HERD GENOCIDE VII! THE DEPOPULATION AGENDA! CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE AND INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CONCLUDE FAUCI'S "GAIN OF FUNCTION" STUDIES LIKELY SOURCE OF COVID! PFIZER VACCINE KILLED 40 TIMES MORE THAN DISEASE ITSELF!
3/5/21 WATCH THE DEMOCRACY NOW VIDEO BELOW ON BRAZIL! CONSIDER THE VACCINE PRODUCER’S - AGGRESSIVE MANDATES - THAT THE VACCINE PRODUCERS REQUIRE. NO LEGAL LIABILITY FROM VACCINES, EVEN FROM INTENTIONAL FRAUD! NOW READ THE ARTICLE BELOW FROM RFK JR’S CHILDREN’S DEFENSE NETWORK ON THE RISKS OF THE PFIZER VACCINE! . . . THERE ARE CERTAINLY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VACCINES!
THE CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ARE PLACING THEIR BETS ON A LEAK FROM LABS IN WUHAN, FINANCED AND DIRECTED BY “DR DEATH!” DR ANTHONY FAUCI - HITLER’S DR DEATH DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING OVER YOUR PURE EVIL! ACCIDENTAL OR INTENTIONAL? . . . .
. . I REST MY CASE! . . THIS IS . . .
. . “THE GLOBAL DEPOPULATION AND GLOBAL POLICE STATE AGENDA!”
SEE MY PRIOR POSTS FOR MY EXTENSIVE RESEARCH WHICH CONCLUDED THE SAME AS THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT!
HERD GENOCIDE VI! NEW 70% MORE CONTAGIOUS STRAIN OF “DR DEATH’S KILLER COVID!” MORE CONTAGIOUS & DEADLY STRAINS FROM BRAZIL AFRICA INDIA & SATAN’S MAFIA SOON! THE DEPOPULATION AND POLICE STATE AGENDA! THE WORLD IS ON FIRE! “It Is THE END!”
“HERD GENOCIDE V” - “mRNA - THE ASYMPTOMATIC SUPER SPREADER VACCINE!” LESS THAN 80% VACCINATED MASKS & DISTANCING MANDATORY FOREVER! ADD SHORT LIFE OF VACCINE, PLUS ANIMAL AND EMERGING MARKET NEW STRAINS = THE GLOBAL DEPOPULATION AGENDA!
“HERD GENOCIDE IV!” VACCINE ANIMAL AND EMERGING MARKET MUTATION ISSUES! “SIBERIAN METHANE” IS EXPLODING! HOW CATASTROPHIC ONLY QUESTION! “ICE FREE ARCTIC” “LATENT HEAT EFFECT” EXPLODES METHANE RELEASE? 2-3C=60’ SEA LEVEL RISE! THE END!
“HERD GENOCIDE III” COVID LONG-HAULERS! ACCELERATES “GLOBAL DIMMING!” CAUSING “ICE FREE ARCTIC!” 9/2022 UNLEASHING “HOT STUFF!” MELTING ANTARCTICA! GMAT 2-3C RISE = 60’ SEA LEVEL RISE 2025-30! BLOWING UP 440 NUCLEAR REACTORS! “It is THE END!”
“HERD GENOCIDE!” NOT “HERD IMMUNITY!” PART II - Americans Are Dying In The Pandemic At Rates Far Higher Than In Other Countries! MAKE - “MONEY GOD!” IN GOD’S NAME! RESULTS IN “PANDEMIC & ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE HELL OF HELLS!” . . . . . “It Is THE END!” - - “MY PRAYER!”
“HERD GENOCIDE!” PART I! NOT IMMUNITY! DEPOPULATION AGENDA! BY 2025 “It Is THE END” OF GULF & FLORIDA! EXIT NOW! LAURA LUCK & WARNING! INCREASING HOT WATER TEMPS RULE! “THE GULF” BEST “MONSTER SUPER STORMS” CREATOR! “It Is THE END” . . OF . . “PLANET EVIL GREED” . . BY . . 2030-2040!
Frontline Doctors: Experimental vaccines are ‘not safer’ than COVID-19
Physicians’ white paper says injection prohibited for the young and at least discouraged for healthy individuals under 70 years of age. ‘Unethical’ to advocate vaccine for persons under 50.
Fri Jan 29, 2021 - 5:05 am EST
January 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In an extraordinary recent presentation exposing “the serious and life-threatening disinformation campaign” being waged against the American people and the world, Dr. Simone Gold of the American Frontline Doctors (AFLD) laid out the facts on the Wuhan Virus, safe highly-effective treatments, and particularly what she calls “experimental biological agents,” otherwise referred to as the COVID-19 vaccines.
Dr. Gold referred listeners to two AFLD websites where they can access a white paper produced by the AFLD physicians that provides thorough explanations and references for her presentation. Gold concluded her presentation with a passionate appeal for everyone to sign and spread a petition against authoritarian movements aimed at coercing individuals into receiving these injections.
The group’s white paper brings an array of crucial information together and is clear, accessible and well-documented. It reflects not only a depth of competence and great facility on the topics but a resolute commitment to truth and a deep fidelity to the noble mission of providing sound medical care for patients while defending the common good at large.
Highlights of the paper and Dr. Gold’s presentation include the following:
Correct language is ‘critical’: Not COVID-19 ‘vaccines,’ but experimental biological agents
Dr. Gold insists that even the designation of the new products as vaccines is inapprorpriate.
“Definitely you should not be calling this the ‘COVID-19 vaccines,’” she says. “The reason is, whatever you call it, it’s experimental. It’s not been approved as a vaccine. It’s currently in its investigational stage.”
The initial FAQ of the white paper explains, “According to the Food and Drug Administration, ‘An investigational drug can also be called an experimental drug and is being studied to see if your disease or medical condition improves while taking it.’ Pfizer and Moderna and AstraZeneca applications properly identify their new agents as ‘investigational,’ which is normal at this very early stage of development.”
The paper goes on to confirm that this experimental status means that “adverse events will be settled under the legal standard for experimental medications.”
As part of this experimental status, Dr. Gold explained, “If you take the vaccine, you’re being enrolled in a pharmocol vigilance tracking system. It means you have enrolled yourself in a medical trial … most people are not aware that that’s what they’re doing. This pharmocol vigilance tracking system tracks you for (at least) two years, it’s set up by the Department of Defense, it was handed off to Oracle and Google to put the data together. How is it that people want to sign up for this system on an experimental (biological agent)?” she asked.
Thus, the founder of AFLD affirmed these injected treatments are “most properly called experimental biological agents. … We need to call this by its proper name. Never talk about this without the word ‘experimental.’ That’s critical,” she said.
‘Wuhan Virus’ to ‘COVID-19’In the presentation, Dr. Gold called the massive “disinformation campaign” on these topics “a crime against humanity” and stated, “You must understand the magnitude of the lie in order to understand what they are trying to tell you about these experimental vaccines.”
As the paper observed, “from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,” there has been “massive disinformation” beginning with its very name.
Initially, and naturally, the pandemic was referred to as the “Wuhan Virus” since “epidemics have historically been named for the location from where they arise or are associated. Consider: Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Spanish Flu, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Lyme Disease,” they wrote.
But this name was massively “rebranded” to “COVID-19” due to the displeasure of the Chinese Communist Party with the original name.
The paper documented in some depth the “(m)ost notable” disinformation regarding the pandemic, which “was selling the lie to the American and European people that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an unsafe medication.” They detailed how the lie was advanced by “Scientists,” the “Media & The Elite,” “Big Tech Censorship,” and with “Government Punishment of Doctors.”
As HCQ is “considered one of the safest medications in the world, safer than Motrin or Tylenol,” it has been broadly used outside the west with great success. For example, in response to the virus, both China and India mandated or recommended HCQ for its population early last year, and at least India, “continues to enjoy a death rate a fraction (~10 percent) of the USA even in the most densely populated slums.”
“So in America the death rates are in the 800 range per million,” Dr. Gold explained. “In Africa, Sub-Sahara Africa, the poorest places in the world, no social distancing, no mask, no ICU’s, they have a death rate of one percent the western nations. One percent!”
“Now I believe it is due to widely available HCQ. I don’t think you can explain it for any other reason,” she said.
The paper provided thorough documentation on how “(c)ountries where HCQ is widely available, which are typically third world countries that have malaria or citizens who travel to malaria-endemic regions, have 1-10 percent of the death rates of first world nations where HCQ is severely restricted.”
Extremely high survival rate / low infection fatality rate for Wuhan Virus
“The most enduring myth regarding COVID-19,” the doctors wrote, “is that this is a highly lethal infection. It is not. The data is unequivocal:
In the paper, the doctors observed, “It is quite clear that young people are at a statistically insignificant risk of death from COVID-19,” and for most people under 65, “the risk of dying from COVID-19 isn’t much higher than from getting in a car accident driving to work.”
Safety concerns for experimental vaccinesIn contrast to the utilization of safe treatments like HCQ and ivermectin, there are many significant safety concerns with these experimental vaccines.
Brand new mRNA technology
First, what the doctors call the “largest experimental medication program in our history” uses a brand-new technology utilizing messenger RNA. “No vaccine” based on this technology “has ever been approved for any disease, or even entered final-stage trials until now, so there’s no peer-reviewed published human data to compare how mRNA stacks up against older technologies,” AFLD said.
No independently published animal studies
Further, previous coronavirus vaccines developed over decades have consistently failed in animal trials with the death of their subjects. Yet, these experimental vaccines have no independently published animal studies.
“Vaccine safety requires proper animal trials and peer-reviewed data,” the paper stated, “neither of which has occurred” with these experimental biological agents.
Recipient may become more vulnerable to virus
The AFLD White Paper stated that one of the greatest safety concerns relates to how “(p)rior coronavirus (and other respiratory) vaccines have failed due to the scientific phenomena known as pathogenic priming that makes the vaccine recipient more likely to suffer a sudden fatal outcome due to massive cytokine storm when exposed to the wild virus.”
Of note, current reports revealed that hundreds of individuals injected with COVID-19 experimental vaccines have been admitted to the hospital, and the shots have so far been linked to at least 181 deaths in the United States.
Neurological diseases, long-term effects
The paper listed many other possible complications, including neurological diseases, and cited from the “extremely limited COVID-19 vaccine data” instances of them already occurring.
There is also no data on sub-categories of the population, including the elderly, women who desire to get pregnant, those who have had the Wuhan Virus already, and since these experimental agents are brand new, “we cannot know any long-term effects.”
In addition, these chemicals may impact a woman’s fertility. The paper explained that the “mechanism of action of the experimental mRNA vaccines includes a possible auto-immune rejection of the placenta. In layman’s terms, the vaccine may permanently interfere with a woman’s ability to maintain a pregnancy.”
“The vaccine companies themselves acknowledge the possibility of ill effects on a pregnancy on the vaccine bottle, which says the following: ‘it is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA VaccineBNT162b2 has an impact on fertility,’” the doctors wrote.
Dr. Gold emphasized, “I would never let a woman of child-bearing age take this. I would fight tooth and nail (to prevent it), under no circumstances, until this placenta question is answered.”
Manufactures have no liability
Of great concern as well is the fact that the companies that produce these experimental biological agents “are immune from all liability” due to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Therefore, those who are injured or even the families of those who suffer death due to these injections will have no claim on the manufacturers themselves.
Experimental vaccines are ‘not safer’ than the Wuhan Virus
AFLD then drew from common sense to conclude that taking an experimental vaccine “is not safer” than a very low IFR for the Wuhan Virus. Besides the “extraordinarily low” mortality rates, doctors are “getting better and better at treating COVID-19: the death rate in terms of population continues to fall, hospital stays for COVID-19 get shorter and hospital mortality from COVID-19 plummets.”
While not directly asserting that the experimental vaccines are unsafe, AFLD clarified that “We are saying that by definition it is unsafe to widely distribute an experimental vaccine, because taking a vaccine is completely different than taking an ordinary medication.”
“In contrast to taking a medication for an actual disease,” they explained, “the person who takes a vaccine is typically completely healthy and would continue to be healthy without the vaccine. As the first rule of the Hippocratic Oath is: do no harm, vaccine safety must be guaranteed. That has not yet happened.”
No proof that the experimental vaccines stop transmission of the virus
The doctors highlighted that there is no data on whether or not these experimental agents are actually capable of stopping the transmission of the virus. They affirmed that the “scientists are very upfront about the fact that they don’t know if the vaccine even stops the spread of the virus!”
They cited a Medscape article that quotes a former FDA official who said, “(w)e don't know if people can become infected and thus also transmit even with vaccination.” For this reason, “people can expect to still be wearing masks, still be asked to follow non-pharmaceutical public health measures that we've all come to know so well.”
In dismay, Dr. Gold explained this point in her presentation, saying, “What is super shocking is that there is no proof that this biological agent actually stops the transmission among people. It’s like a joke, this is like the punch line to a joke, ‘let’s take a vaccine, and by the way it doesn’t actually stop transmission.’ I mean, I don’t even know what to say to that!”
AFLD recommendations regarding COVID-19 experimental vaccines
Based on the IFR by age, along with real potential dangers, AFLD came up with recommendations for who should not submit themselves to these experimental biological agents and who may have an option to.
In summary, they stated, that such injections are “Prohibited for the young, Discouraged for the healthy middle-aged and Optional for the co-morbid and elderly.”
Dr. Gold commented, “If you are under age 20, the experimental vaccine is prohibited, in our opinion, absolutely prohibited. We simply don’t know enough about its effects on fertility, and we do know that this virus, essentially does not affect young people. Essentially,” with regards to young people, COVID-19 is “irrelevant!”
“From age 20 to 50, if you are healthy, we strongly discourage,” your receiving this experimental agent, she said. “There is an exceedingly low risk,” as well.
In their white paper, the AFLD summarized their advice to different sections of the population regarding the vaccines.
a. 0-20: prohibited(exceedingly low risk from COVID, unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, risk of lifelong infertility)
b. 20-50 healthy: strongly discouraged (exceedingly low risk from COVID, unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, risk of lifelong infertility)
c. 50-69 & healthy: strongly discouraged (low risk from COVID, unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, unknown effect on placenta and spermatogenesis)
d. 50-69 & co-morbid: discouraged (experimental vaccine is higher risk than early or prophylactic treatment with established medications)
e. >70 & healthy: personal risk assessment (experimental vaccine is higher risk than early or prophylactic treatment with established medications)
f. >70 & co-morbid: personal risk assessment & advocacy access (experimental vaccine early or prophylactic treatment with established medications)
The doctors concluded, “In medicine, the guiding principle is ‘First, do no harm.’ Widely distributing a COVID-19 experimental vaccine before adequately addressing and clinically evaluating the above concerns is reckless.”
Indeed, they charge that it is, in fact, “unethical to advocate for the vaccine to persons under 50. The risk and safety evidence based upon trials cannot be justified in younger persons. It is therefore prohibited.”
They also promised to do everything they can to assist injured plaintiffs who sue pharmaceutical companies, private businesses or government agencies who mandate or coerce “persons to comply with unethical policies for which there is substantial evidence of likely harm.”
In response to projected vaccine mandates, Dr. Gold announced, “We intend to fight the urge that’s sweeping the globe to mandate people taking an experimental biological agent.”
AFLD is not primarily concerned with the government, but with private businesses mandating these injections, particularly schools and airlines.
“We intend to talk to the decision-makers in the airline industry,” she said. “One of our tools in that battle will be to go in armed with at least one million signatures of human beings who are going to say ‘no, we are not going to do business with anybody, and we are not going to fly with anyone who is going to mandate (experimental vaccines).’”
She encouraged everyone to “go to StopMedicalDiscrimination.org and sign the petition. You also must share that petition with everyone. Do not be shy! … it is your obligation. I’ve done my part, my doctors have done their part, you must do your part.”
“Not only do you sign it, (but) each of you should take it on yourself to say, ‘I’m going to make sure I get a thousand signatures’,” she said.
Gold also encouraged those who are in a union to build advocacy against these injections within their union.
And finally, she reminded her audience, “ALWAYS use the word ‘EXPERIMENTAL’ when you talk about this. Always!”
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
YouTube bans Frontline Doctors speech criticizing ‘experimental agent’ COVID vaccine
Physicians: ‘Masks don’t control viruses, they control you,’ ‘pandemic is over’
Former Pfizer VP: ‘No need for vaccines,’ ‘the pandemic is effectively over’
US ‘frontline’ doctors’ website exposes ‘criminal’ campaign by tech giants, govt agencies to block COVID med
Why are Google, Facebook, Twitter so bent on censoring doctors who promote cure for COVID?
America's Frontline Doctors, Coronavirus Vaccines, Covid-19, Frontline Doctors, Simone Gold
03/05/21 BIG PHARMA › NEWS
COVID Vaccine Injury Reports Grow in Number, But Trends Remain Consistent
Data released today by the CDC confirm several ongoing trends, including that 47% of deaths occurred in people who reported becoming sick within 48 hours of receiving a COVID vaccine, and 20% of vaccine injuries were cardiac-related.
By Megan Redshaw
According to data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the number of injuries and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccines continues to climb.
Between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 26, a total of 25,212 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 1,265 deaths and 4,424 serious injuries.
In the U.S., 70.45 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Feb. 26.
VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before confirmation can be made that the reported adverse event was caused by the vaccine.
According to the latest data, 1,136 of 1,265 reported deaths were in the U.S. Of the total, 31% of the deaths occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, and 47% of deaths occurred in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated. Twenty percent of deaths were related to cardiac disorder.
Fifty-three percent of those who died were male, 45% were female and the remaining death reports did not include gender of the deceased. The average age of those who died was 77.8 and the youngest death confirmed was a 23-year-old.
As of Feb. 26, 180 pregnant women had reported adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, including 56 reports of miscarriage or premature birth. None of the COVID vaccines approved for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have been tested for safety or efficacy in pregnant women. Yet health officials are urging pregnant women to get the vaccine, and many are enthusiastically doing so. As The Defender reported:
“Even without data from Pfizer or Moderna sufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy, expectant doctors, nurses and others appear eager for the shots, perhaps influenced by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which states that ‘neither a conversation with a clinician nor even a pregnancy test are necessary prerequisites.”
The World Health Organization on Jan. 27 issued guidance advising against pregnant women getting Moderna’s COVID vaccine — only to reverse that guidance two days later, as The New York Times reported. Pfizer announced last month that it was beginning COVID vaccine trials for pregnant women, but they don’t expect the trials to wrap up until January 2023.
This week’s VAERS data also included 1,414 reports of anaphylaxis, with 60% of cases attributed to the Pfizer-Bio-N-Tech vaccine and 40% to Moderna, and 298 reports of Bell’s Palsy.
As of Feb. 26, only the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines had been approved for emergency use in the U.S., but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week gave Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine approval for emergency use. The one-shot vaccine started rolling out this week.
On Mar. 3, The New York Times reported that some people are experiencing an “angry-looking skin condition” after their first dose of the COVID vaccine –– with arms turning red, sore, itchy and swollen a week or more after the shot. Doctors said they wanted to share the information to “help prevent the needless use of antibiotics and to ease patients’ worries and reassure them that they can safely get their second vaccine shot.”
Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, an accomplished surgeon and patient safety advocate, wrote a second letter to the FDA urging the agency to require pre-screening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins in order to reduce COVID vaccine injuries and deaths. Noorchasm argued that at least a fraction of the millions of already infected Americans — especially the elderly, frail and those with serious cardiovascular comorbidities — are at risk of being harmed by a dangerous exaggerated immune response triggered by the COVID vaccine, reported The Defender on March 3.
On March 1, The Defender also reported that 25% of residents in a German nursing home died after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Reiner Fuellmich and Viviane Fischer, attorneys and founding members of the German Corona Investigative Committee, interviewed a caregiver in a Berlin nursing home who described what happened during and after the rollout of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. According to the FDA, as part of a vaccine’s EUA, it is mandatory that pharmaceutical companies and vaccination providers report “all serious adverse events, cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome and cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death to VAERS.”
In the UK, where only the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines are being distributed, injuries related to both vaccines are coming into the government reporting system there.
As The Defender reported this week, between Dec. 9, 2020 (when the first COVID vaccine was administered in the UK) and Feb. 14, 2021, 402 deaths following COVID vaccines were reported to YellowCard, the UK government’s system for reporting side effects to COVID-related medicines, vaccines, devices, and defective or falsified products. More reportes were associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine, not yet approved in the U.S., than with the Pfizer product. In a letter written to but not published by The BMJ, John Stone wrote:
“It is also remarkable how unfavorably the Oxford-AstraZeneca data compare with the Pfizer data. MHRA data show 26,823 reports related to Pfizer vaccines, including 77,207 reactions, and 31,427 reports related to Oxford-AstraZeneca, including 114,625 reactions.
“Thus the Pfizer reports run at ~3.2 per 1,000 while the Oxford-AstraZeneca reports run at ~4.6 per 1,000: which translates to 43% more reports associated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine compared with Pfizer.
“However, the Pfizer reports have an average of 2.9 reactions per report compared with 3.6 for the Oxford-AstraZeneca (again Oxford 24% higher) — so the rate of reactions reported is actually 77% higher overall for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.”
According to “Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” a research project focused on improving the quality of physician adverse vaccine event detection and reporting to the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are ever reported.
“Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health,” according to researchers.
On March 3, KUTV reported that there was a lack of information on how and where to report vaccine side effects. “Nationally, there have been very few reports on possible side effects and where to report them. Here in Utah, guiding people to the right resources post vaccine has not been a priority,” The news outlet said.
Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.
Pfizer CEO: ‘Every Year You Will Have to Get Your Annual Shot for COVID’
Pfizer said this week it’s begun testing a third dose of its COVID vaccine and a new modified version to address variants for years to come.
By Megan Redshaw
Despite the purported 95% effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla announced Thursday that the vaccine maker is testing a third dose of its vaccine in anticipation of annual booster shots.
In a press release, Pfizer stated its goal was to understand the effect of a booster on immunity against COVID caused by the circulating and newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and to engage in ongoing discussions with the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency regarding a clinical trial to test a modified mRNA vaccine.
Pfizer director and board member Scott Gottlieb, who also served as former FDA commissioner in charge of vaccine approval, told CNBC the vaccine maker is exploring two paths to boost effectiveness of the COVID vaccine.
The first study will give 144 participants from the phase 1 clinical trial conducted last May a third lower-dosage of the current two-dose formulation. The second study involves testing a modified version of the existing vaccine designed to provide broad defense against a range of COVID mutations.
Pfizer hopes to prepare for a potential rapid adoption of the vaccine to address new variants that will allow for the development of booster vaccines within weeks. This “regulatory pathway” is already established for other infectious diseases like influenza, said the vaccine maker.
Pfizer’s CEO hopes a third dose will boost the immune response even higher or will offer protection against COVID variants.
“Every year, you need to go to get your flu vaccine,” Bourla said. “It’s going to be the same with COVID. In a year, you will have to go and get your annual shot for Covid to be protected,” Bourla told NBC News.
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine is not yet licensed by the FDA but has obtained Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to prevent COVID-19 for use in ages 16 years and older. The emergency use of this vaccine is only authorized as long as “circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use.”
The FDA has said it is willing to authorize booster shots based on small clinical trials, accepting data on how well vaccines prime the immune system rather than holding out for long-term safety and efficacy results on protecting against COVID-19.
Moderna is also bolstering its worldwide manufacturing capacity in anticipation of a sustained demand for COVID-19 boosters in the coming years. The company plans to test additional doses of their vaccine, booster shots and a new shot combined with its current vaccine as soon as regulators give the green light.
As The Defender reported last week, Bill Gates is also on record suggesting a “third shot” could be required to combat COVID.
BIG PHARMA › NEWS
New Analysis: Pfizer Vaccine Killed ‘About 40 Times More Elderly Than the Disease Itself Would Have Killed’
A re-analysis of data from the Israeli Health Ministry concluded Pfizer’s COVID vaccine killed about 40 times more (elderly) people than the disease itself would have killed” during a recent five-week vaccination period, and 260 times more younger people than would have died from the virus.
While in January a group of independent doctors concluded that experimental COVID-19 vaccines are “not safer” than the virus itself, a new analysis of vaccine-related death rates in Israel demonstrates that this may indeed be the case to dramatic levels.
A re-analysis of published data from the Israeli Health Ministry by Dr. Hervé Seligmann, a member of the faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases at Aix-Marseille University, and engineer Haim Yativ reveal, in short, that the mRNA experimental vaccine from Pfizer killed “about 40 times more (elderly) people than the disease itself would have killed” during a recent five-week vaccination period. Among the younger class, these numbers are compounded to death rates at 260 times what the COVID-19 virus would have claimed in the given time frame.
While the full mathematical analysis may be found in the article itself, the authors demonstrate how among “those vaccinated and above 65, 0.2% … died during the three-week period between doses, hence about 200 among 100,000 vaccinated. This is to be compared to the 4.91 dead among 100,000 dying from COVID-19 without vaccination.”
“This scary picture also extends to those below 65,” the researchers continued. During the five-week vaccination process “0.05%, meaning 50 among 100,000, died. This is to be compared to the 0.19 per 100,000 dying from COVID-19 (who) are not vaccinated … Hence the death rate of this age group increased by 260 (times) during this five-week period of the vaccination process, as compared to their natural COVID-19 death rate.”
As reported by Israel National News (INN), Seligmann is of Israeli-Luxembourg nationality, has a biology degree from Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has written more than 100 scientific publications. INN reports the researchers “have no conflicts or interests other than having children in Israel.”
Yativ and Seligmann stipulate that even these “estimated numbers of deaths from the vaccine are probably much lower than actual numbers as it accounts only for those defined as COVID-19 deaths for that short time period and does not include AVC and cardiac (and other) events resulting from the inflammatory reactions.”
Nor do these numbers “account for long-term complications,” they write.
In addition, within several months they expect “mid- and long-term adverse effects of the vaccination as ADE (Antibody-dependent Enhancement)” begins to become manifest in those who have received the experimental Pfizer vaccine.
As explained by America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), ADE “is when anti-COVID antibodies, created by a vaccine, instead of protecting the person, cause a more severe or lethal disease when the person is later exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the wild. The vaccine amplifies the infection rather than preventing damage.”
AFLDS provides an example of a vaccine produced to fight the Dengue fever, which resulted in deaths of 600 children in the Philippines due to ADE, and the filing of criminal charges against the decision-makers in 2019.
For these reasons and more, AFLDS and many other doctors strongly discourage the use of these experimental vaccines for most people while only acknowledging that it may be plausible for those over 70 years of age, yet acknowledging that such injections are “a higher risk than early or prophylactic treatment with established medications.”
Given these death rates, Yativ and Seligmann also have harsh criticism for the severe pressure being imposed upon the population by Israeli authorities to receive these shots. According to INN, the researchers call these draconian efforts “a new Holocaust.”
In the past weeks, Israel’s government made headlines when they adopted a “green pass” system, allowing people who have been injected to receive a green code, which then grants them entry into places such as entertainment and leisure facilities.
As the country reopens after a two-month lockdown, the green pass would be given only to those who had been injected, not to people who tested negative for the virus. The proposed benefits include access to “non-essential” businesses as well as not being required to self-isolate if identified as a close contact of a confirmed case of COVID-19, and not having to self-isolate after a return from what the government calls a “red location.”
Despite there being no proof that these experimental vaccines actually prevent transmission of the virus, Israel’s minister for health, Yuli Edelstein, said upon the release of the vaccine “passport” that “(g)etting vaccinated is a moral duty. It is part of our mutual responsibility.” He went further, declaring, “Whoever does not get vaccinated will be left behind.”
The green pass needs renewing every six months, and despite holding one, an individual must still abide by masking and physical distancing rules. The Jerusalem Post also reported that legislation is being considered to grant employers the right to refuse unvaccinated people entry into the workplace.
Such measures prompted Business Insider to describe the country as “waging a war on the unvaccinated.” Meanwhile, Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, has styled Israel’s vaccination response as “extraordinarily good.”
Originally published by LifeSite News.
Investigation Links Fauci to Controversial Experiments That May Have Led to Pandemic
Fox News investigation says there’s “reasonable grounds to suspect” that SARS-CoV-2, which may have leaked accidentally from a lab in Wuhan, China, was the product of taxpayer-funded gain-of-function experiments commissioned by the U.S. government and overseen by Fauci.
WATCH THE VIDEO AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ARTICLE. CLICK FOR LINK TO VIDEO.
By Children's Health Defense Team
At the outset of the COVID-19 outbreak, anyone who dared question the mainstream government and media narrative that SARS-CoV-2 evolved in the wild did so at the risk of being labeled a conspiracy theorist.
But as months passed, organizations like Children’s Health Defense (CHD), U.S. Right to Know and others began asking questions and calling for investigations.
The Washington Post eventually went out on a limb to print an op-ed suggesting that the virus might have leaked from a lab. And more recently, the Wall Street Journal waded into the controversy with its article, “China’s Reckless Labs Put the World at Risk.”
On Feb. 28, Fox News tackled the COVID origins story, not to point blame, reporter Steve Hilton said, but to make sure “we learn lessons, to prevent the next pandemic.”
The Fox News investigation reveals the connection between Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in Wuhan, China, where some scientists believe the virus originated.
“Fox News reporter Steve Hilton persuasively linked — for the first time on national TV — Dr. Anthony Fauci to the creation of COVID 19,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel. “Hilton explains how Fauci — despite protests from leaders of the scientific community who warned that he was playing with fire — funded the specific gain-of-function study that almost certainly created the COVID-19 virus.”
Kennedy added: “The irony of Fauci leading the global response to a pandemic that he may have created becomes starker by the day.”
In October 2020, Kennedy, on behalf of CHD, wrote to Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) asking the Congressman to investigate the causes leading up to and contributing to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Earlier this month, Posey introduced H.R. 834, a bill calling for an independent, bipartisan national commission on the COVID-19 pandemic.
As The Defender reported last week, 28 members of Congress sent a letter on Feb. 23 to the principal deputy director of the Department of Health and Human Services demanding an investigation into the National Institutes of Health’s response to biosafety concerns raised about the taxpayer-funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.
Watch the video at the bottom of this article link.
China’s Reckless Labs Put the World at Risk
Beijing is obsessed with viruses, but not biosafety. We are paying a high price for its lapses.
By Mike Pompeo and Miles Yu
Feb. 23, 2021 12:53 pm ET, Wall Street Journal Opinion
The Chinese Communist Party is obsessed with viruses. Its army of scientists claim to have discovered almost 2,000 new viruses in a little over a decade. It took the past 200 years for the rest of the world to discover that many. More troubling is the party’s negligence on biosafety. The costs and the risk to world health are enormous, as evidenced by a novel coronavirus that escaped Wuhan. This situation can’t continue. The world must hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable and punish Beijing if it fails to uphold global biosafety standards, including basic transparency requirements.
The most recent example of this malfeasance is playing out around us. The evidence that the virus came from Wuhan is enormous, though largely circumstantial, and most signs point to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, or WIV, as the source of Covid-19. In America, concern about the site is now broad and bipartisan. The Biden administration stated that it has “deep concerns” about the World Health Organization’s investigation into the early days of the pandemic, particularly Beijing’s interference with the investigators’ work.
The world has known for a long time that WIV poses a huge risk to global health. Two 2018 State Department cables warned of its biosafety problems. They even predicted that SARS-CoV-2’s ACE2 receptor, identified by WIV scientists, would enable human-to-human transmission. Yuan Zhiming, then director of WIV’s biosafety level 4 lab, warned, “The biosafety laboratory is a double-edge sword: It can be used for the benefit of humanity, but can also lead to a disaster.” He listed the shortfalls prevalent among China’s biology labs, including a lack of “operational technical support, professional instructions” and “feasible standards for the safety requirements of different protection zones and for the inoculation of microbiological animals and equipment.”
The Chinese public took note, with several bloggers alleging that WIV’s virus-carrying animals are sold as pets. They may even show up at local wet markets. After the Wuhan outbreak, one since-disappeared blogger asked a WIV researcher to debate the lab’s biosafety practices in public. The offer was ignored.
Beijing has a moral and legal obligation to take biosafety seriously, especially given the kind of research going on at WIV. In 2015, WIV’s Dr. Shi Zhengli co-wrote an article titled “A SARS-like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human Emergence” in which she admitted that her team had engineered “chimeric” and “hybrid” viruses from horseshoe bats. In a 2019 article titled “Bat Coronavirus in China,” Ms. Shi and her co-authors warned, “It is highly likely that future SARS- or MERS-like coronavirus outbreaks will originate from bats, and there is an increased probability that this will occur in China.” At the time, WIV housed tens of thousands of bat virus samples and experiment animals.
. . . Click to read article, Wall Street Journal subscription needed.
International Center for Technology Assessment
STATEMENT ON THE ORIGIN OF THE COVID 19 VIRUS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION STEPS TO HALT DANGEROUS RESEARCH ON POTENTIAL PANDEMIC VIRUSES
ICTA'S SOURCES FOR COVID-19 SOURCE RESEARCH: http://www.icta.org/
“I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory. I think it’s a legitimate question that needs to be investigated and answered. To understand exactly how this originated is critical knowledge for preventing this from happening in the future.” Xiao Qiang, a research scientist at the School of Information at the University of California at Berkeley.
It is the mission of the International Center for Technology Assessment to assess the impacts of technology and technological systems on society. As such we have undertaken to better understand the possible role of genetic engineering and other laboratory techniques in the creation of the COVID-19 virus. After considerable research, including a thorough review of the selected research materials included below and the citations thereto, and discussions with experts did not evolve naturally but rather is the product of one of the high-security bio-medical laboratories in Wuhan, China.
We believe that there is a preponderance of circumstantial and scientific evidence demonstrating that the “laboratory virus” hypothesis is not only possible but probable.
By contrast, recent refutation of the hypothesis that the virus originated at a Wuhan “wet market” and new findings that the virus has not been found in nature despite significant effort to do so, makes the view that the virus evolved naturally unlikely. (ICTA will be publishing a full Report on its Findings and Conclusion on the origin of the COVID-19 virus in September 2020.
No dispositive finding on the virus’ origin can be made without a full review of the records and logs of the Wuhan high security laboratories involved, which the current stance of the government of China makes improbable. Nevertheless, in coming to a conclusion as to the probability of its laboratory origin, ICTA understands that it is critical that any analysis of the origin of this catastrophic contagion be apolitical and constructive. ICTA’s work in this area is not intended to blame individual scientists or any country, but rather to help provide the insight, and encourage the action needed to spare humanity from a series of future man-made pandemics that could surpass the current one in transmissibility and lethality.
It may seem that engaging in exploration of the origins of the COVID-19 virus should wait until the current pandemic has been addressed and mass suffering alleviated. However, consideration of the “laboratory virus” theory matters because it highlights the most important preventive strategy that humanity can take to avoid repeats of the tragic pandemic we are all living through. This involves halting dangerous ongoing biomedical research on potential pandemic viruses. This important and necessary strategy has been completely absent in media coverage of COVID-19s origin. As a result its importance remains opaque to the general public, even though ignoring this issue threatens our individual and collective health security every minute, every hour, and every day.
Moreover, with billions earmarked for coronavirus research in the aftermath of the pandemic, there is the real possibility that a significant portion of these funds will be spent on this dangerous research which would increase the risk of future pandemics rather than lessen that threat.
Reinstate the US government moratorium on funding “Gain of Function/Gain of Threat” research on potential pandemic viruses.
The major international bio-security threat made more apparent by the probable origin of the current pandemic goes under the innocuous term “gain of function” research, often shortened to GoF. This term refers to research that uses and combines laboratory techniques including, but not limited to, genetic engineering, animal experimentation and cell and tissue culture research to increase the transmissibility and/or lethality of pathogens, including the most dangerous pandemic viruses in the world. ICTA believes that a more apt term for this research is “Gain of Threat (GoT)” rather than “Gain of Function (GoF).” To make that point we will refer to them together.
Some researchers insist that there are benefits to taking potential pandemic viruses and engineering them to create novel viruses even more catastrophically transmissible and deadly. We have not seen any evidence of such benefits in our research. We agree with Thomas Inglesby, director of Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins, that this gain of function/gain of threat (GoF/GoT) research has little or no value for vaccine development or other intervention strategies and that there is no evidence “that the information people are pursuing could be put into widespread use in the field.”
We also agree with Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright that this research threatens our health security and deflects funds from vaccine or anti-viral drug research. He notes that “after the SARS virus, US funding agencies spent hundreds of millions of on global virome and gain-of function research that increases the risk of outbreaks and provided no information-absolutely no information-useful for preventing of combating outbreaks.”
While the benefits of GoF/GoT research are debatable, the risk of this research is well established. Concerns about this research came to a head almost a decade ago when two research teams, one in the United States and the other in the Netherlands were funded by the NIH to do GoF/GoT research on the avian flu virus H5N1. This virus causes a 60% mortality rate among those infected. Fortunately it is not easily transmissible so it has never reached pandemic proportions.
To increase the transmissibility of the virus these two research teams genetically engineered it and used animal research to allow airborne transmission of this deadly flu. If accidentally released or stolen from one of these laboratories, this novel and enhanced virus could lead to a pandemic killing 1.6 billion people.
The publication of this research resulted in hundreds of eminent scientists PUBLICALLY urging that this research be halted.
In 2014, in response to this unique the Obama Administration wisely declared a moratorium on this research. The moratorium announced by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) stated that:
The U.S. Government will institute a pause on funding for any new studies that include certain gain-of-function experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. Specifically, the funding pause will apply to gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.
Unfortunately, under pressure from a group of powerful scientists- many in leadership positions at the NIH- this moratorium was lifted in December 2017. Soon after, both of the H5N1 experiments were refunded without public disclosure, and are ongoing, subjecting the world’s population to the continuing threat of accidental release of this novel virus or its theft and use in bioterrorism.
Gain of Function/Gain of Threat research to create novel pandemic viruses is now being practiced in laboratories around the globe mostly in secret, and no doubt, some of this research involves bioweapons research.
This research now includes synthetic biology, synthetic virology, gene editing and other cutting edge technologies. It is difficult to fully and accurately assess the risk to public health from this research.
It is well established that accidental releases of pathogens from high security laboratories are all too common. It is also well established that biosecurity in labs around the world is weak. Given these variables, Mark Lipsitch, Professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, has attempted to come up with a numerical assessment of that risk. He posits that for every year that a researcher works on increasing the transmissibility and/or lethality of a potential pandemic virus, there is a 1/1000 to 1/10,000 chance of an accidental release.
Hundreds of researchers are now doing such work which increases the risk significantly.
ICTA’s upcoming Report on the origins of the COVID-19 virus will discuss in-depth the GoF/GoT research most relevant to the origins of the current pandemic. This involves grants from the US National Institutes of Health and USAID over the last 5 years to researchers at the Wuhan Institute for Virology (WIV). This funding was closest to the COVID-19 virus to make them more easily transmissible and lethal.
However, and we believe this is of key importance, the urgent need to reinstate the moratorium on GoF/GoT research does not rest on proving that it was definitely the cause of COVID-19 but only that it was a possible cause. In other words the burden on those who want to continue this highly hazardous research in the wake of the pandemic is to demonstrate that it could not have created the pandemic.
This they cannot do. The WIV’s own publication of its research and the testimony of well-respected scientists and observers have made it evident that virus research conducted at one or both of the Wuhan high security labs was a possible source of the virus. This includes Shi Zhengli the controversial Chinese researcher at the head of GoF/GoT research with bat coronaviruses at the WIV who admitted having many sleepless nights worrying that the COVID-19 virus could have originated from her laboratory.
To ensure against future pandemics, there needs to be an urgent public education campaign so the American people, who have been kept in the dark about this research, can better understand its profound potential impacts on their lives. This needs to be accompanied by a renewed call by hundreds of responsible members of the scientific research community, similar to that which occurred in 2014, urging the reinstitution of the moratorium on all federal funding of GoF/GoT research, and a strong recommendation that private laboratories do the same or lose potential future government funding.
This moratorium should be for a minimum of 10 years or longer until the scientific community better understands the origins of the current pandemic, there is a robust public debate about the threat of such research to US health security and significant, measurable improvement in the biosecurity at US and international high security laboratories.
A) ICTA will be working to achieve bipartisan support in Congress for a halt of all appropriations to the NIH or any other government entity for GoF/GoT research.
B) ICTA will work to help organize an open letter to the White House in support of reinstating the 2014 moratorium on GoF/GoT research which will include provisions mandating no exceptions and a minimum 10 year period.
Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research
BY FRED GUTERL ON 4/28/20 AT 2:57 PM EDT
NEWSWEEK ARTICLE ON “GAIN OF FUNCTION” STUDIES SUPPORTED BY DR. FAUCI ON CORONAVIRUS. CLICK FOR THIS ARTICLE THAT DISCLOSED THIS LIKELY SOURSE OF “DR DEATH’S, SATAN TRUMP’S & PENCE THE ANTICHRIST’S KILLER COVID-19!”
Andrew Kimbrell on the Origins of COVID-19
By Editor Filed in Uncategorized August 11th, 2020 @ 4:36 pm
What are the origins of the COVID-19 virus?
Andrew Kimbrell, Did it come from nature?
Or did it leak from a lab in Wuhan, China?
The International Center for Technology Assessment is placing its bets on a leak from a lab in Wuhan.
“After considerable research, including a thorough review of the selected research materials and discussions with experts in the field, we have come to agree with the view that the virus causing COVID-19 did not evolve naturally but rather is the product of one of the high-security bio-medical laboratories in Wuhan, China,” the group said in a statement issued last month. “We believe that there is a preponderance of circumstantial and scientific evidence demonstrating that the ‘laboratory virus’ hypothesis is not only possible but probable. By contrast, recent refutation of the hypothesis that the virus originated at a Wuhan wet market and new findings that the virus has not been found in nature despite significant effort to do so, makes the view that the virus evolved naturally unlikely.”
“No dispositive finding on the virus’ origin can be made without a full review of the records and logs of the Wuhan high security laboratories involved, which the current stance of the government of China makes improbable. Nevertheless, in coming to a conclusion as to the probability of its laboratory origin, ICTA understands that it is critical that any analysis of the origin of this catastrophic contagion be apolitical and constructive. ICTA’s work in this area is not intended to blame individual scientists or any country, but rather to help provide the insight, and encourage the action needed to spare humanity from a series of future man-made pandemics that could surpass the current one in transmissibility and lethality.”
Andrew Kimbrell is executive director of the International Center for Technology Assessment.
“Let’s start with the probability – more likely than not – that the COVID-19 virus is a lab created virus – from one of the two labs in Wuhan China,” Kimbrell told Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last month.
“Let’s take a look at the virus itself.”
“Is there anything about the virus that would indicate one way or another? The other four categories are more circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence is fine in a court of law.”
“One is – location. Where did it happen?”
“Two – precedent. Has anything like this ever happened before?”
“Three – warnings. Did anybody warn that this might happen?”
“And four – cover-up. Did the labs and the Chinese government try to cover it up?”
“Those are the five categories that I would ask your friends and skeptics to go through carefully before they use words like conspiracy or baloney. And later on I will go through why some of them are using those terms. We will get into the corporate support for these people and why you are getting this misinformation.”
“Let’s go through it. It is undisputed that this is a chimeric virus that has never been seen before. It’s a hybrid virus “
“The bat coronaviruses that are closest to COVID-19 are lacking two incredibly important things that COVID-19 has that make it so dangerous. One is the proteins that spike the cell – the spike proteins. The spike proteins that are on COVID-19 are completely different than those on the bat coronaviruses that are closest to it otherwise. Then there is the furin cleavage site. This is something that allows the virus to get inside the cell and have the cell mechanism reproduce it. That does not exist in this group of bat coronaviruses.”
“You have a basic bat coronavirus and you have two things that have been added to it. The spike protein is closest to an animal called the pangolin. We do know that somehow this bat virus was infected by at least two other animals and then went into a human host. And for that virus to be the way it is, it had to happen simultaneously.”
“We have a hybrid virus never seen before in nature, it had to have been infected simultaneously with these other elements that make it more dangerous – make it more infective and more transmissible.”
“There is no theory about how they got in there. They used to think it was the wet market. That has been completely debunked, including by the Chinese government. No one believes that anymore. That explanation was a smoke screen put up by the Chinese and Americans who want to support that idea.”
What are the chances it happened naturally?
“Someone will have to come up with a scenario. It sounds almost like a joke. A horseshoe bat, a pangolin and some other creature met in a bar in Wuhan and somehow simultaneously infected them.”
“I haven’t seen any scenario of how that happened or where that happened. But we know that had to happen. It happened somewhere. It either happened in nature or it happened in the Wuhan Institute of Virology or it happened at the CDC lab in Wuhan.”
“That is undisputed. Then at the end of May, Nickolai Petrovsky and his team in Australia said – let’s see if we can find a creature that might have an affinity for this. That way we might find the animals that might have come together to create this virus. Their conclusion was that they could not find it anywhere else in nature. These are objective researchers. They are not Trump supporters. That study made it even more difficult to accept the natural theory.”
“Meanwhile, we know that this was exactly the kind of work that was going on at one or both of the Wuhan labs. They call it gain of function research. I call it gain of threat research. They were taking NIH money, through the EcoHealth Alliance to do exactly this. And they did exactly this. They added different kinds of protein spikes. They mixed and matched various viruses. They genetically engineered them. They infected a number of animals. They put them into human cell cultures to increase the threat.”
Why were they doing this research?
“The point of the research was to collect all of these bat viruses from 1,000 miles away from Wuhan and bring them back into their labs. The bat coronavirus was also the basis for the first SARS outbreak. They collected the bat viruses and brought them back to the labs. And then we are going to see what it would take for them to become really dangerous. What would it take? The idea was – if we can show what it takes in a laboratory for them to become incredibly dangerous then maybe we can predict that happening in nature. And then maybe we could have vaccines or interventions and be ready for the next pandemic.”
It was a way to develop vaccines?
“No. It was a way to develop a potential pandemic virus that might have occurred in nature at some point in the future. By having it, they would be able to think about what intervention strategies might work against this virus, which is now only in the lab, not in nature.”
“They would say – we’re trying to not have the next pandemic. And there are a couple of problems with that argument. I sent you an article by Marc Lipsitch at Harvard and Tom Inglesby at Johns Hopkins. They pretty much demolished this argument. They say – there are hundreds of combinations of coronaviruses that could happen in nature. The idea that you can pick one or two and that is going to be the one that nature comes up with is like winning the lottery. And then to create a vaccine for a non existent virus – except in your laboratory – no one is going to do that. They are going to wait to see what happens in nature.”
“This whole gain of threat research, there are many reputable scientists now saying – it gives you no information, it’s not useful for vaccines, it’s not useful for anything except for the curiosity and interest of this small group of scientists who do this research.”
“Meanwhile they are creating novel pandemic viruses.”
“Let’s get back to the list.”
“Location. Why did this happen in Wuhan? Of all the cities in China. Of all the areas where bats are – and they are nowhere near Wuhan, they are 1,000 miles away. Of all of the cities it could have happened in, of all the small towns it could have happened in, why did it happen in Wuhan? What are the odds of this happening in Wuhan naturally versus happening in Wuhan because researchers there were doing exactly the kind of research that would create it? What are the odds of that? If I was in court, I would say that’s a very strong indicator that it happened in the labs. And in the interview with Shi Zhengli, she was so surprised. Why would this happen in Wuhan? And that’s why she got so nervous. Check that in favor of the lab theory.”
“Two is precedent. Was there any precedent? Yes. In 2003 and 2004, the original SARS virus was leaked four times from Chinese laboratories. It was reported in Science magazine. So, we’ve already had a leak of SARS 1. And a couple of people who worked in that laboratory died in 2004. We have a precedent with the SARS virus.”
“What about warnings? There were numerous warnings. UPMC Center for Health Security looked at ten nations including China. In 2016, they found inadequate training and inadequate safety personnel in China to secure biosecurity.”
“In 2017, there is an article in Nature where scientists say they are very concerned about a biosafety level 4 laboratory in China doing all of this controversial research. We don’t feel they have the experience or the expertise to do that.”
“In 2018, we have the cables from the U.S. State Department saying – we are in this lab in China and we are very concerned that they are not taking appropriate precautions. And we are hoping that the United States government is coming to help them because this could be a very bad result. That was reported on by Josh Rogin in the Washington Post. You can read these cables.”
“In 2019, the Global Health Security Index for the very first time looks at biosecurity for 195 nations. No one has ever done anything that comprehensive. They found that China was not even in the top fifty of the most biosecure countries.”
“NBC reported that in October 2019 there was cell phone silence at the Wuhan lab. They were concerned that might have had something to do with an accident.”
“You had all of these warnings. You had precedent. Then you have a massive cover-up. Milton Leitenberg in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists goes over that cover-up in great detail in an article in June titled “Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus arise from a bat coronavirus research program in a Chinese laboratory? Very possibly.”
“Leitenberg goes over the cover-up in detail. China orders the virus destroyed. They punish those who were publishing stories about it. They refused to make any records from the labs available. They put out disinformation that it came from a U.S. military lab.”
What about the so called batwoman?
“The Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli. She works at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She says she didn’t sleep a wink for days, fearful that the virus came from her lab. But now she assures us that it didn’t come from her lab. She may be right or she may be wrong. I don’t know. It may have come from the other lab or from someone else working there. But she herself was so frightened about the possibility that her research had created this pandemic that she didn’t sleep a wink for days. That’s enough to say to me – that research should never happen.”
What you call gain of threat research was banned for a while, correct?
“That’s correct. Gain of function research is used for different kinds of research. If you were to be working with a plant and were trying to get the plant to fixate nitrogen better, that would be gain of function for that plant. There is nothing wrong with gain of function research. But to use the term as they do is dishonest. The term gain of function sounds innocuous. Gain of function – that doesn’t sound bad.”
You don’t want to ban gain of function research.
“I don’t want to ban gain of function research. I’m going to take away the double speak and call it what it is – gain of threat research on potential pandemic viruses. That’s what I want to ban. No one in the world should be doing gain of threat research on potentially pandemic viruses. It’s the definition of insanity.”
“In 2014, the Obama administration declared a moratorium on any federal funding of gain of threat research. The reason they did this was because two researchers – Ron Fouchier in the Netherlands and Yoshihiro Kawaoka in Wisconsin – were working on the H5N1 bird flu, which had a 60 percent mortality rate, but was not transmissible through the air. It killed a few hundred people, but because it was not transmissible, it didn’t go very far. But they decided they were going to try and turn it into a transmissible virus and publish their results.”
“With a 60 percent mortality rate, if that virus escaped, you have a potential 1.6 billion casualties.”
Did they actually turn it into a transmissible virus?
“According to them, they did yes.”
What are the ethics of turning that into a transmissible virus?
“Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard School of Public Health said this ‘We have accepted principles, embodied in the Nuremberg Code, that say that biomedical experiments posing a risk to human subjects should only be undertaken if they provide benefits that sufficiently offset the risks – and if there are no other means of obtaining those benefits. Although these experiments don’t involve people directly, they do put human life and well-being at risk.’”
[For the complete q/a format Interview with Andrew Kimbrell, see 34 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(10), Monday June 27, 2020, print edition only.]
International Center for Technology Assessment
CRITICAL PAGE OF COVID REFERENCES:
What’s New: Current Update: Saturday – 07-18-2020
ICTA STATEMENT On COVID and GOFGOT(003)
Covid references for ICTA website
GOFGOT materials for ICTA website
Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus arise from a bat coronavirus research program in a Chinese laboratory? Very possibly.
By Milton Leitenberg | June 4, 2020
On May 15, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published a short commentary titled, “Let evidence, not talk radio, determine whether the outbreak started in a lab,” by Ali Nouri, a biologist and president of the Federation of American Scientists.
“The outbreak” referred to the pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 now circling the globe. It is a thin commentary, and it is puzzling why the Bulletin thought it desirable to publish it at all. Only two weeks earlier the journal had published a reasoned and competent appraisal by Kings College London biosecurity expert Filippa Lentzos titled, “Natural spillover or research lab leak? Why a credible investigation is needed to determine the origin of the coronavirus pandemic.”
The Nouri article very correctly pilloried the statements by President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, presidential legal advisor Rudy Giuliani, and radio personality Rush Limbaugh. These are as notorious a gang of four fabricators as will ever likely be recorded in American history. They were ably assisted by Fox News, which the Nouri critique also mentions. Nouri ended his commentary with these lines: “Our leaders ought to … take steps to prevent the next pandemic, instead of diverting our attention to unsupported sensationalist theories spread by cable TV and talk radio.”
Perhaps the most damaging blows to efforts to obtain a certain answer as to the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 “outbreak” have been the pronouncements by Trump, Pompeo, and their echo chambers. But they and their remarks are not the measure by which the question of the possibility that a laboratory escape began the pandemic should be examined. Trump’s diversionary ranting comes from a president who did nothing for two months in the face of an oncoming lethal pandemic, actively denied and denigrated intelligence warnings of the imminent danger, and said that SARS-CoV-2 would “just go away … like a miracle” and that “within a couple of days is going to be down close to zero.” All this has been widely and thoroughly chronicled.1
But long before Trump, Pompeo and Co. sought a Chinese scapegoat for the president’s gross and willful incompetence, researchers understood that the possibility of laboratory escape of the pathogen was a plausible, if unproven, possibility. It is most definitely not “a conspiracy theory.”
The circumstantial evidence for a lab escape.
By way of introduction, there are two virology institutes in Wuhan to consider, not one: The Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention (WHCDC) and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Both have conducted large projects on novel bat viruses and maintained large research collections of novel bat viruses, and at least the WIV possessed the virus that is the most closely related known virus in the world to the outbreak virus, bat virus RaTG13. This virus was isolated in 2013 and had its genome published on January 23, 2020. Seven more years of bat coronavirus collection followed the 2013 RaTG13 isolation.
One component of the novel-bat-virus project at the Wuhan Institute of Virology involved infection of laboratory animals with bat viruses. Therefore, the possibility of a lab accident includes scenarios with direct transmission of a bat virus to a lab worker, scenarios with transmission of a bat virus to a laboratory animal and then to a lab worker, and scenarios involving improper disposal of laboratory animals or laboratory waste.
Documentary evidence indicates that the novel-bat-virus projects at Wuhan CDC and the Wuhan Institute of Virology used personal protective equipment and biosafety standards that would pose high risk of accidental infection of a lab worker upon contact with a virus having the transmission properties of the outbreak virus.
In assessing the possibility of a lab accident, one must take into consideration each of the following eight elements of circumstantial evidence:
1. Official Chinese government recognition early in the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak of biosafety inadequacies in China’s high containment facilities. In February 2020, several weeks after the outbreak of the disease in Wuhan, China’s President Xi Jinping stressed the need to ensure “biosafety and biosecurity of the country.”2 This was followed immediately by a China Ministry of Science & Technology announcement of new guidelines for laboratories, especially in handling viruses.3 Almost at the same time, the Chinese newspaper Global Times published an article on “chronic inadequate management issues at laboratories, including problems of biological wastes.”4
A PBS NewHour presentation on May 22, 2020 provided the following information:
On January 1, Wuhan Institute of Virology’s director general, Yanyi Wang, messaged her colleagues, saying the National Health Commission told her the lab’s COVID-19 data shall not be published on social media and shall not be disclosed to the media. And on January 3, the commission sent this document, never posted online, but saved by researchers, telling labs to destroy COVID-19 samples or send them to the depository institutions designated by the state. Late Friday [May 16, 2020] the Chinese government admitted to the destruction … but said it was for public safety.
The Chinese government explanation for the destruction of SARS-CoV-2 samples has no scientific credibility. For purposes of “public safety” any samples would surely be stored and studied, exactly as with the ones that were isolated from patients, and their RNA genomes decoded and published.
2. Recognition by Zhengli Shi, a renowned scientist who leads a research team at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, that a laboratory escape was a possibility. Shi took the possibility of a laboratory escape perfectly seriously. Jonna Mazat of the University of California-Davis, a collaborator with Dr Shi, told Josh Rogin of the Washington Post, “Absolutely, accidents can happen.” In an interview with Scientific American, Shi admitted that her very first thought was “If coronaviruses were the culprit, she remembers thinking ‘Could they have come from our lab?’”
Meanwhile she frantically went through her own lab’s records from the past few years to check for any mishandling of experimental materials, especially during disposal. She breathed a sigh of relief when the results came back: none of the sequences matched those of the viruses her team had sampled from bat caves. ‘That really took a load off my mind,’ she says. ‘I had not slept a wink for days.’
3. Questions surrounding Chinese government attribution of the Wuhan’s Huanan South China Seafood Market as the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Many China scholars noted that it was quite unusual for Chinese government authorities to identify Wuhan’s Huanan South China Seafood Market so quickly as the source of the outbreak. They thought this behavior so uncharacteristic that it raised suspicions in their minds. The authors of a newly published paper wrote that
…we were surprised to find that SARS-CoV-2 resembles SARS-CoV in the late phase of the 2003 epidemic after SARS-CoV had developed several advantageous adaptations for human transmission. Our observations suggest that by the time SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV. However, no precursors or branches of evolution stemming from a less human-adapted SARS-CoV-2-like virus have been detected…. It would be curious if no precursor or branches of SARS-CoV-2 evolution are discovered in humans or animals….Even the possibility that a non-genetically-engineered precursor could have adapted to humans while being studied in a laboratory should be considered, regardless of how likely or unlikely.5
It is important to note that no intermediary host has yet been identified for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The authors also noted that “[n]o animal sampling prior to the shutdown and sanitization [of the Wuhan fish market] was done.”
The question of whether the index case appeared in the Wuhan fish market appears to be moot in any case. Chinese researchers have published data showing that there were 41 cases of SARS-CoV-2 between December 1, 2019 and January 2, 2020. Fourteen of these had no contact with the Huanan seafood market, including the very first recorded case on December 1, 2019.6 And that supposes that the true index case was December 1, which is doubtful.
On May 26, the Chinese government scrapped the previous official story about the Wuhan fish market:
China’s top epidemiologist said Tuesday that testing of samples from a Wuhan food market, initially suspected as a path for the virus’s spread to humans, failed to show links between animals being sold there and the pathogen. Gao Fu, director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, said in comments carried in China state media.7
No SARS-CoV-2 isolates were detected in any of the animals or fish sold at the market, only in environmental samples, including sewage. Gao Fu added, “At first, we assumed the seafood market might have the virus, but now the market is more like a victim. The novel coronavirus had existed long before.”8
4. Suppression of information and individuals by Chinese authorities. A publication by two Chinese university academics discussed both the WHCDC and the WIV and concluded that “the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan”; the publication was removed from the internet by Chinese government officials. The paper had been posted on Research Gate but was blocked after 24 hours. After being placed on an archive file by internet users, it was again blocked after a week, and the two Chinese authors were pressured to retract the paper. However, it is still available on Web archives.9
The Chinese government closed the laboratory in Shanghai that first published the genome of COVID-19 on January 10, explaining that it had been shuttered for “rectification”; the closure happened on January 11. The government then permitted the same genome to be published by Shi on January 12.10 Chinese citizens who reported on the coronavirus were censured and, in some cases, “disappeared.”11 These have included businessman Fang Bin, lawyer Chen Qiushi, former state TV reporter Li Zehua and, most recently, Zhang Zhan, a lawyer. They are reportedly being held in extrajudicial detention centers for speaking out about China’s response to the pandemic. They are usually accused of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”12
Another aspect of Chinese government secrecy involved in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic relates to official reporting by Chinese government officials on the severity of the outbreak in China and on levels of mortality. The number of cases and deaths are suspected of being undercounted by at least an order of magnitude, and possibly two, meaning that the reported figures could be as little as one percent of the actual totals. In the last week of April 2020, Caixin, one of the most reliable publications in China, reported that a serological study had been carried out in Wuhan on 11,000 inhabitants. Extrapolating from its results, which showed that five to six percent of the sample of 11,000 persons carried antibodies for SARS-CoV-2, Caixin estimated that 500,000 people in the city had been infected, or 10 times the level of official Chinese government reporting. The publication was quickly deleted by Chinese government censors.13
The Chinese government has also attempted to obscure the origins of the pandemic with disinformation. On March 13, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian suggested that the United States might have introduced the coronavirus to Wuhan.14 A month later, Zhao Lijian again posted Russian coronavirus and biowarfare-related disinformation, this time followed by online posts from Chinese ambassadors in 13 countries spread across the world.15 This was unprecedented diplomatic behavior for China, but not an accident. It was a concerted, deliberate, and preposterous disinformation campaign, repeated in May by CGTN, the China Global Television Network, which reposted the disinformation to the social media sites Weibo, Facebook, and Twitter.16 The history of Soviet and then Russian government biowarfare disinformation suggests that a country spreading such disinformation has or may have something to hide.17
5. Laboratory accidents and the escape of highly dangerous pathogens from laboratories are frequent occurrences worldwide. The accidental infection of researchers in the highest containment biosafety facilities—labelled BSL-2, BSL-3 and BSL-4—occurs worldwide, as do accidental releases by other means. In an excellent review published in February 2019, Lynn Klotz of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation noted that three releases of Ebola and Marburg viruses from BSL-4 and lower-containment facilities in the United States had occurred due to incomplete inactivation of cultures. Releases via infection of researchers took place in the highest containment facilities in the United States—at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta and at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)—but in all cases only the researcher became ill, and there was no further transmission of the pathogen.
“In an analysis circulated at the 2017 meeting for the Biological Weapons Convention, a conservative estimate shows that the probability is about 20 percent for a release of a mammalian-airborne-transmissible, highly pathogenic avian influenza virus into the community from at least one of 10 labs over a 10-year period of developing and researching this type of pathogen,” Klotz wrote. “This percentage was calculated from FSAP [US Federal Select Agent Program] data for the years 2004 through 2010. Analysis of the FOIA NIH (National Institutes of Health) data gives a much higher release probability—that is, a factor five to 10 times higher, based on a smaller number of incident reports.”18
Between 2009 and 2015, the FSAP recorded 749 incidents in seven categories—not solely releases or researcher infections—from 276 facilities. In addition, Klotz recorded 11 confirmed releases of select agents that resulted in a laboratory-acquired infection in roughly 280 specifically approved laboratories in the United States between 2003 and 2017, a rate of just under one per year.19 A second publication in the Bulletin that covered closely-related subject matter and a personal communication from its author suggested that federally reported cases involving select agents were likely to be substantially undercounted:20
There is a fundamental problem of using the defined select agents as a surrogate for potential pandemic agent releases from research labs. The vast majority of ‘classical BW agents’ that initially defined select agents in the US were selected specifically to be NOT capable of sustained transmission so as to better define the military tactical limits of a military employment and because the establishment of progressive transmission was considered unpredictable and possibly counterproductive in military operations, at least on the US side of offensive development in the 1940s-1960s.
As my historical review of lab escapes that resulted in pandemics or wide area epidemics published in the BAS found, most pandemic, continental or large scale community outbreaks originating from lab escapes came from civilian labs working with public or veterinary pathogens of non-military interest.
It takes only one superspreading graduate student or maintenance worker to start a pandemic.
It is known that a very large percentage of the individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus show no symptoms and do not become clinically ill, which would facilitate an unrecognized infection of one or more laboratory researchers.
6. There have been laboratory accidents and escapes of highly dangerous pathogens in China in general and biosafety issues at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in particular. After the SARS epidemic in 2002-2003, which originated naturally in China and which China initially kept secret, work on the coronavirus pathogen that was responsible for the outbreak was undertaken in laboratories around the world. This research led to six cases of infection in laboratory workers: four in the National Institute of Virology in Beijing and one each in laboratories in Singapore and Taiwan.
Bulletin Virtual Program — Under a White Sky: The Nature of the Future
The laboratory-acquired infections of lab workers in Beijing led to short-lived outbreaks of SARS in the Beijing region in 2004.21
A second case of infected researchers in China resulted in brief outbreaks of disease in early December 2019. An outbreak of brucellosis began in an agricultural laboratory in Lanzhou (Gansu Province, central China) and spread to China’s premier bird flu laboratory in Harbin (Heilongjiang Province, northeast China). It was linked to index cases involving graduate students who were exposed while conducting research and included at least 96 people.22
7. Under what biosafety conditions was bat coronavirus research carried out at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Most work—including all published work using live bat coronaviruses that were not SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV—was conducted under BSL-2 conditions.23 This was consistent with both WHO and CDC recommendations.24 BSL-2 provides only minimal protection against infection of laboratory researchers, and these regulations were almost certainly too lenient for working with bat coronaviruses. All such work should have been carried out under BSL-3 conditions. However, extremely high-risk gain of function (GoF) studies with bat SARS-related coronaviruses were carried out at BSL-3 or BSL-4. Statements made by various commentators claiming that the WIV worked only with RNA isolates and not with live viruses are untrue (as discussed in further detail in a following section).
In regard to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in particular, relevant information is again available from both Chinese and Western sources. Information from official Chinese government sources appeared in a Voice of America report which noted:
[T]here is Chinese evidence that the lab had safety problems. VOA has located state media reports showing that there were security incidents flagged by national inspections as well as reported accidents that occurred when workers were trying to catch bats for study
About a year before the corona virus outbreak, a security review conducted by a Chinese national team found the lab did not meet national standards in five categories.
The document on the lab’s official website said after a rigorous and meticulous review, the team gave a high evaluation of the lab’s overall safety management. “At the same time, the review team also put forward further rectification opinions on the five non-conformities and two observations found during the review.”
In addition to problems in the lab, state media also reported that national reviewers found scientists were sloppy when they were handling bats.
One of the researchers working at the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention described to China’s state media that he was once attacked by bats, and he ended up getting bat blood on his skin.
In another incident, the same researcher forgot to take protective measures, and the urine of a bat dripped “like rain onto the top of his head,” reported China’s Xinhua state news agent.25
Also, information was leaked from the US Department of State and published in the Washington Post on April 14:
Two years before the novel coronavirus pandemic upended the world, U.S. Embassy officials visited a Chinese research facility in the city of Wuhan several times and sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab, which was conducting risky studies on corona viruses from bats. The cables have fueled discussions inside the U.S. government about whether this or another Wuhan lab was the source of the virus – even though conclusive proof has yet to emerge.
In January 2018, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing took the unusual step of repeatedly sending U.S. science diplomats to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had in 2015 become China’s first laboratory to achieve the highest level of international bioresearch safety (known as BSL-4). WIV issued a news release in English about the last of these visits, which occurred on March 27, 2018. The U.S. delegation was led by Jamison Fouss, the consul general in Wuhan, and Rick Switzer, the embassy’s counselor of environment, science, technology and health. Last week, WIV erased that statement from its website, though it remains archived on the Internet.
What the U.S. officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables categorized as Sensitive But Unclassified back to Washington. The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help. The first cable … also warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic.
“During interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory,” states the Jan. 19, 2018, cable, which was drafted by two officials from the embassy’s environment, science and health sections who met with the WIV scientists.
“Most importantly,” the cable states, “the researchers also showed that various SARS-like coronaviruses can interact with ACE2, the human receptor identified for SARS-coronavirus. This finding strongly suggests that SARS-like coronaviruses from bats can be transmitted to humans to cause SARS-like diseases. From a public health perspective, this makes the continued surveillance of SARS-like coronaviruses in bats and study of the animal-human interface critical to future emerging coronavirus outbreak prediction and prevention.26
The US government had supplied a portion of the funds to build the Wuhan Institute of Virology and these cables were an appeal for funds to support additional training in biosafety and biosecurity. There were similar concerns about the nearby Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention lab, which operates entirely at BSL-2. Chinese government authorities did not provide the US government with samples of the virus obtained from either the earliest cases or from the Wuhan fish market. A US intelligence official commented: “The idea that it was just a totally natural occurrence is circumstantial. The evidence it leaked from the lab is circumstantial. Right now, the ledger on the side of it leaking from the lab is packed with bullet points, and there’s almost nothing on the other side.”27
8. What is the nature of the research being carried out in Zhengli Shi’s laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Details of the most recent National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) grant for WIV bat coronavirus surveillance and WIV bat coronavirus gain of function research are publicly available. The key activity for bat coronavirus surveillance is “Aim 1 … We will sequence receptor binding domains (spike proteins) to identify viruses with the highest potential for spillover which we will include in our experimental investigations (Aim 3).” The key activity for bat coronavirus gain of function investigation is “Aim 3…. We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments, and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.”28
Translated into something approaching lay language, Aim 3 states that de novo synthesis is to be used to construct a series of novel chimeric viruses, comprising recombinant hybrids using different spike proteins from each of a series of unpublished natural coronaviruses in an otherwise-constant genome of a bat coronavirus. The ability of the resulting novel viruses to infect human cells in culture and to infect laboratory animals would be tested. The underlying hypothesis is that a direct correlation would be found between the receptor-binding affinity of the spike protein and the ability to infect human cells in culture and to infect laboratory animals. This hypothesis would be tested by asking whether novel viruses encoding spike proteins with the highest receptor-binding affinity have the highest ability to infect human cells in culture and laboratory animals.
The WIV began its gain of function research program for bat coronaviruses in 2015. Using a natural virus, institute researchers made “substitutions in its RNA coding to make it more transmissible. They took a piece of the original SARS virus and inserted a snippet from a SARS-like bat coronavirus, resulting in a virus that is capable of infecting human cells.”29 This meant it could be transmitted from experimental animal to experimental animal by aerosol transmission, which means that it could do the same for humans. In other words, gain of function techniques were used to turn bat coronaviruses into human pathogens capable of causing a global pandemic.
There have been three publications, in 2015,30 2016 and 2017, describing the WIV gain of function research. The WIV, having learned both basic and traceless infectious-clone technology from joint research with a laboratory at the University of North Carolina (UNC) in 2015, initiated construction of novel chimeric coronaviruses without UNC immediately thereafter. WIV’s first publication on the use of basic infectious-clone technology to construct novel chimeric coronaviruses at WIV appeared in 2016.31 WIV’s first publication on the use of traceless, signature-free infectious-clone technology also appeared in 2016.32
As this article was being edited, two excellent publications appeared that provide greater technical detail on WIV’s gain of function research, and readers should certainly examine these with care.33 The two papers strongly support the argument that the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak was the results of an escape from one of the two Chinese virology laboratories in Wuhan.
The Chinese government has proudly stated that the WIV “preserves more than 1,500 strains of virus,” the largest collection in Asia of bat and other coronaviruses.34 (The government statement probably should have said 1,500 isolates rather than “strains.”) The 2019 interview with Shi in Scientific American reports that the WIV had at least hundreds of individual strains.35 These numbers have been reported by Chinese government authorities, and they are being taken at face value here.
From 2004 on, the WIV published many dozens of partial or full genome sequences of coronaviruses in their collection. On June 1, Daszak and Shi published partial genetic sequences of 781 Chinese bat coronaviruses, more than one-third of which had never been published previously.36 There are also multiple published records of animal infection research with bat coronaviruses at the WIV. In order to carry out the research program described above, the WIV laboratory needs to use live viruses, and not just RNA fragments. This contradicts two of the assertions, made by some commentators, that Shi worked only with RNA fragments and that her laboratory did not maintain live viruses. On May 24, 2020, the director of the WIV acknowledged that the laboratory did have “three live strains of bat corona viruses on site,” but implied only three.37 Knowledgeable virologists assume that the number must be much higher, probably hundreds of live viral isolates.38
It is precisely in the course of the kind of gain of function research that the WIV conducted that there would be the greatest likelihood of infection of a laboratory researcher. Many commentators have noted that millions of people in several western Chinese provinces, as well as in other South Asian countries, live their lives in daily proximity to bat caves and that serological testing has shown a fraction of these villagers to have antibodies to bat coronaviruses, showing that natural infection had occurred. The commentators argue therefore that “the odds” are in favor of SARS-CoV-2 having arisen in the field, and that a laboratory escape is so implausible that it is out of consideration. The logic of “the odds” is specious: It would take only a single laboratory infection to overcome “the odds,” if such could in fact be reckoned. That is essentially what happened in the four SARS laboratory infections that occurred in the Beijing laboratory in 2004; “the odds” for exposure of villagers in Yunnan province were irrelevant.
Since the SARS-CoV-2 genome was decoded and published, there have been numerous statements from virologists that the genome shows no indication of genetic manipulation, and that this too supports the argument that it arose in the field and did not escape from a laboratory. Although this argument implicitly recognizes that the WIV laboratory was using genetic engineering technology, there is no reason to arbitrarily assume that only a bat coronavirus that was genetically modified might have escaped from the laboratory. Nevertheless, the second portion of the NIAID research grant design made absolutely clear that the WIV would be applying genetic engineering techniques to bat coronaviruses. Using the current standard genetic engineering technology, many alterations of several bases in the RNA genome would be undetectable, including construction of a chimeric coronavirus encoding an unpublished spike protein in an unpublished genome. This would be the equivalent of a natural mutation in several bases that coded for the spike proteins.
An article in Independent Science News by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson discusses another mechanism, described by Nikolai Petrovsky of Flinders University in Australia, that could have resulted in the SARS-CoV-2 virus that produced the pandemic:
Take a bat coronavirus that is not infectious to humans, and force its selection by culturing it with cells that express human ACE2 receptor, such cells having been created many years ago to culture SARS coronaviruses and you can force the bat virus to adapt to infect human cells via mutations in its spike protein, which would have the effect of increasing the strength of its binding to human ACE2, and inevitably reducing the strength of its binding to bat ACE2.
Viruses in prolonged culture will also develop other random mutations that do not affect its function. The result of these experiments is a virus that is highly virulent in humans but is sufficiently different that it no longer resembles the original bat virus. Because the mutations are acquired randomly by selection there is no signature of a human gene jockey, but this is clearly a virus still created by human intervention.39
Final comments. On April 30, Newsweek described a report produced by the US Defense Intelligence Agency which stated that “in early February, China’s Academy for Military Medical Sciences ‘concluded that it was impossible for them to scientifically determine whether the Covid-19 outbreak was caused naturally or accidentally from a laboratory incident.’” The author of a newly published paper analyzing the genome of SARS-COV-2 reported that “the COVID-19 virus is exquisitely adapted to infect humans… The virus’s ability to bind protein on human cells was far greater than its ability to bind the same protein in bats, which argues against bats being a direct source of the human virus.”40
Overall, the data indicates that SARS-CoV-2 is uniquely adapted to infect humans, raising important questions as to whether it arose in nature by a rare chance event or whether its origins might lie elsewhere.
Offshore wind power: Poised (finally) to take off on the East Coast?Geng Shuang, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said. “China has mentioned many times that the origin of the virus is a scientific question, which should be evaluated by scientists and medical experts, and should not be politicized.”41 Essentially the same position on the possibility that a lab leak originated the pandemic was expressed by Xiao Qiang, a research scientist at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley. “I don’t think it is a conspiracy theory. I think it’s a legitimate question that needs to be investigated and answered. To understand exactly how this originated is critical knowledge for preventing this from happening in the future.”42
But Chinese officials reacted angrily in April when Australian officials suggested that the World Health Organization should be able to quickly investigate a disease outbreak that could lead to a pandemic, retaliating by instituting trade restrictions on several Australian agricultural exports to China. In early May, the World Health Organization’s representative in China, Gauden Galea, publicly complained that China had refused repeated requests to permit the WHO to participate in whatever investigations the Chinese government was undertaking itself. He said that the WHO had not been given access to laboratory logs at the WIV or the Wuhan Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.43
On May 18, prior to a meeting of the WHO governing board, the European Union submitted a draft resolution supported by 100 nations that asked the WHO “to work with other United Nations agencies to ‘identify the zoonotic source of the virus and the route of introduction to the human population, including the possible role of intermediate hosts. … The document does not propose a review to identify missteps in how countries handled the outbreak and is instead forward-looking. It calls on the WHO to potentially arrange ‘scientific and collaborative field missions’ to help prevent similar future outbreaks. It also appears to rule out the possibility that the virus was man-made or experimented upon.”44
The draft resolution did not mention Wuhan or China.45
On May 18, China’s President Xi addressed the meeting of the governing body of the WHO via video. Ironically, Xi asked that countries “step up information sharing” but declared that China would support a review of the pandemic led by the WHO as long as it was “objective and impartial” and held after the pandemic was under control or over. The operative WHO resolution focuses on identifying “the zoonotic source of the virus” and says nothing about any forensic investigation.46 The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian declared that “China supported an international inquiry all along,” and China’s Global Times asked: “Will China oppose scientific research into the virus’ origin? No, because it is a necessary move to fight COVID-19 in a scientific way and conducive to prevention measures and development of vaccines and medicine,” but added “Not only China-related factors but also those related to the US and other countries need to be included. Earlier confirmed cases than the previously known first infected case have continuously been found in the US. Among those diagnosed as having flu last winter, how many were coronavirus infections? All these clues shouldn’t be missed.”47
What does this all mean at the present time? We have in China:
• a record of laboratory escape of the SARS virus in 2004 from a premier Chinese research institute.
• a record of poor biosafety in some of its high-containment facilities, including in the Wuhan institutes.
• a record of suppression of information in general, and in the case of SARS-CoV-2 in particular.
• the initiation of a disinformation campaign in regard to the origin of SARS-CoV-2, targeting US biological laboratories.
• a record of gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including passage of a bat coronavirus construct through experimental animals.
Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists before the WHO governing board was convened, Filippa Lentzos advocated for a forensic investigation and described what it would entail:
Investigating the range of possible spillover sites—from the wet market, to an accidental lab or fieldwork infection, or an unnoticed lab leak—requires a forensic investigation. Obtaining case histories, epidemiological data, and viral samples from different times and places, including the earliest possible samples from infected individuals and samples from wildlife, is paramount… A forensic investigation would additionally involve auditing and sampling viral collections at relevant labs that had been studying coronaviruses, examining the types of experiments carried out and the viruses used, and reviewing the safety and security practices in place. Key data would also come from documents, including standard operating procedures at the labs and during fieldwork, risk assessments of individual experiments, experiment logs and fieldwork notebooks, training records, waste management logs, accident and infection records, facility maintenance and automated systems records, access logs, security camera footage and communications logs. …A COVID-19 origins investigation will need to be negotiated and begun rapidly before relevant data diminishes or disappears entirely as time passes.48
There is no semblance of any of this in the WHO resolution, and one can scarcely imagine that any of it would be permitted by the current administration in China. An investigation held after the pandemic “is under control” cannot possibly be carried out “rapidly,” and is in fact postponed into the indefinite future. Unfortunately, if there were any documentation in either of the two Wuhan virology institutes that recorded the infection of a laboratory researcher or an escape, or that either had a virus sample that was extremely similar to SARS-CoV-2, one has to assume that such information has already been removed or destroyed.
Others have suggested that an international “commission, independent of the WHO, needs to be set up with the broad objective of how to ameliorate the next pandemic. Its mandate should go well beyond that of the WHO and part of its work could be to look at how COVID-19 started.”49 Unfortunately it is equally difficult to envision such a commission coming to pass.
At present, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. The pros and cons regarding the two alternative possibilities—first, that it arose in the field as a natural evolution, as many virologists maintain, or second, that it may have been the consequence of bat coronavirus research in one of the two virology research institutes located in Wuhan that led to the infection of a laboratory researcher and subsequent escape—are equally based on inference and conjecture. The points gathered in this paper can be no more than suggestive. There is no hard scientific evidence to support either position. Both are inferences from circumstantial evidence. The US administration’s political hectoring only assures that it will be very difficult if not impossible to ever find out which is true.
Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank several colleagues with far-better computer skills than he has for supplying many of the electronic references. I would also like to thank several colleagues for reading and commenting on the paper. This manuscript was submitted for publication on May 27, 2020.
1 ↑ Shane Harris et al, “Intelligence officials’ early alarms about possible pandemic went unheeded,” Washington Post, March 21, 2020; Eric Lipton et al, “Despite timely alerts, Trump was slow to act,” New York Times, April 12, 2020; Philip Rucker et al, “As deaths mounted, Trump fixated on stalled economy,” Washington Post, May 3, 2020; Edward Luce, “Inside Trump’s Corona Virus Meltdown,” Financial Times Magazine, May 14, 2020; Fintan O’Toole, “Vector in Chief,” New York Review of Books, 67:8, May 14, 2020; and Fintan O’Toole, “Donald Trump has destroyed the country he promised to make great again,” Irish Times, April 25, 2020.
2 ↑ See https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3050754/xi-jinping-calls-overhaul-chinas-health-crisis-response-system; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-04/xi-warns-virus-may-impact-china-s-stability-at-rare-meeting.
3 ↑ Liu Caiyu and Leng Shumai, “Biosafety guidelines issued to fix chronic management loopholes at virus labs,” Global Times, February 16, 2020, https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1179747.shtml.
4 ↑ Liu Caiyu and Leng Shumai, “Biosafety guidelines issued to fix chronic management loopholes at virus labs,” Global Times, February 16, 2020, https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1179747.shtml, and Yuan Zhiming, “Current status and future challenges of high-level biosafety laboratories in China, Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity, Volume 1, Issue 2, September 2019, pp. 123-127. Accessed at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobb.2019.09.005.
5 ↑ Shing Hei Zhan, Benjamin E. Deverman and Yujia Alina Chan, “SARS-CoV-2 is well adapted for humans. What does this mean for re-emergence?” BioRxiv, posted May 2, 2020 on: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262.
6 ↑ Chaolin Huang Yeming Wang, Xingwang Li, Lili Ren, Jianping Zhao, Yi Hu, Li Zhang et al, “Clinical Features of Patients Infected with 2019 Novel Coronavirus in Wuhan, China,” The Lancet, Vol. 395, no. 10223 (February 15, 2020): 497-506, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.
7 ↑ James T. Areddy, “China rules out Animal Market and Lab as Coronavirus origin,” Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-rules-out-animal-market-and-lab-as-coronavirus-origin-11590517508.
8 ↑ “Wuhan’s seafood market a victim of COVID-19: CDC director,” Global Times [China], May 26, 2020, https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189506.shtml.
9 ↑ Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao, “The possible origins of 2091-nCoV coronavirus,” https://img-prod.tgcom24.mediaset.it/images/2020/02/16/114720192-5eb8307f-017c-4075-a697-348628da0204.pdf.
10 ↑ Jon Cohen, “Chinese researchers reveal draft genome of virus implicated in Wuhan pneumonia outbreak,” Science, January 11, 2020, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/chinese-researchers-reveal-draft-genome-virus-implicated-wuhan-pneumonia-outbreak.
11 ↑ Christian Shepherd and Don Weinland, “China Rounds up Wuhan’s Citizen Journalists for ‘Provoking Quarrels’,” Financial Times, May 28, 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/3fd5c031-2152-4cab-8bd7-f7871f6ecf64; Aylin Woodward, “At least 5 people in China have disappeared, gotten arrested, or been silenced after speaking out about the coronavirus — here’s what we know about them,” Business Insider, February 20, 2020, https://businessinsider.com/china-coronavirus-whistleblowers-speak-out-vanish-2020-2; “Coronavirus: Wuhan doctor speaks out against authorities,” The Guardian, March 11, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/coronavirus-wuhan-doctor-ai-fen-speaks-out-against-authorities; Scott Neuman, Emily Feng and Huojingnan, “China To Investigate After Whistleblower Doctor Dies From Coronavirus,” February 7, 2020, https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/07/803680463/china-to-investigate-after-whistleblower-doctor-dies-from-coronavirus; Verna Yu, “’Hero who told the truth’: Chinese rage over coronavirus death of whistleblower doctor,” The Guardian, February 7, 2020, https://wwwthe.guardian.com/global-development/2020/feb/07/coronavirus-chinese-rage-death-whistleblower-doctor-li-wenliang.
12 ↑ “A 4th Chinese citizen journalist was reportedly detained after livestreaming what life was like in Wuhan at the height of its coronavirus outbreak,” Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/zhang-zhan-fourth-chinese-journalist-arrested-for-livestreaming-in-wuhan-2020-5. This paper does not attempt to resolve allegations that have been published claiming that a former graduate student at the WIV, Huang Yan Ling, was the index case and subsequently died or disappeared. The allegations have been denied by the Chinese government as well as by members of the WIV staff. Jun Mai, “Chinese research lab denies rumours of links to first coronavirus patient,” South China Morning Post, February 16, 2020, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3050872/chinese-research-lab-denies-rumours-links-first-coronavirus.
13 ↑ Keoni Everington, “Chinese Media Estimates 500,000 Coronavirus Cases in Wuhan, Quickly deletes News,” Taiwan News, May 19, 2020, https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3936718.
14 ↑ Elise Thomas, “Chinese diplomats and Western fringe media outlets push the same coronavirus conspiracies,” Australian Strategic Policy Institute, March 24, 2020, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/chinese-diplomats-and-western-fringe-media-outlets-push-the-same-coronavirus-conspiracies/. The “Western fringe media” were reposting earlier Russian disinformation posts.
15 ↑ Matt Schrader, “Analyzing China’s Coronavirus Propaganda Messaging in Europe,” https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/analyzing-chinas-coronavirus-propaganda-messaging-in-europe/.
16 ↑ CGTN, “US operates over 200 military biological laboratories worldwide,” 21 May 2020, https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-21/U-S-deployed-over-200-military-biological-laboratories-worldwide-QFtLkqhuVy/index.html.
17 ↑ Milton Leitenberg, “ Russian Disinformation Campaigns re Biological Weapons in the Putin Era,” https://cissm.umd.edu/sites/default/files/2020-05/Russian%20Disinformation%20on%20Biological%20Weapons%20in%20the%20Putin%20PPT
18 ↑ Lynn Klotz, “Human error in high-biocontainment labs: a likely pandemic threat,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 25, 2019.
19 ↑ Lynn Klotz, “The risk of lab-created potential pandemic influenza,” March 2020, https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Quantifying-the-risk-9-17-Supplementary-material-at-end.pdf.
20 ↑ Martin Furmanski, “Threatened pandemics and laboratory escapes: Self-fulfilling prophecies,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 31, 2014 and Martin Furmanski, personal communication, May 29, 2020.
21 ↑ Robert Walgate, “SARS escaped Beijing lab twice: Laboratory safety at the Chinese Institute of Virology under close scrutiny,” The Scientist, April 24, 2004, https://www.the-scientist.com/news-analysis/sars-escaped-beijing-lab-twice-50137.
22 ↑ Rosie McCall, “Almost 100 Lab Workers in China Infected With Potentially Deadly Pathogen,” Newsweek, December 17, 2019, https://www.newsweek.com/almost-100-lab-workers-china-infected-potentially-deadly-pathogen-1477652.
23 ↑ Lei-Ping Zeng et al, “Bat SARS-like coronavirus WIV1 encodes an extra accessory protein ORFX involved in modulation of host immune response,” Journal of Virology 2016 May 11:JVI-03079, https://jvi.asm.org/content/jvi/early/2016/05/05/JVI.03079-15.full.pdf.
24 ↑ Laboratory biorisk management for laboratories handling human specimens suspected or confirmed to contain novel coronavirus: Interim recommendations, https://www.who.int/csr/disease/coronavirus_infections/Biosafety_InterimRecommendations_
NovelCoronavirus_19Feb13.pdf; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Appendix F5— Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines for Handling and Processing Specimens Associated with SARS-CoV. Supplement F: Laboratory Guidance. Public Health Guidance for Community-Level Preparedness and Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Version 2/3,” https://www.cdc.gov/sars/guidance/f-lab/app5.html.
25 ↑ John Xie, “Chinese Lab with Checkered Safety Record Draws Scrutiny over Covid-19,” VOA News, April 21, 2020, https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/chinese-lab-checkered-safety-record-draws-scrutiny-over-covid-19.
26 ↑ Josh Rogin, “State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses,” Washington Post, April 14, 2020.
27 ↑ Josh Rogin, “State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses.” A press item reported that an alleged 15-page “Five Eyes” intelligence report shared among the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand validated many of the charges against the WIV. Dave Makichuk, “Dossier an indictment of China’s virus response,” The Saturday Telegraph [UK], May 3, 2020. However, the Australian government announced that the “report” had been prepared from open source materials by the US alone, was not an agreed intelligence report, and was leaked by the US embassy to a Rupert Murdoch publication. Anthony Galloway and Eryk Bagshaw, “Australian intelligence knocks back US government’s Wuhan lab virus claim,” Sydney Morning Herald, May 4, 2020, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-intelligence-knocks-back-us-government-s-wuhan-lab-virus-claim-20200504-p54pk3.html; Anthony Galloway and Eryk Bagshaw, “Australian concern over US spreading unfounded claims about Wuhan lab,” Sydney Morning Herald, May 7, 2020, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-concern-over-us-spreading-unfounded-claims-about-wuhan-lab-20200506-p54qhp.html.
28 ↑ See https://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=9819304&icde=49645421&ddparam=&ddvalue=&ddsub=&cr=1&csb=default&cs=ASC&pball=
29 ↑ Fred Guteri et al, “The Controversial Experiments and Wuhan Lab suspected of Starting Pandemic,” Newsweek, April 30, 2020.
30 ↑ Vineet D. Menachery et al, “A SARS-like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human Emergence,” Nat Med. 2015 Dec; 21(12):1508-13. doi: 10.1038/nm.3985. Epub 2015 Nov 9, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26552008/.
31 ↑ LP Zeng et al, “Bat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Like Coronavirus WIV1 Encodes an Extra Accessory Protein, ORFX, Involved in Modulation of the Host Immune Response,” J Virol. 2016 Jun 24;90(14):6573-6582. doi: 10.1128/JVI.03079-15. Print 2016 Jul 15, (methods for construction of chimeric coronaviruses, https://pmlegacy.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27170748.
32 ↑ B. Hu et al, “Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus,” PLoS Pathog. 2017 Nov 30;13(11):e1006698. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698. eCollection 2017 Nov, (construction of chimeric coronaviruses encoding different S proteins), https://pmlegacy.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29190287.
33 ↑ Yuri Deigin, “Lab-Made? SARS-CoV-2 Genealogy Through the Lens of Gain-of-Function Research, April 22, 2020, https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748 and Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson, “The Case is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin,” Independent Science News, June 2, 2020, https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/.
34 ↑ Wuhan Institute of Virology, CAS, “Take a look at the largest virus bank in Asia,” 2018, http://english.whiov.cas.cn/ne/201806/t20180604_193863.html.
35 ↑ Jane Qiu, “How China’s ‘Bat Woman’ Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus,” Scientific American, June 2020, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/
36 ↑ Jon Cohen and Kai Kupferschmidt, “NIH-halted study unveils ist massive analysis of bat coronaviruses,” Science, June 2, 2020, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/nih-halted-study-unveils-its-massive-analysis-bat-coronaviruses.
37 ↑ Agence France Presse, “Wuhan lab had three live bat coronaviruses: Chinese state media,” May 24, 2020, https://au.news.yahoo.com/wuhan-lab-had-three-live-bat-coronaviruses-chinese-033127925–spt.html.
38 ↑ Personal communication, May 24, 2020.
39 ↑ Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson, “The Case is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin,” Independent Science News, June 2, 2020, https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/.
40 ↑ Press Release, Flinders University, “Origins of COVID-19 still a mystery”, May 14, 2020; Sakshi Piplani et al, “In Silico Comparison of Spike Protein-ACE2 Binding Affinities across Species: Significance for the Possible Origin of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus,” ArXiv:2005.06199 [q-Bio], May 13, 2020, http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199. See also, Jeremy Andre, “Origine du coronavirus: ‘L’Infection d’un employé de laboratoire de Wuhan est plus probable’,” Le Point International, April 18, 2020 and Jef Akst, “Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate,” The Scientist, November 16, 2015 (updated March 11, 2020), https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502.
41 ↑ John Xie, “Chinese Lab with Checkered Safety Record Draws Scrutiny over COVID-19,” VOA News, April 21, 2020, https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/chinese-lab-checkered-safety-record-draws-scrutiny-over-covid-19.
42 ↑ Kenneth Rapoza, “China Lab in Focus of Corona Virus Outbreak,” Forbes, April 14, 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/04/14/the-washington-post-goes-rogue-china-lab-in-focus-of-coronavirus-outbreak/.
43 ↑ Patrick Smith, “WHO official says agency not invited to take part in China’s coronavirus investigation,” NBC News, May 1, 2020, https://nbcnews.com/news/world/who-official-says-agency-not-invited-take-part-china-s-n1197516.
44 ↑ Gerry Shih, “China’s Xi backs WHO-led review of covid-19 outbreak, proposes aid for developing world,” Washington Post, May 18, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinas-xi-backs-who-led-review-of-covid-19-outbreak-proposes-aid-for-developing-world/2020/05/18/911a1544-98df-11ea-ad79-eef7cd734641_story.html.
45 ↑ Gerry Shih, “China’s Xi backs WHO-led review of covid-19 outbreak, proposes aid for developing world,” Washington Post, May 18, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinas-xi-backs-who-led-review-of-covid-19-outbreak-proposes-aid-for-developing-world/2020/05/18/911a1544-98df-11ea-ad79-eef7cd734641_story.html.
46 ↑ WHO, Draft Resolution: COVID-19 response, A73/CONF./1 Rev.1, May 18, 2020, https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA73/A73_CONF1Rev1-en.pdf.
47 ↑ “Editorial: Virus investigation must be fair, scientific,” Global Times, May 17, 2020, https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1188620.shtml. On May 4, 2020, a Chinese Hsinhua publication asked the question “Where did the virus in the U.S. originate?”: “On March 11, CDC Director Robert Redford told a hearing on Capitol Hill that some COVID-19 deaths have been diagnosed as flu-related in the United States. Washington needs to clarify the number of COVID-19 cases previously diagnosed as flu, and make public the samples and genetic sequence of the influenza virus in the country.” “Spotlight: Five Questions Washington needs to answer on coronavirus pandemic,” XINHUANET, May 4, 2020.
48 ↑ Filippa Lentzos, “Will the WHO call for an international investigation into the coronavirus’s origins?”, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 18, 2020.
49 ↑ Personal communication, Rod Barton, May 25, 2020.
As the coronavirus crisis shows, we need science now more than ever.The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent, nonprofit media organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important. In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.
Support the BulletinKeywords: BSL-2, BSL-3, BSL-4, COVID-19, Chinese laboratory leak, Coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, Wuhan, bat virus, pandemic origin
GOD’S . . JC’S . . PROGRESSIVE NEWS, SCIENCE & TRUE CHRISTIANITY! . .
. . “THE LIBERATION THEOLOGY OF JESUS CHRIST!” . . “JC!”. .
. . “ALL TRUTH!” . .
. . “NO LIES!”
. . TO HELP PREPARE . .
. . “YOUR SOUL!” AS . .
. . “It Is THE END!” . . . .
. . “SAVE YOUR SOUL!” .
. . “BECOME ONE!” NOW!
PLUS . . . .
. . MORE PROGRESSIVE NEWS, INSIGHTS AND ANALYSIS . . IN 1 POST . .THAN CNN IN A YEAR!
THE FINAL TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST! “THE LOGICAL GOD OF LOVE!”
"MY HIS STORY"
DO “THE SUMMIT TO SAVE OUR SPECIES” NOW! AND I MEAN NOW!
PREPARE YOUR SOULS - NOW! BECOME "ONE" WITH "THE ONE!" NOW! THE END IS MUCH CLOSER THAN YOU THINK!
WHEN I SPEAK - AS MY FATHER - I SPEAK FOR MY FATHER! BECOME ONE! - NOW! HIS CHANNEL! LOVE U!
MY PRIMARY ROLE IS AS MY CLOSEST SPIRITUAL BROTHER, JOHN THE BAPTIST, TO PREPARE THE WAY! LOVE U!
LOVE GOD WITH ALL OF YOUR HEART! DEVOUT YOUR LIFE TO - “THE GOD OF LOVE!” NOW! NOW!
TRY TO LOVE ALL OTHERS WITH GOD’S LOVE! BE OF PEACE! FORGIVE THE WAY YOU WANT TO BE FORGIVEN!
PRAY FOR YOUR FORGIVENESS FOR CHOOSING MONEY OVER GOD! INIQUITY OVER EQUITY! FOR NOT SUPPORTING THE ONLY OBVIOUS EGALITARIAN SOCIETIES OF GOD’S LOVE - HELPING “THOSE IN NEED!”
THE NORDIC MODEL COUNTRIES! FOR SUPPORTING “THE GREED OF THE FEW!” VERSUS HELPING “THOSE IN NEED!” FOR - NOT BECOMING “ONE WITH - THE ONE!” GOD’S LOVE!
King James Version
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
FATHER’S WILL IS TO HAVE SUSTAINABLE HUMANE AND EGALITARIAN SOCIETIES/MARKETS!
”THE NORDIC MODEL!” AS IT IS IN HEAVEN IT SHOULD BE ON EARTH!
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
STAND AGAINST THE PURE EVIL INIQUITY OF WEALTH INCOME & JUSTICE IN THE US & GLOBALLY!
SEEK - NOT - TO STORE UP WEALTH ON EARTH! BUT IN HEAVEN!
RARELY WILL A RICH PERSON ENTER HEAVEN UNLESS THEY GIVE AWAY THEIR INSANE INCOME (BAGS OF HARVEST) AND INSANE WEALTH (HUMPS ON THEIR BACKS) TO “THOSE IN NEED!” FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! WILL THEY FIT THROUGH THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE! HEAVEN!
WORTH OVER $5 MILLION? GIFT EXCESS OVER FIVE YEARS! FROM $1 TO $5 MILLION - GIFT 10% OF TOTAL INCOME! UNDER $1 MILLION - WHAT YOU CAN! T0 - “THOSE IN NEED!” STRETCH! SHOW GOD HOW MUCH YOU LOVE GOD! BY SHOWING YOUR LOVE FOR - THOSE IN NEED! YOUR LOVE AND HELP FOR - “THOSE IN NEED” - MAY - “SAVE YOUR SOUL!”
SAVE A CHILD IN NEED! GIVE THAT CHILD A GOD / GOOD CENTERED HOME AND UPBRINGING! THE CHILD’S LOVE WILL SAVE YOUR SOUL! DON’T GET TOO MANY CHILDREN! ONE IS GOD!
IT IS SIMPLY WHAT - “A GOOD SOUL” - WORTHY OF ETERNITY - ONE IN GOD’S LOVE WOULD DO!
BY 2023-2025 IT WILL BE - MAD MAX! RAISE YOUR SPIRITS UP TO GOD! “ASCENSION THURSDAY 2023!” OR SPIRITUALLY MEANINGFUL DAY TO YOU! A NICE SUNSET!
GET YOUR SUCK BAGS - NOW! PREPARE YOUR SOUL! PREPARE YOUR FAMILIES! LOVE GOD!
GIVE TO & HELP THOSE IN NEED! SUPPORT “THE NORDIC MODEL!” NOW! . . NOW!
NARROW IS THE ENTRANCE TO HEAVEN! THE NORDIC MODEL SUPPORTERS! WIDE IS THE GATE TO HELL! THOSE NOT SUPPORTING SUSTAINABLE HUMANE AND EGALITARIAN!
MY MAIN GOAL! . .
. . “TO SAVE YOU!”
LET JESUS, SARAYU AND MAMMA - “THE LOGICAL GOD OF LOVE!” GUIDE YOU HOME! NOW!
“GET YOUR SUCK BAGS” NOW! TIME TO “RAISE OUR SPIRITS UP TO GOD!” BY “ASCENSION THURSDAY 2023” AT THE LATEST!
MY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS: WITH ONLY A 3-5C RISE IN GLOBAL TEMPS GMAT, ABOVE PRE-INDUSTRIAL TEMPS, 2-3 ABOVE TODAY, CORE SAMPLES BY ANDRILL IN ANTARCTICA
PROVED THAT IT CAUSED 60 FEET PLUS SEA LEVEL RISE. ANTARCTICA MELTED 60 TIMES AT THESE TEMPS, WEST AND EAST. PER SAM CARANA 2 C WAS HIT FEB 2020. AN ADDITIONAL 1-3C WILL BE HIT BY 2022-2025!
“The last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO₂ was 3-5 million years ago, when the temperature was 2-3°C warmer and sea level was 10-20 meters (30’ TO 60’) higher than now. But there weren’t 7.7 billion inhabitants,” said WMO Secretary-General Professor Petteri Taalas.
30’-60’ SEA LEVEL RISE BLOWS UP MOST OF THE 440 NUCLEAR REACTORS!
DUE TO “THE REDUCTION IN GLOBAL DIMMING” - CAUSED BY DR DEATH’S KILLER COVID! CAUSING A COLLAPSE IN GLOBAL ECONOMIES!
“HOT STUFF” “THE CLATHRATE GUN FIRING ON TRUMPET COCAINE” WILL HAPPEN BY 2022! DUE TO “BLUE OCEAN ARCTIC” BY 9/2022!
“MASSIVE RELEASES OF SIBERIAN METHANE” WILL CAUSE 2-3C RISE IN GMAT BY 2025! MELTING ANTARCTICA WEST & EAST RAPIDLY!
CAUSING 60’ SEA LEVEL RISE BY 2025-2030! THIS DESTROYS MOST OF THE 440 NUCLEAR REACTORS. GAME OVER “It Is THE END!”
HENCE MY PROPOSAL FOR 350-400’ PYRAMID STRUCTURES AROUND NUCLEAR REACTORS, SINCE WATCHING THE ANDRILL VIDEO 2017.
ALONG WITH “SIBERIAN METHANE CAPS” TO SEQUESTER METHANE! STORING IT IN TANKS!
“THE MONSTER SUPER STORMS” AND STORM SURGE MAY DESTROY NUCLEAR REACTORS, SOONER THAN SEA LEVEL RISE.
BY 2025 THE GULF & FLORIDA WILL BE DESTROYED BY “THE MONSTER SUPER STORMS” - EXIT NOW!
THIS IS “HERD GENOCIDE“ - NOT - “HERD IMMUNITY!“ THIS IS THE GLOBAL DEPOPULATION AND POLICE STATE AGENDA! “It Is THE END!” BY 2030-2040!
“HERD GENOCIDE!” NOT “HERD IMMUNITY!” PART II. Americans Are Dying At Rates Far Higher Than Other Countries! 8 MILLION MORE POOR!
“HERD GENOCIDE III” COVID LONG-HAULERS! ACCELERATES “GLOBAL DIMMING!” CAUSING “ICE FREE ARCTIC!” 9/2022 UNLEASHING “HOT STUFF!” MELTING ANTARCTICA! GMAT 2-3C RISE = 60’ SEA LEVEL RISE 2025-30! BLOWING UP 440 NUCLEAR REACTORS! “THE END!”
MY PRAYER FOR - “THE REST” - SUPPORTING - “THE EVIL RICH!”
CHRIST’S COMMANDS US TO - COMMAND THE RICH TO “TAKE CARE OF THOSE IN NEED!” TO ENTER HEAVEN! MY INSPIRATIONS OF WHAT YOU MUST DO IN TODAY’S TERMS - TO ENTER GOD’S HEAVEN!
MOVE TO - CANADA - NOW! IF YOU CAN! BANF TO LAKE SUPERIOR UP TO HUDSON BAY, EAST. NORDIC COUNTRIES. NEW ZEALAND IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO. LAKE TAHOE, LAKE CHAMPLAIN, GREAT LAKES EAST TO COAST IN US!
MUCH OF MY WORK IS IN ALL CAPITALS - most of others works are in non-caps. Sources are linked - blue text. POSTS
TO RAISE YOUR SPIRIT UP TO GOD HUMANELY:
DUE TO - “THE LATENT HEAT EFFECT!” - UNLEASHING - “HOT STUFF!” I COMPARE MY FORECAST FOR EXTINCTION TO SAM’S AND GUYS!!” CAUSING GMAT TO RISE BY 18 C / 32.4 F BY 2026 ACCORDING TO SAM CARANA!
LOTS OF VIDEOS - TAKES TIME TO LOAD!
New Topic /Videos Each Post Plus Key Videos
ALL CREDIT FOR TRUTH IS TO - "THE ONE" - THE SUNSHINE BAND AND AUTHORS NOTED. MY CREDIT IS FOR ANY MISTAKES! SORRY!
THESIS SUMMARIES, Key Links SideBar Below
THE NORDIC MODEL & The Final Judgement: Take Care of "Those in Need!" Or Fry in Hell! Christ IS "The First Great SOCIALIST!" Last Warning! SUPPORT THE NORDIC MODEL or FRY Baby FRY! WHEN YOU DIE, BABY, DIE! SOON!
GLOBAL POLICIES TO
SAVE THE SPECIES:
ONE LOVE CLIMATE REFUGEES & PRISON COMMUNITIES
ENCASE NUCLEAR REACTORS - ENCASE POWER POLES - CAP SIBERIAN AND ARCTIC METHANE - TRANSITION TO PRIMARILY SOLAR AND WIND - USING THE SAVE THE SPECIES - NON-DEBT BASED CURRENCY! EFFECTIVELY A NORDIC MODEL / RESOURCE BASED GLOBAL RENEWABLE ENERGY ECONOMY! - NOW!
ALL POSTS (clickie)
"THE LOGIC OF THE GOD OF LOVE!" MEDICARE FOR ALL - CHRISTIAN! CAPITALISM - EVIL!
DO YOU CHOOSE - MONEY OR GOD!
"MY HIS STORY"
ANTARCTICA MELTING RAPIDLY! ANDRILL
2016 VIDEO - 60-75 FOOT SEA LEVEL RISE WITH 400 PPM CARBON, SAME AS TODAY, AND JUST SLIGHTLY HIGHER TEMPS THAN TODAY!
"LIVING GIVING NETWORKS:" THE THEISTIC HUMANISTIC MODEL FOR ACHIEVING -"ONENESS" - WITH - "GOD'S LAW" - TO TAKE CARE OF - "THOSE IN NEED!" TO ACHIEVE "THE SHE MATRIARCAL NORDIC MODEL!" (not a business solicitation)
"BECOMING ONE" CORONAVIRUS HELL ON EARTH! THEN - "HOT STUFF"- IS UNLEASHED!
EXIT - THE GULF & FLORIDA - NOW! “THE MONSTER SUPER STORMS” WILL DESTROY THEM . .
. . BY 2025! OMG!
"GET YOUR SUCK BAGS" NOW! "THE HAMMER AND THE DANCE!" THE MOST HORRIFIC CASE. . . . . "It Is THE END!"
WORLD'S ONLY MAJOR TERRORISTS GROUP!
THE EVIL RIGHT WING!
"AS IT IS IN HEAVEN - SO SHOULD IT BE ON EARTH!" SUPPORT THE ONLY CHRIST LIKE SOCIETY OR FRY IN THE HELL YOU SUPPORT!
RIGGED - The GREAT SIBERIAN METHANE COVER UP!
CAN "THEY" FIX IT? STOP HELL ON EARTH?
"HOT STUFF LIVES?"
The Clathrate Gun Fired
FOR FULL SCREEN: Login to Youtube FIRST, then Open My Site, Then Click on Video you Want Full Screen. Now Go To Youtube, Switch Screens, Click on History, the First Is the Video You Clicked On - On My Site! If NOT close All, Repeat Process.
MUST READ and WATCH
The Nordic Theory of Everything / Love, and Anu Partanen’s writings
Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians Got It Right - And How We Can, Too; The Secrets of The Nordic Model, by the same author, and The Nordic Perspective!
US CORPORATE STATE SOCIALISM, Fascist Monopolistic, Homo and Transphobe, Racist, Kleptocratic / Thieves, Oil War Imperialist Focused, "ALL for THE RICH" - - "RAPE THE REST!" Especially Destroy the Lives of the Truly Good People Who Stand against THE EVIL GREED of THE FEW, The Sunshine Band. UNTIL The Horrific Demise of ALL God's Children, God's Species and Wonder Filled World for THE EVIL GREED OF THE FEW . . . .
. . . . is EVIL!
THE NORDIC MODEL: Libertarian Democratic Market Socialism: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, are Sustainable, Humane
and Egalitarian (Think - SHE - The Matriarcal Nordic Model). . .
. . . .it is GOOD!
Vote for THE MATRIARCAL NORDIC MODEL - NOW!
Bernie Sanders & Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - 2020! VOTE!
MY HEROS OF "THE MATRIARCAL NORDIC MODEL!" BELOW
BERNIE SANDERS AND ALEXANDRIA CORTEZ 2020! IF NOT, JILL STEIN AND ABBY MARTIN - GREEN PARTY - 2020!
MY HEROS, ABOVE:
LESTER BROWN, "WORLD ON THE EDGE," "PLAN B 4.0," EARTH-POLICY.ORG
DR. GUY MCPHERSON, FATHER OF "ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE"
DR. JORGEN RANDERS, FATHER OF "THE LIMITS TO GROWTH!" AND, "2052: A Global Forecast for the next 40 Years!"
MICHAEL MOORE - DOCUMENTARIAN - FOR - "JC AND THE SUNSHINE BAND!" EXCEPTIONAL DOCUMENTARIES!
RICK STEVES - THE NORDIC MODEL - THE GOOD LIFE!
EVIL TRUMP! OF "THANK GOD!" - -
"It Is THE END!"
"THE SIBERIAN METHANE MONSTER!"
"House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia"
“Damning in its accumulation of detail, terrifying in its depiction of the pure evil of those Trump chose to do business with.”--The Spectator (UK)
Watch "THE SIBERIAN METHANE MONSTER" - ABOVE - BURN UP and SUPER STORMS DESTROY Planet EVIL GREED! DAILY! OH BOY, WHAT COULD BE MORE EXCITING THAN THAT!? OK, Her Name is . . . . . . . "HOT STUFF!"
"The Limits to Growth: A Final Warning" tells you about the authors work since the early seventies, my work since 1980, and the stage of the "science of overpopulation analysis." Dr. Jorgen Randers, "2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years," and Lester Brown, "World on The Edge," have portended the fate of the world, due to overpopulation since the seventies! However limited I see their understanding of "abrupt climate change."