The hasty nod for Bharat Biotech International Ltd.’s Covaxin, developed in collaboration with the Indian Council of Medical Research and National Institute of Virology, has raised eyebrows in the scientific and healthcare communities about a “public rollout of an untested product,” according to a national network of nongovernment organizations.
The finding adds credence to the theory the mutation, which accounts for 85 per cent of global cases, is more contagious than the original strain.
D614G is by far the most common strain of coronavirus affecting humans worldwide and first appeared in February in Europe.
The world needs an inquiry that considers not just natural origins but the possibility that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, escaped from a laboratory. The WHO team, however, plans to build on reports by Chinese scientists rather than mount an independent investigation. Given that Chinese authorities have been slow to release information, penalized scientists and doctors who shared clinical and genomic details of the novel coronavirus, and have since demonstrated a keen interest in controlling the narrative of how the virus emerged, this is not a promising foundation for WHO’s investigation.
Laut Alina Chan, Molekularbiologin am Broad Institute of Harvard und am MIT, kann man die Evolution von SARS-CoV-2 nicht mit der These eines zoonotischen Ursprungs in Einklang bringen, denn das Virus war bereits vollständig für die Mensch-zu-Mensch-Übertragung angepasst, als es zum ersten Mal auftrat.
Die renommierte medizinische Fachzeitschrift „Nature“ erlaubte anscheinend einigen Autoren, ihre Daten heimlich zu ändern, ohne auf diese Korrekturen in den Artikeln hinzuweisen.
Chans Untersuchungen zeigen, dass die Autoren ihre Proben umbenannt, falsch zugeordnet und ein Genomprofil generiert haben, das mit keiner ihrer Proben übereinstimmt. In anderen Papers fehlen Daten.
Das Coronavirus RaTG13, zu 96 Prozent mit SARS-CoV-2 identisch und somit der engste Verwandte, ist in Wirklichkeit btCoV-4991. Dieses Genom wurde schon 2013 in Proben nachgewiesen und 2016 veröffentlicht.
Daszak was a frequent traveller to Wuhan and the bat colonies of Yunnan with WIV scientists on projects funded by EcoHealth with US grants — until the Trump administration abruptly severed support, citing bio-security concerns.
The British scientist has forcefully dismissed the scenario of a laboratory leak as “baloney” and a “conspiracy theory”, and praised the work of his Chinese counterparts, notably Shi Zhengli, the “bat woman” of Wuhan, who traced the origins of the earlier Sars coronavirus outbreak to a colony of horseshoe bats in Yunnan.
(2 January 2021 | Updated: 12:06 GMT, 3 January 2021)
Now there is growing clamour from experts around the world that no stone should be left unturned during this inquiry – and that it must include one key element of a hunt which has all the hallmarks of a thriller novel.
This centres on a cave filled with bats, a clutch of mysterious deaths, some brilliant scientists carrying out futuristic experiments in a secretive laboratory – and a cover-up of epic proportions that, if proven, would have huge consequences for the Chinese Communist Party and the global practice of science.
– According to Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, SARS-CoV-2 did not evolve in a manner you’d expect, had it jumped from an animal to a human. It sprang into action fully evolved for human transmission
– It appears Nature, a top medical journal, has allowed authors to secretly alter data sets in their papers without publishing notices of correction
– Chan’s investigation reveals authors have renamed samples, failed to attribute them properly, and produced a genomic profile that doesn’t match the samples in their paper. Others are missing data
– RaTG13 — the coronavirus that most resembles SARS-CoV-2, being 96% identical — is actually btCoV-4991, a virus found in samples collected in 2013 and published in 2016
– If SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19 and the subsequent response to it, came from a lab, then we need to reassess the future of gain-of-function research that allows for the weaponization of viruses
(25 Oct 20)
Since the outbreak in late 2019, events have been unfolding at such a fast pace that it is difficult to keep track of what happened and in what order.
I use visualizations of the timeline to follow key events relating to the search for the animal host of SARS2. (2/30)
Even today, I still hear people saying that SARS-CoV-2 came from pangolins and a Seafood market in Wuhan. I hope this analysis will help to clear things up. It will refresh us on significant early pandemic events and major publications discussing the origins of the virus (3/30).
(October 12, 2020)
– Researchers say there’s evidence within the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that suggests the virus is a product of genetic manipulation.
– Exiled Chinese scientist Li-Meng Yan says SARS-CoV-2 is an “unrestricted bioweapon” and there’s been “large-scale, organised scientific fraud”.
– Six miners in Yunnan, who were removing bat faeces from a cave, suffered a severe pneumonia-like illness in 2012 and three of them died. They had a high fever, dry cough, sore limbs, and headaches – all symptoms associated with Covid-19.
– A database containing information about the sequencing of samples collected from the Yunnan mine by researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been taken offline.
– There are said to be sequences of HIV-1 in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
American and Chinese scientists have collaborated for decades on gain-of-function research.
– There have been numerous ‘leaks’ of viruses from laboratories, including during the SARS outbreak in 2003–2004.
(July 6th, 2020)
Ebright believes an even more controversial theory should not be ruled out. “It also, of course, is a distinct possibility that work done in the laboratory on RaTG13 may have resulted in artificial in-laboratory adaptation that erased those three to five decades of evolutionary distance.”
It is a view Hibberd does not believe is possible. “Sars-Cov-2 and RaTG13 are not the same virus and I don’t think you can easily manipulate one into the other. It seems exceptionally difficult.”
Ebright alleges, however, that the type of work required to create COVID-19 from RaTG13 was “identical” to work the laboratory had done in the past. “The very same techniques, the very same experimental strategies using RaTG13 as the starting point, would yield a virus essentially identical to Sars-Cov-2.”
(Jul 07, 2020)
In early February 2019, Dr. Shi’s team suddenly tossed a brand new genome online and published a paper, citing that hCoV-2019 must come from (horseshoe) Bats because it is so similar to this other sample obtained from Bats in July 2013.
*If an existing genome was already in the system and the new data was uploaded we would expect to see reference notes and that the previous listing had been removed or updated.
*The scientists were forcing an argument that this newly published genome (RaTG13) came from a Bat and is the closest relative to hCoV-2019, therefore our pandemic virus more than likely came from a bat.
At the time of this publication, there is quite literally zero record or publication referencing this sudden new virus that they designated as Bat SL-CoV RaTG13 (Ra being Rhinolophus affinis, 13 being sampling year). How could this new virus have been just ABSENT from the scientific community for SEVEN YEARS?!
In fact, there are (comparatively) barely any Rhinolophus Affinis Samples in our databases. Meaning there is a small pool or Bat viruses from this specific species. The team simply renamed the sample and maybe forgot that 4991 was already in GenBank?! Because 4991 is actually RaTG13, yet this super important publication which was read by all of the top scientists in the world makes zero mention of this important fact.
(May 02, 2020)
Abstract: In a side-by-side comparison of evolutionary dynamics between the 2019/2020 SARS-CoV-2 and the 2003 SARS-CoV, 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. The sudden appearance of a highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 presents a major cause for concern that should motivate stronger international efforts to identify the source and prevent near future re-emergence.
Government scientists at the Porton Down laboratory in Wiltshire have been conducting experiments on the new strain, and have confirmed ministers‘ fears about it being far more infectious than the original strain of the virus.
The meeting of ministers was expected to continue late into the night, with Whitehall sources refusing to rule out a press conference on Saturday to announce additional restrictions.
He said: ‘The thing was built with French help, so don’t think that there aren’t some monitoring devices in there. I think what you are going to find out is that these guys were doing experiments which they weren’t fully authorised [for] or knew what they were doing and that somehow, either through an inadvertent mistake, or on a lab technician, one of these things got out.
‘It’s not that hard for these viruses to get out. That is why these labs are so dangerous.
‘You essentially had a biological Chernobyl in Wuhan, but the centre of gravity, the Ground Zero, was round the Wuhan lab, in terms of the casualty rates. And like Chernobyl, you also had the cover-up – the state apparatus reports to itself and just protects itself.’
Man darf annehmen, dass nun versucht wird, die üblichen Überschriftenjunkies weiter zu blitzdingsen und die hochbrisante, bislang dezent verschwiegene Zusammenarbeit von Stellen in China und Australien, sowie in den USA (siehe Universität von North Carolina) irgendwie wieder unter den Teppich zu bekommen und stattdessen eine Konfrontation zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten und China insgesamt hinzubekommen. Das hätte für die Weltbevölkerung wieder einmal die üblichen Folgen und könnte stattdessen die Machtarchitektur der internationalen Nomenklatura (z.B der Kriegslobby) eher noch stärken.
Aber – ist der Virus SARS-CoV-2 oder schlicht SARS 2 nicht irgendwie zufällig genau jetzt aus dem Hut gesprungen, bei so sensiblen Wahlen und Wundern hi und da im Jahre 2020, hätte dies ernsthafte Konsequenzen.
Unter Anderem wäre die unendlich bräsige Selbstgefälligkeit so mancher Funktionäre und Pressevertreter erklärbar, die bereits jetzt vor einer „zweiten Welle“ vom Coronavirus und unverhohlen vor einer Aufhebung des Ausnahmezustands warnen. Ebenso, warum z.B. ein enger Vertrauter des Machthabers im Iran starb, um ein Haar auch der britische Premierminister Boris Johnson (der zunächst einen Ausnahmezustand verweigert hatte) und ausgerechnet der libertäre U.S.-Senator Rand Paul, der sich ebenfalls gegen einen Ausnahmezustand gestellt hatte, als einziges Mitglied des Kongresses insgesamt mit dem Virus infiziert wurde.
Es müsste in Betracht gezogen werden, dass eine beabsichtigte, gezielte Ausbreitung, ein Streuen des Virus erfolgte, ggf. kombiniert mit anderen biotechnologischen Komponten, durch Stellen bzw Hierarchien mit den entsprechenden Möglichkeiten.
Und natürlich wären Billionen von Profiten aus der internationalen Biotech- und Pharmalobby futsch, die nun allererst ihre bemerkenswerte Hellseherei im Zuge der Pandemie-Simulation Event 201 im Oktober 2019 zu erklären hätten.
Ebenso viel zu eklären, hätte die U.S.-Seuchenbehörde C.D.C., die eine unbekannte Anzahl von „Corona-Tests“ verschickte, die selbst mit dem Coronavirus kontaminiert waren. Diese gelangten übrigens auch nach Europa und wurden dort verwendet, was nur einem einzigen kommerziellen Konsortium auffiel, namentlich Eurofins in Luxemburg, welches die britischen Behörden erst über die kontaminierten Tests in Kenntnis setzen musste.
Von den Rechenkünstlern bei W.H.O., Johns-Hopkins-Universität und Robert-Koch-Institut ganz zu schweigen.
Daher unsere Übersetzung.
The third source said it is also possible the US is not sharing all of its intelligence. While the overwhelming majority is shared among the Five Eyes members, there are pockets of information that each country keeps to itself.
Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada have pointedly not backed up America’s apparent surety that the novel coronavirus was either deliberately or accidentally leaked from a Chinese lab. All three countries are members of the Five Eyes, the postwar espionage pact designed to share intelligence between like-minded governments, along with New Zealand.
Bezüglich des Ursprungs von SARS 2 (Coronavirus) zitierte gestern der australische „Daily Telegraph“ aus einem Dossier des Geheimdienstverbunds „Five Eyes“‚ (Geheimdienste aus den Vereinigten Staaten, Großbritannien, Kanada, Australien und Neuseeland).
Radio Utopie veröffentlicht nun eine Übersetzung des Artikels
It can also be revealed the Australian government trained and funded a team of Chinese scientists who belong to a laboratory which went on to genetically modify deadly coronaviruses that could be transmitted from bats to humans and had no cure, and is now the subject of a probe into the origins of COVID-19.
As intelligence agencies investigate whether the virus inadvertently leaked from a Wuhan laboratory, the team and its research led by scientist Shi Zhengli feature in the dossier prepared by Western governments that points to several studies they conducted as areas of concern.
The source of the virus remains a mystery. General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Tuesday that U.S. intelligence indicates that the coronavirus likely occurred naturally, as opposed to being created in a laboratory in China, but there is no certainty either way.
“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,” the official said.
As my colleague David Ignatius noted, the Chinese government’s original story — that the virus emerged from a seafood market in Wuhan — is shaky. Research by Chinese experts published in the Lancet in January showed the first known patient, identified on Dec. 1, had no connection to the market, nor did more than one-third of the cases in the first large cluster. Also, the market didn’t sell bats.