You know, the question that bugs me is: what did Fauci know, when NIH designed a vaccine based on unchanged (minus proline substitutions of FCS) spikes of a *potential* bioweapon?
Either psychopathy or a manifestation of tiger-blood-confidence. Very Cave Johnson of him either way -
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. Get mad. I don't want your damn lemons - what the hell am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man who’s gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I’m gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!"
I think the HIV/FCS inserts are best viewed as dual-purpose - they have ambiguous relevance as far as pathology or perhaps immunology*, but pretty clear function in terms of modifying how the virus is discussed in the counter-narrative. For the latter, they are hooks for drawing attention to the "lab accident / leak" narrative, that's why I place them in the red "official counter-narrative factory" on my map. So when I addressed the patent question, I pointed out that the nucleotide identical-ness could be intentional https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-moderna-patent-controv
As I see the virus as a deliberate creation, not an "accident," I am inclined to view these kinds of signatures as just that - signatures. When humans create things they like to show off their work. So yes, they indicate lab origin - they are meant to. But I think attempting to understand them as "lab accidents" is a path to not understanding the virus correctly.
*Ambiguous because it does seem plausible that at some point someone was working on SARS-CoV-2 as a self-spreading HIV vaccine. But it's not easy to see why they would have put an FCS on it since the ostensible result of the FCS is more pathogenicity, and certainly more expert alarm (FCS's are hyped up as the difference between low- and high-pathogenicity avian flu, basically when viral spike glycoproteins don't have FCS's it's like the safety on a gun, they can't fire; when the FCS gets put back on then the safety is removed and the gun can fire, causing fusion with cell membranes; but whether this has a deleterious impact on sustained transmission is the big question, given that HPAI has never taken off in humans).
Could the HIV inserts instead be toxic? Could they be contributing to the amyloidogenic nature of the spike protein, given that Pretorius et al. previously found HIV to have the same effect on blood (but also found the same for LPS, a common component of household dust)? Certainly. Unfortunately no one has published any kind of test on insert-removed mutants as far as I am aware so there's basically 0 way to know if the inserts have any impact on viral properties at all. Can only guess. But again I think what's really the case is that they are dual-purpose elements, and might not be relevant to the pathology. We already know spike is toxic (though maybe not in a way that is actually different from any other coronavirus) and just maybe there is something different between spike and omicron (loss of the NLS?) that leads to some kind of directive to keep Original Flavor Chicken in the mRNA shots forever, but who knows.
Thanks. I never use term "lab leak" because chances are decent that it was not a "leak", but instead a deliberate release -- or at least a result of deliberate development of a pandemic causing pathogen. I use term "lab origin" which is more neutral.
But the behavior of Fauci rounding up the troops to get everyone to STFU about GOF/"inconsistent with natural origins" indicates that he did not know that the release was happening.
All those emails that are still redacted. To Baric, Kristian Andersen, Wellcome Trust, etc.
That is a self incriminating tell. The cover up shows the crime.
The cover up is not necessary if the crime is planned and smooth.
Maybe one hand didn't know what the other was doing.
Sage, I am not sure how you arrived to a conclusion that Fauci did not know about the release. I have no superpowers to know or not know that. They were preparing via event 201, made "Novel Coronavirus vaccine" in July 2019, gave Baric a vaccine candidate on Dec 12 2019, etc. I am very suspicious that Tony knew a lot more that it might seem. Do I have a smoking gun? no
It really would be nice if there were some insert-mutant studies to refer to because it's definitely an interesting question. The only insert modifications in Omi are VYYdel in BA.1 alone and NSP679KSH in all, the loss of P being what removes the putative nuclear localization signal and is also directly upstream of the FCS.
Charles Rixey mentions you a few times in this chat with Kevin McCairn, and wants your opinion on a few things. Last mention was around -32 to -25 minutes before the end. Sorry, didn’t notice time of earlier mentions. The whole stream is very glitchy until the last half hour.
Thanks for the heads up! - yeah, I was already finding Pt I hard to watch because of the audio glitch torture and had stopped at ~12 min. But I will try to find the parts you mention
It is interesting that both of the current SARS-CoV-2 RGS systems used BsaI and BsmBI, and none of the genomes that the ReCCA is constructed from can be cloned with the two current RGS systems……
RGS? I'm pretty bad with acronyms. I couldn't find any published SARS-CoV-2 DNA / Infectious Clone constructs that mention leveraging the existing BsaI+BsmBI map, though that might be my lack of skill at compiling things again; and I do get the impression that Baric's lab's "MA" construct used the map without saying so.
refreshing to get feedback that doesn't circle around a preformed opinion.
FYI: EHA was sampling bat covs in Laos according to some FOIAd mails.
the big issue with seamless cloning is that the PREEMPT proposal indicates that the plan was to test numerous RBD/FCS combinations in each backbone. basically a library screening assay. this requires the 2 BsaI sites flanking the region of interest, here S1. with seamless cloning, one would have to assemble the entire backbone maybe 30 times, absolutely inefficient.
please let me know how if you figure out how to exactly calculate the odds of getting 5 or 3 exactly needed mutations in a 30kb genome when the chance of messing up everything is 20x higher with each of the ~740 synonymous mutations observed. It's a bit like playing lottery where you need to get 5 numbers (for some there are 5 options) out of 45k (90k possible mutations/2 to correct for nonsynonymous ones) with 740 draws, but you must not draw any of ~20 harmful/"lose it all" numbers.
Thank you for the kind words. As far as "calculating the odds," do you mean for a wild BANAL, even presuming there was one with the 5' / 2187 naturally recombined with the 3' sites (just to steelman the other side's case), to lose 4 or 5 BsaI's without gaining others or introducing a +7.5k stretch? I'm not any good with statistics. My model likened the natural BANAL map to a set of cards which simplifies and subtracts the rest of the genome from consideration. One would have to do some Deep Mutational Scanning type of modeling to estimate how often mutations to the rest of the genome are likely to generate a new site, which would be a total fantasy anyway since we cannot know where mutations would and would not be tolerated (in a wild virus) in terms of secondary structure. Also there's the fact that in the wild, the S1-located restriction sites would be changing more quickly than the Orf1-located sites, theoretically. Which actually sort-of pans out. All I can really say about it in the end is that being close almost certainly doesn't make the ideal likely or random under any kind of model.
This Flo Debarre person is an absolute loser. It is not possible to "debunk" anything by relying on twitter posts. In fact, posting on twitter is itself strong evidence of extreme incompetence.
'Even if seamless cloning is not in fact “standard,” one might propose it as more rationale in the context of an “intentional release” theory-of-mind.'
I think maybe you meant "rational" rather than "rationale". It changes the meaning of the sentence. Both versions are grammatically correct.
Thank you — fixed. There were loads of typos on this one since it really was composed as a draft, with my focus mostly on the display with debarre’s tweet thread at that part, haha
Are you familiar with JJ Couey ( GigaOhm Biological) who I think, if I understand you correctly, has a similar theory?
I will try and explain his hypothesis here as best I understand it, forgive me if I have misunderstood.
He thinks they needed a way to rebadge all the P&I ( pneumonia and influenza) deaths every year into a disease that could be vaccinated against ( to maximise profits) as currently only a small proportion are actually due to influenza per se. He thinks a natural coronavirus ( or one tinkered with in a lab gain -of -function style ) is not capable of sustaining a pandemic as only a small proportion of the virus swarm is actually replication competent and the mutation rate is too high. In order for it to sustain a pandemic it must be an infectious clone with a much much higher percentage of replication competent ‘viruses’. These infectious clones are built in labs using a set of circularDNA fragments (for a typical coronavirus ) which are joined together ( I can’t comment on all the Bsal etc stuff you talk about as it’s above my pay grade) along with a nasty spike cDNA . This makes a DNA template of the new ‘virus’ which can then be manufactured in its RNA form and released. This would explain simultaneous emergence all over the place with identical strains.
He also thinks that the narrative and counter narrative have been engineered ( himself admitting that as an early member of DRASTIC he fell for it, thinking he was so clever discovering all the gain of function stuff). The two narratives should keep us away from concluding that this was a deliberate infectious clone release. He is very suspicious of Jeffrey Sachs being allowed to spout the ‘counter narrative’ along with the likes of Russell Brand. He’s suspicious of pretty much everybody ( Malone, GVB, Weinstein)!
He was a neurolobiologist and he does live streams on twitch.tv which sometimes have an intro several minutes long of Star Trek -y music and memes which might be off-putting. The streams are always 2-3 hours ( you can watch at double speed) and he takes several streams to consolidate his ideas. He recently presented a 10 minute précis of his theory to RFK Jnr, Malone, Nass, Rose, Lawrie but he couldn’t get across his message completely in such a short space of time. Here is a link to a video of him explaining his theory
Definitely caught my attention when Crawford's post dropped last night. I watched a lot of Couey / GBio last year and then fell off, it seems like he has been moving a lot in my direction since then as far as rebuking the GvB "vaccines cause variants" meme and being suspicious of a counter-narrative factory. (My impression of Sachs is that he is off the reservation, since he centers "US involvement" in the narrative, but who knows, we'll see if he just doubles down on "GOF bad."). And I wasn't aware that Couey has suspicion of the replication competence until now; so that's a helpful summary. I am going to watch the Crawford video now.
I don't see why they can't have a library of potential bioweapon candidates from samples taken all over the world. There seem to be a lot of DTRA labs globally. I seem to remember clusters in SE Asia.
It is very clever to make bioweapons while funding similar research in a competitor state to use as a patsy. You would never farm out your actual best candidate virus research to a competitors lab however. I think Daszak's Wuhan lab work was the parallel construction and that is what the CIA recruited him for. I believe Huff says that the recruitment involved the CIA being very interested in the work that was being done with the Wuhan lab. Of note is that Shi Zhengli was an author of a research paper showing HIV-like characteristics of SARS-COV-2 published earlier this year. Why spill the beans about the special characteristics of your own nasty little bioweapon?
Talking up the threat of zoonotic spillover while making weapons from animal samples is also clever narrative preparation. The icing on the cake is that they blame human encroachment on nature and get to push a green message at the same time. Deindustrialize and depopulate or we'll keep releasing bioweapons that we blame on nature!
Also, the exact part with the green message had already been driven home by means of the "propedeutic" movie, Contagion - that one not produced by a rogue prankster in Laos, but by Predictive Programming Entertainment Co. out of Hollywood.
Regarding the Shi / T Cells paper, it doesn't seem too op-y to me due to taking two years to come out. So it reads more like a standard, "how can I put an HIV/AD related spin on the viral talk-of-the-town" product. Once again I would point out that Measles virus has a well-characterized tropism for immune cells and yet was never a super-virus.
Whereas the HIV "inserts" papers all appeared suspiciously early in 2020, as if to form the front-line of the counter-narrative factory output. However, I do still like to keep one foot in the "SARS-CoV-2 is a botched cov-based-HIV-vaxx" door.
So overall, I take Shi to be a sort of unwitting fall-guy for whatever SARS-CoV-2 really is.
Of course it’s a giant troll. Because virology is pure FAKE junk science invented by the Khazarian Mafia to poison you with vaccines. The millions that died during the first hoax - the Spanish Flu - were also “masked” with filthy bacteria pneumonia causing face diapers and VAXXED with Rothschild vaccines.
I turned your entire happy family into your keyboard with a magic spell. Every "tap tap tap" you hear is the screams of your children crying "please, father, rescue us!" while you toil in your mentally-ill quest against a fictitious, coping-mechanism-fabricated Synth World construct that your limited brain interprets as "virology," while four-thousand-billion of my brethren watch you from home and laugh their asses off. At the same time, every keystroke inflicts seventy thousand hours of additional torture on your single, most precious offspring. PROVE ME WRONG.
Richard?? I thought I saw a reply, but then it went away? Did you do that with your blocking?!?! After all it's not like you're my amusing little, drooling, mentally damaged pet or anything?
Mercola posted a few days ago the fingerprint was not to leave a fingerprint, which was unto itself a fingerprint. Dude last name begins with B. It was definitely synthetic. Wish I could drill down further, but I am no longer using G1ggle.
That’s addressed a bit in my bullet below 3a in the appendix. Cleaning up / erasing lab artifacts is not a good idea since any defects in real-world performance, if only discovered after release, would have necessitated modifying the lab “master” copy. But if your released version has clean-up changes you can’t know if those changes are responsible for the defect. Troubleshooting is very hard if you can’t isolate to what is wrong (master genes vs cleanup edits). So there’s a counter argument against the “no fingerprint” argument which means either design strategy was actually possible.
You know, the question that bugs me is: what did Fauci know, when NIH designed a vaccine based on unchanged (minus proline substitutions of FCS) spikes of a *potential* bioweapon?
Either psychopathy or a manifestation of tiger-blood-confidence. Very Cave Johnson of him either way -
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. Get mad. I don't want your damn lemons - what the hell am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man who’s gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I’m gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!"
Another question.
What do you think about
- Pradhan paper about HIV inserts
- Moderna patented sequence from patent 9,587,003
My questions are
- Do you think they indicate lab origin
- Do you think that HIV inserts match Baric's 2018 defuse proposal, and are also harmful to our T cells and dendritic cells specifically.
- Also do you think that same exact peptides, present in Covid vax, are harmful to vaccinated people.
I wrote about this extensively and I have my own opinion. However I am also interested in your opinion. Thanks
Always interesting topics!
I think the HIV/FCS inserts are best viewed as dual-purpose - they have ambiguous relevance as far as pathology or perhaps immunology*, but pretty clear function in terms of modifying how the virus is discussed in the counter-narrative. For the latter, they are hooks for drawing attention to the "lab accident / leak" narrative, that's why I place them in the red "official counter-narrative factory" on my map. So when I addressed the patent question, I pointed out that the nucleotide identical-ness could be intentional https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-moderna-patent-controv
As I see the virus as a deliberate creation, not an "accident," I am inclined to view these kinds of signatures as just that - signatures. When humans create things they like to show off their work. So yes, they indicate lab origin - they are meant to. But I think attempting to understand them as "lab accidents" is a path to not understanding the virus correctly.
*Ambiguous because it does seem plausible that at some point someone was working on SARS-CoV-2 as a self-spreading HIV vaccine. But it's not easy to see why they would have put an FCS on it since the ostensible result of the FCS is more pathogenicity, and certainly more expert alarm (FCS's are hyped up as the difference between low- and high-pathogenicity avian flu, basically when viral spike glycoproteins don't have FCS's it's like the safety on a gun, they can't fire; when the FCS gets put back on then the safety is removed and the gun can fire, causing fusion with cell membranes; but whether this has a deleterious impact on sustained transmission is the big question, given that HPAI has never taken off in humans).
Could the HIV inserts instead be toxic? Could they be contributing to the amyloidogenic nature of the spike protein, given that Pretorius et al. previously found HIV to have the same effect on blood (but also found the same for LPS, a common component of household dust)? Certainly. Unfortunately no one has published any kind of test on insert-removed mutants as far as I am aware so there's basically 0 way to know if the inserts have any impact on viral properties at all. Can only guess. But again I think what's really the case is that they are dual-purpose elements, and might not be relevant to the pathology. We already know spike is toxic (though maybe not in a way that is actually different from any other coronavirus) and just maybe there is something different between spike and omicron (loss of the NLS?) that leads to some kind of directive to keep Original Flavor Chicken in the mRNA shots forever, but who knows.
Thanks. I never use term "lab leak" because chances are decent that it was not a "leak", but instead a deliberate release -- or at least a result of deliberate development of a pandemic causing pathogen. I use term "lab origin" which is more neutral.
Q: It may not have been a leak.
But the behavior of Fauci rounding up the troops to get everyone to STFU about GOF/"inconsistent with natural origins" indicates that he did not know that the release was happening.
All those emails that are still redacted. To Baric, Kristian Andersen, Wellcome Trust, etc.
That is a self incriminating tell. The cover up shows the crime.
The cover up is not necessary if the crime is planned and smooth.
Maybe one hand didn't know what the other was doing.
Sage, I am not sure how you arrived to a conclusion that Fauci did not know about the release. I have no superpowers to know or not know that. They were preparing via event 201, made "Novel Coronavirus vaccine" in July 2019, gave Baric a vaccine candidate on Dec 12 2019, etc. I am very suspicious that Tony knew a lot more that it might seem. Do I have a smoking gun? no
Ah - I hadn't noticed, but glad to hear that.
It really would be nice if there were some insert-mutant studies to refer to because it's definitely an interesting question. The only insert modifications in Omi are VYYdel in BA.1 alone and NSP679KSH in all, the loss of P being what removes the putative nuclear localization signal and is also directly upstream of the FCS.
https://youtu.be/4ZW0RoXBERI
Charles Rixey mentions you a few times in this chat with Kevin McCairn, and wants your opinion on a few things. Last mention was around -32 to -25 minutes before the end. Sorry, didn’t notice time of earlier mentions. The whole stream is very glitchy until the last half hour.
And now Trash Panda has been nuked! I was still trying to watch, you damn dirty apes!!
https://www.twitch.tv/kevin_w_mccairn_phd/video/1647972991
Should be available on twitch.tv ( and maybe on Rumble)!
https://www.twitch.tv/kevin_w_mccairn_phd/video/1647972991
Thanks for the heads up! - yeah, I was already finding Pt I hard to watch because of the audio glitch torture and had stopped at ~12 min. But I will try to find the parts you mention
It is interesting that both of the current SARS-CoV-2 RGS systems used BsaI and BsmBI, and none of the genomes that the ReCCA is constructed from can be cloned with the two current RGS systems……
RGS? I'm pretty bad with acronyms. I couldn't find any published SARS-CoV-2 DNA / Infectious Clone constructs that mention leveraging the existing BsaI+BsmBI map, though that might be my lack of skill at compiling things again; and I do get the impression that Baric's lab's "MA" construct used the map without saying so.
really enjoyed reading this.
refreshing to get feedback that doesn't circle around a preformed opinion.
FYI: EHA was sampling bat covs in Laos according to some FOIAd mails.
the big issue with seamless cloning is that the PREEMPT proposal indicates that the plan was to test numerous RBD/FCS combinations in each backbone. basically a library screening assay. this requires the 2 BsaI sites flanking the region of interest, here S1. with seamless cloning, one would have to assemble the entire backbone maybe 30 times, absolutely inefficient.
please let me know how if you figure out how to exactly calculate the odds of getting 5 or 3 exactly needed mutations in a 30kb genome when the chance of messing up everything is 20x higher with each of the ~740 synonymous mutations observed. It's a bit like playing lottery where you need to get 5 numbers (for some there are 5 options) out of 45k (90k possible mutations/2 to correct for nonsynonymous ones) with 740 draws, but you must not draw any of ~20 harmful/"lose it all" numbers.
Thank you for the kind words. As far as "calculating the odds," do you mean for a wild BANAL, even presuming there was one with the 5' / 2187 naturally recombined with the 3' sites (just to steelman the other side's case), to lose 4 or 5 BsaI's without gaining others or introducing a +7.5k stretch? I'm not any good with statistics. My model likened the natural BANAL map to a set of cards which simplifies and subtracts the rest of the genome from consideration. One would have to do some Deep Mutational Scanning type of modeling to estimate how often mutations to the rest of the genome are likely to generate a new site, which would be a total fantasy anyway since we cannot know where mutations would and would not be tolerated (in a wild virus) in terms of secondary structure. Also there's the fact that in the wild, the S1-located restriction sites would be changing more quickly than the Orf1-located sites, theoretically. Which actually sort-of pans out. All I can really say about it in the end is that being close almost certainly doesn't make the ideal likely or random under any kind of model.
This Flo Debarre person is an absolute loser. It is not possible to "debunk" anything by relying on twitter posts. In fact, posting on twitter is itself strong evidence of extreme incompetence.
Agree, but she saved me having to get my feet too muddy compiling the chatter, haha
'Even if seamless cloning is not in fact “standard,” one might propose it as more rationale in the context of an “intentional release” theory-of-mind.'
I think maybe you meant "rational" rather than "rationale". It changes the meaning of the sentence. Both versions are grammatically correct.
Thank you — fixed. There were loads of typos on this one since it really was composed as a draft, with my focus mostly on the display with debarre’s tweet thread at that part, haha
Are you familiar with JJ Couey ( GigaOhm Biological) who I think, if I understand you correctly, has a similar theory?
I will try and explain his hypothesis here as best I understand it, forgive me if I have misunderstood.
He thinks they needed a way to rebadge all the P&I ( pneumonia and influenza) deaths every year into a disease that could be vaccinated against ( to maximise profits) as currently only a small proportion are actually due to influenza per se. He thinks a natural coronavirus ( or one tinkered with in a lab gain -of -function style ) is not capable of sustaining a pandemic as only a small proportion of the virus swarm is actually replication competent and the mutation rate is too high. In order for it to sustain a pandemic it must be an infectious clone with a much much higher percentage of replication competent ‘viruses’. These infectious clones are built in labs using a set of circularDNA fragments (for a typical coronavirus ) which are joined together ( I can’t comment on all the Bsal etc stuff you talk about as it’s above my pay grade) along with a nasty spike cDNA . This makes a DNA template of the new ‘virus’ which can then be manufactured in its RNA form and released. This would explain simultaneous emergence all over the place with identical strains.
He also thinks that the narrative and counter narrative have been engineered ( himself admitting that as an early member of DRASTIC he fell for it, thinking he was so clever discovering all the gain of function stuff). The two narratives should keep us away from concluding that this was a deliberate infectious clone release. He is very suspicious of Jeffrey Sachs being allowed to spout the ‘counter narrative’ along with the likes of Russell Brand. He’s suspicious of pretty much everybody ( Malone, GVB, Weinstein)!
He was a neurolobiologist and he does live streams on twitch.tv which sometimes have an intro several minutes long of Star Trek -y music and memes which might be off-putting. The streams are always 2-3 hours ( you can watch at double speed) and he takes several streams to consolidate his ideas. He recently presented a 10 minute précis of his theory to RFK Jnr, Malone, Nass, Rose, Lawrie but he couldn’t get across his message completely in such a short space of time. Here is a link to a video of him explaining his theory
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1640932656
Next is a link to another substacker who has collected lots of evidence stories for earlier spread ( Sept’19 Europe and USA)
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/the-dog-that-didnt-bark
Definitely caught my attention when Crawford's post dropped last night. I watched a lot of Couey / GBio last year and then fell off, it seems like he has been moving a lot in my direction since then as far as rebuking the GvB "vaccines cause variants" meme and being suspicious of a counter-narrative factory. (My impression of Sachs is that he is off the reservation, since he centers "US involvement" in the narrative, but who knows, we'll see if he just doubles down on "GOF bad."). And I wasn't aware that Couey has suspicion of the replication competence until now; so that's a helpful summary. I am going to watch the Crawford video now.
https://rumble.com/v1s0vvg-rte-discussions-12-gain-of-function-or-gain-of-purity-w-jonathan-couey.html
I haven’t watched this yet but it looks like Matthew Crawford interviews JJ Couey and they discuss his theory here.
The FCS is the smoking gun, not the restriction sites. Like 9/11 and JFK there will never be an honest investigation.
The FCS is the "box cutter." It's just the insultingly obvious part.
The FCS is the smoking gun, not the restriction sites. Like 9/11 and JFK there will never be an honest investigation.
I don't see why they can't have a library of potential bioweapon candidates from samples taken all over the world. There seem to be a lot of DTRA labs globally. I seem to remember clusters in SE Asia.
It is very clever to make bioweapons while funding similar research in a competitor state to use as a patsy. You would never farm out your actual best candidate virus research to a competitors lab however. I think Daszak's Wuhan lab work was the parallel construction and that is what the CIA recruited him for. I believe Huff says that the recruitment involved the CIA being very interested in the work that was being done with the Wuhan lab. Of note is that Shi Zhengli was an author of a research paper showing HIV-like characteristics of SARS-COV-2 published earlier this year. Why spill the beans about the special characteristics of your own nasty little bioweapon?
Talking up the threat of zoonotic spillover while making weapons from animal samples is also clever narrative preparation. The icing on the cake is that they blame human encroachment on nature and get to push a green message at the same time. Deindustrialize and depopulate or we'll keep releasing bioweapons that we blame on nature!
Also, the exact part with the green message had already been driven home by means of the "propedeutic" movie, Contagion - that one not produced by a rogue prankster in Laos, but by Predictive Programming Entertainment Co. out of Hollywood.
Regarding the Shi / T Cells paper, it doesn't seem too op-y to me due to taking two years to come out. So it reads more like a standard, "how can I put an HIV/AD related spin on the viral talk-of-the-town" product. Once again I would point out that Measles virus has a well-characterized tropism for immune cells and yet was never a super-virus.
Whereas the HIV "inserts" papers all appeared suspiciously early in 2020, as if to form the front-line of the counter-narrative factory output. However, I do still like to keep one foot in the "SARS-CoV-2 is a botched cov-based-HIV-vaxx" door.
So overall, I take Shi to be a sort of unwitting fall-guy for whatever SARS-CoV-2 really is.
Of course it’s a giant troll. Because virology is pure FAKE junk science invented by the Khazarian Mafia to poison you with vaccines. The millions that died during the first hoax - the Spanish Flu - were also “masked” with filthy bacteria pneumonia causing face diapers and VAXXED with Rothschild vaccines.
PROVE ME WRONG
I turned your entire happy family into your keyboard with a magic spell. Every "tap tap tap" you hear is the screams of your children crying "please, father, rescue us!" while you toil in your mentally-ill quest against a fictitious, coping-mechanism-fabricated Synth World construct that your limited brain interprets as "virology," while four-thousand-billion of my brethren watch you from home and laugh their asses off. At the same time, every keystroke inflicts seventy thousand hours of additional torture on your single, most precious offspring. PROVE ME WRONG.
Always a “dumberer” response from Brian.
And do not reply to other posters. I keep you around as an amusing pet, Richard the Dumb. You do not get to interlocute.
Oh so you do block. Brian....the FAR LEFT WOKE cry baby.
SHUT UP. YOU blocked ME first, you BABY!!
Richard?? I thought I saw a reply, but then it went away? Did you do that with your blocking?!?! After all it's not like you're my amusing little, drooling, mentally damaged pet or anything?
Richard?!?! Are you there?!?! I'm trying to reply to your last message, but I can't, because you blocked me for the twenty-billionth time!!!
>PROVE ME WRONG!!!
I don’t ever block anyone.
It's like, why does this "Brian" guy keep responding to YOUR posts, am I right, bro?!?
Because at least Brian is man enough to not block like the cry baby WOKE. Yet the responses are cry baby WOKE.
I’m sending this around today: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/07/november-7-as-victims-of-communism-day-2022/
Mercola posted a few days ago the fingerprint was not to leave a fingerprint, which was unto itself a fingerprint. Dude last name begins with B. It was definitely synthetic. Wish I could drill down further, but I am no longer using G1ggle.
That’s addressed a bit in my bullet below 3a in the appendix. Cleaning up / erasing lab artifacts is not a good idea since any defects in real-world performance, if only discovered after release, would have necessitated modifying the lab “master” copy. But if your released version has clean-up changes you can’t know if those changes are responsible for the defect. Troubleshooting is very hard if you can’t isolate to what is wrong (master genes vs cleanup edits). So there’s a counter argument against the “no fingerprint” argument which means either design strategy was actually possible.
Yes Brian - you named the meddlers : Daszak - Baric. Thanks for that!