This is fascinating. One of the links leads to this: “reported the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 sequences within a set of antarctic soil samples taken in a 3-week-period after 24-12-2018”. December 2018?
"The spike protein is 100% identical to the amino acid sequence of C19 spike minus the 4 critical A.As in the FCS. " so is this a sequence before the FCS was added, or did someone remove the FCS? And is it possibly linked to the "spiked vape"/ EVALI theory ??
Since the sequence was deposited in NCBI in 2022, it could be someone working on this after C19 is disclosed in Jan 2020. Thats why the sequencing date is so important.
I want to point out that comparing the 4X cov. to 2500X cov. in your example is not really apples to apples. The former was done on MGI, probably using a standard gDNA extraction that would lose most of the plasmids during clean up, and the latter is a pacbio assembly that's obviously meant for max complete coverage. Also for what it's worth, I wouldn't trust the consensus accuracy on 5-10X short read assembly so any real alignment/variant analysis with these plasmid sequences is sus, imo. Really wish they provided the raw read data...
Extremely interesting but one thing I'm stuck on is this:
"The nucleotide sequence is 73% identical to the virus and 88% identical to BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. This implies codon optimization occurred"
If the P.aeruginosa spike sequence was a potential smoking gun for lab-leak (sequence date dependent) why would the sequence not align 100% to the "wild" virus spike? putting it another way if you'd already engineered a spike why would you re-engineer it again with "dumbed-down" codons?
I'm probably missing some important detail but would welcome someone to help me understand.
I think who ever made this spike did it to test out spike blocking agents like EK1.
They ablated the FCS and added a 5’ tag and a 3’ tag. These mods are indicative of a lab construct one could use to express spike and screen it against a library or molecules that could interfere with its pathology.
I have Bromelain, Quercetin/Zn, IVM, CBD, CBC, CBG, and Nattokinase stocked. Im not the best person to speak to all their efficacy data. Just feel its cheap to have on hand in case another C19 infection enters the house.
Also check out Butylated Hydroxytoluene - it's supposed to disable all lipid-shelled viruses, which includes all flu viruses and then some! Naturally, than covers all **RS-XXX-X varieties.
Hard to know since the authors havent provided the date of sequencing.
It very well could be a contamination from a lab that ablated FCS in order to make spike protein from the vector that they could test drugs against.
What a fantastic article!
This is fascinating. One of the links leads to this: “reported the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 sequences within a set of antarctic soil samples taken in a 3-week-period after 24-12-2018”. December 2018?
http://adeno-news.com/2022/08/09/unique-sars-cov-2-genomes-found-in-antarctic-samples-raises-questions-about-sars-cov-2-origin-lineages/
Does this point to existence of a SARS-CoV-2 in late 2018 or is there another reason why this date isn’t damning on its own?
Steve Massey has dissected that.
There is a thread on it here-
https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1492181660682625024?s=20&t=PKjUGiNEG00VIahseT3Zsw
I must be missing something. How does one make the jump from Dec 2018 to Dec 2019?
"The spike protein is 100% identical to the amino acid sequence of C19 spike minus the 4 critical A.As in the FCS. " so is this a sequence before the FCS was added, or did someone remove the FCS? And is it possibly linked to the "spiked vape"/ EVALI theory ??
Since the sequence was deposited in NCBI in 2022, it could be someone working on this after C19 is disclosed in Jan 2020. Thats why the sequencing date is so important.
I want to point out that comparing the 4X cov. to 2500X cov. in your example is not really apples to apples. The former was done on MGI, probably using a standard gDNA extraction that would lose most of the plasmids during clean up, and the latter is a pacbio assembly that's obviously meant for max complete coverage. Also for what it's worth, I wouldn't trust the consensus accuracy on 5-10X short read assembly so any real alignment/variant analysis with these plasmid sequences is sus, imo. Really wish they provided the raw read data...
Extremely interesting but one thing I'm stuck on is this:
"The nucleotide sequence is 73% identical to the virus and 88% identical to BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. This implies codon optimization occurred"
If the P.aeruginosa spike sequence was a potential smoking gun for lab-leak (sequence date dependent) why would the sequence not align 100% to the "wild" virus spike? putting it another way if you'd already engineered a spike why would you re-engineer it again with "dumbed-down" codons?
I'm probably missing some important detail but would welcome someone to help me understand.
I think who ever made this spike did it to test out spike blocking agents like EK1.
They ablated the FCS and added a 5’ tag and a 3’ tag. These mods are indicative of a lab construct one could use to express spike and screen it against a library or molecules that could interfere with its pathology.
don't you think that the FCS was inserted after the code optimization and this is the "wild-type" human adapted version?
I have Bromelain, Quercetin/Zn, IVM, CBD, CBC, CBG, and Nattokinase stocked. Im not the best person to speak to all their efficacy data. Just feel its cheap to have on hand in case another C19 infection enters the house.
Also check out Butylated Hydroxytoluene - it's supposed to disable all lipid-shelled viruses, which includes all flu viruses and then some! Naturally, than covers all **RS-XXX-X varieties.