Renowned EU Scientist - COVID-19 Was Engineered In China Lab, Effective Vaccine "Unlikely"

 

This article is a vindication of what many scientists and doctors have been saying for many months now:

- The Covid-19 is a Chimera (artificial origin)

- It was developed with a gain of function goal (bio-weapon aspect)

- The genome of Covid-19 probably contains HIV segments (which explains some of its characteristics)  

But it goes further. It explains why so many people have been critical towards these facts as their careers depend on this work and they have direct or indirect responsibility in it.

This is an indictment. But now what?

Most probably "nothing" will happen. News are controlled, The democratic process is broken, Science itself is impaired. 

We are well passed any turning point. There is no going back. 

The virus itself is a symptom, not the disease!

 

Renowned EU Scientist - COVID-19 Was Engineered In China Lab, Effective Vaccine "Unlikely"

Authored by Steven Mosher via LifeSiteNews.com,

It will not be possible for the Dr. Fauci’s of the world to dismiss Professor Giuseppe Tritto as a crank. 

Not only is he an internationally known expert in biotechnology and nanotechnology who has had a stellar academic career, but he is also the president of the World Academy of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies (WABT), an institution founded under the aegis of UNESCO in 1997. 

In other words, he is a man of considerable stature in the global scientific community.  Equally important, one of the goals of WABT is to analyze the effect of biotechnologies - like genetic engineering - on humanity.  

In his new book, this world-class scientist does exactly that.  And what he says is that the China Virus definitely wasn’t a freak of nature that happened to cross the species barrier from bat to man.  It was genetically engineered in the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s P4 (high-containment) lab in a program supervised by the Chinese military.

Prof. Tritto’s book, which at present is available only in Italian, is called Cina COVID 19: La Chimera che ha cambiato il Mondo (China COVID 19: The chimera that changed the world).  It was published on August 4 by a major Italian press, Edizioni Cantagalli, which coincidentally also published the Italian edition of one of my books, Population Control (Controllo Demografico in Italian) several years ago. 

What sets Prof. Tritto’s book apart is the fact that it demonstrates - conclusively, in my view - the pathway by which a PLA-owned coronavirus was genetically modified to become the China Virus now ravaging the world.  His account leaves no doubt that it is a “chimera”, an organism created in a lab. 

He also connects the dots linking the Wuhan lab to France and the United States, showing how both countries provided financial and scientific help to the Chinese as they began to conduct ever more dangerous bioengineering experiments.  Although neither American nor French virologists are responsible for the end result—a highly infectious coronavirus and a global pandemic—their early involvement may explain why so many insist that the “chimera” must have come from nature.  The last thing they want to admit is that they might have had a hand in it.

Those of us who, early on, argued for a laboratory origin were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. Our articles were censored as “fake news,” often by American virologists who knew perfectly well what the truth was, but preferred to protect China, and themselves, from scrutiny lest they themselves be implicated. 

Dr. Tritto’s 272 pages of names, dates, places, and facts leaves such apologists with no place to hide. 

The story begins following the SARS epidemic of 2003, as the Chinese attempt to develop vaccines to combat the deadly disease.  Dr. Shi Zhengli, about whom I have previously written, was in charge of the program at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In vaccine development, reverse genetics is used to create viral strains that have reduced pathogenicity but to which the immune system responds by creating antibodies against the virus. But reverse genetics can also be used to create viral strains that have increased pathogenicity.  That is what Dr. Shi, encouraged by PLA bioweapons experts, began increasingly to focus her research on, according to Prof. Tritto.

Dr. Shi first solicited help from the French government, which built the P4 lab, and from the country’s Pasteur institute, which showed her how to manipulate HIV genomes. The gene insertion method used is called “reverse genetics system 2.”  Using this method, she inserted an HIV segment into a coronavirus discovered in horseshoe bats to make it more infectious and lethal.  

The U.S. was involved as well, particularly Prof Ralph S. Baric, of the University of North Carolina, who was on the receiving end of major grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.  This is, of course, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s shop.  Fauci was a big proponent of “gain of function” research, and when this was prohibited at Baric’s lab because it was considered to be too dangerous, the research was shifted to China.

Prof. Tritto believes that, while Dr. Shi’s research began as an effort to develop a vaccine against SARS, it gradually morphed into an effort to use “reverse genetics” to build lethal biological weapons.  This was the reason that the Wuhan lab became China’s leading center for virology research in recent years, attracting major funding and support from the central government.

I would add that the rule in Communist-controlled China is “let the civilian support the military,” which means that as soon as Dr. Shi’s research showed any potential military uses the PLA would have begun exercising control of the research.  This came out in the open with the outbreak, when China’s leading expert on bioweapons, People’s Liberation Army Major General Chen Wei, was immediately placed in charge of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As for Dr. Shi Zheng-Li, she seems to have disappeared.

As Dr. Tritto explained in an interview with Italian media:

In 2005, after the SARS epidemic, the Wuhan Institute of Virology was born, headed by Dr. Shi Zheng-Li, who collects coronaviruses from certain bat species and recombines them with other viral components in order to create vaccines. In 2010 she came into contact with American researchers led by Prof. Ralph Baric, who in turn works on recombinant viruses based on coronaviruses. Thanks to the matrix viruses provided by Shi, Baric created in 2015 a mouse Sars-virus chimera, which has a pathogenic effect on human cells analyzed in vitro. 

At that point, the China-US collaboration becomes competition. Shi wants to work on a more powerful virus to make a more powerful vaccine: it combines a bat virus with a pangolin virus in vitro and in 2017 publishes the results of this research in some scientific articles. 

Her research attracts the interest of the Chinese military and medical-biological sector which deals with biological weapons used as a deterrent for defensive and offensive purposes. Thus Shi is joined by doctors and biologists who belong to the political-military sphere, such as Guo Deyin, a scholar of anti-AIDS and anti-viral hepatitis vaccines and expert in genetic recombination techniques. The introduction of the new engineered inserts into the virus genome is the result of the collaboration between the Shi team and that of Guo Deyin. The realization of this new chimera, from a scientific point of view, is a success. So much so that, once the epidemic has broken out, the two researchers ask WHO to register it as a new virus, H-nCoV-19 (Human new Covid 19), and not as another virus derived from SARS. It is reasonable to think that Shi acted only from the point of view of scientific prestige, without however taking into account the risks in terms of security and the political-military interests that her research would have aroused.

 When asked why China has refused to provide the complete genome of the China Virus to the WHO or to other countries, Dr. Tritto explained that “providing the matrix [source] virus would have meant admitting that SARS-CoV-2 [China Virus] was created in the laboratory. In fact, the incomplete genome made available by China lacks some inserts of AIDS amino acids, which itself is a smoking gun.” 

The key question, for those of us who are living through the pandemic, concerns the development of a vaccine.  On this score, Prof. Tritto is not optimistic:

Given the many mutations of SARS-CoV-2, it is extremely unlikely that a single vaccine that blocks the virus will be found. At the moment 11 different strains have been identified: the A2a genetic line which developed in Europe and the B1 genetic line which took root in North America are more contagious than the 0 strain originating in Wuhan. I therefore believe that, at the most, a multivalent vaccine can be found effective on 4-5 strains and thus able to cover 70-75% of the world’s population.

In other words, by withholding from the world the original genetic code of the China Virus that it created, the Chinese Communist Party is ensuring that no completely effective vaccine will ever be developed by the West.

フォームの

“We Have A Lot of Evidence That It’s A Fake Story All Over The World” – German Doctors on COVID-19

 

 

In 1949 George Orwell published his science fiction novel "1984". A world in which a all powerful police state controls information and the life of its citizens through propaganda and slogans such as "War is Peace" or "Freedom is Slavery". The inspiration to the world of Orwell was directly taken from Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, and although it has taken a little longer than anticipated, here we are in 2020, riding the train towards... 1984!  (Don't believe it? Here's Australia, with its slogan and a jingle to go with it. “Staying Apart Keeps Us Together”)

 

We have made much progress in propaganda science over the last 100 years since the early days of Edward Bernays. In particular, we learned not to call it propaganda. We also learned that a dose of "Brave New World" rose tinted glasses was most useful since a large part of propaganda is self delusion. Finally the science was honed in the real cut throat world of advertising. 

 

Taking control of the media was a little more difficult than it should have been as the technology moved from Radio to Television and finally to the Internet, but nothing that concentration of power and capital could not achieve.  The first wave was the "War on Drugs" which was born with the Vietnam conflict in the late 1960s and dragged on for a few decades, to be replaced by the war on terror in September 2001. One elusive enemy replacing another one. 

 

But what George Orwell did not anticipate is that the effectiveness of the police state could be enforced without the police aspect by implementing a tight control of information. Concentration of the media was already a fact but the soft aspect of cancelling unwanted information was a little more difficult to put in place. It started two years ago when we were told that Neo-nazi ideology was so toxic that it could not be permitted to exist. An argument to which few people objected except to ask where exactly would such censorship stop. The answer came soon after when "extremist" content was extended to "offensive" content and finally to any content contradicting the official version. The only amazing feat is that it took only two years to destroy plurality of thoughts. 

 

So much so that today hundreds of doctors speaking out again the manipulation that Covid-19 has become are silenced without noise. The scientific debate itself has been extinguished on our watch!   

 

The forces against openness, democracy and science are such that I have no illusion that they can be defeated in the short term. Decadence is not an event but a process against which it is no use fighting.  Would my voice get any traction, it would be silenced promptly.

 

Still, for the sake of science, here's what hundreds of doctors are telling us about Covid-19...

 

 

These doctors and scientists are being heavily censored across all social media platforms, and those who write about them are experiencing the same. Many of the claims these doctors make have been ‘debunked’ by mainstream media, federal health regulatory agencies and ‘fact-checkers’ that are patrolling the internet. Any information that does not come from the (WHO) is not considered reliable, truthful or accurate, and that would include the information presented in this article and information shared by these experts in the field. People are being encouraged to visit the WHO’s website for real and accurate information about COVID-19 instead of listening to doctors and scientists who oppose the narrative of these health authorities.

 

What Happened: More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called “Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss.” Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss stands for the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee and was established to investigate all things that pertain to the new coronavirus such as the severity of the virus, and whether or not the actions taken by governments around the world, and in this case the German government, are  justified and not causing more harm than good.

 

    As the Corona-Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, we will investigate why these restrictive measures were imposed upon us in our country as part of COVID-19, why people are suffering now and whether there is proportionality of the measures to this disease caused by the SARS-COV-2 virus. We have serious doubts that these measures are proportionate. This needs to be examined, and since the parliaments – neither the opposition parties nor the ruling parties – have not convened a committee and it is not even planned, it is high time that we took this into our own hands. We will invite and hear experts here in the Corona speaker group. These are experts from all areas of life: Medicine, social affairs, law, economics and many more. (source)

 

You can access the full english transcripts on the organizations website if interested.

 

This group has been giving multiple conferences in Germany, in one of the most recent, Dr. Heiko Schöning, one of the organizations leaders, stated that “We have a lot of evidence that it (the new coronavirus) is a fake story all over the world.”  To put it in context, he wasn’t referring to the virus being fake, but simply that it’s no more dangerous than the seasonal flu (or just as dangerous) and that there is no justification for the measures being taken to combat it.

 

I also think it’s important to mention that a report published in the British Medical Journal  has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus.

 

Below is a press conference held by representatives of the group that took place last month, you can find more important information below that.

 

Why This Is Important: It can be confusing for many people to see so many doctors and many of the world’s most renowned scientists and infectious disease experts oppose so much information that is coming from the WHO and global governments.

 

Many scientists and doctors in North America are also expressing the same sentiments. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled  “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%. You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here.

 

John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate “is close to 0 percent” for people under the age of 45 years old. You can read more about that here. He and several other academics from the Stanford School of Medicine suggest that COVID-19 has a similar infection fatality rate as seasonal influenza, and published their reasoning in a study last month. You can find that study and read more about that story here.

 

Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus and has claimed that, with regards to lockdown measures, that “the level of stupidity going on here is amazing.” You can read more about this here.

 

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history is also part of Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned above and has also expressed the same thing, multiple times early on in the pandemic all the way up to today.

 

    Implementation of the current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. – Bhakdi. You can read more about him here.

 

Below are some interesting statistics from Canada. (source)

 

The Takeaway

 

We have to ask ourselves, why are so many experts in the field being completely censored. Why is there so much information being shared that completely contradicts the narrative of our federal health regulatory agencies and organizations like the WHO? Why are these experts being heavily censored, and why are alternative media platforms being censored, punished and demonetized for sharing such information? Is there a battle for our perception happening right now? Is our consciousness being manipulated? Why is there so much conflicting information if everything is crystal clear? Why are alternative treatments that have shown tremendous amounts of success being completely ignored and ridiculed?  What’s going on here, and how much power do governments have when they are able to silence the voice of so many people? Should we not be examining information openly, transparently, and together?

 

 

Economic collapse and data - Understanding long term cycles with data

 

As I was hopping from empty airport to empty airport in empty planes last week, a question came to mind: Is that "it"? Is this how civilizations fail to recover and enter terminal decline?  How could we know? Isn't a recovery just around the corner? A vaccine being readied as we speak? Will 2021 see the fastest bounce we have ever experienced or is "something" broken? And if that is the case, what exactly is that "something"? Why can't we learn from history? Look at past civilizations and avoid their fate? Why can't we understand long term cycles? 

 

In his deeply fascinating book, Collapse, published in 2005, Jared Diamond, analyzed how "societies choose to fail", a disturbing early insight into social and economic decline. But the book was written in the early part of the 21 century and as such, not surprisingly, gives an overwhelming role to external factors such as climate change and over use of natural resources. Although relevant to small scale societies such as the Anasazis of the South Western United States and the people of Easter Island in the Pacific Ocean, it is difficult to imagine that local factors could affect a more widespread civilization and that the lack of appropriate responses alone could be the reason for the collapse of all the civilizations that have preceded ours.

 

An earlier and more focused analysis came in 1972 with the report of the Club of Rome titled The Limits to Growth. This work, much ridiculed at the time, right in the middle of the "30 Glorious years" of rapid growth following the Second World War, was nevertheless a fundamental research based on early computer modeling, trying to understand the complex interaction of multiple variables on long term growth. Its conclusions would have been easier to dismiss if they did not predict that food, industrial output and services per capita would start to crash in 2020... 

But here we are in the later part of that year, and if the Central Banks had not decided earlier to break the thermometers (the markets), the momentous events earlier would have been plain to see. This is not a reference to the virus, but to the far more meaningful negative rates, break of the Repo market and QE infinity which preceded it around the end of 2019.

 

It is said that 100 years after the fall of Rome, the nobility in faraway provinces of the Western Empire were still living as if nothing had changed late in the 6th Century AD. Charlemagne saw himself as a late Emperor, reviving Constantine Christian Empire 450 years later. In-between, the complexity of Rome had become history. Its laws ignored, aquaducs and vias still used but in disrepair, monuments burnt down. But more than anything its financial and commercial infrastructure were gone. Based on the writings of the time, we know that the Romans saw it coming. But if they did see it coming and could do nothing about it, what is the chance that facing a similar fate, our civilization will fare better? This is the existential question we are facing today. And without a proper understanding of the problem, the chance that our answers will fare better may not be much higher. 

Early in the 20 Century, Kondratiev was the first in 1925 to analyze long term cycles which he concluded were due to technological advancements. He found two cycles of about 50 years each in 1790-1850 based on coal and cotton and in 1850-1900 based on steel and railways. This was a step beyond the short term "pork cycle" and the medium term financial cycles already recognized at the time but far short of the much longer periods of history with their regular rises and falls of cultures and civilizations. 

 

A further insight arrived in 1997 with the "Fourth Turning". In their book, Strauss and Howe, found long term cycles of about 80 years which their called Saeculum, each built on four generations of about 20 years, corresponding to a High, an Awakening, an Unraveling and a Crisis generation. As can be seen in the table above, the concept has now been expanded from the 15th Century to the present time.  It is most certainly an interesting idea but being "social" in nature, it lacks the hard data of the Club of Rome analysis and is still not long enough to explain our current predicament.

 

So, although we have made great progress in understanding short term economic, technological and societal cycles, longer term "civilization scale" cycles still elude us. The reason may be the same as for all the other complex systems we are confronted with today: be it the weather, the brain and artificial intelligence or the earth biosphere. The complexity of the systems overwhelms us and our ability to make sense of an unlimited number of factors. But not only!

If it was "just that" then sooner or later, progress in computer technology would help us solve the most intractable problems. This is not the case. This is not the case because, as we have slowly discovered over the years, scale matters. As systems grow in size, they undergo systemic changes called transition phase during which new phenomenons and rules emerge from the complexity. And without understanding these changes and emerging laws, we simply cannot grasp adequately the interaction of multiple variables. The "Big Data" curse is upon us!

It is in fact amazing how common the word "Big Data" has become and conversely how little grasp we have upon its meaning and consequences. Today, the largest companies, Google at its fore, are exploring this new continent of big data but instead of theories and hypothesis which were the hallmark of past scientific progress, they are groping in the dark. Unearthing new laws and principles one by one, each one completely revolutionizing its field whenever it emerges into our grasp and understanding. This was the case not so long ago with the amazing concept of backward propagation which by itself completely transformed Artificial Intelligence, enabling new technologies such as image processing and face recognition.

But the reason we stumbled into this new concept was the sheer number of engineers and brilliant people working in the field of AI, attracted by the lure of endless riches. Such is not the case with ecology and even less with social sciences. And as a consequence, the mysteries of their complexity will for a long time keep eluding our understanding, just beyond our grasp in the realm of possible but unachieved discoveries. 

This conclusion unfortunately does not answer our question: Can we analyze decline through big data and answer the fundamental question of societal collapse? Even less offer mitigation strategies to prevent such a collapse.  But expending on the concepts pioneered by the Club of Rome, it offers alleys to explore the question and build models which accurately represent the inner workings of our society. I find it amazing that we are progressing so fast to build smart cities based on complex integrated models while the global society around these cities remains misunderstood and left to its own fate, decaying at an accelerating pace. Is this the same hubris which doomed the Roman Empire?  

Andrew Kimbrell On The Origins of COVID-19

 

 This in-depth article is based on an interview of Andrew Kimbrell of The International Center for Technology Assessment.

It confirms that the Covid-19 virus is a bio-weapon or rather the aseptised concept of "Gain of function" which is the same thing.

That it did not evolve naturally because its particularities prevent such an evolution and that the Chinese government as a consequence is guilty of a cover up! 

There is still a lot we do not know about the virus. Likewise because the samples have been destroyed, we will never know beyond a reasonable doubt the origins of the virus but circumstantial evidences are clear and other hypothesis are not only less and less likely but can be disproved...

Via Corporate Crime Reporter (emphasis ours),

What are the origins of the COVID-19 virus?

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.’”