261

Sars-Cov2 Origins – “Gain of Function” or “Claim of Function”?

Martin Neil & Jonathan Engler

“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”
Richard P. Feynman

A thorough review of the available evidence suggests that the emergence of a novel engineered virus is the least likely explanation for the event known as the ‘covid pandemic’.

Notably:

  • The discovery of ‘novel’ viruses is a function of how determined we are to find them – the more we look the more we find, suggesting that the attribution of novelty to a virus is as much the result of a politicised process rather than something based on an objective analysis of its properties.
  • The features of SARS-CoV-2 do not appear to be as ‘special’ or ‘unique’ as claimed.
  • There is no good evidence that the many and complex hurdles in front of deliberately engineering viruses to become more pathogenic or transmissible in humans have been overcome.
  • The theory that there was a long-standing but hitherto undetected virus endemic in animal (and possibly human) reservoirs is difficult if not impossible to falsify.
  • There are other explanations which could explain the sudden and rapid global appearance and spread of a specific sequence than the spread of a novel virus. The available virological and epidemiological evidence does not adequately support either the lab leak or the wet market theories for the origins of the virus.

We therefore suggest that it would be more apt to refer to ‘Claim-of-Function’ than ‘Gain-of-Function’ research.

Virological research with the intention of enhancing pathogenicity is, nevertheless, unethical and unnecessary and as such should cease; this is true even though we believe the evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that the ‘covid pandemic’ was an iatrogenic phenomenon and was not caused by a novel and deadly virus. In this regard if there actually was a function gained by the virus it was the power to help trick humanity into a dramatic act of self-harm.

In response to the core thesis presented here, many people respond with various formulations of ‘Fauci et al were covering it up, that surely proves a lab leak caused the pandemic’.  That analysis is one which goes to motive, which, in determining whether a crime has been committed is of evidential value, but is in fact circumstantial, most jurisdictions requiring more direct evidence to deliver a guilty verdict.

This article is not focused on motive, but is instead focused on the more important question ‘what evidence is there for the claim that Gain-of-Function research actually caused a global pandemic?’ (For a possible explanation as to how the ‘lab leak cover-up’ may be connected to the ‘pandemic response’ see here.)

There is nothing novel about a novel virus

Fields Virology is cited as one of the most authoritative references in virology, including virus biology as well as replication and medical aspects of specific virus families. Chapter 28 of Volume 1 of this book was written by Masters and Perlman and provides some fascinating insights into our knowledge of coronaviruses which are considered to infect humans, including:

  • HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1 were only discovered recently, in the post-SARS era (2002), even though each is prevalent globally and has been in circulation for a long time.
  • Four known coronaviruses—HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-HKU1—are endemic in human populations. The first two of these are thought to cause up to 30% of all upper respiratory tract infections.
  • HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1 can be found worldwide, causing up to 10% of respiratory tract infections.
  • Initial reports following its “discovery” suggested that HCoV-NL63 was associated with severe respiratory disease; however, subsequent population-based studies showed that most patients developed mild disease, similar to those infected with HCoV-229E or HCoV-OC43.
  • Also, HECV-4408 coronavirus was first detected in Germany in 1988 and is associated with acute diarrhoea in humans and is (likely) related to bovine coronaviruses. However, the literature on this virus is incredibly sparse and there seems to be no active research interest in this virus at all.

Pyrc et al report that HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E were discovered in the mid-1960s and since have been found to be prevalent worldwide. Though it isn’t quite clear how prevalence was established, it does appear that the assumption was they were already endemic rather than novel, either created in a laboratory or by zoonosis.

HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1 were coronaviruses that were unknown to science until relatively recently, despite causing a high proportion of respiratory infections worldwide and probably having done so for centuries, if not since the dawn of time (as described later).

A full one quarter of coronavirus infections were attributable to these coronaviruses that were hitherto completely unknown to science. Also, as we explain later, upon discovery, one of these was associated with severe respiratory disease, yet subsequently careful population-level analysis proved this to be false.

There are striking similarities between the histories of HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1 coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2. They were all novel to detection, two were associated with severe disease and the severity of two of these was significantly downgraded once the population data was analysed.

Yet as regards the origin of SARS-CoV-2, we are presented with a choice between two competing stories: either it was the product of a lab-leak, or it leapt into existence by zoonotic transmission from animals to humans, and in both cases, this happened shortly before its first detection.

The third possibility – pre-existing endemicity – is hardly discussed as a possibility. An analogue of this situation would be turning on the high-resolution Hubble telescope and declaring that the newly detected exoplanets (planets revolving around stars other than our sun) sprang into existence at, or just before, the moment the telescope was turned on rather than consider they had already been there for aeons past.

Why are some newly discovered coronaviruses (HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1) assumed to be already endemic, whereas others are assumed, upon discovery, to be entirely novel and capable of starting a pandemic? This should be an important scientific question, but it is one which few have bothered to ask, let alone attempt to answer.

An interesting article discussing the discovery of a new virus, Redondoviridae, from 2019 asks the question: how do you find a virus that is completely unknown? They point out that:

“Viruses, the most abundant biological entities on earth, are a scourge on humanity, causing both chronic infections and global pandemics that can kill millions. Yet, the true extent of viruses that infect humans remains completely unknown. Some newly discovered viruses are recognized because of the sudden appearance of a new disease, such as SARS in 2003, or even HIV/AIDS in the early 1980s. New techniques now enable scientists to identify viruses by directly studying RNA or DNA sequences in genetic material associated with humans, enabling detection of whole populations of viruses — termed the virome — including those that may not cause acutely recognizable disease. However, identifying novel types of viruses is difficult as their genetic sequences may have little in common with already known viral genomes that are available in reference databases.”

They then go on to report that researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have identified a previously unknown viral family, which turns out to be the second-most common DNA virus in human lung and mouth specimens, where it is associated with severe critical illness and gum disease!

So, are novel viruses really that novel? As we have seen, since the 1980s there have been at least six “novel” new coronaviruses detected (MERS-CoV, SARS, SARS-CoV-2, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1 and HECV-4408), an average of one every seven years.

How can we rule out the possibility that, had they doubled their efforts to find these apparently novel viruses, they wouldn’t have found twice as many?

Using MERS-CoV and SARS to historically establish the fallacy of a single cause

In a 2014 paper MacIntyre recorded that the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was a newly emerged infection affecting humans in the Arabian Peninsula, Europe, and North Africa.

Most MERS-CoV cases have been associated with hospital outbreaks in Jordan, KSA, UAE and France. These clusters have been somewhat variable in clinical features, with the first outbreak in Jordan notably featuring renal failure, which does not feature as much, or at all, in other clusters, and would be an unusual feature of an illness caused by a respiratory virus[1].

A single infectious agent should not manifest in such varied ways. Under an old-fashioned disease model MERS-CoV would be categorised as separate illnesses, and it is only because of the new-fangled way of looking at sequences and the fact that a sequence is detected (or suspected as present), that it is assumed the cause of there must be a single cause – “the virus”. However, this assumption is an example of the ‘fallacy of the single cause’ and has no clinical validity; it is an artifice.

The source and persistence of the infection in humans remains unknown, despite having infected 681 people and killed 204 over a 2-year period. Cases were concentrated in the Middle East and it appears not to have spread much beyond that region. Of note the author says:

“When the observed data were fitted to different disease patterns, the features of MERS-CoV fit better with a sporadic pattern, with evidence for either deliberate release or an animal source. There are many discrepancies in the observed epidemiology of MERS-CoV, which better fit a sporadic than an epidemic pattern.”

Although the virus had been found in bats and in camels, it was speculated that most humans contracted the virus asymptomatically. Camels were believed to be the most likely source despite no particularly compelling evidence of transmission to humans from camels, except it had been found in some camels[2]. Larger outbreaks have occurred in South Korea in 2015 and in Saudi Arabia in 2018.

Furthermore, speculation about bioterrorism rears its ugly head (without any evidence):

“Finally, the discrepant epidemiology warrants critical analysis of all possible explanations, and involvement of all stakeholders in biosecurity, and deliberate release must be seriously considered and at least acknowledged as a possibility.”

Gardener and MacIntyre dispute that the pattern for MERS-CoV should even be considered sporadic never mind epidemic because even though it was in circulation during the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia, supposedly perfect conditions for an epidemic, it did not visibly spread. They note:

“The risk factors associated with MERS-CoV include male gender, underlying disease, immunosuppression and hospitalization.”

They also say MERS-CoV was primarily a nosocomial infection (hospital acquired) associated with people already in hospital. They say that SARS was also predominantly a nosocomial infection.

In a comparison between SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV Khalid et al report that:

“The postintubation course was similar between the groups. Patients in both groups experienced a prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation, and majority received paralytics, dialysis, and vasopressor agents. The respiratory and ventilatory parameters after intubation …. and their progression over 3 weeks were similar. Rates of mortality in the ICU (53% vs. 64%) and hospital (59% vs. 64%) among COVID-19 and MERS patients were very high.”

Abid et al confirmed that MERS-CoV cases were complicated by bacterial and fungal infections. Half of patients had oxygen saturations less than 90%, and the majority who died did so after a prolonged period of ventilation. Antibiotics were given on admission to hospital (which may be too late, here).

SARS was first discovered in 2002 with the first known cases and was said to have caused the 2002-2004 outbreak, mainly in China (Andersen et al).

Wikipedia provides a good overview of what is known about SARS, the most interesting difference to MERS-CoV being that the WHO declared that SARS disappeared as an acute respiratory syndrome in 2003 because of containment (attributed to public health measures). However, the virus failed to spread in 2003 and 2004 despite four laboratory accidents (here) and it is claimed to be persistent as a zoonotic threat.

Sound familiar?

The assumption is that there is infection, and it might spread worldwide, even though the patterns of spread defy currently authoritative epidemiological mechanisms.

  • Infection is mainly acquired in hospital, yet the only assumption worthy of consideration is that a new virus has just recently emerged from nature or are speculated to be manmade – the possibility of pre-existing endemicity is ignored.
  • The perceived high fatality rate, in already hospitalised cases, is assumed to be caused by the virus and is dissociated from the underlying medical conditions of the patients.
  • The possibility of asymptomatic spread is simply assumed, yet no evidence for this is offered. This hypes the possibility of a pandemic despite the alternative and simple conclusion being that if it was spreading invisibly, it therefore could not be that deadly.
  • For both MERS-CoV and SARS, symptoms of both are nonspecific, causing flu like symptoms. Nothing was diagnostic. Radiographic evidence was also said to be diagnostic of SARS but as we found in our article on spikeopathy no radiological signs could distinguish between this and any other respiratory viral illness.
  • It is acknowledged they can both lead to bacterial pneumonia.
  • Wikipedia says that 72% of people required mechanical ventilation for MERS-CoV and ventilation was used for treatment of SARS.
  • Antibiotic treatment for both SARS and MERS-CoV was discouraged, as per WHO guidelines.
  • Both were diagnosed by PCR, but diagnosis on mere suspicion was encouraged by the WHO and CDC (a mere cluster of unexplained pneumonia would be enough).

Again, we see the fallacy of the single cause at play and are presented with these highly speculative single explanations about the diseases supposedly caused by these past epidemics are being caused by viruses and viruses alone.

The key thing here is that the mortality and morbidity of SARS and MERS-CoV are very likely hugely overestimated, and this is due to the confounding effects of inappropriate medical treatments and diagnoses based on presumptions of high prevalence and travel history. Hence, the apparent virulence and pathogenicity of newly discovered viruses appears to be regularly hugely overestimated soon after their discovery, only to be either massively downgraded later (HCoV-NL63) or the fiction of their severity to remain unchallenged (SARS-CoV-2, SARS, MERS-CoV). This playbook gets repeated again and again, such as more recently with H5N1 (here).

Would we recognise a novel virus when we see it?

If we are told to accept SARS-CoV-2 as novel, such acceptance should be conditional on how robust the process was for appending the label ‘novel’ to the virus. In this regard it is useful to examine the decision-making process underpinning this decision (Engler).

In February 2020 the Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV-CSG), which is responsible for developing the official classification of viruses and taxa naming (taxonomy) of the Coronaviridae family, assessed the novelty of the human pathogen tentatively named 2019-nCoV (pre-print on biorxiv Gorbalenya et al, Perlman and Drosten are co-authors).

The virus was temporarily named 2019 novel coronavirus, 2019-nCoV and renamed SARS-CoV-2 based on the CSG’s recommendations.

This is how they expressed the challenges in deciding novelty:

The term “novel” may refer to the disease (or spectrum of clinical manifestations) that is caused in humans infected by this particular virus, which, however, is only emerging and requires further studies. The term “novel” in the name of 2019-nCoV may also refer to an incomplete match between the genomes of this and other (previously known) coronaviruses, if the latter was considered an appropriate criterion for defining “novelty”. However, virologists agree that neither the disease nor the host range can be used to reliably ascertain virus novelty (or identity), since few genome changes may attenuate a deadly virus or cause a host switch.

Likewise, we know that RNA viruses persist as a swarm of co-evolving closely related entities (variants of a defined sequence, haplotypes), known as quasi-species. Their genome sequence is a consensus snapshot of a constantly evolving cooperative population in vivo and may vary within a single infected person and over time in an outbreak.

If the strict match criterion of novelty was to be applied to RNA viruses, it would have qualified every virus with a sequenced genome as a novel virus, which makes this criterion poorly informative. To get around the potential problem, virologists instead may regard two viruses with non-identical but similar genome sequences as variants of the same virus; this immediately poses the question of how much difference is large enough to recognize the candidate virus as novel or distinct? This question is answered in best practice by evaluating the degree of relatedness of the candidate virus to previously known viruses of the same host or established monophyletic groups of viruses, often known as genotypes or clades, which may or may not include viruses of different hosts.”

So, novelty depends on a genome sequence which is a mere snapshot of a continually evolving dynamic swarm of co-evolving related entities, and thus the decision of what constitutes novelty is complex, owing more to judgement than objective analysis. It also depends on both the disease or clinical manifestations and the completeness or incompleteness of matches against other viruses. This presents a veritable smorgasbord of confounding and confusion of cause with effect, and in no way defines a ‘thing’ in and of itself.

If the strict match criterion of novelty was to be applied to RNA viruses, it would have qualified every virus with a sequenced genome as a novel virus. Therefore, they cannot be considered as isolated singletons with absolutely unique attributes, but rather as mutually overlapping families of individuals with shared attributes, making the idea of novelty, in an absolute sense, completely redundant.

Thus, the ICTV apply a taxonomy to viruses that recognizes five hierarchically arranged ranks: order, family, subfamily, genus, and species (in ascending order of inter-virus similarity). Critics of this approach argue that genetic diversity can only be reliably expressed, mathematically, as pairwise distances between them and probabilities of overlap in genetic divergence, or to put it another way there can be no taxonomy in a swarm.

By the time the paper was published in Nature microbiology all reference to the difficulty and role of expert opinion in deciding the assignment of the name SARS-CoV-2 had been deleted, giving the impression that the decision was straightforward and not in any way controversial. If the name had remained 2019-nCoV it would probably have been considered just another cold virus and nothing to worry about.

In the pre-print the ICTV-CSG clearly label SARS-CoV-2 as not being a novel virus showing they came to a different decision to the WHO (and do so in red ink to make this clear):

There is some evidence of possible disagreement between the ICTV-CSG and the WHO (this paragraph didn’t make it into the paper published by Nature):

“In contrast to SARS, the name SARS-CoV-2 has NOT been derived from the name of the SARS disease and in no way, it should be used to predefine the name of the disease (or spectrum of diseases) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in humans, which will be decided upon by the WHO. The available yet limited epidemiological and clinical data for SARS-CoV-2 suggest that the disease spectrum, and transmission modes of this virus and SARS may differ. Also, the diagnostic methods used to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infections are not identical to those of SARS. This is reflected by the specific recommendations for public health practitioners, healthcare workers and laboratory diagnostic staff for SARS-CoV-2/2019-nCoV (e.g. WHO guidelines for 2019-nCoV). By uncoupling the naming conventions used for coronaviruses and the diseases they may cause in humans and animals, we wish to help the WHO with naming diseases in the most appropriate way (WHO guidelines for disease naming).”

They also hint at the possibility that both SARS and SARS-CoV-2 have suspect origins:

“Although SARS-CoV-2 is NOT a descendent of SARS and the introduction of each of these viruses into humans was likely facilitated by unknown external factors, the two viruses are genetically so close to each other that their evolutionary histories and characteristics are mutually informative.”

And then confess that differences in opinion about novelty are themselves not novel:

“Since the current sampling of viruses is small and highly biased toward viruses of significant medical and economic interest, the group composition varies tremendously among different viruses, making decisions on novelty group-specific and dependent on the choice of specific criteria selected by researchers. Practically, this means that definitive evidence for novelty in one group may not stand up to scrutiny in another.”

The idea that there are distinct species that fall into neat mutually exclusive categories is questionable. In the animal kingdom, what are presupposed as novel species or subspecies turn out to overlap. Take for instance the Liger – the hybrid offspring of Tigers and Lions. Similarly, different subspecies of bear interbreed quite easily.

Life is on a continuum and if it isn’t possible to categorise animals and neatly place them in a taxonomy, might we be overconfident with viruses, organisms which are not readily observed, and about which we know much less? We would suggest that the ICTV are aware of these limits to the science of virology, especially since debates about virus taxonomy have raged since its inception, with many prominent scientists within the discipline arguing that descending hierarchical divisions are based on arbitrary and monothetic assumptions (see Murphy et al – introduction to the universal system of virus taxonomy).

Together the assignment of the word novel and the use of the name looks like the result of contentious political process or social construct, presented as a scientific one where all uncertainty, doubt and dispute have been stripped out.

Are spike proteins, inserts and furin cleavage sites dangerous or novel?

Much has been made of the fact that SARS-CoV-2 contains both a spike protein (the S protein) and furin cleavage site (FCS). This has caused much concern and controversy. Some claim that the spike protein is particularly dangerous and that the ‘unique’ furin cleavage site in this spike protein makes it responsible for high infectivity and transmissibility.

But are they dangerous and novel in and of themselves?

In Nature Xia et al say:

“The rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 …..a novel lineage B betacoronavirus.., has caused a global pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). It has been speculated that RRAR, a unique furin-like cleavage site (FCS) in the spike protein (S), which is absent in other lineage B [betacoronavirus], such as SARS-CoV, is responsible for its high infectivity and transmissibility. …

Therefore, it has been speculated that this unique FCS may provide a gain-of-function, making SARS-CoV-2 easily enter into the host cell for infection, thus efficiently spreading throughout the human population, compared to other lineage B betacoronaviruses.”

Its protrusion is described as odd and is described as ‘came through experimentation’. Speculative claims have been made that the FCS causes fibrosis. The supposed fragility of the spike protein against antibodies raises questions about the origin.

This review by Liu et al identifies:

“…248 other CoVs with 86 diversified furin cleavage sites that have been detected in 24 animal hosts in 28 countries since 1954.

…Besides MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, two of five other CoVs known to infect humans (HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1) also have furin cleavage sites. In addition, human enteric coronavirus (HECV-4408) has a furin cleavage site….”

The figure below shows the phylogenetic relationships of coronavirus spike proteins with furin cleavage sites.

Phylogenetic relationships of coronavirus spike proteins with furin cleavage sites.

The paper by Ambati et al makes the case that the composition of the SARS-CoV-2 FCS is very unusual, but ‘unusual’ means little without a comparison against the typical. They say:

“…presence of the 19-nucleotide long RNA sequence including the FCS with 100% identity to the reverse complement of the MSH3 mRNA is highly unusual and requires further investigations.”

They queried a database of 24,712 genomic sequences and calculated a coincidence probability of 3.21 × 10−11 for the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage sequence, concluding that the FCS was man made.

Dubuy and Lachuer disputed this assertion by assessing the probability of coincidence that other viruses might exhibit these same features. Based on a careful probabilistic analysis, that considered that sequences are not independent, sequences are of different lengths and other factors, they found a coincidence probability of 0.0037 – orders of magnitude higher than that calculated by Ambati et al. This number itself might look small but if we express the odds of it being natural versus man-made, as a ratio, it is approximately one (a certainty).

Notice here that the key assumption in the work of Dubuy and Lachuer is that viruses might share the same features, perhaps because of parallel evolution but also because of co-evolution, whereby recombination takes place across species of virus, which is exactly what you might expect to take place in a viral swarm, as acknowledged by the ICTV.

Therefore, the FCS could have been created naturally and was perhaps simply a newly discovered virus that was already prevalent within the environment. Hence there may be nothing much that is truly novel about either the spike protein or the FCS. Masters and Perlman point out that:

  • In many beta and gamma coronaviruses (e.g., mouse hepatitis virus, bovine coronavirus, and infectious bronchitis virus), the S protein is partially or completely cleaved by a furin-like host cell protease into two polypeptides…. which are roughly equal in size.
  • Currently available structural and biochemical evidence accords well with an early proposal that S (spike) is functionally analogous to the influenza HA protein.

Likewise, much is made of the fact that the spike binds to human ACE2 receptors. Again, turning to Masters and Perlman:

“The receptor for SARS —angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2)—was discovered with notable rapidity following the isolation of the virus. […] ACE2 also serves as the receptor for the alphacoronavirus HCoV-NL63 and the corresponding structural complex for that virus reveals that the HCoV-NL63 RBD (receptor-binding domain) and the SARS RBD bind to the same motifs.”

So here we have another coronavirus, which was previously pronounced as being ‘deadly’ that also uses the ACE2 receptor, but which caused (in the main) mild respiratory disease.

It should be noted that ACE2 is expressed in less than 1% of human lung cells (here), being most abundant in the alveolar type II cells, which themselves are only 5% of the alveolar surface area, the other 95% of the area being covered by squamous alveolar cells. Hence it is debatable whether human lung function is critically dependent on ACE2 (as it might be in mice specially bred to have human ACE2 receptors).

Much controversy has been attached to the pre-publication, and subsequent withdrawal of a paper by Pradham et al claiming to have found a glycoprotein, called gp120, in the spike of the 2019-nCoV virus. This protein is thought to be specific to the HIV virus alone and given this, it suggests that the virus must be man-made.

The 2008 Nobel prize winner Luc Antoine Montagnier replicated the finding and independent researchers have confirmed the finding since (Rose). Also, coincidentally or otherwise, another laboratory in Wuhan, funded by Germany, was working on an HIV vaccine, which may have been the source of the outbreak (Kogon).

Is gp120 unique to the HIV virus? Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) has been identified as the progenitor to HIV, and in SIV it is present on the SIV spike protein. Given recombination events between HIV or SIV and coronaviruses are not beyond the world of possibility, that SIV is the source for the presence of gp120 in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein cannot be discounted.

We actually have no idea how much HIV and SIV are ‘out there’, and this notion has received zero attention, but surely the absence of evidence cannot therefore be assumed to be evidence of absence[3] (note that asymptomatic HIV infection can last more than 10 years and the latency of SIV infection is largely unstudied).

We can conclude that:

  • Spikes on coronaviruses are nothing special.
  • Spike proteins are similar or common to proteins in other viruses, including influenza.
  • FCSs are common. But the vast majority of the 248 identified (so far) have not been studied anywhere near as closely as SARS-CoV-2.
  • ACE-2 receptors are used by one other coronavirus, HCoV-NL63, that is not considered deadly.
  • Arguments that ‘unusual inserts’ must be man-made might be contradicted by parallel evolution or co-evolution between viruses ‘in the swarm’.

Hence, we see no reason to believe that the spike protein or FCS should be a source of special and unique concern in SARS-CoV-2. Even those ‘unusual inserts’ that supposedly make the virus remarkable may indeed be unremarkable, given it appears much more likely (if not a certainty) that other viruses might contain the same features by natural co-evolution between viruses.

Novelty of the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site

Much of the argument about the origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 revolves around the novelty of specific features of the virus and whether these resemble viruses known to be extant in nature or which are man-made (and are coincident with submitted research proposals).

An overview of the evidence supporting the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was man-made in a laboratory can be found here. An entertaining and robust article discussing the observational evidence supporting either of these has been written by PANDA.

The lab theory is partly based on the evidence that no bat colonies have been found to be infected by the exact virus, hence the virus had never previously existed in the natural world. The implication it was man-made was then supported by the revelation, obtained by FOIA[4], of the existence of the DEFUSE project proposal, an application to DARPA (a Pentagon research agency) for a grant to enhance SARS-like bat viruses (we will see later that this was not a unique ambition).

The idea of a lab leak is presented as shocking, but Nass has documented 309 lab acquired infections and 16 escapes between the years 2000 and 2021, including some which caused several deaths. Yet caused no pandemics.

The pre-print paper from Bruttel et al argued that SARS-CoV-2 is man-made because of the ‘endonuclease fingerprint’ (endonuclease recognition sites BsmBI/BsaI) found in SARS-CoV-2. BsmBI/BsaI are commonly used for molecular cloning. They say:

“We found that SARS-CoV (original SARS) has the restriction site fingerprint that is typical for synthetic viruses. The synthetic fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2 is anomalous in wild coronaviruses, and common in lab-assembled viruses…

…The restriction map of SARS-CoV-2 is consistent with many previously reported synthetic coronavirus genomes, meets all the criteria required for an efficient reverse genetic system, differs from closest relatives by a significantly higher rate of synonymous mutations in these synthetic-looking recognitions sites, and has a synthetic fingerprint unlikely to have evolved from its close relatives. We report a high likelihood that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated as an infectious clone assembled in vitro.”

The proposal presented here is that DEFUSE, and the Wuhan lab engaged in Gain-of-Function research, where the genome of a known virus is amended to create some additional desired functionality such as enhanced transmissibility, pathogenicity (enhanced is the important word here – creating equivalent pathogenicity or transmissibility to an existing virus isn’t the goal, the goal is to ‘gain’ this new functionality).

The fundamental assumption underlying GoF research is that any phenotype (trait or function) can be identified and directly matched to a one or more specific genotypes that together create that effect in the target species, and that by amending or replacing these genotypes in a special way, a desired functional phenotype can be created. A virus created by GoF could then be used as bioweapon or to be one step ahead by creating anticipatory treatments for potential future bioweapons or pandemic viruses.

Is engineering of more lethal viruses possible? The curse of dimensionality

A counter argument to this has been presented by Wu who analysed 1316 betacoronavirus and 1378 alphacoronavirus genomes collected before 2020 and found that a significant subset of these had the same unusual endonuclease fingerprint characteristics (BsmBI/BsaI) associated with SARS-CoV-2. Hence it might not be that unusual after all, and of Bruttel et al he said:

“….conclusions can be biased by an analysis of a limited number of coronavirus genomes and does not consider the dynamics of endonuclease recognition sites during viral evolution. Here, I provided a thorough investigation on the BsmBI/BsaI map in betacoronavirus, alphacoronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2 genomes.”

“… the pattern of BsamBI/BsaI restriction enzyme recognition sites in alphacoronavirus and betacoronavirus is very diverse, and SARS-CoV-2 is not the only outlier in terms of the number and position of the two endonuclease sites.”

Hence it looks like these fingerprints are not unique to SARS-CoV-2 and are not necessarily associated with man-made interference.

Additionally, in a very interesting analysis Wu examined the feasibility of man-made development of SARS-CoV-2, focusing on Gain-of-Function insertions (reverse genetics) and serial passage (the process of growing bacteria or a virus in iterations):

“The challenge of engineering a new virus is not about the approach or tool for genome assembly but is generating a sizable mutant library and developing an efficient high-throughput screening system to identify the most infectious clones.

Wu estimated the costs of creating a Gain-of-Function virus by comparing the endeavour to the number of steps in the natural evolution of SARS-CoV-2 alpha to the omicron variant and extrapolating this to the evolution from the bat virus RaTG13[5] to SARS-CoV-2 (using the number of people infected by each variant worldwide and the timescales involved)[6]. Wu observed that:

“…..it is reasonable to believe that it needs at least (80-250 million) experimental iterations to generate a new virus like SARS-CoV-2 from RaTG13….the laboratory consumable cost for a ∼250 million screening and testing experiment would easily exceed 10 billion dollars…. the cost of creating a SARS-CoV-2 would require the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s institute’s full investment for at least 100 years.”

On the implications of conducting serial passage:

“One infection cycle in cell culture is typically 1–3 days depending on the inoculated viral MOI (multiplicity of infection). So, to generate directed mutations on those 1182 nucleotides in RaTG13, we would need at least 121,230 days (332 years) by serial cell passaging. The challenge for animal-based serial passaging should be higher than the cell culture-based approach because of the longer viral incubation time and workload related to animal care. Thus, it is unlikely to obtain SARS-CoV-2 from serial passaging.”

By Wu’s reasoning it would be impossible for anyone to engineer a new viable virus that met a pre-prepared set of GoF requirements[7]. Not only would the DEFUSE project have had to have been very lucky to discover a virus that could be reliably cultured and had all required properties, but they would also have had to test whether it was viable for human transmission and increased pathogenicity.

A fascinating article, in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, explored Gain-of-Function research and reported that:

Across biology, gene background is important. The same mutation can yield different results in different strains. This indicates that the impact of some of these mutations cannot be easily extrapolated. In turn, this suggests the pool of mutations that could make a virus a pandemic threat could be large, a problem for both gain-of-function research and alternative approaches. There are a host of other highly detailed virological arguments about why pandemic prediction is virtually impossible.

The gain-of-function thesis has been characterized by a belief that virology is akin to engineering; just define the (obviously small) numbers of permutations of mutations allowing a virus to cross over and transmit between humans, and “we’ll figure it out.” Biology and evolution were forgotten.

Ron Fouchier, a virologist in the Netherlands and one of the gain-of-function influenza protagonists, said in a 2014 conference that it might take him 30 years to work out the genetics of avian influenza transmission to humans. As most of us cannot see beyond two, 30 years was a euphemism for “don’t know.” Gain-of-function research can never deliver on its promise, which is the prediction of the next pandemic flu strain to allow the preparation of preventive drugs and vaccines.”

As we discuss later, we find that experiments undertaken to investigate ‘wild’ SARS-CoV-2 have amended the FCS and created new viruses.

These experiments can and have been conducted, but that doesn’t mean the experiments are necessarily successful since no one knows whether the viruses produced are themselves going to be viable and can be made such that they meet the ‘transmissible and deadly’ (or any other) functional requirement.

Ultimately, if the requirements are for a virus pathogenic to humans[8], challenge studies will be required, not on mice but on humans. As far as we know they have not been performed, and in any case all the challenge studies done on wild SARS-CoV-2 have failed (here), and rather ignominiously so.

Thus, any claims about functional viability might be partially validated in vitro, or in animal models, but cannot be fully validated in humans or in society at large. All we know is that viruses can be produced but you cannot guarantee that these will ‘go viral’ or be ‘deadly’[9].

Wu’s analysis suggests the whole endeavour is doomed to ruinous failure, if not simply impossible.

Is there actually any evidence that a viable virus has ever been engineered to match some pre-prepared functional specification and which could cause a pandemic? To our knowledge there are no end-to-end unambiguous successes. For instance, Masters and Perlman cite a case of Feline enteric coronavirus (FeCoV) where reverse genetics was used to swap S proteins from (presumably) virulent and avirulent strains, but the effect of this on pathogenesis is acknowledged to be unknown since experiments were done in vitro only.

An earlier controversy in 2014 surrounded GoF research centred on three forced-evolution experiments conducted on ferrets infected with H5N1 & H7N1 ‘bird flu’ viruses (documented herehere and here).  The first two GoF experiments on ferrets demonstrated that transmissibility might be enhanced (but may not be predictive for humans), however the GoF variants produced were found to be insufficiently replication competent.

In the third of the studies cited above (by Sutton et al), researchers directly infected four ferrets, conducted serial passage experiments on these and then tried to infect naïve ferrets. They reported that a highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of the H7N1 subtype, with no history of mammalian adaptation, become capable of airborne transmission in the ferret model of influenza virus.

This looks alarming and much might be made of the fact that all four of the directly infected ferrets were euthanised because they showed signs of severe disease. However, these ferrets were subject to serial passage numerous times rather than a single time as is the convention. Therefore, an alternative explanation for these animals being euthanised was not necessarily increased pathogenicity but probably that their immune system was simply overwhelmed by repeated reinfections.

The authors reported a successful adaptation of bird flu to become capable of airborne transmission in ferrets but concluded that the GoF enhanced virus created may not have acquired the transmission efficiency required to cause a pandemic. Given the small sample sizes involved the question of increased pathogenicity in ferrets infected by the GoF variant was inconclusive<[10], but the balance of evidence suggests that the GoF virus was less pathogenetic, in the lungs and bronchi etc., than the wild-type virus (as one might expect).

Given that Loss-of-Function (LoF) experiments, involving the removal of features of a virus, are commonplace, and are akin to developing attenuated virus vaccines, another nail in the coffin is this paper from Fauci himself, which admits that vaccine development is fraught with difficulty for respiratory viruses simply because of inherent rapid viral replication, error rate during mutation and antigenic drift. He says this (after the launch and injection of the covid-19 vaccines into billions of people!):

“Durably protective vaccines against non-systemic mucosal respiratory viruses with high mortality rates have thus far eluded vaccine development efforts.”

If these features make vaccine development for respiratory viruses difficult if not impossible then they also make virus development via Gain-of-Function equally, if not more, challenging (well, maybe actually just as impossible).

In mathematics this is called the curse of dimensionality. In many problems where each variable (protein, genomes, cells, virions) can take on several values, taking the variables together, a huge number of combinations of values must be considered, leading to a combinatorial explosion. This results in an exponential set of possibilities each of which must be considered and evaluated.

In the biological domain things are even more challenging because of non-monotonicity – any phenotype (trait or function) cannot be directly matched to a single specific genotype; hence the problem is not reducible and there exists no algorithm that can feasibly search the space of possibilities and identify the single genotype sequence that delivers the phenotype required. RNA viruses are mutation machines with the potential to adapt to a new host hence, even if a stable virus function is isolated, it will quickly mutate and lose this newly gained functionality (Wain-Hobson).

Therefore, to create a genuinely pandemic-causing coronavirus would probably involve the re-engineering of one or more coronaviruses and would simply not be possible using GoF research. Only the timescale of natural evolution could deliver the time and space needed to create both viable and non-viable combinations in a way that man cannot. Evolution (or God) is needed to defeat the curse of dimensionality.

Gain (or loss) of function experiments

Research on SARS-CoV-2 naturally involves using the tools of the trade, including applying reverse genetics to engineer variations in the virus. Such variations might include amendments to the furin cleavage site and the spike protein[11].

In January 2021 Johnson et al carried out a LoF experiment using reverse genetics, observing that four hamsters infected with wild virus lost weight and showed some signs of infection compared to the LoF arm. They also found that the LoF virus was replicated more efficiently, defying expectations.

When they repeated the experiment with transgenic mice, they found no differences in viral burden but based on the totality of evidence they concluded the LoF mutant produced reduced disease and replication at early times after infection, as compared to wild-type virus. They also used transgenic mice with hACE2 receptors (12 per arm) to examine pathogenicity, claiming there was evidence that the wild virus caused more weight loss, but with no differences in viral burden in the lungs or brain. To determine the functional effects on the lung, mice were mechanically ventilated to measure biophysical parameters, with the wild type mice showing more damage. Histopathology confirmed this.

In July 2021 Davidson et al cloned WT (wild type) SARS-CoV-2 and produced variants with GoF enhancements by engineering spike variants. Laboratory results showed LoF, specifically the deletion of the furin cleavage site, did cause higher infection rates of human endothelial cells (airways), and when they tested viral transmission on eight ferrets, they found 2 of the 4 ferrets, cohoused with ferrets intentionally pre-infected with WT, showed signs of infection. And 0 of the 4 ferrets, cohoused with ferrets intentionally pre-infected with the GoF variant, showed signs of infection. They say:

“We show that, in contrast with WT SARS-CoV-2, a virus with a deleted furin CS did not replicate to high titres in the upper respiratory tract of ferrets and did not transmit to cohoused sentinel animals, in agreement with similar experiments using hamsters”.

This study uses such a small sample size that the results are not significant, and we don’t know whether infection had any effect on pathogenicity. No ferrets from either experiment showed appreciable fever or weight loss. When they used a ‘competitive’ 70% WT and 30% LoF mutant mix the results were not clear at all. In some ferrets the lost function mutant dominated in those inoculated with the mixture, and of the four co-housed ferrets only one was infected by transmission. This makes the results difficult to interpret.

In a similar study, in February 2021, Zhu et al, used naïve hamsters co-housed with a single infected hamster, examining changes to the furin cleavage site using six hamsters in each arm (wild type and LoF arm). Despite heroic applications of statistical skill on such a small sample size the results are, not surprisingly, poor and unconvincing. The hamsters infected with the wild type virus did show around a 10% weight loss, whilst the hamsters infected with the LoF variant put on weight; there seems no reason why weight should increase, suggesting experimental confounding. The other results were no more persuasive, unsurprising given the small sample sizes.

In 2024 Valleriani et al conducted a much larger study using 150 transgenic mice expressing the hACE2[12] receptor, on the assumption these are permissive of SARS-CoV-2 infection and believed capable of developing severe disease (hence they are vulnerable to spike).

Again, the comparison was carried out using a LoF arm. They say the LoF infected mice exhibited reduced shedding, lower virulence at the lung level, and milder pulmonary lesions. The mice in the LoF arm had a slightly higher survival rate and lower clinical scores than the wild type of virus.

If we take these experimental results at face value, they suggest that the LoF variant had higher transmissibility but lower pathogenicity, and the GoF variant had lower transmissibility and higher pathogenicity[13], thus illustrating the inherent trade-off in these functional characteristics: you cannot have both a highly transmissible virus and one that is highly deadly.

This might confirm the challenges in overcoming the curse of dimensionality – it being near impossible to make changes that can deliver both functions.

Note that in all these experiments there were no controls using other coronaviruses or influenzas viruses for comparison with SARS-CoV-2. We just don’t know how these LoF or wild virus results compare with common colds or influenzas. We also do not know what might happen if we removed FCS, or other genes, from these other coronaviruses. Would they become more pathogenic or transmissible? Are they already more pathogenic or less? Also, there were no tests to rule out bacterial pneumonia or other competing pathogens, which may have confounded the experiments.

There has been some discussion of pathogenesis associated with spike in many other coronaviruses, such as that by Millet and Whitaker published in 2014; however the correlation between pathogenesis and the spikes of particular coronaviruses are biased, simply because they are based on heavily confounded observation data (E.g. the spike for MERS-CoV is assumed to be more dangerous because it is associated with a ‘pandemic’, whilst those from coronaviruses that don’t have that associated are not).

This is an important point – if the mortality data from previous pandemics is biassed by treatment protocols and medical negligence, how do we know the spike, or some other feature, is genuinely the driver of mortality?

The vast differences in symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 reported in different countries, for patients supposedly infected with the same virus, should raise alarm bells, since it suggests that reported symptoms were being confounded by location and test results (Neil et al). It is an inversion of reality to claim that the same virus causes different symptoms, occurring in different geographical locations, when historically different viruses (especially those associated with respiratory illnesses) have caused the same symptoms world-wide.

Published GoF and LoF experiments are unpersuasive on the point of our ability to engineer viruses to meet functional requirements. The absence of comparative controls is enough to confirm this, as are issues related to heterogeneity of symptoms from a supposedly engineered virus. It therefore remains an open question as to whether all coronavirus infections appear to be relatively non-pathogenic to humans, with or without the spike or FCS or any other inserts, man-made or natural, and that SARS-CoV-2 might be no different in this regard.

Contradictory evidence on zoonotic origins

Let’s turn to animal reservoirs to examine estimates of the phylogenetic origins of the virus. Munnik et al report that SARS-CoV-2 can infect domestic lions, tigers, cats, dogs, ferrets, hamsters, tree shrews, rabbits and even tigers in zoos. But not pigs or poultry (so far!)

They studied a zoonotic outbreak of infection of Dutch mink farms in 2020.

“A high diversity was observed in the sequences from some mink farms, which is likely explained by multiple generations of viral infections in animals before the increase in mortality was detected […] the investigation has failed to identify common factors that might explain farm-to-farm spread.”

This could mean that the virus was already circulating in mink farms for some time before it was identified.”

Might it be possible the virus was already in the mink?

In 2020 Boni et al investigated the evolutionary origins of SARS-CoV-2, and reported:

“SARS-CoV-2 itself is not a recombinant of any sarbecoviruses detected to date, and its receptor-binding motif, important for specificity to human ACE2 receptors, appears to be an ancestral trait shared with bat viruses and not one acquired recently via recombination….

Divergence dates between SARS-CoV-2 and the bat sarbecovirus reservoir were estimated as 1948 (95% highest posterior density (HPD): 1879-1999), 1969 (95% HPD: 1930-2000) and 1982 (95% HPD: 1948-2009), indicating that the lineage giving rise to SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating unnoticed in bats for decades.

If it has been circulating unnoticed in bats for decades, why wouldn’t it have been circulating in humans for decades also? And by decades we mean any point between 1879 and now?

This fascinating result has been much ignored. In 2024 Holmes in his widely cited work on the emergence and evolution of SARS-CoV-2 barely mentions the paper and doesn’t cite the conclusions.

Markov et al also studied the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 examining:

“ …the selective forces that likely drove the evolution of higher transmissibility and, in some cases, higher severity during the first year of the pandemic and the role of antigenic evolution during the second and third years.”

They found:

“After the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in humans, for the first nearly 8 months the virus seemed to exhibit limited apparent evolution. This was partially due to the relatively small global virus population, while spread was still not ubiquitous, and later as a result of non-pharmaceutical interventions in many parts of the world, and partially an artefact of virus undersampling.”

It took 8 months for the first divergent SARS-CoV-2 lineages to appear…., marking a turning point in the pandemic from an evolutionary point of view. The first three such lineages, later termed VOCs Alpha, Beta and Gamma, emerged independently in different parts of the world and were the result of puzzling higher evolutionary rates. The sheer number of mutations involved in VOCs is particularly striking from an evolutionary point of view.”

This suggests that at the start of the pandemic the virus was a standardised copy identical in every way, but by the end of 2020 there were many. However, on the mink farms in the Netherlands we find minks with a very high range of diversity in sampled sequences suggesting it was present in the animal reservoir well before 2020.

How can the human population be infected by a standardised version of SARS-CoV-2 yet animals are found with variants, and still no bats are found with SARS-CoV-2 at all. And careful phylogenetic analysis suggests progenitors of the virus has been circulating unnoticed in bats for decades (maybe since 1879?).

Despres et al looked at the wildlife in Vermont to see if they could detect SARS-CoV-2 and found none in the wildlife throughout the state, including deer, despite most published North American studies finding SARS-CoV-2 within their deer populations. They cited “environmental and anthropogenic factors” as the reason for this[14].

Kumar et al conducted global sequencing of SARS-CoV-2, combined with computational methods, to identify the most recent common ancestor of the virus, suggesting that the Wuhan patient zero was not the index case, nor gave rise to all human infections. The inference then is that the progenitor of the virus was spreading worldwide months before the outbreak in Wuhan. They claimed to have identified the progenitor (root) genome of SARS-CoV-2 by measuring ‘coronavirus diversity’.

A critical limitation of phylogenetic analysis is the assumption there is no recombination between species and sub-species of virus. Instead, it is assumed that variation occurs ‘within’ and not ‘between’ species, and that genetic sequences that occur in one or more viruses might share a common ancestor in another. Given this there is no validity to the concept of a ‘root’ to the tree. Likewise, these issues cast serious doubt on any assumption that there is a predictable molecular clock that can be inferred from similar coronaviruses, and which itself remains constant over time. The ICTV as much as admit to this.

Given this, it is perhaps optimistic to believe that the discovery of the existence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater and other samples from 2019 (nicely summarised here), could in any way be definitive. This is because antibodies cover epitopes shared between different viruses, allowing our immune system to mount a highly diverse attack to destroy different viruses and variants without exhausting itself (how else might it defeat the combinatorial complexity of a continually evolving viral swarm?)

It is therefore possible, if not certain, that the supposedly specific antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 could have been developed to counter a progenitor to SARS-CoV-2, containing the same epitopes, or to other similar coronaviruses, rather than to SARS-CoV-2 itself[15].

There are too many contradictions here. Neither phylogenetic analysis or antibody studies can be fully trusted to provide the definitive origin and we have a much-ignored estimate of the evolutionary origins of SARS-CoV-2 going back to 1879. The possibility it may already have been endemic in the animal population for some time, as a result co-evolution of viruses in a swarm, therefore cannot be readily dismissed.

The hypothesis of zoonotic endemicity has therefore not been falsified (and to be fair it probably cannot be because the fundamentals are so poorly understood).

GoF research is routine and involves creating (infectious?) clones

Interestingly, the 2014 Millet and Whitaker paper (funded by the US NIH) ruminates on the potential for research on the FCS and is clearly advocating for GoF research focused there, thereby illustrating that it is a shared research theme in coronavirus research circles. They explicitly say:

“Overall, it seems likely that modulation of either of two protease cleavage sites by coronaviruses can have a profound impact on disease outcome, depending on the individual coronavirus.”

The FCS is an example of a protease cleavage site. This suggests that research on GoF/LoF focused on the FCS isn’t particularly unique to the DEFUSE project, thus devaluing significantly the hypothesis that because the DEFUSE project was researching into this precise area, the properties of the ‘novel’ virus must mean that it was man-made.

Bruttel et al says this about the routine use of reverse genetics to produce mutations (i.e. changing function):

“Making a reverse genetic system from a wild type CoV requires breaking the 30 kb coronaviral genome into 5-8 fragments, each typically shorter than 8kb (Almazán et al. 2006; Becker et al. 2008; Scobey et al. 2013; Zeng et al. 2016; Cockrell et al. 2017; Hu et al. 2017). To design a reverse genetic system, researchers often modify their synthetic DNA constructs from the wildtype viral genomes by introducing synonymous mutations that alter restriction enzyme recognition sites without significantly impacting the fitness of the resulting infectious clones.”

The first paper Almazán et al describes the engineering of a full-length cDNA (complementary DNA) clone from SARS. A cDNA clone contains the entire viral genetic information necessary for replication, transcription, and translation. To put it another way they have the potential to be infectious, just like the original virus they cloned. They use it:

“…..for the recovery of infectious virus and has been used for the generation of a large collection of deletion mutants of SARS-CoV”

A deletion mutant is a genetic anomaly in which a segment of a chromosome or DNA sequence is omitted during DNA replication, leading to the absence of specific nucleotides or entire chromosomal segments. This can result in altered gene function or expression. This is GoF.

Let’s look at Becker et al (Ralph Baric is a coauthor on this 2008 paper):

“Defining prospective pathways by which zoonoses evolve and emerge as human pathogens is critical for anticipating and controlling both natural and deliberate pandemics. However, predicting tenable pathways of animal-to-human movement has been hindered by challenges in identifying reservoir species, cultivating zoonotic organisms in culture, and isolating full-length genomes for cloning and genetic studies. The ability to design and recover pathogens reconstituted from synthesized cDNAs has the potential to overcome these obstacles by allowing studies of replication and pathogenesis without identification of reservoir species or cultivation of primary isolates. Here, we report the design, synthesis, and recovery of the largest synthetic replicating life form, a 29.7-kb bat severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronavirus (Bat-SCoV), a likely progenitor to the SARS-CoV epidemic. To test a possible route of emergence from the noncultivable Bat-SCoV to human SARS-CoV, we designed a consensus Bat-SCoV genome and replaced the Bat-SCoV Spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) with the SARS-CoV RBD (Bat-SRBD). Bat-SRBD was infectious in cell culture and in mice and was efficiently neutralized by antibodies specific for both bat and human CoV Spike proteins. Rational design, synthesis, and recovery of hypothetical recombinant viruses can be used to investigate mechanisms of transspecies movement of zoonoses and has great potential to aid in rapid public health responses to known or predicted emerging microbial threats.”

This is clearly GoF research and was published 12 years before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Here is the title of the paper from Cockrell et al (2018):

“A spike-modified Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infectious clone elicits mild respiratory disease in infected rhesus macaques”.

This is GoF research.

Likewise, note that the studies on LoF we have already discussed previously, in principle, are implicitly no different from GoF. Hence GoF research is ongoing.

Also, it should be obvious that cloning viruses is straightforward and even quite routine in virological research and development. For instance, the Bruttel paper says:

“The BsaI/BsmBI map of SARS-CoV-2 is anomalous for a wild coronavirus and more likely to have originated from an infectious clone designed as an efficient reverse genetics system. The research goals and laboratory logistics of infectious clone technology can leave a previously unreported fingerprint in the genomes of infectious clones”.

Masters and Perlman discuss clones at some length and in noncontroversial terms.

A moratorium announced by the Obama administration was lifted in 2017 after three years (2014 – 2017), and despite the moratorium the US government continued to assess and fund some GoF experiments (here). So not a ban at all then.

It therefore appears to be the case that, like the DEFUSE proposal GoF research was and is still routine. Indeed, it looks like standard practice applied globally across many research groups studying coronaviruses.

If not lab leak or wet market, then how did “it” arise?

On the animal origins of SARS-CoV-2 Wu had this to say:

“Most recently, Wang et al discovered a high frequency of mammalian-associated viral co-infections and identified 12 viruses that are shared among different bat species by meta-transcriptomic analysis of 149 individual bat samples in Yunnan, China. The authors also found two coronaviruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 (92%–93% genetic identities), with only five amino acid differences in the receptor-binding domain of one genome compared to the Wuhan-Hu-1 strain. These findings indicate that viral co-infections and spillover are common in bats, which explains the high recombinant events in coronavirus and points to the origin of SARS-CoV-2 from recombinational exchanges among multiple related genomes.”

Now we should disclose that Wu graduated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2012, and hence might be considered to have a conflict of interest, but his analysis does not appear to rely on new research and simply extrapolates from what is currently considered the current state of practice in virology. Moreover, he is currently at the University of Texas.

Of course, neither side of the argument can say how SARS-CoV-2 might have come to have been detected in humans, but it is not beyond possibility that it neither arose recently in nature, nor emerged from a laboratory but may instead have been with us for quite some time, lying low in the human population or in nature until it was discovered.

Let’s consider the explanation of the single point zoonotic event, in the Huanan seafood (wet) market in Wuhan sometime between October to December 2019 (molecular epidemiology described here). Does it seem unlikely that the virus arose spontaneously in the wet market at the same time GoF research was going on in Wuhan. What’s the chance of nature creating a new virus at that exact place and time? The probability would be astronomically low, especially given it supposedly might include bats, humans, and pangolins.

The patchy pin-point pattern of spread of SARS-CoV-2 offers strong support to alternative explanations for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, with mortality rising in spring 2020 only after lockdowns were implemented and not before, and morbidity only revealing itself as attributable to a new virus with the roll out of PCR testing. (RancourtEnglerPospichal).

We can therefore speculate about alternative theories, two of which are pre-existing endemicity and virus clones, intentionally manufactured to create the impression of a pandemic.

The first theory is one of pre-existing endemicity across the world (supported by existing T-cell immunity and other things).

The second is that lab manufacture was involved, but not necessarily involving a leak from a laboratory in Wuhan, but ‘something’ was intentionally released first in Wuhan and then in multiple pinpoint locations worldwide. These theories need not be mutually exclusive but operationalizing these would require them to be coupled with a project involving high levels of mendacity and inventiveness.

Pre-existing endemicity:

  • Imagine stealing a march on the science and discovering a coronavirus already endemic in humans but not in bats or camels (perhaps it spilled over zoonotically in the long distant past). You keep this secret because you realise this is an exploitable opportunity if you can successfully pull off a bait and switch. You apply for GoF research funding to engineer new viruses, for the benefit of humanity (vaccines etc.). You use the newly discovered virus in your research and maybe you might even toy around making some small changes. You feel confident enough to reveal these in the grant application because it might prove useful later. However, you know GoF is impossibly difficult (but you don’t admit this to your sponsors or the public) and you therefore cannot make it any more lethal or transmissible than it current is (which is not much anyway given it has been in the background maybe for aeons). Next, you create a vaccine for this virus (which also doesn’t work but that’s another story). All that would be left to do would be to create a test for this virus so that it can now be discovered by the rest of humanity, giving the impression it has suddenly appeared, and given its endemicity create a fake pandemic to motive the sale of vaccines. Variants of the origin myth can then be used to create fear, to increase vaccine take-up, and the ‘accidental’ revelation of the secret GoF formula might be used to proclaim technological prowess (and potentially also to create future scapegoats and confusion if that is required).

Intentional spread of non-infectious clones:

  • If we set aside pre-existing endemicity then all that is required is some functional amendments to some existing localised virus (from a bat, say), either known or newly discovered. Because it is from a bat GoF design of a human version would be impossible, hence, deadliness and transmissibility could not be ‘designed in’. It won’t ‘go viral’ because it isn’t infectious and could not cause a pandemic. However, you could clone it so that it contains novel and deadly looking features, but you don’t much care what its functional features are apart from that because the symptoms will be non-differentiable from other respiratory viruses. You would then simply need to distribute these clones artificially to make it look like a virus that spreads. Also, despite not being any more deadly than other coronaviruses it might still poison people and cause some morbidity. You would then invent a vaccine and create a test designed to detect the DNA associated with the ‘virus’. This, in summary form, is the hypothesis of JJ Couey [here][16]. We understand this hypothesis is partly inspired by the video lecture given by Dr James Giordano.

Relevant to both scenarios, but as yet largely ignored as a factor in the events of the past few years, is the well-known and widely researched propensity of chronic stress to manifest as physical illness. The covid era was, after all, characterised by what was the most sustained and sophisticated and co-ordinated propaganda campaign ever imposed on human populations, specifically intended to increase fear and anxiety.

In his video lecture, Giordano specifically invokes this aspect of how a pandemic could be manufactured[17].

Note that the ‘non-infectious clone’ theory would not create a self-sustaining global pandemic but might instead be considered to be akin to localised chemical attacks, where people would inhale an airborne pathogen but not transmit it.

Acknowledging the operational difficulty involved in continually manufacturing and distributing viral clones, in respect of JJ Couey’s thesis, clones may only have been needed to have been deployed in hot spots (NYC and Bergamo Italy etc.) in 2020 to trigger a fake pandemic, and that subsequent positive SARS-CoV-2 cases, from then on, were a combination of PCR tests cross reacting with other viruses to cause false positives and/or natural endemic SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating at a low background rates.

There is a third explanation, elements of which actually overlap with the foregoing: that the characterisation of SARS-CoV-2 as a novel entity is entirely an artefact of virological testing and genomic sequencing methods. This is a hypothesis we will not be expanding upon here but are equally happy that others examine this possibility in further detail.

Conclusion

The virus which has become known as SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t appear to be that novel when looked at from several angles. Claims that something novel emerged in 2019 – whether or not through Gain-of-Function experimentation appear to be without foundation.

Firstly, it appears to be just another coronavirus, of which at least eight other similar such viruses have been detected since the 1980s. Furthermore, the lethality of the latest addition to the collection looks as if it is following a similar course to the others – overestimated soon after discovery only to be downgraded later.

Attribution of virus lethality suffers from the fallacy of the single cause – the presence of the virus is presumed to be enough to explain death and illness independently of comorbidity and the medical treatments applied (or not). Likewise, the clinical characteristics of illness associated with SARS-CoV-2 also appears to be largely indistinguishable from other coronaviruses and other viruses which, in any event, are often multiply present as coinfections.

Secondly, the much-touted ‘special’ structural characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 do not – on deeper scrutiny – appear that unusual. Similar features having been identified in other apparently unremarkable viruses. Even the gp120 HIV inserts might have originated from wherever that sequence can be found elsewhere in nature and in man.

Thirdly, the complexity of the relationship between genotype and phenotype is too great and poorly understood to make the deliberate act of engineering the pathogenicity of viruses ever reliably achievable. Due to ‘the curse of dimensionality’, only the timescale of natural evolution could deliver the time and space needed for this. A review of so-called Gain-of-Function and Loss-of-Function experiments does not suggest that much practical and / or relevant progress has been made in overcoming this insurmountable barrier.

Fourthly, the possibility of long-standing – but hitherto unnoticed – endemicity of SARS-CoV-2 in various animal reservoirs at various times cannot be ruled out. Inherent limits to the dependability of phylogenetic analysis and antibody testing mean that we have, in Popperian terms, an unfalsifiable hypothesis that the virus, or its variants, were endemic and have been for some unknown time.

Fifthly, it appears that the engineering of clones carrying genetic material is and has been standard practice around the world for some time. Given the above, the creation and distribution of such clones might appear to be a much more likely explanation for the rapid spread of a particular sequence around the world than the natural spread of a novel pathogen from a class of viruses known to be highly mutable.

Given the above, we would suggest that Gain- of-Function should be more aptly known as Claim-of-Function.

We are therefore left entertaining four competing hypotheses that might explain the viral ‘signal’: (i) pre-existing zoonotic endemicity; (ii) a natural zoonotic act that spontaneously created the virus at the right place in the right time in Wuhan; (iii) a Gain-of-Function lab leak; or (iv) the (intentional?) distribution of non-infectious clones producing a global viral signal. Given the results of our analysis we believe that the available virological and epidemiological evidence does not adequately support either the lab leak or the wet market theories for the origins of the virus.

Finally, none of the above is meant to excuse shortcomings in the discipline of virology (which seems to have lost its way over the past decades), nor express approval for Gain-of-Function research. Much research in the area looks to be neither ethical nor useful, and whilst we disagree that scientists can make viruses with pandemic potential, it is possible, or in fact even likely, that such experimentation may pose dangers locally (but not globally).

Moreover, as we have seen, the constant hunting for viral sequences and frenzied analysis of those thought to be novel help lay the foundations for a constantly fearful humanity, empowering those who wish to impose ‘pandemic preparedness’ on the world, with its paraphernalia of control mechanisms and attendant loss of freedoms.

In this article, we are not intending to defend those who may have conducted such research, but nor do we think it is right to solely blame such research when the evidence for a spreading pathogen having caused a pandemic of a novel disease is so weak. It is perfectly possible to simultaneously believe (as we state above) that such research is unethical and that it did not (directly at least) cause the ‘covid pandemic’, which was an iatrogenic phenomenon. In this regard if there actually was a function gained by the virus it was the power to help trick humanity into a dramatic act of self-harm.

Originally published on the Where Are the Numbers? substack

Footnotes

[1] Many suspect that cases of renal failure associated with ‘covid’ are actually adverse effects caused by remdesivir administered as a putative treatment.

[2] MERS-CoV and MERS-CoV-like antibodies have been identified in dromedary camels. Camels are indigenous to the middle east. Uniqueness seems to have stood out as the explanatory variable and it isn’t clear whether any other animals were tested. Perhaps if the virus had been detected in Scotland, wild haggis would have been the prime suspect?

[3] The Duesberg hypothesis – that HIV does not cause AIDS has some striking parallels to the story of SARS-CoV-2. It is rooted in the idea that HIV is a passenger virus that does not cause the pathology called AIDS, which is instead caused by drug use (in Europe) and malnutrition (in Africa).

[4] Sceptics might believe the public never get to see any information they don’t want us to see.

[5] Bat-origin RaTG13 is currently the most phylogenetically related virus to SARS-CoV-2.

[6] While we don’t concur with any presumption that the variants were themselves more or less pathogenic or transmissible this is a useful heuristic of the likely evolution of any coronavirus in a large host population (or the best available to date).

[7] We use the word requirement here rather than biological fitness because it better matches the fact that it must functionally meet some human goal.

[8] Ralph Baric: “When you adapt a coronavirus to another species …just putting a human receptor in and using a mouse model is not predictable of human transmissibility”.

[9] Likewise, presuming the source virus is from another animal we have the challenge of crossing the species barrier to contend with.

[10] Infected ferrets were reported as having lesions showing moderate meningitis and encephalitis with lymphocytes in the thalamus, compared to animals who were infected with the wild virus. However, no tests were done for bacterial meningitis hence this evidence, coupled with the small sample size is very weak.

[11] Clearly this research aims for GoF, and if one acknowledges that such an activity is inherently criminal then these experiments themselves are, at the very least, unethical. Also, who is to say that Loss-of-Function is any less dangerous than Gain-of-Function?

[12] It should be recognized that the mouse models used in these studies and extensively investigated in the literature are based on an artificial expression of the h-ACE2 receptor that does not fully reflect the expression pattern of the same receptor in humans and consequently the immune response associated to infection.

[13] As it stands the evidence for this does not withstand even cursory scrutiny.

[14] They don’t know; could be caused by aliens?

[15] The Amendola study went back and tested historical samples for antibodies or viral RNA and found positives from 2019, using partial sequences, admitting to cross reactivity but none tested positive on PCR. Also, the study was confounded by the fact that the samples were from measles patients and assumed there was a single anti-SARS-CoV-2 set of antibodies despite the fact that these viruses swarm and recombine.

[16] It could actually be much simpler – some mixture of something which makes people ill (since “it” could cause any symptoms it’s not necessary to be particularly specific) plus the DNA which causes the PCR test to light up.

[17] An essay containing a few interesting examples of this so-called ‘nocebo’ effect can be found here.

SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN

If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Categories: coronavirus, latest
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

261 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Penelope
Penelope
Jun 6, 2024 7:38 PM

It is emblematic of this site to spend its time trying to determine if the covid operation was 98% false or 100%– and omitting to spend effort determining the actions we should take to oppose the growing tyranny. And no, planting a garden doesn’t qualify.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 6, 2024 8:10 PM
Reply to  Penelope

I’ve pinned your comment. May I invite your suggestions and other readers’ too! 🙂 A2

Johannes Kreis
Johannes Kreis
Jun 11, 2024 8:57 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

It is the mass media. As I pointed out below, the data is there, e.g. the historic low in hospital occupancy in 2020 and 2021 in Germany. Even for HIV, where the zoonosis humbug started, there are publications, that clearly state: How does HIV-1 cause AIDS? – We don’t know (Coffin, Swanstrom 2013). The mass media, like in Germany the Tagesschau (ARD) or the Heute Journal (ZDF) does not report on this or other topics the population is not supposed to know. Humans are herd beings and most people want to avoid confrontation. So, people do what the mass media tells them to do, at least at first. But this does not work forever. It is like Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all… Read more »

Kalen
Kalen
Jun 7, 2024 6:35 AM

This is very informative scientific paper that quite comprehensively addresses the profound and controversial issue of determining identity and hence the very existence of what has been arbitrarily labeled SC2 and stemming from that de facto inability to determine origin of it.  To give credit to authors they noted that among all investigations of SC2 origin they left out one specific hypothesis outside of paper’s scope namely a hypothesis of SC2 being an artifact not only of badly misinterpreted molecular lab methodologies as like PCR many experts warned about already before 2020 but an artifact of germ theory and specifically Virology itself.  The authors clearly frustrated with general confusion about causes and effects of COVID reported in scientific literature correctly tended to question or revise dogmas of deterministic germ theory stubbornly held by virologists by suggesting likely validity of a multiple causes and multiple effects model (MCME) of diseases as… Read more »

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Jun 6, 2024 1:55 PM

No matter what you say, no matter how many articles you write, no matter that you get 300 comments in an article with links, I will continue to believe in my government!

Penelope
Penelope
Jun 6, 2024 7:05 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Erik, that’s a religion. Surely you don’t believe that ALL govts everywhere have been virtuous? Then by what criteria do you distinguish between them? Faith doesn’t seem to be relevant.

Thom 9
Thom 9
Jun 7, 2024 6:15 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Sadly blind faith is just that “blind”. Doing your due diligence in this new reality is of the upmost importance and so are you willing to bet your life on your government?
Go the extra mile and keep an open mind…your life and the lives of those you love are worth more than any government.

Brian Sides
Brian Sides
Jun 6, 2024 11:47 AM

“‘covid pandemic’ was an iatrogenic phenomenon and was not caused by a novel and deadly virus.” I had to look the meaning of the word iatrogenic The definition is “relating to illness caused by medical examination or treatment: “drugs may cause side effects which can lead to iatrogenic diseas” I therefore disagree with the description of the covid pandemic’ as an iatrogenic phenomenon although the medical industry did help with the fake covid pandemic. The covid pandemic was in my opinion a largely successful propaganda exercise. The purpose of the propaganda exercise was to test what level of control and obedience could be imposed on as much of the world as possible at the same time. Possibly to harm a portion of the population through harmful vaccinations but more to introduce the mRNA as a new method of treating many illnesses. Who was responsible. Some very rich and powerful individuals… Read more »

TRT
TRT
Jun 6, 2024 5:48 PM
Reply to  Brian Sides

You choose to be more informed. It’s a choice. Much of the ignorance we see from the sheeple is wilful. I, for one, will never believe that academics and journalists, and many others, don’t have the ability to inform themselves on these matters.IMO, it comes down to how much someone cares about the truth and its consequences .

Researcher
Researcher
Jun 7, 2024 2:07 PM
Reply to  Brian Sides

The iatrogenesis induced in hospitals and nursing homes, provided governments their excess death statistics. The PCR nasal assaults gave them false case numbers and false mortality stats.

It was a worldwide, planned UN operation. Part of agenda 21. The World Bank sold pandemic bonds in 2017.

The 2020 LOCK STEP operation was laid out in Rockefeller planning scenarios, published in 2010.

The SARS operation in 2003 in HK was also pre-planned and entirely propaganda. And as you state, the swine flu fraud of 2009 and the 1970’s, proving governments run these scams regularly as scare campaigns and to mass vaccinate. Same with the polio campaign.

These staged events are long standing operations of governments, PhRMA and supranational orgs.

Thom 9
Thom 9
Jun 6, 2024 5:44 AM

If they can isolate a human virus and prove human viruses actually exist according to the
their Gold Standard, that being Koch’s Postulates then perhaps we should take heed.

Human viruses appear to be nothing more than a very sick joke perpetrated against humanity to scare the masses into taking their poison shots. Remember that vaccines are put out in lots. So it has always been a lottery of depopulation perpetrated by the psychopathic eugenists such as John D. Rockefeller et al.

Penelope
Penelope
Jun 6, 2024 7:33 PM
Reply to  Thom 9

Koch’s postulates aren’t gold standard even for bacteria, let alone viruses. We now know of and can SEE w electron microscopy many types of bacteria which are unculturable:

“Some of the possible reasons are that a required nutrient is not present in the culture medium, that the culture medium itself is toxic, or that other bacteria in the sample produce substances inhibitory to the target organism. In addition, we know that bacteria can depend on each other for growth.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21038700/#:~:text=Abstract,be%20proved%20using%20other%20methods.

Thom, understanding biology requires more rigor than dogmatically adhering to postulates which Koch came to realize were not universally applicable to BACTERIA– and rarely to viruses.

Thom 9
Thom 9
Jun 7, 2024 6:22 AM
Reply to  Penelope

Thanks for your insight Penelope and noted…

I don’t believe in Santa Claus either…

Dag Johnsen
Dag Johnsen
Jun 8, 2024 7:11 PM
Reply to  Penelope

Koc`s postulates are an excellent gold standard and the only real way to verify the claim of dangerous and contagious pathogens. Probably the only scientific thing about virology. They threw it out the window when nature time and time again failed to fulfill this standard. And instead of understanding that their hypothethis was falsified they made up and added attributes to the thing they were looking for who they basically came up with apriori without any relevant data to back it up in the first place.

How do you draw these snippets of genetic code they extract from the cellcultures back to an actual virus if no virus has ever been isolated , analyzed or sequenced in its entirety? There is no blueprint to compare these fragments of code to , no contrast and nothing is purified or isolated yet they call it isolation. Not convinced.

Vagabard
Vagabard
Jun 5, 2024 10:29 PM

Billy Bragg’s take on remedial biology (and by corollary Sars-Cov-2). Not particularly pithy, succinct, or self-promoting and yet it still somehow retains that kernel of truth in there somewhere:

Billy Bragg – The Warmest Room

George Mc
George Mc
Jun 5, 2024 8:56 PM

Strange incident at work today. In the morning meeting, the manager glumly announced that the covid figures were on the rise again BUT we were no longer required to observe those draconian measures of the past since our council had decided that covid was just the same as seasonal influenza now that (ahem!) we have all been vaxxed!   But the manager and staff were disgusted at this criminally negligent nonchalance. What got me was the way everyone blandly assumed that the “covid threat” was being underestimated. That the authorities were finally – inevitably – admitting it had all been bullshit from the start never entered anyone’s mind.   Which only goes to show that when the propagandist mill invents a deadly species threatening holocaust, the scare settles into everyone’s subconscious and will reside therein forever. I have no doubt that if this workplace personnel were to continue for another… Read more »

Lizzyh7
Lizzyh7
Jun 6, 2024 8:42 PM
Reply to  George Mc

Well “Dr” fauci is out there spewing that the unvaxxed are probably responsible for 300k deaths. Never mind the vax doesn’t make one unable to transmit the deadly plague. Sad that all the MSM tards don’t bother to read that part. Hardly surprising though as they never did.

Dylan Jones
Dylan Jones
Jun 5, 2024 8:50 PM

Don’t you know that every time you say you don’t believe in viruses, one dies?

mgeo
mgeo
Jun 6, 2024 5:34 AM
Reply to  Dylan Jones

Those things cannot die, because they are.. the undead.  🙂 

Syppie
Syppie
Jun 5, 2024 8:48 PM

So what have the scientists done to find the gnome of sars-cov-2.
https://off-guardian.org/2022/09/26/this-week-in-the-new-normal-47/#comment-545205

purgatorium
purgatorium
Jun 5, 2024 8:29 PM

The longer the “science” article on genetics, the bigger the hood being tried on for size.

Summary:
Genetics is a scam front for eugenics, viruses are a scam to cultivate belief in invisible and contagious pathogens to maunfacture threatening “pandemics” to justify mass vaccination and whatever else they need to do to people. The rest is the supporting scaffolding of lies, loaded with jargon to ensure nobody knows or can prove anything, because “virus isolation” is not really isolation as the word is commonly understood, nor is “pandemic” post 2009 WHO’s revised definition.

They will not only tell you how to think, they will change the language to make it so.

el Gallinazo
el Gallinazo
Jun 5, 2024 7:48 PM

This is a test on my part to see if my comments, as of today, are automatically being put into pending, regardless of how “harmless” they might be.

el Gallinazo
el Gallinazo
Jun 5, 2024 7:49 PM
Reply to  el Gallinazo

Apparently not, for which I am grateful.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 5, 2024 11:11 PM
Reply to  el Gallinazo

We’ve had a few people saying things like this today. I wonder why.

el Gallinazo
el Gallinazo
Jun 5, 2024 11:57 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Some sort of computer glitch. I just wanted to check out whether it was intentional or not and whether it would continue. When I first commented on off-G, all my comments were put into pending, which was annoying for obvious reasons. It was done automatically and I eventually learned that it was connected to my internet connection out beyond the utilities in the maize fields, and which was interpreted by your program as a LAN which was suspicious and to be checked out automatically.

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc
Jun 5, 2024 7:47 PM

We travelled a lot, at first on the back of my Dad’s German moped, and my Mum’s Italian scooter….Not once did we ever get jabbed as a pre-caution going to foreign countries. Then mainly after moving to London, after my Dad dropped dead, We travelled a lot. Not once did we ever get jabbed as a pre-caution going to foreign countries. We even went hitch-hiking in places where they have a lot of mosquitoes. All we had was deet (which is probably much the same as ddt (which was banned) Whilst, they do come out at night, and we did get bitten to buggery, we very rarely got ill at all, and we only got mugged once, and they didn’t hurt us. Fortunately my wife had the passports and the tickets home, but no money. Then my son, through his school decided to go to Ecuador for 6 weeks. It… Read more »

Tommy
Tommy
Jun 5, 2024 5:22 PM

What a dreary excursion into the weeds of limited-hangout, gate-keeping virology propaganda. Many hints are given pointing toward the absurdity of the field but not one discussion is actually had about any of the critical flaws of the “discipline” as a whole. For example, the authors decry the lack of “control experiments” in the GoF animal studies, demanding they use supposed infections with other alleged viruses for comparisons, while conspicuously ignoring that the null hypothesis is altogether absent in these experimental designs. Any honest person can see that the most fundamentally relevant control experiment would be subjecting a control group to the cocktail of diseased foreign tissue and proteins, antibiotic poisons, hormones and whatever else is in their cultured ‘inoculation’ brew, only absent the alleged virus, and seeing if all this stuff is not in fact what is causing the animals to get sick; or, indeed, if it is not… Read more »

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc
Jun 5, 2024 6:18 PM
Reply to  Tommy

Well exactly, who is going to read all this sh1t and try and make a sensible comment?

red lester
red lester
Jun 6, 2024 7:32 AM
Reply to  tonyopmoc

Very few, apparently.

YourPointBeing
YourPointBeing
Jun 5, 2024 4:04 PM

If i may summarise:
BORN
CONSUME
DIE

if you believe the “health system” was designed to do anything but keep the slaves working via carrot and stick, sadly, you are wrong.

Hang the bankers and politicians

Johannes Kreis
Johannes Kreis
Jun 5, 2024 2:53 PM

This article contains some deep truth. Nobody has any idea how big the virom of coronaviruses (or of any virus quasi-species) outside the gene databases is. In the gene data bases only selected sequences are accepted. A long time the GISAID database accepted only sequences with up to 15 point mutations from the Wuhan SARS-CoV2 reference sequence. That was the reason why there was such an ado about the first variant that exceeded 15 point mutations. An analysis from the selected sequences in the gene data bases can only confirm what the selection criteria permit that were used to accept the sequences. In the beginning GISAID accepted no sequences with frame shifts. A frameshift occurs when by insertion or deletion of a nucleobase in the RNA the reading pattern of the 3-base reading codon (that codes for one amino acid) is shifted and a completely different amino sequence results. There… Read more »

mgeo
mgeo
Jun 6, 2024 5:50 AM
Reply to  Johannes Kreis

Enormous effort has produced no microbe useful as a bio-weapon or for culling people. The current alternative:
(a) allow and overlook an expanding array of industrial poisons
(b) drum up the threat with blanket propaganda
(c) kill at a varied rate through medical treatment.
This was also the case for Ebola and Zika.

Baldmichael Theresolute
Baldmichael Theresolute
Jun 5, 2024 2:45 PM

Why are people still going round in circles on the issue. Virology in its current form is a case of mistaken identity, seeing something as harmful rather than benign. Viruses should be considered as waste arising from processes, ‘via us’ as with the sound of the word virus.

It is like household waste which must be cleared from time to time or else the house becomes cluttered and living in the house becomes uncomfortable.

https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2024/04/24/coronavirus-is-it-really-a-monster-and-if-not-what-is-it/

The medical industrial complex has taken something and misunderstood it for false profit and gain. Gain of function is a gain of fiction, a money laundering exercise to fleece the taxpayers as usual and scare the pants off the gullible.

https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2023/04/14/gain-of-function-and-anthony-fauci/

mgeo
mgeo
Jun 6, 2024 5:55 AM

“Viruses” are also likely to be an important means of communication, not alone within an organism or species but across the entire biosphere.

kjhkljh
kjhkljh
Jun 5, 2024 2:01 PM

I had COVID an actually it wasn’t that bad, it was strange as it took my smell away. I was fine after 3 days and had no other issues. If it was made in a lab or if it just mutated thats fine. If they wanted to really kill everyone why not make a more serious virus and why give a vaccine. If I had to guess, the vaccine was just a saline solution. Probably it was a great way to identify those who would take it and those who did not subscribe to state line. Now we have a database of everyone who says no. I am sure that this info will be used in the future. So they can make up a story that if you didn’t get the jab then the next virus will be more complex for you… then we can have a haha told you… Read more »

Marfanoid
Marfanoid
Jun 5, 2024 7:07 PM
Reply to  kjhkljh

Fuck off robot.

Matt
Matt
Jun 5, 2024 1:22 PM

This is technically OT but I hope it’s ok. I want to propose an open thread on unbelievable stories in the legacy media. Not just obvious propaganda but just generally bogus-seeming or hard to believe stories.

Like this. I mean wtf is this?

https://youtu.be/WMXnvCgagX8?si=_P1UYAen1vX2SsjH

Johnny
Johnny
Jun 5, 2024 12:03 PM

THIS is essential reading.
The Scamdemic holocaust in Japan, from someone with intimate knowledge of that country:

https://emanuelprez.substack.com/p/the-tragedy-of-japan

judith
judith
Jun 5, 2024 11:45 AM

What an interesting and informative article. Thank you.
I like the bait and switch idea. Very plausible.
It seems to me, when all is said and done, and whatever the “plandemic” was, or where it originated, in the end it was all about that poisonous shot.

Gladius
Gladius
Jun 5, 2024 10:58 AM

Shameful speech by Alexandru Rafila Jr, Romania’s health minister. Of course, the minister is kosher, like many others … In Geneva (IHR amendments), he sang hosannas to Tedros Ghebreyesus. This minister is the son of a Bolshevik torturer, Alexandru Rafila Sr born in the USSR and ex head of the Arad County “Securitate”. Like father, like son. Rafila Sr was once in charge of repressing Romanian peasants nkvd-style, and Rafila Jr enjoys making Romanians happy with the “benefits” of scamdemic globalism. 

https://odysee.com/@Asocia%C8%9BiaMediciPentruConsim%C8%9B%C4%83m%C3%A2ntInformat:1/RAFILA-OMS-28.05.2024-Subtitrat-RO:9

futurist
futurist
Jun 5, 2024 10:02 AM

From the Conservative Christian point of view during the E.U and U.K and USA $election seasons then yer I can see why this is slapped up.

Paul
Paul
Jun 5, 2024 9:27 AM

Why would the ‘flu’ be seasonal? Does it head off on its holidays during the times it does not ‘strike’?
No, the fact is it’s seasonal because it’s all to do with our terrain, which is affected by the seasons (amount of sunshine, movement, healthy food etc).
It’s a detox, nothing more. The body healing itself, doing what it does. Perfectly natural, perfectly normal and healthy.

ImpObs
ImpObs
Jun 5, 2024 10:33 AM
Reply to  Paul

Influenza kills thousands of people every year, doesn’t seem to be a very effective “healing” mechanism, doesn’t seem very “healthy” for anyone in those statistics does it?

Researcher
Researcher
Jun 5, 2024 4:44 PM
Reply to  ImpObs

These “influenza” stats are fabricated numbers where they include pneumonia deaths: and hospital acquired pneumonia (immobility) of the elderly to boost the flu numbers and alleged deaths. It’s a scare campaign.

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc
Jun 5, 2024 6:28 PM
Reply to  Researcher

I certainly got  (immobility)  but I did not get “hospital acquired pneumonia” mainly because they put me on antibiotic drip for 3 weeks, to save my life from Sepsis. It wasn’t nice, and had next to fck all to do with covid, except maybe I wasn’t getting enough sunshine during lockdown and got really annoyed with people I knew getting jabbed and dropping dead.

ImpObs
ImpObs
Jun 5, 2024 8:37 PM
Reply to  Researcher

boosting flu numbers, hang on, how can they boost something that doesn’t exist?

are all flu numbers really pneumonia? or just hospital aquired immobility?

It’s all very confusing!

Researcher
Researcher
Jun 5, 2024 10:19 PM
Reply to  ImpObs

Pneumonia is inflammation and fluid in your lungs.

Flu numbers are based on adding all pneumonia numbers (hospital acquired pneumonia, ventilator associated pneumonia, post operative pneumonia etc) “flu symptoms” in hospital, plus a very small percentage who have been given an influenza “test”.

Since no influenza virus has ever been found, isolated, purified, chemically characterized or genetically sequenced, no viral tests, (including flu tests) ever test for an actual virus.

The flu stats are artificially inflated by adding all the above categories. Fake tests, flu symptoms in hospital (general, non specific symptoms) and all the pneumonia categories.

ImpObs
ImpObs
Jun 6, 2024 5:07 PM
Reply to  Researcher

so eveyone who has had flu symptoms, (runny nose, excessive phlem, blocked sinuses, reduced lung capacity, weakness, lethargy etc.) many of whom could point the finger at the person they thought they caught it from as they got the same symptoms within 2-3 days of colse contact with that symptomatic person, subsiquently getting their own similar symptoms, were all experiencing spontanious natural detox?

So all “viruses” with similar simptoms, that appear to be caught/passed on, e.g. chicken pox, measels etc. are natural detox mechanisms?

Is there a list of the specific “contaminants” that cause these specific symptoms for specific “viruses”?

Is there a hypothesis as to why people apparently “catch” these contaminants spontaniously after coming into contact with another contaminated person causing spontanious detoxing 2-3 days later?

Facinating subject, who knew!

Researcher
Researcher
Jun 6, 2024 6:20 PM
Reply to  ImpObs

An explanation for what is presumed to be contagion, are mass poisoning events, which can occur community, district and even nation wide.

Virology (and contagion) was manufactured, then used as a cover story by Rockefeller medicine to evade fiscal and legal liability for governments and industry poisoning populations with toxic vaccination campaigns, toxic Rx, exposing them to EMFs, dirty electricity, tainted food, pesticides, petrochemicals in industry and filthy water, contaminated pipes, lead paint, pollution etc.

The polio virus for example, being a cover story for DDT and pesticide poisoning.

ImpObs
ImpObs
Jun 7, 2024 8:05 AM
Reply to  Researcher

what is the evidence for mass poisonings in temperal corrolation to natural detox mechanisms spontaniously appearing within 2-3 days of exposure to someone else going though natural detox?

Lets stick with those syptoms typically associated with “Flu” because I wasn’t around for Polio, but I’ve had “Flu” symptoms a few times, I’d like to know what I was detoxing from. I guess most people have had these same natural detox symptoms so it must be the easiest to pin point the evidence and overturn that old virology nonsense.

Has the contamination been isolated? Was there a control study? Do similar natural detox symptoms appear when someons else is exposed to the same contaminants?

Researcher
Researcher
Jun 7, 2024 1:33 PM
Reply to  ImpObs

Read The Invisible Rainbow. What Really Makes You Ill. The Contagion Myth. Goodbye Germ Theory. Virus Mania. All available on archive.org

Read ViroLIEgy.com

ImpObs
ImpObs
Jun 7, 2024 8:21 PM
Reply to  Researcher

so no specific contaminants isolated for specific symptoms?

no control studies?

sounds very much like the arguments against virology, only with much more arm waving.

purgatorium
purgatorium
Jun 5, 2024 8:34 PM
Reply to  ImpObs

Natural causes

judith
judith
Jun 5, 2024 11:48 AM
Reply to  Paul

So if you do not get the flu every year does that mean one is UNhealthy

ChairmanDrusha
ChairmanDrusha
Jun 5, 2024 1:18 PM
Reply to  judith

The detox process is normal. If your body is in such a state that you are constantly having to go through this process it would suggest your underlying health is poor. Nothing to do with invisible particles attacking you from the outside.

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc
Jun 5, 2024 6:40 PM
Reply to  ChairmanDrusha

There is a lot of truth in that, and hospitals are extremely unsafe places, especially if you have any kind of surgery.

However, when we were kids, almost all of us got the same illnesses at the same time, and its still true now, with our grandkids infecting their dad and their grandmother. I kept well clear, but got a sick bowl just in case. We all ate much the same food. What could it be? Surely not an infectious disease???

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc
Jun 5, 2024 6:34 PM
Reply to  judith

In my experience, if you didn’t get jabbed much when a kid, you get flu about 3 times in your life, and it is not very nice.

Paul
Paul
Jun 7, 2024 11:07 AM
Reply to  judith

I said that the detoxification is a normal, healthy response. Obviously not needing to detoxify in the first place is the best state of health to be in.

Matt Black
Matt Black
Jun 5, 2024 9:17 AM

I can’t believe we are still discussing this nonsense, but you guys posted this 2 days ago:

There was NO NEW DISEASE!

There were the old flu symptoms, there was a new name, and there was a crappy test.

And that is all.

https://off-guardian.org/2024/06/03/this-week-in-the-new-normal-91/

There is a simple rule here, a rule of legislation, a rule of business, a rule of life: beyond a certain point, complexity is fraud.

Baldmichael Theresolute
Baldmichael Theresolute
Jun 5, 2024 2:49 PM
Reply to  Matt Black

Well said. Life is not that complicated but people make it so to deceive the gullible and make a false profit.

mgeo
mgeo
Jun 5, 2024 8:29 AM

Scientists have taken pride in virological experimentation, as seen from research even on respiratory diseases. If it is useless, why are many governments spending enormous sums of money on it?

Allopathic medicine killed as directed. Public money for basic infrastructure and services had been plundered, even pension funds. The approach was (a) deflect from industrial poisons, e.g., CO and O3, and RF radiation (b) impose hospital DNR including starvation, and drugs to suppress breathing or harm mitochondria (c) criminalise alternative or unconventional treatments. Note: US tested diluted sarin earlier.

Priority solutions: (a) detecting and cracking down on poisonous gases (b) undoing the privatisation of medical treatment (c) mixing CO2 with the O2 that warded patients breathe, something common in the early 20th. century.

Sean Veeda
Sean Veeda
Jun 5, 2024 7:48 AM

A Furin Cleavage Site sounds more like an area of the chest of a trans woman.

Rolling Rock
Rolling Rock
Jun 5, 2024 7:38 AM

The Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory debate will never go away until one side can catergorically prove their argument. Or another theory proves itself correct. Either way the Plandemic was a scam, there was no SARS-Cov-2. The effort made by the media and propaganda shills to link every symptom possible to the ‘dis-ease’ turned the population into hypochondriacs. 10 cent made in China lateral flow testing kits helped further in causing a testing epidemic of false positive tests. Also, gave people the excuse for a week of work by testing positive. Even school kids got in on the act, one plastic test kit and a few drops of Coca-Cola or orange juice and hey presto – positive test result and few days bunking off school. The incentives thrown around in the form of free money – at least in the West – encouraged everyone to play along. No free money… Read more »

Rolling Rock
Rolling Rock
Jun 5, 2024 9:12 AM
Reply to  Rolling Rock

Typo should read “a week *off* work”, not “of work”

ariel
ariel
Jun 5, 2024 7:30 PM
Reply to  Rolling Rock
NickM
NickM
Jun 5, 2024 6:17 AM

When I first saw this long and detailed article my eyes lit up, and I said to myself, At Last! OffG is presenting a paper on Covid-19 by qualified scientists who really know the subject; similar to the OffG articles on food security by Colin Todhunter. So the first thing I did was scan the scientific References, and, to my great disappointment Ref 3 was Peter Duesberg!  [3] The Duesberg hypothesis — that HIV does not cause AIDS — has some striking parallels to the story of SARS-CoV-2. Peter Duesberg’s idea is that HIV does not cause the pathology called AIDS but AIDS arises from recreational drug use in California or from malnutrition in Africa (cf, “the terrain theory”). “Never mind”, I said to myself, “Duesberg was a lonely figure back in 1974; but now, half a century later, maybe he has gained two qualified virologists to support him. So I looked… Read more »

judith
judith
Jun 5, 2024 12:04 PM
Reply to  NickM

Peter Duesberg questioned the orthodoxy, spouted by Fauci, Gallo, et al, that HIV was the cause of AIDS. He was/is a very respected cancer specialist. He was not the only one who questioned the Fauci/Gallo hypothosis. But he spoke up. Consequently, his professional career was ruined. By Fauci. Kary Mullis also disputed the HIV causes AIDS theory. Vehemently. No one theoried that “recreational” drug use was the cause of AIDS. Mullis extrapolated on this more than Duesberg did. The drug use was more than justrecreational. Poppers were used all the time and they were very dangerous and injurious. The drug use and lifestyle Mullis spoke about was not simply “recreational”. It was destructive. It wore down the immune system. Of course it was looked at as homophobic if you questioned the lifestyle that could lead to AIDS. That’s a shame. There were many gay men who did not agree with… Read more »

NickM
NickM
Jun 5, 2024 4:55 PM
Reply to  judith

“But he [Peter Duesberg] spoke up. Consequently, his professional career was ruined.” Prof.Duesberg’s career was not heroically ruined. He continues to remain on the staff as a respected molecular geneticist who happens to disagree with the majority of his peers on one particular topic. From WikiPedia: “At the age of 36, Duesberg was awarded tenure at the University of California, Berkeley, and at 49, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. He received an Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health in 1986,[3] and from 1986 to 1987 was a Fogarty scholar-in-residence at the NIH laboratories in Bethesda, Maryland. Duesberg began to gain public notoriety with a March 1987 article in Cancer Research entitled “Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality”.[5] In this and subsequent writings, Duesberg proposed his hypothesis that AIDS is caused by long-term consumption of recreational drugs or antiretroviral drugs, and that… Read more »

NickM
NickM
Jun 5, 2024 4:58 PM
Reply to  NickM

“The truth rarely if ever convinces its opponents. It simply outlives them.” — Prof.Max Planck, inventor of the quantum hypothesis.

mgeo
mgeo
Jun 6, 2024 6:03 AM
Reply to  NickM

Some wit paraphrased that as “Funeral by funeral, science advances”. That wit did not take trans-national capital into account.

NickM
NickM
Jun 8, 2024 4:29 AM
Reply to  mgeo

As you say, science advances. Each funeral marks the death of yet another error. True.

Trans-national capital has propagated one of the greatest errors in history. Con-19, the belief that Covid-19 is more dangerous than common flu. Which led credulous government worldwide to buy and billions of believers to be injected with repeated doses of an ultra-expensive “Vaxx” which didn’t work against a plague which didn’t exist.

ariel
ariel
Jun 5, 2024 7:42 PM
Reply to  judith

Kary Mullis said that he asked Fauci, Gallo, and Montagnier to publically debate him on HIV>AIDS but they refused every time. And he was angry about it. He viewed them as frauds/charlatans.

ariel
ariel
Jun 5, 2024 7:44 PM
Reply to  ariel

I guess that Fauci has, by now,’ really proved his point.

mgeo
mgeo
Jun 6, 2024 6:07 AM
Reply to  ariel

Mullis asked Montainger in private to quote a single paper that confirmed the existence of viruses. After some feeble replies, the latter pretended to have spotted someone across the room, and to go over to that person.

mgeo
mgeo
Jun 6, 2024 6:10 AM
Reply to  mgeo

“Viruses” should be viral infection.

Voltaria Voltaire
Voltaria Voltaire
Jun 6, 2024 8:05 PM
Reply to  ariel

Fauci is a drug dealer. They may be “legal” drugs, but deadly all the same. When the Mafia got into the US government it went to the dogs very fast. Why are people in the US so unhealthy? There are some people who want to profit from illness. They create a “vaccine” that causes cancer so they can later sell drugs and even “vaccines” for cancer. Same thing with Myocarditis. Then again there are some people (a small minority) who want to kill others. Profit is secondary. They may make billions but they just use those billions to engineer craftier ways to kill. When we learn how to more accurately predict human behavior we will be safer and more secure. P.s. Kary Mullis died months before they started using his PCR test for the plandemic. He would probably roll over in his grave if he knew it was being used… Read more »

ariel
ariel
Jun 6, 2024 10:11 PM

No, it was more than that. He insisted that it should not and could/must not be used for diagnosis. Especially at too high cycles. He said ‘if you amplify the sample enough, you’ll find EVERYTHING in it. There are several YT videos of him extant in which he states precisely this.

Voltaria Voltaire
Voltaria Voltaire
Jun 7, 2024 2:57 AM
Reply to  ariel

Yes, thank you. That’s what I meant. Without all your finer details. Odd that he died in the Fall of 2019 huh? Fishy.

ariel
ariel
Jun 7, 2024 11:10 AM

Not even. He would have been a kingpin in any campaign to prevent misuse of the PCR test. So he had to go. After all they murdered presidents and prime ministers who disagreed with the narrative.

Researcher
Researcher
Jun 5, 2024 4:32 PM
Reply to  NickM

Have you read Dr. Mark Bailey’s “A Farewell to Virology”? I think you can handle the expert edition with ease.

Or have you read Dr. Stefan Lanka et al’s control experiment, disproving the viral hypothesis?

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 5, 2024 4:54 PM
Reply to  Researcher

To be more factual, it would bring into question any part of virology which relies solely or strongly on physical isolation as its premise. There are many areas of the ‘viral hypothesis’ which dovetail with other areas of science and have been inextricably linked to advances in those fields. Eg. Genetics. Not so simple to ‘disprove’. Not all claims for viral pathogenesis can be weighed equally either, I’d suggest. New and sensational ‘novel’ viruses may well be brought into question more easily than 100 year’s worth of laboratory research into something like the Tobacco Mosaic virus, for instance. I totally agree that future ‘pandemics’ springing up like covid is completely unacceptable. This big pharma joyride breed of virology needs to be dealt with. I am 100% there for that. 100000% there for that. And I have no doubt that work by Lanka et al can help with that to no… Read more »

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Jun 5, 2024 5:31 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

The math of the genetics gets shredded here.

Revealed: The SARS-CoV-2 Sequencing Sham The Paper Stefan Lanka Hoped Would Change The World. Mike Wallach, 6/1/24.
https://theviraldelusion.substack.com/p/revealed-the-sars-cov-2-sequencing

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 5, 2024 10:18 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

The paper reprinted here is called “Structural analysis of sequence data in virology – An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example” and appears to talk about the flaws in detecting pathogenic viruses. Not genetics. A couple of things occur to me. Work on Tobacco Mosaic viruses predates much of the technology (and hence techniques) mentioned in this paper, I believe. I also believe the first crystallisation of a virus and the first use of viruses in genetics research predates much of this technology too. Now I confess, I’m not well acquainted with the whole of this paper so perhaps I’ve got this wrong. Would you mind pointing out where I’m mistaken? Also, would you mind quoting the parts of Lanka’s paper that ‘shred’ the mathematics of genetics?? If I have missed these parts, I do apologise, and do you know whether Lanka is considering publishing a paper dealing with… Read more »

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Jun 5, 2024 11:38 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

My use of “genetics” was specifically the alleged use of genetics, specifically metagenomic transcription, to obtain the alleged genome of SARS-CoV-2. A mathematician friend of his did the shredding. There was no “crystallisation of a virus” re Tobacco Mosaic, not the slightest, this was way before even electron microscopes existed to create to pretense of “virus observation.” This notion of isolation of a Tobacco Mosaic virus was shredded by Dr Sam Bailey on drsambailey dot com, see “Tobacco Mosaic “Virus” – The beginning & end of virology.”You still have not provided any proof for the physical existence of viruses. You have made previous assertions regarding how bacteriophages prove the existence of viruses. Well,…What is a Virus? Dr Sam Bailey, 9/6/21.“Bacteriophages (and “giant viruses”) are unique among viruses in that they can be seen and isolated in nature, often from sea water where they can be found in abundance. The number of bacteriophages… Read more »

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 6, 2024 12:09 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

I’m sorry, but this quote from lanka isn’t evidence of much is it.

This video essay by sam bailey with “it’s amazing what the germ theorists claim when Virus Mania strikes! 😮” copy above it didn’t really inspire me with confidence, but I watched it. It appears to thoroughly debunk the silly claims of the olden times scientists and have a good old chuckle about it. Weren’t they silly.

Wouldn’t it be good though if someone could replicate these Tobacco Mosaic studies and definitively debunk them? Perhaps Lanka or Bailey could put a call out for that in between chuckles? A2

Christine Massey
Christine Massey
Jun 6, 2024 1:57 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

You don’t seem to understand how burden of proof works. Or how much time/money/resources are required to carry out lab work. And it seems to me that you want and expect people to go along with pseudoscience.

How about you raise the funds and hire someone to conduct valid studies and try to show that a “virus” does exist?  Perhaps you could put a call out for that in between your condescending comments about people who have done amazing work exposing weaponized fraud/pseudoscience?

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 6, 2024 12:42 PM

I am saying, let’s replicate the study. Mix some tobacco leaf extract with ammonium sulphate and carry out the study as written, using strict controls, and let’s establish whether its conclusions had any validity.

I think if we’re going on the attack to allege 130 years of scientific incompetence and fraudulence this requires some investigation.

We can’t just throw shade and walk away, like some bastardisation of a legal prosecution and legal defense. It isn’t either. Let’s remember, if we’re purporting to respect the scientific process, we should be concerned with ruling out bad data, not getting potentially valid findings chucked out on a technicality.

Btw I welcome a challenge to this! So can you stop acting as if I’m the enemy? Trust me, I’m not. Lol

A2

Christine Massey
Christine Massey
Jun 7, 2024 1:12 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

You’re proposing to replicate an invalid study, and implying that it had strict controls which it did not. Doing an invalid study over again has zero potential for showing that a “virus” does exist. It would be a complete waste of time. You’ve already admitted that you don’t really know what you’re talking about so why not just stick to what you do know?

Interesting that you pretend that no-virus people are just “attacking” 130 of “scientific” something on a whim and that we haven’t already investigated the matter to death.

We have zero onus to prove anything and yes we certainly can “just throw shade” and walk away.

It’s the virologists and their funders etc who disrespected the scientific method, not no-virus people. You seem seriously confused on this issue.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 7, 2024 10:39 AM

implying that it had strict controls I didn’t imply that 😅 I suggested rerunning the study with controls and I suspect you know that, really. Let’s keep things nice, please. I don’t even disagree with you, in principle! I disagree with your approach and I think your conclusions are hasty. I take your points about invalid sars-cov2 science, but virology AS A WHOLE is a wide discipline with fingers in many pies, and I disagree that we can reject it just yet. Does virology (the study of all viruses, not simply diseases) have any merit? If there is no isolation of some/all viruses, is this a major set back or are there other ways they’re detected? I am interested in the truth of the matter. I want it investigated because I think truth and knowledge are important. I wish the people researching these virus problems wanted truth and knowledge too.… Read more »

Pawel
Pawel
Jun 7, 2024 12:02 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Hi Sam. But you can’t indirectly detect something that you haven’t discovered in the first place. How would you indirectly prove a certain type of fish lives in your lake, if you didn’t know what a fish in general is, and what characteristics it has? Only when you know what fish are like, can you then try and assert that a certain type can be found in the lake, even though you haven’t seen it, but you can detect, maybe, scales or roe etc.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 7, 2024 1:21 PM
Reply to  Pawel

You have basically outlined the process by which most science has approached learning about anything. You design experiments to detect variables using proxies. I put a worm on a hook in the water (cuz why not) and something eats the worm! I place two worms on hooks a distance apart and they are eaten simultaneously, so I determine there’s more than one ‘something’. By varying the number of hooks and their distances I can estimate how numerous these ‘somethings’ are and their approximate size, as well as when they’re most active etc. etc. By a process of elimination you can arrive at a distinct way to classify the behaviour of these organisms, as distinct from other organisms you’ve detected. You might call that classification ‘fish’. A fish moves quickly in three dimensions, not slowly in two dimensions like another organism we call a ‘mollusk’. A fish wriggles side to side… Read more »

Pawel
Pawel
Jun 7, 2024 10:12 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

I would argue that you could be making a serious mistake. E.g., there would be no way of knowing whether the fish are eating the worms, or maybe the worms are destroyed by something in the water and the fish are just pulling the line.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 8, 2024 1:18 AM
Reply to  Pawel

Well you could test that hypothesis. For instance, you wouldn’t expect to see any correlation between the worm disappearing and the line being tugged. If you consistently saw a correlation you could conclude they were connected.

Pawel
Pawel
Jun 8, 2024 3:02 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

What if the water was making the worm explode in a way that shook the line? 🙂

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 8, 2024 3:31 PM
Reply to  Pawel

Then that would be some chemical reaction of some kind that you could test for in other ways and rule out.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Jun 6, 2024 6:09 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

There is no “quote from Lanka.”

The Tobacco Mosaic studies provided no science, no controlled experiments, just suppositions. Pointing tis out IS debunking. This virus has never been proven to exist via physical isolation and purification. If you think otherwise. show us.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 6, 2024 12:26 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Pointing tis out IS debunking. Only if your one goal here is to throw shade on virology. If your goal here is to apply the scientific process, surely we’d want to rule out whether these studies had any merit? Did they make any valid observations which may require an explanation? It seems that the no-virus stance is very quick to knock down laboratory science, yet very reluctant to get into the lab itself. Do you have any idea how groundbreaking it would be if someone could definitively debunk this research? How much does it really cost to make some concentrated tobacco leaf extract, mix it with ammonium sulphate as per the paper Bailey quotes, paint it on tobacco leaves using a control group and observe the results? This would seem to me to be the bare minimum in order to properly investigate these accusations of crazy bad science. Bailey doesn’t… Read more »

Christine Massey
Christine Massey
Jun 6, 2024 1:51 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

The author annihilated the fake, in silico “SARS-COV-2 genome” and you’re claiming it’s not about genetics?

Work on Tobacco Mosaic viruses predates much of the technology…”

You’ve made several references to a “virus” here, yet in the same breath admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

How about instead of expecting others to point out the flaws in your claims, you review the scientific method, read the paper, make sure you do understand it and then come back and explain how it actually shows the existence of a “virus”.

The onus is on you. No-virus people have already addressed this imaginary “virus” (i.e. Sam Bailey: https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/tobacco-mosaic-virus-the-beginning-and-end-of-virology/) and pointed out the flaws in virology ad nauseam. ViroLIEgy.com is a great general resources.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 6, 2024 3:40 PM

I didn’t claim it’s nothing about genetics, I questioned whether we’re really in a place, having investigated all the evidence, to confidently discount all of virology, including, presumably, all those breakthroughs in other sciences which relied upon the actions of viruses? Eg. Genetics. That was a question, and I don’t feel anyone has answered it persuasively. I’m pretty certain the science behind covid is very flawed. But covid doesn’t represent all of girology. I’m not trying to catch virology out on technicalities, I’m interested in finding the truth. I want to know whether there are any valid findings in virology, sifting the bad data from the good, so we can properly assess what virology has to offer, if anything. Are there observations of note that require an explanation? Did these scientists reach any decent conclusions? I wish this was being done more. It feels like the only ethical and scientific… Read more »

Christine Massey
Christine Massey
Jun 7, 2024 1:18 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Yes, you certainly did claim that it’s not about genetics:

“The paper reprinted here is called “Structural analysis of sequence data in virology – An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example” and appears to talk about the flaws in detecting pathogenic viruses. Not genetics.”

I’m starting to suspect you’re a bot and won’t waste further time with you.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 7, 2024 9:51 AM

Are we discussng ‘virology’ and ‘viruses’ and ‘genetics’ as a whole, or as related to Sars-cov2? You and Jefferey appear to switch interchangeably throughout a single conversation. Reading back, I think a misunderstanding has occurred and we have been talking past each other.

I am happy to accept that the science (including genetics) involved in the covid scam is debunked at this stage.

However my original point was about dismissing virology AS A WHOLE and I cited genetics AS A WHOLE as a field advanced using viruses. I raised this as my broad concern about declaring virology AS A WHOLE a dead duck.

Strahl replied specifically relating to Sars-cov2 and the confusion ensued.

Btw must you be so disgustingly rude all the time?

Eleventy Seventy
Eleventy Seventy
Jun 7, 2024 6:31 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

I don’t like labels, but I guess I have to admit that I’m broadly in the “no-virus” camp. Having said that, I find myself agreeing with your stance. I too want to find out what the truth is and whether these pesky little critters called viruses really do exist or not. I’m seriously doubting that they do but haven’t yet fully discounted that they don’t. I agree with Christine that Mike Stone’s Viroliegy is a really great resource, although I find it hard reading a lot of the time – mainly because I don’t understand a lot of the terminology 🙂 I also think that your focus on TMV is a very good place to start. There’s a 2011 study that I’ve downloaded that claims to have a valid control and I really want to read and digest it in full to see if there are holes in the methodology.… Read more »

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 7, 2024 9:29 PM

Really interesting, thanks! It does appear they were able to infect these plants, but yeah it should be checked out carefully. A2

Eleventy Seventy
Eleventy Seventy
Jun 8, 2024 1:23 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Hi Sam I couldn’t leave it until next week so spent my Saturday morning looking into it – I’m great fun at parties too 🙂  Here’s what I’ve found so far: A sodium phosphate solution was used for both experiment and the control (although only with a ph of 7.2).Apparently, this is best suited to plants that prefer more alkaline soil – Tobacco plants prefer acidic soil.Excessive amounts of sodium phosphate can lead to leaf burn, chlorosis and stunted growth.TMV “symptoms” can appear similar to all of the above although the mosaic pattern supposedly doesn’t occur with excessive sodium phosphate. Of course, I’m fully aware that sodium phosphate was used in both the experiment and control and probably isn’t that significant. But, what I did find particularly interesting was where it said: “These TMV genotypes were derived from biologically active cDNA clones that have been described elsewhere (8) and were… Read more »

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 8, 2024 5:02 PM

I agree that’s interesting. It’d be nice to test those substances in isolation. A2

NickM
NickM
Jun 6, 2024 6:36 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

There is no doubt that whole virus samples of the original GMO virus SARS-2 exists frozen under military guard in some Frankenstein Virus Lab of the U$ Department of Defense. For lack of those samples, when SARS-2 flu broke out — first around DoD Bio-warfare Lab in Maryland and then around a U$ DoD funded Lab in Wuhan, China — medical scientists resorted to reconstituting its complete RNA sequence from fragments in samples of the bodily fluids of patients. That sequence matched a bat virus whose genome sequence was already in the library — but with one startling difference: To this bat virus someone had added a GMO sequence patented by Moderna Vaccine Corp in 2016 — four years before the outbreak of Covid-19! The GMO sequence coded for a Spike Protein Binding Site which made this former Bat virus now attack Human bloodvessels! And the same GMO Spike Protein… Read more »

Voltaria Voltaire
Voltaria Voltaire
Jun 6, 2024 8:41 PM
Reply to  NickM

You could look at the website US Right to Know dot org if you can find your way there. U S R T K dot org. They got a lot of data through F O I As. They also have lots of data on Monsanto, etc. So you’d have to really hunt through the data. But it is a treasure trove. Sam Husseini did a lot of work on the Bioweapon issue also. For sure the weapon makers don’t want people to know about the deadly weapons they create. Look at history. No one hardly at all knew about the Atomic Bomb before two were paid for and used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I’m not a proponent of being fearful of these things but unawareness is more dangerous than awareness. The Anthrax letters that were intercepted on the way to US Senators opposing the Iraq war came out of Fort… Read more »

Christine Massey
Christine Massey
Jun 7, 2024 1:20 AM

So cite whatever data you believe is valid and scientific showing a “virus”.

NickM
NickM
Jun 7, 2024 5:34 AM

“The Anthrax letters that were intercepted on the way to US Senators opposing the Iraq war came out of Fort Detrick.” My wife and I were at Lunch in London when we heard the BBC announce an Anthrax Scare, putatively attributed to the Evil One of the Month namely, Saddam Hussein. I said to my wife: “It shouldn’t take more than 15 minutes to sequence that bacterium and look up which Lab it came from. If we do not hear by dinner time, we can be sure it came from a U$ Bio-weapons Lab.” We heard no further news about Anthrax, so I was left wondering which U$ Lab it had come from. Thanks for confirming it was Fort Detrick. That same cheery Fort also brought us Covid-19 by sending some of their infected guards to the U$ team at Army Games 2019 held in Wuhan; where the U$ team… Read more »

Christine Massey
Christine Massey
Jun 7, 2024 1:19 AM
Reply to  NickM

No doubt based on what scientific evidence… for any “virus” ever?

NickM
NickM
Jun 8, 2024 3:53 AM
Reply to  NickM

This is the undoubted fact that most spokes-people avoid in public discussion. Yet it is a most important question for tracking down the villains behind Con-19. Who attached this anti-Human GMO sequence onto a harmless Bat virus?

Dylan Jones
Dylan Jones
Jun 5, 2024 10:34 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

What is Lanka’s view of the work on the elucidation of the Tobacco Mosaic virus? It is purported to be the first virus to be discovered and also the first to be crystallized and its structure shown in full detail using X-Ray diffraction in 1951 by none other than Rosalind Franklin who did the same for DNA. Rosalind Franklin moved to Birkbeck College London and published 17 papers, mainly on the structure of Tobacco mosaic virus. “Franklin took up the study of what is probably the most thoroughly studied of the plant viruses – that of Tobacco Mosaic disease – and almost at once, using the techniques she had already developed, made notable advances in it. She first verified and refined Watson’s spiral hypothesis for the structure of the virus. She then made her greatest contribution in locating the infective element of the virus particle – its characteristic ribose nucleic acid….She… Read more »

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Jun 5, 2024 11:58 PM
Reply to  Dylan Jones

How did she find the alleged ribose nucleic acid for the alleged virus? How did she KNOW this genetic material was specific to Tobacco Mosaic, when no such virus had ever been PROVEN to exist? How is that different from creating a photo of an alleged person?

Dylan Jones
Dylan Jones
Jun 6, 2024 10:22 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

X-ray Crystallography. Same way she found DNA. Tobacco mosaic was deduced to be in existence before it was photographed.
Do you believe in DNA?

NickM
NickM
Jun 7, 2024 5:50 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

“How?”

Read up about Ros Franklin, a Polish Jewish immigrant whose contribution to science in Britain matches that of Marie Sklodowska in France. Read some popular books about her world, with titles like, say, The Virus Hunters. It might stretch your mind and do good to your soul.

NickM
NickM
Jun 6, 2024 6:43 AM
Reply to  Dylan Jones

Thanks for all that solid info, with reference to the great work of Rosalind Franklin (our British Mme Curie?) and quotes from that grand old Head of Department and sower of many fruitful seeds, Prof.Bernal. Something sadly lacking in OffG.

Christine Massey
Christine Massey
Jun 6, 2024 1:43 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

“it would bring into question any part of virology which relies solely or strongly on physical isolation as its premise” What “physical isolation”? The cell cultures of virologists do not result in the physically isolation of anything. I hope you will follow your own advice in the future: “please let’s make sure our statements are factual, let’s not overreach”. “I really look forward to scientists delving even deeper into virology and peeling the onion more and more.” — is this a joke? Everything single aspect of virology has already been thoroughly dissected by Lanka, Cowan, Kaufman, the Baileys, Mike Stone…. Vague references to “dovetailing” with other areas of “science” (virology is not a science) and being linked to “advances” in genetics (making up fraudulent meaningless “genomes” on computers is your idea of an advance?) doesn’t cut it, nor does your attempt to reverse the burden of proof. Show us valid… Read more »

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 6, 2024 1:21 PM

What “physical isolation”?

Well, that was my point. A point you didn’t get.

It’s all very well to claim lack of physical isolation of any viruses, and for the purposes of this discussion I have always been happy to concede that.

How relevant is that though? Is the entirety of virology resting its case on isolation?

There are myriad other indirect ways to observe things in action, I would have thought?

I just don’t want us to erect a straw man in order to knock it down.

I’m just aware that science deals with detecting a lot of subtle particles by a lot of subtle means, that’s kinda its ‘thing’. Therefore, is direct physical isolation KEY to all of virology, and if so why?

Seems like a pretty good question, and one which I hope to see answered soon by Lanka et al, A2

Pawel
Pawel
Jun 6, 2024 4:55 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

You could use exactly the same argument to ‘prove’ that the existence of the Loch Ness monster cannot be ruled out. 🙂

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 6, 2024 5:59 PM
Reply to  Pawel

If you simplify this to some ridiculous binary extreme, ok. But presumably we’re not here to do that, and we should probably accept there’s a degree of nuance in this discussion? We’re not here to get virology thrown out of court on an ‘isolation’ technicality, are we. That’s magical thinking and ain’t gonna happen. I’m interested in sifting through the data and evidence and seeing what stands up and what doesn’t. Investigating. Testing. Picking things apart. The ultimate goal being the pursuit of truth and understanding.

Anyone who isn’t in agreement on that, what are your priorities here?

A2

Voltaria Voltaire
Voltaria Voltaire
Jun 6, 2024 8:57 PM
Reply to  Pawel

Maybe what Sam is saying is that if you see some Loch Ness huge scales, footprints and supersize poo poo on the side of the lake, you don’t just throw out your questions or search. You might find out later that stuff was planted there by a secret enemy and be really pissed, but at least you’d not stop looking because of an assumption. I can see that people on Off G are pissed at being squashed, lied to, betrayed and abused, with their rights all shite all over during the plandemic, but keeping your eyes open is a worthy thing. Never stop increasing understanding.

NickM
NickM
Jun 7, 2024 5:56 AM

“Virology is not a science”

What exactly is your own scientific qualification? The one that makes you fit to judge virology as a science?

NickM
NickM
Jun 6, 2024 5:58 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Well said, Serious Sam. It’s been good knowing you.

Sarah
Sarah
Jun 5, 2024 5:40 AM

There’s so much written about viruses, but these have never been proved or isolated without mixing the so-called pathogen with a soup of other biological materials, so perhaps the whole fraud begins with the “virus” fraud itself.
Whatever happened to seasonal flu with its varied symptoms over the three Covid years? Did it just disappear?
Most Covid deaths, outside of jab harms, occurred in people hospitalized due to hospital protocols (Remdesivir, ventilation, Madazolam + morphine etc) incentivized either by direct financing (US) or raising the number of Covid deaths to fit the fear narrative.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 5, 2024 10:09 AM
Reply to  Sarah

I certainly think high profile, headline-catching ‘novel’ virus announcements can be treated with this approach, but virology as a discipline has been around a while and has been inextricably linked to breakthroughs in other sciences, like genetics.

I welcome a challenge to virology and want to prevent the next ‘pandemic’ from gaining momentum based on scanty, hazy or non-existent evidence and a dodgy test. I agree there’s very little good evidence ‘covid’ harmed anyone.

I just wish the discussion could focus more on this instead of overreaching to claim there are no viruses PERIOD. I don’t find this helpful.

It has good points, but I think the discussion lacks focus. A2

Dale
Dale
Jun 5, 2024 12:39 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

There are no viruses in precisely the same way that there are no unicorns. There may be unicorns, you say ? Happy hunting! I’ll continue to maintain that unicorns aren’t the reason for my patchy lawn.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 5, 2024 1:28 PM
Reply to  Dale

We can all argue by blank assertion like this, and you’re obviously entitled to your view, however I don’t find it all that helpful. Let’s try not to get tribal about this, and maintain an open mind until definitive evidence makes drawing conclusions easier. I have been very interested in the findings of Lanka et al, and I’m eagerly awaiting their comprehensive scientific rebuttal of the shortcomings of identifying so-called ‘novel’ scary viruses. I think it is very legitimate to test and investigate this fully.

When it comes to virology as a whole and the progress that the science has helped facilitate in other areas of science, like genetics, I find it almost impossible to declare there are ‘no viruses’ at this point.

I will of course remain open minded, and I would love to read critical papers, if and when they appear! I find this subject extremely interesting. A2

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Jun 5, 2024 5:34 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

The existence of viruses is an hypothesis which has never been proven. In fact, contagion theory has never been proven, numerous attempts over the last 120+ years have failed.
Virology – The Damning Evidence. The Stake In The Heart For This Pseudoscientific Profession. DPL, 3/7/23.
https://dpl003.substack.com/p/virology-the-damning-evidence

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 5, 2024 10:30 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Setting up an isolation straw man and knocking it down is not the same as disproving virology in its entirety.

I welcome a big spotlight shone on big pharma-driven virology scams like covid. Hallelujah! However, I do struggle to accept that a hundred years’ worth of virology that predates much of the technology we use nowadays is also 100% bogus. That doesn’t add ip to me.

If someone could argue this persuasively from the evidence I would very much like to read it! A2

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Jun 6, 2024 6:12 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Virology has never been proven. It is up to someone making a claim to prove it, not up to everyone else to disprove it. That’s how i was taught science works, and reminded the entire time till i got my degree.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 6, 2024 6:07 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Try using that argument to overturn genetic evidence in court.

purgatorium
purgatorium
Jun 5, 2024 8:44 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

red herrings. The real issue is that viruses are not pathogens, even if they exist. They are (at times) observable particles that do things, but the story that they “infect” and multiply and cause disease is pure psy ops / black magic. Human beings are not tobacco plants either!

No doubt tobacco virus is the result of huge monocrops and the use of chemicals, like the various farm animal diseases.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 5, 2024 11:26 PM
Reply to  purgatorium

No doubt

No doubt? Really?

I respectfully suggest that if scientific doubt exists around viruses then scientific doubt most certainly exists around the things you vaguely describe here.

Let’s not just assert things. Let’s try to be consistent. Believe what you like but it’s not the basis for an intelligent alternative to virology if you just assert it. Let’s stop all this silliness. Thanks, A2

Maxwell
Maxwell
Jun 6, 2024 12:44 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Rather than this back and forth Sam can you simply do the following as requested by Christine Massey: 1) Cite a study and walk your readers through the Methods section; 2) Identify the hypothesis being tested, the independent variable, the dependent variable and the methods used to test the hypothesis; 3) Explain how the scientific method was applied and the methods were logical; 4) Validate that the results show that a specific particle (the purported “genome” and protein shell, and the envelope with purported proteins if applicable) is in sick “hosts”; 5) Illustrate that this particle infects cells, replicates and causes a specific disease, and that the disease and particle are contagious. I’ve watched for a few years now as you go back and forth on this and I’ve not once seen you walk through a study in this manner nor have I seen you discuss source material. Now I… Read more »

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 6, 2024 3:14 PM
Reply to  Maxwell

Well, you’re attempting to reframe my discussion and recasting me as a virologist. Basically setting up a straw man to knock down. I am not a virologist and have never claimed otherwise. I’m also happy to concede that no virus has ever been isolated ever, for the sake of this discussion. Nor am I aware of where to go to have any form of contagion (bacterial or viral) experimentally demonstrated. So let’s concede that too for now. However, I think there’s a danger we’re getting hung up on too specific questions, which may not have a straightforward answer or may be formatted in a way that returns no answers. I see this being used as a springboard to split off into tribes, and I don’t understand that. Are we concerned enough with trying to make holistic sense of the data in front of us before we draw our conclusions? It’s… Read more »

NickM
NickM
Jun 8, 2024 4:14 AM
Reply to  Maxwell

What you ask for is very reasonable and educational, Unfortunately neither Sam nor anyone else on OffG’s bright but miniscule editorial staff has either the time or the scientific qualifications to do it. They might commission a virologist friend (if they have one) to write it.

Meanwhile — while you are burning with thirst for answers to your 5 Questions — why not read some popular science articles on elementary virology. There used to be an educational best seller — back in the days when even some famous scientists scoffed at Pasteur’s discovery of bacteria – called The Microbe Hunters. Why not search for modern versions of this topic with titles like, say, The Virus Hunters?

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Jun 5, 2024 11:47 PM
Reply to  purgatorium

Proof of contagion theory? You did not respond to this.

NickM
NickM
Jun 6, 2024 6:48 AM
Reply to  purgatorium

I fear you shall have to spend another thousand years in Purgatorium to clear your brain of those obstinate misconceptions.

Literally nobody
Literally nobody
Jun 5, 2024 4:53 AM

Massive piece content and scale might be easier to digest in parts but excellent nonetheless

Djt
Djt
Jun 5, 2024 3:24 AM

Covid is a scam, it’s based upon a belief system predicated upon the trust of the authorities and self proclaimed experts, once the underlying methods that are used to claim the existence of any virus are examined and understood the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it’s all total nonsense.

Johnny
Johnny
Jun 5, 2024 2:22 AM

The Australian Information Commissioner is suing Medibank, one of Australia’s biggest health funds, for $21 trillion dollars (an ambit figure) for a data breach in 2022.

These Suiturds are hilarious.

Vaccine mandates, lockdowns, a reign of terror, thousands of vaccine induced injuries, QR codes etc ad nauseam, and now they’re pretending to protect our privacy.

Lock the Turds up.

Johnny
Johnny
Jun 5, 2024 1:46 AM

Caitlin Johnstone on Global Research:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/brinkmanship-russia-keeps-escalating/5858995

At least they haven’t thrown the baby out with the bath water.

purgatorium
purgatorium
Jun 5, 2024 8:51 PM
Reply to  Johnny

just more nuclear war fear porn…

https://mpalmer.heresy.is/webnotes/HR/index.html

Christine Massey
Christine Massey
Jun 5, 2024 1:23 AM

“The theory that there was a long-standing but hitherto undetected virus endemic in animal (and possibly human) reservoirs is difficult if not impossible to falsify.” — Classic attempt at reversing the burden of proof. I challenge the authors to back up their positive claim of “viruses” existing with valid, primary scientific evidence. Cite a study and walk your readers through the Methods section and identify the hypothesis being tested, the independent variable (if there even is one), the dependent variable, the methods used to test the hypothesis, and explain how the scientific method was actually applied and the methods were logical and valid and that the results show that a specific particle (the purported “genome” and protein shell, and the envelope with purported proteins if applicable) is in sick “hosts”, infects cells, replicates and causes a dis-ease, and that the dis-ease and particle are contagious. The link provided for “HECV-4408”… Read more »

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 5, 2024 10:00 AM

I think these are reasonable questions, and it’s nice to see you able to contribute on this before the debate has got hopelessly polarised. 😅

Did you accidentally get invited to a virus conference recently? How did that happen?

Christine Massey
Christine Massey
Jun 6, 2024 1:29 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Hi Sam. Yes I was invited, apparently by accident (lol).

If you watch Dr. Sam Bailey’s ‘s video about the roundtable (https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/theresa-thams-leaked-meeting-reveals)
or look here (http://www.bccdc.ca/about/leadership)
you will see that a Christine Massey is listed as “Executive Vice President, Population Health and Wellness, Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA)” at BC’s CDC, so it seems that they meant to invite her instead of me and made an auto-fill error.

I have no way of knowing for sure what happened unless I file an FOI about it, which I’ve not bothered to do. I’ve sent many “germ”-related FOIs in Canada, so no surprise if I’m in some “governmental” email address books.

les online
les online
Jun 5, 2024 1:21 AM

Fish seen acting like hoomins, and not just fish !
‘[…] sheep, and earthworms move in circles for hours,
unable to break themselves from “the spell”‘
https://principia-scientific.com/telecoms-weaponized-5g-caught-in-the-act-while-we-sleep/

Veri Tas
Veri Tas
Jun 5, 2024 1:13 AM

Covid-19 / Sars-Cov 2 ??? First there was this: Positive association between Covid-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in the elderly – worldwide Wehenkel C. 2020. Positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide.  PeerJ 8:e10112https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10112 https://peerj.com/articles/10112/ “for every 10% increase in flu shot uptake there is an increase of about 83 Covid-19 deaths per million.” https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1932/rr-24 Note that the average age of those who supposedly died of “covid” was above 80 years of age, and that many of those people died in aged-care facilities during the “pandemic” year of 2020 where it is mandatory to receive Flu shots. And then there’s all of this, and more to show that there no proof of harmful viruses (wild or manufactured), nor of contagion, and that it is vaccinations (and other environmental poisons) which cause harm: Gain of Function Lie: expose-news.com-The Gain of Function GOF Lab Leaked Bioweapon Story is Pure… Read more »

SeamusPadraig
SeamusPadraig
Jun 5, 2024 11:49 AM
Reply to  Veri Tas

So what caused the Black Death in the 13th century? Vaccines?

T.S.
T.S.
Jun 5, 2024 12:16 PM
Reply to  SeamusPadraig

Unhealthy Environment ? Poisons ?
In latin virus means poison

Veri Tas
Veri Tas
Jun 5, 2024 9:54 PM
Reply to  T.S.

Yes, and squalor, poverty, lack of nutrition.

Baldmichael Theresolute
Baldmichael Theresolute
Jun 5, 2024 2:57 PM
Reply to  SeamusPadraig

Protocols like the COVID 19 nonsense combined with underlying poor santitation, air quality and nutritional deficits. Being bitten by fleas will not help either.

They locked people up in their homes like lockdowns.

https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/l-is-for-lockdown/

JAB
JAB
Jun 5, 2024 3:33 PM
Reply to  SeamusPadraig

Bacterium passed by fleas on rats.

Lizzyh7
Lizzyh7
Jun 5, 2024 8:34 PM
Reply to  SeamusPadraig

Raw sewage.

purgatorium
purgatorium
Jun 5, 2024 8:51 PM
Reply to  SeamusPadraig

were you there to see it happening?

Veri Tas
Veri Tas
Jun 5, 2024 9:53 PM
Reply to  SeamusPadraig

Read Dr Suzanne Humphrey’s & Roman Bystrianyk’s book: Dissolving Illusions.

Suzanne_humphries_dissolving_illusions_disappearance_polio.pdf

Voltaria Voltaire
Voltaria Voltaire
Jun 6, 2024 9:14 PM
Reply to  SeamusPadraig

It was fleas on the rats and rodents running wild through the insufficient sanitation systems. And it accelerated with more death and decaying bodies as the rodent problem increased. But I’m not a viralogist either. So I can make mistakes like the next Joe. But there are advantages to modern sanitation and cleanliness. Unfortunately the poor Palestinians don’t have much options about that right now. But the killers who would be happy to see the human race disappear are quite gleeful.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Jun 5, 2024 12:50 AM

Soren Kierkegaard, Philosopher, about his despise for “Science”:

Now you must to Australia, now wandered lonely, now down in a Cave under the Earth, now the Hell with Violence in the Ass after a Canker; now the Telescope is used, now the Microscope, then the Stethoscope: who hath Satan can have it!“.

We cant discuss in a serious way laboratory findings in a microscope. It can only be one postulate against another.
What we can discuss is the clear visible mental and physical effects, negative as positive, on the living guinea pigs from the said, if any.
On Television or media you can never know whether the said is an actor, manipulator or a sales man.

We can only really know by experience from ourselves or from some family or friends or people who have been exposed physically.

mgeo
mgeo
Jun 6, 2024 6:23 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Only what is good for capitalism gets publicised, regardless of whether the subject is an actor, scientist, adventurer, etc. BBC TV has a series on people trying to live away from others, but the pitch is that they are responding to the threat of climate change.

Johnny
Johnny
Jun 5, 2024 12:48 AM

Is the vaccine WAR on the people just an updated version of the opium wars?
Food for thought:

https://dissidentvoice.org/2024/06/britains-century-long-opium-trafficking-and-chinas-century-of-humiliation-1839-1949/

SeamusPadraig
SeamusPadraig
Jun 5, 2024 11:50 AM
Reply to  Johnny

Hmmm. Sassoons? Sacklers? You might be on to something there …

Johnny
Johnny
Jun 5, 2024 12:20 PM
Reply to  SeamusPadraig
judith
judith
Jun 5, 2024 12:26 PM
Reply to  Johnny

Thank you for the link.
Tragic.
Funny, we don’t learn this history in school.
Actually, of course, not so funny.

Veri Tas
Veri Tas
Jun 5, 2024 12:09 AM

“Virological evidence” – what an oxymoron. Before attempting to find a novel virus, virologists should attempt to lay out the science of having found a virus.

SusanD
SusanD
Jun 4, 2024 10:57 PM

Stirring the pot about the origin of the SARS2 virus is a great way for Fauci to dodge the real bullet: there is NO justification for the constraints and vaccine forced on the American public. Those were all done in the name of a deadly disease caused by a virus that actually did not exist; and whatever COVID was, it was not particularly deadly. As long as the public could be distracted by questions of authenticity of the foundational story (of the lab or wild ilk), the fraud could be continued.

I watched the Congresional hearing wth Fauci yesterday. What a farce. He had to be smiling inside as he left, knowing his questioners never got close to the real problem.

Maxwell
Maxwell
Jun 4, 2024 11:50 PM
Reply to  SusanD

Crook that he is Fauci is only the bag man. Put simply, Covid-19 was not a widespread medical emergency, it was a money laundering scheme, a massive psychological operation and a smoke screen for a complete overhaul and restructuring of the current social and economic world order. Among many operational goals they killed off millions of individuals (elderly and disabled etc.) that “were a drain” on their inhumane system in order to save trillions in unfunded liabilities- pensions etc. This has been talked about openly for years and they did it. Covid-19, the disease, is nothing more than a disease of ATTRIBUTION. Covid-19, the media event, was the Trojan Horse constructed to usher in a complete transformation of our society. Covid-19, the operation, was never an epidemiological event, it is a business model meant to increase the portfolios of the super-wealthy. There is no such thing as “Covid 19” except… Read more »

antonym
antonym
Jun 5, 2024 2:30 AM
Reply to  SusanD

This does not in any form or shape extortionate Fausti. He was pointman in US fearmongering for his home made problem AND solution PLUS the lockdown health and economy killer grips.
If you read the article above you can only conclude that visuses and animals have been in a “tango” for so many millions of years that that there are no deadly combinations left, even after lab GoF or LoF. Luckily for any virus our immune systems are so robust, otherwise they would lose all their hosts and so their future.

The above should keep any investor, military or speculative out of virus-vax combo investments.

Denying that viruses ever existed is painting yourself or this site as a fanatic reality denier den. It is a bridge too far.

judith
judith
Jun 5, 2024 12:28 PM
Reply to  SusanD

I’d say that the hearing itself was a farce.
They all knew/know what was going on. They always do.
These hearings are an insult.
Dog and pony shows.

Dylan Jones
Dylan Jones
Jun 4, 2024 10:32 PM

There is another reason the virus could have had the “gain of function signature” and that was to frame China. “Gain of function” on its own doesn’t mean “deadly bioweapon” Remember what Luc Montagnier claimed: “The possibility is probably they wanted to make a vaccine against the Aids. So, they took small sequences of the virus and they installed them on the larger sequence of the coronavirus.” Curious that the idea that Covid was a rogue viral-vector vaccine, considering that the Oxford vaccine group and Astrazeneca was busy developing its own viral vector vaccine which inserted the very same sequence. Montagnier also claimed that the genetic inserts from HIV applied to the coronavirus would gradually disappear as the virus mutated. Like a bioengineered Snapchat. Indeed this is perhaps why bioweapons only work locally and not globally, as Dr John Lee theorised that the virus may have been more lethal in China and as… Read more »

Voltaria Voltaire
Voltaria Voltaire
Jun 6, 2024 9:42 PM
Reply to  Dylan Jones

Yeah, I wouldnt trust Giordano as he seems like a huge Con artist to me, trying to sell killers things that he promotes as being hepped up ways to kill, getting rich off grants. But the powers that shouldn’t be really want WWIII and want to blame China for Covid. Intetesting that the World Military games took place that Fall 2019 in Wuhan and soldiers from all over the world were getting flu symptoms and going back to their countries, or where they were stationed. They had stayed overnight near to the fish market during the games. The whole fish market and pangolin thing was utter nonsense.

SusanD
SusanD
Jun 4, 2024 10:30 PM

Jumping in here with two feet. Have to agree with doubts on the existence of influenza. Although I have no problem with using the word “flu” to identify certain upper respiratory illness. And, FWIW, I have doubts on the existence of viruses.
 
My major complaint with the lengthy discussion of what coronaviruses can and cannot do is this: where is the proof that a biological SARS-CoV-2 virus actually existed? I have yet to find it. I have found a number of claims about a virus created by software. Thus I think that the arguments about man-made vs. natural SARS-CoV-2 are immaterial.

Maxwell
Maxwell
Jun 4, 2024 11:56 PM
Reply to  SusanD

‘Flu’ is just a catch-all coined to pinpoint a condition for which there is no specific condition in order to sell a product that is certain to harm you further.

‘Flu’ is a detox mechanism. Eat well all year ’round and be sure to get outside all year ’round every day and quite a bit no matter the weather and you’ll rarely get the level of toxicity that brings you to the state of having ‘the flu.’

Stay indoors and eat crap and get zero exercise you’ll get hammered at some point.

mgeo
mgeo
Jun 5, 2024 8:42 AM
Reply to  Maxwell

Comfort: less activity, less sweating and more food or other pleasure. One report said indoor (urban?) air may be worse than outdoors. EU reported (maybe a decade ago) that outdoor air itself was poor across most of Europe.

Baldmichael Theresolute
Baldmichael Theresolute
Jun 5, 2024 3:06 PM
Reply to  SusanD

Maxwell summed it up nicely to you re ‘flu in his reply. I would add that most disease is essentially a form of ‘flu as we understand the term. This is my link on coronavirus.

https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2024/04/24/coronavirus-is-it-really-a-monster-and-if-not-what-is-it/

AntiSoof
AntiSoof
Jun 4, 2024 10:13 PM

More than eighty pages and more then eighty references. And it is assumed anyone does read that? Such a text would take me a month to a year to read it (perfectly) good.
(Thanks to the (discovery of) the printing press all/many people could learn to read and write and the world have been going crazy ever since. (That’s only 400 years since eternity!))

mgeo
mgeo
Jun 5, 2024 8:43 AM
Reply to  AntiSoof

The message: Nothing to see here; move along.

Edward Bernaysauce
Edward Bernaysauce
Jun 4, 2024 9:46 PM

in light of the above essay I recommend reading:
https://shawnloomis.substack.com/p/covid-19-the-worlds-biggest-mass

ariel
ariel
Jun 5, 2024 9:35 PM

A ‘must-read’ !

George Mc
George Mc
Jun 4, 2024 7:52 PM

Another bio-medico-scientifico essay in waffle-de-doo. Nobody up there ever gave a shit about this. They weren’t even thinking about it – beyond getting their hired hacks to fire up the medical equivalent of the postmodernism generator for the indefinite production of polysyllabic ramalamadingdong.

All that was needed was to engineer a panic over how old people were – shock horror! – dying, re-designate perfectly natural deaths as “something fishy” and then generate a fear of the symptoms of the common cold. Oh – and mass produce bits of plastic that would turn black with selected brands of fizzy drink.

Instant pandemic. Instant tickets for scrapping genuine services and actually needed treatments. Instant ops for massive downsizing of population via lack of care. And not forgetting of course the ops for ka-CHING!

Salamander
Salamander
Jun 5, 2024 8:05 AM
Reply to  George Mc

Correctly stated. It’s all about the money and control by the the weak, hidden behind their police cartel and money. The C hoax was nothing more than a TV drama series, driven by the ludicrous pcr scam, but everything about money and central banks manipulations that crashed their phony system of credit again, with the C hoax being nothing but cover up ops, and means to further usurp control over us, the sheeple. CBDCs are looming over our heads, Gaza style high tech and military driven prison, and Chinese total control, are what our children can expect, and until mothers won’t realise that raising their children to act as soldiers, politicians, police, is evil, then we and our children are doomed to start experiencing what both Palestinians and Chinese are going through today. We are born out of nothing, until we realise that Life isn’t about happiness and having it… Read more »

Duncan Disorderly
Duncan Disorderly
Jun 4, 2024 7:45 PM

No,No,NO! you are perpetuating the LIE that Covid actually was a thing!, it wasn’t anything other than normal seasonal flu dressed up with a fancy name and manipulated statistics, I honestly expect better from OG.

Martha
Martha
Jun 4, 2024 10:14 PM

And you are perpetuating the lie that there is a thing called the seasonal flu. Flu-like symptoms of unknown origin might be a better way to say it because it doesn’t presuppose a transmissible particle causing sickness, which doesn’t actually exist.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 5, 2024 9:55 AM

I didn’t think the authors were at all. I actually think they’re agreeing with you. A2

SeamusPadraig
SeamusPadraig
Jun 5, 2024 11:55 AM

Isn’t that kind of what the article implies? Or did you read it?

Paul Prichard
Paul Prichard
Jun 4, 2024 7:18 PM

Your alternative update on #COVID19 for 2024-06-03. Philippines suffered multiple 100k of excess deaths and a 1m fewer babies born. Bird flu GoF researchers (blog, gab, tweet, pic1, pic2, pic3, pic4).

Maxwell
Maxwell
Jun 4, 2024 6:57 PM

“Covid” is not an epidemiological story it is a crime story. The “virus” itself was birthed in the corporate boardrooms of Pharma/Finance and leaked via a memo. Consider that we are looking at a ‘virus’ that cannot be identified as SARS-CoV-2 (there is no evidence), so that’s the end of that story. It was man made on a computer by Drosten et al in Berlin in January 2020 for reasons that we all know. The average age of a death by or with “Covid-19” is higher than life expectancy. No other figure even need be known to understand the “pandemic” (business model) is a fraud and a giant Ponzi scheme. The fact that there is no such thing as a “Covid death” is another minor problem here as SARSCoV2 itself is a computer generated fiction. Everything you see or read is an orchestrated narrative that’s been crafted to sell a… Read more »

Johnny
Johnny
Jun 5, 2024 12:08 AM
Reply to  Maxwell

Welcome back Maxwell.
Long time no see.
Always enjoy your erudite and eloquent Truth bombs.
Keep well.

Maxwell
Maxwell
Jun 5, 2024 1:54 AM
Reply to  Johnny

Thanks Johnny.

Excellent piece on China and the Opium Wars. Quite relevant to today.

On that theme:

China’s “Third Opium War”. Covid-19 and the Opium Wars. The Alliance of Global Finance and IT Tyranny
https://www.globalresearch.ca/third-opium-war/5801610

Johnny
Johnny
Jun 5, 2024 10:34 AM
Reply to  Maxwell

Thanks Maxwell.
I’ll check that out.

Johnny
Johnny
Jun 5, 2024 11:52 AM
Reply to  Maxwell

An excellent piece Maxwell.
The precedent for the Scamdemic right in front of us.
The Chinese people being manipulated yet again.
A tragedy of epic proportions that everyone should know about. It includes vaccine addiction:

‘Such addictions inhibit complex, three-dimensional thinking, and reduce the ability for long-term planning of the citizen. If you check social media giants like Wechat and Toutiao regularly for a few months you will no longer be capable of thinking for yourself.’

el Gallinazo
el Gallinazo
Jun 5, 2024 1:00 AM
Reply to  Maxwell

I agree with all that you wrote except “The virus itself was birthed in the corporate boardrooms of Pharma/Finance and leaked via a memo.” In fact, it was birthed (as far “up” as is currently traceable) by the US DoD and the US National Security Council as a coordinated psy-op. Big Pharma was just asked by the DoD and BARDA, “Hey dudes, how would like to make a couple of hundred billion dollars for putting your name on an injectable product that we will send to you and faking some rigged trials. We will take care of shooting up all the victims and you will get total legal immunity for eternity.” It was an offer these psychos couldn’t refuse.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Jun 5, 2024 1:28 AM
Reply to  el Gallinazo

“US DoD and the US National Security Council ” are and have always been agents working for the corporate boardrooms, including Pharma/Finance. Look at the people who’ve been sec of “defense.” since the department’s inception in 1947.

el Gallinazo
el Gallinazo
Jun 5, 2024 6:53 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

TPTSB, which at the higher levels above the Rothschilds and Rockefellers usually hide in the shadows, do not always manage society in order to augment their bottom line. I would point to the recent campaign of Bud Light/Anheuser Bush with Dylan Mulvaney as their poster”girl” as an example of how they used a meme to push an aspect of their long term agenda at the cost of billions of profit. I refer to the facts uncovered by Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova through their in-depth research and analysis showing that the DoD paid for all the clotshot poisons and supervised their initial rollout into the arms of a largely gullible and terrorized public. BARDA worked hand and glove with them. The subverted legislation that gave control and immunity, passed as acts a decade or even two before the scamdemic, giving control to the DoD for any purported scamdemic as needing military countermeasures. I despise Big Pharma,… Read more »

mgeo
mgeo
Jun 6, 2024 7:00 AM
Reply to  el Gallinazo

In 2021 in the Land of the Free (TM) and of the First Amendment, all government info on covid had to be approved by the President (White House) before dissemination.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Jun 4, 2024 6:46 PM

“The features of SARS-CoV-2 do not appear to be as ‘special’ or ‘unique’ as claimed.”

What’s the evidence that SARS-CoV-2 even exists, to have any features at all? Why have 222 health/science entities around the world stated, in response to FOIA requests, that they have no evidence for the physical isolation and purification of SARS-CoV-2?
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/68-health-science-institutions-globally-all-failed-to-cite-even-1-record-of-sars-cov-2-purification-by-anyone-anywhere-ever/

mgeo
mgeo
Jun 5, 2024 8:50 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

The authors were stating the most basic problem: no unique or consistent symptoms.

Sophie - Admin1
Admin
Sophie - Admin1
Jun 5, 2024 9:12 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Do you not see the value in showing the covid narrative fails even on its own terms?

Big Al
Big Al
Jun 4, 2024 5:48 PM

The seasonal flu disappeared, man. Explain that.

“Why aren’t there flu burden estimates for the 2020-21 flu season?Every year, CDC usually generates estimates of the number of illnesses, medical visits, hospitalizations and deaths that happen during a flu season—these estimates are used to collectively describe the annual burden of flu. To produce these estimates, CDC uses a mathematical model that is based in part on the number of people that are hospitalized with flu in our hospitalization surveillance network, FluSurv-NET. During the 2020-2021 season, however; the number of people hospitalized with flu was too low to generate stable burden estimates as is done for a typical flu season.”

Frequently Asked Questions about Estimated Flu Burden | CDC

Not to mention the plethora of other indicators, signs, contradictions, and coincidences concerning the FAKE Covid-19 scamdemic. All the scientific gobbledygook in the world can’t dispute the obvious facts.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Jun 5, 2024 1:51 AM
Reply to  Big Al

Its because the military airplanes they use to spread flue, was instead used to fly Corona all over the place? Do you buy that one.

Big Al
Big Al
Jun 5, 2024 3:40 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

I don’t think I’d waste my money on that Erik, whatever it means.

antonym
antonym
Jun 4, 2024 5:28 PM

What happened, viruses suddenly do exist on planet Off-G??

This sensible article on the SARSCov2 scamdemic tells that viruses are real but are not at all so deadly as fearmongered by the WHO & CDC. Our immune systems have been tuned over millions of years to these old buggers.

  • Two novel hypotheses on the origin of the SARSCov2 virus, great.
  • Condemning bioweapon research funded by DoD and the PLA, great.
  • Exposing a virus+ vax $cam (chicken or egg?), great.

Not touching the weird situation that US DoD research in done in potential enemy state the PRC, missing, or that commercial research copulated with state paid search.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Jun 5, 2024 9:26 AM
Reply to  antonym

No one said they didn’t exist. Some people in the comments debate whether contagious viruses exist, and much fun is had debating the matter in good spirits, but i don’t believe ‘Off-G’ has stated a position. We’ve published a range of pieces with a range of views over the years, and we’ve mostly attempted to disprove the ‘pandemic’ narrative using its own flawed logic against it, on its own terms. It has always been wildly inconsistent and self contradictory. A2

antonym
antonym
Jun 5, 2024 10:25 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Some people in the comments”: look at the next one below from “el Gallinazo” with 47 thumbs up. Ok, 40 will be of Bellingcat type$ but still some left do not believe viruses exist. Even bots should acknowledge viruses, be they computer ones.