New Engineered Coronaviruses Are Under Development
September 10, 2020
Event 201 was a pandemic preparedness simulation hosted in New York City by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in October 2019 — 10 weeks before the COVID-19 outbreak first began in Wuhan, China.
This scripted tabletop exercise — select portions of which are featured in the introduction of ‘Plandemic 2’ above — included everything we now see playing out in real time, in the real world, from PPE shortages, lockdowns and removal of civil liberties to mandated vaccination campaigns, riots, economic turmoil and the breakdown of social cohesion.
Many of the discussions revolved around the development of strategies to limit and counter the spread of expected “misinformation” about the pandemic and subsequent vaccines.
In addition to censorship of certain views, their plan included the use of celebrities and other social media influencers to “model” and promote adherence to pandemic response edicts. I discussed this in “The PR Firm Behind WHO’s Celeb Endorsements.”
Just as in real life, one of the pieces of “misinformation” that would need to be countered was rumors that the virus had been created and released from a bioweapons laboratory.
Naturally-Occurring SARS-CoV-2 Is the Real Conspiracy Theory
Mounting evidence now suggests SARS-CoV-2 is indeed a laboratory creation, whether released by accident or on purpose. Increasingly, “conspiracy theories” are turning out to be factual conspiracies, and as noted in an August 20, 2020, article1 on Wio News.
The article was written by Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D., a former researcher with the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute, who says the real conspiracy theory here is that SARS-CoV-2 is a naturally occurring virus. Sellin’s article reviews some of the studies that offer significant clues to the virus’ origin, including the fact that SARS-CoV-2 has:2
- A very high infection rate, thanks to it being more selective for the human ACE2 receptor than SARS-Cov-1 (responsible for the 2003 SARS pandemic)3
- A unique furin cleavage site not found in any closely related bat coronaviruses that allows the virus to fuse to human cells, thereby enhancing its pathogenicity and transmissibility4,5,6,7
- Certain spike protein structures that are similar to those found in the MERS-CoV virus, which allow the virus to attach using not only the ACE2 receptor but also the DPP4 receptor, like MERS-CoV. This dual receptor strategy might be responsible for its ability to infect a wide range of human tissues8
Together, these features make SARS-CoV-2 exceptionally well-adapted for human infection, which is odd, considering it “came out of nowhere” and hasn’t been found in any other living creature.
The Mojiang Miners Theory
Sellin goes on to discuss a theory9 put forth by Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., two molecular biologists (Latham is also a virologist). I interviewed Latham about some of their theories in July 2020. His interview is featured in “Cover-Up of SARS-CoV-2 Origin?”
Latham and Wilson’s theory can be summarized as follows: A virus similar to SARS-CoV-2 — known as RaTG13, SARS-CoV-2’s closest relative — infected six Chinese miners in 2012. The virus then evolved into its current virulent form once inside the miners, as all were ill for an extended period of time.
Tissue samples from the patients were sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for testing, which revealed the infection was caused by a SARS-like coronavirus from horseshoe bats. This virus, now dubbed SARS-CoV-2, then somehow escaped from the Wuhan lab in 2019.
Sellin, however, isn’t buying it, saying that, while it’s a well-documented article,10 it’s “marred by offering an untenable theory of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 based on the serendipitous linking of a series of undocumented assumptions.” He explains:11
“First of all, the extent of viral evolution in a single patient that would be required to go from RaTG13 to SARS-CoV-2, about 1,200 nucleotides, is unprecedented in the annals of scientific inquiry.
Latham and Wilson attribute the adaptation to the viral load within a large lung surface area and, in particular, a lengthy infection lasting over four months.
Yet, despite the presence of an active infection of a coronavirus highly adapted for human infection, there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission, even though the Chinese clinical study provides no indication of special quarantine efforts and a therapeutic regime resembling that for ordinary respiratory infections, including fungal infections.
Although it seems likely that the miners experienced an initial viral respiratory infection and secondary, probably bacterial infections, tests for viral infections, including SARS-CoV-1, were negative during the course of hospitalization.
It was only afterwards, that the Chinese clinical study mentions a positive test for an unidentified virus, one possibility being henipa-like virus, which was also discovered12 in the same cave along with numerous types of bat coronaviruses.”
Things Simply Don’t Add Up
Sellin points out the fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was conducting research on RaTG13 in 2017 and 2018. Meanwhile, SARS-CoV-2, obtained from the tissue samples from the miners, was supposedly still on ice in that same facility.
Why would they be experimenting with RaTG13 if a more virulent form of the virus was already available? What’s more, were the miners’ illness the result of direct bat-to-human transmission, it should have been front page news, yet it wasn’t.
“If the Latham and Wilson theory proves anything, it demonstrates the lengths one must go in evidence-stretching to show that SARS-CoV-2 is naturally-occurring, when one begins by precluding the possibility that it was manufactured in a laboratory,” Sellin writes.
In fairness, Latham and Wilson have presented several theories for a laboratory escape — discussed in our interview — so I don’t think their starting point is one of trying to prove that the virus is a natural occurrence. Sellin is not alone in his observation that this zoonotic transmission should have been a groundbreaking discovery, though.
In “Why Was Wuhan Lab Locked Down When Outbreak Began?” I review the writings of an anonymous (possibly Chinese) scientist who has published13,14 an alternative theory — including raw data — in a blog called Nerd Has Power.15 The unnamed writer suggests RaTG13 is a fabrication and doesn’t actually exist.
If it did exist, it would have been groundbreaking news back in 2013, yet the scientist that is supposed to have made the discovery, Shi Zheng-Li, got her fame from the publication of two other bat coronaviruses that same year instead. The gene sequence for RaTG13 wasn’t published until February 3, 2020.16
According to that 2020 paper, the sequencing of RaTG13 had not previously been performed. Why did she wait until people started questioning the origin of SARS-CoV-2 to publish the RaTG13 genetic sequence?
What’s more, according to the anonymous scientist, the genetic sequence of RaTG13’s spike protein “reveals clear evidence of human manipulation.” And then there’s Zheng-Li’s statement to Scientific American in June 2020, where she claimed the miners were sickened from a fungal infection17 — not a coronavirus.
Confusing matters further, there’s evidence suggesting RaTG13 was previously published in a 2016 paper, but under the name BtCoV/4991, thereby obscuring its connection to the Mojiang mine where the miners were sickened. Latham discussed this convoluted story in “Cover-Up of SARS-CoV-2 Origin?” (see earlier hyperlink).
New Engineered Coronaviruses Are Under Development
As if there aren’t enough unanswered questions already, uncertainty is piled on top of uncertainty as experimentation with fully infectious SARS-CoV-2 has exploded in recent months.
High-security biosafety labs around the world are clamoring to get in on the action, and according to Richard Ebright, an epidemiologist at Rutgers University, such research is now taking place “in every, or almost every, BSL-3 facility in the U.S. and overseas.”18
In an August 17, 2020 article,19 Latham reports that at least one safety breach involving a modified SARS-CoV-2 virus has already occurred this year, when a lab mouse injected with the virus bit the researcher.
The event reportedly occurred at the high-security lab at the University of North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill, sometime after April 1, but was only discovered because Edward Hammond of Prickly Research had filed a FOIA request. Hammond told Latham:20
“It is evident that swarms of academic researchers with little prior experience with coronaviruses have leapt into the field in recent months. We need to be clear headed about the risk.
The first SARS virus was a notorious source of laboratory-acquired infections and there is a very real risk that modified forms of SARS-CoV-2 could infect researchers, especially inexperienced researchers, with unpredictable and potentially quite dangerous results.
The biggest risk is the creation and accidental release of a novel form of SARS-CoV-2 … Each additional lab that experiments with CoV-2 amplifies the risk.’”
Some researchers are even arguing for infectious SARS-CoV-2 research to be permitted in biosafety level 2 laboratories, which Ebright has called “egregiously irresponsible.”
Anthrax Equipped With SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein
In another FOIA request, Hammond obtained information showing researchers (whose names are redacted) at the University of Pittsburgh are working on what he dubbed “corona-thrax.” As reported by Latham,21 they intend to “put the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (which allows the virus to gain entry into human cells) into Bacillus anthracis which is the causative agent of anthrax.
Do we really need this kind of research, where already lethal bacteria are equipped with viral components that allow them better entry into human cells and a wider range of human tissues? What could go wrong? Just about everything!
The argument for “biodefense” research is that we need to be prepared should nature throw us a curveball, but the idea that bacteria would naturally evolve to develop a spike protein from a highly infectious virus would have to be infinitesimally small. As such, this kind of research is nothing short of insanity.
Hundreds of Safety Lapses Have Been Covered Up
As reported in a 2014 USA Today article,22 safety lapses at biosafety labs are far more common than anyone might imagine. Between 2008 and 2012 alone, more than 1,100 lab incidents involving highly infectious germs were reported to federal regulators, but the details are shrouded in secrecy.
In all likelihood, the real number is far higher, as the April 2020 incident at UNC does not appear to have been reported to regulators, as required. According to USA Today:23
“More than half these incidents were serious enough that lab workers received medical evaluations or treatment, according to the reports. In five incidents, investigations confirmed that laboratory workers had been infected or sickened; all recovered.
In two other incidents, animals were inadvertently infected with contagious diseases that would have posed significant threats to livestock industries if they had spread. One case involved the infection of two animals with hog cholera, a dangerous virus eradicated from the USA in 1978.
In another incident, a cow in a disease-free herd next to a research facility studying the bacteria that cause brucellosis, became infected due to practices that violated federal regulations, resulting in regulators suspending the research and ordering a $425,000 fine, records show.”
I’ve also reviewed many other incidents in “Bioweapon Labs Must Be Shut Down and Scientists Prosecuted,” “More Errors Involving Deadly Pathogens Discovered” and several other articles over the years.
NIH Demands Answers
To circle back to where I left off on RaTG13, August 22, 2020, the Daily Mail reported24 that the U.S. National Institutes of Health is now demanding answers about the authenticity of RaTG13:
“The National Institutes of Health has asked if COVID-19 was linked to the deaths of three miners eight years ago and questioned whether the high-security laboratory in Wuhan possessed samples of the virus prior to the pandemic’s outbreak late last year …
The NIH letter, sent by Michael Lauer, deputy director for extramural research, said there were ‘serious bio-safety concerns’ over research at the Wuhan lab …
Lauer also said the agency needed to know why the Wuhan Institute ‘failed to note that the RaTG13 virus, the bat-derived coronavirus in its collection with greatest similarity to SARS-Cov-2, was actually isolated from an abandoned mine where three men died in 2012 with an illness remarkably similar to COVID-19’ …
The agency also demanded to know more about the ‘apparent disappearance’ of a scientist at the lab rumored to be Patient Zero, and questioned if roadblocks were placed around the Wuhan Institute of Virology between October 14 and 19 last year …
‘It seems NIH experts are not just discarding lab escape scenarios as conspiratorial theories any more,’ said one U.S.-based biomedical expert.”
As I said earlier, conspiracy theories are increasingly looking like conspiracy facts, and even the suspicion that the genomic sequence of RaTG13 might be a fabrication is now being investigated.
The demands for answers are directed to EcoHealth Alliance, the research organization that, between 2014 and 2019, received a long list of grants from the NIH to study “the risk of bat coronavirus emergence.” EcoHealth Alliance then subcontracted that work to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They’ve been working with Zheng-Li for over 15 years.
NIH initially canceled its funding to EcoHealth Alliance in April 2020,25 but has agreed to reinstate the multimillion-dollar grant provided EcoHealth fulfills the seven conditions issued by the NIH.
The scrutiny appears to have put EcoHealth Alliance president, British research scientist Peter Daszak, on edge, calling the demands “heinous” and “politically motivated.” Zheng-Li echoed Daszak’s sentiments, calling the NIH’s demands “outrageous.”26
EcoHealth Alliance is also the subject of FOIA requests,27,28,29 which Daszak is none too happy about. In an interview with Nature, published August 21, 2020, Daszak said:30
“Conspiracy-theory outlets and politically motivated organizations have made Freedom of Information Act requests on our grants and all of our letters and e-mails to the NIH.
We don’t think it’s fair that we should have to reveal everything we do. When you submit a grant, you put in all your best ideas. We don’t want to hand those over to conspiracy theorists for them to publish and ruin and make a mockery of.”
Daszak’s dismay at having to show correspondence and information relating to the organization’s coronavirus research at Wuhan Institute of Virology suggests what they’re doing is likely dangerous. Why else is he worried that the information will spark conspiracy theories?
Promises Kept?
In 2015 Bill Gates said we needed to start preparing for pandemics as if preparing for war. In 2018, Bill Gates said a deadly new disease is coming, and it might not even be a flu but something we’ve never seen before.31 Earlier that same year, Melinda Gates said the biggest global risk she could imagine is a bioterrorist attack.32
As suggested by Gates in the video clip above, modern warfare is more likely to involve germs than bombs. In the past, when you looked at the global bargaining table, having weapons of mass destruction gave you bargaining power, and countries that posed a threat to that power were paid not to arm themselves.
They were paid provided they promised not to produce atomic weapons, for example, and for most, the cost of producing weapons was far greater than the aid they stood to lose.
Bioweapons, on the other hand, are so inexpensive to make, everyone can make them, and many are. Like nuclear weapons before them, biological weapons also give you bargaining power, but at a much lower cost. Many thousands of biosafety labs around the world are now equipped with highly infectious pathogens that can be manipulated into even more dangerous pathogens.
Event 201 simulated a pandemic outbreak of a coronavirus illness that, for all intents and purposes, is identical to COVID-19. Gates has been pushing for war-level preparedness against viruses for years. And as long as bioweapons labs remain open, the real-world Event 201 that is this COVID-19 pandemic will become Event 202, Event 203, and so on — until all of these labs are shut down.
The evidence is clear. Gain-of-function research is creating the very diseases that global governments are then forced to “arm” themselves against. It’s time to stop the new arms race, before it really is too late.
In the meantime, it is important to make sure you’re prepared at home. I strongly recommend reviewing my interview with Dr. David Brownstein, in which he explains the benefits of nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s important to have something in your own arsenal to protect yourself against whatever they come up with next.
This needs to be a central player in your emergency medical kit as I fully believe it could be the difference for many, especially the elderly, those who are vitamin D deficient and/or metabolically unfit and insulin resistant. I believe nebulized peroxide is one of the best options available for any respiratory virus, including even more dangerous ones than SARS-CoV-2 that are likely to be introduced in the future.
Sources and References
- 1, 2, 11 Wionews.com August 20, 2020
- 3 Int J Biol Sci. 2020; 16(10): 1678–1685
- 4 Viruses 2019 Oct; 11(10): 972
- 5 Virologica Sinica 2020; 35: 337-339
- 6 Molecular Cell May 21, 2020; 78(4): 779-784.e5
- 7 ChinaXiv, DOI: 10.12074/202002.00062
- 8 Viruses 2020; 12(9): 909
- 9, 10 Independent Science News July 15, 2020
- 12 Emerging Infectious Diseases June 2014; 20(6)
- 13, 15 Nerd Has Power, RaTG13 — The Undeniable Evidence That the Wuhan Coronavirus Is Man-Made
- 14 Steven Mosher May 15, 2020
- 16 Nature 2020; 579: 270-273
- 17 Scientific American June 1, 2020
- 18, 19, 20, 21 Counterpunch August 17, 2020
- 22, 23 USA Today August 17, 2014
- 24 Daily Mail August 22, 2020
- 25 Partial transcript of email exchanges in which NIH cuts off grant funding to EcoHealth Alliance (PDF)
- 26, 30 Nature August 21, 2020
- 27 National Review June 1, 2020
- 28 NLPC.org April 28, 2020
- 29 UNC Chapel Hill FOIA Request 20-177
- 31 Business Insider November 29, 2018
- 32 Business Insider March 13, 2018
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten