If the vaccine is not causing the variants, why do vaccinated people appear to have a greater probability of being infected with variants? Large population-wide studies have shown this effect.
This was more disturbing than anything I've read in the past two years. The evil of tinkering endlessly with the virus probably in hopes of making something more lethal, and the psy-ops possibilities make me feel sick.
Actually never trusted van den Bossche at all, mainly because of the look in his eyes. (I could have used logic, but I'm pretty good at reading faces.)And his predictions of imminent viral takeover because of vaccination kept not coming true.
Brian, you are a treasure. My little monthly subscription doesn't convey my appreciation enough; if I had a million bucks it would be yours 🙂.
When this subject has been finally been wrung out (🙏 ), I hope you'll continue with your substack including other subjects as you used to do before the scamdemic took over.
why can't it be a combination of a little of everything?
lab created. lab accidental release, lab deliberate release., vaccine evolutionary pressure, natural evolution? depending on which particular variant a person is talking about?
Given that a computer sequence can be added to a viral backbone - and that GMO RoundUp Ready crops can spread the RoundUp Ready genes to super weeds - why would we not expect that a computer sequence stuck on a very mutatable coronavirus, might not also mutate?
Yes, variants seem to be being used as a fear-demic media tool, but that is a different story.
While I agree that there are plausible scenarios by which variants of the SARS-COV-2 virus can be lab engineered, it strikes me as a leap of logic to argue exclusively for lab engineering to the exclusion of natural evolution.
Given that subvariants of Omicron are now the latest doom strains out there, it seems there is a certain arbitrariness to the assigning of Greek letters, which means there is a certain arbitrariness to assuming which variants are lab engineered.
As I have long considered your analyses as among the most thoughtful, original, and impartial, I am a bit saddened to see you making some assertions here that I don't think can be rationally justified.
"This is not “more evidence that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab.” It is more evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a proprietary product."
I'm surprised that no one thought to do an RE site analysis before. It is however worth noting that the authors apparently chose BsaI/BsmBI for their analysis precisely *because* these chopped the SARS-CoV2 genome into synthetic-looking fragments - not because they had solid evidence that the viral engineers used these two enzymes. Exactly what sort of p-hacking type bias this decision might introduce is at least worthy of consideration - i.e. if we were to choose the ~25-50 RE's most commonly used for IVGA and were to run such a fragment/count length analysis on viral genomes for all of them, how anomalous would be BsaI/BsmBI pattern for this virus truly appear to be? Or, in other words, what proportion of naturally-occurring viruses would appear as an equivalent outlier for *some* combination of REs commonly used in IVGA?
In answer to your second sentence, would not merely removing one restriction site be enough to generate an anomalous pattern here? I've done a lot of RE-based genetic engineering in my earlier career path (gene insertions/deletions/promoter replacements in cyanobacteria) but no actual IVGA. I think much stronger evidence would be required to claim that this virus is a truly synthetic, IVGA-based "proprietary product."
"The synthetic origin paper shows what a farce it is to even care about the question. All the greek letter variants, from Alpha to the Omicron family (and a few suspicious sequences that never caught off the ground, from Central America and the US) should be considered lab-designed updates to the original DNA<>virus SARS-CoV-2 platform."
Again I think you are going too far here and postulating too much synthetic editing and lab release without evidence. The BA.1 and BA.2 lineages have sufficient genetic difference that some unusual explanation (IVGA, mouse serial passage, long residence in an animal reservoir, etc.) is required to explain their appearance. Maybe also BA.5. Most of the other variants display exactly the evolutionary pattern and mutation rate that one would expect from a novel RNA coronavirus adapting to a human population that is simultaneously developing immunity.
The naming of these variants is entirely arbitrary and has almost nothing to do with their degree of genetic divergence. Alpha was a very small mutational step from the wild-type. I find it interesting that the rate of new variant naming is more directly proportional to the level of fear the narrative-controlling forces are attempting to instill. Thus we had the whole Greek alphabet in 2020-early 2021, but during the "vaccines are safe and effective" period we had a level of diversity exceeding all previous variants contained under the name "Omicron".
Now they're inventing new designations again and ramping up the fear (to convince people to get the bivalent booster? to distract from vax injuries?) and we've got the BE, BY, BQ, XBB, etc. appearing in the news despite the fact that on e.g. NextStrain mutation charts these are only small incremental changes from the current circulating variants.
Hiya, SARS is not being edited in labs or vaccines, at least, there is no evidence for that.
It's being edited in computers!
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/x-ray-crystallography-and-3d-computer
Jo🙏🏽
If the vaccine is not causing the variants, why do vaccinated people appear to have a greater probability of being infected with variants? Large population-wide studies have shown this effect.
This was more disturbing than anything I've read in the past two years. The evil of tinkering endlessly with the virus probably in hopes of making something more lethal, and the psy-ops possibilities make me feel sick.
Actually never trusted van den Bossche at all, mainly because of the look in his eyes. (I could have used logic, but I'm pretty good at reading faces.)And his predictions of imminent viral takeover because of vaccination kept not coming true.
Thanks again for your reporting, it's unique.
Brian, you are a treasure. My little monthly subscription doesn't convey my appreciation enough; if I had a million bucks it would be yours 🙂.
When this subject has been finally been wrung out (🙏 ), I hope you'll continue with your substack including other subjects as you used to do before the scamdemic took over.
why can't it be a combination of a little of everything?
lab created. lab accidental release, lab deliberate release., vaccine evolutionary pressure, natural evolution? depending on which particular variant a person is talking about?
Given that a computer sequence can be added to a viral backbone - and that GMO RoundUp Ready crops can spread the RoundUp Ready genes to super weeds - why would we not expect that a computer sequence stuck on a very mutatable coronavirus, might not also mutate?
Yes, variants seem to be being used as a fear-demic media tool, but that is a different story.
You and Katherine Watt are doing THE MOST IMPORTANT WRITING on EARTH right now
While I agree that there are plausible scenarios by which variants of the SARS-COV-2 virus can be lab engineered, it strikes me as a leap of logic to argue exclusively for lab engineering to the exclusion of natural evolution.
Given that subvariants of Omicron are now the latest doom strains out there, it seems there is a certain arbitrariness to the assigning of Greek letters, which means there is a certain arbitrariness to assuming which variants are lab engineered.
As I have long considered your analyses as among the most thoughtful, original, and impartial, I am a bit saddened to see you making some assertions here that I don't think can be rationally justified.
"This is not “more evidence that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab.” It is more evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a proprietary product."
I'm surprised that no one thought to do an RE site analysis before. It is however worth noting that the authors apparently chose BsaI/BsmBI for their analysis precisely *because* these chopped the SARS-CoV2 genome into synthetic-looking fragments - not because they had solid evidence that the viral engineers used these two enzymes. Exactly what sort of p-hacking type bias this decision might introduce is at least worthy of consideration - i.e. if we were to choose the ~25-50 RE's most commonly used for IVGA and were to run such a fragment/count length analysis on viral genomes for all of them, how anomalous would be BsaI/BsmBI pattern for this virus truly appear to be? Or, in other words, what proportion of naturally-occurring viruses would appear as an equivalent outlier for *some* combination of REs commonly used in IVGA?
In answer to your second sentence, would not merely removing one restriction site be enough to generate an anomalous pattern here? I've done a lot of RE-based genetic engineering in my earlier career path (gene insertions/deletions/promoter replacements in cyanobacteria) but no actual IVGA. I think much stronger evidence would be required to claim that this virus is a truly synthetic, IVGA-based "proprietary product."
"The synthetic origin paper shows what a farce it is to even care about the question. All the greek letter variants, from Alpha to the Omicron family (and a few suspicious sequences that never caught off the ground, from Central America and the US) should be considered lab-designed updates to the original DNA<>virus SARS-CoV-2 platform."
Again I think you are going too far here and postulating too much synthetic editing and lab release without evidence. The BA.1 and BA.2 lineages have sufficient genetic difference that some unusual explanation (IVGA, mouse serial passage, long residence in an animal reservoir, etc.) is required to explain their appearance. Maybe also BA.5. Most of the other variants display exactly the evolutionary pattern and mutation rate that one would expect from a novel RNA coronavirus adapting to a human population that is simultaneously developing immunity.
The naming of these variants is entirely arbitrary and has almost nothing to do with their degree of genetic divergence. Alpha was a very small mutational step from the wild-type. I find it interesting that the rate of new variant naming is more directly proportional to the level of fear the narrative-controlling forces are attempting to instill. Thus we had the whole Greek alphabet in 2020-early 2021, but during the "vaccines are safe and effective" period we had a level of diversity exceeding all previous variants contained under the name "Omicron".
Now they're inventing new designations again and ramping up the fear (to convince people to get the bivalent booster? to distract from vax injuries?) and we've got the BE, BY, BQ, XBB, etc. appearing in the news despite the fact that on e.g. NextStrain mutation charts these are only small incremental changes from the current circulating variants.