The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, on the other hand, is negotiating a new “WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”, which is referred to as the “Pandemic Treaty”. While both these processes are separate, they maintain close coordination with each other as both aim to submit final negotiated documents before the World Health Assembly in 2024.
Archiv: SARS I (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome)
Chinas Corona-Politik: „Die Proteste haben etwas bewegt“
Überraschend schnell lockert Peking seine strikte Null-Covid-Politik. China-Expertin Nadine Godehardt erklärt, welche Rolle die Proteste dabei spielten – und was diese über die chinesische Gesellschaft verraten.
Die diskrete Ermächtigung der WHO
Was hier in deutsches Recht implementiert worden ist, ist eine umfassende Überarbeitung der ursprünglichen Sanitäts- und Quarantänevorschriften. Infolge der Anthrax-Anschläge 2001 sowie von SARS 2002 bis 2004 fand eine umfassende Überarbeitung der IHR und damit ein Systemwechsel statt.
Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020
(27.11.2020)
It should be noted that there is no mention anywhere in the Corman-Drosten paper of a test being positive or negative, or indeed what defines a positive or negative result. These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a SOP, including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected .
PCR data evaluated as positive after a Ct value of 35 cycles are completely unreliable.
Berlin, Jan 17th, 2020: Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR
All oligonucleotides were synthesised and provided by Tib-Molbiol, Berlin. Thermal cycling was performed at 55°C for 10 min for reverse transcription, followed by 95°C for 3 min and then 45 cycles of 95°C for 15 s, 58°C for 30 s.
Did the Covid-19 virus really escape from a Wuhan lab?
Chan and her colleague Dr Shing Hei Zhan scrutinised the evolutions of SARS-CoV-1 (the cause of the 2003 SARS epidemic) and SARS-CoV-2 (the cause of the current pandemic) in the early months of their respective outbreaks and found that while the former mutated rapidly in early human cases, as the virus adapted to its new host, the latter did not. This implies that the virus causing Covid-19 was already well adapted to infecting human beings, a point that was also suggested by the World Health Organization in its global study on the origins of Covid-19, published in November.
There are three possible explanations for this. The first is that the virus had circulated, undetected, in people for months. The second is that the virus was already highly adept at human-to-human transmission, even while it was still in bats or other animals. The third is that it had become adapted in human cells, or humanised animals, in a laboratory.
Berlin, Jan 17th, 2020: Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR
All oligonucleotides were synthesised and provided by Tib-Molbiol, Berlin. Thermal cycling was performed at 55°C for 10 min for reverse transcription, followed by 95°C for 3 min and then 45 cycles of 95°C for 15 s, 58°C for 30 s.
Study identifies genetic changes likely to have enabled SARS-CoV-2 to jump from bats to humans
A new study, involving the University of Cambridge and led by the Pirbright Institute, has identified key genetic changes in SARS-CoV-2—the virus that causes COVID-19—that may be responsible for the jump from bats to humans, and established which animals have cellular receptors that allow the virus to enter their cells most effectively.
The genetic adaptions identified were similar to those made by SARS-CoV—which caused the 2002-2003 SARS epidemic—when it adapted from bats to infect humans.
Die Vertuschungsaktion
(22.12.2020)
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.
Coronavirus: Scientists cast doubt on WHO’S China mission to find COVID-19 origin in Wuhan
(today)
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.
The world must investigate all the mounting evidence Covid leaked from a Wuhan lab, writes IAN BIRRELL
(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.
Did Top Medical Journal Help Cover Up Origins of SARS-CoV-2?
(11.09.2020)
– 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
Get ready. This is going to be an important thread. Election season will be over soon and hopefully more people will devote some attention to this… I‘m going to walk through a timeline of SARS2-related virus data published in the months after the outbreak. (1/30)
(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).
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
(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.
THE AUSTRALIAN | RaBtCoV/4991 | Out of the bat cave: China’s deadly maze Deep in China, three men entered a cave and died with a mystery illness. Why was it kept under wraps for years?
(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.”
Scientific history of RaTG13
(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.
SARS-CoV-2 is well adapted for humans. What does this mean for re-emergence?
(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.
Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020
(27.11.2020)
It should be noted that there is no mention anywhere in the Corman-Drosten paper of a test being positive or negative, or indeed what defines a positive or negative result. These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a SOP, including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected .
PCR data evaluated as positive after a Ct value of 35 cycles are completely unreliable.
Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
(23.01.2020)
All oligonucleotides were synthesised and provided by Tib-Molbiol (Berlin, Germany). Thermal cycling was performed at 55 °C for 10 min for reverse transcription, followed by 95 °C for 3 min and then 45 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s, 58 °C for 30 s.
(…)
This work was funded by European Union DG Research through projects Prepare (GA602525), Compare (GA643476), and EVAg (GA653316); by European Union DG SANCO through EVD-LabNet, as well as by the German Ministry of Research through projects RAPID (01KI1723A) and DZIF (301-4-7-01.703).
Berlin, Jan 17th, 2020: Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR
All oligonucleotides were synthesised and provided by Tib-Molbiol, Berlin. Thermal cycling was performed at 55°C for 10 min for reverse transcription, followed by 95°C for 3 min and then 45 cycles of 95°C for 15 s, 58°C for 30 s.
What is Covid-19, SARS-2. How is it Tested? How is It Measured? The Fear Campaign Has No Scientific Basis
The data and concepts have been manipulated with a view to sustaining the fear campaign.
The estimates are meaningless. The figures have been hyped to justify the lockdown and the closure of the national economy, with devastating economic and social consequences. The Virus is held responsible for poverty and mass unemployment.
Confirmed by prominent scientists as well as by official public health bodies including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Covid-19 is a public health concern but it is NOT a dangerous virus.
The COVID-19 crisis is marked by a public health “emergency” under WHO auspices which is being used as a pretext and a justification to trigger a Worldwide process of economic, social and political restructuring. Social engineering is being applied. Governments are pressured into extending the lockdown, despite its devastating economic and social consequences.
There is no scientific basis for implementing the closing down of the global economy as a means to resolving a public health crisis.
Both the media and the governments are involved in spreading disinformation.
Why Gilead Sciences Shares Rose 18.4% in the First Half
Early into the health crisis, Gilead began testing remdesivir as a possible treatment for the illness caused by the novel coronavirus. The antiviral initially had been studied in other coronaviruses — severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). More recently, remdesivir entered clinical trials for COVID-19, and as promising data emerged, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the drug Emergency Use Authorization.