The second thing we would do is move it into the chimeras (combo of 2+ viruses) to see the effect on applicants.
The third thing we would probably do is build virulent (live) viruses (in UNC) and study pathogenesis,
Chimeras are also live viruses so the building of virulent viruses in other ways could only be via consensus sequences. Too bad there was no follow up on this and no attempt to find out what viruses he was planning to use as building blocks
Daszak: Little was said about DARPA declining to fund this, including people who said they declined it because of biosecurity concerns. Absolutely not true. We had an interview with DARPA specifically so they could. inform us why it was rejected. I have the contemporaneous notes right here; never once did biosafety come up. It was too much money.
Too bad nobody asked or commented on these notes (assuming the Committee had them)
Committee: Did you ever submit this proposal to any other funding agency?
Daszak: No
Thats a clear No. Baric also said he did no work on DEFUSE. Although perhaps it was renamed
(2 of 2) My current best guess about his position is that he knows full well that virologists - using his knowledge and perhaps sequences or physical DNA/RNA and viruses - did create SARS-CoV-2, but that he lies to everyone about this, because:
1 - He fears that future zoonotic transfer events could be at least as deadly as the COVID-19 pandemic. (I think there are good reasons to support this view. He knows more than anyone else about this potential, and has surely been obsessing over it - and encouraging everyone else to fear it - for decades. )
2 - He knows, or reasonably expects, that widespread recognition of the lab origins of SARS-CoV-2 will lead to severe, globally adopted, restrictions on how virologists work, to greatly reduce even accidental gain-of-function research, as well as to ban all deliberate such research, regarding viruses of any type (with the possible exception of bactierophages, which might be effective treatments for bacterial infections), which affect plants and animals, including humans.
3 - He believes that the best or only way we humans can reasonably protect ourselves from future zoonotic transfer caused pandemics is to thoroughly research viruses, including by using GoF research techniques, in order to develop vaccines (including mRNA etc. quasi-vaccines), antiviral drugs, monoclonal antibodies and potentially methods of reducing the risk of such viruses evolving in non-human animals (the batshit-crazy aim of DEFUSE). He is wrong about this. The best approach is to enable everyone's immune system to work properly, which can only be achieved by proper vitamin D3 supplementation in quantities well above those currently recommended by governments and most doctors: https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/how-much-vitamin-d3-to-take . The techniques he is aiming to develop have their uses, but are expensive, dangerous and should not take precedence over nutritional support to enable most people's currently crippled immune systems to function properly.
4 - Therefore, to protect humanity, he is lying about the probability of the lab-release hypothesis being true, for the Greater Good https://x.com/conmomma/status/1451253296132329499. He is hoping to minimise the regulation of GoF research, on which he believes the future health of humanity utterly depends.
In a practical sense, it doesn't matter what his internal state of mind is, or what we rightly or wrongly think it is. His behaviour as the most knowledgeable coronavirus researcher of the world is at odds with the needs of humanity. He fails to properly engage with the simplest, strongest, arguments for the lab-origin hypothesis. In doing so he portrays the debate in an unrealistic fashion. By failing to argue against, or fully acknowledge, the strongest arguments for lab-release, his actions are a odds with what a good scientist or responsible person would do.
Also, he has been unreasonably dismissive of the detailed arguments by Valentin Bruttel, Tony Van Dongen and Alex Washburne https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2022/10/20/2022.10.18.512756.full.pdf that SARS-CoV-2s genome shows statistically very strong signs that it was assembled using techniques developed by Ralph Baric et al., including potentially by researchers in China. This is at odds with scientific debate. As far as I know, there are no robust critiques of this important preprint, which is being prepared for peer-reviewed journal publication. See the "Statistical BS" section of https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/science-spills-over-into-congress and a recently released document which is apparently an anonymous reviewer's assessment of Bruttel et al.: https://x.com/Bryce_Nickels/status/1786206196447289768.
It seems that the majority of virologists concur with Ralph Baric. If the majority were acting responsibly, they would unite in public opposition to the GoF (including potentially GoF) research which caused the greatest epidemic in living memory.
So I think that Ralph Baric is a typical mainstream virologist - denying what has happened and arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic was caused by zoonotic transfer, precisely to increase funding of, and reduce restrictions on, the most dangerous (but easiest, and I am sure most informative and fascinating) lines of research virologists like to do, and currently earn their living doing, every day.
Look closely at HKU3 + BtCoV279. Those two chimeras are 20% different from SARS1, which is 0.1% different from SARS2. He proposed to test that novel chimera in Chinese bats using Dani Anderson's BSL4 lab.
Having read it, I keep wondering about his state of mind. While he acknowledges that it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from the lab (having been created there, or perhaps having been collected and then escaped) he still argues that the most likely explanation is zoonotic transfer.
I think he is also is trying to minimise his own, and his lab's, involvement in Chinese research which may have lead to the creation of SARS-CoV-2, or its close precursor. I find it hard to believe that he has forgotten so much about the DEFUSE grant proposal, since he and his team have worked with Peter Daszak on closely related research for many years.
No-one knows more about coronaviruses than Ralph Baric. If the lab leak hypothesis was false, no-one would be able to argue that it is false better than him. Since he portrays this hypothesis as most likely being false, where is the real meet of such evidence and arguments which show this to be the case?
He admitted in the interview (my PDF page 78) that researchers, in general - and so including those in China, or even his own lab - do not publish accounts of all the research they do, and that they do not make every virus genetic sequence they obtain known to other researchers or the public. This means that he admits that it is possible that researchers, implicitly in Wuhan, may have had progenitor viruses collected from the wild which they never published any details of, and that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from their labs, either as a collected virus which was, or mutated a little to become, SARS-CoV-2 or that it was created in the lab using one or more of these unpublished genomes in some kind of chimeric or otherwise engineered process.
Although the select sub-committee did not raise these matters explicitly, these are the two simplest and most powerful arguments for the lab release hypothesis, which anyone can understand, without fussing around with genetic details.
Firstly: SARS-CoV-2 first spread widely among humans in Wuhan, a city and nearby area which contains less than 1% of the Chinese population (and so, broadly speaking, less than 1% of the wet markets in China) - but it is the only city to host one or more laboratories which were involved in the collection and analysis of bat coronaviruses and the genetic manipulation of these to create novel variants.
Secondly: Four years after the world-altering outbreak, there is no evidence at all of an intermediate host animal. Such would be required to explain the outbreak in Wuhan, which is a thousand km or so from the habitat of bats who harbour SARS- like viruses.
The first known case of SARS was found on 16 November 2002. 11 months later, 2003-10-31, a peer-reviewed article https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1087139 was published identifying nearly identical strains of viruses in Himalayan palm civets.
The first known cases of MERS were identified in June 2012. A peer-reviewed article https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES2013.18.36.20574 was published just over a year later, on 2013-09-05, identifying dromedary camels as the intermediate animal in a chain of transmission from bats, though the details of which bats were probably the source of this virus took several more years to elucidate.
As far as I know, Dr Baric has not made any public statements in which he tries to properly scientifically disprove these arguments.
There seems to be a stark dichotomy between the two plausible states of Dr Baric's mind.
Firstly, he could know very well that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from research by virologists, rather than zoonotic transfer - and so is lying in all the respects of his statements in which he encourages other people to think that zoonotic transfer is the most likely explanation.
I originally assumed that such lies would be intended to reduce the chances of him and other virologists suffering negative consequences for contributing to, or supporting and covering up, the work which lead to the creation of SARS-CoV-2. However, there is another potential impetus for him doing this, which I explore below, which would be, at least in his mind, truly noble and indeed essential to the survival of humanity.
Secondly, he could be telling the honest truth, as he understands it - and he has so far been unable to understand that some virologists (including perhaps those in in own lab and himself) really did create and (accidentally, I assume) release a virus which caused this global pandemic.
This second scenario involves contortions of the thoughts any responsible person should have about the lab origin into forms which are compatible with his strong belief in zoonotic transfer. We might have some sympathy for the man if we assume, as I think is likely, that he really did devote his life to this work in order to prevent zoonotic transfer causing a pandemics or to enable humans to respond better if one did occur. Imagine that decades of intense effort lead him, his colleagues and/or virologists elsewhere, while doing this work to the best of their abilities, to actually cause a pandemic at least as bad as the ones they were trying to prevent or protect against.
It is easy to spot a bad liar. However, a really good liar, emulating the behaviour of a genuinely conflicted and muddled honest person, can't be distinguished from such a person.
Ideally the select sub-committee would have asked Dr Baric to explain how his own work (with colleagues in his lab) was not reckless gain of function research, at least as scary (a word he used twice) or potentially disastrous (also twice), as that which led (or could have led) to the creation of SARS-CoV-2.
That research was written up in 2016: SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence, Meachery et al. PNAS 2016-03-14: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1517719113. A fuller explanation is at: https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/the-origins-of-sars-cov-2#%C2%A7the-banal-evil-of-gain-of-function-virology. This has a link to a video of Dr Baric, in a lecture at his university on 2018-04-06, reporting on this research in a calm and even voice, without any indication that such research could have caused an epidemic which killed millions of people. This research involved chimeric bat coronaviruses, with the spike protein of one virus put into another virus. The novel viruses were used to infect mice which the Baric Lab specifically created, with their ACE2 receptor proteins genetically and so physically identical to human ACE2 receptors.
Start listening at 10:14: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuERPvBFfco&t=614s. The key revelation is at 11:52. He should recognise the scary, reckless, potentially globally disastrous nature of making novel viruses which are capable of infecting humans. Either he does, and hides it, or he simply doesn't recognise this. Either way, as with his recent lab-origin avoidant testimony, he is failing in his responsibility to protect and properly inform the public.
For my age group, old, retired and cynical I was assured Natural Immunity would protect me from Covid.
.........It did.
I am 100% immune from the Fake Vaxx side effects because I did not take it!
.................
Maybe not from shedding! Damn!
Save the Genome - heritage of humanity! Stop the causes of the toxic shedding. Enough already. Time to pay attention to the message Dr. Ana is sharing below!
Podcasters Joe Rogan and Michael Malice discussed last week why the corporate press continues to dismiss ways doctors can treat Covid-19 aside from vaccination.
Rogan said that Dr. Pierre Kory from the Front Line Critical Care Covid group treated him and hundreds of members of Congress with monoclonal antibodies, prednisone, z-pak, NAD, vitamins, and ivermectin.
"By the way, 200 Congresspeople have been treated with Ivermectin for Covid. Google that. You can probably find that in Dr. Pierre Kory's Twitter page," Rogan said. "Before there were vaccines, this was a common off-label treatment for Covid."
World law enforcement agencies must arrest Walensky, Birx, Fauci, Daszak and all DOD, CIA, CDC, NIH, WHO, FDA, HHS and big pharma and big tech. executives involved.
Fraud and homicide are not included in the total immunity from legal liability agreement under the PREP Act for the big Pharma criminals!
Nuremberg Code and RICO laws apply now! The DOJ better wake the Fk Up and get busy!
Disturbing. Disgusting. Diabolical.
Baric
The second thing we would do is move it into the chimeras (combo of 2+ viruses) to see the effect on applicants.
The third thing we would probably do is build virulent (live) viruses (in UNC) and study pathogenesis,
Chimeras are also live viruses so the building of virulent viruses in other ways could only be via consensus sequences. Too bad there was no follow up on this and no attempt to find out what viruses he was planning to use as building blocks
Daszak: Little was said about DARPA declining to fund this, including people who said they declined it because of biosecurity concerns. Absolutely not true. We had an interview with DARPA specifically so they could. inform us why it was rejected. I have the contemporaneous notes right here; never once did biosafety come up. It was too much money.
Too bad nobody asked or commented on these notes (assuming the Committee had them)
Committee: Did you ever submit this proposal to any other funding agency?
Daszak: No
Thats a clear No. Baric also said he did no work on DEFUSE. Although perhaps it was renamed
ahhh, you figured out Baric's 3 step process. You're right, the virulent viruses (plural) are a consensus sequence.
Daszak learned Fauci's talking point: "that" proposal was not used, but a "revised" proposal was used.
https://x.com/jhas5/status/1502346224984330251
For CREID, Linfa said we "took text from our other grant proposal"
https://x.com/jhas5/status/1769229367685906533
(2 of 2) My current best guess about his position is that he knows full well that virologists - using his knowledge and perhaps sequences or physical DNA/RNA and viruses - did create SARS-CoV-2, but that he lies to everyone about this, because:
1 - He fears that future zoonotic transfer events could be at least as deadly as the COVID-19 pandemic. (I think there are good reasons to support this view. He knows more than anyone else about this potential, and has surely been obsessing over it - and encouraging everyone else to fear it - for decades. )
2 - He knows, or reasonably expects, that widespread recognition of the lab origins of SARS-CoV-2 will lead to severe, globally adopted, restrictions on how virologists work, to greatly reduce even accidental gain-of-function research, as well as to ban all deliberate such research, regarding viruses of any type (with the possible exception of bactierophages, which might be effective treatments for bacterial infections), which affect plants and animals, including humans.
3 - He believes that the best or only way we humans can reasonably protect ourselves from future zoonotic transfer caused pandemics is to thoroughly research viruses, including by using GoF research techniques, in order to develop vaccines (including mRNA etc. quasi-vaccines), antiviral drugs, monoclonal antibodies and potentially methods of reducing the risk of such viruses evolving in non-human animals (the batshit-crazy aim of DEFUSE). He is wrong about this. The best approach is to enable everyone's immune system to work properly, which can only be achieved by proper vitamin D3 supplementation in quantities well above those currently recommended by governments and most doctors: https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/how-much-vitamin-d3-to-take . The techniques he is aiming to develop have their uses, but are expensive, dangerous and should not take precedence over nutritional support to enable most people's currently crippled immune systems to function properly.
4 - Therefore, to protect humanity, he is lying about the probability of the lab-release hypothesis being true, for the Greater Good https://x.com/conmomma/status/1451253296132329499. He is hoping to minimise the regulation of GoF research, on which he believes the future health of humanity utterly depends.
In a practical sense, it doesn't matter what his internal state of mind is, or what we rightly or wrongly think it is. His behaviour as the most knowledgeable coronavirus researcher of the world is at odds with the needs of humanity. He fails to properly engage with the simplest, strongest, arguments for the lab-origin hypothesis. In doing so he portrays the debate in an unrealistic fashion. By failing to argue against, or fully acknowledge, the strongest arguments for lab-release, his actions are a odds with what a good scientist or responsible person would do.
Also, he has been unreasonably dismissive of the detailed arguments by Valentin Bruttel, Tony Van Dongen and Alex Washburne https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2022/10/20/2022.10.18.512756.full.pdf that SARS-CoV-2s genome shows statistically very strong signs that it was assembled using techniques developed by Ralph Baric et al., including potentially by researchers in China. This is at odds with scientific debate. As far as I know, there are no robust critiques of this important preprint, which is being prepared for peer-reviewed journal publication. See the "Statistical BS" section of https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/science-spills-over-into-congress and a recently released document which is apparently an anonymous reviewer's assessment of Bruttel et al.: https://x.com/Bryce_Nickels/status/1786206196447289768.
It seems that the majority of virologists concur with Ralph Baric. If the majority were acting responsibly, they would unite in public opposition to the GoF (including potentially GoF) research which caused the greatest epidemic in living memory.
So I think that Ralph Baric is a typical mainstream virologist - denying what has happened and arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic was caused by zoonotic transfer, precisely to increase funding of, and reduce restrictions on, the most dangerous (but easiest, and I am sure most informative and fascinating) lines of research virologists like to do, and currently earn their living doing, every day.
Baric is talking out of both sides of his mouth because he created the SARS2 genome. You actually linked to it in this ppt slide.
https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/the-origins-of-sars-cov-2#%C2%A7the-banal-evil-of-gain-of-function-virology
Look closely at HKU3 + BtCoV279. Those two chimeras are 20% different from SARS1, which is 0.1% different from SARS2. He proposed to test that novel chimera in Chinese bats using Dani Anderson's BSL4 lab.
https://jimhaslam.substack.com/p/sars2-was-patented-by-ralph-baric
(1 of 2) I just updated the PDF of the transcript of Ralph Baric's 2024-01-22 interview to fix typos and formatting problems: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/07-origins/#baric .
Having read it, I keep wondering about his state of mind. While he acknowledges that it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from the lab (having been created there, or perhaps having been collected and then escaped) he still argues that the most likely explanation is zoonotic transfer.
I think he is also is trying to minimise his own, and his lab's, involvement in Chinese research which may have lead to the creation of SARS-CoV-2, or its close precursor. I find it hard to believe that he has forgotten so much about the DEFUSE grant proposal, since he and his team have worked with Peter Daszak on closely related research for many years.
No-one knows more about coronaviruses than Ralph Baric. If the lab leak hypothesis was false, no-one would be able to argue that it is false better than him. Since he portrays this hypothesis as most likely being false, where is the real meet of such evidence and arguments which show this to be the case?
He admitted in the interview (my PDF page 78) that researchers, in general - and so including those in China, or even his own lab - do not publish accounts of all the research they do, and that they do not make every virus genetic sequence they obtain known to other researchers or the public. This means that he admits that it is possible that researchers, implicitly in Wuhan, may have had progenitor viruses collected from the wild which they never published any details of, and that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from their labs, either as a collected virus which was, or mutated a little to become, SARS-CoV-2 or that it was created in the lab using one or more of these unpublished genomes in some kind of chimeric or otherwise engineered process.
Although the select sub-committee did not raise these matters explicitly, these are the two simplest and most powerful arguments for the lab release hypothesis, which anyone can understand, without fussing around with genetic details.
Firstly: SARS-CoV-2 first spread widely among humans in Wuhan, a city and nearby area which contains less than 1% of the Chinese population (and so, broadly speaking, less than 1% of the wet markets in China) - but it is the only city to host one or more laboratories which were involved in the collection and analysis of bat coronaviruses and the genetic manipulation of these to create novel variants.
Secondly: Four years after the world-altering outbreak, there is no evidence at all of an intermediate host animal. Such would be required to explain the outbreak in Wuhan, which is a thousand km or so from the habitat of bats who harbour SARS- like viruses.
The first known case of SARS was found on 16 November 2002. 11 months later, 2003-10-31, a peer-reviewed article https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1087139 was published identifying nearly identical strains of viruses in Himalayan palm civets.
The first known cases of MERS were identified in June 2012. A peer-reviewed article https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES2013.18.36.20574 was published just over a year later, on 2013-09-05, identifying dromedary camels as the intermediate animal in a chain of transmission from bats, though the details of which bats were probably the source of this virus took several more years to elucidate.
As far as I know, Dr Baric has not made any public statements in which he tries to properly scientifically disprove these arguments.
There seems to be a stark dichotomy between the two plausible states of Dr Baric's mind.
Firstly, he could know very well that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from research by virologists, rather than zoonotic transfer - and so is lying in all the respects of his statements in which he encourages other people to think that zoonotic transfer is the most likely explanation.
I originally assumed that such lies would be intended to reduce the chances of him and other virologists suffering negative consequences for contributing to, or supporting and covering up, the work which lead to the creation of SARS-CoV-2. However, there is another potential impetus for him doing this, which I explore below, which would be, at least in his mind, truly noble and indeed essential to the survival of humanity.
Secondly, he could be telling the honest truth, as he understands it - and he has so far been unable to understand that some virologists (including perhaps those in in own lab and himself) really did create and (accidentally, I assume) release a virus which caused this global pandemic.
This second scenario involves contortions of the thoughts any responsible person should have about the lab origin into forms which are compatible with his strong belief in zoonotic transfer. We might have some sympathy for the man if we assume, as I think is likely, that he really did devote his life to this work in order to prevent zoonotic transfer causing a pandemics or to enable humans to respond better if one did occur. Imagine that decades of intense effort lead him, his colleagues and/or virologists elsewhere, while doing this work to the best of their abilities, to actually cause a pandemic at least as bad as the ones they were trying to prevent or protect against.
It is easy to spot a bad liar. However, a really good liar, emulating the behaviour of a genuinely conflicted and muddled honest person, can't be distinguished from such a person.
Ideally the select sub-committee would have asked Dr Baric to explain how his own work (with colleagues in his lab) was not reckless gain of function research, at least as scary (a word he used twice) or potentially disastrous (also twice), as that which led (or could have led) to the creation of SARS-CoV-2.
That research was written up in 2016: SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence, Meachery et al. PNAS 2016-03-14: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1517719113. A fuller explanation is at: https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/the-origins-of-sars-cov-2#%C2%A7the-banal-evil-of-gain-of-function-virology. This has a link to a video of Dr Baric, in a lecture at his university on 2018-04-06, reporting on this research in a calm and even voice, without any indication that such research could have caused an epidemic which killed millions of people. This research involved chimeric bat coronaviruses, with the spike protein of one virus put into another virus. The novel viruses were used to infect mice which the Baric Lab specifically created, with their ACE2 receptor proteins genetically and so physically identical to human ACE2 receptors.
Start listening at 10:14: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuERPvBFfco&t=614s. The key revelation is at 11:52. He should recognise the scary, reckless, potentially globally disastrous nature of making novel viruses which are capable of infecting humans. Either he does, and hides it, or he simply doesn't recognise this. Either way, as with his recent lab-origin avoidant testimony, he is failing in his responsibility to protect and properly inform the public.
.
If You Are Reading This
You Are A Holocaust Survivor.
So Far.
.
For my age group, old, retired and cynical I was assured Natural Immunity would protect me from Covid.
.........It did.
I am 100% immune from the Fake Vaxx side effects because I did not take it!
.................
Maybe not from shedding! Damn!
Save the Genome - heritage of humanity! Stop the causes of the toxic shedding. Enough already. Time to pay attention to the message Dr. Ana is sharing below!
https://clouthub.com/v/740561b2-5273-42d4-bba8-912b5f609086
Congress got special treatment early on so they could care less!
Joe Rogan: Dr. Pierre Kory Said 200 Members of Congress Were Treated With Ivermectin
Posted By Tim Hains
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/10/26/joe_rogan_says_dr_pierre_kory_treated_200_members_of_congress_with_ivermectin.html
Podcasters Joe Rogan and Michael Malice discussed last week why the corporate press continues to dismiss ways doctors can treat Covid-19 aside from vaccination.
Rogan said that Dr. Pierre Kory from the Front Line Critical Care Covid group treated him and hundreds of members of Congress with monoclonal antibodies, prednisone, z-pak, NAD, vitamins, and ivermectin.
"By the way, 200 Congresspeople have been treated with Ivermectin for Covid. Google that. You can probably find that in Dr. Pierre Kory's Twitter page," Rogan said. "Before there were vaccines, this was a common off-label treatment for Covid."
World law enforcement agencies must arrest Walensky, Birx, Fauci, Daszak and all DOD, CIA, CDC, NIH, WHO, FDA, HHS and big pharma and big tech. executives involved.
Fraud and homicide are not included in the total immunity from legal liability agreement under the PREP Act for the big Pharma criminals!
Nuremberg Code and RICO laws apply now! The DOJ better wake the Fk Up and get busy!