This work should be the subject of a real congressional hearing. The data are damn near irrefutable. As a scientist, I am continually astounded that more scientists are not speaking up about this.
Jan 14, 2022·edited Jan 14, 2022Liked by Dr Ah Kahn Syed
I don't want to ask for speculation beyond what you feel is reasonable based on the evidence, but this leads to some very big questions. There were suggestions early on that the HIV inserts could be indicative of target epitopes for developing prototype HIV vaccine (I think Montaignier mentioned this.) However, why would they then make the whole chimeric virus much more dangerous with the insertion of the furin cleavage site if they were just making target practice virus for testing vaccine concepts? Why not use an animal adapted spike with your HIV epitopes so the whole experiment is FAR less dangerous?
What I'm getting at: is there still a plausible and somewhat benign explanation for why they might graft these characteristics together? The more manipulations are discovered, the more it looks to me like the goal was a virulent human infectious chimeric virus with the added advantage of 'plug-and-play' spike protein that could be swapped out to target different cell receptors or target populations; i.e. the holy-grail of modern bioweapon.
So is there still some legitimate purpose excuse available? Could this have been HIV vaccine research or some sort of cancer vaccine research? Could it have been the DEFUSE 'bat vaccine?'
EDIT: Put simply: the explanation that they were just looking for the next human pandemic potential bat virus falls apart when their chimeric virus had THIS MANY manipulations. So what were they attempting?
Dear Dr Ah Kahn Syed - first a compliment and note for fellow laymen, then a question.
Thank you for the clearest presentation yet regarding the lab origin of the virus with reference to the genetic code. As a layman, I had great difficulty understanding this line of argument in the past when it first arose, but with your screenshots I was able to follow along with the BLAST repository and verify the identical sequences by myself. It's unlikely we'd see this kind of analysis in any accessible media so it's to your credit that there is a logical explanation of what's involved. For those who are having trouble with the "CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG" part (the final search referenced in this article), use this tool to produce the reverse complement: https://www.bioinformatics.org/sms/rev_comp.html It gives "CTACGTGCCCGCCGAGGAG". Then when you search one of the Moderna patents from 2015 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/HZ246785.1 , go down to the "2761" area and you will see the exact sequence with the first letter starting at the end of the previous line. (If I'm wrong here, please correct).
Second, I understand how this would mean that this virus's origin would be a non-random event, and that this would mean it is man-made.
If you are willing to speculate though, or able to clarify, what does this suggest about the relation between Moderna and the lab?
You write "In order for that sequence to have arisen in that virus" it "had to have had been infected into patented cell lines supplied by Moderna that had that unique sequence not seen in any other virus."
Is it only the case that the patent cell lines could have been supplied by Moderna?
Or is it possible that the lab researchers read Moderna's patent and devised to copy that component by themselves? Or is this possible but a much less likely explanation?
I've never done lab work so I don't know if that's possible or feasible.
>"As described herein, a useful feature of the oncology-related polynucleotides, primary constructs or mmRNA of the invention is the capacity to reduce, evade or avoid the innate immune response of a cell."
>"While in some circumstances, it might be advantageous to eliminate the innate immune response in a cell, the invention provides polynucleotides, primary constructs and mmRNA that upon administration result in a substantially reduced (significantly less) the immune response, including interferon signaling, without entirely eliminating such a response."
>"Provided herein, in part, are oncology-related polynucleotides, oncology-related primary constructs and/or oncology-related mmRNA encoding oncology-related polypeptides of interest which have been designed to improve one or more of the stability and/or clearance in tissues, receptor uptake and/or kinetics, cellular access by the compositions, engagement with translational machinery, mRNA half-life, translation efficiency, immune evasion, protein production capacity, secretion efficiency (when applicable), accessibility to circulation, protein half-life and/or modulation of a cell's status, function and/or activity."
Therefore, regarding the particular sequence in the virus, which is identical to the one in the patent, does this mean the addition of the sequence would be to enhance the immune system evasion of the virus? Or that it was added as part of the virus to help prevent the body from breaking it down?
Not sure if you can speculate from the patent and sequence like that, but it would help contextualize things.
Thank you very much and I hope you can help enlighten me and the other laymen readers who may have similar questions.
Jan 14, 2022·edited Jan 14, 2022Liked by Dr Ah Kahn Syed
The spike protein was reverse engineered by the University of North Carolina for the Wuhan lab to study human-mouse hybrids: infectivity and immune response. The head of the Wuhan Lab and also head of the Chinese CDC is Mr GAO. He has 25 patents, all biotech related, and is an expert in both bat virology and infectious diseases... and I am guessing Mr GAO, with the right incentives (money and influence) is someone not worried about doing research that would be illegal in the US --- but OK in China and possibly of utility to the CCP - of which he is a senior member). His bio is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Gao
Thank you for breaking this down so clearly, and keeping the pressure on. When this madness ends it will be thanks to efforts like yours that break the camel's back.
Thank you for an essay relatively accessible to the layman. I have a good general education, but specialization in computer science. As such I am familiar with data sequences and degrees of probability. Your and earlier work showing the "fingerprints" of likely manipulation lend just more evidence to the claim that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab.
For the record, much other circumstantial evidence exists. Two of the biggest (to me) were the very odd behaviors of the Chinese in early 2020 once news of the virus broke. Scrubbed databases, threats to medical workers and (reportedly) disappeared personnel as well as lack of cooperation for outside investigations alone make them look guilty. Add to this NIH's (NIAID, etc.) very odd behavior ca. Feb. 2020 as documented in the mid-2021 FOIA-ed emails of Fauci et al. Allowing for some inferences due to incomplete information, he and others went to extraordinary lengths to dissuade anyone from raising the chance of a lab accident, culminating in the Lancet article soon after.
You would have to live in a cabbage patch to believe this virus did NOT come from a lab. Surely investigations such as your could be replicated. I don't know if they could meet the rigors of scientific proof, but someone deserves a Nobel or at least a Pulitzer for reporting and documenting this story. Even if such a report were accomplished, however, I am skeptical whether thoroughly corrupt institutions would ever concede the truth.
Wow. Stunning stuff, and clear enough for a layperson to follow. The lack of curiosity in the mainstream is still baffling, particularly in light of the (email)exposure of Fauci's conspiracy to discredit the lab leak hypothesis and push the pangolin-bat party fantasy.
Any truth to the idea of a snake neurotoxin insert on S1 also? I'm sure there was something written about a prion, too.
This is beyond GoF. This is a molecular WMD. The former implies recklessness, the latter premeditation. #molecularWMD would be a surefire way to nuke your Twitter account.
Amazing this didn't take off as soon as you posted.
One way to square the circle between this and the Baric and Shi work going back decades - Moderna had access to the code in 2017 as part of collusion with the protein's original designers. They might not have even been aware of the significance with the virus when it emerged and when they were tapped to produce the transfections, or they were more like a novice tagging along in a bank heist at any rate. They needed money, did what they were told.
Are the HIV epitopes immune camouflage, or T Cell infiltration machines, or just would-be HIV vaccine designs slapped onto a coronavirus in 2001 that were found to have interesting pathology during the SARS release? Perhaps they were just designed to spook people out, so that the closer society got to the truth, the more we would become afraid and latch onto another promised vaccine exit. Germaphobia dies hard. Look at Cottrell - serious Howard Hughes vibes.
B"H" Thank you. This much-needed information, as well as details on the Moderna patents, has been sent to members of the Japanese Diet (Parliament). Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock a .de .dk poet, 18c wrote "Yet History will rise in her due time and speak her piece. And after she has spoken, all preceding claptrap will be of no more consequence."
And as I said: It is in the merit of the Righteous women we will all be redeemed.
How to BLAST your way to the truth about the origins of COVID-19
Taking a MSH3 mutated cell line and co transfecting it with a SARS like coronavirus cannot be called a "natural recombination event" in anyone's book.
This work should be the subject of a real congressional hearing. The data are damn near irrefutable. As a scientist, I am continually astounded that more scientists are not speaking up about this.
Nice work! Even as a non-expert, I was able to follow the logic.
I also note the patent is dated February 2018. Interesting...
I don't want to ask for speculation beyond what you feel is reasonable based on the evidence, but this leads to some very big questions. There were suggestions early on that the HIV inserts could be indicative of target epitopes for developing prototype HIV vaccine (I think Montaignier mentioned this.) However, why would they then make the whole chimeric virus much more dangerous with the insertion of the furin cleavage site if they were just making target practice virus for testing vaccine concepts? Why not use an animal adapted spike with your HIV epitopes so the whole experiment is FAR less dangerous?
What I'm getting at: is there still a plausible and somewhat benign explanation for why they might graft these characteristics together? The more manipulations are discovered, the more it looks to me like the goal was a virulent human infectious chimeric virus with the added advantage of 'plug-and-play' spike protein that could be swapped out to target different cell receptors or target populations; i.e. the holy-grail of modern bioweapon.
So is there still some legitimate purpose excuse available? Could this have been HIV vaccine research or some sort of cancer vaccine research? Could it have been the DEFUSE 'bat vaccine?'
EDIT: Put simply: the explanation that they were just looking for the next human pandemic potential bat virus falls apart when their chimeric virus had THIS MANY manipulations. So what were they attempting?
Dear Dr Ah Kahn Syed - first a compliment and note for fellow laymen, then a question.
Thank you for the clearest presentation yet regarding the lab origin of the virus with reference to the genetic code. As a layman, I had great difficulty understanding this line of argument in the past when it first arose, but with your screenshots I was able to follow along with the BLAST repository and verify the identical sequences by myself. It's unlikely we'd see this kind of analysis in any accessible media so it's to your credit that there is a logical explanation of what's involved. For those who are having trouble with the "CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG" part (the final search referenced in this article), use this tool to produce the reverse complement: https://www.bioinformatics.org/sms/rev_comp.html It gives "CTACGTGCCCGCCGAGGAG". Then when you search one of the Moderna patents from 2015 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/HZ246785.1 , go down to the "2761" area and you will see the exact sequence with the first letter starting at the end of the previous line. (If I'm wrong here, please correct).
Second, I understand how this would mean that this virus's origin would be a non-random event, and that this would mean it is man-made.
If you are willing to speculate though, or able to clarify, what does this suggest about the relation between Moderna and the lab?
You write "In order for that sequence to have arisen in that virus" it "had to have had been infected into patented cell lines supplied by Moderna that had that unique sequence not seen in any other virus."
Is it only the case that the patent cell lines could have been supplied by Moderna?
Or is it possible that the lab researchers read Moderna's patent and devised to copy that component by themselves? Or is this possible but a much less likely explanation?
I've never done lab work so I don't know if that's possible or feasible.
Also, I was reading one of the patent descriptions for the updated in 2020 version of "Modified polynucleotides for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides." (search "US20200247861" on the WIPO patentscope https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US300737301&_cid=P22-KYEYCO-79030-1 )
In the patent description is the following:
>"As described herein, a useful feature of the oncology-related polynucleotides, primary constructs or mmRNA of the invention is the capacity to reduce, evade or avoid the innate immune response of a cell."
>"While in some circumstances, it might be advantageous to eliminate the innate immune response in a cell, the invention provides polynucleotides, primary constructs and mmRNA that upon administration result in a substantially reduced (significantly less) the immune response, including interferon signaling, without entirely eliminating such a response."
>"Provided herein, in part, are oncology-related polynucleotides, oncology-related primary constructs and/or oncology-related mmRNA encoding oncology-related polypeptides of interest which have been designed to improve one or more of the stability and/or clearance in tissues, receptor uptake and/or kinetics, cellular access by the compositions, engagement with translational machinery, mRNA half-life, translation efficiency, immune evasion, protein production capacity, secretion efficiency (when applicable), accessibility to circulation, protein half-life and/or modulation of a cell's status, function and/or activity."
Therefore, regarding the particular sequence in the virus, which is identical to the one in the patent, does this mean the addition of the sequence would be to enhance the immune system evasion of the virus? Or that it was added as part of the virus to help prevent the body from breaking it down?
Not sure if you can speculate from the patent and sequence like that, but it would help contextualize things.
Thank you very much and I hope you can help enlighten me and the other laymen readers who may have similar questions.
The spike protein was reverse engineered by the University of North Carolina for the Wuhan lab to study human-mouse hybrids: infectivity and immune response. The head of the Wuhan Lab and also head of the Chinese CDC is Mr GAO. He has 25 patents, all biotech related, and is an expert in both bat virology and infectious diseases... and I am guessing Mr GAO, with the right incentives (money and influence) is someone not worried about doing research that would be illegal in the US --- but OK in China and possibly of utility to the CCP - of which he is a senior member). His bio is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Gao
Thank you for breaking this down so clearly, and keeping the pressure on. When this madness ends it will be thanks to efforts like yours that break the camel's back.
Excellent thread. Thank you for your courage and taking the time to report on this!
This is important work. How can I reach you by email?
Thank you for an essay relatively accessible to the layman. I have a good general education, but specialization in computer science. As such I am familiar with data sequences and degrees of probability. Your and earlier work showing the "fingerprints" of likely manipulation lend just more evidence to the claim that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab.
For the record, much other circumstantial evidence exists. Two of the biggest (to me) were the very odd behaviors of the Chinese in early 2020 once news of the virus broke. Scrubbed databases, threats to medical workers and (reportedly) disappeared personnel as well as lack of cooperation for outside investigations alone make them look guilty. Add to this NIH's (NIAID, etc.) very odd behavior ca. Feb. 2020 as documented in the mid-2021 FOIA-ed emails of Fauci et al. Allowing for some inferences due to incomplete information, he and others went to extraordinary lengths to dissuade anyone from raising the chance of a lab accident, culminating in the Lancet article soon after.
You would have to live in a cabbage patch to believe this virus did NOT come from a lab. Surely investigations such as your could be replicated. I don't know if they could meet the rigors of scientific proof, but someone deserves a Nobel or at least a Pulitzer for reporting and documenting this story. Even if such a report were accomplished, however, I am skeptical whether thoroughly corrupt institutions would ever concede the truth.
The best explanation I've seen anywhere. Sounds perfectly plausible. Very well presented. Will be sharing far and wide.
Wow. Stunning stuff, and clear enough for a layperson to follow. The lack of curiosity in the mainstream is still baffling, particularly in light of the (email)exposure of Fauci's conspiracy to discredit the lab leak hypothesis and push the pangolin-bat party fantasy.
Any truth to the idea of a snake neurotoxin insert on S1 also? I'm sure there was something written about a prion, too.
The Spike that keeps giving!
Makes you wonder what Moderna has cooking with its (more)experimental slew of MRNA shots https://www.modernatx.com/pipeline.
This is beyond GoF. This is a molecular WMD. The former implies recklessness, the latter premeditation. #molecularWMD would be a surefire way to nuke your Twitter account.
Excellent article. Glad to see you still fighting. We need to catch up, as soon as possible - I've got some notes to swap related to this.
chrixey@protonmail.com
Amazing this didn't take off as soon as you posted.
One way to square the circle between this and the Baric and Shi work going back decades - Moderna had access to the code in 2017 as part of collusion with the protein's original designers. They might not have even been aware of the significance with the virus when it emerged and when they were tapped to produce the transfections, or they were more like a novice tagging along in a bank heist at any rate. They needed money, did what they were told.
Are the HIV epitopes immune camouflage, or T Cell infiltration machines, or just would-be HIV vaccine designs slapped onto a coronavirus in 2001 that were found to have interesting pathology during the SARS release? Perhaps they were just designed to spook people out, so that the closer society got to the truth, the more we would become afraid and latch onto another promised vaccine exit. Germaphobia dies hard. Look at Cottrell - serious Howard Hughes vibes.
B"H" Thank you. This much-needed information, as well as details on the Moderna patents, has been sent to members of the Japanese Diet (Parliament). Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock a .de .dk poet, 18c wrote "Yet History will rise in her due time and speak her piece. And after she has spoken, all preceding claptrap will be of no more consequence."
And as I said: It is in the merit of the Righteous women we will all be redeemed.