I also want to emphasize that JJ is not a “No virus person”
He has also pointed out/asked why there are only 111 full length reads in the nanopore data KIm et al.
That is likely due to the fact that nanopores selectively load smaller fragments.
For people to get these glorious long reads on nanopores, you have perform all types of size selections to get rid of the small shrapnel otherwise they consume all the pore space.
I should have better explained that oddity in KIm et al.
I still think Couey's instincts regarding the meta are valuable - because, well, lots of people have already been making those same points, myself included: "lab leak" plays more like a deliberately staged counter-narrative, made to appear like a forbidden secret that would finally be "vindicated" in the mainstream so we could all go back to bed.
And the case for DEFUSE->WIV->SARS-CoV-2 is weak. WIV was focusing on southwest china derived genes, not northwest Laos (BANAL). And their style was way messier than the proposed SARS-CoV-2 BsmBI / BsaI map. So they aren't where it came from. Evidence continues to point to October 2019 as emergence (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.04.519037v1
), Wuhan was not NOT having the military games at the time.
I'm ambivalent about the case for SARS-CoV-2 really having "global transmission competence." Yes, you have FCS fidelity in all the clades, but said clades keep dying out, requiring these miraculous "resets" from B.1.1 backbones every year. Hmm. At best you could say BA.2 and 5 have finally demonstrated staying power.
What? Nepetalactone is written by McKernan? Is that true? I'm curious because whoever wrote this blog entry didn't understand Couey's theory at all. I urge anyone interested to watch a few episodes of GigaohmBiological.com.
Thanks - that was a huge output in a short amount of time. And thanks for pointing out that JJ is not one of those saying there's no virus. He seems to indicate that recently a bunch of his friends/colleagues were turning on him saying he's become an anti-virus guy for his shift. Science is savage. IDK. This is not my world. Yes, I think JJ is saying that an infectious clone (man made) quickly "reverts" (not his exact word) to a form that is much less harmful than it started out being and then it goes *poof*. You on the other hand think they are strong enough to lap the globe. Does he think swarms are just roaming around naturally ? I don't recall that. I think he's saying that infectious clones were sent to various areas of the world for contamination - to make "outbreaks" that the media, NIH, HHS, CDC, FDA then could use to whip us up into a frenzy. That may be why people got so near-death sick. If they caught turbo charged clones there would be sickness--I know some healthy young Chicago kids that got terribly sick in the summer of 2019 - so sick they couldn't even order in supplies for themselves --my daughter had to do it for them. So I wonder if "stuff" was circulating even then. BUT after making many people terribly sick and killing some, they would revert -- and then go *poof*. I think JJ also showed that excess morbidity from I and P in 2021-22 was based on bad treatment (iatrogenic?) and he thinks that MIS-CODING regular illnesses for Covid created the initial "pandemic". Don't know how you feel about that. Even though you have a great depth of knowledge you seem to be a fair and considerate person and I hope Couey responds. Thanks!
This is the element of the theory that I find compelling, and it can be tenuously valid without leaning so heavily on critiques of RNA virus fidelity or PCR/sequencing accuracy.
It still has significance that ICs can be used to easily whip up a lot of virus. The same way it has significance that you can gather a lot of animals together in one place. One thing creates a toxic concentration that natural roaming patterns don't facilitate. This would still imply that there should be some kind of "closeness to clade root" effect for pathogenicity and Delta is a problem here, since it seems to carry its potency from India to the rest of the world in natural transmission chains. So then you have to speculate that someone is updating the IC to imitate life even more rapidly than between major variant drops, or widespread falsification of sequences, you get in a lot more tenuous territory.
Very good point. How does the IC *poof* theory account for Delta which was here for so long and traveled so far. Is Delta traceable? I saw a list last year of well over 100 mutations or variants of SARS CoV2 (edit: correction, not “Covid”) to date as a demonstration of its ability to change. But I don’t know how such a list is compiled or ascertained.
"Traceable?" Well, in the hyper-sequencing UK multiple branches of Delta (it was already pretty branched before the first cases were sequenced, supporting another October-2020 "drop" date, came in from imports and then could be traced https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05200-3
But this way of tracking, which takes a crew as large as a TV production, creates a sort of black box where you don't know how their algorithm is potentially "forcing" the lineages. Like for instance are reversions being dropped, or just forced into lineages? Because reversions could be another way of saying "raw Delta just showed up here and happened to get mapped to one of our several thousand lineages with more than 5 sequences because it had a single coincidental shared mutation." But overall it seems to match and corroborate natural spread. At least after India. It is a bit funny, that like the other variants emerging in under-sequenced countries, it seems to "evolve" in reverse in the early months (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.03.08.481609v1.supplementary-material supplemental last page).
And you can spot check Delta dots on Nextstrain and look for "raw Delta reversions" in mid and late 2021, you probably won't find any. But this was a lot easier before the Omicrons flooded the plot.
I rarely get sick but was affected strongly with c19 symptoms in the late winter of... 2018. I don't go to doctors for cold/flu so I don't have a test to rule out anything testable in 2018. It was a bad year for ILI, with a peak in mortality in the 45-64yr cohort (iirc).
I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect that several releases could have occurred, not just geographically but also temporally. I just can't wrap my head around the means of dispersion.
One other detail. While the RNA sequencing methods will miss DNA based viruses, those viruses will eventually make RNA and a surrogate of it should be captured with the above methods. Even the circular viroids have linear RCA products in the cell that would be captured and they aren’t known to infect mammals.
The CDC admitted over 75% of cases had 4+ co-morbidities. Take away the co-morbidities and "/with" cases and you're left with a normal flu season. The initial deaths in the West were driven by midazolam and criminal neglect. For the bulk of the population, CoV is just a numbers game based on a meaningless test. It's easy to understand where the "virus deniers" are coming from. When we look at the whole picture, at best, we're dealing with perhaps a whole suite of bioweapons being deployed in specific areas, at specific times, targeting specific groups, the one with the largest distribution being almost totally benign. The same seems like it may be true of the "vaccine."
All the lab leak hypothesis does is let the perps off the hook in favor of an "Act of God".
Dilyana Gaytandzhieva has been documenting US biolab and warfare activity in Tblisi for some time. The civilian employees have diplomatic privileges, including the "diplomatic bag". https://dilyana.bg See: The Luger Center leaks
Appreciate this sober and respectful piece. It’s the way dialogue ought to happen. Kudos to you on sharing your expertise in this way!
What do you make of the plausibility of the hypothesis that there may have been multiple CV ICs released in different locations, at different times—all having largely similar sequences, but with smaller variation, bearing FCS, and having enough homologous to trigger PCR primers? This could account for reach of the FCS signature.
Thank you for this article. Although I don’t understand all the jargon, I get what you’re saying. I had a feeling JJ wasn’t fully correct when I first heard him theorise but I didn’t have the knowledge to refute.
I agree this virus is unlike anything else - my family had it in Nov/Dec’19 (U.K.) and it frightened the life out of me as the symptoms were weird, out of order and unlike anything I’d ever had described to me by a patient ( I’m a retired GP). I remember saying to my husband that we should tell people that we’d had the flu as we wouldn’t get enough sympathy for what we’d been through, even though I knew it wasn’t the flu!
Can you explain how omicron came to be - as far as I understand it’s sequence doesn’t fit with any form of evolution and BA1 & BA2 between them conveniently covered all the escape mutations? Thanks.
I thought this article at least indicated that 1/3 of covid deaths were really due to pneumococcal bacteria. The other 2/3 could maybe be explained by something else.
A lot beyond my ken but I got the defense of sequencing when findings are so widespread and consistent. Also, you point out that creating a virus that can be treated with a pre-existing customized technology can a profit opportunity with the right regulatory capture (that in my judgment is what happened with SARS2; and I wish you and David Martin could converge on this).
Lab origin is certainly plausible. I do kind of wonder if JJ got a visit off-hours ....
I would very much like to have you address the intrinsic safety of mRNA vaccines. I'm still trying to find a reference for "the animals all died" in trials. I will never take an mRNA injection until ten years of testing has been done. We all know what VAERS says, but what are dangers that were known and swept aside?
Finally, with an N=1, I'm unvaxxed and had Covid in February, and it was unlike any virus I ever had before; I had shortness of breath, myocarditis, and ached all over. I recovered fairly quickly, but was left with the impression that there was something synthetic, like a buzz saw, about this virus. Others have felt the same way. The super-antigenic spike with enhanced ACE-2 binding capability?
We also have to find out what is in the shots. I believe the doctors who are finding graphene oxide and a strange assortment of minerals in them. The contracts do not permit examination, but it must be done.
I've been reading this again and I would like to share a few perspectives. You said "the swarming effect wont dilute this out fast enough to prevent global transmission". This would imply, it seems to me, that according to your thesis, until a given "novel/leaked" strain dilutes itself into the background of endemic viruses, correct me if I am wrong, it would transmit and proliferate itself globally maintaining its genomic traits (in this case, its virulence). In other words, as you said "the rate of divergence in the swarm is too slow to fizzle out global spread of pathogenic variants".
You also said the following:
"The sequencing data clearly shows the duration of each variants and how long this clade remained the dominant member of the swarm. I see no reason a more virulent leaked clone couldn’t last just as long and lap the globe.
There is now a $100B incentive for a Biotech company or state actor to create a new virus and profit from the vaccines or testing industries that will quickly reboot for the next leak."
These statements would imply that any such genetic sequences, created in a lab via artificial means, would proliferate and propagate themselves and behave as if they were already dominant stable structures of the ecosystem, which is completely not true. The problem that I see is that you are conflating the general dynamics of such systems when they are already in equilibrium, as you said, "The sequencing data clearly shows the duration of each variants and how long this clade remained the dominant member of the swarm", and applying that knowledge to whatever new lab made variation comes around, as if they could, whenever they want to, find such a dominant structure via cell culture, animal passage, computer simulations and the use of molecular biology tools. In fact, I would argue, it is impossible to do so. We cannot know via any of those means, if the genome that we are studying has the potential to become dominant in any way, once it is in nature.
Problems that I see with this and farther explanation of my perspective:
1) The concept of transmission chain and the conclusions we derive from it are not accurate. We always start to acquire genetic sequencing data when the general dynamics of the system are already in place and most likely the genetic materials that we are trying to measure/track are already ubiquitous.
Waves in this case can very easily be seen as modulatory effects of such dynamical system, or in other words, quasi-stable states of proliferation guided by seasonality and related cycles driven by a myriad of other environmental factors that cannot be properly isolated from one another and are completely heterogeneous. Thus, what is "traveling" are not waves of infection/virions, but rather, waves of information that may produce proliferation of virions with given genomic traits under very particular conditions.
2) There is something extremely important at this stage of our understanding of this phenomena in relation to your point, "Much of the sequencing surveillance is simply mapping to a reference genome and likely only seeing dominant members of the swarm with over 5% allele frequency".
This extremely important point is the fact that the most dominant genomes are not necessarily the most relevant ones for the coherence and behavior of the whole dynamics of the system, as it moves from equilibrium, to quasi-equilibrium, to proliferation phases. This point is quite complex and there is not much in relation to it within the literature, if any, so I will leave it here. However this could very well open a whole new line of research in my opinion. Although we would need to re-evaluate and better characterize the foundational theories and language used to describe viral dynamics for this line of research to occur, which is not very likely because we are extremely bias and quite dogmatic in the field of virology, due to its links with epidemiology, public health and the whole industry.
3) Coming back to point (1), in order to have [waves of information that may produce proliferation of virions] within the ecosystem (in this case the human ecosystem), such virions must be stable, that is, the genomic traits expressed by such signals must conform to all other interactions in the network. This would include modulatory phase transitions within the network of related dominant and subdominant strains (that as I said in point (2), we may not even be able to measure), as well as regulatory processes related to the microbiota and their inherent dynamics, in conjunction with the extremely complex and heterogeneous network of interactions that belongs to the immune system and its network of communications and information transfer in different cohorts of the population, as well as in different species and related signaling pathways that travel throughout the ecosystem in a myriad of different ways. That is, an extremely complex system, which cannot be predicted with our current understanding, and perhaps it never will be.
This whole set of dynamic equilibria would create the potential landscape for the evolutionary dynamics of all genetic variations that are allowed to proliferate, modulate and travel throughout the system, which in this case would be the whole globe, if we are making reference to coronavirus sequences from which we can generate tangible and measurable isolates. That is to say, we cannot predict if a given genome would be able to travel in this network. For sure we cannot make it to be a dominant and permanent feature of the network. Imagining that we can, is, quite frankly, a bit delusional if we think about it more carefully.
THEREFORE, if a lab leak or some other contamination event happens, there will never be a spread of such genomic traits until they have adapted themselves to the general dynamics of the system, which may take years, decades, or even never happen. And that is why I would call it a contamination event, not a lab leak. In the case of a biological agent that is capable of limited spread with some degree of virulence, what moves are waves of non-equilibrium states, and therefore a biological agent would not be able to proliferate as a disease-causing agent beyond the second to third layer of direct exposure to the agent. This of course is an estimate, it will be different for different potential agents, if they are indeed possible in any way other than an extremely high dose directly applied to the given target, like we do in animal experiments. The limited spread will occur due to the lost of the given characteristics that promote such non-equilibrium state (e.g. purity, quantity, concentration, proteomic transient alterations, transient genomic patterns...).
for me , on the ground, this infection often appeared novel. Yes in hindsight, and yes through a distorted lens of hype. But the process of crumping at day 8 after symptoms I have never witnessed before. And i atched it quite a few times. VEry repeatable. I knew I needed to be watching people closely around day 8.
No matter how much you post this on X, Couey, Nick and most of PANDA won't care. I posted it and broke it down for them multiple times on SLACK. They won't read it, and they won't understand your point. They aren't there to learn, they are there to be "right" to people who can't tell the difference. Also pretty sure they memory holed your sequencing presentation, unless I missed them publishing it.
You may as well have never shown it, since it won't be acknowledged. You have no right to be mad Nick implied you're a bad person for believing this data means something, that means someone "got to you" (can't be him existing as nothing more than a Couey mouthpiece, totally not why). He's the good guy for not comprehending its evidential implications, and you are bad for being honest and trying to consistently demand they understand and explain it in conjunction with their hypothesis. You're supposed to stay in your lane and talk about how improper PCRs are a bad diagnostic tool when trying to identify hot infections, and when used as a catch all to explain patient pathology, not bring to light the sheer amount of evidence being able to independently and consistently pull out and quantify viral RNA from sick people all around the globe provides, in a world where the only "evidence" you can provide another conscious being, is always dependent on quantifying and measuring that which you can physically prove is there. You showing the decentralized nature of this RNA acquisition, and how it is the dominant RNA in many of these sick patients, means nothing, since the sloppy all cause mortality signal doesn't correspond with the exact moment you have the PCR peak in the general population (or something else ambiguous and ever changing). Intense sarcasm but you get the point I'm sure. They will never stop from what I can tell, they will never back down, and as such, they can never truly engage with what you laid out here.
The worst part about all this is, even though I'm probably more paranoid than most people: I still don't even think Couey is a paid "agent", or "chaos agent". I really think he's just a massive egomaniac who is getting his rocks off blowing smoke up all their assess, and they are happy to receive it, as most of them are really bad with their "investigation" methods, i.e. they just use confirmation bias out the wazoo. They need a "biologist" who will pat them on the head and say "you're all probably right, PCRs don't work at all and it's old SARS viruses", and he needs a mountain of people who can't understand his BS to shield him from the fact that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and misled a shitton of people forever. He (Couey) may not even be consciously aware of this, and may have actually deluded himself into thinking he's right. Humans seek positive reinforcement in most situations, and they are rife with needing it for their pseudointellectual posits after all. Either way it's pathetic to witness
My housemate had fever, aches & pains, and a week long illness.
I looked after them, feeding them etc, and caught it 5 days into their illness.
I had swollen to tf tonsils and snot / spit going for 3-4 days but nothing else. Same week long unwellness, and it all started with a bowl of soup tasting weird af.
I have forwarded to JJ.
I also want to emphasize that JJ is not a “No virus person”
He has also pointed out/asked why there are only 111 full length reads in the nanopore data KIm et al.
That is likely due to the fact that nanopores selectively load smaller fragments.
For people to get these glorious long reads on nanopores, you have perform all types of size selections to get rid of the small shrapnel otherwise they consume all the pore space.
I should have better explained that oddity in KIm et al.
"That is likely due to the fact that nanopores selectively load smaller fragments." That makes a lot of sense.
I still think Couey's instincts regarding the meta are valuable - because, well, lots of people have already been making those same points, myself included: "lab leak" plays more like a deliberately staged counter-narrative, made to appear like a forbidden secret that would finally be "vindicated" in the mainstream so we could all go back to bed.
And the case for DEFUSE->WIV->SARS-CoV-2 is weak. WIV was focusing on southwest china derived genes, not northwest Laos (BANAL). And their style was way messier than the proposed SARS-CoV-2 BsmBI / BsaI map. So they aren't where it came from. Evidence continues to point to October 2019 as emergence (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.04.519037v1
), Wuhan was not NOT having the military games at the time.
I'm ambivalent about the case for SARS-CoV-2 really having "global transmission competence." Yes, you have FCS fidelity in all the clades, but said clades keep dying out, requiring these miraculous "resets" from B.1.1 backbones every year. Hmm. At best you could say BA.2 and 5 have finally demonstrated staying power.
You are correct. The military games were concurrent with Event 201, 4(?) months prior.
"Allegations of first 'superspreader' event occurred at Wuhan Military Games in October 2019" https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-allegations-of-first-superspreader-event-occurred-at-wuhan-military-games-in-october-2019/45ILL7HBJGKJ5WYC4SFUZWZEFA/
"More athletes claim they contracted COVID-19 at Military World Games in Wuhan" https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1094347/world-military-games-illness-covid-19
If you skip to minute 20:45 in this video, there's a timeline- https://www.bitchute.com/video/z9ALM5pnRtK2/
Lugar Center Leaks - https://nomadiceveryman.blogspot.com/search/label/Lugar%20Center%20Leaks
Lugar Center and other labs in Tblisi Georgia https://dilyana.bg
project 1742, funded by EcoHealth Alliance, Oct 24 2018- Oct 23 2019. World military games, Oct 2019.
What? Nepetalactone is written by McKernan? Is that true? I'm curious because whoever wrote this blog entry didn't understand Couey's theory at all. I urge anyone interested to watch a few episodes of GigaohmBiological.com.
Yes.. please view them directly.
My interpretation of his cast was that an infectious clone would not last long in a swarm..
I think it can last long enough to lap the globe like alpha.
Thanks - that was a huge output in a short amount of time. And thanks for pointing out that JJ is not one of those saying there's no virus. He seems to indicate that recently a bunch of his friends/colleagues were turning on him saying he's become an anti-virus guy for his shift. Science is savage. IDK. This is not my world. Yes, I think JJ is saying that an infectious clone (man made) quickly "reverts" (not his exact word) to a form that is much less harmful than it started out being and then it goes *poof*. You on the other hand think they are strong enough to lap the globe. Does he think swarms are just roaming around naturally ? I don't recall that. I think he's saying that infectious clones were sent to various areas of the world for contamination - to make "outbreaks" that the media, NIH, HHS, CDC, FDA then could use to whip us up into a frenzy. That may be why people got so near-death sick. If they caught turbo charged clones there would be sickness--I know some healthy young Chicago kids that got terribly sick in the summer of 2019 - so sick they couldn't even order in supplies for themselves --my daughter had to do it for them. So I wonder if "stuff" was circulating even then. BUT after making many people terribly sick and killing some, they would revert -- and then go *poof*. I think JJ also showed that excess morbidity from I and P in 2021-22 was based on bad treatment (iatrogenic?) and he thinks that MIS-CODING regular illnesses for Covid created the initial "pandemic". Don't know how you feel about that. Even though you have a great depth of knowledge you seem to be a fair and considerate person and I hope Couey responds. Thanks!
That’s a very thoughtful response.
Need to chew on it.
This is the element of the theory that I find compelling, and it can be tenuously valid without leaning so heavily on critiques of RNA virus fidelity or PCR/sequencing accuracy.
It still has significance that ICs can be used to easily whip up a lot of virus. The same way it has significance that you can gather a lot of animals together in one place. One thing creates a toxic concentration that natural roaming patterns don't facilitate. This would still imply that there should be some kind of "closeness to clade root" effect for pathogenicity and Delta is a problem here, since it seems to carry its potency from India to the rest of the world in natural transmission chains. So then you have to speculate that someone is updating the IC to imitate life even more rapidly than between major variant drops, or widespread falsification of sequences, you get in a lot more tenuous territory.
Very good point. How does the IC *poof* theory account for Delta which was here for so long and traveled so far. Is Delta traceable? I saw a list last year of well over 100 mutations or variants of SARS CoV2 (edit: correction, not “Covid”) to date as a demonstration of its ability to change. But I don’t know how such a list is compiled or ascertained.
"Traceable?" Well, in the hyper-sequencing UK multiple branches of Delta (it was already pretty branched before the first cases were sequenced, supporting another October-2020 "drop" date, came in from imports and then could be traced https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05200-3
But this way of tracking, which takes a crew as large as a TV production, creates a sort of black box where you don't know how their algorithm is potentially "forcing" the lineages. Like for instance are reversions being dropped, or just forced into lineages? Because reversions could be another way of saying "raw Delta just showed up here and happened to get mapped to one of our several thousand lineages with more than 5 sequences because it had a single coincidental shared mutation." But overall it seems to match and corroborate natural spread. At least after India. It is a bit funny, that like the other variants emerging in under-sequenced countries, it seems to "evolve" in reverse in the early months (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.03.08.481609v1.supplementary-material supplemental last page).
And you can spot check Delta dots on Nextstrain and look for "raw Delta reversions" in mid and late 2021, you probably won't find any. But this was a lot easier before the Omicrons flooded the plot.
Thank you. I’ll be reading that article tomorrow morning when my mind is fresh and I can give it my full attention.
I rarely get sick but was affected strongly with c19 symptoms in the late winter of... 2018. I don't go to doctors for cold/flu so I don't have a test to rule out anything testable in 2018. It was a bad year for ILI, with a peak in mortality in the 45-64yr cohort (iirc).
I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect that several releases could have occurred, not just geographically but also temporally. I just can't wrap my head around the means of dispersion.
With all sincerity….. thank you.
Hopefully, you have forwarded this critique to him. It's the right thing to do.
One other detail. While the RNA sequencing methods will miss DNA based viruses, those viruses will eventually make RNA and a surrogate of it should be captured with the above methods. Even the circular viroids have linear RCA products in the cell that would be captured and they aren’t known to infect mammals.
"𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨" Remember how the first waves seemed to be affecting specific groups, like Iranian parliament members?
COVID-19 – A Biological Weapon Targeting Ethnicity and Body Systems, by Larry Romanoff https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/6371/
"𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦, [South African] 𝘋𝘳. 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮. 𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, “𝘕𝘰 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴”. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘋𝘳. 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴; 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 “𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮”. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘚, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴. 𝘞𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢, 𝘊𝘖𝘝𝘐𝘋 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 100% 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦-𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘭. 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 (𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴), 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯𝘦. 𝘈𝘭𝘴𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤-𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘰."
Briefing by Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, Head of Nuclear,Biological and Chemical Protection Troops of the Russian Armed Forces https://telegra.ph/Briefing-by-Lieutenant-General-Igor-Kirillov-Head-of-NuclearBiological-and-Chemical-Protection-Troops-of-the-Russian-Armed-Force-08-04
"𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘶𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯."
ACE2 coding variants in different populations and their potential impact on SARS-CoV-2 binding affinity DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrep.2020.100798
New insights into genetic susceptibility of COVID-19- an ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism analysis DOI: 10.1186/s12916-020-01673-z
"Putin Questions US Air Force DNA Collection From Ethnic Russians" https://archive.vn/tsnMy#selection-411.6-411.70
The CDC admitted over 75% of cases had 4+ co-morbidities. Take away the co-morbidities and "/with" cases and you're left with a normal flu season. The initial deaths in the West were driven by midazolam and criminal neglect. For the bulk of the population, CoV is just a numbers game based on a meaningless test. It's easy to understand where the "virus deniers" are coming from. When we look at the whole picture, at best, we're dealing with perhaps a whole suite of bioweapons being deployed in specific areas, at specific times, targeting specific groups, the one with the largest distribution being almost totally benign. The same seems like it may be true of the "vaccine."
All the lab leak hypothesis does is let the perps off the hook in favor of an "Act of God".
Dilyana Gaytandzhieva has been documenting US biolab and warfare activity in Tblisi for some time. The civilian employees have diplomatic privileges, including the "diplomatic bag". https://dilyana.bg See: The Luger Center leaks
Thanks for posting these articles. Grateful.
Appreciate this sober and respectful piece. It’s the way dialogue ought to happen. Kudos to you on sharing your expertise in this way!
What do you make of the plausibility of the hypothesis that there may have been multiple CV ICs released in different locations, at different times—all having largely similar sequences, but with smaller variation, bearing FCS, and having enough homologous to trigger PCR primers? This could account for reach of the FCS signature.
Thank you for this article. Although I don’t understand all the jargon, I get what you’re saying. I had a feeling JJ wasn’t fully correct when I first heard him theorise but I didn’t have the knowledge to refute.
I agree this virus is unlike anything else - my family had it in Nov/Dec’19 (U.K.) and it frightened the life out of me as the symptoms were weird, out of order and unlike anything I’d ever had described to me by a patient ( I’m a retired GP). I remember saying to my husband that we should tell people that we’d had the flu as we wouldn’t get enough sympathy for what we’d been through, even though I knew it wasn’t the flu!
Can you explain how omicron came to be - as far as I understand it’s sequence doesn’t fit with any form of evolution and BA1 & BA2 between them conveniently covered all the escape mutations? Thanks.
I thought this article at least indicated that 1/3 of covid deaths were really due to pneumococcal bacteria. The other 2/3 could maybe be explained by something else.
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/225/10/1710/6164926
When the FDA was so slow to approve PCR tests in early 2020, that seemed to be due to fundamental scientific issues.
A lot beyond my ken but I got the defense of sequencing when findings are so widespread and consistent. Also, you point out that creating a virus that can be treated with a pre-existing customized technology can a profit opportunity with the right regulatory capture (that in my judgment is what happened with SARS2; and I wish you and David Martin could converge on this).
Lab origin is certainly plausible. I do kind of wonder if JJ got a visit off-hours ....
I would very much like to have you address the intrinsic safety of mRNA vaccines. I'm still trying to find a reference for "the animals all died" in trials. I will never take an mRNA injection until ten years of testing has been done. We all know what VAERS says, but what are dangers that were known and swept aside?
Finally, with an N=1, I'm unvaxxed and had Covid in February, and it was unlike any virus I ever had before; I had shortness of breath, myocarditis, and ached all over. I recovered fairly quickly, but was left with the impression that there was something synthetic, like a buzz saw, about this virus. Others have felt the same way. The super-antigenic spike with enhanced ACE-2 binding capability?
We also have to find out what is in the shots. I believe the doctors who are finding graphene oxide and a strange assortment of minerals in them. The contracts do not permit examination, but it must be done.
Cheers.
I thought Kevin McCairn ruled out grapheme oxide?
Ryan Cole on this, says it's cholesterol
https://vigilantfox.substack.com/p/dr-ryan-cole-addresses-covid-19-jab#play
Was not aware of that. The contracts prohibit analyzing the products, which is ridiculous. We need to know what's in them.
Hi Kevin,
I've been reading this again and I would like to share a few perspectives. You said "the swarming effect wont dilute this out fast enough to prevent global transmission". This would imply, it seems to me, that according to your thesis, until a given "novel/leaked" strain dilutes itself into the background of endemic viruses, correct me if I am wrong, it would transmit and proliferate itself globally maintaining its genomic traits (in this case, its virulence). In other words, as you said "the rate of divergence in the swarm is too slow to fizzle out global spread of pathogenic variants".
You also said the following:
"The sequencing data clearly shows the duration of each variants and how long this clade remained the dominant member of the swarm. I see no reason a more virulent leaked clone couldn’t last just as long and lap the globe.
There is now a $100B incentive for a Biotech company or state actor to create a new virus and profit from the vaccines or testing industries that will quickly reboot for the next leak."
These statements would imply that any such genetic sequences, created in a lab via artificial means, would proliferate and propagate themselves and behave as if they were already dominant stable structures of the ecosystem, which is completely not true. The problem that I see is that you are conflating the general dynamics of such systems when they are already in equilibrium, as you said, "The sequencing data clearly shows the duration of each variants and how long this clade remained the dominant member of the swarm", and applying that knowledge to whatever new lab made variation comes around, as if they could, whenever they want to, find such a dominant structure via cell culture, animal passage, computer simulations and the use of molecular biology tools. In fact, I would argue, it is impossible to do so. We cannot know via any of those means, if the genome that we are studying has the potential to become dominant in any way, once it is in nature.
Problems that I see with this and farther explanation of my perspective:
1) The concept of transmission chain and the conclusions we derive from it are not accurate. We always start to acquire genetic sequencing data when the general dynamics of the system are already in place and most likely the genetic materials that we are trying to measure/track are already ubiquitous.
Waves in this case can very easily be seen as modulatory effects of such dynamical system, or in other words, quasi-stable states of proliferation guided by seasonality and related cycles driven by a myriad of other environmental factors that cannot be properly isolated from one another and are completely heterogeneous. Thus, what is "traveling" are not waves of infection/virions, but rather, waves of information that may produce proliferation of virions with given genomic traits under very particular conditions.
2) There is something extremely important at this stage of our understanding of this phenomena in relation to your point, "Much of the sequencing surveillance is simply mapping to a reference genome and likely only seeing dominant members of the swarm with over 5% allele frequency".
This extremely important point is the fact that the most dominant genomes are not necessarily the most relevant ones for the coherence and behavior of the whole dynamics of the system, as it moves from equilibrium, to quasi-equilibrium, to proliferation phases. This point is quite complex and there is not much in relation to it within the literature, if any, so I will leave it here. However this could very well open a whole new line of research in my opinion. Although we would need to re-evaluate and better characterize the foundational theories and language used to describe viral dynamics for this line of research to occur, which is not very likely because we are extremely bias and quite dogmatic in the field of virology, due to its links with epidemiology, public health and the whole industry.
3) Coming back to point (1), in order to have [waves of information that may produce proliferation of virions] within the ecosystem (in this case the human ecosystem), such virions must be stable, that is, the genomic traits expressed by such signals must conform to all other interactions in the network. This would include modulatory phase transitions within the network of related dominant and subdominant strains (that as I said in point (2), we may not even be able to measure), as well as regulatory processes related to the microbiota and their inherent dynamics, in conjunction with the extremely complex and heterogeneous network of interactions that belongs to the immune system and its network of communications and information transfer in different cohorts of the population, as well as in different species and related signaling pathways that travel throughout the ecosystem in a myriad of different ways. That is, an extremely complex system, which cannot be predicted with our current understanding, and perhaps it never will be.
This whole set of dynamic equilibria would create the potential landscape for the evolutionary dynamics of all genetic variations that are allowed to proliferate, modulate and travel throughout the system, which in this case would be the whole globe, if we are making reference to coronavirus sequences from which we can generate tangible and measurable isolates. That is to say, we cannot predict if a given genome would be able to travel in this network. For sure we cannot make it to be a dominant and permanent feature of the network. Imagining that we can, is, quite frankly, a bit delusional if we think about it more carefully.
THEREFORE, if a lab leak or some other contamination event happens, there will never be a spread of such genomic traits until they have adapted themselves to the general dynamics of the system, which may take years, decades, or even never happen. And that is why I would call it a contamination event, not a lab leak. In the case of a biological agent that is capable of limited spread with some degree of virulence, what moves are waves of non-equilibrium states, and therefore a biological agent would not be able to proliferate as a disease-causing agent beyond the second to third layer of direct exposure to the agent. This of course is an estimate, it will be different for different potential agents, if they are indeed possible in any way other than an extremely high dose directly applied to the given target, like we do in animal experiments. The limited spread will occur due to the lost of the given characteristics that promote such non-equilibrium state (e.g. purity, quantity, concentration, proteomic transient alterations, transient genomic patterns...).
for me , on the ground, this infection often appeared novel. Yes in hindsight, and yes through a distorted lens of hype. But the process of crumping at day 8 after symptoms I have never witnessed before. And i atched it quite a few times. VEry repeatable. I knew I needed to be watching people closely around day 8.
No matter how much you post this on X, Couey, Nick and most of PANDA won't care. I posted it and broke it down for them multiple times on SLACK. They won't read it, and they won't understand your point. They aren't there to learn, they are there to be "right" to people who can't tell the difference. Also pretty sure they memory holed your sequencing presentation, unless I missed them publishing it.
See?
https://nitter.net/NickHudsonCT/status/1750198334596243660#m
You may as well have never shown it, since it won't be acknowledged. You have no right to be mad Nick implied you're a bad person for believing this data means something, that means someone "got to you" (can't be him existing as nothing more than a Couey mouthpiece, totally not why). He's the good guy for not comprehending its evidential implications, and you are bad for being honest and trying to consistently demand they understand and explain it in conjunction with their hypothesis. You're supposed to stay in your lane and talk about how improper PCRs are a bad diagnostic tool when trying to identify hot infections, and when used as a catch all to explain patient pathology, not bring to light the sheer amount of evidence being able to independently and consistently pull out and quantify viral RNA from sick people all around the globe provides, in a world where the only "evidence" you can provide another conscious being, is always dependent on quantifying and measuring that which you can physically prove is there. You showing the decentralized nature of this RNA acquisition, and how it is the dominant RNA in many of these sick patients, means nothing, since the sloppy all cause mortality signal doesn't correspond with the exact moment you have the PCR peak in the general population (or something else ambiguous and ever changing). Intense sarcasm but you get the point I'm sure. They will never stop from what I can tell, they will never back down, and as such, they can never truly engage with what you laid out here.
The worst part about all this is, even though I'm probably more paranoid than most people: I still don't even think Couey is a paid "agent", or "chaos agent". I really think he's just a massive egomaniac who is getting his rocks off blowing smoke up all their assess, and they are happy to receive it, as most of them are really bad with their "investigation" methods, i.e. they just use confirmation bias out the wazoo. They need a "biologist" who will pat them on the head and say "you're all probably right, PCRs don't work at all and it's old SARS viruses", and he needs a mountain of people who can't understand his BS to shield him from the fact that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and misled a shitton of people forever. He (Couey) may not even be consciously aware of this, and may have actually deluded himself into thinking he's right. Humans seek positive reinforcement in most situations, and they are rife with needing it for their pseudointellectual posits after all. Either way it's pathetic to witness
My housemate had fever, aches & pains, and a week long illness.
I looked after them, feeding them etc, and caught it 5 days into their illness.
I had swollen to tf tonsils and snot / spit going for 3-4 days but nothing else. Same week long unwellness, and it all started with a bowl of soup tasting weird af.
My housemate vaxed x2 + boosted, me unvaxed.
Sounds like you had a lot worse.
Lab origin or lab leak?