Actually you have partially answered my question in a reply to another commenter:
"Ralph Baric’s approach is not vaccination. Rather his approach aims to boost the immune response against specific viral proteins (potentially to include innate immune response). Vaccination in bats not likely to work. Very limited antibodies from natural viral infection in bats. Viruses already common in bat population - not likely to challenge bat immune response with a vaccine"
Personally I can only see the bat vaccination concept as a deliberate attempt to create a zoonotic pandemic. Why does the virus need to be humanized to be an effective vaccine in bats (even if this bat vaccine is possible)? The bats are being infected with a virus that is exactly what the zoonoids fear is the danger.
It's a good question b/c I agree, it's pointless. But the entire biodefense industry was moving towards a bat vaccine in 2018. Think of bats as the new lab rat, they are mammals with similar immune system.
NIAID was in Singapore in late 2019 talking bat vaccine (scroll to end). It was called vaccinate the animal reservoir. No PETA, no rules, no regs, no GoF.
Having read the links, I conclude that the 'transmissible vaccine' virologists and their critics are aware of the dangers of their creations running amok via spillovers, mutations and so on. Therefore since SARS2 would make a dangerous vaccine, my guess is that it was intended to be the target virus in the process of vaccine development.
Normally the vaccine developer has the bug in hand, but in this preempted scenario the bug was purely speculative, and therefore had to be created first. The actual vaccine would be along the lines of some harmless virus festooned with proteins from SARS2 to act as antigens.
The SARS2 virus would also be used as the challenge virus during vaccine testing and so forth to see what effect the actual vaccine had on it. Otherwise you would not be able to determine if your vaccine actually worked or not.
Yes, you get but it's complicated. I think you are describing the lifetime work of Baric at UNC. The long list of challenge studies were in his (safe) hACE2 mice. He concluded the threshold was 25% variation in 2015.
So he wanted a novel strain <25% different than SARS1 to serve as a "bookend" for future evolutions of a SARS-like virus. SC2 was his 20% chimera of all the strains collected along the Mekong River delta (by EcoHealth, USAID Predict, Shi, US Navy, etc)
Baric's 2018 LAV paper ties all that work together. He now wants to target the "reservoir species, such as bats."
I am unable to understand the concept of the bat vaccine.
1. Construct the humanized and FCS enabled synthetic transmissible vaccine.
2. Spray or inject a few bats which carry the vaccine into the general bat population
3. Antibodies to the virus are produced in the bat population.
What's next? Does the 'vaccine' disappear or does it remain in the bat population like all the other coronaviruses found in bats?
If the vaccine remains in the bat population as you would expect, therefore it is a prime candidate for zoonotic transfer, being humanized and highly transmissable.
Thus even if the lab leak did not occur, the net effect of this bat vaccination operation would be to create a zoonotic virus outbreak anyway. Otherwise why create the humanized and highly transmissible virus in the first place?
Actually you have partially answered my question in a reply to another commenter:
"Ralph Baric’s approach is not vaccination. Rather his approach aims to boost the immune response against specific viral proteins (potentially to include innate immune response). Vaccination in bats not likely to work. Very limited antibodies from natural viral infection in bats. Viruses already common in bat population - not likely to challenge bat immune response with a vaccine"
Personally I can only see the bat vaccination concept as a deliberate attempt to create a zoonotic pandemic. Why does the virus need to be humanized to be an effective vaccine in bats (even if this bat vaccine is possible)? The bats are being infected with a virus that is exactly what the zoonoids fear is the danger.
It's a good question b/c I agree, it's pointless. But the entire biodefense industry was moving towards a bat vaccine in 2018. Think of bats as the new lab rat, they are mammals with similar immune system.
https://archive.is/Lp8yf
The winner of DARPA Preempt was a transmissible bat vaccine
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/colorado-state-university-documents-on-bat-pathogen-research/
NIAID was in Singapore in late 2019 talking bat vaccine (scroll to end). It was called vaccinate the animal reservoir. No PETA, no rules, no regs, no GoF.
https://jimhaslam.substack.com/p/7-peter-daszak-was-the-perfect-brit
Having read the links, I conclude that the 'transmissible vaccine' virologists and their critics are aware of the dangers of their creations running amok via spillovers, mutations and so on. Therefore since SARS2 would make a dangerous vaccine, my guess is that it was intended to be the target virus in the process of vaccine development.
Normally the vaccine developer has the bug in hand, but in this preempted scenario the bug was purely speculative, and therefore had to be created first. The actual vaccine would be along the lines of some harmless virus festooned with proteins from SARS2 to act as antigens.
The SARS2 virus would also be used as the challenge virus during vaccine testing and so forth to see what effect the actual vaccine had on it. Otherwise you would not be able to determine if your vaccine actually worked or not.
Yes, you get but it's complicated. I think you are describing the lifetime work of Baric at UNC. The long list of challenge studies were in his (safe) hACE2 mice. He concluded the threshold was 25% variation in 2015.
https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/09/sars-like-virus-bats-shows-potential-infect-humans-study-finds/
So he wanted a novel strain <25% different than SARS1 to serve as a "bookend" for future evolutions of a SARS-like virus. SC2 was his 20% chimera of all the strains collected along the Mekong River delta (by EcoHealth, USAID Predict, Shi, US Navy, etc)
Baric's 2018 LAV paper ties all that work together. He now wants to target the "reservoir species, such as bats."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-018-0175-7
The DARPA Defuse work shifted to RML (and unsafe bats) in 2018
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30572566/
Young Munster won DARPA Preempt with the "modern" antigen approach
https://x.com/PatrickSSte/status/1736336748928528757?s=20
I am unable to understand the concept of the bat vaccine.
1. Construct the humanized and FCS enabled synthetic transmissible vaccine.
2. Spray or inject a few bats which carry the vaccine into the general bat population
3. Antibodies to the virus are produced in the bat population.
What's next? Does the 'vaccine' disappear or does it remain in the bat population like all the other coronaviruses found in bats?
If the vaccine remains in the bat population as you would expect, therefore it is a prime candidate for zoonotic transfer, being humanized and highly transmissable.
Thus even if the lab leak did not occur, the net effect of this bat vaccination operation would be to create a zoonotic virus outbreak anyway. Otherwise why create the humanized and highly transmissible virus in the first place?
All great questions, some answers, let me know?
1. mammalian bat cells have furin, just like you and me. Also similar ACE2 receptor.
2. Read the Max Plank scientist on the latest crazy concept and moral hazards.
http://web.evolbio.mpg.de/HEVIMAs/journalist-faqs.html
3. Yes, your Covid antibodies protect you against a bat virus collected in Laos
https://jimhaslam.substack.com/p/lets-be-blunt-the-us-government-collected
4. This NIH paper on self spreading vaccines discussed an R0<1 to "self-extinguish"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1254-y
5. Yes, major unintended consequences addressed here
http://web.evolbio.mpg.de/HEVIMAs/unpublished_preferred_respo.pdf
6. Good point, why I call this thing an academic science fair experiment gone sideways, but there was a fierce debate in the background
https://www.science.org/stoken/author-tokens/ST-253/full
Who in the Biden administration, CDC, FDA, NIH, etc. and Congress is takng action (not reviewing) but ACTION based on your findings and others?
Senator Rand Paul is the most clued in to what happened.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/2842488/dangerous-virus-research-continues-to-endanger-lives/
Jeff Sachs understands. you now understand so spread the word!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_YRy3xLEZs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMQNhKXCxpk
Rand is good theater, but hearings and youtube videos is not the DOJ and FBI arresting the Fauci rat bastard under the Nurmburg Code.
Where is the legislation defunding the DOJ and FBI?