate this information when it was censored. The MACE-EPAI document here is not searchable on google. Up to one third of all cases were either removed completely or moved toward the market in the “dataset”. archive.md/zUD1F archive.md/Pc6gp https://archive.is/p3K3Z Including the very first case they ever admitted officially. And outright removed 4 times more cases than official. Unlinked cases supposedly secondary to linked cases should cluster around them, not the market itself. archive.md/GvRcD archive.md/ZgVzp Wuhan authorities after that archive.md/OIGPz 2014 incident now targeted only the Huanan market when looking for EID outbreaks—and nowhere else. archive.md/1x658 They tampered with the early cases data archive.md/Ea0Kw To make it look like it “started at the market” when in reality the first case they ever admitted lived right next to the WIV BSL-4. archive.md/5sdkR severe discrepancy happening December 2019 and January 2020 indicate tampering with case counts. archive.md/1pcCU This is indicative of catastrophic ascertainment bias was going on. None of China’s “early cases” dataset is credible. https://archive.md/ET1GA https://archive.md/Ea0Kw https://archive.md/1x658 The tampering of early case residence data is systematic and extensive. It is the reason why they refused to provide this data in any detail at all. Not only did The first every case they admitted live in Shidong right next to the BSL-4, and were moved toward the market in the WHO report in contradiction to all known media coverage, https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109256201942085712 the entirety of Wuchang district was wiped clean for every single WHO case that have onset before 27/12/2019–with up to 3000 cases moved to the market this way over the entire Wuhan outbreak. https://archive.md/1x658 and for central Wuchang near the labs and the densest inhabited regions inside the district, all cases were moved away in the WHO map. Unfortunately Rasmussen's work on the origins question rests heavily on what David Relman described as "hopelessly impoverished" early case data. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/27/little-known-scientific-team-behind-new-assessment-covid-19-origins/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/17/covid-early-cases-wuhan-china-mystery/ https://archive.md/ke1lp https://archive.md/RaYPC David Fisman: I think the most interesting thing this fellow says is that there are clearly tens of thousands of cases...That implies a much earlier introduction than would have occurred with a seafood market outbreak..."

The comparison of epidemiological characteristics between confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases with COVID-19 during the early epidemic in Wuhan, China - Global Health Research and Policy To put COVID-19 patients into hospital timely, the clinical diagnosis had been implemented in Wuhan in the early epidemic. Here we compared the epidemiological characteristics of laboratory-confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases with COVID-19 in Wuhan. Demographics, case severity and outcomes of 29,886 confirmed cases and 21,960 clinically diagnosed cases reported between December 2019 and February 24, 2020, were compared. The risk factors were estimated, and the effective reproduction number (Rt) of SARS-CoV-2 was also calculated. The age and occupation distribution of confirmed cases and clinically diagnosed cases were consistent, and their sex ratio were 1.0 and 0.9, respectively. The epidemic curve of clinical diagnosis cases was similar to that of confirmed cases, and the city centers had more cumulative cases and higher incidence density than suburbs in both of two groups. The proportion of severe and critical cases (21.5 % vs. 14.0 %, P < 0.0001) and case fatality rates (5.2 % vs. 1.2 %, P < 0.0001) of confirmed cases were all higher than those of clinically diagnosed cases. Risk factors for death we observed in both of two groups were older age, male, severe or critical cases. Rt showed the same trend in two groups, it dropped below 1.0 on February 6 among confirmed cases, and February 8 among clinically diagnosed cases. The demographic characteristics and spatiotemporal distributions of confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases are roughly similar, but the disease severity and clinical outcome of clinically diagnosed cases are better than those of confirmed cases. In cases when detection kits are insufficient during the early epidemic, the implementation of clinical diagnosis is necessary and effective. ghrp.biomedcentral.com

Association of Public Health Interventions With the Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Wuhan, China Was there an association of public health interventions with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China?In this cohort study that included 32 583 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in Wuhan from December 8, 2019, through ... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

MACE E PAI COVID 19 ANALYSIS Redacted : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive MACE E-PAI COVID-19 ANALYSIS archive.org

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/1088805315972559…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108880531597255968 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109147956977669077 Also, remember accountant Chen? (Why his dot was moved to the WCH if he lives in Wuchang/Jiangxia?) it turned out that it was not only his dot that was not in the right place. Every dot within the 2km radius of the Wuchang railway station was moved or removed. This is within the area that is expected to have the infectious disease and respiratory cases ultimately serviced by the “中部战区总医院”. The hospital that sees large-scale respiratory case anomalies the first in Wuhan on official records, where the decision to “enter battle stations” on 01/01/2020 was made because of an “unexpected and fast-growing anomaly in the respiratory disease surveillance data” beginning at least as late as 31/12/2019. There were dots that were east of this area, and there were dots that were south of this area, in locations with lower population density compared to downtown Wuchang and further from the market. (2 ambulances from Jiangxia on 31/12/2019, but only 1 dot on the WHO map and he wasn’t accountant chen…… (likely ascertained by contacting a HSM case on public transport, “试行诊疗方案”) (accountant Chen got to the WCH in 27/12/2019)) Considering how cases that were admitted to the “中部战区总医院” weren’t directly reported except for WH01 in 14/01/2020, (Only 1 out of the 4 known sequenced cases here were directly reported. WH03 is reported after transfer to the Zhongnan hospital, one of the 2 initial market cases reported in the location. WH02 and WH04 were not in the NNDRS dataset and displayed as “unknown” in the WHO report) and how they then report seeing more fever cases in a single day than the entire CDC pre-04/01/2020 onset dataset (the point when they have to expand their fever clinics), it is quite likely that cases that initially broke out in Wuchang were muted by admission into a hospital that is placed under a command that doesn’t have to report on the NNDRS, and that any cases found in Downtown Wuchang had their “residential addresses” altered to place them as close to the Huanan market as possible and out of the Wuchang area. This would not be the first time when cases that came from an “inconvenient” location were hidden inside PLA-operated hospitals to prevent them from being counted. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109701931477090563 Why the WMHC rejected the WHO’s demand for line listings of the 174 “NNDRS cases” in annex E2? Also, one dot in Jiangxia is one of the two https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109048819612838694 ambulances that were seen in 31/12/2019 from Jiangxia. Only one become a dot (central Jiangxia as opposed to the Shidong prefecture). It is possible that this is Chen’s relative that “visited a local market”, meaning that this is a case that is ascertained by contact with an early case, and saved from removal because of post-27/12/2019 onset. No dot at all is inside the borders of the WuChang district, even when dots begin showing up east of it in less populated places further from the market. This is clearly artefactual, indicating attempt at breaking up the cluster in Wuchang.' gab.com

Little-known scientific team behind new assessment on covid-19 origins A small shift in favor of the “lab leak” theory was prompted by new data and an A-list team of weapons-lab scientists. washingtonpost.com

Opinion | Wuhan’s early covid cases are a mystery. What is China hiding? The story of how the pandemic got started — and turned into a global catastrophe — remains a black box. It should not be. washingtonpost.com

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://archive.md/UIBkB https://archive.md/6LuXg https://web.archive.org/web/20231101133202/https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1718570491534061745 archive.md/ZgVzp https://archive.md/fWTg1 The Huanan market was the only place in Wuhan monitored for EID since 2014. This is to ensure that whenever an outbreak occurs the only place it will be first detected would be at the Huanan market itself, ensuring that all lab escapes can be covered up and scapegoat campaigns can initiate to blame the wildlife trade in stead. The official narrative is always that “it was caused by wild animals sold in the Huanan market” and “It have an origin within illegally traded wild animals” all the way up to May 2020–the pub date for the Pangolin papers is up to April 2020 and that a bounty to “find the animal origins” for SARS-CoV-2 is still active in May 2020. The “most likely origin being wild animals” argument is present in Chinese articles about SARS-CoV-2 all over 2020, where numerous attempts at finding animal hosts were performed in-vitro but always land onto Homo Sapiens and leave their “primary suspects” otherwise being animals not sold at the Huanan market, to much of the dismay of the authors, despite the themes being almost always “there is a broad host range for SARS-CoV-2” to try stretch the search efforts as wide as possible, as long as possible, bidding to keep up with the increasingly longer list of negative farms and species in the national search efforts. Despite their numerous attempts at removing the human correlational edge with SARS-CoV-2, their effort ultimately failed with either the proportionality and thus the unique positive correlation and mutual information between Homo Sapiens and SARS-CoV-2 is preserved, or with all of the mutual information between SARS-CoV-2 and any land-dwelling species at all being destroyed.

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://michaelweissman.substack.com/p/an-inconvenient-probability-v57 The meter-precise market centered KDE of W+P “unlinked cases” required in addition to unreasonable and knowingly false assumptions on the social contact and shared space structures of market cases including visitors especially when they occur outside the market, an total absence of anisotropies and biases within the populational and movement structures around the market, neither of which are proven, and quite the opposite—an extreme level of anisotropy, again biasing toward where the linked cases are found, are observed. Yet somehow the unlinked cases were ~50m farther away in opposite to these bias directions when compared to the market itself, which once again required precise recentering of “data” by manipulative actions. (edited) An Inconvenient Probability v5.7 Bayesian analysis of the probable origins of Covid. Quantifying "friggin' likely"

An Inconvenient Probability v5.11 Bayesian analysis of the probable origins of Covid. Quantifying "friggin' likely" michaelweissman.substack.com

@KevinMcCairnPhD - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

To the earliest Wuhan authorities that prioritize “blame the animals” to prevent scrutiny to the lab (which they also happen to initiate before any public inquiries on this matter could even begin), “no swabs” are better than “negative swabs”. Sadly some of these animal swabs do got taken away at that time just because “gather relevant samples as close as possible and then inspect them” being one of the standard procedures for many of the agencies-of-interest outside Wuhan, and when they are examined, again, per standard procedures, the results got leaked in January 2020, and all of which are negative.

@NestCommander — Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Posted - January 5, 2025 at 7:40 PM

Saved - January 8, 2025 at 6:57 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I've been reflecting on the troubling state of scientific integrity, particularly regarding the manipulation of data in virology. Despite having the necessary materials and tests ready for over a year, results remain "TBD," suggesting a cover-up of negative findings. The actual host range of SARS-CoV-2 is narrower than claimed, and the methodologies used to generate data may involve significant fabrication. With advancements in AI, both China and the West can create convincing but fraudulent scientific results, making it crucial to scrutinize the credibility of published data.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1867436175415554170?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… Of course. “TBD” for a year and a half despite already had all the experimental material requirements from the sourcing genome to the testing set-ups, and have already completed the majority of the tests a year and half before, is indicative of an inconvenient negative result that needs hiding and guarantee the next publication to be deepfake.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389922001039 @COVIDSelect @Rebecca21951651 @ban_epp_gofroc @BiophysicsFL @DrLiMengYAN1 @lude_media @FBI @mattwridley @msabouri @LawrenceSellin @WashburneAlex @quay_dr @BillyBostickson Just remember: since about late August 2024, both China and the west have completed the construction of AI based methodologies related to generative adversarial networks(GANs) to falsify scientific data. (And obviously you can use transcriptome mapping methods to carve animal and viral transcriptomes into fraudulent “samples” before merging them.) We should not trust any of the “data” from conflicted virologists in any way now.

AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications Destroying image integrity in scientific papers may result in serious consequences. Inappropriate duplication and fabrication of images are two common… sciencedirect.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And of course. The full native gene and specific conditions inside an animal is what that matters for infectivity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HeZdCnDA4WpoO_kzISjmoFzIAqgFha3fNEPvBpp2z3M/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/18d_IMZU_DYRX1DlXuSNySC_4DiTcgabjhxoz9K4tWrg/edit That is why in practice the actual observed host range of SARS-CoV-2 is much, much narrower than the claims of “broad host tropism”, and which all old world wildlife species when their native habitats overlap with that of a rhinolophus bat that carries an ACE2-using Sarbecovirus, failed to become infected in nature by any virus that carried the SARS-CoV-2 RBD including SARS-CoV-2 itself.

Page Not Found Web word processing, presentations and spreadsheets docs.google.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://t.co/S2eU226ILx They already had the genome assemblies required to source all the announced “TBD” genes available in 2019-2020 and which the extraction have already been demonstrated from these exact genomes. They already had and have completed the majority of the tests that they wanted to do with the exact formats and protocols of the tests all fully finished in mid 2023. And with a conflict so great that their livelihoods and heads depends on the uncontrolled and continued funding of GOF research, any “results” they would create or release, extending from this exact test that was already a year and a half old, would definitely be faked. The methodologies would include but not be specific to: sample switch-outs, protocol switch-outs, subject switch-outs, AI mediated fabrication of data and images, alignment-based pick and replace for sequencing results.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://t.co/aJ3P9XphhP (Which they specified in their 2023 report that they sourced their genes for testing via searching through published genome assemblies and sequences using sequence alignment, and which this particular method have been demonstrated to be used for the extraction of one of their TBD sequences by another publication in 2023 from an 2019 assembly.).

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

These kind of fake science especially the later ones that are based on diffusion models, are impossible to spot. This was from china’s case-specific trained GAN model (e.g. too early in technology that it can be disclosed especially as a proof-of-concept to hint out their western zoonati colluders. Deboosted on Google and can be found only through Bing). The ones above are from the west where the model used was a generalist (e.g. off-the-shelf) diffusion model with the right prompt (context-conditioned infill/outpainting). They can essentially craft whatever species/sample/complex data as they wanted to push for their colluded intended conclusion by using what that are available to them (but failed to provide support to their colluded intended conclusion) as conditioning.

@NestCommander — Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Posted - December 3, 2024 at 7:01 AM

Saved - December 3, 2024 at 9:33 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

Since late August 2024, both China and the West have developed AI methods to manipulate scientific data, particularly using generative adversarial networks. This raises concerns about the reliability of data from conflicted virologists. The true infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 is narrower than claimed, as many wildlife species have not been infected despite overlapping habitats with certain bats. Science is vulnerable to data tampering, especially by authoritarian regimes, leading to inconsistencies that undermine the validity of datasets. Only Homo Sapiens should be trusted in future posts from these virologists.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389922001039 @COVIDSelect @Rebecca21951651 @ban_epp_gofroc @BiophysicsFL @DrLiMengYAN1 @lude_media @FBI @mattwridley @msabouri @LawrenceSellin @WashburneAlex @quay_dr @BillyBostickson Just remember: since about late August 2024, both China and the west have completed the construction of AI based methodologies related to generative adversarial networks(GANs) to falsify scientific data. (And obviously you can use transcriptome mapping methods to carve animal and viral transcriptomes into fraudulent “samples” before merging them.) We should not trust any of the “data” from conflicted virologists in any way now.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Page Not Found Web word processing, presentations and spreadsheets docs.google.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://t.co/3rrwEoR08a “science” is extremely susceptible to the tampering and poisoning of the underlying “data” by authoritarian regimes. Including with inconsistencies and artifacts that forensically invalidates the “datasets”. And of course, methodologies for data fraud especially from the CCP have obviously kept improving over time.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Only the Homo Sapiens would be real in any newer posts from these conflicted “virologists”. https://t.co/TF5dZbUWLE

@NestCommander — Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Posted - April 24, 2024 at 12:34 PM

Saved - May 13, 2024 at 1:06 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

During the construction of full-length genomes, DEFUSE uses a consensus sequence construction method. They select reads and SNVs based on their ability to generate the correct site for cloning. Unique mutations from QS batches are singled out and removed if deemed to be sequencing errors. Introducing random nucleotide changes would undermine the purpose of consensus construction. The process aims to generate a clonable genome pattern and avoids introducing additional sequencing errors by picking specific sites from existing sequences. Cloning consensus sequences from sample databases and short read sequencing data is done to validate the full-length QS.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109221415649435463 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109255356915252021 During the construction of full-length genomes by DEFUSE, the actual methodology is “consensus sequence construction”—e.g. they gather multiple sequences, usually a pool of reads, and then during the construction process, reads (and SNVs) are selected based on whether it can generate the correct site for the cloning process, in addition to the usual consensus generation process, where “unique mutations” from batches of QS are specifically singled out, and, if judged to be driven by a likely sequencing error, removed. The introduction of random designed single nucleotide changes to introduce the necessary site would effectively undo the intended utility of consensus construction, where “sufficiently supported” reads from multiple genomes or multiple reads in SRA (note the “Yunnan bats” libraries were constructed and sequenced in mid 2019) are assembled with the constraint of generating an readily clonable genome, and which one to several alternative test sequences (generate and evaluate until 3-5 viable sequences are obtained each year) are evaluated per pool of genomes and reads utilized. This consensus construction process is constrained by the need to generate a pattern that is easy to clone, and to prevent introducing additional “sequencing errors”, the specific sites are always picked from existing sequences e.g. those that are used in the construction of the consensus. If you just pick a random mutation there is a major risk that (especially in the ORF1ab) the RNA structure is broken and the result is not viable, which is in fact one of the reasons why they want to clone consensus sequences out of sample databases and Short read sequencing data in the full-length QS validation tests, in the first place.

Flavinkins on Gab: 'Also, what you are going to do if you tried to ju…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'Also, what you are going to do if you tried to just move a single nucleotide from a sampled (but more distantly related) template, where you used to determine the right nucleotide to change in order to remove a restriction site, synthesized and ligated the genome, and then found out that the genome failed to be rescued because of the same reason why the site you want to remove is conserved in all (more closely related in the surrounding segment) the viruses you initially used to create the consensus? You try taking a bigger segment of your more distantly related template, surrounding the site, apply it to your consensus and try again. RNA structural conservation determines nucleotide conservation in coronavirus genomes and the determinant for the conservation of a nucleotide position usually resides in the segment surrounding the nucleotide that you want to change. Swapping in the entire segment usually fixes the incompatibility issue, and the clone is then able to be rescued. With the side effect that the segment you swap out trying to fix the compatibility issue now show up on the ReCCA analysis too, with the more distantly related template now becoming the “closest related segment” at the removed site. Natural recombination, however, won’t guarantee either the transfer of only this specific spillover-irrelevant segment from that rare hypothetical “ancestor” (the template that you originally used not because of closeness or spillover potential, only out of necessity to enable cloning without breaking the consensus genome—while the whole genome of the template strain itself being also, not easy to clone due to incompatible and poorly space sites elsewhere on the genome),or that the same recombination event don’t add or remove any other sites (that would be incompatible to cloning), or that this one-out-of-50+ template strain is what that end up donating this segment prior to spillover. All these specific choices matter only when you are trying to clone a virus, not at all if a wild virus is trying to spill over into people.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'When a synthetic recombinant genome for a coronav…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'When a synthetic recombinant genome for a coronavirus is constructed, fragments are selected from relevant natural bat isolates with a requirement that the type IIS restriction pattern using the planned enzymes on the resulting assembly should enable easy cloning and efficient manipulation—a less than 1 in 100 chance for this to happen randomly by chance for recombination outside the S1 region of the genome, and completely irrelevant to spillover. When a natural virus spills over, there is very little effect (within 1 order of magnitude) on the chance that some specific strain would end up becoming the pandemic strain for recombination ancestry outside the S1 region. There is no requirement that a strain that spills over must be a strain that is easy to clone by the 2 most popular type IIS restriction enzymes that were used in CoV genome assemblies, and the chance given natural spillover of an ancestry that had an efficient type IIS RGS system without modification is the same chance as finding one such strain in nature just by 1 single random sampling—so far no specimen from Asia satisfy this on their individual genomes. Again, which sequence on the ReCCA graph were not sampled from nature? Unfortunately, the so-called “natural recombination ancestry” argument may well just be one of the many ways workable coronavirus genomes are “recovered” from a set of otherwise unisolated samples. Whatever you reconstruct out of natural isolates for a clone, it must be easy to clone. It can be from one of the rare samples you find with an easy-to-clone pattern, or it could be one of the combinations of various contigs from sequencing a pooled sample. It could also be a chimeric genome constructed using fragments selected from related wild isolates with a requirement that the result is easy to clone. When a strain spills over naturally, there is no requirement that it must be easy to clone—restriction enzymes work on DNA not on RNA, and there is no reason why the specific combination with an easy to clone site pattern must be selected other than the posterior claim “it happened” (ReCCA construction used SARS-CoV-2 genome as reference). This is a circular argument as the claim that “the SARS-CoV-2 genome with its unusual combination of type IIS sites is the result of a natural spillover” assumed P(spillover|strain have good site combination)>=0.5 while P(strain have good site combination)<<0.5 with the only justification “we observe that the SARS-CoV-2 genome is easy to clone and can be constructed using a combination of fragments from some 8+ different “bat virus strains”” only able to justify this implied probability assumption with the assumption “SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a natural spillover”, a hypothesis that is being tested in the type IIS RE site analysis paper in stead of an underlying assumption. In conclusion, while a ReCCA with an easy to clone type IIS site combination with the go-to enzymes used for assemblies of this length is a possible combination of the bat coronavirus sequences known from sampling, there is no justification for this hypothetical and still unsampled ReCCA to be the only possible combination where a spillover is possible or that a spillover strain will have a probability that it will be easy to clone being >0.5 while the chance of finding such a strain from a random sampling from the wild being only about ~0.01.' gab.com

@NestCommander — Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Posted - April 3, 2024 at 12:03 PM

Saved - May 10, 2024 at 4:27 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

CAS "pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention" is a major grant that continues DEFUSE. Politically significant data from China cannot be trusted due to tampering. The CCP and WEF are responsible for the intentional release of SARS-CoV-2. Early bat and pangolin datasets have been changed multiple times. All zoonosis datasets in China have been tampered with. Real forensic evidence from China has been tampered with. Chen's inclusion in early cases led to tampering of official data. China systematically moved cases from the lab to the market. Unlinked cases were closer to the market than linked cases, indicating ascertainment bias.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://x.com/daoyu15/status/daoyu15/status/1731414539324018732 CAS “pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention” is one of such major grants that they continued DEFUSE on. https://x.com/daoyu15/status/daoyu15/status/1747929537848266981 https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1748424486729253321

@Rebecca21951651 - Rebecca

DEFUSE going unfunded from DARPA will not stop @peterdaszak at @EcoHealthNYC @COVIDSelect @RandPaul

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Politically significant data are state secrets in China. There is no probability that they would remain untampered when released by China. web.archive.org/web/2023110113… archive.md/UODyy archive.md/kJDII archive.md/g2L31 archive.md/Z72Mb Lies and cover-up of China proves intent of https://web.archive.org/web/20231024174245/https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1714851707719668064 creating and releasing SARS-CoV-2. https://web.archive.org/web/20231029094650/https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1717097760942354718 A20, B5, Q61, inconsistency and inconsistency in the China “Huanan market” data and anomalies in data release times indicate significant tampering of these politically significant “data”archive.md/luOy6 archive.md/ryr5p https://resee.it/tweet/1714851707719668064 https://archive.md/2mQwP It is authoritarian takeover. The CCP and the WEF are both responsible for releasing and then covering up the origin for SARS-CoV-2. All of the “Huanan market” data cases or environmental samples have been tampered with. https://archive.md/VYCRK https://web.archive.org/web/20231024174245/https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1714851707719668064 Catastrophic data inconsistency and anomalies in outbreak response by China clearly indicate intent in deliberate creation and intentional release of SARS-CoV-2. https://archive.md/79xvI None of their “data” are trustable in any way. There in fact is an intent to fabricate data. https://archive.md/bUVYp https://archive.md/26Y3G The inconsistencies upon inconsistencies and problems upon problems of Chinese “data”. Tamper with data, and you get caught. And all of the “data” you post loses all credibility. In fact, all pro-zoonosis datasets from China have been tampered with. The key problems here is simply that absence proper versioning or custody of “data” they put up, on GISAID or in the WHO report, archive.md/0aHWr https://archive.md/Myt4u there is no credibility at all in any piece of “data” China made. @DrLiMengYAN1 archive.md/52DyQ archive.md/B0xlW https://web.archive.org/web/20231101133202/https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1718570491534061745 archive.md/kJDII archive.md/UODyy archive.md/g2L31 archive.md/Z72Mb archive.md/AjLkp archive.md/luOy6 archive.md/ryr5p A20, B5, Q61, inconsistency and inconsistency in the China “Huanan market” data and anomalies in data release times indicate significant tampering of these politically significant “data”.

reSee.it #30369 - @zijizhanchu_5 China's tampering with data and cover-up of the SARS-CoV-2 bioweapon is evident. Contamination from samplers and toilets explains the positive correlation with humans. Animal species showed no correlation. The market samples were contaminated, while personal items of vendors remained negative. The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations would expand WHO's power and create a global authoritarian regime. The WEF is also pushing for a totalitarian global government. This information needs to be known by more people. resee.it

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Nearly all of the early bat and pangolin datasets including the critical RaTG13 amplicon datasets have been changed multiple times before or just as they were being published, day after delay as they change them according to requirements as fast as possible. Trust China for ANY origin-relevant “data” now? @washburnealex @humblesci B5, A20, F13, F46, Q61, none of the politically significant “data” of China can be trusted in any way. And the most likely origin of the “positive wildlife stall samples” in the first place, is the WCDC and the AMMS in Wuhan planted them under the command of the bioweapons program—and did a poor job doing so. They even covered up the fact that humans can shed the virus and blocked it from the national IVDC and CCDC until the aforementioned institutions have to visit Wuhan hospitals themselves and find out that human to human transmission can in fact occur. Tamper with data, and you get caught. And all of the “data” you post loses all credibility. All pro-zoonosis “early sample datasets” in China have been tampered with. Bad badgers in Q61, Inverse correlation between human*SARS-CoV-2 and total 300nt+ mammalian contigs in the samples The “market samples” dataset is just as tampered with and with clear artifacts left behind, as all the “animal origin” datasets uploaded by China previously. A20, B5, Q61, every single inconsistency within the “market dataset” directly implicate tampering of and therefore non-validity of the “data”.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Real forensic evidence never get an explanation of official release from China. All China show you as “forensic evidence” have already been tampered with. Not just Ascertainment bias. The “data” have been actively tampered with. Why bleach the toilets before sampling it? Not only there were no gloves at all in the A20 stall W7-15-17, but the sample is both inconsistent in viral reads between 2021/2023 and in host fractions (despite claimed to be multiplex PCR directly from the original sample which should not change host fractions) between the lineage reads-free “metagenomic” and the lineage A “viral amplicons” datasets. Like all 26/03/2023 deposition date “datasets”, they were tampered beyond credibility (3/4 of all samples with an 2021 viral count have been changed, the 1 left was kept without any distinction indicate likely used as standard and debunking the attempted explanation of resequencing (all 4 are stated to be “resequenced via multiplex PCR” together) by contradiction (an unchanged B5 requires an 2021 resequencing date, F13/F54/A20 moved to resemble B5 in ratios in 2023 clearly a move to cover-up https://archive.md/ANS4Q the prior artifacts that became known when they begun monitoring relevant online info in March 2023). Not only Jan 12 samples were affected—for all sampling dates mutual information with all species have been destroyed with the scrambling of the host reads upon the inclusion of the 26/03/2023 upload date datasets. It is quite evident that removing contigs does not eliminate Correlation between humans and the virus because reads are removed proportionally. And all that scrambling just removed mutual information to all species, in all sampling dates. And still can not establish significant mutual information to any “susceptible species”. All zoonosis datasets in China have been tampered with, again artifacts are seen. As found out by NCBI FOIA. https://t.co/WOsGj2kqFZ@washburnealex Both of the PCoV BioProjects with changed DBs change them so that they can remove human DNA from the samples. (One left VERO bits behind, one removed so many sequences that viral concentration in the “metagenomes” were 50x-70x higher than their virus culture.) No explicit Chinese DBs on origin can be trusted in any way. Unfortunately, they failed to consider that there are alternative assemblies and non-standard hypervariable regions in humans though. arxiv.org/abs/2108.08163 arxiv.org/abs/2207.03288 Tamper with data, and you get caught. And all of the “data” you post loses all credibility. x.com/drlimengyan1/s… As for the reason why they need to fabricate the bat and pangolin data as they do with (A20, F13, F46)/B5 and Q61? x.com/drlimengyan1/s… They release a fallback to animal whenever the lab is scrutinized beyond denial. Another issue here for GISAID, is always that archive.md/0aHWr https://archive.md/Myt4u there is no credibility at all due to absence of proper versioning or custody of “data” they put up. archive.md/52DyQ archive.md/B0xlW @DiLiMengYAN1

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Chen lived in Shidong. Even by the annexes indicating his history. The only thing they did is that they moved him to Jianghan close to the market on the WHO maps. Also, Chen is not the only person infected in Shidong/Jiangxia and central Wuchang. Most were censored and only one of the two ambulances arriving in 31/12/2019 have been registered as a dot—likely because the origin wasn’t inside the Shidong prefecture/BSL-4 surroundings, and likely only because of being a close contact relative of Chen (contacting an known case). Chen’s accidental inclusion in the WCH’s first report of early cases and its subsequent media coverage mean that China have no choice but to tamper with the official data in an attempt to move him—while the HPHICWM attempt to whistleblow the “cluster 1” cases in 26-27/12/2019 generated from the WCDC’s leak of their culture stock (intended for sample manipulation) was blocked by the Hubei CDC, until the report included market cases as well in 29/12/2019. To save face, the CCP leveraged the fact that the WCDC is right nextdoor to the market and forced official media to only say that the cases were “close to the Huanan market” but not allowing the proximity to the WCDC to be reported. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109256201942085712 All dots they moved this way (up to 1/3 of all cases) was sent to Jianghan, https://archive.md/p3K3Z https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 especially to the immediate surroundings of the market, to scapegoat it and end up causing the “unlinked cases” cluster to be closer to the market than the “linked cases” cluster, despite supposedly the linked cases should be the only source of initial human to human transmission seeding and therefore the unlinked cases should cluster near the linked cases and not the market itself. This kind of improbable-under-null-hypothesis behavior is all over Chinese “data”. And of course, Chen lived right next to the WIV BSL-4 in every dataset other than the WHO report maps—including interview datasets in the same report which where he frequents (RT-mart in Jiangxia) and which early report indicate he “lived in Wuchang” and the first hospital Jiangxia 1st Renmin hospital which he visited first and sick at the second day. Also, China WHO/WIV covered up their earlier cases intentionally—it is not plausible for 67 samples from humans taken in 01/2021 to test “all negative”. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html They systematically moved more than 3000 cases from the lab to the market and gave “cases data” that they wanted to push for market as first outbreak site to distance from the labs. https://archive.md/rYvu3 https://archive.md/UFrSv https://archive.md/nevZy https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 Such an result of having unlinked cases closer to the market than linked cases is not expected even under the null hypothesis of market origin, which we should see unlinked cases secondary to and cluster around the linked cases, and not the market itself. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 Not only there were an complete absence of verifiability in Chinese cases, there is direct non-circumstantial evidence that they moved up to 3000 cases from Wuchang to Huanan. In fact, it is totally not normal to have unlinked cases closer to the market than linked cases—the only way this can happen is with ascertainment bias. Only near the market gets ascertained if not directly linked to it. Base rate neglect. They did the exact same thing when claiming that all 67 “pre-Huanan checkable cases” were “serologically negative”. Again, the social media associated here say “before Jan 18, 2020”. Included all Dec cases. https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/9/6/402 https://ghrp.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41256-021-00200-8 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7149375/ 135/92 cases in early peer-reviewed papers that went missing in the WHO report.

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

On W.H.O. Trip, China Refused to Hand Over Important Data (Published 2021) The information could be key to determining how and when the outbreak started, and to learning how to prevent future pandemics. nytimes.com

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

Exploring Urban Spatial Features of COVID-19 Transmission in Wuhan Based on Social Media Data During the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, there was a short run of medical resources, and Sina Weibo, a social media platform in China, built a channel for novel coronavirus pneumonia patients to seek help. Based on the geo-tagging Sina Weibo data from February 3rd to 12th, 2020, this paper analyzes the spatiotemporal distribution of COVID-19 cases in the main urban area of Wuhan and explores the urban spatial features of COVID-19 transmission in Wuhan. The results show that the elderly population accounts for more than half of the total number of Weibo help seekers, and a close correlation between them has also been found in terms of spatial distribution features, which confirms that the elderly population is the group of high-risk and high-prevalence in the COVID-19 outbreak, needing more attention of public health and epidemic prevention policies. On the other hand, the early transmission of COVID-19 in Wuhan could be divide into three phrases: Scattered infection, community spread, and full-scale outbreak. This paper can help to understand the spatial transmission of COVID-19 in Wuhan, so as to propose an effective public health preventive strategy for urban space optimization. mdpi.com

@NestCommander — Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Posted - February 19, 2024 at 9:14 AM

Saved - April 19, 2024 at 9:21 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

A video provides a concise explanation of the current state of science regarding SARS-CoV-2, PRION, Vaccines, and the perceived warfare against individuals. Various Twitter users are mentioned in the post.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Give this wings, it's as concise an explanation of the current state of the science as you'll get for SARS-CoV-2, PRION, Vaccines and the warfare being waged against you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDxkyX1rF_0 @CharlesRixey @BillyBostickson @still_a_nerd @Doctor_I_am_The @pizzapicklespur @Jikkyleaks @NameIsSpartacus @weve_read @BrokenTruthTV @HamEggsnSam @Parsifaler @EthicalSkeptic @ArmchairW @GasGilligan @JohnnyVedmore @dopaminergic13 @veryvirology @annunakkki @Know_More_News @RyLiberty @_HeartofGrace_ @HouseLyndseyRN @Kevin_McKernan

@NestCommander — Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Posted - April 5, 2024 at 9:21 AM

Saved - April 14, 2024 at 6:03 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State Thomas DiNanno has recently made claims that the intelligence community suppressed evidence of a laboratory leak, sparking discussions around the inconsistencies and lies surrounding the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Various posts have delved into the correlation between positive samples and human presence, as well as the degradation of the virus in the market. Additionally, there are mentions of the virus's adaptation to VERO cells and HAE cultures, the absence of natural infections in susceptible animal species, and the presence of animal CoVs in the market. The importance of proximity to toilets in determining positive samples is emphasized, along with discussions on sampler contamination and cross-contamination. The credibility of the official narrative is questioned, with evidence suggesting a silent outbreak before reported cases. The relationship between reverse transcriptases and the virus's evolution is also explored. Further scrutiny is placed on the GISAID sequences, highlighting the need for 2 billion hosts and the use of multiplex PCR with potentially flawed primer batches. Wildlife farms are noted to harbor fewer hosts, leading to lineages disappearing due to exhausted primer batches. Real inserts outside of the SARS-CoV-2 genome are disputed, and O-linked glycans are said to be absent in the spike protein. Positive samples are primarily linked to toilets and feces due to contamination, while the reliability of PCR+/NGS- and PCR-/NGS+ results is questioned. Concerns are raised about the fraudulent nature of the market-centered Chinese early cases data, with suspicions that the outbreak was likely introduced from outside the market. The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is accused of lying and tampering with data, including spraying virus into wildlife stalls and manipulating case residence and animal sequences. The involvement of different research institutions and the manipulation of samples and data are also highlighted, leading to calls for further investigation to uncover the true origins of the virus.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@R_H_Ebright - Richard H. Ebright

"Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State Thomas DiNanno tells [Sky News]…that when his team unearthed explosive evidence that pointed to a laboratory leak…, the intelligence community ran interference in support of a natural origin narrative." https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/us-intelligence-official-linked-to-who-was-critical-in-downplaying-covid-lab-leak-theory-during-joe-bidens-90day-probe-into-virus-origins/news-story/70cec8fe1513491a421d45b12b45a8e7

Sky News Australia Sky News Australia skynews.com.au

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Details on the DOE Z division. Also, debunking Angie Rasmussen and ilk there again. Also None of their “data” are credible in any way.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And no. DEFUSE does in fact propose to insert FCSes (human-specific cleavage sites in human proteins) into SARSr-CoVs. Especially when there is a mismatch to either the S1-S2 or the S2’ cleavage site, both in S2. (Such as when QTQTNSRS show up in an study-relevant Asian Sarbecovirus in 2018, where no isolated or even studied ones have an non-HT(V/A)S(L/I)LRS sequence.) If there is an infected animal, more than one spillover would happen, especially Guangdong. Why it is VERO E6 that was Wuhan growing best inside? Why all later lineages grow less effectively in it? Just fuse in a cell line that have a correct serine protease pathway. CaLu-3 also uniquely have no growth advantage to any known VOCs compared to Wuhan. Include in passage, and PRRA is more stabilized than it can ever be mutated or deleted, Proline included. arxiv.org/abs/2104.01533 An infectious clone is designed to be rescued. archive.ph/EiCQW Well, MN611520–definitely not a bat CoV. And of course, motivated reasoning like markolin can not explain how the “perfectly natural and consistent with bat sex” CoVs MN611520 and HKU4-HZAU-1 ended up one in a location without a Merbecovirus natural host (cotton but not bats or camels) and another inside an infectious clone backbone. And of course, WIV1, WIV16, Rs4874 and RsSHC014 count up to 4 published live isolates not “only 3” claimed by Shi. That is published isolates only. zenodo.org/records/570270… RaTG13 don’t grow outside immortalized kidney cells. These are just too many inconsistencies and obvious lies regarding the number of WIV Or EHA viral sequences AND isolates in their public claims. Then, there is an attrition problem where the idea that “the FCS worked impossibly well than design can anticipate” was really based on observed functions that have no bearing to pandemic potential and only recently attributed to the “specific context of the FCS”, in reality they just nee to put ENaC FCS into a QTQTNS massively mismatched S, then grow it once in VERO cells. All changes to a sequence will have half advantage and half disadvantage in the organism, but here the specific advantage of P681 “specific sequence of the FCS” is only in VERO cells, and the disadvantage however given that all natural isolate Bat Sarbecoviruses are 614D, is the complete destruction of all animal reservoirs as the incredibly unstable D614+FCS Spike got torn apart by the antibodies that would form in the animal before the FCS can emerge. The reason why no FCS exist in wild Sarbecoviruses.

@Dissenting2020 - Dissenting Skeptic

1\ I have seen a lot of really bad attempts at dismissing the Defuse proposal, with BS objections claims like: * It was all pseudovirus, no infectious virus was used or * they never said they planned to insert furin cleavage sites

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

01, 03 and 04, 06 are disproven by the presence of severe and https://ayjchan.medium.com/evidence-for-a-natural-origin-of-covid-19-no-longer-dispositive-after-scientific-peer-review-af95b52499e1 https://zenodo.org/record/7169296 conclusion-disproving ascertainment bias within the CCP data. As well as cherry-picking of early genome data. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362806429_Unwarranted_exclusion_of_intermediate_lineage_AB_SARS-CoV-2_genomes_is_inconsistent_with_the_two_spillover_hypothesis_of_the_origin_of_COVID-19 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109152915624650793 08 is disproven by the fact that there were no by-month data for Xiao Xiao et al, and there being no evidence of December 2019 animal sales that can be proven through an image that contained either features or metadata that permit them to be dated. 05 is simply wrong. Yunnan is the hotspot, Guangdong is linked to wildlife trade. Wuhan is neither. 09 is disproven as the specific pattern of RE sites are not directly linked to spillover probability and the probability that it is easy to clone with the standard BsaI/BsmBI through natural recombination is less than 1/32. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109255356915252021 03 is disproven since despite all the efforts, FCS continue to elude all efforts to find it. https://archive.ph/k7S6T https://archive.ph/Ga1iI https://archive.ph/vUy8n 07 is disproven by Marburg virus and also RSV. Especially RSV, which originated in polio vaccine research. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108661483685033341 https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2398/rr/599724 As for 10, the actual graph seen—show humans and largemouse bass not raccoon dogs. Humans and several livestock species in the “志翔冻品商行” near the toilets are the only species with any mutual information at all, highly consistent with boot and suit contamination. All metric positive correlation is observed only in humans and the entirely non-susceptible livestock species sold near the toilets. Worobey failed to address the fact that “the neighborhood of Huanan market” was used during the early case collection process—he opted to remove directly linked cases but none of the critical annex D5 cases that were collected from “the neighborhood of Huanan market”. Exactly 32 of these dots exists, = 59-27. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109228312723838390 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109443089504009640 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109148677382700486 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108825678909519515 These were cases that were collected because of their geographical proximity—collect if lived in the neighborhood, regardless of hospital. Collect from other hospitals only if exposed to market. Collect from hospitals near the market. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109386394452941367 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108830214433800007 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109169722840473497

Evidence for a natural origin of Covid-19 no longer dispositive after scientific peer review Declaration of competing interests: The author of this article has co-authored a book, VIRAL: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19, with science writer Matt Ridley. The updated paperback of VIRAL… ayjchan.medium.com

Zoonosis at the Huanan Seafood Market: A Critique Here we review data supporting a zoonosis hypothesis at the Huanan Seafood Market (HSM). We undertake statistical analysis of case locations and wildlife stall locations. We additionally analyze environmental sampling and review the likelyhood of susceptible animals being present in Wuhan, and only Wuhan of all locations in China. We find insufficient data to support a zoonosis hypothesis and instead conclude that the most likely scenario is that an infected person brought SARS-CoV-2 to the HSM, sparking a superspreader event. zenodo.org

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://zenodo.org/record/7005332 https://gab.com…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://zenodo.org/record/7005332 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108825099943844332 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108725195810150843 How could you claim “two spillovers” for SARS-CoV-2 if https://archive.ph/JVFuc positions 8782 and 28144 were found to be so unstable that they were observed to mutate within the same human host? And how could “multiple polytomies” indicate “double zoonosis” when it literally appear in every superspreading cluster and major variant of SARS-CoV-2 today? https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109016556387587166 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109179292343046033 Your simulation is wrong if what you claim to be extremely unlikely, happens all the time. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108956120173554636 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108974982120327267 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108983088984087090 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108941081553382213 It just happened that the phylogenetic tree topology of SARS-CoV-2 once you begin to look past 14/02/2020, resemble perfectly that of measles. Another virus with superspreading, one that appears only in humans. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109025416744564920 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108860074766577121 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108922841820898119 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108763931290402313 Here is why you get the polytomy at lineage B. (28144T and 8782C confers greater disease severity and higher transmissibility, which is also why lineage A went extinct) https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108996982333862686 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108869387343860968 (Also hint: http://nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26884-7 https://archive.ph/ejdiJ one of the earliest superspreading events of lineage B after the Huanan seafood market superspreading event originated from an infected brain—such compartments accelerate viral evolution and skews the lineage B MRCA backward as the result). Also, quasispecies should not be ignored when it comes to the modeling of phylogenetics and phylodynamics of RNA viruses. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108861410320430025 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108864606801240300' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'archive from @daoyu15 about the FCS, Marburg viru…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'archive from @daoyu15 about the FCS, Marburg virus and the initial case density in Wuhan (once the restriction on diagnosis toward Huanan market contacts were lifted; from Weibo case alarms.) https://archive.ph/12GHD' gab.com

Re: Polio eradication: a complex end game bmj.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/W2Rjj https://archive.ph/87AzE…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/W2Rjj https://archive.ph/87AzE https://archive.ph/dmOXT “ As @Daoyu15 pointed out, one reason for the clustering of early cases around the Huanan wet market without a direct link to it was that authorities were actively trying to identify cases in that area.” (Cases are collected if they have worked at or visited the Huanan market or lived nearby regardless of which hospital they were admitted to, or if they were admitted to one of the “several hospitals (near Huanan market)”) @Tony_vanDongen https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109169722840473497 "the neighborhood of Huanan market" was used as a criterion for "continued epidemiological surveillance" happening all the way until ~04-05/01/2020. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108724146438967181 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108825678909519515 And the “initial cases” are also ascertained only through a historical bias which is that the Wuhan municipal health committee and CDC looked only at the Huanan market when monitoring EID cases. The “initial reports” were recognized only by the market cases within them. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108939607348559500 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109400102483795216 As for what happened “after 03/01/2020”? 1: compiling case reports and validating them (at the JinYinTan hospital) takes time. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108731797608502118 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109169722840473497 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109909275555101121 2: “试行诊疗方案” and “入排标准”. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108742419028347251 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109382280015707894 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108724146438967181' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/1087397635596456…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108739763559645668 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108723816541534100 The Hankou station was the #3 highest location on social media check-in in Wuhan, making up 8% all such check-ins. It is within Worobey’s 1% KDE contour. As it also serves as the first location connecting the international and air traffic from the Tianhe international airport with the bus, metro traffic within Wuhan and the train traffic to other locations in Hubei (and to an extent other locations in China too, especially with busier times of air travel), it serves as the distribution point of all traffic not only through itself but also through the Tianhe international airport, centering the epidemiological contribution of the two facilities combined—with a combined social media check-in number of 37185 (it have to handle all the traffic from people who checks in at both the Hankou station itself and the Tianhe airport) and being a public transport hub that sees people from all across the line 2 of the Wuhan metro, it become the #1 highest contributor to “case spreading nearby” in any epidemic in Wuhan, and almost the guaranteed first superspreading location for those that started abroad, or starting anywhere on line 2. (You need To first go through line 2, before changing to line 7 or line 4 if you want to reach the Wuchang or Wuhan railway station, if you start from the Tianhe airport or the WIV (Wuchang headquarters)……) https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/probe-wuhan-metro-line-2-spread-pandemic Include the effect of annex D5, and you have the reason why the “market unlinked” case “epicenter” is closer to the market to the “market linked” case epicenter. Train stations are liminal spaces. When you ask a case/person as where he/she worked at or visited recently, specific public transportation stations (especially the metro station part of the Hankou railway station, the busiest metro station on line 2 with average daily throughput (in and out of the metro station) of 135000+ persons daily + 85000+ persons daily going through the rails in the train station) would hardly come up as significant or be reported from memory. The same effect also breaks up any clusters of infectious disease that spreads from them, as even very large superspreading clusters within such a station would be mostly among strangers (not connected either by work or by home) and they would show no epidemiological link to each other at hospital admission part from geographical proximity from each other on the order of 1-2km. Recognition of an outbreak especially given how EID surveillance operates in China and the fact that it happened during the flu season in Wuhan (too much background signal to distinguish EID without consulting epidemiology) would only happen once the infection have spread to the nearest (and the only) wet market (with a stable, mostly elder population in close contact at work that is conductive to both the efficient spread and recognition of an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, especially without a specific test) that was put under EID surveillance in Wuhan. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108939607348559500 While it is statistically very likely that households near a major transport hub will be visited through that transport hub (creates an “unconnected case”, only ones that would show up on search would be the ones in the “neighborhood of Huanan market” or in the cluster that is likely to visit “several hospitals(near Huanan market)” if they weren’t indirectly connected to the market by contact with a market case), any specific person living or working in any specific landmark near them is still only going to visit his/her own or family household, which is most likely several kilometers away from the landmark and will not be significantly overpresented in the vicinity of the landmark. Consequently, the “epicenter” of market-linked cases is further away from that of market-unlinked cases. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108923557475080584 “While other biases are certainly at work in the contour maps, the absence of any mention of it while referencing the social media check-in data from Sina Visitor System amounts to a certain cherry-picking of the data to fit a certain narrative.”' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/1087504705358358…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108750470535835849 https://archive.ph/XtLXy https://archive.ph/MCqMS https://archive.ph/dmOXT https://archive.ph/lOYDr https://archive.ph/bXHLT https://archive.ph/p3dbM https://archive.ph/t502Z https://archive.ph/5f0O3 https://archive.ph/VXtu9 https://web.archive.org/web/20220312073852/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-wuhan-doctor-tells-what-it-was-really-like/6Q23B4ISGLPT7U7QC34G4VDAA4/ https://archive.ph/8thla https://archive.ph/9znGJ https://archive.ph/6LuXg You know your data have a serious problem of bias when the supposed primary sources of infection (cases that are directly linked to the Huanan market) ended up having a center of distribution further away (less centered around) (which also indicate that the radial isotropic spread condition is already broken, even for cases that were directly linked to the Huanan market) from the Huanan market under a KDE analysis compared to the supposed secondary infections (cases that are not directly linked to the Huanan market). https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108713658029563999 This is very clearly the effect of a sampling effort that focused on “several hospitals (close to Huanan market), Huanan market and Neighborhood of Huanan market”.—cases were collected if they have been exposed to or lived near the market regardless of which hospital they were admitted to, and if they were admitted to one of the “several hospitals (close to Huanan market)”. (Annex D5) https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108731797608502118 Add in cases that were hospitalized and reported from at or after 03/01/2020, under the “试行诊疗方案” and the “入排标准” which included cases that have contacted, visited, lived with, studied with, accompanied or visited the same hospital ward as a case that was directly linked to the Huanan market (cases that are indirectly linked to the Huanan market), and you end up with the entire WHO report “2019 cases” dataset. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108750470535835849 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108750094802767000 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108758479291053016 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108726114014659302 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108722307673771849' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: '“So there are documented issues with their statis…' Flavinkins on Gab: '“So there are documented issues with their statistical analysis, but I don't think you even need to go that deep. The diagnostic criteria for early cases sought a market link in the beginning (they assumed zoonosis), which left crippling ascertainment bias in base data.” https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109382280015707894 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109222936375023885' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/dmOXT https://gab.com/Flavinki…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/dmOXT https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108747087048451126 (You can find exactly 32 yellow spots “unlinked cases” in the 25% KDE contour of the WHO unlinked data……) https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108731797608502118 (note: may contain cases admitted to the Houhu ward of the Wuhan central hospital even if them having a later date of hospitalization)' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: '“1\ Perfectly explained by a bias towards cases n…' Flavinkins on Gab: '“1\ Perfectly explained by a bias towards cases near HSM Cases are allowed frm further away if they have a link, explaining why linked cases are further away. How does one explain this without a ascertainment bias? 1st gen unlinked cases would have to be infected by linked cases 2\ Those districts comprise pretty much all the dense area of Wuhan, no? 3\ The authors elsewhere confounded diagnostic critera with suspicion criteria for the huang lancet papet. There is simply no reporting of the criteria for suspicion in the paper, but it presumably follows what was documented by the WHO report, which includes market proximity” https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109228312723838390 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108726114014659302 @EmaNymton90 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108724146438967181 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108825678909519515 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108742419028347251 It should also be noticed that the JinYinTan hospital that was in the Lancet report did not admit the cases themselves—in stead suspected cases were first searched out from the “various healthcare institutions in Wuhan”(e.g. the Inpatient records of healthcare institutions), first for cases linked to the Huanan market city-wide beginning in 30/12/2019, then for cases that lived in the neighborhood of the Huanan market or have been admitted to a hospital near the Huanan market beginning in 31/12/2019. Suspected cases were first transferred to the JinYinTan hospital, before they were “diagnosed” according to the Lancet report criterion and then end up in the Lancet report. These 59 “transferred” (59 diagnosed/41 confirmed) cases are the 59/41 cases that were in the WMHC early reports. The rest of the cases would be from the backfilling period (e.g. hospitalized “hospital admission” at of after 03/01/2020, corresponding to the cases in the 174 cases dataset with a date of onset at or after 24/12/2019) of the standards between 03/01/2020 and 18/01/2020 and were ascertained almost exclusively by a direct or indirect connection to the Huanan market, according to the “试行诊疗方案” and “入排标准”. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108825678909519515 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108731797608502118 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108724146438967181 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108742419028347251 As for any cases outside that initial market-centered 174, they just refuses to include them into the WHO report and cover them up in stead, even if they were eventually found after 15/02/2020. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108876830805701129 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109058474962594334 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108826503882566575 Hint: 59-27=? Also, they did not perform any backfilling efforts after that. They even rolled back their own backfilling efforts in prior publications when arriving at the “174 cases”. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109296343974418128' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109205261283826972 ReCCA is tautological and fictitious. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109863181504837302 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109465063042828622 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109255356915252021 BtSY2 is sequenced in 2018. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109399710986742685 BANAL is in the hands of the DOD in 2017. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109340247585238829 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109800300869616862 The only thing in the market that meaningfully focus the abundance of SARS-CoV-2 is “closest to the toilets”. As all non-human “susceptible species” failed to correlate positively with SARS-CoV-2 consistently or with significant mutual information. With no actual evidence of natural infection in any of the so-called “susceptible species” at all. Contamination artifacts from samplers, and not actual animals, Or even vendors, created all of the “positive environmental samples” in the market. A fact which fraudulently bleaching the toilets before sampling can not hide, And which they failed to realize or create the required secondary spillover outbreaks in other locations Which all zoonoses have.

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/1089460581208001…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108946058120800199 How would you go onto constructing a synthetic consensus backbone that would be 1: guaranteed to be rescuable. 2: easy to manipulate as fragments. 3: easy to manipulate even after being ligated? You would need to choose fragments with type IIS restriction sites such that 1: each individual type IIS site must have a precedent in its presence of absence in the wild in at least 1 Sarbecovirus (distance doesn’t matter here. Can be as distant as BM48-31. Abundance matters statistically (rarer individual sites are less likely to show up at spillover) but does not matter if you are making a clone. As long as you find your desired presence/absence of a site at a specific location in even just one genome, you can use it and be confident that it won’t break your consensus genome. This is governed by both the availability of individual side precedence in sampled genomes and by the location of the site, whatever that doesn’t break the genome and is optimal for cloning gets chosen) to ensure that highly conserved RNA structural motifs aren’t disrupted. 2: there must be no BsaI sites between two BsmBI sites and no BsmBI sites between two BsaI sites to minimize the need of double digestion. 3: the number of overly small fragments should be minimized while no overly large fragments should be present at all. That is, the Standard Deviation (S.D.) Of the length of the fragments shouldn’t be too high. 4: the number of fragments should be kept to as low as possible with the restriction that you can easily manipulate each individual fragment within a M13/pUC vector backbone, as an excess number of fragments are more difficult to keep track of or manipulate. The type IIS restriction sites in the SARS-CoV-2 genome matches all the requirements above. Other genomes in its clade (or even any that is found in Asia)? Not that much. Unfortunately since clonability does not translate to spillover potential (without a lab), the fact that easily clonable Sarbecovirus genomes are rare in general also translates into the possibility that one that ended up spilling over just happen to be one that is easily clonable as SARS-CoV-2, being low. Since the fragments are what that is being chosen for the consensus genome, site selection influences ReCCA especially for the segments that were located near restriction sites—the segments surrounding them are what that were originally chosen in the consensus construct, where one of the requirements used is that the pattern of type IIS sites within the selected set of fragments should make the final genome assembled from them easy to clone. Finally, how could all the non-SARS-CoV-2 genomes you use in the ReCCA graph have a BsaI site in the first position of the F3 fragment (this site is highly conserved in Sarbecoviruses found in Asia) , but the final ReCCA, supposedly generated from related sequences sampled in the wild, not having that site? Either the ReCCA algorithm itself have considered these sites as part of the synonymous sites that was used to infer the “highly conserved segments”, and included SARS-CoV-2 itself into the analysis (making the algorithm tautological), or it is the result of the consensus-generation process where the choice of segments and sites to be used for the consensus included an requirement for the ease of cloning and manipulation for the final genome—something that would matter if you are synthesizing and rescuing it in the lab, not so much for anything that “spills over from the wild”. https://archive.ph/VypuD' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'More importantly, when considering the current RG…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'More importantly, when considering the current RGS systems, it turned out that none of the supposed ReCCA components are compatible with the cloning scheme that somehow were identical in their RE site order and REase use between U.S. and Chinese publications—the 2 BsaI sites within the ORF1a strongly interferes with the F3 fragment of the cloning scheme and when these sites are absent in a few select genomes, interfering sites pops up elsewhere in the genome that nevertheless still make the systems unworkable. The SARS-CoV-2 genome is the only one of which both the conventional and the no seems type IIS cloning methods would work with BsaI/BsmBI for the assembly of the genome—allowing both the easy assembly and ease for revision of the genome in all labs that were involved in the DEFUSE program.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'In fact, how the ReCCA algorithm functions (it pi…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'In fact, how the ReCCA algorithm functions (it picks the closest sequence to the SARS-CoV-2 branch On “phylogenetic trees constructed on each (very short) segment of the genome”) mean that it is impossible to reconstruct an ReCCA without inputing the SARS-CoV-2 genome into the algorithm (as the reference genome to be aligned against) and thus biasing the result catastrophically—to the point that it is impossible to distinguish this process from what that would be used during the construction of an consensus genome for an infectious clone (fragments are picked with a requirement that the sites on the selected fragments lead to a genome that can be easily synthesized and constructed), and removes any statistical power of “ReCCA” to argue that the specific type IIS restriction pattern of SARS-CoV-2 to be the only possible combination of sites that is “evolutionarily likely”. It once again, failed to provide any biological reason why a specific, <1-in-100, easy-to-clone pattern being any more likely to end up being the spillover strain (that must not use the SARS-CoV-2 genome itself as the reference when such probability is assessed) compared to the >99-in-100 other possible combinations outside the S1 With the “ReCCA components” (where none were easy to clone by themselves) that are not easy to clone, in a non-circular manner. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109288626916761348' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'Additional sample formats, such as “bat coronavir…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'Additional sample formats, such as “bat coronavirus isolate NNNNNN” are found in 2015 samples, whereas the 2016 sequences (the last sequences to be deposited into GenBank from known bat coronavirus searching papers in China/CAS) contained within their authors “Edward C Holmes”. This may hint on the role of E.Holmes on the handling of bat Coronavirus sample sequencing for samples collected “between 2015-2019”. Sequences MH315932-MH315944 have formats “XxNNNNNN”, however these contained samples from as early as 2013, making it difficult to ascertain as where these samples came from. However, these numbers (and the “Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats and the Origin of Human SARS Coronavirus” paper, with E.Holmes in the GenBank records) contained the only deposited CAS samples known to be collected in 2016, which could be taken as evidence of E.Holmes and WIV collaboration for sampling efforts and sequence/sample sharing, in the 2015-2019 period. A collaboration (sample/sequence sharing) between Guangdong and Wuhan institutions through E.Holmes https://zenodo.org/record/6849652#.Y38toiW8klT , can not be ruled out. The original GenBank deposition date of 2018 seems to coincide with the supposed sampling date of “BtSY2”. We now know that some of the samples taken in 2018 under E.Holmes contained RBD sequences related to the Omicron strain of SARS-CoV-2. The question becomes: Why you are taking samples from bats (dissected rectum), without performing some kind of tests immediately after sampling, as early as in 2015-2018, given that an ethics approval for the destructive sampling of wild animals in China required some kind of academic program to be first sent for approval, which have to include the detail of the exact experiments that requires the dissection of the bats and collection of the rectum samples. If any kind of testing/screening/experimentation were done initially on the samples (immediate experimental plan would have to be provided for the sampling proposal to be justified and approved—and “for storage, until some technology that doesn’t yet exist until late 2021” isn’t one of them), what were the results? Why, despite sampling of bats by EHA/CAS and expeditions into Yunnan/Mojiang mine continued all the way until 2019, the last such sequences deposited from China was sampled in 2016? If “This research, including the procedures and protocols of specimen collection and processing, 262 was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Yunnan Institute of 263 Endemic Diseases Control and Prevention. (No. 20160002).”, why weren’t the results immediately made available to the public as the samples were collected and processed over the course of 4 years? RNA samples are after all, very fragile and does not tolerate long-term storage very well. When were these actually sequenced? (I see 15 different sequencing machines in the FCIDs, with FCIDs ranging from H2 to H7, HG to HY, and sequencing on the same machines hundreds of runs apart. This could indicate sequencing done immediately after sampling) And if these were sequenced before the pandemic, who had access to the sequences? Were these really “newly discovered” viruses, or just sequences that were put into embargo in the “great silence” of CAS accession numbers between 2016-2019, only recently released? (Should these samples be sequenced pre-pandemic, near their collection date in 2018, this could be corresponding to phase 1(QS0) of DEFUSE. After sequences generated as early as in mid-2018, there would be more than 1 year to work with the cloning and culture experiments.) The machines found in https://github.com/Augustpan/Individual-Bat-Virome/blob/main/raw_data/lane_id_table.csv Are: A01426 A00821 A00920 A00270 A00877 A00289 A00881 A00783 A00253 A00917 A01045 A00808 A00459 A01415 A01050 The samples with BtSY2 are: S18CXBatR24 @A00917:648:H3Y25DSX2:4 S18CXBatR29 @A00783:739:H3V32DSX2:3 Both appeared to be on the earliest run on that particular machine, where the run contained no sample from 2019, and where the flow cell ID were from an early era (H3). Archive for read mappings: https://archive.ph/CuzzR Archive for lane IDs: https://archive.ph/IKxD1' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'To see more about the DOD-sponsored Institut Past…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'To see more about the DOD-sponsored Institut Pasteur sampling of the BANAL caves in 2017 and the censorship of even the already-sequenced batflies library https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109150240613656613 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109139121799069783 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782000872829271 http://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108745003276913992 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108938621623162894 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108961381086722860 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108808844066927838 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109198525541365424 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109222447665307488 PREDICT-2 and EHA activity in SE. Asia including Southern Laos https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079936391006382 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079963106312117 Past lab escapes from IP france https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108929427082821215 And on the type IIS REase found in IP cambodge https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109215673255176764 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109216529429569399' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: '@Graviola_Finland @EIGARBARINO https://archive.m…' Flavinkins on Gab: '@Graviola_Finland @EIGARBARINO https://archive.md/8rlbT FULL TRANSLATED TEXT of the briefing of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the analysis of documents related to military biological activities of the United States, made on January 30, 2023 with the supporting documentation that it provided. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782801366501491 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108908816879287433 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108808844066927838 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108808523459345532 It confirms that sampling and researching effort for S.E. Asia is in deed being conducted in these labs. Anomalies regarding the Caspian sea in 2019: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108949034317465342 EHA activity in the Caspian sea region, up to 2019: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782587895528182 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109139121799069783 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109529211058973737 DOD, IP laos and batflies🦇🪰: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108961381086722860 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108938621623162894 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782000872829271 https://archive.md/JZkwi EHA, Laos and PREDICT-2: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109158749548555994 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079936391006382 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079963106312117 https://archive.md/hMp7x 🦇🧪🥣？ https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109150240613656613 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109198525541365424 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109222447665307488 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109728264957247673 https://archive.ph/3fFfn https://archive.md/T6sN5 (No wildlife trade route linking Wuhan to Laos…… But plenty of sampling route linking Laos to labs both in Wuhan and on the East Coast……)' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-18/us-suspends-wuhan-institute-funds-over-covid-stonewalling

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Except that 1: ZC45 and HKU3 are not SARS-CoV-1 or SARS-CoV-2. And 2: the raccoon dogs are locally wild-caught in Wuhan, tested and negative and 3: the animal-specific viruses are in perfect positive correlation with the animals, the SARS-CoV-2 is in consistent correlation with significant mutual information only with Homo Sapiens. And 4: the FCS itself optimized to cell cultures, HAE/VERO and CaLu-3, mutated in live hosts.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Because Homo Sapiens is still the only species that they can get infected at all, if you zoom in and correlate between animals and viruses, You get animal-specific viruses being correlated strongly positively to the animals, and SARS-CoV-2 being positively correlated consistently or with significant mutual information only with Homo Sapiens.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph archive.md/DChUL None of the “susceptible species” found in the market had a single report of natural infections by SARS-CoV-2, anywhere in the world. Closest and second closest stall to the toilets=👢👖🥼contamination have the highest frequency of happening among sampling. Neither civets nor raccoon dogs are susceptible at all to natural infections with SARS-CoV-2 with zero reported cases anywhere in the world. None of the “susceptible species” found in those “wildlife stalls” have been reported anywhere in the world neither China nor Europe Japan Vietnam of an natural infection by either SARS-CoV-2 or even a relative of it. Nor bamboo rat, hedgehogs or porcupines. No Guangdong spillovers directly rule out infected animals in the wildlife trade—specific supply from Yunnan to Wuhan can not support an economically viable farm because the extremely low consumption rates in Wuhan. archive.md/e3615 archive.md/vWjZl Homo Sapiens is the only species that remain consistent and significant positive correlationship within those “wildlife stalls”. https://archive.md/gvHfw https://archive.md/LJzSO https://archive.md/4cCHG https://archive.md/gkquN And the real determinant and the primary confounding factor for “which stall have the most positive samples out of all samples https://archive.md/JSQvc https://archive.md/csYBM Is “closest to the toilets”, also “closest to the entrance to the market” for the wildlife stalls. https://archive.md/vlAgp https://archive.md/mwT8i This is because all of the positive results from the “stalls” were caused by contamination caused by the samplers either smeared out from the toilets or brought in from the outside. This is also the reason why nearly all of them were found below step height, the height below which accidental trampling and kicking are highly likely. https://archive.md/FskYn https://archive.md/lI04H All that were left were either directly from the PPE of the samplers themselves https://archive.md/rj1pV https://archive.md/VNr75 Or are located right where contamination either on the surface (near walls or doors to be rubbed against, give PCR+) or on the sample tubes (awkward, crammed location making it difficult to not touch the lip of the sample tube onto sampler suits, give PCR-) are likely. These locations are also the locations that are most likely being sprayed (below step height) and the max normal operational height (below waist height for devices recorded on photo) by a sprayer or other dispensing device equipped by a “hazmat suited worker” that entered from the main entrance and was seen fiddling around with the environmental surfaces in 02/01/2020–without collecting a single environmental sample despite operating equipments in a way that look like virology work from afar. As for any direct vendor-handled surfaces, the RNAse 7 activity (skin defense ribonuclease, attack membrane-bound pathogens especially with an incomplete glycan shield) inside these samples are so strong that all SARS-CoV-2 RNA is completely destroyed within a single day between collection to sample processing. https://archive.md/2PM9Y https://archive.md/RirQ7 https://archive.md/NeybM https://archive.md/BWZJL https://archive.md/CTP3i https://archive.md/ETjzS The possibility of the same infected sampler that dropped the contaminated PPE in 31/12/2019 then contaminated all of the wildlife stall samples whenever he/she enters through the toilet area for that sample run, can not be discounted as none of these subsequent runs contained a lineage read.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

They are also compatible with a scenario that the same culture that was used in the initial planting work was eventually used to adulterate A20 when demanded by the CCP after learning about the lineage A issue. https://archive.md/LJzSO https://archive.md/4cCHG The first set of samples https://archive.md/gkquN contained human residues inside that became the only species with consistent positive correlation or one with significant mutual information with the SARS-CoV-2 reads in the market, then with the demand to blame snakes and to make sure humans don’t make its way into the samples, they stained the mid-phase samples with obvious amplicon artifacts and “tested” the rest with the highly cross-reactive PREDICT ORF1ab primers to manufacture “positivity” which none contained a real read of SARS-CoV-2. Finally The very last positive wildlife stall samples https://archive.md/13bdP, taken after the cleaning of the toilet area https://archive.md/rSaO9 , contained no mammalian species other than Homo Sapiens, which represents the “pure” form of the contamination within the wildlife stalls that is brought into the market by a sampler. They now use a mixture of animals to add to their to-be-tampered-with sample, derived from an assemblage of frozen products taken from the market so that they can say that the positive human/virus correlation, persisting even into these samples, are caused by “differential preservation”—Unfortunately the animal mix did not contain any mammals, meaning that they in stead become direct evidence that lab based cultures of SARS-CoV-2 (infections and culture supernatants give mainly the virions and a genomic profile for the viral RNA, culture lysates gives the intracellular transcriptomic profile for the viral RNA and host Mitochondrial DNA that is seen in these final “storehouse” samples.)

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://web.archive.org/web/20231213033617/https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1714233859276149199 https://archive.md/73xfX Once inside “wildlife stall A”, The only correlation crashed to Homo Sapiens. Others crashed to zero one metric or another. https://archive.md/8nN3k Same as in the positive samples. Ask “which species shed the SARS-CoV-2 where it is found” yield “Homo sapiens”. The animals correlated with their native viruses, and not SARS-CoV-2. https://archive.md/BrQy7 https://archive.md/eoaMn

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

The “all samples” merely asks “which species is sold most uniquely in the stall closest to the toilets” with much of the animals being on the ground, entirely wrong sections, https://archive.md/eoaMn and a heavily confounded distribution pattern centered around the toilets same as W4-26-28 in Jan 01. https://archive.md/FskYn https://archive.md/gvHfw Also, Raccoon dogs are in fact, never found infected in nature at all, neither China nor Europe. archive.md/g2L31 archive.md/OIHeo Sampler contamination and cross-contamination. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/VNr75 Never an infected vendor or animal. In fact, the samples in the market follows the rule which a positive sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by samplers.🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 And not frequently handled by vendors.🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative. Another oddity, is that for the entirety of the market, none of the personal items of vendors and none of the frequently directly handled objects from boxes to baskets to cashiers, were positive. This is because SARS-CoV-2 RNA specifically is extremely unstable when on surfaces that are highly touched by a human—D614 especially because the Spike were too sparse to form a shield defending against invading RNAse 7. archive.md/LJzSO In fact, all of the positive samples in that “wildlife stall A” and the majority of the positive samples in the market is below step height—they are contaminated by the toilets and archive.md/4cCHG archive.md/FskYn is the reason why the stall with the most positive samples out of all samples is the stall closest to the toilets. In both Jan 01 and Jan 12. The superfluous nature of SARS-CoV-2 is therefore evident—not shielded inside solid tissues because all of it is shed by humans, and with an incomplete glycan shield, any that landed where human skin contact frequently (vendor items like cashiers, knives and chopping boards, baskets, boxes, water cup = least stable like bangladesh banknotes, not frequently touched locations like bases of machines or non-door-knob locations of cages, loading surfaces of grounds, scales or carts = more stable like sewage. Sampler PPE like gloves or shoe covers=most stable, and the main vectors in spread contamination to the objects and sample tubes.) got destroyed by RNAse 7. No positive above waist height, because these locations are where archive.md/FskYn samplers can exercise more care and it is less likely especially for untrained private contractors or volunteers briefed only once to avoid contaminating (enough room to avoid touching the surface or sample tubes, high enough so samplers can see to avoid rubbing with their suits. Below waist height on the other hand, not even professionals can avoid kicking or trampling due to lack of line of sight, and rubbing of the suits onto the surfaces are inevitable. Crammed locations where samplers need to support their own weight with their hands, breaks even the most professional of techniques and lead to high chance of sample tubes lips being contaminated.). 👢on 🛒🏔👣=PCR+/NGS+, 🥼on🧪=PCR-/NGS+ aligning over the primers and negative before and after. archive.md/tlfNr archive.md/GvRcD https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

The effect of spreading contamination out of the toilets and the main entrance of the market is evident not only in that both Jan 01 and Jan 12 have the stall with most positive samples out of all samples being the stall closest to the toilets, but also evident in the form of multiple samples from nearby stalls with only human DNA, no human cases and positive samples. They represent the purest form of sampler-linked contamination. https://archive.md/gvHfw The only thing governing the probability for positivity of the environmental samples is “closest to the toilets” and “closest to the main entrance of the market”. And bleaching it before sampling https://archive.md/rSaO9, just archive.md/13bdP lead to samples with only human DNA and no other mammals at all in the last samples hyper specifically taken from the “wildlife stalls”. All they managed to get in an effort to verify the ORF1ab primer-overlapping and Jan01-negative/PCR-negative contaminated sample tube are amplicon artifacts, false positives without reads, cultures of the virus from in-lab contamination and not a single positive of any kind on the site for Q37 any more.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 Unlike animals including livestock, humans are neither sold nor butchered at the market. Their CoVs degraded catastrophically after 01/01/2020 and completely after 12/01/2020 leaving only artifacts behind. archive.md/13bdP archive.md/FskYn archive.md/gvHfw archive.md/4cCHG Animals that are sold and butchered at the market have their CoVs remain stable and are the only CoVs left detectable in February 2020. Bane of the Zoonati: W4-26-28. Especially W4-28 which don’t have human cases inside. Only 1 out of the 5 samples have any wildlife reads at all. Closest to the toilets. Trample contamination clearly evident. Guess which species never have a single sample which it is not present? Homo Sapiens. In both Jan 01 and Jan 12 the stall with most positive samples out of all samples are the stall that is closest to the toilets in the market. Guess why. Guess why they never hint on Pearson correlation or the positive samples at all? The formulation of the problem “which species shed the SARS-CoV-2” gives an easy verification for species correlation by looking in samples where you actually see the SARS-CoV-2. This process also normalizes out any spatial confounding factors especially when confounded by pathological spatial distribution of the samples (all PCR+ samples in one stall closest to the toilets), where “which species is sold uniquely in a stall” guarantee by lottery fallacy a random species (each stall have one to two species that are uniquely sold inside and have low prevalence in the overall market), but actually entering the stall or the samples where you see the SARS-CoV-2 result in a collapse of correlation where no species except Homo Sapiens landed on the same sections of the ground as SARS-CoV-2. And of course, despite also being enteric like animal CoVs, SARS-CoV-2 failed to persist in the market, indicating it being not inside solid tissues like the animal CoVs, and therefore, not able to withstand either RNAse 7 degredation or cleaning agent application like animal CoVs could. Despite evident strong fecal and rectal shedding, persistence was not guaranteed for SARS-CoV-2 because it is not found in butchered animal tissue, which have safely and durably protected all animal viruses in the market all the way down to the end of February 2020. In addition to the observation where nearly all positive samples are found below step height and none of them being found above waist height, where incontrovertible proof of boot and suit contamination exist in the form of positive samples with neither human cases nor wildlife DNA, (which even followed the expected pattern as boots first bring the virus inside from the main entrance, then get additionally contaminated by wildlife DNA from the W6 junction) The stark contrast between highly persistent animal CoVs and SARS-CoV-2 which degraded to nothing but artifacts within mere 12 days, clearly indicate that the SARS-CoV-2 in the market is not shed by animals.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Because SARS-CoV-2 is not found in any animals which would be butchered and their tissues and guts and noses split open and spilled onto the market surfaces, the human respiratory and enteric shedding that deposited the SARS-CoV-2 into the toilets archive.md/gvHfw and then smeared onto the market stalls, can not shield the virus from being destroyed either by RNAse 7 activty or cleaning of the market. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG Consequently, only SARS-CoV-2 degraded over time in the market, nearly completely degraded in Jan 12 and completely degraded afterward leaving nothing other than amplicon artifacts and obviously in-lab cell culture lysate adulteration with no susceptible animals inside and with the intracellular human mitochondrial and viral Transcriptomes still intact archive.md/13bdP (they decay to only MtDNA and viral gRNA within two days ex-vivo unless in an -80C lab freezer—environmental surfaces like the market or even significant storage time after leaving the growth environment in working conditions can definitively not provide such conditions e.g. all the samples before them). archive.md/YGDiK Animal CoVs on the orher hand, persisted, with reads consistent with real, artifact-free genomes, and with no significant concentration changes that can indixate degredation, in Jan 01, Jan 12, Jan 26-27 Drains (the only SARS-CoV-2 read at that point was found in a sewage well on the opposite end as the wildlife stall that is connected to the municipal sewage system but not the wildlife stalls) archive.md/8nN3k and all the samples afterward, including samples taken after 15/02/2020. No indication of significant degradation or quality change of animal viruses and animal CoVs are observed in any sampling date indicating that they last at least 3 months and most likely longer, unlike human-sourced SARS-CoV-2 that last no longer than 15 days without sterile conditions. And unfortunately bleaching the toilets https://archive.md/rSaO9 https://archive.md/nAqKp even amplifies this problem—wildlife CoVs persisted, and no SARS-CoV-2 except adulterated using an laboratory culture so fresh that even the human Mt transcriptome (don’t last in the environment for 2 days or longer) and SARS-CoV-2 intracellular transcriptome (don’t last in the environment for a week or longer) are left inside.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Unfortunately, all that existed for Q61 and Q70 are the result of cross-contamination from Q64 and Q68/Q69, All of which are on the ground and archive.md/YGDiK are the result of either lower level boot and foot contamination x.com/daoyu15/status… x.com/daoyu15/status… Same as Q64/Q68/Q69 (stepped on>kicked for contamination). x.com/daoyu15/status… All that archive.md/73xfX archive.md/8nN3k archive.md/FskYn archive.md/gvHfw exist for Q37 is the contamination of a sample tube by the gloves and suits of the samplers. The swab is clean, PCR-. The tube lip is contaminated, NGS+ with alignment over the CCDC SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab primer pair. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG PCR+/NGS+ mean the virus is present in the location. PCR+/NGS- or NGS(artifacts) mean you are using the incorrect primers (all incidents happened with the PREDICT ORF1ab only primers). archive.md/rj1pV PCR-/NGS+, especially when archive.md/csYBM the primers are aligned over by NGS reads, indicate that the samples have been catastrophically contaminated as NGS is a more complicated process that are far more prone to contamination compared to PCR. archive.md/13bdP The stall for Q37 is negative at Jan 01. They then went on sampling the same stall including the “freezer” twice afterward, attempting to verify the “sample” they considered most promising. Bringing in artifacts elsewhere and samples without a read (the only sample with a real SARS-CoV-2 read at all gathered using the PREDICT ORF1ab only primer pair was a sewage well connected to the municipal sewage system on the exact opposite to the “wildlife corner”.), but never SARS-CoV-2 reads any more. This fact is also reinforced with the intriguing observation where Q37 is found to be in the same correlational series between SARS-CoV-2 and Homo Sapiens as other Q* samples. Attempts at sampling the archive.md/FskYn archive.md/gvHfw archive.md/4cCHG archive.md/csYBM archive.md/rj1pV “storehouse” just ended up with a total catastrophe—archive.md/13bdP the sampling team brought in in-lab culture contaminants, not even aged for more than a day, into the sampling sites again when they suited up in their lab and entered the location. Impossibly fresh intracellular Homo Sapiens and SARS-CoV-2 transcriptomes, neither capable of lasting for more than two days ex-vivo in that condition, ended up contaminating the samples and without a single read of a susceptible animal inside those “samples”. Sampler contamination and cross-contamination. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/VNr75 Never an infected vendor or animal. In fact, the samples in the market follows the rule which a positive sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by samplers.🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 And not frequently handled by vendors.🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative. archive.md/HlJ9o archive.md/nAqKp archive.md/rSaO9 They also put bleach onto the toilets and the mahjong room before sampling them. This is a clear move to cover up. archive.md/csYBM And no the “stall” W5-NA was sampled on the inside 27/01/2020, negative. (Not even animal CoVs were there) The toilets is the real contamination source. archive.md/C5oal archive.md/RSsS7 and yes only Homo Sapiens positively correlated with SARS-CoV-2 consistently in all metrics, or formed any kind of line or grouping pattern at all that allow the abundance of one to be estimated at above-random success rate and precision using the other (e.g. have any significant mutual information with SARS-CoV-2). archive.md/0O2TN archive.md/GjlEx

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

If you examine the inside of “wildlife stall A”, then all you see is boot prints and suit marks. None of it is animals. All metrics now favor Homo Sapiens as the most likely source of the SARS-CoV-2 sequences there. The wildlife stalls all sold susceptible animals. They only sampled wildlife stalls in Jan 12. Then positives are found closest to the toilets because that is where contaminated suits and boots most likely rub trample and kick. No different from W4-28 and W4-26-28, really. Not forming a line on the correlation diagram=no mutual information=spurious. That is why it dissolved completely when asking “which species shed the SARS-CoV-2” in slices where the analyte concentrations aren’t 0. That is also why they fraudulently bleached the toilets before sampling them.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And this is how you ID a spurious result. If the correlational diagram show a neat line indicating an consistent increase in the count of one candidate factor as the target analyte increased, it indicate that the target analyte is probably caused by the candidate factor with a consistently raising minimum of the factor per analyte suggesting that all of it is brought in alongside this candidate. If the correlation diagram show an randomized pattern or even a line of negative slope, especially when nearly all of the target analyte is found in one place, then it is probably that it is just the one place have one or few potential candidates that are less abundant elsewhere, which with the 25+ candidates in the market sample correlation analysis guarantee 1-2 for every stall (and most of which are on the ground just like anything trampled from the toilets, with entirely different reasons). If you can not use the concentration of the target analyte to reliably predict the concentration of the candidate, or come up with an result that the more target analyte there is the less candidate there is where the target is found, e.g. an absence of or negative mutual information, then it is most likely spurious and extremely unlikely that candidate yielded or is brought alongside the target analyte. Causation are bijective. Confounders are injective. Spurious correlations are correlated only in some metrics and slices but not all. Inconsistency between different slices and metrics indicate an lack of true causation and likely confounder that makes false positive in some but negative in the other. A consistent positive correlation in almost all metrics and no negative correlation in any metric, Like Homo Sapiens, indicate that there is true causation that some disruption may have occurred. Species that have “positive” correlation only in some metrics out of a single slice, (not even all the slices examined for that date), but negative or zero in all the other metrics and slices with the mutual information metric yielding negative and zero only regardless of slice, like oriental rat snake or malayan porcupine, are spatially confounded—they are “the most unique species found in the 1 stall at that slice that was closest to the toilets”, and since every stall have one such species, they represent false discovery by lottery fallacy, and fails when any other slices are used. They also failed to form a line on the correlation plot which indicate that there is no causation and the animal did not shed the virus where it was found.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

archive.md/csYBM And no the “stall” W5-NA was sampled on the inside 27/01/2020, negative. (Not even animal CoVs were there) The toilets is the real contamination source. archive.md/C5oal archive.md/RSsS7 and yes only Homo Sapiens positively correlated with SARS-CoV-2 consistently in all metrics, or formed any kind of line or grouping pattern at all that allow the abundance of one to be estimated at above-random success rate and precision using the other (e.g. have any significant mutual information with SARS-CoV-2). archive.md/0O2TN archive.md/GjlEx This result is consistent with the theil-sen estimator, which explicitly measures mutual information through the use of all slopes in the data points, which measures the predictive power of the other data points and one metric of one data points to the other metric of the data point. You can easily distinguish between common tertiary cause (confounded) from true causation by looking with increasingly finer grain of resolution, especially where the data points aren’t 0. Unlike spurious correlations from Confounding factors which ends at the resolution where the factor acts on, True causation stay correlated in every resolution and in any set of data points especially where the data values aren’t 0. In fact, confounding factors often crash in correlation quite early before that. “Do pirates get less prevalent the hotter it is when normalized agains temporal trends, where many things have correlation with time”? Is the same as “Do SARS-CoV-2 correlate with animals at all when normalized against confounding pathological distribution of insufficient spatial spread, which each stall including one closest to the toilets have several separate unique species?

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

The “perfect synergy” is a lie.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And it really only need “VERO cells and HAE cultures” to adapt to this.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

What those analyzers think: “many different precise and specific pieces recombine into SARS-CoV-2”. Reality: an unpublished but readily sampled SARS-CoV-2 progenitor spread fragments over time into multiple locations. Some end up in the published samples. Assumption of recombinant origin is almost always because of a lack of published samples sufficiently close, especially with multiple of samples of comparable distance. One specific contig is fished out of the assembly graph from a bucket of reads on the criterion that it meet the RE site requirement, before being used for cloning. Natural recombination will not pick that specific contig over any other possible assembly graphs for spillover. What they claim: “Only QTQTNS + PRRA would work!” Reality: they test an appropriate human FCS on all manner of Spikes, especially when they see an S1-S2 site “cleavage sites in S2” (that are structurally homologous to 757/900 for HKU1 “other coronaviruses”) with the example of “667/792 for SARS” that have deviated from the established consensus of spillover-capable SARSr-CoVs up to the point if DEFUSE. And it just happened that the closest human FCS to the first mismatched S1-S2 they see is the hENaC FCS, introduced by adding “ARRA” to “RSVAS”. Several versions tested and one ended up working. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109205261283826972 ReCCA is tautological and fictitious. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109863181504837302 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109465063042828622 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109255356915252021 BtSY2 is sequenced in 2018. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109399710986742685 BANAL is in the hands of the DOD in 2017. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109340247585238829 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109800300869616862

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Remember that time you say it must be S2’?

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

It is not just that SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan grows best in VERO cells out of all variants.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Some earliest patients harbored inside their QS specific S1-S2 deletions that can form only in VERO E6. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109640519028841414

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.00790-20…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.00790-20 This is not the only cell passage specific deletion that would end up in some of the very earliest patients. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/73/2/e437/5869859 DelQTQTN, a variant that emerges during VERO cell passage, is found specifically within at least 3 patients arriving from Wuhan in Guangdong, and variations at the “upstream probe binding site” (where closest related QTQTNS-bearing genomes contained only one transition at this probe, insufficient to prevent its binding), which also emerges at cell culture passage of SARS-CoV-2 in VERO cells, are found within patient samples taken from the Central Theater Command Hospital in Wuhan, alongside with variants that had deletions in the SPRRARS site, del-mut-1. DelQTQTN(which is specifically found within the patient samples and where the deletion is exactly 1AA longer than those claimed to be in RmYN02/RacCS203/Banal-247) and variations in the upstream probe binding sites are unique to VERO cell cultured strains of SARS-CoV-2. Their presence within the earliest patient samples within China implies that a VERO cultured stock was the proximal inoculum of many of the earliest patients within China. This directly point toward the proximal origin of the Chinese outbreak being associated with virology research and culturing of viruses.' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

archive.md/HlJ9o https://archive.md/rSaO9 https://archive.md/13bdP https://archive.md/nAqKp They also put bleach onto the toilets and the mahjong room before sampling them. This is a clear move to cover up. https://archive.md/rj1pV https://archive.md/FskYn archive.md/csYBM And no the “stall” W5-NA was sampled on the inside 27/01/2020, negative. The toilets is the real contamination source. https://archive.md/LJzSO https://archive.md/4cCHG archive.md/C5oal archive.md/RSsS7 and yes only Homo Sapiens positively correlated with SARS-CoV-2 consistently in all metrics, or formed any kind of line or grouping pattern at all that allow the abundance of one to be estimated at above-random success rate and precision using the other (e.g. have any significant mutual information with SARS-CoV-2). archive.md/0O2TN archive.md/GjlEx What they tried to hide with this: The fact that “closest to the toilets” is the only factor that governs where you are going to see positive samples the most in the market—there is no difference between W4-28 and W4-26-28 in 01/01/2020 and W6-29-33 in 12/01/2020 in term of where the virus came from and why they have the highest positive sample count out of all sample counts in their respective sampling runs. Sampler contamination and cross-contamination. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/VNr75 Never an infected vendor or animal. In fact, the samples in the market follows the rule which a positive sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by samplers.🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 And not frequently handled by vendors.🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Unfortunately, none of the “drain” samples contained actual SARS-CoV-2 reads. They have animal CoVs, demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 in the market isn’t present in animal tissues and does not last past 12/01/2020 as legitimate reads, and that are also happens to be exceptionally cross-reactive to the ORF1ab only tests used.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Unfortunately: The actual samples from the “drain systems of the Huanan market”—included not even a single read of SARS-CoV-2, but only animal CoVs like HKU14 or HKU31 which are known to cross-react with the PREDICT primers. These were also the only CoVs identified by independent sampling in 02/2020. The only read of SARS-CoV-2 from these drains/sewage wells—is found on the opposite corner of the market and is in the main system where the toilet flushings meets the drainage system in the pipes (note: any spillage or other exit path of the “overflowing sewage” from the toilets into the market, as specified by descriptions in media reports, are still going to leave in the area of the toilets.), and where other sources of the virus in the communal sewage system enters the sewage wells connected to the market through the sewage pipes themselves. https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 in fact the nature of SARS-CoV-2 here being superfluous contamination that have an origin in human secretions and cell culture supernatants brought into the stalls by the samplers and on boots, shoes and suits is obvious here. Independent sampling indicate that only the animal viruses highly correlated with the animals were left in February. The SARS-CoV-2? Superfluous, in human metabolic products and secretions, and not in butchered tissues. They are cleaned off and degraded efficiently. The animal native viruses are inside the tissues and are highly persistent—class of contaminant type different and SARS-CoV-2 is in the class that is inconsistent with the behavior when pitched against cleaning than animal CoVs (which unlike SARS-CoV-2, the animal viruses including CoVs persisted in tissue fragments of animals generated from butchering and animals banging against cages for more than one month, whereas all the “SARS-CoV-2” after 12/01/2020 are either amplicon artifacts, PREDICT primer false positivities (no reads at all), or evidently freshly prepared cell cultures which even the fragile mitochondrial transcripts of the Homo Sapiens and intracellular viral transcripts of the SARS-CoV-2 have been preserved (they decay within a day after loss of cell viability) and where no non-human mammals at all were present. (Clearly a recent cell culture added into these “storehouse” samples). https://archive.md/13bdP archive.md/FskYn archive.md/gvHfw archive.md/4cCHG archive.md/csYBM archive.md/rj1pV

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Cold hard reality: there is nothing special to W6-29-33 compared to W4-26-28. Closest to the toilets is what that govern where the virus would be found. Fact: w6-29-33 and the market supply chain did not get shut down at all. The former operated as “金秀山家禽批发商行” up to the end of 2021 and the latter operate still to supply other markets in Hubei, archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph archive.md/DChUL evidenced by the fact that these suppliers including the exact animals sold were readily sampled in Jan-feb 2020. This included also specific sampling of several species inside the stall itself, also negative. Their animals tested negative and no outbreaks happened. They represent the full inventory of raccoon dogs and siberian weasels in the market. The Hubei supply farms then represent the full inventory of many other species. The only Yunnan supplied animals all landed on the wrong stalls, testing negative even when sampled as is in the market. archive.md/e3615 archive.md/vWjZl

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

This is the reality: VERO cell adaptation is max in Wuhan compared to bat or VOCs.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And this picture is worth a thousand words—“VERO cells and HAE cultures” adapt the virus like this exactly.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And also fact: you really can not 1: ignore the 50+ strains of bat SARSr-CoVs identified by the EHA, still not published—anything sufficiently close won’t be “mosaic recombinant”. And 2: the China claim that there were no cases before the market got completely self-debunked when they then went on saying that 67 samples in an 2021 Wuhan of >4% seroprevalence “tested all negative”. Numerous anomalies leaked in regard to early detections that is incompatible with a market origin. Sinterklaas/Faucier: Wei Jingsheng: WHU student reports: First public Wechat Spike in “SARS”: Wuhan lab banned from being mentioned the first official declaration(nobody is allowed to doubt the constructed official narrative): Callahan: Murdered Zhou Yusen with body bags found outside the WIV: It is impossible to have 67 wuhan residents sampled in 2021 to test all negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Blatant ben HU lie on “not working with SARSr-CoVs” Still operating illegal labs in the U.S. They screwed up with the military games it seems. And it is not unusual to see samples in China being sequenced only months to years after initial collection and culturing. Hong kong suspend Wuhan mail over Nov-Dec 2019. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108890415550666278 Chinese communities in Italy show evidence of prior immunity. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108952233844548674 Mean time of earlier SARS-CoV-2 related discoveries=mid November 2019. Clinics—even in mid December 2019 in central Wuhan—got 10 times more cases than usual in mid November and only worsens through December and January. https://archive.md/VXtu9 Cases begun to take off and it have reached “more than 600 a day” just before the start of 2020 that they completed all of their preparation job and got all their PPE they can get before 01/01/2020. Then ascertained cases alone flooded the hospital just about 10/01/2020. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109248812361151175 https://archive.md/VXtu9 Here is evidence that widespread silent outbreak have already happened inside Wuhan before it reached the HSM, with the Tongji and Union hospitals already seeing novel coronavirus inside the Wuhan CBD in 6-8 Dec 2019. Of course this is again never official. Why trust only the official cases data with a known bias and severe censorship? https://archive.md/UIBkB

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/teJqh Archive from @florin_unc…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/teJqh Archive from @florin_uncovers More and more: Hong kong mail suspended all express mail services to Wuhan in 15/11/2019 due to “air transportation arrangements” This is then brought out by a news article in 02/01/2020 denoting “multiple cases of unknown pneumonia in Wuhan” (and the first patient returning from Wuhan after the first official reports from the city). https://web.archive.org/web/20200913130923/https://topick.hket.com/article/2532398/香港郵政：往武漢特快專遞航班去年11月16日起取消%E3%80%80故暫停服務 https://archive.ph/dsJ15 https://archive.ph/6LuXg https://archive.ph/Vt4mQ What this may have resembled? Also Wuhan doctors. https://archive.ph/VXtu9 https://web.archive.org/web/20220312073852/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-wuhan-doctor-tells-what-it-was-really-like/6Q23B4ISGLPT7U7QC34G4VDAA4/' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: '@Biorealism “During an extraordinary period in De…' Flavinkins on Gab: '@Biorealism “During an extraordinary period in December, it was necessary to place deceased individuals outside of the designated morgue, in a secure room, for a short period of time,” it read. “The Ottawa Hospital has converted spaces, formerly used for autopsies, within the morgue to manage unexpected surges in demand. Conference rooms and ward beds are not used for housing deceased individuals,” the statement continued.“ https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-hospital-denies-bodies-were-left-in-conference-rooms-as-morgues-overflow-1.4756984 https://web.archive.org/web/20200108025449/https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/ottawa-hospital-denies-bodies-were-left-in-conference-rooms-as-morgues-overflow-1.4756984 If you are to check the date for this, the announcement was in January 2020. https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-021-00986-9 Note that there were no introductions from China traced for the later (recognized) Montreal and Quebec outbreaks. What could these excess bodies be? https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1004/6012472 Table 1 in this paper should be considered important.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/yu2Jg Now, see this. Remember …' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/yu2Jg Now, see this. Remember that “中部战区总医院”? “ 2019年12月31日，武汉市卫健委首次公开发布通报，确认多例肺炎病例。　　与此同时，中部战区总医院发热门诊人数陡增，最高时一天超过600人。江晓静、王琼书、刘孟丽等一批中部战区总医院专家，感觉到病情凶险。　　作为全军急性呼吸道传染病病原监测参比实验室，中部战区总医院负压实验室是驻汉部队唯一带有负压功能的实验室。从2015年起，为监测流感、呼吸道腺体和其他传染病，他们每年冬春季都会紧密监测发热患者情况，并进行跟踪和采样。　　但今年的数据变化太快太突然，没有任何征兆。　　经中部战区总医院感染科、疾控科等科室专家和医护人员共同讨论研究，提议马上启动《呼吸道传染病防控方案》。中部战区总医院党委专题召开分析会，形成共识。　　医院成立领导小组，主官亲自挂帅；抽调精兵强将，核心部门全员参与；对发热门诊、传染科等关键环节开展防护培训，采取隔离措施，提高防护等级；加紧储备口罩、防护服、隔离衣等防护器材，紧急采购30个正压呼吸器和60个备用滤芯。同时，向驻汉驻鄂部队进行传染病防护提醒。　　今年元旦，中部战区总医院进入临战状态。　　1月4日，医院调整扩大发热门诊，全院提高一级防护等级。　　1月6日，开始收治第一例患者。几天后，传染科床位告急。　　1月15日，医院决定火速扩建传染病区。　　1月16日，向武汉市卫健委送检第一例样本病例。　　1月17日，抢建的传染2病区、3病区开放。　　1月19日，医院提升疫情防控指挥等级，成立一线指挥部，党委成员集体住进办公楼；机关各部门重新进行人员编组和任务分工；专家组、医疗组、保障组以及各预备队抽组完毕；全院进行传染病防治专业培训考核。” Then “新冠肺炎被纳入乙类传染病、采取甲类措施严格管理。而中部战区总医院发热门诊从一开始就采取了高一级的防护措施，严格按照甲类传染病进行处置和管理。　　随后，疑似病例数、确诊病例数、死亡病例数不断攀升，治愈人数却始终显示着“0”。” Keep in mind, the listing of “Novel coronavirus infected pneumonia(NCIP)” as a “class B infectious disease” is in 20/01/2020. Standard 1, from 15-17/01/2020, and the “试行诊疗方案” before it, require “unsuccessful antibiotics treatment” and “unsuccessful treatment using a panel of “standard antibiotics”” for cases that didn’t have exposure history to the Huanan market. This mean that most if not all the cases that can be ascertained as being “NCIP” or “VPUE” by the standards at that time have to be in the severe non-self-limiting group. 06/01/2020 is exactly 3 days after they begin case ascertainment according to the “试行诊疗方案” they received in 03/01/2020, through the use and monitoring of antibiotics treatment on fever patients. Just after “a few days” (“3-5 days”) of they begin to ascertain cases for isolation, “the infectious disease wards begin to run out of beds”. So many fever patients floods the hospital that they begin to “expand the fever clinics” at 04/01/2020. And what caused them to begin “今年元旦，中部战区总医院进入临战状态”? “Enter battle stations at 01/01/2020”? “On December 31, 2019, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issued a public notice for the first time, confirming a number of pneumonia cases. 　　At the same time, the number of fever outpatients in the General Hospital of the Central Theater has increased sharply, with more than 600 people a day at its peak.A group of experts from the General Hospital of the Central Theater, including Jiang Xiaojing, Wang Qiongshu, and Liu Mengli, felt that their condition was dangerous. 　　As a reference laboratory for the monitoring of the pathogen of acute respiratory infectious diseases throughout the army, the negative pressure laboratory of the Central Theater General Hospital is the only laboratory with negative pressure function of the troops stationed in Han.Since 2015, in order to monitor influenza, respiratory glands and other infectious diseases, they have closely monitored patients with fever every winter and spring, and followed up and sampled them. 　　But this year's data changes too quickly and suddenly, without any signs.” Indicated by the ENA reservation dates, this begun at least on 10/12/2019. Out of all the cases that they accept into their isolation wards, “suspected cases, confirmed cases and deaths keeps raising up, but “recovered cases” remained 0”. All isolation ward/infectious disease ward cases were ascertained according to the standards that were then official in Wuhan. Self-limiting cases were excluded. This is also how WH01-WH04 were sent to the BGI. Samples were saved from all fever and respiratory cases admitted to the hospital, and when they received a command for “continued epidemiological investigation in several hospitals (near Huanan market), Huanan market and the neighborhood of Huanan market” in 31/12/2019, 4 cases from the hospital that satisfied the “from or near the market” criterion were selected, and samples sent for analysis at availability (when BALF sampling from bronchoscopy is performed). Only WH01 with a sample that is available in 26/12/2019 would be reported to the WMHC and enter the WHO dataset, as the military commanded General Hospital of the Central War Zone seems to be only disclosing case data to other institutions after they have a result on the cases first (where the first case ascertained with the “试行诊疗方案”, sometimes in 06/01/2020, only had the sample sent to and reported to the WMHC in 16/01/2020.). WH03 reported in Zhongnan. Confusion on the identity and nature of WH01-WH04 would continue even until today. https://zenodo.org/record/4119263/#.Y1yAtCW8klQ At its peak, the General Hospital of the Central War Zone were receiving 600 cases a day from its fever clinics—more than twice the total reported cases by onset (CDC) at the time when so many cases were flooding the fever clinics that they have to “expand the fever clinics in 04/01/2020”. This is consistent with the eyewitness report on dozens of times 🚑, at least 2 from Jiangxia (remember only 1 dot on the WHO map was from Jiangxia) rushing across the ShiPaiLing road leading to the “中部战区总医院” in 31/12/2019.' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

The only thing governing the probability for positivity of the environmental samples is “closest to the toilets” and “closest to the main entrance of the market”. archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph archive.md/DChUL Also here is a result on the raccoon dogs and the inability for the species to become infected in nature. archive.md/n9o0f All non-human mammals archive.md/7doR8 archive.md/0A24q at most landed on different sections of the ground and correlation fails upon entry to that “raccoon dog stall”. archive.md/Ttn5P archive.md/JSQvc Coincidence caused by pathological spatial distribution on the most uniquely found species in the stall closest to the toilets archive.md/gvHfw have high R^2–all landed on different sections of the ground and fails upon entry into the stall. archive.md/0A24q True causation remain positively correlated when looking at the positive samples or when you enter the site of the pathological spatial distribution. archive.md/csYBM Also, in order to test positive in Gao et al, a sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by a sampler. 🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 Must not be frequently handled by a vendor. 🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative. There is a reason why the theil-sen correlation, a quantifier of mutual information, show Homo Sapiens as max correlated wherever any species in the “susceptible mammals” category (wildlife and humans) show correlation at all.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And of course, Polymerase stuttering is exclusive to Influenza and other negative ssRNA/DNA viruses (requires an “unzipping last” transcription mode which the nascent transcript is unbound from the template immediately after synthesis) and in fact, the S1-S2 is a cold spot of recombination because CoV template switching depends on TRS-B binding to Nsp7 and not by “stem loops”.

@lissnup - İsim Arıyor

too weak to drive it’s emergence. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.26478 In fact, the S1-S2 sequence is a RNA mutational coldspot in Coronaviruses, which means the same nucleotide can be conserved for sequences up to 6% divergence or more. These sites are endpoint sites of RNA editing, (12/26)

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Reverse transcriptases are critical in understanding the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 genomic insert evolution. “How many billion hosts are needed for the GISAID sequences to appear? (2 billion) what kind of methodology they were sequenced with (because multiplex PCR+bad primer batch=additional sequences end up being inside the amplicons especially same supplier of primers used), and how many hosts a wildlife farm is able to harbor at maximum? (Less than 2 or other markets that the farms have to supply to because of the low animal counts in Huanan would be infected and have primary outbreaks) What happened to those “lineages”? (They disappeared upon the exhaustion of the specific primer batch they were sequenced from, and never continue circulation within sequences for more than ~2 weeks)” . It is something that they can not answer. no proline no VERO growth Destroyed in VOC evolution and no glycans to be seen https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/111398506038803573 The proline is required for efficient growth in VERO cell cultures and all live hosts despise it. With nearly a billion sequences available now all manner of sequencing error and biomaterial manufacture errors can happen. That is why none of the pandemic era inserts in covid lasted for more than the length of time which a batch of primers ordered from a company usually last in the testing and sequencing labs. If you look for dirt this big a base number and the high random and systematic error rates would guarantee something you will see. Also the “potentially real inserts” are all from within the SARS-CoV-2 genome. No CGG-CGG pair anywhere within the genomes of the closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2.

Flavinkins on Gab: 'Alpha, Delta, both have less VERO E6 than Wuhan/D…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'Alpha, Delta, both have less VERO E6 than Wuhan/D614G. Omicron, also. It is also the least VERO-growing lineage. http://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-022-01802-5 http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04266-9 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004221015595 This is NOT something you expect from a wildlife virus. They shouldn’t be adapted best to lab cell lines right out of the box. All adaptation trajectories (both from live mice, humans and the modified modern research cell lines) lead away from VERO E6 when an small carnivore/bat zoonosis scenario should simultaneously increase all primate tropism as the virus evolve in humans. It should raise, and not drop, VERO E6 tropism.' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239183/ All 3 Lines of PO argument have been debunked. There is no evidence of O-linked glycans in the actual SARS-CoV-2 spike for cells that are relevant to real live hosts or immune systems. https://zenodo.org/record/6849652#.ZKUlyCV6slT And RmYn02 having 2AA shorter than normal not 3AA longer. vixra.org/abs/2010.0164 All RmYN02 “proves” is the motivated reasoning of the final PO public arguments. Even the authors themselves do not believe their arguments point strongly toward anything.

Deducing the N- and O-glycosylation profile of the spike protein of novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 The current emergence of the novel coronavirus pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) demands the development of new therapeutic strategies to prevent rapid progress of mortalities. The coronavirus spike (S) protein, ... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Pan-SL-CoV/GD sequences may be from contamination. ABSTRACT Recently, There were much hype about an alleged SARS-like coronavirus being found in samples of Malayan pangolins (Manis Javanica) possessing nearly identical RBD to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Prominent journals cite the alleged discovery to claim that pangolins may be one of a possible intermediate host for the zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to humans. Here, we report that all databases used to support such a claim, upon which metagenomic analysis was possible, contained unexpected reads and was in serious risk of contamination. Here we also report that the presence of unexpected reads are directly related to the presence of coronavirus reads. Finally, we deduced the actual causative agent of the death of the pangolins sampled in GuangDong 2019 where the claim of coronavirus detections was made. zenodo.org

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And of which all that existed were just viruses that were smeared out of the toilets and shed by researchers, and which nearly all positive samples are below step height, no positive samples are above waist height and that none of the highly touched locations are positive. Humans=shed in the toilets and feces are stuck all over the boots and suits and shoes and clothes of the samplers and vendors alike. Suit-stained walls doors and legs of desks (but not tops of tables), boot-kicked machines, cages, carts, scales and of course the ground itself which is the dominant sample type for positive samples. And suit-stained sample tubes where the swab is clean but the lip isn’t (causing PCR-/NGS+). In fact all animals that can be infected at all shed in their feces for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Yes. SARS-CoV-2 have enteric tropism and shed RNA in feces for both animals and humans. You know that transfer contamination is the dominant if not the only mechanism for market environmental samples when there are also samples that are +ve in both PCR and NGS, but linked neither to human cases nor to wild animals. Even the presence of materials from different origin within the samples are consistent with transfer contamination with a pathway that first go through the toilets and then go through the W6 junction, getting SARS-CoV-2 on the former and wildlife material (on only a fraction of the boots) on the latter, independently. More samples with neither cases nor wildlife DNA are found south of the W6 junction than north of it, but such samples also exist north of the W6 junction. This is consistent with the virus being brought in from the entrance/toilets, contaminating stalls where there is also a focus to stalls with human cases. When boots stepped through the W6 junction, some of the boots also have wildlife DNA stuck to them, bringing it alongside when sites north of the W6 junctions were kicked or trampled. but not all of them were and there exist also incontrovertible proof of samples with neither human cases nor wildlife DNA found also here. Good and specific PCR primers, like Jan 01/Jan12 ORF1ab+N, and you should have PCR+ before NGS+. Bad and cross-reactive PCR primers like an ORF1ab only primer, and you are going to have PCR+ anytime you see material from the same family you are trying to test on (Embecoviruses cross reacted with their ORF1ab primers—and these animal CoVs are the only real grounded CoV consistent with samples of the expected age at sequencing found here in the specified time). However, PCR-/NGS+ is something that should never happen nomatter which primer pair you use (cross-reactive or specific) when your NGS result place clustered reads right beside the primer pair.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Since C-C say you need to @stevenemassey use qPCR to properly get the viral counts, let’s see…… Q61/Q70=PCR-. (And located uncomfortably close to PCR+ samples rendering them prone to contamination on NGS.) Q37=PCR- AND orphan sample negative whole stall before and negative exact site after. And primers aligned over by NGS. All are false positive samples. All does not prove virus is there with that metric. The virus is in the human+ and animal-poor Q64/Q68/Q69. What they wanted you to believe: Aerosols are blocked by walls and can not spread from toilets and wildlife stalls. Reality: Activity of samplers and vendors alike, especially their shoes and boots and the gloves of the samplers, caused the contamination to be spread out from the toilets. What they wanted you to believe: there are additional PCR+ samples. Reality: these are a different kind of PCR than what Jan 01 and Jan 12 used. It lacked lacked the universally present N primer pair in the specific PCR primers (the Jan 01 and Jan 12 used specific ORF1ab and N primers in the same reaction to generate 1 single Ct value) which indicate it being an non-specific (surveillance primers in PREDICT target only the ORF1ab/RdRp region due to its conservation, and have degeneracy.) test that cross react with all members of the Coronaviridae family. Artifacts ensues, if not “no reads at all”. Neither PCR+/NGS- nor PCR-/NGS+ can be trusted as genuinely positive, due to the extreme proneness to contamination in the NGS pipeline and the probability of cross-reactivity in some PCR tests. archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/NeybM archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL https://pdfhost.io/v/~IGA2bONb_closest_to_the_toilets https://pdfhost.io/v/dUbkceTFh_anticorrelation_is_not_an_artifact And the reason why the samples in the market follow the rule which a positive sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by samplers.🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 And not frequently handled by vendors.🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative; Is the same reason why you only get animal viruses but not SARS-CoV-2 legitimate reads past 12/01/2020. https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 Not found inside actual animal tissues because the animals are not infected, isolated SARS-CoV-2 virions are exceptionally sensitive toward destruction by RNAse 7 found on human skin, and they all got completely destroyed before the samples can even reach the testing lab if it contained material from a highly touched surface. Surfaces that see any hand contact at all in a hospital room just vaporized when the patient leaves, leaving only the floor behind which survive even terminal clean. Likewise, the skin surfaces of caretakers are free of RNA even when their stool become positive. Objects that always have either walking patient or HCWs touch like door handles keyboards or toilet seats have low prevalence even when the patient is inside the room, and objects which for a large fraction is touched only by gloved caregivers (bed rails) and objects that are strictly not allowed touching without a glove (ventilator buttons) when a patient is active, have the most SARS-CoV-2 RNA on them, where ventilator buttons which have 0% skin contact have much greater prevalence than bed rails which skin contact is absent in ICUs (where the positives came from) but present in normal wards. Similarly, heavily handled surfaces like old banknotes Are found to completely destroy SARS-CoV-2 RNA as little as 10 hours after deposition/material mixing to the same environment. Less handling and slightly longer life. Contrast clean surfaces like fresh PPE which the RNA remain stable for a month.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 in fact the nature of SARS-CoV-2 here being superfluous contamination that have an origin in human secretions and cell culture supernatants brought into the stalls by the samplers and on boots, shoes and suits is obvious here. Independent sampling indicate that only the animal viruses highly correlated with the animals were left in February. The SARS-CoV-2? Superfluous, in human metabolic products and secretions, and not in butchered tissues. They are cleaned off and degraded efficiently. The animal native viruses are inside the tissues and are highly persistent—class of contaminant type different and SARS-CoV-2 is in the class that is inconsistent with the behavior when pitched against cleaning than animal CoVs (which unlike SARS-CoV-2, the animal viruses including CoVs persisted in tissue fragments of animals generated from butchering and animals banging against cages for more than one month, whereas all the “SARS-CoV-2” after 12/01/2020 are either amplicon artifacts, PREDICT primer false positivities (no reads at all), or evidently freshly prepared cell cultures which even the fragile mitochondrial transcripts of the Homo Sapiens and intracellular viral transcripts of the SARS-CoV-2 have been preserved (they decay within a day after loss of cell viability https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC369693/) and where no non-human mammals at all were present. (Clearly a recent cell culture added into these “storehouse” samples). https://archive.md/13bdP archive.md/FskYn archive.md/gvHfw archive.md/4cCHG archive.md/csYBM archive.md/rj1pV archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG boot on surface = NGS+/PCR+, suit on sample tube = PCR-/NGS+ as it indicate contamination occurred after PCR and before NGS especially when with alignment over the ORF1ab primer, and that the location then got a total negativity same stall before and same site afterward. Closer to the toilets, more likely of direct stall entry after market entry by the sampler, more samples become contaminated. Earlier the time of first sampling, the more virus in the contamination source at the entrance with less disturbance, and more virus is found in a sample that is taken from such a stall. And yes. One of the earliest unknown activity done by the WCDC including “taking environmental samples” and “cleaning” the market overnight in 31/12/2019. While the archive.md/iw1Pz animal samples have been disclosed in 01/2020 and all negative, the focus on early cases stalls in this run brought in the virus into the “live virus isolated” stalls that would be sampled in 01/01/2020.

Synthesis and turnover of mitochondrial ribonucleic acid in HeLa cells: the mature ribosomal and messenger ribonucleic acid species are metabolically unstable. The synthesis rates and half-lives of the individual mitochondrial ribosomal ribonucleic acid (RNA) and polyadenylic acid-containing RNA species in HeLa cells have been determined by analyzing their kinetics of labeling with [5-3H]-uridine and the changes ... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Trickery like using unauthorized sprayers to either put virus onto the stall (guess why all positive samples are below waist height? Yes. Sprayers are all aimed down by design and droppers can only be pointed downward when being used) immediately before sampling (resulting in NGS datasets containing transcriptomes of cells and virus that were far too fresh to be as old as a month and a half since the market is closed, if they have waited 11 days between putting the virus in and taking the samples that would have been able to weasel their way through) or that you put some additional Amplicons from another experiment-in-validation (keep in mind that the ORF1ab only primer pair as used in the “ORF1ab” PCR is distinct from the “ORF1ab/N” primer pair used before, as PCR kits of single Ct values are based on pre-mixed primer/probes that can not be separated for independent use, let alone “running out for just one primer”.) prior to running PCR in a sample (you get what you put in at NGS—amplicon only and other things that can react to the degenerate ‘ORF1ab’ primers but is not SARS-CoV-2 that are generated in your source experiment, but not legitimate SARS-CoV-2 reads) simply result in artifacts that clearly show evidence of sample manipulation within the resulting “data”. As the WCDC itself was also tasked to generate proof of whatever the most popular theory on zoonosis in that time, at first they attempted to just put human SARS-CoV-2 cultures into the wildlife stalls before a species is specified, yielding samples that correlated only With Homo Sapiens in a consistent manner or with significant mutual information. Then the primary suspect becomes “snakes” in that now debunked-by-ACE2 “codon usage” paper, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.25682 And they were tasked to find a way to either remove or justify the human reads inevitably introduced with the virus. First they used their PREDICT primer pair (+SYBR green), which cross reacted but did not yield NGS SARS-CoV-2 reads. Then they tried putting one of their early WIP RdRp+multiple site amplification (one of the many different trials for suitable primer locations on the viral genome for distinguishing amplification prior to final probe design, already very close to their current N/E sites) experiments into the newly made “snake stall” samples, which supposedly exclude Human (some still snuck in alongside). The result are reads that are obvious artifacts that can not convince even untrained critics. Attempting to then justify the human reads if they can’t remove it, they went to the snake stall again and now took cultured virus straight from their incubators, mix it with “snake” meat samples impounded from earlier samplings (contained mixture of meats often sold as snake, but no mammals of any kind at all) thoroughly, put the result into the “storehouse” and immediately took swabs. Because of the immediacy of the action, the results are far too fresh by transcriptome to have been possibly deposited at or before 01/01/2020. (RdRp-based “ORF1ab primers” especially if there are other tests that are in development such as the “RdRp/N/E” tests are notorious for their cross-reactivity especially before the conditions are fully dialed in—the intermediate stage “ORF1ab only” primer https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 also happens to be the primer used in the time when the animal CoVs are being identified in the market but not SARS-CoV-2 in their amplicons. The RdRp/N/E tests later generates 3 separate Ct values, indicating each test used 3 reactions likely validated separately, even on different sets of samples—https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/AU/en/technical-documents/protocol/genomics/qpcr/sybr-green-qpcr even primer dimers would react and that the command “take one amplified experiment each and put it into the environmental samples before PCR” would lead to legitimate read-free “ghost” reactivity, especially for experiments and primers that were still in early evaluation at that time. Same for contamination out of it.)

Universal SYBR Green qPCR Protocol Our SYBR Green qPCR Protocol is a method designed to detect accurate quantification of gene expression and RT-PCR reactions sigmaaldrich.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

(Note that samplers if they just came out of a lab doing specific PCR test development, viral amplicons and other complicated and not-all-in-1 experiments that involved the amplification of SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses, these can also drive contamination of the surfaces by the amplicons without deliberacy. Same if the workers have just attended to cell cultures in the lab—February Wuhan is actually among the time when PPE supplies especially the isolation suits and gloves/boot covers are in such a short supply that many disease control and hospital workers could only use one suit for an entire day—without being able to replace it even between tasks. You can expect that alongside sampling that got focused because of the snake theory, such compromising action to pull clearly artefactual intermediate-in-lab material out and into the environmental samples especially taken at the same day. Plus PREDICT primer cross-reactivity which this particular pair was used from 0127 to 0219.)

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@stevenemassey No. There is really no SARS-CoV-2 RBD in Wuhan.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

“Perfect synergy” that no live hosts wanted to keep. Proline: destroyed in all VOCs. Did not stop or prevent further animal infections with all the ones found infected before still commonly infected (no species were sold in Huanan). QTQTNS: became QTQTKS. Did not stop animal infections either, expands tropism in stead. The only things they are good in are in VERO/HAE and CaLu-3 cells.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@stevenemassey It looks like raccoon dogs and civets are both entirely uninfected. Oops.

@RetractionWatch - Retraction Watch

“Criticism of statistical analysis on the origin of Corona.” https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/medizin-ernaehrung/wo-der-corona-ursprung-wirklich-lag-fruehere-analysen-in-kritik-geraten-19476294.html

Wo der Corona-Ursprung wirklich lag: Frühere Analysen in Kritik geraten Vor zwei Jahren schien die Frage, wo das Corona-Virus seinen Ursprung hatte, weitgehend geklärt. Statistiker kritisieren nun frühere... faz.net

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@stevenemassey In fact, the entire “market centered” Chinese “early cases” data is tampered with and fraudulent.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@stevenemassey HKU3 and ZC45 are not SARS1 or SARS2, nor were the “hubei civets” with Spike proteins nested well inside the Beijing strains of SARS1 a valid progenitor—it is a spillback infection. Nothing more.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@stevenemassey

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@stevenemassey And unfortunately, the “Hubei civets” are simply just spillbacks. And also, once again, ZC45r-CoVs=/=SC2r-CoVs.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And even worse, the expected systematic social and populational biases from a survey of residences was too ignored within the China WHO “dataset”. An “meter precise” centering toward the market is exceptionally improbable from residences because they are too unevenly distributed around the market, biased populationally too toward the Wuhan CBD, meaning that even those infected near or are gathered from nearby the market should not have created an perfect centering of their KDE in a residence-free location of within 50m radius exactly above the market itself. To have this level of centering mean tampering with the “data” further, which leads to the majority of the “bullseye” cluster are not found on residential areas and that many of the “case residences” lands on water, which residences can not exist on without being washed away. Guess again why China never allowed any of the early case line list data or raw data of any kind to anyone? (And guess why they never dared to say where the first case they ever admitted or any cases at all lived at any later)?

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Not even rumors indicated any person at all in the wildlife industry in China being sick or getting infected, not even rumors indicated direct participation with the wildlife trade (purchasing, vending, dealing, transporting, farming, butchering, cooking or eating) by any of the known official or unofficial early cases. The only ever results from these wildlife trade participants indicate perfect condition of health and no evidence of infection at all among the customers or neighbors of any of them. Not even the market cases themselves—none of them reported direct participation of the wildlife trade. And unfortunately, The only thing governing the probability for positivity of the environmental samples is “closest to the toilets” and “closest to the main entrance of the market”. In fact, the samples in the market follows the rule which a positive sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by samplers.🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 And not frequently handled by vendors.🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG boot on surface = NGS+/PCR+, suit on sample tube = PCR-/NGS+ as it indicate contamination occurred after PCR and before NGS with alignment over the ORF1ab primer. Closer to the toilets, more likely of direct stall entry after market entry by the sampler, more samples become contaminated. Earlier the time of first sampling, the more virus in the contamination source at the entrance with less disturbance, and more virus is found in a sample that is taken from such a stall. And yes. One of the earliest unknown activity done by the WCDC including “taking environmental samples” and “cleaning” the market overnight in 31/12/2019. While the archive.md/iw1Pz animal samples have been disclosed in 01/2020 and all negative, the focus on early cases stalls in this run brought in the virus into the “live virus isolated” stalls that would be sampled in 01/01/2020. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/6/03-0852_article On the contrast, 5 independent cases with close contact to the avenues of wildlife trade for SARS-CoV-1 have happened in 5 cities in 4 in Guangdong and 1 in Guangxi, over the same 2-months timeframe. Two of them were market workers on two independent markets which civets were sold, three of them were direct participants of the wildlife trade: two of them were civet butchers, and one a driver for wildlife dealers. All of these cases have yielded continued transmission from them. In the contrast, 0 of the early cases for SARS-CoV-2 worked in or have a history of direct participation with the wildlife industry. archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph archive.md/DChUL Exactly 0 raccoon dogs or any of the so-called “susceptible species” were found infected anywhere in the world, not even by a relative of SARS-CoV-2.

Epidemiologic Clues to SARS Origin in China SARS Origin in China wwwnc.cdc.gov

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Again, asking: why they have to ban the Wuhan P4 lab from mentioning in 31/12/2019, before any theories can even be made? (Also notice that the first market case neither worked with the wildlife trade, nor did she even play mahjong like the later cases did when the linked cases were first gathered by a citywide command for them over 30-31/12/2019. Once again indicating that the market outbreak was likely first brought in from the outside, then superspread at the toilets and mahjong rooms later.)

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Why Daszak’s name ended up in the GenBank file of a—Laotian CoV, which they claim to have never sampled especially alongside Shi as well? “ID’ing 50+ novel strains”. There is Inconsistency piled upon inconsistency in Chinese publications as well as “data”. And he just held onto his secrets for 9.5 hours and also, notably, failed to produce a counterargument, after 9 and half hours. The ODNI broke the law and their “report” is full of elementary mistakes. More hidden experiments.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Also, the only bat cave that was banned from public access—were Mojiang and Shitou. It happens only at and serves only to obscure the actual inventory under their control in the sampling and testing sites of the WIV. And they Did not “Stop all bat sampling”. There is clearly evidence that they are perfectly capable of hiding their work, none of the claimed official audits to the lab was ever published or even disseminated among the authorities in China, And the reason why they used GISAID here, is that https://archive.md/0aHWr https://archive.md/Myt4u there is no proper versioning or custody of “data” on GISAID. https://archive.md/52DyQ https://archive.md/B0xlW @DiLiMengYAN1 And no trails that can be FOIA’ed and bust their “data” like on NCBI. And no possibility that inconvenient lab-incriminating data can be leaked or FOIA’ed like csabai et al. Still no official response from the CCP.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

“They would close the lab and raze it to the ground”: That is admission of guilt, not cover-up. What they actually did: forged the environmental samples by spraying the wildlife stalls with the virus in Jan 02. Erased the superspreading site of the toilets in Feb 13. Refused to swab anywhere in Wuhan outside the market or its immediate vicinities, not even other corners of the market. Shoved all the cases with original residence in Wuchang into the market. No government-funded lab have been shut down after a leak, even when outbreak and outrage ensued. The interest in keeping the labs active and operational is that of national security, keeping the biodefense industry stable and up-to-date. They are never shut down, only repaired usually with as little disruption or outside visibility as possible. (WIV had an 2 year batCoV research publication hiatus, despite attempt to keep mitigation efforts secret). No civilian interests can interrupt the operation of these labs. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Farmers+demand+a+Pirbright+shutdown%3b+%27A+private+company+would+have...-a0168453941 Not shutting down after leak is also one of the decisions that well, even democracies, does. and Yes. Pirbright is back at FMDV again after the leak. “Does this look like what a lab would do after leak causing hundreds of millions of pounds of damage”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Kingdom_foot-and-mouth_outbreak Fact: Pirbright was not shut down after FMDV leak infecting 4 farms nearby. They repaired their drain pipes and continued operation, not even interfering academic publication patterns. Ironically, cow farms were shut down and beef trade was closed during the outbreak. This resulted in an epidemic lasting 5 months in cows that lead to at least two major cullings and severe disruption to the livestock trade from the U.K. That is, the reaction look like what they claim a zoonosis would look like, not what they declare what the WIV would do when such a shut-down would certainly directly admit guilt and spell doom to both the institute and its operators. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/beijing-lab-mishap-infected-scientist-with-covid19/news-story/9b0cb0ed84df21d25da11b698be3611a Fact 2: there is no shut-down reported at all in the IVDC either after the 2004 leak of SARS or the 2020 leak of Covid. Not even a burp of interruption. Fact 3: the WIV went on hiatus to the bat CoV isolation tests over 2020-2023. When the sverdlovsk anthrax leak happened, they blamed the animal farms and markets nearby and did not officially shut down the facility. The construction of another anthrax facility nearby was considered potential indication of a shut-down, which is on par with the WIV hiatus. After a timescale similar to the WIV hiatus, the new facility was opened for inspection which no anthrax was found, meaning that they fixed sverdlovsk and went on, just like the WIV (chen WEI……). In facts, there have not been a single record of an lab leak or LAI in a research facility that resulted in the (especially permanent, as what they claimed would happen) shut down of the facility (despite hundreds of known incidents in record), even when significant epidemic have occurred from the event. (Ebola21, FMDV07, H1N177, Anthrax82 which no official shutdown was known).

Farmers demand a Pirbright shutdown; 'A private company would have closed'. - Free Online Library Free Online Library: Farmers demand a Pirbright shutdown; 'A private company would have closed'.(News) by "The Journal (Newcastle, England)"; Business Business, international News, opinion and commentary Agricultural industry thefreelibrary.com

2007 united kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

there is a long history of the WIV lying to the point of base rate neglect when being asked anything about potential LAI. The “dinner of staff” too, where they neglected the base rate which is Wuhan medical institutions are already in panic and the general public is already taking precaution, as h2h is announced in 15-16/01/2020 to the point that even the invited international collaborator have hinted Shi to wash hands, that she unexpectedly did not given her expertise and knowledge on the public info about SARS-CoV-2 in general Wuhan public in this time. She pretended to not know the need to take precautions when she was expected to do so, just like when she sabotaged the test to make 67 general 2021 Wuhan public serological samples test all negative when there should be positives given the seroprevalence in Wuhan at that time. researchgate.net/publication/35… It is just as impossible To have 67 community members to test all negative in Wuhan in 01/2021 as to have 593 people to test all negative with any sensitive test available in April-June 2023. gab.com/Flavinkins/pos… And this same behavior of issuing a test that will not turn positive on a human also happened to the mojiang miners. Where their own early serological test results were contradicted. archive.md/Pc6gp archive.md/zUD1F And ben HU lied about working with live virus which are so easy to debunk just by a simple google search. His own grant notice required live virus work in 2019.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Importantly, none of the species in that “stall” were truly susceptible and 0 individuals of any of the species have been observed with an infection with a relative of SARS-CoV-2 in the wild. “Susceptible species” is nothing but a myth and this reflect well by the fact that None of the “susceptible species” were actually in positive correlation at all with the SARS-CoV-2 reads once you enter that “stall”—it is confounded by the toilets and all it had in it is sampler contamination, just like the outside of stall W4-26-28. archive.md/gvHfw archive.md/csYBM archive.md/vlAgp archive.md/DChUL archive.md/4rVph archive.md/yyX0Z Despite surveillance in Europe and Japan, there were zero evidence of natural infections in a raccoon dog anywhere in the world. archive.md/iw1Pz All upstream suppliers are traced and were negative. In fact, none of the “susceptible species” have evidence of even a single individual being infected by SARS-CoV-2 or its relatives anywhere in the world. archive.md/VNr75 archive.md/rj1pV All 3 lineage A samples have direct link to the WCDC. The stall of A20 have owners that Wore slippers and handle fish with bare hands. They don’t wear gloves and shoe covers can’t be worn over slippers. This sample is contamination caused by the WCDC itself and there is no case from the market that is lineage A. This same infected sampler, that the WCDC would even admit, would then go on sampling the wildlife stalls in Jan 12 and rub his contaminants all over the surfaces on the closest stall to the toilets and sample tubes. This then drive confirmation bias on snakes which lead to more sampling and more contamination, all contained nothing but artifacts and never on the original site of the contaminated sample tube again, eventually leading to samples with only human DNA and no other mammals at all inside. Zero attempts have been made to gather evidence at the WIV. https://pdfhost.io/v/kZ1ilPCFa_The_real_problem_is_that_there_was_literally_zero_attempts_at_gathering_any_evidence_at_the_WIV Or anywhere else. https://pdfhost.io/v/dUbkceTFh_anticorrelation_is_not_an_artifact And the anticorrelation with raccoon dogs aren’t “an artifact”. The “all samples” correlations are artifacts of pathological spatial distribution from confounding factors that extracted the species found in the least number of overall stalls that happened to include the stall closest to the toilets and entrance into the market during the sampling run. https://pdfhost.io/v/~IGA2bONb_closest_to_the_toilets This mean that all correlations other than humans failed when the analysis is to be done in a way which the pathological spatial distribution is mitigated in any way. archive.md/MtkL3 All species other than humans at most landed on entirely different sections of the ground and set of items than the SARS-CoV-2 reads, and only humans are found on the same sections of ground and set of items in the form of sampler-linked contaminants. This is evident when the correlation is performed with only samples where SARS-CoV-2 is found, which effectively queries “which species shed the SARS-CoV-2 sequences in samples where it was found” as opposed to “which set of species most uniquely represents the spatial features of the single stall closest to the toilets”. Hedgehogs have proven non-susceptible ACE2. Oh. On the entire “early cases map”: @CharlesRixey The entirety of that “map” was created using concocted and fake “data” spoon-fed by China that wasn’t available to the public even this date. archive.md/5sdkR archive.md/1pcCU archive.md/N0hib archive.is/Kyr1z archive.md/VXtu9

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@AntGDuarte And here is a hint: despite being found all over the stalls and were also the objects most handled by the human cases, even in stalls with human cases and where there were no wildlife DNA in the positive samples from the stall, no boxes or baskets in the market have tested positive. The same for cashiers, keyboards, monitors, water cups or any objects that are frequently handled by direct touch by a vendor on the surface where the swab will be taken from. They can never test positive because of the insanely high content of RNAse 7 and other defensive nucleases on human skin destroys SARS-CoV-2 virion RNA within the period which the samples are stored inside liquid medium before being tested (which is particularly effective when the RNA is found in loose virions or human metabolic secrations and not shielded inside solid animal tissues), and vaporizes archive.md/RirQ7 archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y any virion-free RNA the instant it enters medium contaminated by it. The WCDC and the Hubei CDC stores all of the human samples and backups of research cultures of pathogenic microbes in Wuhan, as this is their legally delegated duty (the “各级疾控部门” are termed “保藏机构” for “病原性微生物” under Chinese law governing the use of cultures and samples of human and animal pathogenic microbial samples, and samples that were suspected to have the possibility of containing such microorganisms. These are also the only locations which first round samples arriving in Wuhan are allowed to go for pre-screening prior to entry into the other labs in Wuhan, “检测机构”. ) and that labs in China are not allowed to store such cultures except several select state key laboratories. Since 2014, the only EID surveillance target in Wuhan is the HSM which all other sites are kept blind so that they can blame Huanan in case the research labs suffer an accident. Almost the soon as experimentation begun in the WCDC at the first detection of an infection from that program (Chen/WIV), the prior culture samples that was identified to match (via preliminary testing, including RdRp and antigens which are targeted by the Military test kits used in Wuhan) ended up causing an employee infection. Creating all 3 lineage A cases afterward. The employee infection would end up being detected because the CDC have to use a kit that work on real patients unlike the WIV, and got whistleblown into the WHO report under the pretext of an again never-specified “family cluster transmission”. So bad that you can’t actually compare Serological tests that were conducted between distinct times and groups of people for the test itself because doing so violated the statistical homogeny criterion for test efficacy evaluation—the same as comparing 🍎 with 🍊.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Reality 1: many different supply chain exist from Yunnan to Guangdong and Hubei is just infected in SARS1 by human cases. Reality 2: The actual count for animals farmed in China vs sold in Wuhan likewise indicate that Wuhan sell only a negligible fraction of all animal sales in China Especially when compared to Guangdong.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html They systematically moved more than 3000 cases from the lab to the market and gave “cases data” that they wanted to push for market as first outbreak site to distance from the labs. https://archive.md/rYvu3 https://archive.md/UFrSv https://archive.md/nevZy https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 Such an result of having unlinked cases closer to the market than linked cases is not expected even under the null hypothesis of market origin, which we should see unlinked cases secondary to and cluster around the linked cases, and not the market itself. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 Not only there were an complete absence of verifiability in Chinese cases, there is direct non-circumstantial evidence that they moved up to 3000 cases from Wuchang to Huanan. In fact, it is totally not normal to have unlinked cases closer to the market than linked cases—the only way this can happen is with ascertainment bias. Only near the market gets ascertained if not directly linked to it. Base rate neglect. They did the exact same thing when claiming that all 67 “pre-Huanan checkable cases” were “serologically negative”. Again, the social media associated here say “before Jan 18, 2020”. Included all Dec cases. https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/9/6/402 Before they begun enforcing their claim of “100/174 centered around the market” and starting to tamper with data to make the claim, https://ghrp.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41256-021-00200-8 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7149375/ 135/92 and 115/82 cases already got into in early peer-reviewed papers that went missing in the WHO report. Past media reports archive.md/Ea0Kw archive.md/1x658 also contradict WHO in key early cases’ residences, including the earliest case they admit in the WHO report. archive.md/5sdkR archive.md/1pcCU archive.md/N0hib archive.md/VXtu9 archive.is/Kyr1z https://archive.org/details/mace-e-pai-covid-19-analysis-redacted/page/8/mode/1up And you know that they hate this information when it was censored. The MACE-EPAI document here is not searchable on google. Up to one third of all cases were either removed completely or moved toward the market in the “dataset”. archive.md/zUD1F archive.md/Pc6gp https://archive.is/p3K3Z Including the very first case they ever admitted officially. And outright removed 4 times more cases than official. Unlinked cases supposedly secondary to linked cases should cluster around them, not the market itself. archive.md/GvRcD archive.md/ZgVzp Wuhan authorities after that archive.md/OIGPz 2014 incident now targeted only the Huanan market when looking for EID outbreaks—and nowhere else. archive.md/1x658 They tampered with the early cases data archive.md/Ea0Kw To make it look like it “started at the market” when in reality the first case they ever admitted lived right next to the WIV BSL-4. archive.md/5sdkR severe discrepancy happening December 2019 and January 2020 indicate tampering with case counts. archive.md/1pcCU This is indicative of catastrophic ascertainment bias was going on. None of China’s “early cases” dataset is credible. https://archive.md/ET1GA https://archive.md/Ea0Kw https://archive.md/1x658 The tampering of early case residence data is systematic and extensive. It is the reason why they refused to provide this data in any detail at all.

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

MACE E PAI COVID 19 ANALYSIS Redacted : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive MACE E-PAI COVID-19 ANALYSIS archive.org

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Not only did The first every case they admitted live in Shidong right next to the BSL-4, and were moved toward the market in the WHO report in contradiction to all known media coverage, https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109256201942085712 the entirety of Wuchang district was wiped clean for every single WHO case that have onset before 27/12/2019–with up to 3000 cases moved to the market this way over the entire Wuhan outbreak. https://archive.md/1x658 and for central Wuchang near the labs and the densest inhabited regions inside the district, all cases were moved away in the WHO map. Unfortunately Rasmussen's work on the origins question rests heavily on what David Relman described as "hopelessly impoverished" early case data. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/27/little-known-scientific-team-behind-new-assessment-covid-19-origins/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/17/covid-early-cases-wuhan-china-mystery/ https://archive.md/ke1lp https://archive.md/RaYPC David Fisman: I think the most interesting thing this fellow says is that there are clearly tens of thousands of cases...That implies a much earlier introduction than would have occurred with a seafood market outbreak..." Also, Chen is not the only person infected in Shidong/Jiangxia and central Wuchang. Most were censored and only one of the two ambulances arriving in 31/12/2019 have been registered as a dot—likely because the origin wasn’t inside the Shidong prefecture/BSL-4 surroundings, and likely only because of being a close contact relative of Chen (contacting an known case). https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109256201942085712 All dots they moved this way (up to 1/3 of all cases) was sent to Jianghan, https://archive.md/p3K3Z https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 especially to the immediate surroundings of the market, to scapegoat it and end up causing the “unlinked cases” cluster to be closer to the market than the “linked cases” cluster, despite supposedly the linked cases should be the only source of initial human to human transmission seeding and therefore the unlinked cases should cluster near the linked cases and not the market itself. This kind of improbable-under-null-hypothesis behavior is all over Chinese “data”. archive.md/VNr75 archive.md/rj1pV They attempted to spray their culture into the wildlife stalls, which ended up Making Homo Sapiens the only species that is found in every sample with a viral read in the market (note the absence of lineage reads in the wildlife stalls), and archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG archive.md/13bdP all of the subsequent efforts at creating positive samples where the CCP specified them to do (“Blame snakes!” Is the official voice in 02/2020) just brought in artifacts first, and then when all of the mammals have degraded away, pure cultures of SARS-CoV-2 intracellular transcriptomes in human cellular transcriptomes. In addition to the heavy censorship of case ascertainment effectively mean you have to either live near the market or have a direct or indirect link to be diagnosed at all, moving all Wuchang case residence dots and sending them to Jianghan archive.md/1x658 archive.md/Ea0Kw also caused the “unlinked” dots to cluster closer the the market than the “linked” dots—something that can not happen without data manipulation on a massive scale. https://archive.md/ET1GA Unlinked cases are supposed to be seeded only by the linked cases if they didn’t visit Huanan under the market origin assumption. They are supposed to cluster near the linked cases and NOT the market itself. The CCP failed in this elementary logical analysis and resulted in a “dataset” that is too perfect to be possibly real. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108830214433800007

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@AntGDuarte

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@AntGDuarte

@Florin_Uncovers - Florin

So the fraudulent coder in Pekar et al. '22 @niemasd ran Samson et al. '24 data and CONFIRMED their Aug-early Oct '19 tMRCA result!😅 Then he did what @michaelworobey & @jepekar did: discarded inconvenient data not realizing you also need animal sequences to model a bottleneck!🤡

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@AntGDuarte

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

CAS “pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention” is one of such major grants that they continued DEFUSE on.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Once again, 1: RaTG13 is not viable. https://zenodo.org/record/5702700#.ZJ2KiyV6slT https://zenodo.org/record/5778318#.ZJ5hyCV6slT 2: the real issue is that 1. WIV lies about everything serological. None of their “tests” were positive when politics require it to be negative. And 2. The missing sequences of Latinne et al is where you find what the WIV was working on. 7 SARSr and 54 total CoVs were missing entirely.

Anomalies in BatCoV/RaTG13 sequencing and provenance To this date, the most critical piece of evidence on the purposed “natural origin” theory of SARS-CoV-2, was the sequence known as RaTG13, allegedly collected from a single fecal sample from Rhinolophus Affinis. Understanding the provenance of RaTG13 is critical on the ongoing debate of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2. However, this sample is allegedly “used up” and therefore can no longer be accessed nor sequenced independently [1], and the only available data was the 3 related Genbank accessions: MN996532.1, SRX7724752 and SRX8357956. We report these datasets possessed multiple significant anomalies, and the provenence of the promised claims of RaTG13 or it’s role in proving a “probable bat origin”[2] of SARS-CoV-2 can not be satisfied nor possibly be confirmed. zenodo.org

The seminal paper from the Wuhan Institute of Virology claiming SARS-CoV-2 probably originated in bats appears to contain a contrived specimen, an incomplete and inaccurate genomic assembly, and the signature of laboratory-derived synthetic biology The bat coronavirus RaTG13 was purportedly identified in a bat “fecal” specimen that is probably not feces, has significant unresolved method-dependent genome sequence errors and an incomplete assembly with significant gaps, and has an anomalous base substitution pattern that has never been seen in nature but is routinely used in codon-optimized synthetic genome constructions performed in the laboratory. zenodo.org

@EMM_386 - EMM386

Ever want to create a novel coronavirus like SARS-CoV-2? Let Ralph Baric show you how to link 6 cDNA pieces flanked by unique restriction endonuclease sites and a swapped RBD. Just like "tinker toys". As seen in DEFUSE. Try different things - maybe use BsmBI instead of BglI?

Video Transcript AI Summary

We created coronaviruses by assembling a synthetic bat genome with the SARS clone. The genome was split into 5 kilobyte pieces with unique restriction sites to allow directional assembly. Initially, the virus couldn't replicate due to an entry defect, so we replaced the receptor binding domain with one from the human epidemic strain. This modification resulted in a virus that replicated efficiently. The growth curve data supported this success.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: We build coronaviruses using our molecular clone as shown here with the SARS clone shown in blue. The clone is broken into 6, 5 kilobytes about 5 kilobytes pieces. Each piece is flanked by bagel 1 restriction endonuclease sites. These are Class IIs restriction enzymes that recognize a palindromic sequence but cut and leave asymmetric ends. This allows since these ends are asymmetric, they actually will not concatemarize like classic sticky ends left by restriction enzymes, but rather they become directional. So if you end clone A with a bagel site that leaves 13 nucleotide overhang and the 5' end of the B fragment with the complementary 3 nucleotide overhang, they go together directly. You change different bagel sites at each piece. And this allows them to assemble up into 30 kilobytes chromosomes like tinker toys. Now the synthetic bat genome that we made using Blue Heron and Bio Basic basically is interchangeable with the urbani clone. The only real difference was that we broke the F fragment into 2 pieces so that we could play with the receptor binding domain easily if this thing didn't turn out to be infectious. And in fact, we made this clone, we built a full on cDNA, we drove transcripts, electropated that in the cells, and we can see evidence of replication by the synthesis subgenomic messenger RNA, but we couldn't culture the virus and we couldn't pass it from cell to cell. So clearly, there was probably a defect in entry. To solve that problem, we used literature data that has suggested that RBD domains of coronaviruses may be interchangeable between species. So we took the human the Yervani epidemic receptor binding domain, that's 2 10 amino acids in the lab, and dropped that into the bat genome backbone, producing a chimera with the receptor binding domain driven from the epidemic strain. Now when we built that clone, drove transcripts and electroporated that into cells, we got a virus that could replicate quite efficiently. This is just some growth curve data showing I think the black

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://archive.md/OIGPz The “Shunde problem” or “why it managed to infect Wuhan and only Wuhan”—is a problem which all market zoonosis or wildlife farm theories require extremely improbable and hard explanation to answer. Unfortunately the actual sales of wild animals in 2019 contained metadata-supported images or videos only in Guangdong and Guangxi, and not Wuhan. All observations of virologists working at the market without a published sample taken at that date should automatically be considered extremely suspicious. The most likely reason is that They were dropping in samples in stead of taking them, leading to the observation that only human have a consistent positive correlation or any significant mutual information with SARS-CoV-2 there. The reason why China intentionally hid nearly half of their flow cells is because they could use the reads inside to tamper with the “wildlife stall data” to meet the demand of the zoonati when given in 11/03/2023. They used it to scramble the host counts in all their “negative samples” when the correlational edge with Homo Sapiens were found to persist despite they removing the 300nt+ non-viral contigs and leading to an inverse correlation between the residual mitochondrial singletons * SARS-CoV-2 and the leftover contigs of other mammals as they were shredded by the common 43nt nuclear reads inside all mammalian genomes. Even before that, to prevent the obvious and embarrassing conclusion of “the SARS-CoV-2 is most likely smeared out of the toilets by the samplers” when both Jan 01 and Jan 12 have the stall with most positive samples turned out to be the one that is closest to the toilets and where the samplers entered and existed and a national plan was made to sample the toilets and public activity rooms in response, Wuhan ordered the bleaching and destruction of the toilet area before a sample can be taken from it. In fact, the civilian side of the national disease control apparatus was not even allowed to see the Q* samples in person or sequence them independently—They were not even allowed to verify any of the “qPCR results” and not even an Ct value would be “reported from the lab” which sent in the “sequencing results for Q* samples” directly. Eventually Xi ordered all Covid-relevant Departments to follow the same operational instructions over the end of February to the beginning of March 2020, the point of which an agreement was finally struck that they would work together to fabricate a “dataset” for animal origins, first as the primary (rewards were handed out to “find the animal origins of SARS-CoV-2” as late as 05/2020, alongside numerous NCBI data replacements and changes that happened over 02-04/2020 on all of the bat and pangolin datasets for “animal origins” leaving behind corresponding artifacts) and then as the fallback plan after 05-06/2020.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Deliberate “Spicing up” of samples by Wuhan. Note how not even informal sources out of China have published what samples were taken in 02/01/2020, or even acknowledged the performing of sampling work in 02/01/2020 (which the existence of intensive virology-related work at the market, particularly focusing “around W7” e.g. from w6 to w8, was known only by eyewitness account by outsiders but not any official or informal acknowledgment by the operators). (Unlike 31/12/2019 which the performing of sampling work was acknowledged by the WHO report and Jiangwei, which archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph archive.md/DChUL the explicit collection of animal samples at that point ended up as negative test results that were disclosed in private channels in January 2020.) And all those trampling by contaminated boots and rubbing by contaminated suits(potentially even contaminated gloves, which unlike bare vendor hands start sterile and RNAse-free, and touches mainly surfaces just above step height as aseptic techniques becomes progressively more difficult to uphold when virology operations are performed while bowing down) are going to cause extra contamination, out of the toilets and in from then outside, particularly on all places especially those that are heavily trampled, inside this area, that were not then cleaned prior to sampling later. Reason why the only consistent positive correlation or significant mutual information between SARS-CoV-2 and species is Homo Sapiens, Despite read filtering and data obfuscation especially at that time. (No independent validation, missing method details, sometimes not even Ct values were allowed to Gao et al, only what Wuhan claimed they did and produced exclusively in-silico)

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://archive.md/VXtu9 The actual R0 and serial interval is much, much lower and longer, contaminated by change of ascertainment criterion. Different strains spread differently. Coronaviruses superspread instantaneously and not spread continuously as HIV which FAVITES bases on. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108860074766577121 There is an inverse polytomy size to time in SARS-CoV-2. VOCs are bigger than B.1. B.1 is bigger than B. B bigger than A is expected. Unfortunately, B is in fact more transmissible and mutate faster than A…… (reason why A went extinct, and also skewed the tMRCA analysis) There is nonlinearity and an infected brain to boost. The entire assumption for pekar et al is wrong.

Flavinkins on Gab: '“ All I’m saying is that, for the sizes of the A …' Flavinkins on Gab: '“ All I’m saying is that, for the sizes of the A and B polytomies to be highly informative, I’d think one would need to make strong assumptions that suppress potential fluctuations in R0. So I don’t view this argument being very strong. I’m flying on intuition here, though.”@jbkinney “It would, and similar topologies exist (fig. below from Rambaut et al. 2020). But this is likely a moot point, as many other problematic assumptions affect the epidemic simulations and phylogenetic structures proposed by Pekar et al.”@AntGDuarte And the earliest transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is characterized by outbreak after outbreak—the majority of sampled cases came from superspreader events. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9128337/ The R0 of SARS-CoV-2 especially early on is extremely inhomogeneous—the location where an infected person becomes infectious, and the number of social contacts that happened within the infectious period, directly determines the R0. For home clusters the R0 is usually <3, where the endpoint of the transmission stops within the household (household interactions does not expand past the family itself in most households), whereas for superspreading events in crowded places the R0 could be anywhere from 40 to 100, even higher in some extreme cases like concerts, banquets or public transports. More recent examples: 2 superspreading events of Omicron BA.1 and BA.2. Cluster cases were once again substantially divergent from the rest of the world. The same topology is also observed in other, earlier superspreading clusters of Omicron BA.2.' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Not even rumors indicated any person at all in the wildlife industry in China being sick or getting infected, not even rumors indicated direct participation with the wildlife trade (purchasing, vending, dealing, transporting, farming, butchering, cooking or eating) by any of the known official or unofficial early cases. The only ever results from these wildlife trade participants indicate perfect condition of health and no evidence of infection at all among the customers or neighbors of any of them. Not even the market cases themselves—none of them reported direct participation of the wildlife trade. And unfortunately, The only thing governing the probability for positivity of the environmental samples is “closest to the toilets” and “closest to the main entrance of the market”. In fact, the samples in the market follows the rule which a positive sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by samplers.🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 And not frequently handled by vendors.🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG boot on surface = NGS+/PCR+, suit on sample tube = PCR-/NGS+ as it indicate contamination occurred after PCR and before NGS with alignment over the ORF1ab primer. Closer to the toilets, more likely of direct stall entry after market entry by the sampler, more samples become contaminated. Earlier the time of first sampling, the more virus in the contamination source at the entrance with less disturbance, and more virus is found in a sample that is taken from such a stall. And yes. One of the earliest unknown activity done by the WCDC including “taking environmental samples” and “cleaning” the market overnight in 31/12/2019. While the archive.md/iw1Pz animal samples have been disclosed in 01/2020 and all negative, the focus on early cases stalls in this run brought in the virus into the “live virus isolated” stalls that would be sampled in 01/01/2020. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/6/03-0852_article On the contrast, 5 independent cases with close contact to the avenues of wildlife trade for SARS-CoV-1 have happened in 4 cities in Guangdong and 1 town in Guangxi (+1 city which contact is unknown), over the same 2-months timeframe. Two of them were market workers on two independent markets which civets were sold, three of them were direct participants of the wildlife trade: two of them were civet butchers, and one a driver for wildlife dealers. All of these cases have yielded continued transmission from them. In the contrast, 0 of the early cases for SARS-CoV-2 worked in or have a history of direct participation with the wildlife industry. archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph archive.md/DChUL Exactly 0 raccoon dogs or any of the so-called “susceptible species” were found infected anywhere in the world, not even by a relative of SARS-CoV-2. archive.md/GKdtc https://archive.md/e3615 https://archive.md/vWjZl https://archive.md/nyR0q China did not put any real ban or even influence on the wildlife trade at all especially Guangdong, before the beginning of 02/2020. The first market case is in 11/12/2019. In the ~2 month time window, all 5 of the “directly wildlife linked” index SARS1 patients have already been infected. And more than half of the 11 known index SARS1 patients, over 5 of the 9 index locations. Official denial of wildlife trade did not at all influenced the real trade that was happening, which in Guangdong also proceeded all the way to the Chinese new year of 2020, which is well into February. There is no evidence at all that there is a sufficiently timely ban of wildlife trade in China to stop all and every secondary spillovers especially Guangdong.

Epidemiologic Clues to SARS Origin in China SARS Origin in China wwwnc.cdc.gov

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@COVIDSelect All the so-called “synergy” of the Proline, the FCS, or even the N370 glycan removal, work only in VERO cells. Destruction happen when live host is used,

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

archive.md/DChUL archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/4rVph archive.md/iw1Pz https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35298912/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35298912/ In fact, the raccoon dogs are locally wild-caught within Wuhan, that human Herpesvirus is identified indicating human contamination have occurred alongside the clearly unique human mitochondrial reads identified, and that there are zero mutual information in term of read abundances between SARS-CoV-2 and the animals. Only the human mitochondrial reads. Worse—all of the animal species correlated perfectly with their expected viruses, and the only species which SARS-CoV-2 is the perfectly correlated expected virus is “Toilets and Homo Sapiens”. In fact, The only thing governing the probability for positivity of the environmental samples, the so-called “spatial correlation”, is “closest to the toilets” and “closest to the main entrance of the market”. Spoilers: the actual stalls that sold animals from Yunnan are entirely uninfected. It is entirely expected with zero evidence of even a single SARS-CoV-2 case linked to any of the intermediate distribution sites and secondary destinations even in Hubei or wuhan of any of the animals that were supplied to the Huanan market, especially given that the each stall have at least 3 distinct live animal suppliers for “susceptible animals” and there are 17 stalls in Wuhan, and the total number of animals sold per week is only ~58 in total. 4 animals at most per shelf life per supplier is not going to eat up the single harvest output of any farm. It will spill into other cities. None observed.

Virome characterization of game animals in China reveals a spectrum of emerging pathogens - PubMed Game animals are wildlife species traded and consumed as food and are potential reservoirs for SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. We performed a meta-transcriptomic analysis of 1,941 game animals, representing 18 species and five mammalian orders, sampled across China. From this, we identified 102 mammalian-i … pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Issue: the drains don’t actually have SARS-CoV-2 reads inside. Only persistent, cross-reactive animal CoVs and potential trample marks. Putting bleach onto the toilets also doesn’t help at all.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Unlike animals including livestock, humans are neither sold nor butchered at the market. Their CoVs degraded catastrophically after 01/01/2020 and completely after 12/01/2020 leaving only artifacts behind. archive.md/13bdP archive.md/FskYn archive.md/gvHfw archive.md/4cCHG Animals that are sold and butchered at the market have their CoVs remain stable and are the only CoVs left detectable in February 2020. (note there is a continuous deposition of ratCoVs due to the rats that ran through the market nearly daily after closure (they begun to show only after 12/01/2020 when rats begun to severely infest the market). There is no possible deposition of SARS-CoV-2 or other animal CoVs by nonsampler sources after the closure of the market.(The animal CoVs that are not RatCoVs were found with consistent counts over Jan01, Jan12 and all later dates. SARS-CoV-2 rapidly decline from Jan 01 to Jan 12, then are completely gone leaving no reads that isn’t an obvious anatrifact later) This https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 further exemplified the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 found in the market here is superfluous contamination that is distinct from the animal viruses or CoVs. One fact among many that disagree with animal origin. https://t.co/VV9Gzg7JKi? And spoilers: none of the “susceptible species in W6-29-33” (wild species that is found there and have not been rejected as unlikely susceptible experimentally) garnered a positive theil-sen estimator result in any of the slices examined. This is in addition to the fact that meaningful correlation especially ones with significant mutual information was found to animals only with animal-specific viruses, and SARS-CoV-2 to only Homo Sapiens. Why ignore the toilets again and again? W4-26-28, especially W4-28 where only 1 out of the 2/2 human cases-free positive sample have anh wildlife DNA, have the exact same cause for maximal positivity in Jan 01 as W6-29-33 in Jan 12: closest to the toilets. @jbloom_lab If you think 20 ILI samples per month can isolate the one covid case in a sea of 8000+ flu cases every two weeks. Or that pre-screened pack tube blood verified at banking to be IgM free can detect the ~100 SARS-CoV-2 IgM+ cases expected in November 2019.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Were any corner of the WIV or even the Hankou station itself ever sampled? And well—Yunnan and Guangxi animal stalls were—Completely uninfected. https://archive.md/p3K3Z And Up to one third of all cases were moved from the lab to the market. Dazhong stopped its wildlife sales in 2014. Negative. The Yunnan and Guangxi animals are sold in W9-34-36 and W8-36-38. Negative. In deed, this is a spurious result—just like how entering the stall which you find the SARS-CoV-2 and the correlation crashed with the porcupines but kept that with the humans, theil-sen correlation give no mutual information at all to those pocrupines except a negative one with samples where SARS-CoV-2 is found. And of course, if you think that someone sick in November 2019 would not be able to meet in 15/12/2019 when the max length for sickness is merely 15 days for younger people…… Any susceptible species with significant mutual information at all and Homo Sapiens have the max mutual information. Animal CoVs are consistent in all dates not just Jan 01 and Jan 12 including after Jan 12. SARS-CoV-2 reduces rapidly in concentration from Jan 01 to Jan 12, and disappeared after Jan 12. Not inside sold animal tissues=rapidly degraded by RNAse 7. They scrambled all mutual information in 26/03/2023. Transfer contamination from the sampler labs and the toilets account for all market samples. Not vendors or animals.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And of course, there isn’t really that an “connection” when you realized that all the “Hubei SARS” strains are in reality just HKU3 and ZC45 none with even the right RdRp or RBD, and thus the raccoon dogs, the very raccoon dogs that were being shipped to the HSM for sale, are just as expected, entirely negative at testing.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Initially, the toilets and the sampler pants and boots smeared the contamination out into the stalls, leading to the first set of samples which the stall with most positives samples out of all samples being always the stall that is closest to the toilets. At this time, they have also attempted to spray the stall with animals and virus as in Jan 02, when an army of hazmat suited workers performed virology work which no official or unofficial accounts for performing the work as sampling in that date was known, were identified by eyewitness records. Because the animals are all museum specimens that were far too dry to properly resuspend, the first attempt at faking “animal origin” ended up with A total absence of any consistent positive correlation or significant mutual information at all Between SARS-CoV-2 and all species other than Homo Sapiens. You can easily distinguish between common tertiary cause (confounded) from true causation by looking with increasingly finer grain of resolution, especially where the data points aren’t 0. Unlike spurious correlations from Confounding factors which ends at the resolution where the factor acts on, True causation stay correlated in every resolution and in any set of data points especially where the data values aren’t 0. In fact, confounding factors often crash in correlation quite early before that. The PREDICT ORF1ab only (RdRp) primer was used in stead of the initial “ORF1ab/N” primer set, between 27/01/2020 and 15/02/2020. https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 The resampling of the wildlife stalls in the beginning of February 2020, within the same period, resulted in only animal-specific CoVs but no SARS-CoV-2 when amplicons generated with this primer pair were sequenced. archive.md/VNr75 archive.md/rj1pV archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG Then, the leading hypothesis becomes snakes due to the “codon usage” paper, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.25682 and as usual, in the continued attempt of fabricating “evidence” for whatever leading hypothesis at this time, they tried multiple ways to eliminate the human correlation edge of their initial products and dramatically oversampled their “snake stall”. They first started using Oligonucleotides and amplification products from their developing “RdRp/N/E” assay, resulting in artifact-only NGS alignments and no reads at all as these products including primer dimers generated off the test being developed and other, failed PREDICT amplification experiments, contaminates the boots, Suits and gloves of the samplers in one run and all the sample tubes used in another, with PPE in Wuhan at that point so scarce that workers often have to use the same suit for the entire day between lab work and sampling. When the E and N amplicons are present in the amplification product used, they show as single-amplicon artifacts. They also attempted verify their Q37, which the snake stall tested negative in Jan 01, but all results are failures. Facing the issue with either cross react or primer dimer and get nothing, or viral amplicon and get only amplicons with their “adulterate with amplification products” attempt (the only drain with a real SARS-CoV-2 read is a municipal sewage well on the opposite corner than the wildlife stalls!); archive.md/13bdP They decided to take samples of fresher meat from the market (animal sampling have begun in this time) that included snakes but failed to include any mammals, blend it with cell cultures and spray it onto their final sampling site “storehouse”, hoping that this would equalize out any edge humans have in correlation. The cultures https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC369693/ ended up far too fresh for the purported deposition date of pre-Jan01, and when the snakes are debunked, confirmed to be pure artifacts.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And also, regarding that so-called “nature’s GOF laboratory” claim—to this date, zero Sarbecoviruses with an FCS have ever been identified. web.archive.org/web/2022101805… web.archive.org/web/2022090222… In natural settings, an animal will seroconvert before the FCS can emerge, which is extremely unstable especially in D614 inside seroconverted hosts. In fact, this prevented the FCS from emerging even inside the 2002-2003 SARS-CoV-1 in the exact same hosts that the zoonati claims to be “certainly the intermediate hosts for SARS-CoV-2”, speaks volume. They were also entirely incapable of emergence without engineering “push” as demonstrated by the near neighbors which all are FCS-free and spread just fine (even better than SARS-CoV-2) without it inside all manner of hosts. gab.com/Flavinkins/pos… In fact, the destruction of the Proline at 681 associated with VOC evolution in live hosts (human or animal hosts) simultaneously remove the virus’ ability to grow efficiently in laboratory cell lines: and the very weird and hard to explain lineages show evidence of reversion to culture adaptation. In the exact same time as illegal biolabs were found and when variants emerge without a traced location of origin or epidemiological link between cases. The Proline as it turned out is important for growth in VERO cells and variants that evolved in live hosts or with P681 mutated have defect in growth inside them. This mean that Wuhan is effectively the most VERO-suitable isolated variant over the course of the pandemic. gab.com/Flavinkins/pos… gab.com/Flavinkins/pos… https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108682807199122313 archive.md/az10E archive.md/TrTW5 @mbw61567742 some of the features like HV6970 also show evidence of VERO association (P2V/HL6970). Not something that you expect for ZW, as the actual host it adapted to is VERO E6. In fact, all VOCs grow less efficiently in VERO E6 compared to non-VOC/“WT”. The same in the non-D614G A.23.1 strain as well. A striking graph below. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/111398506038803573 Human or mice, the variants have less growth in VERO than Wuhan. Not something you expect for a virus that was not supposed to have seen a primate before the first human infection under the market theory. The FCS look exactly like a cell line adapted version after an insertion of the ENaC FCS as expected by DEFUSE during rescue and isolation—Both direct assembly and targeted RNA recombination are viable options for its insertion, and it is not unusual for a sample or a branch of its culture to be resequenced or deep sequenced months to years after sample collection and initial operations. The CGG-CGG is also not a coincidence—using it improve immunogenicity and allow efficient killed virus vaccine production and therefore adding a self leader failsafe for deployment, and manageability in case of unintentional release. Remember those HV6970/HL6970 (VERO adaptation of P2V).

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.00958-22…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.00958-22 It should be worth mentioning that unlike the N-linked glycome of other mammals, humans and cells of humans are unique in that they lacked either Neu5Gc or alpha-Gal. Bats contained the alpha-Gal epitope where other mammals contained both the Neu5Gc and the alpha-Gal epitope. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931312820306806 An adaptation of Rhinolophid bats toward the loss of Neu5Gc synthesis (CMAH) is that they produce almost all alpha-Gal and almost no Neu5Ac on their glycocalyx. https://zenodo.org/record/5702700#.Ytew5BZ6slT Whatever HV6970 binds to, it likely abolished the ability of the S NTD to bind to alpha-Gal and favored Neu5Gc binding. Due to the anomalies found in BANaL-52 and RaTG13 (no bats in BANaL-52), and the observation that the SARS-CoV-2 S with HV6970 specifically showed greater tropism in VERO E6 cells compared to SARS-CoV S, in addition to human lung cells, and the fact that it is formed as HL6970 when GX/P2V is adapted in VERO E6, https://archive.ph/TrTW5 , and given that gaps are not counted toward identities when the SARS-CoV Urbani Spike was used as the reference for similarity alignment, the uniquely long NTD loops of the SARS-CoV-2 S and especially HV6970 should be considered a specific adaptation feature to Old-world non-human primate cells that contained Neu5Gc but not alpha-Gal. (As the NTD loop inserts are also deleted in VOCs, especially HV6970 indicating that it is not stable in humans (which don’t make either Neu5Gc or alpha-Gal) or any other species (other GX-CoVs don’t have HV6970/HL6970. Nor were GD-CoVs)). https://zenodo.org/record/6849652#.YteAXBZ6slR' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

“Humanized mice will attenuate the FCS”=“humanized mice will generate the exact PRRAR site”. P681 and A372=VERO cells. And Q498=Mus Musculus germline immune system with human ACE2. Also reality: it was not “out of frame”. SARS-CoV-2 uniquely have two dS changes compared to all other QTQTNS genomes after the last Cysteine before the first S cleavage site. Shi put it in S2 And the Proline is so you can grow it into a stock in VERO E6 cells (VOCs or P681 mutants have growth defects in VERO cells) The PRRVR from mouse-passaged MERS-CoV.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

In fact, the Proline and the QTQTNS are really only stable in VERO and CaLu-3 (VERO/HAE) cells. In live hosts, P681 mutates to R681 or H681, and QTQTNS mutates to QTQTKS. There is no middle ground except if you still need to breed to stock quantity within VERO E6 cells.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Bonus: for VERO/HAE cultures, deletions of the S1-S2 forms an equilibrium with QTQTNSPRRARS in ratios from 5% to ~70%. These mutations are actually identified within the Wuhan patients themselves, obtained from clinical samples in stead of only after culture for the first patients. Such clean QTQTN or SPRRARS deletions are not found even in homology in natural SARSr-CoVs. You only get to an FCS and the Proline (in stead of R, H or A) stabilized within these liquid medium-immersed cell cultures, and only if you start with an synthetically inserted FCS such as with the hENaC, the closest “human-specific cleavage site” to the QTQTNSRSVAS which “clear mismatches occur” at the first of the two S2 cleavages site in the Spike.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109640519028841414 It is not just that SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan grows best in VERO cells out of all variants. Some earliest patients harbored inside their QS specific S1-S2 deletions that can form only in VERO E6. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109888056517115303 And These seems to be related to cell surface expression that have most relevance to Spike-nanoparticles for use in non-humans. They are not vaccines that can be used in humans due to the human signal peptide used and the pcDNA3.1 which contained undesirable proteins. They are also not pseudoviruses. They best fit the “Spike nanoparticles” specified in DEFUSE out of all. (As a plain binding study would not use a complicated transmembrane anchor, which interfered with pseudovirus assembly. Human tpA signal peptide and pcDNA3.1 mean the formulation is unsafe for humans, which should not happen for such clearly finished-for-mass-production-in-HEK293f nanoparticle (that also have envelopes) formulations unless it is intended only for non-humans (such as DEFUSE bats).) https://t.co/gpv4cXu1WP. https://archive.md/1C7om

Flavinkins on Gab: '@Parsifaler https://anandamide.substack.com/p/cu…' Flavinkins on Gab: '@Parsifaler https://anandamide.substack.com/p/curious-kittens However, examining these sequences (that were found from the Pfizer vials) revealed that while there were plasmid backbones that were highly similar, they are not identical and there were key differences between these plasmids and those that have been found within these Pseudomonas assemblies. For one, None of these plasmids harbored a mammalian/eukaryotic promoter that is used to drive the expression of the Spike protein, which is expected as these are supposed to be used to generate mRNA for vaccine production. Secondly, A duplication is discovered within one of the Pseudomonas-related sequences, whereas a deletion is found in the other plasmid with the Spike protein, while substitutions within the backbone fragment are found within both of the P.aeruginosa-linked plasmid sequences. This indicates that, compared to these unknown primary backbone sequences, the P.aeruginosa assemblies were found to have undergone a substantial level of evolution that involved duplication, deletion, and substitutions within the backbone sequences for these plasmids--suggesting an ancient origin of the plasmids found within the Pseudomonas assemblies. Third, The C-terminal of the Spike protein inserts, when found, were found to be native--expected for an mRNA vaccine. One of the proteins found was an S1-only protein. The C-terminal membrane anchor coiled-coil sequence is not found in any of these plasmids. This rules out mRNA vaccination as the origin for these Pseudomonas-linked plasmid sequences. Finally, While many P.aeruginosa strains are resistant toward Neomycin and Kanamycin, Neo/Kan, not found within the chromosomes of these assemblies, does in fact additionally confer GmR (Gentamicin resistance) toward the P.aeroginosa strains. While it is possible that the plasmids may have derived from contamination within the BioProject, the supposed natural host for these plasmids, laboratory strains of E.coli, was nowhere to be seen within the BioProject PRJNA839565. The closest sequences found within the BioProject by BLAST just returned other strains of Pseudomonas, Sampled in China in 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/CP081287.1?report=genbank&log$=nucltop&blast_rank=1&RID=Z2K3722G01R https://archive.md/hm8zm https://archive.md/kkSkI https://archive.md/O9Kkr https://archive.md/LYema https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/JAMOHA010000033.1?report=genbank&log$=nucltop&blast_rank=1&RID=Z2M30VUK01R https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/JAMOGL010000063.1?report=genbank&log$=nucltop&blast_rank=2&RID=Z2M30VUK01R https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/JAMOGK010000062.1?report=genbank&log$=nucltop&blast_rank=3&RID=Z2M30VUK01R https://archive.md/GTo6k This also included contigs that have very low coverage, supposedly consistent with "contamination origin". This indicates that 1: the plasmids found have evolved substantially compared to their closest ancestors within the labs. 2: they are found in Pseudomonas spp., instead of laboratory origin E.coli. This is expected as mammalian expression vectors with the use of SV40 Ori and CMV promoter is conventionally maintained within the lab using AmpR, and one lab that deals with mammalian expression typically maintain their plasmids using only one antibiotic for convenience in the preparation of the medium necessary for culturing the bacterial host. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/JAMOGH010000091.1 https://archive.md/ERB08 While in the U.S., AmpR may have been avoided in vaccine preparation (mRNA production vectors instead of mammalian expression vectors) within the Moderna facilities, the same basic rule for non-bacterially-oriented vectors, one antibiotic resistance gene per lab, is maintained within these vaccine-derived Spike expression vectors (all vectors found within the vaccine vials used Neo/Kan and nothing else). This is distinct from that is seen in the Pseudomonas assemblies, where Eukaryotic-oriented Neo/Kan accompanied with AmpR in only one of the plasmid versions was found. This also indicates that both mutations (substitutions seen in the backbone), duplications/deletions, and recombinations have shaped the plasmid backbone found within these P.aeruginosa assemblies and that this did not happen within a lab (E.coli is not found within PRJNA839565).' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

In fact, the XRRXRX motif is considered a signature of cell culture adaptation, in stead of live host adaptation which the Heparan sulfate-binding motif is invariable broken. journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JV…

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Initially they do not have sufficient samples for an MRCA analysis, and that they were satisfied with only lineage B being available at the market. However, Eventually it was found out that lineage A is the more ancestral strain, and they have to make up a sample to put it into the market. https://archive.md/ANS4Q they came up with “A20”, inconsistent in both the ratio of 8782/28144 and in the ratio of reads vs Ct values with the other samples they claimed to show. The way they adulterated the post-26-03/2023 datasets is also one of the reason why the jbloom et al datasets gets humans as higher ranked in the alignments in the positive samples compared to all samples in both all sampling dates and Jan 12—They do it by dropping random human reads into the “negative samples” and scrambling the rest of the animal reads, all uploaded after 26/03/2023, resulting in an reduction of spread of correlation metrics over all species and correlatedness with humans for all samples compred positive samples only, not only in Jan 12 but for all sampling dates. In fact, all 3 samples that are different between 2021 and 2023 are also samples that have additional datasets uploaded in 26/03/2023 after an 03-10/03/2023 upload. Sample A20 have distinct host composition between the 03-10/03/2023 (without lineage reads) and 26/03/2023 upload, which is not expected from “viral amplicon sequencing” (with lineage A reads) which does not perturb the host reads if genuinely from the same sample. This is consistent with the general scrambling of host sequences within the “post-26/03/2023” samples, and showcases irreconcilable dishonesty within this sample set especially when sample B5, likely used as a standard, remain unchanged, creating an additional inconsistency in term of protocols—one set of numbers in 2021, one set of numbers in 03/03/2023, and a third set of numbers in 26/03/2023. Zero custody in the CCP’s grasp up to upload, change constantly per demand of the leading zoonosis theory—“change those ‘data’ on the fly, based on any reactions and feedback, make up your uploads to attempt pushing zoonosis as hard as possible”. This is also why the mutual information between SARS-CoV-2 and any species at all, especially all land-dwelling species, are completely destroyed upon inclusion of the 26/03/2023 upload date. These are the species that they seek to scramble reads in order to remove the correlational edge of Homo Sapiens that have remained despite their attempt at filtering their previous “data”. In Mar-Apr 2020, China officially blamed wild animals sold in the Huanan market. Publishing the “data” as currently seen to Holmes would be the best way to solidify this then-official opinion. If the “market environmental data” can be interpreted in any way to arrive at the C-C “conclusions”, ECH won’t be denied of it. Since he is denied, the most logical reason for the denial is that it does not originally support any of the C-C “conclusions”, and were tampered only recently to poison the scientific database and to provide a fallback for debate purposes. Only after evident in-vitro and in-silico tampering and subsequent approval by the CCP, would it be officially permitted—in fact, actively given to Holmes for “analysis”. Despite attempts at scrubbing all 300nt+ non-viral human Contigs from the “positive wildlife stall samples”, which have led to an inverse correlation between the 300nt+ contigs left inside these samples and the product of Homo Sapiens and SARS-CoV-2, mutual information and the ratio between the leftover human mitochondrial reads and SARS-CoV-2 have been preserved as the removal process preserved ratios, And you still end up with Homo Sapiens being the most mutually informant species for SARS-CoV-2 whenever significant mutual information is preserved at all within a slice of the “dataset”.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

In fact, there are even further inconsistencies in these so-called “data releases” which further indicate that there are both sufficient number of unaccounted flow cells to source all the reads necessary for scrambling the post-28/03/2023 “datasets” and that there are likely both selective representation of and cannibalization-and-redistribution of sample datasets, with once again a total absence of custody information or in deed, from what mix of material was the actual source libraries constructed from, suggested that the CCP used a strategy of “holding back as many reads as that would be needed to adjust the datasets to whatever direction to promote the arrival at a “likely zoonosis” conclusion so there is always a conclusion to jump to if the lab is indeflectably blamed” when posting the “dataset” or the associated publications—not even the number of samples per category could be matched to the percentages published. (see how the mutual information metric, e.g. the plausibility to use regression from the other points on the correlation graph to identify the location of a dot on the graph from only one axis of its coordinates e.g. the ability to predict the concentration of virus from species and vice versa, are completely crashed upon inclusion of the “26/03/2023” samples in both Jan 12 and all collection dates)

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://archive.md/VNr75 In fact, contrary to the claim that they are “near the market”, all 3 of the lineage A samples in Early Wuhan was actually found in tight and direct linkage with the WCDC much more than and as opposed to the Huanan market. One is A20, the WCDC sampler PPE which would be among the first sample to replace outright in stead of merely filtering and scrambling to minimize leak of lab-linked information. Exactly what to make it for best fit to the running theory, however, they stumbled and changed twice with feedback and changing demands, resulting in three distinct and dishonestly-inconsistent-with-each-other datasets and results. Another stayed in a Hotel, which is right next-door to the “new” WCDC site where samples and cultures would have been transported to and workers would move back and forth between when they have just finished setting up the new lab and have started experimentation which needed materials likely exist in both the old and the new site at the beginning of its operation. The third, “cluster 1”, is right on the route of this back and forth commutation and near the “old” WCDC site, “somewhere near the Xinhua hospital”. All have strong linkage to the WCDC and none documented credible linkage to transmission at the Huanan market. The WCDC and the Hubei CDC stores all of the human samples and backups of research cultures of pathogenic microbes in Wuhan, as this is their legally delegated duty (the “各级疾控部门” are termed “保藏机构” for “病原性微生物” under Chinese law governing the use of cultures and samples of human and animal pathogenic microbial samples, and samples that were suspected to have the possibility of containing such microorganisms. These are also the only locations which first round samples arriving in Wuhan are allowed to go for pre-screening prior to entry into the other labs in Wuhan, “检测机构”. ) and that labs in China are not allowed to store such cultures except several select state key laboratories. Since 2014, the only EID surveillance target in Wuhan is the HSM which all other sites are kept blind so that they can blame Huanan in case the research labs suffer an accident. It is likely that the WCDC (but not the Hubei CDC) would internally get the wind of an “SARSr-CoV” (with an antigen kit that were apparently available to many high-level hospitals in Wuhan) almost the soon their surveillance program is tripped in 20-22/12/2019 with their first hospital-visited market case. After an initial release from the WIV that caused Chen’s infection, and eventual transmission to the HSM via line 2 of the Wuhan metro, they mobilized the WCDC in 20-22/12/2019 to begin tapering with the environmental samples (largely based on the leading zoonosis theory proposed or identified at that time) and prepare for any needed scapegoat action. That mobilization ended up causing an infection of a WCDC worker with an aliquot of a sample containing WA1, A and B in the same quasispecies, which then go on infecting all of the earliest lineage A cases in Wuhan.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

The WHO report is found to have moved all https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109048819612838694 cases with onset before 27/12/2019 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 inside the district of Wuchang, and then all cases within the central Wuchang prefectures and those prefectures near the labs, to Jianghan. with calibration performed so that they would add up to a perfect “bullseye” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china-idUSKBN2AD090 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/17/covid-early-cases-wuhan-china-mystery/ https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/china-refuses-to-give-who-raw-data-on-early-covid-19-cases-11613150580 of within 50m precision at the Huanan market, which would not be realistically possible given the expected social biases from uneven residential densities even in the neighborhood of the Huanan market. Cases *residences* were dropped into water and placed into non-residential areas as the result of this tampering, especially the former which, residences could not exist on since they would be washed away by the water. Obvious examples included accountant Chen, which they refused to mention where he lived at all since the WHO report alongside any specific single cases, and one of the two “江夏急救中心” ambulances seen blaring into Wuchang in 31/13/2019, where only one out of the two, one that likely did not live in Shidong, were counted as a dot in Jiangxia. They refused to give any line lists at all for a reason.

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Tampering with data, moving cases, contradicting own early media reports, this is the reality of that “market centered” early cases “dataset”. The “dataset” is as fake and as inconsistent as a $3 bill. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109256201942085712 They completely eliminated all cases that landed within the borders of the Wuchang district before 27/12/2019, to the point that they claim to see cases further east of but not within Wuchang. This is the cluster that they were hiding. Again, the early cases are WA1, which even when cluster, failed to meet the recognition requirements. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109248812361151175 The “中部战区总医院” reported that they were taking in 700+ cases in a single day at 31/12/2019 all in the fever clinics. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109400051863347812 Then there is a media coverage bias.

Flavinkins on Gab: 'A media coverage bias also exists. The “story” of…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'A media coverage bias also exists. The “story” of the cluster 1 report was propped up by CCP state-owned media. This media coverage would only go to the doctor that reported the first officially recognized cases. Any other doctors that reported case clusters elsewhere in Wuhan, because they didn’t report a market case, and because the CDC recognized only the HPHICWM report (grouping it into the later VPUE category) only because of and after the HSM cases were being reported, and when the specific surveillance targeting the HSM at the WCH reported to them the genome of a SARSr-CoV (in 29/12/2019), they didn’t get recognized even if a similar report is given—brushed aside into the 92 CDC-searched and NNDRS-discard cases. No CCP media coverage would land on these doctors, and their story would remain buried just like the 92 cases (that may even included cases that they reported) discarded from the WHO report.' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Myanmar, Cambodia, which also, incidentally, was where China specifically sampled before. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7818139/ This also included human sampling as well, per “pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention”. Now where I find these specific human Mitochondrial haplotypes again? (Southeast Asia, not central China, +SARS-CoV-2, no FCS, exactly where the WIV and the WHU would sample humans and put the resulting cultures into the WCDC). Note how the China serological sampling is a specific sampling around bat caves which human cells-infecting CoVs have been specifically isolated before. Notice how low this number is compared to southeast Asia (Cambodia, Myanmar). Despite Shi and Daszak’s name on it, “no work was ever conducted in Laos” they claimed. How can the EHA be trusted?

Decoding the RNA viromes in rodent lungs provides new insight into the origin and evolutionary patterns of rodent-borne pathogens in Mainland Southeast Asia As the largest group of mammalian species, which are also widely distributed all over the world, rodents are the natural reservoirs for many diverse zoonotic viruses. A comprehensive understanding of the core virome of diverse rodents should therefore ... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Not only Leaked SRA data included both the exact kind of viruses that they claim will not be present in the WIV—and the exact SARS-CoV-2, WA1, cultured in a CoV-specific tailored fusion cell line VERO-CHO never used in China and sequenced before even a sample of WA1 can be taken in China, alongside C/C and B, at high passage depths, and contained within it residual human DNA not from anywhere in central China but in stead right where they were sampling from the 2018 “pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention” grant—the belt and road regions; https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109888056517115303 But also these membrane anchored cellnsurface expression vectors intended for HEK293f of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike that have most relevance to Spike-nanoparticles for use in non-humans. They are not vaccines that can be used in humans due to the human signal peptide used (expressing an antigen together with a human protein, especially when co-localized through generation of nanoparticles processed from the same peptide chain) and the pcDNA3.1 which contained undesirable proteins. They are also not pseudoviruses. They best fit the “Spike nanoparticles” specified in DEFUSE out of all. (As a plain binding study would not use a complicated transmembrane anchor, which interfered with pseudovirus assembly. Human tpA signal peptide and pcDNA3.1 mean the formulation is unsafe for humans, which should not happen for such clearly finished-for-mass-production-in-HEK293f nanoparticle (that also have envelopes) formulations unless it is intended only for non-humans (such as DEFUSE bats).) https://t.co/gpv4cXu1WP. https://archive.md/1C7om Continued EHA human sampling=Yunnan and belt and road DNA. Isolate if possible=special unpublished VERO-CHO cells. And it was sequenced before the first public sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 with this machine type by the flow cell, confirmed via Sangon policy and Chinese law, and before+not matching any samples of WA1 was even taken in China. And this exact CAS special project mirroring of DEFUSE+Year 5 extension—sample humans from belt and road area, isolate and engineer viruses for infection characterization, and create vectorized and nanoparticle vaccines that are capable of bringing in both backbone and Spike into bats studied in and released by the WIV, and into the main sample storage facility of the WCDC. (Also see this—note all the FCS relevant oddities can also be caused by targeted RNA recombination link.springer.com/chapter/10.100… followed by cell culture). The instability associated with 8782/2814/18060 (WA1->A->B) is found to recur at least 3 times in the WA1/UW cluster, especially their cultured isolates. The associated samples have T22657C, T3346C, A21562C and G487T. all of which is in RaTg13 but not in WuHu-1. also T1963C and T22963C in BANAL-52. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109640519028841414 It is not just that SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan grows best in VERO cells out of all variants. Some earliest patients harbored inside their QS specific S1-S2 deletions that can form only in VERO E6.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

So, where are DEFUSE going to sample humans? Also, the RaTg13 RBD bind human ACE2 poorly, resulting in exceptionally high sVNT cross-reactivity as even poorly binding antibodies can display ACE2 off it. Once again, 1: RaTG13 is not viable. https://zenodo.org/record/5702700#.ZJ2KiyV6slT https://zenodo.org/record/5778318#.ZJ5hyCV6slT 2: the real issue is that 1. WIV lies about everything serological. None of their “tests” were positive when politics require it to be negative. And 2. The missing sequences of Latinne et al is where you find what the WIV was working on. 7 SARSr and 54 total CoVs were missing entirely.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Note how the WHU itself gets about half of all the animal work that involved the “understanding risk of bat coronavirus emergence” grant— Both it and DEFUSE are included in the “pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention” grant.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And in deed, this 2018 EHA grant approval document invoked an near exact replication of DEFUSE on what to do with the new SARSr-CoVs—gather Spikes 10%-25% divergent from SARS-CoV-1, test with chimeric viruses first, and then take the immune-evasive and human infectious ones, and validate with full genomes—clearly more than “only 1-2” with binding to human cells first, see SARS-like signs from some of these next, and then some (more than 1 but nor all) don’t respond to mAbs, vaccines, etc.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@BlackTomThePyr8 - Tom Czerniawski

Few will ever understand the gravity of what Lt. Col. Murphy did. By releasing DEFUSE he showed us where to look. From that discovery, subsequent draft DEFUSE documents were discovered years later by @USRightToKnow that proved C-19 to be synthetic, and revealed how it was made.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

What those analyzers think: “many different precise and specific pieces recombine into SARS-CoV-2”. Reality: an unpublished but readily sampled SARS-CoV-2 progenitor spread fragments over time into multiple locations. Some end up in the published samples. “10%-25% Spike divergence”—they will isolate RBDs from viruses that they sample to identify one that bind ACE2. Only fine tuning is needed later. “Exotic recombination”? It is just reverse transcriptases in cases of “postpandemic inserts”. How many billion hosts are needed and how this compare to the total number of wild animals on the entire Earth? link.springer.com/chapter/10.100… Use targeted RNA recombination if you have a cultured virus in stead. “Perfect synergy”? Nothing but VERO/HAE cells. Those “synergy” are only stable here. Not in any live hosts which they will mutate and destroy each other in stead. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109205261283826972 ReCCA is tautological and fictitious. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109863181504837302 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109465063042828622 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109255356915252021 BtSY2 is sequenced in 2018. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109399710986742685 BANAL is in the hands of the DOD in 2017. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109340247585238829 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109800300869616862 And all of which got funneled into the EHA, which eventually will end up in the WIV.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

MACE E PAI COVID 19 ANALYSIS Redacted : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive MACE E-PAI COVID-19 ANALYSIS archive.org

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html https://archive.md/UFrSv They systematically moved more than 3000 cases from the lab to the market and gave “cases data” that they wanted to push for market as first outbreak site to distance from the labs. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 Such an result of having unlinked cases closer to the market than linked cases is not expected even under the null hypothesis of market origin, which we should see unlinked cases secondary to and cluster around the linked cases, and not the market itself. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 Not only there were an complete absence of verifiability in Chinese cases, there is direct non-circumstantial evidence that they moved up to 3000 cases from Wuchang to Huanan. In fact, it is totally not normal to have unlinked cases closer to the market than linked cases—the only way this can happen is with ascertainment bias. Only near the market gets ascertained if not directly linked to it. Base rate neglect. They did the exact same thing when claiming that all 67 “pre-Huanan checkable cases” were “serologically negative”. Again, the social media associated here say “before Jan 18, 2020”. Included all Dec cases. https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/9/6/402 It is actually impossible for unlinked cases, supposedly secondary, to cluster closer to the market than linked cases which supposedly to be primary, without significant sampling bias or outright manipulation in the underlying “data”. Both evidently happened. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.08680.pdf https://archive.md/JVFuc If you toss away anything that is not officially announced by China in bold, then obviously you would arrive at exactly what China wanted you to believe.

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

@blink64 - polyploidy

When actual statisticians have a go at your paper purporting to show the SARS2 outbreak originates at the HSM. Thanks @gdemaneuf! https://t.co/avfBP4bZPa

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@threadreaderapp unroll

@NestCommander — Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Posted - April 3, 2024 at 2:08 AM

Saved - April 3, 2024 at 3:35 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

Fauci's alleged lies about funding gain of function research and discrepancies between public statements and private concerns are causing controversy. Claims are made about the dangers of gain of function research and its potential to cause pandemics. The ODNI's report on the origin of COVID-19 is criticized for breaking the law and protecting gain of function research. The defunding of grants awarded to Dr. Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance is mentioned. There are concerns about bias in peer review.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://twitter.com/vigilantfox/status/1686198223763853312 Fauci lied under oath “not funding gain of function (GOF) research” https://twitter.com/charlesrixey/status/1728099199772762618 Email: https://twitter.com/texaslindsay_/status/1679838118743097348 GOF under another name: https://twitter.com/s_q_e_r_l/status/1392429082370002946 Even under their own standards for published results. https://twitter.com/r_h_ebright/status/1704641787380298152 Fauci directly offshore GOF. https://twitter.com/hansmahncke/status/1752063214769377292 https://twitter.com/r_h_ebright/status/1633624833081884674 https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1457368942272565255 Another discrepancy between public propaganda plans and private concerns. https://twitter.com/covidselect/status/1730198241428275213 Flip-flop with masks is the least of his worries. https://twitter.com/covidselect/status/1730198245626769905 See replies for his past lies. https://twitter.com/covidselect/status/1730198247971373554 More about Fauci: https://twitter.com/covidselect/status/1732078538033971626 “Fauci's legacy is as honorable as this NIAID report he was obligated to release under a FOIA lawsuit is “packed with information”...” https://twitter.com/williewwilliam/status/1730356526424932620 Fauci lied, people died. https://twitter.com/covidselect/status/1730198247971373554 FOIA stuff: https://twitter.com/thackerpd/status/1412369872487698432 Yes. They are really there defending GOF research and their grave COI making them wholly opposed of even the idea that a pandemic can ever be initiated by virology research. http://bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2398/rapid-responses… https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1712998816356643194 You can only have GoF work generate a viable prediction or a vaccine if the next emergence is of the exact same genetic makeup as your GOF strain. The extreme diversity of viruses mean that you have (total number of viruses in the world (billions)*probability that a GOF study result being used maliciously (>1/200 minimum)) times higher likelihood that GOF research cause a pandemic in stead of preventing it. http://archive.ph/BToZR http://archive.md/YYIXp http://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109663743902085653… https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1713099142841729200 https://twitter.com/Daoyu15/status/1725182075656155186 The ODNI both broke the law and is full of elementary mistakes in their “report”. That is why it can’t be trusted. https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1725274033103491368 As on why? https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1725276084965380325 They need to protect GOF at all costs. https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1725182099232305536 More hidden experiments. https://twitter.com/0rf/status/1594467737744465920?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… Covid origin declassification act violation of the ODNI. https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1724626293403373877?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… "Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State Thomas DiNanno tells [Sky News]…that when his team unearthed explosive evidence that pointed to a laboratory leak…, the intelligence community ran interference in support of a natural origin narrative." https://twitter.com/r_h_ebright/status/1729164212159824154?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSAw… GOF is only for dual-use bioweapons research and are never useful for any kind of vaccine or therapeutics. Stop lying. https://twitter.com/Daoyu15/status/1682701118655303680 https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1679461360164552705 Here is clearly KGA never ruling out even engineering. https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1690480261103034368 And unfortunately, the first use of the prefusion-stabilized Spike was to target MERS-CoV and WIV1 wasn’t the drive of the patent, nor did the patent required any GOF research. Also, the vaccines are now proven to be hazardous, driving unending waves of reinfections. https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1691993269847413159 https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1691993693258186857 https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1724491689124065595?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… Not even Tedros consider their claimed conclusions valid. https://twitter.com/drtedros/status/1724132394662252877?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… Unanimously, they passed a law banning all NIH ePPP GOF funding. https://twitter.com/justinrgoodman/status/1724621384305742069?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… Numerous problems of the ODNI “report”. https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1724626293403373877?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1738419581080010945 Red-faced and looking extremely anxious, Dr. Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance, testified today in a closed hearing about the #OriginOfCovid. https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1725480788861559101 Following his testimony, the House of Representatives unanimously voted to defund two active grants awarded to him. https://twitter.com/fermentillc/status/1724744680183611631 https://twitter.com/drhermiz/status/1724620221464424608 https://twitter.com/justinrgoodman/status/1724597207741902969 Including additional approved bills that cuts all DOD funding to the EHA as well. https://twitter.com/Bryce_Nickels/status/1730668384583299361 Evidently, the secret bioweapons department of the U.S. wasn’t happy on this resolution. https://twitter.com/BlackTomThePyr8/status/1730674382580678812 But even they agreed that bat CoV GOF work involving China as a region or using the WIV is too risky to continue putting DOD money on. https://twitter.com/justinrgoodman/status/1732740769071423590 https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1732967051617288443 https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1733530016695386345 Like touching a fire and got burned. https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1732968216706842766

@Biorealism - Holtz

Editors likely blocked lab origin papers and waved through terrible papers like Proximal Origin to avoid jearpardizing relationships with the NIH, virology colleagues and China. Richard A. Muller found his virology colleagues were afraid to even discuss the lab origin scenario.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108971775263920617 Massive status bias in peer review

Flavinkins on Gab: '@SteveStuWill “Massive status bias in peer revie…' Flavinkins on Gab: '@SteveStuWill “Massive status bias in peer review. 534 reviewers randomized to review the same paper revealing the low status, high status, or neither author. 65% reject low status, 23% reject high status. Amazing work by Juergen Huber and colleagues. #prc9” “Or, look at it another way. If the reviewers knew only the low status author, just 2% said to accept without revisions. If the reviewers knew only the high status author, almost 21% said to accept without revisions. I thought it was painful to have 25 reviewers for one of my papers. My condolences to these authors for having to read the comments from 534. Gratitude to Sabiou Inoua and Vernon Smith for subjecting themselves and their scholarly work to conduct this project.” “ Secondary finding. >3000 potential reviewers were invited with the low, high, or neither status author revealed as the corresponding author in the review invitation. Reviewers substantially more likely to agree to review in the high status revealed condition.” “Two important method notes: this journal offered to pay for review (explaining high agree rates maybe), and only those in the anonymous invite condition were then invited to the actual review with randomizing which author was revealed.” @BrianNosek “Here is a preprint to the paper: ” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4190976' gab.com

@NestCommander — Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Posted - December 8, 2023 at 9:08 PM

Saved - December 9, 2023 at 1:38 PM

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

The Pan-Zootic Super-PRION: An Ancient Extinction Level Event? https://t.co/J1AGUnbEnH

@NestCommander — Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Posted - November 29, 2023 at 9:55 PM

Saved - November 29, 2023 at 10:54 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

In the past 2.5 years, I missed the chance to discuss the amyloidogenic/prionergic properties of HIV GP120. Instead, I focused on not being credited for LNP & mRNA technologies. This was a missed opportunity to inform the public about the real issues surrounding biowarfare and prion/amyloidogenic epitopes. If you need help with the neuroscience, check out this link: [link provided].

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Robert you had the chance over the last 2.5 years to be talking about the amyloidogenic/prionergic properties of HIV GP120. Instead you've been kvetching about not being credited for LNP & mRNA technologies. An opportunity missed to inform the public about the real issues around biowarfare and weaponization prion/amyloidogenic catalyzing epitopes. Here is an example of what you should be talking about, if you need help with the neuroscience you just have to ask. https://rumble.com/v3w8rjx-savims-toxic-peptides-amyloids-and-prions-from-genetic-vaccines-to-sars-cov.html @Doctor_I_am_The @Jikkyleaks @Kevin_McKernan @CharlesRixey

SAVIMS – Toxic Peptides, Amyloids & PRIONS: From Genetic Vaccines to SARS-CoV-2 Support the stream https://tipjar.wetalkyoulisten.com/ https://www.buymeacoffee.com/DrKevinMcCairn (PayPal) https://paypal.me/raccooncommander?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB https://www.patreon.com/join/ rumble.com

@RWMaloneMD - Robert W Malone, MD

This is a Vical patent. I did not write it. I never owned it. I got no revenue from it. Others made millions off of my work. My contribution to this was enabling manufacture of the mRNA coding for gp 120. This was done in 1989-1990. This is pure bullshit. It does not claim integration of permanent insertion of DNA sequences encoding gp120. Richard seems to be obsessed with defaming me. I previously had to send him a cease and desist letter. I guess I have to take further action in response to his obsessive hate and defamation.