reSee.it - Related Post Feed

Theo_TJ_Jordan
Posted - March 29, 2022 at 12:49 AM
Saved - March 14, 2023 at 8:06 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A web of lies has been spun around the COVID-19 pandemic. False statements have been repeated by many people and important channels. Propaganda has been pushed at and through our children. The threat to healthy children has been hyped up from day one. Deception comes in many forms, including perverted science. The Gain of Function Gang's propaganda is staggering. The public has yet to learn about some of the biggest lies. It's time to see through the continuous lies.

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

This statement was never true. No such data ever existed.

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

But it was repeated by so many people (and down so many important channels).

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

So many people...

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

This statement wasn't true either. It went from 100% to 90, 80, 70... I've seen it as low as 30%.

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

This was false...

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

So was this...

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

This was funny... well, not really. 🤬

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

THIS statement was criminal. 👇🖕 https://t.co/l0xmn9q5ce

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

The same entity owned up to that a few months later... https://t.co/JS6mo3kB7o

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

This was used in the context of kids and was never accurate. True propaganda. 🚨 https://t.co/ZuXEik1oiu

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

So much propaganda has been pushed at and through our children... https://t.co/wbp1AUIUpz

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

And yet SARS-CoV-2 has never presented an emergency to healthy children. No more so than many common ailments. They hype around the threat to kids has all been a lie. From day one. You have access to the data too... https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/master/borndig/101774952/Risk%20Factors%20for%20COVID-19%20Mortality%20among%20Privately%20Insured%20Patients%20-%20A%20Claims%20Data%20Analysis%20-%20A%20FAIR%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.30.21267048v1.full.pdf

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Can a lie get any more heinous than this? 👇🚨 Pair it with those last two above. 🤬

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Make it make sense...

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Or maybe the things that don't seem to make any sense actually make a lot of sense. 🤔

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Deception comes in many forms... 💡 https://t.co/gUsUfSqGhR

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

And they're still deceiving you, of course. Like broadcasting studies across The Show that arent peer-reviewed because Big Pharma funds them. 👇 Then use peer-review to keep good studies out. Here's a whole thread on how perverted science has become... 🧵 https://t.co/39DqNtgXIL

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

This is pure nonsense... https://t.co/BeiF8TN8NT

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

🙃

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

But I thought you said... I give up. 🤦‍♂️

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Some of the biggest lies of all have yet to hit the public surface... 🚨 https://t.co/41qfJptIF7

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Look at this phrasing. In a CNN piece, which you dig into and quickly see is just the Gain of Function Gang's propaganda. Staggering.

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Meanwhile...

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Meanwhile... https://t.co/H2BdMdQWRy

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Meanwhile... 🤬 https://t.co/lYoUxWaCQk

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

https://t.co/UQqmRm40z0

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

A web of continuous lies... 👇🧵 https://t.co/RF0rYjE247

WarClandestine
Posted - February 27, 2023 at 3:15 AM
Saved - October 3, 2023 at 6:25 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Top virologists and health officials warned that SARSCoV2 likely originated from a lab, but the NIH chose to conceal this information to protect science. Emails revealed their concerns about discussing a possible lab leak, fearing harm to scientific credibility. Despite efforts, the theory gained traction, questioning the scientific integrity of hiding the truth. Fauci's dismissive response implied underestimating public memory. The full NIH email breakdown exposes this cover-up.

@WarClandestine - Clandestine

1) If you all remember the NIH emails made available via FOIA, you’d recall Dutch Virologist, Ron Fouchier, said that lab-origin was a possibility, but said we shouldn’t talk about it because it would “do unnecessary harm to science”. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Letter-Re.-Feb-1-Emails-011122.pdf

Page not found - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability oversight.house.gov

@WarClandestine - Clandestine

2) 2/2/2020; Francis Collins, Director of NIH, said that we should not discuss the possibility of lab-leak origin, because “voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science”. The @NIH wittingly hid SARS-CoV-2’s lab origins to protect “science”. https://t.co/aT7UuG4plL

@WarClandestine - Clandestine

3) Despite the best efforts of Collins and Fauci to keep the lid on the lab origins of SARS-CoV-2, the public weren’t buying it. The theory of Wuhan Lab origin began to spread. 4/16/2020, Collins asked if the NIH could “put down this destructive conspiracy”. ie, the truth… https://t.co/lvZhCVXa2X

@WarClandestine - Clandestine

4) In which Fauci responded with “I would not do anything about this right now. It’s a shiny object that will go away with time.” Meaning Fauci thinks the masses are stupid and will quickly forget about the fact that a human-engineered pathogen just killed millions worldwide. https://t.co/Ndp1o9H1ie

@WarClandestine - Clandestine

5) So the world’s top virologists and biologists told US gov health officials that SARS-CoV-2 likely came from a lab, but they decided to cover it up, to “protect science”. Hiding the truth doesn’t sound very “scientific”. Full NIH email breakdown here. /END

KanekoaTheGreat
Posted - March 13, 2023 at 11:57 PM
Saved - May 2, 2023 at 6:32 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Robert Kennedy Jr. claims that the CIA, DOD, and Tony Fauci taught Chinese military scientists how to build weapons of mass destruction. Fauci funded a study that taught them cutting-edge technology for building WMDs and a technique for hiding human tampering on viruses. Avril Haines and George Gao discussed censoring a lab leak at Event 201 in Oct 2019. The exercise was held by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat

.@RobertKennedyJr tells @jimmy_dore the CIA, DOD, and Tony Fauci taught Chinese military scientists how to build weapons of mass destruction. Then Bill Gates, a former CIA director, and China's CDC director collaborated on how to censor a lab leak at Event 201 in Oct. 2019: "Fauci funded the study that taught the Chinese military scientists, everything in China is dual-use, that lab is a military lab, and he taught them cutting-edge technology for building weapons of mass destruction. In other words, the study for how to create the clones and how to create a spike protein that could attach to a human lung and transplant it onto a coronavirus. He also funded through Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina a technique called seamless ligation which is a technique for hiding human tampering on that virus after you've done it. Fauci gave Baric $212 million, and Baric developed a technique for hiding the human tampering; Baric taught that to Shi Zhengli, the Chinese bat lady. Fauci says we were doing this for vaccine development and countermeasures, but there is no justification in the world for funding somebody to create seamless ligation; in fact, it is the inverse of what you would do if your interest was public health. If your interest was bioweapons creation, and he was the czar of bioweapons since 2002, that's what you would do. USAID gave ten times what Fauci gave. The DOD was there. Why were they in there teaching Chinese scientists how to build weapons of mass destruction? USAID is a CIA front group. Eco-health Alliance is a CIA front group. The CIA modeled this outbreak in 2019 twice, the second time at Event 201. Who was at Event 201? Avril Haines co-hosted it with Bill Gates, and the head of the Chinese CDC, George Gao, was there. The virus was already circulating in Wuhan, nobody knew it, but George Gao had to know it; he was the head of the Chinese CDC and their number one expert on coronaviruses. He comes to New York in October of 2019 and sits downs with Avril Haines, the former director of the CIA, today the Director of National Intelligence, the top spy in the country, and they do a four-part simulation, and the fourth part is George Gao and Avril Haines talking about how do we get social media to censor people if they say this is from a lab leak."

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker suggests that American tax dollars funded gain-of-function research that created the virus. They claim that Dr. Fauci and various government agencies, including the NIH, State Department, USAID, and DOD, were involved. They argue that Fauci funded a study that taught Chinese military scientists how to build weapons of mass destruction and hide human tampering on the virus. They question why the U.S. government would fund such research and why they were teaching Chinese scientists. They also mention the CIA's involvement and their role in the cover-up. The speaker raises concerns about the lack of medical benefit and the potential bioweapons implications.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is it likely that American tax dollars funded the gain of function research that created this virus? Speaker 1: I think it did, not only from NIH, but from the state department, USAID, and from DOD. Speaker 0: I'm out of time. Thank you very Speaker 1: much. Speaker 0: Okay, so there's 2 things I wanna ask you. First of all, what, if that's true, Then didn't the United States government, under the tutelage of Fauci, under his direction didn't they created this pandemic then that killed millions of people. Aren't they now mass murderers? Am I wrong about this? What am I missing? Speaker 1: And what he said, what I I like what Redfield said because he's right on that. It was you know, Fauci, really Fauci It funded the study that, that taught the Chinese Or military scientists. Everything in China is dual use. And that that lab is a military lab. And he taught them cutting edge technology for building weapons of mass destruction. Not only did he teach them that, but in other words, the the study for how to create the clones and then how to take and how to, create A spike protein that could attach to the human lung and transplant it onto a coronavirus. He also funded, through Ralph Barrick at the University of North Carolina, a technique called the seamless legation technique, which is a technique for Hiding human tampering on that virus after you've done it because normally, that virus anybody can look at that virus and say that was made in a lab. Fauci funded Barrack in $212,000,000, and Barrack Developed a technique for hiding the human tampering. He calls it the no see him technique, also known as seamless legation. He taught that to Xi Zhengli, the Chinese fat lady. So and there's you know, Fauci said, well, we were doing this for vaccine development and countermeasures. There is no justification in the world for funding somebody to create seamless vacation. An o CMI did you know, And it has any medical benefit whatsoever. In fact, it's the opposite. It's the inverse of what you would do if your interest was public health. If your interest was bioweapons creation and he was the czar of bioweapons since 2002, that's what you would do. Why did he teach it to the Chinese? And more importantly, why was he as Redfield just pointed out, why was USAID USAID gave 10 times what Vauci gave. The Department of Defense Was there why were they in that Wuhan lab teaching those Chinese scientists how to build weapons of mass destruction? And then The CIA, which, you know, USAID is a a CIA front group. Ecohealth Alliance is a CIA front group. Why was the c I the CIA modeled This this outbreak in 2019, two times. The 2nd time at event two zero one. And who was at event two zero one? Avril Haines cohosted it with Bill Gates. And the head of this Chinese CDC, George Gehl, is there. George, the virus was already circulating in Wuhan at that time. Nobody knew it, but George Gayo had to know it. He's the head of the Chinese CDC and the Chinese Number 1 expert on coronavirus. He comes to New York in October of 2019 and sits down with Abrahams, the former deputy director Through the CIA. Today, the director of National Intelligence, the top spy in our country, and and says And they do a a 4 part simulation. And the 4th part is, how do we hide it? And anybody can go on YouTube right now, and I can't believe they left it up there. You can go on there, look at Advent two zero one, and look at simulation number 4. And they're talking about George Gehl and Avril Haines Are talking about how do we how do we get people to censor the social media if they start saying this is from a lab leak? This is before anybody ever heard of coronavirus. Wow. Oh, as October 2019, now. When we know from the Vanity Fair article that the intelligence aid when Mike Pompeo, who is the secretary of state, I was the state like, 5 state department branches. Find out where this stuff came from. Did it come from the Wuhan lab? Those guys go over and they say, holy cow. They had all this technology that we were teaching them, and they were using humanized mice to See if they could create a pandemic with coronavirus, and we gave Ralph Barrick gave them the United States. And they were saying, you know, they they had a meeting to figure out how to deal with this. The intelligence agencies came to that meeting and told them, shut it down. This investigation is over. So the state department investigation, they shut down in March of 2020. And then that gets out, and congress puts pressure on Biden. And Biden says, okay. I'm gonna order the intelligence agencies to do an investigation to find out If it came from the Wuhan lab, who does he put in charge of that? Avril Haines, the woman who in October of 2019 Was modeling how do we hide it if it came from the you know, if we it came from, if it's a lab leak? Meanwhile, we now know from the Twitter page papers The CIA was working with Twitter that had a portal through the FBI portal on Twitter where they were censoring Information. That kind of information. So the CIA's, you know, was not only funding that that Technology and was probably responsible for it, the infection of the contagion, but They also have been surreptitiously running the cover up from day 1. It's not just Fauci.

@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat

Former CIA Director Avril Haines and China's CDC Director George Gao discuss censoring a lab leak at Event 201 in Oct. 2019: "My staff told me that there is misinformation. Some people believe that this is man-made or a pharmaceutical company made the virus." https://youtube.com/watch?v=LBuP40H4Tko… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBuP40H4Tko…

Video Transcript AI Summary
There is misinformation circulating about the origin of the virus, with some people believing it is manmade. This misinformation can lead to violations and even deaths. It is important to train healthcare workers to ensure they have accurate information to share with the public. Telecommunication companies should be involved in providing access to reliable communication channels. Trusted sources should flood the zone with information, including community leaders and health workers, to amplify the message. Constant communication is necessary to address the vacuum created by disinformation. It is crucial to respond quickly to false information that hampers efforts to address the pandemic.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: More cases in China, and also, my staff told me, that before there's misinformation, and, there are some belief. People believe, you know, this is a manmade, some pharmaceutical company made the virus. So, there are some violations, and even, you know, death is because of this misinformation. As from like the citizen, and I don't know if Steve agree with me, when you are doing the field work, and you like to do some so called TOT, training of trainers. So, we really need to train the health workers. We try to have care workers, they are access to the places, to the public. So make sure they got the right information. So not necessarily, you know, sometimes the health Care workers, they know something, but they if they are not well trained, they might give the wrong information, but also they might say something, oh, I don't know. Even I don't know, that could hurt. So when I remember, really, that's such a situation reminded me. When I was in early on, when I was interviewed by radio, the national radio, I was asked by 1 audience to say, okay, we believe Ebola, what's manmade, is transported from somewhere. So this is I think this is very important. We do the TOT. So make sure the healthcare workers have the right information. Okay, thank you. Herveal? I very Speaker 1: much agree with that. So, I I mean, I think I agree with a lot of what's been said. I'd just add to it maybe by saying that I think one of the things we want to do is work with telecommunication companies [SPEAKER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE:] To actually ensure that everybody has access to the kind of communications that we're interested in providing because that's going to be critical for dealing with, obviously, [SPEAKER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE:] The explosion of the disease. And, and then another issue, I suppose, is just through that, if you have a trusted source, I believe in the idea that we shouldn't be trying to, control communication, but rather flood the zone in a sense with a trusted source That then is influential community leaders as well as health workers, as Brad noted, and others on these issues in order to try to amplify the message that's coming through. And I think Tim is absolutely right. I certainly seen the value of communicating constantly on these issues so as to continue To deal with, sort of the vacuum that can be created in this circumstance, but then also with the comments made about The fact that for all of the disinformation that will be put out, it's gonna be important to actually have a response to those questions and to those concerns, as Steven said, and, and I understand from staff that actually there are also, intelligence sources identifying multiple foreign disinformation campaigns And so on. But it's all a part of a larger piece, which is to say that every time there is something that comes out that is in fact false information that is starting to actually hamper our ability To address the pandemic, then we need to be able to respond quickly to it.

@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat

Highlights on censoring mis- and disinformation from Event 201, a 3.5-hour pandemic tabletop exercise held in Oct. 2019 by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/event201/ https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/event201/

Video Transcript AI Summary
There is a discussion about the control of information and how false information can be challenged. Social media platforms are urged to take responsibility and partner with scientific and health communities to provide accurate information. The idea of government enforcement against fake news is also mentioned. Shutting down information is seen as impractical, and instead, flooding accurate information and relying on trusted sources are suggested strategies. The video then shifts to a description of a past pandemic, where millions of people died, the global economy suffered, and societal impacts were long-lasting.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How much control of information should there be? And by whom? And how can false information be effectively challenged? The the the the the the the the Speaker 1: the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the Communication with all healthcare facilities where these patients are being treated so that there is a mass panic. Speaker 2: We're at a moment where the social media platforms have to Step forward and recognize the moment to assert that they're a technology platform and not a broadcaster is over. They in fact have to be a participant in broadcasting accurate information and partnering with the scientific and health communities to Counterweight if not flood the zone of accurate information because to try to put the genie back in the bottle of the misinformation and disinformation is nigh impossible. Speaker 3: One thing we haven't spoken about and I'm wondering whether it's time to talk about this is, a step up from the part of the government's on enforcement actions against fake news. Speaker 4: I personally do not believe that trying to shut things down in terms of information is either practical or desirable And we do have I think a couple of strategies that are available to us one of which is the flood strategy second of which is relying and informing and equipping Trusted, sources of information with the fact so they can then pass it on. But we also need To actually think about a technological answer to this. Speaker 5: The outcome of the CAPS pandemic in event two zero one was catastrophic. 65,000,000 people died in the 1st 18 months. The outbreak was Small at first and initially seemed controllable, but then it started spreading in densely crowded and impoverished neighborhoods of megacities. From that point on, the spread of the disease was explosive. Within 6 months, cases were occurring in nearly every country. The global economy was in a freefall. The GDP down 11%. Stock markets around the world Plummeted between 20 40% and headed into a downward cycle of fear and low expectation. Businesses were not borrowing. Banks were not lending. Everyone was just hoping to hunker down and weather the storm. Economists say the economic turmoil caused by such a pandemic will last for years, perhaps a decade. The societal impacts, The loss of faith in government, the distrust of news, and the breakdown of social cohesion could last even longer.
Event 201 Pandemic Tabletop Exercise | Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. centerforhealthsecurity.org
TomFitton
Posted - June 4, 2023 at 2:01 AM
Saved - June 4, 2023 at 3:29 AM

@TomFitton - Tom Fitton

Fauci did it. We have the documents on his agency funding of mutant coronavirus -- Gain of Function, 101. Here are the receipts: https://judicialwatch.org/coronavirus-mutants/ https://judicialwatch.org/coronavirus-mutants/

Video Transcript AI Summary
The 552-page records reveal that the United States government, particularly the Fauci Agency and the National Institutes for Health, funded gain of function research on mutants. This information is significant as it serves as evidence of their knowledge and involvement in such research.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 552 pages of records, and our investigators comb through them. And they're astonishing, because they provide the smoking gun information, showing that the United States government, specifically, the Fauci Agency, the National Institutes For Health, knowingly funded gain of function research into what they called mutants.
Judicial Watch: Records Show Funding for EcoHealth/Wuhan Institute Research to Create Coronavirus ‘Mutants’ - Judicial Watch (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received 552 pages of records from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which include the initial grant application and annual reports to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from EcoHealth Alliance, describing the aim of its work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China to create mutant viruses “to better predict the capacity of our CoVs [coronaviruses] to infect people.” judicialwatch.org
PierreKory
Posted - June 18, 2023 at 5:30 PM
Saved - June 18, 2023 at 7:04 PM

@PierreKory - Pierre Kory, MD MPA

AMD just learned why Hotez will never debate anyone—he did some of the GoF experiments that created COVID (while taking tons of money to develop a vaccine for a lab leak)! This article shows just who Hotez is and how we can deal with people like him. https://amidwesterndoctor.beehiiv.com/p/peter-hotezs-war-science

Peter Hotez's War Against Science Compassionate approaches for dealing with those who promote falsehoods and silence the truth. amidwesterndoctor.beehiiv.com
kacdnp91
Posted - July 14, 2023 at 10:48 AM
Saved - December 2, 2023 at 5:38 AM

@kacdnp91 - Kelly DNP🐭Functional/Integrative Med

They all knew. UNC Baric chimeric prototype Wuhan lab 2015 https://t.co/Ksl9SYGvgC

Jikkyleaks
Posted - July 22, 2023 at 10:32 AM
Saved - March 28, 2024 at 12:27 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
In a series of posts, the author discusses previously unreleased emails related to the COVID-19 pandemic. They question who the "on high" authority mentioned in the emails could be and suggest various possibilities. The author also mentions the involvement of individuals like Eddie Holmes, Fauci, and others in virology. They claim that Holmes is running the show and speculate about a cover-up. The author shares images from the document and provides updates on the situation. They also mention the exclusion of Ron Fouchier from the author list of a paper and suggest a possible lie to cover up gain-of-function research. The author concludes by stating that Holmes and Lipkin were aware of the research and the alleged cover-up.

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

BAT BOOM EDDIE 💥💥💥💥 In the @COVIDSelect document released last week there were embedded images containing previously unreleased emails. One of them blows this whole thing open, and it's from #BatBumEddie Holmes. "Pressure from on high". WHO THE HELL IS THAT?

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

It's not possible that Eddie Holmes (affiliated with EcoHealth, Fudan university and the CCP) could have anybody "on high" outside of this group. They were literally the high priests of virology. Fauci, Rambaut, Andersen, Bedford, Farrar. There were no higher authorities.

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

The only "on high" that there could have been were: Donald Trump Xi Jinping Boris Johnson Scott Morrison or Peter Daszak, who was - according to @AGHuff - the virological ambassador of the CIA. or Somebody who REALLY matters. So who the hell was it?

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

@COVIDSelect @AGHuff It doesn't matter of course. This single email tells you why @edwardcholmes refused multiple FOI requests to the University of Sydney and why he was instructed to retain his emails. He is the person running the show, on behalf of the "on high" priest. Or priestess.

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

@COVIDSelect @AGHuff @edwardcholmes And when #BatBumEddie's cover story failed, his buddy #WuhanDom was brought in to continue the lie. https://theconversation.com/i-was-the-australian-doctor-on-the-whos-covid-19-mission-to-china-heres-what-we-found-about-the-origins-of-the-coronavirus-155554

I was the Australian doctor on the WHO’s COVID-19 mission to China. Here’s what we found about the origins of the coronavirus Much has been said of the politics surrounding the mission to investigate the viral origins of COVID-19. So it’s easy to forget that behind these investigations are real people. theconversation.com

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

@COVIDSelect @AGHuff @edwardcholmes Whoever on the @COVIDSelect it was that made the PDF forgot that Acrobat only performs a virtual crop of embedded images. So the full images remained in the document. In the following tweets I will be posting all the uncovered images.

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

@COVIDSelect @AGHuff @edwardcholmes p6-9

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

@COVIDSelect @AGHuff @edwardcholmes p11-18

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

@COVIDSelect @AGHuff @edwardcholmes p25-28

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

@COVIDSelect @AGHuff @edwardcholmes p32-38

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

@COVIDSelect @AGHuff @edwardcholmes p41-43

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

@COVIDSelect @AGHuff @edwardcholmes p44-51

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

@COVIDSelect @AGHuff @edwardcholmes @Daoyu15 @TonyNikolic10 @carl_jurassic @chrismartenson @Fynnderella1 And of course the inevitable hashtag... #BatBumGate

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

And if you need the original document it is hosted here. https://t.me/jikkyleaks/883

Jikkyleaks archive Original COVID select committee document with embedded #BatBumGate emails t.me

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

UPDATE https://t.co/ASfj0faSUy

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

More #BatBumGate Why was Ron Fouchier not on the author list of "Proximal Origins"? Because he wouldn't play ball with @edwardcholmes and @arambaut. Here hoping the "pangolin story" would save them because they couldn't make the lie work from a scientific perspective. https://t.co/fEqUWnREzm

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

Not on the authors list of a paper they clearly co-authored or (unduly) influenced: ▶Ron Fouchier ▶Trevor Bedford ▶Anthony Fauci ▶Jeremy Farrar ▶Marion Koopmans ▶Patrick Vallance ▶Francis Collins ▶Mike Ferguson Why? @CharlesRixey @COVIDSelect #ProximalOrigins

@Jikkyleaks - Jikkyleaks 🐭

Not only did Holmes and Lipkin know that GOF research was going on, but they knew #ProximalOrigins was a lie to cover it up. "We should add [Ian] as an author. Safety in numbers... he is involved in the GOF" Lipkin was funded by the NIH. @COVIDSelect

Spiro_Ghost
Posted - August 4, 2023 at 5:29 PM
Saved - August 5, 2023 at 5:50 AM

@Spiro_Ghost - Spiro

Are You STILL Sticking With The Bat Soup / Wet Market Theory? Because Here You Are on Video Admitting You Received Funding From Fauci To Work on Coronaviruses In China... And Another Video Admitting You Did Gain of Function 'Research' With Coronaviruses...

Video Transcript AI Summary
In South America and Southeast Asia, there are many bat species carrying unknown viruses, making them potential sources of future pandemics. The USAID EPT predict program and NIAID funding allowed researchers to predict and prepare for emergencies like the SARS outbreak. They discovered that SARS-like viruses originate from bats in China, with some being almost identical to SARS. Surveillance of bat hunters and nearby residents revealed the potential for spillover into human populations. While there are no vaccines or antivirals for these diverse coronaviruses, scientists can manipulate them in the lab by studying their spike proteins. This knowledge can aid in the development of better vaccines and therapeutics. However, predicting and anticipating pandemics does not guarantee prevention.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So if you wanna find the next pandemic, you should do a lot of work in South America, where there are lots of bat species, harboring lots of unknown viruses. You should also do a lot of work in Southeast Asia. So this becomes actually useful. So working with the USAID EPT predict program And funding through NIAID to work on coronavirus in China, we were able to test out this idea of predicting what the next emergencies might be. So should all heard of SARS. We know that SARS is carried by civets. Well, actually, the host of SARS like viruses, the viruses that see, SARS coronavirus emerge from our bats. We discovered this a few years ago, published it. We found about 5 different viruses, you can see these ones in green. So we thought, okay, we've got an interesting set of viruses. It seems to be the origin of SARS. They're found in bats in China. It's a nice paper. We published it, I think, in in Science. And, you know, it was quite interesting. But then, predict came along, the USAID program, to discover new viruses in wildlife. And we worked in China to go out and do surveillance in other bat species shouldn't say, how many other SARS like viruses are there? Is this something even close to SARS? And sure enough, there was. And we've now found a very large diversity see of SARS like coronaviruses. Some are almost identical to SARS. In fact, there's 1 cave in Yunnan province That has every genetic element of the SARS Coronavirus circulating in bats. And, there are people out there who are hunting bats seen that cave, eating them, people live close by. And we're now doing surveillance of the people and we find using 9 funding that actually there is potential of spillover into those speak. We're starting to see some worrying signs in that part of the world. Speaker 1: But if you you're saying these are diverse Coronaviruses, and you can't vaccinate against them. There are no antivirals. What what do we what do we do? Speaker 0: Well, so I I think that Coronavirus is a pretty good I mean, urophrologists, you know all these stuff. But they you can, manipulate them in the lab pretty easily. It's just Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, And we work with Ralph Barrick at UNC to do this. Insert into backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab. So you can should get more predictive when you find a sequence. You've got this diversity. Now, the logical progression for vaccines is, If you're going to develop a vaccine for SARS, people are going to use, you know, pandemic SARS. Yeah. Sure. Sure. But let's try and insert some of these other related and get a better vaccine. Speaker 1: And I guess also knowledge of what's there. If you see something emerging, you'd give it a head start on making A vaccine or Speaker 0: a therapeutic? That's true. And better knowledge of where they are as well, so you can should put your money into these clinics that matter. And that's one of the big things that we've been trying to push. There's a lot of, The word predict or the word, you know, the, anticipate, forecasting pandemics, it it doesn't mean you can stop them. That's the problem.
WarClandestine
Posted - August 11, 2023 at 3:38 PM
Saved - August 12, 2023 at 6:56 AM

@WarClandestine - Clandestine

Holy shit US Congressman @RonJohnsonWI alleges that covid was “pre-planned by an elite group of people. Event 201”. In reference to the John’s Hopkins Center tabletop exercise with the WEF and the Gates Foundation. Pretty substantial allegations!

Video Transcript AI Summary
The government's collaboration with social media to spread falsehoods and suppress truth is deeply troubling. The existence of alternative COVID treatments and vaccine side effects should have been made known to the American people. This manipulation was preplanned by a select group, as seen in Event 201 before the pandemic. Sadly, few in Congress acknowledge this, instead pushing for vaccines without considering potential harm. We face a formidable opposition, but courageous reporters like Maria and John Solomon can help expose the truth against mainstream media and the prevailing narrative. Americans must awaken to the dangerous path we are on, with an elite group gradually seizing control through government expansion and global organizations like the WHO. Our sovereignty is at risk, and awareness is crucial.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's just extraordinary to me that, you know, the government was working with social media to amplify lies and suppress truth and has been doing so repeatedly. Why couldn't the American people know that, you know, there were other alternatives to treat COVID. Why can't the American people know that there were side effects with the vaccine? Speaker 1: This was all preplanned By an elite group of people. That's what I'm talking about. Event 201 that occurred in late 2019 prior to the rest of us knowing about this pandemic. Again, yeah. This is very concerning in terms of what has happened, what is happening, what continues to be planned for our Loss of freedom. Again, it needs to be exposed. But unfortunately, there are very few people even in congress that really take a look at this. They they all push the vaccine. They don't wanna, you know, be be made aware of the fact that the vaccines might have caused injuries, might have caused death. But, So so many people just simply don't want to admit they were wrong, and they're gonna do everything they can to make sure that they're not proven wrong. We're up against a very powerful group of people here, Maria. But, you know, fortunately, you say, what can we do? Well, you know, we do have reporters like yourself, Like John Solomon, other people who have the the courage to report the truth against the mainstream media and against the narrative. But that's the only way this is gonna be solved, is we need the Truth to be exposed. We need more Americans to listen to the truth, to be exposed to the truth, to pull their heads out in the sand, quite honestly, open up their eyes and understand has happened to this country? We are going down a very dangerous path, but as a path is being laid out and planned by an elite group of people that want to take total control over our lives, and that's what they're doing bit by bit. They do it by increasing mass massive government spending, Increase the size of government, takeover of the WHO, these amendments that are coming up, that are gonna be voted on in 2024, and the WHO are frightening. And they they really risked taking away all of our sovereignty, but people have to wake up awaken to the dangers of the moment.
bambkb
Posted - September 17, 2023 at 3:43 PM
Saved - September 17, 2023 at 4:44 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Film producer Mikki Willis exposes the Covid and Vaccine fraud. Covid is a list of symptoms common to the Flu and Pneumonia. The Spike Protein in the Covid Vaccine activates and expedites these symptoms. The viral model for Covid was created in the US in 2002. In 2005, defense agencies recognized Covid as a bioweapon. In 2015, it was revealed that Covid was poised for human emergence to create a mass demand for vaccines. This information is public. The Covid hoax was caused by a fraudulent PCR test and media hysteria to push the vaccine. Why is the US military doing this?

@bambkb - Kevin - WE THE PEOPLE❤️ - DAD🦁 🐉 🔥

Film producer of the Plandemic series, Mikki Willis exposes the #Covid and #Vaccine fraud : “There is NO such thing as a #Covid virus!! #Covid is essentially a list of symptoms that are common to the #Flu and #Pneumonia” “It’s the SPIKE PROTEIN that’s getting people SICK!! The #Covid #Vaccine contains the #SpikeProtein that activates and expedites the SYMPTOMS that we now know as, #COVID19!!” “In 2002, the viral model that became #Covid19 was created at the University of North Carolina through the process of #GainOfFunction, right here in the United States ” “In 2005, two of our biggest defence agencies, MITRE and DARPA recognized #Covid as a #BIOWEAPON!!! Evidence of this can be found in the career summary of, Dr. Ralph Baric, who was a professor at the University of North Carolina!!” “In 2015, the proceedings of national academies of sciences published that #Covid was POISED for human emergence!! The stated reason for that : to create a MASS DEMAND for #Vaccines!!! All of this was paid for by Fauci’s NIAID/CIA and all the 100s of millions of dollars of cheques were cashed by, Ralph Baric” “This information is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, anyone can look this up!!!” The #Covid hoax was caused by a FRAUDULENT #PCR test and media hysteria, in order to convince you to take the #Vaccine Why is the USA military doing this to humanity?

Video Transcript AI Summary
There is no such thing as COVID-19 virus. COVID-19 is a list of symptoms similar to the flu and pneumonia. The spike protein in the virus makes people sick. The vaccine, or shot, contains this spike protein, which triggers the symptoms of COVID-19. It is important to understand this because there has been misinformation to confuse us and even doctors. The SARS-CoV-2 virus was created through gain of function research at the University of North Carolina in 2002. In 2005, Coronavirus was identified as a bioweapon. The goal was to create mass demand for vaccines. Anthony Fauci's NIAID funded this research, and the checks were cashed by Dr. Ralph Baric. Blaming China for the virus is dangerous, as it was a collaboration with China and traders within the US.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thing as COVID no such thing as COVID nineteen virus. COVID nineteen is essentially Speaker 1: a list of symptoms that are common to the flu and pneumonia. Both SARS CoV one and CoV two are what we're speaking about when we talk about the virus itself and they are like an envelope that delivers the message in the form of spike protein. It's that spike protein that makes people sick. The vaccine, which is It's not a vaccine, so let's call it the shot. It contains the spike protein that activates and expedites the development of the symptoms we've come to know as COVID nineteen. So it's super important that people people understand that because there it there have been a lot of stuff that's been planted to confuse us, to confuse doctors. And so we've Really, you know, take a lot of time to how do we articulate this so we actually understand? Once you understand that, then it becomes clear that In 2002, the viral model that that became SARS CoV-two was created through the process of gain of function at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill right here in the US. In 2005, during an event sponsored by 2 of our biggest defense agencies, DARPA and MITRE, Coronavirus was identified as a bioweapon. Evidence of this can be found within the career summary of doctor Ralph Barrick who is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Within his career summary, synthetic coronavirus is listed next to the heading biological warfare enabling technologies. In 2015, the proceedings of National Academy of Sciences published that SARS CoV 2 was poised for human emergence. That the stated reason for that was to create, in their words, at mass demand for vaccines. All of the above was paid for by Anthony Fauci's NIAID and every check totaling 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars was cashed by doctor Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There's a that that that's all public domain information that people can look at. And so when you understand that, this whole idea of the debate about is whether it's It it it's it's it was manipulated in the lab. It's as clear as it can be. In North Carolina? In North Carolina. And so this idea, which be Very dangerous that we're trying to blame it all on China and drive us to some kind of a world war is the very, very dangerous idea when indeed It was in a collaboration with China and all the traders within our own nation who think that somehow they're gonna remain in power should they continue to advance China's power over the US. It's it's it's kind of silly. No such thing as COVID
JoshWalkos
Posted - October 16, 2023 at 3:00 AM
Saved - October 16, 2023 at 7:56 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2007, Ralph Baric presented groundbreaking research on creating a more dangerous SARS virus. Yet, the prevailing narrative blames a bat and pangolin at a wet market. Dismissing Baric's expertise seems unwise. UNC Chapel-Hill's renowned researcher deserves attention.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Ralph Baric & His Frankenstein Virus The year is 2007 and Ralph Baric of UNC Chapel-Hill is giving a presentation on the new and exciting science behind synthetically creating the SARS virus and making it more pathogenic. However you are supposed to believe a bat screwed a pangolin that ended up at a wet market. So you should probably completely dismiss this detailed presentation by the world’s most cited coronavirus researcher.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Ralph Barrick from the University of North Carolina discusses synthetic genomics of SARS in this video. He explains the structure and genome organization of the SARS coronavirus and its various proteins. Barrick also discusses the use of synthetic genomics as a platform to control emerging infectious diseases and develop vaccines. He presents the results of experiments involving the synthesis of different SARS virus strains and their ability to infect human airway cells. Barrick also discusses the use of deoptimized codons to attenuate SARS pathogenesis and the rewiring of SARS coronavirus transcription circuits to further attenuate viral pathogenesis. He concludes by highlighting the potential of synthetic genomics and universal attenuation schemes to rapidly produce candidate live virus vaccines for emerging pathogens.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're going to have here from Ralph Barrick, from the University of North Carolina who's going to tell us about synthetic genomics of SARS. So I also would like to thank the organizers for inviting me to talk. It's been a wonderful venue and a real pleasure to be here and capture some new ideas that can be tried out on viruses. So the general themes that I'm going to talk about today are basic, short introduction into, SARS biology, Talk about the synthetic resurrection and reconstruction of a variety of zoonotic SARS viruses and their applications in therapeutics and vaccine design. I'll also touch on codon de optimization as a way to attenuate SARS pathogenesis but I certainly haven't gone to the depth of studies that Eckert's group has done. And then I'll talk about rewiring SARS coronavirus transcription circuits as a way, universal strategy, to attenuate viral pathogenesis. So this is a schematic diagram of the SARS coronavirus particle. It's about a 100 nanometers in diameter. It contains a Helical nucleocapsid inside. It contains a single stranded plus polarity RNA genome. This nucleocapsid structure is surrounded by a lipid bilayer It contains several viral glycoprotein spikes. The important ones for today's talk include the M glycoprotein and the E protein, which are shown right here. These proteins are absolutely essential for maturation and release and the production of virus particles, So keep that in mind. The 2nd viral protein of interest for today's talk is the Escalica protein gene, as shown right here, which gives the virus its unique appearance from the electron microscope. It's, the viral attachment protein that binds to the receptor to mediate docking and entry into the cells. It's involved it regulates tissue tropism, species specificity. It contains a large number of important neutralizing epitopes, and it's the principal component of Now, if you tear this virus particle apart and look at the viral genomic positive stranded RNA, it's about 30,000 base pairs in length. They're the largest plus polarity RNA genomes in nature. The first 20,000 base pairs are so encoded to replicate proteins whose job it is to replicate the genome and express sub genomic messenger RNA that encode these downstream open reading frames. So the genome organization of coronas are quite different than polioviruses, which you've just heard about. Now, these downstream morphs encode Structural genes like the SEM and nucleocapsid protein that I just mentioned that were present in the Vireon and a variety of accessory or To get these expressed in cells, you find a nested set of sub genomic messenger RNA arranged from the three prime end of the genome so that all the sequences in the smallest message are in the next largest message and so on and so forth. This organization allows different open reading frames to be placed at the 5 prime ends of different messenger RNAs So they can be efficiently translated and expressed themselves. Now the transcription strategy of these viruses are unique And in fact, each messenger RNA contains a leader sequence of about 70 nucleotides shown here as these little blue boxes that is derived from the 5 prime end of the genome. So these are discontinuous stretches of RNA that are joined during transcription And these little red box elements right here are absolutely essential for mediating the joining of these 2 sequences. This will become very important later on in the talk so keep the concept of TRS elements, little red box elements, As being essential for regulation of messenger RNA synthesis. Now, we'll talk about synthetic genomics in the context Of a platform to control emerging infectious diseases. If you think about emerging viruses, they have tremendous potential to cause high morbidity and mortality And severe economic hardship. Good examples are HIV, the 1918 flu, SARS coronavirus, H5N1, chikungunya virus probably most recently. Now it's clear that zoonotic introductions are increasing and a large number of these viruses have large reservoir pools of animal strains Like SARS and H5 that are maintained as sort of heterogeneous swarms of pools of viruses of which someone may actually emerge in the future to cause endemic disease in humans. This raises a conundrum in terms of how do you protect the public health against a future occurrence that is hard to predict, How do you develop drugs and therapeutics against an unknown from this heterogeneous swarm of variant strains that will actually work against the unknown that will emerge in the future? How do you target your scarce resources? And so we think platform technologies like synthetic biology, phylogenomic, structure modeling, high throughput sequencing really will provide a platform and our goal is to use SARS coronavirus and its large pool of zoonotic viruses as the model Develop rapid response platforms to protect against this broader heterogeneous pool of variants. We also would like to develop that would attenuate all family members so that you could rapidly develop vaccines for the public, overall public health. Now, a lot of beautiful work in Malik's lab as well as other labs here in China, worked out the basic molecular epidemiology of SARS coronavirus, the virus originated most likely in bats. It probably jumped into civets or humans and in that context, set up a transmission cycle between and raccoon dogs and marketplaces and humans, who frequented those marketplaces. Over time, it selected for strains that were more efficient at infecting cells in recognizing the human ACE2 receptor for docking and entry leading to the 20,022,003 epidemic Which caused about 8,000 cases and 800 deaths. Now, if you do phylogenetic analysis of the isolates that were sequenced, You find they fall into 2 broad categories. These, this line indicates the strains underneath that line were identified during the epidemic and you have early phase isolates, primarily of January 2003, after a variety of super spreading events. You had middle phase isolates shown here by this group of isolates, and then following an infected physician who came to Hong Kong And resulted in a super spreading event that transmitted the virus to the rest of the world. These were considered late phase isolates. A vast pool of heterogeneous zoonotic strains, however, reside up here. Most of these, or in fact, none of these, were ever actually successfully cultured. They We exist as sequence signatures in silico. So, one of the immediate goals that we became interested in During the outbreak was to develop a platform of viruses that captured the heterogeneity that exists within the family of viruses. And to do that, we identified sort of representative strains, for example, early phase isolate, or VONI, we had in the lab. Middle phase isolates were CHKW1, GZ02, those are early phase isolate, animal isolates like from civets, FC16, and HCFC6 One hundred and three, a raccoon dog isolate which is shown down here, a sporadic 2004 human case, GDO3, and a couple of other viruses sequences were identified as good candidates that would capture all the diversity that had been identified within the sequence pool. This shows the sequence that is the sequence variation within the spike glycoprotein. If it's a blue box amino acid, that's an animal associated residue. Early phase changes are shown here in yellow, middle phase changes shown in orange, and late phase changes shown in red. In addition, in 2004, there are a variety of other animal strains as sporadic human cases were identified that had additional variations shown here in white. It's interesting as much of the variation actually falls within residues or regions that neutralizing epitopes were identified. And in fact, although the number of residues that are changed aren't that great, you can actually reduce neutralization titers by about 20 fold with some of these variants. Now importantly, Farzan's group showed that the 2 key changes during the epidemic were this lysine to asparagine change at and a serine three-nine change at 487 that drove animal adaptation to human strain. And so, keep that in mind. So without access to this pool of strains, we decided to synthesize basically A portfolio of spike glycoprotein genes of about 4 kV each and then use a molecular clone For the urbani epidemic strain that we build in the lab, basically replacing the urbani spike 1 at a time with these various spike like proteins from different phases of the epidemic. Now, all of these viruses were viable except for the SC 16 variant. This actually can't recognize the human ACE receptor, so it didn't grow, Until we made mouse cells that constitutively expressed the civetase 2 receptor and once we did that, this virus could grow well. Before we had those cells, Since Farzan had identified this 4/79 change as the key residue change, we actually build a recombinant virus with that change and that virus could be cultured. Interestingly enough, 2 of these, the GZ02 and the HCFC 6103 viruses, Actually cause lethal infection in aged animals. They produce an ARDS like disease. SARS caused ARDS in humans, predominantly in aged populations. That's acute respiratory distress syndrome. It's a clinically devastating end stage lung disease with about a 50% mortality rate. So these are actually some of the first real good animal models for SARS infection. Now, These viruses replicate the human epidemic strains replicate efficiently in human airway epithelial cultures. These are cultures that are derived from cells lining the trachea of transplant Plantations, you can actually culture them on liquid air interfaces and they take on the architecture of the human airway. SARS, Coronavirus, all the epidemic strains actually like to infect ciliated cells and these epidemic strains replicate very efficiently. The animal strains, however, do not. And this is just some fluorescent microscope images showing the cilia Of the ciliated cells with expression of the SARS nucleocapsid protein from an epidemic strain on the ciliated cells And the zoonotic strains, SC16 and the HCSC 16103, can't replicate. However, If you passage these viruses on human airway cells and culture, you can actually rapidly select out variants that can replicate efficiently in human airways. Those viruses actually do not contain the mutations that would be had been predicted by Mike Farzan as being, Which were clearly responsible for the 20,022,003 epidemic. Rather, we saw changes At positions 442 and 472 and 479 that mediated the cross species transmission event. So in reality, we've done this a couple of times. There's actually several pathways by which the zoonotic SARS could actually adapt and recognize the human ACE receptor. What's interesting is that the epidemic strains actually efficiently use both the human ACE receptor and the civet ACE receptor. When we in vitro select for human adaptive strains on human airway culture, they actually lose the ability to recognize the civet receptors. What this data suggests to us actually is that SARS had existed in a transmission cycle between humans and civets actually probably several years prior to the 20,022,003 epidemic, allowing the virus to gain the capacity to recognize both receptors. Okay. So those are the easy ones to do. Oh, the application. So now that we had a large panel of variant viruses, we could use those for therapeutic testing over vaccines. In this case, I'm going to show you an example of about 30 human monoclonal antibodies that were derived by Antonio Lanza Vecchia. If you take those 30 monoclonals and test their ability to neutralize all the strains that we've made in the laboratory, you find some that only neutralize your body, Some that neutralize all human strains, some that neutralize some civets but not all the animal strains, but you do end up with four antibodies that neutralize all strains that we have in our portfolio including the ones that were in vitro adapted on human airway cultures. Importantly, if you select for escape mutants, these antibodies select for changes in different locations of the receptor binding domain and in fact, 3 of them actually don't overlap. Yes 109, the 230 and the 227 Don't overlap and so these represent good therapeutic cocktails that would capture most of the diversity that exists in SARS and probably work in potential patients that would be infected during future epidemics, and these also actually protect young and aged animals from lethal infection. Was a paper published by Barry Rock in a couple of papers. Now, the civet and the raccoon dog strains were the easy ones. The true reservoir for SARS is within bat population. So, if you look at a phylogenetic tree, The human strains are shown here in red, the civet strains, raccoon dog strains are shown in purple, but the real variation is within the bat strains. The reservoir, it's thought that these were probably the reservoir for the emergence of the virus. Now, these are about 80% to 90% identical to SARS. They can't be cultured and they exist as sequence signatures in silico. There's also extensive variation through the replicase and elsewhere in the genome, so when we decided we were going to synthetically resurrect the entire virus. Now, before we start it, it's important to note this is a cryo EM reconstruction of the SARS glycoprotein spike. Notice that there are 3 receptor binding domains shown here in, with bubbles that actually engage the ACE2 receptor. If look at the sequence, the receptor binding shown here in yellow, there's a large amount of sequence variation, especially Within the contact interface residues that engage the human ACE receptor. And in fact, there's only 4 of 13 contact interface residues that are retained in these fat strains, So we don't actually think it's going to use the human ACE receptor to get into cells. In fact, we think we're going to have a tough time culturing this virus. Now, it's important to note that the SARS RBD that was identified has been proposed by a couple of groups it may have been introduced by recombination processes from unknown strains that haven't yet been identified and that that led to the initial Cross species transmission events. Now, to get back to the issue of in silico sequences, they actually represent hypothetical viruses. Most synthetic viruses that have been resurrected to this point, actually we knew that the sequence was infectious. In this case, we actually don't know which of the sequences in GenBank were infectious, if any. So, to do that, with an error rate in GenBank ranging About 1 to 500 to 1 to 10000, depending on who did the sequence. We had to do extensive bioinformatics analysis to identify what we thought was the likely consensus sequence. None of the strains that we actually saw we thought were completely correct. Some of them had deletions in the sequence at the 5 prime end, so we had to Make some educated guess. The basic approach that we build coronaviruses using our molecular clone is 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 endonucleate sites. These are class 2S restriction enzymes that recognize a palindromic sequence But cut and leave asymmetric ends. This allows, since these ends are asymmetric, They actually will not concatemorize 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 1 3 nucleotide overhang and the 5 prime 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 Tinkertoys. Now, the synthetic bat genome that we made using Blue Heron and Bio Basic Basically, it's interchangeable with the urbionic 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 Cloned, we built the full on c DNA, we drove transcripts, electropated that into cells and we can see evidence of replication by the synthesis of sub genomic messenger RNA, But we couldn't culture the virus and we couldn't pass it from cell to cell. 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, Yerboni epidemic receptor binding domain, that's 2 10 amino acids in length, and dropped that into the bat genome backbone, producing a chimera with the receptor binding domain driven from the epidemic strains. 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 box is the Serbani wild type and the white Circles are open. Open symbols are the bat viruses. You can see they replicate exactly as good as the urbani epidemic strain At low and high multiplicities of infection, they recognize the human ACE2 receptor in DVT cells at low and high multiplicity infections and grow just like the epidemic strains and they also retain the ability to use the cividase two receptor, just like the epidemic strains at low and high multiplicity. They also are capable of infecting human airway epithelial cultures and targeting ciliated cells just like the epidemic strain and they grow to similar titer. Now, if you make anisura just against the bat spike like a protein and use that anti sera to target the SARS wild type virus, it will not neutralize that virus. So clearly, Antisera and vaccines derived against epidemic strains are not going to protect against the bat strain. If you use that same sera against the RBD chimeric virus, You can neutralize it indicating that there are neutralizing episodes that exist outside the RBDs and if you take the human monoclonals that target the epidemic train RBDs, you can neutralize these viruses quite efficiently. So, in summary, Certainly, synthetic genomics and reverse genetics can be a platform to recover uncultivatable zoonotic precursors, can be used to synthesize this is actually the largest synthetic virus to date. It's going to be a short record, but it is a record. And you can use it now to identify broad spectrum antivirals and vaccines. Clearly, the RBDs are interchangeable. This is with an 89% amino acid identity within the spike. It's the minimal domain required to host shift coronaviruses. What is the phylogenetic limits to RBD interchange? We actually don't know. Clearly, the human monoclonal and vaccines targeting the SARS RBD would provide protective immunity against natural isolates that emerge by recombinatorial processes in the future or, unfortunately, by deliberate design. Now, I want to move to the next part of the talk, which is synthetic de optimization schemes to attenuate SARS coronavirus pathogenesis. This is the maturation pathway for how SARS gets out of the cell. The nucleocapsids align underneath an intermediate compartment in the rough ER Golgi Where the M glycoprotein and the E protein are expressed and then these the M and the E protein actually drive the assembly of virions, Which then mature in the Golgi and then are released in the cell and secretory vesicles, which fuse with the plasma membrane. Now, if you knock out E protein expression, this pathway is still viable but you reduce virus yields by about 2 logs And if you knock out the M glycoprotein expression or M and A together, you don't make any virus progeny. So, our approach to deoptimize SARS, coronavirus, The SARS coronavirus genome and to attenuate pathogenesis focused primarily on the E and the M glycoprotein genes, it's about 3 50 amino acids in total. The strategy we used was to progressively increase the number of de optimized codons. So we started with serine to produce a D SER virus, Serine Leucine Argines to produce the SLR deoptimized strain or a 5 set DSLRVA strain. Basically, the idea is you create a rheostat Well, you're increasing the number of de optimized residues and turning down expression of critical proteins needed for release. This is just a cartoon to show the amino acid sequence and the wild type virus sequence here, so like in the three set At the serine residue, which was optimal in the case of SARS, we just changed it to the most rare codon. If you look at the statistics here, in general, in the wild type E and M gene, there are about 39 Codons that are de optimized. In the one set, this increased to 52 the 3 set, 94 and the 5 set, 134. We also looked at the CPV values that Eckert just talked about. By these values, these are very minimally on the negative side of the codon pair usage. We also made random controls where we scrambled the codon usage much like Eckert did, retaining the wild type genome organization levelers and we made 3 set and the 5 set. This is, we made these in a mouse adapted background so they'd be pathogenic in mice. Mouse adapted growth is shown here In black, the blue lines show the serine de optimized viruses which also reach high titers by about 24 hours post infection. If you look at the 3 set mutants, however, you see about a log, log and a half reduction as compared to wild type. The 3 set randomized virus and the 5 set randomized virus in this case, I'm showing 2 different plaques in the 5 set randomized viruses grew just about like wild type. Just like Eckerd had reported, if you randomize the sequence, it really has very little impact on replication, but the optimization does affect Final yield. Now, in contrast to what Eckhard talked about, we actually de optimized in the middle of The downstream, which would potentially affect critical sequences that would affect RNA synthesis. We're very careful not to knock out any known Sequences, regulatory sequences that make messenger RNA. However, both the serine and the SLR mutant knocked out messenger RNA six expression, which can see right here, these actually were the messages, the genes, the messages that encode the genes that we de optimized And so, we actually found some evidence of long range protein RNA RNA interactions that are regulatory elements that we're trying to decipher. The 5 set de optimized strains showed no CPE in culture. If you develop primers to the 5 prime end of the genome and a leader sequence A primer down here in message 6 that encodes ORF 6. You can actually identify leader containing transcripts, which signatures of the messenger RNAs that are made during infected cells. In these cultures, you can see evidence of message 7, I'm sorry, message 6, 5, 4, and 3. This is at day 1 post transfection. Even by day 10, you can still see these transcripts infected Cells and they continue at that level with about 5 passages at 5 day intervals. But you actually never can actually see a virus. You can never plaque a virus. You can never actually show a virus as they're producing CPE. So, 5 set de optimizations really down regulated the production of infectious virions And the ability of these viruses to produce a significant amount of CPE. We can get around this probably by expressing helper cells that make the M gene, but we haven't done that yet. Now, we've looked at the pathogenesis of these isolates in mice. In this case, we're infecting with about 10 LD50. The mouse adapted Wild type current strain kills the animals in about 4 days from severe Pneumonia? The serine de optimized viruses actually are almost as pathogenic. There's a slight delay in loss of body mass, but all the animals eventually die. The SLR randomized viruses are also pathogenic but again, slightly less pathogenic than the wild type virus. There are some survivors but most animals die. The 5 set randomized viruses are again slightly less pathogenic, several animals die but there are survivors. But the 3 set de optimized viruses, none of the animals died. There was transient weight loss and the animals recovered. Virus titers within the mice were actually about the same with the wild type, the single de optimized codon, or the 3 set de optimized codon viruses. Okay. So, our data certainly is in agreement with Eckert's work that suggests that the optimization or strategies to Down regulate translation of viral genes could function as a universal approach to attenuate pathogenesis. In the case of coronas, we can identify novel transcription regulatory sequences that we didn't know exist, we're trying to decipher that, and these are likely very stable. However, in the case of coronaviruses and polioviruses, These are both susceptible to recombination repair and so we needed a strategy to get around that. And so, that is actually the last part of my talk, which should take a couple of minutes, in which we devise strategies to alter the transcription circuits of coronaviruses. Now, remember I said in the case Wild type SARS, these red box elements are absolutely essential to make sub genomic messenger RNAs. If the leader RNA red box element Can't communicate with these body red box elements, this virus is dead. So, we asked a couple of questions. Can we change the regulatory circuits? Can we redesign them? If we redesign them, will it act as a genetic trap that will cause lethal genome incompatibilities following recombination And what's the impact of the new circuits on pathogenesis? So we made 2 viruses called here CRG and CNG. In the case of the CRG virus, we took this red box element virus and converted it to a blue box element virus by introducing 3 changes at each of these positions. We also made a green box virus that had a completely different TRS regulatory element each of these locations. Now, these viruses were viable. They grow to 10 to the 7th. They're small plaquemines but they grow just as well as wild type and they produce all the appropriate sub genomic messenger RNAs and if you're interested, take a look at this paper. So, the answer is yes. Does it affect recombination repair? The answer is yes. That's also in that paper. I don't have time to go through the data. The idea is if a recombination event occurs, you end up with viruses with Rambled regulatory elements. So the red box elements can't communicate with the blue box elements and the virus dies. So, it's a genetic trap and it's triggered after recombination repair. So, how does this affect pathogenesis? Now, this is young 10 week old animals infected with the mouse adapted virus or wild type SARS. SARS just replicates in mice, it produces There's no disease in young animals. The mouse adapted strain causes a lethal disease within 4 days. We put the CRG in both backgrounds. In the wild type background, again, we see no weight loss in the animals or death. In the mouse adapted strain, when you introduce CRG regulatory the new regulatory network, you completely attenuate pathogenesis. You look at virus titers, however, virus titers in young animals are pretty much similar to the parent strain. It actually challenges a current sort of an existing paradigm in virology that to attenuate pathogenesis, you have to knock down replication and that's not the case We also looked in old animals. In the case of old animals, the MA15 virus kills the animals in about 3 days. SARS produces a transient weight loss of about 5% and the animals recover. In this case, CRG produced no weight loss compared to the SARS parent. In the lethal genetic genome backbone, we saw more extensive weight loss in the older animals. These are 1 year old animals, But all the animals recover. Occasionally, we lose an animal. And again, the virus replicated efficiently in these animals. So, we think that rewiring the regulatory network of a virus can attenuate pathogenesis because it function as a vaccine. So, we infected young animals and old animals with either the CRG parental virus, A alpha virus encoding the SARS spike or with PBS. We vaccinated them one time, waited 28 days and then challenged them with either a lethal homologous strain or a heterologous strain. You can see that with PBS, all the animals succumb by day 4. In the single vaccinated alpha virus vaccine encoding the SARS spike, you see morbidity, Very little mortality and the animals recover. There is a lot of virus and a lot of pathology in the lungs. The HCSC 6103 virus is only lethal and only produces disease These in old animals and young animals that just replicated, but not within the CRG. It did replicate some in the VRPS. Now, in the older animals, You can see that the vaccine cocktails via the alpha virus vaccines and PVS, the animals died with homologous and with the heterologous challenge And again, the live attenuated rewired viruses protected advanced both. So, in summary, transcription A circuit redesign can attenuate coronavirus pathogenesis. We actually think it should function as a universal platform To attenuate current and future emerging coronaviruses of the future. It also protects the ranks from combination repair mechanisms. You can blend this with codon D optimization, to really provide a good strategy to make live attenuated viruses. They protect young and old animals. Since SARS targeted elderly populations, this is currently the only vaccine that works in this population. Vaccines don't. And, I think the combination of synthetic genomics and family specific universal attenuation scheme Can achieve a goal of rapidly producing candidate live virus vaccines within about 2 weeks of identifying the sequence of the newly emerging pathogens. So the people that did this work included Boyd Yant, Barry Rocks, Damon Deming, Eric Donaldson, Tim Sheehan, And Matt Freeman. So thank you.
dezzie_rezzie
Posted - November 19, 2023 at 10:08 PM
Saved - November 20, 2023 at 2:23 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
In a comprehensive thread, I've gathered information on Event 201, including three planning documents from September to December 2019. The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security's annual report also mentions Event 201 and future plans. Notably, various global organizations convened in late 2019 to discuss pandemics, digital health, and emerging diseases. Avril Haines, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, was even involved in the Event 201 exercise. For more details, refer to the provided links and threads.

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

🗃️EVENT 201🗃️Thread-Folder🗃️ All the threads & info I have on Even t 201 will be added into this thread for quick reference. 🚨First, NEW documents on EVENT 201, actually 3 new documents and another globalist event they snuck past us in 2019.

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

1🧵I just found 3 planning documents for Event 201, all written between September and December 2019. One of the docs was for finances, one for modeling the event, the third was a call to action towards public private partnerships.

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

2🧵Through the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security[JHCHS]'s webpage I stumbled upon another document from the same time, 2019, their annual report, which even details Event 201, and plans moving to 2030.

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

3🧵Winter for JHCHS must be brutal; not only were they conducting Event 201 in Oct, but they were drafting the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board's "respiratory pandemic" report, & the CIA's In-q-tel "digital health" report in Dec & now I see another event, the Global Forum.

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

4🧵The Global Forum on Scientific Advances Important to the Biological Weapons Convention [BWC]-cosponsored by the UN's Office for Disarmament Affairs [BWC/UNODA] held Dec 3-6th 2019 w/ a conference by JHCHS on Dec 2 2019.

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

5🧵Does anyone else find it STRANGE that WEF, WHO, UN, Gates, JHCHS, the World Bank, the IDA, UNODA, & In-Q-Tel/CIA all met up in the last 3 months of 2019 SPECIFICALLY to plan/discuss Pandemics, Digital Health, and Emerging Disease?

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

Event 201 Threads https://x.com/dezzie_rezzie/status/1680097058802348032?s=20 https://x.com/dezzie_rezzie/status/1647120637729579009?s=20 https://x.com/dezzie_rezzie/status/1647120639134687235?s=20 https://x.com/dezzie_rezzie/status/1680097049595764737?s=20 https://x.com/dezzie_rezzie/status/1682423664396910593?s=20 https://x.com/dezzie_rezzie/status/1652114571958599680?s=20 https://x.com/dezzie_rezzie/status/1694115373157687432?s=20 Avril Haines: https://x.com/dezzie_rezzie/status/1647120641974317056?s=20 https://x.com/dezzie_rezzie/status/1646119638030229504?s=20 https://x.com/dezzie_rezzie/status/1652114584415744000?s=20

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

32🧵Let's not forget current ODNI & former CIA Avril Haines was an Event201 player. So, Wray's statement that the intel community has long suspected a lab leak..well no wonder.🧐 Receipts✌️: https://www.gpmb.org/docs/librariesprovider17/default-document-library/annual-reports/gpmb-2019-arbackgroundpaper6.pdf?sfvrsn=65067c53_3&download=true https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/tabletop-exercises/event-201-pandemic-tabletop-exercise https://www.gpmb.org/about-us#tab=tab_1

Event 201 | Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. centerforhealthsecurity.org
About us gpmb.org

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

2🧵The funding is much easier to track than their foreshadowing. So many instances of "coincidences" simply can't be. Ex: Event201's virus was called SADS a coronavirus from pigs & highly virulent. "SADS" is what they named post 💉 adults that died suddenly.

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

3🧵The planning wouldn't be suspicious IF it were just Event201, but it was also; Lock Step, Crimson Contagion, Dark Winter & I thought WEF's plan was w/E201 since they sponsored it but they did a planning scenario in early 2019 about a virus outbreak separately!

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

28🧵What if I told you that the team that created the Event 201 framework/script was the SAME team that wrote the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board's Sept 2019 "Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic" paper?

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

🚨🚨I’m not letting this go! 👇🏽👇🏽 This proves that Fauci was directly connected to Event 201, this PROVES Fauci anticipated a DELIBERATE RELEASE of a respiratory pathogen pandemic in SEPTEMBER of 2019. 🚨🚨

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

3🧵The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership w/the World Economic Forum & the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's Event 201 coronavirus global pandemic exercise just 85 days before Covid-19's genome was made public. That's "three."

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

11🧵 I reported in July, the SAME writers [Eric Toner] for Event 201 was the SAME as the authors of Fauci's GPMB's whitepaper of Sept 2019 titled"Preparedness for a..Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic" which highlights the scenario of a lab leak. Toner was the 2019 IQT guest member.🚨

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

5.🧵Why did the pandemic story change slightly, why do the full-on exercise practically twice? What's the rush? Avril Haines, DNI, attended Event 201, but JH's Health Security former Director is Tara O'Toole the risk-scenario puppetmaster.

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

2.🧵This document on pg 19 tarnishes & slanders reputable people unlike #AvrilHaines, who is a genuine degenerate. Not only did she run an Erotic cafe, but she was a "player" in Event 201. The intelligence community is the LAST group of ppl that should speak on disinformation.

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

9🧵Remember that "Three times," the Event 201 exercise? Well oddly enough, one of the "players" of the exercise was a woman named Avril Haines, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence. Those who follow my research or do there own already know this.

@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes

Links and Threads: 911media.de/pdfs/Center%20… New Event 201🧾: https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/event201-model-desc.pdf https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/finance-fact-sheet-191009.pdf https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/200117-publicprivatepandemiccalltoaction.pdf https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/2019-chs-annual-report-compressed.pdf https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/tabletop-exercises/event-201-pandemic-tabletop-exercise https://disarmament.unoda.org/biological-weapons/about/latest-information/news-from-2019/ https://indico.un.org/event/32645/ https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G19/337/88/PDF/G1933788.pdf?OpenElement https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=BWC%2FMSP%2F2019%2FINF.1&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False

Event 201 | Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. centerforhealthsecurity.org
News from 2019 – UNODA disarmament.unoda.org
Global Forum on Scientific Advances Important to the BWC (Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security) The Global Forum will facilitate engagement between leading scientists and States Parties delegations to raise awareness about emerging biological capabilities, expand the community dedicated to bolstering disarmament and non-proliferation norms, and explore solutions for biological weapons challenges. indico.un.org
bwc/msp/2019/inf.1 undocs.org
WashburneAlex
Posted - November 24, 2023 at 11:07 PM
Saved - November 25, 2023 at 1:02 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The mainstream media heavily relies on academics to certify scientific information. However, conflicts of interest arise when scientists involved in certifying the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 have advocated for risky research. Virologists like Christian Drosten and Ron Fouchier, along with others, have a contentious history in this regard. Additionally, influential figures like Fauci and Daszak are closely connected to proponents of gain-of-function (GOF) research. The media overlooks the reputational risks faced by those who proposed GOF research, while opponents face less scrutiny. It is crucial for the press to understand the high stakes involved in GOF research when reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic.

@WashburneAlex - Alex Washburne

The mainstream media rely heavily on academics with key credentials to certify scientific information. The challenge with the likely lab origin of SARS-Cov-2 is the proliferation of conflicts of interests in the scientists who are supposed to certify scientific info here. 1/

@mattwridley - Matt Ridley

It’s a powerful reminder of how utterly futile most mainstream media have been on the topic.

@WashburneAlex - Alex Washburne

For example, virologists like @profvrr, Christian Drosten, Ron Fouchier and others have centered themselves as "the experts", but they all have a very contentious history advocating in favor of the kinds of risky research believed to have led to SARS-CoV-2. 2/

@WashburneAlex - Alex Washburne

While Andersen, Holmes, and colleagues might have seemed independent as wildlife virologists, they quickly became roped into Fauci's inner circle in a conversation with Drosten, Fouchier, Lipkin, and other proponents of GOF research. 3/

@WashburneAlex - Alex Washburne

After the extremely public Proximal Origin paper, and the follow-up scientific duds of Worobey/Pekar, people like Andersen and Holmes have become more tightly networked with Daszak (close collaborator of the WIV) and GOF proponents (e.g. see them on Racaniello's show) 4/

@WashburneAlex - Alex Washburne

Angela Rasmussen, arguably the most toxic person on this topic with many followers, a woman who asserts herself frequently and combatively as the expert on this topic, was one of Racaniello's students and a strong proponent of GOF research. 5/

@WashburneAlex - Alex Washburne

Personally, I don't have a dog in the pre-COVID gain of function research debates. I kept my head low and my positions private. As an independent entrant to this field, I immediately notice that it is GOF proponents & funders who have circled the wagon on a zoonotic origin. 6/

@WashburneAlex - Alex Washburne

People who opposed GOF research pre-COVID don't have anywhere near the kinds of reputational risk as those who proposed the research that likely led to millions of deaths. The mainstream media has completely missed this critical piece of history behind the science. 7/

@WashburneAlex - Alex Washburne

When @natashaloder covered our article on BsaI/BsmBI maps in @TheEconomist, who did she get comments from but Andersen and Holmes? The one independent scientist (not later coerced by the Zoo Crew on Twitter) thought our finding was plausible. 8/

@WashburneAlex - Alex Washburne

To tell the story of the COVID-19 pandemic on mainstream media, the press first needs to understand just how historically high the stakes are for proponents of GOF research of concern. From Fauci to Fouchier, they were aware of these stakes since January 2020. 9/9

bambkb
Posted - January 24, 2024 at 5:35 PM
Saved - January 25, 2024 at 1:20 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
According to filmmaker Mikki Willis, there is no such thing as a Covid virus, but rather a list of symptoms common to the flu and pneumonia. He claims that the spike protein in the Covid vaccine is what causes illness, and that it was created through gain-of-function research in the US. Willis also suggests that in 2005, Covid was recognized as a bioweapon by defense agencies, and that its emergence was intended to create a demand for vaccines. He encourages people to research this information, as it is in the public domain.

@bambkb - Kevin - WE THE PEOPLE❤️ - DAD🦁 🐉 🔥

🚨🚨🚨Filmmaker and producer of the Plandemic series, Mikki Willis tells @KimIversenShow some facts about #Covid and the #Vaccine 🧐 : “There is NO such thing as a #Covid virus!! #Covid is essentially a list of symptoms that are common to the #Flu and #Pneumonia” “It’s the SPIKE PROTEIN that’s getting people SICK!! The #Covid #Vaccine contains the #SpikeProtein that activates and expedites the SYMPTOMS that we now know as, #COVID19!!” “In 2002, the viral model that became #Covid19 was created at the University of North Carolina through the process of #GainOfFunction, right here in the United States 🇺🇸” “In 2005, two of our biggest defence agencies, MITRE and DARPA recognized #Covid as a #BIOWEAPON!!! Evidence of this can be found in the career summary of, Dr. Ralph Baric, who was a professor at the University of North Carolina!!” “In 2015, the proceedings of national academies of sciences published that #Covid was POISED for human emergence!! The stated reason for that : to create a MASS DEMAND for #Vaccines!!! All of this was paid for by Fauci’s NIAID/CIA and all the 100s of millions of dollars of cheques were cashed by, Ralph Baric” “This information is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, anyone can look this up!!!”

Video Transcript AI Summary
There is a claim that there is no COVID-19 virus, but rather a list of symptoms similar to the flu and pneumonia. The speaker explains that the spike protein in the virus makes people sick, and the vaccine contains this spike protein. They suggest that the virus was created through gain of function research in the US and that evidence of it being a bioweapon can be found. The speaker also mentions that the funding for this research came from Anthony Fauci's NIAID. They caution against blaming China and promoting a world war, as they believe there was collaboration between China and traders within the US.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thing as COVID 9 no such thing as COVID 19 virus. COVID 19 is essentially a list Speaker 1: of symptoms that are common to the flu and and pneumonia. Both SARS CoV 1 and CoV 2 are what we're speaking about when we talk about the virus itself. And they are like an envelope that delivers the message in the form of spike protein. It's that spike protein that makes people sick. The vaccine, which is It's not a vaccine, so let's call it the shot. It contains the spike protein that activates and expedites the development The symptoms we've come to know as COVID 19. So it's super important that people people understand that because there it there have been a lot of stuff has been planted to confuse us, Fuse us, to confuse doctors. And so we've really, you know, taken a lot of time. How do we articulate this so we actually understand? Once you understand that, then it becomes clear that In 2002, the viral model that be that became SARS CoV 2 was created through the process of gain of function at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill right here in the US. In 2005, during an event sponsored by 2 of our biggest defense agencies, DARPA and MITRE, Coronavirus was identified as a bioweapon. Evidence of this can be found within the career summary of doctor Ralph Baric, who is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Within his career summary, synthetic coronavirus is listed next to the heading, biological warfare enabling technologies. In 2015, the proceedings of National Academy of Sciences Published that SARS CoV 2 was poised for human emergence. That the stated reason for that was to create, in their words, at mass demand for vaccines. All of the above was paid for by Anthony Fauci's NIAID, And every check totaling 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars was cashed by doctor Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There's a that that that's all public domain information that people can look at. And so when you understand that, this whole idea of the debate about is whether it's It it it's it's it was manipulated a lot. It's as clear as could be. In North Carolina? In North Carolina. And so this idea, which be Very dangerous that we're trying to blame it all on China and drive us to some kind of a world war is is a very, very dangerous idea when indeed It was in a collaboration with China and all the traders within our own nation who think that somehow they're gonna remain in in power should they Continue to advance China's power over the US. It's it's it's kind of silly. No such thing as COVID 19.
KimDotcom
Posted - April 4, 2024 at 12:18 AM
Saved - April 4, 2024 at 12:29 AM

@KimDotcom - Kim Dotcom

American scientist Ralph Baric developed the spike protein that was inserted into Covid-19 and he worked with the Wuhan lab where the virus was created. Covid-19 was made in America and funded by the US Govt. Where’s the media? Where’s the outrage? Where’s the criminal tribunal? https://t.co/RwDAM9lDUH

P_McCulloughMD
Posted - June 23, 2024 at 2:50 PM
Saved - June 23, 2024 at 3:17 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Scientists, including Fauci, Collins, and Daszak, are accused of deceiving the world about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The claim is that they failed to warn about the engineered chimeric nature of the virus, instead choosing to cover up their involvement. The Menachery papers from 2015 and 2016 are cited as evidence of their creation of the virus in Wuhan.

@P_McCulloughMD - Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH®

Lives were Lost Because Scientists Deceived the World on Origins of SARS-CoV-2 Fauci, Collins, Baric, Daszak, Zhengli, Garry, Rambaut, Lipkin, Andersen, Holmes, Farrar, Tedros should have warned the world that SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered chimeric designed to invade human respiratory epithelial cells. Instead they made the disastrous decision to deceive attempting to cover-up their involvement in the disaster. Stay on the Menachery papers Nature Medicine 2015 and PNAS 2016. That is their evidence of creating primordial SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan. @stinchfield1776 @bradwenstrup @COVIDSelect

Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses a congressional hearing on the origins of COVID-19, focusing on the lab leak theory. Scientists are accused of misleading the public and censoring dissenting views. Dr. Fauci and others are criticized for downplaying the lab leak theory. The conversation highlights the lack of accountability and potential cover-up by those involved. The testimony reveals conflicting opinions among scientists and government officials, with accusations of fraudulent behavior. The video emphasizes the need for transparency and honesty in investigating the origins of the virus.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Then we had a hearing today in congress, which was, again, much more of the same, but it is interesting to hear the evidence laid out as to what were the origins of COVID. My belief from all the evidence is that this was from that lab in Wuhan. It was not a wet market. This is Josh Hawley grilling one of the authors of that proximal origin paper. Remember where they got the grant money after telling, Fauci and company, oh, we think it's from the lab. No. No. No. We'll give you a big grant. Say it's from the wet market. Well, that guy who wrote that, one of the authors, was grilled today. Josh Hawley was part of that. Speaker 1: Do you regret the fact that your work was used to censor your fellow scientists? It was used to censor ordinary Americans who ask questions about the virus? Do you do you regret it? Speaker 2: When when you write a paper, I mean, you get it in the journal. I we can't control what happens after. Speaker 1: Oh, I see. So you're not responsible at all. This is it's amazing. Nobody who is involved in any of this is responsible. Never. Speaker 0: It really is unbelievable that nobody has taken any accountability for this, and it sure looks like it looks like a payoff. When you look at the grant money that followed, they changed the whole article saying one thing in private than what they're saying in public. Well, biologist Richard Ebright opened up with an opening statement. I'm gonna play a little bit of that for you. Roll it. Speaker 3: The authors knew at the time, contemporaneously, while writing the paper, submitting the paper, and publishing the paper were untrue. This is the most egregious form of scientific misconduct. Publishing a paper where you know the conclusions are untrue. Speaker 2: There's no fraud. Yes, indeed. Some of the authors changed their mind during the course of writing that paper over a period of of weeks. That's not fraud, sir. That is just the way that the scientific method So mister Speaker 0: My friend, doctor Peter McCullough, is with us. Doc, it's great to see you. Speaker 4: Thanks for having me. Speaker 0: Doc, what did you make of that exchange right there? Your thoughts. Speaker 4: You know, Richard Gary, who's one of the authors of this fraudulent natural origins paper, he actually stuck with his opinion. I listened to his testimony, Grant. He said, listen. At the time, we thought it came out of nature, and if he only he could have more information from the Chinese. And then right after that, Ebright got up and also QUERI got up and said, listen. This came out of the lab. These guys knew it. Fauci's emails, and his understudy, David Morin's, all, you know, are cohesive in that they knew that this natural origins paper and 12 more papers that followed were intentionally written to deceive the scientific community, including myself and my colleagues and and more broadly, the public. Speaker 0: Well and let's not forget. There were emails going back from US government officials to the authors of this article urging them to change their their their outlook on this. Correct? Speaker 4: Right. So Christian Andersen at Scripps, Gary's in this group, Edwin Holmes from Sydney, they originally, you know, voiced their concerns to Collins and Fauci through these emails saying, listen. This did not come out of nature. This looks like it came out of a lab. Then there's a conference call, And then they are in a sense their minds are changed, and they they publish this fraudulent paper. Christian Anderson, as an example, he's rewarded by getting 1,000,000 of dollars in NIH grants. Speaker 0: So let me play a clip from Rand Paul because he was ticked off. He's been one of the guys that's really been trying to get to the bottom of all of this. Cut 4 for the guys behind the glass. Speaker 5: Federal court orders revealed that even doctor Fauci himself privately acknowledged concerns about gain of function research in Wuhan and mutations in the virus that suggest it might have been engineered just days before he commissioned the proximal origin paper. Despite these private doubts, publicly these so called experts and their allies were dismissing the lab leak theory as a conspiracy. Speaker 0: Alright. Doc, did you learn anything from today's hearing? Speaker 4: Well, I learned how, intellectually committed someone like Gary is to this idea that, you know, it came from nature. It just it came from anywhere except from the Wuhan lab. These scientists are so dug in deep to their NIH funding, their connection to NIAID, Fauci's division of the National Institutes of Health. They are in on a conspiracy to cover up the origins of SARS CoV 2. This virus got the entire world sick. If these guys would have been honest, we could have been on much more quickly to understanding the virus and treating patients early, preventing hospitalization and death by lying to the world, Gary Anderson, Fauci, Holmes, and others, they've actually have blood on their hands, Grant. They people died because of their actions. And, Gary, you can see his face was flesh. You know he's guilty as sin as he faced questions today.
HansMahncke
Posted - September 9, 2024 at 11:13 PM
Saved - September 10, 2024 at 7:38 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Hans Mahncke highlighted a warning from Ron Fouchier, a key figure in gain-of-function research, who cautioned that public awareness of COVID-19's origins in the Wuhan lab could lead to scrutiny of other outbreaks. Jude_62 responded by questioning why Anthony Fauci has not faced prosecution for allegedly lying to Congress or funding illegal gain-of-function experiments, referencing Rand Paul's previous statements on the matter.

@HansMahncke - Hans Mahncke

The day after Fauci's secret teleconference, Ron Fouchier, one of the godfathers of gain-of-function experiments, warned/threatened everyone on the call that if the public became aware that Covid came out of the Wuhan lab, they would begin to question other outbreaks. https://t.co/wrqPstgt95

@RandPaul - Rand Paul

Hmmm...The Wuhan Institute of Virology may have leaked the poliovirus before they got around to leaking COVID-19.

@Jude_62 - We the People | Populism is Democracy 🇺🇸

@HansMahncke Has Fauci been prosecuted for lying to Congress or funding illegal gain of function experiments? Nope. @RandPaul https://t.co/3DTkMg8sQa

Humanspective
Posted - September 13, 2024 at 7:25 AM
Saved - November 20, 2024 at 11:35 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a series of posts highlighting the controversial views of Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier and other scientists regarding the origins of the coronavirus. Montagnier asserts that the virus was manipulated, containing sequences similar to HIV, which he believes indicates it is not natural. Professors Angus Dalgleish and Nikolai Petrovski also faced challenges publishing their findings that suggest the virus was engineered and perfectly adapted to human receptors. Their research faced censorship, raising concerns about the integrity of scientific discourse during the pandemic.

@Humanspective - Humanspective

🧵THE BROADCAST MISSED BY THE WORLD - THREAD. Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier features in this EPIC REVIVED CLIP (IN FULL) that has to be watched. All anyone had to do was watch this broadcast...and it might have clarified EVERYTHING right from the start, about the true nature of where the coronavirus came from Instead, pharmaceutical industries, defence and government agencies silenced dissent and prevented or slowed down the progress of other scientists validating similar research findings Scientists in India were pressured to RETRACT papers, whilst other experts in their fields, Professor Nikolai Petrovski and Professor Angus Dalgleish, were also trying to get similar research about the origins of the virus published, in the United Kingdom and Australia All corners of the Globe were met with pushback from the institutions that guarded the publishing arena, which all amounted to a mass censorship of scientific research and further division in the scientific community If you have 37 x minutes of time, this is an EPIC MUST WATCH, with more backup research in THREAD

@Humanspective - Humanspective

"INDEED, THERE WAS A MANIPULATION DONE ON THIS VIRUS" - Luc Montagnier - Nobel Prize winner for HIV research, 2008 "Someone added on top of that some sequences including HIV, the virus for AIDS [and] it is NOT natural [and] it was the job of a professional"

Video Transcript AI Summary
Il y a eu une manipulation du virus, avec des séquences ajoutées, notamment du VIH. Ce n'est pas un processus naturel, mais le résultat d'un travail minutieux de biologistes moléculaires. Les raisons de cette manipulation ne sont pas claires, mais il est possible qu'il s'agisse d'une tentative de créer un vaccin contre le sida en intégrant des séquences du VIH dans le coronavirus. Le matériel génétique du virus contient des segments de VIH qui pourraient modifier des sites antigéniques, permettant ainsi de modifier la protéine pour un vaccin. Bien que des rumeurs sur une origine humaine aient circulé, elles ont été largement réfutées, mais il existe une volonté d'étouffer ces recherches, comme l'a montré un groupe de chercheurs indiens qui a été contraint de se rétracter. --- There has been manipulation of the virus, with sequences added, including from HIV. This is not a natural process but the result of meticulous work by molecular biologists. The reasons for this manipulation are unclear, but it may involve an attempt to create an AIDS vaccine by integrating HIV sequences into the coronavirus. The virus's genetic material contains segments of HIV that could modify antigenic sites, allowing for changes to the protein for a vaccine. Although rumors of a human origin circulated, they have been largely refuted, yet there is a desire to suppress this research, as evidenced by a group of Indian researchers who were forced to retract their findings.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Et vous êtes arrivé à certaines conclusions. Speaker 1: Alors d'ailleurs vous arrivez à la conclusion qu'effectivement il y avait eu une manipulation au sujet de ce virus. C'est-à-dire bien qu'une partie, je ne dis pas le total, n'est-ce pas, mais il y a un modèle qui est évidemment le virus classique, et là c'était un modèle surtout venant de la chauve-souris, mais ce modèle on a par-dessus ajouté des séquences notamment du VIH, le virus du SIDA. Speaker 0: Mais quand vous dites on a ajouté qui a ajouté Speaker 1: Ah moi je ne sais pas. Speaker 0: Et c'est pas naturel c'est ce que vous voulez dire Speaker 1: Non, ce n'est pas naturel, c'était un travail de professionnel, un travail de de biologiste moléculaire. C'est un travail très minutieux, on peut dire d'horloger, on peut dire Dans quel bout des séquences. Dans quel but Dans quel but ça, ce n'est pas, n'est pas clair. Moi je ne je l'expose si vous voulez. Mon mon travail c'est d'exposer des faits, c'est tout. Je n'accuse personne, je ne sais pas qui a fait ça et pourquoi. La possibilité c'est peut-être que ils ont voulu faire ils, enfin ils on ne sait pas, on a voulu faire un vaccin contre le sida. Donc on a pris des petites séquences du virus et on les a installés dans la séquence plus grande du coronavirus. Speaker 0: Alors je ne suis pas sûr de je ne suis pas sûr de comprendre tout ce que vous dites. C'est-à-dire que dans ce virus, il y a une part de VIH Speaker 1: Voilà, c'est ça. Le le le le matériel génétique du virus est un long ruban d'ARN, n'est-ce pas Comme de l'ADN, c'est de l'ARN. Et dans ce dans ce ce long ruban, à une certaine place, on a fixé des séquences petites de VIH. Mais ces séquences petites ne sont pas petites pour ne rien vouloir dire. Elles ont la possibilité de modifier par exemple ce qu'on appelle des sites antigéniques, c'est-à-dire si on veut faire un vaccin, on peut très bien modifier la protéine qui est exposée pour le vaccin par une petite séquence venant d'un autre virus. JLM Vous Speaker 0: êtes certain Speaker 2: de ça parce qu'on a dit que le bruit a couru que c'était d'une origine humaine finalement et ça a été ensuite réfuté par la plupart des autorités scientifiques quand même. Speaker 1: Il y a quand même une volonté d'étouffement si vous voulez. Les travaux, nous ne sommes pas les premiers. Un groupe de chercheurs indiens très très renommé avaient publié de la même chose, on les aura forcés à rétracter.

@Humanspective - Humanspective

DR MONTAGNIER GOT THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR IDENTIFYING HIV - So if there's anybody on Planet Earth, who ought to be able to tell that HIV exists in this Spike Protein...that's the man" Richard Fleming PhD discusses Luc Montagnier's paper on how HIV "inserts" were found in the coronavirus spike protein "Mutation occur 1 x nucleotide at a time, not 12...OK, THAT'S AN INSERT"......."THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN"

Video Transcript AI Summary
This complex diagram highlights the presence of HIV in the spike protein, as identified by Luc Montagnier, a renowned virologist and Nobel Prize winner for discovering HIV. Montagnier found 18 RNA fragments matching HIV and SIV, indicating significant similarities. Notably, the PRRA insertion consists of 4 amino acids, requiring 12 nucleotides, which is atypical for mutations that occur one nucleotide at a time. Additionally, a 590 amino acid insert corresponds to 1,770 nucleotide bases matching HIV-1, raising questions about its classification as a mutation. The evidence presented underscores the substantial connection between HIV and the spike protein, suggesting a deeper investigation into this relationship is warranted.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This looks awfully complex, doesn't it? And if it does, that's good because every one of these red arrows shows HIV in the spike protein. This work comes from Luc Montagnier. Doctor. Montagnier is the premier virologist in Paris, France. Doctor. Montagnier got the Nobel Prize for identifying HIV. So, if there's anybody on planet Earth who ought to be able to tell you that HIV exists in this spike protein, that's the man and oh, look, where he used to be professor and chair at, that's been deleted from the Internet as well. That's the same place that Zeng Li presented and now got wiped off the face of the Internet and off the face of the planet. Doctor. Montigny identified 18 RNA fragments that match HIV and SIV. This is Simian or monkey, Grade 8 immune deficiency virus. If you look at it, remember I told you about PRRA, that's 4 amino acids and every amino acid requires 3 nucleotides, that's 12, right, 12 nucleotides. Mutations occur 1 nucleotide at a time, not 12, okay. That's an insert. If you think that's bad, look at the HIV insert, 5 90 amino acids are 17 70 nucleotide bases that match HIV-one. Now, understanding that mutations occur 1 nucleotide at a time, scientifically, I'd like somebody to justify to me how that's possibly a mutation. That doesn't happen. This is the man who defines it. Every one of these red arrows and every one of these are the nucleotides that match HIV. That's why there is so much out there. It's like the funding. It's not one. It's not just a little. It's a lot.

@Humanspective - Humanspective

Retracted Paper that Luc Montagnier cites, saying the publisher was pressured - "Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag" - 9 x authors https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338957445_Uncanny_similarity_of_unique_inserts_in_the_2019-nCoV_spike_protein_to_HIV-1_gp120_and_Gag ABSTRACT READS: "We are currently witnessing a major epidemic caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019- nCoV). The evolution of 2019-nCoV remains elusive. We found 4 insertions in the spike glycoprotein (S) which are unique to the 2019-nCoV and are not present in other coronaviruses. Importantly, amino acid residues in all the 4 inserts have identity or similarity to those in the HIV-1 gp120 or HIV-1 Gag. Interestingly, despite the inserts being discontinuous on the primary amino acid sequence, 3D-modelling of the 2019-nCoV suggests that they converge to constitute the receptor binding site. The finding of 4 unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have identity /similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature. This work provides yet unknown insights on 2019-nCoV and sheds light on the evolution and pathogenicity of this virus with important implications for diagnosis of this virus"

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

@Humanspective - Humanspective

I WAS FIRST TO PICK UP IT HAD ESCAPED FROM A LAB - Professor Angus Dalgleish His research was accepted by a Biophysics journal, which understood exactly the point he was making, about how the actual "CHARGE was affected [which] would NEVER EVER occur in normal evolution" ◻️"I was first to pick up it had escaped from a lab" ◻️"It had 6 x insertions round it, we thought THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" ◻️"We submitted it and it went to cabinet [and] they chose to ignore it" ◻️"It altered the charge and the whole infectivity" Professor Dalgleish said he sent all this scientific research to the top journals, because it was important to know for future modelling of vaccines. He sent it to: Nature Science Virology Lancet "And we got the same reply back [saying] we've nothing against the science, but it is not in the public interest to publish your paper" Professor Nikolai Petrovski, vaccine inventor in Australia, also went through the same thing when he was trying to publish research about the virus being perfectly adapted to Human ACE2 receptors

Video Transcript AI Summary
I've lost faith in journals. When we first identified the virus with six insertions, we believed it was crucial information for vaccine development. Despite submitting our findings to major journals like Nature and Lancet, we received responses stating it wasn't in the public interest to publish. They should have engaged with us for evidence, but instead, they dismissed it. Molecular biologists suggested it could be random mutation, but that wasn't the case. Eventually, a biophysics journal published our work, recognizing that the alterations in charge and infectivity wouldn't occur through normal evolution. We shared our findings, but there was no willingness for open discussion.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've really lost my faith in the journals. I mean, when I was were the first to pick up the the virus, to escape from the lab because it had 6 insertions around it, we thought, but they need to know this. It's important because if you don't take notice of that, you'll end up with a bad vaccine. We submitted it, and it went to cabinet, and everybody, they've all seen it. They can't deny it, what have you, but they chose to ignore it. And then we sent it to Nature Science Virology Lancet, and we got the same reply back. Really eerie. It said, we've nothing against the science, but it is not in the public interest of to publish your paper. They should have called me in about that and say, here, where's the evidence for these things? Because we were able to translate it. Molecular biologists go, oh, it could be a random mutation, this, that, and the other. No. This wasn't, and the the journal that published it in the end was a biophysics one. So it understood the point we were making, that it altered the charge and the whole infectivity, and this would never ever occur in normal evolution. Because once it got to one stage, it would be kicked out. It would never get to the point where it was so highly charged. And we discussed this, put it all out there, and nobody wanted to, enter any arm, discussion.

@Humanspective - Humanspective

Professor Nikolai Petrovski, vaccine inventor in South Australia, just a few weeks into the Pandemic, new confidently that the virus was probably man made Nikolai Petrovski discusses how in "The first few week of 2020, when the viral sequence was first released" he was only "modelling the virus to build a vaccine" Professor Nikolai Petrovski said - "If it's come from an animal source, then there should be an animal out there who's ACE2 binds better to the virus than Human ACE2, [but] rather than finding some exotic animal at the top of the list, we found Humans"[and it was] so well human adapted. "It took a long time to get published, because the narrative was, that [it] was not an acceptable question to be asking."

Video Transcript AI Summary
Recent computer modeling from early 2020 suggested that the virus might be man-made. Initially, the goal was to design a vaccine, but the modeling revealed that the virus was surprisingly well-adapted to humans, raising questions about its origin. Instead of identifying an exotic animal, the research pointed to humans as the closest match for the virus's ACE2 receptor binding. This unexpected finding led to speculation about whether the virus had adapted in a lab setting or was an accidental release. The research faced challenges in publication due to its divergence from the prevailing narrative. Additionally, the presence of a furin cleavage site in the virus raised further concerns, as it appeared unnatural in the context of viral evolution.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you've had some recent, computer modeling that that uncovered some details about the cleavage fur and cleavage site that, perhaps gave some clues on the origin of the virus. Is that accurate? Speaker 1: So it it it's actually not not new, interestingly. We did this in the the first few weeks, of 2020, you know, when the viral sequence was first released. So we we hadn't even seen the virus in Australia at that time. Early in in the pandemic, in the first sort of weeks, we we modeled the virus, with our computers to to design our vaccine. And that modeling told us the virus almost certainly was a man made virus. But we use supercomputers to model viruses. So when we got this new genetic sequence, we put it into our models. Obviously, we're thinking, can we build a model of virus to make a vaccine? Because remember, we had no idea what this virus was. And and and we were sad about that, but we also thought, well, we could use this model of the virus to to work out where it came from because, you know, we know that it's attaching to this receptor ACE 2, in humans. And, if it's come from an animal source, then we there should be an animal out there whose ACE 2, binds better to the virus than than human ACE 2. So so we innocently set about, yeah, modeling all the different animals, to understand which animal the virus came from. The surprising result of that, rather than finding some, you know, exotic animal at the top of the list, we found humans. Alright. Now that was not the intention of our research, but, you know, having found that, like all scientists, we thought, yeah, you know, we should make this available. People can criticize it. And and then we hit this this roadblock of of, you know, you couldn't publish anything because it wasn't part of the official narrative at at the time. This was just we weren't saying where the virus came from or who made it. We just were saying there are features in this virus that cannot be explained, you know, if it if it arose naturally. We found humans, a not very exotic animal. And, of course, that raised really interesting questions because it said this virus, if if you went by our original thinking, it came must have come from from humans because it's so, well human adapted. That that really had us scratching our heads, how to explain that conundrum. And, of course, you know, one of the possibilities is that was by chance, but it that that seemed highly unlikely, given the stringency of the work we've done. Virus that cannot be explained, you know, if it if it arose naturally. Very innocent we thought. No. If you speak against the official narrative, it's not innocent. You know, you're you're you're considered a terrorist, a public health terrorist. You're a danger to the country. The other explanation is that maybe it had adapted to human cells in some, you know, sense. And then, obviously, then, you know, the the most likely place for that is the laboratory. And so so that did raise the question, was the source of this virus not directly from from an animal? Did it get modified or or somehow was it it, an accidental laboratory release, which we've seen with other viruses in the past. So so it was innocent work, but it took a long, long time to get it published because, you know, the narrative was that that was not an acceptable, question to be asking because we were just asking a question. We weren't trying to tell anyone anything other than here's our research, here's what it shows. You know, the furin cleavage site, which is what you referred to as the other intriguing thing that looked like a smoking gun. Again, I I know that head of the CCC at the time said the same things. Many people have said the same things, but in our modeling, it was it was clear to us that it looked like the Purine cleavage site was not a natural part of this virus.

@Humanspective - Humanspective

SCIENTIFIC PAPER FROM NIKOLAI PETROVSKI - "In silico comparison of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-ACE2 binding affinities across species and implications for virus origin" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92388-5

In silico comparison of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-ACE2 binding affinities across species and implications for virus origin - Scientific Reports The devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS–coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has raised important questions about its origins and the mechanism of its transfer to humans. A further question was whether companion or commercial animals could act as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, with early data suggesting susceptibility is species specific. To better understand SARS-CoV-2 species susceptibility, we undertook an in silico structural homology modelling, protein–protein docking, and molecular dynamics simulation study of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein’s ability to bind angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) from relevant species. Spike protein exhibited the highest binding to human (h)ACE2 of all the species tested, forming the highest number of hydrogen bonds with hACE2. Interestingly, pangolin ACE2 showed the next highest binding affinity despite having a relatively low sequence homology, whereas the affinity of monkey ACE2 was much lower despite its high sequence similarity to hACE2. These differences highlight the power of a structural versus a sequence-based approach to cross-species analyses. ACE2 species in the upper half of the predicted affinity range (monkey, hamster, dog, ferret, cat) have been shown to be permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection, supporting a correlation between binding affinity and infection susceptibility. These findings show that the earliest known SARS-CoV-2 isolates were surprisingly well adapted to bind strongly to human ACE2, helping explain its efficient human to human respiratory transmission. This study highlights how in silico structural modelling methods can be used to rapidly generate information on novel viruses to help predict their behaviour and aid in countermeasure development. nature.com

@Humanspective - Humanspective

PROFESSOR DALGLEISH'S RESEARCH PAPER - "IT HAD 6 X INSERTIONS AROUND IT" https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Evidence-which-Suggests-that-This-Is-No-Evolved-S%C3%B8rensen-Dalgleish/bae0b5f2cae9f55b0f72349e7964989641a2d71d

@Humanspective - Humanspective

"The Discovery of HIV as the Cause of AIDS" - Authors: Robert C. Gallo, M.D., and Luc Montagnier, M.D https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp038194

@Humanspective - Humanspective

Luc Montagnier - The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008. Born: 18 August 1932, Chabris, France https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2008/montagnier/facts/

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008 The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008 was divided, one half awarded to Harald zur Hausen "for his discovery of human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer", the other half jointly to Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier "for their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus" nobelprize.org

@Humanspective - Humanspective

Luc Montagnier - Biographical - from "The Nobel Prize" https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2008/montagnier/biographical/ “In 1957, the first description of infectious viral RNA from the tobacco mosaic virus by Fraenkel-Conrat and Gierer and Schramm determined my vocation: to become a virologist using the modern approach of molecular biology.”

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008 The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008 was divided, one half awarded to Harald zur Hausen "for his discovery of human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer", the other half jointly to Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier "for their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus" nobelprize.org

@Humanspective - Humanspective

THE YEAR 2002 RECORDS GAIN OF FUNCTION RESEARCH "combining an HIV pseudovirus with SARS" (according to Richard Fleming PhD) - @Doctor_I_am_The https://t.co/vPY2NVMT2I

@Doctor_I_am_The - Richard M Fleming, PhD, MD, JD

HIV inserted into SARS viruses - originally in 2002. Gain-of-Function at its best. How did this help humanity? https://t.co/4me0wL8Qil

@Humanspective - Humanspective

Senator Rand Paul discusses here in some parts Nikolai Petrovski's research, done at the begining of the Pandemic, which found the virus was perfectly adapted to bind to Human ACE2 receptors https://t.co/go48wc1LZE "So one of the cool things I have discovered about Covid-19 is, they borrowed Oracle supercomputer, a scientist from Australia and the wanted to see which animal that virus would attach best to....it didn't attach to any animals very well but it attached perfectly to humans. This does not happen, it's almost proof positive that this was manipulated in a lab" "What really was sort of the smoking gun though is we discovered that the way the virus is genetically constructed is virtually identical to a research project from 2018 that had dr. Baric from UNC, dr. Shi from Wuhan and dr. Peter Daszak from New York. They actually applied for money to create something that looks very suspiciously like Covid-19" @RandPaul

Video Transcript AI Summary
Animal viruses that jump to humans often struggle to infect effectively due to their evolution in animals. The first SARS virus in 2003 had a 10% mortality rate but only infected 8,000 people because it didn't adapt well to humans. In contrast, COVID-19 attached perfectly to humans, suggesting possible lab manipulation. Researchers used a supercomputer to find that the virus did not attach well to other animals, indicating it was pre-adapted for humans. Evidence points to a 2018 research project that aimed to create a virus similar to COVID-19. Despite this, obtaining records from the Biden administration has been challenging, even with bipartisan support for transparency. The situation remains frustrating, highlighting the need for further investigation.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the one thing that's universally true about animal viruses that break into the human kingdom, from the animal kingdom to the human kingdom, is they're clunky. They don't infect humans very well because they've evolved and adapted. Natural selection has selected for ones that infect that animal well. And so when they infect humans, they try it many times until they get lucky, and then they get a mutation where it can infect other humans. The best example of this is 2,000 and 2, 2003, when the first SARS virus came out, it had a 10% mortality rate, which is in you know, that's, like, 30 times worse than this the current COVID nineteen we had, but it only infected 8,000 people. Why? It just didn't infect humans very well. When they went back and did testing, they found that it infected civets well and also bats. So one of the cool things that I've discovered about COVID nineteen is they they borrowed Oracle's supercomputer, a scientist from Australia, and they wanted to see which animal that the virus would attach best to. So they tested it with humans and, like dozens of other animals. And lo and behold, it didn't attach to any animals very well. It attached perfectly to humans. This does not happen. It's almost proof positive that this was manipulated in the lab. And what you do in the lab is you actually speed up evolution and you direct evolution because you keep infecting mice that have human lung markers. So it thinks it's infecting a human lung. And you do it over and over again, you get the sickest mouse and the one with the highest viral load, you take that out and you infect the mice again. And each time you pass it through the virus, you get the sickest and the most infected mouse, and you do it again, you're selecting for the worst, the most deadly, the most efficiently. And this is what the scientists found. Alina Chan from MIT, she said it looked pre adapted. And this is what convinced her. What really was sort of the smoking gun though is we discovered that the way the virus is genetically constructed is virtually identical to a research project from 2018 that had Doctor. Barrick from UNC, Doctor. Xi from Wuhan, and Doctor. Peter Daszak from New York, they actually applied for money to create something that looks, very suspiciously like COVID-nineteen. They didn't get the money for it, but almost everybody believes now that doctor Xi in China went ahead and did that project, created that virus, probably to create a vaccine, and probably it was an accident that it leaked out. But we have all of this evidence now, and yet it has been like pulling teeth to get a Democrat anywhere in Congress to sign even a records release. And I tell these people all the time, look, I'm a Republican, but if a Democrat comes to me ever and asks me if I'm the chairman of a committee to sign a records release, I will never turn them down. I can't imagine ever turning down a records release from our government. And yet, I have had to use blocking nominations, blocking legislation, tying things up in order to get them to finally sign letters. And lo and behold, even when I finally got a Democrat to sign letters to get COVID records, the Biden administration won't give it to me. It's not even classified, but they won't give us the records. It's really it's shocking, and your book describes it so well. I really hope everyone in our audience reads it because

@Humanspective - Humanspective

DID NIH FUND GOF RESEARCH AT THE WUHAN INSTITUTE OF VIROLOGY THROUGH ECOHEALTH? Dr. Tabak: “ yes, we did” https://t.co/Htu6fuf0ql

Video Transcript AI Summary
NIH did fund research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through ECHO Health, depending on how you define gain of function research. If you refer to the broader term, then yes, it was funded. This type of research occurs in many labs across the country and is not regulated because it does not pose any threat or harm.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Doctor Tabak, did NIH fund gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through ECHO Health? It depends on your definition of gain of function research. If you're speaking about the generic term, yes, we did, because but this is research. The generic term is research that goes on in many many labs around the country. It is not regulated, and the reason it's not regulated is it poses no threat or harm to anybody.

@Humanspective - Humanspective

"WAS THE WUHAN INSTITUTE CONDUCTING GOF RESEARCH ON [BAT] CORONAVIRUS's?" https://t.co/JRdKvn4nCx Former Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Dr Robert Redfield - "ABSOLUTELY" Dr Robert Redfield also adds that their is an effort by scientist's to compartmentalise the various forms of gain of function research, saying that he thinks it's all GOF if it's an attempt to increase Pathogenicity - "If I make a nonpathogen pathogenic, that's gain-of-function."

Video Transcript AI Summary
Gain of function research involves modifying a pathogen to enhance its transmissibility or pathogenicity. This definition includes making a nonpathogen pathogenic. Regarding the Wuhan Institute, there is skepticism about whether they were conducting gain of function research on coronaviruses. Gain of function research has not led to any life-saving vaccines or therapeutics, nor has it stopped a pandemic; in fact, it may have contributed to the current pandemic. While supporters of this research believe it could yield benefits, I personally see no tangible advantages in it.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one sentence, can you provide a definition of gain of function research? And I say that because there becomes a little semantics sometimes, I believe, within the scientific community of what is a chimera and what is gain of function? Speaker 1: Yes, I think it's to take a pathogen and try to increase 1 of 2 things or both, to increase its transmissibility or its pathogenicity. I disagree with some of my colleagues at NIH to say the definition is restricted to a pathogen that's already a pathogen. If I make a nonpathogen pathogenic, that's gain of function. Speaker 0: So in your expert opinion, was the Wuhan Institute conducting gain of function research on the coronaviruses? So one other path of questioning for you, Doctor. Redfield. Proponents of this research claim it may result in vaccines or maybe even stop a pandemic. Doctor. Redfield, has gain of function created any life saving vaccines or therapeutics to your knowledge? Speaker 1: Not to my knowledge. Speaker 0: Has gain of function stopped a pandemic in your opinion? Speaker 1: No. On the contrary, I think it probably caused the greatest pandemic our world has seen. Speaker 0: Do you find any tangible benefits to gain of function research at this time? Speaker 1: I personally don't, but I do want to stress, I think the men and women that support it are people of good faith because they truly believe it's going to lead to a potential benefit. I disagree with that assessment.
DecentBackup
Posted - November 18, 2024 at 1:18 PM
Saved - November 18, 2024 at 4:10 PM

@DecentBackup - BackupDecentFiJC

Wuhan COVID being linked back to NC? Gosh, I did NOT see that coming — but I bet Rubenstein, Sperling, Andrews, Paulson, Zelter, Baric and Duke Kunshan University sure as shit did.

@ChanelRion - Chanel Rion OAN

I broke this story on @OANN in March 2020. I was labeled a “conspiracy” theorist for it. https://t.co/ZUC4c3xEx2 https://t.co/UA3TT6cPXN

Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2015, the National Library of Medicine published a study by 15 virologists and medical experts warning that SARS-like bat coronaviruses pose a potential threat to humans. The scientists, with decades of experience in studying coronaviruses, examined how SARS and MERS transmitted among humans. They modified a strain of coronavirus from Chinese horseshoe bats using gain of function technology and injected it into mice spinal cords. This study not only highlights the dangers of coronaviruses in bats but also demonstrates efforts to amplify the virus's contagion ability to better understand and prepare for future outbreaks.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 2015, the National Library of Medicine published a study by 15 virologists and medical experts. The article warns, SARS like cluster of circulating bat coronavirus pose threat for human emergence. Turns out the scientists in the study have studied coronaviruses for collective decades. This particular medical article elaborates how a team of scientists in studying how SARS and MERS were transmitting amongst humans took a strain of coronavirus from the Chinese horseshoe bat and modified it using gain of function technology. They then injected this strain of coronavirus into the spinal cords of mice. The article is a fascinating exploration of what happens. In the process of warning the medical community of the lurking dangers of coronavirus in bats, the study appears to have taken the virus and amplified its contagion ability to better understand and prepare for a future outbreak.
BlackTomThePyr8
Posted - January 28, 2025 at 4:30 PM
Saved - January 28, 2025 at 6:52 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Anthony Fauci was complicit in the creation of COVID through weaponization techniques and orchestrated a cover-up to protect those responsible. If COVID originated in a lab, it qualifies as a biological weapon, making the last five years a man-made global genocide. Fauci's actions could equate to a death toll comparable to a century of communism. I have compiled documentation on bio-warfare for the International Criminal Court, which supports the claim that both COVID and the vaccines are biological weapons. My expertise in this field underpins my assertions.

@BlackTomThePyr8 - Tom Czerniawski

Chris, Anthony Fauci was familiar with weaponization techniques (transgenic mouse serial passage) used to create COVID. He offered protection to the parties directly culpable in COVID's creation. He ran a five year long cover-up campaign to protect *genocidal bio-weapon cooks.* https://t.co/28GkFyoY5M

@ChrisCillizza - Chris Cillizza

7/ First, and most importantly, I deferred to expert voices at a moment — May 2020 — when even they were making it up on the fly. That’s not to say that Fauci didn’t believe that Covid-19 had originated in a wet market in Wuhan province. I think he absolutely did.

@BlackTomThePyr8 - Tom Czerniawski

I feel like people don't have a sufficient appreciation of what exactly Fauci is guilty of, @ChrisCillizza. If Daszak up there was celebrating the lifting of the Gain of Function research ban, Fauci likely authorized that. If COVID was made in a lab, it was a biological weapon. https://t.co/Qf2Jkwcfpq

@BlackTomThePyr8 - Tom Czerniawski

@ChrisCillizza If COVID was a biological weapon, the last 5 years were not a natural pandemic, but a monstrous global genocide, wrought by the malign hand of man. If COVID was a biological weapon... we definitely shouldn't have based our vaccines against it, upon its most pathogenic fragments. https://t.co/nXL4nJNl9P

@BlackTomThePyr8 - Tom Czerniawski

@ChrisCillizza Summed up, @ChrisCillizza, that makes Anthony Fauci the Arch-Murderer - the one human currently walking this Earth, who has taken more innocent human life, than any other. In five short years, he may have reaped a death toll equivalent to a century of communism. https://t.co/IKQajLjuJk

@BlackTomThePyr8 - Tom Czerniawski

@ChrisCillizza If you'd like to know everything I know about the bio-warfare background of the last 5 years, https://app.filen.io/#/f/84d0b40b-061e-4dde-9dd6-5b1cd3725a73#q4GdbOBgR0333XePlFWSTV2FPmN4MxjM Please review my public archive of bio-warfare and genocide documentation, developed for the International Criminal Court, and all other applicable authorities: https://t.co/sdnUj3T6lD

@BlackTomThePyr8 - Tom Czerniawski

@ChrisCillizza Inside is proof that both COVID, and the vaccines against COVID, were in fact biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction. https://t.co/zMrnyJwDy2 The pinned thread in my profile can help contextualize the documentation in the file archive. If you have questions, shoot.

@BlackTomThePyr8 - Tom Czerniawski

We are all the targets of a global genocide. It is being carried out with laboratory-originated strategic biological weapons of mass destruction. Our own governments created these bio-weapons. Then they told us to inject more bio-weapons, to be safe from their bio-weapons. https://t.co/I4Hax6Jl2Z

@BlackTomThePyr8 - Tom Czerniawski

@ChrisCillizza Oh, I forgot to mention: I'm an expert in weapons of mass destruction systems and strategic biological warfare. So are my friends. We're all presently working on putting away these bio-weapons bad guys. (Just so you know I'm not talking out of my ass here.) ;-) https://t.co/6UfwibyJ0H

@BlackTomThePyr8 - Tom Czerniawski

@ChrisCillizza And this is some of our work, backed by sworn testimony from our community of WMD professionals, which you'll be seeing plenty more of, very shortly: https://t.co/YakRK6mlWM

tommy_cleary
Posted - January 26, 2025 at 2:32 AM
Saved - February 1, 2025 at 10:20 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Holmes analyzed the submission of 60 viruses in a 2018 preprint, revealing only 163 of a potential 180 sequences were included. Current data shows 154 sequences in GenBank, with interruptions in submissions dating from October 2019. This raises questions about 9 missing ORF8 genes and several S genes. The conversation highlights ongoing efforts to recover this missing data, suggesting that the disclosures may be incomplete and emphasizing the need for thorough verification in scientific research.

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

Holmes attempted <> methods, ...with his Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, ...as evidence that the 60 viruses submitted as part of a preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of WIV, were complete but only 163 of a potential 180 sequences were part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? Only 154 of those are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know...with this current GI series of 154 submissions is interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? Methods: basic GI series analysis this post GI is 1769824416 https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824416 ...next will be 1769824414 So <> is the next missing OFR8 gene for <> GenBank submission from @syd_health 's & @Sydney_Uni 's Prof Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of @NLM_NIH soon to be headed by @DrJBhattacharya So now I am trying to help Holmes & @syd_health recover the missing data NOW tally is at eleven missing ORF8 and three missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615889.1?report=genbank and S gene is there but supressed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824528 but no ORF8 gene in this GI series Why? Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan of a total of 15 missing... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ? https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series...Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan of 11 S genes left out of this study. Why? <> S gene is there but seems quite different to others. Why? All this so far indicates that the 2023 @COVIDSelect disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824414! Taxonomy browser (Bat SARS-like coronavirus) https://archive.md/qgC9W#selection-2037.0-2081.1

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6303_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA polym - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6303_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA polym - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6303_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

One more before I put the roast on for Australia Day dinner... @GrahamPerrettMP is my local Federal MP and he has helped in the past, but last time I wrote to him he replied that I should check the Queensland State Library for more details...perhaps I should check back with him again too. These issues of how to handle the dangerous side of science have been a problem since at least Iraq's @UN biological weapons inspections...with discussions of Mustard brought to the table by @R_H_Ebright thank you, @INTERPOL_CBRNE questions are important. H/t @CharlesRixey @Ayjchan @Globalbiosec Holmes attempted <> methods, ...with his Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, ...as evidence that the 60 viruses submitted as part of a preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of WIV, were complete... but only 163 of a potential 180 sequences were part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus Only 154 of those are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know...with this current GI series of 154 submissions is interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this post GI is 1769824414 anyone can do this... https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824414 but with <> nothing is missing, all three sets are there in GenBank ORF8, S and RdRp...and apparently has identical RBD to As6526? <> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/KY417142 So...next will be 1769824412 <> also all three accounted for too and even features in the <>... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615887.1?report=girevhist So, next is 1769824410...Bingo! <> ORF8 missing! So <> is the next missing OFR8 gene for <> GenBank submission from @syd_health 's & @Sydney_Uni 's Prof Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of @NLM_NIH soon to be headed by @DrJBhattacharya @secrubio & @RobertKennedyJr in the mix too. So now I am trying to help Holmes & @syd_health recover the missing GenBank data...for everyone that hungers for a slice of truth tune in... NOW tally is at twelve missing ORF8 and three missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615886.1?report=genbank and S gene is there but suppressed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824532 but no ORF8 gene in this GI series Why? Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan of a total of 15 missing... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series...Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan of 11 S genes left out of this study. Why? <> S gene is there but seems quite different to others. Why? All this so far indicates that the 2023 @COVIDSelect disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824408! Taxonomy browser (Bat SARS-like coronavirus) https://archive.md/qgC9W#selectio ...speaking of things that are difficult to understand... Any idea of how it is that @BrookeNGenovese reasonable Sep 2020 appeal to have the suspended@Twitteraccounts for:@PREDICTProject@OneHealthLabs@GlobalVirome@HALIUCDavis has gone? Perhaps some are up & running, perhaps others are still suppressed? <<@TwitterSupport also, the lab’s account @OneHealthLab &the Global Virome Project @GlobalVirome are similarly suspended..since June...despite repeated attempts to resolve. 🤨 @Twitter oh and the @HALIUCDavis account, too. Anyone noticing a theme here...?>> How is @RogerMarshallMD & @COVIDSelect going to discuss this issue with the public if the terms are suppressed? Things to chew over dinner roast?

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs160665_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA pol - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Bat SARS-like coronavirus isolate As6526, complete genome - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6266_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA polym - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6266_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@Studio28nyc @McWLuke @PeterDaszak @WHO @SciDiplomacyUSA @BangXiao_ @POTUS After Australia Day roast lunch (which was fantastic) I sent another email this time to Zhengli Shi & @BangXiao_ Then me & the fam went to local barefoot lawn bowls.

@R_H_Ebright - Richard H. Ebright

Only mustard at US base in Iraq was on condiments tray in mess hall #Disinformation @R_H_Ebright

@BrookeNGenovese - Brooke Genovese

Reviving this because @PREDICTProject is inexplicably suspended again SMH @TwitterSupport

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@BrookeNGenovese @twitter @PREDICTproject Not gone, just suspended You can find @PREDICTproject here

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

Seeking No14 ORF8 omission...with some healthy distraction from @breakfast_dogs @harishseshadri2 @gdemaneuf about the truisms of love...and knowing at all. @Rebecca21951651 @emilyakopp @a_kruschke @Ayjchan @VBruttel @BillyBostickson Back to the data set. Holmes attempted <> methods,@MarionKoopmans ...with his Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, ...as evidence that the 60 viruses submitted as part of a preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of WIV, were complete... https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24 ...but only 163 of a potential 180 sequences were part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus Only 154 of those are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know... Note important under examined bioinformatics data: ...with this current GI series of 154 submissions is interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? GI count is hypothesized as a way of delineating this Undone Science data set. KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI is 1769824408 anyone can do this... https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824408 but with <> nothing is missing, all three sets are there in GenBank ORF8, S and RdRp... So...next will be 1769824406 <> also all three accounted for too...but getting close to the typology of another hidden data set from Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology? <> isolate missing isolation source sputum collection date 2019 geographic location China: HeNan>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/biosample/28539355 So, next is 1769824404 <> all there...but this is where the RdRp set ends and so GI for 1769824404 is < Next is 1769824402 <> all there... ///////// Hmm interesting data links here: NOTE homework <> @quay_dr @MartinaSisters <> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31022925/ /////// Next is 1769824400 <> all three there Next is 1769824398 <> all three there Note: duplication issues here with S gene? Next is 1769824396 <> Tombola! Ambo...you see ORF8 and RdRp are here but for <> the S gene is missing. Why? So <> is the next missing data point for <> GenBank submission from @syd_health 's & @Sydney_Uni 's Prof Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of @NLM_NIH soon to be headed by@DrJBhattacharyateamed with@secrubio& @RobertKennedyJr by @POTUS So now I am trying to help Holmes & @syd_health recover the missing GenBank data...for everyone that hungers for a slice of truth tune in... NOW tally is still twelve missing ORF8 and now four missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824500 ORF8 gene is there but suppressed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824396 but no S gene in this GI series Why? Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan of a total of 15 missing... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series...Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rs9214_Hubei of 11 S genes left out of this study. Why? <> S gene is missing Why? All this so far indicates that the 2023 @COVIDSelect disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824394! ////// Suppression and Dissent in Science is such an interest topic https://documents.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/99rsppp.html ...my MA thesis Professor is very good in this area Brian Martin and also has good advice about academic reading and writing...a little every day. COVID Origin Case study is full of under examined data. EG Such an interesting set of STS & Philosophy of Science discourse data: Q/ What exactly here is so controversial? @PREDICTProjectarchive is good & interesting: @OneHealthLabsarchive @waybackmachine is too late: @HALIUCDavis archive doesn't look that useful: @GlobalVirome archive: One Health Institute (OHI) @OneHealthUCD any ideas? < ///// Oh well. next missing data point starts with the ORF8 GI 1769824394 searching for more missing S genes, I think? A little each day.

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6255_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA polym - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
not collected - BioSample - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Characterization of a New Member of Alphacoronavirus with Unique Genomic Features in Rhinolophus Bats - PubMed Bats have been identified as a natural reservoir of a variety of coronaviruses (CoVs). Several of them have caused diseases in humans and domestic animals by interspecies transmission. Considering the diversity of bat coronaviruses, bat species and populations, we expect to discover more bat CoVs th … pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9214_Hubei RNA-dependent RNA polyme - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9214_Hubei ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@BillyBostickson @Rebecca21951651 @gdemaneuf @CIA The love theory? Message in a bottle? They had a child called NoWay? These are all great ideas from a Cognitive Science perspective… As a philosopher of Science… life and knowing is never so simple as it seems… People are people and some are talking very…

@VBruttel - Dr. rer. nat. Valentin Bruttel

Why SARS-CoV-2 was a lab manipulated virus in 10 key points https://vbruttel.substack.com/p/why-sars-cov-2-was-a-lab-manipulated The IMO most compelling molecular and circumstantial evidence regarding the origin of COVID-19. ➡️ Please share, retweet, and raise awareness to help prevent similar events from occurring again.

Why SARS-CoV-2 was a Lab-Manipulated Virus, in 10 Key Points SARS-CoV-2 exhibits specific alterations that align so precisely with a research proposal that, combined with circumstantial evidence, they prove a laboratory origin beyond reasonable doubt. vbruttel.substack.com

@MarionKoopmans - Marion Koopmans, publications: https://pure.eur.nl

@VBruttel the real route should be: submit for peer review in a credible journal

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@R_H_Ebright @ScienceMagazine Further...as much as Holmes has stated that data from Jie Cui was not linked to WIV 162 of 163 submissions to GenBank remain suppressed or missing...with other serious data integrity issues and cyber biosecurity issues needing to be addressed... Disqualifying conflict of…

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@_everythingism @AceBearstrom @hiltzikm STS studies regularly acknowledge and explore institutional limits to knowledge away from the political narratives you outline here. <<Undone Science Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions By David J. Hess>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529495/undone-science/ Since this research…

Undone Science A theoretical integration of science and technology studies and social movement studies that finds both common ground and “undone” research.As the fields... mitpress.mit.edu

@StoreEducation - EducationStore

Writing how to be more productive without procrastinating or bingeing UOW: University of Wollongong, Australia Speaker: Emeritus Prof. Brian Martin and members of PhD Candidates Date: 09/02/2020 Time: 11:30 AM Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney Register NOW: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_aA-y9bEaQKKO4fTdu_oVxw

Video Conferencing, Web Conferencing, Webinars, Screen Sharing Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board, conference, huddle, and training rooms, as well as executive offices and classrooms. Founded in 2011, Zoom helps businesses and organizations bring their teams together in a frictionless environment to get more done. Zoom is a publicly traded company headquartered in San Jose, CA. zoom.us

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

But there is poetry in these lethal paragraphs of RNA H/t @quay_dr @MartinaSisters Where have the poets of this world gone? Why have rhymes bent to reason and quills been put aside to crumble ? What feeble mind thinks yet does not imagine possibilities of other minds too? Minds seek minds within what we all wonder

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

The question of //Pathos// has disturbed the search for the next missing part of this data set. Never a better reason to interrupt seeking is finding a question linked to the heart. Knowing love is a perennial concern. To leave souls behind has a sharp gravitas. Back to the data. In 2023 Holmes attempted <> methods,with his Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, ...as evidence that the 60 viruses submitted as part of a preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of WIV, were complete... https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24 ...but only 163 of a potential 180 sequences were part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus Only 154 of those are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know... this thread tests these assumptions & knowledge claims. Note important under examined bioinformatics data: ...with this current GI series of 154 submissions is interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? GI count is hypothesized as a way of delineating this Undone Science data set. KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI is 1769824394 <> anyone can do this... https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824394 Bingo GI 1769824394 <> ! Again ORF8 and RdRp are here but for <> the S gene is missing. Why? So <> is the next missing data point for <> GenBank submission from @syd_health 's & @Sydney_Uni's Prof Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of@NLM_NIH NOW tally is still twelve missing ORF8 and now five missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824498 ORF8 gene is there but suppressed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824394 but no S gene in this GI series Why? Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan of a total of 15 missing... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rs9201_Hubei of 11 S genes left out of this study. Why? <> S gene is missing Why? All this so far indicates that the 2023@COVIDSelectdisclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824392!

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9201_Hubei ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9201_Hubei RNA-dependent RNA polyme - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9201_Hubei ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@gdemaneuf There is a theory that Drosten changed his mind…or was more free to speak his mind…after Shi made it out of China recently…nice idea. People. People do what people do…they fall in love and do stupid and sometimes inspirational things.

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@R_H_Ebright @ScienceMagazine Further...as much as Holmes has stated that data from Jie Cui was not linked to WIV 162 of 163 submissions to GenBank remain suppressed or missing...with other serious data integrity issues and cyber biosecurity issues needing to be addressed... Disqualifying conflict of…

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@_everythingism @AceBearstrom @hiltzikm STS studies regularly acknowledge and explore institutional limits to knowledge away from the political narratives you outline here. <<Undone Science Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions By David J. Hess>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529495/undone-science/ Since this research…

Undone Science A theoretical integration of science and technology studies and social movement studies that finds both common ground and “undone” research.As the fields... mitpress.mit.edu

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

In 2023 Holmes attempted <> methods appropriate of bioweapons investigations, see @CharlesRixey ...with Eddie's Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, here: ...as evidence that the 60 viruses submitted as part of a preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of WIV, were complete... https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24 ...but only 163 of a potential 180 sequences were part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus But only 154 of these are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know... this thread tests these assumptions & knowledge claims. //Note important under examined bioinformatics data: ...with this current GI series of 154 submissions is interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? GI count is hypothesized as a way of delineating this Undone Science data set. /// KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI is 1769824392 <> anyone can do this... even @stgoldst or perhaps @tgof137 @VICENews @ChrisCillizza @zerohedge even? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824392 GI 1769824392 <> all good GI 1769824390 <> all good GI 1769824390 <> BINGO! Again ORF8 and RdRp are here but for <> the S gene is missing. Why? So <> is the next missing data point for <> GenBank submission from @syd_health 's & @Sydney_Uni 's Prof Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of @NLM_NIH NOW tally is still twelve missing ORF8... and now six missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824496 ORF8 gene is there but both suppressed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824388 but no S gene in this GI series Why? Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan identified of a total of 15 missing... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rs9201_Hubei 6) Rs151199_Hunan identified of 11 S genes left out of this study. Why? <> S gene is missing Why? All this so far indicates that the 2023 @COVIDSelect disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824386!

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151239_Hunan ORF8 gene, complete cd - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151199_Hunan RNA-dependent RNA poly - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151199_Hunan ORF8 gene, complete cd - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@R_H_Ebright @ScienceMagazine Further...as much as Holmes has stated that data from Jie Cui was not linked to WIV 162 of 163 submissions to GenBank remain suppressed or missing...with other serious data integrity issues and cyber biosecurity issues needing to be addressed... Disqualifying conflict of…

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@_everythingism @AceBearstrom @hiltzikm STS studies regularly acknowledge and explore institutional limits to knowledge away from the political narratives you outline here. <<Undone Science Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions By David J. Hess>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529495/undone-science/ Since this research…

Undone Science A theoretical integration of science and technology studies and social movement studies that finds both common ground and “undone” research.As the fields... mitpress.mit.edu

@CharlesRixey - Charles Rixey, MA MBA (c) 🐭

Linked below is an article written by LtCol Joseph Murphy, the person who leaked the DEFUSE proposal to me, which DRASTIC then analyzed and released on September 20th & 21st, 2021. 🧵 https://brownstone.org/articles/the-biodefense-oligarchy-and-its-demographic-defeats/

The Biodefense Oligarchy and Its Demographic Defeats ⋆ Brownstone Institute Two decades ago, factions argued that biowarfare threats were so significant that biodefense responsibility needed to be removed from the purview of the uniformed military and placed within NIAID under NIH and under HHS. brownstone.org

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

As science is very important... https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24methods H/t @sciencecohen @hholdenthorp @ScienceMagazine Holmes attempted <> methods, appropriate of biological warfare investigations, with Eddie's Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, here: He was trying to demonstrate that 60 viruses submitted to GenBank as part of a 2018 preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of Wuhan Institute of Virology, were complete... https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus Interestingly only 163 of a potential 180 sequences, with ORF8, S & RdRp available for each, were said to be part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? Bioinformatics https://breakingdefense.com/2022/02/cyber-can-now-create-biowarfare-effects-without-a-bioweapon/ and cyberbiosecurity are important science too. But only 154 of these are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know... this thread tests these assumptions & knowledge claims...lets do some <> searching together. //Note important under examined bioinformatics data: framing this data set...with this current GI series of 154 submissions interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? Finding the missing data set will help demonstrate what could have happened. GI count is hypothesized as a way of delineating this Undone Science data set. /// KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI is 1769824386 <> anyone can do this... even? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824392 GI 1769824386 <> all good GI 1769824384 <> all good GI 1769824382 <> all good note last of the S Gene in this series GI 1769824380 <> all good GI 1769824378 <> all good GI 1769824376 <> all good GI 1769824374 <> all good GI 1769824372 <> all good GI 1769824370 <> all good GI 1769824368 <> all good GI 1769824366 <> all good GI 1769824364 <> all good GI 1769824362 <> all good GI 1769824360 <> all good GI 1769824358 <> all good GI 1769824356 <> all good GI 1769824354 <> BINGO! Finally! Again ORF8 and RdRp are here but for <> the S gene is missing. Why? So GI 1769824354 <> is the next missing data point for <> GenBank submission from @syd_health &@Sydney_UniProf Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of@NLM_NIH NOW tally is still twelve missing ORF8... and now seven missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824436 ORF8 gene is there but both suppressed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824354 but no S gene in this GI series Why? Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan identified of a total of 15 missing...3 to go... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rs9201_Hubei 6) Rs151199_Hunan 7) Rs8548_Guangdong identified of 11 S genes left out of this study...4 to go! <> S gene is missing Why? All this so far indicates that the 2023@COVIDSelectdisclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824352! Wonder what we will find...especially when we next seek out the known duplicates in <> and <>? Duplication can mean missing, and missing mean unverified in Dual Use Research of Concern field...where one the uses is Biological Warfare and the other is fairweather thinking Science as usual? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17687-3

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org
Cyber can now create biowarfare effects, without a bioweapon - Breaking Defense The digitization of medicine and biomedical research has been a boon for medical breakthroughs, but comes at a cost. From ransomware attacks at hospitals to intellectual property breaches at research centers, cybersecurity is now a major concern in the medical world. In the following op-ed, three experts at the intersection of national security and health policy lay out the worryingly diverse ways the global healthcare system is at risk, and why it should concern the defense community.  The worst biological warfare scenarios remain in the realm of nightmares and science fiction. From developing pathogens to finding an appropriate vector, the process of weaponizing biological agents is fraught with challenges. Without discounting the well-documented history of biowarfare and the very real threat of novel weaponized biological agents in the future — particularly as gene editing and designer molecules revolutionize the field — real hurdles remain. It’s dangerous, and the effects are difficult to predict and control. But what if it was possible to create bioweapon effects, without having to actually use a bioweapon? That’s no longer a hypothetical. The digitization, automation, and networking of biomedical and public health information may mean that cyber tools can be used to achieve biowarfare effects that were previously unrealistic or impractical. Perhaps the most glaring wake-up call is the use of social media tools to spread and amplify misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, contributing to viral illness and death of US citizens. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how our public health is vulnerable to direct manipulation by malicious actors in the cyber domain. 2020 saw a 200% rise in healthcare cyber-attacks, and the upward trend continues. Networked data is increasingly the backbone of our entire medical system: initial R&D/experimental biomedical research, treatment development, clinical trial data, drug supply chains, the equipment used in treatment, individual health records, and personal fitness tracking. Manipulation or theft of R&D and clinical trial data drugs, devices and treatments can invalidate results or sow doubts about their reliability, hamstringing or confounding scientific studies in response to public health crises and making people sick. The clinical R&D landscape is evolving: Growth in team-based translational science is bringing research scientists, systems thinkers, analytic boundary crossers, and business developers together across global communications architectures faster than ever. And as a result, the threat surface is growing as well. RELATED: How To Build A Better Policy For Countering WMD Threats Supply chain interference can cause widespread disruption in critical medical care or can target delivery to specific populations for more tailored effects. The sophisticated global cyber campaign targeting the COVID-19 vaccine supply chain (specifically the “cold chain”) is a striking example, but is by no means a unique event. It is part of a larger trend, in which hackers have shifted their focus in recent years to increasingly target pharmaceutical and medical supply chains. These are attractive ransomware targets for the lucrative prices they command precisely because they threaten the delivery of critical lifesaving drugs and therapies. These same supply chain vulnerabilities can be exploited by actors whose goal is not financial gain but biological damage. Hospitals and healthcare facilities are vulnerable as well. Critical life-saving machinery and devices — infusion pumps, defibrillators, ventilators, dialysis machines, and active patient monitoring devices — can be breached by both insider and external threats. Access to cyber tools can give actors the ability to disrupt, delay, or deny treatment, manipulating critical health outcomes for patients, even life or death. The ability to hold patients’ health at risk is what has made this such an appealing and profitable target for ransomware. And the COVID-19 Pandemic has shown us that these breaches are now a common occurrence. As health records and personal fitness data are increasingly specific, detailed, digitized, and shared across devices platforms, and databases, they become vulnerable. Health record breaches alone rose 300% from 2018 to 2021. Our ever-growing volume of personal health information can be harvested and even manipulated to affect specific individuals, or aggregated to target populations by race, age, gender, location, socioeconomic status, medical condition, or any number of other factors depending on the malicious actor’s goal. The blending of the biological and cyber domains suggests that we need to prepare differently for the threat of biological warfare if we are to properly defend our population. The most difficult task is changing our fundamental model of boundaries between clinical research, bio-surveillance, care delivery, and individual devices. DoD has an important leadership role to play in driving, coordinating, and overseeing this change. To start, we must embrace the same principles required by any other type of complex cyber supply chain which, according to NIST [PDF], requires that we: 1) assume our systems will be breached and consider recovery and mitigation up-front, 2) establish collaborative and cross-organizational governance organized by use case with clinical and business owners at the forefront, backed by security experts, and 3) remember that a risk anywhere in the entire chain can impact any link — it may not be your responsibility contractually, but it will be your problem in reality. In the clinical cyber supply chain, the individual software systems receive most of the focus, but it is the rapidly changing interconnections where breaches happen most often — so working together to adjust perceived systems boundaries and overall mental models must be a continual task. The community of interest – which includes scientists, pharmaceutical companies, medical technology developers and manufacturers, academics, cyber security professionals, national defense professionals, and patients – is far-reaching, fragmented, and stove-piped. We must undertake a holistic reevaluation of biological warfare defense in the context of a changing and networked public health ecosystem. Katherine Hasty is a US Air Force veteran and director of Future Warfare at Long Term Strategy Group. Dr. Janie L. Gittleman is executive director for Global Health Innovation at ManTech International and a former Senior Health Advisor to the Defense Intelligence Agency Surgeon General. Edward F. O’Connor is a Subject Matter Expert with ManTech’s Health Division and a former CIO of Central Health and the Community Care Collaborative.   breakingdefense.com
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151239_Hunan ORF8 gene, complete cd - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8548_Guangdong RNA-dependent RNA po - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8548_Guangdong ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Origin and cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses in China - Nature Communications Bats are presumed reservoirs of diverse coronaviruses (CoVs) including progenitors of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19. However, the evolution and diversification of these coronaviruses remains poorly understood. Here we use a Bayesian statistical framework and a large sequence data set from bat-CoVs (including 630 novel CoV sequences) in China to study their macroevolution, cross-species transmission and dispersal. We find that host-switching occurs more frequently and across more distantly related host taxa in alpha- than beta-CoVs, and is more highly constrained by phylogenetic distance for beta-CoVs. We show that inter-family and -genus switching is most common in Rhinolophidae and the genus Rhinolophus. Our analyses identify the host taxa and geographic regions that define hotspots of CoV evolutionary diversity in China that could help target bat-CoV discovery for proactive zoonotic disease surveillance. Finally, we present a phylogenetic analysis suggesting a likely origin for SARS-CoV-2 in Rhinolophus spp. bats. Bats are a likely reservoir of zoonotic coronaviruses (CoVs). Here, analyzing bat CoV sequences in China, the authors find that alpha-CoVs have switched hosts more frequently than betaCoVs, identify a bat family and genus that are highly involved in host-switching, and define hotspots of CoV evolutionary diversity. nature.com

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@R_H_Ebright @alisonannyoung With ongoing cyberbiosecurity issues the whole time! The problem of knowledge silos within and between cybersecurity and bio world continues throughout this period from 2008 to NOW! Still now… Why?

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@R_H_Ebright @ScienceMagazine Further...as much as Holmes has stated that data from Jie Cui was not linked to WIV 162 of 163 submissions to GenBank remain suppressed or missing...with other serious data integrity issues and cyber biosecurity issues needing to be addressed... Disqualifying conflict of…

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@_everythingism @AceBearstrom @hiltzikm STS studies regularly acknowledge and explore institutional limits to knowledge away from the political narratives you outline here. <<Undone Science Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions By David J. Hess>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529495/undone-science/ Since this research…

Undone Science A theoretical integration of science and technology studies and social movement studies that finds both common ground and “undone” research.As the fields... mitpress.mit.edu

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

My application for SAGO at @WHO was rejected...but it was in volunteer capacity and so I simply continued to help where I can. https://2012-2017.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2496/Combatting_Corruption_Among_Civil_Servants_-_Interdisciplinary_Perspectives_on_What_Works.pdf My skill sets are listening...catching...and surprise...not simplicity H/t @CharlesRixey Umberto Eco said it well. If it is too complicated, read more books. But he wrote this type of thing in Italian, so don't see these ideas as complexity, see them as language. Teaching a language takes time and repetition...about two years of immersion...or you can nowadays Gronk your way through? The lived experience here is of an INCOMPLETE data set...so obviously I cannot fully explain the data...but you can join me on the journey. Surprise! Truth is important...but it takes a lot of listening to hear certain truths...trauma adds more layers of humanity and so our souls are stretched thinly as we listen to the person within the cyborg of text based embodiment twisting under the weight of the unknown...but knowable: <> LtCol Joe Murphy US Marines https://brownstone.org/author/joe-murphy/ In this space and habits of removed and gone...Holmes blinked and attempted <> methods, appropriate to biological warfare investigations, with Eddie's Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, here: Why? Good question, ask him. He says he was trying to demonstrate that 60 viruses submitted to GenBank as part of a 2018 preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of Wuhan Institute of Virology, were complete... https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus Interestingly only 163 of a potential 180 sequences, with ORF8, S & RdRp available for each, were said to be part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? But only 154 of these are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know...and I don't know everything...I am seeking the answers to fairly obvious questions. This thread tests these assumptions & knowledge claims... So lets do some <> searching together! // Forensic note: important under examined bioinformatics data is framing this data set...with this current GI series of 154 submissions interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original earlier GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? Finding the missing data set will help demonstrate what could have happened. GI count is hypothesized as a way of delineating this Undone Science data set. /// KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI is 1769824352 <> anyone can do this... even you? But if you cannot, what does this say about how easy it is to make a mistake in a DURC program? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824352 GI 1769824352 <> all good, all three, ORF8, RdRp and S genes present. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615857.1?report=genbank GI 1769824350 <> all good too https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615856.1?report=genbank GI 1769824348 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615855.1?report=genbank GI 1769824346 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615854.1?report=genbank GI 1769824344 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615853.1?report=girevhist GI 1769824342 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615852.1?report=genbank GI 1769824340 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615851.1?report=genbank GI 1769824338 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615850.1?report=genbank GI 1769824336 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615849.1?report=genbank GI 1769824334 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615848.1?report=genbank GI 1769824332 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615847.1?report=genbank GI 1769824330 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615846.1?report=genbank GI 1769824328 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615845.1?report=genbank GI 1769824326 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615844.1?report=genbank GI 1769824324 <> BINGO!!!! @MonaRahalkar your old friend! Finally! Again ORF8 and RdRp are here but for <> the S gene is missing. Why? So GI 1769824324 <> is the next missing data point for <> GenBank submission from@syd_health&@Sydney_UniProf Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of@NLM_NIH NOW tally is still twelve missing ORF8... and now eight missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there in two naming versions but only partly suppressed here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824434 and here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615898.1?report=girevhist but not available to GenBank search terms: <> https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus or <> https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Yu%2CP.%2C+Hu%2CB.%2C+Li%2CB.%2C+Luo%2CD.%2C+Zhu%2CG.%2C+Zhang%2CL.%2C+Holmes%2CE.C.%2C+Shi%2CZ.+and+Cui%2CJ. Strange isn't it? ORF8 gene is there again with two names but both searches for title and authors are not available again: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824324 &here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615843.1?report=girevhist If the <> linked submissions are not suppressed then these search terms should give at least two results for the ORF8 and RpRd? But in any case no S gene in this GI series for <> Why? Recap: Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan identified of a total of 15 missing...3 to go... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rs9201_Hubei 6) Rs151199_Hunan 7) Rs8548_Guangdong 8) RaTG13_Yunnan//Ra4991_Yunnan identified of 11 S genes left out of this study...3 to go! <> S gene is missing yet it is very important...especially the version of Ra4991 that was originally loaded on to GenBank before this current GI series was perhaps placed, cropped, edited and moved and given new ACCESSION codes. This apparently happened from Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM to 25-OCT-2019 So <> methodology requires more data. All this so far indicates that the 2023 disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824322! How to make strong knowledge claims about the origin of COVID without these data sets? Well you cannot. But Holmes gives it a go. @GrahamPerrettMP ? Any word from the relevant Ministers yet? https://www.sydney.edu.au/infectious-diseases-institute/news-and-events/news/2020/03/24/the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2.html

Archive - U.S. Agency for International Development 2012-2017.usaid.gov
Joe Murphy, Author at Brownstone Institute Joe Murphy is a lieutenant colonel in the US Marines with 16+ years of service. brownstone.org
Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8460_Guangdong ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8460_Guangdong ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8363_Guangdong ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151569_Guizhou ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151514_Guizhou ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151493_Guizhou ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151491_Guizhou ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151388_Guizhou ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151262_Guizhou ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs141567_Guangxi ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs141455_Guangxi ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs13488_Guangxi ORF8 gene, complete c - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs13484_Guangxi ORF8 gene, complete c - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs13479_Guangxi ORF8 gene, complete c - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain RaTG13_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA polym - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
No items found - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
No items found - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain RaTG13_Yunnan ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 sydney.edu.au

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@JamieMetzl @WHO I applied @WHO SAGO but didnt get in... so continued with thesis from OSINT epidemiology perspective as type of study that @mvankerkhove et al are probably not able to perform in an institutionally independent way...hope it helps.

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@R_H_Ebright @ScienceMagazine Further...as much as Holmes has stated that data from Jie Cui was not linked to WIV 162 of 163 submissions to GenBank remain suppressed or missing...with other serious data integrity issues and cyber biosecurity issues needing to be addressed... Disqualifying conflict of…

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@_everythingism @AceBearstrom @hiltzikm STS studies regularly acknowledge and explore institutional limits to knowledge away from the political narratives you outline here. <<Undone Science Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions By David J. Hess>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529495/undone-science/ Since this research…

Undone Science A theoretical integration of science and technology studies and social movement studies that finds both common ground and “undone” research.As the fields... mitpress.mit.edu

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

<> methods, appropriate to biological warfare investigations, with Eddie's Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, here: Why? Good question, ask him. @sciencecohen <> Yep...my guess is that Jon knew about the RaTG13/Ra4991 from sick miners but decided not to or was directed not to say anything right away. H/t @R_H_Ebright 5 years ago after being on the case for 25 years... Holmes says he was trying to demonstrate that 60 viruses submitted to GenBank as part of a 2018 preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of Wuhan Institute of Virology, were complete...but they are obviously incomplete. https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus Only 163 of a potential 180 sequences, with ORF8, S & RdRp available for each, were said to be part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? But bioinformatics analysis is important to these knowledge claims, H/t Trevor Bedford @trvrbonly ...and only 154 of these are in the current GenBank GI series available to be recovered...as far as I know...and I don't know everything...I am seeking the answers to fairly obvious questions...like why were these 180 GenBank submissions not available when WIV frist published post COVID outbreak discovery? https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.22.914952v2.full.pdf This thread tests these assumptions & knowledge claims... So lets do some <> bioinformatics philosophy of science searching together! // Important Forensic note: important under examined bioinformatics data is framing this data set...with this current GI series of 154 submissions interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original earlier GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? Finding the missing data set will help demonstrate what could have happened. GI count is hypothesized as a way of delineating this Undone Science data set. /// KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost thread GI is next after 1769824324 <> anyone can do this... even you? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824352 GI 1769824322 <> all good, all three, ORF8, RdRp and S genes present. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615842.1?report=genbank GI 1769824320 <> all good too https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615842.1?report=genbank GI 1769824318 <> all good https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615840.1?report=genbank GI 1769824316 <> all good but remember that the full sequence of Rs5725_Yunnan was available for the thesis <> of WIV but for <> only the ORF8, RdRp & S gene were available. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615839.1?report=genbank Remember that GI 1769824315 is where this GI series ends with <> Submitted (25-JUL-2018) and placed Oct 25, 2019 06:16 PM together with this GI series? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824315 Finally! NOW tally is still twelve missing ORF8... and now eight missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the last to be found with this GI count there in two naming versions but only partly suppressed here: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824434and here https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615898.1?report=girevhistbut not available to GenBank search terms: <> https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirusor <> https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Yu%2CP.%2C+Hu%2CB.%2C+Li%2CB.%2C+Luo%2CD.%2C+Zhu%2CG.%2C+Zhang%2CL.%2C+Holmes%2CE.C.%2C+Shi%2CZ.+and+Cui%2CJ. Strange isn't it? ORF8 gene is there again with two names but both searches for title and authors are not available again: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824324 &here https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615843.1?report=girevhist If the <> linked submissions are not suppressed then these search terms should give at least two results for the ORF8 and RpRd? But in any case no S gene in this GI series for <> Why? Recap: Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan identified of a total of 15 missing...3 to go... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rs9201_Hubei 6) Rs151199_Hunan 7) Rs8548_Guangdong 8) RaTG13_Yunnan//Ra4991_Yunnan identified of 11 S genes left out of this study...3 to go! <> S gene is missing yet it is very important...especially the version of Ra4991 that was originally loaded on to GenBank before this current GI series was perhaps placed, cropped, edited and moved and given new ACCESSION codes. This apparently happened from Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM to 25-OCT-2019 So <> methodology requires more data. All this so far indicates that the 2023 disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete... How to make strong knowledge claims about the origin of COVID without these data sets? Well you cannot. But Holmes gives it a go. To find the rest of the missing data points we need to examine the 180 potential for the 3 S and 3 OFRF8 missing. It is so easy to make mistakes with this type of count and so checking and rechecking with different methodologies is important. This is the complex ground of the information domain. I have to back track and see if I have missed a thread in the GI series? This is why I have left this trail of pebbles...so I can back track when needed. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-biodefense-oligarchy-and-its-demographic-defeats/

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8460_Guangdong ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs160665_Yunnan ORF8 gene, complete c - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs160665_Yunnan ORF8 gene, complete c - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rf5511_Yunnan ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs5725_Yunnan ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Infantis strain FSIS170229 - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
No items found - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain RaTG13_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA polym - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
No items found - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
No items found - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain RaTG13_Yunnan ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The Biodefense Oligarchy and Its Demographic Defeats ⋆ Brownstone Institute Two decades ago, factions argued that biowarfare threats were so significant that biodefense responsibility needed to be removed from the purview of the uniformed military and placed within NIAID under NIH and under HHS. brownstone.org

@R_H_Ebright - Richard H. Ebright

Five years ago today, a scientist stated publicly that data were consistent with a lab origin: "Ebright tells Science...that the 2019-nCoV data are 'consistent with entry into the human population as either a natural accident or a laboratory accident.'" https://www.science.org/content/article/mining-coronavirus-genomes-clues-outbreak-s-origins

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@R_H_Ebright @ScienceMagazine Further...as much as Holmes has stated that data from Jie Cui was not linked to WIV 162 of 163 submissions to GenBank remain suppressed or missing...with other serious data integrity issues and cyber biosecurity issues needing to be addressed... Disqualifying conflict of…

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@_everythingism @AceBearstrom @hiltzikm STS studies regularly acknowledge and explore institutional limits to knowledge away from the political narratives you outline here. <<Undone Science Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions By David J. Hess>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529495/undone-science/ Since this research…

Undone Science A theoretical integration of science and technology studies and social movement studies that finds both common ground and “undone” research.As the fields... mitpress.mit.edu

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

This is where I lost count! Doh! Next GI will have to start from here and be inserted into current tally. GI 1769824546 restart count again here...and insert missing into tally KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI is 1769824546 <> anyone can do this... even you? But if you cannot, or if you lose count so easily, like I always do...what does this say about how easy it is to make a mistake in a DURC program? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824546 GI 1769824546 <> all good, all three, ORF8, RdRp and S genes present. Next GI 1769824544 <> & RdRp are there but suppressed but ORF8 is already 5) on the tally https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615953.1?report=genbank GI 1769824542 <> & RdRp are there but suppressed but ORF8 is should be 6) on the tally not 7) as I must have started counting GI from the RdRp list here? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615952.1?report=genbank GI 1769824540 <> & RdRp are there but should be 7) on the list not 9)? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615951.1?report=genbank GI 1769824538 <> & RdRp are there but should be 8) and is missing! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615951.1?report=genbank Lets keep going to the next one... GI 1769824536 <> & RdRp & ORF8 are there https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615949.1?report=genbank GI 1769824534 <> & RdRp & ORF8 are there https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824534 GI 1769824532 <> & RdRp but missing ORF8 should be 9) on the list not 12) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824532 GI 1769824530 <> & RdRp & ORF8 are there all good https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824530 GI 1769824528 <> & RdRp but ORF8 missing should be 10) on tally not 11) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824528 GI 1769824526 <> & RdRp & ORF8 all good https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824526 GI 1769824524 is <> so S & RdRp & ORF8 all good https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824524 GI 1769824522 is <> so S & RdRp & ORF8 all good https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824522 GI 1769824520 is <> all good GI 1769824518 is <> all good GI 1769824516 is <> all good GI 1769824514 is <> all good GI 1769824512 is <> all good GI 1769824510 is <> ORF8 missing 1) on tally GI 1769824508 is <> all good GI 1769824506 is <> all good GI 1769824504 is <> all good GI 1769824502 is <> all good GI 1769824500 is <> is tricky missing S gene 1) in tally not 4) missing but RdRp and ORF8 OK https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615936.1?report=genbank GI 1769824498 is <> again missing S gene 2) not 5) in tally, but RdRp & ORF8 are good. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615930.1?report=genbank GI 1769824496 is <> again missing S gene 3) not 6) in tally, but RdRp & ORF8 are good. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615930.1?report=genbank GI 1769824494 is <> all good GI 1769824492 is <> ORF8 is missing 2) in tally GI 1769824490 is <> all good GI 1769824488 is <> all good GI 1769824486 is <> all good GI 1769824484 is <> all good GI 1769824482 is <> dare I say BINGO!!! <> RdRp is there https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615922.1?report=girevhist but ORF8 is missing number 11) and S is missing number 4) NOW tally is still fourteen missing ORF8... and still nine missing S genes... Recap: Missing ORF8 tally so far with order fixed: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Ra7909_Yunnan prev Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Rspp7905_Yunnan prev Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7931_Yunnan prev Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rs6266_Yunnan prev Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rs6303_Yunnan prev Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rf130223-29_Beijing prev Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan identified of a total of 15 missing...1 to go? Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rs9214_Hubei prev Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rs9201_Hubei prev Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rs151199_Hunan prev Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rf130223-29_Beijing prev Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rs9201_Hubei 6) Rs151199_Hunan 7) Rs8548_Guangdong 8) RaTG13_Yunnan//Ra4991_Yunnan identified of 11/11 S genes left out of this study... <> S gene is missing yet it is very important...especially the version of Ra4991 that was originally loaded on to GenBank before this current GI series was perhaps placed, cropped, edited and moved and given new ACCESSION codes. This apparently happened from Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM to 25-OCT-2019 So <> methodology requires more data. All this so far indicates that the 2023 disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824322! How to make strong knowledge claims about the origin of COVID without these data sets? Well you cannot. This tally is nice and messy at the moment...I will need to clean it up in the next post! Counting from GI 1769824482 <> and smoothing out the tally. A stuff up in a GI count like this is character building, but also gives an insight into the lived experience of bioinformatics of Virology. How could this type of thing but constantly happening an STILL there is an attitude that errors are not common. What bullshit! They happen all the time! Like @sciencecohen who details DNA of SARS-CoV-2 instead of RNA. We are all people doing people stuff...stuff-ups too. https://www.science.org/content/article/mining-coronavirus-genomes-clues-outbreak-s-origins

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8363_Guangdong spike protein (S) ge - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rspp7924_Yunnan spike protein (S) gen - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Ra7909_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rspp7905_Yunnan spike protein (S) gen - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rspp7905_Yunnan spike protein (S) gen - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs5725_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs160665_Yunnan spike protein (S) gen - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6266_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6255_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6303_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rf5511_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs161465_Guangdong RNA-dependent RNA - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs161419_Guangdong RNA-dependent RNA - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151334_Guizhou RNA-dependent RNA po - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9201_Hubei RNA-dependent RNA polyme - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9201_Hubei RNA-dependent RNA polyme - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

Next one? <> no ORF8 found in @NLM_NIH GenBank <>, complete cds is there but suppressed... GenBank: MH615955.1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615955.1?report=genbank <> GenBank: MH615905.1 is there but suppressed... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615905.1?report=genbank ...so that is NOW four missing ORF8; all with S and RdRp available but suppressed; 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi Were these in the 60-54=6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this PrePrint ? https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series in GenBank? https://news.clearancejobs.com/2019/08/15/weaponizing-medicine-chinas-latest-theft-a-potential-biological-weapon/ Who knows? @COVIDSelect @COVIDSelectDems ? @R_H_Ebright

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs141456_Guangxi spike protein (S) ge - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs141456_Guangxi RNA-dependent RNA po - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org
Weaponizing Medicine: China's Latest Theft a Potential Biological Weapon A Canadian research lab sent deadly virus strains to China under the guise of scientific advancement. Now a Chinese lab scientist has been dismissed and Canadian law enforcement investigates. - Intelligence news.clearancejobs.com

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

Censorship of the nature deployed in the case of COVID had some obvious negative effects...but some were not so bad. @BiosafetyNow https://biosafetynow.substack.com/p/censoring-virology It was nice and quiet. The people censored had to find ways to reach out to each other...the phenomenology was that we had to look at what we were looking through. It also builds a compassion for a data set you are auditing during verification and for your own findings...a health doubt...need to double check and have peers that are brutal not lazy. Fixing this mess is going to be fun! Some wisdom always comes from a moment of stupidity and reflection. KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI 1769824482 <> anyone can do this... even you? But if you cannot, or if you lose count so easily, like I always do...what does this say about how easy it is to make a mistake in a DURC program? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824482 Starting with next RdRp GI 1769824480 is <> all good GI 1769824478 is <> S gene misssssing BBBBBingo! S gene missing no 5) in tally more BLAST homework here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615920.1?report=genbank Couple more to find! GI 1769824476 <> all good GI 1769824474 <> all good GI 1769824472 <> all good GI 1769824470 <> all good GI 1769824468 <> all good GI 1769824466 <> all good GI 1769824464 <> all good GI 1769824462 <> ORF8 missing number 3) GI 1769824460 <> all good GI 1769824458 <> all good GI 1769824456 <> all good GI 1769824454 <> all good GI 1769824452 <> all good GI 1769824450 <> all good GI 1769824448 <> missing ORF8 tally number 4) GI 1769824446 <> all good GI 1769824444 <> all good GI 1769824442 <> all good GI 1769824440 <> all good GI 1769824438 <> all good GI 1769824436 <> missing S number 6) not 7) GI 1769824434 <> missing S number 7) prev 8) GI 1769824432 <> Binnnngooooo RdRp good, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615897.1?report=genbank missing S number 7) & ORF8 missing number 12) with complete genome available on CNCB from June 2021 https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/biosample/browse/SAMC346732 NOW tally is still a mess Recap: Missing ORF8 tally so far with order fixed: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Ra7909_Yunnan prev Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Rspp7905_Yunnan prev Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7931_Yunnan prev Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rs6266_Yunnan prev Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rs6303_Yunnan prev Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rf130223-29_Beijing prev Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rspp7952_Yunnan prev Rs6266_Yunnan 13) 14) 15) identified of a total of 15 missing Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rs9214_Hubei prev Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rs9201_Hubei prev Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rs151199_Hunan prev Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rf130223-29_Beijing prev Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rp8794_Guangdong prev Rs9201_Hubei 6) Rs8548_Guangdong prev Rs151199_Hunan 7) RaTG13_Yunnan RNA-dependent prev Rs8548_Guangdong 8) Rspp7952_Yunnan prev RaTG13_Yunnan//Ra4991_Yunnan 9) 10) 11) identified of 11 S genes left out of this study... <> S gene is missing So <> methodology requires more data. All this so far indicates that the 2023 disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is from GI 1769824432! How to make strong knowledge claims about the origin of COVID without these data sets? Well you cannot. This tally is nice and messy at the moment...I will need to continue to clean it up in the next post! Counting from GI 1769824432 <> and smoothing out the tally. Eventually it may be clearer than bee shit https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp90-00965r000403600002-0

Censoring virology "On reading," by Simon Wain-Hobson, is a weekly discussion of scientific papers and news articles around gain of function research in virology. biosafetynow.substack.com
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rf130223-29_Beijing RNA-dependent RNA - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rp8794_Guangdong RNA-dependent RNA po - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rspp7952_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA pol - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Browse - BioSample - CNCB-NGDC ngdc.cncb.ac.cn
THE 'BEE FECES' THEORY UNDONE | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov) cia.gov

@a_kruschke - A.Kruschke

@tommy_cleary @JAHawk94684 @MartinaSisters @mlperk1 @MonaRahalkar @R_H_Ebright @quay_dr @BiosafetyNow @syd_health @SystemsVirology @NLM_NIH @POTUS @Sydney_Uni @DrJBhattacharya @FloDebarre @institutpasteur @thackerpd @Rebecca21951651 @capitolsheila @BillyBostickson @breakfast_dogs @Globalbiosec @gdemaneuf @RdeMaistre @dasher8090 @COVIDSelect @GrahamPerrettMP @harishseshadri2 @emilyakopp @Ayjchan @VBruttel @CharlesRixey @sciencecohen @hholdenthorp @ScienceMagazine @WHO @reSeeIt save Thread

HolaBackupFiJC
Posted - February 19, 2025 at 12:12 AM
Saved - February 22, 2025 at 1:44 PM

@HolaBackupFiJC - HolaBackup

This is so sad. https://t.co/iU5i6YUEr7

@FnqSilver - Mark 🐭

@MrsFarkas_ @GreenEyesinTN @ImmunoGangsta @HolaBackupFiJC Our Jewish friend Jonathan has already been caught spreading misinformation & getting played by pharma shills. What you provided isn't associated with the NIH. PubMed is the depository for NIH where doc's are stored. https://t.co/HNqTnvNCY1

@MrsFarkas_ - MrsFarkas🇺🇸

@FnqSilver @GreenEyesinTN @ImmunoGangsta @HolaBackupFiJC https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uNDj89g39ixnePYkEFOr4rcIrdXjLXeI/view?usp=drivesdk The susceptibility of different populations to SARS CoV-2 may be explained here.

@MrsFarkas_ - MrsFarkas🇺🇸

@FnqSilver @GreenEyesinTN @ImmunoGangsta @HolaBackupFiJC https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uNDj89g39ixnePYkEFOr4rcIrdXjLXeI/view?usp=drivesdk The susceptibility of different populations to SARS CoV-2 may be explained here.

HolaBackupFiJC
Posted - February 19, 2025 at 4:53 AM
Saved - February 22, 2025 at 2:02 PM

@HolaBackupFiJC - HolaBackup

Fuck Peter Hotez.

@bitchfork - Miss DisMal Information

@qaggnews UTMB & GNL >>Hotez>>LeDuc I've done threads on an old account about this. GNL *trained* the Wuhan Institute Researchers (WIV) to work on the coronavirus gain of function (GoF). They also knew in April of 2020 it leaked from WIV. Also, note the YEAR 2014🚩 (pardons) https://t.co/uSTcvV6Mk0

HolaBackupFiJC
Posted - February 24, 2025 at 1:02 AM
Saved - February 24, 2025 at 1:32 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across a TwitterX thread by @IntegralAnswers discussing the origins of COVID-19, claiming it likely emerged from a natural zoonotic spillover. This was echoed by Peter Openshaw, who praised the thread as evidence against a lab origin. I can't help but feel embarrassed for those still promoting this discredited narrative. I also noticed that @IntegralAnswers has connections to questionable figures, raising doubts about his credibility. Overall, I find the ongoing defense of these so-called experts infuriating and believe they should be held accountable.

@HolaBackupFiJC - HolaBackup

THEY. JUST. CAN’T. HELP. THEMSELVES. (🤣🤣🤣) *So there I was, perusing a “Coronavirus” list of ‘experts’ on TwitterX, as one does, and I stumble across this juicy little nugget from @IntegralAnswers, posted yesterday at 6:23 pm CST: “The origins of COVID-19: What does the evidence say? Scientists overwhelmingly support the conclusion that SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, most likely emerged from a natural zoonotic spillover. Here’s why.🧵👇” *NOTE: The post above had been quoted by Peter Openshaw, one of the members of this “Coronavirus” group, right under what looks to be a Peter Hotez alt account (lol) that repeatedly shills his “Vaccines Didn’t Cause Rachel’s (Hotez’s daughter) Autism” book and gives him the chance to retweet himself (lmao). Peter Openshaw added his own caption to the “quote post”, which read: “Excellent thread explaining the overwhelming evidence favoring a natural origin of #SARSCoV2. There’s no similar body of work to support a possible lab origin.” (Referring to the thread by @IntegralAnswers.) In addition to being embarrassed for these fucking genocidal charlatans still trying to push the long-discredited “zoonotic COVID origins” horseshit, I also remembered the “IntegralAnswers” account seemed oddly familiar to me recently for another reason. *So that’s when I scrolled his feed for just a second and came across this little nugget I remembered seeing him quietly post three days ago, on 2/20/2025 at 8:01 pm CST: “Will Dmitry show up?” Yep, you guessed it. IntegralAnswers was directly quoting our recently-exposed ‘CIA Counter Mouse Army’ homie, Real Truther (Dmitry), to add some passive aggro “that’s not him” interference. What a fucking time to be alive, sports fans.🤣

@HolaBackupFiJC - HolaBackup

As you can see, the @IntegralAnswers account is a totally serious person who’s worth listening to regarding all of our world’s most important questions. He’s definitely NOT just another shameless, lying, Global Jewry operative.🤣 PS: Feigl-Ding might actually be his most embarrassing “Following”, which says a FUCK ton, given the competition lol.

@HolaBackupFiJC - HolaBackup

@IntegralAnswers “Dr.” Neil Stone: Here’s another Israeli Jew ‘expert’ who deserves to be stuffed in a locker and whose medical/public health opinions should be dismissed out of hand.

@HolaBackupFiJC - HolaBackup

Yes, they do. Receipts are fun, “doc”. Know what else works? Capital punishment for all charlatans, medical terrorists and genocidal maniacs who’ve been LARP’ing as “experts” for years. https://t.co/0dlgola9fc

@DrNeilStone - Neil Stone

Joe Rogan is obsessed with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as Covid treatments Thing about them is - they don't work https://t.co/ol4qirG80n

Bryce_Nickels
Posted - February 12, 2026 at 2:46 AM
Saved - February 13, 2026 at 5:31 AM

@Bryce_Nickels - Bryce Nickels

"They should be retracted...but of course I don't think these people have the courage or the decency to do so..." Virologist Simon Wain-Hobson calls for retraction of the key publications that misled the world on the origin of COVID (“Proximal Origin” & "The Lancet letter") https://t.co/fFh0UZsNfg

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that the science is very incorrect and very bad science, aside from all the other material Jill Demenov and US Right to Know uncovered. They claim those sources went overboard to disprove something without good data, and that the manipulation and intent to tell a story that is not substantiated are the reasons why they should be retracted. They also state that these people do not have the courage or the decency to retract.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is very incorrect science apart from, as I say, all the other stuff that Jill Demenov and US Right to Know dug up. It's it's very it's it's it's very bad science. Very bad science. They went overboard to disprove something without good data. I mean, when I say without good data, I mean, it's appalling. These are wrong because of the manipulation, the intent to tell a story that is not substantiated. That is the reasons why they should be retracted. They should be retracted, but, of course, I don't think these people have the courage to or the decency to do so.

@Bryce_Nickels - Bryce Nickels

6 yrs ago today, on Feb 1, 2020, a group that included Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, Jeremy Farrar, Eddie Holmes, Kristian Andersen, Robert Garry, Andrew Rambaut, Ron Fouchier, Marion Koopmans, and Christian Drosten came together to discuss how to mislead the public about the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

@NateSilver538 - Nate Silver

Let's start by 1) retracting the "Proximal Origins" paper; 2) having scientists like you (i.e. people sympathetic to the natural origins case) call out Andersen et al for their gross misconduct. Then we might have the semblance of an honest discussion.

View Full Interactive Feed